Socionics Personals | | Female Straight 16-25 Oceania Libra ENFj |
| | Male Straight 16-25 Middle East Sagittarius INTj |
| | Male Straight 26-35 North America Pisces INXj |
| Join now! |
Who is who?Learn how to convert between different systems
V.I.An introduction into the widely used Socionics Visual Identification technique
TestsA collection of Socionics related tests and quizes
Q & AsAsk a Socionics related question or provide an answer to an existing one
ArticlesVarious articles on the subject of Socionics and Types in general
ForumsWant to discuss Type? Head to Socionics Forums!
|
How to convert MBTI® type to Socionics type
by Sergei Ganin
Anyone who had closely read all the articles about Socionics and MBTI® theory compatibility issues has already got a fair idea that there is no straightforward conversion between the two systems. This obviously creates quite a lot of confusion, especially when it comes to the introvert types. The most common ... question people ask is: "Is MBTI INTJ the same as Socionics INTp or Socionics INTj?" Some people have created the myth that if you change the last letter of the MBTI introvert type acronym to the opposite then you get a Socionics equivalent, i.e. MBTI INTJ = Socionics INTp. As I said, it is a myth and even though such conversion may work in some cases, it does not work in all cases. So here I'll try to show how to make such conversion possible without getting into too much trouble.
The Thinking and Feeling pair of functions is bound together in the same way the Sensing and Intuition pair is. The two functions in a pair always go up against each or fight for the domination if you like. If one of the functions in a pair appears to be Dominant function then the other function in the same pair is Inferior and is well suppressed by the Dominant function, and the domination of the Dominant function is obvious. However, if one of the functions in a pair is Auxiliary, then the other would be Tertiary, which represents the Hidden Agenda. The Auxiliary and Tertiary combination of functions provokes a war between these functions, because there is no clear dominator. On one hand the Auxiliary function is much stronger than Tertiary, however the Tertiary function is the Hidden Agenda and is extremely important. So what happens in reality is that a person find it difficult to separate these two functions in order to give them clear preference, the functions always appear to be mixed up together to a certain degree.
So, if a person's Auxiliary and Tertiary functions are Feeling and Thinking (or Thinking and Feeling), then such person find it hard to keep these two in peace and may find it difficult to decide whether they are F or T. The Dominant and Inferior in this case would be Sensing and Intuition (or Intuition and Sensing), and should be quite easy to separate. Because the Dominant function is Perceiving in this case, the person would be Socionics Perceiving type (XXXp). So if MBTI INTJ person is more uncertain about being T or F than S or N i.e. IN(T/F)J or INxJ, then he or she will correspond to Socionics INTp.
If a person's Auxiliary and Tertiary functions are Sensing and Intuition (or Intuition and Sensing), then such person may find it difficult to keep these two in friendship and may find it hard to decide whether they are S or N. The Dominant and Inferior in this case would be Feeling and Thinking (or Thinking and Feeling), and should be quite easy to divide. Because in this case the Dominant function is Judging, the person would be Socionics Judging type (XXXj). So if MBTI INTJ person is more unsure about being S or N than T or F i.e. I(S/N)TJ or IxTJ, then he or she will correspond to Socionics INTj.
So here it is all of the above simplified:
Unsure about being T or F -> you are Socionics XXXp
Unsure about being S or N -> you are Socionics XXXj
Alternatively if you would like a solid table of conversion between the two systems, you can use the table below:
Extroverts |
MBTI system |
Socionics system |
ENFJ |
ENFj |
ENTJ |
ENTj |
ENFP |
ENFp |
ENTP |
ENTp |
ESFJ |
ESFj |
ESTJ |
ESTj |
ESFP |
ESFp |
ESTP |
ESTp |
Introverts |
MBTI system |
Socionics system |
INFJ |
INFx |
INTJ |
INTx |
INFP |
INFx |
INTP |
INTx |
ISFJ |
ISFx |
ISTJ |
ISTx |
ISFP |
ISFx |
ISTP |
ISTx |
|
|
C18 The effects of language on the brain may have something to do with the differences in cognitive functions and processes between the two systems. -- Anonymous |
C19 While differences between both systems aren't always very obvious for intuiting (N) types with the exception of a possible J/P switch for introverts, they are absolutely obvious for introverted sensing types. ISFp (Socionics) and ISFP (MBTT) describe almost the same type but it's SiFe for Socionics and FiSe for MBTT. ISTj (Socionics) and ISTJ (MBTT) describe almost the same type but it's TiSe for Socionics and SiTe for MBTT. ISFj (Socionics) and ISFJ (MBTT) describe almost the same type but it's FiSe for Socionics and SiFe for MBTT. ISTp (Socionics) and ISTP (MBTT) describe almost the same type but it's SiTe for Socionics and TiSe for MBTT. So for introverted sensing types there is NO J/P switch but a total different understanding of the leading/dominant and creative/auxiliary functions. -- piccolo_michel |
C20 They are the same. MBTI and Socionics are using different means to measure the same types. Functions are defined differently but come together as a whole to make the same personality. First make sure they are typed correctly because MBTI tests are written terribly. Test my assertion by treating MBTI types as socionics ones and see if the inter type relations add up. -- DR |
C21 This article is saying whatever theintrovert's dominant function is,then that's the last letter. So if your dominant function is feeling, you are a J in socionics. Fine. But the example with INTj doesn't make sense, because all types has only one dominant function, so they can't be either aj or a p. They can only be one or the other. -- Anonymous |
C22 Article is backwards. Four letter type names are straight conversion for introverted types. For extraverts, swap the j/p letter. So MBTI ENFP = ENFj in Socionics. Subtype descriptions get a bit more useful once you know that. There's a few reasons for it, and one is because the e/i line on functions is flipped between the two theories on all eight functions. So for example Fe in Socionics is Fi in MBTI. Both systems short sell the F functions in their definitions, though. The F functions cover far more than simply emotions/social interactions. This is because both systems mainly look at what behavior can be observed from types that have those functions in a prominent position, rather than finding a definition that works no matter which of the eight positions you place it in. A mechanic that stares at an engine before saying 'well there's your problem' is using (Socionics) Fe. The psyche uses all eight functions for everything (or tries to - some functions start out weak, but they can be trained). Another reason is that the models flip the ordering of their pairs. Function 1 (Leading) in Socionics is the Auxiliary in MBTI. Function 2 (Creative) is the Dominant in MBTI. The other three pairs are similarly flipped. Also, the 'vulnerable' function will eventually need to be renamed - it's only named after the initially weak state it starts from and doesn't describe the actual purpose of that function position. But that's because Socionics just has a snapshot of the foundation that psyche starts from, and spends most of its time exploring the current forefront of the psyche's progress. Socionics is more or less the vanguard of typology, always looking for what might be found next. Easiest example is that Socionics VI is based more on 'impressions' than on a logical foundation. In contrast, MBTI is more concerned with the static, unchanging, solid foundation that everything stems from and currently doesn't have much of an action plan. Both theories have exceptions (you have one type, but there's people that identify with more than one) that can't yet be explained. The two systems can absolutely be reconciled, and it's actually fairly easy to do so. They have a lot to offer each other. If that interests you, you can read my 20k word article here: personalitycafe.com/articles/603914-guide-becoming-awesome-mbti-edition.html It's in MBTI terms, but as I said, it and Socionics are quite compatible. So let's end the pointless bickering that'd make grandpa Jung sad, and just get on with productive. -- Anonymous |
C23 C22 You're misinformed. There is no "straight" conversion for either extroverts or introverts. People are just trying to force one where there never was. Myth and every forum you can find have somehow reached consensus that just because you are, for example, an INTJ in MBTI you're automatically a Socionics INTP. Which seems to be true in many cases. While it is indeed possible to test as INTJ (or INTP) in both theories. I speak as one of those exceptions. Socionics never claimed to be a conversion of MBTI, that is entirely popular belief; not a fact. If you can find proof from a reliable source and not just heresy, provide it, but don't bother; I'll only be sending you on a cruel endless search. Plus your argument is primarily relying on loosely-worded, unreliable, functions; the sole existence of functions is unproven. If you look at the descriptors of Ti and Te, can you honestly say they don't fit a typical INTJ or INTP equally well? I think not. Seeing that MBTI is more about how you ACT than how you PROCESS information it is definitely possible to test as an INTJ personality with an INTJ psyche. Wouldn't that simply mean you act consistently with your preferred method of process? Isn't it also possible to act opposite of your psyche? Have an INTJ psyche but an INTP personailty. Correct me if I'm wrong. -- MBTI and Socionics INTJ |
C24 C17 is spot on. A rigidly religious INFJ could just as well be a socionics INTj since white ethics (Fi) is not so much about values and principles as it is about interpersonal skills. Ambitious Socionics ESTps might be ESTJs in MB, since Se is more about controlling your environment than enjoying physical cravings. And finally, this supervillain-INTJ-type from MB who doesn't have any weaknesses except being too harsh on everybody else basically doesn't exist in real life at all. If you ask me, the best way to avoid confusion between types is to forget about MB altogether and overwrite Fe with black ethics and ESTP with SLE, etc. -- ILE |
C25 At any rate, this whole discussion beautifully illustrates, that "conversion" between types is messy and confusing, and that this article's goal in making it clearer and neater was not successful. At this point, I have to ask: Why "converse" at all? These systems are tools. If you want to use them properly, there is no way around learning them properly. That means if one wants to use socionics properly, it's best to resist the quick fix of a messy MB conversion, and learn typing yourself from the beginning. -- ILE |
C26 Hello everybody, I don't understand Mr Ganin's point of view, all the more as on "Type Tips", the guy who led me to this page explains that the simpler conversion system is the right one and I have to agree with him. Indeed, if I, an MBTI INTJ have doubts about my functions, and I do, they're about the auxiliary and tertiary, Te and Fi, but not about the dominant and inferior, like Mr Ganin surprisingly explains too. So why does he say,in the last paragraph, that an INTJ could be either Socionics INTj or INTp? Could someone have doubts about functions 1 and 4 after all? Thanks. -- Mr Julien L. |
C27 There is OBVIOUSLY a VERY STRAIGHT FORWARD Conversion. The first three letters in your MBTI type translate to your socionic type. For the fourth letter: For introverts switch the fourth letter for extroverts, keep the fourth letter the same. Whoever developed Socionic can't read pattern and may be obsessed with numbers. He/she is probably an unchecked ST who just doesn't like to give credit to Jung/MBTI work. I am obviously being an asshole and an unchecked judger type -- Anonymous |
C28 Interesting, what’s your take on my situation . I’ve been a consistent ENFP type probably my whole life. In socionics, I am a solid EII-INFJ. That fits me to a T. But I am definitely not an introvert, well not everyday. -- Anonymous |
|
Would you like to add anything? |
( When posting, we ask you to make the effort to qualify your opinions.)
|
|