Taken from this article.
"Let us compare the very 16 type descriptions by their keywords.
And using this method, we discovered very interesting results!
We proposed the 16 descriptions of the Keirsey types to 108 socionists (this means, each of the 108 read ALL THE 16 descriptions), and we asked them to identify the socionic types in these descriptions.
The table below represents the result of this experiment:
And the next table represents one more result of this experiment. We asked the participants to indicate their own types, and to recognize their own types in these descriptions:
Do these tables represent the real correlation between the socionic types and the Keirsey types? We think they do not. They rather represent characteristic stereotypes of the socionics and the Keirsey typology. To compare these typologies objectively, we will need to test at least several hundreds of persons using both socionic and American methods. But at least we know now for sure that socionics, MBTT and Keirsey, in spite of their common origin from the Jungian typology, are not identical!"
What I find most interesting about this is how types like ISTJs (who are Si dominant and Te auxiliary) identify with LSIs (ISTjs). At first glance, I sound like a retard. But LSIs in socionics have Ti as a base function, and Se as a creative. They are like ISTPs in MBTT. So surely ISTJs would identify most with SLIs (ISTps), who have Si as a base function and Te as a creative one? Well, descriptively ISTJs and LSIs are very much alike. Does this mean ISTJ = LSI? No. Nor does it mean that ISTJ = SLI. If you check out the second table, you'll see that no ISTJs identified with the SLI description, even though they have the same functions.
This suggests that the functions in socionics differ from those in MBTT, and this is a suggestion that is worth taking into consideration. MBTT Se does not account for aptitude in sensing power dynamics, which is a major part of socionics Se; rather this is found in Te. In socionics, Te does not have the same 'force' as the SLE (ESTp). For example, the LIE's (ENTj) Se is a 6th function (hidden agenda), meaning that it is weak but valued (the LIE belongs to a Se valuing quadra).
Another thing worth pointing out about correlations is the functions. Basically, while in socionics you use all eight functions, and how good at them and whether or not you value them determines your type, in MBTT, you only use four. There's also a pattern; while the first two functions of any type are the same in both socionics and MBTT (e.g. an ESTJ has dominant Te and auxiliary Si in MBTT; in socionics, an LSE (ESTj) has base Te and creative Si), the tertiary and inferior functions correlate with the 6th and 5th functions respectively. In essence, what functions an ESTJ uses (Te, Si, Ne, Fi) in MBTT, it also uses in socionics, but these are only the functions the LSE values. And 'values' does not mean 'uses'; on the contrary, two of the functions that the ESTJ does not use in MBTT it uses in socionics - Ti and Se; it simply doesn't value them.
The only rule this does not apply to is Introverted types. Because (I believe) Myers-Briggs messed up in consistency, an INTP now equates to an LII (INTj) in their functional ordering. However, as I said before, this does not mean that an INTP is an LII. It may well identify with the EII (INFj), simply because it feels that it is on the T/F borderline in MBTT, and so in socionics, it believes Fi is stronger and values it more than Ti.