Guess the ENFP and ESFJ description

[Aiss]

You're an idiot. That much I know already. Guess there isn't so much I need to learn then...

See, the problem is (confirmed by my last foray into an IM discussion) precisely that the functions have been fleshed out. They're the same at their base, but Socionics functions have enough info on top of their MBTI counterparts to provoke ambiguities. Se for example, has some elements that have traditionally been ascribed to Te, as exemplified by Labcoat's post:



This has nothing to do with how Se is defined in MBTI (and is in fact anathema to the values of most MBTI SPs). Ergo, one cannot interpret that as Se in MBTI unless one uses Socionics functions to type in MBTI -- which would be thoroughly pointless, as then MBTI is just Socionics by another name. Ergo, most Se types in Socionics are not Se types in MBTI. QED.

So in other words, call MBTI primitive or whatever, I don't care. But don't insist that MBTI types necessarily have to align with Socionics types, because it just makes you look dumb.

I agree that MBTI functions and socionics IMs have little to do with each other. But I'm of the opinion the problem is with MBTI. For Introverts, MBTI function arrangement doesn't work. This is something which, as far as I know, the author of the system realized herself - but "official" MBTI was never adjusted. Now the common perception of the functions (especially Se and Si, followed by Ne and Ni, then the rest) in MBTI communities was shaped partly because of mistypings. I even contributed to it myself, being an INTP and INTp and trying to describe Ti and Ne in the same way which I later learned was dialectical-algorithmic thinking (used by none of Ti or Ne egos).

In the end MBTI is based on Jungian dichotomies, and the functions part has been messed up. And even these dichotomies are often viewed rather shallowly, with I/E effectively resolving around sociability (energizing/draining interactions pretty much come down to it), as well as N/S stereotypical novel/conventional questions.

[Crispy]

. Having 16 types each system doesn't mean they are the same one-by-one, this s something you learn in primary school that not all sets names 'A' in different exercises are equivalent.

Fucking Duh. What makes them the same is that behaviors that are common to only one of the 16 types show up in the same type's descriptions in two theories. That means if you are this type, it is more common for you to exhibit this behavior, necessarily making you the same type in the second theory.

From now on when I see someone who is naively confused into thinking they are two separate personalities, rather than informing them of their obvious mistake, I'm going to just fucking laugh.

. For Introverts, MBTI function arrangement doesn't work. This is something which, as far as I know, the author of the system realized herself - but "official" MBTI was never adjusted.

If MBTI was officially adjusted, what would be the difference between the two theories, and what would stop there from being a direct correlation? Anything?

[Crispy]

Ashton, you know he was referring to the MBTI types right? (As if it matters)

[Crispy]

They both effectively end up talking about much of the same shit.

Agreed +100

[Jarno]

If MBTI was officially adjusted, what would be the difference between the two theories, and what would stop there from being a direct correlation? Anything?

My thoughts.

[Aleksei]

I agree that MBTI functions and socionics IMs have little to do with each other. But I'm of the opinion the problem is with MBTI. For Introverts, MBTI function arrangement doesn't work. This is something which, as far as I know, the author of the system realized herself - but "official" MBTI was never adjusted. Now the common perception of the functions (especially Se and Si, followed by Ne and Ni, then the rest) in MBTI communities was shaped partly because of mistypings. I even contributed to it myself, being an INTP and INTp and trying to describe Ti and Ne in the same way which I later learned was dialectical-algorithmic thinking (used by none of Ti or Ne egos).

I'm not sure how this is a mistake, given that both systems are arbitrarily defined psychometric analysis systems. it's like saying baseball is "wrong" for not having flat bats like cricket does.

In the end MBTI is based on Jungian dichotomies, and the functions part has been messed up. And even these dichotomies are often viewed rather shallowly, with I/E effectively resolving around sociability (energizing/draining interactions pretty much come down to it), as well as N/S stereotypical novel/conventional questions.

Well, MBTI is actually based on Jungian cognitive functions, which are then translated into dichotomies. The problems arise when people try to measure the dichotomies directly, which can lead to severely mistaken results (especially with the J/P function).

[Aiss]

I'm not sure how this is a mistake, given that both systems are arbitrarily defined psychometric analysis systems. it's like saying baseball is "wrong" for not having flat bats like cricket does.

Well, MBTI is actually based on Jungian cognitive functions, which are then translated into dichotomies. The problems arise when people try to measure the dichotomies directly, which can lead to severely mistaken results (especially with the J/P function).

It's a mistake in terms of Jungian typology. People whose type was identified as one of eight described by Jung tend to fit basic dichotomies in the way socionics claims - that is the mistake noticed too late. It's true that both socionics information elements and MBTI functions exceed Jung's original ideas, but the degree to which they deviate from them is disproportionate.

The problem is less with judging/perceiving dichotomy as defined by MBTI - which corresponds to dynamic/static in socionics - and more with redefining the functions due to originally wrong - aka "not working", as described above - assignment of functions. These redefined functions are what we are dealing with. Even if dichotomies worked, they'd still be effectively defined as dominant functions of types which have different base.

So let's say we have a new system, with functions defined as MBTI wants them to be. Ideally we should end up with descriptions of Si-dominant (most functions' descriptions focus on leading position) that corresponds to Se-creative, etc. Let's ignora that for half the types it focuses on their base and for half on their creative. A system which uses Jungian names for functions despite having little to do with it anymore. Like agreeing to play cricket, then bringing baseball equipment to the field.

[Crispy]

that both systems are arbitrarily defined

No, this is completely wrong. They were defined using the four most prominent dichotomies in psychology. That's far from arbitrary. MBTI/Socionics is not an invention, it's a discovery.

[Creepy-Pied Piper]

Removed at User Request