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

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

    3 11.54%
  • INTJ = INTp. MBTI just uses a wrong definition of the j/p dichotomy.

    3 11.54%
  • INTJ = INTj or INTp. Depends on subtype!

    3 11.54%
  • INTJ = INTj or INTp or ENTj or ENTp. MBTI uses different definitions for I/E and p/j.

    4 15.38%
  • INTJ = ???. MBTI uses different definitions for all dichotomies.

    8 30.77%
  • Other opinions...?

    5 19.23%
Page 1 of 5 12345 LastLast
Results 1 to 40 of 162

Thread: How should MBTI type be converted to Socionics type

  1. #1
    JohnDo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    TIM
    LII-IEI
    Posts
    638
    Mentioned
    2 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default How should MBTI type be converted to Socionics type

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

  2. #2
    Banned
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    TIM
    LSE
    Posts
    18,006
    Mentioned
    162 Post(s)
    Tagged
    1 Thread(s)

    Default

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

  3. #3
    ._. Aiss's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    TIM
    IEI
    Posts
    2,015
    Mentioned
    19 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    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. #4
    JohnDo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    TIM
    LII-IEI
    Posts
    638
    Mentioned
    2 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Aiss View Post
    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!!
    Last edited by JohnDo; 04-20-2010 at 01:04 PM.

  5. #5
    Banned
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    TIM
    LSE
    Posts
    18,006
    Mentioned
    162 Post(s)
    Tagged
    1 Thread(s)

    Default

    Yes. "Different" people produce different results.

  6. #6
    ._. Aiss's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    TIM
    IEI
    Posts
    2,015
    Mentioned
    19 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by JohnDo View Post
    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. #7
    Banned
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    TIM
    LSE
    Posts
    18,006
    Mentioned
    162 Post(s)
    Tagged
    1 Thread(s)

    Default

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

  8. #8
    ._. Aiss's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    TIM
    IEI
    Posts
    2,015
    Mentioned
    19 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Absurd View Post
    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. #9
    Banned
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    TIM
    LSE
    Posts
    18,006
    Mentioned
    162 Post(s)
    Tagged
    1 Thread(s)

    Default

    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. #10
    i'll tear down the sky Mattie's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    South Florida
    TIM
    NeFi
    Posts
    1,108
    Mentioned
    2 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    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. #11
    ._. Aiss's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    TIM
    IEI
    Posts
    2,015
    Mentioned
    19 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by look.to.the.sky View Post
    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. #12
    Poster Nutbag The Exception's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Location
    my own personal bubble
    TIM
    LII-Ne
    Posts
    4,108
    Mentioned
    94 Post(s)
    Tagged
    1 Thread(s)

    Default

    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.
    LII-Ne with strong EII tendencies, 6w7-9w1-3w4 so/sp/sx, INxP



  13. #13
    Ti centric krieger's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Posts
    5,983
    Mentioned
    80 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    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. #14
    JohnDo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    TIM
    LII-IEI
    Posts
    638
    Mentioned
    2 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    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.

    Quote 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...

    Quote 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.
    Last edited by JohnDo; 04-20-2010 at 07:30 PM.

  15. #15
    Ti centric krieger's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Posts
    5,983
    Mentioned
    80 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    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. #16
    JohnDo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    TIM
    LII-IEI
    Posts
    638
    Mentioned
    2 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by labcoat View Post
    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. #17
    Ti centric krieger's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Posts
    5,983
    Mentioned
    80 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    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. #18
    Ti centric krieger's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Posts
    5,983
    Mentioned
    80 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    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. #19
    Haikus Beautiful sky's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Location
    EII land
    TIM
    EII INFj
    Posts
    22,740
    Mentioned
    531 Post(s)
    Tagged
    6 Thread(s)

    Default

    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. #20
    tereg's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    TIM
    EII/INFj
    Posts
    4,684
    Mentioned
    2 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

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

    9w1 sp/sx

  21. #21
    Trevor's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Posts
    2,860
    Mentioned
    9 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Aiss View Post

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

  22. #22
    Ti centric krieger's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Posts
    5,983
    Mentioned
    80 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    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. #23
    Creepy-Pied Piper

    Default

    Removed at User Request

  24. #24
    Haikus Beautiful sky's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Location
    EII land
    TIM
    EII INFj
    Posts
    22,740
    Mentioned
    531 Post(s)
    Tagged
    6 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Aiss View Post
    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. #25
    JohnDo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    TIM
    LII-IEI
    Posts
    638
    Mentioned
    2 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by labcoat View Post
    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. #26
    Ti centric krieger's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Posts
    5,983
    Mentioned
    80 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    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. #27
    ._. Aiss's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    TIM
    IEI
    Posts
    2,015
    Mentioned
    19 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Pinocchio View Post
    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.

    Quote Originally Posted by Maritsa33 View Post
    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. #28
    Jarno's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    Netherlands
    TIM
    ILI-Te
    Posts
    5,375
    Mentioned
    30 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Aiss View Post


    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.
    Last edited by Jarno; 04-20-2010 at 11:22 PM.

  29. #29
    Don't forget the the thehotelambush's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    TIM
    LII
    Posts
    6,614
    Mentioned
    157 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

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

  30. #30
    ._. Aiss's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    TIM
    IEI
    Posts
    2,015
    Mentioned
    19 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Jarno View Post
    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. #31
    Jarno's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    Netherlands
    TIM
    ILI-Te
    Posts
    5,375
    Mentioned
    30 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Aiss View Post
    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. #32
    Haikus Beautiful sky's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Location
    EII land
    TIM
    EII INFj
    Posts
    22,740
    Mentioned
    531 Post(s)
    Tagged
    6 Thread(s)

    Default

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

  33. #33
    Jarno's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    Netherlands
    TIM
    ILI-Te
    Posts
    5,375
    Mentioned
    30 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Absurd View Post
    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. #34
    ._. Aiss's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    TIM
    IEI
    Posts
    2,015
    Mentioned
    19 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Jarno View Post
    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.

    Quote Originally Posted by Maritsa33 View Post
    Did you consider it?
    No.

  35. #35
    Creepy-Pied Piper

    Default

    Removed at User Request
    Last edited by Pied Piper; 04-20-2010 at 11:31 PM.

  36. #36
    Jarno's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    Netherlands
    TIM
    ILI-Te
    Posts
    5,375
    Mentioned
    30 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Aiss View Post
    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. #37
    Jarno's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    Netherlands
    TIM
    ILI-Te
    Posts
    5,375
    Mentioned
    30 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by look.to.the.sky View Post
    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. #38
    Executor MatthewZ's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    TIM
    Ne-LII
    Posts
    800
    Mentioned
    3 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    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. #39
    Jarno's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    Netherlands
    TIM
    ILI-Te
    Posts
    5,375
    Mentioned
    30 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by MatthewZ View Post
    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. #40
    Jarno's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    Netherlands
    TIM
    ILI-Te
    Posts
    5,375
    Mentioned
    30 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by MatthewZ View Post
    but there isn't a smooth dichotomy-for-dichotomy comparison between the two.
    oh no? where's your proof.

    What about introvert extravert.

    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 LastLast

Tags for this Thread

Posting Permissions

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