# Why do we insist that IxxJ=Ixxp and IxxP=Ixxj?



## SleepyZan (Feb 19, 2014)

Not quite sure how this adds up. Yeah the functions align between MBTI and socionics but looking at the actually people it makes more sense to me that judgers=rationals and perceivers=irrationals no matter whether your introverted or extraverted.

Anyone mind explaining to me whatever it is that I'm missing.


----------



## sergyu2500 (Feb 4, 2014)

That is the reason why I am more comfortable with the MBTI


----------



## Inveniet (Aug 21, 2009)

SleepyZan said:


> Not quite sure how this adds up. Yeah the functions align between MBTI and socionics but looking at the actually people it makes more sense to me that judgers=rationals and perceivers=irrationals no matter whether your introverted or extraverted.
> 
> Anyone mind explaining to me whatever it is that I'm missing.


Cause a person like me *evaluate everything I percieve* thouroughly.
But an Ni or Si dom don't they just percieve and have complex irrational inner worlds
that might seem absurd to the uninitiated once they manage to communicate it.
Problem is the oily layer of neccesary evaluation to communicate it,
hence we are not able to partake in it fully.
People who are those types can attest to having a world beyond every reason though.
The judger and perciever dichotomies do not really take into account that the IJs have allready tainted
the info with their aux. It is almost like trying to figure out what is going on outside, by observing how much light fall on the living room wall. You will learn more about the wall than the outsdie world.
You can probably distingush broadly between night or day, good and bad weather, but that is mostly it.


----------



## Grandmaster Yoda (Jan 18, 2014)

Confuses me how INTj LII=INTP in MBTI when MBTI describes INTPs as scatterbrained on one end and INTjs are described as rigid and close minded on the other end. I didn't read too much into socionoics so don't trust me there.


----------



## LibertyPrime (Dec 17, 2010)

...oh god I'm tired of explaining it...just fucking read some older posts :S !


----------



## SleepyZan (Feb 19, 2014)

hornet said:


> Cause a person like me *evaluate everything I percieve* thouroughly.
> But an Ni or Si dom don't they just percieve and have complex irrational inner worlds
> that might seem absurd to the uninitiated once they manage to communicate it.
> Problem is the oily layer of neccesary evaluation to communicate it,
> ...


So I believe your ISFP right? 

I'll use your type and ISFJ as an example. Now I'm just an INFP and can only use what I know from my long time ISFP friend and the collective of ISFJs I've known (using their MBTI type). If what I say is incorrect please correct me.

So according to socionics both types are equally strong in the same functions but they are valued differently. 
ISFj/ISFp
Fi/Si
Se/Fe
Ni/Ti
Te/Ne​
The above are the valued functions, the top 2 are found in the ego and the bottom 2 are found in the super id.

Now in socionics it is said that the dominate ego function (top of the list) is the one we typically indulge in the most and I can't remember if it was a MBTI or socionics temperament but one of the IP's characteristics is a constant accumulation of knowledge or honing of skills. Now Si is essentially taking sensory information and filtering through past experience and from my understanding those strong in Si can most accurately recall how the they felt during past experiences. Now the ISFP I know had to constantly produce works of art even though he really didn't have a need to do anything with it or show anyone he just constantly drew, made music, cooked, etc. simply to improve at it . From my point of view it is more of a compulsion rather then a means to gain external gratification from others. He would constantly switch to new things rather then listen, eat, or watch the same things over again in my opinion he saw no point in doing so because he could recall the experience easily on his own.

Now ISFJs I know Si translates itself differently where they cling to the things they know and on many occasions try to recreate past experiences. Ne is weak and unvalued to the ISFj and from what I know of the ISFJs I know many have an irrational fear of unknown possibilities (one ISFJ says she refuses to live by the coast because she's afraid there will be a hurricane). The ISFP doesn't have this fear and loves finding things that no one else knows about (in sort of a hipster fashion) I see this as a characteristic of Ne, if I'm wrong about that then I know that where ISFp holds Ne, ISFj holds Te in the same position. I haven't really meet an ISFJ that doesn't find satisfaction in doing paperwork that involves organizing information. ISFPs I know definitely don't share this same affinity.

There's a lot more swimming around in my head but I'll leave it at that for now. Bottom line is I see things like this and I can't help but see ISFPs as ISFps and ISFJs as ISFjs.


----------



## Inveniet (Aug 21, 2009)

SleepyZan said:


> Bottom line is I see things like this and I can't help but see ISFPs as ISFps and ISFJs as ISFjs.


Well since Myers probably was the same type as you I'm not really surprised that you want to run that direction.
Still it seems we merly disagree on the labeling here.
Not ot wonder since Ne/Si tend to feel that labels become some sort of sacred entity in my experience.
While for me a label can be thrown away instantly if it isn't useful.
MBTI and Socionics are for me *only structures*.
They are pointers, they _*only*_ point to patterns (Ni) in the objects I like to call Se objects.
Off course this is an alien and dark view of the world from where you stand.
For you I imagine that Ne brings more life to the whole thing.
What you are balking at in my experience is Ni's uncermouniously disempowering the intuitive object.
Reducing it to a symbol, making the labels makeshift and purely, 
a way to navigate a savage uncivilized existence.

I can't really help you on this.
We are merely hitting up on the shore of unreconciled polarities, forever at a subjective/objective war.
That is why we insist on it, it makes sense to disempower the flow you feel as vital.
There is no other logical explaination, we do it to keep sane, and you resist to keep sane.
So the stakes are very high, how on earth can we ever expect the other to back down?
*But we ignore it.*
Cause no matter how good we think we are with this material, none shall pass this barrier.


----------



## Hiemal (Jan 5, 2014)

SleepyZan said:


> Now the ISFP I know had to constantly produce works of art even though he really didn't have a need to do anything with it or show anyone he just constantly drew, made music, cooked, etc. simply to improve at it  . From my point of view it is more of a compulsion rather then a means to gain external gratification from others. He would constantly switch to new things rather then listen, eat, or watch the same things over again in my opinion he saw no point in doing so because he could recall the experience easily on his own.


That's Se. Se motivates its user to go out and do whatever they want to simply entertain themselves, gain experience/knowledge, and/or gain material resources. Your friend doesn't stick with the same things not because he already has experience of them, but because he feels the need to be doing something at all times or engaging some task. That is Se motivation. This is the reason ESxp's are powerful, aggressive, and expansive and the reason why INxp's want to be motivated/assertive but can't produce motivation on their own. This fits the example of Se perfectly, as your friend is simply doing these tasks for the sole purpose that he can get better at them (motivation to obtain something material, motivation -> physical skill, juxtaposing Ne, motivation to obtain meaning and knowledge *abstractly*, motivation -> "mental skill"*). Your friend is motivated to get better at art and practices compulsively, and that is why that example is Se.



> Now ISFJs I know Si translates itself differently where they cling to the things they know and on many occasions try to recreate past experiences. Ne is weak and unvalued to the ISFj and from what I know of the ISFJs I know many have an irrational fear of unknown possibilities (one ISFJ says she refuses to live by the coast because she's afraid there will be a hurricane). The ISFP doesn't have this fear and loves finding things that no one else knows about (in sort of a hipster fashion) I see this as a characteristic of Ne, if I'm wrong about that then I know that where ISFp holds Ne, ISFj holds Te in the same position. I haven't really meet an ISFJ that doesn't find satisfaction in doing paperwork that involves organizing information. ISFPs I know definitely don't share this same affinity.


Your ISFJ friend is utilizing inferior Ne to cling to stability and comfort/sanctuary, the reasoning behind not moving to the coast is because of the possibility of a hurricane that could strike the coast could harm her or her family. This isn't unvaluing Ne, this is valuing it, because ISFJs can use it to justify their dominant perspective of maintaining stability. What the ISFJ lacks is Ne strong enough to open it up to a world of possibilities (Ne suggestive) that aren't just negative but positive as well, which can be easily supplemented by the ILE, who is competent enough in tracking possibilities to the point where it can pursue primarily positive possibilities while avoiding negative ones. 

Te isn't just about organizing information, though it is a directive of it. The reason why you don't see many ESI (ISFPs) organizing papers probably is because Te is the Suggestive Function, meaning that there is an absence of it that is difficult for the ESI to create on its own (like how the ISFJ can't produce Ne motivation or positive possibilities that well), meaning that they simply lack skill in Te related tasks. ISFp's, on the other hand, have an Extroverted Judging function ego, which is specifically Fe, meaning that they will be inclined to organize the environment to make others comfortable (socially or physically/ Si-Fe mechanism), which can include things like organizing files to give other people an easier time of finding the right file, etc (Fe sees it as helping others do their job, Te sees it as merely increasing efficiency, there's the difference). Ergo, ISFj's (ISFPs) would like to be efficient and organized (in a Te-Ni way) but are typically rather bad at doing so.

*ESxp's can vie after mental skill, but usually only do so for material gains, whereas ENxp's do so just for the stimulation and the knowledge/understanding itself.


----------



## AST (Oct 1, 2013)

MBTI stereotypes and function descriptions fail to capture the real essence of the actual Jungian functions and the patterns of cognition that result from their use. When these essences are accurately understood and ascribed, there is no confusion or conflict.


----------



## Ollyx2OxenFree (Feb 2, 2012)

You probably already know this but it's because MBTI determines J/P based on your extraverted function whereas Socionics does it based on your dominant function, which I find more accurate. I get where the confusion is but it's a bit more tricky for introverts. The MBTI J stereotypes fit EXXJs better because their dominant function is an extraverted judging function. IXXjs may be rationals but they prioritize refining their inward principles/beliefs and being consistent with them over organizing their environment and shit. Also, while Ixxps may be perceiving doms, they aren't often as outwardly spontaneous as Exxps (especially Si doms) so many MBTI P stereotypes would better fit EXXps. Just because you test as IXXJ in MBTI doesn't mean you must be IXXp in Socionics. I bet many IXXJs who score high in J are likely Ixxjs, too. There's many reasons why one may score as a J in one, a p in another, a j in both and p in both. I personally think many J questions in MBTI tests can be interpreted as Si+Te (valuing routine and order) so an INFp may type as a perceiver in MBTI too, for example, since we don't value those functions. Many just assume there's a J/P switch but that's not necessarily true as the two theories aren't the same despite their Jungian roots so one shouldn't convert so simplistically as if they were. The criteria for being a rational/irrational in Socionics is arguably a bit different from the criteria of being a Judger/Perceiving in MBTI.


----------



## ALongTime (Apr 19, 2014)

To my mind, Judging/Perceiving in MBTI is talking about something completely different to Irrational/Rational in socionics (and I think both dichotomies have value). It makes no sense to use the letters j/p to represent irrational/rational, I much prefer to just use the 3-letter socionics types when talking about socionics.


----------



## Bahburah (Jul 25, 2013)

It's because Socionics goes by what your first function is when determining if your a Judger or a Perceiver. 

With introverts the P and J will be flipped from MBTI because MBTI goes by your first extroverted function to determine if your J or P.

It only effects introverts though. 

I'm INTP and my functions are:
Ti
Ne
Si
Fe

In Socionics I'm INTj because Ti is a Judging function. 

In MBTI I'm INTP because Ne is a Perceiving function.

MBTI kinda makes more sense because J and P is about incoming information.
Because...

How can your introverted (subjective) function make judgments or perceive anything when it's inside of you and totally subjective?
Because if you have no internal information to perceive or judge your introverted function being first is useless.

Thats why you need to get information from your extroverted functions.

In my case that's Ne which is as perceiving function.

But my stack is still Ti -> Ne not Ne -> Ti
So Ti in my case just asks "Why?" and Ne answers.



So it's kinda fucked.

You still are using your first function first so in that case Socionics is right.

Yet your first function if introverted wont/can't function without some sort of outside stimulation so to use your first extroverted function makes a lot more sense because it's about incoming information.

So for me MBTI makes more sense.


----------



## Chest (Apr 14, 2014)

SleepyZan said:


> Not quite sure how this adds up. Yeah the functions align between MBTI and socionics but looking at the actually people it makes more sense to me that judgers=rationals and perceivers=irrationals no matter whether your introverted or extraverted.
> 
> Anyone mind explaining to me whatever it is that I'm missing.


dude, IEI is INFJ in mbti, end of story


----------



## Kanerou (Oct 8, 2009)

SleepyZan said:


> Not quite sure how this adds up. Yeah the functions align between MBTI and socionics but looking at the actually people it makes more sense to me that judgers=rationals and perceivers=irrationals no matter whether your introverted or extraverted.
> 
> Anyone mind explaining to me whatever it is that I'm missing.


Actually, this subforum is the only Socionics community I've come across where the majority of people claim that MBTI and Socionics types are interchangeable; it is very much the exception, not the norm, and that's why I spend practically no time here. The people I've come across who really understand the theory have typically discouraged people from trying to compare the two at all. With the title addressed, I have nothing to add to Ollyx's and ALongTime's posts except my agreement.


----------



## Entropic (Jun 15, 2012)

SleepyZan said:


> Not quite sure how this adds up. Yeah the functions align between MBTI and socionics but looking at the actually people it makes more sense to me that judgers=rationals and perceivers=irrationals no matter whether your introverted or extraverted.
> 
> Anyone mind explaining to me whatever it is that I'm missing.


It depends on how you understand the system. If you understand an INTJ as someone who leads with Ni and has auxiliary Te which the MBTI system claims that they do, then it must be equivalent to socionics ILI in that they too lead with Ni but has auxiliary (creative) Te. Different names, same cognitive preference. 

The J/P dichotomy in MBTI has always been sketchy like that, since it's the most removed from cognition.


----------



## ThatOneWeirdGuy (Nov 22, 2012)

_In my experience_, when converting introverted MBTI types into socionics the 'P' or 'J' can either stay the same or flip, due to how some functions or information elements are defined slightly differently, as well as Model A and the function order in Jungian typology. I don't know about the interchangeability of MBTI and socionics types beyond that point, but just based on the definitions and my observations, I don't think it extends past that. 

For example, I'm an INTP in MBTI, and an LII (INTj) in socionics. 

My grandmother is an ISFJ in MBTI, and an ESI (ISFj) in socionics.


----------



## cyamitide (Jul 8, 2010)

SleepyZan said:


> Not quite sure how this adds up. Yeah the functions align between MBTI and socionics but looking at the actually people it makes more sense to me that judgers=rationals and perceivers=irrationals no matter whether your introverted or extraverted.
> 
> Anyone mind explaining to me whatever it is that I'm missing.


You're missing a more holistic picture of it: that people are both judgers and perceivers, rationals and irrationals at the same time.

Each type can be both rational and irrational, and sometimes it happens according to the situation that they have to deal with.
For example:
INTP is rational on their Ti and irrational on their Ne.
INTJ is rational on their Te and irrational on their Ni.
They can switch between these functions depending on what they are required to do.

The J/P division is probably one of the most confusing and misunderstood divisions in the entire jungian typology, primarily because people think of it in black-and-white terms and don't see that each type combines both traits.


----------



## Frenetic Tranquility (Aug 5, 2011)

Actually, you do not "switch between" functions. Perception and judgment are not independent of each other - both happen in order to have a conscious thought.

The reason why perception leads are "irrational" is because there is more information perceived than there are judgments applied to those perceptions. When perceptions outweigh judgments, "hunches" or "visions" form. Judgment is still applied to these perceptions, but it is weighted as more irrational than rational, as the perception shapes where the judgment is applied.

For judging doms, the judgment dictates perception. So this leads towards "preconceived notions", where perceptions are filtered to match the expected judgment. This is considered "rational" because it's directed and has a specific agenda - to find information that verifies the judgment true.


----------



## LibertyPrime (Dec 17, 2010)

Frenetic Tranquility said:


> Actually, you do not "switch between" functions. Perception and judgment are not independent of each other - both happen in order to have a conscious thought.
> 
> The reason why perception leads are "irrational" is because there is more information perceived than there are judgments applied to those perceptions. When perceptions outweigh judgments, "hunches" or "visions" form. Judgment is still applied to these perceptions, but it is weighted as more irrational than rational, as the perception shapes where the judgment is applied.
> 
> For judging doms, the judgment dictates perception. So this leads towards "preconceived notions", where perceptions are filtered to match the expected judgment. This is considered "rational" because it's directed and has a specific agenda - to find information that verifies the judgment true.


o.o what about the subconscious? Everyone perceives and makes judgments subconsciously. This would apply there as well no? For example some people are not even aware why they think, feel or behave in certain ways because the judgments they made based on perceived information are not conscious ones.

Most defense mechanisms work this way, for example the need to be right often hangs upon a fear to be wrong, of which the individual may not be aware...etc..


----------



## Frenetic Tranquility (Aug 5, 2011)

FreeBeer said:


> o.o what about the subconscious? Everyone perceives and makes judgments subconsciously. This would apply there as well no? For example some people are not even aware why they think, feel or behave in certain ways because the judgments they made based on perceived information are not conscious ones.
> 
> Most defense mechanisms work this way, for example the need to be right often hangs upon a fear to be wrong, of which the individual may not be aware...etc..


If you notice, perception doms are also perception in the inferior (the inferior is largely or entirely unconscious, with a negative bent). And judging doms have a jusgment function in the inferior. So indeed, subconsciousness plays a part in this in everyone.

This is why, for example, ETJs can have a hard time in conflicts - they with unconscious Fi, have a negative bent of Fi and therefore tend to only see their side, and all the ways they are being wronged - all while seeing their perspective as objectively logical. Or take the INJs, with inferior Se. This causes their intuitions to be flavored with a level of vanity. They perceive others in very superficial ways at an unconscious level. But they see themselves as very non-materialistic and not judging by covers at all, seeing to the heart of a person, at least in the conscious sense, if unaware of inferior influences.


----------

