MBTI and Socionics

There are several reasons why MBTI is more common:

1. MBTI was developed by an American, and thus all the source material is in English.

2. It's been known in American psychological circles longer.

3. Socionics is far more technical.

4. Much of the better Socionics material is in Russian.

5. There are more accepted perspectives on MBTI than on Socionics, because Socionics doesn't allow the same degree of experimentation and guesswork, but requires more consistency and grounding in logic.

I would agree that Socionics is far more focused on relationships, but it also approaches the functions in a far more technical manner. So in some ways, it's also more descriptive of individuals.

I think that MBTI is really only applicable for introspection in it's current form, and can only be used in a limited manner for analyzing relationships. Yes, you can match letters up to estimate compatibility... but that's not nearly as sophisticated as what you can do in Socionics.

One last note: Socionic type isn't always equivalent to MBTI, even with a J/P switch for Introverts. Some people think it is, but they're a minority.

 

Think of them as two distinct languages.

Ever hear of the theory that measures iq (if there is such a thing) increases with each language one learns?

My comprehension of unspoken dynamics has improved since learning socionics, so I value both.

 

Not even in Russia are there officially accredited institutes that recognize the validity of Socionics. MBTI is has more academic respect even there.


I don't care much for Socionics. It is a much more complicated system, which does not seem to have much support for many of its aspects. Ockam's Razor would favor MBTI.


Socionics and MBTI have essentially the same definitions of Te, Ti, Ni, and Ne, but Fe and Fi have their meanings reversed and Se and Si definitions align about halfway with each other.

I fit MBTI theory's INTP role quite well, but neither Socionics' INTp nor INTj fit all that well.

 

Socionics seems like an overly complicated, and in another way, watered down version of MBTI. Whenever I look into socionics I end up feeling like it is doing things backwards to what I am used to, and it is far far too abstract. MBTI is very abstract as it is, you don't need to throw anymore abstractness in there. Doing so would just make something that is inheriently confusing, borderline unintelligable. Nope, I don't like socionics. It has some information that I think can supplement MBTI, but that's it.

 

There's more reading availible on MBTI (in english)

Also there are a lot more internet forums... etc.

So I know more MBTI

 

Socionics has the voodoo factor, as well as the blatant rip-offness going against it. I always feel like MBTI is Transformers, and Socionics is Go-Bots, the cheap knock off copy cat toys that were sold in dollar stores for kids who's parents couldn't afford the real thing.

That said, the most annoying thing about Socionics is the J and P inversion for introverted types, so they wouldn't get sued. They are the same names, but inverted. Causes a lot of confusion, especially since they use the same system for Extroverts, and only switch on the introverts. Annoying.

MBTI = Socionics
ENFJ = ENFJ
ENTJ = ENTJ
ENTP = ENTP
ENFP = ENFP
ESFJ = ESFJ
ESTJ = ESTJ
ESTP = ESTP
ESFP = ESFP
INFJ = INFp
INTJ = INTp
INTP = INTj
INFP = INFj
ISFJ = ISFp
ISTJ = ISTp
ISTP = ISTj
ISFP = ISFj

 

I avoided saying that cause it is a petty personal reason, but yes. The way the J/P axis is extremely irratating to me, and was only done largely and likely due to copyright issues.

 

The conversion is not really that simple.

In Socionics the p or j points towards the dominant function, not the stronger extroverted function. However, the lower functions are assigned differently too. The top 2 judging and percieving functions are thought to have the same attitudes rather than opposite attitudes, and those with a judging function dominant are thought to have their lesser judging function 3rd instead of 4th.

For example:
In MBTI, INTP = Ti>Ne>Si>Fe
In Socionics, INTp (ILI) = Ni>Te>Si>Fe, and INTj (LII)= Ti>Ne>Fi>Se

Following the general rule of switching the p or j for introverts works for the top functions, but leaves the next 2 in the wrong order and of the wrong attitudes. The workings of relief role and aspirational functions strike me as some of the most useful parts of MBTI theory, and are totally different in socionics.


The functions still don't have quite the same definitions though. MBTI Fe is essentially Socionics Fi, and vice versa. MBTI's Si and Se don't have much to do with Socionics Si and Se functions, so no one to one comparison can be made.




One really annoying thing about socionics is they prefer to use their colored or empty shapes rather than writing out the functions, which makes things harder to remember.

 

Meh, semantics. It's the same thing written a different way.

 

Wait? What?

 

*tries to restrain nerd rage*

*only partially succeeds*

Ahem.

Socionics is not based on MBTI at all, but is directly based on the same Jungian theory that MBTI is.

The INTj, ESTp, etc. are not the original Socionic notation, but are alternative notations inspired by MBTI, probably in an attempt to explain it to MBTI users. It was always LII, or EIE, or something like that. J/P really doesn't work the same way in that system at all.

If it seems like it's exactly the same theory because all you're looking at are a few labels and personality descriptions, it's because you're not getting deep enough into the theory to see the differences.

I get so tired of seeing people arrogantly proclaim that it's the same type if you invert the J/P axis for Introverts, which again is not even a notation that's native to Socionics (they use a similar concept that's defined differently, hence the confusion). Yes, you end up describing the same primary Jungian types when this is done, but that's because Socionics is being incorrectly stuffed into an paradigm designed for MBTI, which will of course make it look inferior.

Also, the model doesn't have Dominant and Auxiliary Functions in terms of strength the way MBTI does, but rather claims that different types of people use all 8 functions in different psychic roles, without making any specific statements about the "strength" in them. In other words, one could use one's 2nd function more than the 1st function, but would still use it in a different way than someone who uses it as a 1st function.

In Socionics, what matters is how the functions are used, how they relate to the other functions in the psyche, and how they relate to the corresponding functions in other people. It's operating on a completely different theoretical basis, a different paradigm, and you're all seeing it incorrectly because you're stuck looking at it from an MBTI perspective, and trying to understand it using your preconceived ideas.

Finally, people sometimes fall into different types in one system than in the other due to the differences in definition.

Sigh. I've been studying this stuff for nearly 5 years now, and spent the last 3 of them correcting the same misunderstandings that people can't seem to get out of their heads without having it explained carefully, only to have them pop up again elsewhere.

 

Ha, you beat me to it.

Though I do wonder who had the great idea to introduce the MBTI-esque type codes and confused everyone. Socionics had its own nomenclature from the start.

 

Does this mean that...

In MBTI, INFJ = Ni>Fe>Ti>Se
In Socionics, INFp (ILI) = Ni>Fe>Si>Te, and INFj (LII)= Fi>Ne>Ti>Se?

Man, that's kinda nuts, though I know a few people who seem a lot more like Ni>Fe>Si>Te than the standard Ni>Fe>Ti>Se. Maybe there's something to this. Maybe the standard progressions aren't as solid as we've previously assumed.

Though Carl Jung only ever put two functions together for any given type. INFJs are Ni and Fe, and according to his theory everything after that is optional. The more I look at this stuff the more I'm seeing the wisdom in this simple approach. The one thing we INFJs all have in common is Ni dominance and Fe secondary. After that, there is a lot of diversity. Maybe the old guy was right about that too?

Maybe INFJ is Ni>Fe>Si>Te or Ni>Fe>Ti>Se depending on the individual? This would explain a lot of anomalies like Indigo, Res, Raccoon, etc.

 

Well, INFp is an alternate notation of IEI instead of ILE and INFj of EII instead of LII, but yeah.

Note, however, the differences in how some functions are defined. Socionics Fi and Fe are essentially reversed, so MBTI's Fe would be the top function of an INFj and be paired with Ne (which is basically defined the same) whereas INFp would in MBTI terms be using both Ni and Fi. Having these functions together as the top two is impossible in MBTI, and the INFJ and INFP's top functions together are impossible in Socionics. Si and Se defintions seem like they are split down the middle too, rather than corresponding exactly to each other or their opposite in the 2 systems.



Athenian200 may be able to explain it better though, as he (she?) claims to have been studying it longer. (S)He seems to be saying that the positions in which the functions are ranks shouldn't be thought of as measuring ability or preference relative other functions but merely a description of the way in which each function is to be used.

 

The one big reason I keep socionics in mind is for the quadrants it establishes, and regardless of functions that don't make much sense, quadrant boundaries and dynamics are quite observable. It's just a matter of figuring out how to accurately describe characteristics of each. Maybe it means impregnating mbti with the concept.

I testify!

 

@magister343
Why do you think that Fi and Fe is reversed in socionics? I think it's the same thing:


Verbs describing relationships between people
Fe describes external manifestations of relationships (meet, date, make friends, be friends, flirt, break up, make up, break off, suck up), while Fi describes the subject's experience of relationships (be grateful, admire, love, fall in love, hate, be offended, be embarrassed, value).

Verbs describing influencing feelings
Fe focuses on the external (observable) actions associated with emotional interaction (excite, praise, get going, hurt, fool, offend, cheer up, scare, make laugh, comfort, calm down), while Fi focuses on internal feelings (trouble, get tired of, make nervious, offend, let down, scare, irritate, make mad, make upsent, calm). Note that the same words can be used, but with a different emphasis.

Abstract nouns for expressing emotions
Fe focuses on visible emotional states (edginess, gloominess, breakdown, boredom, quietness, ecstasy, horror, panic, enthusiasm, sarcasm), while Fi focuses on internal feelings (guilt, unrest, delight, pride, annoyance, fright, love, hate, hurt, feeling, shame, embarrassment).

Adverbs describing how actions are performed and one's attitude toward them
Fe, again, focuses on visible emotional attitudes (gladly, dismally, wonderfully, half-heartedly, discreetly, sarcastically), while Fi focuses on internal attitudes (frankly, honestly, dishonestly, decently, in a friendly way, in a good way, in a bad way, tactfully, tactlessly).

From here.

Yet, those Fe and Fi descriptions are quite "mechanical".

Hrr, I want to understand that system but I look into it through MBTI glasses.