2 years is a long time for knowing nothing about socionics, good job. If you studied socionics well enough you would see that the definitions of the functions are different therefore they don't relate to MBTI at all.
No, they aren't. Have you actually read the descriptions? Or are you just parroting a few uninformed posters post on here?
Take a look:
MBTI Fi:
Introverted Feeling is being aware of and cherishing one’s own mental framework of values, beliefs and sense of self. It is being open to emotions and inner sensations. It is also being sensitive to others in an empathetic way. It is knowing what is right and wrong according to one’s personal moral and spiritual compass. It is being authentic. As a gatekeeper of the mind; it admits what is consistent with one’s value and belief framework and rejects what is repulsive or draining. Introverted Feeling seeks harmony with others and harmony within. Introverted Feeling (Fi) is dominant in ISFP & INFP and supportive in ESFP & ENFP personality types.
Socionics Fi:
"Fi - introverted feeling, perceives subjective relationships between objects: feelings of attraction and repulsion, like and dislike, need and antipathy; morals" ... "Such an individual perceives information about this facet of objective reality the individual perceives as a need for certain objects that satisfy physical wishes/desires, psychological or spiritual desires, and a need for other people — in other words, a person's wishes/desires and interests that are directed toward animate and inanimate objects. This includes feelings of like and dislike, love and hatred, the desire to obtain some thing/object, etc., and greed or the absense of greed. The higher feelings of this kind can be called ethical, because relationships between people's needs are mainly regulated by ethical normals."
Both definitions are aiming to describe at exactly the same phenomenon, the function of introverted feeling, but simply using different words to get the meaning across. It is also the very same function that Carl Jung has tried to describe in his book Psychological Types on which both MBTI and Socionics are based. Those who fail to see beyond mere words into the very root of subject matter also fail to see that these descriptions are phenomenologically same.
... the definitions of the functions are different between the two models. Aka both systems (MBTI and socioncs) have the same idea about the type but both have a different conception of how the functions work.
No. It sounds like you're getting stuck in semantics of descriptions and do not comprehend that these phenomena that MBTI and Socionics (and Jung before them) attempt to describe are in reality the very same cognitive functions.
Another thing you fail to understand is that socionics has no primary or secondary function they name their functions according to freud's theory of the psyche. "ego" "strong" "super ego" etc.
And once again you're getting lost in semantics. Exactly same concepts exist in socionics, just under different names. In Socionics leading function is called base, auxiliary is called creative. It does not matter what they are named as they operate in the same way.
This is a different system altogether, the two are incomparable since MBTi always states that the primary and secondary functions are the two "dominant" socionics doesn't follow that same rule.
Wow, you are so mis-informed it is amazing. Socionics types have leading and creative functions in ego block i.e. are the two "dominant" functions of the type. Same as MBTI as you can see.
It's completely absurd to use the "intertpye relations" model that socionics came up for with Mbti (which you seem to do in your own imaginary world) because of these big differences. I could go into more detail but it's dumb to argue with somebody with such little knowledge and understanding of both models no point in wasting my time so I will leave it at that.
Nope. Same intertype relations that Socionics predicts also unfold in MBTI. There are some very bright posters on this and other MBTI forums who have noted that types get attracted to types who have their tertiary function as dominant or auxiliary. Well that's exactly the same thing that Socionics describes by way of Hidden Agenda.
Anyways I am not going to continue with this discussion as it sounds like you have little conceptual understanding of these models that you're attempting to discuss here and are would rather debate mere semantics and wordings, which I frankly find boring and pointless.