Bello!
Hei ya people, Melinda here, started from MBTI to Jungian Functions and then to Enneagram and right now into Socionics.
I did a bit of dabbling in Socionics when I started out MBTI but I really felt it was lame because it's about how these type of people look (ENFP looks slim and tall) and I think that first impression really just turned me off. Forgot which website it came from.
Oh well, second time's the charm they say!
Hello, welcome!
Forget that website. It was probably socionics.com. unfortunately it has been on top of search results. Socionics is not about how people look.
The decisive thing is not the reality of the object, but the reality of the subjective factor, i.e. the primordial images, which in their totality represent a psychic mirror-world. It is a mirror, however, with the peculiar capacity of representing the present contents of consciousness not in their known and customary form but in a certain sense sub specie aeternitatis, somewhat as a million-year old consciousness might see them.
(Jung on Si)
Abbella
Obsequium amicos, veritas odium parit
Welcome @melindap
Do You have any idea what Your typing in either Enneagram or MBTI is? I'm not sure what Your level of Socionics understanding is, but I'll give You the usual care package I send to people who are new here
If You've developed a sudden interest in the subject then I'll presume You're relatively new to the many models of Socionics theory. I won't use the confines of an introductory post response to layout the basics of the theory--as the website itself is filled to the brim with excellent articles and threads detailing the ins and outs of the system--but if You're looking for help in determining Your own typing, I'd recommend a couple tests for You, lass.
First, a quicker option. Be sure to leave it set to the "Extended Socionics Test" , and pay mind to and be as precise as You can with the sliders. I have studied this test a good deal, and even small differences are reflected in the results. The test is broken into three parts, each dynamically changing contingent upon Your answers, to pinpoint Your valued IEs ('Information Elements', or "Cognitive Functions" as they are known elsewhere). No test is perfect, but it can point many in the right direction at the least.
Alternatively, this is the more thorough option. This is the SOLTI-160, a Russian Socionics test translated into English. It has an enormous 160 questions, with 5 options for each. This may seem excessive, but the larger number of variables (160 x 5) will ensure the maximal depth of Your results. Feel free to share either of Your results here if You wish.
In any case, we're happy to take Your questions, the "Articles" sections can keep You busy for weeks, and there's a thread for just about everything if You use the "Advanced Search" near the top right of Your screen. Take care, Melinda, and don't be a stranger!
"We live in an age in which there is no heroic death."
Model A: ESI-Se-
DCNH: Dominant
Enneagram: 1w2, 2w1, 6w7
Instinctual Variant: Sx/So
SO far I've taken SOLTI-160, and from there they gave me SLE, which is estp? Although from MBTI / Jungian Function, I was quite accurately an ENTJ. Hmm what gives?
No test is perfect.Originally Posted by melindap
I'm ENTj, and some of the people here on the forum initially thought I was either SLE or LSE. You just have to figure it out for yourself.
Don't try to convert between the systems 1-1. My take on it is that the functions cover all the same ideas but some ideas are focused on more than others in each system. For example, while MBTI and socionics both talk about how Se is assertive, MBTI focuses quite a bit less on that whereas socionics' idea of Se is almost completely fixated on force.
A lot of the high-level traits of an ENTJ match with SLE. For example, ENTJs are often seen as commanding, assertive, or ruthless, which are also high-level traits of an SLE and less so of an LIE, who are usually more entrepreneurial or farsighted. However, high-level traits rarely provide more insight, so I agree with what Adam said: you have to figure it out for yourself, and I'll add, from scratch.
----- FarDraft, 2020
That isn't surprising: many unhealthy ENTjs are wannebe ESTps. That is because extraverted sensing, which is the ESTps lead function, is the ENTj's mobilizing function.
“I have never tried that before, so I think I should definitely be able to do that.” --- Pippi Longstocking
Oh yes, I've just read:
http://www.the16types.info/vbulletin...ile-by-Gulenko
http://www.the16types.info/vbulletin...ile-by-Gulenko
ENTj sounds like an ENTP (MBTI) lol. But anyhow, I do feel that both kinda matches, just that it leans towards ESTp more.
Another thing, just pointing out.. a lot of those descriptions are certainly male centered lol. Just saying. He this, he that. More convenient I guess.. rather than "Either he or she"..
"He" has always been used to refer to a person in general. "He or she" is the recent PC version.
I can see how you relate the LIE and ENTP descriptions. However, the emphasis on Ni and Te in the LIE description shouldn't go unnoticed. Most ENTPs don't rely on foresight or practical application nearly as much as most LIEs, though it's possible for an ENTP to type LIE. Moreover, Ni is often poorly explained in ENTJ descriptions since MBTI is fixated on Te and Se "commanding".
----- FarDraft, 2020
Best when duals are described and both are "He"
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
