Personality Cafe banner
41 - 60 of 74 Posts
That's my point; Beebe's model is incorrect... and if erictb is right, then Socionics Model A is correct.
Beebe's model is model A. I'm not sure where he conjured it up from but they are identical. If one is incorrect then so is the other. The details are uninteresting and there are possible flaws in either theory. Overall they are identical in content.

If you wish to say "nay", then its not really my problem if you don't see it.

IEE

Monday-Friday: Te is a conscious function

Saturday-Sunday: Se is a conscious function
Its weekends only I don't enjoy pushing it beyond my comfort zone XD...unless its Fi related (don't ever fuck with Fi). Thou I don't mind plowing through people if I think its needed, hell I enjoy it (exiting, makes me all tingly).

EDIT: fuck I'm pissed...can't think straight when I'm pissed...fucking studio background cheap solution backfired on me -.-....Mental note: Never use double adhesive sticky tape again!
 
Maybe this is Ne, its obviously cross contextual thinking. I do not understand how one can ignore these obvious connections. The fact that more people divided by space and time thought of the same theory makes Model A more valid / compelling. Theories without evidence can not be used in practice. If I have no evidence to back up this shit I might as well believe in the Easter bunny or astrology. We need some cold hard evidence lol, the smoking gun, a body, anything. Imo these are clues pointing in the right direction.
If (that is an "if") they showed similarities, would two ultimately unproven theories saying similar things reinforce validity? Why not just look for physical evidence to support both separately? They don't have to be linked to be potentially useful, and my original criticism stands.

Plus the facts do not lie, Beebe's model is Model A worded differently, maybe he stole it XD, but if Leonore thought the same, then are these really coincidence?
I don't have an opinion concerning Beebe's model, having not looked into it too deeply, but I wouldn't jump to agree with your assessment without seeing it for myself (which would mean researching the system for myself).
 
If (that is an "if") they showed similarities, would two ultimately unproven theories saying similar things reinforce validity? Why not just look for physical evidence to support both separately? They don't have to be linked to be potentially useful, and my original criticism stands.



I don't have an opinion concerning Beebe's model, having not looked into it too deeply, but I wouldn't jump to agree with your assessment without seeing it for myself (which would mean researching the system for myself).
Research it then.

MBTI & Socionics would have to provide a long term observational study of a very large number of people, no self evaluation testing, no statistics based on the tests. Hasn't been done yet & we can't do it here. Best lead so far is that both systems seem to be identical, its not proof, but its better then nothing.
 
Research it then.

MBTI & Socionics would have to provide a long term observational study of a very large number of people, no self evaluation testing, no statistics based on the tests. Hasn't been done yet & we can't do it here. Best lead so far is that both systems seem to be identical, its not proof, but its better then nothing.
Again, they don't have to match to be worthwhile. But I know that's a serious issue for you, and that you are driven by some apparent compulsion to make them fit no matter what, so... *shrug* I've stated my opinion, and we're not going to convince the other, so better to let that particular matter drop.
 
Again, they don't have to match to be worthwhile. But I know that's a serious issue for you, and that you are driven by some apparent compulsion to make them fit no matter what, so... *shrug* I've stated my opinion, and we're not going to convince the other, so better to let that particular matter drop.
That is because opinions do not matter. Its a matter of opinion that the world is flat for example, but the world is what it is (in this case round) no matter the opinion.

Our opinions on the subject of personality theory do not matter. Only the facts matter, known or unknown. You are supposed to be an objective type as ESI, I think you to understand.

^^ this is not art or tasting food or similar stuff where opinions matter, I listed why they are the same in the above post. If they aren't, then list reasons why. By researching both you can possibly find facts that contradict my post. It would be great, because then it means I was wrong and missed something.

I'm not for or against anyone here because that is irrelevant and has no place in a serious discussion, I'm just stating common sense & facts.
 
That is because opinions do not matter. Its a matter of opinion that the world is flat for example, but the world is what it is (in this case round) no matter the opinion.

Our opinions on the subject of personality theory do not matter. Only the facts matter, known or unknown.

^^ this is not art or tasting food or similar stuff where opinions matter.
That they have to fit together in order to have any validity or use is your opinion. And now we're going in circles. *shrugs* Whatever. Anyone else is free to answer my original criticism.
 
I understand that some people are interested in possible parallels between the two theories, but why look to an MBTI model to "support" or "justify" Model A? That implies that Model A needs the connection to be considered valid or worthwhile.
I think Model A may have brought that on itself by adoptiing MBTI notation; especially j/p (yet with a different meaning). They should have left that out (stuck with the three retter codes), and then a comparison would not have been quite as inferred. People would still do it, but you wouldn't have as many people expecting them to match, and getting confused.
 
I think Model A may have brought that on itself by adoptiing MBTI notation; especially j/p (yet with a different meaning). They should have left that out (stuck with the three retter codes), and then a comparison would not have been quite as inferred. People would still do it, but you wouldn't have as many people expecting them to match, and getting confused.
They didn't. One socionist (Sergei Ganin) imported the notation in order to make Socionics more palatable to the Western world. He is also the one who introduced the claim that functions = IM elements. Other Socionists highly disagree with his claims, and the notation import has clearly done far more harm than good.
 
@Eric B You may find these links useful. I have not interacted much with Expat, but he was a forum old-timer as I was coming into the Socionics community, and he seems to have been respected as someone with a very good grasp on the theory. Rick is a former Socionist (I believe he ragequit over intertype inconsistencies, but he still has great material on his site, which he has left up), and Dmitri Lytov is still a practicing Socionist to the best of my knowledge.

Common Socionics misconceptions
Jung, Meyers-Briggs, and Socionics Rant
 
I understand that some people are interested in possible parallels between the two theories, but why look to an MBTI model to "support" or "justify" Model A? That implies that Model A needs the connection to be considered valid or worthwhile.
And then we have this chicken vs egg debate if you want to look at it the other way. The parallels are undeniable, but each theory can hold it's own. I think some people are actually just trying to point out that they are all describing the same exact things to justify typings across both systems more than anything else.

That's my point; Beebe's model is incorrect... and if erictb is right, then Socionics Model A is correct.
Again, which model are we using as the standard of comparison and why does that model deserve to be viewed as the standard? Is it more applicable to patterns of cognition than Beebe's? Why?

Until that mess gets sorted out, all you can say is that the two merely differ in their interpretations of how the functions/information elements/whatever operate in the psyche and in behavior.
 
That's my point; Beebe's model is incorrect... and if erictb is right, then Socionics Model A is correct.
I don't think it's a matter of one or the other; both [Beebe and Lenore, that is] are looking at different parts of the same things. Yes, the Double Agents are the subdued/strong functions, and the Crow's Nests (i.e. alternatives) are the subdued/weak. I've always noted that it is similar to Model A, but not exactly. (Outside of the preferred/ego block, and the Crow's Nest or Superego, the remaining four are ordered a bit differently.

But Beebe doesn't contradict this; he just assigns archetypes to the different functions. Lenore developed her model independently of Beebe (His model was not really published or discussed. He already mentioned some of the function archetypes in a book on integrity 20 years ago, but you did not have internet discussion widely promoting things, like we do today. It was likely Berens in the last 10 years who really exposed them. Lenore wrote her book right around the time Berens started publishing, and didn't know about it at the time. She did address Beebe's archetypes in this article: http://web.archive.org/web/20061210155437/http://www.greatlakesapt.org/uploads/media/beebe1.PDF).

I believe it's different situations that determine which functions beside the preferred ones you use more. Lenore says that earlier on, we stay in our preferred brain hemisphere, so that when the preferred pair don't solve the problem, we run to the crow's nests which are in the same hemisphere. As we mature, we then run to the tertiary more, which is opposite hemisphere, but is at least "primary" or "valued".
Beebe's theory says that different situations will constellate the different complexes (which are the archetypes, when they become personalized), and then we feel their emotionally freighted imagery through the associated function (this is the key to the theory that has not been clearly spelled out by those teaching Beebe's theory). In this way, it will pretty much follow valued/subdued (primary/shadow), as the lower you go, the more stress the ego is under. So if a person feels bound, or that his ego is threatened with destruction a lot, then the Trickser or Demon may constellate and he may appear to react with the 7th or 8th functions more than some higher numbered functions (though it's not necessarily about "doing" anything like "reacting"). But this is not equal to the crow's nests now.

I did this illustration a long time ago to show how the two models could be integrated:
 
And then we have this chicken vs egg debate if you want to look at it the other way. The parallels are undeniable, but each theory can hold it's own. I think some people are actually just trying to point out that they are all describing the same exact things to justify typings across both systems more than anything else.
Why assume it has to be an attempt to justify the typings across systems? Could it simply not be that people have come to understand that the systems are not all that different and that if the systems are true to what they describe, the typings must be the same if they are to be accurate at all?
 
That they have to fit together in order to have any validity or use is your opinion. And now we're going in circles. *shrugs* Whatever. Anyone else is free to answer my original criticism.
On their own they have no validity. The big 5 has validity in comparison (measures behaviour). No serious psychologist even considers the MBTI as a reasonably valid instrument. I know, I have a BA in psychology, we barely mentioned the MBTI as a misguided approach by human resource managers.

Is it fun and does it have potential? Yes. ^^; its circular because there is nothing further to say on the matter. The validity of both systems is still in question.

The point is that since they are the same they both become more credible (its mutual). Its not just Model A that requires MBTI to "support it". On its own a theory can be logically flawless yet completely ripped from reality aka the brain & mind may work differently, in ways previously unimagined.

Brainmapping will give a proper answer eventually.

o.o I have this sense with some people that we are talking in paralell, thou I always think I'm on topic :S not sure if I am because of this lol.
 
Discussion starter · #55 · (Edited)
Yes, the Double Agents are the subdued/strong functions, and the Crow's Nests (i.e. alternatives) are the subdued/weak.
The Crow's Nest (i.e. alternatives) are valued (i.e. primary) functions according to Lenore Thomson, right?


Personality Type, by Lenore Thomson, page 86-

"The four functions between our strongest (the captain and the petty officer) and our weakest (the water-skier and would-be captain) have their own roles on our typological ship. But the best way to see how they work is to introduce a specific example.

Grant, a fifty-nine-year-old ESTJ, had been an accountant for thirty years in a church-related lending institution. This is Grant's type lasagna - with the four additional functions sandwiched in the middle:

dominant: Te
secondary: Si
left-brain alternatives: Fe, Ni
right-brain double agents: Se, Ti
tertiary: Ne
inferior: Fi

[...] Extraverted Feeling offered Grant an alternative to his dominant function, Extraverted Thinking. As a Thinking type, Grant was most comfortable analyzing things logically, by way of general rules and principles. Extraverted Feeling encouraged him to assess others' reactions and to pay more attention to his relationships.

Although these functions compete with each other, they both activate areas in the left brain, encouraging adaption to others' standards. So Grant used his Feeling skills fairly well-when he recognized their logical utility. In his current situation, it was important to him to get along with the new board members and to be appreciated, so he socialized with them and tried to foster loyal personal connections.

In the same way, Introverted Intuition offered Grant an alternative to his secondary Introverted Sensate skills. This skill was barely developed for Grant."
 
Discussion starter · #56 · (Edited)
The Crow's Nest (i.e. alternatives) are valued (i.e. primary) functions according to Lenore Thomson, right?


Personality Type, by Lenore Thomson, page 86-

"The four functions between our strongest (the captain and the petty officer) and our weakest (the water-skier and would-be captain) have their own roles on our typological ship. But the best way to see how they work is to introduce a specific example.

Grant, a fifty-nine-year-old ESTJ, had been an accountant for thirty years in a church-related lending institution. This is Grant's type lasagna - with the four additional functions sandwiched in the middle:

dominant: Te
secondary: Si
left-brain alternatives: Fe, Ni
right-brain double agents: Se, Ti
tertiary: Ne
inferior: Fi

[...] Extraverted Feeling offered Grant an alternative to his dominant function, Extraverted Thinking. As a Thinking type, Grant was most comfortable analyzing things logically, by way of general rules and principles. Extraverted Feeling encouraged him to assess others' reactions and to pay more attention to his relationships.

Although these functions compete with each other, they both activate areas in the left brain, encouraging adaption to others' standards. So Grant used his Feeling skills fairly well-when he recognized their logical utility. In his current situation, it was important to him to get along with the new board members and to be appreciated, so he socialized with them and tried to foster loyal personal connections.

In the same way, Introverted Intuition offered Grant an alternative to his secondary Introverted Sensate skills. This skill was barely developed for Grant."
Personality Type, by Lenore Thomson, page 78

"Conscious awareness, however, is a top-down affair. [...]

At the very bottom are the two functions directly opposed to the top two: the tertiary and inferior functions. These are our least conscious functions."


» Another interpretation of the processes

This has resulted in a different stacking order, called the “lasagna model“, where the shadows are placed inbetween the dom/aux and tertiary/inferior blocks. So the block that in Beebe’s model is placed last, she calls “Crow’s Nest” in a ship crew analogy she has made, and they are usually listed in 3rd and 4th place, followed by “the Double Agents” (the other two shadows; so called, because they are the dom. and aux. in the opposite attitudes, and thus the opposite brain hemisphere also). The tertiary and inferior are listed last. That way, the “inferior” then really is “inferior”. This would make sense from it being the most consciously rejected function. Those “below” it are unconscious, remember!

A lot of people in discussions like this order, because it more closely matches their comparitive strengths, as measured by the cognitive process test. Of course, this can’t be made into a hard rule either, and it won’t always match in that order. The model is actually not intended to replace Beebe’s; it works beside it as another perspective on shadow degradation. The model also ends up as totally alternating in attitude, as ieieieie, with the order using Beebe’s numbers being as follows: 1,2,8,7,6,5,3,4. It’s divided as the first four are the same brain hemisphere, and the others, the opposite brain hemisphere.
 
Discussion starter · #57 ·
Socionics Model A:

Mental functions, 1 2 3 4 - belonging to to the mental (active) ring of Model A. These functions are controlled by consciousness. The world and self is seen through these functions as if from outside, striving for objectivity and universality. The given information is impersonal, manifested in verbal form, on level of 2-signal system.

Vital functions, 5 6 7 8 - belonging to the vital (passive) ring of Model A. These functions are subconscious and subject to little conscious control. The world becomes known through own feelings and experiences, through a projection inside. The vital functions are characterized by subjectivity, idiosyncratic representation. The result is usually embodied in actions, through 1-signal system. The arguments are made from first-person.


Lenore Thomson's model of the functions supports Socionics Model A in terms of strength, right?

Lenore Thomson's model of the functions does not support Socionics Model A in terms of value, right?
 
The Crow's Nest (i.e. alternatives) are valued (i.e. primary) functions according to Lenore Thomson, right?

Personality Type, by Lenore Thomson, page 86-

"The four functions between our strongest (the captain and the petty officer) and our weakest (the water-skier and would-be captain) have their own roles on our typological ship. But the best way to see how they work is to introduce a specific example.

Grant, a fifty-nine-year-old ESTJ, had been an accountant for thirty years in a church-related lending institution. This is Grant's type lasagna - with the four additional functions sandwiched in the middle:

dominant: Te
secondary: Si
left-brain alternatives: Fe, Ni
right-brain double agents: Se, Ti
tertiary: Ne
inferior: Fi

[...] Extraverted Feeling offered Grant an alternative to his dominant function, Extraverted Thinking. As a Thinking type, Grant was most comfortable analyzing things logically, by way of general rules and principles. Extraverted Feeling encouraged him to assess others' reactions and to pay more attention to his relationships.

Although these functions compete with each other, they both activate areas in the left brain, encouraging adaption to others' standards. So Grant used his Feeling skills fairly well-when he recognized their logical utility. In his current situation, it was important to him to get along with the new board members and to be appreciated, so he socialized with them and tried to foster loyal personal connections.

In the same way, Introverted Intuition offered Grant an alternative to his secondary Introverted Sensate skills. This skill was barely developed for Grant."
Personality Type, by Lenore Thomson, page 78

"Conscious awareness, however, is a top-down affair. [...]

At the very bottom are the two functions directly opposed to the top two: the tertiary and inferior functions. These are our least conscious functions."


» Another interpretation of the processes

This has resulted in a different stacking order, called the “lasagna model“, where the shadows are placed inbetween the dom/aux and tertiary/inferior blocks. So the block that in Beebe’s model is placed last, she calls “Crow’s Nest” in a ship crew analogy she has made, and they are usually listed in 3rd and 4th place, followed by “the Double Agents” (the other two shadows; so called, because they are the dom. and aux. in the opposite attitudes, and thus the opposite brain hemisphere also). The tertiary and inferior are listed last. That way, the “inferior” then really is “inferior”. This would make sense from it being the most consciously rejected function. Those “below” it are unconscious, remember!

A lot of people in discussions like this order, because it more closely matches their comparitive strengths, as measured by the cognitive process test. Of course, this can’t be made into a hard rule either, and it won’t always match in that order. The model is actually not intended to replace Beebe’s; it works beside it as another perspective on shadow degradation. The model also ends up as totally alternating in attitude, as ieieieie, with the order using Beebe’s numbers being as follows: 1,2,8,7,6,5,3,4. It’s divided as the first four are the same brain hemisphere, and the others, the opposite brain hemisphere.
Wow; never knew about that blog, which is referencing my material!

But you have to keep in mind, Lenore is not using Socionics terminology, so when she says "strong/weak", it's not the same thing as what Model A calls strong/weak. That's why I translated between them. She's going by the old "four-process theory", which only dealt with dominant-inferior, and didn't really address "the other four" much. She was trying to extend it to an eight-process theory (and again, independently of the eight-process model Beebe was developing).

So [unlike Beebe, who simply ordered the other four "#5-8" paralleling "#1-4" as their "shadows"; i.e. same function, opposite attitude], she stuck the other four in between the 1/2 and 3/4 "blocks", hence the "lasagna". 1-4 are still the "primary" functions, while 5-8 are the "shadows" (though that terminology is still more Beebe than her), and "primary/shadow" is what really corresponds to "valued/subdued".

What you're calling "primary" in your question is really "preferred" function. Like we both prefer N and T (according to the four process model without attitudes). Yet for me, it's TiNe, and its shadows are the opposite, TeNi. This is what Socionics calls "strong". The other two functions (S and F) are "unpreferred" or "weak".
None of this changes in Lenore's model; she just isn't using the Socionics terms.

The illustration I posted above shows how Lenore's "Crow's Nests", Beebe's "#7/8" and Socionics' "subdued/weak" can in a way be right "next to" the preferred functions in their so-called "usage", where we'd think they were the furthest away. The tertiary and inferior end up as the furthest away.

This makes some sense, and the way I explain it, is that the tertiary and inferior are the most consciously suppressed (where 5-8 are supposedly even more unconscious, coming up only through the complexes, or when 1-4 fail).
In the ship model, #5-8 are at least still on the ship, while 3 and 4 have been "cast off"; #3 still heading in the same direction of the ship (i.e. dominant attitude), and #4 heading in the other direction (and trying to pull the ship back with it).

This at this point is not dealing with "strength", and I always say the function order is not about strength (Though we can assume the tertiary and inferior will be weaker). "Weak/strong" in Socionics are operational definitions (that's in my glossary as well), and are likely not to be taken literally.
 
Discussion starter · #59 · (Edited)
Wow; never knew about that blog, which is referencing my material!

But you have to keep in mind, Lenore is not using Socionics terminology, so when she says "strong/weak", it's not the same thing as what Model A calls strong/weak. That's why I translated between them. She's going by the old "four-process theory", which only dealt with dominant-inferior, and didn't really address "the other four" much. She was trying to extend it to an eight-process theory (and again, independently of the eight-process model Beebe was developing).

So [unlike Beebe, who simply ordered the other four "#5-8" paralleling "#1-4" as their "shadows"; i.e. same function, opposite attitude], she stuck the other four in between the 1/2 and 3/4 "blocks", hence the "lasagna". 1-4 are still the "primary" functions, while 5-8 are the "shadows" (though that terminology is still more Beebe than her), and "primary/shadow" is what really corresponds to "valued/subdued".

What you're calling "primary" in your question is really "preferred" function. Like we both prefer N and T (according to the four process model without attitudes). Yet for me, it's TiNe, and its shadows are the opposite, TeNi. This is what Socionics calls "strong". The other two functions (S and F) are "unpreferred" or "weak".
None of this changes in Lenore's model; she just isn't using the Socionics terms.

The illustration I posted above shows how Lenore's "Crow's Nests", Beebe's "#7/8" and Socionics' "subdued/weak" can in a way be right "next to" the preferred functions in their so-called "usage", where we'd think they were the furthest away. The tertiary and inferior end up as the furthest away.

This makes some sense, and the way I explain it, is that the tertiary and inferior are the most consciously suppressed (where 5-8 are supposedly even more unconscious, coming up only through the complexes, or when 1-4 fail).
In the ship model, #5-8 are at least still on the ship, while 3 and 4 have been "cast off"; #3 still heading in the same direction of the ship (i.e. dominant attitude), and #4 heading in the other direction (and trying to pull the ship back with it).

This at this point is not dealing with "strength", and I always say the function order is not about strength (Though we can assume the tertiary and inferior will be weaker). "Weak/strong" in Socionics are operational definitions (that's in my glossary as well), and are likely not to be taken literally.

Is this correct?

Beebe's valued (or primary) function = conscious function

Beebe's subdued (or shadow) function = unconscious function

a valued function (Beebe) = a mental function in Socionics

a subdued function (Beebe) = a vital function in Socionics


"In the ship model, #5-8 are at least still on the ship, while 3 and 4 have been "cast off"; #3 still heading in the same direction of the ship (i.e. dominant attitude), and #4 heading in the other direction (and trying to pull the ship back with it)."

Does she mean that Fe and Ni are easier to use than Ne and Fi for an ESTJ?



http://www.personalitypathways.com/thomson/type3-3.html

Beebe's model links the functions to instinctual life

"John Beebe's model links the functions of each type to complexes formed in the process of developing a conscious ego-identity. I suspect that my interpretation of his model is different from his own, but I'm going to venture it anyhow.

As far as I'm concerned, Beebe's model is a very good one, but only if it's clear that it's talking about complexes. Complexes are the way in which instinctual energies become available to consciousness. The model, in this respect, doesn't show us how the type functions operate. Rather, it tells us what happens in the psyche when we borrow instinctual energy from the unconscious to further our ego-based choices."

"how the type functions operate"? What does she mean?
 
In other words, I was influenced by the common discussions on functions as "tools" that we "use", and I was trying to make heads or tails of Beebe's model in that respect, especially in light of trying to square away my own type after being told I "use Fi" too much to be a TP. I figured Fi would fit what Beebe calls the "Demon", but still didn't know how it all worked or how to understand and explain it.

So what she's saying is to not look at the archetypes (Witch/Senex, Trickster, Demon, etc) as behaviors that the functions "do" (i.e. "operate") or whatever. (That's how I was basically thinking of them). They are complexes, which is by definition an archetype that has become "personalized". When expressed in terms of a "complex", that made it much easier to comprehend. "Complex" is a more frequently used concept. ("Inferiority complex", etc.)

A complex is basically a series of "images freighted with emotion" which constellate in different situations. When the eight particular complexes Beebe mentions do, the feelings reach consciousness through the associated function. It's not necessarily even about "using" the function (like it's basically "doing" something), but somehow seeing the situation through in terms of the perspective of the function, such as (in an extension of the Trickster Fe example in the link) avoiding situations that raise the specter of social inadequacy.

If you notice in that article, she brings up rather severe situations (physical abuse, war, etc), followed by "when the ego is ready to grow". What she's getting at is that in her adaptation of Beebe's model, she doesn't hold the shadow archetypes, particularly the Trickster and Demon, to constellate as often as Beebe and his followers (Berens, etc). She follows Donald Kalsched, who conceived of them as dealing mainly with something called "ego disintegration", which is something that can occur in severe trauma, but then also gradually happens on its own in the process of individuation that should begin around midlife.
The article is much newer than the book, and she's kind of moved away from the ship model. The "roles" she assigned the functions basically did work pretty much like the way people assume Beebe's model works (in terms of behaviors), but she doesn't really think in those terms anymore.

So whether "Fe and Ni are easier to use"? I don't think it was ever about "ease of use". That's basically the same old assumption people make about relative "strength" (especially with the cognitive process test results). In the ship model, the Crow's Nest functions (or a J type's "left brain alternatives") simply came up when the dom. and aux. couldn't solve the problem. When the tertiary develops more, than that will be turned to more. It's not really about "ease". That's treating the functions as gears or tools, but that's really oversimplifying things. And the book does make it look a bit like they are tools, but again, she's changed her way of expressing these things.
Though even with that ESTJ example, I don't think it's about "ease"; it's just something that comes up, probably subconsciously, when the preferred functions couldn't solve the problem. It doesn't seem to portray him as consciously saying "OK, let me use this other function now").

Also, "valued" and "subdued" are Socionics terms I was comparing to Beebe, not Beebe's terms. And from what I see, yes, they do correspond to conscious/primary and unconscious/shadow. They're probably alternative terms from different Socionics' writers.
 
41 - 60 of 74 Posts
This is an older thread, you may not receive a response, and could be reviving an old thread. Please consider creating a new thread.
Top