Both MBTI and Socionics are Correct?

[Aiss]

He used extroversion/introversion and the four functions (T/F, S/N). The P/J dichotomy was invented by Isabel Myers to connect Jung's temperaments into coherent types -- but unfortunately she didn't account for the potential consequences (type-wise) of tertiary temptation, and she kind of misinterpreted the impact of function orientation to personality.

Okay. So what do you think Jung meant when describing Te and Fe dominants as "extroverted rationals", Ti and Fi dominants as "introverted rationals", Ne and Se dominants as "extroverted irrationals" and Ni and Si dominants as "introverted irrationals"?

IMO the greatest problem with MBTI - clearly visible with INTJ and INTP, as those two types are probably most common in online communities - is that trying to force-fit Ji and Pi with opposite rationality makes people reinterpret everything about the functions or dichotomies, then argue endlessly about what it really means, each giving their own typing as a "proof". Moving from MBTI to socionics, the agreement and constructive discussion about what elements are is unbelievable.

[Aleksei]

Okay. So what do you think Jung meant when describing Te and Fe dominants as "extroverted rationals", Ti and Fi dominants as "introverted rationals", Ne and Se dominants as "extroverted irrationals" and Ni and Si dominants as "introverted irrationals"?

He was referring to perception and judgment, but that doesn't mean perception and judgment were proper dichotomies -- Myers codified them into such.

Essentially, Jung didn't invent the types. he just invented the functions.

IMO the greatest problem with MBTI - clearly visible with INTJ and INTP, as those two types are probably most common in online communities - is that trying to force-fit Ji and Pi with opposite rationality makes people reinterpret everything about the functions or dichotomies, then argue endlessly about what it really means, each giving their own typing as a "proof". Moving from MBTI to socionics, the agreement and constructive discussion about what elements are is unbelievable.

I'm gonna need you to clarify yourself here.

[Aiss]

I'm gonna need you to clarify yourself here.

Which part didn't you understand?

[Jarno]

Essentially, Jung didn't invent the types. he just invented the functions.

Types and functions weren't invented, they were discovered. That's something completely different.

[Aleksei]

Types and functions weren't invented, they were discovered.

Show me a brain scan. Then show me what areas in that brain scan represent Jung's functions. Then I'll consider them to have been "discovered."

I'm pretty sure we've had this discussion before.

[Crispy]

Types and functions weren't invented, they were discovered. That's something completely different.

BAM, Truth.

Show me a brain scan. Then show me what areas in that brain scan represent Jung's functions. Then I'll consider them to have been "discovered."

I'm pretty sure we've had this discussion before.

You don't need a brain scan to discover an obvious phenomenon of human nature. Quit being a tool. Just because you are not aware enough to pick up on the types doesn't mean you need to exclaim they don't actually exist.

[Aleksei]

Types and functions weren't invented, they were discovered. That's something completely different.

BAM, Truth.

Get a room you two.

You don't need a brain scan to discover an obvious phenomenon of human nature. Quit being a tool. Just because you are not aware enough to pick up on the types doesn't mean you need to exclaim they don't actually exist.

I can pick up on collections of traits which correspond to given types. I do not have to logically connect that to those types being naturally-occurring phenomena, as for that to occur it must be established that there are specific brain reactions that cause people to behave that way. Hence, I demand a fucking MRI.

By the way, more ad hom. You really should learn to debate properly.

[Crispy]

Get a room you two.
I can pick up on collections of traits which correspond to given types. I do not have to logically connect that to those types being naturally-occurring phenomena, as for that to occur it must be established that there are specific brain reactions that cause people to behave that way. Hence, I demand a fucking MRI.

No, you know how to think up a truck-load of bullshit conceptions about type and slap them on a giant list with 10% accuracy. You've done it a million times. If you decided to focus on quality > quantity of typings, you might actually get somewhere with this theory.

By the way, more ad hom. You really should learn to debate properly.

"Real Debate Etiquette" is overrated and boring. You won't see me crying over ad hominem cause I don't bitch over nothing.

[Jarno]

Show me a brain scan. Then show me what areas in that brain scan represent Jung's functions. Then I'll consider them to have been "discovered."

Nearly everything that has been discovered in psychology has been done without a brainscan.

[blankblank]

Anyway, perhaps people who say personality theories are "discovered" should rephrase that--the concepts are in one's DNA/brain, but the interpretation and method of organizing those traits is created.

[blankblank]

Types and functions weren't invented, they were discovered. That's something completely different.

BAM, Truth.

So any old neuroscientist can come up with the socionics and MBTI theory on their own?