Let us not use that animal test for anything else, not very flattering if you ask me ...
Let us not use that animal test for anything else, not very flattering if you ask me ...
No problem. Just this first time I read this topic so alittle behind. the new symbols, as SEI, since now I know what it means,I have no problem adjusting to using those new symbols. Challenge for me is to now remember it, lol.Originally Posted by rmcnew
ISFP, SEI
Letters and names
I would go for famous names: like Napoleon and Shakespeare. Isn't it nice to feel association with great people? It is definetly better than a number of letters without 'meaning, sound and colour'! It is also better than just a 'functional' name like 'conservator'. It is too narrow and closed while famous names are inspiration and the way to grow.
School of Associative socionics: http://socionics4you.com/
You're right, but then you get into discussions that are best left undiscussed. All the famous persons that are usually suggested are dead white men. Someone some day is bound to object.
Not only that, then you get into the discussion of which historical figures had which type.
, LIE, ENTj logical subtype, 8w9 sx/sp
PLus, everyone may not agree on the names. I guess I'll give a crack at it to get it started...
ILE, Searcher ?
SEI, Mediator Cedric Bexlir (:
But is everyone really going to know who all of these people are, especially in other countries? That's why I can't use the Russian names, because I don't know those people or what they were like.
Well, hopefully English speaking people can relate with these names.
Could we call
Semiotical process
Names from Rocky's list that I don't know:
Robs'pierre
Jackie Robinson
I only have a vague idea of who Calvin was.
Beware! Nerd genes on the prowl.
INFj - The Holy CPU Saint
Dishonorary INFp
Baah
(Very good place for emoticons. Right-click on the one you want and select "properties" for direct link)
In that case you need to refresh your history lessons from school
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robespierre
I believe that the terms such as "The analyst" and such are better than famous persons. The latter are relying on the culutral context. To be usable in the western world, they has to be mostly white men, as otherwise no one will get anything out of the names. In the same way, the choice of people will be different in Asia. Keep political corrctness out! It will only be a burden. What is the point of including an unknown black female lesbian from the 18th century if it tells the people nothing of the type?
Another problem is that the people included must be farily neutral. You could probably include Stalin and ****** as brilliant representations of some types, but as the public is enable to detach and look past the "OMG EVIL!!!1!" image of these people, they will not be able to get a clear view of the types.
Hey, how about "Armstrong" for the ILE? And any ideas for ESI and ESE?
Rocky stop trying to control people.
According to the poll that has been up for over a month, consistently most people would like to keep the old system.
Socionics is hard enough for some beginners as it is now. those who are truly interested in socionics will eventually learn the difference with mbti.
Rocky control yourself and let democracy speak now.
It's too hard to figure out what the socionics letters mean, especially since "I" can mean intuitive or introvert. "E" can mean ethical or extravert. It just takes me too long, so I gloss over it then and lose meaning.
Entp
ILE
Honestly, there are only a few that I recognize. I don't generally look up ones that I don't, I just skim over it.
42%-57% vote as of now. And I recall a couple of people voting for "No" who changed their minds and said that they would change (a few IEI types, I think Baby and Wacotic were two of them...). So it's seems to be more or less even as of now.. maybe a little more on the "no" side, although not by much (one or two votes). In democracy, you often have to pass by more than a majority, anyway (such as 2/3rds vote or whatever). The acronyms aren't "hard", but diffrent from what you've seen in the past. Does it really take THAT much energy? If you even give it a couple days of actually using them it will start to "click" and you don't have to think about it anymore.
My point is that people place WAY too much emphasis on this dichotomy. So yeah, down with the MBTI acronyms.
Also, people confuse N and p. Like my ENFj friend for example, who says she's ENFp because she's "not organized."
Furthermore, people confuse socionics with MBTI. Let us stop this nonsense before there is an attempt to consolidate the two theories and rampant stupidity and pseudo-intellectual bullshit engulfs us all.
I'd also like top add that I don't like the J/P dichotomy in MBTI. Also, MBTI trats all four letters as equal, which they are not. Some people even think that J/P are functions.It's a terrible system, and even Myers admitted that latter on, but she took the smart move in not changing it because her MBTI system had already gained popularity by that point. And the MBTI is not true to even Jung's work, not to mention the other people who socionics derives it's work from. Plus the confusion with MBTI and all their bad stereotypes and functions....
it's a nightmare...
OK, this is how the Russian acronyms breakdown....
Exx= ETHICAL BASE (rational)
Lxx= LOGICAL BASE (rational)
Sxx= SENSORY BASE (irratioanl)
Ixx= INTUITIVE BASE (irrationanl)
xEx= CREATIVITY OF ETHICS
xLx= CREATIVITY OF LOGICS
xSx= CREATIVITY OF SENSING
xIx= CREATIVITY OF INTUITION
xxI= INTROVERTED PERSON
xxE= EXTRAVERTED PERSON
Megan.
deleted
@Monica: no offense was taken...
And the poll that I put up (somewhere in the middle of this thread) was never meant to be offical or descisive. I just added it to get a general idea of how people felt.
And other people seemed to be able to pick up the new acronyms easily (Herzblut, Topaz, NFp-, Mystic, Pedro, etc..).
And, yeah, I did put the old acronyms next to the new ones in parenthesis before so peole would understand what I was talking about, but I have gotten away from that recently. I guess I could always go back to that for a while if people are still getting confused. The point is, of couse, to eventually get rid of the MBTI influence.
EDIT: There was another vote for switching over (it wasn't me, I swear).
sfsd
I don't care too much which ones are used but it would help if they were used together for a while until I get used to what they mean.
It ain't what you don't know that gets you into trouble. It's what you know for sure that just ain't so.-Mark Twain
You can't wake a person who is pretending to be asleep.
Rocky, I do hope you were not referring to me as Monica.
Some of the people you mentioned are very frequent users of this forum. I am not. I have a very limited time in which to use this computer and seldom get to even respond to posts immediately. The rate at which the new system is taken up is not usually a question of difficulty with comprehending it, I think most people do theoretically(I hope). It is about being more comfortable and at total ease with it, assuming that one subscribes to it yet or even ever.
I agree with several of your points nevertheless.
Also, glad you took no offence
ok...
socionic function/ acronym/ nickname/ rough MBTI equivilent
Extraverted Irrationals.
Introverted Irrationals.
Extraverted Rationals.
Introverted Rationals.
Rocky, I do hope you were not referring to me as Monica.
Confusion over the Judging/Percieving scale in MBTI....
Why is it so hard for introverts to decide wheather they are J/P in MBTI? Myers said that whether you are a judger or perciever depends on the outside world, not the inner one. Everyone is both judging and percieving, but the letter that you put at the end is suppossed to be based on how you act in the outer world. So an IxxP type will be clear-sighted, but be disorganized with his space, and an IxxJ type will organized but be more drunk-brained. Theortically. What Myers is basically saying is that if your base, introverted, function is a judging one, and your extraverted function is a percieving one then you should test as a perciever. So what happens? These introverted-perceptive people, defined by Myers, generally test as JUDGERS instead! It only makes sense...
When your dominant function is a judging function, you tend to THINK like a judger; it is your "main" world. Whether an introvert or an extravert. Your secondary function is not always there, so why would you test as your secondary function tells you to?? This is why rational types have all of the stereotypical "judging" traits.
So, this leads to confuse as who is what type in MBTI (especially the introverts). There are people who are clear "percievers", yet their extraverted function is still a judging one, but they would never think to test as a judger (talking about Ni and Si types). What starts to happen here? People see someone who they think may be an I-S-F-P, based off of the acronym and which scales the person leans to more. So they start to see all these ISFP types as being FiSe, because Myers set up the system that way. The problem is that this type that seems to lean more towards the P scale is actually an SiFe type, because dominant Si types are always based off of their perceptive function first, and they THINK the way a perceiver is "suppossed" to think. The Si and Ni types do NOT follow plans and scheduales (generally), they do NOT mind changing or adapting, and they usually wait until the last minute to do something (or not finish anything), like the definition of a perciever says. But that is not what Myers meant when she defined the J/P scale, and which one should be your last letter. Still, people seem to ignore that, and they have two totally diffrent views of who are the IxxP types and who are the IxxJ types.
This is how Jung described the introverted types. He said that the Ni and Si types were irrational introverts, and the Ti and Fi types are the rational introverts. He described the irrational introverts as being the more sporatic ones, bouncing around from one thing to the next. The rationals were the more stable and consitent types. This is totally diffrent from what the types have gained meaning today. Now people think that Si and Ni are stable, while Ti and Fi are the adaptable ones!
This (and other things) is why J/P is such a mess, and to keep the scales around you would have to go through all this explaination of it. According to Myers definition, I should be an ISTJ, because my inner world is disorganized, and I am not clear-sighted, nor do I stick to my plans or care about adapting. According to Jung, I am an irrational type. The stupid J/P scales should be dropped altogether, in favor of just ordering the functions the way people are dominanted by them. That way you can just refer to a person as a "rational" or an "irrational" and be done with it.
EDIT: I'd like to add that this can be complicated with the ID functions, which Myers was not aware of. For example, the SiFe above could also be using his Se function while extraverted, or his Fi function while introverted. This means when he is extraverted he is not *always* judging, and when he is introverted he is not *always* percieving.
somebody needs to go fix the wikipedia.com stuff for socionics
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Socionics
ENTj = TeNiThis gives a total of sixteen types:
* TiNe - LIE (Logical-Intuitive Extratim) - ENTj
* TeNi - LII (Logical-Intuitive Intratim) - INTj
INTj = TiNe
Looks like they've got those two reversed. The rest appear to be consistent.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote