Is there a correlation between the Big Five and Socionic type?

[Absurd]

In fact, I find this entire test to be biased.

I'm sure glad you didn't die after taking it.

[Creepy-pokeball]

I'm sure glad you didn't die after taking it.

I'm sure glad that you didnt die after reading my post?

[silke]

How so? (the others make perfect sense btw)

MBTI's Judger/Perceiver corresponds to Socionics Dynamic/Static respectively. In that table J-P has negative correlation with Conscientiousness and being a P-type, which in Socionics terms is a static type, lowers this score.

The link implies that rationality is more shaped by conscientiousness, so I assume being a J in MBTI is correlated with higher conscientiousness.

in MBTI the J/P letters =/= rationality/irrationality as MBTI assigns J/P using different criteria from Socionics

what MBTI has instead is Judger/Perceiver dichotomy, which is not the same thing as rational/irrational - the way they assign J/P makes their Judger/Perceiver equivalent to dynamic/static i.e. Perceivers are statics, Judgers are dynamics

MBTI has no dichotomy that would be equivalent to Socionics rational/irrational

[EyeSeeCold]

MBTI's Judger/Perceiver corresponds to Socionics Dynamic/Static respectively. In that table J-P has negative correlation with Conscientiousness and being a P-type, which in Socionics terms is a static type, lowers this score.

The theories don't correspond..they line up. MBTI doesn't measure Static/Dynamic, but the Pe Je crap causes MBTI's J/P to line up with Static/Dynamic.

If Introverted Rationals(JiPe) were deemed MBTI P(JiPe), and Introverted Irrationals(PiJe) were deemed MBTI J(PiJe) instead, then they would correspond.

[ClownsandEntropy]

Sorry! Poor use of words, should have said that being a J is more shaped by conscientiousness; but no, I don't think there is an adequate enough relationship between MBTI and Socionics to say that certain Socionics types are more conscientious because MBTI is. Even if there is, the correlation between MBTI and Socionics is one of the less accepted theories, isn't it?

[Radio]

Factor I : Extraversion (AKA Surgency)

This trait reflects preference for, and behavior in, social situations. People high in extraversion are energetic and seek out the company of others. Low scorers (introverts) tend to be more quiet and reserved. Compared to other people who have taken this test, your score on this dimension (17) is relatively low.

Factor II : Agreeableness (AKA Friendliness)

This trait reflects how we tend to interact with others. People high in agreeableness tend to be trusting, friendly and cooperative. Low scorers tend to be more aggressive and less cooperative. Compared to other people who have taken this test, your score on this dimension (25) is about average.

Factor III : Conscientiousness (AKA Will or Dependability)

This trait reflects how organized and persistent we are in pursuing our goals. High scorers are methodical, well organized and dutiful. Low scorers are less careful, less focussed and more likely to be distracted from tasks. Compared to other people who have taken this test, your score on this dimension (25) is relatively low.

Factor IV : Neuroticism

This trait reflects the tendency to experience negative thoughts and feelings. High scorers are prone to insecurity and emotional distress. Low scorers tend to be more relaxed, less emotional and less prone to distress. Compared to other people who have taken this test, your score on this dimension (32) is relatively high.

Factor V : Openness (AKA Culture or Intellect)

This trait reflects 'open-mindedness' and interest in culture. High scorers tend to be imaginative, creative, and to seek out cultural and educational experiences. Low scorers are more down-to-earth, less interested in art and more practical in nature. Compared to other people who have taken this test, your score on this dimension (34) is relatively high.

[silke]

The theories don't correspond..they line up. MBTI doesn't measure Static/Dynamic, but the Pe Je crap causes MBTI's J/P to line up with Static/Dynamic.

If Introverted Rationals(JiPe) were deemed MBTI P(JiPe), and Introverted Irrationals(PiJe) were deemed MBTI J(PiJe) instead, then they would correspond.

It corresponds. If you go to MBTI forums and chat with people who score as as you'll find they have static logic (this is already taking into account that roughly 20-25% of them are mis-typed, just like on this board).

Sorry! Poor use of words, should have said that being a J is more shaped by conscientiousness; but no, I don't think there is an adequate enough relationship between MBTI and Socionics to say that certain Socionics types are more conscientious because MBTI is. Even if there is, the correlation between MBTI and Socionics is one of the less accepted theories, isn't it?

After spending 10 months reading MBTI forums and interacting with people there I am thoroughly convinced that Socionics and MBTI describe the same system of 16 types at their core, however, they use different terminology and different groupings.

[EyeSeeCold]

It corresponds. If you go to MBTI forums and chat with people who score as as you'll find they have static logic (this is already taking into account that roughly 20-25% of them are mis-typed, just like on this board).

The theories don't correspond. They have nothing to do with each other. Introvert Rationals typing PiJe and Introvert Irrationals typing JiPe means jack squat because MBTI does not recognize the Static/Dynamic dichotomy.

MBTT does not consider functions as static/dynamic, there is a whole different window typology and types are being viewed from than in Socionics.


To paint a picture:
There is a soda machine in the U.S. that takes U.S. dollars. A guy has paper money from another country that can fit in the US dollar slot. The guy slides it in and it's half-received by the machine, but then gets rejected because his paper money and the US Dollar are made of different substances even though they seem the same on the surface.

The U.S. Dollar is Static/Dynamic, the foreign paper money is P(e)/J(e).


It doesn't matter what types people get typed as. A person is always what they are. The fact that Socionics calls that person Static, or MBTI calls them JePi is irrelevant. If you know the structure of MBTI you would see that it cannot logically coexist with Socionics, especially in where Rationality/Irrationality is concerned. Either one of them is wrong & one is right, or they are both wrong.

[DividedsGhost]

Either one of them is wrong & one is right, or they are both wrong.

Specifically, right and wrong depends on the requirements/expectations of its use...which varies between individuals. Maybe it would help if you both first made that clear, instead of flexing your egos to what you prescribe to be right or wrong.

[Absurd]

I'm sure glad that you didnt die after reading my post?

I'm immortal, accidents didn't kill me, nothing will. That's called being dynamic.

[silke]

The theories don't correspond. They have nothing to do with each other. Introvert Rationals typing PiJe and Introvert Irrationals typing JiPe means jack squat because MBTI does not recognize the Static/Dynamic dichotomy.

MBTT does not consider functions as static/dynamic, there is a whole different window typology and types are being viewed from than in Socionics.

MBTI does recognize Dynamic/Static dichotomy. It simply goes under a different name there: Judger/Perceiver and MBTI's Perceivers will display static reasoning if you try to argue against them on MBTI forums. It matters little that MBTI uses different terminology to describe this - it only matters that it the same type of reasoning that Socionics static types display.

To paint a picture:
There is a soda machine in the U.S. that takes U.S. dollars. A guy has paper money from another country that can fit in the US dollar slot. The guy slides it in and it's half-received by the machine, but then gets rejected because his paper money and the US Dollar are made of different substances even though they seem the same on the surface.

The U.S. Dollar is Static/Dynamic, the foreign paper money is P(e)/J(e).

Or the guy could simply realize that this bill is part of the concept called money, and that this concept works the same in US as it does in his home county. Then he can go to the nearest currency exchange booth and exchange his foreign bill for a dollar bill and then go and get his soda.

... because his paper money and the US Dollar are made of different substances even though they seem the same on the surface.

What you're describing is a very good example of Se-PoLR thinking. If you valued Ni-Se, you would see that as long as the money concept holds true in both countries, the difference in the "substance" of the bills does not matter.

It doesn't matter what types people get typed as. A person is always what they are. The fact that Socionics calls that person Static, or MBTI calls them JePi is irrelevant.

What Socionics calls Static is JiPe in MBTI, not JePi.

If you know the structure of MBTI you would see that it cannot logically coexist with Socionics, especially in where Rationality/Irrationality is concerned. Either one of them is wrong & one is right, or they are both wrong.

Yes they can coexist as they are attempting to describe the same 16 types. No idea why you're bringing up rationality/irrationality again as I have already explained that this division does not formally exist in MBTI.

By the way, remember how you asked Galen to provide examples of Alpha NTs claiming two systems are irreconcilable and one should be discarded when they find that a few variables are off? http://www.the16types.info/vbulletin...ton#post793431 - what you have said in your reply is a good example of this.

[Reuben]