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

[Snickie]

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.

I did the Socionics dichotomies for myself the other day. Deeeeefinitely Judicious. lol
Seems like an e9 quality as well (as opposed to e1) but that's

When I post my giant "What's My Type" blurb, I'll add a blurb about how I identify with the Socionics dichotomies.
At this poing I'm going to have to put everything into spoiler tags. This document is now 6 pages long on Google Docs, single-spaced, 10pt Verdana, and that's without the Socionics blurb.

 

[Bush]

mod note: try not being children, thanks

 

[existence]

I did the Socionics dichotomies for myself the other day. Deeeeefinitely Judicious. lol
Seems like an e9 quality as well (as opposed to e1) but that's

When I post my giant "What's My Type" blurb, I'll add a blurb about how I identify with the Socionics dichotomies.
At this poing I'm going to have to put everything into spoiler tags. This document is now 6 pages long on Google Docs, single-spaced, 10pt Verdana, and that's without the Socionics blurb.

Ah yes that sounds like SLI. Would fit pretty well with stereotypical MBTI ISTP especially if going by dichotomies.

Feel free to mention/summon me in your giant type thread, I'm curious.

 

[strychnine]

mod note: try not being children, thanks

Oh no, you deleted all of my shitposts!!!!!

I love you! You are my activator type! LIE-Ni? That's sexy. Our subtypes match too. I think our enneagrams are a good match too. Oh

Oh you are also sp/so?? I am also SP/So.??? That's amazing. Same instinct variants also. Oh

So what are some of your hobbies? What do you do for fun? Do you like swearing? Profanity is one of my hobbies. I also play the guitar sometimes. I'm starting vocal lessons in a month. I sing in a choir also. I'm not that good. But other people think I'm good

I also read. Do you read? I read sometimes. I also read online sometimes.

Do you like cats? I like cats. I also like dogs. I want to get both later. Get both a cat and a dog and raise them together from childhood. So they get along and are friends. Otherwise they will fight.

Do you live in a house or an apartment or like a camper/RV thing? I live in a house. I bought a house last summer. It will be one year almost already this summer.

What's your least favorite logical fallacy? The one that irritates you the most?

 

[alexleo182]

I'm an INTP in MBTI and ILI-INTp in Socionics. I don't particularly care if it's normal or not but I identify with both a lot.

 

[that's not my name]

Isn't it because Ni is a perceiving function rather than a judging one so if its dominant your socionics would end in p? That's why mbti INFJ is socionics INFp. This is usually the reason for the mismatch. Although I shoildnt talk being ESTp-Ti and an ISTP in mbti

 

[FemMecha]

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

This may have already been said, but this is a common thing

MBTI = Socionics
INTJ = INTp
INTP = INTj
INFJ = INFp
INFP = INFj

Socionics sees the Ni-dom as the Perceiving dominant and the Ji-dom (Fi or Ti) as the Judging dominant.
MBTI defines Js as anyone with the extroverted judging function and Ps as anyone with the introverted judging function.

 

[erg]

When you get to socionics from MBTI, it is better to try to forget everything you know about MBTI and start over. Then follow this procedure:

1.Take some tests and look at the results. You'll probably get 2 or 3 similar results.
2.Read up on the quadras and the type descriptions to help narrow down your type.
3.Let yourself be VI'd by someone that knows what they're doing. VI in the proper hands can be a very useful tool.
4.And finally, confirm your own type via intertype relations. Once you experience some intertype relations and are able to identify them, you'll be typed correctly with 100% certitude.

 

[Nocum]

Glad that this thread explained why I became an INTp in Socionics but tested as INTJ otherwise.

 

[existence]

This may have already been said, but this is a common thing

MBTI = Socionics
INTJ = INTp
INTP = INTj
INFJ = INFp
INFP = INFj

Socionics sees the Ni-dom as the Perceiving dominant and the Ji-dom (Fi or Ti) as the Judging dominant.
MBTI defines Js as anyone with the extroverted judging function and Ps as anyone with the introverted judging function.

That j/p switch doesn't work all that well.

When you get to socionics from MBTI, it is better to try to forget everything you know about MBTI and start over. Then follow this procedure:

1.Take some tests and look at the results. You'll probably get 2 or 3 similar results.
2.Read up on the quadras and the type descriptions to help narrow down your type.
3.Let yourself be VI'd by someone that knows what they're doing. VI in the proper hands can be a very useful tool.
4.And finally, confirm your own type via intertype relations. Once you experience some intertype relations and are able to identify them, you'll be typed correctly with 100% certitude.

Terrible procedure. I do agree with the step before 1st one, forget about MBTI functions and start over, yes.

So why this procedure is no good, it can easily get stuck on the 2nd and/or the 3rd steps. 2nd may end up being too ambiguous to find a type. Then, VI definitely is not to be used to determine type. As for ITR, many of those relations as "defined" are ambiguous again and dependent on other, outside factors. Checking for duality relations to confirm is ok, but again, easy to misinterpret by many people. It's a better idea to just check for the dual seeking function.

 

[erg]

So why this procedure is no good, it can easily get stuck on the 2nd and/or the 3rd steps. 2nd may end up being too ambiguous to find a type. Then, VI definitely is not to be used to determine type. As for ITR, many of those relations as "defined" are ambiguous again and dependent on other, outside factors. Checking for duality relations to confirm is ok, but again, easy to misinterpret by many people. It's a better idea to just check for the dual seeking function.

It's much better to check for supervision, benefit (the assymetric relations) or conflict, than duality. The small groups seem to me a better option as a thing to check for a newcomer who doesn't yet understand well the dual-seeking function. That can be useful later. And VI... well, it might not work for you, but it works for many.

 

[existence]

It's much better to check for supervision, benefit (the assymetric relations) or conflict, than duality. The small groups seem to me a better option as a thing to check for a newcomer who doesn't yet understand well the dual-seeking function. That can be useful later. And VI... well, it might not work for you, but it works for many.

I will give it to you that the dual seeking function can be hard to recognize at first. My problem with the asymmetric relations however is that they are very tenuous types of relations, not very well defined at all. Conflict or superego relations are ok to use.

As for the small groups, oh, yeah, Clubs are good. Much better than the Keirsey nonsense in MBTI. Communication styles seem decent as well in my experience, Temperaments may need refining for people whose Creative function is emphasized. Romance styles are affected by other things just like Quadra values are too.

As for VI - I've yet to see anyone who did not have a high error rate with VI'ing. Some aspects can be discerned sometimes but otherwise it's far from the best tool. Too many other conflating factors at play.

 

[Poki]

People are suprised i can match ISTP in both. Now i do think i am ambivert E/I in mbti

 

[existence]

People are suprised i can match ISTP in both. Now i do think i am ambivert E/I in mbti

I'm not surprised. I do think MBTI ISTP can translate into SLx (ESTp/ISTp) or maybe LSI-Se (ISTj-Se) if J/P is interpreted freely enough. And vice versa.

Sounds like you can differentiate between such LSI-Se's and real Irrational SLx people though =P

 

[All]

I'm INTP in MBTI and INTj in socionics
For introverts, P in MBTI= j in Socionics, and J in MBTI=p in socionics.
For extraverts, their four letters in the 2 system should be the same, however, some people still have types that are not equal, probably because the meaning of cognitive functions in the 2 systems are slightly different.

 

[All]

The difference between MBTI and Socionics isn't so much functions as it is methodology. Both are products of their respective time and environment; serving as exemplars of how psychology has changed so much since it began. MBTI is the quintessential child of soft science psychology as we all know it. The heart of which is statistical modelling. This gives MBTI its nature of broad, (some would say useless) statements in an effort to contain multitudes. Its also why concepts such as relationship dynamics are infeasible; far to many variables to be properly tested. Socionics is the child of psychoanalysis before the advent of modern psychology. It's basis is inductive logic; I have observed this trait in a particular person, This conforms to my understand of the Pi function, therefore all Pi users share this trait. The result of which is a lattice of logic. Unfortunately the issue with logic is its lack of variability; hence the often told joke: Socionics is a fine theory, until it meets reality that is. Its holistic nature serves to highlight this vulnerability; having anything other then an extremely positive relationship with your dual is impossible. To do so is to put into question the entirety of the Socionics system. Fragile very very fragile. As for whether to be or not to be? As someone who has seen a ludicrous amount of these threads, the only conclusion I have come to is that those who actually care are long-winded and tedious. Do what you want to do, lest one day you become one of those zombies.

So do you like MBTI or Socionics more?

 

[All]

I usually am typed as INTP on the Myers-Briggs test, but I scored LII-Ti on the Socionics test. It claims my function stacking goes Ti-Ne-Fi-Se, which, as you should know, involves putting the dominant and auxiliary functions of INTP with the tertiary and inferior functions of INTJ, which does not make a whole lot of sense because Ti and Fi do not go together in any of the Jungian function pairings for MBTI.

I think it make sense. I'm INTP in MBTI and INTj in socionics, and I have strong Fi. Fi and Ti is not always conflicting, some INTP have Fi too(but they aren't INFP because their Ti is even stronger and/or they have some Te), but some people may not.
I advise you and other INTPs to take a Jungian function test. Some INTP may end up realising they have Fi but very few Fe. I can see that Fi is quite common among INTP in INTP Facebook groups.

 

[PurpleDawn]

INTJ in MBTI correlates to INTp in socionics.

 

[Kanra Jest]

I get INTP and ENTP in mbti frequently. Sometimes INTP and INTJ are totally equal, which isn't possible..

In Socionics I get INTp and ENTp as well...

It's very reflected. I don't get the switch like apparently is suppose to happen.

 

[Zeego]

For a long time I thought that because I was INTP in MBTI, that therefore meant I was LII in Socionics. And, perhaps due to confirmation bias, I did often get LII on tests. However, once I consciously acknowledged that the functions are vastly different between the systems, I woke up to the fact that LII doesn't describe me at all despite allegedly being the same as INTP. I now believe I am IEI in Socionics.