Post your MBTI type and Socionics type

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Jarno

I don't think there is anyone who defends MBTI functions, since they are buggy as hell and should be ignored.

Their descriptions however are obvious similar. ISTP who's a master of tools in both theories for example. That's not a difference, but a striking similarity.

---

What makes ISTp/ISTP so good at tools? It can't be Te because ISTP doesn't use that, it can't be Se, it could be Ti or Se, but since when does one's Id function determine what they are the master of, especially since they're "unconscious" of it, so it must be the dichotomies. Gasp... or maybe "good with tools" it's coming from a stereotype based on MBTI. :rolleyes:

Maybe it's true for some ISTPs and some ISTps, but certainly not all.

I agree with strengths, but I know when one is mastering something, it usually involves their ego more. It's hard to actually take interest in some field if you're unconcious (to a certain extent) of it's requirements. Hence, you could do it, but there wouldn't be interest. Just how I could be good at Te pursuits, but often time I'm not because it's an ignoring function, and I think ignoring is a great word for it.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by polikujm

Maybe it's true for some ISTPs and some ISTps, but certainly not all.

---

it isn't necessary for all. If the pattern is visible enough, that's enough. We're dealing with social sciences.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Jarno

it isn't necessary for all. If the pattern is visible enough, that's enough. We're dealing with social sciences.

---

I know. That's the obvious part! However if there actually were a full correlation, there would be no reason why people didn't mix socionics and MBTI stereotypes together, however since there isn't one, it proves the correlation could be fraudulent. I'm trying to approach this problem at a different level.

INTP - INTj

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by polikujm

Well yeah. MBTI Te is in some ways described similarly to :Se:.

I hate when people say MBTI Ne is socionics Ne. "No, because MBTI is a different theory than socionics. Two interpretations of Jung that look at two different elements of personality and have two different sets of dichotomies, that, get this, used one set of 16 types and one set of 8 letters." Bad call. They're the same people who think socionics P is MBTI P, J for J, which completely contradicts their previous statement. Just die already.

---

Good - that's nice to know that you basically agree with me.

INFP : ILI

I was first INTP back when I was a teenager, but after a few years I started scoring higher on both F and J. It's kinda weird I'm not really sure what I am anymore.

I most commonly score as an INTJ in MBTI. Strongest on Introversion, moderate on N, slightly more T than F. J/P is the letter that varies the most and on occassion will score as a P.

In socionics, I'm an INTj or LII. Pretty strong on the first three, less sure about the last letter. My use of functions seems to match better with INTj than INTp and I relate more to alpha quadra.

ISTJ - ESTj

I remember reading about myers briggs once and reading that in that system it is the extroverted function that determines the J/P. I didn't really think they had functions in that way. But anyways what I read was interesting.

For example an INFP in socionics has an extroverted judjing function. Thus in myers briggs this is suppsed to correlate to INFJ. ENFJ in socionics is ENFJ in myers briggs as it has an extroverted judging function also. ENFP (socionics) correlates to ENFP (myers briggs) because of the introverted judging function, so INFJ correlates to INFP.

So when changing from socionics to myers briggs all introverts change the P to a J or vice versa. All extroverts stay the same.

Could well be a load of nonsense but interesting none the less.

MBTI: IxTP
Socionics: IxTj

The ISTP and SLI descriptions fit me best though, I think.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by jimbo

I remember reading about myers briggs once and reading that in that system it is the extroverted function that determines the J/P. I didn't really think they had functions in that way. But anyways what I read was interesting.

For example an INFP in socionics has an extroverted judjing function. Thus in myers briggs this is suppsed to correlate to INFJ. ENFJ in socionics is ENFJ in myers briggs as it has an extroverted judging function also. ENFP (socionics) correlates to ENFP (myers briggs) because of the introverted judging function, so INFJ correlates to INFP.

So when changing from socionics to myers briggs all introverts change the P to a J or vice versa. All extroverts stay the same.

Could well be a load of nonsense but interesting none the less.

---

switching j/p is an old myth.

MBTI starts out using the right type descriptions, for example the mbti 'ISTP' and the socionics 'ISTp' are both called 'the mechanic' or 'master of tools'.
So there is clearly a 1 on 1 correlation.

But MBTI goes wrong when it tries to apply functions to the different types. Since they have this crazy reasoning for finding the leading type of introverts, and next to that they only have 4 functions in total. So it's best to ignore mbti functions completely since they only confuse things and they aren't used that much anyways. While the mbti descriptions are sufficiently accurate and the mbti dichotomies only differ slightly in their definitions with socionics ones.

MBTI ENTP, often testing also as ENFP. I also very often test as a J. So I bounce around between four types.

I don't like MBTI tests :(

Definite Socionics ENTp, though.

ENFP - ENTp

Right, I just think that J and P has the least in common with its socionics parallel (rationality and irrationality,) and the other dichotomies are probably more on par with socionics. That being said there is no "switch" for introverts, but there is a more likely chance if there is a switch for any introvert or extrovert, it will be of that parallel J/P dichotomy.

MBTI: INFP

Socionics: EII/INFj