If the Pod'Lair function ordering is equivalent to MBTI, then it is based on misconceptions. No ifs ands or buts about it.
It would be in accurate to say they are "equal" but they can be translated into the language of MBTI as long as the right understanding of what each function is and does follows with it. Furthermore, Pod'Lair does not claim that INTPs have anything at all, we don't even have INTPs, we have Zai'nyys. So if you want to look at that and say the Zai'nyy is equivalent to the INTj, then that's you're call.
But more importantly, prove it. Yeah that's right, I'm playing the "Prove it" card. Because Pod'Lair actually can prove that our understanding of the structure of each type, can you? What has Socionics done to be so certain that their assumptions are the right assumptions?
Accuracy in typing methods has nothing to do with the accuracy and consistency of the rationalization of the types and their functions or whatever Pod'Lair calls them.
Bullshit, it has everything to do with it. If you cannot physically verify your work, then your theory holds no water, it is just a list of assumptions with no control.
Although well received and humorous, this does nothing for your argument.
Apparently you have yet to learn the power of likability in the public arena.
This is circular reasoning. You still have not explained the rationale behind dominant perceiving functions allowing rational behavior and dominant judging functions allowing irrational behavior.
Don't give me WHATs, give me WHYs.
Why are IJs dominated by perception and not judgment?
Why are IPs dominated by judgment and not perception?
Why does these make more sense that the other way around?
Why does this only hold for introverts and not extraverts?
I'm not even sure what you are defining as "Rational" and "Irrational" behavior, so I won't even touch that until you do.
Why are IJs dominated by perception and not judgment?
Because they are Directive and Have an Introverted Perception as a Dominant function. Simple as that.
Why are IPs dominated by judgment and not perception?
Because they are Adaptive and have a Dominant Introverted Judgment Function.
Why does these make more sense that the other way around?
It actually doesn't. But it does to you because you have all kinds of other false assumptions about the nature of these functions, it makes perfect sense to me and pretty much everyone else I have encountered on this forum. The paradox is only existent in the way you are looking at it, not the way I am.
Why does this only hold for introverts and not extraverts?
Isn't it obvious? Because Directive Judgment is extroverted Judgment, thus an ExxJ, and extroverted Directive logically must be a Te or Fe dom, and an Adaptive Extrovert must be an Ne or Se doms, as they are the adaptive perceptions.
If you strip away your redundant rationalization and look at the common definitions of perception and judgment, logically, it is only right for IP = dominant perceiving, and IJ = dominant judging.
Why would I do that when the common definitions have been poorly placed? Perciever should logically mean they are a dominant perciever, you're right about that, but in MBTI that is not actually what J and P are referring to, and to decide that that is what they are referring to just because that is what the words literally mean is fucking retarded.
I say a Pod'Lair Zai'nyy correlates to the MBTI INTP, because a Zai'nyy is Subjective (correlates to introverted), Interpretive (Correlates to Intuitive), Logic-based (correlates to thinking), and Adaptive (Correlates to Perceiving)
The fact that you think Adaptive is equal to lead Perciever, or that Directive is equal to lead Judger is completely irrelevant, because it isn't and as a Pod'Lair I can tell you that with certainty. They are two completely different dimentions, and you are shooting yourself in the leg by ignoring that.
Why does everyone think I want to win? Maybe I have to in changing perspectives, but in productivity there is no winning or losing.
Because you do, accept it, embrace it.
I repeat: If the Pod'Lair function ordering is equivalent to MBTI, then it is based on misconceptions. No ifs ands or buts about it.
I repeat, prove it.
The issue is not whether who knows enough but who has the right perspective. It does not matter if Ni is called adaptive or directive, the more accurate perspective is that it is the intuition of archetypes, time lapsing, contextual associations, and underlying processing. INTPs, INFPs, ENTJs and ENFJs all have these characteristics. INxPs are dominated by it and ENxJs use it for their dominant functions. Before you reply to this, if you do, I want you to analyze Hitler(ENFJ), analyze Bill Gates(ENTJ), analyze Jimi Hendrix(INFP) and analyze us and don't you see how this manifests. If you reply without considering this, I will assume you don't really care to find out the truth and are only acting on a stimulus to defend in pride.
You don't understand what Ni actually is, it is as simple as that. Hitler (Who is an INFJ, but still an Ni dom), Jimi Hendrix (Who is an INFJ, and still and Ni dom), I can physically see are not processing in the same way that I am processing. I can see that what is happening in my Psyche is damn sure not the same process that is happening in theirs. Maybe you are an INFJ or INTJ, who knows, so maybe you can look at them and think that the same process is happening in you, but I can certainly see that their processing is not how my Processing works.
This is not how Socionists type. It is based on function identification due to psychoanalysis, lifestyle, and inter-type relationship behavior.
Irrelevant. The error is allowing the individual to give an opinion on what their cognitive functionality is. Too significant an amount of people do not know themselves well enough to make this kind of assessment about themselves. Too significant an amount of professionals do not know humans well enough to make this kind of assessment about somebody else. Only physiological cues are sufficient for this purpose. It takes it out of the hands of opinion. It is a high level tacit skill to learn but it is not a matter of opinion.
Socionics does not have vertical functions ordered by strength as in MBTI. They are horizontal and due to position as function causes a certain psychology in a person. For example, "true" INTPs have Vulnerable Fe(however, to really understand you'd have to redefine your concept of the functions). The Vulnerable function is the place where people cannot handle aspects of life without inducing a phobia. No matter how comfortable they are they will always be vulnerable in this area, especially with criticism. For INTPs, they avoid social atmospheres and groups because they are unsure of how to act in such situations, they feel vulnerable and exposed when reaching out. Thus they are liable to have few friends(especially Fe valuers), and to be seen as avoidant types or loners.
It does not matter how you define it, you have still created a box, a set of parameters that can never be verified in any form what so ever.
Pod'Lair does no more good than MBTI and Socionics in having a concept of 16 types. Stop BS'ing about boxes and reality. The only difference is that Pod'Lair has advanced VI, which still says nothing for the theory.
Are you fucking serious?
Okay now you are just voluntarily burying your head in the sand and dismissing an obvious advantage out of intellectual arrogance.
Do you really have no idea what being able to physically read people means? We have taken all possible error out of the equation. We do not rely on people to know themselves to evaluate them. We do not rely on the assumptions of how types are supposed to act. To Pod'Lair the idea of debating about what type a person is, to us is completely Backward. Because to us, it is physically obvious, and there is no debate necessary, you either see it or you don't. This means we have something no other model has, a control.
We have a way of knowing if the assumptions we have made with the intentions of capturing the phenomenon are accurate or not. We have a way to accurately read a person regardless of what culture they are from, or what language the speak. We see 100% nature and none of the memes of their culture or background get in the way like it does with all other models. Socionics and MBTI has issues ‘typing’ people from different cultures as the evaluation they use is semantic, linguistic and therefore cultural which skews results vs. Mojo Reading which is universal because it based on innate physiology. Anyone can learn it and use it anywhere to read anyone. MBTI’s demographics numbers are way off and we will be correcting them.
Furthermore, Socionics and MBTI can only ‘type’ which only gets you one thing, what type the person as, if that. Mojo Reading is ongoing, it gives you far more information than just the cognitive configuration.
Do you understand what any of this means? It means we can see how the 16 configurations manifest themselves in all cultures, in all walks of life, we have unlocked the key to infinite understanding of the nature of human beings, how we grow, how develop, and where we go from there.
And you know what? That is only a small portion of one of Pod'lair's eight pathways. The theory is far greater than just another Typology Model, "typology" is just something it eclipses.
I'm sorry ESC, but you guys suck in comparison, hands down.
MBTI's limits are due to defining types by percentages and descriptions.
Socionics uses psychology that has yet to be scientifically proven and has no limits in regards to progress beyond having 16 types(but this is irrelevant, as you can divide into oblivion).
It is a limitation in itself, its own principles are its limitation.
First of all, why do you always take a collective approach? I am one person, I do not represent the opinions and intellect of all Socionists or users.
I can clearly see that you think like the rest of them, so I group you together.
You again assume that Socionics does not observe its types' psychology and behavior and you ignore the fact that testing and re-evaluations are always being done for not only the basic theory, but the functions, types and inter-type relations themselves.
I am not assuming that at all, I know that Socionics has no control or way to verify their assumptions, nothing else needs to be said. You're doing it wrong.
On the whole I really don't understand why you don't at least try Socionics. Your opinion is equivalent to that of a person who peeks and hastily hides himself(excuse the ad hominem). There is no danger, you would only help yourself by fully exploring Socionics. Why don't you really see if it is as consistent, accurate and practical as I make it seem to be by my steadfast opinion of it in the almighty face of Pod'Lair.
Why would I try socionics when I can see that it has more holes than swiss cheese? Why would I settle for something that I can see is vastly inferior to what I am doing now? You are basically asking me to give beta max a chance when I have already tasted Blue-ray. You are basically asking me to trade Modern Medicine for blood letting. Why would I do that when I can see that it is clearly backward?
. When doing VI one must realize that we also take expressions from people we have been around for long periods of time. Evidence, take two elder people that when you look at early pictures have distinct differences but as they age and have been around one another they begin to obtain the others expressions, literally becoming alike. I know that is week but it exists. Also when doing VI since we are individuals one must take into account that another persons "reactions" could mean a completely different thing, it inherently has the same fallacy that language has.
