# So what's the difference between socionics & MB typing?



## Genghao (Nov 15, 2011)

Is it just MB wearing another clothes?


----------



## sinigang (May 5, 2012)

http://personalitycafe.com/socionics-forum/110079-mbti-types-vs-socionics.html
http://personalitycafe.com/socionic...otomies-mbti-socionics-types-should-same.html
http://personalitycafe.com/socionics-forum/126585-translating-mbti-socionics.html
http://personalitycafe.com/socionics-forum/123420-mbti-vs-socionics-course.html
http://personalitycafe.com/socionics-forum/121066-because-mbti-its-too-mainstream.html
and more

IMO socionics is more complicated and detailed, MBTI is more basic and popular in the west.

You will immediately see that socionics describes types in 8 functions, while MBTI only 4 (unless Beebe theory is added in).


----------



## Dark Romantic (Dec 27, 2011)

The difference is that socionics is better... way better.


----------



## cyamitide (Jul 8, 2010)

Genghao said:


> Is it just MB wearing another clothes?


It's MBTI Advanced++


----------



## aestrivex (Mar 7, 2011)

The difference is that they are different. They don't refer to the same things, don't use the same definition, don't have the same context in which they were generated -- they are simply different.


----------



## Moss Icon (Mar 29, 2011)

MBTI regards you as a Perceiver or Judger based on your strongest Extroverted function as MBTI sees the P/J trait as one's interactions with the outside world. Thus an INFP like myself is one who, despite having a Judging function (Thinking or Feeling) as their Dominant function (Introverted Feeling), does not use it to interact with the outside world as, as an Introvert, my Dominant function is Introverted. So it defers to my strongest Extroverted function: my Ne (Extroverted Intuition.) As this function is a Perceiving function, I am a Perceiver. 

Socionics does not consider the Extroversion or Introversion as relevant in deeming you P or J. In Socionics, your Dominant function, regardless of whether it is Introverted or Extroverted, determines your preference. Again, as an MBTI INFP, my Dominant function is Introverted Feeling. But Feeling is a Judging function and thus Socionics regards me as an INFJ. 

In short, MBTI sees the Perceiving/Judging preferences as outside world-oriented, thus one who applies a Judging function to the outside world is a Judger, even if that function is their Auxiliary and not Dominant function. Socionics regards one a Judger if the Judging function is their Dominant function, regardless of if it's Introverted or Extroverted. 


My experience with Socionics has been patchy. It seems to make a lot of very unscientific leaps, like relating personality types to physical characteristics. It tries to be more detailed and specific, but as personality types can only ever be basic generalisations, I'm sceptical about its assertions. Of course much of my scepticism may be because I spent a long time reading Socionics descriptions of INFPs that I found utterly unrelatable when I should have been reading the INFJ ones. But I have found Socionics to be less supported in the psychology community and more of an attempt to "rethink" the MBTI along the MBTI's original Jungian lines by enthusiasts.


----------



## Kanerou (Oct 8, 2009)

@Moss Icon You are not EII because you're INFP in MBTI; you're INFP in MBTI, and your Socionic type is determined by what IEs you use and prioritize. If that happens to be FiNe in Socionics, cool, but it doesn't have to be. I myself am Si-dom (probably ISTJ) in MBTI and Fi-base in Socionics; there's no way I'm Si-base or Fi-dom. Also, visual identification via physical features is not a universally accepted method among socionists.


----------



## bearotter (Aug 10, 2012)

I am yet to understand why some call it better or not. In my mind the various function attitudes, ideas, etc fuse, swirl and concoct into some understanding of all the function interplays, and that's about it.


----------



## Zero11 (Feb 7, 2010)

Information Elements - Functions (both are attempts to describe 8 innate existing mental processes)
Dynamic / Static - Judger / Perceiver

 xxxJ (Dynamic)​ xxxP (Static)​ Te, Fe (Je)​ Se, Ne (Pe)​ Si, Ni (Pi)​ Fi, Ti (Ji)​
 
Clubs - NT, NF, SF, ST Temperaments

-additional-


QuadraRational + IrrationalDualsAlpha







+







ENTp - ISFp; ESFj - INTjBeta







+







ESTp - INFp; ENFj - ISTjGamma







+







ESFp - INTp; ENTj - ISFjDelta







+







ENFp - ISTp; ESTj - INFj


QuadraRational + IrrationalDualsAlphaTi/Fe + Si/NeENTP - ISFJ; ESFJ - INTPBetaTi/Fe + Se/NiESTP - INFJ; ENFJ - ISTPGammaTe/Fi + Se/NiESFP - INTJ; ENTJ - ISFPDeltaTe/Fi + Si/NeENFP - ISTJ; ESTJ - INFP


SocionicsMBTIEgo (1.leading/base, 2.creative)Ego (1.dominant, 2.auxiliary)Super-Ego (4.vulnerable/PoLR, 3.role)Persona (7.trickster, 8.demon)Super-Id (6.mobilizing/HA, 5.suggestive/DS)Anima (3.tertiary, 4.inferior)Id (7.ignoring, 8.demonstrative)Shadow (5.opposing, 6.senex/witch)

HA = Hidden Agenda
DS = Dual-Seeking
PoLR = Place/Point of Least Resistance



Zero11 said:


> Socionic elements aren´t having a ordering like the MBTI, they have positions or "channels" that are playing a specific role in regard to the inter-type relations.
> 
> Socionics Model A


http://personalitycafe.com/socionics-forum/127992-forms-thinking.html
short Forms of Thinking


Result/InvolutionaryAlphaBetaGammaDeltaH-P Static -
 INTj​ESTpISFjENFpV-S Dynamic +
ESFjINFpENTjISTp


Process/EvolutionaryAlphaBetaGammaDeltaD-A Dynamic - ISFp​ENFjINTpESTjC-D Static +ENTpISTjESFpINFj

more detailed descriptions of the 11 Reinin Dichotomies:
http://www.the16types.info/vbulletin/content.php/106-Reinin-Dichotomies

Erotic-Attitudes

Se "aggressor"
Ni "victim"
Ne "infantile"
Si "caregiver"


----------



## cyamitide (Jul 8, 2010)

bearotter said:


> I am yet to understand why some call it better or not. In my mind the various function attitudes, ideas, etc fuse, swirl and concoct into some understanding of all the function interplays, and that's about it.


idk, I started studying Socionics after I got bored with MBTI and found out that it had a lot more to offer --things like quadra progression, additional dichotomies, thinking styles, etc. -- after I assimilated Socionics and looked back at MBTI, back at what my understanding of types and aspects and functions previously was, when I only studied MBTI, it felt very simplistic and under-developed in comparison -- ultimately I felt like my understanding of jungian typologies was much enhanced and boosted by my studies of socionics and that it allowed me to obtain a more informed and comprehensive view of this 16-types model

that's why I view socionics as advanced MBTI ... of course most people aren't all that interested in diving that deeply into theory and for them socionics won't be of much interest


----------



## bearotter (Aug 10, 2012)

@cyamitide: I personally love theory, but my style perhaps as an Ne-learner is to start generating the various angles a theory can take as I go, so to be honest I've lost track of what counts as MBTI and what counts as JCF and what counts as socionics, though the last one is at least a bit clearly differentiated since the function descriptions are distinct.

Probably one issue is my type was almost too easy to find in socionics, much easier to determine than MBTI, as thus far I find I'm an exact fit to LII.

Although, studying things like Jung's description of Si was useful, since I think while my relation to socionics Si is pretty much accurately captured by LII, I relate a lot to Jung's introverted sensing, and it's probably closer to a strong function for me, or so I think. I like how LII in socionics uses Ni and Ti both, but uses Ti-Ne consciously.


----------



## Moss Icon (Mar 29, 2011)

Kanerou said:


> @_Moss Icon_ You are not EII because you're INFP in MBTI; you're INFP in MBTI, and your Socionic type is determined by what IEs you use and prioritize. If that happens to be FiNe in Socionics, cool, but it doesn't have to be. I myself am Si-dom (probably ISTJ) in MBTI and Fi-base in Socionics; there's no way I'm Si-base or Fi-dom. Also, visual identification via physical features is not a universally accepted method among socionists.


Yeah, I've heard that. I took a Socionics test and came out INFj and the description fit me a lot better than Soc INFp so I do indeed seem to be MBTI INFP and Soc INFj. Although it's certainly not directly transferable, Socionics does still deem someone a Judger if their Dominant function is a Judging one, no? Unlike MBTI where the Judging function must be Extroverted to be a "Judger." I mean it's just one facet and like I say that's not to say it's directly transferable from MBTI to Socionics (INFP = INFj) as MBTI and Socionics have different test-methods. But that is the theory, is it not? 

Honestly, the physical features thing is just one area (and it sounds a lot like phrenology, which instantly set off the alarms. So I'm glad to hear it's not universally accepted.) Over all I find the Socionics descriptions a bit too specific. I think maybe that's why they appeal to some - they seem so much more detailed than MBTI. But Personality Typology Theory is already such a very vague and imprecise practice as it is. Basic generalisations and correlations are, in my opinion, the best one can hope for in "testing" human personality, so Socionics leaves me pretty sceptical in its attempts to be more detailed and comprehensive. Maybe I've just not encountered the right Socionics info yet. Maybe I've only read some pretty bad interpretations of it so far. I dunno.


----------



## Kanerou (Oct 8, 2009)

Moss Icon said:


> Yeah, I've heard that. I took a Socionics test and came out INFj and the description fit me a lot better than Soc INFp so I do indeed seem to be MBTI INFP and Soc INFj. Although it's certainly not directly transferable, Socionics does still deem someone a Judger if their Dominant function is a Judging one, no? Unlike MBTI where the Judging function must be Extroverted to be a "Judger." I mean it's just one facet and like I say that's not to say it's directly transferable from MBTI to Socionics (INFP = INFj) as MBTI and Socionics have different test-methods. But that is the theory, is it not?


Correct; Rational and Irrational are determined by the base function, as are Extrotim/Introtim.



> Honestly, the physical features thing is just one area (and it sounds a lot like phrenology, which instantly set off the alarms. So I'm glad to hear it's not universally accepted.) Over all I find the Socionics descriptions a bit too specific. I think maybe that's why they appeal to some - they seem so much more detailed than MBTI. But Personality Typology Theory is already such a very vague and imprecise practice as it is. Basic generalisations and correlations are, in my opinion, the best one can hope for in "testing" human personality, so Socionics leaves me pretty sceptical in its attempts to be more detailed and comprehensive. Maybe I've just not encountered the right Socionics info yet. Maybe I've only read some pretty bad interpretations of it so far. I dunno.


The descriptions are more guidelines than anything. The same cognitive processes can manifest differently in different people; what's ultimately important is whether the underlying mental focus fits. Or did you mean something else when you said they were too specific?


----------



## cyamitide (Jul 8, 2010)

bearotter said:


> @_cyamitide_: I personally love theory, but my style perhaps as an Ne-learner is to start generating the various angles a theory can take as I go, so to be honest I've lost track of what counts as MBTI and what counts as JCF and what counts as socionics, though the last one is at least a bit clearly differentiated since the function descriptions are distinct.


That's the sort of thing I see LIIs doing on socionics forums. It is perhaps easier for me to see a common essence and keep them all consistent due to Ni dominance. I consider that it highly unlikely that there could be 3-4 separate grids of 16 types, but instead it is more probably that a single grid exists of which different typologies and persons make different interpretations.

I've run across a certain view held primarily by ILEs and ILIs that this 16 types model is a completely abstract construct that has no basis in reality. That it is artificially contrived. Thus one can reshape it, mold it, redefine it as one wishes. On this basis they profess that MBTI, Jung, and Socionics are separate and distinct systems, however, this is not a view that I subscribe to.



> Probably one issue is my type was almost too easy to find in socionics, much easier to determine than MBTI, as thus far I find I'm an exact fit to LII.


What type are you in MBTI?


----------



## bearotter (Aug 10, 2012)

cyamitide said:


> I've run across a certain view held primarily by ILEs and ILIs that this 16 types model is a completely abstract construct that has no basis in reality. That it is artificially contrived. Thus one can reshape it, mold it, redefine it as one wishes.





Well, I sort of think one can reshape it, for sure, as long as there's a purpose. naturally, to me a theoretical purpose is sufficient (for instance, a more elegant description / better conducive to theoretical understanding is perfectly good a reason for me to reshape something.

I'm not sure what they mean by no basis in reality, but then again my extroversion preference is Ne, which is to say I tend to have a maximally non-rigid use of objective data. For me, that the ideas had a basis in observations which are real is sufficient to give them the minimal credibility I need to work with them. 




> What type are you in MBTI?
> ​




I identify as INTP. It was difficult to decide on Ni vs Ti dominance for me in that system, whereas in socionics, this becomes not so much an issue, particularly as a) I already had a hunch I'm a Ti dominant, b) the socionics Ti description was even easier for me to identify with than any of the Ti descriptions I had from MBTI, c) socionics LII utilizes Ni as a strong, unconscious influences to his processes, and this is roughly correct for me. 

In MBTI, I was confused about INFJ v. INTP. The thing though is that in time, what helped solidify INTP was that I understood better in myself how Si+Ne work together as a unit in me to information process, and how I'm much more in the JCF sense an introverted than extroverted sensor. I use Si very abstractly.​


----------



## Entropic (Jun 15, 2012)

Moss Icon said:


> Yeah, I've heard that. I took a Socionics test and came out INFj and the description fit me a lot better than Soc INFp so I do indeed seem to be MBTI INFP and Soc INFj. Although it's certainly not directly transferable, Socionics does still deem someone a Judger if their Dominant function is a Judging one, no? Unlike MBTI where the Judging function must be Extroverted to be a "Judger." I mean it's just one facet and like I say that's not to say it's directly transferable from MBTI to Socionics (INFP = INFj) as MBTI and Socionics have different test-methods. But that is the theory, is it not?
> 
> Honestly, the physical features thing is just one area (and it sounds a lot like phrenology, which instantly set off the alarms. So I'm glad to hear it's not universally accepted.) Over all I find the Socionics descriptions a bit too specific. I think maybe that's why they appeal to some - they seem so much more detailed than MBTI. But Personality Typology Theory is already such a very vague and imprecise practice as it is. Basic generalisations and correlations are, in my opinion, the best one can hope for in "testing" human personality, so Socionics leaves me pretty sceptical in its attempts to be more detailed and comprehensive. Maybe I've just not encountered the right Socionics info yet. Maybe I've only read some pretty bad interpretations of it so far. I dunno.





Kanerou said:


> The descriptions are more guidelines than anything. The same cognitive processes can manifest differently in different people; what's ultimately important is whether the underlying mental focus fits. Or did you mean something else when you said they were too specific?


Some people will be lucky to fit the descriptions, some people not really. I don't fit the socionics INFj description that well at all to be honest, most likely because my tritype makes me seem... very counter-INFj in some regards, while on the other hand, I can also see a strong logical connection between my tritype and my sociotype too (being withdrawn, for example). But in terms of IMs, it fits my reasoning process very well, so does it fit in terms of intertype. In terms of values, I also fit my quadra well and if you put stock in VI, then yes, I also seem to resemble an INFj Ne subtype. I just don't fit the overall description well which is why descriptions should always be taken with a grain of salt. I find that the sociotype descriptions sometimes overlap a little too much with the enneagram (as does the MBTI), but doesn't go into enough theoretical depth of how the functions actually work in each position cognitively. It focuses too much on behavior, I guess, as usual. While there is more focus on behavior in socionics, I suppose the wikisocion could be a bit more theoretical in its type descriptions.


----------



## Sol_ (Jan 8, 2013)

Genghao said:


> Is it just MB wearing another clothes?


Socionics like MBT is interpretation of Jung's typology, so types are same. But there are differences in models of introverts (MBT seriously controverts there to Jung). Plus Socionics uses full 8-functional models and have intertype relations theory. And though Socionics uses Jung's interpretation of introvertion/extraversion too, it have additional interpretaion for this preference by Augustinavichute; because of this besides using of Jung's interpretaion of 8 functions, Socionics have some additions in them and may to have minor differences with MBT there.
From practical point of view, as preferences of Socionics and MBT are compatible so types determined by preferences are same in both these typologies. Sometimes you may see as someone say like INTJ in MBT is INTP is Socionics, - it's a nonsense. One of problems of MBT - based on wrong model for introverted types while having low researching of 8 functions it have made rather inaccurate general descriptions for introverted types.


----------



## cyamitide (Jul 8, 2010)

bearotter said:


> Well, I sort of think one can reshape it, for sure, as long as there's a purpose. naturally, to me a theoretical purpose is sufficient (for instance, a more elegant description / better conducive to theoretical understanding is perfectly good a reason for me to reshape something.
> 
> I'm not sure what they mean by no basis in reality, but then again my extroversion preference is Ne, which is to say I tend to have a maximally non-rigid use of objective data. For me, that the ideas had a basis in observations which are real is sufficient to give them the minimal credibility I need to work with them.


I haven't explained myself well concerning the no basis in reality. I guess it has something to do with Ni-Si barrier and perhaps static-dynamic points of view. There was an ILE I've discussed socionics with who saw it as a system of arbitrary classifications, where one can define each category (type) however one chooses, and then let these definitions dictate who will be which type. The categories were constructed based on mainly logical derivations, hence my perception of them as artificial and having little to do with actual people and more with reasoning of the particular person who built them. My approach was the opposite to this ILE, that each category must derived empirically, from observations of real people - seeing some similarities, thinking where these stem from, then defining them on the basis of observations. I found his approach to be quite bizarre but apparently this is how some other ILEs think.

LIIs do something else where they try to break the existing boundaries to increase amount of uncertainly and chaos so that they can reinvent old theories and construsts. An LII poster is doing it in this thread by saying that someone can work on their weak points and improve them and then look like other types: http://www.the16types.info/vbulletin/showthread.php/42322-Paradox-in-typology My view is more deterministic, that one cannot easily mold themselves into any other type, so I don't agree with this point of view either.



> I identify as INTP. It was difficult to decide on Ni vs Ti dominance for me in that system, whereas in socionics, this becomes not so much an issue, particularly as a) I already had a hunch I'm a Ti dominant, b) the socionics Ti description was even easier for me to identify with than any of the Ti descriptions I had from MBTI, c) socionics LII utilizes Ni as a strong, unconscious influences to his processes, and this is roughly correct for me.
> 
> In MBTI, I was confused about INFJ v. INTP. The thing though is that in time, what helped solidify INTP was that I understood better in myself how Si+Ne work together as a unit in me to information process, and how I'm much more in the JCF sense an introverted than extroverted sensor. I use Si very abstractly.


I think LIIs with strong creative Ne function sometimes confuse themselves for Ni/Ne dominants. So how does Si and Ne work together for processing information? It has always been very difficult for me to picture this.


----------



## bearotter (Aug 10, 2012)

cyamitide said:


> There was an ILE I've discussed socionics with who saw it as a system of arbitrary classifications, where one can define each category (type) however one chooses, and then let these definitions dictate who will be which type. The categories were constructed based on mainly logical derivations, hence my perception of them as artificial and having little to do with actual people and more with reasoning of the particular person who built them




Interesting. The ILE's approach to data probably has something to do with this -- it's not terribly far from my approach to data, which is in the sense that I see data in an unfiltered, speculative way as well. The Ti's way of making sense of data can be more arbitrary-seeming, since it values logical harmony over all else.




> LIIs do something else where they try to break the existing boundaries to increase amount of uncertainly and chaos so that they can reinvent old theories and construsts.




That's exactly how I do it, it's funny. I'm less interested in the data even than I am about extracting the potential to create and recreate theories. The reason I think they may increase the amount of uncertainty initially is that again, their measure of truth is internal logical harmony, and building such systems is their version of certainty. The more one breaks the existing boundaries the less limited their ability to form systems. 
I've unfortunately many times annoyed people with this tendency, and I do admit it can turn up far-fetched results when I'm carried away.




> So how does Si and Ne work together for processing information? It has always been very difficult for me to picture this.




Now I'm not sure how _physical_ the Si of Jung is, but let me try to explain how this works in me. All in all, Si + Ne is a sort of more unfiltered approach to intuition. The intuiting occurs as objective information is taken in using Ne, and since Ne is objective, it is not considering how to filter the information. A Ti-dom like me though will quickly cut through it and see the potential to systematize everything, compromising intuitive understanding for a thorough logical analysis if I cannot achieve both, although I have personally a strong relation with unconscious-Ni.
The role of Si is in how and what to store _and_ in how Ne proceeds -- to connect/form angles among the data, lay out all the potential of the data, I need some starting point, and that requires not just factual data, but abstract introverted impressions of it. In fact, since Si operates after Ne has formed all this speculative data, it needs for Ti's sake to remember not just the facts taken in but all the connections, and the only real way is to record a detailed introverted impression of the entire phenomenon. Ni-doms suppress this to only remember their introverted-intuitive picture of the facts they took in, whereas Si can somehow support more unfiltered intuition, although we compromise on so-called "sensibility" of the intuition until possibly when Ti has dissected it.

And this is why I think you see LII deconstructing and reconstructing, because their intuition is so speculative. Whilst Ni-Te is concerned with forming dynamic pictures of how processes may play out to guide formation of objective systems, and hence may even be able to abstractly see issues in the practicality of such a system by envisioning how it'll play out, to Ti logical completeness, extension of the system as far as possible, is the sign of completeness and satisfaction, which is why I think it suppresses Si very little, seeing as how much Si can store that is relevant to this goal.



Also @cyamitide, is there a socionics type that you find fits you? I'm curious, given your perceptions of the ILE, LII, ILI types, for some reference point of how you see them.


----------



## Thalassa (Jun 10, 2010)

I believe it's very different. The way Si is described in Socionics makes sense to me more as an Fi/Se type or ISFP in MBTI (no, I do not think ISFj is the MBTI ISFP, that's b.s., the Socionics ISFj is different than MBTI ISFJ, but it's not an Fi/Se ISFP either!!)

Si in Socionics is concerned with comfort or beauty, with aligning one's self to harmonious congruence with the physical environment, restoring one's mental or emotional health with a good meal or gazing at a painting or listening to good music or doing an enjoyable physical activity. That's not the same as the way Jung describes Si. SiFe in Socionics can be characterized as lazy, disorganized, pleasure loving, comfort arranging, and enjoying the little things, making witty or joking or sparring conversation, which may seem banal to certain types. That doesn't sound like an MBTI ISFJ to me, it's a little different, but more similar to an ISFP. 

Furthermore, I feel that Socionics Fe makes more sense to me than Jungian Fe. Instead of being influenced by an in-group values system like the Jungian Fe type, it just means you make a point to make an impact on others and know how to do it, and tend to be emotionally affected by a disruptive or harmonious environment. 

A guy who met me in person (albeit briefly) kept insisting I was an Fe type in Socionics, and I thought he was insane, because I associated Fe with the Jungian description until I read more about Socionics.

Se in Socionics is also different; it sounds more like a an ESxJ interaction style, being really controlling and interacting with the environment, and exerting one's own will on that environment. I considered SEE for a time, until I realized that SEE is Napoleon and that ain't me; I can have a real temper but it's only when provoked by others on the outside, IRL I mainly seek to create my own little comfort zone and carve out my own path (more like the Jungian Fi dom) and only become pissed when bothered or intruded upon or my values are threatened. This sounds more like the Socionics ISFp, though it is SiFe. 

What I DO NOT like about Socionics: the idea of all these type interactions and specific relations.


----------



## themonocle (Feb 18, 2013)

How can one be both and INFJ and an INFj? I know my type in Myers Briggs is INFJ because I've taken the test with an advisor and had it confirmed, but socionics seems convoluted when it comes to intuitive introverts. My personality seems to present oddly. Some confuse me with Myers Briggs INTP and some with ENFP depending. Perhaps strongly developed Ti? I do interact with a lot of thinkers since my close family has an abnormal amount of ENTJs. I've had to learn to speak their language and translate it. I'm also an enneagram type 1. I could see how the possible enneagram behavioral patterns could mix into the equation and resemble a more analytical or perciveing style person, but to me it seems nothing more than a fleeting resemblance depending on what I need to adjust to contextually.


----------



## Kanerou (Oct 8, 2009)

themonocle said:


> How can one be both and INFJ and an INFj? I know my type in Myers Briggs is INFJ because I've taken the test with an advisor and had it confirmed, but socionics seems convoluted when it comes to intuitive introverts. My personality seems to present oddly. Some confuse me with Myers Briggs INTP and some with ENFP depending. Perhaps strongly developed Ti? I do interact with a lot of thinkers since my close family has an abnormal amount of ENTJs. I've had to learn to speak their language and translate it. I'm also an enneagram type 1. I could see how the possible enneagram behavioral patterns could mix into the equation and resemble a more analytical or perciveing style person, but to me it seems nothing more than a fleeting resemblance depending on what I need to adjust to contextually.


To be honest, I'm not sure what the explanation has to do with the question. The two are completely separate systems, so you can quite easily be both INFJ and EII (INFj).


----------



## themonocle (Feb 18, 2013)

Okay. Then, I've missed something. Let's move back some. From what I understand, the socionics personality structures are based on functional analysis similar to the Myers Briggs, correct? IE... These functions create this personality structure.

Perhaps my assumption, that the definition of the functions were the same is off. I was under the impression that with introverted intuitives you would have similar test results with the end letter flipped as a result of system differences. Not that the whole system was entirely different standing on it's own. And the explanation was attempting to understand what that would look like holistically. Why some would see me as a perceiver or more of a thinker...


----------



## Kanerou (Oct 8, 2009)

themonocle said:


> Okay. Then, I've missed something. Let's move back some. From what I understand, the socionics personality structures are based on functional analysis similar to the Myers Briggs, correct? IE... These functions create this personality structure.


Similar labels, both using a model of functions to signify type. Socionics has the 8 IM elements, which are set into an 8-function type model. Technically, the socionics type is a structure of information metabolism; it shows what kinds of information we process best and prefer to focus on (and which we don't). It definitely can affect how we act, but that's kind of a side effect or consequence of having those cognitive filters.


----------



## themonocle (Feb 18, 2013)

That makes sense. So, MBTI is a matter of explaining how the personality functions both externally and internally? Verses what one would prefer to focus on in those processes? I'm new to this so I maybe asking newbie questions.


----------



## Kanerou (Oct 8, 2009)

themonocle said:


> That makes sense. So, MBTI is a matter of explaining how the personality functions both externally and internally? Verses what one would prefer to focus on in those processes? I'm new to this so I maybe asking newbie questions.


'S alright. I don't know enough about how MBTI functions to be able to answer those questions very clearly. I've heard both sides, that it's about how you behave or that it's about the motivations behind your behavior.


----------



## themonocle (Feb 18, 2013)

I was actually quite taken back by another INFJ who was nothing like me. I know her in real life and would have never thought we were the same type. She insists that I'm INTP. I was trying to figure out what (besides the obvious different experiences) would make two people so different. She saw me as reserved and self-contained. She seemed very flighty to me and overly dramatic.


----------



## Zero11 (Feb 7, 2010)

@themonocle

Kanerou holds the opinion that the 8 Information Elements are not the same as the 8 function of the MBTI. They are both attempts to describe 8 innate existing mental processes.


----------



## Kanerou (Oct 8, 2009)

themonocle said:


> I was actually quite taken back by another INFJ who was nothing like me. I know her in real life and would have never thought we were the same type. She insists that I'm INTP. I was trying to figure out what (besides the obvious different experiences) would make two people so different. She saw me as reserved and self-contained. She seemed very flighty to me and overly dramatic.


I'll have to defer to the more knowledgeable MBTI people for any deep explanation. There could be any number of reasons, though. Maybe different Enneagram or Socionic types. Or maybe you aren't the same MBTI type. I don't know either of you or the theory well enough to judge that.


----------



## themonocle (Feb 18, 2013)

Kanerou said:


> I'll have to defer to the more knowledgeable MBTI people for any deep explanation. There could be any number of reasons, though. Maybe different Enneagram or Socionic types. Or maybe you aren't the same MBTI type. I don't know either of you or the theory well enough to judge that.


I realize that may have sounded a bit harsh, I don't think I could describe it any other way and be accurate. Maybe I'll bring the behavior up in the INFJ forum and see what they have to say. Something about the whole thing is ... Off. And it's stuck in my craw. Thanks.


----------



## Kanerou (Oct 8, 2009)

themonocle said:


> I realize that may have sounded a bit harsh, I don't think I could describe it any other way and be accurate.


It didn't seem harsh at all.



> Maybe I'll bring the behavior up in the INFJ forum and see what they have to say. Something about the whole thing is ... Off. And it's stuck in my craw. Thanks.


OK. Good luck. Feel free to stick around here as well, if you are interested.


----------



## cyamitide (Jul 8, 2010)

themonocle said:


> How can one be both and INFJ and an INFj?


Some people believe that MBTI and Socionics don't define information elements in the same way. Therefore it is possible to value different IEs in different systems and thus be different types. There is a discussion on the topic in the sticky threads: http://personalitycafe.com/socionic...ing-mbti-functions-socionics-im-elements.html

However, INFJ and INFj don't have a single IE in common and IMO whoever thinks that they are INFJ and INFj simply haven't done much research into Socionics and merely accepted the result that some socionics test gave them and stuck with it. If they did investigate further it would have probably raised some red flags that there is something wrong about this combination.



> I know my type in Myers Briggs is INFJ because I've taken the test with an advisor and had it confirmed, but socionics seems convoluted when it comes to intuitive introverts. My personality seems to present oddly. Some confuse me with Myers Briggs INTP and some with ENFP depending. Perhaps strongly developed Ti? I do interact with a lot of thinkers since my close family has an abnormal amount of ENTJs. I've had to learn to speak their language and translate it. I'm also an enneagram type 1.


Type 1s get confused for logical types because they are more rational and analytical in nature, so that may be part of the problem. Most of the INFx profiles in MBTI and Socionics have been written basing on type 4 so INFx types are depicted as artistic, creative, emotional. Of course type 1s have a lot of trouble identifying with such profiles.



> I could see how the possible enneagram behavioral patterns could mix into the equation and resemble a more analytical or perciveing style person, but to me it seems nothing more than a fleeting resemblance depending on what I need to adjust to contextually.


The profiles can't describe everyone, which is why I prefer to learn both MBTI and Socionics basing on information elements and functions, and refer back to Jung's original descriptions of functions in psychological types and advise others to do the same. The profiles are only a starting point for novices.


----------



## aestrivex (Mar 7, 2011)

cyamitide said:


> Some people believe that MBTI and Socionics don't define information elements in the same way.


To be technical, it is not that MBTI and socionics do not define information elements in the same way. Rather, it is that socionics defines information elements, and MBTI defines cognitive functions, and it is these structures that differ (or so I purport, and you disagree).


----------



## cyamitide (Jul 8, 2010)

aestrivex said:


> To be technical, it is not that MBTI and socionics do not define information elements in the same way. Rather, it is that socionics defines information elements, and MBTI defines cognitive functions, and it is these structures that differ (or so I purport, and you disagree).


I don't disagree that there are certain structural differences as well. MBTI doesn't clearly delineate between IEs and functions - Socionics does. Though I've seen some attempts at this in MBTI like what can be found on Lenore Thomson's wiki where she describes how Fi manifests in dominant, auxiliary, tertiary and inferior positions.


----------



## aestrivex (Mar 7, 2011)

cyamitide said:


> I don't disagree that there are certain structural differences as well. MBTI doesn't clearly delineate between IEs and functions - Socionics does.


That isn't quite accurate. MBTI doesn't have the concept of an IM element. In socionics function has a specific (and rarely acknowledged) meaning -- position of an element in model A. In MBTI function is synonymous with cognitive function -- you'll notice i used the term "cognitive function" and not "function" which does not exist in socionics.

I am not trying to argue that socionics functions are different from e.g. function placements in Beebe model or whatever lenore thomson is cooking up these days -- that distinction is trivial. I am arguing that socionics IM elements are not conceptually identical to MBTI or JCF cognitive functions, in terms of what it means for something to be an IM element or a cognitive function. An IM element conceptually is a perceptual lens/filter and a cognitive function is conceptually a cognitive process. This distinction isn't completely trivial, but nor is it very important in widespread application.

What is important in widespread application is that these cognitive processes and perceptual filters look nothing like each other in common practice. *that* discussion ceases to be technical quibbling and begins to be the more serious disagreement we have that you alluded to about whether the systems are compatible or attempting to describe the same sorts of things, in practice.


----------



## cyamitide (Jul 8, 2010)

aestrivex said:


> That isn't quite accurate. MBTI doesn't have the concept of an IM element. In socionics function has a specific (and rarely acknowledged) meaning -- position of an element in model A. In MBTI function is synonymous with cognitive function -- you'll notice i used the term "cognitive function" and not "function" which does not exist in socionics.


MBTI doesn't incorporate Kepinski's stuff on IM you're right, but it does have a rudimentary way of differentiating between what's known as IEs and functions in Socionics -- in MBTI Ti/Te, Fi/Fe, etc. are separately described and then assigned positions like dominant, auxiliary, tertiary, inferior within MBTI's simplistic ordering system. The concept of "IE" is not outlined in MBTI of course and the relationships between these positions are never explained, but conceptually MBTI is roughly on the same course as Socionics -- it's just much more primitive and elementary.



> I am not trying to argue that socionics functions are different from e.g. function placements in Beebe model or whatever lenore thomson is cooking up these days -- that distinction is trivial. I am arguing that socionics IM elements are not conceptually identical to MBTI or JCF cognitive functions, in terms of what it means for something to be an IM element or a cognitive function. An IM element conceptually is a perceptual lens/filter and a cognitive function is conceptually a cognitive process. This distinction isn't completely trivial, but nor is it very important in widespread application.
> 
> What is important in widespread application is that these cognitive processes and perceptual filters look nothing like each other in common practice. *that* discussion ceases to be technical quibbling and begins to be the more serious disagreement we have that you alluded to about whether the systems are compatible or attempting to describe the same sorts of things, in practice.


I see MBTI's layout as nascent to Socionics layout. Basically instead of being completely different, they are simply at different stages of development. So what you're saying is that an egg and a chicken are different things, while what I'm saying is that conceptually they are same but in different phases.


----------



## bearotter (Aug 10, 2012)

themonocle said:


> Some confuse me with Myers Briggs INTP and some with ENFP depending.


I once had to do the opposite switch - INFJ to INTP. The key to distinguishing these, in my view, is not necessarily Ti-use, but the rest of the cognitive pattern - both INTP and INFJ are users of Ti-Fe, so in people who seem Fe-developed, this can create confusion.

With INTP, check out the vastly different perceiving outlook of Ne-Si supporting T, from a dominant Ni. A dominant Ni type hugely supresses sensing, and there's a very different vibe to how it assimilates knowledge. An INTP takes hundreds of pieces of data, both factual and speculative, and determines the principles at work in them using careful logic. An INFJ does not at all do this kind of thing by tendency. They assemble a limited amount of data and jump straight to the abstract intuitive form of it, and focus on seeing this at work. This is why they rarely know how precisely their vision formed, because they suppress their sensory experience that much, and remember the abstract patterns only.

And with ISTP, since it's cognitively similar to INFJ, the key is that their Se will be a strong asset, and they have no problem with it.


----------



## aestrivex (Mar 7, 2011)

cyamitide said:


> I see MBTI's layout as nascent to Socionics layout. Basically instead of being completely different, they are simply at different stages of development. So what you're saying is that an egg and a chicken are different things, while what I'm saying is that conceptually they are same but in different phases.


No, I am saying that one is a baby chicken, and the other is a fully-grown turkey. And I laid out the conceptual distinctions quite clearly, even though you chose to ignore them and view them as irrelevant.

The difference that you are describing that socionics is "further along in its development" and that is the major distinction between them, I disagree with. The major distinction between them is not that, nor the minute conceptual points that you refuse to pay attention to. Rather, the major distinction is that when applied by laypeople, the results look absolutely nothing alike.


----------



## Scelerat (Oct 21, 2012)

Socionics was made by thinkers and MBTI by feelers, so naturally socionics is deeper and offers a better understanding.


----------



## cyamitide (Jul 8, 2010)

aestrivex said:


> No, I am saying that one is a baby chicken, and the other is a fully-grown turkey. And I laid out the conceptual distinctions quite clearly, even though you chose to ignore them and view them as irrelevant.
> 
> The difference that you are describing that socionics is "further along in its development" and that is the major distinction between them, I disagree with. The major distinction between them is not that, nor the minute conceptual points that you refuse to pay attention to. Rather, the major distinction is that when applied by laypeople, the results look absolutely nothing alike.


Eh, you cannot make this claim "the major distinction is that when applied by laypeople, the results look absolutely nothing alike" since you have no idea whether the results look similar or not. The way I've typed my family and friends it all coincides, even the intertype relationships. What's really happening is that several of your are coming up with artificial theoretical distinctions and then saying "see how socionics and mbti are nothing alike!!!". If you paid attention to real people around you, and based your understanding on reality, not on abstractions that you've read from Wikisocion or some Russian socionics article, you'd see that there is only one grid of 16 types, that there do not exist two separate systems of types - MBTI one and Socionics one - as you're claiming.

This is why I choose to ignore these distinctions you draw -- for one, they don't directly contradict one another for one, and for another, they are purely theoretical and far removed from what actual people are like.


----------



## aestrivex (Mar 7, 2011)

cyamitide said:


> Eh, you cannot make this claim "the major distinction is that when applied by laypeople, the results look absolutely nothing alike" since you have no idea whether the results look similar or not.


I can make any claim I like. You can "choose to ignore me" all you like, and you can say anything about the "arbitrary" distinctions I create. I can say that I have years of experience observing people apply and misapply socionics, and you have no more of a leg to stand on than I do.


----------



## Entropic (Jun 15, 2012)

Scelerat said:


> Socionics was made by thinkers and MBTI by feelers, so naturally socionics is deeper and offers a better understanding.


For someone who types himself as an ENTJ I have to say that is a sign of a very weak example of thinking and is not only stereotype but even implies that feelers cannot write complex and exhaustive theoretical systems. The result of such a statement is thus highly ironic and makes one wonder if you are not, *legasp* a feeler in disguise?


----------



## Scelerat (Oct 21, 2012)

LeaT said:


> For someone who types himself as an ENTJ I have to say that is a sign of a very weak example of thinking and is not only stereotype but even implies that feelers cannot write complex and exhaustive theoretical systems. *The result of such a statement is thus highly ironic* and makes one wonder if you are not, *legasp* a feeler in disguise?


That was kind of the joke....

Although as far as I know, Isabel Briggs Myers was an INFP and Augusta was an ILE. So to break it down for you, the part before the comma was fact, the part after the comma was a joke.


----------



## Jabberbroccoli (Mar 19, 2011)

Scelerat said:


> Socionics was made by thinkers and MBTI by feelers, so naturally socionics is deeper and offers a better understanding.


Lmao


----------



## Planisphere (Apr 24, 2012)

If one looks at the two systems from a purely surface-oriented point-of-view, they look almost exactly the same. Take, for example, the descriptions of various MBTI types and their Socionics 'look-a-likes': the descriptions of INTp are almost exactly the same as those of INTP. However, when one digs deeper, the functions are revealed to be completely different. Basic MBTI is focused on generalization, while Socionics defines each type more completely via detailed analyses of the functions. Jung's pure functions theory, however, is probably the most complex and definitive of them all; many other personality theories are merely branches off of Jung's work attempting to organize the complexity of Jung's theory into 'mathematically precise' systems.


----------



## themonocle (Feb 18, 2013)

I agree, on the surface the systems would look alike, however, I'm not looking at the surface similarities. I can't find much information on Socionics that looks all that deeply analyzed (well defined). Now, in its defense, I also haven't done as much reading on Socionics as I have on Jung and the Myers Briggs so I'm refraining from a judgment written in stone. From what I see, Socionics looks convoluted. It seems to be missing a rather important element. Profiles are more caricature like than say the combination of Myers Briggs plus Enneagram. What I'm looking for, is clear cut information on the Socionics system. Perhaps then I would be willing to come to some sort of definitive conclusion in a conversation. 

First, I need a reliable source of information on the systems ins and outs. Then, I can let you know what I think in a more definitive way. As it stands, I don't relate to the INF descriptions that could possibly be enneagram correlative. If I had to pick an either/or with the information I have, I would simply say - No.


----------



## Planisphere (Apr 24, 2012)

themonocle said:


> I can't find much information on Socionics that looks all that deeply analyzed (well defined).


Surprisingly enough, there's a lot of detail in Socionics. Since it was developed in Lithuania, it was picked up by numerous east European countries, including Russia itself. You'll find a lot of research on the theory done predominantly in Russian and other east European languages. Probably the most detailed of sites is Wikisocion: Wikisocion - you'll get more than enough reading from this site. Like MBTI, Socionics focuses more on behavior and how the personality externalizes certain modes of thought. Enneagram and Jung's pure theory of cognition are examples of theories based on understanding the internal modes of thought rather than behavior: Enneagram, in particular, is best used when determining 'why' someone does what they do, and it's pretty handy when paired with MBTI.


----------



## Acerbusvenator (Apr 12, 2011)

lol, this thread...
It's like going to the communist party asking which one is the best, communism or capitalism.

MBTI is small-scale and only focused on how you process information.
Socionics is large-scale and focused on how you think, how you act, how you interact.

I'd argue that Socionics is a bit too specific for a 16 types system. People of the same type might after all think, act and interact differently than each other. Socionics isn't made to handle such situations.

In a way then MBTI is a room and socionics is a box.

But I am sure that LeaT will come in and give some rude comments to try to invalidate my opinion by insulting me or my understanding. It is after all her normal way of holding a conversation.


----------



## themonocle (Feb 18, 2013)

That's interesting. I'm not asking which one is better or worse. That's a question for eye exams. Just looking for the information. And since I'm new to these boards I'd like to stay out of any "typist-nationalist-sexist" mudslinging. All it does is distract from learning. Thanks.


----------



## Kanerou (Oct 8, 2009)

I've said this before, but I find that both systems are useful in helping me to comprehend others' motivations.


----------



## Sixty Nein (Feb 13, 2011)

I have nothing else to add, but the social dynamics I have observed from various image boards are this:

The people who like the MBTI (without functions) are largely just forum/image board derps jerking off to their precious INTP/INTJ descriptions and how that makes them better then everyone else. Also some INFPs mooping about how much they suck. The people involved in Socionics are generally kind of nuts, and aren't really the kind of people who I would want to associate with in real life. Outside of a few people really.

There is also a lot less sensor hate in socionics, which is replaced by a Beta/Gamma war. It just goes to show that people love to bitch and fight, and having arbitrary lines to fight over, which more or less make them feel better about themselves. Socionics IMO has better drama, and that's the only reason why I even read these damn threads.


----------



## Aleksei (Apr 3, 2010)

Reposting from another thread:



Aleksei said:


> Socionics is based on a theoretical framework which, while inherited from MBTI/JCF and earlier Jungian typology before it, largely diverges from it. My experience, personally, is that not a single Socionics type or function can be fixed to any counterpart in JCF. Some are so clearly distinct from each other that to claim them the same means you never read the definitions for one or the other (Fe jumps to mind). Others yet appear much the same, but can be said to be distinct when you consider context (how the function manifests in an individual type, notably).
> 
> A major reason for that is that the function definitions are Augusta's own, but another reason is that the make up of the types* isn't dictated by the functions themselves*. Instead, each type is a compendium of a series of dichotomies, which are believed by Socionists to explain the different aspects of the psyche. Some of these can be ignored, *but others are effectively paramount to understanding the types*: For instance, Socionics EJs are a *Dynamic* type (whereas EPs are a *Static* type), so generally speaking a Socionics EJ will behave and think in a manner that in MBTI will be easier to associate with an EP type. For instance: I myself am ESFP and Fe-ESFj, and in general the overwhelmingly most likely type for any ESFj is in fact ESFP (ESTP is a distant second, followed by ENFJ, ENFP and _then_ ESFJ). ENTPs, likewise, tend to be about as likely to be some manner of EJ (ESTj > ENFj = ENTj > ESFj ime) as they are to be ENTp.
> 
> Victor Gulenko, co-creator of Socionics, puts it best here:





Aleksei said:


> Again, it's impossible to have any hard-and-fast correlations between the two systems, but here's a rough sketch of the sociotypes you could expect to be if you're a given JCF type (list is *not* exhaustive; you could be almost any sociotype, the rest are just rarer):
> 
> ENTP- ILE, LSE, SEI, LII, EIE, ILI, LIE
> ENFP- IEE, IEI, ESE
> ...


----------



## Beauty for Ashes (Feb 6, 2013)

It really helped me to understand what type I truly was.


----------

