# Translating MBTI and Socionics



## Sojourn (Nov 27, 2012)

Up to this point, I have relied on MBTI's measures. But when I came across Socionics, and the divergent problem with translating between the two-due to the discrepancies of the Judging and Perceiving types. 

Hence, as an MBTI INFJ, I am a Socionics INFp. 

Does the translation mean that I am an INFP? Or that I am still an INFJ but with the title of INFp?


----------



## Zero11 (Feb 7, 2010)

S+N = Perception/Irrational
T+F = Judgment/Rational

IEI/INF*J* (Ni *Fe*) Dynamic (Time) *J*e Pi (Te, Fe, Ni, Si)
IEI/INF*p* (*Ni* Fe)
EII/INF*P* (Fi *Ne*) Static (Space) *P*e Ji (Ne, Se, Ti, Fi)
EII/INF*j* (*Fi* Ne)

Ego + Super-Id (valued functions/IEs) IEI: Ni Fe + Ti Se 
Id + Super-ego (unvalued functions/IEs) IEI: Ne Fi + Te Si 

EII: Fi Ne + Si Te
EII: Fe Ni + Se Ti



Sojourn said:


> Does the translation mean that I am an INFP? Or that I am still an INFJ but with the title of INFp?


INFP? No; Yes and so you remain a Dynamic instead of a Static type.


----------



## cyamitide (Jul 8, 2010)

Sojourn said:


> Hence, as an MBTI INFJ, I am a Socionics INFp.
> Does the translation mean that I am an INFP? Or that I am still an INFJ but with the title of INFp?


This means that you are MBTI INFJ and Socionics INFp. Looking at cognitive functions of these types, it looks like you've done everything right. INFJ is Ni-Fe type in the MBTI and INFp is Ni-Fe type in Socionics, so you are consistently Ni-Fe across both of these typologies.

Translating MBTI to Socionics is best done on basis of cognitive functions in my experience. That is, if you know that you are Si-dominant and Te-auxiliary type in MBTI, which is ISTJ, then it is very likely that you're going to be Si-dominant and Te-creative type in Socionics, which is ISTp/SLI. 

Some people argue against this saying that the cognitive functions aren't same. From my studies of socionics I can say that they are extremely similar such that many end up crossing over with the same functions.

Another caveat here is that it is quite possible that you got the wrong type in MBTI, thus if you translate it into Socionics you'll get the wrong type again. I read an MBTI publication that claimed that MBTI tests are only 70-75% accurate. This means that there are large percentage of mis-types. This is why Socionics practitioners will advise you to spend some time studying socionics, review their information elements and how they manifest in types etc. before you settle on your type instead of just assuming it is same or very similar to your MBTI type.

The reason that Introverts have their j/p letters switched around is because in Socionics these letters are assigned differently than in MBTI. In MBTI J/P stands for "Judger/Perceiver" - in Socionics j/p stands for "rational/irrational" and these aren't the same (socionics j/p letters are written in lower-case, to highlight this difference from MBTI).

On basis of cognitive functions, types translate as follows:

INFJ -- INFp, IEI
INTJ -- INTp, ILI
INFP -- INFj, EII
INTP -- INTj, LII

ISFJ -- ISFp, SEI
ISTJ -- ISTp, SLI
ISFP -- ISFj, ESI
ISTP -- ISTj, LSI

ENTP -- ENTp, ILE
ENFP -- ENFp, IEE
ENTJ -- ENTj, LIE
ENFJ -- ENFj, EIE

ESTP -- ESTp, SLE
ESFP -- ESFp, SEE
ESTJ -- ESTj, LSE
ESFJ -- ESFj, ESE


----------



## Zero11 (Feb 7, 2010)

cyamitide said:


> Another caveat here is that it is quite possible that you got the wrong type in MBTI, thus if you translate it into Socionics you'll get the wrong type again.


Regarding his Se-suggestive Profile picture and his INFp-ish posts this is nearly impossible


----------



## cyamitide (Jul 8, 2010)

Zero11 said:


> Regarding his Se-suggestive Profile picture and his INFp-ish posts this is nearly impossible


I'm saying this in general, for anyone else who might be reading this thread and not only Sojorn. He has only 3 posts and I don't know him well to know whether he has typed himself correctly.


----------



## Kanerou (Oct 8, 2009)

Sojourn said:


> Up to this point, I have relied on MBTI's measures. But when I came across Socionics, and the divergent problem with translating between the two-due to the discrepancies of the Judging and Perceiving types.
> 
> Hence, as an MBTI INFJ, I am a Socionics INFp.
> 
> Does the translation mean that I am an INFP? Or that I am still an INFJ but with the title of INFp?


It means you're INFJ in MBTI. Get to know the IM elements and types in Socionics before attempting to type yourself in that system. They don't translate and should be treated separately.


----------



## Zero11 (Feb 7, 2010)

cyamitide said:


> I'm saying this in general, for anyone else who might be reading this thread and not only Sojorn.


Ah I see it shouldn´t dismiss your answer in any way or something.



> He has only 3 posts and I don't know him well to know whether he has typed himself correctly.


I just stated my sureness :laughing:


----------



## cyamitide (Jul 8, 2010)

Zero11 said:


> Ah I see it shouldn´t dismiss your answer in any way or something.
> 
> I just stated my sureness :laughing:


all good then :happy:


----------



## Boolean11 (Jun 11, 2012)

Sojourn said:


> Up to this point, I have relied on MBTI's measures. But when I came across Socionics, and the divergent problem with translating between the two-due to the discrepancies of the Judging and Perceiving types.
> 
> Hence, as an MBTI INFJ, I am a Socionics INFp.
> 
> Does the translation mean that I am an INFP? Or that I am still an INFJ but with the title of INFp?


There are two ways to type yourself:

Output "behaviour" descriptions
The output "descriptions", based where the one's types is focused on how well you think you match to the projected behaviours the two given theories think you should have. That is the viewpoint being stated by @_Kanerou_ and many others who base their viewpoint on the fact that the descriptions for the types are not same in both theories. Which is true, the descriptions of projected behaviours are different. edit: the "functions" are the projected behaviours.

"Thought process" based typing
This is the more difficult typing method, that "ignores" the whole type descriptions output behaviour to put succinctly. The "ignore" is in quotes for a reason just in case the method begins to look ludacris initially before you make your mind out personally. Instead this second method focuses on studying the principles behind the types which goes back to Carl Jung who merely described the "types'" principles as thought processes that people have, the "subjectivity" or "objectivity" of information such as "intuition", "feeling" "sensing" and "thinking". The functions orientating typing @_cyamitide_ states, that "*undermines" output descriptions instead interpreting them as mere single sided abstractions of the dynamism of types. The principles of similarities or conversion between the types in the two systems (MBTI & Socionics), is based on leaning on similar principles shared, Carl Jung's Psychological Types and "dynamism" behind types.


----------



## Kanerou (Oct 8, 2009)

Boolean11 said:


> There are two ways to type yourself:Output "behaviour" descriptionsThe output "descriptions", based where the one's types is focused on how well you think you match to the projected behaviours the two given theories think you should have. That is the viewpoint being stated by @_Kanerou_ and many others who base their viewpoint on the fact that the descriptions for the types are not same in both theories. Which is true, the descriptions of projected behaviours are different.


It's clear from what you are saying here that you do _not_ understand my position and are merely making a shitload of assumptions about what I think based on a very small amount of information. Are you interested in actually knowing?


----------



## Boolean11 (Jun 11, 2012)

Kanerou said:


> It's clear from what you are saying here that you do _not_ understand my position and are merely making a shitload of assumptions about what I think. Are you interested in actually knowing?


What is your position?


----------



## Kanerou (Oct 8, 2009)

Boolean11 said:


> What is your position?


The JCF functions and IM elements are defined differently between systems, so there is no smooth transition. Therefore, the systems should be taken separately.

To give a personal example, I am EII in Socionics. However, I am quite likely Si-dom in JCF. I'm certainly not Fi-dom (and the two are defined quite differently anyway), nor am I Ni-dom.


----------



## Boolean11 (Jun 11, 2012)

Kanerou said:


> The JCF functions and IM elements are defined differently between systems, so there is no smooth transition.


We are lost in translation, because I know that, it might not look clear in my expression but it merely states that fact.


----------



## Kanerou (Oct 8, 2009)

Boolean11 said:


> We are lost in translation, because I know that, it might not look clear in my expression it merely states that fact.


How exactly are we "lost in translation"? You took a couple of statements on my part and constructed a view that I do not hold and did not communicate that I hold; that is my primary complaint here. I do find type descriptions helpful, but there is more to typing onself than just those, and my reasons for keeping the two separate are not what you claimed.


----------



## Boolean11 (Jun 11, 2012)

Kanerou said:


> How exactly are we "lost in translation"? You took a couple of statements on my part and constructed a view that I do not hold and did not communicate that I hold; that is my primary complaint here. I do find type descriptions helpful, but there is more to typing onself than just those, and my reasons for keeping the two separate are not what you claimed.


"Lost in translation" again I assumed it was obvious that the output descriptions were the functions, as the authors thought they'd manifest in people. Plus I thought it was a mutual assumption that both Myers and Augusta believed that the functions objectively stemming from Jung himself as in the post below to @_aestrivex_. 



Boolean11 said:


> Dude this whole crap is built on the assumption that 8 "functions" exists, there are many terms they can be referred to as and "function" is popular irrespective of whether your weltanschauung agrees with it or not. Jung had this intuitive epiphany that his patients appeared possess a common set of means to process information as thinking, feeling, sensing and intuition (in "subjective" or "objective" formats). That intuitive epiphany, or "crap", became the model for generating MBTI and Socionics profiles were the two respective authors, Myers and Augusta, tried to project output behaviours. One thing that was admitted in those projected behaviour outputs was that people were not going to fit in either one; nobody really fits into any one of the profiles, when people are convinced they do its mere rationalization (feelings) of an attachment over a given description. The problem there is that people are dynamic (its difficult to even claim any behaviour is "static") yet regardless carried over from Jung was the assertion that such dynamic ways of processing information: the "functions" thinking feeling sensing and intuition "existed" in either subjective or objective fashions.


----------



## Kanerou (Oct 8, 2009)

Boolean11 said:


> "Lost in translation" again I assumed it was obvious that the output descriptions were the functions, as the authors thought they'd manifest in people. Plus I thought it was a mutual assumption that both Myers and Augusta believed that the functions objectively stemming from Jung himself as in the post below to @_aestrivex_.


No, you are misinterpreting me. It's about more than whether the "projected behavior" is matched. Type descriptions describe common behaviors among the types, a sort of average, if you will. Not everyone will fit everything within type descriptions, even the better-written ones. What ultimately matters is whether you can identify with the underlying thought patterns driving that behavior.

There are people who say that Socionics is a system that focuses on behavior rather than cognitive processes. There are also people who say that the cognitive processes within Socionics are more important than looking at the surface behaviors while still maintaining that JCF and MBTI cannot be reconciled. This is what you seem to be missing when you try and throw us all in the same group.


----------



## Pr0metheus (Jun 23, 2012)

Socionics functions, particularly the introverted functions, really can't be ported over to MBTI. 

Meyers and Briggs really butchered several of the JCFs in order to devise a quick and easy typing system. They mixed and matched elements from certain functions into other functions to ensure the mathematical integrity of their MBTI. 

Here's a way of discovering the inconsistencies with comparing JCF to MBTI.....line up all the Dom function siblings (ex: ISTP and INTP), particularly the introverted ones, and think deeply about people you know IRL who you have typed as some of those then ponder how similar and dissimilar they are based on their common base function. Ask questions like...is an ISTP more like an INTP or ISFP? Ditto with... INTJ like INFJ or ISTJ?


----------



## Entropic (Jun 15, 2012)

Pr0metheus said:


> Socionics functions, particularly the introverted functions, really can't be ported over to MBTI.
> 
> Meyers and Briggs really butchered several of the JCFs in order to devise a quick and easy typing system. They mixed and matched elements from certain functions into other functions to ensure the mathematical integrity of their MBTI.
> 
> Here's a way of discovering the inconsistencies with comparing JCF to MBTI.....line up all the Dom function siblings (ex: ISTP and INTP), particularly the introverted ones, and think deeply about people you know IRL who you have typed as some of those then ponder how similar and dissimilar they are based on their common base function. Ask questions like...is an ISTP more like an INTP or ISFP? Ditto with... INTJ like INFJ or ISTJ?


Not entirely sure what you're getting at? To me, I see similarities and differences that separate them and to me it is obvious that an ISTP thinks differently to an INTP even though we share dominant function. There are small nuances that separate our types, definitely. Inherently an INTP might appear similar to an INFP for example, sharing aux and tert functions, and well-developed ones may even confuse themselves for each other, but at the end of the day, their way of evaluation is very different. 

The real trick question comes in when you realize that some people do not always share the absolute function preference as the model suggests e.g. as an example, I'm a person who tends to be prone to use Fi valuing more naturally despite being a Ti dom in MBTI and when I compare myself to a socionics Ti dom, I realize the difference. I do not think like they do, I'm more prone to value judgement. Nuances that make up individuals.


----------



## Boolean11 (Jun 11, 2012)

Kanerou said:


> No, you are misinterpreting me. It's about more than whether the "projected behavior" is matched. Type descriptions describe common behaviors among the types, a sort of average, if you will. Not everyone will fit everything within type descriptions, even the better-written ones. What ultimately matters is whether you can identify with the underlying thought patterns driving that behavior.
> 
> There are people who say that Socionics is a system that focuses on behavior rather than cognitive processes. There are also people who say that the cognitive processes within Socionics are more important than looking at the surface behaviors while still maintaining that JCF and MBTI cannot be reconciled. This is what you seem to be missing when you try and throw us all in the same group.


Still "lost in translation", you reverse the behaviour you see back to the 'thought process' deriving type, the "projected output" the two authors thought they'd see in the functions believed to exist. This is about the different ways in which people can type themselves based on perceiving the "functions", which have different "projected output" descriptions. Myers thought Si looked like this and Augusta thought it'd look like that.

The "functions" had they output defined differently (which you guy see as the functions) thus the conclusion of the incompatibility perception behind the functions. 

*can identify with the underlying thought patterns driving that behavior*


----------



## Kanerou (Oct 8, 2009)

Boolean11 said:


> Still "lost in translation", you reverse the behaviour you see back to the 'thought process' deriving type, the "projected output" the two authors thought they'd see in the functions believed to exist. This is about the different ways in which people can type themselves based on perceiving the "functions", which have different "projected output" descriptions. Myers thought Si looked like this and Augusta thought it'd look like that.
> 
> The "functions" had they output defined differently (which you guy see as the functions) thus the conclusion of the incompatibility perception behind the functions.
> 
> *can identify with the underlying thought patterns driving that behavior*


Whatever. I'm through trying to explain the difference to you.


----------



## Pr0metheus (Jun 23, 2012)

LeaT said:


> Not entirely sure what you're getting at?


Read Jung's original descriptions of the functions (in his own words) and you might start to comprehend what I'm getting at. 



> The real trick question comes in when you realize that some people do not always share the absolute function preference as the model suggests e.g. as an example, I'm a person who tends to be prone to use Fi valuing more naturally despite being a Ti dom in MBTI and when I compare myself to a socionics Ti dom, I realize the difference. I do not think like they do, I'm more prone to value judgement. Nuances that make up individuals.


My whole point is that the MBTI function definitions and resulting hierarchy are flawed to some degree. Ti-dom in MBTI and Ti-dom in Socionics (basically the same as Jung's Ti) are not the same thing.

Ex: MBTI Ti dominance = a mashup of JCF/Soc. Ni, Te, Ne

Here is a very abridged summary of Jung's 4 introverted functions:

Introverted Feelers - They have intense feelings and care a lot about people they know well.
Introverted Thinkers - They use their analytical thinking capabilities to support their endeavors with convincing arguments.
Introverted Intuitives - They develop grand visions. They're often seen as mystics, cranks and seers. 
Introverted Sensors - They are aesthetes and connoisseurs, endowing sensual pleasures with artistic intensity.

Hope this helps a bit.


----------



## Entropic (Jun 15, 2012)

Pr0metheus said:


> Read Jung's original descriptions of the functions (in his own words) and you might start to comprehend what I'm getting at.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


No, you didn't answer my question at all. I understand the basics of Jungian functions very well. I wanted to hear you explain with your own words what you were trying to say, not refer back to Jung. I know the differences but there's also a lot of interpretation going on and I wanted to hear you actually explain what you thought of that.


----------



## Boolean11 (Jun 11, 2012)

Kanerou said:


> Whatever. I'm through trying to explain the difference to you.


I abstract information in a different way from you, which in turn would not be surprising that I have not framed my conception of your position with your word choice.


----------



## LibertyPrime (Dec 17, 2010)

I found the following extract written by an EII. It is extreamly accurate when it comes to what I struggle with and explains a lot of things imo:



> The difference is primarily between the introverts. INFj in Socionics is Fi/Ne/Si/Te like MBTI INFP. I've been told by some that I'm Socionics INFj, and I do relate to the description. You must remember that Socionics is an entirely different system than MBTI.
> 
> In Socionics an MBTI ENFP could become INFj or stay ENFp, or even become ESFp.
> 
> ...


----------



## cyamitide (Jul 8, 2010)

Rim said:


> I found the following extract written by an EII. It is extreamly accurate when it comes to what I struggle with and explains a lot of things imo:


I don't quite follow the part where he says "Socionics is an entirely different system from MBTI". IME people who end up typing themselves into very different types across both typologies have simply misunderstood something along the way.

In Socionics, N and S are still perceiving functions while T and F are still judging functions just like they are in MBTI. When someone types themselves as Ni dominant perceiving type in MBTI and as Ti dominant judging type in Socionics, clearly they haven't grasped something about the theory and don't understand their own perceptions very well. You can't be judging and perceiving type at the same time.


----------



## LibertyPrime (Dec 17, 2010)

cyamitide said:


> I don't quite follow the part where he says "sacionics is an entirely different system from MBTI". IME people who end up typing themselves into very different types across both typologies have simply misunderstood something along the way.


Hmm I typed myself IEE after 2 years and it seems to confirm someone's initial idea about me. The thing is from a dichotomy perspective I have more introverted behaviours then extroverted ones and initially I typed myself INFP as I came to the MBTI 2 years ago. The immediate next question on my mind was "Am I just an ENFP with social phobia?".

My problem with ENFP was that I completely relate to it minus how social the type is depicted as. IEE on the other hand makes it work much better imo. So if I'm IEE in socionics, that means ENFP in the MBTI and NOT INFP.

This is why I'd call myself a functional extrovert. This also explains why I have to write and talk stuff out to understand myself, why I braindump and why I'm NOT HSP...like other INFPs. I come home pumped full of energy from work...and get depressed at home/ lose momentum and energy cus I'm alone most of the time imo.


----------



## cyamitide (Jul 8, 2010)

Rim said:


> Hmm I typed myself IEE after 2 years and it seems to confirm someone's initial idea about me. The thing is from a dichotomy perspective I have more introverted behaviours then extroverted ones and initially I typed myself INFP as I cama to the MBTI 2 years ago. The immediate next question on my mind was "Am I just an ENFP with social phobia?".
> 
> My problem with ENFP was that I completely relate to it minus how social the type is depicted as. IEE on the other hand makes it work much better imo. So if I'm IEE in socionics, that means ENFP in the MBTI and NOT INFP.
> 
> This is why I'd call myself a functional extrovert. This also explains why I have to write and talk stuff out to understand myself, why i braindump and why I'm NOT HSP...like other INFPs.


Your signature says "sx/sp" which is going to cut down on number of social behaviors. EJs and EPs who are sp and sx and lack in so usually seem introverted and out of touch with others.


----------



## Kirsanov (Jul 30, 2012)

Since I have many conflicting issues with my type through MBTI. I decided to take an extended Socionics test, these are my results:
*Your Sociotype: ILE-0 (ENTp)*

*Brief Description of the ILE*

Using extroverted intuition as her base function and introverted thinking as her creative, the ILE is adept at generating a thousand solutions for the same problem. Unlike the LII who is bound by the rules he follows, the ILE sees these same rules as flexible and enabling--they can be altered and adjusted to enable every new idea the ILE conceives. In fact, the rules are often completely rewritten for every new idea the ILE has. At her best, the ILE is capable of learning complex and abstract concepts faster than almost any other sociotype and building off this knowledge to create a multitude of theories and ideas. At her worst, the ILE is often so inundated by new thoughts that actualizing one singular idea to fruition can be difficult. And although the ILE is good at understanding more abstract phenomena, the ILE often struggles understanding the more nuanced societal norms of interaction, which can cause her to be unsure of the appropriate action when socializing. Learn more about the ILE here!*Other Possible Types*



LII (INTj): 97% as likely as ILE.
ILI (INTp): 80% as likely as ILE.
LIE (ENTj): 73% as likely as ILE.
*Sociotype Characteristics*


Small GroupsFirst Tier DichotomiesSecond Tier DichotomiesThird Tier DichotomiesFourth Tier Dichotomies

Quadra: Alpha
Club: Researcher
Temperament: EP
Romance Styles:
Primary: Infantile
Secondary: Aggressor



Extrovert
Intuitive
Logical
Irrational (Perceiving)


Static
Yielding
Democratic
Tactical
Constructivist
Carefree


Merry
Judicious
Positivist
Process


Asking



*Model A Function Strengths and Values*


YouIdeal DualFunctionInformation ElementRelative StrengthRelative ValueInformation ElementRelative StrengthRelative Value

Leading
Creative
Role
Vulnerable

Suggestive
Mobilizing
Ignoring
Demonstrative
Ne
Ti
Se
Fi

Si
Fe
Ni
Te38%
37%
12%
13%

12%
13%
38%
37%38%
37%
12%
13%

38%
37%
12%
13%Si
Fe
Ni
Te

Ne
Ti
Se
Fi38%
37%
12%
13%

12%
13%
38%
37%38%
37%
12%
13%

38%
37%
12%
13%



OR

LIE-0 100%
ILI 97%
ILE 93%
LII 83%

The LIE-0 results are from a few days ago. If any of you guys would like to help me figure out my functions then I have a thread over in another forum that is still open. http://personalitycafe.com/whats-my-personality-type/126109-type-confusion.html


----------

