viche

I like your avatar.

Hey, just curious, is it you on the avatar?

ILI , i still related to the article .

I just saw the difference and ill let you know if its Lii or ILI . What makes me smile the most is when articles assume the lii is the man in the relationship.

I just read the socionics dual article you've linked to a thread ! I found many if not all sections for the ese & lii relatable to my personal relationship ! Great article , thank you !

Slow down man. Don't you think that was the first thing I did? That's why the mistake is so easy to make, because the functions have similar descriptions. But listen, drop your assuredness and be skeptic here. You just grasped Socionics, don't you think you could be wrong about some things?

I'm serious. Go to 16types and ask for yourself. Don't be so sure of yourself.

Pose your beliefs here and see the answer you get:
http://www.the16types.info/vbulletin/general-discussion-model/

I'd help you myself, but I have trouble making concise statements. I suggest you read Jung's Psychological Types.

I don't know how else to say it, so excuse me, but no, that is incorrect. It is a big mistake that people coming from MBTI make. Trying to map the same behavior descriptions and function from MBTI in Socionics will cause you have incorrect typings for all introverts. Extraverts aren't affected because of the way they were observed by Isabel Myers.

It's great that you are reading up on Socionics theory, but you are getting confused. In Socionics, all xxxPs stay xxxp and all xxxJs stay xxxj. Thus MBTI TiNeSiFe is Socionics NiTeFiSe.

Brilliant post.

INTP Forum - View Single Post - INTP Dating