Mbti and socionics type

[Shuriken]

Deleted

[strangeling]

MBTI is kind of weird for introverts; some of the introverted descriptions assign Jungian rational features to Jungian irrational types. And the descriptions/concepts aren't very consistent because depending on how close the author stays with Jungian concepts, you can get an istp description sounding like socionics LSI or SLI.

[Words]

It's difficult to type someone from a type description but then functions are descriptions as well so I prefer to put the whole thing in the bin and give up on rationalising the non-sensical

[Amber]

Two independent systems. The J/p conversion works only sometimes, so it's best to just take a few tests, read profiles, and settle on the Socio-type that is most compatible with you. The functions are defined differently in Socionics... there is no complete overlap.
While I doubt there are people who truly type EIE in one and ISTP in the other, you often find at least one function in common (e.g. valued Fi or Se/Ni axis) or the same Group (Pragmatists, Humanitarians etc.). I suspect those who encounter huge differences are actually mistyped in mbti to begin with.
I think most commonly the subtype theory solves problems related to forms of ambiversion e.g. EII in mbti and IEE-Fi in Socionics.

[Computer Loser]

I'm istj in mbti and istj in socionics... yeah if you try to work out the functions between the two systems you'll get confused. but, if you take a step back and look at the overall type descriptions, they're pretty much describing the same shit. people overthink this stuff when it's fairly simple.

btw, if you get istp in one system and enfj in another system, you're probably very confused about yourself.

[nefnaf]

Most MBTI-based descriptions suck pretty hard. They are also polluted with David Keirsey's system which is really just a simplified version of Big 5 and nothing more.

Nevertheless I believe a formal equivalence does exist between the two systems since they are both based on Jung's theory of types. Your 'correct' typing in MBTI will also correspond to your socionics type with the MBTI's p/j standing for static / dynamic. The problem with MBTI is threefold: 1) most people (>50%) are typed incorrectly by the test; 2) the MBTI model is severely impoverished and both adds to and diminishes Jung's original model in equal measure; and 3) most MBTI-based descriptions are terrible, and this is especially noticeable for ISTJ (Si-Te) and ISTP (Ti-Se) descriptions, with the result that they often get confused.

[Myst]

This is because it is common practice to portray Socionics types as caricatures such as an EIE with social extroversion and a floaty irrational bent. This couldn't be further from the depth that information metabolism and its independence from personality has proclaimed, nor does it fit with even the most simplistic Socionics classifications, such as the definition of extroversion fitting with commonly prescribed ISTP traits of extroversion. Nor would we find an EIE ISTP all too difficult since they're not opposite types in any regard. As I've spoken with individuals who have this occur ie. Ashton, who I believe has an EIE ISTP father same as me or something of the nature, it is clear that these are quite different dichotomies, one dealing with the involved metabolism, Socionics, and the other dealing with personality correlation of different measures, that is MBTI. It is why I, for one, prescribe as a deep thinker, and an ethical/personal type, a questioning perceiver and a rigid rational. It is why one in my EII position may prescribe as socially extroverted, as individuals here have (I can count at least 20 outgoing and social introverts here.) 2 or 3 superficial differences is not too far off from 4 superficial differences. As I mentioned earlier, we have different definitions for intuitive and sensory functions as well as the contemporary mistake in pop-psychologies like MBTI that a thoughtful and healthy imagination = intuition, commonly cross-typing celebrities across the two systems totally differently, ie. 2 that come to mind out of the hundreds, Arnold Schwarzenegger and Ayn Rand self-typed themselves a theoretical, introspective INTJ status, where as we know in Socionics that being theoretical and introspective isn't type-related. These numbers only exponentialize once typing people in real life, in my experience, as I can barely find one person who has the same similarly lettered type in one system as they do the other.

The problem with this approach is, why bother keeping the jungian dichotomies and notation for MBTI then if the theory deals with such an entirely different aspect of people. I don't think you can provide a valid reason for that

I'm istj in mbti and istj in socionics... yeah if you try to work out the functions between the two systems you'll get confused. but, if you take a step back and look at the overall type descriptions, they're pretty much describing the same shit. people overthink this stuff when it's fairly simple.

btw, if you get istp in one system and enfj in another system, you're probably very confused about yourself.

You can work out the functions without getting confused, all it needs is the understanding how and why the functions differ between the two systems

[The Exception]

INTP in MBTI, INTj/LII in socionics.

[Myst]

You thusly ask the same question anyone would ask. Why bother keeping the Jungian dichotomies if the 3 theories deal with such entirely different aspects of people? (a) The creators of MBTI were probably on crack when they decided to magically paste and recut the puzzle of personality (like any pop-psychologist has been in the past dozen centuries.) (b) The developers gradually defining Socionics had at least impetus to contrast among Jung and MBTI, to unravel the mystery of relationships. So why keep the (vaguely) same nomenclature? because the theories came out of one another, yet only ideally would that always imply noticeable correlation.

How is either of these two a valid justification. They are not. Btw, socionists did not use MBTI to work out Socionics theory.

Let me also add, MBTI is supposed to be not just about concrete personality traits either. They just try to link the ways of information processing to such traits, this happens in Socionics too, isn't the best idea for obvious reasons.

Your approach to MBTI is a bit unorthodox by completely discarding the cognitive aspects of the theory. And I really don't see any valid reason for doing so, nor for believing in a direct connection between the cognitive aspect of ways of thinking and concrete visible personality traits.

[Myst]

MBTI is kind of weird for introverts; some of the introverted descriptions assign Jungian rational features to Jungian irrational types. And the descriptions/concepts aren't very consistent because depending on how close the author stays with Jungian concepts, you can get an istp description sounding like socionics LSI or SLI.

btw can you show me the MBTI ISTP description that sounds like LSI? I find most MBTI ISTP descriptions are somewhere between LSI and SLI stereotypes.

[Amber]

mbti ISTP profiling makes a total mess of what Ti base means. Mechanic or die. I would agree that ISTP kind of falls between the two Ist_ Sociotypes due to emphasis on practicality and lack of any Se "willpower" connotations in mbti. Socionics LSI (especially Ti subt) at least allows for some degree of "intellectualism".


This was a thread I found when I was searching for mbti/socionics correlations or clashes myself. It's interesting to see how many ppl test different things in the two. http://www.the16types.info/vbulletin...TI+correlation

[Myst]

mbti ISTP profiling makes a total mess of what Ti base means. Mechanic or die. I would agree that ISTP kind of falls between the two Ist_ Sociotypes due to emphasis on practicality and lack of any Se "willpower" connotations in mbti. Socionics LSI (especially Ti subt) at least allows for some degree of "intellectualism".

Yeah that mechanic label is ridiculous. I did see some ISTP descs that talked about Se stuff too but it was still overall a description of some person more irrational sounding than rational in terms of behaviour and kinda very no-nonsense over much "intellectualism", you are right about that. Things that resemble stereotypical Ne PoLR are more attributed to MBTI ISTJ descriptions

[Myst]

There are a ton of people in MBTI that just go by dichotomies and not the functions, or stereotypes, type descriptions etc. I think that it makes for a lot of mistypes. I think that socionics and MBTI are looking at the same functions from different angles, socionics being much better. I personally support the j/p switch for introverts. I'm an INFP in MBTI and an INFj in socionics. Two of my friends that I know irl claim to be INFP, but it's pretty apparent that they are both IEE's in socionics, which makes them ENFP in MBTI. My SO gets INTJ on MBTI tests and INTp on socionics tests, but it wasn't until I looked into Socionics, I realized he is an SLI or ISTJ. MBTI SJ stereotypes are pretty bad and it seems it might make people not even want to be that type, even if they are. Last time I was on a MBTI typology site I ended up getting crappy with someone that was going on about SJ's, just a drop of water in the endless sea, which is one reason I don't like going on those sites anymore...

btw, it's pretty funny that Jim Morrison is commonly typed INFP in MBTI and SLE in socionics. lol

What makes for mistypes isn't simply the dichotomies, tho' that's part of it, but 1) the tests don't at all guarantee a valid result, even officially it's not guaranteed 2) the way J/P was abstracted from the functions is fishy at best; also I/E is defined in a way that doesn't match the jungian concept. S/N and T/F are okayish

How the hell is Jim Morrison typed INFP and SLE at the same time?