INTJ = INTj. Straightforward. MBTI just uses a wrong order of functions.
INTJ = INTp. MBTI just uses a wrong definition of the j/p dichotomy.
INTJ = INTj or INTp. Depends on subtype!
INTJ = INTj or INTp or ENTj or ENTp. MBTI uses different definitions for I/E and p/j.
INTJ = ???. MBTI uses different definitions for all dichotomies.
Other opinions...?
Jarno, please don't waste your time with discussions like that. There is a 1:1 correlation, period.Originally Posted by Jarno
You are almost my only hope for getting an interlocutor concerning the IE subtype system. Have you already tried to
- arrange your ESFp sample by using the IE subtype system?
- arrange it by using the pattern I discovered (shape of face)?
- compare the first with the second method?
Removed at User Request
I am an INTP in MBTI.
Remember that some MBTI resources use the Jungian Types, ie Ne, Se, Te, etc.
So, I actually related specifically to TiNe in MBTI, which was INTP.
So, Che, I remember a long time ago you and I disagreed about this, what are your thoughts now? Do you understand that some INTP descriptions are written as descriptions of TiNe...?
The end is nigh
That's a skewed understanding of the introtim/extrotim dimension.
In MBTI introversion is defined as "energized when alone, being around people is draining", extroversion - the reverse. This is inconsistent with socionics understanding, as far as I know.
yes those thing are true; that's why I types tend to need long hours of sleep.
Last edited by Beautiful sky; 04-23-2010 at 09:19 PM.
-
Dual type(as per tcaudilllg)
Enneagram 5 (wings either 4 or 6)?
I'm constantly looking to align the real with the ideal.I've been more oriented toward being overly idealistic by expecting the real to match the ideal. My thinking side is dominent. The result is that sometimes I can be overly impersonal or self-centered in my approach, not being understanding of others in the process and simply thinking "you should do this" or "everyone should follor this rule"..."regardless of how they feel or where they're coming from"which just isn't a good attitude to have. It is a way, though, to give oneself an artificial sense of self-justification. LSE
Best description of functions:
http://socionicsstudy.blogspot.com/2...functions.html
The fact is not that Socionics is founded on dichotomies, or that you have to type based on dichotomies. Dichotomies are established after-the-fact. Yes, Socionics is based on the same ideas of Jung's as MBTI, but they go in such different directions. There can't be correlation because you do not type by E/I/N/S/F/T/P/J in Socionics, because they don't exist in the definition and way they are applied in MBTI. I'm sorry, but it is YOU whom is mistaken, and the others who still stagnate this community in an MBTI mindset stuck on watered down dichotomies.
Socionics types by IEs in function placements, and MBTI could if they wanted to rework the hypothesis, but it doesn't. MBTI types only on the dichotomies. Could you force Socionics into dichotomies? Sure, of course you can, but it is relatively easy to type completely without dichotomies, dichotomies are not inherent and needed in Socionics.
This is honestly the type of talk that sets back the overall understanding of Socionics for the community.
Last edited by Mattie; 04-21-2010 at 03:22 AM.
This is totally false, I use dichotomies all the time when typing someone, and as Jarno says so do the Russians. Information elements are probably more important than dichotomies in socionics, but they aren't exclusive.
On the other hand, MBTI has no real developed theory of information elements, AFAIK.
Removed at User Request
Using dichotomies to me is like creating a portrait with paint-by-numbers. You don't actually understand the overall picture of the person, only parts that you add up to equal the entirety. Dichotomies turn people into cookie-cutters and formulas, and takes away from the bigger picture of a person's type. It's a short-hand, it's not the basis. Dichotomies aren't inherent because the question isn't "Is this person's leading function IEor
You're arguing against typing methods. An argument which I happen to agree with. This doesn't change the fact that dichotomies are inherent. They are just misunderstood or misused by some.Using dichotomies to me is like creating a portrait with paint-by-numbers. You don't actually understand the overall picture of the person, only parts that you add up to equal the entirety. Dichotomies turn people into cookie-cutters and formulas, and takes away from the bigger picture of a person's type. It's a short-hand, it's not the basis. Dichotomies aren't inherent because the question isn't "Is this person's leading function IE
Truly understanding E N T P will tell you how ENTp is, but a dichotomy is open-ended by itself and doesn't really mean much until it's put together with other dichotomies. Such open-endedness means it is difficult if not impossible to know if someone is E or I without knowing other dichotomies first. Such is the case with E/I/P/J anyway. N/S/T/F are relatively much easier to get.
That was generally my point, sorry if that got lost in what I was saying. I was coming from the angle that MBTI has an inherent dichotomy system in place for its typing, which you can't really escape no matter how much you deconstruct it. MBTI's dichotomies define each other, and it gets more complicated for Socionics, as one IE is part of multiple dichotomies rather than just one (for example, there can only be I vs E in MBTI as opposed to I vs T, P, etc, while in Socionics there's at least, and
Last edited by Mattie; 04-21-2010 at 04:48 AM.
Sorry to double post, but you just added this after typed up my response, and I don't agree with the assertion you have to know the E N T P to know the NeTi. You need to know thein the creative, and the others that follow suit because of that placement. Take the MBTI out of Socionics please.
Let's be clear that by "Russians", we mean "key socionics authors".
People are talking about there being a correlation between MBTI and socionics. My question would be "which MBTI are we talking about?" The SimilarMinds.com test is basically a socionics test using Jungian dichotomies. Kiersey and MBTT both use the Meyers-Briggs definition of JP. It is very frequent that SimilarMinds.com and MBTI are confused... the SimilarMinds test may use MBTI questions, but the type it returns is different from MBTI.
There are many different varieties of MBTI out there... keep that in mind. But, there is an official test and system as is outlined in the Meyers-Briggs handbook, and based on the description given of that system it is to be inferred that MBTT and socionics explain the same system, but use different criterion for J/P. The relationships between the criterion of the two systems just happens to make it possible to convert typings between them by switching the J and P for introvert types and leaving them alone for extrovert types.
I'm not sure I understand exactly what you mean. Both systems can view dichotomies distinctly and cooperatively, and MBTI has functions too.That was generally my point, sorry if that got lost in what I was saying. I was coming from the angle that MBTI has an inherent dichotomy system in place for its typing, which you can't really escape no matter how much you deconstruct it. MBTI's dichotomies define each other, and it gets more complicated for Socionics, as one IE is part of multiple dichotomies rather than just one (for example, there can only be I vs E in MBTI as opposed to I vs T, P, etc, while in Socionics there's at least
Assuming that MBTI has similar E/I/P/J definitions (I know N/S/F/T are similar) to socionics, there must be a 1:1 correlation by definition. It should be safe to assume that they both got these definitions from Jung, and so it should be just as safe to assume the correlation.I can agree to there be a correlation, but never a direct 1:1, I think there are examples on here and from my own personal experience to refute that, along with what I've been talking about.
Otoh J in MBTI seems to be defined as a type with extroverted judgment while socionics defines it as a type with dominant judgment, so arguing my point might be pointless when functions are taken into consideration.
Removed at User Request
Alright, in response to most of what's been said to me, why don't we start to recommend people to get their type via MBTT and then just know their Socionics type? At that same rate, use the MBTI way of finding other peoples' type? Why bother trying to type someone by the more complicated way of Socionics when MBTI is a 1:1 conversion? If this was true, then we wouldn't need to get Socionics tests, need to VI via Socionics, or do anything to assess the IEs of a person we don't know the type to, since the MBTT already exist, and methodologies for type in the MBTI way are much more simple. To me, this is where the conflict lies, because if you're saying that the type between MBTI and Socionics is 1:1, then there's no need to type via Socionics as that's a harder process than MBTI, which already has official tests.
The process of typing and actual types are two separate things. A test telling you that you are X type doesn't make you X type. I'm sure everyone agrees that MBTI's typing methods are flawed. That isn't the issue here.
Rather, if it is true that there is a 1:1 correlation, it can be generally agreed upon that MBTI's typing methods are flawed.
So, you have to type via Socionics to find out your MBTI type? Doesn't that sound slightly backwards and unneeded? How can you rationalize not typing using MBTI to find your Socionics type if there's a 1:1 conversion? Or is this conversation just abstract jerking off and actually doesn't contribute to anything concerning Socionics?
I believe I am an INFP in MBTI. I don't think there is a direct answer to your question, but like look.to.the.sky said, there are some correlations and likelihoods. MBTI and Socionics aren't the same though, I think that is obvious to anyone who has studied them and interpreted how they're different, because when you have one person who studies MBTI and one person who studies Socionics, they're going to have opposing opinions about what an "INTJ" is, for example, and there is no objectivism in arguing with the both of them that they're the same type because you want it to be that way. It is just untrue. You don't need tests to find out your type, but it helps at very first, because often times you're not knowledgable enough to know yourself and get the most accurate result, so you may lie on accident on those tests. The best way to find your type is experience knowing yourself.
Im trying to argue that MBTI type and socionics are one-in-the-same. That there is only one type and not two. That's the point. That saying one person can be INTp and ESTJ at the same time is impossible. or even INTp and INTJ is impossible because they contradict each other. It's like describing a rock as hard and soft at the same time.
This seems to make pretty good sense, coming from various examples of people I know. I agree with what ₪₪₪ Socionics - The New Psychology ₪₪₪ says, even though I don't like the site too much. They said, if you can't decide between being an F or T, it is more likely you're a P. and if you can't decide between being S or N, it is most likely you're a J. From examples in real life, this fits for most of them. So if you think you're a P because you can't decide between F or T, and other factors, what is left is to figure out what quadra values you own.
If you look at LII vs ILI for instance, LIIs are more strict logic, and a bit of sensing and intuition, don't have as much time for feeling about things (on average I'm saying). ILIs on the other hand, from my experience, are pretty in touch with their feelings and are more sensitive, but are rather oblivious to realistic, physical things, and get lost in their imagination. So there is an average sort of balance. For ILIs, N on top, S on bottom, T and F closer to the middle. For LIIs, T on top, F on bottom, N and S closer to the middle. I've noticed in MBTI that a lot of INTJs I know are much more realistic and sensory, better at daily things and taking care of business without getting lost in their thoughts. Many of these INTJs could very well be rational N types in Socionics, and don't have that dominant N making them lost in their own world. With one aptitude comes another opposite-like deficiency, a lot of times.
Sure they're PoLR, but PoLR is hitting and making their HA vulnerable, which is taken a lot more seriously than the role or dual-seeking. Dual is someone who can do what you can't do for yourself, with their dominant. PoLR is a direct influence on you, and someones HA makes up for a lot more than the role does. Its a significant part of each type's development.
Saying that having Fe-PoLR means that ethics is the weakest part of you, is akin to saying that you don't like going out if you don't like driving. Usually you will find people who like driving, and people who don't, but most of them will like going out.
This is partly true, that the role is recognized as a weakness, like a dominant Ni is too good at Ni and neglects Si, however they also neglect Se but actually value it. Fi-HA, in ILIs, on the other hand, is weak and one's experience with it would be a kind of over-confidence and over-valuing, always backfires on them because they can't see the complete picture of ethics and draw to their ego a bunch of incomplete parts from the IM, and miss the rest. HA is much more worth someone's time approaching than any of the other weak functions, and the text fits with the experience. I'm not saying its always the case, since a lot of people are different. It would be unwise to mettle in exacts.
I don't think that necessarily means that type is more like their HA element. Also, you must consider the demonstrative is strong as well, and even if a person isn't aware of it, other people pointing it out might make them aware. I just don't think there is a lot of evidence for a person identifying with their HA element more than others. There are other functions which hold a lot of weight as well.
Well the main thing is certainly to know your dominant function. And know that if there's not a lot of weight put on someones dominant function, then that is okay. A lot of people however can't distinguish between functions because their definitions are somewhat off, and even I have had been subjected to this, have had different definitions that seemed to fit variously, and have retyped myself based on the ones I feel the most strongly about. Going by my definitions with my experience, it is much more reasonable to see valued functions of much greater importance to someone. Types can burst out and act on their DS function, because it is a desire of theirs, but its much more often I see very dom-HA combinations in people more apparently. IEIs with well developed Ti for instance, strrrng or archon, who have tested ILE because they show strong Ti points and like to emphasize those on tests. Just different definitions used, and couldn't clearly indicate Ni over Ne for a while. It is much less likely to see someone emphasize S points who is a dominant N. You get the N dominants more lost in their "intuitive" world, a reflection of reality, and an F or T dominant who can more easily play between both worlds. Also, I agree that the ID functions are strong too, which can lead to more misguideance than help, esp. in finding ones type. It's always good to know that values are usually pretty important and emphasized in people and how they interact with others. LIEs I know, from experience, would more easily relate to an Se activity than an Fe activity, but they could also relate to a Ti or Ne activity, because they can convert one style of information into another quite easily. HA is definitely something someone wants to get themselves involved with, and will be a big part of their choices in life. For on the surface values, I think that parts of role can be this too, but its mostly because those same parts that are in the role are also in the dominant function. So I can see some people saying one thing about Ni for example, that applies a lot to Si, and they chose not to emphasize Si in their examples, visa versa. What seems to really differ is when a function no longer becomes role and dominant, and one becomes creative and the other PoLR. You no longer have a strong grip on their similarities.
*sigh* What a waste. I'm done.
The descriptions aren't what's important, the rules are. IN MBTT, INTP's auxiliary function is Ne, NOT Te. It is STATED.
I see you are a noob when it comes to MBTI. interesting...
Well Uhm, MBTI is more reliable on some points then socionics. So yeah, you can find your type by using MBTI. Or did you mean that socionics test are more reliable, I think we've seen enough evidence that socionics tests are pretty shitty.
yes that is 'MBTI step I' theory.
I was talking about 'MBTI step II' theory.
LABCOAT IS AN ILI!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
exactly.
It's easier to mistype in MBTI, I think. Type descriptions are sweetened, and functions descriptions are so vague it's easy to interpret them as they would apply to yourself. I'm clearly P, so I typed as INTP and thought I was TiNe. It took socionics to make me realize I wasn't. I wouldn't consider MBTI typing reliable.
Yeah, it is ridiculous to think you can be an extravert in one and an introvert in the other, they are completely two different things and shows an embarrassing lack of either/both self comprehension or understanding what these things actually mean on both systems.
All dichotomies actually explain the same behaviours. Both MBTI and socionics dichotomies are compatible with Jung.
It's up to individual though whether they actually care, but, to say the systems don't represent the same actual types, just shows a lack of proper research into the subject.
Well, let's look at Kiersey. Lytov conducted an "experiment" to see if socionists in Russia could match Kiersey descriptions with socionics descriptions, and it didn't produce greatly matching results. Of course, Lytov used not only short Keirsey descriptions, but also the freebie ones off the internet which are quite different from actual published ones, so you can see that Lytov's 'research' is only fit for toilet paper should you decide to hit print button on the internet.
That's because you assume that MBTI functions are correct.
What if MBTI leaves their descriptions as they are, and put the right socionics functions at the type. Then nobody would have a problem. Cause people can't seem to realize that MBTI has made an error in their functions.
To summarize:
mbti dichotomies are the same as socionics
mbti descriptions are the same as socionics
mbti functions are totally different from socionics. How come? because they are flawed.
Ah he used the internet descriptions. Yeah that explains...
I don't assume they are. I found they aren't.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
