Analysis of the j/p switch in Socionics and MBTI

[717495]

My dad is an ISTP in MBTI, and an Ni-ENFj in Socionics. Now this is just one example, of many other examples. I honestly think the MTBI descriptions and dichotomies are just fucked up/incompatible, and for similar reasons it can be sort of hard going by dichotomies in Socionics, as well as various type descriptions. Getting quadra and IMs, and mainly just "how the types are" from gauging these things along with relations, is the way to correlate a type of person to the use of this system, from what I can see. MBTI BS won't help you with your relationships.

[Crispy]

He originally said intertype relations don't work in MBTI, not in socionics?

Oh I meant if you know your sociotype correctly, of course the intertype relations will be correct for everyone you type correctly, regardless of whether or not you got your MBTI type right.

Speaking of intertype realtions...
I
Found another MBTI website that made it's own intertype relations. Let's see what they came up with...
INTJ Profile
Scroll down to Type Relationships for INTJs:
Put mouse over "Anima" and open in new tab. The ESFP description should appear.
Put mouse over "Novelty" and open in new tab. The ESFJ description should appear.

Now we just have to figure out which of the MBTI relations (Anima or Novelty) are closest to Duality. Here are the websites relations descriptions:
http://typelogic.com/pairs.html
Anima: fits Dr. Beebe's description of the anima/anumus: each is the other's inferior (4th) function
Novelty: intriguingly different: interestingly so

Hmmmm, Interesting

This brings up another important point. Although MBTI fucked up most of the functions up for introverts, it still got the PoLR right (inferior function). As you can see INTJ has obvious socionic Se problems in it's descriptions and INTP has obvious Fe problems in it's descriptions.

My dad is an ISTP in MBTI, and an Ni-ENFj in Socionics.

Now you're just fuckin' with me

[717495]

Now you're just fuckin' with me

You seem like you come from MBTI, you have some stereotypes of dichotomal typology, you don't want to get rid of them and try to interpret a separate psychological theory with a different use. It's typical for people here to think similarly to you though, and there is some little value in the correlation, p/j switch thing to begin with. But too many variables for me to care or count on it.

[Aiss]

I know three ENTPs. One of them is even socionics ILE. Imagine.

[Crispy]

You seem like you come from MBTI, you have some stereotypes of dichotomal typology, you don't want to get rid of them and try to interpret a separate psychological theory with a different use. It's typical for people here to think similarly to you though, and there is some little value in the correlation, p/j switch thing to begin with. But too many variables for me to care or count on it.

Untrue. Upon learning the J/P switch was a hoax, I was disillusioned in MBTI and starting thinking of it the same way a lot of you do now; completely different from socionics and useless. This is of course because I thought I was INTj and INTP. After 3-4 months of ignoring MBTI, I started noticing very sharp similarities in socionics/MBTI for INTj/INTJ and INTp/INTP. Then I realized the general MBTI descriptions don't match THEIR OWN function system, and the rest fell into place. MBTI functions are fucked, and the general MBTI descriptions match well with socionic functions of the same type. I am not from MBTI, and if I didn't see the direct correlation, I would see absolutely no use in MBTI.

Socionics and MBTI rely on the same four distinct inseparable dichotomies. In MBTI they are easy to misread and misinterpret, because the descriptions are shit. In socionics the descriptions are clear cut and to the point. Therefore in most (75%+) cases of, "Hey I'm an EIE, but I don't feel extraverted, I don't feel Intuitive, I don't feel emotional, and I don't feel Rational. What gives?" are due to misinterpreting MBTI's shitty descriptions of the dichotomies. If you really want to find your type in both, just study socionics, type yourself, and read the general MBTI description for that type. 80% or more of the general description should fit (Ignore functional portions of descriptions).

[717495]

So that's the problem then, you're trying to perceive it through a given system like this. Anything can make sense, you could come up with tons of reasons why it would make sense to you. You ever take that color code test or similar genres of tests, or read horoscopes, and feel like they relate to you? They're systems designed to please simple ways of thinking, and make you think there's a simple answer to a given area of thought.

[Crispy]

I'm well aware of the concept of cold reading. It is not in affect here. I'm not showing reasons why it makes sense to me. I'm showing specific examples from MBTI descriptions that match specific examples from socionics descriptions, and showing you the objective truth; They are talking about the same 16 groups of people.

Here's the reason I even bother arguing for this direct correlation.
Fact: Of all personality theories available today, Socionics has the most potential for truth.
If: MBTI types don't correlate to socionics
Then: Every second anyone has ever spent reading MBTI has been wasted because it could have been better spent reading Socionics, and because MBTI dichotomies and functions and descriptions were bullshit all along. All those poor souls yapping away on MBTI forums are talking about misinformation and bad data.
If: MBTI types correlate to socionics
Then: We can bridge the gap between the two easily by explaining the SAME four dichotomies in clear detail. Many mistyping could be fixed. MBTI would cease to be completely useless (but still obsolete) .

[Jarno]

My dad is an ISTP in MBTI, and an ENFj in Socionics.

LOL!!!!

[717495]

I agree that there's a correlation to stereotypes and descriptions, but it's not that clear cut. You're still going to have people ranging in their types. Read the MBTI thread on here and Socionics types people have identified with for starters. Many of them identify with different types on both systems, but that doesn't mean they're wrong. Just means that MBTI types minus the functions shouldn't be consistently defined as the same as Socionics types. I've observed many j/p switch sort of things, temperament switches, no dichotomy switches, etc. The closer ones are the most common. If you and a few of your INTJ friends relate to those MBTI mastermind/scientist descriptions, good for you. It's definitely not true for a number of INTjs.

[Crispy]

I acknowledge that many people believe themselves to be two different types. I can do nothing for them short of explaining why this can not be the case. I can only pray that it is the MBTI type that is wrong and not the socionics one. Fortunately this is true prolly about 90% of the time. I spent a much longer time thinking I was INTP than I did thinking I was INTp, thanks to the clear cut (socionics) descriptions.

[717495]

There's always some meshed rule about Socionics that some INTj has to impose on others' understandings so it will fit their own oversimplified systemization of things. I've heard them all and am not interested. Like I said, the correlation is there. It's just a correlation though. Socionics "descriptions" are similar to MBTI ones, but the descriptions are aids illustrating manifestations, they don't fully connect to the essence of Socionics modules, which is why you can sometimes have a large variance between expected external happenings and the actual substance of internal mind patterns and their own variances in time, sharpening to experiences. The flow goes in a circle, not a perfectly traceable line segment.

[Crispy]

I take it you are of the opinion that Socionics was a system that was invented. That's like saying Psychology was invented.
It is not. No human can invent a personality system that predicts how people will interact with one another. The only being that could invent such a system would be an almighty being. Creating new socionics rules is a lot like creating new laws of physics.

It is a phenomenon that was discovered and explained. One group explained it wrong, made it popular, marketed it to businesses, and even created jobs out of it. But they never fixed it. Another group came along, discovered the existence of the same phenomenon, only this time they described it perfectly. It might have not been as catchy (it focused on negative aspects of types as well as positive ones) but it found a better description of the truth.

EDIT: The reason a lot of people are getting their MBTI types wrong is that they are basing their self typing on tests, which are notoriously inaccurate. The correct way to type yourself in MBTI is to read each one of the 16 type descriptions and see which one matches you the most. The average internet goer has no patience for such a routine, and opt to take the easy way out, putting all their trust into a faulty test.

[717495]

Both typologies were "fashioned" for their own purpose. MBTI was never fashioned by means of examining a set of relationships. It originated as providing some common mental and practical themes of personality, and showing how there were opposites, and how these opposites varied in their own certain way. Your scope of Socionics must be way too limited if you think its derived similarly to that. The only similarity is that they were both crafted in favor of some correlative Jungian personality terms, not by some magical law entailing an explanation for relationships. They've looked at relations in MBTI many many times and have never gotten anywhere with it; it doesn't match up close enough to a tangible consensus.

[Crispy]

This x1000000000… though I disagree that Socionics got it perfectly It still needs bugs worked out of it. Ultimately it will probably flop as a theory and something new and better will take its place IMO.

Why of course, I was speaking of tentative perfection. Surely Model X will save us

[Crispy]

Oh I didn't even know Model X existed. I thought hitta just used it as a joke like "Model Generic will save us". What I mean is: "The next latest and greatest theory will save us!"

They've looked at relations in MBTI many many times and have never gotten anywhere with it; it doesn't match up close enough to a tangible consensus.

With the rampant amount of people mistyped in MBTI, I'm not surprised this would happen numerous times, even in a professional setting.

[717495]

With the rampant amount of people mistyped in MBTI, I'm not surprised this would happen numerous times, even in a professional setting.

[Crispy]

Also it seems you didn't read my post about the group of MBTIers who DID make progress with intertype relations. They didn't get all of them right (relations of supervision/benefaction especially) but they at least got Conflicting and Duality right. Examine this pre-socionics progress.

I Found another MBTI website that made it's own intertype relations. Let's see what they came up with...
INTJ Profile
Scroll down to Type Relationships for INTJs:
Put mouse over "Anima" and open in new tab. The ESFP description should appear.
Put mouse over "Novelty" and open in new tab. The ESFJ description should appear.

Now we just have to figure out which of the MBTI relations (Anima or Novelty) are closest to Duality. Here are the websites relations descriptions:
Relationship Pairs: Definitions
Anima: fits Dr. Beebe's description of the anima/anumus: each is the other's inferior (4th) function
Novelty: intriguingly different: interestingly so

Hmmmm, Interesting

[717495]

Feel free to explain your findings further, and have every link in your analysis be picked apart and contradicted similarly to what happens in all of JohnDo's threads (you're similar to him, but more vague)...or would you rather leave that knowledge out of the picture? It's what happens when you try to prove the evidence and value of abstractions like these with subjectively biased justifications, instead of actually listening to other people's opinions about their own types.

[Crispy]

I was just showing you that yes, progress on MBTI intertype relations was done separate from socionics. Funny how they came to the same conclusion for duality. It's as if they observed the same things.

Within socionics, I have upheld the principle that "Nobody knows your type better than you do" In fact, I have rarely made any posts wherein I question someone's socionics type (I think I made an exception with Aleksei, because he was arrogant and blatantly wrong about everything he was talking about) because I know damn well they know themselves better than I know them. With MBTI, it's just not practical, because unlike socionics, it's easy to be wrong about your type AND stay wrong about your type for many months. If I am 100% certain that someone fucked up their socionics type, I still won't confront them about it, because I know as the time you spend studying socionics approaches infinity, your likelihood of finding your real type approaches 100%. That's how clear the descriptions are. In MBTI, it's actually possible to be wrong up until you die.

[tcaudilllg]

This x1000000000… though I disagree that Socionics got it perfectly It still needs bugs worked out of it. Ultimately it will probably flop as a theory and something new and better will take its place IMO.

Model A probably will not survive, but an enhanced, more specific and testable model might.

[krieger]

Speaking of intertype realtions...
I
Found another MBTI website that made it's own intertype relations. Let's see what they came up with...
INTJ Profile
Scroll down to Type Relationships for INTJs:
Put mouse over "Anima" and open in new tab. The ESFP description should appear.
Put mouse over "Novelty" and open in new tab. The ESFJ description should appear.

Now we just have to figure out which of the MBTI relations (Anima or Novelty) are closest to Duality. Here are the websites relations descriptions:
Relationship Pairs: Definitions
Anima: fits Dr. Beebe's description of the anima/anumus: each is the other's inferior (4th) function
Novelty: intriguingly different: interestingly so

Hmmmm, Interesting

Why does "inferior function" refer to the PoLR and not to the dual-seeking function? Both are considered extremely weak in socionics.

I remember the description of Anima/animus doesn't mention anything about a natural tendency to conflict and also mentions "mysterious attraction" similar to that between novelty partners.

There is very little substance to these relations. Animus and novelty are basically just explained as "very different, mysterious attraction while at the same time difficulty finding common ground". Anyone could come up with that based on what one already knew about the types. None of it adds any real new information to the theory.

[krieger]

In David Keirsey's Please Understand Me 1, Keirsey describes a strong attraction between types that would be conflictors to eachother under a XXXx = XXXX correlation with socionics. That is, INTJ would supposedly be strongly attracted to ESFP, and so on.

In Please Understand Me 2, he instead advises romantic partnerships between supervisor/supervisee couples that share N/S (under XXXx = XXXX correlation) because the "conflictor couple" is not a "realistic" match.

[krieger]

Se is as far away from Te as it is from Fe. In fact it's equally as distant to both. To say Se is closer to Te than it is to Fe shows a lack of knowledge of socionic functions.
O wait you were talking about MBTI functions again. How many times do I have to say they're broken? Using them to analyze anything is a recipe for failure.

The descriptions are heavily influenced by the functions. If the functions are broken, so are the MBTI descriptions. You can't accept on faith the fact that despite that they thought functions worked and were significant, they never involved them in writing type profiles or selecting "typical" representatives of types. The burden of proof is not on me where this issue is concerned.

[krieger]

The main problem with the MBTI is that they don't have intertype relations to check the types of people with. The intertype relations are the only thing with predictive power in socionics (except maybe the claim that type traits remain stable through a person's life, which is sort of a prediction too). When you take the predictive power away, the theory just becomes a set of dogmas.

elaxed, go with the flow, but is inflexible when 'principles are violated'

This is one of those Forer effect susceptible statements. It goes for absolutely everyone. You can make that statement work for any person depending on what you define their "principles" as.

[Crispy]

Let's say someone types themselves in both theories looking at the dichotomies. They interpret the differences in socionics, and come up with INTj. It should be noted that when he came to the dichotomy J/P he saw nothing that said J is clean and P is messy. Socionics gave him a clear cut line of what was really J and really P instead of using clean/messy as a shortcut. But when he moves on to MBTI and reads those dichotomy definitions, J/P uses clean/messy. Looking around his room, he reluctantly concludes that he is a P.

So, are these dichotomies inherently different from one another? Or do the descriptions both refer to a dichotomy that truly exists in human behavior? I would argue the latter. In this case socionics left the dichotomy a bit more ambiguous than the other ones (J/P is harder to decide than the other 3) while MBTI tried to make it clear cut and failed at it. MBTI did not describe the fine line that divides judgers and perceivers, it described the major differences between a clearly expressed judger (Xj with Xj subtype) and a clearly expressed perciever (Xp with Xp subtype). Mistakes like these in MBTI dichotomy descriptions hide the fact that MBTI/Socionics are really talking about the same four distinct inseparable clear-cut dichotomies. Half of all MBTI mistypes come from dichotomy descriptions.

[Aleksei]

J/P in MBTI simply refers to the orientation of your perceiving and judging functions. Judgers are Pi-Je, whereas Perceivers are Pe-Ji. This is interpreted as leading to a taste for orderliness as it often does, but that is by no means universal.

[Crispy]

The dichotomies were not made to fit the functions.
The functions were made to fit (wrongly) the dichotomies.
Therefore J/P does not refer to the functions, but visa versa.

[Aleksei]

The dichotomies were not made to fit the functions.

Yes they were. The dichotomies were created by Isabel Meyers and Katherine Briggs on basis of Jung's cognitive attitudes theory, to bring it into the practical realm. The functions came first.

[Aiss]

J/P in MBTI simply refers to the orientation of your perceiving and judging functions. Judgers are Pi-Je, whereas Perceivers are Pe-Ji. This is interpreted as leading to a taste for orderliness as it often does, but that is by no means universal.

Pi-dominants and taste for orderliness make for a good joke. Although not impossible, especially for Si-dominants.

Dynamic/static differentiates between Pi-Je and Pe-Ji much better than J/P ever did. I'm not arguing against the existence of the dichotomy, but against its descriptions. The characteristics related to J/P are closer to rationality/irrationality, and secondarily, to extraversion/introversion, but are applied to dynamic/static functions instead (whereas both Ej and Ip - closest to MBTI stereotypes for J and P, respectively - are dynamic).

(Actually, one thing that came to my mind when writing this is that if it isn't clear whether you're J or P in MBTI, you're probably a static type. Kind of weird, but I see how it could work.)

[Aleksei]

(Actually, one thing that came to my mind when writing this is that if it isn't clear whether you're J or P in MBTI, you're probably a static type. Kind of weird, but I see how it could work.)

I am a static type, actually. And, I am a P in MBTI (ENTP).

[JohnDo]

The reason a lot of people are getting their MBTI types wrong is that they are basing their self typing on tests, which are notoriously inaccurate. The correct way to type yourself in MBTI is to read each one of the 16 type descriptions and see which one matches you the most. The average internet goer has no patience for such a routine, and opt to take the easy way out, putting all their trust into a faulty test.

In general I agree. But today I think that the personalitypage descriptions are really not very good. I could relate to the INTJ as well as to the INTP...

We are the internet generation, we hardly ever read books. Have you read any books about MBTI? I haven't. Jarno says that's a mistake because MBTI descriptions in books are fundamentally better...

[Aleksei]

EDIT: The reason a lot of people are getting their MBTI types wrong is that they are basing their self typing on tests, which are notoriously inaccurate.

I do agree tests are notoriously inaccurate, but so are the descriptions. The way to figure out your MBTI type is to take a test to measure what the types were originally designed to portray: A person's functional order. Oftentimes an INFJ can appear as INTP, or INTJ, due to a strong tertiary Ti for example.

Sadly cognitive functions tests are in short supply, and often as unreliable as dichotomy tests (due to a chronic misunderstanding of the functions -- Ni, Fe and Fi especially).

[DividedsGhost]

Type is not generically static for all throughout their lifetime; some people fall in between; the functions are an abstraction used to illustrate one subjective understanding of human behavior, no matter how applicable you think it is, because the nature of human consciousness is subjectively interpretative and that's what we're attempting to rationalize; people use all the functions and some have the potential capacity to develop weak functions into strong functions; type is dependent on the timeline considered and whether a conclusive type is to be made overall of what was most evident or what type is ended with on the timeline; by being aware of Socionics you have the knowledge to defy its conclusions and its understood existence thus constantly changes the results of its conclusions, paradoxically (Schrodinger's Cat). Get used to it!

And yes, Aleksei, we fuckin' get it. MBTI is a different phenomenon with different participants that experience and describe its system, sometimes independently from Socionics, in a different mode of behavior, experimentation, and understanding. But they each have 16 fuckin' types, and each has the same summary bullshit of E-extroversion(more engaging)/I-introversion(more disengaging), N-intuitive(more thoughtful)/S-Sensing(more action-oriented), F-Feeling(uses emotions and subjective fact more)/T-Thinking(uses logic and objective fact more), and P-perceiving(more disorganized)/J-judging(more organized).

And everyone with a reason why one system works and another doesn't, I want you to know that you are always free to blow me; no charge at all; I'm just that kind of guy :redface:.

And Bubbles wants me to tell you she says "Hi. Everyone play nice now."

[krieger]

The dichotomies were not made to fit the functions.
The functions were made to fit (wrongly) the dichotomies.
Therefore J/P does not refer to the functions, but visa versa.

Jung spoke about functions long before anyone involved dichotomies in personality theory, and the MBTI was first created to represent Jungian personality theory. What you say here is, litterally, opposite to the truth.

[Crispy]

In general I agree. But today I think that the personalitypage descriptions are really not very good. I could relate to the INTJ as well as to the INTP...

We are the internet generation, we hardly ever read books. Have you read any books about MBTI? I haven't. Jarno says that's a mistake because MBTI descriptions in books are fundamentally better...

I've read no MBTI books, but I do have Filatova's new socionics book coming in the mail. I do have other internet descriptions that match me nicely with INTJ over INTP, a very good example is:
http://caznet.cazenovia.edu/Portals/...vices/INTP.pdf
http://caznet.cazenovia.edu/Portals/...vices/INTJ.pdf
These along with having really good descriptions contains a list of careers as well, and some of the differences in the lists are interesting, (INTP has Plastic Surgeon, INTJ has Pharmacologist etc).
This and others leave me with no doubt that I am INTJ in MBTI.
There's gotta be at least a few good MBTI websites that are based on books themselves out there, even if we can't find them on the first few pages of google.

Jung spoke about functions long before anyone involved dichotomies in personality theory, and the MBTI was first created to represent Jungian personality theory. What you say here is, litterally, opposite to the truth.

That only matters if MBTI functions are closer to Jung's than socionics functions are. As far as I know this is not the case. If socionic's functions are closer to classical Jung, then MBTI still fucked up the functions, but got the dichotomies right anyway, since they didn't need to be totally readjusted for socionics (just needed to clear up a lot of the vagueness in dichotomy descriptions).

Are you saying that MBTI is more true to Jung than socionics is?

[Aleksei]

And yes, Aleksei, we fuckin' get it. MBTI is a different phenomenon with different participants that experience and describe its system, sometimes independently from Socionics, in a different mode of behavior, experimentation, and understanding. But they each have 16 fuckin' types, and each has the same summary bullshit of E-extroversion(more engaging)/I-introversion(more disengaging), N-intuitive(more thoughtful)/S-Sensing(more action-oriented), F-Feeling(uses emotions and subjective fact more)/T-Thinking(uses logic and objective fact more), and P-perceiving(more disorganized)/J-judging(more organized).

You get it. Crispy and Jarno clearly don't, because they're that thick-headed.

And everyone with a reason why one system works and another doesn't, I want you to know that you are always free to blow me; no charge at all; I'm just that kind of guy :redface:.

YES! Thank you.

[Crispy]

And yes, Aleksei, we fuckin' get it. MBTI is a different phenomenon with different participants that experience and describe its system, sometimes independently from Socionics, in a different mode of behavior, experimentation, and understanding. But they each have 16 fuckin' types, and each has the same summary bullshit of E-extroversion(more engaging)/I-introversion(more disengaging), N-intuitive(more thoughtful)/S-Sensing(more action-oriented), F-Feeling(uses emotions and subjective fact more)/T-Thinking(uses logic and objective fact more), and P-perceiving(more disorganized)/J-judging(more organized).

Whether Divided is aware of it or not, (s)he has just refuted everything you have been talking about Aleksei. They have the same summary because they use the same dichotomies. In that case, there is no way to be on the complete opposite side of any of the four dichotomies when changing systems. You lose. Your stupidity amazes me.

Also, for MBTI to "work" there would have to be a way to prove it. Socionics has intertype relations. If you are right, and they are not the same, then MBTI doesn't work at all. It accomplishes nothing. If you don't think the two are the same, you can't say MBTI works at all.

[Aleksei]

Whether Divided is aware of it or not, (s)he has just refuted everything you have been talking about Aleksei. They have the same summary because they use the same dichotomies. In that case, there is no way to be on the complete opposite side of any of the four dichotomies when changing systems.

You're forgetting two things: One, the mesh of functions is different between the two systems (a little snag that you somewhat retardedly sidestepped by claiming one to be "wrong"). Two, J/P is defined completely differently between the two systems. I've even heard it mentioned before (I think in this very thread) that P/J in MBTI is flawed precisely because it has something to do with organization (it goes far beyond that, but whatever). I can't see how LII's would be very organized.

So, no, point not refuted. Thank you very much.

See... the thing is I don't know all that much about Socionics. I'd be willing to defer to your superior wisdom on the matter, if it weren't for the fact that the arguments you've made for MBTI being an equivalent system have completely misrepresented MBTI as a system. Your real problem is that you don't know shit about MBTI.

[Crispy]

I've seen enough people change from being two different types in MBTI and socionics to the same type in both to know what I'm talking about. You will find out eventually, or perhaps you already have since you used to be LII ENTP and now you are ILE ENTP. Even YOU are direct evidence that I am correct.

"But it's not the same for other people".
They are wrong, and will find that out if they happen to read all 16 descriptions in both systems.

[JohnDo]

My dad is an ISTP in MBTI, and an Ni-ENFj in Socionics.

That's why wikisocion is on such a bad level. People with absolutely zero typing ability change articles there...

Using complete subtypes, I actually know a cute girl I type as ENFj-ISTp. But you can either be introverted or extraverted, either intuitive or sensing and so on. You can't be one in MBTI and the other in socionics. That's bogus...