mbti vs. socionics

[ferunandesu]

everyone here says that an mbti INTP is a socionics INTJ.

I tested as an INTP on both

[Edmond Zedo]

everyone here says that an mbti INTP is a socionics INTJ.
Bull-shit.

A very good percentage of us know that's not true, and have to say it regularly to folks like you who refuse to read major articles on socionics.com.

[ferunandesu]

Bull-shit.

A very good percentage of us know that's not true, and have to say it regularly to folks like you who refuse to read major articles on socionics.com.

This is the first time I've ever heard anything different, and I don't appreciate you being an asshole.

[ferunandesu]

besides... it says that the INTJ's main function is Introverted Thinking, that's the dominant function of an INTP for the mbti.

http://www.socionics.com/advan/intjorintp.htm

[ferunandesu]

another one of those articles:

1. INTP's and INTJ's. Based on their MBTI dominant functions, INTP's should correspond to Jung's Introverted thinking type, and INTJ's to Jung's Introverted Intuiting type. Here are brief summaries of Jung's description of those types:

Introverted Intuiting - ineffectual dreamers, mystics, fantasizers. Sometimes end up as the half-wit wise men in "psychological novels". Incredibly bad with communication (other people simply can't understand them, and they can't understand why), though not necessarily unsociable. Often attacked from the unconscious by a primitive extraverted sensing function which results in obsessions with visual images, places, faces, etc. Further, in the section on Introverted irrationals in general, they are described as good teachers who teach not with words but with their life.

Introverted Thinking - cold-blooded strategists, loners, theoretics. Arrogant, unsociable, having a certain disdain for others whom they consider stupid. Seem to others to be constantly angry, almost hateful. Completely certain in their opinions, strong will. Sometimes shamelessly exploited by strong women. Attacked from the unconscious by a primitive extraverted feeling function which makes them take every criticism, even fair, very personally (and later makes them seek revenge).

Note that MBTI would have INTP's as the latter type and INTJ's as the former! Surely the mistake should be bloody OBVIOUS!

[Edmond Zedo]

This is the first time I've ever heard anything different, and I don't appreciate you being an asshole.
I don't appreciate you being retarded. Go to socionics and read something, or run a search on socionics functions, right here at INTP central. Someone has explained this at least a dozen times.

[ferunandesu]

so how can my first post be bullshit if this is what people are saying?

[ferunandesu]

from what i've seen, an mbti INTP could go either way according to socionics.com

[ferunandesu]

I don't appreciate you being retarded.

If you don't appreciate me "being retarded". DON'T FUCKING REPLY TO MY POSTS. Go shovel your spiteful bullshit onto someone else.

[ferunandesu]

http://www.socionics.com/advan/vi/vi.htm

if this sort of bullshit is thrown around on socionics.com, why should I trust anything that they say?

[Edmond Zedo]

so how can my first post be bullshit if this is what people are saying?
No, no, people say that, then someone hopefully corrects them.

[Edmond Zedo]

http://www.socionics.com/advan/vi/vi.htm

if this sort of bullshit is thrown around on socionics.com, why should I trust anything that they say?
I like to use VI when I can...There's a lot else cool about socionics...But whatever. You could try astrology, might be more your thing.


You might want to try condensing your posts. Hell, even edit them to add something. 4 or 5 in a row is pretty bad.

[Kljoki]

I'm not really sure what you goal is here. Are you trying to contrast Socionics theory and MBTT?

EDIT: And you didn't test INTP on the socionics test, you tested as the Critic or ILI.

[Arioch]

I find great irony in someone claiming that socionics is cool and that he uses VI calling someone asking an honest question retarted.

Anyway, back to the actual purpose of the thread


everyone here says that an mbti INTP is a socionics INTJ.

I tested as an INTP on both

People are often either copying it from someone else or going on the thought that xxxx is actually code for which function is the dominant function etc etc. Going on this premise it makes sense to call an INTP in MBTI a INTj in Socionics.

However the flaw in the reasoning is that the systems are directly compatible with eachother. Someone who scores as an INTP in MBTI could (theoretically) score as an ENFP on socionics. Therefor it is perhaps better to use Socionics symbols and such when discussing Socionics and not to borrow codes from MBTI.

[Edmond Zedo]

I find great irony in someone claiming that socionics is cool and that he uses VI calling someone asking an honest question retarted.

OH BOY, it's Arioch.

He didn't ask a question. He just made a false statement (As only some here say that, erroneously), and called me an asshole when I called BS. Then I called him retarded.

Does VI not work just because you think it's silly? Even here, on this board, we discussed an introvert/extrovert face recognition test, and most people here did very well at discerning the two. So it's certainly just WAY TOO FAR OUT to say one could possibly tell anything about another's personality from not just the face, but facial expressions, the body, grooming, attire, and mannerisms. Yeah, that's retarded.

I don't suppose you think they have anything of quality to say about intertype relations either.

[Eileen]

If you read the profiles of INTPs from MBTI sites and from socionics sites, it's pretty clear that they're describing the same type. It's just that Socionics and MBTI disagree about cognitive processes.

[INTrPosr]

another one of those articles:

1. INTP's and INTJ's. Based on their MBTI dominant functions, INTP's should correspond to Jung's Introverted thinking type, and INTJ's to Jung's Introverted Intuiting type. Here are brief summaries of Jung's description of those types:I think you just made everyone's argument that you can't be both types in the two systems Ferunandesu. Socionics believes that the dominant function of INTP is N(i) and T(i) for INTJ.

[Arioch]

mbti just assumes that your dominant function is T(i) if you're a T type and an I type and your dominant extroverted function is N. notice that the socionics INTP is N(i) then N(e)...

mbti also assumes that you can't introvert and extrovert the same function.

Hmm, no. What you have to remember is that INTP, ENFP etc are all codes for the order in which functions are. So INTP really doesn't mean anything other then that your dominant function is Introvert thinking followed by Extrovert Intuition etc. Socionics borrowed the code but with a small difference. For them P and J didn't mean which function was extroverted but rather which one is dominant.

Example

MBTI INTP: I means that the dominant function is introverted. The P/J says which function is extroverted. Since this is a P that means that the irrational (S/N) functions are extroverted). Therefor the dominant function must be Ti

Socionics INTp: I still means that the dominant function is introverted. However, P/J now means which function is *dominant* Because it is a P the irrational function is dominant. In this case Ni.

MBTI does not assume you can't extrovert and introvert the same function. Such would be insane since we all have every 8 functions. MBTI just doesn't always specify where the other four functions go. There are different schools of thought on where they go.

[Yeap]

Urgh. That socionics.com website is really badly designed. It's hard to distinguish between the actual website content and the google adverts on both sides (due to the exact same colour schemes), and most of the google ads are for socionics.com anyway!

[Edmond Zedo]

Urgh. That socionics.com website is really badly designed. It's hard to distinguish between the actual website content and the google adverts on both sides (due to the exact same colour schemes), and most of the google ads are for socionics.com anyway!
It was better a few years ago. Must have been a change of ownership, or a case of insanity.

[INTrPosr]

It was better a few years ago. Must have been a change of ownership, or a case of insanity.The latter.

[Edmond Zedo]

The latter.
It's socionics "Special Edition" now.

[INTrPosr]

I was talking about how the MBTI sums up your type (i.e. testing methods). I was basically saying that the structure of MBTI theory calls for shortcuts like the one I mentioned above when evaluating your type. The dominant type is measured indirectly.How so?

Arioch said,
MBTI does not assume you can't extrovert and introvert the same function. Such would be insane since we all have every 8 functions. MBTI just doesn't always specify where the other four functions go. There are different schools of thought on where they go.

The other four preferences don't have any effect on your type, thus, they might as well cease to exist once they have been ruled out by testing. There are not 8 functions. There are 4. The test measures how you like to use them, makes theoretical assumptions, and then assigns you a type. There are four functions S/N and T/F that each have energies that introvert and extravert, for a total of 8 functions.
A. If it is not preferred, it shouldn't factor in to someone's type.

B. You can only prefer to extrovert one half of a function pair... i.e. You cannot prefer extroverted thinking over introverted thinking if you prefer extroverted feeling over introverted feeling Are these your opinions, or are you referencing to a particular system? This is not MBTI theory. This has been discussed here before, but we do use all eight functions. Depending on whose theory of how the functions secede, the INTP may look like: Ti-Ne-Fi-Se-Ni-Te-Si-Fe. I think Beebe theorizes that they are Ti-Ne-Si-Fe-Te-Ni-Se-Fi or something like that. Someone here has the exact order. There is nothing static about these functions. In fact they are highly fluid and we slip in and out of them instantly. That is why many people say they were INTP while a child and now another type. You are, and always will be, one type. You can internalize with another function other than Ti and extravert with another function other than Ne.


D. the MBTI also assumes that the dominant and inferior functions must both be a function pair (T and F, S and N), and likewise with the auxiliary and tertiary.Correct me someone, but did Jung not say that if you dominate with a particular function, then the opposite will be your weakest function or dichotomy, i.e, Ti-Fe or at least F?. Some functions have look-a-like similarities (per Beren and Nardi). Thus, Ti and Ni may take on the same or similar qualities, as would Ne and Fe. Therefore an INTP may have F or Fe specifically as their least preferred function, however makes up for it using their Ne since they are similar. Some believe that you can work on your weaker functions, but I have read that you can???t. (per Lenore Thomson???s ???Personality Type: An Owner???s Manual???). I think she likens it to be a dominant hand and working to use your weaker hand, but it never comes natural.

[Kljoki]

Correct me someone, but did Jung not say that if you dominate with a particular function, then the opposite will be your weakest function or dichotomy, i.e, Ti-Fe or at least F?Hmmm, I'm a dominant Ni and my least preferred function is Fi. I hate it with burning passion. But that may be environmental. But I don't know if it's weak or not. I'd say my weakest is Si.

[INTrPosr]

Hmmm, I'm a dominant Ni and my least preferred function is Fi. I hate it with burning passion. But that may be environmental. But I don't know if it's weak or not. I'd say my weakest is Si.Makes sense, are you INTP or INFP? I agree about the semantics. I would like to get in the habit of saying lesser or least developed function(s).

[wildcat]

If you read the profiles of INTPs from MBTI sites and from socionics sites, it's pretty clear that they're describing the same type. It's just that Socionics and MBTI disagree about cognitive processes.
Many adherents of Socionics claim the MBTI does not follow Jung because they have the dominant function of the introverted P type as the judging one: Ti or Fi.
In the MBTI conception the extraverted auxiliary Ne/Se means P. It stands for spontaneous processing.
Socionics solves the problem by introducing Ni/Si as the primary function. The problem is that Si/Ni does not stand for spontaneous but for circumspectal processing, enhanced by the extraverted judging Fe/Te.
Soc. may have the correct order, but the incorrect function. MBTI may have the correct function, but the incorrect order.
You cannot have it both ways.

[ferunandesu]

there are four functions, and two ways to use them... introverted intuition is still intuition. extroverted intuition is still intuition.

if you want to say that there are 8, then go ahead
______________________________________________

that may not be the theory, but that's how you're filtered into a type

[Kljoki]

Many adherents of Socionics claim the MBTI does not follow Jung because they have the dominant function of the introverted P type as the judging one: Ti or Fi. Actually the more I learn of socionics, the more I realize that socionics makes really no such claim. That it's all a misunderstanding that arose from the conclusion that they are talking about the same thing. They are not. Socionics scales are not the same ones as the ones in MBTT. I see no point in contrasting them as the same thing and think others who do are wrong.
In the MBTI conception the extraverted auxiliary Ne/Se means P. It stands for spontaneous processing. Socionics solves the problem by introducing Ni/Si as the primary function. The problem is that Si/Ni does not stand for spontaneous but for circumspectal processing, enhanced by the extraverted judging Fe/Te.
Soc. may have the correct order, but the incorrect function. MBTI may have the correct function, but the incorrect order.
You cannot have it both ways.I do not understand http://free-st.t-com.hr/snegledmaca/Smilies/confused1.gif

[Kljoki]

there are four functions, and two ways to use them... introverted intuition is still intuition. extroverted intuition is still intuition.

if you want to say that there are 8, then go ahead
______________________________________________

that may not be the theory, but that's how you're filtered into a type I'm not really sure about MBTT as there seems to be a lot of different views on it, but that's the way functions are in socionics. There are four "functions" T, F, S, N. They are arranged in the psyche and each has different manifestations which register as parts of the psyche. (Vulnerable function, Role function, Creative function, Leading function, Demonstrative function, Ignoring function, Mobilizing function, Suggestive function (http://www.socionics.us/theory/model.shtml))

[wildcat]

Actually the more I learn of socionics, the more I realize that socionics makes really no such claim. That it's all a misunderstanding that arose from the conclusion that they are talking about the same thing. They are not. Socionics scales are not the same ones as the ones in MBTT. I see no point in contrasting them as the same thing and think others who do are wrong.I do not understand http://free-st.t-com.hr/snegledmaca/Smilies/confused1.gif
Socionics has Ni Te for INTP as the primary function unit. This is because they think it a Jungian concept that N goes before T. Maybe it is so. I am not attacking Socionics, I am trying to understand the difference with MBTI which brings about so much confusion.
Okay, they have the Ni Te. But the N should be extraverted for a reason I explained above. The T should be introverted. But it cannot be Ne Ti. This would mean ENTP.
Think of Green colour. Green consists of blue and yellow. Blue and yellow are opposites.
So it is with extraversion. Extraversion consists of P and J and these are opposites.
In the colour of green to increase yellow is to decrease blue. It does not matter how extraverted a type is, it cannot have both P and J dominant. One gives way for the other.
Hence Ne stands for P but Ni stands for J. Te stands for J but Ti stands for P.
What do you think should be the function order for INTP?

[Kljoki]

Socionics has Ni Te for INTP as the primary function unit. This is because they think it a Jungian concept that N goes before T. Maybe it is so. I am not attacking Socionics, I am trying to understand the difference with MBTI which brings about so much confusion.Actually socionics has Ni - Te for the Critic or ILI (Intuitive logical intratim). That means that the type has introverted (Intratim) intuition (Intuitive) as leading and extraverted logic as creative function.
Okay, they have the Ni Te. But the N should be extraverted for a reason I explained above. What reason? The reason I posted "I do not understand" was in hopes of you clarifying it to me because I really do not understand why exactly your interpretation is "better". You have proved noting. You just assumed the model's correctness.
The T should be introverted. But it cannot be Ne Ti. This would mean ENTP.
Think of Green colour. Green consists of blue and yellow. Blue and yellow are opposites.
So it is with extraversion. Extraversion consists of P and J and these are opposites.Extraversion does not consist of P and J.
In the colour of green to increase yellow is to decrease blue. It does not matter how extraverted a type is, it cannot have both P and J dominant.Not according to Jung.
One gives way for the other.
Hence Ne stands for P but Ni stands for J. Te stands for J but Ti stands for P. Why do only Ne and Se stand for P? (I am really curious for a non speculative explanation)
What do you think should be the function order for INTP?I think INTP has no function ordering. That "INTP" is a behavioral model, that is, being INTP is independent of the functions that make up the psyche.

[INTrPosr]

there are four functions, and two ways to use them... introverted intuition is still intuition. extroverted intuition is still intuition. If you want to say that there are 8, then go aheadWhat theory are you relating to? Read "Gifts Differing" if you are alluding to MBTI. Myers-Briggs, as well as Jung, are explicit that there are eight type functions. Contrary to your argument, they are not the same, the energy of each makes up for a function which is energized by the direction it goes, i.e., Ti/Te, Ni/Ne. Not sure what you are reading, but it's not MBTI.

[wildcat]

What is the basis of behaviour, Kljoki?

P = Ne Fi
Ti Se

this includes the primary function units of all P types.


J = Ni Fe
Te Si

This means only extraverted N or S can stand for P. Ne is not an active ingredient of a function. It stands for impulsive processing.
Extraversion is ambivalent. It consists of opposing ingredients. P and J portray the dichotomy of E. And this is their only function.
Impulsivity means that the processing function is extraverted. This is the essence of impulsivity. Activity means that the judging function is extraverted.

Is Socionics a branch of Behaviorism? The School of the 60s?

[INTrPosr]

Wildcat
What do you think should be the function order for INTP?

Kljoki
I think INTP has no function ordering. That "INTP" is a behavioral model, that is, being INTP is independent of the functions that make up the psyche. And here lies the problem. Socionics should have never began using the four letter codes.

So many hybrids and theories have muddled issues with type, by using the four letter codes of MBTI. If you read Keirsey, you are reading temperament, which has adopted the codes of MBTI, if you read Kroeger, Tieger, Berens/Nardi, you are reading hybrids of temperament, they just used the four letter codes.

This is simple, Myers-Briggs met with Jung during the early 20’s, to discuss taking Personality Type to the next level (no need to take my word, google it), wherein he agreed with her theory. If you are using type functions in any means, you are basing your theory on the man’s principles. Until anyone can show any other founder of a system taking their work to him, then if they use type functions or the four letter codes, they are basing their work on Jung and the MBTI. Besides, this is instant debate is quite silly. If anyone arguing MBTI has not read Myers-Briggs’ book on the subject, “Gifts Differing” then you might as well shut the fuck up. They have a book, read the damn thin and stop these stupid arguments. Furthermore, read Jung’s Psychological Types.

[Kljoki]

What is the basis of behaviour, Kljoki? The psyche of course.
P = Ne Fi
Ti Se

this includes the primary function units of all P types.P = N, S
J = Ni Fe
Te SiJ = T, F
This means only extraverted N or S can stand for P. The P - J scale was introduced to determine functions. But as you state Ne and Se are P and Fe and Te are J in MBTT.


Ne is not an active ingredient of a function. It stands for impulsive processing.
Extraversion is ambivalent. It consists of opposing ingredients. P and J portray the dichotomy of E. And this is their only function.
Impulsivity means that the processing function is extraverted. This is the essence of impulsivity. Activity means that the judging function is extraverted.
I seriously have severe problems with grasping your ideas. I really do. Anyway, I've kind of concluded that what you are arguing is pure MBTT and I see no real point in "battling it out".


Is Socionics a branch of Behaviorism? The School of the 60s?I don't know.

[Kljoki]

And here lies the problem. Socionics should have never began using the four letter codes.They were under the impression that they were talking about the same thing. They later realized they were not.

[Kljoki]

A question for wildcat, how do you know any of those things you claim?

[ferunandesu]

what am I reading? well, it seems that i'm reading something different everywhere that I go.

[wildcat]

A question for wildcat, how do you know any of those things you claim?
I read later studies of extraversion quite intensively for five years in the library of the uni where I was a student. I read all the works of Eysenck many times too. Also brain research and chemistry. I was actually a history and an archaeology student.
Physiologically, E is an attempt to optimize a chronically low activity level of the cortex. Not surprisingly, low cortex activity corresponds a high energy level. E divides into J and P.
J conserves energy, P consumes it.
Of course, I did not know it at the time. I used the appellatives activity and impulsivity, respectively.

[jyakulis]

I read later studies of extraversion quite intensively for five years in the library of the uni where I was a student. I read all the works of Eysenck many times too. Also brain research and chemistry. I was actually a history and an archaeology student.
Physiologically, E is an attempt to optimize a chronically low activity level of the cortex. Not surprisingly, low cortex activity corresponds a high energy level. E divides into J and P.
J conserves energy, P consumes it.
Of course, I did not know it at the time. I used the appellatives activity and impulsivity, respectively.

^^ correct sir

[Kljoki]

Ok wildcat, I would like you to define me a couple of terms and how they relate to each other the way you understand it.

E =

I =

P =

J =

T =

F =

S =

N =

Ni =
Ne =

Ti =
Te =

Si =
Se =

Fi =
Fe =

Function ordering for let's say INFJ and ENFP and explain to me exactly why every function is in the place it is.

[wildcat]

Extraversion is a pain avoidance process. It is an attempt to bring a chronically low level of cortical activity up into an optimal level. Low cortical activity is directly associated with a high level of energy. I discuss your query through the standpoint of the dichotomy of E. The dichotomies of the perceiving and the judging functions have been widely discussed n the forum.

Introversion is an attempt to bring a chronically high level of cortical activity down into an optimal level. It is associated with a low energy level.

P is a dichotomy of E. It consumes the energy of E.
J is a dichotomy of E. It conserves the energy.

Thinking and Feeling are the judging functions.

Ti and Fi ate temperamentally the passive functions. Vocationally they stand for evaluation.

Te and Fe are temperamentally the active functions. Vocationally they stand for control.

The function order of INFJ is
Ni Fe Fi Ne Si Te Ti Se

Ni Fe and Si Te precede the P function units. N functions precede the S functions. Introverted functions precede the extraverted functions within the units. Fe and Fi precede Te and Ti. Hence INFJ

The function order of ENFP is
Ne Fi Fe Ni Se Ti Te Si

P signifies that the P function units Ne Fi and Se Ti precede the J function units Fe Ni and Te Si. N signifies that the N functions precede the S functions. Extraversion means that in every function unit the extraverted function precedes the introverted function. F means that the F functions precede the T functions.

N and S are the perceiving functions.

Ni and Si are temperamentally the stable functions. Vocationally they stands for obligation.

Ne and Se temperamentally are the impulsive functions.
Vocationally they stand for communication.

[atypical]

This stuff might be relevant to MBTT but it is meaningless in the context of socionics. Extraversion in socionics isn't really a "process" on its own that can be broken down.

[wildcat]

This stuff might be relevant to MBTT but it is meaningless in the context of socionics. Extraversion in socionics isn't really a "process" on its own that can be broken down.
I do not adhere to a singular theory. I am talking in the way of general psychology. Many people here are like religionist sectionists arguing about who is right. It is not who is right but what is right.
You can study what is in the water. Water is still only water.

[ferunandesu]

I do not adhere to a singular theory. I am talking in the way of general psychology. Many people here are like religionist sectionists arguing about who is right. It is not who is right but what is right.
You can study what is in the water. Water is still only water.

I agree... People here also don't seem to be open to new ideas... Like my MBTI mutation involving bandit "shadow" functions...

[wildcat]

I agree... People here also don't seem to be open to new ideas... Like my MBTI mutation involving bandit "shadow" functions...
Yes. There are various methods. I think it is futile and pointless to place them against each other and argue blah blah that MBTI or Socionics is better than the other blah blah.. they are just tools. I work with MBTI now but I do not adhere to it in any kind of dogmatic way. Briggs was certainly a very talented researcher. She had her faults. She left the cognitive processes open for misinterpretation. The type INTP has Fe as the eighth of the eight functions in the order of declension (the function development). It is the least developed function. It is not the fourth function in the function order of eight functions.
Socionics on the other hand has the P/J switch in introversion but not in extraversion.
I would like to learn more of your MBTI mutation involving bandit shadow functions.

[INTrPosr]

She had her faults. She left the cognitive processes open for misinterpretation. The type INTP has Fe as the eighth of the eight functions in the order of declension (the function development). It is the least developed function. It is not the fourth function in the function order of eight functions.I don't know whether Myers-Briggs referenced to the secession of functions for types. I have read similar to you, where some have their view of how the type functions go sequentially per type, with Fe being the least function. I have also read (for example Beebee and Linda V. Berens) where some do see Fe higher up for INTP. Berens says the order is Ti-Ne-Si-Fe-Te-Ni-Se-Fi. Not sure which is correct.

[TelecomClone]

everyone here says that an mbti INTP is a socionics INTJ.

I tested as an INTP on both
Contrary to the controversy that this comment has caused, I have noticed what appears to be a significant number of INTP scorers on these boards speaking of being INTJ on this test. After re-checking the conversion table (http://similarminds.com/global5/g5-jung.html) at similarminds, it seems that I also test INTP on both scales. Assuming that conversion table is accurate.

RcuE|I|
R(88%) C(54%) U(60%) E(88%) I(90%)

However, I have never put too much stock into the internet versions of these tests. They generally strike me as being a lot like horoscopes (with very few exceptions), making the results more of a novelty than anything useful.

[ferunandesu]

it really doesn't matter which functions are weaker or stronger... the vast majority of tests base type on the dominant and auxiliary functions, and then assume the rest based on theory... leaving room for difference between the types...

http://www.cognitiveprocesses.com/intp.html

i can appreciate the intent of this model of the processes... and I understand what it means, but I still believe (in general), primary functions, especially the tertiary and auxiliary, are overemphasized when formulating type descriptions... i personally believe that the shadow processes can play a major role in an individuals personality, and these well developed shadow processes may explain why certain people switch in and out of certain types...

from what I've read, it seems that most people theorize that the shadow functions are only used in periods of stress and trauma... based on my own personal experience, i don't believe this to be true.

in one place, i read that when the dominant function fails to solve a problem for a type, he/she will move along to other functions based on whatever order a particular theory or school of thought calls for...

i don't believe that the order in which someone progresses through the functions can be determined from the dominant and auxiliary processes... most people seem to think that if Ti is used the most, then Fe has to be used the least... and that the same sort of polarity holds true for all of the preferences and functions, with I opposing E, N opposing S, and F opposing T...

personality is not a dichotomy

if you want a reasonable amount of evidence, go here:

http://forums.intpcentral.com/showthread.php?t=4260

[wildcat]

I don't know whether Myers-Briggs referenced to the secession of functions for types. I have read similar to you, where some have their view of how the type functions go sequentially per type, with Fe being the least function. I have also read (for example Beebee and Linda V. Berens) where some do see Fe higher up for INTP. Berens says the order is Ti-Ne-Si-Fe-Te-Ni-Se-Fi. Not sure which is correct.
What has Berens to say about her function order? I accepted that is the accepted version yes. I do not think it is the best choice to present the function the way she does. First the conscious and developed unit Ti- Ne, then the conscious inferior unit Si-Fe. However, she does not mean Si-Fe is the second unit in the hierarchy of development of functions.
Consciousness refers only to consciousness and has nothing to do with development.
INTP is genetically disposed to develop in the first order the perceiving functions Ti Ne and in the second order the judging functions Ni Te, in the inferior first order Fi Se and as inferior inferior Si Fe. Look at Cognitive Processes, Online Tests in the forum. Look at the function order. How many members has Fe over Fi? There may be one or two but at quick search I found only deepsky, who had a parity.

[ferunandesu]

INTP is genetically disposed...

:crazy:

I can understand I vs. E being a genetic disposition moderately affected by experience... but as for everything else, i'm not seeing it...

I also don't see why you implied that genetic disposition can be inferred from type, and not the other way around...

[wildcat]

:crazy:

I can understand I vs. E being a genetic disposition moderately affected by experience... but as for everything else, i'm not seeing it...

I also don't see why you implied that genetic disposition can be inferred from type, and not the other way around...
The entire dichotomy is the dichotomy of E. Thi is how the Cognitive Processes are born. The type is the genetic disposition.
The dichotomy of E is P and J:
P:

Ne Fi
Ti Se

J:

Ni Fe
Te Si

are the 16 function units.

[ferunandesu]

The entire dichotomy is the dichotomy of E. Thi is how the Cognitive Processes are born. The type is the genetic disposition.
The dichotomy of E is P and J:
P:

Ne Fi
Ti Se

J:

Ni Fe
Te Si

are the 16 function units.

could you post a link to something that explains this better?

anyways... i said earlier that there probably is no dichotomy... this "birth" of the cognitive processes seems to have produced a dead fetus that is being passed off as the newborn king of personality psychology

[wildcat]

could you post a link to something that explains this better?

anyways... i said earlier that there probably is no dichotomy... this "birth" of the cognitive processes seems to have produced a dead fetus that is being passed off as the newborn king of personality psychology
It depends what is your objective. What I have explained here is not only MBTI but general psychology up to Eysenck in the field of E. Eysenck studied E most of his life. If you want to stay with Jung and want to believe in ikons it is all right with me too. If you want to believe Jung knew everything already in a time when brain research and other observation methods had not yet been developed and the only thing you need is to read Jung and Socionics it is all right with me. If you accept Eysenck but want to make an ikon out of him it is all right with me too. Make him an ikon beside of Jung. Do you want me to send you the posters of Jung and Eysenck or do you only want the poster of Jung? My advice is to put only Jung on the wall and remember to get a small table beside the ikon. Buy two candles and the Bible of Socionics in Russian.
I agree with you. We need to forget everything that has been found out during the latter part of the 20th Century.
We do not need the bullshit. We need only Ikons and candles and the Socionics Bible. In Russian of course.

[ferunandesu]

It depends what is your objective. What I have explained here is not only MBTI but general psychology up to Eysenck in the field of E. Eysenck studied E most of his life. If you want to stay with Jung and want to believe in ikons it is all right with me too. If you want to believe Jung knew everything already in a time when brain research and other observation methods had not yet been developed and the only thing you need is to read Jung and Socionics it is all right with me. If you accept Eysenck but want to make an ikon out of him it is all right with me too. Make him an ikon beside of Jung. Do you want me to send you the posters of Jung and Eysenck or do you only want the poster of Jung? My advice is to put only Jung on the wall and remember to get a small table beside the ikon. Buy two candles and the Bible of Socionics in Russian.
I agree with you. We need to forget everything that has been found out during the latter part of the 20th Century.
We do not need the bullshit. We need only Ikons and candles and the Socionics Bible. In Russian of course.


hey. i hate socionics also... and i especially hate Jung.

i like trait theory.

[wildcat]

hey. i hate socionics also... and i especially hate Jung.

i like trait theory.
I do not hate Socionics and especially I do not hate Jung. Jung lived in his time and he was a great man. Socionics may have a place. I do not know of it enough to say for sure. Myers Briggs team certainly did come up with something.
Extraversion was the great discovery of Jung. Eysenck discovered that the dichotomy of Exraversion takes place via activity and impulsion. In MB terminology J and P, respectively. In the Cognitive Process thematics activity is Fe/Te-Ni/Si and in the declension into Introversion Ni/Si-Fe/te where it is defined as Stability. Impulsivity is Ne/Se-Ti/Fi and in the declension into introversion Ti/Fi-Ne/Se where it is defined as non Activity or passivity.
Eysenck studied E as an undivided structure and as a divided structure. He was en empirist. Not a talented one for sure, but a diligent and belligerent scholar. One can learn also of the likes of him.

[ferunandesu]

I do not hate Socionics and especially I do not hate Jung. Jung lived in his time and he was a great man. Socionics may have a place. I do not know of it enough to say for sure. Myers Briggs team certainly did come up with something.
Extraversion was the great discovery of Jung. Eysenck discovered that the dichotomy of Exraversion takes place via activity and impulsion. In MB terminology J and P, respectively. In the Cognitive Process thematics activity is Fe/Te-Ni/Si and in the declension into Introversion Ni/Si-Fe/te where it is defined as Stability. Impulsivity is Ne/Se-Ti/Fi and in the declension into introversion Ti/Fi-Ne/Se where it is defined as non Activity or passivity.
Eysenck studied E as an undivided structure and as a divided structure. He was en empirist. Not a talented one for sure, but a diligent and belligerent scholar. One can learn also of the likes of him.


i still hate jung

[wildcat]

i still hate jung
It is healthy you dropped Socionics from the hate list. It is the beginning. One step at a time. Examine your heart. Lounge on the divan of your analyst. One day you will discover you do not hate Jung any more.

[Kljoki]

Well wildcat, I've actually decided to do a logical analysis on your claims in this thread


Many adherents of Socionics claim the MBTI does not follow Jung because they have the dominant function of the introverted P type as the judging one: Ti or Fi. Ok, this is true.


In the MBTI conception the extraverted auxiliary Ne/Se means P. It stands for spontaneous processing.
Socionics solves the problem by introducing Ni/Si as the primary function. The problem is that Si/Ni does not stand for spontaneous but for circumspectal processing, enhanced by the extraverted judging Fe/Te.

I can tell you right now that "Si", "Ne", "Se" and "Ni" do not stand for processing ... period. They stand for perceiving. Unless you believe that we process our environment instead of perceiving it. But I could see how somebody with a dominant rational process could make that mistake. After all, you actually do process your environment primarily. In any case, I can assure you, perceiving is not processing. Not even spontaneous processing.
But in case you were actually referring to perceiving when referring to processing, your differentiations are then absurd. Spontaneous vs. Circumspective perception?
First, perception can only be spontaneous, unless you actually stop to think "Gee, am I going to perceive this or not?" But then again, that's judging.
And as for circumspective, why couldn't information gathered by Se be just a circumspective as one by Ni? I'd say it is by far more circumspective then that of Ni. Ni bares little grip on reality. Se has a full grip.
Also, perception can't even be circumspective. It can only be (Subjectively) perceived as such.


Soc. may have the correct order, but the incorrect function. MBTI may have the correct function, but the incorrect order.The only one here that has the wrong order or functions is you (As shown above).


Socionics has Ni Te for INTP as the primary function unit.Socionics has the following structure for the Intuitive Logical Intratim (ILI, INTp):

Vulnerable function: Fe
Creative function: Te
Role function: Si
Leading function: Ni
Demonstrative function: Ti
Ignoring function: Ne
Mobilizing function: Fi
Suggestive function: Se

And this for the Logical Intuitive Intratim (LII, INTj):

Vulnerable function: Se
Creative function: Ne
Role function: Fi
Leading function: Ti
Demonstrative function: Ni
Ignoring function: Te
Mobilizing function: Si
Suggestive function: Fe


This is because they think it a Jungian concept that N goes before T.
You made that up on the spot, didn't you? Proof please.


Maybe it is so. I am not attacking Socionics, I am trying to understand the difference with MBTI which brings about so much confusion. A very, very, poor effort on your side.



First to clear this up.

Think of Green colour. Green consists of blue and yellow. Blue and yellow are opposites.
So it is with extraversion. Extraversion consists of P and J and these are opposites.
Extroversion, described by Jung, does not. That's the one that is associated with the functions he describes and you are referencing to. To quote Jung

On extroversion

Now, when the orientation to the object and to objective facts is so predominant that the most frequent and essential decisions and actions are determined, not by subjective values but by objective relations, one speaks of an extraverted attitude. When this is habitual, one speaks of an extraverted type. If a man so thinks, feels, and acts, in a word so lives, as to correspond directly with objective conditions and their claims, whether in a good sense or ill, he is extraverted. His life makes it perfectly clear that it is the objective rather than the subjective value which plays the greater role as the determining factor of his consciousness. He naturally has subjective values, but their determining power has less importance than the external objective conditions. Never, therefore, does he expect to find any absolute factors in his own inner life, since the only ones he knows are outside himself.
On introversion

As I have already explained in section A (1) of the present chapter, the introverted is distinguished from the extraverted type by the fact that, unlike the latter, who is prevailingly orientated by the object and objective data, he is governed by subjective factors. In the section alluded to I mentioned, inter alia, that the introvert interposes a subjective view between the perception of the object and his own action, which prevents the action from assuming a character that corresponds with the objective situation. I admit, these two quotes are taken out of full context, but they are sufficient to describe the atributes assciated with N, S, T and F.
In short, extroversion means objective intuition (Ne), sensing (Se), felling (Fe) and thinking (Te), while introversion means subjective intuition (Ni), sensing (Si), feeling (Fi), and thinking (Ti).



Now I want to address these claims that seem to be the backbone of your assumptions.

I read later studies of extraversion quite intensively for five years in the library of the uni where I was a student. I read all the works of Eysenck many times too. Also brain research and chemistry. I was actually a history and an archaeology student.
Physiologically, E is an attempt to optimize a chronically low activity level of the cortex. Not surprisingly, low cortex activity corresponds a high energy level.and
Extraversion is a pain avoidance process. It is an attempt to bring a chronically low level of cortical activity up into an optimal level. Low cortical activity is directly associated with a high level of energy. I discuss your query through the standpoint of the dichotomy of E. The dichotomies of the perceiving and the judging functions have been widely discussed n the forum.

Introversion is an attempt to bring a chronically high level of cortical activity down into an optimal level. It is associated with a low energy level.
I will now attempt to apply your definitions to the two existing systems here. The basic assumption is that they correspond in the basic construct of these two systems.
For MBTT - the functions, the types
For Socionics - the intertype relations, the model of psyche, the functions, the types.

By this logic, ok, I have a chronic state of low cortical activity. This means then that I want to engage in activities to reach a state of balance. I want to raise my cortical activity. I will waste energy reserves on boosting the performance of the brain thereby raising its cortical activity. You define extroversion as exactly this process. To quote you

Extraversion is a pain avoidance process. It is an attempt to bring a chronically low level of cortical activity up into an optimal level.
The psyche has two stages of dealing with the world. First it perceives it and then it processes it.
If I want to raise my cortical activity, and which I do, would I be doing it by engaging in more activities, that is, flaring up my psyche, that is, engaging in more perceiving and more processing of the world.
So it seams logical that by engaging in perceiving and processing I'm boosting my cortical activity. So that would basically mean that all the functions are extraverted as they are entirely in the psyche.
Also for the case of the opposite or raised cortical activity, one would need to lower the activity of the psyche. To quote you

Introversion is an attempt to bring a chronically high level of cortical activity down into an optimal level. One would do that by shutting off the things that are raising it or i.e. by not being conscious.
That would be basically sleeping, so I guess introversion would be what happens while we are sleeping.

Ok, so all functions are extroverted being that they raise the cortical activity. But this only leaves four functions if we are to split the perception to intuition and sensing and processing to thinking and feeling.
Here you lost MBTT and socionics. You do not have 8 functions so your system is not MBTT or Socionics.

And here I kindly ask you to stop addressing your definitions as the prevailing definitions and terms addressed either by MBTT or socionics.
And the rest you stated is pretty useless in terms of MBTT or Socionics.

Now you could redefine everything but what it seems to me is that you're devising a system of your own, and as such independent of the starting one. If that is the case you'll have to prove the superiority (Or inferiority) of your system to these two in terms of describing human behaviour before bringing down the old ones.

Also I really have to address this


Socionics on the other hand has the P/J switch in introversion but not in extraversion. This is wrong. I don't know why you believe this is true but it would be best if you stopped advertising this misinformation. Turn here (http://www.intuitivecentral.com/forum/showthread.php?t=2960) for evidence.

[wildcat]

Well wildcat, I've actually decided to do a logical analysis on your claims in this thread

Ok, this is true.



I can tell you right now that "Si", "Ne", "Se" and "Ni" do not stand for processing ... period. They stand for perceiving. Unless you believe that we process our environment instead of perceiving it. But I could see how somebody with a dominant rational process could make that mistake. After all, you actually do process your environment primarily. In any case, I can assure you, perceiving is not processing. Not even spontaneous processing.
But in case you were actually referring to perceiving when referring to processing, your differentiations are then absurd. Spontaneous vs. Circumspective perception?
First, perception can only be spontaneous, unless you actually stop to think "Gee, am I going to perceive this or not?" But then again, that's judging.
And as for circumspective, why couldn't information gathered by Se be just a circumspective as one by Ni? I'd say it is by far more circumspective then that of Ni. Ni bares little grip on reality. Se has a full grip.
Also, perception can't even be circumspective. It can only be (Subjectively) perceived as such.

The only one here that has the wrong order or functions is you (As shown above).

Socionics has the following structure for the Intuitive Logical Intratim (ILI, INTp):

Vulnerable function: Fe
Creative function: Te
Role function: Si
Leading function: Ni
Demonstrative function: Ti
Ignoring function: Ne
Mobilizing function: Fi
Suggestive function: Se

And this for the Logical Intuitive Intratim (LII, INTj):

Vulnerable function: Se
Creative function: Ne
Role function: Fi
Leading function: Ti
Demonstrative function: Ni
Ignoring function: Te
Mobilizing function: Si
Suggestive function: Fe


You made that up on the spot, didn't you? Proof please.

A very, very, poor effort on your side.



First to clear this up.

Extroversion, described by Jung, does not. That's the one that is associated with the functions he describes and you are referencing to. To quote Jung

On extroversion

On introversion
I admit, these two quotes are taken out of full context, but they are sufficient to describe the atributes assciated with N, S, T and F.
In short, extroversion means objective intuition (Ne), sensing (Se), felling (Fe) and thinking (Te), while introversion means subjective intuition (Ni), sensing (Si), feeling (Fi), and thinking (Ti).



Now I want to address these claims that seem to be the backbone of your assumptions.
and
I will now attempt to apply your definitions to the two existing systems here. The basic assumption is that they correspond in the basic construct of these two systems.
For MBTT - the functions, the types
For Socionics - the intertype relations, the model of psyche, the functions, the types.

By this logic, ok, I have a chronic state of low cortical activity. This means then that I want to engage in activities to reach a state of balance. I want to raise my cortical activity. I will waste energy reserves on boosting the performance of the brain thereby raising its cortical activity. You define extroversion as exactly this process. To quote you

The psyche has two stages of dealing with the world. First it perceives it and then it processes it.
If I want to raise my cortical activity, and which I do, would I be doing it by engaging in more activities, that is, flaring up my psyche, that is, engaging in more perceiving and more processing of the world.
So it seams logical that by engaging in perceiving and processing I'm boosting my cortical activity. So that would basically mean that all the functions are extraverted as they are entirely in the psyche.
Also for the case of the opposite or raised cortical activity, one would need to lower the activity of the psyche. To quote you
One would do that by shutting off the things that are raising it or i.e. by not being conscious.
That would be basically sleeping, so I guess introversion would be what happens while we are sleeping.

Ok, so all functions are extroverted being that they raise the cortical activity. But this only leaves four functions if we are to split the perception to intuition and sensing and processing to thinking and feeling.
Here you lost MBTT and socionics. You do not have 8 functions so your system is not MBTT or Socionics.

And here I kindly ask you to stop addressing your definitions as the prevailing definitions and terms addressed either by MBTT or socionics.
And the rest you stated is pretty useless in terms of MBTT or Socionics.

Now you could redefine everything but what it seems to me is that you're devising a system of your own, and as such independent of the starting one. If that is the case you'll have to prove the superiority (Or inferiority) of your system to these two in terms of describing human behaviour before bringing down the old ones.

Also I really have to address this

This is wrong. I don't know why you believe this is true but it would be best if you stopped advertising this misinformation. Turn here (http://www.intuitivecentral.com/forum/showthread.php?t=2960) for evidence.
This is a too large agenda for me to go through with one post, especially because I have other things at hand. I discuss the first topic now.
Every function is based on a cognitive process. Perception is a process. PT stands in balance between impulsion and reflection. Reflection is not control but assumes the place of control when control is weak. I call it control in the case. This is the agenda behind procrastination. In introversion control and drive (T and P) balance each other out: the outcome is that neither of the parties gets the upper hand. Impulsion hinders reflection; reflection hinders impulsion. It is a cul de sac, a blind alley. There is no immediate action; there is no decision not to take action. The ITP individual takes action only when he is forced to take action.
Hence perception is not only spontaneous. The T stops to reflect: and hence hinders the process of impulsion.
I come back later.

[Kljoki]

This is a too large agenda for me to go through with one post, especially because I have other things at hand. I discuss the first topic now. When you have the time then. I'm really interested in your ideas and what you have to say.



Every function is based on a cognitive process. Perception is a process. PT stands in balance between impulsion and reflection. Reflection is not control but assumes the place of control when control is weak. I call it control in the case. This is the agenda behind procrastination. In introversion control and drive (T and P) balance each other out: the outcome is that neither of the parties gets the upper hand. Impulsion hinders reflection; reflection hinders impulsion. It is a cul de sac, a blind alley. There is no immediate action; there is no decision not to take action. The ITP individual takes action only when he is forced to take action.
Hence perception is not only spontaneous. The T stops to reflect: and hence hinders the process of impulsion. You act as if perception is dependent upon reflection. WTH? In terms of dominance, yes, the dominant process would inhibit others, but not in terms of processing information. I do not stop perceiving while reflecting.
Are you suggesting we actually switch dominance between functions till they balance each other out? Then what's the point of attributing some types? A Ti Ne would be the same as Ne Ti if the functions balance each other out.


I notice some of the things I said regarding your assumptions in that post are wrong. Like that sleeping lowers the brains cortical activity. An assumption that I think could be wrong because the longer I stay awake the more I start acting like an "E" by Eysenck and that would mean by you that my cortical activity is low. So if sleeping lowers it, it would be bad to sleep :(.
But still, I'm wondering how it is possible for a cognitive process to actually lower cortical activity?

Also, a thing I'm wondering is, how do you descriptions relate to cognitive processes at all?

Cognitive processes are about what information we gather, not our behaviour. Only if that somehow changes information and would result in different information being acquired while in different modes. But then we still have to look at what information is being gathered.
But you describe no such thing. Not even hinting at the possibility of it. You purely describe behaviour without even considering the cognitive processes and then labeling this as cognitive processes. Those are not cognitive processes you are describing, but rather modes of operation.
That's why I think that you shouldn't attribute all these things to what are in essence *information gathering processes*. Unless of course, their manifestations are the same for each type. In which case it would make sense to describe these manifestations.

And



Impulsion hinders reflection; reflection hinders impulsion. It is a cul de sac, a blind alley. There is no immediate action; there is no decision not to take action.

Here you perfectly described my actions. I'm being serious. But the thing is, I'm Ni dominant (Ni - Fe). How would you explain that?

[wildcat]

When you have the time then. I'm really interested in your ideas and what you have to say.

You act as if perception is dependent upon reflection. WTH? In terms of dominance, yes, the dominant process would inhibit others, but not in terms of processing information. I do not stop perceiving while reflecting.
Are you suggesting we actually switch dominance between functions till they balance each other out? Then what's the point of attributing some types? A Ti Ne would be the same as Ne Ti if the functions balance each other out.


I notice some of the things I said regarding your assumptions in that post are wrong. Like that sleeping lowers the brains cortical activity. An assumption that I think could be wrong because the longer I stay awake the more I start acting like an "E" by Eysenck and that would mean by you that my cortical activity is low. So if sleeping lowers it, it would be bad to sleep :(.
But still, I'm wondering how it is possible for a cognitive process to actually lower cortical activity?

Also, a thing I'm wondering is, how do you descriptions relate to cognitive processes at all?

Cognitive processes are about what information we gather, not our behaviour. Only if that somehow changes information and would result in different information being acquired while in different modes. But then we still have to look at what information is being gathered.
But you describe no such thing. Not even hinting at the possibility of it. You purely describe behaviour without even considering the cognitive processes and then labeling this as cognitive processes. Those are not cognitive processes you are describing, but rather modes of operation.
That's why I think that you shouldn't attribute all these things to what are in essence *information gathering processes*. Unless of course, their manifestations are the same for each type. In which case it would make sense to describe these manifestations.

And




Here you perfectly described my actions. I'm being serious. But the thing is, I'm Ni dominant (Ni - Fe). How would you explain that?
You make interesting points, Kljoki. I try to come down to them, but I have to think again as I do. You do not stop perceiving while reflecting. I should have molded my words more carefully. :) Reflection does not hinder perception; reflection hinders perception coming into immediate action. Ti is not control but it assumes the place of control; Ne is not action but as a function for impulsion it assumes the place of action. However, the fake action (Ne) is hindered by the fake control (Ti) in the case of introversion: Ti-Ne. The perception as such (as a cognitive process) is not hindered.
The funtions balance each other out only in the case of introversion. Ti-Ne as a cognitive function unit signifies harmony. Control (Ti) equals drive (Ne). Control as such is a weaker function (as an agent) compared to Ne. However, in introversion it precedes drive in function order.
Ne-Ti is different. Drive takes the upper hand of control. Hence the impulse is carried out. One can see the difference here in the forum. The ENTP may come out with a half baked idea. He is enthusiastic and types a post immediately. The INTP is reflective; he thinks everything many times over, he turnes and twists ideas in his head and then comes down with a post. There are many people who lurk here and hardly ever write posts. Their Ne is hindred by Ti. As a process Ne is untouched: its function is not injured. It only does not manifest itself in the extraverted world.
And here we perceive motivation. If motivation is strong enough Ne overrides Ti even if Ti precedes Ne.

[wildcat]

Sleep may actually raise the level of cortical activity. During Rem sleep cortical activity level is higher than what is the case in the waking state. There are different kinds of sleep. In each of them the cortical activity level is markedly different. Sleep is a brain and a body recuperation process. It is like a kind of a sanatorium: in a sanatorium there are diferent kinds of exercise accompanied with periods of rest.
Activation of a cognitive process does not lower cortical activity. De-activation of a cognitive process brings the level down. It acts as a a depressant.
Te/Fe as a primary function brings the level of cortical activity down. To function properly Te/Fe needs to deactivate the cortex. It leads to a chronic deactivation process. Hence there is a constant drive to raise it through physical action or through noise.
I discuss motivation and behaviour another time. I need time to think in order to respond.
I shall be back.

[screamingflies]

there are four functions, and two ways to use them... introverted intuition is still intuition. extroverted intuition is still intuition.

if you want to say that there are 8, then go ahead
______________________________________________

that may not be the theory, but that's how you're filtered into a type


You are wrong. [edit]The difference between Ni & Ne is a matter of either jumping to singular intuitive conclusions away from a starting point or synthesizing information to wholes toward an endpoint, if you're speaking in terms of MBTI. it's limited by the way the information is flowing, thats why i posted the E & I pictures earlier on the other thread.

[edit]http://i39.photobucket.com/albums/e169/pigseatcorn/EIpreference.jpg
follow the lines of thought where A is the middle & B is the arrow. Since N is a perceiving function the directions of thought are reversed. the Ni starts with A & the awareness of B though intuition, & draws a single line from A to B filling in the gaps but the conclusion is specific Ne starts with B (& C, D, all arrows) & brings them all into a whole at point A so the conclusion is plural & is synthesized. the reverse of this is true if its a judging & not a perceiving process E becomes singular & I becomes plural because the direction the thought travels is reversed in the J/P difference

[eyebyte_atWork]

You are wrong. The difference between Ni & Ne is a matter of focusing on the whole or on the specific.


Isn't that the difference between "S" and "N" ??

[screamingflies]

no S doesnt jump to conclusions at all. ok give me a second and i will reword it

[eyebyte_atWork]

no S doesnt jump to conclusions at all.


No one is completely on one side of the scale - except ofcourse those who claim to have no F and are all T.

[screamingflies]

No one is completely on one side of the scale - except ofcourse those who claim to have no F and are all T.



yeah.... but when they do jump to conclusions they're not using S. ....
the S as an isolated thought process doesnt jump to conclusions.
that doesnt mean people dont have both S and N, it means S doesnt do what N does.

Here is the masterpiece of this
http://i39.photobucket.com/albums/e169/pigseatcorn/untitled.jpg
GAHHHH
im kind of INTX in any case, not pure INTP

[Imen de Naars]

P is a dichotomy of E. It consumes the energy of E.
J is a dichotomy of E. It conserves the energy.


The other way around. Te and Fe are the most energy-consuming functions.

[rivercrow]

Here is the masterpiece of this
http://i39.photobucket.com/albums/e169/pigseatcorn/untitled.jpg
GAHHHH
im kind of INTX in any case, not pure INTP

I really really like this picture, and I'm saving it as my desktop wallpaper. Thank you for drawing and sharing it!

Cheers!

[Kljoki]

Activation of a cognitive process does not lower cortical activity. De-activation of a cognitive process brings the level down. It acts as a a depressant.
Te/Fe as a primary function brings the level of cortical activity down. To function properly Te/Fe needs to deactivate the cortex. It leads to a chronic deactivation process. Hence there is a constant drive to raise it through physical action or through noise. So "Te" and "Fe" are not cognitive processes as that would mean they raise the cortical activity?
Extravert thinking and Extravert feeling are cognitive process and engaging in them brings the cortical activity up because you have to have cortical activity to process information. Getting and processing information raises the cortical activity because that same information has to be relied and since processing and acquiring information never stops, they are always relying information. To lower cortical activity would be to lower the amount of relying information.

Ti is not control but it assumes the place of control; Ne is not action but as a function for impulsion it assumes the place of action. However, the fake action (Ne) is hindered by the fake control (Ti) in the case of introversion: Ti-Ne. The perception as such (as a cognitive process) is not hindered.
The funtions balance each other out only in the case of introversion. Ti-Ne as a cognitive function unit signifies harmony. Control (Ti) equals drive (Ne). Control as such is a weaker function (as an agent) compared to Ne. However, in introversion it precedes drive in function order. Ne, or any other perceiving process, can only *direct* action, not exert it. It's no "drive". Drive is action, as in, I'm going to move because I *decided* to. Drive is not even a cognitive process. But I can see how it relates to them, because information provided by them are then weighed and examined and on their basis we form and carry out our actions. So functions could balance each others contributions to our actions.

But even if your systems were true, they are still logically unsound. Why would I, by logical necessity, come to the conclusion for instance that "control as such is a weaker function (as an agent) compared to Ne"? I would not, I could only experimentally reached a conclusion like that based on your system. And that would have to be a pretty dam good experiment as nobody has yet devised a method of confirming the existence of functions, let alone measuring them.


Ne-Ti is different. Drive takes the upper hand of control. [...] Assumptions


There are many people who lurk here and hardly ever write posts. Their Ne is hindred by Ti. You know I'm frightened by this statement. I really am.

[Kljoki]

What I think is that because of "low cortical activity" a person has to "farm" elsewhere and is forced turn to the outside.

As for the functions, I picture them as little factories. They take in information and then spew it into the psyche for us to use. Their productivity would depend on the level of cortical activity. Lower would mean low productivity, and high would mean high productivity. So for lower activity, T, F, N and S, all function inefficiently. To keep level they raise their intake levels and that way keep the production rates stabile. This results in more information gathering and acquiring.
With raised cortical activity the opposite happens and less information is required.
So for lower cortical activity the functions are "extroverted" or inefficient and for high they are "introverted" or efficient.

For MBTT that is. In terms of socionics this is total and utter crap :).

[wildcat]

So "Te" and "Fe" are not cognitive processes as that would mean they raise the cortical activity?
Extravert thinking and Extravert feeling are cognitive process and engaging in them brings the cortical activity up because you have to have cortical activity to process information. Getting and processing information raises the cortical activity because that same information has to be relied and since processing and acquiring information never stops, they are always relying information. To lower cortical activity would be to lower the amount of relying information.
Ne, or any other perceiving process, can only *direct* action, not exert it. It's no "drive". Drive is action, as in, I'm going to move because I *decided* to. Drive is not even a cognitive process. But I can see how it relates to them, because information provided by them are then weighed and examined and on their basis we form and carry out our actions. So functions could balance each others contributions to our actions.

But even if your systems were true, they are still logically unsound. Why would I, by logical necessity, come to the conclusion for instance that "control as such is a weaker function (as an agent) compared to Ne"? I would not, I could only experimentally reached a conclusion like that based on your system. And that would have to be a pretty dam good experiment as nobody has yet devised a method of confirming the existence of functions, let alone measuring them.

Assumptions

You know I'm frightened by this statement. I really am.
They are all cognitive functions.
Te and Fe narrow the field of consciousness. It is a question of concentration. It is like to sharpen a pencil. You can sharpen a pencil, but it gets shorter.

Low level of cortical activity does not hinder cognitive process. Different cognitive processes require diffent level of activity.
This is the problem with life. We use alcohol, drink coffee, take an aspirin, use amphetamine or cannabis.. to change the level of cortical activity.
To change the level of cortical activity is our main objective in our choices. To do something or not to do it. To close a window.
To open it.
The motive is to optimize the level of cortical activity. To feel good.
We had team sports at school. I did not need to participate. To participate would have increased the level of my cortical activity which is too high as it is. It would have made me feel bad. It would have drained all my energy.
Ne is not an active function. It is pseudoactive.

Extraversion.

Drive is simply energy. Extraversion is not drive, it is an agent of drive.
Elvis was a movie star and he had an agent, the Colonel.
The Colonel was not Elvis.

The agent of drive (energy) is dichotomized into J and P.
P consumes the energy; J preserves the energy.
The consumption of energy is energy wasted. Hence impulsive (P) people are pseudoactive. Their energy is wasted on impulsion.
The active (J) people are genuinely active. Their energy is not wasted. Action does not make active people tired. They thrill on action. Action raises their cortical activity level and they feel so much better.

[ferunandesu]

Sensing:
vision, audition, gustation, olfaction, tactition, thermoception, nociception, equilibrioception, proprioception

Intuition:
?,?,?,?,?,?,?

would the methods of intuition be perceptions that aren't the result of sensory systems? like say: time, thought, language, illusion, hallucination, and multisensory integration?

[wildcat]

Sensing:
vision, audition, gustation, olfaction, tactition, thermoception, nociception, equilibrioception, proprioception

Intuition:
?,?,?,?,?,?,?

would the methods of intuition be perceptions that aren't the result of sensory systems? like say: time, thought, language, illusion, hallucination, and multisensory integration?
My brother is an ISTP. We are nearly of the same age. Our level of intelligence is the same. We were raised in the same family.
We were both kicked out of the same school. We were both infamous. We read the same books. We had mutual friends.
We were relaxed, easy going, well liked among peers, lazy.. we both liked classical music. Many people thought we were twins. We appreciated art. We were impulsive, impatient and we had a low level of tolerance.
Now I have described the extreme ITP.
The rest is metaphysics.

[Jarno]

If you read the profiles of INTPs from MBTI sites and from socionics sites, it's pretty clear that they're describing the same type. It's just that Socionics and MBTI disagree about cognitive processes.

Correct!

[rmcnew]

from what i've seen, an mbti INTP could go either way according to socionics.com

This is actually true if you are coming from an MBTI background ... because some MBTI INTPs identify more with socionics extroverted thinking than they do with socionics introverted thinking, they stay INTp in socionics. If they identify with socionics introverted thinking over socionics extroverted thinking, then they are a socionics INTj. It also has to do with the fact that the functional ordering differs signifigantly.

[rmcnew]

And you guys should really be looking at socionics information other than what is found at socionics.com. Studying and understanding Model-A aka "Socionic Model of the Psyche" would help you to understand socionics immensely if you would take the time to do so.

http://socioniko.net/en/1.1.types/index-type.html
http://socion.info/cgi-bin/index.cgi?loc=desc&model=1
http://the16types.info/models.php

[INTrPosr]

This is actually true if you are coming from an MBTI background ... because some MBTI INTPs identify more with socionics extroverted thinking than they do with socionics introverted thinking, they stay INTp in socionics. If they identify with socionics introverted thinking over socionics extroverted thinking, then they are a socionics INTj. It also has to do with the fact that the functional ordering differs signifigantly.Sorry rmcnew, there is no intent to point this rant towards you personally. Socionics followers contend their definition of the functions are different than MBTI. What you are saying is that they differ from Jung, unless you can prove that Myers-Briggs did not get it right. And that is the circular reasoning in which the Socionics community can never overcome because in the end, it's only a new theoretical alternative no different than Keirsey, but it's not, never will be and can never contend with MBTI.

[Kljoki]

What you are saying is that they differ from Jung, unless you can prove that Myers-Briggs did not get it right. Can you give me an online site that has descriptions of (Official) MBTI functions and I will attempt to do just that.

[INTrPosr]

Can you give me an online site that has descriptions of (Official) MBTI functions and I will attempt to do just that.I can do better for you Kljoki, Isabella Myers actually has it all written down in her book, "Gifts Differing". This way, there can be no manipulation of what was published.

[Jonnyboy]

This question has intrigued me as well. Whether it be MBTI or Socionics, the descriptions of the individual preferences seem to follow a specific thought process; i.e. both describe an Extrovert the same way, both describe Judgers the same way, etc. Also, when describing the eight cognitive processes, they seem to follow the same line of thought; i.e. both describe Introverted Thinking the same way, etc.

If the abovementioned observations of these similarities are true, how can it logically follow that an MBTI INTP be dominant Ti/Ne and a Socionics INTP be dominant Ni/Te if we take both systems to be accurate? It would seem to follow from these contradictions that:

1. MBTI is correct and Socionics is incorrect; or
2. Socionic is correct and MBTI is incorrect; or
3. MBTI is more accurate than Socionics; or
4. Socionics is more accurate than MBTI; or
5. Both systems are incorrect/inaccurate.

There is no way in hell that I am dominant Ni/Te, which rules out Socionics INTP. But in order to be dominant Ti/Ne I need to be a J, which is also highly unlikely.

[AllThingsConsidered]

Also, when describing the eight cognitive processes, they seem to follow the same line of thought; i.e. both describe Introverted Thinking the same way, etc.

If the abovementioned observations of these similarities are true, how can it logically follow that an MBTI INTP be dominant Ti/Ne and a Socionics INTP be dominant Ni/Te if we take both systems to be accurate?

I can't find all of the information in detail that I have read. (Just a few online examples)

To me it seems like MBTI and Socionics have different takes on Ti and other dichotmies...perhaps this is what causes the confusion.

Here is some information I can find, best bet is to read the detail in books on it however:

SOCIONICS Ti: The first function is Ti, by which objective logic substantiates itself through various thought processes. With this function, it is possible to deconstruct and disassemble various levels of thought, concepts, and ideas in order to gauge a sense of their inner workings or how they habitually function. Probably the most powerful aspect of Ti is an active ability to remain focused on tenacious analytical or logical task of a specific theme and the ability to break down, refine, and index it into sub classified fields for ready access, assessment, consideration with direction back to the main point or original theme if needed; other important features of this function include the ability to express ideas in the most concise and logical manner that could be implemented to appeal to the logical processes of others. Being an introverted function, Ti has an active ability to self-sustain itself and moves actively between an objective mental world located in the future and past in order to sustain itself as an active function.

Berens Ti - introverted Thinking (MBTI)
Introverted Thinking often involves finding just the right word to clearly express an idea concisely, crisply, and to the point. Using introverted Thinking is like having an internal sense of the essential qualities of something, noticing the fine distinctions that make it what it is and then naming it. It also involves an internal reasoning process of deriving subcategories of classes and sub-principles of general principles. These can then be used in problem solving, analysis, and refining of a product or an idea. This process is evidenced in behaviors like taking things or ideas apart to figure out how they work. The analysis involves looking at different sides of an issue and seeing where there is inconsistency. In so doing, we search for a “leverage point” that will fix problems with the least amount of effort or damage to the system. We engage in this process when we notice logical inconsistencies between statements and frameworks, using a model to evaluate the likely accuracy of what’s observed.
Analyzing; categorizing; evaluating according to principles and whether something fits the framework or model; figuring out the principles on which something works; checking for inconsistencies; clarifying definitions to get more precision.

Jung Introverted Thinking
(III) PECULIARITIES OF THE BASIC PSYCHOLOGICAL FUNCTIONS IN THE INTROVERTED ATTITUDE
1. Thinking
When describing extraverted thinking, I gave a brief characterization of introverted thinking, to which at this stage I must make further reference. Introverted thinking is primarily orientated by the subjective factor. At the least, this subjective factor is represented by a subjective feeling of direction, which, in the last resort, determines judgment. Occasionally, it is a more or less finished image, which to some extent, serves as a standard. This thinking may be conceived either with concrete or with abstract factors, but always at the decisive points it is orientated by subjective data. Hence, it does not lead from concrete experience back again into objective things, but always to the subjective content, External facts are not the aim and origin of this thinking, although the introvert would often like to make it so appear. It begins in the subject, and returns to the subject, although it may [p. 481] undertake the widest flights into the territory of the real and the actual. Hence, in the statement of new facts, its chief value is indirect, because new views rather than the perception of new facts are its main concern. It formulates questions and creates theories; it opens up prospects and yields insight, but in the presence of facts it exhibits a reserved demeanor. As illustrative examples they have their value, but they must not prevail. Facts are collected as evidence or examples for a theory, but never for their own sake. Should this latter ever occur, it is done only as a compliment to the extraverted style. For this kind of thinking facts are of secondary importance; what, apparently, is of absolutely paramount importance is the development and presentation of the subjective idea, that primordial symbolical image standing more or less darkly before the inner vision. Its aim, therefore, is never concerned with an intellectual reconstruction of concrete actuality, but with the shaping of that dim image into a resplendent idea. Its desire is to reach reality; its goal is to see how external facts fit into, and fulfill, the framework of the idea; its actual creative power is proved by the fact that this thinking can also create that idea which, though not present in the external facts, is yet the most suitable, abstract expression of them. Its task is accomplished when the idea it has fashioned seems to emerge so inevitably from the external facts that they actually prove its validity.
But just as little as it is given to extraverted thinking to wrest a really sound inductive idea from concrete facts or ever to create new ones, does it lie in the power of introverted thinking to translate its original image into an idea adequately adapted to the facts. For, as in the former case the purely empirical heaping together of facts paralyses thought and smothers their meaning, so in the latter case introverted thinking shows a dangerous tendency [p. 482] to coerce facts into the shape of its image, or by ignoring them altogether, to unfold its phantasy image in freedom. In such a case, it will be impossible for the presented idea to deny its origin from the dim archaic image. There will cling to it a certain mythological character that we are prone to interpret as 'originality', or in more pronounced cases' as mere whimsicality; since its archaic character is not transparent as such to specialists unfamiliar with mythological motives. The subjective force of conviction inherent in such an idea is usually very great; its power too is the more convincing, the less it is influenced by contact with outer facts. Although to the man who advocates the idea, it may well seem that his scanty store of facts were the actual ground and source of the truth and validity of his idea, yet such is not the case, for the idea derives its convincing power from its unconscious archetype, which, as such, has universal validity and everlasting truth. Its truth, however, is so universal and symbolic, that it must first enter into the recognized and recognizable knowledge of the time, before it can become a practical truth of any real value to life. What sort of causality would it be, for instance, that never became perceptible in practical causes and practical results?
This thinking easily loses itself in the immense truth of the subjective factor. It creates theories for the sake of theories, apparently with a view to real or at least possible facts, yet always with a distinct tendency to go over from the world of ideas into mere imagery. Accordingly many intuitions of possibilities appear on the scene, none of which however achieve any reality, until finally images are produced which no longer express anything externally real, being 'merely' symbols of the simply unknowable. It is now merely a mystical thinking and quite as unfruitful as that empirical thinking whose sole operation is within the framework of objective facts. [p. 483]
Whereas the latter sinks to the level of a mere presentation of facts, the former evaporates into a representation of the unknowable, which is even beyond everything that could be expressed in an image. The presentation of facts has a certain incontestable truth, because the subjective factor is excluded and the facts speak for themselves. Similarly, the representing of the unknowable has also an immediate, subjective, and convincing power, because it is demonstrable from its own existence. The former says 'Est, ergo est' ('It is ; therefore it is') ; while the latter says 'Cogito, ergo cogito' (' I think ; therefore I think'). In the last analysis, introverted thinking arrives at the evidence of its own subjective being, while extraverted thinking is driven to the evidence of its complete identity with the objective fact. For, while the extravert really denies himself in his complete dispersion among objects, the introvert, by ridding himself of each and every content, has to content himself with his mere existence. In both cases the further development of life is crowded out of the domain of thought into the region of other psychic functions which had hitherto existed in relative unconsciousness. The extraordinary impoverishment of introverted thinking in relation to objective facts finds compensation in an abundance of unconscious facts. Whenever consciousness, wedded to the function of thought, confines itself within the smallest and emptiest circle possible -- though seeming to contain the plenitude of divinity -- unconscious phantasy becomes proportionately enriched by a multitude of archaically formed facts, a veritable pandemonium of magical and irrational factors, wearing the particular aspect that accords with the nature of that function which shall next relieve the thought-function as the representative of life. If this should be the intuitive function, the 'other side' will be viewed with the eyes of a Kubin or a Meyrink. If it is the feeling-function, [p. 484] there arise quite unheard of and fantastic feeling-relations, coupled with feeling-judgments of a quite contradictory and unintelligible character. If the sensation-function, then the senses discover some new and never-before-experienced possibility, both within and without the body. A closer investigation of such changes can easily demonstrate the reappearance of primitive psychology with all its characteristic features. Naturally, the thing experienced is not merely primitive but also symbolic; in fact, the older and more primeval it appears, the more does it represent the future truth: since everything ancient in our unconscious means the coming possibility.
Under ordinary circumstances, not even the transition to the 'other side' succeeds -- still less the redeeming journey through the unconscious. The passage across is chiefly prevented by conscious resistance to any subjection of the ego to the unconscious reality and to the determining reality of the unconscious object. The condition is a dissociation-in other words, a neurosis having the character of an inner wastage with increasing brain-exhaustion -- a psychoasthenia, in fact.

[lemons]

Here's a good critique on MBTI. According to MBTI, I have Ti and Ne (INTP functions). I somewhat agree with how Ti applies with me, however I agree to about 95% of what Ni says about me from socionics sources. INTP is the closest fitting description of me and I am no doubt an INTP, but not exactly what MBTI says of it. So why, I ask you, does MBTI call me an INTP if I barely use my supposed Ne?

Answer: The system is flawed to begin with, because the functions are mixed up from the affect of definitions being poorly applied, and the valued theory that extraverted functions are somehow more significant to a personality with primary introversion. Ti applies to me about 50% because it is not well defined. Ne barely applies to me yet somehow it being an extraverted function is more important to my personality than Ti?

MBTI has a pretty interesting structure and thankfully some idea of P and J, yet back up sites have poor and vague descriptions and contradictions in functions and personality. Socionics, though the main site is pretty faulty, has the most accurate descriptions and the functions theory is spot on. Us critics see good material from wikisocion including the interweaving of functional analysis with all personalities and relationships of functions between all personalities.