Can you be a different type in each system? I say no!

[Animal]

I'm holistic when it comes to cognitive functions. I don't believe you can be LSI in socionics, ISTJ in MBTI, and FeSi in CT. This is total bullshit to me. Jung explained that if you have two base functions at the same time, your brain would break. And all of these systems were derived from his functions.

I only identify as one type: SeFi, SEE, SeF, ESFP. The MBTI descriptions don't fit me, but I believe this is because the descriptions dehumanize anyone that isn't INXX. So I don't take it personally.

On cognitivetype.com, they type people objectively based on a clearly delineated system of signals. Of course, their accuracy may not be 100%, but it is much closer than most other communities. I typed several people in Socionics, whose types ended up being the same once they got visually typed at CT. So I personally was seeing the correlation even before I knew how to visually type. My husband for example, got typed as IEI in most Socionics communities - but I knew he was LSI and pushed for it. Then at CT, they typed him as TiSe. I was right!

So my theory is that people who insist they are a different type in each system are either lying to themselves about their type and looking for a justification - or they don't understand what the types really mean because they were confused by horrible descriptions. I was able to find the common thread between them all, so I wonder why others don't see it?

[Tsenjin]

People should be the same (or equivalent) types in all systems, as long as those systems works with compatible definitions.
It's not always the case. "Objective personality systems", for example, have definitions that diverged so much from other systems that they are now doing their own thing in their own world.

There is definitions differences between socionics systems and MBTI definitions too, but they are still largely compatible, for most types.
So when people think they are different types in different systems, it's usually because they type themselves based on bad descriptions, or because their over-emphasize a secondary aspect or a by-product of a function that is covered differently by each system.
For example : A SiFe might relate with socionics emphasis on "comfort" and homeostasis, but not with MBTI emphasis on sensory,details and memory.
Still, behind those by-products and superficial behavioral display, the same cognitive process is at play.

That's unavoidable when people are trying to match their perceived behavior with portraits instead of looking at how they process different types of datas.

[Tsenjin]

Also, IEI / TiSe mistype is a typical case.
It's not an horrible mistype actually.
It's the right quadra, the right introversion, the right functions in the wrong order. Could be a lot worst.
It's mostly due to the fact "communities" types too fast, types from "vibes", types from too limited data sets, and don't pay enough attention to slot specific things.
So when they see a TiSe with a quiet, not-in-your-face Se, they will type him as NiFe.

[Animal]

All those communities insisted I was Beta NF... though I was also typed as LSI-Se. It went on for so many years that eventually I started wondering if I was deluded as they claimed. The problem is I was typing as ESI and that was slightly off, so there was still that feeling that I was missing something. But I held onto my Gamma SF typing for years until they made so many arguments and shoved so many descriptions in my face. I saw people who looked and thought like me on CT who were typed as Ni lead (like Trent Reznor) - so eventually I caved and explored Ni ego.

Later on, CT revised their systems and now they type Trent Reznor as Se lead, like me. So actually on that count I was right. I had figured we were two different quadras with the same lead function. (Prior to that I had assumed if I was Beta, it was FeNi, which I did go back to, but Trent got me looking in the Ni direction for the first time.)

In the end, I was more right and all the bullying I endured on those forums was for naught. When people are relying on words alone, everything goes wrong.

[Daeva]

Communities typing a not-so-in-your-face LSI at IEI have an incredibly shallow and narrow understanding of both LSI and IEI. Especially online, Creative Pe and Creative Je should clue people in on their respective strengths and weaknesses. Indeed, it seems a tall order to except from most communities.

Oh well,.. on topic, I agree that typing at different types across systems indicates a problem.

[Animal]

Communities typing a not-so-in-your-face LSI at IEI have an incredibly shallow and narrow understanding of both LSI and IEI. Especially online, Creative Pe and Creative Je should clue people in on their respective strengths and weaknesses. Indeed, it seems a tall order to except from most communities.

Oh well,.. on topic, I agree that typing at different types across systems indicates a problem.

Yeah, the LSI is, fundamentally - Ji. The IEI is, fundamentally, Pi. Those are extremely different. Like no comparison. And just looking at someone, in most cases, you can tell the difference. I've found it harder to tell apart Pe from Je because they both gesticulate a lot and move... but the introvert posture between J and P is just very different. I figured this out on my own before even going to CT. Granted it took me a few years of collecting pictures and studying and synthesizing all the systems. It was not an overnight revelation. But I put the work in and made these distinctions and still didn't consider myself an expert. I was good enough to understand that Auburn over at CT was onto something. He had taken our ideas about how types appear and why, and organized them and took them to the next level.

But in Socionics writings, it says this stuff about posture!! It's just, people on forums read everything EXCEPT that. There are many socionics websites where the first thing they describe is a type's appearance and gait. So this should be talked about even in exclusively Socionics circles, but it isn't.

[Tsenjin]

The difference between introverted perceiving (Pi) and introverted judging (Ji) is usually obvious from speech patterns too, if you know what to look for.
It's just that most people don't. Or don't really care.

Add group thinking into the mix and you get abysmal results.

[Animal]

Agreed, I can see it in speech patterns too. I'm primarily an auditory person so the first way that I can type well is through voice and speech. There's a rhythm to how someone talks. But then visuals help, and after that, the actual words.

[Tsenjin]

Also IEI/INFJ is to cognitive typology what 4 is to enneagram.
Badly portrayed, ridiculously fetishized and grossly overtyped.

[Animal]

Also IEI/INFJ is to cognitive typology what 4 is to enneagram.
Badly portrayed, ridiculously fetishized and grossly overtyped.

Lol. I almost wrote this exact thing above, but I didn't at the last minute. Yeah, exactly. Beta NF is fetishized. I actually made a dramatic exit from one forum by proclaiming that they had fetishized Beta NF in a humorous and dramatic way. And when I rejoined the forum a year later, I saw that underneath the comment, the people who ran the profile had a whole convo about how my drama was typical Beta NF. Lmao!

[BalalaikaBoy]

If you can't be a different type in each system, then one of them has to be wrong (or, alternatively, both are wrong on different types), because the literature contradicts itself left and right depending on who you read.

[Daeva]

If you can't be a different type in each system, then one of them has to be wrong (or, alternatively, both are wrong on different types), because the literature contradicts itself left and right depending on who you read.

Yup. M?o?s?t? They all come with heavy flaws, and often one system gets "right" what the other doesn't but then fucks it up elsewhere. But as a whole, not one system is true, so we have to make up our own minds about what we see in people.

As for typing as a different type altogether in another system.. if a model doesn't work, throw it out. If one were to rely on the tests from the MBTI, whose results change for people over time, one must come to the inevitable conclusion that type itself is changeable. But I'm not doing this for a Big5-type of scoring, as the Big5 does this better anyway, so MBTI and its tests is out. Function theory is better.

From there I look at Socionics and while I do see many redeeming qualities and innovative takes on type with a structure that can be very helpful if properly understood, the way I've seen it applied is just straight up stupid. No, Animal and I aren't both "Beta NF" and Trump isn't Se lead. It's a farce where even MBTI stereotypes come to live on (Trump as Se).

So far the only theory I have seen that types consistently with what makes sense with how I see people (words are cheap and should never be the primary way for typing, in my opinion) is Cognitive Type - given that, in its current state, you ignore the function descriptions that are mostly rehashes of old stereotypes. But these descriptions aren't the foundation of the system and unlike Socionics it does not allow for typings to be rationalized away via 'theoretical explanations' that people make up to justify about any typing.

One valid critique to this way of looking at type is that, if one is to reject most interpretations of type as it is, yet follow a system that relies on visuals, is the type accurately explaining and categorizing what we think/see? I don't have a satisfying answer for this yet. The reason it is so convincing for both Animal and I is that we have disagreed with the way people interpret both type descriptions and typings of individuals, in Socionics and many other views, long before encountering CT. Again as an example, her and I both being typed at Beta NF is flat-out wrong, as is Trump as Se lead. Even in Socionics we had privately figured out that Animal is Gamma SF and I am LSI (Ti-Se). We knew this before and CT confirmed the way we saw type. In short, our 'primitive' system (primitive on the side of theory, but strong on the side of visuals and connecting descriptions to reality - most people suck at reading descriptions) matched CT's typings. This is why I am confident that the typings are real.

-----

Another way to look at this is via the Enneagram:

The Fauvres would have me at Sexual 2 with 127 tritype. This was done via a video typing, btw.
Relying on seeing oneself in descriptions I would have to be the Riso-Hudson type 4.
David Gray and company would have me a Sp/Sx 9w1 479 or 379.
Using any test I come out as a Sexual 4w5. Yes, this includes Fauvre's test...

Would this make me a Sx 271 in Fauvre but a Sx 4w5 in R&H and a Sp/Sx 9w1 479 according to Gray?
I think not.
Why? Because this directly opposes the concept of having a type and this is no different with one's cognitive type.

[BalalaikaBoy]

the problem is that so often it turns into this non-falsifiable battle of "MY view is the true system!" "no MY view is!" and people end up in a stale mate.

[Daeva]

the problem is that so often it turns into this non-falsifiable battle of "MY view is the true system!" "no MY view is!" and people end up in a stale mate.

That's only a problem if you make it one. Argument can lead to insight. These things don't happen overnight and to think of one's own conception of typology as the only right one is the fastest track to being wrong.

[BalalaikaBoy]

but it does mean that it's unrealistic to expect even relatively competent typists to come to decision as what type so-and-so is, and as a result, it often leads to people going in circles.

[Daeva]

I don't follow your logic here. Why would that be unrealistic?

[BalalaikaBoy]

Daeva
this is probably the biggest case I've seen for 6 being your core (I never thought it was a terrible typing, but this really clicks it into place).

granted, the difference is not that I don't believe that argument can lead to insight. in fact, this is a common communication style among 5s, 1s and 8s (to a lesser extent, 4s too when they're interested in headier pursuits and models), but 6w5 has this constant need to verify, double check, make sure they have the real answer. questioning and re-questioning is a way of life for them in a way that is foreign to me.

in all likelihood, this also a lot to do with cognition as well.

Ti lead: "we need to keep searching for the perfect ideal, theory, principle or model. people are too concerned with real world application and miss the higher significance which is more important than immediate results"
Te ego: "while it's important to be reasonably conscientious about accuracy, there comes a point where you need to make a decision and use the model to get something done"

[Daeva]

I'm going into psychology for a reason: to "use the model to get something done." I am by no means undervaluing the real world application; I am working hard on it as we speak.

It's also been an INTP that managed to create a typing method that is externally verifiable, doesn't rely on faulty questionnaires, with immediate results AND accuracy.

Meanwhile so many Te persons are just on Youtube typing people based on their loose hunches.

These notions about Ti vs Te are really so... Flat. Unreal. "PerC." Functions are about cognition, about information processes, NOT about ACTIONS.

[Daeva]

Looking at the 'real world application', I ought to be a Te ego going by your reasoning here. I'm moving ahead with the models regardless of their inaccuracies.

[Animal]

You (as in Daeva) also are very adamant on checking if the typings are consistent in applying to REAL people in real ways. You get pissed off if it's all abstract theory and archetypes - you want to see it fit the person's body language, and for all people being typed as X or Y to fit similar criteria. If there's too much disparity between real people who share a typing, you (mentally) adjust the typings OR the foundational premise behind it. But you never let it sit.