Socionic's Reversal of J/P for Introverts

[TriflinThomas]

Socionics reverses the J/P lettering (e.g.: INTP (MBTI) = INTJ (Soc.)), but not for extroverts (e.g.: ENFJ (MBTI) = ENFJ (Soc.)). At first, it made sense to me because Js would always have a judging function first, likewise with Ps. But, I was thinking that it also doesn't make sense. Here's why, talking to someone other than yourself is extroversion, correct? So, you can't be a judger if your first functions is a Ji function, because you cannot extrovert with Ji regardless of whether it's first or second (e.g.: INTPs aren't judgers because Ti cannot extrovert itself, they show Ne to the world and that's what makes INTPs perceivers). Which lettering is correct? MBTI or Socionics? Or is my line of thinking totally off track?

 

[Words]

I don't even see why people are so uptight about this. I think it holds little implication that would be helpful in actual understanding. It's an issue of semantics and the pointless desire to make things systematic even if it has no reflection on reality.

talking to someone other than yourself is extroversion, correct?

Talking to someone involves the use of many functions, both introverted and extroverted.

So, you can't be a judger if your first functions is a Ji function, because you cannot extrovert with Ji regardless of whether it's first or second (e.g.: INTPs aren't judgers because Ti cannot extrovert itself, they show Ne to the world and that's what makes INTPs perceivers).

"Bullshit." That's one way of Ti "extroverting" itself. It's an indirect manifestation but it is still the sort of behavior/statement Ti-types tend to respond with when confronted with a baseless statement.

my line of thinking totally off track?

I "judge" this.

 

[SkyWalker]

You guys use "extraverting" while you should have said "judging"

To set things straight...

(1)
Extraversion is NOT the same as speaking/talking
Introversion is NOT the same as listening

(2)
Judgement = output = talking/speaking/acting/doing (or stepwise internal output within your brain, which did not come out yet, so sometimes not visible outside yet, just internally cycled output)
Perception = input = listening/viewing

(3)
Perception first (in function ordering) = Preference for more input before outputting (output follows input). Like looking really well where to throw the ball in the world and then throwing it after some time at exactly the right moment.
Judgement first (in function ordering) = Preference for output first, and letting the input follow (input follows output). Like throwing a ball into the world blindly and letting the world follow the result of the throw.

(4)
The correct way? Best is to burn all 4-letter-combinations (MBTI and socionics) and define types only by first 2 functions, like Ti-Ne. So less newbies and dummies will get lost

 

[redbaron]

I don't really like Socionics, but I do think that MBTI should switch the J/P label around based on dominant function, not just the first extroverted function in a stack.

Copy paste from another thread I posted in:

There is a problem I see with this, which is that EJ and IP are actually closely related. Same with EP and IJ.

To explain, the P/J function is not relevant to your dominant function, but your most dominant extroverted function. So for an INTP, we are labelled as 'P' because our dominant extroverted function is Ne - N/S being perceiving functions. T/F are the judging.

Really, our dominant function of Ti is a J function. And I think it's fair to say that INTP's are in general very serious and structured internally.

INTJ, as similar as they seem in functions to an ENTJ, are not as similar as someone might think. How an ENTJ thinks externally is similar to how an INTP thinks internally.

I actually feel as though the current MBTI J/P should be reversed, and based on the actual dominant function for introverts. It is more accurate to call an INTP an INTJ and vice-versa, because it would then reflect more accurately the actual nature of the introverted personality instead of just how they act externally.

 

[own8ge]

@Words
I totally agree, as anyone should.

If only there would be more of you in the world...

 

[snafupants]

The information elements in Socionics are almost too expansive but I enjoy the fourfold functional breakdown (ego, super-ego, etc.) of Model A; concomitantly, I appreciate that Socionics focuses on relationships and eight individual functions. Socionics seems more committed to adumbrating an information processing model and discrete phenomenological modalities or reality lenses, perhaps along the lines of Jungian differentiation. At any rate, folks can argue about which system is the more faithful adaptation of Jung's work but I view that debate as largely missing the point. Here's an example of how the ego block or first dyad operates in people.

The Ego block functions imply a certain perspective or set of values since they are the most preferred approaches to solving life problems, giving advice, and achieving one's goals. The individual wants to see society become more like himself and wants to instill his personal philosophy or values in his work activities, his living space, and the people around him. For a person to feel needed and fulfilled, he has to see that his unique perspective is making a difference somewhere. The areas where a person is most likely to make a difference correspond to the Ego block elements. They are called Ego exactly because they are so naturally identified with one's own perspective, ideals, and identity.

 

[EyeSeeCold]

I don't even see why people are so uptight about this. I think it holds little implication that would be helpful in actual understanding. It's an issue of semantics and the pointless desire to make things systematic even if it has no reflection on reality.

Semantics deals with the meaning of words. J/P is actually a systemic issue; it affects the outcome of types and the principles of typology.

As for the implications, it's plain to see that such a thing would produce different perspectives about typology.

(4)
The correct way? Best is to burn all 4-letter-combinations (MBTI and socionics) and define types only by first 2 functions, like Ti-Ne. So less newbies and dummies will get lost

Sure the first two functions would be okay, but Socionics has already covered that with the 3 letter code.

ILE NeTi - Intuitive-Logical-Extravert* (perceiving is implied by the first function)
ESI FiSe - Ethical-Sensory-Introvert* (judging is implied by the first function)
LIE TeNi - Logical-Intuitive-Extravert
SEI SiFe - Sensory-Ethical-Introvert

* It uses Introtim/Extrotim, but for the purposes of this thread they basically indicate the same thing.

 

[Words]

Semantics deals with the meaning of words. J/P is actually a systemic issue; it affects the outcome of types and the principles of typology.

My point is that it's too theoretical; it's too contained inside an already artificial/arbitrary system. It's one of those mental traps theorists enter in: theory building data instead of data building theory.

As for the implications, it's plain to see that such a thing would produce different perspectives about typology.

Well it's certainly is not plain to me. I think the approach is completely misleading in the first place. I think it's missing the point.

 

[EyeSeeCold]

My point is that it's too theoretical; it's too contained inside an already artificial/arbitrary system. It's one of those mental traps theorists enter in: theory building data instead of data building theory.

Well it's certainly is not plain to me. I think the approach is completely misleading in the first place. I think it's missing the point.

Missing what point?

 

[InvisibleJim]

It shouldn't have any impact if you follow the church of jung.

 

[Words]

Missing what point?

My point is that it's too theoretical; it's too contained inside an already artificial/arbitrary system. It's one of those mental traps theorists enter in: theory building data instead of data building theory.

It's a pointless fixation on a haphazard model.

 

[EyeSeeCold]

My point is that it's too theoretical; it's too contained inside an already artificial/arbitrary system. It's one of those mental traps theorists enter in: theory building data instead of data building theory.

It's a pointless fixation on a haphazard model.

What point is being missed though ?

How is it arbitrary*?

How is coming to vastly different perspectives about a system and the concepts not an issue?


*To the extent that it's unlike everything else that's arbitrary

 

[Words]

How is it arbitrary*?

*To the extent that it's unlike everything else that's arbitrary

Because unlike true theories, MBTI and Socionics has low reference to reality. No true data that supports them.

People who are early exposed to this assume the system without investigation on what the elements exactly are. They assume that from the order of things, they can achieve an understanding of the elements. The problem is that the supposed "order of things" is only a premature model meant to only assist. There is no exact pinpointing of "this is Carbon, this is Hydrogen and this is the electron configuration etc."

How is coming to vastly different perspectives about a system and the concepts not an issue?

Because it shouldn't be about the system/naming; it should be about the reality. It should be about theory-building; not theory-conforming. It does not matter if you have an internally consistent system if its an innacurate system in the first place.

But I'm guessing you're talking about the meaning of "J" conventionally and how that assists people in understanding what "J" means.

 

[EyeSeeCold]

Because unlike true theories, MBTI and Socionics has low reference to reality. No true data that supports them.

How do they not reference reality?

What do you mean by no 'true data that supports'? Lack of studies?

People who are early exposed to this assume the system without investigation on what the elements exactly are. They assume that from the order of things, they can achieve an understanding of the elements. The problem is that the supposed "order of things" is only a premature model meant to only assist. There is no exact pinpointing of "this is Carbon, this is Hydrogen and this is the electron configuration etc."

True, but it isn't much relevant to the overall issue.

Because it shouldn't be about the system/naming; it should be about the reality. It should be about theory-building; not theory-conforming. It does not matter if you have an internally consistent system if its an innacurate system in the first place.

But I'm guessing you're talking about the meaning of "J" conventionally and how that assists people in understanding what "J" means.

Accuracy is what this whole topic is about. There are far more empirical and statistical inventories out there if that is what you want, but as for Jungian theory, MBTI and Socionics are pretty much the only theories out there(besides the pure Jungian theory context). So it's a question of which between the two is most accurate.


To answer OP's question: It could be argued to death to be honest.

The problem is - What criteria could you possibly use to determine which is correct? They both pull from Jungian theory, and in that sense Socionics is the answer. But that doesn't make MBTI any less correct or useful. After personal experience with both, I have to say MBTI gives a more shallow perspective of typology, but that's just it... it took personal experience to realize that which makes the whole situation ambiguous and religious, a matter of conviction.

church of jung.

Spoiler

Verily

 

[viche]

Socionics reverses the J/P lettering (e.g.: INTP (MBTI) = INTJ (Soc.)), but not for extroverts (e.g.: ENFJ (MBTI) = ENFJ (Soc.)).

In my experience of finding my type and types of my friends the J/P switch for introverts is true. Some will tell you otherwise but this is how it work out for me. The intertype relationships that socionics predicts also work with I-J/P switch for MBTI types.

At first, it made sense to me because Js would always have a judging function first, likewise with Ps. But, I was thinking that it also doesn't make sense. Here's why, talking to someone other than yourself is extroversion, correct?

No, you don't need extroversion to open your mouth and produce sounds. In fact self-absorbed people often monologue as if they are talking only to themselves.

Also neither socionics nor MBTI extroversion is defined by talking or socializing.

So, you can't be a judger if your first functions is a Ji function, because you cannot extrovert with Ji regardless of whether it's first or second (e.g.: INTPs aren't judgers because Ti cannot extrovert itself, they show Ne to the world and that's what makes INTPs perceivers). Which lettering is correct? MBTI or Socionics? Or is my line of thinking totally off track?

You can voice Ji and Pi by telling other people what your thoughts and perceptions are like. That's how Ti/Fi/Ni/Si gets across, but the reference is always to the subject.

 

[EyeSeeCold]

In my experience of finding my type and types of my friends the J/P switch for introverts is true. Some will tell you otherwise but this is how it work out for me.

J/P switch is neither reliable, valid, nor advised since:


1) There is no direct structural correlation between the systems, thus a functional nor letter-by-letter method of converting can be definitive.

2) The semantics and perspective of the functions, type and system in general are different, especially in subtle ways that aren't grasped until having significant experience.

3) There is no way to be completely sure about your MBTI type, thus carrying it over with confidence to another system would increase the unreliability.


Even though it's most likely a person will fall within a close range, Socionics type should be assessed from scratch to prevent misunderstandings of Socionic theory.


Introduction into Socionics (draft): Part 3

Comparative Experiments and Their Results,
or Measuring the Difference between the Socionic and Keirsey Types

We proposed the 16 descriptions of the Keirsey types to 108 socionists (this means, each of the 108 read ALL THE 16 descriptions), and we asked them to identify the socionic types in these descriptions.

The table below represents the result of this experiment:
[BIMG]http://i.imgur.com/AbyM0.gif[/BIMG]

And the next table represents one more result of this experiment. We asked the participants to indicate their own types, and to recognize their own types in these descriptions:

[BIMG]http://i.imgur.com/TC1FR.gif[/BIMG]

Do these tables represent the real correlation between the socionic types and the Keirsey types? We think they do not. They rather represent characteristic stereotypes of the socionics and the Keirsey typology. To compare these typologies objectively, we will need to test at least several hundreds of persons using both socionic and American methods. But at least we know now for sure that socionics, MBTT and Keirsey, in spite of their common origin from the Jungian typology, are not identical!​

 

[EyeSeeCold]

One way of approaching general Jungian type is to consider whether you are confused between Thinking-Feeling or Intuition-Sensing.

A Thinking or Feeling dominant would have spontaneous manifestations of sensing/intuition; likewise an Intuition or Sensation dominant would have spontaneous manifestations of thinking/feeling.

The dominant function is most stable and would not fluctuate in energy or attitude as the others would.