SkyWalker

Actually, my last post was annoyed, but fairly well mannered. You didn't apologize for a rude comment--whether you consciously decided to be pretentious or not, you were pretentious. You told me what to do, you told me what my "job" was, you imposed your view of reality as truth; there is no more insulting language to use in a forum of intellectuals. In your second response, you stated "I just tried to enrich you"--do you realize how arrogant that sounds? My second response was an attempt to show how you insulted me, so you could avoid it in the future.

"You piece of shit!" and "Fuck you!!" are actually far less insulting to me than your first or second posts were. More a reflection on yourself than on me. I don't care if you don't like me, as you are proving to be a person whose opinion doesn't really matter.

Anyways, have fun growing up.

L

Yes, the only thing that stays the same is the terminology. Te in Socionics can be called extraverted thinking or logic for example. But the concepts behind the functions are not the same as MBTI.

Fundamental rule:
Socionics functions != MBTI functions != Jung functions

Many people start from WikiSocion, it has a comprehensive list of articles and links.

Yea, the way Myers/Briggs created another dichotomy for Jung's types seems to have mixed up the functions, which of course, has lead to misconceptions over time. Even though it's its own system, I think that they were wrong for doing so. They adapted his work but didn't emphasize the changes they made. Not many people know that according to Jung, for example, IPs should have dominant perceiving functions and IJs should have dominant judging functions.

If you care to understand all this I'd recommend reading MBTI's Gifts Differing and then comparing it to Jung's Psychological Types. If you don't have access to the former at least check out the latter online(for free). I'd also recommend understanding Jung's work before getting into Socionics because you might progress more smoothly that way.

Telling people to do things is generally a not a good idea--it assumes you know better than them, and you are superior to them.

Second, assuming I haven't thought about my influence after death is insulting, as it's an obvious course of thought to someone engaged in thinking about death. If you don't know me, as you say, then why would you presume me to have never crossed stage one in thinking about this problem?

For the mild nugget of attempt to help me in there, I say I appreciate the thought. But next time try read before you post? The "preview" button does wonders for preventing these foot-in-mouth moments.

L

Well I'm not an expert, but I claim(not my theory but I agree with it, it's Socionics), that because people perceive the world with different functions they speak, think and therefore write differently. For example, if you're an extraverted thinker, your logic would tend to be objective which would show through a person's writing. It's not foolproof but becomes more accurate with the frequency of a person's characteristics.

Also, I don't agree with MBTIs functions. They seem highly ambiguous to me.

It's not a thought, but an observation. From irl and forums, I've observed them layout these thoughts and attempt to give them structure, similar to INTJs, but usually they aren't as precise. With INFPs they are usually more uncertain as they are trying to understand their fixation, but INTJs show their systems confidently.

Don't you get it? I couldn't fucking care less what my influence on this earth is, because it will serve me no pleasure or pain after I leave. I may still decide to influence earth positively while I'm here just for the hell of it, because I'm a good guy, but that doesn't do an iota to remove the sting of death.

Next time try and be a little less pretentious when you talk to me, especially before stating the obvious.

L

Yes, the theories you present are laid out systematically in a way different than most(all?) members here type. It's nothing big though I was just curious if you thought you might be INFP.

Your method of presentation is highly systematic. Granted, one can choose any method he so wishes, this style I have observed, tends to be characteristic of INFPs and INTJs.

When it comes to information do you prefer to compare it to other sources? Or do you fixate on one source and alayze it for its validity? Basically do you prefer extensive knowledge or intensive understanding?

INFP?

INTJs.


There you go.