How should MBTI type be converted to Socionics type

[Gilly]

As far as I can tell your best type fit is ENTP, but ENFP is possible. A Ji-dominant wouldn't have that much trouble picking out a single type for themselves, so any kind of INxP is out.

Well personally I place no stake in MBTI interpretations of "functions." Going straight by the letters and Jungian definitions, I am INFP, NiFe. As far as MBTI descriptions go, ENTP descriptions tend to fit me the best, like this one: http://typelogic.com/entp.html although from the basic descriptions on the official Meyers-Briggs site, INFP fits me best:

http://www.myersbriggs.org/my-mbti-p...mbti-types.asp

I tend to think my "ego" or projected self is very much like an MBTI ENTP, but in reality I am most naturally INFP.

[stray]

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

I don't know anything about MBTI Si being "Static".. it doesn't seem to have a lot to do with anything in particular in Socionics.. it's drawing on impressions of the past/familiarity, and often pulls away from new experiences at first, and uses extroverted judgement to plan and manuever around it beforehand.

Socionics Se would discard what's useless out of it's sense of impact or what won't help them take advantage of opportunities, not because it's preserving some familiar worldview per se. And it does it spontaneously too. It's more forward moving than MBTI Si.

I'm not going to carry on though. Your Ti is aggravating.

[blankblank]

I had thought functions would transfer easily into Socionics

Then what would be the use of having socionics be a seperate theory?

[blankblank]

ENTP EIE-Ni.

Let's see how long this one lasts.

[blankblank]

Well personally I place no stake in MBTI interpretations of "functions." Going straight by the letters and Jungian definitions, I am INFP, NiFe. As far as MBTI descriptions go, ENTP descriptions tend to fit me the best, like this one: http://typelogic.com/entp.html although from the basic descriptions on the official Meyers-Briggs site, INFP fits me best:

http://www.myersbriggs.org/my-mbti-p...mbti-types.asp

I tend to think my "ego" or projected self is very much like an MBTI ENTP, but in reality I am most naturally INFP.

I'm not sure whether to be totally confused for you or to use this as evidence why MBTI sucks.

[blankblank]

I'm not going to carry on though.

I always find it easier to be typed in both theories first and then explain how the two types correlate. :S

[silke]

I actually kind of agree with Alexsei here, which is rare. MBTI Fi and socionics Fi sound overlapping, but MBTI Fe sounds like external manifestations of Fi, i.e. the kind of thing I expect to see from Fi-egos rather than Fe-egos. Especially the bolded:

The socionics ability of Fe "to induce or convey his moods to others and energize people with his emotions" sounds like MBTI Fe process of "validating and valuing others, encouraging, coaching, educating and motivating". This "valuing, validating, encouraging" of MBTI Fe is essentially using emotions to influence the state of others of socionics Fe.

I think it's because the described external behaviour is rooted in stable personal beliefs, which is socionics Fi > Fe. Socionics Fe is ephemeral, and generally isn't associated with altruistic activities (which is not to say that Fe can't be used altruistically, it's just not more related to altruism than any other function).

There is nothing in that description of Fe that mention it being rooted in "personal beliefs". MBTI Fe like socionics Fe is rooted in 'objective' values rather than personal values. As far as altrusim goes, both Fe and Fi are defined as "ethical" elements so both have the capacity of engendering altruistic behaviors. I'd say this really depends on the context.

[stray]

is definitely not MBTI Fe. There's plenty of elements of personal, self-expression in it compared to MBTI. Especially Beta Fe.

http://www.socionics.us/theory/be.shtml

[Gilly]

I tend to think that, on the most basic level, both attempt to hint at internal processes while being limited in application, to different extents, to detecting tendencies belying prominent cultural behavioral stereotypes.

[Computer Loser]

From a practical stand point, they both sound like the same shit to me.

Don't get so caught up in the technicalities or politically correct definition, its the same thing.

[stray]

I tend to think that, on the most basic level, both attempt to hint at internal processes while being limited in application, to different extents, to detecting tendencies belying prominent cultural behavioral stereotypes.

Yeah..

In the case of Alpha Fe (what is it.. +Fe?), I think they might suppress some of these impulses more and encourage positive group/environmental cohesion. Lots of 2s and 9s, it seems. I could be wrong, but it's one of the reasons I'm not Alpha, as close as some can seem sometimes. I think Beta might show that individual edge and even fight sometimes (maybe not as an end in itself, but to ultimately with the purpose of inclusiveness as well).

[Aleksei]

Both MBTI Fi and socionics Fi originate from the self and represent own feelings of attraction/repulsion, own values and sentiments.

While both MBTI Fe and socionics Fe are ethical functions focused on other people or objects outside of self.

Pay attention to the actual descriptions. MBTI Fe is related to politeness, the rules of good form in society, making people comfortable -- all related to 's desire to make people emotionally comfortable and accommodate their emotions and desires. on the other hand is more intent on expressing itself and steering people's emotions in a certain direction; arousing their passions. It is very unlikely to be polite, tactful or care much for people's individual sensibilities, except to the extent that it's counterproductive to its goal of influencing and arousing the group. It's not even related to MBTI ethics more than tenuously (It's very common for Jung T types to be Fe-ego -- Walt Disney is but one example off the top of my head), but to the extent that it is it's more related to Fi (defined by conviction) than Fe (defined by accommodation).

From a practical stand point, they both sound like the same shit to me.

Don't get so caught up in the technicalities or politically correct definition, its the same thing.

Type relations theory makes this attitude dumb and actually somewhat dangerous. The difference in relationship dynamics between for example an ENFJ IEE and an ISTJ LSI, versus an ENFJ EIE and an ISTJ LSI (the former is actually more likely to happen -- as I just expounded upon, Fe and are mostly at odds) are immense, and the ramifications potentially catastrophic.

[stray]

heh yeah, i don't know about catastrophic.. people develop all kinds of coping methods and experience that socionics doesn't touch.

i agree it's not a good idea to marry your conflictor though.. but the strange thing is, some people do. all socionics does is point out why it sucks.

[Aleksei]

From a purely practical standpoint: Look for a hammy, passionate chick that's not gonna be offended by you calling some tard out on his retardation. Forget dichotomies.

MBTI is very much not the same as Socionics, but it also has no practical use, so just forget about it -- and ignore self-typings if you go into an MBTI forum, as that's the only place it's gonna be relevant.

[silke]

Pay attention to the actual descriptions. MBTI Fe is related to politeness, the rules of good form in society, making people comfortable -- all related to 's desire to make people emotionally comfortable and accommodate their emotions and desires. on the other hand is more intent on expressing itself and steering people's emotions in a certain direction; arousing their passions. It is very unlikely to be polite, tactful or care much for people's individual sensibilities, except to the extent that it's counterproductive to its goal of influencing and arousing the group. It's not even related to MBTI ethics more than tenuously (It's very common for Jung T types to be Fe-ego -- Walt Disney is but one example off the top of my head), but to the extent that it is it's more related to Fi (defined by conviction) than Fe (defined by accommodation).

There is nothing in description of that relates it to conforming to good form in society, making people comfortable, being polite on request. Fi is centered around individual values, likes and dislikes, as its description very clearly states, not societal values. If you talk to some real people of EII or ESI sociotype they will tell you that acting authentic is highly desired for them while having to conform and express emotions simply because others are expecting it of them makes them feel uncomfortable and pressured.

Descriptions of MBTI Fe and socionics Fe are describing the same underlying phenomenon just different manifestations of it.

[stray]

Descriptions of MBTI Fe and socionics Fe are describing the same underlying phenomenon just different manifestations of it.

At best, MBTI Fe would apply to ESE and EIE, but even in that case, there's still a lot of room for their influence, rather than succumbing to influence. MBTI doesn't address that explicitly.. it often describes Fe as simply cooperative and polite and sacrificing the individual's needs for the external group dynamic.

The other aspect of Socionics Fe that is not in MBTI is that it is called "extraverted" in it's sense of visible emotional states, regardless if they're individual or group oriented. As in, people who visibly emote internal content and states. On the flipside, Fi quadras in general have more sobriety about them and hold themselves back for the sake of, what they see, as deeper connections. Not just in the case of the ITps (who would be the most dry about it), but in other types as well (granted, the Fi SFs and NFs share Fe too).

I understand wanting it all click together, but some of this stuff just isn't in MBTI.

The last thing to mention is temperment. Hardly any MBTI INFJs are Ip temperment. And the ones that are often think they're INFPs too.

[Neverend]

It's true in general principle they're similar, but one who is truly ie. "INFP" in MBTI will most likely not be INFj in Socionics due to MBTIs primary value on dichotomies, iow Fi in socionics and Fi in MBTI are merely reflections of one another, so they don't always fall in the same category. Similarities between the two are themes of a healer, where the "INFP" is more morally self-centered, not so quick to self-sacrifice, but both have a potential to channel others feelings into their area of expertise to provide alleviation and flexibility. However Fi in MBTI in my education due to irrationality is often more distanced and individualized than the Socionics Fi. The latter wants to merge and connect with people, show real manners and establish tradition with others, and not overrely on their own sentiments. So in reality an Fi dominant will truly master many more aspects of their relational ethics. The INFj also values Te, a frequent capability desiring to master their work ethic and ethic of doing favors, requiring an LSE to teach them efficiency. They want to show rather than feel, bring something to the table than just imagine it, shows fine rationality and delta values in this area. Don't take my word for it, I'm just paraphrasing common socionics observations and descriptions. Definitely can't always equate INFP to delta, just read two separate descriptions, I don't know why people always want to equate instead of qualify. Upon just reading socionics descriptions you won't be oversimplifying the basic principles involved.

[Aleksei]

Neverend, even without dichotomies (and some of the MBTI crowd don't use them -- my own community doesn't even use MBTI functions; we use Jung's original), Fi isn't , for the reasons you mentioned. It's too individualistic. In fact to an extent Jungian Fi isn't even Ethical in Socionics, as it is not concerned with anybody else's emotional state -- some interpretations of Fi almost read like PoLR (and I've actually found it common for ESFPs and to a lesser extent ENFPs to be SLE).

[Aleksei]

So we are all in agreement that MBTI Fe ≈ , and MBTI Fi ≈ .

All of us who don't actually have any idea what one of them is (or in some cases I can think of, both), at least.

[Crispy]

So we are all in agreement that MBTI Fe ≈ , and MBTI Fi ≈ .

Excellent.

Yes if both sets of functions stem from the same source (Jung) they are the same ( = etc). The only differences have to do with Augusta/Myers differing style of writing. Distorted minds may fall prone to interpreting these varied styles as differences in the functions themselves.

[Neverend]

some interpretations of Fi almost read like PoLR (and I've actually found it common for ESFPs and to a lesser extent ENFPs to be SLE).

Exactly. The fact that we're circling around Socionics, MBTI, and Jung is just that. We're all spotting similarities, some of us just refuse to notice the differences. A difference requires one to attend to the rest of the material discussed within Socionics that is not emphasized in the others.

[Aleksei]

some interpretations of Fi almost read like PoLR (and I've actually found it common for ESFPs and to a lesser extent ENFPs to be SLE).

Exactly. The fact that we're circling around Socionics, MBTI, and Jung is just that. We're all spotting similarities, some of us just refuse to notice the differences. A difference requires one to attend to the rest of the material discussed within Socionics that is not emphasized in the others.

You are my new best friend. <3

[ashlesha]

in looking at the different theories that seem to describe something essentially similar with different interpretations, how does highlighting the differences you see and delineating the different perspectives of what seems to be the same essential phenomenon help to determine the truth? do you believe what we're trying to describe exists not just on paper?

[Aleksei]

in looking at the different theories that seem to describe something essentially similar with different interpretations, how does highlighting the differences you see and delineating the different perspectives of what seems to be the same essential phenomenon help to determine the truth?

Well, the problem, as I've stated repeatedly and YOU FUCKERS DON'T SEEM TO GET, is that there is no phenomenon being described, aside from the incidence of personality itself. There's no part of the brain, so it's pointless to theorize how acts aside from how is described to act. And as Fi is described distinctly across systems, common sense dictates they aren't describing the same category. Therefore, for the sake of precision it is necessary to differentiate them.

If I describe a rabbit as a creature with fluffy hair, long ears and a tuft tail, and you describe a rabbit as a creature with a long tail, square ears and lanky hair, is it reasonable to assume we're describing the same creature?

Ugh, goddamn Te valuers. Oy.

[ashlesha]

lol.

if its just something on paper that you fit people into instead of something about people that you put on paper, then that seems totally pointless to me.

i dont think the rabbit analogy really works. i think aushra's type is relevant when it comes to how she described the ies from *her perception*

[Aleksei]

if its just something on paper that you fit people into instead of something about people that you put on paper, then that seems totally pointless to me.

In order to describe discrete classifications of people, you must first establish who fits these classifications, which means you need an initial criteria set. Jungian typology lacks such criteria (as mentioned, it is not linked to neurocognitive processing), so the categories themselves become such.

A case can be made (and I've made it before in fact) that the basic substructure of Socionics is intertype relations (in which case it is reasonable to construct the system observationally), but no such substructure exists for Jungian or MBTI functions. Which means that either you must acknowledge them to be distinct, or ignore them altogether, because if you base them on the same structure as Socionics you just end up with... Socionics. No point in separating them.

[ashlesha]

edit: damnit, you edited lol. i'll get to it

because its arbitrary. if you have a collection of traits that dont actually exist or work and then categorize people according to them then you're not actually describing people or truthfully learning how people work or actually doing anything useful. youre just fucking around doing nothing.

ti valuers, oy vey!

[Aleksei]

if you have a collection of traits that dont actually exist or work and then categorize people according to them then you're not actually describing people or truthfully learning how people work or actually doing anything useful. youre just fucking around doing nothing.

I disagree. If a person fits a given description, then by default you are describing them. And to the extent the description is useful it becomes useful to them.

That is to say, the traits actually do exist. They exist for the people that fit them, and don't exist for people who don't. So it becomes a chicken/egg thing.

[ashlesha]

i dont get what youre trying to say in your new post...should the traits described in a typology be based on observation of people or arbitrarily selected? it looks like youre saying socionics was based on observation and the other jungian systems were not, which i'm quite sure isn't true, but i'm not sure i'm understanding you. why would you need to set the criteria before observing it? that doesnt make sense to me.

imo any typology worth paying attention to will try to model reality instead of squishing people into arbitrarily decided traits. whats the point of a model that only works to describe some people? its just fucking around.

[Aleksei]

why would you need to set the criteria before observing it? that doesnt make sense to me.

Because the system is articulated. In order to observe the way people with Fi act, you must first decide who has Fi, and then observe people who fit that definition. If the definition is behavioral, then... yeah, you need to fit them into behavioral categories before you can even begin to do anything with the system.

[ashlesha]

youre not making sense. in order to decide who has Fi, youd need to observe. and if the system doesn't continue working when more people are observed, then it either needs to evolve or its just a dinky little thing that happens to describe a few people.

[Aleksei]

youre not making sense. in order to decide who has Fi, youd need to observe.

I'll bite. Observe who?

[ashlesha]

people. people had differences/similarities/patterns in the way they thought/perceived/operated before typology ever came along and pointed it out. the theory should describe reality, because you cant make reality describe a theory. thats what i'm saying.

[Aleksei]

people. people had differences/similarities/patterns in the way they thought/perceived/operated before typology ever came along and pointed it out.

And you think those patterns are actually simple enough to fit into 16 discrete types?

[ashlesha]

do i think that by observing people we can find patterns that can create 16 categories? maybe. those 16 categories wont be all encompassing and describe everything about humanity but if they actually make sense when applied to people - if they actually correlate to reality - then they could still be useful. i dont think the solution to the fact that no typology is going to describe every little facet of every single person is to say "lets just pick some arbitrary traits and shove people into them lol w/e!" i think an attempt can be made to have the theory actually make sense.

[Absurd]

I agree. The only way to do that is to actually practise it, that is, check whether it works or not by doing. It doesn't or doesn't serve any practical theme, what use is it for one ? Producing nothing but volumes of words and theories, that is, walls of text, like some do on here, just to claim they can't read those is laughable.

Damn, I forgot about this.

in order to decide who has Fi, youd need to observe. and if the system doesn't continue working when more people are observed, then it either needs to evolve or its just a dinky little thing that happens to describe a few people.

do i think that by observing people we can find patterns that can create 16 categories? [...] if they actually correlate to reality - then they could still be useful.

I agree with this wholeheartedly.

[silke]

Exactly. The fact that we're circling around Socionics, MBTI, and Jung is just that. We're all spotting similarities, some of us just refuse to notice the differences. A difference requires one to attend to the rest of the material discussed within Socionics that is not emphasized in the others.

It is not refusal to notice the differences. It's the acknowledgement that the differences are inferential. If you understand the original concept, the core essence of an IE, then the differences can be derived from there depending on context.

[blankblank]

I've been trying to find this chart forever!

According to it:

Same letters: 30%

One letter switched: 40%
(e/i: 20%
n/s: 16%
f/t: 21%
p/j: 43%)

Two letters switched: 23%

Three letters switched: 7%

Opposite letters: very rare

[717495]

Accordingly, the big no-nos are INTJ = INTj, ESTP = ESTp.

Because Keirsey INTJs don't analyze anything, and ESTPs don't conquer anything.

[717495]

Accordingly, the big no-nos are INTJ = INTj, ESTP = ESTp.

Because Keirsey INTJs don't analyze anything, and ESTPs don't conquer anything.