Did anybody of you see that?
http://typelogic.com/products.html
This information is old enough, I saw this information about 5 years ago, and I wonder whether it is known to other English-speaking socionists.
A non-socionic vision of intertype relationships
Did anybody of you see that?
http://typelogic.com/products.html
This information is old enough, I saw this information about 5 years ago, and I wonder whether it is known to other English-speaking socionists.
www.socioniko.net is no longer my site.
Edited for gayness.
ENTp
Yeah, I saw that site. You actually don't have to pay.Go to the home page and click on any of the types. At the bottom of the descriptions, it has 16 links for the intertype relationships. You can then piece them together from that. It's actually pretty similar to Socionics, but the descriptions are stated in a more positive light.
While there are some differences, it doesn't match up to Socionics inter-type theory totally.
One can try with INTP. Because of the difference in the definitions, the question is always whether this correlates more with INTj, INTp, or, as some people would say, anything at all. But assuming that the theories are looking at some of the same underlying structures, one might think that in terms of interpersonal relationships, INTP on that site would correlate with INTj, because ESFJ is listed as the "anima" type, whereas ESFP is "Novelty." "Anima" seems more like "dual," whereas "novelty" seems like a really good spin on "conflict."
If INTP is INTj, then ISFJ is ISFp, which is called "supplement"...okay, so far so good, and ISFP is described as "enigma."
So, there are some potential similarities there.
I think all the relationships are symmetric though....which is kind of interesting when it comes to their terms "Advisor" and "Pedagogue"; they're implying that those types advise or mentor each other.
I've known the information for a couple of years, but only in the "Jonathan" way. And I have thought that if, and when, I get a firm grip on the Socionics type relations I will try to compare them. But to be able to do that I will first have to first be sure of the Socionic types, otherwise I don't know what I am comparing ... Too bad the descriptions from Typelogic are so vague and short. Does any one know if you get any wiser by reading what you have to buy?
I have wondered for a long time now what such descriptions of type relations are really based on. To have any real scientific value they should be be based on empirical observations, but I suspect that they are for the most part based on "deductions" from the theoretical model you decide to believe in (often without sufficient reasons, in my opinion).
Hopefully Socionics is better in this respect, but when you try to investigate the matter further, you have to do much of the job yourself, because a not too uncommon reaction to critical questions about the scientific evidence for what the theory claims is something like: "If you don't accept the theory, who cares? If it doesn't work for you, leave it!"
Anyway, I can't leave any of the theories until I know which theory is the correct one (if any). At this point Socionics seems like the better choice, but then the claims of some MBTI sites, that for example INTPs and ESFJs are attracted to each other and is a good match, must be totally false. And it should be possible to prove them false.
I don't think there is much to that. It states that the type most difficult to comprehend for an ENTJ is the ESFJ, which makes little sense.
@Jonathan: if you read the profiles and the definitions of J and P, it makes little sense to say that an MBTI ISFJ is a socionics ISFp.
Other MTBI sites have other relationships "theories". One, for instance, states that intuitive and sensing types are totally incompatible for relationships.
, LIE, ENTj logical subtype, 8w9 sx/sp
Originally Posted by implied
Which site do you have in mind?Other MTBI sites have other relationships "theories". One, for instance, states that intuitive and sensing types are totally incompatible for relationships.
http://www.sixteenflavors.com
Look at the types descriptions.
No it's not.
Are you LII?
I can't remember having seen the site you are referring to before, Expat, so I might have missed it.
I think it is interesting that they pick Conflicting partners as one of two worst possible matches. They also manage to pick a pretty good match in Mirror partners. Other MBTI sites, for example www.personalitypage.com also mention Mirror partners as a good match, along with relations of Supervision. Funny that they think relations of Supervision are both the worst and the best at the same time ...
David Keirsey, by the way, also thinks that N types are best matched with other N types and S types with S types, and that the best match according to Keirsey is in a relation of Supervision.
No, Jonathan is ILI.Are you LII?
Just to clarify: My interpretation of INTP as INTj for the purposes of understanding the Typelogic table was "provisional"; that is, the purpose was to explore possible similarities in pattern and had nothing to do with the "reality" of whether people who come out INTPs in MBTI are INTj in Socionics. Simply, to check for any resemblence in pattern, I had to hypothesize their INTP as INTj and ISFP as ISFj for the sake of pattern-seeking, because "anima" sounded more like "dual" than "novelty" did.
I fully understand that the type descriptions of ISFP are closer to ISFp, etc.
Anyhow, the idea that relationships work better N to N or S to S is a common one. Someone wrote a book "Love Types" that has theories based on that. Actually, if you look into it, you'll find that there are many competing theories of which type is "best" for relationships, and they all seem so sure of their position.
I find that hard to believe. Especially after his last post. On what grounds?
I was thinking the same thing (or, I what I think is the same thing), that is, that perhaps my last post demonstrated that I useRocky: I find that hard to believe. Especially after his last post.more than
At some level, the theory has to be seen as separate from any given "reality" interpretation; and often to understand the theory, one has to analyze it for structural relationships, completely apart from any fixed link to "reality." Anyhow, that's often how I like to think.
What type do you think I am then? LII? ILE? Or something else?
If you look at some more of Jonathan's posts and mine, it will become obvious to you that he and I are the same type. And since I now, after many years of research, finally know that I am an INTp, it follows that Jonathan is also an INTp.Phaedrus wrote:
Quote:
Are you LII?
No, Jonathan is ILI.
I find that hard to believe. Especially after his last post. On what grounds?
I agree...Phaedrus and I are likely the same type. However, if anyone has another idea of what time I am, I'm game.
... I wouldn't know enough to say either way...
@Jonathan: I said that because you seemed to have that "hypothesize first" mentality of the
Also, you are just too wordy to be a perceiver. Compare to other LIIs (MysticSonic, Pedro-the-Lion, Theodosis) and you will see that they often make people go crazy with their over-explainations and wordiness.
Potential and Perspective
Read the forum at socionics.com and observe the brevity of the responses Sergei Ganin offers. Either MysticSonic, Pedro-the-Lion and Theodosis - or perhaps Sergei Ganin himself have been mistyped - or then again maybe this has very little to do with socionics type. It could be either way.Also, you are just too wordy to be a perceiver. Compare to other LIIs (MysticSonic, Pedro-the-Lion, Theodosis) and you will see that they often make people go crazy with their over-explainations and wordiness.
"Arnie is strong, rightfully angry and wants to kill somebody."
martin_g_karlsson
Rocky wrote:
Also, you are just too wordy to be a perceiver. Compare to other LIIs (MysticSonic, Pedro-the-Lion, Theodosis) and you will see that they often make people go crazy with their over-explainations and wordiness.I was going to say something very similar to what CuriousSoul just said. And I think it does have something to do with your Socionics type. Sergei Ganin holds both records - the longest post and the shortest - but he definitely seems to prefer short posts. From what I have seen of MysticSonic he also has a similar inclination for brevity, whereas I, Jonathan, wym123 and others, who are probably not LIIs, tend to write longer posts, and the way in which we argue is different.CuriousSoul wrote:
Read the forum at socionics.com and observe the brevity of the responses Sergei Ganin offers. Either MysticSonic, Pedro-the-Lion and Theodosis - or perhaps Sergei Ganin himself have been mistyped - or then again maybe this has very little to do with socionics type. It could be either way.
If what you say is true, Rocky, how would you explain the wordiness of Gabriel García Márquez or Honoré de Balzac (supposedly ILIs) and the brevity of Ludwig Wittgenstein (LII)?
Short does not mean posts are not wordy.
Also, if you are asserting that wym is not LII, then I'd strongly disagree with you. I'd disagree with that even more than I would with Jonathan, just because I know more of wym.
And I'm not about to talk about the people you've mentioned. How do we know their types? Ludwig, for example has been said to be ILI by two other ILIs on this site (Cone and Sychophant).
Your last post makes me think that your perseption of ILI/LII is just switched from what socionics would define them as.
Okay. Maybe I misunderstood you there.Short does not mean posts are not wordy.
Okay again. I'm not 100 % sure that wym is not LII.Also, if you are asserting that wym is not LII, then I'd strongly disagree with you. I'd disagree with that even more than I would with Jonathan, just because I know more of wym.
The only reason I mentioned Márquez and Balzac was that they have been used as examples of ILIs by other socionists. I don't know their type.And I'm not about to talk about the people you've mentioned. How do we know their types? Ludwig, for example has been said to be ILI by two other ILIs on this site (Cone and Sychophant).
Wittgenstein, on the other hand, is typed LII by me. If Cone, Sychopant and others think he was ILI, I would say that they are probably wrong.
Sychophant, by the way, is most likely not an ILI.
This is more interesting. Could you explain further your thoughts about that?Your last post makes me think that your perseption of ILI/LII is just switched from what socionics would define them as.
For one thing, the
Here is the quote,
... and then later on, this,
This thought process is foreign toI was thinking the same thing (or, I what I think is the same thing), that is, that perhaps my last post demonstrated that I use
At some level, the theory has to be seen as separate from any given "reality" interpretation; and often to understand the theory, one has to analyze it for structural relationships, completely apart from any fixed link to "reality." Anyhow, that's often how I like to think.
It is not foreign to me. And in this particular case Jonathan and Expat are not contradicting each other. In fact, they are both right, and I have no problem understanding their respective arguments and ways of reasoning.This thought process is foreign to
I can understand Jonathan's reasoning too, but my immediate reaction is to observe that the system he's putting into place is already starting from an assumption contradicted by external evidence, namely, that a ISFJ in MBTI corresponds to a socionics ISFp. So I think Rocky's right, it's a good case of
What Rocky said is that it's foreign to,
I think that Jonathan would agree with you here. Your immediate reaction is the same as mine, but Jonathan is not really putting the MBTI system into place here, if I have understood him correctly, and I believe that I have, because we seem to be the same type and our reasoning is very similar. From what has been said so far, do you also think that my reasoning is moreI can understand Jonathan's reasoning too, but my immediate reaction is to observe that the system he's putting into place is already starting from an assumption contradicted by external evidence, namely, that a ISFJ in MBTI corresponds to a socionics ISFp. So I think Rocky's right, it's a good case of
I've read on that site many times in the past few years.
I find that profiles on most any site that one that is a true INTP/INTp/ILI will find similarities in INTP/INTJ INTp/INTj profiles, and that is why they or other type people (be it INTj or any other type) confuse the need for the two, think they are all one type, or that the J and P should be switched when going from MBTI to Socionics. (Other types will find this sort of thing in their own type profiles and compared to other types.)
Profiles are interesting, but must be taken with care, consider throwing salt over your shoulder before reading any profile.
I think the functions for an INTP aren't necessarily correctly ordered in MBTI, in Socionics they seem to be more correctly ordered, but I'm still myself trying to determine it as right or wrongly ordered, but I do know that in MBTI I never saw it that my THINKING was primary and that my iNtuition was hindered by it as that profile says (which means that I know my iNtuition is the super first, and that Thinking is a close second.) Also it's noteworthy that on this very site here:
http://the16types.info/beginners.php
one can read quickly what the types are in Socionics, and have access to two tests ... the one being the Type Assistant, but the other a quickie that truly has the Q and A down right, in my book, as well as it is correlated to BrainTyping, and it finds one as their type as I have said that Rational and Irrational do correspond rightly to J and P as Left and Right, blah, blah, blah.
So I go on to say, again, that profiles, whether Socionics or MBTI-sort-of are not going to work to type oneself unless the type writer (ha ha ha) is very objective and truly understand the type being written about and speaks in general terms, not on a personal level which is not possible to correlate between members of one type since upbringing makes for differences that are not type differences, but purely nurturing differences.
I am an ILI (INTp, INTP) (and also a Green/orange under that color thing, being NT by far, and the next closest is SP, and the rest far, far below). This is explained on that site referenced in the first post of this thread through the INTP, INTJ and ENTP profiles in particular. I mean, I am any of those via that site's profiles, while knowing without a doubt that I am ILI, INTp, INTP.
Socionics functions do seem to make way to me for that, in that the first function of ILI is introverted iNtuition and that is true for me, or it's Extraverted Intuition, but in any case it's that I am an ILI since a super introvert cannot be an ENTp, the Oldham stuff seems to be key to viewing this through, since many do say that you can be an introvert and be E-whatever in Socionics.
[If Oldham and the data on each Socionics Type page on this very site are correct for types, then an INTp (ILI) is the most introverted in that they are Solitary, and IMO that's precisely what an INTp, ILI, is at base mode-ness, but a rich life is interior due to that iNtuitive/Thinking P-brain base-ness, and externally they can be plain or colourful, depending on what choices they've made and upbringing/nurturing they've had, but that any/all INTp's are dual in nature to one degree or another, being truly introverted but also extraverted to some extent in the right company. (So on that INTp page here on this site it doesn't really go over that rich inner life for an INTp or the ability of them to have a very extroverted self in some cases of life, it just goes over the base-ness that an INTp is, the most basic, in other words. To describe the other part of an INTp is subjective mostly, except for using the very basic terms for a rich or colourful part of themselves as I have just above.) ]
I really say that's mush ["that you can be an introvert and be E-whatever in Socionics."] since "introverted" as a leading first function must make one internal primarily, introspective primarily, and due to their other functions (the order of them) being more introverted or less introverted depending on what those other functions are. The reverse is true for E-whatevers too, differing levels of Extroversion depending on the other functions ordered as they are for each of the E-primary-(leading first)-function-types.
I do feel that my Ni and Te are that, but very strong in the reverse (Ne Ti), if not equal, but that won't make me an ENTP/p on any day. It makes for a typical INTp, I think.
MBTI gets it wrong, so profiles and interrelationships will be twisted, and confusion between types is blurred so much due to us all being human and quite unique as individuals and only sharing basic framework of sort-of-ness in how it looks externally or can be said to be internally. That is why descriptives should be super basic but only maybe written by the one that understands it the best. Even better, a consortium of those that do, which would mean an ILI writes that profile, or a consortium of ILI's, to hone down the realness of what an ILI is, for example; and use that method with every other type.
So yeah, I've read that site reference in the first post of this thread, and find it amusingly useless for typing, as I do with any 'profile' that I've read thusfar (which is much over the last several years, though not necessarily everything written in English that is out there.)
We have spoken so much for you to assume this, amusing.
I'm sorry if I offended you, Sychophant. Maybe I shouldn't have said anything about it. It is just my impression from some of your posts that you are not very "INTp-ish". But of course it is theoretically possible that I am wrong, since my information input is limited.We have spoken so much for you to assume this, amusing.
And I apologize for having mis-spelled your name, Sycophant.
Darling. Just because I am not the typical "I hate, you the world, and your Mother. You are a fucking dolt, I hope you brun in Hell." INTp does not mean that I am in fact not ILI try talking to people first please, there is nothing I hate worse than when people point out things that they cannot know. I hope I did not lash you too harshly. :wink:
But, I am open minded and if you would like feel free to explain yourself. It could go one of two ways the first being that you make a dolt of yourself the second being that you make a dolt of me.
That is not typical INTp behaviour. I usually can relate quite easily to what other INTps say, but I have some trouble doing it in your case. I don't get INTp vibes from you. That's the main reason I am sceptical of the claim that you would be an INTp.Just because I am not the typical "I hate, you the world, and your Mother. You are a fucking dolt, I hope you brun in Hell." INTp does not mean that I am in fact not ILI.
I would agree that profiles are often misleading, particularly because in trying to make a type seem more concrete by describing some possible manifestations of a type, they may become overly narrow.Crazymaisy
But the larger issue is that all Socionics definitions are based on descriptions, and hence are subject to misinterpretation.
As I've said before, I think the issue ofis really hard to decide simply because people typicaly use all of those in intellectual activities, and it can be hard to sort out between what one uses and which functions are most *psychologically* relevant.
It's interesting when I hear people point out that because I agree with this true statement, I must be
Overall, I fit descriptions of "irrational" (P) tendency pretty well, and Socionics says you can't have
What if I'm LII intuitive subtype? I haven't seen any descriptions for what the two subtypes would be like, but I'm wondering if LII intuitive subtype would fit the following:
* Uses
* Uses
* Is more introverted than extraverted
* Fits the description of irrational (P) types more than rational types (as opposed to LII logical subtype.
On the other hand, if that's the case, I also seem to go into a more ILI mode for certain things...for example, to talk to people who have, or to deal with certain kinds of "real" problems. And then, if, in fact, I can shift between these modes, as it feels like I can, the challenge is figuring out which is the "real me" and which is the "mode."
I can only speak for myself here, but when I draw conclusions on people's type based on what they say, I try to focus on the way they argue, their way of reasoning. Maybe my judgement gets influenced also by the content of what they say to form an overall impression, and maybe that can lead to hasty and sometimes false conclusions, but in general it is not impossible to make a guess about someones type based on their writing that is likely to be true.It's interesting when I hear people point out that because I agree with this true statement, I must be
This is an interesting question that I would like to hear the answer to, too.Overall, I fit descriptions of "irrational" (P) tendency pretty well, and Socionics says you can't have in your ego block and be P and be introverted, which is precisely where it disagrees with MBTI.
What if I'm LII intuitive subtype? I haven't seen any descriptions for what the two subtypes would be like, but I'm wondering if LII intuitive subtype would fit the following:
* Uses more than
* Uses more than
* Is more introverted than extraverted
* Fits the description of irrational (P) types more than rational types (as opposed to LII logical subtype.
In the meantime, have you tried to use intertype relation patterns to find out our type, Jonathan? I now think that I have found at least two real life examples of SEEs, and, as I have said somewhere before, I already know some real life ESEs. So, now I can try to determine which of those types is my conflicting partner and which is my dual. My hypothesis for the moment (and is a pretty strong one) is that I now quite often spend some time in a complete Gamma-quadra, consisting of me (INTp), an ISFj (100 % sure of her type), an ENTj (100 % sure of his type) and an ESFp (not 100 % sure of her type yet).
I have thought a lot about my relations to real life ESFjs. I am 100 % sure of that type in at least two cases and almost 100 % sure in some other cases. My impression so far is that the ESFj (ESE) is probably my conflicting partner and that the ESFp (SEE) could be my dual. If I had to choose which "feeling" is the most pleasant when interacting with them, I would choose the SEE-feeling. I'm still not sure though, mainly because I have spent years with ESFjs on a regular basis, but much less time with ESFps.
Yeah, I've thought a lot about the intertype relationships. I seem to get along with any SF type. I form relationships with ESI types easily, which would be consistent with ILI. I also get along great with SEE types. It's hard to imagine clashing with an ESE type because they seem so nice and caring, but I've rarely had much contact with them. What has your experience with ESEs been like?
By the way, Rick was nice enough to do a VI analysis for me. He says I look like an ILI, with a trace of some characteristics more common in ethical types, but not enough to type me as an ethical type. Interestingly, the closest alternative type was SEI, but he saw ILI as much more likely.
Overall, though, I do suspect that my use of functions is somewhat atypical, or, at least, not prototypical. For example, I'm very aware of going into various "modes." Actually, someone in one of the threads suggested a dichotomy between "prototypical" types (people who fit Socionics perfectly), and "normal" types (people who are perhaps too complex to fit Socionics exactly), and in that dichotomy, I would be "normal."
@Jon: some people think that way with subtypes. Alsp, J/P is somewhat overrated (see MysticSonic's thread).
Here are the Gulenko descriptions:
http://the16types.info/forums/viewtopic.php?t=2000
EDIT/// and your last post seemed similar to what I said happens to people here:
http://the16types.info/forums/viewtopic.php?t=3511
I form relationships with ESI types quite easily too. I agree, the ESEs are really nice and caring, and my clashes with them have not been that dramatic.I form relationships with ESI types easily, which would be consistent with ILI. I also get along great with SEE types. It's hard to imagine clashing with an ESE type because they seem so nice and caring, but I've rarely had much contact with them. What has your experience with ESEs been like?
But we have very different views on life in general, and I have had difficulty adjusting myself to their life rhythm. I have tried to avoid pushing arguments with them, because they don't like heavy discussions and tend to get irritated when I argue with them.
One "detail" that I've noticed is that I tend to get irritated when they interrupt me (as they often do) before I have had the chance to finish my reasoning and explain what I mean. From my perspective they often misunderstand my point, or think the whole discussion is pointless. And they probably get irritated of me first.
When we work together on practical matters or try to fix practical problems, they seem to get irritated of me sometimes when I don't immiadetely understand what they want me to do, and sometimes when I have thought that I understood them, I didn't. And things that are easy for them is not easy for me, and the other way around. That's common knowledge, of course, but we don't seem to complement each other very well.
So far the SEEs seem to accept more easily that we have different views on a subject, without getting irritated.
These are very interesting. As I suspected, ILE, LII intuitive subtype, and ILI intuitive subtype are all pretty close in these descriptions.
The one thing I don't get is why ILIs are always described as being negative. If I'm ILI, then I'm definitely the intuitive subtype. (The logical subtype sounds like the practical sort of person who is always talking about plans and doing this and that.) But I'm certainly not the "grumbling," ill-humored type. I'll mention things that other people ignore or seem to think doesn't really matter (i.e., if the website's down, the material that's supposed to go out is full of mistakes, etc.), but I'm certainly not negative.
In fact, some people tell me that one thing they like about me is that I always see the positive, always give the benefit of the doubt.
Perhaps ILI descriptions are made based on experiences with a few ILIs who just happened to have a bad attitude? I mean, there's really nothing about
Sure there is.I mean, there's really nothing about
But I'd still say you are LII.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote