Post your MBTI type and Socionics type

[Jarno]

I keep wondering what numbers people would like to see, before they call this a correlation.

Remarks like 'there's no correlation at all' seem a bit to unjustifitied.

[717495]

I'm certain that atleast a few voted the same type for MBTI and socionics because they don't know the difference. This number could definitely be bigger.

[Ezra]

This kind of thing makes me think that maybe I am an ESTP in MBTI. It's plausible. I'm more of an ESTP than I am an ESTJ. It's just that I think ENTJ > ESTP.

[717495]

It's just that I think ENTJ > ESTP.

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

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.

[Jarno]

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

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.

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.

[717495]

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.

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

[Jarno]

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.

[717495]

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.

[Ezra]

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

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.