MBTI type vs Socionics type

[Pionart]

I have heard it said that one's MBTI and Socionics type will generally differ.

This leads me to ask, what aspect of the personality are each of these systems measuring, and so how can you identify each side as distinct from the other? I assume that both systems are based in Jungian Cognitive Functions, but apply the analysis to a different side of the person.

On the other hand, you may believe that we only have one type and that MBTI type = Socionics type. If so, what makes you think this?

And lastly, if you do believe the 2 systems are looking at different things, are there other mutually valid ways of assigning Jungian type?

 

[DeadRinga]

Well, for extroverts the type should be the same. For introverts switch the j and the p. so an INTP would be an INTj. They just measure the perceiving and judging using different methods.

 

[Kierva]

This leads me to ask, what aspect of the personality are each of these systems measuring, and so how can you identify each side as distinct from the other? I assume that both systems are based in Jungian Cognitive Functions, but apply the analysis to a different side of the person.

They both measure the same thing. Just that socionics is more verbose than the other.

On the other hand, you may believe that we only have one type and that MBTI type = Socionics type. If so, what makes you think this?

Function definitions overlap in those two systems except for and .

- what is; what has power
- what affects the senses

 

[Polaris]

The celebrity typings I've seen don't really argue in favor of Socionics types having a clear correspondance to MBTI types. Friedrich Nietzsche is an obvious Beta NF, but he's probably an INTJ in the MBTI. And Ayn Rand, another INTJ, is most likely a Beta ST.

As far as consensus, there doesn't seem to be one. I've seen people argue vehemently for every imaginable method of translating types, as well as for no method at all. I personally think that different systems are different and may as well be approached separately, with any correlations arising organically.

As far as how well the function definitions overlap, it's difficult to rate because no one seems to agree entirely on what a given function means. In Socionics, certain defining characteristics of a function are freely transferred to other functions (Si and Se are especially bad in this regard--Socionics can't decide which one plays what role, if any, in aesthetics). And in the MBTI, the descriptions of a given function are sometimes totally unrelated to each other (I've seen Ni described as everything from well-developed foresight to a form of outside-of-the-box thinking).

Based on my overall impressions of the functions, this is how I would rate their smoothness of translation between the systems:

Si - 2/10
Ti - 8/10
Fi - 8/10
Ni - 9/10
Ne -6/10
Fe - 4/10
Te - 9/10
Se - 3/10

 

[boomslang]

It's better to start from scratch with Socionics. The definitions are closer to Jung than MBTI, but they're still different to both MBTI and Jung. It's best not to try and find correlations and switch letters around and so on, it is a completely different thing.

 

[Pionart]

The celebrity typings I've seen don't really argue in favor of Socionics types having a clear correspondance to MBTI types. Friedrich Nietzsche is an obvious Beta NF, but he's probably an INTJ in the MBTI. And Ayn Rand, another INTJ, is most likely a Beta ST.

Haha I thought Nietzsche was a Ti-dominant? (according to Jung)

As far as consensus, there doesn't seem to be one. I've seen people argue vehemently for every imaginable method of translating types, as well as for no method at all. I personally think that different systems are different and may as well be approached separately, with any correlations arising organically.

As far as how well the function definitions overlap, it's difficult to rate because no one seems to agree entirely on what a given function means. In Socionics, certain defining characteristics of a function are freely transferred to other functions (Si and Se are especially bad in this regard--Socionics can't decide which one plays what role, if any, in aesthetics). And in the MBTI, the descriptions of a given function are sometimes totally unrelated to each other (I've seen Ni described as everything from well-developed foresight to a form of outside-of-the-box thinking).

I remember Jung drawing a distinction between the aesthetic and the sensual forms of sensation. I'm pretty sure it was a separate division from Si vs Se. Likewise there were two forms given of intuition.*

Based on my overall impressions of the functions, this is how I would rate their smoothness of translation between the systems:

Si - 2/10
Ti - 8/10
Fi - 8/10
Ni - 9/10
Ne -6/10
Fe - 4/10
Te - 9/10
Se - 3/10

Interesting. Though I take it that both are interpretations of the Jungian descriptions. But I don't remember anything about "comfort" for Si used in Jung, but the comfort vs power does seem to be a nice way of seeing functions in others.

I guess the sort of thing I am getting at, is maybe it's something like, MBTI is looking at the way your mind works. Socionics is looking at the way you interact with others. You may adopt a separate style for both although the range of styles fall under the same basic 16 types.

Or. Maybe you don't adopt a separate style for each, and the two systems are simply describing the same thing from different angles.


* "Abstract sensation would be aesthetic as distinguished from sensual sensation (v. Sensation), and abstract intuition would be symbolical as opposed to phantastical intuition. (v. Phantasy, and Intuition)." - Psychological Types, under the definition for abstraction