MBTT/Socionics Correlations

[Ezra]

Taken from this article.

"Let us compare the very 16 type descriptions by their keywords.

And using this method, we discovered very interesting results!

We proposed the 16 descriptions of the Keirsey types to 108 socionists (this means, each of the 108 read ALL THE 16 descriptions), and we asked them to identify the socionic types in these descriptions.

The table below represents the result of this experiment:

And the next table represents one more result of this experiment. We asked the participants to indicate their own types, and to recognize their own types in these descriptions:

Do these tables represent the real correlation between the socionic types and the Keirsey types? We think they do not. They rather represent characteristic stereotypes of the socionics and the Keirsey typology. To compare these typologies objectively, we will need to test at least several hundreds of persons using both socionic and American methods. But at least we know now for sure that socionics, MBTT and Keirsey, in spite of their common origin from the Jungian typology, are not identical!"

What I find most interesting about this is how types like ISTJs (who are Si dominant and Te auxiliary) identify with LSIs (ISTjs). At first glance, I sound like a retard. But LSIs in socionics have Ti as a base function, and Se as a creative. They are like ISTPs in MBTT. So surely ISTJs would identify most with SLIs (ISTps), who have Si as a base function and Te as a creative one? Well, descriptively ISTJs and LSIs are very much alike. Does this mean ISTJ = LSI? No. Nor does it mean that ISTJ = SLI. If you check out the second table, you'll see that no ISTJs identified with the SLI description, even though they have the same functions.

This suggests that the functions in socionics differ from those in MBTT, and this is a suggestion that is worth taking into consideration. MBTT Se does not account for aptitude in sensing power dynamics, which is a major part of socionics Se; rather this is found in Te. In socionics, Te does not have the same 'force' as the SLE (ESTp). For example, the LIE's (ENTj) Se is a 6th function (hidden agenda), meaning that it is weak but valued (the LIE belongs to a Se valuing quadra).

Another thing worth pointing out about correlations is the functions. Basically, while in socionics you use all eight functions, and how good at them and whether or not you value them determines your type, in MBTT, you only use four. There's also a pattern; while the first two functions of any type are the same in both socionics and MBTT (e.g. an ESTJ has dominant Te and auxiliary Si in MBTT; in socionics, an LSE (ESTj) has base Te and creative Si), the tertiary and inferior functions correlate with the 6th and 5th functions respectively. In essence, what functions an ESTJ uses (Te, Si, Ne, Fi) in MBTT, it also uses in socionics, but these are only the functions the LSE values. And 'values' does not mean 'uses'; on the contrary, two of the functions that the ESTJ does not use in MBTT it uses in socionics - Ti and Se; it simply doesn't value them.

The only rule this does not apply to is Introverted types. Because (I believe) Myers-Briggs messed up in consistency, an INTP now equates to an LII (INTj) in their functional ordering. However, as I said before, this does not mean that an INTP is an LII. It may well identify with the EII (INFj), simply because it feels that it is on the T/F borderline in MBTT, and so in socionics, it believes Fi is stronger and values it more than Ti.

 

[cascadeco]

Another thing worth pointing out about correlations is the functions. Basically, while in socionics you use all eight functions, and how good at them and whether or not you value them determines your type, in MBTT, you only use four.

I know virtually nothing about socionics, but the above quote makes complete sense to me, as I fully believe everyone has access to all 8 functions, and use all to some degree; it's just a matter of degree, combined with whether one chooses to use them and work on improving them, or chooses to ignore some of them because they don't value certain ones.

Anyway, a little while back I took a socionics test and I came out INFp. This seems consistent with your charts above, in that many INFJ's are either INFj or INFp, and I found it interesting that INFp was pretty common for INFJ's - statistically significant.

 

[Athenian200]

Yes, I've always disagreed with the J/P switch for Introverts as being a valid testing technique merely due to function order similarities, as this doesn't take into account the differences that exist between the Socionic and MBTI definitions of the functions, or the differing role functions themselves play in the different systems. I think too much is read into or assumed to be the same as in the common Jungian source/inspiration material, and proper credit for applying the theories in a particular way isn't given to MBTI and Socionics progenitors.

I haven't been able to type myself properly in Socionics yet, although I'm guessing that I'm either an EII, IEI, LII, or an ILI (But I most often test as LII on the various internet Socionics-based tests for some reason or other.) I'm not positive of understanding any of the descriptions well enough to be sure of anything, especially since so much of the literature is in Russian.

 

[Wandering]

Another thing worth pointing out about correlations is the functions. Basically, while in socionics you use all eight functions, and how good at them and whether or not you value them determines your type, in MBTT, you only use four.

From what I know, this isn't true. In MBTT, all types use all 8 functions.

There's also a pattern; while the first two functions of any type are the same in both socionics and MBTT (e.g. an ESTJ has dominant Te and auxiliary Si in MBTT; in socionics, an LSE (ESTj) has base Te and creative Si), the tertiary and inferior functions correlate with the 6th and 5th functions respectively. In essence, what functions an ESTJ uses (Te, Si, Ne, Fi) in MBTT, it also uses in socionics, but these are only the functions the LSE values. And 'values' does not mean 'uses'; on the contrary, two of the functions that the ESTJ does not use in MBTT it uses in socionics - Ti and Se; it simply doesn't value them.

Actually, I don't think there really is such a difference. It is far from rare, in MBTT, to have people use one or both of their 2 first Shadow functions more than their Tertiary and especially their Inferior. So for example, an ESTJ is very likely to use Ti and/or Se more than Ne and Fi. What matters is HOW they will use them, and that's where the concept of "value" comes in.

I think the problem comes from the fact that people mis-read the ordering of the 8 MBTT functions as being indicative of how much one can be expected to use each function. But the 8 functions are in fact two sets of 4 that should be placed side by side rather than one after the other.

 

[Totenkindly]

...It is far from rare, in MBTT, to have people use one or both of their 2 first Shadow functions more than their Tertiary and especially their Inferior... The 8 functions are in fact two sets of 4 that should be placed side by side rather than one after the other.

Just for kicks, here are my eight function test results side by side rather than ordered linearly.

MAIN....................SHADOW
Ti... 49.2......//.......Te...21.7
Ne...42.2......//.......Ni...38
Si...19.5.......//.......Se...11.5
Fe...29.8......//.......Fi...28.5

In general, the shadow functions clumped pretty similarly for me except for Te... but I think that's because external organization/manifestation is something I avoid like the plague.

I think it's common for people to flip from one of their main functions to the Shadow one (and develop them a bit), since it's mostly the same sort of process/perception just aimed in a different direction.

 

[ptgatsby]

Hmm... in that second chart, I read 29 Ss and 107 Ns? In a self selected group? Using Keirsey descriptions?

Hmmm....

 

[Ezra]

Socionics and MBTT are actually different. Augusta, the pioneer of socionics, and Myers, each took a different spin on Jung's original functions. For example, Se in socionics is more like Te in MBTT (which is like a mixture of Te, Se and some Ti even), so it's perfectly reasonable for someone to assume they are an ExTJ in MBTT and an SLE (ESTp) in socionics. There are, might I say, still some retards in the socionics circles who believe that ABCD = ABCd, but this is essentially rubbish, because every logical conclusion properly thought out points firmly away from that idea.