LII-LSE Mirage/Illusionary relations (INTj + ESTj)

[Jarno]

It may have to do with what you also said about mis-testing, but MBTI type is determined by tests. In contrast to socionics.

yep most likely mistesting, or indeed older/lesser accurate dichotomie criteria.

Nonetheless, extraverts are most often considered loud compared to introverts.

mbti however is also tested in other ways like interview etc to check whether the written test was accurate. depends on which institute etc took the test. (I have this information out of an MBTI book.)

[UDP]

Well first of all, you ain't rapped long enough; to be fuckin' with me, you, you ain't strong enough

I was actually going to use that in a recent response of my own but I like it here, too.

[Airman]

It is useless arguing with Workaholics, Jarno, she´s always right and she always comes up on top of arguments. Big inferiority complex there. I just took her off my ignore list to see and I read such self-sufficient bullshit. She´s totally ego-centered. Don´t mind arguing with her. She´s always right. As I said this may stem from a compensation of an inferiority complex.

[mikemex]

I actually agree with workaholic. Socionics and MBTI types aren't the same thing by any chance. MBTI is about how you behave and Socionics about how you work internally. MBTI ISTP covers both the stereotypical SLI and the quiet SLE, but they represent very different ways of thinking in socionics. One is a caregiver and the other is an aggressor.

About what was said before about LIIs being mishantropes... well, I think any sane person will develop such tendencies over time. Most people just plain suck.

[Not A Communist Shill]

you are misinformed on multiple levels.

Let's start here.

introversion extraversion completely different?

Take for example this:

"introverts are responders, and extraverts are initiaters."

My question to you is, is this a socionics or mbti statement?

In Socionics, it depends on what information is being processed and responded to.

[Jarno]

In Socionics, it depends on what information is being processed and responded to.

yes but the same statement is used in both theories, that was to prove my point that the dichotomies aren't completely different.

[Not A Communist Shill]

yes but the same statement is used in both theories, that was to prove my point that the dichotomies aren't completely different.

WorkaholicsAnon said the concept was completely different - not necessarily the form.

[Jarno]

WorkaholicsAnon said the concept was completely different - not necessarily the form.

but with using the same kind of question you would get the same kind of answer from the same kind of people, therefor same types in both systems. And that's what this is about.

[Suz]

I was actually going to use that in a recent response of my own but I like it here, too.

LOL Ryu!! U thugging me up?

[Not A Communist Shill]

but with using the same kind of question you would get the same kind of answer from the same kind of people, therefor same types in both systems. And that's what this is about.

But with Socionics understanding, it's known to be a confuddled question. People would generally assume that it refers to social encounters. This would not correspond to what the question could mean in terms of Socionic understanding.

[Jarno]

But with Socionics understanding, it's known to be a confuddled question. People would generally assume that it refers to social encounters. This would not correspond to what the question could mean in terms of Socionic understanding.

oke so what socionics question would you ask people to determine their type (I/E)?

[Not A Communist Shill]

oke so what socionics question would you ask people to determine their type (I/E)?

I wouldn't ask a question explicitly involving that dichotomy. I would ask them about what kinds of information they feel comfortable dealing with, or perhaps ask them to describe themselves and determine what areas they seem most involved in.

[Jarno]

I wouldn't ask a question explicitly involving that dichotomy. I would ask them about what kinds of information they feel comfortable dealing with, or perhaps ask them to describe themselves and determine what areas they seem most involved in.

I guess you don't know what question you need to use to determine I/E.

[Not A Communist Shill]

I guess you don't know what question you need to use to determine I/E.

That dichotomy is really a MBTI dichotomy rather than a Socionics one - but I don't deny that it's not at the back of my mind, and that I consider it. It's not that I don't know what questions I need to ask in relation to that dichotomy, it's not just not of primary relevance compared to other lines of inquiry, and also, questions in that regard tendto be rather obvious in what they are asking, making it easy to engineer an answer and perhaps not really consider the question.

The Socionics functions work no matter the extent to which the individual is affiliated with nightclubs.

[Jarno]

That dichotomy is really a MBTI dichotomy rather than a Socionics one - but I don't deny that it's not at the back of my mind, and that I consider it. It's not that I don't know what questions I need to ask in relation to that dichotomy, it's not just not of primary relevance compared to other lines of inquiry, and also, questions in that regard tendto be rather obvious in what they are asking, making it easy to engineer an answer and perhaps not really consider the question.

The Socionics functions work no matter the extent to which the individual is affiliiated with nightclubs.

It's a myth that the dichotomy is MBTI. socionists use dichotomies all the time.
As Rick said, russian sites favor dichotomies over IM.

You call it obvious what you are asking, I would say it's simpeler, than asking what 'information' someone likes. You also don't go asking someone whether they like objects or fields. People are themselves barely aware of the use of their leading function anyways.

[Not A Communist Shill]

It's a myth that the dichotomy is MBTI. socionists use dichotomies all the time.
As Rick said, russian sites favor dichotomies over IM.

You call it obvious what you are asking, I would say it's simpeler, than asking what 'information' someone likes. You also don't go asking someone whether they like objects or fields.

..."The Russians"...okay...


it's still more of a MBTI dichotomy than a Socionics one. And the concept of extroversion\introversion is still not identical between the theories.

All personality typologies use dichotomies, otherwise everybody would be the same type.

I don't see why an understanding of objects and fields is necessary to comprehend the functions.

[Jarno]

it's still more of a MBTI dichotomy than a Socionics one. And the concept of extroversion\introversion is still not identical between the theories.

reagardless of the compatibility between mbti and socionics, a socionic type can be sorted into introvert or extravert. It's a dichotomy used by socionics. Whether it is used more or less by another system has nothing to do with it.

[Not A Communist Shill]

reagardless of the compatibility between mbti and socionics, a type can be sorted into introvert or extravert. simple as that.

I'm sure they could be sorted into owl or badger, if you made the definitions and had the will. I think with the MBTI approach, there is more of an inclination to type someone as an extrovert before the type has been determined, while with Socionics, the functions are determined first, and by virtue of that, it follows that they are a Socionics extrovert or introvert.

If Socionists DID type using E\I, N\S etc. dichotomies, they'd have problematic circumstances where someone could score ENTJ after getting a much higher result on Intuition than anything else, and where it'd be impossible to actually properly analyse what Socionics functions they are actually using. e.g. what if such a person had their strongest function as Ne, and their second function as Ti? They would not be ENTj, but according to the test, they would be.

[Trevor]

From what I've seen it's a good relationship.

[Jarno]

while with Socionics, the functions are determined first, and by virtue of that, it follows that they are a Socionics extrovert or introvert.

Interesting to read your thoughts.

Have you read that somewhere?

Why can't it be the other way around, first the dichotomy and then conclude the functions?

[Not A Communist Shill]

Interesting to read your thoughts.

Have you read that somewhere?

Why can't it be the other way around, first the dichotomy and then conclude the functions?

My previous and updated post partly explains why. The main reason is because it's the functions that determine Socionics intertype relationships, not the E\I etc. dichotomies. Also, I've explained before, the E\I etc. dichotomies are not specifically (if at all) focused on the concept of information processing, and are more inclined to be determined by culture, environment etc. when a person is asked questions relating to those dichotomies.

[Trevor]

Dogma is something to be defended.

[Not A Communist Shill]

isn't

[Jarno]

If Socionists DID type using E\I, N\S etc. dichotomies, they'd have problematic circumstances where someone could score ENTJ after getting a much higher result on Intuition than anything else, and where it'd be impossible to actually properly analyse what Socionics functions they are actually using. e.g. what if such a person had their strongest function as Ne, and their second function as Ti? They would not be ENTj, but according to the test, they would be.

Here you would have had simple made a mistake with the last dichotomy. He scored J instead of P. Making errors isn't just for dichotomies, but could also be done with functions.


I see it like this, you don't have to know a horses dna before you can conclude it is a zebra. Looking at its stripes is enough.

[Suz]

I'm sure they could be sorted into owl or badger, if you made the definitions and had the will. I think with the MBTI approach, there is more of an inclination to type someone as an extrovert before the type has been determined, while with Socionics, the functions are determined first, and by virtue of that, it follows that they are a Socionics extrovert or introvert.

If Socionists DID type using E\I, N\S etc. dichotomies, they'd have problematic circumstances where someone could score ENTJ after getting a much higher result on Intuition than anything else, and where it'd be impossible to actually properly analyse what Socionics functions they are actually using. e.g. what if such a person had their strongest function as Ne, and their second function as Ti? They would not be ENTj, but according to the test, they would be.

This was my understanding as well.

[buckland]

I've never been romantically interested in a LII, but I grew up with one.

An LSE working with an LII can be very productive. + + + = something that works well, makes sense, looks right, and is creative.

I have yet to find an illusionary couple. I would think it would get boring.

I have been watching the British Hornblower movies and noticed that the relationship between Hornblower and Captain Pellew in LSE/LII and seems to be very well played. I have a friend who's LSE, and it's very similar to how we interact where the admiration/respect is very visible though communicated in relative formality. Might also be tied in to the fact that it's a male relationship though.