MBTI vs Socionics

[Athenian200]

It's obvious to me (and anyone promoting Socionics) that you're forcing it to fit, when it naturally fits the ISxP better.

You probably only think that because you skimmed and saw that Jung brought in something about art as an illustration, and thought "Oh, this is about painters! Must be ISxP, not ISxJ." Or at least, that's what I'm going to think unless you show me that you've thought it through better than that.

Can you stop asserting that this is how things are, and start explaining why this is how things are?

 

[Haphazard]

Jack, tell me.

How do I think?

 

[Jack Flak]

You probably only think that because you skimmed and saw that Jung brought in something about art as an illustration, and thought "Oh, this is about painters! Must be ISxP, not ISxJ." Or at least, that's what I'm going to think unless you show me that you've thought it through better than that.

Wrong. Read carefully and you'll notice the appropriately consistent perceiving nature of the function as described, and in contrast the judging nature of Thinking. And what do you know, it fits SPs and SJs, respectively.

 

[Haphazard]

Haphazard vs Jack Flak

Typical NT love-hate relationship

I believe this would properly be a 'hate-hate' relationship, unless Jack has feelings for me that I don't know about.

 

[Skyward]

 

[Athenian200]

Wrong. Read carefully and you'll notice the appropriately consistent perceiving nature of the function as described, and in contrast the judging nature of Thinking. And what do you know, it fits SPs and SJs, respectively.

So your theory is based on the idea that all Js should lead with a judging function, and all Ps with a perceiving function.

Okay, then... that means you disagree with the idea that the extraverted auxiliary would "mask" the dominant nature of a given individual and affect their test results in terms of J/P.

It sounds like you pulled on the thread in one place... and kept pulling until you unraveled everything it was connected to. Interesting. I don't understand what compelled you to see that particular aspect as a flaw, but I can tell that you did.

It does seem like you're insisting on starting with the theoretical nature rather than how SJs or SPs tend to be, though.

 

[Jack Flak]

So your theory is based on the idea that all Js should lead with a judging function, and all Ps with a perceiving function.

Okay, then... that means you disagree with the idea that the extraverted auxiliary would "mask" the dominant nature of a given individual and affect their test results in terms of J/P.

It sounds like you pulled on the thread in one place... and kept pulling until you unraveled everything it was connected to. Interesting. I don't understand what compelled you to see that particular aspect as a flaw, but I can tell that you did.

You don't have to take my word for it. Sure, I think I have the right idea, but if you prefer more prevalent theories, you only have to look at Socionics, which matches dominant functions with J/P.

 

[Athenian200]

You don't have to take my word for it. Sure, I think I have the right idea, but if you prefer more prevalent theories, you only have to look at Socionics, which matches dominant functions with J/P.

I know of Socionics, actually. But J/P are used to mean different things in Socionics than in MBTI. To be frank, J/P doesn't even exist natively in Socionics. That notation is the remnant of an ill-conceived attempt to "convert" the types to be recognizable to Western MBTI users. The correct Socionic notation is something like SEI or SLI for an Introverted Sensing type.

Isabel Myers created the J/P scale as a forth dichotomy to explain type. What Socionics calls "J/P" is actually the Jungian concept of rationality/irrationality (which is actually redundant in Socionics since knowing what the dominant function is tells you that in that system).

If you're equating J/P with Jungian rationality/irrationality, and hence talking about Socionics, then I most definitely agree that the descriptions in question describe what Socionics calls ISxps (that is, SxI's), more than ISxjs (xSIs).

My complaint is that I believe that MBTI J/P is NOT equivalent to Jungian rationality/irrationality the same way that the "converted" Socionics notation is.

Jungian rationality/irrationality is inherent in the functions themselves. N and S are irrational functions, T and F are rational functions. They're about how a person operates primarily, regardless of how they present themselves or interact with the world. MBTI J/P was based on how one presents themselves and interacts with the world, regardless of how they operate primarily. They're different concepts.

 

[Jack Flak]

I know of Socionics, actually. But J/P are used to mean different things in Socionics than in MBTI. To be frank, J/P doesn't even exist natively in Socionics.

That's not true. J/P always mean Judging/Perceiving, and they're always in reference to functions. It's inevitable, because it describes the nature of the functions. Under MBTI it supposedly refers to the dominant extroverted function.

That notation is the remnant of an ill-conceived attempt to "convert" the types to be recognizable to Western MBTI users. The correct Socionic notation is something like SEI or SLI for an Introverted Sensing type.

I know that, but whatever you call the types, they still have a function order. And they correlate with MBTI types (The types match, not the function orders)

Isabel Myers created the J/P scale as a forth dichotomy to explain type. What Socionics calls "J/P" is actually the Jungian concept of rationality/irrationality.

She created the designation.

You're too narrowly defining the Jungian concept. He calls perceiving irrational, but that doesn't fully define it.

If you're equating J/P with Jungian rationality/irrationality, and hence talking about Socionics, then I most definitely agree that the descriptions in question describe what Socionics calls ISxps (that is, SxI's), more than ISxjs (xSIs).

You're saying that Introverted Sensing, as described by Jung, is a more appropriate dominant function for ISxPs than ISxJs, which is exactly what I said.

My complaint is that I believe that MBTI J/P is NOT equivalent to Jungian rationality/irrationality the same way the "converted" Socionics notation is.

Depends on what exactly you're talking about, whether I agree or disagree here. If you remove function order completely from MBTI, then it's all accurate. P types prefer perceiving. Once you insert function order, and add a Judging function as dominant for a P type, you blow it.

 

[The Ü™]

What our Mr. Flak is doing is exposing the truth that no one wants to hear.

 

[Haphazard]

Why is this truth? I don't see how there can be truth in this situation. What makes his any more correct?

It's like a movie adaptation. Why complain if the adaptation can stand on its own as a decent movie, even if it's failed to mimic its namesake?

 

[Jack Flak]

It's like a movie adaptation. Why complain if the adaptation can stand on its own as a decent movie, even if it's failed to mimic its namesake?

It confuses people because it doesn't completely make sense. See: This thread, and a thousand like it.

 

[Haphazard]

It confuses people because it doesn't completely make sense. See: This thread, and a thousand like it.

Sometimes, art is confounding.

 

[Jack Flak]

Sometimes, art is confounding.

Some people think cucumbers taste better pickled!

 

[Haphazard]

To tell a student that they need more support for their thesis of an analysis of art is all well and good. To tell them that their analysis is wrong because it doesn't match yours is not only bad form, but incorrect, professor.

 

[Jack Flak]

To tell a student that they need more support for their thesis of an analysis of art is all well and good. To tell them that their analysis is wrong because it doesn't match yours is not only bad form, but incorrect, professor.

This "everyone's special" mindset is not useful if after results.

 

[Athenian200]

I know that, but whatever you call the types, they still have a function order. And they correlate with MBTI types (The types match, not the function orders)

No, they don't, AFAIK. Where did you get this notion?

She created the designation.

You're too narrowly defining the Jungian concept. He calls perceiving irrational, but that doesn't fully define it.

Are you asserting that J/P in MBTI are equivalent to rationality/irrationality in Jungian terms? You seem to be behaving as if they are equivalent.

You're saying that Introverted Sensing, as described by Jung, is a more appropriate dominant function for ISxPs than ISxJs, which is exactly what I said.

No, no, no... I said that it is for SOCIONIC SxIs, which are called ISxps. Not for MBTI ISxPs. You can't possibly think they're same type? Geez.

 

[Jack Flak]

No, they don't. Where did you get this notion?

Have you read descriptions of all the types in both systems? They obviously correlate. Such that ISTJ is equivalent to ISTj.

Are you asserting that J/P in MBTI are equivalent to rationality/irrationality in Jungian terms? You seem to be behaving as if they are equivalent.

TBH, I'm not sure exactly what you're asking. One possible answer: Judging and Perceiving always carry the same definitions. Practically speaking of course, if you discuss say, the difference between ISTP and ISTJ, more will be discussed than simply the difference between J and P.

No, no, no... I said that it is for SOCIONIC SxIs, which are called ISxps. Not for MBTI ISxPs. You can't possibly think they're same type? Geez.

Oh. YES, I do. That's our problem. Check this out.

Sensory Logical Introvert - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Logical Sensory Introvert - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You simply cannot tell me the descriptions and titles don't match ISTp with ISTP, and ISTj with ISTJ.

 

[The Ü™]

Okay, pretend there are no such things as cognitive processes, only four-letter code.

Now, would ISFP then correlate with ISFp?

 

[Athenian200]

Have you read descriptions of all the types in both systems? They obviously correlate. Such that ISTJ is equivalent to ISTj.


TBH, I'm not sure exactly what you're asking. One possible answer: Judging and Perceiving always carry the same definitions. Practically speaking of course, if you discuss say, the difference between ISTP and ISTJ, more will be discussed than simply the difference between J and P.


Oh. YES, I do. That's our problem. Check this out.

Sensory Logical Introvert - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Logical Sensory Introvert - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You simply cannot tell me the descriptions and titles don't match ISTp with ISTP, and ISTj with ISTJ.

Okay, the descriptions do kind of match, although they don't match perfectly. Personally, I think Socionics a bit more accurate than MBTI in terms of relevance to Jung's original theory (even though they both have problems), but I stick with MBTI for two reasons:

1. Most people here can't understand Socionics (or Jung, for that matter) because they don't want to take the time to learn it, and thus lazily correlate it with MBTI constructs if you talk about it.

2. A lot of the literature on Socionics is in Russian, thus I have to rely on interpretations.

I actually knew Socionics before I ever came to this forum, and gave up on it because no one else "got it."

I think that MBTI descriptions tend to be rather inaccurate, actually.