Socionics Personals
North America
Western Europe
North America
Join now!

Questions & Answers
Question #1137931087Sunday, 22-Jan-2006
Category: Theory Functions Tests Typing
Why is ISFp of Socionics equal to the Composer Artisan of Keirsey and to the ISFp described in Myers-Briggs on ? I thought if your test result's ISFp then you'd have to look at ISFJ on Myers-Briggs in order to get matched, but why is it that the ISFp of socionics is also equal to myers-briggs, on the said sites? ( and ...this is also true for all the types, I think the ISTp's equal to The Mechanic described in the myers-briggs whereas I thought it should be ISTJ you should read there in order to get matched with ISTp socionics. this is true for all the rest except for INTp and INTj - the INTp socionics isn't equal to the INTp on myers-briggs, on, which refers that there's no equality between the two. Same also for the INTj - but why is it that the other types- the rest of the types don't work that way? I compared the descriptions, thats why I have this question. -- Rob
Bookmark and Share

Your Answers: 1+
A1 It all depends on how you judge the types, is it by just four preferences of by the full scope of functions? As soon as you look into the functions you will start seeing the differences and everything becomes even more confusing. Best thing to do is to choose the system and stick with it. -- Admin
A2 But what I wanna know is that the descriptions, for example, of an ISFp in socionics seems also equal to ISFP described in myers-briggs ( I thought there has been incosistency between the two (socionics and myers-briggs) but why is it almost all the types' descriptions from socionics and myers-briggs seem to be equal to each other still? -- Rob
A3 It all depends on how those descriptions were written down, were they based on just four preferences or on the full scope of functions? As soon as you look into the functions you will start seeing the differences and everything becomes even more confusing. Best thing to do is to choose the system and stick with it. -- Admin
A4 I think that they were based on just four preferences. -- Rob
A5 Yeah, Rob, you've hit the nail on the head. Part of the reason for the confusion is the definitions of the scales. In Keirsey and MBTI, the definition of extraverted T (TJ) is thinking that lends itself to coordinating and deciding, and the definition of introverted T (TP) is thinking that lends itself to understanding stuff that has little or nothing to do with one's current situation. The definitions in Socionics are different, and somewhat more complicated to understand. The meaning of introverted vs. extraverted intuition is similarly more complex in Socionics, as indeed it is in Jung's original writings. I'm 100% with you: Because there seems to be some truth to the two models, it ought to be possible to come up with a "grand unification theory" that explains why both models can seem correct. It's not trivial; I have some ideas, but you're definitely onto something with that question. -- Jonathan
A6 Which theory is more correct with the best match relationship wise? -- michelle
A7 A6: Socionics of course But seriously, I've found Socionics extremely helpful when it comes to relationships (so helpful that now I'm so good at nailing the types of relationships it's like a nightmare or being blessed and at the same time blessed with a second sight - you look at a couple and know this might not work but you cannot just come up to the people and say: you know, your relationship probably won't work). And to the basic question: it has always seemed to me that on this site, the introverted types' descriptions have wrong j's and p's. For example, the ISFp description is very much a description of my father who has Fi and Se and you can even sense Se in the description (advice concerning willpower and initiative). But of course Socionics ISFp is supposed to have dominant Si and Fe, like MBTI ISFJ. So I agree with you. Another example: I'm an ESFp, I fit the ESFp description here perfectly. According to the relations section here, my Duals are INTps. But the INTp description here is of someone whose lifestyle I don't get, while the INTj description here is a description of my best friend and of the guy who's the love of my life. The INTj description even suggests some Te (speak clearly, emphasizing key words) which INTjs actually don't prefer. The INTj description also doesn't fit the quadra - who's ever heard of Gammas being concerned about safety and hygiene? It's Si, not Se and Ni. Some INTps are concerned about hygiene, but only as if by the way, it's not one of their values as the INTp description suggests. While my INTj grandmother used to support her ESFj husband whenever he would go nuts about us not having washed our hands. It would also be impossible for these INTps to be Duals with ESFps because we're very much about strong emotions, while "they consider strong emotions to be harmful". The people I know and consider my Duals do not show strong emotions, but they tolerate them and sometimes admire. Also, the INFp description here in fact describes a j person - p's never walk with poise. So all in all, I guess the introverted types descriptions on this site have swapped j and p preferences. -- Anonymous
A8 P_S: To the original poster and to A2: MBTT and Socionics don't do cuts between types according to exactly the same criterien. Cognitive processes don't have exactly the same meaning in both systems. So the correlation between both systems is despicable and between Socionics and Keirsey's temperament theory (for those of you who also know this theory) almost 0. If you apply some Reinin dichotomies to Keirsey's temperament theory it can easily be shown: Keirsey's Rationals (NT) are pragmatic and structure oriented, Idealists (NF) are affiliative and motive oriented, Guardians (SJ) are affiliative and structure oriented, Artisans (SP) are pragmatic and motive oriented. The Reinin dichotomy "process vs result" has many similitudes with Keirsey's dichotomy "affiliative vs pragmatic" and the "decisive vs judicious"" dichotomy has similitudes with the Keirsey's "structure vs motive" dichotomy. So one would expect that NT types are decisive and result oriented, NF types judicious and process oriented, Sj types decisive and process oriented, Sp types judicious and result oriented BUT ACTUALLY IT'S SO: Decisive + result: 1 NT, 1 NF, 1 Sj, 1 Sp. Judicious + process: 1 NT, 1 NF, 1 Sj, 1 Sp. Decisive + process: 1 NT, 1 NF, 1 Sj, 1 Sp. Judicious + result: 1 NT, 1 NF, 1 Sj, 1 Sp. So it looks like that between Keirsey's temperaments and Socionics CUTS ARE DONE in a kind of PERPENDICULAR WAY. BTW between Socionics and MBTT, for introverted sensing types, the cognitive processes sequences are inverted, not the types: ISFP (FiSe) = ISFp (SiFe), ISTP (TiSe) = ISTp (SiTe), ISFJ (SiFe) = ISFj (FiSe), ISTJ (SiTe) = ISTj (TiSe) -- piccolo_michel
*Please note that the opinions expressed are not necessarily those of*
Page 1
Would you like to add anything?
(When posting, we ask you to make the effort to qualify your opinions.)

Name: (leave blank for "Anonymous")

10 Most recent
By category
All questions
Submit a question