MBTI - Socionics INTx

[buckland]

I did not want to trawl through previous messages to see whether this has previously been discussed, but I found this rather detailed MBTI site ages back which I have started looking through again. I know the INTx interchange between MBTI and socionics with swapping the j for P and vice versa is technically wrong, these descriptions seem to follow that pattern. I have not gone through the other types though.

The Sixteen Personality Types - High-Level

[Gilly]

There is no one-to-one correlation, nor automatic switch. Such a thing does not exist. The theories are entirely independent of one another and no direct correlations exist between the two. Two theories with different definitions for the same terms; they use the same words to talk about entirely different things.

Example: I am an ENTP in MBTI and an EIE/ENFj in Socionics.

Any attempt to find similarities or correlations between the two theories will be promptly met by citation of reliable Socionics sources on information metabolism that clearly distinguish Socionics definitions from MBTI or Jung.

The descriptions do sound similar, yes, and in many cases they describe the same kinds of people. But the theories are separate, and while perhaps tendencies of correlation could be established, 1-to-1 correlations do not exist.

[Jarno]

There is no one-to-one correlation, nor automatic switch. Such a thing does not exist. The theories are entirely independent of one another and no direct correlations exist between the two. Two theories with different definitions for the same terms; they use the same words to talk about entirely different things.

Example: I am an ENTP in MBTI and an EIE/ENFj in Socionics.

Any attempt to find similarities or correlations between the two theories will be promptly met by citation of reliable Socionics sources on information metabolism that clearly distinguish Socionics definitions from MBTI or Jung.

The descriptions do sound similar, yes, and in many cases they describe the same kinds of people. But the theories are separate, and while perhaps tendencies of correlation could be established, 1-to-1 correlations do not exist.

there are obviously many similarities, and the intent of all theories is to describe the same phenomena, the 16 different psychological types. Even among socionics descriptions there are differences. Yes MBTI might be amateuristic, but it's not an 'entirely different' model.

[krieger]

The content of that site is pure fiction.

[Ezra]

That site you mentioned, buckland, is an MBTI site. If you want to talk about socionics, throw that out the window. It will only serve to confuse you.

To further illustrate Gilly's point about no correlation:

We proposed the 16 descriptions of the Keirsey types to 108 socionists (this means, each of the 108 read ALL THE 16 descriptions), and we asked them to identify the socionic types in these descriptions.

The table below represents the result of this experiment:



And the next table represents one more result of this experiment. We asked the participants to indicate their own types, and to recognize their own types in these descriptions:

Source

[Jarno]

first of all, that experiment was about keirsey's types, who uses some kind of economic perspective. Pretty akward for Socionists.

If I would describe 16 types of different cars. And somebody else would describe the same 16 different cars. A third person wouldn't be able to match our descriptions either!!

So try to see things in the right perspective.