Socionics and MBTI: INTJ = INTp, INTP = INTj?

[UDP]

Those are not direct translation, and I'm sure this has come up in the past but I'm in a hurry, again


I always test as an INTJ in the base MBTI tests. I like schedules and deadlines in this regard, and I like disciplin as such. In real life I could me more disciplined though.

Without question, though, I am an INTj. The INTP profile (a site such as: http://www.personalitypage.com/INTP_per.html ) does fit me very well.

Could it just be that I "want to be" an INTJ of sorts - that I idealize the type? But then again, I just took a survey from cognitiveprocess.com, and it revealed my types in this order:

(46.0)
(41.9)
(36.5)
(34.6)
(34.3)
(24.6)
(20.4)
(2.1)


As I said, there's no doubt in my mind I am INTj. But there seems to be some play in this other aspect. Is there some reasoning for this, or is it just a sort of..... idiosyncrasy? OR is this sort of thing actually common?

[UDP]

some of those S scores seem a little low, though. Perhaps I took the test improperly

[Phaedrus]

How do you know that you are an INTj? If that is true, you should also be an INTJ. If, on the other, hand you are an INTP you should be an INTp.

Don't rely on the test results.

[Dmitri Lytov]

Quasi-identical types are always similar to certain extent. The difference is that functioning in one of these modes (for example INTp) makes you exhausted very quickly; even when you want, you cannot behave this way every time you want. On the other hand, functioning in the other mode (for example INTj) is not too hard for you, even when you do not like this mode and want to be something else.

[MySaviour]

Quasi-identical types are always similar to certain extent. The difference is that functioning in one of these modes (for example INTp) makes you exhausted very quickly; even when you want, you cannot behave this way every time you want. On the other hand, functioning in the other mode (for example INTj) is not too hard for you, even when you do not like this mode and want to be something else.

Hey, can you type me? http://the16types.info/forums/viewtopic.php?t=1873

[MysticSonic]

"How do you know that you are an INTj? If that is true, you should also be an INTJ. If, on the other, hand you are an INTP you should be an INTp."

That's not true, so stop spreading around that bullshit like you know what you're talking about.

[FDG]

"How do you know that you are an INTj? If that is true, you should also be an INTJ. If, on the other, hand you are an INTP you should be an INTp."

That's not true, so stop spreading around that bullshit like you know what you're talking about.

I personally think that it's more on the line of...if you test INTP on M-B you might more likely be INTp on socionics, since M-B tests the four dichotomies and not the functional preferences. BUT if you relate to the description of the M-B INTP, you're likely INTj. However, I still think that on the M-B the INTP is like the "universal NT" type, so that all NTs can relate more or less to that description.

[Jonathan]

Dmitri:Quasi-identical types are always similar to certain extent. The difference is that functioning in one of these modes (for example INTp) makes you exhausted very quickly; even when you want, you cannot behave this way every time you want. On the other hand, functioning in the other mode (for example INTj) is not too hard for you, even when you do not like this mode and want to be something else.

Modes...Yes! This is very different from how I have heard anyone else describe Socionics, and is much closer to how I experience things. Most people seem to say that quasi-identical types are in a way very far from each other because the ego functions are reversed in direction (e.g., vs. ). But in my experience, I go into different modes, in which I'm not just using different functions, but different configurations of functions.

Sometimes modes are influenced by:
* A task requires it
* I'm performing a task where I was that mode in the past
* I'm with someone who has a certain relationship to that mode (e.g., is the dual of that mode)
* My mind has decided to go to that mode, and I will be in it for at least a few hours
* Power of suggestion
* I'm performing or imagining a piece of music in that mode

In my experience, Ij modes seem to involve a very focused understanding and direction of things. When one begins to "set parameters" to allow oneself to get lost in an activity and create a mental metaphor of a "container" to create a degree of order, it seems to become Ip. At least, that's how it seems to me right now.

[Phaedrus]

MysticSonic wrote:
"How do you know that you are an INTj? If that is true, you should also be an INTJ. If, on the other, hand you are an INTP you should be an INTp."

That's not true, so stop spreading around that bullshit like you know what you're talking about.

I know perfectly well what I'm talking about, so stop spreading around bullshit like I don't. But I admit that it is easy to misunderstand what I mean, if you haven't bothered to read any of my many posts where I have tried to explain that. Almost every time I write "INTJ" or "INTP" I am referring to the two groups of people that have been identified by MBTI practitioners, David Keirsey, myself, and others as sharing the same physical, behavioural and psychological characteristics as INTjs and INTps.

Of course MBTT is wrong about the functions among other things, and of course your type is not identical to some test result you might get.

if you test INTP on M-B you might more likely be INTp on socionics, since M-B tests the four dichotomies and not the functional preferences.

Right.

BUT if you relate to the description of the M-B INTP, you're likely INTj.

Wrong. You are likely INTp.

However, I still think that on the M-B the INTP is like the "universal NT" type, so that all NTs can relate more or less to that description.

Wrong again. If you are an ENTj and you can can relate very much to the description of an INTP your image of yourself and your type does not correspond with reality.

[MysticSonic]

"I know perfectly well what I'm talking about, so stop spreading around bullshit like I don't."

You have no idea what you're talking about; I'm an INTP in the MBTI system but an INTj in the Socionic system. I'm not spreading around bullshit, I'm trying to shut your bullshit up and make sure no one actually believes it.

Oh, I mean, OF COURSE! I should swallow what you say despite personal empirical evidence stating otherwise! Yes, that's precisely what you wish me to do, right?

[Rocky]

I think the point is that you are both spreading around bullshit. INTP in MBTI always, 100% of the time translates into a socionics ESFj. Dumbasses.

[Jonathan]

Well let's be calm about this. MBTI and Socionics are different models that have somewhat different definitions of functions and different conceptions of what combinations of functions produce "J-like" or "P-like" behaviors. But there's still a big correlation between the two, and they're both seeking to understand related underlying realities.

I can see how it's possible that one person might fit INTP in MBTI and INTp in Socionics, and another person might fit INTP in MBTI and INTj in Socionics. The correlation between the P/J scale in MBTI and irrationality/rationality isn't bullet-proof. Socionics descriptions of irrationality/rationality generally mirror P/J in MBTI, but there may not necessarily be a 100% correlation.

Another way to see it is that the theories may apply unevenly to different people, or there may be additional factors in a person's psyche that aren't explained directly by either theory. Socionics postulates that people are structured and tend towards organization and fixed decisions because of having a dominant judging function, whereas MBTI postulates that such people are that way because they have an extraverted judging function (i.e., assuming that organization and structure have something to do with hooking into the structure of the "external" world).

It seems plausible that one person may fit the Socionics theory better, and another person may fit the MBTI theory better.

[MysticSonic]

"I can see how it's possible that one person might fit INTP in MBTI and INTp in Socionics, and another person might fit INTP in MBTI and INTj in Socionics. The correlation between the P/J scale in MBTI and irrationality/rationality isn't bullet-proof. Socionics descriptions of irrationality/rationality generally mirror P/J in MBTI, but there may not necessarily be a 100% correlation. "

Exactly.

[FDG]

Wrong again. If you are an ENTj and you can can relate very much to the description of an INTP your image of yourself and your type does not correspond with reality.

Read my post. I said "more or less".

[Phaedrus]

I'm an INTP in the MBTI system but an INTj in the Socionic system.

No, you are not. Either you are wrong about your MBTI type, or you are wrong about your Socionics type, or you are wrong about both. Your way of arguing, your reactions to my posts (indication of Quasi-Identity), and your test result on the philosopher test (1. Kant, 2. Nietzsche and so on) suggest that you are probably not an INTP.

"I can see how it's possible that one person might fit INTP in MBTI and INTp in Socionics, and another person might fit INTP in MBTI and INTj in Socionics. The correlation between the P/J scale in MBTI and irrationality/rationality isn't bullet-proof. Socionics descriptions of irrationality/rationality generally mirror P/J in MBTI, but there may not necessarily be a 100% correlation. "

Exactly.

I agree. But it is irrelevant to what I'm trying to say.

Wrong again. If you are an ENTj and you can can relate very much to the description of an INTP your image of yourself and your type does not correspond with reality.

Read my post. I said "more or less".

I know. That's why I wrote "can relate very much". Maybe I should have written "can relate very much" instead. I'm sorry. I understand your point and agree with it. And it is correct that for example David Keirsey seem to think of an INTP/INTp as some kind of prototype for his Rational group. But that could be due to the fact that he is himself an INTp.

[MysticSonic]

"No, you are not. Either you are wrong about your MBTI type, or you are wrong about your Socionics type, or you are wrong about both. Your way of arguing, your reactions to my posts (indication of Quasi-Identity), and your test result on the philosopher test (1. Kant, 2. Nietzsche and so on) suggest that you are probably not an INTP. "

I'm an INTP in the MBTI system, the type descriptions describe me perfectly; I'm most definately a P in the MBTI system.

[UDP]

Does anyone think that the different subtypes of "the 16" types has anything to do with it?

Sometimes it seems like there are ~32~ types, because whilst there are main catagories of the 16 types, there are variations with in it. Or perhaps this should just be considered a natural thing, and trying to fit everything into such specific boxes is foolish?


(It seems like this is one of those things that has been discussed quite a bit, but no real conclusive answer can be stated..)

[Rocky]

Subtype theory is foolish because there are a million derivatives of each type, not just two. All it is is that people have varying levels of use of each function, but to try and systematize it and say that "higher thinking equals lower sensing" or whatever, I'm starting to realize is pretty much a joke. Even our acronyms don't mean everything about the strength of functions. It's only a really simplistic (and maybe even improper) way of organizing the use of functions.

[Phaedrus]

I'm an INTP in the MBTI system, the type descriptions describe me perfectly; I'm most definately a P in the MBTI system.

You know what I've said to you today at SG's site, and you are entitled to believe what you want. But if you are really sure about being an INTP in the MBTI system, then you might have the same problem as I had for a couple of years.

The type descriptions of INTPs describe me perfectly, I am most definitely a P in the MBTI system, and I was also pretty convinced that I was an INTj in Socionics until a couple of months ago. But I was wrong.

It does not seem possible to be a clear case P in one of the two systems and a J in the other. If you went through all of my posts at this and SG's site, you would see the whole process of how I found out that I am really an INTp in Socionics too. If you are an INTj you probably won't do that, and you probably won't do it if you are an INTp either, because will take some time ...

... but ... if you are really interested in finding the truth about yourself, maybe you will do it eventually some day, just to make sure that I am wrong. If that ever happens the likelihood that you are an intuitive subtype of INTp increases even further.

[Jonathan]

Subtype theory is foolish because there are a million derivatives of each type, not just two. All it is is that people have varying levels of use of each function, but to try and systematize it and say that "higher thinking equals lower sensing" or whatever, I'm starting to realize is pretty much a joke. Even our acronyms don't mean everything about the strength of functions. It's only a really simplistic (and maybe even improper) way of organizing the use of functions.

Why does that make it foolish? Clearly there are billions of different personalities, because there are billions of people. But the argument that that makes it foolish to categorize would apply to all personality theories, including Socionics overall. So basically, by your argument, if I'm understanding it right, we'd have to throw out all of Socionics.

The idea of a theory is to make useful explanations and explain real problems. Subtypes are potentially useful because they can help explain observed differences within the types.

It seems to me possible that the LII intuitive subtype could fit INTP in MBTI, and that the ILI logical subtype could fit INTJ in MBTI, whereas the LII logical subtype and ILI intuitive subtype would be the ones that MBTI has trouble explaining.

[Rocky]

It's foolish because the judging and perceiving functions aren't related to each other.

Let's use ILI. For example, they say that if it is logical type, Te is strong, Fe is weak, and Si is in the middle. Intuitive-ILI is strong Ni, weak Si, but with Fe as more of a medium function. But I ask, why? You develop the functions independently. Just because your Fe is weak, doesn't mean that that makes Si stronger. You can have:

Te-producing
Ni-accepting
Fe-producing
Si-accepting

or

Te-producing
Ni-accepting
Si-accepting
Fe-producing

or

Ni-accepting
Te-producing
Fe-producing
Si-accepting

and so on.

Further more, these are still just relative. The fourth function listed above to one person may not really be "weak" at all compare to another person with the same ordering, whose fourth function may be completely retared.

You would have to have a hundred subtypes to try and order all this together, so its actually simplier to accept that functions just have varying levels of development.

And I agree with Jung that the classifications aren't important. People aren't "Extraverts or Introverts", "Sensors or Intuitives", etc... these are just qualities that exist. The acronyms are only tell us which behavior people naturally fall on.

[CuriousSoul]

I'm an INTP in the MBTI system, the type descriptions describe me perfectly; I'm most definately a P in the MBTI system.

The latest picture you posted in this thread does kind of make me think INTP rather than INTJ - or are you willing to reconsider INFP? It is just that the unfocused gaze fits better with my experiences of INTPs than INTJs. Also many of the other things I wrote over a year ago for example here must be considered outdated and potentially clearly misleading since I have since then come to change my own type. Nevertheless, since they seem to evoke some interest as a historical curiousity, I will not become another Transigent and edit them out of existence "for gayness", or whatever...

[niveK]

I'm not entirely sure functions can be strong/weak in any quantifiable sense. Exactly how do you determine ILE Person A has "stronger" than ILE Person B? A person might display more behaviors that are associated with a function, but that doesn't necessarily mean there's something truly quantifiable about it.


So then, how could subtype be related to strength of functions? If there is subtype, one such as the prevailing ideas seem to suggest, then it would be a preference toward accepting or producing functions overall, as opposed to a specific function. A logical subtype ILI person would not be the subtype because of the strength of , but rather a preference of the ILI person towards his producing functions.

[Jonathan]

Let's use ILI. For example, they say that if it is logical type, Te is strong, Fe is weak, and Si is in the middle. Intuitive-ILI is strong Ni, weak Si, but with Fe as more of a medium function. But I ask, why? You develop the functions independently. Just because your Fe is weak, doesn't mean that that makes Si stronger.

Well to be honest, I only know about the subtypes from various Socionics websites, so I wasn't aware of the theory that says that it's about various patterns of functions being "stronger." My understanding was simply that it was about which of the two functions in the ego block one "prefers" or leans on, so to speak. It seemed the idea is that the producing and creative functions have very specific definitions, so that one may in fact have a certain emphasis on one or the other without changing the definition of which one is the producing function and which on is the creative function.

Here's the kind of thing I had in mind: http://www.socionics.com/advan/qa.htm?1122148825...particularly where it says this:

Think about the dominant function or the first function or the main function as very conservative and definitive of the type and the auxiliary function or second function as quite liberal. So INTj with logical subtype, or should we write it IN(T)j, would almost certainly make a double effort to stress his or her main function and may appear painfully logical, whereas I(N)Tj, INTj with intuitive subtype could be quite balanced and creative and sometimes not as clearly logical as IN(T)j. Painfully intuitive E(N)Tp would appear as a mess, i.e. classic stereotypical ENTp space cadet. Again, logical EN(T)p could be quite balanced, similar to intuitive I(N)Tj, and this could be the case for confusion you described, which is not that uncommon.

It just seems that this observation parallels what I've observed in real life...so, whatever you call it, whether subtype theory or something else, there seems to be something to it.

[Rocky]

Those are Gulenko's subtype descriptions, and he seemed to think that if Thinking was prefered over Intuition, Feeling would be last and if Intuition was prefer over Thinking sensing would be last, and so on. I disagree.

As for Ganin...

*shrug*

It's no wonder not many Russian socionists like him. The notion that producing subtypes are more balanced and accepting subtypes are a mess is just sickening. I think we're talking about something here but I don't think its subtype. I also don't know why people keep on insiting that Mirros are really that close. I know SmilingEyes was saying that for example, a producing-ESTJ and an accepting-ISTP will be even farther apart, not closer. I'd say he's at least more right. :wink: For anyone to think that Mirros are that close in behavior must not understand the difference between accepting/producing functions, because it seems impossible to really "switch" their roles.

Let's just call a spade a spade. Some people have more developed use of some functions more than other people in their type.

[Jonathan]

The notion that producing subtypes are more balanced and accepting subtypes are a mess is just sickening.

Yeah, I don't like the way he mixes value statements with what he's trying to say either. He has a tendency to overgeneralize; however, I was just assuming that he was talking about extreme examples to make his point.

By the way, he was saying that EN(T)p, that is, the one that favors the accepting (T) function, was the one that was more more "balanced." So wouldn't that be called an "accepting" subtype rather than a "producing" one?

Anyhow, I don't have Gulenko's subtypes stuff from the source; I only have what's been translated on this forum; so I can't vouch for his ideas in their entirety.

What I observe in people, however, is that there seem to be variations within types that require some sort of explanation, and subtypes seems to be one potential explanation. I don't think it's a matter of "strength" of functions (i.e., competence), but rather preference or use.

Consider again my case, for example. You've said that I'm probably LII. A number of other people on these forums are pretty sure that I'm ILI. Subtypes seems to be one way of explaining the discrepancy. For example, an intuitive subtype of LII might appear more "perceiving" and thus seem more like than ILI in some respects.

I've also been trying to understand the case of Richard Feynman. Apparently, many Socionists think he's LIE, but MBTI theoriests use him as an example of ENTP. I understand the systems aren't quite compatible, but the issue is that there's something about his penchant for finding ways to see things differently, etc., that makes N stand out more.

Maybe the way to look at it is to postulate an additional scale...something like this:

INTjJ
INTjP
INTpJ
INTpP
etc...

[Rocky]

By the way, he was saying that EN(T)p, that is, the one that favors the accepting (T) function, was the one that was more more "balanced." So wouldn't that be called an "accepting" subtype rather than a "producing" one?

Judging functions are producing functions in Perceiving types.

What I observe in people, however, is that there seem to be variations within types that require some sort of explanation, and subtypes seems to be one potential explanation. I don't think it's a matter of "strength" of functions (i.e., competence), but rather preference or use.

I think you (subtypes) are trying to connect things in which there are no reliable patterns. I don't deny different behavior in the same type, I just disagree with an acronym representing what most people try and make it represent.

Consider again my case, for example. You've said that I'm probably LII. A number of other people on these forums are pretty sure that I'm ILI. Subtypes seems to be one way of explaining the discrepancy. For example, an intuitive subtype of LII might appear more "perceiving" and thus seem more like than ILI in some respects.

Yeah, Judging and Perceiving are just behaviors and whenever you are using a Perceiving funciton you are a "Perceiver", etc... but that's besides the point because we don't type people with E/I, S/N, etc... but by the role of the functions (Ti with you).

Maybe the way to look at it is to postulate an additional scale...something like this:

INTjJ
INTjP
INTpJ
INTpP
etc...

"My scheme of typology is only a scheme of orientation. There is such a factor as introversion, there is such a factor as extraversion. The classification of individuals means nothing, nothing at all. It is only the instrumentarium for the practical psychologist to explain for instance, the husband to a wife or vice versa." ~Carl Jung

[Expat]

for example, a producing-ESTJ and an accepting-ISTP will be even farther apart, not closer.

Could elaborate on this further?

[Rocky]

for example, a producing-ESTJ and an accepting-ISTP will be even farther apart, not closer.

Could elaborate on this further?

oldforumlinkviewtopic.php?t=3182

But that is making some assumptions about the third and fourth functions I personally wouldn't make.

[Expat]

oldforumlinkviewtopic.php?t=3182

But that is making some assumptions about the third and fourth functions I personally wouldn't make.

Oh yes, I remember now.

Well, I think these assumptions reflect some observations, for instance, why ISFj sensory subtypes resemble ISTjs ie the relative emphasis on in relation to would also relatively increase role function use -- of course maybe it's the wrong way to explain it but it does fit some things.

[Jonathan]

Well, I think these assumptions reflect some observations, for instance, why ISFj sensory subtypes resemble ISTjs ie the relative emphasis on in relation to would also relatively increase role function use -- of course maybe it's the wrong way to explain it but it does fit some things.

So that would mean that sometimes super-ego relations might seem closer than they otherwise would. For example, a producing subtype LII would be a little like an EII, while an accepting ESI would also be a little like an EII. So these two types may not seem as conflicting as typical super-ego relations would suggest.

[CuriousSoul]

I'm an INTP in the MBTI system, the type descriptions describe me perfectly; I'm most definately a P in the MBTI system.

I came to think you might actually be an ENTP too. In any case, I think you should keep an open mind rather than just decide on one type and then stick with that decision no matter what.
It could, for example, make a lot of sense to think that I was acting as your Guardian Angel in some of those earlier threads. The introversion/extraversion scale is a tricky one. Extraversion does not equal sociability or even social skills but it does make you more dependent on the external world - for better or for worse.

[MysticSonic]

Yeah---and I'm pretty introverted.

[ChristiRB]

I still don't get this dynamic. Why does the last letter change with socionics? I mean when I read the intertype relation description between INTp and ENFj, it is just- wrong. I NEVER have the supervisor/supervisee relationship with an INTJ. In fact, we always seem to have some sort of silent understanding between us. Maybe it's because my father is an INTJ and we get along famously and so I get INTJs?? Actually, I usually tend to have the supervisor/supervisee relationship with the INTPs in my life.


I just don't get this part of socionics. *scratches head*

[Creepy-pokeball]

Don't equate them. Theyre not equatable. You can give them liklihoods but not exact exchanges. Theyre based on different systems, definitions and ideologies.

[FDG]

Your father is probably INTj. Better not to use any equation.

[Phaedrus]

INTP=INTj and INTJ=INTp?

No. Definitely not.

http://oldforumlinkviewtopic.php?t=4...r=asc&start=15

[ChristiRB]

Oh thank you for the link! This helps!

Didn't know they were so different. I am just more familiar with MBTI than Socionics.

[Creepy-]

...... if you're into actual theory, you will find Socionics to be much more ........ worthy of discussion.

[Expat]

Also, the supervisor of the ENFj is the ISFp.

The socionics INTj supervises the socionics ENFp.