Contrasting MBTI and Socionics (using INTP and ILI)

[KazeCraven]

INTP and ILI are both pretty much describe the same type of individual, but one attributes traits to Ti-Ne and the other to Ni-Te. For example, detachment is supposedly due to Ti in MBTI and Ni in Socionics. So the question isn't the types themselves, but rather the rationale behind what causes typology. Most notably, what attributes are due to what information elements?

My main beef with the MBTI is Ti as detachment. What of ISTP and ESTP? Se is both an emphasis on raw experience and living closely with reality. For Ti to be compatible with it, it must not impede on this way of life, but we can already see that Ti is the supposed source of INTP detachment. It cannot be Ne either, because an ENTP has a reputation for focusing on reality directly for the possibilities/implications it holds. Obviously we can't decide one way or another by one detail, but that's all I've found so far.

I think what needs to be further addressed is the nature of shadow functions in MBTI. I came from a model which suggests that we only use 4 elements and that these mix to make pseudo-function attitudes of the other 4. It seems that a great deal of the MBTI approach hinges on the role of the unconscious or conscious control. Here I can only speak from personal experience, and I find that nearly all of my thought processes that I'm not currently focusing on are 'unconscious', and that how much I can control something is purely related to how developed it is through my use of it. Furthermore, I've had both 'Thinking' and 'Feeling' functions go out of control and have found it necessary to repress them.

Note that there are two main versions of the MBTI. Some people refer to MBTI as the four dichotomies, which makes for something akin to the big 5. Others use a psuedo-Jungian approach, taking the MBTI type descriptions and extrapolating back towards the Jungian functions. This is distinct from the actual followers of Jung, as most notable in the differences of interpretation of the introverted functions.

Also note that I have since cropped this to be much shorter.

[Absurd]

Damn, that's long.

[KazeCraven]

Hence why I added a summary at the bottom. About midway I realized that it was mostly trash, unfortunately.

I think the argument hinges on what each information element is composed of and why, with a relative secondary focus on what the relationship to less dominant functions should be.

[tcaudilllg]

I like where you're going with this. Needs a touch of Ti refinement, though.

[KazeCraven]

I like where you're going with this. Needs a touch of Ti refinement, though.

I might try rewriting it after I've slept on it.

[717495]

You can get most of your Socionics type from MBTI tests. You only need one extra calculation afterwards.

Main factor: Know your tree (S, N, F, or T). Ones tree is often very obvious, it's the strongest dichotomy. Ignore E/I and J/P information from test results, instead keep a very close eye on which is the stronger dichotomy of your club. S is merely 1 - N, or the opposite of N. In other words, if you're weakest at N, you're strongest at S, need an N dual, and F/T is more ambiguous (creative and hidden agenda). If you're strongest at T, you're weakest at F, and S/N is more ambiguous. It is important to understand these dichotomies and the way they work polar to one another.

I will give you a simple example: Human T tests very carefully INTP, his result comes to 92% I, 84% T, 76% P, 61% N. T is thought to be stronger and more emphasized than N, which means T is dominant and N is not. Human T is obviously xNTj in Socionics simply due to there being the most emphasis on the rational dichotomy of thinking. This goes back to the main factor: Know your tree. Human T belongs to the T tree, while N is the neighboring tree. An irrational cannot belong to the T tree, that would make him/her a rational. Not then only would N and S be more ambiguous for an irrational to where duality looses its symmetry and purpose and the point of an S-dom dual becomes more questionable, but one's hidden agenda would also be nullified. A rational always belongs to one of the rational trees (being strongest in either T or F), and his dual belongs to his weakest tree, else he would be the mirror irrational type. It's the most simple way to put it, that's how type and duality works. For rationals, most feedback is between the F and T functions. xNTjs are also closely related to the ST club because of T > N, as xNTps are closer to the NF club.

Lastly you have yourself between xNTj only (ENTj is just as much an option at this point), once you're sure your template is T > N > S > F. Time to look at energy level, quadra values, and type descriptions. Deciding between Exxx and Ixxx at this point is less about descriptions and stereotypes fitting and more about knowing your dominant function. Descriptions are only here to help aid the type process, not tell you you can't be a type because you don't fit the stereotype. Fwiw, type descriptions are limited but have their use.

Next I will write descriptive explanations of all four trees for clarification and testing purposes.

[KazeCraven]

I might try rewriting it after I've slept on it.

No, I haven't slept yet, but I cut out the fat. Definitely still requires more content, though hopefully this is the right context.

[EyeSeeCold]

I've tried to do this already. As you have pointed out, the fundamental issue is in the interpretation of the functions and how they cause certain processes. It's a matter of perspective.

So who's interpretation is right? If Jung had initially used logic and ethics we wouldn't have this problem. "Thinking" implies that one has no feelings and "Feeling" implies that one cannot think. Also, for the fact of Myers adding J/P, the argument against MBTI has more weight than MBTI being truer to Jung than Socionics.

[KazeCraven]

Very true.

Have you read Jung's work directly? I am concerned that even his ideas needed more refining, though there is a community that works off his theory as shown here: http://www.personalitynation.com/jun...ive-functions/

In which case, we would have to somehow get a grounding of this in reality, which would require empirical data. I suppose this is why there is rarely an undertaking of actually trying to compare and contrast the theories.

[EyeSeeCold]

JCF still regards MBTI's function ordering so despite their attempts to "go back to the source" they will still end up with erroneous theorizing(from the perspective of Socionics/Jungian function ordering for Introverts).

I've been reading over Psychological Types for awhile now and I'm currently in the process of highlighting key words that distinguish the types. His descriptions may not be clear enough ,however, what is clear is that his system and types do not equal MBTI's system and types.

[KazeCraven]

Ah, true. I did not notice this.

Though I suppose I have my doubts that Jung actually categorized all that he was seeing correctly.

[EyeSeeCold]

Definitely, he was only one man.

What's interesting is that he captured the nature of duality in the functions.

Here's Jungian Ni/Se, for example:

The introverted intuitive's chief repression falls upon the sensation of the object. His unconscious is characterized by this fact. For we find in his unconscious a compensatory extraverted sensation function of an archaic character. The unconscious personality may, therefore, best be described as an extraverted sensation-type of a rather low and primitive order. Impulsiveness and unrestraint are the characters of this sensation, combined with an extraordinary dependence upon the sense impression.

[KazeCraven]

That is interesting.

Something that irks me from the Socionics perspective, however, is the seeming dominance of all perceptive functions for XXXps. Jung stated that the opposing function would be most suppressed, and this makes the most sense to me. Is there a reason each Ego block doesn't flip the patterns? Like leading Ne having a PoLR of Si rather than the usual Fi or Ti?

To give JCF(MBTI) credit, there's also something called the Dom/Tert loop which is what happens when a person fails to make use of their auxiliary and lacks extroversion (or introversion for extroverts). I've seen cases where this concept seems applicable.

[EyeSeeCold]

Something that irks me from the Socionics perspective, however, is the seeming dominance of all perceptive functions for XXXps.

Before you go any further Socionics did not originally have the Four Letter Code, Socionists used the Three Letter Code. Let's take ILI, for example: Intuitive Logical Intratim - this would make the type Irrational and dominant Ni of course. Thus:
I - Intratim
N - Intuitive
T - Logical
P - Irrational

According to dominant Ni, however, in MBTI ILI would be INTJ because Pe = Perceiving type and Je = Judging type. Which goes against Jung.

I went into detail over at INTPforum.

Jung stated that the opposing function would be most suppressed, and this makes the most sense to me. Is there a reason each Ego block doesn't flip the patterns? Like leading Ne having a PoLR of Si rather than the usual Fi or Ti?

Disregard the Ego block.

ILI
Dominant Ni = Unconscious and compensatory Se
Secondary Te = Unconscious and compensatory Fi
Unconscious Ne = Unconscious and compensatory Si
Unconscious Ti = Unconscious and compensatory Fe

In the case of Ne/Si and Ti/Fe these functions are the most weak for being the most unconscious. Yet because it is an NT type, Si and Fe are the weakest. Se is the weakest overall for Ni being the strongest, but its suppression is not the same as Fe and Si.

To give MBTI credit, there's also something called the Dom/Tert loop which is what happens when a person fails to make use of their auxiliary and lacks extroversion (or introversion for extroverts). I've seen cases where this concept seems applicable.

This is the Leading-Role alternating phenomenon. A lot of MBTI theorizing is inconsistent in theory even though it makes sense practically.

[KazeCraven]

Before you go any further Socionics did not originally have the Four Letter Code, Socionists used the Three Letter Code.

Even knowing that, there's no easy way to specify all socionic types that have a dominant perceptive function with the 3 letter code.

In ILI, Se and Fe are suppressed the most, in regards to strength and dimensions. The positions of the Model A are not ordered by progression/regression of strength.

This was the source of confusion.

This is the Leading-Role alternating phenomenon. A lot of MBTI theorizing is inconsistent in theory even though it makes sense practically.

Hmmm. Interesting.

[EyeSeeCold]

I heavily modified my post lol.

Even knowing that, there's no easy way to specify all socionic types that have a dominant perceptive function with the 3 letter code..

What are you trying to say?

[KazeCraven]

I heavily modified my post lol.



What are you trying to say?

I was just commenting on the fact that I'd use the same code (XXXp) next time because it's more concise than saying IXX/SXX. But what you said was a fact I was unaware of, and therefore useful.

Disregard the Ego block.

Just for this issue or entirely? Note that I'm simply questioning your perspective and not asking whether I should or shouldn't.

ILI
Dominant Ni = Unconscious and compensatory Se
Secondary Te = Unconscious and compensatory Fi
Unconscious Ne = Unconscious and compensatory Si
Unconscious Ti = Unconscious and compensatory Fe

In the case of Ne/Si and Ti/Fe these functions are the most weak for being the most unconscious. Yet because it is an NT type, Si and Fe are the weakest. Se is the weakest overall for Ni being the strongest, but its suppression is not the same as Fe and Si.

So... what you are saying is that Si and Fe are most weak for ILIs, but Se is the most suppressed?

[Aiss]

**** Ni ****
 *** Te ***
  ** Si **
   * Fe *
   * Se *
  ** Fi **
 *** Ne ***
**** Ti ****

Strength/dimensionality in ILI.

Though I agree there's a difference in dealing with valued/unvalued aspects which can make super-ego appear even weaker.

[KazeCraven]

Is this coming from somewhere in particular?

[Aiss]

Is this coming from somewhere in particular?

Dimensionality is Boukalov's addition, but PoLR being the weakest and base being strongest can be traced to the origin of socionics, I think. And since mental ring goes 1 → 2 → 3 → 4 → 1, from strongest to weakest, it makes sense that vital ring would go from weakest to stronger, being 5 → 6 → 7 → 8 → 5 (rings are integral part of Model A from the beginning). The diagram I posted earlier is just visualized dimensionality.

[Jarno]

INTP and ILI are both pretty much describe the same type of individual, but one attributes traits to Ti-Ne and the other to Ni-Te.

listen man, mbti just used a wrong formula to convert dichotomies into functions.

but since they didn't notice it, they just attached the behaviour for the first function on the wrong name.

[KazeCraven]

Dimensionality is Boukalov's addition, but PoLR being the weakest and base being strongest can be traced to the origin of socionics, I think. And since mental ring goes 1 → 2 → 3 → 4 → 1, from strongest to weakest, it makes sense that vital ring would go from weakest to stronger, being 5 → 6 → 7 → 8 → 5 (rings are integral part of Model A from the beginning). The diagram I posted earlier is just visualized dimensionality.

Yes, this makes sense to me. Thanks for the illustration.

listen man, mbti just used a wrong formula to convert dichotomies into functions.

but since they didn't notice it, they just attached the behaviour for the first function on the wrong name.

I am actually currently inclined to agree with you. Though I suppose my issue is whether the interpretation itself actually makes for a worse theory (rather than whether it's consistent with Jung). But even then, I'm still inclined to MBTI and its variations will end up less effective.

I suppose the question is whether there are individuals who have started studying socionics and actually switched over to MBTI, and why. It was the opposite for me; I didn't even look at socionics until about a year after I had started with MBTI.

[Jarno]

I suppose the question is whether there are individuals who have started studying socionics and actually switched over to MBTI, and why. It was the opposite for me; I didn't even look at socionics until about a year after I had started with MBTI.

same for me, first MBTI than socionics.

Socionics is like a version 2.0 of MBTI.

[Aleksei]

My main beef with the MBTI is Ti as detachment. What of ISTP and ESTP? Se is both an emphasis on raw experience and living closely with reality. For Ti to be compatible with it, it must not impede on this way of life, but we can already see that Ti is the supposed source of INTP detachment. It cannot be Ne either, because an ENTP has a reputation for focusing on reality directly for the possibilities/implications it holds. Obviously we can't decide one way or another by one detail, but that's all I've found so far.

Ti is a focus on personal values as an internal framework of deductive logic -- praxeology. Se/Ti provides a general attitude of figuring out the external world by focusing on its concrete details, and processing those logically. Ne/Ti focuses on the external world based on what could be (as opposed to what is), and refines that into a logical framework. "Detachment" itself refers to detachment from ethical considerations, which isn't at all incompatible with Se. Detachment from the outer world is, naturally, a feature of all introverted processes.

[KazeCraven]

I suppose that is true: the profiles usually do not specify in what way an INTP is detached. Good; I didn't think I had found a genuine hole in MBTI.

[Aleksei]

Jungian typology in general is riddled with holes. I tend to pass over them because it's fun.

[EyeSeeCold]

I suppose the question is whether there are individuals who have started studying socionics and actually switched over to MBTI, and why. It was the opposite for me; I didn't even look at socionics until about a year after I had started with MBTI.

I honestly doubt it, unless they couldn't grasp Socionics which was why the left it for MBTI.