Reformulating socionics in MBTI terms

[krieger]

Ever since I've read Thompson's description of her "introverted intuition" (in her model the INTJ's main function) I have been wondering to what extend it might be possible and perhaps even desirable to reformulate socionics' function model to fit that of the MBTI. Her description of the thought process is accurate to the point of intimidating.

So, consider the question raised... INTJ = NiTe or TiNe? What is the way to know? The complementarity of inverse functions seems to point in socionics' favor, but do we know that this principle is correct...? We know typology has a nasty habbit of throwing people's senses off and leading them to draw false conclusions... How real is the possibility that socionics' most basic of assumptions are incorrect?

[aestrivex]

if you look at socionics as a whole you will see that it is pretty much coherent and describes a lot of the same reality (ignoring the futile masquerade of sergei ganin).


if you look at MBTI you will find that the descriptions for types, especially some of the more poorly understood ones like the NT, are described in an extremely variable manner. just from internet sources alone, it's pretty much impossible to get clear pictures of what an MBTI type is apart from the basic information provided by the four dichotomies.



such disparities certainly do not point in MBTI's favor as a consistent theory, especially with regards to its relations with socionics.

[Expat]

How real is the possibility that socionics' most basic of assumptions are incorrect?

That depends on what you're talking about. What are socionics' most basic assumptions? I see that as simply that people have different priorities and motivations in how they process information and carry out their work or spend their time and effort, and that affects how they interact with other people. That, to my satisfaction, is correct.

If you refer to the existence or not of 16 types, or of the functions, or the quadras *shrug* I don't know. To me those are simply a way to put the above into a consistent model.

[Phaedrus]

So, consider the question raised... INTJ = NiTe or TiNe? What is the way to know?

To compare both models with each other and with Jung -- from as many angles as possible. If we do that, we realize that both Socionics and MBTT think that their 16 types are based on Jung's 8 types and that both models describe the same 16 groups of people (= the same 16 types). But we also realize that MBTT is wrong about the functions, since Jung's introverted thinking type is a Subjectivist whose behaviours and thinking process is most similar to an LII's, and that for example an ILI's behaviour is most similar to Jung's introverted intuitive type.

There is a clear pattern there, and once you see it, it becomes obvious that an INTP can't correspond to Jung's introverted thinking type, and that an INTJ can't correspond to Jung's introverted intuitive type. The basic and most relevant dichotomy here is the J/P -- the differences in behaviours, attitudes, and thinking processes between rationals and irrationals. All three models -- Jung's, MBTT, and Socionics -- agree on how to group people according to that dimension, and they use the same criteria for the typical behaviours of each group. They describe the same empirical phenomenon, but MBTT has misunderstood and confused the meaning and the ordering of the functions.

This is most likely (beyond reasonable doubt) the truth of the matter. I have investigated this very thoroughly, and if you do the same, you will agree with me.

[Jonathan]

if you look at socionics as a whole you will see that it is pretty much coherent and describes a lot of the same reality (ignoring the futile masquerade of sergei ganin).


if you look at MBTI you will find that the descriptions for types, especially some of the more poorly understood ones like the NT, are described in an extremely variable manner. just from internet sources alone, it's pretty much impossible to get clear pictures of what an MBTI type is apart from the basic information provided by the four dichotomies.



such disparities certainly do not point in MBTI's favor as a consistent theory, especially with regards to its relations with socionics.

Well, to get a clear view of MBTI theory, you have to read the MBTI manual. It's not as confused or vague as it may sound from reading derivative internet sites.

[aestrivex]

very possibly so; frankly i don't know or care.

[Jonathan]

Here's my take on it. In Socionics, I and E forms of IM Elements are considered to be quite separate modes of thought. Ti and Te are two different kinds of thinking. MBTI takes a different approach: for the most part, T is T, N is N, etc.; E and I are more like the "public" and "private" sphere of one's life. In MBTI theory, one's extraverted function is the one that determines one's observable behavior, the way one carries oneself in matters that relate to one's external circumstance. Hence, it follows in MBTI that if one directs T to the "outer" side of one's life and N to the "inner" side, then one's decisions and actions in regard to dealing with externally important, clearly observable matters, would be guided more by T. In Socionics, it is the accepting function which is assumed to carry the most weight in regard to observable behaviors and actions. It is for this reason that, as Phaedrus points out, IP=Ip and IJ=Ij makes sense.

However, the situation isn't as neat and clean as one might want it to be. As Expat has pointed out, Socionics was not intended to restrict itself to Jung's descriptions. There are subtle differences between the definitions for each of these typologies. Generally, MBTI is closer to Jung in this regard. Neither Jung nor MBTI view introverted sensing as inclined toward hedonism; Jung rather describes extraverted sensing more that way. Neither Jung nor MBTI contain the view found in some strands of Socionics that extraverted intuition is about ideas whereas introverted intuition is about time; rather, clearly both forms of intuition are about ideas, whereas Socionists tend to hedge on the topic, sometimes saying that they're both about ideas, and sometimes saying that only extraverted intuition is about ideas. Jung's description of introverted thinking moreover seems to be applicable to both LII and ILI, and to these more than to LSI. The idea that Fi is about relations between people whereas Fe is about inner feelings and their expression is also not found in these other typologies.

So, even while these models are observing some absolute, definite patterns in real life, the way they intersect is highly complex.

Phaedrus, I have to say that the more I've investigated it, the less LII seems clearly like INTJ. INTJs are described as having greater initiative and greater tendency to want to lead than either LII or ILI. As a result, INTJ descriptions really seem more like LIEs who are just more internally driven than the average LIE.

Another complication is that there seem to be within Socionics a number of people who believe that Ne and Si both tend to lead to some behaviors that may be similar to those commonly associated with irrationality; and that conversely, Ni and Se both tend to lead to some behaviors that may be similar to those associated with rationality. Dmitri has said a number of times that ISjs are the most "j" types. Some people have extended this notion, believing that ISjs and INps are J-like, and ISps and INjs are P-like. That seems to be perhaps going too far, but I can buy the idea that INjs are possibly less j-like than other j types.

[Expat]

I agree with most of what Jonathan has said. Some remarks:

Neither Jung nor MBTI contain the view found in some strands of Socionics that extraverted intuition is about ideas whereas introverted intuition is about time; rather, clearly both forms of intuition are about ideas, whereas Socionists tend to hedge on the topic, sometimes saying that they're both about ideas, and sometimes saying that only extraverted intuition is about ideas.

Jung himself (as he made clear in that long interview available in Google) basically said that Extraverted Intuition was about having ideas and acting on them, the example he gave in the interview was that of risk-takers, gamblers, people who act upon a hunch. The Introverted Intuitive type was more about people who have very personal visions and images, not necessarily (or mainly not) acting on them.

I think that socionics may often describe and particularly confusingly, but I think it's clear that is about exploring as many ideas from the same starting point rather than lingering on individual ones, while is more about following few, or even one, idea more deeply; the "intuition of time" thingy is a consequence of this.

Phaedrus, I have to say that the more I've investigated it, the less LII seems clearly like INTJ. INTJs are described as having greater initiative and greater tendency to want to lead than either LII or ILI. As a result, INTJ descriptions really seem more like LIEs who are just more internally driven than the average LIE.

If you've read the MBTI manual perhaps you can comment on this: perhaps because the INTJ is NiTe, and they were influenced by Jung's Extraverted Thinking type description, which is basically a salad of all thinking types inclined to act upon, or at least talk about, their knowledge and, yes, ideas? If so, it's no wonder that the INTJ resembles more a LIE than a LII.

.

Another complication is that there seem to be within Socionics a number of people who believe that Ne and Si both tend to lead to some behaviors that may be similar to those commonly associated with irrationality; and that conversely, Ni and Se both tend to lead to some behaviors that may be similar to those associated with rationality. Dmitri has said a number of times that ISjs are the most "j" types. Some people have extended this notion, believing that ISjs and INps are J-like, and ISps and INjs are P-like. That seems to be perhaps going too far, but I can buy the idea that INjs are possibly less j-like than other j types.

Yes. Because is about being present-focused and making the best out of the present, and is about achieving something with long-term considerations -- so, as Arnold Schawarzenneger has said in a fairly recent and lengthy interview in the German weekly Der Spiegel, he never thought of any of his career moves much in advance, he just did what had to be done as it came, whether it was moving from Austria to the US or moving from bodybuilder to actor to politician. He even boasted of not really thinking too much about what he's going to do next week, he just does the job at hand and knows he can do it. Some interpretations of J/P would say that then he's a P type since, correct me if I'm wrong, carefully planning things is J. However, on a daily basis, he is clearly rational and EJ in my opinion, a LSE.

[Expat]

Something else.

Jonathan has mentioned that Myers-Briggs has remained closer to Jung's functions in terms of their definition and that socionics has moved away from them. I believe MBTT's functions, however inconsistently, probably remain closer to Jung's when they are defined, and that has had indeed influence on the types. But the reason why socionics functions moved away is because rather than uncritically take over Jung's functions, Augusta et al used those as the starting point to explain what she had observed empirically, namely, apparently "unexplainable" differences in interpersonal relationships. The precise definitions of the functions were "fine-tuned", or even largely changed, to explain why some people would appreciate that function being used, and why others would dislike it or avoid it. Again, socionics is a consistent whole, with all the 16 types interacting and therefore "cross-checking" each other, like a matrix. By comparison, MBTT is an inconsistent mess.

[Expat]

If we do that, we realize that both Socionics and MBTT think that their 16 types are based on Jung's 8 types

Not quite. Let us be clear about this, since it's a source of confusion all the time. Socionics authors acknowledge Jung as the father of this kind of typology and his functions, or types, as the starting point for Augusta's functions and types. So, to that extent, yes, of course Socionics's types are based on Jung's.

But that must not be understood as meaning that socionics's functions are Jung's, and that one will understand socionics by understanding his functions. That is not correct. I don't think any "mainstream" socionist refers to Jung's functions except as historical reference. I demonstrated how Jung's types can be typed according to socionics, and FWIW Rick and (at least partly) Lytov agreed.

To use Jung's types description directly for typing, or explain types, in the context of socionics, leads to nothing but confusion. The most recent example was in my Nelson Mandela thread as per my discussion with Rocky.

Those who keep referring to Jung's original type descriptions as the "true" socionics types, or functions, will never understand socionics accurately. That may work for MBTT, no idea. I don't care.

[Ezra]

Augusta actually made specific what Jung hadn't done about the functions didn't she? He was very vague on certain aspects of, for example, the j/p difference.

[Gilly]

I think the assumption that Socionics makes is that all forms of information fall into exactly 1 of 8 distinct categories.

[Phaedrus]

Some good and interesting points have been made in this thread. We agree on many things. A few comments to start with:

In Socionics, I and E forms of IM Elements are considered to be quite separate modes of thought. Ti and Te are two different kinds of thinking. MBTI takes a different approach: for the most part, T is T, N is N, etc.; E and I are more like the "public" and "private" sphere of one's life.

People seem to think like you do here, and maybe that's one of the reasons they misunderstand MBTT. What you say here is simply not true, because also in MBTT the I and E forms of IM Elements are considered to be quite separate modes of thought. That is most obvious when it comes to Se and Si, but also Ti and Te are two clearly different modes of thought in MBTT. Te is systematic and linear, Ti is holistic and non-linear, just to mention two of the most striking differences between those MBTT functions.

As Expat has pointed out, Socionics was not intended to restrict itself to Jung's descriptions. There are subtle differences between the definitions for each of these typologies. Generally, MBTI is closer to Jung in this regard.

That may be true when it comes to how the functions are defined and explained, but as I have pointed out several times Socionics is much closer to Jung when it comes to link the types with observable behaviours and attitudes. An typical LII has the same subjectivistic scientific outlook as Jung had himself and described in Psychologial Types in relation to the introverted thinking type, whereas a typical ILI has a Te-based (in Jung's sense of Extraverted Thinking) scientific outlook.

Phaedrus, I have to say that the more I've investigated it, the less LII seems clearly like INTJ. INTJs are described as having greater initiative and greater tendency to want to lead than either LII or ILI. As a result, INTJ descriptions really seem more like LIEs who are just more internally driven than the average LIE.

It would be great if you give examples of how you come to that conclusion, because I think you are wrong about this. It might depend on which situations we look at, but generally the LIIs behaviours and attitudes correspond rather well to how INTJs are described in MBTT. You will see that if you focus on the differences between Ti and Te (in Jung's sense), especially the subjective character of Ti.

I don't have time to say more about this right now. Maybe later.

[Expat]

As Expat has pointed out, Socionics was not intended to restrict itself to Jung's descriptions. There are subtle differences between the definitions for each of these typologies. Generally, MBTI is closer to Jung in this regard.

That may be true when it comes to how the functions are defined and explained, but as I have pointed out several times Socionics is much closer to Jung when it comes to link the types with observable behaviours and attitudes.

In terms of doing that in principle, as a philosophy, or in the specifics of the types? As I "have pointed out several times", there are big differences between Jung's types and Socionics types.

[Phaedrus]

As Expat has pointed out, Socionics was not intended to restrict itself to Jung's descriptions. There are subtle differences between the definitions for each of these typologies. Generally, MBTI is closer to Jung in this regard.

That may be true when it comes to how the functions are defined and explained, but as I have pointed out several times Socionics is much closer to Jung when it comes to link the types with observable behaviours and attitudes.

In terms of doing that in principle, as a philosophy, or in the specifics of the types? As I "have pointed out several times", there are big differences between Jung's types and Socionics types.

If we compare LIIs with Jung's Introverted Thinkers, they are both Subjectivists, and Jung's Introverted Thinkers have an anti-Te attitude according to Jung's description of Te (which has very much in it). ILIs don't have such an anti-Te attitude, but they have some clear similarities with Jung's Introverted Intuitives, especially in their irrational P behaviours and in their "Observer-mode", which is an aspect of the detachment that Jung has described (somewhat misleadingly) as central to introverted intuition. What is lacking in Jung's description of the Introverted Intuitives is of course the in ILIs.

If we compare the philosophies and/or scientific outlooks of LIIs and ILIs, it is extremely obvious that the LII is much closer to Jung's Introverted Thinker than an ILI is.

[Phaedrus]

I should retract the statement about irrationality. It is not strictly true. My covert point in stating it was that it is not strictly false either. I can easily interpret just about every irrationality description in a way that has me identifying with it.

We are not too different in this respect, and I initially scored about 50/50 on the J/P scale in most tests I took. But when I looked closer to what that dichotomy is really about, it became obvious that I am not a rational type (or a J type) but an irrational P type. And my INTj father, whom I initially had thought (at a time when I thought that I was an INTJ) was a P type, is clearly a rational J type according to both his and my understanding of it. And he clearly perceives me as a P type.

Since you now have retracted your statement about irrationality, I am more inclined to see you as an INTj again. And it is interesting that you say that you strongly identify with Lenore Thompson's description of "introverted intuition" (Ni), since that is exactly what my father also does, and exactly what I am not doing. Her description of "introverted thinking" (Ti), though, is one of the best descriptions of my own thought process. I think this shows that, according to their own understanding of the functions, both Socionics and MBTT are in a sense right about how they describe the thought processes of the types. In MBTT terms my thought process is best described as "Ti", and an LII's thought process is best described as "Ni" -- at least according to Thompson's descriptions of the functions. Her understanding of them may differ slightly from other MBTT sources, but they agree on many things, for example that "Ti" is described as a holistic, non-linear thought process. We can also see the clearly Subjectivistic, relativistic underlying assumptions in Thompsons' description of "Ni", which is perfectly in line with how you LIIs describe your attitudes and scientific outlooks on this forum.

[Jonathan]

For discussions on MBTI, here's the source we should be using, by the way:
http://www.capt.org/mbti%2Dassessment/

Some good and interesting points have been made in this thread. We agree on many things. A few comments to start with:

In Socionics, I and E forms of IM Elements are considered to be quite separate modes of thought. Ti and Te are two different kinds of thinking. MBTI takes a different approach: for the most part, T is T, N is N, etc.; E and I are more like the "public" and "private" sphere of one's life.

People seem to think like you do here, and maybe that's one of the reasons they misunderstand MBTT. What you say here is simply not true, because also in MBTT the I and E forms of IM Elements are considered to be quite separate modes of thought. That is most obvious when it comes to Se and Si, but also Ti and Te are two clearly different modes of thought in MBTT. Te is systematic and linear, Ti is holistic and non-linear, just to mention two of the most striking differences between those MBTT functions.

Just for clarity, I didn't mean that Ti and Te are considered exactly the same thing in MBTI (as MBTI is supposed to measure Jung's theory, which obviously does make a distinction), but as I recall, the MBTI materials don't attempt to define the differences, nor does the MBTI itself attempt to distinguish between them in testing. It may be that in some of the MBTI-inspired material on the internet, or in ongoing research on MBTI, more attention has been given to the differences between I and E forms of MBTI functions. I don't recall any materials from CAPT that describe Ti as holistic and non-linear. Similarly, in the links from the URL I mention above, I don't think you'll find Ti vs. Te or Ni vs. Ne, etc., being defined in strict ways as they are in Socionics.

In any case, my main point was to give a reasonable explanation for why Ip = IP and Ej = EJ would make sense.

That may be true when it comes to how the functions are defined and explained, but as I have pointed out several times Socionics is much closer to Jung when it comes to link the types with observable behaviours and attitudes. An typical LII has the same subjectivistic scientific outlook as Jung had himself and described in Psychologial Types in relation to the introverted thinking type, whereas a typical ILI has a Te-based (in Jung's sense of Extraverted Thinking) scientific outlook.

I'd agree with you that Socionics does take on some of the differences between Te vs. Ti that MBTI materials don't explicitly touch. Actually, that's basically what I was saying above; MBTI theory doesn't attempt to clearly distinguish between Te and Ti as two different kinds of thinking, but rather sees these as T directed in two different ways. Unfortunately, I don't have the manual with me at the moment, but skimming through the CAPT link, the picture seems identical to what I recall from before.

Phaedrus, I have to say that the more I've investigated it, the less LII seems clearly like INTJ. INTJs are described as having greater initiative and greater tendency to want to lead than either LII or ILI. As a result, INTJ descriptions really seem more like LIEs who are just more internally driven than the average LIE.

It would be great if you give examples of how you come to that conclusion, because I think you are wrong about this. It might depend on which situations we look at, but generally the LIIs behaviours and attitudes correspond rather well to how INTJs are described in MBTT. You will see that if you focus on the differences between Ti and Te (in Jung's sense), especially the subjective character of Ti.

I have to admit that in making that statement, I was somewhat influenced by MBTI-inspired descriptions, including Keirsey's, or ones like http://www.personalitypage.com/INTJ.html, which describes INTJs as natural leaders, hard-working strategic planners, whose particular strength is being able to "objectively see the reality of a situation," and being "adaptable enough to change things which aren't working well." This site says "INTJs are ambitious, self-confident, deliberate, long-range thinkers. Many INTJs end up in engineering or scientific pursuits, although some find enough challenge within the business world in areas which involve organizing and strategic planning. They dislike messiness and inefficiency, and anything that is muddled or unclear. They value clarity and efficiency, and will put enormous amounts of energy and time into consolidating their insights into structured patterns." In contrast, Socionics literature tends to see interest in engineering, business, and other "applied" topics as being more related to the Gamma types (something I think is a problem in Socionics, but that's another topic). Socionics relates concern for efficiency with Te.

Anyhow, that description pretty much makes my point, but I have to admit that it's not the best source. Nevertheless, even looking at the official sources, what I said still seems basically correct. Probably the best internet source for MBTI type descriptions is http://www.capt.org/mbti%2Dassessmen...scriptions.htm. Here, it says INTJs "with their task-orientation will work intensely to make their visions into realities."

In contrast, Socionics descriptions often talk about a difficulty with having enough initiative associated with both LII and ILI. This view in Socionics descriptions may not be accurate either. But in any case, the emphasis in the two systems...what they both choose to point out...is very different.

[Phaedrus]

For discussions on MBTI, here's the source we should be using, by the way:
http://www.capt.org/mbti%2Dassessment/

That might be a good reference for disussions on MBTI, and those short type descriptions support my claim that INTJ=INTj and INTP=INTp, but that is not a good reference for a discussion on MBTT -- the theory behind the test.

Just for clarity, I didn't mean that Ti and Te are considered exactly the same thing in MBTI (as MBTI is supposed to measure Jung's theory, which obviously does make a distinction), but as I recall, the MBTI materials don't attempt to define the differences, nor does the MBTI itself attempt to distinguish between them in testing.

In most books and articles that discuss MBTT that I have read, on the Internet or in real life, they clearly explain the differences between the eight functions. I think I did translate a relevant passage from one of those books in one of my posts on this forum in order to make clear the differences between Ti and Te.

There is no need to distinguish between them in testing, since you get the correct type indirectly by testing the four dichotomies, which are the same in both Socionics and MBTT. The four dichotomies are outer symptoms of internal functions, and those functions can be deduced from the test result if you have the correct theoretical model.

I don't recall any materials from CAPT that describe Ti as holistic and non-linear. Similarly, in the links from the URL I mention above, I don't think you'll find Ti vs. Te or Ni vs. Ne, etc., being defined in strict ways as they are in Socionics.

That's why the links are not that good as a reference. Both Lenore Thompson and the book I quoted describe Ti as holistic and non-linear, and of course they have to do that since the INTP's thought process is like that. They describe it correctly, and since they are trapped in an incorrect theoretical model, they must re-define the functions in a way that is inconsistent with Jung's understanding of those functions. They have to re-define Ti so that it describes more or less the same thing as , since every INTP has as dominant function (assuming that we choose to stick to Socionic's functions instead of inventing a whole new vocabulary for those thought processes that we can observe in real life people of the same type).

In any case, my main point was to give a reasonable explanation for why Ip = IP and Ej = EJ would make sense.

I didn't realize that that was an issue here. As everyone should see, both models (and Jung) agree on which types are P and which types are J. They only disagree on the theoretical level on which functions are involved. Or more accurately, they actually agree on that too, but they disagree on which words to use to refer to those thought processes, whose nature they more or less agree on.

MBTI theory doesn't attempt to clearly distinguish between Te and Ti as two different kinds of thinking, but rather sees these as T directed in two different ways.

As I indicated above, that is a false statement. But it is true that they don't always make a clear distinction between T as a general aspect of T types and the differences between Ti and Te in different types. But the same phenomenon can be seen in Socionics. We talk about similarities between T types and contrast them with F types, and there is nothing wrong with that, since there are general differences between logical and ethical types on a more general level than the eight functions.

Unfortunately, I don't have the manual with me at the moment, but skimming through the CAPT link, the picture seems identical to what I recall from before.

The CAPT link seems to simplify too much, but I have only skimmed it. Either you don't remember what is said in the manual, or the manual is also bad. There are at least some books on the subject, though, if you go to a book store or a library.

Probably the best internet source for MBTI type descriptions is http://www.capt.org/mbti%2Dassessmen...scriptions.htm. Here, it says INTJs "with their task-orientation will work intensely to make their visions into realities."

Which is almost exactly what is also said in Socionics about the LIIs. Check the socionic type descriptions, please. Why don't you see that they are describing the same relevant aspects of this type?

In contrast, Socionics descriptions often talk about a difficulty with having enough initiative associated with both LII and ILI. This view in Socionics descriptions may not be accurate either. But in any case, the emphasis in the two systems...what they both choose to point out...is very different.

No, it is not very different, though there is a slight difference in emphasis. Not even in MBTT are INTJs described as initiative taking leaders. Both systems agree that introverted types in general, including INTJs and INTPs, take less initiative in comparison with extraverted types in general. And if we specifically compare INTJs/LIIs with INTPs/ILIs, both Socionics and MBTT agree that INTPs/ILIs are even less of leaders and initiative takers than INTJs/LIIs. That is also obvious from the socionic type descriptions, as well as from the MBTT type descriptions, and from Keirsey's.

[Jonathan]

For discussions on MBTI, here's the source we should be using, by the way:
http://www.capt.org/mbti%2Dassessment/

That might be a good reference for disussions on MBTI, and those short type descriptions support my claim that INTJ=INTj and INTP=INTp, but that is not a good reference for a discussion on MBTT -- the theory behind the test.

Huh? CAPT owns the MBTI. That's the organization that Isabel Briggs Myers founded, and which publishes the MBTI and the Journal of Pschological Type. They are the only official source. That site has articles describing the theory as well as stuff about the test itself.

The only places I've ever heard about the theory behind the MBTI being called "MBTT" are in Socionics sites, which are trying to distinguish themselves from it.

You mention some books based on the MBTI theory, or on MBTT if you will. I'm sure they have very valuable, useful information on Jungian typology, but that doesn't mean that they represent the "official" view, the one held and promoted by CAPT, which actually publishes the test and all the materials.

As to the other points, I don't think we disagree as much your statements might suggest; they seem like fine points, because the main issue here is that I'm making statements about the "official" MBTI view, whereas you're citing books that weren't written by Isabel Briggs Myers or distributed by CAPT as official information on how to interpret the types.

If your point is that there's a community out there of MBTI-related thinkers who've come up with clear definitions of how the introverted and extraverted forms of functions are distinct, I'd agree with you. Obviously, those things exist, as you've pointed out. But that wasn't what I was talking about. :-)

In any case, Labcoat raised the issue of what the correct mapping is in this thread, so that's why I was explaining the different emphasis (the idea that MBTI sees the more extraverted function as being the one that most determines observable behavior) as an explanation for IP=Ip/IJ=Ij.

[Phaedrus]

For discussions on MBTI, here's the source we should be using, by the way:
http://www.capt.org/mbti%2Dassessment/

That might be a good reference for disussions on MBTI, and those short type descriptions support my claim that INTJ=INTj and INTP=INTp, but that is not a good reference for a discussion on MBTT -- the theory behind the test.

Huh? CAPT owns the MBTI. That's the organization that Isabel Briggs Myers founded, and which publishes the MBTI and the Journal of Pschological Type. They are the only official source. That site has articles describing the theory as well as stuff about the test itself.

That they own the MBTI instrument is irrelevant and might make them more inclined not to publish much on the theory, since they want to get paid for everything they do. If there are good articles there explaining the functions and the MBTT, that's good, but I didn't find any when I skimmed through that page the first time.

The only places I've ever heard about the theory behind the MBTI being called "MBTT" are in Socionics sites, which are trying to distinguish themselves from it.

Have you for example read this interview with Katharine Downing Myers?

http://tap3x.net/EMBTI/j4kmyers.html

Here is a passage from that interview:

Kathy: "I would look at your reference in the Manual, but I can say this. Each of the 16 MBTI Types is a whole type, and has within it all eight Jungian functions. There has been a tendency to over-simply MBTI theory in the past, and this has created wrong impressions. There have always been eight functions from the very beginning. Isabel defined them in Gifts Differing.

You mention some books based on the MBTI theory, or on MBTT if you will. I'm sure they have very valuable, useful information on Jungian typology, but that doesn't mean that they represent the "official" view, the one held and promoted by CAPT, which actually publishes the test and all the materials.

I have always emphasized the importance of distinguishing between the MBTI (which is an instrument, a typing tool) and MBTT (which is the theory based on Jung that tries to describe and explain the 16 types). So does Myers, and so does the licensed material that you get access to if you go through their courses to get a license. You also get some of that material if you take a licensed test.

If your point is that there's a community out there of MBTI-related thinkers who've come up with clear definitions of how the introverted and extraverted forms of functions are distinct, I'd agree with you. Obviously, those things exist, as you've pointed out. But that wasn't what I was talking about. :-)

I think we mostly agree on this. But people seem to get totally wrong ideas about MBTI and MBTT when you describe the theory with phrases like yours. That is a problem when we discuss these things. I haven't resigned yet like Expat, and I still think that people can be educated enough to stop putting false ideas about this in their heads. At least I try to correct some of the worst misunderstandings.

[Jonathan]

Have you for example read this interview with Katharine Downing Myers?

http://tap3x.net/EMBTI/j4kmyers.html

Here is a passage from that interview:

Kathy: "I would look at your reference in the Manual, but I can say this. Each of the 16 MBTI Types is a whole type, and has within it all eight Jungian functions. There has been a tendency to over-simply MBTI theory in the past, and this has created wrong impressions. There have always been eight functions from the very beginning. Isabel defined them in Gifts Differing.

That looks like a very informative link, thanks. She seems to be making exactly my point: She mentions eight functions, not 16. (In MBTI writings, the word "functions" is used, whereas Socionists would call these IM elements, with only their positions in Model A being "function.")

There are other things in that interview that dispel certain myths that Socionists have about MBTI theory and its level of sophistication. However, the interview only bolsters my point that MBTI theory doesn't emphasize the distinctness of introverted and extraverted forms of an IM element to the same degree (or in the same way) as Socionics does. Personally, I think Socionists sometimes go too far in terms of making the introverted and extraverted forms sound completely unrelated; I believe a clear understanding recognizes the differences as well as the similarities in these forms.

I have always emphasized the importance of distinguishing between the MBTI (which is an instrument, a typing tool) and MBTT (which is the theory based on Jung that tries to describe and explain the 16 types). So does Myers, and so does the licensed material that you get access to if you go through their courses to get a license. You also get some of that material if you take a licensed test.

I never disagreed with that. However, I don't recall those materials abbreviating it as "MBTT." I could be wrong, but I've seen the abbreviation used mainly by others. It seems that CAPT and those people most associated with the MBTI use phrases like "type theory," "MBTI theory," or "Jung's theory of psychological types" instead of "MBTT." Of course, that makes sense because they see themselves as being the heirs of Jung's theory, whereas others who want to look outside of MBTI theory and distinguish themselves from it need a name to refer to it as being separate from Jung's theory. If you can show me CAPT materials that say "MBTT," though, I'll stand corrected on that point.

[Phaedrus]

I don't care very much what we call it, if we only know what we are taling about. I use the expression "MBTT" for one thing only -- as an abbreviation for "Myers-Briggs Type Theory", and "MBTI" for "Myers-Briggs Type Indicator". It is true that Myers's book, where she describes the 16 types, is called The Myers-Briggs Type Indicator, but MBTI is a questionnaire, so why not use two different labels if we mean two different things? I have not assumed that those socionists have meant anything more than I do here. It is a category mistake to confuse a tool with a theory, and ILIs don't like logical fallacies like category mistakes, even though many people make them all the time. So, it would be a good idea to correct them on this point, if they use those terms incorrectly.

[tcaudilllg]

As Expat has pointed out, Socionics was not intended to restrict itself to Jung's descriptions. There are subtle differences between the definitions for each of these typologies. Generally, MBTI is closer to Jung in this regard.

That may be true when it comes to how the functions are defined and explained, but as I have pointed out several times Socionics is much closer to Jung when it comes to link the types with observable behaviours and attitudes.

In terms of doing that in principle, as a philosophy, or in the specifics of the types? As I "have pointed out several times", there are big differences between Jung's types and Socionics types.

Hmph. That's it. I was tolerant of this "conditional structure" in the past, because I hadn't researched Jung in depth. But now I have and I can speak on this matter with much more authority than you, Expat.

labcoat: if I haven't already demonstrated the relationship between Jung/MBTI and Socionics, then I doubt very seriously that it could be done by any amount of discussion. The problem with MBTI lies in its incorrect appraisal of Jung's typology. MBTI says Jung's unconscious auxiliary (third function) is the other function of the same attitude and class. We know from socionics that the unconscious auxiliary is the 2nd function's complement. Jung himself was mum on the attitude of the unconscious auxiliary, leading to one of two interpretations, one of which we know is wrong.

Consider also, labcoat, that you've just set the extroverts a-talking. The LIEs will discuss it ad infinitum (or until they find something else to talk about) and the INTps will just bat their conclusions back at them with another barrage of facts of which we are already aware. MBTI is simply wrong, because it interpreted Jung incorrectly due to either arrogance or ambiguity over the relationship between the 4th and 6th functions.

[mikemex]

Not to be blunt or anything, but your discussion is pointless.

Socionics' contribution to psychology is simply the model it uses to arrange information. It makes recursive, symmetrical divisions in the main sample to create groups of like minded people. The more general your dichotomies are, the more you ensure that the groups will be homogeneous. This is the real difference between MBTI and Socionics: the criteria for selection (aka "functions") is more concise in the later. So if you end up with a highly homogeneous group of people it is to be expected that what is valid for one member of the group is likely to be valid for most others too. The like and dislike for some other group is thus shared among the members (to a different degree of course), and thus provides a base for inter group relationships.

However, like I've said many times before, that you can develop a working model it doesn't mean that it explains what's going on underneath. So this discussion on what characteristics each function has is absurd. You're ignoring that functions are abstract and arbitrary divisions for the sample; not really something that exists inside the brain.

So if you keep in the classic i-am-an-academic-who-likes-endless-discussions-about-details-of-a-theory-without-being-critical-about-the-validity-of-the-theory-itself you're heading nowhere. I call that phenomenon magnifying glass vision syndrome: obsession for making everything perfectly squared (aka "logical") that makes you end up with nicely put but completely false ideas.

I'm tired. Will continue later.

[Creepy-bg]

Not to be blunt or anything, but your discussion is pointless.

Socionics' contribution to psychology is simply the model it uses to arrange information. It makes recursive, symmetrical divisions in the main sample to create groups of like minded people. The more general your dichotomies are, the more you ensure that the groups will be homogeneous. This is the real difference between MBTI and Socionics: the criteria for selection (aka "functions") is more concise in the later. So if you end up with a highly homogeneous group of people it is to be expected that what is valid for one member of the group is likely to be valid for most others too. The like and dislike for some other group is thus shared among the members (to a different degree of course), and thus provides a base for inter group relationships.

However, like I've said many times before, that you can develop a working model it doesn't mean that it explains what's going on underneath. So this discussion on what characteristics each function has is absurd. You're ignoring that functions are abstract and arbitrary divisions for the sample; not really something that exists inside the brain.

So if you keep in the classic i-am-an-academic-who-likes-endless-discussions-about-details-of-a-theory-without-being-critical-about-the-validity-of-the-theory-itself you're heading nowhere. I call that phenomenon magnifying glass vision syndrome: obsession for making everything perfectly squared (aka "logical") that makes you end up with nicely put but completely false ideas.

I'm tired. Will continue later.

this is so very true I think... (and you even threw in a "Not to be blunt or anything" for the Mikemex haters )

[Phaedrus]

This is the real difference between MBTI and Socionics: the criteria for selection (aka "functions") is more concise in the later.

This is true, but the criteria for selection is much more concise in MBTT than people seem to think.

So if you end up with a highly homogeneous group of people it is to be expected that what is valid for one member of the group is likely to be valid for most others too. The like and dislike for some other group is thus shared among the members (to a different degree of course), and thus provides a base for inter group relationships.

This is also true but irrelevant for this discussion, since the groups are equally heterogeneous in Socionics and MBTT.

You're ignoring that functions are abstract and arbitrary divisions for the sample; not really something that exists inside the brain.

And here you simply don't seem to get what we are talking about, and you don't seem to get the purpose of it. You are making the same mistake that I have tried to teach you and others not to make: to confuse words with referents. The thinking processes in the brain are no abstract entities; they are empirically observable phenomena that we can try to describe as accurately as possible. And we have managed to do that quite well by now. The functions as defined in the models are of course abstract theoretical entities, but that is totally irrelevant, because as soon as we have agreed upon to which empirically observable phenomena a certain abstract theoretical division actually refers, it doesn't matter at all that the our choice to link a label to a referent was arbitrary in the first place. Once we have agreed upon its meaning, the abstract theoretical entity ("division") is necessarily linked to only one observable phenomena, if we have been doing a good job to clarify that meaning.

So if you keep in the classic i-am-an-academic-who-likes-endless-discussions-about-details-of-a-theory-without-being-critical-about-the-validity-of-the-theory-itself you're heading nowhere. I call that phenomenon magnifying glass vision syndrome: obsession for making everything perfectly squared (aka "logical") that makes you end up with nicely put but completely false ideas.

That is exactly what we are not doing here. Your critique here is exactly the same as I and Jonathan, and others have been using against others that are too focussed on using the theoretical premises of their theory as axioms.

[mikemex]

Ahm.... nope. You're not backing up your statements; only justifying your already set views.

When you say "they are empirically observable phenomena"... what exactly do you think you're proving? Many things can be observed, but it doesn't mean that a correct explanation for them has been given. Please, spend a bit of time reading this articles:

http://arachnoid.com/sky/index.html
http://www.calresco.org/cosmic.htm
http://arachnoid.com/psychology/index.html

The last one is particularly revealing:

In everyday life, people are regularly taken in by con men who rely on public ignorance of reason and science. Here's an example – you receive a mailing from someone who wants to be your financial advisor. He predicts that the stock market will fall (or rise) during the next month. At the end of the month, his prediction turns out to be correct. Then, for six months straight, he mails you a prediction, and each prediction turns out to be correct. In a quick calculation you realize you would have made several million dollars by following his advice.

Having “proven” his abilities, the financial advisor now wants you to give him control of your portfolio. His is the best performance you have ever seen, he obviously has special skills, what do you do? Well, hopefully you follow the cardinal rule: Always consider alternative explanations.

Here is a very likely alternative explanation – the “financial wizard” is a con man, a hustler. Here is how this well-known con works:

1. At the beginning of the six-month period, the "wizard" mails a prediction to a list of 16,384 people. He tells half the people the market will rise, the other half that it will fall.
2. At the end of the first month, he drops half the names from the list (those who got an incorrect prediction) and mails a new prediction to the remaining names.
3. He repeats this procedure for six months, each month dropping half the names and keeping those that got a correct prediction.
4. At the end of six months, he has a list of 256 very hot prospects, each of whom has gotten a seemingly miraculous run of correct predictions, each of whom might just sign up for his "services," each of whom is about to be swindled.

So don't abuse logic because, by itself, it can be never made an argument. Something can make perfect sense, even be "empirically observable" and still be false.

More specifically, here are some assumptions that are worth re-considering:

• Behavior can be separated from internal operation (internal operation can be deducted ignoring external manifestation).
• The mind is static (type doesn't change).
• All kinds of thinking are "natural" (i.e. some can be unhealthy manifestations of others).

[Phaedrus]

Ahm.... nope. You're not backing up your statements; only justifying your already set views.

If you took the time to read some of the many previous posts of mine on this forum, you would realize that your above statement is false, and that your general accusation against me is totally unwarranted.

When you say "they are empirically observable phenomena"... what exactly do you think you're proving? Many things can be observed, but it doesn't mean that a correct explanation for them has been given.

It is irritating that you don't realize that our general attitudes towards this (and Socionics) are very similar in this respect. I have always been open -- I still am -- to the possibility that Socionics's explanations for the observable phenomena are not the correct ones. And I have ever since I first joined these forums been criticized for not accepting the premises in Socionics as they are, when instead I have spent a lot of time comparing systems and scrutinizing the empirical evidence for the theoretical claims made by Socionics and other typologies.

[krieger]

We are not too different in this respect, and I initially scored about 50/50 on the J/P scale in most tests I took.

Interestingly enough this is what we would expect if we look at things from a dual-type perspective. Dual type theory classifies you as an INTp-Ij (field-bound Ip), which means you should show traits of rationality and irrationality in different areas of life. To complicate matters these areas would be exactly opposite to those that a person of my type would be rational respectively irrational in. One of the challenges that dual type is met with at this stage, is to define and describe exactly which areas of life these are.

It would help if we could get established that those who have master and slave types that are both rational or irrational have much less difficulty deciding between the two. Could we get tcaudilllg (Ij-Ej) and Expat's (Ej-Ij, judging by the air of stability he exudes) input on this? Have either of you ever had trouble choosing between Judging and Perceiving in the process of deciding what type you were?

[FDG]

Hey what about me being an ENTj extertion INFp slave?

[krieger]

I have no firm oppinion on your slave type, nor do I place unwavering faith in tcaudilllg's judgment on what it is.

[krieger]

Since you now have retracted your statement about irrationality, I am more inclined to see you as an INTj again. And it is interesting that you say that you strongly identify with Lenore Thompson's description of "introverted intuition" (Ni), since that is exactly what my father also does, and exactly what I am not doing.

Here's something I'd like to know: does tcaudilllg identify with it? What about subterranean?

UDP has posted that he does not identify with it, a while ago. Confirmation on that would be good.