My theory of types

[darude11]

It goes like this:
There are two types of people: j and p (Jungian). One type don't agree with other.
These two types are sorted to 4 types by adding I/E. This is (by my theory) your type (for example Ij for INTP). I have personaly experienced, that the 2nd and 3rd dichotomy can change trough life, so... so this is type. What do you think?

 

[Black Rose]

What is the dichotomy reversal of Jungian (p), your theory?

 

[darude11]

this (reversal of P to j) is not part of my theory, it is thing between MBTI and Jung...
In MBTI is 4th dichotomy suposed to say, which functions from first two is extroverted (for example INTP - Ti Ne). In Jung's theory is this dichotomy suposed to say, which function is first (for example INTj - Ti Ne) not depending on that if it is extroverted or introverted.
It is differentiated by that if it is writen as capital or not. If it is capital (INTP), then it is MBTI. If it is not capital (INTp), then it is Jung's theory.
I know, what do you think. ' F*ck you Jung ', but this fact is good for something... In my theory it differentiate one from two types of personalities. The j (Every EJ and IP in MBTI) and p (EP and IJ) are these two types. Mutualy they seem 'strange', because of their arrangement of functions. But when there are two persons in one group (or more, this is only example), they are all right (because of their arrangement of functions).

Hope you get it

 

[SkyWalker]

just skip the 4 letter combos and write types in function order, like Ti-Ne-Si-Fe, then nobody can get confused. (actually you only need the first 2 functions to point to a unique type)

 

[darude11]

Thanks for correcting, SkyWalker.
I will be concrete. INTP's functions are in this order: Ti-Ne. If we will rewrite it, we will get "J-P". This is one from 2 possible orders of functions, the second one is "P-J". What I want to say is, that J-P's are IP/EJ in MBTI, in Jung's theory simply ***j, and P-J's are IJ/EP in MBTI, in Jung's theory ***p. If you are ***j (what INTP's are), then you think every ***p is strange (live in strange style). This is one point of my theory.

The second one point of my theory is that your true identity, that you can't change, is just I/E and P/J. 2nd and 3rd dichotomy can change trough life. I have gone trough this change by myself. I was sometimes ISTP, but then I started to work on my fictive story. Everything was going on well, except one thing: The moral of the story. It didn't had any moral at all. I mean... yes, there are lots of stories that have no moral and are succesfull, but... but it kinda missed there, it would be only thing that would be useful in story. Moral. That was that motivation, that changed me. To INTP. This hunger for morals.

Well, this is my past of how I changed. What have I found out? What is "moral" of this part of reply? That 2nd and 3rd dichotomy CAN change. It is still our subconscious strenght. If we would change our type of percieving or judging, we would just discover them, but forget our old 'function'. More vizualy:
INTP -> Ti Ne ... Se Fi
ISTP -> Ti Se ... Ne Fi
INFP -> Fi Ne ... Se Ti
ISFP -> Fi Se ... Ne Ti
('...' means 'this part is not important')
Hope you understand what I mean. Only thing that change with change of dichotomy, is the order of functions! So we can order personalities in these two categories:
=> 'p' have functions Si, Ni, Te, Fe
=> 'j' have functions Se, Ne, Ti, Fi

Yeah, when I was explaining it to my ISTP friend, he was like and . Hope you will get it

 

[Black Rose]

=> 'p' have functions Si, Ni, Te, Fe
=> 'j' have functions Se, Ne, Ti, Fi

Yeah, when I was explaining it to my ISTP friend, he was like and . Hope you will get it

P is Jung / MBTI

p is Socionics

same for J

But regardless of the description 8 functions is still 8 functions.

4 think the others are weird.

MBTI -

=> 'P' have functions Si, Se, Ni, Ne
=> 'J' have functions Fi, Fe, Ti Te

Socionics -

=> 'p' have functions Si, Ni, Te, Fe
=> 'j' have functions Se, Ne, Ti, Fi

 

[darude11]

P is Jung / MBTI

p is Socionics

same for J

But regardless of the description 8 functions is still 8 functions.

4 think the others are weird.

MBTI -

=> 'P' have functions Si, Se, Ni, Ne
=> 'J' have functions Fi, Fe, Ti Te

Socionics -

=> 'p' have functions Si, Ni, Te, Fe
=> 'j' have functions Se, Ne, Ti, Fi

I don't mean 4 functions as possible first 4 functions, I mean them as first, second, last and the one before last.

 

[Black Rose]

I don't mean 4 functions as possible first 4 functions, I mean them as first, second, last and the one before last.

JPJP
||||
PJPJ

 

[EyeSeeCold]

It goes like this:
There are two types of people: j and p (Jungian). One type don't agree with other.
These two types are sorted to 4 types by adding I/E. This is (by my theory) your type (for example Ij for INTP). I have personaly experienced, that the 2nd and 3rd dichotomy can change trough life, so... so this is type. What do you think?

Extraverted and Introverted come first. Rational/Irrational are subsets of I/E.

P is Jung / MBTI

p is Socionics

same for J

But regardless of the description 8 functions is still 8 functions.

4 think the others are weird.

MBTI -

=> 'P' have functions Si, Se, Ni, Ne
=> 'J' have functions Fi, Fe, Ti Te

Socionics -

=> 'p' have functions Si, Ni, Te, Fe
=> 'j' have functions Se, Ne, Ti, Fi

P is not Jung. MBTI's J/P is not Jung's J/P. Jung's perceiving and judging(Irrationality and Rationality) are identical to Socionics j/p.


And that's not correct.

Socionics :
p/Irrationality: N/S
j/Rationality: T/F

 

[kibou]

Yeah, this is why I think it's just easier to call types by their function order (INTP = TiNeSiFe). Plus, you only need to say the first two functions to know the rest of the functions (The only type that has 1.Ti 2.Ne is the INTP), so Ti-Ne for INTP. Then we can talk more about the nuanced implications of a type being a type rather than confusion on what the labels mean.

 

[EyeSeeCold]

Yeah, this is why I think it's just easier to call types by their function order (INTP = TiNeSiFe). Plus, you only need to say the first two functions to know the rest of the functions (The only type that has 1.Ti 2.Ne is the INTP), so Ti-Ne for INTP. Then we can talk more about the nuanced implications of a type being a type rather than confusion on what the labels mean.

No, because the functions between the systems do not imply the same referred-to meanings. So there is still discrepancy and confusion.

 

[darude11]

Yeah, all right, I will give example with functions, soo...
INTP in MBTI, INTj in Socionics and Jungs theory, or WE have these functions:
Ti Ne Si Fe Te Ni Se Fi
First four are the one we know about, the last four are those which we don't know about (well, relatively :P). Important in my theory are just First two and Last two functions, because those are the strong ones, so...
Ti Ne Se Fi
These can swap: 1st and 4th (Ti and Fi), 2nd and 3rd (Ne and Se). I was by myself Ti Se 2 years ago, now I am Ti Ne. Get it? Important in my theory are just first and last attribute of personality, every else can change trough life!

Ti, Fi, Te and Fe are Judging functions, and Si, Ni, Se and Ne are Percieving functions. We have functions Ti Ne and every else is not now important. For example ESTP (by MBTI theory) have functions Se Ti. Notice order of functions. While we have Judging function on first place, ESTP have Judging function on second place. This is the reason why do they seem to us stranger (and we to them too) [but it is not reason to hate them or something].
We are (by Socionics) INTj. I have added here this Jung's theory/Socionics, because it is simpler to divide people into these two groups, 'j' and 'p'. Yeah, for introverts is Socionics a bit harder to understand.

Summary:

In 'MBTI language': There are two groups of personalities. IP and EJ are the first group and IJ and EP are the second group (not depending on order of naming them). If you take two members of same group, they will seem each to other similar, but if they would be from different groups, they would seem strange to each other.

In 'Socionics/Jung's theory language': There are two groups of personalities. First group are 'j' and second group are 'p' (not depending on order of naming them). If you take two members of same group, they will seem each to other similar, but if they would be from different groups, they would seem strange to each other.

In 'Naming-personalities-by-functions language (sorry, IDK how is this theory named): There are two groups of personalities depending on the first function. The first group have got the judging and the second group percieving function on the first place (not depending on order of naming them). If you take two members of same group, they will seem each to other similar, but if they would be from different groups, they would seem strange to each other.

Hope you get it now...
If not, here is elephant of understanding to chase

 

[EyeSeeCold]

We are (by Socionics) INTj. I have added here this Jung's theory/Socionics, because it is simpler to divide people into these two groups, 'j' and 'p'. Yeah, for introverts is Socionics a bit harder to understand.

http://www.wikisocion.org/en/index.php?title=Jungian_foundation

Dichotomically, INTP = INTp/ILI
Functionally, INTP = INTj/LII

Here's the thing, the dichotomies are intact between the systems, but the functions are not because of systemic discrepancies. Correlating types by functions is misguided.

 

[darude11]

http://www.wikisocion.org/en/index.php?title=Jungian_foundation

Dichotomically, INTP = INTp/ILI
Functionally, INTP = INTj/LII

Here's the thing, the dichotomies are intact between the systems, but the functions are not because of systemic discrepancies. Correlating types by functions is misguided.

FINE, call types as you want! Stop those posts on how to call the personalities now!

But point is,
There are two types of personalities. The first, that have on the first place percieving function, and the second one, that have on the first place judging function. Those groups of people seem each to other strange.
That section between words "But" and "That" is whole theory in shorted version.

Hope you get it and don't say anything more on theories about naming types. I have just added here those 'j' and 'p', because those are the mostly accurate attributes to determine groups, not to start debate on theme "How many ways of naming personalities do you know?".