SLI or LSI?

[jixmixfix]

Hello I'm new here at 16 types I type as ISTP in MBTI but i notice when I move it to socionics it is not the case. How can i figure out if I'm LSI or SLI?

[Cyrano]

Just asking indicates ISTp.

Actually ISTp is pretty much the same in both systems.

[jixmixfix]

No Ti Se is MBTI Si Te is socionics.

[Saberstorm]

If you are like an MBTI ISTP you could be either, as that type is sort of split in two between them.

Are you merry or serious by the Renin traits. (Look at Wikisocion.org for a discription of these two traits.) If you are serious, try SLI.

[jixmixfix]

If you are like an MBTI ISTP you could be either, as that type is sort of split in two between them.

Are you merry or serious by the Renin traits. (Look at Wikisocion.org for a discription of these two traits.) If you are serious, try SLI.

I suppose SLI gives me the best description of myself but when I take a functions test I usually always score the highest in TI and Se.

[717495]

You could be any type, not just ISTj or ISTp. Wouldn't matter if you are ISTP in mbti.

[jixmixfix]

You could be any type, not just ISTj or ISTp. Wouldn't matter if you are ISTP in mbti.

so how do you find out your type?

[717495]

My #1 method for getting a firm grasp of Socionics and pinning your type is located in my signature: Read up on what Jung says about the different types then examine videos of the type examples. Best of luck.

[Saberstorm]

You could also be an ESTp - the Ti subtype. read about it too.

[jixmixfix]

No offense but this stuff sounds like a load of B.S I could be SLI LSI or ESTp? lol....they are all very different from each other.

[silke]

so how do you find out your type?

For starters, you can take some tests and read over the type profiles.

Then I would suggest looking over some socionics articles to confirm that you got the right type. Click on "Home" at the very top and take a look at sections that say Socionics -> Background & Theory, in particular you might want to get acquainted with Introduction to Socionics, Aspects in Valued Functions, Primer to Information Elements, Model A, and Reinin Dichotomies. Wikisocion is also a great source of socionics information (link at the very top that says Wiki). One way to differentiate between LSI and SLI is to use static/dynamic dichotomy - LSI is static, SLI is dynamic; they also differ on several other dichotomies.

So to answer your question, you find your type by doing some research into types. If you have any questions in the process feel free to ask them.

[glam]

My #1 method for getting a firm grasp of Socionics and pinning your type is located in my signature: Read up on what Jung says about the different types then examine videos of the type examples. Best of luck.

i agree with the recommendation to read Jung to understand some of the fundamental background of socionics, but a person isn't going to learn socionics by reading Jung alone - they're also going to have to read socionics-specific material.

[jixmixfix]

For starters, you can take some tests and read over the type profiles.

Then I would suggest looking over some socionics articles to confirm that you got the right type. Click on "Home" at the very top and take a look at sections that say Socionics -> Background & Theory, in particular you might want to get acquainted with Introduction to Socionics, Aspects in Valued Functions, Primer to Information Elements, Model A, and Reinin Dichotomies. Wikisocion is also a great source of socionics information (link at the very top that says Wiki). One way to differentiate between LSI and SLI is to use static/dynamic dichotomy - LSI is static, SLI is dynamic; they also differ on several other dichotomies.

So to answer your question, you find your type by doing some research into types. If you have any questions in the process feel free to ask them.

Will do thanks.

[717495]

i agree with the recommendation to read Jung to understand some of the fundamental background of socionics, but a person isn't going to learn socionics by reading Jung alone - they're also going to have to read socionics-specific material.

I would say skip the Socionics material at the beginning, and look straight into the real examples using Jung as your primary reference for everything. Later you should start to incorporate Socionics material into your understanding with a grain of salt, as to not induce any poor stereotypes or misinterpretive bias. Again, this is my opinion.

'Course this is not how I did it. I had to do it the hard way by reading everything and wouldn't recommend getting into any of that.

[glam]

I would say skip the Socionics material at the beginning, and look straight at the real examples and use Jung as your primary reference for everything. Later you should start to incorporate Socionics material into your understanding with a grain of salt, as to not induce any poor stereotypes or misinterpretive bias. Again, this is my opinion.

if a person is trying to learn socionics, it would make no sense at all for them to dismiss actual socionics material and use non-socionics material as the primary resource.

[717495]

There's a lot of Socionics material though, and no real foundation for any of it. In order to even understand the specifics in Socionics research and observation, you must grasp the general and essential. Learn the basics before going into new complex theories and secondary interpretations of foundational psychological work.

[glam]

There's a lot of Socionics material though, and no real foundation for any of it. You have to learn the basics before going into new complex and questionable theories.

like i said before, i don't disagree that it's good for people to read Jung as background knowledge, since socionics incorporates his ideas. but a person isn't going to learn about concepts such as intertype relations, Model A, Reinin dichotomies, etc. by reading Jung. those aren't Jungian, but socionics concepts that make socionics what it is.

what you are doing is dismissing socionics and promoting Jung instead, but still telling people to learn "socionics" by reading Jung. again, that makes absolutely no sense, and it's also intellectually dishonest.

[jixmixfix]

I understand the fundemental basics of socionics such as duals semi-duals and intertype relations what I don't understand is how the functions are explained. I notice that MBTI functions and socionics functions are quite different from each other.

[717495]

Socionics is Jungian. Yes, one who is interested in Socionics should probably understand what they're here to learn. Intertype-relationships. Plainly put, each quadra values 4 functions as their way of processing information, two introverted and two extroverted. Each quadra understands the information of their quadra the best and this forms comfortable compatible relationships. But I think those factors are obvious for one who is already seeking help finding their type.

Beyond that line of reasoning, you should learn the direct foundation and meaning of those functions by studying the writings of he who fully discovered this phenomena in depth. You won't understand it the correct way from reading only Socionics (or MBTI) since they use simple stereotypes and fashion heavy bias in several of their facets. But rather, look to extra writings and theories after you get a healthy foundation on the basics; it will be a noble cause.

I understand the fundemental basics of socionics such as duals semi-duals and intertype relations what I don't understand is how the functions are explained. I notice that MBTI functions and socionics functions are quite different from each other.

This is precisely what I'd like you to learn in depth, and recommend you study them from their origin. http://psychclassics.yorku.ca/Jung/types.htm

[jixmixfix]

Socionics is Jungian. Yes, one who is interested in Socionics should probably understand what they're here to learn. Intertype-relationships. Plainly put, each quadra values 4 functions as their way of processing information, two introverted and two extroverted. Each quadra understands the information their quadra the best and this forms comfortable compatible relationships. But I think those factors are obvious for one who is already seeking help finding their type.

Beyond that line of reasoning, you should learn the direct foundation and meaning of those functions by studying the writings of he who fully discovered this phenomena in depth. You won't understand it the correct way from reading only Socionics since it uses simple stereotypes and fashions heavy bias in several of its facets. But rather, look to extra writings and theories after you get a healthy foundation on the basics; it will be a noble cause.



This is precisely what I'd like you to learn in depth, and recommend you study them from their origin. http://psychclassics.yorku.ca/Jung/types.htm

Cool thanks, I just read aspects of valued functions and I'm leaning towards SLI.

[717495]

Cool thanks, I just read aspects of valued functions and I'm leaning towards SLI.

Well, at least take it into consideration before you make a leap to type. Anyone of medium intellect will find those aspect definitions over-simplified and error-prone. You will learn a great difference in quality and grasping an overarching structure to the theory by following my recommendation.

[jixmixfix]

Well, at least take it into consideration before you make a leap to type. Anyone of medium intellect will find those aspect definitions over-simplified and error-prone. You will learn a great difference in quality and grasping an overarching structure to the theory by following my recommendation.

Like I said I haven't decided yet but I'm learning towards SLI I will read the information you given me and what other have given me and get back.

[Beautiful sky]

Let's do similarities:

They both are competitive as heck, lazy to a point, weak Ne, love to try new things, both are pragmatic (as all Ss are usually). Both get a sense of comfort, aesthetics from their environment as do LSE and SLE. That's about it.

Differences:

LSI is an inspector - someone who checks all the details and makes sure t's are crossed, i's dotted
SLI is a craftsman - someone skilled in a craft, art, work, and who just does that; an artisan, mechanic, who wants to do things with their hands.

My father, an SLI is more concerned about my health than my LSI brother in law. SLI can sense when your activities are waring you out or have the potential to while the LSI doesn't notice or care about these things. When I post too much in a month, day whatever, and over active activity, it's the Si valuers who jump to the "relax, and take it easy" while this escapes or isn't important to LSI.

[jixmixfix]

Let's do similarities:

They both are competitive as heck, lazy to a point, weak Ne, love to try new things, both are pragmatic (as all Ss are usually). Both get a sense of comfort, aesthetics from their environment as do LSE and SLE. That's about it.

Differences:

LSI is an inspector - someone who checks all the details and makes sure t's are crossed, i's dotted
SLI is a craftsman - someone skilled in a craft, art, work, and who just does that; an artisan, mechanic, who wants to do things with their hands.

My father, an SLI is more concerned about my health than my LSI brother in law. SLI can sense when your activities are waring you out or have the potential to while the LSI doesn't notice or care about these things. When I post too much in a month, day whatever, and over active activity, it's the Si valuers who jump to the "relax, and take it easy" while this escapes or isn't important to LSI.

Thing is I'm very analytical and critical and I can be quite precise about what I'm doing I tend to double check things when I know it doesn't look or feel right. I'm also fairly easy going in the moment and hands on as well. I enjoy art and learning new skills as well as being in the "moment". I read the descriptions of SLI and they say they don't like to analyze much which isn't true about me.

[Ryan]

Cool thanks, I just read aspects of valued functions and I'm leaning towards SLI.

From the same author of "aspects of valued functions", Dmitry Golihov.

http://translate.googleusercontent.c...KS7nQb7KA4VuwA

http://translate.googleusercontent.c...mE5R8037Fr3M2Q

http://translate.googleusercontent.c...rGKzwWDWNpKMNQ

http://translate.googleusercontent.c...3n1RcSF38wGlUQ

[Beautiful sky]

Thing is I'm very analytical and critical and I can be quite precise about what I'm doing I tend to double check things when I know it doesn't look or feel right. I'm also fairly easy going in the moment and hands on as well. I enjoy art and learning new skills as well as being in the "moment". I read the descriptions of SLI and they say they don't like to analyze much which isn't true about me.

Both can do a fair amount of analyzing so can LSE and SLE

[jixmixfix]

Both can do a fair amount of analyzing so can LSE and SLE

I sort of meant analyzing on figure out how things work.

[Beautiful sky]

I sort of meant analyzing on figure out how things work.

Don't go by "you read this and that" and some things match while others don't; go by what you think your typical mode is; what you do most of and most comfortably and which one you offer to others. Also go by which dual you would fit better with.