Socionics INTp?

[Dimensional Transition]

What's the difference with the MBTI test INTP? Why is the last P not a capital in socionics?

As I'm a lazy bum, I'll ask you guys if any of you can summarize the major differences in the two. What may socionics teach me that MBTI may not and vice versa?

I just took the socionics test and this came out:

Low on T, high on N and P, which is something I already kind of knew... but yeah.

For those who are also relatively new to socionics and want to take the same test, here it is: http://www.socionics.com/sta/sta_turbo_xl.html

I excuse myself for my own laziness and possible grammatical errors, I'm exhausted at the moment.

 

[nanook]

the lower case P is more effective in perceiving secrets. it doesn't scare the birds away.
Intuitive Logical Introtim - Wikisocion

 

[EyeSeeCold]

What's the difference with the MBTI test INTP? Why is the last P not a capital in socionics?[/wuote]Lowercase p/j distinguishes Socionics type from MBTI type, but also shows that the intended types(the real phenomena in reality) are supposed to carry over between systems.

Socionists make a point to distinguish with a lowercase p/j because in Socionics, Irrationality/Rationality equates to and determines Perceiving/Judging respectively. In MBTI, Irrationality/Rationality is not used to determine nor is it recognized as Perceiving/Judging. In MBTI, Perceiving types have Pe egos, while Judging types have Je egos. In Socionics, Perceiving types have dominant P(Irrational) functions while Judging types have dominant J(Rational) Functions.

As I'm a lazy bum, I'll ask you guys if any of you can summarize the major differences in the two. What may socionics teach me that MBTI may not and vice versa?

Socionics is a typology like MBTI, but emphasizes more how types process information. It is also a theory of inter-type relationships.

That is what you would ideally be getting out of Socionics, a range of new contexts to see people in, and also an understanding of relationships between people on a typological level.

I just took the socionics test and this came out:

Low on T, high on N and P, which is something I already kind of knew... but yeah.

For those who are also relatively new to socionics and want to take the same test, here it is: http://www.socionics.com/sta/sta_turbo_xl.html

Here's a compiled list of tests:

1. https://bitbucket.org/Brilliand/hugotest/get/77c7c100fce6.zip
2. http://www.sociotype.com/tests/
3. http://sociotest.narod.ru/info.htm
4. http://socionics.us/tests/1/0.htm
5. http://www.okcupid.com/tests/refined-socionics-test-20
6. http://www.socionics.com/sta/sta-1-r.html?0:::
7. http://www.socionics.com/sta/sta_turbo.html
8. http://www.socionics.com/sta/sta_turbo_xl.html
9. http://www.mizami.nl/public_html/questionnaire/pretestQuestions
10. http://www.socionika.info/test.html
11. http://www.the16types.info/vbulletin/showthread.php?869-The-area-of-confidence-typology-test.
12. http://www.socioniko.net/en/1.1.types/test.html#oldtest
13. http://www.socionictest.net/Test.aspx
14. http://www.socionics.dp.ua/p_test/p_test.htm
15. http://www.socionics.org/test/test_blokhin.htm
16. http://www.bereg.ru/psytest/test1.htm

Some are more likely to be accurate than others, but aggregating your results yields the best answer.

I also prefer these type descriptions over most others:
http://www.socioforum.ru/forum57.html
http://typelab.ru/en/1.1.types/

 

[Dapper Dan]

Actually, the socionics INTp translates roughly to MBTI's INTJ. This is simply due to a different naming preference. In MBTI, the last letter tells you which function is extroverted. In socionics, the last letter tells you which function is dominant. I believe the letter is lowercase in order to distinguish between the two systems.

That's about the extent of my socionics knowledge. It's type descriptions didn't seem to fit me very well, so I don't really bother with it.

 

[pjoa09]

They fit me oddly well. Odd.

 

[EyeSeeCold]

Actually, the socionics INTp translates roughly to MBTI's INTJ. This is simply due to a different naming preference. In MBTI, the last letter tells you which function is extroverted. In socionics, the last letter tells you which function is dominant. I believe the letter is lowercase in order to distinguish between the two systems.

That's about the extent of my socionics knowledge. It's type descriptions didn't seem to fit me very well, so I don't really bother with it.

Moderators haven't approved my previous post yet, so in the meantime...

As for the phenomenon of INTP, MBTI's INTP and Socionics' INTp refer to the same thing, the same phenomenon that is extant in reality.

Each system has its own perspective of this phenomenon, however, so yeah as for people typing themselves or taking tests, it's pretty much half and half that INTPs end up INTjs or INTJs end up INTps.

Trying to explain this by an automatic p/j swap, or through the functions themselves will only cause confusion.

The problem is that although they are based on the same theories and concepts by Carl Jung, there is a divergence in accepted premises which affects the correlation between the two systems.

Understanding Jung's Psychological Types and Rationality/Irrationality is necessary to understand the discrepancies, and to rise above them to be able to fully work with typological theory.

 

[Dimensional Transition]

Actually, the socionics INTp translates roughly to MBTI's INTJ. This is simply due to a different naming preference. In MBTI, the last letter tells you which function is extroverted. In socionics, the last letter tells you which function is dominant. I believe the letter is lowercase in order to distinguish between the two systems.

That's about the extent of my socionics knowledge. It's type descriptions didn't seem to fit me very well, so I don't really bother with it.

Wut. I score both INTP and INTp...

Moderators haven't approved my previous post yet, so in the meantime...

As for the phenomenon of INTP, MBTI's INTP and Socionics' INTp refer to the same thing, the same phenomenon that is extant in reality.

Each system has its own perspective of this phenomenon, however, so yeah as for people typing themselves or taking tests, it's pretty much half and half that INTPs end up INTjs or INTJs end up INTps.

Trying to explain this by an automatic p/j swap, or through the functions themselves will only cause confusion.

The problem is that although they are based on the same theories and concepts by Carl Jung, there is a divergence in accepted premises which affects the correlation between the two systems.

Understanding Jung's Psychological Types and Rationality/Irrationality is necessary to understand the discrepancies, and to rise above them to be able to fully work with typological theory.

It's incredibly complicated. I've only very recently getting somewhat of a better grip on MBTI, and socionics just seems even more complex.

So... Eh... I still don't quite get the difference. MBTI and socionics are quite different, in a way, but their core is pretty much the same. Their explanations just differ?

I find that I always feel a bit insulted when reading socionics' INTp descriptions because it makes me look like an incredibly boring, weak, computer person. The MBTI descriptions seem more correct to me.

 

[EyeSeeCold]

It's incredibly complicated. I've only very recently getting somewhat of a better grip on MBTI, and socionics just seems even more complex.

So... Eh... I still don't quite get the difference. MBTI and socionics are quite different, in a way, but their core is pretty much the same. Their explanations just differ?

I find that I always feel a bit insulted when reading socionics' INTp descriptions because it makes me look like an incredibly boring, weak, computer person. The MBTI descriptions seem more correct to me.

Socionics is definitely more complex, and it doesn't help that crossing over is problematic by itself.


The difference is in perspective, and premises. MBTI deals with personality theory and was designed as a personality and career assessment tool. Socionics is more aligned with psychology, and information processing. It'd be more accurate to say that the surface is pretty much the same and that the core is quite different. The situation is as if two people witnessed an accident from different positions, they have different perspectives of what happened, but technically it's relative as to who is "right". They saw what they saw. But there is always some measure of objectivity, through which accuracy could be attained. Also like I said before, the topic of Rationality/Irrationality and Perceiving/Judging between the two makes them intricately different. It's something that is not very noticeable at face value and is hard to explain or understand without immersion in the subject.


Well you could say MBTTists are padding profiles to portray positive portraits, no? Perhaps you prefer MBTI more because it doesn't show your negative side? That is one of its criticisms and also KTS. It's leaning towards mainstream pop-psychology, something to make people feel better about themselves, rather than objective analyses of people.

 

[Dapper Dan]

I also prefer these type descriptions over most others:
http://www.socioforum.ru/forum57.html
http://typelab.ru/en/1.1.types/

I just read through both of these to see if my previous position was inaccurate. Now I remember why I gave up on socionics before.

Simply put, both INTp and INTj seem to fit me halfway. The dominant functions of the INTj fit me well, but the lesser functions don't. And while I don't relate to the INTp's main principles, many of the little behaviors are very familiar.

So, to me, it almost feels as if socionics mixed together all the traits of an INTP and INTJ until I could relate to both (or neither) of them.

 

[EyeSeeCold]

I just read through both of these to see if my previous position was inaccurate. Now I remember why I gave up on socionics before.

Simply put, both INTp and INTj seem to fit me halfway. The dominant functions of the INTj fit me well, but the lesser functions don't. And while I don't relate to the INTp's main principles, many of the little behaviors are very familiar.

So, to me, it almost feels as if socionics mixed together all the traits of an INTP and INTJ until I could relate to both (or neither) of them.

This kind of thinking is what causes confusion. Both are separate systems with different perspectives of the same phenomenon. Socionics did not mix anything, as it was developed entirely apart from MBTI. That kind of hasty conclusion is what drives most people away from going deeper into Socionics. They assume MBTI is right and critique Socionics from an MBTTian standpoint, Socionics differs of course, and it's automatically assumed to be an inaccurate bunk theory.

The appropriate approach is to drop your MBTI preconceptions and look at Socionics as a whole.

 

[Dapper Dan]

This kind of thinking is what causes confusion. Both are separate systems with different perspectives of the same phenomenon. Socionics did not mix anything, as it was developed entirely apart from MBTI. That kind of hasty conclusion is what drives most people away from going deeper into Socionics. They assume MBTI is right and critique Socionics from an MBTTian standpoint, Socionics differs of course, and it's automatically assumed to be an inaccurate bunk theory.

The appropriate approach is to drop your MBTI preconceptions and look at Socionics as a whole.

Yes, I understand that. I'm not trying to make any conclusions about Socionics vs MBTI or anything of the sort. I realize that they were developed independently and that just because they use the same letters doesn't mean they mean the same things.

All I'm saying is that I don't seem to fit neatly into Socionics' array of personalities. This means that I have no way to compare/contrast my personality type against the others, and as a result, the system is of little use to me.

 

[EyeSeeCold]

Yes, I understand that. I'm not trying to make any conclusions about Socionics vs MBTI or anything of the sort. I realize that they were developed independently and that just because they use the same letters doesn't mean they mean the same things.

All I'm saying is that I don't seem to fit neatly into Socionics' array of personalities. This means that I have no way to compare/contrast my personality type against the others, and as a result, the system is of little use to me.

Well, no one fits neatly into anything. The only way that happens is if there is personalization or delusion going on.

I honestly think it's a perspective issue, the point is not to be hard lining yourself to the system but to get the gist of it. Not trying to fit it word for word, but following the indications.

I do realize it's not the most straightforward theory, but the lack of interest doesn't help, as it definitely requires immersion more than other concepts.

 

[Dapper Dan]

Well, no one fits neatly into anything. The only way that happens is if there is personalization or delusion going on.

I honestly think it's a perspective issue, the point is not to be hard lining yourself to the system but to get the gist of it. Not trying to fit it word for word, but following the indications.

I do realize it's not the most straightforward theory, but the lack of interest doesn't help, as it definitely requires immersion more than other concepts.

Well, you're right about one thing. I don't have much interest in Socionics. That's about it though.

"No one fits neatly into anything" is a load of pretentious bull, if you don't mind me saying. Neat doesn't mean perfect. If that statement were true, the entire study of typology would be completely pointless.

And there is no universal "point" to a typology. It's a system with many applications. I use MBTI as a tool to reflect on myself and my interactions with others. I have no use for a system with no accurate depiction of my personality.

I guess you were right about two things. It's a perspective issue. You have yours and I have mine.

Don't call me delusional.

 

[EyeSeeCold]

Well, you're right about one thing. I don't have much interest in Socionics. That's about it though.

"No one fits neatly into anything" is a load of pretentious bull, if you don't mind me saying. Neat doesn't mean perfect. If that statement were true, the entire study of typology would be completely pointless.

Well, then, what did you mean by "neatly"? No one really does fit neatly into anything however you want to interpret that. That you see that fact as bull is a personal problem but one that is a compensation.

Unless you badly phrased yourself, you're just pulling an equivocation and calling bullshit to take the easy way out.

Here's your post again for context :

Spoiler

All I'm saying is that I don't seem to fit neatly into Socionics' array of personalities. This means that I have no way to compare/contrast my personality type against the others, and as a result, the system is of little use to me.

Again, of course you don't fit neatly. Which one is the most appropriate or accurate is what is supposed to be your type.

And there is no universal "point" to a typology. It's a system with many applications. I use MBTI as a tool to reflect on myself and my interactions with others. I have no use for a system with no accurate depiction of my personality.

You missed my point, which was a statement of appropriate typing procedures. I wasn't talking about the application or importance of typology.

I guess you were right about two things. It's a perspective issue. You have yours and I have mine.

Of course that, I don't mean that though. "Perspective issue" as in you cannot see yourself in a type because you either a have false/limited view of yourself or you don't understand what the Socionics type descriptions imply and how it relates to you. Of course there's the question of the descriptions/theory being accurate and valid, but enough positive cases make a strong argument against invalidity and inaccuracy based on your own personal inability to identify with the descriptions.

Don't call me delusional.

Never did.

 

[Dapper Dan]

I'm gonna go ahead and call this thread derailed.

Peace.

 

[Artsu Tharaz]

Socionics puts, for example, conscious Ni types as also having conscious Si, which is verifiably wrong. If we're going by the stronger 2 of the 4 conscious, then Ip corresponds to IJ, assuming each function of Socionics is an attempt to describe the same thing that MBTI attempts to describe. The function model from MBTI, in the form Lu-Kv:K'u-L'v, is correct, albeit still not the complete picture.

 

[ked]

It's funny the NTs haven't yet figured it out that the MBTI functions are invalid; they say that Introverts have the J and P as reversed - there is no evidence of that. Socionics gives them as they are, that a J is a J and a P is a P, that's logical and needs no evidence.

INTp in Socionics is NiTe SiFe, and INTj in Socionics is TiNe FiSe, and those are correct, also the second pair is correct (if that's how they put it as they should) as by observation one can see that those who have the extraverted iNtuition (visual seeing) as dominant, will also have the extraverted sensing (sensoric extraverted seeing/awareness) as dominant, and those that have the introverted/intraverted iNtuition (non-visual iNtuition, living in such memory; a dreamer, not a thinker) as dominant, will have the introverted sensing (the body itself) as dominant.

Socionics.com has good pictures about famous people that are mostly correct. Other than the "math" part here and those pictures on that specific Socionics site, the rest of the stuff is not as good or even correct and is better at the MBTI sites, e.g. the Socionics profiles are pretty horrible and should be next to put in garbage, though the INTp profile there is somewhat about the ENTP.

 

[EyeSeeCold]

It's funny the NTs haven't yet figured it out that the MBTI functions are invalid; they say that Introverts have the J and P as reversed - there is no evidence of that. Socionics gives them as they are, that a J is a J and a P is a P, that's logical and needs no evidence.

It's not so simple when you are first learned in MBTI how typology works and then compare your previous understanding to a different system. You're right, Jungian typology is more accurately potrayed in Socionics, but because it is a perspectivist subject, MBTI is not automatically wrong for not being consistent with Jungian typology.

 

[Auburn]

Here's a compiled list of tests:

1. https://bitbucket.org/Brilliand/hugo...c7c100fce6.zip
2. http://www.sociotype.com/tests/
3. http://sociotest.narod.ru/info.htm
4. http://socionics.us/tests/1/0.htm
5. http://www.okcupid.com/tests/refined-socionics-test-20
6. http://www.socionics.com/sta/sta-1-r.html?0:::
7. http://www.socionics.com/sta/sta_turbo.html
8. http://www.socionics.com/sta/sta_turbo_xl.html
9. http://www.mizami.nl/public_html/que...etestQuestions
10. http://www.socionika.info/test.html
11. http://www.the16types.info/vbulletin...-typology-test.
12. http://www.socioniko.net/en/1.1.types/test.html#oldtest
13. http://www.socionictest.net/Test.aspx
14. http://www.socionics.dp.ua/p_test/p_test.htm
15. http://www.socionics.org/test/test_blokhin.htm
16. http://www.bereg.ru/psytest/test1.htm

Interesting. I tried numbers 3, 5, 9, 11 so far. My results were:

IEI - (Ni-Fe-Si-Te)
LSI - (Ti-Se-Fi-Ne)
EII - (Fi-Ne-Ti-Se)
SEI - (Si-Fe-Ni-Te)

I'm so very confused.
*Goes to read up on Socionics* c.c

 

[EyeSeeCold]

Interesting. I tried numbers 3, 5, 9, 11 so far. My results were:

IEI - (Ni-Fe-Si-Te)
LSI - (Ti-Se-Fi-Ne)
EII - (Fi-Ne-Ti-Se)
SEI - (Si-Fe-Ni-Te)

I'm so very confused.
*Goes to read up on Socionics* c.c

So we know you are an Introvert, that's a start. >.<


I don't know how you managed to get such a wide range of results, but it's not uncommon.

 

[pjoa09]

http://www.the16types.info/vbulletin/showthread.php/869-The-area-of-confidence-typology-test.

worked best for me.

 

[Auburn]

So we know you are an Introvert, that's a start. >.<
I don't know how you managed to get such a wide range of results, but it's not uncommon.

Me either! o:
But I was trying not to think of the questions in terms of the dichotomies I am familiar with. Simply answering honestly from a fresh clean plate. Took 5 more tests, added with the other four, my results are:

Tests:
#2 = LII / INTj (~INTP)
#3 = IEI / INFp (~INFJ)
#4 = ILI / INTp (~INTJ)
#5 = LSI / ISTj (~ISTP)
#7 = ILI / INTp (~INTJ)
#8 = ILI / INTp (~INTJ)
#9 = EII / INFj (~INFP)
#10 = LSI / ISTj (~ISTP)
#11 = SEI / ISFp (~ISFJ

So there's 3 INTp, 2 ISTj, 1 INTj, 1 INFp, 1 INFj, 1 ISFp..
I'm still not sure what to make of this. Just posting in the meantime while I make sense of the theory. c.c