It's all highly theoretical with very little empirical evidence. I really don't see how one could rationally switch J/P from MBTI to socionics, based on the type descriptions alone. The descriptions may present a different angle with slightly different definitions of cognitive functions and how the IEs relate to one another. The base functions may be different between the two systems, while the overall personality is the same because of how the IEs come together. Socionics supposedly moves away from the J=conscientious, but it cannot be avoided. It is just worked into the dominant function and overall type description.
It is with the introvert where typology actually becomes more philosophical. MBTI says that it is the first extroverted function which determines the level of conscientiousness; as to how someone comes across as a "judger" or "perceiver". This actually makes sense because only that which is extroverted can be accurately perceived by another(or judged). So perceivers extrovert their perceivering function and thus appear to others as perceivers, and the same logic applies with judgers. In Socionics, the reverse is true. If one is IXXj, they will be described in a similar manner as MBTI IXXJ. Introverted functions cannot be observed by their very nature. But how can a function that is not extroverted be accurately perceived by another to exist. How can one be Ti or Fi and somehow come across as Ij. This seems to be a paradox. When writing on a forum, one is actually extroverting a function, making it difficult to type introverts. They share what they want to share. But, don't all people do the same? Most types aren't exactly an open book.
The level of one's conscientiousness is a large part of ones personality, yet typology muddles it by integrating it into some function that we may or may not be able to observe. So are you a perceiver because you appear as such to others, or because that is how you process information internally. How can one really tell the difference?


Reply With Quote