Printable View
There are also some socionics descriptions here. http://socion.info/cgi-bin/index.cgi It seems that most people like the top description for each of the types, but I don't for some of them. I like the bottom description for each of the types a lot better.
If you don't mind reading a long description, you can read (imo) the best description of ENTjs here: http://the16types.info/forums/viewtopic.php?t=3101
his posts appear very very Ti. i remember him vaguely from when i dabbled with the similarminds board but i didnt think about his type from that point... but based on his posts in this thread INTj seems very clear to me.
So far, INTj seems more likely than ENTj imo.
Well, I think the reason why you may be picking up the INTj is because this isn't my field...
My attempt to restore fairness is in music...
The LIE description you gave me is right on the money.
Then you're prolly LIE. (you're talking about the long one, right?)
(this thread is hilarious, btw)
The INTj here, http://socion.info/cgi-bin/index.cgi?loc=desc&type=10
It sounds a lot like me, by how its kinda talking about it more "how it works"...
however, for me, it is definitely an extraverted trait... I do it while communication outwardly...
The ENTj description gives me a "do-er" impression..
The INTj description gives me a "thinker" impression...
I would more closely associate with the do-er than the thinker.
What about ENTp?
There are descriptions here as well... just ignore the parts about appearance: http://socionics.com/prof/prof.htm
with which of these do you identify most?
Quote:
*describing thinking processes
- expressing thoughts
- constructions of correspondence that reflect the train of thought (logical connectors)
- introductory phrases
- issues related to reflecting thought processes; clarifying one's position
- evaluating mental capabilities
*objects' structure
- describing spatial relationships and how objects are situated in relation to each other
- social boundaries determined by agreement
- "geometry" in the figurative sense
*comparing and classifying
- constructions of comparison
Quote:
*exact knowledge
- correlating names with phenomena
- substantiating things
- units of measurement (as units of information facilitating the accuracy of information transferral)
- clarifying questions
- paraphrasing in order to ensure exact transfer of information
*objective phenomena and laws
*objects' dynamics; controlled processes
- production; technologies
- evaluating quality; process indicators
- objects' operational characteristics
- the operational characteristics of people as objects
ENfj
E: 3 | I: 0
S: 0 | N: 3
T: 1 | F: 2
J: 2 | P: 1
Christ Joy, what are you saying? Don't mislead him! Our comments apply to MBTI since we are discussing about decisions on E/I T/F etc scales, not about functions.Quote:
Originally Posted by Joy
And Kyle is clearly ENTj. Don't try to retype everybody just so that you're ENTj.
thats entirely untrue.Quote:
Originally Posted by FDG
why do you see ENTj? he looks very Ti to me.Quote:
And Kyle is clearly ENTj. Don't try to retype everybody just so that you're ENTj.
Then please quote where we are making references to socionics functions in our criticism to his test.Quote:
Originally Posted by niffweed17
I do not think that somebody who claims to be a Ti-dominant INTp is the appropriate judge of how functions appear in writing.Quote:
why do you see ENTj? he looks very Ti to me.Quote:
And Kyle is clearly ENTj. Don't try to retype everybody just so that you're ENTj.
his test quoting socionics functions is irrelevant. socionics dichotomies are different from MBTI dichotomies.Quote:
Originally Posted by FDG
very well; you may have your opinion of my type and of my ability to analyze socionics. nonetheless, he seems to have an affinity for internal logical deductions and sequential logic based on the way he reacted to comments regarding his test, which led to my Ti conclusion. you have yet to present any semblance of argument for ENTj.Quote:
I do not think that somebody who claims to be a Ti-dominant INTp is the appropriate judge of how functions appear in writing.
Your resort to personal attacks (ad hominem logical fallacy) instead of any argument proves to me your are unable to contradict what I have said. I have given you suggestions, but apparently you are unable to receive criticism. I have attempted to remain polite but you show a lack of respect. I'm not interested in ego-battles.Quote:
Originally Posted by Kyle
This is really a stupid thing to say.Quote:
You are an idiot for 'denying' me and my intelligence...
I could run circles around you with my feet tied together...
I agree. I can't see any signs of "Te" at all. I cannot see MBTI ENTJ. He is very unsystematic. I would say ENTP/ENTp.Quote:
Originally Posted by niffweed17
1) :Ne: : His posts are unstructured. He seems to be trying to make intuitive leaps all the time. His focus is on "new ideas". He talks about many different things at once, related from an intuitive point of view.
2) :Ti: : He clearly reasons with a disregard for practicality, reality and the facts. He seems focused on his "system" and his "ideas". He is focused on the internal logic of his sytem. He makes a test which at it's root has a good idea, but is operationalized in a non practical manner (the opposite of :Te: ), making it effectively not very useful.
3) :Se: role: He acts generally in a pushy, non-logical way, to prove a point instead of using logic, and pushing because he does not like criticism of his ideas. He seems volatile as result.
4) He seems quite concerned with defending his image, creating a user name here to answer criticism of his test, indicating a hidden agenda of being loved and admired.
I agree with Eidos that ENTp is more likely than either INTj or ENTj.
Welcome to the forum ... glad to have another test maker here.Quote:
Originally Posted by Kyle
BTW ... even if this test types MBTI or whatever accuratelly, it is apparently not compatible with socionics types so I guess we can all hopefully concede on atleast that point and be happy.
The problem with MBTI in my book has to do with the fact that:Quote:
Originally Posted by Kyle
1.) The standard MBTI definition of introversion and extroversion as is stands tends to conflict with the origional Jungian meaning of introversion and extroversion (Objectivity and Subjectivity), and excepts one that is more similar to the EYNSECKS model of determining introversion and extroversion, which even EYNSECKS has admitted is is conflict with Jungian terminology. Socionics tends to follow the origional Jungian definitions and rejects those of EYNSECKS and inevitably MBTI, meaning that the definitions of extroversion and introversion are not totally compatible between socionics and MBTI.
2.) Socionics does not use a standard J/P dictonomy such as is found in MBTI, since the J/P dictonomy was technically a non-jungian invention intended to help determine types on the first Myers-Briggs test. Socionics rejects this method as a flawed scale. Instead, socionics determines what would be J or P by the order of prefered functions. This also means that that introversion and extroversion would be switched. For example, a person with Ne and Fi in their ego block would have Fi as a first function if introverted and Ne as a first function if extroverted. This means that the extroverted and introverted equivalents in this case would be ENFP and INFJ, not ENFP and INFP as MBTI has attempted to detemine type according to the non-jungian J/P dictonomy that MBTI built its theory around, in order to suit the initial type of flawed testing method that was created, which does not consider what introverted/extroverted functions a person uses and therefore could only be considered to be in error [according to socionics theory].
3.) Intuition/Sensing/Thinking/Feeling are almost the same except with a few diffrences, and it is debatable whether those are really diffrences taking that it might just be an infliction of the russian language upon the definitions.
So, to answer your question "is there any way to make them closer?" The answer is a BIG BIG FAT "NO" ... Most socionic specialists in Russian have difficulty really unifying what they know, let alone the fact that socionics disagress with MBTI in its own formation. Plus, if MBTI was really like MBTI, than I suppose it would not be socionics. Probably something else.
Te Ti (Ne Ni Se) Si Fi Fe
Why do you care so much what I am anyway?
I'll agree, the test is not compat with socionics...
Other ENTJ,
You feeling the need to comment on something two pages ago makes me think you are desperately trying to find excitement. You aren't a constructive arguer.
Besides, the ENTJ never wants to admit another ENTJ is in the room.
Okay, I am understanding, and agreeing on how they need to be separated... Where did LIE and shit come from?
Is that an attempt to further differentiate the two systems?
I don't really have a deep interest in learning the ins and outs of my socionics type, but I am definitely interested in your statements on how the systems are different....
It might give some sort of clues as to how better discuss socionics/mbti, in ways that prevent confusion.
On the MBTI forums, it is looked at as general MBTI/JUNG/SOCIONICS discussion, and basically everyone talks from biases in all directions...
I try to push MBTI, because I think, if a few kinks were worked out, it would be more elegant of a system.
Especially for the newcomer.... And it has more backwards compatibility.
I prefer to use terms like "Strong T, Moderate F, etc"... rather than "Using Ti, or Fe, or Te"...
Actually, when we want to make sure that we're talking about a Socionics type, we say LIE (Logical-Intuitive Extravert, or Extratim), or TeNi, or :Te: :Ni: , rather than ENTj or ENTJ.Quote:
Originally Posted by Kyle
Socionics nomenclature developed in the former USSR independently from MBTI, and it was the Russians who noticed the similarity between their types and MBTI. Russians also like to use nicknames for types, rather than acronymes, such as "Jack London" or "the Entrepreneur" for LIE, "Dreiser" or "the Conservator" for ESI (ISFj), etc.
In this forum, most people find it convenient to use MBTI-like acronyms like ENTj, which is a denomination introduced (or at least made popular) by Sergei Ganin.
Lame try of the "it's not me, it's you!" tactic. Stop taking things personally. Expat is an ENTJ. I know it with certainty after meeting him. Your test didn't even pick that up correctly, and you still don't realize there's a problem? Just accept the fact that your test is wrong, correct it and move on!Quote:
Originally Posted by Kyle
this sounds like a very arbitrary MBTI stereotype.Quote:
Originally Posted by Kyle
It sounds like :Ti: .Quote:
Originally Posted by niffweed17
Perhaps this will be of assistance. The best intro into socionics on the web IMO
http://www.socioniko.net/en/articles/lytovs-intro1.html
From here: - http://www.socioniko.net/en/index.html
Damn...
1.) Since when are Ti types "unsystematic"???
2.) I see no need for arguements here
3.) ENTp seems most likely at this point, imo
4.) Do not forget that the test was an MBTI test... quit bitching that it isn't up to socionics standards when they're it's not even trying to be
5.) No... it doesn't work to use things like "strong T" instead of talking about Ti, Te, Ne, etc.
Most importantly, remember what actually happened here. Someone posted a link to a test. People took the test and started talking about how horrible it is. The writer of the test actually showed up here for an explanation of our harsh criticisms (hilarious). I don't see why people felt the need to get all combatitive instead of simply explaining to the guy (who was just received harsh unprovoked criticism from a bunch of strangers) that we're judging his MBTI test by Socionics standards.
Good friggin grief.
We're not talking about a Ti dominant type, but an Ne dominant type - and so unsystematic is an adjective that is correct.Quote:
Originally Posted by Joy
Part of the criticism addressed was based on the ability to measure MBTI type.Quote:
4.) Do not forget that the test was an MBTI test... quit bitching that it isn't up to socionics standards when they're it's not even trying to be
Why do you see this as "harsh" criticism? Why make a value judgment? Why do you see this as a "combat"?Quote:
I don't see why people felt the need to get all combatitive instead of simply explaining to the guy (who was just received harsh unprovoked criticism from a bunch of strangers) that we're judging his MBTI test by Socionics standards.
There is no intention to be mean or hurt anyone. It's not about fighting between people, it's about correctness/incorrectness of a test. Things were explained politely.
I'll admit that I only skimmed through most of this thread, but it seemed to me like people were being a bit too critical of the guy's test without even explaining that socionics is different from MBTI. Perhaps the difference is that I don't respect MBTI enough to criticize a test on the matter. I guess I'm saying that considering the circumstances around Kyle's entry to this forum, it seems like it would have been more appropriate to take a step back and introduce ourselves and explain what this place is about before continuing to criticize him. I cannot say that I blame him for his combatitive tone considering that he just walked into a room full of strangers talking shit about him.
No, Eidos was criticising his test from the point of view of its internal logic, not comparing it to Socionics.Quote:
Originally Posted by Joy
It's not Kyle that's we're criticizing, it's his test... That's a big difference.Quote:
guess I'm saying that considering the circumstances around Kyle's entry to this forum, it seems like it would have been more appropriate to take a step back and introduce ourselves and explain what this place is about before continuing to criticize him. I cannot say that I blame him for his combatitive tone considering that he just walked into a room full of strangers talking shit about him.
I understand that, but can you see how it would be easy to take the criticism personally, as my wording suggests?
Okay, it seems that I had a bit of a misunderstanding of what's going on here. Nm.
6 Question
iSTj
E: 1 | I: 2
S: 3 | N: 0
T: 3 | F: 0
J: 2 | P: 1
28 Question Jung/Myers-Briggs Like Personality Type Test
YOUR SIMPLE MBTI/JUNG PERSONALITY TYPE SHOULD BE...
ISTP
YOUR REAL MBTI/JUNG PERSONALITY TYPE IS MOST LIKELY...
IStj
E: 1 | I: 5
S: 4 | N: 0
T: 5 | F: 4
J: 3 | P: 2
28 Question Test (IStj)