• 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
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?
 

Bush

cute lil war dog
Joined
Nov 18, 2008
Messages
5,182
Enneagram
3w4
Instinctual Variant
sp/so
They're trying to describe very similar things, but from different and incomplete perspectives. They could very well be pointing at the same things -- the same types -- but have some kinks to get worked out in their explanations. Those kinks cause the differences between their perspectives. We typically frame things in terms of how the models actually are at present, kinks and all, because otherwise it'd be difficult to discuss them (on account of no common ground of what JCFs are about). Until there's a Grand Unified Theory of typology, they're going to be different, and there's little choice but to roll with their differences.

That is, they define things at least somewhat differently now, but they could very well be combined. Combining them can't be forced; it has to wait until there's a better understanding of what they're trying to get at.

Kind of like how the different Abrahamic religions perceive God differently. Basically, there's a truth out there, and there are many different stabs at capturing it.


eta: should say that I don't mean this as "well both are equally true"
 
Last edited:

Larix

New member
Joined
Apr 19, 2017
Messages
21
MBTI Type
INFJ
Enneagram
4w5
Instinctual Variant
so/sx
Hmm. As someone who has done a lot of my own speculative merging of theories, I found that the only way to truly harmonize both systems was to create several different "blends" of functions, because so many people identify with very different types in one system than another, and have very convincing reasons to back up their claims. To me, it's a question of authority. I'd personally rather come up with my own blended, unified theory and see who agrees/disagrees and why than wait for the experts to come together and figure it out. Because even if they do, people will still disagree with them, and they'll still have to give the same old "no typology is perfect" caveat.

Many will disagree with me, but I can perceive of any typology blend potentially working if you make some tweaks. I can imagine any MBTI type identifying with any of the 4 quadras, especially when there's so much variation in the interpretations of each subtype. An MBTI ISFJ could totally relate more to an EII than an ESI or an SEI, because they resonate more with Delta values than Alpha, Gamma or Beta.

The main reconciler for me is honestly the Enneagram. An INFJ 854 sp/sx who identifies with ILI seems potentially more probable than an INFJ 947, who might identify more with Alpha, Delta or Beta type descriptions. In my own case, I relate to almost everything about IEI's in some descriptions, but when it gets into the function order in Model A, the way each element is described is very loose and vague imo, and allows for a lot of room for multiple interpretations of a single type.

It all comes down to the quality of the descriptions. Very few people put in the energy to do detailed descriptions of each function and its use, and getting at this information takes quite a bit of digging. If there is to be a synthesis of theories, the experts are going to have to do the work of refining and clarifying the details, and dig into the contrary interpretations of how each function operates in the order they appear in a given type. Their authoritative stance will at least provide an "official" definition that people can measure their own theories and speculations against. But I don't know if the experts are really interested in having that authority.
 
Last edited:

kotoshinohaisha

Permabanned
Joined
Jul 9, 2016
Messages
1,083
MBTI Type
STFU
Enneagram
7w8
Instinctual Variant
so
But i can relate more i mean, get more information in socionics rather than mbti.
 

Kanra Jest

Av'ent'Gar'de ~
Joined
Jun 30, 2015
Messages
2,388
MBTI Type
ENTP
Enneagram
4w3
Instinctual Variant
sx/so
Hmm. As someone who has done a lot of my own speculative merging of theories, I found that the only way to truly harmonize both systems was to create several different "blends" of functions, because so many people identify with very different types in one system than another, and have very convincing reasons to back up their claims. To me, it's a question of authority. I'd personally rather come up with my own blended, unified theory and see who agrees/disagrees and why than wait for the experts to come together and figure it out. Because even if they do, people will still disagree with them, and they'll still have to give the same old "no typology is perfect" caveat.

Many will disagree with me, but I can perceive of any typology blend potentially working if you make some tweaks. I can imagine any MBTI type identifying with any of the 4 quadras, especially when there's so much variation in the interpretations of each subtype. An MBTI ISFJ could totally relate more to an EII than an ESI or an SEI, because they resonate more with Delta values than Alpha, Gamma or Beta.

The main reconciler for me is honestly the Enneagram. An INFJ 854 sp/sx who identifies with ILI seems potentially more probable than an INFJ 947, who might identify more with Alpha, Delta or Beta type descriptions. In my own case, I relate to almost everything about IEI's in some descriptions, but when it gets into the function order in Model A, the way each element is described is very loose and vague imo, and allows for a lot of room for multiple interpretations of a single type.

It all comes down to the quality of the descriptions. Very few people put in the energy to do detailed descriptions of each function and its use, and getting at this information takes quite a bit of digging. If there is to be a synthesis of theories, the experts are going to have to do the work of refining and clarifying the details, and dig into the contrary interpretations of how each function operates in the order they appear in a given type. Their authoritative stance will at least provide an "official" definition that people can measure their own theories and speculations against. But I don't know if the experts are really interested in having that authority.

INTP with developed E with J tendencies here, it seems. I'd love some sort of blend... for now mbti is still a bit too strict. Even socionics since it's directly tied, in theory, to mbti often. I've noticed some others obviously having the same issues, too.

I've kind of thought of designing some kind of personality system as well... granted I doubt I will... Just more like an idea branching off of mbti to improve it. Maybe a form of subtypes. Idk. I just wish they had a system more flexible.
 

Doctor Cringelord

Well-known member
Joined
Aug 27, 2013
Messages
20,567
MBTI Type
I
Enneagram
9w8
Instinctual Variant
sp/sx
I'm tired of these people who say these systems can't be reconciled and correlated. They just haven't given any effort into doing so. I think it's a case of things getting lost in translation between the different systems, but there's more commonality and correlation than there is a lack thereof, if you're willing to do the legwork.

Check out this channel: Ben Vaserlan
- YouTube


He does live chats with Professor Gulenko, Gulenko's disciples, the spawn of Keirsey, Lord Nardi, et al and attempts to synthesize the Jungian-derived systems and Temperament theory.

He is, if I remember correctly, typed an INTP and LII-Ne, so the way he generates his framework of a greater understanding of all of these systems is from a distinctly TiNe perspective. These video chats can get lengthy but it's fun to see the interaction between different types and to see Nardi and Gulenko talking to one another (via a translator). The Keirsey chats are interesting, even though he shits on the idea of the functions.
 

Zeego

Mind Wanderer
Joined
Apr 15, 2016
Messages
390
MBTI Type
INTP
Enneagram
5w4
Instinctual Variant
sp/sx
The main reconciler for me is honestly the Enneagram. An INFJ 854 sp/sx who identifies with ILI seems potentially more probable than an INFJ 947, who might identify more with Alpha, Delta or Beta type descriptions.

Which Enneagram types would you say you associate with which quadras?
 

Merced

Talk to me.
Joined
May 14, 2016
Messages
3,599
MBTI Type
ESTJ
Enneagram
28?
Instinctual Variant
so/sp
Socionics and MBTI define functions differently. They are not compatible.
 

hjgbujhghg

I am
Joined
Jun 6, 2013
Messages
3,333
MBTI Type
INFP
Enneagram
4w3
Instinctual Variant
sx/so
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.
 

Larix

New member
Joined
Apr 19, 2017
Messages
21
MBTI Type
INFJ
Enneagram
4w5
Instinctual Variant
so/sx
Which Enneagram types would you say you associate with which quadras?

Let's say, to expand on my previous example, an INFJ identifies 8 and 5 as their most predominant types. There may be something satisfying to them in the LII descriptions, for example, because the descriptions address the use of Ni and Fe/Fi in a particular way that MBTI doesn't address, that describes their lack of image-consciousness in favor of hard analysis and challenging dissection of ideas. The ILI is more tough-minded than the IEI and the EII. All 3 types- the IEI, EII and ILI are all imaginative, courteous, sensitive/emotional and thoughtful like INFJs. But the INFJ 85x might find it hard to reconcile this critical nature with the charming approach of IEI or the more restrained, 1-ish character of EII.

It's less that I have any specific correlations in mind, and more that I see how a specific MBTI+Enneagram combo might lead one to resonate with an unexpected socionics type more than a stereotypical one, especially if the MBTI+Enneagram combo is non-stereotypical or counter-intuitive.

There is always a choice between saying "the description says X, so if you don't resonate with X, you misunderstand how well the description actually applies to you," or "Ok, well, if that's the case, what would someone of those type combinations look like, and why does that make sense/ not make sense?" The latter response still validates the systems, but doesn't attempt to apply them too rigidly at the risk of curbing someone's ability to honestly explore their particular motivations and traits. After all, the system should serve the individual, and not the other way around.

This doesn't even take into account any instinctual variants, either, which would profoundly effect how different MBTI and Socionics descriptions resonate with people.

If you account for all of the possible Tritype combinations, with wings and instinctual variants, and multiply those by every combination between MBTI types and Socionics subtypes, that produces over 5 million personality variations that people could potentially resonate with, which is a mind-boggling number to produce accurate descriptions for. But as a universal system, it works better as a descriptive language than a categorical system.

For example, if someone said they identified as something extremely odd like an ESFP EII-Ne 5w4, 2w1, 8w7 sp/so; one still has enough information to discuss either why this combination may not be likely, or, if for some strange reason upon meeting the person this combination made sense somehow, you'd have enough descriptive information to understand why. An ESFP/EII combo is very hard for me to imagine, but I don't necessarily want to rule it out as impossible. How can anyone really know for sure?

I am a bit skeptical that there actual objective correlations, because who gets to decide how different is too different when it comes to similar types? But for the sake of argument, can an MBTI NF type only be a feeling Beta or Delta? And if others are possible, is it only if the information elements appear in certain blocks?
 

biohazard

Permabanned
Joined
May 29, 2017
Messages
457
Enneagram
8w9
Instinctual Variant
sp/sx
I'm more shocked that combining them is still acceptable, especially when there is a J/P switch. I think it's best to use the systems separately, as they are intended to be. Also, it's best to learn Jung's Psychological Types so one can get a grasp on the basis of the theory and how Jung first perceived each type.
 

Zeego

Mind Wanderer
Joined
Apr 15, 2016
Messages
390
MBTI Type
INTP
Enneagram
5w4
Instinctual Variant
sp/sx
Also, it's best to learn Jung's Psychological Types so one can get a grasp on the basis of the theory and how Jung first perceived each type.

Yeah, when I read Chapter 10 for the first time I was taken off guard by just how different Jung's original functions were from both MBTI and Socionics, especially the Sensing functions.
 

biohazard

Permabanned
Joined
May 29, 2017
Messages
457
Enneagram
8w9
Instinctual Variant
sp/sx
Yeah, when I read Chapter 10 for the first time I was taken off guard by just how different Jung's original functions were from both MBTI and Socionics, especially the Sensing functions.

Yup! Nailed it!

I notice that MBTI oversimplifies the definitions of them the most. But Jung treats them as one sole type. Whereas Socionics tries to create relationships and processes between them. I won't even start on the inconsistencies of the logic either. That's a whole 'nother complaint for me. 🤣
 

erg

New member
Joined
Oct 7, 2016
Messages
291
MBTI Type
None
Enneagram
4w3
Instinctual Variant
sx/sp
Not sure this can be done. Looking at both theories objetively and based on results, socionics would get the upper hand,. I started off with MBTI (this Lithuanian friend taught me the basics) and I used it for a long time. I could not pin myself to one single type using MBTI, but thanks to the functions I knew before I got into socionics what my preferences were (and I noticed something was wrong, because being Te Ni Se Fi, I could not relate to the ENTJ descriptions, nor did I score ENTJ in tests). The way I am hard-wired (as a LIE-Ni), I can't go around using two seperate theories for the same underlying phenomena, and I tested socionics to be the most accurate one, so I scrapped MBTI. MBTI is like playing pong, while socionics is like using a Playstation 4.
 

Zeego

Mind Wanderer
Joined
Apr 15, 2016
Messages
390
MBTI Type
INTP
Enneagram
5w4
Instinctual Variant
sp/sx
and I noticed something was wrong, because being Te Ni Se Fi, I could not relate to the ENTJ descriptions, nor did I score ENTJ in tests

Just out of curiosity, what do you usually score in MBTI tests?
 
Joined
May 28, 2017
Messages
33
Enneagram
5
I think there is no possible way to compare the two systems. By far, I prefer Socionics. It's just a step forward. Socionics is more detailed, every type has a clear relationship with the 8 functions so it's also easier to get you typed. The most shocking difference is in the Se function, which in MBTI is defined like "living in the present, action" while in Socionics it's "force and power". Two completely different things. Due to this, I'm no longer trying to guess a Socionics type from the MBTI type.
 

Zeego

Mind Wanderer
Joined
Apr 15, 2016
Messages
390
MBTI Type
INTP
Enneagram
5w4
Instinctual Variant
sp/sx
The most shocking difference is in the Se function, which in MBTI is defined like "living in the present, action" while in Socionics it's "force and power". Two completely different things.

Si is also very different between the systems, in part because MBTI has infused its version of Si with J traits by default (hence "SJ").
 

Straylight

New member
Joined
May 21, 2017
Messages
46
MBTI Type
INTP
Enneagram
5w4
Instinctual Variant
sp/so
They're trying to describe very similar things, but from different and incomplete perspectives. They could very well be pointing at the same things -- the same types -- but have some kinks to get worked out in their explanations. Those kinks cause the differences between their perspectives. We typically frame things in terms of how the models actually are at present, kinks and all, because otherwise it'd be difficult to discuss them (on account of no common ground of what JCFs are about). Until there's a Grand Unified Theory of typology, they're going to be different, and there's little choice but to roll with their differences.

That is, they define things at least somewhat differently now, but they could very well be combined. Combining them can't be forced; it has to wait until there's a better understanding of what they're trying to get at.

Kind of like how the different Abrahamic religions perceive God differently. Basically, there's a truth out there, and there are many different stabs at capturing it.


eta: should say that I don't mean this as "well both are equally true"

I agree completely with this response.

I wish to add as well that at present I think there is too much subjectivity (yes, even for a soft-science) in both models, especially with Socionics. The dichotomies of MBTI are corroborated by research into the Big 5 to an extent, so there is a good deal of evidence to support the theory, and by extension this research can corroborate some of the descriptions and predictions of the so-called "Jungian foundation" tier 1 dichotomies in Socionics. However, since both models attempt to incorporate a theory of cognitive "functions" into their respective frameworks which has yet to be reconciled with discrepancies noted by many researchers and data sets that seem to run contrary to the predictions of function-based models, merging the two systems would be extremely problematic.

It would be less problematic if Socionics were not so heavily invested into the concept of functions and were simplified to a dichotomy-based approach. However, socionics also has a different definition of each cognitive function compared to the definitions given for each function by MBTI. Some of these definitions are more in-line with and supportive of the evidence for certain basic dichotomies (I/E, T/F, S/N in particular). However, neither model clearly defines cognitive functions in a way that is categorically complicit with the evidence for dichotomies. Until this happens, I doubt either model will ever be compatible, or even very accurate.
 

sulfit

New member
Joined
Aug 5, 2010
Messages
495
MBTI Type
INTP
Enneagram
6w5
Instinctual Variant
sp/so
how do you reconcile the fundamental differences in how the types and functions are defined between the systems?
Some parts of functional descriptions are different, but then if you read descriptions of functions from MBTI authors and researchers, they also vary. Does this mean we need to invent an additional typological system for each person who comes up with yet another set of descriptions? That sounds like an absurd proposition.

Furthermore, if you look at the very foundation of functions, which according to Jung is Perception vs. Judgement, at this level the functions are not defined any differently between the two systems:

Sensing and Intuition are both considered to be Perception.
Thinking and Feeling are both considered to be Judgement.

This foundation is same for both typologies. From this point the burden of justification lies one anyone who types as dominant in Judging in one system and Perception in another. 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.
 
Top