Socionics and MBTI

[Sunny Ghost]

What's the difference??

 

[sleuthiness]

Not much. They do, however, compliment each other pretty conveniently.

 

[Zarathustra]

If you look at the bottom of this page under "Similar Threads", you'll see a lot of threads on this topic. I'd recommend reading those.

But the first thing you should know is that Socionics calls you a J if your dominant function is a Judging function (T or F) and P if your dominant function is a Perceiving function (N or S).

This is in contrast with MBTI, which calls you a J if your first Judging function (whether in the dominant or auxiliary) is extroverted and P if your first Judging function is introverted.

Therefore, if you look at just that notational differences, they types should line up something like this:

MBTI - Socionics
ENTJ - ENTj
INTJ - INTp
ENTP - ENTp
INTP - INTj

ENFJ - ENFj
INFJ - INFp
ENFP - ENFp
INFP - INFj

ESTJ - ESTj
ISTJ - ISTp
ESFJ - ESFj]
ISFJ - ISFp

ESTP - ESTp
ISTP - ISTj
ESFP - ESFp
ISFP - ISFj

There are some differences other than this as well, particularly in how they break up the functions, but I'm not learned enough in Socionics to give you too accurate an account of these.

 

[KDude]

There are some differences other than this as well, particularly in how they break up the functions, but I'm not learned enough in Socionics to give you too accurate an account of these.

I've tried to read up as much as I can, and at the end of the day, the J/P switch works in my case. I used to question resolving the issue like that (it seemed too simple), but in many cases, it is that simple. Fi and Ti dom types such as INFj and INTj are a lot more like INFP and INTP than not. People should still read up and double check the socionics description though. edit: Oh, but it does go without mentioning that there are different subtypes to confuse matters. Some socionics theories subscribe to it, some don't.

 

[Sunny Ghost]

If you look at the bottom of this page under "Similar Threads", you'll see a lot of threads on this topic. I'd recommend reading those.

But the first thing you should know is that Socionics calls you a J if your dominant function is a Judging function (T or F) and P if your dominant function is a Perceiving function (N or S).

This is in contrast with MBTI, which calls you a J if your first Judging function (whether in the dominant or auxiliary) is extroverted and P if your first Judging function is introverted.

Therefore, if you look at just that notational differences, they types should line up something like this:

MBTI - Socionics
ENTJ - ENTj
INTJ - INTp
ENTP - ENTp
INTP - INTj

ENFJ - ENFj
INFJ - INFp
ENFP - ENFp
INFP - INFj

ESTJ - ESTj
ISTJ - ISTp
ESFJ - ESFj]
ISFJ - ISFp

ESTP - ESTp
ISTP - ISTj
ESFP - ESFp
ISFP - ISFj

There are some differences other than this as well, particularly in how they break up the functions, but I'm not learned enough in Socionics to give you too accurate an account of these.

that doesn't make much sense in my wee wittle head.

i was just pondering left brained and right brained functions... and it just doesn't fit in with that model.

but i will look into those threads!

 

[Zarathustra]

that doesn't make much sense in my wee wittle head.

Just realize this:

MBTI calls you a J if, in your first two functions, your Judging function is extroverted (Te or Fe).

Therefore, the following types are called Js under MBTI's labeling system:

ENTJ: TeNi
INTJ: NiTe
ENFJ: FeNi
INFJ: NiFe
ESTJ: TeSi
ISTJ: SiTe
ESFJ: FeSi
ISFJ: SiFe

Notice how all eight J-types under MBTI's notation system have extroverted judging functions (Te or Fe) in their first two functions?

Now here are all the P-types under MBTI's notation system:

ENTP: NeTi
INTP: TiNe
ENFP: NeFi
INFP: FiNe
ESTP: SeTi
ISTP: TiSe
ESFP: SeFi
ISFP: FiSe

Notice how all the P-types under MBTI's notation system have extroverted perceiving functions (Ne or Se) in their first two functions, which, in turn, means they have introverted Judging functions (Ti or Fi) in their first two functions?

When they first put together the MBTI's labeling system, they had to decide on what rules they were going to use to determine the 4th letter, and the rules they decided on were:

1) that if you used an extroverted Judging function in your first two functions, then you were going to be called a Judger.

2) that if you used an extroverted Perceiving function in your first two functions, then you were going to be called a Perceiver.

Hence, the current 4-lettered MBTI system, and the way it works.

Let me know once you understand this, and then I'll explain how Socionics differs (i.e., how they decided to use different rules for determining the 4th letter).

i was just pondering left brained and right brained functions... and it just doesn't fit in with that model.

Umm, whose theory of left-brained and right-brained functions were you using?

Lenore Thomson's theory says it's one way, but other peoples' (Dario Nardi, MindFrames, et al) theories say differently.

I believe in the other peoples' theories...

but i will look into those threads!

Just an fyi: I've never read any of those threads, so I don't know whether they're any good.

I do, however, know that I can explain the primary difference to you.

 

[Such Irony]

Socionics describes the dichotomies and the functions somewhat differently than MBTI. Therefore there is not necessarily a 1:1 correspondence between MBTI and socionic type. The J/P switiching that Zarathustra mentioned works some but not all of the time. With MBTI INTPs, I've noticed that about half of them identify best with socionics INTp and the other half identify best with socionics INTj. A small fraction identify best with another socionics type, usually ENTp.

I recommend this site as an introduction to socionics, particularly the section on Model A.

http://www.wikisocion.org/en/index.php?title=Wikisocion_home

 

[Zarathustra]

Socionics describes the dichotomies and the functions somewhat differently than MBTI. Therefore there is not necessarily a 1:1 correspondence between MBTI and socionic type.

This is true, insofar as I know, in that Model A is different than the MBTI model.

The J/P switiching that Zarathustra mentioned works some but not all of the time. With MBTI INTPs, I've noticed that about half of them identify best with socionics INTp and the other half identify best with socionics INTj. A small fraction identify best with another socionics type, usually ENTp.

However, I think that the reason you find about half of MBTI INTPs (mis)identifying with Socionics INTp is that half of them don't know about/understand the difference in notation/labeling between MBTI and Socionics.

Socionics INTp (i.e., MBTI INTJ) is still an Ni-dom and Te-aux.

And the description of those functions in Socionics is not so different that INTPs would magically jump over to them instead of preferring Ti and Ne.

The reason that some MBTI INTPs might identify as Socionics ENTps is simple: they're close on the introvert-extrovert divide (I myself am an xNTJ -- about 50/50 introversion/extroversion, but I'm an Ni-dom).

I recommend this site as an introduction to socionics, particularly the section on Model A.

http://www.wikisocion.org/en/index.php?title=Wikisocion_home

 

[OrangeAppled]

Socionics describes the dichotomies and the functions somewhat differently than MBTI.

This is what I've noticed as well, and why the J/P switch does not work for me.

I personally find Socionic's way of defining Fi markedly different from Jung, and I identify waaaay more with Jungian Fi, and very little with Socionics Fi. Interestingly, I do relate to how Fi is described in the ILI (INTp) type, and I identify with that type in some descriptions also, but that would make me NiTe . IEI (INFp or NiFe) is also a decent match, but I still get hung up on the Fe aspect. In any case, none of the types suit me as well as INFP in MBTI, and especially not as well as the Fi type of Jungian theory.

Another thing I noted is that not only does Socionics label all dominant judging types Js (even if they use Pe), it associates "J behavior" with them, the way MBTI associates it with Je types (even if they are Pi-dom). This is also why INFj (EII or FiNe) does not suit me; I have "P" behavior and demeanor. It makes more sense to me that the extroverted function is what influences this aspect; and Ji functions create very different "structure" from Je anyway (so to speak).

 

[sleuthiness]

They describe all 4 sides of the same building, but with 2 half a story shorter, windows misaligned.

 

[Amethyst]

Socionics describes the dichotomies and the functions somewhat differently than MBTI. Therefore there is not necessarily a 1:1 correspondence between MBTI and socionic type. The J/P switiching that Zarathustra mentioned works some but not all of the time. With MBTI INTPs, I've noticed that about half of them identify best with socionics INTp and the other half identify best with socionics INTj. A small fraction identify best with another socionics type, usually ENTp.

I recommend this site as an introduction to socionics, particularly the section on Model A.

http://www.wikisocion.org/en/index.php?title=Wikisocion_home

The different definitions for the functions in socionics make a lot more sense in being able to separate one from the other than MBTI does, imo.

 

[FDG]

Socionics is right and works, MBTI is wrong (functionally, I mean) and doesn't even predict relationships

 

[Sunny Ghost]

Socionics is right and works, MBTI is wrong (functionally, I mean) and doesn't even predict relationships

i disagree. i think the function theory is pretty damn accurate. as i continue to learn more and more and place these maps onto people i know, i find they fit very well. myself included.

also:
http://www.typelogic.com/pairs.html

on the same site, as you visit each type's page, at the bottom you can see which are paired in what ways.

 

[Andy]

The two theories are really very different from each other. Socionics has both benefited and suffered from the Russians willingness to delve into subjects that most of the rest of europe would write of as twoddle. There are a lot of people over there who still put a lot of faith in astrology and card readers.

When Jungs ideas about the functions caer out, they were largely ignored in the rest of the world, but the Russians snatched them up and they started to develop behind the Iron Curtain. Jungs thoughts got mixed to together with ideas about information processing and superstitious beliefs like palmistry. You can see that in "visual identification", the belief that you can type people by the way they walk, you the shape of their foreheads and other such things. It a well developed theory, but it's foundations are a bit shaky.

I've said it in the past that it reminds me of the geocentric modal of the universe, when people though the sun and the planets revolved around the Earth. Astronomers had been tweaking the theory for a long time, and they could get quite accurate predictions out of it, despite the huge error right at the centre of the idea. When the heliocentric modal was first proposed, it's numerical predictions weren't as good, despite being closer to reality. It was only when they realised the orbits were supposed to be elipsical, rather than circles, that it became superior.

MBTI isn't a great deal better, as far as I am concerned. Myers wanted to create a theory that could be used to bring people together. Hence MBTI insists on describing everyone in the best light. Here is the problem - the theory only descibes psychologically well adjusted people, but such people don't need the help of psychologist to live their lives. Hence the theory only applies to people who have no use for it. That's aside from he issue of whether or not you think it even works for them.

The bigger issue is that people know that not everyone is wonderful and once they've read MBTI theory and half understood, they go of and try to fill in the gaps to explain all the fucked up assholes in the world. Usually by accusing them of being SJs or ESFPs, because everyone knows those types are inferior.Hence the net is full of MBTI-esque crap that mostly seems to exist to reafirm pre-existing prejudices or give the user a sense of superiority.

TH
hat said, I agree with Indy, Function Theory is pretty good. I just want to divorce it from socionics and MBTI! And let people know that the orbits are elipses, not circles.

 

[Zarathustra]

That said, I agree with Indy, Function Theory is pretty good. I just want to divorce it from socionics and MBTI!

But MBTI is function theory; it's just one specific version of function theory...

 

[Andy]

But MBTI is function theory; it's just one specific version of function theory...

Yes, just like your middle aged, overweight, sweaty, balding Uncle who looks at teenage girls the wrong way is part of the family, but you'd rather they weren't.

 

[Thalassa]

Yes, just like your middle aged, overweight, sweaty, balding Uncle who looks at teenage girls the wrong way is part of the family, but you'd rather they weren't.

You know, I actually have a handsome uncle who is very sweet, but one day we were in a Mexican restaurant and he was feeding me a bite of his food, and directly afterward he asked me if I had any cute friends. My mother also informed me that he was leering at girls inappropriately young for him following seperation from his wife.

In this case, I'm freaked out by the behavior, but still love my uncle and want him to be part of the family. It's more like I would deny that we were related if he did shit like that in public.

 

[Sunny Ghost]

alright... so i've decided i'm an SEI in socionics... which is still an ISFp... and i'm an ISFP in mbti.

however, i noticed this:

in mbti, i'm Fi/Se...

in socionics, i'm Introverted Sensing/Extroverted Ethics.

this means, the definitions of the functions ARE different. but they both still describe me well... just using different definitions and terms.

so, socionics Se isn't the same as mbti Se. and so forth.

 

[the state i am in]

depends who you ask. to me they are the same functions. i actually prefer the socionics function descriptions to those found in typology associated with mbti. the very basic truth is that our descriptions are language, we all interpret that language differently, and it is very very very very difficult to bring to light the invisible, imperceptible processes of consciousness.

with that said, they have both contributed to how i internally define the functions, and i see no obstacles that says they must be separated. therefore, the j/p switch for introverts makes perfect sense, and everything seems to flow smoothly in the transition back and forth.

 

[KDude]

alright... so i've decided i'm an SEI in socionics... which is still an ISFp... and i'm an ISFP in mbti.

however, i noticed this:

in mbti, i'm Fi/Se...

in socionics, i'm Introverted Sensing/Extroverted Ethics.

this means, the definitions of the functions ARE different. but they both still describe me well... just using different definitions and terms.

so, socionics Se isn't the same as mbti Se. and so forth.

The definitions are close in some cases, like Ne, and different in others, like Si. This is simplifying it, but Socionics Si is more about being guided by your own physical comfort factor. While Se is about making impact on your environment, pushing situations, all for the objective of attaining something outside in the environment. Rather than appreciating "sensing" in the sense of what feels good, Se types feel good through acquisition and influence.

Fi is about having a static, individualized personal attitude/ethical stance on things and people around you. Fe is about lifting the mood of those around you. Those ISFps who care to lift environmental mood and present a more inclusive, easy going disposition to others would be ISFp. Not all MBTI ISFPs are like that though. Those who have a more individualistic position of ethics that favors and excludes others, regardless of what the group wants them to do, would probably be ISFj (or maybe some other Fi type).