• You are currently viewing our forum as a guest, which gives you limited access to view most discussions and access our other features. By joining our free community, you will have access to additional post topics, communicate privately with other members (PM), view blogs, respond to polls, upload content, and access many other special features. Registration is fast, simple and absolutely free, so please join our community today! Just click here to register. You should turn your Ad Blocker off for this site or certain features may not work properly. If you have any problems with the registration process or your account login, please contact us by clicking here.

Difference between J/P and j/p for introverts?

Geonat

New member
Joined
May 2, 2014
Messages
134
Hi there,

It seems that for introverts (but not for extroverts!) there is no simple translation from MBTI J/P to socionics j/p:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Socionics (please have a look under header 16 types)

Does anyone here have any clue as to why that is the case?

There is also a fifth dimension (neuroticism, cf Big Five) which each system only partially covers/reaches. This is perhaps covered better in the enneagram level of health.
That is, four dimensions are used, but the coordinate axes of MBTI and Socionics are not perfectly aligned, and they cannot of course cover all five dimensions of Big Five (and do not align with their axes either).

For example, is it possible to say anything on which of the eight functions that are most difficult to translate between MBTI and Socionics, i.e. where is the correspondence weakest in the table below? (numbers in parenthesis correspond to typical table entries in Socionics)

MBTI/BeebeSocionics
1Dominant/HeroLeading (1)
2Auxiliary/Good parentCreative (2)
3Tertiary/Puer-PuellaMobilizing (6)
4Inferior/Anima-AnimusSuggestive (5)
5-/OpposingObservant (7)
6-/Senex-WitchDemonstrative (8)
7-/TricksterVulnerable (4)
8-/Demon(Daimon)Role (3)

Edit: The four dimensions I'm talking about above would perhaps correspond to
Ji (some mix of Fi and Ti),
Je (some mix of Fe and Te),
Pi (some mix of Ni and Si) and
Pe (some mix of Ne and Se).
It's a mess.

Edit: Another four-dimensional basis is of course
Intuiting (Ni,Ne),
Feeling (Fi,Fe)
Thinking (Ti,Te)
Sensing (Si,Se).
Just to complicate things even further...
 
Last edited:
0

011235813

Guest
I just told you via pm that my brain is fried right now ... and it is. .. but I'll weigh in with preliminary thoughts on what little I understand of your question.

I think, for introverts at least, both mbti and socionics get it wrong as far as judging and perceiving are concerned. Introverts just aren't as extreme in that regard as either system makes out. Dominant internal orderliness/rigidity (Ji) is hard to measure or even prove in strictly external terms, and external orderliness (Je) just isn't as immediately palpable in the aux/creative position as it is in the dominant ... and in any case, it's always in service of dominant Pi ... which isn't orderly in and of itself in the strictest sense.

So the waters are already muddy. Reinforcing hard notions of order and chaos when the raw material itself is too messy to be sorted into neat categories is bound to result in confusion and failure, imo.
 

Geonat

New member
Joined
May 2, 2014
Messages
134
I just told you via pm that my brain is fried right now ... and it is. .. but I'll weigh in with preliminary thoughts on what little I understand of your question.

I think, for introverts at least, both mbti and socionics get it wrong as far as judging and perceiving are concerned. Introverts just aren't as extreme in that regard as either system makes out. Dominant internal orderliness/rigidity (Ji) is hard to measure or even prove in strictly external terms, and external orderliness (Je) just isn't as immediately palpable in the aux/creative position as it is in the dominant ... and in any case, it's always in service of dominant Pi ... which isn't orderly in and of itself in the strictest sense.

So the waters are already muddy. Reinforcing hard notions of order and chaos when the raw material itself is too messy to be sorted into neat categories is bound to result in confusion and failure, imo.

Thank you for your quick and insightful reply - I agree that there is so much noise to be handled here.
I promise not to go bananas on this, but I thought that I could try to show in a simple way what I was talking about abstractly above regarding dimensions and bases:

Let's say that you have handed out a questionnaire consisting of two questions where the respondents can rate their answer on some continuous scale from "not at all" (negative value) and "very much so" (positive value). The the result might look something like this:

basis1.gif

From the results (the dots, one for each person) one might, if the questions were close to something significant) discern a straight line (the dotted one).

Then you should go back to the questions asked and see if you can reformulate them into two new but related questions. With some luck you will then end up with something like this:

basis2.gif

You have then found something very useful - answers to the new question #1 are pretty independent of question #2 . This could serve as a base for your theory (perhaps the question is very significant för the concept of Ji for example).

Now this can be generalized to as many questions (dimensions) as you like, even if it is extremely difficult to visualize when there are more than three dimensions. Mathematically however it's a piece of cake (well...). It may then turn out that perhaps only five questions are really independent.

Then you have five independent dimensions (agreeableness, openness, neuroticism, conscentiousness and extraversion for example) that will explain very much of how the system (people :)) works.

The problem is that MBTI and Socionics etc haven't asked the crucial questions so the axes aren't orthogonal to all straight-line trends. So the question is: What are the right questions to ask, and how many do you need to ask?
 
Top