you forgot raptor jesusOriginally Posted by polikujm
you forgot raptor jesus
Jesus was considered both God in the flesh and human- 100% Man yet 100% God (mind boggling, huh? lol) I believe its a teaching as God, not attributed to valuing functions. But I'm not denying he had a type, since he was also human. I just don't think his teachings were at all type-related.
lol, If you claimed such things back in day in the cultural context of Jewish culture, you would have been torchered. Why do you think Jesus was crucified. And I don't think the apostles had it any easier too- they were beheaded, sawed in half, stoned to death, etc.,
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I guess there are also a lot of people that believe Jesus existed, but are doubtful on whether he is who he claimed to be: that he was God in the flesh.
Here's this logic thing I learned in this class over the summer, something to think about...
1. Jesus was either Lord, liar, lunatic, myth or guru
2. He could not possibly be a liar, lunatic, myth or guru
3. Therefore "Jesus is Lord" (the earliest Christian creed)
If we assume 1 is true (as all the major possibilities), and show 2 is also true, we can arrive at 3.
Let's go through why 2 is true.
----
Liar definition:
1. a person who has lied or lies repeatedly
“Jesus is a liar, and he lied about his identity and who he claimed to be.”
Why Jesus was not a liar:
1. He had the wrong psychological makeup of a liar; he was unselfish, not selfish. A liar by nature is selfish.
2. There is no motive for his lie. He had no political aspiration.
3. Because he could not have hoped his “lie” was successful- the Jews were THE LEAST LIKELY to have worshipped a mere man. Jesus, being born as a Jew, knew that.
----------------------------------------
Lunatic definition:
1. an insane person.
2. a person whose actions and manner are marked by extreme eccentricity or recklessness.
3. a person legally declared to be of unsound mind and who therefore is not held capable or responsible before the law.
“Maybe he was not a liar/bad man (who tried to deceive people), but maybe he was mentally ill, you know, a total LUNATIC, and he just deceived himself!”
Why Jesus was not a lunatic:
1. He did not meet the psychological profile of a lunatic. Lunatics lacked wisdom, tough love, and unpredictable creativity. Jesus possessed all these things.
2. When we meet lunatics we feel uncomfortable because we feel superior to them. When enemies met Jesus they felt the opposite.
3. At the time, no Jew could possibly think Jesus was God (they were hardcore when it came to calling bullshit), but clearly there were some who believed otherwise(such as the apostles).
---------------------------------------------------------
Myth definition:
1. a traditional or legendary story, usually concerning some being or hero or event, with or without a determinable basis of fact or a natural explanation, esp. one that is concerned with deities or demigods and explains some practice, rite, or phenomenon of nature.
2. stories or matter of this kind: realm of myth.
3. any invented story, idea, or concept: His account of the event is pure myth.
4. an imaginary or fictitious thing or person.
“Okay fine, maybe Jesus was not a lunatic or liar, but perhaps the New Testament is just bullshit, just made up, fiction. Maybe that's the source of the lies. I know he existed, but I think he was just human and not really “divine.” Maybe Jesus was just an overly enlightened man, and his “divinity” was titled to him because everyone liked him.”
Why Jesus was not a myth:
1. If the same neutral, objective, scientific, approach is used on the NT texts as issued on all other ancient documents, then the texts prove remarkably reliable.
2. The state of the manuscripts is good- 5,000 copies and all have little discrepancies between them as it was already discussed earlier. And there aren't really any important discrepancies.
3. There was no time to create a myth. There were only 2 or 3 generations between the eyewitness' historical Jesus and the “mythical” universally excepted Jesus. In other words, it spread quickly. If Jesus' divinity was considered a myth added on later, it could have easily been refuted by the eye witnesses.
4. If Jesus of the Gospels was a myth, who invented it? Okay maybe some of those crazy disciples invented Jesus as a myth. But then, what would be their motives? People were torchered, persecuted and martyred for believing in Jesus. Would people really risk themselves getting sawed in half just for the hell of it?
5. First century Jews and Christians were not prone to believe in myths.
6. There is no “mythic” layer that's added on top of a just human Jesus. Why? Because if this was true, we should at least find some evidence of the earlier layer of the “just human” Jesus. No such writing exists. Do the research if you're really doubtful.
7. The style of the gospels are of eyewitness accounts filled with specific people and places that match up with history, artifacts, scientific evidence, etc., The style is not even written like a myth.
8. There are four gospels, from four different authors, written at four different times, probably written to four different audiences...Telling the same story.
9. Just read it... No mere man could just make this stuff up.
----------------------------------------------
Guru:
1. Hinduism . a preceptor giving personal religious instruction.
2. an intellectual or spiritual guide or leader.
3. any person who counsels or advises; mentor: The elder senator was her political guru.
4. a leader in a particular field: the city's cultural gurus.
“Maybe he didn't want us to understand him in a literal way, but maybe more in a mystical, spiritual way, such as those Gurus. Maybe we shouldn't interpret Jesus in a Jewish, Christian sense, but more of a Eastern, Hindu, and Buddhist sense. Perhaps he was like one of those spiritual gurus that were really enlightened.”
Well the only problem with this- he was a Jew. To see Jesus as a Hindu contradicts his Jewish roots. But here are some more points:
Why Jesus was not a Guru:
1. Judaism is a public religion where you observe the public law (torah) and beliefs in a book (the scriptures). Gurus are all about inner experience and enlightenment that cannot be experienced by words. Jesus taught in public with words.
2. Eastern gurus believe in pantheism- everything in the world is considered God. Judaism says God is distinct from the world.
3. Eastern gurus say you have to empty your mind and be one with everything. Judaism says to fill the mind with God and his laws.
4. Eastern Gurus teach that time is unreal and illusionary. Judaism says time and matter is real because God created them; Jews look at time and forward. Judaism is rooted in history, eastern religions are “rooted” in timelessness.
5. Gurus believe God is unknowable and wordless, except he can be experienced through inner experience and such. The Jews believed God made himself known in public through deeds and words.
6. Gurus believe God is passive. Jews believe God is active; he finds us, not the other way around.
7. The Jewish God has a will, established laws, and communicates preferences; he is moral, holy. The pantheistic God of the gurus has no will, no law, and no preferences; he is amoral, non-discriminating.
8. Gurus teach that God does not judge. They say there is no sin, no separation form God, no hell, for God is the All. Judaism teaches an eternal ultimate justice and judgment form God, the possibility of eternal separation from God. Jesus clearly taught the way of Judaism.
References these arguments were taken from: Kreeft, Peter and Ronald K. Tacelli. The Divinity of Christ in Handbook of Christian Apologetics, 1994, pg. 150-174, Intervarsity Press, Downers Grove, IL.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ultimately logic can't convince anyone when it comes to this stuff. After a certain point, its really about faith and the heart, between the person and God. So its pretty much pointless that I argue here on and on. But I just wanted to point out that this stuff makes some logical sense, too.
Duals with common goals = kick assdualizing religious influence...could be a good thread topic
Last edited by Computer Loser; 01-18-2011 at 01:22 AM.
You are such a generalising asshole and it's people like you with such nonsense who make socionics into a an even more useless pile of turd. What about an Se type who takes on such a philosophy, meh.
@Peteronfire, why did they all blast off into the clouds for the ascension? We know there's nothing there in the clouds worth getting there for. People used to think heaven was there which is bs as we've been there and further.
Those are exactly my thoughts.
The only thing that could make me have doubts about what I could think to be the real type of Jesus is that maybe his teachings are not necessarily coming out his natural inclination, but philosophy. So you know, like Lao Tze, what he teaches is rather SLI, but I think that he actually needed to make a philosophy out of it rationally - so being in the opposite side, somehow. For example when he was saying that one should not be ostentatious (eg with money, beauty, etc) because this will attract envy and hate, he maybe made some observations, or something, you know?
But overall yeah, is kinda unlikely someone who could possibly philosophically realize that turning the other cheek and some other teachings of the "lamb" is a good thing can be anything else than EII.
Dunno dude. My limited mind wishes to answer that, but can't. Some things are just outside the scope of human understanding.
Last edited by Computer Loser; 01-17-2011 at 08:48 PM.
uhm, the bible said the earth was flat...
LIAR
I don't think you're thinking clearly. Maybe you should take a glass of water.
I get you.
BTW not everything can be explained anyway. Even physicists say a particle is in two places at the one time, they don't know why but they accept it. I don't think everythings got an answer in my life but I'm not ready for pure faith only, but there's more to the world than meets an explanation or when I accepted that it's easier so maybe it makes it less, well for me. /ramble over.
@lab, keep knitting.
No, you have to show both 1 and 2 are true. And 1 looks mighty contrived.
ILI (FINAL ANSWER)
They will figure it out eventually.
Just as they figured out the sun does not revolve around the earth as the bible says claims.
Sorry, should have looked over it more carefully. I just edited it.
Yeah, the weakness to the argument is that there are only five options possible. I guess those were
chosen because they were the major ones. It doesn't include alien, monster, robot, chicken...so I guess
1 is harder to establish.
Last edited by Computer Loser; 01-18-2011 at 01:12 AM.
Can you please tell what are you talking about? I don't remember this, the closest to that I can think of are supersymmetry and the uncertainty principle. But they are theoretical, they only can explain, and respectively emerge from observable phenomena.
Maybe you're talking about something else?
I would think it is actually possible to be unselfish and a liar...although you might say that if an individual is lying to protect to protect some cause they believe at detriment to their own self, it could still be a "selfish" act. But in that case, Jesus himself could be both a truthful person AND a selfish person.
“Do not suppose that I have come to bring peace to the earth. I did not come to bring peace, but a sword. For I have come to turn “‘a man against his father,
a daughter against her mother,
a daughter-in-law against her mother-in-law—
a man’s enemies will be the members of his own household.’
“The student is not above the teacher, nor a servant above his master. It is enough for students to be like their teachers, and servants like their masters. If the head of the house has been called Beelzebul, how much more the members of his household!
There's plenty of other stuff like this in the gospels. Give me an example of Jesus using...
Look, we're talking about a set of documents based on oral reproductions that a huge variety of authors have imparted their share of visions in. The quote you provide is something you could easily take out of the works without reducing the consistency of the work as a whole (in fact, you'd probably raise it's consistency). The "turn the other cheek" and "love thy neighbor" parts, on the other hands are central tenets of his teachings. Remove them, and the whole thing collapses like a house of cards.“Do not suppose that I have come to bring peace to the earth. I did not come to bring peace, but a sword. For I have come to turn “‘a man against his father,
a daughter against her mother,
a daughter-in-law against her mother-in-law—
a man’s enemies will be the members of his own household.’
This... is entirely unrelated to the Ne vs. Se issue. Just what could possibly have motivated you to quote this...? Are you taking this problem seriously at all?“The student is not above the teacher, nor a servant above his master. It is enough for students to be like their teachers, and servants like their masters. If the head of the house has been called Beelzebul, how much more the members of his household!
He uses abstract language and metaphor throughout his teachings. Even in the quotes you provided. The only time he ever uses an S function, in fact, is when it's one of those Se PoLR explosion things like in the market turnover scene. Every INxj type can attest from personal experience there is no inconsistency with being of that type there anywhere.There's plenty of other stuff like this in the gospels. Give me an example of Jesus using
I've been telling people this for months but it's almost impossible to break through the reigning conventional dogma on this topic:
ISTjs' Focal Valued functions are Se and Fe. This makes them what I call "Focus SFs".
They are also adjacent to ESFjs on the Narrator cycle (INFj - ENTj - ISTj - ESFj - INFj).
These two things considered, it's a very normal thing for an ISTj to display characteristics typically associated with SF types. I have years of experience observing an ISTj that corroborates this simple assertion.
But it's not that normal to type an ESE as LSI - there are two obviously different types. It's easier to type him EIE (so NF) rather than LSI. If you make a characterization of Peteronfireee, you'll end-up with a Fe Rational description, just try it.
If you get into it, you'll see one more clue: he insists that he's looking for Fe, that DS is an irresistible need, needs to be "blasted with Fe". This, among others, once more demonstrates that he neither understands the theory to correctly self-type, and also that it comes out of his emotional impulses.
Edit: then what's Beta in him? Then why "on fire"? ...and that he says that he can't relax, always active, easily intrigued, etc. LSI not at all, if you people didn't question the self-typing of a noob (when he came here) and went with it, it means you have very low standards.
But he never forgot about you!you forgot raptor jesus
Just look at what he's doing in this thread. He has such active Ti that he can make a religiously dogmatic position look good.But it's not that normal to type an ESE as LSI - there are two obviously different types. It's easier to type him EIE (so NF) rather than LSI. If you make a characterization of Peteronfireee, you'll end-up with a Fe Rational description, just try it.
If you get into it, you'll see one more clue: he insists that he's looking for Fe, that DS is an irresistible need, needs to be "blasted with Fe". This, among others, once more demonstrates that he neither understands the theory to correctly self-type, and also that it comes out of his emotional impulses.
Edit: then what's Beta in him? Then why "on fire"? ...and that he says that he can't relax, always active, easily intrigued, etc. LSI not at all, if you people didn't question the self-typing of a noob (when he came here) and went with it, it means you have very low standards.
I mainly accept his self-typing based on a comparison with my ISTj brother. He has the same brand of "enthusiasm" pairing with the more conventionally Ti and Se stuff.
I don't think "love thy neighbor" is necessarily indicative of EII over SEE. He usesa lot, for sure. I might be leaning towards ESI, actually.
Lol, what? Of course I'm serious. That's totally anThis... is entirely unrelated to the Ne vs. Se issue. Just what could possibly have motivated you to quote this...? Are you taking this problem seriously at all?quote - the power relationship between student and teacher, servant and master, father and son, which, by the way, is a huge theme throughout Jesus's teachings (symbolizing man's subservience to God, who as a father figure takes compassion on man).
This is a very strange way to look at it. As an LII I don't relate to that at all. Sure, Jesus uses metaphors a lot, but they are almost always related toHe uses abstract language and metaphor throughout his teachings. Even in the quotes you provided. The only time he ever uses an S function, in fact, is when it's one of those Se PoLR explosion things like in the market turnover scene. Every INxj type can attest from personal experience there is no inconsistency with being of that type there anywhere.
I think EIE was argued the best in this thread.
Projection is ordinary. Person A projects at person B, hoping tovalidate something about person A by the response of person B. However, person B, not wanting to be an obejct of someone elses ego and guarding against existential terror constructs a personality which protects his ego and maintain a certain sense of a robust and real self that is different and separate from person A. Sadly, this robust and real self, cut off by defenses of character from the rest of the world, is quite vulnerable and fragile given that it is imaginary and propped up through external feed back. Person B is dimly aware of this and defends against it all the more, even desperately projecting his anxieties back onto person A, with the hope of shoring up his ego with salubrious validation. All of this happens without A or B acknowledging it, of course. Because to face up to it consciously is shocking, in that this is all anybody is doing or can do and it seems absurd when you realize how pathetic it is.
According to Jung, Jesus was himself an archetypal symbol of unification. Type is itself a differentiation, a breakdown of unification. Thus Jesus (the way, the truth, the life) symbolically represented the process whereby we transcend type via moral effort, making him all types and none. What type represents that process to any given individual is going to be between them and their unconscious; Jesus is thus whatever you need to grow-- for the feeler he is a thinker, etc (thus many apparent biblical "contradictions": "I didn't come to bring peace but a sword"--stuff like that, a little Se for those who need it). Earlier examples of this idea are hermaphroditic icons and symbols or various two-headed creatures. Duality best represents the ideal in its earthly manifestations.
note: "moral' effort doesn't necessarily mean ethics in the socionics sense, since such things are easily used to self justify, i.e.: to oppose actual moral effort or undertaking. "moral" effort is a lot like using your PoLR--the thing you are inclined to do least, but need in order to grow. It is the radical appreciation and respect for the unknown/the threatening; to "love your enemies"--to "die to yourself" in order to live most abundantly. If you can do this you can see the value in other people, i.e.: to truly love another person and not just yourself or only those who are just like you. the failure to adopt this perspective is seen as the source of "death" (dukkha in buddhism--the failure to see things "as one") or is "finitude" by definition, overcoming it is hence eternal life
Last edited by Bertrand; 06-25-2017 at 07:02 AM.
Yeah, good point. As an archetype for individuation he doesn't really have a type. Not like pagan gods who can be easily typed, at least roughly, because they represent certain one-sided qualities.
But one can have different approaches to this. If I open the Bible and read the gospels, then Jesus seems gamma NT to me. I especially note Te>Ti and strong Ni. Some might disagree with this, but then we can read together and debate his type. Some might emphasize the philanthropy and type him Delta.
So one can type a god by the archetype or by more detailed study of the mythological texts. But these two don't always match.
I think this is because Jesus is such a young myth, and the actual historical events (if any) got mythologized in a relatively short time. The text then became dogma and hasn't change very much. If we look at more organic, pagan myths then the gods usually express themselves according to their archetype. Like Thor is always a strongman, he doesn't say very smart things. But he is an old myth, told and re-told through the centuries.
The decisive thing is not the reality of the object, but the reality of the subjective factor, i.e. the primordial images, which in their totality represent a psychic mirror-world. It is a mirror, however, with the peculiar capacity of representing the present contents of consciousness not in their known and customary form but in a certain sense sub specie aeternitatis, somewhat as a million-year old consciousness might see them.
(Jung on Si)
totally agree that in a weird way, Jesus could be read as gamma NT. In a sense he developed the "technology" of social progression
My impression actually came from the language itself. How he expresses himself in his teachings. But I'm not really arguing gamma NT, just saying that for now that's what I see in the actual text. But I should read more. As an archetype I would agree with you that he is untypable.
Last edited by Tallmo; 06-25-2017 at 08:55 AM.
The decisive thing is not the reality of the object, but the reality of the subjective factor, i.e. the primordial images, which in their totality represent a psychic mirror-world. It is a mirror, however, with the peculiar capacity of representing the present contents of consciousness not in their known and customary form but in a certain sense sub specie aeternitatis, somewhat as a million-year old consciousness might see them.
(Jung on Si)
I just came to think of an interesting way of typing Jesus as an archetype. Let's find a contemporary Christian mystic. Someone who doesn't only believe in Jesus but has access to the archetype. Then we'll ask him about Jesus. Then we type Jesus based on what he says. I suspect that it would confirm Bertrands view.
The decisive thing is not the reality of the object, but the reality of the subjective factor, i.e. the primordial images, which in their totality represent a psychic mirror-world. It is a mirror, however, with the peculiar capacity of representing the present contents of consciousness not in their known and customary form but in a certain sense sub specie aeternitatis, somewhat as a million-year old consciousness might see them.
(Jung on Si)
Master at branding. Unlike Muhammed he allowed action figures. Definitely notPoLR or ignoring. Those are plenty and come in all shape and sizes also in plenty of contexts.
He puts Pokemons to shame. Too bad he couldn't capitalize it in his time as material use, groceries (bread and wine...) and printing was in its infancy at the time.
MOTTO: NEVER TRUST IN REALITY
Winning is for losers
Sincerely yours,
idiosyncratic type
Life is a joke but do you have a life?
Joinif you dare https://matrix.to/#/#The16Types:matrix.org
Is resurrection also Beta NF?V.I's as a Victim type, duh.
This is so Victim... You cannot get more Victim than that.
!
The decisive thing is not the reality of the object, but the reality of the subjective factor, i.e. the primordial images, which in their totality represent a psychic mirror-world. It is a mirror, however, with the peculiar capacity of representing the present contents of consciousness not in their known and customary form but in a certain sense sub specie aeternitatis, somewhat as a million-year old consciousness might see them.
(Jung on Si)
Even though I am being sort of facetious up there, I do think that the way Jesus is being portrayed, and his stories and so forth make him come across as a stereotypical Beta NF with a Heart of Gold.
Whether he actually was a Beta NF (or actually existed), is another question.
A question I do not have a good answer for.
Turned water into wine
Comes back to life, after public crucifixion
Sounds a lot like the kind of stunts that david blaine was into...
So what ever type he ^^ is...
There really is a thread for V.I.-ing JesusWhy are you so extra? I kinda love it though.
Before I give my assessment, some myth about his appearance needs to be debunked (has this been said before?):
He is indeed a victim... of whitewashing! Come on, our boy Jesus is from Nazareth. Ikr the topic is debated but white painters back then would paint a white guy to make him relatable, plus they didn't see any Israelites before. Blue-eyed Jesus with a slim face and nice sleek curly hair = also total fake news, ancient Middle Eastern genetics don't work like thatThe bible itself states that Jesus had hair like wool + skin like bronze. So you can't trust common depictions of him.
That being said, and before we get into racial oppression, well we only have this computer-generated appearance simulation from BBC at hand, supposedly Jesus looked like this:
Ethics are the most apparent, intuition as well. Rather introverted. Either EII or IEI though I lean toward the latter,seems just as expressed as
tunnel vision".
Jesus is usually seen as INFJ in MBTI which translates to IEI/INFp in socionics. He is definitely an NF of some sort (religions in general are very NF) as the role of NFs in society usually is to define social 'ideals' and to think about what is right/wrong.
Also the rather abstract interpretation of ethics through stories and metaphers and progressive ethical development is an NF thing too. Most people who study something with human sciences are usually some sort of ethical type I found so far (especially NFs). It's a tendency I noticed within ethical+intuitive types to think about society/humanity and how it should be in an ethical sense. I can't really see Jesus as Fe dom to be honest and not as Ne dom either, they don't really fit the image of how Jesus is usually portrayed as. Especially EIE with Fi ignoring isn't Jesus at all, he sacrificed himself for other people and died for what he blieved in.. which indicates high Fi for me.
Thus his way to sacrifice himself seems like an INFx thing to do. I could definitely see him as IEI, especially when one takes a look at many important IEI figures within history, which wouldn't make it so unlikely.
Last edited by dot; 06-25-2017 at 11:19 AM.
As someone of Middle Eastern descent herself: 'whitewashed' is a very blurry word to be honest.. just because Jesus was dark skinned doesn't mean he wasn't white. Most Middle Easterners actually are white (though yes there are mixes of Asian and black acenstry too), but yes not the European 'white'/pale. If you look at things from a genetic more scientific approach you will notice that the lines of where 'white' starts and ends are very blurry. Most people in the Middle Ages probably didn't know what Jesus looked like, because of an obvious lack of technology and what not.. so they probably just painted him the way they pictured him which was somehow close to what they knew.. probably not even on purpose, but that's just how people especially at those times rolled.. most people back then probably had a very "simple-minded" mind-set/ and no access to education.. and that's how it was passed down from generation to generation. Oh and not every Middle Easterner will be dark skinned with black hair and dark eyes, there is a huge diversity of looks within the Middle East and North Africa.There really is a thread for V.I.-ing Jesus
Before I give my assessment, some myth about his appearance needs to be debunked (has this been said before?):
He is indeed a victim... of whitewashing! Come on, our boy Jesus is from Nazareth. Ikr the topic is debated but white painters back then would paint a white guy to make him relatable, plus they didn't see any Israelites before. Blue-eyed Jesus with a slim face and nice sleek curly hair = also total fake news, ancient Middle Eastern genetics don't work like that
That being said, and before we get into racial oppression, well we only have this computer-generated appearance simulation from BBC at hand, supposedly Jesus looked like this:
Ethics are the most apparent, intuition as well. Rather introverted. Either EII or IEI though I lean toward the latter,
But I agree with IEI.
In MBTI there is this heavy mytologization of the "INFJ". At least one can see this online, I don't know how official it is. It actually goes outside typology, assigning traits to the type that are not type-related.
It's funny you mentioned this. Because I think it's also the other way around. There is archetypal material being projected into "INFJ". It's easier to do this in MBTI because there is more type confusion and it's harder to see the types clearly. Thus giving a fertile background for projections. People always project if the real nature of something is unknown.
The decisive thing is not the reality of the object, but the reality of the subjective factor, i.e. the primordial images, which in their totality represent a psychic mirror-world. It is a mirror, however, with the peculiar capacity of representing the present contents of consciousness not in their known and customary form but in a certain sense sub specie aeternitatis, somewhat as a million-year old consciousness might see them.
(Jung on Si)
I think MBTI is more inaccurate than socionics indeed. Especially the intertype relationships make no sense, yet I noticed a correlation with the systems as the way they assign the functions to the types. Besides that many famous people assigned to the INFJ are in fact socionics IEIs (not every single one.. some might rather be EIE, but still a Beta NF). I also do not focus a lot on the description of the types in MBTI, but rather the correlations I noticed.
And I do not think everything is complete projection to be honest, though the descriptions are definitely more blurry. But people here do not have a complete view on IEIs as well and just see them as whimps than for the people they actually are IRL.
Last edited by dot; 06-25-2017 at 12:32 PM.
The interesting thing is, both INFJ and IEI are being strongly idealized in both communities, though.
Both communities are full of self-typed INFJs and IEIs.
And I find MBTI typings are actually more accurate on average (primarily for the extroverts), or at least reside in a similar ballpark.
Whereas in Socionics, you can see one person being typed as one type as well as their Conflictor by someone else.
That kind of disparity is pretty rare in MBTI.
Having said that, the romantic recommendations in MBTI are surely more flawed and non-sensical.
All in all, both systems have their weaknesses and strengths when it comes to the implementation and practical application of the theory, for different reasons.
To come back to Jesus: He'd mostly get typed as NF in both Socionics and MBTI.
My impression is that typings are much more critical in Socionics. One simple reason is because it is possible to be highly critical and check it yourself in many ways. In MBTI it seems more like everything goes. I remember watching a video of "typology expert" Vicky Jo on youtube. She has all kinds of academic degrees. She self typed INFJ, but she was an EIE. She interviewed other "INFJ"s and they were IEI and EII.
I have no interest in type descriptions nowadays. Because I can identify the types myself in real life and observe them.
It's impossible for them to get it right because the structure of functions is wrong. It's only natural that this would happen. It's not an easy thing to construct correctly.Having said that, the romantic recommendations in MBTI are surely more flawed and non-sensical.
They are not different systems. They are trying to do the same thing, it's just that socionics does it better. MyersBriggs even invents functions that don't exist. Like Si in MBTI is just a generalization of some common behaviour of some types, not a real function.All in all, both systems have their weaknesses and strengths when it comes to the implementation and practical application of the theory, for different reasons.
Well, if I open a bible and actually read it myself, I see gamma NT, straight from the text.To come back to Jesus: He'd mostly get typed as NF in both Socionics and MBTI.
If I go by some of the things you said I could accept beta NF.
If I use @Bertrands archetypal approach I would say that he is all types and no type.
This is the problem with typing mythological beings mixed with historical sources. However, I prefer @Bertrands method because Jesus is obviously an archetype and the myth is only hinting at it. In other myths the same archetype becomes the "philosophers stone" the "adventure of the hero", the "Phoenix" or something else.
Damn, we managed to start another debate on MBTI and Socioncis. It's a neverending story
The decisive thing is not the reality of the object, but the reality of the subjective factor, i.e. the primordial images, which in their totality represent a psychic mirror-world. It is a mirror, however, with the peculiar capacity of representing the present contents of consciousness not in their known and customary form but in a certain sense sub specie aeternitatis, somewhat as a million-year old consciousness might see them.
(Jung on Si)
I think the glamorized image of him is EIE but in real life he was probably different. More like IEI or something.
･ﾟ*✧ 𝓘 𝓌𝒾𝓁𝓁 𝓃𝑜𝓉 𝒶𝒸𝒸𝑒𝓅𝓉 𝒶 𝓁𝒾𝒻𝑒 𝓘 𝒹𝑜 𝓃𝑜𝓉 𝒹𝑒𝓈𝑒𝓇𝓋𝑒 ✧*:･ﾟ
Reply With Quote
