[Gamma] is it normal to have a different MBTI/ socionic type?

[Betty Blue]

Yes, I don't mind providing thought on this.

I imagine when we learn about MBTI and socionics we tend to like to cross-map the two in the thought that the types are quite similar either in the dichotomy lettering or in the function order however there are fundamendal differences in the two.

Unlike socionics, MBTI has multiple interpretations by various researchers into the topic. David Keirsey had become one of the more popular psychologists and so a great deal of what MBTI is shown to the world is often by Keirsey's interpretations which are often stereotypical and out of place.

Among the one's I believe is most accurate, Lenore Thompson's view was the best, and this is because each of the functions in the dichotomy in either one of the processes of perceiving or judging, map with each other in a symmetrical manner that organically testifies a logical formation of how the elements of the functions themselves. Like how Fi -> Ti moves in a way where feeling is subjective towards logic is subjective. Fi - Fe would be a move from Feeling is subjective to Feeling is objective. And this mapping can be defined to properly understand how one conceptually moves from a subjective feeling to subjective thinking stance, or subjective feeling to objective feeling stance.

Ironically the16types, a socionics forum, has more data about MBTI then we do.

Taken from Lenore Thomson's MBTI Wiki Explanation of Functions



Now socionics is different in that it tries to minimise any different interpretations of the functions. The orders of the functions are based on attitudes towards them and how we use them with those attitudes.

This is model A in socionics

Each type has an order of the functions that are within each block and hold a different attitude towards them.

Socionics defines the functions differently and has a little more of a social perspective than a thought process perspective which gives it rise to relationship dynamics and the like.

Based on Lenore Thompson's descriptions I am an NiTe - INTJ, based on socionics descriptions I am an SiTe - SLI-ISTp.

In a way, it is like saying the colour that defines me is 'blue' but the element that defines me is 'earth'. Some people may crossmap blue to water, but they're not the same.

Interesting to contrast Model A in socionics with the MBTI Type indicator chart (found on the wiki page for mbti type indicator)...

Looking at the two charts it is very easy to see the complications in transferring over types... MBTI puts a focus on an individuals behaviours totalling their type whereas socionics (model a) focusses on the cognitive functions and their relationships to each other. It is little wonder they are so difficult to correspond. Of course you can find type descriptions in socionics but the models tend to be focussed on function relationships rather than how each is displayed in behaviours.

 

[estorm]

I'll just say two things.

1) I, too, am an INTJ, INTp, Ni-Te, and the descriptions seem to fit me quite well.

2) I appreciate hearing how people hold the two systems and how they may coordinate.

 

[Thalassa]

I'm a strong Gamma Se-Fi, and in Jung I'm probably an Fi dom. The self appointed genius Simulated World thinks I'm ESFP, but the son of David Kersey can only say I'm SP, and I have even been called ISTP, because of my abrasive logic, and yes she's older than me if you wonder if it's about age.

Maybe I am ESFP. THAT'S WHY I LOVE 80S MUSIC. But hate everything now. Maybe my open perception was completely childhood, and I only became serious with age, and stereotypes are stupid because I'm very intellectual, but Seasons Change.

I just was really shallow until I was 14. Obviously that's life experience and not personality type. OR I love my 80S cause didn't have to think then!

 

[existence]

Unlike socionics, MBTI has multiple interpretations by various researchers into the topic.

A bit of correction, I'm not sure where you got the impression from that socionics has only one interpretation floating around. It has a lot of them... model A, B, G... whatever else.

Among the one's I believe is most accurate, Lenore Thompson's view was the best, and this is because each of the functions in the dichotomy in either one of the processes of perceiving or judging, map with each other in a symmetrical manner that organically testifies a logical formation of how the elements of the functions themselves.

Si was still a bit out of place with Lenore's version... still too Judging.

Based on Lenore Thompson's descriptions I am an NiTe - INTJ, based on socionics descriptions I am an SiTe - SLI-ISTp.

What is it in Socionics Ni that you do not relate to while you do relate to Lenore Thomson's Ni? Out of curiosity.

Interesting to contrast Model A in socionics with the MBTI Type indicator chart (found on the wiki page for mbti type indicator)...

Ha ha the former seems so much more complex of a model there. (It isn't too complex either, tho').

 

[Oaky]

A bit of correction, I'm not sure where you got the impression from that socionics has only one interpretation floating around. It has a lot of them... model A, B, G... whatever else.

I suppose there's a slight correction in thought. Yes, there is more than one model. However socionics' interpretations are also labelled and structured in the manner that they hold. MBTI on the other hand, fades far too many of the crossovers.

Si was still a bit out of place with Lenore's version... still too Judging.

And this is it. Nevermind the definition itself, Lenore's version has, or is closest to, a direct symmetrical formation of the mental processes of the types in it. With that, it is very possible to mentally empathise the process of Si to Ni by changing only one clear boundary of the two defined structures in the function itself. And that is the definition of intuition and its perceivable changes towards sensing as an opposing dichotomy of perceptive thought while the other, unchanged, is the subjectivity of those functions defined by one's very own personal experience of the functions, which dichotomises to the objective experience of the extraverted counterparts.

What is it in Socionics Ni that you do not relate to while you do relate to Lenore Thomson's Ni? Out of curiosity.

I'm quite curious about this also but unfortunately socionics scarcely defines a thought process over a focus, philosophy and behaviour of Ni users. And with this I cannot reply in more detail. I'm currently outside in an MBTI meetup with a coup d'etat of socionics revolutionaries. Socionics people are more well educated on socionics theory, but not so much about MBTI, and the MBTI people are... well... almost hurtfully stereotypical and fairly simple-minded. Either way, I'm wondering how this meetup will end up at when the biases appear.

 

[á´…eparted]

Socionics and MBTI share overlaps, but they are different enough that a significant minority of people will have differing types between the theories. What it truly comes down to is how each theory deals with the functions. While function definition between them is similar, it's really how they are pieced together that creates the difference.

I'm an ENFJ, but in socionics I am ESTp which seems like an odd/impossible combination. When the functions are looked at on the surface, it would seem like EIE would be the best fit for me. However, when the functions are put in their blocks, and fit to how each block work and doesn't, it becomes clear that SLE fits better than EIE does, and is ultimately my sociotype.

I've noticed that individuals who only weakly identify with their MBTI type, tend to have a different sociotype. Where as if there is strong identification, the types tend to be the same.

 

[hjgbujhghg]

Socionics and MBTI share overlaps, but they are different enough that a significant minority of people will have differing types between the theories. What it truly comes down to is how each theory deals with the functions. While function definition between them is similar, it's really how they are pieced together that creates the difference.

I'm an ENFJ, but in socionics I am ESTp which seems like an odd/impossible combination. When the functions are looked at on the surface, it would seem like EIE would be the best fit for me. However, when the functions are put in their blocks, and fit to how each block work and doesn't, it becomes clear that SLE fits better than EIE does, and is ultimately my sociotype.

I've noticed that individuals who only weakly identify with their MBTI type, tend to have a different sociotype. Where as if there is strong identification, the types tend to be the same.

Are you sure you're not just dual seeking?

 

[á´…eparted]

Are you sure you're not just dual seeking?

Well I used to type as LSI a while ago, so it's not the first time I've heard this.

If I try to remain as objective as possible, nothing fits super well in socionics for me. I am closer to SLE than I am to EIE, but it's like a 55:45 split and is rather slight. Socionics is the theory I pay attention to the least because of it.

 

[strychnine]

I'm ESFP in MBTI but IEE/ENFp in Socionics. But that is because in Socionics I have no grasp of the physical impact on the physical world and the use of force and power and stuff like that ... I do not have that forcefulness or presence or immediacy of the Se ego. That kind of forcefulness coming from other people irritates me to the point I've considered Se PoLR/EII. MBTI Se is more cerebral, for lack of a better word, and is more analogous to Ne as an extraverted perceiving function.

So yes, you can have a different type, because the functions/IEs are described differently.

 

[foxonstilts]

Yes, it's normal. The functions are different (though the T* and N* seem to have a lot of overlap). It's like how dogs and foxes are different. They have the same common ancestor and are very similar and in the same family, but different animals all together.

 

[existence]

I suppose there's a slight correction in thought. Yes, there is more than one model. However socionics' interpretations are also labelled and structured in the manner that they hold. MBTI on the other hand, fades far too many of the crossovers.

That's true

And this is it. Nevermind the definition itself, Lenore's version has, or is closest to, a direct symmetrical formation of the mental processes of the types in it. With that, it is very possible to mentally empathise the process of Si to Ni by changing only one clear boundary of the two defined structures in the function itself. And that is the definition of intuition and its perceivable changes towards sensing as an opposing dichotomy of perceptive thought while the other, unchanged, is the subjectivity of those functions defined by one's very own personal experience of the functions, which dichotomises to the objective experience of the extraverted counterparts.

Huh? What boundary do you change to change from Si definition to Ni?

I'm quite curious about this also but unfortunately socionics scarcely defines a thought process over a focus, philosophy and behaviour of Ni users. And with this I cannot reply in more detail. I'm currently outside in an MBTI meetup with a coup d'etat of socionics revolutionaries. Socionics people are more well educated on socionics theory, but not so much about MBTI, and the MBTI people are... well... almost hurtfully stereotypical and fairly simple-minded. Either way, I'm wondering how this meetup will end up at when the biases appear.

It's easy. Do you fit the Sensing dichotomy or the Intuition dichotomy?

Do you seek Se or do you seek Ne as your suggestive function?

These are all you need to answer.

 

[existence]

Socionics and MBTI share overlaps, but they are different enough that a significant minority of people will have differing types between the theories. What it truly comes down to is how each theory deals with the functions. While function definition between them is similar, it's really how they are pieced together that creates the difference.

I'm an ENFJ, but in socionics I am ESTp which seems like an odd/impossible combination. When the functions are looked at on the surface, it would seem like EIE would be the best fit for me. However, when the functions are put in their blocks, and fit to how each block work and doesn't, it becomes clear that SLE fits better than EIE does, and is ultimately my sociotype.

I've noticed that individuals who only weakly identify with their MBTI type, tend to have a different sociotype. Where as if there is strong identification, the types tend to be the same.

The main dichotomies are pretty much the same across the systems. If you are N in MBTI, you'll hardly become a S base type in Socionics. Sounds like you are going by type descriptions, that's not the right method for typing.

I agree with the rest of your post.

 

[existence]

I'm ESFP in MBTI but IEE/ENFp in Socionics. But that is because in Socionics I have no grasp of the physical impact on the physical world and the use of force and power and stuff like that ... I do not have that forcefulness or presence or immediacy of the Se ego. That kind of forcefulness coming from other people irritates me to the point I've considered Se PoLR/EII. MBTI Se is more cerebral, for lack of a better word, and is more analogous to Ne as an extraverted perceiving function.

What seems cerebral to you about Se in MBTI?

 

[strychnine]

What seems cerebral to you about Se in MBTI?

It's actually described in MBTI as a cognitive function, not something almost instinctual like in Socionics.

Still, I type as SEE-Fi now, even though I don't relate to Se in Socionics. Oh well. Especially not as a base function.

Also, as an edit, I saw your above posts. The Dichotomies are similar, But if you're typed by Functions in one system and Dichotomies in another, they won't necessarily equate. I can easily imagine sensor Ji dominants (Ij) (ESI/LSI) identifying with N, especially the lead subtype, which emphasizes mobilizing function more and perhaps somewhat represses creative function. So you get something like Ji+Ni focus which can be N dichotomy. But functionally ESI/LSI will still be Ji+Se.

The MBTI aspects(facets?) would leave me with INFP, for example. And I'm Fi-aux/creative, not base.

I would also recommend using the multiquote feature instead of making 3-4 consecutive posts.

 

[Andronas]

I have quite certainly typed myself as an INTJ in MBTI, still socionics tests keep typing me as an INTp and I have to admit the description are quite more suitable than MBTI's INTP.
does it make any sense to you?

I have noticed slight variations in the definitions of functions, still I'd like to receive a confirm from people more knowledgeable than me

The J/P switch applies when translating between introverts in the two systems. But other than that, you should have the same type. They are both based on Jungian functions.

 

[Snickie]

In MBTI, I type as an IxTP. I just don't relate well to the Je functions, nor do I use them well (although I admit I do use them). I think I use Ne more than Se but I can't accept that Ne is somehow stronger than my Si, but again I don't use Je functions well.
In dichotomies, I'm strictly ISTP.
When I first was introduced to socionics, the person who introduced me suggested I start by looking at LSI (I was rather insistent about being ISTP at the time). At first I related to it somewhat. Now I don't.
I've taken the socionics test twice on Sociotype.com. The first time I got SLI (ISTp) and the second time I got ILI (INTp), both with subtype Te. I've read about both types, and I relate to them on similar levels (some kind of abstract quantity), though I'd have to get a piece of paper and jot down the specifics (quality) to see if I prefer one more than the other.
The interesting thing is that both of these results, if regarding the Interoverted J/p switch as true, correspond with IXTJ.
I think I relate most to socionics Delta quadra anyway.
In various MBTI personality tests that I've taken over the years that tend to type by dichotomies, I've scored (from most to least common) ISTP, INTJ, ISTJ, INTP. Obviously they're all covered here.

I'm still up in the air about my type (S/N mainly). I'll be back with more after I write that paper and finally post & hear back about that monster questionnaire I've been working on. Maybe.

 

[wolfnara]

It depends what you mean by MBTI type, and what descriptions typing yourself by - dichotomies? mbti functions descriptions? Jung's descriptions?

In that case:
MBTI - Most definitely
MBTI Cognitive functions - Very likely
Jung's psychological types - lol not sure. I haven't read much of the content.

 

[existence]

It's actually described in MBTI as a cognitive function, not something almost instinctual like in Socionics.

It's described both cognitive and instinctual both in MBTI and in Socionics.

I do think it has more than one facet in this way... the perceptual and the instinctual. This isn't my idea only, others noted it too.

Still, I type as SEE-Fi now, even though I don't relate to Se in Socionics. Oh well. Especially not as a base function.

Also, as an edit, I saw your above posts. The Dichotomies are similar, But if you're typed by Functions in one system and Dichotomies in another, they won't necessarily equate. I can easily imagine sensor Ji dominants (Ij) (ESI/LSI) identifying with N, especially the lead subtype, which emphasizes mobilizing function more and perhaps somewhat represses creative function. So you get something like Ji+Ni focus which can be N dichotomy. But functionally ESI/LSI will still be Ji+Se.

The MBTI aspects(facets?) would leave me with INFP, for example. And I'm Fi-aux/creative, not base.

They may identify with N superficially, sure. Key word, superficially. So not really N. If someone is truly Ji+Ni and not Ji+Se with just a strengthened Ni, they are INxx then and would not really be xSI either, Se PoLR instead of Se creative. I do know an ESI-Fi that for years couldn't decide if they were ESI or EII but even with strengthened Ni she's still a person who's more grounded than EIIs in her way of thinking.

I'm not sure why you'd go with I in MBTI because I/E is basically defined the same as in Socionics - I is receptive, E is initiating.

I would also recommend using the multiquote feature instead of making 3-4 consecutive posts.

I already use the fucking multiquote. Because once I did not, I don't need to be told this crap unsolicited.

The J/P switch applies when translating between introverts in the two systems. But other than that, you should have the same type. They are both based on Jungian functions.

It does not necessarily apply. No. This misconception should die already.

In MBTI, I type as an IxTP. I just don't relate well to the Je functions, nor do I use them well (although I admit I do use them). I think I use Ne more than Se but I can't accept that Ne is somehow stronger than my Si, but again I don't use Je functions well.
In dichotomies, I'm strictly ISTP.
When I first was introduced to socionics, the person who introduced me suggested I start by looking at LSI (I was rather insistent about being ISTP at the time). At first I related to it somewhat. Now I don't.
I've taken the socionics test twice on Sociotype.com. The first time I got SLI (ISTp) and the second time I got ILI (INTp), both with subtype Te. I've read about both types, and I relate to them on similar levels (some kind of abstract quantity), though I'd have to get a piece of paper and jot down the specifics (quality) to see if I prefer one more than the other.
The interesting thing is that both of these results, if regarding the Interoverted J/p switch as true, correspond with IXTJ.
I think I relate most to socionics Delta quadra anyway.
In various MBTI personality tests that I've taken over the years that tend to type by dichotomies, I've scored (from most to least common) ISTP, INTJ, ISTJ, INTP. Obviously they're all covered here.

I'm still up in the air about my type (S/N mainly). I'll be back with more after I write that paper and finally post & hear back about that monster questionnaire I've been working on. Maybe.

Lol, ISTP != LSI. And xLI-Te != IxTJ.

The thing is, xLI-Te is Irrational, LSI is Rational. With Te subtype, less strongly Irrational but still that's the basic pattern. If the person is additionally Judicious, it will not fit well with J in MBTI. If Decisive, can still turn into a J in MBTI. If you want to discuss your type more, I'm happy to help.

It depends what you mean by MBTI type, and what descriptions typing yourself by - dichotomies? mbti functions descriptions? Jung's descriptions?

In that case:
MBTI - Most definitely
MBTI Cognitive functions - Very likely
Jung's psychological types - lol not sure. I haven't read much of the content.

You are Fi by jung, why not EII and some IFxx in MBTI then?

 

[wolfnara]

You are Fi by jung, why not EII and some IFxx in MBTI then?

I haven't yet read about the other functions in psychological types to identify anything else yet don't want to jump to conclusions

 

[existence]

I haven't yet read about the other functions in psychological types to identify anything else yet don't want to jump to conclusions

Ah, I see. Next logical step would be reading about Si, no? (It's very different from MBTI Si btw... Socionics Si is still different but less different because it's at least a proper Irrational function.)