A visual example of Si, Se, Ne and Ni

A) The original post:

Attachment 13313


B1)

"Irrational" functions process information about physical entities.

"Rational" functions process information about relationships between physical entities.

"Static" functions process information about the actual objects/subjects.

"Dynamic" functions process information about the meaning of the objects/subjects.

"External" functions (S, T) process information which describes the objects/subjects.

"Internal" functions (N, F) process information which clarifies vague descriptions of the objects/subjects.



B2)

"Introverted" functions process information which describes the objects/subjects. (object <--> background)

"Extroverted" functions process information about interactions between the objects/subjects. (object <--> object <--> background)

"Static" functions process information about the objects/subjects themselves.

"Dynamic" functions process information which is a symbolic representation of the objects/subjects (language, numbers etc.)

"External" functions (S, T) process information about physical entities.

"Internal" functions (N, F) process information about relationships between physical entities.


B3)

"Introverted" functions process information which describes the objects/subjects.

"Extroverted" functions choose (zoom in on) one description of the objects/subjects over another.

"Static" functions process information about the actual objects/subjects.

"Dynamic" functions process information about the meaning of the objects/subjects.

"External" functions (S, T) process information about physical entities.

"Internal" functions (N, F) process information about relationships between physical entities.

What do you mean by projecting onto another object?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by falsehope

What do you mean by projecting onto another object?

---

Ni connects the objects. You cannot place the objects side by side.

Here are my viewpoints:

Quote:

---

Si recognizes the complete object i.e.

---

With this you practically say "Si is perceiving something with our eyes"

Quote:

---

When this element of perception is in the leading position, the individual has the ability to change the qualities of the surrounding space and influence the sensations of people within it.

---

http://www.wikisocion.net/en/index.p...verted_sensing

Personally when I see a car I recognize how the design and the it's features impact me and my decision. It can be something shallow like the color (for ex. I think black it a beautiful color for cars but awful in summer. It becomes incredibly hot and some cars, especially older ones, begin to smell and if the manufacturer chose some kind of sleek plastic material for the seats; goodbye for hot pants because you'll just burn your *** of if you happen to park in the plain sun). Then there is the question whether the car is big enough, are the seats comfortable, is the space in the car enough for what I plan (just driving to work or vacations, is it suited for kids etc etc). I could sit in an awful smelly old car with usage marcs everywhere and still feel all right because it's what I'm used to / because it reminds me of child hood / it's convenient and I see ways on how I can improve it.
I know an ESFj who got into an accident and repaired her car all by herself. She now knows exactly what kinds of sounds the car makes in certain situations and what she needs to do to repair certain parts. Being able to do that, be it a car, a laptop, or just the ability to repair/improve/recognize inconvenience your surroundings makes me feel at ease and connected to my surroundings.

* * *

Quote:

---

Se directs attention to a specific part of the object

---

Quote:

---

When this element is in the leading position, the individual possesses exceptional personal force/will.

---

http://www.wikisocion.net/en/index.p...verted_sensing

Se: "My Jeep is bigger than your Mini. I could just run you over. Back off"
Beta(?) Se: "Now that I'm a CEO I can't drive with a Mini to work. I need to have a BMW/Mercedes whatever otherwise others won't take me and my position in the hierarchy seriously."
Se: You won't win this car race with a Prius.

Se recognizes the capacity for will/force/confrontation/organization in objects and people. They can use aggression to achieve their goals (like pressuring people through their presence and body language only, physical and verbal aggression...)
Lets say you're in a new environment and Se-type wants to know whose the boss then he'll her may recognize (in a conversation) things like:
A can interrupt B but not the other way around. B can interrupt C while C does not interrupt either B or A which means the hierarchy is as follows: A>B>C

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Cosmic Teapot

With this you practically say "Si is perceiving something with our eyes"

---

Yes... but Si processes auditory information, olfactory information etc. as well.

Si is also about memory.

Quote:

---

http://www.wikisocion.net/en/index.p...verted_sensing


Personally when I see a car I recognize how the design and the it's features impact me and my decision. It can be something shallow like the color (for ex. I think black it a beautiful color for cars but awful in summer. It becomes incredibly hot and some cars, especially older ones, begin to smell and if the manufacturer chose some kind of sleek plastic material for the seats; goodbye for hot pants because you'll just burn your *** of if you happen to park in the plain sun). Then there is the question whether the car is big enough, are the seats comfortable, is the space in the car enough for what I plan (just driving to work or vacations, is it suited for kids etc etc). I could sit in an awful smelly old car with usage marcs everywhere and still feel all right because it's what I'm used to / because it reminds me of child hood / it's convenient and I see ways on how I can improve it.
I know an ESFj who got into an accident and repaired her car all by herself. She now knows exactly what kinds of sounds the car makes in certain situations and what she needs to do to repair certain parts. Being able to do that, be it a car, a laptop, or just the ability to repair/improve/recognize inconvenience your surroundings makes me feel at ease and connected to my surroundings.


* * *
http://www.wikisocion.net/en/index.p...verted_sensing


Se: "My Jeep is bigger than your Mini. I could just run you over. Back off"
Beta(?) Se: "Now that I'm a CEO I can't drive with a Mini to work. I need to have a BMW/Mercedes whatever otherwise others won't take me and my position in the hierarchy seriously."
Se: You won't win this car race with a Prius.


Se recognizes the capacity for will/force/confrontation/organization in objects and people. They can use aggression to achieve their goals (like pressuring people through their presence and body language only, physical and verbal aggression...)
Lets say you're in a new environment and Se-type wants to know whose the boss then he'll her may recognize (in a conversation) things like:
A can interrupt B but not the other way around. B can interrupt C while C does not interrupt either B or A which means the hierarchy is as follows: A>B>C

---

Do you think these descriptions contradict OP?

I think SeTi is indirectly related to will, force, confrontation etc.

And your description of SiTe supports my viewpoints.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Petter

Do you think these descriptions contradict OP?

---

Yes.

Quote:

---

I think SeTi is indirectly related to will, force, confrontation etc.

---

No. Read the descriptions.

Quote:

---

And your description of SiTe supports my viewpoints.

---

No.

I think Se can be understood in "different" but neverthelesss mutually complimentary ways. Force is one way to think of it, but its the way to think of it in terms of its overall "lay of the land"--the distribution of objects in an area with a view to their leverage over one another. But its all the literal "external form" of a thing. Si is also the "external form" of a thing, in the sense that its sensory. Si just privileges the subjective impression of the external form. Further Si also attends to that with regard for oneself in the form of internal sensations we broadly capture as "comfort sensing." The ability to infer such states in others is based on the subjective impression of their external form (i.e.: expressions, posture, etc) and then a kind of "Si empathy" supplies in the mind of the viewer what that "must feel like" in the form of 1st person bodily experience... in other words, sensation is the "external" part, but extroverted and introverted would be like emphasis on form v state. You in essence always get both, but attention to one necessarily distorts (to the point of possibly ignoring almost entirely) to some extent the other

According Jung, elements are the opposite of your descriptions, extraverted IEs are objective, focused in the reality of the objects as it is and the whole, while Introverted IEs are subjective, partial, limited and distorted, focused in the self and how the object affect the personal experience, etc.

Introverted IEs
https://encrypted-tbn0.gstatic.com/i...1-n01HTTuJzR1O

Extroverted IEs

https://encrypted-tbn2.gstatic.com/i...vk5Ybof1vKevxK

Edit. But fortunately we all use 4D IEs introverted and extroverted.

Yea makes sense. Se hurts my head & Se jokes go way over my head, because the're usually based on intuitive common sense on how the world works. I always have to think them through.

+S = Box
+N = (Jack) in the box

+S accepts reality as-is. +N disregards reality.

-S = Historian
-N = Alchemist

-N transmogrifies reality. ex. Conspiracy theories. Ni creates an alternative explanation for reality. -S filters and sorts reality. It creates a map of the world or a historical achieve of data.

The ones about the intuitive elements kinda-sorta have some truth to them (provided that you mean "object" as opposed to subject rather than physical objects). Clearly Ne directs one's attention to potential situations / realities. But I have no idea why you think Si = whole and Se = part, it's a non sequitur.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Cosmic Teapot

Yes.

---

okay... but why?

Quote:

---

No. Read the descriptions.

---

I am telling you what my definitions of the functions mean.

We all know that Socionics Se- is related to will, force etc.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Crystal

According Jung, elements are the opposite of your descriptions, extraverted IEs are objective, focused in the reality of the objects as it is and the whole, while Introverted IEs are subjective, partial, limited and distorted, focused in the self and how the object affect the personal experience, etc.

---

Yes, but I think Jung and Aushra were wrong.

Jung: "The rationality of both types is orientated objectively, and depends upon objective data. Their reasonableness corresponds with what passes as reasonable from the collective standpoint."

2 + 3 = 5

... or https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Derivative

This information must be about Extroverted Thinking, right? But it doesn't work... Why are mathematicians usually LII?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by thehotelambush

The ones about the intuitive elements kinda-sorta have some truth to them (provided that you mean "object" as opposed to subject rather than physical objects).

---

No, I don't mean object as opposed to subject. I mean physical objects (a ball, New York City, a planet...) as well as non-physical objects (or abstract objects) like God, spirit, numbers etc.

Quote:

---

Clearly Ne directs one's attention to potential situations / realities.

---

What I mean by 'directs attention' is that Ne focuses on one specific potential object (the most relevant one) out of many potential objects.

Quote:

---

But I have no idea why you think Si = whole and Se = part, it's a non sequitur.

---

I don't mean that a car is Si and a wheel is Se. Instead, Si identifies the object and Se focuses on a specific area of the object without knowing what exactly it is.

Why does Si perceive the object as a whole?

Any sensor type will focus on the details of the car - the colour is red, it takes up a lot of space, surface looks shiny, textures etc. Si specifically would be the focus on comfort, how the seating feels for example. When you just the car seat's distance to the wheel, or you go in the car seat and feel your legs are too close/far from the pedals, you're using Si.

Si and Ne are the complete opposite, and recognising the car as an object vs recognising the objects potential aren't quite the opposite things as both are objective.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Petter

Yes, but I think Jung and Aushra were wrong.

Jung: "The rationality of both types is orientated objectively, and depends upon objective data. Their reasonableness corresponds with what passes as reasonable from the collective standpoint."

2 + 3 = 5

... or https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Derivative

This information must be about Extroverted Thinking, right? But it doesn't work... Why are mathematicians usually LII?

---

I'm not fan of Jung, some of his descriptions lack objectivity imo,he portrayed as more positive IEs that he valued. Anyway, why do you think that Augusta and Jung were wrong?
I think that extraversion is focused outside in tangible and objective reality while introversion is focused inwards primarily,in how the external things affect the individual in several ways (in own feelings, inner world, sensations, etc).
About the LII question, I think is because the nature of elements, being Te bussiness or pragmatic logic, while Ti is system or structural logic, which is needed in maths. Actually most of the Ti dom I know are good in maths while Te are not very good at it and don't care about it because they don't see a practical daily use for it.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Bertrand

I think Se can be understood in "different" but neverthelesss mutually complimentary ways. Force is one way to think of it, but its the way to think of it in terms of its overall "lay of the land"--the distribution of objects in an area with a view to their leverage over one another. But its all the literal "external form" of a thing. Si is also the "external form" of a thing, in the sense that its sensory. Si just privileges the subjective impression of the external form. Further Si also attends to that with regard for oneself in the form of internal sensations we broadly capture as "comfort sensing." The ability to infer such states in others is based on the subjective impression of their external form (i.e.: expressions, posture, etc) and then a kind of "Si empathy" supplies in the mind of the viewer what that "must feel like" in the form of 1st person bodily experience... in other words, sensation is the "external" part, but extroverted and introverted would be like emphasis on form v state. You in essence always get both, but attention to one necessarily distorts (to the point of possibly ignoring almost entirely) to some extent the other

---

You are essentially saying this, right?

"Objects: Things that can be observed, studied, and discussed apart from the subject (observer)

Fields: Things that are perceived through the subject by means of feelings and cannot be studied apart from the subject"


... or this?


"The first division: objects - relationships

Jung started describing psychological types with the directions of human psyche extraversion – introversion.

Every phenomenon in the world can be considered either from the point of view of objects or from the point of view of relationships.

So, we have divided all the information flow into two big parts:

1. information about objects;
2. information about relationships.

Information aspects about objects are called extraverted.
Information aspects about relationships are called introverted.

Both of these mechanisms are necessary for every person’s psyche. A. Augustinavichuite writes: “The necessary condition for the functioning of any organism is the double bond with the world around… For the brain functioning as an information metabolism device it should be provided for with signals both from outside and the organism itself"[2].

Differences in the personality types are determined by the mechanism (one of these two) which is more often, customarily, surely, successfully and effectively used by the person. Let us remind of the fact that we can speak about a harmoniously developed personality when a person uses his strong and weak features almost like the proportion of golden section: approximately 60:40. That is a harmoniously developed extravert in about 60% of cases uses the mechanism of extraversion: is interested in the objects of the outer world, people, affairs etc. And about 40% of his attention is drawn to his inner world: to himself, his own attitude to the objects (people, affairs). An introvert accordingly vice versa .

Discussing the complicated matter of information division into aspects we will turn from time to time to one and the same example to see how it manifests itself in life. Let’s take an example including various information and see how it is divided into aspects.

A mother and a child. That is a many-sided system presuming different information aspects, different ways to see the situation. First there can be two points of view on this family. Some people first of all pay attention to each family member: what kind of person he (she) is, what he (she) would like, what he (she) can and so on. Other people are more interested in the kind of relationships between them. Here two points of view we have discussed are reflected: for the first observers (extraverts) the information aspects of these people as objects are more important, for the second ones (introverts) – information aspects of their relationships."

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Petter

No, I don't mean object as opposed to subject. I mean physical objects (a ball, New York City, a planet...) as well as non-physical objects (or abstract objects) like God, spirit, numbers etc.

---

okay

Quote:

---

What I mean by 'directs attention' is that Ne focuses on one specific potential object (the most relevant one) out of many potential objects.

---

This kind of focusing does not seem specific to Ne. Si will also seek out the most suitable thing, Se the most desirable thing etc.

Quote:

---

I don't mean that a car is Si and a wheel is Se. Instead, Si identifies the object and Se focuses on a specific area of the object without knowing what exactly it is.

---

Yeah... this is extremely vague and does not define the elements IMO.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by photon

Why does Si perceive the object as a whole?

---

Because you need the complete object/pattern in order to identify it.

We know that LSE and SLI are focused on facts, so it makes sense that Si is about identification/recognition of objects.

Quote:

---

Any sensor type will focus on the details of the car - the colour is red, it takes up a lot of space, surface looks shiny, textures etc. Si specifically would be the focus on comfort, how the seating feels for example. When you just the car seat's distance to the wheel, or you go in the car seat and feel your legs are too close/far from the pedals, you're using Si.

---

This is very typical of SLI (SiTe), but not SLE.

Quote:

---

Si and Ne are the complete opposite, and recognising the car as an object vs recognising the objects potential aren't quite the opposite things as both are objective.

---

I am not claiming that Ne is "recognising the object's potential". Instead, Ne directs attention to a potential object (i.e. hidden object) that is relevant to another object (or a "scene" ... for example, a park could be an object)

-----

EDIT: "recognising the object's potential" ... This is a possible interpretation as well. But it is still not about identification... Ne directs attention to a potential object (or an object's potential). "Extroverted" functions are about motivated interactions.

I don't think the functions are objective. Btw, what exactly do you mean by 'objective'? Furthermore, I am not sure Si and Ne are the complete opposite.

@Petter I'm saying sensing tells you an object is there, but the attitude is how you construe it: to use socionics language either as a field or a state i.e.: its relationship to others or to itself. I would also add that you always get both, it is only to what extent and resolution that value [1]/dimensionality describes. polrs and ignoring try to cut out as much as possible the opposing attitude (creative is more like synthesizing them), the difference is mainly one of strength: polr really doesn't "see" the other as well, whereas ignoring simply ignores it, etc. I would argue conscious/unconscious is more a default state a kind of running status quo, but one can make the unconscious conscious if sufficiently prompted, so I don't think the opposing attitude stays in the unconscious completely. an artist wholly engrossed in their work who doesn't see a person enter the room, like a fighter who is not at all concerned with the state of their opponent or themselves... inasmuch as they are both forms of sensing they include an irreducible amount of the opposing attitude in them, but it is just very small and the lions share is unconscious--this is why to say Si or Se doesn't see the car is misguided, because they both see the car, because that the car is there is that irreducible part of sensing that both attitudes share (assuming up front that they sense it at all)

[1] value in terms of preference is like extent in time, i.e.: a preference is which you spend most of your time in, or would if you could

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Petter

Because you need the complete object/pattern in order to identify it.

---

The way I see it the IEs are different ways of perceiving then processing a certain type of information. The functions don't need to work together in a pattern to recognise the object? For example:
Money is a means of enrichment.
Money is stamped paper notes of certain value.

The first statement is Se, the second is Te. They are both different ways of a perceiving the object. This is relevant to your example of the car as well.

Quote:

---

We know that LSE and SLI are focused on facts, so it makes sense that Si is about identification/recognition of objects.

---

That doesn't make sense...Why not just use the actual definition of Si?

Quote:

---

This is very typical of SLI (SiTe), but not SLE.

---

I was deliberately giving an example of Si (and unintentionally Te maybe), so indeed it's not SLE.

Quote:

---

I am not claiming that Ne is "recognising the object's potential". Instead, Ne directs attention to a potential object (i.e. hidden object) that is relevant to another object (or a "scene" ... for example, a park could be an object)
-----
EDIT: "recognising the object's potential" ... This is a possible interpretation as well. But it is still not about identification... Ne directs attention to a potential object (or an object's potential). "Extroverted" functions are about motivated interactions.

---

Identification? Why does it have to be about identifying objects?
That seems correct, I don't disagree with that.

Quote:

---

I don't think the functions are objective. Btw, what exactly do you mean by 'objective'? Furthermore, I am not sure Si and Ne are the complete opposite.

---

Objective is focusing on the information of the single object only, without being influenced by a personal attitude towards the object or it's relations. Hard to explain, but subjective functions in comparison focus on the relations between objects. Hence why Te is often about manufacturing, methods and procedures while Ti creates systems and classifications, perhaps like you are doing now.

Why aren't Si and Ne the opposite? They're both irrational elements but it's sensing/intuition and objective/subjective which are opposites.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by thehotelambush

This kind of focusing does not seem specific to Ne. Si will also seek out the most suitable thing, Se the most desirable thing etc.

---

Well, only Se and Ne focus/direct attention according to these definitions of the functions.

I don't see how a function can passively provide data and actively determine an individual's behavior.

Quote:

---

Yeah... this is extremely vague and does not define the elements IMO.

---

I didn't mean it like that. Se does not know what exactly it perceives. It is a part/area of an object. Maybe you can call it a "blob", and sometimes an "extended blob" or a line. My point is that Ti (which is only about structural logic or spatial logic ... in my view) needs a certain kind of information. For example, Ti measures/estimates the length between two objects, but it doesn't want detailed information about those objects. It just wants two points, or "blobs", or lines.

EDIT: An alternative view could be that Se itself does not perceive the area (or "blob"). Instead, it filters away (almost) all the details that are provided by Si.

Se also moves your attention from one part/area of the object to another part/area of the object... or from one object to another object. Se and Ne deal with motivated interactions between the objects and the subjects (i.e. people).

EDIT: Yet another view could be that Se just "transports" Ti from one part of the object to another part of the object. An unconscious/semi-conscious Si provides the simplified image (or "blob").

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Crystal

I'm not fan of Jung, some of his descriptions lack objectivity imo,he portrayed as more positive IEs that he valued. Anyway, why do you think that Augusta and Jung were wrong?.

---

Let's focus on Jung. See below.

Quote:

---

I think that extraversion is focused outside in tangible and objective reality while introversion is focused inwards primarily,in how the external things affect the individual in several ways (in own feelings, inner world, sensations, etc).

---

External vs. internal is also problematic. For example, Ni provides internal (i.e. inner world) information. Te uses it and makes a judgement. (N.B. a judging function is "blind" ... it doesn't provide/produce any information). In what sense is Te about the outer world here?

Quote:

---

About the LII question, I think is because the nature of elements, being Te bussiness or pragmatic logic, while Ti is system or structural logic, which is needed in maths. Actually most of the Ti dom I know are good in maths while Te are not very good at it and don't care about it because they don't see a practical daily use for it.

---

Yes, I agree with you ... Ti (or actually Ti-), structural logic, is the most important function in math... hence, mathematicians are usually LII. But Jung claims that any information in math textbooks is about Extroverted Thinking. That doesn't make any sense! Furthermore, if objective vs. subjective is true, then Te must include structural logic as well. But we don't see any obvious structural logic in LIE and LSE. We see organizational skills, but that is about efficiency (not categorization / classification).

Again, Jung: "The rationality of both types is orientated objectively, and depends upon objective data. Their reasonableness corresponds with what passes as reasonable from the collective standpoint."

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Petter

External vs. internal is also problematic. For example, Ni provides internal (i.e. inner world) information. Te uses it and makes a judgement. (N.B. a judging function is "blind" ... it doesn't provide/produce any information). In what sense is Te about the outer world here?

---

its not, and this is why intro/extroversion in terms of distinction within the scheme (i.e.: attitude in general) and the actual phenonology as a product of their placement is what gives rise to "internal/external"--in short: an extroverted function in the creative position is "internal" as a matter of how it is experienced, which is why DarkAngelFireWolf69 just makes Ti the the "creative" function for ILI. to reiterate internal/external is an emergent phenomenon of not just functional attitude but placement

Lol Ne sample 😂😂😂

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by photon

The way I see it the IEs are different ways of perceiving then processing a certain type of information. The functions don't need to work together in a pattern to recognise the object? For example:

Money is a means of enrichment.
Money is stamped paper notes of certain value.

The first statement is Se, the second is Te. They are both different ways of a perceiving the object. This is relevant to your example of the car as well.

---

I am not claiming that the functions must work in a pattern to recognize the object. Si itself is about pattern recognition, and an object is a specific pattern.

Quote:

---

That doesn't make sense...Why not just use the actual definition of Si?

---

Why do you think it doesn't make sense?

What definition are you referring to?

Quote:

---

I was deliberately giving an example of Si (and unintentionally Te maybe), so indeed it's not SLE.

---

My point is that SLI is indeed sensitive about those things you mentioned, and SLE is not. So it makes sense that Si actually is related to them.

"Any sensor type will focus on the details of the car - the colour is red, it takes up a lot of space, surface looks shiny, textures etc. Si specifically would be the focus on comfort, how the seating feels for example. When you just the car seat's distance to the wheel, or you go in the car seat and feel your legs are too close/far from the pedals, you're using Si. "

Quote:

---

Identification? Why does it have to be about identifying objects?

That seems correct, I don't disagree with that.

---

Because we need at least one cognitive function that identifies objects. "Is this a poisonous plant or is it edible?"

Quote:

---

Objective is focusing on the information of the single object only, without being influenced by a personal attitude towards the object or it's relations. Hard to explain, but subjective functions in comparison focus on the relations between objects. Hence why Te is often about manufacturing, methods and procedures while Ti creates systems and classifications, perhaps like you are doing now.

---

Okay, so you think Socionics object vs. field (i.e. relations between objects) is accurate.

"Se: perception of the appearance and shape of an object
(outward traits of objects: form, shape, strength, power, readiness, willpower, mobilization, the location of objects in space)

Si: perception of the internal situation of an object
(tangible connections between processes happening in one place and time: how events affect one's inner state; sensations, what one experiences physically)"

One obvious problem here is that form and shape etc. are also sensations. They are visual sensations. EDIT: All sensations are equally subjective. (We don't know the true nature of reality ...which is a classic problem in philosophy).

Quote:

---

Why aren't Si and Ne the opposite? They're both irrational elements but it's sensing/intuition and objective/subjective which are opposites.

---

If the usual descriptions of the functions (Jung, mbti, Aushra...) are accurate, then Si and Ne are opposite. But I don't think those descriptions are accurate.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Bertrand

short: an extroverted function in the creative position is "internal" as a matter of how it is experienced

---

Can you explain this part a bit further?

Te in the creative position by model A in model G is considered to be your internal monologue in the form of Ti. This is why LIE is so positive because their internal monologue is basically positive intuition of opportunities, and EIE is so negative

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Bertrand

Te in the creative position by model A in model G is considered to be your internal monologue in the form of Ti. This is why LIE is so positive because their internal monologue is basically positive intuition of opportunities, and EIE is so negative

---

I am skeptical of model G. Internal monologue? Ni and Ti? I don't think the functions work in isolation like that.

-----

I: In what sense is Te about the outer world here?

You: its not...

Good, we agree... However, this is the usual viewpoint:

Naomi Quenk

"A second, or auxiliary, function complements the dominant function in two ways. First, the auxiliary function is always from the other pair of functions—that is, if the dominant function is a judging function, then the auxiliary function will be the preferred perceiving function; if the dominant function is a perceiving function, then the auxiliary function will be the preferred judging function. Second, the auxiliary function will tend to operate primarily in the less-preferred attitude—either Extraversion or Introversion. Thus, if the dominant function is extraverted, then the auxiliary function will be introverted; if the dominant function is introverted, then the auxiliary function will be extraverted.

So, if your dominant function is Extraverted Thinking, your auxiliary function will be either Introverted Sensing or Introverted Intuition, whichever function you prefer. If your auxiliary preference is Introverted Intuition, the information you gather is likely to emphasize internal ideas, hypotheses, and theories.

Your dominant Extraverted Thinking judgment will focus on that kind of internal information in order to create models and systems and ways to implement them in the world. Because your dominant, driving function, Extraverted Thinking, attracts you to accomplishing things in the world, implementing your ideas will be more appealing to you than the ideas themselves."

"Naomi L. Quenk, PhD, is a clinical psychologist in Albuquerque, New Mexico. She has been writing about and conducting workshops on various aspects of the MBTI nationally and internationally for many years and is actively involved in research, theory, and applications of the instrument. She is a past president of the Association for Psychological Type (APT), former Director of Training for the APT MBTI Training Program, and a member of the Board of Directors of the MBTI Trust, Inc. Dr. Quenk is the author or coauthor of many MBTI computer reports, guides, and other MBTI support materials."

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Bertrand

this is why to say Si or Se doesn't see the car is misguided, because they both see the car, because that the car is there is that irreducible part of sensing that both attitudes share (assuming up front that they sense it at all)

---

I actually don't think Se senses it. Se and Ne are about something entirely different. But still, as you mentioned, the car is there. How is that possible? One solution is that the so-called unconscious functions are semi-conscious instead. And the Vital/semi-conscious functions run in parallel with the Mental functions, so you always get an image (of the car). Another solution is related to my Model D, which has Si+ and Si-. So you always have a conscious Si.

First of all, there are 16 distinctly different personalities, i.e. types. That's a fact. Furthermore, SEE and SLE are similar, and LSE and LIE are similar etc. So it is very likely that we have 8 cognitive functions and 4 blocks. (... or 16 functions and 8 blocks in Model B, Model D etc.)

Ti and Se must complement each other. I think Ti evaluates an object's position in space, and Se tracks that object.

Si and Te must also complement each other. I think Si is about identification of an object, and Te determines whether it is identified or not.

So basically what you're saying is that intuitives have defective senses...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Aramas

So basically what you're saying is that intuitives have defective senses...

---

Yes that's really a lame stereotype

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Aramas

So basically what you're saying is that intuitives have defective senses...

---

How do you come to that conclusion?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_S...l_subjectivity

"Ontological subjectivity

Searle has argued that critics like Daniel Dennett, who (he claims) insist that discussing subjectivity is unscientific because science presupposes objectivity, are making a category error. Perhaps the goal of science is to establish and validate statements which are epistemically objective, (i.e., whose truth can be discovered and evaluated by any interested party), but are not necessarily ontologically objective.

Searle calls any value judgment epistemically subjective. Thus, "McKinley is prettier than Everest" is "epistemically subjective", whereas "McKinley is higher than Everest" is "epistemically objective." In other words, the latter statement is evaluable (in fact, falsifiable) by an understood ('background') criterion for mountain height, like 'the summit is so many meters above sea level'. No such criteria exist for prettiness.

Beyond this distinction, Searle thinks there are certain phenomena (including all conscious experiences) that are ontologically subjective, i.e. can only exist as subjective experience. For example, although it might be subjective or objective in the epistemic sense, a doctor's note that a patient suffers from back pain is an ontologically objective claim: it counts as a medical diagnosis only because the existence of back pain is "an objective fact of medical science". The pain itself, however, is ontologically subjective: it is only experienced by the person having it.

Searle goes on to affirm that "where consciousness is concerned, the existence of the appearance is the reality". His view that the epistemic and ontological senses of objective/subjective are cleanly separable is crucial to his self-proclaimed biological naturalism."

-----

Jung's objective/subjective is epistemic. But I think Socionics objective/subjective is ontological.

"Objects: Things that can be observed, studied, and discussed apart from the subject (observer)
Fields: Things that are perceived through the subject by means of feelings and cannot be studied apart from the subject"

'Both of these mechanisms are necessary for every person’s psyche. A. Augustinavichuite writes: “The necessary condition for the functioning of any organism is the double bond with the world around… For the brain functioning as an information metabolism device it should be provided for with signals both from outside and the organism itself" '

I would agree with that but add that I think you can interpret socionics as epistemic or ontological, but very few people do so, most gloss over this step, indeed are ignorant that they're even making it or that such a step exists, in much the same way dennett seems to, but I think an ontological socionics actually accounts for this as being a kind a kind of step often taken by static thinking types not as a determinism but as a matter of personality. in essence they want to start from the most basic and common root possible and ground everything in that, they call this scientific and want to bring absolutely everything into the fold and if it cannot be brought in they exclude it as being essentially "unknowable" (non scienter) and inasmuch as that is the case "unutterable" and inasmuch as that is the case "beyond the limits of their mind" (the limits of my language are the limits of my mind) and inasmuch as that is the case "not real" and then you see how this is inherently a product of subjectivity once again. in other words, it is a perspective that in the last analysis begins and ends as the product of an individual mind, i.e.: a subject: it simply wishes to appropriate to itself a Godlike encompassing of the universe to itself via the collective endeavor called science, which religion calls the tower of babel. it seems to me the wisdom of Jung is that the project is not wholly worthless or sinful as the religious interpretation makes it out to be, but it is only one half of what there is

OP is incorrect. Si is more fine detail-oriented sensorically than Se; although it does passively take in wholes too, this is more associated with extroverted external sensoric perception in Socionics. Jung is dead, Socionics is alive.

Nice try however. The Ni superimposing one has something to it IMO, as they cannot see the objective whole properly with their imaginary bullshit in the way blocking it.

I think details can be either Si or Se, its a common misconception they are the domain of one or the other. Details are part of sensing in general, whether the person focuses on the subjective or objective aspects of a thing can lead them into examining details or not. Si can be very much about ignoring details, seeing things as a forest rather than trees. you see this form of Si in art often such as impressionism. meanwhile realism seems to want to import as much as possible "what is there" in the Se sense, and can be highly detailed, because it is of course necessary in light of the goal. meanwhile hyperealism takes it a step further and is more into the Si realm again. Se in conveying force can omit details in terms of accuracy of "what is there" in order to convey kinetics which is also "really there", to the extent it does so faithfully to the object as part of the scene

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Bertrand

Se in conveying force can omit details in terms of accuracy of "what is there" in order to convey kinetics which is also "really there", to the extent it does so faithfully to the object as part of the scene

---

I agree that Se can drown out nuance, but I don’t think this explanation you made behind it is a thing.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by niffer

OP is incorrect. Si is more fine detail-oriented sensorically than Se; although it does passively take in wholes too, this is more associated with extroverted external sensoric perception in Socionics. Jung is dead, Socionics is alive.

---

SLI is much more focused on fine details than SLE. But is that because Si and Se perceive details differently, or because SLI's Si is a Mental function and SLE's Si is a Vital function? I think the latter is accurate. It is not as if the Vital functions are inactive and detached from the Mental functions. Instead, they must complement each other. But I don't see how Socionics Se ("force") complements Socionics Si.

Socionics

Se: strength, power, will, effect, desires, tactics, appearance, weight, form, colour, beauty, territory, realization, to defend, to reach

Si: comfort, coziness, health, delight, quality, practice, state of health, harmony, “here and now”, aesthetics, convenience, pleasant, nuances

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Petter

SLI is much more focused on fine details than SLE. But is that because Si and Se perceive details differently, or because SLI's Si is a Mental function and SLE's Si is a Vital function? I think the latter is accurate. It is not as if the Vital functions are inactive and detached from the Mental functions. Instead, they must complement each other.

---

False dichotomy

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by niffer

False dichotomy

---

But are Socionics information elements really dichotomous? Is "Time" (Ni) the complete opposite of "Force" (Se)?

http://www.wikisocion.net/en/index.p...er_dichotomies

NB: Extraverted / Introverted is not the same thing as Extratim / Introtim.

Get out of my ass lol.

What you’re bringing up is irrelevant.

Since you want to talk though... it depends on how you think of dichotomous. Dual IEs are opposites, yet feed one another so they are compatible and don’t snuff each other out in communication with each other (like usually between two separate people communicating stuff). However in theory because they’re opposites they should be mutually exclusive in absolute form but yet related, like yin and yang.

As for same domain or same vertness IEs, I do think they have to have some more overlap, but there’s got to be some distinction between them still anyway.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by niffer

Get out of my ass lol.
What you’re bringing up is irrelevant.
Since you want to talk though... it depends on how you think of dichotomous. Dual IEs are opposites, yet feed one another so they are compatible and don’t snuff each other out in communication with each other (like usually between two separate people communicating stuff). However in theory because they’re opposites they should be mutually exclusive in absolute form but yet related, like yin and yang.

---

Being focused on details (Sensing) is the opposite of being focused on the big picture (Intuition). But how exactly is "Time" the opposite of "Force"?

Quote:

---

As for same domain or same vertness IEs, I do think they have to have some more overlap, but there’s got to be some distinction between them still anyway.

---

http://socionics.socionic.info/en/soc_06_6.html (Model T)

"Extraversion and extratimness are disjointed by model and appeared quasi orthogonal properties, the first (for the individual as a whole or his separate functions) corresponds to high thresholds on the exaltation, the second - to low thresholds on inhibition. Extra/intro-version of first two functions coincides with extra/intro-version of the individual, last two - are opposite to him; extra- or introtimness corresponds to standard socionic "color" of functions (black functions are extratimed, that is they have low thresholds of inhibition)."

If I fist your anus slowly enough, you won’t even feel it

“But I don't see how Socionics Se ("force") complements Socionics Si.”

if you’re a sensor, you have better strength of both sensing IEs. They must be connected from this.

GTFO noob.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Petter

Being focused on details (Sensing) is the opposite of being focused on the big picture (Intuition). But how exactly is "Time" the opposite of "Force"?



http://socionics.socionic.info/en/soc_06_6.html (Model T)

"Extraversion and extratimness are disjointed by model and appeared quasi orthogonal properties, the first (for the individual as a whole or his separate functions) corresponds to high thresholds on the exaltation, the second - to low thresholds on inhibition. Extra/intro-version of first two functions coincides with extra/intro-version of the individual, last two - are opposite to him; extra- or introtimness corresponds to standard socionic "color" of functions (black functions are extratimed, that is they have low thresholds of inhibition)."

---

You are trapped in MBTI, nobody uses "big picture Vs details", in fact that's a result Vs process dichotomy, and looking at real people that's not quite true at all. SLE are archetyped after the military leaders that definitely knows what general big picture direction to go for and leaves the details unplanned filling in themselves.

Secondly if you are asking why "Time" is the opposite of "force", it's a sign you don't understand "Ne" intellectually and how both LII and ILE like to describe the world and craft their theory. LII for example derive theory from observations and they've noted that INXP types (including INXJ - LII & EII) are detached and indecisive negating the present focusing on the development of an imaginary future ( the future isn't a real place but what is speculated). This is in contrast to the decisive ESXP types (again including ESXJ) that focus on immediate control and subjugation of the world as is.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Soupman

You are trapped in MBTI, nobody uses "big picture Vs details",

---

I am not trapped in MBTI or MBTT, and that is not my view on the functions/dichotomies. I only used "big picture Vs details" as an example of an obvious dichotomy according to most people. Anyway, it is much more obvious than "Time" vs. "Force".

Quote:

---

in fact that's a result Vs process dichotomy,

---

I disagree with you. "Detached from processes and tends to multitasking." and "Focus on the beginning and the end of processes." don't mean being focused on the big picture.

Quote:

---

and looking at real people that's not quite true at all. SLE are archetyped after the military leaders that definitely knows what general big picture direction to go for and leaves the details unplanned filling in themselves.

---

I think military leaders often are LIE. But I agree with you as well. There is a big difference between SLI and SLE, so "Extraversion + Sensing = details" is (partially) false.

Quote:

---

Secondly if you are asking why "Time" is the opposite of "force", it's a sign you don't understand "Ne" intellectually

---

Are you referring to the fact that DarkAngelFireWolf69 is LII, Yermak is LII, Bukalov is ILE, Aushra was ILE...?

You are still not explaining how "Time" and "Force" are opposite.

Quote:

---

and how both LII and ILE like to describe the world and craft their theory. LII for example derive theory from observations and they've noted that INXP types (including INXJ - LII & EII) are detached and indecisive negating the present focusing on the development of an imaginary future ( the future isn't a real place but what is speculated).

---

That is certainly true for ILI / INTp as well.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Petter

Are you referring to the fact that DarkAngelFireWolf69 is LII, Yermak is LII, Bukalov is ILE, Aushra was ILE...?

You are still not explaining how "Time" and "Force" are opposite.

---

Yes I'm referring to the fact that those types are observers and they derive their theory from observations on "targets" they've branded as those specific types.

You are asking a moot point that's irrelevant once you understand there's no intrinsic link behind "Time" and "Force" being polar opposites besides the observations derived from people labelled as those target types.

Much of socionics has been derived this way which is why Jung's original abstract conjectures have been simplified to qualitative observations that results in the odd ways IMs are defined in socionics. The idea that extroverted sensing is linked to force, or introverted sensing to comfort has no intrinsic sense when analysing that against structural consistency - if you are cognisant you might begin to realise that "Ni" intellectually is quite abstract, which leads to lead representatives looking for structural integrity and consistency in ideas they look at.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Bertrand

I think details can be either Si or Se, its a common misconception they are the domain of one or the other. Details are part of sensing in general, whether the person focuses on the subjective or objective aspects of a thing can lead them into examining details or not. Si can be very much about ignoring details, seeing things as a forest rather than trees. you see this form of Si in art often such as impressionism. meanwhile realism seems to want to import as much as possible "what is there" in the Se sense, and can be highly detailed, because it is of course necessary in light of the goal. meanwhile hyperealism takes it a step further and is more into the Si realm again. Se in conveying force can omit details in terms of accuracy of "what is there" in order to convey kinetics which is also "really there", to the extent it does so faithfully to the object as part of the scene

---

If objective vs. subjective is true, then Si and Se deal with details. But I don't think an ontologically objective Se is possible. "Perception of the appearance and shape of an object" must be ontologically subjective, right?

its possible inasmuch as anything said to be objective is possible... if your worldview is founded on the notion that ultimately everything is subjective then "objective" anything is kind of a farce, but if you think of things being more/less objective and objective preference is to simply be on the "more" side as much as possible, but not necessarily absolute, then I think that is the best that can be done. to be sure subjectivity taints absolutely everything but it doesn't override objectivity in principle I don't think, it just means humans aren't perfectly objective even when they value it.. they're sort of strung out like a wire kept taught under tension, in the same way no one can be perfectly subjective either (perfect "freedom" doesn't exist either, i.e.: we are stuck with certain "facts"), you might say this tension is the basis for affording humans "choice": to prefer or operate under one or the other principle with a degree of discretion

You can be entirelly without subjectivity. Aware state, blind to interpretation and ignorning of words and inner monolougue. This is possible, and can be extended into long periods of time. Subjectivity is only possible when you believe yourself to be a subject.

Freedom does exsist you just haven't gone far enough to see it. To many knots, hangups. Mom and Dad being one of them, and the becoming someone. Mental distraction - and the myriad of mental illness, keep you circling around true objectivity. Core beliefs from whenevef and whereever as well as yhe demands of the body are the theif that steals presence and spends it on the erroneous actions and the wheel keeps spinninh.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by timber

You can be entirelly without subjectivity. Aware state, blind to interpretation and ignorning of words and inner monolougue. This is possible, and can be extended into long periods of time. Subjectivity is only possible when you believe yourself to be a subject.

---

Perhaps... but Socionics is not about those exceptions. It is about the ordinary situations.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Soupman

Yes I'm referring to the fact that those types are observers and they derive their theory from observations on "targets" they've branded as those specific types.
You are asking a moot point that's irrelevant once you understand there's no intrinsic link behind "Time" and "Force" being polar opposites besides the observations derived from people labelled as those target types.
Much of socionics has been derived this way which is why Jung's original abstract conjectures have been simplified to qualitative observations that results in the odd ways IMs are defined in socionics. The idea that extroverted sensing is linked to force, or introverted sensing to comfort has no intrinsic sense when analysing that against structural consistency - if you are cognisant you might begin to realise that "Ni" intellectually is quite abstract, which leads to lead representatives looking for structural integrity and consistency in ideas they look at.

---

What exactly are those observations?

My point is that there are no Jungian (or MBTI) dichotomies, i.e. clear opposites. So "False dichotomy" is not a good argument (see previous posts).

But don't we need some kind of dichotomies in order to get the types? No, we need (and we have) 16 distinctly different thinking patterns.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Petter

What exactly are those observations?

---

The behaviour - the thinking and at times mannerisms of people attributed to be those "types" (subjectively). "Ethics of emotions" for example is derived from focusing on people skills, charisma, emotions - general expressiveness, emotional influence and manipulation; the different target personalities - behave in context of information targeted as "Emotional Ethics" is what is used in observations to derive IMs and subsequent profiles around it.

MBTI followed a similar scheme when they defined their "cognitive functions" as behaviour profiles, such as that "extroverted feeling" is about being aware of other's emotions, socially appropriate behaviour... (in socionics that's "R" which is why "MBTI-INFJ" is predominantly EII - nevertheless the theories aren't compatible, after some time it just becomes obvious that the overlaps serve to add more confusion to the theories, which is why there is no point in preserving Sergei little j/p notations)

Jung's original work is quite abstract and obtuse that everyone comes out with an idiosyncratic qualitative definition of his work - hence again, it was apparent that Socionics would use those ideas as a springboard to redefined IMs in a manner more practical and qualitative - ie using observations o what they think those target types are.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Petter

My point is that there are no Jungian (or MBTI) dichotomies, i.e. clear opposites. So "False dichotomy" is not a good argument (see previous posts).

---

Yes there are no Jungian "dichotomies" (you are using a subjective definition that may cause confusion); that's because socionics is derived from observations of people presumed to be the target 16 types. Socionics is it's own can of worms with it's own complexities that looking back to Jung or comparing to MBTI doesn't make it lucid.

I saw your previous posts, they are under the assumption that there are clear/objective "16types" that much of the fluff, the extended theories socionics introduces, fails to align with. Whilst your insight is true - it is guised under a misconception that "Socionics" was or is ware of unanimously comprehensible 16 objective types. However this is not the case, examine the qualitative details of socionics and it becomes apparent - socionics is built on these "axioms" of observations and subsequent subjective models about how they chose to define what they think the 16types are.

When the dyads/dichotomies aren't making sense - it means you are operating on a misconception about what the theory is. According to the way the theory has been made to be interpreted it's not an issue.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Petter

But don't we need some kind of dichotomies in order to get the types? No, we need (and we have) 16 distinctly different thinking patterns.

---

I'll ditto my point, there are no unanimously objectively defined or understood 16 types of thinking patterns - WHICH ARE EXPLAINED!!! by the high level qualitative description of the IMs or type profiles; unless of course people play mental gymnastics to synthesize everything together ignoring those pesky details and fundamental way the theory has been derived.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Soupman

The behaviour - the thinking and at times mannerisms of people attributed to be those "types" (subjectively). "Ethics of emotions" for example is derived from focusing on people skills, charisma, emotions - general expressiveness, emotional influence and manipulation; the different target personalities - behave in context of information targeted as "Emotional Ethics" is what is used in observations to derive IMs and subsequent profiles around it.

MBTI followed a similar scheme when they defined their "cognitive functions" as behaviour profiles, such as that "extroverted feeling" is about being aware of other's emotions, socially appropriate behaviour... (in socionics that's "R" which is why "MBTI-INFJ" is predominantly EII - nevertheless the theories aren't compatible, after some time it just becomes obvious that the overlaps serve to add more confusion to the theories, which is why there is no point in preserving Sergei little j/p notations)

Jung's original work is quite abstract and obtuse that everyone comes out with an idiosyncratic qualitative definition of his work - hence again, it was apparent that Socionics would use those ideas as a springboard to redefined IMs in a manner more practical and qualitative - ie using observations o what they think those target types are.

Yes there are no Jungian "dichotomies" (you are using a subjective definition that may cause confusion); that's because socionics is derived from observations of people presumed to be the target 16 types. Socionics is it's own can of worms with it's own complexities that looking back to Jung or comparing to MBTI doesn't make it lucid.

---

The question was whether Socionics "Time" and "Force" are the complete opposite (and/or dichotomous) or not. I don't think they are (nor need to be) the complete opposite nor dichotomous.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Myers–...or_dichotomies

J/P (mbti) is especially problematic.

I think there are 16 clearly different personality types, and 8 cognitive functions.

------

I don't think "being aware of other's emotions, socially appropriate behaviour" corresponds to R. That is E instead. R is about relationships, and I think socionists got that one right. Relationships are dependent on "sympathy – antipathy, attraction – repulsion, feelings, ability not to offend" (R) much more than "people’s emotions" (E). And no, mbti-INFJ does not correspond to EII. It corresponds to IEI. (A type is defined by the functions.)

------

I agree with you that Jung's work is quite obtuse.

Quote:

---

I saw your previous posts, they are under the assumption that there are clear/objective "16types" that much of the fluff, the extended theories socionics introduces, fails to align with. Whilst your insight is true - it is guised under a misconception that "Socionics" was or is ware of unanimously comprehensible 16 objective types. However this is not the case, examine the qualitative details of socionics and it becomes apparent - socionics is built on these "axioms" of observations and subsequent subjective models about how they chose to define what they think the 16types are.

---

This is very true. I have discussed "the 16 types" with Irina Eglit (SSS), and it is very obvious that her view is completely different from mine. For example, ILI is not even "the scientist", so Richard Feynman is ILE in her view.

Aushra got the first four functions right in Model A. That was a big step forward. Unfortunately, most socionists got the descriptions of the types wrong and the definitions of the functions wrong (in my view).

I think the Myers-Briggs community got the descriptions of the 16 types right.

Quote:

---

When the dyads/dichotomies aren't making sense - it means you are operating on a misconception about what the theory is. According to the way the theory has been made to be interpreted it's not an issue.

---

Dyad is much better... and they are not synonymous.

Quote:

---

I'll ditto my point, there are no unanimously objectively defined or understood 16 types of thinking patterns - WHICH ARE EXPLAINED!!! by the high level qualitative description of the IMs or type profiles; unless of course people play mental gymnastics to synthesize everything together ignoring those pesky details and fundamental way the theory has been derived.

---

Let's agree to disagree here.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Petter

I don't think "being aware of other's emotions, socially appropriate behaviour" corresponds to R. That is E instead. R is about relationships, and I think socionists got that one right. Relationships are dependent on "sympathy – antipathy, attraction – repulsion, feelings, ability not to offend" (R) much more than "people’s emotions" (E). And no, mbti-INFJ does not correspond to EII. It corresponds to IEI. (A type is defined by the functions.).

---

You need to read the profile descriptions again and the IMs looking at how they are defined in socionics and compare to the cognitive functions of MBTI.

E is about expression, emotions...

R is about relationship, appropriate behaviour, manners, etc

MBTI INFJ that's said to have "Fe" defined as socially appropriate behaviour, awareness of others - all of which is defined make them more empathic and aware of others.

MBTI INFP is defined as being artsy and expressive, inwardly focus on their own feelings, values and personal beliefs "Fi".

In socionics the INFJ(EII) is composed and aware of relations between people, they care about others - that's the focus on relations being talked about. "R", Delta's are more composed and ethical.

INFP (IEI) is the beta drama queen - obsessed and passionate, expressive - known as the Lyrist or Poet, focused on their emotions and what that means to their world.

Besides the niggles, it's apparent which is most similar to which. DarkAngelFireWolf69 has mentioned how he doesn't believe in the JP switch in an article shared already.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Soupman

You need to read the profile descriptions again and the IMs looking at how they are defined in socionics and compare to the cognitive functions of MBTI.

E is about expression, emotions...

R is about relationship, appropriate behaviour, manners, etc

---

I can see why you think that. But that is a misinterpretation... socionists did not mean it like that. Instead, being focused on emotions is the same thing as being focused on social behavior.

This is Viktor DarkAngelFireWolf69's current view on the functions:

+E Ethics of positive emotions [MBTI: Fe+] : being happy, expressing enthusiasm, being friendly and open with people. That's the way ESE (EF) [ESFJ] share the joy of living.

-E Ethics of negative (dramatic) emotions [MBTI: Fe-] : being angry, indignant, dramatizing events, ridiculing others, escalating conflicts emotionally. That's the way EIE (EI) [ENFJ] acts

+R relationship ethics of forgiveness [MBTI: Fi+ ] : forgiving people, giving them benefit of the doubt, grieving and comforting those struck by grief, being kind to others. That's the ethic of EII (RT) [INFP].

-R relationship ethics of disapproval [MBTI: Fi-] : keeping others at a distance, being suspicious, holding a grudge. Such is the ethics of ESI (RS) [ISFP].

Quote:

---

MBTI INFJ that's said to have "Fe" defined as socially appropriate behaviour, awareness of others - all of which is defined make them more empathic and aware of others.

---

Correct

Quote:

---

MBTI INFP is defined as being artsy and expressive, inwardly focus on their own feelings, values and personal beliefs "Fi".

---

Fairly accurate

Quote:

---

In socionics the INFJ(EII) is composed and aware of relations between people, they care about others - that's the focus on relations being talked about. "R", Delta's are more composed and ethical.

INFP (IEI) is the beta drama queen - obsessed and passionate, expressive - known as the Lyrist or Poet, focused on their emotions and what that means to their world.

---

SRSI (Moscow):

Ethical-intuitive introvert (EII) puts in the first place of his priorities hierarchy matters of human ethics and morals (ethics of relations is the basic function). All his creativity is filled with the search of new, more perfect forms of human relationships. EII tries to be attentive to every personality as he sees it as the whole world, a vessel where beauty gets on with coarseness, anger and hatred. EII type is a spiritual and moral pastor, mentor irrespective of age. He is turned to when grief occurs, when one needs to cry on somebody’s shoulder or there is a gnawing in one’s heart. On his way from understanding to forgiving EII representative fulfill his destiny.

EII’s drawback is inadequate manifestation of will sensorics seen in irreconcilability with personal violence. Their favourite words are the epithets of “must”. As a result there appears unnecessary fuss over nothing. Spending days in philosophic reflection which often do no have practical exact use, EII is unable to arrange his own everyday life. Steamroller approach is destructive for a vulnerable EII, who is unable to resist the pressure. This type representatives stand up for noble, spiritual ideals, throwing away and criticizing “bourgeois” manifestations: urge towards good clothes and tasty food. EII’s self sacrificing can sometimes be turned to the people who do not need that.

Intuitive-ethical introvert (IEI) can be characterized as a dreamer and romantic. Reminiscences of future and thinking of the past take IEI’s thoughts. This type representatives like to lay on a sofa with a book or go to the country to reunite with nature. But actually, nature is an insidious thing, it can give cataclysms like snow, rain and wind. That’s why such undertakings IEI usually holds in his own imagination. Strong intuition of time (the first channel) gives this type the inclination for mysticism and superstition. IEI believe in prophetic dreams and omens. Ethics of emotions (creative function) helps them to tune into the interlocutor’s feelings and grasp the deep strives of the other person’s soul.

Unfortunately , people are not always able to use their creative function for the good. Sometimes one can meet IEI with exaggerated ethics of emotions, simply speaking, emotionally dissipated. Instead of comforting people with the warmth of their soul they start manipulating others and become whimsical. In exalted upsurge IEI can go into hysterics because “everything goes wrong’ and “nothing turns out to be as expected” (sensorics of sensations and logics of actions are weak functions). In a word, this type representative is not for hardships. Intuition of time can make him wallow in the world of illusions, dreams and imaginings. He would hardly muddle through a long-term matter. IEI can renovate the house for years or, having started moving the furniture in the morning, drop this occupation by lunch time.

Quote:

---

Besides the niggles, it's apparent which is most similar to which. DarkAngelFireWolf69 has mentioned how he doesn't believe in the JP switch in an article shared already.

---

Is that a recent article? Because he seems to support the JP switch in various discussions in Ben's Model G Facebook group.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Petter

Is that a recent article? Because he seems to support the JP switch in various discussions in Ben's Model G Facebook group.

---

He doesn't that is what Ben pushes on him, it is Ben's channel and he edits and interprets Vikor's work as he chooses. Ben's groups subscribe strictly to the idea that socionics and MBTI are compatible and were they clash - MBTI is the way to go. You'll get booted if you challenge otherwise, there isn't the freedom to question.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Petter

+E Ethics of positive emotions [MBTI: Fe+] : being happy, expressing enthusiasm, being friendly and open with people. That's the way ESE (EF) [ESFJ] share the joy of living.


-E Ethics of negative (dramatic) emotions [MBTI: Fe-] : being angry, indignant, dramatizing events, ridiculing others, escalating conflicts emotionally. That's the way EIE (EI) [ENFJ] acts


+R relationship ethics of forgiveness [MBTI: Fi+ ] : forgiving people, giving them benefit of the doubt, grieving and comforting those struck by grief, being kind to others. That's the ethic of EII (RT) [INFP].


-R relationship ethics of disapproval [MBTI: Fi-] : keeping others at a distance, being suspicious, holding a grudge. Such is the ethics of ESI (RS) [ISFP].

---

You are performing unnecessary mental gymnastics trying to force the theories together, the ENFJ is much more positive and inspirational in MBTI, a teacher that mentors and guides - there's nothing about being negative. MBTI INFJ remains as EII, seriously this has not stopped being the EII http://www.personalitypage.com/INFJ.html & http://www.the16types.info/vbulletin...ile-by-DarkAngelFireWolf69.
The two profiles are both based on describing a very moral and principle centric personality. That's the essence of the Delta quadra. "Fe" is doing the right thing, and caring about others - morals, which remains closest to "R" in socionics which isn't about feelings, but morals, tradition, manners.

Quote:

---

Extraverted feeling (Fe) Edit
Extraverted feeling (Fe) is the feeling function that is primarily concerned with connection and commonality to others. Since it is extraverted and objective, it encapsulates the system of 'value' outward in the form of common courtesy and etiquette.[11]

Fe can be seen as accommodating and presents to mind a picture of a motherly figure.

Overall, Fe is concerned with phenomena to be harmonious with its external environment. Jung writes of extraverted feelers as those where feeling "loses its personal character -- it becomes feeling per se; it almost seems as though the personality were wholly dissolved in the feeling of the moment. Now, since actual life situations constantly and successively alternate, in which the feeling-tones released are not only different but are actually mutually contrasting, the personality inevitably becomes dissipated in just so many different feelings."

---

ESE can at times fit ESFJ but the SJness is quite strong and distorts those SFs; ISFP is seriously more SEI with the comfort sensation used to observe the type's more artsy tendencies http://www.personalitypage.com/ISFP.html . MBTI Se is most similar to Si, which is bizarrely odd and shows the subjectivity of the highly qualitative descriptions of either IMs or Cognitive functions. Some say the ESFP is just an extroverted SEI.

yeah that's something I really don't like about Ben's work, is that he consistently tries to reconcile MBTI and Socionics in a way I don't believe is possible. For example I don't think there's a 1:1 type conversion between the two systems. Yes they both have 16 types, but that doesn't mean they neatly flow from one into the other. The basic postulates of socionics and MBTI are sufficiently different that a ENTJ in MBTI could either a ILI or LIE or SLE. This is mainly a product of MBTI having inferior definitional and rational precision over its own framework... its precisely this disjunction that makes socionics better, so to exclude socionics or to shoehorn it into MBTI is the exact opposite of how I think the issue should be handled. It basically takes where socionics improves and tries to zero it out in the name of making it more accessible when its not that issue thats making it harder to "access" in the first place. People will come to socionics as is, it doesn't need to be dressed up as MBTI. Further the right kind of people want to keep socionics in tact, the people who bandwagon MBTI will come along in any case, because 99% of them don't understand either system anyway. Its like, what's it to them what you call it, so why cowtow. I concede I may be wrong and maybe the key is to somehow ride in on MBTI and let MBTI control where popular prejudice favors it, but it seems wrongheaded to me. One gets the distinct feeling his obsession with reconciling keirsey and socionics is more about his own ego pursuits than guided by any real consideration for endstate, to where the justification is just a rationalization that sounds good but is speculative and essentially does violence to the cause in the name of helping it. nevertheless Ben has done a lot to bring DarkAngelFireWolf69 to me so for that the entire scheme seems to be working somewhat

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Bertrand

yeah that's something I really don't like about Ben's work, is that he consistently tries to reconcile MBTI and Socionics in a way I don't believe is possible. For example I don't think there's a 1:1 type conversion between the two systems. Yes they both have 16 types, but that doesn't mean they neatly flow from one into the other. The basic postulates of socionics and MBTI are sufficiently different that a ENTJ in MBTI could either a ILI or LIE or SLE. This is mainly a product of MBTI having inferior definitional and rational precision over its own framework... its precisely this disjunction that makes socionics better, so to exclude socionics or to shoehorn it into MBTI is the exact opposite of how I think the issue should be handled. It basically takes where socionics improves and tries to zero it out in the name of making it more accessible when its not that issue thats making it harder to "access" in the first place. People will come to socionics as is, it doesn't need to be dressed up as MBTI. Further the right kind of people want to keep socionics in tact, the people who bandwagon MBTI will come along in any case, because 99% of them don't understand either system anyway. Its like, what's it to them what you call it, so why cowtow. I concede I may be wrong and maybe the key is to somehow ride in on MBTI and let MBTI control where popular prejudice favors it, but it seems wrongheaded to me. One gets the distinct feeling his obsession with reconciling keirsey and socionics is more about his own ego pursuits than guided by any real consideration for endstate, to where the justification is just a rationalization that sounds good but is speculative and essentially does violence to the cause in the name of helping it. nevertheless Ben has done a lot to bring DarkAngelFireWolf69 to me so for that the entire scheme seems to be working somewhat

---

I concur, well said.

Even Maritsa says that she self types as both MBTI INFJ and Socionics EII - the types which are both about morals and behaviour, leading by example.


Unlike the beta IEI passion and subsequently ad-hoc morality based more on whims and passion, which is pretty much MBTI INFP.

yeah not only that, but once you realize socionics ITR were developed with sociotypes in mind it becomes assinine to talk about ITR between MBTI. Its like saying ILI LIE and SLE all have the same ITR to IEI. this is what was driving me crazy about the supervision discussion, its like we don't even know what we're talking about, because its not clear what ITR is even operative. Instead they were talking more about a generalized feeling of inferiority arising out of people talking to them in a way they neither appreciated nor could effectively rebuff. In essence that is something like supervision but it wasn't clear when people were talking whether this is how EII experiences supervision or IEI or whoever, and I think that is the most interesting thing, instead its like unknown type x experiences it like this, and it was basically entirely general talk... in essence personality got reduced out, not explicated. they were essentially working backwards from supervision and just throwing type labels over the top of it, but it made the idea of it about being about individual perspectives on type kind of a farce, since the it was simply different people of ambiguous type talking about a general phenomena but it was actually lacking a true individualized perspective. it would be like if I asked everyone to discuss a topic according to their own preferences but they all said the same thing and we differentiated it solely in terms of volume or timbre or something. its the illusion of perspective

Are Si and Se mixed up here. Would Se see the car, and Si see the details of the car?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Soupman

You need to read the profile descriptions again and the IMs looking at how they are defined in socionics and compare to the cognitive functions of MBTI.

E is about expression, emotions...

R is about relationship, appropriate behaviour, manners, etc

MBTI INFJ that's said to have "Fe" defined as socially appropriate behaviour, awareness of others - all of which is defined make them more empathic and aware of others.

MBTI INFP is defined as being artsy and expressive, inwardly focus on their own feelings, values and personal beliefs "Fi".

In socionics the INFJ(EII) is composed and aware of relations between people, they care about others - that's the focus on relations being talked about. "R", Delta's are more composed and ethical.

INFP (IEI) is the beta drama queen - obsessed and passionate, expressive - known as the Lyrist or Poet, focused on their emotions and what that means to their world.

Besides the niggles, it's apparent which is most similar to which. DarkAngelFireWolf69 has mentioned how he doesn't believe in the JP switch in an article shared already.

---

Fi
"The individual sees reality primarily through static personal ethics and stable interpersonal bonds between individuals, including himself, where the status of such interpersonal bonds is determined by his personal ethics. The individual is very confident in evaluating the ethical or moral qualities, and their consistency, of other people. This makes the individual seem "judgemental" or "self-righteous" to people less so inclined. If he has difficulty in deciding the status of a personal relationship, he will take action to try to reach a conclusion but if that continues to elude him, he will regard the relationship as not worth it. His own sense of constancy in personal ethics and in his relationships with others is a very strong factor in his sense of self-worth. Fi in this position implies the ability to almost instantly recognize whether someone is a friend or an enemy, whether they are demonstrating good will or ill will, and whether they are drawn to or repelled by the individual."

This is MBTI INFP. INFP is focused on their own personal ethics and the ethics of others, and their own personal relation to others. INFP expressiveness is one of art and poetry and all that, because it is not verbal or facial because it is introverted.

Fe
"The person is sensitive to the emotional atmosphere around him, either from an individual, or a group, or even from inanimate objects such as the landscape, the state of the physical environment he happens to be in, or his own emotional associations with the place or people around him. A positive emotional atmophere is essential for his sense of well being and inner peace, and he either tries to promote it himself by directly influencing it around him, or by simply moving away from the environment or the people causing a negative emotional environment in his view.For the SEI, this takes an on-the-spot aspect and is reflected in cracking jokes, trying to make people laugh, or simply moving away from people he perceives as affecting him negatively. For the IEI, this takes a longer-term perspective; so the focus, rather than being on the immediate emotional environment, is on the perceived longer-term emotional state of others towards the individual, and is reflected in trying to be on good terms with those he interacts with or seeking distance or protection from, or "preventively" attacking, those he sees as irremediably hostile emotionally.

This is MBTI INFJ. INFJ creative Fe is focused on emotional environment. Focused on trying to influence that as well, INFP does not try to influence other's emotions.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lord Pixel

Fi
"The individual sees reality primarily through static personal ethics and stable interpersonal bonds between individuals, including himself, where the status of such interpersonal bonds is determined by his personal ethics. The individual is very confident in evaluating the ethical or moral qualities, and their consistency, of other people. This makes the individual seem "judgemental" or "self-righteous" to people less so inclined. If he has difficulty in deciding the status of a personal relationship, he will take action to try to reach a conclusion but if that continues to elude him, he will regard the relationship as not worth it. His own sense of constancy in personal ethics and in his relationships with others is a very strong factor in his sense of self-worth. Fi in this position implies the ability to almost instantly recognize whether someone is a friend or an enemy, whether they are demonstrating good will or ill will, and whether they are drawn to or repelled by the individual."

This is MBTI INFP. INFP is focused on their own personal ethics and the ethics of others, and their own personal relation to others. INFP expressiveness is one of art and poetry and all that, because it is not verbal or facial because it is introverted.

Fe
"The person is sensitive to the emotional atmosphere around him, either from an individual, or a group, or even from inanimate objects such as the landscape, the state of the physical environment he happens to be in, or his own emotional associations with the place or people around him. A positive emotional atmosphere is essential for his sense of well being and inner peace, and he either tries to promote it himself by directly influencing it around him, or by simply moving away from the environment or the people causing a negative emotional environment in his view.For the SEI, this takes an on-the-spot aspect and is reflected in cracking jokes, trying to make people laugh, or simply moving away from people he perceives as affecting him negatively. For the IEI, this takes a longer-term perspective; so the focus, rather than being on the immediate emotional environment, is on the perceived longer-term emotional state of others towards the individual, and is reflected in trying to be on good terms with those he interacts with or seeking distance or protection from, or "preventively" attacking, those he sees as irremediably hostile emotionally.

This is MBTI INFJ. INFJ creative Fe is focused on emotional environment. Focused on trying to influence that as well, INFP does not try to influence other's emotions.

---

I see your point but, this is much of the quasi-identity competences and ability that lead to confusion when you mix the theories together. @Lord Pixel it seems like you've copied one of those early English socionics sites that merged MBTI with socionics since the definitions are off on IMs. Before google translate, most people involved took the early ideas in socionics and mixed them with MBTI. BTW Introverted IMs are observable they aren't defined as mysterious speculations that take place in the mind - R is defined as the observable behaviour and attitudes in people claimed to have that personality. R is much more clearly defined here as is the norm in Russian schools, that have a mature development of the theory.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by DarkAngelFireWolf69

The EII keenly discerns what kind of relationships exist between other people. She knows who does and doesn't get along with whom. However, she is not as adept at correctly discerning the attitudes directed towards herself i.e. in what regard others hold her, due to which she may suffer by being too gullible. The EII values honesty and basic sense of decency in human relations. She does not forgive treachery and betrayals and will break off all relations with those who have seriously let her down. However, she may forgive her offenders if they sincerely repent and ask for her forgiveness. In general, she tries to maintain stable and friendly relations with everyone. When she is interacting with others at a distance, she is distinguished by gentleness and precaution in communication. Endowed with the gift of generosity. Her goodwill she shows by supportive deeds rather than by lofty words and loud declarations.

EII feels most comfortable in a small, familiar company. Shows concern for the feelings and moods of people around her, readily sympathizes, if necessary cheers them up and comforts them. She knows how to listen to a person, how to sympathize with her or her, how to alleviate their emotional pain and stress. Her own experiences shares only with those who are close to her. Internally, she is emotionally strained and nervous. Although she is able to control her own emotions, occasionally she needs to have an emotional release. In such instances, she loses control and may breaks out in anger and indignation at her friends and relatives, accusing them of selfish motives, lies and indifference.

http://www.the16types.info/vbulletin/content.php/288-INFj-The-Humanist-Profile-by-DarkAngelFireWolf69

---

Your "Fe" contains attributes of R which is sensitive to the "moods and feelings of people", this influences relations. E is generally more assertive and expressive; again this overall aligns with the "Fi" expressiveness and individuality stated in the MBTI profile http://www.personalitypage.com/INFP.html . Deltas don't have the "selfish" angle to them, as they focus more on principles than the expressive desire that beta NFs seem to have (which is pretty arguably "Fi" but extroverted).

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by DarkAngelFireWolf69

In his behavior the IEI is guided by his intuitive presentiments. Due to this quality he is capable of surviving in the most difficult situations. He quickly distinguishes falsehood, hypocrisy, artifice, degradation. Often acts as if he has time to spare and puts off much until tomorrow. Inclined to optimism, believes in a bright future. Pictures and visions that the IEI creates in his mind are usually much more attractive to him than everyday life proves to be. Can calm people down, instill hope and inspire them by telling of coming changes for the better. In conversation, dislikes highlighting mistakes of the past.


The IEI is well versed in nuances and ways of emotional life. He is able to discern when a person is in a good mood to turn to them with a request, therefore it can be difficult to turn him down. Graciously responds to the humor in life. Tells jokes and anecdotes, acts in jest, prods those close to him, evoking positive emotions in different ways. Sensitively responds to fights between people who are close to him. Seeks reconciliation, readily agrees to compromise. Will willingly sacrifice himself to settle conflicts. Internally troubled. Experiences a lot, but hides his agitation and poor mood behind a soft smile.

http://www.the16types.info/vbulletin...ile-by-DarkAngelFireWolf69

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Soupman

I see your point but, this is much of the quasi-identity competences and ability that lead to confusion when you mix the theories together. @Lord Pixel it seems like you've copied one of those early English socionics sites that merged MBTI with socionics since the definitions are off on IMs. Before google translate, most people involved took the early ideas in socionics and mixed them with MBTI. BTW Introverted IMs are observable they aren't defined as mysterious speculations that take place in the mind - R is defined as the observable behaviour and attitudes in people claimed to have that personality. R is much more clearly defined here as is the norm in Russian schools, that have a mature development of the theory.



Your "Fe" contains attributes of R which is sensitive to the "moods and feelings of people", this influences relations. E is generally more assertive and expressive; again this overall aligns with the "Fi" expressiveness and individuality stated in the MBTI profile http://www.personalitypage.com/INFP.html . Deltas don't have the "selfish" angle to them, as they focus more on principles than the expressive desire that beta NFs seem to have (which is pretty arguably "Fi" but extroverted).

---

I don't know what R means or what IM means but I just read those descriptions and I relate alot to the IEI description (except the emotive parts and the fast fleeting expression parts)and some parts of EII. The IEI description does sound like MBTI INFP, but parts of the EII description also sound like EII so it gets confusing.

But I relate to Delta conservative values, Infantile romance style, and ESTJ/INFj duality more than anything else. So now I'm confused.

This definition of is also found in the IEI description.


Ne as Creative Function (EII, LII)

The individual likes to apply his insights to specific situations and discussions. He grasps a generalized snapshot of the conversation capturing the essential information and then looks at how events, people, concepts, and things are related with each other. By spotting these similarities and analogies he hopes to find general trends, patterns, prevailing attitudes, universal rules and values of his environment and the people within it. He enjoys discussing different potential viewpoints and often adds new tangents to a conversation, thereby prolonging the discussion sometimes seemingly indefinitely. In conversation, he may give idealized accounts and statements and prefers to talk about things and events how then could be instead of explaining and talking about them as they already are. He does not pursue ideas or new opportunities merely for their own sake, but for their application to specific situations, questions, and issues that he is currently engaged with.



And this descriptions sort of contradicts the IEI descprition.


Fe as Creative Function (IEI, SEI)

The person is very consciously and acutely but only situationally sensitive to harmony of events transpiring around him, tries to affect the course of events to steer them into a more amiable course. He can perceive from an individual, a group, or even from inanimate objects such as the landscape, the state of the physical environment he happens to be in, or his own emotional associations with the place or people around him. He prizes a supportive and friendly atmosphere, and he either tries to promote it himself by directly influencing his environment, or by simply waiting it out or leaving the place with a negative and hostile environment.


I do not relate to this though.

Ne as Ignoring Function (IEI, ILI)

The individual is aware of many possibilities and connections between different areas of knowledge and experience, but prefers to consder and talk about only the most probable ones, which he selects by connecting them with the past trends. Such individual is keenly aware of past trends and recurring cycles, and the context that they create, however, this serves to curb and the options that he considers to be viable, effective, and likely. He is able to grasp the intrinsic potential of a given even, person, or block of information, but prefers to restrict indulging such assessments in the face of understanding the latent past processes underpinning said things. When somebody is voicing alternatives that to him sound improbable and unlikely to happen, he is either dismissive or irritated by such information. Sometimes feels like others around him are busy reinventing the wheel and making statements that are nothing new in their essence.





And I relate more to this these definitions of the F functions.


Fe as Ignoring Function (EII, ESI)

The individual is perfectly able to integrate in a group emotional situations, such as people having fun and trading jokes, and sustain that for a long period of time. He is also usually adept at promoting such an atmosphere himself. However, he sees no point in doing so if his own inner emotional state does not prompt him towards that, especially if he does not feel as having positive private feelings towards the other people involved. He is aware of the need to keep a "polite façade" in certain social situations even in the presence of people he personally dislikes or during periods of negative inner emotions, but he refuses to actively attempt to integrate in, or promote, a positive external emotional atmosphere in such occasions. His disinclination for doing so increases along with his feelings of closeness with the individuals present.
Fi as Leading Function (EII, ESI)

The individual sees reality primarily through static personal ethics and stable interpersonal bonds between individuals, including himself, where the status of such interpersonal bonds is determined by his personal ethics. The individual is very confident in evaluating the ethical or moral qualities, and their consistency, of other people. This makes the individual seem "judgemental" or "self-righteous" to people less so inclined. If he has difficulty in deciding the status of a personal relationship, he will take action to try to reach a conclusion but if that continues to elude him, he will regard the relationship as not worth it. His own sense of constancy in personal ethics and in his relationships with others is a very strong factor in his sense of self-worth. Fi in this position implies the ability to almost instantly recognize whether someone is a friend or an enemy, whether they are demonstrating good will or ill will, and whether they are drawn to or repelled by the individual.



I also relate to this strongly.


Se as Ignoring Function (SEI, SLI)

The individual is dismissive of exerting direct physical impact to move himself towards meet his goals and needs in favor of preserving his own resources and efforts. He is preferably aware and in tune with the physical and material world around him, but sees little sense in aggressive expansionism and exertion of his own powers. He is adept at observing and perceiving potential conflicts of interests and aggression around him, but typically tries to maneuver around such conflicts to not over extend himself and picks the middle ground. However, if a direct confrontation and collision is inevitable, he is able to provide resistance or even actively participate in them if that is seen as unavoidable. Participating in vigorous physical activities where such fights may take place, martial arts for example, these individuals are motivated not by competition in itself, but by the impressions and sensations those activities generate. When making evaluation of physical nature he prefers to listen internal responses and impressions, rather than going by what he can clearly see on the outside.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Soupman

He doesn't that is what Ben pushes on him, it is Ben's channel and he edits and interprets Vikor's work as he chooses. Ben's groups subscribe strictly to the idea that socionics and MBTI are compatible and were they clash - MBTI is the way to go. You'll get booted if you challenge otherwise, there isn't the freedom to question.

---

There are lots of videos as well, and they are not edited and interpreted by Ben.

That doesn't seem like Ben at all. I have questioned him and DarkAngelFireWolf69 many times.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dzrdA9DbtzQ&t=124s

Quote:

---

You are performing unnecessary mental gymnastics trying to force the theories together, the ENFJ is much more positive and inspirational in MBTI, a teacher that mentors and guides - there's nothing about being negative.

---

Those descriptions of the functions are quotes, so DarkAngelFireWolf69 himself thinks R corresponds to Fi etc.

I agree with you that ENFJ / EIE is portrayed too negatively.

Quote:

---

MBTI INFJ remains as EII, seriously this has not stopped being the EII http://www.personalitypage.com/INFJ.html & http://www.the16types.info/vbulletin...ile-by-DarkAngelFireWolf69.

---

General Description

Two of EII's main distinguishing qualities are an interest in human values and a developed capacity for compassion. The EII tries to maintain stable, well-wishing, and friendly relations with others. She listens to people, alleviates their emotional stress, reconciles arguments while remaining objective. Readily helps those who turn to her for support. Prefers not to focus attention on her offenders and ill-wishers and accumulate ill memories.

Although the EII is usually tolerant and accommodating, she won't forgive betrayal and injustice. Negatively views any sort of coercion, counters it with stubbornness and patience. Good at seeing and bringing up omissions in new undertakings. Notices and uncovers human vices, but formulates her findings as general tactful statements.

Prefers a quiet, stable, measured rhythm of life. Dislikes crowds, loud declarations. In performing her work, the EII is conscientious and meticulous, though she may be slow in operation. Demonstrates diligence, endurance, and discipline. She is able to make herself do more than what others expect of her. For implementation she often needs detailed instructions on how to do a particular job.

The EII is emotionally keen and impressionable, and disapproves of insensitivity and harshness. She is unable to coerce and pressure others to do something, and dislikes showing this kind of assertiveness. However if she is pressured herself, she can deliver a sharp rebuke. At times, she is unsure of herself and loses initiative. Strongest form of her punishment is a complete disregard of the person. Others can take advantage of her because she finds it difficult to turn them down.

This sounds like an EII / INFj (or mbti INFP).

------

General description

Romantic dreamer and visionary. Curious: not indifferent to anything that is novel, unusual, and fascinating. Leaves an impression by his unexpected, sometimes extravagant behavior and statements. Has a refined sense of humor. Knows how to comfort a person, how to uplift the mood.

Emotive and charming; may smile even when he is saying something unpleasant. Insistent in his requests when he is strongly motivated. Knows how to pick a good moment to approach a person with his request. Freely manages his own time and that of others.

Attentive to his own appearance and that of others, aware of its influence. If necessary, dresses elegantly even exquisitely. In a demobilized state complains of about his life and hardships. Likes when he is looked after, when someone is attentive to his worries. Finds it difficult to give up comfort that he has grown accustomed to.

Without strong directives becomes disorganized and demobilized. Cannot focus his attention on a task for lengthy periods of time. In handling money uneconomical and careless: may spend a large sum money on something "for the heart and soul". May give promises that he hasn't considered well. Entertains himself to drown out disturbing premonitions.

[...]

Watching the IEI for some time, it is easy to notice the following particularity - a contrast between his behavior in public or unfamiliar company, and among familiars, including at home. In public the IEI always behaves gently and politely, not permitting himself any rudeness or disrespect. But in a circle of close friends he can sometimes behave uninhibitedly. Likes to fool around, to create unusual situations. Stirs people up to evoke positive emotions. At home can be moody, capricious, stubbornly gets his way, may put on tears, even provoke scandals. These emotional outbursts pass quickly, however, without hurting him very deeply. His emotions are very flexible, switching on and off consciously. In dealing with money, can be a spendthrift, cannot refuse himself in anything, going into debt if his own means are not enough. Loves beautiful, "salon" life, thus makes great demands. Inclined to marriages of convenience. Complains about his bad life and suffering. He likes to be cared for, to be healed and treated, for someone to listen to his complaints about poor state of health, etc. Accumulates complaints in himself, so that later with a good opportunity he can spills them out all at once.

This sounds like an IEI / INFp (or mbti INFJ).

Quote:

---

The two profiles are both based on describing a very moral and principle centric personality. That's the essence of the Delta quadra. "Fe" is doing the right thing, and caring about others - morals, which remains closest to "R" in socionics which isn't about feelings, but morals, tradition, manners.

---

I disagree with you. "Doing the right thing, and caring about others" (and tradition and manners) correspond to Fe and E. This is about action/behavior.

Morals corresponds to Fi and R. This is about values.

Quote:

---

ESE can at times fit ESFJ but the SJness is quite strong and distorts those SFs; ISFP is seriously more SEI with the comfort sensation used to observe the type's more artsy tendencies http://www.personalitypage.com/ISFP.html. MBTI Se is most similar to Si, which is bizarrely odd and shows the subjectivity of the highly qualitative descriptions of either IMs or Cognitive functions. Some say the ESFP is just an extroverted SEI.

---

I disagree with you, but let's focus on EII and IEI.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dzrdA9DbtzQ&t=124s

"Please consider all 4-letter codes as Jungian codes where J/P relates to first, dominant function."

Hmm... he is confused about MBTI J/P.

-----

N S: "We don’t know the author of the image, but I think he meant Jungian types, not MBTI. For example mr. driver is ISTJ (Inspector) if we compare him with ISTP (Craftsman) Inspector better matches to be the driver because he is more organized, likes work by schedule and more communicative then Craftsman who does not like to sit all day long in one sit (dynamic) and does not like to communicate unknown people and does not like to control others."

-----

SRSI descriptions of the types correspond with MBTI descriptions of the types. That is good enough for me. DarkAngelFireWolf69 does not represent all of Socionics.

http://www.the16types.info/vbulletin...ile-by-DarkAngelFireWolf69

"The LII has a well developed ability for logical analysis and is capable of clearly distinguishing the primary from the secondary. Creating structures, classifications, concepts is in his style. He is objective and impersonal, at times even harsh in his assessments and principles. If he is not satisfied with some guidelines or regulations, he can simply ignore them."

"LII knows how to logically and convincingly express his thoughts. He creates schemes and conceptualizations, distinctly separates the important from the secondary. Once he develops a general idea of schematic, he works on reifying it and bringing it closer to practice. Pure theorizing, philosophizing, discussions that are completely removed from the life are not for him. The correctness of the system he evaluates by its internal logical consistency."

This corresponds to mbti INTP.



http://www.the16types.info/vbulletin/content.php/286-INTp-The-Critic-Profile-by-DarkAngelFireWolf69

"Has a good eye for noticing contradictions and omissions in actions and words. Skeptical about the prospects of hasty initiatives. Can provide a characteristic for someone, predict his main reactions. Patiently leads a person along towards taking the necessary step, preparing him or her in advance.

Takes up only those tasks that ensure reliable returns. Thrifty with money. Does the job scrupulously, slowly, attentively examines details. Calculates everything in his mind. Tries to control the process. Able to capitalize on information that he or she has accumulated.

Prudent in matters of comfort and health. Reckless methods and unfounded enthusiasm are not acceptable for the ILI. At home surrounds himself with familiar items. Often, he is a food gourmand. Observes cleanliness and standards of hygiene.

He likes to discuss and argue on a variety of topics, but growing hot-tempered he can spoil the mood for himself and others. Poorly control his emotions: his states range from melancholic depression to outbreaks of discontentment and frustration. His problem lies in finding inner balance. Does not like when he is perturbed from a state of tranquility and relaxation."

"For his physical well-being engages in athletic types of sports – tries to build stamina and overcome his natural weakness, toughens himself. But to engage in this regularly he usually does not have enough willpower."

"The logical subtype of ILI is often active and assertive in dialogue. Sometimes can be demonstratively rude and vulgar."

"Frequently washes his hands, tries to keep cleanliness"


And this corresponds to mbti INTJ. I don't think DarkAngelFireWolf69 is confused about the types.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Petter

There are lots of videos as well, and they are not edited and interpreted by Ben.

That doesn't seem like Ben at all. I have questioned him and DarkAngelFireWolf69 many times.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dzrdA9DbtzQ&t=124s

---

Stop being naive, about a simple fact - the J/P switch which Ben holds but, Viktor doesn't not, he doesn't buy the MBTI idea that the "demonstrative" function is prominent which is what much of energy model is about. The types don't really match, it's best to keep a wall between the theories, but J/P switch isn't there and the functions get confusing with overlaps - the quasi-identity conundrum makes things worse

//There are many more articles like this were viktor has mentioned how he thinks the J/P difference is stupid in MBTI and he reiterated why the idea of the second function being extroverted is pretty stupid. You should know that both L and R are observable in behaviour - they aren't abstract thoughts that take place in the mind never meeting in behaviour.

http://www.the16types.info/vbulletin...ican-typology)

//Lytov's former site has got a lot of information explaining why socionics doesn't believe in the stupid idea that the second function is dominant in rationality - they've mocked MBTI countless times for this.
http://www.socioniko.net/en/

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Petter

Those descriptions of the functions are quotes, so DarkAngelFireWolf69 himself thinks R corresponds to Fi etc.

General Description

Two of EII's main distinguishing qualities are an interest in human values and a developed capacity for compassion. The EII tries to maintain stable, well-wishing, and friendly relations with others. She listens to people, alleviates their emotional stress, reconciles arguments while remaining objective. Readily helps those who turn to her for support. Prefers not to focus attention on her offenders and ill-wishers and accumulate ill memories.

Although the EII is usually tolerant and accommodating, she won't forgive betrayal and injustice. Negatively views any sort of coercion, counters it with stubbornness and patience. Good at seeing and bringing up omissions in new undertakings. Notices and uncovers human vices, but formulates her findings as general tactful statements.

Prefers a quiet, stable, measured rhythm of life. Dislikes crowds, loud declarations. In performing her work, the EII is conscientious and meticulous, though she may be slow in operation. Demonstrates diligence, endurance, and discipline. She is able to make herself do more than what others expect of her. For implementation she often needs detailed instructions on how to do a particular job.

The EII is emotionally keen and impressionable, and disapproves of insensitivity and harshness. She is unable to coerce and pressure others to do something, and dislikes showing this kind of assertiveness. However if she is pressured herself, she can deliver a sharp rebuke. At times, she is unsure of herself and loses initiative. Strongest form of her punishment is a complete disregard of the person. Others can take advantage of her because she finds it difficult to turn them down.

---

This is the correspondence between Fe and R, though the two functions don't align entirely.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MBTI Fe

"Extraverted Feeling deals with understanding others emotions and feelings in the present moment. Extraverted Feeling is very attentive to others and can just sense what others are currently feeling. It is able to quickly assess the mood of the environment. It is also very skilled at changing the mood, whether they want to make it more upbeat or sadder.


Extraverted Feeling is the dominant function in ESFJs and ENFJs. It is the secondary function in ISFJs and INFJs.


Extraverted Feelers tend to enjoy helping out others. They like being useful, supportive, and encouraging. However, sometimes they can feel used because of this. Extraverted Feeling has a tendency, whether conscious or not, to keep tabs of who has helped who more. If they have bought their partner a gift, cleaned their room, and wrote them a love letter without any reciprocation, they may start to feel upset and might take it personally.


Extraverted Feeling is also very good at assessing roles in a situation. It can determine what role someone plays in a situation. It also can be used a “feeler” to size something up. For example, If you come into a new job and say “get me a coffee,” and they comply, the Fe user expects that person to play that role. If that person says, “I’m an accountant, not a gopher” Fe determines forms a different opinion of what that person’s role is.


ENFJs and INFJs would be wise to use their Introverted Intuition to help them sort out their feelings when they are upset. They should think of other times this has happened in the past, and how it likely isn’t their fault, and the other person is likely busy or distracted. They can also think about how this feeling of rejection is just a current feeling and one that will quickly pass in the future."

---

https://personalitygrowth.com/extraverted-feeling-fe/
http://www.personalitypage.com/INFJ.html

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Petter

General description

Romantic dreamer and visionary. Curious: not indifferent to anything that is novel, unusual, and fascinating. Leaves an impression by his unexpected, sometimes extravagant behavior and statements. Has a refined sense of humor. Knows how to comfort a person, how to uplift the mood.

Emotive and charming; may smile even when he is saying something unpleasant. Insistent in his requests when he is strongly motivated. Knows how to pick a good moment to approach a person with his request. Freely manages his own time and that of others.

Attentive to his own appearance and that of others, aware of its influence. If necessary, dresses elegantly even exquisitely. In a demobilized state complains of about his life and hardships. Likes when he is looked after, when someone is attentive to his worries. Finds it difficult to give up comfort that he has grown accustomed to.

Without strong directives becomes disorganized and demobilized. Cannot focus his attention on a task for lengthy periods of time. In handling money uneconomical and careless: may spend a large sum money on something "for the heart and soul". May give promises that he hasn't considered well. Entertains himself to drown out disturbing premonitions.

[...]

Watching the IEI for some time, it is easy to notice the following particularity - a contrast between his behavior in public or unfamiliar company, and among familiars, including at home. In public the IEI always behaves gently and politely, not permitting himself any rudeness or disrespect. But in a circle of close friends he can sometimes behave uninhibitedly. Likes to fool around, to create unusual situations. Stirs people up to evoke positive emotions. At home can be moody, capricious, stubbornly gets his way, may put on tears, even provoke scandals. These emotional outbursts pass quickly, however, without hurting him very deeply. His emotions are very flexible, switching on and off consciously. In dealing with money, can be a spendthrift, cannot refuse himself in anything, going into debt if his own means are not enough. Loves beautiful, "salon" life, thus makes great demands. Inclined to marriages of convenience. Complains about his bad life and suffering. He likes to be cared for, to be healed and treated, for someone to listen to his complaints about poor state of health, etc. Accumulates complaints in himself, so that later with a good opportunity he can spills them out all at once.

---

That's pretty much "Fi" in the MBTI. Despite the overlaps with R which add general confusion when one understands the type missions.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by [URL="http://www.personalitypage.com/INFP.html"

personalitypage[/URL]]
INFPs do not like to deal with hard facts and logic. Their focus on their feelings and the Human Condition makes it difficult for them to deal with impersonal judgment. They don't understand or believe in the validity of impersonal judgment, which makes them naturally rather ineffective at using it. Most INFPs will avoid impersonal analysis, although some have developed this ability and are able to be quite logical. Under stress, it's not uncommon for INFPs to mis-use hard logic in the heat of anger, throwing out fact after (often inaccurate) fact in an emotional outburst.


INFPs have very high standards and are perfectionists. Consequently, they are usually hard on themselves, and don't give themselves enough credit. INFPs may have problems working on a project in a group, because their standards are likely to be higher than other members' of the group. In group situations, they may have a "control" problem. The INFP needs to work on balancing their high ideals with the requirements of every day living. Without resolving this conflict, they will never be happy with themselves, and they may become confused and paralyzed about what to do with their lives.


INFPs are usually talented writers. They may be awkard and uncomfortable with expressing themselves verbally, but have a wonderful ability to define and express what they're feeling on paper. INFPs also appear frequently in social service professions, such as counselling or teaching. They are at their best in situations where they're working towards the public good, and in which they don't need to use hard logic.

---

http://www.personalitypage.com/INFP.html

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Petter

I disagree with you. "Doing the right thing, and caring about others" (and tradition and manners) correspond to Fe and E. This is about action/behavior.

Morals corresponds to Fi and R. This is about values.

I disagree with you, but let's focus on EII and IEI.

---

At this point I can't take you seriously and neither can anyone that has been studying socionics for over 5 years at this point. You are better off sticking to MBTI or make it clear that you are interested in a derivative "socionics" that takes MBTI as the basis - adding and subtracting from core socionics theory as arbitrarily desired. The "introverted functions" are external and observable in behavioral parameters - that's why nobody talks about MBTI's auxiliary function seriously.

https://socioniks.net/article/?id=115

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Petter

http://www.the16types.info/vbulletin...ile-by-DarkAngelFireWolf69

"The LII has a well developed ability for logical analysis and is capable of clearly distinguishing the primary from the secondary. Creating structures, classifications, concepts is in his style. He is objective and impersonal, at times even harsh in his assessments and principles. If he is not satisfied with some guidelines or regulations, he can simply ignore them.

"LII knows how to logically and convincingly express his thoughts. He creates schemes and conceptualizations, distinctly separates the important from the secondary. Once he develops a general idea of schematic, he works on reifying it and bringing it closer to practice. Pure theorizing, philosophizing, discussions that are completely removed from the life are not for him. The correctness of the system he evaluates by its internal logical consistency."

BOTH QUASI-IDENTITY TYPES CAN DO THIS, THE L FUNCTION IS STRONG IN BOTH TYPES AND MORE INFLUENTIAL.

http://www.the16types.info/vbulletin...ile-by-DarkAngelFireWolf69

"Has a good eye for noticing contradictions and omissions in actions and words. Skeptical about the prospects of hasty initiatives. Can provide a characteristic for someone, predict his main reactions. Patiently leads a person along towards taking the necessary step, preparing him or her in advance THIS IS PRETTY MUCH MBTI INTP - LAIDBACK AND UNASSERTIVE.

Takes up only those tasks that ensure reliable returns. Thrifty with money. Does the job scrupulously, slowly, attentively examines details. Calculates everything in his mind. Tries to control the process. Able to capitalize on information that he or she has accumulated. MBTI INTP WITH THE SLOW ENERGY AND METHODICAL APPROACH, THE LACK OF VOLITIONAL SENSING IS THE REASON WHY "INTJ" IS LAUGHABLE TO THINK THAT TYPE IS ILI

Prudent in matters of comfort and health. Reckless methods and unfounded enthusiasm are not acceptable for the ILI. At home surrounds himself with familiar items. Often, he is a food gourmand. Observes cleanliness and standards of hygiene.SJ ATTITUDE HERE

He likes to discuss and argue on a variety of topics, but growing hot-tempered he can spoil the mood for himself and others. Poorly control his emotions: his states range from melancholic depression to outbreaks of discontentment and frustration. His problem lies in finding inner balance. Does not like when he is perturbed from a state of tranquility and relaxation." INFERIOR FE

"For his physical well-being engages in athletic types of sports – tries to build stamina and overcome his natural weakness, toughens himself. But to engage in this regularly he usually does not have enough willpower."

"The logical subtype of ILI is often active and assertive in dialogue. Sometimes can be demonstratively rude and vulgar."

"Frequently washes his hands, tries to keep cleanliness" THIS IS PRETTY MUCH AN MBTI INTP VARIANT

---

MBTI INTP corresponds to both the critic and the analyst, but mainly the critic, as pretty much the inferior "Fe" is mostly the break function. However that's not entirely true since the MBTI INTP can be any four of the Researchers in socionics. All researchers are extremely introverted - nerdish in behaviour - that is normatively. Mark Zuckerberg is LIE (quintessential one without developed superego functions) which amplifies the autistic quality he has. Sheldon Cooper (though fictional) is ILE, the intuitives are pretty introverted on default. DarkAngelFireWolf69 has confirmed these typings.

the zucccc :agent:

God this thread is such a shit show and apparently you guys didn't read my post.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Soupman

Yes there are no Jungian "dichotomies" (you are using a subjective definition that may cause confusion); that's because socionics is derived from observations of people presumed to be the target 16 types. Socionics is it's own can of worms with it's own complexities that looking back to Jung or comparing to MBTI doesn't make it lucid.

socionics is built on these "axioms" of observations

---

You need to learn epistemology 101. Axioms are not based on observations; a posteriori. Axioms are for deducing without any observations; a priori.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Petter

The question was whether Socionics "Time" and "Force" are the complete opposite (and/or dichotomous) or not. I don't think they are (nor need to be) the complete opposite nor dichotomous.

---

All mental facilities MUST be mutually exclusive dichotomies. The only way to create the intellectual types is by putting people into these different buckets. If they mental facilities are not mutually exclusive then the types are not mutually exclusive and people would be multiple types. That would ruin the system.

The irony here is that Jung and MBTI both use mutually exclusive dichotomies where Socionics does not and so Socionics in fact relies upon Jung's originally work as it's axiomatic foundation.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Bertrand

yeah that's something I really don't like about Ben's work, is that he consistently tries to reconcile MBTI and Socionics in a way I don't believe is possible. For example I don't think there's a 1:1 type conversion between the two systems. Yes they both have 16 types, but that doesn't mean they neatly flow from one into the other. The basic postulates of socionics and MBTI are sufficiently different that a ENTJ in MBTI could either a ILI or LIE or SLE.

---

It always amazes me how you can always be so wrong. All types have a 1:1 correlation between Jung, MBTI and Socionics. They all go trace back to the 16 types Jung identified. Jung's Extraverted Feeling Dominant, Introverted Intuition Auxiliary is MBTI's ENFJ and Socionic's EIE, Ethical (dominant), Intuitive (auxiliary), Extraverted.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by domr

You need to learn epistemology 101. Axioms are not based on observations; a posteriori. Axioms are for deducing without any observations; a priori.

---

This is my definition of axiom it encompasses "posteriori", obviously "observations", but I wouldn't entirely deem socionics as objective since though it's inspired by observations, those observations are "dubious" in the sense that they are interpreted and make assumptions about the thing supposedly claimed to exist not bound by fact.

Definition of axiom
1 : a statement accepted as true as the basis for argument or inference : postulate 1 one of the axioms of the theory of evolution
2 : an established rule or principle or a self-evident truth cites the axiom "no one gives what he does not have"
3 : a maxim widely accepted on its intrinsic merit the axioms of wisdom


https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/axiom

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by domr

All mental facilities MUST be mutually exclusive dichotomies. The only way to create the intellectual types is by putting people into these different buckets. If they mental facilities are not mutually exclusive then the types are not mutually exclusive and people would be multiple types. That would ruin the system.

The irony here is that Jung and MBTI both use mutually exclusive dichotomies where Socionics does not and so Socionics in fact relies upon Jung's originally work as it's axiomatic foundation.

It always amazes me how you can always be so wrong. All types have a 1:1 correlation between Jung, MBTI and Socionics. They all go trace back to the 16 types Jung identified. Jung's Extraverted Feeling Dominant, Introverted Intuition Auxiliary is MBTI's ENFJ and Socionic's EIE, Ethical (dominant), Intuitive (auxiliary), Extraverted.

---

You have odd axiomatic assumptions about socionics which, I have to be honest dude, you haven't grasped and instead chosen to create your derivative system. You are still under the assumption that there are unanimous and objective 16 distinct ways to delineate the types - and that your interpretation of the theory is the only sane one. That's either hubris or delusion since, since some really smart minds have worked on this theory for 40 years now, and there's nothing truly solid about socionics that's been discovered which can make it a respectable scientific discipline.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Soupman

Stop being naive, about a simple fact - the J/P switch which Ben holds but, Viktor doesn't not, he doesn't buy the MBTI idea that the "demonstrative" function is prominent which is what much of energy model is about.

---

What are you talking about? "MBTI idea..."? Are you saying that MBTI/MBTT claims that INTJ's Ti (ego: NiTe) is prominent?

First of all, Model G and the energy model are not identical. One of the main features of Model G is that INTJ's Ti (ego: NiTe) is prominent, hence the NiTx notation.

Quote:

---

The types don't really match, it's best to keep a wall between the theories, but J/P switch isn't there and the functions get confusing with overlaps - the quasi-identity conundrum makes things worse

---

No, there are some descriptions of the types that don't match. But it is very clear that Aushra (and VG) thinks Introverted Ethics/Feeling corresponds to R, white Ethics. And a type is defined by the functions, so an NiFe (ego) type cannot also be an FiNe (ego) type.

http://www.the16types.info/vbulletin...gustinaviciute

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by domr

All mental facilities MUST be mutually exclusive dichotomies. The only way to create the intellectual types is by putting people into these different buckets. If they mental facilities are not mutually exclusive then the types are not mutually exclusive and people would be multiple types. That would ruin the system.
The irony here is that Jung and MBTI both use mutually exclusive dichotomies where Socionics does not and so Socionics in fact relies upon Jung's originally work as it's axiomatic foundation.

---

It depends on what we mean by 'dichotomy' here. If we mean that ILI largely prefers logic over ethics, then I agree with you. But then we need functions in order to explain why ILI sometimes prefers ethics over logic.

My point is that real dichotomies (i.e. mutually exclusive, like MBTI) are not possible.

Jung observed 8 different personality patterns, and he suggested the 4 functions and E/I as an explanation for those patterns. It is not the other way around.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Soupman

MBTI INTP corresponds to both the critic and the analyst, but mainly the critic, as pretty much the inferior "Fe" is mostly the break function. However that's not entirely true since the MBTI INTP can be any four of the Researchers in socionics. All researchers are extremely introverted - nerdish in behaviour - that is normatively. Mark Zuckerberg is LIE (quintessential one without developed superego functions) which amplifies the autistic quality he has. Sheldon Cooper (though fictional) is ILE, the intuitives are pretty introverted on default. DarkAngelFireWolf69 has confirmed these typings.

---

I think you misinterpret those descriptions.

------

Can you explain why there is only an overlap for introverts? That doesn't make any sense!

If you argue that INFJ (mbti) clearly corresponds to EII, then can use Bukalov's article as an explanation:

https://www.personalitycafe.com/soci...s-model-b.html

... which doesn't make any sense either.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Soupman

"MBTI INTP WITH THE SLOW ENERGY AND METHODICAL APPROACH, THE LACK OF VOLITIONAL SENSING IS THE REASON WHY "INTJ" IS LAUGHABLE TO THINK THAT TYPE IS ILI"

---

Are you referring to Harold Grant's function stack? INTP: TiNeSiFe ... and INTJ: NiTeFiSe.... That is not MBTI.

https://www.truity.com/view/types

Here are accurate MBTI descriptions of the types.

http://www.the16types.info/vbulletin...s-by-Functions

IEI and SEI: "The person is very consciously and acutely but only situationally sensitive to harmony of events transpiring around him, tries to affect the course of events to steer them into a more amiable course. He can perceive from an individual, a group, or even from inanimate objects such as the landscape, the state of the physical environment he happens to be in, or his own emotional associations with the place or people around him. He prizes a supportive and friendly atmosphere, and he either tries to promote it himself by directly influencing his environment, or by simply waiting it out or leaving the place with a negative and hostile environment."

This applies to INFJ (mbti).

-----

EII and ESI: "The individual is perfectly able to integrate in a group emotional situations, such as people having fun and trading jokes, and sustain that for a long period of time. He is also usually adept at promoting such an atmosphere himself. However, he sees no point in doing so if his own inner emotional state does not prompt him towards that, especially if he does not feel as having positive private feelings towards the other people involved. He is aware of the need to keep a "polite façade" in certain social situations even in the presence of people he personally dislikes or during periods of negative inner emotions, but he refuses to actively attempt to integrate in, or promote, a positive external emotional atmosphere in such occasions. His disinclination for doing so increases along with his feelings of closeness with the individuals present."

This applies to INFP (mbti).

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Soupman

This is my definition of axiom it encompasses "posteriori", obviously "observations", but I wouldn't entirely deem socionics as objective since though it's inspired by observations, those observations are "dubious" in the sense that they are interpreted and make assumptions about the thing supposedly claimed to exist not bound by fact.

Definition of axiom
1 : a statement accepted as true as the basis for argument or inference : postulate 1 one of the axioms of the theory of evolution
2 : an established rule or principle or a self-evident truth cites the axiom "no one gives what he does not have"
3 : a maxim widely accepted on its intrinsic merit the axioms of wisdom


https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/axiom

---

That defintion is wrong.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Soupman

You have odd axiomatic assumptions about socionics which, I have to be honest dude, you haven't grasped and instead chosen to create your derivative system. You are still under the assumption that there are unanimous and objective 16 distinct ways to delineate the types - and that your interpretation of the theory is the only sane one. That's either hubris or delusion since, since some really smart minds have worked on this theory for 40 years now, and there's nothing truly solid about socionics that's been discovered which can make it a respectable scientific discipline.

---

Then why you are wasting your time with this pseudo-science while simultaneously acting like there are scientific rules to the system?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Petter

It depends on what we mean by 'dichotomy' here. If we mean that ILI largely prefers logic over ethics, then I agree with you. But then we need functions in order to explain why ILI sometimes prefers ethics over logic.

My point is that real dichotomies (i.e. mutually exclusive, like MBTI) are not possible.

Jung observed 8 different personality patterns, and he suggested the 4 functions and E/I as an explanation for those patterns. It is not the other way around.

---

Dichotomy is logic vs ethic, extraverted logic vs. introverted logic.

ILI will use ethics because ethic is not logic and sometimes they need to make an ethical decision. This is a case-in-point example of why the dichotomies must be mutually exclusive.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by domr

Dichotomy is logic vs ethic, extraverted logic vs. introverted logic.

ILI will use ethics because ethic is not logic and sometimes they need to make an ethical decision. This is a case-in-point example of why the dichotomies must be mutually exclusive.

---

Well, a person cannot use ethics while he/she is using logic (according to Jungian typology and Socionics). But that is not why we have dichotomies. Instead, we use the dichotomies to distinguish between different personalities.

I don't think extroverted logic vs. introverted logic is a dichotomy in Socionics. And it is certainly not a dichotomy in Jungian typology.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Petter

Well, a person cannot use ethics while he/she is using logic (according to Jungian typology and Socionics). But that is not why we have dichotomies. Instead, we use the dichotomies to distinguish between different personalities.

I don't think extroverted logic vs. introverted logic is a dichotomy in Socionics. And it is certainly not a dichotomy in Jungian typology.

---

Jung never states that thinking types cannot use feeling or vice-verse. He states that in thinking types, feeling is less differentiated i.e. more primitive and repressed into the unconscious.

Socionics has a weird information metabolism system where data? follows between the informational elements in the mental and vital ring. With that said, Model A allows a person to use both logic and ethics because everyone have all 8 functions.

The idea [misconception] that feeling types cannot use thinking and vice-versa would have to come from MBTI because of their original dichotomy typing system where a person was either T or F.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by domr

Jung never states that thinking types cannot use feeling or vice-verse. He states that in thinking types, feeling is less differentiated i.e. more primitive and repressed into the unconscious.

Socionics has a weird information metabolism system where data? follows between the informational elements in the mental and vital ring. With that said, Model A allows a person to use both logic and ethics because everyone have all 8 functions.

The idea [misconception] that feeling types cannot use thinking and vice-versa would have to come from MBTI because of their original dichotomy typing system where a person was either T or F.

---

This is accurate, but MBTI (i.e. Myers-Briggs Type Indicator) is still that dichotomy typing system. However, I+N+T+J is not a type, so INTJ refers to the functions.

https://www.myersbriggs.org/my-mbti-...y-function.htm

"The third-preferred, or tertiary, function tends to be less interesting to individuals, and they tend to have fewer skills associated with it. The letter of this function does not appear in your type. It is the opposite function from the auxiliary function. If, for example, your auxiliary function is Thinking, then your tertiary will be Feeling.
Development of this function tends to come later in life (about midlife) after you have grown and feel comfortable with the dominant and auxiliary. As you grow and develop, you learn that there is a time and place to use your third and fourth functions.
About this time, the question arises in life, is this all there is? The tertiary function can guide you toward areas of your life you have avoided, areas that require skills you do not feel comfortable using. For example, a Thinking type with tertiary Intuition may begin taking literature courses. A Thinking type with tertiary Sensing may begin doing carpentry or weaving."

They actually don't know the attitude of the tertiary function, so there is no complete model!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Petter

I think you misinterpret those descriptions.

------

Can you explain why there is only an overlap for introverts? That doesn't make any sense!

If you argue that INFJ (mbti) clearly corresponds to EII, then can use Bukalov's article as an explanation:

https://www.personalitycafe.com/soci...s-model-b.html

... which doesn't make any sense either.

---

In this study of the opinions of various socionists demonstrates the fundamental incompatibility between socionics and MBTI, furthermore, socionics is not really compatible between schools either. With INFJ and EII, it's a close call but it's messy in general since the theories aren't compatible. INTP most corresponds to LII here, yet ILI's highest match is oddly INTP too.

The theories aren't exactly compatible but in theory, J/P only works directly for extroverts because rationality is both similar in introverts and extroverts, the second function isn't prominent and influential. EII and EIE are both Judgers and IEI & IEE perceivers.

http://www.socioniko.net/en/articles/table3.gif

http://www.socioniko.net/en/articles/lytovs-intro3.html

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Petter

No, there are some descriptions of the types that don't match.But it is very clear that Aushra (and VG) thinks Introverted Ethics/Feeling corresponds to R, white Ethics. And a type is defined by the functions, so an NiFe (ego) type cannot also be an FiNe (ego) type.

http://www.the16types.info/vbulletin...gustinaviciute

---

The true definitions of NiFe, FiNe, TiSi, TeSe... from Jung are so abstract that both Socionics and MBTI ended up choosing the observational approach in determining what they thought those functions were. This is why I keep repeating to you the simple fact that there are no unanimous and objective definitions of the functions, which makes the theories odd and incompatible.

Instead, both socionics and MBTI started with that Jungian inspired structure and subjectively fleshed out the definitions for what they thought NiFe or FiNe ought to be, along with even defining the mirror types which makes the definitions of the same functions different. The same type of person was used to model after both INFJ and EII which is why those who relate to the profile say they both relate to NiFe and RI as defined by the profiles. Maritsa for example is one of the more prototypical Delta EIIs and she related to the NiFe defined in the INFJ profile more so than the moody INFP profile more resemblance of IEI.

Introverted Ethics has its own subjective definition were the way it's defined is augmented by the type being talked about. At best R has overlaps with both Fe and Fi from MBTI with arguably "personal values" from Fi and manners and etiquette from "Fe" which is about considering the welfare of others. Somethings are inverted between the two, for example, passion, desires, mood which are "Fi" in MBTI are branded as E in socionics.

Ethics of emotions	E		Rhetoric, pathos, slogans, aphorisms Sociability, demonstrativeness Passions, desires, mood Hormonal system
Ethics of relations	R		Morals, values, assessments good / bad Traditions, rituals, stereotypes Attachments, habits Respiratory system

https://socioniks.net/article/?id=115

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Petter

This is accurate, but MBTI (i.e. Myers-Briggs Type Indicator) is still that dichotomy typing system. However, I+N+T+J is not a type, so INTJ refers to the functions.

https://www.myersbriggs.org/my-mbti-...y-function.htm

"The third-preferred, or tertiary, function tends to be less interesting to individuals, and they tend to have fewer skills associated with it. The letter of this function does not appear in your type. It is the opposite function from the auxiliary function. If, for example, your auxiliary function is Thinking, then your tertiary will be Feeling.
Development of this function tends to come later in life (about midlife) after you have grown and feel comfortable with the dominant and auxiliary. As you grow and develop, you learn that there is a time and place to use your third and fourth functions.
About this time, the question arises in life, is this all there is? The tertiary function can guide you toward areas of your life you have avoided, areas that require skills you do not feel comfortable using. For example, a Thinking type with tertiary Intuition may begin taking literature courses. A Thinking type with tertiary Sensing may begin doing carpentry or weaving."

They actually don't know the attitude of the tertiary function, so there is no complete model!

---

Retcon. MBTI added the ter and inf functions in the 3rd edition of the MBTI manual. The original work did not mention those functions and was focused exclusively on dichotomies. So I+N+T+J was treated as a type in the original work and even now still mostly is. Most of the misunderstandings in analytical psychology are because of MBTI's sloppy axiomatization of Jung's original work.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by domr

So I+N+T+J was treated as a type in the original work and even now still mostly is. Most of the misunderstandings in analytical psychology are because of MBTI's sloppy axiomatization of Jung's original work.

---

I seriously doubt these three assertions. But I don't have the exact details, so let's leave it at that.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Petter

I seriously doubt these three assertions. But I don't have the exact details, so let's leave it at that.

---

https://www.myersbriggs.org/my-mbti-...ome.htm?bhcp=1

That's exactly how MBTI is shown on this webpage, how it's talked about in most of Gifts Differing and how it's taught by most practitioners.

I or E
S or N
T or F
J or P

This is because MBTI's goal was to create a survey (type indicator) and they created the survey by reducing types to these 4 factors.

If MBTI was function based then they would have labeled types in Jungianesq notation eg. NiTe.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by domr

https://www.myersbriggs.org/my-mbti-...ome.htm?bhcp=1

That's exactly how MBTI is shown on this webpage, how it's talked about in most of Gifts Differing and how it's taught by most practitioners.

I or E
S or N
T or F
J or P

This is because MBTI's goal was to create a survey (type indicator) and they created the survey by reducing types to these 4 factors.

If MBTI was function based then they would have labeled types in Jungianesq notation eg. NiTe.

---

Yes... but nobody is exclusively N or T etc. They know very well that functions are needed.

https://www.myersbriggs.org/my-mbti-...type-dynamics/

"Type is more than just the sum of the four preferences. The four-letter MBTI® type formula is a shorthand way of telling you about the interaction of your four mental functions and which ones you prefer to use first. This is called type dynamics, and it is an important part of understanding your MBTI® results."

MBTI is just smart (according to them) way of getting the correct order of the functions.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Soupman

http://www.socioniko.net/en/articles/lytovs-intro3.html

---

This is an amateurish article.

"For example, the type ENTJ in MBTT is described as a typical leader, an intellectual dictator, like Napoleon Bonaparte. In socionics, Napoleon Bonaparte is considered to be a different type representative, and ENTj (logical-intuitive extravert) also looks somewhat differently—rather a quick and practice-oriented intellectual than a “dictator”."

Come on...

https://www.truity.com/personality-type/ENTJ

"ENTJs are strategic leaders, motivated to organize change. They are quick to see inefficiency and conceptualize new solutions, and enjoy developing long-range plans to accomplish their vision. They excel at logical reasoning and are usually articulate and quick-witted."

They don't convince anyone that ENTJ and ENTj refer to different groups of people.

Also, if the JP switch is incorrect then there are 2 x 16 clearly different groups of people. But that is impossible. Why? Because it is not that easy to distinguish between 16 different groups of people, i.e. types. They have to be qualitatively different. This is where Socionics fails. They are usually not talking about types at all. And SSS clearly states that their theory is not about types, but 16 different ways of thinking or something like that.

Myers-Briggs (including Jung): observations -> descriptions of people -> functions/dichotomies/types

Socionics: definitions of information elements -> observations -> descriptions of people and types

----

This is why socionists get it wrong.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Soupman

The true definitions of NiFe, FiNe, TiSi, TeSe... from Jung are so abstract that both Socionics and MBTI ended up choosing the observational approach in determining what they thought those functions were. This is why I keep repeating to you the simple fact that there are no unanimous and objective definitions of the functions, which makes the theories odd and incompatible.

---

I disagree with you. The Myers-Briggs community is using these definitions. Socionists wanted even sharper definitions, but they ended up with worse definitions. However, the root of 'external dynamics of objects' etc. is Extroverted Thinking. So black logic corresponds to Te. Again, the descriptions of the types don't match but a type is defined by the functions.

http://www.psychceu.com/jung/sharplexicon.html

"Feeling. The psychological function that evaluates or judges what something or someone is worth."

"Feeling is distinguished from affect by the fact that it produces no perceptible physical innervations, i.e., neither more nor less than an ordinary thinking process."

"Intuition gives outlook and insight; it revels in the garden of magical possibilities as if they were real."

etc

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Petter

Myers-Briggs (including Jung): observations -> descriptions of people -> functions/dichotomies/types

Socionics: definitions of information elements -> observations -> descriptions of people and types

----

This is why socionists get it wrong.

---

I agree with you that Socionics definitions are worse than MBTI. However, Jung's definitions are shit too. He says in his ~1931 commentary that he simply chose the names based on what people commonly use.

Your two examples above are of induction (empiricism) and deduction (rationalism), respectfully. The problem with empiricism, making decisions based on observations, is that you can't know what is actually true and what is simply a stereotype. Hence Jung/MBTI/Kiersey and everyone else that use empricism has stereotypical descriptions. If you ever want this discipline to be respected as a valid philosophy (science) then the system has to be axiomized and those described used to deduce the types.

Focused / External or Looking at / Looking out
Focused / Internal or Looking at / Looking in
Unfocused / External or Looking through / Looking out
Unfocused / Internal or Looking through / Looking in

A like for everyone that can match the Perception element to the way the eyes stare while in thought.

Aushra:

"In order to meet their own needs to the person about the whole idea of ​​reality. In the service of society people co-operate. The mechanism of this phenomenon on our current understanding, is quite simple: some aspects of reality are reflected in the brain with varying degrees of differentiation and awareness. Those aspects, which uses only the individual himself, reflected relatively generalized, stored as images, experience, and skills. Those whose information is transferred to the community, are perceived differentially, with great precision, allowing to interpret this information and pass it in words.

What are these aspects?

Adaptation of the organism to the environment - never-ending chain of acts of physical activity. All that is happening around the person in the objective world, too, is nothing but a chain of acts of physical activity. We can say that everything that happens to us and around us - the same chain of acts of physical activity. A chain of acts of physical activity is not nothing but a four stroke internal combustion engine:

1) the potential energy;
2) the conversion of potential into kinetic energy;
3) the kinetic energy;
4) the use of kinetic energy.

This is the four aspects of perception of the world, which, because of its tipnoy nature, a person perceives a different awareness, one better understands the potential of another person's abilities (1 cycle), the other in his emotional life (2 cycle) third - how it works (4 cycle). Each of these aspects and assign the symbol we call them the elements of information metabolism extrovert person:

I - the potential energy;
E - the transformation of potential into kinetic energy;
F - kinetic energy;
P - the use of kinetic energy.

With these elements a person receives information about:

I - the potential energy of the observed object and the subject's physical and mental capabilities;
E - excitement and excitability of the object, moods and emotions;
F - mobilizovannosti, will and strength and beauty of the observed objects and subjects;
P - the activity of object and subject, their ability to work."


There is no reason whatsoever to assume that physics and psychology/cognitive processes are related like this.

Correct. Step 1 is purge the system of all baseless and useless assumptions.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by domr

I agree with you that Socionics definitions are worse than MBTI. However, Jung's definitions are shit too. He says in his ~1931 commentary that he simply chose the names based on what people commonly use.

Your two examples above are of induction (empiricism) and deduction (rationalism), respectfully. The problem with empiricism, making decisions based on observations, is that you can't know what is actually true and what is simply a stereotype. Hence Jung/MBTI/Kiersey and everyone else that use empricism has stereotypical descriptions. If you ever want this discipline to be respected as a valid philosophy (science) then the system has to be axiomized and those described used to deduce the types.

---

I don't think we can axiomize science/psychology or typology. But we certainly need both induction/abduction and deduction to make typology more scientific. And we must be much more critical of the theories. A big problem is that MBTI/MBTT is based on Jung's theory so they cannot criticize it ... and MBTI is obviously a business.

https://www.quora.com/What-are-the-axioms-of-physics

I think Jung's definition/description of subjective vs. objective is the main problem.

There is a similar problem in Socionics. Socionists don't criticize Aushra's original definitions/descriptions enough, or they misinterpret them. For example, if you think Ni itself "chooses the most optimal moments for different activities" then you are already in trouble. Why? Because (1) it is a judgement and (2) the functions don't work in isolation like that. You also get a Te that is solely about "work", and the descriptions of the types get distorted. So ILI cannot be "the scientist".

"Introverted intuition

All processes take place in time; they have their roots in the past and their continuation in the future. Time is the correlation between events that follow each other. This perceptual element provides information about the sequence of events and people's deeds, about their cause and effect relationship, and about participants' attitudes towards this — that is, about people's feelings that these relationships engender.

Such an individual perceives information from without as feelings about the future, past, and present. For example, a sense of hurriedness, calmness, or heatedness, a sense of timeliness or prematureness, a sense of proper or improper life rhythm, a sense of impending danger or safety, anticipation, fear of being late, a sense of seeing the future, anxiety about what lies ahead, and so forth. At any given moment of one's life one has such a sense of time. One cannot live outside of time or be indifferent toward it. Thus, a certain sense of time is an integral part of the individual's psychological state at any given moment. This perceptual element defines a person's ability or inability to forecast and plan for the future, evade all sorts of troubles, avoid taking wrong actions, and learn from past experience.

When this element is in the leading position, the individual possesses innate strategic abilities and is able to choose the most optimal moments for different activities: when to give battle, if necessary, and when to avoid battle, when that would be more appropriate. Interaction in time might be interpreted as the ability to avoid collisions with objects and hence avoid objects' reflection within oneself."

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Petter

I don't think we can axiomize science/psychology or typology. But we certainly need both induction/abduction and deduction to make typology more scientific. And we must be much more critical of the theories. A big problem is that MBTI/MBTT is based on Jung's theory so they cannot criticize it ... and MBTI is obviously a business.

https://www.quora.com/What-are-the-axioms-of-physics

I think Jung's definition/description of subjective vs. objective is the main problem.

---

E/I, S/N, T/F, J/P those are an axiomatic system. Jung already axiomatized the core system. Model A is axiomatic.

Jung's lack of clear definitions is the main the problem. Subjective and Objective are one of those problems. Subjective/Objective is pseudo-epistemology which is why I no longer use the terms. I define everything in terms of induction and deduction, rational and empirical, true knowledge.

ILI is technically The Scientist but I prefer to label NiTe as science and ILI as The Engineer.