[Gamma] is it normal to have a different MBTI/ socionic type?

[absyrd]

I refuse to accept that Ti-Ne in Socionics (INTj) is different from Ti-Ne in MBTI (INTP). I've heard all the arguments about why the systems should be differentiated, but I just don't care. None of them make sense. The concept of the functions are crucial to understanding what Jung was talking about, and interpreting them differently between systems is really senseless. Differences between the functions in MBTI and Socionics are based solely on descriptions from various sites or specific interpretations from specific writers but that does not change the fundamental meaning of the function, which isn't gonna change just because you're talking about one system and not the other. Ti is Ti, Ne is Ne, Fi is Fi, whether you're reading Socionics or MBTI or whatever.

 

[Entropic]

Tbh I type people specifically based on their Jungian type and I have never run into a person whose type differs between the MBTI and socionics in a very pure cognitive sense. I have never run into a person who is clearly Fi dom in one system and Ni the other; I find that the more I learn and understand the more I see how they both build upon the Jungian reality that was initially observed and how both systems ultimately correlate due to this reality.

I find that people who think that the systems are different do so because they hold on to a purist ideal where the descriptions of the types, or conversely the functions, are described to appear different so therefore they must be different. I find that this misses out on that the actual functional reality is that they merely emphasize different aspects but that the main idea that underlies them is actually the same.

People's cognition doesn't change, but how people describe that phenomenon does. Therein lies the problem and people think that definition > reality. No, reality > definition.

 

[absyrd]

I have never run into a person who is clearly Fi dom in one system and Ni the other

That's a breath of fresh air then. Bye PerC.

 

[Dr Mobius]

The difference between MBTI and Socionics isn't so much functions as it is methodology.

Both are products of their respective time and environment; serving as exemplars of how psychology has changed so much since it began.

MBTI is the quintessential child of soft science psychology as we all know it. The heart of which is statistical modelling. This gives MBTI its nature of broad, (some would say useless) statements in an effort to contain multitudes. Its also why concepts such as relationship dynamics are infeasible; far to many variables to be properly tested.

Socionics is the child of psychoanalysis before the advent of modern psychology. It's basis is inductive logic; I have observed this trait in a particular person, This conforms to my understand of the Pi function, therefore all Pi users share this trait. The result of which is a lattice of logic. Unfortunately the issue with logic is its lack of variability; hence the often told joke: Socionics is a fine theory, until it meets reality that is. Its holistic nature serves to highlight this vulnerability; having anything other then an extremely positive relationship with your dual is impossible. To do so is to put into question the entirety of the Socionics system. Fragile very very fragile.

As for whether to be or not to be? As someone who has seen a ludicrous amount of these threads, the only conclusion I have come to is that those who actually care are long-winded and tedious. Do what you want to do, lest one day you become one of those zombies.

 

[Entropic]

That's a breath of fresh air then. Bye PerC.

I am a prominent poster at perc as well and most share my view there, unless you mean something else?

 

[CDH15]

I usually am typed as INTP on the Myers-Briggs test, but I scored LII-Ti on the Socionics test. It claims my function stacking goes Ti-Ne-Fi-Se, which, as you should know, involves putting the dominant and auxiliary functions of INTP with the tertiary and inferior functions of INTJ, which does not make a whole lot of sense because Ti and Fi do not go together in any of the Jungian function pairings for MBTI.

 

[Oaky]

I'm a socionics SLI ISTp and MBTI INTJ.

I refuse to accept that Ti-Ne in Socionics (INTj) is different from Ti-Ne in MBTI (INTP). I've heard all the arguments about why the systems should be differentiated, but I just don't care. None of them make sense. The concept of the functions are crucial to understanding what Jung was talking about, and interpreting them differently between systems is really senseless. Differences between the functions in MBTI and Socionics are based solely on descriptions from various sites or specific interpretations from specific writers but that does not change the fundamental meaning of the function, which isn't gonna change just because you're talking about one system and not the other. Ti is Ti, Ne is Ne, Fi is Fi, whether you're reading Socionics or MBTI or whatever.

If you think this you've misunderstood the system of socionics as it works differently. Socionics is about attitudes towards the different functions and MBTI is about... well what function you use more than others. Socionics' interpretations of jung works is altered. As in it is not the same by definition. With some general similarities, they're not in essence the same formulation of the mental faculties Jung explained and it's a thing for itself. Of course they've adopted the same labelling but it's alterations make it different in essence.

 

[Riva]

Yet there is an order isn't it, in socionics?

Even if it is the attitude towards functions and especially because of it.

 

[Cygnus]

You can type as anything in MBTI because it's so widespread, there are so many tests, and you can wrongly type by letters (Keirsey) instead of Functions.


Socionics gives you one possible type, and one possible type alone. If you want to be sure in your typing, start with Socionics, then carry the Information Elements over into JCF for MBTI and you'll have your definite MBTI type.

 

[Entropic]

I'm a socionics SLI ISTp and MBTI INTJ.

If you think this you've misunderstood the system of socionics as it works differently. Socionics is about attitudes towards the different functions and MBTI is about... well what function you use more than others. Socionics' interpretations of jung works is altered. As in it is not the same by definition. With some general similarities, they're not in essence the same formulation of the mental faculties Jung explained and it's a thing for itself. Of course they've adopted the same labelling but it's alterations make it different in essence.

MBTI isn't about what you use more though, per se, but it's about ego identity. This logic is absolutely carried over to socionics, which is why it has blocks organized based on the tripartite model. Socionics for example recognizes that one can use a function a lot but it may not be the ego function and the MBTI does the same in that there not just a point in looking at what people use but how good they are at using it. MBTI, just like socionics, also separates between conscious and unconscious.

How did you arrive at being an SLI? Do you fully understand what socionics Si really is?

I usually am typed as INTP on the Myers-Briggs test, but I scored LII-Ti on the Socionics test. It claims my function stacking goes Ti-Ne-Fi-Se, which, as you should know, involves putting the dominant and auxiliary functions of INTP with the tertiary and inferior functions of INTJ, which does not make a whole lot of sense because Ti and Fi do not go together in any of the Jungian function pairings for MBTI.

This is a misunderstanding of the system. The superego block which is Fi and Se for an LII, is conscious but it is not valued, meaning your psyche does not appreciate, nor does it care for, information that concern these two elements. The valued functions are 1, 2 and 5 and 6 aka ego and super-id block or Ti, Ne, Si and Fe. So the functional model is actually in this regard the same. Socionics arranges what in the MBTI would be the shadow functions a little differently. The only real difference is that socionics claims that Fi and Se are conscious for the LII. I am not sure I wholly agree with this either, tbh. Another thing to point out here is that the superego block in socionics is very similar to Lenore Thomson's idea of the crow's nest and I think if Lenore would physically organize her vision of the psyche, it would probably look very similar to model A.

 

[Little_Sticks]

I'm a socionics SLI ISTp and MBTI INTJ.

If you think this you've misunderstood the system of socionics as it works differently. Socionics is about attitudes towards the different functions and MBTI is about... well what function you use more than others. Socionics' interpretations of jung works is altered. As in it is not the same by definition. With some general similarities, they're not in essence the same formulation of the mental faculties Jung explained and it's a thing for itself. Of course they've adopted the same labelling but it's alterations make it different in essence.

Technically, MBTI alters Jung work as well. It creates its own dichotomies that don't exactly align with the Jungian ones (J/P for introverts as one example) and defines the functions in a less conceptual and more stereotypical manner. But nevermind,


Okay, I have an idea.
Let's say I define a cup as something that stores and holds liquid. When the cup has liquid in it, we could say it loses the ability to hold other liquids, until its poured out. So let's say your self is the cup and the liquid represents Jung's psychological functions that can take hold in your cup. Now each cup is going to have a different shape or form that's unique to the individual and will effect how it holds liquids. But as you get liquid in your cup, your psyche becomes filled with a particular way of being with the world (psychological functions) and it becomes harder to change that, unless something traumatic happens that spills all the liquid from the cup. And the more you fill your cup with the same liquid, the more it creates a pull on your psyche to orientate yourself with the world in a certain way. It's a conceptual understanding that can apply to an infinite amount of possible cups and has the potential to help each cup better understand their orientation and its inherent nature. That's how Jung's types are. You learn the concept of a cup as best you can and see how different cups are filled, hopefully to gain some insight on yourself and other people, especially given that everyone is different to some degree. So how does this differ from MBTI and Socionics?

With Socionics it says to be a certain cup you need to have certain characteristics. You gotta be round and tall or have a lid that closes or be heat-able in the microwave or fill your cup with certain liquids and in certain amounts. And other cups have to have certain characteristics as well. The Jungian conceptual understanding still applies, but concrete characteristics are delineated from them, which may or may not be accurate or always true, but they are described nonetheless. This follows a Behaviorist approach and can be completely inaccurate at times.

With MBTI it says you need to have certain behaviors. Do you generally think a certain way or act a certain way or approach your problems in one typical manner or another? Then you are a stereotypical cup that is distinctly different from other stereotypical cups. The Jungian conceptual understanding also still applies, but now we let people decide what they are based on what they believe their thoughts and actions are comprised of rather than encourage people to investigate the nature of their being. This seems to blend Cognitivism and Behaviorism, but fails to let people investigate themselves as it blurs the Jungian concepts into stereotypes that may or may not be accurate.

So anyway with that in mind, they are different lenses of the same thing. Yes, technically they see different things because of how they focus, but what they are staring at is still conceptually the same.

 

[CDH15]

This is a misunderstanding of the system. The superego block which is Fi and Se for an LII, is conscious but it is not valued, meaning your psyche does not appreciate, nor does it care for, information that concern these two elements. The valued functions are 1, 2 and 5 and 6 aka ego and super-id block or Ti, Ne, Si and Fe. So the functional model is actually in this regard the same. Socionics arranges what in the MBTI would be the shadow functions a little differently. The only real difference is that socionics claims that Fi and Se are conscious for the LII. I am not sure I wholly agree with this either, tbh. Another thing to point out here is that the superego block in socionics is very similar to Lenore Thomson's idea of the crow's nest and I think if Lenore would physically organize her vision of the psyche, it would probably look very similar to model A.

So what you're saying is that your dominant and auxiliary functions define you much more than your tertiary and inferior functions? I would agree that the first two functions are much more present in most people, but that does not mean the two lesser functions are entirely absent. Honestly, I am not as well versed in Socionics as I am in MBTI or Enneagram, so I easily could have missed out on certain elements of Socionics.

 

[Entropic]

So what you're saying is that your dominant and auxiliary functions define you much more than your tertiary and inferior functions? I would agree that the first two functions are much more present in most people, but that does not mean the two lesser functions are entirely absent. Honestly, I am not as well versed in Socionics as I am in MBTI or Enneagram, so I easily could have missed out on certain elements of Socionics.

No, not quite. All the valued functions are important to you. The valued functions are what make up the quadras in socionics and it is the distinction between valued and unvalued that make up the intertype dynamic, so that is definitely not true.

 

[Oaky]

MBTI isn't about what you use more though, per se, but it's about ego identity. This logic is absolutely carried over to socionics, which is why it has blocks organized based on the tripartite model. Socionics for example recognizes that one can use a function a lot but it may not be the ego function and the MBTI does the same in that there not just a point in looking at what people use but how good they are at using it. MBTI, just like socionics, also separates between conscious and unconscious.

How did you arrive at being an SLI? Do you fully understand what socionics Si really is?

Model A of socionics has 4 blocks which bases axioms of attitudes on each of functions themselves. MBTI has no fully constructed model that works the same way socionics does.

For example, the thought that an individual's two strongest functions in socionics is not the standard NiTe for INTp but actually Ni and Ti for INTp where one is more ignored and one is used, is not present in MBTI at all. But that was besides the point of the definitions themselves being different to what Jung portrayed, and what MBTI portrays too.

If you speak to the socionics pioneers and founders and they'll tell you themselves they're different systems with different definitions and the inclinations of one type from mbti range over a various types in socionics, and vice versa.

 

[Entropic]

Model A of socionics has 4 blocks which bases axioms of attitudes on each of functions themselves. MBTI has no fully constructed model that works the same way socionics does.

For example, the thought that an individual's two strongest functions in socionics is not the standard NiTe for INTp but actually Ni and Ti for INTp where one is more ignored and one is used, is not present in MBTI at all.

Is it, though? You will find a lot of disagreement on what constitutes the MBTI model here but perhaps most interestingly, soconics is closer to Jung in this regard than the MBTI is unless you look at theorists such as Beebe.

But that was besides the point of the definitions themselves being different to what Jung portrayed, and what MBTI portrays too.

If you speak to the socionics pioneers and founders and they'll tell you themselves they're different systems with different definitions and the inclinations of one type from mbti range over a various types in socionics, and vice versa.

Nah. Viktor Gulenko is for example a socionics scholar who believes they are the same.

You aren't going to humor me by answering my question to you?

 

[Violet Rose]

I think it makes the most sense for introverts to have the j/p switch, personally.
J/P switch - Wikisocion

 

[Retmeishka]

(Edit: I didn't notice this thread said 'Gamma' until way after I had posted it. It was written in the brackets like this [Gamma] and so I ignored it. The thread just showed up in the list of recent posts and I jumped in without paying attention.)

Talking about this issue gets me upset. I'm helpless to change something which I believe is misinformation. The one thing that I believe is wrong is the process where you identify what function you use most strongly, and then decide if you're a J or a P based on 'the highest order extraverted function,' quoting from someone earlier in this thread. That will give you a different result (if you're an introvert) than if you simply take the Myers-Briggs test and ask yourself directly, am I a perceiver or a judger? If you just look at yourself directly, asking whether you feel/behave more like a perceiver/judger, you won't get the same type you would get from that weird messed-up flipping-the-j/p-for-introverts thing. I believe that process is just outright, flat out wrong.

However, there's nothing I can do about it. It's a huge piece of misinformation floating around out there in the world, being repeated and taught to new people over and over again, destroying the system and making it malfunction. I can only just watch helplessly. What exactly would one do? Go on an informational campaign to educate the public about the wrongness of flipping the j/p for introverts if they started out by observing which function they used the most? Unfortunately, I am not immortal or all-powerful or super-wealthy, and I have other problems and things to deal with in my life, so this informational campaign is my lowest priority, and yet, it gets me upset each and every time I have to read about this in a forum, people being confused by this again and again, endlessly.

The two systems match perfectly. Socionics and the Myers-Briggs are talking about exactly the same thing. Your type in one should always correlate to one, and only one, type in the other. The type correlations are: ESFJ/ESE, INTJ/LII, and so on... (I don't need to write them all).

That is all aside from the fact that either one of the tests can mistype you. I always mistyped as INTP in the Myers-Briggs because I strongly disliked the way the 'sensing' questions were worded - they made me sound like a moron. 'Do you blindly, mindlessly, and rigidly adhere to traditions, regardless of whether there might be a better way of doing things? Yes! That's me for sure!' Nope, I always picked the 'intuitive' answers because they didn't make me sound like a retard. So, I had to find socionics and see how they worded the sensing questions differently in such a way that sensors didn't sound like brain-dead morons, and suddenly, being a sensor didn't seem like something to be ashamed of.

So yeah, you can be mistyped by one or the other of the tests. If you can figure out which type you really are for sure, then it will translate directly back and forth - ISTP=SLI, ISTJ=LSI, and so on. That whole thing of flipping the j/p for introverts has got to be destroyed - it's misinformation. I'm not even going to acknowledge any kind of reasoning behind it at all, I'm not going to be persuaded that there is some kind of logic to it, I'm not going to be directed to some kind of reading material that explains the rationale behind it.

Unfortunately, I will have to keep on seeing this misinformation coming up forever and ever. It's sort of like spreading a bad false rumor about someone, and they can't get rid of the rumor, for the rest of their life, and they just have to keep fighting against the consequences of that rumor every time they try to do anything. That's the effect that this piece of misinformation has on the personality typing systems. You might spend weeks and weeks trying to convince one single individual of the reasoning that explains why that method is wrong, and after you've spent all that effort convincing one single person, you see that two thousand more people have all picked up that piece of information and are using it and remembering it and all two thousand of them need to have the information removed from their minds. There is just not enough time, money, and motivation to fight such a huge battle.

And there is no particular person responsible for correcting the misinformation. If it were a bad rumor spread about a celebrity or something, that celebrity might feel motivated to go hunt down all the sources of the rumor and sue them for libel, or whatever. But no particular individual feels harmed by the fact that there is some logical process being used out there by millions of people which causes them to mistype themselves in one system or the other, so that they fail to read the right descriptions of their type, fail to feel understood in the description of their type, fail to know which quadra they're in in socionics, and just generally feel frustrated about personality types.

I know how it feels to be mistyped for a really long time, and to somehow know that personality types really exist, if only I could figure out which one I am, and to be obsessed with figuring it out for years and years, never really feeling comfortable with the type I had. I was trying to understand myself, trying to figure out which kind of job I should do for a living, trying to figure out which kind of man I should marry to give myself the greatest chance of a successful marriage, trying to understand what was 'wrong' with me and why I didn't feel like I fit in in the world, trying to understand why I didn't get along with certain types of people.

I believe it's extremely important to type people correctly the first time, every time, with zero mistakes, but I don't have a method of doing that. If I had my way, the public schools would type children at an early age so that they could be understood better through all their years of school, but then, there are a million things I would want the public schools to do if anybody cared what I wanted. Since the school system doesn't care how I want things done, I say, screw it, just homeschool your kids, because public schools will never do anything you wish they would do.

The point is, there will never be a universal system that types everybody, but if there were, we'd have to get rid of the flipping the j/p for introverts thing, throw that whole method in the garbage, and burn all the books that mention it. It's an information virus. (And speaking of viruses, yes, I myself have a horrible, monstrous flu right now, which is probably why I'm so grouchy. )
**************
Edit: adding more rant, because not enough rant already: I like Bukalov's Model B even though I don't have an English translation of it. Basically it says that you have two information elements in each box, one extraverted and one introverted, with a plus and minus sign. So an ILI would be +Ni/-Ne, -Te/+Ti, +Si/-Se, -Fe/+Fi (in its verbal ring). I like that model because it gives introverts leeway to use some kind of extraverted function sometimes, and extraverts some leeway to use an introverted function sometimes, at a four-dimensional level, as their base function. It also explains why SEEs get mistyped as EIEs - the SEE is using +Fe, and it's *allowed* to use +Fe (+Se/-Si base function, -Fi/+Fe creative function...).

Model B also explains why there could ever be any attraction at all in supervision relations, the type of relation recommended as the most desirable one for romantic relationships in the Myers-Briggs, except it's a one-sided supervision - they say 'Keep sensors together, and intuitives together,' so you have ISTP and ESFJ shown as what kind of relationship I myself am supposed to be in. I do have *some* attraction to Alpha SFs in real life, and Model B explains that, because Alpha SFs have the same kind of -Fe/+Fi that Deltas like. Since I can't get an English translation, I don't know the exact reason why they have it in the order they have it in, and all the details of how the model works. So, Model B explains the intertype relations differently between different quadras. I think it's actually even more complicated than I'm making it out to be, but I can't read about how it all works right now.

Okay, end of rant, nobody is going to read this anyway, I shouldn't even be in the Gamma Quadra stirring up trouble, sorry for jumping into the wrong thread.

 

[Entropic]

(Edit: I didn't notice this thread said 'Gamma' until way after I had posted it. It was written in the brackets like this [Gamma] and so I ignored it. The thread just showed up in the list of recent posts and I jumped in without paying attention.)

Talking about this issue gets me upset. I'm helpless to change something which I believe is misinformation. The one thing that I believe is wrong is the process where you identify what function you use most strongly, and then decide if you're a J or a P based on 'the highest order extraverted function,' quoting from someone earlier in this thread. That will give you a different result (if you're an introvert) than if you simply take the Myers-Briggs test and ask yourself directly, am I a perceiver or a judger? If you just look at yourself directly, asking whether you feel/behave more like a perceiver/judger, you won't get the same type you would get from that weird messed-up flipping-the-j/p-for-introverts thing. I believe that process is just outright, flat out wrong.

However, there's nothing I can do about it. It's a huge piece of misinformation floating around out there in the world, being repeated and taught to new people over and over again, destroying the system and making it malfunction. I can only just watch helplessly. What exactly would one do? Go on an informational campaign to educate the public about the wrongness of flipping the j/p for introverts if they started out by observing which function they used the most? Unfortunately, I am not immortal or all-powerful or super-wealthy, and I have other problems and things to deal with in my life, so this informational campaign is my lowest priority, and yet, it gets me upset each and every time I have to read about this in a forum, people being confused by this again and again, endlessly.

The two systems match perfectly. Socionics and the Myers-Briggs are talking about exactly the same thing. Your type in one should always correlate to one, and only one, type in the other. The type correlations are: ESFJ/ESE, INTJ/LII, and so on... (I don't need to write them all).

That is all aside from the fact that either one of the tests can mistype you. I always mistyped as INTP in the Myers-Briggs because I strongly disliked the way the 'sensing' questions were worded - they made me sound like a moron. 'Do you blindly, mindlessly, and rigidly adhere to traditions, regardless of whether there might be a better way of doing things? Yes! That's me for sure!' Nope, I always picked the 'intuitive' answers because they didn't make me sound like a retard. So, I had to find socionics and see how they worded the sensing questions differently in such a way that sensors didn't sound like brain-dead morons, and suddenly, being a sensor didn't seem like something to be ashamed of.

So yeah, you can be mistyped by one or the other of the tests. If you can figure out which type you really are for sure, then it will translate directly back and forth - ISTP=SLI, ISTJ=LSI, and so on. That whole thing of flipping the j/p for introverts has got to be destroyed - it's misinformation. I'm not even going to acknowledge any kind of reasoning behind it at all, I'm not going to be persuaded that there is some kind of logic to it, I'm not going to be directed to some kind of reading material that explains the rationale behind it.

Unfortunately, I will have to keep on seeing this misinformation coming up forever and ever. It's sort of like spreading a bad false rumor about someone, and they can't get rid of the rumor, for the rest of their life, and they just have to keep fighting against the consequences of that rumor every time they try to do anything. That's the effect that this piece of misinformation has on the personality typing systems. You might spend weeks and weeks trying to convince one single individual of the reasoning that explains why that method is wrong, and after you've spent all that effort convincing one single person, you see that two thousand more people have all picked up that piece of information and are using it and remembering it and all two thousand of them need to have the information removed from their minds. There is just not enough time, money, and motivation to fight such a huge battle.

And there is no particular person responsible for correcting the misinformation. If it were a bad rumor spread about a celebrity or something, that celebrity might feel motivated to go hunt down all the sources of the rumor and sue them for libel, or whatever. But no particular individual feels harmed by the fact that there is some logical process being used out there by millions of people which causes them to mistype themselves in one system or the other, so that they fail to read the right descriptions of their type, fail to feel understood in the description of their type, fail to know which quadra they're in in socionics, and just generally feel frustrated about personality types.

I know how it feels to be mistyped for a really long time, and to somehow know that personality types really exist, if only I could figure out which one I am, and to be obsessed with figuring it out for years and years, never really feeling comfortable with the type I had. I was trying to understand myself, trying to figure out which kind of job I should do for a living, trying to figure out which kind of man I should marry to give myself the greatest chance of a successful marriage, trying to understand what was 'wrong' with me and why I didn't feel like I fit in in the world, trying to understand why I didn't get along with certain types of people.

I believe it's extremely important to type people correctly the first time, every time, with zero mistakes, but I don't have a method of doing that. If I had my way, the public schools would type children at an early age so that they could be understood better through all their years of school, but then, there are a million things I would want the public schools to do if anybody cared what I wanted. Since the school system doesn't care how I want things done, I say, screw it, just homeschool your kids, because public schools will never do anything you wish they would do.

The point is, there will never be a universal system that types everybody, but if there were, we'd have to get rid of the flipping the j/p for introverts thing, throw that whole method in the garbage, and burn all the books that mention it. It's an information virus. (And speaking of viruses, yes, I myself have a horrible, monstrous flu right now, which is probably why I'm so grouchy. )
**************
Edit: adding more rant, because not enough rant already: I like Bukalov's Model B even though I don't have an English translation of it. Basically it says that you have two information elements in each box, one extraverted and one introverted, with a plus and minus sign. So an ILI would be +Ni/-Ne, -Te/+Ti, +Si/-Se, -Fe/+Fi (in its verbal ring). I like that model because it gives introverts leeway to use some kind of extraverted function sometimes, and extraverts some leeway to use an introverted function sometimes, at a four-dimensional level, as their base function. It also explains why SEEs get mistyped as EIEs - the SEE is using +Fe, and it's *allowed* to use +Fe (+Se/-Si base function, -Fi/+Fe creative function...).

Model B also explains why there could ever be any attraction at all in supervision relations, the type of relation recommended as the most desirable one for romantic relationships in the Myers-Briggs, except it's a one-sided supervision - they say 'Keep sensors together, and intuitives together,' so you have ISTP and ESFJ shown as what kind of relationship I myself am supposed to be in. I do have *some* attraction to Alpha SFs in real life, and Model B explains that, because Alpha SFs have the same kind of -Fe/+Fi that Deltas like. Since I can't get an English translation, I don't know the exact reason why they have it in the order they have it in, and all the details of how the model works. So, Model B explains the intertype relations differently between different quadras. I think it's actually even more complicated than I'm making it out to be, but I can't read about how it all works right now.

Okay, end of rant, nobody is going to read this anyway, I shouldn't even be in the Gamma Quadra stirring up trouble, sorry for jumping into the wrong thread.

Why don't you support the j/p switch even though it won't functionally line up?

 

[Retmeishka]

Why don't you support the j/p switch even though it won't functionally line up?

I wouldn't mind it as much if everybody who typed themselves using the j/p switch called themselves by a completely different set of letters, to indicate that they were referring to a whole different universe of concepts. Instead of calling oneself 'INFp' or something, one would call oneself 'XQGK.' That way, no one would ever mix the systems together. I just really, really don't like the result of the j/p switch, which is, you get thrown into the opposite socionic quadra (I'd be an ISTj) and you'd be advised to marry your conflictor (my 'dual,' the ENFJ). Bad, very bad.

 

[Retmeishka]

Why don't you support the j/p switch even though it won't functionally line up?

And, I'm not quite sure if I understand your question. I guess, I'm not bothered by the idea of an introverted base function being something which is visible and able to be talked about. I'm capable of talking about introverted sensing, all the time. There's nothing hidden or invisible or undetectable about my introverted sensing base function. Every time I complain about what a horrible flu I have, I'm talking out loud about what's going on with my introverted sensing. If I recall, the rationale about an introverted base function was that it was somehow, in some mysterious way, ineffable and nonverbal and impossible to see and impossible to measure, because it was introverted, and therefore, the next best thing was to just grab whatever was handy, the creative function, which is extraverted thinking (for me), and then do some weird magic trick for no reason that I could ever understand, and say that since my second function is a judging function, I must be a judging type, even though I have no problem whatsoever talking about all the observations that I see in my introverted sensing. Oh well, I should shut up, I actually need to go about this a whole different way. I can't really explain it.