Is it possible...

[popcornflorals]

for an MBTI ISTP (with an enneagram 9) to be a Socionics ISFp?

[Adam Strange]

Type determination is a human activity.

[Danali]

Nope, they're very different.

[Xaiviay]

Sometimes there is that much of a discrepancy, yes.

[Chakram]

There is a possibility that this could happen, but it is low from my perspective. I do generally think that a logical type in mbti will also be a logical type in socionics, the same thing for ethical types.

The exact (introverted/extroverted) information element/ cognitive function could change, as the two systems have varying descriptions for Ti, Te, Fi, and Fe, and also for the perceiving elements. There is no exact translation between the two systems.

[huiheiwufhawriuhg]

no, you're typed incorrectly in either MBTI or Socionics.

[photon]

yeah why not

[chrys]

It's a useless thought until you're for sure about your type in either system.

So I guess?

[Aramas]

There is only one typology that stems from jungian psychology. Socionics and MBTI are the same thing from two different perspectives. MBTI just isn't the best one. It does have one thing (not necessarily good) Socionics doesn't, though, and that's that it sees personal development and "working on yourself" as something to do, whereas Socionics takes an environmental perspective that explains individual psychological health through the things that are related to it, i.e. the people one is surrounded by. In Socionics, it's not so much about personal development as getting around the right influences and letting the subconscious do its own work. I favor the Socionics way, myself. MBTI is kinda shitty imo.

I think Socionics is the better version, period. One thing MBTI people tend to see much better than Socionics folks, though, is that there is indeed a regular surface-level antagonism between the ego and superid. People in Socionics tend to think duality is tiptoeing though the roses on a spring day in the Alps when it isn't necessarily. This error that socionists make is the source of an enormous amount of trouble.

Duality is more like a never-ending waltz of fighting and fucking. But the presence of fucking and fighting isn't an indicator of duality. It's a one-way implication. Even when duals fight though, you can see the underlying unity, assuming what's happening isn't abuse of course.

So, in conclusion, you only have one type. Figure out what it is.

[Danali]

There is only one typology that stems from jungian psychology. Socionics and MBTI are the same thing from two different perspectives. MBTI just isn't the best one. It does have one thing (not necessarily good) Socionics doesn't, though, and that's that it sees personal development and "working on yourself" as something to do, whereas Socionics takes an environmental perspective that explains individual psychological health through the things that are related to it, i.e. the people one is surrounded by. In Socionics, it's not so much about personal development as getting around the right influences and letting the subconscious do its own work. I favor the Socionics way, myself. MBTI is kinda shitty imo.

I think Socionics is the better version, period. One thing MBTI people tend to see much better than Socionics folks, though, is that there is indeed a regular surface-level antagonism between the ego and superid. People in Socionics tend to think duality is tiptoeing though the roses on a spring day in the Alps when it isn't necessarily. This error that socionists make is the source of an enormous amount of trouble.

Duality is more like a never-ending waltz of fighting and fucking. But the presence of fucking and fighting isn't an indicator of duality. It's a one-way implication. Even when duals fight though, you can see the underlying unity, assuming what's happening isn't abuse of course.

So, in conclusion, you only have one type. Figure out what it is.