Socionics-Must Read for MBTI People (Especially Introverts)

[Goatman455]

I am not sure if any of you are aware of Socionics. It uses the same underlying framework Carl Jung developed much like MBTI and even has the same letters E/I S/N T/F P/J however there is a large difference for introverted personality types.


In MBTI the J or P is dictated by the direction of the Perception/Judgment functions

For example

INFJ

Introverted Intuition
Extroverted Feeling

INFP

Introverted Feeling
Extroverted Intuition


In Socionics however the J/P is based on the primary function. If you are a J you will have a judgment function primary, likewise if you are a P you will have a perception function primary. Let's take the same two types as an example

INFJ
Introverted Feeling
Extroverted Intuition

INFP
Introverted Intuition
Extroverted Feeling

Of course this is just touching on the basics, there are other differences as well, however all Extroverts will have the same primary function order as they would have in MBTI.

I highly recommend anyone take a look, especially introverts who feel that MBTI just doesn't quite explain them. Now I know these personality indicators can never fully explain people, but I think you get the gist of what I am saying

Check the wiki link out first

Socionics - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Then you can check out the Socionics homepage

₪₪₪ Socionics - The New Psychology ₪₪₪


Personally, I think it to be a little more true to Jungian Theory as far as I know it, but that is just my opinion. I think everyone should study both if you are interested, but you may find one or the other rings more true, or seems to make more sense for you.

Have Fun, and Good Luck.

 

[INTJ123]

Socionics sucks. I find it to be one of the least accurate. Sorry nothing personal against you but that's just my opinion.

 

[simulatedworld]

Same crap repackaged with a different label.

Virtually no significant conceptual differences, despite what all the haters will tell you.

 

[INTJ123]

Same crap repackaged with a different label.

Virtually no significant conceptual differences, despite what all the haters will tell you.

That's easy for extroverts to say because it doesn't change anything with you guys.

 

[simulatedworld]

It doesn't change anything with anyone.

The functional definitions are the same; it just arbitrarily labels IxxP types as IxxJ and vice versa.

There's still no conceptual difference at all; an ISTp in socionics still has virtually all the same properties as an ISTJ in MBTI. It's just changing the arbitrary label; both are still Si/Te users and the definitions of those functions are still virtually the same (they have trivial surface differences but are conceptually very very similar.)

That's like saying I'm going to invent my own system where each IS type uses the letter Q instead of S, so now we have IQTJ, IQTP, etc...except oh wait, that changes absolutely nothing of any importance; we've just stuck a different label on the same idea.

 

[INTJ123]

It doesn't change anything with anyone.

The functional definitions are the same; it just arbitrarily labels IxxP types as IxxJ and vice versa.

There's still no conceptual difference at all; an ISTp in socionics still has virtually all the same properties as an ISTJ in MBTI. It's just changing the arbitrary label; both are still Si/Te users and the definitions of those functions are still virtually the same (they have trivial surface differences but are conceptually very very similar.)

That's like saying I'm going to invent my own system where each IS type uses the letter Q instead of S, so now we have IQTJ, IQTP, etc...except oh wait, that changes absolutely nothing of any importance; we've just stuck a different label on the same idea.

I get what you mean but the personality descriptions stay the same, so it does change things.

 

[simulatedworld]

I get what you mean but the personality descriptions stay the same, so it does change things.

How does it change any actual concepts? As you said, the personality descriptions stay the same! That's the whole meat of the system. Which types get which arbitrary letter labels is almost entirely irrelevant.

It doesn't change any of the actual CONTENT of the system, just the arbitrary surface labeling; thus, it is not actually a different system at all!

 

[INTJ123]

How does it change any actual concepts? As you said, the personality descriptions stay the same! That's the whole meat of the system. Which types get which arbitrary letter labels is almost entirely irrelevant.

It doesn't change any of the actual CONTENT of the system, just the arbitrary surface labeling; thus, it is not actually a different system at all!

... the descriptions stay the same so an MBTI intj and Socionics intj will have the same description...but when the MBTI INTJ takes the socionics test he will come out as INTP, THUS a different description of his type.. DUH?

 

[Goatman455]

It doesn't change anything with anyone.

The functional definitions are the same; it just arbitrarily labels IxxP types as IxxJ and vice versa.

There's still no conceptual difference at all; an ISTp in socionics still has virtually all the same properties as an ISTJ in MBTI. It's just changing the arbitrary label; both are still Si/Te users and the definitions of those functions are still virtually the same (they have trivial surface differences but are conceptually very very similar.)

That's like saying I'm going to invent my own system where each IS type uses the letter Q instead of S, so now we have IQTJ, IQTP, etc...except oh wait, that changes absolutely nothing of any importance; we've just stuck a different label on the same idea.

Well I think you might be overgeneralizing a bit. There are differences, read the page. Also, Socionics explores our strong yet unconscious functions a bit better. It acknowledges all 8, and gives them specific places in our psyche.


It also fits a bit better with Jung's ideas in my opinion because of the fact that IJs don't have a primary judgment function, it is secondary. This makes it a bit easier to introduce people to the concept. Also I think that some IJs IPs are more MBTI and some more Socionics. That is, for example, some INFJs are more feeling, and some more intuition.

It gives you more possibilities which in my opinion, due to the complicated nature of the human psyche (more complicated than any personality system could describe) helps create a more accurate picture of people.

It also goes into the relations between the different types, something MBTI doesn't touch on.

This isn't Coke and Pepsi, MBTI and Socionics are not mutually exclusive.


Edit: "but when the MBTI INTJ takes the socionics test he will come out as INTP, THUS a different description of his type.. DUH? "

Not always true, some stay the same, some change, depends on the person. The wiki article even acknowledges the MBTI types of introverts could be either or.

 

[INTJ123]

Well I think you might be overgeneralizing a bit. There are differences, read the page. Also, Socionics explores our strong yet unconscious functions a bit better. It acknowledges all 8, and gives them specific places in our psyche.


It also fits a bit better with Jung's ideas in my opinion because of the fact that IJs don't have a primary judgment function, it is secondary. This makes it a bit easier to introduce people to the concept. Also I think that some IJs IPs are more MBTI and some more Socionics. That is, for example, some INFJs are more feeling, and some more intuition.

It gives you more possibilities which in my opinion, due to the complicated nature of the human psyche (more complicated than any personality system could describe) helps create a more accurate picture of people.

It also goes into the relations between the different types, something MBTI doesn't touch on.

This isn't Coke and Pepsi, MBTI and Socionics are not mutually exclusive.


Edit: "but when the MBTI INTJ takes the socionics test he will come out as INTP, THUS a different description of his type.. DUH? "

Not always true, some stay the same, some change, depends on the person. The wiki article even acknowledges the MBTI types of introverts could be either or.

Yea well that too, I think their inter type relations are garbage. Keirsey seems more accurate in the real world to me.

 

[Oaky]

No, no. Socionics is more about the social aspects. It's to do with relationships. But I'm not yet fully sure if I can trust it though. You see, according to socionics the ideal partner for an INTJ is an ESFP while in MBTI we can say it's an ENFP. In socionics it says that INTJs and ENFPs have a not so good relationship. And it's also different for all other personality types.

 

[Goatman455]

No, no. Socionics is more about the social aspects. It's to do with relationships. But I'm not yet fully sure if I can trust it though. You see, according to socionics the ideal partner for an INTJ is an ESFP while in MBTI we can say it's an ENFP. In socionics it says that INTJs and ENFPs have a not so good relationship. And it's also different for all other personality types.

First of all in Socionics the ideal partner for INTJ is ESFJ, not ESFP. Also, socionics claims that INTJ/ENFP is good for medium distances, but doesn't say it isn't good.

To my knowledge I think both can be right.

Either different/different/different/same

or different/same/different/different

Example

ENFP

ISTP

or

ENFP

INTJ


That said, many people I know pair up in successful marriages and fit the socionics "duality" relationship. I thought MBTI acknowledged both of the examples I gave (but I could be wrong) but clearly socionics only acknowledges the latter.

 

[Requeim]

i agree with INTJ123, it sucks

 

[Oaky]

First of all in Socionics the ideal partner for INTJ is ESFJ, not ESFP. Also, socionics claims that INTJ/ENFP is good for medium distances, but doesn't say it isn't good.

To my knowledge I think both can be right.

Either different/different/different/same

or different/same/different/different

Example

ENFP

ISTP

or

ENFP

INTJ


That said, many people I know pair up in successful marriages and fit the socionics "duality" relationship. I thought MBTI acknowledged both of the examples I gave (but I could be wrong) but clearly socionics only acknowledges the latter.

No according to socionics an INTJ can either be an INTj or INTp and in that sense I'm an INTp.

INTj - ENFp = "supervisor" - "supervisee"
INTp - ENFp = Illusionary relations

None of which are good.

Relations between Psychological ("personality") Types

Unsure about being T or F -> you are Socionics XXXp
Unsure about being S or N -> you are Socionics XXXj


Extroverts
MBTI system Socionics system
ENFJ --------------------ENFj
ENTJ --------------------ENTj
ENFP --------------------ENFp
ENTP --------------------ENTp
ESFJ --------------------ESFj
ESTJ --------------------ESTj
ESFP --------------------ESFp
ESTP --------------------ESTp

Introverts
MBTI system Socionics system
INFJ --------------------INFx
INTJ --------------------INTx
INFP --------------------INFx
INTP --------------------INTx
ISFJ --------------------ISFx
ISTJ --------------------ISTx
ISFP --------------------ISFx
ISTP --------------------ISTx

How to convert MBTI® type to Socionics type

 

[simulatedworld]

^ Yes, "according to Socionics..." allows us to inject all kinds of bullshit, doesn't it?

It's the same shit. Of course their test results will vary a little, but you'll still be missing the point if you don't get that psychological type can't really actually be tested.

So I'm sure some people test INTp in socionics and INTJ in MBTI, and also some people test INTp in socionics and INTP in MBTI--but it doesn't matter, because both systems are the same repackaged concepts with different labels on them (just like Big 5 and all the rest...no matter what the haters say.) Self-report evaluations are only as accurate as you are capable of being honest with yourself about yourself.

Deciding that you're going to use a different system to label your tupperware doesn't actually change the food inside it.

 

[Oaky]

^ It's not that. It's the fact that the ideal matches are very different to MBTI.

 

[simulatedworld]

...you're placing stock in that?

K nevermind, you're right. Find yourself a nice ESFJ and live it up, because you'll obviously never be totally happy with anyone who doesn't fall into that narrow category.

In my own experience, you'll work best with people who share your life attitude about whether internal or external organization is a higher priority. (In MBTI terms, this means someone with the same last letter P/J as you.) But however any given system of typology chooses to assign letters to express this principle is of no importance; the principle itself is there and does not change from system to system.

So the letters assigned to you by these nonsensical "tests" are pretty irrelevant. They're about as "accurate" as taking little online quiz memes to tell you what kind of movies you like--again, only as accurate as you are honest with yourself. That's very important to remember--you should not be choosing life-long mates based on results from such an obviously flawed and incomplete testing system. The only way to truly know someone's type is to get to know that person intimately, and by that point you'll already know if you're compatible with him/her or not, "test results" be damned.

 

[Oaky]

^ you say it's all the same. I'm saying, YEA! but socionics is to do with the social aspects of personalities. And I was telling the guy I'm an INTp not INTj so it's the ESFp combination. I'm not sure if I trust socionics in the relationship aspects is what I was saying at first.

 

[simulatedworld]

^ you say it's all the same. I'm saying, YEA! but socionics is to do with the social aspects of personalities. And I was telling the guy I'm an INTp not INTj so it's the ESFp combination. I'm not sure if I trust socionics in the relationship aspects is what I was saying at first.

Right, it's just that those claims of good/bad relationship pairings are so brutally inaccurate in real life that your question is totally irrelevant.

 

[Oaky]

HAHA, No! How to put it? Socionics comes to a different conclusion on relationship matters than MBTI therefore one must be inaccurate so one is not as trustworthy.