Functional differences between Socionics and the MBTI

[Trolsk]

Removed.

[Johnny]

This will be continued. Feel free to give me (private & constructive) hell for abusing the English language this way.

Does this mean you would not welcome public replies to this thread?

[Vagabond]

...does this mean you are not a native english speaker...? <_<

This is a great thread. And a great link. I have been needing some extra reading material, to clear things up... I guess I have got it. :)

[waiting for it to be continued...]

[Johnny]

Perhaps a silly question on my part, but I wanted to be clear that the issue regards language rather than content.

[paladinoflunaria]

What if the type profiles on the socionics website for BOTH INTJ and INTP fit me completely? Are they too vague, or is something going on? Has anyone read Paul James' essay on the MBTI INTP type? How did people fit in with that description?

[paladinoflunaria]

http://intp.1.forumer.com/index.php?showtopic=146

It seems to me that Ti-Ne-Si-Fe pretty much hit right on with everyone. In socionics, Ti-Ne-Si-Fe belongs to the INTJ type. This order of functions defines me, but I am a super-dispassionate, procrastinating, unmotivated, spontaneous, laid back, person who almost never finishes what he starts. In laymens' terms, I'm a strong P. The Ti-Ne-Si-Fe heirarchy, escpecially the one described by Paul James, describes me extremely well, and Paul James' essay is not very vague. This seems to be the case for most everyone else on this forum, if not everyone else on this forum. Anyone else see a problem with that?

I also read the INTJ and INTP profiles on the socionics web site. They are very short, very vague, and both describe me pretty well. I shall include examples.

INTJ


INTJs behave in a very self-restrained manner with strangers, never showing initiative first and always maintaining a long psychological distance. Their speech is very clear and logical and they always follow a logical progression. They also have a tendency to emphasise key words. When defending their concepts and ideas during a confrontation their logic can become solid and absolute. They cut out all irrelevant details that may cloud the argument.

Yup, that's me.


Although the first impression of INTJs is that they are emotionless, when they become inspired during conversation an emotionality previously unseen begins to emerge. Their eyes start flashing with a fanatic light and their passion increases as the conversation progresses. However, they still try to maintain their self-control. INTJs sustain conversations only if they find them interesting. They prefer to keep silent rather than give an opinion on a subject to which they are indifferent.

That too, but it really has to seem important for Fe to show up at all. Paul James' essay says this too. "This" as in "has to seem important to Fe to show up."


INTJs always give others a chance to say what they need to say. They consider that everyone has got talents and they try at least not to interfere. They do not refuse any proposals immediately, preferring to examine them first. INTJs are very reserved and usually do not take the initiative in talking about their interests and private life. This can lead others to think that they have no private life at all.

Anyone besides me ever been told to, "Get a life," (Rant) as if the people who tell you actually live lives any more meaningful?


INTJs have a very characteristic tendency to independence and can only accept a whole freedom.

How many INTPs here are also 5w4s?


In work matters they combine their need for freedom with a feeling of responsibility. INTJs are not very demanding.

Sounds pretty much like P in MBTI to me.


They are often indifferent to food and its presentation. It can be simple but must be fresh.

Yup. I don't care about the details- how the food looks. If it won't kill me to eat it and I must eat it, I will.


When involved in something interesting they can completely forget that they need to eat.

Sounds like me when, especially when I play a video game all day, etc.


In everyday matters INTJs are modest and are happy to have a minimum degree of comfort.

Sounds like a laid-back P to me here too.


INTJs usually have an interest that stays with them for a long time and are absolutely indifferent to what others say about it. They never endorse their position in life. INTJs live in a world of their own conception. They simply ignore rules, concepts and directives that do not suit them. Most people do not understand INTJs and try to keep away from them.

Most people also keep away from the MBTI INTP and don't understand it. Simply ignoring the rules sounds like a P to me.

INTP


INTPs with more developed aesthetic taste are neat and tidy. They look after their clothes which they know well how to compose and combine.

The first sentence sounds like a J type. The second sentence sounds like someone who is interested in unworthwhile things like appearance. Anyone on this forum test as a 3 for enneagram?


When they interact with others they are softly spoken and unobtrusive, leaving others the impression that they are intelligent and educated.

Sounds like me.


When asking someone for something, they usually do it in such a way as to rarely be denied.

Manipulating people isn't hard.


INTPs with less developed aesthetic taste usually look like they are not bothered about their appearance. Their clothes are often old and worn and their footwear may be in a bad condition.


Aesthetic
2. arts appreciating beauty: sensitive to or appreciative of art or beauty


Appreciating beauty doesn't mean wanting others to appreciate your beauty. Beauty is in the eye of the beholder anyway isn't it? Then again, I guess maybe I just don't appreciate beauty. That's why I can listen to music, look at a painting, observe nature, etc., and enjoy it for what it really is. People who understand music can enjoy a compostions complexity as well as its simplicity; its beauty. I'd say I grok music- I'm no Mozart, but I'm not tone deaf (it's not just about tone- you get the point) either- so I appreciate beauty, so I have developed aesthetic tastes, but I behave as If I don't have aesthetic tastes. :huh: I'm sure that some people on this forum will go with the socionics profile of the INTP completely, have well developed aesthetic taste, and still test a low 3 on enneagram. What's going on with that? :wacko:


When interacting with others they may be very active, pushy and sometimes even aggressive.

Sounds like Fe when it flares up. Oh wait a minute- Fe doesn't belong to the socionics INTP.


They often do not obey the norms of politeness and may sometime be rough and vulgar, however this behaviour usually does not last a long time.

I do this. You can see that the socionics INTJ also does this. See above, because I'm not going to quote it again.


When INTPs speak publicly they habitually adopt a slow, monotone speech pattern. This may have a sleep inducing hypnotic effect on their audience.

This sounds like me when I don't care. When it's important enough, I'm fairly charismatic.


INTPs are good at noticing contradictions in theories or opinions and can focus others attention to this. They are able to predict short term forthcoming events in both visual and associative forms. Through observation and their own experiences INTPs can create a precise model of others behaviour allowing INTPs to predict peoples next moves. They often amaze and interest people with this quality.

This is me, too. Funny how the descriptions of the MBTI INTP state that the INTP also has this quality.


INTPs are very sceptical to others who are undertaking new beginnings. They are able to pour cold water on others burning enthusiasm. They try to keep others from being passionate as they consider strong emotions to be harmful.

This sounds like an unmotivated P type with a shadow Fe function... Has this gotten in anyones face yet?


INTPs also look after their health and can be very captious in these matters. For example, they may wash their hands more often than others do. They pay a lot attention to hygiene and sanitation.

I think about my health all the time, but I rarely act upon those thoughts, as I realize that health is unimportant because it is inevitable that my health deteriorates and I die of old age. Why try to swim up a waterfall when it's obviously impossible? Nevertheless I still think about it all the time, and I wish I were more motivated and actually accomplished such wishes, only to realize how dumb I was to waste my time on unimportant things. The part about handwashing is definitely true for me. I was diagnosed with OCD involving washing my hands too much. It's cyclic for me now and once in a great while do I go on washing binges. Once again I think about hygiene and sanitation, but I'm too lazy, unmotivated, and uncaring about those matters to actually act on my thoughts. I don't shave as often as I "should," and nor do I brush my teeth as often as I "should". Usually I forget to do these things, sometimes I just feel that it's a waste of time. Only occasionally do I care about what people think about me, and then do I worry about my appearance. I do shower twice daily currently, and I have been wanting to go see a dentist. I'm just too lazy to actually do anything. Why? Because I'm a strong P type. But socionics says that INTJs are unmotivated like this (they get so involved that they forget to eat, etc.), and that clashes with the J/P definitions and "symptoms."


INTPs are often active in business and commercial matters. They have good abilities to quickly calculate profit. Usually they are relaxed and only undertake projects that show considerable return and profit. They are not afraid to run big businesses. Usually INTPs are very economical.

I have many, many economical machinations. The laziness factor almost always comes into play, however.


They do not like to make presents or lend money to others. Because of this quality they usually try to appear poorer than they actually are. However when it comes to spending money on themselves, they can be very generous.


They're talking about me again. Whenever I buy a gift for someone, I usually do it thinking one step ahead: I generally buy gifts (when I uncommonly do) for others that will benefit me too.


INTPs usually work slowly, paying a lot of attention to detail. In their activities they show a strict logic, that can sometimes become very pedantic and scrupulous. INTPs may check that all home appliances are off many times before leaving.

When detail doesn't hurt the concept, I'll pay very much attention to it. I also do so when I really care about what I working on. Hell- I really have to care in order to work on it at all anyway. Sometimes there are misconstruences I see in others' discussions of philosophy, etc., and I like to "provide clarity" (Paul James again!). This clarity is usually seen by others who aren't very conceptual or logical as "very pedantic and scrupulous." Either way, this whole detail thing is a tilt toward S and away from N; toward concrete and away from abstract, unless it is to provide clarity so as to ensure that the conceptual logic is not twisted. I have checked the appliances "many times before leaving" many times.


Alright, I guess I'm done for now. If I think of any more unclear things, I'll likely let you know. I've already spent a lot more time on this than my laziness and my changing, P, nature would allow, and I have work tomorrow- or should I say later today? I am going to sleep now.

[paladinoflunaria]

Final thought: that should count as more than one post. :D Just kidding.

[Johnny]

I'm curious at the use of Jung to bring closure to the Socionics INTJ and Myers-Briggs INTP debate. It was my understanding that Jung didn't recognize the P/J dichotomy, that it was the Myers who introduced this 4th type. But I'll go for the ride anyway and offer these thoughts and questions:

The Introverted Thinker: if the introverted thinker's judgements are cold, obstinate, arbitrary, and inconsiderate, would not this indicate shallowness on the part of the introverted thinker's judgements? Being less related to the object than the subject, I would consider my judgements weak, easy to undermine with my thinking.

That doesn't appear to describe the INTJ preference, where I would suggest this person's relation to the object would be much higher (e.g., changing the world to meet the vision - the source of the intuitive's difficulty with perception).

Am I misunderstanding something in what you've offered or taking something out of context?

[Johnny]

[The J/P designation marks the dominant, which was already an important part in the Jungian system.
O.K. I'll at least begin reading your hyperlink offering and see where that takes me before I comment beyond what I'm going to offer below. Thanks very much for the correction.

I want to address the introverted thinker's description again: "His judgment appears cold, obstinate, arbitrary, and inconsiderate, simply because he is related less to the object than the subject."

The judgements appear shallow as a symptom of the introverted thinker's detachment from "the object". This detachment is real, and the appearance provides evidence of this. From this understanding, I'm arguing for the introverted thinker as capable of preferring P rather than J.

But this is very little to build a counter argument with...


I can't help but to think of this really clear-cut INTJ person I used to work with when reading that. This may not say much since I've known only two INTJ's, and it's hard to tell that the other one is J to begin with (though he's NT to the extreme.)
A sign of aging, maybe?
Seriously, though, since I understand Myers-Briggs to reveal personality foundations only, I don't see types as personality limiters. What we build from there can be just about anything...and in the MBTI system, one is encouraged to build, build and build. What we see and who people are internally may not often match, especially with regard to introverts.

[CosmicDust]

IIRC, in Socionics ordering, the first two functions of INTP are the traditional MBTI's INTJ functions, but the tertiary and inferior are the same as the traditional INTP. I also saw an article suggesting that there's no adequate evidence for ANY Jungian function model correlating rigidly to the test results; the MBTI works best as a dimensional personality map like the Big 5. So, pick your poison, I guess. I do believe that Ti seems to fit me best, but I'm not sure which N would be second; I tested as Ni and Ti tied on the MMDI, yet I can also relate to Ne.

[Johnny]

I did a little snooping on the socionics website to see if I could understand the P/J problem a little better.

I've been understanding E/I, S/N, T/F, and P/J as stand-alone scales in the Myers-Briggs system. But the Socionics website seems to offer that 1) P/J is to be derived (as Jung attempts to do) from the other scales to paint a clearer personality portrait, and 2) Myers-Briggs P/J scale attempts to assess one's preference with questions regarding the world and not oneself, making it incomplete.

I hope I'm getting warmer as to the reasoning behind Socionic's attacks on the MBTI system and am not missing something critical. Some of their writings seem to possess errors with grammar and content, possibly because I really don't understand what they're saying. But it's clear that Socionics claims to be truer to Jung's theory than MBTI, though I don't recall any MBTI literature that claimed anything more than being greatly inspired by Jung's work.

I'm going to try to find out what Jung means when he uses the words "Judgement" and "Perception". I'm not completely clear here anymore. Given that Jung's intuitive stops at perception, I do infer that perception is a limiting concept here...not as I understand the meaning of perception in MBTI, which ironically has both internal and external consequences for an individual.

[Johnny]

Not done reading the Jung Psychological Types doc yet, but Jung gives credit to Kant in the notion that we and the world are inseparable, as far as we are concerned. This is my first exposure to Jung's own writings and didn't know. Very neat.

I'm highlighting where I'm finding data on Judgement and Perception, to give Jung's ideas and Socionics its due before I begin my assault upon the walls...and to give MissPadfoot more time to beat me to the punch.

[paladinoflunaria]

For the MMDI I tested as the Ti-Ne-Si-Fe function order (0 Fe, just like a good shadow function). For any MBTI test, as well as the socionics test, I score a high P. I have a moderate Ni and a moderate Te, but it is not nearly as high as Ne and Ti (Ni and Ne are closer than Ti and Te), so I think something's up with socionics. Some of the arguments made by socionics sound good, but some of them don't follow very much logic. I'm too lazy to quote right now.

Does anyone have a clean (Jung babbles too much/ I'm too lazy to read in depth) definition of the 8 functions (Ti, Se, etc.)? I don't think I need it very much. After taking the MMDI for the final time this afternoon, I decided to really take a look at the test. Through inductive logic (Ne, suckas!) I have become able to reproduce a similar test. I'll never actually make one, especially now that I know I'm competent.

[Johnny]

O.K., here goes. Charge, reason!


5. Recapitulation of Extraverted Rational Types
I term the two preceding types rational or judging types because they are characterized by the supremacy of the reasoning and judging functions…In its totality, the life of this type is never dependent upon reasoning judgment alone; it is influenced in almost equal degree by unconscious irrationality.
The term rational is defined here as judging and perceiving to be operating together, more or less equally. Furthermore:

…on one hand, a definite choice is made among the possibilities of life, since only the rational choice is consciously accepted; but, on the other hand, the independence and influence of those psychic functions which perceive life’s happenings are essentially restricted.
So it can be said that judging and perceiving work on the opposite ends of a “scale”, in as much as Thinking and Feeling do, or Sensing and Intuition, or Extraversion and Introversion.


10.Recapitulation of Extraverted Irrational Types
I call two the two preceding types irrational…namely, because their commissions and omissions are based not upon reasoned judgment but upon the absolute intensity of perception. Their perception is concerned with simple happenings, where no selection has been exercised by the judgment.
The term irrational indicates the extreme end of the J/P scale, namely on the perceiver side. But consider:

The postulate of a universal lawfulness remains a postulate of reason only; in no sense is it a postulate of our functions of perception. Since these are in no way grounded upon the principle of reason and its postulates, they are, of their very nature, irrational.
So Jung is not only attributing irrational the absolute intensity of perception, but also universal lawfulness – the extreme end of the judging side. To clarify the encroachment of the term irrational upon both extreme ends of the J/P scale:

…the actual life of the irrational types exhibits striking judgments and acts of choice, which take the form of apparent sophistries, cold-hearted criticisms, and an apparently purposeful selection of persons and situations… The irrational type balances this contemptuous judgment with an equally poor impression of the rational…these are gross extremes…

And there’s more regarding rational that Jung offers:

10.Recapitulation of Introverted Rational Types
Both the foregoing types are rational, since they are founded upon reasoning, judging functions. Reasoning judgment is based not merely upon objective, but also upon subjective, data… For a judgment to be really reasonable it should have equal reference to both the objective and subjective factors, and be able to do justice to both. This, however, would be an ideal case…an ideal reason is impossible.

I hope it’s clear by now how things look for rationality and irrationality on the J/P scale as Jung describes. Rational is the indicator which lies at the very center of the J/P scale, while irrational is the indicator which is capable of lying at either the J or P end. No wonder the Myers’ were confused! For me, it also explains why Jung allows the appearances of the introverted thinker’s judgments to mirror the appearances of the judgments of the irrational perceiver, and offering some confusing evidence of Ti and P compatibility (but that argument isn't as interesting and is really just a pot-shot).

O.K., so what does this offer to Socionic’s interest in seeing J and P meet the rational and irrational type attributions of Jung? I don’t know the answer to that yet. But it looks like Socionics wants to keep the J/P scale just like the Myers’ created it, but with the caveat that some types need E/I impact revision upon the function types.

Here’s what I think is really going on with Jung’s version of J/P:
The J/P scale, rationality, and irrationality were designed by Jung as tools for evaluating the mental health of an individual. He’s not really concerned at all with the individual’s particular leaning on this scale, only that it is very important to strive to strike a balance – to be committed to something and yet be open minded, flexible – for a healthy mental state. Who wouldn’t want to be assigned a doctor who balanced observation (perception) with diagnosis (judgment) with equal measure when one’s body or mind is not well?

So where does that leave Socionics claim that it’s Jungian purity makes it more effective at identifying personality types than MBTI? That’s my next expedition…

Feel free to raise public triplines on my cavalry if you see an opportunity.

[Slava]

Heres a simple way to understand, remember, and differentiate socionics and MBTI.

MBTI:

Example... INTP
1) N is the percieving function, T is the judging function
2) INTP's are P, so that means the Perceiving function (N) would be extraverted, thus Ne and the judging function introverted, Ti. Since the INTP is I, that means the introverted function is dominant. Hence, Ti, Ne. Now since N is the extraverted function the other perceiving function must naturally be introverted and the other judging function extraverted, hence Ti, Ne, Si, Fe.

Socionics is a bit different:

In socionics INTP = INTj (because of the functions which are much more important than what you think their type is). In socionics j means that the judging function is dominant (T) and because they are introverted the primary function also becomes introverted, Ti.

Now... you guys are probably curious what Si Se Ni Ne Fi Fe Ti Te mean. Si = sensational sensorics, Se = volitional sensorics, Ni = intuition of time (dejavu), Ne = Intuition of potential (think of all the idea blurting people you know :-)), Fi = relation ethics (knowing your relations to others, ENTp's and ESTp's such at it and barely care about others, try to think of one), Fe = emotional ethics (being able to use emotions effectively, but dont be fooled by it, they probably lack relational ethics), Ti = logic of correlation (example: "hey i just realized zip codes go from east to west in numerical order"), and last but not least Te = bussiness logic.

After reading through that its pretty obvious what an MBTI INTP is (or socionics INTj). If you are good with bussiness and finances then you are INTJ if you are good with correlation then INTP. You'll probably notice that your relationships will become better at around age 20 as well, but your volitional sensorics probably suck :-) yes they do, cause I'm sure most of you guys also get food all over yourselves while eating, and then wonder how that happened. :-)

[Johnny]

This is very helpful, but if my assessment is right regarding Jung's rational and irrational types - that they could be allowed to lean towards either Judgment or Perception without causing a logical disconnect in Jung's pysychology theory - is correct, then Socionics cannot claim superiority over MBTI for the reasons they assert on their website.

Assuming that Socionic's "Jungian purity" assertion is untrue, do we then choose Socionics over MBTI because we view the personality model Socionics ascribes to us as more accurate than MBTI? Does it need to come down to the "pick your poison" solution offered by CosmicDust? Mistakes that turn into breakthroughs have happened before, so I can't discount Socionics solely for misunderstanding details of Jung's personality theory.

[Slava]

If you are wondering which system to use and which is more precise, then it's definitly socionics for a few reasons. I've personally tested the system on a whole bunch of people (and cross calculated all their relationships), the relationships work out perfectly and on top of that I noticed the order of functions first hand. I noticed that my ESTp friend (Ne Ti Se Fi) is really bad with relational ethics, and my ENTp friends can be classified as sociopaths (remember cartman on southpark?). Socionics also has mor ein depth explinations of hwo the mind works and talks about the dual seeking function and all kinds of other interesting things. So I would have to assume based on my experience and the work put into socionics (which came after MBTI) that socionics os more advanced and correct. Heres a cool site you may want to check out with photos of INTj's ... http://ru.laser.ru/socion/references/filatova/intj/ you can play around with the URL and change the I to an E to see how much happier the extraverts are :-)

[Johnny]

I'm sorry Slava, but your link is only offering me 18 reasons why Socionics is of lesser value to me than MBTI. All I see are pictures of 18 faces, and they are offering me no clues as to the "greater precision" of Socionics. Maybe if you offered a color picture and I could see the color of their eyes, then perhaps their INTj personality perferences would reveal themselves to me with greater clarity. :D

Seriously, though, MBTI offers itself for "well" people, not for sociopaths or people with, say, really bad relational ethics - people who need professional medical help. If this is a valid sampling of Socionic's clientele, then I would have to decline Socionic's personality typing system and stick with MBTI.

[Vagabond]

Hmm. Quite a few of those people don't even look like NTs.

[Slava]

"I'm sorry Slava, but your link is only offering me 18 reasons why Socionics is of lesser value to me than MBTI"

my reply to that is that thats not why I sent you the link. I sent you the link so that you can see how the poses change between each type. The E's tend to smile more than the I's. As for the INTj's not looking alike, thats not what socionics is about and that doesnt disprove the socionics theory and experimental data. The color of the eyes doesn't show anything in fact, I think you are talking about the gaze (distant dissociated look or fanatic look).

"Seriously, though, MBTI offers itself for "well" people, not for sociopaths or people with, say, really bad relational ethics - people who need professional medical help."

When feeling is your least developed function, it indeed does mean you have underdeveloped relational or emotional ethics. What type do you think the columbine kids were? Unibomber (INTP) ... and so on. Scientists usually have poor people skills because of this. If you dont believe me that personality correlates with certain "disorders" then check out http://www-star.qmw.ac.uk/~rmh/addNP.html . You have to realize that companies try to sell people drugs so that they can change their personality to be more mainstream. If you have ADD or xNxP then take Aderol, if you have social anxiety Ixxx then take... the list goes on. Take a look at some criminal profiles and you'll find they match the NT profiles pretty closely. Relational ethics maybe?

"Hmm. Quite a few of those people don't even look like NTs."

Thats because each NT type has 4 look to them, but looks aren't definite those are in fact people of Slavic decent and they won't look like americans. So take that into account as well. The important thing about socionics is the personality model, not appearance statistics. The only physical thing that you might notice is the persons gait and walking style, but don't count on looks alone.

[Vagabond]

"those are in fact people of Slavic decent and they won't look like americans. So take that into account as well. "

Of course... I am not american either, I am greek... :) So I try to look behind the origins' traits anyway - not that I always manage it though...

[Johnny]

Slava: When feeling is your least developed function, it indeed does mean you have underdeveloped relational or emotional ethics. What type do you think the columbine kids were?

If one truly believes he can "type" others without their agreement and support, one is certainly exercising a much higher degree of expertise with Socionics (or MBTI, for that matter) than I. And again, if the type examples supporting Socionics continue to be individuals who operate in such a manner as to clearly need professional medical help to mitigate their actions from harming themselves or others (including death), then Socionics is certainly not a system that should be regarded as an alternative to MBTI...not to mention their claims to "Jungian purity", which I still regard as a misunderstanding of Jung's theories on their part.

O.K., now, so why again are you not offering colored pictures so I can see their eyes and make a more skilled assessment of their personality types?

[Johnny]

Here lies the inconsistency between MBTI & Jungian type; for the INTP is N-dominant according to Jungian type, the difference between xNTP isn't in the functional structuring per se, but is related to attitude.
Sure, Jung uses extraversion and introversion as starting points for comprehending thinking, feeling, sensing, and intuition. But without a clear understanding of what Jung means by jugdment, perception, rational and irrational, we can't really talk intelligibly about Jung's compatibility with either MBTI or Socionics. Socionics assumes that rational types will exhibit MBTI's J type, and Jung doesn't truly use the word "rational" to mean that one will prefer Judgment over Perception. Nor does he use "irrational" to mean that Perception will be preferred over Judgment. This issue must be cleared up before the application of "rational" types and "irrational" types to the issue of MBTI's INTP relationships can be challenged in any serious way by Socionics.


The Jungian Rational translates into Socionics' J-types and MBTI types with dominant or auxiliary Je-function. MBTI Ti is therefore Jungian auxiliary thinking. The J/P issue isn't as much a scale as it is about balance between processing functions.
Unless there are other writings by Jung that address the relationships of Judgement and Perception, rational and irrational, to shed additional light on the matter, I can't agree with Socionics' assessment. The translation you are referring to is not truly a translation, but a misunderstanding on Socionics' part.

Still, Jung's Psychological Types is a fascinating read!

[Johnny]

Merely because [irrational types] subordinate judgment to perception, it would be quite wrong to regard them as "unreasonable." It wouldbe truer to say that they are in the highest degree empirical. They base themselves entirely on experience. ["General Description of the Types," ibid., par. 618.]


Jung described the psychological functions of thinking and feeling as rational because they are decisively influenced by reflection.

Yes, I have read this and do not dispute it. However, this is only the surface of Jung's thought train. It is a shallow understanding of his ideas. Again, when you dig deeper into his concepts of rational and irrational types, you will see that Jung claims not only that irrational types expose oneself to an unbalanced mix of Judgment and Perception, but that rational types would ideally display a perfectly equal proportion of Judgment and Perception. In order to reconcile his descriptions of rational and irrational types within his Recapitulations, one must take such predispositions to perception or judgment as "prejudices" on his part, prejudices which Jung illustrates in the Recapitulations (though the language may be obscure).

Think about it - how can anything useful be articulated about the senses, e.g. that it is extraverted or introverted, if judgment does not participate in the sensing process? How do I know what I'm sensing at all (or intuiting, for that matter) without some measure of Judgment to accompany the Perception (e.g., am I really bungee jumping, or am I just playing a video game?). Wouldn't rational sensing be more attractive?

Really, it needs to be said that Jung's concepts of Judgment and Perception should not be confused with Myers-Briggs use of Judgment and Perception. Myers-Briggs defines and offers Judgment and Perception to infer the nature of one's dominant type function, and they make no claims that their definitions conform to Jung's definitions. It is completely unneccesary to go beyond Myers-Briggs to understand and determine the usefulness of their personality typing system, though the INTP within us (as suggested by Myers-Briggs) may drive us to go beyond MB typology and dig into one of the sources of their inspiration. Myers-Briggs makes no claims for Jungian-purity, and I agree with you absolutely that MBTI should be seen as a stand-alone system. However, Socionics arguments for superiority over MBTI for such reasons is both misleading and misinformed, and we do not agree on the need to understand Jung before an understanding of MBTI can be achieved.

But still, I am also fascinated with Jung's ideas and theories and will continue to explore them. Thanks Hush for your efforts here!

[Johnny]

Edit: Sorry for my numerous revisions...but I'm finally realizing that my model for Jung's rational and irrational types is falling apart at its seams... :D

Still, I want to assert something about judgment and perception that is unusual, where both can be used in equal measure. I can't figure out why. It just seems right somehow.

Worse is, I want to explode his idea of primary/auxiliary types, that I must be disposed to rank my functional attributes and not utilize them with equal strength. Am I misunderstanding that balance is something he alludes to, or hopes for somehow?

Maybe I'm completely misunderstanding him. I'm not an expert by any stretch. But it still nags me. I'll keep working on it.

[Slava]

The best way to learn the functions and back up either socionics or mbti is to type people and then observe their last two weakest functions, because thats the only thing between mbti and socionics that doesnt match. The first two functions will match but the last two are opposite. I have personally typed all my friends and I see that socionics fits a lot better in terms of the last two functions. I'm an MBTI INTP, and hence a socionics INTj, and according to socionics my last two functions are Fi (relational ethics), and Se (volitional sensorics), according to MBTI they are Si (sensational sensorics), Fe (emotional ethics). At this time in my life I feel that I am developing relational ethics and emotional ethics seems irrelivant to me. At the same time I do not feel as if my Se is developing as I am still just as uncoordinated as I always was. Now, try to compare yourself to an ENTp (Fi is their last function in socionics, but it mbti it is second to last). Now ask yourself this... do INTp's seem to be more ethical than ENTp's? Think of every one you know. This is just one of many ways to figure out which system is correct.

[Johnny]

Well, as far as I'm concerned, welcome aboard!

[Johnny]

O.K. I'm finally catching up to the definitions section in the Lexicon.

If my primary function and inferior function both exhibit either Judgment or Perception, what (if any) impact, according to Jung, does this have on whether my inferior function prefers extraversion or introversion?

Edit: I'm asking because I don't understand why MBTI and Socionics require that my inferior function exhibit extraversion if I am introverted (or vice versa). Whether or not my preference is to focus on myself (introversion) or the world (extraversion) with my dominant function, where does Jung make it necessary for my inferior function to possess extraverted or introverted characteristics also? Is it by virtue of my dominant function requiring it? If my shadow function is my least developed function, could it be excused from needing an E/I bias?

[Miss Padfoot]

My problem with Socionics is that it equates having a dominant judging or perceiving function with being a judging or perceiving person. Is there such a thing as a judging or perceiving person, according to Jung? I haven't looked through Jung's work all that much yet, but I certainly haven't found any evidence of such.

Here's some stuff I pulled off Socionics:

The preference for Judgement/Perception was not explored by Jung in his work as well as all the other preferences, so Myers decided to come up with her own Judgement/Perception scale instead. She figured, if people use their preferred judging process to order the external (!) world - they are Judging types, if they use their preferred perceiving process to experience the external (!) world - they are Perceiving types.So far so good. Myers's definition of J/P is not the same as Jung's.

First of all whether you want it or not, MBTI types obtained via MBTI test results are actually fully compatible with Jungian type. The reason for this is that despite Myers wrongful, one-sided J/P definition, MBTI J/P questions identify individual's preference for Jungian J/P.Now this I disagree with. Myers's questions measure exactly what she wants them to: her definition of P/J scale. Socionics fails to cite any test questions from MBTI tests and explain how and why they measure whether someone has a dominant perceiving or judging function, rather than whether someone has an extraverted perceiving or judging function.

Let's consider some questions from this MBTI test (http://www.humanmetrics.com/cgi-win/JTypes2.asp):

"You do your best to complete a task on time"
A "task" is something imposed on you by the outside world. Therefore, completing a task on time would be a sign of someone who wants structure in the world around him. Sounds like this person, introverted or extraverted, has an extraverted rational function that is either dominant or auxiliary - hence, an MBTI J-type.

"Strict observance of the established rules is likely to prevent attaining a good outcome"
An answer of "yes" to this question would correspond to the MBTI P-type, who does not like to follow externally imposed rules. A Jungian Introverted Thinking type would answer "yes" to the above question, because Jung makes it very clear that Ti types make their own rules.

More on this later.

[Odyssey]

While I agree perfectly with your second example, I'd like to point out a problem with your first example. I may seem picky, but I think it's important:

A "task" is something imposed on you by the outside world.
Ehh... Not really! If I believed that, I would feel so hopeless and oppressed by the external world that I wouldn't be able to function, except to constantly escape it in hope of having some sense of control o_O

95% of my current goals list (available friends-only on LJ) while mostly suggested by the outside world, is certainly not necessary or "imposed" by the outside world. To clarify: goals and tasks are the same for me, though goals can encompass multiple tasks. For goals/tasks, as a rule of thumb, I aim for a higher standard than what the external world expects.

By holding my goals high enough above the real world's expectations, I rarely feel "imposed" upon, but instead I'm directing myself. My desire to complete tasks on time - by my own definition of on-time - is rather intense. But that's so I can feel like I have direction and purpose, and so I have a clear order of importance of how to guide both inner and outer parts my life. In a way, I actively seek enough structure to increasingly coordinate my introverted and extraverted sides towards mutual goals!

What one might look at instead of the on-time completion of tasks is how a person views their tasks: Does Person Z give more weight to externally supported "deadlines"(Je?), or to their own decided deadlines(Ji) when possible? Or, is Person Z concerned especially about what others will think/feel (E), or does Person Z worry more about how he will feel or think about himself (I)?

Getting this cleared up could help figure out in more detail Jung's vs. MBTI's J and P.

~Odyssey


PS: It's hard to keep Locus of Control (http://www3.azwestern.edu/psy/dgershaw/lol/ControlLocus.html) separate from I vs. E when it comes to task-orientation... I hope I'm not mixing them up.

[Johnny]

The inferior function is opposite in both attitude and function to the preferred dominant attitude and function.
Yes, this is how Myers-Briggs wants it, and I'm not opposed to them imposing attitude orientations on the auxiliary and inferior functions. I'm just not clear that Jung himself really cares that the inferior function requires an attitude re-orientation as well. I'm as far back as asking if Jung demands that any auxiliary or inferior function must display an E or I attitude. In other words, how far does Jung himself ask our attitude to go, and what is the impact? If your conclusions are being drawn directly from Jung, could you point me to the source?

But yes, I do agree that Jung does make the F-T and S-N opposition clear, asks us to choose only one function type as our dominant function, and accept its opposing function as our most inferior function.


My problem with Socionics is that it equates having a dominant judging or perceiving function with being a judging or perceiving person. Is there such a thing as a judging or perceiving person, according to Jung?
Yes, though your terminology is a little off. J and P aren't function types. Only T,F,S, and N are offered as function types. Socionics' issue is that Myers-Briggs is not playing the E/I swapping game through the function hiearchy as Jung intended...given that it was really his intention for the E and I attitudes to be used this way to begin with. I think their support comes from this formula: rational=judgment, irrational=perception, but I'm not completely clear on what this forumula is supposed to reveal beyond articulating the T/F and S/N scales. I understand, so far, that Jung isn't really saying that because your dominant function is rational, that means you are judger and have lower proficiency with perception. But still, whether Jung is talking about extraverting, introverting, thinking, feeling, sensing, or intuiting - rational or irrational in their orientation - he is talking about a human being at all times...not something else, such as a chair.:D

*edit: had to try to clarify a few assertions on my end (and again).

[Johnny]

No offense meant, Onmymind_too. I wasn't trying imply that you were misinterpreting Jung or offering erroneous statements, I just wanted to know where you were referring to Jung in your assertions.

O.K., so Jung articulates that inferior functions also possess attitudes (such as introversion) that oppose the dominant function's conscious attitude (such as extraversion). How do the attitudes apply to the auxiliary functions then, according to Jung?

[Johnny]

But, when thinking becomes mythological, its irrelevancy grows until finally it gets lost in itself. The relatively unconscious functions of feeling, intuition, and sensation, which counterbalance introverted thinking, are inferior in quality and have a primitive, extraverted character, to which all the troublesome objective influences this type is subject to must be ascribed.

Your second quote peaked my interest, and I wanted to expand it a little more for discussion. Jung seems to be offering that in the introverted thinker's subjective pursuits, there are still objects to contend with - thoughts cannot banish the world, though they may attempt to delude me into believing so. The introverted thinker, preferring his subjective thoughts, will offer sensing, intuiting, and feeling to the world to bargain for his most highly regarded function. If he is successful, balance is acheived. If he is unsuccessful, then either he employs his thinking to generate fantasies that separate him further from the object or his less-regarded functions are employed exclusively to rally or subdue the object - and both these solutions lead only to his detriment.

Is this description close to your understanding of Jung's illustration of the introverted thinker, Onmymind_too? Whether yes or no, and forgive me for imposing further, would you please elaborate?