As above![]()
As above![]()
ENTp... love it
3w2
Think in steps
Define the function and understand the meanings then understand what information is searched and how the person thinks and produces output. That's a lot of steps I know.
ILE -gets evaluated as
comes in the door
IEE -gets evaluated as
comes in the door
-
Dual type(as per tcaudilllg)
Enneagram 2w1sw(1w9) helps others to live up to their own standards of what a good person is and is very behind the scenes in the process.
Tritype 1-2-6 stacking sp/sx
I'm constantly looking to align the real with the ideal.I've been more oriented toward being overly idealistic by expecting the real to match the ideal. My thinking side is dominent. The result is that sometimes I can be overly impersonal or self-centered in my approach, not being understanding of others in the process and simply thinking "you should do this" or "everyone should follor this rule"..."regardless of how they feel or where they're coming from"which just isn't a good attitude to have. It is a way, though, to give oneself an artificial sense of self-justification. LSE
Best description of functions:
http://socionicsstudy.blogspot.com/2...functions.html
Yeah I thought someone could have a MBTI type different from their socionics type?
ENTp... love it
3w2
No that's a myth.
Here's some proof why it's not possible and how this myth evolved.
It's not possible since they use the same dichotomies. Sure since they are independantely developed each has it's own definitions which might result in somewhat different scores, but overall they are the same.
Secondly the type descriptions are the same. Most clear example is ISTP. He's 'the mechanic' in both systems. For other types they have different names INTP is critic in socionics but wizard in mbti (or whatever name) this doesn't make him a different type.
If names would make types different, how about all the different socionics streams. Sometimes intp is observer, sometimes critic.
The myth has evolved because of the slightly different criteria and definitions, you could end up being more of a sensor in one system and more of intuitive in the other. This doesn't mean you are two types. This just means that one system has worse criteria.
Also, people tend to believe mbti functions are not flawed, and therefor they talk about different functions for different types. But MBTI is heavy flawed. They should make MBTI version 2 and leave everything how it is, and correct the functions. Then MBTI is exactly socionics. But at this moment MBTI doesn't use functions to type people only dichotomies so it shouldn't be a problem.
Well, Ganin wrote that the types might be mixed up for introverted types, if they are typed using functions on MBTI system, but that problem wouldn't arise for extraverted types.
I have to say though, that reading decent MBTI descriptions, ie ones in MBTI books not ones on internet, that they do seem to be talking about same type descriptions on both systems.
I suppose it can be complicated, but also simple, depending on how it's looked at.
yep, fortunately MBTI doesn't use functions for typing. Only dichotomies or questionaires not related to functions but to types.
That's probably why they never discovered their inconsistency. They simply don't use functions, they just stick them on a type afterwards, for fun.
I guess Ganin used the complicated way :-)
I think it's much easier to be mistyped in MBTI, yes. About types' descriptions similarity (or lack thereof in some cases), see about the middle of this article: Introduction into Socionics . These are based on Keirsey but they're much closer to MBTI.
MBTI tests for different things, and most people arrive at their type through test and reading the sugary description.
So my SEI friend mistyped as ENTP. She's read short ENTP description, and with it being so positive, easily identified. Forer effect taken to the extreme by lack of negative characteristics. Later she's typed as SEI in socionics and I think she's one. It works better for her than ENTP ever did.
I suppose my point is that while assuming your MBTI type will be the same as your socionics type might work in most cases, it doesn't work the other way. It's much easier to mistype in MBTI.
I am INTj and INTP.
Last edited by Beautiful sky; 04-19-2010 at 07:58 PM.
-
Dual type(as per tcaudilllg)
Enneagram 2w1sw(1w9) helps others to live up to their own standards of what a good person is and is very behind the scenes in the process.
Tritype 1-2-6 stacking sp/sx
I'm constantly looking to align the real with the ideal.I've been more oriented toward being overly idealistic by expecting the real to match the ideal. My thinking side is dominent. The result is that sometimes I can be overly impersonal or self-centered in my approach, not being understanding of others in the process and simply thinking "you should do this" or "everyone should follor this rule"..."regardless of how they feel or where they're coming from"which just isn't a good attitude to have. It is a way, though, to give oneself an artificial sense of self-justification. LSE
Best description of functions:
http://socionicsstudy.blogspot.com/2...functions.html