J/P dimension is primary?

[consentingadult]

I've been thinking recently: in a lot of MBTI and Socionics tests, whatever form, they often start out with measuring E/I, followed by S/N, T/F and finally J/P. Jung himself started with differentiating humans between E/I types. I myself don't believe in E/I, these are just aspects of functions (S/N/T/F).

I don't know the reasons yet, but I have a hunch that E/I is not the primary divider of people, but J/P, or better: rationality/irrationality. Does this make sense? Is there a primary divider of cognitive styles? Why or why not?

[Expat]

I don't know about being "primary", but I do think it makes much more sense to differentiate people according to Rational/Irrational than Extrovert/Introvert.

[consentingadult]

I don't know about being "primary", but I do think it makes much more sense to differentiate people according to Rational/Irrational than Extrovert/Introvert.

I'm glad you agree, but why does this makes sense to you? Or is it just a gut-feeling you have?

[Expat]

I think Rational vs Irrational behavior is much more easily defined and observed.

To really discover if someone is extrovert or introvert, we'd have to get into their heads.

For instance, in the case of and . We can hardly directly experience or observe their and perceptions, but we can easily see how they use . That often makes these types seem "extroverted".

[Jonathan]

I think Rational vs Irrational behavior is much more easily defined and observed.

To really discover if someone is extrovert or introvert, we'd have to get into their heads.

For instance, in the case of and . We can hardly directly experience or observe their and perceptions, but we can easily see how they use . That often makes these types seem "extroverted".

One thing about J vs. P....As behaviors, these are very easily observable. Some people have a strong preferance for flexibility and are willing to sacrifice some of the practical benefits of a more structured existence for it, and others are more inclined to sacrifice flexibility for more structure.

There is, however, a conflict regarding how these relate to the functions. One theory is that what people think of as J and P behaviors map to rational/irrational. The other theory (put forth both in MBTI and in the Socionics quadra descriptions) is that personalities with a Ti or Fi structure are P and those with a Te or Fe structure are J.

Generally, people's conceptions of these issues involve a mixture of these two perspectives.

[Joy]

I'd like a good description of what is rational behavior and what is irrational.

Is this a good one?

http://socionics.us/theory/rat_irr.shtml

Cause by these standards, rationality fits me better.

Or are we going to go by shit like "J types are tidy and P types are messy"?

[consentingadult]

I think Rational vs Irrational behavior is much more easily defined and observed.

To really discover if someone is extrovert or introvert, we'd have to get into their heads.

For instance, in the case of and . We can hardly directly experience or observe their and perceptions, but we can easily see how they use . That often makes these types seem "extroverted".

I agree with most of that. I would even like to add, that if you use both functions in your ego block properly, you will even exhibit both introvert and extravert behaviors. This is why most MBTI tests are silly: the ask questions on behavior, and then people get confused and make statements such as "but I'm both introvert and extravert at times, it all depends".

I'm inclined to say that from a Socionic perspective, there is no such thing as an E/I dimesion. In the Big 5 there is, but the Big 5 is about extrenal behavior, not about mental focus.

I'm not sure about your statement on rationality/irrationality. How can you recognize this externally? Typically, I used to think you could tell by people being messy or untidy, but I have found that J-types can be messy as well when they are operating on a neurotic level. MBTI J/P is very similar to Big 5 Conscientiousness, but I think the correlation between Socionics J/P and Conscientiousness is not as strong.

[consentingadult]

I'd like a good description of what is rational behavior and what is irrational.

Is this a good one?

http://socionics.us/theory/rat_irr.shtml

Cause by these standards, rationality fits me better.

Or are we going to go by shit like "J types are tidy and P types are messy"?

Rick's work is exactly what got me thinking about this issue. Sometimes I think his work is a bit too abstract, but more than other sites I've seen, he seems to be on the right track.

[detail]

Regarding tests you are right but functionally speaking, E/I divides people even more (Opposing quadras). Also, on the practical side of the theoretical, none of E/I and J/P are exclusively primary as there are no S* or *i functions for example.

On another note, Ne/Ni, Fe/Fi, Se/Si, Te/Ti or Ti/Fi, Te/Fe, Ne/Se, Ni/Si tests are more accurate than E/I, S/N, T/F, J/P tests IMO, because the dividing nature of J/P can then be used to determine which type of a mirror pair is more plausible.

[consentingadult]

On another note, Ne/Ni, Fe/Fi, Se/Si, Te/Ti or Ti/Fi, Te/Fe, Ne/Se, Ni/Si tests are more accurate than E/I, S/N, T/F, J/P tests IMO, because the dividing nature of J/P can then be used to determine which type of a mirror pair is more plausible.

That's why I like Lytov's Multifactor test. Some of the tests Hugo made, really amazed me!

[Joy]

No. Dmitri's test focused on shit like NT and IJ.

[consentingadult]

No. Dmitri's test focused on shit like NT and IJ.

I'm not smart enough to have noticed :wink:

[Expat]

I'm not sure about your statement on rationality/irrationality. How can you recognize this externally? Typically, I used to think you could tell by people being messy or untidy, but I have found that J-types can be messy as well when they are operating on a neurotic level.

Messyness has nothing to do with being P or "neurotic".

I think Rick's definitions are good.

[consentingadult]

I'm not sure about your statement on rationality/irrationality. How can you recognize this externally? Typically, I used to think you could tell by people being messy or untidy, but I have found that J-types can be messy as well when they are operating on a neurotic level.

Messyness has nothing to do with being P or "neurotic".

I think Rick's definitions are good.

I agree with the P thing, but ask a psychologist about the mess. Not that all neurotic people are messy, some are even compulsive about neatness. Sometimes people are messy just because they are messy by nature, sometimes people are messy because they are neurotic or psychotic. This is exactly why being messy should not be used as a criterium for determining type; this is exactly what sucks about MBTI!

[Jonathan]

People in Socionics love to bash MBTI. But whatever weaknesses it may have, it's just not as bad as people say in Socionics forums and sites.

MBTI doesn't define J types as tidy and P types as messy.

Nor does it say that "introvert" types don't show extravert-seeming behaviors, and visa versa.

Many of the things that people say MBTI says just aren't so.

[UDP]

It is nice to see some others bring this up - I also feel this way about j/p

[consentingadult]

People in Socionics love to bash MBTI. But whatever weaknesses it may have, it's just not as bad as people say in Socionics forums and sites.

MBTI doesn't define J types as tidy and P types as messy.

Nor does it say that "introvert" types don't show extravert-seeming behaviors, and visa versa.

Many of the things that people say MBTI says just aren't so.

This is true to some extent, because there is a difference between 'official MBTI' and many derivatives, such as The Tiegers. And I agree MBTI deserves credit for making Psychological Type accessible to the larger public. I'm even going to present a workshop on PT, and focus on MBTI, because that is what most people are capable of understanding, and it suffices enough to suit most people's interest and purposes.

All these niceties about MBTI being said, still there are a lot of issues with MBTI, which MBTI itself does not want to correct. Why do so many introverts have a hard time deciding upon their type in MBTI? So many authority figures in the MBTI scene claim what you claim: that E/I isn't about being being social/withdrawn, only to contradict themselves in their questionnaires and their type descriptions (again, perhaps not official MBTI, but most of the derivates do). Same thing for J/P. MBTI has become static.

[consentingadult]

And to bring things into balance: Socionics sucks as well! Not enough info available in English, and if there is, often way to theoretical and abstract and typical "NT" :wink:

[Jonathan]

Why do so many introverts have a hard time deciding upon their type in MBTI? So many authority figures in the MBTI scene claim what you claim: that E/I isn't about being being social/withdrawn, only to contradict themselves in their questionnaires and their type descriptions (again, perhaps not official MBTI, but most of the derivates do).

Yeah, and come to think of it, I've always come out ENFP or ENTP when I take the official test, even though I think of myself as an "I."

And to bring things into balance: Socionics sucks as well! Not enough info available in English, and if there is, often way to theoretical and abstract and typical "NT"

I think the biggest weakness in Socionics is lack of agreement on some fundamental issues and definitions. Even different sites' VI pictures look so different.

The one area where MBTI is the strongest is that there's a lot of statistical research that uses one standardized instrument; and a lot of statistical research went into creating the MBTI as well. As a result, there's a lot of hard data to look at....and, at least initially, practitioners stuck more or less to what was supported by hard data in drawing conclusions....but that may have changed as the MBTI got more popular.

[consentingadult]

Yeah, and come to think of it, I've always come out ENFP or ENTP when I take the official test, even though I think of myself as an "I."

I "know" I'm ENFp, but sometimes exhibit strong introvert behaviors. I think this has to do with the kind of people I surround myself with. I've been surrounded a lot in my life by S-type with a 100- IQ (no offense intended), which caused me to withdraw. But when I'm with "my kind", I'm am extremely extroverted and a typical ENFp. E/I the MBTI or Big 5 way very much depends on who you surround yourself with.

I think the biggest weakness in Socionics is lack of agreement on some fundamental issues and definitions. Even different sites' VI pictures look so different.

This is both a pro and a con: MBTI is currently closed for scientific research, which is why it has become static. Socionics has a lack of agreement, but potential for research. Perhaps ultimately Socionics will be assimilated into psychology and the name will go into oblivion. Photographic VI sucks.

The one area where MBTI is the strongest is that there's a lot of statistical research that uses one standardized instrument; and a lot of statistical research went into creating the MBTI as well. As a result, there's a lot of hard data to look at....and, at least initially, practitioners stuck more or less to what was supported by hard data in drawing conclusions....but that may have changed as the MBTI got more popular.

The scientific validity of MBTI is questioned: has research led to the theory, or the theory led the research to find fitting answers? Well, The Big 5 answers that question, it provides both confirmation and correction for MBTI. I will look up an article on that later.

[April]

How are the E/I distinction and Socionics theory mutually exclusive? I know that one is based on traits and there's a sliding scale, and one is based on functions, but I still fail to see how they are incompatible!

In my experience, if somebody has a dominant extraverted function, they will act like an extravert for the most part (i.e., focused on the external world, gregarious, not quiet, etc.).

I also think it's important to note that a lot of research has been done on E/I and the brain. http://www.abc.net.au/science/news/stories/s21104.htm This is just one study, but you'd find a lot more if you did a Google or literature search.

Oh, and the rationality/irrationality distinction is pretty good, but I don't think it's as good as E/I.

[Expat]

People in Socionics love to bash MBTI. But whatever weaknesses it may have, it's just not as bad as people say in Socionics forums and sites.

MBTI doesn't define J types as tidy and P types as messy.

Nor does it say that "introvert" types don't show extravert-seeming behaviors, and visa versa.

Many of the things that people say MBTI says just aren't so.

I believe that -- but the "pop" versions of MBTI test and descriptions do use these kinds of criteria for E/I and J/P, and those are usually what we refer to.

[Rocky]

Why do so many introverts have a hard time deciding upon their type in MBTI?

In socionics, too.

[Rocky]

I "know" I'm ENFp, but sometimes exhibit strong introvert behaviors. I think this has to do with the kind of people I surround myself with. I've been surrounded a lot in my life by S-type with a 100- IQ (no offense intended), which caused me to withdraw.

MORON, 100 is the average, so if S averages 100, then N must also average 100. If you had anything above a room tempurature IQ, you'd know that already.

[consentingadult]

I "know" I'm ENFp, but sometimes exhibit strong introvert behaviors. I think this has to do with the kind of people I surround myself with. I've been surrounded a lot in my life by S-type with a 100- IQ (no offense intended), which caused me to withdraw.

MORON, 100 is the average, so if S averages 100, then N must also average 100. If you had anything above a room tempurature IQ, you'd know that already.

You SOAB! Where does it say that I claim that there is a relationship between S types and IQ? (actually, there is a correlation, but that's not what I'm talking about here). The thing I'm saying, is that I was surrounded by some S-types that also happened not to be that smart as well IQ wise. There are a lot of high IQ S-people, and a lot of retarded N-people as well. But being both high IQ and N surrounded by totally non-intellectual S types is an added risk! :wink: Yours is a typical SP anti-intellectual response!

[Rocky]

I "know" I'm ENFp, but sometimes exhibit strong introvert behaviors. I think this has to do with the kind of people I surround myself with. I've been surrounded a lot in my life by S-type with a 100- IQ (no offense intended), which caused me to withdraw.

MORON, 100 is the average, so if S averages 100, then N must also average 100. If you had anything above a room tempurature IQ, you'd know that already.

You SOAB! Where does it say that I claim that there is a relationship between S types and IQ? (actually, there is a correlation, but that's not what I'm talking about here). The thing I'm saying, is that I was surrounded by some S-types that also happened not to be that smart as well IQ wise. There are a lot of high IQ S-people, and a lot of retarded N-people as well. But being both high IQ and N surrounded by totally non-intellectual S types is an added risk! :wink: Yours is a typical SP anti-intellectual response!

You must be retarded, if not, then you're just delusional. Putting "S-type" next to "low IQ" instantly makes a connection. That would be like me saying "I was surrounded by a bunch of stupid black people who couldn't read... oh, no! I didn't mean that black people can't read, because there are white people who can't read as well... I was just saying! **waiting** But there actually is a correlation even though I just pretended like I thought there wasn't."

If you're even going to pretend for a second that your IQ is above 20, at least don't contradict yourself so much. No wonder people made you withdrawn. They realized that no word out of your mouth made any sense which subconsciouly made you realize that you were in fact, retarded.

[consentingadult]

I "know" I'm ENFp, but sometimes exhibit strong introvert behaviors. I think this has to do with the kind of people I surround myself with. I've been surrounded a lot in my life by S-type with a 100- IQ (no offense intended), which caused me to withdraw.

MORON, 100 is the average, so if S averages 100, then N must also average 100. If you had anything above a room tempurature IQ, you'd know that already.

You SOAB! Where does it say that I claim that there is a relationship between S types and IQ? (actually, there is a correlation, but that's not what I'm talking about here). The thing I'm saying, is that I was surrounded by some S-types that also happened not to be that smart as well IQ wise. There are a lot of high IQ S-people, and a lot of retarded N-people as well. But being both high IQ and N surrounded by totally non-intellectual S types is an added risk! :wink: Yours is a typical SP anti-intellectual response!

You must be retarded, if not, then you're just delusional. Putting "S-type" next to "low IQ" instantly makes a connection. That would be like me saying "I was surrounded by a bunch of stupid black people who couldn't read... oh, no! I didn't mean that black people can't read, because there are white people who can't read as well... I was just saying! **waiting** But there actually is a correlation even though I just pretended like I thought there wasn't."

If you're even going to pretend for a second that your IQ is above 20, at least don't contradict yourself so much. No wonder people made you withdrawn. They realized that no word out of your mouth made any sense which subconsciouly made you realize that you were in fact, retarded.

You're so cute!

[Phaedrus]

I have said before in some posts that I am inclined to think that the J/P dichotomy is very important. Jung took his starting point at E/I, Keirsey takes off at S/N, but if we start from J/P we will be able to start from something that is observable. I believe that it also reflects a fundamental difference in attitude towards life. J and P types have different world views in a sense (Lenore Thomson has written something about this). And that difference can be seen and it can be felt when you interact with people.

One theory is that what people think of as J and P behaviors map to rational/irrational. The other theory (put forth both in MBTI and in the Socionics quadra descriptions) is that personalities with a Ti or Fi structure are P and those with a Te or Fe structure are J.

This is slightly inaccurate. Both Socionics and MBTI think that J and P behaviors map to rational/irrational, if we refer to the types as whole units. There is no other theory since what MBTI says about personalities with a Ti or Fi structure is not that different from what Socionics says about them. The way an INTP thinks is described the same way in MBTI as an INTp's way of thinking is described in Socionics. They use different words (like Ti and Ne in contrast to and ) to refer to the same empirical reality.

[consentingadult]

J and P types have different world views in a sense (Lenore Thomson has written something about this). And that difference can be seen and it can be felt when you interact with people.

Tell us, we're dying to know. Hugo probably too, since he is struggling for a good J/P question!

[Jonathan]

I have said before in some posts that I am inclined to think that the J/P dichotomy is very important. Jung took his starting point at E/I, Keirsey takes off at S/N, but if we start from J/P we will be able to start from something that is observable. I believe that it also reflects a fundamental difference in attitude towards life. J and P types have different world views in a sense (Lenore Thomson has written something about this). And that difference can be seen and it can be felt when you interact with people.

One theory is that what people think of as J and P behaviors map to rational/irrational. The other theory (put forth both in MBTI and in the Socionics quadra descriptions) is that personalities with a Ti or Fi structure are P and those with a Te or Fe structure are J.

This is slightly inaccurate. Both Socionics and MBTI think that J and P behaviors map to rational/irrational, if we refer to the types as whole units. There is no other theory since what MBTI says about personalities with a Ti or Fi structure is not that different from what Socionics says about them. The way an INTP thinks is described the same way in MBTI as an INTp's way of thinking is described in Socionics. They use different words (like Ti and Ne in contrast to and ) to refer to the same empirical reality.

Really? I remember going through the MBTI manual, and seeing clearly that MBTI sees IPs and EJs as the "rational" types and IJs and EPs as the "irrational" ones. Also, I remember reading that the Myers/Briggs team came up with the J/P distinction as something they felt was more observable than rationality/irrationality. It seems pretty clear from that that in MBTI theory, rationality/irrationality refers to a different distinction than J/P, and different from the way rationality/irrationality is described in Socionics.

As far as I'm aware, it's only Socionics that equates rationality/irrationality with J- and P-like behaviors.

If you see some reliable information to the contrary, pass it along.

As to the definitions of the functions being different, well that is a reasonable way to explain the differences in how the theories come out. But actually, many people in Socionics tend to define and similarly to the way they're viewed in MBTI, which is maybe why they think you're INTj.

[Phaedrus]

I remember going through the MBTI manual, and seeing clearly that MBTI sees IPs and EJs as the "rational" types and IJs and EPs as the "irrational" ones. Also, I remember reading that the Myers/Briggs team came up with the J/P distinction as something they felt was more observable than rationality/irrationality. It seems pretty clear from that that in MBTI theory, rationality/irrationality refers to a different distinction than J/P, and different from the way rationality/irrationality is described in Socionics.

Well, okay ... maybe you are right about that. But the words "rationality" and "irrationality" have no clear function in MBTI, if it is not used as a way of referring to J and P types. And both models describe the actual behaviors of J and P types in very similar ways. An MBTI practitioner looking at an INTp would could call that person a rational type, because he or she is looking at an INTP.

But actually, many people in Socionics tend to define and similarly to the way they're viewed in MBTI, which is maybe why they think you're INTj.

Yes, and that is why we should focus on the types -- not those faulty and misleading descriptions of the functions. (How many times have I said that by now? But no one is willing to listen anyway ... or they are to lazy to try to understand what it means ...)

[consentingadult]

Yes, and that is why we should focus on the types -- not those faulty and misleading descriptions of the functions. (How many times have I said that by now? But no one is willing to listen anyway ... or they are to lazy to try to understand what it means ...)

This sort of reflects a question I once posted on socionics.com, but never got answered: how can it be that type descriptions in MBTI and Socionics are often very similar (e.g. ISTj and ISTJ), but the function description different? One of them must be wrong about the functions! If MBTI is wrong, how come no-one in MBTI ever noticed or cares to correct it? This has led me to speculate that functions (Ne, Si etc...) might be a load of crap, both in Socionics and MBTI, or that their workings are misunderstood in both systems. Perhaps Jung was wrong from the start!

Take, for example, the Personal Growth Page of the INFj on personalitypage.com. It states:

...Most of the weaker characteristics that are found in INFJs are due to their dominant function (Introverted iNtuition) overtaking their personality to the point that the other forces in their personality exist merely to serve the purposes of Introverted iNtuition. In such cases, an INFJ may show some or all of the following weaknesses in varying degrees...

It then goes on about how to properly use extraverted feeling in order to stay in balance.

Now why is this important? Basically, this site is attributing neurotic behavior in the INFj to incorrectly or not using Fe. It is either true, or it is very dangerous advice! In fact, I think the recommendations given on this page are better for INFps and INFPs!

[Phaedrus]

This sort of reflects a question I once posted on socionics.com, but never got answered: how can it be that type descriptions in MBTI and Socionics are often very similar (e.g. ISTj and ISTJ), but the function description different?

The type descriptions are similar because they are describing the same types -- they are describing the same groups of people. In one group we have the ISTjs and ISTJs, in another group we have ISTps and ISTPs etc.

The function descriptions are different because MBTI is trying to describe the same thought processes in an ISTJ as they are described for ISTjs in Socionics, but in MBTI the ISTJ is defined as an SiTe, which means that MBTI has to describe Si and Ti in a way that is compatible with how real life ISTjs/ISTJs actually think. What they do is to interpret the function analysis in such a way that it will correspond with that.

One of them must be wrong about the functions!

Only if Ti= etc., which is not true. The functions is one thing. Which words we use to refer to the functions (if they exist) is another thing. We can -- and do -- use different words in different models for the same thought processes.

If MBTI is wrong, how come no-one in MBTI ever noticed or cares to correct it?

Good question. Another good question is: How come so many socionists don't realize that there are inconsistences in their understanding of the functions, too?

This has led me to speculate that functions (Ne, Si etc...) might be a load of crap, both in Socionics and MBTI, or that their workings are misunderstood in both systems. Perhaps Jung was wrong from the start!

That is not impossible.

[Jonathan]

The idea that the functional model of Socionics is too simplistic makes sense to me. However, if you dispense with functions, there really isn't anything left in Socionics that's worth talking about, except possibly VI and the study of facial expressions.

For example, the basis of the intertype relationships, etc., is all due to hypotheses based on the functions, plus anecdotal testing of those hypotheses.

The whole interesting thing about Socionics is that it suggests an alternate way of defining the functions (and explaining J- and P-like behavior) compared to MBTI, and that it involves this theory of intertype relations. Take that away, and there's just not much left there.

[science as magic]

i like to juxtapose the primariality of the dimensions. by doing this i started noting correlations between types and other "functions." for example just as tiNe and Tine is distinct in subtype theory it is possible to view the functions as a sort of vectors in a correspondingl coordinate system. so in my mind Ti is distinct from tI and so forth. this can be used to find corrolaries between various types such as the Ji subtypes of the intj + isfj having much more in common than a Pi TiNe and a Je Ej_f sI. eventually all the systems break down however as the initial parameters which attempt to discuss the objects at hand lack sufficient range

[Expat]

The one area where MBTI is the strongest is that there's a lot of statistical research that uses one standardized instrument; and a lot of statistical research went into creating the MBTI as well. As a result, there's a lot of hard data to look at....and, at least initially, practitioners stuck more or less to what was supported by hard data in drawing conclusions....but that may have changed as the MBTI got more popular.

Those "hard data" are only "hard" if you take for granted that the typings are correct.

I work with real "hard data", and I find highly questionable the notion that any data stemming from human psychology as per the subjects' self-perception can really be called "hard".

That is where I find Socionics more realistic, since, at least the way I have perceived it so far, its proponents tend to realize that typing someone remains a "soft" thing.

Yes, and that is why we should focus on the types -- not those faulty and misleading descriptions of the functions. (How many times have I said that by now? But no one is willing to listen anyway ... or they are to lazy to try to understand what it means ...)

The descriptions of the functions are essential to Socionics in order to explain the intertype relationships. They also provide another dimension to understanding the types with such concepts as quadras and the PoLR, which are (as far as I know) fully absent in MBTI.

Maybe I have misunderstood you but it seems to me that your main reason to want to almost "merge" MBTI and Socionics is because one finds useful stuff on some types in some MBTI profiles that Socionics' have "missed". Even if true, does that apply to other types besides INTj and INTp, the ones you have focused most on?

[consentingadult]

Only if Ti= etc., which is not true. The functions is one thing. Which words we use to refer to the functions (if they exist) is another thing. We can -- and do -- use different words in different models for the same thought processes.

To some extent the descriptions are different, but the problem still remains that the attitudes are still different in types. E.g. for ISTp and ISTP, sensing is introverted and extraverted respectively, meaning that sensing is directed inwards for the ISTp and outwards for the ISTP. Now that is, almost by definition, a contradiction in terms from a Jungian perspective, if the descriptions of these two types are so similar (and the often incorrectly applied switch of J/P doesn't apply, since ISTp descriptions don't match ISTJ descriptions). And this problem cannot easily be rationalized away by pointing out to different wording of functions, unless MBTI-introverted means Socionics-extraverted and vice versa, which would be totally crazy!

Now I would like to point out another thing, and that is the books written by the Tiegers, which I think are amongst the finest MBTI has to offer (although they speak only on behalf of themselves, since they are not official MBTI). In their books, especially "The Art of Speed Reading People" and "Do What You Are", they explain about the direction of the expression of emotions. What they write about this, is correct for extraverted types (e.g. ENFPs will not easily put their true feelings on display, but ENTPs very well might), but they are completely wrong about introverted types, e.g. they claim that INFPs hold everything inside, whereas in fact INFPs are amongst the easiest people to read emotionally (or is this because I'm ENFp?), whereas INFJs, which extravert feeling according to the Tiegers, are in reality not very emotionally expressive and are very hard to get to know emotionally. On top of that, I know women who are either INFj or INFp, and don't really fit the MBTI descriptions, they are sort of in the middle, which is very confusing. I suspect many of the views and examples of the Tiegers are not the result of observations, but theoretical constructs (presented as observations).

Although I still don't rule out the possibility that function theory is just theory with no basis in reality, I'm inclined to think that Jung and Socionics are right, based upon the fact that Socioncs works in practice (for me), and MBTI to a lesser extent and gets stuck for introverted types. The only problem I have, is the lack of Socionic information in English, which requires me to take MBTI-theory and figure out how to correct it (as an ENFp, I'm not really an inventor of theories myself).

[FDG]

I "know" I'm ENFp, but sometimes exhibit strong introvert behaviors. I think this has to do with the kind of people I surround myself with. I've been surrounded a lot in my life by S-type with a 100- IQ (no offense intended), which caused me to withdraw.

MORON, 100 is the average, so if S averages 100, then N must also average 100.

Incorrect. You imply a 50/50 split with compensating values, which is absolutely unlikely :S.
I'm not going to argue for any side, but think about it: suppose that Ns (or Ss, for that matter) have all an iq of 120 and Ss (or Ns) have all al iq of 80. Suppose also a 50 50 split to render things easy. The average would still be 100 but the averages of the groups would respectively be 80 and 120.

[consentingadult]

I repeat: I have never said in the post that Rocky refers to that there is a relationship between S/N and IQ, not even where the middle is in IQ for these two types. My point was, that I have an 135 IQ (today), and grew up in a family with people that have IQ's around and below 100. Now everyone who can be factual about this and does not get sensitive will understand that this already causes a mismatch. Add to that the fact, that my mom is ISFJ, my stepfather is ISTJ (my real dead is INTj, and that is also where I got the IQ from), my brothers are ESFp and ISFj respectively, and you will have another mismatch in metal attitudes and cognitive styles. Now my family members are not idiots, neither are they bad people, but I did have problems relating to their world and they to mine. Same thing for a lot of other people I grew up with: as a kid I was interested in e.g. discussing astronomy, my friends wanted to play soccer all the time. Things got better in highschool though and even great in university :wink:

The S thing and the IQ thing are two seperate things and no connection between the two was intented. I still don't see that I wrote it in such a way that there was a relationship, but if you got the impression that there was, I aplogize for the fact that Rocky failed to create the right type of forest out of the trees. I should have forseen that!

All that being said: the relationship between S/N and IQ has been discussed in another thread, where I said (is this is perhaps where things got connected): there is a correlation between S/N and IQ in that IQ tests are N-biased. But this tells shit about the intelligence of S types, since IQ tests typically are written by N-types and fail to measure those things S types are better at than N types. To some extent, IQ-tests measuring intelligence should be taken with a grain of salt.

[Phaedrus]

@Jonathan

The idea that the functional model of Socionics is too simplistic makes sense to me. However, if you dispense with functions, there really isn't anything left in Socionics that's worth talking about, except possibly VI and the study of facial expressions.

That's a good start. And we still have the groups of people sharing similar behaviors, thinking in the same way etc. Those groups are the "types". After we have identified them we can begin to try to explain their similarities and differences. One such explanation is the functions, but the functions are not primary. What is primary is the empirically observable differences and similarities between groups of people.

For example, the basis of the intertype relationships, etc., is all due to hypotheses based on the functions, plus anecdotal testing of those hypotheses.

Really? I have always thought that the intertype relations were based on empirical observations.

The whole interesting thing about Socionics is that it suggests an alternate way of defining the functions (and explaining J- and P-like behavior) compared to MBTI, and that it involves this theory of intertype relations. Take that away, and there's just not much left there.

Except the types ...


@Expat

The descriptions of the functions are essential to Socionics in order to explain the intertype relationships. They also provide another dimension to understanding the types with such concepts as quadras and the PoLR, which are (as far as I know) fully absent in MBTI.

The intertype relations could perhaps be explained in some other way than with reference to functions, or our understanding of the functions is incomplete or faulty.

In MBTI we have the same temperaments groups as those proposed by Keirsey, i.e. SPs, SJs, NFs and NTs. At least the two N-groups are the same as in Socionics. And we can group the types in different ways for different purposes. For example, if we look at how people want information to be presented to them, MBTI proposes these groups: STs, SFs, NFs and NTs.

Maybe I have misunderstood you but it seems to me that your main reason to want to almost "merge" MBTI and Socionics is because one finds useful stuff on some types in some MBTI profiles that Socionics' have "missed". Even if true, does that apply to other types besides INTj and INTp, the ones you have focused most on?

Both models try to describe the same people. Every empirical observation could (hypothetically) shed some light on how the types really are. It applies to all types, especially the S types, since it is obvious that they are identical in both models, i.e. ISTJ=ISTj etc. And we should not only use MBTI as a source of information, but also the Enneagram and other models. They are probably false theories, but they still contain a lot of true statements.