heh, it's really the same thing, there's noooo way I am ESFj in Socionics.Originally Posted by Jarno
I am saying I cant imagine because i was reading many people on INTPcentral who cant stand ISFJs and ESFPs... and ENTPs who cant standa ESFJs ... and had very bad experience with them.
That's odd. Well, experience it for yourself.
I once opened a topic to rate all relationships, and duality was always 1 and activation in the top 4.
It's not odd, they are two entirely different systems. One letter off, which is not only common but, in the case of some types, typically EXPECTED, especially based on functional analysis, and you go from dual to conflictor. Does that not make sense to you?
But, for a certainty, back then,
We loved so many, yet hated so much,
We hurt others and were hurt ourselves...
Yet even then, we ran like the wind,
Whilst our laughter echoed,
Under cerulean skies...
Gilly, instead of saying that there must be something wrong with mbti or etc, maybe there's something wrong with your interpretation. You've got 18000 posts and still open topics about your type. You are one of the few argueing the difficulty of distinguishing ENFP and ESFJ, and also claim to have deviate on at least 3 dichotomies in both systems. I rather assume it's you and not everything else that is wrong. But since I suspect we won't be able to resolve these issues I will rest my case here. I cannot give more factual evidence then what I did in this thread. Though I think I clarified a lot for the rest of the people who've read this thread. So that's enough for me.
I don't actually question my type; I just have mood swings and am insecure.
I'm not saying that they are hard to distinguish. Read my fucking posts, please, and learn the basics of the theory. They use different methods of typing, gauge different things, define their terms differently. The only commonalities are superficial traits and the letters, which aren't even used in proper socionics. I'm not saying that "there's something wrong with MBTI." I'm saying the theories are different, and so are the people. Face the facts, you are wrong.
But, for a certainty, back then,
We loved so many, yet hated so much,
We hurt others and were hurt ourselves...
Yet even then, we ran like the wind,
Whilst our laughter echoed,
Under cerulean skies...
sure no problem.
I find it funny that the only refutation against socionics and MBTI types being the same is "I'm different types in the different systems."
The problem with that is that there are many ways in which you could be mistaken. There's no possible way to know for a fact that you are different types in the different systems, so that point is meaningless.
What we do know for a fact are the definitions of dichotomies and descriptions of the collective of those dichotomies. And, when you accept that MBTI's functions are flawed, everything falls into place. The only way I could be convinced that they aren't the same at a core level is if you wanted to argue that MBTI's functions are not flawed. In which case, I have nothing to say and you may in fact be correct that the systems are different. However, I don't know anyone who has strong understanding of both systems that would argue for MBTI's functions as existing in conjunction with socionics functions.
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.
But, for a certainty, back then,
We loved so many, yet hated so much,
We hurt others and were hurt ourselves...
Yet even then, we ran like the wind,
Whilst our laughter echoed,
Under cerulean skies...
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.
But, for a certainty, back then,
We loved so many, yet hated so much,
We hurt others and were hurt ourselves...
Yet even then, we ran like the wind,
Whilst our laughter echoed,
Under cerulean skies...
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.
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.
What do these signs mean—,
, etc.? Why cannot socionists use symbols Ne, Ni etc. as in MBTI? Just because they have somewhat different meaning. Socionics and MBTI, each in its own way, have slightly modified the original Jung's description of his 8 psychological types. For this reason,
Just one example: in MBTI, Se (extraverted sensing) is associated with life pleasures, excitement etc. By contrast, the socionic function(extraverted sensing) is first and foremost associated with control and expansion of personal space (which sometimes can manifest in excessive aagression, but often also manifests in a capability of managing lots of people and things).
For this reason, we consider comparison between MBTI types and socionic types by functions to be rather useless than useful.
-Victor Gulenko, Dmitri Lytov
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.
But, for a certainty, back then,
We loved so many, yet hated so much,
We hurt others and were hurt ourselves...
Yet even then, we ran like the wind,
Whilst our laughter echoed,
Under cerulean skies...
They get along in Socionics. Look at Pied Piper and Airborne.I cant imagine ENTP and ESFJ (MBTI) in the same room, getting along.
Removed at User Request
Why would a businessman LII be more likely to think they are INTJ than any other LII?
ILI (FINAL ANSWER)
Removed at User Request
Are those not traits of the typical Socionic LII? We are known for our regimented lifestyles.
ILI (FINAL ANSWER)
Removed at User Request
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote