Socionics Personals | | Female Straight 16-25 Oceania Libra ENFj |
| | Male Straight 16-25 Middle East Sagittarius INTj |
| | Male Straight 26-35 North America Pisces INXj |
| Join now! |
Who is who?Learn how to convert between different systems
V.I.An introduction into the widely used Socionics Visual Identification technique
TestsA collection of Socionics related tests and quizes
Q & AsAsk a Socionics related question or provide an answer to an existing one
ArticlesVarious articles on the subject of Socionics and Types in general
ForumsWant to discuss Type? Head to Socionics Forums!
|
MBTI®/Jung: A bloody mess!
by Tom
I don't really want to cause any fuss, but there are a couple of things I think are long due for some serious "clearing up". To put it simply, MBTI® Introvert types are incompatible with the C. G. Jung psychological types that they are supposed to be based on. Why? Because the dominant functions of all the ... "irrational" MBTI introvert types are RATIONAL functions! The dominant function of ISTP, for example, is supposed to be introverted thinking, which is a rational function! Supposedly, this is motivated by the theory that the irrationality or rationality of any type is manifested in his behaviour in the "real world" - therefore, while extrovert irrationals have a dominant extroverted irrational function, the introverts have a SECONDARY extraverted irrational function! And the "rational" introvert types like INTJ and ISFJ have an introverted IRRATIONAL function as their dominant! What a bloody mess! OK, for those still in doubt, here I present a brief comparison of the MBTI types (based on their descriptions) with the Jung types (presented in his book "Psychological Types", which everybody here really should read).
1. INTP's and INTJ's. Based on their MBTI dominant functions, INTP's should correspond to Jung's Introverted thinking type, and INTJ's to Jung's Introverted Intuiting type. Here are brief summaries of Jung's description of those types:
Introverted Intuiting - ineffectual dreamers, mystics, fantasizers. Sometimes end up as the half-wit wise men in "psychological novels". Incredibly bad with communication (other people simply can't understand them, and they can't understand why), though not necessarily unsociable. Often attacked from the unconscious by a primitive extraverted sensing function which results in obsessions with visual images, places, faces, etc. Further, in the section on Introverted irrationals in general, they are described as good teachers who teach not with words but with their life.
Introverted Thinking - cold-blooded strategists, loners, theoretics. Arrogant, unsociable, having a certain disdain for others whom they consider stupid. Seem to others to be constantly angry, almost hateful. Completely certain in their opinions, strong will. Sometimes shamelessly exploited by strong women. Attacked from the unconscious by a primitive extraverted feeling function which makes them take every criticism, even fair, very personally (and later makes them seek revenge).
Note that MBTI would have INTP's as the latter type and INTJ's as the former! Surely the mistake should be bloody OBVIOUS!
2. INTP's, INFP's and ISTP's. Which of the latter two is closest to the first? MBTI would have both INTP's and ISTP's together, since they both have a dominant introverted thinking function, while INTP's and INFP's only share the secondary extroverted intuiting function. Which of them do you think go best together (simply judging from their MBTI descriptions)? And shouldn't ISTP's go together with ISFP's? And INTJ's with ISTJ's, rather than INFJ's? Take ENTP's and ENFP's - everything says that they are the two most closely related types. Make them both introverts and everything turns upside down! See? Now, what one starts to wonder about is why such a glaring mistake has not yet been fixed.
Now, what we want to explain is why many (including me) initially believe that the Jung description which MBTI leads to, is actually correct. I think that this maybe so because unconsciously we actually would like to be the sort of person described. For example, INTP's admire ISTJ's, so they accept the "introverted thinking" tag proudly, ISTJ's admire ISFP's so they are willing to be called "introverted sensing", INFP's admire ISFJ's, and so on. Socionics actually describes this intertype relationship as one of "benefit" - one of the two believes the other to be a wonderful and admirable person, while the other considers the first to be rather usual and not particularly interesting. I've actually seen this sort of relationship work in real life, so I think that it might be the case here. Well, whatever is the reason, I hope this mistake does get fixed some time soon.
Tom (INTP and "introverted intuiting").
|
|
C17 As descriptions of profiles for introverted "S" types are almost similar in the MB-theory and in Socionics, Composers (ISFP) = Harmony-Seekers (ISFp) Crafters (ISTP) = Crafters (ISTp) Protectors (ISFJ) = Guardians (ISFj) Inspectors (ISTJ) = Inspectors (ISTj), the question is: WHAT IS THE CORRECT FUNCTIONS SEQUENCE for these types? If it's true that "opposites attract" and may be the best intertypes relations THEN results of these intertypes relations can prove what are the "true opposites". The Personality-Page site gives as best and second best matches, assuming that -Composers (=Harmony-Seekers ) = FiSe: ESFJ and ENFJ -Crafters (=Crafters) =TiSe: ESTJ and ENTJ -Protectors (=Guardians) =SiFe: ESTP and ESFP -Inspectors (=Inspectors) = SiTe: ESFP and ESTP Socionics see these relations, assuming that -Harmony-Seekers (=Composers) = SiFe: ESFj as Mirror, and ENFj as supervision, one of the WORST ones -Crafters (=Crafters) = SiTe: ESTj as mirror, and ENTj as supervision, one of the WORST ones -Guardians (=Protectors) = FiSe: ESTp as supervision, one of the WORST ones, ESFp as mirror -Inspectors (=Inspectors) = TiSe: ESFp as supervision, one of the WORST ones, ESTp as mirror So, in order to know who is right and who is wrong put together for at least 30 years at least -100 composers (according to descriptions!) with 100 ENFJs -100 crafters (according to descriptions!) with 100 ENTJs -100 protectors (according to descriptions!) with 100 ENFJs -100 inspectors (according to descriptions!) with 100 ENTJs BTW Socionics already began observations about intertypes relations long, long ago and these observations let think that Socionics functions sequences are probably the right ones! -- piccolo_michel |
C18 WOW -- john |
C19 yessssss, someone understands. From the inner cosmic distance I KNEW socionics would set me free I'm IEI, and I am so silly Must have been my daydreamy Ni From the shackles of a system Without the aid of a INTp MBTI it makes us drool The masses are growing some growing pains INFp is the ultimate Fool So in my palace this stuff remains. -- slanko |
C20 INTP - I freaking hate every ISTJ I've ever met, in my entire life, except for my maternal grandfather. On another note, I fit both of those things very well, as I'm quite the dreamer, and am entirely capable of being quite rational. I question if, not being neurotypical (High-Functioning Autism), the standards of this system don't apply to me at all, as in myself, I notice very strong introvert functions and very weak extrovert functions (with the exception of Ne, which is above average in me). My dominant is definitely Ti, no question, but I think my Ni is stronger than my Ne, and my Fi is fairly strong as well. My Fe is completely useless (as I'd imagine it probably is in all those on the autistic spectrum). Perhaps this doesn't happen with neurotypicals, but it seems to apply to me. It is possible there is much I don't understand, and have left things out, though I hope that's not the case, but correction would be appreciated. -- Anonymous |
C21 I am an INFJ in MBTI, Introverted Thinking with Intuition in JCF, and INTj in Socionics. Why the INFJ in MBTI when my JCF and Sociotype both correlate to TiN? -- EE |
C22 Jung said that Ni types find it difficult to express themselves in a way that others can understand what they are saying. This guy clearly exhibits Ni since the majority of people here could not understand what he is trying to say. I agree wholeheartedly with him on this argument. MBTI is a mess. The definitions of the functions don't match up to the definitions of the types. Case in point, the ISFJ is said to use Fe, yet is described as holding their feelings in. And is described in the very same way Jung defined Fi. They also took the definition of Si and changed it's meaning to be related to storing facts from the past. Jung defined is more along the lines of how an artist subjectively views the world, which is more inline with the ISFp and ISTp. I feel your pain man. No one else seems to get these glaringly obvious contradictions. Take heart in the fact that you are cleverer than most people to have spotted it. -- Anonymous |
|
Would you like to add anything? |
( When posting, we ask you to make the effort to qualify your opinions.)
|
|