• 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.

Merging Socionics with MBTI

Zeego

Mind Wanderer
Joined
Apr 15, 2016
Messages
390
MBTI Type
INTP
Enneagram
5w4
Instinctual Variant
sp/sx
Since which elements are Judging and which are Perceiving is NOT defined any differently between Socionics and MBTI, it forms a contradiction to type yourself as both INTP (Ti dom) and Ni-IEI (Ni lead). Could you go over how is it that you've flipped intuition and logic for each other? Logic is logic in both Socionics and MBTI. Logic was never defined as Perception or Intuition.

Behaviorally speaking, I behave most similarly to INTP in MBTI and IEI in Socionics. Although INTP is considered "J-dom" in MBTI, behaviorally it is still a Perceiving type, as is IEI. Say what you will about the functions, but I am not behaviorally Judging in either system. Furthermore, I do not relate to Socionics descriptions of Ti. It sounds very rigid compared to the MBTI version, with its focus on rules and laws instead of just personal logic in general. I relate much more to the visual and abstract thought process of Socionics Ni, which is less J-like than the MBTI version. I think more in terms of imagery and symbolism than I do in words (a trait of Socionics Ni), but I also prefer to employ my own personal logic rather than relying on accepted terms (a trait of MBTI Ti). This is obviously a very simplified description of both, but I have thought much about this issue, and I don't feel like getting into semantics at the moment.

An odder discrepancy might be how I'm Thinking in MBTI yet Feeling in Socionics. I have to admit I don't fully understand this myself, although it may have to do with the fact that (in Socionics terms) I'm more Merry than I am Serious. I really just kind of "see myself" in IEI descriptions, I don't know how to explain it. I'm comfortable with this discrepancy between my MBTI and Socionics types because I believe they're fundamentally different systems.

And finally, for what it's worth, I usually test as INTP in MBTI and IEI in Socionics. I know a lot of people don't put much faith in the tests, so make of that what you will.
 

BlackCat

Shaman
Joined
Nov 19, 2008
Messages
7,038
MBTI Type
ESFP
Enneagram
9w8
Instinctual Variant
sx/sp
The J/P switch is a lie, it's best to type on a case by case basis than assume that everyone who is an introverted perceiving type in MBTI is suddenly a rational type in socionics, which is basically describing J; and vice versa. The only basis of this J/P switch is that the functions are named the same thing. But they describe different things, especially when you factor in function placements. Most lack of understanding in this area comes from a lack of knowledge of either theory or how to apply it.

For example many INTPs I know don't really fit into Alpha at all, nor does the Ti lead attitude in socionics really fit for them either. Most of the time when INTPs see socionics Ti as prominent in their persona is because it's the demonstrative function for ILI, the only function equal in strength to the lead function Ni.

I think if anyone who identifies as a J type in MBTI read the irrational description in socionics they would not see much of themselves in that description. Same goes to a P type reading the rational description. I'm not saying that some people don't fit INFP EII or INTP LII but most people would identify with their typically corresponding letter.

Also the switching j/p in socionics switches the type to the opposite quadra, creating more possible confusion for self typing purposes if one assumes that they are supposed to switch J/P.

People look at this in a very one dimensional way. It's not just about the functions, it's about everything else too. I notice the same people who say the theory is flawed or doesn't work claims the J/P switch as well. Trying to conform socionics to MBTI will never really work out imo.
 

highlander

Administrator
Staff member
Joined
Dec 23, 2009
Messages
26,562
MBTI Type
INTJ
Enneagram
6w5
Instinctual Variant
sx/sp
I recently read this post on Wordpress about how some people in the typology community (notably Victor Gulenko, Dario Nardi, and the author of the post itself) believe that Socionics and MBTI can be merged with each other, and if you are a certain type in one system (e.g. INTP) then you must be the corresponding type in the other system (INTj). To anyone on TypoC who believes this, I have a question: how do you reconcile the fundamental differences in how the types and functions are defined between the systems?

I haven't read the whole thread but basically I think they are the same system because they are derived from the same theory. I like both perspectives but am skeptical on the validity of function theory - not because I disagree with it but because I think it is too linear.
 

GavinElster

Member
Joined
Feb 13, 2017
Messages
233
MBTI Type
ENTP
Enneagram
3w4
Instinctual Variant
sp/sx
I think the answer to this is quite simple: in the abstract, I see no real difference between their concepts of the 8 functions/IE/etc --- in the abstract, socionics IE are very general .... to do with objects and relations, and such. In terms of the concrete traits ASSOCIATED with the abstract functions, yes there's a LOT of difference. There are marked associations that go beyond the strict abstract definitions, e.g. the colorful portrayals of quadra values suggest alphas have a certain temperament and so on.

What this means is TO THE EXTENT you use those concrete associations to type people, you MUST type them separately in the two systems. E.g. if you believe Se people are 'forceful' and less comfort-oriented or whatever than Si people, then you cannot associate that with Se in the MBTI sense.

On the other hand, I think the 'forceful' thing is just a mistake -- it's a concrete version of the concept which ignores the broader meaning. In reality, force should be understood more abstractly: it is what's needed to break inertia, to change the kinetic energy, or what have you. What that really means is it has to do with our sense of present-ness: the present is when the future changes to past and a moment 'passes'. It's when you have to act immediately to make an impact, or the moment is gone. Now the association towards MBTI (or rather, loosely MBTI, since I don't think the actual test has much to do with functions) concepts which probably involve a present-focus becomes clear. If nothing is moving/changing, there doesn't need to be a concept of present, as time can be conceptualized as an abstract line or whatever with no privileged point selected (vs such a point is selected if we are to introduce the concept of change).
 

ducks

Permabanned
Joined
Feb 25, 2018
Messages
172
I recently read this post on Wordpress about how some people in the typology community (notably Victor Gulenko, Dario Nardi, and the author of the post itself) believe that Socionics and MBTI can be merged with each other, and if you are a certain type in one system (e.g. INTP) then you must be the corresponding type in the other system (INTj). To anyone on TypoC who believes this, I have a question: how do you reconcile the fundamental differences in how the types and functions are defined between the systems?

Well, both typing systems were interpretations of Jung, but came at it from different motivations/angles. MBTI seems to be concerned with individuality and classifying people, perhaps as a way to determine what people are best suited for in a corporate or government setting. Socionics seems to focus more on social theory by describing the relationship between different types and how different functions/types interpret or cogitate the world.

So one is a more individualized interpretation of Jung, while the other a more social/cultural interpretation of Jung. They should reinforce each other. But I think the reason why they sometimes contradict each other or why there is so much disagreement between the two is because MBTI and Socionics each got some things right and wrong about the types. Some people take this to believe they are somehow different. But they are both describing the same Jungian model of the psyche.

Does that make sense?
 

kittenke

New member
Joined
Nov 17, 2018
Messages
148
MBTI Type
ISTJ
Enneagram
1/3
I think the answer to this is quite simple: in the abstract, I see no real difference between their concepts of the 8 functions/IE/etc --- in the abstract, socionics IE are very general .... to do with objects and relations, and such. In terms of the concrete traits ASSOCIATED with the abstract functions, yes there's a LOT of difference. There are marked associations that go beyond the strict abstract definitions, e.g. the colorful portrayals of quadra values suggest alphas have a certain temperament and so on.

What this means is TO THE EXTENT you use those concrete associations to type people, you MUST type them separately in the two systems. E.g. if you believe Se people are 'forceful' and less comfort-oriented or whatever than Si people, then you cannot associate that with Se in the MBTI sense.

On the other hand, I think the 'forceful' thing is just a mistake -- it's a concrete version of the concept which ignores the broader meaning. In reality, force should be understood more abstractly: it is what's needed to break inertia, to change the kinetic energy, or what have you. What that really means is it has to do with our sense of present-ness: the present is when the future changes to past and a moment 'passes'. It's when you have to act immediately to make an impact, or the moment is gone. Now the association towards MBTI (or rather, loosely MBTI, since I don't think the actual test has much to do with functions) concepts which probably involve a present-focus becomes clear. If nothing is moving/changing, there doesn't need to be a concept of present, as time can be conceptualized as an abstract line or whatever with no privileged point selected (vs such a point is selected if we are to introduce the concept of change).

Well to act you need to put in force.
 

GavinElster

Member
Joined
Feb 13, 2017
Messages
233
MBTI Type
ENTP
Enneagram
3w4
Instinctual Variant
sp/sx
[MENTION=38431]kittenke[/MENTION] -- yes, that's what I cover

What I'm saying is that the colloquial definition of forceful involving being aggressive, power-oriented, or whatever, misses the point. Se could manifest that way, but it needn't.
 

Pionart

Well-known member
Joined
Sep 17, 2014
Messages
4,039
MBTI Type
NiFe
It's possible for two systems using the same 8 functions to be such that both systems are valid and yet distinct in terms of who is what type.

If that's the case though, I haven't yet discovered the sense in which socionics applies. I just think of the 8 functions without really considering which particular source the information is coming from.
 

chubber

failed poetry slam career
Joined
Oct 18, 2013
Messages
4,413
MBTI Type
INTP
Enneagram
4w5
Instinctual Variant
sp/sx
I believe that MBTI and socionics correlate to some degree. Meaning, I believe that a combination like ESFP in MBTI and LII in socionics isn't possible. But the descriptions are not the same, which can cause minor differences in types. For example I understand why someone who types as ENFP in MBTI might type as EIE /ENFj in socionics.

Are you referring to something like this?

 

raskol

New member
Joined
Jan 10, 2019
Messages
220
After having considered the Reinin dichotomies, Gulenko's cognitive styles, and model A, I've reached the conclusion that Socionics must be forcefully separated from MBTI, which in turn must be kept at a distance from Beebe's and Berens' function stacks and axes, temperament indicators, and interaction styles.

The inconsistencies are best noted by the vast chasm separating the in-depth descriptions of the respective types, not to mention the "archetypal" representations permeating Socionics. Anyone who tries to link the types, such as the "Sherlock Holmes" administrator LSE with ESTJ/TeSi, or the "Jean Gabin" craftsman SLI with ISTJ/SiTe, is in for a major disappointment, as Te and Si have properties that do not overlap between the respective theories. It is not that Socionics is wrong, it just necessitates a complete reinterpretation and revaluation of Jungian nomenclature.

In other words, consistent typologists must pick a side, and I'm going with Berens' elaboration on Jung.
 

Pionart

Well-known member
Joined
Sep 17, 2014
Messages
4,039
MBTI Type
NiFe
After having considered the Reinin dichotomies, Gulenko's cognitive styles, and model A, I've reached the conclusion that Socionics must be forcefully separated from MBTI, which in turn must be kept at a distance from Beebe's and Berens' function stacks and axes, temperament indicators, and interaction styles.

The inconsistencies are best noted by the vast chasm separating the in-depth descriptions of the respective types, not to mention the "archetypal" representations permeating Socionics. Anyone who tries to link the types, such as the "Sherlock Holmes" administrator LSE with ESTJ/TeSi, or the "Jean Gabin" craftsman SLI with ISTJ/SiTe, is in for a major disappointment, as Te and Si have properties that do not overlap between the respective theories. It is not that Socionics is wrong, it just necessitates a complete reinterpretation and revaluation of Jungian nomenclature.

In other words, consistent typologists must pick a side, and I'm going with Berens' elaboration on Jung.

I was roughly following until that last line. Why must someone pick a side? If the two systems are incompatible, couldn't it be that they describe different aspects of people, with "INTP"etc. referring to cognition, and "INTj/LII"etc referring to social dynamics?

(or, given that socionics speaks of "information metabolism", each system could be referring to cognition analysed from different angles)

My side is just... whatever I happen to have pieced together from various sources. As I mentioned, I haven't yet been able to make sense of socionics.
 

chubber

failed poetry slam career
Joined
Oct 18, 2013
Messages
4,413
MBTI Type
INTP
Enneagram
4w5
Instinctual Variant
sp/sx
I'll quote this:

Translator's note : the meaning of "rationality-irrationality" in colloquial language is somewhat different from the original Jung's (and socionic) understanding of this term. The colloquial meaning of this word pair should be attributed rather to another dichotomy, logic-ethic (or T/F in the Myers-Briggs theory).

Although the J/P dichotomy in Myers-Briggs theory resembles rationality-irrationality by its description, they are not the same. As it has been proven by Gregory Shulman, J/P is not dichotomy i.e. it does not split the 16 types into two equal parts. It is a pseudo-dichotomy that represents two poles with multiple transitional options; in other words, one or two types in socionics may be called "super-J", and another one or two types "super-P", while other types will be in between these poles. This explains, for example, why ENFp or ENFj in socionics may both get scored ENFP according to MBTI, etc.

One more remark: according to I.Myers' hypothesis, rationals correspond to EJ and IP types, while irrationals - to EP and IJ types. However, socionic statistics disproves her hypothesis and speaks rather in favor of identification of J/P with rationality/irrationality (although not 100%, as it was said above).

Saying that Socionics and MBTI is completely different is like saying, well an African is completely different from Caucasian. And we all know how that argument goes today. We are all the same fundamentally, deep down in the core, but now to go and argue that we are different is like sticking your head in the sand and denying that we have the same cores although slight exterior "noticeable" attributes.

Besides, the fact that we use terms like NF and SP, from a system that was introduced by Keirsey, expanded on the ancient study of temperament by Hippocrates and Plato, is ironic, since Keirsey distances himself from MBTI and calls his own system completely separate from MBTI. This simply perpetuates the whole argument that it "must be different" even though today nobody seems to make a distinction of it.

You cannot be an ENFx in MBTI and then state to be a SLI in Socionics.
 

raskol

New member
Joined
Jan 10, 2019
Messages
220
I was roughly following until that last line. Why must someone pick a side?
We do it for the sake of sustaining cohesive explanations. Sooner or later, we reach a point where we are forced to consider the priority and hierarchy of available analytical tools. And for a theory to be sustainable, it must be predictive. That's where socionics goes too far, shoehorning character traits and qualities that don't hold up to scrutiny. The Reinin dichotomies and Gulenko's cognitive styles become a bed of Procrustes, as they simply don't fit when applied practically.

If the two systems are incompatible, couldn't it be that they describe different aspects of people, with "INTP"etc. referring to cognition, and "INTj/LII"etc referring to social dynamics?
Next to romantic style, social dynamics constitute the worst aspect of socionics. The LII "Robespierre" analyst, which is exemplified by e.g. Vladimir Putin, is jokingly referred to as a type that applies the guillotine to whatever falls out of favor. Meanwhile, this is an "emotivist" and "merry" type, which is simultaneously cold-blooded and experiences the world through holographic-panoramic cognition.

The more traits you add and the deeper you dive into the type description, the greater the chaos. In the end, the analysis is so far-reaching that it can only be applied to that one subject (be it Robespierre, Hamlet, Zhukov, or any other avatar).

(or, given that socionics speaks of "information metabolism", each system could be referring to cognition analysed from different angles)
If that is the case, then we are dealing with esotericism and not a perspicuous theory.

My side is just... whatever I happen to have pieced together from various sources. As I mentioned, I haven't yet been able to make sense of socionics.
I appreciate your contributions, and find that you are consistently able to motivate your conclusion. Even if you fully rely on intuition, and only trace the necessary steps after the fact, you remain flexible and open to argue your case. If you were to rely on socionics, it would turn your approach to typing inside out, from assessment of function to that of shoehorning.

Saying that Socionics and MBTI is completely different is like saying, well an African is completely different from Caucasian. And we all know how that argument goes today. We are all the same fundamentally, deep down in the core, but now to go and argue that we are different is like sticking your head in the sand and denying that we have the same cores although slight exterior "noticeable" attributes.
That's a poor analogy, as we humans share 60% of our DNA with bananas and fruit flies, and 90% with cats. And as far as humans are concerned, my 4% Neanderthal DNA is enough to set me (and most Eurasians) apart from sub-Saharan Africans, while my Ashkenazi ancestry significantly raises the risk of developing Crohn's disease and other unpleasantries.

With that in mind, typology does not require the exactitude of genetics and genomics. But if we are looking to draw meaningful conclusions, we shouldn't muddy the waters by merging incompatible theoretical outlooks that don't even rely on the same definitions.

Besides, the fact that we use terms like NF and SP, from a system that was introduced by Keirsey, expanded on the ancient study of temperament by Hippocrates and Plato, is ironic, since Keirsey distances himself from MBTI and calls his own system completely separate from MBTI. This simply perpetuates the whole argument that it "must be different" even though today nobody seems to make a distinction of it.
Expanding on that dimension, I appreciate the ancient Greek distinctions, such as Dionysian (SP) and Apollonian (NF). But they are playful and expansive and, as such, do not constrain the types. Furthermore, I am not defending MBTI. I am embracing Berens' expansion of MBTI through the lens of Jungian analytical psychology.

You cannot be an ENFx in MBTI and then state to be a SLI in Socionics.
I agree that it's unlikely, considering the function stack, but that via negativa still doesn't tell us anything about the person in question. The problem occurs when, e.g., ISFP is equated with the ESI "guardian," which is described as a highly ethical and family-oriented stoic, someone who'd consistently choose duty over love. The moment you try to merge them, you realize that one will have to give.
 

Pionart

Well-known member
Joined
Sep 17, 2014
Messages
4,039
MBTI Type
NiFe
raskol said:
If you were to rely on socionics, it would turn your approach to typing inside out, from assessment of function to that of shoehorning.

Socionics for me would mean seeing things from a perspective whereby different functions are allocated to the 3rd-8th positions, and different cognitive functions would energise each other.

Interestingly, it would still be the 5th and 6th functions that are the energising ones.

(that probably wouldn't ever happen because I don't even know where to begin to look given how pervasive I've found the function order I generally mention (Beebe's, except not the same archetype for each position) to be)
 

kittenke

New member
Joined
Nov 17, 2018
Messages
148
MBTI Type
ISTJ
Enneagram
1/3
[MENTION=38431]kittenke[/MENTION] -- yes, that's what I cover

What I'm saying is that the colloquial definition of forceful involving being aggressive, power-oriented, or whatever, misses the point. Se could manifest that way, but it needn't.

Sorry I only looked at the forum now. I guess what one sees as aggressiveness is relative : p
 

Drunkstein

New member
Joined
Aug 31, 2019
Messages
37
Enneagram
5
(notably Victor Gulenko, Dario Nardi, and the author of the post itself) believe that Socionics and MBTI can be merged with each other, and if you are a certain type in one system (e.g. INTP) then you must be the corresponding type in the other system (INTj)

The problem is, mbti describes the types by letters, so they describe an INTj as an INTJ and not an INTP, they describe it simmilarly and somewhat accurately but they got the functions wrong. So people typed in mbti as INTPs will often think they are introverted thinkers in socionics too, it's not the case.

Robespierre for instance, the poster boy for INTj in socioncis. Ask in mbti forums, they will often type him as INTJ because of the letters and then they will try to justify his functions to fit the letters.
 
Top