# how are socionics and mbti related?



## Harizu (Apr 27, 2014)

Because I didn't really understand it.
I'm asking because apparently I'm LIE in socionics but I am an ENTP in the myers-briggs, therefore shouldn't I be ILE in socionics? And aren't LIEs ENTJs?
I still don't understand socionics that much, so if anyone could clarify, it would be great.


----------



## dracula (Apr 5, 2015)

I would love to know as well - apparently I'm ILI if I remember correctly, which would technically make me an INTP and that's most definitely not the case. 

Although I should probably do the test again, the previous time I was hungover as hell and generally mad at the world so that might have affected.

Edit: And yes, LIEs are ENTJs at least according to a friend who is one.


----------



## Harizu (Apr 27, 2014)

I took different tests and in most of them I scored as LIE; the other results were SLE and ILE, but I didn't get them as many times as I got LIE.

Also, reading the description of ILE, I found out I couldn't really relate to it. It was different from the mbti description of the ENTP.


----------



## Valtire (Jan 1, 2014)

@Harizu

If you go by cognitive functions, then yes, they should agree because they're both based on Jung's work. But if you ignore the cognitive functions, then there is no correlation whatsoever. David Keirsey ignored the cognitive functions, so his work doesn't agree at all with Socionics. However, MBTI utterly corrupted several of Jung's cognitive functions (Si, for example), so they may well disagree there.

Type descriptions aren't going to agree, because they're all very bad in Socionics and in MBTI.


----------



## Abraxas (May 28, 2011)

They both started with Jung.

That's about it.


----------



## Ixim (Jun 19, 2013)

And DON'T GO BY THE TESTS!

Research, research, research! Then contemplate a bit. = your type emerges.


----------



## Bagheera (Oct 20, 2014)

draculaoverlord said:


> I would love to know as well - apparently I'm ILI if I remember correctly, which would technically make me an INTP and that's most definitely not the case.
> 
> Although I should probably do the test again, the previous time I was hungover as hell and generally mad at the world so that might have affected.
> 
> Edit: And yes, LIEs are ENTJs at least according to a friend who is one.


ILI (intuitive - logical - intratim) corresponds to INTJ (Ni/Te) in MBTI; INTP (Ti/Ne) would be LII (logical - intuitive - intratim). The alternative Socionics notation (the one with the lowercase last letter e.g. ESTp) switches the j/p for the introverts, so an MBTI INTJ is a Socionics INTp (ILI) and vice versa.

Confusing, right? :wink:


----------



## dracula (Apr 5, 2015)

Bagheera said:


> ILI (intuitive - logical - intratim) corresponds to INTJ (Ni/Te) in MBTI; INTP (Ti/Ne) would be LII (logical - intuitive - intratim). The alternative Socionics notation (the one with the lowercase last letter e.g. ESTp) switches the j/p for the introverts, so an MBTI INTJ is a Socionics INTp (ILI) and vice versa.
> 
> Confusing, right? :wink:


Slightly... Oh well, after doing the test again I was ILE, so was that ENTP or ENTJ now?


----------



## Bagheera (Oct 20, 2014)

draculaoverlord said:


> Slightly... Oh well, after doing the test again I was ILE, so was that ENTP or ENTJ now?


ILE (intuitive - logical - extratim) is ENTP (Ne/Ti) in MBTI.


----------



## Ixim (Jun 19, 2013)

What I will do now is somewhat experimental:

See, I don't think that FiSe in MBTI = FiSe in Socionics. NOT AT ALL actually! Because if that was true I'd be an ISFP(which I most decidedly am not, yes @reckful you win on that front!). Meanwhile, I'm much closer to ISFJ in MBTI which is their SiFe. Now, how did this come to be? First, I agree that most of cog.fnct descriptions are jury rigged to fit the result(not the proper other way around!). Second, you must actually read what cog.fncts describe in comparison to IEs. When read,, it's blatantly banal to deduce that Se/Si(MBTI) != Se/Si(Socio). This very shift shifts the whole spectrums away from each other. Because in MBTI, the core description of Se is missing only to be what Si is in Socio. Si in MBTI would be what, basically, Fi and Se are in Socio etc.

Plus if you read 99% of descriptions of ISFJ in MBTI(while I don't agree with this practice and it's VERY WELL KNOWN!) and compare them with ISFJ description in Socionics...it's the SAME THING! Which, coincindentally, just proves @reckful correct!

Really, that order of functions in MBTI is just random. Whoever thought of it is a pothead. For your information, it wasn't Myers who thought that ISFJ = SiFeTiNe, she actually thought that it was ISFJ = SiFeTeNe while Jung thought it was ISFJ = SiFi(Fi HELLO!)TeNe. The presence of Fi in Jung's personal description just proves me right. Now, the difference in definitions of Se-mbti and Si-socio is large enough that they could be the same thing(and Si-mbti and Se-socio likewise). Funnily enough, none of this matters because "cog.fncts" are just a Ti fart. They haven't been proven even once. They are almost to typology what Sun astro is to astro. Dichotomies matter and if you look at it at that way ISFj(ESI) = ISFJ, there is no way around it. You could use different verbs bla bla bla to describe them, but they are THE EXACT SAME THING.

...As it should be!


----------

