On Jung: Dichotomies

[EyeSeeCold]

This started off as a masturbatory work that later evolved into a fully realized explanation of the dichotomy confusion.

To understand Socionics better (with the introverted J/P confusion) and MBTI you must go back to the source, Carl Gustav Jung's work (which even builds off of Freud's psychosexual stages). For this reading, you must forget the simplifications of MBTI typology, the end result is similar, but the process is not the same. This is actually closer to Socionics, although I will not go into depth about the psychological effects of each function.

Perception/Judgment dichotomy:

Perception is how you experience reality. Think of the different perception functions as an assortment of novelty glasses, each one with a different view. Judgment is how you interact with reality, when you consciously intervene on your perceptions and take an abstract or concrete position. The P functions are: Ni, Ne, Si, Se. The J functions are: Fi, Fe, Ti, Te.

Implicit/Explicit dichotomy:
Implicit functions question what is being perceived through the five senses and attempt to extract meaning from what is implied. Explicit functions believe what is perceived directly from the senses. Implicit functions are: Ne, Fe, Ti, Si. Explicit functions are: Se, Te, Ni, Fi.

Rational/Irrational dichotomy:
Pure irrationals have implicit judging and perceiving functions. They are irrational because their perceptions and judgments are based on implications from the indirectly observed reality. Pure rationals have both explicitjudging and perceiving functions, they are rational because their perceptions and judgments are based on the directly observed reality. The rest are a mix of rational/irrational.

Picture for reference:

Spoiler

Commentary:
With this in mind, a lot of information can be deducted such as why certain types tend to be more spiritual and hardcore religious and why other types ask too many questions/nag (NTPs/SFJs ). It all stems from how much you trust a certain dichotomy.

According to this setup, one's psychological complementary is the type that is from the same rational or irrational group, but has flipped functions. e.g. INTJ is the ESFPs dual. One reason for this effect may be that the two types 'perceive the same reality' yet they have different strengths making for a harmonizing psychological atmosphere.

I wonder what would happen if we paired everyone off with their complementary in a larger group of one of each type, making 8 sets of pairs. Enlightenment?

 

[EvilScientist Trainee]

Y'know, that actually made me think about something on the MBTI frame.

The four functions of a type, are pretty much widely accepted. Such as INTP's Ti-Ne-Si-Fe.However, the other four tend to cause some discussion. INTP's Te-Ni-Se-Fi, for example.

And some argue that the ordering isn't right, and many of us have low Fe results in that function weighting test, with those lower functions surpassing the inferior function.

So, after reading your post, i noticed something. INTP's lower functions are all explicits, whereas their top four are all implicit functions. That's interesting.

Let's say two duals are put in the same room. Even though they 'perceive the same reality', their functions have a suppressive relationship with the other part of the dual, and therefore, i'd say disagreement would show up.

So, what if a pure rational was put into a room with a pure irrational. Being more specific, the one with inversed function's attitude. What would be likely to happen?

 

[EyeSeeCold]

The four functions of a type, are pretty much widely accepted. Such as INTP's Ti-Ne-Si-Fe.However, the other four tend to cause some discussion. INTP's Te-Ni-Se-Fi, for example.

I think Socionics has it right, personally, that's what I go by when pondering interactions with others. In rank of strength(not preference): [Ti-Ne][Ni-Te][Si-Fe][Fi-Se]

So, after reading your post, i noticed something. INTP's lower functions are all explicits, whereas their top four are all implicit functions. That's interesting.

I think so too. I don't want to get all conceited but it's odd to be of a type that constantly questions its own perceptions. I think pure explicits actually might perceive INTPs as ghosts/shadows.

Let's say two duals are put in the same room. Even though they 'perceive the same reality', their functions have a suppressive relationship with the other part of the dual, and therefore, i'd say disagreement would show up.

Duals are complementary actually, being with your dual only elicits disagreement if you purposely reject their presence. You really have to experience it for yourself to understand the power of dual relationships.

So, what if a pure rational was put into a room with a pure irrational. Being more specific, the one with inversed function's attitude. What would be likely to happen?

I didn't understand the inverse part.
Read Quasi-Identity, Conflict, Extinguishment and Superego
With INTP as a reference, the corresponding types are INTJ, ESFP, ENTJ, ISFP.

Disregard all the other stuff you see, they have different configurations for types, you will be confused.

 

[EvilScientist Trainee]

I have read on socionics a while ago. And yes, i also agree with many of the ideas shown in that system. The ordering, i believe, explain why many INTPS tend to be confused between Ti and Fi. I decided to use that ordering because I was thinking more in MBTI terms. Socionics, however, presents us that ego/ iD blocks, so one type is never entirely rational or irrational.

I didn't understand the inverse part.
Read Quasi-Identity, Conflict, Extinguishment and Superego
With INTP as a reference, the corresponding types are INTJ, ESFP, ENTJ, ISFP.

What i meant was: If INTP is Ti-Ne-Si-Fe, put him in a room with ENTJ, Te-Ni-Se-Fi.
Since they share no common ground (regarding to rationality/irrationality), the implicit/explicit combination might get some interesting results if MBTI was right.

But after reading your link, it made some sense. Their functions are similar, but their view on the reality aren't. So despite having some atraction, it might not be a very promising one.

 

[EyeSeeCold]

I have an ENTJ uncle. We don't fight or anything, I can tell he admires me from a distance and we even got into an interesting philosophical-biblical discussion once. Basically it was like a point-counter point argument because I was open to new ideas while he was trying to settle on one. I think it's good for family and friend relationships, as long as you don't need to depend on the other.

We're the only NTs in the family so he shares all his schemes with me.

 

[Glordag]

Is this saying that ESFJ is the INTP dual? I do NOT get along with ESFJs (or ESFPs). They are absolutely the most conflicting type with me. It takes a very well adjusted one to not get on my nerves.

 

[JimHawkins]

I will be as coherent as I can, but these are my initial criticisms.

1) I’m not too sure your chosen dichotomies quite capture your intentions.

Firstly – and only very briefly since it is less relevant – on the Judging/Perceiving dichotomy; I think the case can be made that Ni and Si are just as much judgement functions as they are perceiving – if not more-so. In fact, I recall you elsewhere labelling these two as ‘critic’ functions. How do these two really output differently from say Ti/Fi? All four respond with, “How does x, fit with my current understanding?” to varying degrees. They all express judgement on it.

Implicit functions question what is being perceived through the five senses and attempt to extract meaning from what is implied. Explicit functions believe what is perceived directly from the senses. Implicit functions are: Ne, Fe, Ti, Si. Explicit functions are: Se, Te, Ni, Fi.

Implicit/Explicit as labels don’t quite capture what I think you might be trying to define. The distinction isn’t what whether one ‘questions’ or ‘believes’, rather what you seem to be suggesting is where each function searches for the ‘truth’. And, if I may, this distinction is better surmised by rational or empirical: is the truth in the experience or not? Each of the different functions can be divided in such a fashion, but unfortunately merely swapping the terms of your model doesn’t quite work, which leads me to:

2) There are some bizarre choices over whether a function is implicit/explicit within your own model.

On your own terms some of these function-labels do not make sense, or at least, could fit into both. How is Fe, I wonder, an implicit function? Presumably this was included because Fe asks, “What was the emotional cue I just observed, what does it mean?” This, I think is a little too simplistic, and certainly doesn’t explain why Fi concordantly is an explicit function; if anything I think Fi more likely to pose the question due to its consideration of feelings as entirely individual and lacking that innate social sense of Fe. More precisely, both question the experience looking for the meaning which is where your axis is a little bit muddy.

It seems the mystical label attached to feelings is primarily to blame. Fe implicit, but Te explicit? That makes very little sense to me. If anything Fe would be explicit since it is concerned primarily with on-the-surface emotions and generalities, and functions in the same manner as Te. Fe is concerned with collective feelings and often manifests through a consideration of social forms: what is or isn’t socially acceptable. This doesn’t strike me as an implicit function at all. What’s more is this is just my spin on it; it could fit both categories depending on the various attributes emphasised.

Fi explicit? I can see the reasoning in that it ‘believes’ its values but to simply characterise this as Fi is to grossly simplify; like merely linking Fe with ‘well-behaved slave’ mentality. Ignoring this for a moment: a) how is this really different from Ti and its frameworks, and b) Fi is not formulated on social norms and is little accountable to them. I thought Fi is characterised by a pursuit of personal and emotional meaning; its very nature is questioning, “What meaning can I extract from this experience?” – just like Ti for that matter. And Ni, to some degree. What is the case for Fi as an explicit function? Is it merely its characterisation as ‘value-driven’?


And Si implicit? The function with one of the most concrete focuses, as the comparison of experiences, and focus on the past, the least adaptable to new information, implicit? Maybe that it notes difference, one can make the case that is implicit and label it as 'questioning', but this is no different to 'critic' Ni, and shows how implicit/explicit, isn't water-tight yet.

I'm a little suspicious of confirmation bias here, in that INTPs simply must be totally implicit in all of their functions. Also to consider all four functions in determining whether one is purely rational etc. seems unnecessarily complex and also, of little sense. A better proposition might be to focus on the top-two functions preferred; I don’t think everyone is using their tertiary and shadow functions nearly as much as suggested, or at least, certainly in a manner without significant effect. Likewise, whether or not one is ‘implicit’ or ‘explicit’ be revised to whether a function is rational/empirical. Of course it’s your model, this is just my suggestion!

Rational Functions: Ni, Ne, Ti, Fi.
Empirical Functions: Si, Se, Te, Fe.

And with the INTP as an example. Ti-Ne (Rational-Rational) vs. Fe-Si (Empirical-Empirical). It produces the same result as you were suggesting in your commentary, but I think much more precise and with better explanatory power. Also some of your terms were loaded: the ‘pure’ rationals, the ‘pure’ irrationals? Nice to see the slavery-mastery dialect is still being kept. Lol.

Pure Rationals: NPs.
Impure (lol) Rationals: NJs.
Pure Empiricals: SJs.
Impure Empiricals: SPs.

Of course within this there are degrees in these four categories as well. The question might then become which is the most rational/empirical function? I think it’s a safe bet to say Se is the most empirical, but that doesn’t fit with the scale above; I suppose it makes sense with the auxiliary balancing it out... just.

Ni is a peculiar case as well as the function furthest removed from experience – though I’m aware that does not make necessarily make it the most rational, it might none-the-less incline it. But is Ni more rational than Ne? Ne dominants need stimulation to extract patterns and meanings from, yet Ni dominants seem to pursue the question of meaning more-so and with less reliance on experience. And which is the more rational in Ti/Fi? Who is really the most earnest in uncovering the truth behind the experience?


Feel free to ravage, but gently.

 

[shoeless]

yeaaaaah. all that implicit/explicit stuff seriously confused me. but i can't help but thinking, just because a type has the same functions does not mean they interact with those functions the same way. an ISFJ, for example, is probably not questioning their own perceptions all that much at all, because of the strong preference for Si (firmer stance on the past). an ENTP would be the exact opposite because of the strong preference for Ne (constant possibilities & questioning), placing less emphasis on its Si.

so yeah. can't say i agree here.

 

[EyeSeeCold]

Is this saying that ESFJ is the INTP dual? I do NOT get along with ESFJs (or ESFPs). They are absolutely the most conflicting type with me. It takes a very well adjusted one to not get on my nerves.

I understand where you are coming from, the problem is that the older you are the more set you become in your ways. Young ESFJs and young INTPs have a great chance of getting along because they still open themselves to other people. However once you are fully matured you have worked out your own plan for life and do not accept other people so easily.

If you can get an ESFJ to let down their guard and you let down yours the two of you will be psychologically alleviating for each other. I have experienced it two times and I can tell you that it's legitimate. You don't even have to say anything, everything feels understood. The ESFJ understands your troubles due to inferior Fe and you understand theirs due to inferior Ti. This understanding and mutual help makes both of you have more presence. Of course this means that optimal conditions for duals mean an intimate relationship because any others you naturally hold back some part of yourself.

yeaaaaah. all that implicit/explicit stuff seriously confused me. but i can't help but thinking, just because a type has the same functions does not mean they interact with those functions the same way. an ISFJ, for example, is probably not questioning their own perceptions all that much at all, because of the strong preference for Si (firmer stance on the past). an ENTP would be the exact opposite because of the strong preference for Ne (constant possibilities & questioning), placing less emphasis on its Si.

so yeah. can't say i agree here.

ISFJ and ESFJ questions ethics. Have you noticed that they always need emotional confirmation? They don't fully accept ethics because they are emotional skeptics. Just like NTPs are logical skeptics.
What they have in common is being entrusting of both irrationality and rationality. Their emphasis differs between logic and ethics.

 

[shoeless]

what does needing emotional confirmation have to do with ethics...?

also, i don't see them questioning ethics all the time. sounds like an INFP type thing to do. ISFJ's seem pretty firm in what is appropriate and inappropriate behavior, what is right and wrong, etc. (Si dom)

 

[Glordag]

I understand where you are coming from, the problem is that the older you are the more set you become in your ways. Young ESFJs and young INTPs have a great chance of getting along because they still open themselves to other people. However once you are fully matured you have worked out your own plan for life and do not accept other people so easily.

If you can get an ESFJ to let down their guard and you let down yours the two of you will be psychologically alleviating for each other. I have experienced it two times and I can tell you that it's legitimate. You don't even have to say anything, everything feels understood. The ESFJ understands your troubles due to inferior Fe and you understand theirs due to inferior Ti. This understanding and mutual help makes both of you have more presence. Of course this means that optimal conditions for duals mean an intimate relationship because any others you naturally hold back some part of yourself.

What? I'm only 25. This just sounds like a nightmare any way I can look at it, especially in the context of an intimate relationship. Why does understanding someone's problem make for a positive experience? Generally that only seems useful if you can both understand the problem and relate it back in a way that can be accepted. If a dominant Fe type tried to tell me anything about Fe, I'd likely just get angry. I've also noticed that dominant Fe types don't like to be told about Ti.

 

[EyeSeeCold]

I will be as coherent as I can, but these are my initial criticisms.

1) I’m not too sure your chosen dichotomies quite capture your intentions.

Firstly – and only very briefly since it is less relevant – on the Judging/Perceiving dichotomy; I think the case can be made that Ni and Si are just as much judgement functions as they are perceiving – if not more-so. In fact, I recall you elsewhere labelling these two as ‘critic’ functions. How do these two really output differently from say Ti/Fi? All four respond with, “How does x, fit with my current understanding?” to varying degrees. They all express judgement on it.


The J/P dichotomy I am using is that of Socionics and Carl Jung, it is the first. J/P can also be represented on MBTI's terms, but that's not what I'm using here. Yes, I still regard my old labeling of functions, but those were situational to express a point.

Implicit/Explicit as labels don’t quite capture what I think you might be trying to define. The distinction isn’t what whether one ‘questions’ or ‘believes’, rather what you seem to be suggesting is where each function searches for the ‘truth’. And, if I may, this distinction is better surmised by rational or empirical: is the truth in the experience or not? Each of the different functions can be divided in such a fashion, but unfortunately merely swapping the terms of your model doesn’t quite work, which leads me to:

Yes that is a better terminology, but rational is used elsewhere. Implicit is the indirectly perceived reality, and explicit is the directly perceived reality.

2) There are some bizarre choices over whether a function is implicit/explicit within your own model.

On your own terms some of these function-labels do not make sense, or at least, could fit into both. How is Fe, I wonder, an implicit function? Presumably this was included because Fe asks, “What was the emotional cue I just observed, what does it mean?” This, I think is a little too simplistic, and certainly doesn’t explain why Fi concordantly is an explicit function; if anything I think Fi more likely to pose the question due to its consideration of feelings as entirely individual and lacking that innate social sense of Fe. More precisely, both question the experience looking for the meaning which is where your axis is a little bit muddy.

It seems the mystical label attached to feelings is primarily to blame. Fe implicit, but Te explicit? That makes very little sense to me. If anything Fe would be explicit since it is concerned primarily with on-the-surface emotions and generalities, and functions in the same manner as Te. Fe is concerned with collective feelings and often manifests through a consideration of social forms: what is or isn’t socially acceptable. This doesn’t strike me as an implicit function at all. What’s more is this is just my spin on it; it could fit both categories depending on the various attributes emphasised.

Fi explicit? I can see the reasoning in that it ‘believes’ its values but to simply characterise this as Fi is to grossly simplify; like merely linking Fe with ‘well-behaved slave’ mentality. Ignoring this for a moment: a) how is this really different from Ti and its frameworks, and b) Fi is not formulated on social norms and is little accountable to them. I thought Fi is characterised by a pursuit of personal and emotional meaning; its very nature is questioning, “What meaning can I extract from this experience?” – just like Ti for that matter. And Ni, to some degree. What is the case for Fi as an explicit function? Is it merely its characterisation as ‘value-driven’?

And Si implicit? The function with one of the most concrete focuses, as the comparison of experiences, and focus on the past, the least adaptable to new information, implicit? Maybe that it notes difference, one can make the case that is implicit and label it as 'questioning', but this is no different to 'critic' Ni, and shows how implicit/explicit, isn't water-tight yet.

I'm a little suspicious of confirmation bias here, in that INTPs simply must be totally implicit in all of their functions. Also to consider all four functions in determining whether one is purely rational etc. seems unnecessarily complex and also, of little sense. A better proposition might be to focus on the top-two functions preferred; I don’t think everyone is using their tertiary and shadow functions nearly as much as suggested, or at least, certainly in a manner without significant effect. Likewise, whether or not one is ‘implicit’ or ‘explicit’ be revised to whether a function is rational/empirical. Of course it’s your model, this is just my suggestion!

I agree the attributes can fit different categories. Here I am explaining Jung's work and Socionics theory. It is not my own work and there is no confirmation bias.

• Te is explicit as it makes judgments based on what it perceives directly(physical properties).
• Se is explicit as it perceives the physical properties of objects(power, force, external potential)
• Fe is implicit as it makes judgments based on indirect perceptions(implied giveaways).
• Ti is implicit as it makes judgments based on indirect perceptions(hard to explain but it delves under perceptions to find 'consistency'/'truth'/'reality')
• Fi is explicit as it makes judgments based on sensations(sight, smell, sound, taste, touch)
• Si is implicit as it perceives the indirect sensations(hot, cold, slimy, rough, beautiful, ugly)
• Ni is explicit as it perceives the direct properties of reality(it perceives the direct connections between events that are happening/have happened/will happen, that's why people link Ni to time and conspiracies/mysticism).
• Ne is implicit as it perceives the indirect properties of reality(what it can be, what it might be, i.e. possibilities)

Rational Functions: Ni, Ne, Ti, Fi.
Empirical Functions: Si, Se, Te, Fe.

And with the INTP as an example. Ti-Ne (Rational-Rational) vs. Fe-Si (Empirical-Empirical). It produces the same result as you were suggesting in your commentary, but I think much more precise and with better explanatory power. Also some of your terms were loaded: the ‘pure’ rationals, the ‘pure’ irrationals? Nice to see the slavery-mastery dialect is still being kept. Lol.

Pure Rationals: NPs.
Impure (lol) Rationals: NJs.
Pure Empiricals: SJs.
Impure Empiricals: SPs.

Here you are using MBTI, I am not using MBTI's method. You could say the terms were biased but we're all INTPs here right? I guess I assumed that people would know it's just terminology and nothing more. My fault.

Of course within this there are degrees in these four categories as well. The question might then become which is the most rational/empirical function? I think it’s a safe bet to say Se is the most empirical, but that doesn’t fit with the scale above; I suppose it makes sense with the auxiliary balancing it out... just.

Ni is a peculiar case as well as the function furthest removed from experience – though I’m aware that does not make necessarily make it the most rational, it might none-the-less incline it. But is Ni more rational than Ne? Ne dominants need stimulation to extract patterns and meanings from, yet Ni dominants seem to pursue the question of meaning more-so and with less reliance on experience. And which is the more rational in Ti/Fi? Who is really the most earnest in uncovering the truth behind the experience?
Ti and Fe. Fi and Te want the truth of the actual experience. Why do you think ENTJs and INTJs tend toward science to explain reality and INTPs and ENTPs tend toward philosophy to uncover the truth?

Feel free to ravage, but gently.

what does needing emotional confirmation have to do with ethics...?

also, i don't see them questioning ethics all the time. sounds like an INFP type thing to do. ISFJ's seem pretty firm in what is appropriate and inappropriate behavior, what is right and wrong, etc. (Si dom)

When I use the term ethics I mean the nature of actions that elicit feelings and emotions.

Not question as in philosophically, but not accepting what people tell them as the truth. "Do you like that sweater I bought you" "Yea." *Hmm that wasn't very enthusiastic* "Are you sure you like that sweater I bought you?" "Yeah, don't you believe me?" *No..*. ESFJs always push and push to get the emotions/feelings they want, similar to ENTPs pushing to get the philosophical answers they want. ISFJs and INTPs both silently disbelieve what they perceive through feelings and logic respectfully.

What? I'm only 25. This just sounds like a nightmare any way I can look at it, especially in the context of an intimate relationship. Why does understanding someone's problem make for a positive experience? Generally that only seems useful if you can both understand the problem and relate it back in a way that can be accepted. If a dominant Fe type tried to tell me anything about Fe, I'd likely just get angry. I've also noticed that dominant Fe types don't like to be told about Ti.

An ESFJ ideally wouldn't shove Fe all in your face, it will coax you out of Ti and soften it so you'd be stronger in Fe and they'd be coaxed out of their Fe and would be stronger in Ti.

 

[Glordag]

An ESFJ ideally wouldn't shove Fe all in your face, it will coax you out of Ti and soften it so you'd be stronger in Fe and they'd be coaxed out of their Fe and would be stronger in Ti.

This is very different from how it works in reality, in my opinion. It's a nice theory, I just don't see it. However, you claim that you've experienced it, and you've proven yourself logical and capable enough that I have a hard time trying to call BS. Still, I just don't see it. At best, I think it's extremely situational, and I don't know if that's grounds for claiming a consistent methodology. It seems more like the exception than the norm, in other words.

 

[EyeSeeCold]

This is very different from how it works in reality, in my opinion. It's a nice theory, I just don't see it. However, you claim that you've experienced it, and you've proven yourself logical and capable enough that I have a hard time trying to call BS. Still, I just don't see it. At best, I think it's extremely situational, and I don't know if that's grounds for claiming a consistent methodology. It seems more like the exception than the norm, in other words.

Probably. I'd say the grounds for duality is being accepting of another and being open to change.

 

[EvilScientist Trainee]

That's why I also refrained from arguing further. While the theory makes some sense and he also have some good claims, I have yet to meet an ESFJ to see if that is true or not for me.

Perhaps we're having sampling problems with those ESFJs.

 

[Puffy]

Adymus, where are you??

 

[Glordag]

Probably. I'd say the grounds for duality is being accepting of another and being open to change.

Ah, I see. If this is the case, then I can certainly see some truth in it. I can accept that .

 

[Saoshyant]

ESFP, not ESFJ's, are our duals in Socionics. Also, we are Ni - dominants in Socionics; this might confuse a lot of people here. I do believe it to be a more complete (and correct) typology system that Jung was trying to describe.

The most common misconception about Socionics is that you switch the last letter of your MBTI type around to the opposite. So a ISFP (MBTI) would be a ISFj (Socionics) This is 100% bullshit. The only formula you need to know is MBTI type = Socionics type.

Now if you take at look cognitive functions in Socionics, you will be quick to point out they do not match to the function orders in MBTI. You will see a lot of people claim that "Socionics is stupid" because they can't even get the functions right! Here is wherein the confusion and difference between Socionics and MBTI start. Socionics and MBTI disagree on the functions that a person uses for all the types. There are a couple of types where both typologies do agree on the first two functions, but we (INTp) are not one of them. Therefore, an INTp in socionics has the following functions (Ni, Te, Si, Fe) compared to (Ti, Ne, Si, Fe) of MBTI.

It basically comes down to which functions' definitions are correct (and what you think is correct). The definitions between (Ni base + Te 'creative' (2nd function)) in Socionics and (Ti dominant + Ne) in MBTI is not all that different when you really look at it. But there are differences.

So how do you decide on the right definitions? Read Jung. There's a lot of bullshit on the internet, MBTI websites, and this website as well.

If anyone has any questions on Socionics, feel free to PM me.

I tried to read some of your implicit/explicit in your original post last night, but my head just hurt.

 

[EyeSeeCold]

ESFP, not ESFJ's, are our duals in Socionics. Also, we are Ni - dominants in Socionics; this might confuse a lot of people here. If anyone has any questions on Socionics, feel free to PM me. I do believe it to be a more complete (and correct) typology system that Jung was trying to describe.

I tried to read some of your implicit/explicit in your original post last night, but my head just hurt.

Nope, excuse my arrogance, but you are misinformed. INTPs in MBTI are INTjs in Socionics. Our duals are still ESFJs. INTJs in Socionics are INTps their dual is ESFP.
The point of this thread was to clear up the introverted confusion J/P in Socionics.

The problem is that MBTI uses extroverted perception(Ne, Se) to determine P and extroverted judging(Te, Fe) to determine J. Socionics and Jung determine j/p by the leading function. Judging is T/F and Perceiving is N/S. So all the introverts in MBTI have their P/J switched in Socionics.

 

[Saoshyant]

Nope, excuse my arrogance, but you are misinformed. INTPs in MBTI are INTjs in Socionics. Our duals are still ESFJs. INTJs in Socionics are INTps their dual is ESFP.
The point of this thread was to clear up the introverted confusion J/P in Socionics.

The problem is that MBTI uses extroverted perception(Ne, Se) to determine P and extroverted judging(Te, Fe) to determine J. Socionics and Jung determine j/p by the leading function. Judging is T/F and Perceiving is N/S. So all the introverts in MBTI have their P/J switched in Socionics.

I've edited my original post and added more 'meat' to it.

 

[EyeSeeCold]

The most common misconception about Sonionics is that you switch the last letter of your MBTI type around to the opposite. So a ISFP (MBTI) would be a ISFj (Socionics) This is 100% bullshit. The only forumula you need to know is MBTI type = Socionics type.

Wrong. They are not the same and for the most part a flip is sufficient. A few times you will find inconsistencies, just like MBTI but I attribute that to incorrect descriptions and inaccurate testing.

There are a couple of types where both typologies do agree on the first two functions, but we (INTp) are not one of them. Therefore, an INTp in socionics has the following functions (Ni, Te, Si, Fe) compared to (Ti, Ne, Si, Fe) of MBTI.

Wrong again. INTj is [Ti Ne][Fi Se][Fe Si][Ni Te]

LII = Logical Intuitive
ILI = Intuitive Logical
INTPs are LIIs and INTjs.

If you understood the concept of duality you would realize that INTPs do not link up with ESFPs functions.

 

[Saoshyant]

It seems like you didn't understand anything in my post. This does not mean I am wrong. You need to understand that we are Ni-Dominants if you want to understand Socionics. This is where our main disagreement is. If you don't understand this, then of course you would think my post is wrong and I just might as well be talking in Latin!


Here's some sources, since I have the impression you probably don't respect me enough to actually incorporate anything I write into your beliefs.

http://wikisocion.org/en/index.php?title=Wikisocion_home
(The best info source I have found so far)

http://www.the16types.info/vbulletin/
(Careful, a lot of people don't know what they are talking about. The articles forum is good stuff though.)

http://www.socionist.blogspot.com/
(Awesome blog, this guy knows his stuff)

http://www.socioforum.ru/forum57.html
(Random forum of good type descriptions)

 

[EyeSeeCold]

I did understand you. We are not Ni dominants, that is a misconception, INTp is not the same psychological person as INTP.

I understand Socionics theory already and have been to all but one of those sites. You are right the problem here is the disagreement on INTp/INTj.

 

[Saoshyant]

Now all you have to do is read Jung's Psychological Types on Ni and Ti and decide for yourself. (It also helps to have an INTJ, INFP, ISTJ friends)

I mean in your experience, what are INTPs more like: INFPs or ISTPs ? One opinion siding with Socionics and the other MBTI.

http://psychclassics.yorku.ca/Jung/types.htm

I'll be adding some quotes from time to time to prove my point.

Jung, regarding Ti and Te in general:

Just as Darwin might possibly represent the normal extraverted thinking type,

And most MBTI sites have Darwin listed under INTP


Jung on Ti:

Like his [p. 485] extraverted parallel, he is decisively influenced by ideas; these, however, have their origin, not in the objective data but in the subjective foundation.

Now this is important. Examine how I am quoting mostly external, objective facts when proving a point. Look, you did it a couple posts ago when you linked to the socionics.us page describing the INTj functions!

Jung on Ti:

In his own special province, there are usually awkward experiences with his colleagues, since he never knows how to win their favour; as a rule he only succeeds in showing them how entirely superfluous they are to him.

INTPs trying to win someone's favor and showing people how superfluous they are ? Nah, not ime. Akward experiences? Well yea that could describe INTPs, but moreso INTJ's and ISTJ's.

Jung on Ti:

However clear to himself the inner structure of his thoughts may be; Only with difficulty can he persuade himself to admit that what is clear to him may not be equally clear to everyone

Sounds completely opposite to most INTPs.

Jung on Ti:

By his wider circle he is counted inconsiderate and domineering.

I'll go on if needed. Only on the interwebz am I mean!

 

[EyeSeeCold]

Now all you have to do is read Jung's Psychological Types on Ni and Ti and decide for yourself.

http://psychclassics.yorku.ca/Jung/types.htm

I'll be adding some quotes from time to time to prove my point.

Jung, regarding Ti and Te in general


And most MBTI sites have Darwin listed under INTP

here is also, however -- and now I come to the question of the introverted intellect -- an entirely different kind of thinking, to which the term I "thinking" can hardly be denied: it is a kind that is neither orientated by the immediate objective experience nor is it concerned with general and objectively derived ideas. I reach this other kind of thinking in the following way. When my thoughts are engaged with a concrete object or general idea in such a way that the course of my thinking eventually leads me back again to my object, this intellectual process is not the only psychic proceeding taking place in me at the moment. I will disregard all those possible sensations and feelings which become noticeable as a more or less disturbing accompaniment to my train of thought, merely emphasizing the fact that this very thinking process which proceeds from objective data and strives again towards the object stands also in a constant relation to the subject. This relation is a condition sine qua non, without which no think- [p. 431] ing process whatsoever could take place. Even though my thinking process is directed, as far as possible, towards objective data, nevertheless it is my subjective process, and it can neither escape the subjective admixture nor yet dispense with it. Although I try my utmost to give a completely objective direction to my train of thought, even then I cannot exclude the parallel subjective process with its all-embracing participation, without extinguishing the very spark of life from my thought. This parallel subjective process has a natural tendency, only relatively avoidable, to subjectify objective facts, i.e. to assimilate them to the subject. Whenever the chief value is given to the subjective process, that other kind of thinking arises which stands opposed to extraverted thinking, namely, that purely subjective orientation of thought which I have termed introverted. A thinking arises from this other orientation that is neither determined by objective facts nor directed towards objective data -- a thinking, therefore, that proceeds from subjective data and is directed towards subjective ideas or facts of a subjective character. I do not wish to enter more fully into this kind of thinking here; I have merely established its existence for the purpose of giving a necessary complement to the extraverted thinking process, whose nature is thus brought to a clearer focus.



The remarkable indifference of the extraverted intuitive in respect to outer objects is shared by the introverted intuitive in relation to the inner objects. Just as the extraverted intuitive is continually scenting out new [p. 507] possibilities, which he pursues with an equal unconcern both for his own welfare and for that of others, pressing on quite heedless of human considerations, tearing down what has only just been established in his everlasting search for change, so the introverted intuitive moves from image to image, chasing after every possibility in the teeming womb of the unconscious, without establishing any connection between the phenomenon and himself.

I have just shown you with your own source that you are wrong...I refuse to believe you are that daft, maybe you think you are an MBTI INTJ?

 

[EyeSeeCold]

Now all you have to do is read Jung's Psychological Types on Ni and Ti and decide for yourself. (It also helps to have an INTJ, INFP, ISTJ friends)

I do.

Now this is important. Examine how I am quoting mostly external, objective facts when proving a point. Look, you did it a couple posts ago when you linked to the socionics.us page describing the INTj functions!

I was acting out of Te to demonstrate to you that you are wrong. Naturally I am Ti and don't give two clams about factual sources and persuading others. Ti is subjective thinking trying to objectify thoughts.


INTPs trying to win someone's favor and showing people how superfluous they are ? Nah, not ime. Akward experiences? Well yea that could describe INTPs, but moreso INTJ's and ISTJ's.

Are you kidding? Everyday I cringe at the thought of waking up to a superficial society. INTPs are totally incapable of persuading other people through appeal to emotions. Jung says he 'never knows how' not that he persistently tries to.

Jung on Ti:


Sounds completely opposite to most INTPs.

Jung on Ti:


I'll go on if needed. Only on the interwebz am I mean!

And can you make new posts instead of editing the old..

Stop the argument. You are contradicting yourself.
My position is that my initial post is correct, and that MBTI INTP correlates with INTj Socionics and in both cases the leading functions are Ti-Ne. I have already proved my point yet you seem to still be unaware of this.

What are you arguing?

 

[Saoshyant]

That seriously just hurts my eyes. Looks like you just went into the explanation for introvertness, which proves nothing. To prove me wrong, you actually have to uh prove a point. And no, I do not think i am MBTI INTJ.

 

[Saoshyant]

What are you arguing?

That INTPs (MBTI) are Ni dominants instead of Ti dominants according to Jung. Thus making us INTps in socionics! Ya know, the thing that we agreed is our main point of disagreement?

And can you make new posts instead of editing the old..

Yeah, definitely a bad habit. Not sure if I can ... ooops just did it again

 

[EyeSeeCold]

That INTPs (MBTI) are Ni dominants instead of Ti dominants according to Jung. Thus making us INTps in socionics! Ya know, the thing that we agreed is our main point of disagreement?



Yeah, definitely a bad habit. Not sure if I can ... ooops just did it again

MBTI's types are based on Jung's work, it doesn't exactly correlate with his theory, I stated that in my first post..MBTI INTP has Ti-Ne-Si-Fe.

The peculiar nature of introverted intuition, when given the priority, also produces a peculiar type of man, viz. the mystical dreamer and seer on the one hand, or the fantastical crank and artist on the other.

Introverted intuition according to Jung is Ni as MBTI describes. INTPs do not have dominant nor auxiliary Ni.

I still see no evidence from you that INTPs have Ni as their leading function.

 

[Saoshyant]

I still see no evidence from you that INTPs have Ni as their leading function.

That's unfortunate. Look harder next time.

 

[EyeSeeCold]

Ok so I understand how Ti uses Ni but still where does Jung say INTPs prefer Ni to Ne?
Like you, I prefer Socionics because it allows for explanations of all eight functions. With Soconics we can see that INTP(INTj, I still say) has both Ne and Ni, but uses Ne actively while Ni is subconsciously used through dominant Ti.

 

[EyeSeeCold]

Here is the updated visual, the old had wrongly mixed types:

Spoiler

So basically:

• NTPs and SFJs are fully implicit.
• SFPs and NTJs are fully explicit.
• NFJs and STPs perceive explicitly, but judge implicitly.
• NFPs and STJs perceive implicitly, but judge explicitly.

 

[Glordag]

Uhm, yeah, can I please have a half rack implicit and a whole rational puree? Can you add a side of dichotomy?

I think I'm going to crack open my Jung and see if I can make better sense of this implicit/explicit, rational/irrational, and complementary/dual business. I'm having trouble gathering why the functions fall within one group or another.

 

[EyeSeeCold]

Uhm, yeah, can I please have a half rack implicit and a whole rational puree? Can you add a side of dichotomy?

I think I'm going to crack open my Jung and see if I can make better sense of this implicit/explicit, rational/irrational, and complementary/dual business. I'm having trouble gathering why the functions fall within one group or another.

Lol.

Duality is a Socionics theory btw.

• Extraverted / introverted E/I
• Sensing / intuitive S/N
• Feeling / Thinking F/T
• Rational / irrational (J/P)

Implicit and Explicit is a side dichotomy categorizing the functions that interact indirectly and directly with the senses. I emphasized it because I wanted to show why INTPs are actually INTjs and the ESFJ's duals and not INTJs.

 

[EyeSeeCold]

I was wrong about duality. ESFPs and INTPs go together while ESFJs and INTJs go together.

However the information you have provided, Saoshyant, was still inconclusive. I have read more of the information and what I was wrong about was Ni, INTPs do have it, but MBTI seems to call it Ne. You had presented information on the introverted thinker. Jung juxtaposed Darwin(Te) with Kant and Kant is known to be INTP. My problem was misinterpretation of facts and yours was inconclusive evidence.

 

[Saoshyant]

I was wrong about duality. ESFPs and INTPs go together while ESFJs and INTJs go together.

However the information you have provided, Saoshyant, was still inconclusive. I have read more of the information and what I was wrong about was Ni, INTPs do have it, but MBTI seems to call it Ne. You had presented information on the introverted thinker. Jung juxtaposed Darwin(Te) with Kant and Kant is known to be INTP.My problem was misinterpretation of facts and yours was inconclusive evidence.

Jung's Ni = MBTI Ti (INTP) and MBTI Fi (INFP)
Jung's Si = MBTI Fi(ISFP) and MBTI Ti (ISTP)
Jung's Fi = MBTI Ni (INFJ) and MBTI Si(ISFJ)
Jung's Ti = MBTI Ni(INTJ) and MBTI Si (ISTJ)

So why did I use those examples of Ti in the post above? To prove we aren't Ti dominants according to Jung. Do you want me to use Jung's defintion of Ni to prove we are Ni- dominants as well? Would that be enough information for you? I do not understand what you are looking for.

 

[EyeSeeCold]

Jung's Ni = MBTI Ti (INTP) and MBTI Fi (INFP)
Jung's Si = MBTI Fi(ISFP) and MBTI Ti (ISTP)
Jung's Fi = MBTI Ni (INFJ) and MBTI Si(ISFJ)
Jung's Ti = MBTI Ni(INTJ) and MBTI Si (ISTJ)

So why did I use those examples of Ti in the post above? To prove we aren't Ti dominants according to Jung. Do you want me to use Jung's defintion of Ni to prove we are Ni- dominants as well? Would that be enough information for you? I do not understand what you are looking for.

I'm not confused about Jung, I understand that. The thing is, Ni was a broad area for Jung, which is narrowed down in MBTI but not Socionics. This leaves MBTI INTPs stuck between LLI and ILI. Some descriptions are correct while others are not, your inter-type relations may be accurate but then you don't have the right function hierarchy etc. By function effect I am Socionics INTp and Jung Ni, but the descriptions are outright wrong. Balzac descriptions are accurate though.

But then again Jung describes Ti as subjective thinking, which is what MBTI INTP does. MBTI INTJ has objective Te thinking, they are brief and outwardly logical, love to explore inner worlds in their own minds and their speech manner is robotic. MBTI INTP does not do that with TiNe.

 

[Saoshyant]

This leaves MBTI INTPs stuck between LLI and ILI.

No, MBTI type = Socionics type. The MBTI misunderstands Jung's functions, but the end result is almost the same. That's why it is a useful tool just for the four letter abbreviations, but once you get into the deep theory of it, it falls apart. You need to forget about the descriptions really. They are interesting and, but confirmation bias is way too strong to type yourself reliably like that.

Also what I think you are doing is taking the MBTI descriptions/functions and identifying their functions with Socionics still. That is the only way you could think that MBTI's are 'stuck' between LII and ILI. You need to extract Jung's definitions into the proper typing (which ends up being identical to Socionics' theory).

 

[EyeSeeCold]

No, MBTI type = Socionics type. The MBTI misunderstands Jung's functions, but the end result is almost the same. That's why it is a useful tool just for the four letter abbreviations, but once you get into the deep theory of it, it falls apart. You need to forget about the descriptions really. They are interesting and, but confirmation bias is way too strong to type yourself reliably like that.

Also what I think you are doing is taking the MBTI descriptions/functions and identifying their functions with Socionics still. That is the only way you could think that MBTI's are 'stuck' between LII and ILI. You need to extract Jung's definitions into the proper typing (which ends up being identical to Socionics' theory).

I took a number of Socionics tests and came out INTj. My MBTI type is INTP. According to Jung I'd be dominant Ni.

Reading the Information elements, I should be Socionics TiNe or INTj, but like I said Balzac is accurate, while Robespierre is not.

 

[Adymus]

Adymus, where are you??

Sorry man, but I wouldn't touch this debate with a 40-foot pole, the Jungians and Socionists can fight there own battles.

I'll just be here face-palming from my perch.

 

[EyeSeeCold]

Not a debate, 'tis a discussion. I agree MBTI INTPs should still be INTp in Socionics because of Jung's findings.

The problem is finding out where all the confusion is coming from.

 

[Adymus]

That's kind of what happens when you try to match up a poorly designed and inaccurate system with Incomplete and outdated descriptions. Two wrongs don't equal a right.

Curious, if an INTP = INTp, because apparently MBTI Ti = Soc Ni... then what the fuck is an ISTP? Because if they are also Ni doms, then how are they still sensors?

 

[EyeSeeCold]

That's kind of what happens when you try to match up a poorly designed and inaccurate system with Incomplete and outdated descriptions. Two wrongs don't equal a right.

Curious, if an INTP = INTp, because apparently MBTI Ti = Soc Ni... then what the fuck is an ISTP? Because if they are also Ni doms, then how are they still sensors?

ISTP TiSe becomes ISTp SiTe. Yea I know it's weird, but if you go Jung->Socionics you would understand. Going Jung->MBTI->Socionics screws the descriptions up.

This is all due to introversion. Being introverted, you have a state that you return to when alone( Id) and a state you are normally when in public (Ego). MBTI uses the Id to determine types, while Socionics uses the Ego which is what Jung proposed.

This is how it is explained for INTP:

Normally, MBTI INTP would be seen as having Ti-Ne with a love for systematizing and being creative. But in Socionics, the INTP is NiTe because its normal state is reserved and watchful and the trading of logical insights are its expected type of external discussion. The systematizing(Ti) and theory developments(Ne) are rarely brought to light or discussed with others so they are the Id or strong and unconscious functions.

Contrast this with MBTI INTJ:
Normally the INTJ would be seen having Ni-Te, but it actually has TiNe. The INTj is bent on constantly understanding its environment and inventing new tools to bring into reality( a scientist). It rarely discusses social behavior trends(Ni) and logical insights(Te) with others unless they are close confidants.

 

[Adymus]

If you are going to use 16 types, then you have no Choice but to go from Jung to MBTI to Socionics, INTPs and ISTPs do no exist in Jungian Typology, the 16 types came from MBTI. Jung had only eight psychological types, the Introverted thinking type, the Introverted Intuitive type, etc.

PS: Social behavioral trends are not Ni, you are thinking of Ni-Fe. Ni is mearly a perception, but Fe is an external Dynamic, a social/human dynamic that is, you would have to combine the two to see trends into that. Ni-Te sees trends into Systemic dynamics.

 

[EyeSeeCold]

The 16 types were developed from Jung's concept of introversion and extraversion and the 4 main dichotomies. They do not claim to have used MBTI.

Yes, I went too far. I meant observation, but in public that Ni attitude can make you highly aware of what's going on.

 

[Adymus]

The 16 types were developed from Jung's concept of introversion and extraversion and the 4 main dichotomies. They do not claim to have used MBTI.

Who is they?

 

[EyeSeeCold]

The developers of the different Socionics Models.

 

[Adymus]

It is beyond me why you guys cling on to Jung as if his word was law, not only is his work not accurate to reality, it's not even close to a complete system or understanding. So I wouldn't exactly be proud that your system is the closest to Jung's original work.

 

[Adymus]

Kant is known to be INTP.

ROFL

Nobody is known to be anything! Modern (or in the case of Jung, outdated) typology does not work in "Knowns" it works in speculations. They base Kant's writings on their understanding of how INTP seem within their paradigm. Realistically, they have no fucking clue whether he was or not.

 

[Saoshyant]

It is beyond me why you guys cling on to Jung as if his word was law, not only is his work not accurate to reality, it's not even close to a complete system or understanding. So I wouldn't exactly be proud that your system is the closest to Jung's original work.

Jung was never trying to create a complete system of typology. Your claim that his work was not 'accurate to reality' is baseless as well and just your viewpoint.