Sociotype.com: Socionics Applied

I've heard you just switch the last letters (J/P) in the introverts to go from Myers-Briggs to Socionics or vise-versa. And, this seemed valid because, I am INFP in Myers-Briggs and INFj in Socionics. HOWEVER, when I read the descriptions of what rational and irrational was in socionics, I hit a brick wall. Socionics has the same description as Myers'Briggs for rational and irrational. And I have no doubt in my mind that I identify with IRrational even if I tested INFj (in socionics). INFj is considered rational (which I am not). I took the test many times and came out 5-INFJ to 1-INFP. I've come close to INFP but end up INFJ.
If rational and irrational have the same description in Socionics and Myer-Briggs, then why do you have to switch the letters on the end? If you don't have to switch the letters on the end, then, why did I come out INFj in socionics and INFP in Myers-Briggs? This doesn't make any sense, and it makes this web site seem very unprofessional, haphazardly done, incomplete, incompetent, and not credible. I appreciate this web site's potential, but it needs work. I'd be satisfied if I could at least get some explanation about all of this. If you are unsure of what I'm asking, tell me, and I'll try to put it another way.

Another thing is that there are no explanations of what first tier dichotomies, 2nd, ...etc. mean. What does relative value mean? What does relative strength mean? Could you elaborate on what romance styles (primary: victim; secondary:Caregiver) mean? If rational and Judging is in the "first tier dichotomies, what does that mean?

Thanks

My understanding is that Myers-Briggs has this idea of the "lifestyle function," or the most dominant extraverted function, which determines if they are labeled "P" or "J" (i.e. for the INTP, this would be Ne, for the INTJ, this would be Te, etc.). However, Socionics is looking at the dominant (or lead/base) function (i.e. Ti for the INTj, and Ni for the INTp). The Myers-Briggs version of "judgers" vs. "perceivers" is more like Socionics static vs. dynamic than rational vs. irrational.

-Thanks
Edelaney

It's because EVERY type is BOTH rational and irrational. This is why this dichotomy should NOT be used in typing - it's really hard to work with. Instead of working out whether you are rational or irrational, what you have to do is figure out whether your dominant function is rational and your auxiliary is irrational, or is it the other way around.

If you are MBTI INFP and Socionics INFj you are rational in Fi and irrational in Ne. Thus your type has both sides two it (as does every other type).
Socionics always describes types from the point of view of 1st leading function, so it will describe FiNe as rational (Fi).
MBTI always describes types focusing on their highest order extraverted function, so it will describe FiNe as irrational (Ne).
Thus you'll notice that the type descriptions differ, but this is only because they are describing a type from different sides of it. Similar to two blindfolded people touching the same elephant from different sides, where one touches its trunk and the other touches its tail - even though it was same elephant, how they describe the animal that they've touched will be very different. The "elephant" in this case is the introverted types that Socionics and MBTI are proverbially touching and describing from different sides.

So the key to solving this dilemma realize that:
1. EVERY TYPE IS BOTH RATIONAL AND IRRATIONAL.
2. Socionics and MBTI place emphasis on different functions - it's always the extraverted function in MBTI and always the leading function in Socionics, which differ for introverted types.

The rat-irrat dichotomy also gets affected by subtypes, making it very easy to make a typing mistake if you rely on it too much in typing.