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!


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 ...
Bookmark and Share

Your Comments: 1+ 18+
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
Page 1 2
Would you like to add anything?
(When posting, we ask you to make the effort to qualify your opinions.)



Name: (leave blank for "Anonymous")