Without giving descriptions for j/p MBTI and j/p Socionics please state the precise differences of both.
Without giving descriptions for j/p MBTI and j/p Socionics please state the precise differences of both.
MBTI and socionics experts beleive that people have two different types of life rythms. The criteria they use to define these life rythms does not differ any more than the criteria they use to define extraversion and introversion. The difference comes in the theoritical explanation for why these types of life rythms occur. Socionists beleive that judging charcteristics stem from having a judging/rational function as the dominant function and perceiving characterists stem from having a perceiving function as the dominant function.
MBTI experts beleive that judging charcteristics stem from the fact that one of the two functions(either dominant or auxillary) is extraverted and judging at the same time. Since either the dominant function or the auxillary is judging(and the other is perceiving) MBTI experts atrribute judging characteristics to the extraversion of the judging function. Socionists atrribute it to the judging function, regardless of whether or not it is extraverted. So in MBTI judging is a sign that a judging function is not only judging, but extraverted as well.
For example ENTP in MBTI is a perceiving type, because its dominant function is and its auxillary function is . INTP(socionics INTP) is a judging type in MBTI: it has as dominant function and as auxillary function. Which is why the is called INTJ in MBTI. Socionics INTJ is a perceiving type in MBTI: dominant with auxillary . In MBTI, type is perceiving because the extraverted function( ) is perceiving.
confusing enough for you?
I have came to the conclusion after studying the results of people that the IJ configuration of MBTI does correlate with the socionics configuration of Ip and the IP correlation of MBTI correlates with the Ij correlation of socionics. I believe that it is an incorrect myth that J=j and P=p when comparing MBTI to the socionics structure. I have also came to the conclusion that Ganin has mistyped himself. He is actually an INTp. This makes perfect logical sense to me after studying the way he presents information and the type of information he presents. INTjs and ENTps are supposed to be somewhat radical. This what the emergence of -Ti/+Te and +Ne/-Ni appears like when presented to the population of the world. INTps and ENTjs follow the laws of the world. They try to appear as normal as possible. This is due to the +Ti/-Te and +Ni/-Ne functioning. Ganin fits in the latter category. His ideology with the J/P for MBTI and socionics is wrong. J does not equal j on average. P does not equal p on average. I think this is a mistake that Ganin has caused the majority of the people in the socionics field to make.
Well Russian socionics sites, such as socionics.org, also refer to "Jack London" - LIE - as "ENTJ", "Zhukov" - SLE - as "ESTP" etc.
As far as I know, Ganin's contribution - if indeed it was his - was simply to use small "p" and "j" to underline that he was talking of socionics types rather than Myers-Briggs.
I disagree with almost everything else you wrote, btw.
, LIE, ENTj logical subtype, 8w9 sx/sp
Originally Posted by implied
lmfaoOriginally Posted by Expat
Originally Posted by Expat
I think a big load of the people on this forum have their J/P mixed up. Lol, I was reading in the other post that INTjs were thought of here as being the "Solitary" Oldham type. The "Idiosyncratic" fits the INTj perfectly. INTps are the type of people that sit at home all day a think depressing thoughts. This is the INTps nature. INTps see the bad in things. Its like the people on this forum, no offense, don't know what the differences between INTps and INTjs are (are even know what INTps and INTjs are). I think that there has been bad categorizations of a lot of types by the people here (starting with the J/P dichotomy). In socionics, the J/P only indicates what the dominant function is (as well as how the rest of the functions fall in line also). And even though J is defined as following the most efficient path, and P is about randomness, its very subtle. A messy person could be a J. A neat person could be P. These could be reversed just as easily. And due to the fact that most "introverted types" consider themselves to use introverted functions as a base, the creative function will be extroverted. MBTI looks at the extroverted version of the creative function to define J/P dichotomy. In actuality, the creative function defines the character as what they want to be, or what the present to themselves or the world. The creative function is what a person strives to be. The creative function is what a person will usually choose to identify as. The base function is what a person is. Its what used to analyze creative data. The creative function is the data. The base function is the analysis of the data. I could even argue with you that so called "extroverted" types have a problem with the J/P dichotomy as well because a person will always identify with the creative function. And although I do not believe that the types should be divided into "extroverted" and "introverted" types due to the fact that a person uses both introverted and extroverted versions of the functions in its model A, I believe that the common J/P ideology like cleanliness and messiness, or organized v.s. disorganized is related to the creative function, because its what the person wants to be.
An article about J/P myths in MBTT was posted at MBTI Central. Worth reading.
Nothing new under the sun.
Vicky Jo and Robin are married, Robin is quite prominent on the INTJ-Open list. They are the owners of intj.org and infj.org.
Both are aware of the MBTI's J/P rationality switch and describe their respective types as Ni-dominant or "irrational" types. If we assume their Ni is substantially the same as Socionics Ni, this means they are describing themselves as IEI and ILI (INFp and INTp.)
Does anyone agree with this assessment based on what they've written?
I don't think the J/P switch always works. Phaedrus would say it never does. But then again, his system is a completely different one.
What's probably the most frustrating, from a Socionics point of view, is when someone with an MBTI background clearly understands his/her type in terms of functions, and is actually certain about the functions involved, and yet has a result that doesn't seem to make sense based on Socionics theory...for example, someone who is absolutely sure that he/she is dominant introverted intuition with extraverted feeling, say, but also describes him/herself in ways that sound incompatible with Socionics IEI.
Differing definitions and theoretical constructs clearly play a role. But in addition, the person may be mistaken about I/E and actually be an EIE.
Also, I've seen some interesting cases where historical typings were done that have the functions similar to Socionist's typings, but the S/N and T/F flipped, so that what one might view as the valued functions come out the same.
For example, I've seen typings of Abraham Lincoln and some others as MBTI ISTJ, whereas around here they're seen as EII.
Another thing that may happen is that one has different subtypes, so that generally a typical Socionics understanding of types and temperaments would be most compatible with the accepting subtype, whereas the J/P switch works more with the producing subtype. Or, we might not call this "accepting" and "producing" subtypes exactly, but in any case, two subtypes corresponding roughly to "accepting" and "producing." Another related idea is to think of the so-called "+" and "-" dimension flipping between two subtypes.
Last edited by Jonathan; 02-03-2008 at 06:26 AM.
The J/P dimension is basically the Big 5 dimension 'Conscientiousness' added to Jungian Psychological Types by Isabel Myers. Now this by itself is not an error.
The error is that Myers assumed that this dimension was the same as Jung's Rational/irrational dichotomy. But it isn't, and in order to make the system work, she decided the J/P dimension must reflect the extraverted function (in introverts the 2nd function). We all know the results.
As the referred article mentions, e.g. both ISTP´s and ENFP´s can be very tidy people. This is confirmed by Cognitive Psychology, that teaches us that extreme low or high conscientiousness can be ´reprogrammed´. It is more of a learned behavior rather than an inborn personality trait.
Anyhow, Socionics has some somewhat similar, though competing, notions, such as rationality vs. irrationality, resolute vs. reasonable, etc. None of these are about conscientiousness though.
MBTT is a functional theory, and so is Socionics. Keirsey's, Spranger's, Groos's, and James's typologies are not based on functions. Keirsey describes the same 16 types as those in MBTT and Socionics, though, and all three (MBTT, Socionics, and Keirsey) define the 16 types in the four dimensions.
And all three also test people's types by using a testing method where they ask questions that are based on the four dimensions that define the types. The only reason people have got the incorrect idea that MBTT is not a functional theory and that it is all about the four dimensions is because the testing method (which of course does not define your type in any way) is so much in focus due to the industry that has been built around it.
Most psychologists agree that all the relevant differences in people's personalities can be reduced to the Big Five traits, and they are right about that of course. We all agree on that, and we must agree on that if we believe that Socionics is a correct theory.
All these theories describe the same reality, the same empirical phenomena, only using different names and explanations for what we all can observe. The Big Five is the most commonly accepted model, but its five basic traits are nothing but the four dimensions in Socionics, MBTT, and Keirsey with one dimension added -- neuroticism. Conscientiousness is the same phenomenon as the J/P dichotomy, which is the same as the difference between rational and irrational types in Socionics and Jung.
These fundamental human traits are not tied to any specific theory, because they can all be observed by everyone without any previous theoretical knowledge, and they also have been observed and described long, long before Jung came up with his idea that there are eight basic psychological types. Jung was not the first typologist, and Socionics is certainly not unique when it comes to how to understand the four dimensions.
If Socionics would not describe the four dimensions of the 16 types the same way that they are correctly described by others who have been observing the same reality, Socionics would be a an incorrect theory on the types. But that does not seem to be the case. Socionics describes the 16 types in roughly the same way as everyone else -- except for the fact that some misguided people on this forum have not realized it and instead invented their own private version of Socionics that contradicts what "official" Socionics says about the types.
The most fundamental and generally valid definition of any type in any model -- including Socionics -- is in relation to the four (or five) basic dimensions (scales, dichotomies). If anyone, at any time or any place, would ever find that his or her presumed type in Socionics contradicts his or her presumed typed as defined by the four dichotomies, then we know for certain that he or she has been mistyped. Your type in Socionics is necessarily defined by the four dimensions.
Socionics, as a theory, holds that each person's type is a result of inborn preferences, not of learned behavior. The effect is that each (healthy) person has a specific type, i.e. is not cross-typed. If you claim that Socionics is basically the same as Big 5, then the theory behind Socionics is invalid, and we can simply discard it. Or top put it differently: If Rationality/Irrationality is the same as Conscientiousness, then Socionics, as a theory, is invalid.
The question is: can a rational person be low on conscientiousness and an irrational person be high on conscientiousness? I think insights of Cognitive-Behavioral Psychology on conscientiousness, impulsiveness and procrastination show us the question can be answered with 'yes'. Low and high conscientiousness (in the pathological sense) can be unlearned (with quite some effort), but I doubt it changes cognitive style.
It seems at least as probable to me that a large fraction of those who take such questionnaires as the MBTI, respond based upon their typical contribution to society rather than their preferred set of surroundings, given a choice between the two.
LII expects to be given a fairly consistent schedule and such, but isn't too great at producing one in the "real world". ILI expects to encounter exciting changes in life, but isn't too great at producing them. A significant part of the human need for a dual presence is rooted in this. The extrovert attracts and aggregates such conditions as their dual unconsciously expects for their surroundings.
However the introvert rational (e.g.) consciously only expects their own self to have an inner orderliness, i.e. for their ideas to make sense or their relationships to be in accordance to the ideal archetype. They are conscious of their environment only insofar as they can have an effect at changing the perceptions of others or see things from the perspective of others. Likewise the introvert irrational is only conscious of the outward environment insofar as they can impose order by challenging the logic or ethics of others, or by figuring out who is right and who is wrong about things.
Thus, I'm inclined to believe that the way they answer on a test is most likely to be affected by what they can consciously "do something" about. The rational or irrational impulse is certainly there in a given type, but it is turned inwards and most of the time doesn't directly reflect action. In practice this depends on whether and to what degree you are extremely focused on yourself, versus the "real world" at the time of testing. This accounts for many like myself who receive 50-50 results, as well as the many cases where self-described members of a given "type community" online experience high levels of quasi-identical tension with each other.
I think this conversation is perhaps getting sidetracked by a few confusions and misunderstandings. First, when Phaedrus says that how one comes out on the 4 dichotomies much match ones type, that is simply tautologically correct. For example, in Socionics, it doesn't make sense to say one is ILE but "S rather than N" or "F rather than T"...any more than it makes sense to say that one is ILE but "more Te than Ti." Of course one might come out on the MBTI or some other test as being more S and F even though one's really an ILE. That's simply because the tests aren't perfect.
As to conscientiousness being learned...well, again, if one thinks of the English term "conscientiousness," that certainly can be learned and is not determined by type. In the MBTI world, they like to point out that type has to do with preferences and that it's not an excuse for any sort of negative behavior. Everybody can and should learn to compensate for their own weaknesses. That doesn't negate the fact that some people must continually struggle to be organized, whereas for other people, organization comes naturally and spontaneity less naturally.
Ne and ADD/HD). People who suffer from a lack of conscientiousness as a result of e.g. ADHD will most likely struggle the rest of their life. However, the reasons for extreme low or high conscientiousness in people with 'normal psychology' are well understood and cognitive-behavioral therapy strategies are getting increasingly effective (e.g. Schema Therapy).
For those who would like to investigate this issue further, I would like to recommend:
Schema Therapy - A Practitioner Guide
The Now Habit
Perhaps others can point out good literature as well.
Edit: something seems wrong with the links, but I can't figure out why...
For greater clarity on this issue, here's a very different way of looking it:
Let's suspend, or forget, for a moment, the differences between how MBTT and Socionics see the various building blocks ("functions" in Jung/MBTT, "IM elements" in Socinoics), and look at this purely from a Socionics point of view.
Seen that way, MBTT reflects simply a hypothesis that an emphasis on static IM elements would tend to cause one to be less inclined towards schedules and externally-directed order, whereas dynamic rational IM elements would cause one to be more inclined towards schedules and externally-directed order.
Why would this be the case? It's fairly obvious: dynamic elements are all about sequence, things moving through time. Dynamic rationality (Te, Fe) is all about externally-directed order. This is why Ej types tend to be what some people might described as J-like. That doesn't mean that they're organized (organization of things would be a static quality), or even that they're on time....but they would be oriented towards sequence and externally-directed order. For example, I would expect Ej types to be most comfortable with stopping an activity because of some other planned event that comes afterwards.
Similarly, Ij types may be inclined to "weight" static order over externally-directed dynamic order. For example an LII might spend time learning the more of the system involved in doing a task than is actually required....or might decide not to go to some scheduled activity because he/she is in the middle of organizing something (preferring to focus on static order rather than dynamic order).
Where the problem is, however, is that this MBTT-derived theory tends to ignore the fact that strong emphasis introverted dynamic functions (Si and Ni) may also lead one to be less inclined towards externall-directed order (Ej).
If a person has given less weight to externally-directed schedules, the question needs to be "why": Is it because one was learning or working out a system or categorization, and this was more important than the external event (a Ti-reason)? Or is it because one was just daydreaming or enjoying the moment (answers that may be more typical of IEI or SEI, for example)?
Similarly, Ij types may, in some cases, be so organized that externally-directed schedules aren't a problem (think of the often punctual LSI type).
This explains both a) why MBTT's analysis of J/P isn't crazy, and b) why classical Socionics goes in a different direction...that is, why the J/P switch isn't necessarily valid regarding types.
I know, I know, I must be wrong, ignorant, uneducated and what's more. I admit, I'm wrong and you're right. I hope you feel better and more superior now.
My personal guess is that his underlying cognitive schemas include a maladaptive schema on not being accepted by other people (social isolation and regarding himself as different and an outsider) and behaving in such a way as to perpetuate that schema.
Now normally I wouldn't say such harsh things (typically, but this is a site on Psychological Types, and I think my analysis is type-related. I think this kind of pathology is typical for INTp's
Yes, probably. But why doesn't anything happen after that? Why do they refurse to check the references? Why do they refuse to see what's in plain view to see? Why are they blind to the truth?Originally Posted by consentingadult
As I tried to explain in another post, I don't want people to say anything they don't honestly mean. If they don't agree, they should definitely not give in. Instead they should try to argue as convincingly as possible for their case. They should try to prove why I am wrong and they are right by using as strong arguments as possible.Originally Posted by consentingadult
But that almost never happens. People just proclaim that they disagree, and that's unacceptable me. One of very few persons that have actually bothered to make a good case for why they disagree is Expat, and that has helped me to see more clearly where he has gone astray in his reasonings. What I would like the most is having a serious discussion about the exact causes of people's mistypings (for example Expat's when it comes to my type) and the limitations of various typing methods. Until that happens this forum will probably never rise above kindergarten level in typing people.
People's opinions are essentially irrelevant. I cannot, and should not, have any respect for opinions that are obviously false, and neither should anyone else. What we should do instead is to try to find the objective truth together. It is a huge mistake to believe that it is okay to just form your own opinion on any subject without checking the facts first, and it is an equally big mistake to teach people that everyone's opinion merits equal respect. Such an attitude is an irritating obstacle if we want to make scientific progress. A much better example to follow is Karl Popper's debating technique.
The popular view that I am not open to learn something new is another very irritating misunderstanding of what's going on, because my attitude is the same as Popper's when it comes to science and rational thinking. It is the same as the scientific attitude, and that attitude is the exact opposite of dogmatism and narrow-mindedness. Most people on this forum are less open-minded than I am, and that is shown very clearly in their refusal to argue and their willingness to adopt views uncritically and without hard study of the relevant facts. They are much less interested in searching the truth than in social activities, like making sure they have their right place in the group, getting appraisals from others, feeling good about themselves, upholding the status quo, and stating their subjective opinion for the only sake of doing it (because everyone's opinion is of equal value, right?).Originally Posted by consentingadult
It seems to be typical of some other types to call it pathological what is actually the natural state of an INTp. The attitude you express towards INTps here is also described and confirmed by the ILI type descriptions, and that's what I have said myself before on this forum. It is something in the behaviour of ILIs that makes other people misinterpreting their intentions and sometimes become hostile or at least irratated. Wouldn't it be interesting to investigate why ILIs are perceived that way? Is it the mysterious function plus the IP temperament, or what is it?Originally Posted by consentingadult
What would be helpful is a list of behaviors that do indicate static/dynamic, but not rational/irrational. This would also be useful in telling introverts apart from extroverts in borderline cases, such as you mentioned earlier. It would also be an empirical vindication of the claims regarding the structural aspects of type. However, it would only be useful to the degree that the behaviors were exclusive enough to eliminate confirmation bias. Something that I have a hard time picturing doing completely. You'd almost have to put the subject in stressful situations and see how they react.
, LIE, ENTj logical subtype, 8w9 sx/sp
Originally Posted by implied