Personality Cafe banner

41 - 60 of 68 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
210 Posts
So my point is do not get caught up in all of the garbage that changes between these theories. It'll get you nowhere. Focus on what remains consistent.
Well said. I study both and can see both. The consistency between the two is in the type descriptions that most people GET RIGHT and not too much on the functioning order and definitions, which is bickered and confused constantly.

If people can see how both systems vary and are the same, I'm a big fan and wish that upon all.

But it's a false claim to say there's a conversion via switching a dichotomy, E/I or J/P. That would be inconsistent.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
722 Posts
Discussion Starter #42
Well said. I study both and can see both. The consistency between the two is in the type descriptions that most people GET RIGHT and not too much on the functioning order and definitions, which is bickered and confused constantly.

If people can see how both systems vary and are the same, I'm a big fan and wish that upon all.

But it's a false claim to say there's a conversion via switching a dichotomy, E/I or J/P. That would be inconsistent.
I disagree. Fi for example has to do with morals in all 3 theories. So a type with Fi will be be of that first and foremost. The most differentiated function will be Fi which is deep and moralistic by account of all 3 theories.

If you start going by descriptions alone then you get nowhere because they are the afterthought. The product. If you do not define the functions then you have no descriptions for types and you have no need for a lettering system.
The functions are the building blocks for all of the types. The descriptions are just there to give you an idea of the types. Without The cognitive functions there would not even be a theory to begin with.

So I still maintain my original point.

One cannot be of high-differentiated Fi and then all of a sudden be of high-differentiated Ni. It is illogical.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
210 Posts
I disagree. Fi for example has to do with morals in all 3 theories. So a type with Fi will be be of that first and foremost. The most differentiated function will be Fi which is deep and moralistic by account of all 3 theories.

If you start going by descriptions alone then you get nowhere because they are the afterthought. The product. If you do not define the functions then you have no descriptions for types and you have no need for a lettering system.
The functions are the building blocks for all of the types. The descriptions are just there to give you an idea of the types. Without The cognitive functions there would not even be a theory to begin with.

So I still maintain my original point.

One cannot be of high-differentiated Fi and then all of a sudden be of high-differentiated Ni. It is illogical.
Foundations are important and I value that in the Socionics ecosystem. But they're different between the two (via history, via development:) so it's inconsistent to convert.

History: : Myers & Briggs vs Augusta

Development: MBTI is solely based off Jung while Socionics incorporates Kempinski, causing for completely different definitions

~

You are correct in the Fi definition. But let's take a look at how they apply it. (we must pay attention to which side of the river we're coming from. i'll attempt from your side)

Fi is Dominant for ISFP in MBTI. When was the last time you've seen a deep and moralistic ISFP??? (hehe, I am one). MBTI does, however (as you've mentioned), presume that it's their dominant function but it's hidden and harder to see because it's not their external function.

On the other hand Fi dominant with your conversion, points to the ISFj in Socionics. This is a whole other creature. These are the Guardians who ARE VERY MUCH deep and moralistic. This is observed by all Socionics users immediately in regards to this type.

These two are clearly a mismatch, yet they hold Fi as their Dominant function.

1.) History
2.) Foundational Development
3.) Functional Interpretations alone aren't matching up with the Outcome, thus NOT allowing for consistent conversion.


All three say no.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
722 Posts
Discussion Starter #44
Foundations are important and I value that in the Socionics ecosystem. But they're different between the two (via history: Myers & Briggs vs Augusta, via development:MBTI is solely Jung while Socionics incorporates Kempinski) so it's inconsistent to convert.

You are correct in the Fi definition. But let's take a look at how they apply it. (we must pay attention to which side of the river we're coming from. i'll attempt from your side)

Fi is Dominant for ISFP in MBTI. When was the last time you've seen a deep and moralistic ISFP??? (hehe, I am one). MBTI does, however (as you've mentioned), presume that's it's their dominant function but it's hidden and harder to see because it's not their external function.

On the other hand Fi dominant with your conversion, points to the ISFj in Socionics. This is a whole other creature. These are the Guardians who ARE VERY MUCH deep and moralistic. This is observed by all Socionics users immediately in regards to this type.

These two are clearly a mismatch.

1.) History
2.) Foundational Development
3.) Functional Interpretations alone aren't matching up with the Outcome, thus NOT allowing for consistent conversion.

All three say no.
First off there is no real telling what function you use because you personally can not agree upon whether your dominant function is of Feeling or of Sensation.

Secondarily Morals are non specific. Your morals and my morals may be two different things in such a way that to an observer I appear to have none and you appear to have some moral high ground.
So when you call these characteristics "observable" you leave out how others interpret the Fi type.

I have not met an ISFP so I can only speak for my INFP friends but I find them to be quite moralistic. But I must constantly not forget that each will have their own moral compass.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
210 Posts
First off there is no real telling what function you use because you personally can not agree upon whether your dominant function is of Feeling or of Sensation.

Secondarily Morals are non specific. Your morals and my morals may be two different things in such a way that to an observer I appear to have none and you appear to have some moral high ground.
So when you call these characteristics "observable" you leave out how others interpret the Fi type.

I have not met an ISFP so I can only speak for my INFP friends but I find them to be quite moralistic. But I must constantly not forget that each will have their own moral compass.
haha. aww, come on. I expected more. But again you've justified what I'm saying - that even the interpretations are different, my point #2.

I'm an ISFp with Si dominant. This is clear cut in Socionics. And an ISFP in MBTI with nearly ALL type descriptions out there.

In MBTI and Jung, Si is supposed to fall on the lines of Internal Experience, Sensation, and Essences. This is VERY in line with Descriptions you find on ISFPs.

Well, what happened was VERY WELL CAUGHT BY @SVALP (he expresses his emotions in the finding much better than I ever will, please read it), Introverts Have dominant functions that were opposite J/P-wise compared to their extrovert counterparts. What gives?

Development: There was too much of emphasis by Myers & Briggs to find a solution to test for Jung Types. All they did was use Jung's work and made a test asking which of the 8 they thought they belonged to and in the process added a J/P dynamic that didn't relate to Jung's work very well.

Now back to the example of Si. The MBTI type descriptions that I read for Introverts like myself with Fi Dominant include things like Essences, Experience and Sensation, which is really strange (those are Si). But all because of the aforementioned J/P flip that happens for Introverts. The first function has been muddled...<gasp>

From a Socionic user's point of view, MBTI Introverted Dominant Functions IN Type Descriptions contain a dominant function description that is eerily related to its opposite.

Socionics users prefer that if you're a beginner and typed INFP in MBTI that you look at yourself as a an INFx. It's not the person's dumb and can't figure if he's obvious Fi or Ni, it's because, based off MBTI Functions Inside Type Descriptions, we observe his Fi description is TOO MBTI-HELPED by his Ne, creating a too different definition.

@Ray Mabry, I've always known my type and according to the functions and definitions of both Socionics and MBTI. It's unfortunate that I was slightly more arrogant in other threads. At times, by poking and prodding, someone else you can see where they are in their understanding. Unfortunately that victim was Vel. -- I was hoping the last post was clear cut to prove that your conversion isn't full proof. This one is another point that requires a more concentrated effort. If you'd like we can do a "Ray Mabry does his conversion" and then we test it via Function Descriptions or via Type Descriptions :happy:
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
722 Posts
Discussion Starter #46
haha. aww, come on. I expected more. But again you've justified what I'm saying - that even the interpretations are different, my point #2.

I'm an ISFp with Si dominant. This is clear cut in Socionics. And an ISFP in MBTI with nearly ALL type descriptions out there.

In MBTI and Jung, Si is supposed to fall on the lines of Internal Experience, Sensation, and Essences. This is VERY in line with Descriptions you find on ISFPs.

Well, what happened was VERY WELL CAUGHT BY @SVALP (he expresses his emotions in the finding much better than I ever will, please read it), Introverts Have dominant functions that were opposite J/P-wise compared to their extrovert counterparts. What gives?

Development: There was too much of emphasis by Myers & Briggs to find a solution to test for Jung Types. All they did was use Jung's work and made a test asking which of the 8 they thought they belonged to and in the process added a J/P dynamic that didn't relate to Jung's work very well.

Now back to the example of Si. The MBTI type descriptions that I read for Introverts like myself with Fi Dominant include things like Essences, Experience and Sensation, which is really strange (those are Si). But all because of the aforementioned J/P flip that happens for Introverts. It's been muddled...

From a Socionic user's point of view, MBTI Introverted Dominant Functions IN Type Descriptions contain a dominant function description that is eerily related to its opposite.

Socionics users prefer that if you're a beginner and typed INFP in MBTI that you look at yourself as a an INFx. It's not the person's dumb and can't figure if he's obvious Fi or Ni, it's because, based off MBTI Functions Inside Type Descriptions, we observe his Fi description is TOO MBTI-HELPED by his Ne, creating a too different definition.

@Ray Mabry, I've always known my type and according to the functions and definitions of both Socionics and MBTI. It's unfortunate that I was slightly more arrogant in other threads. At times, by poking and prodding, someone else you can see where they are in their understanding. Unfortunately that victim was Vel. -- I was hoping the last post was clear cut to prove that your conversion isn't full proof. This one is another point that requires a more concentrated effort. If you'd like we can do a "Ray Mabry does his conversion" and then we test it via Function Descriptions or via Type Descriptions :happy: I'm confident you will be wrong.
I have been in the same argument for days now and quite frankly I am tired of explaining myself. As "clear cut" as you may say it is you have no proof other than descriptions which can suffer from the Forer Effect at best if not tied to something, at least, somewhat more concrete.

They all differ. So which one should I pick from?

MBTI ISFP: ISFP Profile
MBTI ISFP: Portrait of an ISFP

Socionics ISFP: http://translate.googleusercontent.com/translate_c?hl=en&ie=UTF-8&sl=auto&tl=en&u=http://socionics.org/type/Default.aspx?type=ISFP&load=type_aush.html&prev=_t&rurl=translate.google.com&twu=1&usg=ALkJrhg-ErexlloDSRdqqJiJucjuKFT86w

Socionics ISFP: http://translate.googleusercontent.com/translate_c?hl=en&ie=UTF-8&sl=auto&tl=en&u=http://socionics.org/type/Default.aspx?type=ISFP&load=type_byst.html&prev=_t&rurl=translate.google.com&twu=1&usg=ALkJrhiiPUQX9XqvDMR_RQ1h_cLTCKOH3g

And furthermore I am ENTP in both theories. My functions don't change as I said before.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
210 Posts
I have been in the same argument for days now and quite frankly I am tired of explaining myself. As "clear cut" as you may say it is you have no proof other than descriptions which can suffer from the Forer Effect at best if not tied to something, at least, somewhat more concrete.

They all differ. So which one should I pick from?

MBTI ISFP: ISFP Profile
MBTI ISFP: Portrait of an ISFP

Socionics ISFP: Google Translate

Socionics ISFP: Google Translate

And furthermore I am ENTP in both theories. My functions don't change as I said before.
Ray, It's cool. You don't have to explain yourself. It's me that wants to clear it up for everyone. but unfortunately I have to do it in this "first prove you have a misconception"-way, which taxes the mind then the heart.

haha. the Forer effect IS a loose argument that attempts to discredit MBTI, Socionic and ANY personality theory. But if your aim is to learn MBTI or Socionics you'd agree there's a distinguishable 16 types, 32 if you want to add female/male dynamic, etc.

Now, please. Let's continue. I wanted to create a new thread that showed in the invalidness of simply Flipping J/P. Let me do so on the next post.

Also you're an ENTP because MBTI isn't biased for the extroverts. Wouldn't you hate it if someone said "No, You're ENTj!" Only half the world is lucky there : )

Now, please wait for the next post everyone.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
175 Posts
Socionics users prefer that if you're a beginner and typed INFP in MBTI that you look at yourself as a an INFx. It's not the person's dumb and can't figure if he's obvious Fi or Ni, it's because, based off MBTI Functions Inside Type Descriptions, we observe his Fi description is TOO MBTI-HELPED by his Ne, creating a too different definition.
This is very interesting, it's an issue I've had with MBTI too, and I'm sure it's lead to a lot of mistyping. Like you said, in MBTI, it's like the dominant and the auxiliary are inseparable in a given type; like a given function adopts traits that don't necessarily belong to said function, even.

Let's take both Ti dominant types, for instance (ISTP and INTP in MBTI). The thinking types are possibly the most fleshed out in Jung's Psychological Types, and when it comes to describing the introverted thinker, Jung describes it as having this abstract, almost intuition-like kind of thinking. Since introversion, in Jungian terms, means looking at the inside (the subject) instead of looking at the actual outer "object", it's not a surprise that his description of the introverted thinker has that vibe of intuition all over it. To one familiarized with MBTI's descriptions, reading Jung's description of the Ti-dom is like reading an INTP description.

What happens with the ISTP then? Supposedly their kind of thinking would be the same as that of the INTPs'. They are both Ti-dom, after all. Well, reading MBTI descriptions, that's not necessarily the case. The ISTP descriptions, for the most part, seem to lack all that talk about that abstract kind of thinking, which is what we see in INTP descriptions. It's almost like ISTPs are made out to be less smart than INTPs... when they both have the same dominant function!

I don't have to get into the bias that exists against Sensors in many MBTI circles, so I'll skip that part (granted, this bias exists among ignorant people that are usually new to MBTI, but it's there nonetheless). But I will say this, though: I'm sure that many people who are actually ISTP mistype as INTP. Because, being Ti dominants, they experience that abstract, almost intuitive-like kind of thinking that could potentially make them think that they are Ns. And reading the ISTP descriptions out there, it's like that little letter almost makes it look like they are less smart, and thus not as good, as INTPs (when obviously that doesn't have to be the case).
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
210 Posts
Disprove MBTI-to-Socionics J/P Switch myth

@Ray Mabry & @vel

Simple 5 minute test to disprove the Myth that MBTI-to-Socionic conversion requires a flip of the J/P Dichotomy [for Introverts]. This is simply not true.

-Forer Effect is not valid here as we are discussing the merits of observable, 16 types, in both, MBTI and Socionics.

Example used: MBTI ISFP. Here it doesn't matter which individual, as the conversion process in question is said to be 100% accurate.

Process to be tested: Flipping J/P dichotomy. So an MBTI ISFP will convert to a Socionics ISFj (ESI -Ethical Sensing Introtim)

Test: Compare several popular, and generally agreed upon, sources from MBTI ISFP analysts and Socionics ISFj analysts. This should rule out any one source being negligent.

ISFP MBTI Sources
Keirsey Temperament Website - Portrait of the Artisan® Composer (ISFP)
ISFP Profile
Portrait of an ISFP
Personality Types - ISFP
ISFP - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

ISFj Socionic Sources
SOCIONICS: Functions, Types, Tests
Ethical Sensing Introtim - Wikisocion
Ethical-Sensory Intratim - ISFj (The Guardian)
Stratievskaya ESI - Wikisocion
Socioscope ESI - Wikisocion
ESI subtypes - Wikisocion


Hypothesis/What you Will find:
-In each respective theory's type there will be a consistent agreement on what the type is. Consensus will be found.
-However, between MBTI ISFP and Socionics ISFj there is No overall Similarity. Type Descriptions will be different and be describing a completely different person.
-Between MBTI ISFP and Socionics ISFj, Function Order is similar yet will be describing the usage of functions differently.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
722 Posts
Discussion Starter #50
@jezroue

haha. the Forer effect IS a loose argument that attempts to discredit MBTI, Socionic and ANY personality theory. But if your aim is to learn MBTI or Socionics you'd agree there's a distinguishable 16 types, 32 if you want to add female/male dynamic, etc.

Now, please. Let's continue. I wanted to create a new thread that showed in the invalidness of simply Flipping J/P. Let me do so on the next post.

Also you're an ENTP because MBTI isn't biased for the extroverts. Wouldn't you hate it if someone said "No, You're ENTj!" Only half the world is lucky there : )

Now, please wait for the next post everyone.
I am not attempting to discredit MBTI. I am simply making a point that if you are not careful and just go by the descriptions of the types then you end up with nothing other than a nice story that vaguely relates to you as a whole. Furthermore the forer effect has been tested time and time again so calling it a "a loose argument that attempts to discredit MBTI, Socionic and ANY personality theory." Isn't fair to it either especially being that none of these theories have ever been empirically tested.

and MBTI ISN'T BIASED TOWARDS INTROVERTS!!!

MBTI is an assessment test created to for women post WWII So that that could find jobs that suited their type. The functions and the descriptions were generalized to meet that criteria! That is all. Most of the information that you find on MBTI is still generally related back to it's purpose. But for a higher understanding of MBTI theory one must go back to Jung's original type descriptions or Socionics.

If you start getting caught up in this you lose sight of the whole entire theory.

You can not logically be Dominant Feeling and Dominant Sensation at the same time. They are two completely different dichotomies.

What you seem to be caught up in is the artistic nature of the ISFP and ISFp and that is what I am warning you against.

Introverted sensing - external dynamics of fields
Si is responsible for perception of physical sensations; questions of comfort, coziness, and pleasure; and a sense of harmony and acclimation with one's environment (especially physical). Si understand how well a person or thing's behavior agrees with its nature as well as the differences between comfortable behaviors and positions and uncomfortable ones.

All of the other artistic crap tied to it has not much else to do with it.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
210 Posts
@jezroue
I am not attempting to discredit MBTI. I am simply making a point that if you are not careful and just go by the descriptions of the types then you end up with nothing other than a nice story that vaguely relates to you as a whole. Furthermore the forer effect has been tested time and time again so calling it a "a loose argument that attempts to discredit MBTI, Socionic and ANY personality theory." Isn't fair to it either especially being that none of these theories have ever been empirically tested.
No, I understood and get where you're coming from. But I'm warning you the danger of only relying on functions. So we're helping each other in this way. Thank you.

@jezroue
You can not logically be Dominant Feeling and Dominant Sensation at the same time. They are two completely different dichotomies.
Yes, I know this. But you haven't seen the interpretation difference between MBTI and Socionics to realize what's happening.

@jezroue
and MBTI ISN'T BIASED TOWARDS INTROVERTS!!!

MBTI is an assessment test created to for women post WWII So that that could find jobs that suited their type. The functions and the descriptions were generalized to meet that criteria! That is all. Most of the information that you find on MBTI is still generally related back to it's purpose. But for a higher understanding of MBTI theory one must go back to Jung's original type descriptions or Socionics.

If you start getting caught up in this you lose sight of the whole entire theory.
Wow. You have a good piece of history that I haven't discovered. That part is interesting. Links?

The alternating J/P dichotomy is what I meant by bias. That is all.


@jezroue
What you seem to be caught up in is the artistic nature of the ISFP and ISFp and that is what I am warning you against.

Introverted sensing - external dynamics of fields
Si is responsible for perception of physical sensations; questions of comfort, coziness, and pleasure; and a sense of harmony and acclimation with one's environment (especially physical). Si understand how well a person or thing's behavior agrees with its nature as well as the differences between comfortable behaviors and positions and uncomfortable ones.

All of the other artistic crap tied to it has not much else to do with it.
Yes, good. Well I didn't mention anything about artistic specifically. I know what Si means. The test I provided earlier (and Type Descriptions for that matter) do give a general "story" that most people can and do relate to. Functions are important, I never disagreed.

Ah, I ALSO know the difference between ISFP and ISFp. Because of it's history, development and how they interpret functions


I only wish to disprove and stop people from making a switch conversion that I know is not true.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
210 Posts
This is very interesting, it's an issue I've had with MBTI too, and I'm sure it's lead to a lot of mistyping. Like you said, in MBTI, it's like the dominant and the auxiliary are inseparable in a given type; like a given function adopts traits that don't necessarily belong to said function, even.
MBTI is catchy, in the sense that there are 4, 2-letter choices you could apply to anyone. A lot of people enjoy this because they can have endless discussion about it. It was a nice little game that I was introduced to on how to recognize someone one letter at a time or two: IT, SP, NT, IJ, ET, wow. I think I've evolved from that..

Let's take both Ti dominant types, for instance (ISTP and INTP in MBTI). The thinking types are possibly the most fleshed out in Jung's Psychological Types, and when it comes to describing the introverted thinker, Jung describes it as having this abstract, almost intuition-like kind of thinking. Since introversion, in Jungian terms, means looking at the inside (the subject) instead of looking at the actual outer "object", it's not a surprise that his description of the introverted thinker has that vibe of intuition all over it. To one familiarized with MBTI's descriptions, reading Jung's description of the Ti-dom is like reading an INTP description.

What happens with the ISTP then? Supposedly their kind of thinking would be the same as that of the INTPs'. They are both Ti-dom, after all. Well, reading MBTI descriptions, that's not necessarily the case. The ISTP descriptions, for the most part, seem to lack all that talk about that abstract kind of thinking, which is what we see in INTP descriptions. It's almost like ISTPs are made out to be less smart than INTPs... when they both have the same dominant function!
Interesting, when I was a beginner I thought I was INFP. I'm ISFP. A friend, MBTI user at the time mentioned "No, it's because you're educated that you might be confused by that" My god. The explanations I hear. :crying:

I remember a while ago that many believed MBTI was INTP-centric. I have to say reading some of the descriptions there is definitely a Politically-Correct-stance MBTI creates: INTPs are smart, ISFPs are so artistic, ENTJs are such logical commanders. This contributes to the popularity and gets an audience but at the same time decreases objectivity.

Socionics was much more enlightening. It explores the true strengths and weaknesses of all types in a much more thorough manner. Strangely, their language also provided a better way of understanding the 'world' of each type. Though all this requires reading broken english at times...

I don't have to get into the bias that exists against Sensors in many MBTI circles, so I'll skip that part (granted, this bias exists among ignorant people that are usually new to MBTI, but it's there nonetheless). But I will say this, though: I'm sure that many people who are actually ISTP mistype as INTP. Because, being Ti dominants, they experience that abstract, almost intuitive-like kind of thinking that could potentially make them think that they are Ns. And reading the ISTP descriptions out there, it's like that little letter almost makes it look like they are less smart, and thus not as good, as INTPs (when obviously that doesn't have to be the case).
I concur and definitely good catch on that. In Socionic language each letter creates a completely different person that observes the world differently. There's no such thing as maybe ISTP or INTP or 40%/60%. There IS, however, a "how balanced are you in your strong/weak functions?" mentality. I've met really balanced, smart ISTps and very unbalanced, foolish INTps.

Thanks for that. I assume you've studied Jung quite well before learning MBTI/Socionics?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
175 Posts
Thanks for that. I assume you've studied Jung quite well before learning MBTI/Socionics?
Nope, just the other way around, actually. First I got into MBTI, then I started reading Jung more in depth, which made me rethink a lot of things about MBTI.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
722 Posts
Discussion Starter #54
@jezroue
No, I understood and get where you're coming from. But I'm warning you the danger of only relying on functions. So we're helping each other in this way. Thank you.



Yes, I know this. But you haven't seen the interpretation difference between MBTI and Socionics to realize what's happening.



Wow. You have a good piece of history that I haven't discovered. That part is interesting. Links?

The alternating J/P dichotomy is what I meant by bias. That is all.




Yes, good. Well I didn't mention anything about artistic specifically. I know what Si means. The test I provided earlier (and Type Descriptions for that matter) do give a general "story" that most people can and do relate to. Functions are important, I never disagreed.

Ah, I ALSO know the difference between ISFP and ISFp. Because of it's history, development and how they interpret functions


I only wish to disprove and stop people from making a switch conversion that I know is not true.
(Sighs)

I REALLY do not want to argue any more. So I suppose we can come to some sort of compromise that can satisfy us both.

I will agree that the conversion does not work directly for introverts.

But this leaves a problem that I, intellectually, can not be satisfied with.

On both a functional and superficial level Extroverts seem to directly transfer right over which would at least mean that on some level the Cognitive Functions agree with one another.
But if introverts do not cross over as well then that means there is a dissonance somewhere. And in my search for clarity between these theories there is no way that I can be satisfied with that.

I can't be satisfied with the "either or" conversion. Call me crazy if you'd like but it just doesn't compute.

Do you know of any direct conversions for the introverted type profiles at least so that I can observe this issue on a more functional level?

Because, logically, if the MBTI test generally yields the same type for Extroverts in both theories then there has to be a more solid explanation for introverts that satisfies things on both sides functionally and superficially.

Oh and also I think the Myers-Briggs site has the history behind it there somewhere. If not, the Wikipedia page for MBTI has accurate information as of the last time I checked it.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
210 Posts
@jezroue
(Sighs)

I REALLY do not want to argue any more. So I suppose we can come to some sort of compromise that can satisfy us both.

I will agree that the conversion does not work directly for introverts.
Thank you, for coming to the dark side.:wink:


@jezroue
But this leaves a problem that I, intellectually, can not be satisfied with.

On both a functional and superficial level Extroverts seem to directly transfer right over which would at least mean that on some level the Cognitive Functions agree with one another.
But if introverts do not cross over as well then that means there is a dissonance somewhere. And in my search for clarity between these theories there is no way that I can be satisfied with that.

I can't be satisfied with the "either or" conversion. Call me crazy if you'd like but it just doesn't compute.
Ray, everything you've posted shows to me that you already have many of the tools necessary to have it click. You understand all the parts fine.

How I view the "either or", J/P, conversion is quite simple.

1.) for well confirmed users (perhaps people with 1-2+ years experience), I'd say no conversion is necessary. And, I'd say that would be accurate 80-90% of the time.

2.) for those that are relatively new to MBTI and want to transfer. Switching would be accurate for about 20% of them. The reasoning behind this is because of the MBTI Introverted "bias/inconsistency". ex. Many ISFP articles, while describing ISFPs accurately overall, use elements of Fi. So some people unsure of the Overall Type Description (a nod to your method), resonate with Fi, and ultimately the opposite ISFj.

@jezroue
Do you know of any direct conversions for the introverted type profiles at least so that I can observe this issue on a more functional level?
There are no direct conversions. The inconsistency is prevalent. I suggest comparing the two of the same so you can see how their analysis uses different ordering while still describing a very similar type.

You're mentioned you have ISTJ friends. So here I provide what I hope is a good comparison for you to observe this.

ISTJ Profile (MBTI Type Description with Functional Breakdown)
vs
Logical Sensing Introtim - Wikisocion (Simple, all English, Socionic Description via Functional Breakdown)
Stratievskaya LSI - Wikisocion (Long, Broken English, VERY Thorough Socionic Description via Functional Breakdown)

@jezroue
Because, logically, if the MBTI test generally yields the same type for Extroverts in both theories then there has to be a more solid explanation for introverts that satisfies things on both sides functionally and superficially.
The most solid explanation is the discovery of the inconsistency of the MBTI functional ordering in Introverts. You have the knowledge to know that according to Jung ENTP is IRRATIONAL Dominant. According to Jung, an INTP is also IRRATIONAL Dominant, BUT MBTI says otherwise. @SVALP correctly noticed this in his POST #20.

Ray, I looked into these forums about 2 years ago and noticed that the MBTI community was not very strong or didn't care enough about functional breakdowns, so the inconsistency analysis error was insignificant. 2 Years later to today, more people are jumping on to Psychological Typing. The increased interests are bringing in a lot of by-the-individual analysis of what functions mean, while also amplifying the MBTI inconsistency.

My suggestion to you is accept what you've learned from the limited MBTI and move on to Socionics. You yourself have pointed out that you wouldn't really want to call it a theory. Socionics was developed by actual psychologists and have developed functional analysis' that MBTI will never match. The platform is stable enough in these variables that you get the [huge] benefit of understanding Intertype Relationships. To avoid creating too much of a schism between the two and keeping the consistent parts alive, think of it as an Advanced MBTI or MBTI 2.0
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
722 Posts
Discussion Starter #56
@jezroue
Thank you, for coming to the dark side.:wink:




Ray, everything you've posted shows to me that you already have many of the tools necessary to have it click. You understand all the parts fine.

How I view the "either or", J/P, conversion is quite simple.

1.) for well confirmed users (perhaps people with 1-2+ years experience), I'd say no conversion is necessary. And, I'd say that would be accurate 80-90% of the time.

2.) for those that are relatively new to MBTI and want to transfer. Switching would be accurate for about 20% of them. The reasoning behind this is because of the MBTI Introverted "bias/inconsistency". ex. Many ISFP articles, while describing ISFPs accurately overall, use elements of Fi. So some people unsure of the Overall Type Description (a nod to your method), resonate with Fi, and ultimately the opposite ISFj.



There are no direct conversions. The inconsistency is prevalent. I suggest comparing the two of the same so you can see how their analysis uses different ordering while still describing a very similar type.

You're mentioned you have ISTJ friends. So here I provide what I hope is a good comparison for you to observe this.

ISTJ Profile (MBTI Type Description with Functional Breakdown)
vs
Logical Sensing Introtim - Wikisocion (Simple, all English, Socionic Description via Functional Breakdown)
Stratievskaya LSI - Wikisocion (Long, Broken English, VERY Thorough Socionic Description via Functional Breakdown)



The most solid explanation is the discovery of the inconsistency of the MBTI functional ordering in Introverts. You have the knowledge to know that according to Jung ENTP is IRRATIONAL Dominant. According to Jung, an INTP is also IRRATIONAL Dominant, BUT MBTI says otherwise. @SVALP correctly noticed this in his POST #20.

Ray, I looked into these forums about 2 years ago and noticed that the MBTI community was not very strong or didn't care enough about functional breakdowns, so the inconsistency analysis error was insignificant. 2 Years later to today, more people are jumping on to Psychological Typing. The increased interests are bringing in a lot of by-the-individual analysis of what functions mean, while also amplifying the MBTI inconsistency.

My suggestion to you is accept what you've learned from the limited MBTI and move on to Socionics. You yourself have pointed out that you wouldn't really want to call it a theory. Socionics was developed by actual psychologists and have developed functional analysis' that MBTI will never match. The platform is stable enough in these variables that you get the [huge] benefit of understanding Intertype Relationships. To avoid creating too much of a schism between the two and keeping the consistent parts alive, think of it as an Advanced MBTI or MBTI 2.0
The difference I see is that both seem to attribute the same behaviors to P and J but one gives one reason while the other gives another reason.

MBTI states that P and J qualities only apply to Te and Fe because they are extroverted. Ti and Fi are still J functions but lack the qualities due to their introversion.
Socionics states that P and J qualities applies to Ti Te Fi Fe.
I'm not so sure that either disagree wholly on what the functions are but I suppose that how they are used and smaller qualities within them is what they disagree on. Certainly I know that the functions are responsible for virtually the same things in my type in Socionics and in MBTI

My only issue is I wonder is it fair to really apply, for example, organization or lack thereof to any function but I suppose I will have to investigate.

So I suppose I will pay some of the Socionics forums a visit for further investigation.

But I will have to say that i'm coming to the conclusion that one of them may be wrong. I feel like they agree with Jung until it gets to actually applying how the types use the cognitive functions. But I will reserve judgment for later.

So we'll keep in touch. ~Ray~
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
210 Posts
@jezroue
MBTI states that P and J qualities only apply to Te and Fe because they are extroverted. Ti and Fi are still J functions but lack the qualities due to their introversion.
Socionics states that P and J qualities applies to Ti Te Fi Fe.
Ah, their usage.

@jezroue
I'm not so sure that either disagree wholly on what the functions are but I suppose that how they are used and smaller qualities within them is what they disagree on. Certainly I know that the functions are responsible for virtually the same things in my type in Socionics and in MBTI
Again, because there's no inconsistency with Extroverted Functional Ordering. It's if/when you study Intertype Relations that you have to be careful with types as the functional ordering is VERY important.

@jezroue
But I will have to say that i'm coming to the conclusion that one of them may be wrong. I feel like they agree with Jung until it gets to actually applying how the types use the cognitive functions. But I will reserve judgment for later.
So we'll keep in touch. ~Ray~
It's strange. You point out LOTS of correct observations for both theories and it's almost as if it should've already "clicked". I guess it just needs to settle in. Enjoy Socionics forums.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
722 Posts
Discussion Starter #58
@jezroue
It's strange. You point out LOTS of correct observations for both theories and it's almost as if it should've already "clicked". I guess it just needs to settle in. Enjoy Socionics forums.
Hahahaha :) Well go ahead say it. Make it click for me. I may already be aware but apprehensive. After all I am a P type.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
210 Posts
Really though. You wrote in several places, proper observations/similarities/differences between the two systems. Stuff that people don't normally 'get' off the bat. So I thought you metabolized it already. It's still digesting.

Anyways, a doctor friend influenced me on how to utilize Psychology better. German education makes it a big point that, After Learning, Make Practice. Try typing people first. Then later see if you can figure out their Intertype Relationship dynamic.


(My Opinion: Socionics' Platform is more stable and fairly well analyzed, enough that people's relationships can be described. It's better to make new insights and discoveries there, rather than half-axxed guessing games on forums :shocked:)
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
722 Posts
Discussion Starter #60
@ Jezroue
Really though. You wrote in several places, proper observations/similarities/differences between the two systems. Stuff that people don't normally 'get' off the bat. So I thought you metabolized it already. It's still digesting.

Anyways, a doctor friend influenced me on how to utilize Psychology better. German education makes it a big point that, After Learning, Make Practice. Try typing people first. Then later see if you can figure out their Intertype Relationship dynamic.


(My Opinion: Socionics' Platform is more stable and fairly well analyzed, enough that people's relationships can be described. It's better to make new insights and discoveries there, rather than half-axxed guessing games on forums :shocked:)
LMAO. I can't say that that thought doesn't exist in the back of my mind. But I don't wanna be so quick to bite the hand that fed me. In all fairness they did make a test that typed me as well as many others correctly. I will say that I like the depth that Socionics has in comparison to MBT. But i'm still apprehensive at the moment. In spite the fact that i've put a lot of time and effort into studying them I can't just abandon MBTI so quickly. Plus I have my small issues with the J/P dichotomies as well. But i'll see where my journey takes me. At the moment I am undecided about what I think about either or. Jung is my God. LOL.
 
41 - 60 of 68 Posts
Top