Extraversion/Introversion and its relationship with the view on j/p switch

[CR400AF]

Recently, I debate with someone who types herself as INTP(MBTI)-ILE(Socionics) in a Chinese personality community. In China very few people are aware of Socionics so she learnt MBTI many years ago and recently she was introduced the theory of Socionics.

The topic of the debate is whether the two systems are the same in the core definitions. I find out that the huge differences in our approaches might be caused by the Extraversion/Introversion dichtomy.

In Socionics, "Extraversion" is defined as focusing on "objects" while "Introversion" is defined as focusing on "fields and relations".

As an introvert, I believe that since both systems divide the 8 information elements (or functions) and they agree with the same relationships among the elements, they are indeed the same. The differences are in the secondary portraits of the elements and most of the secondary definitions are not correct.

She, as an extrovert, holds a different view that the two systems are not the same since they portrait Si and Se differently. And during the debate I find that she actually adjusted the relationship between the elements in order to keep MBTI logically consistent. She believes that there is another way to make the MBTI secondary portraits of Si and Se logically consistent.

I thinks this is actually a good example on the Extraversion/Introversion dichtomy and this possibly explains why some people hold different views on this topic.

[Sol]

There is no theory to say about dependencies between 4 Jung dichotomies.
While rather possible are mistakes in parts of secondary theory and problems in methods of theory usage what may create any relationships between anything.
It's the reason for different opinions about types of same people and mismatching in typing is significant problem of today, which explains good the existence of all strange views and results.