For the third time you don't switch J/P. And I honestly don't understand why you're dismissing the entire theory without doing any research. Can you explain why? Doesn't seem like the rational thing to do.
Once again, I'm not dismissing it. I've read the basic literature and understand the general idea and it seems to work just fine (at least, apart from the relationships part.) Please note that I'm not declaring it inferior to MBTI--just not significantly different enough for it to particularly matter which system you use.
You only switch J/P for introverts, and only because socionics' "rational" dimension obviously = EJ/IP, and its "irrational" one obviously = EP/IJ. Yes, that requires phrasing and labeling things a little bit differently, but try to look at the bigger picture here. What real advantage does Socionics have over MBTI? There just really aren't any new concepts in Socionics if you're already familiar with Jung. It really doesn't matter that Socionics has a different definition of Si or Se or changes which types of people are rational/irrational or any of that stuff. These are all just differences in semantics and labeling of the same fundamental cognitive processes and attitudes.
This is the same reason I haven't looked into the Enneagram; I just don't care because all it offers is another possible way of categorizing the same ideas. You're focusing on really trivial details and ignoring the overall conceptual similarity and usage between
all typological systems.
I read all of the links you've sent on the topic and several other overviews and I'm sorry but I really don't see what's conceptually different besides rearranging a few labels (and of course, the whole utterly ridiculous "duality" system of compatibility.)
The supposed "huge differences" in functional definitions that you cite really don't seem that different to me at all. Consider this--I'm an Ne dominant and (at least in Jung's terms) Ne is about noting conceptual similarities between different external world systems. I may be seeing something you're not.
Yeah, I get that not every IxxP MBTI type lines up precisely with an IxxJ Socionics type, but that's insignificant in the broader picture because MBTI and Socionics still categorize people according to fundamentally similar critera,
even if a couple of minor categorical details are different. You keep pointing out that not every MBTI type lines up exactly word-for-word with a Socionics type, but I can't really figure why you think that
matters in the first place. Even if you take some characteristics from this type group and swap them with some from that type group, you haven't changed the basis of the system.
I think Socionics works fine, aside from the relationships part. It's just a different language that describes the exact same ideas in remarkably conceptually similar terms. Yes, I get it; some people "test" into Socionics types that don't line up precisely with every MBTI type; I just don't think you understand how truly insignificant this is. Remember how irrelevant "testing" of psychological type is, anyway--unverifiable and dependent upon self-report.
I'm not arguing that you can call it a "manzana" too; I'm just tired of hearing why "apple" is an inferior term when both work equally well despite being spelled and pronounced differently.
Both systems are oversimplifications of Jung, anyway. The only part of MBTI I even use is its labels; beyond that I'm operating entirely on Jungian functional ideas, not MBTI profiles. MBTI's idea of P/J is garbage to me --I thought you knew that about me.