How should MBTI type be converted to Socionics type

[717495]

Those who agree that Socionics and MBTI are the same are showing great Ti at work. The ideal that they're both the same, but both approaching from different angles, or incomplete. Trying to mix them together, in search for the perfect system. In my opinion, when I actually understand the foundation of both theories, read their purposes, read their descriptions, I see two different systems with some great similarities, and some differences too, and I don't see them as compatible with one another, because of their contradicting methods. However I do see same types in individuals quite often, which isn't to say they're the same theory. If anything, people will type themselves their MBTI type in Socionics, and then try to rationalize around the actual writings of the theory as to why they're that type, when they aren't. This happens a lot more than mistyping in MBTI. This does not change the fact that the types are close to one another, but not exact. Descriptions in differing systems talk about different streams of thought, and it is your choice to connect them and get rid of ideas that don't work for both of them together. So in my opinion, you're getting rid of good information that belongs there and with the current intra-theory association.

Both theories come close to one another, bring their own great insight that I respect, but can't connect exactly.

[Jarno]

I don't assume they are. I found they aren't.

Oke, so then you can understand that correlation is still possible. Cause the functions don't have to correlate to make both theories correlate.

[Jarno]

I reckon you see type as a biological distinction? Until somebody can prove that it is true, and type people based on genetics, all personality systems must be based on subjective experiences of external traits. Correct?

And in trait-based typing system, like yours, the traits chosen to represent one type may differ from the traits chosen to represent the "same" type in anothor person's typing system. I dare say that there are as many systems as there are people using them. Again meaning that Keirsey INTP, MBTI INTP and Socionix ILI aren't necessarily the same type. Since the systems typing them are different.

We KNOW and can prove there are typing systems.
We do NOT know and can not prove there are 16 personality types.

This, of course, does not mean that there aren't really types, and if they really exist, then you are right that they can't differ from system to system. However, you cannot prove that types exist. And for all practical use of typing systems, you have to rely on descriptions of external traits, that may or may not be the same from system to system. It is enough to look at how differently people on this forum type others to see that your system is NOT the same as their, even if you both claim to use Socionics. I bet you'll say you are right and they are wrong, and I bet they will say the same. It looks like any religious battle. You should rather prove the existance of types, than claim that your religion is the best. Good luck.

Do you need to look at their penis or vagina to be sure someone is a woman or a man?

[Jarno]

Do you think people agree on types as often as they agree on gender?

no, but there are certain people who are a certain type, about which everybody agrees.

Try to see it as personality disorders. DSM describes them in a little different way then ICD. But does this mean they talk about different disorders, or do they simply have a different angle on them.

[Jarno]

You cannot prove it.

Now, is it possible to prove gender?

yes, just like you can prove personality disorders and types and etc. You just need different methods.

[Jarno]

Stop manipulating what I say, it only makes you look more religious. If you want people to take you and Socionics seriously, at least listen to their arguments and make a logical case to back up your hypothesis.

We talked about personality types, not disorders. As far I can understand, personality types in Socionics are not disorders?

You claim that personality types are as clear as gender. I just show you they are not. If you will not admit that, fine, but as I said, you just seem religious, and it will not lead the Socionics hypothesis anywhere. Your call.

Edit: You changed your post.

It may be true you need other methods, but they don't exist, do they?

they do exist, if a large number of people observe the same phenomena you have enough data to draw conclusions. Especially when both arive at the same conclusions, you might have a working theory.

Large number of people (let's say a couple of million) have discovered that there are 16 types among us. I think types are even more established then personality disorders.
I used that example because they use the same kind of proof methods.

For the record, gender is more clear then types.

[Creepy-Pied Piper]

Removed at User Request

[Jarno]

1) Millions of people have discovered horoscopes and believe in them too. Even more millions believe that Jesus is alive.
Masses of people don't impress me.

2) I think I get what you try to say - that if types exist, then there can't be different systems and the types must be the same in all. I agree with that. But I claim that status today is that there are different systems, and that the existance of types or functions cannot be objectively proved.

1) yep, masses don't impress me either, except when their methods are scientific, this is not the case with astrologists.

2) yes that is what I am trying to say. BTW "Objectively" is a strange word in the world of social sciences.

[tcaudilllg]

I see you are a noob when it comes to MBTI. interesting...

And I see that Phaedrus has succeeded in absentia.

Call me a "noob" all you want, but that doesn't make you any less wrong.

Looks like somebody is running the determinative Ti overtime. See where that gets you if you keep it up....

[Azeroffs]

I agree that it's impossible to be INTp and ESTJ, but INTP and INTj are the same word in two different languages. Their descriptions are telling different things - and I made a little research today to confirm if I'm talking about the MBTI official and certified ones.

I can agree with this. It seems to be clear that P/J definitions are not the same in both systems.

[Crispy]

The 4 letter dichotomies are the base of both theories. MBTI is confusing and mistypes often, but socionics has enough detail to give you 100% confidence of your type if you study it enough. Once you find out your socionics type, it shouldn't take long to find out that the corresponding MBTI type fits you the best as well.

When I began with MBTI I thought I was INTP. When I got to socionics I familiarized myself with INTp and believed myself to be that type without reading the rest of the types. When I ran across the infamous J/P switch I thought that must mean I was INTj and after reading the descriptions I found it was a just as good if not better match.

After awhile I wondered how two theories with the same dichotomies could totally fuck up one of them for half the types. After reading all the MBTI type descriptions over and over I realized that I was much closer to INTJ and it was just the MBTI information elements that were bullshit. The big picture of each XXXX/XXXx types are the same as both theory-founders were thinking of the same people when mashing the letters together.

[Azeroffs]

MBTI screwed things up for me too..

I originally tested ENTJ, then through learning I came to INTx, and then functions brought me to INTP... then when I went to socionics I thought INTp and then through learning back to ENTj..

[717495]

Here's my MBTI to Socionics type conversion chart (if it actually works for some people, then that's great.)

These conversions are based on similar associations shared by both systems. The two associations I'm taking into account for their relevance are that (a) "decisive" or Se/Ni valuing types in Socionics are similar to Js in MBTI, and "judicious" or Ne/Si valuing types in Socionics are similar to Ps in MBTI, and that (b) an MBTI type known to lead in a certain function (S, N, F or T) might at least have that preference in their ego and as a strength. I believe that criterion (b) is a somewhat more precarious association, and seemingly to others I'm sure just as so with (a), nonetheless relevant enough to utilize in my theoretical case. So without comparing type descriptions, but comparing the criteria of N/S to N/S strengths, F/T to F/T strengths, and J/D to P/J tendency, the following chart could very well have some use. This yields four viable Socionics types.

However, I have also mapped out the opposite, Socionics to MBTI type conversion chart, in realization that it is much less likely that each type from MBTI would also be one of the four viable Socionics types, and this simply puts association (b) in reverse context. If needed, an example will help illustrate further: If an MBTI ENFP is likely to be a Socionics INTj because it is both judicious and has an N ego, it would also have to be likely for a Socionics INTj to be an MBTI ENFP, in order for it to be considered as likely as the other three possibilities. However the type INTj shows that it is less likely to be an ENFP under the criteria used, because it has Ti dominant, proposing that what is akin to ego for an MBTI type may not include a T strength for the ENFP. In this case, the more likely types for ENFP are ENFp, INFj, and ENTp, with INTj omitted, and the more likely MBTI types for INTj are INTP, ENTP, and ISTP (where the omitted ESTP is less likely because it leads in Se and INTj doesn't have strength in S.) So for each MBTI type, the fourth semi-contradictory "viable type" is omitted to leave three most "viable types." The conversion follows.


MBTI type - - - - - viable Socionics types

- ENTP - - - - - - - - - ENTp, INTj, ENFp
- ENTJ - - - - - - - - - ENTj, INTp, ISTj
- INTP - - - - - - - - - INTj, ENTp, ESTj
- INTJ - - - - - - - - - INTp, ENTj, INFp

- ENFP - - - - - - - - - ENFp, INFj, ENTp
- ENFJ - - - - - - - - - ENFj, INFp, ISFj
- INFP - - - - - - - - - - INFj, ENFp, ESFj
- INFJ - - - - - - - - - - INFp, ENFj, INTp

- ESFP - - - - - - - - - ESFj, ISFp, ISTp
- ESTP - - - - - - - - - ESTj, ISTp, ISFp
- ISFP - - - - - - - - - - ISFp, ESFj, INFj
- ISTP - - - - - - - - - - ISTp, ESTj, INTj

- ESFJ - - - - - - - - - ESFp, ISFj, ENFj
- ESTJ - - - - - - - - - ESTp, ISTj, ENTj
- ISFJ - - - - - - - - - - ISFj, ESFp, ESTp
- ISTJ - - - - - - - - - - ISTj, ESTp, ESFp


Socionics type - - - - viable MBTI types

- - ENTp - - - - - - - - ENTP, INTP, ENFP
- - INTj - - - - - - - - - INTP, ENTP, ISTP
- - ISFp - - - - - - - - - ISFP, ESFP, ESTP
- - ESFj - - - - - - - - - ESFP, ISFP, INFP

- - ESTp - - - - - - - - - ESTJ, ISTJ, ISFJ
- - ISTj - - - - - - - - - - ISTJ, ESTJ, ENTJ
- - INFp - - - - - - - - - INFJ, ENFJ, INTJ
- - ENFj - - - - - - - - - ENFJ, INFJ, ESFJ

- - ESFp - - - - - - - - - ESFJ, ISFJ, ISTJ
- - ISFj - - - - - - - - - - ISFJ, ESFJ, ENFJ
- - INTp - - - - - - - - - INTJ, ENTJ, INFJ
- - ENTj - - - - - - - - - ENTJ, INTJ, ESTJ

- - ENFp - - - - - - - - - ENFP, INFP, ENTP
- - INFj - - - - - - - - - - INFP, ENFP, ISFP
- - ISTp - - - - - - - - - - ISTP, ESTP, ESFP
- - ESTj - - - - - - - - - - ESTP, ISTP, INTP

[Suz]

I dont agree with that chart polikujm. (I'm INFJ and conversion charts like that are what messed me up initially thinking I was INFp)

at the very least you should probably add INFJ to the ENFp list, because it's the case for both Arctures and me.

However, my stance still remains that socionics and MBTI are two completely separate typing systems with two completely different focuses, coincidentally using the same letters.

MBTI -- what are you like?

socionics -- how do you interact with the world?


The difference is along the lines of the dual-type idea. i.e. any MBTI type could be any socionics type (maybe with a few exceptions, dont know).

[Absurd]

Doesn't "what are you like" imply "how do you interact with the world" ?

[717495]

(I'm INFJ and conversion charts like that are what messed me up initially thinking I was INFp)...at the very least you should probably add INFJ to the ENFp list, because it's the case for both Arctures and me.

Okay. I should just add that I'm not sure of your type, and I'm not in favor of the idea that Arctures is an ENFp. I agree however that Socionics and MBTI don't have exact correlations with one another, and you could likely be any type in each of them, with, like you said, a few exceptions.

[Aiss]

@polikujm:

INTp - INTP is missing. Seriously, especially if someone uses P/J dichotomy as it's often defined by MBTI forums' users - and many people who come here have typed themselves online - I think it's likely for INTp to remain P (not to mention comments like "it's enough to look at your desk to know if you're P/J").

I wouldn't assign "decisive" dichotomy to J just like that... the word is used, but MBTI definition is more than that. Like, J's preferring to have things decided and P's preferring to keep their options open - see strategic/tactical. Or J's not liking to change their decisions and P's discarding them easily - see rational/irrational. Then there's order and following schedules, which isn't associated with any socionics dichotomy (although it's mentioned in ESE's description). Now I see why many people describe themselves "partly J" or something like that, but still tactical irrationals (like INTp) are close to MBTI P.

(And both aixelsyd and yourself test as P types, too.)

[Mattie]

I think the correlations can be a little tough seeing that there are some topical qualities that come along with MBTI that can be shared by everyone in MBTI. For example, tests will ask you if you go by "gut feelings" and enjoy conceptual/abstract subjects, and similar rhetoric to assign you to the N end of the N/S dichotomy. There's a generally "nerd/geek" association with N over all (which leaks over here for / types by the way) which makes people who deem themselves generally interested in achedemia or any sort of field of study (or, to go far into it, think they are intelligent at all) to think they are an N type. I know on this forum there have been some N types who switch over to / egos (I think Mune said he was INFP in MBTI and he's an SiFe), and there is someone in my life I typed INTP and is an SiFe, which caused a lot of confusion for me, having to reconcile MBTI vs Socionics differences. Overall, MBTI tests on aspects that Socionics does not. If you take the type descriptions from an MBTI type and try to apply it to the "phenotypic" identical type in Socionics, there would be many things that people would disagree with based on it being too trait based.

[Creepy-Pied Piper]

Removed at User Request

[JohnDo]

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.

No. It is the original Jungian definition and certainly not inconstistent with anything. The only difference is that MBTI extraverts are described as outgoing, socioncs extraverts not necessarily. Nevertheless, extraverts are more often than not outgoing, of course. There are just some exceptions: Some Harmonizing and Normalizing subtypes. Gulenko calls them "introverted extraverts" or distant extraverts in his DCNH system.

The main problem concerning socionics in the English-speaking world is that there is not even one reliable source. Even wikisocion is misleading in many cases because there are not enough people who try to improve it.

Ironically, I changed the article about Extraversion and Introversion some weeks ago. It was marked with "needs work" and the description was obviously misleading so I thought "Let's improve it a bit". I even included the Jungian definition and nobody changed it since then so it can't be completely wrong - or nobody cares if it is completely wrong...

But what is the official definition of extraversion/introversion in socionics?! There is no! Ganin and DeLong describe this dichotomy differently. If you ask Gulenko, Bukalov and Filatova you will certainly get three different answers...

[Suz]

Okay. I should just add that I'm not sure of your type, and I'm not in favor of the idea that Arctures is an ENFp. I agree however that Socionics and MBTI don't have exact correlations with one another, and you could likely be any type in each of them, with, like you said, a few exceptions.

well i'm 100% sure i'm not beta

I'm 95% sure i'm ENFp

maybe 5% chance I might be INFj

dont really identify with INTp at all.

Just curious, what type(s) were you considering for me? (not that you're such an expert anyway )

[Crispy]

Is there anyone here that is dead set on believing they're best fit socio type is different than their best fit MBTI type?

[krieger]

I mostly think both systems describe the properties of being a J (rational) type wrongly. In MBTI the problem is easily resolved by changing my typing to INTP. In socionics, this leads to contradictions that leave me no choice but to reject the system as a whole.

If I was a more selfishly inclined person I'd just keep quiet about the whole thing and let everyone rot thinking there is nothing wrong with the system. I'm guessing that is what a lot of people are doing. It's not fun to reveal things that can make people question your self-typing like this.

[Creepy-Pied Piper]

Removed at User Request

[Suz]

Is there anyone here that is dead set on believing they're best fit socio type is different than their best fit MBTI type?

Um yeah. . .like i already said. . .me.

[anou]

Is there anyone here that is dead set on believing they're best fit socio type is different than their best fit MBTI type?

I actually am an intuitive type in MBTI and a sensoring in Socionics. I usually get INFP or INFJ at MBTI type tests, but now I relate more to ISFj descriptions. That surely could change while getting better understanding of Socionics, but I think it`s rather unlikely, though.
(In addition I think the result of an intuitive type at MBTi tests sometimes could be caused partly of wishful thinking...)

[Crispy]

Getting a type on an MBTI/Socionics test does not mean you are that type. You have to read/understand all 16 type's descriptions and focus on which one type more closely fits you than the other 15. Sensing/Intuiting have the same contrasts in both systems. Once you understand the dichotomy it will be very clear that you are either an S or an N. When you understand your socionics type, go back to MBTI and read the type description for the corresponding type. It should fit you more than its quasi-identical.

[anou]

I will do that. Thank you.

[Creepy-Pied Piper]

Removed at User Request

[717495]

well i'm 100% sure i'm not beta

I'm 95% sure i'm ENFp

maybe 5% chance I might be INFj

dont really identify with INTp at all.

Just curious, what type(s) were you considering for me? (not that you're such an expert anyway )

You could be some Fe type for all I know. You remind me of Fe, and this ESFj person, who basically serves as a great aid to Ti trains of thought. Listens well to people's logic or explanation of things, enthuses them, good at pretending to be entertained... likes to be light and friendly, shows how she feels, projects this on the outside, even a little bit. She's not very talkative, maybe only around her close friends. You can tell she's an Fe type, and she's a workaholic and clean freak, oftentimes they ask one too many questions, get too personal right from the start (imo) and care too much how others are feeling in the moment, definitely EJ and Fe. Where as when I picture ENFps, they don't project their feelings and reach out to people all that much. They're not big on emoting and having great enthusiasm, they would do it accidentally sometimes, so it doesn't seem like they're putting pressure on Fe-PoLRs. They're definitely more weird / awkward. They project something more philosophical and ethical. They may seem somewhat cold actually, but from an Fi-valuing point of view you can tell if they're a good person and if they're truly friendly. When they joke, it's actually serious but they never try to start personal problems. They would rather prevent than apologize or work it through. They don't think much of expressions, and don't mettle in others' comfort zones, and because of this unawareness, they may not have much of an approach to people, but at least they're not bothersome. They're much too innocent and don't have to pretend to be, but sometimes they pretend to be bad and dark (Fi creative) and try to keep the persona without others having a clue of their sarcasm. A lot of times, Fi types are unsure as to who is really their friend and are trying to figure that out, where as Fe types just assume and try to change things to a positive atmosphere, or some of them a negative one. Delta NFs can think things are good or bad too, and not have much of a rational reason for why, but their idea of it won't be based around emotions. And ENFps are not really playful, they're more fairly weird. They follow their internal motivations, and keep that aspect of their feelings a lot more to themselves, and don't really worry about how things are "running" ethically. So even if you agree that ENFp is you, I can't really believe it for sure, because it's hard to explain these things and show you what I mean.

Not saying I really know you, and I'm not saying that you're an Fe dominant or you're supposed to fit the chart. Not saying I'm assuming you're MBTI type either. Don't have the idea that I think the chart actually works that well , it wasn't something I made out of a large confidence that those terms mean anything in relation to MBTI. Just seems like it might make sense with those associations, and might work for some people, and I agree with you on the MBTI to Socionics thing.

[anou]

.

[silverchris9]

Depends on what you type by. When I did MBTI, I mostly typed based on dichotomies, whereas now I mostly type by socioinics functions. So I was 100% sure I had to be a p type, because by MBTI dichotomies, I am obviously p > j and n > s. INFj (closest to socionics INFp) never even crossed my mind because there was a 0% chance of me being a judging type (in MBTI). So I settled on ENFP (I kept scoring near the 50% mark on both I/E and T/F on every MBTI test I took), because it sounded the most similar to me. But even then, there was a guy on typology central who was an MBTI INFj who I sort of identified with (obviously a socionics INFp), and I ended up by rationalizing a system wherein I relied heavily on my "shadow function" Ni, and could be "transformed" by my 8th function, Se, just because Ni fit me so well as a function, and Se sounded so much like what I wanted more of in my life.

Anyway... all that to say... it depends on how and why you typed yourself in MBTI. In the pure good of theory, yes, you should have the same leading function or the same two ego functions, sure. But in practice, there may be extraneous things (like my focus on the dichotomies) that would make you look at things differently.

[Creepy-Pied Piper]

Removed at User Request

[Aleksei]

Ni-Fe IEI and Ni-Fe INFJ. I don't really understand how Ni-leading IEI can be Fi-dominant INFP in MBTI (or Ti leading INTP or Ni-Te INTJ for that matter). Functions appear to be very similar across both systems i.e. Ni is still intuition in MBTI and Fi is still introverted feeling and INFJ is the type that uses Ni and Fe.

Fe is actually glaringly distinct across systems (to the point of Fe and Fi being almost flipped between systems). Ni is similar, but not identical, and in fact I've found it to be semi-flipped as well. Ni indecisiveness correlates quite well with Jungian Ne, and Ne's drive to bring everything together is pretty Ni-ish.

[stray]

ENTP EIE-Ni.

Best fits:

EIE- ENFP
IEI- ENTP
SLE- ESTJ
LSI- ISTJ

I'd give you a slide on the first and last, but IEI is way off, and SLE is 50/50. Not "best fits".

[Aleksei]

I'd give you a slide on the first and last, but IEI is way off, and SLE is 50/50. Not "best fits".

SLE is actually least likely for ESTP (which is an ESE type). There is very little relationship between and Jung's Se. SLE is actually ESTJ > ENTJ > ESFP > ESTP.

And the best fit for IEI is actually ENFP (INFP is a little too withdrawn and moralizing for creative - they're actually usually introvert-subtype IEE). I just didn't wanna put two identical types, and in any case Ti-aux fits Ti-HA better than Ti-suggestive.

[stray]

SLE is actually least likely for ESTP (which is an ESE type). There is very little relationship between and Jung's Se.

I would agree that the volitional aspect of Se is over-emphasized.. if it was toned down from being ultra busy and warmongering, I might be an SLE myself.

There's still some relation to Jungian Se though.. not to mention temperment (which I think is one of the more important differences in general).

[Aleksei]

I would agree that the volitional aspect of Se is over-emphasized.

I don't -- volitional impact and maneuvering within a hierarchical structure (especially the latter) are the very definitional aspects of . That's actually sort of why I don't believe ESTP equals SLE, as ESTPs aren't a volitional type -- they're self-indulgent novelty and experience junkies, which is basically , and .

[stray]

I don't -- volitional impact and maneuvering within a hierarchical structure (especially the latter) are the very definitional aspects of . That's actually sort of why I don't believe ESTP equals SLE, as ESTPs aren't a volitional type -- they're self-indulgent novelty and experience junkies, which is basically , and .

But the Se landscape where they spot these "structures" and opportunities for impact isn't quite that simple as to ascribe it all to Te. The SEE, for example, could be manuevering within the structure of a dancefloor or a party.

[Aleksei]

But the Se landscape where they spot these "structures" and opportunities for impact isn't quite that simple as to ascribe it all to Te.

The structures of are Static, and more likely Si than Se in Jung. Hence, the best fit for SLE is ESTJ.