# MBTI Introverts: Does the socionics J/P switch apply to you?



## MNiS (Jan 30, 2010)

Grandmaster Yoda said:


> Yes but it's also worth noting that the functions under the top 2 functions (there are 6) do not correlate with the mbti functions afterwards.


The MBTI functions correspond to the four valued functions for the Socionics type.

MBTI INTJ is *Ni*, *Te*, *Fi*, *Se* which are the same four valued functions for the ILI which is *Ni*, *Te*, Si, Fe / *Se*, *Fi*, Ne, Ti. That's why it's often suggested that an introvert flips the last dichotomy when switching between Socionics, MBTI and vice versa.


----------



## RoSoDude (Apr 3, 2012)

The so-called "j/p switch" is definitely true for me as an LII/INTP. It's just a name. If P/J meant dominant rational/irrational as do p/j in Socionics, would people have the same issues to the same degree with type incongruity?

Ultimately my function ordering has to be the same, and it is. I don't see what all the fuss is about with function descriptions being different. Yes, Socionics and MBTI write Si differently and so on, but if you get at what the heart of each function/element is about, and then order your type based on the same axioms, whatever you name it it should be the same. Each system provides some different insights and some different angles by which one can look at type, but saying they're vastly different when their core elements are the same seems quite silly to me. #takingthehardlinepositionFTW



Dastan said:


> *Optimistic people would try to solve this by saying that the order has a different meaning in Socionics and MBTI and eventually each function has the same place or role in a type.* Others would say at least one system doesn't make sense.


You don't even have to be optimistic to say that. As others have stated, the function ordering of each system _is_ entirely different. MBTI is ordered first by valuation, then by I/E balance, while Socionics is by conscious/unconscious stacking first and so on. This is explicit in how each theory is written. Again, you could order it backwards, or shuffle it around however you like, it's all arbitrary. What matters is what the model says about the influence of each function position on personality. That doesn't necessarily indicate, of course, that what each model then says about each position is exactly the same as I and others would "optimistically" claim, but it is completely true that each model orders functions according to different principles. Would you doubt a thermodynamic property table's accuracy because it lists by pressure first instead of temperature, though they have the same numbers? Yes, that's argument by analogy, and I do really hate that, but it illustrates my stance on the matter.


----------



## Robopop (Jun 15, 2010)

I find socionics unnecessarily convoluted and it does not describe actual people especially in the case of introverts, it's like a ridiculous hodgepodge of the MBTI dichotomies and cognitive functions(in the case for the introverts). 

I'm an INTP and the closest socionics fit for me is ILE but I fit the IxxP temperament perfectly(which is really just JiPe instead of it's confused PiJe).


----------



## Dastan (Sep 28, 2011)

RoSoDude said:


> The so-called "j/p switch" is definitely true for me as an LII/INTP. It's just a name. If P/J meant dominant rational/irrational as do p/j in Socionics, would people have the same issues to the same degree with type incongruity?
> 
> Ultimately my function ordering has to be the same, and it is. I don't see what all the fuss is about with function descriptions being different. Yes, Socionics and MBTI write Si differently and so on, but if you get at what the heart of each function/element is about, and then order your type based on the same axioms, whatever you name it it should be the same. Each system provides some different insights and some different angles by which one can look at type, but saying they're vastly different when their core elements are the same seems quite silly to me. #takingthehardlinepositionFTW
> 
> ...


I see your point. Everything you say is based on your expectation that those 'core elements' exist. Step away from that premise for a moment and you may see what I mean. This whole matter is full of constructs and speculation and without any guarantee that there is one identical real pattern in our brain/psyche that all discussions and ideas here refer to. 

This is why I don't consider the pecularities of descriptions of types and functions and their differences irrelevant or unreliable. They show how people try to find the theories in real life and what makes them 'see' the functions working.

But I don't want to expand on this, I am sure there have been countless discussions already.


----------



## athenian200 (Oct 13, 2008)

Fractals and Pterodactyls said:


> So I'm curious whether the J/P switch applies to you or not.
> 
> Please list your MBTI type and your socionics type.
> 
> ...


MBTI INFJ and Socionics INFj (EII)

It doesn't seem to apply to me. I don't identify with Beta quadra at all. Socionics Se is too aggressive, and Socionics Fe is too loud/insensitive.

The MBTI version of Fe seems to fit perfectly, though. Being attentive to other's needs, being polite, attentive to social rules, compassionate, etc. Socionics Fe sounds more like a boisterous party where people are loud and insensitive, fixated on coolness, trying to create a good "atmosphere."

Same with the MBTI version of Se. I find myself eating too many sweets, etc. But aggression and territoriality... no, just no.


----------



## Entropic (Jun 15, 2012)

Dastan said:


> I see your point. Everything you say is based on your expectation that those 'core elements' exist. Step away from that premise for a moment and you may see what I mean. This whole matter is full of constructs and speculation and without any guarantee that there is one identical real pattern in our brain/psyche that all discussions and ideas here refer to.
> 
> This is why I don't consider the pecularities of descriptions of types and functions and their differences irrelevant or unreliable. They show how people try to find the theories in real life and what makes them 'see' the functions working.
> 
> But I don't want to expand on this, I am sure there have been countless discussions already.


That argument can be applied to type as a whole. If we are going to operate with a given theory, we need to at least accepts its premises that it exists. If we fundamentally question that, the theory falls apart so then what's the point?


----------



## MNiS (Jan 30, 2010)

Dastan said:


> I see your point. Everything you say is based on your expectation that those 'core elements' exist. Step away from that premise for a moment and you may see what I mean. This whole matter is full of constructs and speculation and without any guarantee that there is one identical real pattern in our brain/psyche that all discussions and ideas here refer to.
> 
> This is why I don't consider the pecularities of descriptions of types and functions and their differences irrelevant or unreliable. They show how people try to find the theories in real life and what makes them 'see' the functions working.
> 
> But I don't want to expand on this, I am sure there have been countless discussions already.


I think you're going to have to be more explicit. Otherwise it sounds like you're just coming up with some generic criticisms that don't really address anything related to Socionics.


----------



## Dastan (Sep 28, 2011)

ephemereality said:


> That argument can be applied to type as a whole. If we are going to operate with a given theory, we need to at least accepts its premises that it exists. If we fundamentally question that, the theory falls apart so then what's the point?


Not fundamentally question all the time, but just *not forget* that this all is highly hypothetical. This should be relevant in a topic that deals with comparing two systems like 'j/p-switch'. 

I personally would deal much more with the fundamental premises and possible alternatives instead of accepting some premises forever, forgetting that they are possibilities and not facts and then, based on that, creating a huge system with more and more premises, like Socionics.



MNiS said:


> I think you're going to have to be more explicit. Otherwise it sounds like you're just coming up with some generic criticisms that don't really address anything related to Socionics.


Each modell has its principles and premises. But when it comes to type descriptions, they don't just deduce or execute their theory and just put the functions together, they also try to converge to real life observations. For example, the SEI/ISFp descriptions seem to refer much more to what ISFP descriptions refer, not ISFJ. 'Lazy hedonist' =/= 'loyal nurse'. Also Fi in Socionics has more to do with interactions and relationships than in MBTI, so that it can 'take on the role' of Fe in MBTI's IXFJs. And Si in Scoionics has less to do with past experience, tradition and order (which many people would consider as 'core principles' of that function) and so fits better with P-ish spontaneity.

I am actually not criticizing the models, but the belief that they share an identical core in our brains/psyches.


----------



## Elyasis (Jan 4, 2012)

INTJ and ILI(INTp). Then again, I disagree with typing by dichotomies and Kiersey hasn't helped matters with regards to explaining the NTJ types. So that's just more my inner critic finding issue with models that don't fit my own.

Either way they are both the best fit for me that I can find among the two systems.


----------



## MNiS (Jan 30, 2010)

Dastan said:


> Each modell has its principles and premises. But when it comes to type descriptions, they don't just deduce or execute their theory and just put the functions together, they also try to converge to real life observations. For example, the SEI/ISFp descriptions seem to refer much more to what ISFP descriptions refer, not ISFJ. 'Lazy hedonist' =/= 'loyal nurse'. Also Fi in Socionics has more to do with interactions and relationships than in MBTI, so that it can 'take on the role' of Fe in MBTI's IXFJs. And Si in Scoionics has less to do with past experience, tradition and order (which many people would consider as 'core principles' of that function) and so fits better with P-ish spontaneity.
> 
> I am actually not criticizing the models, but the belief that they share an identical core in our brains/psyches.


Yes I agree with you that the descriptions for the introverted sensors are out of synch between MBTI and Socionics but none of which has to do with your original assertion that Socionics has some type of flawed premise because it's based on a construct of reality.

Are you backtracking now?


----------



## Robopop (Jun 15, 2010)

delphi367 said:


> MBTI INFJ and Socionics INFj (EII)
> 
> It doesn't seem to apply to me. I don't identify with Beta quadra at all. Socionics Se is too aggressive, and Socionics Fe is too loud/insensitive.
> 
> ...


Yeah the socionics version of Se sounds very Te, so if you identify with MBTI/JFC ESTP sensory logical extrovert will likely not fit, SLE seems to fit ENTJ a lot better.

They have Einstein typed as ILE and I think that is probably the closest fit to a JFC INTP.


----------



## Dastan (Sep 28, 2011)

MNiS said:


> Yes I agree with you that the descriptions for the introverted sensors are out of synch between MBTI and Socionics but none of which has to do with your original assertion that Socionics has some type of flawed premise because it's based on a construct of reality.
> 
> Are you backtracking now?


Flawed premise? No. Extremly difficult to prove and difficult to say if it can be proved or falsified at all, not flawed or illogical. Also that was referred to function and type models in general, not just Socionics. I would say especially Socionics is very speculative and hypothetical because it adds more information (-> it demands more from reality), like static/dynamic and relationships etc.


----------



## Elyasis (Jan 4, 2012)

Dastan said:


> Flawed premise? No. Extremly difficult to prove and difficult to say if it can be proved or falsified at all, not flawed or illogical. Also that was referred to function and type models in general, not just Socionics. I would say especially Socionics is very speculative and hypothetical because it adds more information (-> it demands more from reality), like static/dynamic and relationships etc.


I would say Socionics is actually more scientific in a way because its claims can be tested and falsified more readily then other type models.

Except for the self reporting bias. That makes things trickier.

The fact that it demands something of reality, and hopes to be a model that reflects reality, is actually a good thing. It makes it more than so many other "personality tests" on the internet. The ones that try to be as general and unspecific as possible so as to appeal to the greatest amount of people.


----------



## Entropic (Jun 15, 2012)

Dastan said:


> Not fundamentally question all the time, but just *not forget* that this all is highly hypothetical. This should be relevant in a topic that deals with comparing two systems like 'j/p-switch'.
> 
> I personally would deal much more with the fundamental premises and possible alternatives instead of accepting some premises forever, forgetting that they are possibilities and not facts and then, based on that, creating a huge system with more and more premises, like Socionics.


For example...?


----------



## Dastan (Sep 28, 2011)

ephemereality said:


> For example...?


That the intertype relations and further dichotomies (from Reinin, correct me if this is not a necessary part of Socionics) and the specific manifestation of all functions in a type (mobilizing, suggestive...) and clear allocation in blocks (Ego,...) exist and can be perfectly incorporated in the Jungian model and that they built a constant pattern. 



Elyasis said:


> I would say Socionics is actually more scientific in a way because its claims can be tested and falsified more readily then other type models.
> 
> Except for the self reporting bias. That makes things trickier.
> 
> The fact that it demands something of reality, and hopes to be a model that reflects reality, is actually a good thing. It makes it more than so many other "personality tests" on the internet. The ones that try to be as general and unspecific as possible so as to appeal to the greatest amount of people.


A good point principally, but Socionics does not describe people only on the surface level. Because it is more deductive than observation-orientated, it is more easy to defend it against criticizm by claiming false typing and false interpretation etc. And also a big part of Socionics 'truth value' depends on that of the Jungian model, which is difficult to detect.


----------



## LibertyPrime (Dec 17, 2010)

Robopop said:


> Yeah the socionics version of Se sounds very Te, so if you identify with MBTI/JFC ESTP sensory logical extrovert will likely not fit, SLE seems to fit ENTJ a lot better.
> 
> They have Einstein typed as ILE and I think that is probably the closest fit to a JFC INTP.


 how is Se like Te?

Te has been and will always be objective - impersonal logic even in MBTI.

Se has more to do with the force required to kick a football, punch people in the face, overcome a challange / opposition etc.  no? One requires Se perception in order to evaluate the force required (in the interpretation this is both physical and mental). o.o I see SE simply as *objective impersonal sensorial perception.*

As far as I know Ni-Te people value Se and Si-Te people have unvalued & strong Se.

Aesthetics and such belongs in the subjective sensing department aka Si.


----------



## thatdennis (Dec 16, 2013)

ISFJ here, and no it does not apply, I'm still an ISFj/ESI in socionics, odd :O


----------



## Pancreatic Pandora (Aug 16, 2013)

Robopop said:


> Yeah the socionics version of Se sounds very Te, so if you identify with MBTI/JFC ESTP sensory logical extrovert will likely not fit, SLE seems to fit ENTJ a lot better.


I see the similarities between the two types but there would be some things that don't match if we followed your example. First of all, you'd be a sensor in one system and an intuitive in another. Second of all, you'd be a J and an irrational type. And if we had an ENTJ switching to socionics, why would he pick SLE in particular when Te is the socionics IE most similar to its MBTI counterpart? It's still about efficiency and organization, it's even called "business logic". And if that person had a good understanding of the functions based on Jungian theory he'd know one of the types uses objective thinking and subjective feeling while the other does the opposite. If I had to type the person in your example I'd probably say he is an ESTP/SLE because I'd imagine he picked ENTJ over ESTP in MBTI given that sensors are usually undervalued and the view of ESTPs in descriptions is more of a carefree hedonist than anything resembling an ENTJ.



Random somewhat related thought: Beneficiaries resemble their benefactors? (and vice versa?)


----------



## To_august (Oct 13, 2013)

It doesn't apply to me. I'm ISTJ in MBTI and LSI or LII in Socionics (still not completely sure which one of them). I can't relate to SLI (ISTp), and I don’t feel like my dominant function is a perceiving one, any of them. Introverted logic in Socionics makes so much more sense to me as a dominant.


----------



## Entropic (Jun 15, 2012)

Pancreatic Pandora said:


> Random somewhat related thought: Beneficiaries resemble their benefactors? (and vice versa?)


It's possible. I mistyped as an EII for example, and I did for quite some time too lol. Similarly, quasi-identicals are often confused for each other hence some people seem quite adamant still that I'm an INTP/LII.


----------

