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

[teothebest]

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

 

[Kingu Kurimuzon]

it happens but I don't know if it is normal or often.

 

[RedAmazoneFriendZone]

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

Please receive my confirm that this can happen

Mainly to...NT

I am considered as an ENTP for MBTI and ENTJ for socionics.

So one says I'm Ne dom while the other system says I'm Ti. I don't really care as we are made of everything

More seriously, I think I can be both : I'm rather ENTJ and wanna control many stuffs in my work environment.

I am much more friendly in my private life with my friends, family and close relationships.

If I compare myself to my actual ENTJ date I'd say I'm not ENTJ
+ I get on very well with ENFP generally speaking, clearly due to the fact we wear the same glasses whose brand is Ne

I can recognise very easily J and P types. Mainly NT and NP's.

If I was ENTJ I guess I would not often think (unconsciously and many times) :
"Hell, here this one does not understand me again ! They can't, that's all they can do !"

When most ENTJ fight for their ideas, I'm just trying to find another way at looking at the world.
It works pretty well, they like it (if they are open minded), and it's a lot of fun

To conclude on my example, I'd say I'm much more aloft than what socionics say after I took their test.
Maybe it has been invented for very competitive and work alcoholic people only

For me the socionics's description does not fit at all in my private life.

 

[robowolf]

A lot of INTJs are INTp in socionics.

Some say that MBTI IJ = socionics Ip.

 

[Kingu Kurimuzon]

In MBTI, it was initially easier for me to identify with INTP than ISTP (hence a lowercase s in my profile), but in socionics, I found that ISTj/LSI Ti subtype was a better fit.

 

[Alea_iacta_est]

It happens often. Whether or not people are mistyped in one system or the other is an entirely different matter and is highly controversial.

Advice: Choose one system over the other.

 

[hjgbujhghg]

Yes, it happens to some, but it's rather an exemption. INTJ uses Ni+Te, your perceiving function is dominant, therefore you'd be a p in socionics and your type should be an INTp.
[MENTION=22064]ExNinjaTropPervertie[/MENTION] socionics ENTj actually uses Te not Ti.

 

[RedAmazoneFriendZone]

Yes, it happens to some, but it's rather an exemption. INTJ uses Ni+Te, your perceiving function is dominant, therefore you'd be a p in socionics and your type should be an INTp.
[MENTION=22064]ExNinjaTropPervertie[/MENTION] socionics ENTj actually uses Te not Ti.

My mistake. ENTJ has Te as a dominant function anyway. Right.

 

[sulfit]

I have quite certainly typed myself as an INTJ in MBTI, still socionics tests keep typing me as an INTp

Socionics 4-letter codes aren't assigned in the same way as MBTI. The last letter is written in lower case to signify this difference.

In MBTI the last J/P letter is determined according to the highest order extraverted function. For NiTe type, this function is Te, a judging function. Thus the NiTe type is assigned the letter J.

In Socionics the last j/p letter is determined according to the leading or first function, always, and for all types. For NiTe type, this function is Ni, a perceiving function. Thus the NiTe type is assigned the letter p.

From this you can deduce how NiTe type is called INTJ in MBTI and INTp in Socionics.
What gets conserved are your cognitive functions, and not the 4-letter codes.

 

[Thalassa]

I do. According to me. Some people disagree, I have been told I have too much Ni to be SEE and have even been called ENFj in Socionics, but ESFp and ENFj are a common mix up in Socionics just like ISFP and INFJ in Jungian/Beebe related systems. ESFp and ENFj both have a dramatic bent, but ESFp is Gamma, more pragmatic, and ENFj is Beta, more socially aristocratic and obviously Fe. I would just be SEE-Fi, which could explain Fi dom in Jung.

My ENFJ therapist friend actually doesn't think Jung does people much good and prefers modern psychiatry, she's ENFJ in the best sense, and so is my ENFJ bestie from hs who owned her own design business and finished raising her younger sister by 30. I actually love a lot of ENFJ, they don't have the passive aggressive behavior of some INFJ, but I'm pretty sure I'm not one. It would actually make sense that sharing perceiving functions, being feelers, and having different social orientation would compliment and provide mutual admiration and respect.

 

[lunalum]

I don't know about normal, but it does happen fairly often. Socionics and MBTI do have different takes on Jungian functions, more pronounced with some functions than others. It's worth noting that the equivalent of IxxP in socionics is Ixxj, so for example being INTP and INTj isn't truly an example of having different types as they are both TiNe

 

[Thalassa]

It happens often. Whether or not people are mistyped in one system or the other is an entirely different matter and is highly controversial.

Advice: Choose one system over the other.

I actually like Socionics a lot. Some people find it overly specific or confusing, but I'm like oh yeah I am the romantic/sexual pseudo - aggressor (I pursue with the illusion of making myself scarce at key moments to make the person believe they are chasing me, or will have to chase me to finally conquer me, which results in unlovely games of push pull, etc) and I have the most "fun" with Gamma types who understand this method, and I relate to the overall Gamma Quadra. The only other Quadra I relate to is the bawdy drama of Beta, but SEE and EIE are common as a mix up.

I even wondered if my ENTJ friend who I easily hit it off with was really an ESTP, but he surprised me recently followed up with me, after almost two years, with vastly improved written English (though his spoken English was previously remarkable for a Russian who had never been in an English speaking country) and he's now managing a hotel and working on his MBA, and I remember just weirdly clicking with this person when I met him, and I think it's Gamma quadra. I was also able to maintain an almost entirely emotional intense affair with a Gamma ISFj for about 18 months. There's something about Gamma quadra I think that is "easy" it's remarkable. Even my most recent lover is probably SEE-Se, and we had an intense sexual/spiritual bond but I don't think we compliment one another, he will always have to win or be the aggressor or the whatever, at least until he matures, a real lack of Ni that can make him seem boorish at times.

It's very difficult for me to whittle this down succinctly into specifics, like they try to pair people off into various relations, but the groups actually make a lot of effing sense to me.

Jungian function order is the most difficult to pin down by amateurs, and Keirsey frequently too boxy and insulting in its stereotypes (again there though I prefer the groups versus his individual types).

At any rate, it's extremely common for introverts to flip the last letter.

 

[Such Irony]

I'm an INTP in MBTI and INTj/LII in socionics. Other INTPs I know are INTp/ILI in socionics. I even know a couple of MBTI INTPs that end up with something else- in one case INFp/IEI and ENTp/ILE in another case. One of the more drastic differences I've observed is an MBTI INTJ identifying with socionics ESTp/SLE.

I think there is a tendency for introverts to flip the j/p and extraverts keeping the same letters but this is not always the case. They are two different systems after all.

 

[Alomoes]

Really, I'd be more worried if you were the same type in socionics as you were in MBTI, except if you are an extrovert.

 

[Cygnus]

I'm completely given to the opinion that types across these systems are always exactly the same (with the implicit caveat that Ip == IJ and Ij == IP).

 

[tkae.]

Yes. Both are derivative of Jung's work, but that's where the similarities end. They aren't related in any way other than that. They draw some of the same conclusions because they have a similar source material, but that's their only relationship. There isn't any logical connection or any kind of dialogue between the two.

 

[sulfit]

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

It is more normal or likely to have same MBTI and Socionics type in FUNCTIONS. For example, majority of INTPs (about 70%) type themselves as INTj in Socionics. Both MBTI INTP and Socionics INTj have Ti as first function and Ne as secondary one. That is, majority of them have typed with the same functions.

See the poll for yourself: POLL: MBTI INxx types, what is your MBTI and socionics type?

 

[Bush]

If Jungian typology is objectively "true," and if MBTI and Socionics types don't match, then there's a problem with (a) one or both of the systems or (b) one's placement in those systems; since they're both intended to capture the same typology (but take different approaches).

Huge freaking "if," though.

I'd wager that the bulk of the mismatch "problem," if there is one, lies with (a). Lots of people think the problem is squarely in (b) territory. It's not.

Huge stretch on the definition of "problem," too.

As the systems are defined right now (e.g. specific definitions of functions, stackings, intertype relationships), they're pretty different in some aspects and somewhat different in others; and so there's no use losing sleep at night trying to reconcile one's place in the two.

 

[boomslang]

Socionics is a lot depthier, so there's a lot more to it than just four dichotomies, so you'll actually find people getting completely different Socionics types (and they're not doing it wrong). The closer you get to the truth of yourself, the less you're going to test neatly between systems.

Always always always start Socionics fresh and don't expect to get the same type or something similar. Free yourself from the Forer effect too.

 

[nos4a2]

I’m INFP/INFp. I think… There are no exact counterparts in the two typologies, it seems, especially for the introverted types—although both typologies derive from Jung’s 8 psychological types.

If I take the view that the functions in each system are “really” the same, then I’m probably INFj (Fi-Ne) in socionics (rather than an MBTI INFJ, which is the functional stack counterpart of INFp in socionics)—yet it would still be true that the INFp description fits me better than INFj!

I find it less maddening to just view each system’s functions as unique rather than try to force them to match.