Can socionics and MBTI not match

[PocketFullOf]

Is it possible for that to happen or does it mean I'm doing something wrong?

 

[Pionart]

You're doing something wrong. Functions are functions.

 

[PocketFullOf]

You're doing something wrong. Functions are functions.

But socionics is just two functions so theoretically tertiary and inferior can be different than MBTI right? Or is that not true?

Also why do I see INTJs with ILE and LIE socionics?

 

[Evee]

Also why do I see INTJs with ILE and LIE socionics?

Because they're typed wrong.

 

[PocketFullOf]

Okay, sorry this thread can be closed.

 

[senza tema]

But socionics is just two functions so theoretically tertiary and inferior can be different than MBTI right? Or is that not true?

Also why do I see INTJs with ILE and LIE socionics?

Socionics is emphatically not "just two functions." I think, in fact, it has a far more sophisticated lens on the functions than MBTI (well, there are some JCF theorists who have done the same thing...ish, but the information is not uniform or put together in one place) ... anyway, if you want to read more (a lot more!) about it, you can check out Model A.

As for whether or not JCF and socionics functions (more specifically IMs - information elements) are the same, people disagree on that stuff. Some people believe you can be one type in MBTO and another in socionics. Others don't.

I lean more toward the latter category but not entirely sure yet. Some of the functions do seem very differently described to me, even though they both use Jung as the common source.

 

[Jaguar]

Is it possible for that to happen or does it mean I'm doing something wrong?

It happens all the time. You're not doing anything wrong.

 

[Dr Mobius]

The difference lies in incompatible goals. MBTI is psychology/self-help. Socionics is sociology a diagnostic tool based (unusually) on holistic logic. One wants to help break you out of your box, the other needs you to be in one.

 

[Little_Sticks]

Yes, but as Legion said "Functions are functions". They share the same underlying Jungian functions, so when people decide they have different functions in each one, it's theoretically sketch.

 

[Jaguar]

The statement: "Functions are functions" does not hold true if function-attitudes are defined differently using different models.

 

[Little_Sticks]

They might be defined differently, but they are derived directly from Jung. Consider perhaps that MBTI and Socionics are different perspectives on Jung. It doesn't however change the fact that the same Jungian functions underlie both. Therefore, if someone finds they have different functions in each one, there's an implied ignorance of the Jungian theory they are based off of. Functions are functions after-all.

 

[Oaky]

They can, not match. Whoever directly correlates the two has no understanding of the other system if they're accustomed to one. I have been writing this many times before but the majority fail to demagnetise the connections based on the similar labels used.

1. The definitions of the functions in each system differ and do not directly correlate. There are mild similarities.
2. Socionics forms attitude towards each of the 8 functions and MBTI forms a psychological model. They define different aspects of an individual where one is conclusive attitude and one is psychological processes.
3. Some types may correlate more with a certain socionics type then others but it is not directly set.
4. Although both are directly from the workings of Jung they've taken different facets and understandings of his works.

 

[Little_Sticks]

4. Although both are directly from the workings of Jung they've taken different facets and understandings of his works.

That's like saying that if say an ENTP decides Fi is about values and creates ENTPMBTI and says you should have a different type in ENTPMBTI over Jung, that you have two different types; but all the ENTP really did was draw false conclusions about a cognitive function, in this case Fi. The cognitive function is still the same function regardless of what someone wants to falsely conclude about it. It's kind of silly that people think this is helpful to do, obfuscating the unbiased Jungian Psychological Types that explains philosophical orientations we each can have with the world, rather than an interpretation/opinion about them, such as with MBTI and Socionics. This can give the illusion of different functions in each, but it also misses what the functions are and is only superficially helpful in understanding ourselves and elucidating our natures, at best.

 

[Alea_iacta_est]

Solution: MBTI JCF is inferior. Either stick with the Anarchic System or move onto Socionics. Attempting to straddle the lines will only cause more problems than just operating in one strictly.

 

[PocketFullOf]

2. Socionics forms attitude towards each of the 8 functions and MBTI forms a psychological model. They define different aspects of an individual where one is conclusive attitude and one is psychological processes.

This made a lot of sense to me conceptually. Since they are both just guidelines I see how it would be possible to deal with the functions on two different levels, one is what you show the world and how you interact with it, the other is how you are wired. At least that's how I understood it, correct my if I am wrong. It also explains why I would have very different results for each, considering how I come off to others is not reflective of the cognitive functions I use.

 

[Oaky]

That's like saying that if say an ENTP decides Fi is about values and creates ENTPMBTI and says you should have a different type in ENTPMBTI over Jung, that you have two different types; but all the ENTP really did was draw false conclusions about a cognitive function, in this case Fi. The cognitive function is still the same function regardless of what someone wants to falsely conclude about it. It's kind of silly that people think this is helpful to do, obfuscating the unbiased Jungian Psychological Types that explains philosophical orientations we each can have with the world, rather than an interpretation/opinion about them, such as with MBTI and Socionics. This can give the illusion of different functions in each, but it also misses what the functions are and is only superficially helpful in understanding ourselves and elucidating our natures, at best.

MBTI has different interpretations based on different researchers who formulated their particular understandings of the functions. Keirsey didn't even acknowledge the functions. If we were to derive the definitions of the functions based on chapter 10 of the psychological types by Jung, we'd find that MBTI has a closer correlation to each of the functions definitions as it was set more to psychoanalytical perceptions and judgements of people. Socionics use the same labels but have altered the definitions to suit descriptions of our characteristic attitudes in thought, or rather, patterns of thought.

 

[Oaky]

This made a lot of sense to me conceptually. Since they are both just guidelines I see how it would be possible to deal with the functions on two different levels, one is what you show the world and how you interact with it, the other is how you are wired. At least that's how I understood it, correct my if I am wrong. It also explains why I would have very different results for each, considering how I come off to others is not reflective of the cognitive functions I use.

Although this tends to be the general direction of better understanding the two systems, the functions are defined differently. For example. In socionics Fi is defined by the connection one has with another individual, whereas in MBTI, or mainly with Jung, it is defined more as the value constructs one holds as defined by their being.

 

[Alea_iacta_est]

For example. In socionics Fi is defined by the connection one has with another individual, whereas in MBTI, or mainly with Jung, it is defined more as the value constructs one holds as defined by their being.

That's more along the lines of as an information aspect rather than an information element.

As an information element, is the internal judgement of the external environment. Uses of often include assessing Right/Wrong, Good/Evil, Attraction/Repulsion, Kind/Mean, Loyal/Unfaithful. The environment, thus, is mentally organized into these categorical absolutes. These objects over here are "Good", these over here are "Bad". It's adding ethical structure and hierarchy to the environment, much like how the directive is to organize and classify the environment logically.

 

[Oaky]

That's more along the lines of as an information aspect rather than an information element.

As an information element, is the internal judgement of the external environment. Uses of often include assessing Right/Wrong, Good/Evil, Attraction/Repulsion, Kind/Mean, Loyal/Unfaithful. The environment, thus, is mentally organized into these categorical absolutes. These objects over here are "Good", these over here are "Bad". It's adding ethical structure and hierarchy to the environment, much like how the directive is to organize and classify the environment logically.

Here it is. That's just it. it... That's the point in the conveyance of socionics in difference to MBTI as what I've described before. You're just using different terminology. You say element, I say processing, you say aspect, I say attitude, the understanding plays the same but that's the thing about it, socionics as a system is not about the psychological processing, it's about the conclusive attitudes.

 

[Alea_iacta_est]

Here it is. That's just it. it... That's the point in the conveyance of socionics in difference to MBTI as what I've described before. You're just using different terminology. You say element, I say processing, you say aspect, I say attitude, the understanding plays the same but that's the thing about it, socionics as a system is not about the psychological processing, it's about the conclusive attitudes.

I do agree that the terminology is a huge barrier, but an information aspect and information element are entirely different things.

Information aspects are sort of where Cybernetics enters Socionics, where information in the environment separate from the individual is categorized and related to by the masses (or by smaller groups or even by individuals using parameters of experience) as pertaining to a specific element.

For instance, as sports, as interpersonal relationships, as astrology or religion. [information aspects]

The information elements are the actual psychological processes that occur within the individual. So Socionics does include psychological processing, but it's main emphasis is ultimately on inter-type relations and how information aspects stimulate the individual sociotype.

The difference between Socionics and MBTI JCF isn't so much the difference between psychological processing and reactions to stimuli, as both systems cover both to varying degrees. It just so happens that MBTI JCF is emphasizing psychological processing for the most part over reactions to stimuli and that Socionics is emphasizing the reactions to stimuli over the psychological processing (for the time being anyways). Both are still present in both systems.