What's your MBTI type, Gammas?

[blankblank]

The person's hypothesis I was testing out failed, so the poll doesn't matter anymore. But, this thread isn't a loss because people have been posting very odd socionics-MBTI connections. The most common switch is the J/P switch. I was under the impression that I/E, N/S, and F/T switches were rare, but after these threads, it's clear that it's more common than I thought it was.

TL;DR
If you have an I/E, N/S, or F/T switch, please explain how your socionics and MBTI type complement each other instead of contradict each other.

[EyeSeeCold]

Se-SEE and ESFP----Ni-ILI and INTP----Te-LIE and ENTJ----Fi-ESI and ISFJ
Fi-SEE and ESFJ----Te-ILI and INTJ----Ni-LIE and ENTP----Se-ESI and ISFP
Se-SEE and ESFJ----Ni-ILI and INTJ----Te-LIE and ENTP----Fi-ESI and ISFP
Fi-SEE and ESFP----Te-ILI and INTP----Ni-LIE and ENTJ----Se-ESI and ISFJ

???

[blankblank]

Se-SEE and ESFP----Ni-ILI and INTP----Te-LIE and ENTJ----Fi-ESI and ISFJ
Fi-SEE and ESFJ----Te-ILI and INTJ----Ni-LIE and ENTP----Se-ESI and ISFP
Se-SEE and ESFJ----Ni-ILI and INTJ----Te-LIE and ENTP----Fi-ESI and ISFP
Fi-SEE and ESFP----Te-ILI and INTP----Ni-LIE and ENTJ----Se-ESI and ISFJ

???

The Js and Ps don't transfer from socionics to MBTI. For example, an SEE is equally as likely to be an ESFP as an ESFJ.

[EyeSeeCold]

The Js and Ps don't transfer from socionics to MBTI. For example, an SEE is equally as likely to be an ESFP as an ESFJ.

Oops, nevermind. I focused on the presence of potentially incorrect information and not the whole context. That's why you included 2 versions of the types...

[Jarno]

ILI-Te and INTP

[Korpsy Knievel]

If you're not a Gamma, you can vote for someone you've typed.

So much for any attempt at accuracy.

[Sumer1an]

Im probably more of an ENTP in MBTI. I relate with INTJ a little bit and INTP a little bit but on a superficial level, im a total ENTP.

[Timeless]

Se-SEE and ESFP----Ni-ILI and INTP----Te-LIE and ENTJ----Fi-ESI and ISFJ
Fi-SEE and ESFJ----Te-ILI and INTJ----Ni-LIE and ENTP----Se-ESI and ISFP
Se-SEE and ESFJ----Ni-ILI and INTJ----Te-LIE and ENTP----Fi-ESI and ISFP
Fi-SEE and ESFP----Te-ILI and INTP----Ni-LIE and ENTJ----Se-ESI and ISFJ

???

[EyeSeeCold]

This is what I've been waiting for.

You, sir, win one internets.

[Aiss]

Voted Ni-ILI and INTP, since that's what I ended up typing in both systems. Note that I never quit arguing with other INTPs/INTJs about the differences between the two whenever functions were involved, it is only by dichotomies that it was clear. I'm Ni-dominant and Perceiving (making Ti-dominant and Perceiving work is nearly impossible without reinterpreting one of those, I tried).

[Korpsy Knievel]

Voted Ni-ILI and INTP, since that's what I ended up typing in both systems. Note that I never quit arguing with other INTPs/INTJs about the differences between the two whenever functions were involved, it is only by dichotomies that it was clear. I'm Ni-dominant and Perceiving (making Ti-dominant and Perceiving work is nearly impossible without reinterpreting one of those, I tried).

Ditto, but I'm not voting in this poll since it's skewed and screwed by soliciting votes from non-gammas who "know someone".

[Jarno]

The Js and Ps don't transfer from socionics to MBTI. For example, an SEE is equally as likely to be an ESFP as an ESFJ.

I don't see why they wouldn't transfer, they use the same criteria.

[blankblank]

I don't see why they wouldn't transfer, they use the same criteria.

Er, have you seen people talk about their socioncis & MBTI type? The J/P is what switches most often. The I/E, N/S, F/T rarely switch.

[FDG]

I test as ENTx with unclear results for J-P (always hovering around 50-50), although by examining my behavior and energy patterns it's clear how perceiving would not fit me in the slightest.

[Jarno]

Er, have you seen people talk about their socioncis & MBTI type? The J/P is what switches most often. The I/E, N/S, F/T rarely switch.

but how can you switch J/P if on both systems the criteria for being a J or P are the same.

[ashlesha]

functionssssss

[717495]

The I/E, N/S, F/T rarely switch.

but how can you switch J/P if on both systems the criteria for being a J or P are the same.

None of the dichotomies are exactly the same. The closest one is probably T/F. Old issue, lalalalalalalalalalala

[Jarno]

None of the dichotomies are exactly the same.

yes they are about 99% the same.

I think among different socionists there are also differences in how they measure the dichotomies. But 99% the same is close enough for being called similar.

And therefor it's strange if you call yourself a irrational in MBTI and a rational in socionics.

It's like calling yourself a woman in the USA but in China you would be a man according to their criteria. It doesn't work that way. What don't you understand about this?

[EyeSeeCold]

functionssssss

Constructive posts, please.

And therefor it's strange if you call yourself a irrational in MBTI and a rational in socionics.

It's like calling yourself a woman in the USA but in China you would be a man according to their criteria. It doesn't work that way. What don't you understand about this?

Best way I've seen it put so far.

[ashlesha]

i dont think that makes sense. if the criteria for being called a man in china was having female reproductive organs then yeah you'd be called a man there if you were called a woman in the us. man and woman and judging and irrational and all that are just words. i don't know if j/p is defined all that different but if you're able to type yourself correctly in socionics based on the things that matter like functions and relations then i don't see why it even matters. why do people care so much about the j/p thing? really.

[ashlesha]

Constructive posts, please.

you've got to be kidding me.

*insert irrelevant gif*

[Absurd]

i don't know if j/p is defined all that different but if you're able to type yourself correctly in socionics based on the things that matter like functions and relations then i don't see why it even matters.

I agree wholeheartedly.

[Azeroffs]

i dont think that makes sense. if the criteria for being called a man in china was having female reproductive organs then yeah you'd be called a man there if you were called a woman in the us.

The argument is that J/P and j/p have the same criteria, at least roughly.

[Jarno]

i dont think that makes sense. if the criteria for being called a man in china was having female reproductive organs then yeah you'd be called a man there if you were called a woman in the us.

Oke, then please show me a criteria of MBTI rationality and a criteria of Socionics rationality that are roughly opposites.

[ashlesha]

my point wasn't that they are different, if you read my post i said i don't know if they are described all that different. i just don't see why it matters since you shouldn't be basing your type off your mbti type in the first place. but i guess this thread is about trying to correlate so w/e. in my case my j/p switches because i don't see myself as strongly j or p and i find more consistency with matching functions. it seems like jarno was saying a j/p switch isn't possible and i think emphasis should be placed on factors other then the 4 dichotomies.

[Jarno]

i said i don't know if they are described all that different.

I can assure you that they are close to identical.

i just don't see why it matters since you shouldn't be basing your type off your mbti type in the first place.

It's a good starting point. MBTI is fairly accurate. Better then socionics questionaires.

it seems like jarno was saying a j/p switch isn't possible

exactly. it's highly unlikely when focussing on j/p.

and i think emphasis should be placed on factors other then the 4 dichotomies.

Yes a lot of things can help finding your type, but 4 dichotomies (mbti or socionics) is the best starting point IMO.

[ashlesha]

okay.

[Aiss]

In MBTI, J is closely related to being decisive, a "doer", as opposed to the more passive P, an "observer". That is more of socionics E/I. MBTI I/E focuses on sociability, which is considered not type related and probably more correlated with T/F in socionics, anyway. That often seems to make ET+IF, IJ+EP, possibly NJ+SP types unsure as to their type, when considering only dichotomies (cue endless "am I P or J/F or T/I or E" threads).

[Jarno]

In MBTI, J is closely related to being decisive, a "doer", as opposed to the more passive P, an "observer". That is more of socionics E/I. MBTI I/E focuses on sociability, which is considered not type related and probably more correlated with T/F in socionics, anyway. That often seems to make ET+IF, IJ+EP, possibly NJ+SP types unsure as to their type, when considering only dichotomies (cue endless "am I P or J/F or T/I or E" threads).

you make things more fuzzy than necessary. There are enough good definitions around.

If I remember correctly, in the book of stratisvaska (a well known Socionist) she talks about Extraverts being more sociable and introverts less.

All in all, the dichotomies are similar. Just there are so many people working with these both systems and everybody has a slightly different angle on things, that once in a while you get a somewhat deviating definition. That's how things work. You have to adjust to that.

[Creepy-]

Yes, the dichotomies are similar. But they don't exactly match up. The descriptions of MBTI's dichotomies seem a lot more shallow than the ones Socionics uses, in my opinion.

1. Dichotomies only determine preference.
2. Functions in MBTI are not defined the exact same as elements in Socionics.
3. Dichotomies determine functions, not the other way around.

This debate is entirely unnecessary.

[Jarno]

This debate is entirely unnecessary.

Yes, it's so obvious that they are similar, yet I get laughed at by two people for it.
I don't understand that. If someone has an answer to that I would be somewhat happy too.

[blankblank]

What don't you understand about this?

What do you understand about the socionics-MBTI correlation? Nothing.

Sorry, saw that sentence, couldn't resist.

Read all the functions again. Notice how Se and Si in socionics are different than Se and Si in MBTI. Notice how socionics describes more of why you act the way you do and MBTI is more about why your mindsets are the way they are. Notice the signatures of people who are a fan of both MBTI and socionics and see that the functions don't match up.

[blankblank]

None of the dichotomies are exactly the same. The closest one is probably T/F.

After posting these threads, it seems letter switches are more common than I originally thought. Is the distribution kind of like MBTI and enneagram? For example, 4 is the most common type for INFJs, then 1, then 2/5/6/9, and rarely 3/7/8. But it's clear that 4 and 1 are not the only enneagram types for INFJs. Is it like that?

[blankblank]

In MBTI, J is closely related to being decisive, a "doer", as opposed to the more passive P, an "observer". That is more of socionics E/I. MBTI I/E focuses on sociability, which is considered not type related and probably more correlated with T/F in socionics, anyway. That often seems to make ET+IF, IJ+EP, possibly NJ+SP types unsure as to their type, when considering only dichotomies (cue endless "am I P or J/F or T/I or E" threads).

Interesting...

[ashlesha]

3. Dichotomies determine functions, not the other way around.

yeah, i agree that the debate is unnecessary. but do you mind explaining what you mean by this? i'm not sure i understand it.

After posting these threads, it seems letter switches are more common than I originally thought. Is the distribution kind of like MBTI and enneagram? For example, 4 is the most common type for INFJs, then 1, then 2/5/6/9, and rarely 3/7/8. But it's clear that 4 and 1 are not the only enneagram types for INFJs. Is it like that?

yeah, i think its something like that. there are varying opinions about it, but most people afaik agree that there isn't a strict correlation (like the same four letters or the j/p switch or whatever).

[Jarno]

What do you understand about the socionics-MBTI correlation? Nothing.

Sorry, saw that sentence, couldn't resist.

Read all the functions again. Notice how Se and Si in socionics are different than Se and Si in MBTI. Notice how socionics describes more of why you act the way you do and MBTI is more about why your mindsets are the way they are. Notice the signatures of people who are a fan of both MBTI and socionics and see that the functions don't match up.

ooooooh, MBTI functions are flawed. They use the wrong formula to convert from dichtomies to functions.

if they would invent MBTI again, and read Jung right, they would adress the same functions to the types as socionics has done. Socionics has proven to use the right formula because it is able to explain relationships by comparing functions or the partners involved. MBTI cannot do this. It's also not Jung proof.

YOU don't know shit. Every once in a year a guy/girl like you comes a long and tells everybody that MBTI functions don't match up with socionics. Wow hadn't noticed that before...what an eye opener. pff. I'm getting tired of correcting everyone. And ironically THEY tell me that I know nothing.

[bionic]

I am an INTJ in MBTI.

[Aleksei]

What do you understand about the socionics-MBTI correlation? Nothing.

Sorry, saw that sentence, couldn't resist.

Read all the functions again. Notice how Se and Si in socionics are different than Se and Si in MBTI. Notice how socionics describes more of why you act the way you do and MBTI is more about why your mindsets are the way they are. Notice the signatures of people who are a fan of both MBTI and socionics and see that the functions don't match up.

ooooooh, MBTI functions are flawed. They use the wrong formula to convert from dichtomies to functions.

if they would invent MBTI again, and read Jung right, they would adress the same functions to the types as socionics has done. Socionics has proven to use the right formula because it is able to explain relationships by comparing functions or the partners involved. MBTI cannot do this. It's also not Jung proof.

YOU don't know shit. Every once in a year a guy/girl like you comes a long and tells everybody that MBTI functions don't match up with socionics. Wow hadn't noticed that before...what an eye opener. pff. I'm getting tired of correcting everyone. And ironically THEY tell me that I know nothing.

That's because you don't, in fact, know shit. Very few to no Jungian typology theorists know what the hell Jung's functions really mean, because his explanations of how they, and his model of the psyche, operate in general are scattered over multiple of his works. Rest assured, his model of the psyche doesn't match that of any Jungian derivative, Socionics or otherwise (just for starters, in Jung's system the auxiliary and tertiary functions are undefined -- if they had a defined orientation, you'd go crazy).

Beyond that, however, his functions from even Psychological Types alone glaringly don't match. is a fair match for both of his Ne and Se, whereas emphatically doesn't match his Se. Dominant and aggressive attitudes are explicitly stated to be disliked by Extroverted Sensors in Psychological Types.

[Aleksei]

Care to source that?

It's in Analytical Psychology somewhere -- I'd have to slog through it again. The gist of it, however, is that the auxiliary is an assist function. If it developed a defined orientation, it would mean that it developed the same amount of psychic energy as the dominant (which represents your core worldview) has -- which would cause the two to compete for dominance, and risk shifting your dominant worldview. If your shadow doesn't shift to adapt to the change (oh yeah, another hilarious misconception -- Jung did not believe you're born, live and die a given type -- he himself self-typed Ti(S) earlier in life and then retyped Ti(N) around his fifties or so), it causes your psyche to self-destruct.

So in essence, if you're a mentally healthy individual, you don't have a defined auxiliary. If you do, you've reached levels of cognitive dissonance approaching MPD.

Also this.

"Although this lack of basic principles in the sensation-type does not argue an absolute lawlessness and lack of restraint, it at least deprives him of the quite essential restraining power of judgment. Rational judgment represents a conscious coercion, which the rational type appears to impose upon himself of his own free will. This compulsion overtakes the sensation-type from the unconscious. Moreover, the rational type's link to the object, from the very existence of a judgment, never means such an unconditioned relation as that which the sensation-type has with the object." -Psychological Types, pp. 460-461.

In essence, his Extraverted Sensing loathes coercion and restraint -- opposing the fundamentally territorial nature of There is, in fact, nothing in Jung's Extroverted Sensing that defines themes of willpower, territory, dominance, territory, etc., all of which are the purview of (Source for that).

I misworded though -- while indeed there's absolutely nothing that would define his Extroverted Sensing as dominant or aggressive, what's explicitly disallowed is coercion or restraint.

[Jarno]

I'm an ESFJ in mbti.