Dichotomies: Extraversion and Introversion

[EyeSeeCold]

Extraversion is the state of out-flowing information, Introversion is the state of in-flowing information.

The point of this thread is to apply this understanding to types and how it manifests in their dichotomous orientations.



1.) Dynamic/Static
The Myers-Briggs system has the types orientated through Je=J and Pe=P. For Socionics, that would inccorectly flip the Introverts' functions, but what if Myers-Briggs would have found Dynamic/Static instead? Dynamics have Je, or an outward flow of Rationality; Statics have Pe, or an outward flow of Irrationality. The outward flow of energy is something that can be said to be an objective source of information about a person and if focus is turned to that, in a way, couldn't it be said that: Dynamic types are society's Rationals and Static types are society's Irrationals?

2.) Serious/Merry, Objectivist/Subjectivist
I'm not sure about Serious/Merry, though it seems Serious stands for Te(implied Fi), while Merry stands for Fe(implied Ti). Objectivist seems to stand for Te as well, with Subjectivist at Ti.

3.) Central/Peripheral, Resolute/Reasonable, Decisive/Judicious
Central, Resolute, and Decisive unambiguously seem to refer to Se, while the same goes for Peripheral, Reasonable and Judicious for Ne.

4.) Quadra Energy/Atmosphere
Alpha Quadra has an outward flow of Intuition and Ethics(NeFe). Beta Quadra has an outward flow of Sensing and Ethics(SeFe). Gamma Quadra has an outward flow of Sensing and Logic(SeTe). Delta Quadra has an outward flow of Logic and Intuition(NeTe).

Part of this is evident in how Gamma Quadra is stereotyped as money hungry power seekers, and Beta Quadra as loud and rambunctious.

5.) Contact, Inert ; Evaluatory, Situational
As Aiss explained in this thread, only the Contact and Evaluatory functions are recognized, while Inert and Situational are passed over for sake of observable traits, which is in the vein of this thread on Extraversion and Introversion.


I'm not exactly sure in the direction this thread should go, but at least these are up for discussion.

[Aiss]

Extraversion is the state of out-flowing information, Introversion is the state of in-flowing information.

The point of this thread is to apply this understanding to types and how it manifests in their dichotomous orientations.

I don't know if I agree with it, to be honest. I see it more like information exchange vs information linking. So, in a way, I can see how extroverted elements "reflect the ball" while introverted incorporated the info. Still, this seems a gross oversimplification to me.

1.) Dynamic/Static
The Myers-Briggs system has the types orientated through Je=J and Pe=P. For Socionics, that would inccorectly flip the Introverts' functions, but what if Myers-Briggs would have found Dynamic/Static instead? Dynamics have Je, or an outward flow of Rationality; Statics have Pe, or an outward flow of Irrationality. The outward flow of energy is something that can be said to be an objective source of information about a person and if focus is turned to that, in a way, couldn't it be said that: Dynamic types are society's Rationals and Static types are society's Irrationals?

LSIs are irrational and IEIs rational. I see.



Look... if you want to be a rational type, I'm sure you can find yourself one, you know? No need to introduce MBTI-like confusion.

4.) Quadra Energy/Atmosphere
Alpha Quadra has an outward flow of Intuition and Ethics(NeFe). Beta Quadra has an outward flow of Sensing and Ethics(SeFe). Gamma Quadra has an outward flow of Sensing and Logic(SeTe). Delta Quadra has an outward flow of Logic and Intuition(NeTe).

Part of this is evident in how Gamma Quadra is stereotyped as money hungry power seekers, and Beta Quadra as loud and rambunctious.

Yeah I've been thinking along these lines before. Except to me it seem that extroverted aspects are not so much "outward flowing" as subject to discussion, agreement and eventually consensus, shared values. They're outward in direction but not in flow. So Gamma communication seems "dry" because the exchange is primarily explicit (Se&Te), while personal understanding is communicated implicitly (Ni&Fi).

This might be biased though, since I'm looking at it from Gamma's point of view, where extroverted elements are Se and Te. I do tend to see Fe as discussing preferences in a weird manner (like trying to reach an agreement on what is "nice" or "cool" or "sucks" or whatever), but non-Gamma people might disagree.

[EyeSeeCold]

I don't know if I agree with it, to be honest. I see it more like information exchange vs information linking. So, in a way, I can see how extroverted elements "reflect the ball" while introverted incorporated the info. Still, this seems a gross oversimplification to me.

Well, it was just a quick definition to make a point. We can get into what Extraversion and Introversion really mean, but you understand enough for now.

LSIs are irrational and IEIs rational. I see.



Look... if you want to be a rational type, I'm sure you can find yourself one, you know? No need to introduce MBTI-like confusion.

Ne/Se are Irrational, their presence in the Ego of IJs makes them come off as Irrationals to an extent, same for Te/Fe Ego Rationality applied to IPs. I don't necessarily mean the philosophical/psychological interpretations, but there are tendencies. The magical thinking idealism of Creative Nes, Ride-or-die dogmatism of Creative Se etc..

I suppose I'm saying it's like a switch, Je-Pi, Pe-Ji, wherein both sides can manifest, though the Extraversion is apparent from a distance(?).

Yeah I've been thinking along these lines before. Except to me it seem that extroverted aspects are not so much "outward flowing" as subject to discussion, agreement and eventually consensus, shared values. They're outward in direction but not in flow. So Gamma communication seems "dry" because the exchange is primarily explicit (Se&Te), while personal understanding is communicated implicitly (Ni&Fi).

This might be biased though, since I'm looking at it from Gamma's point of view, where extroverted elements are Se and Te. I do tend to see Fe as discussing preferences in a weird manner (like trying to reach an agreement on what is "nice" or "cool" or "sucks" or whatever), but non-Gamma people might disagree.

What you're saying makes sense regardless of Quadra bias, it's just not comprehensive and is an oversimplification(), but I understand so it doesn't matter.

On the flow of energy, I was just making a point. Outward/external/surface/explicit, whichever explains it best.

[Aiss]

Ne/Se are Irrational, their presence in the Ego of IJs makes them come off as Irrationals to an extent, same for Te/Fe Ego Rationality applied to IPs. I don't necessarily mean the philosophical/psychological interpretations, but there are tendencies. The magical thinking idealism of Creative Nes, Ride-or-die dogmatism of Creative Se etc..

I suppose I'm saying it's like a switch, Je-Pi, Pe-Ji, wherein both sides can manifest, though the Extraversion is apparent from a distance(?).

I think you're very, very wrong about it. That's precisely where MBTI fails, it doesn't take into account that Ni-base will still be irrational regardless of Je in ego and Ti-base will still be rational regardless of Pe-sidekick. Even the author of the test finally herself admitted it doesn't work well for introverts.

It simply doesn't work in reality. You ignored the obvious counterexample, too. Can you please explain how LSI comes off as irrational compared to IEI? No? I thought so.

[EyeSeeCold]

I think you're very, very wrong about it. That's precisely where MBTI fails, it doesn't take into account that Ni-base will still be irrational regardless of Je in ego and Ti-base will still be rational regardless of Pe-sidekick. Even the author of the test finally herself admitted it doesn't work well for introverts.

It simply doesn't work in reality. You ignored the obvious counterexample, too. Can you please explain how LSI comes off as irrational compared to IEI? No? I thought so.

Right. Pi Base will still be Irrational, but it is Introverted Irrationality. Ji Base will still be Rational, but it is Introverted Rationality. The Je/Pe "sidekicks" would be suggestive. Though make note, I'm not advocating MBTI, I just made a casual reference to it.

LSI: discojoe's antics
IEI: I've witnessed IEIs get into authoritative political discussions. I'm sure some around here can attest to that capability(not because of subject matter, but method of expression).

[MisterNi]

1.) Dynamic/Static
The Myers-Briggs system has the types orientated through Je=J and Pe=P. For Socionics, that would inccorectly flip the Introverts' functions, but what if Myers-Briggs would have found Dynamic/Static instead? Dynamics have Je, or an outward flow of Rationality; Statics have Pe, or an outward flow of Irrationality. The outward flow of energy is something that can be said to be an objective source of information about a person and if focus is turned to that, in a way, couldn't it be said that: Dynamic types are society's Rationals and Static types are society's Irrationals?

LSIs are irrational and IEIs rational. I see.



Look... if you want to be a rational type, I'm sure you can find yourself one, you know? No need to introduce MBTI-like confusion.

What ESC wrote is correct. If we're going by leading functions:

Dynamics are Je=J and Ji=J
Statics are Pe=P and Pi=P

There's no contradiction but that would lead to an "MBTI flip".

[EyeSeeCold]

What ESC wrote is correct. If we're going by leading functions:

Dynamics are Je=J and Ji=J
Statics are Pe=P and Pi=P

There's no contradiction but that would lead to an "MBTI flip".

No, not like that.

Dynamics = Je(Pi)
Statics = Pe(Ti)

If Extraversion is the most explicit, external, or observable essence of a person then what I'm saying is that Dynamics are externally Rational, Statics are externally Irrational.

[MisterNi]

No, not like that.

Dynamics = Je(Pi)
Statics = Pe(Ti)

If Extraversion is the most explicit, external, or observable essence of a person then what I'm saying is that Dynamics are externally Rational, Statics are internally Rational.

Oh, that's very interesting indeed! So static introverts are seemingly irrational because they extrovert using their creative function, which is Pe. So they seem irrational but are really rational on the inside. And likewise, dynamic introverts are seemingly rationals because they extrovert using Je but are irrational to the core. Fantastic!

[Aiss]

Oh, that's very interesting indeed! So static introverts are seemingly irrational because they extrovert using their creative function, which is Pe. So they seem irrational but are really rational on the inside. And likewise, dynamic introverts are seemingly rationals because they extrovert using Je but are irrational to the core. Fantastic!

Yeah, reinventing MBTI. *sigh*

ESC, dynamic irrationals DON'T seem rational. And neither do static rationals seem irrational. If anything, subtype might slightly affect it, but otherwise it simply doesn't work. Even author of MBTI realized it at some point. I don't know why are you insisting on applying this main MBTI flaw to socionics, but at least call it what it is. That's exactly how MBTI concept of P/J came to be, and in theory it's all OK. Except it doesn't work in reality. Sorry.

[MisterNi]

Yeah, reinventing MBTI. *sigh*

ESC has come up with a way to possibly solve the J/P problem when converting between MBTI and Socionics.

ESC, dynamic irrationals DON'T seem rational. And neither do static rationals seem irrational. If anything, subtype might slightly affect it, but otherwise it simply doesn't work. Even author of MBTI realized it at some point. I don't know why are you insisting on applying this main MBTI flaw to socionics, but at least call it what it is. That's exactly how MBTI concept of P/J came to be, and in theory it's all OK. Except it doesn't work in reality. Sorry.

Ah, it's not that dynamic irrationals seem rational, it's the seemingly contradictory behavior of dynamic introverted irrationals seem rational when they are extroverting. That is, when they're interacting with others or their environment, they do so using Je and thus they appear to be rational on the surface but are deeply irrational. That would explain why ILI often type as MBTI: INTJ and LII often type as MBTI: INTP. Makes sense, right?

[Aiss]

ESC has come up with a way to possibly solve the J/P problem when converting between MBTI and Socionics.

Since when is "converting" saying TiNe in one system equals TiNe in the other, etc.? He's rather trying to apply P/J to Socionics.

It has been tried. It didn't work.

Ah, it's not that dynamic irrationals seem rational, it's the seemingly contradictory behavior of dynamic introverted irrationals seem rational when they are extroverting. That is, when they're interacting with others, they do so using Je and thus they appear to be rational on the surface but are deeply irrational. That would explain why ILI often type as MBTI: INTJ and LII often type as MBTI: INTP. Makes sense, right?

By this definition, extroverting = doing anything at all. (Except perhaps sitting in the corner with your eyes shut.)

I doubt even one-fourth of MBTI INTJs is ILI. Most of their forums are obvious Ti-havens. Look up old threads about attempted conversion, there were polls about MBTI-socionics type combinations. It's a false claim that ILI = INTJ and LII = INTP, even if you're merely speaking of a trend. MBTI functions are surprisingly different from Socionics functions, too.

How many times do I need to repeat it before you guys get it that P/J does not work for introverts? I am not the only one who says it, geez.

Oh and BTW, (in)famous correlation of type descriptions table, in case self-typings weren't good enough: http://www.socioniko.net/en/articles/table3.gif

[Crispy]

True MBTI type = True Socionics type. You're right that a J/P switch could work (and MBTI functions could therefore not be broken) if MBTI J = Dynamic and MBTI P = Static, but when reading all the MBTI introvert descriptions it never seems to be the case. This is especially noticeable in the ISXX descriptions but ALL introvert descriptions inherit more from the J/P dichotomy than they do from the (broken) functions.

To pass this off you would have to explain why MBTI J has a closer relationship with Dynamic than it does with Rationality, and why MBTI P has a closer relationship with Static than it does with Irrationality.

[MisterNi]

Since when is "converting" saying TiNe in one system equals TiNe in the other, etc.?

It's a matter of semantics and it actually does cause a lot of confusion for newcomers to Socionics, thus it's very important to have the P/J problem straightened out.

It has been tried. It didn't work.

It worked just fine, it's just most people are mistyped on MBTI as well so trying to figure out their Socionics type using incorrect MBTI data is folly. lol Junk input = Junk output.

By this definition, extroverting = doing anything at all. (Except perhaps sitting in the corner with your eyes shut.)

Not at all. Lets use regular definitions from the Oxford dictionary so we're on the same page here.

noun
an outgoing, overtly expressive person.
Psychologya person predominantly concerned with external things or objective considerations. Compare with introvert

adjective
of, denoting, or typical of an extrovert:
his extrovert personality made him the ideal host

adjective
1 of, denoting, or typical of an introvert.
(of a community, company, or other group) concerned principally with its own affairs; inward-looking or parochial.
2 Anatomy & Zoology(of an organ or other body part ) turned or pushed inward on itself.

We're interested in the adjective here and the act of extroverting is where you interact with others or the environment. Introverting is the act of "being concerned with principally their own affairs and/or looking inward."

Clearly no one can ever possibly be 100% extroverting or 100% introverting. Even Jung said a person like that couldn't possibly exist so an Introvert would have introverted tendencies and extroverts would have extroverted tendencies. Of course every individual is unique and would have a varying degrees of introverted/extroverted tendencies.

I doubt even one-fourth of MBTI INTJs is ILI. Most of their forums are obvious Ti-havens. Look up old threads about attempted conversion, there were polls about MBTI-socionics type combinations.

It's a pretty good correlation from what I've observed on large MBTI forums like PerC. I haven't run any numbers though, so it's just a general observable trend.

It's a false claim that ILI = INTJ and LII = INTP, even if you're merely speaking of a trend. MBTI functions are surprisingly different from Socionics functions, too.

From what I've noticed on PerC again is that LII, by and large, are MBTI INTP and ILI are, by and large, INTJ. However, going from MBTI types to Socionics types isn't as straightforward as many Beta and Delta STs often type themselves MBTI INTP and INTJ so it's a messy signal.

How many times do I need to repeat it before you guys get it that P/J does not work for introverts? I am not the only one who says it, geez.

Perhaps you need to say it a few hundred more times.

Oh and BTW, (in)famous correlation of type descriptions table, in case self-typings weren't good enough: http://www.socioniko.net/en/articles/table3.gif

Thank you, your chart is pretty helpful

MBTI INTP = 36.8% LII and 16.2% ILI. That's a fairly good correlation considering that factors in all the other types. There's always going to be noise in the data and you just have to do your best to try and sort through it.
MBTI INTJ = no clear correlation and the numbers are probably junk data (mainly SLE and LIE? lol wtf?).

[Aiss]

It's a matter of semantics and it actually does cause a lot of confusion for newcomers to Socionics, thus it's very important to have the P/J problem straightened out.

It worked just fine, it was the subsequent layers of BS that was stacked on top of the simple J/P switch that made the process of finding one's quadra a chore.

get up to date lol

http://www.wikisocion.org/en/index.php?title=J/P_switch

Thank you, your chart is pretty helpful

MBTI INTP = 36.8% LII and 16.2% ILI. That's a fairly good correlation considering that factors in all the other types. There's always going to be noise in the data and you just have to do your best to try and sort through it.
MBTI INTJ = no clear correlation and the numbers are probably junk data (mainly SLE and LIE? lol wtf?).

Are you stupid or just pretending?

ILI = most often INTP, rarely INTJ, usually other J or P types.
LII = by and large, most often INTP.

INTJ = very rarely ILI (and more likely LII > ILI).

Where's the supposed "dynamic/static coming off as rational/irrational", except in your and ESC's imagination?

The fact remains that ILI is closest to INTP. So is LII. In other word, ESC's little theory (which is a complete rip-off from MBTI, if you bothered to look into origins of the system) fails in confrontation with reality.

I don't hang out at PersonalityCafe but INTPf and INTJf provide enough examples of P/J being broken for introverts.

If you're surprised why INTJ is usually SLE or LIE, I recommend actually looking into MBTI sources and online communities. Half the J traits are socionically speaking Extrovert characteristics. In case you had trouble recognizing them, SLEs are INTJs who whine about how they're "doers" and therefore J but it's an unfair stereotype that they're also organized, as well as glorify The Power of Ni (which they describe in a way that makes no sense whatsoever from socionic/jungian POV), LIEs are the rest of the typical crowd.

[MisterNi]

get up to date lol

http://www.wikisocion.org/en/index.php?title=J/P_switch

Ah, you seem to be more belligerent already. Introverted dynamics who're extroverting seem rational when they really are not. I'll read the article though, it looks very informative.

Are you stupid or just pretending?

Exhibit B.

ILI = most often INTP, rarely INTJ, usually other J or P types.
LII = by and large, most often INTP.

INTJ = very rarely ILI (and more likely LII > ILI).

Aiss, double check the numbers. INTP is LII > ILI by a margin of more than 2:1.

Where's the supposed "dynamic/static coming off as rational/irrational", except in your and ESC's imagination?

When extroverting an introverted dynamic irrational uses Je > Pi and thus they appear rational. When a dynamic irrational is at rest, however, they go back into their most comfortable state which is Pi > Je.

Likewise when an introverted static rational is extroverting they are using Pe > Ji and thus appear irrational and when they are at a resting state they go back to their natural state of Ji > Pe.

The fact remains that ILI is closest to INTP. So is LII. In other word, ESC's little theory (which is a complete rip-off from MBTI, if you bothered to look into origins of the system) fails in confrontation with reality.

I know you don't like ESC for personal reasons, but the theory is pretty accurate.

I don't hang out at PersonalityCafe but INTPf and INTJf provide enough examples of P/J being broken in MBTI.

No, sorry that's too much trouble. The great chart you provided already points out that there are a lot of mistypings in MBTI+Socionics though.

[Aiss]

Ah, you seem to be more belligerent already. Introverted dynamics who're extroverting seem rational when they really are not. I'll read the article though, it looks very informative.

(...)

When extroverting an introverted dynamic irrational uses Je > Pi and thus they appear rational. When a dynamic irrational is at rest, however, they go back into their most comfortable state which is Pi > Je.

Likewise when an introverted static rational is extroverting they are using Pe > Ji and thus appear irrational and when they are at a resting state they go back to their natural state of Ji > Pe.

Except they don't seem rational, unless you project.

I understand what you're trying to say. That they "seem" rational. That is EXACTLY the same that MBTI postulates.

And it still doesn't work.

Aiss, double check the numbers. INTP is LII > ILI by a margin of more than 2:1.

So you *are* stupid. Very well, I'll go into details.

The point ESC is making is that in Socionics, Dynamic types "come off" as rational and end up being J.

Therefore, you should be looking at what MBTI types statics and dynamic resemble. As far as this point is concerned, the reverse statistic is irrelevant.

ILI resembles INTP.
LII resembles INTP.

I know you don't like ESC for personal reasons, but the theory is pretty accurate.

You're perfectly wrong. I don't mind ESC personally, but his purely theoretical approach and tendency to ignore reality make the skeptic in me annoyed at how inaccurate he can be and still remain blind to it.

[Jarno]

Aiss, double check the numbers. INTP is LII > ILI by a margin of more than 2:1.

ILI = INTP
LII = INTJ

you are using old data, and or the j/p myth

[EyeSeeCold]

I am not supporting nor proposing any claim implied by MBTT or its developers. I do not agree with their assertion of Je = J, Pe = P.
Please take the time to read carefully as a misunderstanding is so easy to make. If you are not willing to do so, I ask of you to refrain from responding or posting at all.

There are two kinds of Rationality, and two kinds of Irrationality, these are Je, Ji & Pe, Pi respectively.

The Extraverted Rationality of Je is the program for Ej types.
The Introverted Rationality of Ji is the program for Ij types.
The Extraverted Irrationality of Pe is the program for Ep types.
The Introverted Irrationality of Pi is the program for Ip types.

All types retain the program of their Base function. However, types are generally identified by a two-fuction Ego. XeYi or XiYe.

The manifestation of the Extraverted function in Ips is Je.
The manifestation of the Extraverted function in Ijs is Pe.

These manifestations do not change the Base program of the types, however, they do manifest and therefore are noticeable.

So, if the following groups are made:
Ej-Te and Ip-Te - Similar by Te Profiteor Rationality
Ej-Fe and Ip-Fe - Similar by Fe Emoveo Rationality
Ep-Se and Ij-Se - Similar by Se Factor Irrationality
Ep-Ne and Ij-Ne - Similar by Ne Intueor Irrationality.

Each group would be orientated similarly in Ratonality/Irrationality but with a switched emphasis(the axle of emphasis which determines Extravert and Introvert types).

[FDG]

This is MBTI remastered. Urrrrgghhhh.

[Aiss]

I am not supporting nor proposing any claim implied by MBTT or its developers. I do not agree with their assertion of Je = J, Pe = P.
Please take the time to read carefully as a misunderstanding is so easy to make. If you are not willing to do so, I ask of you to refrain from responding or posting at all.

There are two kinds of Rationality, and two kinds of Irrationality, these are Je, Ji & Pe, Pi respectively.

The Extraverted Rationality of Je is the program for Ej types.
The Introverted Rationality of Ji is the program for Ij types.
The Extraverted Irrationality of Pe is the program for Ep types.
The Introverted Irrationality of Pi is the program for Ip types.

All types retain the program of their Base function. However, types are generally identified by a two-fuction Ego. XeYi or XiYe.

The manifestation of the Extraverted function in Ips is Je.
The manifestation of the Extraverted function in Ijs is Pe.

These manifestations do not change the Base program of the types, however, they do manifest and therefore are noticeable.

So, if the following groups are made:
Ej-Te and Ip-Te - Similar by Te Profiteor Rationality
Ej-Fe and Ip-Fe - Similar by Fe Emoveo Rationality
Ep-Se and Ij-Se - Similar by Se Factor Irrationality
Ep-Ne and Ij-Ne - Similar by Ne Intueor Irrationality.

Each group would be orientated similarly in Ratonality/Irrationality but with a switched emphasis(the axle of emphasis which determines Extravert and Introvert types).

I understood what you meant the first time, it seems.

It doesn't change the fact that in Introverts, base function rationality is *more* noticeable than creative function rationality.

[MisterNi]

Except they don't seem rational, unless you project.

I understand what you're trying to say. That they "seem" rational. That is EXACTLY the same that MBTI postulates.

And it still doesn't work.

Well, whether it's projection or not remains to be seen. I still think it's pretty accurate though. You're of course free to disagree with me, Aiss.

So you *are* stupid. Very well, I'll go into details.

The point ESC is making is that in Socionics, Dynamic types "come off" as rational and end up being J.

Therefore, you should be looking at what MBTI types statics and dynamic resemble. As far as this point is concerned, the reverse statistic is irrelevant.

It's not irrelevant for typing purposes, Aiss. If someone comes from MBTI as an INTP then we can say that LII is most likely and if that shoe doesn't fit, then ILI, LIE, ILE etc. It's a good first step for a person in discovering their Socionics type if they already know their MBTI.

ILI resembles INTP.
LII resembles INTP.

Aiss, this must be the first time in MBTI history that anyone wants to be INTP over INTJ. MBTI INTP are usually considered lacking in social skills, too theoretical and unable to cope very well with present reality very well whereas INTJ are usually portrayed as the uber-intelligent NT of the NT club. That might be why a lot of non-NTJ type themselves MBTI INTJ and ENTJ, now that I think about it. Although INTP are usually very proud to be INTP.

[EyeSeeCold]

This is MBTI remastered. Urrrrgghhhh.

Don't spam my thread, you are a Moderating Staff member and it is against the rules.

1.7 Do not spam.

http://www.the16types.info/vbulletin...p?do=showrules

[EyeSeeCold]

I understood what you meant the first time, it seems.

It doesn't change the fact that in Introverts, base function rationality is *more* noticeable than creative function rationality.

And I'm making no claim to suggest otherwise, though it seems that is what was inferred because of a lack of internal coherence.

All I'm saying is that in these groups:
Ej-Te and Ip-Te - Similar by Te Profiteor Rationality
Ej-Fe and Ip-Fe - Similar by Fe Emoveo Rationality
Ep-Se and Ij-Se - Similar by Se Factor Irrationality
Ep-Ne and Ij-Ne - Similar by Ne Intueor Irrationality.

One way to look at it is by these groupings:
Ej-Te and Ip-Te ; Ej-Fe and Ip-Fe
Ep-Se and Ij-Se ; Ep-Ne and Ij-Ne

Or, in other words, Extraverted Judgement(Profiteor, Emoveo) types and Extraverted Perception(Intueor, Factor) types.

[mu4]

I don't think anything in this thread has broken a rule egregiously or at all, at least not in my interpretation. But let's stick to the topic and not focus on ESC's type, because that can be viewed as bullying.

[FDG]

Don't spam my thread, you are a Moderating Staff member and it is against the rules.



http://www.the16types.info/vbulletin...p?do=showrules

It's not spam, you are recreating MBTI for real. I was saying something technically correct.

[EyeSeeCold]

It's not spam, you are recreating MBTI for real. I was saying something technically correct.

It is spam. If you took a hard look at my last post you would see I was not doing anything of the sort. There's nothing MBTI about grouping types based on one of their functions in the ego. It was a purely aesthetic rearrangement, and I did nothing to affect the system/functions/meaning/interpretations of the types.

The fact that you didn't catch it, or didn't attempt coherency is why it's spam. You formed an opinion based on a strawman of my position, posted it, and didn't give a damn about anything else.

ahahahaha, PoLR as fuck

It has nothing to do with Se, nor PoLR. It's about you guys acting like you've lost your damn mind every time activity starts to get a little concentrated. It's getting damn old.

[EyeSeeCold]

It is spam. If you took a hard look at my last post you would see I was not doing anything of the sort. There's nothing MBTI about grouping types based on one of their functions in the ego. It was a purely aesthetic rearrangement, and I did nothing to affect the system/functions/meaning/interpretations of the types.

The fact that you didn't catch it, or didn't attempt coherency is why it's spam. You formed an opinion based on a strawman of my position, posted it, and didn't give a damn about anything else.

Same goes for the rest of you, including late joiners and especially you Aiss.

[EyeSeeCold]

If you can't face intellectual criticism of your ideas (regardless of whether you think that criticism is well-founded or not), then you simply shouldn't post. Nobody's being overly rough with you here.

Hiding an opportunistic lust for bashing others under the guise of intellectual criticism is pathetic. Aiss is the only one here who genuinely took me on, and even then, cognitive perception biases led her to inaccurate assumptions.

[Aiss]

It is spam. If you took a hard look at my last post you would see I was not doing anything of the sort. There's nothing MBTI about grouping types based on one of their functions in the ego. It was a purely aesthetic rearrangement, and I did nothing to affect the system/functions/meaning/interpretations of the types.

The fact that you didn't catch it, or didn't attempt coherency is why it's spam. You formed an opinion based on a strawman of my position, posted it, and didn't give a damn about anything else.


It has nothing to do with Se, nor PoLR. It's about you guys acting like you've lost your damn mind every time activity starts to get a little concentrated. It's getting damn old.

It's more about you acting like you lost your damn mind every time you've got a new pet theory.

It's NOT about the mere arrangement, or any other coincidence, which you'd have realized long ago if you actually listened to what I've been telling you.

This:

Dynamics have Je, or an outward flow of Rationality; Statics have Pe, or an outward flow of Irrationality. The outward flow of energy is something that can be said to be an objective source of information about a person and if focus is turned to that, in a way, couldn't it be said that: Dynamic types are society's Rationals and Static types are society's Irrationals?

is EXACTLY where P/J stuff originated. EXACTLY the same reasoning. EXACTLY what MBTI got wrong. It didn't accidentally end up in the same arrangement having nothing to do with the system, it's the same rationale behind it. You just reinvented it.

And it does affect interpretation of the types insofar that it ascribes external traits that originate purely from this hypotheses but find no confirmation whatsoever in reality.

[EyeSeeCold]

It's more about you acting like you lost your damn mind every time you've got a new pet theory.

It's NOT about the mere arrangement, or any other coincidence, which you'd have realized long ago if you actually listened to what I've been telling you.

This:



is EXACTLY where P/J stuff originated. EXACTLY the same reasoning. EXACTLY what MBTI got wrong. It didn't accidentally end up in the same arrangement having nothing to do with the system, it's the same rationale behind it. You just reinvented it.

And it does affect interpretation of the types insofar that it ascribes external traits that originate purely from this hypotheses but find no confirmation whatsoever in reality.

Tell me, Aiss, what does MBTT have to do with this:

"Hey, what if I grouped all the Je egos in one group and all the Pe egos in another".

How in any way, shape or form does that aesthetic grouping have to do with actually tampering with the system of Rationality/Irrationality by proclaiming Je=J, Pe = P?

It is the same grouping as Static/Dynamic. Cool your jets and you will see as such.

[EyeSeeCold]

Look, put bluntly I was saying:
Dynamics are Profiteor and Emoveo Ego types
Statics are Intueor and Factor Ego types

Not dismissing anything, but looking at it in one way.

That's it, all, and nothing more. Anything else is quite absurd.

[MisterNi]

Same goes for the rest of you, including late joiners and especially you Aiss.

lol

[EyeSeeCold]

It sucks that that had to happen, I now realize what I was trying to convey could have been explained using the examples of the Erotic Attitudes.

Erotic Attitudes are groups due to the Ego's Irrational function. What I was talking about was groups due to Ego's Dynamic or Static function. They both are purely aesthetic groupings.


You guys were completely off, but I understand the knee jerk reaction to something that's MBTI-esque.


Here's that section redone if anyone wants to take it up again:
What if Society was grouped as Dynamic Je(Pi) Egos and Static Pe(Ji) Egos? It would be an interesting perspective, and I think the divide is highly underestimated in terms of behavior manifestation.