ENTP vs. INFP - ILE vs. IEI - Explained Correctly

If you ever want help finding out your true Jungian personality type, please email [e-mail] with 'Find my Type' in the title to book your paid Diagnostic Interview.
My comprehensive crash course on Socionics is out and ready to purchase. If you are interested, please email [e-mail] with 'Course' in the title.
#entp #infp #socionics #mbti #myersbriggs
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Subscribe: kzbin.info...
Become a Patron: / worldsocionics
Join our Facebook group: / worldsocionicssociety
Like our Facebook page: / worldsocionicssociety
Check out our Blog: worldsocionics.blogspot.com/

[@user-wj7gi1wq2j]

From the way he talks about the function stacks - he's talking about INFJs not INFPs!

[@Muuccss]

Hey Jack, LII here, your content has been instrumental in my path towards self understanding. I just saw a smear piece about you and your political endeavors, and I just wanted to let you know that you are supported and there are people on your side. The youth across The West is being about a a renewed spirit, a sleeping giant is awakening. Please keep fighting, there is a light shining upon us. If you need teammates or collaborators, reach out.

[@WorldSocionics]

Thank you, that's greatly appreciated

[@jonathansun4831]

If the ESTP is the destroyer of old systems then the IEI’s definitely the most natural and adaptable strategist on the battle field. Fi is what allows a person to flow naturally and holistically and orient a person from within in a given moment, an internal compass. To know exactly what to do and what to say in each moment by way of feeling rather than thinking is often more effective in a situation.

[@abodebluemoon3078]

Brother can you do a video about regular thinking in life as everyone does and explains the difference between verbal thinking and visual thinking and what mbti any of them suit more + sorry for the long commenti just like your way of explaining ❤

[@WorldSocionics]

I'll give it some thought

[@towel1636]

I honestly think they would do well in a relationship, despite being from different quadras.

[@decaffeinatedvegan]

Jack what are your thoughts on the CPT system (Harry Murrell)? It’s relatively popular these days.

[@WorldSocionics]

I don't understand it much. I last spoke to Harry years ago. My very biased impression is that it draws intrigue by coming to counterintuitive versions of each of the types, which in doing so, erode the distinctions between each type.

[@winterbird4447]

I have found myself repeatedly throwing my arms in the air saying: «So what’s the point of having different types then?!» When listening to Harry.

[@WorldSocionics]

well sounds like we are observing the same issue@@winterbird4447

[@winterbird4447]

@@WorldSocionicsIndeed! I just cannot put it as eloquent as you :)

[@g1orgunayt634]

what are your sources?

[@WorldSocionics]

Initially, Wikisocion, then conversations with other socionists and people of different types, but then a lot of my own thinking.

[@demogorgon4244]

while the "intention" of ti is making things logically clear, it doesn't mean clarity is guaranteed, just like fi in ethics. this is what "socionists" needs to understand and stop calling ti objective. algorithmic logic fails all the time. the terms objective/subjective can not be applied to typology in the everyday meaning. the term objective makes sense in typology only when it means object-based and jung used the term that way because he was smart enough. anyhow, you (being a single person) miss one variable in an equation and your solution will be incorrect no matter how clear or impeccable or sound your logic was. it's CRUCIAL for you to know everything with ti, unlike te. why? because basically, te asks the world "what's the best?" then the world gives him an answer like a %72, b %18, c %10 best... then te chooses obviously a. for a to be wrong, %72 of the people must be wrong. for your ti personal logic to be wrong, you guessed it, only you need to be wrong, you only need to miss one variable and the whole equation crumbles because of it. you(or some singular other person)=statistically more subjective. a lot of people (consensus logic)=statistically more objective.

[@euph1na]

Wdym by (missed) variable? Do you mean a Te variable? I.e. something empirical that needs to be accounted for? That assumes objectivity is more Te-based than Ti-based but you can’t use that assumption when that assumption is what you are trying to prove. “Objectivity” in some contexts will be more about Te, but in a socionics context, it applies to both. You say that missing a variable means the conclusion of logic will be incorrect no matter how sound it was (I assume you mean valid), but untrue/incorrect ≠ subjective. Ask yourself if the validity of an argument depends on the subject. It doesn’t. The logical relationship itself is the object. The measurement of validity (Ti) and truth (Te) both depend on the object, not the subject.

[@demogorgon4244]

@@euph1na we can draw a parallel to ethics here: fi needs to know a lot more about a person to customize their approach and be more effective than fe to create a deeper bond. but if fi user judges the person with those first impressions (or even second) their "customized" approach will be create a result worse than fe. the same thing is true for ti. if you use your algorithmic logic the same way, without accounting every variable, it's gonna throw you off. validity is easiest thing to create. just know two variables about a 180 variables equation and your logic can be still be classified as valid but who cares about that kind of worthless validity? like i said, objective/subjective can not be applied to typology. it is especially funny to me, ti called objective but fi is not in socionics. where did analogous logic gone? where's the symmetry? because they work exactly in the same algorithmic (opposite of heuristics) way. ti makes mistakes exactly in the same way fi makes. when these two do not know enough, they will make stupid calls and the validity of their judging won't mean a thing. and when you ARE a ti or fi dom, then you have a very strong drive to use those functions. it's hard to control yourself and collect more information and not judge the thing/person right away = a very strong recipe to create subjective results.

[@euph1na]

@@demogorgon4244 Did I ask who cares about validity? No. I told you to ask yourself if validity depends on the subject. What is your answer? And I still think you are using the wrong definition of “objective” in this context. In socionics it’s not the same as in other contexts. In socionics it is External/Internal. In other contexts, objectivity will be more about empiricism. Not here. To make sure we are on the same page can I ask you how you are defining “objectivity?”

[@demogorgon4244]

@@euph1na if ti is external then fi also is external but that's not the case in socionics. individuals and their likes are learned externally, their facial expressions, moods, worries and every OTHER nuance about a person learned by interacting with that person, listening to them, observing them. fi manages psychological distance /ethical stance by using external data collected prior. if we are going to call a cognitive function external just because the data it use externally collected, then all cogfxs are external. to properly use ne, you need an se stepping stone etc. it alters the actual to reach the potential/virtual. so it also depend on object. i said it at the beginning, haven't i? in my first comment you replied to "objectivity/subjectivity can not be applied to typology in the everyday meaning of the word" jung said ti doms would be subjective because of that drive i mentioned before. they tend to not ask around, they tend to distrust authorities, they want to reach truth by understanding things from ground up and fundamentally, but that's not an easy thing to do. it's a very hard thing to do. you will keep missing crucial information and then your theories will flop. which is a fact, ti theories flop all the time. they were valid in their mind but not valid in reality. this is also why i mentioned statistical objectivity vs statistical subjectivity. ti gonna be statistically more subjective. te gonna be statistically more objective. for most information to ascend to the level of te, it needs to go through a lot of minds. that means a lot of people will question it, test it. that process will reveal the true nature of that information. this is why te is more objective. the stuff is objectively tested, in the real world. it's not just a valid theory in someone's mind.

[@euph1na]

@@demogorgon4244 This is why I asked you how you are defining objectivity here. You didn’t need to type all of this. And that’s not what External means either. No one claimed that Ti is “objective” in the way you are defining “objective.” Ti is External, which is the name of a dichotomy in socionics, it doesn’t just mean things that are concrete. External information is explicit, it can be shared without reinterpretation. Internal information is implicit, it cannot be shared without reinterpretation. Sensory data obviously doesn’t depend on the individual and nor do facts or validity. Feelings do depend on the individual, someone cannot experience a feeling the exact way someone else did. Intuition is also Internal, it is implicit, abstract information that loses its original meaning upon communication and reinterpretation. Internal information’s (N and F) existence depends upon living beings and External information (S and T) exists *outside of* living beings. The former is of the subject and the latter is of the object as opposed to the subject.

[@jaredvaughan1665]

Sadly, barely anyone understands what clockwise and anti-clockwise means in Socionics. It is crucial to understand how each type progresses. IEI progresses by flowing from intuition to ethics to sensing to logic back to ethics ILE progresses by flowing from intuition to logic to sensing to ethics back to intuition This knowledge is the greatest road map Socionics has to offer to each type.

[@WorldSocionics]

It's the opposite direction.

[@siryoucantdothat9743]

😂

[@jaredvaughan1665]

Jack you would confuse a lot less people and have a lot more success titling this: ENTP vs mbti-INFJ - ILE vs IEI Because a correctly typed NiFe in Socionics is a correctly typed mbti-INFJ. Thankfully you only need to add the mbti- for the 4 introverted intuitives. For the introverted sensors I would add an * to show mbti has the wrong cognitive stack. As mbti fails to see all its SJs lead with a rational function. And all its SPs with an irrational function. So to avoid confusion please write the types as: ESTP ESFP ESTJ ESFJ ENTP ENFP ENTJ ENFJ ISTP* ISFP* ISFJ* ISTJ* mbti-INFJ mbti-INFP mbti-INTP mbti-INTJ

[@Sean-wx2ht]

Poggers

[@chariskainx5447]

Why would he conform to MBTI logic for denomination? Rational types are J, Irrational types are P.

[@PracticalSocionics]

He's rejected this argument from you dozens of times. What makes you think that he's suddenly going to wake up one day and do what you ask. Drop it already

[@culturepolitique704]

Or at least write it INFj for socionics and INFJ for MBTI