How about this?

[nondescript]

From my mulling and talking with people and getting the convergent point of various descriptions, this is my discovery:

One big hole between MBTI and Socionics is the difference between Se and Si. First of all, forget about MBTI functions. MBTI DOES NOT USE FUNCTIONS! Socionics do that. So, with that moved out of the way, here is something to ponder about(the more you think, the more visible it'll get!):

Some say that it should be compared like this:

SEE = ESFP
ESI = ISFP
ESE = ESFJ
SEI = ISFJ

But if you actually stop for a moment and think about it, how about this:

SEE = ESFJ
ESI = ISFJ
ESE = ESFP
SEI = ISFP

This could be further proven by static / dynamic reinin(do ESFPs seem static lol? How about ESFJs? ).

Really, the whole MBTI spectrum is phased when compared to Socionics spectrum due to Myers doing fun things with introverts and shift in Se and Si in socio. This shift is what reconcilles everything. Just something to think about...

edit: this could possibly be applied only to S types. But still, it's one huge hurdle less!

[ghost of forum past]

I see what you're thinking, but remember that if they don't use the same functions, then you can't make an accurate conversion. It is best to forget entirely about MBTI, while acknowledging it for introducing Westerners to Socionics.

[nondescript]

I see what you're thinking, but remember that if they don't use the same functions, then you can't make an accurate conversion. It is best to forget entirely about MBTI, while acknowledging it for introducing Westerners to Socionics.

That's just it! Read my OP carefully! I've answered to your only complaint

And I won't forget about MBTI. I will forget about Berens, DNardi etc diarrhea tho! HATE those clowns!

[ghost of forum past]

But what about Fe and Fi in the SFs? Do they magically change in SFs, while remaining the same in NFs? And Se and Si in STs - I'm not sure you could say LSE=ESTP, for example.

I SEE (heh) what you've done here, but it doesn't seem like it reconciles everything between the two systems. It's not universally applicable.

[nondescript]

It's not. But just as in physics, perhaps there are anomalies? And anomalies deserve their own treatment imo...

[Aylen]

So, did you get ESFJ when you took the MBTI test?

[nondescript]

So, did you get ESFJ when you took the MBTI test?

idk, I haven't taken the live official MBTI(the only one I'd trust in). But if it were anything besides ESFJ or ISFJ, I'd be surprised. Keep in mind, those two are every bit as grim and existentialist as SEE and ESI are.

[ghost of forum past]

I would not use 'grim' or 'existentialist' to describe any of those types, maybe save ESI. Why do you use those adjectives?

[nondescript]

I would not use 'grim' or 'existentialist' to describe any of those types, maybe save ESI. Why do you use those adjectives?

Because those are impressions they have on me. And I quite obviously can't think otherwise than grim and existentialist...

[ghost of forum past]

Probably bad descriptions, but..
http://www.humanmetrics.com/personality/ESFJ
http://www.personalitypage.com/ESFJ.html

Where are 'grim' and 'existentialist' in those? Not that MBTI is a theory to base anything substantial off of, because it isn't, but I don't see anything matching those adjectives. It's also worth noting that ESFJs are depicted as in need of a structured environment, which should theoretically make them correlate more to a Socionics extroverted rational type than anything else.

Just my two cents. I don't wish to offend your personal Fi understanding. It just doesn't correlate with my personal Ti understanding.

[nondescript]

Probably bad descriptions, but..
http://www.humanmetrics.com/personality/ESFJ
http://www.personalitypage.com/ESFJ.html

Where are 'grim' and 'existentialist' in those? Not that MBTI is a theory to base anything substantial off of, because it isn't, but I don't see anything matching those adjectives. It's also worth noting that ESFJs are depicted as in need of a structured environment, which should theoretically make them correlate more to a Socionics extroverted rational type than anything else.

Just my two cents. I don't wish to offend your personal Fi understanding. It just doesn't correlate with my personal Ti understanding.

Fair enough! I'll try not to use dramatic epithets anymore. They serve no purpose anyhow.

[nondescript]

Fair enough! I'll try not to use dramatic epithets anymore. They serve no purpose anyhow.

I should just forget about MBTI right?

[ghost of forum past]

In my opinion, it should be forgotten once one has a solid understanding of Socionics.