Is my type INFp or INTp?

[Joy]

lol that's exactly what I thought when I saw that

fwiw, in my experience Fe/Ti types are much more likely to use the word "logic" a lot than Te/Fi types are. They're more likely to use the word "logical" when admiring someone who they think is smart, more likely to use the word "illogical" when criticizing someone who they think is stupid/foolish, etc.

[Joy]

lol that's exactly what I thought when I saw that

fwiw, in my experience Fe/Ti types are much more likely to use the word "logic" a lot than Te/Fi types are. They're more likely to use the word "logical" when admiring someone who they think is smart, more likely to use the word "illogical" when criticizing someone who they think is stupid/foolish, etc.

Basically what I'm saying is that if someone goes on and on about who/what is logical and who/what is not, odds are they're Fe/Ti.

[Creepy-Cyclops]

Neither -- unless they could back up their advice with T arguments.

Some people I know have gave me definite Fi advice. It's one of my seeking functions and one of yours. Why would you need to T to back up their advice? That doesn't fit in with model A intertype relations.

No, certainly not. If I can't type them independently of such aspects, then I would certainly not try to type them using such an unreliable method. I would simply suspend any opinion of mine on their possible types until I had enough reliable data on which to make a correct typing.

Some people are more difficult to type, sometimes one method not reliable on own but when tied together with others pretty much make the case a given.

Interesting.. It occurs to me that my approach is Cre Te Dynamic. I feel personally it serves me well.

There are always much better typing methods available than trying to determine such nuances as whether someone is Fi or Fe creative. So why not use those other, more reliable methods instead?

You missed my point..I don't believe that you or anyone can be sure that they are aware of every situation so I do not understand how you can be sure that there are always better typing methods available in certain circumstances. Can you not accept/admit that maybe sometimes, what I said could have it's use(s)?

[crazedrat]

Hi. Thanks for the comment, I strongly feel your sentiments. Sadly, this community possesses this strange ability to change my Te into Fe. I don't know how they do it, but I think they know what they are doing, so I'm going to pass the authority on to them.

I wouldn't call them idiots, just incorrect. Passing judgment is more like tribal initialization. Part of becoming one of the group.

I know you sir. Your e-mail says it all.

Anyway, I've been working on that AGI idea I had a while back. I've added a few things to it that help it work. I thought that instead of setting my sights on the human mind, I'd work with something much less complex. An insect. The funny thing is that there are certain operators that stay the same in an insect. I'm beginning to wonder if it's a requirement to live on earth, to have the same basic operational rules for interaction with reality.

I thought I'd show it to this group of people, for I have not the drive to do it all on my own. I know that I have the ability, I just cannot remain focused. That and AGI is needed in our world, in our time. I'm just going to spew out what I know and let other people take it from there.

Really, they thought you were an ENFj? That's hilarious. I suppose that anyone who gets too creative must be using some sort of feeling function. After all, if it's not pure logic, if it's not pure emotion, it must be emotion.

I realize that my ideas are far reaching, however, it never gets through to my head that most people will not understand me. In groups, I will say something and someone else will feel the need to translate for me, as if it weren't obvious.

Anyway, nice to hear from you, I guess we are making the same rounds. It wasn't the first time that I ran into you again, you seem to stick out like a sore thumb, sir.

;l ;P ;L ;0 ;D ;| ...
You may be more interesting in posting in the articles section.. thats where most of my big insights came from. there's a guy named tcaud in there who actually knows what he's talking about.. he's probably the only other one on here.
i'm still working on that computer program i told you about earlier

[Joy]

[Phaedrus]

Basically what I'm saying is that if someone goes on and on about who/what is logical and who/what is not, odds are they're Fe/Ti.

No. That is just a myth. It is not true.

[Phaedrus]

You missed my point..I don't believe that you or anyone can be sure that they are aware of every situation so I do not understand how you can be sure that there are always better typing methods available in certain circumstances. Can you not accept/admit that maybe sometimes, what I said could have it's use(s)?

But how can you trust such a typing method when you are yourself weak at both Fi and Fe?

[Phaedrus]

Because that will clarify how Socionics and Myers-Briggs differ on functional definitions. Also, it might not be obvious to everyone; I'm unconvinced myself. I think the description describes me well, yet I'd be hard-pressed to label myself an ILI.

Why are you hard-pressed to label yourself ILI? (I don't remember right now which type you consider yourself to be.) What other type than ILI do you think fits James's description?

[misutii]

IEIs see themselves as illogical, and proud of it?

see myself as irrational more so than illogical. Like I can be logical if I try hard and form logic better than logical types dumber than me but it seems unnatural for me to use it too much so I return to using my strong functions.

IEIs wouldn't be proud of being illogical, but probably proud of being who they are, and who they are seems like an illogical person lol

[Lord Java the 3rd]

see myself as irrational more so than illogical. Like I can be logical if I try hard and form logic better than logical types dumber than me but it seems unnatural for me to use it too much so I return to using my strong functions.

IEIs wouldn't be proud of being illogical, but probably proud of being who they are, and who they are seems like an illogical person lol

Also, we like to think that we are very logical, it depends on the IEI your talking to. Me personally, having understood with the help of professionals my type, I find IEIs to be friendly system builders. I think people confuse Ethical, with having good intentions in mind for other people, or having an ethical thought structure. This is not the case, we actually see that our environment is more workable if people are 'happy'. It's a lot of work to keep people happy, we don't see any problem with giving them what they want, even if it's just a big lie that we are perpetuating in order to keep the working environment stable. For having witnessed the horrors that unleash when confronting people with their problems, we now understand the usefulness of perpetuating ignorance.

"There is a dark side to every smile." - Lord Java the 3rd

[Lord Java the 3rd]

Because they're SIGNIFICANT changes. It might not look like it at first, but... look, I used to know MBTI functions too and pretty much had to relearn everything. It's possible this is just out of my own incompetence, but I doubt it. Maybe the MBTI folks have changed their understanding over time to be more like Socionic functions, but I also doubt that - when I was there the general attitude was resistance to any Socionics influence. Although, it was from Rocky, Mr. "You all are stupid and wrong, Socionics is way better" so perhaps the delivery played a certain role in people's rejection of it.


I think this is what you're saying, but just to clarify: INTP MBTI functional order is Ti-Ne-Si-Fe, I believe. (See: http://www.intp.org/intprofile.html, a particularly good description.) I think you're saying those are the labels but the functions described are Ni and Te in Socionics terms. Again, see the above link to see if you agree, if you're unfamiliar with the type.

Please. To insinuate that I was reading corrupted pop material. Well I was actually, it was how I was introduced to type theory. But for you to say that the functions have changed? That doesn't say much at all about you and what you know. Um... Excuse me. I found your reply to be very nice actually*no sarcasm, important note*, I find it hard to reply to people with out arguing. But I feel nice that I'm getting a lot of attention, as it makes me feel that I'm apart of something(Joy: In this instance where Java used "feel" to express the inner workings of his mind, you can clearly see Fe in work. How he paused in mid-paragraph in order to correct himself for potentially offending people, clearly an Fe attribute... anyway, he continues"). I've learned from past posts that I can come off as quite abrasive, in fact thats what some coworkers said to me when I commented on a movie that I didn't like but other people did, "Stardust". I'm off topic.

I disagree with you in that Socionics functions are different then MBTI functions. Especially with that ridiculous reference to ILI and INTJ*mbti*. To say that the functions had changed when it was the title. Lets face it, MBTI is wrong, who cares if they didn't fully understand type. The argument was that the functions had changed, I'd like someone to point out to me, quite clearly, the differences between the ACTUAL *Fe perhaps, one of my most used functions* functions. You people sound like this to me --->

You hear something from a source that ranks higher than you do in this social network. Because you are learning from that source, you don't state your opinion as it really is, but an opinion that is edited in order to be inline with your authorities previous statements. It's almost laughable to watch as you try and connect your thoughts with what you perceive to be the decisions of those ranking higher than yourself, or perhaps what you think to be the thoughts of the majority. Hardly the thinking class you people perpetuate yourselves to be. For do not NT temperaments look at the words from authority at face value, thinking of what they said, not who they are?

As for the one MBTI INTP profile describing the ILI, I don't know what the fuss is about. Some people possess the unique ability to see very minute and possibly vague connections. Just because one person doesn't see it doesn't mean it doesn't exist, it also doesn't discredit it. However, it should be dealt with knowing that not everyone will understand, more over that most won't be able to make the same connections, because the formula to coming to that conclusion can be internalized information that can't be translated with out the use of a far superior language.

[Creepy-Cyclops]

But how can you trust such a typing method when you are yourself weak at both Fi and Fe?

Like I said I'm not saying it's a good method all the time, but i'm saying it is sometimes. My point of posting I think I explained etc.

But to further answer your question with a question: Can you not tell the difference between supervision and a more favourable intertype relation?

Being weak in both yes, but being receptive to one, surely yes also?

[Lord Java the 3rd]

I agree with everything ScarlettLux said. And there's something else that just really jumped off the screen at me:



This statement screams Te PoLR > Te ego.



Aside from the functions (information elements) being defined differently (to the extent of making MBTT definitions useless), the functions (information elements) that make up half of the types are different.

What are an INTP's first two function in MBTT? What are an ILI's first two functions in Socionics?

Also, Socionics is a theory about information processing. MBTT, at least pop MBTT, is more of a personality theory focusing on actual behavior.

Altogether, my time here has led me to believe that those who come here with a lot of knowledge about MBTT are at a severe disadvantage over those who aren't. It only serves to create confusion. Your best bet is to think of the theories as two completely different systems and to forget about MBTT entirely while you're learning about Socionics. Start fresh.

Wikisocion is probably one of the best places to start. Or you could just interact with others here for a little while and your quadra values will become apparent, and from there you can decide what your temperament is and figure out which of the information elements your quadra values are strongest in you.

You started your post with, "I agree with everything ScarlettLux said." which is quite the humorous comment coming from an NT. That one saying, "Great minds think alike." is completely wrong, great minds differ greatly. One who agrees with completely has lost the use of their minds more abstract facilities.
I'm not saying your not a very bright person, I'm just saying your making the rest of us look bad.

Next paragraph you use the word "scream", which is great, but you must keep in mind its uses. It's not exactly a logical argument, but intended to convenience the minds of people who don't require such.

Alas, you go on to say:

"...What are an INTP's first two function in MBTT? What are an ILI's first two functions in Socionics?..." in reference to the incompatibility of MBTT and Socionics functions... I digress, no wait, that was your bad. You see, that argument points to you not understanding the difference between title and function. The functions are what makes the person work, the title is supposed to be a sort of short hand to name the functions. The title changed in Socionics. Yet again, you continue-->

You stated *not exactly in order here*: "the functions (information elements) that make up half of the types are different." Which is fine, considering your speaking to stupid people. But the problem I have with this crude use of emphasis is that it is addressed to me. *?* What gives? I demand you support your claim that half the functions have changed, where is your proof?

I'm sort of thinking that I should shut up and absorb every thing you say, because I really don't take you offensively. I'm sort of inbetween thinking your doing this for your credit tokens that you'll receive from your leader, and informing me with an invisible reference to your previous trials*emphasis on trials, you smart person you*. I don't know really, why pick apart what you say? You were probably a very bright teenager that got burned out on extasy. I had a very good friend do that, and I could no longer associate with him, because he neglected my warnings when we were kids. He had such a great mind too, I feel such a loss for him, I wish he... I think I'm off topic.

Anyway, I realize I'm an arrogant prick. But not really. I'm actually toying with you people in aggravation. No, I don't mean toying in the sense you might think of. It's more like loneliness coupled with tempting you to think in a similar way to me so that you could see some of the things that I would love to show you. For they are very beautiful, for those who have patience, and the desire to see more.

[Phaedrus]

But to further answer your question with a question: Can you not tell the difference between supervision and a more favourable intertype relation?

Maybe if I spend a lot of time with that person during a long period. Otherwise the possible sources of error and the possible different interpretations are simply too many. It is extremely easy to misidentify one intertype relation with another. Most people here don't realize that, but it's the truth.

It's quite easy to tell which of two very different intertype relations is there, given the assumption that you already know which of two possible types the person can be, like for example if you want to determine whether you are dealing with your Dual or your Conflictor. But if you know very little of the person in front of you, so little that he or she could be almost any type to you, then it would be ridiculous of you to try to determine what kind of intertype relation you have with that person. It would be a pure guessing game with little or no chance of success.

[Creepy-Cyclops]

Maybe if I spend a lot of time with that person during a long period. Otherwise the possible sources of error and the possible different interpretations are simply too many. It is extremely easy to misidentify one intertype relation with another. Most people here don't realize that, but it's the truth.

I agree. But what I'm saying is if someone gives you a dose of Fi (and this can include IRL and internet) and you like, do you think it would be reasonable to assume it's quite likely they are Fi ego type, with a model A arrangement which is reasonably favourably compatible with your own?

(you=you and you=I in this context)

It's quite easy to tell which of two very different intertype relations is there, given the assumption that you already know which of two possible types the person can be, like for example if you want to determine whether you are dealing with your Dual or your Conflictor. But if you know very little of the person in front of you, so little that he or she could be almost any type to you, then it would be ridiculous of you to try to determine what kind of intertype relation you have with that person. It would be a pure guessing game with little or no chance of success.

I'm wondering if we should go circular or linear here.

(Basically I put down some general thoughts on accepting/producing functions, stated they were pretty much random thought-writing at this stage, and you came in and decided to critically 'analyse' it - which is fine- I appreciate what's probably your intent, but then there's nothing you've said so far that I don't think I already know, I think you were maybe too hasty to do that..but are we moving away from that initial point/discussion or are we still relating to that etc.)

Basically the conversation is ok with me as long as it can stay civilised..there's no need to insult people over a discussion, because then it becomes boring (just incase that happens) or even more boring haha.

So i'm going to go circular with you to an extent..and I think this could be interesting..if you care to answer?..how do you determine the types of people you come into contact with?

(you=you in this context)

[Phaedrus]

I agree. But what I'm saying is if someone gives you a dose of Fi (and this can include IRL and internet) and you like, do you think it would be reasonable to assume it's quite likely they are Fi ego type, with a model A arrangement which is reasonably favourably compatible with your own?

My point was that you don't know that it really is a dose of Fi, because you cannot determine that it is Fi with any accuracy. You can easily misinterpret your observations in the same way that Expat and others misinterpret the observable signs.

My general point is that people should immediately stop using inferior typing methods. It's disgusting to see all the typing error people on this forum are making. Fortunately you are not a member of that group of ignorant fools, Cyclops.

[Joy]

You started your post with, "I agree with everything ScarlettLux said." which is quite the humorous comment coming from an NT. That one saying, "Great minds think alike." is completely wrong, great minds differ greatly. One who agrees with completely has lost the use of their minds more abstract facilities.
I'm not saying your not a very bright person, I'm just saying your making the rest of us look bad.

Next paragraph you use the word "scream", which is great, but you must keep in mind its uses. It's not exactly a logical argument, but intended to convenience the minds of people who don't require such.

Alas, you go on to say:

"...What are an INTP's first two function in MBTT? What are an ILI's first two functions in Socionics?..." in reference to the incompatibility of MBTT and Socionics functions... I digress, no wait, that was your bad. You see, that argument points to you not understanding the difference between title and function. The functions are what makes the person work, the title is supposed to be a sort of short hand to name the functions. The title changed in Socionics. Yet again, you continue-->

You stated *not exactly in order here*: "the functions (information elements) that make up half of the types are different." Which is fine, considering your speaking to stupid people. But the problem I have with this crude use of emphasis is that it is addressed to me. *?* What gives? I demand you support your claim that half the functions have changed, where is your proof?

I'm sort of thinking that I should shut up and absorb every thing you say, because I really don't take you offensively. I'm sort of inbetween thinking your doing this for your credit tokens that you'll receive from your leader, and informing me with an invisible reference to your previous trials*emphasis on trials, you smart person you*. I don't know really, why pick apart what you say? You were probably a very bright teenager that got burned out on extasy. I had a very good friend do that, and I could no longer associate with him, because he neglected my warnings when we were kids. He had such a great mind too, I feel such a loss for him, I wish he... I think I'm off topic.

Anyway, I realize I'm an arrogant prick. But not really. I'm actually toying with you people in aggravation. No, I don't mean toying in the sense you might think of. It's more like loneliness coupled with tempting you to think in a similar way to me so that you could see some of the things that I would love to show you. For they are very beautiful, for those who have patience, and the desire to see more.

Yep. you're definitely Fe/Ti, most likely IEI. Ti makes sense for a Hidden Agenda for you. Most of this post was complaining about the lack of Ti in my post.

[Joy]

Oh yeah, and when I said "half the functions" I was talking about all of the introverted types. Here's one example.

INTP: Ti and Ne
ILI: Ni and Te

It doesn't really matter though, but MBTT Ni, Ne, Te, and Ti are not the same as Socionics Ni, Ne, Te, and Ti. MBTT Te, for example, is more like Socionics Ti + Se than it is Te.

I have no interest in expanding upon any of this in discussion with you, but there are plenty of people on the forum who would be more than happy to provide you with explanations that you're be happier with. Try posting some questions in General, What's My Type, Alpha, or Beta and you'll have much better luck than the responses you're getting here in Gamma. In fact, most of the responses in your threads haven't even been from members of Gamma in the first place.

[crazedrat]

Joy... I know this person in real life, he is ILI. It is stupid to think you would know better then he would, what type he is. I mean really, that is stupid. Think about it. Do not say anything. ............................. Thought about it yet? Yeah. Keep thinking........ k.




Moving on.
MBTI & socionics functions are describing the same phenomenon. The phenomenon exists, we devleop language to describe it. There are not two seperate universes, where MBTI belongs to one, and socionics belongs to another. If you have a problem reconciling the two, it is more likely due to your inability to change linguistic context in your mind.
From what I understand the socionic functions were derived from Jungs work, as were the MBTI functions. More then that, I have read both and have no difficulty seeing the two side by side.

Most of what I see here is you yelling "function alert!" - "hey, Ti spotted in sector blah blah blah" ... well, each type displays each function... in different ways.
More then that, a function can look like another function... in a particular context. Te to Ni can look like a Fe impression.. where an array of Te statements is displayed in a coherent effect. The difference is in the way the information develops / transforms; where you seem to have more of a one dimensional "function alert!" way of identifying things.
A function is not a state of information, it is a transformation of information from one state to another. Hence the word function. K?
The issue is more complex then you give it credit.

Now, for effect, I am going to repeat myself.... that way i know you get it.
A function is not a state of information, it is a transformation of information from one state to another.
K, now's the part where you, Joy, think about that............................... and think about it. K? Good.


You see, you have a tendency to ignore 95% of what is said, and focus on 5% of what is said... This is something I've seen more than a few LIEs do before.
This creates a "god dammit, I have to repeat myself AND say twice as much as before" effect on those talking to you.
It seems like it is one of the flaws of a LIE thinking style.
There's also alot of confirmation-bias in what you say. Example "yeah, you're complaining about my lack of Ti. This means... you have Ti hidden agenda!"
Anyway.. the point of all this is: please stop trying to dominate the universe with your opinion.. it's like someone spreading shit all over the walls of my living area. It makes me anxious- I feel like I either have to spend a long time cleaning up all the shit.. (yeah, it does take forever) or just leave the room. But I can't sit here with shit all over the walls. And that is what your mouth spews- it is shit. So please stop

[Joy]

Joy... I know this person in real life, he is ILI. It is stupid to think you would know better then he would, what type he is. I mean really, that is stupid. Think about it. Do not say anything. ............................. Thought about it yet? Yeah. Keep thinking........ k.




Moving on.
MBTI & socionics functions are describing the same phenomenon. The phenomenon exists, we devleop language to describe it. There are not two seperate universes, where MBTI belongs to one, and socionics belongs to another. If you have a problem reconciling the two, it is more likely due to your inability to change contexts linguisticly.

Now, for effect, I am going to repeat myself.... that way i know you get it.
A functio nis not a state of information, it is a trnasformatio nof informatino from one state to another.
K, now's the part where you, Joy, think about that............................... and think about it. K? Good.


You also have a tendency to ignore 95% of what is said, focus on 5% of what is said... This is something I've seen more than a few LIEs do before.
Well, they're the least intellectual NT type for a reason I guess.
Anyway.. the point of all this is: please stop trying to dominate the universe with your opinion.. it's like someone spreading shit all over the walls of my living area. It makes me anxious- I feel like I either have to spend a long time cleaning up all the shit.. (yeah, it does take forever) or just leave the room. But I can't sit here with shit all over the walls. And that is what your mouth spews- it is shit. So please stop

I hadn't planned on opening this can of worms here and now, but since you've addressed me specifically I should probably respond. And my response is that I don't think you're ILI, either.

And no, it is not because of this post. I actually mentioned this to someone earlier today in an IM conversation.

Joy (5/4/2008 9:36:26 AM): and crazedrat
Joy (5/4/2008 9:36:33 AM): probably not ILI

And:

Most of what I see here is you yelling "function alert!" - "hey, Ti spotted in sector blah blah blah" ... well, each type displays each function.
More then that, a function can look like another function... in a particular context. Te to Ni can look like a Fe impression.. where an array of Te statements is displayed in a coherent effect. The difference is in the way the information develops / transforms; where you seem to have more of a one dimensional "function alert!" way of identifying things.
A function is not a state of information, it is a transformation of information from one state to another. K?
The issue is more complex then you give it credit.

I'm not saying that certain types display Ti and certain types don't. I'm saying that Lord Java the 3rd gives a strong impression of valuing Fe/Ti over Te/Fi.

Ugh. Somehow I knew posting in this topic would be a mistake. All I wanted to say was...

So far I don't see anything that would suggest ILI over a Fe/Ti type, but it's too soon to tell. We'll have to wait and see how your interactions with other members play out.

[Phaedrus]

And Joy just proved crazedrat's point ...

[Joy]

That I'm trying to "dominate the universe" with my opinion? I don't recall telling anyone here that they should believe what I'm saying. They're entitled to their own opinions as well.

Or that I "have a tendency to ignore 95% of what is said, focus on 5% of what is said"? I answer what I want to answer. If I ignore something it's because I don't see a reason for me to discuss it. I would expect everyone to do this.

[Phaedrus]

That I'm trying to "dominate the universe" with my opinion? I don't recall telling anyone here that they should believe what I'm saying.

So I should not believe what you are saying? You either must be kidding or you deserve no respect whatsoever.

They're entitled to their own opinions as well.

But you are not entitled to yours.

[crazedrat]

Shit all over the walls once again

[crazedrat]

Joys I.M. conversation seems to have proven everything...
1: arguing with other people about what type ~they~ are = trying to dominate them with your opinion.
2: you said nothing about how a variety of Te impressions arranged in a coherent manner in the name of Ni creates a reactive Fi impression (this is the flow of ILI-Ni information); and how this impression is what you are identifying as "creative Fe"
3: the fact you are also thinking I am not ILI places you as the common denominator in two disputes of this nature, and this further suggests your ability to type ILI is the problem

[Elro]

Joy... I know this person in real life, he is ILI. It is stupid to think you would know better then he would, what type he is. I mean really, that is stupid. Think about it. Do not say anything. ............................. Thought about it yet? Yeah. Keep thinking........ k.




Moving on.

Well I'm convinced.

[crazedrat]

What, you disagree? You think its a bad point?.........
Tell me Elro, since you decided to enter into my fucking conversation, the likelyhood in your mind of the following:
1: A person is wrong about their type, yet still knowledgable enough about socionics to seek out this forum
2: This person read every intertype relation, experiences them in real life on a daily basis (probably has family which they've typed..), and didn't notice a discrepancy... where if they had their type wrong, every description should be wrong
3: That someone who can argue functions cannot identify their own function use
4: That you can be sure of a persons type through the limited interaction experience online, enough to rationally upheave and reject said persons assertions of their type in favor of your personal observations
5: That this would all happen twice, with two ILI-Nis (me and Java), both times Joy being the main persecutor

[Elro]

I think it's a poor argument on your part.

[marooned]

...

[Phaedrus]

I think it's a poor argument on your part.

It's not a poor argument on crazedrat's part.

[Not A Communist Shill]

Apparently, the level of correlation between the Introversion-Extroversion dichotomy in MBTI correlates and the Extroversion dichotomy in the Big Five is 74%.

Think how much the 'same' MBTI and Socionics types must correlate!

[Elro]

It's not a poor argument on crazedrat's part.

It's not a full argument on crazedrat's part, is the problem. It's just an assertion, with no backing. I'm not surprised you think it's adequate, because you make such assertions all the time. But it's not very convincing. Take it from me, the audience.

[Phaedrus]

But if the overall essence of socionics NiTe and the overall essence of MB TiNe are very similar (though not exactly the same), then there will be some overlap and INTP will be the same thing as ILI some of the time.

I have respect for you, Loki, but now you will shut up with this nonsense, becauese you know better than questioning the obvious, don't you? Yes, you do. Therefore you will accept the truth or lose my respect.

They are exactly the same every single time because the overall essence is very similar AND the four dichotomies are identical.


But as for Joy and her "inability" to translate between systems, I would ask how is the below not an example of Joy doing just that?

All Joy seems to be saying here is that the functions are defined differently in each system. And that MBTT Te tends to be more like Socionics Ti + Se (in her view) than Socionics Te. This is not mutually exclusive to the notion that these things may spring from the same well, or that they both branched off from Jung, or whatever. We don't know from this post alone what Joy thinks about that, because she didn't talk about it. She was just pointing out that the systems differ. And I would agree they do differ.

(I sort of skimmed this thread here and there, so I hope I didn't misrepresent anyone.)

Wrong, Loki. You just presented Joy's idiotic views in a much more positive light than they deserve. Cut the crap now will you.

[crazedrat]

lol

[Phaedrus]

Apparently, the level of correlation between the Introversion-Extroversion dichotomy in MBTI correlates and the Extroversion dichotomy in the Big Five is 74%.

Idiot. That is totally false.

[Elro]

We even have Phaedrus, who is ILI (and if I am correct you accept him as ILI) siding with the alleged non-ILIs on this issue

Who are you referring to? I don't accept Phaedrus as ILI (though I don't deny him as such either; I am in limbo at the moment). I also don't think he's commonly accepted as ILI - I think LSI is the popular opinion, actually. (At least around here)

[Phaedrus]

It's not a full argument on crazedrat's part, is the problem. It's just an assertion, with no backing.

It doesn't need any explicit backing. If you question it, you are an ignorant fool.

[Not A Communist Shill]

Idiot. That is totally false.

It can't be totally false if there is evidence to support it.

[Elro]

It doesn't need any explicit backing. If you question it, you are an ignorant fool.

Lol, speak for yourself.

[Phaedrus]

Who are you referring to? I don't accept Phaedrus as ILI (though I don't deny him as such either; I am in limbo at the moment).

Okay, I take it back. You are not an ignorant fool. You are a total jackass, and a complete moron.