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...?
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.
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.
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!!
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.
According to this I am an extrovert in socionics. Yay!
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.
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.
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.
LII-Ne with strong EII tendencies, 6w7-9w1-3w4 so/sp/sx, INxP
Depends on "subtype".
Anyone who thinks either correlation works 100% of the time fails.
I agree. The Myers-Briggs INTJ type has no correlate in socionics. INTjs and INTps both are less self-confident and action oriented. ESTps are less theoretical. ENTjs are less socially reclusive.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.
According to this poll it is very obvious that a very strong correlation exists.
People whose socionics type is reportedly not the same as their MBTI type
- have mistyped themselves because of tests which don't work reliably.
- have mistyped themselves because MBTI uses a wrong order of functions.
- have mistyped themselves because dichotomies are described slightly differently even though they are more or less identical.
- have mistyped themselves because descriptions in both systems have certain inaccuracies even though they are more or less identical.
You are absolutely wrong, the Jungian dichotomies are also the foundation of socionics...Originally Posted by look.to.the.sky
Those so-called socionists do not even agree if the INTJ description sounds judging or perceiving, intuitive or sensory. This approach is obviously useless.Originally Posted by aiss
Types are not defined by descriptions but by dichotomies.
Last edited by JohnDo; 04-20-2010 at 06:30 PM.
Just so you know, if you type me as INTp you just end up with a theory that can't predict anything. It's useless. Time to throw in the towel and admit things weren't as simple as you wanted them to be.
I'm not going to submit to your dogmatism. You'll just use whatever you see as a confirmation of what you already believed.
On a related note, it's interesting that people keep saying I'm a good example of a judging subtype INTj when in my everyday life I lack pretty much every supposed definining property of a judger. I don't live a structured life. I get almost nothing done during an average day. I never plan anything I do. I always postpone things until the deadline is close. Etc...
There is no way. My studies show that many people score within their quadra; I posted this study that I conducted with 30 college students to show that of them only one scored their own type. Not even did I score my own type from MBTI to Socionics. Most people scored their mirror or activity, others scored their dual type (as I did), and very few scored outside quadra.
-
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
fwiw, I typed as an INFP MBTI before I found out about Socionics.
INFj
9w1 sp/sx
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.
Removed at User Request
-
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
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...
INTJ profiles in the MBTI generally describe the INTJ as a self-confident type in a general, overarching sense. In my experience, socionics INTjs and INTps are both only moderately self-confident. It's true that they are self-confident in NT-ish fields but that is tautological. Every type is self-confident in the field associated with it.
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.
In MBTI, NT = relatively smart person whose interests are primarily intellectual/scientific.
-
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
Introduction into Socionics
Keywords are mentioned but then they talk of "descriptions". No numbers are given.
No.
Removed at User Request
Last edited by Pied Piper; 04-20-2010 at 10:31 PM.
If MBTI and Socionics had such a succinct match-up, then why have the theories not merged yet? They both have the Jungian system in common, but MBTI used that as its basis while Augusta adopted it later as it seemed to be a useful vessel for communicating her already-formed conclusions. The two systems have some weak correlations, but only weak ones. The IMs/functions are entirely different breeds between the two.
Although there's no direct correlation, MBTI J/P seems to correlate more with static/dynamic than rational/irrational. It's a difference on what each system thinks to be important for understanding a person. MBTI places more focus on what a person's strongest extraverted function is, regardless of it's position in MBTI functional ordering. (which isn't anywhere near as rigid as in Socionics; you can hear "My Te is stronger than my Ti" statements in casual MBTI discussions, which aren't commonplace around here)
Just as certain types tend to often have a certain "range" of E-types, the same works for MBTI. Some pairings occur more than others, but there isn't a smooth dichotomy-for-dichotomy comparison between the two.