• You are currently viewing our forum as a guest, which gives you limited access to view most discussions and access our other features. By joining our free community, you will have access to additional post topics, communicate privately with other members (PM), view blogs, respond to polls, upload content, and access many other special features. Registration is fast, simple and absolutely free, so please join our community today! Just click here to register. You should turn your Ad Blocker off for this site or certain features may not work properly. If you have any problems with the registration process or your account login, please contact us by clicking here.

What is the difference between Socionics and MBTI?

Ribonuke

New member
Joined
Mar 16, 2012
Messages
255
MBTI Type
esTP
Enneagram
845
Instinctual Variant
sp/so
I have a feeling I'm not going to get a definitive answer on this one, but it's been bugging me for a while, so I figured I'd at least open a discussion on it.

What makes Socionics cognitive functions different from MBTI? Is one more, like, philosophy-based than the other? Or are they essentially the same thing to the point that my MBTI and Socionics type should essentially match up? I used to believe it was the latter, although recent experiences on the forum suggest that they may, in fact be different.

Can someone please clarify this difference to me?
 
Last edited by a moderator:

Little_Sticks

New member
Joined
Aug 19, 2009
Messages
1,358
If you take Jung at face value, bottom line is they use different criteria to give people different types.

If you actually read Jung's Psychological Types you will see that MBTI and Socionics both abuse what he intended his types for. The main thing being that types weren't meant as something that is always constant throughout someone's life, nor is it supposed to be used as a stereotyping tool. Jung's types are more a philosophical outline of different dualistic ways of being, intended to help people better understand their motivations and behavior, not to define themselves by type.

so...yeah. Take that for what you will.
 

Forever

Permabanned
Joined
Aug 30, 2013
Messages
8,551
MBTI Type
NiFi
Enneagram
3w4
Instinctual Variant
sx/so
One has the fourth letter an uppercase, and the other does not. (MBTI, Socionics respectively) :newwink:
 

hjgbujhghg

I am
Joined
Jun 6, 2013
Messages
3,333
MBTI Type
INFP
Enneagram
4w3
Instinctual Variant
sx/so
They both use jungian cognitive functions to define one's type and have very similar criterias on how certain functions influence one's behavior. They both deal with similar structure of types and similar order of functions, however differences can be visible.

Socionics believe that every type uses every function, while MBTI works with only 4 function theory. For socionics it is the order of all 8 functions that create the type. In socionics theory the functions are placed in different blocks of one's psyche, those blocks are ego, super ego, super-id, id block.
Ego, super-ego, super-id and id are based on Freud's theory. According to Freud ego is our human personality, our own self, the "I" in the person. Id creates our most animalistic needs we need to learn to control, but also to satisfy. Super-ego is the pressure we feel from society, the "I must do this" in our life, something we can see in others but might miss in our own self, something maybe even repulsive or too tensive.
Based on the placement of the functions in those blocks, the quadra and the type can be created. The functions, however, are not much different from the MBTI ones and usually similar MBTI types are similar socionics types.

There is also a difference between j and p. Socionics is not a dichotomy theory like MBTI. Socionics is based on jungian functions and therefore doesn't operate with MBTI lifestyle dichotomy, but differs j and p types based on the preference of the first function. If the first function is judging (Fi, Fe, Te, Ti) the person is j, if the first function is perceiving the person is p (Se, Ne, Si, Ni).
There are also Reinin dichotomies that are based on functions and create dynamic/static types, negative/positive etc... I personally haven't read enough on Reinin dichotomies to be able to explain them all.
I believe those are the main differences between MBTI and socionics, but I also believe that the functions usually stay the same or very similar in MBTI and Socionics, so combinations like MBTI INTP and socionics ESFp are quite imposible.
 

highlander

Administrator
Staff member
Joined
Dec 23, 2009
Messages
26,559
MBTI Type
INTJ
Enneagram
6w5
Instinctual Variant
sx/sp
Very different. The descriptions of the functions (or information elements) tend to vary between the two systems and of course both systems' interpretations vary wildly from what Jung wrote, but someone else has already pointed that out.

Also, some MBTI devotees seem to favor the 4 function model, whilst completely ignoring the other 4 (some get around this by resigning the other 4 to "shadow" status), whereas Socionics considers all elements' influence on a person's type.

Socionics also places more emphasis on interpersonal relations and group dynamics; MBTI seems more focused on helping people actualize themselves independently of social considerations.

I question how meaningful some of the differences are.

To say someone is a p or a j based on their dominant function - it feels more correct to me. However other than this cosmetic difference, the function orders are the same as Beebee aren't they? A lot of the so called MBTI people believe in an 8 function model.

I can see how Socionics is trying to derive greater meaning of the interplay of the cognitive functions and what one means in a particular position (as others such as Thompson did in her book) and it is unique that there is a focus on the predicted interactions between types. You can say that is valid or invalid but it is a difference.

The key to me is how the functions are defined. Are they really truly different and how.
 

sulfit

New member
Joined
Aug 5, 2010
Messages
495
MBTI Type
INTP
Enneagram
6w5
Instinctual Variant
sp/so
I have a feeling I'm not going to get a definitive answer on this one, but it's been bugging me for a while, so I figured I'd at least open a discussion on it.

What makes Socionics cognitive functions different from MBTI? Is one more, like, philosophy-based than the other? Or are they essentially the same thing to the point that my MBTI and Socionics type should essentially match up? I used to believe it was the latter, although recent experiences on the forum suggest that they may, in fact be different.

Can someone please clarify this difference to me?
I don't think you'll find a definitive answer to this. Some functions, like Ti, are very similar in their description to MBTI (compare this with MBTI Ti: Introverted logic - Wikisocion). Other functions like the sensing ones are defined quite differently (Extroverted sensing - Wikisocion). Suffice it to say, that they are similar enough that if someone types themselves as INTp in Socionics and ESTP in MBTI i.e. a widely different type, they very likely have mistyped themselves.

Socionics is much more specific and precise in how it defines types. To figure out your type you not only have to read the descriptions, but also find a matching set of Reinin Dichotomies and Intertype Relationships. MBTI doesn't offer any of this. In MBTI typing is a much more loose process and types are more vaguely defined than in Socionics.
 

existence

New member
Joined
Nov 28, 2015
Messages
352
MBTI Type
ISTJ
Socionics is much more specific and precise in how it defines types. To figure out your type you not only have to read the descriptions, but also find a matching set of Reinin Dichotomies and Intertype Relationships. MBTI doesn't offer any of this. In MBTI typing is a much more loose process and types are more vaguely defined than in Socionics.

Reinin isn't universally accepted, it's been admitted that it's just a bunch of observations of varying degrees of correlations, to type yourself you aren't required to match any Reinin or even check it out. The intertype relationships are relevant however.
 

Ingrid in grids

Active member
Joined
Sep 1, 2009
Messages
1,748
WSS Facebook page said:
MBTI cannot be considered or treated as the same system as Socionics. If you have a type in MBTI, you cannot assume you will be the same or similar type in Socionics. Some very wrongly think you can treat Extroverted types as the same and just do a J/P Switch for Introverted types.

There are two reasons for why this is NOT the case.

1. The Four Dichotomies of MBTI mean something different in Socionics.

Extroversion/Introversion in MBTI has got a lot to do with how socially energised you are i.e. if you feel more energised around people or need time alone. In Socionics, this need for interaction with people specifically is more Ethics-related and indeed many Logical Extroverts in Socionics have little need for social interaction, their Extroversion being more about getting behind lots of projects rather than socialising. Similarly an Ethical Introvert in Socionics can be a very sociable person, requiring continuous interaction with those who they are close to. They just don't drive or energise the social scene like an Ethical Extrovert.
iNtuition/Sensation in MBTI is highly biased to the point where only iNtuitive people seem capable of free-thought and thinking outside the box. At the same time, the practical and daily competence of Sensory types is greatly diminished. In Socionics, Intuition and Sensation are far better balanced in their respective areas of capability.
Thinking/Feeling in MBTI has got a lot to do with being 'tough minded' or 'warm hearted'. While objective thinking is indeed connected to Socionics Logic, this is not necessarily going to make you more 'tough', 'competitive' or 'aggressive'. Instead, this is more related to Socionics Se, which means that many Se-types in Socionics become Thinkers in MBTI. At the same time, Ethics in Socionics has less to do with being a kind or generous person, but has more to do with your personal and interpersonal capabilities. Many more Se-valuing Ethical types may use their Ethics for social control and manipulation, rather than necessarily being nice and a 'bleeding-heart'.
Perceiving/Judging in MBTI seems almost entirely focused on organisation and planning. In Socionics, this is connected to Logic and not at all to Ethics. As a result, a lot of Ethics-leading types are going to be labelled Perceivers in MBTI. Instead, the Rational/Irrational dichotomy of Socionics focuses on whether you approach things in terms of how they should or ought to be, rather than how they how they are, which means that Ethical Rational types like EIE or EII can still be chaotic or disorganised, but have strong opinions on either what they feel is RIGHT or how people OUGHT to feel.

2. The Cognitive Functions of MBTI are different in their definitions to the IM Elements of Socionics. Parts of some are actually essential parts of others, leading to a mishmash or mix-up, rather than any clear correlation:

Parts of MBTI Se (living in the moment, pleasure-seeking, aesthetics) are covered by Socionics Si.
Parts of MBTI Si (memory, history, comparison, time-sense) are covered by Socionics Ni.
Parts of MBTI Si (rule-following) are covered by Socionics Ti.
Parts of MBTI Ti (e.g. figuring out how things work) are covered by Socionics Te.
Parts of MBTI Te (or just 'Jness') (power, command, hierarchy) are covered by Socionics Se.
Parts of MBTI Fi (e.g. emotional states) are covered by Socionics Fe.
Parts of MBTI Fe (e.g. relationality, social appropriateness) are covered by Socionics Fi.

3. MBTI primarily groups types by 'temperaments' based on pairs of dichotomies i.e. NTs being competent and clever, NFs being idealistic and warm hearted, SPs being free-spirited hedonists who like crafts and SJs being narrow-minded traditionalists without free thought. In Socionics the most important groups are Quadras based on valued Information Elements i.e. the fun-loving, analytical Alphas, the revolutionary, ideological Betas, the strategic, harsh-humoured Gammas and the peaceful, practical Deltas.

I read the above just recently. I think it's a good, basic summary of some key differences.

If you take Jung at face value, bottom line is they use different criteria to give people different types.

If you actually read Jung's Psychological Types you will see that MBTI and Socionics both abuse what he intended his types for. The main thing being that types weren't meant as something that is always constant throughout someone's life, nor is it supposed to be used as a stereotyping tool. Jung's types are more a philosophical outline of different dualistic ways of being, intended to help people better understand their motivations and behavior, not to define themselves by type.

^Yes, this too.
 

existence

New member
Joined
Nov 28, 2015
Messages
352
MBTI Type
ISTJ
I question how meaningful some of the differences are.

To say someone is a p or a j based on their dominant function - it feels more correct to me. However other than this cosmetic difference, the function orders are the same as Beebee aren't they? A lot of the so called MBTI people believe in an 8 function model.

I can see how Socionics is trying to derive greater meaning of the interplay of the cognitive functions and what one means in a particular position (as others such as Thompson did in her book) and it is unique that there is a focus on the predicted interactions between types. You can say that is valid or invalid but it is a difference.

The key to me is how the functions are defined. Are they really truly different and how.

That's not just a cosmetic difference about j/p vs J/P. It's connected with differences in how the functions are placed for the types in the two systems.

The Beebe function order is indeed very similar, though there are small differences between the interpretations with regard to the functions that are next to each other inside function pairs in the area of shadow functions in Beebe's model / unvalued functions in Model A in Socionics.

Greater meaning, I would disagree with that wording, I would say it's more like it tries to derive more conclusions from a more refined model.

It all depends on how you interpret the functions, on the surface going by descriptions that include correlations of various qualities or strictly in a jungian way. I prefer the latter so see the rest of my statements as following from that.

So, yes, the function definitions are significantly different in terms of Se and Si. The other functions have more of a match. Even in the case of Se and Si though, there is a core idea for each that's kept the same between the systems. But everything else built around those core ideas is quite different. This is highly relevant to the issue of the J/P dichotomy, in terms of how the preferred functions in MBTI would be derived from that dichotomy. Though, as far as I know, the official stance on that does not reject the idea that there is an inner way of Judging, MBTI official site actually refers to that. Where it goes wrong is the assumption that this inner way isn't ever observable outwardly.
 

Doctor Cringelord

Well-known member
Joined
Aug 27, 2013
Messages
20,564
MBTI Type
I
Enneagram
9w8
Instinctual Variant
sp/sx
I think they're different facets of a larger tapestry. They can compliment each other and there is no good reason they can't be reconciled.
 

existence

New member
Joined
Nov 28, 2015
Messages
352
MBTI Type
ISTJ
MBTI cannot be considered or treated as the same system as Socionics. If you have a type in MBTI, you cannot assume you will be the same or similar type in Socionics. Some very wrongly think you can treat Extroverted types as the same and just do a J/P Switch for Introverted types.

True, the J/P->p/j switch doesn't exactly work like that. Firstly, the MBTI J/P isn't defined the same as Rationality/Irrationality in Socionics, they are defined based on different principles, though they do overlap a lot in the operationalization of their definitions. Secondly, the MBTI I/E and Socionics introtim/extratim are also defined by different principles, again there is overlap in operationalization. The basic dichotomies of S/N and T/F are virtually the same in both systems though.

Then, translation in practice highly depends on how you typed yourself in MBTI. If you typed yourself by jungian understanding, that will have a different translation to Socionics than if you typed by simply MBTI dichotomies or if you typed by popular superficial MBTI function definitions, etc. All this is assuming you have a decent awareness of how you are actually. If you don't even have that, well...

So, no direct uniform way of translation exists due to these many factors.


2. The Cognitive Functions of MBTI are different in their definitions to the IM Elements of Socionics. Parts of some are actually essential parts of others, leading to a mishmash or mix-up, rather than any clear correlation:

Parts of MBTI Se (living in the moment, pleasure-seeking, aesthetics) are covered by Socionics Si.
Parts of MBTI Si (memory, history, comparison, time-sense) are covered by Socionics Ni.
Parts of MBTI Si (rule-following) are covered by Socionics Ti.
Parts of MBTI Ti (e.g. figuring out how things work) are covered by Socionics Te.
Parts of MBTI Te (or just 'Jness') (power, command, hierarchy) are covered by Socionics Se.
Parts of MBTI Fi (e.g. emotional states) are covered by Socionics Fe.
Parts of MBTI Fe (e.g. relationality, social appropriateness) are covered by Socionics Fi.

What shallow definitions of correlations are these, lol. But yes the trends are like this but it's just trends, not about the actual information processing elements in Socionics or functions in MBTI.

A few comments and corrections...

Se: Living in the moment and pleasure seeking is also Socionics Se, just in an extraverted fashion.
Si: I agree here completely. Just adding that comparison can also be Ti, depending what's meant by that.
Ti: I disagree, "figuring out how things work" is just logic in general. Te just goes about it differently than Ti.
Te: No, J-ness isn't simply Te even in MBTI. Hierarchy is not Se in Socionics but Ti blocked with Se. Command is multielemental (can be covered by more than one IE).
Fi: No, this depends what kind of emotional states we are talking about, Static or Dynamic.
Fe: No, Socionics Fe also covers that, just from a different standpoint as this is just F in general.


3. MBTI primarily groups types by 'temperaments' based on pairs of dichotomies i.e. NTs being competent and clever, NFs being idealistic and warm hearted, SPs being free-spirited hedonists who like crafts and SJs being narrow-minded traditionalists without free thought. In Socionics the most important groups are Quadras based on valued Information Elements i.e. the fun-loving, analytical Alphas, the revolutionary, ideological Betas, the strategic, harsh-humoured Gammas and the peaceful, practical Deltas.

Lol why is it that the SJ one sounds a negative stereotype while all the others are positive. I don't think SJ is described this negatively by Keirsey. Btw Keirsey is not official MBTI.
 
Top