# Thread: about E, I, S, N, T, F, P, and J

1. ## about E, I, S, N, T, F, P, and J

There is no such thing as E, I, S, N, T, F, P, or J in Socionics. It's Ne, Ni, Se, Si, Te, Ti, Fe, and Fi. The "E" and "I" and "p" and "j" are merely indicators of the order of the aforementioned functions. Similarly, in Socionics, people are not extroverted or introverted, functions are.

If your type acronym starts with an "E", it means that your first function is one of the extroverted functions (Ne, Se, Fe, Te). If it starts with an "I", it means your first function is an introverted function. If your type acronym ends with a "p", it means that your first function is either Ne, Ni, Se, or Si. If it ends with a "j", it means that your first function is either Fe, Fi, Te, or Ti. Thank you.

2. ## Re: fucking n00bs

Originally Posted by Joy
There is no such thing as E, I, S, N, T, F, P, or J in Socionics. It's Ne, Ni, Se, Si, Te, Ti, Fe, and Fi. The "E" and "I" and "p" and "j" are merely indicators of the order of the aforementioned functions. Similarly, in Socionics, people are not extroverted or introverted, functions are.

If your type acronym starts with an "E", it means that your first function is one of the extroverted functions (Ne, Se, Fe, Te). If it starts with an "I", it means your first function is an introverted function. If your type acronym ends with a "p", it means that your first function is either Ne, Ni, Se, or Si. If it ends with a "j", it means that your first function is either Fe, Fi, Te, or Ti. Thank you.
what does that have to do with the issue of describing how the "psychological functions", which i am told do exist in the psyche, influence behavior?

your post helps none. the system is straight forward and easily understood. thank you for being condescending, but, again, it does not help.

3. lol so that's why you're on the blacklist :wink:

Okay, I'm pretty much saying that there is no such thing as E, I, S, N, T, F, P, or J in Socionics. It's all about Ne, Ni, Se, Si, Te, Ti, Fe, and Fi.

4. I agree with Joy.

In MBTI you would think that an ENFJ has more in common with an ENFP, but in socionics, an ENFP would have more in common with an INFJ and an ENFJ would have more in common with an INFP. It's all about the functions, the letters don't really mean anything, that is why I like the three original socionics letters better than the MBTI ones.

5. ## Re: about I, E, F, T, P, and J

Originally Posted by Joy
. Similarly, in Socionics, people are not extroverted or introverted, functions are.
This is something I don't agree with, because it's circular. If someone has an extravered base function, he's an extravert, and since the base function is extravert, that means that the aformentioned base function is commonly associated with extraverted behavioural traits.

6. ## Re: about I, E, F, T, P, and J

Originally Posted by FDG
Originally Posted by Joy
. Similarly, in Socionics, people are not extroverted or introverted, functions are.
This is something I don't agree with, because it's circular. If someone has an extravered base function, he's an extravert, and since the base function is extravert, that means that the aformentioned base function is commonly associated with extraverted behavioural traits.
Yes, but when you call someone an introvert, the automatic association is that the person is shy. Calling someone an extrovert implies that they are outgoing. However, social behavior has nothing to do with whether one is an "introvert" or "extrovert" in Socionics.

7. i never denied that Te, Ti, etc. existed as elements within the system of socionics.

i want to know the relationship between psychological functions and behavior

8. ## Re: about I, E, F, T, P, and J

Originally Posted by FDG
Originally Posted by Joy
. Similarly, in Socionics, people are not extroverted or introverted, functions are.
This is something I don't agree with, because it's circular. If someone has an extravered base function, he's an extravert, and since the base function is extravert, that means that the aformentioned base function is commonly associated with extraverted behavioural traits.
Yeah, but having this viewpoint means that you must also consider unnecessarily stereotypical definitions for extroversion and introversion that may not only be actually disconnected to the actual functions, they introduce unnecessary variables that makes it more difficult to type people. That does not do any good, does it?

On the other hand, it is a more coherent view point to perceive people as disconnected from extrovertion and introvertion and seeing the functions as the only pure connection to introversion and extroversion, then you can just toss out all the stereotypical non-sense and enable yourself to have a more coherent and non-clouded perception of people and what is really going as opposed to confusion, which is usually what happens.

And I should probably mention that many of those who claim people themselves alone are introverts and extroverts usually come off like real dickheads or bigots when they try to type people. Atleast I find that to be the case.

9. someone help me. i still do not understand the relationship between psychological type and behavior.

10. i want to know the relationship between psychological functions and behavior
That's a good question with a long answer. There are a lot of threads about it as well as many articles. Try searching the general discussion forum. If anyone has links to good articles, it would be cool if they posted them.

Mariano Rajoy, do you understand model A? We all use Ne, Ni, Se, Si, Te, Ti, Fe, and Fi, but we use them differently depending on which function they are for us. It's off topic, but this is my understanding of model A:

1 and 2: The first two functions are the functions that are the most natural and easy to use and that one is most comfortable using. It seems that the 1st function is what you automatically are, and the 2nd function is what you automatically do. It also seems that extensive use of the 2nd function exhausts a person, while the 1st function doesn't. However, when the 1st function is used and the second function is not, a person may not feel stimulated.

3: You feel like it is expected of you and sometimes resent this, especially if the first two functions are not being rewarded. It seems it can be somewhat of a sore spot, something which causes frustration. You use your 3rd function because you don't feel you can get along in the world well unless you do. The reason you feel we're supposed to use 3 is because 5 is weak.

3 and 4: I think the difference between the 3rd and 4th function is that with the 3rd, you feel you should use the function. It isn't generally a very strong function, but it's not the weakest because it's something we make a conscious effort to use. The 4th function is also something that is a sore spot, but you do not feel that it is reasonable for others to expect us to use it and generally see no reason that you should have to.

5: You don't realize that you're not doing this because you use the 3rd function in it's place. You're not sensitive about this function being weak. You don’t realize you need help with this function, but others do.

6: You are sensitive about this function because you like to think it is strong, and you are quite responsive when others use it or make you feel that you're doing a good job using it.

7: This something you unconsciously pay attention to in others and don't use unless provoked, and then you use it aggressively.

8: you inspire others to use but don't really notice.

11. Originally Posted by Mariano Rajoy
someone help me. i still do not understand the relationship between psychological type and behavior.
Get a brain.

12. Originally Posted by Mariano Rajoy
someone help me. i still do not understand the relationship between psychological type and behavior.
Behaviour is something totally innate, psychological type is meerly any type of abstract social model that no one can fit perfectly in and never will.

13. ## Re: about I, E, F, T, P, and J

Originally Posted by rmcnew
Originally Posted by FDG
Originally Posted by Joy
. Similarly, in Socionics, people are not extroverted or introverted, functions are.
This is something I don't agree with, because it's circular. If someone has an extravered base function, he's an extravert, and since the base function is extravert, that means that the aformentioned base function is commonly associated with extraverted behavioural traits.
Yeah, but having this viewpoint means that you must also consider unnecessarily stereotypical definitions for extroversion and introversion that may not only be actually disconnected to the actual functions, they introduce unnecessary variables that makes it more difficult to type people. That does not do any good, does it?
I think it is necessary, in order not to make the theory too far fetched.

On the other hand, it is a more coherent view point to perceive people as disconnected from extrovertion and introvertion and seeing the functions as the only pure connection to introversion and extroversion
This changes nothing. The functions are named after their extraverted or introverted nature. Why does Jung named them this way? Clearly, because they were correlated with E and I behaviour.

And I should probably mention that many of those who claim people themselves alone are introverts and extroverts usually come off like real dickheads or bigots when they try to type people. Atleast I find that to be the case.
Of course, in order to know whether a person is extroverted or introverted, you need to place the given person in a group of people, but this is rather obvious.

14. environment + type= behavior

15. Originally Posted by rmcnew
Originally Posted by Mariano Rajoy
someone help me. i still do not understand the relationship between psychological type and behavior.
Behaviour is something totally innate, psychological type is meerly any type of abstract social model that no one can fit perfectly in and never will.
but, how does behavior relate to these "abstractions"?

16. Originally Posted by Mariano Rajoy
Originally Posted by rmcnew
Originally Posted by Mariano Rajoy
someone help me. i still do not understand the relationship between psychological type and behavior.
Behaviour is something totally innate, psychological type is meerly any type of abstract social model that no one can fit perfectly in and never will.
but, how does behavior relate to these "abstractions"?
You look at how the behaviour of those type is. You look at your behaviour. You see if you fit.

Difficult, neh?

17. but look at all the behaviors that do not fit. you exclude those. why?

18. Originally Posted by Mariano Rajoy
Originally Posted by rmcnew
Originally Posted by Mariano Rajoy
someone help me. i still do not understand the relationship between psychological type and behavior.
Behaviour is something totally innate, psychological type is meerly any type of abstract social model that no one can fit perfectly in and never will.
but, how does behavior relate to these "abstractions"?
It relates to behaviour through pre-supposed tendencies, which are suppose to come about through usage of the various functions.

19. Originally Posted by Mariano Rajoy
but look at all the behaviors that do not fit. you exclude those. why?
Because it's not your type, duh.

20. Originally Posted by FDG
Originally Posted by Mariano Rajoy
but look at all the behaviors that do not fit. you exclude those. why?
Because it's not your type, duh.

21. Originally Posted by rmcnew
Originally Posted by Mariano Rajoy
Originally Posted by rmcnew
Originally Posted by Mariano Rajoy
someone help me. i still do not understand the relationship between psychological type and behavior.
Behaviour is something totally innate, psychological type is meerly any type of abstract social model that no one can fit perfectly in and never will.
but, how does behavior relate to these "abstractions"?
It relates to behaviour through pre-supposed tendencies, which are suppose to come about through usage of the various functions.
so how does KIM the ENFp display superior T? Her T is supposedly buried deep.

22. Originally Posted by Mariano Rajoy
Originally Posted by FDG
Originally Posted by Mariano Rajoy
but look at all the behaviors that do not fit. you exclude those. why?
Because it's not your type, duh.
Take the limit for x-->infinitum of your behaviour, and see which type fits more. Happy now?

23. Originally Posted by FDG
Originally Posted by Mariano Rajoy
Originally Posted by FDG
Originally Posted by Mariano Rajoy
but look at all the behaviors that do not fit. you exclude those. why?
Because it's not your type, duh.
Take the limit for x-->infinitum of your behaviour, and see which type fits more. Happy now?
i am sorry, i dont understand x-->infinitum.

24. Originally Posted by Mariano Rajoy
so how does KIM the ENFp display superior T? Her T is supposedly buried deep.
Te is her 6th function:

6: You are sensitive about this function because you like to think it is strong, and you are quite responsive when others use it or make you feel that you're doing a good job using it.

25. Originally Posted by Joy
Originally Posted by Mariano Rajoy
so how does KIM the ENFp display superior T? Her T is supposedly buried deep.
Te is her 6th function:

6: You are sensitive about this function because you like to think it is strong, and you are quite responsive when others use it or make you feel that you're doing a good job using it.

socionics.us:
"Socionic type describes psychic mechanisms so "deep" that they are difficult to gain a full awareness of, much less modify in some way (but then, why would you want to modify them??)."

and proof of her actually beating me in a "Ti" argument:

26. Originally Posted by Mariano Rajoy
Originally Posted by Joy
Originally Posted by Mariano Rajoy
so how does KIM the ENFp display superior T? Her T is supposedly buried deep.
Te is her 6th function:

6: You are sensitive about this function because you like to think it is strong, and you are quite responsive when others use it or make you feel that you're doing a good job using it.

socionics.us:
"Socionic type describes psychic mechanisms so "deep" that they are difficult to gain a full awareness of, much less modify in some way (but then, why would you want to modify them??)."

and proof of her actually beating me in a "Ti" argument:
Looks like Te to me. And besides, we all use all of the functions... look at INxjs for example. Se is they're POLR, but the only humans who don't use ANY Se are in comas...

27. Originally Posted by Mariano Rajoy
Originally Posted by FDG
Originally Posted by Mariano Rajoy
Originally Posted by FDG
Originally Posted by Mariano Rajoy
but look at all the behaviors that do not fit. you exclude those. why?
Because it's not your type, duh.
Take the limit for x-->infinitum of your behaviour, and see which type fits more. Happy now?
i am sorry, i dont understand x-->infinitum.
Calculus. Limits.

28. ## Re: about I, E, F, T, P, and J

Originally Posted by FDG
Originally Posted by rmcnew
Originally Posted by FDG
Originally Posted by Joy
. Similarly, in Socionics, people are not extroverted or introverted, functions are.
This is something I don't agree with, because it's circular. If someone has an extravered base function, he's an extravert, and since the base function is extravert, that means that the aformentioned base function is commonly associated with extraverted behavioural traits.
Yeah, but having this viewpoint means that you must also consider unnecessarily stereotypical definitions for extroversion and introversion that may not only be actually disconnected to the actual functions, they introduce unnecessary variables that makes it more difficult to type people. That does not do any good, does it?
I think it is necessary, in order not to make the theory too far fetched.
Stereotypical definitions are by nature far-fetched, and it is the reason that those who have decided not to consider people extroverted or introverted are not taking those definitions serious when some insist that the people themselves are introverts and extroverts. Of course, there may not be any actual advantage in viewing people as they relate to the functions in a direct or indirect way, actually it may make no diffrence. But, those who view the functions as passivelly relating to a person could have the upper hand, except in the objective sense unless things are looked at too objectivelly and then the stereotypical definitions keep popping up that can be put to doubt. So, they system fails in that regards.

On the other hand, it is a more coherent view point to perceive people as disconnected from extrovertion and introvertion and seeing the functions as the only pure connection to introversion and extroversion
This changes nothing. The functions are named after their extraverted or introverted nature. Why does Jung named them this way? Clearly, because they were correlated with E and I behaviour.
It changes everything ... the problem with perceiving extrovertion and introversion as directly related to a person 'causes flaws in perception. It is like saying a twenty foot tall house is ten feet tall when standing so many feet away, you just can not rely on your senses in that way to say that it is porportional to reality, because it is not. Do you really want to follow a system that has contradictions?

Yet, if you look at it indirectly and undertstand that a persons behaviour may not actually be directly connected to the reality of the manifestations of functions, and that many behaviours you think might just be related to a function or specific functions are really just your own realitive perception based on stereotypical definitions and that other people have totally diffrent perceptions of the same behaviours, then you start realizing how silly it is to try to type people by directly connecting their behaviours to functions and that it is better to view it all passivelly and indirectly.

And I should probably mention that many of those who claim people themselves alone are introverts and extroverts usually come off like real dickheads or bigots when they try to type people. Atleast I find that to be the case.
Of course, in order to know whether a person is extroverted or introverted, you need to place the given person in a group of people, but this is rather obvious.
[/quote]

Same dilemma I wrote about above ...

29. Originally Posted by Mariano Rajoy
Originally Posted by Joy
Originally Posted by Mariano Rajoy
so how does KIM the ENFp display superior T? Her T is supposedly buried deep.
Te is her 6th function:

6: You are sensitive about this function because you like to think it is strong, and you are quite responsive when others use it or make you feel that you're doing a good job using it.

socionics.us:
"Socionic type describes psychic mechanisms so "deep" that they are difficult to gain a full awareness of, much less modify in some way (but then, why would you want to modify them??)."

and proof of her actually beating me in a "Ti" argument:
It's just that you want to look stupid.

30. I changed the name of this thread back to it's origianl title due to popular demand

31. Originally Posted by Joy
Originally Posted by Mariano Rajoy
Originally Posted by Joy
Originally Posted by Mariano Rajoy
so how does KIM the ENFp display superior T? Her T is supposedly buried deep.
Te is her 6th function:

6: You are sensitive about this function because you like to think it is strong, and you are quite responsive when others use it or make you feel that you're doing a good job using it.

socionics.us:
"Socionic type describes psychic mechanisms so "deep" that they are difficult to gain a full awareness of, much less modify in some way (but then, why would you want to modify them??)."

and proof of her actually beating me in a "Ti" argument:
Looks like Te to me. And besides, we all use all of the functions... look at INxjs for example. Se is they're POLR, but the only humans who don't use ANY Se are in comas...
according to socionics.us, she should not be able to gain an awareness, and because it is subconcious, it should not be able to be used by the conciousness.

what is the relation between "psychological type" and behavior?

how do you explain KIM's behavior not fitting her type?

32. Originally Posted by Mariano Rajoy
Originally Posted by Joy
Originally Posted by Mariano Rajoy
Originally Posted by Joy
Originally Posted by Mariano Rajoy
so how does KIM the ENFp display superior T? Her T is supposedly buried deep.
Te is her 6th function:

6: You are sensitive about this function because you like to think it is strong, and you are quite responsive when others use it or make you feel that you're doing a good job using it.

socionics.us:
"Socionic type describes psychic mechanisms so "deep" that they are difficult to gain a full awareness of, much less modify in some way (but then, why would you want to modify them??)."

and proof of her actually beating me in a "Ti" argument:
Looks like Te to me. And besides, we all use all of the functions... look at INxjs for example. Se is they're POLR, but the only humans who don't use ANY Se are in comas...
according to socionics.us, she should not be able to gain an awareness, and because it is subconcious, it should not be able to be used by the conciousness.

what is the relation between "psychological type" and behavior?

how do you explain KIM's behavior not fitting her type?
TAKE THE LIMIT OF HER BEHAVIOUR GODDAMN!

THIS IS NOT A FUCKING SCIENTIFIC THEORY THAT WANTS TO PREDICT QUANTITATIVELY, IN WHICH ONLY A RESULT AGAINST THE THEORY IS ENOUGH TO DISPROOF THE ENTIRE THEORY (THIS FUCKED UP THING IS TRUE ONLY IN POPPER'S BOOKS THOUGH, NOT IN REALITY), BUT A MOSTLY QUALITATIVE ANALYSIS.

33. Originally Posted by Mariano Rajoy
how do you explain KIM's behavior not fitting her type?
Any human being can use all of their functions, and they do.

My weakest function is - introverted sensing - which is related to physical sensations, but even I can go out of my way to buy a kind of food I particularly enjoy.

Does that mean that my behavior is not fitting my type? To imply that a human being - whether ENFp or whatever - of weak can't use logical analytical thinking at all is self-evidently absurd.

Socionics does not any point imply anything of that sort.

What it does imply is the level of comfort, of confidence, different people will have when using different functions, and how does the different use of functions affects people's behavior, especially when interacting with other people.

However, the extent to which people use different functions and how that affects their behavior and relationships is often not immediately obvious and it may take quite some time to reach a conclusion on someone's type, precisely due to the very obvious reason that everyone can use all of their functions to some extent.

Basically you seem to be trying to invalidate socionics by disputing claims that socionics never made. Duh.

#### Posting Permissions

• You may not post new threads
• You may not post replies
• You may not post attachments
• You may not edit your posts
•