How is MBTI J/P different from Socionics j/p

[Jonathan]

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.

The idea that the J/P switch doesn't work is pretty standard. But it gets complicated. First of all, I've long noticed that among MBTI enthusiasts, there's a tendency for people to fall into two camps regarding how they understand the functions with the consequence that one person may consider himself INFP whereas another person would consider that person INFJ.

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.

[consentingadult]

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.

[Jonathan]

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.

Whatever the history of it was, the official stance by the makers of MBTI is that J/P is not the same as conscientiousness, and that it has to do with personal preferences, not with whether one is late, early, or organized. In theory, J/P in MBTI is supposed to be indicated by whether one prefers to structure one's existence even in situations where it's not required.

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.

[consentingadult]

Whatever the history of it was, the official stance by the makers of MBTI is that J/P is not the same as conscientiousness, and that it has to do with personal preferences, not with whether one is late, early, or organized. In theory, J/P in MBTI is supposed to be indicated by whether one prefers to structure one's existence even in situations where it's not required.

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.

Of course they deny it, they want their theory to be in sync with Jung, but they are wrong, dead wrong. Not just Meyers, but the offspring even more. e.g. Paul Tieger & Barbara Barron. Their version of J/P is even more about conscientiousness then Meyer's.

[Ezra]

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.

Why is that frustrating?

[Jonathan]

Why is that frustrating?

Well, maybe frustrating's not quite the right word. It simply points to what may be perceived as a problem. A typical point of view is "Well, those MBTI folks don't really think in terms of functions, they just go by dichotomies and type descriptions. If they were really aware of the functions, then surely they would come to conclusions more in line with Socionics." But clearly this isn't always the case. I'm not saying the descrepancies can't be explained, though.

[Phaedrus]

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.

[Phaedrus]

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.

[consentingadult]

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.

We do? Well, I don't! My personal understanding is that conscientious is a trait which is semi-fixed in personality, but that for most people (people with normal psychology, which is the realm to which Big 5 is applied) it is largely learned behavior, not something that results exclusively out of inborn traits: according to many psychologists, most infants are impulsive and low on conscientiousness, and it a a parent's job to teach conscientiousness. The result is that most people are average in conscientiousness, as they are average on the other 4 dimensions as well.

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.

[Phaedrus]

We do? Well, I don't!

Well, that means that you are uneducated and still have something to learn about the human psyche.

My personal understanding is that conscientious is a trait which is semi-fixed in personality, but that for most people (people with normal psychology, which is the realm to which Big 5 is applied) it is largely learned behavior, not something that results exclusively out of inborn traits: according to many psychologists, most infants are impulsive and low on conscientiousness, and it a a parent's job to teach conscientiousness.

That is totally wrong of course. All of these traits can be observed from infancy, and all of them are basically inborn. If "many psychologists" have the views you are attributing to them here, they too must be educated since they probably are basing their views on totally false premises. They most likely belong to one of the "dynamic" schools of psychology -- those schools that deny the findings of the natural sciences. We know that our basic personality traits, as they are captured and described by the Big Five, are mostly inborn. That fact is not open for discussion; those who deny it should study some neurobiology.

The question is: can a rational person be low on conscientiousness and an irrational person be high on conscientiousness?

What do you mean by "rational person" here? I am a very rational person in my thinking but not as much in my behaviour. And I am of course an irrational type, since I am an ILI. A person with a rational (j) type in Socionics can not be low on conscientiousness, that's impossible. Either the test result is incorrect or the person is mistyped in that case.

[Luke]

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.

...

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.

I don't agree. The four "dimensions" are not necessarily the only way to describe the empirical phenomena that is internally consistent. A description of physical dimensions using feet instead of meters isn't incorrect, it's just confusing; correct and consistent translation is needed between the two.

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.

[Expat]

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.

As a theoretical case, this would need more investigation. So the person is "absolutely sure" of having dominant introverted intuition and extraverted feeling, yet describes herself (I will say "she" for simplicity) in ways that indicate she is not IEI -- what does all of that mean? We'd have to know why she's "absolutely sure" of anything, and why she does not seem IEI. Until we see an actual case, it means nothing, really. As a hypothetical example, it is very simple to conclude that she's simply wrong.

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.

Again, that means nothing - nothing at all - if we don't discuss precisely why some people are typing him as ISTJ, and others, EII. Is the disagreement about types, or is it about history? Etc.

[Luke]

As a theoretical case, this would need more investigation. So the person is "absolutely sure" of having dominant introverted intuition and extraverted feeling, yet describes herself (I will say "she" for simplicity) in ways that indicate she is not IEI -- what does all of that mean? We'd have to know why she's "absolutely sure" of anything, and why she does not seem IEI. Until we see an actual case, it means nothing, really. As a hypothetical example, it is very simple to conclude that she's simply wrong.

http://www.infjorinfp.com/docs/HolidayTest.htm

Is Vicky Jo describing INFJ as a dynamic or rational type, in your opinion?

[Jonathan]

As a theoretical case, this would need more investigation. So the person is "absolutely sure" of having dominant introverted intuition and extraverted feeling, yet describes herself (I will say "she" for simplicity) in ways that indicate she is not IEI -- what does all of that mean? We'd have to know why she's "absolutely sure" of anything, and why she does not seem IEI. Until we see an actual case, it means nothing, really. As a hypothetical example, it is very simple to conclude that she's simply wrong.



Again, that means nothing - nothing at all - if we don't discuss precisely why some people are typing him as ISTJ, and others, EII. Is the disagreement about types, or is it about history? Etc.

You're absolutely right in terms of looking at individual cases, but that misses the point of what I was saying. Sure, if one person types Lincoln as MBTI-ISTJ and another person types him as Socionics-EII, that doesn't in any way prove that the first person was recognizing aspects of Delta quadra elements and therefore within the functional system of MBTI had to settle on ISTJ. Someone might type people based on all sorts of reasons and misunderstandings. However, there were a number of instances where I've seen these kinds of typings, and that suggests a pattern that's interesting. It doesn't prove anything...merely suggests an avenue of investigation.

Similarly, I wasn't thinking of anyone in particular with the person who considers herself Ni/Fe. Of course the person may just misunderstand, etc. All I was saying is that it's these cases overall that present a greater challenge than cases where, say, someone thinks she's INFJ but really hasn't thought deeply about the functions, and when presented with Socionics, recognizes she isn't IEI and sees no contradiction.

And let's face it...The state of Socionics is very much based on people's perceptions, both of themselves and others. We don't have a lot of statistical data, or if there is such data, it's not discussed on this forum. So if someone thinks very strongly he, she, or someone else is a particular type, and we disagree with that assessment, it's naturally to wonder "why does that person think this so strongly?" It's not necessarily a reason for changing our assessment of the person's type, of course.