HOLY SHIT connection

[Jchazard]

Socionics INTj: Ti, Ne, Fi, Ni
Socionics INTP: Ti, Ne, Si, Fe
MBTI INTJ: Ni, Te, Fi, Se
MBTI INTP: Ni, Te, Si, Fe

Anyone catch that? Look at socionics INTj and MBTI INTJ... the last two functions are the same! INTJ and INTP in both tests are the same but the last two functions are switched. Interesting no?

Then I found something else. In socionics there are 4 ideal relationships between your type and another: Duality, Identical, Activity, and Mirror. Now you may have already known that, but look at this:

INTj... Duality... ESFj
INTj... Identical... INTj
INTj... Activity... ISFj
INTj... Mirror... ENTj

Now in Socionics these four types have no significant correlation. BUT. When looked at in MBTI:

ESFJ- Fe, Si, Ne, Ti
INTP- Ti, Ne, Si, Fe
ISFJ- Si, Te, Fi, Se
ENTP- Ne, Ti, Fe, Si

THEY ALL HAVE THE SAME FUNCTIONS!
Crazy right?

Now in MBTI they theorized that a person who is Ti>Ne will have two other dominant functions to counterbalance the main two, which is why we see four functions very different from each other. But in Socionics, they theorize you need someone different from you to form one person and make up a whole, thereby collaborating while at the same time seeing two different sides of the spectrum. So they both use this same method, BUT socionics has been tested and studied in greater depth. There are correlations though. So the thing is I feel like I'm on the virge of understanding something significant for myself, but I'd like to bring it up for you other guys to see. Anything interesting you guys have to say about this?

 

[EvilScientist Trainee]

There's a little confusion over there. Socionics INTp is Ni-Te-Si-Fe, and their INTJ is Ti-Ne-Fi-Se.
MBTI INTP is Ti-Ne-Si-Fe and INTJ is Ni-Te-Fi-Si. It is accurate to say that in both tests, the last two functions are kept, but the first two is switched.

In socionics, we have those blocks. I believe that any block that starts with super (Super Id, Super Ego) are the blocks used as alternatives to the normal blocks, Id and Ego.

The ideal relationships-functions thing was interesting though.

I would like to see EyeSeeCold opinion on this (And hope he hadn't posted before me)

 

[EyeSeeCold]

Again, I only stress more study and the maintaining of separation between MBTI knowledge and Socionics knowledge.

You are mixing them like I advised not to.


http://www.the16types.info/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=8527

1) If you have arrived here after already finding your type in Myers-Briggs, especially if through a MBTI test, do not assume that your Socionics type, as defined by Socionics theory, corresponds to the MBTI you have found for yourself. You should look at your Socionics type from scratch.

2) Socionics types are not related to MBTI through a J/P switch for introverts. That works only if you are defining types according to ego functional ordering and assuming that Socionics functions = MBTI functions. That is however not helpful to find your true type, either in Socionics or MBTI.

3) Typing by VI - Visual Identification - is not something that can be easily learned or applied simply by looking at pictures of people of a certain type, much less by correlating specific facial features (length of the nose, thickness of lips, etc) to Socionics characteristics. It only makes sense to try to use VI after you already understand Socionics and have observed enough individuals of each type.

4) Socionics - like Myers-Briggs - has Carl Jung's Psychological Types as its starting point. It is definitely useful to read Jung's writings on that. However, Jung's types and functions are not the "true" Socionics types and functions. It makes no sense to argue Socionics from a purely Jungian standpoint. It's necessary to understand Socionics functions also independently from Jung.

5) Socionics is not a personality theory in the sense of personalities as mainly defined by external behavior traits. Socionics's types are defined ultimately by deeper personal priorities and motivations. However, external behavior traits provide clues as to the person's priorities and motivations.

6) Socionics is an interpersonal relationship theory. However, the Socionics relationships only work as described in situations where all other external factors are relatively neutral. Everyone understands that many factors (age, culture, family relationships, professional relationships, etc) influence interpersonal relationships. All those factors being equal, however, relationhips do work as described by Socionics, especially over time.

7) Duality is not some sort of "mystical experience" as some descriptions sometimes may suggest. Your dual is simply someone whose company, by temperament and functional preferences, is most comfortable for you, since your dual appreciates and needs precisely what you regard as your strengths and is most happy to help you and support you precisely in those areas you most appreciate it. However, you may still not get along with your dual if s/he is your boss, your rival, your superior officer, your teacher, someone of a very different culture, etc.

Also, wrong subforum?

 

[Jennywocky]

Thanks for the reposted material with its nuances, it'll give me a good starting point if/when I want to really grasp the Socionics approach.

 

[Jchazard]

I know both my types in both personality theories so I'm not trying to find my type. I guess what I'm trying to do is, since both theories are based off of the same principle despite changes that have been added, combine both researches to find the underlying principle behind both. Is this a flawed idea? Perhaps you can tell my Eye_See_Cold. Do you honestly think that there is zero correlation between the two and the research done on both can in no way be applied to the other theory simply because they are slightly different? They're both based on the same fundemental principal even if Socionics has changed it a bit. 8 funcions, 16 personalities... I understand there is much variation. But does that mean there are no similarities or concepts to be grasped by taking both into consideration? I'm having a really hard time comprehending that for some reason.

@4- I'm not trying to argue from a purely Jungian standpoint, I'm trying to advance it for myself. As you said they're both based off the same principle despite varaiations. I don't se why the researches can't connect then.

@5- I'm trying to find the underlying connections between external behavior traits and deeper personal priorities and motivations.

@Jennywocky- Thanks for complaining like a sarcastic bitch to get one more post. STFU.

 

[pjoa09]

I stand with EyeSeeCold, Socionics approaches personalities pretty differently. They use three letters

ILI = INTP
LII = INTJ

Thats the furthest I can figure out. Yet, just being a slightly organized INTP may land you in INTJ grounds.

I find socionics fascinating but I am still learning MBTI. Socionics has scary accuracy but they can describe you a little too much and get some minor details wrong.

Still got no clue about anti-socionictism on this forum.

 

[EyeSeeCold]

I know both my types in both personality theories so I'm not trying to find my type. I guess what I'm trying to do is, since both theories are based off of the same principle despite changes that have been added, combine both researches to find the underlying principle behind both. Is this a flawed idea? Perhaps you can tell my Eye_See_Cold. Do you honestly think that there is zero correlation between the two and the research done on both can in no way be applied to the other theory simply because they are slightly different? They're both based on the same fundemental principal even if Socionics has changed it a bit. 8 funcions, 16 personalities... I understand there is much variation. But does that mean there are no similarities or concepts to be grasped by taking both into consideration? I'm having a really hard time comprehending that for some reason.

It's not that there are no similarities, it's just that if you aren't well versed in both, you wouldn't know where the boundaries are. The theory of the types are based on Jung, but the two systems have different concepts backing them up. Work is already being done by some to make the systems a one-to-one correlation, but to use Socionics is to claim that MBTI is inaccurate. You must remember this. Certain concepts invalidate MBTI.

@4- I'm not trying to argue from a purely Jungian standpoint, I'm trying to advance it for myself. As you said they're both based off the same principle despite varaiations. I don't se why the researches can't connect then.

@5- I'm trying to find the underlying connections between external behavior traits and deeper personal priorities and motivations.

Those weren't specifically for you.

 

[Jchazard]

I stand with EyeSeeCold, Socionics approaches personalities pretty differently. They use three letters

ILI = INTP
LII = INTJ

Thats the furthest I can figure out. Yet, just being a slightly organized INTP may land you in INTJ grounds.

I find socionics fascinating but I am still learning MBTI. Socionics has scary accuracy but they can describe you a little too much and get some minor details wrong.

Still got no clue about anti-socionictism on this forum.

And yet they are so similar that LII can actually equal INTJ with only trace elements of INTP. I feel like it would be terribly foolish to say there is no correlation for a few simple differences when I'm acknowledging those. I'm fully willing to be convinced otherwise though. I agree they both have scary accuracy with minor wrong details. That's why I feel I have to see what makes them wrong by connecting them. Ha

 

[Jchazard]

It's not that there are no similarities, it's just that if you aren't well versed in both, you wouldn't know where the boundaries are. The theory of the types are based on Jung, but the two systems have different concepts backing them up. Work is already being done by some to make the systems a one-to-one correlation, but to use Socionics is to claim that MBTI is inaccurate. You must remember this. Certain concepts invalidate MBTI.


Those weren't specifically for you.

Alright I understand. I feel comfortable letting it be as long as work is already being done to connect them. Haha Thanks for clarifying. I just found the duality, mirror, etc relations correlation interesting.

 

[Vrecknidj]

@Jennywocky- Thanks for complaining like a sarcastic bitch to get one more post. STFU.

Grow up and drop the attitude.

 

[Jchazard]

Grow up and drop the attitude.

Apparently you don't see the post I was responding to? I'm not gonna take shit from someone who just wants to be an immature and whiney jerk for the sake of being one, I'm sorry.

 

[EyeSeeCold]

I think you misunderstood Jennywocky's post...or I'm losing my ability to detect passive-aggressiveness .

 

[Jchazard]

I think you misunderstood Jennywocky's post...or I'm losing my ability to detect passive-aggressiveness .

Haha I like you. She was indeed being sarcastic though and implying my interests in the subject were worthless simply because they had no application to her own. She was just trying to be bitchy and annoying for the sake of it while giving no real input at all other than to complain.

 

[loveofreason]

Thanks for the reposted material with its nuances, it'll give me a good starting point if/when I want to really grasp the Socionics approach.

I think it's pretty clear that Jennywocky's comment was a genuine acknowledgement of the material EyeSeeCold reposted in his comment above hers.

Comments of the like made by Jchazard, in response to imagined personal slight, have never been, and hopefully never will be, part of the accepted culture here. Any further personal attack will earn Jchazard time cooling off in Siberia.