Why P=p, and J=j. (MBTI/Socionics)

[Technical]

-Perceving and Judging mean the same things under both systems, in the context of describing the types in general.

-INTPs test as ILI (INTp) much, much more than they test as LII.

-See www.wikisocion.org (http://www.wikisocion.org/). Using the descriptions there, It should hopefully be undeniable that ISTP=ISTp, and ISTJ=ISTj. The ISTp is even called the "Craftsman," hardly a typical title for ISTJs. (I use this as an example because it's clearer than ILI vs. LII.)

-(Addition): And if you take a look at Socionics interpersonal relations (http://www.socionics.com/rel/rel.htm), you'll notice that if ESFj and INTj are duals (Best possible long-term match). ESFJs are notoriously bad matches for INTPs, but not so for INTJs.

-The vast majority of those who would disagree, and say some nonsense like "INTP=INTj," do so because they've prioritized the function assignments over all else, especially sense.

Why would you assume that the arbitrarily assigned function order for both systems is the one thing that's accurate, as opposed to everything else? Even if one of the two "has it right," which they don't, the function orders never match up, no matter how you slice it. ILI=Ni-Te-Si-Fe, INTJ=Ni-Te-Fi-Se.

[YHWH]

It seems in the description there are some differences between P and p, but the closest type to MBTI INTP is still socionics INTp, same goes for all types.

[ciphersort]

I find the wikisocion descriptions for INTp and INTj to be more accurate than the typically referenced MBTI based descriptions especially when it comes to dealing with function order.

In my opinion anyone of sufficient intelligence (and it doesn't require much...) should be able to see that INTps use introverted intuition first and foremost edited/contained/supported by extroverted logic while INTjs use introverted logic edited/contained/supported by extroverted intuition.

Many INTPs prefer to believe (and most people in general as well) that they consult logic first, but that isn't demonstrated by the extreme, and often irrational, explorative nature of just about every INTp that posts here.

[Technical]

Many INTPs prefer to believe (and most people in general as well) that they consult logic first, but that isn't demonstrated by the extreme, and often irrational, explorative nature of just about every INTp that posts here.
Don't I know it! :gm:

But I should clarify that a function system doesn't make anyone anything, and you can even interpret Ni-Te as coming to more logical conclusions than Ti-Ne, due to the un-rushed and less personally biased nature of the "user's" analyses. This is, of course, using the original function definitions, and not the retroactive MBTI defs.

[Curtis24]

How are the two systems different? Is there a link?

[Technical]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Socionics

No, I'm not lazy, that's actually a good info source for a socionics noob. (Depending on who's winning the edit contest of the type equations.)

[ciphersort]

Don't I know it! :gm:

But I should clarify that a function system doesn't make anyone anything, and you can even interpret Ni-Te as coming to more logical conclusions than Ti-Ne, due to the un-rushed and less personally biased nature of the "user's" analyses. This is, of course, using the original function definitions, and not the retroactive MBTI defs.

Agreed.

[bass_n_treble]

Have you got any Socionics typing tests, Tech?

[Unapplied Knowledge]

J=j and P=p, yes. However, the j and p apply differently in Socionics than J and P do in MBTI, which is why INTP = INTj and INTJ = INTp even though J=j and P=p. It's not a matter of the difference in terminology, but rather, difference in application.

To elaborate in general terms, in MBTI, J/P is used in relation to the processes to show whether judging or perceiving is extraverted (while I/E is used to determine whether the judging trait is introverted or extraverted). In Socionics, j/p is used to determine whether the perceiving or judging trait is dominant.

MBTI INTPs are perceptive because their primary interaction with the outside world is a perceiving function, Ne (however, they are dominant Ti because everything must pass through the filter of logic).

MBTI INTjs are judging because everything must pass through the filter of logic (and secondary Ne determines that their method of information gathering for this purpose is explorative and creative).

Basically, this is saying the same thing, but one of them is in Yoda-speak. What's really important is the cognitive processes. They just use differing methods of designation regarding J/P for such.

[Technical]

J=j and P=p, yes. However, the j and p apply differently in Socionics than J and P do in MBTI, which is why INTP = INTj and INTJ = INTp even though J=j and P=p. It's not a matter of the difference in terminology, but rather, difference in application.

To elaborate in general terms, in MBTI, J/P is used in relation to the processes to show whether judging or perceiving is extraverted (while I/E is used to determine whether the judging trait is introverted or extraverted). In Socionics, j/p is used to determine whether the perceiving or judging trait is dominant.

MBTI INTPs are perceptive because their primary interaction with the outside world is a perceiving function, Ne (however, they are dominant Ti because everything must pass through the filter of logic).

MBTI INTjs are judging because everything must pass through the filter of logic (and secondary Ne determines that their method of information gathering for this purpose is explorative and creative).

Basically, this is saying the same thing, but one of them is in Yoda-speak. What's really important is the cognitive processes. They just use differing methods of designation regarding J/P for such.
I've heard all of that so many times I could puke right at this very moment.

The fundamental point you seem to have missed is that reality beats theory every time they're opposed to one another. If you admit, as you seem to, that P=p, in the context of describing the behavior of any type (Just one example of this truth being that both MBTI & Socionics tests test j/p in about the same way), then you have to admit that INTP=INTp. It's really simple.

However, if you insist on complicating the matter with myriad subjective, opposed function theories, then you, Sir, have failed.

The argument "No, because MBTI uses the extraverted function to determine J/P" is entirely bogus. The MBTI doesn't test your favorite extraverted function; It tests your preference for J or P, as defined. Every single function assignment under every system is merely an addendum (Again, subjective), tantamount to "We've decided that this function order best fits those who test this way." And since there's not agreement on this, at least some people are wrong. Technically they're all wrong, since none of it is even an attempt at a literal description of thought. But some, imo, are less wrong than others.

[Unapplied Knowledge]

I've heard all of that so many times I could puke right at this very moment.

The fundamental point you seem to have missed is that reality beats theory every time they're opposed to one another. If you admit, as you seem to, that P=p, in the context of describing the behavior of any type (Just one example of this truth being that both MBTI & Socionics tests test j/p in about the same way), then you have to admit that INTP=INTp. It's really simple.

However, if you insist on complicating the matter with myriad subjective, opposed function theories, then you, Sir, have failed.

The argument "No, because MBTI uses the extraverted function to determine J/P" is entirely bogus. The MBTI doesn't test your favorite extraverted function; It tests your preference for J or P, as defined. Every single function assignment under every system is merely an addendum (Again, subjective), tantamount to "We've decided that this function order best fits those who test this way." And since there's not agreement on this, at least some people are wrong. Technically they're all wrong, since none of it is even an attempt at a literal description of thought. But some, imo, are less wrong than others.

My point (quoting from a post in which I quoted the above post, god this is getting awesome) is really this:



Really, if you want to get down to it, they aren't the same system and shouldn't be used comparatively (despite the shared basis in Jungian theory and the XXXX designations).

Regarding the J/j P/p comparisons, I was speaking in terms of defining cognitive processes, which I tend to find more enjoyable than the specific typing systems of MBTI/Socionics.

In fact, I think I would enjoy it if we all agreed to recognize this and stopped trying to compare the systems when their main shared attributes are just that of four fucking letters and some old dead dude, because again, they're different systems. That, and Socionics.com is baloney (baloney doesn't get red underlined as a spelling error? Cool.) The arguments are futile because you can't draw a direct line between the systems (ironically, however, I've been playing devil's advocate with these arguments for fun, and more importantly, to illustrate these above points).

[Technical]

Regarding the J/j P/p comparisons, I was speaking in terms of defining cognitive processes, which I tend to find more enjoyable than the specific typing systems of MBTI/Socionics.
To each his own, but "cognitive processes" is a complete mess due to the MBTI misappropriation. Most people use definitions of say, Ti, that were written to describe INTPs and ISTPs, which are not even close to Jung's "Introverted Thinking." The misinformation and contradiction is so prevalent that the study, if you can call it that, is beyond saving.

More to the point of the thread...It took me a long time to become sure that P types are p types, and J j, but I'm quite sure now. I'd thought the evidence in the OP would be enough to illustrate that, but I've overestimated the perceptive capacity of my audience about 10,000 times.

[Unapplied Knowledge]

To each his own, but "cognitive processes" is a complete mess due to the MBTI misappropriation. Most people use definitions of say, Ti, that were written to describe INTPs and ISTPs, which are not even close to Jung's "Introverted Thinking." The misinformation and contradiction is so prevalent that the study, if you can call it that, is beyond saving.

I call the process I recognize as the thing MBTI calls Ti just that because we're on an MBTI-focused forum and thus that's the frame of reference in which the inhabitants understand. If I were in a different environment, or better yet, referring to the system internally, I'd call it something else. I don't think Ti relates to Jung's introverted thinking, but then again, MBTI isn't Jung's works, only based upon it (Mises --> Rothbard).



More to the point of the thread...It took me a long time to become sure that P types are p types, and J j, but I'm quite sure now. I'd thought the evidence in the OP would be enough to illustrate that, but I've overestimated the perceptive capacity of my audience about 10,000 times.

Regarding this, the real fallacy is trying to find comparison between two different theoretical systems. That's a mistake on your behalf as much as that of your audience, but it's a mistake I made for a bit, too.

[Technical]

I call the process I recognize as the thing MBTI calls Ti just that because we're on an MBTI-focused forum and thus that's the frame of reference in which the inhabitants understand.
Yes...I mention MBTI lots, in reference to how much it sucks.


Regarding this, the real fallacy is trying to find comparison between two different theoretical systems. That's a mistake on your behalf as much as that of your audience, but it's a mistake I made for a bit, too.
Well, if you were to discover posts I made even up to a year or two ago, you would find that I held your position on the comparison of the two systems--That they should be kept separate, always. It's only after much research and contemplation that I've decided they're most definitely describing the same types, but a lot of people have the wrong idea about which ones.

[Unapplied Knowledge]

Well, if you were to discover posts I made even up to a year or two ago, you would find that I held your position on the comparison of the two systems--That they should be kept separate, always. It's only after much research and contemplation that I've decided they're most definitely describing the same types, but a lot of people have the wrong idea about which ones.

I tend to see it as more of a blend -- using wikisocion as a common reference point, I find much more even ground between ILI and LII in reference to myself and my observation of other INTPs than I do between MBTI INTP and INTJ. In fact, LII and ILI are even referred to as quasi-identical, which I think holds quite true, whereas many people who look beyond the XXXX designations in MBTI realize that INTPs and INTJs are quite different creatures.

In that regards I think you could call Socionics more successful in regards to showing more similarity between similarly designated types (even whilst keeping them quite separated on the chart, and for good reason).

I think another very large part for the confusion is that Socionics.com is frequently used as a reference point, and Socionics.com sucks fat hairy donkey balls.

[Technical]

I tend to see it as more of a blend -- using wikisocion as a common reference point, I find much more even ground between ILI and LII in reference to myself and my observation of other INTPs than I do between INTP and INTJ. In fact, LII and ILI are even referred to as quasi-identical, which I think holds quite true, whereas many people who look beyond the XXXX designations in MBTI realize that INTPs and INTJs are quite different creatures.
Descriptions are not Socionics' strong suit, in my opinion. And I have a sneaking suspicion that some of the later authors screwed up the differentiation too.

[Unapplied Knowledge]

Descriptions are not Socionics' strong suit, in my opinion. And I have a sneaking suspicion that some of the later authors screwed up the differentiation too.

I tend to find the process descriptions on wikisocion MUCH more accurate than any of the more specific overarching 'type' descriptions I've read regarding Socionics. I have a sneaking suspicion you are right. The physical attributes such is just wack; while there may be some minor correlations due to similar regards for physical upkeep and fitness (and the importance placed on such), whoever thought that stuff up needs to lay off the astrology.

[Cheat1011]

Care to explain why I constantly test as LII?

[Technical]

Care to explain why I constantly test as ILL?
Do you got the ILL communication?

[Cheat1011]

Do you got the ILL communication?Is that meant to be a joke?

[Technical]

Is that meant to be a joke?
Quite. On a more serious note, being that there is no ILL type (Though ILI may be the illest type), I should probably ask "Did you mean LII?"

[Cheat1011]

Quite. On a more serious note, being that there is no ILL type (Though ILI may be the illest type), I should probably ask "Did you mean LII?"Yes, that is what I meant, and I edited as soon as I saw my mistake (before you made this post).

[Technical]

Yes, that is what I meant, and I edited as soon as I saw my mistake (before you made this post).
The possibilities are several. You might be LII, and INTJ. You might be the exception to the rule. You might be a bad test taker. None of these would discount my general assessment, by my gauge.

I might even look into IEI, if I were you. I get these vague feelings which turn out to be correct, 9/10 of the time.

[Cheat1011]

The possibilities are several. You might be LII, and INTJ. You might be the exception to the rule. You might be a bad test taker. None of these would discount my general assessment, by my gauge.

I might even look into IEI, if I were you. I get these vague feelings which turn out to be correct, 9/10 of the time.Me being INTJ, or any type dominated by Introverted Intuition is a possibility I ruled out through examining the cognitive processes and taking the cognitive processes assessment.

Vague feelings? It's true IEI INFP is a possibility, but what vague feelings as you getting?

[Technical]

Vague feelings? It's true IEI is a possibility, but what vague feelings as you getting?
Cobain, 4w5, the assumption that your case would invalidate my proposition.

[Cheat1011]

Cobain, 4w5, the assumption that your case would invalidate my proposition.Actually, I didn't assume any such thing. In fact, I don't even test as LII. I just wanted to see how you would respond, really.

And I thought as much with you using the avatar and my Enneagram result to explain your vague feelings. What if my avatar was of Pauly Shore?


I hope I've impressed you. I aim to please.I was actually disappointed. =\

[Technical]

Actually, I didn't assume any such thing. In fact, I don't even test as LII. I just wanted to see how you would respond, really.
I hope I've impressed you. I aim to please.

[Eric B]

If INTP is really INTp, the TiNe is really NiTe in Socionics. Now I've heard something to the effect that "Ni works for the INTp the same way Ne works for INTP; Te works the same for INTp as Ti works for INTP" (I don't remember them addressing the iNtuition being dominant instead of Thinking). More recently, when I pointed this out somewhere, someone argued that this is so because MBTI strayed from Jung's definitions of the functions. In other words, you read the Ni description for the INTp type, and it sounds like the Ni we describe for INTP, but something got crossed up somewhere, and it's really MBTI's Ne. But for the extraverts, where the j/p types do match the first two processes, Ne would be Ne, and so forth.

So this just seems so confusing.

[Rubicon]

-Perceving and Judging mean the same things under both systems, in the context of describing the types in general.

-INTPs test as ILI (INTp) much, much more than they test as LII.

-See www.wikisocion.org (http://www.wikisocion.org/). Using the descriptions there, It should hopefully be undeniable that ISTP=ISTp, and ISTJ=ISTj. The ISTp is even called the "Craftsman," hardly a typical title for ISTJs. (I use this as an example because it's clearer than ILI vs. LII.)

-The vast majority of those who would disagree, and say some nonsense like "INTP=INTj," do so because they've prioritized the function assignments over all else, especially sense.

Why would you assume that the arbitrarily assigned function order for both systems is the one thing that's accurate, as opposed to everything else? Even if one of the two "has it right," which they don't, the function orders never match up, no matter how you slice it. ILI=Ni-Te-Si-Fe, INTJ=Ni-Te-Fi-Se.

Can we type people by the avatars they have selected? I think we should. When I first came here one of the things that struck me most was the avatars of a lot of the people here, they often have that random surrealist quality of an Ne preference. I am only about quarter serious there by the way but this place screams Ne in the same way that the INTJ forum reeks of Te. What evidence of Ni/Te do you see in the INTPs here?

The thing about socionics is that much of it has been lost in the translation from Russian to English and a bunch of idiots have gone ahead and basically adopted the MBTI descriptions for socionics types it seems. I think the wikisocion has basically also done this to some extent also from what I have seen of it and I do not think there are really any english socionics sites from which to get a proper understanding of socionics and some of the Russian ones suck too. The descriptions of most of the types appear to be a cross between two similar MBTI types in a lot of instances. Then the tests too are also based on MBTI criteria for judging p/j, if you are lazy then you are a p and if you are hardworking then you are j. So if you go by most tests then INTPs will tend to test as INTps even though they absolutely do not have strong active Ni as is define by socionics or MBTI. I think it is better to go by the functions myself because in the end that is what really will determine what type a person is and how they relate to others and not some corrupted subjective type description.

I use Ni/Fe in both systems. I am an INFJ in MBTI, ENFJ socionics and I can clearly see that Fe and Ni is what I use on a daily basis in some type of order. My values are that of the beta quadra in socionics. I do not understand Fi well and in fact it's use is more likely to irritate me eventually than just about any other function except Te and I am pretty sure I do not actively use Fi in either socionics or MBTI. I do not think the INTPs here display much Ni or Te especially not when compared to the INTJ forum types.

Unapplied Knowledge provided a good explanation of the J/P definition matter and this is one of the issues that many people who are relatively new to socionics get wrong. Nevertheless, I must say that sensors in socionics on the surface seem to be the same type in MBTI and I am not yet sure why that might be if it even is.

[Technical]

If INTP is really INTp, the TiNe is really NiTe in Socionics. Now I've heard something to the effect that "Ni works for the INTp the same way Ne works for INTP; Te works the same for INTp as Ti works for INTP" (I don't remember them addressing the iNtuition being dominant instead of Thinking). More recently, when I pointed this out somewhere, someone argued that this is so because MBTI strayed from Jung's definitions of the functions. In other words, you read the Ni description for the INTp type, and it sounds like the Ni we describe for INTP, but something got crossed up somewhere, and it's really MBTI's Ne. But for the extraverts, where the j/p types do match the first two processes, Ne would be Ne, and so forth.


There's a good chance it was I who was arguing that. And it's hopefully clear that yes, the Ni described as in use by the Socionics INTp is closer to Jung's original definition. In a word, Ni equates with predicting, something INTPs are known for.

Excerpt of Jung's Introverted Intuition description: "Since the unconscious is not just something that lies there, like a psychic caput mortuum, but is something that coexists and experiences inner transformations which are inherently related to general events, introverted intuition, through its perception of inner processes, gives certain data which may possess supreme importance for the comprehension of general occurrences: it can even foresee new possibilities in more or less clear outline, as well as the event which later actually transpires. Its prophetic prevision is to be explained from its relation to the archetypes which represent the law-determined course of all experienceable things."


So this just seems so confusing.
There's no way around that for most people, and it's one of the reasons I came up with that simpler, clearer, more useful function system. (I also believe it's fundamentally more accurate, because it's less "stupidly specific.")

[Llewellyn]

There seems to be considerable reciprocal crossover between socionics' j (or p) and MBTI's J (or P). E.g., some INTp's look like (what I see as) INTJs.

Here's an interesting piece about INTp vs INTj: INTj or INTp? (http://www.socionics.com/articles/intjorintp.htm)

A fragment: "There are INTps out there that are, on the contrary, organised, reliable and unwavering or at least they may behave as such. As a result they often score as Js."

This: "INTps would want to go power driven, moneymaking, sometimes risky places, whereas INTjs would prefer a happy, cheerful and exciting surrounding."

And this: "INTjs are in their element when involved with science, invention, innovation, discovery, theory, explanation, interpretation, philosophy etc. INTps are in their element when involved with business, enterprise, commerce, industry, trade, financial institutions, church etc. "

make me (highly) sure of INTj again. Yet, an INTJ I used to know would certainly be INTj as well. But my personal typing is not the topic of this thread. I just use it to illustrate. It remains tricky.

[Unapplied Knowledge]

There seems to be considerable reciprocal crossover between socionics' j (or p) and MBTI's J (or P). E.g., some INTp's look like (what I see as) INTJs.

Here's an interesting piece about INTp vs INTj: INTj or INTp? (http://www.socionics.com/articles/intjorintp.htm)

A fragment: "There are INTps out there that are, on the contrary, organised, reliable and unwavering or at least they may behave as such. As a result they often score as Js."

This: "INTps would want to go power driven, moneymaking, sometimes risky places, whereas INTjs would prefer a happy, cheerful and exciting surrounding."

And this: "INTjs are in their element when involved with science, invention, innovation, discovery, theory, explanation, interpretation, philosophy etc. INTps are in their element when involved with business, enterprise, commerce, industry, trade, financial institutions, church etc. "

make me (highly) sure of INTj again. Yet, an INTJ I used to know would certainly be INTj as well. But my personal typing is not the topic of this thread. I just use it to illustrate. It remains tricky.

That also comes from socionics.com, which is (in my opinion) utter garbage and the source of much confusion regarding this. Like Technical before me, I would advise reading wikisocion.org if you want a better understanding of the socionics types.

[Technical]

What UK said. If for no other reason than the excerpts you (Llewellyn) take don't make any sense no matter what type they're trying to describe. Way too specific, way too astrology-esque.

[Eric B]

There's a good chance it was I who was arguing that. Probably was, then. And I think it was really Ti/(Te) the discussion was over.
And it's hopefully clear that yes, the Ni described as in use by the Socionics INTp is closer to Jung's original definition. In a word, Ni equates with predicting, something INTPs are known for.

Excerpt of Jung's Introverted Intuition description: "Since the unconscious is not just something that lies there, like a psychic caput mortuum, but is something that coexists and experiences inner transformations which are inherently related to general events, introverted intuition, through its perception of inner processes, gives certain data which may possess supreme importance for the comprehension of general occurrences: it can even foresee new possibilities in more or less clear outline, as well as the event which later actually transpires. Its prophetic prevision is to be explained from its relation to the archetypes which represent the law-determined course of all experienceable things."

Wouldn't an INTP's predictions be Ti (inner model of how things work) plus Ne (multiple possibilities regarding the external objects) then equalling the future prediction? It doesn't seem to be the same as Ni, where the future premonition seems to be from the subject.
Ot is it simply a common net effect or NiTe and Ti Ne? (between N and T, something is processed internally and externally, and it equals a future rprediction.).
Then, what about ENTp, which is NeTi the same as MBTI? Does that type's Ne do the same thing as INTp's Ni?

Then again; as I've begun to realize from Lenore Thomson; perhaps too much has been made of the e/i "attitude" of each function. Jung's theory really started with introverts or extraverts who used a dominant function in their preferred i/e "comfort zone", so the function attitudes by themselves might not be as different as we've come to see them. The attitudes really belong to the person (ego) not the functions.

[Technical]

As I'm sure you're aware, almost every explanation of Ti as used by the INTP includes some variant of the phrase "Fueled by Ne." This isn't necessary if you're using Ni as the dominant function.

Ti is not an inner model of how things work, according to the original definition. (It is, though, in definitions which have been based, in error, on the modus operandi of types like INTP.) Ti is the construction of rules, but the origin is the subject. Therefore any and all conclusions based on the use of Introverted Thinking are only ever objective by coincidence, because the premises of the conclusions are always subjective.

Not so with Introverted Intuition, which is a [somewhat ethereal] attempt to understand an object. Its origin is the object, in contrast with Ti.

[Rubicon]

That also comes from socionics.com, which is (in my opinion) utter garbage and the source of much confusion regarding this. Like Technical before me, I would advise reading wikisocion.org if you want a better understanding of the socionics types.

Just out of interest, what makes you think that the wikisocion has less garbage than socionics.com?

[Eric B]

As I'm sure you're aware, almost every explanation of Ti as used by the INTP includes some variant of the phrase "Fueled by Ne." This isn't necessary if you're using Ni as the dominant function.

Ti is not an inner model of how things work, according to the original definition. (It is, though, in definitions which have been based, in error, on the modus operandi of types like INTP.) Ti is the construction of rules, but the origin is the subject. Therefore any and all conclusions based on the use of Introverted Thinking are only ever objective by coincidence, because the premises of the conclusions are always subjective.

Not so with Introverted Intuition, which is a [somewhat ethereal] attempt to understand an object. Its origin is the object, in contrast with Ti.

This is all interesting perspective. Rules constructed from within the subject sounds right (root concept), yet on the surface it sounds compatible with the other stuff people derive from that (like the "frameworks" and stuff), but after awhile, I imagine that all the stuff added begins to diverge too much.
I'm trying to digest Jung's concepts, but for some reason it's rather hard to grasp as I discuss here: http://forums.intpcentral.com/showthread.php?p=1182761#post1182761

[Technical]

It's a modernized interpretation of the same phenomena (That people appear to be built upon different "frames") which has been intentionally "retro-fit" in order that a minimum of new concept and terminology is necessary to be employed.

Wait a minute, I thought you were talking about something else, LOL. The above was in ref. to my function system.

More on topic: MBTI and Socionics are incompatible, functionally, but they represent the same types. If you wish to equate the systems, you must accept the fact that at least some people have made errors.

[Unapplied Knowledge]

Just out of interest, what makes you think that the wikisocion has less garbage than socionics.com?

I think the most relevant advice would simply to read both and do an analytical comparison for yourself.

[Eric B]

Ti is the construction of rules, but the origin is the subject. OK Tech; could you help me out here? Which statement exactly by Jung did you draw this from? I tried to skim through it again, and the thing about making rules does seem a bit familiar, but I'm just not seeing now in all the "density" of his writing. (I could be thinking of something else. I remember something like [to paraphrase] "thinking...for it's own sake").

[Daaf]

ILEs though closest to ENTP are pretty damn close to some INTPs though... I guess reiterating that P=p...


EDIT: Also :wtf: http://www.wikisocion.org/en/index.php?title=ILI_male_and_female

[Technical]

OK Tech; could you help me out here? Which statement exactly by Jung did you draw this from? I tried to skim through it again, and the thing about making rules does seem a bit familiar, but I'm just not seeing now in all the "density" of his writing. (I could be thinking of something else. I remember something like [to paraphrase] "thinking...for it's own sake").
That's what I eventually took from it, I don't believe it literally says that (If you take Jung literally, you have to believe in the supernatural). I'm working on some P/J object/subject stuff I'll probably post.


EDIT: Also :wtf: http://www.wikisocion.org/en/index.php?title=ILI_male_and_female
hehe *shrug* I might say they get a bit...Specific there.