Contrasting MBTI and Socionics (using INTP and ILI)

[KazeCraven]

INTP and ILI are both pretty much describe the same type of individual, but one attributes traits to Ti-Ne and the other to Ni-Te. For example, detachment is supposedly due to Ti in MBTI and Ni in Socionics. So the question isn't the types themselves, but rather the rationale behind what causes typology. Most notably, what attributes are due to what information elements?

My main beef with the MBTI is Ti as detachment. What of ISTP and ESTP? Se is both an emphasis on raw experience and living closely with reality. For Ti to be compatible with it, it must not impede on this way of life, but we can already see that Ti is the supposed source of INTP detachment. It cannot be Ne either, because an ENTP has a reputation for focusing on reality directly for the possibilities/implications it holds. Obviously we can't decide one way or another by one detail, but that's all I've found so far.

I think what needs to be further addressed is the nature of shadow functions in MBTI. I came from a model which suggests that we only use 4 elements and that these mix to make pseudo-function attitudes of the other 4. It seems that a great deal of the MBTI approach hinges on the role of the unconscious or conscious control. Here I can only speak from personal experience, and I find that nearly all of my thought processes that I'm not currently focusing on are 'unconscious', and that how much I can control something is purely related to how developed it is through my use of it. Furthermore, I've had both 'Thinking' and 'Feeling' functions go out of control and have found it necessary to repress them.

Note that there are two main versions of the MBTI. Some people refer to MBTI as the four dichotomies, which makes for something akin to the big 5. Others use a psuedo-Jungian approach, taking the MBTI type descriptions and extrapolating back towards the Jungian functions. This is distinct from the actual followers of Jung, as most notable in the differences of interpretation of the introverted functions.

Also note that I have since cropped this to be much shorter.

[Absurd]

Damn, that's long.

[KazeCraven]

Hence why I added a summary at the bottom. About midway I realized that it was mostly trash, unfortunately.

I think the argument hinges on what each information element is composed of and why, with a relative secondary focus on what the relationship to less dominant functions should be.

[tcaudilllg]

I like where you're going with this. Needs a touch of Ti refinement, though.

[KazeCraven]

I like where you're going with this. Needs a touch of Ti refinement, though.

I might try rewriting it after I've slept on it.

[KazeCraven]

I might try rewriting it after I've slept on it.

No, I haven't slept yet, but I cut out the fat. Definitely still requires more content, though hopefully this is the right context.

[717495]

You can get most of your Socionics type from MBTI tests. You only need one extra calculation afterwards.

Main factor: Know your tree (S, N, F, or T). Ones tree is often very obvious, it's the strongest dichotomy. Ignore E/I and J/P information from test results, instead keep a very close eye on which is the stronger dichotomy of your club. S is merely 1 - N, or the opposite of N. In other words, if you're weakest at N, you're strongest at S, need an N dual, and F/T is more ambiguous (creative and hidden agenda). If you're strongest at T, you're weakest at F, and S/N is more ambiguous. It is important to understand these dichotomies and the way they work polar to one another.

I will give you a simple example: Human T tests very carefully INTP, his result comes to 92% I, 84% T, 76% P, 61% N. T is thought to be stronger and more emphasized than N, which means T is dominant and N is not. Human T is obviously xNTj in Socionics simply due to there being the most emphasis on the rational dichotomy of thinking. This goes back to the main factor: Know your tree. Human T belongs to the T tree, while N is the neighboring tree. An irrational cannot belong to the T tree, that would make him/her a rational. Not then only would N and S be more ambiguous for an irrational to where duality looses its symmetry and purpose and the point of an S-dom dual becomes more questionable, but one's hidden agenda would also be nullified. A rational always belongs to one of the rational trees (being strongest in either T or F), and his dual belongs to his weakest tree, else he would be the mirror irrational type. It's the most simple way to put it, that's how type and duality works. For rationals, most feedback is between the F and T functions. xNTjs are also closely related to the ST club because of T > N, as xNTps are closer to the NF club.

Lastly you have yourself between xNTj only (ENTj is just as much an option at this point), once you're sure your template is T > N > S > F. Time to look at energy level, quadra values, and type descriptions. Deciding between Exxx and Ixxx at this point is less about descriptions and stereotypes fitting and more about knowing your dominant function. Descriptions are only here to help aid the type process, not tell you you can't be a type because you don't fit the stereotype. Fwiw, type descriptions are limited but have their use.

Next I will write descriptive explanations of all four trees for clarification and testing purposes.

[Jarno]

INTP and ILI are both pretty much describe the same type of individual, but one attributes traits to Ti-Ne and the other to Ni-Te.

listen man, mbti just used a wrong formula to convert dichotomies into functions.

but since they didn't notice it, they just attached the behaviour for the first function on the wrong name.

[Aleksei]

My main beef with the MBTI is Ti as detachment. What of ISTP and ESTP? Se is both an emphasis on raw experience and living closely with reality. For Ti to be compatible with it, it must not impede on this way of life, but we can already see that Ti is the supposed source of INTP detachment. It cannot be Ne either, because an ENTP has a reputation for focusing on reality directly for the possibilities/implications it holds. Obviously we can't decide one way or another by one detail, but that's all I've found so far.

Ti is a focus on personal values as an internal framework of deductive logic -- praxeology. Se/Ti provides a general attitude of figuring out the external world by focusing on its concrete details, and processing those logically. Ne/Ti focuses on the external world based on what could be (as opposed to what is), and refines that into a logical framework. "Detachment" itself refers to detachment from ethical considerations, which isn't at all incompatible with Se. Detachment from the outer world is, naturally, a feature of all introverted processes.

[KazeCraven]

I suppose that is true: the profiles usually do not specify in what way an INTP is detached. Good; I didn't think I had found a genuine hole in MBTI.

[Aleksei]

Jungian typology in general is riddled with holes. I tend to pass over them because it's fun.