Isn't this trying to crowbar Fe and Te in as
perceiving functions? I thought an ENFJ's sense of internal validation/valuation comes from Ti and not Fi? Am I missing something here? If judging functions are both judging and perceiving then what's the point of N and S perceiving functions? Do N and S actually judge too? If so this would force me to reestablish my whole understanding of Jungian typology from the ground up.
Good questions to which I will attempt to give what I understand to be the answers that the Socionics theorists I have read might give. To do so, allow me to separate out two, key issues you raise. First, what do J and P mean in Socionics, and, second, given that J and P are different in Socionics (compared to Myers-Briggs-Kiersian theory) what's the difference between a "judging" function and a "perceiving" function?
First, J and P are very poorly named (in English), and this leads to some significant confusion. As an aside, F is translated into English as
ethics in Socionics (not feeling) while T is translated into English as
logic (not thinking). This was a wise change, imo, because, first, it reduces some gender bias (women are more-inclined to self-type as "feelers" and men are more inclined to self-type as "thinkers" due to the influence of powerful and nearly-ubiquitous social norms and expectations), and second, it obliterates the notion that F and T are not
both "thinking" functions. In Socionics, all four of the original, Jungian cognitive functions are forms of thinking (that's why they're called "cognitive" functions). F is just as much a form of "thinking" as is T. N and S are also forms of cognition, i.e. "thinking." For Socionics, then, the p/j axis is a description of whether a given form of thinking is either rational or irrational (as opposed to a description of whether a function is "perceiving" or "judging"). In Socionics theory, all four Jungian functions both perceive and judge, and I'll address that issue later in this post. F and T (Ethics and Logic) are both rational, and any person who is a j (rational) will have their strongest rational function in their first Model A position (i.e. program function--one's strongest, most natural function that can be articulated through language). So, for example, an Fj will have either Fe or Fi in their program function position while a Tj will have either Te or Ti in their program function position. On the other hand, p describes irrationality. S and N are both irrational functions, and any person who is a p (irrational) will have their strongest irrational function in their first Model A position (program function). So, for example, an Np will have either Ne or Ni in their program function position while an Sp will have either Se or Si in their program function position. That simple mechanic, all on its own, can and does
define the program function of each of the 16 Sociotypes.
The distinction above is essential to understanding Socionics. The reason is this. Whereas Freud's goal was to cure the sick, and whereas Jung's was to both cure the sick and to understand the workings of the human mind, and whereas Myers-Briggs-Kiersian theory is principally designed to improve workplace efficiency (and to sell a lot of books and proprietary tests), A. Augusta, the founder of Socionics, was looking to do something entirely different. A. Augusta was a brilliant woman who had an unhappy marriage, and she just
had to understand why it was that she, being the bright woman she was, and after putting years and years of her best efforts into making her marriage work, simply couldn't do it. It's commonly said among those of us who study cognitive theory that "any, highly dualized couple
can work well together despite radical differences in their personalities." A. Augusta never denied this
unsubstantiated claim, to my knowledge, but her research showed that any couple composed of two rationals (Js) or any couple composed of two irrationals (Ps) will have a much greater probability of achieving a lasting, fulfilling, and happy relationship than any irrational/rational pairing (one J and one P). For the purpose of translation into English shorthand, the letters "p" and "j" have been retained by Socionics theorists (ENFj, for example), but lower case letters are used on the p/j axis for these personality traits, not because they are less important, but, rather, because they are
the most essential feature of a potential mate if what you're looking for is compatibility and a lasting relationship. In essence, Socionics is
all about relationships between people (the most important thing in the world to an F dom, like me, and for many others too). I'd venture to say that most of us who post on this forum came here, at least initially, because of relationship problems, and Socionics addresses that particular issue
first and foremost, whereas Freud, Jung, and their MBTI descendants, for the most part, had different goals entirely. Socionics is designed to teach us who we are, on the assumption that, once we know who we are (and how our brains function), we will be better equipped to find a mate with whom we can maintain a lasting, fulfilling relationship. That was, after all, A. Augusta's main goal. Needless to say, this makes Socionics very attractive to me, but the key, here, is that in order to understand Socionics one must abandon the commonplace definitions of the words "perceiving" and "judging" as those words create more confusion than clarity. It's best to understand them as rationality (J) and irrationality (P). Rationals will have a rational function (F and T are both rational) in their 1st Model A position (program function), whereas irrationals will have an irrational function (N and S are both irrational) in their 1st Model A position. Again, all four of the original, Jungian cognitive functions (according to Socionics) are both "perceiving" and "judging." When extraverted, each function acts as a sponge and absorbs INPUT in an
unbiased and neutral way, but that same extraverted function may then be used as an OUTPUT function that is
very subjective and that may be deployed in order to change the world in some way. In all cases, extraversion, as it manifests in one's cognitive functions, is about what is "outside" the person--either absorbing it neutrally or changing it subjectively.
When introverted, however, each function acts as a limiting/narrowing (dare I say "judging"?) device. Here's an example. While Ne absorbs data from the "outside" world neutrally and objectively (and may project itself into the "outside" world in order to change the world quite subjectively), Ni looks "inside" the person (to its unique, personal history and all the data stored in the subconscious of that same, unique person) and then
processes what's in there in order to to pare away and/or narrow all the possible futures conjured up by Ne so that Ni may then
select/choose/judge the
most likely future. By the same token, Fi will limit/narrow all the unbiased, unjudged, and neutral data collected by Fe's INPUT, and then
judge, i.e. select, the
most likely or
best evaluation or judgment. (F is really evaluation--good/bad, right/wrong, beautiful/ugly, straight/crooked, true/false, etc., whereas T is focused on problem/solution, problem/solution, and more problem/solution). All the introverted functions are inherently subjective, as they all involve "looking inside" and "processing" the unique data and unique histories of unique individuals. Extraverted functions are
not subjective as INPUT functions, but they are
always subjective as OUTPUT functions (only
after they have been processed by their introverted counterparts).
In Socionics, the distinction I made above is
defined by the terms "explosive" and "implosive." All extraverted functions are explosive when acting as INPUT functions--they want more, more, and more. They absorb like sponges--more, more, and more. Introverted functions, by contrast, are implosive--they want fewer, fewer, and fewer (so that they can determine the
one,
best or
most likely conclusion). Again, all four of the original Jungian cognitive functions (N, S, F, and T) are
explosive functions in their extraverted INPUT forms and
implosive in their introverted forms. All of us, at some level of our psyches (or, more precisely, in some position in our Model A functional maps),
have and use all four of these original Jungian functions in both their extraverted and introverted manifestations. It's just a question of preference and strength for each Sociotype (i.e, where each function falls in each Sociotype's Model A map of its cognitive functions).
So, to illustrate, here's how I work as an attorney. A potential client comes to me with a problem. I, being an Fe dom, initially (if not constantly) extravert Fe in order to make my potential client feel comfortable, relaxed, safe, and open to communication with me. Then I absorb. I have Fe in my program (1st) position, so I "feel" them first, and it's usually pain, confusion, or distress that I feel because they wouldn't be coming to an attorney unless something was disturbing their emotional stability. I also have Te as my role function, so I absorb data from the outside world through that function as well. While a potential client is telling me his or her story, I am thinking to myself, "What are all the possible problems that need solving here?" Again, all extraverted functions are explosive, so I'm just "open to" and "neutrally absorbing" all the possible problems that a given potential client presents to me. That's how extraverted functions act when they are in their INPUT mode. They neutrally absorb. Then, or simultaneously, Ti is limiting/narrowing this input--i.e "that's not the problem," "that's not the problem," "that's not the problem," until, finally, Ti goes, "Eureka! That's the
most likely or
main problem that needs fixing here." Ti then proceeds to limit and narrow possible solutions (like the good, introverted function that it is). Ti searches for the
best solution in the same kind of limiting/narrowing way--i.e. "that's not a good solution," "that's not a good solution," "that's not a good solution," until, finally, Ti goes, "Eureka! That's the
best possible solution," and, in my case, I have to be very careful in such situations. When I finally decide to extravert and respond to a potential client, I always try to do so in a way that is cautious and prudent, as in, "That's the best solution I can see
at the moment and
given the data currently at my disposal, i.e. "based upon what you have told me so far and what I know at the time." Once my potential client has hired me, and I should note that Fe is
excellent for creating the "feeling" that I am knowledgeable, trustworthy, capable, and worthy of being retained, I usually then turn to Te again (read up on the subject in my law books or on the internet, call the Clerk of the Court for some key information, discuss the matter with a colleague, etc.) in order to get
more data (Te always wants
more, as do all explosive, extraverted functions). Then, armed with
more Te-generated data, Ti sifts through all that and processes it, again looking to limit/select the
best solution (Ti always wants
less, as do all implosive, introverted functions). It may be that my initial Ti "gut" solution was the best choice. On the other hand, once armed with new, Te-generated data that is now "inside" me, Ti may process that data and discover an
even better solution, effectively narrowing/limiting the possible or available solutions, and Ti may even "eliminate" what I originally thought was the "best" solution and, instead,
replace it with a different solution that Ti now thinks is a "better" one. In this sense, introverted functions may be best understood and described as "judging" functions, whereas extraverted functions may be best understood and described as "perceiving" functions, but, in order to avoid confusion with the widely-used but poorly-named MBTI functions, Socionics uses the terms "explosive" and "implosive" to describe this key distinction.
Note that all of this occurs very rapidly--simultaneously, in fact, and usually unconsciously. There's a constant dialogue between the extraverted and introverted manifestations of each of the four Jungian cognitive functions. Fe is always explosively gathering
more F (evaluation) data, while Fi is always looking for
fewer or "the best" F (evaluation) answer--implosively limiting, narrowing, and selecting what to value and focus upon out of all the vast data that Fe is collecting. In the same way, Te is always explosively gathering
more T (problem/solution) data, while Ti is always looking for
fewer or "the best" T (problem/solution) answer.
This dynamic works in the same way for the irrational functions (N and S). For an attorney, N is essential, because N is all about theoretical abstraction, time (both past and future), associations, causal chains, and connections. When potential clients come to see me, what they
really want is a better
future. They are unhappy in their present circumstances (otherwise they wouldn't seek my assistance). They want me to help them get to the future
that they want. So, my Ne is constantly absorbing data and
irrationally making connections that allow it to "imagine" possible futures that may result from taking a given course of action. My
very strong Ni then comes along and does what it's supposed to do. It narrows and limits. "No, don't do that because it will
most likely lead to this (bad) future." It continues to limit and narrow ("bad choice because it probably leads to a bad future," "bad choice because it probably leads to a bad future," "bad choice because it probably leads to a bad future," etc.) until Ni finally goes, ""Eureka! That's the
best course of action because it is
most likely to get you to the future
that you want." All the while, explosive Ne is churning away, offering Ni more options which Ni, then, must limit and narrow further because Ni is always trying to find the
most likely outcome of every possible course of action and pare down the possible futures "imagined" by the mind's ever-explosive Ne. Ni seeks the
most likely future that may result from any given choice or course of action. This interplay between Ne and Ni is, actually, what attorneys do best--attorneys advise their clients by helping them choose a particular course of action that is
most likely to get their clients to
the future that their clients want.
Now, having illustrated the interplay between Fe and Fi, Te and Ti, and Ne and Ni, don't even bother asking me to illustrate the interplay between Se and Si (because I
suck at them). Any illustration I might attempt would be juvenile, at best. What's key to understanding this dynamic is grasping the concept that extraverted functions
first neutrally absorb as INPUT functions, then,
secondly, introverted functions subjectively evaluate (i.e. judge/limit), then, finally, as a result of these ongoing processes, one may
choose to extravert as an OUTPUT function (project something out into the world so as to
alter the state of the world), but one
can not prevent introverting (remembering/filing away/storing) whatever data, judgments, and/or "conclusions" one has reached as a result of these mental processes. All of that "stuff" is stored in the subconscious and is, therefore, available to any and all of one's introverted functions for future analysis and decisionmaking.
This is how I understand the difference between the
explosive and
implosive natures of the original, Jungian cognitive functions in Socionics theory. Gulenko calls this the evolutionary/involutionary dichotomy (but it has also been called left/right as well as process/result). I like the terms "explosive" and "implosive" as I feel they better convey the essence of this concept in English. My strengths are explosive Fe and implosive Ni. Thus, my ego is FeNi, but note that Fi and Ne are buried deep in my id (strong but subconscious functions in my 7th and 8th Model A positions). Fi and Ne constantly inform and interact with my ego in the way, I think, that I have described here.
As for where one gets one's sense of identity or, to use your terms, "internal validation/valuation," I think that question is best addressed by how one understands extraversion and introversion. None of us is completely extraverted, nor are any of us completely introverted. We all have some internal, introverted "core" self, but extraverts show a distinct preference for validation and self-evaluation from the outside world, whereas introverts show a distinct preference for validation and self-evaluation from their own, unique, internal "core" selves.
Whew! That was a lot. Thanks for reading. :whew:
