Guess the ENFP and ESFJ description

[Aleksei]

Two people's interpretations will be different. You can't expect 100% exactness.

Clearly not, given that there's not enough info (especially for Socionics -- Socionics is a much deeper system than MBTI). Those aren't different interpretations though, they are two different fucking descriptions. Which could of course describe the same personality given that type describes only a relatively narrow portion of a person's being, but don't necessarily.

Length of the description means nothing. The fact that it wasn't described in terms of each type also means nothing.

Why the hell not? Two different descriptions are two different descriptions. They're not magically the same because you say so.

All of this is pointless to argue with me anyway, because I agree that MBTI functions are not the same as socionics functions. My position is that MBTI functions are incorrect and don't represent reality.

Neither represent reality. Functions aren't real, they don't exist. They are symbols, for a given set of cognitive traits or conscious perspectives. Neither MBTI nor socionics are tangible, any more than the number 1 is -- their validity is in their analytical capacity. Thus your argument is invalid.

It's also invalid because this guy has a windmill in his beard.

I disagree with everything here, except that MBTI is more shallow and hasn't hit the root as closely as socionics.

That is precisely the beauty of Socionics. you are debasing it by stating MBTI is a similar system -- and the facti t's shallower doesn't make it any less real, or wronger. it's simply a different analytical tool, one that's easier to wield.

Also, I stated that INTP and INTJ are easily confused, but all the other types correlate pretty nicely.

INTP and INTJ are intensely different.

[Azeroffs]

Clearly not, given that there's not enough info (especially for Socionics -- Socionics is a much deeper system than MBTI). Those aren't different interpretations though, they are two different fucking descriptions.

Why the hell not? Two different descriptions are two different descriptions. They're not magically the same because you say so.

Just because the words are different, doesn't mean the meaning is.

I can describe a chair in a sentence or a book. The chair is still the same regardless.

Neither represent reality. Functions aren't real, they don't exist. They are symbols, for a given set of cognitive traits or conscious perspectives. Neither MBTI nor socionics are tangible, any more than the number 1 is -- their validity is in their analytical capacity. Thus your argument is invalid.

You contradict yourself here by saying they don't represent reality and then saying they are symbols for cognitive conscious perspectives. What are symbols?

That is precisely the beauty of Socionics. you are debasing it by stating MBTI is a similar system -- and the facti t's shallower doesn't make it any less real, or wronger. it's simply a different analytical tool, one that's easier to wield.

My position is that that the ENTPs have the same thinking process that ENTps do. The difference is that ENTps are described better.

To be ENTP and INTj would mean that you simultaneously have two different thinking processes.

To be ENTP means that your mind has certain preferences. Namely E, N, T, and P. To be INTj means that your mind prefers I, N, T, j. Now unless the mbti dichotomies and socionics dichotomies are not the same, the systems must be describing the same thing. Meaning one is just less accurate than the other.

My understanding is that in both systems..

E is the preference to be involved with or take information from a particular area that is in separate from the self.
'I' is the preference to be involved with or take information from an area that is related to the self.

S is the preference to be focused on that which can be perceived through the senses.
N is the preference to be focused on that which can be perceived without the senses.

T is the preference to make decisions or come to conclusions based on objective/impartial factors.
F is the preference to make decisions or come to conclusions based on subjective/partial factors.

J is the preference to focus on decision making.
P is the preference to focus on raw information.

[Aleksei]

I can describe a chair in a sentence or a book. The chair is still the same regardless.

You're missing the point. A function is not a tangible object in the real world -- it is precisely a description representative of a tangible object in the real world (namely a thought process). The function itself is a stand-in for the description, rather than the description describing the function.

You contradict yourself here by saying they don't represent reality and then saying they are symbols for cognitive conscious perspectives. What are symbols?

A symbol, in this case, is an abstraction -- much the same way 1 or 3 are. The number 1 describes one object, but it itself is just a symbol for that object. The same goes for functions -- if they are different then they are just different. 1 isn't the same symbol as 3, and socionics Si (enjoyment of sensory experiences) isn't the same symbol as Si in MBTI (reliance on experience and memory).

To be ENTP and INTj would mean that you simultaneously have two different thinking processes.

To be ENTP means that your mind has certain preferences. Namely E, N, T, and P. To be INTj means that your mind prefers I, N, T, j. Now unless the mbti dichotomies and socionics dichotomies are not the same, the systems must be describing the same thing. Meaning one is just less accurate than the other.

Bolded part is where you hit the nail on the head. The two descriptions don't necessarily mean the same thing. The letters, in fact, can and very much should be ignored entirely. They are just a stand-in for the basic mesh of the functional order, which is actually different between the two systems. ENTP has Si as its inferior function (which fits me -- as does Se-PoLR), but ILE has fucking Fi as its PoLR, which very much does not fit me. Ergo, I am no fucking ILE.

My understanding is that in both systems..

E is the preference to be involved with or take information from a particular area that is in separate from the self.
'I' is the preference to be involved with or take information from an area that is related to the self.

This is incorrect. Extroversion in MBTI refers to whether one is energized by social interaction, or drained by it. I am an extrovert in one system and an introvert in the other because I'm very ideas-focused, but sociable.

J is the preference to focus on decision making.
P is the preference to focus on raw information.

This is mostly correct, but it's interpreted differently in the two systems. In MBTI this is represented by the Perceiving function being externally oriented and the Judging internally oriented in Perceivers, and vice-versa in Judgers. In Socionics it affects the order in which the Judging and Perceiving functions are placed. Thus, an INTP would be Ti-Ne and an ENTP would be Ne-Ti, whereas an INTp is Ni-Te, and an ENTp Ne-Ti. This is enough to cause severe discrepancies between the two systems.

Further, a person can be J on one system and P on another if they're stuck on a Pe-Je loop (which I am -- my tertiary Fe is stronger than my auxiliary Ti).

[Azeroffs]

You're missing the point. A function is not a tangible object in the real world -- it is precisely a description representative of a tangible object in the real world (namely a thought process). The function itself is a stand-in the description, rather than the description describing the function.

I agree.

A symbol, in this case, is an abstraction -- much the same way 1 or 3 are. The number 1 describes one object, but it itself is just a symbol for that object. The same goes for finctions -- if they are different then they are just different. 1 isn't the same symbol as 3, and socionics Si (enjoyment of sensory experiences) isn't the same symbol as Si in MBTI (reliance on experience and memory).

My point was that a symbol is a representation. What I had said is that MBTI functions don't represent reality. I meant they don't do it accurately.

Maybe I'm wrong, maybe the MBTI functions can represent reality simultaneously with socionics functions. Still my point on dichotomies stands.

Possibly irrelevant, but Si isn't enjoyment of sensory experience in socionics. It is the awareness of how the sensory environment effects the self and other people/things. It's also heavily experience oriented.

According to socionics, all elements are related to different kinds of memory.

Bolded part is where you hit the nail on the head. The two descriptions don't necessarily mean the same thing. The letters, in fact, can and very much should be ignored entirely. They are just a stand-in for the basic mesh of the functional order, which is actually different between the two systems.

The dichotomies don't necessitate any functional order actually.

ENTP has Si as its inferior function (which fits me -- as does Se-PoLR), but ILE has fucking Fi as its PoLR, which very much does not fit me. Ergo, I am no fucking ILE.

Please, no "I'm different types in the different systems." I don't care how certain you think you are. Unless you can prove your infallibility, it means nothing.

This is incorrect. Extroversion in MBTI refers to whether one is energized by social interaction, or drained by it. I am an extrovert in one system and an introvert in the other because I'm very ideas-focused, but sociable.

MBTI isn't THAT shallow. I think anyone who doesn't have some psychological disorder would agree that social interaction is sometimes draining and sometimes energizing.

Myers-Briggs literature uses the terms extraversion and introversion as Jung first used them, and preserves the original spelling of extraversion. Extraversion means "outward-turning" and introversion means "inward-turning."[17] These specific definitions vary somewhat from the popular usage of the words.

The preferences for extraversion and introversion are often called as attitudes. Briggs and Myers recognized that each of the cognitive functions can operate in the external world of behavior, action, people, and things (extraverted attitude) or the internal world of ideas and reflection (introverted attitude). The MBTI assessment sorts for an overall preference for one or the other.

People who prefer extraversion draw energy from action: they tend to act, then reflect, then act further. If they are inactive, their motivation tends to decline. To rebuild their energy, extraverts need breaks from time spent in reflection. Conversely, those who prefer introversion expend energy through action: they prefer to reflect, then act, then reflect again. To rebuild their energy, introverts need quiet time alone, away from activity.

The extravert's flow is directed outward toward people and objects, and the introvert's is directed inward toward concepts and ideas. Contrasting characteristics between extraverts and introverts include the following:

* Extraverts are action oriented, while introverts are thought oriented.
* Extraverts seek breadth of knowledge and influence, while introverts seek depth of knowledge and influence.
* Extraverts often prefer more frequent interaction, while introverts prefer more substantial interaction.
* Extraverts recharge and get their energy from spending time with people, while introverts recharge and get their energy from spending time alone.

This is mostly correct, but it's interpreted differently in the two systems. In MBTI this is represented by the Perceiving function being externally oriented and the Judging internally oriented in Perceivers, and vice-versa in Judgers. In Socionics it affects the order in which the Judging and Perceiving functions are placed. Thus, an INTP would be Ti-Ne and an ENTP would be Ne-Ti, whereas an INTp is Ni-Te, and an ENTp Ne-Ti. This is enough to cause severe discrepancies between the two systems.

Other than functional differences, what difference is there?

[Jarno]

citting small parts of two descriptions and saying that they comefrom two specifc types and asking people to guess them does not prove that socionics and mbti do not differ much. it only proves youre an idiot for thinking so.

from a person who calls himself Ilikesex, I will take this opinion very seriously :-)

You are only giving a statement, without arguments, therefor quite useless. But since you want it this way. I think you are idiot times two. See? Now I win.

[Jarno]

This is the absolute truth. The fact that an MBTI expert (like myself) can still identify obvious differences makes him look even worse.

First of all it proves that they are different types as opposed to the claims in another thread. Secondly it contains IM elements, which is rather impressive considering it was written by an MBTI person without knowledge of socionics. Thirdly, it shows that these MBTI type descriptions don't really deviate a lot from socionics ones.

Ps even when you're an expert in mbti, but you should also become an expert in socionics. Only then can you see that the mbti functions are flawed and the reason for all the misunderstanding. You can verify that socionics functions are the correct ones by experiencing relationships. I cannot consider you an expert when you still haven't figured that one out '-)

[Aleksei]

First of all it proves that they are different types as opposed to the claims in another thread.

I never claimed ESFj to be the same type as ENFP, I claimed it to be a type based on a different system, so they could match. It's impossible to be an ESFJ ENFP or an ESFj ENFp, but it is perfectly possible to be an ESFj ENFP.

Secondly it contains IM elements, which is rather impressive considering it was written by an MBTI person without knowledge of socionics.

I quoted from Wikisocion.

Thirdly, it shows that these MBTI type descriptions don't really deviate a lot from socionics ones.

So? Descriptions are at very best secondary, in both systems.

Ps even when you're an expert in mbti, but you should also become an expert in socionics. Only then can you see that the mbti functions are flawed and the reason for all the misunderstanding. You can verify that socionics functions are the correct ones by experiencing relationships. I cannot consider you an expert when you still haven't figured that one out '-)

I'm gonna quote myself because I can't be fucked to repeat my argument. mmkay?

Neither represent reality. Functions aren't real, they don't exist. They are symbols, for a given set of cognitive traits or conscious perspectives. Neither MBTI nor socionics are tangible, any more than the number 1 is -- their validity is in their analytical capacity.

[...]

That is precisely the beauty of Socionics. you are debasing it by stating MBTI is a similar system -- and the facti t's shallower doesn't make it any less real, or wronger. it's simply a different analytical tool, one that's easier to wield.

[Jarno]

I'm gonna quote myself because I can't be fucked to repeat my argument. mmkay?

Why should something be tangible, if it can be experienced. That's the whole idea behind a relationship.

[Jarno]

That is clearly ESFP. in Socionics it's probably closest to ESE. Nowhere near a perfect fit, but still better than SEE.

that's clear socionics SEE. If I needed to bold what is SEE plus bold the parts that contradicts ESE, I would probably bold everything.

[Crispy]

The intuitive grasp of type XXXx/XXXX will be the same in both systems because they are describing the same people. To say otherwise is to say Augusta "Made Socionics Up" rather than "Discovered Socionics".

Those who claim to be different types in different systems are much more likely to be focused on a meme regarding MBTI's E/I or J/P dichotomies that, along with MBTI's functions, have bad descriptions. The MBTI type descriptions however do not portray each Extrov. type as "very sociable" like the E/I dichotomy description does, and are much more useful in "defining" your MBTI type.

I used to think there was no way I could be an MBTI J because of my view of J/P as Organized / Unorganized. In reality, MBTI should have just concentrated more on the Decisions / Information in the dichotomy description like socionics did. When I read the INTJ description from many a website, without concentrating on the MBTI dichotomies, I realized they were an obvious match for myself and INTj's in general.

[Gilly]

Wow, did either of you even read my posts before pretending to refute them?

If you think the types are the same, you need to spend more time with both theories. I've been studying MBTI for 7 years and Socionics for 5, and quite frankly the disparities are glaringly obvious to me.

[Gilly]

Let's see if I can put this simply:

MBTI is a theory of Personality
Socionics is a theory of Information Metabolism

MBTI assesses personality traits
Socionics assesses cognitive processes

MBTI typing is based on superficial traits and character idiosyncrasies
Socionics typing is based on assessing underlying mental function and thinking patterns

Sure, they are talking generally about the same kinds of things, and there are correlations, but the specifics of the theoretical constructs differ significantly, and, thus, so do the types as entities, as well as some people's types in the respective theories.

The short and long of it is, if you think they are the same, either your understanding of one or both is flawed, or your understanding of what comprises the essence of each theory is superficial.

[717495]

How about just don't over-focus on that stuff, dichotomies, MBTI descriptions. Is it that hard? You can get a kind of good idea, without totally seeming reliant on it, and making other people think incorrectly about the theory.

Introvert/Extrovert is really good to focus on though, because it has to do directly with the dominant function, with field/object, but it should first be introduced to the other aspects.

[Gilly]

...and the definitions of Introversion/Extro/aversion vary drastically between MBTI and Socionics.

[Aleksei]

MBTI is a theory of Personality
Socionics is a theory of Information Metabolism

MBTI assesses personality traits
Socionics assesses cognitive processes

MBTI typing is based on superficial traits and character idiosyncrasies
Socionics typing is based on assessing underlying mental function and thinking patterns

This is actually more than a little off the mark. MBTI, properly applied, is based on everything you mentioned for Socionics. MBTI as you just described it is merely the bastardized, hyper-superficial version of the system ideated by the great fag David Keirsey. Real MBTI is based on Jungian cognition theories.

You might notice for example that I have both ENTP and the Fieldmarshal role variant (which is ENTJ) listed in my sig. That's because I am ENTP by cognitive function analysis (but not by Socionics -- I am no Fi PoLR), but my behavior is that of a Judger.

[Azeroffs]

Wow, did either of you even read my posts before pretending to refute them?

If you think the types are the same, you need to spend more time with both theories. I've been studying MBTI for 7 years and Socionics for 5, and quite frankly the disparities are glaringly obvious to me.

How about instead of telling people they're wrong, show them. And by 'them,' I at least mean me.

You and half this forum always do that, and it never works. I don't know why you can't see that. No one is going to respond to "you are wrong" with "Omg, you're right, I am wrong... Idk why I didn't realize I'm a dumbass sooner."

Learn how to argue constructively please. And if you already do, which I know you do.. try showing it.

[Jarno]

...and the definitions of Introversion/Extro/aversion vary drastically between MBTI and Socionics.

MBTI step 2 is nearly identical on that dichotomy. MBTI hasn't been laying around doing nothing, they've improved their theory. Now the dichotomy is I/E is as good as identical, they don't talk anymore about socialability and use things like responding/initiating. Which is identical to what I read on socionics sites.

[717495]

It's still wrong though, because how does object/field have to do with that responding/initiating? It doesn't. Because MBTI doesn't have the capability of assessing intertype relationships, and never will as long as they use these dichotomies. Show me an MBTI theory that is noticeably good with relations and quadras, and can identify the correct information elements, then your claim will make sense. INTPs use Ti, which is more similar to what ENTps and INTjs use, it's called Ti too. And guess what, I'm an INTP and I fit INTP descriptions. I'm not initiating, outspoken, clever, argumentative in real life, at all, which is what it says in ENTP descriptions. Yet I fit Ne dominance, the very fine basic form of what that is, aside from all stereotypes and concrete descriptions. I'm a total chill-pill, quiet, internal, imaginative, deep INTP, just how Einstein or Tesla are.

[Gilly]

How about instead of telling people they're wrong, show them. And by 'them,' I at least mean me.

You and half this forum always do that, and it never works. I don't know why you can't see that. No one is going to respond to "you are wrong" with "Omg, you're right, I am wrong... Idk why I didn't realize I'm a dumbass sooner."

Learn how to argue constructively please. And if you already do, which I know you do.. try showing it.

I'm sorry, you can't say SHIT when your response only indicates that you haven't read my posts thoroughly enough to comment.

[Gilly]

I'd be interested to see some sources that indicate these "changes" to MBTI, or anything about actual cognitive processes; my mother is a certified MBTI practitioner, and I've been studying this stuff for years, and last time I checked it was practically the same as Kiersey without the glorified temperaments.

[Jarno]

It's still wrong though, because how does object/field have to do with that responding/initiating? It doesn't.

Well socionist use responding initiating as a criteria for the I/E dichotomy. Ask them. It's socionics stuff that is incorporated in MBTI.

[Gilly]

So they are making MBTI into Socionics. Great, there goes my proposal to Harvard for a grant...

[Jarno]

So they are making MBTI into Socionics.

no they seperately came to the same conclusion. Because well, they are describing the same phenomenon, although that seems hard to grasp for most here... :-\

[Gilly]

I don't doubt that they are at least "pointing" at similar things, if not the same thing (although I hesitate to say this, because I think both systems are ultimately flawed) but the systems as they exist are different. They are both "models," and while what they are attempting to model is the same, surely, they simply are not identical models, and thus they categorize people differently in some instances.

[Jarno]

and thus they categorize people differently in some instances.

sure. But are their type descriptions also based on different people.

For example, the MBTI ENFP description that I used here. Is that one based on Socionics SLE's ILI's and LIE's, or is it based mainly (let's say more than 95%) on IEE persons? I say the latter.

[Gilly]

I never disagreed with that notion. I don't know what gave you that impression; they are obviously very similar systems in some ways, perhaps more than I am currently aware of (which I am willing to submit, provided proper evidence, which you and others have claimed exists but failed to present).

[Jarno]

I never disagreed with that notion. I don't know what gave you that impression; they are obviously very similar systems in some ways, perhaps more than I am currently aware of (which I am willing to submit, provided proper evidence, which you and others have claimed exists but failed to present).

ok

[Aleksei]

I'd be interested to see some sources that indicate these "changes" to MBTI, or anything about actual cognitive processes; my mother is a certified MBTI practitioner, and I've been studying this stuff for years, and last time I checked it was practically the same as Kiersey without the glorified temperaments.

Understanding the Eight Jungian Cognitive Processes / Eight Functions Attitudes

http://www.bestfittype.com/cognitiveprocesses.html

http://www.keys2cognition.com/cgjung.htm

Indeed MBTI is used the exact same way as Keirsey, but it was never meant to be, and I frankly find letter-based typology to be a spit in Jung's face. It's ridiculously shallow.

[Gilly]

I like this guy.

[Chloe]

I like this guy.

Me too.

[Gilly]

From Best-Fit Type:

Personality is a stable set of characteristics and tendencies that determine those commonalities and differences in the psychological behavior (thoughts, feeling, and actions) of people that have continuity in time and that may not be easily understood as the sole result of the social and biological pressures of the moment.*

Clearly stated that their "system" measures "personality traits," which is not what Socionics does.



From Cracking the Personality:

(just one example)

xperiencing the immediate context; taking action in the physical world; noticing changes and opportunities for action; accumulating experiences; scanning for visible reactions and relevant data; recognizing “what is.” Noticing what was available, trying on different items, and seeing how they look.

These are simply external behavioral manifestations of a cognitive process. Easily misconstrued with Socionics Si or Te.


The disparity is in the method. Socionics seeks to isolate the very precise particulars of information processing through IM theory, while ultimately all other theories look at cognitive manifestations and outward personality. It's simply a matter of fine tuning.

Also, other methods determine type typically by way of dichotomies, and subjective identification with profiles/descriptions, which is incompatible with Socionics theory. But that is an aside, mostly.

I don't think it can be doubted that all of these systems are getting at essentially the same thing. However saying they are "all the same" is ignoring quite a bit.

[Gilly]

What it comes down to is that Socionics has very specific theoretical definitions, whereas the others focus on collections of traits.

[Creepy-cinq]

I'd be interested to see some sources that indicate these "changes" to MBTI, or anything about actual cognitive processes; my mother is a certified MBTI practitioner, and I've been studying this stuff for years, and last time I checked it was practically the same as Kiersey without the glorified temperaments.

Understanding the Eight Jungian Cognitive Processes / Eight Functions Attitudes

Cognitive Processes

Keys 2 Cognition - Cognitive Processes

Indeed MBTI is used the exact same way as Keirsey, but it was never meant to be, and I frankly find letter-based typology to be a spit in Jung's face. It's ridiculously shallow.

Linda Berens and Dario Nardi have researched and authored several good books on cognitive processes - defining the processes and their roles within the personality, much like socionics. Also, find information on Bebee's Theory. In "Understanding Yourself and Others", descriptions of types are broken down by primary and shadow processes, each cognitive process explained relative to position to help describe the type. The series of publications by Berens and Nardi is an excellent read.

IMO, I think MBTI has come along way to gaining respect by refining and validating through testing. It's becoming harder to refute its value as an instrument to type personality. The problem with MBTI is perception - good information and research statistics is not within quick viewing reach. MBTI is a profit making machine as much as it is a learning and self development tool. The best information is not given out for free. Morsels gleaned from websites and blogs is just skimming the pool of knowledge on the subject, and there is an increased risk in misinterpreting the tool just by basing your analysis on the subject via these channels. You have to pay, either buy books or obtain professional training, to get the best information.

As for differences between socionics and mbti, they exist. Whether socionics is the better system, I wouldn't commit to this. The only way I'll be totally convinced is if the processes/IE's can be proven to positively exist and function via neurological studies.

[Aleksei]

What it comes down to is that Socionics has very specific theoretical definitions, whereas the others focus on collections of traits.

This I'd certainly agree with.

[Jarno]

This I'd certainly agree with.

me too.

[redbaron]

1)

This type is first and foremost energized by new ideas and possibilities. Outgoing friendly and talkative, they love being around people and often have a large and varied assortment of friends and acquaintances. These types are usually quick and clever and commonly use language to capture people's attention and entertain them as well as to express their creative offbeat personalities. They like to tell stories jokes and use puns and plays on words. Naturally irreverent, they usually speak rapidly their language is peppered with humor and metaphors, and they may even swear more often than some other types. Insatiably curious, these types are quick to strike up conversations with strangers, ask lots of questions and tend to finish other peoples sentences. Their conversation can be very scattered as they move from one thought to the next without finishing the first as new inspriations strike them. With regard to appearance, these types often have an original artsy look and dress more for themselves than for others or to make a statement.

ENFP

[redbaron]

2)

These types are perhaps the most friendly and outgoing of all the sixteen types. They are supremely helpful to others in a myriad of real and concrete ways. Usually polite and somewhat proper, these types are also physically demonstrative, pumping your hand when shaking it, touching an arm or shoulder when making a point, or even giving bear hugs when appropiate. They wear their emotions on their sleeves and their faces usually provide an accurate reflection of their feelings. Their language reflects their strongly held beliefs and values; they may use the word 'should' a lot and freely offer opinions and reactions to everything around them. These types are often the first to volunteer when something needs to be done and tend to take on projects with gusto and purpose. This can sometimes mean they may act somewhat controlling, determined to be sure every detail is done the way they think is best. They often see things in terms of black and white and speak and act with great conviction.

ESFJ

(my guesses without reading the rest of the thread)

[tire iron]

I cant imagine ENTP and ESFJ (MBTI) in the same room, getting along.

They get along in Socionics. Look at Pied Piper and Airborne.

[Creepy-Pied Piper]

Removed at User Request

[Crispy]

and some LIIs with INTJ (eg businessmen).

Why would a businessman LII be more likely to think they are INTJ than any other LII?