Dichotomies: Extraversion and Introversion

[MisterNi]

Yeah, reinventing MBTI. *sigh*

ESC has come up with a way to possibly solve the J/P problem when converting between MBTI and Socionics.

ESC, dynamic irrationals DON'T seem rational. And neither do static rationals seem irrational. If anything, subtype might slightly affect it, but otherwise it simply doesn't work. Even author of MBTI realized it at some point. I don't know why are you insisting on applying this main MBTI flaw to socionics, but at least call it what it is. That's exactly how MBTI concept of P/J came to be, and in theory it's all OK. Except it doesn't work in reality. Sorry.

Ah, it's not that dynamic irrationals seem rational, it's the seemingly contradictory behavior of dynamic introverted irrationals seem rational when they are extroverting. That is, when they're interacting with others or their environment, they do so using Je and thus they appear to be rational on the surface but are deeply irrational. That would explain why ILI often type as MBTI: INTJ and LII often type as MBTI: INTP. Makes sense, right?

[Aiss]

ESC has come up with a way to possibly solve the J/P problem when converting between MBTI and Socionics.

Since when is "converting" saying TiNe in one system equals TiNe in the other, etc.? He's rather trying to apply P/J to Socionics.

It has been tried. It didn't work.

Ah, it's not that dynamic irrationals seem rational, it's the seemingly contradictory behavior of dynamic introverted irrationals seem rational when they are extroverting. That is, when they're interacting with others, they do so using Je and thus they appear to be rational on the surface but are deeply irrational. That would explain why ILI often type as MBTI: INTJ and LII often type as MBTI: INTP. Makes sense, right?

By this definition, extroverting = doing anything at all. (Except perhaps sitting in the corner with your eyes shut.)

I doubt even one-fourth of MBTI INTJs is ILI. Most of their forums are obvious Ti-havens. Look up old threads about attempted conversion, there were polls about MBTI-socionics type combinations. It's a false claim that ILI = INTJ and LII = INTP, even if you're merely speaking of a trend. MBTI functions are surprisingly different from Socionics functions, too.

How many times do I need to repeat it before you guys get it that P/J does not work for introverts? I am not the only one who says it, geez.

Oh and BTW, (in)famous correlation of type descriptions table, in case self-typings weren't good enough: http://www.socioniko.net/en/articles/table3.gif

[MisterNi]

Since when is "converting" saying TiNe in one system equals TiNe in the other, etc.?

It's a matter of semantics and it actually does cause a lot of confusion for newcomers to Socionics, thus it's very important to have the P/J problem straightened out.

It has been tried. It didn't work.

It worked just fine, it's just most people are mistyped on MBTI as well so trying to figure out their Socionics type using incorrect MBTI data is folly. lol Junk input = Junk output.

By this definition, extroverting = doing anything at all. (Except perhaps sitting in the corner with your eyes shut.)

Not at all. Lets use regular definitions from the Oxford dictionary so we're on the same page here.

noun
an outgoing, overtly expressive person.
Psychologya person predominantly concerned with external things or objective considerations. Compare with introvert

adjective
of, denoting, or typical of an extrovert:
his extrovert personality made him the ideal host

adjective
1 of, denoting, or typical of an introvert.
(of a community, company, or other group) concerned principally with its own affairs; inward-looking or parochial.
2 Anatomy & Zoology(of an organ or other body part ) turned or pushed inward on itself.

We're interested in the adjective here and the act of extroverting is where you interact with others or the environment. Introverting is the act of "being concerned with principally their own affairs and/or looking inward."

Clearly no one can ever possibly be 100% extroverting or 100% introverting. Even Jung said a person like that couldn't possibly exist so an Introvert would have introverted tendencies and extroverts would have extroverted tendencies. Of course every individual is unique and would have a varying degrees of introverted/extroverted tendencies.

I doubt even one-fourth of MBTI INTJs is ILI. Most of their forums are obvious Ti-havens. Look up old threads about attempted conversion, there were polls about MBTI-socionics type combinations.

It's a pretty good correlation from what I've observed on large MBTI forums like PerC. I haven't run any numbers though, so it's just a general observable trend.

It's a false claim that ILI = INTJ and LII = INTP, even if you're merely speaking of a trend. MBTI functions are surprisingly different from Socionics functions, too.

From what I've noticed on PerC again is that LII, by and large, are MBTI INTP and ILI are, by and large, INTJ. However, going from MBTI types to Socionics types isn't as straightforward as many Beta and Delta STs often type themselves MBTI INTP and INTJ so it's a messy signal.

How many times do I need to repeat it before you guys get it that P/J does not work for introverts? I am not the only one who says it, geez.

Perhaps you need to say it a few hundred more times.

Oh and BTW, (in)famous correlation of type descriptions table, in case self-typings weren't good enough: http://www.socioniko.net/en/articles/table3.gif

Thank you, your chart is pretty helpful

MBTI INTP = 36.8% LII and 16.2% ILI. That's a fairly good correlation considering that factors in all the other types. There's always going to be noise in the data and you just have to do your best to try and sort through it.
MBTI INTJ = no clear correlation and the numbers are probably junk data (mainly SLE and LIE? lol wtf?).

[Aiss]

It's a matter of semantics and it actually does cause a lot of confusion for newcomers to Socionics, thus it's very important to have the P/J problem straightened out.

It worked just fine, it was the subsequent layers of BS that was stacked on top of the simple J/P switch that made the process of finding one's quadra a chore.

get up to date lol

http://www.wikisocion.org/en/index.php?title=J/P_switch

Thank you, your chart is pretty helpful

MBTI INTP = 36.8% LII and 16.2% ILI. That's a fairly good correlation considering that factors in all the other types. There's always going to be noise in the data and you just have to do your best to try and sort through it.
MBTI INTJ = no clear correlation and the numbers are probably junk data (mainly SLE and LIE? lol wtf?).

Are you stupid or just pretending?

ILI = most often INTP, rarely INTJ, usually other J or P types.
LII = by and large, most often INTP.

INTJ = very rarely ILI (and more likely LII > ILI).

Where's the supposed "dynamic/static coming off as rational/irrational", except in your and ESC's imagination?

The fact remains that ILI is closest to INTP. So is LII. In other word, ESC's little theory (which is a complete rip-off from MBTI, if you bothered to look into origins of the system) fails in confrontation with reality.

I don't hang out at PersonalityCafe but INTPf and INTJf provide enough examples of P/J being broken for introverts.

If you're surprised why INTJ is usually SLE or LIE, I recommend actually looking into MBTI sources and online communities. Half the J traits are socionically speaking Extrovert characteristics. In case you had trouble recognizing them, SLEs are INTJs who whine about how they're "doers" and therefore J but it's an unfair stereotype that they're also organized, as well as glorify The Power of Ni (which they describe in a way that makes no sense whatsoever from socionic/jungian POV), LIEs are the rest of the typical crowd.

[MisterNi]

get up to date lol

http://www.wikisocion.org/en/index.php?title=J/P_switch

Ah, you seem to be more belligerent already. Introverted dynamics who're extroverting seem rational when they really are not. I'll read the article though, it looks very informative.

Are you stupid or just pretending?

Exhibit B.

ILI = most often INTP, rarely INTJ, usually other J or P types.
LII = by and large, most often INTP.

INTJ = very rarely ILI (and more likely LII > ILI).

Aiss, double check the numbers. INTP is LII > ILI by a margin of more than 2:1.

Where's the supposed "dynamic/static coming off as rational/irrational", except in your and ESC's imagination?

When extroverting an introverted dynamic irrational uses Je > Pi and thus they appear rational. When a dynamic irrational is at rest, however, they go back into their most comfortable state which is Pi > Je.

Likewise when an introverted static rational is extroverting they are using Pe > Ji and thus appear irrational and when they are at a resting state they go back to their natural state of Ji > Pe.

The fact remains that ILI is closest to INTP. So is LII. In other word, ESC's little theory (which is a complete rip-off from MBTI, if you bothered to look into origins of the system) fails in confrontation with reality.

I know you don't like ESC for personal reasons, but the theory is pretty accurate.

I don't hang out at PersonalityCafe but INTPf and INTJf provide enough examples of P/J being broken in MBTI.

No, sorry that's too much trouble. The great chart you provided already points out that there are a lot of mistypings in MBTI+Socionics though.

[Aiss]

Ah, you seem to be more belligerent already. Introverted dynamics who're extroverting seem rational when they really are not. I'll read the article though, it looks very informative.

(...)

When extroverting an introverted dynamic irrational uses Je > Pi and thus they appear rational. When a dynamic irrational is at rest, however, they go back into their most comfortable state which is Pi > Je.

Likewise when an introverted static rational is extroverting they are using Pe > Ji and thus appear irrational and when they are at a resting state they go back to their natural state of Ji > Pe.

Except they don't seem rational, unless you project.

I understand what you're trying to say. That they "seem" rational. That is EXACTLY the same that MBTI postulates.

And it still doesn't work.

Aiss, double check the numbers. INTP is LII > ILI by a margin of more than 2:1.

So you *are* stupid. Very well, I'll go into details.

The point ESC is making is that in Socionics, Dynamic types "come off" as rational and end up being J.

Therefore, you should be looking at what MBTI types statics and dynamic resemble. As far as this point is concerned, the reverse statistic is irrelevant.

ILI resembles INTP.
LII resembles INTP.

I know you don't like ESC for personal reasons, but the theory is pretty accurate.

You're perfectly wrong. I don't mind ESC personally, but his purely theoretical approach and tendency to ignore reality make the skeptic in me annoyed at how inaccurate he can be and still remain blind to it.

[MisterNi]

Except they don't seem rational, unless you project.

I understand what you're trying to say. That they "seem" rational. That is EXACTLY the same that MBTI postulates.

And it still doesn't work.

Well, whether it's projection or not remains to be seen. I still think it's pretty accurate though. You're of course free to disagree with me, Aiss.

So you *are* stupid. Very well, I'll go into details.

The point ESC is making is that in Socionics, Dynamic types "come off" as rational and end up being J.

Therefore, you should be looking at what MBTI types statics and dynamic resemble. As far as this point is concerned, the reverse statistic is irrelevant.

It's not irrelevant for typing purposes, Aiss. If someone comes from MBTI as an INTP then we can say that LII is most likely and if that shoe doesn't fit, then ILI, LIE, ILE etc. It's a good first step for a person in discovering their Socionics type if they already know their MBTI.

ILI resembles INTP.
LII resembles INTP.

Aiss, this must be the first time in MBTI history that anyone wants to be INTP over INTJ. MBTI INTP are usually considered lacking in social skills, too theoretical and unable to cope very well with present reality very well whereas INTJ are usually portrayed as the uber-intelligent NT of the NT club. That might be why a lot of non-NTJ type themselves MBTI INTJ and ENTJ, now that I think about it. Although INTP are usually very proud to be INTP.

[Jarno]

Aiss, double check the numbers. INTP is LII > ILI by a margin of more than 2:1.

ILI = INTP
LII = INTJ

you are using old data, and or the j/p myth

[EyeSeeCold]

I am not supporting nor proposing any claim implied by MBTT or its developers. I do not agree with their assertion of Je = J, Pe = P.
Please take the time to read carefully as a misunderstanding is so easy to make. If you are not willing to do so, I ask of you to refrain from responding or posting at all.

There are two kinds of Rationality, and two kinds of Irrationality, these are Je, Ji & Pe, Pi respectively.

The Extraverted Rationality of Je is the program for Ej types.
The Introverted Rationality of Ji is the program for Ij types.
The Extraverted Irrationality of Pe is the program for Ep types.
The Introverted Irrationality of Pi is the program for Ip types.

All types retain the program of their Base function. However, types are generally identified by a two-fuction Ego. XeYi or XiYe.

The manifestation of the Extraverted function in Ips is Je.
The manifestation of the Extraverted function in Ijs is Pe.

These manifestations do not change the Base program of the types, however, they do manifest and therefore are noticeable.

So, if the following groups are made:
Ej-Te and Ip-Te - Similar by Te Profiteor Rationality
Ej-Fe and Ip-Fe - Similar by Fe Emoveo Rationality
Ep-Se and Ij-Se - Similar by Se Factor Irrationality
Ep-Ne and Ij-Ne - Similar by Ne Intueor Irrationality.

Each group would be orientated similarly in Ratonality/Irrationality but with a switched emphasis(the axle of emphasis which determines Extravert and Introvert types).

[FDG]

This is MBTI remastered. Urrrrgghhhh.

[EyeSeeCold]

This is MBTI remastered. Urrrrgghhhh.

Don't spam my thread, you are a Moderating Staff member and it is against the rules.

1.7 Do not spam.

http://www.the16types.info/vbulletin...p?do=showrules

[Aiss]

I am not supporting nor proposing any claim implied by MBTT or its developers. I do not agree with their assertion of Je = J, Pe = P.
Please take the time to read carefully as a misunderstanding is so easy to make. If you are not willing to do so, I ask of you to refrain from responding or posting at all.

There are two kinds of Rationality, and two kinds of Irrationality, these are Je, Ji & Pe, Pi respectively.

The Extraverted Rationality of Je is the program for Ej types.
The Introverted Rationality of Ji is the program for Ij types.
The Extraverted Irrationality of Pe is the program for Ep types.
The Introverted Irrationality of Pi is the program for Ip types.

All types retain the program of their Base function. However, types are generally identified by a two-fuction Ego. XeYi or XiYe.

The manifestation of the Extraverted function in Ips is Je.
The manifestation of the Extraverted function in Ijs is Pe.

These manifestations do not change the Base program of the types, however, they do manifest and therefore are noticeable.

So, if the following groups are made:
Ej-Te and Ip-Te - Similar by Te Profiteor Rationality
Ej-Fe and Ip-Fe - Similar by Fe Emoveo Rationality
Ep-Se and Ij-Se - Similar by Se Factor Irrationality
Ep-Ne and Ij-Ne - Similar by Ne Intueor Irrationality.

Each group would be orientated similarly in Ratonality/Irrationality but with a switched emphasis(the axle of emphasis which determines Extravert and Introvert types).

I understood what you meant the first time, it seems.

It doesn't change the fact that in Introverts, base function rationality is *more* noticeable than creative function rationality.

[EyeSeeCold]

I understood what you meant the first time, it seems.

It doesn't change the fact that in Introverts, base function rationality is *more* noticeable than creative function rationality.

And I'm making no claim to suggest otherwise, though it seems that is what was inferred because of a lack of internal coherence.

All I'm saying is that in these groups:
Ej-Te and Ip-Te - Similar by Te Profiteor Rationality
Ej-Fe and Ip-Fe - Similar by Fe Emoveo Rationality
Ep-Se and Ij-Se - Similar by Se Factor Irrationality
Ep-Ne and Ij-Ne - Similar by Ne Intueor Irrationality.

One way to look at it is by these groupings:
Ej-Te and Ip-Te ; Ej-Fe and Ip-Fe
Ep-Se and Ij-Se ; Ep-Ne and Ij-Ne

Or, in other words, Extraverted Judgement(Profiteor, Emoveo) types and Extraverted Perception(Intueor, Factor) types.