Proposed Changes To the Codes (To Preclude J/P Confusion)

["?"]

It seems that people on all of the forums still miss the J/P understanding. I noticed threads on each of them in the past week. The J/P dichotomy is repetetive and redundant since it was only used to distiinguish the extraversion of the S/N and T/F in all types. Myers asserts that Jung did not give enough notice to introverted types, therefore created her inverted theory to show that the extraverted function is being shown. I liked the creativity, but it's not functional and runs contrary to Jung. Based on his work was explicit in contrasting introverts and extraverts by saying, "The two types are so essentially different, presenting so striking a contrast, that their existence, even to the uninitiated in psychological matters becomes an obvious fact, when once attention has been drawn to it. Who does not know those taciturn, impenetrable, often shy natures, who form such a vivid contrast to these other open, sociable, serene maybe, or at least friendly and accessible characters, who are on good terms with all the world, or, even when disagreeing with it, still hold a relation to it by which they and it are mutually affected."

Myers also contradicts Jung on the auxiliary matter for introverts by giving the function greater recognition than Jung in creating the fourth dichotomy. Jung clearly notes that about the auxiliary and subsequent functions, "…..the presence of a second function of equivalent power is naturally forbidden' This other function, therefore, can have only a secondary importance, a fact which is also established empirically. Its secondary importance consists in the fact that, in a given case, it is not valid in its own right, as is the primary function, as an absolutely reliable and decisive factor, but comes into play more as an auxiliary or complementary function. Naturally only those functions can appear as auxiliary whose nature is not opposed to the leading function."

Where does this leave us? Referencing back to Jung's statements, I think he would have disagreed with J/P if not the entire code. He could have (if found it useful to have a code) referenced to the actual functions and acknowledging that Ti-Ne represents INTP equally well, as does Ni-Te for INTJ and so on. Or he may have given Myers-Briggs her kudos, but found the J/P problematic and redundant Jung may have chosen a simpler code to reflec the varied types:

INTJ=INT (Ni-Te)
INTP=ITN (Ti-Ne)
INFP=IFN (Fi-Ne)
INFJ=INF (Ni-Fe)

ISTJ=IST (Si-Te)
ISTP=ITS (Ti-Se)
ISFJ=ISF(Si-Fe)
ISFP=IFS (Fi-Se)

ENTJ=ETN (Te-Ni)
ENTP=ENT (Ne-Ti)
ENFJ=EFN (Fe-Ni)
ENFP=ENF (Ne-Fi)

ESTJ=ETS (Te-Si)
ESTP=EST (Se-Ti)
ESFJ=EFS (Fe-Si)
ESFP=ESF (Se-Fi)

[Mondo]

Interesting. I agree with you that was Jung's main intention.
I think that the J/P dichotomy was something Meyers added to show another factor of a person's thought process.
However, it is important to note that in certain situations Jung's introverts will seem like extraverts and vice versa.
I think the problem is that at times the dominant function and the auxiliary function will both play a large role (and sometimes close to equal) in a person's life- especially for introverts that are forced into the external world.

I think one of the problems might be NOT the fact that it is accurate (it is and I know what you're talking about.. ) BUT the fact that it makes the typing system confusing to amateurs.

The extraverted counterpart of the ITN is the ENT, for instance.
People who don't know much about Meyer-Briggs would assume that the extraverted counterpart of the ITN is the ETN, which is certainly not the case.

Meyers thought that the way we have it now would attract more people to the system itself.

[Wolf]

That's a great solution to the problem.

To optimize further, one could drop the first letter in the case of extroverts, since the primary function would be extroverted, while adding the "I" indicates introversion of the primary function.

Then again, the J/P is helpful when dealing with Sensors, as it reflects the distinct differences between those sharing the first three letters.

[entropie]

Concerning the whole test in itself, I think that this adjustment would rip it apart. With more logical minded peoples, it is mostly more easy to tell, if it is p or J. There is no way for example, I would start planning things through ore be that Extraverted Thinker that exactly tells someone what to do. I would always go with "do what you think is right and stick to what I gave you as guidelines and then show me your results." The outcome is that I am never pleased with anyone elses work on a topic I am good at. So to solve this the conclusion must be that I better direct their efforts, but instead I take the work into my own hands (Ti).

As far as it goes for those types that are still more mysterious and whose secrets about how they work, sometimes completly contradict to anything you expected; they cant be not discribed by MBTI by saying: "lets leave out, what we cant understand".

Then in my opinion, one has to make up a completly new matrix on psychology. Cause MBTI in its whole is just an ideal, not a working, nature-based, mathematically proven system, which has clear misunterstood points that can be reevaluated.

[spirilis]

Socionics has an alternate type form that is similar. ILE, for instance, would be an ENTp (Intuitive-Logical Extrovert), and likewise EII would be INFj (Ethical-Intuitive Introvert)

[Evan]

Originally Posted by Wolf

Then again, the J/P is helpful when dealing with Sensors, as it reflects the distinct differences between those sharing the first three letters.

huh?

[Haphazard]

Very interesting...

Though J and P have some use, it might make it so that instead of people assuming that types with two or three letter in common are similar they actually have to look up what the type means.

[Magic Poriferan]

My response to this that I've already concluded the MBTI's notation is mislead in all kinds of ways. Changes would have to go beyond this, but then why bother?

I feel perfectly comfy just citing raw function preferences, myself.

[Eric B]

Socionics starts off by doing exactly what was suggested; dropping off the J/P; but then puts it back with a different meaning, so that the type with the j is more like its p counterpart, and vice versa.

I think J/P are useful, especially when mapping temperament theory (and Interaction Styles) to the system. A person who extraverts a judging function will have certain traits that are significant and noticeable, when compared to someone who extraverts perception. This will affect behaviors such as directing or informing communication (which themselves are indicators of people vs task orientation, which is the other factor besides I and E traditionally used in temperament theory).

[Gabe]

I love it! so now a percieving type is one with a dominant irrational function, right?