# (How) can your MBTI type be different from your Socionics type?



## Indigosheep

I'm new to Socionics and slightly confused. I just did four tests and literally every single one of them gave me a different result. I've never had this problem with MBTI or cognitive functions tests. 

So how am I supposed to figure out my type? Should I just translate my MBTI type to Socionics or are these two separate things? But both are based on the cognitive function model, so it wouldn't be possible to be, for example, an INTP in MBTI and an ENTj in Socionics, would it? I mean you can't use both Ti and Te as your dominant function. Yet I've seen many here on the forum who state that their MBTI type is different from their Socionics type. 

Can someone please enlighten me?


----------



## Typhon

Knowing yourself is alot of Work. Tests are entertainement, I wouldnt rely on them seriously, regardless of what system you study. I mean, tests dont even tell you _why_ you type as such and such. How do they teach you anything? 

MBTI and Socionics are two different things. I dont think its likely someone who is INTP in MBTI can be LIE/ENTj in socionics, but an INTP can be LII or ILE. So there is no exact correlation. All correlations are approximative, I'm afraid. I would start fresh if I were you.

I'm really gonna tell you what everyone else is, you need to research. Study different pages on socionics; wikisocion is generally the best place, but just type socionics in the standard google search engine and you'll get good results, too. After you've gained a good understanding of the theory, you gotta come to the practice. You gotta know yourself, and this takes years especially if you've never tried. Look at me. I used to think I was EIE/ENFj(look it up!) for the longest time, then I had serious doubts about being Fe/Ti valueing(look that one up as well), and decided I most likely wasnt a merry type but a serious one(Hello wikisocion search feature. Seeing a pattern here? Ya should!) Now I'm not sure, and I've finally decided to take the 80 questions questionnaire which is used in the "whats my type" subforum of the socionics subforum. I'm curious to see what feedback I'll get.

tl;dr: You gotta research first(objective research), then introspect(subjective synthesis) and finally apply the insight you've gained(enactment). Its alot of work. 


I cant guarantee that after all this, it will be useful to you. I'm not sold on the usefulness of Socionics, but I'm pretty sure that if you do enough Work of this kind, you will discover things about yourself which are very useful.

Cheers.


----------



## Entropic

tl;dr version, because tests suck. 

I think they are correlated and I do think they are correlated to the degree that if you type by the dominant function in the MBTI, it should also accurately be represented in socionics that is, a Ti dom is a Ti dom. With that said, I'm fine with some wiggle way there if someone types as an INTP in the MBTI because they relate more to being introverted but ILE in socionics because these types are still by and large very similar. It will irk me, but I can get over it. 

But yes, it's best to just start with the systems as if you don't know the previous one and learn them from the ground-up from there. Otherwise I think you will end up being more confused because the way they structure the psyche is very different from one another, outside of the ego block, anyway.


----------



## tangosthenes

They were developed by different groups of people who took different paths and perspectives to dealing with the subject.


----------



## Ixim

Tests suck. Unless someone can say to you why this and this is so, you shouldn't trust them. Example: SocioType original test. Even though I find that picture part funny, the advanced version is seriously better. The original test often has two IAs bundled on one side so if you want to choose a side(it's a slider) just because of say Te, you also chose Se(I mean wtf). Be careful of such things. Then there are meaningless questions.

How should a type be found? Well, we are looking at cognition, not behaviour. One is inherent, the other is learned. We are looking for the inherent one. Now, even in the most original individuals(say ENFP ennea 4w5, 9w1, 7w6) the learned patterns(behaviour) will largely override what's the original instinct(cognition). Hence, it can be REALLY difficult to discern how you really act. The point should be to get asked questions that directly test various capabilities WITHOUT allowing you to fall into behaviour. Such as "How do I get to x?" or "What's the use of fork?" (these two are obviously S/N questions) or various tasks with those wooden blocks. The first reaction is important. I would heed Typhon's advice if I were you. It won't be fast. And it won't be pretty. But you'll get tangible benefits from doing so.

Now, when you start researching Socio, you'll find out(or you won't if you give up) plenty o stuff, some important, some not so much. The important thing is to TRUST YOUR INSTINCTS-let go of learned behaviour. It's kinda similar to the hat from Harry Potter. There is no "bad/the worst" house, no matter what you think. You'll end up where you deserve(oh excuse my Fi-I meant where you SHOULD*) to end up. Our differences is what makes us strong and that should be cherished and we should work as one, not as it is right now. Dividere et impera, eh? Blah blah blah.

Now, do I believe that a person could be a dom Ti in MBTI and a dom Te in Socio(or wherever else)? I indeed do. But then again, that is my Astro background talking. See, MBTI and Socio are two different things that only have a shared starting point. MBTI is used to describe your preferences and your information intake. Socio is used to describe your information handling and the way you socialise(for the lack of better term). Those are two radically different things. Say, you could prefer to analyse things and to take information in pretty detailed form while you could explain that same information to someone else in a productive, structured way based on merits of information(hence Ti and Te both being present). Now, do I think that there can be wide differences between MBTI and Socio? Such as, for example, ENFP MBTI and ISTJ Socio? No, I don't. That just feels wrong to me. I believe that as long as the ego block is sorted out in the same way, the direction of those IAs could get switched. Say, NeFi to NiFe. I'll also agree with ego block getting mirrored(NeFi to FiNe) and, loosely, with the switch of directions and a mirror(NeFi to FeNi). Outside of that, I really DON'T THINK IT SHOULD BE POSSIBLE and that it's test's fault. Or that you cog biased too much. Some Types, mine especially if I indeed am an ENFP, have an uncanny knack to really present themselves as something they aren't and to manipulate. NFPs would do it out of conviction
that something is true/good for them(good morning Fi!) while some other types would do the same thing because of material things. There's that also.

TLDR: Trust your instincts, don't trust tests, research and eliminate cog bias. Enjoy!


----------



## The_Wanderer

Indigosheep said:


> I'm new to Socionics and slightly confused. I just did four tests and literally every single one of them gave me a different result. I've never had this problem with MBTI or cognitive functions tests.


I've had this problem with Socionics (EIE, LIE, IEE, SEE), MBTI (ENFP, ESFP, ENFJ, INTJ), Keirsey (Performer, Teacher, Inventor and Champion) _and _Cognitive Functions (Ne, Ni, Se, Fe, Te) tests. Enneagram as well, this week I'm a 6, maybe I'll be a 4 next week again!

Eh, in short. The tests are bullshit.


----------



## Indigosheep

I've just finished reading a whole bunch of articles on Socionics and IEI/INFp, which would be the most logical type for me in regard to the cognitive functions, and holy shit... I thought that nothing could surprise me in terms of accuracy after discovering MBTI and Enneagram, but that was just impressive. 

As for Socionics in general, I don't really see a significant difference between the two (except for the different function order and the integration of the shadow functions into the theory). Socionics just seems like a much more in-depth and sophisticated version of MBTI.


----------



## Ixim

Indigosheep said:


> I've just finished reading a whole bunch of articles on Socionics and IEI/INFp, which would be the most logical type for me in regard to the cognitive functions, and holy shit... I thought that nothing could surprise me in terms of accuracy after discovering MBTI and Enneagram, but that was just impressive.
> 
> As for Socionics in general, I don't really see a significant difference between the two (except for the different function order and the integration of the shadow functions into the theory). Socionics just seems like a much more in-depth and sophisticated version of MBTI.


Be extra careful. One word(or lack of it) can change entire destinies, let alone mere usage of a thing. You know? That's exactly why being a diplomat isn't for everyone...

Anyhow, do Reinins match you? Just wondering.


----------



## Indigosheep

Ixim said:


> Be extra careful. One word(or lack of it) can change entire destinies, let alone mere usage of a thing. You know? That's exactly why being a diplomat isn't for everyone...
> 
> Anyhow, do Reinins match you? Just wondering.


The only ones that don’t match are negativist and democratic.


----------



## Figure

Choose your poison!

There are two schools of thought with the way your question is handled:



Socionics comes from Carl Jung, as does MBTI. Both theories use the same cognitive functions, but describe them using different verbiage. Because of that, a function in MBTI is in essence the same thing as a function (known as Information Element/IE) in socionics and the concept of each type translates between the two, for the most part, cleanly. 
Socionics defines functions differently than MBTI defines them, and those differences are integral to the way each type is defined within the theories. Therefore, you can be one type in socionics, and another, supposedly "non-translatable" type in MBTI. 

I think it comes down to how much you trust your typing ability, and how you type. Personally I am of school 1 and think school 2 is silly. The reason being that it is a _given_ that the verbiage between the two theories is "different." The way a function is described should not define the function itself, and functions in the two theories aren't describing two different processes but the same process in two different languages, and perhaps different facets of the same function. It's overall very difficult for me to imagine someone who types as an INFP in MBTI walk into a room with 50 IEI and find that their cognitive process matches that of the IEI better than the room of 50 INFP - regardless of what silly words are used to describe the functions. 




Indigosheep said:


> As for Socionics in general, I don't really see a significant difference between the two (except for the different function order and the integration of the shadow functions into the theory). Socionics just seems like a much more in-depth and sophisticated version of MBTI.


Have you ever checked out John Beebe's model? I had known about it before socionics and was really surprised how similar it is to Model A. 

Totally agreed with your summary as well. That's how a lot of people here see it as well.


----------



## Ixim

Indigosheep said:


> The only ones that don’t match are negativist and democratic.


Are you sure about those two? Here, I'll link something:

Gulenko Cognitive Styles - Wikisocion (I EVEN FOUND IT!)

though, there is no talk about Aristo/Demo, but that is easily tested by watching a politician and becoming aware of your reaction. If it's "What a PoS <insert pol.affiliation here>" then it is Aristo. Otherwise, if it is just "what a PoS!" then it's Demo. Ofc, do note how similar those two not only sound, but even look!

Still, that article is well worth the read I think.


----------



## Indigosheep

Figure said:


> Have you ever checked out John Beebe's model? I had known about it before socionics and was really surprised how similar it is to Model A.
> 
> Totally agreed with your summary as well. That's how a lot of people here see it as well.


 I've read about it before and yeah I agree. Even the descriptions of the functions seem quite similar.


----------



## Indigosheep

Ixim said:


> Are you sure about those two? Here, I'll link something:
> 
> Gulenko Cognitive Styles - Wikisocion (I EVEN FOUND IT!)
> 
> though, there is no talk about Aristo/Demo, but that is easily tested by watching a politician and becoming aware of your reaction. If it's "What a PoS <insert pol.affiliation here>" then it is Aristo. Otherwise, if it is just "what a PoS!" then it's Demo. Ofc, do note how similar those two not only sound, but even look!
> 
> Still, that article is well worth the read I think.


I don't know if I understood them correctly to be honest. 

From what I've read so far it seemed as if positivism vs. negativism were the same thing as optimism vs. pessimism, which I suppose is not accurate. 



> *Aristocrats*
> 
> 
> 
> Inclined to perceive and refer to other people, and themselves, by means of groupings and categories that they see these people belonging to; *these groupings may be created and defined by the Aristocrats themselves, rather than be already existing and socially defined ones. *
> Their initial attitude towards another person is influenced by their attitude towards the grouping they see this person belonging to.
> Tend to attribute common qualities to members of same groupings, and define such groupings by these same qualities.
> Inclined to refer to others using expressions that mention generalized features of their groupings.


Okay, this is definitely something I do subconsciously, but would never admit to myself because it sounds like ignorance/close-mindedness/stereotyping. While I try my best to be open-minded and avoid the "us vs. them" mentality, I often find myself putting people into boxes without noticing it. As they mentioned, these boxes aren't necessarily existing and socially defined ones, but rather ones I've created myself.



> *Democrats*
> 
> 
> 
> Perceive and refer to other people, and themselves, primarily describing individual, personal qualities: frank, trustworthy, generous, unimaginative, lighthearted, good-looking, etc. which are generally not in connection to any grouping to which they might belong.
> Form their relationships and attitudes toward other persons based on their own individual characteristics, rather than taking into account which grouping these persons fall into or their own relationships with the members of these circles and groupings.
> Not inclined to perceive people as representatives of a certain grouping that supposedly possesses qualities inherent to people who comprise it.
> When referring to others, not inclined to use expressions that mention the generalized features of the grouping or categories that these people belong to.


 This is what I would like to be, but probably am not most of the time.


Still not entirely sure about positivism/negativism though..


----------



## Ixim

Indigosheep said:


> I don't know if I understood them correctly to be honest.
> 
> From what I've read so far it seemed as if positivism vs. negativism were the same thing as optimism vs. pessimism, which I suppose is not accurate.
> 
> 
> 
> Okay, this is definitely something I do subconsciously, but would never admit to myself because it sounds like ignorance/close-mindedness/stereotyping. While I try my best to be open-minded and avoid the "us vs. them" mentality, I often find myself putting people into boxes without noticing it. As they mentioned, these boxes aren't necessarily existing and socially defined ones, but rather ones I've created myself.
> 
> 
> 
> This is what I would like to be, but probably am not most of the time.
> 
> 
> Still not entirely sure about positivism/negativism though..


That's why I linked you that obnoxiously long article. It has all the relevant facts displayed by V.Gulenko himself. If you don't know about him, he is one of the foremost Socionists(that sounds like Tom Cruise religion :happy, albeit a quirky one that will have his way or highway. To the extent that he developed his own set of acronyms for Information Aspects/Elements based on latin word for what they are supposed to represent. Ti is L as in Lex, Ni T as in Tempus, Te I think is P etc. Don't use those as much but they for sure are quite an elegant way to remember what the IA is actually about. Now onto the +/-:

What are they you ask? Are they optimism and pessimism? Or my ability to spot clouds, hm? Answer here, lies do not. Continue searching, you must. Enough of Master Yoda. I was just like you, linking postive reinin to optimism and negative to pessimism. But they are not that. What they actually describe is either your ability to notice PRESENCE of something(+) or the ABSENCE(-) of something. Now, presence can be just as much linked to pessimism as absence. Why? You see everything, bad things including. And you are aware of them, hence the shift to pessimism(there'll always be obstacles, I can't succeed). Likewise, absence can lead to optimism due to a person focusing his attention on the lack of critical negative influences. Say, "I don't have any lethal diseases and there is nothing stopping me from succeding in life. Why not?" . See that? :wink: How I spun it around ever so gracefully.

Furthermore, + manifests on what's actually going on and what is RIGHT. - manifests itself with "...this is SO WRONG!" . Ok, that is my Fi, but you get the point. So if you spin your arguments in the following way "This meal is completely awful. Why? Because THIS is the RIGHT way it should be done. And your way deviates far too much from the right way..." it leads to +, while the following talk "the situation in the world is SO WRONG. The rich get richer while they don't give anything to poor who don't have any chances to even step-up, let alone succeed. Why have we returned to medieval France?" leads to - .

Also, when talking of proverbial "glass is half-full" example, do notice your EVERY word(or the lack of it). I just recently noticed that I tend to say "it could hold more water/it could be more full, you know?" which if analysed gramatically leads to -, NOT to + as I originally thought. Why? Well, you pay attention to the lack of water in the uppermost part of glass. There is that as well.

Finally, as I always say, trust what first comes to mind. Let it out. See what happens. Let go of learned behaviours. I know that we are all trained that "glass is always full(even if empty it is full of air)" and that optimism = success and such boring stereotypes. There's a plenty of pessimists who succeeded and quite at that. Why? Because they always expect the worst case scenarion and hence always take extra precautions as to avoid it. This often pays off big in corporate world. Not to mention that they like long term goals, but this is whole another reinin so I won't go there.

So, the question you need to ask yourself is:

Would I rather:

*Maximise the good things
or
Minimise the bad things?*

hm?

edit: What you prefer, it matters not(what others prefer, even less). The truth you are after, yes? Aristocrats are your group. Subconscious tells us what we are, not the learned traits. There, satisfied are you? Hm? Now, onto + and - we shall go. And the result I foresee. What will it be? That, you tell me!


----------



## Valtire

@Figure

What about Te? Te in MBTI has more in common with Socionics Se-Ti than with Te. This is arguably the greatest difference between the two systems.

I know a clear cut SLE who typed as an ENTJ on a test and he also equates with the ENTJ type descriptions. Whereas I don't think it's even possible for someone to equate with both the LIE descriptions and the ENTJ descriptions.


----------



## Entropic

Ixim said:


> Are you sure about those two? Here, I'll link something:
> 
> Gulenko Cognitive Styles - Wikisocion (I EVEN FOUND IT!)
> 
> *though, there is no talk about Aristo/Demo, but that is easily tested by watching a politician and becoming aware of your reaction. If it's "What a PoS <insert pol.affiliation here>" then it is Aristo. Otherwise, if it is just "what a PoS!" then it's Demo. Ofc, do note how similar those two not only sound, but even look!*
> 
> Still, that article is well worth the read I think.


Not quite. Aristocracy and democracy is more about how you identify and group people based on where you think they socially belong. Too lazy and tired to explain it in detail right now.



Fried Eggz said:


> @Figure
> 
> What about Te? Te in MBTI has more in common with Socionics Se-Ti than with Te. This is arguably the greatest difference between the two systems.
> 
> I know a clear cut SLE who typed as an ENTJ on a test and he also equates with the ENTJ type descriptions. Whereas I don't think it's even possible for someone to equate with both the LIE descriptions and the ENTJ descriptions.


I agree that MBTI sensation in general is conflated with Te, but it depends on what definition of Te you are looking at. In many other ways they also overlap a lot, arguably the best, out of all the functions.


----------



## Ixim

Entropic said:


> Not quite. Aristocracy and democracy is more about how you identify and group people based on where you think they socially belong. Too lazy and tired to explain it in detail right now.
> 
> 
> 
> I agree that MBTI sensation in general is conflated with Te, but it depends on what definition of Te you are looking at. In many other ways they also overlap a lot, arguably the best, out of all the functions.


Still, it's quite "us vs them" vs "merits of every individual". I couldn't find a better example. It flew right by me. Sorry.


----------



## Entropic

Ixim said:


> Still, it's quite "us vs them" vs "merits of every individual". I couldn't find a better example. It flew right by me. Sorry.


Well, I wouldn't say that's quite accurate, still, either. It's not like betas or deltas cannot see individuals. The difference is more how they place the individual and what role the individual has in society that makes them aristocratic over democratic. Aristocracy/democracy is actually more related to dealing with humans as a resource and how to distribute them in society.


----------



## Typhon

Figure said:


> I think it comes down to how much you trust your typing ability, and how you type. Personally I am of school 1 and think school 2 is silly. The reason being that it is a _given_ that the verbiage between the two theories is "different." The way a function is described should not define the function itself, and functions in the two theories aren't describing two different processes but the same process in two different languages, and perhaps different facets of the same function. It's overall very difficult for me to imagine someone who types as an INFP in MBTI walk into a room with 50 IEI and find that their cognitive process matches that of the IEI better than the room of 50 INFP - regardless of what silly words are used to describe the functions.


My problem with many who adhere to school 1 has nothing to do with the idea that there is some consistency which lies behind the functions, ie, that functions described by MBTI and socionics and other schools are trying to describe the same underlying phenomena(if the term is right? functions exist as part of the psyche so they should be the the knower, not the known? Possibly more on this in another thread...). I dont have a problem with the idea that the different systems try to describe the same thing(the 8 funtions). It has more to do with people who are well familiar with socionics telling those who are new to use shortcuts. If you type as INFJ in MBTI you should automatically be told to switch to IEI? How do you know the person is correctly typed as INFJ in MBTI? Supposing they aerent typed correctly in MBTI, you're* just giving people shortcuts to something they've probably studied little anyways, which encourages intellectual laziness.


----------



## Entropic

Should maybe make some article/sticky about aristocracy/democracy. There's a couple of threads discussing it, but this subject just keeps popping up and people keep being confused because of how poorly defined it is on wikisocion and other online resources.


----------



## Tellus

Jeremy8419 said:


> I am INFJ/EII. INFJ/IEI does not work, because EII places morality above feelings the majority, but IEI will place emotiveness over morality regularly. Using the MBTI functions as being able to be used in Socionics, which defines them differently, is the source of the errors.


1) Do you suggest that all INFJs (MBTI) are EIIs? This implies that Ni (MBTI) = Fi (Socionics)

2) Or do you suggest that some INFJs are EIIs, and some INFJs are IEIs? This implies that there are more than 16 types (Type 1: INFJ/EII Type 2: INFJ/IEI etc), which is logically impossible since we have four dichotomies.

MBTI four-function model is the problem! People don't have either Fe or Fi, but both functions.


----------



## The_Wanderer

Tellus said:


> MBTI four-function model is the problem! People don't have either Fe or Fi, but both functions.


And it's _when, why and how well_ each function is used that determines type.


----------



## Tellus

NewSoul said:


> Huh?? What if someone relates to Fi in Jung's cognitive functions, but Fe in Socionics? Fe/Fi are described differently in MBTI and Socionics.


4 dichotomies -> 16 types

Again, the description of the functions is irrelevant. One MBTI type must match one Socionics type, so INFJ *is* IEI. 

But what about the ordering of the functions?

http://personalitycafe.com/myers-br...s-mbti-eight-function-model.html#post15187025 



> Yes, thank you, Captain Obvious. I'm aware of these.
> 
> I'm saying that what if this is incorrect? There is little to no real scientific data to back this up. I'm aware of Dario Nardi doing a
> bit of research, but it's just a drop in the bucket.


Carl Jung did extensive research before concluding that everyone prefers either F or T (N or S, E or I). 

Isabel Briggs Myers (Gifts Differing): The supremacy of one process unchallenged by the others is essential to the stability of the individual. Each process has its own set of aims and for successful adaptation, as Jung points out, the aims must be "constantly clear and unambiguous". One process needs to govern which way a person moves; it should always be the same process, so that today's move will not be regretted and reversed tomorrow. (i.e. ONE dominant function)



> Oh Jesus Christ. You do realize that Einstein's theory of relativity has FAR more backing it than MBTI/Socionics, right? And don't give me that bullshit "it's just a theory." Scientific theories are different from your everyday use of the word "theory." It's really a shame that this isn't common knowledge.


We probably won't find another dichotomy, but Socionics (and MBTI) will be replaced by a more sophisticated system (i.e. a system that isn't based on Jungian dichotomies).


----------



## Jeremy8419

Tellus said:


> 1) Do you suggest that all INFJs (MBTI) are EIIs? This implies that Ni (MBTI) = Fi (Socionics)
> 
> 2) Or do you suggest that some INFJs are EIIs, and some INFJs are IEIs? This implies that there are more than 16 types (Type 1: INFJ/EII Type 2: INFJ/IEI etc), which is logically impossible since we have four dichotomies.
> 
> MBTI four-function model is the problem! People don't have either Fe or Fi, but both functions.


I have had roughly 400 people that I know personally test themselves. The ones who are Rational and Irrational are respectively correct, based upon observed behaviors and the accuracy of forecasting which they will test as ahead of time. All types fit their expanded descriptions for J=j and P=p, as well as their behaviors, interactions, and ability to be moderately controlled by Socionics. MBTI was created via testing groups, and piecing together a set of rules for how the base E/I etc affected function ordering, to make a singular and coherent model. Part of this involved doing a switch for J/P based on I, which compared to Socionics, seems like a "reach." MBTI is basically "all positive", with little "negatives" given for each type. I believe MBTI is setup in such a way, that it tells people not how their personality factually is, but rather how they factually want their personality to be. The Ps I know are very much P, and the only way they would ever be Rational under any circumstances is if the definition were changed. Some types in MBTI are Rational via direct letter translation into Socionics, but others are only Rational via direct function translation into Socionics. Rational/Irrational are two things at the very core what both MBTI and Socionics are built upon. The only means to do direct translation via functions is to invalidate the foundations of both models.

Lets take a look at INFJ, INFP, INFj, and INFp. I will use a mix of attributes attested and Functions.
INFJ: Good at seeing the future, Empathetic, Morally resolute, strong emotions to loved ones, stoic to strangers, strong thirst for knowledge, strong focus on the human condition, withdrawal to think things through, ability to synthesis dreams into reality, place hope for others above likely outcomes, inability to deal with violence, likely to live physically humble.
INFP: Highly warm towards loved ones and strangers, strong morals, true to self, willing to bend only for loved ones, fantastical view of reality, has to temporarily ground self compared to dreams to take care of physical needs,, takes small steps towards realizing dream life, often seen as attractive and grows more so over time, places "love" of loved ones over their imperfections, loves others just as they are.
Showing how these are not possible in socionics via direct function translation and J/P switch...
INFJ=INFp: Still good at seeing future but being in B1 makes him more interested in fantasy than reality, empathetic and moral but is unvalued and placed in B8, relative inability to seem stoic or differential with emotions towards strangers as emotiveness is in b2 and is almost constantly on and seeming warm and smiling, knowledge gathering and general order placed in b4 and is unvalued and relatively incompetent so no desire to accumulate a wealth of knowledge, again the human condition is part of b8 and there is zero value in dissecting the human condition, no need to withdraw to think as interpersonal relations are in b8 and Ti is in b6 without confliction, no synthesis of dreams into reality as Ne responsible for synthesis is in b7 and unconscious, places likely outcomes as more important than potential to be wrong as Ni is valued and Ne is not so will not place faith in others over the likelihood they will be let down, no inability at aggression and not likely to physically appear humble as Se is in b5 and thus appearing powerful is much desired.
INFP=INFj: Only warm to loved ones as Emotiveness is in the 7th block which is used for accepting/refusal entry into his life, high morals but constantly shapes and reshapes due to being B1, inability to remain true to ones self as Ne is constantly used to adapt and connect with others, bends continuously externally to connect with others due to Ne in b2, not interested in fantasy that isn't directly possible in real world due to Ni in 8th block being unvalued, health and physical sensations desired and able to be done congruently with fantasy world as Si is in 6th block and doesn't conflict, inability to slowly step towards their fantasies as fantasy is unvalued in b8 while simultaneously withdrawals from society to think about progress due to Fi in b1 and Ti in b3, not prone to be physically appealing nor will they acquire items of stature as Se is in b4, Fi is number one with emotiveness placed as unvalued in b7 and will not continue to be warm to someone if they are "not good" and they are regularly judgmental, loves people for the potential of who they can become as seen with b1 and b2.

People see functions that are valued to them under MBTI and want to translate them to socionics when the meanings of the socionics ones are different. They look solely at the first ones in socionics for their perceived value but do not realize that the negatives of them being in those positions contradicts the entire remainder of their personality. Once they have already falsely translated to the type in socionics from misconceptions that the functions are equivalent, they then read what this means for the rest of their personality type and subsequently reject socionics and further attest to the functions and their meanings in MBTI, which further strengthens their desire to direct function translate between the two systems, albeit with a complete lack of belief in socionics.

Yes, I think J=j and P=p, and I think the opposition is such due to lack of knowledge of socionics, and the inability to accept the faults of their personalities. I am fully aware that I am polarized with aspects of Si in my life due to lack of cognitive ability. I am aware of my inherent judge mental nature and the public seeing me as cold. I am aware of my retardedness with all things Se and my strong desire for Te, as well as my inability to Fi while Ti.

Rejection of one's faults is the enemy of growth.


----------



## NewSoul

Tellus said:


> 4 dichotomies -> 16 types


Yes. And the sky is blue. Thanks.



> Again, the description of the functions is irrelevant. One MBTI type must match one Socionics type, so INFJ is IEI.


Why are the descriptions irrelevant? If the two have contrasting descriptions, then clearly either one or both of them are wrong.

Since you don't seem to understand what I'm saying, I'm going to write it out in more general terms. Please bear with me here.

Suppose we are looking at functions Xe and Xi. And suppose we have the following scenario.

MBTI function Xe - Description A
MBTI function Xi - Description B
Socionics function Xe - Description A
Socionics function Xi - Description C

Same letter = same description
Different letter = contrasting descriptions

Do you see what I mean now? Many functions are described similarly, but others are described almost entirely differently. Therefore it is possible for one to identify with MBTI Xe > MBTI Xi, BUT when switching systems, they feel that Socionics Xi > Socionics Xe. Because it is that for them, Socionics Xi > MBTI Xe = Socionics Xe, BUT there is no equivalent in MBTI.



> But what about the ordering of the functions?
> 
> http://personalitycafe.com/myers-br...s-mbti-eight-function-model.html#post15187025


This is really a topic for another day, though I'm not entirely following the logic in that thread. Perhaps you haven't written it all out.



> Carl Jung did extensive research before concluding that everyone prefers either F or T (N or S, E or I).


Jung most certainly did not use any scientific methods to obtain his theory. See here:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Myers–Briggs_Type_Indicator#Origins_of_the_theory


* *




Jung's theory of psychological type, as published in his 1921 book, was not tested through controlled scientific studies.[20] Jung's methods primarily included clinical observation, introspection and anecdote—methods that are largely regarded as inconclusive by the modern field of psychology.[20]

Jung's type theory introduced a sequence of four cognitive functions (thinking, feeling, sensation, and intuition), each having one of two orientations (extraversion or introversion), for a total of eight dominant functions. The Myers–Briggs theory is based on these eight functions, although with some differences in expression (see Differences from Jung above). However, neither the Myers–Briggs nor the Jungian models offer any scientific, experimental proof to support the existence, the sequence, the orientation, or the manifestation of these functions.[20]


----------



## Golden Rose

I don't think it's possible.

Those who do tend to over-fixate on dichotomies and formulaic descriptions that tend to paint archetypes and caricatures rather than offering tools for self understanding. I see a lot of EIIs mistaking SLEs for LSEs for example, making them quickly discard intertype relations or simply rejecting the whole system and I can't stress enough how ridiculous the over-glorification of introverted and intuitive types is.

There's also the problem of the 'switch' of judging and perceiving types when it comes to introverts as many are not familiar with Ji and Pi as functions and they still stick to the P/J false dichotomy, one that promotes stereotyped behavioral attitudes over actual cognitive patterns. Same for social extroversion vs cognitive extroversion, those are two completely different concepts that hardly match if not in some cases of Fe dominance and Fi dominance.

I think it's best to simply explain what the theory is, if asked, and leave it at that. To many MBTI is just another quirk and judgmental stances often seem like an attack, it's not my business anyway.


----------



## Sygma

Well I don't know, for sure I'm SEE in socionics. And I just hate the ESFP description in MBTI because there's just too many things that don't match, especially the small talk and the #partyhard trait, between some other stuff.

But then again Im SEE-2Fi which make a weird kind of ESFP haha.


----------



## Jeremy8419

Rational vs Irrational behavior is a measurable and concrete argument. MBTI and Socionics are both Theories of the Mind for the groupings of such. Quantifiable variables can invalidate theories, but theories cannot invalidate quantifiable variables. The argument to do such in this situation requires that what has been theorized for known and quantifiable variables goes back and invalidates the premise to the argument in the first place. This is a fallacy.


----------



## Tellus

Jeremy8419 said:


> I have had roughly 400 people that I know personally test themselves. The ones who are Rational and Irrational are respectively correct, based upon observed behaviors and the accuracy of forecasting which they will test as ahead of time. All types fit their expanded descriptions for J=j and P=p, as well as their behaviors, interactions, and ability to be moderately controlled by Socionics. MBTI was created via testing groups, and piecing together a set of rules for how the base E/I etc affected function ordering, to make a singular and coherent model. Part of this involved doing a switch for J/P based on I, which compared to Socionics, seems like a "reach." MBTI is basically "all positive", with little "negatives" given for each type. I believe MBTI is setup in such a way, that it tells people not how their personality factually is, but rather how they factually want their personality to be. The Ps I know are very much P, and the only way they would ever be Rational under any circumstances is if the definition were changed. Some types in MBTI are Rational via direct letter translation into Socionics, but others are only Rational via direct function translation into Socionics. Rational/Irrational are two things at the very core what both MBTI and Socionics are built upon. The only means to do direct translation via functions is to invalidate the foundations of both models.
> 
> Lets take a look at INFJ, INFP, INFj, and INFp. I will use a mix of attributes attested and Functions.
> INFJ: Good at seeing the future, Empathetic, Morally resolute, strong emotions to loved ones, stoic to strangers, strong thirst for knowledge, strong focus on the human condition, withdrawal to think things through, ability to synthesis dreams into reality, place hope for others above likely outcomes, inability to deal with violence, likely to live physically humble.
> INFP: Highly warm towards loved ones and strangers, strong morals, true to self, willing to bend only for loved ones, fantastical view of reality, has to temporarily ground self compared to dreams to take care of physical needs,, takes small steps towards realizing dream life, often seen as attractive and grows more so over time, places "love" of loved ones over their imperfections, loves others just as they are.
> Showing how these are not possible in socionics via direct function translation and J/P switch...
> INFJ=INFp: Still good at seeing future but being in B1 makes him more interested in fantasy than reality, empathetic and moral but is unvalued and placed in B8, relative inability to seem stoic or differential with emotions towards strangers as emotiveness is in b2 and is almost constantly on and seeming warm and smiling, knowledge gathering and general order placed in b4 and is unvalued and relatively incompetent so no desire to accumulate a wealth of knowledge, again the human condition is part of b8 and there is zero value in dissecting the human condition, no need to withdraw to think as interpersonal relations are in b8 and Ti is in b6 without confliction, no synthesis of dreams into reality as Ne responsible for synthesis is in b7 and unconscious, places likely outcomes as more important than potential to be wrong as Ni is valued and Ne is not so will not place faith in others over the likelihood they will be let down, no inability at aggression and not likely to physically appear humble as Se is in b5 and thus appearing powerful is much desired.
> INFP=INFj: Only warm to loved ones as Emotiveness is in the 7th block which is used for accepting/refusal entry into his life, high morals but constantly shapes and reshapes due to being B1, inability to remain true to ones self as Ne is constantly used to adapt and connect with others, bends continuously externally to connect with others due to Ne in b2, not interested in fantasy that isn't directly possible in real world due to Ni in 8th block being unvalued, health and physical sensations desired and able to be done congruently with fantasy world as Si is in 6th block and doesn't conflict, inability to slowly step towards their fantasies as fantasy is unvalued in b8 while simultaneously withdrawals from society to think about progress due to Fi in b1 and Ti in b3, not prone to be physically appealing nor will they acquire items of stature as Se is in b4, Fi is number one with emotiveness placed as unvalued in b7 and will not continue to be warm to someone if they are "not good" and they are regularly judgmental, loves people for the potential of who they can become as seen with b1 and b2.
> 
> People see functions that are valued to them under MBTI and want to translate them to socionics when the meanings of the socionics ones are different. They look solely at the first ones in socionics for their perceived value but do not realize that the negatives of them being in those positions contradicts the entire remainder of their personality. Once they have already falsely translated to the type in socionics from misconceptions that the functions are equivalent, they then read what this means for the rest of their personality type and subsequently reject socionics and further attest to the functions and their meanings in MBTI, which further strengthens their desire to direct function translate between the two systems, albeit with a complete lack of belief in socionics.
> 
> Yes, I think J=j and P=p, and I think the opposition is such due to lack of knowledge of socionics, and the inability to accept the faults of their personalities. I am fully aware that I am polarized with aspects of Si in my life due to lack of cognitive ability. I am aware of my inherent judge mental nature and the public seeing me as cold. I am aware of my retardedness with all things Se and my strong desire for Te, as well as my inability to Fi while Ti.
> 
> Rejection of one's faults is the enemy of growth.


*One* MBTI type must match *one* Socionics type. 

Do you think EII (INFj): Fi, Ne... is best matched with INFJ: Ni, Fe... ???


----------



## Tellus

NewSoul said:


> Yes. And the sky is blue. Thanks.
> 
> Why are the descriptions irrelevant? If the two have contrasting descriptions, then clearly either one or both of them are wrong.
> 
> Since you don't seem to understand what I'm saying, I'm going to write it out in more general terms. Please bear with me here.
> 
> Suppose we are looking at functions Xe and Xi. And suppose we have the following scenario.
> MBTI function Xe - Description A
> MBTI function Xi - Description B
> Socionics function Xe - Description A
> Socionics function Xi - Description C
> Same letter = same description
> Different letter = contrasting descriptions
> 
> Do you see what I mean now? Many functions are described similarly, but others are described almost entirely differently. Therefore it is possible for one to identify with MBTI Xe > MBTI Xi, BUT when switching systems, they feel that Socionics Xi > Socionics Xe. Because it is that for them, Socionics Xi > MBTI Xe = Socionics Xe, BUT there is no equivalent in MBTI.


This is the topic:

"(How) can your MBTI type be different from your Socionics type?"

No! Because *one* MBTI type must match *one* Socionics type.

INFJ: Ni, Fe... Okay, let's choose *one* Socionics type.

EII: Fi, Ne...
IEI: Ni, Fe...
ILI: Ni, Te...
etc



> Jung most certainly did not use any scientific methods to obtain his theory. See here:
> 
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Myers–Briggs_Type_Indicator#Origins_of_the_theory
> 
> Jung's theory of psychological type, as published in his 1921 book, was not tested through controlled scientific studies.[20] Jung's methods primarily included clinical observation, introspection and anecdote—methods that are largely regarded as inconclusive by the modern field of psychology.[20]
> 
> Jung's type theory introduced a sequence of four cognitive functions (thinking, feeling, sensation, and intuition), each having one of two orientations (extraversion or introversion), for a total of eight dominant functions. The Myers–Briggs theory is based on these eight functions, although with some differences in expression (see Differences from Jung above). However, neither the Myers–Briggs nor the Jungian models offer any scientific, experimental proof to support the existence, the sequence, the orientation, or the manifestation of these functions.[20][/spoiler]


What methods do you (or the modern field of psychology) propose?


----------



## Ixim

Guys, guys! As I already said, MBTI J/P doesn't really equate to Ratio/Irratio. Rather Static/Dynamic. Besides, why in the world did Myers did what she did with the ORDER of functions at intros is beyond me. Must be because she did it while she had absolutely no idea what she was doing. It's ok. Newbies make such mistakes.

Let's take ENTJ for an example:

TeNiSeFi

And ISFP:

FiSeNiTe

Now, do notice that they are actually the same IM, just in the reverse order! Let's try it like this: ESI and LIE in socio:

ESI: FiSeTiNe/TeNiFeSi
LIE: TeNiFeSi/FiSeTiNe

Now, do notice this:

ISFP: FiSe*NiTe*
ESI: FiSeTiNe/*TeNi*FeSi

ENTJ: TeNi*SeFi*
LIE: TeNiFeSi/*FiSe*TiNe

So, the question that just wants to get asked is:

Are MBTI 3rd/4th functions the same as Socio Mobilising/Suggestive?

tldr: I fully endorse the possibility of being an ISTJ and an ESI.


----------



## Jeremy8419

Tellus said:


> *One* MBTI type must match *one* Socionics type.
> 
> Do you think EII (INFj): Fi, Ne... is best matched with INFJ: Ni, Fe... ???


That was the point of all that. INFJs can't be IEI without invalidating most of their personality. Ni heavily overlaps Ne, and Fi heavily overlaps Fe, in MBTI. The way INFJs refer to their Ni in MBTI is what Ne 2nd function and Ni 8th function are in Socionics, and their Fe in MBTI is what is Fi 1st function and Fe 7th function in Socionics. It is the same for INFPs and IEI.
I hold the letters are how to translate between systems, but only when their MBTI is determined by testing based on Rational/Irrational answers. Typing via functions in MBTI doesn't work, because several of the E/I version of functions overlap themselves too heavily.


----------



## Valtire

Ixim said:


> So, the question that just wants to get asked is:
> 
> Are MBTI 3rd/4th functions the same as Socio Mobilising/Suggestive?


Yes. If you exclude the non-preferred functions of the super-ego and ID block, then the Socionics preferred functions resemble the function stack of MBTI.



Ixim said:


> tldr: I fully endorse the possibility of being an ISTJ and an ESI.


You support being a Si-dominant with a Fi lead function. How does that work? Why would an ISTJ be primarily focused around personal bonds?

There is no point in being different types in each system. They can't simultaneously coexist and disagree. It's completely illogical.


----------



## Tellus

Jeremy8419 said:


> Typing via functions in MBTI doesn't work, because several of the E/I version of functions overlap themselves too heavily.


YES!

Socionics and MBTI are IDENTICAL! 

Both systems are based on 4 Jungian dichotomies (E/I, F/T, N/S and J/P) and 16 types.

Both systems use Jungian functions: Fe, Fi, Te, Ti, Ne, Ni, Se, Si ... which are derived from three dichotomies.

Both systems use the dominant and the auxiliary functions to determine the type.



Differences:

The descriptions of the functions vary slightly, *but the definitions are identical.*

J/P is defined differently, but this only changes the names of the types.

The order of functions 3-8 differs. See link:

http://personalitycafe.com/myers-br...s-mbti-eight-function-model.html#post15187025


----------



## Jeremy8419

Fi and Fe are like circles, containing different portions of cognition. In MBTI, the circles for Fi and Fe overlap, whereas in socionics they are viewed separately. In MBTI, this allows people to have Fe as Dominant, while not simultaneously raising the question about why their Fi is absent. The Dichotomies overlap within themselves to attempt to simulate the end result of the Ego and Id in Socionics.

MBTI flips on introversion the J/P. This is an idea of reference committed by Myers and Briggs.

J/P are quantifiable, observable values. The 8 functions are not. MBTI is a theory of the mind used to explain the cognition of quantifiable, observable behaviors of others.

The only way for MBTI to work is by disregarding the quantifiable and observable behaviors.

The J/P via testing in both MBTI and Socionics is correct.
What is incorrect is the flipping of J/P on I in MBTI, and the overlapping dichotomies.


----------



## Tellus

Jeremy8419 said:


> Fi and Fe are like circles, containing different portions of cognition. In MBTI, the circles for Fi and Fe overlap, whereas in socionics they are viewed separately.


You: "Typing via functions in MBTI doesn't work, because several of the E/I version of functions overlap themselves too heavily."

You mean that typing via _the descriptions _of the functions doesn't work, right?

The _descriptions _of the functions ≠ the _definitions_ of the functions. Do you agree?



_


_


----------



## Jeremy8419

Depends on what you are calling Definition and what you are calling Description.

If by Definition, you mean "Introverted Feeling" is introverted feeling, then yes, but all the attributes to it other than those two words are different.

Fi/Fe in MBTI both contain morality and emotions. In socionics, morality is Fi and emotions are Fe. MBTI uses Dom/Aux as combinations of Ego/Id in socionics, and uses blurred boundaries of functions to accomplish this.


----------



## Ixim

Fried Eggz said:


> Yes. If you exclude the non-preferred functions of the super-ego and ID block, then the Socionics preferred functions resemble the function stack of MBTI.
> 
> 
> You support being a Si-dominant with a Fi lead function. How does that work? Why would an ISTJ be primarily focused around personal bonds?
> 
> There is no point in being different types in each system. They can't simultaneously coexist and disagree. It's completely illogical.


Yeah, I agree, but how about we just forget Fi is called Fi and Se Se? How about we call it after the action it evokes in us? If use that system, both ISFJ and ESI are the same! Here:

ISFJ first acts out of conviction or some kind of belief from there it goes into the real world to act in the present time via real acts of helping("can I carry this for you? Need anything?") and it has all the willpower in the world to do this to the select few it trusts. But! It doesn't know HOW! Hence, it's only normal to go around and ask a lot of questions. Questions about how to do the thing he wants to do, but doesn't know how. He will seek this out from others the most. Finally, NI will be used so as not to be late etc.

That *SAME DESCRIPTION* can be used for both ISFJ and ESI. Because, gee what a wonder!, they are one and the same! The only thing we need to do is to stop using funny names like Se etc. We need to call it via its cognitive profile. Something like Gulenko does. And no, it'd still be FiSe, not FiSe and SiFe. Why? Because it'd still be "Relations" and "Power", no matter how you twist and turn it.

Satisfied?


----------



## Jeremy8419

@Ixim
It's weird, because the other day I was watching some INFJ Explained YouTube thing, and the guy would start talking about Ni, and I was like...uhh...no... That's socionics Creative Ne. Then he would talk about another one, and I would be thinking...uh...no...that's this...


----------



## DeepSeaFlower

@Jeremy8419

If I got you right, you think that:

ENTP = ENTp 
INTJ = INTj

Ne, Ti (ENTp) = Ne, Ti 
*BUT* Ne, Ti (INTj) = Ni, Te 

So Ne and Te are the same in extroverted types, but the complete opposite in introverted types (Ti=Te, Te=Ti, Si=Se, Se=Si,...)?

By that logic, Ne in ENTps is the same as Ne in MBTI, but Ne in INTjs is the same as Ni in MBTI. 

Then how come there's only one definition of Ne in Socionics, not one for extroverted and one for introverted types?

How on earth does that make sense?


----------



## Draki

I think if you consider the descriptions of the cognitive functions you can come to different results like Jeremy8419 and if you just take it logically without the descriptions you end up like Tellus. 

There is actually everything said here I think: J/P switch - Wikisocion

I think the worst is that there are so many amateurs here trying to make these systems fit together while experts don't even think about it. We also kinda seem to miss the fact that psycholgy went another way long time ago, with scientificly proven systems like the BIG5 etc. MBTI/Socionics doesn't play a role in that at all. 

My type changes if I read different descriptions btw.


----------



## Tellus

Jeremy8419 said:


> Depends on what you are calling Definition and what you are calling Description.
> 
> If by Definition, you mean "Introverted Feeling" is introverted feeling, then yes, but all the attributes to it other than those two words are different.
> 
> Fi/Fe in MBTI both contain morality and emotions. In socionics, morality is Fi and emotions are Fe. MBTI uses Dom/Aux as combinations of Ego/Id in socionics, and uses blurred boundaries of functions to accomplish this.


Socionics â€“ a science of psychological types of people and their relationships

Jungian functions: Thinking, Feeling, Intuition and Sensing
Attitudes or tendencies: Extroversion and Introversion

Definitions: "The thinking and feeling functions are both used to make rational decisions, based on the data received from their information-gathering functions (sensing or intuition). Those who prefer thinking tend to decide things from a more detached standpoint, measuring the decision by what seems reasonable, logical, causal, consistent, and matching a given set of rules..." 
etc etc

Both Myers-Briggs cognitive functions (Te, Ti, Fe...) and Socionics IM elements (Te, Ti, Fe...) derive from Jung's functions and attitudes, so the descriptions of the functions/IM elements are irrelevant (and often contradictory; emotions are extroverted processes). 

This implies that INFJ: Ni, Fe... *is* IEI: Ni, Fe... 

(N.B. Type is determined by the dominant function and the auxiliary function)


----------



## Tellus

Draki said:


> I think if you consider the descriptions of the cognitive functions you can come to different results like Jeremy8419 and if you just take it logically without the descriptions you end up like Tellus.
> 
> There is actually everything said here I think: J/P switch - Wikisocion
> 
> I think the worst is that there are so many amateurs here trying to make these systems fit together while experts don't even think about it. We also kinda seem to miss the fact that psycholgy went another way long time ago, with scientificly proven systems like the BIG5 etc. MBTI/Socionics doesn't play a role in that at all.
> 
> My type changes if I read different descriptions btw.


Read post #62 

INFJ: Ni, Fe... *is* IEI: Ni, Fe... (N.B. Type is determined by the dominant function and the auxiliary function)

Could you provide a counterargument?


----------



## Ixim

Tellus said:


> Read post #62
> 
> INFJ: Ni, Fe... *is* IEI: Ni, Fe... (N.B. Type is determined by the dominant function and the auxiliary function)
> 
> Could you provide a counterargument?


I could.

Instead of using nomenclature, how about you describe cognitive process of INFJ and INFP?


----------



## RSV3

The short answer regarding converting MBTI type to socionics type is this: the club dichotomies (N/S and T/F) are generally the same but there is little correlation as to the temperament dichotomies (I/E and J/P). E.g., if you're an INFP then you could be an IEI, EII, EIE, or IEE in socionics.


----------



## Tellus

RSV3 said:


> The short answer regarding converting MBTI type to socionics type is this: the club dichotomies (N/S and T/F) are generally the same but there is little correlation as to the temperament dichotomies (I/E and J/P). E.g., if you're an INFP then you could be an IEI, EII, EIE, or IEE in socionics.


http://en.socionics.ru/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=249&Itemid=109

Do you think this is incorrect?


----------



## Tellus

Ixim said:


> I could.
> 
> Instead of using nomenclature, how about you describe cognitive process of INFJ and INFP?


"_N.B. Type is determined by the dominant function and the auxiliary function"_


----------



## RSV3

Tellus said:


> RSV3 said:
> 
> 
> 
> The short answer regarding converting MBTI type to socionics type is this: the club dichotomies (N/S and T/F) are generally the same but there is little correlation as to the temperament dichotomies (I/E and J/P). E.g., if you're an INFP then you could be an IEI, EII, EIE, or IEE in socionics.
> 
> 
> 
> http://en.socionics.ru/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=249&Itemid=109
> 
> Do you think this is incorrect?
Click to expand...

It appears to provide a good overview of socionics; I didn't see anything glaringly wrong with it.


----------



## Judas

Just to chime in, as an INFJ MBTI i also recognize myself the most in INFp in Socionics (same functions). I don't really like any of the systems per se (too rigid and systematized in some way), but both are interesting as perspectives, not to be taken as fact. Debating and comparing the theories in length and depth, even if they are not empirically verifiable, is however only useful to a point. Or as Bruce Lee said:

“Its like a finger pointing away to the moon. Don't concentrate on the finger or you will miss all that heavenly glory.” 

Perhaps the "glory" to be had by understanding what these models point to might not amount to the adjective "heavenly", but the man has a point.


----------



## Ixim

Tellus said:


> "_N.B. Type is determined by the dominant function and the auxiliary function"_


Type is determined by primary cognition style and the auxilliary cog.style.

Come on, stop evading.


----------



## Jeremy8419

@Tellus
"This implies that INFJ: Ni, Fe... is IEI: Ni, Fe"
No, because INFJ isn't Ni, Fe to begin with. It is only Ni, Fi if you believe the Dom flips it's J/P if introverted. Socionics does not do this switch. You either accept that J/P is quantifiable and concrete, have XXXX mean XXXx, and accept that either J/P flipping on introversion (MBTI) or J/P not flipping on introversion (Socionics) is correct. The only way for the two to reconcile, and allow a conversion on Functions, is to allow theory (functions) to disprove facts (J/P). Theories cannot disprove facts.


----------



## nO_d3N1AL

I still don't get what the difference is between Socionics and MBTI. They both seem to use the same categorization system, except Socionics has confusing three-letter abbreviations.


----------



## Jeremy8419

@DeepSeaFlower

In MBTI, Introversion determines the E/I of Dom function. Introversion also flips the J/P of Dom function. Introversion in MBTI has a double inverse effect on your functions. It does not say "okay, inversion so flip this." It says, "okay, inversion so flip this and now flip this."

In Socionics, Introversion only determines the E/I of leading function. It does not do another flip after that. To go from MBTI to socionics,you would have to undo the second flip that affects J/P and that doesn't exist in Socionics, and then translate. 

So, in MBTI, INFJ = Ni, Fe. Undo the J/P flip, which would make it Fi, Ne. Then translate. Which would be INFj.


----------



## Golden Rose

Jeremy8419 said:


> @DeepSeaFlower
> 
> In MBTI, Introversion determines the E/I of Dom function. Introversion also flips the J/P of Dom function. Introversion in MBTI has a double inverse effect on your functions. It does not say "okay, inversion so flip this." It says, "okay, inversion so flip this and now flip this."
> 
> In Socionics, Introversion only determines the E/I of leading function. It does not do another flip after that. To go from MBTI to socionics,you would have to undo the second flip that affects J/P and that doesn't exist in Socionics, and then translate.
> 
> So, in MBTI, INFJ = Ni, Fe. Undo the J/P flip, which would make it Fi, Ne. Then translate. Which would be INFj.


And what's the point of switching your own jungian functions and being inconsistent with your own cognitive processes in order to be consistent with your preferred nomenclature? 

There's an abyss between FiNe and NiFe yet those functions don't change from one system to another, they still maintain the same value and the same patterns and the only reason there's a switch between judging and perceiving is that J/P was always a false dichotomy. By limiting themselves through classification based solely on polarity between two inaccurate 'opposites', while disregarding any specific combination of Jungian cognitive functions altogether, Meyers and Briggs simply failed to understand what types actually entail, only to be corrected much later on.

It's part of why tests fail, you can't present a series of superficial questions with a narrow range, if not a strict duality, of possible answers without having the person analyze and understand their own motivations to pick a choice and expect it to work. Even more so if po;ar opposites like Fe and Fi or Se and Si are grouped into the same category, generating even more confusion and standard "I'm in between INTJ and INFJ, my T and F are almost on the same level" self typings as well as misunderstandings about what extroversion and introversion actually mean.

Judging and Perceiving is not a matter of being tidy or all over the place, Fi is a judging function in Socionics and according to the creator of the theory himself (Jung) so the only reason INFP is INFj in socionics is because of this mistake in translation in MBTI. Literally all there is. Ni and Si are introverted perceiving functions therefore Pi-dominance = p-types while Fi and Ti are judging junctions so Ji-dominance = J-types, extroverted types don't have this problem because Se and Ne are extroverted perceiving functions and Te and Fe are extroverted judging functions. It's really this simple.


You sound very much like a Fi type on both systems according to what I've seen of you. I don't know you so I can't properly type you but I wonder why you're so adamant about being typed as INFJ in all systems.


----------



## Jeremy8419

Hotaru said:


> And what's the point of switching your own jungian functions and being inconsistent with your own cognitive processes in order to be consistent with your preferred nomenclature?
> 
> There's an abyss between FiNe and NiFe yet those functions don't change from one system to another, they still maintain the same value and the same patterns and the only reason there's a switch between judging and perceiving is that J/P was always a false dichotomy. By limiting themselves through classification based solely on polarity between two inaccurate 'opposites', while disregarding any specific combination of Jungian cognitive functions altogether, Meyers and Briggs simply failed to understand what types actually entail, only to be corrected much later on.
> 
> It's part of why tests fail, you can't present a series of superficial questions with a narrow range, if not a strict duality, of possible answers without having the person analyze and understand their own motivations to pick a choice and expect it to work. Even more so if po;ar opposites like Fe and Fi or Se and Si are grouped into the same category, generating even more confusion and standard "I'm in between INTJ and INFJ, my T and F are almost on the same level" self typings as well as misunderstandings about what extroversion and introversion actually mean.
> 
> Judging and Perceiving is not a matter of being tidy or all over the place, Fi is a judging function in Socionics and according to the creator of the theory himself (Jung) so the only reason INFP is INFj in socionics is because of this mistake in translation in MBTI. Literally all there is. Ni and Si are introverted perceiving functions therefore Pi-dominance = p-types while Fi and Ti are judging junctions so Ji-dominance = J-types, extroverted types don't have this problem because Se and Ne are extroverted perceiving functions and Te and Fe are extroverted judging functions. It's really this simple.
> 
> 
> You sound very much like a Fi type on both systems according to what I've seen of you. I don't know you so I can't properly type you but I wonder why you're so adamant about being typed as INFJ in all systems.


FiNe and NiFe do not maintain the same values and the same patterns between systems. They only follow the same values and the same patterns when viewing Dom/Aux as Leading/Creative, ignoring the remainder of Model A, and continuing to use the values of each function from MBTI as the values for the elements in Socionics.

J/P is not a false dichotomy. If you attest that it is, then you logically must attest to there being only 8 personality types.

The tests do not fail so often. The theories of people to explain the results of a test fail so often. There are 4 dichotomies. If you test a sample of people with only one root question to each dichotomy, and then group them accordingly, they will share primarily the same personality traits. If you do it with 5,000 questions and a large sample size, and group them accordingly, they will still share primarily the same personality traits. You can then do all the theorizing you want on why the different groups answer the ways they do and behave the way they behave. You cannot theorize a concept, say that the theory is correct, and then invalidate the factual groupings of these people. Both MBTI and Socionics created groups based upon J/P and then theorized the reasons for the groups. The theories are different. The factual groupings of these people are not. You can translate between the factual groupings, but you can not translate through unproven and conflicting theories.

"the only reason INFP is INFj in socionics is because of this mistake in translation in MBTI"
No. The reason some people think INFP is equal to INFj in socionics, is because they do not understand that MBTI has introversion define introverted Dom and to define that the Judging and Perceiving elements be switched, whereas socionics has introversion define introverted Leading. MBTI states that J/P does invert when Introverted. Socionics states that J/P does NOT invert when Introverted. They are conflicting on J/P's definitions on their effects on functions, and thus can not be translated via functions, regardless of which exclusive theory is deemed correct. It's really that simple.

And I wonder why INFP's are so adamant about turning intellectual arguments into personal ones.
Because there are logical fallacies that undermine the ability to create a comprehensive and coherent system?


----------



## FearAndTrembling

Hotaru said:


> And what's the point of switching your own jungian functions and being inconsistent with your own cognitive processes in order to be consistent with your preferred nomenclature?
> 
> There's an abyss between FiNe and NiFe yet those functions don't change from one system to another, they still maintain the same value and the same patterns and the only reason there's a switch between judging and perceiving is that J/P was always a false dichotomy. By limiting themselves through classification based solely on polarity between two inaccurate 'opposites', while disregarding any specific combination of Jungian cognitive functions altogether, Meyers and Briggs simply failed to understand what types actually entail, only to be corrected much later on.
> 
> It's part of why tests fail, you can't present a series of superficial questions with a narrow range, if not a strict duality, of possible answers without having the person analyze and understand their own motivations to pick a choice and expect it to work. Even more so if po;ar opposites like Fe and Fi or Se and Si are grouped into the same category, generating even more confusion and standard "I'm in between INTJ and INFJ, my T and F are almost on the same level" self typings as well as misunderstandings about what extroversion and introversion actually mean.
> 
> Judging and Perceiving is not a matter of being tidy or all over the place, Fi is a judging function in Socionics and according to the creator of the theory himself (Jung) so the only reason INFP is INFj in socionics is because of this mistake in translation in MBTI. Literally all there is. Ni and Si are introverted perceiving functions therefore Pi-dominance = p-types while Fi and Ti are judging junctions so Ji-dominance = J-types, extroverted types don't have this problem because Se and Ne are extroverted perceiving functions and Te and Fe are extroverted judging functions. It's really this simple.
> 
> 
> You sound very much like a Fi type on both systems according to what I've seen of you. I don't know you so I can't properly type you but I wonder why you're so adamant about being typed as INFJ in all systems.


I agree with some of what you are saying here, but MBTI classifying Ni-doms as judgers and Fi doms as perceivers, is not necessarily wrong, or a false dichotomy. I think it shows an understanding of the types. The bottom line with Myers is that all types interact with the environment with their first extroverted function. INFP interact with Ne. INFJ and INTJ interact with Fe and Te. Making them judgers, and less "all over the place" than Ne users. The J in INJ is an accurate reflection of those types being extroverted judgers. Which does give the the quality of closure and structure in the environment, which the J describes. INFJ and INFP are both perceivers and judgers. You can call either type a J or P. Neither is wrong.


----------



## Golden Rose

FearAndTrembling said:


> I agree with some of what you are saying here, but MBTI classifying Ni-doms as judgers and Fi doms as perceivers, is not necessarily wrong, or a false dichotomy. I think it shows an understanding of the types. The bottom line with Myers is that all types interact with the environment with their first extroverted function. INFP interact with Ne. INFJ and INTJ interact with Fe and Te. Making them judgers, and less "all over the place" than Ne users. The J in INJ is an accurate reflection of those types being extroverted judgers. Which does give the the quality of closure and structure in the environment, which the J describes. INFJ and INFP are both perceivers and judgers. You can call either type a J or P. Neither is wrong.


It's completely different systems and neither is more truthful as there isn't a single truth, that I agree with.

But the dominant function tends to be much stronger than the auxiliary, although both work in tandem, making it much more developed and natural to the point of being simply a subconscious and mechanic way of taking in information and forming decisions and personal stances so I'm a lot more comfortable with referring to judging and perceiving functions along the Socionics model. 

Even more so since often the J/P dichotomy is presented as a specific set of behavioral traits (ie: Judgers are more focused and organized, Perceivers are lax and scattered) which doesn't really do the concept any justice since both categories include a large range of peculiar subtypes that differ one from another.


----------



## Jeremy8419

The point is...

MBTI contains a conditional inverse on it's model. Socionics does not.
If you want to accurately convert between systems, you have to conditionally inverse the Socionics model as well.

If you inverse, J always equals j and P always equals p. If you don't, you have the resulting confusion.


----------



## Tellus

RSV3 said:


> It appears to provide a good overview of socionics; I didn't see anything glaringly wrong with it.


You are contradicting yourself. This website clearly claims that _there is _a correlation between E/I, j/p in Socionics and E/I, J/P in Myers-Briggs.

"_E.g., if you're an INFP then you could be an IEI, EII, EIE, or IEE in socionics."

_This is logically impossible. See comment below (@Jeremy8419)


----------



## Jeremy8419

Wait, what am I looking at? There is no comment below.


If people accept MBTI's functions as correct...
They also accept the conditional inversion of MBTI's functions as correct.
Socionics does not use the conditional inversion of functions.
They must conditionally inverse the Socionics functions for both MBTI and Socionics to be correct.
They either accept conditional inversion, or they don't. It is either correct, or it is not.
Conditional inversion applied to Socionics means that J always equals j, and P always equals p.


----------

