Your type in MBTI and Socionics thread

[chemical]

That's true, but Jung got it neatly putting functions in conscious and unconscious territory

Sure he got what he said right (mostly) -- I just mean to say that he also expanded out what he said from time to time. He made remarks eventually that the type isn't even a static entity, and is dynamic. I mean, the man kept thinking and thinking and figuring out to the best of his abilities what type is about.

Yes I've thought of adding more functions and categorizing the functions further, since you mentioned it, and that's found some use.
Expansion can be done without contradicting the good stuff that was already there.

Model A is a much more elaborate categorization of what ALL 8 function-attitudes do. Jung never wrote expressly his views here, but it's generally regarded among orthodox Jungians that the auxiliary shares the attitude of the dominant.

So the way I see it, the fact that there's so many offshoots and models that build on Jung's ideas suggests to me that, if they don't all agree, then they're hitting different pieces of the bigger puzzle.

Jung categorized that there are 16 types but he never described what the 8 function-attitudes would look like in a given type. That's what model A, Beebe, etc try to do.

[chemical]

Of all people @Words, since in this thread you were arguing that MBTI and socionics aren't essentially equivalent, I'd have expected you to fall a bit more on the end of being dissatisfied that there are only 16 types that spring forth naturally from Jung's work. To me that suggests that the 16 types are a good loose rule of thumb but which can incarnate in many meaningfully different ways, even on a theoretical level, and it suggests Jung's theory is NOT resolved.
Beebe=/=orthodox Jungians =/= socionics=/= etc

You yourself wonder if the particular organization of Jung's ideas into model A is really correct. Why, then, do you think there are really only 16 types? 16 just refers to dom+aux +dominant attitude. It says nothing about the dynamic interplay of the rest of the function-attitudes or what orientations different functions take, or what reason they take those different orientations. There's a ton of views out there on what is and isn't possible with all those things. Are we to just take on blind faith that any one given model of 16 types is right? Or do we go farther and ask why it is that some fit some models better than others and look for a more widely explanatory theory?

I'm not sure what your position is there, and you of course needn't share it now. To me, the desire to build a massive collection of laws that incorporates every single viewpoint and how they can interrelate is the goal.

[chemical]

Since you mentioned conscious/unconscious, I'll remind you that socionics does not organize conscious/unconscious the same way Jung did. It is a more elaborate, more complex, speculative addition to Jung's work which also modifies some parts of it. And some of it is actually quite good.
Beebe does NOT organize conscious/unconscious function-attitudes the same way as socionics OR Jung.

Haters gonna hate, but I just don't see the big deal about people honestly suggesting, maybe we need to think farther instead of keep applying the same rules.

[Mega]

I just have to wonder if your base function doesn't match up in both systems if it has nothing to do with the tests but due to other factors, including lack of self-awareness or lack of understanding when reading the questions. Absurd actually said something about this that was very enlightening for me. I know I have struggled with some questions in the past and I had to ask others for feedback to determine what context the question was asked. That is why I like to take the tests with my friends around for input. Not that I go with what they think over what I feel but at least we can somewhat agree on what is being asked.

Here you go little thing, I got ESTP at 2 MBTI test yersteday, now now, you can calm down

[Aylen]

Here you go little thing, I got ESTP at 2 MBTI test yersteday, now now, you can calm down

I can hardly contain my excitement!

[Mega]

I can hardly contain my excitement!

see! you better do as I say

[Words]

Here you go little thing, I got ESTP at 2 MBTI test yersteday, now now, you can calm down

I always get ISTP in MBTI tests.

[Mega]

I always get ISTP in MBTI tests.

Are you SLI or LSI?

[Words]

Are you SLI or LSI?

Neither IMO

[Avalonia]

The majority of MBTI tests I've taken typed me as INTJ, however my socionics type is LII. ( Ti,Ne )

[ouronis]

INTP but due to vagueness in initial sources and confirmation bias by further authors, I really doubt I will ever know.
In socionics, themes in my life seem to be LII-like, but I'm definitely not into really strange dry detailed stuff. Although, what stands out to you probably won't seem dry. I'm talking about stuff like the history of typography(letter shapes) or how buildings impact psychology of people in the building(I mean, this is slightly interesting, but entirely unproductive). Btw, if you like dumb shit like that, apparently you'd fit in well at MIT, the book catalog is full of this stuff.

I like counter-stream opinions, they always pique my interest, instantly feel like they're "mine," like I have already thought of them. Thing is, I notice every mistake, but if I were to structure all of it, I would need much more time. This is why being immortal is so important. We need infinitely long lives so we can understand things better. Every hole opens up other holes, until in a paragraph you've managed to jump subjects and string together a related bigger picture(and then you also know what the other paragraphs will say). They are like irrationality wormholes to the logic universe haha.

[The Ineffable]

I'm not a worshipper of socionics as the "heir to Jung" but I think it at least formulates the major personality features by quadra -- grouping people by valued functions. The MBTI functions proponents purport to say that their dichotomies INTP and INTJ should be very different because no functions in common. Which is nothing but nonsense -- what's actually true is that INTJs aren't necessarily NiTe, and INTPs aren't necessarily TiNe.

So to the extent I suggest using MBTI, I suggest using it more as a personality inventory based on mass data collection e.g. the big 5, than as a theory of information patterns.

Yes, in the end the whole Model A is based on psychological values - including the quadra values (+ the Super-Id). The Information Elements are the bricks of cognition - and hardly can someone think, at this point, that there can be more, IMO - and then there was this observation that individuals value some while (necessarily) ignoring others - because they are opposite, contrary, just nonetheless as valid.

I see somehow Jung and Socionics converging at this end, the one of the fundamentals of thought and knowledge. I have reasons to believe that Jung took much of his dichotomies and connected with human behavior right from the theory of knowledge. In fact, some of his term are seemingly borrowed from there (intuition / sensing). And this is where Socionics turns back to the roots, just in the field of psychology - how these manifest in different people. Socionics is analytical, and strictly a cognitive field, the type description are just a helper. Remember cognition means acquiring knowledge. This is something not found, not applicable and not in the scope to MBTI; Socionics tries to find out how people think (generically, white box), MBTI is about how they behave - more accurate, but extremely limited.
---

MBTI is indeed just a behavioral inventory, and it could, IMO, be extended in any manner. In fact I am surprised it limited itself to just 16 types - that, to me, denotes straightforward traditionalism. As for the connections between the two systems, more than often Model A Body-led types fall onto the category of Introverts in MBTI (mostly logicals), and the other way around (Ethicals as Bodies / Extro), or Decisive types come out as Judging (the Ij / Ip issue).

[The Ineffable]

I mostly type ENTP in MBTI. At some tests I type INTP - due to the fact that I not partying, talking platitudes with random people, not eager to meet new ones just because - and ENFP - due to my drives to help or advice, generosity or empathy towards those less fortunate.

[Velvet]

I can test INTJ or INFJ. But if we break it into functions, Fe creative makes more sense.

[Myst]

In this tread I would like to hear about your personal correspondences between the two. I won't send you away if you start to theorize about what the correlation should be. In fact it's interesting. And yet I'm kind of looking for your opinions on your own types here and how you got to type that way. Is it about the same functions ?? anyone who types totally different things , like their Id or Super id functions ? I guess stuff like LSE Si - ISTJ is everyday. Tell me about the more awesome . Can you be a Logical type in one and Ethical in another ? why and how ?
I'm hoping for the best here. Please be honest. Don't only talk about the types you like most of all . Sure as a NF I typed 6 types in MBTI online for short intervals more as an exploration. But I know afterall I am Fi and Ne. And about myself in Socionics I didn't have problems or many doubts . The functions fit , I'm satisfied with the J-P switch. And people who read me agreed .

You ???

People usually see me as ISTx in MBTI (when I give them an MBTI test to fill out about me ). The J/P varies. When I fill it out myself, I can test ESTP or ISTP. I go with ISTP officially. ESTP descriptions sound like someone who's really high in Fe compared to me and smooth socially. Sure the ISTP description-wise sounds too much lone wolf for my taste but there's something to it.

In socionics I'm Ti-SLE or Se-LSI but the latter is less likely. Because I'm more Ti-creative than Ti-leading. In terms of type descriptions both work very well for me, though... Overall I find socionics describes me better Especially Se Kinda like it is with @Rhaegar for his leading function (Ni in his case)

Jungian theory wise if I go by Jung's descriptions, I relate equally well to Se and Ti including the issues with inferior functions. If considering frequency of conscious use, or which one takes less effort or which function got differentiated earlier, etc., I'm more Se than Ti.

Exhaustive enough answer?

I'm not going to theorize on overlaps and discrepancies, before saying anything specific on that, I would first have to analyse all the categories down to the finest details/break them down to the most essential elements and I'm not that interested. Clearly there's some issues with differences in definitions and relationships between them and overall framework that lead to differences between MBTI and Socionics, is all I can say. And no, the observable differences are not because of "bad" descriptions, the issue is present already on the level of conceptualization. This is all right, we just haven't found the best framework yet for analysing people's workings. Socionics isn't a bad attempt considering how little it starts from.

Oh the only other noteworthy thing about functions-model vs model A differences: the weakest functions only half match. That is, where a ILE has feeling-Polr, an ENTP has tertiary Fe. These superficially look similar (since ILE has Fe-HA) until one realizes that in the common appealed to 8 functions model by most MBTI practitioners, pioneered by John Beebe, the ego functions for ENTP are NeTiFeSi, the unconscious ones are NiTeFiSe. The analogue here in socionics would be NeTiSeFi as the conscious and the unconscious the rest.
In other words, the "valued" functions in socionics are the ego functions in MBTI/Beebe.
And demonic-Se sure doesn't sound like Role-Se. If anything sounds more like a polr. Except it's shadowy rather than the conscious point of vulnerability, which to Beebe is the Anima/Animus (4th).

Demon vs Role? Yeah I noticed that difference between Beebe and Model A

Though, in the Beebe model, for ENTP Fe and Si aren't that terribly conscious, Si is put really close to the unconscious and the functions with opposite orientation to the dominant and auxiliary functions are definitely in the unconscious, also the Fe and Si are definitely less preferred compared to the Ne/Ti, so not really in ego anymore, all of which seems similar to Socionics in terms of superid being before/on top of ID in terms of where they are in the unconscious (ID being more unconscious). Just the trickster and demon aren't really matching there Which is definitely a funny difference....

But to give examples, I am apparently LSE in socionics and ISTP in MBTI. There are users here with similar problems even when a paid for MBTI practitioner has evaluated their type.

Does the ISTP profile fit you more or the LSE profile?

[Skepsis]

INTJ mostly, then INTP and INFJ. There were a few other types I identified with based on parts of the descriptions, like ISFP(artist), but otherwise it was those three. My wife and family think INTJ because I'm always discussing things in a scientific or rational way during conversation. I've also been accused of having one hell of an imagination.

[chemical]

I realize @Myst that in Beebe NeTi are stronger than Si and Fe for ENTP. But he says you use NeTiFeSi and your unconscious shadow is the rest - which differs as in socionics you apprehend reality through SeFi and seek out Si and Fe as part of the vital and not mental block.

I agree if you get rid of conscious vs valued it all looks similarish. But that just goes back to barebones Jung with just a Dom and aux, which is more noncontroversial.

In Jung the Ne with aux thinking likely has shadow Si and Fi. The question of 8 function-attitudes does not arise.

Beebe is quite clear his paradigm is considered heresy by many orthodox Jungians.

[Myst]

I realize @Myst that in Beebe NeTi are stronger than Si and Fe for ENTP. But he says you use NeTiFeSi and your unconscious shadow is the rest - which differs as in socionics you apprehend reality through SeFi and seek out Si and Fe as part of the vital and not mental block.

I know that but the Fe Si isn't really that conscious in that Beebe model was my point. I already said that the Se/Fi parts don't match in the two models (I referred to them as trickster/demon). You could argue though that the superego block is not black/white clearly conscious functions anyway. And then the lines start to blur...

I agree if you get rid of conscious vs valued it all looks similarish. But that just goes back to barebones Jung with just a Dom and aux, which is more noncontroversial.

No that doesn't make it barebones Jung

My point was just making a comparison, pointing out both the differences and the similarities. Not that I try to analyse this too deep...

In Jung the Ne with aux thinking likely has shadow Si and Fi. The question of 8 function-attitudes does not arise.

Beebe is quite clear his paradigm is considered heresy by many orthodox Jungians.

Yeah.

PS. It's interesting how those jungian shadow functions are the 1D ones in socionics... not that this has to mean anything

[chemical]

@Myst well like I said, you can make the lines blur as m,uh as you want. In some sense the only strong, preferred, conscious things were already identified by Jung. But if you want an 8 function-attitude model then you need to be more rigid about those roles and what you allocate where makes a big difference -- to the extent you do want 8 delineated clearly. Beyond that, I don't have much to say -- I'm not really contradicting what you're saying as far as I can see.

You do go back towards Jung, because then you grow closer to essentially having one divide: conscious/unconscious. No strong/weak, no valued/unvalued, no mental/vital.

You can consider this not exactly Jung, but I think I covered that -- NeTi likely does not exist in Jung, would be closer to NeTe.

[Myst]

@Myst well like I said, you can make the lines blur as m,uh as you want. In some sense the only strong, preferred, conscious things were already identified by Jung. But if you want an 8 function-attitude model then you need to be more rigid about those roles and what you allocate where makes a big difference -- to the extent you do want 8 delineated clearly. Beyond that, I don't have much to say -- I'm not really contradicting what you're saying as far as I can see.

Before you decide to be rigid about final rules you better find the best framework so that's why I talk like that. But yeh, I'd prefer clear delineation but only if it can be anchored to reality properly.

You do go back towards Jung, because then you grow closer to essentially having one divide: conscious/unconscious. No strong/weak, no valued/unvalued, no mental/vital.

No, there is still strong and weak, valued/unvalued in the sense of preferred or not, but it's degrees of such preferences, and degrees of consciousness in the Beebe model. I didn't remove any of that. I absolutely still don't understand why you interpreted what I wrote like that.

You can consider this not exactly Jung, but I think I covered that -- NeTi likely does not exist in Jung, would be closer to NeTe.

No, the NeTe thing was just one possible interpretation of what he said.

[chemical]

No, the NeTe thing was just one possible interpretation of what he said.

I said would be closer which is a ways in my mind from saying it's the only interpretation, and I said NeTi likely does not exist in Jung -- so I don't think "no" is an answer I can respond to.

However, to spell this out more, I would NOT say NeTi the way it exists in socionics is just as viable an interpretation, or even if you view it (NeTi) the way Beebe does it, assuming Ti is mostly developed. NeTiFiSi is possible but more if Ti is mostly unconscious.

There's a reason most Jungians considered Beebe's view heresy, as Isabel Myers also acknowledged, and it's closer to the likely interpretation of Jung than it is "just" one possible interpretation. Taking just a few lines where the auxiliary is discussed allows for much more nebulousness than a full on interpretation of every single position every concept of Jung carried.

In Jung's theory the meat of conscious vs unconscious is whether you are introverted or extraverted. This idea of splitting individual functions in the same person into attitudes just didn't exist with him independent of this conscious/unconscious divide in any written account I have seen him give -- that comes from Grant/Beebe. An attitude corresponded either to the attitude of consciousness or the unconscious, not to functions themselves.

Those who claim Myers' interpretation tend to overly fixate on the sentence saying the auxiliary is in every respect different from the dominant, and there, again the capital mistake is you're programmed, due to exposure to MBTI and socionics, to think each of these things is a function-attitude. The truth is there's only 4 functions in how Jung used the terminology "function" -- so when he refers to the aux or dom he is not referring to Te or Ti or Ne -- he's referring as standalone to intuition or sensation or thinking. So "in every respect different" doesn't really correspond to the orientation. The meat of where Jung describes orientations/attitudes is when he discusses the attitude of the conscious and unconscious personality. Either all your inferior 3 functions group together mostly in the unconscious or one function supports the dom fully in its agenda.

I'm not saying I find Jung RIGHT. I see merits to socionics. But as far as what his theory allows, while I'm usually more open-ended, this isn't one of those instances -- albeit it looks a lot more nebulous if you take only his direct references to the aux into account, rather than interpretation of the full theory.

All said, I'd say it is clearer to say Jung didn't talk of the attitude of an auxiliary because it wasn't a meaningful concept, than to claim NeTe is the right interpretation. It's more like the person is either an introvert or extravert, and whatever their agenda is, and whatever functions that are employed towards it consciously, conform to that.

For those who are example-oriented, I challenge someone to produce one example where Jung thought a clear introvert or clear extravert had two functions best developed but in opposite attitudes. I can give you an example to prove Jung thought an introvert can have the top two functions in the same attitude: Nietzsche.
Ni>Ti > feeling and sensation. And I've given the theoretical basis of why this is likely closer to the norm than an anomaly.

I will say this: Jung did say there are various more ambiverted people. He did not say how their function-attitudes work out to my knowledge. The man (beebe) who developed the 8 function-attitude model had trouble finding if he is an introvert/extravert for the longest time. In his model, the function-attitudes alternate between introversion and extraversion.

You can draw your conclusions from that as you will.

I absolutely still don't understand why you interpreted what I wrote like that.

I was not talking about what you were saying very much there so much as clarifying what I was meaning.

I'm also tbh confused in what way you're confused on this point. At least we can agree that socionics had a lot more dichotomies than Jung, and that the more you blur the lines and don't precisely distinguish those dichotomies, the more you end up with something that basically looks like ego-functions vs everything else. (this is ME emphasizing this, not you.)

[Amber]

It's fraught with difficulties as how to determine which function is dominant without using Jung but using MBTI

http://www.myersbriggs.org/my-mbti-p...-attitudes.htm

Basically you might think if someone gets their type right in socionics then the transition to MBTI should work, but based on what when everything is sort of described differently.

But to give examples, I am apparently LSE in socionics and ISTP in MBTI. There are users here with similar problems even when a paid for MBTI practitioner has evaluated their type.

But the real question is, why would you (I presume) want them to be interchangeable at least in their current format?

I actually think you're Socionics LSE with many SLE traits ...

[Zero11]

INTJ in both