Is it reasonable to compare Socionics with MBTI?

[Athenian200]

II've noticed recently that many people do direct comparisons and conversions of their types in these systems. For instance, many people think that they can simply go by functional order, and assume that an MBTI INFJ would be the same as a Socionic INFp (IEI). However, what they don't understand is that Socionic functions are different from MBTI functions. Is this:

Extraverted Ethics

Perceives information about processes taking place in objects — first of all, emotional processes that are taking place in people, their excitation or subduedness, and their moods. This perceptual element implies the ability to know what excites people, and what suppresses them. It defines a person's ability or inability to control his emotional state, and also the emotional states of other people.

When this element is in the leading position, the individual has the innate ability to induce or convey his moods to others and energize people with his emotions. He is able to activate the psychological/spiritual lives of other people and their emotional readiness for action. You might say that such a person has the ability to infect others with his moods and tends to impose on others the emotional states that he considers beneficial for their life activities.

What people usually call emotions or a person's display of emotions is neither more nor less than a form of letting out this internal excitation directly, almost without expending it in muscle activity. A cheerful person who laughs releases an emotional charge and inner excitation through certain movements of the muscles of the face and body. This might be a means for reducing overexcitement, when inner exertion cannot be used for the activity it was intended for. But it can also be a conscious method of conveying one's excitement/agitation to others — inducing one's internal excitement/agitation in the psyches of other people. Anger, for example, is also a way of reducing overexcitement, but it is usually directed not at arousing others emotionally, but at emotionally suppressing and depleting them, at lowering their activity level, or at strictly channeling their activity.

The same as this:

Extraverted Feeling

The process of extraverted Feeling often involves a desire to connect with (or disconnect from) others and is often evidenced by expressions of warmth (or displeasure) and self-disclosure. The “social graces,” such as being polite, being nice, being friendly, being considerate, and being appropriate, often revolve around the process of extraverted Feeling. Keeping in touch, laughing at jokes when others laugh, and trying to get people to act kindly to each other also involve extraverted Feeling. Using this process, we respond according to expressed or even unexpressed wants and needs of others. We may ask people what they want or need or self-disclose to prompt them to talk more about themselves. This often sparks conversation and lets us know more about them so we can better adjust our behavior to them. Often with this process, we feel pulled to be responsible and take care of others’ feelings, sometimes to the point of not separating our feelings from theirs. We may recognize and adhere to shared values, feelings, and social norms to get along.

So, Socionics Fe is related to the ability to perceive and react to emotions themselves, while MBTI Fe is related to being aware of a set of rules that allows one to respond to emotions in an appropriate way. Do you see the difference?

My point is, Socionic functions cannot be correlated directly to MBTI functions, and so your type in one system would not necessarily be related to your type in the other. Hence, they are two separate systems, not one and the same, despite being derived from the same Jungian theories.

 

[proteanmix]

I identify with both the Socionics and MBTI definitions of Fe. I actually think the Socionics definition is more nuanced than the MBTI definition.

And if you think about it, the switching of IPs to IJs isn't illogical. Fi and Ti are judging functions, just like Fe and Te, only they're introverted judging functions. Ni and Si and perceiving functions, so to make a MBTI INFJ an INFP or a MBTI INTP an INTJ makes perfect sense to me. It's a more accurate description of those functions.

I don't like Socionics when it starts veering off into the visual identification of types, that's a little shaky.

 

[The Ü™]

I identify with both the Socionics and MBTI definitions of Fe. I actually think the Socionics definition is more nuanced than the MBTI definition.

And if you think about it, the switching of IPs to IJs isn't illogical. Fi and Ti are judging functions, just like Fe and Te, only they're introverted judging functions. Ni and Si and perceiving functions, so to make a MBTI INFJ an INFP or a MBTI INTP an INTJ makes perfect sense to me. It's a more accurate description of those functions.

I don't like Socionics when it starts veering off into the visual identification of types, that's a little shaky.

Yeah, I like the way Socionics groups types better -- Ni should technically be INxP, since it's Introverted Perception (IxxP). And their type questionnaire is excellent.

When I look at the visual identification of celebrities, I'm just lost at sea. None of the celebrities have any similarities to the descriptions of Socionics type. But in terms of a type's behavior, I liked the way celebrities were grouped better than Keirsey, who puts all entertainment and movie stars as SP, businessmen as SJ, scientists as NT, and religious leaders as NF.

There might be certain behavior traits of celebrities, but to judge type bye the shape of a person's face is just ridiculous. For example, Tim Burton is labeled as an ENFP, where judging by behavior I would've thought INFP or INxJ. I do agree with Steven Spielberg being typed as an ENFP, in his interviews, he certainly displays strong ENFP characteristics. (Keirsey typed him as an ISFP, like he does with all artists.) But from what I've read and heard from people who've talked to him, Spielberg definitely sounds like an ENFP.

The main differences between MBTI, Keirsey, and Socionics are merely technicalities. Their personality assessments are basically the same, I think (I tested INTJ on both Keirsey and Socionics, haven't taken the MBTI because it's not free, but I'd assume it'd be the same), but MBTI is solely about self-actualization, Keirsey connects self-actualization to behavior and motivation (and seems to see more correlation with the Enneagram, which is also about motivation), and Socionics seems to have the more spiritual bent on Jungian functions.

 

[Athenian200]

Yeah, I like the way Socionics groups types better -- Ni should technically be INxP, since it's Introverted Perception (IxxP). And their type questionnaire is excellent.

I don't feel that it's more accurate. I'm far more closure-oriented, rigid, and serious than the average Perceiving type. I most certainly see myself as Judging. And can you really imagine an INTP or INFP as being J? Please, don't make me laugh.

When I look at the visual identification of celebrities, I'm just lost at sea. None of the celebrities have any similarities to the descriptions of Socionics type. But in terms of a type's behavior, I liked the way celebrities were grouped better than Keirsey, who puts all entertainment and movie stars as SP, businessmen as SJ, scientists as NT, and religious leaders as NF.

I never really understood the V.I. trend in Socionics either. (not to be confused with Vi the text editor, which I just love.) I also agree with you that Keirsey's system was little more than a nice set of group stereotypes, and not really useful for understanding individuals.

The main differences between MBTI, Keirsey, and Socionics are merely technicalities. Their personality assessments are basically the same, I think (I tested INTJ on both Keirsey and Socionics.

You're missing an important technicality there, Uberfuhrer. A Socionic INTj (LII) is a Ti-Ne. If you assume the functions are the same between the two systems, that would make you an MBTI INTP... I'd never believe that for a minute. That's why you can't compare them reasonably.

 

[The Ü™]

You're missing an important technicality there, Uberfuhrer. A Socionic INTj (LII) is a Ti-Ne. If you assume the functions are the same between the two systems, that would make you an MBTI INTP... I'd never believe that for a minute. That's why you can't compare them reasonably.

Yes, but I actually think the functional orders are sorta silly. I think a more accurate way of knowing your functional orders is through the DDLI. I don't see how all INTJs can always have the same exact functional orders, as people develop differently. I think we need to develop our cognitive functions first before we can use judgment.

EDIT: And for what it's worth, Keirsey doesn't really put use in any of the type development patterns; he relates type to temperamental humors.

 

[Eldanen]

My point is, Socionic functions cannot be correlated directly to MBTI functions, and so your type in one system would not necessarily be related to your type in the other. Hence, they are two separate systems, not one and the same, despite being derived from the same Jungian theories.

This is absolutely true, though there are similarities between the two.

I don't feel that it's more accurate. I'm far more closure-oriented, rigid, and serious than the average Perceiving type. I most certainly see myself as Judging. And can you really imagine an INTP or INFP as being J? Please, don't make me laugh.

Socionics has subtypes to account for intratype differences. I personally believe you to be INFp-Fe subtype. Being a judging subtype would of course make you seem more like a judging type.

I never really understood the V.I. trend in Socionics either. (not to be confused with Vi the text editor, which I just love.) I also agree with you that Keirsey's system was little more than a nice set of group stereotypes, and not really useful for understanding individuals.

I do have some experience in Visual Identification, and I can say that it's not an exact science. Nevertheless, I do believe that with experience, one can learn to identify types easily by their appearances. Personally, I go on such aspects as what I "see" in their eyes (mystical sounding, eh?), shape of the head, body, proportions thereof, and how they walk, if I have video.

You're missing an important technicality there, Uberfuhrer. A Socionic INTj (LII) is a Ti-Ne. If you assume the functions are the same between the two systems, that would make you an MBTI INTP... I'd never believe that for a minute. That's why you can't compare them reasonably.

The j/p switch for introverts does not always work, as the theories do not correlate exactly. It's best to analyze your type according to each theory individually, although there will often be some overlap.

Yes, but I actually think the functional orders are sorta silly. I think a more accurate way of knowing your functional orders is through the DDLI. I don't see how all INTJs can always have the same exact functional orders, as people develop differently. I think we need to develop our cognitive functions first before we can use judgment.

Well, the idea of function order in Socionics hinges on another concept. This concept is that type is innate. The functions of Socionics do less to describe temperament and outward behavior of a person and more to describe "what's under the hood" if you will.

 

[Athenian200]

Socionics has subtypes to account for intratype differences. I personally believe you to be INFp-Fe subtype. Being a judging subtype would of course make you seem more like a judging type.

Is my preference of Fe that obvious? I never realized it was.

I do have some experience in Visual Identification, and I can say that it's not an exact science. Nevertheless, I do believe that with experience, one can learn to identify types easily by their appearances. Personally, I go on such aspects as what I "see" in their eyes (mystical sounding, eh?), shape of the head, body, proportions thereof, and how they walk, if I have video.

Isn't that a little unscientific? I mean, you have no way of knowing for certain if that method works or not. When I see people doing that, I wonder if you might as well read their horoscope or see a psychic as consult psychology. I hope that doesn't sound derogatory, but I just think it's too subjective. I mean, can't you see why it seems that way?

Well, the idea of function order in Socionics hinges on another concept. This concept is that type is innate. The functions of Socionics do less to describe temperament and outward behavior of a person and more to describe "what's under the hood" if you will.

Could you elaborate? I don't follow.

 

[The Ü™]

I do have some experience in Visual Identification, and I can say that it's not an exact science. Nevertheless, I do believe that with experience, one can learn to identify types easily by their appearances. Personally, I go on such aspects as what I "see" in their eyes (mystical sounding, eh?), shape of the head, body, proportions thereof, and how they walk, if I have video..

Well, there does seem to be something about INFPs and their dreamy eyes, and INFJs seem to look stoned, at least that's how Cafe puts it. I was surprised how well Socionics' descriptions of INTj and INTp fit me. (My J/P function is borderline, for the most part. I read that an Intuitive preference tends to push the J preference towards P.)

 

[FDG]

Here the expert comes

Athenian is a socionics INFj so Fi Ne

the definitions of the functions are the same as MBTI, I mean the way they appear IRL

BUT BUT BUT

The combinations of functions make it possible to a given type to appear different in MBTI and socionics

FOR EXAMPLE NJs in socionics (especially ENxjs) can score in the middle of P/J. This is because ENxjs have Ni-creative so they are very structured in terms of TIME but they are not that structured in terms of physical reality (for example, I'm extremely punctual, but also tendentially messy, so I score 50 P 50 J)