Quote Originally Posted by JohnDo View Post
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.