Results 1 to 40 of 46

Thread: MBTI and Socionics Type Conversion Polls

Threaded View

  1. #11

    Join Date
    Oct 2014
    TIM
    LSI-Se sx
    Posts
    4,697
    Mentioned
    510 Post(s)
    Tagged
    25 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by ConcreteButterfly View Post
    j/p switch for introverts seems to make sense to me, I think some of the confusion comes from the fact that mbti profiles don't account for all 8 functions, only 4, so when you convert them into socionics, it's difficult to distinguish a strong id block function from a strong ego block function. eg. when you convert ISTJs and ISTPs into socionics, both will be strong in Ti, Te, Si and Se, but only one will be identified with their logic , ISTjs. This has to correspond to a dominant thinker in mbti, ISTP. Likewise only one will be identified with their sense impressions , ISTps. This has to correspond to a dominant sensor in mbti, ISTJs. But superficially they may look similar. ISTps/ISTJs use logic to reinforce their sense impressions, which will consequently be a lot more flexible. Vice versa with ISTPs/ISTjs and physical action.
    So am I supposed to be P and j at the same time. Clearly not. Resolve this contradiction.


    Quote Originally Posted by Hacim View Post
    FWIW, MBTI ISTJ descriptions do seem Fe-PoLR.
    Where exactly? The ones I read... scream Ne PoLR.


    Quote Originally Posted by TJay View Post
    It's all highly theoretical with very little empirical evidence. I really don't see how one could rationally switch J/P from MBTI to socionics, based on the type descriptions alone. The descriptions may present a different angle with slightly different definitions of cognitive functions and how the IEs relate to one another. The base functions may be different between the two systems, while the overall personality is the same because of how the IEs come together. Socionics supposedly moves away from the J=conscientious, but it cannot be avoided. It is just worked into the dominant function and overall type description.
    Right. You also had a good point about muddling such a supposedly substantial trait as conscientiousness inside different function models.


    It is with the introvert where typology actually becomes more philosophical. MBTI says that it is the first extroverted function which determines the level of conscientiousness; as to how someone comes across as a "judger" or "perceiver". This actually makes sense because only that which is extroverted can be accurately perceived by another(or judged ). So perceivers extrovert their perceivering function and thus appear to others as perceivers, and the same logic applies with judgers. In Socionics, the reverse is true. If one is IXXj, they will be described in a similar manner as MBTI IXXJ. Introverted functions cannot be observed by their very nature. But how can a function that is not extroverted be accurately perceived by another to exist. How can one be Ti or Fi and somehow come across as Ij. This seems to be a paradox. When writing on a forum, one is actually extroverting a function, making it difficult to type introverts. They share what they want to share. But, don't all people do the same? Most types aren't exactly an open book.
    Noo, when writing you are not necessarily extraverting. That's not what the jungian and the socionics definitions of it are.
    Last edited by Myst; 08-18-2015 at 06:33 AM.

Posting Permissions

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