• 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.

Introduction to socionics and intp's subtypes

Ex-User (8886)

Well-Known Member
Local time
Today 11:34 AM
Joined
Sep 11, 2013
Messages
620
-->
First:
http://www.socionics.com/articles/howto.htm
this has a lot of sense and I confirm this with my observation and thoughts;

so, we have:
INTP - LII(socionics intj)
and
INTP - ILI(socionics intp)

The red one have weaker intuition, and here are persons like Albert Einstein or me;
The blue have weaker thinking (and better feeling), Carl Jung for example;

I know that everyone hate personality tests, but when I first time took one, I got low scores in intuition, when I, T, P was in 95%; I was also thinking that I'm ISTP, cause I like driving fast, have great spacial imagination and I share some interest with my ISFP best friend;

In socionics there are also subtypes, so we would have total 4 subtypes of INTPs;

It's enough for now, any thoughts?
 

Saoshyant

Put me in Coach
Local time
Today 6:34 AM
Joined
Nov 11, 2009
Messages
119
-->
Thought you were a Socionics INTp in the ESFJ/INTP thread?

Are you trying to prove there's four subtypes for INTPs in MBTI? I'd say its completely pointless to me. If it makes sense to you... whatever helps you out.
 

Ex-User (8886)

Well-Known Member
Local time
Today 11:34 AM
Joined
Sep 11, 2013
Messages
620
-->
Thought you were a Socionics INTp in the ESFJ/INTP thread?

Are you trying to prove there's four subtypes for INTPs in MBTI? I'd say its completely pointless to me. If it makes sense to you... whatever helps you out.

in this thread there isn't anything interesting

I just try to say, that we differs from each other more than only mbti and experience, it's interesting, that sometimes I think other INTP is stiupid and don't like him, and sometimes I like another INTP

For me, also keeping with only one personality theory is limiting, cognitive functions are not too acurate, so we should discover something more primary.
 

OmoInisa

Active Member
Local time
Today 11:34 AM
Joined
Jan 3, 2014
Messages
207
-->
Location
London, UK
For me, also keeping with only one personality theory is limiting, cognitive functions are not too acurate, so we should discover something more primary.

This is more or less true. Though the search for something 'primary' may be quixotic. The reason the functions are not too accurate is precisely because of the absence of this pure, exclusive and definitive disposition.
Typology is an attempt at a picture of that part that may be regarded as 'primary'.

Also, having an understanding of multiple cognitive theories is certainly better than knowing just one. However, getting a firm hold on the fundamentals of one theory is better than having a confused understanding of more than one.
 

Architect

Professional INTP
Local time
Today 4:34 AM
Joined
Dec 25, 2010
Messages
6,692
-->
This is more or less true. Though the search for something 'primary' may be quixotic. The reason the functions are not too accurate is precisely because of the absence of this pure, exclusive and definitive disposition.
Typology is an attempt at a picture of that part that may be regarded as 'primary'.

Also, having an understanding of multiple cognitive theories is certainly better than knowing just one. However, getting a firm hold on the fundamentals of one theory is better than having a confused understanding of more than one.

I think the disparity comes from experiencing psyche versus observing it.

MBTI, Socionics and such are hidden variables theories like most are. We observe behaviors and with the help of the theory attempt to deduce the underlying variables causing the behavior. This process can be difficult because behavior has many influences, but if you have a deep understanding of MBTI suddenly you see type playing out everywhere around you.

From the inside it's problematic because you're experiencing the hidden variables, along with the other influences for your behavior (habit, personality, etc). You're trying to use a tool meant for external viewing internally.

In that context other theories (e.g. Socionics) don't hold a candle to MBTI in my opinion. Socionics and the other "softer" theories (probably devised by NF types) take it more from a personal viewpoint rather than an external rigorous POV. You can detect this shift by noticing that these theories become more descriptive rather than structural (the "Big Five" personality theory is the extreme in pure empirical descriptive). The Enneagram in particular seems to mush into itself, the categories being poorly distinguished when compared to reality (people span buckets for no apparent reason). In MBTI a person spans buckets (function) according to specific rules. The base reason being opposition. Now that's a beautiful theory.

In surprised at how much troubles many supposed INTP's have with MBTI (not aiming this at you OmoInisa in any way). Our brains are the most able to separate viewpoint from context I believe, so it should come somewhat naturally to see ourselves from within and without simultaneously.
 

Saoshyant

Put me in Coach
Local time
Today 6:34 AM
Joined
Nov 11, 2009
Messages
119
-->
In that context other theories (e.g. Socionics) don't hold a candle to MBTI in my opinion. Socionics and the other "softer" theories (probably devised by NF types) take it more from a personal viewpoint rather than an external rigorous POV.

Aushra Augusta, the founder of Socionics, actually self typed herself as an ENTp.
http://www.wikisocion.org/en/index.php?title=Augusta

Whatever method you translate that into MBTI, I highly doubt it'd come out as a NF type. I personally think she'd be an ENTP in MTBI as well.

I'd encourage you to do more research on Socionics if you don't think it holds a candle to the MBTI. It is a vastly complex typology system compared to MBTI and to call it "soft" is absurd. Along with intertype relations, famous for its dual theory, also comes Quadra Values and Reinin Dichotomies which help enhance my experience with the world.
 

Ex-User (8886)

Well-Known Member
Local time
Today 11:34 AM
Joined
Sep 11, 2013
Messages
620
-->
Aushra Augusta, the founder of Socionics, actually self typed herself as an ENTp.
http://www.wikisocion.org/en/index.php?title=Augusta

Whatever method you translate that into MBTI, I highly doubt it'd come out as a NF type. I personally think she'd be an ENTP in MTBI as well.

I'd encourage you to do more research on Socionics if you don't think it holds a candle to the MBTI. It is a vastly complex typology system compared to MBTI and to call it "soft" is absurd. Along with intertype relations, famous for its dual theory, also comes Quadra Values and Reinin Dichotomies which help enhance my experience with the world.

I also find socionics very useful, most becuase of quite accurate descriptions about intertype relationships. But, socionics functions are broken somehow.
 

Saoshyant

Put me in Coach
Local time
Today 6:34 AM
Joined
Nov 11, 2009
Messages
119
-->
I also find socionics very useful, most becuase of quite accurate descriptions about intertype relationships. But, socionics functions are broken somehow.

It is my belief that Socionics' functions are the same thing that Jung was describing. Hence, it'd be the MBTI with the flawed functions for the base function of the Introvert (i.e. INTPs would be Ni base and not Ti base - according to Jung's function descriptions). I realize that it is a controversial view. But I've done a lot of research, critical thinking, and it makes the most sense to me.
 

Brontosaurie

Banned
Local time
Today 12:34 PM
Joined
Dec 4, 2010
Messages
5,646
-->
It is my belief that Socionics' functions are the same thing that Jung was describing. Hence, it'd be the MBTI with the flawed functions for the base function of the Introvert (i.e. INTPs would be Ni base and not Ti base - according to Jung's function descriptions). I realize that it is a controversial view. But I've done a lot of research, critical thinking, and it makes the most sense to me.

it's a simple issue of nomenclature, and MBTI's version makes a lot of sense in terms of cognitive logistics when applying the typological analysis, since Xe-Yi is of course more similar to Yi-Xe than to Xi-Ye, being that they share the same top functions. to be an introverted judger is to be an extraverted perceiver, and vice versa. ENTP and INTP alike are mostly interested in absorbing information and parsing it to form an abstract, cohesive theory of their own. ENTJ and INTJ alike are mostly interested in having convictions within and imposing them on others. those are significant commonalities. to have "a judging function first" or "a perceiving function first" isn't as significant since introversion/extraversion makes it completely different things. P types (in mbti) really are more easy-going, accepting etc whereas J types really are more directive, imperative. it boils down to whether you find the internal or external to be a source of data and, consequently, whether it's the external or the internal that should be moulded according to this data. Ji vs. Pe or Pi vs. Je are just shifts in focus where that's concerned. ENTP is more interested in the absorbing part, INTP's more in the parsing and structuring part. INTJ's are more interested in the internal conviction part, ENTJ's more in the commanding others part.

it takes no "lot of reasearch, critical thinking" to accept socionics nebulous labyrinthine combinatorial puzzle exercise - just an ego's desire to have reached some special esoteric understanding and brag about it. just that, since there's no real conceptual benefit.

then we can go into how socionic differs in terms of actual function ordering:

Ti-Ne-Fi-Se, instead of Ti-Ne-Si-Fe. this assumes that the dom-inf split isn't primary but somehow affected by the aux. which kind of violates the core principles of functional preferences arising from opposites, tensions.
 

nanook

a scream in a vortex
Local time
Today 12:34 PM
Joined
Aug 16, 2011
Messages
2,028
-->
Location
germany
alex and sheldon desribe their prison cells

alex jones: "in my room there is a kitchen, a computer, some private stuff"

sheldon cooper: "in my room there is a kitchen, a bed, a computer, a shower"

alex jones "sheldon assumes that a kitchen and a computer are not really distinct and opposed things, but somehow connected through a bed. he is an esoteric nut"

somebody is projecting.
 

Brontosaurie

Banned
Local time
Today 12:34 PM
Joined
Dec 4, 2010
Messages
5,646
-->
somebody won't be held accountable for his accusations :D perhaps because they're so baseless. but hiding something in an indecipherable metaphor that people however will abstain from scrutinizing for fear of appearing non-intuitive is a really clever tactic. the schoolyard "you just don't get it do you" tactic.

maybe i'm misreading things here :confused: your comment invites a lot of interpretation
 

EyeSeeCold

lust for life
Local time
Today 3:34 AM
Joined
Aug 12, 2010
Messages
7,848
-->
Location
California, USA
The most critical and astute opinions of Socionics that I've seen have come from people who have studied it and prefer it. In contrast people who prefer MBTI tend to have opinions of Socionics that involve of "first theory bias" of what types and functions are supposed to entail, mental indolence to fully investigate a new concept, and misdirected criticisms(which stem from the previous).

it's a simple issue of nomenclature, and MBTI's version makes a lot of sense in terms of cognitive logistics when applying the typological analysis, since Xe-Yi is of course more similar to Yi-Xe than to Xi-Ye, being that they share the same top functions. to be an introverted judger is to be an extraverted perceiver, and vice versa. ENTP and INTP alike are mostly interested in absorbing information and parsing it to form an abstract, cohesive theory of their own. ENTJ and INTJ alike are mostly interested in having convictions within and imposing them on others. those are significant commonalities. to have "a judging function first" or "a perceiving function first" isn't as significant since introversion/extraversion makes it completely different things. P types (in mbti) really are more easy-going, accepting etc whereas J types really are more directive, imperative. it boils down to whether you find the internal or external to be a source of data and, consequently, whether it's the external or the internal that should be moulded according to this data. Ji vs. Pe or Pi vs. Je are just shifts in focus where that's concerned. ENTP is more interested in the absorbing part, INTP's more in the parsing and structuring part. INTJ's are more interested in the internal conviction part, ENTJ's more in the commanding others part.
None of what you said here conflicts with Socionics portraits of the types, and would nearly convince me that it really is a simple issue of terminology. Yet there's also a whole aspect of typology that has been ignored here: how types are internally(psychology and motivational behavior, perceptual cognition) as opposed to what their external behavior is perceived as to others. When this alternate side is considered, the J attributions for dominant perceivers do not really hold up including P attributions for dominant judgers.

Of course you could just say that was just a nomenclature or perspective argument and that my point is meaningless, but if you considered the importance of such an external vs internal difference I think you'd find that there's a need for an integration that MBTI does not offer and it is the single point from which the wealth of Socionics originates - a more holistic interpretation of typology.

it takes no "lot of reasearch, critical thinking" to accept socionics nebulous labyrinthine combinatorial puzzle exercise - just an ego's desire to have reached some special esoteric understanding and brag about it. just that, since there's no real conceptual benefit.
Anyone can say that about anything that is mildly complex.

then we can go into how socionic differs in terms of actual function ordering:

Ti-Ne-Fi-Se, instead of Ti-Ne-Si-Fe. this assumes that the dom-inf split isn't primary but somehow affected by the aux. which kind of violates the core principles of functional preferences arising from opposites, tensions.
This is not a difference between Socionics and MBTI. Socionics' ordering of functions is less relevant, less suggestive. The order doesn't mean much because what's implied is a hierarchy-less qualitative state of functions.

Put simply if you saw a listing of a type as Ti-Ne-Fi-Se, that's just how a certain author chose to write the functions, it doesn't necessarily imply anything different than Ti-Ne-Si-Fe. What matters are the first two functions only because everything else is derived from that.
 

nanook

a scream in a vortex
Local time
Today 12:34 PM
Joined
Aug 16, 2011
Messages
2,028
-->
Location
germany
>but hiding something ...

i really didn't mean to hide something, but show to you and not anybody else what sort of a mistake you make. sorry if you didn't get it and sorry that you have fears of not being intuitive. group pressure sucks. accept yourself.

i have provided a lengthy explanation in the other thread, the day before. if i could just remember which one it was.... ah this one

really you are outnumbered here, three people who understand socionics see that you are just misinterpreting it and then you are criticizing your own misinterpretation of it.

now i have to give some more cryptic metaphors, because it's fun.

rejecting socionics is like saying 'motherboards are esoteric bullshit, i prefer to use windows, in windows all functions are in the right place, exactly where i expect them to be.'

i'm not here to defend all aspects of the socionics world, i'm not bookish and didn't care to study the whole universe of socioncs at all.

I'm just talking about a wiki page demonstrating model A, which is the best blueprint of your motherboard that is available. mbti has no such thing. it's like 'here is your mouse, klick over there to start and respect the great BSOD, go!'

i was also fighting hard against socionics before getting it, a couple of years ago,
 

Saoshyant

Put me in Coach
Local time
Today 6:34 AM
Joined
Nov 11, 2009
Messages
119
-->
it takes no "lot of reasearch, critical thinking" to accept socionics nebulous labyrinthine combinatorial puzzle exercise - just an ego's desire to have reached some special esoteric understanding and brag about it. just that, since there's no real conceptual benefit.

It took a long time for me to read Jung's writings in Psychological Types and compare it to Socionic's functions after learning MTBI's functions. Then realizing that Isabel Myers and her mother absolutely butchered the introverted functions when translating Jung to MTBI. There's a big conceptual difference, which I have indeed gained insight from, which for others like yourself deem trivial.
 

Jennywocky

guud languager
Local time
Today 6:34 AM
Joined
Sep 25, 2008
Messages
10,736
-->
Location
Charn
It is my belief that Socionics' functions are the same thing that Jung was describing. Hence, it'd be the MBTI with the flawed functions for the base function of the Introvert (i.e. INTPs would be Ni base and not Ti base - according to Jung's function descriptions). I realize that it is a controversial view. But I've done a lot of research, critical thinking, and it makes the most sense to me.

Go ahead and explain it. You keep criticizing the MBTI approach, but haven't really given any meat to your ideas here. (unless there's another thread somewhere you made on it?)
 

Brontosaurie

Banned
Local time
Today 12:34 PM
Joined
Dec 4, 2010
Messages
5,646
-->
It took a long time for me to read Jung's writings in Psychological Types and compare it to Socionic's functions after learning MTBI's functions. Then realizing that Isabel Myers and her mother absolutely butchered the introverted functions when translating Jung to MTBI. There's a big conceptual difference, which I have indeed gained insight from, which for others like yourself deem trivial.

the difference is that in MBTI, P/J refers to the first extraverted function, and in socionics it refers to the first function.

no functions have been "butchered". maybe socionics has slightly better descriptions but none of those descriptions should be trusted anyway. they're uniformly stereotypical, arbitrary and dumbed down. everything that needs to be known is intrinsic to the very idea of cognitive functions as conceived by jung.
 

Brontosaurie

Banned
Local time
Today 12:34 PM
Joined
Dec 4, 2010
Messages
5,646
-->
None of what you said here conflicts with Socionics portraits of the types

it wasn't intended to. my intention was to explain why Ti-Ne and Ne-Ti have more in common than Ti-Ne and Te-Ni, and thus why it's more convenient to give them similar labels, even though it ever-so-superficially contradicts the precious trivia knowledge that T&F are called "judging functions" and S&N called "perceiving functions".

i don't know what you're on about in the rest of that paragraph. or rather, i think your misunderstanding of my message is too grave for me to bother sorting it out.

This is not a difference between Socionics and MBTI. Socionics' ordering of functions is less relevant, less suggestive. The order doesn't mean much because what's implied is a hierarchy-less qualitative state of functions.

so you're saying socionics isn't a theory about dominance, conflict and dynamics of psychic forces, but instead just a random list of mystical and dogmatic "qualitative relations" that need no justification?

where do these "ego" and "id" block designations come from, if not some kind of underlying hierarchy of motivation?

socionics goes way too far in deriving curious, pleasant detail from dubious premises. just some big pseudo-math jerkoff i reckon. like a sudoku for psychology. i have read more socionics than you probably think, i'm just not so tempted by the appeal of being able to go all "no actually what you said about some vague phenomenon called cognitive functions is not quite right because i know another slightly more complicated, rigid and specific version of the same completely unproven theoretical framework" on people :P
 

nanook

a scream in a vortex
Local time
Today 12:34 PM
Joined
Aug 16, 2011
Messages
2,028
-->
Location
germany
socionic is like:

"here are some random facts about cars"

1) the drive of a car (ego) is the engine
2) one auxiliary detail of a car is their wheels
3) one noteworthy issue with cars is the "dead angle" it causes accidents sometimes.
4) there is a complex mechanism involved that is called suspension, it modulates the ride, but nobody pays attention to that
5) these cars can come to a grinding halt, when a thing called break kicks in.
6) there are steering wheels attached to some wheels but you can't see that from the outside

"how do you guys know any of this"
"we stole a fucking car and did a thorough test ride and had sex on the roof. one time we also crashed some cars into each other to see which ones come out on top"
"isn't this sexual approach a bunch of mathematical bullshit?"
"not so much, it's basically one plus one"
"so if you don't like complex math, why did you even put numbers in front of these facts?"
"well, i dunno, it can come in handy when labeling them sometimes"


mbti is like

1) the drive of a car is the engine
2) one fairly useful aspect of cars is their wheels
3) something that keeps the wheels in check is the steering wheel by the way
4) want to hear something else about cars? well, they can come to a halt, because of a device called break

"oh and look we put numbers in front of those items, we are particularly proud of this, because we are math nerds who think that items of a car must be numbered. everything needs numbers. we are number one, socionics is number two."

"so what else can you say about cars? "

"nothing else can possibly be said about cars ever and nobody should try. we don't support mystical bullshit in mbti"
 

EyeSeeCold

lust for life
Local time
Today 3:34 AM
Joined
Aug 12, 2010
Messages
7,848
-->
Location
California, USA
it wasn't intended to. my intention was to explain why Ti-Ne and Ne-Ti have more in common than Ti-Ne and Te-Ni, and thus why it's more convenient to give them similar labels, even though it ever-so-superficially contradicts the precious trivia knowledge that T&F are called "judging functions" and S&N called "perceiving functions".

i don't know what you're on about in the rest of that paragraph. or rather, i think your misunderstanding of my message is too grave for me to bother sorting it out.
The fact that you consider it merely trivia knowledge of the implications of judging/perceiving is indicative of you missing my earlier point that Socionics integrates both the internal perspective of type and external perspective. There are multiple perspectives that always make some types more similar to others in different contexts, so while I agree with your description of the aforementioned types it really does nothing to help the case for MBTI when a similar argument could be made for why TiNe and TeNi should be grouped together.



so you're saying socionics isn't a theory about dominance, conflict and dynamics of psychic forces, but instead just a random list of mystical and dogmatic "qualitative relations" that need no justification?

where do these "ego" and "id" block designations come from, if not some kind of underlying hierarchy of motivation?
You're going too far with my words. I said that the functions do not have an order like you see in MBTI because the functions in Socionics have qualitative properties. It's not about "30%, 90% strength; big circle, small circle, abcd vs abef". The eight functions instead are seen as having various psychological "symptoms" depending on their logical relationships to the two base functions(e.g. TiNe).

Furthermore you're questioning the Model A which is the classically accepted model for interpreting Socionics but it's not necessary, people have even proposed alternate or simpler models. However at its core Socionics is based on Jung's 3 initial dichotomies: [dominant function], [secondary function], [primarily extraverted or introverted] = Logical Intuitive Introvert (Tx-Ny, Introverted aka TiNe). That's all you need to agree upon.

In any case, this is part of what Socionics offers as a theory of typology. As you mentioned previously they are both unproven frameworks so there is no reason to be rigidly against it. It's just another theory.

socionics goes way too far in deriving curious, pleasant detail from dubious premises. just some big pseudo-math jerkoff i reckon. like a sudoku for psychology. i have read more socionics than you probably think, i'm just not so tempted by the appeal of being able to go all "no actually what you said about some vague phenomenon called cognitive functions is not quite right because i know another slightly more complicated, rigid and specific version of the same completely unproven theoretical framework" on people :P
Like I said in my first response, people who've studied it and prefer are the most critical against it. I've said myself numerous times that Socionics allows baseless extrapolation so easily, even to the point that it's actually mentally stimulating. I don't disagree with you totally here.

I'm not saying Socionics is flawless or that people into MBTI are all idiots, rather I am more concerned with helping people who are as curious and passionate about typology as I am discover the possibilities out there for typology - to let them know that MBTI isn't the only theory out there. I guess I just assume fellow intuitives(;)) would be appreciative of exploring alternative viewpoints.
 

Saoshyant

Put me in Coach
Local time
Today 6:34 AM
Joined
Nov 11, 2009
Messages
119
-->
Go ahead and explain it. You keep criticizing the MBTI approach, but haven't really given any meat to your ideas here. (unless there's another thread somewhere you made on it?)

My starting point is from Jung's writings. Most people's starting point is from MBTI's framework, where our main function is Ti. Instead of spamming Jung's entire writing, I'll provide a link and bullet points for my arguments. I encourage anyone who is interested to read it in full, since it is difficult and confusing reading. My argument is that people who type INTP in MBTI are actually Ni egos according to Jung. And that all introverted functions follow Socionics' framework.

http://psychclassics.yorku.ca/Jung/types.htm

Introverted Thinking (According to Jung) (ISTJ & INTJ)

  • rigid and unbending
  • he is counted inconsiderate and domineering
  • generally stubborn
  • Only with difficulty can he persuade himself to admit that what is clear to him may not be equally clear to everyone
  • His work goes slowly and with difficulty
  • often gauche
  • he appears prickly, inaccessible, haughty

Introverted Intuition (According to Jung) (INTP & INFP)

  • the mystical dreamer
  • complete enigma
  • an unappreciated genius
  • wise simpleton
  • fantastical crank and artist
  • voice of one crying in the wilderness
  • compulsion-neurosis (compulsive ties to definite persons or other objects)
So the remaining:


Fi = ISFJ, INFJ
Si = ISFP, ISTP


So Jung's writings raised a lot of red flags to me, I identify with the latter much more than the former. Although there are a lot of similarities between the two functions, I hope one can see the differences.

And then one can go further with the second function, but I feel comparing the base function is what is the most obvious to an individual.

If you are having trouble seeing/agreeing to this view, you can look at other introverted functions. To claim an INFP has Introverted Feeling according to Jung is almost comical.

And I want to clarify that I am not against the MBTI on a superficial level and I think it does a good job as a test and separating the 16 types of personalities. But once you get deeper into the functions is where I have a problem.
 

Brontosaurie

Banned
Local time
Today 12:34 PM
Joined
Dec 4, 2010
Messages
5,646
-->
The fact that you consider it merely trivia knowledge of the implications of judging/perceiving is indicative of you missing my earlier point that Socionics integrates both the internal perspective of type and external perspective. There are multiple perspectives that always make some types more similar to others in different contexts, so while I agree with your description of the aforementioned types it really does nothing to help the case for MBTI when a similar argument could be made for why TiNe and TeNi should be grouped together.

it sounds all good. but what is "the internal perspective" and "external perspective"? are you still talking about the way the abbreviations work? why does that matter? why is it important that the P/J letter refers to the first function? introverted and extraverted judgment are entirely different things. the are coupled with perception function that goes the other way, as two main executive units of the psyche.

yeah, i know about LII SEE ILE etc. still clumsier, still an extra puzzle layer (this is not first theory bias, this is a consideration of what permutations/operations are allowed with what number of letter conversions within the system, i.e. how well the system works as a typology think-tool as opposed to just a set of codes) still more mental work-around and less gelled than the MBTI nomenclature.

You're going too far with my words. I said that the functions do not have an order like you see in MBTI because the functions in Socionics have qualitative properties. It's not about "30%, 90% strength; big circle, small circle, abcd vs abef". The eight functions instead are seen as having various psychological "symptoms" depending on their logical relationships to the two base functions(e.g. TiNe).

Furthermore you're questioning the Model A which is the classically accepted model for interpreting Socionics but it's not necessary, people have even proposed alternate or simpler models. However at its core Socionics is based on Jung's 3 initial dichotomies: [dominant function], [secondary function], [primarily extraverted or introverted] = Logical Intuitive Introvert (Tx-Ny, Introverted aka TiNe). That's all you need to agree upon.

In any case, this is part of what Socionics offers as a theory of typology. As you mentioned previously they are both unproven frameworks so there is no reason to be rigidly against it. It's just another theory.

what logical relationships are these? how can they be explained without referring to a hierarchy?

there's reason to be apprehensive about a speculation that has abundance of pretty detail and hyper-orthodox formalities rather than just presenting the core mechanics of its hypothesis.

Like I said in my first response, people who've studied it and prefer are the most critical against it. I've said myself numerous times that Socionics allows baseless extrapolation so easily, even to the point that it's actually mentally stimulating. I don't disagree with you totally here.

I'm not saying Socionics is flawless or that people into MBTI are all idiots, rather I am more concerned with helping people who are as curious and passionate about typology as I am discover the possibilities out there for typology - to let them know that MBTI isn't the only theory out there. I guess I just assume fellow intuitives(;)) would be appreciative of exploring alternative viewpoints.

thing is, the "alternative viewpoints" aspect gets completely lost in wankery like "Did You Know That INTP Is Actually A Judging Type Because It Is Ti Dominant" blabla. seen it on these boards too many times. one "gotcha" factoid to rule them all, no interesting discussion. going straight by either MBTI or socionics theory is boring and limiting anyway. just so happens that MBTI's type letter codes are better.
 

EyeSeeCold

lust for life
Local time
Today 3:34 AM
Joined
Aug 12, 2010
Messages
7,848
-->
Location
California, USA
it sounds all good. but what is "the internal perspective" and "external perspective"? are you still talking about the way the abbreviations work? why does that matter? why is it important that the P/J letter refers to the first function? introverted and extraverted judgment are entirely different things. the are coupled with perception function that goes the other way, as two main executive units of the psyche.
I mentioned it already but to reiterate: the internal perspective of types involves type psychology and motivational behavior, and perceptual cognition.

What do I mean by type psychology? Well type means classification, and in MBTI/Socionics there are 16 classifications. By psychology I mean the mental states and processes regarding the dynamics of life. Type psychology then is about looking at what goes on in the mind of a type as they are acting and reacting in the world, including conscious and subconscious mental elements.

What do I mean by motivational behavior? Instead of stopping at the mere observation of types' behaviors, the types are analyzed for their ego motivations which may yield substantial information about their thoughts, actions, and general composition compared to what was previously visible.

What do I mean by perceptual cognition? Every living thing has a type of information processing, in Socionics this refers to the idea that each type interprets reality in their own special way - that they perceive different elements of reality and process reality in a way different from other types (ah I think I might've been redundant there). So a function like Ti is not just a state of being, it's a filter for processing information, and furthermore there are elements of reality that correspond to Ti more than other functions.

With all this in consideration P/J makes much more sense in referring to the nature of the dominant function. But even if someone such as yourself refuses to accept that then, which brings me to the next point,:

yeah, i know about LII SEE ILE etc. still clumsier, still an extra puzzle layer (this is not first theory bias, this is a consideration of what permutations/operations are allowed with what number of letter conversions within the system, i.e. how well the system works as a typology think-tool as opposed to just a set of codes) still more mental work-around and less gelled than the MBTI nomenclature.
You don't even have to accept the four letter type at all. The three letter type avoids all controversy surrounding the J/P dichotomy. To that extent it's not an "extra puzzle layer" and strips down type to its most basic criteria, it makes the least assumptions.

On the contrary I think this is a perfect example of first theory bias.



what logical relationships are these? how can they be explained without referring to a hierarchy?
The functional relationships in Socionics are like the sides of a polyhedron(octahedron to be exact), given the position of two sides all other sides can be deduced, and each side has it's own property. Types are not about hierarchical strength but placement. That's not to say discussion of strength isn't allowed but that it needs more nuanced words for it because in Socionics Ti for Ti-Ne is not the same Ti for Ni-Fe-Ti. It becomes a significantly different manifestation that the measure of "strength" doesn't resolve.

there's reason to be apprehensive about a speculation that has abundance of pretty detail and hyper-orthodox formalities rather than just presenting the core mechanics of its hypothesis.
Of course. We can look at Pod'lair for an example of what can happen. Socionics on the other hand is decentralized, there's no one group dominating and benefiting from its complexity. Still I would argue these complexities are a result of logical elegance rather than forced complication.


thing is, the "alternative viewpoints" aspect gets completely lost in wankery like "Did You Know That INTP Is Actually A Judging Type Because It Is Ti Dominant" blabla. seen it on these boards too many times. one "gotcha" factoid to rule them all, no interesting discussion. going straight by either MBTI or socionics theory is boring and limiting anyway. just so happens that MBTI's type letter codes are better.
Well it's hard to have discussion when people are so attached to their first theory that they're unwilling to explore alternatives. I've read up on Keirsey, Enneagram, MBTI, Socionics, some Pod'lair, Big Five, and others too insignificant to recall yet only MBTI is really discussed here and barely at that.

I'm aware that Architect has tried to get discussions on Keirsey going but a few people have criticized him for bringing it up if I recall correctly, same thing happens to Enneagram. People have even criticized Auburn for his efforts at actually trying to bring hard evidence to typing.
 
Top Bottom