Can socionics and MBTI not match

[Oaky]

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.

Inclusions, yes. Focuses altered and this is in the majority definitions of the functions in the MBTI and Socionics differences. You're right. Though is emphasis based on direction?
Information Aspects -> Information Elements?
Information Elements -> Information Aspects?

 

[Little_Sticks]

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.

You missed my point that both are derived from Jung. They miss the big picture by obfuscating Jung's functions and making them unclear, superficial, and contradictory. Having two different types that are derived from the same original functions is nonsensical and superficial. Jung's functions don't ontologically justify their difference because that difference was derived from the same source - Jung's psychological types.

 

[Alea_iacta_est]

I'm amused that the debate here illustrates the Decisive vs Judicious dichotomy.

[MENTION=7785]Little_Sticks[/MENTION] represents the Decisive side by arguing for , that no matter what the frameworks and models say they are both describing the one unified, concrete process that is happening in reality.

[MENTION=6071]Oaky[/MENTION] represents the Judicious side by arguing for , that the frameworks and models are in discord with each other based on what they essentially say, and that the process happening in reality is up for interpretation and dependent on the viewpoint.

 

[Pionart]

I would say that the models are an approximation of reality. They capture certain aspects of what you can see, and package it into a certain form. And two approximations can be different. And the "reality" of the situation transcends both.

I think the two approximations, MBTI and Socionics, are continuations of each other. For example, I see Si in myself in both systems even though Si is described very differently. They're both just "Si" to me, looking from different viewpoints - magnifying over different areas of the landscape which is Si.

The reality could be... there is a system which applies to the human psyche which happens to draw it into 16 types. Or it could be... there are multiple systems working in parallel in the human psyche that draw it up into 16 types, depending on which of these systems you are referencing. Or it could be... there is no such system operating that Jung and others have described. What we are seeing is not real.

 

[OrangeAppled]

The Socionics definition for functions are not true to Jung, IMO. It takes the same names and some concepts, but it's really describing something different. IMO, MBTI theories stay close to Jung.

The FiNe (INFj) type in socionics reads as an ISFJ e9 to me, maybe some INFP e9s. The NiFe (INFp) type just sounds like an e4. So naturally, I find the NiFe (INFp) description more relatable. None of the socionics functions really fit me well. I don't see Jungian Fi represented anywhere.

 

[Kierva]

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

Socionics has 8 functions. These functions generally overlap with MBTI functions, with the exception of Se and Si being totally different in each system.

 

[Kierva]

Also, [MENTION=23063]PocketFullOf[/MENTION], the model follows a strict framework -- Model A.

So let's take EIE/ENFj for example. Bold denotes valued functions, unbolded denotes unvalued functions.

Fe Ni
Te Si
Ti Se
Fi Ne

Do you see the parallels?

It may not be the correct way to represent socionics functions, but this is for the sake of simplification. The icons have a high learning curve.

 

[Mane]

IMO, MBTI theories stay close to Jung.

I am not convinced that is true. Take the example of Si, that sticks out to me like sore thumb:
I've noticed many attribute strong reliance on long term memory to Si: Finding and applying past precedents, seeking the familiar in the form of conservative and traditional values, even Dario Nardi defined Si dom minds as those governed by repetitive rewiring or "practice makes perfect" - in fact Si is the only perception function that Nardi doesn't relate to a specific mental state (Unlike Ni's "Whole brain zen state", Ne's "Christmas tree" or Se's "Tennis hop").
This would make sense if MBTI was the application of function analysis to David keirsey's work an how he defined SJs. Except that it's supposed to be an expansion of Jung's work, an the one place where I can't find the origin for this definition at all is the work of Jung. What does any of that have to do with the extreme personalization of information and subjective view he attributed to Si doms? Where in his texts is there any clear indication that those are tied to the reliance on long term memory or conservative tendencies?

All of MBTIs perception functions seem to deviate from Jung's description. That is not to say that Jung was right and MBTI was wrong, but simply to say that there are many areas where it doesn't at all seem like they are talking about the same cognitive processes or even describing the same type of person. It might be best to not judge socionics and MBTI by how closely the profile's resemble Jung's, but by how closely they resemble people.

 

[Bush]

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

Please keep making sense and saying everything that I came in to say. Too much effort for me to type it all out myself.

with the exception of Se and Si being totally different in each system.

Oh, and this, too. There would have to be a lot of mental gymnastics involved in trying to equate Se to and Si to .

 

[Pionart]

I think the easiest way to show how the two versions of Si refer to the same thing would be to start with a more basic description and then extend it in alternate directions and show how the properties given all somewhat stem from the same phenomenon. Si is how stimuli evoke an inner sensation in the individual.

Though, I'm not saying either description is really accurate, and you may find through such a comparison that various things said about Si simply don't follow.

 

[Mane]

Si is how stimuli evoke an inner sensation in the individual.

Right, so you could interpret that as "cherishing moments" and so everything is compared to cherished moments. But you could just as easily interpret it as a focus on the pleasures and sensations or pains of the sensory information, which would make Si doms the more likely to be hedonistic or pursue the adrenaline rush activities that many interpretations of MBTI associate with Se. Nothing I found in Jung's collection of works supports the first interpretation that MBTI seems to go by.

 

[Pionart]

Right, so you could interpret that as "cherishing moments" and so everything is compared to cherished moments. But you could just as easily interpret it as a focus on the pleasures and sensations or pains of the sensory information, which would make Si doms the more likely to be hedonistic or pursue the adrenaline rush activities that many interpretations of MBTI associate with Se. Nothing I found in Jung's collection of works supports the first interpretation that MBTI seems to go by.

Hmm... to me it's like an "aesthetic", in the sense of being like the tone of something. This aesthetic is innate, and many things will evoke the same aesthetic complex, and thus have an air of similarity. And maybe there is something in the environment stopping the aesthetic from feeling complete, so then that thing will seem out of place.

Tbh, I am quite hedonistic. Though many people of all different types are. I enjoy an adrenaline rush, but I tend towards playing it safe (and if the adrenaline rush is through, say, extreme sports, this is not something I engage in because I am relatively unco-ordinated, and I don't have the best reactions). And for Si, what will make an impression can be highly unpredictable. Something that objectively seems pleasurable or painful or intense, may not have too much of an effect on the Si user, whereas something that seems quite plain may evoke quite intense sensations. I do think Si seeks out intense experiences. One example that comes to mind for me personally, is that while camping we were sitting around a fire. Then, someone came with a large pile of sticks and leaves and put it into the fire, causing the fire to become far more intense. Whilst everyone else had to back away from the fire because it was too hot, I, alone, simply sat there and enjoyed it, my eyes glowing like an imp

Also, one idea I've come across, is that extroverted functions tend to seek out pleasurable states, whereas introverted functions tend to try and avoid painful states. So it would make sense that Si tends to play it safe and not do a lot, while casually observing to learn what not to do, and to remove unpleasantries from the environment. This isn't really hinted at by my preliminary definition, but if it's correct, I believe it should be fundamental to the definition. Is it correct?

 

[Himeko009]

The descriprions of functions in MBTI and in socionics seems different to me. A little, but quite differents.

 

[Retmeishka]

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

This thread just pushed the 'Don't Get Me Started' button. Yes, it's quite possible for them not to match, because there are some insanely wrong methods of determining someone's type, such as that crap about 'if they're a perceiving type, then put a "J" on the end to make them into a judging type, which will throw them into exactly the opposite socionics quadra from where they belong. But don't do that with extraverts! Only introverts! That way, the duals will be separated from each other forever and ever. Mwahahahahah!' Just don't get me started. It is possible for socionics and your MBTI type to be not even in the same universe with each other.

At this point in time, the general public does not have access to any effective, reliable, accurate methods of typing every person accurately the first time. It would require some kind of hand-held functional magnetic resonance imaging device or something.

The world of typing methods has become filled with crap. The belief systems, the processes, the 'first do this, then do that,' the mathematical manipulations that they do somewhere in between to calculate what type you are - in the United States there's some crazy belief system going around which tells you to perform these calculations and manipulations that will give you totally the wrong answer and confuse you and everyone else for the rest of eternity. And that's not the only one that's causing this problem. The various tests phrase their questions in different ways that tend to mistype people too.

In the end I had to use socionics to figure out my type, by noticing that the people I had loved the most throughout my life were in this one particular quadra.

 

[Himeko009]

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?

Isn't ILI and LII?

 

[Himeko009]

My case is different: I'm sure my type in socionics, but not in MBTI...

 

[Bush]

My case is different: I'm sure my type in socionics, but not in MBTI...

Do you think that Socionics's specificity that helps you pin one down? That is, it provides clear, crisp definitions of functions, types, and interrelationships; as opposed to MBTI's framework which is more general and vague (for good or for bad).

 

[Himeko009]

Yes, MBTI confuses me sometimes i feel I'm fall between INTJ and INTP (but I know you only can be one), but in Socionics i'm of course INTp/ILI (Ni Te).

 

[Himeko009]

Yes, MBTI confuses me sometimes. I feel I'm fall between INTJ and INTP (but I know you only can be one), but in Socionics i'm of course INTp/ILI (Ni/Te).