Jung J/P (rational/irrational) versus MBTI J/P: Do they even correlate?

[Vendrah]

It seems to me that there is two different concepts, which created to me a lot of confusion in the past and still do in those days, of J/P dimension, and what it means being rational or irrational in MBTI and/or Jung. Maybe Myers misinterpreted Jung or she created something awkwardly different or new from it.
Do anyone have Jung description on rational vs irrational?

The cognitive functions of J at Myers are Ni, Si, Te, Fe (the ones that belongs to types with J).
The rational cognitive functions of Jung, which seems to be Jung judging functions, are Te,Ti,Fe and Fi.
The cognitive functions of P at Myers are Fi, Ti, Ne, Se.
The irrational cognitive functions of Jung, Jung perceveing functions, are Ne, Ni, Se, Si.

Ni and Si are J functions for MBTI and yet they are perceveing/irrational for Jung.
Fi and Ti are P functions for MBTI and yet they are judging/rational for Jung.
With the concept of a cognitive function dom in mind (Ni-dom, Fi-dom, etc...) and pairing concept in mind (Se-Fi, Ti-Ne, etc..), it seems that in Jung, MBTI INTJ, INFJ, ISTJ and ISFJ (Si and Ni-doms) becomes INTp, INFp, ISTp and ISFp in Jung.
It seems that in Jung, MBTI INFP, ISFP, INTP and ISTP becomes INFj, ISFj, INTj and ISTp.
That actually corresponds to Socionics "mess" in p/j.

Thoughts?

 

[Peter Deadpan]

I think J/P is the most pointless distinction of all.

 

[typologyenthusiast]

Irrational is the quality of not established by reasoning or are not based on reasoning nor it is in accordance with reason nor it is subsumes to the reason nor it needs reasoning. In Jungian psychological function, Irrationality is the main characteristics of the perceptive functions: the extroverted sensation, introverted sensation and extroverted intuition and introverted intuition. One of the example of irrationality that I can tell which is only perceivable of intuition is meaning of words. They are established without reasoning without inquiry to reason. We wouldn't ask why mother means someone who gave birth to us. Posing the question would be committing complex question to the question raiser since he assume the meaning of mother is someone who gave birth to us has a reasoning behind. When somebody say the word, he already conveyed the meaning conceived by the word mother and when the person he or she communicates with understand the word, and he pose the question what does mother mean to himself, the meaning of the word mother will just pop up in his mind.
Rational is the opposite of irrational. When something is rational, it is usually grounded, established, in accordance, with reasoning. The fact that we the member of typoc discusses in Typoc Comunity online has to be grounded based on reasoning. For example, My reason to discuss here is I am having a hard time finding a discussion partner in real life. Try asking your colleagues, if you are working professionaly, or your classmates, if you are in school, whether they are willing to discuss about typology with you, and you might find it is not easy. You will face a rejection sometimes, since they might not have the same interest with you in the typology topic, they may be interested but they are busy at the moment you ask them, and so on. The easier way is to browse on the internet and just write and post and other who is interested also might read it and give some response to our posting.
You should realize, discussing online in Typoc forum is a decision that is grounded or established based on some of reasons I exemplified above and you are probably have myriad of reasons that I may not even know. The decision hence rational. If you do not have any more reasons to participate in the discussion anylonger, you might leave the forum. This is the character of rationality, it is established and de-established based on reasoning.
All of the four judging functions: introverted feeling, introverted thinking, extroverted thinking, extroverted feeling has an inherent rational character that they have to have solid reasoning to be established upon their judgements.

 

[Vendrah]

Irrational is the quality of not established by reasoning or are not based on reasoning nor it is in accordance with reason nor it is subsumes to the reason nor it needs reasoning. In Jungian psychological function, Irrationality is the main characteristics of the perceptive functions: the extroverted sensation, introverted sensation and extroverted intuition and introverted intuition. One of the example of irrationality that I can tell which is only perceivable of intuition is meaning of words. They are established without reasoning without inquiry to reason. We wouldn't ask why mother means someone who gave birth to us. Posing the question would be committing complex question to the question raiser since he assume the meaning of mother is someone who gave birth to us has a reasoning behind. When somebody say the word, he already conveyed the meaning conceived by the word mother and when the person he or she communicates with understand the word, and he pose the question what does mother mean to himself, the meaning of the word mother will just pop up in his mind.
Rational is the opposite of irrational. When something is rational, it is usually grounded, established, in accordance, with reasoning. The fact that we the member of typoc discusses in Typoc Comunity online has to be grounded based on reasoning. For example, My reason to discuss here is I am having a hard time finding a discussion partner in real life. Try asking your colleagues, if you are working professionaly, or your classmates, if you are in school, whether they are willing to discuss about typology with you, and you might find it is not easy. You will face a rejection sometimes, since they might not have the same interest with you in the typology topic, they may be interested but they are busy at the moment you ask them, and so on. The easier way is to browse on the internet and just write and post and other who is interested also might read it and give some response to our posting.
You should realize, discussing online in Typoc forum is a decision that is grounded or established based on some of reasons I exemplified above and you are probably have myriad of reasons that I may not even know. The decision hence rational. If you do not have any more reasons to participate in the discussion anylonger, you might leave the forum. This is the character of rationality, it is established and de-established based on reasoning.
All of the four judging functions: introverted feeling, introverted thinking, extroverted thinking, extroverted feeling has an inherent rational character that they have to have solid reasoning to be established upon their judgements.

I read Chapter X in Jung and it seems like you said.
I understand it, I still wonder why Myers modifided this concept so much.

 

[crustydemon]

I read Chapter X in Jung and it seems like you said.
I understand it, I still wonder why Myers modifided this concept so much.

In MBTI the J and P are determined by the first extroverted function. The second thing is Judging and Perceiving in MBTI doesn't mean what Jung's does.

Judging in MBTI means organized, timely and orderly. Perceiving means open, disorganized and free-spirited.


Ni and Si are not Ji functions in MBTi but Ni and Si doms' first extroverted function is a judging one.

Jung and Co called the types by their dominant followed by their auxiliary functions instead of P/J in a dichotomy.

Socionics has the right idea if you are going deep into someone's cognition. MBTI seems to be based on outward behavior.

So, there is added emphasis on the first extroverted function.

 

[Tennessee Jed]

In Jung, it's rather simple: N & S are the irrational functions (also called perceiving functions), and F & T are the rational functions (also called judging functions).

In MBTI it's more complicated:

MBTI basically agrees with Jung that N&S = perceiving and F&T = judging. However in the MBTI-based personality types, the last letter of each type (P or J for perceiving or judging) is just a marker. The last letter is just a placeholder that simply designates your topmost extraverted function. In other words, that last letter simply designates how a certain type will deal with the external world. Or to put it another way, the last letter designates whether people are using a perceiving function (Ne&Se) or a judging function (Fe&Te) as their primary way of dealing with the objects and people in the external world around them.

Why does MBTI work that way? Because MBTI is all about how people deal with the external world. Remember that MBTI was developed in part as a career placement testing device--its most obvious commercial application, anyway. So it was important to designate how people extravert; in other words, it was important to designate whether people will use a perceiving function (Ne&Se) or a judging function (Fe&Te) when they are on the production line dealing with the objects and people in the external world around them.

 

[Tennessee Jed]

As for why Jung considered N&S to be irrational/perceiving functions versus F&T as rational/judging functions: See "Psychological Types," chapter XI ("Definitions), and look up the definitions for "rational" and "irrational." (And also "sensation," "intuition," etc.)

But just to put my own spin on it:

Jung doesn't get into it much in "Psychological Types," but it seems like he considered N&S to be the earliest functions (developmentally speaking), whereas F&T develop later. For example, Jung says a couple times that F&T develop out of N&S.

In other words, developmentally speaking, it appears that N&S develop before our analytical abilities develop, so N&S just focus on "perceiving" the world around us and taking it in and playing with it in a creative manner. Whereas F&T arise later; they bring the analytical abilities into play and thus they "judge" the world and slice it and dice it for organization and analysis. (Again, I'm talking here about the infantile, "developmental" stages of the functions, and not the adult, fully-developed versions of the functions.)

 

[Vendrah]

I already did developed my own conclusions on this subject that doesnt seem much different as others pointed here.
"Jung J/P is conceived as rational/irrational. There are rational types, and these are Jung judgers, and there are irrational types, and these are Jung perceveirs. Jung does not address rational/irrational directly on that chapter. It is important to first note that Jung rational/irrational is different than wikipedia and common rational/irrational. Jung irrational is not about being emotive, while Jung rational is not about being rational opposed to emoctions. Jung rational/irrational doesnt correlate at all with emotions. Common sense irrationality is described as being bad, Jung irrationality is just a matter of preference. In a short resume, for Jung, a rational type is a person which guides him/herself with a judging cognitive function (Fe, Fi, Te, Ti), if a pure type. If not a pure type, a long discussion can start, but mainly should, at least in my opinion, follow the formula (Fe+Fi+Te+Ti>Ne+Ni+Se+Si). However, we can state that on a dichotomy sense, which is the point of view which I prefer the reader to follow, that a rational person does decisions towards the T/F MBTI dimension, while the irrational person does decisions towards MBTI N/S dimension. I dindt oscilate between rational/irrational towards this subject because it would be confusing, but here are text examples:
- In my own perception, Fi is kind of a confusing and mythical cognitive function. Sometimes it seems to judge people, while sometimes it seems to clearly forgive them with compassion. It sounds to me so confusing in this point, what is Fi exactly? [this is irrational form of text, oscilating between subjective in the first line, objective in the second and subjective on the third line]
- To Jung perspective frame, Fi is a judging function, while for Myers perspection frame, Fi is a perceveing function. In this point, this feels confusing and may confuse to anyone reading the concepts. Considering these theorical frames, what is FI exactly [this is the rational form of text, being objective in the first line, subjective in the second line, and coming back to objective on the third line]

Just in case you reader (mixed subjective and objectivity here on purpose) havent noticed, Fi is a perceveing judging function. Its perceveing on Myers and judging (rational) on Jung."
I posted it here:
https://www.typologycentral.com/for...ions/102720-please-help-type.html#post3178705

Why does MBTI work that way? Because MBTI is all about how people deal with the external world. Remember that MBTI was developed in part as a career placement testing device--its most obvious commercial application, anyway. So it was important to designate how people extravert; in other words, it was important to designate whether people will use a perceiving function (Ne&Se) or a judging function (Fe&Te) when they are on the production line dealing with the objects and people in the external world around them.

At the end of the day, Carl Jung I/E does not even properly correlates with MBTI I/E, giving origins to some weird introverted extraverted people or the opposite.

Your view is interesting and seems a lot right, but it clashes with what I think. I think that there is a good chance that most people would be pretty ambivalent in Jung J/P (on the internet they are, although I only analysed very few cases), with most people not having a heavy rational or irrational preference at all, and since having too much people on the middle compromises the reliability on the MBTI test as they are measured, I think that Myers swapped J/P definitions so she could get people with more preferences and less neutrality. It would be too bad for any typing system to have a dichotomy that the majority of people on the world doesnt have a clear preference.

 

[Tennessee Jed]

I already did developed my own conclusions on this subject that doesnt seem much different as others pointed here. [...snipped]

Your post started out okay, but around the part where you were talking about Fi, it went off-track. You said:

To Jung perspective frame, Fi is a judging function, while for Myers perspection frame, Fi is a perceveing function.

That's incorrect. Fi is always a rational/judging function. Because the F function (covering both Fe and Fi) is always a rational/judging function.

MBTI doesn't say that Fi is a perceiving function. Here is what MBTI says:

The top two functions for an INFP are Dom Fi (a judging function) and Aux Ne (a perceiving function). But when assigning a P or a J to a personality type, MBTI only cares about one question: What's your top extraverted function? Out of its two top functions, INFP uses its perceiving function (Ne) to deal with the world. As a result, MBTI considers INFP to be a perceiving personality type. The top extraverted function for INFPs is Ne, so INFPs get assigned a P.

In the meantime, MBTI doesn't say anything particular about Fi one way or the other. It's just taken for granted that Fi is a judging function. But Fi doesn't come into play when MBTI labels INFPs as perceiving types, because Fi is hidden away from the world. As far as labeling types P or J, MBTI is only concerned about what your top extraverted function is. Because MBTI only cares what function you use in the outside world. (I already explained the reasons why MBTI chooses to designate type this way in my previous post on the subject.)

I don't know how to state that any more clearly.

Meantime, you raised a separate issue about ambivalent types:

I think that there is a good chance that most people would be pretty ambivalent in Jung J/P (on the internet they are, although I only analysed very few cases), with most people not having a heavy rational or irrational preference at all, and since having too much people on the middle compromises the reliability on the MBTI test as they are measured [...]

Ambivalence on the J/P scale doesn't arise from the functions themselves. Instead, ambivalence arises because every adult has one perceiving function and also one judging function in his top two functions (the Dom and Aux functions).

Think about it. As an INFP, I have a judging function (Fi) working together with a perceiving function (Ne) in my Dom and Aux functions. As a result:

• Sometimes I'm operating in Judging mode, mainly with internal things that I think about, via use of my Fi.
• At other times I'm operating in Perceiving mode, mainly with external things that I deal with in the world around me, via use of my Ne.

For example:
As an Ne perceiver, I can be extremely flakey and playful and whimsical about things in the world around me. (That's my perceiving Ne at work.) But on the other hand, when I'm thinking hard about some ethical issue using my internal Fi judging function, I can be incredibly judgmental and even harsh in how I choose to view that issue. (That's my judging Fi at work.)

In other words, like most adults I'm a judger about some things and a perceiver about other things. That's why it's so difficult to test for personality type. Because it isn't always clear which function is being used when an answer is chosen. Did the person answer according to his Dom function or his Aux function? Because every adult has one perceiving function and also one judging function in his top two functions (the Dom and Aux functions).

As a result there tends to be a lot of ambivalence in how people deal with type-related questions or issues: Because they may be looking at things through the prism of their Dom function or the prism of their Aux function. And it's hard to tell which sometimes.

Anyway, I'll stop there. Hope that helps.

 

[Vendrah]

Your post started out okay, but around the part where you were talking about Fi, it went off-track. You said:



That's incorrect. Fi is always a rational/judging function. Because the F function (covering both Fe and Fi) is always a rational/judging function.

MBTI doesn't say that Fi is a perceiving function. Here is what MBTI says:

The top two functions for an INFP are Dom Fi (a judging function) and Aux Ne (a perceiving function). But when assigning a P or a J to a personality type, MBTI only cares about one question: What's your top extraverted function? Out of its two top functions, INFP uses its perceiving function (Ne) to deal with the world. As a result, MBTI considers INFP to be a perceiving personality type. The top extraverted function for INFPs is Ne, so INFPs get assigned a P.

In the meantime, MBTI doesn't say anything particular about Fi one way or the other. It's just taken for granted that Fi is a judging function. But Fi doesn't come into play when MBTI labels INFPs as perceiving types, because Fi is hidden away from the world. As far as labeling types P or J, MBTI is only concerned about what your top extraverted function is. Because MBTI only cares what function you use in the outside world. (I already explained the reasons why MBTI chooses to designate type this way in my previous post on the subject.)

I don't know how to state that any more clearly.

Meantime, you raised a separate issue about ambivalent types:



This is a separate issue. Ambivalence on the J/P scale doesn't arise from the functions themselves. Instead, ambivalence arises because every adult has one perceiving function and also one judging function in his top two functions (the Dom and Aux functions).

Think about it. As an INFP, I have a judging function (Fi) working together with a perceiving function (Ne) in my Dom and Aux functions. As a result:

• Sometimes I'm operating in Judging mode, mainly with internal things that I think about, via use of my Fi.
• At other times I'm operating in Perceiving mode, mainly with external things that I deal with in the world around me, via use of my Ne.

For example:
As an Ne perceiver, I can be extremely flakey and playful and whimsical about things in the world around me. (That's my perceiving Ne at work.) But on the other hand, when I'm thinking hard about some ethical issue using my internal Fi judging function, I can be incredibly judgmental and even harsh in how I choose to view that issue. (That's my judging Fi at work.)

In other words, like most adults I'm a judger about some things and a perceiver about other things. That's why it's so difficult to test for personality type. Because it isn't always clear which function is being used when an answer is chosen. Did the person answer according to his Dom function or his Aux function? Because every adult has one perceiving function and also one judging function in his top two functions (the Dom and Aux functions).

Anyway, I'll stop there. Hope that helps.

It is a little bit impossible to discuss this without framing my alternative views but I get why Myers would be only concerned about the extraverted cognitive function and makes sense. I could test that view (only use extraverted cognitive functions to determine J/P).

Also, you said a very likely reason to why most people dont have a judging/perceveing preference on Jung (rational/irrational preference), it might be due to the pairing effect/tendency and due to deep function dynamics (dynamics on a sense through correlations).

I dont completely subscribe and use the cognitive function stack as we know (INFP Fi-Ne-Si-Te), so Fi-Ne for INFP is not something I fully accept and I do have gathered stats with INFPs that prefers Ni over Ne, although people with Ni-Fi combo mostly end up typing themselves as INFJs (and there is an alternative function stack where INFP are Ni-Fi-Se-Te, something like that). I did develop almost a theory on my own, and basically I measure MBTI Perceveing using a borrowed formula from [MENTION=22833]Legion[/MENTION]:
J vs P (relation JP)
Provided by [MENTION=22833]Legion[/MENTION]
Degree of preference for Perceveing: Ti+Fi+Se+Ne
Degree of preference for Judgement: Te+Fe+Si+Ni
Ti+Fi+Se+Ne>Te+Fe+Si+Ni translate as preference for perceveing
Ti+Fi+Se+Ne<Te+Fe+Si+Ni translate as preference for judgement
Ti+Fi+Se+Ne=Te+Fe+Si+Ni translate as no preference/ambivalence
The complete theory is here, you dont need to look because its long:
A new vision of MBTI and function stacks: Open function stack

What I meant by Fi being MBTI perceveing is that Fi is on the MBTI perceveing side of the formula. If you were to measure Fi and correlate with dichotomies, you should expect that Fi correlates with Perceveing, with a general tendency that the stronger the Fi, stronger Perceveing is. However, as I did a measure of my own with 9 people (better than nothing), the correlation with perceveing and Fi is almost insignificant.

 

[Tennessee Jed]

It is a little bit impossible to discuss this without framing my alternative views but I get why Myers would be only concerned about the extraverted cognitive function and makes sense. I could test that view (only use extraverted cognitive functions to determine J/P).

Also, you said a very likely reason to why most people dont have a judging/perceveing preference on Jung (rational/irrational preference), it might be due to the pairing effect/tendency and due to deep function dynamics (dynamics on a sense through correlations).

I dont completely subscribe and use the cognitive function stack as we know (INFP Fi-Ne-Si-Te), so Fi-Ne for INFP is not something I fully accept and I do have gathered stats with INFPs that prefers Ni over Ne, although people with Ni-Fi combo mostly end up typing themselves as INFJs (and there is an alternative function stack where INFP are Ni-Fi-Se-Te, something like that). I did develop almost a theory on my own, and basically I measure MBTI Perceveing using a borrowed formula from [MENTION=22833]Legion[/MENTION]:
J vs P (relation JP)
Provided by [MENTION=22833]Legion[/MENTION]
Degree of preference for Perceveing: Ti+Fi+Se+Ne
Degree of preference for Judgement: Te+Fe+Si+Ni
Ti+Fi+Se+Ne>Te+Fe+Si+Ni translate as preference for perceveing
Ti+Fi+Se+Ne<Te+Fe+Si+Ni translate as preference for judgement
Ti+Fi+Se+Ne=Te+Fe+Si+Ni translate as no preference/ambivalence
The complete theory is here, you dont need to look because its long:
A new vision of MBTI and function stacks: Open function stack

What I meant by Fi being MBTI perceveing is that Fi is on the MBTI perceveing side of the formula. If you were to measure Fi and correlate with dichotomies, you should expect that Fi correlates with Perceveing, with a general tendency that the stronger the Fi, stronger Perceveing is. However, as I did a measure of my own with 9 people (better than nothing), the correlation with perceveing and Fi is almost insignificant.

No thanks. I'm not interested in exploring alternative versions of MBTI. I barely believe in MBTI as it is.

I'm mainly into Jung. I've been reading a lot of Jung lately, so I feel like I can talk knowledgeably about functions in general. But Jung himself didn't like how his theories got utilized for MBTI and other personality type systems, and I can see his point: There's a lot of BS in MBTI once you get past the level of the Dom and Aux functions. Basically Jung came up with idea of the four functions, but he thought it was a waste of time trying to use them as the basis for personality typing. (He used the functions for other purposes, such as talking about repression and compensation and all that.)

So MBTI and Big Five are about as far as I get into personality typing. I don't bother with Socionics or Enneagram or other systems, and I'm not interested in an alt-MBTI system that you and Legion concocted. No offense, but I'll just stick to reading Jung at this point.

Anyway, good talking to you.

 

[Vendrah]

[MENTION=22236]OldFolksBoogie[/MENTION]

If you pay attention, Jung doesnt actually really have types at all.
He presents 8 pure types and then he has this quote:
"In the foregoing descriptions I have no desire to give my readers the impression that such pure types occur at all frequently in actual practice."

Jung is more purely about the function themselves. As far as goes Chapter X, it seems that there is a pairing between one Jung J function (Te,Fe,Ti or Fi) and a Jung perceveing function (Ne,Ni,Se,Si), but there is a triple interpretation where the pair of Fi is either Se or Ne (which rises the Fi-Ne function stack for INFP), or the pair of Fi is either Si or Ni (Fi-Ni INFP Function stack), or the literal interpretation which gives that Fi can pair with Se,Si,Ne or Ni (that would give 64 types; There is a chance that Jung had 64 types in mind and not 16).
I could be wrong but Jung doesnt have any other specific type descriptions beyond the 8 pure types that dont occur frequently in actual practice.

 

[Tennessee Jed]

[MENTION=22236]OldFolksBoogie[/MENTION]

If you pay attention, Jung doesnt actually really have types at all.
He presents 8 pure types and then he has this quote:
"In the foregoing descriptions I have no desire to give my readers the impression that such pure types occur at all frequently in actual practice."

Jung is more purely about the function themselves. As far as goes Chapter X, it seems that there is a pairing between one Jung J function (Te,Fe,Ti or Fi) and a Jung perceveing function (Ne,Ni,Se,Si), but there is a triple interpretation where the pair of Fi is either Se or Ne (which rises the Fi-Ne function stack for INFP), or the pair of Fi is either Si or Ni (Fi-Ni INFP Function stack), or the literal interpretation which gives that Fi can pair with Se,Si,Ne or Ni (that would give 64 types; There is a chance that Jung had 64 types in mind and not 16).
I could be wrong but Jung doesnt have any other specific type descriptions beyond the 8 pure types that dont occur frequently in actual practice.

Correct. Like I said in my previous post, Jung never got into personality typing. In fact, in one of his later books he specifically trashed personality typing systems that were based on his four functions (including, presumably, MBTI).

Instead, he just came up with some broad rules about how the pairs of functions operated. For example, if I use Feeling heavily, then Thinking gets repressed and plays a compensatory role, etc. In other words, Jung used the functions to illustrate how some operations of the mind work.

But as you quoted, he didn't feel that any "pure types" exist (like a pure Fi-Dom). There is a lot of "ambivalence" in personality typing because multiple functions can work in tandem and interact. So personality typing was a waste of time in Jung's mind. I suspect he felt that it's too "muddy" for good scientific analysis: the result depends too much on one's state of mind, mood, health, time of life, etc.

I think MBTI has some limited merit in terms of providing a model on how the Dom and Aux can work together, so I tend to give it some credence. But as I said in my previous post, that's about as far as I get into personality typing in general.

 

[Non_xsense]

Correct. Like I said in my previous post, Jung never got into personality typing. In fact, in one of his later books he specifically trashed personality typing systems that were based on his four functions (including, presumably, MBTI).

Instead, he just came up with some broad rules about how the pairs of functions operated. For example, if I use Feeling heavily, then Thinking gets repressed and plays a compensatory role, etc. In other words, Jung used the functions to illustrate how some operations of the mind work.

But as you quoted, he didn't feel that any "pure types" exist (like a pure Fi-Dom). There is a lot of "ambivalence" in personality typing because multiple functions can work in tandem and interact. So personality typing was a waste of time in Jung's mind. I suspect he felt that it's too "muddy" for good scientific analysis: the result depends too much on one's state of mind, mood, health, time of life, etc.

I think MBTI has some limited merit in terms of providing a model on how the Dom and Aux can work together, so I tend to give it some credence. But as I said in my previous post, that's about as far as I get into personality typing in general.

Mbti is just a generalization . Individualism is the most important process in human progress .
Evolution happens every minute that is why mature types tend to show less weaknesses , generalizations are fine when you are a kid but life is alot more complex... if you can't adapt to it you are just dead.

 

[Typosynthesis]

The biggest discrepancy between socionics and MBTI concerns the Jung's parameter Rationality/Irrationality. In his work "Psychological Types", Carl Jung divided all eight types (or eight function) into two groups: RATIONAL and IRRATIONAL. The four Jung's types (Se, Si, Ne, Ni) share common parameter IRRATIONALITY, and the other four types (Fe, Fi, Te, Ti) have a common parameter RATIONALITY. According to Jung, a type is rational if its main (dominant) psychic function is rational, a type is irrational if its main psychic function is irrational.

Socionics uses the Rationality/Irrationality parameter, which, according to socionics practitioners, is identical to the Jungian Rationality/Irrationality parameter.

The MBTI has the concept of Judging/Perceiving, which is considered by Socionics practitioners to be the same as Rationality/Irrationality. However, MBTI practitioners do not consider it the same. They believe that Judging/Perceiving refer only to whatever function the type shows in the outer world, i.e. the DOMINANT function for EXTRAVERTED types, and the AUXILIARY function for INTROVERTED types.

Comparison of the concept of Rationality/Irrationality in Socionics and Judging/Perceiving in MBTI is here https://7promeniv.com.ua/4-interaction-styles/2982-ratio-irratio-in-socionics-and-mbti

As we can see, the manifestations of Rationality/Irrationality in Socionics are identical to the manifestations of Judgment/Perception in MBTI.

Carl Jung emphasizes that the rationality/irrationality of a type is determined by the main function of the type:
“Thinking, as primary function, can readily pair with intuition as auxiliary, or indeed equally well with sensation… they are functions of perception, affording welcome assistance to thought. As soon as they reached the same level of differentiation as thinking, they would cause a change of attitude, which would contradict the tendency of thinking. For they would convert the judging attitude into a perceiving one; whereupon the principle of rationality indispensable to thought would be suppressed in favour of the irrationality of mere perception.”

Do you think Jung's concept of rationality/irrationality corresponds to the MBTI concept of judging/perceiving? If not, could you explain, what is Jungian concept of Irrationality that is common to four types (Ne, Ni, Se, Si), and what is Jungian concept of Rationality, common to four types (Fe, Fi, Te, Ti) ?

 

[GavinElster]

Well, an aspect of the answer to this is that, since Jung did not think the attitudes of your first two functions alternate (e.g. you can have Ni-Ti as your top two, not necessarily Ni-Te), he would not be inclined to say there even is a developed extraverted function for every person. I would say his attitude is closer to socionics in this area.

Another thing is that the characterization of the extraverted judging function as the judging function that is shown to the outside world seems to be not quite what Jung thought of as an extraverted function. Rather, he'd say it's that external factors influence that function most if it is deployed in the extraverted attitude. What factors are considered a priority in one's thinking determine if it is Te or Ti. The inner world of archetypes influences Ti most, and the external factors influence Te most.

Generally, I think J as covered in a standard MBTI test does have something to do with rational and P has something to do with irrational, but it's not a perfect correlation. There's overlap, but in the end, these are different concepts.

 

[Typosynthesis]

Well, an aspect of the answer to this is that, since Jung did not think the attitudes of your first two functions alternate (e.g. you can have Ni-Ti as your top two, not necessarily Ni-Te), he would not be inclined to say there even is a developed extraverted function for every person. I would say his attitude is closer to socionics in this area.

Another thing is that the characterization of the extraverted judging function as the judging function that is shown to the outside world seems to be not quite what Jung thought of as an extraverted function. Rather, he'd say it's that external factors influence that function most if it is deployed in the extraverted attitude. What factors are considered a priority in one's thinking determine if it is Te or Ti. The inner world of archetypes influences Ti most, and the external factors influence Te most.

Generally, I think J as covered in a standard MBTI test does have something to do with rational and P has something to do with irrational, but it's not a perfect correlation. There's overlap, but in the end, these are different concepts.

Thanks for your comment

I observe a sad and unscientific situation in the MBTI world: every MBTI specialist says that Jung's concept of rationality/irrationality DOESN’T correspond to the MBTI concept of judging/perceiving, and at the same time not a single MBTI specialist can say what Jung's concept of rationality/irrationality is.

How can one say that MBTI concept of judging/perceiving doesn’t correspond to Jung's concept of rationality/irrationality if no one knows what Jung's concept of rationality/irrationality is ?

 

[GavinElster]

I guess Jung's concept ultimately is a perceiving/judging dichotomy. Feeling means making value judgments, and Thinking means making more "factual" judgments.

Anyway, I think the key is that MBTI's position still does link J/P to rationality/irrationality, just the extraverted forms...the reason this could never really work with Jung's theory is that Jung would consider your top two functions to both be introverted in a normal introvert.
So there would not even BE an extraverted judging function that is strongly developed in his theory.
Whereas, it seems very consistent in MBTI that the second function is extraverted in an introverted type.

Jung's theory says that there is one overall conscious attitude: introverted or extraverted. Any functions that are developed/conscious are deployed in that dominant attitude.

 

[Typosynthesis]

So there would not even BE an extraverted judging function that is strongly developed in his theory.

In Jungian model, extraverted judging function is strongly developed in Te and Fe types

 

[GavinElster]

Yeah, of course, and what I'm saying is it wouldn't be strongly developed in an introvert in Jung's model (BOTH your dominant and auxiliary would be introverted), whereas you can have either Te or Fe well-developed in an introvert in the prevailing MBTI cognitive functions models...e.g. NiTe for INTJ and NiFe for INFJ.

Of course, for an extravert in Jung's theory, Te or Fe can be developed.