Deleted
Deleted
Last edited by Shuriken; 04-26-2015 at 10:34 AM.
MBTI is kind of weird for introverts; some of the introverted descriptions assign Jungian rational features to Jungian irrational types. And the descriptions/concepts aren't very consistent because depending on how close the author stays with Jungian concepts, you can get an istp description sounding like socionics LSI or SLI.
It's difficult to type someone from a type description but then functions are descriptions as well so I prefer to put the whole thing in the bin and give up on rationalising the non-sensical
Two independent systems. The J/p conversion works only sometimes, so it's best to just take a few tests, read profiles, and settle on the Socio-type that is most compatible with you. The functions are defined differently in Socionics... there is no complete overlap.
While I doubt there are people who truly type EIE in one and ISTP in the other, you often find at least one function in common (e.g. valued Fi or Se/Ni axis) or the same Group (Pragmatists, Humanitarians etc.). I suspect those who encounter huge differences are actually mistyped in mbti to begin with.
I think most commonly the subtype theory solves problems related to forms of ambiversion e.g. EII in mbti and IEE-Fi in Socionics.
I'm istj in mbti and istj in socionics... yeah if you try to work out the functions between the two systems you'll get confused. but, if you take a step back and look at the overall type descriptions, they're pretty much describing the same shit. people overthink this stuff when it's fairly simple.
btw, if you get istp in one system and enfj in another system, you're probably very confused about yourself.
Most MBTI-based descriptions suck pretty hard. They are also polluted with David Keirsey's system which is really just a simplified version of Big 5 and nothing more.
Nevertheless I believe a formal equivalence does exist between the two systems since they are both based on Jung's theory of types. Your 'correct' typing in MBTI will also correspond to your socionics type with the MBTI's p/j standing for static / dynamic. The problem with MBTI is threefold: 1) most people (>50%) are typed incorrectly by the test; 2) the MBTI model is severely impoverished and both adds to and diminishes Jung's original model in equal measure; and 3) most MBTI-based descriptions are terrible, and this is especially noticeable for ISTJ (Si-Te) and ISTP (Ti-Se) descriptions, with the result that they often get confused.
The problem with this approach is, why bother keeping the jungian dichotomies and notation for MBTI then if the theory deals with such an entirely different aspect of people. I don't think you can provide a valid reason for that
You can work out the functions without getting confused, all it needs is the understanding how and why the functions differ between the two systems
INTP in MBTI, INTj/LII in socionics.
LII-Ne with strong EII tendencies, 6w7-9w1-3w4 so/sp/sx, INxP
How is either of these two a valid justification. They are not. Btw, socionists did not use MBTI to work out Socionics theory.
Let me also add, MBTI is supposed to be not just about concrete personality traits either. They just try to link the ways of information processing to such traits, this happens in Socionics too, isn't the best idea for obvious reasons.
Your approach to MBTI is a bit unorthodox by completely discarding the cognitive aspects of the theory. And I really don't see any valid reason for doing so, nor for believing in a direct connection between the cognitive aspect of ways of thinking and concrete visible personality traits.
mbti ISTP profiling makes a total mess of what Ti base means. Mechanic or die. I would agree that ISTP kind of falls between the two Ist_ Sociotypes due to emphasis on practicality and lack of any Se "willpower" connotations in mbti. Socionics LSI (especially Ti subt) at least allows for some degree of "intellectualism".
This was a thread I found when I was searching for mbti/socionics correlations or clashes myself. It's interesting to see how many ppl test different things in the two. http://www.the16types.info/vbulletin...TI+correlation
Last edited by Amber; 04-21-2015 at 09:10 PM.
Yeah that mechanic label is ridiculous. I did see some ISTP descs that talked about Se stuff too but it was still overall a description of some person more irrational sounding than rational in terms of behaviour and kinda very no-nonsense over much "intellectualism", you are right about that. Things that resemble stereotypical Ne PoLR are more attributed to MBTI ISTJ descriptions
What makes for mistypes isn't simply the dichotomies, tho' that's part of it, but 1) the tests don't at all guarantee a valid result, even officially it's not guaranteed 2) the way J/P was abstracted from the functions is fishy at best; also I/E is defined in a way that doesn't match the jungian concept. S/N and T/F are okayish
How the hell is Jim Morrison typed INFP and SLE at the same time?