# Differences between an ISTP in MBTI and an ISTp in Socionics??



## Eliza. Peace to you.

What are the essential difference between ISTP-MBTI and ISTp-Socionics?? And why is the "p" small in the latter? Can anyone please explain? Thanks.

If this has already been discussed, I would appreciate a link (my search came up empty).

I am an ENFP, seeking to understand an ISTP...


----------



## Erbse

ISTp has a completely different function setup from MBTI ISTP.

ISTp would translate into MBTI ISTJ, while ISTP MBTI would translate into ISTj. At least if you care to stick with Jung's cognitive functions.


----------



## Eliza. Peace to you.

Erbse said:


> ISTp has a completely different function setup from MBTI ISTP.
> 
> ISTp would translate into MBTI ISTJ, while ISTP MBTI would translate into ISTj. At least if you care to stick with Jung's cognitive functions.


Sorry, not following! My fault. Can you spell it out a bit more for me? What is: _"different function setup"_? Which functions, for an ISTP? - are you talking about P and J? How can they be switched? 

Do you see yourself as an ISTJ in Socionics?? But - do you have a moustache?? LOL.

Both the ISTP and the ISTp sound exactly like my ISTP freind. Though I think this fits him, from "J" of Socionics: " *plan work ahead and tend to finish it*" _[eventually]_ and "*do not like to change their decisions*" _[in matters concerning is self-identity]._ But this is an ISTP trait in both systems! In every _other_ way, he is a "p". "j", according to Socionics, is supposed to be quite orderly at home. My ISTp has always been messy, has various projects going at once, takes time for his preferred activities, etc., like an ISTp. He also fits the ISTp physical description better than the ISTj. Naturally athletic, like an ISTp. 

Also my Dad was an ISTP and also my favorite brother. And all three, to me, seem to be ISTP/ISTp. All are naturally athletic, too. And somewhat messy in their own ways... And my friend and my brother are much more free spirits, desiring to blaze their own paths, than conformists (what seems to be an ISTj). 

So what I have is what I observe and perceive in my ISTP's. You understand the theory apparently, but it doesn't go with what I see. How do I reconcile this?


----------



## Eliza. Peace to you.

Ohmigosh, and I am seriously interested in this topic now. Because I just checked the Socionics relationship chart. My ISTp, whom I am so very attached to - if he is an ISTj, as you imply, ohmigosh, that means we are _not _"Duals" - the very _best_ relationship there is, but "Conflicting" - the very _worst_!!! 

So - what a question - are we the very best or worst of the 16 types?? Okay, so I need to understand this. I watch my sister-in-law in her painful conflicting relationship - she is INFJ, he, ESTP, and what a drawn-out, painful-for-both Conflicting relationship they have. 

I have known my ISTP[p?] for years through our long correspondence. I just cannot imagine a conflicting relationship with him. He knows me so well, and accepts me. I know he is different from me in his whole approach to life, and I love the difference. I always feel peace when interacting with him. Its one of the things that draws me. Also, relations with my father and brother were always peaceful, they also seem ISTP/ISTp... Also, the Duality description sure fits what we seem to be have now and are headed for...

I know there are are blissful ISTP/ENFP relationships here on the forum - maybe they will post...

Also,I have seen ENFJ/ISTP relationships mentioned. That would also be _either_ "Conflicting" (the worst) or "Duality" (the best), depending on whether you are calling the ISTp an ISTp or and ISTj!

_[in Socionics, "Conflicting" relationships, by the way, start out okay, promising, optimistic but the conflicts, same ones, get worse and worse and worse until the end of the relationship brings great relief to both parties. "Dualities" are harder to start because of the personality differences, like breaking in a new car. But once past the hardest first stage, each stage gets much easier, the relationship, peaceful for both, is almost conflict-free, and pretty much unbreakable!]._


----------



## BlueG

ISTP Relationships

ISTJ Relationships


----------



## Tofu99

Alright so ISTP=ISTj and ISTJ=ISTp according to the functions. However I find ISTp closer to myself than ISTj. I have a strong dislike for socionics, as it tries to define a type's style and physical characteristics. And that just doesn't work. Not reliably enough to be used as evidence. Also, who cares what a site says about your relationship dynamic? Does it work? Then you're fine. Nothing else matters. 

TL;DR: I hate socionics. MBTI seems far more accurate to me.

EDIT2: http://www.socionics.com/articles/howto.htm


----------



## MuChApArAdOx

> If this has already been discussed, I would appreciate a link (my search came up empty).


They're are two entirely different theories. If you try and combine them together, it only makes a complete mess of things. My suggestion would be to stick with one or the other. If you don't , you will only either 1) confuse yourself and others 2) use examples that will either relate with 1 or the other. I've seen it happen here too many times. Some people will use examples to their advantage, depending on what they want to hear. Personally i don't think MBTI forums is the place to talk about another theory. Its messy confusing and many don't even agree with it. You may or may not get positive responses due to what some believe or not. You could research on your own time, but i don't see the advantages trying to have it makes sense in a MBTI forum.


----------



## Eliza. Peace to you.

BlueGiraffe said:


> ISTP Relationships
> 
> ISTJ Relationships


Thanks. I am seeing ISTP there, very strongly. He is strong and set in his personal viewpoints but tolerant of others. The only "J" thing in that link that is him is "very capable and efficient at most things which they endeavor"  So true of him!

But I also see ISTp in Socionics. [he had his wild side as a youth like "p" vs. model of conformity of model like a "j"], and does not seem concerned with "winning" others to his viewpoints all the time as the "j" does. 

So, Blue Giraffe, so you see yourself in the physical and type descriptions in Socionics as _ISTp_ or ISTj??


----------



## BlueG

@Eliza. Peace to you.

I linked to MBTI pages, not Socionics

As far as your questions, let's try something. You pull out quotes about both types and I'll tell you if it fits me or not. Don't include which type it is in the post, but remember which one is which. You'll get an unbiased opinion then.


----------



## Eliza. Peace to you.

BlueGiraffe said:


> @Eliza. Peace to you.
> 
> I linked to MBTI pages, not Socionics
> 
> As far as your questions, let's try something. You pull out quotes about both types and I'll tell you if it fits me or not. Don't include which type it is in the post, but remember which one is which. You'll get an unbiased opinion then.


And you are such an ISTP! Excellent economy of effort! Okay, I am working on the quiz.


----------



## Eliza. Peace to you.

*Quiz for all willing Meyers- Briggs ISTPs!!!*

It has been proposed that MBTI's ISTP is _not_ an ISTp in Socionics, but instead, an ISTj. 

I am guessing not, though I am no authority having not made a comparative study of the two. Though, ENFP intuition can be pretty good!

So which is it? We may not solve the question here, but it would be great to get your personal ISTP opinion. So Blue Giraffe suggested a quiz, so here it is for her. And I would love it if anyone else wanted to take the time to take the quiz. I think the results would be interesting! I will let you know your scores.... Relax, have a beer, and tell us your gut response to the following 11 "A or B" questions...
________________________________________________________________
*
Appearance*:

*1 A*). ISTx's normally have a very characteristic passionless facial expression, indeed their whole appearance shows a lack of emotion which may be interpreted as calmness, mystery or inaccessibility. Some ISTxs hide their lack of emotion behind the slightly artificial smile of a person who is seeking sensible pleasures. Their facial expressions often show skepticism or mistrust. Their faces are usually oval in shape and get more narrow towards the bottom, however more square faces are not rare. 
*
1 B*).. Their necks appear to be inflexible so when they turn their head their shoulders usually follow. Their facial expressions are somewhat unemotional and show great concentration. 
_________________________________

*2 A*) Their mouth line is often calm, straight and turned slightly downwards at the corners. ISTxs have a characteristic one sided smile which when combined with their skepticism can sometimes be interpreted as self-satisfaction. Their teeth are often of equal width and their mouth is usually kept tightly shut even when relaxed


*2 B*) They keep their feet rooted to the ground giving the impression that they are sturdy and secure. Their heads are firmly fixed squarely to their shoulders and are practically immovable. Their necks appear to be inflexible so when they turn their head their shoulders usually follow
_________________________________


*3 A*) Their clothes are often clean, ironed and tidy. They follow strict styles, never being too flashy or extravagant. It is as if military uniforms were designed specifically for ISTxs. They take great care of their appearance and may criticize people who do not. 

*3 B*) ISTxs prefer informal or sporty style clothes which look more comfortable than aesthetic. Clothes usually fit ISTxs well.

_________________________________


*4 A*) ISTxs walk with their hands down by their sides. Their arms hardly seem to move at all and it can appear that their elbows have no joints. Their gait is usually even and rhythmical however from time to time ISTxs can turn sharply and unexpectedly, changing their course without warning. 

*4 B*) ISTxs also have a characteristic springy gait with the knees slightly bent giving them a characteristic surreptitious walk. In many cases ISTxs have athletic physical structures. 

________________________________
*
5 A*) ISTxs are quite skeptical in their evaluations and even more stubborn in their opinions. Often even before the conversation has begun, ISTxs opinion is already firm and non-negotiable. Debates with ISTxs can go on forever. Even if ISTxs seem to agree with you, their opinion is unlikely to alter.
*
5 B*) When in conversation, ISTxs often utilize common expressions and sayings and may sometimes be excessively instructive and edifying. This can be annoying to others. ISTxs like posters, placards, bills and the other printed propaganda. When they in informal surroundings they are often inclined to talk about subjects related to philosophy or morality. They may show an interest in religion, mysticism and predictions. ISTxs are always ready to share their knowledge with others and readily give people advice based on their own experiences. 

________________________________

*SOCIALLY:*

*6 A*) Many ISTxs find it quite easy to interact with strangers and considering that they are introverts can feel quite close to someone even after a relatively short amount of contact. They often have a large compendium of jokes and anecdotes. Males often use this arsenal to charm females, usually behaving very gallantly, successfully playing role of the gentleman. They are often the life and soul of the party. They enjoy singing with little more than a guitar for accompaniment and often in a romantic style. 

*6 B*) ISTxs never share their feelings with people they do not know well and will hardly ever share them with their friends. They try to avoid people who make too much effort to get inside their emotional world. They appreciate a spiritual balance very much and therefore they can be interested in all sorts of meditations, etc. Generally ISTxs do not like shaking hands, hugging and similar forms of greeting. When outside their territory, ISTxs may openly ignore people that they have met before. 

__________________________________


*7 A*) ISTxs have their own convictions that they will usually follow, even if they are different from common norms and moralities. This may give the impression that ISTxs are not interested in other peoples opinions of them. ISTxs also have a great deal of persistence which probably comes from their stubbornness giving them a reputation as obstinate, rebellious people and even delinquents when young. 

*7 B*) As children ISTxs are very often obedient, docile, responsible and respectful. For this reason they are often used by adults as examples to other children. This will often lead them to take positions of responsibility while still at school. ISTxs adapt well to positions of power and are very dutiful. When in power they show good administrative and organization skills. They demand the exact fulfillment of their orders and are uncompromising in these matters. They usually maintain strong discipline inside organizations. They like and respect authority and always obey subordination.

___________________________________


*8 A *) ISTxs demand complete independence. They only allow people to get close up to a certain point, where they are still out of the range from outside influence. ISTxs value their friends and friendships very much. ISTxs actively seek excitement and thrive on the rush of adrenaline. 
*
8 B* ) ISTxs like to collect reference material, encyclopedias and dictionaries. They will never admit that they do not know something within the field of their activity. When they buy new appliances they always read the manual before using them even if the operations are obvious. At home they regimented in an almost military fashion. Every item has it's own specific place and they look after and take care of all their things. ISTxs can become very irritated and angry if somebody changes or interrupts this specific order or treats their possessions improperly.

____________________________________

*9 A* ) When in conversation, ISTxs often utilize common expressions and sayings and may sometimes be excessively instructive and edifying. This can be annoying to others. ISTxs like posters, placards, bills and the other printed propaganda. When they in informal surroundings they are often inclined to talk about subjects related to philosophy or morality. They may show an interest in religion, mysticism and predictions. ISTxs are always ready to share their knowledge with others and readily give people advice based on their own experiences. 

*9 B* ) ISTxs have difficulty in controlling their emotions. When they do loose control, they may become biting, rough and excited, raising their voice and gesticulating fervently. ISTxs also like consonant sounds which can make their speech slightly rough and resonant. 

_____________________________________


*Which positive are you?*
*10 A* ) You are excellent at the detailed, meticulous and careful study of any situation. You are a disciplined and responsible person and do not like to waste your words. You aspire to have everything ordered and well organized both at home and at work. You have respect for authority and feel perfectly comfortable obeying established norms and rules. You do not like any form of disorganization and irresponsibility. You are persistent and persevering when working towards your goals. You know well how to practically utilize reference material. You are a good administrator and always make sure that your instructions and plans are carried out to your specifications. You do not compromise when it comes to fulfilling your duties. You can impose discipline on to others especially those who do not fulfill their duties. 

*10 B *) The strongest element of your personality is an inexhaustible curiosity towards the phenomena of the surrounding world. You are interested in adventure, tourism, the juxtaposition of cultures and the study of nature and architecture. Your fundamental need is comfort, both in material and physical areas. You aspire to a harmonious, peaceful and healthy style of life. You also have a well-developed aesthetic taste. You have a good business sense. You usually only undertake projects that you feel will be beneficial to you in a material sense and you stay away from unprofitable ventures. You can work very hard to achieve your goal. Your method of working is purposeful, steady and with attention to details. You plan every detail of your work beforehand and prepare all necessary items before, often showing inventiveness and practicality.

_____________________________________


*Which negative are you?
11 A* ) You possess a great deal of skepticism, which stems from your own experiences. This manifests itself in a pessimistic view towards your future. It often causes depression and despondency and leads to apathy, both in your personal and professional life. Your weakness is an inability to show your real feelings to others and because of this others may think that you are a cold and indifferent person. You try to deal with your problems alone. You can be very sensitive to the lack of positive emotions, rude behavior or tactlessness towards you. 
*
11 B *) You often have difficulties in maintaining even, stable relations with people. You are given to sudden, rough changes in attitude, one moment being kind and delicate, the next being tactless and pushy. You also have a tendency to appear unrestrained and even rough when in the company of people you know well. Sometimes you can be obtrusive with your problems. You often lack confidence in situations that require the breaking of old methods, especially if there is no clear proof of the reliability of the new method. You can be suspicious to new ideas and propositions that may require an alternative way of dealing with things. In these cases you can become confused, overwhelmed and disorientated.


----------



## reletative

Socionics uses different definitions of the functions! dont try to combine them. 



ALSO dont base your relationship on a personality theory. If you love each other, and want to stay together, you'll work things out.


----------



## BlueG

A
A
B
B 
A

B
A
A
Hmm, mostly B. I agree with A: "ISTxs are always ready to share their knowledge with others and readily give people advice based on their own experiences. " B: "When they do loose control, they may become biting, rough and excited, raising their voice and gesticulating fervently. ISTxs also like consonant sounds which can make their speech slightly rough and resonant."

More A. I only agree with "You are excellent at the detailed, meticulous and careful study of any situation. You are a disciplined and responsible person and do not like to waste your words. You are a good administrator and always make sure that your instructions and plans are carried out to your specifications. You can impose discipline on to others especially those who do not fulfill their duties." on A however. 

A but not so much "You can be very sensitive to the lack of positive emotions, rude behavior or tactlessness towards you. "


----------



## Eliza. Peace to you.

Thanks Blue Giraffe! According to this Socionics quiz, you are an ISTp! You got 10 out of 11 "'p's". The "J" was a bigger question below, but you wavered slightly on that. I will PM you which one was "j"!

The ISTp I am devoted to is clearly p on all of these, many particularly so. 

If anyone else would take the quiz, that would be awesome! Please do!! 

Bonus question for guys: do you have a mustache??


----------



## Eliza. Peace to you.

Khys said:


> Socionics uses different definitions of the functions! dont try to combine them.


Thanks, it will be interesting to learn later what the differences are. Or if anyone wants to post a synopsis here, that would be really helpful. 

Right now I am very focused on seeing if the proposal that P = j in Socionics holds up right here at this forum. 




Khys said:


> ALSO don't base your relationship on a personality theory. If you love each other, and want to stay together, you'll work things out.


 So true! Yes, my interest is intense because my feelings came on intense and fast, and, somehow, my ISTP is not as explicitly expressive with his feelings as I am (but he has expressed them, quite beautifully, with _great_ economy...) and we are at a distance. And I wonder about the future... But yes, it is better to exist in the here and now. And yes I will judge the relationship on what is, not what is theory. But thanks for the reminder!


----------



## reletative

Eliza. Peace to you. said:


> Thanks, it will be interesting to learn later what the differences are. Or if anyone wants to post an synopsis here, that would be really helpful.
> 
> Right now I am very focused on seeing if the proposal that P = j in Socionics holds up right here at this forum.
> 
> 
> So true! Yes, my interest is intense because my feelings came on intense and fast, and, somehow, my ISTP is not as explicitly expressive with his feelings as I am (but he has expressed them, quite beautifully, with _great_ economy...) and we are at a distance. And I wonder about the future... But yes, it is better to exist in the here and now. And yes I will judge the relationship on what is, not what is theory. But thanks for the reminder!


You did an excellent job at not being offended at my blunt speech. You two will be fine.

Also, see these threads:
http://personalitycafe.com/istp-forum-mechanics/58136-istp-compatibility-listings-percentages.html
http://personalitycafe.com/istp-articles/22239-istp-you.html


----------



## Eliza. Peace to you.

Hey, thanks Khys! ♥ Love the vote of confidence! Means a lot.

Must surrender the computer to my teen. I'll look at the links later...


----------



## AtomicSL210

Khys said:


> Socionics uses different definitions of the functions! dont try to combine them.


I'm no expert but my view has always been ISTP=ISTp. Like you said the functions are just defined very differently. Either way I prefer mbti.


----------



## Linnifae

Socionics relationship compabiltiies sure don't fit me and my husband. If I go with the ISTp/ENFp compatibility we're duality (practically perfection, supposedly) and if I assume he's an ISTj (which the description doesn't fit him at ALL) we're supposed to be mortal enemies. Neither is true. We're a couple who love each other and work hard.


----------



## Eliza. Peace to you.

AtomicSL210 said:


> I'm no expert but my view has always been ISTP=ISTp. Like you said the functions are just defined very differently. Either way I prefer mbti.


Thanks, Atomic! That makes 3 out of 3!


----------



## Eliza. Peace to you.

CKTofu said:


> However I find ISTp closer to myself than ISTj.


 Okay, then, you are among the 3 of 3 so far that are ISTP/ISTp.




CKTofu said:


> I have a strong dislike for socionics, as it tries to define a type's style and physical characteristics. And that just doesn't work. Not reliably enough to be used as evidence. Also, who cares what a site says about your relationship dynamic? Does it work? Then you're fine. Nothing else matters.
> 
> TL;DR: I hate socionics. MBTI seems far more accurate to me.


 Yes, I like MBTI too. Not trying to persuade you out of your opinion, but as to physical characteristics, there is a page from the Russian site that has pages with pics of people together of the same type. There is a common thread, IMO, as far as looks. Its a another way to group people by looks, like you might group people by nationality. 

And I looked at some of the ISTP videos today, and omigosh, there is a certainly a common, distinctly attractive charm and comfortableness with self that reminds me of my ISTP and also I can see it also in my brother who is ISTP. And you girls have a nice quiet unaffected directness about you. Not every guy likes bouncy! And in all of you, there is evidence of depth, a confidence about who you are. And that's appealing. So you ISTPs are an appealing type! 

Of the four of us growing up, (I had 3 brothers) my ISTP brother was always the first and fastest to learn any new things we did. Ice skating, for example, or skipping stones, climbing trees, soft ball, first one to swim to a floating dock or swing from a rope into the water , or just winning things at the Fireman's Carnival - he could do it the best! (Me, the worst; they were always chiding or coercing me to try things; I'd be terrified and they'd be_ "All__ you have to do is___! "_ and then _"Geesh!"_ at my attempts..). He could even save his chocolate bunny the longest! I remember staying up into the night to talk about the stars and what was in the universe with him. Well then the girls started calling him - starting in elementary school! He always kind of long-term serial dated, one in junior high, one in high school, then later the one he married. It was always a good, comfortable relationship, with good intimacy. He had long breaks in between; he was fine alone. There were always interested girls. Though he spurned those who just hung on ga-ga. He liked a little substance and independence ... Also, Mom once said he had the highest I/Q. of the four of us. But he was the only one who didn't go to college. He made his own way, and did well. 

My ISTP, object of my affection, must have an excellent I.Q. I can't believe the things he can do. He can probably build a house from scratch, from the trees probably, and do all the wiring and plumbing too. Pretty much anything. He is so cool.  And his hands. Sigh. Such manly, strong, sensitive hands..


----------



## Eliza. Peace to you.

MuChApArAdOx said:


> They're are two entirely different theories. If you try and combine them together, it only makes a complete mess of things. My suggestion would be to stick with one or the other. If you don't , you will only either 1) confuse yourself and others


 Sorry Much-a-paradox, I didn't mean to ignore this. At least once, I did know MBTI inside out and upside down. I can type people pretty well. I am the only NF in my family full of STs. My ex was an SJ. Nobody ever "got" me. So the whole MBTI helped me make sense of my world. And all kinds of other theories. And I can also talk a lot about various Christian faith practices, probably most of them. There just seems to be a lot of room in my head for theories! And somehow its not too messy in there. So I get confident I can keep adding things. 

Socionics is all new to me in these past weeks. Never saw it before. I do prefer MBTI, too, but the whole Socionics relationship thing intrigues me. I can look back and see my own relationships, my marriage, my parents, friends, and it all fits (since I know everyone's type, I look it up on the chart there, and so far, all the relationship types fit to a "T"..) And my friends marriages. I know my sis-in-law's "Conflicting" relationship well. So painful! It follows the "Conflicting" description EXACTLY. 

And I can see my "ex" moved up the relationship ladder, from the 2nd worst (us) to more in the middle... Good for him. He has a woman in charge now and it works for him. (and with his personality disorder a move up the rung in relationship types has to be a benefit). The other way around, with him firmly in charge, as per the Christian tradition we adhered to at the time, did neither of us good... However, even though we had the 2nd worse type, [he was Benefactor] I still think it could have worked if both were healthy. He was abusive, I was co-dependently supportive. We both just got worse. Had I been stronger and he saner, I think it could have worked. But I wasn't strong and he wasn't sane. And all the priests said (when I inquired at the end) "That's not a marriage."...

So certainly the Socionic Relationship Theory is far more extensive, more studied, researched, analyzed and written about extensively (mostly in Russian! But they can really research there! But, no, I don't know Russian..) than what MBTI has to say about relationships. There is a vast difference in the amount and extent of research between the two, as far as the relationship aspect. 




MuChApArAdOx said:


> 2) use examples that will either relate with 1 or the other. I've seen it happen here too many times. Some people will use examples to their advantage, depending on what they want to hear. Personally i don't think MBTI forums is the place to talk about another theory. Its messy confusing and many don't even agree with it. You may or may not get positive responses due to what some believe or not. You could research on your own time, but i don't see the advantages trying to have it makes sense in a MBTI forum.


 So true! I certainly have been guilty of using examples to my advantage - I will sku the evidence to fit my preconceived notion. Yes, I have done that. Trying real hard not to do that here. But this thread and reading closer on Socionics ISTp/j, I am getting confident that my ISTP is an ISTp for certain, even though I have good reason for bias...

Not really wanting to research the whole theory of Socionics. I just wondered bout the P and p, not wanting really to study the whole systems at this time. It is really interesting to get the opinions of the ISTPs here.

Ohmigosh, this is probably a wall of words and I will bore all the ISTPs in their own forum...

___________________________

But I am editing to add:
P.S. Its been a long road of difficult relationships for me my whole life and I have been faithful to them, particularly my very difficult husband, and including my difficult mother, whom I take care of now. I have been lonely, too, but have trusted God to take care of that for me. Now its like seeing the light at the end of the tunnel, and to think that maybe He has for me ahead this peaceful, easy Dual relationship. And my ISTP deserves it too. A very long road its been for him, too, in his own different way... We both could really use "easy". We have both done "hard" a long, long time...


----------



## Eliza. Peace to you.

Linnifae said:


> Socionics relationship compatibilities sure don't fit me and my husband. If I go with the ISTp/ENFp compatibility we're duality (practically perfection, supposedly) and if I assume he's an ISTj (which the description doesn't fit him at ALL) we're supposed to be mortal enemies. Neither is true. We're a couple who love each other and work hard.


I was hoping to hear from an ISTp/EnFp! Well the two, Dual and Conflicting relationships, take two different paths. The Conflicting start out promising, and the couple looks special and talented., but problems crop up later. The first stage of a Dual relationship is the hardest, like breaking in a new car. Each next stage is way easier than the one before it. Its almost conflict free, and becomes "unbreakable". The two _make each other peaceful_. I like this: 

_"*7.* *The leveling of dual energy. *This phenomenon appears almost immediately. The duals should just to be together, just to sit close by, sometimes even without touching each other. The maximum term for leveling of dual energy – 40 minutes (it is a result of investigation) and after that duals renew their energy. It does not depend on the depth of the “energy hole”._

Fascinating. I can't wait to see how that works with my ISTp next I see him. :0 That's from this article: Experiencing Dual Relations Oh, wow, I can link now.

Conflicting - it may not be as bad as the worst. Not according to this article: www.socionika.com/experiencing_dual_relations.html , "The Strength of Relationships". That one puts Conflicting at 10 out of 16. But as many have pointed out here, and you yourself, there is more to a relationship than theory. There can be much happier Conflicting relationships than Dual relationships when both partners of the Conflicting are of _good will _and _sane mind_. For Duals, they need initial attraction/chemistry in order to connect and they need to share common interests, otherwise they can drift apart... So, its true what you say - its not all theory..


----------



## Erbse

Eliza. Peace to you. said:


> Sorry, not following! My fault. Can you spell it out a bit more for me? What is: _"different function setup"_? Which functions, for an ISTP? - are you talking about P and J? How can they be switched?


Your knowledge of MBTI is far too limited to be even attempting to mix it with socionics, as you do not yet know that the MBTI letter code merely describes the cognitive functions at work.

I however don't have the spare time to introduce you, as it's rather complex inevitably.

Anyway, don't think just because a website tells you you're oh-so-made for each other that everything will be Unicorns and sunshine, as in fact it won't be. Many ENFP's have quit their ISTP relationships.



AtomicSL210 said:


> I'm no expert but my view has always been ISTP=ISTp. Like you said the functions are just defined very differently. Either way I prefer mbti.


Here's the issue, though. I heavily identify with Ti as Jung himself described 'The introverted thinker' with all its perks and downs. Thus I *am* Ti dominant. If socionics chooses different function setups for types, yet claims to be rely on Jung and even uses the same cognitive function letters I thus *have to* be Ti dom in socionics as well or socionics doesn't build up on Jung's original descriptions at all.

Meaning ISTPs will either be ISTj oder INTj in socionics, as they're the two Ti dominated types if I'm not mistaken.


----------



## Eliza. Peace to you.

Erbse said:


> Your knowledge of MBTI is far too limited to be even attempting to mix it with socionics, as you do not yet know that the MBTI letter code merely describes the cognitive functions at work.


 I get a lot of it, I really do. I have a vast _general_ knowledge. I am sure you know more, and can communicate it better than I. I just get it, but I lack a lot.. I mean, yes, you can't quiz me on just any definition! You are right!



Erbse said:


> I however don't have the spare time to introduce you, as it's rather complex inevitably.


 I believe it!



Erbse said:


> Anyway, don't think just because a website tells you you're oh-so-made for each other that everything will be Unicorns and sunshine, as in fact it won't be. Many ENFP's have quit their ISTP relationships.


 Yikes, yes, true. A lot to work out in the first stages is what they say and I can see that. Unicorns and sunshine, LOL. Yes, I have sunshine stuck in my head at the moment, busting out of my heart.. Thank you for the good dose of ISTP reality, Erbse, we ENFPs tend to need that.

My lawyer must have been an ISTP... One day I kept saying, _"I can't believe this is happening. I can't believe this is happening"_. And he suddenly pounded his big desk, and boomed,_ "Well it IS happening, so you'd BETTER believe it!"_ ...It was a needed lesson. Got me back on the reality track...

Hey Erbse, would you take my 11 Q quiz??? Please?


----------



## alionsroar

I find http://wikisocion.org/en/index.php?title=Classical_socionics okay as a reference site. Socionics.com is pretty much in my bad books except for their easy to use relationship chart tool.

My stance is that while MBTI/Keirsey/Lenore Thomson/Beebe etc personality types and Socionics are all based on interpretations of Jung's work, they aren't really what he meant, and depart from his work. And there is not a one to one correlation between Socionics and MBTI. 

I've been looking at this left and right over the last week or so, and quite think I may be a socionics INTp. I suppose ISTp is the other alternative, but I can't seem to see how that can fit. Or I might have botched the whole thing and actually value socionics Ti/Fe instead of Te/Fi and be an IXTj type but I'm just not feeling it since Fe pretty much kills me, although I have noticed a number of ISTPs here quite like a sort of emotional expression.

Also I don't believe in all MBTI ENFPs being Socionic ENFps. Some might well be a type that values Fe and get annoyed at an ISTP mate that does not value Fe.


----------



## Kadjunga

Couldnt be bothered to read all of it.

In essence, the functions are different in socionics and mbti but the overall result is the same for istp-s. If you go straight from function to function transference you get a different type instead. The theories ARE NOT to be mingled and as mucha said, choose one and stick to it. The more you cross-breed the theories the more confused you will get.

ISTP very often is an ISTp in socionics.


----------



## Crafter79

According to the relationship chart , my wife and I have 12,5%. We celebrated 11 years together today and I can honestly say it's the best relationship I've ever had. We hardly ever have conflicts and the times we do, it's my fault most of the time for being insensitive.


----------



## AtomicSL210

I haven't found the descriptions for the other functions but socionics description for Si seems closer to MBTI Se and it's Se seems more like Mbti Si. I suspect this is also true of the thinking functions but not of the others. It's like socionics redefined some functions. Also the description of ISTp matchs closer to Mbti ISTP then ISTj. Still I don't think these systems should be mixed. 


On a side note why do some of you put so much weight to this type pairing thing? If you like the person date them. If it works out great, if not fuck it. There is much more to a successful relationship then just type. It's usefull at times (in a relationship) but don't base the relationship on it.


----------



## Eliza. Peace to you.

Erbse said:


> Here's the issue, though. I heavily identify with Ti as Jung himself described 'The introverted thinker' with all its perks and downs. Thus I *am* Ti dominant. If socionics chooses different function setups for types, yet claims to be rely on Jung and even uses the same cognitive function letters I thus *have to* be Ti dom in socionics as well or socionics doesn't build up on Jung's original descriptions at all.
> 
> Meaning ISTPs will either be ISTj oder INTj in socionics, as they're the two Ti dominated types if I'm not mistaken.


Hi Erbse, I don't know how I completely missed this part of your post. Interesting. I can see your understanding of the theories is much deeper than mine. Due to your high-fucntioning Ti certainly. My ISTP friend, so strong on Ti too. Much depth of understanding particularly in his areas of interest. 

So you think your being closer to an INTj is due to you having a very dominant Ti? And [this is based on a random guess, not all thought-out like you might do] do you think another ISTP that was perhaps really borderline on another area, instead of being strong, i.e., close to 50-50 in T-F. might possibly find himself being like an ISFp?? 

I ask this becaseu PC3000 said _"I don't believe in all MBTI ENFPs being Socionic ENFps"._

So last night I read other Socionics types, replacing a letter on each of mine. I am nothing like an ESFp or and ENFj or and ENTp. But I have a lot in common with an INFp. With definite exceptions. I even seem to look like both types. And I am not like the ENFp as far as needing the spotlight, I tend to move out of that. A lot of crossover in those two for me but yet I am more ENFp. 

But I have always tested out on MBTI as being heavily NFP but very close to 50-50 on E-I, yet, always ENFP.

[I have been sidetracked every time I try to write this so I am going to wrap it up] - so do you think the explanation is that simple? You are ISTj because Ti is your strength and that's how you maintain Ti strength in Socionics?

Hope that makes sense...


----------



## Eliza. Peace to you.

pc3000 said:


> ... Socionics.com is pretty much in my bad books except for their easy to use relationship chart tool.
> 
> My stance is that while MBTI/Keirsey/Lenore Thomson/Beebe etc personality types and Socionics are all based on interpretations of Jung's work, they aren't really what he meant, and depart from his work. And there is not a one to one correlation between Socionics and MBTI. .


 So they are all off the mark. And yes, I am definatel getting it, like MuCHApArAdOx said, the correlation seems impossible to truly make!



pc3000 said:


> I've been looking at this left and right over the last week or so, and quite think I may be a socionics INTp. I suppose ISTp is the other alternative, but I can't seem to see how that can fit. Or I might have botched the whole thing and actually value socionics Ti/Fe instead of Te/Fi and be an IXTj type but I'm just not feeling it since Fe pretty much kills me, although I have noticed a number of ISTPs here quite like a sort of emotional expression.


 So you are saying you are more Fi than Fe??




pc3000 said:


> Also I don't believe in all MBTI ENFPs being Socionic ENFps. Some might well be a type that values Fe and get annoyed at an ISTP mate that does not value Fe.


 Okay, I may have this all mucked up, but I thought ISTP's favor Fe while ENFP's value Fi?


----------



## Eliza. Peace to you.

Crafter79 said:


> According to the relationship chart , my wife and I have 12,5%. We celebrated 11 years together today and I can honestly say it's the best relationship I've ever had. We hardly ever have conflicts and the times we do, it's my fault most of the time for being insensitive.


 What a guy. Your fault. I am sure that endears her to you!

Not sure where you got the 12.5%! I am confused now. But i see you are high on "Intrapersonal". Sure that helps! And if you are both sane and of good will, I think that matters more than anything...


----------



## Crafter79

I was referring to the link Khys posted on the relationship percentages.

Yes I also think my high intrapersonal has helped alot. It makes me more aware of my weaknesses and to recognize my mistakes. I guess it makes me man enough to admit when I'm wrong in situations. 

The thing with my wife is she has sort of tamed the beast. I was very restless as a person when I met her. I always had to be where the action was and her calm "cold" personality never really triggered the responses my prior relationships gave me when I had my ISTP rages for example. Where my prior exes were like expanding rubberbands, "hitting" me back with the same raging reactions, my wife was more like a pillow that neutralized/softened the outbursts.

After a while you realize that your reaction and action is stupid and then I also became more "cold" in my states. So one could say that she has improved my calmness. It is easier to be logical with a cool head.


----------



## Eliza. Peace to you.

AtomicSL210 said:


> I haven't found the descriptions for the other functions but socionics description for Si seems closer to MBTI Se and it's Se seems more like Mbti Si.


 Interesting. Good insight. Must be your superior Ti.



AtomicSL210 said:


> I suspect this is also true of the thinking functions but not of the others. It's like socionics redefined some functions. Also the description of ISTp matchs closer to Mbti ISTP then ISTj. Still I don't think these systems should be mixed.


 Yes probably not. I am beginning to see why.




AtomicSL210 said:


> On a side note why do some of you put so much weight to this type pairing thing? If you like the person date them. If it works out great, if not fuck it. There is much more to a successful relationship then just type. It's useful at times (in a relationship) but don't base the relationship on it.


 Yes true, it can be a bit much...


----------



## AtomicSL210

After reading some more of the socionics type descriptions I do relate to it's ESTp almost as well as it's ISTp something I would never consider in Mbti. In the end I think socionics approachs cognitive functions very differently to mbti. Anyone care to direct me to some good socionic functions descriptions.


----------



## Erbse

Eliza. Peace to you. said:


> Hi Erbse, I don't know how I completely missed this part of your post. Interesting. I can see your understanding of the theories is much deeper than mine. Due to your high-fucntioning Ti certainly. My ISTP friend, so strong on Ti too. Much depth of understanding particularly in his areas of interest.
> 
> So you think your being closer to an INTj is due to you having a very dominant Ti? And [this is based on a random guess, not all thought-out like you might do] do you think another ISTP that was perhaps really borderline on another area, instead of being strong, i.e., close to 50-50 in T-F. might possibly find himself being like an ISFp??


My knowledge of socionics isn't fond enough to type myself in it. I've only studied MBTI and Jung himself to an extend. What I can say is that I am Ti dominant, period. Socionics uses the same functions codes and claims to be basing on Jung, thus I, too, have to be Ti dominant in socionics. ISTp is Si dominated I do believe, while the only two Ti dominated personality types in socionics are the ISTj and INTj. 

Since I consider myself a sensor, function wise, I'd thus highly likely be an ISTj over an INTj in socionics, but certainly not an ISTp. Given this very confusion however between function definition and function setups between the systems I don't trust socionics much at all.

What I can say is that I am Ti dominated according to Jung's definition. Thus I have to be Ti dominated in any system that claims to be basing on Jung's theory.


----------



## alionsroar

Eliza. Peace to you. said:


> So you are saying you are more Fi than Fe??


 I think I might be. But I'm not positive.




> Okay, I may have this all mucked up, but I thought ISTP's favor Fe while ENFP's value Fi?


Not in socionics. I'm talking about valued functions, not conscious ones.

In socionics, ENFPs value Ne, Fi in their ego block which are conscious, and they are strong at.
They also value Si, Te in their Super Id block which are unconscious functions and they are weak at.

ISTps value Si, Te in their ego block which are conscious and they are strong at.
They also value Ne, Fi in their Super-Id block which are unconscious functions and they are weak at.

As the theory goes, how duality works, is they both like using Ne, Fi, Si, Te. However since ENFps are good at Ne, Fi and ISTps are good at Si, Te then they can get together and show each other how to use their weaker functions that are valued.

Plus, a person's functions in their Super-Ego block are conscious, but weak and disliked.
And are the same functions the dual has in their Id block which are unconscious, and strong but disliked.
So since they both dislike the same functions, they don't pressure the other to use them.

An ENFp whose first function is Ne and is always searching for possibilities or whatever, may not be so good for an ISTj who does not like new possibilities at all. But I don't think people need a theory to tell them that. An ISTp might be better who likes new possibilities but isn't so good at finding them on their own.


----------



## Eliza. Peace to you.

pc3000 said:


> In socionics, ENFPs value Ne, Fi in their ego block which are conscious, and they are strong at.
> They also value Si, Te in their Super Id block which are unconscious functions and they are weak at.
> 
> ISTps value Si, Te in their ego block which are conscious and they are strong at.
> They also value Ne, Fi in their Super-Id block which are unconscious functions and they are weak at.
> 
> As the theory goes, how duality works, is they both like using Ne, Fi, Si, Te. However since ENFps are good at Ne, Fi and ISTps are good at Si, Te then they can get together and show each other how to use their weaker functions that are valued.
> 
> Plus, a person's functions in their Super-Ego block are conscious, but weak and disliked.
> And are the same functions the dual has in their Id block which are unconscious, and strong but disliked.
> So since they both dislike the same functions, they don't pressure the other to use them.


PC, this is SO WELL WRITTEN! Thanks you for applying your superior Te to this. I am so grateful; I so appreciate the time you took with it. I am going to copy it and start a file on Duality. So fascinating. Because_ I feel these very dynamics!_ And you have put it into words making what I "feel" or "intuit" make _perfect sense_. And now it makes sense why we makes sense to each other, even though we are so different. I do love his mind, that excellent Te. And his Si, oh my, it draws me something_ serious_... I think he must be over the top in that one... Like I am a bit over the top in Ne.. we must need each other for balance!


Thanks so much PC. And why "PC3000". And why the sheep? I do like sheep. We had neighbors, back when I was a country-wife, who kept sheep. So nice. They spun the wool, dyed it, wove it on looms. Nice life. They bought an angora goat, but that goat was _nasty_. They didn't keep him more than the year. Not worth the fine yarn! Too miserable!



pc3000 said:


> An ENFp whose first function is Ne and is always searching for possibilities or whatever, may not be so good for an ISTj who does not like new possibilities at all. But I don't think people need a theory to tell them that. An ISTp might be better who likes new possibilities but isn't so good at finding them on their own.


 Interesting. I see he is set in his ways in certain areas, and I am moving my mind to accept the reality and the changes and commitments that means for me, as I look to the future. In many ways, particularly_ lifestyle_, it is _I_ who must do the adapting. That is okay; its my gift. I value the relationship, and shared interests are key to keeping it healthy. All relationships require adapting, and he will be adapting, too, in his way.

And this is such an interesting point because our conversation is taking a new turn. He trusts me enough to share some practical concerns. I have had ideas for sometime, since he hinted at these concerns. Yet, I did _not_ share them, however much they were on my mind. I prayed them, constantly, instead. But not a word or hint. My ex (an ESFJ) refused _all _suggestions. I was full of ideas; I kept them to myself unless I strategized to the extreme on how to present them like they were his ideas (and this worked, too). I learned to even _let him drive us the wrong way down the highway_ in the town I grew up in, rather than enrage him with a suggestion he might be going the wrong way. 

Yes, I know, I need to see my ISTP for who he is. Still learning. But this hard and fast lesson of the past kept me from telling my ISTP my idea. But he shared his concern [he trusts me!], and I said, 'Please don't be mad, but here is my idea..." He was open! And, he loved my idea. Its got him thinking. He even wants more ideas re: application. I am so nervous I will offend. But I am on it. I said, "Just tell me shut up when you've had enough ideas!" LOL.


----------



## Linnifae

Crafter79 said:


> According to the relationship chart , my wife and I have 12,5%. We celebrated 11 years together today and I can honestly say it's the best relationship I've ever had. We hardly ever have conflicts and the times we do, it's my fault most of the time for being insensitive.


If you already stated it, I missed it, but out of curiosity, what type is your wife?

Edit: Never mind. Referred to chart.


----------



## alionsroar

Eliza. Peace to you. said:


> And why "PC3000". And why the sheep?


 The sheep was random.. the PC bit came from *P*ersonality *C*afe because I was very unimaginative


----------

