Is this accurate?

[Ezra]

^at last, confirmation that ABCD = ABCd!!!!!

Even if you were joking, I'd love to believe you at this point, but I'd also love to see you come up with how the INFJ, the INFP and the INTP can be explained socionically.

i would take issue with this part of it. it almost seems to have them reversed in some places.

I noticed that as well. I think it probably has something to do with the fact that in MBTT, the ESTP's inferior function is Ni, and this can - unlike in socionics - be perfected as the ESTP matures.

why do you think you're SLE?

Because I've looked at the functional ordering, and most of it fits much better than any other type does. See my explanation of how Se, Si, Te and Ti (and even Ni) manifest themselves in me.

[Expat]

Apparently some people think we're identicals, Ezra.

Look at me, see your future, and despair.

[marooned]

Even if you were joking, I'd love to believe you at this point

Why?

[Phaedrus]

Because I've looked at the functional ordering, and most of it fits much better than any other type does. See my explanation of how Se, Si, Te and Ti (and even Ni) manifest themselves in me.

Don't do that, please. That's probably one of the most common reasons people mistype themselves. You will find your correct type much more easily and more accurately if you look at dichotomies, type descriptions, and test results.

You need to find a correct foundation to be able to understand the fundctions correctly. If you cannot link the functions descriptions to observable behaviour of some type(s) that you 100 % certain of independently of your understanding of the functions you will never know whether your interpretation of those functions descriptions is correct or not.

The functions descriptions, as they are written, invite incorrect interpretations, because they are too abstract and/or vague and not directly related to empirically observable behaviours. Over and over again we have seen people interpret the functions in totally incorrect ways, resulting in endless mistypings. Don't repeat other people's mistakes, Ezra.

If you really are an SLE, you MUST find a way to identify with being an Artisan and an ESTP. If that is totally impossible for you to do, you simply cannot be an SLE. If you are certain (but you probably are not that certain) that you are a Rational ENTJ you simply cannot be any other type than LIE in Socionics. And if you, hypothetically, are certain that you are a Guardian ESTJ, you cannot be any other type than LSE in Socionics. Now, don't dismiss this -- take it seriously, and find your correct type.

[Ezra]

Apparently some people think we're identicals, Ezra.

Look at me, see your future, and despair.

Ahhh, science isn't so bad. It's just law is better.

Why?

Because it would be far easier to type people.

Don't do that, please. That's probably one of the most common reasons people mistype themselves. You will find your correct type much more easily and more accurately if you look at dichotomies, type descriptions, and test results.

You need to find a correct foundation to be able to understand the fundctions correctly. If you cannot link the functions descriptions to observable behaviour of some type(s) that you 100 % certain of independently of your understanding of the functions you will never know whether your interpretation of those functions descriptions is correct or not.

The functions descriptions, as they are written, invite incorrect interpretations, because they are too abstract and/or vague and not directly related to empirically observable behaviours. Over and over again we have seen people interpret the functions in totally incorrect ways, resulting in endless mistypings. Don't repeat other people's mistakes, Ezra.

If you really are an SLE, you MUST find a way to identify with being an Artisan and an ESTP. If that is totally impossible for you to do, you simply cannot be an SLE. If you are certain (but you probably are not that certain) that you are a Rational ENTJ you simply cannot be any other type than LIE in Socionics. And if you, hypothetically, are certain that you are a Guardian ESTJ, you cannot be any other type than LSE in Socionics. Now, don't dismiss this -- take it seriously, and find your correct type.

This is where we part, I'm afraid. I care about socionics, and thus functions, not dichotomies, tests and type descriptions, or any other shitty typing paraphernalia you might pull out of you ghastly ass.

[Phaedrus]

I care about socionics, and thus functions, not dichotomies, tests and type descriptions, or any other shitty typing paraphernalia you might pull out of you ghastly ass.

I care about Socionics, and thus functions, more than you do, because besides the functions I also care about dichotomies and type descriptions -- which both are a central part of Socionics -- and I care about test results for scientific reasons, because they are usually far more reliable as a typing method than people's subjective interpretations of functions descriptions.

So, you do in fact not care about Socionics and finding your correct type as much as you should. You refuse to look at the whole picture. You only look at not more than one half of the evidence before you make up your mind and state that you have find the truth.

You might have found your correct type, but you don't know that, because you haven't been able (yet) to explain the anomalies that are still there in your profile. I know for sure that I am right in the things I say, because every single piece of evidence fits the whole picture.

All of it -- functions, type descriptions, dichotimies, test results and everything else -- hang together, and not one of this aspects contradict another aspect when it comes to my own type. And when I type others I don't rest until I have got all those aspects right. I don't allow any anomalies or contradictions to exist in a person's profile, and neither should you.

[Gilly]

Don't bite at that, Ezra. It's not going anywhere, and it never will.

[Phaedrus]

Don't bite at that, Ezra. It's not going anywhere, and it never will.

Gilly doesn't know a shit about MBTT and Keirsey, Ezra. Don't listen to him, if you want to get it right. Check it out for yourself.

[Gilly]

Actually I only got interested in Socionics because I met Rocky at a mostly-MBTT site. My mother is certified and I've probably taken more MBTIs than Socionics inventories.

I can't say I've read the Keirsey books, but I know more than enough to see that it is systematically incompatible with Socioics, regardless of whether or not the two systems generally describe the same times.