# Translating MBTI INFx and INTx to Socionics



## sereneone (Aug 1, 2013)

Sylas said:


> Yes, after studying both MBTI and Socionics extensively for 8+ years I can say that's exactly how it maps out. Socionics INTj is MBTI's INTP, their INTp is MBTI's INTJ, INFp is INFJ and so on. Extraverted types convert to the same type, while introverted types go through a j/p flip. Katherine Briggs and Isabel Myers who created MBTI were describing the same typology of 16 types as was Aushra Agusta who created socionics. There isn't some separate typology of yet another 16 types out there. It's just one and same typological system. The problem is that a lot of people fail to recognize this. They fail to see that it's one and the same typology for different reasons. Over the years I've noticed that there are 2 commonly encountered causes for this:
> 
> 1) Plenty of newcomers to MBTI will prioritize type descriptions rather than cognitive functions when they go about typing themselves. They either never learn about cognitive functions, as happens to those who are still very fresh to MBTI, or never fully bother to comprehend them, or never realize that it is cognitive functions that are the foundation and the basis for type descriptions, and descriptions are only a secondary derivative and may vary author to author. Since they choose to go by type descriptions rather than functions, it never bothers them to type themselves into a Fi dominant type in one typology and Ne dominant type in another - if they can identify with type description they go with it, never noticing the absurdity of choosing such different dominant functions.
> 
> ...


I agree that once you derive cognitive function sequences, and look at just the ordering of the first two cognitive functions, you can pretty easily see that these two systems are describing a very similar group of personalities. I also agree it is very hard to type a personality correctly working from descriptions. Cognitive functions are the only way to really makes sense of test results.

The way judging or perceiving is handled for introverts in socionics obviously looks different.


----------



## Sylas (Jul 23, 2016)

Bad Bunny said:


> 99% of the perC community :kitteh:
> 
> View attachment 831883


Well it IS the same set of 16 types originally described by Carl Jung. 

It's not 2 sets of types, not 3 sets of types, or 20 sets of types no matter who Russians, Americans, Chinese, or Japanese attempt to describe it in their own language. 

You don't get to be 50+ different types any instance that someone describes a function differently or in a different language.


----------



## Wisteria (Apr 2, 2015)

Sylas said:


> Well it IS the same set of 16 types originally described by Carl Jung.
> 
> It's not 2 sets of types, not 3 sets of types, or 20 sets of types no matter who Russians, Americans, Chinese, or Japanese attempt to describe it in their own language.
> 
> You don't get to be 50+ different types any instance that someone describes a function differently or in a different language.


How do you translate I/E and J/P in socionics? Such a thing doesnt really exist unless you want to use some kind of reinin dichotomy. 
MBTI is a self assessment about how you see yourself. As for socionics, the clue is in the name.


----------



## Sidhe Draoi (Nov 25, 2016)

Good luck with drawing parallels from a system that seems to add brand new archetypes with new definitions of the functions.

I think the terms for Socionics being the same as MBTI is kind of lazy, to be honest.


----------



## Cthulhu69 (Feb 6, 2020)

I have got to the conclusion that when it comes to an introverted personality type, the letter on the axis P-J gets switched, when transferring from socionics to MBTI, and the other way round.
For example.
The ethical intuitive introtum. In socionics, it will be infj, because the first word in the phrase represents a cognitive function of judging. But in MBTI it will be INFP because their first cognitive function is the introverted feeling.
Or, the common case - I notice that the last letter in MBTI refers to whether they display a function of perceiving, or of judging. In introverted personality types the first cognitive function is something introverted.


----------



## Ocean Helm (Aug 25, 2016)

alyara said:


> No, you can‘t translate it that easy. INFJ is not automatically INFp. The various typing systems define the functions+attitudes differently. But: they operate with the same ‚archetypes‘. But these archetypes are ‚built‘ differentely. They just come to the same conclusion.
> 
> Here an example of the same (most similar) archetype in the various systems:
> Jung: Introverted Intuitive with Feeling INF (Ni-F-T-Se)
> ...


This is the closest we have to parallels of essence. If you name functions the same things and they take on different roles, it doesn't matter what the stack looks like if the essence is different.

This is not just the opinion of random people; it's also in line with the belief of Victor Gulenko (the most cited socionist), and multiple Russian language socionics type-sorting tools which use Jungian dichotomies in a way eerily similar to MBTI (J resembles j, P resembles p).


----------



## HIX (Aug 20, 2018)

Socionics and MBTI are the exact same thing 




INTP = LII

ENTP = ILE

ENTJ = LIE

INTJ = ILI

INFP = EII

ENFP = IEE

INFJ = IEI

ENFJ = EIE

ISTJ = SLI

ESTJ = LSE

ESFJ = ESE

ISFJ = SEI

ESTP = SLE

ISTP = LSI

ESFP = SEE

ISFP = ESI


----------



## Ocean Helm (Aug 25, 2016)

@HIX very, very compelling argument right there.


----------



## Red Panda (Aug 18, 2010)

alyara said:


> No, you can‘t translate it that easy. INFJ is not automatically INFp. The various typing systems define the functions+attitudes differently. But: they operate with the same ‚archetypes‘. But these archetypes are ‚built‘ differentely. They just come to the same conclusion.
> 
> Here an example of the same (most similar) archetype in the various systems:
> Jung: Introverted Intuitive with Feeling INF (Ni-F-T-Se)
> ...


The problem with this is that in MBTI, the P is a mixture of Irrational and Extraverted traits of Jungian typology. All P types in MBTI are described as being receptive and adaptable to their environment which contradicts Jungian Introversion.


----------



## Ocean Helm (Aug 25, 2016)

Red Panda said:


> The problem with this is that in MBTI, the P is a mixture of Irrational and Extraverted traits of Jungian typology. All P types in MBTI are described as being receptive and adaptable to their environment which contradicts Jungian Introversion.


I know I've probably said this before but MBTI P's are seen as both unadaptive to external judgment (due to Fi/Ti, which are subject over object even in MBTI) and also wanting to follow their own internal beat when it comes to time scheduling. There is no perfect translation of MBTI P to Jung but I think more things match with his introversion than with his extraversion. P answers like "be free to do things on the spur of the moment" and "most of the time do whatever you feel like that day" are not likely to be common attitudes of those who are receptive to external demands.


----------



## Red Panda (Aug 18, 2010)

Ocean Helm said:


> I know I've probably said this before but MBTI P's are seen as both unadaptive to external judgment (due to Fi/Ti, which are subject over object even in MBTI) and also wanting to follow their own internal beat when it comes to time scheduling. There is no perfect translation of MBTI P to Jung but I think more things match with his introversion than with his extraversion. P answers like "be free to do things on the spur of the moment" and "most of the time do whatever you feel like that day" are not likely to be common attitudes of those who are receptive to external demands.


The first sentence could be related more to the Irrational attitude of wanting to avoid decisions, but both seem to be about accepting whatever comes and acting accordingly. The 2nd may be something an introverted irrational could identify with but it's open to how one will interpret it based on their actual E-I preference, the whole of P as a theoretical construct wouldn't match them as good though. Which gives more reasons why MBTI questions suck lol.

One can't have a "highly flexible approach to life" (as told in the MBTI manual) and not be receptive to external judgment. Self-doubt is very common to Ps. 

I think the adaptation problems that can be caused by the Rational attitude are often conflated with Introversion. A T/F dom who's strongly Rational and E, still self-doubts and acts on himself VS the object, doesn't abstract it, has few control needs over it and sees the object as the guide over his subject, can have inability of incorporating products of his irrational functions to his decision making because he can't make sense of them. Example, an INTP who matches the above criteria but lives a sedentary life and even though he accepts that exercise is great objectively and he's wrong for not doing it, he has great difficulty because every time he tries it feels terrible so the supposed conditions don't match, it makes no sense and therefore has no motivation to keep doing it, the need for quick decisions excludes the irrationality of having to keep doing it for the body to adapt.


----------



## Soul Kitchen (May 15, 2016)

@Red Panda One thing I didn't quite cover during our previous exchange was the notion of extraversion and introversion as evolutionary strategies. This was one of the key points Jung made when he wrote _Psychological Types_, and this is something you allude to with your various posts about E/I and adaptability (or lack thereof). I think there's something to the idea that, between extraverts and introverts, extraverts would be more active in engaging with the external world (which you describe as receptivity to the influence of the object), while introverts would need more time to size something up before responding (which you describe as defence against the influence of the object).

David Sloan Wilson, an evolutionary biologist from Binghamton University, had conducted two experiments with rovers and sitters involving pumpkinseed sunfish. In one study, he put metaltraps in a pond. The rovers, being the first to investigate them, were the first to get caught, while the sitters were impossible to capture using those traps. In another study, he transported all the fish to a new environment. The rovers were most likely to begin exploring their environment and finding food, and they began eating five days before the sitters started, meaning they were more likely to survive in that environment than the less adaptable sitters. If there is indeed a temperamental link between rovers and sitters with extraversion and introversion, respectively, that would show some insight on Jung's part.

However, you seem to have this interpretation of J/P which is so different from what's in the MBTI, it can best be described as Red Panda's J/P. J isn't about defence of an inner idea or being a control freak. Case in point, INFJs (who, being both I and J, would hypothetically fit your notion of J = I) are described in the MBTI Manual as "sincere, sympathetic, unassuming, submissive, weak". These adjectives came from third parties who described individuals who produced I, N, F, and J on the indicator, without knowing they were describing an INFJ. Also, J or P isn't the same as being a rover or a sitter, because whether one is a rover or a sitter depends on how assertive someone is or how much initiative they take. You can be proactive in responding to the environment yet take a structured approach in doing so, so it's possible to be an organised rover. You can be so indecisive that you never take action, which is one way someone can be a disorganised sitter. In fact, if I had to compare the rover/sitter duality with another dimension, it would be with Big Five Neuroticism, not Conscientiousness (or J/P).

Here's an attempt at summarising your thought process.
1. _Being a rover/sitter goes to the core of what makes one an extravert or an introvert:_ Not going to disagree.
2. _Jung considered this a crucial aspect of his theory in Psychological Types:_ Agreed.
3. _In adapting Jung's theory into a four-letter model, Myers didn't adequately account for this crucial aspect of Jung's theory:_ I don't necessarily consider it a mistake. She developed dimensions which had the clearest connection to aspects of Jung's typology, such as T/F and S/N being functions he described, and J/P being based primarily on Jung's rational and irrational types. In my opinion, Jung's concept of extraversion and introversion made too many unwarranted claims about too many aspects of the psyche, which makes it harder to measure than Myers only measuring E/I according to sociability.
4. _However, there are several aspects of Jungian extraversion in P and Jungian introversion in J which Myers had incorporated, whether knowingly or unknowingly:_ This is where we're probably never going to see eye-to-eye. There isn't any linear connection between any of the MBTI letters and Jung's concept of adaptability. You're trying to connect one thing to another thing to fill a perceived hole, and "adaptability" is being used as a bridge word.
5. _Therefore, J/P is the most crucial dimension for discussion about the connection between MBTI and Jung:_ Setting aside my disagreements about J/P, it doesn't make sense to me to emphasise one dimension over all others when discussing said connection. Jung saw extraversion and introversion as a "complete package" with numerous traits which he saw as complimentary, not exclusive to each other. Hypothetically speaking, were one to claim Jung saw all extraverts as ESFPs and all introverts as INTJs, I would understand that viewpoint, but it wouldn't make sense to claim INTP better fits Jung's extraverted thinking type than would ESTJ, because that would blatantly ignore the roles of E/I and S/N.

Regardless of what Jung did or didn't get right, I respect what Jung attempted to do with _Psychological Types_. Up until that point, hardly anyone had discussed extraversion and introversion in a psychological context, and it's because of him those terms are in existence and are still in use today. However, while I can acknowledge his limitations when considering psychology was still in its infancy at the time, Jung didn't apply the kind of rigour which would allow his observations to be replicable. His types were derived from observing the patients who came to see him over the years; not exactly a reliable control group. Far too many of his observations about introversion were self-referential, whereas his observations about extraversion were based on the implicit assumption that extraverts are the opposite of him. The development of our conception of extraversion and introversion is a credit to human progress, not blasphemy.


----------



## Red Panda (Aug 18, 2010)

Soul Kitchen said:


> @Red Panda One thing I didn't quite cover during our previous exchange was the notion of extraversion and introversion as evolutionary strategies. This was one of the key points Jung made when he wrote _Psychological Types_, and this is something you allude to with your various posts about E/I and adaptability (or lack thereof). I think there's something to the idea that, between extraverts and introverts, extraverts would be more active in engaging with the external world (which you describe as receptivity to the influence of the object), while introverts would need more time to size something up before responding (which you describe as defence against the influence of the object).
> 
> David Sloan Wilson, an evolutionary biologist from Binghamton University, had conducted two experiments with rovers and sitters involving pumpkinseed sunfish. In one study, he put metaltraps in a pond. The rovers, being the first to investigate them, were the first to get caught, while the sitters were impossible to capture using those traps. In another study, he transported all the fish to a new environment. The rovers were most likely to begin exploring their environment and finding food, and they began eating five days before the sitters started, meaning they were more likely to survive in that environment than the less adaptable sitters. If there is indeed a temperamental link between rovers and sitters with extraversion and introversion, respectively, that would show some insight on Jung's part.
> 
> ...



Yes, Jung related those behaviors to E and I, like the fish. He mentions at some point that he observed a child who wanted to be given the names of all the objects in a room before she started walking.

I don't think the J/P have a linear relationship with I/E exactly, as in, I do think some rational extraverts particularly, may type themselves J in the MBTI, especially if they're conscientious. I know the MBTI wanted to test rationality/irrationality but they treat their Si and Ni types as Js and Ti/Fi types as Ps, because they also incorporate the idea of openness to the environment. Example: "In the Perceiving attitude, a person is attuned to incoming information." which is far more likely to be a Jungian Extravert than Introvert.

In the case of INFJs, I think both the F and them being NI (esp those who actually are N doms) doesn't produce the same behaviors on the surface that i.e. an ESTJ would have in the way they'll try to dominate or control. They're still feelers and usually empathetic and compassionate. Rather, this devaluation of the object comes mostly in the form of avoidance and reservation. In the manual, it says for INFJs: 

"Though INFJs are usually reserved, they don't hesitate to assert themselves when their values are violated. Then they can be persistent and insistent. Others usually experience INFJs as
Private, even mysterious
Intense and individualistic"

this behavior is consistent with what I've described, Js typically take the 'fight' to the object and the responsibility of change is first placed upon the others. In the case of INFPs shutting down when their values are violated makes them mostly become stubborn or retreat, which is more likely to happen to a Jungian extravert who has to turn to introversion for self-defense, so it's a weaker effect and often still followed by the feeling of pressure to adapt and emotions like guilt or self-doubt.
Other ways it manifests in FJs is their propensity to act on the mood of a group, or to do what is expected of them, i.e. they cry if it's expected to cry and if someone doesn't cry then they'll take issue with that. The MBTI sees this as extraversion but it's the opposite, because the key component in this psychology is that cognitive dissonance is resolved by the object changing and not the subject. In Jung's language, the libido moves from the subject to object. 

I think the general descriptions for E that Jung gives, as well as TE and FE are much conflated with S indeed. But if we follow the principle, those issues can be resolved. In reading Jung sometimes I do get the impression that he didn't manage to stay true to his own premises in some of the things he mentions, so I don't blame MBTI entirely on this or something, but it's a necessary discussion for those who are interested in the theories. The changes in attitude between dom and aux is a big issue when talking about the mbti/jung conflict but perhaps more importantly, the other 8 function theories based on them.


----------



## Ocean Helm (Aug 25, 2016)

Red Panda said:


> The first sentence could be related more to the Irrational attitude of wanting to avoid decisions, but both seem to be about accepting whatever comes and acting accordingly. The 2nd may be something an introverted irrational could identify with but it's open to how one will interpret it based on their actual E-I preference, the whole of P as a theoretical construct wouldn't match them as good though. Which gives more reasons why MBTI questions suck lol.
> 
> One can't have a "highly flexible approach to life" (as told in the MBTI manual) and not be receptive to external judgment. Self-doubt is very common to Ps.
> 
> I think the adaptation problems that can be caused by the Rational attitude are often conflated with Introversion. A T/F dom who's strongly Rational and E, still self-doubts and acts on himself VS the object, doesn't abstract it, has few control needs over it and sees the object as the guide over his subject, can have inability of incorporating products of his irrational functions to his decision making because he can't make sense of them. Example, an INTP who matches the above criteria but lives a sedentary life and even though he accepts that exercise is great objectively and he's wrong for not doing it, he has great difficulty because every time he tries it feels terrible so the supposed conditions don't match, it makes no sense and therefore has no motivation to keep doing it, the need for quick decisions excludes the irrationality of having to keep doing it for the body to adapt.


If you look at the test questions, Perceiving preference is not really connected at all to the definition of "flexibility" which could be connected to Jung's extraverts. The questions prioritize being free to deal with new situations as they come up as opposed to planning ahead of time, but never not on the terms of the actual person themselves.

The closest that it comes to anything else is the being fine "working under pressure" concept, but it's still phrased in terms of freedom as in freedom to procrastinate to where you end up in that time crunch, as opposed to planning things out to avoid it.

The big theme with the test P is just having that freedom to improvise, but *on your own terms*.

If the MBTI Manual says anything else, I'd say it's misleading at best, or it's possible that earlier tests were different. I specifically reference Form M because that is the main test they market today.

The MBTI was originally based off of (even for introverts) Jung's Extraverted Irrationals (P) versus Jung's Extraverted Rationals (J) but I don't even see many remnants of that in its current state.


----------



## Red Panda (Aug 18, 2010)

Ocean Helm said:


> If you look at the test questions, Perceiving preference is not really connected at all to the definition of "flexibility" which could be connected to Jung's extraverts. The questions prioritize being free to deal with new situations as they come up as opposed to planning ahead of time, but never not on the terms of the actual person themselves.
> 
> The closest that it comes to anything else is the being fine "working under pressure" concept, but it's still phrased in terms of freedom as in freedom to procrastinate to where you end up in that time crunch, as opposed to planning things out to avoid it.
> 
> ...



But I don't think the question of planning is necessarily a matter a Rational will necessarily care about. Planning is related more to wanting things to go a certain way over another, which is probably more related psychologically to introversion. Being Rational is more about things making sense than wanting to have a predictable future. I know people who type INP and are definitely Rationals and definitely Extraverts, which do delay decisions compared to Js, but largely because they incorporate many more factors and remain more open to new information compared to them, plus are also very analytical.

So, similarly for P, having flexibility and being open to random occurrences & spur of the moment things, is something more psychologically preferred by someone who is less afraid of changes and things not going their way. It's less a matter of whether the test explicitly states it's on one's own terms, but that the underlying motivation and psychology is likely to pick those that match.

A big flaw in the MBTI, is that it relies on behaviors and not motivations or psychology, so I agree there are people who will interpret the questions differently (like the 2nd one before), especially if they're not strongly E-I in the Jungian sense. 

Also it's important to note here that I consider the tested MBTI to be different than its theoretical base and when I criticize the theory I don't necessarily refer to their testing methods. I don't think they're doing a great job of matching these two aspects of it, especially since the manual has specific function stacks and a whole theoretical base of understanding the types which then they transfer to the results of the tests.


----------



## Ocean Helm (Aug 25, 2016)

Red Panda said:


> But I don't think the question of planning is necessarily a matter a Rational will necessarily care about. Planning is related more to wanting things to go a certain way over another, which is probably more related psychologically to introversion. Being Rational is more about things making sense than wanting to have a predictable future. I know people who type INP and are definitely Rationals and definitely Extraverts, which do delay decisions compared to Js, but largely because they incorporate many more factors and remain more open to new information compared to them, plus are also very analytical.
> 
> So, similarly for P, having flexibility and being open to random occurrences & spur of the moment things, is something more psychologically preferred by someone who is less afraid of changes and things not going their way. It's less a matter of whether the test explicitly states it's on one's own terms, but that the underlying motivation and psychology is likely to pick those that match.
> 
> ...


I like waiting to the last minute so that I can manipulate things to go my way. But my way is generally more according to a hard-to-define abstract internal ideal which does not have a definite link to specific external "objects".

The idea of a rigid future is very unappealing to me, a lot because I want my future to adapt to how I feel at a given point in time because I know that it is very hard to know what will interest me. I feel claustrophobic when I have to fit myself into a pre-determined external structure and one could even call it a lack of adaptability because I really just have trouble fitting myself into something that I hate doing which is why I would rather be free to manipulate my future schedule so I can avoid that feeling of trappedness.

I don't think this is unique to myself; Jung describes a lot of his introverts as very inaccessible to the extravert because they essentially follow their own light which exists internally as opposed to what is apparent to the majority of people.

I also do like making myself available for spur-of-the-moment decisions in the chance that something does really catch my interest but often it does not and I am not just going to reach externally, with my eyes on the outside looking for something to do so like Jung's Extraverted Intuitives who see prospective external "lights" and then get hyper involved in making them happen.

I guess when I'm to talk about MBTI I generally see it as defined by the test because that is the main product but I do agree it is used somewhat poorly when it comes to describing what the test result actually means and how they aren't willing to ditch the theory that at this point is fairly divorced from the test results. Someone could strongly get one type and then be guided to information which tells them stuff that isn't true about themselves because the test tested for something else.

Sorry for so much ranting about myself but I do think I make a decent case study of the introvert P.


----------



## Soul Kitchen (May 15, 2016)

@Red Panda You claim that introverts resist adapting to the object because they want to maintain superiority over it, to the point of forcing objects to change in accordance to an inner ideal so that the introvert doesn't have to change themselves. The very act of changing an object alone isn't enough to say someone is an extravert or an introvert according to Jung's theory. It's about why one would change an object. An extraverted thinking type would be interested in changing objects according to an external standard, because they have confirmed to that standard themselves and believe it's in the best interests of all to conform to it. An extraverted intuitive type would be interested in changing objects according to perceived potential in the external world, which it pursues egotistically, but ultimately out of interest in following trends rather than to realise a Platonic ideal.

I could argue about what Jung thought about assertiveness until the cows come home, but I prefer not to dogmatically follow one person's ideas from a book published a century ago. Assertiveness is a trait which has been statistically found to correlate with extraversion, not introversion, and that ties in to my earlier commentary about rovers and sitters. The evolutionary strategy of a rover requires assertiveness in pursuing opportunities that emerge, while withdrawing from the world to center oneself is not an assertive thing to do - although it does take inner strength not to conform to external standards.

One other point I want to bring up is the notion of "rigidity" you associate with Jungian introverts. Just because a Jungian introvert would doggedly resist conforming to standards doesn't mean they must therefore have fixed views on things. An example I've brought up before is Nietzsche, who Jung considered an introverted thinking type. His work showed a trend of continuously expanding upon or even contradicting ideas espoused in previous works, but he wasn't changing his ideas to accommodate the academic norms of his time. Nietzsche followed an intangible trajectory without any definite endpoint. He sought to flesh out his ideas to the fullest extent possible without overlooking a single one. Then you have Jung, who ultimately based his portrayal of introversion inextricably upon himself. Jung was akin to a factory of ideas. The apparent inconsistencies in _Psychological Types_ reflect the development of his type theory. Case in point, the functions he described in Chapter X came about because he realised people are different in ways not related to extraversion or introversion, but they weren't the foundation of his typology. Jung even dithered about his own type. At first, it was introverted thinking with sensation, then it was introverted thinking with intuition, and eventually he thought it was introverted intuition.

In conclusion, a Jungian introvert can change, but they change according to a Platonic ideal; the subject attains something of a metamorphosis without regard for external standards. Conversely, a Jungian extravert can rigidly adhere to external standards without ever stopping to consider what they themselves might value, thus development of the subject is stifled by conformity to the object.


----------



## Eset (Jun 7, 2016)

> Translating MBTI INFx and INTx to Socionics


Don't bother. Just focus on the Socionics types without MBTI in mind.


----------



## Red Panda (Aug 18, 2010)

Soul Kitchen said:


> @Red Panda You claim that introverts resist adapting to the object because they want to maintain superiority over it, to the point of forcing objects to change in accordance to an inner ideal so that the introvert doesn't have to change themselves. The very act of changing an object alone isn't enough to say someone is an extravert or an introvert according to Jung's theory. It's about why one would change an object. An extraverted thinking type would be interested in changing objects according to an external standard, because they have confirmed to that standard themselves and believe it's in the best interests of all to conform to it. An extraverted intuitive type would be interested in changing objects according to perceived potential in the external world, which it pursues egotistically, but ultimately out of interest in following trends rather than to realise a Platonic ideal.


Yes, I agree that extraverts will act on the object too, but not because of cognitive dissonance, but to emphasize it. The change won't be because they need it to be something they choose to. I don't think I claimed otherwise?



> I could argue about what Jung thought about assertiveness until the cows come home, but I prefer not to dogmatically follow one person's ideas from a book published a century ago. Assertiveness is a trait which has been statistically found to correlate with extraversion, not introversion, and that ties in to my earlier commentary about rovers and sitters. The evolutionary strategy of a rover requires assertiveness in pursuing opportunities that emerge, while withdrawing from the world to center oneself is not an assertive thing to do - although it does take inner strength not to conform to external standards.


Correlated to extraversion based on which definition of it? People are more comlpex than fish and tho animals can show us some basic manifestations of E-I they can't explain how they manifest in social interactions in people. A social introvert will have to be assertive to survive psychologically and this is what we mainly see in J types, who like to have the upper hand more often than not. Their behaviors are not with intent to emphasize the object but to keep their subject safe by having predictable outcomes in the environment.



> One other point I want to bring up is the notion of "rigidity" you associate with Jungian introverts. Just because a Jungian introvert would doggedly resist conforming to standards doesn't mean they must therefore have fixed views on things. An example I've brought up before is Nietzsche, who Jung considered an introverted thinking type. His work showed a trend of continuously expanding upon or even contradicting ideas espoused in previous works, but he wasn't changing his ideas to accommodate the academic norms of his time. Nietzsche followed an intangible trajectory without any definite endpoint. He sought to flesh out his ideas to the fullest extent possible without overlooking a single one. Then you have Jung, who ultimately based his portrayal of introversion inextricably upon himself. Jung was akin to a factory of ideas. The apparent inconsistencies in _Psychological Types_ reflect the development of his type theory. Case in point, the functions he described in Chapter X came about because he realised people are different in ways not related to extraversion or introversion, but they weren't the foundation of his typology. Jung even dithered about his own type. At first, it was introverted thinking with sensation, then it was introverted thinking with intuition, and eventually he thought it was introverted intuition.
> 
> In conclusion, a Jungian introvert can change, but they change according to a Platonic ideal; the subject attains something of a metamorphosis without regard for external standards. Conversely, a Jungian extravert can rigidly adhere to external standards without ever stopping to consider what they themselves might value, thus development of the subject is stifled by conformity to the object.


I don't think I ever said they have fixed views on things? Them being resistant to influence from the environment doesn't mean they remain unchanged, that's literally impossible. They will deny the influence as a whole tho, because they only abstract something that captivates them and discard the rest. And I don't mean this in the sense that they won't be aware of how the object influences them, I think that's something even extraverts will deny sometimes because it takes self-awareness, the introvert will simply be less influenciable whether they want it or not, and that's not just with people and social norms but any kind of information/stimulus. I think many introverts conform to standards but their motivation comes from needing to protect against new stimuli more than being influenciable, and then in turn will want for others to do so as well, to further reduce threat of new, uncontrolled stimuli.
It's good not to forget that though we talk about introversion and extraversion in more absolute terms, every person has a mix of both traits. 

I know Jung thought himself an introvert but reading his works and seeing him talk gives me the impression he was quite extraverted, but because of intuition and thinking he didn't fit in his society well (esp at the time) and this coloured his conclusions quite a bit. I don't see his approach to psychological study to match how NIs tend to see things, he's being very object-focused even if he derived some of this understanding from himself, he's trying to 'objectify' rather than 'subjectify' reality, when NIs tend to do the opposite, at least when I is very high and fights N for dominance.


----------



## Red Panda (Aug 18, 2010)

Ocean Helm said:


> I like waiting to the last minute so that I can manipulate things to go my way. But my way is generally more according to a hard-to-define abstract internal ideal which does not have a definite link to specific external "objects".
> 
> The idea of a rigid future is very unappealing to me, a lot because I want my future to adapt to how I feel at a given point in time because I know that it is very hard to know what will interest me. I feel claustrophobic when I have to fit myself into a pre-determined external structure and one could even call it a lack of adaptability because I really just have trouble fitting myself into something that I hate doing which is why I would rather be free to manipulate my future schedule so I can avoid that feeling of trappedness.
> 
> ...


I don't mind the self rant, but I've seen you talk in the other thread and say things I think are extraverted, but more characteristic of N over S. I find myself unable to relate to a big part of society simply because of the S vs N gap, because many of the things that are expected of me are generated by this, primarily. Other than that I'm quite extraverted, to my detriment in the past, and it's one of the reasons why I don't think an NFP is a default "FI" type. My engagement with people and things are primarily extraverted, especially IRL when body language and feelings play a part too. It's one of the personal reasons I was motivated and determined to figure out more about typology, the other being all the inconsistencies I was observing and things not making a lot of sense from a structural pov.
Anyways, I don't know your type and I'm not claiming you are extraverted, but to figure it out you'll perhaps have to consider if you're conflating certain things. Also does anyone really wanna be trapped doing something they hate? cmon.


----------

