User Tag List

Results 1 to 7 of 7

  1. #1
    Banned
    Join Date
    Mar 2012
    MBTI
    INTJ
    Enneagram
    5w6 sx/so
    Socionics
    Will
    Posts
    5,927

    Default Are Socionics and MBTI compatible?

    Ok I don't know much about Socionics except that it has something to do with how your cognitive functions are set up so for example there could in Socionics be an MBTI INTJ who specializes in Ne and Ti and hence their Socionics type would be ENTp but many MBTI fundamentalists have built there entire system of typing people in MBTI around cognitive functions so I am wondering if it is even possible to be a Socionics ENTp and at the same type be an MBTI INTJ without breaking the laws of the whole typology system which in the first place are at best very fragile laws with many paradoxes and contradictions since there could even be an MBTI INTP with well developed Ni though that sounds an aweful lot like an INTJ but they would irrationally defend their MBTI type by saying it is because they are a Socionics INTp.

    I am not saying these are examples that apply specifically to me though I have seen such occurences with other people on this forum and it just makes me wonder if the compatibility of the 2 systems is even possible and if not then the rules of typology need to be completely rewritten anew.

  2. #2
    deleted
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Posts
    1,946

    Default

    Socionics is solely about comprehending the quality of relationships and understandings via information processing, and isn't really a "personality" typology, so you tell me.

    In MBTI we often say Ns are the more compatible relationally with one another, so the two theories don't sound very compatible to me, seeing as though half of xNTxs are the opposite quadra. Additionally there is much less of an intuitive bias; I find there's an equal distribution between all the types and quadras, so stereotypes about Ns and Ss don't readily apply.

  3. #3
    Banned
    Join Date
    Mar 2012
    MBTI
    INTJ
    Enneagram
    5w6 sx/so
    Socionics
    Will
    Posts
    5,927

    Default

    Ok so if the 2 systems like Poli is saying are not compatible then either Typology needs a complete redefinition or we need to choose one theory over the other and based on what I have gathered MBTI is a more solid theory though I am not sure exactly how solid since there are even questions about whether Keirsey and MBTI are compatible like if there is an MBTI ISTP who specializes in Ni though under Keirsey their behavior could better match that of the Architect which supposedly better correlates with INTP and if so then here is another case of where 2 Typology systems are in disagreement.

    Again not that this is the case with me though I have seen many such retarted theories promoted on this forum without its proponents even beginning to realize how incompatible their conflicting ideologies are as the psychologists of today have substituted behaviors for functions and they wander off through function after function and eventually build a construct with no relation to typology so all of this considered I would side with Keirsey but I could be wrong and if someone could prove me wrong or prove the compatibility of the differing theories I would be quite impressed.

  4. #4
    deleted
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Posts
    1,946

    Default

    If you're looking for the unified theory about functions, it is Jung's psychological types which formed each and still remains applicable in all the underlying phenomena I've witnessed about types. I think the typology one will more so adhere to depends on what assumptions they're looking for. In my experience, the psychological assumptions behind Socionics are well-formed when basing relational comprehension on the original criterion for Jung's psychological types, ie. his idea that people have either an introverted or extroverted orientation to one of the four types and have an inferior mindset with the opposite (saying we utilize a dyad (ie. Ne/Si), and furthermore may as well utilize the other two types with one being inferior (ie. Fi/Te.)) This is just speaking from experience typing people using solely Jung for the past few years and authenticating my ability to more or less readily understand how people process information similarly and differently.

    But anyway, I'd rather let others chime in with their opinions...
    Last edited by 527468; 10-11-2012 at 10:39 AM.

  5. #5
    deleted
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Posts
    1,946

    Default

    Also, I might add for the heck of it: MBTI does not correlate with Jung. MBTI ≠ Jung. Whenever anyone tries to type someone in MBTI using Jung's types, the P/J preference will be utterly conflicted half the time. So good luck trying to say someone is an Si primary and a Perceiver at the same time, ie. Britney Spears. It's not going to fly with anyone here even though it's true. And if you believe all Si types are Judgers then you're definitely not understanding Jung.

    If you want to use MBTI, don't read Lenore Thomson or Jung, read a Myers-Briggs book. Or similarly, if you want to use Jung, go by what he said and don't mix other theories into a supposition. The reason I can say Jung goes along with Socionics is because it is virtually the same in every way; it's all the same supposition. It's given that there are 4 types of information yet 8 functions altogether. Same as Bohr's Correspondence Principle http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Correspondence_principle So now we're simply inferring there are four types of people, four ways to process information. By method of Alpha, Beta, Gamma, and Delta.

  6. #6
    Banned
    Join Date
    Sep 2012
    MBTI
    ISTJ
    Enneagram
    AVC
    Posts
    276

    Default

    Socionics is a more literal interpretation of Jung's cognitive function as far as I understand. It's a more easily understood system in my opinion.

  7. #7
    Senior Member sulfit's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    MBTI
    INTP
    Enneagram
    6w5 sp/so
    Posts
    492

    Default

    I did a little digging into it and my thought was that it is compatible with MBTI. Ti is still structural logic in Socioncs and Ne is still intuition so I am TiNe type in MBTI (INTP) and TiNe type in Socionics (INTj or LII). Those who type themselves into something completely different in Socionics, type themselves by profiles instead of functions, which is not the way you should go about it. Then they tell others that these systems are completely different, which is not true.

    After studying Socionics information elements, I don't see how you can type yourself into something completely different in that system. If you are T-dominant in MBTI then you cannot be S-dominant or F-dominant in Socionics. People who do so haven't studied Socionics in much depth.

    Introductory material to socionics if you're interested in giving it a look:
    Socionics.us
    16types.info

Similar Threads

  1. [NF] Socionics and mbti
    By chado in forum Myers-Briggs and Jungian Cognitive Functions
    Replies: 3
    Last Post: 09-27-2015, 07:09 PM
  2. Are JCF and MBTI incompatible?
    By themightyfetus in forum Myers-Briggs and Jungian Cognitive Functions
    Replies: 14
    Last Post: 09-03-2015, 08:11 PM
  3. Can socionics and MBTI not match
    By PocketFullOf in forum Socionics
    Replies: 38
    Last Post: 12-01-2014, 06:42 PM
  4. Socionics and MBTI
    By Fay in forum General Psychology
    Replies: 16
    Last Post: 10-27-2013, 06:27 PM
  5. Socionics and MBTI
    By IndyGhost in forum Socionics
    Replies: 27
    Last Post: 08-14-2011, 12:13 PM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
Single Sign On provided by vBSSO