This post is somewhat of a recapitulation of my last post. Old ground is treaded, but there is new stuff here too. I will probably combine these posts into a single article as my thoughts on this topic are refined.
As much as I respect Jungian Typology (JT), I believe that it is made obsolete by AP. As of yet, Rob (The creator of AP) seems to reject the notion that each attitude or type has an associated cognitive style and he seems to accept the validity of JT in this realm. I think that if people have Attitudes, then we should expect that these Attitudes are associated with particular styles of cognition; I am against a purely behaviorist interpretation of AP. To me, the theories are too similar and overlapping and so AP must subjugate JT and assimilate any useful insights.
The method by which I will attempt to reconcile the above is by roughly converting JT into a form digestible to AP. I’ve begun doing this in my last blog post. The reader should keep in mind though, that I am not trying to preserve JT, I am trying to respectfully make use of its corpse (so to speak).
Aspects and Functions
First let’s cover the Aspects’ relations to the JT Cognitive Functions.
The parallels between Logic and Thinking, Physics and Sensation, and Emotion and Feeling are relatively straightforward. I believe further elaboration would waste the reader’s time.
However, the parallel between Volition and Intuition is perhaps not so obvious: Volition seems to be about action, and Intuition about perception. Our understanding of Intuition in JT is associated with imagination, fantasy, possibilities, visions, potential, etc. I think a misunderstanding of Volition would be that it lacks these loadings. This misunderstanding was exacerbated by the choice of Socionics to load Extraverted Sensation (Se) with Volitional qualities and to oppose Volition with potential, possibilities, the future, etc. But if we reset ourselves for a moment, how exactly is volition opposed to these things? In fact, we should reverse this mistake – volition is precisely about such topics. To actualize a goal it is necessary to have a vision of the future. Volition is very much concerned with the potential of situations and people, with possible ways the future could manifest, and with notions of destiny and personal development.
My thinking is that the cognitive style that one engages in when experiencing the Volitional Aspect can be likened to Intuition in the Jungian sense. I think where Jung may have gotten carried away is in his belief that this intuitive envisioning was a subconscious means of perception. My belief is that it’s mostly a “wishing” or “willing” process by which subconscious desires are seen as vivid futures and this focusing prompts the individual to more eagerly muster energy towards actualizing the vision. To the naïve individual, these intuitions appear to be something originating outside of the self; they seem to be about something real or objective. But in fact they are manifestations of desire. That’s perfectly okay though because Volition nonetheless serves a valuable and adaptive purpose.
Positions and Attitudes
Jung described his introversion/extraversion dichotomy as “attitude.” The correlate to these JT attitudes are the AP Positions. The Psychosophists over at bestsocionics.com have also noticed this parallel. In my previous post, I went more in depth into this topic. I will again note that I am using JT’s conception of the attitudes in a very minimalist way: Introversion protects the self from outside influence and extraversion incorporates outside influence without much fuss. There is a lot of accumulated baggage with these terms that I am simply leaving by the wayside.
The Others-Negative Positions (1 and 3) can be described as “introverted” because, similar to Jung’s conception of the term, they are unreceptive towards outside influence and are quite protective.
The Others-Positive Positions (2 and 4) can be described as “extraverted” because, similar to Jung’s conception of the term, they are receptive towards outside influence and are quite adaptive.
The Self-Positive Positions (1 and 2) can be described as “strong” because they are self-assured. This parallels with the strong (dominant and auxiliary) functions in JT.
The Self-Negative Positions (3 and 4) can be described as “weak” because they are self-doubting. This parallels with the weak (tertiary and inferior) functions in JT.
The weak versus strong dichotomy is only a rough parallel because the ordering of Attitudes in AP types is far less hierarchical than the order of Functions in a JT type. I do not believe that the Dominant Function in JT correlates to the Confident Position in AP (that would make all types into introverts!). Instead, I posit that the level of introversion or extraversion an individual exhibits depends on which Position they are “leaning” on at any given moment. If they lean on their Confident Position then they will seem more introverted whereas if they lean on their Flexible Position, then they will appear more extraverted. The same dynamic applies to the Self-Negative Positions. Perhaps habitually “leaning” on one Position over another is related to subtypes.
An additional consideration would be the “valued” and “devalued” dichotomy from Socionics (as well as the equivalents in elaborative MBTI systems). Valued IMEs/Functions had a positive valence and were considered attractive to the type. Unvalued ones were viewed negatively. The way I look at it, the JT correlates to the strong (1 and 2) Positions are valued whereas the correlates to the weak (3 and 4) Positions are unvalued. For example, 2V has parallels with strong Extraverted Intuition (Ne) and it is therefore similar to a valued Ne. 4V has parallels to a weak Ne and is somewhat similar to a weak and devalued Ne. I think the reader familiar with both AP and Socionics can admit that 3L and 4L are akin to Super-Ego Blocked Ti and Te respectively. The weak Attitudes would naturally value the opposite of their devalued correlate. 4V (devalued and weak Ne) is attracted to 1V (valued and strong Ni).
To summarize:
Confident (1) = Strong (valued) and Introverted. Analogous to a Socionics Ego Block Function.
Flexible (2) = Strong (valued) and Extraverted. Analogous to a Socionics Ego Block Function.
Insecure (3) = Weak (devalued) and Introverted. Analogous to a Socionics Super-Ego Block Function.
Unbothered (4) = Weak (devalued) and Extraverted. Analogous to a Socionics Super-Ego Block Function.
Going by this Schema, an LVFE type, for example, has an EFVL “shadow” that would correspond to the Socionics “Vital Ring” Functions (The Id and Super-Id Blocks).
We have to keep in mind that AP and JT are not commensurate. There are a different number of types for each system and AP presents combinations that are impossible in JT and its derivatives. I will reiterate that I am making use of the JT Cognitive Functions in a very stripped down way with a lot of the baggage removed. With that in mind I will list a conversion chart for reference:
| AP Type | Ego Block | Super-Ego | Super-Id | Id |
| FVLE | Si/Ne | Ti/Fe | Te/Fi | Se/Ni |
| FLVE | Si/Te | Ni/Fe | Ne/Fi | Se/Ti |
| EVLF | Fi/Ne | Ti/Se | Te/Si | Fe/Ni |
| ELVF | Fi/Te | Ni/Se | Ne/Si | Fe/Ti |
| LVFE | Ti/Ne | Si/Fe | Se/Fi | Te/Ni |
| LFVE | Ti/Se | Ni/Fe | Ne/Fi | Te/Si |
| EVFL | Fi/Ne | Si/Te | Se/Ti | Fe/Ni |
| EFVL | Fi/Se | Ni/Te | Ne/Ti | Fe/Si |
| VLFE | Ni/Te | Si/Fe | Se/Fi | Ne/Ti |
| VFLE | Ni/Se | Ti/Fe | Te/Fi | Ne/Si |
| ELFV | Fi/Te | Si/Ne | Se/Ni | Fe/Ti |
| EFLV | Fi/Se | Ti/Ne | Te/Ni | Fe/Si |
| VFEL | Ni/Se | Fi/Te | Fe/Ti | Ne/Si |
| VEFL | Ni/Fe | Si/Te | Se/Ti | Ne/Fi |
| LFEV | Ti/Se | Fi/Ne | Fe/Ni | Te/Si |
| LEFV | Ti/Fe | Si/Ne | Se/Ni | Te/Fi |
| VLEF | Ni/Te | Fi/Se | Fe/Si | Ne/Ti |
| VELF | Ni/Fe | Ti/Se | Te/Si | Ne/Fi |
| FLEV | Si/Te | Fi/Ne | Fe/Ni | Se/Ti |
| FELV | Si/Fe | Ti/Ne | Te/Ni | Se/Fi |
| LVEF | Ti/Ne | Fi/Se | Fe/Si | Te/Ni |
| LEVF | Ti/Fe | Ni/Se | Ne/Si | Te/Fi |
| FVEL | Si/Ne | Fi/Te | Fe/Ti | Se/Ni |
| FEVL | Si/Fe | Ni/Te | Ne/Ti | Se/Fi |
The Parallels
I am going to skip the 3rd and 4th Positions for now. The reason is simply that these posts are basically drafts for a more refined article and I just want to get this one published. Expect more detail on all the positions in the future.
Volition / Intuition
1V – “Ni Ego”
This style of cognition has parallels to Introverted Intuition (Ni). Visions of the future or vague senses of potential bubble up from the subconscious. The habitual attitude of the 1st Position causes the 1V type to feel protective of these intuitions. They are seen as somewhat inarticulable and personal, but highly meaningful and important. 1V is private and unreceptive about these visions, although the person may recapitulate them more openly through another position (particularly the 2nd).
2V – “Ne Ego”
The intuitions of the 2V cognitive style are considered to be valuable in so far as they spark interest in others. A multiplicity of visions allows for a flexible pivoting from one to another. There is less attachment to any one direction the future could go. So 2V involves the conjuring of many “intuitions” and avoids being attached to any one. We can clearly see the parallel to Extraverted Intuition (Ne). Whereas 1V shares the private and protective nature of Ni, 2V shares the open and explorative nature of Ne.
3V – “Ni Super-Ego”
4V – “Ne Super-Ego”
Logic / Thinking
1L – “Ti Ego”
The cognitive style associated with Logic is self-evident enough. Of note is the way that the 1st Position modifies cognition by making its Logic ego-centric. With Introverted Thinking (Ti), logic is subjectively-oriented. It becomes somewhat inscrutable due it being intertwined with the artifacts of imagination and personal meaning. I think 1L’s unreceptiveness towards the Logic of others motivates it to think in idiosyncratic ways; it refuses to make use of the thoughts of others. It recapitulates logic in its own, tailor-made language. On the negative side, this tendency creates difficulties and slowness with translating the fruits of its thoughts to others. It also causes friction in accepting commonly-held beliefs or making use of new information on the fly. On the positive side, it often produces logic which, in the end, is more exacting, complete, and integrated with the whole than it would be otherwise.
2L – “Te Ego”
Beginning with Jung, and then continuing with the JT derivatives, Ti became associated with deductive/categorical logic and Extraverted Thinking (Te) with inductive/empirical logic. Let us put aside this dichotomy. Either Position may deal with either form of logical analysis. We can salvage the Te cognitive style for the benefit of 2L by emphasizing its objectivity and collaborative nature. 2L, in contrast to 1L, does not reject the Logical “language” of others; it largely accepts their translation as is. Rather than reinventing the wheel, 2L prefers to gather ideas, to allow the ideas some temporary sovereignty, and to re-distribute the ideas far and wide. The lack of desire to integrate logic into a subjective language allows for quicker uptake and re-distribution which makes 2L more accessible to the public. On the other hand, its thinking can be disconnected, shallow, fickle, and incomplete.
3L – “Ti Super-Ego”
4L – “Te Super-Ego”
Physics / Sensation
1F – “Si Ego”
Sensation is obviously associated with the Physics Aspect. 1F experiences a sensation style that is skeptical towards the tastes of others but is very familiar with and assured of its own tastes. 1F may find it difficult to articulate its preferences and prefers to simply demonstrate. Its sensation is strong and its tastes feels innate or ingrained. There is a consistency or permanence with its tastes. The mind of the 1F prioritizes sensations that are personally relevant or relevant to a specific aesthetic.
2F – “Se Ego”
I reject the way that the Socionics theorists loaded Extraverted Sensation (Se) with Volition. So if we ignore their conceptualization of Se and utilize a more… sensation oriented Se, it is the obvious parallel to 2F. 2F’s tastes are experimental, trendy, and accommodative. 2F is just as materialistic as 1F, but it is more “superficial” since its style is less consistent and permanent. It is on the other hand quicker to adapt. We can deduce that the 2F looks to the sensations and qualities of objects that are objective. The cognitive style would prioritize sensations that are of fashionable interest, that grab attention, that are novel, etc.
3F – “Si Super-Ego”
4F – “Se Super-Ego”
Emotion / Feeling
1E – “Fi Ego”
My alignment of Emotion and Feeling comes with a lengthy caveat that I detailed in my previous post, which can be summarized as follows: We need to strip our accumulated assumptions about the Jungian Feeling function down to its essential core. We can use that core to understand the cognitive style of the Emotion Aspects. For 1E, the JT parallel is Introverted Feeling (Fi). 1E requires that the Emotional realm be translated into the personally significant. Feelings are felt vividly and powerfully. There is a need to express the feeling and to give it a life of its own. The emotional vibe of the room is only significant in so far as it presents an obstacle to heart-felt expression.
2E – “Fe Ego”
The feeling function parallel of 2E is Extraverted Feeling (Fe). The same caveat to 1E applies here. The cognitive style would be a sort of emotional mirroring or empathizing. 2E types will moderate their own self-expressions to outside influences. They pick up on the emotional vibe of the room and naturally adapt their emotionality to it. Many 2Es can be emotional chameleons. But they are also conscious of this nature and can be proactive about their expressions as well, which makes them capable manipulators (for better or for worse).
3E – “Fi Super-Ego”
4E – “Fe Super-Ego”