Excellent. And we can add testing as an E when you're feeling sociable and as an I when you want to get away from people. So really it's just XXXX.Originally Posted by dolphin
Hey, everything you said is true....but I would like to add:
I test as a N when I'm thinking alot.
I test as a S when I'm eating, especially lasagna.
So really, it's more just IXXx.
Except that the only "certified" ENTJ here agrees with me. 1-0.
Obsequium amicos, veritas odium parit
I meant "ENTj".
Obsequium amicos, veritas odium parit
To clarify -- I do see where FDG is coming from; ENTJ descriptions often refer to a sort of power-obsessed guy who cares for nobody but himself and who wants a "trophy wife" who will take care of the house and confirm his own success; a guy that will send people to their deaths if he thinks the situation warrants it, but without losing any sleep over it.
Not all of them are precisely like that, though; so perhaps Ezra is also right to feel annoyed if he does identify with the better ones.
, LIE, ENTj logical subtype, 8w9 sx/sp
One former early poster, Eidos, typed himself as both ENTJ and LIE. However, he was also critical of those kinds of descriptions as FDG referred to. Eidos's view was that I was also ENTJ. However, according to the definitions of E/I in MBTI tests, I am certainly I not E. According to the "scientific" definition of E/I in Myers-Briggs manuals, I guess I'd be more E.
*shrug* personally I don't concern myself with my Myers-Briggs type at all these days.
MBTI Si is closer to Jung's Introverted Sensing, so more "correct" according to some people; in socionics, I think it describes more Se-creatives, as Winterpark also mentioned.
It's hard to track this down, but I think that a lot of the people Jung observed to think of his Introverted Sensing type were angsty LSIs.
Heh, I never noticed that. I seems to me that the functional descriptions by type, in MBTI sites, merely "adapt" the functions to explain whatever traits they think that the type displays. So ESTJ Si may have very little in common with ESFJ Si.
There are no definitions of E/I in MBTI tests. There are only descriptions of typical behaviours, and those typical behaviours are roughly the same as those that are described in Socionics. In neither case they are definitions, though.
That is 100 % correct. There is absolutely no difference whatsoever between how the concepts extraversion and introversion are understood in Socionics and MBTT. If they happen to differ in what typical aspects of extraverted and introverted behaviour they prefer to focus on, that is irrelevant. People should stop confusing definitions with descriptions.
At the risk of giving you a soapbox, what do you think the difference between "definitions" and "descriptions" is?
Retired from posting and drawing Social Security. E-mail or PM to contact.
I pity your souls
i don't really know what my MBTI type is and don't care. my introduction to personality types was largely involved with trying to sift through lots of different MBTI descriptions to try to determine whether INTJ or INTP (or sometimes something else) fit me better. ultimately i joined similarminds, asked about what my type was, and somebody told me of the existence of socionics. and that ultimately was pretty much the end of that.
First time I did MBTI, I tested ISTP.Looking back, I'm surprised, but not entirely; when I took Keirsey's test from his book, I was one answer away from xNxP, and I used to test IxFP on MBTI. *shrugs* That's the only problem with Myers-Briggs; it's based on your perception of yourself, and E/I does include the social aspects (which I easily confused).
Johari/Nohari
"Tell someone you love them today, because life is short; shout it at them in German, because life is also terrifying."
Fruit, the fluffy kitty.
Roughly speaking, definitions demarcate the logical boundaries between different concepts by stating the conditions that are necessary for each concept if it is going to be what it is and not something else.At the risk of giving you a soapbox
Descriptions "list" certain aspects of phenomena that are usually there, but you often don't know, or it is not stated, which exact traits, aspects, features, etc. of the phenomenon that are necessary and which are contingent.
You can describe what a person is like without defining what constitutes that person and makes the person not identical with another person with very similar traits. In descriptions you can include or exclude almost whatever you want; you can focus on different aspects depending on what you are interested in at a certain point in time.
In MBTT they sometimes focus more on some aspects of the extraversion/introversin phenomeon than we do in Socionics, and therefore the descriptions of typical extraverted and introverted behaviour may differ slightly. But the phenomenon itself is still the same, and in both models they define the concepts "extraversion" and "introversion" in almost the exact same way, and that way is also how Jung defined them.
True.
Fair enough. Save Fabio. I cannot believe he is ENTJ or even LIE. The only way I could possibly change my mind was if I met him in real life, or saw a video of him to confirm his type.
I think he was either playfully bullied into it and has little concern for any personality system. He's mocking whoever got him into it, by acting like a complete retard.i get the idea that he probably sat in his room all day taking bong hits and then his roommate or some friend was like, "DUDE, WANNA TAKE THE MBTI? DUDE, POST A VIDEO ON SIMILARMINDS. DUDE, HOW DO YOU WORK THIS CAMERA?" fwiw, gilly gave me a similar impression in the webchat.
It's plausible.
lol @ ur ineptitude with sensing matters
I agree.
Then your comment was completely irrelevant when taken in conjunction with mine. I was referring to the ENTJ, not the LIE.
How is this different from the LIE? They love housewives. They love that shit. The only thing they don't care about is power. Except when it comes to computers.
Seriously, who wouldn't send someone to their death if the situation warranted it?
Every description of the ENTJ resonates with me on some level; I don't think any I've read are at all 'unhealthy' (only, perhaps, from an outsider's point of view). I'd be interested to read the one(s) that Fabio's been readingNot all of them are precisely like that, though; so perhaps Ezra is also right to feel annoyed if he does identify with the better ones.
Could be due to their maturing and hence getting more proficient in tertiary Ne.At least on several of the MBTI clone sites, ESTJ Si also involves hindsight, analyzing past tendencies, and organizing futures impersonal goals based on them. I thought that was not unlike Socionics Ni's "recognizing underlying processes" in gamma NT.
What is precisely an ESTJ Si and an ESFJ Si?
FTR, I could only see myself as an ESTP, an ESTJ, an INTJ or an ENTJ.
I don't think a LIE thinks of his or her partner primarily as a "housewife", not in the way those descriptions make it sound. As for sending someone to their deaths, I was referring to the nonchalant way in which it is implied that ENTJs supposedly do it.
Ahhh. Well, think about it in context. I hardly doubt that in today's society, people would do it on a whim. But if you go back four or five hundred years, it's plausible.
If you pose this kind of questions, I have to start the Phaedrus Mode and tell you to study more and get to know more LIEs in real life.How is this different from the LIE?
Obsequium amicos, veritas odium parit
It has the MBTI test, which means you don't get a job in a commercial role if you test as ISTJ in companies that use it; or a job in a technical role if you test as ENFP.
Well from "MBTI" in wikipedia:
This seems to be a typical understanding of "intuition" and "sensing" according to most MBTI sources.
Sensing and Intuition are the information-gathering (perceiving) functions. They describe how new information is understood and interpreted. Individuals with a preference for sensing prefer to trust information that is in the present, tangible and concrete: that is, information that can be understood by the five senses. They tend to distrust hunches that seem to come out of nowhere. They prefer to look for detail and facts. For them, the meaning is in the data. On the other hand, those with a preference for intuition tend to trust information that is more abstract or theoretical, that can be associated with other information (either remembered or discovered by seeking a wider context or pattern). They may be more interested in future possibilities. They tend to trust those flashes of insight that seem to bubble up from the unconscious mind. The meaning is in how the data relates to the pattern or theory.
In socionics terms, it mixeswith
.
Which may even be closer to Jung's original view; but it's different from socionics.
Its own theory of relations between individuals. Seek and you shall find.
Socionics is the most detailed personality system I have come across yet.
You ILI now, btw? It'll be good to discuss this with you when I see you.
That seems to mix a lot of socionics concepts.
You know what, after having been at MBTI Central for around four months now, I've begun to notice that people have started saying "forget the tests, look to the functions". They've even got their own theory of intertype relationships, I here. And quite a few are socionicsphobic as ever.
They basically hold what I held. "Fuck, this shit is really complicated; what's the point?", and so will come up with excuses like "Socionics is a cheap MBTT; no one who has any sense cares about it [I've American, I've never seen this rip off of MBTT, which I've faithfully grown up with over the years]. Why don't people just stick with MBTT [I'm more comfortable with it; why shouldn't everyone else be?]? It's got everything socionics has [even though I've never looked into socionics]".
We discuss this at MBTIc a lot.
Reply With Quote
