# Socionics Se vs MBTI Se



## Lord Fudgingsley (Mar 3, 2013)

Everything is getting weird as fuck. We can't all be right, yet someone, or maybe no-one has the logical answer.

Yet, the logical answer can be found. And I will seek it. Perhaps my challenger is correct.


----------



## Wolfskralle (Nov 29, 2013)

A bit off topic but I can't resist to ask, since I'm wondering from quite some time.
@reckful

Would you say that "MBTI type", in a sense that you understand it, can change? 

I mean, do our preferred functionality in 4 dimensions can change? If so, in which dimensions (eg. I/E N/S) is it most likely to change (which changes are most common)? If it can't ever change why is that so? (since, as my experience shows, people tend to test differently in different stages of life).

Do you know about any experiments conducted to either prove or disprove changeability of MBTI types?


----------



## reckful (Jun 19, 2012)

wolf12345 said:


> A bit off topic but I can't resist to ask, since I'm wondering from quite some time.
> 
> @reckful
> 
> ...


At this point nobody really knows for sure if it's possible for someone's type to change, or to what extent (and maybe on which dimensions). Both Jung and Myers thought type was largely inborn, but Jung also thought it was possible to change type, at least in rare cases.

Twin studies suggest that your type is maybe half or more genetic. For more on that, see this post.

A possibly related issue is middleness on the dimensions. Jung said he thought more people were essentially in the middle on E/I than were significantly extraverted or introverted, and Myers allowed for the possibility of middleness on all four MBTI dimensions. The more recent "Step II" version of the MBTI has five subscales for each dimension, and it's possible to come out on the E side (for example) of one or two of them and the I side of the rest — which is in line with the six-facets approach to each dimension on the leading Big Five test (the NEO-PI-R). And tests aside, as I understand it, there's quite a lot of accumulated data that suggests that most or all of the MBTI dichotomies (and the Big Five dimensions they correlate with) may exhibit something along the lines of a normal distribution, with the majority of people in or not that far from the middle.

The more you take the perspective that it's possible to be, e.g., _barely_ introverted, or some kind of E/I-facet _mix_, the easier it is to imagine somebody effectively (at least in some ways) being an introvert at one point in their life and an extravert at another point — albeit (probably) never a particularly pronounced introvert or extravert.

All that said, though... I'd say all four of my MBTI preferences are pretty strong, and I find it hard to imagine that I could ever find myself having somehow turned into an E or S or F or P.


----------



## Ixim (Jun 19, 2013)

@_reckful_:

You still stand by INFP? I'll have to research the second function meaning(both in socio and in mbti) in order to finalise it. Things I am sure of are that Fi is in the lead, Ti is in 3rd(tho I hate this one! I broke the perc test with it by scoring -1,47 in it! BEAT THAT!), Te 5th(talking socio now). The rest will be known after I inform myself on the second. But if we look at the reinin dich's...there is no way I am INFP. I am not aristocratic(I never segregated people), I am not positive(yeah I am an optimist, but it's not about that...) and I sure as hell am not judicious(I feel the best when I can mix work with rest as in rest is an award for work-it magnifies the fun factor of stuff by at least 50% !).

Are there any ennea types that could make you talkative, energetic and basically look like an extro?

And please answer my question reckful: do you think mbti and socio can be different and by how much?


----------



## reckful (Jun 19, 2012)

Ixim said:


> @_reckful_:
> 
> You still stand by INFP? I'll have to research the second function meaning(both in socio and in mbti) in order to finalise it. Things I am sure of are that Fi is in the lead, Ti is in 3rd(tho I hate this one! I broke the perc test with it by scoring -1,47 in it! BEAT THAT!), Te 5th(talking socio now). The rest will be known after I inform myself on the second. But if we look at the reinin dich's...there is no way I am INFP. I am not aristocratic(I never segregated people), I am not positive(yeah I am an optimist, but it's not about that...) and I sure as hell am not judicious(I feel the best when I can mix work with rest as in rest is an award for work-it magnifies the fun factor of stuff by at least 50% !).
> 
> ...


If you recall what I said in my first post (and especially if you've looked at the posts I linked you to at the start and end of that post), I'd think you'd understand that I have no interest in doing any "socionics" analysis, or describing how I think you might be a different type under any model other than the MBTI, or based on Harold Grant's goofy function stack or anybody else's function stack.

You say you "hate" the fact that "Ti" seems to be in third place for you, but _all the IN types_ have a tendency to score pretty high on Ti. And that's because the Harold Grant function stack is goofy, but more importantly, it's because the cognitive functions themselves represent, in James Reynierse's words, a "category mistake." And you can read more about how people come out on function-based tests in this post (which is one of the ones I already linked you to at the end of my first post). And you can read a lot more about the shortcomings of the functions in all four of the posts I linked you to in that last paragraph.

The dichotomy-centric version of the MBTI is the one with decades of studies in support of its validity and reliability, and that puts it in essentially the same category as the Big Five, and in a very different category from the Enneagram, socionics, or the zodiac.

And that's not to say that either socionics sources or Enneagram sources may not have things to say about a particular person that their MBTI type didn't tell them — or at least, that weren't mentioned in whatever MBTI sources they happened to read. But I'm an MBTI guy, and when I tell you you're an NFP (and probably INFP), I'm talking about an MBTI NFP.

And no, MBTI NFP's aren't big on "segregating people"; they tend to be egalitarian. And your description of why you're not "judicious" prompts me to reply, well, no, you're a P. As is often noted, J's tend to be the "work ethic" types, and P's the "play ethic" types.

I gave you profile roundups for all the FP types, and those are the INFPs, ENFPs, ISFPs and ESFPs I'm talking about. To the extent that the "reinin dich's" are significantly inconsistent with those, I'd say so much the worse for the reinin dich's.


----------



## StunnedFox (Dec 20, 2013)

reckful said:


> And your description of why you're not "judicious" prompts me to reply, well, no, you're a P. As is often noted, J's tend to be the "work ethic" types, and P's the "play ethic" types.


I can't claim to know much when it comes to Socionics, but I am aware that "judicious" is contrasted with "decisive", so it's not so straightforwardly a J/P thing - indeed, from a quick skim of this, "judicious" seems the more P-like of the two. I think it's supposed to align with Si/Ne (for judicious) and Ni/Se (for decisive), but I can't imagine the idea of SJs and NPs, and SPs and NJs, being grouped together is one that endears itself to you too much...


----------



## reckful (Jun 19, 2012)

StunnedFox said:


> I can't claim to know much when it comes to Socionics, but I am aware that "judicious" is contrasted with "decisive", so it's not so straightforwardly a J/P thing - indeed, from a quick skim of this, "judicious" seems the more P-like of the two. I think it's supposed to align with Si/Ne (for judicious) and Ni/Se (for decisive), but I can't imagine the idea of SJs and NPs, and SPs and NJs, being grouped together is one that endears itself to you too much...


As I said, I was reacting to Ixim's "description of why you're not judicious," which talked about mixing work and rest to "magnify the fun factor." I'm not purporting to do a socionics analysis.


----------



## Bash (Nov 19, 2014)

reckful said:


> As I said, I was reacting to Ixim's "description of why you're not judicious," which talked about mixing work and rest to "magnify the fun factor." I'm not purporting to do a socionics analysis.


Let's say that I am not able to fill out the form with the 40 questions, which you provided. Is there another way to find out my type, according to this system?


----------



## reckful (Jun 19, 2012)

Bash said:


> Let's say that I am not able to fill out the form with the 40 questions, which you provided. Is there another way to find out my type, according to this system?


I'm not sure what 40-question form you're referring to. The "Step I" MBTI I linked to is 93 questions, and that's the only link I'm currently aware of to a self-scoring version.

Just in case it's useful to you, here's another (non-self-scoring) copy here at PerC.


----------



## Bash (Nov 19, 2014)

reckful said:


> I'm not sure what 40-question form you're referring to. The "Step I" MBTI I linked to is 93 questions, and that's the only link I'm currently aware of to a self-scoring version.
> 
> Just in case it's useful to you, here's another (non-self-scoring) copy here at PerC.


I had them mixed up. There were 40 extra questions.


----------



## reckful (Jun 19, 2012)

Bash said:


> I had them mixed up. There were 40 extra questions.


The "Step II" version of the MBTI (that includes scores for five subfacets for each dimension) has the same 93 items as Step I plus 51 (I goofed) more — so 144 items total — and I'm not aware of an online version. (It's also called "Form Q.")


----------



## Bash (Nov 19, 2014)

reckful said:


> The "Step II" version of the MBTI (that includes scores for five subfacets for each dimension) has the same 93 items as Step I plus 51 (I goofed) more — so 144 items total — and I'm not aware of an online version. (It's also called "Form Q.")


Thank you. Now that we have the numbers sorted out: the only way to find my MBTI™ type is to answer these questions?


----------



## reckful (Jun 19, 2012)

Bash said:


> Thank you. Now that we have the numbers sorted out: the only way to find my MBTI™ type is to answer these questions?


The 93-question test that I linked to is the "Step I" MBTI, which is the main version.

When you read about "over two million people a year" taking the official MBTI, that's mostly Step I, as I understand it.


----------



## PaladinX (Feb 20, 2013)

reckful said:


> The "Step II" version of the MBTI (that includes scores for five subfacets for each dimension) has the same 93 items as Step I plus 51 (I goofed) more — so 144 items total — and I'm not aware of an online version. (It's also called "Form Q.")


Step I and II are both online, but are not free. The one that you link to is some random's site where they've copied the items and scoring from the self-scoreable form. The Step II is only offered online because it is weighted.


----------



## Ixim (Jun 19, 2013)

Bash said:


> Let's say that I am not able to fill out the form with the 40 questions, which you provided. Is there another way to find out my type, according to this system?


You are talking about socio, yes? There is another way. Trust Entropic(I know you had chat with him). Research socio(kinda hard to notice all those stuff about yourself). Just continue with your life :happy:

As for MBTI, use reckful's link. That should be very easy.


----------



## Bash (Nov 19, 2014)

Ixim said:


> You are talking about socio, yes? There is another way. Trust Entropic(I know you had chat with him). Research socio(kinda hard to notice all those stuff about yourself). Just continue with your life :happy:
> 
> As for MBTI, use reckful's link. That should be very easy.


Thank you for your help. = ) I actually tried Entropics typing, as well as that of World Socioncs Society. They were both quite good.

I am terrible with questionaires, because of my bad self-awareness.


----------



## Ixim (Jun 19, 2013)

Bash said:


> Thank you for your help. = ) I actually tried Entropics typing, as well as that of World Socioncs Society. They were both quite good.
> 
> I am terrible with questionaires, because of my bad self-awareness.


Yeah I am bad about self awareness as well. I'd just like that someone like entropic just watched and told me stuff. Which he did :happy: .

He also didn't say that my result is a definite one. If you watch the video, you'll notice that he says one more thing, thing which I will reference now:
@_reckful_:

Seeing how I mingled around people quite much recently, I got a shot of self awareness. And this is the result. Feel free to call me a fool: ENFP (sometimes we are bored with what we are{Ne} so we just go like that-sorry!)

In short: HAHAHAHAHAHA! Much ado about nothing eh? I feel trolled. Entropic also said that it could be true(he narrowed it to ISFP and ENFP). I still think that I could be either that or INFP (really, it just changes NeFi into FiNe). I'd say that FiNe suits me more what with moralistic outlook, sometimes quite yesenin-like acting etc, but how I often act is a clear NeFi. I talk and talk and talk. Blabbermouth <3 .


----------



## Bash (Nov 19, 2014)

Ixim said:


> Yeah I am bad about self awareness as well. I'd just like that someone like entropic just watched and told me stuff. Which he did :happy: .
> 
> He also didn't say that my result is a definite one. If you watch the video, you'll notice that he says one more thing, thing which I will reference now:
> @_reckful_:
> ...


Since Fi is an introverted and judging function, Ne would be more visible to most people, if you were INFP.


----------



## reckful (Jun 19, 2012)

Ixim said:


> @_reckful_:
> 
> Seeing how I mingled around people quite much recently, I got a shot of self awareness. And this is the result. Feel free to call me a fool: ENFP (sometimes we are bored with what we are{Ne} so we just go like that-sorry!)
> 
> In short: HAHAHAHAHAHA! Much ado about nothing eh? I feel trolled. Entropic also said that it could be true(he narrowed it to ISFP and ENFP). I still think that I could be either that or INFP (really, it just changes NeFi into FiNe). I'd say that FiNe suits me more what with moralistic outlook, sometimes quite yesenin-like acting etc, but how I often act is a clear NeFi. I talk and talk and talk. Blabbermouth <3 .


As I said in my initial post, I thought INFP was more likely than ENFP for you (just based on watching most of the video and a limited browse of some of your posts), but I saw both types as possibilities. ENFP doesn't surprise me, although it's a little strange that your scores on the official MBTI switched from I (13-8) last Thursday to E (17-4) today. :tongue:

Jung himself said he thought more people were essentially in the middle on E/I than were significantly extraverted or introverted, and Myers allowed for the possibility of middleness on all four MBTI dimensions. And as I understand it, there's quite a lot of accumulated data that suggests that most or all of the MBTI dichotomies (and the Big Five dimensions they correlate with) may exhibit something along the lines of a normal distribution, with the majority of people in or not that far from the middle.

So maybe at some point you'll end up concluding that you're more of an xNFP than either an INFP or ENFP.

I was thinking I might revisit your posts, especially since there aren't that many, but that's a maybe and isn't likely to be in the next few days in any event. If I end up having any further thoughts on your type, I'll put a follow-up post in this thread.


----------



## Ixim (Jun 19, 2013)

reckful said:


> As I said in my initial post, I thought INFP was more likely than ENFP for you (just based on watching most of the video and a limited browse of some of your posts), but I saw both types as possibilities. ENFP doesn't surprise me, although it's a little strange that your scores on the official MBTI switched from I (13-8) last Thursday to E (17-4) today. :tongue:
> 
> Jung himself said he thought more people were essentially in the middle on E/I than were significantly extraverted or introverted, and Myers allowed for the possibility of middleness on all four MBTI dimensions. And as I understand it, there's quite a lot of accumulated data that suggests that most or all of the MBTI dichotomies (and the Big Five dimensions they correlate with) may exhibit something along the lines of a normal distribution, with the majority of people in or not that far from the middle.
> 
> ...


Cognitive bias. Whether it's today or before, who knows. I could be either tbh. I'll just call myself NFP. Yeah, that's crazy enough. :crazy:

edit: If you watch that video carefully(which is a TOTAL pain due to lAgGgGGGg), you should notice that at one point I say "I sometimes call myself xNFP because the difference between E and I is miniscule{52-48 or so}". Plus I HIGHLY value both Ne and Fi so, yeah, it's VERY hard to choose between them as well. xNFP suits me just well(I've just got to be special)...


----------



## Ksara (Feb 13, 2014)

@Ixim
After watching a video online (sorry can't remember where I came across it), it was discussing the difference between extroverts and introverts. That is, the Extrovert likes to 'brain dump' and the introvert is like a 'hermit.'
I'm not sure of the validity of the guy or where he got his information from.

To explain further, in general the extrovert needs to get out what's in their heads to understand it. They need to put all their cards on the table so to speak, so they know, you know, and you can both sort through the pile to figure out what is relevant. They need to sort through everything externally to know what the point is. To stop them mid sentence and ask 'what is the whole point to this?' they will struggle to give an answer as they haven't reached any conclusion yet, you've stopped their speculation in figuring that out.

Introverts are in general more like the hermit, every so often they come out of their cave, grab all the supplies, run back in and make sense of everything. That is, the introvert takes the information in, makes sense of it in some way internally, then delivers their conclusion to the world (that in between step of understanding internally is not seen, this is the step that is seen when an extrovert brain dumps). Because they need time to mull things over, when put on the the spot with an answer expected immediately, they are likely to give up a half baked idea, then later realised they missed something, should have said something else or didn't really support what they said.

Another difference I have come across reading, is that extroverts tell you what's happening in their heads, introverts won't unless they are asked. If you don't know what an extrovert is thinking, then you haven't been listening. If you don't know what an introvert is thinking, you haven't asked the right question.

I guess for you to think about is which side do you fall into? Do you give out a lot of information, find your answers whilst interacting with the world, or do you dwell on things internally only to expose you conclusions (and that may be only if you're asked about them)





I find from my experience (note my experience, take it with a grain of salt) my relationship really shows this difference. My partner (ENFP) is always discussing a lot with me, he will give all the information he can think of to make sure he has answered all possible questions that he may have and I may have. This leads to him expecting the same from me...
I, on the other hand the introvert, tends to give out my conclusions, or the information I think is relevant. I will give him the information I think he is looking for. He looks at me somewhat blankly, then says it doesn't make sense. He then expects me to elaborate (tell him everything I'm thinking) where as I'm waiting for him to ask questions so I know what pieces of information to give him.
Sometimes he will see me as closed minded, or think I haven't considered something because I haven't verbalised it. I'm thinking that it is quite obvious do I really need to state everything?
His frustration is that he doesn't know what I'm thinking or feeling and that he shouldn't have to ask all the time? he can feel the conversation is sometimes one sided. My frustration is that he can never give me a simple answer (say yes or no to my question), instead waffles on to suggest a yes or a no but never really getting to the point (so was it a yes or a no?).

I hope some of this helps


----------



## To_august (Oct 13, 2013)

Going to derail this thread once again. Sorry.


reckful said:


> And as I understand it, there's quite a lot of accumulated data that suggests that most or all of the *MBTI dichotomies (and the Big Five dimensions they correlate with)* may exhibit something along the lines of a normal distribution, with the majority of people in or not that far from the middle.


Maybe you know the source for official (or the one that is considered to be more or less valid) Big Five test. As I'm a bit lost on google when it gives many links to different variations of the test, with each of them claiming to be the Big Five. And maybe you also know where I can find more detailed information on correlation between Big Five and MBTI. Thanks.


----------



## Acadia (Mar 20, 2014)

my problem with the official mbti test is that it forces you to make stupid choices. is it a compliment to be called a person of real feeling or a consistently reasonable person? to me, the latter; but what am I? a person of real feeling. 

is it a higher compliment to be called competent or compassionate? those are both great things that are about equal on my plane; but competent has got to be the one. 

ultimately, I score ISTP on the mbti test. but realistically, I'm an ISFP. the test makes us choose what _appeals_ to us rather than reflects on who we truly are. Cognitive functions reflect I don't have a whiff of Ti in me; but Fi-Te? Every choice I make is based on what I value. Granted I am an anomaly of an ISFP as well; rather assertive and a 7w8; nevertheless I think that the MBTI test is severely lacking in depth and detail. 

I like both descriptors of Se, the Jung and the Socio, but I dislike that despite the more specific details of it, Socionics also relies heavily on stereotypes. the illustrations of people of each type are biased based on sex and make it difficult for me, at least, to find a sketch that suits me--so I leave it be.


----------



## Ixim (Jun 19, 2013)

heartofpompeii said:


> my problem with the official mbti test is that it forces you to make stupid choices. is it a compliment to be called a person of real feeling or a consistently reasonable person? to me, the latter; but what am I? a person of real feeling.
> 
> is it a higher compliment to be called competent or compassionate? those are both great things that are about equal on my plane; but competent has got to be the one.
> 
> ...


Yeah I noticed that and hence assumed(which may be right in the end) that I actually wanna be like INFP(FiNe). This could very well be true.

So what did I do? Just went to NFP description. As I already said, chooding between Fi and Ne is equally difficult as well, so...


----------



## PaladinX (Feb 20, 2013)

Cryo said:


> Going to derail this thread once again. Sorry.
> 
> Maybe you know the source for official (or the one that is considered to be more or less valid) Big Five test. As I'm a bit lost on google when it gives many links to different variations of the test, with each of them claiming to be the Big Five. And maybe you also know where I can find more detailed information on correlation between Big Five and MBTI. Thanks.


These are the articles that @reckful usually references:

McCrae & Costa article (click on the pic on the right to access the full article)
Reynierse article

The first is about the correlation to the big five. The second is about the "category mistake" of cognitive functions (or more specifically, the mistake of linking dichotomies to the dynamics of the functions as there is proof for the former but not the latter).


----------



## Figure (Jun 22, 2011)

I'd love nothing more than to spew opinions on entropic's "typing." Most of them lack sufficient observed data to support the conclusion, which doesn't mean you don't get conclusions, but rather that you get wrong ones. 

However, keeping on topic:

Socionics Se is obviously written differently than MBTI Se. Here's the problem - both theories are verbal-based, the primary authors of both theories are of different types, the theories were written in different languages on different continents, and only one of the two theories has extensive material written in English. The thing they share in common is that they both derive from Carl Jung which, first off, means it's pretty amazing they match at all. 

The reason I believe socionics treats functions better than MBTI treats them is that its model consists of both functions themselves (the IE's) *and* an accurate set of roles that each function can play within the psyche. Many MBTI function descriptions apply the same function description to all "roles " (dom, auxil, tert, etc) and simply assumes it is the same function but weaker as you go down the stack. MBTI tries to lay stretcher to Se across the board, for every type, which forces it to use more open-ended, convoluted language to describe each function, such as the below: 



thrill of action 
immediate action on experiences 
living life to the fullest 
awareness of physical world 
immediate context 
physical impulses and excitement 
My experiences with ISFP and ISTP is that only some, only partially fit these characteristics. In my experience ISTP and ISFP are both more rigid, sharp, systematic, and ideologically (not politically) conservative types in that neither is comfortable with possibilities and potentials that lack concrete support. Neither thinks well "outside the box," but at the same time neither would particularly find a lot of meaning or reason not to be cynical of that phrase since it represents an informational blind spot for them. 

A common thread between them is mentioning that they fear change (which again makes sense since Ne is their weakest function), and that they both tend to pay a high degree of detail in what they do (in particular for ISTP, logical detail). Both can apply pressure to other people to get something done, neither will tolerate direct pressure put on them, and neither is particularly likely to display weakness. Both are stabilizing, and tend to quickly attend to tasks that maintain a structure in order. While they don't _perceive _painstaking detail or dwell on detail out of pure interest over getting something done, what they do is typically very detailed. While I have met both ISTP and ISFP who are scattered, overall I've not met many who were not in line with their own structures, and the healthier/more intelligent being extremely reliable and consistent, logically, interpersonally in what they do. 

As you can see, elements of being "in touch with the physical world" and "immediacy" play a role in these observations, but absent are the impulsiveness, overexcitability, hyperactivity, and overall thrill. Again, I think that's because MBTI tries to peanut butter a label over all function-roles, and focuses here more on optimistic Se dominants - who, one step further - aren't always_ that_ way either.


----------



## reckful (Jun 19, 2012)

heartofpompeii said:


> my problem with the official mbti test is that it forces you to make stupid choices. is it a compliment to be called a person of real feeling or a consistently reasonable person? to me, the latter; but what am I? a person of real feeling.
> 
> is it a higher compliment to be called competent or compassionate? those are both great things that are about equal on my plane; but competent has got to be the one.


One of the assumptions behind most modern personality typologies, including the MBTI and Big Five, is the notion that someone's preferences correspond to relatively hardwired and substantially genetic dimensions of human personality that were presumably favored by evolution for reasons we may never fully understand.

The aim of personality tests is to type people as accurately as possible with respect to those dimensions. And there's nothing that says that a forced-choice item that does a psychometrically impressive job of sorting MBTI T's from F's (for example) is necessarily going to have two sides that correspond to the kind of _conceptually logical_ duality likely to please the philosophy majors in the audience.

All of the items on the current form of the official MBTI test got there by a process of elimination that started decades ago and has involved hundreds of tested items, with the survivors basically being the items that have been found to do the best job of clustering — based on thousands of tests and the psychometric standards applicable in the personality typology field — with the other items being scored for the same preference. (And that's not to say that any one item is likely to be chosen by anything like 90% or more of the appropriate type.)

The MBTI Manual expressly acknowledges that, in many cases, both sides of a particular item are likely to have some appeal to any particular test-taker, and also that, in many cases, the alternative choices don't exactly make sense in terms of a _logical opposition_. As the Manual explains:



MBTI Manual said:


> In writing items, every effort was made to make the responses appeal to the appropriate types, for example, to make the perceptive response to a JP item as attractive to P people as the judging response is to J people. The result is that responses may be psychologically rather than logically opposed, a fact that annoys many thinking types. *Item content is less important than that the words and form of the sentence should serve as a "stimulus to evoke a type response."*


And here's a little bit of what Myers said in Gifts Differing about the relationship of the actual underlying temperament preferences to behavior, test items and summary descriptions:



Myers said:


> Since the more superficial aspects of type are often the easiest to report, many trivial reactions are useful for identification, but these are merely straws to show which way the wind blows. They are not the wind. *It would be a mistake to assume that the essence of an attitude or of a perceptive or judging process is defined by* its trivial surface effects or by *the test items that reflect it* or by the words used to describe it.


----------



## reckful (Jun 19, 2012)

Cryo said:


> Going to derail this thread once again. Sorry.
> 
> Maybe you know the source for official (or the one that is considered to be more or less valid) Big Five test. As I'm a bit lost on google when it gives many links to different variations of the test, with each of them claiming to be the Big Five. And maybe you also know where I can find more detailed information on correlation between Big Five and MBTI. Thanks.


The "Big Five" is an umbrella term for several somewhat independently-developed typologies with respect to which respectable amounts of data have been gathered and that seem to basically involve the same five underlying dimensions — nothwithstanding plenty of noteworthy theoretical variations from typology to typology and from typologist to typologist.

So there's no "official" Big Five test, but the most well-known (by a substantial margin, I believe) is the NEO-PI-R, developed by McCrae & Costa. It's a proprietary test (like the MBTI), and I don't know of a free online link to any copy of it.

The free Big Five online test I've most often pointed people to is the first one I link to in this post.

That post also has a link to a second free, online (and more academically-sanctioned) Big Five test, plus some discussion of the Neuroticism dimension, the similarminds test, and the correspondence between the Big Five and the MBTI.

The first article that PaladinX linked you to is one where the leading Big Five psychologists (McCrae & Costa) conclude that the four MBTI dichotomies are essentially tapping into four of the Big Five factors, that the MBTI dichotomies basically pass muster in the scientific validity and reliability departments, and that each typology might have things to learn from the other.


----------



## Consolidated Potato (Feb 2, 2015)

reckful said:


> Oops, sorry. I meant to give you the direct link to the test.
> 
> As you'll see if you read my more theory-oriented links (on the Grant function stack, dichotomies vs. functions, etc.), I'm definitely not a socionics subscriber.


Hey thanks, turns out I'm an ENTJ according to that test.


----------



## Acadia (Mar 20, 2014)

Figure said:


> I'd love nothing more than to spew opinions on entropic's "typing." Most of them lack sufficient observed data to support the conclusion, which doesn't mean you don't get conclusions, but rather that you get wrong ones.
> 
> However, keeping on topic:
> 
> ...


But it's also important to note that correlation does not equal causation; that just because someone scores one way in socionics does not mean they cannot score differently in MBTI; and perhaps that's a flaw within the systems. Consider that as an Se-user, I'm actually quite flexible to change. I fly by the seat of my pants. I go wherever I feel like it, whenever I feel like it. I've lived in four different places {cities, countries, states, you name it} in five years--soon to be moving again in pursuit of my goals, which are based on my values. Introversion doesn't necessarily equate conservatism {again, ideologically, not politically} which is why I tend to score SEE on Socionics, and yet maintain the introvert spectrum {ISFP or ISTP} on the MBTI tests. 


@reckful but a process of elimination doesn't necessarily make it accurate. I think it's good that the questions are designed to appeal to both judging and perceiving types; and it's good that nobody expects the test items to reflect particular attitudes or judging/perceiving processes--but the problem still stands that the F questions correlate more to Fe--and sensing, to Fi--and intuition, to Ne. The tests themselves are somehow biased. By getting a simple four letter score it seems to suggest that an ISFP and an ISFJ have more in common than an ISTP and an ISFP, or an ISTJ and ISFJ. I understand that the cognitive functions might stand to confuse people more than is necessary, but the disparity that results seems to kind of minimize the effects of the results. There's a great chance that Fi users will take that test, and not realize they are in fact feelers, because Fi skews the user to perceive their choices and perspectives as logical and common sense, as long as the choices reflect their values. Other people might not even come into the picture at all.


----------



## Acadia (Mar 20, 2014)

Ixim said:


> Yeah I noticed that and hence assumed(which may be right in the end) that I actually wanna be like INFP(FiNe). This could very well be true.
> 
> So what did I do? Just went to NFP description. As I already said, chooding between Fi and Ne is equally difficult as well, so...


I dunno hahah I think the thing to do is figure out whether or not you use Si or Se. Ne-Si and Se-Ni act quite differently from one another; and Si vs Se is pretty easy too. Just don't pay attention to whether or not you reminisce or like hot chocolate, there's more to it than that. Si is an internal abstraction of the environment whereas Se is keen observation of the immediate environment. Si usually takes more time to warm up to new situations whereas Se is more direct and impulsive. Si's stereotypically more traditional but to veer away from that word, I think I'll note that typically standalone Si prefers comfort over new experiences whereas typically standalone Se prefers new experiences that engage the senses over comfort. The problem, of course, is where those functions come to interact with the other functions, making the type of oneself very subjective =/ aka--read about it and be honest with yourself, don't think too much; you'll figure it out.


----------



## Ixim (Jun 19, 2013)

@reckful:

Sorry that I have to bump this, but you were right all along. Tests be damned. When I looked deep down and really asked myself some questions, yeah INFP it was. Not to mention my natal chart which basically gives me NFP and then there's the birth sign(LOOK AT THE AVATAR!) and I wonder where my thoughts wandered off to.

hint: it's not in the general vicinity of ESTJ :laughing:

Both you and entropic did your job and I really don't know how to repay you. It's such a large epiphany that I really can't describe it with words. I could, but I don't feel like typing :happy: . First entropic found out my Fi(I'd be really lost without it!) then you steered me in the right direction. A bit more of these things and I can finally be at peace. Ah, peace. What an awesome thing!


----------

