1. ## Straight MBTT-Socionics Conversions

There's two dead-simple theories on how to convert introvert types from Socionics to MBTT and vice versa:

A. IXXX=>IXXX
B. IXXX=>IXXY

Now, I find this interesting:
Socionics defines functional extroversion as dealing with bodies (e) versus fields (i).
MBTT defines functional extroversion as whether it seeks stimulation (e) or concentration (i).
Socionics defines functional order as whether something is accepting (1) or producing (2).
MBTT defines functional order as whether something is dominant (1) or auxiliary (2).

For conversion A to hold true, it would imply that 1/e and 2/i are transposed.
For conversion B to hold true, the definitions of the phenomena must be consistent.

Other cases would indicate a more complex conversion process. For example they might need to take subtype into account, or some functional traits might match a certain way where certain others do not. In the case of introvert sensors however, it seems there is a fairly strong match to A, such that Se2 and Si1 are transposed, along with the function they are paired with.

ABCD ==> EFGh

where E = A or ~A, F = B or ~B, G = C or ~C, and h = D or ~D

3. All your problems would be solved if you associated socionics with the "tri-letter code"

4. Originally Posted by UDP
All your problems would be solved if you associated socionics with the "tri-letter code"
YES. Fuck, why don't people take this on board? Then sensible correlations could be made, and only idiots like Phaedrus would come up with shitty theories that are over-simplified and impractical.

5. Originally Posted by Ezra
and only idiots like Phaedrus
I understand you disagree with him, but there is no need to imitate his social skills

6. Originally Posted by Luke
There's two dead-simple theories on how to convert introvert types from Socionics to MBTT and vice versa:

A. IXXX=>IXXX
B. IXXX=>IXXY
lolol awesome

Here is a simpler formula for conversion :

(insert socionic type here) = RTRD

RTRD the 17th Myersian type.

7. Originally Posted by niffweed17

ABCD ==> EFGh

where E = A or ~A, F = B or ~B, G = C or ~C, and h = D or ~D
This has the advantage of working in 100% of all cases, but unfortunately has zero explanatory power.

8. Originally Posted by UDP
All your problems would be solved if you associated socionics with the "tri-letter code"

But this is about how to convert between the two systems. Not how to describe their content. Someone could be an "MBTI LII" just as easily as they can be a "Socionics INTJ". It's just a labeling system.

That said, there's two simple ways to convert introverts using the freaking 3-letter code:

A. XYI=>XYI
B. XYI=>YXI

Every other consistent conversion theory (for introverts, i.e. assuming they aren't extroverts in either system) has to be based on some combination of these two.
Example: "'A' applies to sensors, whereas 'B' applies to intuitives."

It's a consistent theory. It's more complex than A or B. But you had to have A and B to build it from.
Of course I doubt it's that simple. Perhaps subtype plays a role.

Example: "'A' applies to subtype X, 'B' applies to subtype Y."

Again, it's probably less than adequate for the situation. But at least it has a rational starting point that we can work from.

Originally Posted by Ezra
why don't people take this on board? Then sensible correlations could be made, and only idiots like Phaedrus would come up with shitty theories that are over-simplified and impractical.
The thing I like about Phaedrus is that he has a self-consistent theory about this. It's probably wrong (at least for a sizable percentage of non-sensors) but at least it is a theory.

9. Originally Posted by Luke
This has the advantage of working in 100% of all cases, but unfortunately has zero explanatory power.
your other options have negative explanatory power.

10. Originally Posted by Luke

But this is about how to convert between the two systems. Not how to describe their content. Someone could be an "MBTI LII" just as easily as they can be a "Socionics INTJ". It's just a labeling system.
Why bother?

11. I don't think you can really convert between the two systems... it will be different per the individual.

12. Originally Posted by Loki
I don't think you can really convert between the two systems... it will be different per the individual.
Probably. But the exceptions to a rule are where you learn to improve the rule. You can't examine the exceptions properly without a rule to start with.

Newtonian physics predicts some things that aren't correct in the real universe. Hence Einsteinian physics. But it would be tough to grasp Special Relativity without first understanding Newtonian physics. SR is about exceptions to the rule.

@niffweed17:
If you don't understand what I'm getting at, you really shouldn't comment.

#### Posting Permissions

• You may not post new threads
• You may not post replies
• You may not post attachments
• You may not edit your posts
•