Found A Cool Socionics Blog That Specializes in Comparing Types!

[Chae]

...and very well in fact, has this been linked yet?

socionicsdatabase.

say, if you can't decide between e.g. quasi-identical types, this blog is massively helpful. (EII vs IEI, etc)
there's almost always a complete rundown of blocks and valued elements.

basically el dorado for those of us who want it all laid out, contrasted, and explained without bs.



it's rarely active, but with some analyses of fictional characters and typing services as well. point is there's quite a body of existing informative posts and a clever person behind all of this.

much needed efforts, go and interact (leave likes/comments/requests) to keep the blog going! just don't pile on too much work for them at once since they appear busy, but you get the idea


-> for a better overview since there is no masterlist, their archive of articles.

go wild, howdy

[theum nathair]

Having chosen a recent post to read at random -- https://socionicsdatabase.tumblr.com...ii-vs-infp-iei -- some of this text looks like it's been copied from sociotype.com

I've viewed archives as far as the website will allow without logging in and see only two posts focusing on logics types. The following was taken from a comparison of L vs P..

Te: “This is what the instructions in the manual say, so this must be the best method. I will follow what it says.”

Ti: “This is what the instructions in the manual say, but I know a better way. I will follow my own short cut.”

This sort of Te is fairly LSE... and only because LSE seem to have some deference for proper process. No, if an individual is orientated towards trusting a certain type of authority, this is not strongly type related, and anyway it would be difficult for types like ILI to apply a sort of general, blanket trust to an entire category. Sometimes devising one's own instruction set is the easiest thing to do; in other cases, it's a mark of failure to comprehend the complexity of a problem. Some context would be needed for these statements... XLI, like many other types, won't necessarily bother with formal instructions. In some cases (applied maths), the types most dogmatic about formalisms are usually LXI. Everyone else to varying degrees takes shortcuts

the essence of [Te] needing external sources of information remains the same.

Te ego have a stronger inclination towards verification, but there's still something slightly off here, perhaps in the implication that Ti simply constructs a logical island in the sky. Ti also wants to know whether something works, because whether or not they'll admit there's a right answer, often there is (in science and maths, in any practical pursuit), and they'll acknowledge it on some level. People with logics in ego block will switch fluently between Te and Ti; one is subconscious so it can adopt different appearances, but both Te and Ti inevitably rely on some external sources. A total reliance on instinct would be patently illogical

Other examples:

Te: “There is consensus of expert opinion, and evidence to back this up. Therefore, I am inclined to believe it is true.”

Ti: “There is no consensus of opinion and no evidence to back this up, but it makes sense to me. Therefore, I am inclined to believe it is true.”

Again, the latter phrase could easily have come from the mouth of a Te-polr type.

Te: “That isn’t what I thought. But scientific journals say it is true, and there is evidence, so I am probably wrong. I will update my understanding of the world.” (Te types ignore personal logic in favor of external sources)

Ti: “That isn’t what I thought. Scientific journals say it is true, and there is evidence, but it doesn’t fit into my understanding of the world, so the scientific journals are probably wrong.” (Ti types ignore external sources in favor of personal logic)

I find myself frowning and saying 'I must have been mistaken' sometimes, but then I switch to 'how often am I mistaken? Is this source credible?' etc. It's a process, an internal dialectic. A type that credits scientific journals to a fault, with no doubts, lacks intuition and doesn't necessarily use logics in ego block. On the other hand, total blindness to science is also illogical. Both of these types could be ethical.

Not mentioned is the inclination to read further, which must be endemic in NT types. First, I kind of assume innately-strong reading comprehension has some association with three- or four-dimensional Ne (although other types can have fine understandings as well--it's a competence thing for some, and innate talent can be surpassed through dedicated effort and application of other skills). Assuming one can parse a lot from what one reads, the way an expert carpenter might run fingers along a surface and notice a flaw, further reading reveals whether a source can be credited. Most bad science tells on itself; and some is perfectly well-intentioned but has a flaw in the experimental design or in one of the basic premises which never gets raised in the discussion paragraphs--so it's an oversight.

The post goes on to discuss applied logic. Well, it sort of works for simple heuristics, but I don't think there's anything earth-shattering here. Just my opinion

[Sol]

> and very well in fact

There are claims from baseless hypotheses against more basic theory.
Naive noobs trust to nonsense taken from nowhere and ingnore normal theory. Then they write blogs to impress the same noobs.

[Kurt Gabin]

Not as bad as it could have been. Author has a superficial understanding of intuition and ethics (is he LSI?), but in general you can understand what he is talking about. I like his structured and non-emotional approach.

[Sol]

Author has a superficial understanding of intuition and ethics

Noticable problems:
1) intensive usage of doubtful ideas, some of which contradict to more basic ideas
2) usage of baseless heresies instead of Socionics

> I like his structured and non-emotional approach

There is naive and irresponsible noobish approach.
The structure is doubtful too. In alpha section you can't find desciption of types (what is more important), but may find there a description of one duality match (and only one, while he could to pay more time to place both there).
The author seems to have F type. As uses much (sometimes even mainly) characters as types examples, but not real people.
And mb P, as fills the content rather randomly. While your sympathy to that mess supports the idea of your P.

[theum nathair]

baseless heresies

...

heresies

[Expansion]

...

heresies

Supervise Sol, the pharisees in the 1st century were clinging to the law of Moses, and nothing new was allowed in by way of change, and anyone not following the law rules was publicly shamed, harangued, humiliated. Salvation through time isn't static, and clinging to a one track is someone like the leader in Russia as much as it pains me to say it, truly!

[theum nathair]

Supervise Sol, the pharisees in the 1st century were clinging to the law of Moses, and nothing new was allowed in by way of change, and anyone not following the law rules was publicly shamed, harangued, humiliated. Salvation through time isn't static, and clinging to a one track is someone like the leader in Russia as much as it pains me to say it, truly!

It was rather an amusing choice of word lol

I dislike things that are wrong as much as many, and more than some... but inevitably, intellectual progress stultifies at extremes of pedantry