my opinion is not my own. it's that of jung to begin with. and you know, there are others.
i am only arguing about strait edge logic, dealing with six years ob observation of theory of mind. if that makes me sound ENTj, then i am proud of it. after all i am trans-rational, i should sound rational-inclusive. i am still a perceiver.
what this thread is about: two words: developement, meaning that common people are characterized by their first function and their shadow-peak (like Fe for Ti) more than by their second function. this is my knowledge, not my theory. if you can not see this, you have nothing to judge away this thread nor anything to contribute to this. logic. it is insane to name-call the majority of people by a trait that is not characterizing them. if you want to argue with this, have fun - without me.
Umm...read the MBTI definitions of P/J. In MBTI's terms, it doesn't mean
leading with that function; it means
extroverting that function. So again, in Jung's terms, rational types are EJ/IP and irrational ones are EP/IJ. There's no erroneous claim being made that people leading with a P function are rational or that people leading with a J function are irrational; it's just the same information sliced up a little differently.
I am
not "calling a majority of people by a label that does not characterize them",
because the MBTI P/J label has a different meaning from the Socionics one. If you stop assuming P/J to mean "the function you lead with" and just recognize what it means in an MBTI context (the function you extrovert), then this entire problem immediately evaporates.
Jung never actually wrote any four-letter type codes, so he had no opinion on this. You seem to believe that you can determine the most "accurate" system of arbitrary labeling through observation, but you can't, because it's still just arbitrary labeling.
I understand that
in your opinion using P/J to mean "the function you lead with" seems more efficient than using it to mean "the function you extrovert", but each method of labeling has its own organizational advantages and disadvantages and there's no inherently or objectively "better" method. You cannot use observation to determine factually which arbitrary labeling method is superior.
In defense of MBTI's labeling method, though--with MBTI the functions line up more evenly with type codes...for instance:
Ne = xNxP
Si = xSxJ
Fe = xxFJ
Ti = xxTP
But how does this work in socionics? When we talk about Ne, we might be referring to ENxp, or we might also mean INxj. The utility in MBTI's labeling is that the functions always line up consistently with the same letters, so we can use terms like "SFPs" as shorthand for "people whose top two functions are Se and Fi."
Socionics is a little more confusing in this regard because "SFp" could refer to an Se+Fi user, or to an Si+Fe user, depending on context. Socionics labeling has its advantages too, since it's easier to understand which type of function is leading, but it also has proportional disadvantages. I suggest you drop the self-righteous assertion that your labeling method is objectively superior, because that's silly.
I'm less apt to ascribe it to a function and more apt to ascribe it to individuals who don't have checks and balances on said functions.
Fair enough.
