What is the primary typology used on this forum?
I keep running into the exact same problem on every typology forum. They can’t seem to decide between MBTI/Enneagrams/Socionics/Other Jungian. They usually end up using some hybrid. It seems to be a general consensus that MBTI is a useful psychology for beginner typing, while socionics decides to mostly discredit MBTI. I think both cases are wrong because both typologies should be used in tandem. Sometimes its easier to type someone using MBTI dichotomies and then use the result as a base for understanding the Jungian functions combination.
I personally prefer to reference Socionics using MBTI notation. This is a much easier and much more recognizable form. For one paragraph I’ll switch to socionic notation. The conversions from MBTI to Socionics are thus: ENTJ-LIE, INTJ-ILI, ISFP-ESI, ESFP-SEE, INTP-LII. MBTI Type will be in (Brackets)
ILI(INTJ) are LIE(ENTJ) mirror and belong in the same quadra. If you’ve ever conversed with an ILI(INTJ) then it is easy to recognize why they should be typed J instead of P, because they are more adult, introverted intuition gives people a more understanding point of view and extroverted logic usually results in some positive action being performed. This is the essence of grown-up behaviour, understanding and working together. The grow-up behaviour belongs to the Gamma Quadra consisting of LIE, ILI, ESI, SEE. However, if you look deeper you’ll notice that their LII(INTP) cousins are actually much neater and more organized, sometimes anally. This is the true nature of typology. Surface appearances are deceiving while underlying psychological structure is protruding. Meaning that what you see can be faked, but the mind will eventually break the surface to reveal itself. The reason LII(INTP) are not typed as J in MBTI is because of their childish attitude. They are implacable and must have it their way. They do things because they feel good, not because they are the right things to do (This is a reference to pre, pro and post conventional moral stages)
I’m trying to make a case for switching to this form of notation. Many of socionics sites have already decided to copy MBTI and simply sub-capitalize the fourth dichotomy p/j. So you’ll see ISTp, INTj, ISFj, INFp which correspond to ISTJ, INTP, ISFP, INFJ respectively. This is a much better alternative to the literally-retarded three letter socionics notations. Try to figure out what these are at a glance, without memorizing them: EIE, IEI, EII, IIE, EEI, SEI, ESE, SEE, ESI. Did you spot all the fake ones? I didn’t and I wrote them. However, if I wrote ENTJ, ESTJ, ITSJ, INFP, ENFP, ISNP, ISTJ there is no mistake as to which ones are wrong. All of this leads me to my second question.
Can we switch to the commonly accepted Jungian Cognitive Function with MBTI notation?
It shows a general higher understanding of psychology while simultaneously displaying our ability to consider external inputs as well as the willingness to accept a more fitting truth. Surely the people on the ENTJ forums are here because they are somewhat struggling to comprehend the world. If we were to believe everything they say about ENTJs we wouldn’t have time to dote between all that evil-overlord/CEO conquering of the world we apparently accomplish before breakfast. I did read the other post about MBTI to JCF and many other posters attempting to shed it in a positive light but none of them actually made a call for action.