rational vs irrational. Socionics follows Jung. If the base function is T or F you are rational. I don't know what mbti is talking about.Originally Posted by oath of solitude
rational vs irrational. Socionics follows Jung. If the base function is T or F you are rational. I don't know what mbti is talking about.
The decisive thing is not the reality of the object, but the reality of the subjective factor, i.e. the primordial images, which in their totality represent a psychic mirror-world. It is a mirror, however, with the peculiar capacity of representing the present contents of consciousness not in their known and customary form but in a certain sense sub specie aeternitatis, somewhat as a million-year old consciousness might see them.
(Jung on Si)
MBTI's J/P is determined by the first extraverted function. There's certainly something to this way of looking at types, even if it wasn't a method used by Jung: SEIs, for instance, come off as more structured and "judging", or firmly opinionated, than ESIs IMO. This also has the advantage of making the type-code reflect the closeness of mirror relations (Socionics' ESFj & ISFp becomes ESFJ & ISFJ). For all the faults of MBTI, I don't think this is one of them: it's just another way of categorizing types, and it isn't even contradictory to Jung or Model A.
Rationality / irrationality is really a fundamental difference between functions. MBTI basically messes up the whole thing.
If you look at the descriptions then ISFJ is more linked to ESI and ISFP is linked to SEI. So the phenomenon you seem to be talking about is something else.
Having spent a lot of time with ESI I have no doubt about who's the rational one and who's the irrational. It's really deeply rooted in the functions. The "judging" behaviour of a SEI is more shallow or maybe a totally different phenomenon, maybe related to poor conscious control of weak rational functions, or Ti mobilizing.
The decisive thing is not the reality of the object, but the reality of the subjective factor, i.e. the primordial images, which in their totality represent a psychic mirror-world. It is a mirror, however, with the peculiar capacity of representing the present contents of consciousness not in their known and customary form but in a certain sense sub specie aeternitatis, somewhat as a million-year old consciousness might see them.
(Jung on Si)
As I see it, MBTI's depiction of introverted types is confused, and that's because their depiction of J/P is muddled by what Socionics calls rationality/irrationality. MBTI's ISFJ description reads like a blend of Socionics' ESI and SEI descriptions; same for their ISFP description.
You're looking for Socionics rationality/irrationality, and it's a real and noticeable difference, so you find it. MBTI's way of determining J/P is, I think, also fine, at least theoretically: I really think you can observe that introverted people with judging creative functions present themselves in a certain way distinct from introverted people with perceptive creative functions. Again, the problem is that the people who've contributed to MBTI have always confused it with Socionics' conception of rationality/irrationality, which creates a great amount of confusion. Also, you mentioned Ti mobilizing as a possible explanation for their "judging" behavior, which is exactly it: Ti mobilizing is one and the same with Fe creative.Rationality / irrationality is really a fundamental difference between functions. MBTI basically messes up the whole thing...
Having spent a lot of time with ESI I have no doubt about who's the rational one and who's the irrational. It's really deeply rooted in the functions. The "judging" behaviour of a SEI is more shallow or maybe a totally different phenomenon, maybe related to poor conscious control of weak rational functions, or Ti mobilizing.
ok, well, the way I see things the J/P is really intended to refer to irrationality / rationality. It is just a different name. (Jung himself also refers to rationality as "judging", if I remember correctly). That's also why I see no point in using the small letters j/p. I don't really see why mbti would leave out the real phenomenon of rationality since the types are basically the same, or that's the intention. To look at the same real life phenomenon as socionics.
In the ISFJ description the "Si" seems to partly refer to rational behaviour. Detailed comparisons with the past, ordering things, commonly seen in ESI. As I've said before, I consider mbti "Si" to be totally made up. Just a label for common behaviour in ESI/LSI types, but not a real psychic function.
But these things get just too confusing because the mbti functions are simply not correct. So this becomes fast a pointless overly conceptual discussion. It's like comparing some old buggy beta version of a computer program with the shiny new 1.0 release.
The decisive thing is not the reality of the object, but the reality of the subjective factor, i.e. the primordial images, which in their totality represent a psychic mirror-world. It is a mirror, however, with the peculiar capacity of representing the present contents of consciousness not in their known and customary form but in a certain sense sub specie aeternitatis, somewhat as a million-year old consciousness might see them.
(Jung on Si)
But as an INFJ I never “extrovert” with Fe. INFJ mbti reads like Socionics EII
-
Dual type(as per tcaudilllg)
Enneagram 5 (wings either 4 or 6)?
I'm constantly looking to align the real with the ideal.I've been more oriented toward being overly idealistic by expecting the real to match the ideal. My thinking side is dominent. The result is that sometimes I can be overly impersonal or self-centered in my approach, not being understanding of others in the process and simply thinking "you should do this" or "everyone should follor this rule"..."regardless of how they feel or where they're coming from"which just isn't a good attitude to have. It is a way, though, to give oneself an artificial sense of self-justification. LSE
Best description of functions:
http://socionicsstudy.blogspot.com/2...functions.html
Hm? You would "extravert" with Ne.
I don’t understand what that even means “extroverting “ with a function
Dual type
Enneagram 5 (wings either 4 or 6)?
I'm constantly looking to align the real with the ideal.I've been more oriented toward being overly idealistic by expecting the real to match the ideal. My thinking side is dominent. The result is that sometimes I can be overly impersonal or self-centered in my approach, not being understanding of others in the process and simply thinking "you should do this" or "everyone should follor this rule"..."regardless of how they feel or where they're coming from"which just isn't a good attitude to have. It is a way, though, to give oneself an artificial sense of self-justification. LSE
Best description of functions:
http://socionicsstudy.blogspot.com/2...functions.html
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
