# MBTI ENxx types, what is your MBTI and Socionics type?



## ThatOneWeirdGuy (Nov 22, 2012)

TopCatLSD said:


> Both were based off of C.G. Jung's Psychological Theory.
> 
> Isabel Myers and Katherine Briggs later condensed Jung's work into what we know of MBTI today-blah-blah-blah, im sure you know the story already.
> 
> ...


"Correlate quite well" is different from "the same." 

They're both based off of "Psychological Types," however Augusta and Myers & Briggs extrapolate from and interpret it differently. Thus you get the Dom/Aux/Tert/Inf model and Model A, and different definitions and associations of the functions. Functions in the MBTI sense, not the socionics. 

Basically, functions (Si, Ni, etc) and the organization of those functions in the psyche (Model A, Dom/Aux) are defined differently between MBTI and socionics, even though they're based on the same thing. It's kind of like different sects of Christianity, with Psychological Types being the Bible. To extend the analogy further, it would be false to say that Southern Baptism is the same as Catholicism. Yet they are of the same religion.


----------



## cyamitide (Jul 8, 2010)

TopCatLSD said:


> Haha, I forgot Im supposed to know the entirety of your post history, despite joining in late 2013 and have never heard of you before.
> 
> Lol! swagalicious! ROFLcopter! Yolo! :laughing:
> 
> Than whats the point of your thread?


Lesson learned then, young grasshopper: before you shoot out assumptions about me or any other poster on this forum, verify that what you're saying isn't total bullshit. And if you cannot be bothered to take or minute or two of your time to look up prior discussions, then don't merely invent things from your imagination and hope that no one catches you at it. It's not going to fly :kitteh:

The point of my thread is to continue Fractals' project and complete the polls for extraverted types, since he made polls only for introverts: http://personalitycafe.com/socionic...sxx-types-what-your-mbti-socionics-types.html


----------



## Fire Away (Nov 29, 2013)

cyamitide said:


> Lesson learned then, young grasshopper: before you shoot out assumptions about me or any other poster on this forum, verify that what you're saying isn't total bullshit. And if you cannot be bothered to take or minute or two of your time to look up prior discussions, then don't merely invent things from your imagination and hope that no one catches you at it. It's not going to fly :kitteh:


That's a good point.

However to be perfectly frank, I don't really give a shit about you. :dry:



> The point of my thread is to continue Fractals' project and complete the polls for extraverted types, since he made polls only for introverts


Ya, I was there.

I still don't understand the reasoning behind the thread. You have yet to clarify.


----------



## Fire Away (Nov 29, 2013)

ThatOneWeirdGuy said:


> "Correlate quite well" is different from "the same."
> 
> They're both based off of "Psychological Types," however Augusta and Myers & Briggs extrapolate from and interpret it differently. Thus you get the Dom/Aux/Tert/Inf model and Model A, and different definitions and associations of the functions. Functions in the MBTI sense, not the socionics.
> 
> Basically, functions (Si, Ni, etc) and the organization of those functions in the psyche (Model A, Dom/Aux) are defined differently between MBTI and socionics, even though they're based on the same thing. It's kind of like different sects of Christianity, with Psychological Types being the Bible. To extend the analogy further, it would be false to say that Southern Baptism is the same as Catholicism. Yet they are of the same religion.


Alright I get you know. roud:

P.S. I may or may not have mixed up you and the OP at some point, but I might not have.


----------



## Valtire (Jan 1, 2014)

cyamitide said:


> this has nothing to do with understanding but with getting cold hard evidence


There's nothing cold or hard about subjectively reasoned evidence. You're asking people's opinions about themselves, even though they may well have mistyped themselves in one or both systems. Te doesn't like this reasoning at all.


----------



## Mostly Harmless (Oct 16, 2011)

TopCatLSD said:


> I still don't understand the reasoning behind the thread. You have yet to clarify.


People don't have to collect data just to confirm or reject that socionics and MBTI are the same thing. They could just be interested in how others think about the theories in relation to themselves ...

Since cyamitide considers the systems to be closely comparable, (s)he's possibly trying to see how deep the supposed misinformation goes. Or what the most common mistypings are. Or just investigating how people reconcile the two.

You're being unnecessarily adversarial for reasons I can't fathom.


----------



## Fire Away (Nov 29, 2013)

Mostly Harmless said:


> People don't have to collect data just to confirm or reject that socionics and MBTI are the same thing. They could just be interested in how others think about the theories in relation to themselves ...
> 
> Since cyamitide considers the systems to be closely comparable, (s)he's possibly trying to see how deep the supposed misinformation goes. Or what the most common mistypings are. Or just investigating how people reconcile the two.


Ya, that's what I was thinking the point was. After being replied to, that's the only real reason I could think of.

However in @cyamitide 's own words:



> I'm the one who prefers evidence to assumptions and hypotization.


I rather be told directly what the point is, as apposed to having to assume what the point is. I just want it simple and clean.



> You're being unnecessarily adversarial for reasons I can't fathom.


????

I'm under the impression that the OP is about ready to have a verbal argument to the death with me, but I'm avoiding it until I can understand their POV.


----------



## Mostly Harmless (Oct 16, 2011)

TopCatLSD said:


> I'm under the impression that the OP is about ready to have a verbal argument to the death with me, but I'm avoiding it until I can understand their POV.


IDK about verbal argument to the death although I guess the OP's being a little Ti-snippy. However, if you look at the sequence of events, it kinda looks like you started it, bro. And you kept going. 

I mean, first, you dissed the thread by asking what was "so fucking difficult" about the j/p switch, which kinda implies that you think the thread has no purpose except for deluded people. Then you made the assumption that the OP is deluded, by your own standards. When the OP pointed out that this is not, in fact, the case, you flounced and went back on the offensive about the purpose of the thread.

None of which looks like a particularly effective way to avoid an argument.

I mean, in fairness, maybe you didn't mean any of what you said in the way I've presented it. But on paper, it definitely reads as unnecessarily confrontational to me.


----------



## Flaming Bassoon (Feb 15, 2013)

ENFP IEE-Ne. I relate well to this description about being full of contradictions:



> *ADVISER (Ne-ENFp)**
> The intuitive subtype gives the impression of a person that has been torn off from reality. Internally focused and at the same time disseminated, they’re inclined to unexpected contrasts of behavior where shyness and apathy are replaced by emotional elevation, determination and activity, a melancholic look - or inspired/joyful. Thoughtful and impulsive, optimistic and suppressed, timid and energetic, they provide various impressions. Internally inconsistent, sensitive and vulnerable, they hid their problems under a mask of carelessness. Try to be affable with everything, aspire to understand and favor everyone with a smile. They are attentive, soft and tactful. Willingly they explore the problems of others, try to find ways out of difficult positions and give useful advice. They protect their emotions and can threaten their opponents with notable psychological pressure. They’re impulsive, a little bit angular and their movements are badly coordinated. Gait is fast and a bit clumsy; their chins are often pointed, appear attentive, interrogative or surprised. *


----------



## cyamitide (Jul 8, 2010)

Fried Eggz said:


> There's nothing cold or hard about subjectively reasoned evidence. You're asking people's opinions about themselves, even though they may well have mistyped themselves in one or both systems. Te doesn't like this reasoning at all.


I hope your Te thinks realistically for at least a couple of seconds and understands that the setting of an anonymous internet forum isn't particularly conductive to pulling controlled studies, and that people on here have neither the financing, nor the time, nor the resources needed to conduct actual research. But if your Te can come up with a better way to collect socionics data, I'm all ears. For now, polling opinions and consensus is the best that it gets on PerC.

And on that note, it's baffling that as many as Te valuers like yourself that we have around this forum, and as much as they've praised Te as the epitome of objectivism, that none of you have come up with any methods or experiments to verify that what you're dabbling in has any objective basis at all, even simple data cross verification poll like this one.


----------



## cyamitide (Jul 8, 2010)

TopCatLSD said:


> I rather be told directly what the point is, as apposed to having to assume what the point is. I just want it simple and clean.


The point is to gather data on correlation of Socionics and MBTI types and check the veracity of this chart posted on Dmitri Lytov's site: http://i.imgur.com/81uST.gif The data that has been gathered on this forum sofar has put this chart under question.



TopCatLSD said:


> I'm under the impression that the OP is about ready to have a verbal argument to the death with me, but I'm avoiding it until I can understand their POV.


By the low frequency of my responses you could have guessed that I'm not at all interested in you or responding to your posts. 

From my point of view you're failing to grasp something that's rather simple because you refuse to give it even the tiniest bit of thought and would rather throw one-liners at me in hopes that I will eventually chew it up and do all the work for you.


----------



## Valtire (Jan 1, 2014)

cyamitide said:


> I hope your Te thinks realistically for at least a couple of seconds and understands that the setting of an anonymous internet forum isn't particularly conductive to pulling controlled studies, and that people on here have neither the financing, nor the time, nor the resources needed to conduct actual research. But if your Te can come up with a better way to collect socionics data, I'm all ears. For now, polling opinions and consensus is the best that it gets on PerC.


You absurdly exaggerated my statement. There is a difference between being reasonably logical and doing a controlled scientific study.

This is an example of what I mean: how many people on this forum are told that Socionics is a J/P switch and will thus vote accordingly and skew the poll results? I expect it's enough to skew this poll beyond any meaningful data. Hence my statement. Even using MBTI/Socionics test results will help to avoid that skew, and may provide relatively useful data.


----------



## Fire Away (Nov 29, 2013)

cyamitide said:


> From my point of view you're failing to grasp something that's rather simple because you refuse to give it even the tiniest bit of thought and would rather throw one-liners at me in hopes that I will eventually chew it up and do all the work for you.


Your telling me that had I put even the slightest amount of thought into it, I would have figured out that you were trying to disprove this EXACT chart: http://i.imgur.com/81uST.gif . That's extremely specific, it would have been impossible to figure that out without asking.



> By the low frequency of my responses you could have guessed that I'm not at all interested in you or responding to your posts.


That's your business. A reply is a reply.



> The point is to gather data on correlation of Socionics and MBTI types and check the veracity of this chart posted on Dmitri Lytov's site: http://i.imgur.com/81uST.gif The data that has been gathered on this forum sofar has put this chart under question.


Ok I get the point now, however asking someone about what they "Think" their type is isn't very scientific. The only way this would work is if all the contestants were professionally typed like the subjects in official surveys are, other wise your results would be meaningless.


----------



## Fire Away (Nov 29, 2013)

Mostly Harmless said:


> IDK about verbal argument to the death although I guess the OP's being a little Ti-snippy. However, if you look at the sequence of events, it kinda looks like you started it, bro. And you kept going.
> 
> I mean, first, you dissed the thread by asking what was "so fucking difficult" about the j/p switch, which kinda implies that you think the thread has no purpose except for deluded people. Then you made the assumption that the OP is deluded, by your own standards. When the OP pointed out that this is not, in fact, the case, you flounced and went back on the offensive about the purpose of the thread.
> 
> ...


Looking back I do seem like an asshole. :dry:

I wasn't trying to be but I guess that's just how I come across.

Whatever-I knew my tongue was going to get me in trouble at some point. :tongue:


----------



## cyamitide (Jul 8, 2010)

Fried Eggz said:


> You absurdly exaggerated my statement. There is a difference between being reasonably logical and doing a controlled scientific study. This is an example of what I mean: how many people on this forum are told that Socionics is a J/P switch and will thus vote accordingly and skew the poll results? I expect it's enough to skew this poll beyond any meaningful data. Hence my statement. Even using MBTI/Socionics test results will help to avoid that skew, and may provide relatively useful data.


There is a difference between being reasonable and simply being logical. Being "reasonable" would require that you bring realistic concerns and suggestions to the table that work and can actually be implemented. Now lets take a look at what you're asking for: to verify if there's any basis for your J/P concern would require a "control poll" polling for your question. Then everyone who's voted on first 4 polls will need to vote on this second poll as well. Meanwhile the software of this forum allows for only 1 poll per thread with a 20 question maximum, no cross polling features, no way to ensure that everyone votes on both polls, even mass emailing isn't allows to prevent abuse. So what you want lies beyond what this forum allows for -- it's simply logical, and I agree it would be great to run all these controls, but it is not workable and therefore not reasonable. In other words, your own concerns are insensibly exaggerated over what is feasible on here. There is no simple and elegant way to run these kinds of controlled studies on PerC.

To alleviate your J/P worries a little: from type studies that we did locally with some friends many whom I know well and know personally, most have heard about the J/P switch. None have done what you've suggested i.e. simply switching their letter without reading about their type further. It's easy to guess why this hasn't happened -- people are motivated to read about their types because they want to learn more about themselves, that's the whole purpose of typology, thus there wasn't a single person who hasn't taken a deeper look into their type. It is a safe to assume that this applies to this forum: that the majority of this forum's posters aren't that simpleminded and clueless to simply flip their 4 letter codes around without doing any further reading and studying the types, and therefore poll data is not as severely distorted and meaningless as you're suggesting.


----------



## cyamitide (Jul 8, 2010)

TopCatLSD said:


> Your telling me that had I put even the slightest amount of thought into it, I would have figured out that you were trying to disprove this EXACT chart: http://i.imgur.com/81uST.gif . That's extremely specific, it would have been impossible to figure that out without asking.


You didn't need the chart. How MBTI and Socionics types correlate is a commonly asked question on this forum, there's even a sticky thread addressing it, so when you see a poll asking for MBTI and Socionics types it's not that hard to guess it's purpose. This chart is only one example of a similar study.



TopCatLSD said:


> That's your business. A reply is a reply.


Exactly, and this is TMI and your business that you should keep to yourself:


TopCatLSD said:


> However to be perfectly frank, I don't really give a shit about you. :dry:





TopCatLSD said:


> Ok I get the point now, however asking someone about what they "Think" their type is isn't very scientific. The only way this would work is if all the contestants were professionally typed like the subjects in official surveys are, other wise your results would be meaningless.


That has already been answered. If you want moar scientificality, then provide the funding and resources needed to conduct controlled studies. 'Till that time, polled responses is the best it gets in terms of evidence on this forum.


----------



## Fire Away (Nov 29, 2013)

cyamitide said:


> That has already been answered. If you want moar scientificality, then provide the funding and resources needed to conduct controlled studies. 'Till that time, polled responses is the best it gets in terms of evidence on this forum.


Fine, good luck with your "Scientific" studies. :kitteh:


----------



## cyamitide (Jul 8, 2010)

bump


----------



## O_o (Oct 22, 2011)

Just basing it off of the Reinin Dichotomies : INTP

Something must have been done wrong somewhere along that process. 
MBTI : Ne Fi Te Si


----------



## Raawx (Oct 9, 2013)

FreeBeer said:


> >.> you see..uhm....I'm ENFp IEE in socionics, however I have phlegmatic/melancholic temperament, which roughly equates to IJ temperament & since I'm not sanguine by any measure according to MBTi I cannot be either one of these types: ESFJ, ENFP, ENTP, ESFP.
> 
> thus I figure since I'm not really ENFP, but I'm Fi-IEE (a very non social one at that)...it would be odd to vote on the poll.
> 
> The odd thing is that I'm neither an introvert nor an extrovert and I recover energy best by sleeping or doing fun stuff alone or with people (doesn't really mater as long as I'm engaged in something interesting).


I'm an ENFP and when I'm depressed and such, I get the more IxxJ results. I'd assume that you're likely the same.

Believe me, I'm likely considered by most (especially my ENFJ friend) to be an introvert. I'm not.


----------



## Kabosu (Mar 31, 2012)

Used to have a type down, especially on the former system.
I could have been correct. Merry over serious doesn't contradict my previous typing and I definitely know my dichotomy on that one.


----------



## cyamitide (Jul 8, 2010)

bump


----------



## Pressed Flowers (Oct 8, 2014)

I'm an ENFJ, EIE


----------



## cyamitide (Jul 8, 2010)

Pressed Flowers said:


> I'm an ENFJ, EIE


There are so few ENFJ votes. I would have thought there are more ENFJs on this forum.


----------



## Pressed Flowers (Oct 8, 2014)

cyamitide said:


> There are so few ENFJ votes. I would have thought there are more ENFJs on this forum.


Hi! I was a bit surprised to be quoted here, it's been a while since I made that post  

And me too! I'm really not sure why the self reported ENFJs are so low... I think part of it is that people don't like identifying as Fe dominant, another part that Fe dominants would probably be more /out/ in the world and not on a personality site, and also maybe because ENFJs aren't too common... but they're also not really glorified, so there aren't a lot of people drawn to claiming to be ENFJ because it's a "special" type to be. I suspect that there's maybe a few more ENFJs here than realize it (cough, the INFJ forums), but I also think that of course there are a few mistyped folks who aren't ENFJs on here as well (as there are with every type) 

That said, a few of my chat partners have considered ENFJ for themselves. I'll post this poll on the chat topic and see if any of them want to participate.


----------



## Darkbloom (Aug 11, 2013)

ENFJ and ENFj


----------



## counterintuitive (Apr 8, 2011)

Apparently, I have already voted in this poll! :crazy: :crazy: inkface:

A lot of people have retyped from their original typing though, so their votes here are not accurate. Also, some people have just translated their MBTI type over, so they have not been independently typed in both systems. In some cases, neither type is correct. Lol.



_Sent from my phone doohickey using some application thing_


----------



## Sylas (Jul 23, 2016)

counterintuitive said:


> Apparently, I have already voted in this poll! :crazy: :crazy: inkface:
> 
> A lot of people have retyped from their original typing though, so their votes here are not accurate. ...


How do you know that "a lot of people have retyped"? I checked a few voters on these polls and the majority has kept the same type.


----------



## counterintuitive (Apr 8, 2011)

Sylas said:


> How do you know that "a lot of people have retyped"? I checked a few voters on these polls and the majority has kept the same type.


Because I checked a bunch of people and they retyped. The majority may have kept the same type, but if even 25% retyped, that's enough to render some votes inaccurate


----------

