Socionics Personals
Eastern Europe
South America
Join now!

Introverted complexity No. 47
by Sergei Ganin

This article was initially intended to show a simple way of how to easily distinguish between Judging and Perceiving type of people. However during its preparation, the author came across an interesting material from the book entitled "The Myers-Briggs Type Indicator® - A critical review and practical guide" by ...
Bookmark and Share

Your Comments: 1+ 9+
C1 Do you find yourself pushed to finish what you start? I thought at first this meant the opposite to what it does. I read 'pushed' as meaning 'hard pushed' rather than feeling pressure to finish. It should be made clearer. Or maybe it's a language difference as I'm from the UK. -- RubyENFP
C2 @C1 Good catch. In fact the first set of questions describes J characteristics very well and second set describes P nicely. But this would obviously go against MBTI model. So it seems like Kroeger designed an alternative set of J/P questions only to invert the results to fit the model. This looks like a pathetic attempt to patch a fundamentally flawed system. -- Anonymous
C3 All the introverted p's I know are most definitely p's and not j's and visa versa. -- Anonymous
C4 I test as an Ip and IP in both socionics and MBTI -- Confused
C5 The MBTI test generally asks the proper questions to decipher P from J. It is just that the MBTI model of type functions is incorrect because it defines Thinking and Feeling as perceiving functions and Intuition and Sensing as Judging functions for Introverts. This is impossible because Thinking and Feeling are Judging functions and Intuition and Sensing are Perceiving functions. So for instance, they confuse the INTP/J functions. Their model has INTP as dominant Introverted Thinking instead of dominant Introverted Intuition and INTJ as dominant Introverted Intuition instead of dominant Introverted Thinking. In Socionics which is in my opinion correct, if a person's dominant function is Thinking or Feeling, then that person has to be a J no matter if they are an Introverted or Extroverted because Thinking and Feeling are Judgment functions. There is no such thing as a J with a dominant Intuition or Sensing function. Likewise if a person's dominant function is Intuition or Sensing then that person has to be a P no matter if they are an Introvert or Extrovert because Intuition and Sensing are Perceiving functions. As there also is no such thing as a P with a dominant Thinking or Feeling function. -- Anonymous
C6 C4: As do I, though I can sometimes force myself to answer IJ using MBTI questions. Look at the choices you have for your dominant/auxillary functions and use these as a guide to which type you actually are. Relying on the j/p distinction is not half as reliable, I've found. -- Anonymous
C7 I have a hard time knowing what “physical and spiritual, “and” emotional and intellectual self means here. More significantly, I am still not clear as to how choosing between the alternatives sheds any light on one's J/P preferences. Firstly, these words might mean very different things to different people. How is such ambiguity internally avoided or accounted for? How is one assured that the test taker's understanding of the terms is congruent with those intended by the test's creators? What if I struggle between my intellectual and spiritual sides? Or physical and emotional? It just seems easily susceptible to producing flawed results is all; whether due to cultural differences, delusions, social norms, and/or attitudes and biases, etc.- Hence, this fails to inspire complete faith in accuracy. This goes not only for the approach itself, but for all information stemming from it. Concededly, it might just be that I have difficulty understanding such abstract concepts. But how is one's subjective evaluation of him or herself, coupled with subjective choice or use of language, likely to produce even remotely objective results? Furthermore, how is the evaluation and application of the results in the affixing of labels and/or determining one's hierarchy of functions, justified given the arguably inaccurate approximations of individuals? Isn't the accuracy of such a method dubious by nature of the data used? Moreover, is it not also nearly impossible to test the accuracy of such results? Is the same not also true regarding the actual existence of the functions, hierarchies, and preferences themselves? Are not such targets and concepts so terminally fleeting, or so abstract that these attempts to delineate and distinguish boundaries between them rendered futile, given that the existence of what one seeks to measure is not yet established? If personality is a natural phenomenon stemming from a metaphysical origin, how do these artificial boundaries and catagories demonstrate their existence to the curious? You obviously can't use math directly. The only other "discipline" that attempts to measure that which cannot be directly measured, is statistics, when attempting to predict the future. Statistics are always wrong and always right. It is a measure of probability, and its limitations are hardly reassuring enough to state that it is a science- despite its use of the scientific method. I understand that this alone does not merit ignoring the subject entirely, but I find little comfort in the unqualified dogmatic adherence to the approaches articulated thus far. Personally, I sense a struggle between intellectual and emotional self, but how can anyone really know this is an accurate assessment? How can anyone really measure a personality within a small standard deviation and a small enough margin of error, when there is nothing upon which to base a comparison but more potentially inaccurate results provided by others within the given sample. Observation of patterns in one's internal world of constantly changing thoughts or beliefs is clearly impossible for any outsider. Proving validity of present or future states of mind, through patterns of behavior also fails account for psychologically altering or traumatizing experiences= most socionics “experts” make the bold assertion that one’s personality never changes- that parties are impervious to alter their own personality. At best, this and other approaches represent a belief regiment, more closely parallel to a religion, rather than a scientific discipline. Though I may identify with the ENFP descriptions for both Myers Briggs and Socionics, I also identify with their ENFJ descriptions- especially the Socionics description. I even see myself in the ENTP description. Perhaps my inability resolve this provides evidence of P preference, but I seriously believe that words and one's understood meanings are subject to different interpretations. Even, neurologists have a hard time distinguishing a difference between feeling and thinking. We all have emotions. We all have thoughts. We all have thoughts about our emotions, and vice versa. And there is little doubt that each affects the other to varying degrees at any given moment. How, then, can anyone put stock in the results rendered by these tools? How does inexact measurement of an inherently fuzzy area of interest, adequately justify the label of science? Obviously, I find it even harder to put stock in the subjective interpretations of word preference, and any advice or evaluation derivative therefrom. It does not help that articles and claims made by followers of, and leaders in, both the Socionics and the Myers-Briggs methodology, express such confidence in their respective theories- rarely qualifying their claims while articulating absolute belief through unwavering analyses. One is simply left wondering just where the heck this confidence comes from? If anyone can shed more light as to the merit of these methods, and/or the validity of the distinctions arguably afforded to test takers as a result of this or other examinations, I would appreciate a comment or reply. Or if you have any links to relevant, quantifiable data or references, that'd would be similarly awesome. Thanks! -- jon
C8 I have been an ardent follower of socionics for half a decade now. I have meticulously read almost every article published on the web about the subject with a burning curiosity and put these ideas into everyday practice INTENSELY, only later to be plagued by jon's question and similar problems.. While this tool is useful in typing people with very clear cut personalities.. i find it difficult to apply this tool to people like jon for precisely the reasons outlined above by him.. I think its so crucial to answer his question to prevent rendering this whole movement semi-redundant.. I say semi-redundant because there are useful ideas and lessons to take away from this effort. Nonetheless there are large gaping holes at important places which these ideas dont cover up for. I have also realized that the human mind is quite impressionable, because quite a few people i observed started funneling and tailoring data to 'fit' the system..and also modified their own behaviours to fit what they had read or heard. So i request anyone from the socionics think tank from where i have learnt so much..or anyone else who knows better than i do.. to tell me where i can find some clearly drawn lines with solid scientific/biological/medical facts and experiments to establish they exist at all?? -- satisfy my curiosity
Page 1 2
Would you like to add anything?
(When posting, we ask you to make the effort to qualify your opinions.)

Name: (leave blank for "Anonymous")