what exactly is the difference between MBTI and socionics?

[whimsical]

^

 

[entropie]

I think its a cultural background thing basically.

MBTI is something more based to America, while Socionics is something more based to Russia.

To me the MBTI descriptions make less sense than the Socionics one.

For example, in the german language, noone would describe a personality with the words: "the Inventor" or "the Champion". Wouldnt make no sense.

 

[Athenian200]

If you're not capable of determining it from the materials that are out there, you won't be able to understand it.

Just leave things like this to people who have an aptitude and interest in it, please.

 

[entropie]

If you're not capable of determining it from the materials that are out there, you won't be able to understand it.

Just leave things like this to people who have an aptitude and interest in it, please.

Comments like that for example totally defy my values. Knowledge should be availiable to everyone and if knowledge about a thing is left open to interpretation by its design, one cant say that its supposed to be only seen one way.

 

[Athenian200]

Comments like that for example totally defy my values. Knowledge is availiable to everyone and if knowledge about a thing is left open to interpretation, one cant say that its supposed to be only seen one way.

I'm sorry, I don't usually make comments like that, to be honest. I've just had some really frustrating experiences with this person.

I don't think that it's only supposed to be seen one way, though.

 

[entropie]

ok

 

[whimsical]

I'm sorry, I don't usually make comments like that, to be honest. I've just had some really frustrating experiences with this person.

I don't think that it's only supposed to be seen one way, though.

what is your problem, and what have I done to you

 

[Athenian200]

what is your problem, and what have I done to you

http://www.typologycentral.com/forums/nf-idyllic/16810-i-have-skills-group-dynamics.html

You're just extremely grating. I don't know what it is about you that I don't like, but I always have to fight back an overwhelming urge to make scathing, condescending remarks about you whenever you post.

Perhaps it's just a flaw in my character that causes me to see you in a negative light. I'm sorry, I probably need to learn how to be more accepting or something... sigh. I guess I still have a long way to go in terms of self-improvement.

 

[whimsical]

dude, you can't take some playful conversation/teasing? I said nothing in that topic with the intent of making you feel bad.

 

[Athenian200]

dude, you can't take some playful conversation/teasing? I said nothing in that topic with the intent of making you feel bad.

Yeah, now I see what it was. I'm a very serious person, and I tend to have trouble understanding playful/teasing people. That is one of my major problem areas, and I'm sorry that I took it badly.

 

[entropie]

dude, you can't take some playful conversation/teasing? I said nothing in that topic with the intent of making you feel bad.

Sometimes other people have made a bad experience with some things and your jokes then hit a spot you didnt wanted them to go to.

I say: I'll give a round of beer and we concentrate on the OP (cause that would interest me)

 

[whimsical]

Yeah, now I see what it was. I'm a very serious person, and I tend to have trouble understanding playful/teasing people. That is one of my major problem areas, and I'm sorry that I took it badly.

That's alright.

 

[iamathousandapples]

Socionics has more to do with body structure than MBTI

 

[Jaguar]

If you're not capable of determining it from the materials that are out there, you won't be able to understand it.

Just leave things like this to people who have an aptitude and interest in it, please.

This is utter bullshit.
Grow up.

 

[Athenian200]

Sometimes other people have made a bad experience with some things and your jokes then hit a spot you didnt wanted them to go to.

Yes. I think that's what happened here...

I say: I'll give a round of beer and we concentrate on the OP (cause that would interest me)

Good idea, entropie.

Okay, first I'll point out what MBTI and Socionics have in common. All they really have in common is that they start with the same base of Jungian theory, and then proceed to build on it in different ways. They use similar notation in some places, which can lead to confusion.

One notable difference is the fact that MBTI relies on the first Extraverted function to determine J/P, while Socionics doesn't really have J/P (though it is used in some notations to facilitate comparison with MBTI), but instead relies on the Jungian concept of rationality/irrationality. Thus, whatever the first function is tells you whether the person is organized or disorganized.

Another difference is that Socionics is not as centralized as MBTI. There are several "add-on" theories, and much official disagreement about what the best structure for the system is.

The general tone of Socionics tends to be more about trying to determine someone's inherent way of processing things rather than their observable behavior, while MBTI tends to focus more on behavior and observable temperament.

Lastly, I'd like to note that Socionics has an interesting theory about subtypes, which essentially mean that some versions of a type are more focused on their auxiliary than their dominant function. This adds another degree of complexity and uniqueness to individual types that MBTI currently lacks.

 

[527468]

Socionics profile descriptions serve the same purpose as MBTI profile descriptions.

The general tone of Socionics tends to be more about trying to determine someone's inherent way of processing things rather than their observable behavior, while MBTI tends to focus more on behavior and observable temperament.

Quite so, although these added branches are capable of explaining behavior in context of thought process. You also forgot to mention that socionics is all about values and how they meld with other types. It's about relationships and it is fairly accurate from my experience. I had already identified various socionics relations descriptions before I actually read socionics.

 

[Athenian200]

Quite so, although these added branches are capable of explaining behavior in context of thought process.

I would agree with that. I was mostly trying to highlight what the difference in the main focus was, though. Thanks for pointing that out, we need to be as clear as possible.

You also forgot to mention that socionics is all about values and how they meld with other types. It's about relationships and it is fairly accurate from my experience. I had already identified various socionics relations descriptions before I actually read socionics.

Actually, I didn't just forget it. I completely missed that when I was studying it, and that might be why I didn't really "get" it.

I don't really tend to notice relationships, because I tend to be too busy trying to work out how one particular person thinks/feels within themselves rather than noticing their connections to the people around them...

 

[snegledmaca]

I think most of comparisons between MBTT and socionics, from what I have seen of people making, presenting them, are invalid. Because they either do not recognize or miss the essence of socionics completely. And that's because they tend to come from a jungian perspective. Which is something that is, in reality, optional in socionics, there are soiconics models out there that do not use concepts like Te, Ti at all.

To use an analogy, it's like contrasting a dolphin and a shark superficially. Looking at them they both seem like fish and one can find plenty of superficial similarities on that level. But those are merely the result of them adapting to the same environment. At their core they are immensely different, a dolphin has more in common with an elephant then a shark.

In a nutshell I would say socionics is a study of information production, information exchange and information processing by human beings.

And in order to do that it took and adapted ideas, concepts by Jung. But they are in no way central to it, what makes socionics socionics. I mean, no more then a theory in physics is physics.

And to paint this fundamental difference further, I will attempt to describe what I would say are the central notions of socionics, what makes socionics socionics. From my point of view.

The first premise, where I would say socionics starts from, is that people exchange information.

And then it proceeds to attempt to categorize this information. And it makes what are called informational elements. These are the fundamental categories of information exchanged between people. Much like how atoms are for things.

It then looks at the information exchange between people. What happens when a person receives a certain type of information, that is, how people respond to different information elements. And it attempts to categories these. They are called socionics relations. And they are fundamental categories of information exchanges.

And then it looks at why people respond the way they do. Why some people when presented with certain informational elements respond one way, why others respond another way. And here it introduces the concept of an informational metabolism. Which is basically a claim that people take in information, process it, and emit new information. Where these three steps are linked in a causal link, that is, being presented with a certain informational element will cause a certain reaction. And it attempts to categories these. And they form the fundamental categories of information processing by people (Or otherwise referred to as socionics types).

Right now the most popular socionics model, where a socionics model is a theory that tries to the best of it's abilities to most accurately and completely cover the area of informational production, exchange and processing by people, is the Model A. Which just *happens* to get it's inspiration of how the informational elements should look like and how the informational metabolism should look like from Jung. This does not make socionics itself in any way dependent or associated with Jung. It makes the Model A, but not socionics.

 

["?"]

Just my thoughts, but has anyone ever taken a socionics test that was written before the website was created (with the exception of the pick so many words and it results in your type)? I am not sure any exist. Most people determine their socionics type from reading the descriptions. On the other hand MBTI does have a test that by just concluding the sorter and answering as truthful as possible, you should get at least two dichotomies correct if the test is even half way decent. Based on Jung's principles, if you show a clear preference for I and T on a test, then you can only be one of two types since I-T=Ti. To the contrary, if your test show a clear preference for I-N that will result in your being INJ and I-S=Si (ISJ). I think determining your type from solely reading a description or taking a sorter is futile. So in the end and as I have always claimed (regardless of how Socionics theorist take my comments), neither system is better than the other in determining type. The difference is self evident that one sees the J/P for what it is and the other does not. Contrary to popular belief, Jung claims that the introverted functions can be seen just as easy as extraverted functions. So that throws the MB theory for inversing introverts out the window.