Once again, due to upcoming confusion. Please vote...
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...?
How should MBTI type be converted to Socionics type
Once again, due to upcoming confusion. Please vote...
I test the same in MBTI as in Socionics. Most of the time, of course.
INTP = LII | ILI | others (low probability)
INTJ = SLE | LIE | LII | ILI | others (low probability)
Yeah, I know, there are some INTJ-LII and INTJ-ILI here. But the point is, most people typed INTJ (esp. on MBTI forums) don't seem either.
And obligatory table:
In which you can clearly see that INTp is much more like INTP, or ISTJ, or INFJ, than INTJ.
The problem with people who think P/J switch works is that they think it means if, for example, they're IJ, they should be called "perceivers" and still use their MBTI-assigned functions, while in fact if they're J, they're likely socionics Extroverts, either p or j (and therefore use different functions than MBTI had them think). So instead of untwisting it, they twist it again in the same direction hoping it'll end up straight.
I know this table - it is absolutely ridiculous.Originally Posted by Aiss
The fact that there is absolutely no consensus among those so-called socionists shows that the study is completely useless!
So 52 socionists called the INTJ description ESTp, 32 said ENTj, 15 ENTp and - how amazing - 9 said INTj.
Last edited by JohnDo; 04-20-2010 at 12:04 PM.
Yes. "Different" people produce different results.
No. The fact that there's no consensus shows that there's no obvious 1-1 correlation. Which is a ground for massive mistypings.
Quite obvious it isn't INTj = INTJ, is it?So 52 socionists called the INTJ description ESTp, 32 said ENTj, 15 ENTp and - how amazing - 9 said INTj.
There has to be consensus? Why? Because you said so?Useless crap. Just read the descriptions yourself and you will realize there is a 1:1 correlation. Fuck those stupid retards who call themselves "socionists". If they were profesional socionists there would have to be consensus!!! Useless crap!!
Just because you see obvious correlation, and someone else sees obvious correlation, doesn't mean it's the same one.
This table shows similarity in the descriptions, not how much people of these types are what socionics types. There's even more mistyping because since MBTI descriptions are mostly flattering, so many people just go by tests and accept whatever answer there is.
I read the descriptions before I became interested in socionics, JohnDo. I ended up arguing with people who claimed INTJs were "doers", "not wasted their time thinking/theoretizing", "weren't useless like INTPs because they actually have impact on the world", etc., about functions and types and dichotomies. In this light, INTP is the closest you'll get to INTp and probably INTj, but INTj and INTJ doesn't really work.
In short: some INTP profiles describe INTp; most describe INTj. Most INTJs are extroverts in socionics.
this actually sums up nicely what I meant.
We could make our own test. I write 16 short socionics descriptions and you guys guess what type I described. Let's see if we can get to consensus. I know the answer already :-)
This was once shown to Phaedrus. He basically refuted the evidence and adopted more objective stance. His stance.
The first line of the INTJ profile that was used for that test (Keirsey's first INTJ description) was "INTJs are the most self confident of the types, having self-power awareness." It's not surprising ESTp got linked to it so much.
That's a misleading line, indeed. It would be correct to say:
"INTJs are the most self confident of all types when it comes to scientific questions, having self-power awareness in this field. But they can be very unconfident in social situations"
Nobody would have thought of it as an ESTp description then...
Removed at User Request
You display far too much logic to be a ethical type at all; I would say ENTp or INTp
-
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
I bet that Gulenko cannot recognize types written by Filatova. Both socionics. Its simply hard to understand someone elses descriptions.
BTW If I remember correctly, only 4 words per type were allowed in the type descriptions. So that's begging for confusion.
This amateuristic table is just a myth creator, and you folks fell for it.
Last edited by Jarno; 04-20-2010 at 10:22 PM.
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
Accordingly, the big no-nos are INTJ = INTj, ESTP = ESTp.
Because Keirsey INTJs don't analyze anything, and ESTPs don't conquer anything.
Accordingly, the big no-nos are INTJ = INTj, ESTP = ESTp.
Because Keirsey INTJs don't analyze anything, and ESTPs don't conquer anything.
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.
ILI (FINAL ANSWER)
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
Removed at User Request
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).
Enneagram: 9w1 6w5 2w3 so/sx
Doesn't "what are you like" imply "how do you interact with the world" ?
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.
@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.)
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)
Enneagram: 9w1 6w5 2w3 so/sx
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.
What do these signs mean—, etc.? Why cannot socionists use symbols Ne, Ni etc. as in MBTI? Just because they have somewhat different meaning. Socionics and MBTI, each in its own way, have slightly modified the original Jung's description of his 8 psychological types. For this reason,
Just one example: in MBTI, Se (extraverted sensing) is associated with life pleasures, excitement etc. By contrast, the socionic function(extraverted sensing) is first and foremost associated with control and expansion of personal space (which sometimes can manifest in excessive aagression, but often also manifests in a capability of managing lots of people and things).
For this reason, we consider comparison between MBTI types and socionic types by functions to be rather useless than useful.
-Victor Gulenko, Dmitri Lytov
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).
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
What do these signs mean—
Just one example: in MBTI, Se (extraverted sensing) is associated with life pleasures, excitement etc. By contrast, the socionic function
For this reason, we consider comparison between MBTI types and socionic types by functions to be rather useless than useful.
-Victor Gulenko, Dmitri Lytov
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.
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.
What do these signs mean—
Just one example: in MBTI, Se (extraverted sensing) is associated with life pleasures, excitement etc. By contrast, the socionic function
For this reason, we consider comparison between MBTI types and socionic types by functions to be rather useless than useful.
-Victor Gulenko, Dmitri Lytov
There is nothing in description ofPay attention to the actual descriptions. MBTI Fe is related to politeness, the rules of good form in society, making people comfortable -- all related to
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.
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.
Last edited by Neverend; 06-14-2011 at 03:26 PM.
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
What do these signs mean—
Just one example: in MBTI, Se (extraverted sensing) is associated with life pleasures, excitement etc. By contrast, the socionic function
For this reason, we consider comparison between MBTI types and socionic types by functions to be rather useless than useful.
-Victor Gulenko, Dmitri Lytov
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.
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.
http://www.socionics.us/theory/be.shtml
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.
But, for a certainty, back then,
We loved so many, yet hated so much,
We hurt others and were hurt ourselves...
Yet even then, we ran like the wind,
Whilst our laughter echoed,
Under cerulean skies...
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.
Last edited by Computer Loser; 06-10-2011 at 04:54 PM.
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).
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 the best fit for IEI is actually ENFP (INFP is a little too withdrawn and moralizing for
What do these signs mean—
Just one example: in MBTI, Se (extraverted sensing) is associated with life pleasures, excitement etc. By contrast, the socionic function
For this reason, we consider comparison between MBTI types and socionic types by functions to be rather useless than useful.
-Victor Gulenko, Dmitri Lytov
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
