• OK, it's on.
  • Please note that many, many Email Addresses used for spam, are not accepted at registration. Select a respectable Free email.
  • Done now. Domine miserere nobis.

EyeSeeCold

lust for life From California, USA
Joined
Last seen
Messages
7,828
Reaction score
0

Profile Posts Latest Activity Postings About

  • nexion
    "EyeSeeCold> i wouldn't link those with types."

    I agree with this, but not with anything else he says.

    Why should it be necessary to relate everything to type? Even as archetypes, the idea spirit, soul, body, and mind linking to clubs does not rub me the right way.
    How far do you extend each of the concepts of body, mind, spirit, soul? What are the defining characteristics of each?
    SkyWalker
    You once told me I might be INFP, I kept it at INTP, but now I am thinking that I might be ENTP. Since I am kind of an idea generator. My Ne is pretty strong. What about ENTP?
    So anyway, what I realised is that socionics and mbti are in fact saying the same thing, but from a different perspective, and that XXXX should ideally correspond to XXXx. The difference it, in fact, looking at things from the individual's vs. society's perspective. I believe that the two theories may easily be united.
    Yes, well as I said I think of types purely in terms of their functions, so I had the wrong idea of what rational/irrational was. Hopefully the explanation I PMed you was at least on the right track.
    Ok, don't worry about explaining it any more, I think I'm getting it. :P

    I can see how what you are saying can be correct, while both models can still coexist.
    Without paying attention to any behavioural descriptions at all, and focusing purely on the functions: are you Ji+Pe (Ti+Ne) or Pi+Je (Ni+Te)? How do you know this? Do you know what it would be like to have the other pair instead?
    Ok, now this is something probably crucial to this dispute that I don't know if you explicitly mentioned earlier:

    "MBTI INFP being led by FiNe does not make it a Rational type. It is still Irrational because the Four Letter Code of INFP refers to the "lazy, emotionally free, dreamy & mystical, slightly suggestive" Introverted Intuitive-Feeling type."

    I mentioned before that I don't really pay attention to type descriptions and what the tests say - J/P is very poorly tested for in I's. I define the types by what functions they use, not by how well they fit a description. However, I do maintain that even in socionics, an Ip should be structured in a similar sense to how an Ej is structured, but to a lesser degree. An Ij is structured in a different sense but to a similar degree.

    So is this what the problem is? You define an MBTI IP type by having a particular set of behavioural characteristics, and then say that these characteristics are actually due to being Pi-Je?
    What? How is INFP irrational? It's a dominant feeler. INFJ is dominant intuitive = irrational. INFJ = INFp, because both are Ni-Fe, and INTP = INTj.

    Either they don't match up, or IXXX is IXXy, as I've been saying. Can you explain why you think IXXX should be IXXx? because honestly I see no reason for it.
    Also, from reading a bit more, it seems that I am still an NiFe, i.e. INFp/IEI in socionics, because those particular functions seem to be describing very similar things as they would in the MBTI model.
    Well, I don't assume that they are talking about the exact same thing, since they start with different definitions. I do however leave open the possibility that they may actually be referring to the same thing but in different ways.

    Now, assuming they do refer to the same thing, then that should mean that types with the same top two functions should be equivalent, meaning that INTP is INTj, since that just says that TiNe in one model is TiNe in the other. However, you are saying that TiNe in one model is then NiTe in the other model, but with some corrections, yes? So my point is that this could only be the case if the concepts which the two models used were vastly, vastly different. But if they were so different, then there is no longer a reason to assume that the types would line up at all. Therefore INTp cannot possibly be a corrected INTP, or more generally, IXXx cannot possibly refer to IXXX, it would have to be IXXY.
    To contrast with that:

    I think that since they are looking at things from different angles, they can both be best for modelling different things. Socionics looks at information aspects and how people relate directly to these and thus gives us a convenient starting point for looking at interactions, whereas MBTI looks at CFs, and apart from some rough correspondances between functions which just happen to have the same name, we need not consider them to be looking at the exact same phenomenon at all. So they are both good practical systems depending on what it is you're trying to do.

    I could see why you might want to treat INTP and INTj/LII as being attempts to define the same type in reality, but I have no idea why you would want to equate INTP with INTp/ILI. I can only see someone being rational in one and irrational in the other if rationality was defined in a totally different way in each model, in which case there would be no reason to equate types between systems at all.
    The reason for the circular arguing, I think, is that you have a particular way of understanding things, and you have a different way - so you take the problem I'm having and look at how that fits into your model, and thus explain just that section, when I'm probably really asking something from a different perspective entirely.

    So yeah: your explanations are fine, except that they are irrelevant to what the confusion is over.
    I think I'll need a concrete example: now, you consider yourself to be an MBTI INTP, and a socionics INTp/ILI. This means that in one system you are a dominant thinker - a rational type, and in the other system you are a dominant intuitive - a perceptive type.

    How can both of these hold simultaneously? How can you be both a rational thinking type, and irrational intuitive type? Why are you not an INTJ+INTp or INTP+INTj?
    I think the problem here might stem from the fact that you assume MBTI is wrong, whether it is or not, so any problem with understanding for you is "it doesn't matter, MBTI is incoherent" or something along those lines. But then, why would you say that INFJ and INFj are the same product in the first place...?
    Well, I'm not going to approach socionics as if it were MBTI done correctly. For now, it's a distinct system which happens to be set up in a very similar way.

    Basically, what you seem to be saying, is that XXXx in socionics corresponds to XXXX in MBTI, but with some corrections. And, while I understand that CFs don't totally line up with IMs, they are described in quite similar ways, and I am bewildered as to how NiFe could map to FiNe. Why should XXXX and XXXx be the same product rather than XXXX and XXXy? Everything in the systems is all so similar but from a different perspective, but then there is that drastic change, which makes everything fall apart.

    This is not making any sense to me. Do you at least understand why it doesn't, and why what you've said so far hasn't really cleared it up for me?
    To me, roughly, MBTI = cause; socionics = effects. However, since the effects which socionics objectifies have more causes than just those conceptualised in MBTI, there is not a complete correspondance.
    1) I thought as much

    2) I don't quite understand what the problem is here apart from the definition of what JP/jp mean. If you just identity IXXX with IXXy then I don't see anything wrong. (I know that the relationship between INFJ and ENFJ is different to that of INFj and ENFj. My point was that if we treat XNFj as the image of XNFJ, then we end up with a contradiction, which we wouldn't have if we treated (INFp, ENFj) as the image of (INFJ, ENFJ).)

    3) Nonetheless, there seems to be a difference in a approach in the socionics model that allow for the potential of mutually valid systems despite not lining up. MBTI = cognitive processes, not necessarily tied to any aspect of the world (though typically becomes so), socionics = the aspects of the experienced world that one focuses on (which may or may not tie in with difference in processing).
    I don't see JCF as being too useful in modelling the full range of interpersonal relationships (yet?) since this is not what it focuses on, whereas socionics has all of this covered and so will be much better for such a purpose. I find the relationship between the two systems to be quite interesting, and so I wonder: if you developed a perfect typing model based on an individual perspective (as per JCF) and developed a perfect typing model based on the social perspective (as per socionics), would they completely line up - i.e. would someone who typed one way in the first system type in one particular way in the second? If not, to what degree would they line up? Since this is hypothetical I'm not expecting you to know the answer.
    To me, JCF and socionics can both be mutually valid without there necessarily being any one-to-one correspondance between types (though I would expect there to nonetheless be a great deal of correlation). This is because they are focused on totally different realms, i.e. the subjective world of the individual, and the social world of collections of individuals. Fundamental differences between two individuals from one perspective may not mean fundamental differences from the other perspective.
    Well, what I use is possibly just JCF, but all the MBTI sources seem to also emphasise the correspondance between type and the corresponding function set. The MBTI, as in the assessment, is not something I think is very accurate, but I'm coming from a position of the more general theory, relating to the cognitive processes, being the correct view. I will use the term JCF rather than MBTI, however. My confusion of INFJ -> INFj is that, while an ENFJ has the same top functions as an INFJ, an ENFj does not have the same top functions as an INFj. I would expect that if there was a rough correspondance then you would be able to take a type and go: JCF -> Soc; top two function switch; Soc -> JCF; top two function switch: and end up back where you started, which is not the case since this would only work if you identified types based on having the same names for their top functions, i.e. INFJ*(JCF->Soc) = INFp.
    "Socionics's types are defined ultimately by deeper personal priorities and motivations", "Socionics is an interpersonal relationship theory" - so, socionics defines itself on priorities and motivations, especially as can be related to an interpersonal context, as opposed to MBTI (generalised sense) which tries to classify the nature of the processes themselves without necessarily referencing things like priorities?

    I was visualising the two systems in a way where, in MBTI things are considered from the perspective of the way the subject is observing and thinking about the world and ignores the actual objective relations, whereas socionics is instead concerned with objective relations which arise from personal differentiation and ignores the general structural way the individual interprets the world.

    Am I on the right track?
    Well, I knew that they weren't exactly the same, but I was unsure as to whether there was a "rough" one-to-one correspondence between the types in one system to the types in the other (you seemed to imply that INFJ and INFj were the pair which a rough correspondance might identify). Am I best off assuming this is not the case at all?
    Waittt, doesn't INFJ -> INFp? Like, you switch from J/P to p/j.

    edit: also, is reading descriptions and seeing which fits best an acceptable typing method in socionics? (moreso than in MBTI, anyway)
    Arrrrrrr.

    How distinct is MBTI (in the general sense) from socionics? Methinks I'm an INTj/LII.

    edit: that was based on wikisocion descriptions. This personalitycafe INFp description seems to fit me a lot better (actually, kinda perfectly).
    Cavallier
    I came over to say "Yarr! He be a pretty princess!" but now I just feel this overwhelming desire to jump out the nearest window.

    Hmmm...I'll just run along.
    LPolaright
    Ey man. Yes I'm kind of alright in the army right now, trying to reach special places in there.

    Thanks for the interest.
    SkyWalker
    isnt it translated in the second half?

    and what do you put in those messages? links? its moderated again
    SkyWalker
    eyeseecold: how much exactly is in german? i think most of the text is in english though? isnt it only a few scans of the original papers? maybe there is an extra translation page for every original scan, i think so?

    jung is supposed to have worked on it for 16 years according to wikipedia, thus probably quite a master piece of work . i would like to buy it. i think i would be able to read german to a certain degree. then i can tell you what (and if) you are missing out on if you cant read it..
    SkyWalker
    nil> its a book by jung, try amazon ;)

    amazon.com / s?search-alias=stripbooks&field-isbn=9780393065671
    nexion
    Fascinating. From where did you come upon these pictures? Is the book available online?
    terraxceles
    Pleasure? I must be doing something wrong then. Others describe the experience as painful. Ah, regardless.

    Just profile-hopping and dropping people greetings. :)
    SkyWalker
    There is so much crap written about kaballah that its hard to find the truth about the sephirots, but I think the original intent of the design was something like the 8 Jungian functions. With 2 extra ones ;)
    The original docs are very ancient Hebrew and probably lots of translation errors also.
    But I think they were on to something pretty profound
  • Loading…
  • Loading…
  • Loading…
Top Bottom