Your type, your mother's type

[silke]

ESE what? You mean ESFJ?

compare ESE and ESFJ profiles, same ppl

[Trevor]

compare ESE and ESFJ profiles

don't feel like poisoning my mind atm

[woofwoofl]

Mine is Fe-ESE wonderful person, but absolutely confusing...

I'm Se-SEE; I consider ILI from time to time, then I realize I'm an Extratim with enough certainty to stop considering ILI for a while...

[Aleksei]

On a more serious note, according to MBTI type stats 17% of female population are ESEs making it the second most common type for women.

ESFJ =/= ESE. Seriously, take a look at Socionics Si and MBTI Si -- if you come back reporting they're the same, you've just earned a smack in the face for stupidity.

In actuality, the majority of ESFJs are Extrovert-ESI and Rational-SEE -- a fair few are N-EIE (in fact, the majority of EIEs are ESFJ, far as I can tell).

[InvisibleJim]

On a more serious note, according to MBTI type stats 17% of female population are ESEs making it the second most common type for women.

ESFJ =/= ESE. Seriously, take a look at Socionics Si and MBTI Si -- if you come back reporting they're the same, you've just earned a smack in the face for stupidity.

In actuality, the majority of ESFJs are Extrovert-ESI and Rational-SEE -- a fair few are N-EIE (in fact, the majority of EIEs are ESFJ, far as I can tell).

I'll take one of those slaps in the face please Aleksei, because they do the same thing. Either that, or worse, which is that they should.

In truth Fe is a much broader church than specified by either Socionics descriptions or modern Jung/MBTI descriptions. This is why people view Jung as fuzzy and difficult, because he is intentionally identifying explicitly an introvert or extrovert attitude and singular function description. i.e. I don't buy the difference between the systems.

F = hunch based reasoning without critical analysis.
i = aiming inward to a singular 'hunch'/insular/singular not shared
e = aiming outward allowing multiple 'hunches' for each scenario whilst aiming to reconcile those with others/extroverted/shared/communual

It's a matter of the function and a matter of attitude.

I can see why Socionics and Jung/MBTI tried to overcategorized it - because it was sexy to do so and to be perfectly honest, Socionics did it better - however, it's irrational and illogical to make something more accurate and specific than the quality of it's accuracy and specifiability was ever intended to be.

This is why people who 'buy into' cognitive style models prematurely become very extreme, because they actually believe the system is good for a very high level of detail and that is explicitly how they should behave and react to each situation. This is a very dangerous precedent for these individuals. Sadly, we should not pander to such nonsense.

[Aleksei]

ESFJ =/= ESE. Seriously, take a look at Socionics Si and MBTI Si -- if you come back reporting they're the same, you've just earned a smack in the face for stupidity.

In actuality, the majority of ESFJs are Extrovert-ESI and Rational-SEE -- a fair few are N-EIE (in fact, the majority of EIEs are ESFJ, far as I can tell).

I'll take one of those slaps in the face please Aleksei, because they do the same thing. Either that, or worse, which is that they should.

In truth Fe is a much broader church than specified by either Socionics descriptions or modern Jung/MBTI descriptions. This is why people view Jung as fuzzy and difficult, because he is intentionally identifying explicitly an introvert or extrovert attitude and singular function description. i.e. I don't buy the difference between the systems.

F = hunch based reasoning without critical analysis.
i = aiming inward to a singular 'hunch'
e = aiming outward allowing multiple 'hunches' for each scenario whilst aiming to reconcile those with others.

See, the problem is that, well, this isn't really how the human psyche properly operates. Concretely, it is, but it is false to assume that this type of reasoning is directly dichotomous to, for example, Thinking; which means the NSFT model of the psyche is fundamentally flawed. Further, actually setting up a typology system in such a way that the elements within it are truly dichotomous to each other means that the processes it's describing are buried deep within the psyche, and not observable -- thus not identifiable, thus entirely useless. This was the problem with Professor Yukawa's JCF system, for example.

If you set up a more specific model of the psyche, on the other hand (such as Socionics or the various Jungian derivatives), this model of the psyche corresponds to more specialized observations, which correspond to a narrower cross-section of the human psyche, that can overlap. Hence, there's no reason why to divergent categories of human cognition must occur in the same individual simply because they have the same name -- because they're meant to be traced back to a core phenomenon which, fundamentally, does not actually exist (and which the systems can't even bloody agree on what it is, Feeling being a prime example of this).

In other words: Jungian psychology is bullshit. Therefore, any claim to roots within it is bullshit.

Aleksei violently slaps InvisibleJim

[Morcheeba]

Me- ENFj-ni
Mom- ESTp-ti

[InvisibleJim]

See, the problem is that, well, this isn't really how the human psyche properly operates. Concretely, it is,

God, Aleksei, WHY GOD WHY?

but it is false to assume that this type of reasoning is directly dichotomous to, for example, Thinking; which means the NSFT model of the psyche is fundamentally flawed. Further, actually setting up a typology system in such a way that the elements within it are truly dichotomous to each other means that the processes it's describing are buried deep within the psyche, and not observable -- thus not identifiable, thus entirely useless. This was the problem with Professor Yukawa's JCF system, for example.

I agree, dichotomies are useless. Also the kids over at PerN are not very good typologists because they read but do not think at the same time. I don't particularly value Kyoji's contributions to typology. I agree entirely with what you have wrote above.

If you set up a more specific model of the psyche, on the other hand (such as Socionics or the various Jungian derivatives), this model of the psyche corresponds to more specialized observations, which correspond to a narrower cross-section of the human psyche, that can overlap. Hence, there's no reason why to divergent categories of human cognition must occur in the same individual simply because they have the same name -- because they're meant to be traced back to a core phenomenon which, fundamentally, does not actually exist (and which the systems can't even bloody agree on what it is, Feeling being a prime example of this).

In other words: Jungian psychology is bullshit. Therefore, any claim to roots within it is bullshit.

Although I get your point, I don't agree. I've often experienced your need to over categorise the same phenomenon. There's little point discriminating the consequences of the same root process. I can logically see how you have reached the conclusions that you have because different phenomenons have been observed you believe they are describing different root processes.

However it depends upon your level of magnification, if you zoom out to a more generalised view of the human psyche you will see that these consequentials are all coherent within the appropriate bands of error and that different root process can have different consequences situationaly. I admit, that I prefer Socionics because it describes the consequences of how attitudes and functions lie in the psyche in a very discretised fashion. It is not so specific regarding the root of them because that always exhibits a large degree of error and it is wise for admitting so.

[DirectorAbbie]

LSE daughter, SLI mom

[Anglas]

EIE and she piss me off all the time, so she probably my requester. Funny thing my grandma is IEE, my mom always says grandma is boring energy vampire, but doesn't understand that I feel like she, when she talking to me .

[Aleksei]

EIE and she piss me off all the time, so she probably my requester.

You're actually her beneficiary. Your own is LSE.

[717495]

LSE daughter, SLI mom

I didn't know you had a daughter.

[Pa3s]

Ne-LII (?), mother: probably Si-SEI

[NewBorn STAR]

My mother is FI-ISFJ and i love her with fiery raging passion everlasting.

And my father.. i often forget about my father he is like that that too.

Estj.si

Respect

[Ink]

Mom: EII or ESI
Me: LSI

I never really got along with my mother too well...bad chemistry between us. She reminds me quite a bit of Marista, probably the same type.

[Crispy]

Self - LII
Maaam - ESI
Maaam's maaam - ESE

[silke]

ESFJ =/= ESE. Seriously, take a look at Socionics Si and MBTI Si -- if you come back reporting they're the same, you've just earned a smack in the face for stupidity.

In actuality, the majority of ESFJs are Extrovert-ESI and Rational-SEE -- a fair few are N-EIE (in fact, the majority of EIEs are ESFJ, far as I can tell).

MBTI Si and Socionics Si are manifestation of the same underlying phenomenon and their descriptions are simply inferential. The reason you don't see it is because you are not a Ni-ego. It has nothing to do with anybody's stupidity, but apparently you're simply blind to seeing this side of reality and it very likely has something to do with differences between Si and Ni.

I also see you have changed your dual type to ILE. We're getting closer

I'll take one of those slaps in the face please Aleksei, because they do the same thing. Either that, or worse, which is that they should.

Yes, I agree.

[Jenna]

Mom's EIE, I'm IEI.

[woofwoofl]

ESFJ =/= ESE. Seriously, take a look at Socionics Si and MBTI Si -- if you come back reporting they're the same, you've just earned a smack in the face for stupidity.

In actuality, the majority of ESFJs are Extrovert-ESI and Rational-SEE -- a fair few are N-EIE (in fact, the majority of EIEs are ESFJ, far as I can tell).

MBTI Si and Socionics Si are manifestation of the same underlying phenomenon and their descriptions are simply inferential. The reason you don't see it is because you are not a Ni-ego. It has nothing to do with anybody's stupidity, but apparently you're simply blind to seeing this side of reality and it very likely has something to do with differences between Si and Ni.

I also see you have changed your dual type to ILE. We're getting closer

That explains my difficulty in making sense of the typing he gave me; I was running off of Socionics and MBTI consisting of the same IEs, yet with a different way of assembling them; MBTI being a quantitative thing of "E/I", "N/S", "T/F", and "P/J", internal mechanics be damned, and Socionics having to do with specific IEs arranged in a specific manner, with intra-type differences being cleared up a bit through subtypes (I may have MBTI wrong, but MBTI has itself wrong)... I was trying to figure out how I could be considered "SEE-SEI ENFJ"; there's something internally funky about that...

I can see (specific IE) =/= (specific IE) about as easily as I can see 2 =/= 2, and I'm about as welcome to the idea too...

[Beautiful sky]

Mom: EII or ESI
Me: LSI

I never really got along with my mother too well...bad chemistry between us. She reminds me quite a bit of Marista, probably the same type.

I love LSI, my brother in law is one. It's nice that you feel familiarity, when reading my posts, with your mom.

[munenori2]

Maybe my mom is IEE?!

[Sumer1an]

My mom is probably IEE. Its the only one that really makes sense. She seems really Ejish which makes me want to think she is an ESFj but I know she really is not very good with Si.

[Aleksei]

I can see (specific IE) =/= (specific IE) about as easily as I can see 2 =/= 2, and I'm about as welcome to the idea too...

That's easy. A name does not equal a name. A chair



does not equal a chair.



A fag



Does not equal a fag.



A name, a title, is naught but a shell; which houses a concept. What that concept is, is arbitrary -- it exists by that name, simply because whomever thought up the concept gave it to it. If the same name is given to a different concept, then the two concepts still have naught to do with each other.

Which is what happened here. Out of the multiple characterization traits a human being can be described through (numbering in the dozens), each author of Jungian typology picked a series, which corresponds to what they felt corresponded best to a given personality element being described -- from which arose a type system from each.

They are all related insofar as they all describe human personality traits. As they describe distinct traits, any one trait (value, thought pattern, personality quirk..) can fall within the range of one arbitrarily-named element defined into existence and another with a different name in a different Jungian typology system, or simply out of the range of one, or both.

[Aleksei]

MBTI Si and Socionics Si are manifestation of the same underlying phenomenon

Stop right there.

What underlying phenomenon?

I also see you have changed your dual type to ILE. We're getting closer

1) I'd had it originally. 2) That twin-type is typical of Ni-egos, and is, like all other type systems, a slightly different arbitrary categorization which yields different descriptions. 3) Va fan culo, stronzo.

[Crispy]

Lol if there is no underlying phenomenon then you can make any bullshit typings you want, change them whenever you want, and consider yourself correct "at the time" any time you want (cause there's no objective basis herp derp). Sorry; Socionics doesn't work that way.

[Aleksei]

Well I decided I've not enough time to play Socrates, so let's cut to brass tacks.

Siuntal: I'm quite capable of seeing underlying phenomena -- the phenomenon underlying starvation in Africa is insufficient food production in the continent. The phenomenon underlying crime in the inner city is that dumbass people with bad parents live there in a neverending cycle, which will only end when the lowest end of that is removed from the genepool, as intelligence is heritable. The phenomenon underlying the disadvantage of workers in the class conflict is their abundance, which erodes their bargaining power. Increased production (which is underlaid by the quality of available productive elements and investment) combined with a cutoff of labor force growth (mostly underlaid by immigration) will eventually (barring political forces opposing measures that undermine such) render pro-worker measures (unions, regulation...) and aid to the able poor, superfluous. The phenomenon underlying your airheadedness is adherence to the acidhead ideas of a 20th-century bigot, possibly combined with insufficient love from mommy.

The underlying phenomenon of Socionics Si and MBTI Si are the Jungian concepts of Sensing and Introversion; both of which refer to tendencies of the human psyche. The problem? This phenomenon lacks a personality definition 100% in line with its dictionary definition. As it also lacks a connection to a defined neurological process, it is a thought process (or rather, a family of thought processes). As human thought processes are very varied, it becomes necessary to establish which family of thought processes this refers to, to delimit them. The delimitation process is arbitrary. It therefore ended up being delimited at different ends of the human thought field, all of which exist and are thus observable, which means that the types created by all of these systems are real, so to speak -- but there's absolutely no reason they are, or should be, the same. If Socionics and MBTI define Sensing distinctly, then they will naturally end up with a distinct version of Se and Si, as they're starting from distinct foundations.

Lol if there is no underlying phenomenon then you can make any bullshit typings you want, change them whenever you want, and consider yourself correct "at the time" any time you want (cause there's no objective basis herp derp).

The objective basis is the definition, which is an arbitrary name for either a set of observations or a set of asspulled assumptions that you believe humans to mold themselves to. Either is fine, so long as it is possible for a human being to identify with them (preferably the majority within a given type); the alternative being that you have a type with a statistical incidence of zero (MBTI does have types with statistical incidences of less than 2%; I sort of doubt Socionics types are that disparate), which is fine-ish too, but it shall prompt me to laugh at your ignorance of the human condition. By this we can in fact have hundreds of slightly different type systems, all of which are fittable to actual humans; but this would of course be collectively useless, because if you tell me I'm for example an LIE, that means nothing to me if I have no clue what your personal conception of LIE is.

Which is why I think it is so very important to be faithful to the original definitions, for all systems: it allows us to classify people in both an universally understandable manner (the handbook typing; for which info can be found lying around), and to be faithful to all established systems (it allows for greater precision, defining phenomena that slip through the cracks of other systems).

It's thus only justifiable to deviate from this phenomenon when it affects another use the type system may have. I must confess to have slightly done that to Socionics to cinch it to type relations, mostly through generous abuse of DCNH and third functions; often stripping IEs to their values.

[Crispy]

(MBTI does have types with statistical incidences of less than 2%; I sort of doubt Socionics types are that disparate),

Here is where your understanding falls apart. MBTI statistics such as 2% INTP's etc. are based on results from MBTI tests which are known to be inaccurate more often than not. Therefore the statistics are meaningless, and if that's how you judge the disparity, you are already lost.

If MBTI didn't claim to be rooted in Jung, we wouldn't be having this discussion. Since it is, they are obviously following the same phenomenon Jung has been working on, where introverts are introverted, extroverts are extroverted, and so on.

[717495]

My mom is ESI.

[Beautiful sky]

My sweetheart mom is ILI
I am EII

Benefit relations.

[Aleksei]

If MBTI didn't claim to be rooted in Jung, we wouldn't be having this discussion. Since it is, they are obviously following the same phenomenon Jung has been working on, where introverts are introverted, extroverts are extroverted, and so on.

The problem is deciding what is an introvert, what is an extrovert, and so on, as I've explained in detail already. Do you have an actual rebuttal to that? (to the long answer that is -- you have a somewhat annoying tendency to avoid arguments).

Of course, following that line of reasoning a bigger problem is that not one single Jungian derivative actually employs Jungian psychology; which has broad roots on Freud and actually seems to resemble Enneagram more than either MBTI or Socionics. In fact, Jung's functions are not psychological traits; they are psychological disorders. Quirks, predilections, cognitive traits, etc. are not function-related,they are complex-related. Isabel Myers presumably either ignored this or (more likely) decided to clean it up to make it accessible to the masses, yielding a deliberately separate system (and thus making the fact it's rooted in Jung meaningless -- the MBTI model of the psyche is consciously only loosely related to the Jungian model of the psyche).

[Raver]

My mom is ESE and I have friends that have ESE mothers as well. I don't think it's a coincidence that so many mothers are ESE. For one thing, women as a group tend to have a high number of ESEs. ESE women may party it up while young and have as much fun as any other personality type. However, once they start to get older, their main priority in life is to have children and anything else becomes secondary. Where as for other types, having a successful career would be more their main priority as they get older. ESEs are also more likely to have more children than other types.

[Spasm]

I wouldn't type my mother ESE. Gamma SF seems most likely for her, actually. She uses both and to significant degrees, but she's also very clearly an -user and valuer. Ignoring the "unfaithful skank" stereotypes, SEE seems the most plausible type for her, to me.

[yellow82]

In my church about half of the mothers are either ESFj or ESFp. . .

But my mother is INTp. . .

Life's gotten a million times better since I movedout.

[silke]

Stop right there.

What underlying phenomenon?

The ones giving rise to observables that Jung has described in psychological types.

1) I'd had it originally. 2) That twin-type is typical of Ni-egos, and is, like all other type systems, a slightly different arbitrary categorization which yields different descriptions.

You had your type changed to D-ILE. Now I see that you've changed it to "EIE, fuckers". What happened?

3) Va fan culo, stronzo.

Yes, it's already obvious that you have a weak ethical function. You don't need to demonstrate it over and over again.

I'm quite capable of seeing underlying phenomena -- the phenomenon underlying starvation in Africa is insufficient food production in the continent. The phenomenon underlying crime in the inner city is that dumbass people with bad parents live there in a neverending cycle, which will only end when the lowest end of that is removed from the genepool, as intelligence is heritable. The phenomenon underlying the disadvantage of workers in the class conflict is their abundance, which erodes their bargaining power. Increased production (which is underlaid by the quality of available productive elements and investment) combined with a cutoff of labor force growth (mostly underlaid by immigration) will eventually (barring political forces opposing measures that undermine such) render pro-worker measures (unions, regulation...) and aid to the able poor, superfluous. The phenomenon underlying your airheadedness is adherence to the acidhead ideas of a 20th-century bigot, possibly combined with insufficient love from mommy.

Common knowledge, you don't need to be FeNi ego to be aware of this.

The underlying phenomenon of Socionics Si and MBTI Si are the Jungian concepts of Sensing and Introversion; both of which refer to tendencies of the human psyche. The problem? This phenomenon lacks a personality definition 100% in line with its dictionary definition. As it also lacks a connection to a defined neurological process, it is a thought process (or rather, a family of thought processes). As human thought processes are very varied, it becomes necessary to establish which family of thought processes this refers to, to delimit them. The delimitation process is arbitrary. It therefore ended up being delimited at different ends of the human thought field, all of which exist and are thus observable, which means that the types created by all of these systems are real, so to speak -- but there's absolutely no reason they are, or should be, the same. If Socionics and MBTI define Sensing distinctly, then they will naturally end up with a distinct version of Se and Si, as they're starting from distinct foundations.

As far as your typing is concerned none of this really matters because even using 'dictionary' definitions of IEs you don't fit the profile of EIE but rather ILE. Even the character from your past avatar is a prototypical Ti-ILE.

[Aleksei]

As far as your typing is concerned none of this really matters because even using 'dictionary' definitions of IEs you don't fit the profile of EIE but rather ILE.

Explain how. Cite sources.

[Aleksei]

You had your type changed to D-ILE. Now I see that you've changed it to "EIE, fuckers". What happened?

I'm not an ILE. I never have been, I didn't think I was -- I'd changed it to ILE-Fe, specifically (which is the only ILE subtype I'd consider) just to see how people would react to that -- then I saw you arrogantly declaring victory because you saw my twin-type as -ILE, and I decided I am not gonna give you that satisfaction.

[silke]

Explain how. Cite sources.

This has been already explained in your typing thread. In summary, your thinking is that of a static type with Si being one of your valued functions. The sources are Rick's website and Wikisocion. If you cannot connect what you express of yourself to the definitions in those sources then there is not much that anyone can do to help you.

I'm not an ILE. I never have been, I didn't think I was -- I'd changed it to ILE-Fe, specifically (which is the only ILE subtype I'd consider) just to see how people would react to that -- then I saw you arrogantly declaring victory because you saw my twin-type as -ILE, and I decided I am not gonna give you that satisfaction.

Yes and that's the thing. You seem to have redefined the issue of your type in terms of it being some sort of a competition. Apparently it is all about victories and defeats and resisting granting the satisfaction of a victory to someone else by admitting that they might be right. It is not a search for what is true but apparently an opportunity to argue and insult others over forums, therefore any further debate about this is simply useless.

[Aleksei]

This has been already explained in your typing thread.

1) I already explained that your Hannibal Lecture doesn't apply, as my reasoning only applies in the manner you described to typology, and only because to my estimation the Socionics model of the psyche is crap.

In summary, your thinking is that of a static type with Si being one of your valued functions. The sources are Rick's website and Wikisocion.

I've seen nothing of what you mentioned in either site, so I need you to point it out and explain it specifically, if you'll be so kind. In return I can give you a point by point analysis of what fits and doesn't fit from the ILE and EIE profiles (vetted by friends, so this isn't just me saying "AM NOT!"). But you need to do your homework.

[mikemex]

I'm IEE and mom is EIE. We don't understand each other at all but I can clearly see both of us being idealists. We clash a lot. I don't care about social status and that stuff, which seems to be very important for her.

[Codie]

INFp, moms ESFj. She's a big ol sweetheart, although sometimes I wish we didn't live together .