# I know they're supposed to be two different things, but....



## BooksandButterflies (Jul 26, 2012)

*On the MBTI I am INFJ.
In Socionics I score as ISFP! Is that even possible? *
*I am fairly new to Socionics, so bear with me. Thanks!*


----------



## Entropic (Jun 15, 2012)

Not as different as you think. Socionics ISFp is the same as MBTI ISFJ function wise. So you only got a different dominant function.

And yes, it's possible to also have combinations far removed from each other. I'm MBTI NT, scionics NF.


----------



## Promethea (Aug 24, 2009)

mbti is more likely to present a type as "s" to the exclusion of "n" - whereas socionics will take into account that you use both, to a greater degree than mbti will account for. i have seen some lsi for example with a surprisingly developed Ni who type as intj in mbti -- so be it.

mbti operates mainly on stereotypes, and the functions are poorly defined; they mean very little to me. 

to people who have different types cross-system, i say, take greater care in picking which socionics type is correct, and as for your mbti type pick whatever you seem like on the surface, because with the stereotypes and poorly defined functions that may as well be correct. 

in our infj forum here for example, i have observed quite a few eii, sei, esi.. and of course many iei (the actual Ni Fe type), but going by the bullshit description of what an infj is, sure, why not.. one big infj party.

i'm an actual iei btw -- and i sure as hell don't seem like one of the forum infjs. :laughing:


----------



## cyamitide (Jul 8, 2010)

BooksandButterflies said:


> On the MBTI I am INFJ.
> In Socionics I score as ISFP! Is that even possible?
> I am fairly new to Socionics, so bear with me. Thanks!


You should look into descriptions of functions because that's what really defines the type. Tests give wrong results 20-30% of the time so you can't really depend on them.

MBTI functions
Socionics functions

MBTI INFJ would have Ni-Fe-Ti-Se while Socionics ISFp would have Si-Fe-Ti-Ne.


----------



## BooksandButterflies (Jul 26, 2012)

Promethea said:


> mbti is more likely to present a type as "s" to the exclusion of "n" - whereas socionics will take into account that you use both, to a greater degree than mbti will account for. i have seen some lsi for example with a surprisingly developed Ni who type as intj in mbti -- so be it.
> 
> mbti operates mainly on stereotypes, and the functions are poorly defined; they mean very little to me.
> 
> ...


*Makes me wonder if I am actually ISFP.*:kitteh:


----------



## Promethea (Aug 24, 2009)

BooksandButterflies said:


> *Makes me wonder if I am actually ISFP.*:kitteh:


perhaps pick by deciding which type forum you'd rather mingle with people in. i just wear no label and social-butterfly it up throughout a few of them, avoiding others.. where i obviously don't fit.


----------



## bearotter (Aug 10, 2012)

Promethea said:


> mbti is more likely to present a type as "s" to the exclusion of "n" - whereas socionics will take into account that you use both, to a greater degree than mbti will account for. i have seen some lsi for example with a surprisingly developed Ni who type as intj in mbti -- so be it.
> 
> mbti operates mainly on stereotypes, and the functions are poorly defined; they mean very little to me.
> 
> to people who have different types cross-system, i say, take greater care in picking which socionics type is correct, and as for your mbti type pick whatever you seem like on the surface, because with the stereotypes and poorly defined functions that may as well be correct.




I've been attempting to visit why MBTI focuses on 4 functions only. As an INTP MBTI, I had an excessively hard time figuring my type out, yet I was typed an LII (and found it accurate) so rapidly that I'm almost bored now and wish the fun hadn't ended. And I have a few thoughts on why, that might be helpful to people...

The thing is, I don't find MBTI type necessarily meaningless, but it has to be put in its place, I think. What I find it gets at the best is the distinctions in patterns of extroversion, rather than true function-use. The thing MBTI does is it ties extroversion and introversion _in a very restrictive fashion_, i.e. _I'm not allowed to Ni, because I don't Se because I'm an Ne type. _My Se is not only inferior, it's absolutely pathetic. I don't identify at all with socionics Se really - I find it crude, as LII types many times do, despite being highly power-conscious and a type 8. 

When I took the functions tests, well, most recent result pegs me as equal in Ni and Ti, my top two, with slightly higher Si than Ne. I still adopt the title INTP, because T dominance has been part of me ever since I was very young. 

The LII label does actually distinguish me better. And gets at the relationship I've got to Te, and acknowledges that I Ni tremendously as part of my processes. Sure, when I extrovert and gather data, it is Ne-data. This needn't cause various conceptual exclusions that haven't been justified. Yet it does in the MBTI system, which is what I find confuses people.

What one has to realize is that, if being an Ne user excludes Se, then it's pretty clear what MBTI is measuring is _not what functions we use_, but our extroversion J vs. P flavor. A J type Je's, and a P type primarily Pe's. That is the real distinguishing factor. And it's mainly distinguishing our basic style when we absorb/deal with things.
When one just looks at my gut response to process things, the style of Ne simply doesn't mingle with the style of Se -- I'm simply way more of the former. I do not Ni-Se well -- it's a blindspot. But Ni-Te? I'm pretty sure I do that. Ni-Fe? Pretty sure I identify.

Nonetheless, logically I'm supposed to exclude Ni from my cognitive lineup in MBTI, because I don't extrovert through Se, aka there's some subjective choice between the idea of extroverting through Ne and Se. 

The trouble with this actually is that it means INFJs, INTJs, etc are more related by their Je style than by their Ni dominance. Because their Ni was dictated by their use of Je over Pe in some sense. Since I choose Pe over Je, i.e. Ne over say Te or Fe, I'm automatically _banished _from Ni-land. 

Which is why it can be common to just give up on the whole thing, and as Promethea states, go with stereotype. Because in the end, if the stereotype is more descriptive of you than the haphazard assignment of various function combinations to you, then why not?

I suggest two modes of inquiry, separate ones. One: find your MBTI type and realize it is measuring _J vs P dichotomies_, *not* your function-use in a larger sense. And then, determine your function-use by itself, through careful observation.

The socionics functions do have a different flavor. I think they make a lot of sense for me personally, although even if I'm a cookie-cutter LII, perhaps it's not exactly likely that everyone will identify with the rather rigidly defined structures of the various socionics systems. 

On some level, I think one should just study the functions conceptually, and then one has to adopt a subjective means of fit based on them.


----------



## bearotter (Aug 10, 2012)

LeaT said:


> And yes, it's possible to also have combinations far removed from each other. I'm MBTI NT, scionics NF.
> ​






Promethea said:


> but going by the bullshit description of what an infj is, sure, why not


Two somewhat related points. The thing is, there is very little I find about what MBTI seems to be measuring which actually has to correspond closely to what sort of personality someone is. It's why I find it almost funny that one types someone as an Fi-dom vs. Ti-dom in MBTI: if the system is ultimately measuring information-processing, then this is a nonsensical distinction, because the point is one may choose different options for different processing tasks, and any actual accurate description of _personality_ in a non-restrictive sense requires one to be able to select for both Ji's. 

So there's very little to no doubt in my mind for instance that in terms of what I've analyzed MBTI to be likely measuring, LeaT is a T-dominant. But, as she found out, it said only so much about her in a larger sense, personality-wise: what sort of individual she is, what she likes to analyze and how she goes about it. 

There is a sense in which socionics-Ti injects a personality into the function - the function is given an attitude, not just a structure. Any sort of logical argument resting on introverted principles is Ti to MBTI, whilst socionics-Ti has a particular character and attitude to it. 

My biggest issue with the MBTI followers is nowadays not that they insist on 4 functions so much as they don't dissect why there are only 4 functions. If one is to define the functions precisely as information processing styles, we probably use all 8. If one restricts to studying J vs. P patterns of extroversion, it is possible to restrict down to 4. But if we're to view the functions as lenses, attitudes, etc, then we need descriptions such as those which exist in socionics. Otherwise, it is nonsensical to say someone "always views the world through the Ti lens" - I thus far am yet to hear a good description of the functions as lenses in MBTI that remains consistent with the philosophy of the system. They seem more about functionality than anything else.
And in justifying only 4 functions for functionality's sake, one has to make certain assumptions. I've presented what I'd call the most conservative, likely assumptions I find possible, and I find them consistent with my observations of my direct information processing style.

Note how information-processing inherently involves extroversion, whilst I think in the abstract, introversion can actually accomplish quite a bit without extroversion for long periods. But this would most certainly be, in a system which excludes introversion attitudes on the basis of extroversion attitudes, out of the scope of what is measured.​


----------



## sinigang (May 5, 2012)

I usually see people say they are, for example, INTJ (in MBTI) and say they have Ni Te and Ti and come out totally confused what they are. This happens with INTP's too and pretty much everyone else. Socionics id and super ego play a big part of the personality where MBTI leaves a big hole.


----------



## Entropic (Jun 15, 2012)

Promethea said:


> i'm an actual iei btw -- and i sure as hell don't seem like one of the forum infjs. :laughing:


You sure seem like an actual IEI though


----------



## LibertyPrime (Dec 17, 2010)

<.< problem is that for example ISFp in socionics isn't really ISFJ in MBTI, unless one disregards the 4 dichotomies and goes by Jung's function model, considering ONLY the first 2 functions. The reason here is that ISFp is irrational dom which roughly equals a "P" in the J-P MBTI dichotomies. 

ISFp is more ISFP in the MBTI ten ISFJ.

*Even if you go by functions, only the top 2 will match:*

*ISFJ*= Si-Fe-Ti-Ne & Se-Fi-Te-Ni

*ISFp (SEI)*=Si-Fe-Ni-Te-Ne-Ti-Se-Fi

A SEI is more exactly a mishmash of MBTI ISFP & ISFJ, it also a irrational type and has to meet the requirements below:
*
Irrationals*

(Also called cyclotymes in early socionics literature)
Tend to* wait and see, more spontaneous*.
Are more often *flexible and tolerant*.
*Change their decisions frequently*.
*Tend to start new things without finishing them*.
Usually have gentle movements.
Usually more 'democratic' leadership style.
High stress tolerance.

o.o as I said, every Irrational type is more xxxP in the MBTI, then a J. (yes I know how one arrives and P and J and what they mean by the function model, don't even bother asking. Do you know that that specific function order, which arrives at the 4-th letter being a "J" requires from the individual the following behavior type):

*Rationals*

(Also called shizotymes in early socionics literature)
*Tend to plan ahead, make decisions early.*
Are more often *rigid and stubborn*.
*Do not like to change their decisions*.
Tend to* finish what they started*.
Usually have stiff movements.
Usually more* 'authoritarian' leadership style*.
Low stress tolerance.

@BooksandButterflies My suggestion would be to check if you haven't mistyped as INFJ in the MBTI. A lot of ISFPs mystype as INFJ for various reasons. ISFP is kind of the most intuitive sensor type.

ISFP in the MBTI and SEI in socionics are both "artistic types".

It is my suspicion that MBTI got the functions wrong.


----------



## Entropic (Jun 15, 2012)

Rim said:


> <.< problem is that for example ISFp in socionics isn't really ISFJ in MBTI, unless one disregards the 4 dichotomies and goes by Jung's function model, considering ONLY the first 2 functions. The reason here is that ISFp is irrational dom which roughly equals a "P" in the J-P MBTI dichotomies.
> 
> ISFp is more ISFP in the MBTI ten ISFJ.
> 
> ...


This is such a mess of a post because according to what are you comparing to, exactly? If looking at functions alone, then ISFJ has a direct correlation to ISFp because the function order for the type is exactly the same. Aside some specific 8 function models, MBTI have 4 functions, not 8. That socionics and MBTI switch the J/P letter is not particularly interesting here, I think, as that has more to do with how each system organizes functions rather than studying the type itself. 

I'd also be careful to ascribe descriptions of ratioality-irrationality to type. I have a hard time finish what I've started, does it make me an irrational? No, I'm rational because my scope is more narrow in how I think and I'm more likely to cut corners when I judge data.


----------



## LibertyPrime (Dec 17, 2010)

LeaT said:


> This is such a mess of a post because according to what are you comparing to, exactly? If looking at functions alone, then ISFJ has a direct correlation to ISFp because the function order for the type is exactly the same. Aside some specific 8 function models, MBTI have 4 functions, not 8. That socionics and MBTI switch the J/P letter is not particularly interesting here, I think, as that has more to do with how each system organizes functions rather than studying the type itself.
> 
> I'd also be careful to ascribe descriptions of ratioality-irrationality to type. I have a hard time finish what I've started, does it make me an irrational? No, I'm rational because my scope is more narrow in how I think and I'm more likely to cut corners when I judge data.


Not even the 4 function model lines up. ONLY the top 2 functions. Also on every one of your posts I have been restraining myself from insulting your intelligence, because quite clearly you are lacking in that department. You should consider that I disregard any and all posts you make regarding this specific topic. You make no damn sense  and don't know what you are talking about, you just talk it seems.

Socionics clearly states...

*Rational types are:* ESE, LII, EIE, LSI, LIE, ESI, LSE, and EII.
*Irrational types are:* ILE, SEI, SLE, IEI, SEE, ILI, IEE, and SLI.

SEI= Si-Fe-Ni-Te

ISFJ= Si-Fe-Ti-Ne

They are NOT the same function wise. Now please stop confusing people and stop talking to me or I'll block you.


----------



## Entropic (Jun 15, 2012)

Rim said:


> Not even the 4 function model lines up. ONLY the top 2 functions. Also on every one of your posts I have been restraining myself from insulting your intelligence, because quite clearly you are lacking in that department. You should consider that I disregard any and all posts you make regarding this specific topic. You make no damn sense  and don't know what you are talking about, you just talk it seems.
> 
> Socionics clearly states...
> 
> ...


Then let me restate it again: ISFJ - Si Fe Ti Ne/ISFp - Si Fe Ti Ne

The super-id is directly blow the ego block. Why do you say the superego block is below ego? Also, you are clearly overreacting. I was stating a simple question.

We can also for example see that the superego block in socionics represents the lower or last two functions and our relationship to them like you see in say, the Beebe model. The Beebe model for example calls Ni the demon function for an ISFJ, and one could indeed see how Ni could play such a role for an ISFp, being highly distrusting of Ni think and influence and when it's expressed, it's done in an immature and childish manner as if "someone else took over their mind".

EDIT
Apparently I mixed up the types you think have Ni Te, but that's still wrong lol. ISFJ is still Si Fe Ti Ne for the simple reason that Si goes with Ne, Ti with Fe, always.


----------



## bearotter (Aug 10, 2012)

@_cyamitide_



> On a side note: Ni appreciates definitional freedom (and thus is often annoyed by Ti) in the same way Ne appreciates freedom to change its plan of action abruptly (and thus is often annoyed by Te.) Ti users will tend to frame debates by first assigning precise definitions to terms, but Ni often objects to this by wondering: "How are we unconsciously limiting our understanding by assigning such rigid definitions in the first place?" Ni always seeks to escape the unconscious assumptions that limit its understanding of as many different conceptual viewpoints as possible.




Exactly why I had such a hard time deciding on Ni or Ti dominance in MBTI (reg. your link). Why I decided on Ti is that I tend to frame the definitions to account for the many-headed nature of the philosophical significance of a given definition. Structural consistency is after all just a simple, limited feature of introverted T - the introversion's power is compromised by over-fixating on this.

But to be honest, this is exactly what I'm talking about. These descriptions of MBTI functions do not seem to suggest that one can only use 4. These suggest singularly that we use all 8, and that my order of preference does not match that of any of the system's suggestions, and same goes for LeaT and other users.

I think, once again, one can make the MBTI system work, but has to stick very strictly to a restriction of what these function descriptions suggest it can measure, and abstract away the descriptions (since they hardly can be called definitions) in that thread considerably. Well maybe I'm talking not of the 4-letter system so much as the fusion of the 4-letter system with assigning 2 patterns of introversion and extroversion.

There is a sense in which I can imagine the idea of "synthesizing Ni" from the various other informing elements. It's that when I cognitively extrovert, my native mode is Ti-Ne, but over time in phases of more complete introversion is when my real insights come through, so this can be called "synthesizing," but is so crucial to accurately capturing someone's personality that I decided a restriction of the term "personality" considerable as compared to what most seem to pursue on the forums is what MBTI should be allowed to correspond to in order to avoid philosophical contradictions.


----------



## Helios (May 30, 2012)

Rim said:


> Not even the 4 function model lines up. ONLY the top 2 functions. Also on every one of your posts I have been restraining myself from insulting your intelligence, because quite clearly you are lacking in that department. You should consider that I disregard any and all posts you make regarding this specific topic. You make no damn sense  and don't know what you are talking about, you just talk it seems.
> 
> Socionics clearly states...
> 
> ...


 @Rim, the super-ego block for the SEI are not the valued functions of the SEI. The MBTI functions for ISFJ correspond to the valued functions of the SEI, which are found in the ego and super-id blocks. 

Ni is the role function for SEI, and Te the PoLR function. They are weak and not highly valued in this socionics type. The order of the functions is determined by the levels of consciousness where they seem to appear. Value of the functions is really the key point.


----------



## Zeit (Dec 24, 2012)

Yes, it's entirely possible.


----------



## Sol_ (Jan 8, 2013)

BooksandButterflies said:


> On the MBTI I am INFJ. In Socionics I score as ISFP! Is that even possible?


No, preferenes are compatible in these typologies. So, one or both of the mentioned types are wrong for you. It's rather common when types are identified incorrectly.


----------



## LibertyPrime (Dec 17, 2010)

FacelessBeauty said:


> @Rim, the super-ego block for the SEI are not the valued functions of the SEI. The MBTI functions for ISFJ correspond to the valued functions of the SEI, which are found in the ego and super-id blocks.
> 
> Ni is the role function for SEI, and Te the PoLR function. They are weak and not highly valued in this socionics type. The order of the functions is determined by the levels of consciousness where they seem to appear. Value of the functions is really the key point.


Then why is SEI an irrational type? ISFJs aren't irrational types based on the MBTI description of that Si-Fe-Ti-Ne amounts to, which is ISF*J*. Or are you saying that Js don't plan ahead, don't like order and don't have difficulties adapting to sudden changes in the plan or to a complete lack of plan or switching plans and goals midway?

If my dual is an ISTJ, then socioncs got something wrong here :/....^^ I tolerate STJ E1 ppl...barely, for the sake of not having open conflict, thou I'd much rather tell them to take their controlling tendencies and shove it up the pipeline ....if you know what I mean. (typical rebellious anti authoritarian CP 6 here)

Also most ISFPs here are SEI or they think they are. Explain that?


----------



## Helios (May 30, 2012)

Rim said:


> Then why is SEI an irrational type? ISFJs aren't irrational types based on the MBTI description of that Si-Fe-Ti-Ne amounts to, which is ISF*J*. Or are you saying that Js don't plan ahead, don't like order and don't have difficulties adapting to sudden changes in the plan or to a complete lack of plan or switching plans and goals midway?
> 
> If my dual is an ISTJ, then socioncs got something wrong here :/....
> 
> Also most ISFPs here are SEI or they think they are.


MBTI focuses on the dominant or auxiliary extroverted function, while socionics focuses more on your dominant. SEI is irrational because the dominant function is Si. And Judging perceiving is different from rational irrational because the focus is on which function is being extraverted if you get my drift.

Also how people type themselves in socionics depends on whether they focus on dichotomies or if the believe the socionics information elements are related to Jung and MBTI or not.


----------



## madhatter (May 30, 2010)

Sorry for nitpicking here, but I have to say the MBTI system as a whole doesn't focus on the dom-aux extraverted function, but rather just the J/P dichotomy focuses on that, which I agree is confusing. But an ISFJ in JCF or MBTI is still dominantly "irrational", since the type is dominantly Si, an irrational function. I honestly don't like the J/P distinction in either system. It detracts from the functions, because people focus on them too much. It should just be a short-hand or code for which function depending on the system is extraverted or dominant. But especially in MBTI, the J/P dichotomy is attributed with its own traits, which are arbitrary and misleading. 

As for whether MBTI and Socionics translate one-to-one, I don't think they do. I think the extraverted types correlate better than the introverted ones. But the interpretation of the functions are different. I think Ti is the only one I relate to in both systems.


----------



## LibertyPrime (Dec 17, 2010)

FacelessBeauty said:


> MBTI focuses on the dominant or auxiliary extroverted function, while socionics focuses more on your dominant. SEI is irrational because the dominant function is Si. And Judging perceiving is different from rational irrational because the focus is on which function is being extraverted if you get my drift.
> 
> Also how people type themselves in socionics depends on whether they focus on dichotomies or if the believe the socionics information elements are related to Jung and MBTI or not.


How the elements combine forms the dichotomies imo. You are E and not I, because the dominant function is extroverted, etc. You can't ignore that irrational dom traits in the dichotomy are perciever traits, that a J isn't going to have.

Irrationals are spontaneous, stress tolerant and flexible, adaptive, change decisions frequently, start things and don't finish. These are all traits that make up a perciever in the MBTI and not a judger.

There is a fun psychological experiment during MBTI testing. Candidates are given the task of building lego car from lego pieces. Half way through, the goal changes to making a rocket. This is where the testers will observe the reactions. Ps tend to just go with the flow and turn the car into a rocket, while J types will complain, hate the surprise and the sudden change in goal. They were prepared for one thing, why is something else suddenly the demand. The argument here is that both styles are great in different situations, Ps don't mind change and often induce change, don't finish past projects in favor of new ones, while Js like to finish and stick with he plan before moving on to the next one.

The socionics dichotomy implies the same thing.

Dichotimies exist and are visible, I still question the existence of information elements and functions as only the combinations of these are visible (aka functions are not standalone/do they even exist and if they do how to they really interact to form the model?).


----------



## aestrivex (Mar 7, 2011)

madhatter said:


> Sorry for nitpicking here, but I have to say the MBTI system as a whole doesn't focus on the dom-aux extraverted function, but rather just the J/P dichotomy focuses on that, which I agree is confusing. But an ISFJ in JCF or MBTI is still dominantly "irrational", since the type is dominantly Si, an irrational function. I honestly don't like the J/P distinction in either system. It detracts from the functions, because people focus on them too much. It should just be a short-hand or code for which function depending on the system is extraverted or dominant. But especially in MBTI, the J/P dichotomy is attributed with its own traits, which are arbitrary and misleading.


madhatter, i am not picking on you specifically, but rather using what you have said as a (sanity-preserving) jumping point to say what i have to say on the matter in the midst of a lot of epistemology in this thread that is wrong.

what you are articulating is the classical position of JCF (by this i mean loosely the "revolution" of individuals like lenore thomson towards thinking about cognitive functions in lieu of MBTI's dichotomies), and at any it isn't directed at the right audience. it isn't clear to me if collective wisdom holds any particular assumptions about how MBTI and JCF works -- that is to say, maybe collective wisdom (and colloquial reference) holds that JCF (or "jungian theory") is a conceptually independent system from MBTI or maybe it doesn't, but if it is independent then that is for sure what you are describing, and not the "uneducated" MBTI that is more widely practiced.

the painfully stupid position that often comes from this view -- which fortunately you have refrained from articulating, but it has previously been articulated by lenore thomson, people on this board such as functianalyst, and here rim -- is that all characteristics involved in JCF types must translate to socionics types. this stems from a basic failure, in my judgment, in acknowledging that socionics IM elements and jungian cognitive functions come from radically different contexts and describe different content as a result of these differing contexts. i don't know who first figured this out, but it is not unknown; dmitri lytov clearly portrays this viewpoint in work that predates the english speaking community, and the basic nonrelevance of MBTI to socionics is something communities as backward as 16t -- and even socionists as backwards as sergei ganin -- have known to be trivially obvious for at least ten years.

also, as long as we are nitpicking, you misspelled extroverted twice.


----------



## Entropic (Jun 15, 2012)

@Rim, as FacelessBeauty pointed, the irrational-rational cannot be directly translated to judging-perceiving in MBTI. In MBTI I'm a perceiver as an INTP (and arguably it is the fact that I fit the characteristics of a perceiver that I'm a P rather than J due to how MBTI is more of a best-fit type of system based on external behavior rather than cognitive processes) but in socionics I'm a rational type. Makes sense? Not really. 

I think you focus too much on type descriptions and not enough on how it all works. Irrationality-rationality has first of all do with how we perceive the world around us. An irrational type is more likely to focus on perception and a rational type more likely to focus on judging. This means that irrational types judge less, are a bit more open to new data and rational types judge more and are not as open to new data. If the irrational type is EP, the scope is big and wide as they constantly examine new possibilities but _often with an inability to actually decide or settle which one they prefer_, and IP types have a far narrower scope _where they will more likely settle on things that simply fit their personal perception of the world_. IJ and EJ types tend to in contrast rather be rigid in their decisions: "I decided it should be this way so it must be this way". 

A perfect example of a person I think is an SLI or ILI (IP) and myself as IJ was when I was at my friends' and this person was there as well and they were trying to find how to ban people from Facebook fanpages. So I sat down and helped them trying to find information. Now, the difference here was that after I felt we were back looking at the same information, I didn't want to anymore because I have now decided how to solve it. I insisted on my solution which annoyed the IP type because he kept going around and around, not feeling satisfied with the information that he got, not finding the piece of information that fit his more narrow view of an answer/solution. 

EP and IP types can thus experience IJ and EJ types as rushing to conclusions while IJ and EJ types can feel that EP and IP types don't reach their conclusions fast enough, and that's essentially all you need to understand in how rationality-irrationality works in socionics in my opinion. 

Being ordered, able to finish what you start and so on I see being more related to other function-combinations rather than the specific ego base function.


----------



## Helios (May 30, 2012)

madhatter said:


> Sorry for nitpicking here, but I have to say the MBTI system as a whole doesn't focus on the dom-aux extraverted function, but rather just the J/P dichotomy focuses on that, which I agree is confusing. But an ISFJ in JCF or MBTI is still dominantly "irrational", since the type is dominantly Si, an irrational function. I honestly don't like the J/P distinction in either system. It detracts from the functions, because people focus on them too much. It should just be a short-hand or code for which function depending on the system is extraverted or dominant. But especially in MBTI, the J/P dichotomy is attributed with its own traits, which are arbitrary and misleading.
> 
> As for whether MBTI and Socionics translate one-to-one, I don't think they do. I think the extraverted types correlate better than the introverted ones. But the interpretation of the functions are different. I think Ti is the only one I relate to in both systems.


Man I should get better at this clarification thing. Yes, the system as a whole does not focus on that alone, but I was speaking strictly in terms of what J and P mean in socionics as compared to MBTI.


@Rim, well if you subscribe to the school of thought that thinks the dichotomies transfer over in both systems, then one system applied the wrong functions to a common behavioral pattern and the other got it right it would seem.


----------



## Zero11 (Feb 7, 2010)

aestrivex said:


> in my judgment, in acknowledging that socionics IM elements and jungian cognitive functions come from radically different contexts and describe different content as a result of these differing contexts. i don't know who first figured this out, but it is not unknown; dmitri lytov clearly portrays this viewpoint in work that predates the english speaking community, and the basic nonrelevance of MBTI to socionics is something communities as backward as 16t -- and even socionists as backwards as sergei ganin -- have known to be trivially obvious for at least ten years.


Because Augusta came up with the idea for Socionics herself :dry: she hasn´t read on Psychological Types :laughing:. 
The 8 Cognitive functions were modified to build up a model based on inter-type relationships with the help of Antoni Kepinskis Information Metabolism. There is still a combustion engine inside the car, nothing really has changed the principles of driving. I still insist that we are only using 4 functions the so-called Socionics Ne of the ILI would only be my Ni drawing from the other side.

Btw. Dmitri Lytov only translated it and V. Gulenko, V. Tyshchenko were taking the function descriptions too literal.

http://www.the16types.info/vbulleti...for-the-Same-(Socionics-vs-American-typology)



> In addition to Jungian dimensions I often use several *Reinin dimensions* that have been already tested in practice: *Static-dynamic*,* leftists-rightists*, *central-peripheral*, *aristocrats-democrats*.These dimensions are not known to American researchers[SUP]7,9[/SUP].


Static - Dynamic is related to the J/P in MBTI, it´s Lenore Thomsons Left/Right Brain Hemisphere Distinction.

The arguments that are used here are parts of Socionics that you find logically superflous. In the same article the MBTI was mixed-up with Keirsey´s stuff.

The whole Article is a joke :crazy: he is aware of the MBTI J/P thing and is later mixing up INTJ with INTj and is wondering about the Ne in the Ego block of the INTj, refered to as "INTJ".



> The difference is that socionic models (e.g. the Model A — see *TABLE **2*) consist of communication aspects, whereas the American model consists of Jungian dimensions. As a result, these two models are not easy to combine. Our models consist usually of 8 positions, and American only of 4.


Beebe´s Model isn´t mentioned here (which would correspond to Model A instead of Model J) OK the article is from 1996 = your argument is also outdated.

Se = force, volitional Sensing; Se = Sensing people process data with their five senses, so the Extraverted Sensing function allows a person to process life through their experiences. 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." 

It´s just dependent on from which viewpoint you view it. It may look a bit different and through this it is described as such, but it is still extraverted Sensation as Jung wrote about it. Socionics comes from an ENTP view and the MBTI from an INFP view there are just different lenses that are tried to describe the same thing.


----------



## cyamitide (Jul 8, 2010)

Rim said:


> SEI= Si-Fe-Ni-Te
> 
> ISFJ= Si-Fe-Ti-Ne
> 
> They are NOT the same function wise. Now please stop confusing people and stop talking to me or I'll block you.


SEI and ISFJ value the same functions.

The functional order on Socionics profiles isn't the same as on MBTI profiles.
MBTI profiles list all the valued functions of the type and make no mention of the unvalued functions.
Socionics profiles list 2 valued functions, 2 unvalued functions, another 2 valued functions, another 2 unvalued functions.

This is where your confusion lies. You listed SEI's functions as Si-Fe-Ni-Te not paying attention to the fact that Ni and Te are *unvalued, superego* functions. Type SEI is part of Alpha quadra, and look what information aspects Alpha quadra values: Si, Fe, Ti, Ne - same as ISFJ.

Socionics profiles list 2 ego elements followed by 2 superego elements. Superego elements are type's unvalued, suppressed, rejected elements. So even though SEI profiles will describe Ni and Te, these are not the IEs that type SEI values.



Rim said:


> How the elements combine forms the dichotomies imo. You are E and not I, because the dominant function is extroverted, etc. You can't ignore that irrational dom traits in the dichotomy are perciever traits, that a J isn't going to have.
> 
> Irrationals are spontaneous, stress tolerant and flexible, adaptive, change decisions frequently, start things and don't finish. These are all traits that make up a perciever in the MBTI and not a judger.
> 
> ...


You need to realize that every type is both rational and irrational at the same time.

*Si-Fe type* is *internally irrational* because this type is dominant in *perceiving function Si* and *externally rational* because it extraverts a *judging function Fe*.

*Fi-Se type* is *internally rational* because its dominant function is a *judging one Fi* and *externally irrational* because it extraverts a *perceiving function Se*.

MBTI's profiles are based on *highest order extraverted function*, so MBTI profiles that you're reading will depict Si-Fe type as a _rational type_ (because ISFJ's highest order extraverted function is Fe) and Fi-Se as _irrational type_ (because ISFP's highest order extraverted function is Se).

Socionics profiles are based on *dominant function*, so Socionics will depict Si-Fe as an _irrational type_ (because of dominant Si) and Fi-Se type as a _rational type_ (because of dominant Fi).

Do you see now how they are describing same types but from different angles?

Due to the above MBTI and Socionics profiles differ on how much rationality/irrationality they assign to introverted types. Because it's only for introverts that dominant function is different from highest order extraverted function.


----------



## bearotter (Aug 10, 2012)

madhatter said:


> Sorry for nitpicking here, but I have to say the MBTI system as a whole doesn't focus on the dom-aux extraverted function, but rather just the J/P dichotomy focuses on that, which I agree is confusing. But an ISFJ in JCF or MBTI is still dominantly "irrational", since the type is dominantly Si, an irrational function. I honestly don't like the J/P distinction in either system. It detracts from the functions, because people focus on them too much. It should just be a short-hand or code for which function depending on the system is extraverted or dominant. But especially in MBTI, the J/P dichotomy is attributed with its own traits, which are arbitrary and misleading.




It's a bit hard for me to get what the MBTI system focuses on, but to point to your last line, J/P dichotomy of traits seems to be attributed on the basis of the Je v. Pe traits a _lot _more than on the others.

I find there's something to it, but it's a very particular thing.

In fact, I'd go as far as to say the flaws of the MBTI system wind up being most easily fixed if one restricts its utility to focus on styles of extroversion.
That is to me the only way of justifying that we supposedly use 4 functions and have 4 shadows in the order MBTI does it. For instance, MBTI Ni is inseparable from Se, and is relegated to a draining shadow to all Ne types. This incredibly confusing point puzzled me for a while. Now that I read about LII v. INTP, I am trying to philosophically ensure there's no contradiction, and this is the only way I've found.

I'd be curious of other people's theories.

Of course I'll be first to admit I don't know how much of this stuff was introduced to MBTI theory when, why, though I'm sure we all are familiar with these things.


----------



## Zero11 (Feb 7, 2010)

Rim said:


> SEI= Si-Fe-Ni-Te


Ni-Te is in the Super-ego Block of the SEI/ISFp which is an Alpha-type whose valued elements are Si Fe Ti Ne.

The Socionics "Si-Fe-Ni-Te" is a combination of the most valued block combined with the unvalued block which corresponds to function 7 and 8 in the MBTI. Si is alway combined with Ne and Fe always with Ti which is not the case in this short and misleading element stack.

(Si Fe)(Ni Te) in MBTI order (1 2)(8 7)

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


----------



## Antiparticle (Jan 8, 2013)

I've got ENTj. Any other INFPs with this result?


----------



## aestrivex (Mar 7, 2011)

Zero11 said:


> Because Augusta came up with the idea for Socionics herself :dry: she hasn´t read on Psychological Types :laughing:.


the context of her insight is extremely not the same as the people who are applying jungian cognitive functions.



> The 8 Cognitive functions were modified to build up a model based on inter-type relationships with the help of Antoni Kepinskis Information Metabolism. There is still a combustion engine inside the car, nothing really has changed the principles of driving.


the context of her insight is extremely not the same as the people who are applying jungian cognitive functions.



> I still insist that we are only using 4 functions the so-called Socionics Ne of the ILI would only be my Ni drawing from the other side.


that, is very different from what is conventionally thought of classical socionics and completely different from what is described in the literature, and to say that your insights if you believe this are completely in line with classical socionics is not very good thinking. i have an interpretation that partially favors what you say; Ni and Ne in socionics are not entirely distinct from one another but distinguishing them is nonetheless meaningful. but that they originate from the same source and merely view it from different angles, it is close to what i think.



> Btw. Dmitri Lytov only translated it and V. Gulenko, V. Tyshchenko were taking the function descriptions too literal.


You assume that I am drawing from a source that I am not drawing from. I have no interest at all in what Gulenko is saying. This assumption alone is reflective of the depth of your ignorance.


----------



## madhatter (May 30, 2010)

aestrivex said:


> madhatter, i am not picking on you specifically, but rather using what you have said as a (sanity-preserving) jumping point to say what i have to say on the matter in the midst of a lot of epistemology in this thread that is wrong.


Not a problem. I welcome discussion.



> what you are articulating is the classical position of JCF (by this i mean loosely the "revolution" of individuals like lenore thomson towards thinking about cognitive functions in lieu of MBTI's dichotomies), and at any it isn't directed at the right audience. it isn't clear to me if collective wisdom holds any particular assumptions about how MBTI and JCF works -- that is to say, maybe collective wisdom (and colloquial reference) holds that JCF (or "jungian theory") is a conceptually independent system from MBTI or maybe it doesn't, but if it is independent then that is for sure what you are describing, and not the "uneducated" MBTI that is more widely practiced.


I like to think of JCF as being independent from MBTI, since MBTI really doesn't use functions at all, but rather forced dichotomies. But unfortunately, they're both mixed up with one another like a free-for-all, so it's hard to find a clear point to separate them, which is problematic and gets on my nerves, but something I just have to live with at this point. In Gifts Differing, the functions are referred to very briefly, like in the title for my type, Introverted Thinking with Sensing, and short blurbs about each function. But in other MBTI books, they are not mentioned at all. 



> the painfully stupid position that often comes from this view -- which fortunately you have refrained from articulating, but it has previously been articulated by lenore thomson, people on this board such as functianalyst, and here rim -- is that all characteristics involved in JCF types must translate to socionics types. this stems from a basic failure, in my judgment, in acknowledging that socionics IM elements and jungian cognitive functions come from radically different contexts and describe different content as a result of these differing contexts. i don't know who first figured this out, but it is not unknown; dmitri lytov clearly portrays this viewpoint in work that predates the english speaking community, and the basic nonrelevance of MBTI to socionics is something communities as backward as 16t -- and even socionists as backwards as sergei ganin -- have known to be trivially obvious for at least ten years.


From my readings, I've come to this same conclusion. Since the cognitive functions and information elements are describing different things, albeit using the same terminology, then it implies that someone can be one type in one system and a different one in the other. For instance, Se is my auxiliary in JCF, but in Socionics, I do not believe Se is my creative function. JCF Se and Socionics Se are very different. 



> also, as long as we are nitpicking, you misspelled extroverted twice.


Yes, that was intentional. In Jung's writings, it's spelled with an 'A', and I use that spelling whenever talking about typology and functions.


----------



## aestrivex (Mar 7, 2011)

madhatter said:


> Yes, that was intentional. In Jung's writings, it's spelled with an 'A', and I use that spelling whenever talking about typology and functions.


Jung's writings were in German. It's various translations that use the later bastardized spelling of the term (and if you are going off of yorkclassics as an authority on 1930s-era English translation spellings, you aren't doing yourself favors) that has become popular and mainstream in the personality literature. The original translations of the Jungian concept and the Allportian notions that followed used the correct spelling.

I very strongly feel that anyone that includes extra in their spelling is immoral and must be terminated swiftly.


----------



## madhatter (May 30, 2010)

aestrivex said:


> Jung's writings were in German. It's various translations that use the later bastardized spelling of the term (and if you are going off of yorkclassics as an authority on 1930s-era English translation spellings, you aren't doing yourself favors) that has become popular and mainstream in the personality literature. The original translations of the Jungian concept and the Allportian notions that followed used the correct spelling.
> 
> I very strongly feel that anyone that includes extra in their spelling is immoral and must be terminated swiftly.


The translation of Psychological Types that I have is from Princeton University Press from 1990. I wasn't sure which spelling they used, so I checked. It's spelled with an 'A'. But honestly, I don't think it matters. The alternate spelling has never bothered me. Extra/extro- and intra/intro- have been variations of each other for a long time. Now I'd be happy to continue a discussion on spelling reforms and language origins any place and any time, because I'm that kind of a nerd, but I don't want to continue to derail the thread. We can duke it out in VM if you want, or if you don't give a shit, then that's fine too. 

Ha! Fair enough. I guess I'm immoral then.


----------



## LibertyPrime (Dec 17, 2010)

Zero11 said:


> Ni-Te is in the Super-ego Block of the SEI/ISFp which is an Alpha-type whose valued elements are Si Fe Ti Ne.
> 
> The Socionics "Si-Fe-Ni-Te" is a combination of the most valued block combined with the unvalued block which corresponds to function 7 and 8 in the MBTI. Si is alway combined with Ne and Fe always with Ti which is not the case in this short and misleading element stack.
> 
> ...


Hmm, that could be right, sounds like its correct. I wasn't aware that an ENFP like myself would value Si & Te for examle, as I tend to suck at and neglect both function attitudes. I prefer to ignore Si and my use of Te is childish at best. They both more or less feel like somethng nagging me in the back of my mind, I just push them back a little more at times like those. I value it in others...maybe because it is stuff I'm not good at myself, however I don't really like it or allow either one to override my Ne-Fi, not internally and not externally as imposed by a Si<->Te dom.

^^ this kinda sux, if ISTJ is my dual :/ then fuck it...I can't stand TJs :S...especially if they are E8s or E1s. (antiauthoritarian, impulsive need to fuck with authority...this is an instant trigger for me and very hard to ignore...I usually react with a nice "fuck you", then do what I want sometimes just to spite them). *I guess I mainly have a problem with someone else trying to order my chaos & authority. I like my chaos and react badly to attempts at control...very badly or worse. So yeah, you can imagine the thought of ISTJ being my dual is upsetting.*


----------



## Figure (Jun 22, 2011)

People talk all the time about how the functions in both systems are "not the same," but they also place full trust in Augusta's ability to describe them in the way a user of the function would understand them. 

The way I look at it, if you believe in type on the whole as a "real" possibility, then you must consider _who _made the theories and the type descriptions within. Augusta, the creator of socionics, was an ILE, or an Ne dominant. Do you think she would have the most holistic, encompassing way of describing Se, then? No, it was her role function. She may have easily seen the patterns between types as "beta" and "gamma," but she would have been better off having an Se person write what they thought Se was. I'll testify that while I knew what she was digging at with Ni, it does _not _encompass the entirety, or even crux of the function. In fact, if we are to believe anything about Dario Nardi's work and statistical patterns in brain functioning to task, then Augusta's Ni description is really only related to one area of the brain - T6, which projects timelines and makes predictions. The function clearly entails more than that.

If this is true, then the IE descriptions may never make sense. You have to use what you innately observe around other people to make your own conceptions of the functions.


----------



## Entropic (Jun 15, 2012)

LXPilot said:


> People talk all the time about how the functions in both systems are "not the same," but they also place full trust in Augusta's ability to describe them in the way a user of the function would understand them.
> 
> The way I look at it, if you believe in type on the whole as a "real" possibility, then you must consider _who _made the theories and the type descriptions within. Augusta, the creator of socionics, was an ILE, or an Ne dominant. Do you think she would have the most holistic, encompassing way of describing Se, then? No, it was her role function. She may have easily seen the patterns between types as "beta" and "gamma," but she would have been better off having an Se person write what they thought Se was. I'll testify that while I knew what she was digging at with Ni, it does _not _encompass the entirety, or even crux of the function. In fact, if we are to believe anything about Dario Nardi's work and statistical patterns in brain functioning to task, then Augusta's Ni description is really only related to one area of the brain - T6, which projects timelines and makes predictions. The function clearly entails more than that.
> 
> If this is true, then the IE descriptions may never make sense. You have to use what you innately observe around other people to make your own conceptions of the functions.


Just for the sake of argument then because I feel like being like that today, but doesn't that equally apply to Jung and his original descriptions that we all derive this from? 

Anyway, while Model A is based on Augusta's works, I think there have been plenty of socionicists (?) who have helped to develop her descriptions and understanding of the system since then, some of them being from a different quadra than Augusta herself. Personally, I just see the theory as a work in progress as with everything. It doesn't have to be perfect.


----------



## aestrivex (Mar 7, 2011)

LXPilot said:


> In fact, if we are to believe anything about Dario Nardi's work and statistical patterns in brain functioning to task, then Augusta's Ni description is really only related to one area of the brain - T6, which projects timelines and makes predictions. The function clearly entails more than that.


I was going to comment until I read this, but now I see it is pointless.


----------



## Figure (Jun 22, 2011)

aestrivex said:


> I was going to comment until I read this, but now I see it is pointless.


That's fine. If I'm assuming incorrectly and you had something interesting to say, send a PM - otherwise I'm putting you on my ignore list now so I don't have to waste further time reading arrogant nonsense. 



LeaT said:


> Just for the sake of argument then because I feel like being like that today, but doesn't that equally apply to Jung and his original descriptions that we all derive this from?


Yeah, I definitely would agree with that. I think of Jung as having told us where to point to, not what it is we're looking at.



> Anyway, while Model A is based on Augusta's works, I think there have been plenty of socionicists (?) who have helped to develop her descriptions and understanding of the system since then, some of them being from a different quadra than Augusta herself. Personally, I just see the theory as a work in progress as with everything. It doesn't have to be perfect.


True, that's a valid counterpoint. I still think there's a lot of overemphasis in a number of areas though, even despite the collaboration - but now it's to my personal speculation, which doesn't mean much in a theory like this. I find Gulenko to have the best info, usually, FWIW.


----------



## bearotter (Aug 10, 2012)

aestrivex said:


> I very strongly feel that anyone that includes extra in their spelling is immoral and must be terminated swiftly.




LOL. 




madhatter said:


> I like to think of JCF as being independent from MBTI, since MBTI really doesn't use functions at all, but rather forced dichotomies




Exactly. If I had to type someone in MBTI right now, how I'd do it is: forget what their dominant, etc are, and just first determine if they fit Ni-Se v. Ne-Si and Fi-Te v. Fe-Ti. That says overall where to look. Then determine if they're a J or a P, because that's a large part of what really makes MBTI types feel different. 

The stuff about dominant/inferior is fascinating and worthwhile, but probably should be conducted separate from MBTI type, because you run into all these weird issues, such as "Ah I'm Ni-dominant _now I must either be Fe or Te aux_" or even worse yet, using whether they're Je aux or not to determine their dominant.

Suffice it to say that I think the place MBTI fails mainly is in assigning ordering. It's a useful tool if one forgets orders. I simply cannot ever accept that an Ni dominant must automatically prefer Fe to Ti if they're in the Fe-Ti world.


----------

