My husband is an ISTP… ladies if you want a true alpha in every way Date an ISTP! I am an ENFJ female with a lot of passions, ideas, and some craziness mixed in and my husband is a rock. He gives off dad/leader energy.
Incorrect. While socionics and MBTI understand the functions somewhat differently, they each describe the same set of functions. Socionics "blocks" are unwarranted by anything - conceptually there is no justification for them, and they merely re-imagine the stack as the same thing, plus something else. Regardless, Ti Se. The "ego block" defines the type. Also other functions are logically necessitated in their corresponding relations, described best by the simple conscious and shadow stack model of MBTI. Nobody disputes that socionics LSI and MBTI ISTP both are Ti Se. So while you are correct that neither model gets the type description quite right, you are absolutely wrong about your central point. LSI and ISTP describe the same habitual attention pattern. Each model presents that the pattern is best described with somewhat different adjectives. Same thing. Different description.
Socionics LSI (ISTj) has Ti and Se as the ego block; Si and Te in the ego block correspond to Socionics ISTp. Duality is a concept that belongs to Socionics, where ISTj (TiSe) is ENFj's dual (FeNi), and ISTp (SiTe) is ENFj's conflictor. Because irrationality/perceiving is what determines wether the type is J or P, an ISTP in MBTI is most likely to also be ISTp in socionics, but in Socionics ISTp conflicts ENFj, and, as said before, has SiTe in the ego block. You got the function stackings right, but are mixing up the personality type of the introvert with the functional stacking; TiSe goes perfect with ENFj, but this is from LSI (logical sensory introvert, ISTj); not from ISTp. It's best to not mix the two theories if you're going to scramble one or the other.
If you're going to say Socionics "blocks" are unwarranted you might as well stop using the concept of duality, because this is also part of the theory, and just as the blocks, unwarranted.
Both MBTI and Socionics are still only theories; nothing has been proven yet. Regardless of the highly regarded founders of one or the other; they are both still only theories, so "unwarranted" applies to both.
I'm an istp 8w9 and LSI, I like how socionics kind of complements the 4 sides of the mind theory and I also like objective personality, specifically the sexual modalities. maybe in the future there will be a greater system that connects most of the theories.
MBTI functions =/= socionics functions. they have not the same definition. for example organization for achieve a goal would be Te in MBTI but it is Se in socionics. please don't make a video on it if you are ignorant of this.
You misunderstand me. I'm not saying that MBTI and Socionics define the functions the same way. I'm saying that to the extent they differ, one is correct, and the other wrong. They refer to the same thing.
so if you assume that one of them is wrong and know that they are different definition. why do you associate LSI with ISTP that have totally opposed definition? if you ignore that model A is incompatible with MBTI or still associate a socionic type with a MBTI type if you know that, then i have no reason to spend my money on it.
Because ISTP and LSI refer to the same thing, regardless of the definitions. You, like many people, are putting the cart before the horse. I'll make a video response.
"Because ISTP and LSI refer to the same thing, regardless of the definitions." did you get how much this phrases is nonsensical. Ti in MBTI refer to the understanding with adaptation of a singular object and Ti in socionics refer to obey to an order and a systematic code(this is most Te than Ti in MBTI). Se refers in socionics to the organization of your environment and a goal achieving attitude (once again that is more relied on MBTI's Te definition.). a thing can't be ¬P and P. a lion is a lion if he fit to the criteria necessary and suffisent for being a lion . same with MBTI and socionics.
Eric, thank you for all your content, i learn a lot from you... i wonder if you have any video where you explain socionics vs MBTI, whether a certain type on mbti is the same type on socionics??? Im very confused and don't know where to find info... i am 90percent sure im an INFP on MBTI, so that means what am I on socionics? Thanks !!!
So jealous of istps as intp .. they're better at stuff I "should be as good at".. haha. I think there might be an NT grandiosity because seeing all the possibility it's hard to imagine how you couldn't conceivably do anything better than anyone. And why is it you seem limited to be able to do "the style of things you tend to be able to do. For a sensor maybe it's a way more natural assumption that you might be meant for what you're meant for. But idk
My husband is an ISTP… ladies if you want a true alpha in every way Date an ISTP!
I am an ENFJ female with a lot of passions, ideas, and some craziness mixed in and my husband is a rock. He gives off dad/leader energy.
Thank you for calling enfjs hot
Shouldn't be taking a central concept from socionics while still using mbti functional stackings: LSI is not the same as ISTP.
Incorrect. While socionics and MBTI understand the functions somewhat differently, they each describe the same set of functions. Socionics "blocks" are unwarranted by anything - conceptually there is no justification for them, and they merely re-imagine the stack as the same thing, plus something else. Regardless, Ti Se. The "ego block" defines the type. Also other functions are logically necessitated in their corresponding relations, described best by the simple conscious and shadow stack model of MBTI. Nobody disputes that socionics LSI and MBTI ISTP both are Ti Se. So while you are correct that neither model gets the type description quite right, you are absolutely wrong about your central point. LSI and ISTP describe the same habitual attention pattern. Each model presents that the pattern is best described with somewhat different adjectives. Same thing. Different description.
Socionics LSI (ISTj) has Ti and Se as the ego block; Si and Te in the ego block correspond to Socionics ISTp. Duality is a concept that belongs to Socionics, where ISTj (TiSe) is ENFj's dual (FeNi), and ISTp (SiTe) is ENFj's conflictor.
Because irrationality/perceiving is what determines wether the type is J or P, an ISTP in MBTI is most likely to also be ISTp in socionics, but in Socionics ISTp conflicts ENFj, and, as said before, has SiTe in the ego block. You got the function stackings right, but are mixing up the personality type of the introvert with the functional stacking; TiSe goes perfect with ENFj, but this is from LSI (logical sensory introvert, ISTj); not from ISTp. It's best to not mix the two theories if you're going to scramble one or the other.
If you're going to say Socionics "blocks" are unwarranted you might as well stop using the concept of duality, because this is also part of the theory, and just as the blocks, unwarranted.
Both MBTI and Socionics are still only theories; nothing has been proven yet. Regardless of the highly regarded founders of one or the other; they are both still only theories, so "unwarranted" applies to both.
tl:dr Duality is a concept that belongs to Socionics, where TiSe corresponds to *Socionics ISTj*, which is ENFj's dual (and not MBTI ISTP).
I'm an istp 8w9 and LSI, I like how socionics kind of complements the 4 sides of the mind theory and I also like objective personality, specifically the sexual modalities.
maybe in the future there will be a greater system that connects most of the theories.
"And they're all hot..."
Great work. An ISTP 8w9 LSI-C
MBTI functions =/= socionics functions. they have not the same definition. for example organization for achieve a goal would be Te in MBTI but it is Se in socionics. please don't make a video on it if you are ignorant of this.
You misunderstand me. I'm not saying that MBTI and Socionics define the functions the same way. I'm saying that to the extent they differ, one is correct, and the other wrong. They refer to the same thing.
I'm anything but ignorant of this. Here, you should buy my book. www.twfpcollectibles.com/
so if you assume that one of them is wrong and know that they are different definition. why do you associate LSI with ISTP that have totally opposed definition? if you ignore that model A is incompatible with MBTI or still associate a socionic type with a MBTI type if you know that, then i have no reason to spend my money on it.
Because ISTP and LSI refer to the same thing, regardless of the definitions. You, like many people, are putting the cart before the horse. I'll make a video response.
"Because ISTP and LSI refer to the same thing, regardless of the definitions." did you get how much this phrases is nonsensical. Ti in MBTI refer to the understanding with adaptation of a singular object and Ti in socionics refer to obey to an order and a systematic code(this is most Te than Ti in MBTI). Se refers in socionics to the organization of your environment and a goal achieving attitude (once again that is more relied on MBTI's Te definition.). a thing can't be ¬P and P. a lion is a lion if he fit to the criteria necessary and suffisent for being a lion . same with MBTI and socionics.
Eric, thank you for all your content, i learn a lot from you... i wonder if you have any video where you explain socionics vs MBTI, whether a certain type on mbti is the same type on socionics??? Im very confused and don't know where to find info... i am 90percent sure im an INFP on MBTI, so that means what am I on socionics? Thanks !!!
QUIT SMOKING BRO!
Hey Beauty. I'm gonna buy it
the wolf and the general.
So jealous of istps as intp .. they're better at stuff I "should be as good at".. haha. I think there might be an NT grandiosity because seeing all the possibility it's hard to imagine how you couldn't conceivably do anything better than anyone. And why is it you seem limited to be able to do "the style of things you tend to be able to do. For a sensor maybe it's a way more natural assumption that you might be meant for what you're meant for. But idk
Matthew Alistair well, sometimes I feel sad that I'm not good at learning breadth of facts and knowledge...
Psst.. EIE