Page 1 of 3 123 LastLast
Results 1 to 40 of 110

Thread: Phaedrus' Psychology

  1. #1
    ...been here longer than the fucking monarchy Ezra's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    UK
    TIM
    SLE-Ti
    Posts
    9,169
    Mentioned
    9 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default Phaedrus' Psychology

    1. Everyone has the same MBTT, Keirsey and socionics type.

    2. Differences in type in each theory are due to either misinterpretation of the questions one is asked when testing or flaws in the tests themselves.

    3. If you are not the same type in every theory, you have misunderstood something.

    4. There are no discrepancies between the same functions in each theory; they all refer to the same thing.

    5. Type differences are due to flaws in the theories. They are the same theory, and two of the three theories have it wrong. No one can possibly diverge from Jung's original type descriptions in their own unique way; no one can invent a theory based on concepts and diverge from the original meaning. Hence, one must come out on top. That one is socionics. Even though MBTT (and partly Keirsey) were thought up before socionics, they still must follow socionics' indubitable method of typing people.
    Ideas don't determine who's right. Power determines who's right. And I have the power. So I'm right.

  2. #2
    Expat's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    United Kingdom
    Posts
    10,853
    Mentioned
    27 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Not sure that 4 and 5 are accurate as they stand.
    , LIE, ENTj logical subtype, 8w9 sx/sp
    Quote Originally Posted by implied
    gah you're like the shittiest ENTj ever!

  3. #3

    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Posts
    8,578
    Mentioned
    7 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Ezra View Post

    4. There are no discrepancies between the same functions in each theory; they all refer to the same thing.
    ftr this is clearly not what phaedrus argues. he sees the functions as irrelevant and considers the I/E, S/N etc. dichotomies to be divine.

  4. #4
    Hot Message FDG's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Location
    Freiburg im Breisgau
    TIM
    ENTj
    Posts
    15,627
    Mentioned
    156 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Ezra View Post
    4. There are no discrepancies between the same functions in each theory; they all refer to the same thing.
    Nope, he thinks that types are what is set-in-stone and functions are a function of the description of a given type; so for example Ti-Se in MBTI is equivalent to Si-Te in socionics simply because the definition of Ti dominance in MBTI is more akin to the definition of Te creative in Socionics (if you notice in MBTI both INTP and ISTP share Ti dominance even if they are Te creative in socionics, and both ISTP and ISFP share Se secondary even if they are Si dominants in socionics, and both ISFJ and ISTJ share Si dominance even if they are Se creative in socionics, so on. You can create an algorithm for mapping the MBTI functional preference of a given type onto its socionics correspondent. Which means that Se in MBTI is the SP-function, Si in mbti is the SJ function, etc)

    5. Type differences are due to flaws in the theories. They are the same theory, and two of the three theories have it wrong. No one can possibly diverge from Jung's original type descriptions in their own unique way; no one can invent a theory based on concepts and diverge from the original meaning. Hence, one must come out on top. That one is socionics. Even though MBTT (and partly Keirsey) were thought up before socionics, they still must follow socionics' indubitable method of typing people.
    Not quite true, the main two psyhcological theories that are based on Jung - thus socionics and MBTI - can be mapped one onto the other, but since MBTI implies socionics (that is, MBTI if mapped in socionics-space would be only a set in the space), then belief in MBTI must imply belief in socionics.

    Theoretically speaking, he is correct IMHO. However, MBTI descriptions of some types are not consistent with the description of the same socionics type, simply because what is tested by MBTI is not necessarily well tied to the real corresponding socionics function (smart sensors being typed as Ns, ESTps being typed as ENTJs because of Ti which makes them interested in theory and resolute preference which makes them j-seeming, etc etc)
    Obsequium amicos, veritas odium parit

  5. #5
    Expat's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    United Kingdom
    Posts
    10,853
    Mentioned
    27 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by FDG View Post
    Nope, he thinks that types are what is set-in-stone and functions are a function of the description of a given type;
    Yes - to the extent that he thinks of functions at all.


    Quote Originally Posted by FDG View Post
    so for example Ti-Se in MBTI is equivalent to Si-Te in socionics simply because the definition of Ti dominance in MBTI is more akin to the definition of Te creative in Socionics (if you notice in MBTI both INTP and ISTP share Ti dominance even if they are Te creative in socionics, and both ISTP and ISFP share Se secondary even if they are Si dominants in socionics, and both ISFJ and ISTJ share Si dominance even if they are Se creative in socionics, so on. You can create an algorithm for mapping the MBTI functional preference of a given type onto its socionics correspondent. Which means that Se in MBTI is the SP-function, Si in mbti is the SJ function, etc)
    Now I'm confused. Are you saying that those are Phaedrus's views, your views, or both?
    , LIE, ENTj logical subtype, 8w9 sx/sp
    Quote Originally Posted by implied
    gah you're like the shittiest ENTj ever!

  6. #6
    Hot Message FDG's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Location
    Freiburg im Breisgau
    TIM
    ENTj
    Posts
    15,627
    Mentioned
    156 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Expat View Post
    Now I'm confused. Are you saying that those are Phaedrus's views, your views, or both?
    Well, I wouldn't even call that wievs, more like, just what it is? Because in MBTI Se is indeed common to all the SPs and Si to the SJs. IMHO they just tried to group the "similarities" of creative sensing (and thus intuition as PoLR) into a function, with dubious results.
    Obsequium amicos, veritas odium parit

  7. #7

    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Posts
    8,578
    Mentioned
    7 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by FDG View Post
    MBTI implies socionics
    what? that's ridiculous. on what basis does MBTI imply socionics? are you saying you believe this as well?

  8. #8
    Hot Message FDG's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Location
    Freiburg im Breisgau
    TIM
    ENTj
    Posts
    15,627
    Mentioned
    156 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by niffweed17 View Post
    what? that's ridiculous. on what basis does MBTI imply socionics? are you saying you believe this as well?
    Read it in the context of what I have said, niff, not alone.
    Obsequium amicos, veritas odium parit

  9. #9

    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Posts
    8,578
    Mentioned
    7 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by FDG View Post
    Read it in the context of what I have said, niff, not alone.
    i did. it makes no sense.

  10. #10
    Expat's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    United Kingdom
    Posts
    10,853
    Mentioned
    27 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by FDG View Post
    Because in MBTI Se is indeed common to all the SPs and Si to the SJs. IMHO they just tried to group the "similarities" of creative sensing (and thus intuition as PoLR) into a function, with dubious results.
    Well, by definition even (according to how MBTI defines what is a SP type), if you have Se in the ego you are necessarily SP, if you have Si in the ego (and therefore with a judging extroverted function in the ego), then you are necessarily SJ. That is indeed "just what it is", I wasn't sure how that connected to Phaedrus's views on that (if any).

    I think that what happened is that Myers-Briggs's types - as described - are a "Frankenstein's monster" of characteristics of the 4 dichotomies, plus real-life observations, plus concepts taken directly from Jung's descriptions. That is why the "fun-loving" ESFP is more like a "socially outgoing SEI" than a SEE imo. Even though the ESFP has MBTI's Se in the ego -- because that Se, as per Jung's description, is of a "person who actively seeks sensorial fun".
    , LIE, ENTj logical subtype, 8w9 sx/sp
    Quote Originally Posted by implied
    gah you're like the shittiest ENTj ever!

  11. #11
    Hot Message FDG's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Location
    Freiburg im Breisgau
    TIM
    ENTj
    Posts
    15,627
    Mentioned
    156 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Expat View Post
    Well, by definition even (according to how MBTI defines what is a SP type), if you have Se in the ego you are necessarily SP, if you have Si in the ego (and therefore with a judging extroverted function in the ego), then you are necessarily SJ. That is indeed "just what it is", I wasn't sure how that connected to Phaedrus's views on that (if any).

    I think that what happened is that Myers-Briggs's types - as described - are a "Frankenstein's monster" of characteristics of the 4 dichotomies, plus real-life observations, plus concepts taken directly from Jung's descriptions. That is why the "fun-loving" ESFP is more like a "socially outgoing SEI" than a SEE imo. Even though the ESFP has MBTI's Se in the ego -- because that Se, as per Jung's description, is of a "person who actively seeks sensorial fun".
    Well the thing is, that since descriptions are not unified in MBTI, then probably a side of the ESFP personality can be described as such, whereas some other sides are neglected by one description and favored by another one, which makes it impossible to really deduce what types are about and ultimately we must refer to single web-pages or authors.

    Niffweed: even Phaedrus lately has been more cooperative than you in explaining his views. You only say things don't make sense, okay, but if you don't give a detailed explanation on why it is so, then I am not going my way to build an argument to convince you.
    Obsequium amicos, veritas odium parit

  12. #12

    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    Sweden
    Posts
    4,833
    Mentioned
    6 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    FDG understands me correctly. What he has said so far in this thread is very well put and also an accurate description of my views.

    The Si function in MBTT is what all the SJ types (the group of Guardians in Keirsey's model) have in common. And I totally agree with what FDG says here, that Si is the SJ function, so to speak. I have always found it slightly irritating that the explanation for the similarities between the four SJs is, in a sense, more "elegant" and simple in MBTT than in Socionics. Since the SJs obviously share the characteristic behaviours and attitudes that are described by Keirsey -- and I think perhaps in a more obvious way than for example his NF Idealists and his NT Rationals have a common denominator -- then what is the functional explanation for their similarities? In MBTT they are explained by Si in the "ego block", but what is it in Socionics? That is not as obvious, but nevertheless they are clearly described in the same way in their attitudes and behaviours, so there must be an explanation.

  13. #13

    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Posts
    8,578
    Mentioned
    7 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by FDG View Post
    Niffweed: even Phaedrus lately has been more cooperative than you in explaining his views. You only say things don't make sense, okay, but if you don't give a detailed explanation on why it is so, then I am not going my way to build an argument to convince you.

    ok: there appears to exist no legitimate reason why MBTI and socionics should be connected in any way. therefore your assertion that MBTI implies socionics does not follow. in short: it makes no sense.

  14. #14
    Hot Message FDG's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Location
    Freiburg im Breisgau
    TIM
    ENTj
    Posts
    15,627
    Mentioned
    156 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Phaedrus View Post
    FDG understands me correctly. What he has said so far in this thread is very well put and also an accurate description of my views.

    The Si function in MBTT is what all the SJ types (the group of Guardians in Keirsey's model) have in common. And I totally agree with what FDG says here, that Si is the SJ function, so to speak. I have always found it slightly irritating that the explanation for the similarities between the four SJs is, in a sense, more "elegant" and simple in MBTT than in Socionics. Since the SJs obviously share the characteristic behaviours and attitudes that are described by Keirsey -- and I think perhaps in a more obvious way than for example his NF Idealists and his NT Rationals have a common denominator -- then what is the functional explanation for their similarities? In MBTT they are explained by Si in the "ego block", but what is it in Socionics? That is not as obvious, but nevertheless they are clearly described in the same way in their attitudes and behaviours, so there must be an explanation.
    It's the same as saying creative sensing, and intuition PoLR. SJs are generally conservative (intuition PoLR), orderly (sensing+rationality), not particularly good with long-term-plans (peak of tactics in terms of renin dichotomies). Socionics does not provide a direct explanation but rather an union of explanation of singular traits. I do think though that "our", socionics way is much better since it provides some logical consistency which is lacking in MBTI terms.

    Smilingeyes too provided a good explanation of creative sensing in his smilexian socionics 101 thread too, I can paste it here if you wish.

    ok: there appears to exist no legitimate reason why MBTI and socionics should be connected in any way. therefore your assertion that MBTI implies socionics does not follow. in short: it makes no sense.
    Well I think we must only agree to disagree then, since I see the connections and you don't see them, and I have no way to literally "prove" them. Since, again, I am not trying to pass a formal logic examination but only brainstorming, then there is no reason for them to be defined in an exact way. For example, do you agree that the average description of an ISTJ in MBTI is the same as the description of an ISTj in socionics? It's quite obviouslty true imho; the same can be said for ESTJs, ESFJs, ISTPs, ISFJs; then there are some types that are more controversial, this is why I said a "mapping" is required.
    Obsequium amicos, veritas odium parit

  15. #15

    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Posts
    8,578
    Mentioned
    7 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    i don't require a rigorous explanation using formal logic. but i do require one that makes sense.

  16. #16
    Hot Message FDG's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Location
    Freiburg im Breisgau
    TIM
    ENTj
    Posts
    15,627
    Mentioned
    156 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by niffweed17 View Post
    i don't require a rigorous explanation using formal logic. but i do require one that makes sense.
    I have edited my post. I think it is obvious that an average mbti ISTJ is the same as an average socionics ISTj, and this applies to at least half of the MBTI types. There has been too much clouding of the issue going on, IMHO, especially by Ezra that has proclaimed himself as expert without the sound knowledge to back up his assertions.

    FDG understands me correctly. What he has said so far in this thread is very well put and also an accurate description of my views.
    After spending some time insulting you, I decided that it was better to try to understand lol
    Obsequium amicos, veritas odium parit

  17. #17

    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Posts
    8,578
    Mentioned
    7 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    no i don't. i don't agree with that at all. there are a couple of types that might sound similar in certain ways (i think the best example might be ENFP = IEE).

    however, with LSIs and ISTJs, there are significant differences in the way that the types manifest, at least by the crappy online descriptions that are available. this is most evident with regards not to type characteristics, but to characteristics of socionics information metabolism.


    i don't think ISTJ is the best example (ISTP might be), but there are certain elements of ISTJ descriptions that do not fit in with socionics as a whole. consider the following from the typelogic descriptions:

    ISTJs are most at home with "just the facts, Ma'am." They seem to perform at highest efficiency when employing a step-by-step approach.

    ISTJs are easily frustrated by the inconsistencies of others, especially when the second parties don't keep their commitments. But they usually keep their feelings to themselves unless they are asked. And when asked, they don't mince words. Truth wins out over tact. The grim determination of the ISTJ vindicates itself in officiation of sports events, judiciary functions, or an other situation which requires making tough calls and sticking to them.

    Home, social clubs, government, schools, the military, churches -- these are the bastions of the SJ. "We've always done it this way" is often reason enough for many ISTJs. Threats to time-honored traditions or established organizations (e.g., a "run" on the bank) are the undoing of SJs, and are to be fought at all costs.
    actually, i'm very surprised by how well this seems to fit with LSIs, especially the functional descriptions describing Si, Te, and Ne at the end of the description. even so, you get some statements here that are just bizarre traits when compared to Ti and Se. in socionics an LSI is derived from these IM elements, and some of these traits may clearly not apply. (ie "just the facts" and "step-by-step approach" make no sense when considering TiSe.)

    if you looked at numerous other types, you would find more problems, and not only with INTJ/INTP. all of the INXX types should be thrown away. if you look at types like ENTJ, ISTP, ESFP, ISFJ you'll find big problems with the way that they're advertised: ENTJ is far more leadership-oriented and aggressive in MBTI descriptions; ISTP is far more adventurous and wild, ESFPs, as expat mentioned above, look like EP ESEs, and ISFJs look like introverted and repressed ESEs. i leave most of the other types out because i don't really know how their MBTI counterparts are presented. all in all, ISTJ is probably one of the better correlations, but there are far too many problems even with the "good" types to take MBTI at all seriously.

  18. #18
    Hot Message FDG's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Location
    Freiburg im Breisgau
    TIM
    ENTj
    Posts
    15,627
    Mentioned
    156 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    There is nothing in socionics that say ISTPs are not adventurous, and many confirmed ISTps of the forum are adventurous in the way described by ISTP descriptions; we can find similar partial validity to every MBTI description; obviously socionics is far more complete and that is why I say that MBTI implies socionics in the sense that MBTI only describes a small subset of what socionics describes in very good detail. Anyway, I was not trying to imply that MBTI has to be taken seriously, but rather that the connection with socionics is not absent. What to do and if to take that connection into consideration is a separate problem, whose answer could very well be a firm "no" (have you ever seen me using MBTI here? No, because I find it to be largely useless).

    "just the facts" and "step-by-step approach" make no sense when considering
    Both can be related to Se as creative function, the first as usage of the function itself, the second as a byproduct of Ne PoLR.

    In any case, going further. MBTI descriptions are so varied, and so not very consistent between different authors that we can find something wrong and right in each one of them basically. This is one of the reasons why I don't use the theory nor take it seriously.
    Obsequium amicos, veritas odium parit

  19. #19

    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Posts
    8,578
    Mentioned
    7 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by FDG View Post
    There is nothing in socionics that say ISTPs are not adventurous, and many confirmed ISTps of the forum are adventurous in the way described by ISTP descriptions; we can find similar partial validity to every MBTI description; obviously socionics is far more complete and that is why I say that MBTI implies socionics in the sense that MBTI only describes a small subset of what socionics describes in very good detail. Anyway, I was not trying to imply that MBTI has to be taken seriously, but rather that the connection with socionics is not absent. What to do and if to take that connection into consideration is a separate problem, whose answer could very well be a firm "no" (have you ever seen me using MBTI here? No, because I find it to be largely useless).

    two questions: what ISTps? this forum has ISTps?

    overall, what is described by Si as a function is totally absent in the ISTP description, and is almost entirely replaced with "a desire to be in touch with the physical world," which seems much more Se than Si. although SLIs can be adventurous, that doesn't mean that it's a very reliable way of describing them at all. for my money, if an ISTP description doesn't mention anything in the way of Si, it fails.


    the other issue i have is this: what kind of connection is a connection between socionics and MBTI if it only applies to five or six types (if that)? does it exist at all?

  20. #20
    Hot Message FDG's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Location
    Freiburg im Breisgau
    TIM
    ENTj
    Posts
    15,627
    Mentioned
    156 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by niffweed17 View Post
    the other issue i have is this: what kind of connection is a connection between socionics and MBTI if it only applies to five or six types (if that)? does it exist at all?
    6 out of 16 is approximately 40 percent of the types, so I'd say that a connection is existant. Again, you can set the bar at an higher level and say it is nonexistant. It does not matter to me as long as it's only a question of definitions.

    two questions: what ISTps? this forum has ISTps?
    LokiVanguard and Jessica seem to be quite typical ISTps.
    Obsequium amicos, veritas odium parit

  21. #21

    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Posts
    8,578
    Mentioned
    7 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by FDG View Post
    LokiVanguard and Jessica seem to be quite typical ISTps.
    strongly disagree on jessica.

    lokivanguard idk; maybe, although it does seem to me like he has more Fe values, so SEI might be more likely.



    the only SLI i can think of on this board is heath.

  22. #22
    Hot Message FDG's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Location
    Freiburg im Breisgau
    TIM
    ENTj
    Posts
    15,627
    Mentioned
    156 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by niffweed17 View Post
    strongly disagree on jessica.

    lokivanguard idk; maybe, although it does seem to me like he has more Fe values, so SEI might be more likely.



    the only SLI i can think of on this board is heath.
    I disagree, I think heath is a very clear example of EJ or IJ temperament. Jessica and Loki seem to be typical Si-SLIs to me, I can't see why one would disagree.
    Obsequium amicos, veritas odium parit

  23. #23

    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Posts
    8,578
    Mentioned
    7 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by FDG View Post
    6 out of 16 is approximately 40 percent of the types, so I'd say that a connection is existant. Again, you can set the bar at an higher level and say it is nonexistant. It does not matter to me as long as it's only a question of definitions.
    ok, fair enough, although i think it's pretty ridiculous to say that there's a connection (and not even a good one, at that) between a 40% correlation.

    on the type list comparisons at wikisocion, ashton and i had a 43.some% correlation between our type lists (for comparison the lowest correlation rate between anybody not named ashton was 70 some odd %). do you think that represents that there is some connection between our views on socionics?

  24. #24
    Hot Message FDG's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Location
    Freiburg im Breisgau
    TIM
    ENTj
    Posts
    15,627
    Mentioned
    156 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by niffweed17 View Post
    ok, fair enough, although i think it's pretty ridiculous to say that there's a connection (and not even a good one, at that) between a 40% correlation.

    on the type list comparisons at wikisocion, ashton and i had a 43.some% correlation between our type lists (for comparison the lowest correlation rate between anybody not named ashton was 70 some odd %). do you think that represents that there is some connection between our views on socionics?
    "some" is very NOT well defined. So I could say yes, no, whatever. I think it makes for a present but weakish connection. 43.3 cannot be byproduct of casuality, and complete indipedence between the distributions is what I refer to when I speak about "absence of connection".
    Obsequium amicos, veritas odium parit

  25. #25

    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Posts
    8,578
    Mentioned
    7 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    ok. fair enough, i guess.

  26. #26

    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    Sweden
    Posts
    4,833
    Mentioned
    6 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by FDG View Post
    Smilingeyes too provided a good explanation of creative sensing in his smilexian socionics 101 thread too, I can paste it here if you wish.
    I will take a closer look at it again when I get some time left. Maybe tomorrow. But I think that what you are talking about could be of interest to a lot more people, so maybe it would be a good idea if you could paste the parts you find the most relevant so that we all know what you have in mind.

  27. #27
    Hot Message FDG's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Location
    Freiburg im Breisgau
    TIM
    ENTj
    Posts
    15,627
    Mentioned
    156 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Phaedrus View Post
    I will take a closer look at it again when I get some time left. Maybe tomorrow. But I think that what you are talking about could be of interest to a lot more people, so maybe it would be a good idea if you could paste the parts you find the most relevant so that we all know what you have in mind.
    Let's define the question a bit more... If we have a person who is 'accepting-perceiving-not well-defined' what quality does s/he have that both hir 'creative not well-defined' and hir 'accepting well-defined' fellows lack? Accepting sensorics acts in a natural way of doing what it wants in the environment, it's the simplest most direct form of interaction a person can have with hir environment and the simplest to understand. Creative sensorics has this same direct interaction with the environment but the interaction is more forced, somehow unnatural seeming, exagerrated. It somehow lacks the property of being a representation of the person's wishes in regard to the environment. Creative Sensorics tends to overdo things. Now if we accept this, we will note a strange factor. By definition creative sensorics can not cause a person to reach a personal goal. Why? Because if it did, it would be accepting sensorics!? If you naturally just do what you want, it's not creative sensorics. So what is creative sensorics then? What's the person using creative sensorics doing if not what s/he wants? Usually it seems that the person using creative sensorics doesn't really know hirself... Let me use a metaphor of physics. The more speed and mass a moving object has the more difficult it is to direct or put in another way, the more force you use to create movemeent, the less control you have over it. This relates to the difference between accepting and creating sensorics. The person using creative sensorics doesn't really have particularly good control of hir own actions when s/he's doing whatever she's doing because s/he's using more of hir energy to the task itself than hir accepting counterpart. The task itself is "doing the driving" and the person has more or less lost control. ... This is of course an exagerrated way of seeing this, but there is a difference of somewhat this nature between these two groups.
    .
    Obsequium amicos, veritas odium parit

  28. #28
    Expat's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    United Kingdom
    Posts
    10,853
    Mentioned
    27 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by FDG View Post
    "some" is very NOT well defined. So I could say yes, no, whatever. I think it makes for a present but weakish connection. 43.3 cannot be byproduct of casuality, and complete indipedence between the distributions is what I refer to when I speak about "absence of connection".
    As far as it goes, I have to agree with FDG, although I can also see where niffweed comes from.

    Socionics and MBTI are connected, if only because they both borrowed ideas from Jung's typology. Each took Jung's ideas further, but in different ways. But there are similarities, and 40% is not just coincidence. More to the point, perhaps, I think it will be extremely difficult to find, say, one ISFJ in MBTI who could be legitimately typed as ILE in socionics, or an ESFJ as ILI, etc.

    The difficulty I see is that some people seem to dislike this kind of "fuzziness". They tend to think that they either are connected in a clear way or not at all; so that if they can be demonstrated to be connected in some way, that means that they must be connected in a straightfoward way.
    , LIE, ENTj logical subtype, 8w9 sx/sp
    Quote Originally Posted by implied
    gah you're like the shittiest ENTj ever!

  29. #29
    Expat's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    United Kingdom
    Posts
    10,853
    Mentioned
    27 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by niffweed17 View Post
    on the type list comparisons at wikisocion, ashton and i had a 43.some% correlation between our type lists (for comparison the lowest correlation rate between anybody not named ashton was 70 some odd %). do you think that represents that there is some connection between our views on socionics?
    Having read the comparison list, actually I don't think that's a fair comparison to MBTI. From Ashton's typings, it's difficult to find any coherent logic behind them. The 40% are largely due to early posters who were typed as, say, LII or IEI and whose typings were never (rightly or wrongly) questioned - and cases like Herzy.
    , LIE, ENTj logical subtype, 8w9 sx/sp
    Quote Originally Posted by implied
    gah you're like the shittiest ENTj ever!

  30. #30
    Expat's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    United Kingdom
    Posts
    10,853
    Mentioned
    27 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by FDG View Post
    Well the thing is, that since descriptions are not unified in MBTI, then probably a side of the ESFP personality can be described as such, whereas some other sides are neglected by one description and favored by another one, which makes it impossible to really deduce what types are about and ultimately we must refer to single web-pages or authors.
    Yes, but that is (to me) the problem with MBTI in relation to socionics. What makes, then, an ESFP be an ESFP?

    In socionics, an ESFp is, at its simplest level, . Going a little deeper, someone who craves . If you understand that, you can't fail. Whether such a person enjoys going to parties or not, as such, in order to exercise and seek , is a matter of very little importance.
    , LIE, ENTj logical subtype, 8w9 sx/sp
    Quote Originally Posted by implied
    gah you're like the shittiest ENTj ever!

  31. #31

    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    Sweden
    Posts
    4,833
    Mentioned
    6 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Expat View Post
    Yes, but that is (to me) the problem with MBTI in relation to socionics. What makes, then, an ESFP be an ESFP?

    In socionics, an ESFp is, at its simplest level, . Going a little deeper, someone who craves . If you understand that, you can't fail. Whether such a person enjoys going to parties or not, as such, in order to exercise and seek , is a matter of very little importance.
    I think it is fair to say that the types in MBTT are defined by the four dichotomies. That is not the same thing as saying that your type is defined by your test result, which can be incorrect. Neither is it the same thing as saying that you are defined by the type descriptions, since they are not, as pointed out by FDG, unified.

    But if you really are an ESFP then you are, and must be, E (which means that you are an extraverted type), you are S (which means that you are a sensing type and not an intuitive), you are F (which means that you are a feeling type), and you are P (which means that you are a perceiving type).

    In Socionics the types can be defined in different ways. They can be defined by the functions ordering (which can also be done in MBTT, but since they don't mean the same thing by the labels they are using -- "Si", , etc. -- that only leads to confusion and should therefore be avoided), they can be defined by their intertype relations, etc. However, the types can also be defined by the four dimensions in exactly the same way as they are defined in MBTT, because it is a necessary truth that an ESFp (SEE) is E (extraverted), S (sensory, sensing), F (ethical, feeling), and p (perceiving, irrational). So, as a matter of fact, they types are defined in the same way in both MBTT and Socionics, even though the type descriptions might focus on different type aspects, the functions might be described and defined differently, and MBTT might be unaware of the fact that an ESFP craves , because they haven't investigated that aspect of the types, and because their mistakes in the theory of the functions probably makes it more difficult for them to see the truth.

    But the four dichotomies, the four dimensions of the 16 types, refer to the exact same reality (the same empirical phenomena) in MBTT, in Socionics, in Jung, and in Keirsey. So, how can they be different types, how can an ESFP and an SEE not belong to the exact same group of people?

  32. #32
    ...been here longer than the fucking monarchy Ezra's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    UK
    TIM
    SLE-Ti
    Posts
    9,169
    Mentioned
    9 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Phaedrus View Post
    The Si function in MBTT is what all the SJ types (the group of Guardians in Keirsey's model) have in common. And I totally agree with what FDG says here, that Si is the SJ function, so to speak. I have always found it slightly irritating that the explanation for the similarities between the four SJs is, in a sense, more "elegant" and simple in MBTT than in Socionics. Since the SJs obviously share the characteristic behaviours and attitudes that are described by Keirsey -- and I think perhaps in a more obvious way than for example his NF Idealists and his NT Rationals have a common denominator -- then what is the functional explanation for their similarities? In MBTT they are explained by Si in the "ego block", but what is it in Socionics? That is not as obvious, but nevertheless they are clearly described in the same way in their attitudes and behaviours, so there must be an explanation.
    Phaedrus, if there's one thing you "don't get", it's that the LSI's Ti is not the same as the ISTJ's Si. Nor is it the same as the ISTJs Ti, or even the ISTP's Si. I've given an analysis of the cognitive processes.

    Quote Originally Posted by FDG View Post
    For example, do you agree that the average description of an ISTJ in MBTI is the same as the description of an ISTj in socionics?
    There are discrepancies, and I think many ISTJs would identify with ESI in socionics.

    Quote Originally Posted by FDG View Post
    There has been too much clouding of the issue going on, IMHO, especially by Ezra that has proclaimed himself as expert without the sound knowledge to back up his assertions.
    Err, I don't remember claiming my expertise about socionics. If you want to slap a label on me, that's fine. But don't accuse me of something I didn't do. I have clouded nothing.

    Quote Originally Posted by niffweed17 View Post
    strongly disagree on jessica.
    What type do you think she is?

    Quote Originally Posted by FDG View Post
    I disagree, I think heath is a very clear example of EJ or IJ temperament. Jessica and Loki seem to be typical Si-SLIs to me, I can't see why one would disagree.
    I think because of their Fe PoLR. LokiVanguard doesn't seem to have one.

    I think Winterpark and force my hand are far better examples of SLIs.

    Quote Originally Posted by Phaedrus View Post
    However, the types can also be defined by the four dimensions in exactly the same way as they are defined in MBTT[...]
    First fallacy: MBTT E/I is influenced by how sociable you are and whether or not you like solitude; socionics E/I isn't.

    [...]because it is a necessary truth that an ESFp (SEE) is E (extraverted), S (sensory, sensing), F (ethical, feeling), and p (perceiving, irrational).
    Second fallacy: you haven't even explained why, and your point prior to this one doesn't lead on from this one, nor vice versa (I won't even bother going into the deatailed illogic of your argument).

    So, as a matter of fact, they types are defined in the same way in both MBTT and Socionics, even though the type descriptions might focus on different type aspects, the functions might be described and defined differently, and MBTT might be unaware of the fact that an ESFP craves , because they haven't investigated that aspect of the types, and because their mistakes in the theory of the functions probably makes it more difficult for them to see the truth.
    "Might"? They blatently are. I showed how weeks ago. This is very significant in attempting to correlate.

    But the four dichotomies, the four dimensions of the 16 types, refer to the exact same reality (the same empirical phenomena) in MBTT, in Socionics, in Jung, and in Keirsey. So, how can they be different types, how can an ESFP and an SEE not belong to the exact same group of people?
    a) Expat showed how, with the power example of the SEE, and the unwillingness to command people in the ESFP. This is significant, because it would show that either (1) the ESFP is not referring to the same type as the SEE is or (2) that Se as defined in each type is blatently different. Se ego types feel happy with being in command. MBTT Se makes no mention of this.

    b) This is incorrect, as I've just stated. You've studied Keirsey, Phaedrus, and you even referred me to the notes in the back of Please Understand Me II. He talks about Myers-Briggs' dichotomies, as well as discrepancies between the two theories. He even claims that while MBTT proposes that ESTJs and ENTJs are very similar (in that they both have Extraverted Thinking as a dominant function), Keirsey himself believes they are "lightyears apart". I think socionics is closer to MBTT in the way functions are described, and closest to Keirsey descriptively.

    Jung is the original mac daddy. What you need to get into your thick head is that Augusta has diverged further from Jung's descriptions of the functions, and that Myers and Briggs were far more faithful. Since Jung's original descriptions were based on astrology, I am less inclined to believe his, or MBTT's, consistency. And just because socionics' original foundations are shaky doesn't invalidate the theory. Indeed, Augusta's bases may be shite, which is precisely why she reinvented the functions with a few twists of her own. She clearly saw the potential of the functions with her Ne, and made something out of it. So, you cannot possibly claim, based on this, that MBTT Ti = socionics Si (but only in the SLI, and not in the LSE) and that MBTT Se = socionics Se (because strong ability to lead well and direct others to one's own will because of one's capacity to recognise another's will and mobilisation is unimportant when considering Se in socionics).
    Ideas don't determine who's right. Power determines who's right. And I have the power. So I'm right.

  33. #33

    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    Sweden
    Posts
    4,833
    Mentioned
    6 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Ezra View Post
    Phaedrus, if there's one thing you "don't get", it's that the LSI's Ti is not the same as the ISTJ's Si. Nor is it the same as the ISTJs Ti, or even the ISTP's Si. I've given an analysis of the cognitive processes.
    I have never claimed any of that. Go back to FG's post. He has explained what I mean better than I have been able to do. At least that's what I thought. But if you can't even understand his explanation, then I haven't got a clue what to do about you. You don't seem to get it, no matter how simple and perfectly lucid the explanation happens to be.

    Quote Originally Posted by Ezra View Post
    There are discrepancies, and I think many ISTJs would identify with ESI in socionics.
    That practical problem can occur anywhere. An ESI can also identify with ISTJ descriptions. I have personally witnessed that phenomenon. Nothing strange about it, really. Many traits are similar in those two types, and people often don't know themselves perfectly. But it is extremely obvious that the LSI descriptions and the ISTJ descriptions refer to the same group of people.

    Quote Originally Posted by Ezra View Post
    Err, I don't remember claiming my expertise about socionics. If you want to slap a label on me, that's fine. But don't accuse me of something I didn't do. I have clouded nothing.
    Some people seem to have a short memory ...

    Quote Originally Posted by Ezra View Post
    First fallacy: MBTT E/I is influenced by how sociable you are and whether or not you like solitude; socionics E/I isn't.
    ... very short indeed ...

    Quote Originally Posted by Ezra View Post
    Second fallacy: you haven't even explained why, and your point prior to this one doesn't lead on from this one, nor vice versa (I won't even bother going into the deatailed illogic of your argument).
    Maybe you haven't understood much of what you have read about Socionics and MBTT? Maybe you haven't even read Jung?

    Quote Originally Posted by Ezra View Post
    "Might"? They blatently are. I showed how weeks ago. This is very significant in attempting to correlate.
    The little expert is showing up again, is he? Well, since we agree on that, one would imagine that you would also be able to understand FDG's explanation. It is really hard to understand why you don't actually.

    Quote Originally Posted by Ezra View Post
    a) Expat showed how, with the power example of the SEE, and the unwillingness to command people in the ESFP. This is significant, because it would show that either (1) the ESFP is not referring to the same type as the SEE is or (2) that Se as defined in each type is blatently different. Se ego types feel happy with being in command. MBTT Se makes no mention of this

    b) This is incorrect, as I've just stated. You've studied Keirsey, Phaedrus, and you even referred me to the notes in the back of Please Understand Me II. He talks about Myers-Briggs' dichotomies, as well as discrepancies between the two theories. He even claims that while MBTT proposes that ESTJs and ENTJs are very similar (in that they both have Extraverted Thinking as a dominant function), Keirsey himself believes they are "lightyears apart". I think socionics is closer to MBTT in the way functions are described, and closest to Keirsey descriptively.

    Jung is the original mac daddy. What you need to get into your thick head is that Augusta has diverged further from Jung's descriptions of the functions, and that Myers and Briggs were far more faithful. Since Jung's original descriptions were based on astrology, I am less inclined to believe his, or MBTT's, consistency. And just because socionics' original foundations are shaky doesn't invalidate the theory. Indeed, Augusta's bases may be shite, which is precisely why she reinvented the functions with a few twists of her own. She clearly saw the potential of the functions with her Ne, and made something out of it. So, you cannot possibly claim, based on this, that MBTT Ti = socionics Si (but only in the SLI, and not in the LSE) and that MBTT Se = socionics Se (because strong ability to lead well and direct others to one's own will because of one's capacity to recognise another's will and mobilisation is unimportant when considering Se in socionics)..
    Who is this expert? Where does he come from? All of a sudden he shows up from nowhere ... and now he is all over the place ...

  34. #34
    Expat's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    United Kingdom
    Posts
    10,853
    Mentioned
    27 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    I think Ezra has understood what it is all about far better, and far more quickly, than Phaedrus or any member of the "Socionix school".
    , LIE, ENTj logical subtype, 8w9 sx/sp
    Quote Originally Posted by implied
    gah you're like the shittiest ENTj ever!

  35. #35
    Hot Message FDG's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Location
    Freiburg im Breisgau
    TIM
    ENTj
    Posts
    15,627
    Mentioned
    156 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    I had decided not to use formal logic anymore on forums because it gets annoying, but it seems like it's needed.

    Quote Originally Posted by Ezra View Post
    Phaedrus, if there's one thing you "don't get", it's that the LSI's Ti is not the same as the ISTJ's Si. Nor is it the same as the ISTJs Ti, or even the ISTP's Si. I've given an analysis of the cognitive processes.
    Your analysis does not count, we are speaking about MBTI in its pure form. ISTJs as a group identified in MBTI tend to correspond with ISTjs as a group indentified in socionics. The frequency is not equal to 1, but close. The functions follow accordingly. You cannot object to this because it's simply the way things are.

    Err, I don't remember claiming my expertise about socionics. If you want to slap a label on me, that's fine. But don't accuse me of something I didn't do. I have clouded nothing.
    You don't claim it explicity, but every comment of yours on socionics tend to be about your personal analysis of some part of it. If I were you I would be far humbler and take a more back-seat approach.

    I think because of their Fe PoLR. LokiVanguard doesn't seem to have one.
    What are the specific charateristics of a Fe PoLR that are completely incompatible with LokiVanguar behavior? What are the specific characteristics of his behavior that tend to indicate ISFP as a type, and Fe as creative function instead of Te? Is there something specific that leads you to consider his type as wrong? Why do you claim to know his type better than himself even if there is no strong evidence for this to be true?

    First fallacy: MBTT E/I is influenced by how sociable you are and whether or not you like solitude; socionics E/I isn't.
    This is not a fallacy because it is an error in assumptions and not reasoning. Secondly, go back and take a closer look at the way socionics defines E-I as a dichotomy.

    a) Expat showed how, with the power example of the SEE, and the unwillingness to command people in the ESFP. This is significant, because it would show that either (1) the ESFP is not referring to the same type as the SEE is or (2) that Se as defined in each type is blatently different. Se ego types feel happy with being in command. MBTT Se makes no mention of this.
    Neither socionics say that it is a central feature of the type, for the matter. In fact, it's this forum's view of that has been highly skewed towards purely a pursuit of power rather than simply impact in the world. In fact, the vast russian literature on socionics provides different points of view on the matter, and the most consistent opinion seem to be towards the EJ temperament to be the most power-orientated rather than EP-Se. Thus, your point could or could not be right; at its best, it is only a partial explanation, as much as MBTI is a partial explanation. Again, you cannot dispute this because I am not creating an argument but rather simply stating the way things are.

    b) This is incorrect, as I've just stated. You've studied Keirsey, Phaedrus, and you even referred me to the notes in the back of Please Understand Me II. He talks about Myers-Briggs' dichotomies, as well as discrepancies between the two theories. He even claims that while MBTT proposes that ESTJs and ENTJs are very similar (in that they both have Extraverted Thinking as a dominant function), Keirsey himself believes they are "lightyears apart". I think socionics is closer to MBTT in the way functions are described, and closest to Keirsey descriptively.
    So how all of this you say ties into a logically consistent discourse? If socionics defines types (for you) according to functional blocks, and Kersey descriptions are closer to socionics, yet socionics in terms of function is closer to MBTI...how do you square the circle, so to speak?

    Jung is the original mac daddy. What you need to get into your thick head is that Augusta has diverged further from Jung's descriptions of the functions, and that Myers and Briggs were far more faithful.
    Augusta might have diverged, but she was descibing exactly the same phenomenon as Jung was, given that the types are exactly the same and the same are also the functions.

    Since Jung's original descriptions were based on astrology, I am less inclined to believe his, or MBTT's, consistency.
    Jung based on astrology? What? Where?

    And just because socionics' original foundations are shaky doesn't invalidate the theory. Indeed, Augusta's bases may be shite, which is precisely why she reinvented the functions with a few twists of her own.
    So which one does well? Jung is worse than Augusta, but Augusta is still bad because it twists from a twist of Jung.

    She clearly saw the potential of the functions with her Ne, and made something out of it. So, you cannot possibly claim, based on this, that MBTT Ti = socionics Si (but only in the SLI, and not in the LSE) and that MBTT Se = socionics Se (because strong ability to lead well and direct others to one's own will because of one's capacity to recognise another's will and mobilisation is unimportant when considering Se in socionics).
    Nobody has ever claimed that MBTI Ti=Si, but rather that MBTI Ti is equal to creative Te in socionics. Again, this is not something disputable, simply because INTPs and ISTPs share Ti dominance in MBTI and share Te creative in socionics. You can give all the explanation you want but they will not change this simple fact of objective reality.
    Obsequium amicos, veritas odium parit

  36. #36
    Expat's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    United Kingdom
    Posts
    10,853
    Mentioned
    27 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by FDG View Post
    Neither socionics say that it is a central feature of the type, for the matter. In fact, it's this forum's view of that has been highly skewed towards purely a pursuit of power rather than simply impact in the world. In fact, the vast russian literature on socionics provides different points of view on the matter, and the most consistent opinion seem to be towards the EJ temperament to be the most power-orientated rather than EP-Se.
    It is certainly not just "this forum"'s view of . Power-pursuit is not the only, or even main, aspect of ; that comes as a consequence. In my own "ball in the football field" metaphor to describe , I have proposed one explanation as to how the External Statics of Objects aspect, plus irrationality, would result in the "power" thing. But if you look at the early socionists literature - not only what Augusta wrote, but also all the "classical" descriptions, the "volitional pressure" thing is predominant.

    Surely there are different views on this matter - and on any other - in socionics, but why is it the "most consistent opinion" that EJ temperament is more power-orientated than EP-Se?
    , LIE, ENTj logical subtype, 8w9 sx/sp
    Quote Originally Posted by implied
    gah you're like the shittiest ENTj ever!

  37. #37

    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Posts
    8,578
    Mentioned
    7 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Expat View Post
    Having read the comparison list, actually I don't think that's a fair comparison to MBTI. From Ashton's typings, it's difficult to find any coherent logic behind them. The 40% are largely due to early posters who were typed as, say, LII or IEI and whose typings were never (rightly or wrongly) questioned - and cases like Herzy.
    i was thinking about that, and i don't really agree, at least from my end. whether ashton is typing people by default, i don't know (actually i tend to think he is a lot of the time, but his methods are inscrutable).

    however, i tried to leave people whose types i was sort of going on by default out of my list. there are still a couple of people who i'm not really sure about at all, but most of the people in my list are ones i could at least make a fairly good case for.

    here are the people on whose types ashton and i agreed:

    ajax
    bulletsanddoves
    cogsci
    dee
    dioklecian
    garmonbozia
    heath
    herzy
    krae
    jadae
    kim
    kioshi
    minde
    ms kensington
    mysticsonic
    rmcnew
    science as magic
    slacker mom
    slava
    tcaudilllg
    tereg
    vague

    of these people, it doesn't look like most of them "are early posters whose types were never really questioned." there are four (on my end anyway) that i might not be very confident in defending; namely, those are bulletsanddoves, krae, mysticsonic, and science as magic. all of the rest of these are at least reasonably well informed.

  38. #38

    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Posts
    8,578
    Mentioned
    7 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Ezra View Post
    What type do you think she is?
    not completely sure. never have been, but i still don't think SLI at all. perhaps its my own biases against her kind of thinking, but i distinctly find her disinterested in Si-related issues and much more oriented towards Se. i haven't really followed her recent type discussions, in part because some of the stuff that she says makes me sick, but i don't really understand the cases for SLI or ILI. i still think LSI is probably most reasonable.

    I think Winterpark and force my hand are far better examples of SLIs.
    no opinion.

  39. #39
    Expat's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    United Kingdom
    Posts
    10,853
    Mentioned
    27 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by niffweed17 View Post
    his methods are inscrutable.
    Which perhaps means that there is no method to speak of?

    Quote Originally Posted by niffweed17 View Post
    of these people, it doesn't look like most of them "are early posters whose types were never really questioned."
    Okay, I would include in that "classification" Herzy, Krae, Jadae, Kim, Kioshi, Ms K, MysticSonic, science as magic, Slacker Mom, Slava, tcaudilllg, vague. Just over half.

    Also, I may be wrong but I don't think he has ever re-typed someone who has typed himself/herself as LII; he tends to re-type others as LII. So it's no wonder that you agree on the "historical" and "self-typed" LIIs.

    I think the above factors already account for a large chunk of the 40%.
    , LIE, ENTj logical subtype, 8w9 sx/sp
    Quote Originally Posted by implied
    gah you're like the shittiest ENTj ever!

  40. #40
    Hot Message FDG's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Location
    Freiburg im Breisgau
    TIM
    ENTj
    Posts
    15,627
    Mentioned
    156 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Expat View Post
    It is certainly not just "this forum"'s view of . Power-pursuit is not the only, or even main, aspect of ; that comes as a consequence. In my own "ball in the football field" metaphor to describe , I have proposed one explanation as to how the External Statics of Objects aspect, plus irrationality, would result in the "power" thing. But if you look at the early socionists literature - not only what Augusta wrote, but also all the "classical" descriptions, the "volitional pressure" thing is predominant.

    Surely there are different views on this matter - and on any other - in socionics, but why is it the "most consistent opinion" that EJ temperament is more power-orientated than EP-Se?
    I like your explanation because it gives the volitional part as one of the possible consequences of exercising one's . In my opinion, it is only one of them; probably the most evident in social terms and this is why socionics has lent itself more to a narrower focus in this precise subset of the whole.

    For how some russian schools have consensus on EJ being the most likely to aim for leadership, take how on socioniko.net they are defined as being the linear-pushy group, or how in terms of occupational advice they are prescribed towards leadership. In any case I don't think that EJs either are any more inclined than EPs to pursue leadership, but rather that we shouldn't narrow too much down a typing based on the fact that a person likes or dislikes leadershipp...

    I think Winterpark and force my hand are far better examples of SLIs.
    I think force my hand is an ENTj, and I think there Winterpark and LokiVanguard are similar, even if Wintepark has a more reserved vibe.
    Obsequium amicos, veritas odium parit

Page 1 of 3 123 LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •