Talk:J/P switch

You don't want to take a view on this issue :) ? While not agreeing with those that say that the types are all 100% identical, I think that in most cases the type descriptions support the notion that the J/P switch is rubbish. For instance, the ISFP in most descriptions is closer to a SEI than to an ESI, the ISTP to SLI than to LSI, etc. Expat 11:49, 12 June 2007 (CDT)

I see what you're saying and probably mostly agree, but I don't understand how the type descriptions could be affected so little by the function ordering. Even if functions aren't a big part of the MBTI system today, certainly they were back in the 40s and 50s???

Also, some types seem to create particular problems, i.e. INTP and INTJ and perhaps ISTP and ISTJ. I have to say that the INTP descriptions I've looked at described mostly introverted thinking as the leading function. (Admin 11:56, 12 June 2007 (CDT))

I don't think the function ordering, or at least a consistent one, was ever central to MBTI. As for INTP having mostly introverted thinking as leading function -- precisely, because both the INTP and the INTJ are direct descendants of Jung's Introverted Thinking type, better defined imo as "thinking introverts". That is the origin of all the so-called confusion, and the INTP is probably best seen as a sort of aberration, a LII with IP temperament and some other ILI traits. Still, as a whole, if one must think of the MBTI types, it's probably best to leave the J/P shift aside, because then you'd be implying that "J" is not just different from rationality, but its opposite for introverts, which makes no sense.Expat 12:09, 12 June 2007 (CDT)

Okay, maybe you can flesh out the anti-switch argument, then. (Admin 12:11, 12 June 2007 (CDT))

Just making a comment...I think this topic is quite good, in that it explains the two sides very well and succinctly. I believe however that MBTI experts would disagree that functional ordering isn't important in the MBTI; in fact, as I recall, it figures prominently in the manual. However, it would be accurate to say that the MBTI doesn't attempt to measure it directly. Furthermore, the idea of introverted and extraverted forms of functions, though part of Jung's original conception, isn't fleshed out individually for each function in MBTI theory as it is in Socionics. The way one looks at it in MBTI is that the extraverted function is the one that guides the public aspects of one's life. Hence, from an MBTI perspective, someone with an extraverted judging function must therefore be attuned to schedules and structures in society, and exhibit "J" behavior. Where Socionics differs is that Socionists believe that the accepting function has the biggest, most clearly observable impact on how one lives, whether or not it happens to be an "introverted" or "extraverted" function. This difference in definitions probably best explains the differences between the theories. Nevertheless, it appears to me that some Socionics writings, specifically those that emphasize views about what subject-matter topics given types will be interested in, seem more supportative of the J/P switch position than other things written in Socionics. --Jonathan 23:25, 12 June 2007 (CDT)

Fair enough, perhaps you can add some comments to the text, so long as we don't end up describing MBTI theory. But the key difference is the following -- in Socionics, it's possible to start from the functions and build up the type, even if there are some differences depending on how they are blocked together. In MBTI - at least the online versions - they start with the types and then mention functions to "justify" them, also to relate them to Jungian theory. But the Extraverted Thinking as described in ENTJ profiles, for instance, has little resemblance to the Extraverted Thinking for ISTJ, at least far less than Te in LIE and SLI in Socionics. MBTI descriptions of "Te" basically explain, again, the "thinking" behavior of the ENTJ and the ISTJ without any explanation as to why it should be seen as the same thing. Expat 02:38, 13 June 2007 (CDT)

I think that it's a bit of a stretch to mention that study of Lytov's regarding the J/P switch without mentioning the most "surprising" observations -- namely, that a very large percentage of Russians thought that Keirsey's INTJ was actually a SLE. There are other odd "correlations" here and there. This should be mentioned in the context of the higher issue of Keirsey/MBTI correlations with socionics, that is, that the latter decline to mention any "weakness" which is the only reason why the INTJ could be seen as a SLE. Expat 00:21, 15 June 2007 (CDT)

Yes, that's why I mentioned that "the evaluators tended to choose extroverted rather than introverted Socionics types when rating Keirsey INTJ descriptions," but that thought probably wasn't prominent enough in the way I described--Jonathan 08:28, 15 June 2007 (CDT) it.

For the sake of better organization, I merged your edits discussing the "warning" with other sentences that were in a similar vein. Note that I included an internal link to Keirsey, so once someone writes about that, more thoughts related to the possible mapping or non-mapping (and the reasons involved) could possibly be put or moved there. --Jonathan 08:38, 15 June 2007 (CDT)

Static/Dynamic

This whole subject is reduntant in my opinion. The whole story is based on the assumption that MBTI functions are the same as Socionics functions, which by definition leads to the J/P shift. To refer to the Static/Dynamic dichotomy is just sand in people's eyes. It is just another way to say the same thing, it is not new evidence either way. And logically, how being Static would account for how MBTI otherwise defines "P" behavior? What does being static has to do with disliking planning etc? It makes no sense whatsoever. Expat 09:39, 23 July 2007 (BST)

I think there's another reason than that to be concerned. If Socionics is a correct description of an empirical structure, then we must assume either that MBTI users are seriously deluded or there's a correlation. There's no middle ground that makes sense. A former MBTI user who picks up Socinics must therefore decide whether their new belief is compatible with the old. And like it or not, the MBTI has already conditioned what the masses know about the Jungian-style types. We need to come up with a standard explanation that is consistent with both what MBTI says about itself *and* mentions your hypothesis that Socionics IM Elements are qualitatively different from MBTI Cognative Processes[1]. Sticking to just one or the other isn't going to satisfy this need. Luke 15:03, 23 July 2007 (BST)

As I stated elsewhere, Socionics's goal, as it defines itself, is by explaining and predicting personal relationships ("predicting" in an all-things-being-equal situation, obviously). MBTI is not concerned with that as far as I know, and the attempts to do so have been contradictory and flawed. Its goal seems to be to promote the idea that different people are naturally different and that such differences should be understood and accepted; it does not explain why people get along differently, spontaneously, without having to even think about that. So whether MBTI is "deluded" or not depends on what they are trying to achieve. If they think they are going to achieve an intertype relationship theory that works as well as socionics without its in effect becoming socionics, then, yes, I think they are deluded, but I'm ready to be proven wrong. But again, I don't see that as MBTI's goal. Is it? As for what the MBTI "masses" think - well, you seem to be saying that socionists should adopt what they see as a deeply flawed and (for their purposes) ineffective system because that's what the masses believe -- what would be the point of that, except, perhaps, to find a job as MBTI consultant because no one will hire a socionics consultant? Personally I don't see the "need" that you mention, and I think that anyone coming from MBTI who truly understands socionics will recognize its superiority, which has indeed happened so far. The issues of whether people who studied MBTI should feel "deluded" or whether that affects their jobs or what the "masses" think - all those issues are of no concern to me at least, honestly. Why should I care that a lot of people have got it wrong? As for my "hypothesis" that the functions are different, I suggest you devote some time to understand socionics independently, without the assumption that they must have the same functions, and then see what you think. Expat 15:28, 23 July 2007 (BST)

A theoretical model doesn't have "goals" really -- the people who make them do. I would argue that Socionics is equally supportive of the notion that "people are naturally different and that such differences should be understood and accepted." If MBTT is as different as you say, I am in favor of critiquing each CP that differs in definition until the types can be reliably translated, i.e. where MBTT is altered (or clarified) to be essentially identical to Socionics. But switching nonessentials like the J/P definition (rational vs dynamic) around beforehand seems to be putting the cart before the horse here. Oddly, my position appears to be neither on this page -- I prefer to continue calling myself an INTP (particularly in MBTI circles) while fully aware that I'm a rational type (LII). So I'm technically "against" the J/P switch; I feel that Static=P is the unswitched model since the 4-letter system is inherited from the MBTI. Luke 04:32, 25 July 2007 (BST)

Luke, you make some good points. It's absolutely true: Most people who come to Socionics from the U.S. will already know MBTI, and so the relation between them is a very relevant practical topic. It is also true that a great many people have, under the rubric of MBTI, developed a highly sophisticated understanding of the functions, and they will want to know how to resolve the apparent contradictions with Socionics.

Expat...You've stated many times that you're not interested in mappings between the two, and I totally respect that. Also, you're absolutely right that people who know a very little bit about each (MBTI and Socionics) would be best to focus on just one and not mix the two systems up.

But we should also respect the issue of how different systems relate as a legitimate field of research. There are many applications and areas of research in Socionics....we've discussed on this Wiki Tcaud's theory, Smilexian Socionics, applying Socionics to music and images, Socionics and philosophy, a mathematical approach to Reinin dichotomies, and so forth. Naturally, some people will find some of those topics highly interesting, and others will find some of them a complete waste of time. The "J/P switch" page, MBTI page, and various places that might link to these represent probably less than 1/10th of 1 percent of the Wiki. It is a legitimate field of investigation...one that has a lot of interest to some people, and very little to others...just like anything else. --Jonathan 05:13, 25 July 2007 (BST)

No one has said anything about forbidding mention of MBTI, but it is not a subfield of socionics, nor is any part of socionics theory "inherited" from MBTI. The notation is purely due to the mathematical similarities of the theories, and not their actual content, as is explained here as well as Reinin dichotomies. Any theory with four base dichotomies ABCD could easily use the same notation. Static=P is equivalent in all senses to the J/P switch; I'd like to see a coherent argument to the contrary. Furthermore, if there is no exact correspondence between the theories, in creating such a correspondence you would simply be turning one theory into the other, which is pointless on the face of it. The nitty-gritty mathematical details are trivial compared to the semantic aspects, including the characteristics of the information elements. Take a look at Socionics benchmark lists. Einstein is typed as ILE, whereas under MBTI he is almost unanimously typed as INTP. Counter-examples abound. Thehotelambush 05:33, 25 July 2007 (BST)

Those are good points as well. I agree that looking at benchmark type lists is an important way to get a sense of what the different communities think about what the definitions of the core concepts are. Still, over time, I've come to see that the understanding of the core functions that I had under MBTI (the way I understood them to be that is) is less different from Socionics than I had once supposed. What seems to be different is the expected behaviors that result when those functions are in various positions in a person's type (i.e., Model A). It is the ramifications and analysis of these where the theories diverge most, and this accounts for much of the differences in how historical people are typed by the two communities. I also find the idea of a "super theory" interesting...that is, to look at the mathematical underpinnings, and then see how each theory branches off, in terms of what aspects of things people see the functions applying to. (And yes, the mathematics of a 4-dimensional cube are pretty basic, but if you view the semantics as themselves having a mathematical component, then it can get interesting.)

Ironically, your posts are evidence in this regard. The way you see what Ti is resembles quite closely what I always thought it was (before I was introduced to Socionics). I'll put some more comments below in a separate section. --Jonathan 05:57, 25 July 2007 (BST)

"if you view the semantics as themselves having a mathematical component" What do you mean exactly? Thehotelambush 06:17, 25 July 2007 (BST)

It's hard to explain, but basically, if you go beyond the realm of psychology and think of the information aspects, and try to define them as rigorously as possible, you can think of them as categories of different kinds of structure (or more precisely, of various aspects of any structure), which could then apply to mathematical structures, physical structures, and so forth. Another way of seeing it is from an artificial intelligence standpoint. Suppose you were to try to create a computer program that to some extent overcame some of the typical limitations of formal systems. Would taking into account the information aspects allow the program to form "strategies" that would make it more flexible than the typical machine...and could this be described mathematically? It's just a vision I have. Anyhow, maybe that gives a little clue as to what I mean. --Jonathan 14:07, 25 July 2007 (BST)

I'd like to see a list of the two sets of traits side by side, with critical comparisons. For example, what's the difference between MBTI-Ti and Socionics-Ti? In what way is MBTI-Ti lacking key distinguishing components or actually referring to other Socionic traits or dichotomies? This would be useful. If MBTI-Ti-auxiliary is described like Socionics-Ti-leading (which would be the case if an ILE/ENTP was identified as an INTP/LII) we could have a note of that. Basically, if the list was complete and concise enough, a person unfamiliar with Socionics who has determined their MBTI type, could read through it and "correct" the traits, and thus determine their Socionics type. Luke 06:51, 25 July 2007 (BST)

Good idea. I've been looking through MBTI typings, and a more thorough comparison - at least on a case by case basis - is definitely possible. Thehotelambush 07:38, 25 July 2007 (BST)

A few additional thoughts that you may want to consider in a comparison/mapping. First, the case-by-case considerations Expat mentions above are good; Dmitri has mentioned similar things in the past. Also, I've mentioned that a very big difference between MBTI and Socionics is that MBTI assumes that the more extraverted function is what determines how one handles the "external" aspects of one's life and determines the more observable behaviors. So, for example, someone with a Te auxiliary function should be very Te-like in handling daily affairs; that person should be highly structured, organized, etc. Socionics assumes the opposite...that the leading function has the biggest, most observable effect on how one lives one's life. I think a lot of the difference in analysis stems from those assumptions. I'll put one other hypothesis that has been put forth further down, related to subtypes. (And, if you're willing to go there and think that Tcaud's theories have any merit, you might consider them as related to these mapping questions.)

As to "In what way is MBTI-Ti lacking key distinguishing components": I think that in terms of what people produce, they're very similar. That is, if you look at the language used, etc., MBTI and Socionics probably agree more than disagree on what Ti looks like. However, in a person, Socionics views Ti, especially acc-Ti, as leading to what may appear to others as a certain obstinacy, a certain rigidity, a certain decisive strength that simply isn't part of the MBTI conception. --Jonathan 14:29, 25 July 2007 (BST)

By the way, on a different note...Luke, you're basically the zillionth MBTI-INT person to raise these issues. I have noticed that over and over again it is MBTI-INT people who raise this whole issue. Should we start a separate page about this phenomenon that happens in the West, called the "ILI/LII problem"? Actually, it may just be that due to the influence of combining Ne with rational types, and other factors (such as a possible asymmetry in the degree to which types use non-ego-block functions), the whole quadrant of introverted intuitive types has these "issues" (when combined with the relative lesser knowledge about Socionics in the West and the fact that most interaction about this is online) but only the INT types bring them up. --Jonathan 14:39, 25 July 2007 (BST)

I think that the reason why what you call "MBTI-INT persons" raise these issues is simply a refusal to accept that they wasted their time analysing a dead-end system and that it should be scrapped in favor of a better one. Also - stepping into the Fe realm myself - it may have to do with a natural assumption (or arrogance) by some in the West that a system totally developed in Russia can't possibly be better than the American one. I'm convinced that that plays a role in the minds of at least some MBTI enthusiasts, who assume that socionics is just a "rip-off" of MBTI or whatever. Expat 10:27, 26 July 2007 (BST)

Some comments. My position is identical to thehotelambushs's as in his entry above that starts with "No one has said anything about forbidding mention of MBTI --", the whole of it:

1) Jonathan, your comment above is totally superfluous, trying to persuade me that correlations between MBTI and socionics should be discussed. I challenge you to provide evidence that I tried to prevent its being discussed here, especially since I contributed to the J/P switch page. What I will do my best to prevent from happening is that MBTI permeates this wiki all over, as in Luke's original text in the Statics/Dynamic page. As THA pointed out, that is not a subfield of socionics, it is not essential to it, and socionics is not "derived" from MBTI in any way. So write pages on the J/P switch and correlations all you wish, but always separately, as hypothesis, not permeating pages where we deal with socionics.

2) Again as THA pointed out, Static=P is the J/P switch model, and for Luke to state, "So I'm technically "against" the J/P switch; I feel that Static=P is the unswitched model" makes no sense whatsoever.

3) Demonstrating this (the obvious):

- In Socionics, Static functions are Se, Ne, Ti, Fi ---> Extroverted irrational and introverted rational - obviously, Dynamic functions are Fe, Te, Si, Ni ---> Extroverted Rational and Introverted irrational - in socionics, for both introverts and extroverts, it is the first function that defines both the extrovert/introvert and rational/irrational dichotomies - in MBTI, it is always the extroverted function that defines that, so the second function for introverts, the first one for extroverts - the last two items above are what causes the J/P switch for introverts, assuming that the functional ordering remains the same in the two systems - if you say that P=Static, you are already contradicting the socionics definition that says that Ixxjs are Static, so the only way to make P=Static is via the J/P switch. Logically, P=static and J/P switch is not even a correlation, is two ways of saying the same thing. Expat 22:33, 25 July 2007 (BST)

What I was saying was that since MBTI originated the term "INTP" (for example) with the implied meaning P=Static, it's switching definitions to say that P=irrational. That's what I'm against. I'd prefer to still go by INTP even though I'm LII. The J/P switch argument seems to start with the presupposition that J properly means rational and P means irrational, and therefore we should switch from the MBTI titling to the opposite, i.e. an LII should go by INTJ. In other words, I'm in favor of the theory but against the practice and the set of definitions implied thereby. To me, it makes just as much sense to say "introvert, intuitive, logical, static" as it does to say "introvert, intuitive, logical, rational". Why should J and P necessarily mean rational and irrational?

Well, first, personally I care very, very little about this issue due to its zero relevance to socionics. But the answer to your question is that the MBTI descriptions of J behavior seem to suggest a sticking-to-decisions behavior, and of P, a decisions-can-easily-be-changed behavior, and those would seem to correlate better to socionics rationality and irrationality, respectively. If that is not correct, that would be the beginning of a lengthy debate in the 16types forum. Perhaps you should raise this issue there and see what happens. Expat 22:57, 26 July 2007 (BST)

General thoughts about mapping...

As to how one might approach relating the systems...Here's my basic observation (I know this needs much refinement, but I can't stay on long; eventually, this should probably be made more concise and extended in other ways and go in a separate page). Basically, the longer I've studied Socionics, and the more I've focused on what people who are knowledgeable in it have said, the more I've seen that the understanding of the functions really are quite similar. For example, for a time, I thought that Ti in Socionics was way different from Ti in MBTI. But if one looks at the "vocabulary" page that Rick started, or anything by anyone around here who others accept as an LII, it seems clear that it is really more or less what I always thought it was. However, what is different is the view of the behaviors normally expected with someone having Ti as a 1st function.

The view I came to under MBTI was that a TiNe type would be very circumspect, always questioning and never settling on any definite answer, and generally so focused on intellectual matters as to appear rather disorganized and even seen as a bit irresponsible by others (and, accordingly, being quite lenient in regard to expectations of others). Although people of a given type may exhibit a wide range of behaviors, this set of behaviors is, on the whole, more in line with how Socionists view a typical acc-Ni person rather than acc-Ti. --Jonathan 06:03, 25 July 2007 (BST)

No. Not acc-Ni. cre-Te. It does not work with IEIs who do "settle on definite answers" easilym especially those they get from SLEs. Expat 22:50, 25 July 2007 (BST)

Well, maybe the combination; I don't see SiTe types in quite the same way. However, I really don't see IEIs as being quite as obstinate or unyielding as you do. I think it has to do with the communication problem between acc-Te and cre-Fe. Basically, I think IEIs have a tendency to "tune out" criticism or "dry" facts. If I think an IEI's position is wrong (or, that is, an IEI of the sort that's particularly averse to criticism and Te input) and that I should tell that person, I might personalize it in story fashion like "Yeah, I once thought that way, and then this is what happened, ... which made me feel like xyz [a useful thing to add], and then I thought this other way and it turned out like that..." and because it doesn't sound like criticism and seems more "personal," they're more inclined to listen and be influenced by what I say, at least over the long-term if not immediately.

Ok, I was referring to that particular behavior only, you're right that it's an ILI and not SLI thing. Expat 09:23, 26 July 2007 (BST)

As to settling on answers they get from SLEs....Actually, despite the emphasis in Socionics on duality, I think a lot of people don't really have people who are their exact dual type in their lives. Anyhow, most SLEs aren't particularly dogmatic either. --Jonathan 23:23, 25 July 2007 (BST)

Whether they have SLEs or not in their lives has nothing to do with the point I made at all. If they don't have real SLEs in their lives, they will be inclined to expect from others what they expect from SLEs. Which is what people tend to do. And SLEs not being "dogmatic" is not the point either. They are very dogmatic about one thing - about being right about what they are saying in one particular moment, which is what IEIs are susceptible to. Expat 09:23, 26 July 2007 (BST)

Anyhow, I think Rick has stated a number of things that associate Ni with a certain view of life as being a bit mysterious, a certain constant forming of an ever-changing picture. And I've seen this in IEIs, even if Te input specifically doesn't have much direct positive influence on the process for them. --Jonathan 00:26, 26 July 2007 (BST)

The recreational use of Ti theory

In the past year or so, discussions about ILI vs. LII have gone back and forth in the16types.info forum, and it usually has to do with people who fit this profile but identify with Ti somehow. One possible explanation is that a number of ILIs engage in what might be called the "recreational use" of their 8th function...(Actually, Expat has posted a very insightful thread about that in the16types.info)....and so using Ti in a sort of recreational hobby of sometimes getting interested in mathematical proofs and that sort of thing, some people convince themselves that they must be acc-Ti, without realizing that the way they live their lives on the whole does not actually reflect acc-Ti at all. --Jonathan 06:03, 25 July 2007 (BST)

The Ti as activation function theory

Expat has offered another interesting hypothesis, which is that many of these people may be IEI, and hence they identify with Ti as something they need. Generally, this argument is connected with people whose viewpoints seem unreasonable from an LIE point of view, suggesting a breakdown in communication on the Te plane. --Jonathan 06:03, 25 July 2007 (BST)

What I have observed, more than once, is that someone will claim to be ILI (starting as INTP in MBTI), and then it becomes obvious that the person is actually Ti-Fe and not Te-Fi. Most people make the assumption that then the someone must be LII, but I think that IEI is more likely. Misutii posted a good thread about his own journey from INTP to ILI to IEI. I think there are many cases like his. And it's not about the "viewspoints being unreasonable from a LIE point of view", it's about how they go structuring and defending those points of view, which is different from LIIs. Expat 22:50, 25 July 2007 (BST)

The get rid of anything that sounds like J/P theory

Another possibility that has often been mentioned is that one must de-link the types so much from behavioral stereotypes as to dismiss that anything remotely sounding like J/P could have anything to do with type at all. From what has been written about the temperaments within Socionics, I think that would be an extreme position, and would require throwing out quite a lot written in Socionics that wasn't even influenced by the MBTI. --Jonathan 06:06, 25 July 2007 (BST)

Yes, but the problem is that at least the "pop" versions of MBTI draw the lines at the wrong places even in comparison to the temperaments. That is why I think machintruc and Rick had a point when preferring the (admittedly unyieldy) definitions for the temperaments by Gulenko rather than the MBTI-sounding "EJ, IP" etc. Again, the problem is the precise criteria for deciding whether you are J or P. Expat 14:41, 25 July 2007 (BST)

A dichtomy related to Gulenko's subtype theory

I and some others had proposed a few times that accepting/producing subtypes may be involved. The idea is that a somewhat good approximation for some of the "J/P" behaviors described in MBTI can be derived by considering the following dichotomy:

(Accepting subtypes of rational types) plus (producing subtypes of irrational types) -> J
(Producing subtypes of rational types) plus (accepting subtypes of irrational types) -> P

At any rate, whether one agrees, it would be interesting to investigate what the associated behaviors are there...it's sort of like making a Reinin-style dichotomy out of one of Gulenko's subtype theories. --Jonathan 14:31, 25 July 2007 (BST)

Role of the activation function

Another possible factor I've considered is the role that the development of the activation function plays. It seems to me that an LII with strongly developed Si is going to seem in some ways more laid back, more P-like, than otherwise. Similarly, perhaps an ILI with strongly developed Fi will seem more responsible than otherwise.

Further investigation...

Rick has mentioned many times that many of issues that cause people to question their type are more easily cleared up when discussed on person; I'm hoping one thing meeting each other in NYC will do (in addition to us all being able to meet each other and discuss stuff together) is to cast some further light on the range and behaviors associated with various types. --Jonathan 06:03, 25 July 2007 (BST)

I definitely agree with this. I was even mildly "shocked" at how obvious the functional preferences of a person become when exercises such as that with the apple really get going, when people cease to become self-conscious (or in the cases of those who remain self-conscious). But as for clearing up someone's type, this (as always) depends on how willing the person is about reconsidering their own type. Expat 11:05, 25 July 2007 (BST)