I tend to find that...

[sunshine]

...you are your same type in socionics as in myers briggs. Each system shows different aspects of you.

The functions are different but the four dichotomies are the same.
E vs I, N vs S, T vs F, and P vs J.

One socionics community argues that the dichotomies don't hold much weight and that you can be a socionics ISFj and a MBTI ENTP. I think that's completely wrong. (No offense to them.)

The dichotomies in socionics do indeed hold weight and are valid because if you read about Ti and Te you'll find that they both fit in with the general descriptions of T and the same goes for Fi, Fe, and F in general. And socionics T and F is pretty much the exact same thing as Myers Briggs T and F as is N and S.

[uberfuhrer]

I think that the socionics functions are much less biased and less muddled than MBTI. MBTI seems to associate fact collection with Se, when in fact, to Jung (and socionics), this is actually more related to Te. And the MBTI Te seems to be described as if it were mixed with other functions.

Granted, both of these typologies modified the Jung terms a lot, and you kind of have to if you want to measure a type, as Jung's writing is very vague and contradictory.

The problem is that MBTI focuses too much on parts, while socionics (and Keirsey) is more global, and acknowledges the fact that human personality is too complex to be measured in parts.

I think it's best to not think about cognitive functions when determining your type. That's merely the theory behind your four-letter code.

I actually read not too long ago, that if you're trying to convert your MBTI type to socionics type, you should leave out your J/P and maybe E/I, because in socionics, those letters have different meanings, but the middle two functions are usually the same.