Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 40 of 70

Thread: MBTI to socionics conversion

  1. #1

    Default MBTI to socionics conversion

    Correct me if I'm wrong, but extroverts in MBTI are the same type in socionics, right? And introverts have the last letter of their type flipped, to correspond with their judging or perceiving dominant function.

    Basically:

    MBTI
    socionics
    ESFP ESFp
    ENFP ENFp
    ESTP ESTp
    ENTP ENTp
    ENTJ ENTj
    ESTJ ESTj
    ESFJ ESFj
    ENFJ ENFj

    and for introverts
    MBTI
    Dominant Function Socionics
    ISFP Fi ISFj
    INFP Fi INFj
    ISTP Ti ISTj
    INTP Ti INTj
    INTJ Ni INTp
    INFJ Ni INFp
    ISFJ Si ISFp
    ISTJ Si ISTp

  2. #2
    hiatus
    Join Date
    Apr 2014
    Location
    تخت نور
    Posts
    373
    Mentioned
    51 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    That is theoretically correct, assuming that the functions are defined in the same way. However, the functions aren't defined in similar ways in some cases. Therefore, the equivalents for introverts are sometimes J=j, P=p, and sometimes J=p, P=j.

    Something important to remember is that MBTI types people based solely on their (self-perceived) external behaviors, without accounting for their personal desires. Socionics can take personal desires and explain them with the functions that you seek.

    Socionics has the theoretical backbone of Model A, which organizes Jung's (more or less) functions in a way specific to one of the 16 types. Functions have been indispensable to Socionics since its conception. MBTI began with the 4 dichotomies, later superimposing a flawed model of Jung's functions. So the theories shouldn't be 100% compatible because their root structures are too different.


    When I take a MBTI test, and there are many, ones that focus more on Jung's functions would give me INTP (Ti-Ne) whereas a basic 4 dichotomy test would give me INTJ (Ni-Te). That's why I have more or less ditched MBTI for Socionics, because depending on how you are tested you can end up being completely different types.

    I do wish that the types could be converted that easily, since if they claim to be based in Jung then they should define the functions the exact same way.

    Now, here are some general rules that can be extracted from my babble above:

    if typing by the 4 dichotomies, ABCD = ABCd. so INTJ=INTj.
    if typing purely by Jung's functions, f1f2 = f1f2. so TiNe (INTP) = TiNe (INTj/LII).

    The problem is clear as day. I advocate forgetting MBTI when one engages study in Socionics, and using 3-letter type names (LII, ESE, etc.) so that MBTI and Socionics types bear no resemblance. That creates a mental separation between what one associates as a MBTI type and a Socionics type.
    Last edited by ghost of forum past; 08-04-2015 at 02:32 AM. Reason: socionics pseudo math

  3. #3

    Join Date
    Apr 2014
    Posts
    564
    Mentioned
    34 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    They are derivatives of Jung, but definitely rotate some things, I think. E.g. some things that count as N in MBTI would be included in Jung's thinking function.

    The other thing is that we'll never get a full convergence, because at the end of the day, Jung didn't depict the 8 function-attitudes as separate information elements. Instead, he depicted them as peculiarities of one of the four functions in each attitude, while viewing ultimately each mental process as 1/4 --- the principle defining what it was supposed to tell you was defined accordingly too, vs with the MBTI folk which try to split it up into 8 types of things you are told. Socionics followed suit with the latter approach too.

    One can never really reduce one of Jung's 4 functions working in an attitude to a single type of consciousness, because there's simply many aspects of consciousness that fall under an extraverting umbrella, or introverting one, which are considerably different.

    All we can do is try to pick the ones most meaningful and fundamental to cognition, as opposed to other aspects of consciousness -- things which make meaningful philosophical distinctions in what kind of info was understood.
    I think socionics does a pretty nice job with its selections, to be honest. E.g. emotive ethics, the ethics that arouses, moves, thus belongs to dynamic consciousness, vs relational ethics --- this is a great distinction in my experience which splits the overall function of evaluating through feeling into two aspects.... the a priori relation between two things must exist before evaluation can take place, and represents the more withdrawn consciousness (rather than the one which interacts, so that the two's states are changed).

    This diverges from how Jung thought of introversion/extraversion, but I think for the better, because he somewhat overloaded his E/I with too many things, that I'd think of as different "types" of inner vs outer orientation. For instance, he wasn't terribly clear with separating the sensation-orientation implied by extraversion (since sensations exist "Outside") and the one implied by the sensation function. And if I'm not mistaken, that's due to some genuine confusion. After all, he identified as a sensation-type initally and later identified as someone who more or less always had a bad relation with reality, and was more intuitive. Quite plausibly, since he was a pioneer, and had not yet identified himself as an intuitive type, he was explaining away some thins with introversion, which belonged in his intuitive tendencies.

  4. #4
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Posts
    15,766
    Mentioned
    1404 Post(s)
    Tagged
    3 Thread(s)

    Default

    same types. no conversion: INTJ in MBT is INTJ in Socionics, ENTP is ENTP, etc
    MBT uses wrong, not Jungian, functional model for introverted types. But as MBT's types are written by preferences this changes nothing. Their main method MBTI uses only preferences, anyway, so they practically mistake less than could.

  5. #5

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Sol View Post
    same types. no conversion: INTJ in MBT is INTJ in Socionics, ENTP is ENTP, etc
    MBT uses wrong, not Jungian, functional model for introverted types. But as MBT's types are written by preferences this changes nothing. Their main method MBTI uses only preferences, anyway, so they practically mistake less than could.
    Could you explain this a bit more? What do you mean mbti uses wrong, not jungian model?

  6. #6
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Posts
    15,766
    Mentioned
    1404 Post(s)
    Tagged
    3 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by ConcreteButterfly View Post
    What do you mean mbti uses wrong, not jungian model?
    In "Psychological types" Jung have described rational types wich also called as judging, irrational types called perceiving also. All J types have leading rational function T or F, nevertheless extraverted or introverted. When MBT says INTJ has leading function intuition - this controverts to Jung; MBT says functions order for INTJ as it is for INTP, while for extraverted types there was no change.
    Socionics uses J/P preferences, but calls them rational and irrational - their descriptions are identical to J/P. J/rational types in Socionics as at Jung have leading rational functions for introverted types. INTJ has Ti as leading, while MBT wrongly says INTJ has Ni as leading.

    One of things we get from the situation. While most (all if the test was perfect) of correctly typed in Socionics as introverted rational types will be J in MBTI, when they read MBT's types descriptions they may see closer descriptions of some irrational types as types descriptions take into account functional models. And vice versa, after reading their MBT descriptions INTJ typed so by MBTI may see closer types descriptions of INTP/ILI wich are in Socionics. But as 4-letter type notation has only preferences, they are same/compatible and these preferences have means to be directly checked in MBT and in Socionics, such mess with descriptions does not mean types are other. As I've said, MBT have changed Jungian model to wrong for introverted types and their descriptions for them is a mix of correct preferences and incorrect functions.
    Last edited by Sol; 08-09-2015 at 07:52 AM.

  7. #7

    Join Date
    Jun 2015
    TIM
    ESI 684
    Posts
    646
    Mentioned
    28 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Hacim View Post
    That is theoretically correct, assuming that the functions are defined in the same way. However, the functions aren't defined in similar ways in some cases. Therefore, the equivalents for introverts are sometimes J=j, P=p, and sometimes J=p, P=j.

    Something important to remember is that MBTI types people based solely on their (self-perceived) external behaviors, without accounting for their personal desires. Socionics can take personal desires and explain them with the functions that you seek.

    Socionics has the theoretical backbone of Model A, which organizes Jung's (more or less) functions in a way specific to one of the 16 types. Functions have been indispensable to Socionics since its conception. MBTI began with the 4 dichotomies, later superimposing a flawed model of Jung's functions. So the theories shouldn't be 100% compatible because their root structures are too different.


    When I take a MBTI test, and there are many, ones that focus more on Jung's functions would give me INTP (Ti-Ne) whereas a basic 4 dichotomy test would give me INTJ (Ni-Te). That's why I have more or less ditched MBTI for Socionics, because depending on how you are tested you can end up being completely different types.

    I do wish that the types could be converted that easily, since if they claim to be based in Jung then they should define the functions the exact same way.

    Now, here are some general rules that can be extracted from my babble above:

    if typing by the 4 dichotomies, ABCD = ABCd. so INTJ=INTj.
    if typing purely by Jung's functions, f1f2 = f1f2. so TiNe (INTP) = TiNe (INTj/LII).

    The problem is clear as day. I advocate forgetting MBTI when one engages study in Socionics, and using 3-letter type names (LII, ESE, etc.) so that MBTI and Socionics types bear no resemblance. That creates a mental separation between what one associates as a MBTI type and a Socionics type.
    You are taking the wrong tests. As you said, MBTT is about BOTH the preferences and the behaviour. That's what a metric shit ton of online "MBTT" tests do not do. They are mostly a mashup of some semi behavioural approach. The true MBTT Step I is going to ask you BOTH about PREFERENCES and about BEHAVIOUR. Then you'll get your type. And MBTT is about dichotomies and it's better of because of it.

  8. #8
    hiatus
    Join Date
    Apr 2014
    Location
    تخت نور
    Posts
    373
    Mentioned
    51 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by nondescript View Post
    You are taking the wrong tests. As you said, MBTT is about BOTH the preferences and the behaviour. That's what a metric shit ton of online "MBTT" tests do not do. They are mostly a mashup of some semi behavioural approach. The true MBTT Step I is going to ask you BOTH about PREFERENCES and about BEHAVIOUR. Then you'll get your type. And MBTT is about dichotomies and it's better of because of it.
    If you're saying that a MBTI type is only valid if you take the "official" test by the creators, then I hope you don't proclaim that there is any "official" Socionics test. I have yet to find one by Aušra Augustinavičiūtė.

    Also, dichotomies alone are an oversimplification. You have to have theory and functions as a foundation, or else people's types won't be clear.

    But I've contributed enough to this tired issue.

  9. #9

    Join Date
    Jun 2015
    TIM
    ESI 684
    Posts
    646
    Mentioned
    28 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Hacim View Post
    If you're saying that a MBTI type is only valid if you take the "official" test by the creators, then I hope you don't proclaim that there is any "official" Socionics test. I have yet to find one by Aušra Augustinavičiūtė.

    Also, dichotomies alone are an oversimplification. You have to have theory and functions as a foundation, or else people's types won't be clear.

    But I've contributed enough to this tired issue.
    No, you do not have to understand anything and there does not need to be a theory that is understandable to layman. That's why experts are here. And it's their place to tell me official stuff. Just like if I have troubles with breathing, I'll try to book a pulmologist via my family doctor. I certainly won't go to a bankar or to a automechanic for breathing problems wtf...

  10. #10
    Chacha's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2015
    Location
    France
    TIM
    ESI
    Posts
    45
    Mentioned
    1 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    The fact is that both Socionics and MBTI theories come from Jung's work. Even if the way of explainging function aren't the same, they remain the same in their essence. Therefore, I don't understand how an Fe-dom can come to an Fi result when switching to Socionics. That wouldn't make any sense. INTP, INTj INTp, blablah → These are just a way of naming some functions dynamics. Who cares about the name of the type? An Fi-dom is an Fi-dom, and will remain an Fi-dom. That's all. You won't transform into any other type just by switching model. Otherwise, that would mean that you didn't get the functions.

  11. #11
    Soupman's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2013
    Location
    Grand Britain
    TIM
    Dyslexic 17
    Posts
    493
    Mentioned
    38 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Chacha View Post
    The fact is that both Socionics and MBTI theories come from Jung's work. Even if the way of explainging function aren't the same, they remain the same in their essence. Therefore, I don't understand how an Fe-dom can come to an Fi result when switching to Socionics. That wouldn't make any sense. INTP, INTj INTp, blablah → These are just a way of naming some functions dynamics. Who cares about the name of the type? An Fi-dom is an Fi-dom, and will remain an Fi-dom. That's all. You won't transform into any other type just by switching model. Otherwise, that would mean that you didn't get the functions.
    socionics is incompatible with itself - different schools are at odds with each other. Now to say something as different as MBTI is even compatible is just silly.

    ESFP - SEI ESE
    ESTP - SEE
    ENTJ - SLE
    ESTJ - LSI
    ISTJ - LSI

    ENTP - ILE
    INTP - ILI LII ILE
    INTJ - LIE LII

    ESFJ - ESI
    ISFJ - ESI

    ISTP - SLI

    INFJ - EII
    INFP - IEI
    ENFJ - ESE

    These are rough matches too, forget the function bullshit, the IMs are observable behaviours not Jung's abstract wank

  12. #12
    Humanist Beautiful sky's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Location
    EII land
    TIM
    EII INFj
    Posts
    26,935
    Mentioned
    699 Post(s)
    Tagged
    6 Thread(s)

    Default

    INFp are supposed to be lyracist/poet. I'm not that kind of romantic. I am romantic in they way I care for someone not in the poet romantic type. I do identify with INFj
    -
    Dual type (as per tcaudilllg)
    Enneagram 5 (wings either 4 or 6)?


    I'm constantly looking to align the real with the ideal.I've been more oriented toward being overly idealistic by expecting the real to match the ideal. My thinking side is dominent. The result is that sometimes I can be overly impersonal or self-centered in my approach, not being understanding of others in the process and simply thinking "you should do this" or "everyone should follor this rule"..."regardless of how they feel or where they're coming from"which just isn't a good attitude to have. It is a way, though, to give oneself an artificial sense of self-justification. LSE

    Best description of functions:
    http://socionicsstudy.blogspot.com/2...functions.html

  13. #13
    Jarno's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    Netherlands
    TIM
    ILI-Te
    Posts
    5,428
    Mentioned
    34 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    The 4 dichotomies are exactly the same in both theories hence the types are the same. However there are a lot of bad descriptions, there are in this world approx 5 billion ways of interpretating something, so it's bound to give some noise in the descriptions and understanding. The fact that on a website of 20 'experts' i found they disagreed on the type of John Travolta and he got 14 out of possible 16 types named. This sais something about the average socionics or mbti expert, not so much about the theorie of types.

  14. #14
    Jarno's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    Netherlands
    TIM
    ILI-Te
    Posts
    5,428
    Mentioned
    34 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Hacim View Post
    If and only if you consider the four main dichotomous preferences, the types should be the same. The second that you investigate the shitty MBTI "descriptions" where false stereotypes are propagated and "function orders" which are generally recognized as incorrect, the waters are muddied. INTJ descriptions don't exactly match your standard LII description, for example.
    I agree with that!

    MBTI messes up for several reasons, one is they want their descriptions to match their incorrect functions, hence the descriptions become incorrect too. I've even seen MBTI sites where INTP descriptions are basically the same as INTJ descriptions on another MBTI site. So one of them has fucked up for sure, but it means that a lot of people are reading fucked up information which gives a snowball effect.

  15. #15
    Resonare's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2015
    Location
    United Kingdom
    TIM
    Take a guess
    Posts
    559
    Mentioned
    56 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Mistyping as your activity partner rather than quasi-identical seems to be rather common as well.

  16. #16
    Honorary Ballsack
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Posts
    3,361
    Mentioned
    110 Post(s)
    Tagged
    1 Thread(s)

    Default

    It is of my opinion that it is the overall type description, while still quite vague, is the most useful and accurate; INTP roughly correlates with INTp, INTJ with INTj, etc. Conversion based on cognitive functions, however, is quite inconsistent, and even contradictory, making it more subjective and debatable. This is because the definitions of the functions are somewhat different between the two systems making a 1:1 correlation impossible.
    Important to note! People who share "indentical" socionics TIMs won't necessarily appear to be very similar, since they have have different backgrounds, experiences, capabilities, genetics, as well as different types in other typological systems (enneagram, instinctual variants, etc.) all of which also have a sway on compatibility and identification. Thus, Socionics type "identicals" won't necessarily be identical i.e. highly similar to each other, and not all people of "dual" types will seem interesting, attractive and appealing to each other.

  17. #17
    Jarno's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    Netherlands
    TIM
    ILI-Te
    Posts
    5,428
    Mentioned
    34 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Skepticurus View Post
    It is of my opinion that it is the overall type description, while still quite vague, is the most useful and accurate; INTP roughly correlates with INTp, INTJ with INTj, etc. Conversion based on cognitive functions, however, is quite inconsistent, and even contradictory, making it more subjective and debatable. This is because the definitions of the functions are somewhat different between the two systems making a 1:1 correlation impossible.
    Correct. It seems to me that the order is that meyers/briggs first started with dichotomies, discovered 16 types and made descriptions, and when all that was done, they tried to make up some formula to put some functions behind those types. The formula proved incorrect as we now know, but it confused people who take the functions as a starting point or as criteria for comparison with socionics.

  18. #18
    Honorary Ballsack
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Posts
    3,361
    Mentioned
    110 Post(s)
    Tagged
    1 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Jarno View Post
    Correct. It seems to me that the order is that meyers/briggs first started with dichotomies, discovered 16 types and made descriptions, and when all that was done, they tried to make up some formula to put some functions behind those types. The formula proved incorrect as we now know, but it confused people who take the functions as a starting point or as criteria for comparison with socionics.
    That is certainly part of the problem. There is a disconnect between the questions asked and the individual type descriptions. For example, say you find through the questionnaire that you prefer I,N,T, and P. The questions are looking for general, dichotomous preferences, such as if you prefer Thinking over Feelings, etc. Then once you have your preferences given, there is a leap to specific cognitive functions. You prefer INTP, that means you use TiNeSiFe. It is a logical leap to make such an inference.

    Socionics has a similar problem.
    Important to note! People who share "indentical" socionics TIMs won't necessarily appear to be very similar, since they have have different backgrounds, experiences, capabilities, genetics, as well as different types in other typological systems (enneagram, instinctual variants, etc.) all of which also have a sway on compatibility and identification. Thus, Socionics type "identicals" won't necessarily be identical i.e. highly similar to each other, and not all people of "dual" types will seem interesting, attractive and appealing to each other.

  19. #19
    Jarno's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    Netherlands
    TIM
    ILI-Te
    Posts
    5,428
    Mentioned
    34 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Skepticurus View Post
    That is certainly part of the problem. There is a disconnect between the questions asked and the individual type descriptions. For example, say you find through the questionnaire that you prefer I,N,T, and P. The questions are looking for general, dichotomous preferences, such as if you prefer Thinking over Feelings, etc. Then once you have your preferences given, there is a leap to specific cognitive functions. You prefer INTP, that means you use TiNeSiFe. It is a logical leap to make such an inference.

    Socionics has a similar problem.
    Well socionics can proof that is has the right formula order, because of the intertype relationships. You can 'somewhat' empirically test it.

  20. #20
    Honorary Ballsack
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Posts
    3,361
    Mentioned
    110 Post(s)
    Tagged
    1 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Jarno View Post
    Well socionics can proof that is has the right formula order, because of the intertype relationships. You can 'somewhat' empirically test it.
    This is where I disagree. I have yet to see a valid empirical proof of cognitive functions, let alone one that proves they appear in any specific order. How can you prove intertype relations if one can't prove not only that a person prefers particular functions , but that they prefer them in a manner specific to socionics theory? "Certainties" of such things are largely subjective.
    Important to note! People who share "indentical" socionics TIMs won't necessarily appear to be very similar, since they have have different backgrounds, experiences, capabilities, genetics, as well as different types in other typological systems (enneagram, instinctual variants, etc.) all of which also have a sway on compatibility and identification. Thus, Socionics type "identicals" won't necessarily be identical i.e. highly similar to each other, and not all people of "dual" types will seem interesting, attractive and appealing to each other.

  21. #21
    suedehead's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2014
    Posts
    3,094
    Mentioned
    200 Post(s)
    Tagged
    1 Thread(s)

    Default

    ISFP: ESI, SEI, Si-SLI
    ISTP: SLI, LSI, Ti-SLE
    INFP: IEI, EII
    INTP: LII, ILI, Ni-IEI, Ti-ILE

    ENFP: IEE
    ENTP: ILE, Ti-SLE (head triad in Enneagram), Ni-EIE
    ESFP: SEE, Fe-SEI
    ESTP: SLE

    ISTJ: LSI, SLI, LSE, ESI
    ISFJ: SEI, Fi-EII, ESI
    INTJ: ILI, LII, Ni-LIE, Ti-ILE, Ti-SLE, essentially a motley crew of misanthropes
    INFJ: IEI, EII, EIE

    ENFJ: Fe-EIE, ESE, Fi-IEE
    ENTJ: LIE, Ti-SLE, Se-LSI, LSE, anyone who has a 'dominant' personality
    ESFJ: ESE, Fe-SEI
    ESTJ: LSE
    Last edited by suedehead; 03-13-2016 at 12:19 AM.

  22. #22
    Seed my wickedness The Reality Denialist's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2015
    Location
    Spontaneous Human Combustion
    TIM
    EIE-C-Ni ™
    Posts
    8,206
    Mentioned
    335 Post(s)
    Tagged
    2 Thread(s)

    Default

    If we are talking about Keirsey+MBTI hybrid theory (which it seems to be in practice). The most problematic types are ISTJ, ISFP, ISTP throw in some ENTJs and ENFJs. In general ISs and to lesser degree ENs are pretty messy.

    SLIs and LSIs are very good examples of this problem.
    MOTTO: NEVER TRUST IN REALITY
    Winning is for losers

     

    Sincerely yours,
    idiosyncratic type
    Life is a joke but do you have a life?

    Joinif you dare https://matrix.to/#/#The16Types:matrix.org

  23. #23
    Jarno's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    Netherlands
    TIM
    ILI-Te
    Posts
    5,428
    Mentioned
    34 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Skepticurus View Post
    This is where I disagree. I have yet to see a valid empirical proof of cognitive functions, let alone one that proves they appear in any specific order. How can you prove intertype relations if one can't prove not only that a person prefers particular functions , but that they prefer them in a manner specific to socionics theory? "Certainties" of such things are largely subjective.
    Well augusta build model A, and when you put two people of a certain type together, they tend to interact in a way that confirms the model A. I wonder if it should be called subjective, cause the relationship interaction is described over and over in the same way by different people. So at one point i guess it starts to become somewhat of a general fact. Probably the most important example of it all is duality. Everyone who gets in that kind of relationship for the first time, gets pleasantly surprised and tells a similar story. Model A alone predicts a lot of things about every type of relationship. Surely I was very skeptikal too in the beginning, but after a lot of dating and life experience I feel safe for myself to conclude that socionics/model A is a reliable explanation of relationship interaction.

  24. #24
    Queen of the Damned Aylen's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2013
    Location
    Spiritus Mundi
    TIM
    psyche 4w5 sx/sp
    Posts
    11,347
    Mentioned
    1005 Post(s)
    Tagged
    42 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by suedehead View Post
    ISFP: ESI, SEI, Si-SLI
    ISTP: SLI, LSI, Ti-SLE
    INFP: IEI, EII
    INTP: LII, ILI, Ni-IEI, Ti-ILE

    ENFP: IEE
    ENTP: ILE, Ti-SLE (head triad in Enneagram), Ni-EIE
    ESFP: SEE, Fe-SEI
    ESTP: SLE

    ISTJ: LSI, SLI, LSE, ESI
    ISFJ: SEI, Fi-EII, ESI
    INTJ: ILI, LII, Ni-LIE, Ti-ILE, Ti-SLE, essentially a motley crew of misanthropes
    INFJ: IEI, EII, EIE

    ENFJ: Fe-EIE, ESE, Fi-IEE
    ENTJ: LIE, Ti-SLE, Se-LSI, LSE, anyone who has a 'dominant' personality
    ESFJ: ESE, Fe-SEI
    ESTJ: LSE
    I went through and checked my results on different sites, including Keirsey, which I am pretty sure I paid for it twice now. I got ENFJ on that one, many years ago, and INFJ the second, INFP the third time. I have tested INFJ, INFP, INTP and INTJ just since joining this forum. I get Ni highest on function tests but INFJ on the free short (official?) MBTI test more than INFP but it is so close on j/p usually that I have to go by descriptions. I often test close on f/t too. By descriptions I am a combo of INFP and INFJ. By socionics descriptions I relate way more to IEI than EII as it hits on specifics that MBTI doesn't. I still see both IEI and EII descriptions as a combination of INFP and INFJ descriptions.

    I looked up the description of functions for both and I can see why those coming from MBTI get confused.

    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.[22] Using the more modern interpretation, the cognitive functions of the INFP are as follows:

    Dominant: Introverted feeling (Fi)[edit]

    Fi filters information based on interpretations of worth, forming judgments according to criteria that are often intangible. Fi constantly balances an internal set of values such as harmony and authenticity. Attuned to subtle distinctions, Fi innately senses what is true and what is false in a situation.[23] With Fi as their dominant function, INFPs live primarily in a rich inner world of emotion.[24] Ideally, they would like everything they do to be in congruence with their personal beliefs. They want to live a life as true to themselves as possible.[25]

    Auxiliary: Extraverted intuition (Ne)[edit]

    Ne finds and interprets hidden meanings, using “what if” questions to explore alternatives, allowing multiple possibilities to coexist. This imaginative play weaves together insights and experiences from various sources to form a new whole, which can then become a catalyst to action.[26] INFPs engage the outside world primarily with intuition. They are adept at seeing the big picture, sensing patterns and the flow of existence from the past toward the future.[24] Extraverted Intuitives also have a very entrepreneurial mindset. Ne users see possibilities of what could be all around them. They have a desire to make things happen and “put a dent in the world.” Extraverted Intuitives can get very excited about these possibilities, making them naturally charismatic. Ne users can be inspiring leaders that are catalysts for change.[27]

    Tertiary: Introverted sensing (Si)[edit]

    Si collects data in the present moment and compares it with past experiences, a process that sometimes evokes the feelings associated with memory, as if the subject were reliving it. Seeking to protect what is familiar, Si draws upon history to form goals and expectations about what will happen in the future.[28] This function gives INFPs a natural inclination toward "other-worldliness" and makes them more easily distracted.[24]

    Inferior: Extraverted thinking (Te)[edit]

    Te organizes and schedules ideas and the environment to ensure the efficient, productive pursuit of objectives. Te seeks logical explanations for actions, events, and conclusions, looking for faulty reasoning and lapses in sequence.[29] This function helps INFPs focus on external details, but being the inferior function, requires the expenditure of greater energy and is not as reliable.[24]

    Shadow functions[edit]

    Later personality researchers (notably Linda V. Berens)[30] 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. The shadow processes "operate more on the boundaries of our awareness…We usually experience these processes in a negative way, yet when we are open to them, they can be quite positive."[31] For INFP, these shadow functions are (in order):


    • Extraverted feeling (Fe): Fe seeks social connections and creates harmonious interactions through polite, considerate, and appropriate behavior. Fe responds to the explicit (and implicit) wants of others, and may even create an internal conflict between the subject’s own needs and the desire to meet the needs of others.[32]
    • Introverted intuition (Ni): Attracted to symbolic actions or devices, Ni synthesizes seeming paradoxes to create the previously unimagined. These realizations come with a certainty that demands action to fulfill a new vision of the future, solutions that may include complex systems or universal truths.[33]
    • Extraverted sensing (Se): Extraverted sensing focuses on the experiences and sensations of the immediate, physical world. With an acute awareness of the present surroundings, it brings relevant facts and details to the forefront and may lead to spontaneous action.[34]
    • Introverted thinking (Ti): Ti seeks precision, such as the exact word to express an idea. It notices the minute distinctions that define the essence of things, then analyzes and classifies them. Ti examines all sides of an issue, looking to solve problems while minimizing effort and risk. It uses models to root out logical inconsistency.[35]

    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.[21] Using the more modern interpretation, the cognitive functions of the INFJ are as follows:[20]

    Dominant: Introverted intuition (Ni)[edit]

    Attracted to symbolic action or devices. Ni synthesizes seeming paradoxes to create the previously unimagined. These realizations come with a certainty that demands action to fulfill a new vision of the future, solutions that may include complex systems or universal truths.[22]

    Auxiliary: Extraverted feeling (Fe)[edit]

    Fe seeks social connections and creates harmonious interactions through polite, considerate, and appropriate behavior. Fe responds to the explicit (and implicit) wants of others, and may even create an internal conflict between the subject’s own needs and the desire to meet the needs of others.[23]

    Tertiary: Introverted thinking (Ti)[edit]

    Ti seeks precision, such as the exact word to express an idea. Ti notices the minute distinctions that define the essence of things, then analyzes and classifies them. Ti examines all sides of an issue, looking to solve problems while minimizing effort and risk. Ti uses models to root out logical inconsistency.[24]

    Inferior: Extraverted sensing (Se)[edit]

    Se focuses on the experiences and sensations of the immediate, physical world. With an acute awareness of the present surroundings, it brings relevant facts and details to the forefront and may lead to spontaneous action. Weak Se in the INFJ may result in a detachment from the sensory reality, but when the function is in use it adds a playful counter to the serious nature of Ni.[25]
    Shadow functions[edit]

    Later personality researchers (notably Linda V. Berens)[26] added four additional functions to the descending hierarchy, the "shadow" functions to which the individual is not naturally inclined but which can emerge when the person is under stress. For INFJ these shadow functions are (in order):


    • Extraverted intuition (Ne): Ne finds and interprets hidden meanings, using hypothetical questions to explore alternatives, allowing multiple possibilities to coexist. This imaginative play weaves together insights and experiences from various sources to form a new whole, which can then become a catalyst to action.[27]
    • Introverted feeling (Fi): Fi filters information based on interpretations of worth, forming judgments according to criteria that are often intangible. Fi constantly balances an internal set of values such as harmony and authenticity. Attuned to subtle distinctions, Fi innately senses what is true and what is false in a situation.[28]
    • Extraverted thinking (Te): Te organizes and schedules ideas and the environment to ensure the efficient, productive pursuit of objectives. Te seeks logical explanations for actions, events, and conclusions, looking for faulty reasoning and lapses in sequence.[29]
    • Introverted sensing (Si): Si collects data in the present moment and compares it with past experiences, a process that sometimes evokes the feelings associated with memory, as if the subject were reliving it. Seeking to protect what is familiar, Si draws upon history to form goals and expectations about what will happen in the future.[30]
    You almost have to flip it for it to make sense. Mine naturally borders the line and probably flips naturally so it doesn't really seem like much of a difference to me. There are parts of both INFJ/INFP that I relate and don't relate to.

    I am curious how the IEI and EII here correlate by functions and still decide they are the same in both systems.

    “My typology is . . . not in any sense to stick labels on people at first sight. It is not a physiognomy and not an anthropological system, but a critical psychology dealing with the organization and delimitation of psychic processes that can be shown to be typical.”​ —C.G. Jung
     
    YWIMW

  25. #25
    Honorary Ballsack
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Posts
    3,361
    Mentioned
    110 Post(s)
    Tagged
    1 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Jarno View Post
    Well augusta build model A, and when you put two people of a certain type together, they tend to interact in a way that confirms the model A. I wonder if it should be called subjective, cause the relationship interaction is described over and over in the same way by different people. So at one point i guess it starts to become somewhat of a general fact. Probably the most important example of it all is duality. Everyone who gets in that kind of relationship for the first time, gets pleasantly surprised and tells a similar story. Model A alone predicts a lot of things about every type of relationship. Surely I was very skeptikal too in the beginning, but after a lot of dating and life experience I feel safe for myself to conclude that socionics/model A is a reliable explanation of relationship interaction.
    In order for these to be proved scientifically, one would first have to have participants typed consistently by numerous "experts" who do not share information or opinion with one another before one could even begin such type relation experiments. Has this been done? Having one or two people perform all the typing before relation studies is not objective due to the subjective nature of the typing process.

    Then, one would have to put people of known type together and observed by people who do not know their type at all and have their relations analyzed. From what I have read, this has never been done. Usually, the person analyzing the intertype relations is the same person that typed the people to begin with. This is fertile grounds for confirmation biases, and is what I mean by subjective.
    Important to note! People who share "indentical" socionics TIMs won't necessarily appear to be very similar, since they have have different backgrounds, experiences, capabilities, genetics, as well as different types in other typological systems (enneagram, instinctual variants, etc.) all of which also have a sway on compatibility and identification. Thus, Socionics type "identicals" won't necessarily be identical i.e. highly similar to each other, and not all people of "dual" types will seem interesting, attractive and appealing to each other.

  26. #26
    Jarno's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    Netherlands
    TIM
    ILI-Te
    Posts
    5,428
    Mentioned
    34 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Skepticurus View Post
    Then, one would have to put people of known type together and observed by people who do not know their type at all and have their relations analyzed. From what I have read, this has never been done. Usually, the person analyzing the intertype relations is the same person that typed the people to begin with. This is fertile grounds for confirmation biases, and is what I mean by subjective.
    I've happen to meet a guy who worked with augusta during a socionics meeting in Germany. I forgot his name, but i can look it up probably. He shared some stories and one of those was about putting people who had never met together and asking them afterwards how they described their interaction. Also there is a large russian community, i've even seen socionics came up in a research paper of the university of amsterdam in my country. I think more people are starting to become aware, experience and study the phenomena of socionics.

    I agree there is lot's of subjectiveness in the whole socionics 'science' but a certain percentage of faults will not destroy the whole set up of the experiment i guess. It's a social/soft science with all the problems asociated with it. There is just too much of this -soft- evidence to just ignore it. Just don't ask for -hard- evidence in a -soft- science, I would guess...

  27. #27
    Petter's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2016
    TIM
    ILI
    Posts
    1,630
    Mentioned
    21 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    There is a fundamental difference between Jung/Myers-Briggs and Socionics/Aushra:

    http://www.socioniko.net/ru/articles/aug-comment.html

    "Jung divided all functions into rational, rational: thinking, emotions, and irrational, perceiving: sensation, intuition. When checking, it turned out that all elements of MI, both rational and irrational, both extra- and introtymic, both “perceive” and “reason”, and which of these types of activity outweighs depends only on the space occupied by the element in the blocks of model A - i.e. from the function executed by the element.

    In our studies, it turned out that any first - acceptance - element of the block outweighs perception, and any second - reproductive - reasoning.

    Each element perceives and processes specific information in its own ways. The amount of information and the quality of its processing is determined by the function or location of the element in model A."

    How can sensation and intuition reason?

  28. #28
    Petter's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2016
    TIM
    ILI
    Posts
    1,630
    Mentioned
    21 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Here's another difference between the two typologies:

    http://www.socioniko.net/ru/articles/aug-comment.html

    "The question may immediately arise: why was the relationship the starting point? As we shall see later, this is determined by the fact that the author of the typology referred to the “introverted” type, the conscious perception of which is directed not towards the objects, but towards the relations between them."

    http://www.psychceu.com/jung/sharplexicon.html

    "Introversion. A mode of psychological orientation where the movement of energy is toward the inner world."

    "Everyone whose attitude is introverted thinks, feels, and acts in a way that clearly demonstrates that the subject is the prime motivating factor and that the object is of secondary importance.

    Always he has to prove that everything he does rests on his own decisions and convictions, and never because he is influenced by anyone, or desires to please or conciliate some person or opinion."
    Last edited by Petter; 02-03-2019 at 03:07 AM.

  29. #29
    edgy princess eiemo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2020
    Location
    a vacuum
    TIM
    no clue
    Posts
    232
    Mentioned
    21 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    So many people need to stop saying that extroverted Socionics types are 1-1 and that the j/p switch always occurs for introverts. The functions are defined differently. I would say that the differences between the definitions of Ni, Si, and Se are the strongest between these theories. The only definition that I would say is exactly the same is Ne.





  30. #30
    khcs's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2018
    Posts
    2,533
    Mentioned
    43 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    MBTI - Socionics

    ENTP - Don Quixote
    ISFP - Alexander Dumas, (Winston Churchill, Erich von Manstein)
    ESFJ - Victor Hugo, (Franklin Delano Roosevelt, Wernher von Braun)
    INTJ - Maximiliam Robespierre, (Aristotle, Ridley Scott)

    ESTP - Georgy Zhukov, (Elvis Presley, Diego Maradona, Scipio Africanus )
    INFP - Sergei Alexandrovich Yesenin, (Mahatma Gandhi)
    ENFJ - Prince Hamlet, (Huey P. Newton)
    ISTJ - Maxim Gorky, (George Orwell)

    ESFP - Napoleon Bonaparte, (J.R.R Tolkien)
    INTP - Honoré de Balzac, (Carl Gustav Jung, Stan Lee)
    ENTJ - Jack London, (Robin Cook, Julius Ceasar)
    ISFJ - Theodore Dreiser, (Theodore Millon, Malcolm X)

    ENFP - Thomas Huxley, (Ernst Hemingway, Ron Hobbard)
    ISTP - Jean Gabin, (Emperor Tiberius, Bruce Lee)
    ESTJ - Max Otto von Stierlitz, (Otto Skorzeny)
    INFJ - Fyodor Dostoevsky, (Alexandre Yersin, Sigmund Freud)
    Last edited by khcs; 11-25-2020 at 08:19 PM.

  31. #31
    Haikus SGF's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2020
    Location
    ┌П┐(ಠ_ಠ)
    TIM
    LSI-H™
    Posts
    2,165
    Mentioned
    181 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    IMO according to DCNH:

    D and N = xxxJ

    C and H = xxxP

    Example:

    LSI - C or H = ISTP
    LSI - D or N = ISTJ

    IF we strictly go by functions, imo you just make the j\p switch for introverts. HOWEVER, membti is really just the 4 dichotomies with functions tacked on as a afterthought, which means the DCNH method is more fitting.

  32. #32
    Rebelondeck's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2016
    Posts
    1,929
    Mentioned
    175 Post(s)
    Tagged
    1 Thread(s)

    Default

    Though both were created with Jung in mind, the original MBTI definitions for data classifications are different from those of Socionics; hence, data collected based on those definitions and models derived from the respective data would be different. Suggesting a conversion between the two would be somewhat like trying to map Islam into Christianity because they were both derived from Judaism.

    a.k.a. I/O

  33. #33
    f.k.a Oprah sbbds's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2018
    TIM
    EII typed by Gulenko
    Posts
    4,671
    Mentioned
    339 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    I think the MBTI + Kiersey (SJ/SP/NT/NF) stereotypes come close to Sociotypes.

  34. #34
    I don't play, I slay. Lolita's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2020
    Location
    Near Whole Foods
    TIM
    SEE-N™ WPEL™ 863
    Posts
    1,146
    Mentioned
    85 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Separate systems. Myers Briggs had no psychological background whatsoever and claimed to have “conversations” with Jung when in actuality she wrote to Jung and he ignored her letters. They were obsessed with “observing types” and that’s how they derived at their dichotomy model, again no logical foundation. Jung said people aren’t types, you can’t observe them and it takes a lot of dedicated digging to understand the psyche. MB ignored all of Jung’s premises including the description of functions. The nomenclature is weird because you’re a J or P based on the extroverted function you have, not whether you lead with a J or P function (rational or irrational).

    Socionics is based on Jung's principles of outer and inner object but with slightly different definitions to make it more logically consistent. Anyone who’s read Psychological Types can easily pick up the basics of Socionics.


    Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

  35. #35
    khcs's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2018
    Posts
    2,533
    Mentioned
    43 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Anybody who mixes lower and uppercase letters in four-letter type codes such as "j" and "p" should be banned from Socionics.

    Socionics and Myers Briggs Type Indicator represents the same Jungian types.
    This is the comment you are looking for



  36. #36
    What's the purpose of SEI? Tallmo's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2017
    Location
    Finland
    TIM
    SEI
    Posts
    4,159
    Mentioned
    305 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    There is no conversion because MBTI is just a messed up version of Socionics/Jung. When you have found your Socionics type then that's it, and there is nothing to convert.

    MBTI is not a separate system either, because they are obviously trying to capture the Jungian types. They just didn't get it right.
    The decisive thing is not the reality of the object, but the reality of the subjective factor, i.e. the primordial images, which in their totality represent a psychic mirror-world. It is a mirror, however, with the peculiar capacity of representing the present contents of consciousness not in their known and customary form but in a certain sense sub specie aeternitatis, somewhat as a million-year old consciousness might see them.

    (Jung on Si)

  37. #37
    khcs's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2018
    Posts
    2,533
    Mentioned
    43 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Tallmo View Post
    There is no conversion because MBTI is just a messed up version of Socionics/Jung. When you have found your Socionics type then that's it, and there is nothing to convert. ...
    Do not try to mislead others. MBTI and Socionics are the same thing.
    This is the comment you are looking for



  38. #38
    What's the purpose of SEI? Tallmo's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2017
    Location
    Finland
    TIM
    SEI
    Posts
    4,159
    Mentioned
    305 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by khcs View Post
    Do not try to mislead others. MBTI and Socionics are the same thing.
    Yes they are. Didn't you read what I said? But MBTI has pretty bad flaws so it is best to stick to Socionics. You don't have to convert anything.
    The decisive thing is not the reality of the object, but the reality of the subjective factor, i.e. the primordial images, which in their totality represent a psychic mirror-world. It is a mirror, however, with the peculiar capacity of representing the present contents of consciousness not in their known and customary form but in a certain sense sub specie aeternitatis, somewhat as a million-year old consciousness might see them.

    (Jung on Si)

  39. #39
    khcs's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2018
    Posts
    2,533
    Mentioned
    43 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Tallmo View Post
    Yes they are. Didn't you read what I said? But MBTI has pretty bad flaws so it is best to stick to Socionics. You don't have to convert anything.
    Socionics and MBTI are the same thing and the function model below is accurate and valid for both concepts.

    This is the comment you are looking for



  40. #40
    What's the purpose of SEI? Tallmo's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2017
    Location
    Finland
    TIM
    SEI
    Posts
    4,159
    Mentioned
    305 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by khcs View Post
    Socionics and MBTI are the same thing and the function model below is accurate and valid for both concepts.
    MBTI has the wrong base functions for introverts and has misunderstood Si. But if you only go by the big letters then I agree with you that the types are the same. SEI=ISFP etc.
    The decisive thing is not the reality of the object, but the reality of the subjective factor, i.e. the primordial images, which in their totality represent a psychic mirror-world. It is a mirror, however, with the peculiar capacity of representing the present contents of consciousness not in their known and customary form but in a certain sense sub specie aeternitatis, somewhat as a million-year old consciousness might see them.

    (Jung on Si)

Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •