User Tag List

Results 1 to 8 of 8

Thread: Introduction forum!

  1. #1

    Join Date
    Feb 2019
    Posts
    17
    Mentioned
    1 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default Introduction forum!

    This is May. I'm an INTJ.

  2. #2
    f.k.a Oprah sbbds's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2018
    TIM
    SLE
    Posts
    1,600
    Mentioned
    93 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default Are you looking for this?


  3. #3
    FarDraft's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2018
    TIM
    5w6-38 sp/sx
    Posts
    361
    Mentioned
    38 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    In socionics or in MBTI?
    ----- FarDraft, 2019

  4. #4

    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Posts
    9,602
    Mentioned
    869 Post(s)
    Tagged
    3 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by FarDraft View Post
    In socionics or in MBTI?
    in Jung's types about which ones are Socionics and MBTI

    to have in the signature ILI and INTJ in the same time is nonsense, as Socionics has J as rationality (what is seen in their identical direct descriptions), while ILI is irrational type

    also besides impressions from your nonverbal and your seen behavior here, by IR you fit much better to LII / INTJ

    with more typing of people near you - you should notice that LII fit to IR theory better. it's impossibly for long to type regularly people IRL, to take into account IR effects with the and to believe yourself as wrong type as you'll be noticing systematicly more contradictions with the wrong type

    P.S. the ones which use adequate notations in MBTI style with J/P alike him mean what they write, without incompetent and delusional convertion
    Types examples: video bloggers, actors

  5. #5
    FarDraft's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2018
    TIM
    5w6-38 sp/sx
    Posts
    361
    Mentioned
    38 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Sol View Post
    in Jung's types about which ones are Socionics and MBTI

    to have in the signature ILI and INTJ in the same time is nonsense, as Socionics has J as rationality (what is seen in their identical direct descriptions), while ILI is irrational type

    also besides impressions from your nonverbal and your seen behavior here, by IR you fit much better to LII / INTJ

    with more typing of people near you - you should notice that LII fit to IR theory better. it's impossibly for long to type regularly people IRL, to take into account IR effects with the and to believe yourself as wrong type as you'll be noticing systematicly more contradictions with the wrong type

    P.S. the ones which use adequate notations in MBTI style with J/P alike him mean what they write, without incompetent and delusional convertion
    I knew you were going to respond to this. How predictable. But I'd be lying if I said I didn't want you to respond. It's always fun to argue with you.

    I have nothing else to say but that you're deluded to believe that MBTI and socionics measure the same thing. If you've actually studied MBTI and socionics in depth you'd know that there are major differences and so direct type conversion makes no sense. Moreover, you'd be assuming that there is only one method of typing yourself in either system and that that method is clearly defined, which it isn't.

    Get your stick out of your ass and see reality, Sol.
    ----- FarDraft, 2019

  6. #6

    Join Date
    Feb 2019
    Posts
    1
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    I wasn’t sure about what to say, I’m sure that I’m an INFp, but time will tell otherwise I guess.

  7. #7

    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Posts
    9,602
    Mentioned
    869 Post(s)
    Tagged
    3 Thread(s)

    Default

    @FarDraft

    You may see that the description of rationality in Socionics texts and test as the personal trait and of judging in MBT related texts and tests is _identical_. ILI is irrational type in Socionics texts, so people having it can't to have J (rationality) as personal trait! By assigning yourself ILI and INTJ, you claim yourself as having rationality and irrationality in the same time, what is the nonsense.

    About the terms J / P by Jung himself. He used for rational functions and types having them as leading - the term "judging", and for irrational ones - "perceiving". It's synonyms in Jung's typology, the reason why the descriptions of these personal traits are identical.

    "I term the two preceding types [Te, Fe] rational or judging
    types because they are characterized by the supremacy of
    the reasoning and the judging functions."

    "I call the two preceding types [Se, Ne] irrational for reasons
    already referred to; namely, because their commissions
    and omissions are based not upon reasoned judgment
    but upon the absolute intensity of perception. Their
    perception is concerned with simple happenings, where
    no selection has been exercised by the judgment. In
    this respect both the latter types have a considerable
    superiority over the two judging types."

    "Both the foregoing types [Ti,Fi] are rational, since they are
    founded upon reasoning, judging functions."

    ("Jung C. "Psychological Types", 10 chapter")

    To claim yourself as ILI means you have Ni as leading function. It's irrational function, what means you have irrationality as a personal trait. Then you claim yourself as J type. It would be the same alike you'd having base Ni claimed yourself as E type.
    Types examples: video bloggers, actors

  8. #8
    FarDraft's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2018
    TIM
    5w6-38 sp/sx
    Posts
    361
    Mentioned
    38 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Sol View Post
    @FarDraft

    You may see that the description of rationality in Socionics texts and test as the personal trait and of judging in MBT related texts and tests is _identical_. ILI is irrational type in Socionics texts, so people having it can't to have J (rationality) as personal trait! By assigning yourself ILI and INTJ, you claim yourself as having rationality and irrationality in the same time, what is the nonsense.

    About the terms J / P by Jung himself. He used for rational functions and types having them as leading - the term "judging", and for irrational ones - "perceiving". It's synonyms in Jung's typology, the reason why the descriptions of these personal traits are identical.

    "I term the two preceding types [Te, Fe] rational or judging
    types because they are characterized by the supremacy of
    the reasoning and the judging functions."

    "I call the two preceding types [Se, Ne] irrational for reasons
    already referred to; namely, because their commissions
    and omissions are based not upon reasoned judgment
    but upon the absolute intensity of perception. Their
    perception is concerned with simple happenings, where
    no selection has been exercised by the judgment. In
    this respect both the latter types have a considerable
    superiority over the two judging types."

    "Both the foregoing types [Ti,Fi] are rational, since they are
    founded upon reasoning, judging functions."

    ("Jung C. "Psychological Types", 10 chapter")

    To claim yourself as ILI means you have Ni as leading function. It's irrational function, what means you have irrationality as a personal trait. Then you claim yourself as J type. It would be the same alike you'd having base Ni claimed yourself as E type.

    This is what I mean by your not having a thorough understanding of how MBTI works. The tests in MBTI are garbage not only because they don't adequately test the dichotomies but also because they serve as a gateway for people to understand the functions. MBTI makes the illogical jump that someone who gets some four letter code on a dichotomy-based test would also have some set of cognitive functions that govern their thought processes. In other words, it assumes you can figure out a person's thought process just by looking at their behaviour, which is reasonable for some circumstances but not nearly enough of them to build an entire system out of it.

    So, how does this relate to my type? I type myself INTJ in MBTI not because I scored INTJ on the tests (with only a slight J preference, I might add, which is partially why I have Te subtype - leads to more typical rational tendencies) but because I relate to NiTe cognition far more than I relate to TiNe cognition as it's interpreted in both MBTI and socionics. While this interpretation is not the same in both systems, I relate to many of the aspects covered in both of them, which is why I don't switch to TiNe in socionics when being NiTe in MBTI or vice-versa.

    In fact, I don't relate to many of the high-level traits that an INTJ has in MBTI. For example, I don't set things in stone nearly as quickly as the descriptions suggest. Instead, I think through, in detail, a few different likely ways things could go and then I wait to make the decision when I have enough information to be truly certain about the optimal path. This is consistent with NiTe cognition in socionics. Moreover, I'm not nearly as rigid as the INTJ profiles suggest; I'm actually quite laid back and relaxed because I'm confident in my ability to manage time and forecast likely events. Again, this is consistent with NiTe in socionics.

    I actually agree with you that people who type "INTJ" in MBTI are more likely to be a rational type in socionics if they type themselves INTJ by looking at descriptions rather than functions, which is not a reasonable guarantee. This is what I meant by your assuming a singular method for typing when that clearly isn't true. It's possible to type yourself in many different ways in both systems, and if you assume that that's not possible, then you're going to mistype a whole lot of people.

    Essentially, the issue with MBTI is that their representation system places more emphasis on the dominant extroverted function than it does the dominant function. Thus, a person with NiTe cognition is represented by the four-letter code INTJ even though they are a dominant perceiver. This leads to a disconnect between how the person is represented and how they actually think. It's a communication problem more than anything.

    I really hope that this makes things clearer since I understand your arguments and agree with you on some of them. It's just that you're looking at this only from one perspective which I think to be the wrong one in this circumstance.


    The last thing I'd like to mention is that MBTI and socionics are not Jung. To say so is a bastardization of Jung's thoughts. I've read quite a bit of psychological types - not all of it, mind you, but enough to understand that socionics and MBTI reinterpret many of his ideas and structure them in different ways. For example, Jung never even had a concrete structure for how different types used different functions - he mostly focused on the dominant.
    ----- FarDraft, 2019

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •