MBTI-Socionics type correlations - why does ISFP sound like ISFp and not ISFj?

[calenwen]

Okay, so there's probably a thread about this somewhere, but I couldn't find one, so I'm sorry if this is redundant but the difference between the mbti and socionics and what it implies has been confusing me.

(I'm just going to use my own type because that's the simplest for me, but obviously this applies to all of the types.)
I took the mbti and I tested as ISFP. According to this theory, that would mean that my dominant function is Fi and my auxiliary function is Se (followed by Ni and then Te).
Now, according so Socionics, Fi Se = ISfj.
If this is the case, then why do I relate to the Socionics type ISFp more than ISFj?
I also took a Socionics test and the result was ISFp. This makes no sense to me. How can I relate to (and test) both the mbti and socionics description of an ISFP/p when they have different leading functions?

So I probably sound like an idiot, but I'd really appreciate it if anyone could clarify this for me.

[Elro]

Although Phaedrus may vehemently disagree with me, the functions are set up differently between MBTI and Socionics, so Fi Se in MBTI is not the same as Fi Se in Socionics. Although Socionics.com claims there's a "j/p shift" which means if you're INTP in MBTI, you're INTj/LII in Socionics, you should probably take that with a few grains of salt. There's not really any guarantee you'll turn out to be any specific type in Socionics just because you were some other type in MBTI. I recommend using the three-letter notation (e.g., SEI) when talking about Socionics types, because it makes it clearer that MBTI and Socionics are different theories, which is good because it can be confusing to mix them. It's also fun because it confuses the newbies.

[xyz]

Okay, so there's probably a thread about this somewhere, but I couldn't find one, so I'm sorry if this is redundant but the difference between the mbti and socionics and what it implies has been confusing me.

(I'm just going to use my own type because that's the simplest for me, but obviously this applies to all of the types.)
I took the mbti and I tested as ISFP. According to this theory, that would mean that my dominant function is Fi and my auxiliary function is Se (followed by Ni and then Te).
Now, according so Socionics, Fi Se = ISfj.
If this is the case, then why do I relate to the Socionics type ISFp more than ISFj?
I also took a Socionics test and the result was ISFp. This makes no sense to me. How can I relate to (and test) both the mbti and socionics description of an ISFP/p when they have different leading functions?

So I probably sound like an idiot, but I'd really appreciate it if anyone could clarify this for me.

In MBTI, they basically have their functions confused. They are defined a little differently so any type in MBTI might not exactly cross over to Socionics based on which actual function MBTI fucked up.

To MBTI, an ISTP is Ti and Se dominant, where in Socionics that's an ISTj.

Generally I've found MBTI's definitions to be based too many on descriptions. Socionics seems a bit more refined with function definitions and structures.

[calenwen]

So basically I should peruse the descriptions of the different socionics type and find the one that fits me best and ignore the mbti functions?
I feel like this still doesn't fully explain why I would relate to both descriptions (ISFP and SEI) since they are different, well, maybe if the mbti functions are that screwed up?

[xyz]

So basically I should peruse the descriptions of the different socionics type and find the one that fits me best and ignore the mbti functions?
I feel like this still doesn't fully explain why I would relate to both descriptions (ISFP and SEI) since they are different, well, maybe if the mbti functions are that screwed up?

Certain MBTI functions are messed up, certain ones are just different to Socionics.

I'd suggest first you just find your 2 ego functions. Once you find those, the rest tends to fall in place.

(And for the record, I am ISTp both in MBTI and Socionics. MBTI most of the time doesn't even bother with function definitions)

[Jarno]

Okay, so there's probably a thread about this somewhere, but I couldn't find one, so I'm sorry if this is redundant but the difference between the mbti and socionics and what it implies has been confusing me.

(I'm just going to use my own type because that's the simplest for me, but obviously this applies to all of the types.)
I took the mbti and I tested as ISFP. According to this theory, that would mean that my dominant function is Fi and my auxiliary function is Se (followed by Ni and then Te).
Now, according so Socionics, Fi Se = ISfj.
If this is the case, then why do I relate to the Socionics type ISFp more than ISFj?
I also took a Socionics test and the result was ISFp. This makes no sense to me. How can I relate to (and test) both the mbti and socionics description of an ISFP/p when they have different leading functions?

So I probably sound like an idiot, but I'd really appreciate it if anyone could clarify this for me.

To answer this as simple as possible:

MBTI has an error in their function order.

You are an ISFP. You have Si Fe function order.

[Phaedrus]

I took the mbti and I tested as ISFP. According to this theory, that would mean that my dominant function is Fi and my auxiliary function is Se (followed by Ni and then Te).
Now, according so Socionics, Fi Se = ISfj.
If this is the case, then why do I relate to the Socionics type ISFp more than ISFj?
I also took a Socionics test and the result was ISFp. This makes no sense to me. How can I relate to (and test) both the mbti and socionics description of an ISFP/p when they have different leading functions?

Because every ISFP is an ISFp (SEI) in Socionics. It's the same type in both systems. Myers-Briggs Type Theory is wrong about the functions ordering for the ISFP/ISFp type, and your correct functions ordering is SiFe (= ). Now, you must realize that the Si function is totally different in MBTT than in Socionics so that Si + Fe in ISFJ profiles is roughly equivalent to Fi + Se (= + ) in socionic ISFj profiles. You must also realize that your leading function (, Si) has many similarities with how Se is described in MBTT.

Don't let anyone fool you into believing that you are not the same type in both systems. You are an ISFp in Socionics and your MBTI type is also ISFP (assuming that you have identified your correct type by your test results and the type descriptions).

[Phaedrus]

Although Socionics.com claims there's a "j/p shift" which means if you're INTP in MBTI, you're INTj/LII in Socionics, you should probably take that with a few grains of salt.

No, you should see it for what it really is -- pure bullshit. There is NEVER any j/p shift and there has never been any j/p shift. Those who claim that there is such a shift are idiots that don't know what they are talking about.

There's not really any guarantee you'll turn out to be any specific type in Socionics just because you were some other type in MBTI.

Shut up with this bullshit, Elro. If you have found your correct type by taking an MBTI test and identifiying strongly with the corresponding type profile, then you can be damn sure that you are the same type in Socionicns. There is always a guarantee that you turn out to be exactly the same type in both systems.

I recommend using the three-letter notation (e.g., SEI) when talking about Socionics types, because it makes it clearer that MBTI and Socionics are different theories, which is good because it can be confusing to mix them. It's also fun because it confuses the newbies.

More bullshit. You can use whatever notation you want, because there can never be any confusion -- unless you focus on the functions. Every four letter type in Socioncis is ALWAYS the exact same four letter type in MBTT.

[calenwen]

Okay. I basically get it. Thanks, guys.

[xyz]

Okay. I basically get it. Thanks, guys.

No problem glad we could help.

And Phaedrus, it's not total bullshit. Somtimes the J/p switch can be legit. The problem is doing that without understanding why.

I really do just think it's best to treat MBTI as something else completely...and stick generally to Socionics.

[Phaedrus]

And Phaedrus, it's not total bullshit.

It is total bullshit, and you know it.

Somtimes the J/p switch can be legit. The problem is doing that without understanding why.

THERE IS NEVER ANY J/p SWITCH. PERIOD. Now stop spreading bullshit around, will you.

I really do just think it's best to treat MBTI as something else completely...and stick generally to Socionics.

And you are wrong. It is best to tread MBTI for what it is: a test instrument. And it is best to treat MBTT for what it is: a false theory about the types whose type descriptions correctly describe the behaviour and attitudes of the corresponding socionic types.

[xyz]

I'll only agree with you at this point:

MBTI is bullshit. Not TOTAL bullshit.

And about it being a false (wtf is false, you mean, faulty?) theory merely describing the general type bevahiour I feel is accurate as well.



I just agreed with Phaedrus...?

*head explodes*

[machintruc]

If this is the case, then why do I relate to the Socionics type ISFp more than ISFj?

Because your myersian type isn't ISFP but rather NOOB.