# Socionics MBTI typing differences: ISTJ&ISTj



## Boolean11 (Jun 11, 2012)

_*Behaviour based typing *_
If you type a person based on purely projected "behaviour" then with than logic somebody can see themselves as having two separate cognitive functions within the two systems. For example when someone is a traditionalist and judgmental person, then it makes sense to immediately type the person as ISTJ in MBTI and ISTj in socionics since the strong grounding in reality is a stereotypical attribute given by both models when we see a person exhibiting such behaviour. Thus the notion that MBTI and Socionics are fundamentally incompatible holds water when we view it from this lens. 

*Cognitive process typing*
However if we are to use a cognitive process out look, were we examine the "thought process" driving the perception of reality, then we realise that its impossible to type the traditionalist, judgmental policeman in both systems with opposing functions. Its either our buddy here could turn out to be either MBTI ISTJ and Socionics ISTp or contrary MBTI ISTP and Socionics ISTj. When evaluating the thought process its either we are going to find out that he either prefers to "subject" his sensing and "object" thinking or contrary prefers to subject thinking and object sensing. Which is under the obvious assumption that the guy strongly sees himself as a thinking sensor. 


With behaviour analysis, the two are theories look incompatible and it would be justified to conclude so, but if you look at the "thought process" incompatibility between Socionics and MBTI can't exist, any faults occurring from that would be just the false stereotypes originating from both systems. 


I tried to make these threads looking at the whole thought process vs behaviour when typing:


----------



## itsme45 (Jun 8, 2012)

Okay so Sensing can be Subjective in several ways *internally*... is that still the same thinking process though. What about 8 functions don't cover all our mental processes?


----------



## Boolean11 (Jun 11, 2012)

itsme45 said:


> Okay so Sensing can be Subjective in several ways *internally*... is that still the same thinking process though. What about 8 functions don't cover all our mental processes?


Somebody can't be an MBTI ISTJ and Socionics ISTj, having understood the cognitive functions as presented by Jung


----------



## itsme45 (Jun 8, 2012)

Boolean11 said:


> Somebody can't be an MBTI ISTJ and Socionics ISTj, having understood the cognitive functions as presented by Jung


But why can't the subjectivity (or objectivity) of Sensing (or Thinking) be interpreted in a different way from Jung? If we have at least one such different way then we can end up with MBTI SiTe and Socionics TiSe.


----------



## Boolean11 (Jun 11, 2012)

itsme45 said:


> But why can't the subjectivity (or objectivity) of Sensing (or Thinking) be interpreted in a different way from Jung? If we have at least one such different way then we can end up with MBTI SiTe and Socionics TiSe.


Then it means there is no objective principle,thus making the systems void. Its like comparing the principle of evolution and creationism, without an objective standard, that is just silly. The 8 functions either exist, or they don't thus making them all wrong.


----------



## AimfortheBrain (Nov 2, 2010)

Personally, I relate to ISTP in MBTI and ISTj in socionics.


----------



## Boolean11 (Jun 11, 2012)

AimfortheBrain said:


> Personally, I relate to ISTP in MBTI and ISTj in socionics.


Everyone can find something about all the types they relate to. For example in MBTI, I can relate to the INTP trait of trying to explore knowledge to its absolute limits if I want my work to be ultimately right.


----------



## itsme45 (Jun 8, 2012)

Boolean11 said:


> Then it means there is no objective principle,thus making the systems void. Its like comparing the principle of evolution and creationism, without an objective standard, that is just silly. The 8 functions either exist, or they don't thus making them all wrong.


Right, there is no objective principle, did you really think there was?


----------

