Fp1 and Fp2 brain regions - Rationality vs. Irrationality?

[Petter]

it's basic Socionics.

No, it is not. SSS doesn't use type descriptions at all, and SHS (Gulenko) seems to argue for ISTP <--> LSI in Gulenko-Nardi Youtube videos.

SRSI:

"Sensoric-logical introverts (SLI) are people preferring a bird in hand to two in the bush. Sensorics of sensing, being the strong function, gives SLI talent in everything that is connected with handwork. The particular feature of this type is creating comfort in their everyday life. They are good at design, furniture and have good taste. They like expensive clothes pointing out their high status. And it is really very high. Women, as well as men are able to organize a profitable business in commerce or production. And more, SLI are born cooks. The process of cooking for them is a kind of sacred ritual. The strong function of sensorics of sensing helps them here. Even if they do not have a villa in Canary Islands, but only a small house near Moscow, please, believe, they will manage to enjoy a morning jogging on dew, the smell of blossoming lilac and a mug of fresh milk."

This description corresponds to ISTJ (mbti).

Socionics Si seamlessly integrates with Te actually... Si processes of the sensory "glue" for sensory relations between objects work very well with the Te approach for physical jobs etc. It isn't just about some bits of how to create physical comfort, that's just part of it.

LOL ... What is the other part?

Ti in Socionics is more "left-brained" than in MBTI so that's how it adds up for LSI and TiSe being the inspector in Socionics (whereas SiTe is the inspector in MBTI). It's about logically organising and structuring information in a strict way and is less directly physical than Si, so yeah the idea is that it works better for those office jobs. Though of course not just for those jobs. Even in MBTI they recommend physical jobs too for ISTJ like for any ST type.

Okay, so SLE is also more suited for office jobs, according to you? :-) It doesn't add up!

Ti isn't blind without Se lol.
It just takes basic visual information (from the V1 etc that you yourself mentioned) and other incoming basic information and taking the information to a higher level in processing, it organises logically instead of fully immersing in the Sensing physical side of the information.
This is my take anyhow (and in a simplified way ofc)

So V1 is the perceiving function in your view? LSI: TiV1? ... or both Ti and Se are blocked with V1??? :-)

[Myst]

@Petter

I do not have respect for people who are unable to keep personal bullshit out of discussions. The same for you.

I also will not waste my time on responding to your strawmans or on educating you on basic Socionics definitions that are easy to look up.

[Petter]

@Petter

I do not have respect for people who are unable to keep personal bullshit out of discussions. The same for you.

I also will not waste my time on responding to your strawmans or on educating you on basic Socionics definitions that are easy to look up.

excellent... btw that's mutual

[Myst]

@Rebelondeck, I'd like to also add: I think that what is observable as preferences for general information processing emerge from how the lower level modules happen to be working together. I have not seen proof that there is some way of a high level organisation in the brain that must determine the low level down to that detail you mentioned. Some of them probably do work together more often than not (and of course there would be a reason for that), but that is not the same as having that "a priori" high-level systematic design for how they work together. Even the existence of a dominant/inferior function is not guaranteed (I think Jung said the same actually). And the Socionics model only deals with those generalities, lacking proof for the details of implementation of any structure, the model itself does not add any theory or explanation for such, also the vagueness of the generalities it deals with indicates that the case is what I said above. I.e. I have yet to see a way to operationalise properly in more detail and I believe it is not possible due to the above. It can only be done if we use a new model, which of course has to go way beyond Socionics's lightweight one.

And yes maybe this is disillusioning to anyone who wants to "believe" in Socionics as it is now but I think this is the realistic view without having to scream "evil pseudoscience!!" either. Though I do dislike it when the use of the model too easily leads to apophenia. That is a very bad side effect.