The eternal question. To swap or not to swap. I no the answer, but what do you think about the p j swapp in introtims?
It remains - J/P switch or flip
The eternal question. To swap or not to swap. I no the answer, but what do you think about the p j swapp in introtims?
Ourboros consumes and consumes and all thats left is a head, quit while all thats left is behind
there is nothing to swap, as MBTI uses compatible dichotomies and is the main typing method in MBT
Both MBTI and Socion are based on Junghian functions. It’s them that give the names to the dichotomies, not the other way around.
If you don’t swap j/p for the introtims then you should logically swap them for the extratims, because the Information Elements (Jung functions) have the same names for both.
Now, keep in mind that even Ausra didn’t have a clear idea of what Jung was on about, she modified the definitions of Extroversion and Introversion (not to mention the other Information Elements):
http://personalitycafe.com/socionics...ta-speaks.html
So, in the end, it’s better to leave MBTI aside when approaching Socion, they talk different languages because they were elaborated with a different understanding of the same Junghian theory.
Example: MBTI INTP (Introvert Intuition Thinking Perceiving) Vs MBTI INTJ (Introvert Intuition Thinking Judging);
MBTI ENTP (Extrovert Intuition Thinking Perceiving) Vs MBTI ENTJ (Extrovert Intuition Thinking Judging).
=
MBTI TiNe Vs MBTI NiTe
MBTI NeTi Vs MBTI TeNi
=
One dichotomy -> 2 functions
The questions to ask are: 1) are functions the same for the 2 systems? 2) Why should they just be swapped for the Introverts? 3) Wtf?
How is it possible that people are still talking about this?? There is nothing to swap. MBTI messed up the types, because they misunderstood Jung.
Why is it so hard to understand that you don't need MyersBriggs. It's like a plague.
The decisive thing is not the reality of the object, but the reality of the subjective factor, i.e. the primordial images, which in their totality represent a psychic mirror-world. It is a mirror, however, with the peculiar capacity of representing the present contents of consciousness not in their known and customary form but in a certain sense sub specie aeternitatis, somewhat as a million-year old consciousness might see them.
(Jung on Si)
The idea of swapping... is a trap!!!
mbti = more fake and career-y.
socionics = more real and genuine, while still at the same time understanding fake and career-y stuff better than mbti.
mbti also didn't have an official intertype relationship chart which was weird to me... some people tried to do them on other sites though but they always felt too subjective and 'latched on' or something. An iei romantic hating an lse businessman (and vice versa)- but loving an anti-society rebel sle person just fit really well to me when I first heard about it and I instantly thought of like 37,321 real life examples.
MBTI dichotomies have undergone a ton of slimy marketing, but the dichotomies themselves are fine. They follow a similar pattern to the Big 5, except it's like the Big 4.
As for 4 function models with the flip, I see nothing wrong with the J, as it expresses the orientation of the highest extroverted function. And both these models and Socionics don't have a ton of empirical research behind them, let's be real for a second lol.
Always welcome typing advice. :]
its just weird to make Fe creative "judging" and Fi base "perceiving" in the MBTI system, it seems to create the implication that such a thing tracks the manifestation of personality more closely than the base function itself being judging, introverted or extroverted--nested in that seems to be a different understanding of introversion/extroversion itself. further it seems to ignore rationality/irrationaltiy as a dichotomy, but then sort of reinsert it in the on the back in in the form of certain behavioral descriptions, which is where the J/P switch comes in. At the end of the day I think there's actually no easy changeover presicsely because the validity of some of those assumptions are open questions and lack empirical research. It may ultimately be that MBTI is "right" in the sense that the "first extroverted function" creates more an impression of what we consider to be qualities of "judging" in personality. At the same time there's a kind of circularity to whether or not we use the "first extroverted function" method and then how we go on to define what "judging" looks like in people (this is where "social extroversion" becomes a distorting bias).
in the end, they're each systems unto themselves, but I think socionics has the better slicing of things precisely because there seems to be far more elegance and future measuring potential to "rationality/irrationality" than a kind of loose "judging" criterion. And while they roughly seem to be hitting at the same thing, there are more definitional problems with MBTI it seems to me. In theory you could do the j/p switch in transferring between systems because you're tracking rationality, but its not 1:1 so even that creates problems. In the end I think just forgetting about MBTI is best, and only using it where absolutely necessary, like when people who know nothing about socionics says "Im x or y" in mbti as a starting point, but definitely not as absolute
le pandeOriginally Posted by pinoline
The real deal is obviously Pod'lair.
Once they read your mojo you'll never come back.
(Never been read)
MOTTO: NEVER TRUST IN REALITY
Winning is for losers
Sincerely yours,
idiosyncratic type
Life is a joke but do you have a life?
Joinif you dare https://matrix.to/#/#The16Types:matrix.org
It remains: Sounds like the title to some delectably cheesy horror flick. I want to watch it.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote