This post is about Attitudinal Psyche. You can learn more here
Preface
Allow me to preface with the following points:
- The following are rough analogies only.
- I don’t expect that I am the first person to draw these correlations.
- I believe Jungian Typology (JT) is made obsolete with Attitudinal Psyche (AP). I am not attempting to salvage JT.
- I respect Rob’s system and I respect his insistence that AP types do not correlate to JT types. However, there is some nuance here. My opinion is that there is not much statistical correlation largely because people are bad at self-typing and bad at understanding the systems in question. So when someone says they had a certain type in JT/MBTI/Socionics, I automatically question whether this was the case. I do believe that there is a correlation between these systems in the abstract regardless of the lack of statistical correlations between self-typings in one system versus the other.
- We need to make a distinction between a type described in a holistic versus a concatenative way. When a type is described holistically, the various parts that make up a type are entangled and their mixed products are emphasized. For example, the way that an MBTI ENTP is said to be a prolific debater or inventor. When a type is described concatentatively, each part that makes up a type is listed in some order. Each part might be reused from type to type. For example the paragraph describing the Ne Auxiliary Function is re-used for both Ne Auxiliary types. Ideally, there will be a strong match between these two ways of describing a type, but often they will diverge. This is usually the fault of the holistic description adding in popular stereotypes that are not accessible or permissible concatentatively. On the other hand, concatenative descriptions are somewhat sterile. I mention this because my thoughts below are based on a bottom-up or concatenative method of describing a type, so one should not expect that correlated types will have matching holistic descriptions. If we were to try to match types based on holistic descriptions we may very well diverge from my correlations drawn below.
Introduction
The main analogy to understand how Jungian Typology (JT) correlates to Attitudinal Psyche (AP) is that the Confident Position in AP shares similarities with Jung’s concept of Introversion and the Flexible Position with Extraversion. In AP, unlike in JT, the Positions are not different in regards to psychological strength or influence. The Confident Position is somewhat similar to the Dominant Function in that it is most adjacent to a type’s protective ego, but it does not lord over consciousness to the same extent. Additionally, there are no correlates to the Inferior Functions. We might be tempted to understand the 3rd and 4th Positions as analogous to the Inferior Functions, but they lack the same psycho-dynamic opposition to the 2nd and 1st Positions respectively. Confident Volition does not push Unbothered Emotion into the unconscious, for example. The Inferior Functions are quite temperamental and negative in JT, but only the 3rd Position in AP resembles the Inferior in neuroticism.
My analogy of the 1st Position to Introversion and the 2nd to Extraversion does not mean that every type in AP is an introvert; this would be a misconception based on the notion that the 1st Attitude is dominant in the same way that it is “Dominant” JT, which it is not. Rob explains in his FAQ section how he diverges from the Russian Psychosophy tradition in regards to the quantity of “attention” given to each Position, and this coincidentally entails a divergence from JT.
The other main correlation to recognize is between the JT functions and AP Aspects: Thinking to Logic, Feeling to Emotion, Sensation to Physics, and Intuition to Volition. The one conversion that sticks out is Intuition to Volition. I think this issue can be squared by recognizing the futuristic orientation of both. The difference is that Intuition emphasizes perception of the future (particularly in Socionics) and Volition emphasizes action which manifests a desired future. This distinction brings into focus a way that our understanding of Volition in AP can be fruitfully modified by working in more of a perceptual emphasis.
Introversion and Extraversion
Those familiar with Jungian Typology will recognize the similarities between the Confident Position and Introversion, and between the Flexible Position and Extraversion. Indeed I believe that these first two Positions are the phenomena that Jung was grasping at when he was inventing his original concept of the Functional Attitudes. Note that while Jung did correlate sociability with his dichotomy, this factor was non-essential. Introversion was fundamentally an attitude of self-superiority over the objective world and extraversion was the opposite. Sociability was a second-order effect. For AP, I think that the Confident Position is somewhat “unsocial” and the Flexible Position is somewhat “social,” however the overall sociability of an individual is not determined by AP type. Perhaps we can say that when an individual “leans” on their Confident Position, they become more socially introverted and when they lean on their Flexible Position, they become more socially extraverted.
The introversion or extraversion of the Insecure and Unbothered Positions is less clear. BestSocionics.com describes the Insecure Position as introverted and the Unbothered as Extraverted. They define introversion as interest in one’s own goings-on and extraversion as interest in that of others. Yet elsewhere they also heavily imply that the Process Positions (Flexible and Insecure) are more talkative and social compared to the Results Positions (Confident and Unbothered).
I think so long as we use the introversion/extraversion dichotomy narrowly, we can say that the Confident and Insecure Positions are Introverted and the Flexible and Unbothered Positions are Extraverted. But we must refrain from the Jungian notion that this dichotomy is all-encompassing because we are using it as one of three equally important dichotomies. So introversion and extraversion only pertain to the disposition of a Position towards others (or the non-self).
Attitudes & Functions/IEs
1V – Ni
The Attitude that is future-oriented in a subjective way – has a personal vision of the future and how to achieve it. It’s basically Socionics’ Ni with a much more assertive bent. The decision in Socionics to associate Se with volition and Ni with lack of volition was always a strange choice in my opinion. It has little justification in Jung’s Psychological Types wherein Sensation is, in both the extraverted and introverted cases, about the material/physical world and not about turning possible futures into actual ones. AP corrects this error.
Fwiw, MBTI also emphasizes a willful aspect to Ni.
Prefer to quickly understand what they do or do not desire in any situation – including how the situation can evolve. Highly value their own sense of character and dignity and trust that they will never lose their sense of self.
Assert their ideas of their version of the future regardless of who is around. Can overestimate their own abilities to create a desired future and may discount others and their motivations.
– Rob
2V – Ne
I think “Flexible Volition” is actually a decent way to describe Ne in Jungian Typology and its derivatives. What is Ne but a flexible perception of an array of possible futures? The way Ne types are said to behave matches quite nicely with the behaviors characteristic of 2V types.
Enjoy discussing the future with others and listening to how things could change over time. Tend to invite and encourage feedback on how to improve and motivate the self and others. Believe that they can work with others to design a future through a democratic and fair process. Have patience with those who are anxious about their goals and are able to offer an array of solutions to offer hope to others. Are always willing to listen to the life struggles of others, regardless if they agree or disagree with the methods that the other person employs to solve them. Naturally believe they can balance out obligations of life.
Can endlessly accept others’ laziness – even if it hurts the goal. Often hide disappointment and sour feelings towards others to remain processional through willpower. Can sometimes be lazy and unbothered by the lack of momentary energy, but will turn it on as needed. May prefer talking about how to improve rather than putting in the actual work. Can waste time processing out decisions, goals, and possibilities rather than acting on what will work in the most efficient way.
– Rob
1L – Ti
Logic with a subjective perspective. Skeptical of the logical information coming from others/the world. Yep, that’s Ti in essence.
Have great trust in their own ideas and how they apply them. Strong focus on how they believe things operate. Continuously reevaluate their own understanding of logic. Solely trust in their own reasoning to sort through a puzzle or problem. Quick to zone in on causal links to the current state of reality. Easily trust themselves to decide which branch of academia they should partake in or avoid. Tend to dislike arguing unless they can lead the debate without being discounted. Philosophize more quietly than 2Ls and 3Ls.
– Rob
2L – Te
This correlation is a bit trickier because Te has a strong practical/empirical emphasis in JT, particularly in MBTI and Socionics. I think PY/AP correctly broadens 2L to include the fullness of the Logical aspect and likewise de-emphasizes formal/abstract logic in the 1L description. That being said, there is still a good case to be made that 2L and Te are analogous on the basis that the Flexible attitude is receptive to information from outside the self and so is more interested in group processes or conversation. These qualities match well with Te.
1F – Si
Si is notable due to how varied its depictions are in the JT derivatives. In JT proper, Si is quite impressionistic and whimsical. There are a few remarks that indicate a pickiness about the environment (~”Raising the too little; lowering the too much”). Within MBTI, memory and nostalgia are emphasized. In Socionics, Si is about health, comfort, and sensuality which pairs most closely with 1F.
Have an innate confidence of where they want to place objects in their environment. Confident in their use of money and evaluating an object’s worth. Trust their own judgment in determining what is comfortable. Quickly figure out what is wrong when health problems arise. Change up their style freely without constraint. Are able to organize and complete practical tasks without much toil or mental effort.
Offer food and items without inquiring too much into others’ tastes. Give detailed stories of practical on goings in their lives and how it could apply to others when necessary. Believe they are sufficient in developing practical skills to deal with life’s daily hiccups. Pay close attention to preferred textures, flavors and cuisines. Can re-imagine any space according to whatever interests or aesthetic preferences they have at the time. Will single handedly conjure up examples and ideas of how a space or arrangement can be changed.
May come off as greedy, selfish or spoiled due to getting what they want, whenever they want and seem to be okay with their own selfishness. Will engage in leisurely activities regardless of how acceptable they are to others tastes. Prefer to follow their own sense of what they find valuable rather than deferring to mainstream fashion or what public opinion of worth. Are unwilling to compromise their own living style according to others needs. Can be extremely picky about what they believe looks and feels the best.
– Rob
2F – Se
Ignoring the errant direction that Socionics went in, I think 2F and Se is a decent match. We have a flexible, extraverted, receptive disposition towards the physical world which of course involves sensual perception. I think that AP rightly broadens both Volition and Physics beyond the purely perceptual whereas Jung, being inclined to preserve the dichotomy between irrational and rational functions, constrained the analogous functions of Intuition and Sensation to matters of sheer perceptual awareness. AP in contrast allows the Physics aspect room for conceptualization, judgment, and a degree of abstraction.
Notice the quality of clothing, items and everyday objects. Believe they have a keen sense of what patterns and colors work together, and how to bring value to things that flatter the senses. Tend to offer solutions on how to keep things tidy, neat, organized, put together, or nice. May converse about sensory experiences for long periods of time, always on a journey to improve. Pay close attention to how others physically express themselves. Are wonderful at helping others reduce anxiety related to the body and personal health.
Believe they have a natural ability to show others the physical beauty, value and worth of the world around them. They want to share their thoughts on healthy living, practical choices and finances while incorporating all feedback. Will give others resources and provide advice on the application of resources to practical needs. Look for feedback on how others are experiencing their environment. Usually tend to everyone in a room and offer negotiable solutions to differing wants and needs.
Have a hard time taking ownership over objects without seeing how it can be useful to others. Can sometimes become offended by overly critical remarks on appearance as they are sensitive to taste in fashion and aesthetics, which can lead to them bothering more people for opinions. May leave things entirely messy but still have a strong confidence of where and why things are in their current place. Can become very materialistic but not in a selfish manner, which can cause hoarding and unnecessarily giving away items without being asked to.
– Rob
1E – Fi
Things get somewhat messy with the E attitudes. Given my methodology, we should expect 1E to match with Fi. And indeed, as the quotes below will indicate, that would be a fair assumption. However, I believe many readers would instinctively take issue with this correlation and I myself sympathize. I think the problem abides in the nature of extraversion in relation to the Feeling Function given the confused and varied way that extraversion is woven into JT function and type descriptions.
Extraversion in folk psychology (and in the factor models of personality, e.g. Big Five) is mostly about the tendency to be socially involved. And Jung himself did say that the libidinal direction towards the object would entail a more socially-oriented individual. The Feeling functions themselves do not necessarily have to be about social interactions, but many would agree that they mostly are about that topic. So there is this doubling effect where we expect Fe to be very much about socialization, and Fi to be about social relations but… in a distant and whimsical way. If we are typing someone in the JT paradigm, and we notice they are highly social, should our minds turn to an extraverted typing or perhaps to a Feeling type?
The Emotion Aspect of AP explicitly involves social relations. The Positions of AP are also explicitly social because they involve either a positive or negative valence towards other people. So again we have a potentially problematic overlap. On the other hand, AP does not situate the Positions on a spectrum of social involvement to isolation. We can imagine a very social manifestation of 1E, or a private manifestation of 2E. The components of extraversion/introversion that I am relying on for my correlations are the subjective/objective orientations and positive/negative valences. What I must reject to make these parallels conceivable is the social/anti-social component of extraversion which I have always considered to be the weakest portion of the concept because it entangles the dichotomy with developmental issues, lifestyle, neuroticism, etc. Perhaps my reservations about the Emotional attitudes are more of an indictment of false JT stereotypes than a failure of my correlation scheme.
It’s worth reiterating that as per Rob’s FAQ page and the connection I drew to JT in regards to that, we should not think of a type as introverted or extraverted because in AP no attitude predominates in the same way that one of the functions will predominate in JT. However, given my reservations above we can consider the Confident attitude to be introverted in so far as it shares the qualities of subjectivism and skepticism towards the world/others. Likewise we can consider the Flexible attitude to be extraverted given that it shares the qualities of objectivism and receptivity towards the world outside the self (including the contributions and influence of other people).
Thus we come back to 1E. 1E is the parallel to Fi because of the subjective orientation and the negative valence towards the non-self. We should keep in mind that this does not mean 1Es are like Fi dominant types nor that they are necessarily socially introverted.
Believe they have the right to express their interest and emotions about any subject or lack thereof. Believe they understand the importance of human relations and focus on translating their own feelings into meaningful endeavors. Are self-assured and quick to dole out value judgments, express anger, sadness, concern, and all emotions. Trust their own intuition and sense of right and wrong which is always involved in their worldview. Are guided by their inner intuitions about people and use this to deal with friendships and relationships, regardless of what others advise. Prefer to view relationships as static and are quick to change their mind if things sour too quickly on the other end.
Will walk you through a monologue of their own emotions and how they feel about anything or anyone. Often give out advice on handling or dealing with relationships. Do not feel like they owe anyone any explanations on how they feel, though this does not stop them from explaining their emotions to others. Sometimes behave in an over-zealous manner when announcing what they find beautiful, ugly, good, bad, right or wrong. Can lead spiritual movements and instruct others on how to get in touch with their own emotions quickly and efficiently. May obsess over certain kinds of art, music, or people. Are intensely affected by emotional landscapes and take ownership over their opinions of them. Relate all incoming experiences into how they make them feel over many different emotional levels.
May act as they see fit in any situation regardless of what the other party feels is emotionally appropriate. Can openly refuse to conform to social norms in regards to their emotional state. Do not respond well to continuous questions of their feelings and constant attempts at redefining relationships. Can expect that others feel the same way as they do. Dislike to be constantly questioned or challenged about their emotions – will double down on said emotion, and dismiss the other party.
– Rob
2E – Fe
Everything I said about 1E should be considered for 2E. 2E does not translate to a dominant Fe type and does not mean that 2E types act in ways stereotypical of socially-oriented extraversion. Instead, I understand the correlation on the basis of the qualities that extraversion and the Flexible attitude share: objectivism and a receptive view towards others/world.
Are open and honest about their own emotions while simultaneously helping others to do the same through validation and active listening. Can negotiate through any sort of emotional landscape to figure out who feels what in a given situation. Tend to believe that disagreements, differences of opinion, and individuality is all to be expected and accepted for what it is. Appreciate learning and gathering an array of opinions about what is beautiful, ugly, right, wrong, good or bad. Have a hard time creating any sort of value judgment against people for their own emotions, and will instead mitigate this judgment to one of their other attitudes (usually the first or third). Believe that everyone has an intuitive nature underneath, and it is their job to journey through their emotions to figure it out – even if it requires outside help. Heavily focus on validating all forms of emotion, and encouraging discussion of inner relational opinions, regardless if it is positive or negative.
Will always listen to others’ doubts while offering a stable and reliable arena to express one’s self. Can tend to play listener, translator and encourager of emotional displays whenever that role is necessary. Consider others’ opinions on emotions and feelings as valid as their own, regardless of the final outcome of a relationship. Focus heavily on how their own and others’ feelings evolve, change, or can be changed. Are quick to accept other’s moods, and expressed emotions. Give off an air of patience with others’ insecurities surrounding relationships. Love to share their music tastes, aesthetics and entertainment preferences while hearing what others prefer in return. Aim to help people to lower their emotional shields, and accept who they are in an unbounded way.
May openly examine and judge the expressions and feelings of those around them which can cause discomfort among those who normally express themselves unhinged. Give impressions of intrigue in all emotions regardless of how open they truly are, which can cause people to misjudge them. Tend to overlook their own emotional viewpoints as always changing, so can refuse to stick with one opinion for too long. May overlook moods or environments that are hindering them due to being too engrossed in the information these environments provide. Can appear dramatic, overly honest, and meddling in other people’s personal business regarding their relationships.
– Rob
Types
Okay, now we move on to the types, but first a comment about the outliers. In JT, Sensation and Intuition are opposed and Feeling and Thinking are also opposed. In AP, the analogous Aspects are not opposed. This gives rise to a differing total number of types including types that are irreconcilable between systems, such as the LEVF. I believe this is a failing of JT not AP. I will simply ignore these 8 outlier types (for the moment) and focus on the direct correlations. Let’s begin with a summary list:
LVxx – Ti/Ne & Ne/Ti (Alpha NTs)
VLxx – Ni/Te & Te/Ni (Gamma NTs)
LFxx – Ti/Se & Se/Ti (Beta STs)
FLxx – Si/Te & Te/Si (Delta STs)
EFxx – Fi/Se & Se/Fi (Gamma SFs)
FExx – Si/Fe & Fe/Si (Alpha SFs)
EVxx – Fi/Ne & Ne/Fi (Delta NFs)
VExx – Ni/Fe & Fe/Ni (Beta NFs)
So, how do you feel about the above? Hate it?
I think my 5th preface needs to be reiterated at this point: I am drawing correlations in a concatenative way, not in a holistic way. Perhaps I was successful in getting you to recognize the correlations between each of the 1st and 2nd attitudes and the JT functions, but when we put the pieces together it now seems… off. And we really cannot put the pieces together in a satisfying manner because these two systems are simply not compatible at the end of the day.
Let’s continue exploring these strange correlations to see if there is anything salvageable.
LVxx – Ti/Ne & Ne/Ti (Alpha NTs)
I think this correlation fits the best out of the whole list. If you haven’t realized that the LV types are basically Alpha NTs, well here is your wake-up call. The cartoon depictions (on Rob’s website) of the LVEF, and the LVFE to a lesser extent, make this even more obvious. My position is that JT is a poor man’s AP. What we thought was Ti/Ne was actually LV this whole time. What we thought was Ne/Ti was perhaps an LV emphasizing their Flexible attitude due to whatever lifestyle or circumstances. Maybe sometimes a VL, EL, or LE snuck in there and we called them “ENTP”, but I contend that the proper way ENTP was supposed to be understood would be a sort of sociable LVEF or a particularly goofy or eccentric LVFE. For myself, I typed as either LII or ILE in Socionics and I type as LVFE (strongly) in AP.
VLxx – Ni/Te & Te/Ni (Gamma NTs)
This correlation works better for MBTI than for Socionics. Again, this is because Socionics errantly decided to overload Se with qualities pertaining to Volition. Both the INTJ and ENTJ fit as VL types, although it is noteworthy that many INTJs are likely to type as LVs (As an LVFE, I relate to the orderliness and conscientiousness of the INTJ over the INTP).
Where this correlation becomes sketchier is the ILI because of the insistence in Socionics that Ni means insufficient willpower. Can you tell that I dislike Se in Socionics yet? ILIs really have no direct correlation. “What we thought” was ILI seems to me to have been a mixed bag of cantankerous LVs and some intellectually inclined FLs. Maybe a few taciturn VLEFs or FVELs snuck in there too. ENTJ (and LIE) is VLFE easy-peasy.
LFxx – Ti/Se & Se/Ti (Beta STs)
ISTP does not fit (ISTJ would fit better). LSI fits. ESTP and SLE do not. Even in MBTI, ESTP gets loaded with Volition. SLE has to be a VF or VL (maybe VE). I’ll offer that socially extraverted LFs emphasizing their Flexible Attitudes might resemble Se/Ti from certain angles. This one is mostly a flop.
FLxx – Si/Te & Te/Si (Delta STs)
This one is… not bad. I think it works well for SLI quite nicely. I think it does work for ESTJ and LSE, but is confined to FLVE. FLEVs are 4V and that doesn’t abide by the stereotypical ESTJ nor the Se Demonstrative LSE.
EFxx – Fi/Se & Se/Fi (Gamma SFs)
Problematic because the Emotion Aspect is problematic as I explained earlier. Were ESFPs actually EFs all along? I think many were. Were SEEs EFs all along? I think many were not. I think many SEEs were actually VEs and VFs although of course some were certainly EFs and EVs. As for ISFP I think that… yes this one does actually work particularly for EFVL. Were all ISFPs indeed EFs? No. Just some. Plenty of ISFPs were FEs. That leaves the ESI… EF? Nah; probably FELV.
FExx – Si/Fe & Fe/Si (Alpha SFs)
ISFJ? Yes. The domestic emphasis works well with 1F. SEI? Yes, it fits. It fits better for FEVL because of the 4L and the Duality with LVEF. ESFJ? The flopping is starting again… ESE? 2 out of 4. ESFJ and ESE were probably a mixed bag of EFVLs, EVFLs, and VEFLs.
EVxx – Fi/Ne & Ne/Fi (Delta NFs)
Overall I think this correlation is solid. I can see many EVFLs and EVLFs typing as ENFP and IEE. Some INFPs were probably EVs although I think many were not. Same for EII.
VExx – Ni/Fe & Fe/Ni (Beta NFs)
For ENFJ and EIE, yes we have a winner. More of a winner for VEFL. For INFJ this one somewhat works, but many INFJs are probably LEs and ELs. IEIs don’t fit except for some of the edgier versions I’ve met online who might have been VELFs.
Clubs
Let’s continue off-roading. I think we can agree that the above correlations are clearly a mixed-bag. But that’s okay. My aim was not to reconcile these systems; it was to draw parallels. Given the match-ups I’ve already made, is it possible to create parallels with between Clubs in AP and Clubs in JT? I think so.
Adept – NT
Vigorous – ST/SF
Spirited – NF
Festive – SF
Enlightened – NT/NF
Thorough – ST
Sextas and Quadras
Sextas and Quadras are not worth matching up. You can very roughly match them based on the Evolution Cycle and the Socion Cycle, but the parallel falls apart on closer inspection.
Comment on “Jungian Typology & Attitudinal Psyche Parallels (Part I)”