# Are Socionics and MBTI equivalent typology models?



## athenian200 (Oct 13, 2008)

I've noticed that a lot of people believe the systems are perfectly equivalent, but that one is simply better or more fleshed out.

I have tried very hard to make the systems line up in my head, but there are many factors that make it difficult to do so.

The implications of Quadra, Model A, Subtypes, Reinin Dichotomies, and all these factors seem to make Socionics a much more technical and rigid system of description. It seems to have interpreted Jung's work as being about various ways of metabolizing information. MBTI seems far less rigid, and seems to retain an archetypal quality... it seems more focused on the way type fulfills archetypes and reflects character.

More importantly, in trying to type people whose types are known in MBTI, I always get caught between two options that both tend to feel inappropriate. 

For example, if you accept that INFJ is Ni-Fe in both systems, then all INFJs have to be IEI. But the Fe boisterousness and Se aggression of Beta quadra would give many MBTI INFJs pause... this likely isn't an environment they would be comfortable in.

Socionics EII might seem to be a better fit, but then some people would claim that made your type INFP in MBTI, which would likely seem equally wrong to said INFJ.

The same problems would occur if the person tried to identify as IEE or EIE, only they would be forced into different types in MBTI that also didn't fit.

Basically, it feels like when I get the typing just right under one paradigm, switching back to the other one makes it look "wrong" or "backwards" somehow. 

The only thing I've been able to come up with is that if the systems are supposed to measure the same thing, you can really only use one and not the other, because trying to reconcile both philosophies in an appropriate way that makes sense and feels right is nearly impossible.

The most often talked about problem is the J/P switch, but as you dig deeper, there are even more problems. So, can I just write Socionics off as the Russian version of MBTI, or MBTI as the American version of Socionics, and give it no more thought? 

What is the best perspective to take regarding these two systems and their correlations?


----------



## Entropic (Jun 15, 2012)

> For example, if you accept that INFJ is Ni-Fe in both systems, then all INFJs have to be IEI. But the Fe boisterousness and Se aggression of Beta quadra would give many MBTI INFJs pause... this likely isn't an environment they would be comfortable in.


The answer to this is quite simple - then they aren't genuine NiFe types but typed based on something else.


----------



## athenian200 (Oct 13, 2008)

ephemereality said:


> The answer to this is quite simple - then they aren't genuine NiFe types but typed based on something else.


So, the ultimate disagreement is on whether the MBTI or Socionics interpretations of NiFe are more genuine. If you see the MBTI one as genuine, then you'll probably disagree with Socionics as a system.

I just don't see the equivalence at all, but it could be that one system has gotten something fundamental incorrect.

If you believe that the Socionics definitions and interpretations are genuine, then the MBTI process could definitely be seen to produce something that's not genuine.


----------



## Entropic (Jun 15, 2012)

delphi367 said:


> So, the ultimate disagreement is on whether the MBTI or Socionics interpretations of NiFe are more genuine. If you see the MBTI one as genuine, then you'll probably disagree with Socionics as a system.
> 
> I just don't see the equivalence at all, but it could be that one system has gotten something fundamental incorrect.


I don't think either one is more genuine than the other. It's genuine if both of them are capable of reflecting the Jungian idea of NiFe, and if you can find your Jungian type, it will be correct in both systems.


----------



## Figure (Jun 22, 2011)

Yeah, @_ephemereality_ said my views on this. Basically that it isn't a matter of MBTI and socionics being "equivalent," as much as it is that they are pointing to the same thing, Jung's cognitive functions, using different language. The way to connect the two theories is not by comparing and contrasting their type descriptions, it is by understanding Carl Jung and developing an understanding of how the JCFs are verbalized differently by socionics vs. MBTI. The Jungian Cognitive Function is the least common denominator of this sector of typology. It is the fundamental unit of MBTI and socionics - both were based off Carl Jung. If you "get" what each JCF is, you should be able to see where and how socionics and MBTI re-dress Jung despite it being essentially the same concept. 

The OP is correct in noting that socionics is a more "structured" theory than MBTI and in a lot of ways expands on it. MBTI has 4 cognitive functions per type, with 4 very rudimentary "slots" each is fitted to (Dom, Auxil, Tert, Inferior). Socionics has 8 cognitive functions per type, with 8 much more complex "slots." It is, however, the same underlying structure in this way - socionics just expands more.

As far as information metabolism goes, yes, this is a VERY important part of the theory. It's the reason "cognitive functions" were re-labeled and reconceptualized as "Information Elements." Basically, it's looking at the JCFs not as personality characteristics (like "orderly" or "abstract-thinking" or "feels emotions strongly"), but as a filter of sorts that we inadvertently use in interacting with our environment. What types of information do you inadvertently expect from others, what types are you not attuned to, and how do you process and emit information to others based on your own filters - that's the general "jist" of Model A. Because each type has different expectations, they will compensate and disappoint each other on an informational level to various degrees, depending on how their filters match each others' expectations. That's kind of the "jist" of the intertype relations.


which, now editing, @delphi367 accounts for your comments on INFJ "Ni-Ti" people. Neither socionics nor MBTI goes on function "strength," they assign slots/roles to each function regardless of strength which is why we see the theories on expansions from Jung. Jung did not "slot" functions other than the "Dominant."


----------



## athenian200 (Oct 13, 2008)

ephemereality said:


> I don't think either one is more genuine than the other. It's genuine if both of them are capable of reflecting the Jungian idea of NiFe, and if you can find your Jungian type, it will be correct in both systems.


If the only purpose of the two systems is to be true to Jungian type, then why bother with either system? You should just read Jung's "Psychological Types," figure out what fits, and use neither system.

From my experience with pure Jungian typing, I find that a lot of INFJs are Ni-Ti types that use Fe sometimes in pure Jungian terms, while a lot of INTJs are actually Ni-Fi types that use Te sometimes. But from an MBTI perspective, that kind of excessive Introversion is considered a neurosis rather than an acceptable orientation, and thus you're typed based on your strongest Extraverted function.

Socionics moves out even further and tells you that you have to value TWO Extraverted functions, and the Socionics Extraverted functions are even more obviously ostentations and unpleasant.


----------



## Entropic (Jun 15, 2012)

Figure said:


> Yeah,  @ephemereality said my views on this. Basically that it isn't a matter of MBTI and socionics being "equivalent," as much as it is that they are pointing to the same thing, Jung's cognitive functions, using different language. The way to connect the two theories is not by comparing and contrasting their type descriptions, it is by understanding Carl Jung and developing an understanding of how the JCFs are verbalized differently by socionics vs. MBTI. The Jungian Cognitive Function is the least common denominator of this sector of typology. It is the fundamental unit of MBTI and socionics - both were based off Carl Jung. If you "get" what each JCF is, you should be able to see where and how socionics and MBTI re-dress Jung despite it being essentially the same concept.
> 
> The OP is correct in noting that socionics is a more "structured" theory than MBTI and in a lot of ways expands on it. MBTI has 4 cognitive functions per type, with 4 very rudimentary "slots" each is fitted to (Dom, Auxil, Tert, Inferior). Socionics has 8 cognitive functions per type, with 8 much more complex "slots." It is, however, the same underlying structure in this way - socionics just expands more.
> 
> As far as information metabolism goes, yes, this is a VERY important part of the theory. It's the reason "cognitive functions" were re-labeled and reconceptualized as "Information Elements." Basically, it's looking at the JCFs not as personality characteristics (like "orderly" or "abstract-thinking" or "feels emotions strongly"), but as a filter of sorts that we inadvertently use in interacting with our environment. What types of information do you inadvertently expect from others, what types are you not attuned to, and how do you process and emit information to others based on your own filters - that's the general "jist" of Model A. Because each type has different expectations, they will compensate and disappoint each other on an informational level to various degrees, depending on how their filters match each others' expectations. That's kind of the "jist" of the intertype relations.


Agreed. A fundamental difference between Model A and the MBTI is that Model A is about intertype. While one can understand sociotype in a vacuum unrelated to intertype, it is largely meaningless as an endeavor because that's not the "jist" of the system; it's about how we interact with our environment as you put it. 

I tend to think that a big problem when people come here and compare socionics to the MBTI is that people usually tend to have an incomplete understanding of both systems, which part goes back to the lack of not fully understanding Jung. Obviously at that point, there will be a lot of conceptual holes that are not properly covered and thus indeed, they may end up looking separate and incompatible.


----------



## Entropic (Jun 15, 2012)

delphi367 said:


> If the only purpose of the two systems is to be true to Jungian type, then why bother with either system? You should just read Jung's "Psychological Types," figure out what fits, and use neither system.


Because MBTI and socionics are easier to access as systems and offer different tools that may simplify this endeavor. Especially socionics has a lot of useful structural tools that can help people to make sense of theirs and others' types. It simplifies, improves and speeds up the process. 



> From my experience with pure Jungian typing, I find that a lot of INFJs are Ni-Ti types that use Fe sometimes in pure Jungian terms, while a lot of INTJs are actually Ni-Fi types that use Te sometimes. But from an MBTI perspective, that kind of excessive Introversion is considered a neurosis rather than an acceptable orientation, and thus you're typed based on your strongest Extraverted function.


Depends on how one understands it. I could be understood as such an NiFi type, though it is quite clear I have Thinking as an auxiliary because I am not sufficiently in touch with Feeling to actually be Feeling auxiliary, and socioncs may for example describe this nuance in types. 

I don't think the auxiliary changes much to be honest, based on what I've observed. I have come to think that socionics and MBTI are correct in this regard, and I have come to think that Jung understood the auxiliary or identified the auxiliary somewhat differently from how we understand it today which is understandable because our observations of the theory have changed since he originally wrote Psychological Types. 



> Socionics moves out even further and tells you that you have to value TWO Extraverted functions, and the Socionics Extraverted functions are even more obviously ostentations and unpleasant.


I am not sure I see what you are getting at. This is a problem, or what? MBTI does this too, especially if you look at say, Lenore Thomson's or Beebe's models.


----------



## Pancreatic Pandora (Aug 16, 2013)

delphi367 said:


> For example, if you accept that INFJ is Ni-Fe in both systems, then all INFJs have to be IEI. But the Fe boisterousness and Se aggression of Beta quadra would give many MBTI INFJs pause... this likely isn't an environment they would be comfortable in.


Wouldn't they? There's an assumption in the INFJ forum that INFJs are typically emotionally expressive and can appear as extroverts so I definitely wouldn't say they are very diferent in this aspect. And they are Se-inferior so they are not going to be agressive but rather, more tolerant and receptive of open agression. Nevertheless, quadra values probably reflect group behaviour and don't focus on individual differences much. I've seen a few self-typed IEIs describe themselves as usually quiet and soft-spoken, yet they are betas. And based on my real life experience I've found that there's other types that can appear "boisterous" like ESE or SEE.

Idk, I don't actually need to use different typings for each system as long as I focus on the functions alone (or dichotomies).


----------



## athenian200 (Oct 13, 2008)

Figure said:


> As far as information metabolism goes, yes, this is a VERY important part of the theory. It's the reason "cognitive functions" were re-labeled and reconceptualized as "Information Elements." Basically, it's looking at the JCFs not as personality characteristics (like "orderly" or "abstract-thinking" or "feels emotions strongly"), but as a filter of sorts that we inadvertently use in interacting with our environment. What types of information do you inadvertently expect from others, what types are you not attuned to, and how do you process and emit information to others based on your own filters - that's the general "jist" of Model A. Because each type has different expectations, they will compensate and disappoint each other on an informational level to various degrees, depending on how their filters match each others' expectations. That's kind of the "jist" of the intertype relations.


That's actually a very important part of why I see the systems as having translation issues. I don't believe that MBTI conceives of psychological functions as forms of information metabolism, or in terms of their relationships to each other. A lot of people who investigate the Jungian roots may come to that conclusion, but that isn't the interpretation MBTI seems to be founded on.



> which, now editing, @delphi367 accounts for your comments on INFJ "Ni-Ti" people. Neither socionics nor MBTI goes on function "strength," they assign slots/roles to each function regardless of strength which is why we see the theories on expansions from Jung. Jung did not "slot" functions other than the "Dominant."


I think that both theories deviate from Jung's assumptions to a degree. There's a lot of overlap, but they both add mechanisms and rules for type that Jung likely would have disagreed with.



ephemereality said:


> Because MBTI and socionics are easier to access as systems and offer different tools that may simplify this endeavor. Especially socionics has a lot of useful structural tools that can help people to make sense of theirs and others' types. It simplifies, improves and speeds up the process.


However, what's not made clear is that you're accepting certain interpretations of Jungian theory every time you use one of these systems. By using a tool, you're accepting the assumptions of the person who made it. With Model A, you make certain assumptions about how cognition manifests and how types interact with each other. With MBTI, you make somewhat different assumptions. The model/lens through which Jungian theory is interpreted is different, and distorts it in a different fashion than does Socionics.

I believe that these differing assumptions made by the tools and constructs in question can complicate things.




> Depends on how one understands it. I could be understood as such an NiFi type, though it is quite clear I have Thinking as an auxiliary because I am not sufficiently in touch with Feeling to actually be Feeling auxiliary, and socioncs may for example describe this nuance in types.


I could see that. One of the important things to note is that the entire function-role system you're describing is not native to Jungian theory, and isn't incorporated into MBTI. It's a construct built by Socionists on top of Jungian theory. You're placing all 8 functions into a specific framework and deciding that they all have to fit that framework in a certain way. 

Now, some MBTI theorists, such as Beebe, do make similar prescriptions for roles and provide 8 slots. However, MBTI itself doesn't clearly define a type as anything other than a dominant function and an auxiliary function. One problem with talking about MBTI is that people use it as a "catch-all" term for various ideas about Jungian theory that are popularly accepted in the community. They throw in stuff from Beebe, from Keirsey, from Thompson, from Nardi... and call it all "MBTI" because it's vaguely related to Jungian theory and uses the same four letters.

It's possible that had Socionics started in the West, it would have been interpreted as just another theorist's personal take on MBTI and Jungian theory. I don't know, honestly.



> I don't think the auxiliary changes much to be honest, based on what I've observed. I have come to think that socionics and MBTI are correct in this regard, and I have come to think that Jung understood the auxiliary or identified the auxiliary somewhat differently from how we understand it today which is understandable because our observations of the theory have changed since he originally wrote Psychological Types.


So, you aren't specifically trying to get at Jung's ideas with each system... but you believe that there's a single underlying truth that Jung was _closer to _than anyone else, and that any interpretation that doesn't result in the alignment of models is thus in error?




> I am not sure I see what you are getting at. This is a problem, or what? MBTI does this too, especially if you look at say, Lenore Thomson's or Beebe's models.


Well, it is kind of a problem. Extraverted functions seem far more "negative" in Socionics. Typing an Introverted person in Socionics is less about finding out what they do value, and more about finding which Extraverted functions least bother them. 

Also, Thompson and Beebe have very good models, but their models actually reach back to Jung and create a more structured interpretation of his theories than MBTI itself does. Beebe's work in particular imposes a Socionics-like role structure onto Jung's work. 

In any case, I think it's important to examine assumptions and their origins, and to understand why people choose their various perspectives, before deciding which ones to incorporate. Indiscriminately accepting the assumptions of various theorists and piling them together saying it's all basically the same thing seems a bit sloppy to me, but that's what the majority of people seem to do.


----------



## Entropic (Jun 15, 2012)

delphi367 said:


> However, what's not made clear is that you're accepting certain interpretations of Jungian theory every time you use one of these systems. By using a tool, you're accepting the assumptions of the person who made it. With Model A, you make certain assumptions about how cognition manifests and how types interact with each other. With MBTI, you make somewhat different assumptions. The model/lens through which Jungian theory is interpreted is different, and distorts it in a different fashion than does Socionics.


That assumes that I see them as fundamentally different to begin with, which I don't. No matter what system people ask me to type them in I'll provide them the same answer because I'm looking at the archetypal source of their cognition as originally laid out by Jung. I may simply refer to these extraneous tools in order to make my opinion more valid, but that's about it. 



> I believe that these differing assumptions made by the tools and constructs in question can complicate things.


Sure, but it doesn't mean incompatibility. 



> I could see that. One of the important things to note is that the entire function-role system you're describing is not native to Jungian theory, and isn't incorporated into MBTI.


It kind of is and it kind of isn't. Jung didn't place that much emphasis on the auxiliary in the first place just like @Figure pointed out. He was concerned about the dominant-inferior first and foremost. Subtype types would either fall closer to true Jungian introversion-extroversion or ambiversion. MBTI doesn't quite make such a nuanced distinction, so what's important in the MBTI is figuring out the dominant. 



> It's a construct built by Socionists on top of Jungian theory. You're placing all 8 functions into a specific framework and deciding that they all have to fit that framework in a certain way.
> 
> Now, some MBTI theorists, such as Beebe, do make similar prescriptions for roles and provide 8 slots. However, MBTI itself doesn't clearly define a type as anything other than a dominant function and an auxiliary function. One problem with talking about MBTI is that people use it as a "catch-all" term for various ideas about Jungian theory that are popularly accepted in the community. They throw in stuff from Beebe, from Keirsey, from Thompson, from Nardi... and call it all "MBTI" because it's vaguely related to Jungian theory and uses the same four letters.


Because just like with any theory, it has subtheories or how to understand and structure something. So in social anthropology there is a cognitive branch, a structuralist one etc. So yes, it's still correct to talk about it all being MBTI because Beebe, Thomson, Nardi et al. are all MBTI theorists. It's just that they approach the system differently in how they personally choose to make sense of it, just like a structural anthropologist will understand social anthropology differently from a cognitive one. 



> So, you aren't specifically trying to get at Jung's ideas with each system... but you believe that there's a single underlying truth that Jung was _closer to _than anyone else, and that any interpretation that doesn't result in the alignment of models is thus in error?


No, because the nature of the functions don't change. A rock is a rock is a rock no matter how you turn it around. You may show one side to a group of scientists and they will tell you this or that about this particular side, and then another to another group and they will also say this and that. But they are eventually both describing the same rock.


> Well, it is kind of a problem. Extraverted functions seem far more "negative" in Socionics. Typing an Introverted person in Socionics is less about finding out what they do value, and more about finding which Extraverted functions least bother them.


I disagree. Extroverted types also have introverted PoLR elements. I actually think socionics is far less biased in the I/E dichotomy than the MBTI. 



> Also, Thompson and Beebe have very good models, but their models actually reach back to Jung and create a more structured interpretation of his theories than MBTI itself does. Beebe's work in particular imposes a Socionics-like role structure onto Jung's work.


Exactly, which just goes to show that they are all trying to express the same thing in my opinion. 



> In any case, I think it's important to examine assumptions and their origins, and to understand why people choose their various perspectives, before deciding which ones to incorporate. Indiscriminately accepting the assumptions of various theorists and piling them together saying it's all basically the same thing seems a bit sloppy to me, but that's what the majority of people seem to do.


It's only sloppy if you don't understand their respective perspectives and claim that Nardi MBTI is the same as Thomson MBTI.


----------



## bearotter (Aug 10, 2012)

Socionics and MBTI both originate from Jung but formulated their theories according to paradigms they found interesting or worth pursuing for whatever reason (and of course different subclasses of MBTI and even socionics probably take things different directions).
None of them necessarily does exactly what Jung would've wanted in terms of direction, nor do they do what each other necessarily want. MBTI introduces things like P/J, socionics goes a whole level of classification-exactitude that I cannot imagine Jung would've done based on how he seemed to comment on types. 

But it's important to understand they have a common origin, or the differences perceived between systems will likely not be the most illuminating.


----------



## athenian200 (Oct 13, 2008)

ephemereality said:


> That assumes that I see them as fundamentally different to begin with, which I don't. No matter what system people ask me to type them in I'll provide them the same answer because I'm looking at the archetypal source of their cognition as originally laid out by Jung. I may simply refer to these extraneous tools in order to make my opinion more valid, but that's about it.


I didn't really mean to assume that, I was actually wondering if you did that or not. Now that I know you don't, it seems clear to me that you use the theories in a certain way. Rather than use the models according to the way they are presented, you have this idea in your head of what all of them are pointing to... and you find a way for all of them to align with that so that all of them give the same reading.

In other words, you don't entertain the concept in that way, you have a single model in your head. You just use the framework of the systems as a tool in order to express your own assumptions, even if you have to bend or gloss over a few things in the process. If you de-emphasize certain aspects of the theories that conflict, and come up with your own explanations, then you can have everything point to the same idea. There is sufficient overlap for that to occur. 




> It kind of is and it kind of isn't. Jung didn't place that much emphasis on the auxiliary in the first place just like @Figure pointed out. He was concerned about the dominant-inferior first and foremost. Subtype types would either fall closer to true Jungian introversion-extroversion or ambiversion. MBTI doesn't quite make such a nuanced distinction, so what's important in the MBTI is figuring out the dominant.


Okay, so you do see how the theories are different enough that Socionics can take into account a myriad of factors that wouldn't even be considered when typing someone in MBTI. You could argue that perhaps they are factors that _ought _to be considered, and that it's a shortcoming of MBTI theory, but you would in fact have to make that argument before you could align the systems.



> Because just like with any theory, it has subtheories or how to understand and structure something. So in social anthropology there is a cognitive branch, a structuralist one etc. So yes, it's still correct to talk about it all being MBTI because Beebe, Thomson, Nardi et al. are all MBTI theorists. It's just that they approach the system differently in how they personally choose to make sense of it, just like a structural anthropologist will understand social anthropology differently from a cognitive one.


I'm not denying that. What I am denying is that those branches agree on the nature of what they're studying or how to approach it. In Sociology, for instance, there are people who believe that the problems that exist are best dealt with by government (structuralists), and those who believe that the problems are best dealt with by changing individual attitudes (individualists). Those people may agree that there is a problem, just as Socionics and MBTI agree that Jungian functions are real. However, they disagree on how to approach the problem, just as these two theories disagree on how to approach Jung. Socionics solves the holes in Jungian theory by adding more structure, while MBTI solves them by giving practitioners wide latitude in considering the individual's nature.

The fact that they propose different ways of handling their consensus reality of Jungian functions is the source of their discord.





> No, because the nature of the functions don't change. A rock is a rock is a rock no matter how you turn it around. You may show one side to a group of scientists and they will tell you this or that about this particular side, and then another to another group and they will also say this and that. But they are eventually both describing the same rock.


What if one group of scientists is colorblind, though? They might describe a red rock in one way, while the sighted scientists see it in another. Neither would be wrong, but one would be oblivious to certain aspects of the rock's nature.

It's much easier to come to a solid, agreed-upon conclusion regarding physical objects. But the mind's eye is often poorly able to discern these mental objects. A lot of people have "vision problems" in their mind's eye, so to speak. You're correct that it should all line up if we're describing the same thing, but the problem is that the theorists all had different vision problems. Whose eyes gave us the most accurate image of the rock? Why should I trust the image of the rock described by Socionics rather than that presented by MBTI? The other problem with mental objects is that once ONE person makes a mistake in interpreting it, they transmit that mistake to anyone else who reads their ideas. They see the flawed picture that person put forth upon reading those words, whether it's truth or not. 

That's why it's important to get as close to the source of an idea as you can, because the more interpretations you pile on, the further removed you are, the more likely it is that someone will have made a mistake that was transmitted to everyone else. A carefully justified error can be more well-received than a casually expressed truth, in some instances. 




> Exactly, which just goes to show that they are all trying to express the same thing in my opinion.


So, you are constructing an argument using the work of these MBTI theorists to justify the position that they are all expressing the same thing, correct?




> It's only sloppy if you don't understand their respective perspectives and claim that Nardi MBTI is the same as Thomson MBTI.


So, you don't claim that Nardi MBTI is the same as Thomson MBTI... but you do claim that Socionics is the same as MBTI?

Or am I missing something here?

Anyway, I'm honestly kind of realizing that in order to use Socionics, I have to accept Model A, Quadras, and intertype relations as valid extrapolations from Jung's theory. Since I'm somewhat skeptical of those ideas, I've simply decided not to use Socionics at all. That seems to be the only way I can maintain consistency with my own interpretation of Jungian theory. Using an interpretation I don't agree with would be disingenuous.

Finally, I just prefer sticking with English-language authors and systems, because I understand that language and culture so well that I think there's less room for misinterpretation there, at least for me personally.


----------



## Entropic (Jun 15, 2012)

delphi367 said:


> I didn't really mean to assume that, I was actually wondering if you did that or not. Now that I know you don't, it seems clear to me that you use the theories in a certain way. Rather than use the models according to the way they are presented, you have this idea in your head of what all of them are pointing to... and you find a way for all of them to align with that so that all of them give the same reading.


Implicitly yes, you were asking me that, and as implicitly, I answered that no, I don't. 

I do use the models how they are presented though. I don't know why you think I am not. The models all have their own fundamental rules and principles but I do not see how they are so far removed that they are two utterly different things. 



> In other words, you don't entertain the concept in that way, you have a single model in your head. You just use the framework of the systems as a tool in order to express your own assumptions, even if you have to bend or gloss over a few things in the process. If you de-emphasize certain aspects of the theories that conflict, and come up with your own explanations, then you can have everything point to the same idea. There is sufficient overlap for that to occur.


I don't see how it's my own assumptions more than any personality theory with the exception of Big 5 perhaps, but it's shallow either way, could get away from a degree of personal interpretation in the first place. With that said, my interpretation of the model aligns with how others also understand type so objectively speaking, it still seems to be accurate or correct. 

It's not about de-emphasizing or glossing over certain aspects though yes, in the sense of say, Reinin, MBTI doesn't have that, but it doesn't mean they conflict with each other. I have yet to run into a problem where the theories conflict to such a degree that I think they are speaking of two entirely different models of reality. 



> Okay, so you do see how the theories are different enough that Socionics can take into account a myriad of factors that wouldn't even be considered when typing someone in MBTI. You could argue that perhaps they are factors that _ought _to be considered, and that it's a shortcoming of MBTI theory, but you would in fact have to make that argument before you could align the systems.


No. You are more concerned about the system itself then, and the integrity of it. They are describing the same archetypal pattern in people so thus, people will exhibit them similarly. 



> I'm not denying that. What I am denying is that those branches agree on the nature of what they're studying or how to approach it. In Sociology, for instance, there are people who believe that the problems that exist are best dealt with by government (structuralists), and those who believe that the problems are best dealt with by changing individual attitudes (individualists). Those people may agree that there is a problem, just as Socionics and MBTI agree that Jungian functions are real. However, they disagree on how to approach the problem, just as these two theories disagree on how to approach Jung. Socionics solves the holes in Jungian theory by adding more structure, while MBTI solves them by giving practitioners wide latitude in considering the individual's nature.
> 
> The fact that they propose different ways of handling their consensus reality of Jungian functions is the source of their discord.


Fair, but that is not a problem to how I apply the respective theories, because I ultimately couldn't care less about macro vs micro. They achieve and work towards the same end goal and no matter how you stress and emphasize either one they will be intrinsically interconnected because you can't have one without the other. 



> What if one group of scientists is colorblind, though? They might describe a red rock in one way, while the sighted scientists see it in another. Neither would be wrong, but one would be oblivious to certain aspects of the rock's nature.


It frankly doesn't matter. Then we simply modify the understanding when we realize they made erroneous assumptions about the color of the rock, but truth of the matter is that colorblind or not, they described the colorblind reality of said rock so hence, still a rock. 



> It's much easier to come to a solid, agreed-upon conclusion regarding physical objects. But the mind's eye is often poorly able to discern these mental objects.


This may be true for non-intuitive types, but the above is then also true for non-sensor types.



> A lot of people have "vision problems" in their mind's eye, so to speak. You're correct that it should all line up if we're describing the same thing, but the problem is that the theorists all had different vision problems.





> Whose eyes gave us the most accurate image of the rock?


Neither one, obviously. They are both as accurate and described from their respective dimensions of understanding. 



> Why should I trust the image of the rock described by Socionics rather than that presented by MBTI? The other problem with mental objects is that once ONE person makes a mistake in interpreting it, they transmit that mistake to anyone else who reads their ideas. They see the flawed picture that person put forth upon reading those words, whether it's truth or not.


You will never get away from interpretation even when it comes to physical objects. I am arguing this shirt is red but no, a friend of mine says it's pink. So which one is it? 



> That's why it's important to get as close to the source of an idea as you can, because the more interpretations you pile on, the further removed you are, the more likely it is that someone will have made a mistake that was transmitted to everyone else. A carefully justified error can be more well-received than a casually expressed truth, in some instances.


Eh, I don't see that as a problem. You come up with your own understanding. 



> So, you are constructing an argument using the work of these MBTI theorists to justify the position that they are all expressing the same thing, correct?


Yes. 



> So, you don't claim that Nardi MBTI is the same as Thomson MBTI... but you do claim that Socionics is the same as MBTI?
> 
> Or am I missing something here?


Yes, you are. Because structurally they are different because they use different tools and ideas to describe the MBTI. Nardi uses neuroscience and Thomson is more interpretative, but in essence they are still trying to describe the same idea e.g. Jungian cognition. If we replace Nardi by socionics and places it vs Lenore's MBTI and then simplifies it to socionics vs MBTI instead of Nardi vs Lenore, it's the same thing. 



> Anyway, I'm honestly kind of realizing that in order to use Socionics, I have to accept Model A, Quadras, and intertype relations as valid extrapolations from Jung's theory. Since I'm somewhat skeptical of those ideas, I've simply decided not to use Socionics at all. That seems to be the only way I can maintain consistency with my own interpretation of Jungian theory. Using an interpretation I don't agree with would be disingenuous.


So your problem with the compatibility has more to do with that it doesn't line up with _your_ understanding? 



> Finally, I just prefer sticking with English-language authors and systems, because I understand that language and culture so well that I think there's less room for misinterpretation there, at least for me personally.


I don't see what the culture has anything to do with it more than influencing the perspective? I am neither American nor Russian, but I wouldn't say that the Russian idea of socionics is that removed from the American idea of MBTI and how they understand people and social relationships.

I think personal bias from an author plays a much larger role than the culture in which they were raised. Augusta over-emphasized duality and it seem like it's the only relationship that actually works, for example. Has more to do with her life situation back then and being unhappily married than her being Russian.


----------



## athenian200 (Oct 13, 2008)

ephemereality said:


> I do use the models how they are presented though. I don't know why you think I am not. The models all have their own fundamental rules and principles but I do not see how they are so far removed that they are two utterly different things.


They're neither utterly different nor exactly the same, in my mind. They are distinct enough that a _minor_ change in type may be possible in some cases, IMO. Obviously, someone that claims to be ENTJ in one system as SLE in the other has issues understanding the material, but I can see justification for more minor type changes based on the differing assumptions at work here.

If you can't see that, then I'm willing to agree to disagree.





> I don't see how it's my own assumptions more than any personality theory with the exception of Big 5 perhaps, but it's shallow either way, could get away from a degree of personal interpretation in the first place. With that said, my interpretation of the model *aligns with how others also understand type *so objectively speaking, it still seems to be accurate or correct.


I'll concede that point, that most people believe that as long as you line up the Jungian functions, you get the same type. 



> It's not about de-emphasizing or glossing over certain aspects though yes, in the sense of say, Reinin, MBTI doesn't have that, but it doesn't mean they conflict with each other. I have yet to run into a problem where the theories conflict to such a degree that I think they are speaking of two entirely different models of reality.


Why would they need to be entirely different? Even a few key differences could cause variations in the outcome the models produce. I believe they would be slight variations because the theories are fundamentally similar, but they're also not exactly the same.

Ultimately, you do have a point. They are both attempting to describe the same Jungian theory, so one model has to be interpreting things incorrectly, even if only in a slight way. Only one model can reflect the underlying reality of Jung's theory accurately, if any of them do. One or both of them must therefore be wrong in the details that differ between systems. 




> No. You are more concerned about the system itself then, and the integrity of it. They are describing the same archetypal pattern in people so thus, people will exhibit them similarly.


That's just it, that's what they SHOULD be doing. Since they both strive to reflect Jungian functions accurately, they should both line up if they're doing their jobs properly. I just happen to believe that the models are imperfect, and thus fail to do what they were designed to do in some cases as a result of these shortcomings.




> Fair, but that is not a problem to how I apply the respective theories, because I ultimately couldn't care less about macro vs micro. They achieve and work towards the same end goal and no matter how you stress and emphasize either one they will be intrinsically interconnected because you can't have one without the other.


MBTI and Socionics? They don't need each other, they both built on Jungian theory and didn't exchange that many ideas with one another. I think they're both perfectly capable of standing up without leaning on one another.

It seems like you're very focused on how the systems ought to work, and can't see past that. You just see that, and then stop right there. I don't really understand that mentality, but I accept that you think that way.



> You will never get away from interpretation even when it comes to physical objects. I am arguing this shirt is red but no, a friend of mine says it's pink. So which one is it?
> 
> 
> 
> Eh, I don't see that as a problem. You come up with your own understanding.


Okay, I think I get what you're saying now. You're saying that people should look at all the models and come to their own independent understanding of Jungian functions, and then apply their own understanding to any model that incorporates Jungian functions, right? The differences in perspective are then attributed to individual understanding, and the responsibility to interpret and define things correctly is taken away from the model, and placed in the hands of the individual?

That makes sense. It's a different philosophical standpoint from what I'm used to encountering, but I can respect that position on the matter.




> Yes, you are. Because structurally they are different because they use different tools and ideas to describe the MBTI. Nardi uses neuroscience and Thomson is more interpretative, but in essence they are still trying to describe the same idea e.g. Jungian cognition. If we replace Nardi by socionics and places it vs Lenore's MBTI and then simplifies it to socionics vs MBTI instead of Nardi vs Lenore, it's the same thing.


Okay, then you concede that structural differences exist, but you believe the structural differences are inconsequential to the typing produced by each system. You believe that they arrive at the same place by divergent processes?



> So your problem with the compatibility has more to do with that it doesn't line up with _your_ understanding?


Would you expect me to accept an interpretation of Jungian theory that doesn't line up with my own understanding, and which implies things about the nature of functions and intertype relations that I disagree with? I can follow their assumptions, but at the end of the day, I don't accept them because they don't align with what I believe Jung meant. I think that if I see Socionics as a flawed interpretation of Jungian theory, that would be a good reason to have issues with it. 

I have to be true to my own concept of how Jungian theory works. I can't genuinely accept a way of interpreting reality that doesn't align with that. I might alter my own concept if I saw that Socionics had a more accurate concept than myself, but so far, I have not seen any compelling reason to modify most of my interpretations in favor of theirs.




> I don't see what the culture has anything to do with it more than influencing the perspective? I am neither American nor Russian, but I wouldn't say that the Russian idea of socionics is that removed from the American idea of MBTI and how they understand people and social relationships.
> 
> I think personal bias from an author plays a much larger role than the culture in which they were raised. Augusta over-emphasized duality and it seem like it's the only relationship that actually works, for example. Has more to do with her life situation back then and being unhappily married than her being Russian.


Well, I was thinking about the differences in how the Sensing and Feeling functions are defined across the systems. 

Ni, Ne, Ti, and Te are fairly consistent. I believe that any NT typed in one system should be exactly the same type in the other. I've been wondering at the strange differences between Si, Se, Fi, and Fe, however... and what I've come up with is that they're _supposed_ to be the same, but that Russian culture (or author bias) is the reason why they sound so different.

In other words, Sensing and Feeling are more prone to having their expression influenced by culture than are Intuition and Thinking. 

I also disagree somewhat with the Socionic theory of intertype relations, and with the assumptions Socionics makes about how Quadra values manifest.

I could use Socionics if I reject their function definitions, quadra descriptions, and type descriptions, keeping only the model and substituting, say, Lenore Thompson's function definitions, and writing up some alternative type and Quadra descriptions based on those definitions.

But at that point I'd be changing it so much that it would be confusing, so I don't see much point in doing so.


----------



## Entropic (Jun 15, 2012)

delphi367 said:


> Okay, then you concede that structural differences exist, but you believe the structural differences are inconsequential to the typing produced by each system. You believe that they arrive at the same place by divergent processes?


I'm too lazy to respond to all of it as I'll just repeat myself for most of the part and this is the crux of it anyway, so I'll respond to this and the answer is yes, divergent process, same end result. If people arrive at a different end result the problem isn't the theory but their understanding of what the theory is trying to describe in my opinion. 

As for which system is more accurate, I actually think socionics wins over MBTI but that's my own bias.

EDIT 
@Figure described my sentiments in the below as well. Fuck, I wish I could be less braindead at this hour.


----------



## Figure (Jun 22, 2011)

delphi367 said:


> That's actually a very important part of why I see the systems as having translation issues. I don't believe that MBTI conceives of psychological functions as forms of information metabolism, or in terms of their relationships to each other. A lot of people who investigate the Jungian roots may come to that conclusion, but that isn't the interpretation MBTI seems to be founded on.


Correct, they don't. That's the most common plaint against people who think they are the same, that the theories are different therefore the way the types are defined is different, therefore the types themselves are different. 

What I still don't understand, however, is why the way the type is defined is a critical factor in debunking that the types are in fact the same. Perhaps you can explain this and solve it for once and for all. The way I see it, Carl Jung's psychological types are just as figurative and just as much an archetype as MBTI and socionics. Jung's written works give us a set of verbal fingers pointing at something ultimately very difficult to verbalize, yet still very much an innate pattern of human cognition. MBTI and socionics are still ultimately running off people, not Jung, though they _use_ Jung as the base of their logical structure. 

This is where I misunderstand people who go back to Jung for arguments that claim the systems are different. The patterns Jung identified would exist even if Jung had not identified them and regardless of how, and so could socionics and MBTI at least in essence, perhaps with different labels. I guess, from my POV, Jung's intent and the purpose of his work doesn't factor into whatever realities he identified that nobody else yet had.


----------



## Inguz (Mar 10, 2012)

Don't bother drawing too close parallels. The functions are defined differently in each system. They are siblings, not identical twins.

The pretty much only counter-argument that I have seen when highlighting discrepancies between how the functions are defined, and for example argue that most commonly an ISFP would be SEI in socionics, is circular reasoning. The argument refers back to the base premise, "Fi=Fi because that's just how it is and both are derived from Jung's work".


----------



## bearotter (Aug 10, 2012)

@_Figure_ interesting post that makes me want to respond but I have a nagging sense I'm not getting the question correctly

Anyway, if you see Jung as articulating a certain innate pattern, and think it is somewhat independent of axiomatic formalism, that is certainly a valid thing to get from Jung in my books.

My views are roughly that if I want that innate idea, I'm going to go straight to Jung, and that's that.
Meaning, if MBTI/socionics are merely axiomatic formulations of the same innate idea, then I almost don't need to hear about them.

The question arises, however, when someone isolates such a basic, foundations-level pattern, and leaves things open-ended as to what observations can be made about a person's psychology using it, whether people can build theories using his ideas, that use the same innate pattern, but with a varied empirical focus in terms of what they actually wish to classify in individuals using knowledge of that pattern.

Let's say the pattern certainly contains the T/F and I/E and N/S, P/J symbolically, but without definitions necessarily added up exactly the same (something which DEFINITELY happens when you take the MBTI-dichotomies as opposed to the functions as Jung presented them).

One can then build various theories based on the various ways these symbols interact emphasizing their incarnations in _particular_ realms (anyone who has used Jung's ideas to examine himself/herself at length knows these dimensions are so fundamental that the ways they show up and interact with one's psychology can be highly intricate, as is clear in that blind application of rules of thumb without some finesse leads to pretty meaningless typing).

But even if one does not redefine the symbols to mean what one wishes (which I _strongly_ suspect theorists coming after Jung were not entirely rigid about not doing.. which by me is _fine_ if they observe there is something else interesting they can say if they somewhat tweak the axioms, interesting obviously beyond saying "there exists a 4-fold functions model"), it's quite possible to arrive, using Jung's definitions of at least the functions (but, maybe not the rest of his intent in what he described as a "type" using his formulation of the functions), axiomatic formalisms that do carry some varying meaning in terms of what they are empirically describing, since the empirical roots of even Jung's theory, after all, seemed to be motivated in a particular way that wasn't exactly congruent with Myers' own empirical roots even if in her original writings she appears to be quite interested at a classification congruent roughly with what was isolated in PT Ch. 10 -- from his patients' conditions, e.g. the intuitive with whom he cannot reason on a sensing level, and much appeal to logic to bring back to reality slowly).

His empirical observations reflected an innate pattern which he then described in its more innate form, but certainly it can have incarnations with varying focuses, and particularizing those incarnations can lead to greater specificity of typing.

Now whether this all happened with socionics, who knows, I am still kinda bewildered by socionics, but it really hits the spot and describes exactly what some seem to see themselves as.


----------



## bearotter (Aug 10, 2012)

Long story short, typology is somewhat empirically driven, and it's possible to classify people different ways (due to varying empirical interest) even if there's an inherent symbolic core to it all, it's unclear that 'typologists' roughly speaking are TRYING to get at that symbolic core (or at least to me, Jung already pretty much got at the core of it to me), it appears they (at least at times) are using that symbolic core to study psychology and various typological phenomena with some empirical grounding.

If I want the closest to just what the symbolic core is, again I'd just go to Jung.


----------

