??????
How often do MBTI types correlate with Socionic Types?
??????
Suomea
Technically, they don't. I am ENTJ and SLE (ESTp).
But I'm beginning to doubt my types.
You are not. Maybe you get the result ENTJ on MBTI tests. But that result might be incorrect. Or you are not an SLE.Originally Posted by Ezra
Good. You should. At lest one of them is incorrect.
Thank you Phaedrus. I was waiting for a post like that. Now, tell me, if I am definitely ENTJ in MBTI, what options does that leave socionics-wise?
Ezra, please don't get this blowhard going again. You'll never hear sense from him.
But, for a certainty, back then,
We loved so many, yet hated so much,
We hurt others and were hurt ourselves...
Yet even then, we ran like the wind,
Whilst our laughter echoed,
Under cerulean skies...
it's better to blow well than to blow hard
It's complicated because the preference orders for MBTI are different. So even though an SLI (just as an example) may correlate to ISTP, it isn't the same animal.
SLI = Si, Te, Ni, Fe
ISTP = Ti, Se, Ni, Fe
It is not the same--the first two functions are completely reversed.
However there is more similarily with extrovertive types...
EIE = Fe, Ni, Te, Si
ENFJ = Fe, Ni, Se, Ti
Here the second two functions are reversed.
I think that most MBTI-like tests are heavy on the 1st two functions, so since in introvertive types those are reversed between Socioncis and MBTI, most MBTI tests are likely give introverts a result that doesn't match their Socionics type. On the other hand, I think that MBTI-ish tests and Socionics may come to similar results with extroverted types because the first two functions are at least the same. I realize there are some holes in this idea of mine... So I sort of thought that there would be about a 60% match between the Socionics type and the MBTI type.
I also don't know if MBTI-like tests define the functions in the same way... So they may be getting at different definitions/ideas of the functions themselves. Also it seems most of these tests aren't very interconnective... they neglect any larger picture instead focusing on question to distinguish N from S, or J from P, or... Making it black and white like that may not help.
So my MBTI type tends to be INFP, but my Socionics type tends to be INTP. One cannot be both. I think that all models for understanding people break down at some point however, so it matters not in the end.
If you are definitely ENTJ in MBTI (MBTT), you definitely have an EJ temperament, because the four temperaments (EJ, EP, IJ, and IP) are exactly the same in both models.
And if you are definitely ENTJ in MBTI, you definitely belong to the Club of Researchers (NTs) in Socionics, because the four groups Pragmatists (STs), Socials (SFs), Researchers (NTs), and Humanitarians (NFs) are also the same in both models. Two of those groups -- NTs and NFs -- are also identical in typical behaviours and attitudes to David Keirsey's groups of Rationals (NTs) and Idealists (NFs).
So, if you are definitely ENTJ in MBTI, that leaves you with exactly one option: LIE (ENTj) in Socionics.
Gilly, I've heard nothing but sense from Phaedrus from the day I got here. He's never made any illogical or irrational assertion whatsoever, his reasoning is meticulous and his claims are undoubtedly founded.
That's what I thought. Thank you, Phaedrus.
No wonder I don't like you.Gilly, I've heard nothing but sense from Phaedrus from the day I got here. He's never made any illogical or irrational assertion whatsoever, his reasoning is meticulous and his claims are undoubtedly founded.
If you think Pheadrus makes "sense", then you must be just as fucked up in the head as he is. No offense.
As for the thread... despite what people think, socionics didn't invent the Te-Fi rules and things like that. I have heard on at least some occasions MBTI people talking about types like ESTJ and INFP being able to understand each others thinking (because they are both listed as Te-Fi-Si-Ne), which of course sounds remarkably similar to socionics (though with J/P switching). And then other MBTI people think the relations are totally different. So it's hard to put a "number" on it, but sometimes people are probably the same type, sometimes they might have to switch J/P, and sometimes they are a completely different type.
p.s. Pheadrus- do not respond to my post, because I already know what you are going to say since you have shit for brains and never read anyone else posts so you keep on posting the same shit over and over again. Thanks.
Ezra is ESTp and Phaedrus is either ISTj or INFp. Maybe that's why they "understand" each other.
Anyway, I vote for 60% or so, but that's just a guess.
Here are some ways that they can get mixed up:
- Men are more likely to get typed as S and/or T even when they're not. Women are more likely to get typed as N and/or F even when they're not.
E and I are defined differently. Ditto for J and P. In Socionics, it's whether your first function is an E or I, and J or P function. That might very well correspond to how MBTI defines those letters, but it won't necessarily.
Introverted types are kind of mixed up in MBTI. They say that the types are the opposite J/P wise as far as what functions they're using, but their descriptions only slightly follow that. So they say that ISTP is
and ISTJ is
, but the descriptions seem to either not follow that, or only follow it to an extent. I think an introverted person could easily get mixed up between J and P, but not necessarily.
Smart people are more likely to get typed as N and/or T even when they're S and/or F.
And I know what you think Phaedrus, and you're wrong, and I don't want to get into it with you. Go find an MBTI board if you like that typing system so well.
It ain't what you don't know that gets you into trouble. It's what you know for sure that just ain't so.-Mark Twain
You can't wake a person who is pretending to be asleep.
J and P especially
And no thanks. You will not succeed in stopping me from responding to your posts by saying things like that. What words of abuse would you find appropriate to describe your own behaviour here?
I'm sorry, Slacker Mom. You are wrong about my type, and your behaviour is basically on the same level as Rocky's. And I will probably correct you again in the future, if you insist on making false statements over and over again.
"...because I already know what you are going to say..."And no thanks. You will not succeed in stopping me from responding to your posts by saying things like that. What words of abuse would you find appropriate to describe your own behaviour here?
That's why I didn't need you responded. You HAVE said the same thing over and over again. Until you change your opinion, there's no reason to keep on repeating it. We get it. We know what you believe. Even though you're wrong. I won't debate you. That is all.
I think that was a compliment.
Yeah, it reads like, "You are also right."I think that was a compliment.
It ain't what you don't know that gets you into trouble. It's what you know for sure that just ain't so.-Mark Twain
You can't wake a person who is pretending to be asleep.
Yeah, it reads like, "You are also right."I think that was a compliment.
Your extremely high level of competence, intelligence, and kindness is shining through like a sun in the desert when you debate on such a high level, Slacker Mom and Rocky. That level is much too high for me; I can't follow. But maybe people can learn something from watching the two of you in action.
Finally you realize this.
The reason why the two don't correlate much has nothing to do with the theory, but the interpretation of it. Like SM said MBTI have biases which Socioncs doesn't have and visa vera, so the descriptions are different. And because the decriptions are different people identify with 'illogical' combinations.
That's why all that LIE = ENTJ thing doesn't work in reality.
The reason why the types in MBTT and Socionics do correlate has nothing to do with the theory, and it has nothing to do with the interpretation of it either.
But that is irrelevant. Types are not descriptions of types. Types are not theoretical explanations of functions. Types are sets of real existing entities (people) that have certain structural characteristics in common. People with the same type have the same relevent brain structures that cause them to think and behave in certain typical and recognizable ways. They share the same relevant attitudes, values, and energy rhythms. And they also share structural similarities in body type and facial structure.
You spot the type by recognizing those and other similarities and differences -- you recognize the pattern that exists out there in the world independently of any theory designed to explain that pattern. That is what a type is. Not the theoretical explanation that comes after the type has been recognized in the first place. The type is an empirical, observable phenomenon -- not a theoretical construct.
And that's why LIE = ENTJ is perfectly true of the referents to the labels "LIE" and "ENTJ". Because both those two labels refer to the same set of entities, that is the group of people with the same relevant similarities in body type, facial structure, brain structure, values, energy rhythms, etc. That the descriptions and explanations of why that group of people think and behave in the way they do are not the same in MBTT and Socionics is a totally different thing that has nothing to do with the type (= the referent) itself.
I dunno phaedrus. Why can't you accept that people have different points of view and that not everything that someone says (including you) is the absolute truth!
INTp
sx/sp
According to Phaedrus' logic, if I am ENTJ in MBTI (which I know I am, so don't debate it with me), I can only be ENTj in socionics. Ergo, you are incorrect.
According to Phaedrus' "logic" is the key phrase there.According to Phaedrus' logic, if I am ENTJ in MBTI (which I know I am, so don't debate it with me), I can only be ENTj in socionics. Ergo, you are incorrect.
It ain't what you don't know that gets you into trouble. It's what you know for sure that just ain't so.-Mark Twain
You can't wake a person who is pretending to be asleep.
Slacker Mom, I would genuinely like to see you show me how I can suddenly go from having Extraverted Thinking and Introverted Intuition as dominant and auxiliary functions respectively to having Extraverted Sensing and Introverted Logic as leading and secondary functions respectively.According to Phaedrus' "logic" is the key phrase there.According to Phaedrus' logic, if I am ENTJ in MBTI (which I know I am, so don't debate it with me), I can only be ENTj in socionics. Ergo, you are incorrect.
MBTI is Jung is Socionics. There's no way you can distort Jung's functions, because if you could you could easily end up coming to a conclusion like MBTI INFP = socionics LSE, which is just plain bullshit.
What you have to remember is that there are also different interpretations within MBTI, and likewise for socionics. So it seems even more difficult to "translate" them.Slacker Mom, I would genuinely like to see you show me how I can suddenly go from having Extraverted Thinking and Introverted Intuition as dominant and auxiliary functions respectively to having Extraverted Sensing and Introverted Logic as leading and secondary functions respectively.According to Phaedrus' "logic" is the key phrase there.According to Phaedrus' logic, if I am ENTJ in MBTI (which I know I am, so don't debate it with me), I can only be ENTj in socionics. Ergo, you are incorrect.
MBTI is Jung is Socionics. There's no way you can distort Jung's functions, because if you could you could easily end up coming to a conclusion like MBTI INFP = socionics LSE, which is just plain bullshit.
The problem with your logic is exactly this; you assume people can't be incompetant.
I assume it happens all the time. Of course you can't go from TeNi to SeTi. But whose to say you have such an awesome self-understanding? And further more, how can you know everyone who uses the function, in any camp, fully understands Jung's descriptions? Do you understand them? If you did, then why would you rely on faulty assumptions such as ENTJ-LIE? You wouldn't have to if you were fully aware of all your functions.
I accept that people have different points of view, and that not everything that someone says (including me) is the absolute truth -- but only one of two contradictory views can be true.
Truth is not relative. Everyone (including you) thinks that their own point of view is true. To have a point of view logically implies a claim to be right. It is logically impossible to have a point of view and not think that that particular point of view is correct (= true).
What if someone thinks that their POV is only correct from their POV? They might recognise that they can't be certain their POV is correct without observing all possible POVs - even then, they might not consider their POV to be correct - it's just their POV.
There are plenty of "Jung" tests on the internet which measure your type on a sliding scale for each of the four Jung dichotomies. In my experience, those are THE MOST effective tests.
Phaedrus, I spent a long time trying to convince people here that I am one type or another. The conflicts I created over the matter were a reflection of my own inner conflict. When people try to prove that they are one thing or another, it's only because they feel the need to prove it to themselves.
When did he say that?Phaedrus, I spent a long time trying to convince people here that I am one type or another. The conflicts I created over the matter were a reflection of my own inner conflict. When people try to prove that they are one thing or another, it's only because they feel the need to prove it to themselves.
That is a pretty messed up post.
That's the synopsis of the sum of his posts here.
That is a logical contradiction. The concept correctness loses its meaning if you use it that way. Either they think that their view is correct, which implies that they think that what they believe is correct from every possible point of view, or they don't think that their view is correct, which is a logical contradiction because it implies that they don't have a view at all.What if someone thinks that their POV is only correct from their POV?
It is often the case that people (including me) are not 100 % that their view is correct, but that only means that they don't know that their view is correct. They still believe that their view is correct -- if they have a view. This illustrates again what I have been trying to explain many times -- that there is a very important and fundamental difference between truth and knowledge. We usually don't know for sure that our views are true, but of two contradictory views one must be true and the other must be false. That is a logical necessity. If I say that I believe that p, and you say that you believe that not p, we both know that one of us is right and the other is wrong. But it is quite possible that neither of us knows which one of us is right.
To deliberatly attribute a quote to a person that the person has never written, knowing perfectly well that it is an incorrect quote is, in my opinion, even worse and more morally wrong than harassing people in other ways that some persons on this forum has been accused, correctly or incorrectly, of doing. Joy has now joined the group of a few people that has been guilty of posting false, misleading, and incorrect quotes. I don't know whether they have been doing it to others than me, but it is nevertheless an utterly objectionable act of misconduct, that should be stopped immediately.
Phaedrus, I agree with you if and only if:
Given test result ENTJ -> LIE
But Given ENTJ description -> !LIE
Basically, if you limit the transition from MBTI test to socionics description, I might agree with you that there is a good prediction. If you take into account comparison of descriptions, not at all - look by yourself.
Also, you should always refer to statistical outcomes, not identities. Meaning that not every person that tests as ENTJ is going to be ENTj, and not necessarily for lack of self-knowledge but also for ambiguity of tests, challenging life situations, etc
Obsequium amicos, veritas odium parit
If I call my point of view 'my point of view', then that means I recognise my POV is only correct from my POV, and not from every POV.That is a logical contradiction. The concept correctness loses its meaning if you use it that way. Either they think that their view is correct, which implies that they think that what they believe is correct from every possible point of view, or they don't think that their view is correct, which is a logical contradiction because it implies that they don't have a view at all.What if someone thinks that their POV is only correct from their POV?
I think he's referring to "reality", if you believe your point of view to be a correct representation of reality, then it must be correct from every POV.If I call my point of view 'my point of view', then that means I recognise my POV is only correct from my POV, and not from every POV.That is a logical contradiction. The concept correctness loses its meaning if you use it that way. Either they think that their view is correct, which implies that they think that what they believe is correct from every possible point of view, or they don't think that their view is correct, which is a logical contradiction because it implies that they don't have a view at all.What if someone thinks that their POV is only correct from their POV?
Obsequium amicos, veritas odium parit
Although the quoted was fabricated, I believed it was something you wrote at first since you've said very similar sounding things in the past. It's not like she made something up that was so far out there; you've pretty much said that anyway.
[quote]What? No, not at all. That's just silly.That is a logical contradiction. The concept correctness loses its meaning if you use it that way. Either they think that their view is correct, which implies that they think that what they believe is correct from every possible point of view, or they don't think that their view is correct, which is a logical contradiction because it implies that they don't have a view at all.What if someone thinks that their POV is only correct from their POV?
Everything in the world is not black and white. Somethings, but not everything. Also, you can still have a view and know at the same time that you are not %100 correct. Only really immature people don't.It is often the case that people (including me) are not 100 % that their view is correct, but that only means that they don't know that their view is correct. They still believe that their view is correct -- if they have a view. This illustrates again what I have been trying to explain many times -- that there is a very important and fundamental difference between truth and knowledge. We usually don't know for sure that our views are true, but of two contradictory views one must be true and the other must be false. That is a logical necessity. If I say that I believe that p, and you say that you believe that not p, we both know that one of us is right and the other is wrong. But it is quite possible that neither of us knows which one of us is right.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote