# Socionics and MBTI are not compatible!



## Entropic (Jun 15, 2012)

Zero11 said:


> That what Jung wrote was pure 100% Extraverted Thinking which doesn´t exist in Reality. Which also seems to bend over into some Descriptions.


So? He's trying to illustrate an idea, a concept, a point. The problem with many who read Jung is that they take what he says too literally which is entirely missing the point of what he's trying to suggest. Of course Jung is exaggerating his definitions because as is known in teaching, especially when new to a subject, is that one has an easier time grasping something when the explanation is exaggerated because exaggeration is a simplification. It's actually a known aspect of learning. Once someone has grasped the basics, one can move on to understanding more nuanced parts about the subject that may even originally contradict what one was originially taught. Take maths for example. All maths starts with arithmethics, no exception. We learn that + or positive numbers are the total sum of whatever values that are being calculated and with -, the sum must be of lesser value, but as we move on with arithmetics and start to learn algebra we know that two negative numbers actually means addition, not substraction. 

So the question becomes, are you going to keep interpreting what you read literally or will you try to actually abstract whatever you've read and truly begin to grasp the subject or not?


----------



## Zero11 (Feb 7, 2010)

Entropic said:


> Of course Jung is exaggerating his definitions because as is known in teaching, especially when new to a subject, is that one has an easier time grasping something when the explanation is exaggerated because exaggeration is a simplification.


I highly disagree as the Cognitive Functions are from a pure Jungian standpoint are far too vague to be understood. And here is goes again you are pleased with something that needs to be more sophisticated in my view. The same with the Descriptions and the Functions. That comparison with something to teach is not compatible because your example is based on simple stuff but the Jungian functions are Abstractions.


----------



## Entropic (Jun 15, 2012)

Zero11 said:


> I highly disagree as the Cognitive Functions are from a pure Jungian standpoint are far too vague to be understood. And here is goes again you are pleased with something that needs to be more sophisticated in my view. The same with the Descriptions and the Functions. That comparison with something to teach is not compatible because your example is based on simple stuff but the Jungian functions are Abstractions.


Indeed they are abstractions and my point is, why aren't you able to abstract the fact that Jung exaggerated his descriptions on purpose in order to get his point across because giving more nuanced examples of the types would not provide the same kind of clarity?


----------



## Pancreatic Pandora (Aug 16, 2013)

Zero11 said:


> The case is closed now if you don´t relate to it. Typing oneself in a System without the System. :mellow: Genius move.


Cool, tell me about how you relate to every single aspect of the ILI type in socionics (descriptions, of which there are plenty of authors, inter-type relations, information elements, functions, romantic styles, subtypes, quadras, function dimensionality, plus/minus signs, reinin dichotomies, jungian dichotomies, cognitive styles, VI, etc.) and how Socionics is a perfectly consistent theory that works as a fully accurate typology of human behaviour, cognition and social compatibility. I mean, given the fact that Entropic obviously is not using Socionics due to the fact he doesn't relate to ILI descriptions.

Or do you just read the descriptions and pretend to understand the rest of the system based solely on them?



> Because Te is reliant on available Information, *Te/Fi is not able to see Structure*


Yeah, nevermind the fact that ILIs have 4-dimensional Ti and perfectly understand any kind of structure Ti-doms see when they care to engage in that kind of thinking.



> and therefore not able to create novel Information from Observation.


Wtf does that even mean? Point to me a human being who is unable to do this. Oh wait, I forgot Te types can't be _scientists_!!


----------



## Zero11 (Feb 7, 2010)

@_Pancreatic Pandora_ 

You are stupid welcome on my ignore list.

+ with the 4 Dimensional example ILI and LII are the same :dry:

Ti is structural logic and Lenore Thomson describes it as situational logic, quiet easy to understand


----------



## Pancreatic Pandora (Aug 16, 2013)

@Zero11 Very well, I'm here if you ever feel like discussing your opinions instead of stating them as facts.

I don't think I'm stupid though roud:.


----------



## Zero11 (Feb 7, 2010)

Socionics Si is kind of what Se is in MBTI, Socionics Si has a greater value than Socionics Se.

MBTI
Si as being Left-Brain is not really Sensation anymore, it is not intangible Memory like Ni but a concrete one.
Therefore Pi being Memory Associations makes the Pe functions both different versions of Sensation as they are Right-Brain Perceptions.


----------



## Abraxas (May 28, 2011)

Doesn't Jung like... straight up say that his descriptions are not meant to be taken literally, that they are, I believe the exact words he used were, "galtonesque portraits"?

Also, when you say that the "Jungian functions are much to vague to be understood" - what do you even mean?

I read them. My mind associated the concepts with pre-existing concepts to which I had already been exposed in other literature. Furthermore, I read his definitions, and after that I had a very strong sense of confidence that I comprehended them.

I then went on to apply this information in my life, and doing so produced quantifiable improvements in my life. I was better able to achieve specific goals (such as avoiding social dissonance between myself and others with whom, prior to applying Jungian literature, I was unable to establish rapport with).

I can't even think of a way in which you could be more incorrect. Not only did I subjectively comprehend the material, I even objectively applied it and produced objective results.

The only thing I would argue is that others have provided _better_ descriptions (Lenore Thomson for instance). But that is a far different thing than to say that Jung's descriptions cannot be understood AT ALL.


What are you even doing with this thread?

Are you just venting or something?

What is the purpose of this thread? What are you trying to stop from happening or cause to happen?

I don't get it.


----------



## Zero11 (Feb 7, 2010)

@Abraxas 

Wasn´t it you who said the Cogintive Functions don´t even exist? The purpose of this Thread is Information Exchange also known as Extraverted Thinking.


----------



## Abraxas (May 28, 2011)

Zero11 said:


> @_Abraxas_
> 
> Wasn´t it you who said the Cogintive Functions don´t even exist? The purpose of this Thread is Information Exchange also known as Extraverted Thinking.


Cognitive functions probably don't exist if you mean they exist as localized neurological processes. The work of Dario Nardi, which is as close to anything empirical as you can get so far, only shows that there are correlations between different brain region activity and certain function preferences, but that doesn't show that cognitive functions are real.

Unless one means "real" in the sense of just being a category into which we lump a bunch of neuronal and subsequently mental processes. In that sense, we can say "cognitive functions are real" if all we are actually saying is "X, Y, and Z neurological processes are happening at the same time and correlate with X mental process."

That is to say, the map we make of the territory is real - we really have a map. But the map isn't the territory. The map itself isn't _reality_ itself, it's just a map of it. But nobody would say "maps aren't real."

So what I said was true, from a certain point of view.

...

... Or, I may have also changed my mind since then.


Also, I'm not sure extraverted thinking is just "information exchange."

But if it is, in that case, allow me to exchange this information with you:

http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Chewbacca_Defense


----------



## Wolfskralle (Nov 29, 2013)

Didn't read whole thread.

I don't think socionics and mbti are necessarily compatible in a sense that INTP = INTj, ISFP = ISFj, etc.
These are just different systems, with different approach to functions, function dynamics, behavioral aspects of each type, type compatibility, etc. Maybe it's a bit more clear for extroverted types. 
Some lecture on the problem: How to convert MBTI® type to Socionics type. 

Another thing is that socionics, as a theory, seem more unified than mbti (at least when we speak about functions, mbti dichotomies are ultra-simple and well recognized). So between mbti theorists there will be some who are more "in line" with socionics, and some who have completely different approach to types. Among theorists most consistent with socionics I can name Leonore Thomson as a good example. 

I, personally, don't see the point of unifying both systems. They seem to serve a different purpose (mbti as a more popular, egalitarian system which place emphasis on behavioral aspects and standarized behaviors and socionics as a more developed theory which place emphasis on social relations and intertype relations of functions). 


Of course both systems came form Jungian Psychological Types, but both are just interpretations of his work. Neither system is a direct translation of Jung work. And I have a feeling that he was mostly descibing very clear examples of each type, and such types rarely exist in reality. And if they do, they are rather unhealthy individuals. Which explains why they were visiting Jung at the first place. People can have different auxiliary functions, functions can be differentiated in many ways, many aspects of function can manifest, etc. It's not even possible to create one, correct post-jungian system. 
All sub-systems derived from jung focus on different aspects of functions and it's just fine. Whether these functions exist in reality, or not, is not even relevant imo. (I personally think nothing exist beyond given system, but that's beyond the point.)

To give more real-life example, I hardly think that most people who are residents on INTJ sub-forum are ILI's, INFP forum are EII's, and so on.


----------



## chwoey (Mar 29, 2012)

Zero11 said:


> @_Pancreatic Pandora_
> 
> You are stupid welcome on my ignore list.
> 
> ...


Wow, you are an absolutely ridiculous person. I ACTUALLY cannot believe how ridiculous you are. And you think you have the right to criticize the typing of anyone else.

The whole idea is the look at the COGNITIVE FUNCTIONS. EVERYONE IS DIFFERENT. THERE IS NO WAY EVERYONE WILL RELATE COMPLETELY TO 16 "PROFILES". ARE YOU KIDDING ME?

I actually am dumbfounded. Thank you for telling me that I need to be sure to never take anything you say seriously, because clearly you are full of crap.


----------



## Zero11 (Feb 7, 2010)

[No message]


----------



## GnothiSeauton (Sep 11, 2011)

lol @Zero11. If you're going to insult everyone on this thread, at least do it without capitalizing nouns. This is not German.


----------



## Deus Absconditus (Feb 27, 2011)

If different people look at the same object, then you'l get different perceptions of the object. MBTW and Socionics are two different perspectives on functions which originate from Jung. Since both MBTI and Socionics derive from Jung then that means they are both compatible to Jung. If they are both compatible to Jung then they are both compatible to eachother. Two different definitions doesn't mean two different objects but instead two different perspectives on the same object (functions in this case).


----------



## Zero11 (Feb 7, 2010)

@_Shadow Logic_

*Socionics Si*
relaxation and bodily sensations (comfort, smell, taste, sight, colour), assessing one’s level of comfort and those of others, maintaining a cosy environment; paying acute attention to sensory changes and the needs of the body; an attention to attractiveness and aesthetic appearance; the perception of surfaces through touch; interest in health issues and cooking; the ability to put others at ease, focusing on sensual sexuality and pleasant appearance.

*MBTI Se*
It is the ability to be keen to what is seen, smelled, touched, heard and tasted. It is energized by experience and it is able to live "in the moment." 

Both functions are similar despite one being Introverted and other Extroverted which means that one Definiton must come with a false Understanding of the Original.



GnothiSeauton said:


> ...without capitalizing nouns. This is not German.


I think I´ve unlearnt English with the time.


----------



## Deus Absconditus (Feb 27, 2011)

Zero11 said:


> @Shadow Logic
> 
> *Socionics Si*
> relaxation and bodily sensations (comfort, smell, taste, sight, colour), assessing one’s level of comfort and those of others, maintaining a cosy environment; paying acute attention to sensory changes and the needs of the body; an attention to attractiveness and aesthetic appearance; the perception of surfaces through touch; interest in health issues and cooking; the ability to put others at ease, focusing on sensual sexuality and pleasant appearance.
> ...


The Si definition is talking about bodily and personal perceptions, as in related to self which is equivalent to introversion.

The Se definition is talking about sensations in the extraverted sense as in focusing on impersonal sensations. 

They're only similar in the aspect of sensation but both definitions are definitely talking about separate types of sensation.


----------



## Zero11 (Feb 7, 2010)

@Shadow Logic

That is a very vague distinction (extraverted/impersonal).



> *Socionics Si*
> relaxation and bodily sensations (*comfort, smell, taste, sight, colour*), assessing one’s level of comfort and those of others, maintaining a cosy environment; paying acute attention to sensory changes and the needs of the body; an attention to attractiveness and aesthetic appearance; the perception of surfaces through touch; interest in health issues and cooking; the ability to put others at ease, focusing on sensual sexuality and pleasant appearance.
> 
> *MBTI Se*
> It is the ability to be keen to what is *seen, smelled, touched, heard and tasted*. It is energized by experience and it is able to live "in the moment."


Socionics Si: smell, taste, sight/colour
MBTI --- Se: smelled, ... and tasted, seen

MBTI Se does not say in the slightest that its Outward focused neither does Socionics Si that it would be internalized.


----------



## Entropic (Jun 15, 2012)

Abraxas said:


> What is the purpose of this thread? What are you trying to stop from happening or cause to happen?
> 
> I don't get it.


I think that tends to be referred to as trolling.

Also, the amount of ILIs posting in this thread is amusing.


----------



## Deus Absconditus (Feb 27, 2011)

Zero11 said:


> @Shadow Logic
> 
> That is a very vague distinction (extraverted/impersonal).
> 
> ...


Yes both Si and Se have to do with sensations as in hearing, seeing, tasting and so on. That's what sensation is and is how Se and Si are connected.

Also your mbti definition:



> MBTI Se
> *It is the ability to be keen to what is* seen, smelled, touched, heard and tasted. It is energized by experience and it is able to live "in the moment."


"Keen to what is" sensed is a sign of extraversion. Understand that therected is a sensing subject and a sensing object. The object gives off a sense while the subject picks up a sense. Si is focused on the subjective sensations such as bodily sensations, comfort, aesthetic experience and so on. Se is focused on the sensing object, what is seen, heard, tasted and so on from the object. Sensation is the goal but the direction of focus is different.


----------



## Figure (Jun 22, 2011)

Schweeeeks said:


> Because it already happened. Unless we can clarify we are talking about Jung (the root), we are kind of stuck explaining through the semantics each time.
> Saying MBTI = Socionics isn't correct, saying Jung -> MBTI + Socionics is.


Agreed, but MBTI is really the functions + garbage and socionics is the functions + roles and Jung = functions so the way I see it, you cannot have MBTI, socionics, or Jung without functions. You cannot have functions without observations of real people interacting, so that's where the fundamental of all of the above resides. 

I think we're using the phrase "what it is" differently. You're correct that Jung progressed to MBTI, and that socionics adds to MBTI, but again I simply cannot see why we aren't referring to the functions as functions throughout all systems. This whole time I've been interpreting where the theory starts and what it needs/hinges on. 

@Zero11 are you sure you aren't a Ti person? XD (I kid)




> NOOOOOOO
> 
> Socionics - the16types.info - Socionics Romancing Styles


Okay, but now you see the problem using labels like this. Case in point. 

Why are you using romance styles and who your Dual is before simply Ego block functions? Once you know your Ego block these categories fall into place on their own by default.


----------



## Zero11 (Feb 7, 2010)

Figure said:


> Okay, but now you see the problem using labels like this. Case in point.
> 
> Why are you using romance styles and who your Dual is before simply Ego block functions? Once you know your Ego block these categories fall into place on their own by default.


These aren´t just labels they are a Integral part of the Information Metabolism that is a Socionics Base and is seen in many Dual or functional Descriptions.

Also I relate to how Jung wrote Psychological Types as he is also a Ni-dom like me. I don´t put as much trust into his Original stuff as these narrow minded Ti-egos. Fe was according to Jung primarliy seen in woman and Se in man which isn´t true at all as there is a equal distribution of Types.



Zero11 said:


> and integrate it into my Signature for completion.


I´ve changed my mind as me being Si lead is ridiculous.


----------



## Entropic (Jun 15, 2012)

Zero11 said:


> Because every Socionicst is wrong and the only correct answer is your subjective Understanding of Model A thats the Definition of introverted Thinking.


LOL. What says I have a subjective interpretation of the system that I favor in its application over the actual application of the system which is Model A? I'd say Model A is pretty clear on how it works. It's all explained here: Model A - Wikisocion

You however, seem to have a subjective interpretation of the system not very consistent with Model A in how you constantly cherrypick data, beliefs, definitions or descriptions to suit your argument. 

If you are trying to imply that deviating from the basics of model A which are the 4 blocks and the 8 functions and how they operate, you are right, that is not socionics, but who said that I wasn't utilizing Model A in this way more than your pre-conceived accusation that I do, without even offering any evidence or proof that I do?


----------



## Abraxas (May 28, 2011)

Entropic said:


> You however, seem to have a subjective interpretation of the system not very consistent with Model A in how you constantly cherrypick data, beliefs, definitions or descriptions to suit your argument.














Zero11 said:


> I´ve changed my mind as me being Si lead is ridiculous.


----------



## Zero11 (Feb 7, 2010)

Entropic said:


> You however, seem to have a subjective interpretation of the system not very consistent with Model A in how you constantly cherrypick data, beliefs, definitions or descriptions to suit your argument.


You have a very blurred view on reality as there is more to Socionics than just Model A. And just because you can´t see where I am coming from doesn´t mean that I cherrypick stuff to suit my argument.



> If you are trying to imply that deviating from the basics of model A which are the 4 blocks and the 8 functions and how they operate, you are right, that is not socionics, but who said that I wasn't utilizing Model A in this way more than your pre-conceived accusation that I do, without even offering any evidence or proof that I do?


what?


----------



## Entropic (Jun 15, 2012)

Zero11 said:


> You have a very blurred view on reality as there is more to Socionics than just Model A.


Do I? Do you have any tangible evidence that I do more than your accusation that I do? Accusing me that I do does not make it so. 



> And just because you can´t see where I am coming from doesn´t mean that I cherrypick stuff to suit my argument.


Do I need to remind you that I wasn't the one who originally pointed out this behavior of yours?  It has however proved to be a very consistent trait that you have exhibited over all these pages of back-and-forth. Nevermind your outright cop-out arguments where someone forced you to address a point you could not address. 



> what?


lol, you can't understand this paragraph? I'll admit the structure is a little complex but I think the language and its meaning is very clear on what I'm trying to say. It probably says more about your reading comprehension than my ability to understand model A, lol.


----------



## Zero11 (Feb 7, 2010)

Entropic said:


> lol, you can't understand this paragraph? I'll admit the structure is a little complex but I think the language and its meaning is very clear on what I'm trying to say. It probably says more about your reading comprehension than my ability to understand model A, lol.


Holy crap you are really full of yourself.



Entropic said:


> You sure?


you can keep your Fe Bullshit to yourself

---
notice how Shadow Logic and Entropic are sp-last


----------



## Entropic (Jun 15, 2012)

Zero11 said:


> Holy crap you are really full of yourself.


Not really, though I guess I shouldn't be surprised that you didn't. 



> you can keep your Fe Bullshit to yourself


I can happily assure you that you will receive no Fe from me. :tongue:


----------



## Pancreatic Pandora (Aug 16, 2013)

MelanieM said:


> The gamma quadra descriptions do not sound like me at all, way too serious and productive. There is nothing ESI about me. Both EII and IEI I can relate to.
> 
> The Delta quadra is again too serious and the Beta quadra a bit too extroverted and open, almost too wild.


There was a short exchange between me and a couple of gammas where we mentioned how our quadra descriptions sound too focused on productivity and business... essentially what you said. Quadra descriptions are just generalizations. When I hang out with an SEE and an ESI I know our interaction is very different to a group of alphas but I wouldn't even think to call us hanging out as focused on business. I mean, seriously:

Gamma Quadra - Wikisocion


> Other subjects tend to focus on internal work politics from the point of view of how it jeopardizes general efficiency, the nonsense of bureaucracy, and how to be better than competitors.


Lol No, that's not what happens when I hang out with gammas even though that could be a concern of mine in other contexts. The last item can't even apply to my life at all, I don't have business "competitors" and neither do my friends.



> Gamma types like to discuss personal relationships in a realistic manner and are skeptical that "jerks" can ever become "nice people", for instance.


I don't think you could ever find me saying something like this. But these things don't mean much if they are not put into context because I _am_ going to find myself disagreeing with, for example, delta NFs in this specific subject. This statement does not tell me what real-life objects do the words "jerk", "nice people", "realistic manner" or "skeptical" speak of and I will give them the understanding and personal significance these words have for me which is different to what the author might have thought of.

And the descriptions in general fail to describe how non-serious is the way I and others experience the things that are characteristic from gamma quadra which appear serious from a different perspective.

I still relate to the overall picture but I had a lot of trouble identifying with the way Te in particular is depicted, both in Gamma quadra and as an IE. My point is it's worth considering possibilities or perspectives you've never explored for reasons like these.


----------



## Abraxas (May 28, 2011)

Pancreatic Pandora said:


> I still relate to the overall picture but I had a lot of trouble identifying with the way Te in particular is depicted, both in Gamma quadra and as an IE. My point is it's worth considering possibilities or perspectives you've never explored for reasons like these.


Ti is like, structural logic: validity.

Te is objective logic: reliability.

Gammas just want to make sure shit works out, that's all. Like, whenever I talk to gammas I always get that vibe - what are your goals, what kind of progress have you made, what kind of shit stands in your way, what do you intend to do about it - reassuring each other that everything can be achieved (unless it can't), trying to offer constructive criticism and advice on how to make shit happen (or how to avoid mistakes). Usually with an eye towards the future, highly theoretical plans, abstract goals. Usually the advice is unconventional and deeply insightful, really unorthodox approaches to life in general that actually make sense when you stop and think about it.

Even harmless casual banter tends to be like, jokes with a twist of seriousness to them. Like "I'm joking but not really, but I'm phrasing this as a joke because I don't take it very seriously, but I do take it seriously, just not _that_ seriously, because I've got it all figured out."


----------



## Eckis (Feb 7, 2013)

I always thought that the Socionics descriptions were compatible with the MBTI ones. (I don't see where they conflict.. to me, it looks like they're expanding on similar ideas) I'm not expert, though, but as an Si-user... I relate to both Si descriptions in the OP.


----------



## Zero11 (Feb 7, 2010)

@Eckis

sounds like self-preservation and real Si


----------

