MBTI vs Socionics

[Elocute]

But some MBTI theorists have attempted to develop an 8 function model which is pretty much the same as socionics in some ways (Beebe, Thomson, I also think Berens?). Also, the way we relate to people around us is already laid out by Jung. Socionics just develops this idea further e.g. Ti tends to oppose Fi and Fi opposes Fe. The logic behind this is pretty obvious since Ti and Fi evaluate internal judgements in a very different manner and Fi has a different way of evaluating (introverted) compared to Fe (extroverted). This is what the quadra values and to a degree, intertype system is based on.

Obviously, if we do not share perceptions of the world and how to arrive at conclusions there will be communication problems. Socionics describes this pretty well in my opinion, even though it can be better.

I will have to look into it further, which is why I prefaced it by saying I am not very well-versed in the theory. I do agree that varying perceptions cause problems (in fact, I believe whomever wrote the excepts at typelogic.com attempts to do this sparsely). I attempted to get into socionics a while ago and was quite...confused? as to why they would include facial features and "gait is slow" external features. Have you noticed a correlation between facial expression and type that would corroborate this? I completely denounced this part as hokey, yet there are other theories in psychology that do a somewhat similar. What would you say is the best interpretation online? With the best translation?

 

[Entropic]

I will have to look into it further, which is why I prefaced it by saying I am not very well-versed in the theory. I do agree that varying perceptions cause problems (in fact, I believe whomever wrote the excepts at typelogic.com attempts to do this sparsely). I attempted to get into socionics a while ago and was quite...confused? as to why they would include facial features and "gait is slow" external features. Have you noticed a correlation between facial expression and type that would corroborate this? I completely denounced this part as hokey, yet there are other theories in psychology that do a somewhat similar. What would you say is the best interpretation online? With the best translation?

Fair enough. I don't think I saw that when I commented on your post. I tend to skim read.

Well, visual identification (VI) is a questionable aspect of socionics even among socionists. I personally think there's some correlation or at least in theory something to VI although I am unsure how well it's applied (I do however undeniably look like an EII-Ne for example). I think this site is a pretty good start to get into VI. I don't think the people who uploaded those photos of people got all of those celebrities right, but it gives you an idea of how each type looks like including subtype, something I actually like. I am not sure I am willing to uploaded a photo of myself just yet on this site but yes, I look very EII-Ne. Very.

Best interpretation online of socionics is probably in my opinion wikisocion. I am not that versed with sources though. 16types.com has some good articles and Rick DeLong had a blog dedicated to socionics as well but it's not updated anymore. There's also socionics.com and similar sites. There's no real good translation. You just need to mish and mash and judge for yourself what information is ultimately valuable. I would suggest to look into quadra values (very digestible) and Augusta's Model A though, which is the basis of socionics as a theory. You will find many similarities in how Model A is structured to some MBTI models e.g. Beebe.

 

[Zarathustra]

...I haven't seen much equivalent done on MBTI forums that would entail seriously investigating the synergistic combinations of functions.

Yeah, tbh, I never really saw you engage in any of those discussions.

Most of what you seem to do here is post links to your favorite socionics forum.

 

[Eric B]

I think referencing or using both together becomes confusing, because of the fact that they are so similar, but things have different meaning. Whoever adapted it to the MBTI letters should have used something else instead of j/p. Like since they wanted to be so true to Jung in making it refer to the dominant, rather than extraverted function, then perhaps they should have just maintained his terms "rational"/"irrational".

I just read an article where they stated that the founder of Socionics differed in his approach from the founders of MBTI in that he focused on the behavior, the way people acted and how it impacted society and contributed to it, whereas MBTI specifically focuses on explaining the way people actually think, and not so much what they do.

That in an of itself could definitely explain the different interpretations of the Jungian functions in developing these systems. I wonder how it would manifest concretely though, so those that know both socionics and mbti, how do you feel it concretely differs from each other, and do you feel that much can be gained in terms of complimentary information in getting acquainted with both systems? Or do you have a clear favorite? And does the bias mentioned above have anything to do with that preference?

Funny, as the purpose of the J/P dichotomy was basically behavioral. The extraverted function shapes our interaction with others. Hence, why J/P became so instrumental/useful in both temperament and Interaction Styles. (In Socionics, what they have labeled "temperament" is I/E + j/p, but the Keirsey/Berens concept of "Informative/Directive" seems to really fit the types, and matches the classic temperament factor of "people/task focus", which was the other factor beside I/E; yet in the Socionics use of j/p, that concept is lost. NTP's, for instance, which was one of the "role informative" groups, is now split between Ep and Ij. Does Socionics have a behavioral definition of j/p, since they are different according to E/I?)

You mean "here"? I mean how introversion-extroversion is on the one hand mixed up with the function attitudes i.e. an introvert is someone with a dominant introverted function but on the other hand is a person who is also socially introverted. There are overlaps yes, but I find that those overlaps correlate more strongly to enneagram than they do with our cognitive types. It just becomes a theoretical mess because people end up thinking that "I can't be an extrovert" (quite often this way, rarely the other way around) because "I don't like being around people" etc. It misses the point of the function attitudes and where our focus lies. There must be a stronger theoretical correlation between the two to explain the I/E axis better. For example, a person I know in real life and who is slightly interested in MBTI without me knowing typed me as an INFJ because when we meet I seem pretty social and outgoing and he thought my I/E axis was something like 60% introvert, 40% extrovert or similar. This entirely misses the point of how cognitive introversion and extroversion works. Socially perhaps this is true but I am clearly having a strong bias towards being a cognitive introvert because my thinking is subjective, not objective.

What's missing there is the other factor I mentioned, of people vs task focus. This is covered more by Keirsey and especially Berens. That also greatly affects how you relate to people. I/E is more "expressive" and shows how much you tend to approach people, while people/task is called "responsive", and covers how much you respond to others, and it can even be termed as "responding as an introvert or extrovert. So the extravert who says he doesn't like being around people is probably a "directive" type (ST/NJ), who is not very responsive to others, despite how much he expresses to them. (The Keirsey/Berens definition of "directive/directing" doesn't go much into this, but Berens did match it to "task"-focus, and when a person is task focused; to use a bit of hyperbole, people are basically a bother, for they are more interested in their own personal goals, so they'll tend to "direct" people and speak in a more "dry" fashion (wet/dry was Galen's original corresponding factor), and rather be left alone until they are ready to approach people for whatever reason. "Don't call me; I'll call you".

Berens discovered another level of people/task, for Keirsey's temperaments, called "structure/motive". Respectively, SJ, NT and SP, NF.
So even though INFJ is "directive", it is still "motive" focused, and thus people-focused on that level.
Of course, looking at it cognitively, it would be from a preferred Fe perspective, but these things are all interrelated. F is people focused, and J is task focused, so Fe preference will produce a mixture of people and task focus. (Same with P and T).
(Also, when mapping type to [behavioral] temperament, there is the possibility of degrees of moderation, so someone falling on the "introvert" and/or "directive" side could still be moderately extroverted or people-focused).

Again, with Socionics, all of this is lost, because the key factor of j/p is redefined. Perhaps "back" to what it originally was "supposed" to be according to the originator of the theory, but as I always say, Jung's theory didn't seem really "complete", and was expanded and improved upon by the likes of Myers, Keirsey, Berens, Beebe and Thomson.

Also, I really lost respect for Socionics when someone here mentioned VI, before. Though I see now an acknowledgment that not all Socionists accept it.
The detailed breakdown of type dynamics is nice, though you do have this for MBTI, though not as common. There's Beebe's archetype model, though there is really no centralized source for it; it's basically publicized through lectures and workshops. There's also Type Logic, which has a full set of intertype dynamics like Socionics, though it is through some software you have to pay for.

 

[Entropic]

I think referencing or using both together becomes confusing, because of the fact that they are so similar, but things have different meaning. Whoever adapted it to the MBTI letters should have used something else instead of j/p. Like since they wanted to be so true to Jung in making it refer to the dominant, rather than extraverted function, then perhaps they should have just maintained his terms "rational"/"irrational".

You capitalize and non-capitalize to separate. Or even better, you use the three-letter code for sociotypes like EII instead of INFj. Some people don't make the J/P lower case even when they are referring to socionics but usually it's clear because then the archetype is also listed i.e. INFJ Dostoyevsky.

Funny, as the purpose of the J/P dichotomy was basically behavioral. The extraverted function shapes our interaction with others. Hence, why J/P became so instrumental/useful in both temperament and Interaction Styles. (In Socionics, what they have labeled "temperament" is I/E + j/p, but the Keirsey/Berens concept of "Informative/Directive" seems to really fit the types, and matches the classic temperament factor of "people/task focus", which was the other factor beside I/E; yet in the Socionics use of j/p, that concept is lost. NTP's, for instance, which was one of the "role informative" groups, is now split between Ep and Ij. Does Socionics have a behavioral definition of j/p, since they are different according to E/I?)

I think socionics handles this much better because the way they categorize is more logical based on the dominant temperament. Most of all it drops the J/P letter code entirely which I opine is rather useless since what it measures is really persona anyway.

What's missing there is the other factor I mentioned, of people vs task focus. This is covered more by Keirsey and especially Berens. That also greatly affects how you relate to people. I/E is more "expressive" and shows how much you tend to approach people, while people/task is called "responsive", and covers how much you respond to others, and it can even be termed as "responding as an introvert or extrovert. So the extravert who says he doesn't like being around people is probably a "directive" type (ST/NJ), who is not very responsive to others, despite how much he expresses to them. (The Keirsey/Berens definition of "directive/directing" doesn't go much into this, but Berens did match it to "task"-focus, and when a person is task focused; to use a bit of hyperbole, people are basically a bother, for they are more interested in their own personal goals, so they'll tend to "direct" people and speak in a more "dry" fashion (wet/dry was Galen's original corresponding factor), and rather be left alone until they are ready to approach people for whatever reason. "Don't call me; I'll call you".

This really sounds more like Fe versus Fi in socionics, especially the whole "Don't call me, I call you" logic.

Berens discovered another level of people/task, for Keirsey's temperaments, called "structure/motive". Respectively, SJ, NT and SP, NF.
So even though INFJ is "directive", it is still "motive" focused, and thus people-focused on that level.
Of course, looking at it cognitively, it would be from a preferred Fe perspective, but these things are all interrelated. F is people focused, and J is task focused, so Fe preference will produce a mixture of people and task focus. (Same with P and T).

This is part why I don't like the MBTI because I don't think F or T are people or task focused. They can be either. This is also why I think Keirsey's temperaments are fucked up because according to him I'd definitely be an NT based on the fact I'm an E5 so I don't have a very sociable or people-pleasing persona.

(Also, when mapping type to [behavioral] temperament, there is the possibility of degrees of moderation, so someone falling on the "introvert" and/or "directive" side could still be moderately extroverted or people-focused).

Socionics doesn't approach it this way and I think they are correct at doing so, but instead they take Jung's definition only into account. I think the whole variable scale of "You're 20% introverted" that some people get on tests is highly misleading and shows a misunderstanding of how the system actually works. You are either cognitively introverted or extroverted. Not both.

Again, with Socionics, all of this is lost, because the key factor of j/p is redefined. Perhaps "back" to what it originally was "supposed" to be according to the originator of the theory, but as I always say, Jung's theory didn't seem really "complete", and was expanded and improved upon by the likes of Myers, Keirsey, Berens, Beebe and Thomson.

They are measuring two entirely different things. Jung and thus also socionics, is far more interested in cognition. The MBTI mostly measure's one persona which is why you see people easily over-scoring as NTs even though they may be sensors etc. because cognitively they are sensors but they identify with the traits listed for an intuitive type.

Also, I really lost respect for Socionics when someone here mentioned VI, before. Though I see now an acknowledgment that not all Socionists accept it.

They don't. It's controversial but I think it's an interesting aspect.

The detailed breakdown of type dynamics is nice, though you do have this for MBTI, though not as common. There's Beebe's archetype model, though there is really no centralized source for it; it's basically publicized through lectures and workshops. There's also Type Logic, which has a full set of intertype dynamics like Socionics, though it is through some software you have to pay for.

I personally think the Beebe model is a farcry from socionics but most of all, I think socionics does it better.

 

[Eric B]

You capitalize and non-capitalize to separate. Or even better, you use the three-letter code for sociotypes like EII instead of INFj. Some people don't make the J/P lower case even when they are referring to socionics but usually it's clear because then the archetype is also listed i.e. INFJ Dostoyevsky.

I know, but it's still potentially confusing or misleading. You have the debate as to whether INTP corresponds more to INTj or INTp, and, I also forgot to mention, to do the latter, you have to redefine the functions so that "INTp's 'NiTe' acts like MBTI's 'TiNe', etc." That to me was the first strike against Socionics. I've had debates with Jack Flak and Simulated World over this, and they claim they claim that these alternated definitions of the functions are truer to Jung, but then since ENTP=ENTp=NeTi (since the extraverted function is the dominant), then how does that compare to the "NiTe"-like TiNe of the INTj or the NiTe of the INTp?

So I've also said the three letter codes were also better for them to have just stuck with. Still, someone somewhere would come along and try to match it with MBTI, with corresponding function and dominant orientation letters, but the last dichotomy should have used altogether different letters.

This really sounds more like Fe versus Fi in socionics, especially the whole "Don't call me, I call you" logic.

Which one is which? Fi is "don't call me; I'll call you"? (If so, I would surmise that, at least in MBTI type, that would be more tertiary or inferior Fi, which of course, denotes a TJ type. They would be the most like that).

This is part why I don't like the MBTI because I don't think F or T are people or task focused. They can be either.

Again, people/task focus of a particular type are not determined by T/F by themselves; it is an interplay with J/P, and the otherwise unrelated factor of S/N determines which is which. NTP's are people-focused (in the "affective" level, but task-focused on the conative level), and NFJ's are task-focused (again on the affective level, but people-focused on the conative level). For S's, it's totally the other way around.

This is also why I think Keirsey's temperaments are fucked up because according to him I'd definitely be an NT based on the fact I'm an E5 so I don't have a very sociable or people-pleasing persona.

I see I made a mistake, in that you said the person typed you as INFJ, not that you really were one. So you said before you were INTP.

Both of what I mentioned may come into play.
You may be technically "informative" on the affective (social) level, but the T, which is connected with the conative (Keirseyan) temperament is what will give you your less sociable task focus (the two areas do affect each other).
Also, you could be moderate in the responsive area. Moderation is what led to the idea of a fifth temperament, but in translating back to four, two become lumped together. So "Behind the Scenes" (ISF/INP) can be either Supine, which is very people-focused, or Phlegmatic, which is the moderate one, who can "take people or leave 'em". That ends up being the "typical" INTP, while Supines like me and a few others often seem like Feelers in comparison, and have to work really hard to verify our T preference.
Then with NT being Choleric (contrary to Keirsey), that together with Phlegmatic will produce a very aloof, nonsociable blend, corresponding with an E5. (But even Supines like myself and others, end up as 5, but often with a 4 or 6 wing).

Socionics doesn't approach it this way and I think they are correct at doing so, but instead they take Jung's definition only into account. I think the whole variable scale of "You're 20% introverted" that some people get on tests is highly misleading and shows a misunderstanding of how the system actually works. You are either cognitively introverted or extroverted. Not both.

That's Clarity of Preference, which I learned in MBTI class and discussed afterward. Yes, that is widely assumed to determine something like "ambiversion", but really doesn't (I used to fall into this, a long time ago, when I was talking about stuff like "81 types" that had three poles for each "scale"). It just means, for whatever reason, you're not sure of your preference.

I believe that the most complete temperament theory (the FIRO-based APS system) is what picks up moderate preferences, so someone who falls into what's called "expressing as a Phlegmatic", will technically be an "ambivert", and this won't be picked up by MBTI. In that system, they'll still fall either on one side or the other.
It may still lead to them having a low preference-clarity, which will be a clue of their "expressed behavior", but they won't be an "A" or "X---" type, and others, who are more solidly high or low in expressiveness may still have a low clarity, including because of their wanted behavior, which is a separate factor drawing them toward or away from people, despite expressiveness.

I think socionics handles this much better because the way they categorize is more logical based on the dominant temperament. Most of all it drops the J/P letter code entirely which I opine is rather useless since what it measures is really persona anyway.

They are measuring two entirely different things. Jung and thus also socionics, is far more interested in cognition. The MBTI mostly measure's one persona which is why you see people easily over-scoring as NTs even though they may be sensors etc. because cognitively they are sensors but they identify with the traits listed for an intuitive type.

Funny, the OP said that Socionics was focusing more on behavior (which would tie into "personas").

I believe they are all interrelated. The APS mentions "personality masks" and "learned behavior" that are artificial factors that affect behavior (and thus insists you cannot determine temperament without their instrument), but still, underneath all of this is an inborn behavior preference (discussed in terms of core "needs"), and pairing it with MBTI (Through the Keirsey and Interaction Styles models), shows how it corresponds with cognitive preferences.

I personally think the Beebe model is a far cry from socionics but most of all, I think socionics does it better.

Well, Beebe specifically deals with the archetypes, and thus would be similar to Socionics' descriptions of the "blocks" (Id, Ego, Super Id and Super Ego, as well as some of the other stuff mentioned, like Tertiary being "desirative" or whatever it was called, and then the whole "Valued/Subdued" and "strong/weak" dichotomies, which would correspond to "ego-syntonic"/"ego-dystonic", and "preferred/non-preferred", respectively. Type Logic is what goes further into intertype dynamics.

 

[Entropic]

I know, but it's still potentially confusing or misleading. You have the debate as to whether INTP corresponds more to INTj or INTp, and, I also forgot to mention, to do the latter, you have to redefine the functions so that "INTp's 'NiTe' acts like MBTI's 'TiNe', etc." That to me was the first strike against Socionics. I've had debates with Jack Flak and Simulated World over this, and they claim they claim that these alternated definitions of the functions are truer to Jung, but then since ENTP=ENTp=NeTi (since the extraverted function is the dominant), then how does that compare to the "NiTe"-like TiNe of the INTj or the NiTe of the INTp?

Because the J letter code obviously denotes that the dominant function in this case is a judging one, so INTP = INTj. I am not sure why this is complicated to you. It's not about acting, it's about thinking.

So I've also said the three letter codes were also better for them to have just stuck with. Still, someone somewhere would come along and try to match it with MBTI, with corresponding function and dominant orientation letters, but the last dichotomy should have used altogether different letters.

I don't know the reason or the course for that but as long as you realize that socionics letter code always represent the functions as opposed to behavior that the MBTI does; I don't see the problem keeping the two systems apart.

Which one is which? Fi is "don't call me; I'll call you"? (If so, I would surmise that, at least in MBTI type, that would be more tertiary or inferior Fi, which of course, denotes a TJ type. They would be the most like that).

Any Fi valuing type would do that because their feeling focus is on themselves and their feelings than that of others.

Again, people/task focus of a particular type are not determined by T/F by themselves; it is an interplay with J/P, and the otherwise unrelated factor of S/N determines which is which. NTP's are people-focused (in the "affective" level, but task-focused on the conative level), and NFJ's are task-focused (again on the affective level, but people-focused on the conative level). For S's, it's totally the other way around.
I see I made a mistake, in that you said the person typed you as INFJ, not that you really were one. So you said before you were INTP.

Which is why I don't like the way the J/P letter code applies J/P because it's so focused on external behavior. I don't think this applies to all people who favor Ti and Ne as their functions. Enneagram plays a large role in this.

And I type as a Jungian INFP and socionics EII (see how both systems give me the same cognitive fuctions?) but in MBTI INTP because it measures my persona, how I come acoss to people, not how I actually think. Which is ironic also since both Jung and socionics note that the Fi dominant or ExI type isn't necessarily very social or people-pleasing. That's more of an Fe thing and I argue that Keirsey's NF temperament is heavily biased by this perception.

Both of what I mentioned may come into play.
You may be technically "informative" on the affective (social) level, but the T, which is connected with the conative (Keirseyan) temperament is what will give you your less sociable task focus (the two areas do affect each other).
Also, you could be moderate in the responsive area. Moderation is what led to the idea of a fifth temperament, but in translating back to four, two become lumped together. So "Behind the Scenes" (ISF/INP) can be either Supine, which is very people-focused, or Phlegmatic, which is the moderate one, who can "take people or leave 'em". That ends up being the "typical" INTP, while Supines like me and a few others often seem like Feelers in comparison, and have to work really hard to verify our T preference.
Then with NT being Choleric (contrary to Keirsey), that together with Phlegmatic will produce a very aloof, nonsociable blend, corresponding with an E5. (But even Supines like myself and others, end up as 5, but often with a 4 or 6 wing).

But I told you that I'm melancholic, not supine or phlegmatic. I don't think you will find that phlegmatic will necessarily correspond to enneagram this way, but based on what I read about phlegmatic, it sounds more like 9 behavior and think (avoiding conflict, seeking peace of mind) than 5. 5 can be very aggressive and conflict-seeking in the intellectual arena due to them ultimately being power-seekers and have a connection to 8. Also, 5 is a very emotionally sensitive type and can be prone to extreme moodiness if 4 wing and the influence is strong like it is in my case. It thus makes perfect sense that 5w4 would be melancholic because as you find in the melancholic description, they can be very intellectual and socially aloof.

That's Clarity of Preference, which I learned in MBTI class and discussed afterward. Yes, that is widely assumed to determine something like "ambiversion", but really doesn't (I used to fall into this, a long time ago, when I was talking about stuff like "81 types" that had three poles for each "scale"). It just means, for whatever reason, you're not sure of your preference.

But I am not talking about the widely accepted definition of introversion-extroversion. I am specifically talking about cognitive introversion or extroversion which is very different to the introversion-extroversion you have in fact described. Cognitive introversion and extroversion is as you know, something Jung wrote extensively on because it denotes our cognitive bias in which we view the world through. Is it objective or subjetive? There is no varying scale here.

I believe that the most complete temperament theory (the FIRO-based APS system) is what picks up moderate preferences, so someone who falls into what's called "expressing as a Phlegmatic", will technically be an "ambivert", and this won't be picked up by MBTI. In that system, they'll still fall either on one side or the other.
It may still lead to them having a low preference-clarity, which will be a clue of their "expressed behavior", but they won't be an "A" or "X---" type, and others, who are more solidly high or low in expressiveness may still have a low clarity, including because of their wanted behavior, which is a separate factor drawing them toward or away from people, despite expressiveness.
Funny, the OP said that Socionics was focusing more on behavior (which would tie into "personas").

And I think this is largely more of a superficial reading of socionics which focuses on aspects outside the strict IM analysis that I'm talking about here. Nevertheless, while soiconics does try to explain external behavior it does so quite logically by tying it back to the IMs so I have no problem with that. I don't see the MBTI being capable of doing such a connection that's not based on a stereotype type description.

I believe they are all interrelated. The APS mentions "personality masks" and "learned behavior" that are artificial factors that affect behavior (and thus insists you cannot determine temperament without their instrument), but still, underneath all of this is an inborn behavior preference (discussed in terms of core "needs"), and pairing it with MBTI (Through the Keirsey and Interaction Styles models), shows how it corresponds with cognitive preferences.

I think there is a fine line to walk here between when we talk about innate preferences aka temperaments and then trying to tie these further and prove them using current Pcyhometrics matrices. Would innate introversion probably appear in these matrices? Yes, both the Big 5 and MBTI measure them. But does this necessarily relate to Jung's way of defining introversion-extroversion? No, it doesn't. There are a lot of people who mistype thinking they are cognitive introverts (they wear a letter code starting with I instead of E) because they see themselves as social introverts. That they also focus on extroverted tasks here is irrelevant because this is still not what I am talking about. I am talking about whether your mind is cognitively biased towards introversion or extroversion but if you focus on the objective world or the subjective world of things.

Well, Beebe specifically deals with the archetypes, and thus would be similar to Socionics' descriptions of the "blocks" (Id, Ego, Super Id and Super Ego, as well as some of the other stuff mentioned, like Tertiary being "desirative" or whatever it was called, and then the whole "Valued/Subdued" and "strong/weak" dichotomies, which would correspond to "ego-syntonic"/"ego-dystonic", and "preferred/non-preferred", respectively. Type Logic is what goes further into intertype dynamics.

Yes, I know this, and I'm saying that I think socionics does it so much better.

 

[Eric B]

Because the J letter code obviously denotes that the dominant function in this case is a judging one, so INTP = INTj. I am not sure why this is complicated to you. It's not about acting, it's about thinking.

It's complicated because of what I said, where people trying to tie j/p to J/P claim that the INTp's "Ni""acts like" the INTP's Ne, and "Te" "acts like" Ti. ("acting" wasn't literal, referring to the person, but rather how the functions' characteristics were described.

Any Fi valuing type would do that because their feeling focus is on themselves and their feelings than that of others.

The true Jungian concept, is that Fi simply is a personal valuation that references an internal "standard". The whole "focused on one's self" description is easily misunderstood, and often portrayed as "selfish", and even antisocial, but that, again, might more closely fit the tertiary/inferior ("less mature", I call it) manifestation of the function for TJ's.

So I think the FP would be just as much into people, but rather than directly referencing group values, they'll reference a more universalistic sense of values they have internalized, which they then use to gauge other people's true needs. So you can't entirely say "focus on their feelings rather than that of others". Their internal standards do reach out to "consider" others.

If the Fi is dominant, then, it will likely manifest as the typical Supine trait of wanting people, but not expressing this need to them (They'll then use inferior Te "tasks" to try to in acceptance through forms of "service").

Which is why I don't like the way the J/P letter code applies J/P because it's so focused on external behavior.

And I think that's an important indicator of what's "preferred", inside.

I don't think this applies to all people who favor Ti and Ne as their functions. Enneagram plays a large role in this.

That's now been added as an extension of the type code. Four letters, and one or more numbers. I would have liked to be able to say that the E types correspond to type (via Interaction styles and Keirsey temperaments, through instinctual variants that can have stackings of different types), but that's even harder to sell, so I've pretty much laid off of Enneagram for now.

And I type as a Jungian INFP and socionics EII (see how both systems give me the same cognitive fuctions?) but in MBTI INTP because it measures my persona, how I come acoss to people, not how I actually think. Which is ironic also since both Jung and socionics note that the Fi dominant or ExI type isn't necessarily very social or people-pleasing. That's more of an Fe thing and I argue that Keirsey's NF temperament is heavily biased by this perception.

So in Jung, you're dom. Fi, but your "persona" measured by MBTI is dom. Ti? I don't see how that would happen.

Again, the two types may come off the same way to people, because they share the same Interaction Style.
But then if the "Jungian" Fi is more like Fe, and Te is more like Ti (At least for introverts), then perhaps Socionics is picking up inferior Fe, and hence assuming you're "F"?

But I told you that I'm melancholic, not supine or phlegmatic.

I don't think you will find that phlegmatic will necessarily correspond to enneagram this way, but based on what I read about phlegmatic, it sounds more like 9 behavior and think (avoiding conflict, seeking peace of mind) than 5. 5 can be very aggressive and conflict-seeking in the intellectual arena due to them ultimately being power-seekers and have a connection to 8. Also, 5 is a very emotionally sensitive type and can be prone to extreme moodiness if 4 wing and the influence is strong like it is in my case. It thus makes perfect sense that 5w4 would be melancholic because as you find in the melancholic description, they can be very intellectual and socially aloof.

That's right; I forgot you said you were Melancholic. Again, for an INTP to come out as Melancholic or E5, my theory, is that he's really a combo of 4 OR 6 (or 9) with 8, and these "mellow out" to an average "5" behavior. I know mixing those types, outside the adjacent "wings", or the tritypes, isn't allowed; but that's why I'm not pushing Enneagram correlations. I can clearly identify with 6 (or 4) and 8, which fit Supine and Choleric, but I too usually end up coming out heavily 5 (and with the adjacent 6 or 4 close by).

So yes, 9 is the most Phlegmatic, but since it is so peaceful, this is like the opposite of Choleric (8), and Supine (2, 4 or 6) is even further opposite of Choleric. So when you add them together, you will get the reservedness of the Phlegmatic or Supine plus the criticalness of the Choleric, and reserved/critical (introverted/task) is Melancholic. It's just a matter of sorting out the blended temperament needs according to the different "areas of need".

But I am not talking about the widely accepted definition of introversion-extroversion. I am specifically talking about cognitive introversion or extroversion which is very different to the introversion-extroversion you have in fact described. Cognitive introversion and extroversion is as you know, something Jung wrote extensively on because it denotes our cognitive bias in which we view the world through. Is it objective or subjetive? There is no varying scale here.

I think there is a fine line to walk here between when we talk about innate preferences aka temperaments and then trying to tie these further and prove them using current Pcyhometrics matrices. Would innate introversion probably appear in these matrices? Yes, both the Big 5 and MBTI measure them. But does this necessarily relate to Jung's way of defining introversion-extroversion? No, it doesn't. There are a lot of people who mistype thinking they are cognitive introverts (they wear a letter code starting with I instead of E) because they see themselves as social introverts. That they also focus on extroverted tasks here is irrelevant because this is still not what I am talking about. I am talking about whether your mind is cognitively biased towards introversion or extroversion but if you focus on the objective world or the subjective world of things.

Yes, as I acknowledged, cognitive E/I is either/or. I believe behavioral E/I is rooted in the cognitive (The "dominant attitude" that develops first. Both E/I and J/P are said to be the first letters to develop). Learned behavior and "masks" can alter this, and the manifestation of the "needs" is what can be "moderate". The people who have that problem you describe are probably moderate, and each test will measure traits in a way that push them one way or the other. But while their "temperament need" can be moderate, their true Jungian preference will be either/or, even if the clarity of it is low.

 

[527468]

Socionics is a theory of relationship compatibility. So if he's saying something like "different roles in society" get along best with one another, that's on him, the dumby.

 

[Entropic]

It's complicated because of what I said, where people trying to tie j/p to J/P claim that the INTp's "Ni""acts like" the INTP's Ne, and "Te" "acts like" Ti. ("acting" wasn't literal, referring to the person, but rather how the functions' characteristics were described.

I don't understand this logic since the functions operate in a very delineated way in socionics, and the only way you'd confuse them is because you are bad at differentating them in people.

The true Jungian concept, is that Fi simply is a personal valuation that references an internal "standard". The whole "focused on one's self" description is easily misunderstood, and often portrayed as "selfish", and even antisocial, but that, again, might more closely fit the tertiary/inferior ("less mature", I call it) manifestation of the function for TJ's.

I know inferior Fi types who don't come across like that at all. I think that description would if anything if so fit many Fi dominant types better based on what I've personally observed. So I don't think you can say that a person will always act like this because of the position of their function attitude in the system. Maturity doesn't occur linearly in people and just because you favor a cognitive function attitude it doesn't mean you use it well either.

So I think the FP would be just as much into people, but rather than directly referencing group values, they'll reference a more universalistic sense of values they have internalized, which they then use to gauge other people's true needs. So you can't entirely say "focus on their feelings rather than that of others". Their internal standards do reach out to "consider" others.

As a Jungian Fi dominant I just have to disagree with this. I think it's perhaps the most noticeable when it comes to judging people but it doesn't mean it's always used to evaluate people. Even Lenore Thomson gives a good description of this of the spaghetti sauce example she provides and how Fi is used to measure the taste.

If the Fi is dominant, then, it will likely manifest as the typical Supine trait of wanting people, but not expressing this need to them (They'll then use inferior Te "tasks" to try to in acceptance through forms of "service").

I'm sorry Eric B, but I think you're stereotyping here. I don't think you can say that every Fi dominant must be supine. I don't think reality is that simple. People are more complex than that.

And I think that's an important indicator of what's "preferred", inside. That's now been added as an extension of the type code. Four letters, and one or more numbers. I would have liked to be able to say that the E types correspond to type (via Interaction styles and Keirsey temperaments, through instinctual variants that can have stackings of different types), but that's even harder to sell, so I've pretty much laid off of Enneagram for now.
So in Jung, you're dom. Fi, but your "persona" measured by MBTI is dom. Ti? I don't see how that would happen.

Because as I told you, they measure different things. MBTI measures persona, not my cognitive thinking. They have different purposes so therefore they also naturally measure different things. I don't think enneatype is going to correspond to anything in particular when it comes to cognition more than perhaps certain cognition styles will have a preference towards specific coping mechanisms. I for example theorize that Fe types would be more likely to fall back on an enneagram 9 coping style simply because there is a certain overlap in the cognizant thought of the E9 and Fe about avoiding conflict and seeking external harmony. Not say it's always like that but it's an interesting overlap.

Again, the two types may come off the same way to people, because they share the same Interaction Style.
But then if the "Jungian" Fi is more like Fe, and Te is more like Ti (At least for introverts), then perhaps Socionics is picking up inferior Fe, and hence assuming you're "F"?

I don't understand how Jungian Fi is more like Fe? Fi is still Fi for introverts and Te still Te for introverts and so on. Socionics is definitely not picking up inferior Fe. It's properly picking up my inferior Te. It's the MBTI is the system that falsely picks up my inferior Te as dominant Ti.

That's right; I forgot you said you were Melancholic. Again, for an INTP to come out as Melancholic or E5, my theory, is that he's really a combo of 4 OR 6 (or 9) with 8, and these "mellow out" to an average "5" behavior. I know mixing those types, outside the adjacent "wings", or the tritypes, isn't allowed; but that's why I'm not pushing Enneagram correlations. I can clearly identify with 6 (or 4) and 8, which fit Supine and Choleric, but I too usually end up coming out heavily 5 (and with the adjacent 6 or 4 close by).

Aside as a very weak wing, I'm most definitely a 5 core with a strong 4 wing. The 6 influence isn't prominent and I'm most definitely not of the triple reactive tritype. I could see why some would think I'm 1 for gut but regardless, 4 and 5 are most definitely correct, and so are the wings and so is my instictual stacking. So I don't think you can make the connections you're making here. It's too simplistic again. A 4 is not always going to be supine or choleric for example. I can very well see a 4w5 as being melancholic. I'd in fact opine that melancholic is probably more fit for the 4 overall than supine, phlegmatic or choleric would be.

So yes, 9 is the most Phlegmatic, but since it is so peaceful, this is like the opposite of Choleric (8), and Supine (2, 4 or 6) is even further opposite of Choleric. So when you add them together, you will get the reservedness of the Phlegmatic or Supine plus the criticalness of the Choleric, and reserved/critical (introverted/task) is Melancholic. It's just a matter of sorting out the blended temperament needs according to the different "areas of need".

You entirely lost me here. I think you're trying too hard to cross-map two systems that really have no correlations than possible external behavior traits, but since people are unique it won't be that simple, especially since the enneagram theory also operates on behavior ranges due to its health levels.

Yes, as I acknowledged, cognitive E/I is either/or. I believe behavioral E/I is rooted in the cognitive (The "dominant attitude" that develops first. Both E/I and J/P are said to be the first letters to develop). Learned behavior and "masks" can alter this, and the manifestation of the "needs" is what can be "moderate". The people who have that problem you describe are probably moderate, and each test will measure traits in a way that push them one way or the other. But while their "temperament need" can be moderate, their true Jungian preference will be either/or, even if the clarity of it is low.

But why even work that way then since it's clearly confusing and obfuscating Jung's work? Most people realize that the I/E letter is quite useless in determining their actual cognition. They think they are Ne dom but only 80% extroverted. Do you see why this makes no sense? It's like they are saying their Ne preference only works 80% of the time; the rest of the time they utilize Ni.

 

[Eric B]

I don't understand this logic since the functions operate in a very delineated way in socionics, and the only way you'd confuse them is because you are bad at differentating them in people.

I don't understand how Jungian Fi is more like Fe? Fi is still Fi for introverts and Te still Te for introverts and so on. Socionics is definitely not picking up inferior Fe. It's properly picking up my inferior Te. It's the MBTI is the system that falsely picks up my inferior Te as dominant Ti.

I'm not the one who made this up. This is what I've seen in Socionics discussions, and maybe even some sites (i.e ISFj "Fi" is the same as ISFJ "Fe". It was an attempt to say that ISFj=ISFJ after all). I'm not defending that argument, but in fact saying it is what turned me off of Socionics.

I know inferior Fi types who don't come across like that at all. I think that description would if anything if so fit many Fi dominant types better based on what I've personally observed. So I don't think you can say that a person will always act like this because of the position of their function attitude in the system. Maturity doesn't occur linearly in people and just because you favor a cognitive function attitude it doesn't mean you use it well either.

I'm aware of that, but the tertiary and inferior are likely to be "less mature", and not "well" used. So those negative sounding Fi traits sound more like what we would see from TJ's (I grew up around them, so I'm well familiar with it).

As a Jungian Fi dominant I just have to disagree with this. I think it's perhaps the most noticeable when it comes to judging people but it doesn't mean it's always used to evaluate people. Even Lenore Thomson gives a good description of this of the spaghetti sauce example she provides and how Fi is used to measure the taste.

I wasn't saying it was only used to evaluate people. But even Lenore's example of the spaghetti sauce still likely involves other people, for the dinner will possibly be served to others as well. IT only references an internal sense of what is good, and assumes it's universal (what's "good" for self will be "good" for others). The judgment can be wrong, but clearly, the intent is not what we would call "selfish", or "concerned with self only" or whatever. So I simply believe those terms are misleading.

I'm sorry Eric B, but I think you're stereotyping here. I don't think you can say that every Fi dominant must be supine. I don't think reality is that simple. People are more complex than that.

Well, if not Supine, then they could be Phlegmatic. In typology terms, they're all "Behind the Scenes" in Interaction Style. They're not going to be Chart the Course, which is the "Melancholic" style.

Because as I told you, they measure different things. MBTI measures persona, not my cognitive thinking. They have different purposes so therefore they also naturally measure different things.

OK, maybe you should explain what you're implying by a Ti "persona". (To Beebe, this would mean you really were a Ti dom, and the archetypal complex called the Persona comes out through the function, but since you're saying you are really a Jungian Fi dominant, and your MBTI Ti dominance is only a "persona", then what exactly is this?)

I don't think enneatype is going to correspond to anything in particular when it comes to cognition more than perhaps certain cognition styles will have a preference towards specific coping mechanisms. I for example theorize that Fe types would be more likely to fall back on an enneagram 9 coping style simply because there is a certain overlap in the cognizant thought of the E9 and Fe about avoiding conflict and seeking external harmony. Not say it's always like that but it's an interesting overlap.

Aside as a very weak wing, I'm most definitely a 5 core with a strong 4 wing. The 6 influence isn't prominent and I'm most definitely not of the triple reactive tritype. I could see why some would think I'm 1 for gut but regardless, 4 and 5 are most definitely correct, and so are the wings and so is my instictual stacking. So I don't think you can make the connections you're making here. It's too simplistic again. A 4 is not always going to be supine or choleric for example. I can very well see a 4w5 as being melancholic. I'd in fact opine that melancholic is probably more fit for the 4 overall than supine, phlegmatic or choleric would be.

You entirely lost me here. I think you're trying too hard to cross-map two systems that really have no correlations than possible external behavior traits, but since people are unique it won't be that simple, especially since the enneagram theory also operates on behavior ranges due to its health levels.

That's why i'm not really pushing a hard connection; I was just explaining how I think it would work.

Also, I didn't say 4 was Choleric. 8 is Choleric, and to some extent, 1 and 3 as well. (1 sounds like it's between a Choleric and Melancholic, and 3 is between Choleric and Sanguine).
4 does sound like it's between Melancholic and Supine (And Phlegmatic too). So I wouldn't say they were a pure Melancholic, which would probably be 5.
And of course, 4w5 would likely be Melancholic. But my point, is that other temperament combos could get that too. That one is something I identified with (I did look at various trifixes awhile back). To me, it's being both 6 and 8, and when blended together, the 6 mellows to 4, and the 8 mellows to 5. It could come out as other things I identified with as well, like 5w4, 5w6, 6w5, the 4-6-8 trifix, etc. (forgot which one I most identified with. That was over on PerC). Since this stuff is not allowed in the theory, I don't push it.

But why even work that way then since it's clearly confusing and obfuscating Jung's work? Most people realize that the I/E letter is quite useless in determining their actual cognition. They think they are Ne dom but only 80% extroverted. Do you see why this makes no sense? It's like they are saying their Ne preference only works 80% of the time; the rest of the time they utilize Ni.

But you're not getting what I said about clarity of preference. Any time someone takes a test (I'm assuming either the official MBTI or others that use the same psychometric principles) and get a percentage of a dichotomy preference, that's just a measure of their clarity. It has nothing to do with a percentage of time that it "works". (And it's not based directly on function attitudes, and how much you "use" one versus its opposite attitude). If that's what people think, they don't understand the score. (And most people don't).

If they get 80% E, that only means they're 80% sure they're an extravert. Which is a good clue that they might actually be one. Not absolute proof, of course. But a good guess. If they get N, and they also get P, then it's a good sign that their dominant is Ne.
Since the I/E questions do reflect a lot of social behavior (this is used to assess whether their "energy is directed inwardly or outwardly", which is the definition of I/E, and also indicated where the ego will orient its dominant function; so that's how the behavioral and cognitive definitions are connected), then if for any reason, the questionee's behavior is moderate (more reserved than typical "extroverted" behavior, or more expressive than typical "introverted" behavior), then he will give a less consistent mix of "I" and "E" answers, and come up with a low clarity of preference; with the most extreme case being a 50/50 tie. This has nothing to do with his actual dominant cognitive orientation; it just means that the person is not clear, based on the behavioral definitions.

I don't know if this is maybe what your whole point was all along. If so, then the problem is the questionnaire, and yes, MBTI is not perfect, and I was never big on the questionnaire itself, just the theory it aims to measure.
Do Socionics' test questions focus more directly on cognitive process? Since anything a question asks us is technically behavior, it may be hard to sort out the functions directly. People can do the same things for different reasons. Even within the cognitive realm, it can be nonpreferred or even "shadow" functions that come up a lot for whatever reason. (Which is why I've said that a good cognitive test might be Nardi's K2C, but re-engineered to indicate the archetypal contexts the functions are being "used" in). The questionnaires cannot see into our minds to see why we're doing what we're reporting on it.

 

[Little_Sticks]

I don't really want to read all of this. Can someone please explain how the war between MBTI and socionics is going in this thread?

Pwease?

 

[Entropic]

I'm not the one who made this up. This is what I've seen in Socionics discussions, and maybe even some sites (i.e ISFj "Fi" is the same as ISFJ "Fe". It was an attempt to say that ISFj=ISFJ after all). I'm not defending that argument, but in fact saying it is what turned me off of Socionics.

I've never seen this so you would really have to find some source or similar.

I'm aware of that, but the tertiary and inferior are likely to be "less mature", and not "well" used. So those negative sounding Fi traits sound more like what we would see from TJ's (I grew up around them, so I'm well familiar with it).
I wasn't saying it was only used to evaluate people. But even Lenore's example of the spaghetti sauce still likely involves other people, for the dinner will possibly be served to others as well.

Why would it be if I am just cooking dinner for myself? Evaluation occurs daily all the time. I lead a hermit life usually far removed from people and I rarely involve myself more than I must. When I decide I want to listen to a song I do it according to Fi, when I decide what movie to watch I do it according to Fi, when I decide I want to snuggle my cats I do it according to Fi. Fi is just that, a feeling evaluation based on what you think is good or bad. It does not have to involve people at all when making such judgements.

IT only references an internal sense of what is good, and assumes it's universal (what's "good" for self will be "good" for others).

It doesn't have to include others. It does however include myself. It's a big difference.

The judgment can be wrong, but clearly, the intent is not what we would call "selfish", or "concerned with self only" or whatever. So I simply believe those terms are misleading.
Well, if not Supine, then they could be Phlegmatic. In typology terms, they're all "Behind the Scenes" in Interaction Style. They're not going to be Chart the Course, which is the "Melancholic" style.

I think you're trying too hard to connect systems that are not meant to be connected again. There is no absolute correlation here. [MENTION=16406]Faceless Beauty[/MENTION] types as an xNTJ 9w8 but phlegmatic. I kind of agree with that phlegmatic is her proper temperament.

OK, maybe you should explain what you're implying by a Ti "persona". (To Beebe, this would mean you really were a Ti dom, and the archetypal complex called the Persona comes out through the function, but since you're saying you are really a Jungian Fi dominant, and your MBTI Ti dominance is only a "persona", then what exactly is this?)

It's not that difficult to grasp. The enneagram 5 is strongly stereotyped around Ti dominance and depending a bit on how you define Ti as a function, stereotypical enneagram 5 think will automatically be regarded as "Ti think". Most of all though, I am referencing to the fact that I can take numerous MBTI tests and speak to certified typers and they would have issues justifying why I as an individual do not seem to be like an INTP because they mistake my 5-ness for INTP-ness. The INTP profile is for example stereotypically 5-ish.

Also, I didn't say 4 was Choleric. 8 is Choleric, and to some extent, 1 and 3 as well. (1 sounds like it's between a Choleric and Melancholic, and 3 is between Choleric and Sanguine).
4 does sound like it's between Melancholic and Supine (And Phlegmatic too). So I wouldn't say they were a pure Melancholic, which would probably be 5.

But didn't you suggest before that 5 (since I'm one) would be more phlegmatic or supine...?

And of course, 4w5 would likely be Melancholic. But my point, is that other temperament combos could get that too. That one is something I identified with (I did look at various trifixes awhile back). To me, it's being both 6 and 8, and when blended together, the 6 mellows to 4, and the 8 mellows to 5. It could come out as other things I identified with as well, like 5w4, 5w6, 6w5, the 4-6-8 trifix, etc. (forgot which one I most identified with. That was over on PerC). Since this stuff is not allowed in the theory, I don't push it.

I'm sorry, but this is just gibberish to make and I can't make logical sense of what you are trying to say. You seem like a 9w1 though.

But you're not getting what I said about clarity of preference. Any time someone takes a test (I'm assuming either the official MBTI or others that use the same psychometric principles) and get a percentage of a dichotomy preference, that's just a measure of their clarity. It has nothing to do with a percentage of time that it "works". (And it's not based directly on function attitudes, and how much you "use" one versus its opposite attitude). If that's what people think, they don't understand the score. (And most people don't).

I understand the concept of clarity and I think it's a pretty pointless measurement that just leads to unnecessary confusion.

If they get 80% E, that only means they're 80% sure they're an extravert. Which is a good clue that they might actually be one. Not absolute proof, of course. But a good guess. If they get N, and they also get P, then it's a good sign that their dominant is Ne.
Since the I/E questions do reflect a lot of social behavior (this is used to assess whether their "energy is directed inwardly or outwardly", which is the definition of I/E, and also indicated where the ego will orient its dominant function; so that's how the behavioral and cognitive definitions are connected), then if for any reason, the questionee's behavior is moderate (more reserved than typical "extroverted" behavior, or more expressive than typical "introverted" behavior), then he will give a less consistent mix of "I" and "E" answers, and come up with a low clarity of preference; with the most extreme case being a 50/50 tie. This has nothing to do with his actual dominant cognitive orientation; it just means that the person is not clear, based on the behavioral definitions.

And I'm saying that I don't think you should measure I/E this way at all because it measures something Jung necessarily didn't intend to measure.

I don't know if this is maybe what your whole point was all along. If so, then the problem is the questionnaire, and yes, MBTI is not perfect, and I was never big on the questionnaire itself, just the theory it aims to measure.

No, the problem is the purpose of the MBTI which is supported by the questionnaire. But it is the purpose that drives the questionnaire and the theory that's created around it.

Do Socionics' test questions focus more directly on cognitive process? Since anything a question asks us is technically behavior, it may be hard to sort out the functions directly. People can do the same things for different reasons. Even within the cognitive realm, it can be nonpreferred or even "shadow" functions that come up a lot for whatever reason. (Which is why I've said that a good cognitive test might be Nardi's K2C, but re-engineered to indicate the archetypal contexts the functions are being "used" in). The questionnaires cannot see into our minds to see why we're doing what we're reporting on it.

Socionics tests try to measure many different things so it's yes and no. Some of them focus on quadra values, some of them more specifically on IMs, some of them on both. Regardless, just like with enneagram, socionics tests are unreliable for exactly the same reason the MBTI test is unreliable and genuine typing can only occur through interaction between typer and typee. Tests can only get you so far by perhaps pointing out likely tendencies but that's about it. The real curious difference here is why the MBTI relies on test results in order to verify type (I know that you still discuss your type with a certified typer but they mostly verify your test result and it's not like they genuinely type you only based on the cognitive functions you seem to express, part because the function definitions in MBTI are so muddied) and socionics and enneagram necessarily doesn't since there isn't an offical socionics test for example. Apparently based on what one person studying at a socionics university in Poland mentioned is that socionists tend to observe the typee, ask questions and then over time come to a conclusion that is in fact is very close to Jung's working method which also makes perfect sense because a person's type can sometimes not be established until after a longer period of observation.

 

[Faceless Beauty]

I'm not the one who made this up. This is what I've seen in Socionics discussions, and maybe even some sites (i.e ISFj "Fi" is the same as ISFJ "Fe". It was an attempt to say that ISFj=ISFJ after all). I'm not defending that argument, but in fact saying it is what turned me off of Socionics.

Okay just to clarify:

1. Socionics and MBTI are rooted in Jungian functions.
2. Fi in Socionics =/= Fe in MBTI. No. No. No. NO.
3. Socionics Fi is merely Fi employed in a social context, which would make some people have this idea that it looks kind of Fe-ish. But it is not Fe.

The personas that MBTI generates are with respect to the highest oriented extroverted function rather than the dominant function like it is in socionics. Which is why Si-Fe (ISFJ) is a judger in MBTI and Fi-Se (ISFj) is a "rational" in socionics. (Rational functions in Jung's work being the same thing as T and F functions)

I know you're not really advocating this or necessarily agreeing with it, but I think things like that really ruin socionics for people and I'd like to debunk some of that if you will. xD

 

[skylights]

I prefer MBTI to Socionics simply because Socionics is a needlessly inelegant system. It's like someone took a look at MBTI's admitted failings, and was like "WE SHALL FIX ALL THE THINGS!!!!!!1111" And what they got instead was a clusterfuck. [...] Socionics to me is a house that Ne built. Taking just a cursory glance at the thread, it's not surprising that peoples' preference for or objections against the system seem to coincide with their preference for Ne or Ni.

Yeah, it's true. Even as dom Ne I can see the clusterfuck that it is. I sympathize with wanting everything to overlap nicely and click together nicely, but I think it's a little misled to try to segment out EVERYTHING.

Funny, as the purpose of the J/P dichotomy was basically behavioral. The extraverted function shapes our interaction with others. Hence, why J/P became so instrumental/useful in both temperament and Interaction Styles. (In Socionics, what they have labeled "temperament" is I/E + j/p, but the Keirsey/Berens concept of "Informative/Directive" seems to really fit the types, and matches the classic temperament factor of "people/task focus", which was the other factor beside I/E; yet in the Socionics use of j/p, that concept is lost. NTP's, for instance, which was one of the "role informative" groups, is now split between Ep and Ij. Does Socionics have a behavioral definition of j/p, since they are different according to E/I?)

What's missing there is the other factor I mentioned, of people vs task focus. This is covered more by Keirsey and especially Berens. That also greatly affects how you relate to people. I/E is more "expressive" and shows how much you tend to approach people, while people/task is called "responsive", and covers how much you respond to others, and it can even be termed as "responding as an introvert or extrovert. So the extravert who says he doesn't like being around people is probably a "directive" type (ST/NJ), who is not very responsive to others, despite how much he expresses to them. (The Keirsey/Berens definition of "directive/directing" doesn't go much into this, but Berens did match it to "task"-focus, and when a person is task focused; to use a bit of hyperbole, people are basically a bother, for they are more interested in their own personal goals, so they'll tend to "direct" people and speak in a more "dry" fashion (wet/dry was Galen's original corresponding factor), and rather be left alone until they are ready to approach people for whatever reason. "Don't call me; I'll call you".

Berens discovered another level of people/task, for Keirsey's temperaments, called "structure/motive". Respectively, SJ, NT and SP, NF.
So even though INFJ is "directive", it is still "motive" focused, and thus people-focused on that level.
Of course, looking at it cognitively, it would be from a preferred Fe perspective, but these things are all interrelated. F is people focused, and J is task focused, so Fe preference will produce a mixture of people and task focus. (Same with P and T).
(Also, when mapping type to [behavioral] temperament, there is the possibility of degrees of moderation, so someone falling on the "introvert" and/or "directive" side could still be moderately extroverted or people-focused).

Again, with Socionics, all of this is lost, because the key factor of j/p is redefined. Perhaps "back" to what it originally was "supposed" to be according to the originator of the theory, but as I always say, Jung's theory didn't seem really "complete", and was expanded and improved upon by the likes of Myers, Keirsey, Berens, Beebe and Thomson.

Also, I really lost respect for Socionics when someone here mentioned VI, before. Though I see now an acknowledgment that not all Socionists accept it.
The detailed breakdown of type dynamics is nice, though you do have this for MBTI, though not as common. There's Beebe's archetype model, though there is really no centralized source for it; it's basically publicized through lectures and workshops. There's also Type Logic, which has a full set of intertype dynamics like Socionics, though it is through some software you have to pay for.

This is really interesting.

I don't really want to read all of this. Can someone please explain how the war between MBTI and socionics is going in this thread?

MBTI is too simplistic and heavy-handed versus Socionics is too convoluted and tries to do too much. Compare/contrasting them is complicated because they overlap in some places but not others.

So,

Personal opinion, I think Socionics would be a lot better received if not for the hokey VI stuff.

 

[sulfit]

Yeah, Socionics Fi is in no way equivalent to MBTI's Fe.

For reference, this is description of socionics Fi written by its founder Aushra Augustinavichiute taken from Socionics.us (http://www.socionics.us/works/socion2.shtml#1):


White (introverted) ethics (Socionics Fi)
This is the subjective relationship between two carriers of potential or kinetic energy that shows the level of attraction (or repulsion) between one object or subject and another object or subject. Thanks to this IM element a person feels which objects attract him and which repel him. You might say that this perceptual element conveys information about objects' need or lack of need of each other and about the presence or absence of mutual or one-way needs.

Such an individual perceives information about this facet of objective reality the individual perceives as a need for certain objects that satisfy physical wishes/desires, psychological or spiritual desires, and a need for other people — in other words, a person's wishes/desires and interests that are directed toward animate and inanimate objects. This includes feelings of like and dislike, love and hatred, the desire to obtain some thing/object, etc., and greed or the absense of greed. The higher feelings of this kind can be called ethical, because relationships between people's needs are mainly regulated by ethical normals.

When this perceptual element is in the leading position, the individual possesses the innate ability to perceive and evaluate wishes/desires — both his own and others'. He always knows who wants what from whom. He is able to set his awareness of subjective reality and his wishes in opposition to those of others. He has the ability to mould and perfect both his own and others' wishes. He possesses both the ability to provide himself with necessary relationships with others and confidence in his capacity to influence other people. His correct perception of human needs allows him to avoid risky collisions when satisfying his own needs. This engenders the ability to manipulate people's attachments, and the ability and desire to influence people's ethical feelings and bring these feelings closer to societal ideals.

What I've gotten from this description is that Socionics Fi makes the individual very aware of his internal feeling-states by which he or she is then guided in life (for instance, the above description of Socionics Fi mentions that it measures attraction/repulsion between the individual in question and other objects or people, personal likes/dislikes, love/hate, and so on). In Socionics Fi is considered to be a static element i.e. it is implicitly determined on personal basis, not read openly and directly from expressions and actions of people like Fe is.


And this is description of Fi from Lenore Thomson, one of the most widely referenced MBTI writers and researchers. I'm going to repost only a portion of it since the whole thing is quite long (it can be read here http://personalitycafe.com/articles/106583-introverted-feeling-described-lenore-thomson.html)


Quasi-defining statements (MBTI Fi)
p. 41: "When we use Feeling in an Introverted way, it operates as a kind of inner flame--a sense of personal values that may be difficult to explain or express directly but whose character informs our choices and inclinations."
p. 366: "Introverted Feeling ... encourages a personal relationship to an evolving pattern, a will to gauge the situation by an experiential ideal. For example, if we use Introverted Feeling to make a good spaghetti sauce, we won't follow recipes or measure ingredients. We'll sample the sauce as we're making it, gauging its taste, smell, and texture by their ideal outcome and adjusting for circumstantial variables so the emerging pattern stays on track."
p. 367: "To invoke Introverted Feeling, we have to know the difference between a good outcome and a bad one--know with our senses, in our bones [on the basis of living, breathing, first-hand experience]."
p. 370: "Introverted Feeling relies on the inward, right-brain criteria of experience and empathy to mark off decisions that go beyond our roles in society to affect us as human beings. Law and custom, after all, are the lowest common denominator of a defined community. We associate character and humane behavior with the moral imperatives shaped by inner values."
p. 371: "An inner point of reference, one trained by personal experience. [Bypassing matters of social standing] to focus on the quintessentially human."


What's obvious here is that MBTI's Fi makes the person self-reference and sensitively listen to their own feelings and values, which are then used as as the main guide in life. This is similar to what Socionics Fi accomplishes by making the person orient by their personal feelings, their own likes and dislikes.

So, I mean, I don't really see how Socionics Fi can be Fe in MBTI. Socionics Fi description is clearly describing an introverted, subjective element.

 

[Entropic]

[MENTION=10791]sulfit[/MENTION] agreed and thank you for posting that. I think the only genuine overlap between the two functions is that Fi in both examples are ultimately about feeling evaluation based on like/dislike, attraction/repulsion and so on. I also think Thomson's description is NF-biased. I can't speak for Augusta but she has Fi PoLR so it makes sense that she would perhaps ascribe it more of a "harsh" vibe or judgement although is definiely not incorrect in that Fi judgement can be very harsh and in a way more accurate than Ti because Fi won't wallow in bullshit like Ti-Fe can but get to the very core of things right away. Fi can be very sword-like.

 

[Eric B]

I've never seen this so you would really have to find some source or similar.

Maybe it was just amateurs on discussion boards. I thought I did once see it on a site. Could have been a Socionics site forum or something

Why would it be if I am just cooking dinner for myself? Evaluation occurs daily all the time. I lead a hermit life usually far removed from people and I rarely involve myself more than I must. When I decide I want to listen to a song I do it according to Fi, when I decide what movie to watch I do it according to Fi, when I decide I want to snuggle my cats I do it according to Fi. Fi is just that, a feeling evaluation based on what you think is good or bad. It does not have to involve people at all when making such judgements.

It doesn't have to include others. It does however include myself. It's a big difference.

I didn't say it had to include others. Just that it can, and that self is simply the reference point.

I think you're trying too hard to connect systems that are not meant to be connected again. There is no absolute correlation here. [MENTION=16406]Faceless Beauty[/MENTION] types as an xNTJ 9w8 but phlegmatic. I kind of agree with that phlegmatic is her proper temperament.

I think they're interrelated, and simply picking up and focusing on different angles of the same things. There are other possible explanations of that, including a third area of temperament not covered by type. (So any type could be any temperament. Still, a lot of other people do match the other two areas).

It's not that difficult to grasp. The enneagram 5 is strongly stereotyped around Ti dominance and depending a bit on how you define Ti as a function, stereotypical enneagram 5 think will automatically be regarded as "Ti think". Most of all though, I am referencing to the fact that I can take numerous MBTI tests and speak to certified typers and they would have issues justifying why I as an individual do not seem to be like an INTP because they mistake my 5-ness for INTP-ness. The INTP profile is for example stereotypically 5-ish.

I don't think I've heard 5 associated specifically with Ti like that. It seemed to be NT in general, and the other IT's. (INTJ's I imagine would also be 1 a lot of times, but they're also often 5).

But didn't you suggest before that 5 (since I'm one) would be more phlegmatic or supine...?

I'm sorry, but this is just gibberish to make and I can't make logical sense of what you are trying to say. You seem like a 9w1 though.

I said 5 was Melancholic in itself, but combinations of other temperaments might add up to it. So Phlegmatic + Choleric would balance out to a 5 or apparent Melancholic.

I understand the concept of clarity and I think it's a pretty pointless measurement that just leads to unnecessary confusion.

And I'm saying that I don't think you should measure I/E this way at all because it measures something Jung necessarily didn't intend to measure.

No, the problem is the purpose of the MBTI which is supported by the questionnaire. But it is the purpose that drives the questionnaire and the theory that's created around it.

So you're saying MBTI should leave out the percentages?

That's not the purpose of the MBTI, only an allowance that the results might not be accurate.

Socionics tests try to measure many different things so it's yes and no. Some of them focus on quadra values, some of them more specifically on IMs, some of them on both. Regardless, just like with enneagram, socionics tests are unreliable for exactly the same reason the MBTI test is unreliable and genuine typing can only occur through interaction between typer and typee. Tests can only get you so far by perhaps pointing out likely tendencies but that's about it. The real curious difference here is why the MBTI relies on test results in order to verify type (I know that you still discuss your type with a certified typer but they mostly verify your test result and it's not like they genuinely type you only based on the cognitive functions you seem to express, part because the function definitions in MBTI are so muddied) and socionics and enneagram necessarily doesn't since there isn't an offical socionics test for example. Apparently based on what one person studying at a socionics university in Poland mentioned is that socionists tend to observe the typee, ask questions and then over time come to a conclusion that is in fact is very close to Jung's working method which also makes perfect sense because a person's type can sometimes not be established until after a longer period of observation.

MBTI doesn't “rely” on results; it's only a guideline. Like what you described for Socionics and Enneagram. We don't even give the results first, but give them the preference definitions and let them identify with them, and then bring out the results to compare, and let them decide which they most identify with.

(I guess I missed it, but what is “IM”?)

 

[Entropic]

[MENTION=3521]Eric B[/MENTION], I am not sure I have energy to continue this because it's clearly just going in circles but anyway:

Maybe it was just amateurs on discussion boards. I thought I did once see it on a site. Could have been a Socionics site forum or something

I can buy that.

I didn't say it had to include others. Just that it can, and that self is simply the reference point.

I think you're pretty strongly implied this at some level. If you didn't you've communicated it poorly:

I wasn't saying it was only used to evaluate people. But even Lenore's example of the spaghetti sauce still likely involves other people, for the dinner will possibly be served to others as well.

So essentially, even when you're saying it doesn't you kind of say it does even though Lenore's example doesn't mention anything about people. Which one is it? Either it has nothing to do with people per se it or does but if it doesn't, then why do you continually inject the notion that Fi would somehow at some level still make a judgement including other people?

I am beginning to suspect inferior Fe projection on your part.

I think they're interrelated, and simply picking up and focusing on different angles of the same things. There are other possible explanations of that, including a third area of temperament not covered by type. (So any type could be any temperament. Still, a lot of other people do match the other two areas).

Then why even opine it in the first place that the correlation is as strong as you clearly suggest it is?

I don't think I've heard 5 associated specifically with Ti like that. It seemed to be NT in general, and the other IT's. (INTJ's I imagine would also be 1 a lot of times, but they're also often 5).

Well, ok, I'm going to make it simple for you. Here's a random 5 description written by Riso and Hudson: http://www.enneagraminstitute.com/typefive.asp#.UVMxVVeRfXI

We have named personality type Five The Investigator because, more than any other type, Fives want to find out why things are the way they are. They want to understand how the world works, whether it is the cosmos, the microscopic world, the animal, vegetable, or mineral kingdoms—or the inner world of their imaginations. They are always searching, asking questions, and delving into things in depth. They do not accept received opinions and doctrines, feeling a strong need to test the truth of most assumptions for themselves.

John, a graphic artist, describes this approach to life.

“Being a Five means always needing to learn, to take in information about the world. A day without learning is like a day without ‘sunshine.’ As a Five, I want to have an understanding of life. I like having a theoretical explanation about why things happen as they do. This understanding makes me feel in charge and in control. I most often learn from a distance as an observer and not a participant. Sometimes, it seems that understanding life is as good as living it. It is a difficult journey to learn that life must be lived and not just studied.”​

Behind Fives’ relentless pursuit of knowledge are deep insecurities about their ability to function successfully in the world. Fives feel that they do not have an ability to do things as well as others. But rather than engage directly with activities that might bolster their confidence, Fives “take a step back” into their minds where they feel more capable. Their belief is that from the safety of their minds they will eventually figure out how to do things—and one day rejoin the world.

Fives spend a lot of time observing and contemplating—listening to the sounds of wind or of a synthesizer, or taking notes on the activities in an anthill in their back yard. As they immerse themselves in their observations, they begin to internalize their knowledge and gain a feeling of self-confidence. They can then go out and play a piece on the synthesizer or tell people what they know about ants. They may also stumble across exciting new information or make new creative combinations (playing a piece of music based on recordings of wind and water). When they get verification of their observations and hypotheses, or see that others understand their work, it is a confirmation of their competency, and this fulfills their Basic Desire. (“You know what you are talking about.”)

Knowledge, understanding, and insight are thus highly valued by Fives, because their identity is built around “having ideas” and being someone who has something unusual and insightful to say. For this reason, Fives are not interested in exploring what is already familiar and well-established; rather, their attention is drawn to the unusual, the overlooked, the secret, the occult, the bizarre, the fantastic, the “unthinkable.” Investigating "unknown territory"—knowing something that others do not know, or creating something that no one has ever experienced—allows Fives to have a niche for themselves that no one else occupies. They believe that developing this niche is the best way that they can attain independence and confidence.

Thus, for their own security and self-esteem, Fives need to have at least one area in which they have a degree of expertise that will allow them to feel capable and connected with the world. Fives think, “I am going to find something that I can do really well, and then I will be able to meet the challenges of life. But I can’t have other things distracting me or getting in the way.” They therefore develop an intense focus on whatever they can master and feel secure about. It may be the world of mathematics, or the world of rock and roll, or classical music, or car mechanics, or horror and science fiction, or a world entirely created in their imagination. Not all Fives are scholars or Ph.Ds. But, depending on their intelligence and the resources available to them, they focus intensely on mastering something that has captured their interest.

For better or worse, the areas that Fives explore do not depend on social validation; indeed, if others agree with their ideas too readily, Fives tend to fear that their ideas might be too conventional. History is full of famous Fives who overturned accepted ways of understanding or doing things (Darwin, Einstein, Nietzshce). Many more Fives, however, have become lost in the Byzantine complexities of their own thought processes, becoming merely eccentric and socially isolated.

The intense focus of Fives can thus lead to remarkable discoveries and innovations, but when the personality is more fixated, it can also create self-defeating problems. This is because their focus of attention unwittingly serves to distract them from their most pressing practical problems. Whatever the sources of their anxieties may be—relationships, lack of physical strength, inability to gain employment, and so forth—average Fives tend not to deal with these issues. Rather, they find something else to do that will make them feel more competent. The irony is that no matter what degree of mastery they develop in their area of expertise, this cannot solve their more basic insecurities about functioning in the world. For example, as a marine biologist, a Five could learn everything there is to know about a type of shellfish, but if her fear is that she is never going to be able to run her own household adequately, she will not have solved her underlying anxiety.

Dealing directly with physical matters can feel extremely daunting for Fives. Henry is a life scientist working in a major medical research lab:

“Since I was a child, I have shied away from sports and strenuous physical activity whenever possible. I was never able to climb the ropes in gym class, stopped participating in sports as soon as it was feasible, and the smell of a gymnasium still makes me uncomfortable. At the same time, I have always had a very active mental life. I learned to read at the age of three, and in school I was always one of the smartest kids in academic subjects.”​

Thus, much of their time gets spent "collecting" and developing ideas and skills they believe will make them feel confident and prepared. They want to retain everything that they have learned and “carry it around in their heads.” The problem is that while they are engrossed in this process, they are not interacting with others or even increasing many other practical and social skills. They devote more and more time to collecting and attending to their collections, less to anything related to their real needs.

Thus, the challenge to Fives is to understand that they can pursue whatever questions or problems spark their imaginations and maintain relationships, take proper care of themselves, and do all of the things that are the hallmarks of a healthy life.

Here's a random INTP profile portrait: http://www.personalitypage.com/INTP.html

The Thinker

As an INTP, your primary mode of living is focused internally, where you deal with things rationally and logically. Your secondary mode is external, where you take things in primarily via your intuition.

INTPs live in the world of theoretical possibilities. They see everything in terms of how it could be improved, or what it could be turned into. They live primarily inside their own minds, having the ability to analyze difficult problems, identify patterns, and come up with logical explanations. They seek clarity in everything, and are therefore driven to build knowledge. They are the "absent-minded professors", who highly value intelligence and the ability to apply logic to theories to find solutions. They typically are so strongly driven to turn problems into logical explanations, that they live much of their lives within their own heads, and may not place as much importance or value on the external world. Their natural drive to turn theories into concrete understanding may turn into a feeling of personal responsibility to solve theoretical problems, and help society move towards a higher understanding.

INTPs value knowledge above all else. Their minds are constantly working to generate new theories, or to prove or disprove existing theories. They approach problems and theories with enthusiasm and skepticism, ignoring existing rules and opinions and defining their own approach to the resolution. They seek patterns and logical explanations for anything that interests them. They're usually extremely bright, and able to be objectively critical in their analysis. They love new ideas, and become very excited over abstractions and theories. They love to discuss these concepts with others. They may seem "dreamy" and distant to others, because they spend a lot of time inside their minds musing over theories. They hate to work on routine things - they would much prefer to build complex theoretical solutions, and leave the implementation of the system to others. They are intensely interested in theory, and will put forth tremendous amounts of time and energy into finding a solution to a problem with has piqued their interest.

INTPs do not like to lead or control people. They're very tolerant and flexible in most situations, unless one of their firmly held beliefs has been violated or challenged, in which case they may take a very rigid stance. The INTP is likely to be very shy when it comes to meeting new people. On the other hand, the INTP is very self-confident and gregarious around people they know well, or when discussing theories which they fully understand.

The INTP has no understanding or value for decisions made on the basis of personal subjectivity or feelings. They strive constantly to achieve logical conclusions to problems, and don't understand the importance or relevance of applying subjective emotional considerations to decisions. For this reason, INTPs are usually not in-tune with how people are feeling, and are not naturally well-equiped to meet the emotional needs of others.

The INTP may have a problem with self-aggrandizement and social rebellion, which will interfere with their creative potential. Since their Feeling side is their least developed trait, the INTP may have difficulty giving the warmth and support that is sometimes necessary in intimate relationships. If the INTP doesn't realize the value of attending to other people's feelings, he or she may become overly critical and sarcastic with others. If the INTP is not able to find a place for themself which supports the use of their strongest abilities, they may become generally negative and cynical. If the INTP has not developed their Sensing side sufficiently, they may become unaware of their environment, and exhibit weakness in performing maintenance-type tasks, such as bill-paying and dressing appropriately.

For the INTP, it is extremely important that ideas and facts are expressed correctly and succinctly. They are likely to express themselves in what they believe to be absolute truths. Sometimes, their well thought-out understanding of an idea is not easily understandable by others, but the INTP is not naturally likely to tailor the truth so as to explain it in an understandable way to others. The INTP may be prone to abandoning a project once they have figured it out, moving on to the next thing. It's important that the INTP place importance on expressing their developed theories in understandable ways. In the end, an amazing discovery means nothing if you are the only person who understands it.

The INTP is usually very independent, unconventional, and original. They are not likely to place much value on traditional goals such as popularity and security. They usually have complex characters, and may tend to be restless and temperamental. They are strongly ingenious, and have unconventional thought patterns which allows them to analyze ideas in new ways. Consequently, a lot of scientific breakthroughs in the world have been made by the INTP.

The INTP is at his best when he can work on his theories independently. When given an environment which supports his creative genius and possible eccentricity, the INTP can accomplish truly remarkable things. These are the pioneers of new thoughts in our society.

You must clearly see the similarity between the two descriptions? Even Naranjo himself associates the INTP type with enneatype 5, Ti, Si and Fi.

I said 5 was Melancholic in itself, but combinations of other temperaments might add up to it. So Phlegmatic + Choleric would balance out to a 5 or apparent Melancholic.

Then why were you so certain that I must be phlegmatic or supine because I told you I'm a Jungian INFP?

So you're saying MBTI should leave out the percentages?

Yes, because it's misleading and all it does is confuse people.

That's not the purpose of the MBTI, only an allowance that the results might not be accurate.

And I don't think for most of the part they are actually genuienely accurate because it confuses type too much with persona. So it still begs the question, why measure it like that?

MBTI doesn't “rely” on results; it's only a guideline. Like what you described for Socionics and Enneagram. We don't even give the results first, but give them the preference definitions and let them identify with them, and then bring out the results to compare, and let them decide which they most identify with.

Yes, but that's the problem, you ask them to identify with descriptions which might very well simply reinforce their persona.

(I guess I missed it, but what is “IM”?)

It stands for information element and is simply the same word as function except it also connotes a specific function position in a person's psyche.

 

[527468]

Last I checked they both need to be put on the backburner, because influences like Keirsey, Myers and most Socionics theorists have altered what Jung was emphasizing.

MBTI had the idea that types have a primary and secondary cognition based from the logic of Jung P-types (strong-inferior polarity in judging and perceiving, ie. Ti-Fe + Ne-Si) That makes perfect sense. Jung concluded that every type has an exact second type, an inferior orientation, and we disassociate from the other orientations. Both theories are wrong however to say we use all 8 functions (when in truth there are only 4 functions and their specified orientation in each individual.) Socionics takes the idea that our dominant, inferior and tertiary functions make us respond to information similarly to others oriented to the same functions (our quadra.) I've found that to be true. But defining types in this context as personalities or social roles, etc.? That's a big no.