Socionics, MBTI and Jung

[Jinxi]

It's over.

[Crispy]

If she doesn't know about inter-type relations (which I'm assuming due to her not mentioning it once) then she doesn't know what socionics is about yet

Neither of your questions was answered btw.

[717495]

By 'Ni-Te-Fe-Se' did she make a typo and meant 'Ni-Te-Fi-Se'?

No, since that's not how Jung put it.

In the normal range, however, they tell me which side of the brain is favored when a person is making rational decisions.

I'm pretty sure I said something about this before. But the best example I've got is that we all have two different ways that we deal with mathematical relationships: a left-brain mode, which results in verbal shortcuts (like the multiplication table - 2 x 3 = 6), and a right-brain mode, which allows us to grasp relationships between quantities without specifically calculating (like recognizing that 1,203 + 6 couldn't possibly equal 17).

The left-brain mode allows us to perform precise calculations, which are usually inculcated by education. The right-brain mode allows us to grasp relationships in a way that draws on natural human capacities (spatial logic).

So although the MBTI treats INTJs as though they were rational types, even though they're irrationals in Jung's system, and INTPs as though they were irrational types, even though they're rationals in Jung's system, it doesn't make any difference to me. In my view, INTJs are using left-brain Thinking -- they want to improve the systems they encounter in the outer world, and INTPs are using right-brain Thinking -- they feel a sense of truth in their very bones and believe it ought to change damned near everything.

I like this--thought about it on my own before I read it, and seems similar to what I've read in her book.

[EyeSeeCold]

You don't really need a professional...

It all comes back to systematic differences and divergent intepretations which account for the discrepancies between MBTI and Socionics. While both theories are Jungian derivatives, Socionics has the more appropriate system.

There's no need to find functional(assuming type is universal) correlation because Socionics is not Jungian typology word-for word, and because Myers-Briggs pulled some whole new thing for MBTI, which would have equated to Statics/Dynamics if done correctly.

Bottom line is, Socionics is the obvious winner here, and Jung is referential.

[Trevor]

Hey Leonore Thompson!! Come to the16types.info!!

[Cuddly McFluffles]

Hey Leonore Thompson!! Come to the16types.info!!

That would be cool.

Concerning the OP, that was interesting. One thing, though. You say she's "INTJ, which roughly correlates with INTp". Is she confirmed ILI, or are you trying to use the j/p switch (which actually doesn't work)?