You do realize that what you are linking describes Jungian Dichotomies and Socionics Dichotomies as Identical/Interchangeable right?:Originally Posted by Aleksei
Se-SEE and ESFP----Ni-ILI and INTP----Te-LIE and ENTJ----Fi-ESI and ISFJ
Fi-SEE and ESFJ----Te-ILI and INTJ----Ni-LIE and ENTP----Se-ESI and ISFP
Se-SEE and ESFJ----Ni-ILI and INTJ----Te-LIE and ENTP----Fi-ESI and ISFP
Fi-SEE and ESFP----Te-ILI and INTP----Ni-LIE and ENTJ----Se-ESI and ISFJ
You do realize that what you are linking describes Jungian Dichotomies and Socionics Dichotomies as Identical/Interchangeable right?:
ILI (FINAL ANSWER)
It's, erm, describing the same dichotomy names, for obvious reasons, which is not the same as saying that it's describing the same phenomena-- the definitions differ. Bill Gates is a chair, does that mean I should sit on him?You do realize that what you are linking describes Jungian Dichotomies and Socionics Dichotomies as Identical/Interchangeable right?:
That is to say, you're dodging the point.
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 DarkAngelFireWolf69, Dmitri Lytov
.... What? This makes no sense.It's in Analytical Psychology somewhere -- I'd have to slog through it again. The gist of it, however, is that the auxiliary is an assist function. If it developed a defined orientation, it would mean that it developed the same amount of psychic energy as the dominant (which represents your core worldview) has -- which would cause the two to compete for dominance, and risk shifting your dominant worldview. If your shadow doesn't shift to adapt to the change (oh yeah, another hilarious misconception -- Jung did not believe you're born, live and die a given type -- he himself self-typed Ti(S) earlier in life and then retyped Ti(N) around his fifties or so), it causes your psyche to self-destruct.
So in essence, if you're a mentally healthy individual, you don't have a defined auxiliary. If you do, you've reached levels of cognitive dissonance approaching MPD.
"Although this lack of basic principles in the sensation-type does not argue an absolute lawlessness and lack of restraint, it at least deprives him of the quite essential restraining power of judgment. Rational judgment represents a conscious coercion, which the rational type appears to impose upon himself of his own free will. This compulsion overtakes the sensation-type from the unconscious. Moreover, the rational type's link to the object, from the very existence of a judgment, never means such an unconditioned relation as that which the sensation-type has with the object." -Psychological Types, pp. 460-461.
In essence, his Extraverted Sensing loathes coercion and restraint -- opposing the fundamentally territorial nature of
I misworded though -- while indeed there's absolutely nothing that would define his Extroverted Sensing as dominant or aggressive, what's explicitly disallowed is coercion or restraint.
Jung explicity disagrees with this point. In "Psychological Types", he identifies excessive focus on the base function and its associated activities and worldviews as a primary source of neurosis.So in essence, if you're a mentally healthy individual, you don't have a defined auxiliary. If you do, you've reached levels of cognitive dissonance approaching MPD.
Obsequium amicos, veritas odium parit
I think the order for using the chart should go more like this:
Why? Because introversion/extroversion seems the most obvious usually, and logic/ethics is also one of the more obvious dichotomies. I think rational and irrational is the biggest interpretive problem when one is trying to type himself, consequently in taking a literal step back to the dichotomy of rationality/irrationality. ie. debating between INTp and INTj and their differences.
Also notice that the more obvious dichotomies form into DarkAngelFireWolf69's communication styles, which is remodeled as many new mini-typologies. ET, IT, EF, and IF. One might subconsciously realize they are definitely one of these types before coming to a full decision.
Some mini-typologies redefine IF more in light of a silent feeling type, rather than a primarily ethics driven type. ie, MBTI uses feeling as a primarily dichotomy, where sometimes all of its F types are defined as being people-focused and involved in more ethical concerns. So MBTI in this aspect defines attitude, the verb part (thinking/feeling), where as Socionics defines the focus, the noun part (logic/ethics). I believe it is easy for a number of people to think about ethics and feel about logic, but obviously they are more correlated than independent.
As far as defining these steps dependent of one another, we have a more descriptive model for typing at socioniko.net http://www.socioniko.net/en/1.1.types/test.html, though the material it uses diminishes other Socionics material, such as more possibly useful correlative information that's on this site, only by natural dispute.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote