## View Poll Results: How to convert MBTI type to Socionics type?

Voters
27. You may not vote on this poll
• INTJ = INTj. Straightforward. MBTI just uses a wrong order of functions.

3 11.11%
• INTJ = INTp. MBTI just uses a wrong definition of the j/p dichotomy.

4 14.81%
• INTJ = INTj or INTp. Depends on subtype!

3 11.11%
• INTJ = INTj or INTp or ENTj or ENTp. MBTI uses different definitions for I/E and p/j.

4 14.81%
• INTJ = ???. MBTI uses different definitions for all dichotomies.

8 29.63%
• Other opinions...?

5 18.52%

# Thread: How should MBTI type be converted to Socionics type

1. ## How should MBTI type be converted to Socionics type

Once again, due to upcoming confusion. Please vote...

2. I test the same in MBTI as in Socionics. Most of the time, of course.

3. INTP = LII | ILI | others (low probability)
INTJ = SLE | LIE | LII | ILI | others (low probability)

Yeah, I know, there are some INTJ-LII and INTJ-ILI here. But the point is, most people typed INTJ (esp. on MBTI forums) don't seem either.

And obligatory table:

In which you can clearly see that INTp is much more like INTP, or ISTJ, or INFJ, than INTJ.

The problem with people who think P/J switch works is that they think it means if, for example, they're IJ, they should be called "perceivers" and still use their MBTI-assigned functions, while in fact if they're J, they're likely socionics Extroverts, either p or j (and therefore use different functions than MBTI had them think). So instead of untwisting it, they twist it again in the same direction hoping it'll end up straight.

4. Originally Posted by Aiss
INTP = LII | ILI | others (very low probability)
INTJ = SLE | LIE | LII | ILI | others (low probability)

Yeah, I know, there are some INTJ-LII and INTJ-ILI here. But the point is, most people typed INTJ (esp. on MBTI forum) don't seem either.
I know this table - it is absolutely ridiculous.

The fact that there is absolutely no consensus among those so-called socionists shows that the study is completely useless!

So 52 socionists called the INTJ description ESTp, 32 said ENTj, 15 ENTp and - how amazing - 9 said INTj.

Useless crap. Just read the descriptions yourself and you will realize there is a 1:1 correlation. Fuck those stupid retards who call themselves "socionists". If they were profesional socionists there would have to be consensus!!! Useless crap!!

5. Yes. "Different" people produce different results.

6. Originally Posted by JohnDo
The fact that there is absolutely no consensus among those so-called socionists shows that the study is completely useless!
No. The fact that there's no consensus shows that there's no obvious 1-1 correlation. Which is a ground for massive mistypings.

So 52 socionists called the INTJ description ESTp, 32 said ENTj, 15 ENTp and - how amazing - 9 said INTj.
Quite obvious it isn't INTj = INTJ, is it?

Useless crap. Just read the descriptions yourself and you will realize there is a 1:1 correlation. Fuck those stupid retards who call themselves "socionists". If they were profesional socionists there would have to be consensus!!! Useless crap!!
There has to be consensus? Why? Because you said so?

Just because you see obvious correlation, and someone else sees obvious correlation, doesn't mean it's the same one.

This table shows similarity in the descriptions, not how much people of these types are what socionics types. There's even more mistyping because since MBTI descriptions are mostly flattering, so many people just go by tests and accept whatever answer there is.

I read the descriptions before I became interested in socionics, JohnDo. I ended up arguing with people who claimed INTJs were "doers", "not wasted their time thinking/theoretizing", "weren't useless like INTPs because they actually have impact on the world", etc., about functions and types and dichotomies. In this light, INTP is the closest you'll get to INTp and probably INTj, but INTj and INTJ doesn't really work.

In short: some INTP profiles describe INTp; most describe INTj. Most INTJs are extroverts in socionics.

7. According to this I am an extrovert in socionics. Yay!

8. Originally Posted by Absurd
According to this I am an extrovert in socionics. Yay!
You mean by MBTI type?

My point is that there's no clear 1-1 correlation, especially for INTJ. I don't mean that introverts can't be "doers", but I wouldn't describe either LII or ILI as such. Anyway how most INTJs online talk about this type sounds LIE > ILI.

9. No, I test ISTJ (MBTI) and LSI (Socionics).

That extrovert thing makes a lot of sense. I'm just stuck at that j and p shite, but help me gOD, I'll figure it out quickly, now that I don't drink so often.

10. There is no conversion, MBTI and Socionics aim at two different things. MBTI tests for topical personality traits, like social, emotional, flexible, etc. Socionics looks at the information metabolism process. This is correlative at best, though I predict the correlation to go strongly with MBTI matches because the roots of the traits are found in the same origins with young.

That said, I think that the differences come when you factor in that you can be on a spectrum between dichotomies, like you're only so much E and close to I. That's not really reflective in Socionics. I imagine the most difference will come with the temperaments, because they are also different between the systems. E is clearly about being more social and traits related to that, while I is the opposite, which is not existent in Socionics, and the whole P/J dichotomy is absent as well, the only things of these that remain is the residue of those who still type using temperaments that are clearly influenced by an MBTI background.

I was an ENFP in MBTI and I am NeFi. I can't see too much variation between types, no more than two letters from the MBTI comparison type, and they are most likely the temperament letters.

ETA: Just keep in mind that MBTI doesn't test by their "functions" (I just realized this is where the vocab confusion came from...) and MBTI functions don't have a real influence on the type. They are largely represented by the dichotomies, which don't exist in Socionics, and therefore, a conversation cannot happen.

11. Originally Posted by look.to.the.sky
ETA: Just keep in mind that MBTI doesn't test by their "functions" (I just realized this is where the vocab confusion came from...) and MBTI functions don't have a real influence on the type. They are largely represented by the dichotomies, which don't exist in Socionics, and therefore, a conversation cannot happen.
*MBTI gesticulates*
Socionics: What?

Sorry, couldn't help myself. (Actually, I could, but I didn't want to.)

12. I most frequently test INTJ on Myers-Briggs but sometimes INTP and once in a great while INFJ or INFP. The I and the N are pretty clear. I find I relate somewhat more to INTP Myers-Briggs descriptions than the INTJ ones even though most frequently I get INTJ. Also, function wise, TiNe, fits far better than NiTe.

13. Depends on "subtype".

Anyone who thinks either correlation works 100% of the time fails.

My point is that there's no clear 1-1 correlation, especially for INTJ. I don't mean that introverts can't be "doers", but I wouldn't describe either LII or ILI as such. Anyway how most INTJs online talk about this type sounds LIE > ILI.
I agree. The Myers-Briggs INTJ type has no correlate in socionics. INTjs and INTps both are less self-confident and action oriented. ESTps are less theoretical. ENTjs are less socially reclusive.

14. According to this poll it is very obvious that a very strong correlation exists.

People whose socionics type is reportedly not the same as their MBTI type
- have mistyped themselves because of tests which don't work reliably.
- have mistyped themselves because MBTI uses a wrong order of functions.
- have mistyped themselves because dichotomies are described slightly differently even though they are more or less identical.
- have mistyped themselves because descriptions in both systems have certain inaccuracies even though they are more or less identical.

Originally Posted by look.to.the.sky
Just keep in mind that MBTI doesn't test by their "functions" (I just realized this is where the vocab confusion came from...) and MBTI functions don't have a real influence on the type. They are largely represented by the dichotomies, which don't exist in Socionics, and therefore, a conversation cannot happen.
You are absolutely wrong, the Jungian dichotomies are also the foundation of socionics...

Originally Posted by aiss
There has to be consensus? Why? Because you said so?
Those so-called socionists do not even agree if the INTJ description sounds judging or perceiving, intuitive or sensory. This approach is obviously useless.
Types are not defined by descriptions but by dichotomies.

15. Just so you know, if you type me as INTp you just end up with a theory that can't predict anything. It's useless. Time to throw in the towel and admit things weren't as simple as you wanted them to be.

16. Originally Posted by labcoat
Just so you know, if you type me as INTp you just end up with a theory that can't predict anything. It's useless. Time to throw in the towel and admit things weren't as simple as you wanted them to be.
Just post one little picture of yourself and everything will be alright...

17. I'm not going to submit to your dogmatism. You'll just use whatever you see as a confirmation of what you already believed.

18. On a related note, it's interesting that people keep saying I'm a good example of a judging subtype INTj when in my everyday life I lack pretty much every supposed definining property of a judger. I don't live a structured life. I get almost nothing done during an average day. I never plan anything I do. I always postpone things until the deadline is close. Etc...

19. There is no way. My studies show that many people score within their quadra; I posted this study that I conducted with 30 college students to show that of them only one scored their own type. Not even did I score my own type from MBTI to Socionics. Most people scored their mirror or activity, others scored their dual type (as I did), and very few scored outside quadra.

20. fwiw, I typed as an INFP MBTI before I found out about Socionics.

21. Originally Posted by Aiss

This was once shown to Phaedrus. He basically refuted the evidence and adopted more objective stance. His stance.

22. The first line of the INTJ profile that was used for that test (Keirsey's first INTJ description) was "INTJs are the most self confident of the types, having self-power awareness." It's not surprising ESTp got linked to it so much.

23. Removed at User Request

24. Originally Posted by Aiss
INTP = LII | ILI | others (low probability)
INTJ = SLE | LIE | LII | ILI | others (low probability)

Yeah, I know, there are some INTJ-LII and INTJ-ILI here. But the point is, most people typed INTJ (esp. on MBTI forums) don't seem either.

In which you can clearly see that INTp is much more like INTP, or ISTJ, or INFJ, than INTJ.

The problem with people who think P/J switch works is that they think it means if, for example, they're IJ, they should be called "perceivers" and still use their MBTI-assigned functions, while in fact if they're J, they're likely socionics Extroverts, either p or j (and therefore use different functions than MBTI had them think). So instead of untwisting it, they twist it again in the same direction hoping it'll end up straight.
You display far too much logic to be a ethical type at all; I would say ENTp or INTp

25. Originally Posted by labcoat
The first line of the INTJ profile that was used for that test (Keirsey's first INTJ description) was "INTJs are the most self confident of the types, having self-power awareness." It's not surprising ESTp got linked to it so much.
That's a misleading line, indeed. It would be correct to say:

"INTJs are the most self confident of all types when it comes to scientific questions, having self-power awareness in this field. But they can be very unconfident in social situations"

Nobody would have thought of it as an ESTp description then...

26. INTJ profiles in the MBTI generally describe the INTJ as a self-confident type in a general, overarching sense. In my experience, socionics INTjs and INTps are both only moderately self-confident. It's true that they are self-confident in NT-ish fields but that is tautological. Every type is self-confident in the field associated with it.

27. Originally Posted by Pinocchio
Wrong definition, but exclusively for introverts, there is an explanation for it. I voted that option, though.

Edit: so it's valid for INFJ <-> INFP as well.
Edit2: MBTI test results are arbitrary on it, may be Socionics INTj and get MBTI INTj too.
I am both p and P.

Myers-Briggs based P/J dichotomy on rationality/irrationality (somehow), and later realized the assignment of functions didn't work with this dichotomy.

Originally Posted by Maritsa33
You display far too much logic to be a ethical type at all; I would say ENTp or INTp
Did I miss being typed ethical? I thought it was impossible.

28. Originally Posted by Aiss

I bet that Gulenko cannot recognize types written by Filatova. Both socionics. Its simply hard to understand someone elses descriptions.

BTW If I remember correctly, only 4 words per type were allowed in the type descriptions. So that's begging for confusion.

This amateuristic table is just a myth creator, and you folks fell for it.

29. In MBTI, NT = relatively smart person whose interests are primarily intellectual/scientific.

30. Originally Posted by Jarno
BTW If I remember correctly, only 4 words per type were allowed in the type descriptions. So that's begging for confusion.

This amateuristic table is just a myth creator, and you folks fell for it.
Where is the information about 4 words to be found? I didn't see it in the article.

31. Originally Posted by Aiss
Where is the information about 4 words to be found? I didn't see it in the article.
can you post me the link where the article was.

Cause I'm certain I have read something like that. I've once studied this table in depth. But cannot remember every detail...

32. Originally Posted by Aiss
Did I miss being typed ethical? I thought it was impossible.
Did you consider it?

33. Originally Posted by Absurd
Yes "Different" people produce different results.
this actually sums up nicely what I meant.

We could make our own test. I write 16 short socionics descriptions and you guys guess what type I described. Let's see if we can get to consensus. I know the answer already :-)

34. Originally Posted by Jarno
can you post me the link where the article was.

Cause I'm certain I have read something like that. I've once studied this table in depth. But cannot remember every detail...
Introduction into Socionics

Keywords are mentioned but then they talk of "descriptions". No numbers are given.

Originally Posted by Maritsa33
Did you consider it?
No.

35. Removed at User Request

36. Originally Posted by Aiss
Introduction into Socionics

Keywords are mentioned but then they talk of "descriptions". No numbers are given.

thanks.

They are keirsey descriptions btw. Now I happen to have the book of him, in which he doesn't use standard MBTI type descriptions, but rather proffesion descriptions. That might explain a part of the confusion.

37. Originally Posted by look.to.the.sky
They are largely represented by the dichotomies, which don't exist in Socionics, and therefore, a conversation cannot happen.
I'm sorry, you say dichotomies don't exist in socionics??

It is exactly bullshit like this that creates myths.

For your information, russian socionics sites use dichotomies equal or even more than functions.

If you don't know the facts, then just say nothing.

38. If MBTI and Socionics had such a succinct match-up, then why have the theories not merged yet? They both have the Jungian system in common, but MBTI used that as its basis while Augusta adopted it later as it seemed to be a useful vessel for communicating her already-formed conclusions. The two systems have some weak correlations, but only weak ones. The IMs/functions are entirely different breeds between the two.

Although there's no direct correlation, MBTI J/P seems to correlate more with static/dynamic than rational/irrational. It's a difference on what each system thinks to be important for understanding a person. MBTI places more focus on what a person's strongest extraverted function is, regardless of it's position in MBTI functional ordering. (which isn't anywhere near as rigid as in Socionics; you can hear "My Te is stronger than my Ti" statements in casual MBTI discussions, which aren't commonplace around here)

Just as certain types tend to often have a certain "range" of E-types, the same works for MBTI. Some pairings occur more than others, but there isn't a smooth dichotomy-for-dichotomy comparison between the two.

39. Originally Posted by MatthewZ
The two systems have some weak correlations, but only weak ones.
yeah, the only discovered 16 different types among humans. I guess the theories have nothing in common.

Look man, if one system discovered 14 different types based on 7 dichotomies, only then would I talk about weak correlation.

40. Originally Posted by MatthewZ
but there isn't a smooth dichotomy-for-dichotomy comparison between the two.

I read on an mbti site that they like to call extraverts initiators and introverts responders.

What do I read on socionics sites? Exactly the same.

Page 1 of 5 12345 Last