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

[Norexan]

Yes. INTJ = LIE. I have seen now. So INTJ confirmed.

 

[Tiger Owl]

I test as ILI-Ni /INTp in socionics which corrosponds well to MBTI INTJ. But ILI is not even on the above chart.

 

[Ashtart]

I find it odd people who have too different Socionics type from MBTI. Of course they are two different systems but take INFJ and INFj (EII) for example: In MBTI the primary and auxiliary cognitive functions are Ni and Fe, whereas in Socionics it is Fi and Ne (just like INFPs in MBTI). And I'm comparing "close" types, I find even more weird when is a very unrelated type, like a SLI. So I wonder how people reconcile this kind of difference.

I'm myself an INFJ. IEI-Ni (INFp) is quite accurate for me. Even though when doing the english version of the tests, I always get tested as an ILI.

 

[Norexan]

I test as ILI-Ni /INTp in socionics which corrosponds well to MBTI INTJ. But ILI is not even on the above chart.

Watch diagonal and you found INTp. ILI as word in my native language means OR so when i saw this table I laugh.

As you see ILI correspond to INTP.

It is very strange how INTJ correspond well to extroverted Socionics types such as ENTj and ESTp.

 

[strychnine]

It's because the functions are defined differently

 

[Ananse]

MBTI type ENTP, Sociotype IEI.

 

[Mind Maverick]

In short...

MBTI = Jung's theory derivative
Socionics = Jung's theory derivative + Antoni Kępiński's theory (of Information Metabolism--thus why "functions" are referred to as Information Metabolism Elements or IEs in Socio)

Different systems with some similarities / overlap
For instance, nothing like Socionics Se and Si definitions even exist in MBTI but Ne is pretty much the same in both systems.

In one you can choose A or B, and out of the two you are B
In the other you might have B or C, and you fit C more than B even though B is in both systems because C is not in both

So yes things can deviate a little bit but past a certain point it's weird.

 

[Pionart]

Apart from the functions being differently defined, you have to determine if the models are well defined.

MBTI and socionics both place their functions in an 8 part system. Conscious, unconscious, strong, weak, id, super-ego etc.

You have to check, not that you have the top two functions, but that all 8 fall into a natural hierarchy.

Personally, I don't know if socionics' model has validity to it, I just haven't yet seen it.

 

[miss deceit]

I mean, for me I'm an INTJ in MBTI and ILI (NiTe ego) in socionics, so for me it lines up but I know for a lot of people there is a little bit of difference

 

[Yara the Corpse]

I mean, for me I'm an INTJ in MBTI and ILI (NiTe ego) in socionics, so for me it lines up but I know for a lot of people there is a little bit of difference

You could argue that INTJ and ILI don't line up either though. Sure they have the functions in the same place, but the irrationality in ILI shows very well in its more laid back use of Te. INTJ seems much more rational than its Socionics counterpart, to the point of being LIE.

 

[miss deceit]

You could argue that INTJ and ILI don't line up either though. Sure they have the functions in the same place, but the irrationality in ILI shows very well in its more laid back use of Te. INTJ seems much more rational than its Socionics counterpart, to the point of being LIE.

You could argue a lot of things. I very specifically brought in functions to show that the functions line up because to people who don't know much about socionics they think TiNe when they see INTp.

Given the way Te as a creative function is described, I'd actually say it has more in common with MBTI INTJ than you make it out and to argue otherwise would be falling victim to blatant stereotypes:

It is manifested as a preference for factual accuracy over ideological consistency, and for objective, "harsh" communication over careful words that avoid a negative atmosphere. A view of the external environment being efficient, reasonable, and making sense is essential to their well-being and sense of inner peace, but they do not feel a pressing need for being proactive or productive themselves in that area.

This snippet from Aushra's description of Ni also would line up quite well:

When this element is in the leading position, the individual possesses innate strategic abilities and is able to choose the most optimal moments for different activities: when to give battle, if necessary, and when to avoid battle, when that would be more appropriate. Interaction in time might be interpreted as the ability to avoid collisions with objects and hence avoid objects' reflection within oneself.

I was never saying they lined up perfectly, it would be illogical to do so given how differently certain functions are defined. I wouldn't necessarily describe the use of Te as more "laid back" per se, given that it is 3D and valued, but I would say the reputation Te gets in MBTI communities has sort of tarred the way Te ends up being described - and is as such described as more aggressive than it really is with Se and Te often being confused in that regard.

 

[Skimt]

Think of MBTI as impersonal and Socionics as interpersonal. Problem solved.

 

[RadicalDoubt]

Socionics in general is more detailed and distinct in their definitions than the mbti (which itself works differently being that it's more of a fluid theory). The definitions of the functions in the two theories are not the same. My mbti is ISFJ (with an emphasis on Si-Ti looping behavior, by "objective personality" standards, I'd probably be considered a "jumper") and my socionics is LII (though I am of the normalizing and Ti subtype), but I can easily justify myself in both theories without defying or walking too far outside either definition.

Obviously though, if you're something drastically different (ie. ESFJ mbti, ILI socionics), you're probably wrong. Typically most typings are within the same axis (ie. some INTPs as LII, some ENTP may fit closer with ESE creative subtype) or within "adjacent" types (ie. some INTP may type as ILI or EII as an example).

 

[miss deceit]

Socionics in general is more detailed and distinct in their definitions than the mbti (which itself works differently being that it's more of a fluid theory). The definitions of the functions in the two theories are not the same. My mbti is ISFJ (with an emphasis on Si-Ti looping behavior, by "objective personality" standards, I'd probably be considered a "jumper") and my socionics is LII (though I am of the normalizing and Ti subtype), but I can easily justify myself in both theories without defying or walking too far outside either definition.

Obviously though, if you're something drastically different (ie. ESFJ mbti, ILI socionics), you're probably wrong. Typically most typings are within the same axis (ie. some INTPs as LII, some ENTP may fit closer with ESE creative subtype) or within "adjacent" types (ie. some INTP may type as ILI or EII as an example).

This is true. I think in general socionics just has better definitions of the functions, and I have only just very recently truly "snapped out" of using the MBTI versions of said functions hence why I had to change my type again.
That being said, interestingly a good number of characters typed as INTJ in MBTI are typed as EIE by Socionics standards. However I do agree that in most cases if they are vastly different (I've seen someone claim to be INTJ in MBTI but SEI in Socionics - I have huge doubts on that) they have probably misunderstood. Especially when it comes to functions such as Ne that are quite similar across systems. However with functions such as Si, they are different in each system and I definitely lean more towards the Socionics definition. It makes a lot more sense that introverted sensing was more connected to those internal physical sensations and comforts rather than "the past". Then we have Se, which again makes sense in socionics as it relates to exerting pressure over the environment and others - external sensing (now this is often exaggerated in descriptions because a lot of people who have written those definitions had very weak unvalued Se). The MBTI version of Se regarding living in the moment sounds like an effect of having weak Ni, as opposed to strong Se.

 

[Skimt]

I wouldn't use MBTI for anything other than work. Mixing interpersonal relationships screws up the results. Suddenly you're an ESFJ and you have no idea what happened.

 

[Opal Star]

Socionics functions and Jungian functions are defined differently. The correlation between MBTI type and Sociotype is undeniable, though. Although it wouldn’t surprise me to see an MBTI INFJ as a Socionics EII (INFj), I don’t think that it is possible for an MBTI INFJ to be an LIE (ENTj).

 

[Opal Star]

My Thoughts On The MBTI-Socionics Conversion Dilemma:

Yes, there is a significant correlation between one's MBTI type and one's Sociotype. That being said, the correlation is like 60-75% for introverts, especially for ISxx. My belief is that some of the functions (mainly Ni, Si, and Se) are defined differently in Socionics than in JCF. This is the rationale for the fact that not all introverts j/p switch.

I agree with [MENTION=34990]miss deceit[/MENTION] about LIE being a more realistic depiction of most ENTJs than the MBTI ENTJ type descriptions are. I would say that most MBTI ENTJ descriptions are describing an SLE, not a LIE. I would also say that MBTI ISTJ descriptions are describing an LSI, not an SLI. I would say that MBTI INFJ descriptions are EII mixed with a bit of LII.

 

[Apeironstella]

Always good to have this chart handy for shortcuts/quick comparisons



From this blog

 

[Kingu Kurimuzon]

no

 

[yeghor]

Always good to have this chart handy for shortcuts/quick comparisons

View attachment 26699View attachment 26700

From this blog

I prefer to adhere to MBTI definitions.

The only thing this table proves is that the two systems are not interchangable, at least not readily.

For instance Socionics Fe sounds like MBTI Fi and Socionics Fi sounds like MBTI Fe. Similarly Socionics T and MBTI T definitons seem to be reversed.

Ni and Ne seem more or less aligned.

MBTI Si makes great sense to me cause it represents traditions and cultural rules of good conduct internalized by a person, which also extends to any other experience recorded internally in sensory terms (i.e. information related to 5 senses). Socionics Si is not necessarily off the mark in that Si also relates to serenity in that Si is supressed Se meaning primal impulses being kept in check, calmness.

Likewise Socionics Se is not off the mark.

So I can say that when making a conversion from MBTI type to Socionics type, Se/Si and Ne/Ni can be kept the same whereas Fe/Fi and Te/Ti should be reversed.

For ESTP for instance, this would mean in MBTI Se-Ti-Fe-Ni, when converting that to socionics type, the function names should be changed as follows, Se-Te-Fi-Ni.

That's why I avoid socionics.