How should MBTI type be converted to Socionics type

[Aiss]

The fact that there is absolutely no consensus among those so-called socionists shows that the study is completely useless!

No. The fact that there's no consensus shows that there's no obvious 1-1 correlation. Which is a ground for massive mistypings.

So 52 socionists called the INTJ description ESTp, 32 said ENTj, 15 ENTp and - how amazing - 9 said INTj.

Quite obvious it isn't INTj = INTJ, is it?

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!!

There has to be consensus? Why? Because you said so?

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.

[Absurd]

According to this I am an extrovert in socionics. Yay!

[Aiss]

According to this I am an extrovert in socionics. Yay!

You mean by MBTI type?

My point is that there's no clear 1-1 correlation, especially for INTJ. I don't mean that introverts can't be "doers", but I wouldn't describe either LII or ILI as such. Anyway how most INTJs online talk about this type sounds LIE > ILI.

[Absurd]

No, I test ISTJ (MBTI) and LSI (Socionics).

That extrovert thing makes a lot of sense. I'm just stuck at that j and p shite, but help me gOD, I'll figure it out quickly, now that I don't drink so often.

[Mattie]

There is no conversion, MBTI and Socionics aim at two different things. MBTI tests for topical personality traits, like social, emotional, flexible, etc. Socionics looks at the information metabolism process. This is correlative at best, though I predict the correlation to go strongly with MBTI matches because the roots of the traits are found in the same origins with young.

That said, I think that the differences come when you factor in that you can be on a spectrum between dichotomies, like you're only so much E and close to I. That's not really reflective in Socionics. I imagine the most difference will come with the temperaments, because they are also different between the systems. E is clearly about being more social and traits related to that, while I is the opposite, which is not existent in Socionics, and the whole P/J dichotomy is absent as well, the only things of these that remain is the residue of those who still type using temperaments that are clearly influenced by an MBTI background.

I was an ENFP in MBTI and I am NeFi. I can't see too much variation between types, no more than two letters from the MBTI comparison type, and they are most likely the temperament letters.

ETA: Just keep in mind that MBTI doesn't test by their "functions" (I just realized this is where the vocab confusion came from...) and MBTI functions don't have a real influence on the type. They are largely represented by the dichotomies, which don't exist in Socionics, and therefore, a conversation cannot happen.

[Aiss]

ETA: Just keep in mind that MBTI doesn't test by their "functions" (I just realized this is where the vocab confusion came from...) and MBTI functions don't have a real influence on the type. They are largely represented by the dichotomies, which don't exist in Socionics, and therefore, a conversation cannot happen.

*MBTI gesticulates*
Socionics: What?

Sorry, couldn't help myself. (Actually, I could, but I didn't want to.)

[The Exception]

I most frequently test INTJ on Myers-Briggs but sometimes INTP and once in a great while INFJ or INFP. The I and the N are pretty clear. I find I relate somewhat more to INTP Myers-Briggs descriptions than the INTJ ones even though most frequently I get INTJ. Also, function wise, TiNe, fits far better than NiTe.

[Jarno]

They are largely represented by the dichotomies, which don't exist in Socionics, and therefore, a conversation cannot happen.

I'm sorry, you say dichotomies don't exist in socionics??

It is exactly bullshit like this that creates myths.

For your information, russian socionics sites use dichotomies equal or even more than functions.

If you don't know the facts, then just say nothing.

[Creepy-Pied Piper]

Removed at User Request

[Mattie]

I'm sorry, you say dichotomies don't exist in socionics??

It is exactly bullshit like this that creates myths.

For your information, russian socionics sites use dichotomies equal or even more than functions.

If you don't know the facts, then just say nothing.

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.