4th dichotomy is wrong

[Artsu Tharaz]

So I've seen a criticism brought up that MBTI got the J/P dichotomy wrong, since then you have dominant judging Ps and that makes no sense. I couldn't see the logic behind such an argument, as it seemed like a mere definitional problem that could easily be overlooked, however I currently do not believe this to be the case.

It seems to me that J/P really should refer to whether the first function is perception based or judgement based, as this is implicit to the Je+Pi vs Ji+Pe division that was being used.

Thus, the Ti-Ne as we know it should really be INTJ, and Ni-Fe INFP etc.

I don't believe socionics to have gotten this correct either, because they seemed to be confused about which type they were referring to with this dichotomy and thus could not properly discern the differences.

The type listings being developed currently are likely to represent the true divisions, to within statistically acceptable ranges. The primary dichotomies are different however.

I/E = energy away from vs. towards the objective (and similarly towards or away from the subject)
N/S = a tendency to focus on the aspect of [interpreted] vs [literal] worlds of percetion
F/T = a tendency to focus on [values] vs [logic] based judgements
J/P = whether the "dominant" is Judgement or Perception, and likewise whether the auxiliary is Perception of Judgement.

Actually, J/P is not perception dominant/judgement auxiliary per se. Rather, it is of the exact same nature as I/E, in that it is about where the energy flows. In I energy is from world to self, in E it is self to world, in P it is judgement to perception, in J it is perception to judgement (same linguistic formula throughout, thus making them equivalent dichotomies). Presumably, T is about group to self/values to logic, in F it is about self to group/logic to values, in N it is about qualia to idea, in S it is about idea to qualia.

Also, just as we refer to the process of self to world as introversion, we refer to the process of perception to judgement as discernment (question: what is the process of judgement to perception called? I think I used to know, but now I've forgotten).

This makes more sense than how we were using J and P before, so I think this is a better notation to use.

The problem is that this now becomes an Ni-Te forum. O. Welles.

 

[Words]

J/P dichotomy is a separate idea. It's an emergent property brought by given sets of functions. It does not affect functions, it is caused by functions.

J/P = whether the "dominant" is Judgement or Perception, and likewise whether the auxiliary is Perception of Judgement.

source? I'm pretty sure MBTI defines it as "tendency to decide quickly or slowly."

 

[Artsu Tharaz]

source? I'm pretty sure MBTI defines it as "tendency to decide quickly or slowly."

Really? But I thought it was defined by the sets of functions, like you said.

However I believe it is pointing to the wrong functions, and is thus a false dichotomy (rather it forms quadrants, where a 180' flip puts you with the same functions but with a different hierarchy). The real dichotomy is whether the type is judgement first or perception first, and by combining with introversion/extroversion, we obtain the for Temperaments (Worldview, Dynamics, Compass, Stimulus).

 

[Artsu Tharaz]

The dichotomy levels now flow like this:

0: Population as a whole
1: I/E, N/S, F/T, perception dominant/judgement dominant
2: 4 Jungian Rational sides, 4 Jungian Irrational Sides, 4 Temperaments, 4 Clubs, 4 Perception types, 4 Judgement types
3: 8 Jungian combined types, 8 function orders, 8 perception types, 8 judgement types
4: 16 Types as individuals

Obviously, level 2 and 3 are internally co-dependent. Given two complientary 2nd level classifications, a unique type is given. So is taking one 3rd and one 1st (and so too is taking the 4th and the 0th, trivially).

So depending on what kind of type analysis you are doing, you will want to partition off a types fundamental dichotomies into two subsets to get a clearer look at what is going on.

Interesting: there are 2^n group types at each level, and 4!/(n!(4-n!))*2^n total divisions at each level.

 

[naama]

Its just a way to categorize types. it doesent matter if we would categorize type based on their tert/inferior. like TiNeSiFe would be marked as ISFJ.

or if we use Ti ￦, Ne ¥, Si £, Fe ®, Te ¿, Ni °, Fi ¡, Se §

Which would make INTP ￦¥£® ISFJ £©￦¥ ENTJ ¿°§¡ etc.

You cant say that this is wrong, its just an alternative way of writing the function code, just like for MBTI INTP is code for TiNeSiFe. now if i would popularize this TiNeSiFe type being ￦¥£® and people would use my way of writing the type, you couldnt say that my way is wrong, you could just say its different from MBTI or socionics..

 

[Artsu Tharaz]

I'm not talking about the letters used, I'm talking about the dichotomies used.

 

[naama]

I'm not talking about the letters used, I'm talking about the dichotomies used.

Dichtonomy is just a letter that we give meaning to and letters are just symbols like i used

 

[Artsu Tharaz]

I know. I am talking about the meaning, not the symbol.

 

[naama]

I know. I am talking about the meaning,ot the symbol.

The meaning is functions code. for MBTI I is symbol fod dom function being introverted, N being that first or second function is intuition, T that first or second function is thinking, P that strongest perceiving function(N in this case) is extraverted. For socionics its the same except that P doesent symbolize the orientation of P function, but whether P function is first or not.

Neither is right or wrong, both just have an alternative meaning to one symbol. ofc you can say that you prefer writing type one way or another, but its just an opinion, not a matter or right and wrong/true or false..

 

[Bird]

This is a circular argument. Reassess and respond with
something worthwhile.

 

[Artsu Tharaz]

All arguments are circular. Certain questions can be asked continuously to periodically extract new insight. In this case, anyone who sees the relevance to the notion of a fundamental dichotomy will realise the inherentness of the nature of the dominant as more fundamental than whether one is directive or adaptive - a division which occurs only on the second level, and results in a quadrant division.

Bird, is your dominant function judging (new INFJ) or perceiving (new INFP)?

 

[Bird]

Why are you asking me here Artsu?

 

[Artsu Tharaz]

Why are you asking me here Artsu?

It's rhetorical for the purposes of the thread.

The point is that, despite seeming like nothing is going on, such a change in perspective means all introverts have to re-evaulate if they are J or P.

MBTI getting it wrong has caused a lot of confusion over type. I believe part of remedying this problem means changing the fourth dichotomy.

 

[naama]

My point is that because this difference in what J and P means isnt a difference in context, both are equally true, they are just looking at the truth from different perspective. and because both perspectives are true(as they have the same context), its just a matter of opinion which perspective to truth you prefer. and because its just a matter of opinion, not a matter of true vs wrong, you cant say that P being an indication of extraversion of N/S is wrong, as its just a different perspective to same truth, some people prefer one perspective and other prefer a different perspective. both are right since the context is the same, even tho the perspective changes.

 

[Artsu Tharaz]

You're right actually, and I agree. It is a matter of perspective.

I had the perspective where P = Ne/Se in top two etc.

From this, I was led to the conclusion that there is a second function model which works along side the MBTI functions, as well as a third tier of functions which give rise to "plugs" for various kinds of information, especially in types where either three or both inner or outer letters are switched, as well as an overarching dichotomy which splits the whole population into two sub-populations.

Taking P/J as Perception dominant/Judgement dominant makes everything so much simpler, and should be the basis for tests, profiles, etc.

However, I nonetheless will retain a certain fondness for the model in which Directive/Adaptive is a first tier dichotomy.

 

[naama]

But if you use MBTI way of writing type, you got some advantages over socions way. for example if you think about MBTI ENTP and INTP, both of them use same function, but dom and aux are other way around. then if you look at the same function types as written in socionics, they would be ENTP and INTJ. TiNeSiFe is similar personality to NeTiFeSi, so it makes more sense to write the type more similar way.

But you can come up with arguments for both ways making more sense. -> there are pros and cons to both, so neither makes all sense, but both are flawed. thays why i prefer jungian way of MBTI INTP being introverted thinking type with intuition or Ti(N). but because they are all same thing i dont mind using other ways of expressing what functions someone uses.

If you talk with someone who only speaks spanish, you want to speak spanish to him(that is if you know how to)..

 

[Artsu Tharaz]

No, look again.

ENTP is Ne Ti
INTP is Ti Ne

That means the ENTP is a perception dominant, extrovert
The "INTP" is a judgement dominant introvert

They are different on both sides.

Thus, NaiXyy -should- correlate to INFP, and ZaiNyy to INTJ etc. however INFP = Ni Fe and INTJ = Ti Ne.

Thus this should be a forum for Nai'Zyy, not Zai'Nyy.

 

[naama]

But

INTJ NiTe
ENTP NeTi

they have different function orientations, not just different ordering like with ENTP and INTP

My point isnt to argue which is right, my point is that both are right. like if you say kissa in finnish and cat in english, they are both right, just a different way of expressing the same thing, so as long as the both are expressing the same thing, both are right.

If i talk about typology in socionics forum, ill say that INTP is NiTeFiSe. if i talk about animals with someone who is english, ill use the word cat.

Words are totally meaningless code for expressing something, the only thing that has the meaning is the context. no word is right or wrong, its just about whether the person you are talking to understands the word.

You are looking at pros in socions way of expressing thw function code, why would it be better than jungian way? i can always argue that some way is better than another, but whats it actually about is whether someone else understands what you say.

If we would use the symbols ¢ for Ti and § for Ne. we could just use ¢§ for INTP and §¢ for ENTP. this sort of type code would make much more sense in many ways, its shorter and more efficient. and because people need to learn what Ne and Ti is, we could just teach then the same concept of the functions, but call them ¢§ from the beginning, so this wouldnt even be any more complicated thing to learn, it would actually be much simpler way of learning the whole type code and what it stands for.

Because then ¢§ INTP and INTJ would be the exact same thing, but ¢§ being the superior one. why would we decide to use socionics over this? its simply because if you talk to someone who have learned INTP being TiNeSiFe, you want to choose INTP over ¢§, because thats the language code he understands the best.

 

[Artsu Tharaz]

Socionics itself can be interpreted in two ways. Some say the functions switch from MBTI, others say they don't. Both are right from different perspectives, though they lead to very different models. I guess you could even drop Introversion/Extroversion and use dominant function and directive/adaptive instead to get a third perspective.

 

[EyeSeeCold]

J/P dichotomy is a separate idea. It's an emergent property brought by given sets of functions. It does not affect functions, it is caused by functions.

Jung presented Psychological Function Attitudes/Orientations in Psychological Types. J/P, in terms of the 4 letter code, was added after-the-fact, is not Jung's original conception, and does indeed affect functions. Both what we can understand about them, and how they work in the system of typology/MBTI have been affected by the new dichotomy.

 

[Words]

J/P, in terms of the 4 letter code, was added after-the-fact, is not Jung's original conception, and does indeed affect functions. Both what we can understand about them, and how they work in the system of typology/MBTI have been affected by the new dichotomy.

you're going to have to provide reason for that, because, to me, it's obvious that J/P is simply describing the tendency brought about by the 'order of functions'(dominant, inferior etc.), which was already mentioned by Jung.

Only an inferior feeling-function, operating
seductively [p. 439] and unconsciously, could bring about such aberrations in otherwise reputable men. -psycho types

 

[Obrens]

The real question here is this:

"tendency to decide quickly or slowly."

Caution! I am repeating myself a lot because I want to be sure you understand what I mean.
Are IxxJ types more organized, decide quicker etc. than IxxP types? If so, then the MBTI is good. If it's the other way around, then it's bad. If this is not true, then it would mean that EJ and IP types are more organized than EP and IJ. And that is too complicated. So in my opinion the right notation is the one in witch J is always the organized and P always the disorganized type. The real question then is: Are introverts whose aux function is judging more organized than those whose dom function is judging?
Online MBTI test which I did try to figure out your J/P preference based on whether you are organized etc, not based on your use of functions. So I can say for certain I am an I and a P. Which leaves me with the question: Is my aux function P, like MBTI says, or is it actually the dom, like you suggest here. Later I also did a function use test which says my best function is thinking, than intuition and then other. So if I'm to judge by my results, the MBTI is right.

 

[EyeSeeCold]

you're going to have to provide reason for that, because, to me, it's obvious that J/P is simply describing the tendency brought about by the 'order of functions'(dominant, inferior etc.), which was already mentioned by Jung.

I've demonstrated it many times the nature of the dichotomies and what Myers & Briggs have done to them. It's really a matter of fact.


The developers of Socionics decided to use a Three-Letter Code to represent types, and due to the nature of the approach, there was no J/P problem to encounter.

The first letter determines N, S, T, or F.
The second letter determines the auxiliary, N or S, if T/F; T or F, if N/S.
The third letter determines direction of function energy: Introversion or Extraversion.

Thus if we combined Intuition-Thinking(Logic)-Extravert, the type is ILE(NeTi) and an Irrational type. It would also be Perceiving because the nature of dominant Irrationality is what Jung called a Perceiving type, the same logic applies for Rationality and Judging. The equivalent MBTI type would be ENTP, acknowledged by some Socionists by denoting ILE as ENTp.

In MBTI, there is a Four Letter Code, but it does not abide by the proclamation that the Base function determines the overall attitude of Judging or Perceiving. Myers & Briggs approached typology in a way I can't really understand and somehow decided that they needed another dimension to discern which types are Judging or Perceiving. This was already accounted for and was truly superfluous.

Lifestyle: judgment/perception (J/P)
Myers and Briggs added another dimension to Jung's typological model by identifying that people also have a preference for using either the judging function (thinking or feeling) or their perceiving function (sensing or intuition) when relating to the outside world (extraversion).

This naturally should be an NiTe forum, for the INTPs here are Irrational and Perceiving.

 

[Artsu Tharaz]

The fourth dichotomy was for testing purposes. Tests operate by way of Option A, Option B, thus they needed a fourth dichotomy apart from dominant I or E, presence of N or S in top two, presence of F or T in top to, and a fourth one.

However, a new problem is that N/S and F/T are not equivalent dichotomies either, in that they are influenced by J/P and idk, whatever. It seems like we could just go I/E, N/S, F/T, (F/T)/(N/S)

 

[Words]

The developers of Socionics decided to use a Three-Letter Code to represent types, and due to the nature of the approach, there was no J/P problem to encounter.

How is it a problem?

The first letter determines N, S, T, or F.
The second letter determines the auxiliary, N or S, if T/F; T or F, if N/S.
The third letter determines direction of function energy: Introversion or Extraversion.

Thus if we combined Intuition-Thinking(Logic)-Extravert, the type is ILE(NeTi) and an Irrational type. It would also be Perceiving because the nature of dominant Irrationality is what Jung called a Perceiving type, the same logic applies for Rationality and Judging. The equivalent MBTI type would be ENTP, acknowledged by some Socionists by denoting ILE as ENTp.

In MBTI, there is a Four Letter Code, but it does not abide by the proclamation that the Base function determines the overall attitude of Judging or Perceiving. Myers & Briggs approached typology in a way I can't really understand and somehow decided that they needed another dimension to discern which types are Judging or Perceiving. This was already accounted for and was truly superfluous.


This naturally should be an NiTe forum, for the INTPs here are Irrational and Perceiving.

Pure semantics. I can sense that your epistemology is centered on "Jung said x" and this is neither coherent nor empirical. It's simply an appeal to the semantics of an authority. It's like your protecting the supposed "original meaning" of Da Vinci's Mona Lisa.

Though, perhaps I could understand the practicality of it in terms of wanting to easily reference Jung or something, which, again, doesn't equate to truth.

 

[EyeSeeCold]

How is it a problem?

Problem as in there is a flaw in the system under the hood that is very well hidden. Many theories have flaws, right, but this is one that can be easily repaired and was due to unnecessary tampering from the start.

Pure semantics. I can sense that your epistemology is centered on "Jung said x" and this is neither coherent nor empirical. It's simply an appeal to the semantics of an authority. It's like your protecting the supposed "original meaning" of Da Vinci's Mona Lisa.

Though, perhaps I could understand the practicality of it in terms of wanting to easily reference Jung or something, which, again, doesn't equate to truth.

It is not pure semantics. Jungian theory lays down the principles and empirical substance for typological theory and MBTI is the system adapted from that. Two things are important here: (1) they both refer to something extant and (2) MBTI depends on Jungian theory's validity.

(1) is important because the reference to something extant necessitates that both theories can and do coexist, if they do indeed purport the same ideas about reality. The thing is - MBTI is its own theory, so (1) seems to be irrelevant which leads to (2). MBTI is an adaptation, not a completely original work, and its developers used Jungian theory on which to base their claims on. If they misconstrue their source, in an effort to build their on work, then the new concepts they have tacked on and developed from the old are shown to have been done erroneously and inaccurately.

It's interesting to note Pod'lair developers picked up on this and added Adaptive/Directive, which was an attempt to restore Irrational/Rational to their original designations of Perceiving/Judging.

 

[Artsu Tharaz]

Check this:

Ni = 13, Ne = 3, Se = 3, Si = 5

Fe = 5, Fi = 3, Ti = 3, Te = 1

Pi = 18, Pe = 6, Je = 6, Ji = 6

N = 16, S = 8, F = 8, T = 4

Pi + Ji = 24, Pe + Je = 12

Pi + Pe = 24, Pe + Ji = 24

Pi + Je = 24, Pe + Ji = 12

Ni + Se = 16, Ne + Si = 8

Ni + Ne = 16, Si + Se = 8

Fe + Ti = 8, Fi + Te = 4

Fe + Fi = 8, Te + Ti = 4

Fe + Te = 6, Fi + Ti = 6