Socionics and You

[EyeSeeCold]

Let's try this again.

Check your emotional attachments at the sub-forum index.




INTP = ILI NiTeFiSe not TiNe...

INTP...the reason why we are here today. It has been long standing that INTPs are governed by TiNe, but true to Jungian type, MBTI INTP would be NiTe, or ILI. The INTP's default state is that of a philosophical one, dominated by mental wandering. The external world's significance pales in comparison to the internal one. This is due to the leading function being Ni (in Jungian and Socionics terms). The effects of it is akin to seeing the same movie in theaters with a friend you already saw at home when you pirated it. You know what;s going to happen so why watch it again? It will be boring. Ni evokes a calm reserve, a sense that everything will fall into place, one way or another. But you ask, if I'm NiTe, why do I enjoy systematizing and math/science so much? That is because TiNe is the flipped version of NiTe, it is strong within us but remains something to be loathed if indulged in. TiNe is not exactly the philosophical expression of logical sequence, rather, it is logic but pushed outward by possibilities. Science characterizes the pair of TiNe, which seeks to explore possibilities with logic, Ne helps to materialize Ti. Theories intended for the real world is TiNe. Masturbatory theories are NiTe. Skip to 18:30 in this Futurama episode, Gunther is performing TiNe. http://vodpod.com/watch/2957592-futurama-2-episode-2-mars-university-full-episode

As you can see TiNe is rightfully the characteristics of MBTI INTJs, LIIs and not MBTI INTPs, ILIs. This is NiTe behavior: YouTube - God Rightfully MBTI INTP.


INFP = IEI NiFeTiSe not FiNe...

If you came from MBTI you would think that ILIs and SLIs(ISTP) are most alike, but look again. From observation it is most apparent that actually IEIs and ILIs are the most alike. Both are prone to mental wanderings and philosophical musings. They both disregard what others think of them and opt for their own modes of behavior. Not only that, their gait and facial expressions are also similar, the slow, fatalistic, in no hurry pace and the blank stare. This is because both have Ni (in Jungian and Socionics terms) as their leading function. To be more practical, why do you think there are so many IEIs here and not SLIs? Also aren't INFPs 'dreamers'? How would they get their 'dreams' from FiNe? The dreamy stereotype is a result of NiFe. IEIs dwell in the realm of Ni and prefer to emotionally express themselves through Ni ways such as movies, pictures, dress, art, dance and song. A stereotypical image is that of the kind wanderer with his Spanish guitar. YouTube - I Love Lucy - Tennessee Ernie Visits 2/3

ISTP = SLI SiTeFiNe not TiSe...

The resemblence of SLIs, is due to both SLIs and ILIs having Te as the creative(2nd) function. They both prefer the same type of outward behavior/interaction but prefer different internal states, hence different areas of expertise. Creative Te wants to do purposeful work, there is a disdain for useless(according to the leading function) activities. SLIs and ILIs are also similar because they both seek to have meaningful relationships(Fi), this is the reason for the cautious, reserved and good-natured behavior.


INFJ = EII FiNeSiTe not NiFe...

It has been proposed that MBTI INFJs have NiFe, but are they known to emotionally express themselves? They actually have FiNe. The leading function of Fi makes EIIs aware of how to to treat people tactfully to improve their spirits and Ne realizes the immediate possibilities that Fi can produce. EIIs dwell in the realm of Fi, spiritual emotions, and seek to better the atmosphere with the help of Ne, what can be done. The visions that MBTI attributes to Ni is really Fi being translated to Ne. Gandhi, the Buddha, Jesus, they have all been spiritual and supposed Ni doms, but it is more appropriate to say that they were spiritual rather than mental.

In conclusion, going by extraverts, introverts are the mirror reflections, with the same function pairs but switched. Mirrors are more in common than Exxx/Ixxx pairs.

ENTJ / INTP
ENTP / INTJ
ESFJ / ISFP
ESFP / ISFJ
ENFJ / INFP
ENFP / INFJ

 

[Saoshyant]

This is an important interview from Jung describing his self-typing. Start at 8:40. Notice the order he is describing the functions in.

YouTube - Face to face with Carl Jung - Part 3 of 4

 

[EyeSeeCold]

It's hard to understand him. All I got was that he said type changes through life and that he was a thinker, used to have good intuition and used to be bad at feeling. NT?

I do agree that type focus would change with age, but not the core itself.

 

[Saoshyant]

I do agree that type focus would change with age, but not the core itself.

I am pretty sure that is what he is implying, too.

To my main point, Jung implies Thinking, Intuition, Feeling, Sensing in that order. Notice how it does not match up to any MBTI function type, yet it does match up to a Socionics' one?

 

[EyeSeeCold]

Not sure if I understood correctly, but in that way he'd be LII or LIE.

EDIT: Did you mean this?
http://www.socionics.com/articles/NTFS.html

 

[Glordag]

Your point is completely lost on me. Your post seems to redefine the MBTI functions in order to fit with socionics, which seems a little silly. INTP in MTBI, as described in Gifts Differing (which I more or less treat as the instruction manual from the authors of MBTI), lays out TiNe quite clearly. That's fine if you use NiTe, but I fail to understand how that would make you anything other than INTJ in MBTI terminology...

Or is that your point? Is your point that MBTI does a poor job of defining the functions, so TiNe in MBTI translates to NiTe in Jungian/Socionics terms? I can accept that as a possibility, but I'll have to research more of Jung's core theories and Socionics, first. If you're saying that MBTI INTP = NiTe even by MBTI terminology, then I strongly disagree and still have no idea where this is coming from.

 

[dark]

Ooo wow this is really interesting, I have been looking through the VI socionics thing at the, I guess main web site, and they seem to have this down, people I expected to be certain types have the looks of their types, and I compared my picture against the ILE and I match up really close, wow odd that they can look that similiar. This is something I really want to learn more about, thanks for the thread.

 

[EyeSeeCold]

Your point is completely lost on me. Your post seems to redefine the MBTI functions in order to fit with socionics, which seems a little silly. INTP in MTBI, as described in Gifts Differing (which I more or less treat as the instruction manual from the authors of MBTI), lays out TiNe quite clearly. That's fine if you use NiTe, but I fail to understand how that would make you anything other than INTJ in MBTI terminology...

Or is that your point? Is your point that MBTI does a poor job of defining the functions, so TiNe in MBTI translates to NiTe in Jungian/Socionics terms? I can accept that as a possibility, but I'll have to research more of Jung's core theories and Socionics, first. If you're saying that MBTI INTP = NiTe even by MBTI terminology, then I strongly disagree and still have no idea where this is coming from.

1.) I'm not redefining anything. I'm explaining how it is. Yes, I am exposing MBTI for it's errors, its functions seem to fit perfectly but they are really a simplified mask for the actual functions. The goal here is to drop or transcend your idea of MBTI to at least realize the true nature of the types.

2. Myers herself is the cause of the problem, leading to hidden problems with other authors' own interpretations. She altered Jung's types in her attempt to create her own 16 type system based on E/I S/N T/F J/P.

Jung: Sensing and Intuition are P functions, always!
Myers: Sensing and Intuition are P functions, but only if they are extraverted!
Socionics: Sensing and Intuition are P functions, always!

Jung: Thinking and Feeling are J functions, always!
Myers: Thinking and Feeling are J functions, but only if they are extraverted!
Socionics: Thinking and Feeling are J functions, always!

Myers has corrupted Jung's types. By his rule TiNeSiFe is a J type and NiTeFiSe is a P type, hence INTj and INTp respectfully. This is the correct typing.

3.) What I am saying is-is that MBTI and all other interpretations have, for the most part, attributed accurate descriptions of types to the incorrect functions. MBTI has you thinking Ti-Ne equals inner systematization, and a love of philosophy and knowledge but that is wrong. All of that is a result of Ni(not MBTI's incorrect terminology).

4.) Myers also bases her system on what people show to the outside world when working under formality not how they are when relaxed. People present a false image of themselves in new company to protect their true weaknesses. MBTI does not capture this because in introverts it's unseen from the moment they step out the house and in extroverts it dissolves quickly.

 

[EvilScientist Trainee]

That's something I hadn't thought of.

So, according to that, Socionics is more close to relate to Jung's work than Myers, and therefore, it's typing the correct by Jung's view on the subject.

Yet, why do MBTI gets pretty much all the fame and use, even though it's typing is wrong? And thus, we would need to reeducate ourselves about the functions, probably. So, i'd have to ask how much of MBTI is inaccurate and why we don't base our learning upon socionics instead.

 

[EyeSeeCold]

So, according to that, Socionics is more close to relate to Jung's work than Myers, and therefore, it's typing the correct by Jung's view on the subject.

Yet, why do MBTI gets pretty much all the fame and use, even though it's typing is wrong? And thus, we would need to reeducate ourselves about the functions, probably. So, i'd have to ask how much of MBTI is inaccurate and why we don't base our learning upon socionics instead.

Yes. There is no claim that it is superior(MBTI and Socionics have different focuses) but only that Socionics is a development of Jung's correct form.

MBTI has seen widespread use, mainly for originating in the U.S. while Socionics has only recently began to attract outside attention. MBTI only relies on external behavior for accuracy and thus as long as behavior coincides, it's helpful. The fact that functions are inaccurate is irrelevant, so there is never an issue.

 

[dark]

I will have to now disagree with socionics, since I have realized that the assumption that INTP has NiTe etc instead of the INTJ would be false, since the INTP mirrors the ENTJ simply because both have a T dominance. If INTP had N dominance, then they would mirror the ENTP not the ENTJ. ENTP and INTP have the same functions but in different places, which depending on how well one develops their auxiliary function, they can be very similiar, but they don't mirron one another etc.

 

[EyeSeeCold]

I will have to now disagree with socionics, since I have realized that the assumption that INTP has NiTe etc instead of the INTJ would be false, since the INTP mirrors the ENTJ simply because both have a T dominance. If INTP had N dominance, then they would mirror the ENTP not the ENTJ. ENTP and INTP have the same functions but in different places, which depending on how well one develops their auxiliary function, they can be very similiar, but they don't mirron one another etc.

As I stated in the other thread, we are speaking of different mirrors.

My mirror has the effect of "that's how I would have acted..."

Your mirror has the effect of noticing similar orders of processing.

That's not enough to refute the idea of Socionics, you're just jumping to conclusions (Ne).

 

[dark]

My only problem with thinking INTP have NiTe, is that it looks as though they would then have the less advantage Ni the INTJ used to have and it makes the INTJ more advantage with the TiNe (all though I have no clue which has an advantage, both seem to be good). I guess labels really don't matter since they aren't on function, more behavioral. If one where to look at their function instead, would be better, as an extrovert I haven't been manipulated by the socionics changes, so I don't have to worry about my "type" changing via functions. If you know you are TiNe or NiTe then good, what ever you want to place as a label, good. All in all I guess I am saying the labels mean less than the actaul functions themselves; What is ones dominate function? What is ones auxilary function? How does my mine process this information, etc.?

 

[EyeSeeCold]

My only problem with thinking INTP have NiTe, is that it looks as though they would then have the less advantage Ni the INTJ used to have and it makes the INTJ more advantage with the TiNe (all though I have no clue which has an advantage, both seem to be good). I guess labels really don't matter since they aren't on function, more behavioral. If one where to look at their function instead, would be better, as an extrovert I haven't been manipulated by the socionics changes, so I don't have to worry about my "type" changing via functions. If you know you are TiNe or NiTe then good, what ever you want to place as a label, good. All in all I guess I am saying the labels mean less than the actaul functions themselves; What is ones dominate function? What is ones auxilary function? How does my mine process this information, etc.?

The problem is that people who have learned MBTI have false knowledge of what it means to be TiNe and NiTe. Every single introvert who knows his MBTI type has been mislead with descriptions.

Yes, INTPs are thinkers. But we are not logical thinkers. We are intuitive thinkers. Our logic comes after the fact, when we decide to show it to others or organize it into some theory.

Yes, if people looked at the functions themselves, the label shouldn't matter, but MBTI and it's interpreters falsely describe the functions.

Ti = A state of logical readiness. 'Seeing the world through mathematical glasses.'
Ne = A way of mental processing that allows one to be aware of what is immediately possible in the present situation
Ni = A state of introspection. 'Seeing the world from afar'.
Te = A way of mental processing that allows one to be aware of the efficiency and purposefulness of a situation.

A person programmed in Ti, will have the tendency to be overly logical in conversation. A person programmed in Ni will have the tendency to drop out in a conversation.

 

[dark]

Ah point received, I was wrong. Some how I had wondered off my own thought process. Because yes with this view INTP and ENTP share a likeness they don't share from MBTI, both are N dominance, since we both think iNtuitively. And the observation of the INTJ being Ti dominate is good. Makes logical sense. Actually as I think of it socionics makes more sense than MBTI, the functions more clearly fit to the profiles etc.

*Edit: This is cool I just realized. NTP means this N dominance, T auxilary functions. The extroverted or introverted falls in the functions, depending on I or E, they affect the dominate via how the subject process information, etc. Really cool subject matter.

 

[EyeSeeCold]

Because yes with this view INTP and ENTP share a likeness they don't share from MBTI, both are N dominance, since we both think iNtuitively.

Think of:

N types as ENTps, INFps, INTp and ENFps ONLY
T types as INTjs, ISTjs, ENTjs and ESTjs ONLY
F types as ESFjs, ENFjs, ISFjs and INFjs ONLY
S types as ISFps, ESTps, ESFps and ISTps ONLY

Doesn't everything make much more sense now? For example, you know ISFJs and ISFPs are both feeling and sensing, but when you think about it, ISFPs are more in touch with the world and ISFJs are more in touch with feelings, but in MBTI ISFJs are Si-Fe and ISFPs are Fi-Se. The mistake here is obvious.

 

[Jedi]

Is not the only difference between the MBTI's INTP and Socionic's INTJ the categorization? I was led to believe Socionics categorized perceives and judgers based on their dominant function as opposed to the first extroverted function as with MBTI.

If I have Ti-Ne I would be an MBTI INTP and a Socionic's INTJ, no?

 

[EyeSeeCold]

Is not the only difference between the MBTI's INTP and Socionic's INTJ the categorization? I was led to believe Socionics categorized perceives and judgers based on their dominant function as opposed to the first extroverted function as with MBTI.

If I have Ti-Ne I would be an MBTI INTP and a Socionic's INTJ, no?

If you have true Ti-Ne you would be Socionics LII/INTj and MBTI INTJ.
If you have false Ti-Ne you are Socionics ILI/INTp and MBTI INTP.

 

[echoplex]

INTP = ILI NiTeFiSe not TiNe...

Didn't you say in another thread that you believe INTPs to be Ni-Te-Si-Fe? Are you correcting yourself or am I imagining things?

Doesn't everything make much more sense now? For example, you know ISFJs and ISFPs are both feeling and sensing, but when you think about it, ISFPs are more in touch with the world and ISFJs are more in touch with feelings, but in MBTI ISFJs are Si-Fe and ISFPs are Fi-Se. The mistake here is obvious.

Who decided that ISFPs are 'more in touch with the world' and ISFJs 'more in touch with feeilngs'? It seems you're using that stereotype to justify changing their function order. If ISFPs are truly Fi-Se (as MBTI says) then by definition they'd be in touch with their feelings (Fi being their dominant function) and if not then that person is likely mistyped. Plus, I thought the types considered most in touch with the world are the Se-doms. ISFP shouldn't really be considered a poster child for that from an MBTI perspective (since it's only their aux. function in that system).

And if your stereotypes of those two types (or any types) are coming from a socionics perspective, then yeah, I guess you'd be correct, but I don't see why you transfer that thinking to MBTI, where such stereotypes would not really be correct anyway.

Also, I don't really see what this accomplishes. It seems you are simply defining the functions (well, some of them) differently, which of course would cause you to define the types differently as well. For instance, the view that claims INTJs are Ni-dom says that Ni is a function associated with certainty, which is why they are considered Judgers. While Ti is thought to be more open-ended and speculative, lending to the Perceiver label. You seem to interpret them differently.

Ti = A state of logical readiness. 'Seeing the world through mathematical glasses.'
Ne = A way of mental processing that allows one to be aware of what is immediately possible in the present situation
Ni = A state of introspection. 'Seeing the world from afar'.
Te = A way of mental processing that allows one to be aware of the efficiency and purposefulness of a situation.

...you're just jumping to conclusions (Ne)

Okay, I'm trying to see how to translate your view into the typical MBTI view of these functions...
- It seems your Ti not that different from MBTI's Ti though probably more quick to draw conclusions (my assumption).
- Okay, your Ne doesn't seem to differ much at all from MBTI's Ne. But then you attribute 'jumping to conclusions' to Ne, which is often considered a sign of Ni and/or Te in MBTI. MBTI Ne, as far as I know, isn't described that way.
- Your Ni could apply to either Ti or Ni in MBTI, I think. Both are associated with introspection and detachment.
- Your Te doesn't seem to differ much here.

Ultimately, to me, how you define and align functions should determine which types should be considered J or P, though how you define 'J' and 'P' also matters. Imo, it matters not which system(s) you use (aside from confusing the unfamiliar) so long as your definitions are precise and your alignments are logical. Though, it could still be 'wrong' even then.

One more thing (sorry): Why is it important for a typological system to strictly follow Jung? (which, if I'm not mistaken, is your claim here)

 

[EyeSeeCold]

Didn't you say in another thread that you believe INTPs to be Ni-Te-Si-Fe? Are you correcting yourself or am I imagining things?

Must have been a mistake if it actually happened, I'm not sure if I did, regardless: Ni-Te-Fi-Se.

Who decided that ISFPs are 'more in touch with the world' and ISFJs 'more in touch with feeilngs'? It seems you're using that stereotype to justify changing their function order.

I'm not changing anything. I'm explaining how it is. Yes, I admit I used a generalization, I usually don't prefer induction, but the tendency is so strong that it cannot be overlooked. ISFJs relate more feelings. It is in MBTI interpretations and you can also notice it if you observe their behavior. They even have the title of Nurturer/Protector. ISFPs relate more to their senses, MBTI gives them the description of 'Artist/Composer' in fact.

If ISFPs are truly Fi-Se (as MBTI says) then by definition they'd be in touch with their feelings (Fi being their dominant function) and if not then that person is likely mistyped. Plus, I thought the types considered most in touch with the world are the Se-doms. ISFP shouldn't really be considered a poster child for that from an MBTI perspective (since it's only their aux. function in that system).

1.) I'm saying that ISFPs prefer sensing to feeling, and that ISFJs prefer feeling to sensing. MBTI says FiSe for ISFP but that is incorrect, they feel externally and sense internally. Likewise, ISFJs feel internally and sense externally.

2.) The ones most 'in touch with the world' are sensing-preferring types. S(x) is irrelevant.

And if your stereotypes of those two types (or any types) are coming from a socionics perspective, then yeah, I guess you'd be correct, but I don't see why you transfer that thinking to MBTI, where such stereotypes would not really be correct anyway.

The generalizations are independent of the typology system. I am not transferring thoughts, Socionics is based on the correct form of Jungian typology, and here I am using the developed form of Socionics to show how MBTI theory incorrectly uses Jung's concepts.

Also, I don't really see what this accomplishes. It seems you are simply defining the functions (well, some of them) differently, which of course would cause you to define the types differently as well. For instance, the view that claims INTJs are Ni-dom says that Ni is a function associated with certainty, which is why they are considered Judgers. While Ti is thought to be more open-ended and speculative, lending to the Perceiver label. You seem to interpret them differently.

It accomplishes the dispersion of ignorance, if intelligence is not your thing, you may not like what I am doing here. MBTI had the function definitions wrong in the first place. To the rest of your post read what I posted earlier:

http://www.socionics.com/articles/mbti-2.htm[/B]]

Jung: Sensing and Intuition are P functions, always!
Myers: Sensing and Intuition are P functions, but only if they are extraverted!
Socionics: Sensing and Intuition are P functions, always!

Jung: Thinking and Feeling are J functions, always!
Myers: Thinking and Feeling are J functions, but only if they are extraverted!
Socionics: Thinking and Feeling are J functions, always!

- It seems your Ti not that different from MBTI's Ti though probably more quick to draw conclusions (my assumption).
- Okay, your Ne doesn't seem to differ much at all from MBTI's Ne. But then you attribute 'jumping to conclusions' to Ne, which is often considered a sign of Ni and/or Te in MBTI. MBTI Ne, as far as I know, isn't described that way.
- Your Ni could apply to either Ti or Ni in MBTI, I think. Both are associated with introspection and detachment.
- Your Te doesn't seem to differ much here.

1.) The idea of Ti being an intensive subjective thinking function is incorrect(that is Ni). Ti considers the logic, form and order of information.

2.) MBTI Ni takes some of Jung's Ne. So in MBTI, Ne and Ni are closely related, which is again incorrect. Ne is noticing what's possible given the current state of things. Ni is the estimation of what will happen if things say the same. I said dark jumped to conclusions becauses he generalized what he read and assumed, that is an effect of Ne, induction.

3.) Detachment is only Ni. The idea of Ti being detachment is incorrect. Ti is logical consideration.

4.) Te doesn't change much but it's effect does. 2nd function Te in INTps make their outward behavior/interaction energy efficient.

One more thing (sorry): Why is it important for a typological system to strictly follow Jung? (which, if I'm not mistaken, is your claim here)

Well for one, going by MBTI, if you are an INTP, you falsely believe that you need to work on Fe, when in fact, in Socionics theory, too much Fe can cause neurosis to INTps, making them develop disorders such as tics, OCD, depression and any other possible psychological disorders. So if your health is important to you and you are INTp, I'd like to think that you would not want to go around believing that MBTI is correct. What you do need, according to Socionics theory is more Se.

 

[echoplex]

*I'm just trying to understand you. Clearly we're all interested in intelligence or I doubt we'd be here. <--- see, that means I'm not upset.

I'm not changing anything. I'm explaining how it is. Yes, I admit I used a generalization, I usually don't prefer induction, but the tendency is so strong that it cannot be overlooked. ISFJs relate more feelings. It is in MBTI interpretations and you can also notice it if you observe their behavior. They even have the title of Nurturer/Protector. ISFPs relate more to their senses, MBTI gives them the description of 'Artist/Composer' in fact.

oops, by 'changing' I meant 'differing' from the MBTI function orders. I realize you aren't trying to change anything, just present something. My bad.

Regarding the titles, I don't agree with those anyway. It seems to me that Nurturer fits better for ESFJ and Artist for ESFP. Either way, I don't think titles should be considered. As for behavior, I think MBTI would say that what you observe in people is a result of what they're extraverting, which may be why ISFPs may appear to be sensing dominant. Would you agree that extraverted functions are sometimes more apparent, even when not dominant?
(I'm not trying to argue anything really, I only ask this because I think it's a main point of contention between MBTI and soc., and is seemingly why MBTI does the J/P switch on introverts; the idea being their aux. function is their 'face to the world')

2.) The ones most 'in touch with the world' are sensing-preferring types. S(x) is irrelevant.

Fair enough, but then why use the fact that a type (ISFP) considered by MBTI to be an auxiliary sensing type is described as being 'in touch with the world'/Artist as justification for them being sensing dominant? If an MBTI ISFP relates more to sensing than feeling, then they are perhaps mistyped anyway and thus not a good example of what they relate to. (they, according to theory, should relate more to Fi, though I'll admit that's not reliable, esp. considering it's introverted and harder to notice)*what someone relates to and what someone appears to relate to are often different things*

1.) The idea of Ti being an intensive subjective thinking function is incorrect(that is Ni). Ti considers the logic, form and order of information.

3.) Detachment is only Ni. The idea of Ti being detachment is incorrect. Ti is logical consideration.

Thank you, this is helpful in understanding your ideas. I didn't see as much difference in your Ne and Te, but these two seem like pretty clear distinctions. I'd say there is still some 'mbti' in them, but there is clearly a difference. From this, I would guess that many MBTI INTPs would still be INTPs but others may be INTJs, depending on whether they relate more to your Ti or Ni.

Overall, I'm more interested in how functions are defined than 'what INTPs are' and the like, which tends to create more confusion. What functions are, how they are aligned, and the relationships between them is what seems to make a type.

Well for one, going by MBTI, if you are an INTP, you falsely believe that you need to work on Fe, when in fact, in Socionics theory, too much Fe can cause neurosis to INTps, making them develop disorders such as tics, OCD, depression and any other possible psychological disorders. So if your health is important to you and you are INTp, I'd like to think that you would not want to go around believing that MBTI is correct. What you do need, according to Socionics theory is more Se.

Perhaps, but 'your' INTP is at least a little different than the INTP that's been MBTI-defined as Ti-Ne. Differing interpretations of Ti and Ni would mean that some who believe they're MBTI-INTP would relate more to soc. INTJ (particularly the more 'logic heavy' ones; for these the whole Fe thing would still apply), while others would relate more to the soc.-ized Ni-Te model (perhaps the more imaginative and tolerant ones; they would seemingly need Se). Of course, this is all assuming people are typed correctly in either system. Also, I'd say you can 'need to work on something' and still be capable of having too much of it, but I may be splitting hairs at this point.

(Still, you didn't really answer why Jung should be the standard for accuracy. Though, I'm not saying MB should be either. Actually, why should anything be the standard? This isn't just soc. vs. MBTI; this is every idea for itself!)

 

[EyeSeeCold]

*I'm just trying to understand you. Clearly we're all interested in intelligence or I doubt we'd be here. <--- see, that means I'm not upset.

I'm just being demonstrative with my Ti. I don't really feel as harsh as I may seem.

I think MBTI would say that what you observe in people is a result of what they're extraverting, which may be why ISFPs may appear to be sensing dominant. Would you agree that extraverted functions are sometimes more apparent, even when not dominant?
(I'm not trying to argue anything really, I only ask this because I think it's a main point of contention between MBTI and soc., and is seemingly why MBTI does the J/P switch on introverts; the idea being their aux. function is their 'face to the world')

I agree, this is the main problem. It is what Meyers went through when assigning J/P to Jung's types, though introverts had it worse. She believed that what people demonstrate publicly (to show competence) is what they naturally are. There is no concept of an alternate Ego in MBTI theory. When using Socionics, looking at an INTp, we see that he is normally in a state of Ni, actively behave with Te intents, and resort to the alternate ego of TiNe when demonstrating his worth, or right to be some-where doing some-thing.
From observation of his interaction in society, the character of INTP seems like a logical thinker, from this you then would say he is a thinker, and because he is introverted you would say dominant Ti. However the INTP is only 'extraverting'. When he goes home or drops back from interaction, Ni will take over.

Fair enough, but then why use the fact that a type (ISFP) considered by MBTI to be an auxiliary sensing type is described as being 'in touch with the world'/Artist as justification for them being sensing dominant? If an MBTI ISFP relates more to sensing than feeling, then they are perhaps mistyped anyway and thus not a good example of what they relate to. (they, according to theory, should relate more to Fi, though I'll admit that's not reliable, esp. considering it's introverted and harder to notice)*what someone relates to and what someone appears to relate to are often different things*

I agree, especially the last bit. If an ISFP who truly preferred sensing was MBTI tested, they'd always end up with ISFP(FiSe), again it's because of the incorrect MBTI descriptions of function relationships, leading to inaccurate tests/function order(but correct behavior descriptions! - this is why there is no confusion). If that ISFP tested with Socionics, they'd most likely get ISFj (FiSe), because MBTI trained them to think their outward behavior is how they are naturally. Remember, introverts are forced to interact daily(e.g. work & school), you can see how this would cause problems for determining a person's natural state.

From this, I would guess that many MBTI INTPs would still be INTPs but others may be INTJs, depending on whether they relate more to your Ti or Ni.

Overall, I'm more interested in how functions are defined than 'what INTPs are' and the like, which tends to create more confusion. What functions are, how they are aligned, and the relationships between them is what seems to make a type.

Good, I prefer functions also. It depends. Like in the earlier case, an INTP might think how he behaves externally, is his preferred state, which would make him a j in Socionics. Being tested personally by a professional, he'd undoubtedly get INTp again.

Perhaps, but 'your' INTP is at least a little different than the INTP that's been MBTI-defined as Ti-Ne. Differing interpretations of Ti and Ni would mean that some who believe they're MBTI-INTP would relate more to soc. INTJ (particularly the more 'logic heavy' ones; for these the whole Fe thing would still apply), while others would relate more to the soc.-ized Ni-Te model (perhaps the more imaginative and tolerant ones; they would seemingly need Se). Of course, this is all assuming people are typed correctly in either system. Also, I'd say you can 'need to work on something' and still be capable of having too much of it, but I may be splitting hairs at this point.

1.) I agree that they would relate more or less(I had this problem), but type is intrinsic, the effects of social interaction would still be there. That is how I came to the conclusion that Fe is not for me. My mother and grandmother are ESFJ and we enter conflict within seconds of personal conversations. My ESFP sister makes me laugh just by being around her and also motivates me to get off my ass.

2.)Agreed.

3.) Agreed, but realize that some things you can't be responsible for because people are developed into a certain way.

(Still, you didn't really answer why Jung should be the standard for accuracy. Though, I'm not saying MB should be either. Actually, why should anything be the standard? This isn't just soc. vs. MBTI; this is every idea for itself!)

Well Jung was pretty spot on, as for asking 'who to look to?' but beyond that Jung's work was still only theory. I got the 'why anything?' vibe initially, but choose to answer it anyway.

 

[Glordag]

1.) I'm not redefining anything. I'm explaining how it is. Yes, I am exposing MBTI for it's errors, its functions seem to fit perfectly but they are really a simplified mask for the actual functions. The goal here is to drop or transcend your idea of MBTI to at least realize the true nature of the types.

After catching up on these responses, it still seems as though you are redefining things in your own terms that allow you to relate things back to what you feel you've observed.

2. Myers herself is the cause of the problem, leading to hidden problems with other authors' own interpretations. She altered Jung's types in her attempt to create her own 16 type system based on E/I S/N T/F J/P.
Myers has corrupted Jung's types. By his rule TiNeSiFe is a J type and NiTeFiSe is a P type, hence INTj and INTp respectfully. This is the correct typing.

I don't think she altered Jung's types at all, just merely expanded them to make farther reaching claims. MBTI also claims that TiNeSiFe is a J type, as a judging function is dominant. It clearly states in Gifts Differing that introverts will have a dominant function that is the opposite on the J-P scale of the last letter in their type. Introverts just interact differently with the outside world.

3.) What I am saying is-is that MBTI and all other interpretations have, for the most part, attributed accurate descriptions of types to the incorrect functions. MBTI has you thinking Ti-Ne equals inner systematization, and a love of philosophy and knowledge but that is wrong. All of that is a result of Ni(not MBTI's incorrect terminology).

I think this is debatable. I'd also argue that MBTI claims "inner systematization" is largely an effect of Ni. This is always how I've interpreted it, and thus why INTJs are often seen as more "orderly and systematic" in their thinking. This is another example of how I think you're redefining MBTI.

4.) Myers also bases her system on what people show to the outside world when working under formality not how they are when relaxed. People present a false image of themselves in new company to protect their true weaknesses. MBTI does not capture this because in introverts it's unseen from the moment they step out the house and in extroverts it dissolves quickly.

MBTI captures this and places great emphasis on pointing it out. I think you're misleading others by making this claim.

The problem is that people who have learned MBTI have false knowledge of what it means to be TiNe and NiTe. Every single introvert who knows his MBTI type has been mislead with descriptions.

Disagree

Yes, INTPs are thinkers. But we are not logical thinkers. We are intuitive thinkers. Our logic comes after the fact, when we decide to show it to others or organize it into some theory.

Agree that INTPs are thinkers. Disagree that we aren't logical thinkers (thinking itself is generally seen as a tool of logic, regardless of Te or Ti...). Agree that we are intuitive thinkers. Disagree that our logic comes "after the fact", and, in fact, I think that we generally have a hard time relating our logic back to others.

Yes, if people looked at the functions themselves, the label shouldn't matter, but MBTI and it's interpreters falsely describe the functions.

Ti = A state of logical readiness. 'Seeing the world through mathematical glasses.'
Ne = A way of mental processing that allows one to be aware of what is immediately possible in the present situation
Ni = A state of introspection. 'Seeing the world from afar'.
Te = A way of mental processing that allows one to be aware of the efficiency and purposefulness of a situation.

A person programmed in Ti, will have the tendency to be overly logical in conversation. A person programmed in Ni will have the tendency to drop out in a conversation.

I'm not sure why you are so bent on convincing everyone that MBTI falsely describes functions. I think they describe them quite well, and in a very useful manner.

By MBTI definitions, the way you describe Ti in that last bit would be more like Te. I agree that a person programmed in Ni might drop out of a conversation, but that also happens very often with Ti (and I would say moreso).

Doesn't everything make much more sense now? For example, you know ISFJs and ISFPs are both feeling and sensing, but when you think about it, ISFPs are more in touch with the world and ISFJs are more in touch with feelings, but in MBTI ISFJs are Si-Fe and ISFPs are Fi-Se. The mistake here is obvious.

How can you generalize something like "in touch with the world" and "in touch with feelings" so much? Any claim based on those descriptions is going to be sort of bogus. Regardless, Si-Fe could easily be described as more "in touch with feelings" in MBTI, as they are often very sentimental, attached to things, and relate to the world via feeling. Likewise, ISFP could be seen as relating to the "world", as they often have ideals about life, nature, people, etc., and are very strongly affected by what they can directly interact with. The mistake here isn't as obvious as you want to make it out to be, in my opinion.

If you have true Ti-Ne you would be Socionics LII/INTj and MBTI INTJ.
If you have false Ti-Ne you are Socionics ILI/INTp and MBTI INTP.

Define "true" Ti-Ne. As it stands, I disagree.

1.) I'm saying that ISFPs prefer sensing to feeling, and that ISFJs prefer feeling to sensing. MBTI says FiSe for ISFP but that is incorrect, they feel externally and sense internally. Likewise, ISFJs feel internally and sense externally.

How are you determining this? If you're taking an MBTI type and then relating it to a Socionics definition to try and describe it as "incorrect", then you aren't proving anything other than the fact that they two systems have some disagreement.

I know an ISFJ that is very much an "internal feeler, external sensor", and that would be exactly how and why he typed himself, I typed him, and someone else that has an interest in MBTI all typed him as ISFJ. The system is consistent within itself, and that's all it claims to be...

2.) The ones most 'in touch with the world' are sensing-preferring types. S(x) is irrelevant.

What? Se directly interacts with the external world, while Si has more detached and personal interpretations of the world. How is the Se vs Si irrelevant?

The generalizations are independent of the typology system. I am not transferring thoughts, Socionics is based on the correct form of Jungian typology, and here I am using the developed form of Socionics to show how MBTI theory incorrectly uses Jung's concepts.

It accomplishes the dispersion of ignorance, if intelligence is not your thing, you may not like what I am doing here. MBTI had the function definitions wrong in the first place. To the rest of your post read what I posted earlier:

Pardon? The only thing I've seen so far is your pointing to Socionics to try and show where MBTI went wrong. The fact is, they are both consistent with themselves, and they both take Jung's theories and expand on them to further our understanding. Neither one is "right" or "wrong". They are tools, and they are good for what they do.

You can use MBTI to type someone and understand a lot of things about them with confidence. You can do the same with Socionics. As long as you don't try and make assumptions about Socionics typing based on MBTI typing, everything is great...

1.) The idea of Ti being an intensive subjective thinking function is incorrect(that is Ni). Ti considers the logic, form and order of information.

Ti and Ni are both largely subjective, as they are detached, personal functions. In fact, Jung on Introverted Thinking says "Introverted thinking is primarily oriented by the subjective factor." Also - "Like his extroverted counterpart, he is strongly influenced by ideas, though his ideas have their origin not in objective data but in his subjective foundation."

Agreed on your last bit about Ti.

2.) MBTI Ni takes some of Jung's Ne. So in MBTI, Ne and Ni are closely related, which is again incorrect. Ne is noticing what's possible given the current state of things. Ni is the estimation of what will happen if things say the same. I said dark jumped to conclusions becauses he generalized what he read and assumed, that is an effect of Ne, induction.

I just read through Jung's descriptions of Extroverted Intuitive and Introverted Intuitive types, and I'm not seeing it. He describes Extroverted Intuitives as constantly seeing ideas and possibilities with the world, and chasing those ideas with abandonment and without regard for whatever they felt or thought before. This is consistent with MBTI Ne.

He describes Introverted Intuitives as being completely oriented to internal thoughts and visions, and being largely detached from external influence. This is also consistent with MBTI.

Explain to me how MBTI Ni takes some of Jung's Ne.

3.) Detachment is only Ni. The idea of Ti being detachment is incorrect. Ti is logical consideration.

How is detachment only Ni? Even Jung describes the introverted types as being "detached" in varying ways. In fact, I would argue that Jung describes -all- types as being detached from something, as his main focus was on extreme cases where some sort of psychological condition could be observed.

4.) Te doesn't change much but it's effect does. 2nd function Te in INTps make their outward behavior/interaction energy efficient.

This just sounds silly...you're claiming that INTps are energy efficient because they have auxiliary Te? o.O.

Well for one, going by MBTI, if you are an INTP, you falsely believe that you need to work on Fe, when in fact, in Socionics theory, too much Fe can cause neurosis to INTps, making them develop disorders such as tics, OCD, depression and any other possible psychological disorders. So if your health is important to you and you are INTp, I'd like to think that you would not want to go around believing that MBTI is correct. What you do need, according to Socionics theory is more Se.

Where does MBTI say that you need to work on Fe? MBTI primarily states that you need to work on your auxiliary function, or Ne for INTPs. I just re-read the section of Gifts Differing on good type development and balancing, and the claim is that you should develop your auxiliary function, not necessarily Fe.

I agree, this is the main problem. It is what Meyers went through when assigning J/P to Jung's types, though introverts had it worse. She believed that what people demonstrate publicly (to show competence) is what they naturally are.

No. She believed this for extroverts, but not for introverts. For introverts, she believed that what is shown publicly is the auxiliary function. This could be very far off from what they "naturally are" if the auxiliary development is poor.

There is no concept of an alternate Ego in MBTI theory. When using Socionics, looking at an INTp, we see that he is normally in a state of Ni, actively behave with Te intents, and resort to the alternate ego of TiNe when demonstrating his worth, or right to be some-where doing some-thing.
From observation of his interaction in society, the character of INTP seems like a logical thinker, from this you then would say he is a thinker, and because he is introverted you would say dominant Ti. However the INTP is only 'extraverting'. When he goes home or drops back from interaction, Ni will take over.

Again, I have to disagree. When INTPs go out in public, one of two things generally occurs. On the one hand, they will space out and ignore whatever is going on because their Ne is poorly developed and they would rather attempt to focus on Ti or Si. If they cannot properly use Ne, then Fe will come out and they will openly exclaim their discomfort and issues with the situation.

On the other hand, with a well developed Ne, the INTP will "go with the flow" and appear happy and jovial, will be silly and upbeat, and will participate with whatever is going on in the group (with some limitations).

Yeesh, this was long and required a lot of research/recollection to respond to.

 

[EyeSeeCold]

Glordag, I'd happily respond to your post, but you are viewing this thread from a "MBTI is right, and I am here to disprove your presuppositions" position. I can already see that my responses would lead nowhere. The point of this thread is to present information and argue the faults that MBTI have and the accuracy that Socionics has for this community or anyone interested to gain a better understanding of ourselves as INTPs.

You presenting information from MBTI on why it is correct is regressive as that is the same information I am trying to refute! Lol. I ask you to look at MBTI and my information with skepticism, to synthesize for yourself the truth. It is not about disagreeing or agreeing, it is about questioning, clarity and understanding.

 

[EyeSeeCold]

MBTI View of the INTP character:
Logical->Intuitive->Sensing->Feeling
MBTI asserts that the INTP character is naturally introverted with logic, with intuition being secondary.

Socionics view of the INTP character:
Intuitive->Logical->Feeling->Sensing
Socionics asserts that this character is intuitive first and logical second.

Where is the difference? MBTI claims the character's logic is introverted, while Socionics claims that the character's intuition is introverted. How did these two systems reach different conclusions? Socionics observes introverts from their internal states and MBTI observes introverts from their external state. Two different ego's are exerted between introversion and extroversion. MBTI claims the extroversion ego is the natural ego. Socionics claims the introversion ego is the natural ego. This is where there is disagreement. If you can understand this, you are free to prefer any system you want.

 

[Glordag]

Glordag, I'd happily respond to your post, but you are viewing this thread from a "MBTI is right, and I am here to disprove your presuppositions" position. I can already see that my responses would lead nowhere. The point of this thread is to present information and argue the faults that MBTI have and the accuracy that Socionics has for this community or anyone interested to gain a better understanding of ourselves as INTPs.

You presenting information from MBTI on why it is correct is regressive as that is the same information I am trying to refute! Lol. I ask you to look at MBTI and my information with skepticism, to synthesize for yourself the truth. It is not about disagreeing or agreeing, it is about questioning, clarity and understanding.

How did I only represent my post from an MBTI standpoint? I referenced Jung several times, and clearly stated in several places my opinion that MBTI and Socionics are both valid, and that you shouldn't use one to try and prove anything about the other. My entire post was to try and point out each and every place that you were using the bias of your ideas to misrepresent MBTI and/or Jung. That's why I used quotes and references as much as possible, going back to Jung's Psychological Types and Myers' Gifts Differing.

Even if I was coming from a bias of "MBTI is right", it seems absurd to propose a discussion on "why MBTI is wrong" and then simply wave off arguments that MBTI is right because it is "biased".

Oh well. I made my points, that's your decision if you do not wish to address them. When you make claims like "Ti is not subjective, MBTI has this wrong", and then fail to address my direct quotes from Jung on introverted thinking being primarily subjective, I think that you're doing a great disservice to your point and ideas.

I don't think I have to say this, but no offense on any of this. You know by now that I appreciate and value your ideas, and anything I say or do is to further pursue truth .

 

[Glordag]

MBTI View of the INTP character:
Logical->Intuitive->Sensing->Feeling
MBTI asserts that the INTP character is naturally introverted with logic, with intuition being secondary.

Socionics view of the INTP character:
Intuitive->Logical->Feeling->Sensing
Socionics asserts that this character is intuitive first and logical second.

Where is the difference? MBTI claims the character's logic is introverted, while Socionics claims that the character's intuition is introverted. How did these two systems reach different conclusions? Socionics observes introverts from their internal states and MBTI observes introverts from their external state. Two different ego's are exerted between introversion and extroversion. MBTI claims the extroversion ego is the natural ego. Socionics claims the introversion ego is the natural ego. This is where there is disagreement. If you can understand this, you are free to prefer any system you want.

MBTI does not make the claims that you are stating it does. MBTI clearly says that the introvert's natural state is not the extroverted way that they interact with the world. Is it the introverted dominating function.

By your descriptions, it just sounds to me like, as many others have claimed, the P/J descriptors are flipped in the two systems. I'm sure it's not this simple, but it seems like an OK guideline.

Edit: I meant flipped for introverts, not all.

 

[EyeSeeCold]

MBTI does not make the claims that you are stating it does. MBTI clearly says that the introvert's natural state is not the extroverted way that they interact with the world. Is it the introverted dominating function.

By your descriptions, it just sounds to me like, as many others have claimed, the P/J descriptors are flipped in the two systems. I'm sure it's not this simple, but it seems like an OK guideline.

If you are not familiar with Jungian work on types, there are two more definitions that Jung used to describe his types - Judgement and Perception (Some sources call it Rationality /Irrationality , perhaps due to the differences in translation). All his eight types Jung divided into two groups. Judging types became all Thinking and all Feeling types, Perceiving types became all Sensing and all Intuitive types.

Judging types according to Jung:

Extraverted Thinking type
Introverted Thinking type
Extraverted Feeling type
Introverted Feeling type

Perceiving types according to Jung:

Extraverted Sensing type
Introverted Sensing type
Extraverted Intuitive type
Introverted Intuitive type

How could this have helped Myers? Simple, if a person scores as ENT (Extravert and Intuitive and Thinking) their type could be either Extraverted Intuitive type (Perceiving group), or Extraverted Thinking type (Judging group). Which one it is, would be defined by knowing if the type was Judging or Perceiving. So everything was already concluded in Jungian research. However the preference for Judgement/Perception was not explored by Jung in his work as well as all the other preferences, so Myers decided to come up with her own Judgement/Perception scale instead. She probably figured, if people use their preferred judging process to order the external (!) world - they are Judging types, but if they use their preferred perceiving process to experience the external (!) world - they are Perceiving types.

Have a look:

Jung: Sensing and Intuition are P functions, always!
Myers: Sensing and Intuition are P functions, but only if they are extraverted!
Socionics: Sensing and Intuition are P functions, always!

Jung: Thinking and Feeling are J functions, always!
Myers: Thinking and Feeling are J functions, but only if they are extraverted!
Socionics: Thinking and Feeling are J functions, always!

Maybe Jungian definition of J and P was not clear enough to be implemented practically at once, but what was absolutely clear is that Sensing and Intuitive types he called P and Thinking and Feeling types he called J.

Now let's have a look at the official MBTI correspondence between Jungian type and MBTI type:

JungMBTI theory:
Extraverted Thinking type ENTJ, ESTJ
Introverted Thinking type INTP, ISTP
Extraverted Feeling type ENFJ, ESFJ
Introverted Feeling type INFP, ISFP
Extraverted Sensing type ESFP, ESTP
Introverted Sensing type ISFJ, ISTJ
Extraverted Intuitive type ENFP, ENTP
Introverted Intuitive type INFJ, INTJ

This table clearly shows incompatibility between MBTI and the Jungian definition of J and P. According to Myers, Introverted Thinking and Introverted Feeling types appeared to be P instead of J, and Introverted Sensing and Introverted Intuitive types appeared to be J instead of P.

The core of the problem is in Myers deciding to connect J and P with the external world, even though Jung wrote that J and P are independent of E and I. The extrovert types apparently do not suffer just as bad from this mistake.

You are right. It certainly does lead to confusion! Myers used those words to designate which kind of function one prefers to use in the external world. So in Myers' model the J on the end of the code does not mean that one is a Judging type in the same way Jung meant it. It merely means that person's preferred judging process (T or F) is oriented toward the external world and implicitly this means that their preferred perceiving process is oriented toward the internal world. The dominant function is then indicated by the E or I at the beginning of the code. Thus, ENTJ, ESTJ, ESFJ, ENFJ, INTP, INFP, ISFP, and ISTP are all judging types which is consistent with Jung.

The result is:
Jungian introverted intuition->MBTI TiNe->Socionics INTp NiTe
Jungian introverted thinking->MBTI NiTe->Socionics INTj TiNe

 

[EvilScientist Trainee]

For me, it seems that now, the whole disagreement comes from a different view on functions by those systems.

I may be biased towards Socionics, but so far, EyeSeeCold's points make a lot of sense. The main problem is that most of us, including myself, have learned about Jung's work through MBTI terms, and thus, Socionics' different take on it just makes me confused.

And while MBTI has a broader library of topics for read, Socionics hasn't as much of that (At least not that i know, please inform me if there is). That makes finding further information a bit harder. Not sure if it makes sense to say, but Socionics came from Eastern europe, right? And MBTI came from america. Perhaps that's what gets on the way of opening more sources of knowledge on Socionics, as some of the material is in Russian/Lithuanian.

And that gap between MBTI's library and Socionics' one is what makes it a bit more difficult to be accepted. For it feels like faux amis: Even though the terms might be the same, the meaning is different.

My point is, how can we get clarity about the differences between we believe is Ti in MBTI and what is Ti by Socionics' terms? Once we have a grasp on that, it should be easier to discuss the differences between those two systems.

 

[Glordag]

If you are not familiar with Jungian work on types, there are two more definitions that Jung used to describe his types - Judgement and Perception (Some sources call it Rationality /Irrationality , perhaps due to the differences in translation). All his eight types Jung divided into two groups. Judging types became all Thinking and all Feeling types, Perceiving types became all Sensing and all Intuitive types.

Judging types according to Jung:

Extraverted Thinking type
Introverted Thinking type
Extraverted Feeling type
Introverted Feeling type

Perceiving types according to Jung:

Extraverted Sensing type
Introverted Sensing type
Extraverted Intuitive type
Introverted Intuitive type

Fair enough, and very true.

However the preference for Judgement/Perception was not explored by Jung in his work as well as all the other preferences, so Myers decided to come up with her own Judgement/Perception scale instead. She probably figured, if people use their preferred judging process to order the external (!) world - they are Judging types, but if they use their preferred perceiving process to experience the external (!) world - they are Perceiving types.

Have a look:

Jung: Sensing and Intuition are P functions, always!
Myers: Sensing and Intuition are P functions, but only if they are extraverted!
Socionics: Sensing and Intuition are P functions, always!

Jung: Thinking and Feeling are J functions, always!
Myers: Thinking and Feeling are J functions, but only if they are extraverted!
Socionics: Thinking and Feeling are J functions, always!

Maybe Jungian definition of J and P was not clear enough to be implemented practically at once, but what was absolutely clear is that Sensing and Intuitive types he called P and Thinking and Feeling types he called J.

Myers did not come up with her own judgement/perception scale. She directly pulled from Jung, using his own definitions and quotes. This is clearly spelled out in Chapter 2 of Gifts Differing. She also does not say that "Sensing and Intuition are P functions, but only if they are extraverted!" Rather, she says something akin to "Sensing and Intuition are always P functions, but one will see the J function displayed outwardly by introverts." Chapter 1 of Gifts Differing clearly spells out that the MBTI framework considers S and N as perceiving and T and F as judging in all cases.

Now let's have a look at the official MBTI correspondence between Jungian type and MBTI type:

JungMBTI theory:
Extraverted Thinking type ENTJ, ESTJ
Introverted Thinking type INTP, ISTP
Extraverted Feeling type ENFJ, ESFJ
Introverted Feeling type INFP, ISFP
Extraverted Sensing type ESFP, ESTP
Introverted Sensing type ISFJ, ISTJ
Extraverted Intuitive type ENFP, ENTP
Introverted Intuitive type INFJ, INTJ

This table clearly shows incompatibility between MBTI and the Jungian definition of J and P. According to Myers, Introverted Thinking and Introverted Feeling types appeared to be P instead of J, and Introverted Sensing and Introverted Intuitive types appeared to be J instead of P.

Agreed with the table, but where is the incompatibility? I see no disagreement here, considering Myers clearly stated that what an introvert often appears to be is not what they naturally are.

The core of the problem is in Myers deciding to connect J and P with the external world, even though Jung wrote that J and P are independent of E and I. The extrovert types apparently do not suffer just as bad from this mistake.

Where did Jung write that rational and irrational types are independent of E and I? In fact, he breaks them down into "introverted rational, introverted irrational, extraverted rational, extraverted irrational". That's about as far from "independent" as you can get...

Originally Posted by http://www.socionics.com/articles/mbti-2.htm
You are right. It certainly does lead to confusion! Myers used those words to designate which kind of function one prefers to use in the external world. So in Myers' model the J on the end of the code does not mean that one is a Judging type in the same way Jung meant it. It merely means that person's preferred judging process (T or F) is oriented toward the external world and implicitly this means that their preferred perceiving process is oriented toward the internal world. The dominant function is then indicated by the E or I at the beginning of the code. Thus, ENTJ, ESTJ, ESFJ, ENFJ, INTP, INFP, ISFP, and ISTP are all judging types which is consistent with Jung.

This seems to be stuffing a lot of words into Jung's mouth. I think that there has to be a lot of speculation when considering what Jung meant by rational and irrational. Myers provides compelling points as to why she interpreted Jung's ideas of rational and irrational the way she did, which is more than I can say for this quote.

Again, I see a lot of claims about "This is what MBTI says, and this is what Jung says, so MBTI is wrong!", yet I'm not sure where the claims are coming from.

 

[Words]

I find error in the definition of Te. This is due to the external orientation of Te, or the "e" in Te. As Te suggests judgement on the external level, it prompts manipulation in the external. It is, therefore, rightly the "application function". The standard of logic is extroverted, and as a result, the common base of judgement is empirical. This is very unlike Introverted Thinking wherein the standard relies on introversion, thus, opening the boundary of exploration, thus, impracticaliy, thus, "philosophical masturbation".

Ne does not materialize Ti as Ne is a perception function. That is, it is not meant to "materialize" or "manipulate", but to simply "perceive". It is Te which materializes Ni.

I go by my own definition of function via the use of Jung's general ideas, my deduction and my own observation.

 

[Glordag]

I go by my own definition of function via the use of Jung's general ideas, my deduction and my own observation.

Word(s)!

Sorry, couldn't resist...

 

[EyeSeeCold]

For me, it seems that now, the whole disagreement comes from a different view on functions by those systems.

Yes, which initially originated from a different opinion based on observations. So different perspectives=different description of function relations=different assignment of letters but the same observed behavior.

The main problem is that most of us, including myself, have learned about Jung's work through MBTI terms, and thus, Socionics' different take on it just makes me confused.

If you read Jung first then MBTI, I'm sure you'd object to the latter, it relies more on induction than Socionics.

And while MBTI has a broader library of topics for read, Socionics hasn't as much of that (At least not that i know, please inform me if there is). That makes finding further information a bit harder.

Yes, accessibility and novelty is an issue. Here is one site.

And that gap between MBTI's library and Socionics' one is what makes it a bit more difficult to be accepted. For it feels like faux amis: Even though the terms might be the same, the meaning is different.

The terms are slightly different, because their combinations(specifically Dominant-secondary) were perceived differently.

My point is, how can we get clarity about the differences between we believe is Ti in MBTI and what is Ti by Socionics' terms? Once we have a grasp on that, it should be easier to discuss the differences between those two systems.

http://www.wikisocion.org/en/index.php?title=Information_element
The problem areas are Ni and Ti.
In MBTI Ti means introspective and detached thinking, while still retaining logical qualities.
According to Jung and Socionics Ti is just the state of filtering everything through logic.

In MBTI Ni means having visions, or coming to conclusions through intuitive perceptions, i.e. the opposite of Ne. (this is explained as auxiliary Ne in Socionics)

In Socionics Ni is the estimation of the continuation of time and events according to their present states and trends. Possibilities based on trend.

 

[Fukyo]

After catching up on these responses, it still seems as though you are redefining things in your own terms that allow you to relate things back to what you feel you've observed.

If you're taking an MBTI type and then relating it to a Socionics definition to try and describe it as "incorrect", then you aren't proving anything other than the fact that they two systems have some disagreement.

/thread

 

[EyeSeeCold]

Ne does not materialize Ti as Ne is a perception function. That is, it is not meant to "materialize" or "manipulate", but to simply "perceive". It is Te which materializes Ni.

I go by my own definition of function via the use of Jung's general ideas, my deduction and my own observation.

Excellent observation. Thus the notion of TiNe for INTPs would be erroneous because their producing/secondary function is a perceiving function, thus they should be dominated by a perceiving function to be INT(P).

Myers did not come up with her own judgement/perception scale. She directly pulled from Jung, using his own definitions and quotes. This is clearly spelled out in Chapter 2 of Gifts Differing. She also does not say that "Sensing and Intuition are P functions, but only if they are extraverted!" Rather, she says something akin to "Sensing and Intuition are always P functions, but one will see the J function displayed outwardly by introverts." Chapter 1 of Gifts Differing clearly spells out that the MBTI framework considers S and N as perceiving and T and F as judging in all cases.

Myers declared dominant Si and Ni as judging types. This is incorrect according to Jung. Dominant Si and Ni types should still be perceiving types.

Agreed with the table, but where is the incompatibility? I see no disagreement here, considering Myers clearly stated that what an introvert often appears to be is not what they naturally are.

It's in the Ego/Alternate Ego or J/P. Looking at Jung, MBTI declares that all types with extraverted perception are P and all types with introverted perception are J. Socionics holds that dominant T/F is J and dominant S/N is P.

Where did Jung write that rational and irrational types are independent of E and I? In fact, he breaks them down into "introverted rational, introverted irrational, extraverted rational, extraverted irrational". That's about as far from "independent" as you can get...

Actually he hadn't assigned J/P yet, but still had the concept of perceiving and judging. Myers' assertion that types with extraverted perceives are P types steps over Jung.

This seems to be stuffing a lot of words into Jung's mouth. I think that there has to be a lot of speculation when considering what Jung meant by rational and irrational. Myers provides compelling points as to why she interpreted Jung's ideas of rational and irrational the way she did, which is more than I can say for this quote.

Again Jung never went into J/P letters. Myers' altered Jung's original concept in doing so. Socionics leaves Jung untouched, while building on top of that foundation. There is no J/P in Socionics either, it is just added for correlation. ILI = intuitive logical introvert = Socionics NiTe = MBTI TiNe

 

[Glordag]

Myers declared dominant Si and Ni as judging types. This is incorrect according to Jung. Dominant Si and Ni types should still be perceiving types.

Fine, I'll accept that she called dominant Si and Ni judging types, but she makes this very clear that it's only in dealing with the exterior world through their auxiliary function, which is not incorrect according to Jung. You're trying to rip apart MBTI's chosen method of categorizing the rational/irrational preference, but you're not being consistent. According to MBTI, Si and Ni would be interpreted as Jung's irrational, have a dominant perceiving function, and are typed as judging because they interact with the exterior world via a judging function. The fact that MBTI uses a consistent and readily observable convention to handle rational/irrational personality types shouldn't be a problem.

It's in the Ego/Alternate Ego or J/P. Looking at Jung, MBTI declares that all types with extraverted perception are P and all types with introverted perception are J. Socionics holds that dominant T/F is J and dominant S/N is P.

Great. What's the problem? MBTI chose to use J/P to represent how personality types interact with the world, while Socionics seems to use J/P to represent the dominant personality trait. Different strokes for differing folks, yeah? They are both valid ways to interpret Jung's use of rational/irrational.

Actually he hadn't assigned J/P yet, but still had the concept of perceiving and judging. Myers' assertion that types with extraverted perceives are P types steps over Jung.

Myers is very forward about admitting that Jung does not expand on the rational/irrational preference, and that she is extrapolating from what he did say about them using her own observations and research. I would argue that Socionics does the same thing, but I have little to go off of there until I delve into it further. Any system that tries to clamp down on a rigid definition of the rational/irrational preference is going to be stepping over Jung, whether that's MBTI, Socionics, or some other Jungian system.

Again Jung never went into J/P letters. Myers' altered Jung's original concept in doing so. Socionics leaves Jung untouched, while building on top of that foundation. There is no J/P in Socionics either, it is just added for correlation. ILI = intuitive logical introvert = Socionics NiTe = MBTI TiNe

Why is it that you can claim MBTI alters Jung's original concept by further expanding on the rational/irrational preference, but Socionics does not? I claim that they both alter Jung's original concept in one fashion or another.

 

[EyeSeeCold]

According to MBTI, Si and Ni would be interpreted as Jung's irrational, have a dominant perceiving function, and are typed as judging because they interact with the exterior world via a judging function. The fact that MBTI uses a consistent and readily observable convention to handle rational/irrational personality types shouldn't be a problem.

Agreed, it shouldn't be a problem. But there are so many hidden problems that result from it. One is the difference in meaning of inferior for Extraverts and Introverts. An extraverts inferior(due to them being unaffected), is a function they receive from others willingly. For introverts, the inferrior function is one they cannot tolerate from others. In interaction, MBTI FeSiNeTi and TiNeSiFe have a hidden conflict. The ESFJ accepts TiNe, but the INTP does not have the true essence of TiNe, it has the essence of NiTe, a pair that the ESFJ rejects, which is why there is conflict between the two.

Myers is very forward about admitting that Jung does not expand on the rational/irrational preference, and that she is extrapolating from what he did say about them using her own observations and research. I would argue that Socionics does the same thing, but I have little to go off of there until I delve into it further. Any system that tries to clamp down on a rigid definition of the rational/irrational preference is going to be stepping over Jung, whether that's MBTI, Socionics, or some other Jungian system.

Myers used induction to fill in J/P, Socionics uses deduction. If you understand logic, then it is apparent that anything Socionics explains is contained in essence by Jung's work but is just being extracted, not added.

 

[Glordag]

Agreed, it shouldn't be a problem. But there are so many hidden problems that result from it. One is the difference in meaning of inferior for Extraverts and Introverts. An extraverts inferior(due to them being unaffected), is a function they receive from others willingly. For introverts, the inferrior function is one they cannot tolerate from others. In interaction, MBTI FeSiNeTi and TiNeSiFe have a hidden conflict. The ESFJ accepts TiNe, but the INTP does not have the true essence of TiNe, it has the essence of NiTe, a pair that the ESFJ rejects, which is why there is conflict between the two.

I can think of many reasons consistent with MBTI that ESFJ and INTP generally conflict. Generalizing: ESFJ types are pushy and emotional, cannot see the implications of their actions, and have trouble giving people "alone space". INTPs are logical, do not easily cope with feelings in other people, and need personal time to let their Ti process effectively.

Myers used induction to fill in J/P, Socionics uses deduction. If you understand logic, then it is apparent that anything Socionics explains is contained in essence by Jung's work but is just being extracted, not added.

Really? Truly? I'm not even sure how to respond to this one, so I'll just leave it be.

 

[EyeSeeCold]

I can think of many reasons consistent with MBTI that ESFJ and INTP generally conflict. Generalizing: ESFJ types are pushy and emotional, cannot see the implications of their actions, and have trouble giving people "alone space". INTPs are logical, do not easily cope with feelings in other people, and need personal time to let their Ti process effectively.

That's being inductive though. It does not explain why ESFJs cannot adapt to INTPs or why INTPs cannot adapt to ESFJs. Regardless of personality it is because each one's psyche is programmed differently.

Really? Truly? I'm not even sure how to respond to this one, so I'll just leave it be.

Yes. The concepts proposed in Socionics Theory strictly remain within the confines of Jungian typology through deductive reasoning.

 

[Glordag]

That's being inductive though. It does not explain why ESFJs cannot adapt to INTPs or why INTPs cannot adapt to ESFJs. Regardless of personality it is because each one's psyche is programmed differently.

What? ESFJs and INTPs can adapt to each other. It's just a matter of understanding the differences and learning to compromise.

We're dealing with observed behavior and trying to pin down why this occurs. By the very nature of the discipline, this is GOING to be inductive. We are going to have to fill in some blanks somewhere. That' just how it works.

Yes. The concepts proposed in Socionics Theory strictly remain within the confines of Jungian typology through deductive reasoning.

I think it's absurd to claim that Socionics derives from Jungian theory in a strictly deductive manner while MBTI does not. Just my two cents, but you clearly are of a different opinion.

 

[Fukyo]

Yes. The concepts proposed in Socionics Theory strictly remain within the confines of Jungian typology through deductive EyeSeeCold's reasoning.

That's much better now.

I actually wonder if you've ever read Jung's original function definitions from "Psychological Types" and if you realize Jung had no conception of functional hierarchy or the 16 types at that point, much less one that coincided with Socionics.

The actual wikipedia article says that socionics is a modification of Jung's work on Psychological Types and Antoni Kępiński's theory of information metabolism.

Therefore it does not remain within the confines of Jungian typology. It branches off into a different direction as did the MBTI.

I am of the opinion that neither MBTI nor Socionics gave justice to Jung.

 

[Glordag]

That's much better now.

I actually wonder if you've ever read Jung's original function definitions from "Psychological Types" and if you realize Jung had no conception of functional hierarchy or the 16 types at that point, much less one that coincided with Socionics.

The actual wikipedia article says that socionics is a modification of Jung's work on Psychological Types and Antoni Kępiński's theory of information metabolism.

Therefore it does not remain within the confines of Jungian typology. It branches off into a different direction as did the MBTI.

I am of the opinion that neither MBTI nor Socionics gave justice to Jung.

It's crazy to think that this is only a very small piece of the entirety of Jung's work. Also, where is that avatar from? I want to stare at it for hours.

 

[Polaryclipse]

It sounds like what's being tested here is whether, in all three systems, the type "INTP" always implies the same set of functions. Question: Does a type always imply a *single* set of functions? If I'm an INTP who identifies with NiTe, could there also be an INTP who identifies with TiNe? Or would that be a contradiction in terms, so that only one of us is a "true" INTP and we would have to decide which one?

If INTP always represents a single set of functions, then any disagreement between the systems over which set of functions it represents can be viewed as a difference of semantics. Say Myers seems to be associating a certain function set with "INTP" while Jung labels the same set "INTJ" (whether this is actually happening has been the debate so far). This matters because to associate the same type with two different sets of functions when it's only supposed to imply one can lead to misunderstanding.

But if an INTP could identify with either function set and still be an INTP, then any ambiguity that might exist between the systems actually becomes an advantage: it leaves room for finer type variations. Both the INTP-Ni and the INTP-Te, if they exist, could find in all of the systems information about their type and function--perhaps independently of each other--that would apply to them in a valid, useful, and increasingly specific way. (Disadvantage: type no longer strictly implies function, and so the common vocabulary breaks down in a different way.)

 

[EyeSeeCold]

What? ESFJs and INTPs can adapt to each other. It's just a matter of understanding the differences and learning to compromise.

We're dealing with observed behavior and trying to pin down why this occurs. By the very nature of the discipline, this is GOING to be inductive. We are going to have to fill in some blanks somewhere. That' just how it works.

Yes, the source will always be based on empirical evidence, granted. But what I mean by adaptation is the alteration of behavior once and for all. It is not possible. The naturally judgmental and assuming character of ESFJ will eventually collide with the INTP way of deductive reasoning and intellectual independence. Even if both parties were aware of their differences, they could be irritated by mere presence.

I actually wonder if you've ever read Jung's original function definitions from "Psychological Types" and if you realize Jung had no conception of functional hierarchy or the 16 types at that point, much less one that coincided with Socionics.

Yes, I have. Jung's original 8 types and 4 functions were split into 8 functions by Jung's dichotomies. This gave Augusta 16 types to work with.

The actual wikipedia article says that socionics is a modification of Jung's work on Psychological Types and Antoni Kępiński's theory of information metabolism.

Therefore it does not remain within the confines of Jungian typology. It branches off into a different direction as did the MBTI.

I am of the opinion that neither MBTI nor Socionics gave justice to Jung.

Then let me reiterate. The Socionics theory builds of Jung's work. MBTI builds of a modification of Jung's work. One left the frame intact, the other switched the material.

 

[dark]

Found a very cool profile type on socionics website etc, has very funny descriptions.

http://www.socionics.com/prof/prof.htm

 

[EyeSeeCold]

It sounds like what's being tested here is whether, in all three systems, the type "INTP" always implies the same set of functions. Question: Does a type always imply a *single* set of functions? If I'm an INTP who identifies with NiTe, could there also be an INTP who identifies with TiNe? Or would that be a contradiction in terms, so that only one of us is a "true" INTP and we would have to decide which one?

It is not being contested, it is already known that there is a discrepancy. If you identify with MBTI NiTe, then you'd identify somewhat with Socionics TiNe. 'Somewhat' because observational descriptions do not exactly correlate. If 'true' means 'according to Jung', INTPs by listed function order should have the letters of INTJ.

If INTP always represents a single set of functions, then any disagreement between the systems over which set of functions it represents can be viewed as a difference of semantics. Say Myers seems to be associating a certain function set with "INTP" while Jung labels the same set "INTJ" (whether this is actually happening has been the debate so far). This matters because to associate the same type with two different sets of functions when it's only supposed to imply one can lead to misunderstanding.

Spot on, although Jung did not assign J/P.

But if an INTP could identify with either function set and still be an INTP, then any ambiguity that might exist between the systems actually becomes an advantage: it leaves room for finer type variations. Both the INTP-Ni and the INTP-Te, if they exist, could find in all of the systems information about their type and function--perhaps independently of each other--that would apply to them in a valid, useful, and increasingly specific way. (Disadvantage: type no longer strictly implies function, and so the common vocabulary breaks down in a different way.)

If an MBTI INTP realizes where the discrepancy lies, he can in theory, find his true type in both systems and gain a better understanding, I agree. This is what I have done and what I am trying to help curious members do themselves.

post

 

[Glordag]

Yes, the source will always be based on empirical evidence, granted. But what I mean by adaptation is the alteration of behavior once and for all. It is not possible. The naturally judgmental and assuming character of ESFJ will eventually collide with the INTP way of deductive reasoning and intellectual independence. Even if both parties were aware of their differences, they could be irritated by mere presence.

Sure, and one would expect this to happen from the MBTI framework, as well.

Then let me reiterate. The Socionics theory builds of Jung's work. MBTI builds of a modification of Jung's work. One left the frame intact, the other switched the material.

Back to playing guitar.

 

[EyeSeeCold]

If your goal was to understand Socionics, I urge you to continue your questions. Otherwise I will be given the impression that your actions here were not of the intent to understand, in which case, I wasted my time, but effort, no. Any attempt at universal intelligence is a good one.

 

[Glordag]

My intent was less to understand Socionics and more to understand why you find MBTI to be flawed. That said, these discussions have furthered my knowledge of Socionics, peaked my curiosity, and gotten me to go back and read more of my Jung. So, cheers.

 

[Fukyo]

My intent was less to understand Socionics and more to understand why you find MBTI to be flawed.

I went to Wikisocion to refresh my memory and verify my doubts, and I'm pretty much certain he's taken liberties in re-defining the terms to conform to his ideas, which to the best of my impression diverge.

Introverted Intuition on Wikisocison

vs

The MBTI Introverted Intuition

Read them and compare. They are nearly identical.

This invalidates the claim that the sociotype ILI is the equivalent of MBTI INTP. If the ILI has the Ni described above, he's an Ni dominant in MBTI too.