Analysis of the j/p switch in Socionics and MBTI

[krieger]

So in short, you get a lot of people who ask "INTJ or INTP?" and are told that "INTJs are doers and INTPs are whiners". Or something to that effect, more or less politely phrased. To hear INTJs describe themselves, you'd think they're mostly a bunch of ExTx with some IxTj thrown in the mix. Which they probably are. At any rate, the descriptions of Ni as a sudden "a-ha" feeling backed up with certainty (!), as contrasted to INTPs' constant doubt, definitely discouraged me from considering it prior to socionics. All in all, regardless of the infamous Lytov's table, I do suspect many if not majority of online-typed INTJs are socially introverted SLEs or LIEs.

This has also been my impression.

"Definiteness and self-confidence" describes ExTj and ESTp, not INTj. This does not mean that there aren't areas in which INTjs are self-confident or that they don't ever appear "definite", but as a general description it is extremely misleading.

[Aleksei]

How do you think the other introverted MBTI types match up with their corresponding socionic types? For example, would you say an MBTI ISFJ is more like a socionics ESI or SEI?

Probably SEI. ESI, from what i've read of the type, seems more like an Enneagram-4 (emofag sappy romantic) INTJ, or an unusually domineering ISFP. Some INTJ ESI's include Edward Cullen, (Bella herself being an ESI ISFP), and Richard Nixon.

I'd actually say, oddly enough, that ISFJs would be more likely to be EII in Socionics though. Delta values jive quite well with usual ISFJ attitudes.

[Jarno]

Probably SEI. ESI, from what i've read of the type, seems more like an Enneagram-4 (emofag sappy romantic) INTJ, or an unusually domineering ISFP. Some INTJ ESI's include Edward Cullen, (Bella herself being an ESI ISFP), and Richard Nixon.

I'd actually say, oddly enough, that ISFJs would be more likely to be EII in Socionics though. Delta values jive quite well with usual ISFJ attitudes.

you have a lot to learn.

[Aleksei]

you have a lot to learn.

You have a lot to unlearn.

[Jarno]

You have a lot to unlearn.

you are overconfident.

you even change your self typing recently, you're a novice. Don't waste my time. You know jack shit.

[Aleksei]

you are overconfident.

It's my weakness, I know. Still, I can shoot lightning from my hands, so nyeh.

Don't waste my time.

Don't waste mine and we have a deal. I wasn't exactly addressing you right now.

[Jarno]

just one more question.

Since you think that ISFJ is most likely EII.

What do you think is an INFJ most likely in socionics?

[The Exception]

I'd actually say, oddly enough, that ISFJs would be more likely to be EII in Socionics though. Delta values jive quite well with usual ISFJ attitudes.

You may be right. I suspect my mom is an MBTI ISFJ and a socionics EII. Marge Simpson might also be a good fictional example.

[krieger]

INFJ is described as a political activist with Ni-ish intuitive gifts. It's basically an introverted version of ENFj, just like what the MBTI mistakenly proclaims an INFJ is.

[Aleksei]

You may be right. I suspect my mom is an MBTI ISFJ and a socionics EII. Marge Simpson might also be a good fictional example.

I haven't typed Marge in Socionics, but she's a definite MBTI ISFJ (Lisa is INFJ).

[krieger]

I have Marge independently typed as INFj in socionics.

Lisa is INTp, though. She is intellectually gifted, very negativistic, good with facts, societally aware, etc.

[Aleksei]

just one more question.

Since you think that ISFJ is most likely EII.

What do you think is an INFJ most likely in socionics?

I'm not sure, but IEI and EII itself both look like decent fits. I think any type equivalence between the two systems (including direct A = A equivalences) are at best approximations though, because of the differences in how each system evaluates personality.

[Aleksei]

I have Marge independently typed as INFj in socionics.

Lisa is INTp, though. She is intellectually gifted, very negativistic, good with facts, societally aware, etc.

Yeah, Lisa as INTp makes sense. Some would say she's INTP in MBTI as well, but I disagree -- she's far too idealistic and dreamy; no way is her Fe inferior. I think she's an INFJ with a strong tertiary Ti.

[Jarno]

You may be right. I suspect my mom is an MBTI ISFJ and a socionics EII. Marge Simpson might also be a good fictional example.

ISFJ = ESI

I can prove it by giving an ISJF description so you can see for yourself.

[Crispy]

you are overconfident.

you even change your self typing recently, you're a novice. Don't waste my time. You know jack shit.

He changed his type twice in 30 minutes. It took Pinocchio (=LOL) one post to convince him he had to be a Ti type.

Hmm for more than one reason. First of all you appear to be a Fe-valuer. You said that you like compliments for doing a job, in a way that sounds Fe-valuing. It appears to me that what you do you feel as special, instead of the obvious thing to to be done. Like a great, unique design, which is typical for Ti types.

Then you have an analytical approach to things, for example in this discussion with Jarno, separating things which are not the same, instead of relying on results. The big difference between Ti and Te is that Te systematizes things by how they work and their results, instead of their structural differences. Naturally, Ti types emphasizes the nature of things instead of relying on outcome.

So basically in Socionics its not so easy to state "oh I behave more like that little description so I'm not an Ti type but a Te one". One more piece of evidence that DCNH is incompatible with the classical Socionics.

Alright, so i'm a Ti-type then. Cool.

We are arguing with a dim-witted, flip-flopping, tool. He can not be helped, and we should stop trying. I doubt he even reads the descriptions before accepting an identity as his own.

[Aleksei]

I can prove it by giving an ISJF description so you can see for yourself.

It won't help. I may not know as much as you do about Socionics (or maybe I do, who knows), but am extensively knowledgeable of MBTI. And rule #1 (followed by 90% of MBTI practitioners) is not to trust descriptions. They completely ignore lower function roles and tend to paint an overly chipper picture of Feeling types, among other inaccuracies.

[Crispy]

Rule #1 in socionics is "Forget everything you learned about functions from MBTI, because they are hilariously wrong."

They completely ignore lower function roles

I wonder why that is? Maybe they ignore they're own functions because they are bullshit. Wanna know what functions they are truly describing? Socionics' of course.

[Aleksei]

Rule #1 in socionics is "Forget everything you learned about functions from MBTI, because they are hilariously wrong."

If you don't like MBTI stick to socionics and leave me the fuck alone. MBTI functions are not right or wrong however, because they are arbitrary. Just like Socionics functions.

[Crispy]

Just posted in another thread.

No, this is completely wrong. They were defined using the four most prominent dichotomies in psychology. That's far from arbitrary. MBTI/Socionics is not an invention, it's a discovery.

Do you REALLY think Jung made these archetypes on an acid trip? Are you really that stupid? He discovered them by studying psychology his whole fucking life.
LSD does NOT create images of theories in your head. IME you're more likely to lay visage upon ghosts and gateways, not functions, types, and tests.

These types are REAL and Easily Observable around you. Calling them arbitrary is pure ignorance.

[Aiss]

If you don't like MBTI stick to socionics and leave me the fuck alone. MBTI functions are not right or wrong however, because they are arbitrary. Just like Socionics functions.

It isn't about what is ultimately right or wrong. It is just that those systems are incompatible on the most basic level of functional differences. If you're going to learn socionics, you need to do it without considering MBTI.

What you said earlier about ESIs and ILIs (they have Fe-PoLR, that's the worst Fe you can get around the socion) shows that you didn't resist the temptation to take a shortcut via MBTI.

Again, you won't understand socionics if you keep MBTI preconceptions in mind. Otherwise what you're doing is simply arguing a different system pretending it's socionics. Whereas it clearly isn't to anyone but complete newbies who in longer term probably wouldn't thank you for misleading them.

[tcaudilllg]

Death to this Frankenstein topic.

[krieger]

The problem with people that say MBTI and socionics can easily map onto eachother because the substance of both lies in its dichotomies, is that these people treat functions as if they are semantically void. They say there is nothing about "Te" or "Ti" beyond what a theory imbues in these terms through descriptions of the types that posess these.

The reality is that Te does have semantic content, as does every other function. The content is found in the terms it is composed of: thinking and extroversion, combining to form something along the lines of a very practical and active type of logic. There is also the fact that both theories trace their heritage to Jung's descriptions, so both are founded on beliefs about functions that are influenced by what Jung wrote about them. Also MBTI descriptions ARE influenced by this content. They weren't written on an entirely empirical basis. They were written with an understanding of Jungian functions in mind. This is how the INTJ ends up being described as a Te type: it has Te! It has what everyone instantly recognizes Te to be: practical, active logic. It has what Jung described Te to be.

So no. You people who think socionics and MBTI are all about dichotomies and that functions are secundary are the ones that are out of touch with reality. Both theories are created with the functions as their primary foundation. Take them away and nothing remains.

[Crispy]

As Aiss pointed out, the creator of MBTI realized the functions were wrong. Only a small portion of the type descriptions are based on the functions, and those portions can be ignored. But MOST of each description is empirical, so the big picture captures the essence of what they saw.

The MBTI INTJ description was made by studying an INTj individual and writing down what they saw. After they got the big picture down, they began to sprinkle in some of the functions they THOUGHT the INTJ had (Ni+Te) because of their bullshit system. The result is a description that encapsulates an INTj with an INTp subtype, a perfect H-LII if you will Ti+Ne is way more visible in the description (aside from the functional descriptions) than Ni+Te is.

In my opinion, when they said INTP's like to understand, while INTJ's like to put-to-use, it was the single biggest fuck up they made and the result of all the INTx confusion. This only happened because they tried to sprinkle Te to fit their broken system. In reality they should switch that one sentence, and everything would be fine.

[Jarno]

So no. You people who think socionics and MBTI are all about dichotomies and that functions are secundary are the ones that are out of touch with reality. Both theories are created with the functions as their primary foundation. Take them away and nothing remains.

I would ofcourse agree with you if this were always true. But there is also a lot of mbti material around, which doesn't focus much on the functions, rather on behaviour descriptions of the types. And those correlate pretty well.

[Aleksei]

It isn't about what is ultimately right or wrong. It is just that those systems are incompatible on the most basic level of functional differences.

I realize this, which is why I'm banging my head against a wall with these two jokers trying to argue the two type systems are one and the same -- or else that one is invalid.

If you're going to learn socionics, you need to do it without considering MBTI.

I'll keep that in mind.

[Jarno]

I realize this, which is why I'm banging my head against a wall with these two jokers trying to argue the two type systems are one and the same -- or else that one is invalid.

Yes different systems though pretty much the same if only focussing on dichotomies.
They are based however on the same underlying phenomenon -> there are 16 different people.

[krieger]

The MBTI INTJ description was made by studying an INTj individual and writing down what they saw.

What makes you say there weren't also a significant number of ESTp, ENTj, ESTj and INTp mistypes among the people the descriptions are based on? If they used their understanding of Ni and Te to "select" which of these people were the real INTJs I could easily see a lot of INTjs not making the mark.

In my opinion, when they said INTP's like to understand, while INTJ's like to put-to-use, it was the single biggest fuck up they made and the result of all the INTx confusion.

The impact of that mistake is large to the point that it becomes misleading to say there is still a correlation at all.

[Crispy]

Because when writing the descriptions they probably chose people using the four dichotomies. When the basic description of someone who matches I>E, N>S, T>F, and J>P were complete they probably tried to correlate it to a function system that fit, and botched it for introverts. It can't be that hard of a mistake to make, but I'm oblivious to why they wouldn't catch it quickly. That's the best situation I can come up with using my observations.

You honestly think it's impossible to see a group of INTj's as self-confident? Maybe it wasn't a physical thing, maybe they witnessed our strong spirit. Does it say specifically anywhere in socionics that LII's are not self-confident? I hardly think Se PoLR justifies that.

[The Exception]

ISFJ = ESI

I say it depends on the ISFJ. Some are socionics ESI; some are a different socionics type. The some of the stuff in the creative section in the socionics ESI description contrasts what is said about MBTI ISFJs. ESIs are more likely to pressure or confront others when necessary, while MBTI ISFJs are not inclined to very confrontational. In fact, many MBTI ISFJs are described like doormats, something I don't see in any ESI description.

[Crispy]

I agree that some ESI's (or any other type) may believe they are something other than ISFJ's (or the related MBTI type), but most of the time in these cases they turn out wrong on one of the types, and switch it back to correlating. It's happened to me, and I've seen it happen to countless others. If you see someone saying they are ISFJ and SEI, that raises a red flag on at least one of the types.

The doormat behavior described in MBTI ISFJ is related to socionics Fi Base.

http://www.wikisocion.org/en/index.php?title=ESI

(referring to Fi in Base position) This is manifested as a very high regard for personal loyalty and integrity

It you are in an ESI's "circle", it isn't too hard to get them to bend over backwards for you.
However, they don't stand for abuse at all.

[Aleksei]

I say it depends on the ISFJ. Some are socionics ESI; some are a different socionics type. The some of the stuff in the creative section in the socionics ESI description contrasts what is said about MBTI ISFJs. ESIs are more likely to pressure or confront others when necessary, while MBTI ISFJs are not inclined to very confrontational. In fact, many MBTI ISFJs are described like doormats, something I don't see in any ESI description.

Yeah, that sounds right. And, really, how would one expect any different? ESI's are Fi-Se while ISFJs are Si-Fe. Socionics Se could make for a reasonable facsimile of MBTI Te (The Auxiliary ISTJ function), given the pushiness of both, but there's nothing about Se to make it similar to Fe (or for that matter Si). That particular equivalence can't work.

[Crispy]

Socionics Se could make for a reasonable facsimile of MBTI Te (The Auxiliary ISTJ function), given the pushiness of both, but there's nothing about Se to make it similar to Fe

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.

[Aleksei]

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.

This is a discussion between A and B. C is not to partake in it. Please refer to my previous post on this matter:

If you don't like MBTI stick to socionics and leave me the fuck alone.

[Crispy]

Cry more. Your fruitless rationalization humors me. Carry on with your naivety.

[Jarno]

What makes you say there weren't also a significant number of ESTp, ENTj, ESTj and INTp mistypes among the people the descriptions are based on? If they used their understanding of Ni and Te to "select" which of these people were the real INTJs I could easily see a lot of INTjs not making the mark.

They don't "select" with functions but with dichotomies.

If you can show me where they select people with functions, I will gladly read it.

[717495]

I don't correlate MBTI to Socioinics. I think Socionics is more even in N and S types, has more of an even balance for duals, and people type differently in both systems, like Cpig for example. He's INTJ in MBTI and INTp in Socionics. Two different systems, no contradiction.

Now if you think MBTI descriptions are for Socionics types, more power to you, but then I don't think your intertype relations are accurate, which probably means you don't focus much on gauging relationships.

[Crispy]

but then I don't think your intertype relations are accurate

Saying the intertype relations are wrong is the same as saying the socionics type is wrong. If the correct sociotypes are selected, in the case of correlation, the intertype relations would necessarily be correct.

[717495]

They're even more often correct when you correlate the types to Socionics.

[Crispy]

I'm confused. Wat?

[Aiss]

I'm confused. Wat?

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