How is MBTI J/P different from Socionics j/p

[Phaedrus]

We do? Well, I don't!

Well, that means that you are uneducated and still have something to learn about the human psyche.

My personal understanding is that conscientious is a trait which is semi-fixed in personality, but that for most people (people with normal psychology, which is the realm to which Big 5 is applied) it is largely learned behavior, not something that results exclusively out of inborn traits: according to many psychologists, most infants are impulsive and low on conscientiousness, and it a a parent's job to teach conscientiousness.

That is totally wrong of course. All of these traits can be observed from infancy, and all of them are basically inborn. If "many psychologists" have the views you are attributing to them here, they too must be educated since they probably are basing their views on totally false premises. They most likely belong to one of the "dynamic" schools of psychology -- those schools that deny the findings of the natural sciences. We know that our basic personality traits, as they are captured and described by the Big Five, are mostly inborn. That fact is not open for discussion; those who deny it should study some neurobiology.

The question is: can a rational person be low on conscientiousness and an irrational person be high on conscientiousness?

What do you mean by "rational person" here? I am a very rational person in my thinking but not as much in my behaviour. And I am of course an irrational type, since I am an ILI. A person with a rational (j) type in Socionics can not be low on conscientiousness, that's impossible. Either the test result is incorrect or the person is mistyped in that case.

[consentingadult]

Well, that means that you are uneducated and still have something to learn about the human psyche.

Argumentation by intimidation. End of discussion with you as far as I'm concerned.

[Jonathan]

I think this conversation is perhaps getting sidetracked by a few confusions and misunderstandings. First, when Phaedrus says that how one comes out on the 4 dichotomies much match ones type, that is simply tautologically correct. For example, in Socionics, it doesn't make sense to say one is ILE but "S rather than N" or "F rather than T"...any more than it makes sense to say that one is ILE but "more Te than Ti." Of course one might come out on the MBTI or some other test as being more S and F even though one's really an ILE. That's simply because the tests aren't perfect.

As to conscientiousness being learned...well, again, if one thinks of the English term "conscientiousness," that certainly can be learned and is not determined by type. In the MBTI world, they like to point out that type has to do with preferences and that it's not an excuse for any sort of negative behavior. Everybody can and should learn to compensate for their own weaknesses. That doesn't negate the fact that some people must continually struggle to be organized, whereas for other people, organization comes naturally and spontaneity less naturally.

[consentingadult]

As to conscientiousness being learned...well, again, if one thinks of the English term "conscientiousness," that certainly can be learned and is not determined by type. In the MBTI world, they like to point out that type has to do with preferences and that it's not an excuse for any sort of negative behavior. Everybody can and should learn to compensate for their own weaknesses. That doesn't negate the fact that some people must continually struggle to be organized, whereas for other people, organization comes naturally and spontaneity less naturally.

This is true, but we need to be more specific when we say "...some people.... whereas for other people...". Are we talking here about people with 'normal psychology', or are we also including people with 'abnormal psychology', e.g. people with ADHD?? (I mean real, physical-based ADHD, see topic Ne and ADD/HD). People who suffer from a lack of conscientiousness as a result of e.g. ADHD will most likely struggle the rest of their life. However, the reasons for extreme low or high conscientiousness in people with 'normal psychology' are well understood and cognitive-behavioral therapy strategies are getting increasingly effective (e.g. Schema Therapy).

For those who would like to investigate this issue further, I would like to recommend:

Schema Therapy - A Practitioner Guide

The Now Habit

Perhaps others can point out good literature as well.

Edit: something seems wrong with the links, but I can't figure out why...

[Jonathan]

This is true, but we need to be more specific when we say "...some people.... whereas for other people...". Are we talking here about people with 'normal psychology', or are we also including people with 'abnormal psychology', e.g. people with ADHD??

Well, that's a good point. In the context of a Socionics discussion, I'm referring to people with the "normal" range. Obviously, there are a number of factors that affect behavior, and not all of them are directly related to what Socionics type a person is. And, while, as Phaedrus points out, there are commonalities regarding observations going back thousands of years, that doesn't mean that the issues involved, the mappings between behavior and differing theoretical constructs, etc., are entirely straightforward.

[Jonathan]

For greater clarity on this issue, here's a very different way of looking it:

Let's suspend, or forget, for a moment, the differences between how MBTT and Socionics see the various building blocks ("functions" in Jung/MBTT, "IM elements" in Socinoics), and look at this purely from a Socionics point of view.

Seen that way, MBTT reflects simply a hypothesis that an emphasis on static IM elements would tend to cause one to be less inclined towards schedules and externally-directed order, whereas dynamic rational IM elements would cause one to be more inclined towards schedules and externally-directed order.

Why would this be the case? It's fairly obvious: dynamic elements are all about sequence, things moving through time. Dynamic rationality (Te, Fe) is all about externally-directed order. This is why Ej types tend to be what some people might described as J-like. That doesn't mean that they're organized (organization of things would be a static quality), or even that they're on time....but they would be oriented towards sequence and externally-directed order. For example, I would expect Ej types to be most comfortable with stopping an activity because of some other planned event that comes afterwards.

Similarly, Ij types may be inclined to "weight" static order over externally-directed dynamic order. For example an LII might spend time learning the more of the system involved in doing a task than is actually required....or might decide not to go to some scheduled activity because he/she is in the middle of organizing something (preferring to focus on static order rather than dynamic order).

Where the problem is, however, is that this MBTT-derived theory tends to ignore the fact that strong emphasis introverted dynamic functions (Si and Ni) may also lead one to be less inclined towards externall-directed order (Ej).

If a person has given less weight to externally-directed schedules, the question needs to be "why": Is it because one was learning or working out a system or categorization, and this was more important than the external event (a Ti-reason)? Or is it because one was just daydreaming or enjoying the moment (answers that may be more typical of IEI or SEI, for example)?

Similarly, Ij types may, in some cases, be so organized that externally-directed schedules aren't a problem (think of the often punctual LSI type).

This explains both a) why MBTT's analysis of J/P isn't crazy, and b) why classical Socionics goes in a different direction...that is, why the J/P switch isn't necessarily valid regarding types.

[consentingadult]

This explains both a) why MBTT's analysis of J/P isn't crazy....

This is why I said in my first post in this thread:

The J/P dimension is basically the Big 5 dimension 'Conscientiousness' added to Jungian Psychological Types by Isabel Myers. Now this by itself is not an error.

You can have MBTI (or Socionics for that matter) and add Conscientiousness to it to create an extended model. My current idea is that MBTI did just that, but in the process assumed it was Jungian R/I, creating a mess, especially for introverted types. Socionics didn't do that. As a result, all types in Socionics can be 'messy', 'procrastinating', 'chaotic'. Of course, this depends on which source you refer to. E.g., I think Sergei Ganin's notion of R/I is very much in sync with MBTI's J/P: P stands for Phenomenon .

[Luke]

Seen that way, MBTT reflects simply a hypothesis that an emphasis on static IM elements would tend to cause one to be less inclined towards schedules and externally-directed order, whereas dynamic rational IM elements would cause one to be more inclined towards schedules and externally-directed order.

This is exactly how I would like to see it treated. There are two hypotheses here. One has static/dynamic tendencies as the direct cause of J/P behavior, the other has rational/irrational as the direct cause of J/P behavior. However there's a variety of traditional J/P behaviors, some of which might apply to static/dynamic whereas others indicate rational/irrational.

What would be helpful is a list of behaviors that do indicate static/dynamic, but not rational/irrational. This would also be useful in telling introverts apart from extroverts in borderline cases, such as you mentioned earlier. It would also be an empirical vindication of the claims regarding the structural aspects of type. However, it would only be useful to the degree that the behaviors were exclusive enough to eliminate confirmation bias. Something that I have a hard time picturing doing completely. You'd almost have to put the subject in stressful situations and see how they react.

[consentingadult]

Well, that's a good point. In the context of a Socionics discussion, I'm referring to people with the "normal" range. Obviously, there are a number of factors that affect behavior, and not all of them are directly related to what Socionics type a person is. And, while, as Phaedrus points out, there are commonalities regarding observations going back thousands of years, that doesn't mean that the issues involved, the mappings between behavior and differing theoretical constructs, etc., are entirely straightforward.

Yeah. I'm afraid that we (people in general, I mean) will not agree on what's within within temperament and what's not, what's nature and what's nurture etc. Not until we will be omniscient, that is