User:Aestrivex/essays/Contrasting JCF and socionics
This post was originally written by Aleksei. I'm putting it here, along with my criticisms, because it was overall really good. My responses always in italics
The most seemingly obvious distinction between the systems is that JCF is more of an input/processing system, with little regard as to what behavioral output it produces, whereas Socionics is more of an input/output system. The focus is principally on interpersonal relationships, so Socionics accounts for behavioral output, and the psychological impact such has on others. However, that's just a foundational difference -- when you delve deeper into the type system you'll find some differences so large as to make the two type systems nigh-irreconcilable. I'll start with these most obvious differences.
I don't really agree with this. actually socionics and JCF -- from what i understand of JCF -- are both operationalized fundamentally as cognitive lenses. i would specifically disagree that JCF and socionics are different inasmuch as socionics directly focuses on behavioral outputs and JCF does not; in fact, literature on both systems seems to dictate that the cognitive lenses that they described have a variety of effects on behavior.
the specific point about intertype relations is misapplied. indeed, intertype relations can be thought of just as easily as a cognitive lens as a behavioral output, as a personological effect of the receptivity itself to that information. while jungian theories do not account for intertype relations (at least in a widely distributed or systematically agreed-upon way), that speaks not at all to whether or not they describe behavioral outputs, which they do, and which you could find evidence of in plenty of descriptions of cognitive functions.
 Feeling/ethics functions
Right off the bat anyone with a basic grasp on reading comprehension (that is to say most of you, I hope...) could tell looking at Fe and Fi as they compare between systems, that they are not alike. Just for starters, Fi and Fe as pertain to JCF deal with ethical/moral values, whereas Fi and Fe as they pertain to JCF deal more in the realm of acual feelings -- or rather, moods and interpersonal distance to others.
Externalized sense of value. Belief of values and worth is dependent on the external surroundings. When our surrounding tells us that it is important to be respectful of friends and family, that is what we utilize as Fe value. When we accept values of the church, it becomes our Fe value. It tells us to adopt social roles based on our external surroundings.
Fe is generally associated with the ability to recognize and convey (i.e. make others experience) passions, moods, and emotional states, generate excitement, liveliness, and feelings, get emotionally involved in activities and emotionally involve others, recognize and describe emotional interaction between people and groups, and build a sense of community and emotional unity. Types that value like creating a visible atmosphere of camaraderie with other people. They enjoy a loose atmosphere where anything goes, where people don't have to watch too carefully what they say for fear of offending others. This means these types try not to be too thin-skinned, taking jokes with a grain of salt. However, they are very conscious of the fact that the way something is said is very important to how it will be received, so they tend to add emphasis, embellishments, and exaggerations here and there to keep people engaged. The best way to say something is highly dependent on the situation and the implied purpose of the exchange, so of course levity is not appropriate in some situations.
The only commonality between the two functions is their external focus -- Socionics is not necessarily other-focused in terms of actual values, and oftentimes this type of person has egocentric tendencies. In fact behaviorally speaking the patterns of behavior associated to best fit EP-temperament for JCF, regardless of whether the auxiliary function is Fi or Ti. JCF FJs are rarely this thick-skinned or blasé.
Internalized sense of value. Personal belief of what is right and wrong, what is important, and what is significant, regardless of the external beliefs. Fi does not concern itself of the outer world. It doesn’t care if the environment it grew up in set forth certain values or traditions.
Types with valued Fi strive to make and maintain close, personal relationships with their friends and family. They value sensitivity to others' feelings, and occasionally will make their innermost feelings and sentiments known in order to test the possibility of creating closeness with others.
This on the other hand I see frequently among FJs, which I frankly find quite irritating (that is, the sensitivity aspect). It's common as well among Fi types, but somewhat less so.
i agree that Fe and Fi are described somewhat differently and in many cases in accordance with values rather than emotional information -- but your analysis is incomplete in that it seems to downplay the common factors between the way Fe and Fi are described, and focuses on only one (potentially quite important) aspect of the way that feeling functions are conventionally described.
 Sensing/sensation functions
Going down the line, the next shockingly dissimilar function set is Si and Se; especially the former. In this case, Socionics definitions are less about raw intake of sensory data, and more about prioritization of it based on expectations -- Se types will focus more on external environmental expectations and push to achieve them, whereas Si will indulge more on the demands and needs of their own body
includes the ability to know how much power, force, or influence is latent or required. Types that value Se are much more comfortable with direct behavior aimed at making an immediate impact. This may at times be perceived as abrasive, particularly by types who do not value Se. There is usually a competitive edge to this style of group interaction, resulting in a more intense atmosphere than that of introverted sensing ()-valuing quadras. They appreciate contemplating possibilities only if they feel like they stand to gain something from it, or it has a perceived potential impact on "the real world".
Extraverted Sensing occurs when we become aware of what is in the physical world in rich detail. We may be drawn to act on what we experience to get an immediate result. We notice relevant facts and occurrences in a sea of data and experiences, learning all the facts we can about the immediate context or area of focus and what goes on in that context. An active seeking of more and more input to get the whole picture may occur until all sources of input have been exhausted or something else captures our attention. Extraverted Sensing is operating when we freely follow exciting physical impulses or instincts as they come up and enjoy the thrill of action in the present moment. A oneness with the physical world and a total absorption may exist as we move, touch, and sense what is around us. The process involves instantly reading cues to see how far we can go in a situation and still get the impact we want or respond to the situation with presence.
They look a lot alike, but some things stand out:
- Abrasive, volitional, impact-focused behavior in Socionics is concentrated into the definition of Se (due to its Decisive nature, as opposed to Ne/Si's Judiciousness. As such, highly aggressive and impatient N types often fall under this category.
- i would say this is true, but is a sort of common side effect rather than "abrasive" or "volitional" behavior following directly from processing of Se -- which by itself i see as almost exactly what you described above -- a focus, awareness, and prioritization of external demands.
- A point is made that Se types dislike theorizing when they don't see the usefulness of it, which means that an Se type could in fact be inclined to developing strategies and abstract theories and hunches, if they're useful -- they'd just discard the ones they think are bullshit at the time. This'd fit particularly well with JCF Ne-leading with strong tertiary Te.
- again, this is often true but a bit of a simplification -- rather than disliking theorizing, it would be more accurate in my opinion to think of Se (dominant) types as lacking in awareness of ideas or concepts that are not immediately relevant to the external demands of their environment -- rather than having a skepticism filter as you seem to be describing; actually i don't think they don't characteristically anything resembling a skeptical attitude at all, only that they in many cases will seem too impatient to pay attention to what you term as "theorizing"
is a Static element, and as such its conception of reality does not change moment to moment, but only when the environment changes significantly. JCF-wise his would fit best with Si memory-mapping, which means the best-fit types for Beta ST are STJs. However, it would also fit well with the tendency of Ne-dominance to collect information from its surroundings in large swathes to intuitively figure it out.
- obviously, as anyone aware of my ideas of aspectonics would know, i disagree with this.
Now let us examine the remarkably elusive Si
Si is associated with the ability to internalize sensations and to experience them in full detail. focuses on tangible, direct (external) connections (introverted) between processes (dynamic) happening in one time, i.e. the physical, sensual experience of interactions between objects. This leads to an awareness of internal tangible physical states and how various physical fluctuations or substances are directly transferred between objects, such as motion, temperature, or dirtiness. The awareness of these tangible physical processes consequently leads to an awareness of health, or an optimum balance with one's environment. The individual physical reaction to concrete surroundings is main way we perceive and define aesthetics, comfort, convenience, and pleasure. In contrast to extroverted sensing (Se), Si is related to following one's own needs instead of focusing on some externally-driven conception of what is necessary to acquire or achieve. So, whereas ego types feel capable to evaluate how justified others' preferences are, ego types will try to adjust to them in any way possible (given that it does not extremely affect their own comfort), wishing to minimize conflict. In contrast to introverted intuition (Ni), Si is about direct interaction and unity (or discord) with one's surroundings, rather than abstract process and causal links.
Si, or introverted Sensing, is dominant for ISxJ, secondary for ESxJ, tertiary for INxP and inferior for ENxP. It's related to Se in that it deals with sensory experience, but rather than constantly scan for everything about what's going on now, it relies on internalizing those experiences into an extremely detailed internal map of highly vivid *memories* of those past sensory experiences. This dependence on reliving past experience and using it as a guide for the present leads to an extremely good memory for detail, and a general attitude that going with what we know for sure from having experienced it before is usually best.
Now, these could not be more different. Essentially, Socionics Si is little more than a collection of all the personally focused elements (physical hedonism, aesthetics, et al.) of Se. No memory mapping to be found here. This element in combination with the above-mentioned Fe, creates the outgoing party-animal behavior, cheerfulness and sensory indulgence typically associated with SPs, and especially SFPs.
i agree with virtually everything here; the treatment of Si in socionics and MBTI is extremely different.
Intuitive functions are a bit more alike between systems, but there's still some wiggle room with regards to them.
Ne is generally associated with the ability to recognize possibilities, create new opportunities and new beginnings, recognize talent and natural propensities in others, reconcile differing perspectives and viewpoints, rapidly generate ideas, and be led by one's intellectual curiosity and stimulate curiosity in others. Types that value Ne prefer to try out an opportunity rather than consider all possible ways in which it could not work out. They pick a few options and stick with them, in contrast to introverted intuition (Ni) types who pick one option and continue to doubt that option.
Ne, or extroverted iNtuition, is dominant for ENxP, secondary for INxP, tertiary for ESxJ and inferior for ISxJ. It is an outwardly exploratory attitude that encourages us to change, reinvent and experiment with the external world in order to find new and interesting combinations and patterns. Ne looks for novel outcomes and imagines how the things around you could be changed into other, more interesting things. Ne sees new information as part of a larger, emerging, as of yet unseen pattern that extends far beyond the self, and whose meaning will continue to change as the context grows and we discover more of the all-encompassing pattern. Rather than directly confront an issue, Ne will often broaden the context until the issue seems insignificant by comparison to the much bigger and more expansive ideas it imagines.
Similar, very similar indeed, but by no means the same. Once again, Jung Ne falls just a tad short of completely connecting with Ne, simply because Jung defines motivation as opposed to behavior, and as such it cannot completely account for end behavior. Ne's exploratory attitude can manifest in checking a billion different ideas and contingency plans like Ne does, or it can manifest in sequential thinking, creating an image after another of how things could go, discarding them as new external information comes in, as Ni does. A very good example of the latter would be Greg House (ENFP IEI): His main modus operandi is brainstorming ideas, then discarding them sequentially until one fits.
the comparison with gregory house is silly and that character is hardly archetypally IEI, but i agree with almost all of this otherwise
Ni, or introverted iNtuition, is dominant for INxJ, secondary for ENxJ, tertiary for ISxP and inferior for ESxP. It is an inward sense of abstract perceptual shift. Rather than imagine different ways we could change the outside world, Ni acknowledges many different ways we could change the subjective meaning of things to ourselves by looking at them from different angles. Rather than directly confront an issue, Ni will often solve problems by simply looking at them from a different angle. Doing a bunch of community service sucks? Just think of it as an opportunity to get lots of exercise!
Note that Ni doesn't think about how to change the outer world the way Ne does; it only thinks about how to change *the way we interpret* the outer world. Ni leads you to try and see "through the smoke and mirrors" to what is REALLY going on below the surface, that other people are not perceptive enough to pick up on...so in its unhealthy form, it turns into conspiracy theories, a la Dale Gribble from King of the Hill.
i don't advocate these typings
Ni is associated with memory, uncertainty, state of mind, understanding trends or ongoing processes, incommunicability of subjective mental images, and a state of inertia. If Ne types are likely to branch out and explore all possible concepts to find something interesting, Ni types are likely to replay the conceptual associations that they have already made in their head. They may mentally replay things that have happened from their past or especially focus on the importance of concepts in memory, especially those relating to their personal history. Ni dominants, perhaps more than any other types, are those that are inclined to appear out of touch with the real world and commonly lost in thought. They are also very often lazy and externally unmotivated, and may not interact or accomplish very much without outside influence. Ni dominants in analytical ways often have a tendency to convey doubt, communicate about the unknowability of the topic or to constantly generalize their ideas.
Similar, but somewhat ambiguous. As mentioned before, the main difference between Socionics Ni and Ne is that while Ne will not discard an idea even if it's already working on one (Static intuition), Ni considers ideas and then discards them on basis of likelihood using external information, sticking to the possibility that seems best at the time (Dynamic intuition). This in particular doesn't fit the distinct certainty that JCF Ni carries, and does fit the exploratory nature of Ne, which will consult their surroundings and modify their ideas accordingly.
i dislike the aspectonics explanation, but ok
Thinking functions are pretty much identical between MBTI and Socionics, but as these are essentially elaborations on JCF, they diverge just a bit from it. Again, the disconnect is in JCF's lack of defined external behavior.
i disagree with this a great deal. i think aleksei did not do a good job interpreting the subtle differences between JCF and socionics functions here
Ti is most commonly associated with themes of logical consistency, structure, principles, rules, modeling, mathematical certainty, appropriateness or correctness of action, and regimentation. Naturally, Ti creatives often have nothing resembling a regimented lifestyle, but Ti dominants often project a sense of organization and structure in their everyday activities (for example, keeping to a strict schedule over a long period of time). Ti is mostly an interpretive, analytical, and normative element, with a focus on organizing rather than doing -- especially in dominants who exhibit this aspect as an element of their lifestyle. Ti types tend to be inclined to perceive their world according to the structures and rules that they designate, seeking to organize their reality into a functional system (much like Einstein's search for a unified theory of relativistic physics).
Internalized sense of Concept and framework. Dependent of one’s own personal belief regardless of the external rules or concepts. Ti may choose to accept certain rules and deny others from the external realm. It may also form its own concept to utilize as benchmark against data it processes. This framework or benchmark, however, is unique to the Ti user and is unable to be utilized by any other individual.
As you can clearly see, Ti in JCF is about the source of one's rules and methodology; in Socionics is more about the nature of such: Crisp, logical rules and internal structure and categorization.
a similar misplaced emphasis exists as in the section on Te -- yes, Ti in socionics deals with categories, classifications, and logical building blocks as Ti in a jungian sense -- but not for quite the same reasons, not quite the same intellectual drives, and not obviously with the common jungian description of a subjective referent or "personal" lens with which to evaluate the information they're presented with.
Te is most associated with themes of external applicability, pragmatism, factual content and accuracy, proactive action, productive work and processes (how-to instructions), availability of products and services, and clear, unhindered dissemination of information.
Externalized sense of framework. Dependent of the world universal belief. If the external world utilizes Metric System as a standard, the Te accepts this as its framework. If the external world utilizes certain protocols, the Te will also accept this. It goes by and accepts the rules laid forth by the external world.
The focus is highly similar, but there's no particular reason why JCF Te types would be more concerned with practicality over categorization and rules structure -- they'd just depend on external input for such. The latter is a rather common focus for ISTJs, which is why ISTJ corresponds well with LSI (although as having Decisive tendencies, INTJ corresponds somewhat well with LSI as well).
i disagree a lot with this section. the JCF description has little to do with the emphasis on factual accuracy and clarity of communication that socionics Te places -- which is really what socionics Te is, as opposed to the unyielding emphasis on objective standards in the JCF description. it's often true that socionics Te types, particularly Te dominants, tend to look for external information and don't obviously challenge external information or protocols, but this is a sort of side effect in my view; the "real" emphasis of socionics Te is in clear exchange of information. the description also captures something fundamental in that Te in socionics has a need for pragmatism and to actively "fix" the external world -- but this is clearly not the focus of the JCF description and in general the JCF description does a very bad job capturing the essence of what socionics Te describes.
In short, based on that almost any Socionics type could correspond to almost any JCF type and vice-versa. It'd just depend on the behavioral output resulting from the core motivating factors defined by JCF. It's further easier to type in Socionics precisely because Socionics has a discernible behavioral profile, and has more practical use given that Socionics was designed around an interpersonal relationship structure