Socionics Personals
North America
North America
Western Europe
Join now!

Questions & Answers
Question #1238604201Wednesday, 1-Apr-2009
Category: Socionics Theory j/p
Do you think “J” and “P,” might be highly limiting generalizations; a collection of traits that can be independent of each other, but are idealized as being together? For example, a judger seems to like the confines of a system, or way of thinking…perceivers probably don’t, they are just out there and take governing systems half heatedly. That’s why they appear less serious, its like they don’t let their conscience kill them (or don’t have a conscience to even have it exist as a threat). They seem to half-heartedly buy anyway anyone thinks they ought to be; never even occurred to them to do anything different. Or is the key to that, “less apt to”. At the same time, Js are supposed to be disciplined, though it’s also supposedly the intuitive that has trouble making themselves do things they don’t want to do. There are very serious and finely discriminating people out there, who try to be honest, but just can't get anything done, or remain consistent. Socionics is reminds me of the colors that the composer Scriabin assigned to the different musical keys. You don’t have a clue how the system was conceived, and it seems like there is something to get, but you always have doubts about there being any truth to it. It could just be one big introspective musing, that works in the introspective mental world of the lady who came up with it, and can be digested by all us introspective folks who can do what she did. Ever noticed how some people who seem highly experienced at life and wise, or conversely too superficial to get it, find it impossible to see the sense in Socionics, and just think it’s ridiculously esoteric. Perhaps that’s because it isn’t very real… This is all just a musing of mine, I’m not trying to be sarcastic or anything; I’m just wondering what other folks think. Not many ever talk about this on the site, so I feel a little arrogant even bringing this up, but it seems very possible. But actually, many observations seem very astute and extremely real in socionics. I’m just very iffy on how its put together through and through. Starting with the functions they pick to represent an entire personality type. There has to be more to it than that, and the functions sure as hell are not all encompassing. And, some of the functions seem interchangeable anyways. But Te and Ti, that’s a brilliant way to categorize a very astute observation, there are the thinkers who are more exploitative, and there are the thinkers who tend to simply and innocently seek to understand. Same could be said for the others. But that doesn’t mean its accurate. The first part was a distinct question regarding J and P, can be answered like a question. The second started as a validation of my doubts and went off, treat it as an article to think about and present your thoughts on. -- Grant
Bookmark and Share

Your Answers: 1+
A1 Well, I think socionics is bunk.... maybe just a little. keep in mind that everyone is a human. And based on that, we all know we're all capable of human-like actions, thoughts, feelings, etc. You cannot limit any action based on type. Let me quote A Tribe Called Quest; "When you bug out, you usually have a reason for the action, sometimes you don't its just for mere satisfaction." I guess just remember that a type is very basic. People are very complex. Its not like theres 16 different types of people and its the same story over and over. No. There an infinite number of bright, interesting personalities in the world, and don't let socionics confine that idea. -- Anonymous
A2 "J" means that one of the Judging elements (Te, Ti, Fe, or Fi) is the primary function. "P" means that one of the Perceiving elements (Se, Si, Ne, or Ni) is the primary function. Perceiving functions examine the world and try to determine "what is". Judging functions consider the world and try to determine "what ought to be". Socionics is all about the functions, unlike MBTI which seems to be more about what each individual letter represents. -- Krig (INTj)
A3 I think Grant makes a good point. Presently socionics is still to gross in its discrimination and demarcations. The types as defined by socionics are 'prototypes'. But not every person is going to be a prototype personality. Just take the INFj type for instance - the ones with quite well developed Ti are so markedly different from the ones with weak Ti. Socionics needs to make further demarcations within types, that is, create subtype descriptions. As for the J/P dichotomy...I definitely notice that it is not the simply all or nothing matter as the present theory describes it to be - I notice degrees of Judging and degrees of Perceiving behaviour across individuals. This is something socionics theory needs to accommodate. How though, I cannot say... As for those wise and life-experienced ppl who don't understand nor need least some of them are probably S types, concrete thinkers w practical intelligence that equips them for life. If you have street-smarts, you don't necessarily need books-smarts (the ability to abstract and understand stuff like Socionics). ~Shez -- Anonymous
A4 @A3 - Actually, there has already been quite a bit of work done on the topic of subtypes in Socionics. Viktor Gulenko has a detailed essay on the subject, an English translation of which is here: I think you'll find that all of the concerns about subtypes you mentioned are addressed in that essay. -- Krig (INTj)
A5 Okay, good points, I realize I left many loopholes and you still went along with it. A1 and A3, thanks. A2, thanks for the honest help, but I hope you can understand where my response that follows comes from to your various responses. I take offense(please don't take the tone in this to be condescending, its more accidentally and unfortunately defensive, and an attempt to mediate, which might be a really bad idea) though to the instand assumption that many people like you seem to have as to what is actually going on when I talk, that I haven't thought about it much or that I'm not very bright. So, To Krigg, in advance, I'll apologize for the sarcasm and the impression of passive agression you might get: I'm trying to represent a viewpoint that many have not thought of because they instantly understand all the implications and never bother to get creative in their understanding because of this, and made sacrifices to do it. It was a gamble, some would understant, others would berrate, don't pretend you aren't. But, I guess if you see the whole of it instantly, why bother? And then, it sure does people who don't a service to show them that you do when they already know you do. Plus "the whole" is not everything there is to it in fact, its just a stupid summary, its not whats really there. My god, I've bitterly taken to heart your typing of me as an ISTJ, don't you see how my understanding speaks through my actions? I knew I would look like an ISTJ when I wrote that message. I am not a fool. Sorry if you don't think this applies to you, I hope you can accept the validity of my feelings. -- Grant
A6 Grant, he can't unhurt your feelings, so what are you hoping to accomplish by telling him all of this? Why are you placing your bleeding heart out in the open, and making mountains out of non-existent molehills? Krig simply outlined the basic mechanism of the J/P distinction. That's it. Those are the only words he wrote. Any conclusions that you've drawn have been entirely of your own creation, and completely unecessary. Feelings don't have validity when nothing was said towards those feelings in the first place. -- INTj laddie
A7 Okay, but I'm not referring specifically to this instance. I don't care if what you or krigg were saying made sense to you, krigg was not showing evidence in his other posts of even considering to respect my point of view. You are continuing to snuff the life out of whatever I have going, why do you feel compelled to do this? Also, its asking alot of me, to continue to talk to me in this way, because you know I don't like it, regardless of your supposed intentions. If you don't have sympathy for me, you are not going to help me by laying down the law, you are just going to make me frustrated. Please, just leave me alone and let the people who can help me answer my questions. -- Grant
A8 He didn't show evidence of not respecting your point of view either. Respect for a point of view does not mean agreeing with it. Krigg and others have been trying to help you, but you react like a child in every instance in which an opposing view is presented to you, as if this were a personal attack to your ego. No one's here to hurt you, but you're trying to make it as if they are. I have utmost empathy for you, but you've created a victim mentality for yourself, and if you maintain this closed mind, people will be unable to help you. -- INTj laddie
A9 LOL, i think what's happening here is that Grant is taking the INTj's lack of Fe as evidence of a lack of Fi, and based on that, taking offence. If you INTj's injected just a little Fe into the way you talked to ppl, you would get a much more welcoming response to your often accurate and well-thought out insights. Grant, I don't know what type you are, but I do notice that you tend to write with a great deal of detail, outlining fully your thoughts and not leaving anything out (pointing towards _S_j). You are also quite sensitive. You seem to have high levels of Ti analytical ability, and whilst your ability to abstract is also medium-high, your scepticism towards abstract systems indicates S again. Your introspectiveness and level of self-analysis indicates Introversion. put it all together and you get ISTj. I agree still w the observations Krig made, but I will add that we could both be wrong. Whatever socionics type you are, don't let yourself feel pigeonholed to what socionics says you are. There are many aspects of psychology and human behaviour that fall outside of socionics theory. -- Shez
A10 Thanks Krig for that link btw. Just had a read of it, and will probably read it again in more detail. Interesting stuff. Definitely more finely granulated theory than what I had previously read of subtypes (i.e. dom or creative function subtypes). -- Shez
A11 @A10 - Glad to be of service. I shall have to remember to use more smiley faces in my posts in an attempt to simulate Fe. -- Krig (INTj)
A12 Haha, good idea! ) -- Anonymous
A13 Wow, I was a young fool back then(mentally ill teenager). It's too bad I subjected so many people to that... -- "Grant"
*Please note that the opinions expressed are not necessarily those of*
Page 1
Would you like to add anything?
(When posting, we ask you to make the effort to qualify your opinions.)

Name: (leave blank for "Anonymous")

10 Most recent
By category
All questions
Submit a question