[MrShatter]

@Promethea

Could you explain or provide me with a link that outlines the differences in the functions?

[Promethea]

@Promethea

Could you explain or provide me with a link that outlines the differences in the functions?

Here are the socionics IM elements: IM elements - WSWiki

[Era]

I foresee calamity. Socionics will be the death of MB because it looks more "sciencey".

[Bumblyjack]

I have a problem with Socionics giving IEE and ILE the same four conscious cognitive functions, just in a different order. The logic and ethics functions of these two types should not be the same, as their reasoning in these areas are completely different in more than just a hierarchical sense.

On another note, John Beebe does a much better job of reconciling the cognitive functions with their complexes in the psyche and the associated archetypes than Socionics does.

[alionsroar]

I have a problem with Socionics giving IEE and ILE the same four conscious cognitive functions, just in a different order. The logic and ethics functions of these two types should not be the same, as their reasoning in these areas are completely different in more than just a hierarchical sense.

According to Socionics, Model A, (at least according to this page, Function dichotomies - Wikisocion) people prefer to look at the world through their valued functions and limit using their subdued functions. IEE values Introverted Ethics, and subdues Introverted Logic while ILE has it the other way around. Hence that is why the two types have different outlooks.

This is different to the JCF model where people prefer the top four conscious functions.

[cyamitide]

Where does the Enneagram say that certain types have certain facial features?

check this out David Fauvre (enneagram) on Pinterest

[Owfin]

check this out David Fauvre (enneagram) on Pinterest

Urgggggggghhhhhhhhh.

[JungyesMBTIno]

MBTI does push the J/P thing a little to hard I think. Especially for the introverts, ("Judgers" leading with perception functions and "Perceivers" leading with judging functions.) here it becomes very vague, I think they've mentioned in a couple of INFJs articles that I've read that we "aren't as organized" as other judgers because of our reliance on intuition... well... duhh? I've also met quite a few IPs who are very organized. Granted they have aspects of their lives that are messy... but I think J/P should be used more as a tool to decipher the function order rather than the prescribed traits that they have. Or it should have less focus (it does hold true to some degree).

Yeah, I agree. I mean, I'm generally organized (nothing noteworthy, depending on what you're determining about me that is "organized"), but in an almost unconscious kind of way that's hard to stereotype as "judger" (I have very little emotional investment in organization (whatever organization exactly is anyway - physical/mental...wha???) - I can certainly live without it if I considered other things more important - it's no psychological imperative, that I can say for certain, which is what POs me about J/P in MBTI - I always get the feeling that Myers and co. were trying to take too much credit for Jung's ideas by putting such a limiting label into the mix).

[aconite]

Urgggggggghhhhhhhhh.

Not a fan, I guess? ;)

[Zero11]

- MBTI cognitive functions & Socionic Cognitive functions are different (I find this hard to believe because everything came from Jung right?)

An excellent point
INTj Descriptions, what do you think?

I personally think that the differences are coming mainly from the "function bias/favouritism" as they remain the same from their source but only are interpreted differently.

So if both Systems are trying to describe the same I am still trying to merge them. Becuase I´m not really comfortable with two different Systems with the same source which are so similar.

A Word on Socionics:
Functions of one orientation or another accomplish the same things for the ego (tangible perception, conceptual perception, technical judgment, or humane judgment); only it's the area stimulation is received from (translation into standard used or place of application) that differs along the lines of internal or external.
This is one reason the correlation with Socionics is cloudy. Socionics uses a lowercase "j/p" to indicate "dominant" instead of "extraverted" function. (This was done to more closely match Jung's "rational/irrational" type designation, which was based on the dominant function). This will yield the same code for extraverts, since the dominant is the extraverted one. However, for introverts, j/p will be swapped, such as Ti+Ne indicating "INTj" instead of INTP; and there is dispute over which one really corresponds to the MBTI. The second block (called "Super-ego", while the first block is the "ego") will even match up with INTJ: Fi+Se! (When arranged as "Ego-SuperEgo-Id-SuperId, the comparitive stacking order is 1,2,8,7,4,3,5,6) Then, even the Ti and Ne for the INTj is often said to 'act like' MBTI's Te and Ni for the INTJ. And Te and Ni for INTp like Ti and Ne for INTP. Hence, INTj might turn out to be INTJ (and INTp be INTP) after all.
When you realize, again, that there are really only four functions, and that the ego is the one who bears the "attitudes", then you can see why these different versions of the theory could diverge so, while ultimately still be attempting to describe the same thing.

Source: Temperament Part 2: The MBTI's 16 types and Cognitive Functions

Plus I find it very confusing to split the systems when I´m beginning to type people without testing only through movement patterns and raw Visual Indentification (meanwhile I am connecting this with the 2 preferred cognitive functions). I cannot really explain how I´m doing this, so the descriptions are must be describing the same type. I am slowly able to even differentiate between ISTJs and INTJs through it - the more data the more accurrate the results

Sociotype.com: Socionics Applied

Here is the description from my socionic type and I am far from the believe that the types are so different.

- Socionics says certain types have certain facial features so it must be wrong! (The enneagram does it and no one complains )

Wow thanks! This is new to me and it makes even sense. New stuff to analyze

The functions are NOT THE SAME.

Couldn´t it be that the interpretations aren´t the same?
But the Functions called the IM Elements are bearing the same essence

No, its not merely a j-p switch. Let me provide some examples of this, and the other comment:

Update: Sorry I forgot to add my view on the J/P preference. The only advantage I´m seeing from this is the birth of the SP Temperament.
Okay it comes different to the surface due to the different structure. But why should it not be the same so alike?

ESI is a type in socionics thats Fi Se, but its not a peaceful artist type. ESI can be rather aggressive and cutting, not soft and sensory. ESIs type as various introverts in mbti -- from infp to istj.

Sounds like Inferior Te

prefer to use one over the other most of the time. For example, this is why I believe I see so many intj LSI (Ti Se). As I mentioned, Ni is a bit similar, so you have these Ni users who are actually Ti dominant, but show a lot of Ni. As Se creatives rather than Se dom, they can overlook their Se more easily. But again, not all LSI are intj, not all intj are LSI.

Okay to translate this into mbti we only need to know the Jungian Concepts and put it in order through making use of Te

Ego: 1st and 2nd function (conscious use) strong
Anima/Animus - Supder-Id: 3rd and 4th function (unconscious) weak
Shadow - Id: 5th and 6th function (collective unconcious) strong, like deactivateted parts of the personality through the opposing prefered functions(1st and 2nd)
Persona - Super-ego: 7th and 8th function (collective unconscious) weak

V.I. is the bullshit that says facial features correlate with your socionics type and its a pile of stinking shit that not nearly every socionist subscribes to. Ignore it.

Socionics.com is complete and utter garbage. Ignore it.

Sorry I can´t resist