Both MBTI and Socionics are Correct?

[Saoshyant]

Fe: I smile easily and laugh a lot, I crack jokes all the time in almost any situation and have trouble remaining serious. I'm extremely casual, always have a "hey dude what's up" attitude, even places where I'm supposed to remain serious (like at work).

This is the opposite of Fe. Fe would try to be serious at work because that is what is 'ideal' and 'expected'.

[Aleksei]

This is the opposite of Fe. Fe would try to be serious at work because that is what is 'ideal' and 'expected'.

MBTI Fe is like that, but I haven't seen any indication that Socionics Fe is. Socionics Fe appears to be more about an urge to express your own emotions, wear your heart on your sleeve, loosen the atmosphere so that people say what they wanna say.

This function reflects person's own emotions, his/her emotional, highly personal and passionate reaction to what is going on around. Types with this dominant functions are eloquent, often smiling, artistic, charming (but somewhat “fussy” and “too artistic”), can speak and persuade others, but they perceive situations too emotionally, too personally, and sometimes they “sink” in their own emotions, cannot calm down for long time.

is generally associated with the ability to recognize and convey (i.e. make others experience) passions, moods, and emotional states, generate excitement, liveliness, and feelings, get emotionally involved in activities and emotionally involve others, recognize and describe emotional interaction between people and groups, and build a sense of community and emotional unity.
Types that value like creating a visible atmosphere of camaraderie with other people. They enjoy a loose atmosphere where anything goes, where people don't have to watch too carefully what they say for fear of offending others. This means these types try not to be too thin-skinned, taking jokes with a grain of salt. However, they are very conscious of the fact that the way something is said is very important to how it will be received, so they tend to add emphasis, embellishments, and exaggerations here and there to keep people engaged. The best way to say something is highly dependent on the situation and the implied purpose of the exchange, so of course levity is not appropriate in some situations.
Even after explosive arguments, these types find it hard to hold grudges, and can tolerate people they in principle don't like, as long as the situation is primarily social and doesn't require too close contact. They prefer misgivings to be out in the open; they believe that the silent treatment is one of the worst things you can do to a person, and only aggravates the underlying problem.

[limNol]

This is the opposite of Fe. Fe would try to be serious at work because that is what is 'ideal' and 'expected'.

That sounds more like a type with little confidence in Fe trying to compensate by forming some sort of Ti model that tells them what is "expected." Fe egos tend to be more spontaneous in shaping the emotional atmosphere. They use Fe in a more three-dimensional way, directly responding to others emotions as well as creating a certain atmosphere to achieve their goals. So in some contexts, they might be create the atmosphere you describe, not because they are conforming to "ideals" but because they have a good idea of how to create an atmosphere that's conducive to work -- and in other contexts, they might choose to create a different atmosphere, even one that's opposed to the specific setting they're in, because people are comfortable pushing the envelope when it comes to functions they're strong in. Of course, this process isn't as calculated as my description makes it sound; Fe does it as a more natural action/reaction.

[Saoshyant]

MBTI Fe is like that, but I haven't seen any indication that Socionics Fe is. Socionics Fe appears to be more about an urge to express your own emotions, wear your heart on your sleeve, loosen the atmosphere so that people say what they wanna say.

And right below the block of quotes you texted is:

as a base:
The individual is always in tune to the emotional flow surrounding him, and responds to it spontaneously and directly. He seeks out and creates activities where people are totally engaged in what they are doing. Something's value is directly tied to how much it arouses his or another's passion.

He is highly proactive about steering the emotional flow in the direction he himself considers ideal to a given situation. He may, for example, try to cheer people with jokes if he sees that they are too gloomy or, conversely, to get people to be serious and concentrated if they are too carefree during a crisis situation. Nevertheless, he believes emotions should be expressed as honestly as possible.

[Aleksei]

And that proves your point... how? It explicitly states that EIEs steer the emotional flow rather than go along with it.

[Saoshyant]

And that proves your point... how? It explicitly states that EIEs steer the emotional flow rather than go along with it.

Something's value is directly tied to how much it arouses his or another's passion.

This sentence is pretty much straightforward.

Let's take at look at the examples they use of in action:

He may, for example, try to cheer people with jokes if he sees that they are too gloomy or, conversely, to get people to be serious and concentrated if they are too carefree during a crisis situation. Nevertheless, he believes emotions should be expressed as honestly as possible.

So they are steering emotion in what they believe is in the the benefit for others or the other person. In your original example you stated you crack jokes during "any situation", and this would contradict the above statement in a big way.

[Aleksei]

Something's value is directly tied to how much it arouses his or another's passion.

Ergo, it could arouse only my own passion as well. And I fail to see how dull busywork arouses anyone's passions...

So they are steering emotion in what they believe is in the the benefit for others or the other person. In your original example you stated you crack jokes during "any situation", and this would contradict the above statement in a big way.

And that contradicts the passage in no way. Cracking jokes lightens the mood by definition, ergo falls under the auspices of Fe.

[Crispy]

For anyone wondering what type Aleksei is if not ENFj, ENTp seems to fit him pretty well IMO. I'd look into it if I was him/yall.

BTW, The weakest function in Socionics is NOT PoLR but the Suggestive Function. PoLR is only called so because it is the Most Hated function, as it is unvalued and still extremely weak.

ENFj's weakest function is Ti
ENTp's weakest function is Si

I have the quote from the Boss Socionist Filatova somewhere around here (or maybe socionix). If I find it I will add it

EDIT: Just read that Ti thread and decided Aleksei might actually be ENFj after all

[Creepy-male]

My experience with ESEs is that they will quite happily manipulate the emotional atmosphere to get people down to business.

The contradiction is as follows: you state that, in all cases, EXEs will try to lighten things up, when, instead, it is in appropriate cases.

I think. Sorry if I'm putting thoughts in your head, saoshyant.

[Creepy-male]

EDIT: Just read that Ti thread and decided Aleksei might actually be ENFj after all

Aleksei here is like a Gilly that's incapable of critical thinking or approaching his own opinions with any degree of discernment.

[Saoshyant]

The contradiction is as follows: you state that, in all cases, EXEs will try to lighten things up, when, instead, it is in appropriate cases.

I think. Sorry if I'm putting thoughts in your head, saoshyant.

Couldn't have said it any better.

[KeroZen]

Hi!

Before this thread deviates into an Alesksei typing thread, I'd like to tell you that I met Crispy in the SLOAN thread and I spend a considerable amount of time explaining my hypothesis on the very same topic.

As to join our cognitive forces, I invite you all to meet us there.

TIA.

http://www.the16types.info/vbulletin...socionics.html

[Aiss]

For anyone wondering what type Aleksei is if not ENFj, ENTp seems to fit him pretty well IMO. I'd look into it if I was him/yall.

My opinion as well. ILE-Ti, to be more precise, or D-ILE in DCNH. With inflated Fe-HA.

BTW, The weakest function in Socionics is NOT PoLR but the Suggestive Function. PoLR is only called so because it is the Most Hated function, as it is unvalued and still extremely weak.

ENFj's weakest function is Ti
ENTp's weakest function is Si

I have the quote from the Boss Socionist Filatova somewhere around here (or maybe socionix). If I find it I will add it

I disagree with this. Both PoLR and Suggestive are one-dimensional, but the weaknesses are very differently manifested.

[Aleksei]

My opinion as well. ILE-Ti, to be more precise, or D-ILE in DCNH. With inflated Fe-HA.

This is kind of confusing... why can I be Alpha NT with over-emphasis on Fe but not Beta NF with over-emphasis on Ti?

[Aiss]

This is kind of confusing... why can I be Alpha NT with over-emphasis on Fe but not Beta NF with over-emphasis on Ti?

In socionics, "overemphasis" on a weak function essentially means you only think you're good at it. This should answer your question.

If it doesn't, I'd like to tell you I realize it is different in MBTI communities where every other persons claims they have "developed" their weak or shadow functions and are now oh-so-great-uber-balanced-human-beings, but those delusions don't survive past that particular system. To quote Jung,

For instance, feeling can never act as the second function by the side of thinking, because its nature stands in too strong a contrast to thinking. Thinking, if it is to be real thinking and true to its own principle, must scrupulously exclude feeling. This, of course, does not exclude the fact that individuals certainly exist in whom thinking and feeling stand upon the same [p. 515] level, whereby both have equal motive power in consciousness. But, in such a case, there is also no question of a differentiated type, but merely of a relatively undeveloped thinking and feeling. Uniform consciousness and unconsciousness of functions is, therefore, a distinguishing mark of a primitive mentality.

If you have indeed developed your Ti - and it seems you did - it probably means it's your auxiliary function (creative in model A). If it was a weak one and you actually improved at it, it would be more the case of taking the focus off of it - realizing it isn't one of your strengths and moving on to a more effective approach. It's for a reason that many descriptions of duality stress partners being themselves even more, and paradoxically balanced for it, not focusing on using their weak functions more, but less.

[Aleksei]

I could see the logic in the idea that one can't simultaneously have opposing functions as a base, but I don't see any particular reason why one can't simultaneously develop thinking and feeling as support functions. In MBTI, the theory is that the tertiary function develops around your mid-twenties, as you exercise it to make up for deficiencies in your auxiliary.

[Aiss]

I could see the logic in the idea that one can't simultaneously have opposing functions as a base, but I don't see any particular reason why one can't simultaneously develop thinking and feeling as support functions. In MBTI, the theory is that the tertiary function develops around your mid-twenties, as you exercise it to make up for deficiencies in your auxiliary.

That's MBTI theory, yes. In socionics, it's said that preference for creative function becomes clear later than for dominant, so rather than strengthening both opposing elements, further differentiation happens. To me, it makes far more sense as the passage describes how opposing functions inhibit each other; there's no reason to assume it's so only for base function, as is the example given. Why mention "individuals in whom thinking and feeling stand upon the same level" in general, if it only referred to rationals, without bringing it up elsewhere? But that's only an interpretation of Jung's meaning. In practice, I'm more convinced it works like that, a side-effect of less clearly defined preference for second function being pathetic HA.

[Aleksei]

That's MBTI theory, yes. In socionics, it's said that preference for creative function becomes clear later than for dominant, so rather than strengthening both opposing elements, further differentiation happens. To me, it makes far more sense as the passage describes how opposing functions inhibit each other; there's no reason to assume it's so only for base function, as is the example given.

My experience though, points more towards merging of support functions rather than separation between them -- so I'm finding it kinda difficult to take Jung at his word there (particularly as he presents no evidence his assertions are true far as I can see). Myself I've always had a hard time trying to figure out whether I'm a Feeler or a Thinker, as I identify with elements from both.

[Aleksei]

IME, normal psychologically well-adjusted adults use their tertiary and quaternary fxns (aka Super-Id) well enough. They are utilized in a more broad and 'unconscious' capacity—i.e. prone to lacking appropriate nuance and proportion—but I don't think that necessarily implies 'weakness' per say. They frequently exhibit interesting+useful properties that analogous ego fxns don't.

This is more in line with my thinking on the matter. Aiss's argument appears to be that the superid function is perpetually weak and unusable, and a fully realized person learns to ignore it in favor of strategies they can use better.

[Aiss]

This is more in line with my thinking on the matter. Aiss's argument appears to be that the superid function is perpetually weak and unusable, and a fully realized person learns to ignore it in favor of strategies they can use better.

That's not true. What you describe is rather how I view super-ego. Super-id is something you seek in others. That's hardly "ignoring" it. And the more you get of it, the happier you are being yourself, being able to focus on that without deprivation. Self-dualization is a sign of an unhealthy individual. I don't know if you claim to be dualized, but it sure sounds as if you weren't, if you're right about being EIE.

And yeah, I'm more than aware that Ashton is as confident about his pathetic Se as you're about Fe.

[DividedsGhost]

I say you're IEE if not EIE, Aleksei. But I don't want to explain it in depth and you probably wouldn't understand what I was getting at, so I'm going to throw some stuff at you and you can think about it if you want.

In essence, the culmination of everything about you is that I see Te-HA in you more than Se or Fe. And I believe you have a Ti-PoLR that you try to make up for with Se-role and Fe-demonstrative.

[Aleksei]

Except that I outright dislike Fi. How can my creative function be something I hate?

[Aiss]

^ Super-id isn't so much "I need" as "I want" (sometimes desperately), and it has nothing to do with being "whole" or whatever socionics-unrelated stuff you're talking about. And I'm glad you feel better when you're supposed to.

Except that I outright dislike Fi. How can my creative function be something I hate?

Theoretically, you could be wrong about what Fi is. If I believed half of what is said about Te on this forum, I would hate it as well. But I don't think this is the case, anyway.

[Aiss]

If you want it so bad, why not do it yourself? It just sounds like some lame codependency shit the way you're coming off about this. Though I should ask, what is "wanting" a super-id fxn anyway in your eyes?

Because you can't do both at once? That's the whole point of what I quoted, focusing on one weakens the other, so you end up denying your ego. I've already explained the rest before, and it matches with the examples you give, so what's unclear?

[KeroZen]

^ Super-id isn't so much "I need" as "I want" (sometimes desperately), and it has nothing to do with being "whole" or whatever socionics-unrelated stuff you're talking about. And I'm glad you feel better when you're supposed to.

Ok then why in all socionics sites online SUPER-ID is described as what you value in others and what you seek (dual seeking?), and also by the read of the pathetic HA what you pretend you are good at? (implying visible for external people and thus testable by tools, maybe tools emphasizing that part more in their methodology like MBTI?)

Also why is duality compared to the anima/animus concept of C.G.Jung? Why do we all have the "true love" archetype buried deep inside our souls? What's duality with your opposite sex partner if not described as "two parts of a whole?"

Hell even dual friends of the same sex can become like two fingers of the same hand!

How is this socionics-unrelated? Because, quite honestly, if socionics hadn't this duality centric intertype relation model, in what way would it be more interesting than MBTI you love to puke on?

[Aleksei]

That's not true. What you describe is rather how I view super-ego. Super-id is something you seek in others. That's hardly "ignoring" it. And the more you get of it, the happier you are being yourself, being able to focus on that without deprivation. Self-dualization is a sign of an unhealthy individual. I don't know if you claim to be dualized, but it sure sounds as if you weren't, if you're right about being EIE.

Eh. The idea of viewing yourself as essentially incomplete and requiring someone in your life to do those things for you, as if you're inherently incapable of doing them yourself, isn't a very healthy mentality.

I think if you don't possess the capacity to be (psychologically) whole and self-sufficient, then nobody else can help make you that way.

Granted, being around egos for instance, does make me nicer and I become more intricately aware of the interpersonal/emotional consequences of my actions/statements upon people. But it's no excuse for me being an oblivious asshole. I have an obligation to work against my bad tendencies with or without others assistance.

The truth, I suspect, is somewhere in the middle. My theory is that Ego elements are elements that one is inherently adept at using, whereas Super-id elements require you to refine through practice and example in order to avoid coming off as pathetic. In my own case if that were true, it's most likely that I learned Ti by hanging around Ti types. In particular, a (dualized) SLE friend of mine, who acted as a sort of guiding mentor to me. My debating style strongly resembles his.

[KeroZen]

My current point of view is that SUPER-ID is more visible than what people think in the sense that because people value these functions and information elements, they'll admit it's the "quality" they prefer, even if in socionics model they have the opposite quality in their SUPER-EGO block.

Explanation with clear examples:

1) My ENTj/LIE associate is: Te Ni Fe Si | Se Fi . .

He dislikes my Fe expressions whereas he's supposed to be Fe himself, instead he values Fi in people and acts like a Fi person.

2) My INTj/LII friends (3 of them) : Ti Ne Fi Se | Si Fe . .

They all love my Fe expressions and feel safe with me, readily sharing their own even embarrassing feelings and ethical concerns.

3) My INTp/ILI friend and gf : Ni Te Si Fe | Fi Se . .

They can be annoyed, but also amused by my Fe expressions, but both act like Fi persons.

----

In this sense, I think the MBTI function notation (after j/p switch for introverts) explains this reality more:

ENTj is then observed as: Te Ni Se Fi
INTj is then observed as: Ti Ne Si Fe
INTp is then observed as: Ni Te Fi Se

As one is widely said to be oriented on behaviour/external perception (MBTI) and the second is said to be oriented on cognitive/internal processes (socionics)

[KeroZen]

Ha crap! I realized I mixed things in one similar post in the SLOAN thread..going to fix that.

Ok so this is the correct SUPER-ID description (found here):

"The third row of Model A (functions 5 and 6) is called the Super-id block. The subject will appreciate direct help to the Super-id, and sees tasks related to it as chores best left to others, but also as a source of frequent recreation. When feeling like there's something missing in his life, the subject will try to use his Super-id functions, but with limited effect, as it often comes off as overkill and is usually poorly developed. Only in the presence of complementary types can an individual let loose his child-like Super-id without fear of criticism. But ironically, although these types will maintain a good deal of their Super-id information in the atmosphere, they will at the same time doggedly encourage him to keep using his Ego functions, which in the end is the healthiest thing for him to do anyway."

The last bold part is exactly what I describe with my relations with INTj/LII, let loose their child-like Fe with me, but it's lovely hehe. Also it's incredible how they are able to feel that indeed I'll never hurt their weak Fe and I'll tend to naturally support it instead (and please note that I'm absolutely not LII's dual, but I happen to have Fe in the right slot)

[EyeSeeCold]

My current point of view is that SUPER-ID is more visible than what people think in the sense that because people value these functions and information elements, they'll admit it's the "quality" they prefer, even if in socionics model they have the opposite quality in their SUPER-EGO block.

Explanation with clear examples:

1) My ENTj/LIE associate is: Te Ni Fe Si | Se Fi . .

He dislikes my Fe expressions whereas he's supposed to be Fe himself, instead he values Fi in people and acts like a Fi person.

2) My INTj/LII friends (3 of them) : Ti Ne Fi Se | Si Fe . .

They all love my Fe expressions and feel safe with me, readily sharing their own even embarrassing feelings and ethical concerns.

3) My INTp/ILI friend and gf : Ni Te Si Fe | Fi Se . .

They can be annoyed, but also amused by my Fe expressions, but both act like Fi persons.

----

In this sense, I think the MBTI function notation (after j/p switch for introverts) explains this reality more:

ENTj is then observed as: Te Ni Se Fi
INTj is then observed as: Ti Ne Si Fe
INTp is then observed as: Ni Te Fi Se

As one is widely said to be oriented on behaviour/external perception (MBTI) and the second is said to be oriented on cognitive/internal processes (socionics)

I'm lost, can you re-explain this? I cannot discern your stance on the correlation between MBTI functions/types with Socionics functions/types. I see a theory, but I don't understand the premise and what it has to do with either system.

[KeroZen]

Dear EyeSeeCold,

Premises are simple: I want to reach a consensus for our mental sanity and also because our resources are already limited and we're wasting a considerable amount of time having to:

1) re discussing this compatibility topic (and many others where a consensus would help too, but it's not the subject here)
2) explaining new users why they are not compatible and sorting the constant confusion which arises out of self-taught people coming from a different but sadly too similar background
3) fueling the war against the other camp (and yes MBTI followers also reject or disregard socionics the same way many people say MBTI is a heap of crap here)

I want to find a consensus because as discussed in the SLOAN thread we're currently in position (#3 - doubt due to lack of scientific evidence) and if both systems are indeed really incompatible, we must stop using the 4 letters code and strictly stick to TIM to extinguish the perpetual never-ending confusion.

Finding a consensus would solve #1 and #2 because we would just have to redirect anyone asking this question to scientific proof of evidence. Whatever said consensus is.

As for #3, well if we find there is a valid conversion method M then both communities could be re-united, adding a considerable amount of power and credibility, a world of love and mutual respect.

If we find there isn't (but if typelogic translated our duality-centric inter type relations system to modern MBTI, I really would be surprised if we don't) then we can continue the bashing, but we would also have to persuade most major socionics sites online to drop the 4 letters code and to present clear info regarding this total incompatibility.

I know 4 letters codes are very handy, but we have TIM which is more than fine whereas MBTI guys only have their 4 letters. So let's be polite and spare them at least that small detail as a reward, because if they have a flawed system life must already be so hard for them!

[EyeSeeCold]

I was focusing more on what you typed than the idea behind it. I don't understand what you did with the function ordering. For example, first you list ILI in the Model A form(?) and then INTp in 4 function form. What were you trying to demonstrate, exactly, with regards to Socionics and MBTI?

[KeroZen]

I was focusing more on what you typed than the idea behind it. I don't understand what you did with the function ordering. For example, first you list ILI in the Model A form(?) and then INTp in 4 function form. What were you trying to demonstrate, exactly, with regards to Socionics and MBTI?

Proof of concept of validity of j/p switch at the functional level between modern (8 functions) MBTI and socionics as seen in details in SLOAN thread:

LIE = ENTj (Model A) Te Ni Fe Si | Se Fi . . = Te Ni Se Fi | . . . . = ENTJ (MBTI)
LII = INTj (Model A) Ti Ne Fi Se | Si Fe . . = Ti Ne Si Fe | . . . . = INTP (MBTI)
ILI = INTp (Model A) Ni Te Si Fe | Fi Se . . = Ni Te Fi Se | . . . . = INTJ (MBTI)

You see it matches down to the dual seeking functions (because slots 3 and 4 in MBTI are functions you want to improve in yourself, matches definition of SUPER-ID block so well)

If you don't apply j/p switch well it's obvious nothing is compatible...

ILI = INTp (Model A) Ni Te Si Fe | Fi Se . . != Ti Ne Si Fe | . . . .

And as it's clear that both systems have so similar if not exact same definition for slots #1 and #2, you see that it's not talking about the same type (one is NiTe the other is TiNe)

[KeroZen]

My point is that MBTI is a blue telescope allowing to test EGO + SUPER-ID blocks in a person and that socionics is a red telescope allowing to test EGO and SUPER-EGO because the first is focused on external behavior and the latter on internal cognitive processes.

[Aleksei]

There's a lot of external behavior involved in Socionics characterization. Otherwise intertype relations theory would be impossible.

[EyeSeeCold]

My point is that MBTI is a blue telescope allowing to test EGO + SUPER-ID blocks in a person and that socionics is a red telescope allowing to test EGO and SUPER-EGO because the first is focused on external behavior and the latter on internal cognitive processes.

Ah. Interesting. I have to process that information first, but my initial position is disagreement. It doesn't seem to account for extraverts and their Super-Id/Super-Ego.

Whereas my theory leaves extraverts alone given that MBTI seems to be from an extraverted perspective. Introverts are affected on the grounds that they need to switch to alternative Ego mode to integrate externally.

[Aleksei]

MBTI captures introvert descriptions just fine actually. It just so happens that it judges behavior and the like from a different angle than does Socionics.

[EyeSeeCold]

MBTI captures introvert descriptions just fine actually. It just so happens that it judges behavior and the like from a different angle than does Socionics.

Descriptions are not the problem in the j/p confusion, I agree. It is which functions account for the actual behavior in these descriptions and which type has more dominant use of said functions. Like you said, which is due to different perspectives in observations.

[KeroZen]

Ah. Interesting. I have to process that information first, but my initial position is disagreement. It doesn't seem to account for extraverts and their Super-Id/Super-Ego.

Whereas my theory leaves extraverts alone given that MBTI seems to be from an extraverted perspective. Introverts are affected on the grounds that they need to switch to alternative Ego mode to integrate externally.

Fine, please read my posts in the SLOAN thread, as I said I'd need criticism, you are disagreeing preemptively, then it means you could help us.

Meanwhile I'm gathering all criticism I've been sent or been pointed at, I'll update the SLOAN thread to correct a mistake I did too as well as the summary.

I'm currently investigating the Keirsey issue but I have strong suspicions already, let's see where my intuition leads me!

If I solve that point, validity would be proved from a functional and inter type relational point of view AS WELL as from statistical data on nicknames (and thus to a lesser but still present extent to stereotypes themselves).

That wouldn't mean a complete victory as there are other subtle or not so subtle issues to solve and if those subtle issues prove to be so unsubtle that they are unsolvable then it will collapse.

As per your point about extroverts I already demonstrated that there is no blotch, from the functional level to the stereotypes and nicknames (absolutely no doubt for them)

[Aiss]

I'm clearly INTP, not INTJ, and there's no way I'm Ti dominant, in either system. How the fuck MBTI "works" for an introvert like me?

It's interesting how you omit posts about correlations between P/J and rationality, avoiding addressing this point entirely. That's more than confirmation bias, it's blatantly ignoring evidence in front of you.

[Aleksei]

Ehm, if you're not Ti-dominant in MBTI, then you are not, in fact, INTP.