Why is he 3 times more credible? Why is Beren 15 times more credible?
Beren's quotation?
My proof is in the descriptions yet you disregard them. How else can one make a comparison between the types in the two system, that I don't know. Function order-wise, the models are not compatible. They are compatible description-wise.
So I cannot understand how people assert j-p conversion between the two systems. There must be a common language for conversion between the two systems and if that's not type descriptions, then that must be the functions. To make the functions compatible, one has to assign different order to socionics functions, which is what you did using Beebe's model I guess. You also changed Beebe's function order in the process I guess. To sum it up, you correlated MBTI function order and Beebe archetypes with socionics function order, on assumption that j-p conversion holds true.
By arbitrarily assigning correlation between MBTI function order and socionics function order, one creates a false correlation on assumption that j-p converison holds true. But where's the external evidence that j-p conversion holds true? What's that based on? Where's the evidence for that? And how can it be verified?
One, because Eric B has studied psychology for a long time, and two because Beren had a doctorate in psychology and studied it intensively.
Your proof being in the descriptions forces you to come to the assumption that personal relation is the best way to find a correlation, when it is not. Instead of linking two systems by how you identify in each one, you must link two systems by how they identify with each other. You don't get to be an infallible piece of evidence where anything you relate to goes, as that can be wrong
easily. You do not get to say the Anima is the Vulnerable function because you think you have Se Anima and Se Vulnerable, you have to find the precise mechanics of why the Vulnerable Function is the Anima in both systems independent of how you feel about or relate to it.
If we were to eliminate your subjective bias relations, then we are left with:
Anima: Weak, Valued, Unconscious (influence), Attraction to this information.
Suggestive: Weak, Valued, Unconscious influence, Attraction to this information.
Vulnerable: Weak, Unvalued, Consciously realized, Ignorant and Disregard of this information.
And the comparison is easy, but you
insist that the only way to find a correlation is by personal relation into two separate systems, which is wrong.
So, your argument against the j/p switch is that the function order isn't perfect? That the functions are still the same functions just put in different places somehow makes the two systems entirely different?
Lead - Valued, Strong, Consciously Engaged, Accepting
Dominant - Valued, Strong, Consciously Engaged, Self-oriented (or Accepting)
Creative - Valued, Strong, Consciously Engaged, Producing
Auxiliary - Valued, Strong, Consciously Engaged, Other-oriented (or Producing)
Role - Unvalued, Weak, Consciously Engaged, Accepting
Demon - Unvalued, Weak, Consciously Engaged (though described to be in the shadow complexes and thus a manifestation of the Freudian unconscious*), Self-Oriented
Vulnerable - Unvalued, Weak, Consciously Engaged, Producing
Trickster - Unvalued, Weak, Consciously Engaged*, Other-Oriented
Suggestive - Valued, Weak, Unconscious Influence, Accepting
Inferior - Valued, Weak, Unconscious Influence, Self-Oriented
Mobilizing - Valued, Weak, Unconscious Influence, Producing
Tertiary - Valued, Weak, Unconscious Influence (though more conscious command than Inferior), Other-Oriented
Ignoring - Unvalued, Strong, Unconscious Influence, Accepting
Antihero - Unvalued, Strong, Unconscious Influence, Self-Oriented
Demonstrative - Unvalued, Strong, Unconscious Influence, Producing
Critical Parent - Unvalued, Strong, Unconscious Influence, Other-Oriented
Look, they even share common properties.