As above
What would a ILE ENFP and an IEE ENTP be like?
As above
ENTp... love it
3w2
are you saying that someone can be 2 types?Originally Posted by EllaC
As above
Think in steps
Define the function and understand the meanings then understand what information is searched and how the person thinks and produces output. That's a lot of steps I know.
ILE -gets evaluated as
comes in the door
IEE -comes in the door
Dual type(as per tcaudilllg)
Enneagram 5 (wings either 4 or 6)?
I'm constantly looking to align the real with the ideal.I've been more oriented toward being overly idealistic by expecting the real to match the ideal. My thinking side is dominent. The result is that sometimes I can be overly impersonal or self-centered in my approach, not being understanding of others in the process and simply thinking "you should do this" or "everyone should follor this rule"..."regardless of how they feel or where they're coming from"which just isn't a good attitude to have. It is a way, though, to give oneself an artificial sense of self-justification. LSE
Best description of functions:
http://socionicsstudy.blogspot.com/2...functions.html
Yeah I thought someone could have a MBTI type different from their socionics type?
ENTp... love it
3w2
No that's a myth.
Here's some proof why it's not possible and how this myth evolved.
It's not possible since they use the same dichotomies. Sure since they are independantely developed each has it's own definitions which might result in somewhat different scores, but overall they are the same.
Secondly the type descriptions are the same. Most clear example is ISTP. He's 'the mechanic' in both systems. For other types they have different names INTP is critic in socionics but wizard in mbti (or whatever name) this doesn't make him a different type.
If names would make types different, how about all the different socionics streams. Sometimes intp is observer, sometimes critic.
The myth has evolved because of the slightly different criteria and definitions, you could end up being more of a sensor in one system and more of intuitive in the other. This doesn't mean you are two types. This just means that one system has worse criteria.
Also, people tend to believe mbti functions are not flawed, and therefor they talk about different functions for different types. But MBTI is heavy flawed. They should make MBTI version 2 and leave everything how it is, and correct the functions. Then MBTI is exactly socionics. But at this moment MBTI doesn't use functions to type people only dichotomies so it shouldn't be a problem.
Well, Ganin wrote that the types might be mixed up for introverted types, if they are typed using functions on MBTI system, but that problem wouldn't arise for extraverted types.
I have to say though, that reading decent MBTI descriptions, ie ones in MBTI books not ones on internet, that they do seem to be talking about same type descriptions on both systems.
I suppose it can be complicated, but also simple, depending on how it's looked at.
yep, fortunately MBTI doesn't use functions for typing. Only dichotomies or questionaires not related to functions but to types.
That's probably why they never discovered their inconsistency. They simply don't use functions, they just stick them on a type afterwards, for fun.
I guess Ganin used the complicated way :-)
I think it's much easier to be mistyped in MBTI, yes. About types' descriptions similarity (or lack thereof in some cases), see about the middle of this article: Introduction into Socionics . These are based on Keirsey but they're much closer to MBTI.
MBTI tests for different things, and most people arrive at their type through test and reading the sugary description.
So my SEI friend mistyped as ENTP. She's read short ENTP description, and with it being so positive, easily identified. Forer effect taken to the extreme by lack of negative characteristics. Later she's typed as SEI in socionics and I think she's one. It works better for her than ENTP ever did.
I suppose my point is that while assuming your MBTI type will be the same as your socionics type might work in most cases, it doesn't work the other way. It's much easier to mistype in MBTI.
I am INTj and INTP.
I took the MBTI years ago and scored my dual's type and got so confused, when I looked at the descriptions I noticed I was INFj.
Last edited by Beautiful sky; 04-19-2010 at 07:58 PM.
Dual type
Enneagram 5 (wings either 4 or 6)?
I'm constantly looking to align the real with the ideal.I've been more oriented toward being overly idealistic by expecting the real to match the ideal. My thinking side is dominent. The result is that sometimes I can be overly impersonal or self-centered in my approach, not being understanding of others in the process and simply thinking "you should do this" or "everyone should follor this rule"..."regardless of how they feel or where they're coming from"which just isn't a good attitude to have. It is a way, though, to give oneself an artificial sense of self-justification. LSE
Best description of functions:
http://socionicsstudy.blogspot.com/2...functions.html
That's interesting. I'm not particularly bothered either way in terms of somehow 'proving' something, I am curious though, using the dichotomies, what would you say is different that you identify with J dichotomy in socionics and P dichotomy in MBTI (i'm assuming you identify with said dichotomies in socionics and MBTI, or perhaps not)?
I'm INTp and INTP. I first thought I was INTj because of functions but it didn't work for me at all.
@Cyclops: MBTI generally simplifies P/J to be chaos + procrastination vs order + getting things done. No wonder there's a lot of confusion. (Okay, so maybe the official definitions are different, but these work for tests and MBTI forums' discussions.)
yes you are right. The difference in definitions is what makes comparing sometimes difficult or confusing.
@labcoat
Being two different types sounds as ridiculous to me as saying you are a male according to European standards and female to USA standards. You can only be one, period.
My sister's husband is ILE and every time he takes an MBTI style test he gets ENFP. I don't know if he's ever taken one given by a professional. I think he's only taken the free online versions.Yeah I thought someone could have a MBTI type different from their socionics type?
What's he like? Nice. Fun. Quirky. Well-adjusted. And very ILE. He's getting his PhD in math.
IEE
Gosh a PhD in math; that's so much fun!
Dual type
Enneagram 5 (wings either 4 or 6)?
I'm constantly looking to align the real with the ideal.I've been more oriented toward being overly idealistic by expecting the real to match the ideal. My thinking side is dominent. The result is that sometimes I can be overly impersonal or self-centered in my approach, not being understanding of others in the process and simply thinking "you should do this" or "everyone should follor this rule"..."regardless of how they feel or where they're coming from"which just isn't a good attitude to have. It is a way, though, to give oneself an artificial sense of self-justification. LSE
Best description of functions:
http://socionicsstudy.blogspot.com/2...functions.html
He believes so
IEE
I consistently test INFJ by MBTI, and am IEE by socionics. The two systems are different in my view. The functions are defined differently.
Enneagram: 9w1 6w5 2w3 so/sx
In MBTI, I'm an INFP with a very strong Intuitive preference (usually, I test all over the damn shop, but INFP pops up a lot). I really don't think I'm either of Beta or Delta; and I think regardless of which Alpha you think I am, that can be agreed upon, yes?
I think INTP and INTJ got mixed up in MBTI. It makes sense since INTp, in terms of values, does show more J-like tendencies, and conversly INTj P-like tendency at least relative to each other. Many INTP descriptions sound like INTj and INTJ descriptions like INTp. INTPs are bit more quirky and analytical while INTJs are serious and mechanical from descriptions I remember.
However, these are the only case. ISTJ and ISTj are clearly the same for example. This also may be why the J/P switch came about considering that many people that get deeply involved in typology are INTx.
I have about 10 mbti books in my book-case, which easely distinct INTP from INTJ. For example calling the INTP 'the planner'. Well that sounds Ni to me.
It are probably those crappy internet profiles written that make the confusion. They also make lots of use of functions. Something mbti books do not.
Last edited by Jarno; 04-20-2010 at 10:15 AM.
The freaks on typologycentral.com sometimes use functions for typing, actually...
100% agree. Labcoat is most likely INTP and INTp. I got this impression after reading this thread. Everything strikes me as INTp there...
those freaks are amateurs who like to juggle around with functions. Somehow functions are very addictive to people. They are more sexy then dichotomies. You can see it on this forum too.The freaks on typologycentral.com sometimes use functions for typing, actually...
100% agree. Labcoat is most likely INTP and INTp. I got this impression after reading this thread. Everything strikes me as INTp there...
Labcoat seems perfectly INTj-Ti to me. I don't talk the same way like him. We are totally different. so...
I think it's just a sheer weakness of the functions in general. There isn't a type that has my function strengths and preferences according to tests I've done, I think.
I think part of the reason for Si-base testing as N might be that you guys are Ne-DS, so you're naturally attracted to Ne-related things... and then there are MBTI tests, on which many N/S questions are basically "innovative or traditional", and also phrased like "do you prefer...".
David Keirsey lists contingency "planning" as the archetypal INTJ skill. Oops.I have about 10 mbti books in my book-case, which easely distinct INTP from INTJ. For example calling the INTP 'the planner'. Well that sounds Ni to me.
http://www.keirsey.com/handler.aspx?...5&c=mastermind
Wikisocion lists it as ENTj trait rather than INTx.
To answer the OP, I would say take the personality traits that are assigned by MBTI (social, abstract-minded, emotional, spontaneous, etc) and apply that to a person who's thought processes are dominated by the chosen IEs (is rather prevalent, so it makes sense for the N to exist, the F could possibly show that they are dependent or wanting to use their
often enough to dominate their personality, which is not completely hard to see since the
instead of
Removed at User Request
More likely than not this is the reason for inconsistent conversion.
As far as I'm aware though, N T S and F are impossible to convert inconsistently even with only a basic understanding of both systems. I think understanding E/I J/P in both systems correctly should also result in consistent conversion, but there are a lot of poor descriptions of those dichotomies in MBTI.
I wouldn't be surprised to see people thinking they have different E/I and J/P between systems, but different N T S or F should be clearly incorrect.
Removed at User Request
It's not always that clear in either system though. Decisive/planned doesn't instantly mean you're Ni. Being random, doesn't necessarily make you irrational or P, and being planned doesn't necessarily make you rational or J. No single external trait equates to a dichotomy or type.
You might argue that MBTI does type this way, but it isn't meant to be that simplistic. MBTI just isn't developed enough.
Removed at User Request
Last edited by Pied Piper; 04-21-2010 at 05:03 AM.
I get the impression that people sit maybe one or two tests on MBTI, look at a tiny internet description then decide that's their MBTI type.
Then of course they can spend possibly years looking for their socionics type.
So eventually they go, I am a different type in MBTI than on socionics, without actually thinking that they've quite likely mis-typed themselves on MBTI in first place (if they've got their socionics type right).
Though if people would realize that
a) dichotomies are defined somewhat differently in MBTI and socionics, especially P and J
b) information elements play a key role in socionics, and socionics is about relations with others. in MBTI you can get along pretty well with people who have similar dichotomies, or pretty much any type, depending on the person.
c) the descriptions emphasize different areas of personality. there are correlations, but saying that an MBTI INTP description totally sounds just like ILI in socionics, is only appealing to your impressions, is limiting the true difference that exists in time and their name, their creator, the creators intention, and you're probably confused about some of the actual scientific difference between the two theories
d) assume that there is a high likeliness of one being the same type in both systems, but that its not a rule and doesn't need to be pressed on to others like it is the truth, when its obvious they're somewhat different. read the descriptions, and understand how you get to one type is different for one theory than it is the other. you can reason it out how they're both the same to you, and there's nothing wrong with that, since you're referencing your subjective impression of the theory and not the actual study of it, and you're probably more obsessed with the similarities than the differences.
then it wouldn't be such a mystery. Understanding socionics doesn't mean understanding MBTI, visa versa. You understand one, you can misunderstand the other. You can understand both, and you'd be understanding two systems that do have some very close commonalities, and you'd be keeping an open mind to their differences too.
Removed at User Request
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
