# Is the J/P Switch Valid?



## Dedication (Jun 11, 2013)

Shadow Logic said:


> Both socionics and mbti derive from Jung. When two things derive from the same source, you compare both to the source, not to each other. If you compare both to each other, all you are doing is arguing interpretation instead of trying to see how both interpretations relate to the source they derive from. I never understood how people can claim socionics is flawed because its not like mbti, of course its not like mbti they are completely separate systems. The thing is both systems derive from the same source, meaning they have a common core. To ignore the common core because you refuse to accept that both systems are talking about the same exact thing in two different ways, is quite foolish in my opinion.
> 
> Yes the J/P switch is valid only for introverts when switching from mbti to socionics, but thats because the systems have to translate over to each other. In socionics you're a J/P based upon the nature of your first function. In mbti you're a J/P based upon which of your two strongest functions is the extraverted one. Its a very simple concept, im not understanding why people are having such a hard time with translating these systems.
> 
> Those who are having trouble with understanding how both systems relate should go find Jungs descriptions of the functions, then when you are reading descriptions of functions from mbti or socionics, always go back to Jungs source to see how they relate to Jung. Jung created the definitions, all the systems built off of those definitions are just different perspectives looking at the same source, acquiring different views to show the different sides of each function.


Jung didn't create them out of nothing, he also had his sources, like the phenomenon that he was describing for example. I agree with you on the part that you should go back to the source, but the source doesn't stop with Jung.


----------



## Deus Absconditus (Feb 27, 2011)

Dedication said:


> Jung didn't create them out of nothing, he also had his sources, like the phenomenon that he was describing for example. I agree with you on the part that you should go back to the source, but the source doesn't stop with Jung.


All sources have sources, that I do agree with. Source of life derives from that what sustains life, earth, while the source of earth is from the galaxy, the galaxies source from a previous galaxy, and the source of all galaxies from the universe. If you can find a fact then you can find all facts that lead up to it. The number one is a fact, and all constituents of the number one are apart of the number one: 1/1000 of 1 is still a part of one just like 1/1000 of that 1/1000 of one is still a part of one.all the fractions of 1 is what "1" derives from, its sources.

With that said, Jung had sources also, and those sources had sources, and those sources had sources. Just like how 1/1000 is a source of "1" it is also a source of "2", but 1/1000 of "1" is of more importance to "1" than it is of "2" because 1/1000 of 1 is equal to 1/2000 of 2, 1/2000 is less than 1/1000 when dealing with proportion. Jung's cognitive functions would be equivalent to "1" while socionics and mbti are equivalent to "2". To understand "1" is to understand the parts that make it up, to understand "2" is to understand not only "1" but everything in between "1" and "2" because all of those parts make up "2". The smallest parts of "1" have less of an impact to understanding "2" than would, let's say, "1.2" would have on "2" and the smallest part of "1.2" also contains the smallest part of "1".

If you want to understand "2" its best to look at "1" than all of the parts of "1" because all the parts of "1" are inevitably also a part of "2". 1 being the source 2, and 2 being the derivative of 1. Now if you question the structure of "1" then by all means break apart all of its parts to find its flaw, but now we're focused on "1" instead of "2". If " 1" is not questioned and is taken to be truth then "2" will, at the least, be as factual as "1" is. So if we are not questioning Jung (1) but instead questioning socionics/mbti (2) then we need to see how consistent "2" is with "1" in relation. If "2" contains parts that are completely irrelevant to "1" then there is a flaw, but if "2" contains all parts that are relevant to "1" then we know it is, at the least, consistent in its soundness as much as "1". At the end of it all to understand socionics/mbti and their differences you must compare them to their source which is Jung. If you want to understand Jung then you must compare him to his sources, and if you want to understand those sources then you must compare them to the source they derive from and so on.


----------



## Kathy Kane (Dec 3, 2013)

delphi367 said:


> I believe that because Socionics uses concepts like subtypes, there is a degree of latitude for typing. I wouldn't find it implausible for an MBTI INTJ to be LIE-Ni or ILI-Te, and I think their type could still be argued to be INTJ in MBTI due to the fact that MBTI doesn't have subtypes.


I agree with this. 

Though, I find socionics to be shortsighted on some of their descriptions. I could easily combine both the ILI and the LIE descriptions to make a more accurate one for me. Where the MBTI descriptions for IJ focuses way too much on the judging aspect, the socionics focuses way too much on the top function (e.g. perception for IJ types.) 

In reality the first extraverted function is most "seen" in every type. So MBTI has the appeal for intraverted types, as the world sees our first extraverted type the most and the descriptions fit us well. Yet our true selves use the intraverted function the most, so it those descriptions almost feel superficial.

I could argue the Ip description from socionics is who we are and the Ej descriptions is how the world sees us. Though both are accurate as a combined description.


----------



## Entropic (Jun 15, 2012)

Kathy Kane said:


> I agree with this.
> 
> Though, I find socionics to be shortsighted on some of their descriptions. I could easily combine both the ILI and the LIE descriptions to make a more accurate one for me. Where the MBTI descriptions for IJ focuses way too much on the judging aspect, the socionics focuses way too much on the top function (e.g. perception for IJ types.)
> 
> ...


There's no way in hell someone would ever think I fit the EJ description. IP fits extremely well.


----------



## Kathy Kane (Dec 3, 2013)

ephemereality said:


> There's no way in hell someone would ever think I fit the EJ description. IP fits extremely well.


Your statement doesn't change my argument.


----------



## Dragheart Luard (May 13, 2013)

Kathy Kane said:


> I agree with this.
> 
> Though, I find socionics to be shortsighted on some of their descriptions. I could easily combine both the ILI and the LIE descriptions to make a more accurate one for me. Where the MBTI descriptions for IJ focuses way too much on the judging aspect, the socionics focuses way too much on the top function (e.g. perception for IJ types.)
> 
> ...


Orly? I'm ILI-Te, but still I doubt that I could be confused with a LIE unless someone barely knows me. My relatives complain a lot because I'm lazy and I don't help with chores, and I doubt as well that even my classmates could think that I'm an EJ type.

I've also read the descriptions, and even as a Te sub the LIE one doesn't make sense to me as I'm still a Ni base.


----------



## Kathy Kane (Dec 3, 2013)

Blue Flare said:


> ... I doubt that I could be confused with a LIE ...


I agree with that.


----------



## Entropic (Jun 15, 2012)

Kathy Kane said:


> Your statement doesn't change my argument.


Yes it does, because you use yourself as anecdotal proof why your understanding of how it works is correct. Let me quote:



> I could argue the Ip description from socionics is who we are and the Ej descriptions* is how the world sees us*. Though both are accurate as a combined description.


The important aspect is the part in bold, assuming this is applicable to all ILIs. I just proved your wrong using myself as an anecdotal example that no, this cannot be correct because it does not apply to me.


----------



## Kathy Kane (Dec 3, 2013)

ephemereality said:


> Yes it does, because you use yourself as anecdotal proof why your understanding of how it works is correct. Let me quote:


I put the Ip types into one category, as being seen as a combo of both Ep and Ip. I stick to my statement. 



> The important aspect is the part in bold, assuming this is applicable to all ILIs. I just proved your wrong using myself as an anecdotal example that no, this cannot be correct because it does not apply to me.


Your comment couldn't have possibly proven my argument wrong.


----------



## Entropic (Jun 15, 2012)

Kathy Kane said:


> I put the Ip types into one category, as being seen as a combo of both Ep and Ip. I stick to my statement.


Then you are changing the definition of what IP is which is no longer congruent with the actual terminological use of "IP". 



> Your comment couldn't have possibly proven my argument wrong.


Get some reading comprehension skills.


----------



## Kathy Kane (Dec 3, 2013)

ephemereality said:


> Then you are changing the definition of what IP is which is no longer congruent with the actual terminological use of "IP".
> 
> Get some reading comprehension skills.


LOL. Clearly my comments have zoomed over your head.


----------



## Entropic (Jun 15, 2012)

Kathy Kane said:


> LOL. Clearly my comments have zoomed over your head.


----------



## Kathy Kane (Dec 3, 2013)

ephemereality said:


> ...


I actually appreciate your interaction. It played out as if I had a subconscious ploy to confirm something I've suspected, but had yet confirmed. It's awesome when Ni does that for me.


----------



## MNiS (Jan 30, 2010)

Kathy Kane said:


> I agree with this.
> 
> Though, I find socionics to be shortsighted on some of their descriptions. I could easily combine both the ILI and the LIE descriptions to make a more accurate one for me. Where the MBTI descriptions for IJ focuses way too much on the judging aspect, the socionics focuses way too much on the top function (e.g. perception for IJ types.)
> 
> ...


I don't agree with your argument. It'd be very difficult to confuse an INTJ for an ENTJ in either system unless the person in question is deliberately acting like their extroverted or introverted mirror.

What I've noticed is that INTJs(ILI) behave more like ESFPs than ENTJs when they're trying to play the extrovert.


----------



## Kathy Kane (Dec 3, 2013)

MNiS said:


> I don't agree with your argument. It'd be very difficult to confuse an INTJ for an ENTJ in either system unless the person in question is deliberately acting like their extroverted or introverted mirror.
> 
> What I've noticed is that INTJs(ILI) behave more like ESFPs than ENTJs when they're trying to play the extrovert.


I didn't say anything about acting. I have seen that the first extraverted function is prominent for all the types. Te is the first extraverted functions for INTJs and we show it a lot. Intraverted functions are just that, inner functions. We don't show them nearly as much as we show the extraverted functions. 

When an INTJ is out of their inner world they will act like Se types, but that isn't acting either. It's part of the function make up. If we were to act it would probably be the functions we don't use that much like Ne/Si.


----------



## MNiS (Jan 30, 2010)

Kathy Kane said:


> I didn't say anything about acting. I have seen that the first extraverted function is prominent for all the types. Te is the first extraverted functions for INTJs and we show it a lot. Intraverted functions are just that, inner functions. We don't show them nearly as much as we show the extraverted functions.
> 
> When an INTJ is out of their inner world they will act like Se types, but that isn't acting either. It's part of the function make up. If we were to act it would probably be the functions we don't use that much like Ne/Si.


I meant acting as in behaving in a certain manner that's counter to your natural state. Unless you're ambiverted then the differences between an introvert and extrovert aren't exactly trivial and I think MBTI glosses over that fact by saying the only difference between an Ixyz and Exyz are the swapping of the functional slots. If your natural state is to be more concerned with your thoughts then being aware of your surroundings would be a deviation from your norm and you'd be acting differently than how your normally are. I wasn't implying that acting means fake.

Although not that Socionics is necessarily any better... it just goes full tilt in the other direction and tries way too hard to compartmentalize each type to be very distinct from the other 15.

So anyway, even though NTJs share the same extroverted functions I think the leading function is first and foremost the way a person views and/or orients themselves with the world and it's pretty clear that shades how both types project their extroverted self. Simply checking the INTJ and ENTJ subforums shows that both types, while similar, have different areas of focus, goals, problems, etc. Granted, it could be a massive case of the forer effect but the people who post seem real enough and not simply adhering to type stereotypes. Although sometimes reading through the ENTJ forum kind of gives me moments where I'm like, "really?". :tongue:


----------



## athenian200 (Oct 13, 2008)

Well, here's one of the main things that bothers me about this...

First, look at this description of Fe:

Lenore Thomson's Extraverted Feeling

I pretty much totally identify with this one. I can agree that that's me, that's how I behave in the world.

However, if I look at this one:



> Extroverted ethics is an extroverted, rational, and dynamic information element. It is also called Fe, E, the ethics of emotions, or black ethics. Fe is generally associated with the ability to recognize and convey (i.e. make others experience) passions, moods, and emotional states, generate excitement, liveliness, and feelings, get emotionally involved in activities and emotionally involve others, recognize and describe emotional interaction between people and groups, and build a sense of community and emotional unity. Types that value Fe like creating a visible atmosphere of camaraderie with other people. They enjoy a *loose atmosphere where anything goes, where people don't have to watch too carefully what they say *for fear of offending others. This means these types *try not to be too thin-skinned, taking jokes with a grain of salt. *However, they are very conscious of the fact that the way something is said is very important to how it will be received, so they tend to add emphasis, embellishments, and exaggerations here and there to keep people engaged. The best way to say something is highly dependent on the situation and the implied purpose of the exchange, so of course levity is not appropriate in some situations. Even after explosive arguments, these types find it hard to hold grudges, and* can tolerate people they in principle don't like, as long as the situation is primarily social and doesn't require too close contact.* They prefer misgivings to be out in the open; they believe that the silent treatment is one of the worst things you can do to a person, and only aggravates the underlying problem.


The bolded parts *really* bother me. I mean, I can identify with the rest of it, but the bolded sounds like incredibly rude or insensitive behavior. Peace would seem to be desirable, and I think someone who causes problems or upsets people is behaving badly. 

I don't believe that that puts me at odds with _any_ description of Fe outside of Socionics. I'm thinking it could be a difference between Russian and American culture, though. Perhaps people are less "politically correct" in Russia, so their Fe users reflect those attitudes? I know for sure that acting that way is likely to piss people off, so I wouldn't do it.

This is just one of what I feel are a number of important issues with these systems.


----------



## Tranquility (Dec 16, 2013)

Using the functions, you should find your type in both systems. However, they both determine static/dynamic with different factors, so using the 4 letter codes has potential for mistype in both systems.


----------



## Kathy Kane (Dec 3, 2013)

MNiS said:


> I meant acting as in behaving in a certain manner that's counter to your natural state. Unless you're ambiverted then the differences between an introvert and extrovert aren't exactly trivial and I think MBTI glosses over that fact by saying the only difference between an Ixyz and Exyz are the swapping of the functional slots. If your natural state is to be more concerned with your thoughts then being aware of your surroundings would be a deviation from your norm and you'd be acting differently than how your normally are. I wasn't implying that acting means fake.
> 
> Although not that Socionics is necessarily any better... it just goes full tilt in the other direction and tries way too hard to compartmentalize each type to be very distinct from the other 15.


This is kind of what I was getting at with my first post. MBTI and socionics focus on different parts of the theory, especially for introverts. Where MBTI focuses way too much on J/P, socionics focuses way too much on the first function.

My point is that we don't just act like our top function. INTJs have Te, which is extraverted and we show that function a lot. When we are around other people they see our extraverted functions. Our introverted functions are not things we want to share with others. That doesn't mean we become outgoing and social extraverts. It just means when we are in the company of other people they see our extraverted functions. Though our preference is always going to be our inner world. 



> So anyway, even though NTJs share the same extroverted functions I think the leading function is first and foremost the way a person views and/or orients themselves with the world and it's pretty clear that shades how both types project their extroverted self. Simply checking the INTJ and ENTJ subforums shows that both types, while similar, have different areas of focus, goals, problems, etc. Granted, it could be a massive case of the forer effect but the people who post seem real enough and not simply adhering to type stereotypes. Although sometimes reading through the ENTJ forum kind of gives me moments where I'm like, "really?". :tongue:


Of course we view the world first and foremost with our dominate function. That wouldn't change just because we are extraverting a lower function. 

I'm not convinced that the majority of INTJs on this forum are actually INTJs. Regardless, I do see differences in ENTJs and INTJs, yet that doesn't change my point. I never said we are the same type, only that we both are extraverting the same function. I find the socionics definitions of both to be fairly accurate for me. The parts I don't relate to in one could easily be swapped with the other.


----------



## MNiS (Jan 30, 2010)

Kathy Kane said:


> This is kind of what I was getting at with my first post. MBTI and socionics focus on different parts of the theory, especially for introverts. Where MBTI focuses way too much on J/P, socionics focuses way too much on the first function.


I agree. MBTI focuses too much on the dichotomies at the expense of accuracy. The P = messy and disorganized and J = organized and uptight are just four examples of how unduly categorical MBTI descriptions can be. Also, a small nitpick, but Socionics doesn't focus on just the first function. The theory bundles and examines the functions two at a time. The first and second, third and fourth, etc. They're called "blocs" which I guess highlights the political nature of the theory.



> My point is that we don't just act like our top function. INTJs have Te, which is extraverted and we show that function a lot. When we are around other people they see our extraverted functions. Our introverted functions are not things we want to share with others. That doesn't mean we become outgoing and social extraverts. It just means when we are in the company of other people they see our extraverted functions. Though our preference is always going to be our inner world.
> 
> Of course we view the world first and foremost with our dominate function. That wouldn't change just because we are extraverting a lower function.


I don't disagree with you on showing extroverted functions. It's just that the way they're displayed seem pretty different which should have to do with how they filter information and their thoughts. The whole Ni-Te vs Te-Ni order. An ENTJ, assuming their feelings aren't involved, are concerned with being reasonable above all which is checked by Ni whereas an INTJ seem to be fine with periods of irrationality which they can fully justify with Te. I think that's a major difference and one that I find Socionics explains much better than MBTI.



> I'm not convinced that the majority of INTJs on this forum are actually INTJs. Regardless, I do see differences in ENTJs and INTJs, yet that doesn't change my point. I never said we are the same type, only that we both are extraverting the same function. I find the socionics definitions of both to be fairly accurate for me. The parts I don't relate to in one could easily be swapped with the other.


Oh, no doubt a sizable amount are mistyped. I doubt the majority are mistyped but the ones that are seem to stand out a fair bit. But yes, going by descriptions reliable in any way, especially the ILI descriptions which are unusually narrow as are the SEE type descriptions. 

Sizable portions of the ILE and LIE descriptions would be valid for me too yet I'm neither and the part where I had a major disagreement with was saying you're really an Ip but appear Ej to the world. That's the MBTI equivalent of saying one has their real type and a workplace personality. The workplace personality isn't the truth in any way, it's a set of learned behaviors that are beneficial in contrived environment which is why I was disagreeing with you.


----------



## KraChZiMan (Mar 23, 2013)

I see there is an argument unfolding, and I claim support for the side which states that MBTI and Socionics cognitive functions are more similar than they are apart!


----------



## To_august (Oct 13, 2013)

It should be valid according to functions, but MBTI doesn't test for cognitive functions but uses dichotomies, and here comes confusion.
There is also a concept of vulnerable function in Socionics that corresponds well with inferior function in MBTI. For example ISxJ have inferior Ne and there is vulnerable Ne for LSI and ESI in Socionics.
Also Judging/Perceiving should be Dynamics/Statics but in my opinion they are more different from each other than similar.



> *Judging (J) - MBTI
> *
> 
> I like to have things decided.
> ...


----------



## Mr inappropriate (Dec 17, 2013)

To_august said:


> It should be valid according to functions, but MBTI doesn't test for cognitive functions but uses dichotomies, and here comes confusion.
> There is also a concept of vulnerable function in Socionics that corresponds well with inferior function in MBTI. For example ISxJ have inferior Ne and there is vulnerable Ne for LSI and ESI in Socionics.
> Also Judging/Perceiving should be Dynamics/Statics but in my opinion they are more different from each other than similar.


I've read somewhere that PoLR (or vulnerable) function in Socionics, corresponds to 7th function in MBTI. The way PoLR is explained isnt like inferior because inferior function is what the type seeks in life. 
MBTI Inferior = Socionics Suggestive



> 5. Suggestive Function
> 
> The suggestive function is also called the dual-seeking function. The subject finds it difficult to be overwhelmed by this element, since it perfectly complements and drives the activity of the leading function.
> 
> - See more at: Socionics Functions: Super-Id


----------



## Entropic (Jun 15, 2012)

To_august said:


> It should be valid according to functions, but MBTI doesn't test for cognitive functions but uses dichotomies, and here comes confusion.
> There is also a concept of vulnerable function in Socionics that corresponds well with inferior function in MBTI. For example ISxJ have inferior Ne and there is vulnerable Ne for LSI and ESI in Socionics.
> Also Judging/Perceiving should be Dynamics/Statics but in my opinion they are more different from each other than similar.





crashbandicoot said:


> I've read somewhere that PoLR (or vulnerable) function in Socionics, corresponds to 7th function in MBTI. The way PoLR is explained isnt like inferior because inferior function is what the type seeks in life.
> MBTI Inferior = Socionics Suggestive


I agree that the inferior function description doesn't quite correlate to the PoLR more than in terms of description. Take suggestive Ni versus Ti PoLR for an ESF(p) for example. What similarity is there? The J/P switch is only relevant for introverts because MBTI and socionics agree on how to denote type for extroverts. 

The inferior Ni description fits my girlfriend very well but she certainly isn't an Fe lead. That becomes obvious when I compare her to my ESF(j) grandmother. They have a completely different relationship to impersonal logic. 

Also, the PoLR function denotes a different kind of psychological role when compared to the inferior. The inferior is often described as being triggered by stress or being in "the grip" (I actually think this is an inaccurate observation of how the inferior works but I digress), but the superego block in socionics is more in lieu of Freud's use of the term where it plays the role of judgement between the external world and the ego block. Thus the superego block is more where we feel deficient and fear being critiqued of, as we are consciously aware of our deficiency compared to the super-id that houses the suggestive function where we may be vaguely aware of our poor relationship with it but usually not quite. We fear critique when it comes to the superego block and people may deal with that differently like pretending to be better than they are etc., whereas we often outright admit our deficiency with the super-id and seek help with it. The exception may be HA where people may try to exert egoic influence in the same way they would the ego block but may end up looking retarded but because it's partially unconscious they aren't aware that it does.


----------



## Rodrigo Blanco (May 28, 2013)

No. I think those who have a tendency not to read or analyse carefully might think so, but the more I look at the differences between IM elements and functions I recognize the distinction between the two models.


----------



## ai.tran.75 (Feb 26, 2014)

No I highly doubt so, I'm IEE socionics and enfp mbti- as to my partner is IStp mbti and SlI socionics so both P function there


----------



## Red_Setting_Sun (Jun 20, 2013)

I always thought the p/j in Socionics denoted whether the leading function is a judging function or a percieving function, in which case I like it better than the MBTI way of denoting whether or not the first _extraverted function_ is judging or percieving. I first and foremost consider myself a percieving person, since Ni is my leading function. What I extravert doesn't really seem relevant for capturing my essence, even though it might to others.


----------



## athenian200 (Oct 13, 2008)

I've actually changed my opinion on this topic, but with an important caveat.

The most common descriptions of Socionic functions going around the Internet, which all seem to be lifted from the same place, seem very inaccurate and biased to me. I don't know who wrote them, but I recently found that these are actually _*NOT*_ the original definitions put forth by the creator of Socionics.

When I found translations of the definitions written by Augusta in "Dual Nature of Man," I realized that I actually DO use Ni and Fe in Socionics after all. Her definitions were a lot closer to what I was used to from reading Jung.

There's a lot of misinformation and poorly translated conjecture going around, and the more insightful users of Socionics aren't able to correct it because most of them speak only Russian well. 

That is an important thing to remember with Socionics... a lot of the information you see in English has not been translated properly, or was written by third-hand sources.

So, the reason the functions appear different is precisely because someone screwed up translating and/or gave us a biased view rooted in personal experience rather than the original Socionic theory.


----------



## Kanerou (Oct 8, 2009)

athenian200 said:


> I've actually changed my opinion on this topic, but with an important caveat.
> 
> The most common descriptions of Socionic functions going around the Internet, which all seem to be lifted from the same place, seem very inaccurate and biased to me. I don't know who wrote them, but I recently found that these are actually _*NOT*_ the original definitions put forth by the creator of Socionics.
> 
> ...


Do you speak Russian? If not, I wonder if you can really say that so confidently. Also, please explain how you reconcile the difference between Jung's definition of Se and Augusta's.


----------



## athenian200 (Oct 13, 2008)

Kanerou said:


> Do you speak Russian?


No.


> If not, I wonder if you can really say that so confidently.


Whether I can say it confidently has little to do with whether I'm right or not. I may or may not be correct. I already changed my mind on this once, there's no saying I won't change it again. 

Let's face it, the issue is a mess either way. 


> Also, please explain how you reconcile the difference between Jung's definition of Se and Augusta's.


A differing emphasis. Augusta emphasized the zest for life as a general sort of driving attitude. Both seek to engage themselves fully in life. In MBTI, General Patton and Alexander the Great are considered ESTP, for instance. Both seek to make an impact.

With Augusta, the emphasis is on the desire of Se users to make an impact, while with Jung, the emphasis is on a pragmatic sense of reality and desire for newness. 

Sensing is probably the function that suffers most from the differences in definition, though. I think it's the most poorly understood of the functions in both camps, given how many Intuitives were involved in making these theories.

Feeling is defined well enough by Augusta, but gets twisted a bit by other users of Socionics.

Intuition and Thinking are very consistent between the systems, likely because Augusta was an NT herself.

I personally find that Socionics users have a slightly warped sense of what Se is, while MBTI users have a slightly warped sense of what Si is. MBTI users conflate Si with forms of judgment, while Socionics users conflate Se with forms of judgment. 

Both systems made a similar mistake in interpreting Jung's writing, they just made it in a different place.


----------



## aloneinmusic (Mar 1, 2014)

I have to say yes, but tbh I'm not completely used to Socionics yet. I used to think I was an ENFP in MBTI though, then I took a socionics test and got IEI which is INFp (INFJ in MBTI), then realising how unbelievably well it fit me, I researched more on INFJ and realised that it fit me a lot better than ENFP did. So while I'm not completely clued up on socionics or switching the P/J, it actually helped me work out who I really am.


----------



## cyamitide (Jul 8, 2010)

aloneinmusic said:


> I have to say yes, but tbh I'm not completely used to Socionics yet. I used to think I was an ENFP in MBTI though, then I took a socionics test and got IEI which is INFp (INFJ in MBTI), then realising how unbelievably well it fit me, I researched more on INFJ and realised that it fit me a lot better than ENFP did. So while I'm not completely clued up on socionics or switching the P/J, it actually helped me work out who I really am.


Did you switch your MBTI type after this discovery?


----------



## aloneinmusic (Mar 1, 2014)

cyamitide said:


> Did you switch your MBTI type after this discovery?


Yeah I did, I consider myself an INFJ. I remember doing the socionics test the first time and getting ISFp as most likely then INFp is second most likely, and I read them both and fit the latter much more. Then I did quite a lot more socionics tests down the line and kept getting INFp as a result somewhere so I gave in and researched seriously on it and found out that it basically describes my life and the way I view things. Never read anything more accurate.


----------



## Desiderium (Jan 31, 2014)

[HR][/HR]I wouldn't say it's invalid, but it's hardly what I'd call rule. I most prefer to treat them as different systems.

In my case the J/P switch holds true, but as the functions in socionics seem to differ a bit from the MBTI functions, I could definitely see how type could vary between systems.


----------



## S.A.D villan (Jan 8, 2014)

They way I see it, if these types exist, they exist independently of the systems. 
I see it as being the same functions but socionics goes into deeper depth.
That being said, I do think the j/p switch is valid. the difference being in that socionics defines j and p as leading with either a dominant perceiving function or a dominant judging function.
MBTI Judging on the the other hand seems to define more Te while MBTI's definition of perceiving is more Pe ish.
Assuming that the person is typed accurately, I think the j/p switch would be valid.
However, I do think its difficult to be typed correctly in mbti as there is no consistency in how the functions are defined and I think there is also a lack of understanding in a lot of the functions. Also, considering that mbti sort of combines behavioral dichotomies with cognitive functions, you can see how there might be a lot of confusion. And one more thing, I think there is a lot of bias in mbti that keeps people from trying to find there best fit type. I mean lets say you are an E4 and perhaps an Fi user and you score INFJ. You could actually be an INFP, ISFP or perhaps INTJ but why would you look any further when you're trying to keep the title of being " the rarest type"?
I think the fact that there are a lot of mistypes within the mbti community and that the descriptions of the types quite shallow keep people from seeing the fact that the types are actually the same its just that socionics goes into more detail and is not afraid of showing the darker side of the types.


----------



## fasc (Jun 23, 2014)

I feel like MBTI is a flawed and incomplete system. There seems to be less disagreement on what constitutes a type in Socionics, whether it's in terms of behavior or in terms of cognitive process, than there is in regards to Myers-Briggs types.

You have INTJs (supposedly ILI's) who claim to hate ESFP's for example, and seem to see absolutely no value in what they have to offer.


----------



## Tainted Streetlight (Jun 13, 2011)

fasc said:


> There seems to be less disagreement on what constitutes a type in Socionics, whether it's in terms of behavior or in terms of cognitive process, than there is in regards to Myers-Briggs types.
> 
> You have INTJs (supposedly ILI's) who claim to hate ESFP's for example, and seem to see absolutely no value in what they have to offer.


Kind of a brilliant observation here. I feel like the vast amounts of data on this website about people posting saying, "oh, I really like this type, or oh, I hate this type" could answer a lot of the theoretical discussion that we have about the J/P switch. Just seems like no one puts in the time to pull out the data


----------



## LibertyPrime (Dec 17, 2010)

@cyamitide

I have seen people who are rational dominant and sterotypically MBTI-J ish, so they end up being Fi-Ne INFJs for example and sterotypical MBTI INFJs who definitely have Ni as their primary socionics function aka IEI.

:sad:...its so damn confusing at times. Both test as INFJ, but their functions are not always the same.


----------



## Golden Rose (Jun 5, 2014)

I value cognitive functions over associations, so yes it is.
For example I'm an ILI-INTp, how could I be an INTP in MBTI when Ni and Te are part of my ego stack and Ne and Ti are part of my ego block? I mean, if I were to be mistyped and a LII or an ILE instead, I'd look into it but that's not the point.

The point is the switch is perfectly valid and explains why many INFJs actually score as EII.
They are INFPs who took the judging vs perceiving divide too literally and enjoy being a rare type.

I've already explained it in another post of mine, mistypes happen for two main reasons.
1) *Upbringing*
A sensor growing up around sensors might have little familiarity with intuitive functions but at the same time feel disconnected by other people, leading them to perceive themselves as intuitives. An ISFP with an ESTJ father and an ESFJ mother could easily be tricked into thinking they are an INFX. INTJ even if they are familiar with functions. Same goes for I/E, T/F and J/P.
2) *Wish fulfillment*
Water is wet, descriptions are biased and foggy and people enjoy feeling special. What else is new?
Except the fascination with INxJ types works precisely because people aren't familiar with them.
It's easy to idealize rarity, to think of them as dreamy geniuses who can see through people and are almost psychics. Much better than boring rules-stickler or dumb party animal right? But they don't know what being a rare type is actually like.
It's easy to understand other people and hard for them to understand you, you have to repress your Ni because people don't get it, you often worry whether you're mistyped because you can't seem to translate your mind into words. You feel lonely because no matter how close to people you might be, few people can get out of your skin. You're somewhat paranoid, you cannot understand why you have these vibes and get frustrated and you aren't the fun kind of rare type. Caught between wanting to be average and hating the idea. You analyze everything and I mean _everything_. No relaxing. Not so dreamy, huh?

Sensors are cool. They should stop being demonized because both Se and Si are totally kosher.


----------



## cyamitide (Jul 8, 2010)

FreeBeer said:


> @_cyamitide_
> 
> I have seen people who are rational dominant and sterotypically MBTI-J ish, so they end up being Fi-Ne INFJs for example and sterotypical MBTI INFJs who definitely have Ni as their primary socionics function aka IEI.
> 
> :sad:...its so damn confusing at times. Both test as INFJ, but their functions are not always the same.


I've stopped using the whole judging/perceiving, rational/irrational dichotomy for typing people. We're all really a combination of both of judging and perceiving traits; subtypes easily mess it up (LSI-Ses for example can be very scattered in their daily activities and actions despite being "rational" overall); and enneagram interferes with the whole thing (for example I know of ILI type 1w9 who is very conservative and repetitive in what he does every day). 

If anything it has proven to be counter-useful for determining types :/ and causes more confusion than it brings clarity.


----------



## VinnieBob (Mar 24, 2014)

both profiles describe me to a ''T'' pardon the pun, I do believe the differences are so miniscule that the J/P should be reclassified as a tri type


----------



## Figure (Jun 22, 2011)

fasc said:


> I feel like MBTI is a flawed and incomplete system. There seems to be less disagreement on what constitutes a type in Socionics, whether it's in terms of behavior or in terms of cognitive process, than there is in regards to Myers-Briggs types.
> 
> You have INTJs (supposedly ILI's) who claim to hate ESFP's for example, and seem to see absolutely no value in what they have to offer.


I agree with the above and think it's a good summary of the problem.

To add though, a lot of INTJ have trouble _identifying_ ESFP. They associate them with being over-optimistic, wild and crazy cheerful people who don't think before acting, and "do too much" - a lot of which goes more along the lines with socionics depictions of the ILI Conflictor, the _ESE_/_ESFj_, which socionics calls the "Enthusiast." Conflict is really just Supervision two-ways, and a lot of the criticisms INTJ on the INTJ subforum have of "ESFP" sound a lot like things they also have to say about ESTJ Supervisees - that they do pointless excess and don't get anything accomplished, that they are over-emotional, etc. 

Real ESFP/SEE can be dramatic and wild, but honestly their way of doing it comes across to me as more funny than worthy of being criticized. INTJ here rarely complain about being pursued (which is what ILI-SEE Duality is all about) - they complain about having emotions pounded onto them, being asked to hurry up for someone else, not being emotionally expressive enough, etc things that to me say "Fe" more than anything an SEE has ever imposed on me.


If we want to call these people MBTI ESFP just because they are enthusiastic, fine, but I think being an Alpha quadra type, valuing Ne, and visible Si is still part of the picture, and that Jung-wise, they are still ESFJ despite superficially looking like ESFP.


----------



## fasc (Jun 23, 2014)

Figure said:


> I agree with the above and think it's a good summary of the problem.
> 
> To add though, a lot of INTJ have trouble _identifying_ ESFP. They associate them with being over-optimistic, wild and crazy cheerful people who don't think before acting, and "do too much" - a lot of which goes more along the lines with socionics depictions of the ILI Conflictor, the _ESE_/_ESFj_, which socionics calls the "Enthusiast." Conflict is really just Supervision two-ways, and a lot of the criticisms INTJ on the INTJ subforum have of "ESFP" sound a lot like things they also have to say about ESTJ Supervisees - that they do pointless excess and don't get anything accomplished, that they are over-emotional, etc.
> 
> ...


You make a valid point. I think SEI-Fe is another type that people could take for ESFP.


----------

