I/E and J/P are just indicators of information about function distribution/orientation. That is all.
I personally think socionics codes make more sense than MBTI codes (they flip the J/P for all introverts). So an Ni dom with Fe is called an INFp, since their primary function is introverted and a perceiving function.
But that's a matter of aesthetics; it doesn't have to do with the information contained within the system. Jack's system contains less information than socionics.
Regarding "arbitrary detail with little connection" -- again, the letters themselves (I/E and J/P) don't directly correlate to observable reality. All that correlates to observable reality are the 4 cognitive functions and their orientations. MBTI type is NOT composed of four dichotomies -- it's just a code for the distribution.
(Someone suggested a few months ago that we don't even need 4 letters to contain all the information in MBTI, we just need 3. So an INFJ would be INF and an INFP would be IFN. This is also definitely a better code...)
I agree that the J/P and E/I only refer to the order and orientation of functions in MBTI. That's the whole problem. I/E determines the overall primary function, and J/P determines the primary extroverted function (or the function that deals with the outer world). When I/E and J/P come into conflict, as they do in the case of all introverts, the I/E overrides the J/P in importance (in determining the dominant function). In other words, the dominant function must always align in orientation to I/E, and this will be equivalent to the J/P for all extroverts but changes for introverts, because an extroverted function can't be dominant in an introverted person.
Jack's system gives more importance to J/P in this regard, as you know, because it determines the primary function regardless of I/E. If we kept the function orientation, this would (as I think Bluewing pointed out in another thread, though I could be mistaken) make the system incoherent because some introverts would have extroverted dominant functions (like the INTP, which would have Ne as primary). And if we are defining introversion and extroversion by the orientation of the dominant function, then it makes no sense to call someone with an extroverted dominant function an introvert. This is why it is necessary to cut out the function orientation and define introversion and extroversion as separate categories unlinked to the functions.
And doing this has the merits that I mentioned in an earlier post, namely:
-It clears away the confusion of determining what counts as introverted or extroverted function behavior (which, you can keep telling me are clear and that it's just because of some deficiency on my part that I can't see them...and I will keep denying that this is so because I've read as much of the material as anybody, though perhaps less than some people).
I mean, I see from the function descriptions that the only real difference between, say, Ti and Te is the object at which the thinking is aimed...and if this is the case, then the distinction between the two is not in the function itself, but in the situations in which the function is used. So Te is better at organizing material in the outside world, while Ti is better at doing this for internal 'concepts'. It seems clear to me that the act of using either will depend on the situation in which the actor finds his/her self, and not as a result of their being predisposed to use either one.
-It makes the connection between introverted/extroverted social behavior (by the common definitions) and I/E more clear. So if you see that someone needs their "alone time" frequently, then you know that they are an introvert. You don't have to try and figure out the orientation of their dominant function to determine whether they are introverted/extroverted (which seems like a far less accurate endeavor).
-It is less counter-intuitive when observing people. Take the INTJ, for example. If we had two people for whom thinking was clearly preferred to feeling, but one of those people displayed more definitiveness while the other was more laid back, we could easily attribute thinking as the dominant function to the one and a perceiving function as the dominant function in the other to account for the difference. This is more clear than saying that, well, one is using Te but as a support function, and the other is using Ti but with Ne as a support function. In both of those cases, if we use MBTI, we end up having to play up the support function to account for the differences in behavior when it would be easier to just say that one is a dominant thinker while the other is a dominant perceiver.
Eh. I mean, I/E does correlate to observable behavior, just not directly. Plus, I'd attribute "indecisiveness" more to the fact that your first judging function is introverted -- it doesn't directly engage the outer world.
I don't see why the function's introverted-ness should mean that it is any less decisive. Ti is a function that is used to make decisions (albeit decisions whose objects are "inward" as opposed to "outward", whatever that means). If I am not so good at making decisions (i.e., "indecisive"), then how can I say that I use Ti, or any other decision-making function, most?
You seem like a quite clear Ti dominant to me. What we must remember, though, is that amount of usage of a function is not correlated to ability with that function. An EFJ could have "better" Ti than an ITP; they just use it less often by definition. You could even have a "better" Ne than Ti (although I don't think you do) and still be an INTP as long as Ti is more often used.
I never said anything about the quality of function usage. I only said that I use Ne more often than Ti, which, if I hang on to the MBTI definitions, I think is absolutely true. And I probably come off as far more decisive on this forum than I am IRL, because I won't post anything unless I have something clear to say about it. Plus, I don't see how Ne or Ni can be determined by someone's posting (unless we're talking about the way that people erroneously label incoherent or rambling posts as Ne).
I'm not sure I'm understanding you correctly, but I think you have it backwards. I do not type myself as an INFJ because I know I'm an I, an N, an F, and a J. I type myself as INFJ because I know my Ni is dominant, leaving two possibilities, INTJ or INFJ. Then I look at the orientation of my thinking and feeling and find that Ti/Fe is a closer match than Te/Fi.
But you see? You've relied solely on the system as put forth by MBTI. You've identified a couple of variables, and then used the system to fill in their order and the order of all the other variables.
Typing people really isn't so hard. Just identify the dominant function (which is what Jung's book is all about anyway -- the dominant function), and then look at the orientation of the complimentary ones (if your dominant is a judging, look for orientation of perceiving and vice versa).
Yes, but this doesn't tell me why, if I identify myself as a dominant perceiver, say I even choose Ne specifically, I should be constrained to ENTP or ENFP. What if I don't identify with either of those profiles, especially as they describe social extroversion?
@"I can very rarely identify my own behavior as, "look, I just used Ti"," -- What you should be able to do at least is to identify when you are using thinking, feeling, sensing, or intuition. The orientation in one moment in time is pretty impossible to spot. Orientation comes from observing trends in your functions OVER TIME.
If the orientation is impossible to spot in any momentary function usage, then I don't see how it is possible to spot trends in that regard over time, as a whole bunch of those unidentifiable moments adds up to just that- a group of unidentifiable moments.
The problem is that J vs. P is a false dichotomy. Unless you want to change the definitions, but then you're losing some data and gaining other data, which means the system doesn't correspond to MBTI.
Whether or not something corresponds systematically with MBTI is not the issue. No, Jack's system doesn't correspond to MBTI (like socionics does, only with a shifting of the naming convention). But that doesn't mean it is any less descriptive, because as I have (hopefully) shown, getting rid of the function orientation is made up for by replacing the qualities attributed in MBTI to introverted functions with a switch in the order (making the perceiving function dominant). And like I said before, if you've typed yourself by identifying specific MBTI functions like Ti or Ni, then yes, you might have to change your type code. This only applies to introverts, though.
That's another thing. I'm not just blindly defending this function orientation thing...I've observed people for years and found this stuff to be the most interesting distinction of them all. Communication problems between Fe and Fi users, etc... it's really a useful framework.
But the way that MBTI is set up, there is rarely an occasion in which Fi and Fe come into direct conflict. In other words, if there is a conflict between people of different types, the Fi and Fe rarely align in ways that make the conflict seem unambiguously attributable to differences between Fi and Fe. For instance, even between types where Fi and Fe are dominant (in MBTI), such as the INFP and the ENFJ, the conflicts that arise between these two can be attributed to lots of other factors besides Fi and Fe alone (such as the famous imperiousness and decisiveness of J's, and the flippant laziness of P's).
It definitely takes some practice and some research to get working definitions for everything and to be able to spot these trends in people. But the trends are there.
If you want to give up on MBTI in favor of Jack's system, you'll never be able to see the cool distinctions that function orientation lets you see.
It's understandable; learning this all is quite frustrating. But you really can get to a point where it all clicks...and it would be too bad if you gave up on that path.
Also, not to sound like an asshole, but it's entirely clear that Jack has not gotten to that point with MBTI. He got frustrated before he figured out the system, so he made up a new one, that, yes, is easier to learn, but is also sort of a lobotomized version.
Again, his system works -- it's logically consistent and all. It just isn't as powerful. He's trading complexity for learnability.
Well, to characterize what I'm doing as adopting one thing over another thing is false. I never really adopted MBTI wholesale in the first place, so I'm not actually adopting Jack's system in favor of MBTI at all. I don't want to discard either system...I'm just defending Jack's from being discarded because I think that it has merits that MBTI doesn't.
How does fewer variables lead to greater flexibility??????
Maybe not as a rule, but in this case it does, I think.