Percieving and Judging Lifestyles

[Hdier]

Sorry about the title; I just can't think of a better one right now.

Anyways, onto the main topic; I have recently realized something. If you are a J and introverted, that means that, because of the way the cognitive functions are ordered, you would be a 'P' to outside world (most of you would have Ne as your secondary function). You would be very decisive in your own personal world, but otherwise you would act in a more P manner. Does this make sense to anyone else?

[Danellian]

Yes, it makes sense, but actually, as a J, it's your extraverted function that is judging. I'm an INTJ, and my extraverted function is Te. Ne is the extraverted and secondary funtion of INTP and INFP. It does mean, however, that as an INTJ, my dominant function - Ni - is a perceiving function. So, it would equal being more decisive toward the external world and more indecisive toward the internal world. In MBTI, the J-P scale measures not your primary preference, but rather, your extraverted preference.

[Hdier]

No, you are talking about socionics which is similar to MBTI, but has the functions of Introverts changed. Socionics says that your lifestyle depends on what you do extravertedly, while MBTI says that your lifestyle depends on what your primary preference is.

[Danellian]

No offense, but you've really got it backwards.

To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts. Here is a link to a socionics site. Click on the link there for "socionics types" and compare it to the function (or information element) symbols on the main page, for example, on the intuitive logical introvert, whose primary function, according to socionics, is introverted thinking. The primary function is the judging function.

To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts. Here is a link to an MBTI INTJ description. It's introverted intuition with extraverted thinking. The judging function is the extraverted function.





Danellian added to this post, 1 minutes and 28 seconds later...

That's the starting point of Socionics' criticism of MBTI, because in MBTI, you can be a judging type, yet your primary function is irrational, if you are an introvert, hence it is your auxiliary, extraverted function, in this case, that is the rational, judging function.

[Hdier]

Oops, sorry, I had them mixed up (after half a year of research, to!). :embarassed:

[Danellian]

I'm really not a fan of Socionics. I think it creates more problems than it fixes.

[Hdier]

I don't think that the theory of socionics is the problem, simply that it is so closely related to MBTI that it will confuse people.





Hdier added to this post, 2 minutes and 3 seconds later...

P.S., sorry about the double thread. I didn't think that this would turn into a discussion about socionics.

[Danellian]

It's alright. Would you rather discuss Socionics on this thread or the other one?





Danellian added to this post, 6 minutes and 38 seconds later...

Just noticed the other thread was locked. I'll post here about it, if you don't mind.





Danellian added to this post, 72 minutes and 17 seconds later...

One big problem I have with socionics is that, in order to accomodate for the differences in their conception of what makes someone a judging or perceiving type, change their function definitions. An example of this, for the INTJ, is that the dominant function in Socionics becomes Ti, so that the dominant function is made into a judging function. This is done due to a perceived contradiction that, in MBTI, one can be a judging type, yet have a dominant perceiving function, if you are an introvert. There is not a one-to-one correlation between types in these systems. Thus, if you are INTJ, it doesn't necesserily mean you will be INTj or INTp (at least that's what most of the Socionics sites say, I think. This part may depend on the particular Socionics theorist.) In any case, if you are an INTJ who happens to be Socionics INTj, then your functions change, particularly, your dominant and auxiliary function set changes from NiTe to TiNe. All your personality traits that were attributed to NiTe are now arrtibuted to TiNe. Since we are obviously dealing with the same traits, the functions have to be redefined. Thus, Ti takes on traits of structure implementation, which in MBTI is attributed to Te. Seeing multiple perspectives of a problem moves from Ni to Ne. And on and on. I think it makes no sense to make all these changes when there is no contradiction in the first place (at least, in my opinion). If you have another INTJ who is INTp in Socionics, then the traits of that INTJ's NiTe remain attributed to NiTe, defined in the different way Socionics defines them. In this case, there must be fundamental differences between members of each type, such as the two INTJs mentioned, such that they map onto different Socionics information elements. This, to me, is a contradiction. The traits that are attributable to NiTe in each INTJ cannot map onto different information elements in each individual when the fundamental differences at hand are defined precisely in terms of said functions and information elements, not some accidental traits not mentioned. Thus, Socionics cannot be correct. Let's say you have a Socionics theorist who says there is a one-to-one correlation accross systems, such that INTJ must be INTp. In this case, there is a one-to one mapping of MBTI NiTe onto Socionics NiTe. Thus, MBTI Ni takes on some of the traits of Socionics Ni and ditches some of the others, then takes on some of the traits of Socionics Te and ditches some of the others. Similarly, MBTI Te takes on some of the traits of Socionics Te and ditches some of the others, and takes on some of the traits of Socionics Ni and ditches some of the others. Thus, the dominant and auxiliary functions, in a one-to-one mapping between systems, would trade some of their traits. However, when you bring in an INFp, for example, who uses dominant Ni and auxiliary Fe information elements, then Ni continues to carry some MBTI Ni function traits while ditching the same ones as the aformentioned INTp, yet retains those MBTI Te traits that Socionics Ni carries within itself. Similarly, the traits of the INTj ascribed to information element Te disappear, to be replaced with traits of information element Fe. However, this INFp individual is supposed to map onto MBTI INFJ, such that all the elements conferred from INTJ to INTp on account of Ni should also be conferred from INFJ to INFp, but this simply cannot happen, as it becomes a conceptual contradiction. Since there is a swapping of traits between the dominant and auxiliary functions of the corresponding MBTI type to Socionics type to define the dominant information element in the Socionics type, then, necesserily, the dominant function would have to change across individuals with the supposed same dominant function but different auxiliary functions, such as INTj and INFj. Thus, rather or not there is a one-to-one correlation between systems, I see the Socionics creates for itself a conceptual contradiction.





Danellian added to this post, 917 minutes and 33 seconds later...

I was actually hoping for some debate on this one. :)

[Hdier]

Sorry I took so long, my laptop is having problems (namely: I forgot my charger at school and the school is closed for two weeks), so I'm having to either borrow someone else's computer or use my desktop, which means I can't post as often.

Your post was a little bit confusing to me, as it was one giant paragraph. If you wouldn't mind breaking your longer posts into seperate paragraphs, that would help me a lot. :)

No, I disagree with what you are saying about the coginitive functions being changed. I think that it is simply that an INTJ in socionics would be an INTP in MBTI. Perhaps that is why so many people who are introduced to the one are upset with the other, because they try to keep the types the same when they translate them, which messes up the cognitive functions.

I think that you were saying something about being an INTJ in MBTI, and then either being an INTP or an INTJ in socionics. The problem I have with this part is that I would say that if you are an INTJ in MBTI, you would be an INTP in socionics, and vice-verca. They are directly translatable.

[quentin]

I'm also an INTJ in MBTI and an INTP in Socionics.

[Danellian]

Hdier, sorry my post was confusing. In that huge paragraph, I actually presented an argument against two different positions:

1. If there is a one-to-one correlation between the two systems, such that INTJ=INTp, then MBTI NiTe=Socionics NiTe, not simply MBTI Ni=Socionics Ni. Socionics redefines the functions. I gave the example of INFp and INTp. Both share dominant Ni. Yet, INFp uses NiFe, where INTp uses NiTe. Thus, MBTI Ni, as it is transcribed into Socionics Ni, is defined differently in INFp than in INTp. Ni is transcribed in INFp such that MBTI=some traits of Socionics Ni and Fe, and INTp such that Ni=some traist of Socionics Ni and Te. Hence, Ni is not transcribed the same way in each case. Socionics claims Ni has the same definition in each case, in INTp and INFp, yet their logic contradicts that if there is a one-to-one correlation.

2. The other argument was supposing there was not a one-to-one correlation. But since you are taking the first position, let's debate about that.

Now that my point might be a little bit more clear, what is your rebuttal against it?

[Hdier]

I blame the 'J' in me. I started an argument before I had enough information. I will need to do some studying before I can argue AEAS (as effectively as possible), but I'll put up a preliminary argument now.

What you are saying is that, in your example, NiTe in the INTP translates the Ni to the INTJ differently than the INFP to the INFJ, correct? Well, maybe you can't split it apart like that. Perhaps the NiTe working in conjunction together creates the same effect that the Ni or the Te wouldn't alone. Similar to Fi being different than plain F or plain I.

[Danellian]

Hdier, I think your argument would work, if the Socionists agreed with it. The thing is, they don't. They define Ni, and each information element, the same, regardless of what type it fits into in a particular instance. So does MBTI. That's fine. But the problem comes in when there is a one-to-one correlation proposed. It creates said contradiction.

[Hdier]

I think that you may have misunderstood me. I was not saying that Socionics did not have a standard definition for Ni, simply that Socionics Ni + Te=MBTI Ni + Te. Kind of like 3 and 4 are not the same, but 3 + 2 = 4 + 1

[Danellian]

I know you weren't saying Socionics didn't have a standard definition for Ni. What I am saying is that Socionics says, on the one hand, that there is a standard definition, then fleshes out its system in such a way that contradicts that claim.

I'm not talking about what you are saying, but what Socionics says, since you seem to be agreeing with Socionics.