Results 1 to 29 of 29

Thread: OK, so let me hear it

  1. #1

    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    New York
    Posts
    6,074
    Mentioned
    2 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default OK, so let me hear it...

    ... why is socionics better than the MBTI?

    Since we all know so much about the two, this shouldn't be a hard question.
    MAYBE I'LL BREAK DOWN!!!


    Quote Originally Posted by vague
    Rocky's posts are as enjoyable as having wisdom teeth removed.

  2. #2
    Kristiina's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Location
    Estonia, Tartu
    Posts
    4,021
    Mentioned
    5 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Because MBTI doesn't really explain why there are so many borderline-type people. And if someone in borderline, there is no way to decide between the types. At least in socionics we can use the functions to type people.
    (Or maybe I don't know enough about MBTI)
    EIE, ENFj, intuitive subtype.
    E3 (probably 3w4)

    Cool ILI hubbys are better than LSIs any time!

    Old blog: http://firsttimeinusa.blogspot.com/
    New blog: http://having-a-kid.blogspot.com/

  3. #3

    Join Date
    Aug 2005
    Location
    i forgot
    Posts
    558
    Mentioned
    1 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    They are in the same category.

    MBTI, however, has been very succesfully commercialized, which is something socionists have tried to do with socionics, but without (complete) success.

    YOU ARE JEALOUS, YOU SOCIONOFOLLIES.

    Maybe.

    My theory needs exploration.
    thing.

  4. #4
    Banned
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Location
    Ich bin ein ubel glied
    Posts
    8,198
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Because socionics isn't MBTI ... lol ...

  5. #5
    I'm back, assholes! Herzy's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2005
    TIM
    SLE
    Posts
    5,098
    Mentioned
    44 Post(s)
    Tagged
    7 Thread(s)

    Default

    Socionics actually describes the relationships between people, rather than wasting all the time masturbating over how "accurate" your type's description is.
    , Se-sub
    8w8-3w8-7w8 sx/sx

  6. #6

    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Posts
    1,969
    Mentioned
    2 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Most of the stuff about why Socionics is better than MBTI is really just biased commentary from people who happen to be Socionists.

    MBTI is really very well researched, and there's a lot of empirical data on it. Various things that are said, such as that it's all about how people come out on the test, or that intertype relationships aren't of interest to MBTI practitioners, just aren't true.

    However, as we know, there are certainly a lot of interesting insights from the Socionics community, that may not have a counterpart in the MBTI community.

    I think one area where Socionics has a certain appeal over MBTI is in explaining, say, why a person who in Socionics is ISFp is in some ways like one who is ESFj.

    In MBTI, the similarity between ISFP and ESFJ is explained by saying that they're both dominant F types, whereas in Socionics, it's explained by saying that they have the same two functions in their ego block. Depending on your own empirical observations, you may find the Socionics answer more satisfying.

    Obviously, in this and other examples, the definitions involved are very different. Unfortunately in Socionics, sometimes people mix definitions to come up with hybrid descriptions and conceptions, with varying degrees of success.

  7. #7
    I'm back, assholes! Herzy's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2005
    TIM
    SLE
    Posts
    5,098
    Mentioned
    44 Post(s)
    Tagged
    7 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Jonathan
    Most of the stuff about why Socionics is better than MBTI is really just biased commentary from people who happen to be Socionists.
    The fact that most of the people on this forum were acquainted with MBTI for a while before discovering, and "switching" to Socionics says something.
    , Se-sub
    8w8-3w8-7w8 sx/sx

  8. #8

    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    New York
    Posts
    6,074
    Mentioned
    2 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Jonathan
    In MBTI, the similarity between ISFP and ESFJ is explained by saying that they're both dominant F types, whereas in Socionics, it's explained by saying that they have the same two functions in their ego block. Depending on your own empirical observations, you may find the Socionics answer more satisfying.
    Yes, that's the big one, that's what I was getting at.

    In fact, ISFPs even have similar qualities to ENFJs, that I can notice. And I can say, they both express Fe. But then again, somebody can look at it through MBTI-eyes and say, "They're simple both dominant Feelers". It's things like that that make it impossible to say something like, "Ahhahah... I'm right... you're wrong... boowhoo...". This is the problem with MBTI/socionics "fights"... we both have qualities that we attribute to individual functions, and then we have a seperate set of qualities that we attribute to the position of the functions in the model. And it's all screwd up. I guess this is why people can take one of the systems, and mold it to work with reality (too many variables)...

    And the MBTI doesn't have a relationship system. They study some relationships, but nothing consistant has been set up. But from the other side, I can see how socionics is too "rigid" (I've said this before)... they make it seem like people are square and rigid "building blocks" that people fit together with... that's dangerous. But, socioncis relationships is still a refreshing look from the MBTI. And you can notice some interesting things if you look back at MBTI stuff, like, see an MBTI ENTJ saying something like he only dates ISFJs. I like that, better than having a system tell you what your dual is first! But I'm still somewhat surprised to see socionics duals in MBTI relationships... I've actually seen that a good deal on MBTI boards. Plus, there are some other things, like I remember seeing on MBTI statistics that ISTP and INFJ were the top two types that look for spiritual balance... and those two are both Delta types in socionics (I believe ESTP was last according to those stats... opposite quadra in socionics as well), and ISFP and ENTP were the bottom two types in terms of education (both socionics Alphas). Interesting stuff like that.

    Anyway, I started this thread to see if we were all just being "dogmatic" or something. Socionics still tells more than the MBTI... but believe it or not, the MBTI is much more "grounded" in a sense. Socionics has very little empirical backing... which is one of the parts I find scary about it.
    MAYBE I'LL BREAK DOWN!!!


    Quote Originally Posted by vague
    Rocky's posts are as enjoyable as having wisdom teeth removed.

  9. #9
    Let's fly now Gilly's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    TIM
    3w4 sx/so
    Posts
    24,757
    Mentioned
    91 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Socionics adheres more closely to Jungian theory.
    But, for a certainty, back then,
    We loved so many, yet hated so much,
    We hurt others and were hurt ourselves...

    Yet even then, we ran like the wind,
    Whilst our laughter echoed,
    Under cerulean skies...

  10. #10

    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    New York
    Posts
    6,074
    Mentioned
    2 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Yes, but the problem I've found with Jung is, more than two types identify with one of his functions. For example, all four IxTx types may identify with Ti, ad four ISxx types identify with Si, etc... I was surprised to find, for example, an ISTJ on an MBTI board who related to Jung's Si as much as I did. It just seems like a mix of types or something...
    MAYBE I'LL BREAK DOWN!!!


    Quote Originally Posted by vague
    Rocky's posts are as enjoyable as having wisdom teeth removed.

  11. #11
    Creepy-pokeball

    Default

    Pygmalion say hi to Galatea. Galatea say hi to Pygmalion.

  12. #12
    Olga's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2005
    Location
    London, UK
    Posts
    1,596
    Mentioned
    36 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Do you think it is of benefit to know MBTI? As far as I understood from this topic - not really. Grounding needs time and research. From the psychodynamic perspective - you probably do not need that much of research anyway or if you do it must be not that easy to achieve. Does MBTI deals with psychodynamics/blocks successfully or may be explains the development of personality in time? Is it universal and flexible enough knowldege?

    I see socionics as flexible and developing knowldege. Intertype relationships are at the moment like a medical prescriptions for any sickness you have - this is not right. I don't think we need medical prescriptions like that as each individual is unic and may be exception from the rule one way or the other. This can be changed with a new and healthy approach to life altogether and can be considered of use in times of crisis. I don't think we need to analyse every step we make or every word we say. Bear in mind that what socionics suggest about the intertype relationships is not precise, not complete and in some cases simply wrong.

    At the end of the day what is the purpose? To get insight or to box up people? What exactly we are going to do we the knowldege? Open schools and get money like socionists in Russia or Dianetics here? I would like to know what are they teaching there and why it is more worth than, for example, astrology.
    School of Associative socionics: http://socionics4you.com/

  13. #13

    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    New York
    Posts
    6,074
    Mentioned
    2 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Olga
    Do you think it is of benefit to know MBTI?
    What's different about the MBTI?

    They rely on testing to discover type (not good)

    They order the functions differently (some people find that annoying, others find it just interesting to learn)

    They have no intertype relation system (most would say that's a fault, I agree, though I also am skeptical of people following socionics relations too closely...)

    They have no VI methods, whatsoever (definatly a bad thing).

    They have done a lot more research and collected more information sbout people over a longer period of time (this is something socionics needs more of).

    But what's interesting is, that for ISFJ, their functions would be Si-Fe-Ti-Ne instead of Fi-Se-Ti-Ne... and people accept that the same way socionic people accept Model-A... so maybe we are all deluding ourselves.

    Does MBTI deals with psychodynamics/blocks successfully or may be explains the development of personality in time?
    No.

    At the end of the day what is the purpose? To get insight or to box up people? What exactly we are going to do we the knowldege? Open schools and get money like socionists in Russia or Dianetics here?
    There are many, many purposes outside of individual use, but those won't happen until someone have prove this stuff like a science... that may be awhile...
    MAYBE I'LL BREAK DOWN!!!


    Quote Originally Posted by vague
    Rocky's posts are as enjoyable as having wisdom teeth removed.

  14. #14
    Creepy-pokeball

    Default

    Beebe's MBTI has a function relation system but it is freaking hard to find on the net and it is more crude in nature.

  15. #15
    Creepy-pokeball

    Default

    Personally, I dont think either will ever be taken seriously in a significant proportion-- at least in America. MBTI may be institutionalized but not at a level of signifigance. Thank life for that.

  16. #16
    escaping anndelise's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    WA
    TIM
    IEE 649 sx/sp cp
    Posts
    6,329
    Mentioned
    208 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Rocky
    They order the functions differently (some people find that annoying, others find it just interesting to learn)
    mbti's function order aligns right up with Model A's, except that their top 4 are model A's "Strong" and their bottom 4 are model A's "Weak". This puts mbti's function order as related by quadras. Basically, turn model A on it's side and you have mbti's order.

    (I fall into the "interesting to learn" category )
    IEE 649 sx/sp cp

  17. #17

    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    New York
    Posts
    6,074
    Mentioned
    2 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by anndelise
    Quote Originally Posted by Rocky
    They order the functions differently (some people find that annoying, others find it just interesting to learn)
    mbti's function order aligns right up with Model A's, except that their top 4 are model A's "Strong" and their bottom 4 are model A's "Weak". This puts mbti's function order as related by quadras. Basically, turn model A on it's side and you have mbti's order.
    Not for Introverts.
    MAYBE I'LL BREAK DOWN!!!


    Quote Originally Posted by vague
    Rocky's posts are as enjoyable as having wisdom teeth removed.

  18. #18
    Jesus is the cruel sausage consentingadult's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Posts
    2,782
    Mentioned
    52 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Rocky
    They have no intertype relation system (most would say that's a fault, I agree, though I also am skeptical of people following socionics relations too closely...)
    Indeed, not as extensive as Socionics does, however, a book such as "Just Your Type" by Paul Tieger and Barbara Barron Tieger has no equivalent in Socionics (at least not for the English language)

    Quote Originally Posted by Rocky
    They have no VI methods, whatsoever (definatly a bad thing).
    No formal methods indeed, however, a book such as "The Art of Speed Reading People" by Paul Tieger and Barbara Barron Tieger has no equivalent in Socionics (at least not for the English language).

    I would like to mention another major difference between MBTI and Socionics: complexity. Socionics is way to complex for the average person, and hence has no use for them. Although not as good as Socionics, at least MBTI is brought in such a fashion that it can help a lot of people improve their understanding of themselves and others. On most socionics-sites, descriptions of types are so abstract, that I personally feel they cannot be used for practical purposes. Perhaps MBTI is way too much NF, but Socionics is way too much NT.

    I use both systems to construct my own views on psychological type, as both have something to offer. As does, e.g. The Big 5.
    The future of Socionics:
    Quote Originally Posted by Maritsa View Post
    Many black Americans are SEE type.

  19. #19
    escaping anndelise's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    WA
    TIM
    IEE 649 sx/sp cp
    Posts
    6,329
    Mentioned
    208 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Rocky
    Quote Originally Posted by anndelise
    Quote Originally Posted by Rocky
    They order the functions differently (some people find that annoying, others find it just interesting to learn)
    mbti's function order aligns right up with Model A's, except that their top 4 are model A's "Strong" and their bottom 4 are model A's "Weak". This puts mbti's function order as related by quadras. Basically, turn model A on it's side and you have mbti's order.
    Not for Introverts.
    oh f***, that's right. argh, i hate when i forget about the introvert differences.

    I must say, though, that socionic's introverts make much more sense to me than mbti's ever did.

    Now, if only i can figure out how to convert mbti's type communications model, creativity model, learning model, leadership style model, and problem solving model into socionics stuff.

    argh, not enought interest.
    IEE 649 sx/sp cp

  20. #20

    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    New York
    Posts
    6,074
    Mentioned
    2 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by consentingadult
    Quote Originally Posted by Rocky
    They have no intertype relation system (most would say that's a fault, I agree, though I also am skeptical of people following socionics relations too closely...)
    Indeed, not as extensive as Socionics does, however, a book such as "Just Your Type" by Paul Tieger and Barbara Barron Tieger has no equivalent in Socionics (at least not for the English language)
    I'm familiar with them.

    I would like to mention another major difference between MBTI and Socionics: complexity. Socionics is way to complex for the average person, and hence has no use for them.
    I don't think complexity is a bad thing for socionics, but it can be bad if it's not "right". Like, trying to make systems for things that don't exist, and trying to predict what can't be predicted, and so on. So, we have to be careful with what lines up with reality, and waht doesn't before we go too far...

    Although not as good as Socionics, at least MBTI is brought in such a fashion that it can help a lot of people improve their understanding of themselves and others. On most socionics-sites, descriptions of types are so abstract, that I personally feel they cannot be used for practical purposes. Perhaps MBTI is way too much NF, but Socionics is way too much NT.
    Yeah, I agree. We need more Sensor types now. :/ I only know of one system like that, though...

    I use both systems to construct my own views on psychological type, as both have something to offer. As does, e.g. The Big 5.
    Yeah, I agree. Trying to take what I can get from socionics, but then seeing how it matches up with "real" types, and believing more what my expereinces tell me.
    MAYBE I'LL BREAK DOWN!!!


    Quote Originally Posted by vague
    Rocky's posts are as enjoyable as having wisdom teeth removed.

  21. #21

    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    New York
    Posts
    6,074
    Mentioned
    2 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by anndelise
    I must say, though, that socionic's introverts make much more sense to me than mbti's ever did.
    How so? How do you see ISFP's socionic funtions more accurate than MBTI, etc...?
    MAYBE I'LL BREAK DOWN!!!


    Quote Originally Posted by vague
    Rocky's posts are as enjoyable as having wisdom teeth removed.

  22. #22
    Olga's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2005
    Location
    London, UK
    Posts
    1,596
    Mentioned
    36 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Rocky wrote:

    But what's interesting is, that for ISFJ, their functions would be Si-Fe-Ti-Ne instead of Fi-Se-Ti-Ne... and people accept that the same way socionic people accept Model-A... so maybe we are all deluding ourselves.


    I think it would be good to argue with them about that. The thing is if you look at model B as butterfly, then potentially Fi Fe and Si Se will come out as strong but still not the right cup of tea suggesting that I am more Si and Fe. I learned to use it to my benefit but I was always very clumsy with Fe and I use Si only when exhasted (too much Superid for me) or to dilute Fi a bit.

    What is the medicine against deluding? Always look for new and fresh ideas. Ideas or thought structures in fact is not like a stone but rather moving and fluctuating and there is never end of looking at things from different perspectives and expressing it in different forms. Though I do not mean chaos - just enough space for freedom and creativity to push things forward. I think this forum is a good example- we always look outside the box and from different perspecitves. We create socioinics and so far I do not see any signs of coming crisis.

    I agree socionincs is too complex but things will change, we jsts need to work on it. It would be nice to come together and have a conference where we could suggest changes or at least identify directions for a change.
    The new science or changes in socionincs will not materialise until we start to create structure and system out of chaos. We need to write a book. I do not see why we could not do it all together. Different people can write different chapters depending on the topic they are interested. And thanks God we have got our own test writes as well. As far as I understand there is no literature about socionics in English. But there are socionists - people who spent lots of time here, collected a lot of knowledge and ready to do something about it. Who is going to do the science if not we?
    School of Associative socionics: http://socionics4you.com/

  23. #23
    Jesus is the cruel sausage consentingadult's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Posts
    2,782
    Mentioned
    52 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Olga
    What is the medicine against deluding?
    There are so many people who work with MBTI and use the functions, such as the Tiegers, and supposedly are totally wrong on the functions when it comes to introverts. How come no one ever found out? Are they that blind? I recently asked the question on socionics.com: "Perhaps this whole function stuff is just a lot of bull shit??" i.e. Jung, Socionics and MBTI are all wrong!? Alas, no one answered...
    The future of Socionics:
    Quote Originally Posted by Maritsa View Post
    Many black Americans are SEE type.

  24. #24
    Olga's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2005
    Location
    London, UK
    Posts
    1,596
    Mentioned
    36 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    I do not see any problem to answer this questions. If you found a tool to help you to treat an illness it may be far from perfect but it will work to a certain degree. If your approach is an individualist rather than general you can improve this tool to fit a certain group of people but not to the other group.

    If you look at psychology in general - it is a power but some areas are better developed than others, some are more in a mess. If you look for application of psycholgy by the real systems and real people - the variablity will be huge and in some cases very far from the theory because people are very good to turn and twist the theory the way they want to - to put the diagnosis they see as true. Nobody and nothing is perfect but it still can work. So far the research suggests - not a therapy but a relationship between the patient and the client is the most important ingredient for success of therapoitic threatment.

    Are we going to write the book or not?
    School of Associative socionics: http://socionics4you.com/

  25. #25
    Jesus is the cruel sausage consentingadult's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Posts
    2,782
    Mentioned
    52 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Olga
    So far the research suggests - not a therapy but a relationship between the patient and the client is the most important ingredient for success of therapoitic threatment.
    aren't the patient and the client the very same thing? :wink:

    Anyway, I agree with this view, as someone who is in therapy himself. But there is another factor as well: the willingness of the client to change... but that is something beyond the scope of this discussion, and I dont want to be the typical ENFp who ventures off into another directio and gets sidetracked...

    But to get back at my question: the thing is, that I can recognize in myself, that I first and foremost use some perceiving function (which I think is indeed Intuition), and are less inclined to use some judging function (which I think is Feeling indeed). When studying both MBTI and Socionics, this poses no problems, as an extraverted type. But I've never heard an introvert say something like "yeah, I do use my introverted sensing more than my extraverted thinking, which indeed makes me ISTP." Perhaps some introverts here can shed some light on this, so we extraverts might better understand, as for extraverts the situation seems to be less complicated...
    The future of Socionics:
    Quote Originally Posted by Maritsa View Post
    Many black Americans are SEE type.

  26. #26
    Olga's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2005
    Location
    London, UK
    Posts
    1,596
    Mentioned
    36 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Function is not just something to use it is an integral part of you and the base function must be represented stronger as anything else. If you are ENFP - then your core is intuition of possibilties. You are the ID type and this is the power of Life - never ending possibilities - feel the power of ID block . What is your favourite colours, green or any shades of green?

    With sensing better to ask Rocky. I have met people with strong Si, they see everything form a very different perspective, they feel their won body well and treat it as a tempel. I am not sure if all of them but it is very individualistic almost spiritual experince - inspirational, because the majority of people do not remember that they have a body or how to treat it right.

    I am full of silly mistakes - an integral part of me!
    School of Associative socionics: http://socionics4you.com/

  27. #27
    escaping anndelise's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    WA
    TIM
    IEE 649 sx/sp cp
    Posts
    6,329
    Mentioned
    208 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Rocky
    Quote Originally Posted by anndelise
    I must say, though, that socionic's introverts make much more sense to me than mbti's ever did.
    How so? How do you see ISFP's socionic funtions more accurate than MBTI, etc...?
    Ha, I bet you thought this would be a quick easy response....dontcha know me better by now????


    When I first got into Keirsey…about 8-9 years ago, I learned to type people by E/I, N/S, T/F, J/P.

    My step brother, seemed to have difficulty abstracting, but he was far better at it than my stepfather. Though, not nearly as well as my mom, brother, and myself. He was very much into physical experiences. Testing things out and learning best via hands on experimenting. All in all, he was clearly an S. Logic wasn't as much of a problem for him, but he did seem to associate the things he learned with the emotions (and physical sensations) of the moment. F.
    (Note: Unfortunately, his early childhood had been horribly traumatic, and by the time my mom became part of the family, (step father had adopted him from a family member). He had a difficult time interacting with other kids, but mostly cuz, he wasn't really given much of a chance to make mistakes socially. One mistake, and he'd be on restriction for a week. (This is one cause for quite a few family disagreements.) However, he also had a strong desire to please those around him. He just needed very clear guidance on what each person would consider pleasing. I think he still has difficulties relating to people, but it's clearly an issue evolving from his social isolation.)
    My step bro adapted easily. Instead of trying to fit the world into his beliefs, he adjusted himself to fit his world. He did have some adaptability issues. But, mostly because he'd been on Ritalin since he was 2 years old. (Another cause for many a family arguments.) P. There had been some debate as to whether my step bro was an extrovert or introvert. It was a difficult thing to tell because we had to take into consideration the previous abuse, the current isolation, and the effects of the Ritalin. At this point, we could only feel certain of calling him an SFP. Though the ISFP descriptions seemed to fit better than the other sfp descriptions.

    About 3-4 years ago, I ran across mbti functions via Linda Berns' work. Under hers and similar works, the dichotomies were ….rearranged…. To provide 8 functions. 4 of the functions are listed and defined below:

    Se = experiencing the immediate context; noticing changes and opportunities for action; being drawn to act on the physical world; accumulating experiences; scanning for visible reactions and relevant data; recognizing "what is".
    Si = reviewing past experiences; "what is" evoking "what was"; seeking detailed information and links to what is known; recalling stored impressions; accumulating data; recognizing the way things have always been.
    Fi = valuing; considering importance and worth; reviewing for incongruity; evaluating something based on the truths on which it is based; clarifying values to achieve accord; deciding if something is of significance and worth standing up for.
    Fe = connecting; considering others and the group-- organizing to meet their needs and honor their values and feelings; maintaining societal, organizational, or group values; adjusting and accommodating others; deciding if something is appropriate or acceptable to others.

    Well, this seemed interesting, and after searching other info about it I found I liked her writing style better than others' and bought a number of her booklets to see how their descriptions fit in with my observations. While I felt that there was something there, I was quite disappointed…and confused.
    ---
    My step brother, ISFP, according to mbti was FiSe. According to Berns, values (his own and others) were very important to my step brother. Hmmm, well, ok, that kind of fits in with desiring to please and needing to know what would please those he favors. Considering importance and worth…oh dear…not him. This doesn't fit very well at all. Oh well, I suppose, if they are talking about what he himself considers of worth.. I guess this could fit. Evaluating something based on the truths on which it is based…..huh? Clarifying values to achieve accord…well, he needs someone else to clarify their values before he can work to meet them...but he really sucks at figuring out what someone else wants. Odd, this kind of matches the Fe description. Deciding if something is of significance and worth standing up for….um..well…maybe this isn't applying so well cuz of the issues he's got.
    (Oooh, look at the Fe one, connecting… I'm not quite sure how they are applying it. Considering others and the group, he tries to…I think lack of experience and his issues keep him from being as good as it as he wants to be. Organizing to meet the group's needs and honor their values and feelings…oh yeah, I can easily see him doing this if he was ever able to get some social successes. Adjusting and accommodating others… as annoying as he is, he's quite accommodating and adjusts himself to those he's around. Especially when he's given clear information to work around. He does seem to have problems when say..mom isn't as clear in her instructions. Deciding if something is appropriate or acceptable to others…well, if he knew what that someone considered as appropriate or acceptable he'd know whether something fit or not. Isn't this the same as considering importance and worth like the Fi? The Fe seems to fit much better than the Fi…but..I suppose they know better what they are doing.)

    Second listed is experiencing the immediate context. Um, well, I'd have probably have listed this as his first instead of his second. Noticing changes and opportunities for action….oh wait, um..well…if I stretch it I can make it fit. Being drawn to act on the physical world, oh yes, all those little hands on experiments. Accumulating experiences...yep, the more real world experiences he gets, the more info he has to draw on. Scanning for visible reactions and relevant data…um…no, I don't think so, maybe(?). Recognizing "what is"….uhhhhh, not really, he does much better if he can look back on it.
    (Oooh, look at the Si one, reviewing past experiences…oh yes!!! Wouldn't this line up with the accumulating experiences of Se? "What is" evoking "what was"…yeah, it's fun watching him bring up something that happened in the past cuz something just now triggered it. Seeking detailed information and links to what is known…well, yeah, isn't that part of the whole hands on thing and accumulating experiences, and experiencing context…oh wait..it's not necessarily "immediate" context. Recalling stored impressions….wasn't that just covered in the "what is" evoking "what was"? Accumulating data…uh..isn't that like accumulating experiences? Recognizing the way things have always been…..oh..hm…I haven't a clue if this would apply or not. Garsh, the Si one seems to fit better than the Se.)

    Well, if the Fe one seems to fit better, and the Si one fits better, then maybe he is FeSi…but that's ESFJ..(reads ESFJ description)…*chuckles*….I don't think so.

    SiFe seems to fit better actually…but that makes him ISFJ. (reads ISFJ description)…that sounds too much like my stepfather than my step bro.

    Re-goes through the whole typing process a few more times. Argh, it doesn't seem to be making much sense. Maybe I should look for some other info on it….(spends the next 3-4 years intermittently looking for better info to help clarify some conflicts in the typing process).
    ---

    Then, a tad over 6 months ago, I was introduced to the socionics forum. Socionics listed ISFp as SiFe. The various attempts on socionic sites and forums, at defining the functions seemed to correlate with mbti's. The order seemed to correlate better with my observations. I also now had another ISFp from which to draw further observations. And while I still had issues with some of the descriptions and so-called function definitions, socionics seemed to fit better with my own observations.

    And then….oh….and then….*drools*…I finally found the basics of what was used for defining socionic functions. The three "aspects of reality" that when combined together create 8 functions. Things are finally clicking into place between my observations, understandings, and socionics.


    Taking socionic's functional approach in context of "aspects of reality": ISFp
    Si = external qualities of observer's relations to objects in motion = perceives information about physical experience, sensations, reflects of events on one's inner state, ability to distinguish previously experienced aesthetic sensations from new ones and ability to "collect" and remember them.
    Fe = internal qualities of objects in motion = perceives information about objects' internal processes, internal changes, mood, emotional activity, arousability, excitation, and subduedness.


    Socionics ISFp SiFe
    Both my step brother and Richard spend quite a bit of time gaining information from their physical experiences. Not necessarily what's going on around them. They CAN get info from their surroundings, but the vast majority of it comes from their own personal hands on experiences. Being hands on gives them the sensations that seems to get stored in their bodies…much like the concept of "cell memory". If I observe closely, I can actually see similarities in bodily reactions such as a twitch of the arm each time Richard talks about a previous experience. He doesn't seem to reflect much on his own inner state, however, he does constantly review experiences from the past…like... re-experiencing them maybe with a slight modification or such. It's very difficult to get him to talk about what's going on his mind. He doesn't particularly care to observe himself. He…has an amazing ability of remembering little details of his experiences, even after one experience. His specialty though, is reciting a line from a show. This spontaneous recitation seems to be triggered from something that has just occurred in his environment. The fun part, is figuring out 1) where the line recited came from, 2) to what is that line referring to in the current or most recent context.

    Both my step brother and Richard (Richard more so) are susceptible to the emotional activity of those they are attached to. If I am not feeling well, Richard picks up on it, and takes care of the things he knows I generally cover but can't really do at that time. Most of the time, he just wants me to inform him very clearly of what it is I'd like him to do, once in a while, even how I want it done. Mostly though, as long as he knows what is required, then he prefers to have the freedom to do it as he sees fit. If I'm withdrawn, it affects him. If I'm excited he responds in kind…or at least tries to. But don't be fooled into thinking that the Fe refers only to interactions with people. I love to watch him as he figures out how to draw a graphic for me, how to take down the tree (you can actually see his body move and adjust with the thoughts in his mind), and just how much pressure/release/timing can affect the water hose and the sprinkler. (This falls under "perceiving objects' internal processes and internal changes"). Much of this last paragraph covers the Fe2 with the Si1.
    ---
    I like viewing the functions through the aspects of reality basics. Everything to me is so much cleaner. There is not as much fudging, not as much reaching, and I don't find myself selecting which observations to include and which to set aside/ignore. There still might be some selective-memory happening, but if there is, it's nowhere to the degree I had to do to get mbti type descriptions/functions to fit with my observations.
    ---

    Rocky, I'm not sure if I provided you with the information you were asking for. I hope I did. You may have been asking for something less narrative and something a little more…"fact based". But hopefully this got the info across. Unfortunately, memories of observations of my step brother are quite old, and I never typed Richard in the old ways. If you really wanted, I could do one similar with regard to the ISTp I knew. He was around during the budding interests in Kiersey, yet is recent enough that I still have fairly clear memories of my observations.
    IEE 649 sx/sp cp

  28. #28

    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    New York
    Posts
    6,074
    Mentioned
    2 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by consentingadult
    Perhaps some introverts here can shed some light on this, so we extraverts might better understand, as for extraverts the situation seems to be less complicated...
    I think it can be complicated. One reason is, ExxPs are perceivers, nice and easy, you can see it. But, what about the IxxPs? Are we perceivers because that's our base more (socionics)? Or because when we feel a bunch of energy it comes out in an impulsive way (MBTI)?

    Plus, we can look at the same "thing" and give it two different names...

    http://similarminds.com/forums/viewtopic.php?t=882

    That's an MBTI board where I recently had a conversation with an MBTI ISTJ. Looking through the MBTI perspective... it was interesting to see how she described ISTPs based on them being "Ti" (I think it was shortly after this conversation that I started this thread... made me wonder how we can both be describing the same thing differently). Either way, it's still interesting. I could see the MBTI view of ISTP to be accurate as well. Basically, she's saying we're Ti because we're often "physically tense", and because we are actively thinking about a lot of stuff (in comparsion, she claims that ISTJs more often "sit and stare" at stuff... can't say I can relate to that). Also, ISTPs hide that we're angry, but then eventually let it out. Can't you see how one could assume that that's Ti? But...

    ... in socionics we can label it Si. There's the confusion between the two.
    MAYBE I'LL BREAK DOWN!!!


    Quote Originally Posted by vague
    Rocky's posts are as enjoyable as having wisdom teeth removed.

  29. #29

    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    New York
    Posts
    6,074
    Mentioned
    2 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by anndelise
    Ha, I bet you thought this would be a quick easy response....dontcha know me better by now????
    This is good. I think you hit on a good point- the MBTI is too narrow. The little things that make sense in the MBTI can more easily be explained if we are just using socionics then the other way around...

    If you have the energy to do ISTP- then go ahead.
    MAYBE I'LL BREAK DOWN!!!


    Quote Originally Posted by vague
    Rocky's posts are as enjoyable as having wisdom teeth removed.

Posting Permissions

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