Difference in type between MBTI and Socionics

[Blackmail!]

Hello!


I'm sure this subject has been repeated over and over again, so if ever you have a good link about it, please, feel free.

The Socionics mainframe seems very, very odd (and some aspects just make me laugh, especially the physical description), yet it looks superficially similar to some aspects of the MBTI.
Yet, I've read many people complaining that their Judging/Perceiving scores were in fact inverted when they compared MBTI and Socionics. For instance, many INTP were in fact INTj, and vice versa (INTp becoming INTj).

How could that be? Could you describe me how and why?

This is confusing. Well, Socionics always were.

 

[garbage]

They're two different systems with different descriptions that have some correlations in their categories due to the fact that both are derived from Jung's work, and the four-letter labels were only added to Socionics in order to make it digestible here in the states

Kind of like how Christmas co-opted familiar Pagan holidays


Someone go find that table with the correlations between MBTI and Socionics types

Edit: here

also this just uh avoid that part of my post where I talk about being ENTp

 

[StephMC]

^ Why have I not seen this chart before... it's awesome! Thanks Mister Eyebrows

 

[Andy]

Hello!


I'm sure this subject has been repeated over and over again, so if ever you have a good link about it, please, feel free.

The Socionics mainframe seems very, very odd (and some aspects just make me laugh, especially the physical description), yet it looks superficially similar to some aspects of the MBTI.
Yet, I've read many people complaining that their Judging/Perceiving scores were in fact inverted when they compared MBTI and Socionics. For instance, many INTP were in fact INTj, and vice versa (INTp becoming INTj).

How could that be? Could you describe me how and why?

This is confusing. Well, Socionics always were.

In addition to what mister eyebrows said, the P/J in socionics refers to the primary function, not the first extroverted function. Incidently, this means that the expect correlations on Mister Eyebrows table are wrong for all the primary introverteds. INFP corresponds to INFj, as both have Fi + Ne as there first two functions.

 

[Little_Sticks]

First find your most probable quadras. Then learn the functions. Then learn what the different function slots represent in each of the types in your probable quadras. Find the type that matches you the best. If no type matches well consider the other quadra types. If none of those fit then either you're an idiot, the theory is too abstract and vague, or it's just plain bunk; you get to choose which one you think fits best .

But if you want to find a correlation between types, I read somewhere that all MBTI types should map to their Socionics type, with the exception of INTJs, INTPs, INFPs, and INFJs, which can switch the J/P...or not, depending on the person, which I tend to agree with.

If you would rather have some information that is posted on a website because you consider stuff on a website more accurate then what comes out of my mouth then you can read this

...
Another argument is that MBTI is in many ways a very different and less sophisticated theory than socionics, and that any attempt to definitively measure socionics type in terms of MBTI type is by nature flawed. Socionics was originally developed on the basis of intertype relations, which its dichotomies were chosen to reflect (unlike the dichotomies used in MBTI). Proponents of this viewpoint often acknowledge some correlation between the types (ie an MBTI ESTJ is more likely to be a socionics ST than NF) but usually assume that any type or most types are possible socionics types for a person with a specific MBTI type, and vice versa.
The former view can be said to be more helpful for those looking into socionics after getting acquainted with Myers-Briggs, since despite the confusion when looking at functional ordering, as a rule the types as described in most Myers-Briggs profiles tend to resemble more the socionics types without the J/P shift. In addition, despite differences in definition, overall Myers-Briggs Judgement resembles more socionics Rationality, and its Perception more socionics Irrationality, than the other way around, so it makes no sense to say that a rational extroverted socionics type is closer to a judging socionics type, but the other way around for introverts.
...

J/P switch - Wikisocion

 

[KDude]

There are also just enough subtle differnces in socionics as a whole that it's almost better to learn about it on it's own terms. In some ways, the types seem more fleshed out there, and to me, reflective of what I see for myself in different people I know.

 

[Aleksei]

But if you want to find a correlation between types, I read somewhere that all MBTI types should map to their Socionics type, with the exception of INTJs, INTPs, INFPs, and INFJs, which can switch the J/P...or not, depending on the person, which I tend to agree with.

From my admittedly limited knowledge of Socionics, it seems slightly more complicated than that, because the different letter variables in Socionics map to different things than they do in MBTI. A rather glaring example of this contrast is Napoleon, who is portrayed as the archetype of Socionics type ESFp, despite being a rather blatant ENTJ.

 

[Little_Sticks]

From my admittedly limited knowledge of Socionics, it seems slightly more complicated than that, because the different letter variables in Socionics map to different things than they do in MBTI. A rather glaring example of this contrast is Napoleon, who is portrayed as the archetype of Socionics type ESFp, despite being a rather blatant ENTJ.

Well, considering the dude is dead and Socionics is heavily reliant on the behavior of the individual as opposed to how they view themselves, and we have only paintings and writings that can be interpreted to mean very different things by different minds to reference, we can't really make any conclusive assumptions. Do you have a link that gives a thorough analysis of the ESFp typing or is this mostly internet conjecture?

This is an interesting point though. However, ILI(INTp), SEE(ESFp), LIE(ENTj), and ESI(ISFj) are all in the same quadra, which means they are going to value very similar things in their lives. Because of this, since we are going by written historical accounts of a man that arguably reached self-actualization, it's equally likely much emphasis was displayed and put on his duality functions around other people. An ENTj that displays their Se mobilizing function with their Fi suggestive very well could be confused with ESFp by third-hand accounts that don't know him very personally, especially since the man was very much in possession of the resources and power to indulge and surround his ego with anything he desired. So it's hard to say and I don't think something like this is important to get hung up on since it's so suggestive.

 

[the state i am in]

whenever i've looked at it, i've come to the conclusion that introverts flip j-p. extroverts stay the same. functions are the same. added features include type relations. i find the function descriptions on the socionics wiki to be among the best function descriptions out there.

 

[OrangeAppled]

The functions do not stay as true to Jungian theory as MBTI. You'll find their definitions vary enough to throw things off, so that a J/P switch for introverts is not cleanly made. There are also more behavioral associations made which directly contradict MBTI's patterns for types. IE. FiNe in MBTI presents a P face, meaning an INFP is prone to less external structure. Not so in Socionics - FiNe is J and acts in the way Js are expected to behave.

I never test INFj and don't relate to FiNe in the same way I do in MBTI. The INFp description is often very accurate for me, and yet, the Fe function is still a mismatch for my aux function. A socionics enthusiast took it upon himself to assist me in finding my type, and decided I was ENFp - Fi subtype (which would make me seem more introverted). However, the idea of me being an extrovert in anyway shape or form is extremely humorous to me, as I am expressed introvert & always have been.

I find Socionics a less satisfying system for describing personality, or at least MY personality.

 

[the state i am in]

Socionics - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

these are the best function descriptions i know of in the smallest amount of space. i don't understand why anyone says they're not the same functions as mbti. to me they blend together in a perfectly coherent way.

i don't see why anyone would say that the difference in typing has to do with anything other than a different way of expressing the type code for introverts. j vs p focusing on dominant function rather than on first extroverted function, or, in lenore's setup, left-brained vs right-brained predominance. i maybe see a value in the socionics j vs p, but not nearly as much value in the j vs p distinction in mbti. altho, at the same time, it's still the most poorly misunderstood element of mbti.

i don't know what others seem to think is off. are there type behavioral descriptions that seem more skewed than mbti type behaviorists? i guess i don't really read those to begin with.

 

[Ozz]

I find that Socionics and MBTI describe Jung's functions differently. MBTI defines Si in terms of memory but Socionics defines Si as (pleasant?) physical sensation.

 

[Yloh]

Hello!


I'm sure this subject has been repeated over and over again, so if ever you have a good link about it, please, feel free.

The Socionics mainframe seems very, very odd (and some aspects just make me laugh, especially the physical description), yet it looks superficially similar to some aspects of the MBTI.
Yet, I've read many people complaining that their Judging/Perceiving scores were in fact inverted when they compared MBTI and Socionics. For instance, many INTP were in fact INTj, and vice versa (INTp becoming INTj).

How could that be? Could you describe me how and why?

This is confusing. Well, Socionics always were.

LOL, I've only taken online tests, but I got ENFJ on both.

 

[OrangeAppled]

Socionics - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

these are the best function descriptions i know of in the smallest amount of space. i don't understand why anyone says they're not the same functions as mbti. to me they blend together in a perfectly coherent way.

i don't see why anyone would say that the difference in typing has to do with anything other than a different way of expressing the type code for introverts. j vs p focusing on dominant function rather than on first extroverted function, or, in lenore's setup, left-brained vs right-brained predominance. i maybe see a value in the socionics j vs p, but not nearly as much value in the j vs p distinction in mbti. altho, at the same time, it's still the most poorly misunderstood element of mbti.

i don't know what others seem to think is off. are there type behavioral descriptions that seem more skewed than mbti type behaviorists? i guess i don't really read those to begin with.

Huh. I find Fi VERY different in Socionics from Jung's description. I don't relate to it nearly as much.

Honestly, this sounds more like my understanding of Fe in some ways, particularly the social hierarchy part:

Fi is responsible for understanding the quality, nature, and proper maintenance of personal relations; makes moral judgments; and aspires to humanism and kindness. Fi has a strong understanding of the social hierarchy and how people feel about each other, their attitudes of like or dislike, enthrallment or disgust, repulsion or attraction, enmity or friendship.

For me, the behavioral descriptions for the types don't match MBTI either, as I mentioned in my last post. Socionics seems more behavior heavy in general, which makes it seem more stereotypical (person with X function will behave in Y way, right down to how they walk).

The EII/INFj/FiNe type is described with what sounds like "J-ish" behavior in MBTI. So in socionics, the Ps still get the P stereotypes & the Js get the J stereotypes, which keeps there from being a clean J/P switch between Socionics & MBTI. In MBTI, J/P is determined by the main extroverted function, which makes more sense to me, if you're trying to use behavioral clues to type.

 

[Aleksei]

I still don't know nearly enough about socionics to be comfortable typing people, but the more I learn about it the more different the two systems look -- and the more likely it seems for someone to be biased towards reporting the same type in both despite not being so at all. It seems to me, for example, that ESTp doesn't fit ESTP in any way whatsoever, being indeed closer to the description of a monumental asshole ENTJ 8w7 (essentially it is SLE, rather than LIE, that is the field marshal type in Socionics). Similarly ISFj seems like an odd combination of MBTI Fi and N (Ni mostly, but Ne could fit), with Se (which in MBTI is a combination of Se and Te) as the creative (lead) function. It fits INTJ 4 best, followed by a deeply depressed ENFP, then ISFP and INFP. Then there's ESFp, the aptly named "politician" type, which basically describes an ENTJ with a lot of Fi -- or even a balanced INTJ 3w4. Basically Se types in Socionics are equivalent to Te + Se in MBTI, with a strong Te (Se is actually my PoLR in Socionics, which is something like the inferior. Fits Te being y tertiary and Se itself being my 5th function).

 

[Aleksei]

Tentative attempt at correlating MBTI and Socionics types (since none is really a clean fit as they measure different things to begin with, I'll go for a top-3 approach):

ENFP- ENFj-Ni, INFp-Fe, ENFp-Ne
ENFJ- ENFj-Fe, ENFp-Fi, ESFp-Fi
INFP- INFp-Ni, INFj-Fi, ENFp-Fi
INFJ- INFj-Ne, INFp-Ni, ENFp-Ne
ENTP- ENTp-Ne, INTp-Ni, ENFj-Ni
INTP- INTj-Ti, INTp-Ni, ENTp-Ti
ENTJ- ENTj-Te, ESTp-Se, ENTp-Ne
INTJ- INTp-Ni, ENTj-Ni, ISFj-Se
ESTP- ESFj-Si, ISTp-Si, ESTp-Se
ESFP- ESFj-Si, ESFp-Se, ISFp-Si
ISTP- ISTp-Si, ISTj-Ti, INTj-Ti
ISFP- ISFp-Si, ISFj-Fi, INFj-Fi
ESTJ- ESTj-Te, ESTp-Se, ENTj-Te
ESFJ- ESFj-Fe, ESFp-Se, ENFj-Fe
ISTJ- ISTj-Se, ISTp-Te, ESTj-Si
ISFJ- ISFp-Fe, ISFj-Se, INFj-Fi

 

[Such Irony]

Tentative attempt at correlating MBTI and Socionics types (since none is really a clean fit as they measure different things to begin with, I'll go for a top-3 approach):

ENFP- ENFj-Ni, INFp-Fe, ENFp-Ne
ENFJ- ENFj-Fe, ENFp-Fi, ESFp-Fi
INFP- INFp-Ni, INFj-Fi, ENFp-Fi
INFJ- INFj-Ne, INFp-Ni, ENFp-Ne
ENTP- ENTp-Ne, INTp-Ni, ENFj-Ni
INTP- INTj-Ti, INTp-Ni, ENTp-Ti
ENTJ- ENTj-Te, ESTp-Se, ENTp-Ne
INTJ- INTp-Ni, ENTj-Ni, ISFj-Se
ESTP- ESFj-Si, ISTp-Si, ESTp-Se
ESFP- ESFj-Si, ESFp-Se, ISFp-Si
ISTP- ISTp-Si, ISTj-Ti, INTj-Ti
ISFP- ISFp-Si, ISFj-Fi, INFj-Fi
ESTJ- ESTj-Te, ESTp-Se, ENTj-Te
ESFJ- ESFj-Fe, ESFp-Se, ENFj-Fe
ISTJ- ISTj-Se, ISTp-Te, ESTj-Si
ISFJ- ISFp-Fe, ISFj-Se, INFj-Fi

I'm a socionics INTj-Ne, which I didn't see in the top 3 for any of the MBTI types. I just saw INTj-Ti. I kinda think MBTI INTP is more likely INTj-Ne and MBTI INTJ is more likely INTj-Ti.

 

[Aleksei]

Well, subtypes within a given type aren't that different from one another. I just posted the three most likely types, with the most likely subtype for each.

 

[KDude]

I test as an INFp almost all of the time. Just like MBTI though, I kind of get confused between wondering if I'm ISFp or INFp. Both have Ni and Si and I entertain each one to an extent (as defined in socionics). If push came to shove, I'd be ISFp, because my future thinking is a little vague, and while I engage with symbolism, pattern recognition, and some of the stuff Ni is into, it's not enough to push me over. The important thing is that Se types like ESTp and ISTj incite annoyance or rage. I can't possibly be in their quadra (quadra is a good rule of thumb to look at when you're confused imo). And it's not that I'm afraid of them. I just go out the way to defend "Si" or something, just like ISTps. It's like clockwork. I never needed them.

May as well go back to being retyping ISFP, I guess. It takes a lot of reading to make sense of it all. If anything, Keirsey is who confuses me the most. It pigeonholes too much.

 

[Aleksei]

I actually find Keirsey easy. I dislike it precisely because it's easy (ie. it's shallow and simplistic as fuck).