On incompatibility of Socionics and MBTI + alt. translation of socionics to english

[kiwi0fruit]

Alternative translation of socionics to english + On incompatibility of Socionics and MBTI

This is an alternative translation of one of the braches of socionics to english. My vision of the Jung-Augustinavichiute-Talanov personality model (JAT personality model). But sometimes my vision goes beyond JAT personality model.

Only the main terms were translated and described so this article is a stub. The notable differences are described in the summary.

1 Сontents

2 Summary
3 Jung cognitive functions
4 Aspects as basis in classical socionics vs. Jung cognitive functions as a basis in JAT personality model
5 Types in classical socionics vs. reference types in JAT personality model
6 Types abbreviations with functions
7 On dichotomies, MBTI incompatibility, Big Five

2 Summary

1) All cognitive functions are called kinds of thinking. I like HBDI approach en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Herrmann_Brain_Dominance_Instrument .

2) The contradictions between MBTI and socionics are made explicit so the type conversion isn’t possible for introverts.

3) Rational/Irrational names were replaced with Judging/Perceiving as these are more accrurate names: remember Rationalism and it’s attitude to emotional thinking. This also helps make contradictions from 2 more clear.

4) “Tangible-oriented thinking” is used instead of Sensing/Sensory, “Associative thinking” is used instead of Intuition, “Task-oriented thinking” is used instead of Thinking/Logic, “Social-oriented thinking” is used instead of Feeling/Ethics.

5) Standard MBTI acronyms for Jung functions (Se, Si, Ne, Ni, Fe, Fi, Te, Ti) and dichotomies (N/S, T/F) are used for MBTI partial compatibility purpose. Unfortunately there seems to be no way to avoid using standard MBTI acronyms for Jung functions.

6) Standard socionics functions symbols (● ○ ▲ △ ◆ ◇ ■ □) and Victor Gulenko’s 8 latin letters (F, S, I, T, E, R, P, L) were abandoned as inconvenient, unpopular in english community and weird

7) Some differences between types in classical socionics and reference types in JAT personality model are outlined.

8) Some differences between information aspects in classical socionics and Jung cognitive functions in JAT personality model are outlined.

9) The short descriptions of Jung cognitive functions that are consistent (I hope) with JAT personality model are given. These descriptions are sometimes different from understanding of cognitive functions in other branches of socionics.

Read further: socionics-news.tumblr.com/post/141190741188

 

[Kheledon]

Interesting. I think introverts can discover their Sociotype if they can identify their dominant (program) function. If it's an irrational, input function (Si or Ni), then that person is a "p" in Socionics. If it's a rational, judging function (Fi or Ti), then that person is a "j" in Socionics, without regard to whether they score as a "J" or "P" in the Myers-Briggs-Kiersian system.

I find them both useful, but Socionics has so many more tools for distinguishing people, and what I like best about it is its focus. Whereas MBTI is copyrighted and (imo) primarily designed for capitalist optimization (team-building, motivating employees, etc.), Socionics came about because a very smart woman needed to know why she couldn't seem to make her marriage work. From the very beginning, Socionics has been about figuring out how people love one another, and that, to me, is vastly more important than maximizing profits.

 

[kiwi0fruit]

That's not so simple. If we speak about personality trait then MBTI "J", Socionics "j" and Big Five "conscientiousness" are pretty much the same (not 1.0 correlation but still around ~0.5 I think). It's easy to check simply reading the description of "j/p" socionics dichotomy (for example by Viktor Gulenko). Actually the only scientific model in MBTI is dichotomy test and J/P is an essential part of it. So scientifically correct to think that J/P and j/p are the same.

The question then transforms to the following form:
If we see the highly introverted (I) and highly self-disciplined person (J) then what Jung function he would have as it's dominant function? Socionics says that it would be Ti or Fi. MBTI says it would be Ni or Si. In case the person is just mildly introverted and mildly disciplined there is still some place for speculations. But in cases of high values of both parameters only one option should be corrent. Either MBTI is wrong either Socioncs is wrong. They cannot be correct simultaneously. Actually they may be BOTH wrong but it's another story

 

[kiwi0fruit]

Actually both socionics and MBTI by j/p J/P mean the same objective phenomena. Many other typologies and trait theories mean pretty much the same. Just check this infographics: The Big Five Personality Traits | psychologycharts.com

But transition from factor axes and dichotomies to Jung cognitive functions are made in different ways in socionics and MBTI.

 

[kiwi0fruit]

UPD

It’s worth mentioning that the socionics hypothesis of correlations between dichotomies and Jung cognitive functions are expected to be statistical or visible only in the most vivid cases of persons. For example: if we see the highly introverted (I) and highly self-disciplined (J) person then what Jung function he would expect he has as his dominant function? Socionics says that it would be Ti or Fi. MBTI says it would be Ni or Si. But in many particular cases of people there can be combinations of “Ti-dominant and more like perceiving behavior” or “Ni-dominant and more like judging behaviour”. But in most cases the socionics expects “Ti-dominant and more like judging behavior”. This even can be experimentally verified by tests that measure Jung cognitive functions and dichotomies independently.

So if we are talking about type of particular person not about reference types then using I/E and J/P dichotomies can be misleading or inaccurate. So the noting person’s dominant function is a better option. For example: Ne-dom, Ti-dom. Auxilary function also worth noting but socionics research shown that for example in case of Ne-dom and task-oriented thinking (T) both Te (8) and Ti (2) may play importaint role in assisting dominant Ne. So they both can be viewed as auxilary function as Jung meant it (actually Jung didn’t say whether auxilary function for Ne-dom is Ti or Te). There need to be more invesigations on this topic but for now it’s more accurate to think that the auxilary function is just T, F, S or N withount specifying whether it is Te ot Ti, etc.

8 Names of types for people (not for reference types)

These names lack I/E and J/P dichotomies to fit more cases of personal traits.

 

[Thalassa]

They're two very different systems, you can literally be two different types in both, I think in Socionics its more relevant to identify with your primary function (Like as a SEE-Fi, I identify with Fi) as well as your Quadra (and I'm so Gamma)...the functions are also defined differently. As an SEE in Socionics this means things like I have a strong presence and a pragmatic political approach. ..while in Jung, Se demonstrates an attitude of simple pleasures, aesthetics, physical generosity and its own separate morality of finding it a sin to not embrace or enjoy life to the full and share with others.

In Kersey or MBTI, Se seems to represent an emphasis on facts or tried and true methods, but I found I rather identified with the Artisan temperament, but not to the extent of being the carefree ESFP whistling through the graveyard - I'm more of the ISFP who runs off to the mountains to paint (as per PUMII, or in my case write...plus I like to cook for others, and don't depend on what my house looks like to extend hosting or generosity) ...and from a Jungian perspective thoroughly abuse Tertiary Ni, something my MBTI ESFP mother does not relate to. She thinks I'm her smartest daughter though. ..like her, except with a twist. Her perception of intelligence likely depends on her own type of intelligence.

 

[Thalassa]

Example:

SEE-Fi

SEE-Se

On an average day, I see myself more sensitive, counterculture and liberal, even "ugly" like Janis, but stll relate to the second truly. Outsiders see us all the same. But the first woman is who I hang my identity on as SEE-Fi.

In fact I want to restate I relate to both and identify with both songs. ..but honestly. ..there is a subtle, marked difference and there definitely is an identity issue here...Edie Sedgwick was also likely SEE-Fi....there is an issue here largely perceived from the outside yet very real...I love shallow 80s music...but can I BE IT? It's weird I'm on Mexican Radio, Turning Japanese and I Ran, and dyed my hair pink, but it takes on a completely different aspect in real life. I can actually be vegan, not just emulate it. It has something to do with underlying intent to plan ones life out, rather than first reaction, which is likely irrationally shared via Se.

 

[Pionart]

MBTI is your mind type,

Socionics is your social type.

 

[Thalassa]

MBTI is your mind type,

Socionics is your social type.

So mentally I'm shy who loves escape, freedom, purity of animals, nature, artistic creation. ..who shows up as crass, sexual,pragmatic and resources oriented. ...bizarrely, it makes sense with me.

I've always identified with the animal/nature part of ISFP,and the mean, practical, assertive yet individualistic aspect of Gamma....Gamma are supposed to be able to discuss sex, and money, with equal equanimity. SFP and NTJ in MBTI, the perfect Sugar relationship.

 

[Pionart]

To have the same MBTI type as Socionics type means that you display yourself to others in the same way you see yourself.

Where there is a difference, then there is a difference between how you see yourself and how others see you. Hence, you are not as you seem.