How should MBTI type be converted to Socionics type

[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

[ArchonAlarion]

I am an INTP in MBTI.

Remember that some MBTI resources use the Jungian Types, ie Ne, Se, Te, etc.

So, I actually related specifically to TiNe in MBTI, which was INTP.

So, Che, I remember a long time ago you and I disagreed about this, what are your thoughts now? Do you understand that some INTP descriptions are written as descriptions of TiNe...?

[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.

[Exodus]

This is totally false, I use dichotomies all the time when typing someone, and as Jarno says so do the Russians. Information elements are probably more important than dichotomies in socionics, but they aren't exclusive.

On the other hand, MBTI has no real developed theory of information elements, AFAIK.

[Azeroffs]

The dichotomies are part of the elements. You can't get one without the other.

[Creepy-Pied Piper]

Removed at User Request

[Mattie]

Using dichotomies to me is like creating a portrait with paint-by-numbers. You don't actually understand the overall picture of the person, only parts that you add up to equal the entirety. Dichotomies turn people into cookie-cutters and formulas, and takes away from the bigger picture of a person's type. It's a short-hand, it's not the basis. Dichotomies aren't inherent because the question isn't "Is this person's leading function IE or ?" You have 8 options that are not necessarily either or. In MBTI, you have to type "Is their first letter E or I?" There isn't any wiggle room other than how E or how I they are, which offers rather little variation.

[Azeroffs]

Using dichotomies to me is like creating a portrait with paint-by-numbers. You don't actually understand the overall picture of the person, only parts that you add up to equal the entirety. Dichotomies turn people into cookie-cutters and formulas, and takes away from the bigger picture of a person's type. It's a short-hand, it's not the basis. Dichotomies aren't inherent because the question isn't "Is this person's leading function IE or ?" You have 8 options that are not necessarily either or. In MBTI, you have to type "Is their first letter E or I?" There isn't any wiggle room other than how E or how I they are, which offers rather little variation.

You're arguing against typing methods. An argument which I happen to agree with. This doesn't change the fact that dichotomies are inherent. They are just misunderstood or misused by some.

Truly understanding E N T P will tell you how ENTp is, but a dichotomy is open-ended by itself and doesn't really mean much until it's put together with other dichotomies. Such open-endedness means it is difficult if not impossible to know if someone is E or I without knowing other dichotomies first. Such is the case with E/I/P/J anyway. N/S/T/F are relatively much easier to get.

[Mattie]

You're arguing against typing methods. An argument which I happen to agree with. This doesn't change the fact that dichotomies are inherent. They are just misunderstood or misused by some.

That was generally my point, sorry if that got lost in what I was saying. I was coming from the angle that MBTI has an inherent dichotomy system in place for its typing, which you can't really escape no matter how much you deconstruct it. MBTI's dichotomies define each other, and it gets more complicated for Socionics, as one IE is part of multiple dichotomies rather than just one (for example, there can only be I vs E in MBTI as opposed to I vs T, P, etc, while in Socionics there's at least vs , , and ). So, for the conversion that this thread is asking about, it's impossible to have a strict conversation because the observance of dichotomies in MBTI is too different from Socionics to be able to cleanly do so. I can agree to there be a correlation, but never a direct 1:1, I think there are examples on here and from my own personal experience to refute that, along with what I've been talking about.

[Mattie]

Truly understanding E N T P will tell you how ENTp is, but a dichotomy is open-ended by itself and doesn't really mean much until it's put together with other dichotomies. Such open-endedness means it is difficult if not impossible to know if someone is E or I without knowing other dichotomies first. Such is the case with E/I/P/J anyway. N/S/T/F are relatively much easier to get.

Sorry to double post, but you just added this after typed up my response, and I don't agree with the assertion you have to know the E N T P to know the NeTi. You need to know the in the leading function, in the creative, and the others that follow suit because of that placement. Take the MBTI out of Socionics please.

[tcaudilllg]

Let's be clear that by "Russians", we mean "key socionics authors".

People are talking about there being a correlation between MBTI and socionics. My question would be "which MBTI are we talking about?" The SimilarMinds.com test is basically a socionics test using Jungian dichotomies. Kiersey and MBTT both use the Meyers-Briggs definition of JP. It is very frequent that SimilarMinds.com and MBTI are confused... the SimilarMinds test may use MBTI questions, but the type it returns is different from MBTI.

There are many different varieties of MBTI out there... keep that in mind. But, there is an official test and system as is outlined in the Meyers-Briggs handbook, and based on the description given of that system it is to be inferred that MBTT and socionics explain the same system, but use different criterion for J/P. The relationships between the criterion of the two systems just happens to make it possible to convert typings between them by switching the J and P for introvert types and leaving them alone for extrovert types.