MBTI to Socionics: New take

[Jeremy8419]

Well, I have an outstanding ban on PerC, so figured I would post this here. It is a portion of a reply that I wasn't able to post.Reference article: http://www.socionics.com/articles/howto.htm. "7. Why do you keep linking the socionics.com article? How do you not realize that the article is about how to determine which of the two plausible j/p options is correct for the individual in socionics and that the "x" means "j or p" with the choice being your S/N vs T/F preference strength? What part of that entire article are you even reading, because none of it is congruent with your claims? It's actually in direct conflict with your claims, which are that INFJ is ever only INFp. Per the article itself, I am INFJ/INFj as my preference strengths are Introverted – 75%, Intuitive – 30%, Feeling – 49%, Judging – 69%, Turbulent – 29%. The entire article is essentially about how rational/irrational is your preference strength of T/F vs S/N, which logically leads to J/P being your preference for operating primarily in the Mental/Vital super blocks; i.e., taking into account the individual's TIM while also taking into account their tendencies to live in conscious thought versus automated response. Although Sergei is largely disregarded in the socionics community due to V.I. (even though the schools claiming the Cital super-block and inborn TIM suggests direct V.I. being incorrect is a superfluous and semantic claim, as both the former are genetics-based, as is direct V.I.), the only reason the article itself is not universally accepted is due to the author not explicitly making the logical claim that J/P is equivalent to Mental/Vital, which brings the actual dichotomies to five, and more in line with the Big Five and Talanov's work. Because I am INFJ-T by assessment in Kiersey, with stronger preferences to F than compared to N, I am EII operating primarily in conscious thought and in a stressed/growth phase from heavy Super-Ego usage, which, empirically, follows both what LSI and EII adherents on the forums suggest, and which I myself openly state, due to clear vision of myself and the others around me."This is in line with Jung, who simply stated that the personality had highest preference for T, F, S, or N, and the potential secondary being the preferred opposite on the rational/irrational dichotomy.This should also hold true for extroverts. Taking 16personalities.com test should show the primary of the individual, as well as the extroversion/introversion and the secondary.

[Sol]

The main: Socionics and MBT are both Jung's typology.
The main difference is MBT using non-Jungian functional model for introverted types like INTJ gets functions of INTP.
As dichotomies are compatible in Socionics and MBT (check descriptions of dichotomies and dichotomies' tests used in both): LII = INTJ, or INTJ (by Socionics) = INTJ (by MBT), similarly for other types.

[Jeremy8419]

Such were my thoughts for months on end, and J being mostly correlated to j and P being mostly correlated to p is supported by Bukalov, his school/organization, as well as most other socionists, outside of Gulenko who has already admitted bridging himself from "classical" socionics. However, this stance is still only mostly correlating, and still has a large percentage of people who don't match this, even with mistypes take into consideration. On Kiersey temperament sorters, such as 16personalities.com, each person is given preference strengths; however, preferences for T, F, S, and N are not compared with each other on preference strength. In Psychological Types, Jung only speculates a secondary nature, and the difference between rationality/irrationality only really come into effect when considering the secondary nature. The primary nature is simply determined by which of T, F, S, or N is the individuals primary orientation. The primary nature is also given extroversion or introversion on this primary nature. Following this, the rationality/irrationality comes into effect for placing the individuals secondary nature as the strongest of the opposing half of the rationality/irrationality dichotomy. I have been aware of people's average predisposition to operate primarily within the mental super-block or the vital super-block for some time now, i.e., predisposition to operate under conscious effort or preconscious automation; however, there was within socionics nothing regarding nor recognizing this matter. Although the ability to reach a conclusion from a stimulus through either super-block is recognized, the predisposition to primarily behave through one or the other was not. Some time in the past couple days, I realized that the J/P dichotomy questions and descriptions of MBTI and Kiersey were far more similar to those of Mental and Vital super-blocks operations than anything TIM related. Upon realization and application of such, most previous testing in MBTI/Kiersey anomalies compared to TIM became solved. The only ones which still remain are mostly HA related, e.g., very illogical and emotionally manipulative people who test as LII are actually extremely similar in behavior to descriptions of IEI, such as Stratyovkys (cannot even remotely remember how to spell that) SLE/IEI duality description which portrays someone most similar to an amorous narcissist; whereas, healthy INFPs who identify as EII most often display EII Vital tendencies. Thus far, conversion between systems, regardless of E/I, seems most accurate when placing leading as the greatest preference of T, F, S, or N, applying E/I to it, placing Creative as the opposite primary preference on rationality/irrationality (which all is as Jung described), applying opposite E/I to Creative, and using J/P to determine which super-block the individual primarily operates in. Assertive/Turbulent is most likely strong/weak blocks focus. I would like others to post their 16personalities.com kiersey results along with their chosen TIM for reference.

[Myst]

The main: Socionics and MBT are both Jung's typology.
The main difference is MBT using non-Jungian functional model for introverted types like INTJ gets functions of INTP.
As dichotomies are compatible in Socionics and MBT (check descriptions of dichotomies and dichotomies' tests used in both): LII = INTJ, or INTJ (by Socionics) = INTJ (by MBT), similarly for other types.

MBTI INTJ != LII

MBTI INTJ != ILI

Simple as that.

Such were my thoughts for months on end, and J being mostly correlated to j and P being mostly correlated to p is supported by Bukalov, his school/organization, as well as most other socionists, outside of Gulenko who has already admitted bridging himself from "classical" socionics. However, this stance is still only mostly correlating, and still has a large percentage of people who don't match this, even with mistypes take into consideration. On Kiersey temperament sorters, such as 16personalities.com, each person is given preference strengths; however, preferences for T, F, S, and N are not compared with each other on preference strength. In Psychological Types, Jung only speculates a secondary nature, and the difference between rationality/irrationality only really come into effect when considering the secondary nature. The primary nature is simply determined by which of T, F, S, or N is the individuals primary orientation. The primary nature is also given extroversion or introversion on this primary nature. Following this, the rationality/irrationality comes into effect for placing the individuals secondary nature as the strongest of the opposing half of the rationality/irrationality dichotomy. I have been aware of people's average predisposition to operate primarily within the mental super-block or the vital super-block for some time now, i.e., predisposition to operate under conscious effort or preconscious automation; however, there was within socionics nothing regarding nor recognizing this matter. Although the ability to reach a conclusion from a stimulus through either super-block is recognized, the predisposition to primarily behave through one or the other was not. Some time in the past couple days, I realized that the J/P dichotomy questions and descriptions of MBTI and Kiersey were far more similar to those of Mental and Vital super-blocks operations than anything TIM related. Upon realization and application of such, most previous testing in MBTI/Kiersey anomalies compared to TIM became solved. The only ones which still remain are mostly HA related, e.g., very illogical and emotionally manipulative people who test as LII are actually extremely similar in behavior to descriptions of IEI, such as Stratyovkys (cannot even remotely remember how to spell that) SLE/IEI duality description which portrays someone most similar to an amorous narcissist; whereas, healthy INFPs who identify as EII most often display EII Vital tendencies. Thus far, conversion between systems, regardless of E/I, seems most accurate when placing leading as the greatest preference of T, F, S, or N, applying E/I to it, placing Creative as the opposite primary preference on rationality/irrationality (which all is as Jung described), applying opposite E/I to Creative, and using J/P to determine which super-block the individual primarily operates in. Assertive/Turbulent is most likely strong/weak blocks focus. I would like others to post their 16personalities.com kiersey results along with their chosen TIM for reference.

I wondered when you were going to show up here! ....sigh

Anyway, I can give you my data from that test:

64% I, 81% S, 81% T, 63% J, 68% A. vs LSI-Se

[Jeremy8419]

The only reason that I use that forum instead of this one is due to poor functionality and compatibility with my phone on here.
That would place you as LSI under MBTI and Kiersey population distributions, and SLI under normalized population distributions. Both operating in Ego.

[Myst]

The only reason that I use that forum instead of this one is due to poor functionality and compatibility with my phone on here.
That would place you as LSI under MBTI and Kiersey population distributions, and SLI under normalized population distributions. Both operating in Ego.

What do you call "normalized population distributions"?

edit: do you mean most people in the world would score higher than 63% for J in that test? I did take a standardized test directly correlating with Big 5 that said I was in the middle on the conscientious dichotomy.

My greatest-clearest preference in general is clearly not the J, it's T. Which happens to work with your theory as above lol

[Jeremy8419]

What do you call "normalized population distributions"?

edit: do you mean most people in the world would score higher than 63% for J in that test? I did take a standardized test directly correlating with Big 5 that said I was in the middle on the conscientious dichotomy.

My greatest-clearest preference in general is clearly not the J, it's T. Which happens to work with your theory as above lol

Oh, woops. Had that backwards.
Right now with MBTI/Kiersey population distributions you would be 50/50 between LSI operating in Ego or SLI operating in Ego. Because they consider Intuitivists to be only 30% of the population, the population distributions are not normalized. In reality, in those two systems, you have to be very Intuition-based to be listed as an intuitive type; however, this is due to the originators arbitrarily choosing to make their own groups a minority. A simple changing of wording to make Intuition not quite so ethereal/wishy-washy would have caused the population to have normalized population distributions amongst the types (and J/P on a minor scale, as 55% of population is J). When using a normalized population type distribution, your S would actually be around 10% less, placing T as Leading and S as Creative, eliminating the likelihood of SLI, if using my methods.

[Jeremy8419]

Also, the J/P effect I am saying is your primary super-block used. J will primarily act in Mental and P will primarily act in Vital. So, if an INFP and INFJ both have stronger F than N, they will be EII; however, they will primarily display different traits, as the INFJ will operate under Ego and the INFP under Id.

[Myst]

Oh, woops. Had that backwards.
Right now with MBTI/Kiersey population distributions you would be 50/50 between LSI operating in Ego or SLI operating in Ego. Because they consider Intuitivists to be only 30% of the population, the population distributions are not normalized. In reality, in those two systems, you have to be very Intuition-based to be listed as an intuitive type; however, this is due to the originators arbitrarily choosing to make their own groups a minority. A simple changing of wording to make Intuition not quite so ethereal/wishy-washy would have caused the population to have normalized population distributions amongst the types (and J/P on a minor scale, as 55% of population is J). When using a normalized population type distribution, your S would actually be around 10% less, placing T as Leading and S as Creative, eliminating the likelihood of SLI, if using my methods.

Well, especially considering I'm female, T would be definitely even more preferred over S.

How do you know that S/N should be 50/50 in the general population?

Also, the J/P effect I am saying is your primary super-block used. J will primarily act in Mental and P will primarily act in Vital. So, if an INFP and INFJ both have stronger F than N, they will be EII; however, they will primarily display different traits, as the INFJ will operate under Ego and the INFP under Id.

Well, where does this theory come from? Seems rather unsubstantiated to me.

[Jeremy8419]

"should be"? No. However, it is more practical to have even population distributions. The population percentages are based upon a chosen subjective division by Myers-Briggs, not something real. The choice to divide people in such a way as to create her group as 1-2% of the population was strictly her own. Had Intuition been written, described, and assessed as a slightly more realistic, then the distributions would have been more even. At it's core, the dichotomy is a scalar. You are either more Sensing or more Intuitive; however, the subjective fulcrum placed is what defines those words. If you went back in time and changed one word on all the N questions of the original version of Type I, then the groups subjectively created from this subjective assessment would alter all subsequent information on MBTI, and the population distributions would be different, no matter how small or large the change. Regardless of where you place the fulcrum, if you're consistent in your usage of typology, you're typings of the general public will have a population distribution among the dichotomies. Have you determined where your fulcrums are and why?
Well, I began the thread stating it was something I came up with. In most cases I have encountered in real life, it is accurate. I'll go through the logic, though.
1. Jung's stance was that each person is primarily dominated by Thinking, Feeling, Sensing or Intuition. This is Leading.
2. Jung's stance was that each person has either an extroverted or introverted attitude towards the world. This is also your Leading.
3. Jung hypothesized the existence of a secondary nature, which would be the greater of the opposing rational/irrational from the dominant one.
4. This secondary nature exists subsequently to the existence of the dominant nature. I.e., no other dichotomy affects the dominant besides extroversion or introversion attitude; a person is simply dominated by one of the four.
5. Rationality/irrationality only comes into effect when considering the secondary nature.
6. Whereas rationality/irrationality is a property of the four basic natures in Jung and Socionics, J/P affects directly the placement of the Dominant and Auxiliary in MBTI.
7. J/P being described in essence as J being conscious thought being put into matters and engaged onto the world and P being an automation and acceptance of what is engaged by the world, is more similar to descriptions of Mental Superblock and Vital Superblock, respectively, than anything related to rationality/irrationality.
8. The predisposition to exist in the world by mostly Mental Superblock or Vital Superblock is a known reality, but is not directly assessed in Socionics.
9. Assessments in MBTI or Keirsey normally determine which of the four natures have greatest dominance, separate from the existence of J/P.
10. Primary dominance between four natures can be determined regardless of system, secondary nature can be determined based on the first, and primary dominance can have extroverted or introverted attitude. This is all congruent with Jung, and exists independently of J/P.
J/P can be used to show which of the dominant nature or secondary nature is used most often; e.g., If introverted, mainly thinking, secondary sensing, and primarily on auto-pilot, you would display mostly Te and Si to people even though LSI, OR (needs data), alternatively, you could display mostly Ti and Se, while this being Vital, would make you SLI.
It's unsubstantiated, but has sound logic and is largely congruent with the three systems. Which is why I asked people to post their own correlations or lack thereof.

[Chakram]

Which correlations were you looking for @Jeremy8419 ? Like my thoughts on what I am and test results? Or just if I see the merit behind your idea? Or something else entirely? I agree with J/P being kind of bunk and don't think it should be used much to try and get an accurate type estimation.

[Jeremy8419]

Which correlations were you looking for @Jeremy8419 ? Like my thoughts on what I am and test results? Or just if I see the merit behind your idea? Or something else entirely? I agree with J/P being kind of bunk and don't think it should be used much to try and get an accurate type estimation.

Your test results and which type descriptions you most closely match in Socionics. If it is done from a "well, these descriptions are most like me, but I think these functions/elements explain things better" then it doesn't directly suit my purpose, but if both the closest fit descriptions and conflicting chosen socionics type are given, I can at least rectify things into a usable system of thought.

[Chakram]

Your test results and which type descriptions you most closely match in Socionics. If it is done from a "well, these descriptions are most like me, but I think these functions/elements explain things better" then it doesn't directly suit my purpose, but if both the closest fit descriptions and conflicting chosen socionics type are given, I can at least rectify things into a usable system of thought.

Ok, assuming it was from the 16personlaities site, here are my results
Introverted-70%
Intuitive-82%
Thinking-81%
Prospecting-72%
Assertive-73%

As for which type descriptions, most people on this site have generally typed me as LII or ILE, with a couple other suggestions but those two were the majority.

[Jeremy8419]

Ok, assuming it was from the 16personlaities site, here are my results
Introverted-70%
Intuitive-82%
Thinking-81%
Prospecting-72%
Assertive-73%

As for which type descriptions, most people on this site have generally typed me as LII or ILE, with a couple other suggestions but those two were the majority.

Under my suggestion, that would place you as ILI, behaving in the vital block, which would give others the appearance of someone doing Ti-Ne. Does this follow in your mind?

[Chakram]

Under my suggestion, that would place you as ILI, behaving in the vital block, which would give others the appearance of someone doing Ti-Ne. Does this follow in your mind?

I'm not familiar with the Vital/Mental superblocks. But I think I understand what you're saying, which is that people can give off the impression to others of being something else, based on which super block they have a behavioral preference for. If you could elaborate on the super blocks, it would be appreciated.

[Jeremy8419]

I'm not familiar with the Vital/Mental superblocks. But I think I understand what you're saying, which is that people can give off the impression to others of being something else, based on which super block they have a behavioral preference for. If you could elaborate on the super blocks, it would be appreciated.

Mental is conscious effort applied unto society. Vital is automatic responses from an individualistic nature. In my theory, being P means you're generally on autopilot and operating from the Vital block. Do you feel like you're existence is primarily conscious effort? Or more of an automated drift?

[kopyk]

Interesting idea. The mental/vital thing reminds a bit of what is described here: http://www.reichandlowentherapy.org/...dy_values.html

Also, two posters on this forum, Olga & Agape, both separately had the idea that each quadra corresponds to a temperament. Alpha = Ep, beta = Ej, gamma = Ij, delta = Ip. Olga also said each temperament corresponds to one of the blocks, IIRC ego & Ej, id & Ep, superego & Ij, superid & Ip. So yes, vital would be irrational. Lastly, as the reich website says, ego values is associated w/ the sympathetic nervous system which is associated w/ Se/Ni values, another point for gamma & beta being more rational. In a now deleted post I had ESI as the most rational type, Ij being more rational then Ej, serious being more rational then merry, negativist being more rational then positivist. ESI was also the most gamma type, EIE the most beta, SLI the most delta, ILE the mort alpha, FWIW.

[Chakram]

Mental is conscious effort applied unto society. Vital is automatic responses from an individualistic nature. In my theory, being P means you're generally on autopilot and operating from the Vital block. Do you feel like you're existence is primarily conscious effort? Or more of an automated drift?

Depends on the situation, I'm not sure if I would notice something like that though. Interesting idea though. It mainly sounds like you're trying to expand upon the irrational and rational dichotomies. So Vital would be perceiving elements, and mental would be judging elements. I'm not sure how much you can rely primarily on test percentages though, people can be biased, or be seeing things from a different perspective.

[Jeremy8419]

Depends on the situation, I'm not sure if I would notice something like that though. Interesting idea though. It mainly sounds like you're trying to expand upon the irrational and rational dichotomies. So Vital would be perceiving elements, and mental would be judging elements. I'm not sure how much you can rely primarily on test percentages though, people can be biased, or be seeing things from a different perspective.

Well, mental and vital aren't ideas, that's just what they are in Socionics. Connection between such and J/P is my idea, though. True, people can derp, but if you look at the J/P questions, they do seem highly similar to mental/vital.

[Myst]

J/P can be used to show which of the dominant nature or secondary nature is used most often; e.g., If introverted, mainly thinking, secondary sensing, and primarily on auto-pilot, you would display mostly Te and Si to people even though LSI, OR (needs data), alternatively, you could display mostly Ti and Se, while this being Vital, would make you SLI.
It's unsubstantiated, but has sound logic and is largely congruent with the three systems. Which is why I asked people to post their own correlations or lack thereof.

Ehm, to me it seems like I have two sides to me, a P and a J one, I can switch between them. In either mode though I'm Ti+Se in conscious ego.

The socionics theory however is in conflict with your theory as it says Mental ring consists of the more readily verbalized functions which is what you would show to other people.