MBTI and Socionics Type Conversion Polls

**yeves** · 08-06-2015, 03:26 AM

PerC has a few MBTI-Socionics type conversion polls published that I am reposting here in light of recent discussions with some basic maths. Majority of MBTI introverts have picked types that have same strongest first and second functions, which end up having different j/p letters. This supports the "j/p switch" for introverted types.

Mentions for last MBTI/Socionics discussions contributors @ConcreteButterfly @chemical @Hacim @nondescript @Jarno @Kore @Myst @MaryFrance @peteronfireee @Sol and anyone else who has something to comment on this

The voting is still going on if you would like to make your vote:

Introverted Intuitive Types: IN** http://personalitycafe.com/socionics...nics-type.html
Introverted Sensing Types: IS** http://personalitycafe.com/socionics...ics-types.html
Extroverted Intuitive Types: EN** http://personalitycafe.com/socionics...nics-type.html
Extroverted Sensing Types: ES** - poll broken

Updated with more votes!

MBTI INTJ -- Ni dominant, Te auxiliary
73% - ILI (INTp, Ni base Te creative)
22% - LII (INTj, Ti base Ne creative)
5% - other types

MBTI INTP -- Ti dominant, Ne auxiliary
56% - LII (INTj, Ti base Ne creative)
26% - ILI (INTp, Ni base Te creative)
18% - other types

MBTI INFJ -- Ni dominant, Fe auxiliary
61% - IEI (INFp, Ni base Fe creative)
35% - EII (INFj, Fi base Ne creative)
6% - other types

MBTI INFP -- Fi dominant, Ne auxiliary
63% - EII (INFj, Fi base Ne creative)
28% - IEI (INFp, Ni base Fe creative)
9% - other types

MBTI ISTJ -- Si dominant, Te auxiliary
79% - SLI (ISTp, Si base Te creative)
21% - LSI (ISTj, Ti base Se creative)
0% - other types

MBTI ISTP -- Ti dominant, Se auxiliary
43% - LSI (ISTj, Ti base Se creative)
48% - SLI (ISTp, Si base Te creative)
9% - other types

MBTI ISFJ -- Si dominant, Fe auxiliary
60% - SEI (ISFp, Si base Fe creative)
40% - ESI (ISFj, Fi base Se creative)
0% - other types

MBTI ISFP -- Fi dominant, Se auxiliary
53% - ESI (ISFj, Fi base Se creative)
37% - SEI (ISFp, Si base Fe creative)
10% - other types

MBTI ENTP -- Ne dominant, Ti auxiliary
84% - ILE (ENTp, Ne base Ti creative)
8% - LIE (ENTj, Te base Ni creative)
8% - other types

MBTI ENFP -- Ne dominant Fi auxiliary
100% - IEE (ENFp, Ne base Fi creative)
0% - EIE (ENFj, Fe base Ni creative)
0% other types

MBTI ENTJ -- Te dominant Ni auxiliary
100% - LIE (ENTj, Te base Ni creative)
0% - ILE (ENTp, Ne base Ti creative)
0% - other types

MBTI ENFJ -- Fe dominant Ni auxiliary
86% - EIE (ENFj, Fe base Ni creative)
0% - IEE (ENFp, Ne base F creative)
0% - other types

**Sol** · 08-06-2015, 09:13 AM

Typology is same Jung's one, preferences are same, hence types designated by only preferences are same evidently.

Mismatch in types is due to wrong typing, what is common.
By what Socionics method and by whom those MBT dudes identified their Socionics types? Most of them I suppose even were not typed, but just read types descriptions, - what is not serious "typing"; that MBT has other (and not as at Jung) wrong types description for introverted types and thus may get systematic error here was know befor (in MBT functions order for INTJ is taken from INTP, etc). MBT has differing types description also due to bad Jung's functions detailing, partly wrong detailing, but nevertheless _functions are same_ what is seen from same core functions theory. It they'd read only description of preferences in Socionics and choose by them - they'd choose same types (and yes - Jung's E/I is part of Socionics too so it's compatible by preferences descriptions).
Your charts are senseless. Heap of incompenet self typings by unconvincing methods.

About wrong typing. When all typers today match in typing in 30% cases at maximum (maybe some rare more, but have not seen still) - this shows they type bad. In other case good ones should to have good match, at least, and ideally also objective proof of their good typing. This about normal typing by experienced typers, but not "I have read for 5 minutes their decriptions and that looks closer hence that is my type" what may give results even worse. In such situation with massive wrong typings to compare MBT and Socionics/Jung types only empirically is not convincing, while more to say - empirical comparation was not correct.

Why MBT insist on difference, including with substantiation by idiotic selftypings, - competition with more advanced approach of Socionics and trying to hide that unlike Socionics, MBT uses not Jungian model for introverted types. They have choice to say "we lied you for decades about introverted types while you were fools wich even did not read Jung" or see how people turn from MBT to Socionics after understanding that MBT is wrong in this important part, and had no obstruction to use and research 8 functions. While now in MBT practice their mistake is masked by using mostly preferences (wich are correct), and minor direct using of functions.
Why some in Socionics insists on the difference? May be because it gives more feeling of exclusiveness. Maybe copyright problems with using same names for types. And as MBT is interested to support lie about difference despite evidence of same Jung's typology, same preferences and hence same 4-letter types, - this support may to be in different ways, including dirty ones - get control/influence on enemies and lead them to wrong way, there are not many noticable English sites about Socionics to be this hard. Impose on people idiotic hypotheses like Reinin's dichotomies, Gulenko's fantasies, subtypes, phisiognomic VI instead of normal intuitive-nonverbal analysis, etc - anything what is different, what is doubtful, and the farther from Jung the better.
And the result of this sabotage and simplicity people in Socionics is excelent. After 10 years main socionics forum has less than 1000 members! While number of people having native English is more than 300 million, more than 1 billion may read and speak it. To understand the situation. People who has native Russian is about 200 million and socioforum wich exists similar time has 30 000 members. There is no serious advertising of Socionics - it's mostly Internet phenomenon, sometimes people buy books (artificial limiting of publishing and access to Socionics books is another story, but I think it may exist too) - that's all. Similar conditions, but terrible popularization result on English area. Why? Because in trend is to say bullshit about essence difference and incompatibility of Socionics and MBT.
People know about MBT and may then come to Socionics, but they see "it's another typology" (despite MBT and Socionics are same Jung's typology), "ahh.. those dudes who type by phisiognomy", "they use different bs like Renin's or something" - 90% of people are misleaded, and 10% try to read something and may turn from MBT heresy to Socionics and normal Jung's typology.

Want to make Socionics more popular?
- Stop using lie like INTj or INTJ = INTP. Say INTJ = INTJ.
- Make official section clearly seen on main page where say what is normal, classical Socionics and popularize it. But not equate Reinin's delusion to Jung's basic theory or model 'A' - they are on totally different levels of trust, Reinins are baseless derivative hypothesis from Jung. Gulenko's fantasies are derivative from Reinin's bs and has trust even less. Don't mix all this to one heap like it's equal to Jung's base theory.
- Stop use of Ganin's term "VI" - he uses phisiognomy to type people. Say other term, say that visually is typical to type by behavior (nonverbal), but not by forms of noses and ears.
- Make the theme "Recommendation of materials for typing" in typing section. With a link to large form (not short one), - you may translate Eglit's form. Give there links to preferences tests. Translate Gulenko's preferences test, if it's possible find Jung's institute preferences test, give links to MBT tests as they use same preferences. Give recommendations for making video interviews and explain about importance of nonverbal information for typing, explain that it's not common for Socionics when phisiognomy is used.
- Additionaly it's good to make comfortable meeting database for those who want to try duals.

the situation is something like this

**nondescript** · 08-06-2015, 02:53 PM

Originally Posted by yeves

PerC has a few MBTI<->Socionics type conversion polls published that I am reposting here in light of recent discussions with some basic maths. These polls showed that there is some support for "j/p switch" for introverted types: 61% of 170 MBTI Ixxx voters converted to Socionics keeping 3 same letters and flipping last one--they retained all three type dichotomy orientations.
Mentions for last MBTI/Socionics discussions contributors @ConcreteButterfly @chemical @Hacim @nondescript @Jarno @Kore @Myst @MaryFrance @peteronfireee @Sol and anyone else who has something to comment on this

The voting is still going on if you would like to make your vote:
INxx http://personalitycafe.com/socionics...nics-type.html
ISxx http://personalitycafe.com/socionics...ics-types.html
ENxx http://personalitycafe.com/socionics...nics-type.html
ESxx (poll broken)

Attachment 5960

Attachment 5961

Attachment 5962

I agree with sol. If you have indeed found out your true type, it'll be the same in socionics, mbtt, colour theory or selfie contest. The problem lies in some tiny, tiny details that people overlook:

MBTT tests for PREFERENCES, not for COGNITION or TRUISM.
Socionics is about psyche schematic.
big 5 is behavioural(or at least it's how I view it).
Enneagram is about...is about...magic I guess. It's a fun theory, but do keep in mind it was conceived under the heavy influence of LSD.
Colour Theory(or rather Associative Psychology) is about the associations our mind makes with colours, images etc. Olga Tannenmann is notable proponent of this in socio circles.
Jung type theory(JTT) is about COGNITION, not PREFERENCES nor about BEHAVIOUR.

Each of them brings something else to the table and, frankly, each can help to achieve good dose of self understanding. As long as you can see through smoke and mirrors, ofc! Which means that there is an awful lot of "tests" online. You should trust only the official sources(omg AGAIN? I must suckle the big Te!) and then everything will be ok.

**ghost of forum past** · 08-06-2015, 05:54 PM

Originally Posted by nondescript

I agree with sol. If you have indeed found out your true type, it'll be the same in socionics, mbtt, colour theory or selfie contest. The problem lies in some tiny, tiny details that people overlook:

MBTT tests for PREFERENCES, not for COGNITION or TRUISM.
Socionics is about psyche schematic.
big 5 is behavioural(or at least it's how I view it).
Enneagram is about...is about...magic I guess. It's a fun theory, but do keep in mind it was conceived under the heavy influence of LSD.
Colour Theory(or rather Associative Psychology) is about the associations our mind makes with colours, images etc. Olga Tannenmann is notable proponent of this in socio circles.
Jung type theory(JTT) is about COGNITION, not PREFERENCES nor about BEHAVIOUR.

Each of them brings something else to the table and, frankly, each can help to achieve good dose of self understanding. As long as you can see through smoke and mirrors, ofc! Which means that there is an awful lot of "tests" online. You should trust only the official sources(omg AGAIN? I must suckle the big Te!) and then everything will be ok.

Don't you test as xSFJ in MBTI? if so, why are you suddenly changing your mind?

**nondescript** · 08-06-2015, 06:58 PM

Originally Posted by Hacim

Don't you test as xSFJ in MBTI? if so, why are you suddenly changing your mind?

What change of mind?

Plus if I were to go by descriptions, yes SEE and ESI would be ESFJ and ISFJ respectively(no chance they'd be P's). But let's not get into that.

**ghost of forum past** · 08-06-2015, 09:34 PM

Originally Posted by nondescript

What change of mind?

Because you're agreeing that there is no j/p switch, while typing yourself as SEE (ESFp) and ESFJ. That's not consistent.

Plus if I were to go by descriptions, yes SEE and ESI would be ESFJ and ISFJ respectively(no chance they'd be P's).

Nope. Incorrect.

**nondescript** · 08-06-2015, 10:06 PM

Originally Posted by Hacim

Because you're agreeing that there is no j/p switch, while typing yourself as SEE (ESFp) and ESFJ. That's not consistent.

Nope. Incorrect.

I said "going by DESCRIPTIONS". Not going by common sense, clear logic or whatever.

Only thing I know is that I'm some kind of an extrovert.

**ConcreteButterfly** · 08-08-2015, 03:34 AM

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.

**ghost of forum past** · 08-08-2015, 04:19 AM

Originally Posted by ConcreteButterfly

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.

Interesting take. Agreed, the reason that quasi-identicals get confused superficially is because they have the same 4 functions strong in them. It's just that one type will draw attention to one block while the other will ignore it or seem to "naturally" do it.

**nefnaf** · 08-08-2015, 07:38 AM

Originally Posted by Sol

Impose on people idiotic hypotheses like Reinin's dichotomies [...]

Reinin traits undoubtedly exist. If you put any stock in Model A, then certainly some of the most commonly used traits like Static / Dynamic and Merry / Serious have a significant model-theoretic basis. Now the matter of whether or not socionists have found optimal or even adequate labels for these traits is another question entirely.

**Skepsis** · 08-08-2015, 02:24 PM

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.

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.

The level of one's conscientiousness is a large part of ones personality, yet typology muddles it by integrating it into some function that we may or may not be able to observe. So are you a perceiver because you appear as such to others, or because that is how you process information internally. How can one really tell the difference?

**Persephone** · 08-15-2015, 11:12 PM

I tend to test INXX in MBTI, the correlation in those polls is interesting

**Not A Communist Shill** · 08-16-2015, 12:22 AM

The Jungian functions and the Socionics Information Elements have the same name and we are supposed to take it as a given that they represent exactly the same concepts. This is difficult to assess: I think we can only conclude that through a rationalisation process where you see various Jungian functions on spectrums (e.g. extroverted sensing as an opposite to introverted intuition) and where you understand Jung's explanation in terms of common psychological descriptions and philosophical terms (e.g. "causal determinism" that they are the same, or at least, any direct correlation to the vagaries or outright impracticalness of Jung's descriptions (especially with introverted intuition) is not really important.

As for MBTI, there are several ways of confusion that make saying "MBTI = Socionics" to be invalid. I think at best, it should be considered a rough pointer if you believe you know your type in one system. Some MBTI descriptions are written on a functional basis and are inherently inaccurate due to misunderstanding Jung's typology. If you agree with a type profile of a INTJ and are thus primarily

first, and

second, then clearly, you should not be a LII in Socionics. If the description has your tertiary (

) and inferior (

) functions, or even your shadow functions, the picture is possibly confused even further.

If the description is of a general nature rather than a function-by-function one, it is possible that MBTI INTJs may have a fair resemblance to a Socionics LII, although this tends to be a chunking along the lines of "Introversion" and "Thinking" and "Intuition" for example, along with statements stating that INTJs can operate in the outside world...but they prefer not to (some descriptions are more solid than this).

Tests are similarly an issue...tests scoring I vs. E, N vs. S traits etc. to give results with the MBTIs mangled understanding of Jung's typology are especially unhelpful. (Tests with such a method of scoring do exist in the Socionics world). I suppose the issue with MBTI tests is merely an extension of the issue with MBTI however.

The MBTI is famously typified by a huge emphasis on what people do, especially in regards professions, at least in the worst extremes in the very vocal corporate wing of the MBTI. It would be easy to say that despite all these differences that "MBTI = Socionics", but that would be to take all these negative aspects of the MBTI as of only minor significance. If the MBTI is unwilling to correct its fundamental misunderstanding of Jung and if the "official" purveyors of MBTI are unwilling to use their clout, then how can it be a true maxim?

**ConcreteButterfly** · 08-17-2015, 04:48 AM

Originally Posted by Hacim

Interesting take. Agreed, the reason that quasi-identicals get confused superficially is because they have the same 4 functions strong in them. It's just that one type will draw attention to one block while the other will ignore it or seem to "naturally" do it.

FWIW, MBTI ISTJ descriptions do seem Fe-PoLR.

which parts ?

**Myst** · 08-18-2015, 06:11 AM

Originally Posted by ConcreteButterfly

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.

Originally Posted by Hacim

FWIW, MBTI ISTJ descriptions do seem Fe-PoLR.

Where exactly? The ones I read... scream Ne PoLR.

Originally Posted by TJay

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.

**Skepsis** · 08-18-2015, 01:16 PM

Originally Posted by Myst

Noo, when writing you are not necessarily extraverting. That's not what the jungian and the socionics definitions of it are.

Correct, I jumped the gun here. I think I forgot to edit out before posting. My main idea is that when an introvert posts, it is difficult to tell when they are are posting with their prized introverted base function or not, at first. Once you get to know someone it is easier to tell, but there is this notion of "speed typing" where the assumption being what one posts is steeped in base/creative function, when in actuality that is very difficult to prove objectively.

**ghost of forum past** · 08-18-2015, 11:30 PM

@Myst @ConcreteButterfly I actually meant to say Ne-PoLR but got them mixed up because I was thinking about SLIs at the time, and it was late for me. Sorry for the confusion.

**Myst** · 08-18-2015, 11:43 PM

Originally Posted by Hacim

@Myst @ConcreteButterfly I actually meant to say Ne-PoLR but got them mixed up because I was thinking about SLIs at the time, and it was late for me. Sorry for the confusion.

Ahh alright. Yeah Ne PoLR.

**ConcreteButterfly** · 08-19-2015, 02:54 AM

Originally Posted by Hacim

@Myst @ConcreteButterfly I actually meant to say Ne-PoLR but got them mixed up because I was thinking about SLIs at the time, and it was late for me. Sorry for the confusion.

You don't agree with the j/p switch then?

@Myst, j/p in socionics refers to the dominant function being rational or not. eg. SiTe is ISTp, because Si is irrational. The J/P in MBTI isn't defined that way, it considers both the dominant and auxiliary functions, which ever one is extroverted determines if it's J or P. eg. SiTe, the extroverted function is Te which is thinking, which is a judging function. So it becomes ISTJ.

For ISTP the P comes from TiSe, extraverted sensing, which is a perceiving function
ISTj in socionics, the J comes from TiSe, introverted thinking, which is a rational function

That's how you get ISTP/ISTj as a single type

In my opinion socionics version of defining the j/p rule is simpler and closer to the Jungian descriptions, MBTI seems to have deviated a bit

**yeves** · 08-19-2015, 03:16 AM

The votes on these polls made me question this table I saw reposted on this forum and some others. The polling outcomes are very different.
Does anyone know how the table below was obtained? How are there 52 INTJs who type themselves as ESTp in Socionics? They chose an Introverted, Intuitive, Judging type in MBTI and then Extraverted, Sensing, Perceiving type in Socionics. How are these results trustworthy?

**Myst** · 08-19-2015, 03:22 AM

Originally Posted by yeves

The votes on these polls made me question this table I saw reposted on this forum and some others. The polling outcomes are very different.
Does anyone know how the table below was obtained? How are there 52 INTJs who type themselves as ESTp in Socionics? They chose an Introverted, Intuitive, Judging type in MBTI and then Extraverted, Sensing, Perceiving type in Socionics. How are these results trustworthy?

They are not.

**Myst** · 08-19-2015, 03:24 AM

Originally Posted by ConcreteButterfly

@Myst, j/p in socionics refers to the dominant function being rational or not. eg. SiTe is ISTp, because Si is irrational. The J/P in MBTI isn't defined that way, it considers both the dominant and auxiliary functions, which ever one is extroverted determines if it's J or P. eg. SiTe, the extroverted function is Te which is thinking, which is a judging function. So it becomes ISTJ.

For ISTP the P comes from TiSe, extraverted sensing, which is a perceiving function
ISTj in socionics, the J comes from TiSe, introverted thinking, which is a rational function

That's how you get ISTP/ISTj as a single type

I know all that :BIG YAWN: And I don't give a shit.

See below why.

In my opinion socionics version of defining the j/p rule is simpler and closer to the Jungian descriptions, MBTI seems to have deviated a bit

The problem is, the type profiles also include the behaviour styles for J/P and j/p and these styles are rather similar. Now someone who types J in one system suddenly becomes p in the other one and match the type descriptions in both systems as well? No such thing exists. Before you say profiles are just illustrations, sure, they are, but why such inconsistency in them?

**ConcreteButterfly** · 08-19-2015, 03:38 AM

Originally Posted by Myst

I know all that :BIG YAWN: And I don't give a shit.

See below why.

The problem is, the type profiles also include the behaviour styles for J/P and j/p and these styles are rather similar. Now someone who types J in one system suddenly becomes p in the other one and match the type descriptions in both systems as well? No such thing exists. Before you say profiles are just illustrations, sure, they are, but why such inconsistency in them?

which type profiles exactly? lets actually compare them. @Hacim also please post which type profiles sound Ne-polr for ISTJs

**Myst** · 08-19-2015, 03:51 AM

Originally Posted by ConcreteButterfly

which type profiles exactly? lets actually compare them. @Hacim also please post which type profiles sound Ne-polr for ISTJs

ok say personalitypage.com vs wikisocion.org

but all of them are really like that

**ghost of forum past** · 08-19-2015, 03:57 AM

Originally Posted by yeves

The votes on these polls made me question this table I saw reposted on this forum and some others. The polling outcomes are very different.
Does anyone know how the table below was obtained? How are there 52 INTJs who type themselves as ESTp in Socionics? They chose an Introverted, Intuitive, Judging type in MBTI and then Extraverted, Sensing, Perceiving type in Socionics. How are these results trustworthy?

If I remember correctly, those are Russian "Socionists" reading MBTI type profiles without knowing the actual type, then picking a Socionics type that they thought matched. Not people actually taking the test.

**ghost of forum past** · 08-19-2015, 03:57 AM

Originally Posted by ConcreteButterfly

You don't agree with the j/p switch then?

I really have no set opinion, contrary to my nature. By functions, it's j=P, p=J for introverts. By dichotomies, type should stay the same. In reality, people can type themselves in Socionics and still be hell-bent on their MBTI type.

I've said what I think in other threads, but I have no clear answer if that's what you're looking for. This is a silly topic anyways.

**ghost of forum past** · 08-19-2015, 04:19 AM

Let's make this more convoluted. Strap yourselves in, ladies and gentlemen.

If you compare http://www.personalitypage.com/html/ISTJ.html (ISTJ) to http://www.wikisocion.org/en/index.p...nsing_Introtim (LSI/ISTj), there's a decent resemblance, such as doing everything "by the book." Obviously the opening statements of the personalitypage description reflect the functions of SLI/ISTp, but that's the nature of MBTI. I will say that the trait of being forceful is more emphasized in the LSI description, while ISTJs are made out to be more peaceful and security-seeking. Maybe different ways of Ne-PoLR being expressed. I will also say that in my experiences SLIs and even ILIs are more likely to be "fact storehouses" because of creative Te, just as the ISTJ description describes.

If you compare http://www.personalitypage.com/html/INTJ.html (INTJ) to http://www.wikisocion.org/en/index.p...itive_Introtim (LII/INTj), the resemblance is more distant. Some traits match well, such as being idealistic and having high expectations from themselves and others, but there are many things that go against the nature of an Alpha NT, such as the emphasis on practicality and "not following ideas as far as they can" in regards to the INTJ description. Learning deeply (moreso LII) and having a plethora of interests (moreso ILE) are defining traits of Alpha NTs. With the emphasis on practicality, Te is more evident with the INTJ description.

**Myst** · 08-19-2015, 10:33 AM

Originally Posted by Hacim

Let's make this more convoluted. Strap yourselves in, ladies and gentlemen.

If you compare http://www.personalitypage.com/html/ISTJ.html (ISTJ) to http://www.wikisocion.org/en/index.p...nsing_Introtim (LSI/ISTj), there's a decent resemblance, such as doing everything "by the book." Obviously the opening statements of the personalitypage description reflect the functions of SLI/ISTp, but that's the nature of MBTI. I will say that the trait of being forceful is more emphasized in the LSI description, while ISTJs are made out to be more peaceful and security-seeking. Maybe different ways of Ne-PoLR being expressed. I will also say that in my experiences SLIs and even ILIs are more likely to be "fact storehouses" because of creative Te, just as the ISTJ description describes.

If you compare http://www.personalitypage.com/html/INTJ.html (INTJ) to http://www.wikisocion.org/en/index.p...itive_Introtim (LII/INTj), the resemblance is more distant. Some traits match well, such as being idealistic and having high expectations from themselves and others, but there are many things that go against the nature of an Alpha NT, such as the emphasis on practicality and "not following ideas as far as they can" in regards to the INTJ description. Learning deeply (moreso LII) and having a plethora of interests (moreso ILE) are defining traits of Alpha NTs. With the emphasis on practicality, Te is more evident with the INTJ description.

Lol at "woohooo fuck this"

Anyway, if you look at subtypes, LSI-Ti doesn't have that emphasis on forcefulness like LSI-Se does, also LSI-Ti is more rigid, so all that can match ISTJ better. I agree on the Te creative thing and I don't relate to that myself. In MBTI I don't have a very well fitting type, tbh.

With LII/ILI and INTJ/INTP, yeah that's quite different, it looks like really a J/P switch there for INTx, while for ISTx it's a lot more ambiguous. Though INTJ is again closer to ILI-Te than ILI-Ni, it seems.

These are clearly just stereotypes and the functions or IEs are often deduced by just using a compilation of external traits, which is a big no no.

**Skepsis** · 08-19-2015, 12:35 PM

Originally Posted by Myst

Lol at "woohooo fuck this"

Anyway, if you look at subtypes, LSI-Ti doesn't have that emphasis on forcefulness like LSI-Se does, also LSI-Ti is more rigid, so all that can match ISTJ better. I agree on the Te creative thing and I don't relate to that myself. In MBTI I don't have a very well fitting type, tbh.

With LII/ILI and INTJ/INTP, yeah that's quite different, it looks like really a J/P switch there for INTx, while for ISTx it's a lot more ambiguous. Though INTJ is again closer to ILI-Te than ILI-Ni, it seems.

These are clearly just stereotypes and the functions or IEs are often deduced by just using a compilation of external traits, which is a big no no.

ILI-Ni is not as externally rigid as ILI-Te. In MBTI, the ILI-Ni is going to appear much like an INTP, without the Ti pickiness. INTPs that identify with Ti as dominant will think an ILI-Ni is just some other type because of ILIs lack of caring about every little thing being logically sound, instead preferring to be logical about particular things of interest. ILIs are the sometimes logical type.

I can see where ILI-Ni can be caught between MBTI INTJ and INTP.

**ghost of forum past** · 08-19-2015, 04:09 PM

Originally Posted by Myst

Anyway, if you look at subtypes, LSI-Ti doesn't have that emphasis on forcefulness like LSI-Se does, also LSI-Ti is more rigid, so all that can match ISTJ better. I agree on the Te creative thing and I don't relate to that myself. In MBTI I don't have a very well fitting type, tbh.

Yeah, MBTI doesn't fit me well either. Good point about varying subtype descriptions too. I suppose you could argue that LII-Ne is closer to INTP than LII-Ti.

With LII/ILI and INTJ/INTP, yeah that's quite different, it looks like really a J/P switch there for INTx, while for ISTx it's a lot more ambiguous. Though INTJ is again closer to ILI-Te than ILI-Ni, it seems.

Yeah, seems that j/p works best (but not always) for intuitive introverts. Any EII/IEI want to add?

These are clearly just stereotypes and the functions or IEs are often deduced by just using a compilation of external traits, which is a big no no.

Welcome to MBTI.

Also, I've heard of INTPs and INTJs typing themselves ILE or LIE, on the basis that extroversion and introversion aren't defined the same across the systems.

**Myst** · 08-20-2015, 12:00 AM

Originally Posted by TJay

ILI-Ni is not as externally rigid as ILI-Te. In MBTI, the ILI-Ni is going to appear much like an INTP, without the Ti pickiness. INTPs that identify with Ti as dominant will think an ILI-Ni is just some other type because of ILIs lack of caring about every little thing being logically sound, instead preferring to be logical about particular things of interest. ILIs are the sometimes logical type.

I can see where ILI-Ni can be caught between MBTI INTJ and INTP.

Yeah.. Tho I know ILI-Ni that types INTJ just fine in MBTI.

Originally Posted by Hacim

Welcome to MBTI.

Actually I've seen MBTI fans try and go beyond that trait based aproach and Socionics fans sticking to use of traits only.

Yeah, seems that j/p works best (but not always) for intuitive introverts. Any EII/IEI want to add?

You generalize a bit fast... I know both EII and IEI typing INFP in MBTI. (The IEI isn't going by functions in MBTI, just dichotomies)

Also, I've heard of INTPs and INTJs typing themselves ILE or LIE, on the basis that extroversion and introversion aren't defined the same across the systems.

That's true, not the same definition.

**Jeremy8419** · 11-24-2015, 12:37 AM

Most of the people on PerC just say "but the function order is the same?" and go with the j/p switch. They ignore all descriptions and mechanisms from socionics, blur elements into the MBTI counterparts as explanation, and use western resources, which base their sites on j/p switch being factual, to validate it in a self-perpetuating manner. They then use such to further spread this information. The wide majority of people on there talking about Socionics on there are rarely talking about actual Socionics. Most of the time, they're really just talking about what they themselves have observed and rationalized after the assumption j/p switch is true. I usually have no idea what they are talking about, because none of it is even remotely similar to any of the major socionics schools. Combine this with the fact that PerC has a population that is split between having MBTI types based on assessments such as Type-1 or kiersey, and the other half having "MBTI types" based upon them not knowing MBTI and derping through "functional analysis" to get it... And you really just have one giant cluster **** of information that is worthless. You're better off using the article that had Socionists measure peoples identification between the two systems' descriptions.

**DaftPunk** · 11-24-2015, 12:55 AM

I think that typing by dichotomie is risky. IRL people have often 1 or 2 dichotomies who are standing out while othrs are pretty balanced. Dichotomies among people are bell curve distributed. j/p switch for introverts in socionics and mbti makes sense because IE/functions>>>dichotomies. Even though the IE/functions are different in MBTI and socionics they arent so different that they justify a complete switch.

Everyone who doesn't believe me should hang out a bit in the ISTJ subforum on PerC most of them are very Delta and not Beta at all.

**Myst** · 11-25-2015, 10:50 AM

Originally Posted by DaftPunk

I think that typing by dichotomie is risky. IRL people have often 1 or 2 dichotomies who are standing out while othrs are pretty balanced. Dichotomies among people are bell curve distributed. j/p switch for introverts in socionics and mbti makes sense because IE/functions>>>dichotomies. Even though the IE/functions are different in MBTI and socionics they arent so different that they justify a complete switch.

Everyone who doesn't believe me should hang out a bit in the ISTJ subforum on PerC most of them are very Delta and not Beta at all.

Do you find the ISTP subforum to be Beta? Ive seen a few people typing as SLIs there.

The bell curve distribution was found for the E/I dichotomy afaik. S/N as defined in MBTI seems to be different.

**Jeremy8419** · 11-30-2015, 10:39 PM

Originally Posted by Myst

Do you find the ISTP subforum to be Beta? Ive seen a few people typing as SLIs there.

The bell curve distribution was found for the E/I dichotomy afaik. S/N as defined in MBTI seems to be different.

Those forums, PC as a whole, are almost entirely Beta and Alpha, as are the moderation and policies that support such.

**DaftPunk** · 12-02-2015, 01:30 AM

Originally Posted by Myst

Do you find the ISTP subforum to be Beta? Ive seen a few people typing as SLIs there.

The bell curve distribution was found for the E/I dichotomy afaik. S/N as defined in MBTI seems to be different.

Yes I think it's pretty beta.

Most abilities/things are bell curve distributed. Why not S/N as well?

**chemical** · 12-12-2015, 06:32 AM

Let me put it this way: the commonality between socionics and MBTI holds most if you just take "functions" without function-attitudes in both.
The focuses in the IE/function-attitudes/whatever you want to call them have some legitimate differences.

But the spirit of logic/ethics and sensation/intuition seems to be quite similar to MBTI's version.

If one views the function-attitudes less as independent mental processes and more as just the combination of 2 independent scales as Jung did, e.g. viewing introverted thinking types as thinking types with a penchant for introversion, then this question doesn't arise.
But if one purports to select the most fundamental information the extraversion of a process tells you, and call that an IE of its own right (i.e. for example algorithmic/pragmatic logic and Te), all of a sudden you've introduced a lot more specificity and the potential for another system to approach the subject with another focus.

**Myst** · 12-12-2015, 02:38 PM

Originally Posted by DaftPunk

Yes I think it's pretty beta.

Most abilities/things are bell curve distributed. Why not S/N as well?

I saw MBTI stats that 75% of people are S, 25% are N. According to the MBTI tests, I guess...

**Myst** · 12-12-2015, 02:39 PM

Originally Posted by chemical

Let me put it this way: the commonality between socionics and MBTI holds most if you just take "functions" without function-attitudes in both.
The focuses in the IE/function-attitudes/whatever you want to call them have some legitimate differences.

But the spirit of logic/ethics and sensation/intuition seems to be quite similar to MBTI's version.

If one views the function-attitudes less as independent mental processes and more as just the combination of 2 independent scales as Jung did, e.g. viewing introverted thinking types as thinking types with a penchant for introversion, then this question doesn't arise.
But if one purports to select the most fundamental information the extraversion of a process tells you, and call that an IE of its own right (i.e. for example algorithmic/pragmatic logic and Te), all of a sudden you've introduced a lot more specificity and the potential for another system to approach the subject with another focus.

Why do you think it introduces more specificity? Not debating this statement but want you to elaborate on it.

**Myst** · 12-12-2015, 02:50 PM

Originally Posted by DaftPunk

Yes I think it's pretty beta.

Why? All the ISTPs that ever looked at socionics seem to type SLI

Thread: MBTI and Socionics Type Conversion Polls

Thread Tools

Display

MBTI and Socionics Type Conversion Polls

Posting Permissions