SLOAN type and Socionics

[KeroZen]

First of all the J/P switch is completely false. MBTI messed up the true order of functions and neglected to address it until after they mass-marketed it. The result is the Ego and Id being switch for introverts and Super-ego and Super-Id switched for extroverts. This explains why MBTI couldn't get intertype relations to work properly (and why socionics, with intertype relations, uses the true order of functions). But the MBTI type descriptions mostly focus on the four dichotomies and as such, correlate all too well with socionics descriptions, including club and temperament, which together form a complete type.

Let's make my point clear then.

Based on wikipedia MBTI pages, cognitiveprocesses.com, typelogic.com and humanmetrics.com and in fact any other official MBTI or MBTI look-alike site online I've read so far, including Keirsey (and please if you want to tell those are not pure MBTI and are incompatible, then post concrete evidence that those differences are more than nitpicking around terminology and focus differences in application area and tool purpose) They all affirm they come from a Jungian heritage. All.

I'm going to talk about the j/p switch and function order difference between all these systems and socionics. What I call j/p switch is only needed for introverts/intratims (so for I types in both theories) meaning for instance that INTp becomes INTJ and INTP becomes INTj.

1) I gathered from the maximum number of sources stereotype "nicknames", in both camps. And when reaching something like 10-15 7-10 "nicknames" for each type, the j/p switch is clearly obvious for all introverts. Anyone having a minimum amount of intuition would get it just by reading those series of words and trying to group them together (I'm sure even a kid could do it), and as it's a really "light" point, discussion-wise, I won't even bother giving you an example.

2) One system is focused on functions, the other on information elements. But what are those information elements if not inputs or products of those functions? Simple example for the Feeling function (taken from MBTI auxiliary Fe description) "Fe seeks social connections and creates harmonious interactions through polite, considerate, and appropriate behavior." Alright, what is this talking about if not ethics valuation and production? Aka "what I feel about something, is it good? does it make me feel better?"

3) Also thinking in functional terms is perfectly valid socionics. But on wikisocion one can read: "According to Model A, there are eight functions present in each type, one for each information element. In this respect socionics differs from canonical MBTI and Jung's Typology, in which only four elements are present in each type.". This is in contradiction with *modern* MBTI: "Later personality researchers (notably Linda V. Berens)[24] added four additional functions to the descending hierarchy, the so-called "shadow" functions to which the individual is not naturally inclined but which can emerge when the person is under stress." So you can see both systems have same 8 functions and both have a notion of "conscious functions" and "unconscious functions" (even if in detail and order they differ)

4) Even by not going too deeply into said details, when applying the j/p switch for introverts, nobody can argue that the two first functions (MBTI: 1) dominant, 2) auxiliary, socionics: 1) leading, 2) creative) suddenly match for all 16 types. Ex:

INTP = INTj = Ti Ne
INTJ = INTp = Ni Te

5) No need to apply the j/p switch for extroverts, they already match:

ESFP = ESFp = Se Fi
ESFJ = ESFj = Fe Si

(you can verify for all 16 types if you don't trust me)

6) Intertype relations do transpose 1:1 between both systems when applying the j/p switch, and guess what, it's exactly what typelogic.com did! They just renamed "duality" into "anima/animus"...(I hear you cry "but it's different! it must be different!") Well no, having studied both, it's the same but different wordings, inter-type relations wise. Also no need to point out how commercial dating sites are leeching socionics intertype model to provide their advices on top of MBTI/jungian derivatives (but some don't take too much risks and only propose people "identity" relations because it's safer and helps them say they make people date easily whereas they don't care if they'll stay together or not..)


Now onto the differences, because it couldn't be too easy either:

1) About functions balance in MBTI I'll quote this: "Jung and Myers considered the attitude of the Auxiliary, Tertiary, and Inferior functions to be the opposite of the Dominant. In this interpretation, if the Dominant function is extraverted, then the other three are introverted, and vice versa. However, many modern practitioners hold that the attitude of the Tertiary function is the same as the Dominant." Meaning with INFJ as example:

Ni Fe Ti Se -> Two inputs, two outputs, one of each kind, looks very balanced and efficient to handle life and survival

2) In socionics with same example it's unbalanced, in the sense that both "captors" (inputs) are introverted and both "actors" (outputs) are extroverted:

Ni Fe Si Te -> Two introverted inputs, two extroverted outputs, makes a very nice "information processing vector"... I could translate that into a cellular automata and each type would be a "glider" always going into the same direction (nice concept though, but a bit akin to walking with one leg half the size of the other...)

3) But then, who cares, maybe it's just me in this case nitpicking about function orders, they probably have different definitions for each of them (each "slot/position"), and also what one system consider "cognitive" functions could be different from the other which considers things more in terms of "conscious" or "unconscious" processes...To be honest, I don't know.

4) My current hypothesis is that MBTI allows to test and see the person's EGO and SUPER-ID blocks in model A (with my IEI example: EGO: NiFe SUPID: TiSe.....well SeTi, but no nitpicking I said!)

5) Then a last example with IEI duality this time: When you have to explain in the most simple way to someone why duality "ticks" and why conflict is a "conflict", what would you choose to draw on that napkin in front of you:

a) using MBTI functions notation

IEI + SLE = Ni Fe Ti Se + Se Ti Fe Ni =
IEI + LSE = Ni Fe Ti Se + Te Si Ne Fi =

b) using socionics functions notation

"
- Well you have four blocks in your mind, ego, super-ego, id and super-id (while drawing squares on napkin...) and your ego rings something in your partner's head...here...(while pointing at little square)...and..
- Come on! Get to the point I hate when people turn around things and are not clear! (said the SLE)
"

PS: If any of the information sources I cited, including wikipedia and wikisocion, or any other site is false or erroneous, what are we waiting for correcting them? Leaving falsehoods online is misleading to people and we must do our possible to prevent that. And don't forget to paragraph!

[Absurd]

I'm still ESTJ(j) going by that scheme. Only MBTI got me 'thinking' I'm an introvert.

EDIT: Besides for the wonderful individuals who showed me the light, that is. You won't be forgotten.

[Crispy]

6) Intertype relations do transpose 1:1 between both systems when applying the j/p switch, and guess what, it's exactly what typelogic.com did! They just renamed "duality" into "anima/animus"...(I hear you cry "but it's different! it must be different!") Well no, having studied both, it's the same but different wordings, inter-type relations wise. Also no need to point out how commercial dating sites are leeching socionics intertype model to provide their advices on top of MBTI/jungian derivatives (but some don't take too much risks and only propose people "identity" relations because it's safer and helps them say they make people date easily whereas they don't care if they'll stay together or not..)

Anima/Animus on Typelogic describes conflict not duality.
Duality is described by the relation Novelty.
Google define novelty:
S: (n) freshness, novelty (originality by virtue of being refreshingly novel)
Google define Animus:
S: (n) animosity, animus, bad blood (a feeling of ill will arousing active hostility)

As you can see Typelogic is the closest MBTI site to make it to socionics' level. (They are still missing things like calling Benefactor/Beneficiary and Supervier/Supervisee completely different names)

1) I gathered from the maximum number of sources stereotype "nicknames", in both camps. And when reaching something like 10-15 "nicknames" for each type, the j/p switch is clearly obvious for all introverts. Anyone having a minimum amount of intuition would get it just by reading those series of words and trying to group them together (I'm sure even a kid could do it), and as it's a really "light" point, discussion-wise, I won't even bother giving you an example.

Listing these would be a good idea, considering I found the opposite to be true. (INTJ described as Scientist and INTP described as Thinker is a good example).

I'll reveal some of the other holes as I see them. The best thing to do would be to ignore the MBTI functions that Myers/Briggs released prematurely and look for where all these personality theories sprung from; namely Jung's Psychological Types. There you will find how introvert always means introvert, and rational always means rational, and type change remains impossible.

[KeroZen]

I beg your pardon but (wikipedia anima/animus)

"The anima and animus in Carl Jung's school of analytical psychology, are the two primary anthropomorphic archetypes of the unconscious mind, as opposed to both the theriomorphic and inferior-function of the shadow archetypes, as well as the abstract symbol sets that formulate the archetype of the Self. The anima and animus are described by Jung as elements of his theory of the collective unconscious, a domain of the unconscious that transcends the personal psyche. In the unconscious of the male, it finds expression as a feminine inner personality: anima; equivalently, in the unconscious of the female it is expressed as a masculine inner personality: animus."

[Crispy]

And that makes Animus into Duality because?...

[KeroZen]

Also elsewhere I've been reproached of thinking in MBTI "shadow functions terms", but read the quote in my signature.

[KeroZen]

Holy shit! You insensitive emotionless robot! They forgot to include a heart in the package and you got a plastic pump instead!

Come on! Doesn't it ring anything? It's called anima/animus and not anima, the definition on typelogic is "Anima fits Dr. Beebe's description of the anima/anumus: each is the other's inferior (4th) function"

And from what I quoted from the wikipedia page, doesn't it evoke you your quest to find your soul-mate? The one that fills the opposite part in you? Ying/Yang?

[KeroZen]

And on typelogic.com:

Novelty = intriguingly different: interestingly so

[KeroZen]

Also on this page: When Anima Meets Animus

"ANIMA AND ANIMUS FIGURES

The characters played by Juliette Binoche and Johnny Depp in the film Chocolat are archetypal figures, the animus and the anima. This is what gave the movie its enchanting aspect, its magical feel and its deep, delightful spell casting. Let's learn more."

Didn't see the movie but I'm not sure from description and user reviews on IMDB that this was about conflicting and painful human relations?

[KeroZen]

To tame things down keep in mind that functions order is a rather hot topic, as summarized in this page:

Jungian cognitive functions - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


We could accommodate the order with socionics but there are still differences in what each system "sees" and "test" (I see many people saying MBTI is about what people do/act, socionics is about how people think)

For me those are two different but compatible "points of view" (observation points and angles) looking at the exact same thing.

EDIT: NOTE THAT THIS ARTICLE HINTS THAT TYPELOGIC = MBTI + IT TENDS TO SHOW THAT MBTI IS USING JUNGIAN COGNITIVE FUNCTIONS (ARTICLE TITLE)

[KeroZen]

Compatibility implies being able to translate from one to another.

I know I'd like it to be this way, but as I'm objective, I remember I read some statistical studies weighting against that. But in these studies, it's not clear if they were aware of the j/p switch problem when asking people typed in one system how they felt with same type in other system.

[Simon Ssmall]

Bah, tests are a shit way of typing.

Really??

[Crispy]

"Anima fits Dr. Beebe's description of the anima/anumus: each is the other's inferior (4th) function"

Matching inferior functions is a BAD thing. Inferior function of INTJ is Se, so ESFP being Se starts conflict, not duality. That's why I said they switched introverts Ego/Id and extroverts Super-ego/Super-id. Conflict is still visible in this system.

[KeroZen]

Also I'm aware of Ganin's view on the subject:

How to convert MBTI® type to Socionics type

I must be a myth propagator then... but I'm not alone (discussed here and elsewhere archives many times by many people...)

If it doesn't match with j/p switch for an individual, then maybe he's borderline on a particular dichotomy with one of the "telescopes" used to look at them, due to said telescope bias (position, angle) and just changing a single letter would be perfect then.

Also we have sub types and SLOAN has SLOAN+ precisely to cope with in-between cases, and often those in-between cases fall right in the focal spot of one telescope but are slightly out of bounds for the other...

[Crispy]

SLOAN+ is useless. It's hard enough to find tests that accurately deduce Type. SLOAN+ is trying to ascertain Subtype through directly translating answers that would change given mood.

If your on the Judging side of the Judging/Perceiving spectrum in Socionics, you are on the Judging side of the Judging/Perceiving spectrum in MBTI. People that take tests for granted cling on to the type they got on the MBTI test and then when they change types in socionics, think the two are incompatible. The truth is MBTI tests are extremely inaccurate and no esteem should be put in them. A lot of people don't even bother to read all 16 descriptions before getting settled into their chosen type.

[KeroZen]

Crispy: no this doesn't hold, I don't agree sorry.

From a MBTI/Jung point of view:

"The Inferior function is the personality type's Achilles' heel. This is the function they are least comfortable with. Like the Tertiary, the Inferior function strengthens with maturity.[17]"

This implies something we have and tend to improve. Meeting someone being better at it is not a conflict because it's of the same "quality" (i vs e) you use. So you want to be stronger in Se, meet someone mastering strong Se. Because if you meet someone having strong Si you wouldn't be able to use it (because in MBTI you are even weaker in Si than Se)

I gave an example (napkin A) using MBTI, then let's see how duality is explained in socionics, using your INTj example this time.

From wikisocion:

"The third row of Model A (functions 5 and 6) is called the Super-id block. The subject will appreciate direct help to the Super-id, and sees tasks related to it as chores best left to others, but also as a source of frequent recreation. When feeling like there's something missing in his life, the subject will try to use his Super-id functions, but with limited effect, as it often comes off as overkill and is usually poorly developed. Only in the presence of complementary types can an individual let loose his child-like Super-id without fear of criticism. But ironically, although these types will maintain a good deal of their Super-id information in the atmosphere, they will at the same time doggedly encourage him to keep using his Ego functions, which in the end is the healthiest thing for him to do anyway."

- INTj in socionics : Ti Ne Fi Se | Fe Si Te Ni
- your dual in socionics is ESFj aka ESE
- ESFj in socionics : Fe Si Te Ni | Ti Ne Fi Se

you value Fe Si in your dual alright?

- INTP in MBTI : Ti Ne Si Fe, don't care about shadow
- ESFJ in MBTI : Fe Si Ti Ne, idem

you still value Fe Si in your dual.


In practice I'm clearly Fe, and only Fe seeking people like my Fe expressions as it tends to annoy Fi (in slot #1 or #2) people, but surprisingly even ENTj's who are supposed to be Fe in socionics.

I've tried to express that point already in my ID thread and above: it's like MBTI see EGO + SUPERID of model-A because in "apparence" that's what is visible to outsiders.

[KeroZen]

As for blatantly saying MBTI self-tests are worse than socionics ones I should slap you in the face and start a duel! I'm being devil's advocate here as if I had to chose a side, I would chose socionics with no hesitation!

Self tests are the same exact shit, wether people answer 40 questions on humanmetrics.com or 40 questions on socionics.com it's not enough! (but nobody said it was though)

Also saying SLOAN+ is useless is equivalent to saying subtypes are useless, no more no less. Don't need more details than you already got? Then fine, don't need to look into subtypes (because yes I'm sure we could go to 100th sub type level if we could, but it's pointless and dealing with 16 types is already a challenge) Nonetheless you can't discard them like this.

As for the j/p scale meaning, maybe there's a difference because in socionics the j/p letter is only relative to dominant function quality (i or e) hence INTj is Ti, it's a judging function hence "j".

For IEI my first function is Ni, perception hence "p", but I appear as a judging type because of my constant Fe outbursts, where I output random thoughts and feelings about everything around me, making people think I judge things wheras it's just my way of expression.

[KeroZen]

Also proof that you are a real INTj (and I really do have many friends of this type I love) you don't have Fe in your two first blocks but you value it, and everytime I interact with people of this type it's very kind and cosy because I master Fe better than them, but they are not afraid of me hurting them (because they value Fe and I'm giving them good Fe, usually by cheering them up and giving them advices for love affairs hehe)

On the other hand I value and respect their strong logic which I always find stronger than mine. So right now I'm shaking in front of my pooter waiting for you to destroy my theory with an unbreakable logical counter argument!

Also I'm not sure you would have reacted in the same way if I had insulted you of being a robot in a Fi way rather than in a Fe way... In fact I'm not even sure a Fi person would have said anything like that hehe!

[KeroZen]

Someone pointed me to the excellent "Pathetic Hidden Agenda (HA)" page, which gave me one extra level of understanding: Pathetic HA - Wikisocion

From reading this page, it's clear that your weak points are obvious to outsiders, because you already act like a fool trying to mask them when everyone else see them and it's even painful to see you putting yourself in embarrassing situations like this.

[KeroZen]

I strongly agree (while my pizza is cooking...) that everybody should read the 16 types descriptions in any of these systems.

Not only will see that their type lies at the crossing of many "nearby" types, with which they share a lot but also rather compare than identify to, but also because typology is not about self only.

The beauty of all these theories is that they emphasize our differences. Sadly, many people (when uneducated on the topic) consider it's the opposite, as boxing people inside squares is over limiting ("we are humans, not machines!!!" - "you can't define me I'm more than a type, I'm all the types!")

In this sense, it's vital to know all 16 types and not just yours. We all have different reasons to do that (being happier, finding love, gaining power or edge in relations, understanding others, seeking harmony in relations, managing teams) but they are valid.

[KeroZen]

Still cooking...grrrrr...

One of the positive aspects of the over-capitalization/marketing of MBTI is that these guys have built "schools" and "seminars" and because they all type each others and they are all into process optimization and team synergy, I suspect that they developed means to teach typology to every single type in a more efficient way!

Of course it would be horrible for instance if we transposed this to our education system (INTp or ESTp classrooms!! wooot?!) but having a teacher know what information elements and aspects to use to better reach a specific kid "core" would definitely help (at least for problematic cases)

But yes, good teachers already do that quite instinctively.

[Crispy]

One of the positive aspects of the over-capitalization/marketing of MBTI is that these guys have built "schools" and "seminars" and because they all type each others and they are all into process optimization and team synergy, I suspect that they developed means to teach typology to every single type in a more efficient way!

They marketed a broken system. Myers/Briggs admitted it themselves after it was too late. All the schools/seminars are based on lies and the only good they might have done is keep up interest in personality theory until people find socionics. Nobody has to agree now, because I know you'll realize it sooner or later. The more people listen the more they will understand. If you don't listen/understand it's not really a big deal to me.

[KeroZen]

Hey you're not even arguing in a scientific way, just discarding things.

1) they admitted errors and now we got modern MBTI with 8 functions, it's what I used as counter examples through-out

2) I already said above that I'm in your camp. Socionics is way more advanced than other systems that are merely catching up. But I don't want to have to chose a side if I'm trying to prove they are basically the same "telescopes" with just a different position (what for?) and angle (what to look for?)

3) What wasn't clear enough on my utterly long explanations that the j/p switch for introverts made them both compatible, down to the duality level and functions matching?

Come on I seek logical flaws, you only give me biased and very narrow-minded ethical opinions of yours in return! (ie one is broken, or one is better than the other...when I'm trying to prove they both work, and one is blue and the other is red)

[Crispy]

We already know that socionics works. So the only way you can claim that MBTI works as well is if there is a direct translation. If it is true that MBTI types don't translate to socionics types then MBTI is useless because it contradicts a system that is known to work. If you are going to argue that they are different you can't say they both work. I believe that MBTI should work, but most people are mistyped in MBTI because all they have to go on is tests and NOT intertype relations.

[KeroZen]

Damn I burnt the pizza in the process (of course!)

Crispy: with all due respect, I want to make it clear that I have nothing personal against you (on the contrary) and that I'm arguing for the sake of reaching a consensus and for making things advance.

While I read your j/p switch thread, as I know it's something you are strongly attached to, so I won't make you repeat yourself... I invite you to read this other article (hehe again an INFJ) explaining the same thing I did (anima/animus being duality in MBTI so ESTP goes with INFJ):

Type Insights: Relationship Type Combinations

I'm also searching the archives for a specific post by Phaedrus which iirc is basically exactly what I say but worded in a more concise and to the point manner perhaps. -> EDIT: NEVERMIND HE'LL SPEAK BY HIMSELF IF HE WANTS

And because you've asked for it and to prove I'm not lying, I'll dig in my personal archives the nicknames comparison data.

[Crispy]

As far as I know Phaedrus was of the same opinion as I on this matter. Are you saying he believes that the J/P switch works in all cases, rather than a direct translation working in all cases?

[KeroZen]

Sometimes and considering how much INFp/IEI are represented online (with surely equal amounts of INTp/ILI) one may wonder if typology is not something that exist only in these two types perverted minds...

[KeroZen]

Short point from one of your own posts:

"All the confusion sprang up because the creators of MBTI botched the functional system for introverts, only to have it fixed by Augusta."

You then agree that the botch (j/p switch fixes it in a glimpse!) applies only to introverts?

We're already on good common grounds.

[Crispy]

Yes, only for introverts. But if J/P switch works it undermines the credibility of the four dichotomies that the systems are based on, making MBTI again; useless. Being a Judger and a Perceiver at the same time is a contradiction, because they are two sides of the same coin.

[KeroZen]

Second point regarding one of your posts:

"No it's like trying to prove two economics philosophers discovered the same phenomenon and one failed to explain it correctly."

I feel your dismay, something's not logic out there but socionics is awfully logic and stand against logical analysis, so MBTI must be wrong.

I used to think like you, trying to find the loser for the sake of my mind.

But I also heard views like my "blue and red telescopes" metaphor, and here again I feel your dismay: accepting they are different and incompatible while talking about the exact same things, functions, dichotomies, same type counts etc is horribly frustrating and confusing (even more since they can use same four letters types!)

So understand that my quest to prove they are compatible arises from a similar motive somehow, I want to reach a consensus so we stop putting this into question in periodic cycles. For the sake of our mental sanity and especially mine (because yes it has a selfish ingredient to it)

[KeroZen]

Yes, only for introverts. But if J/P switch works it undermines the credibility of the four dichotomies that the systems are based on, making MBTI again; useless. Being a Judger and a Perceiver at the same time is a contradiction, because they are two sides of the same coin.

Yes here you make a strong point, so strong I don't feel confident enough to touch it at the present time. Let's say I acknowledge it but for now we say it's part of the "blotch" and hence should be covered/taken into account by the translation/conversion method M.

It's possible that J vs P is not j vs p. But maybe if we used another lettering combining/coupling E/I and J/P to take the blotch into account...something like (straight out of my mind, 1=MBTI 2=socionics)

W: for all EJ in #1 and all Ej in #2
X: for all EP in #1 and all Ep in #2
Y: for all IP in #1 and all Ij in #2
Z: for all IJ in #1 and all Ip in #2

We'll end up with one common system, having a refined 4th dichotomy, and whose types would be:

WNF, WNT, WST, WSF
XNF, XNT, XST, XSF
YNF, YNT, YST, YSF
ZNF, ZNT, ZST, ZSF

[KeroZen]

Alternatively we can learn to live with differences and accept that both systems are incompatible... and keep being seen like morons by other members of the opposing camp...

What?! You didn't know that MBTI guys also reject and criticize socionics? heheh

[KeroZen]

I'm still reading the other thread where you posted a lot, but I think we'll have to consider the subtle differences in wordings and the telescopes orientation differences (what I called nitpicking) if we seriously hope to prove either your point or mine.

I'd like to discard the 3rd possibility (systems are incompatible and we must live with this without explaining why) because I tend to see this as a "too easy" solution.

[KeroZen]

Quoting Aleksei here: "I think any type equivalence between the two systems (including direct A = A equivalences) are at best approximations though, because of the differences in how each system evaluates personality."

That's exactly aspects of what I stuffed in the "nitpicking" box and it's also factored into my telescope position and orientation metaphors.

That's also what we need to define more precisely.

[KeroZen]

Now quoting socioniko.net where I recently directed a new user to learn the subtle differences between MBTI and socionics.

SOCIONICS: Personality Types and Relationships

Basic differences between MBTI and Socionics

Revised on September 30, 2005

MBTI: In addition to Jungian type dimensions a new dimension called J/P (judging/perceiving) has been introduced

Socionics: J/P is considered to fully coincide with Jungian dimension of Rationality/Irrationality

-------------

Other points are mostly concerning old school classical MBTI but as I said, it's old. Now they have 8 functions like us.

MBTI: Type descriptions are focused on actions
Socionics: Type descriptions are focused on motivation, peculiarities of thinking

(already stated, part of telescope angle = what to look for)

Telescope position is "what for?" (and introduces a strong bias towards career management and personal coaching for MBTI)

It seems it's also part of the services offered by Bukalov's company if I'm correct though...

[KeroZen]

Quoting Jarno: "Yes different systems though pretty much the same if only focussing on dichotomies. They are based however on the same underlying phenomenon -> there are 16 different people."

And now we can add that they are also the same down to the functional level when applying the j/p switch for introverts, as seen with my clear examples with IEI/SLE and LII/ESE dualities above (both mine and the linked blog post about typelogics' anima/animus). If you don't believe me (but it's useless, it's all symmetrical) you can reproduce the experience with all 16 types.

Let's talk about subtle differences in function slots/order/meanings and also subtle differences in dichotomies instead.

As for what I call modern MBTI not being pure old school bare bone MBTI...well, it's what they use now and it's also what people learn when visiting wikipedia. One can say that typelogic is not MBTI, same for Keirsey etc but I already made my point (telescopes)

Saying this, I realize it's possible that we would need more than a single M conversion method as people will say we must also consider the subtle differences between MBTI "flavors"...or that it's so chaotic than M would be too complex for the average mortal being...

Again for the sake of our mental sanity, let's consider for now it's all the same MBTI, and focus on a single M conversion function.

[KeroZen]

Quoting polikujm: I don't correlate MBTI to Socioinics. I think Socionics is more even in N and S types, has more of an even balance for duals, and people type differently in both systems, like Cpig for example. He's INTJ in MBTI and INTp in Socionics. Two different systems, no contradiction.

Example of j/p switch for introverts *BUT* also a nice point: inbalance.

It's something that, I must admit, leaves me perplex. Our societies would be greatly unbalanced if some types were not equally represented, and duality would be a nightmare (well for IEI's like me, in MBTI it's said we are rare people, getting along very well with my SLOAN results of "feeling different", it would be a pleasure as there would be plenty of SLE's looking for us lol)

So yes unfortunately, and at least for USA population, MBTI has an uneven statistical type distribution. There are many possible explanations, but we surely need more data. I personally think it's an anomaly, but I can't refute any evidence.

Also remember socionics has a notion of "country values type" which sits on top of the individual own type (there's a better word but I forgot it sorry), making him sometimes mimick values that are correct and expected in his country. To what extent is this aspect caught by the MBTI testing instrument, I don't know?

Also I've nothing against people proving that MBTI testing methodology being weaker, it's perfectly possible, but one should not emphasize and rely on this "self tests" shortcut too much. Yes it's a shortcut, the real valid method takes time and requires a pro practitioner! And be it an MBTI pro or a socionics pro, they both will be able to determine the correct type in their respective system.

[KeroZen]

Quoting ashton (creepy incarnation): "A lot of Socionics ISFjs MBTI as ISFP, especially Se-ISFjs."

Again, j/p blotch.

[KeroZen]

Quoting polikujm again: "My dad is an ISTP in MBTI, and an Ni-ENFj in Socionics. Now this is just one example, of many other examples. I honestly think the MTBI descriptions and dichotomies are just fucked up/incompatible, and for similar reasons it can be sort of hard going by dichotomies in Socionics"

Alright that's indeed a surprising counter example but...wait...ISTP with j/p blotch becomes...ISTj....and it's ENFj's dual!

Coincidence? I don't think so, esp. after re-reading anima/animus topic earlier above....I've also read many times things about people dressing or acting like they were their dual, most probably to attract duals of the other sex making them think they are identical!

And again same poster: "You seem like you come from MBTI, you have some stereotypes of dichotomal typology, you don't want to get rid of them and try to interpret a separate psychological theory with a different use. It's typical for people here to think similarly to you though, and there is some little value in the correlation, p/j switch thing to begin with. But too many variables for me to care or count on it."

Alright but that's precisely case #3 I said I'd like to avoid because it's too easy.

And I'd like to point it's exactly the attitude we Betas dislike in Deltas: you think we see things "in big" and we see your natural tendency to let things go or not caring as "they never give a fuck if not for themselves"...

Please please, don't take that last remark too seriously, I'm nagging you, nothing more.

[KeroZen]

Now quoting you Crispy, two months ago: "Untrue. Upon learning the J/P switch was a hoax, I was disillusioned in MBTI and starting thinking of it the same way a lot of you do now; completely different from socionics and useless. This is of course because I thought I was INTj and INTP. "

...then you forgot MBTI...blah blah...

Am I just discovering that while I was defending your original point of view, you were blatantly arguing against me?

I'm going to reconsider who's the devil advocate in this thread now. Are you sure you are not ENTp? lol or it's the ENTp inside the INTj that shows up?