# Converting Between MBTI and Socionics: LXPilot's Guide



## Figure (Jun 22, 2011)

*Converting Between MBTI Cognitive Functions and Socionics: LXPilot's Guide*

*Socionics versus MBTI Cognitive Functions- Commentary, and a Guide to Reconciling the Two Systems*​
DISCLAIMER: This is a brief guide, and is likely conceptually “incomplete.” Most typological models are this way as well, given their complexity. There’s still a lot of research to be done in this field, and the interrelationships between their topics. Additionally, My purpose here is to _propose _conversion between the two systems, not _endorse _it. I have converted between the two with a good amount of success in real life, but only with several years of experience with Jung and the cognitive functions. Socionics may be a bit complicated for the beginning typological scholar, and may be best tackled after a good amount of previous experience with type.

With That - - -

 Trying to convert from MBTI cognitive functions to socionics? Confused as to whether or not your type changes between the two? Feeling dazed and confused by all the funky letters, symbols, and descriptions? Here’s a more detailed look at the ways that the cognitive functions “translate” (or not) between the two systems. By "MBTI," I refer, somewhat liberally, to any system that employs a cognitive function hierarchy - despite the fact that conventional MBTI only uses four functions (Beebe et al use 8). This guide covers the functions themselves, not the systems. In a sense, socionics, Beebe, and other 8 function models offer more information than pure MBTI - but we can still theoretically attempt to map the four MBTI functions onto the socionics system. 

There has, however, been significant debate over the translatability of the MBTI cognitive functions to the socionics informational elements (IE’s) - the name for the hierarchy of cognitive processes that socionics theory proposes to make up our type. The two sides can be generalized as follows:

1.) Socionics and MBTI are both rooted in Jung, and one type in one system coordinates with one type in the other. Introverted MBTI types switch the last letter of their four letter code to get their socionics type; extraverts stay the same (MBTI ESTP = socionics ESTp, MBTI INTJ = socionics INTp, so on).

2.) Socionics and MBTI use different “functions,” and therefore translatability is not reliable. One could be of one type by MBTI, and a different one in socionics. 

Unfortunately, there does not seem to be a perfectly “clear” answer here, and a deeper exploration of both systems is required before any one recommended course of typing can be reliably proposed - if it ever could be to begin with. Alternative and hybrid “takes” on the comparison are perfectly valid, but this article will focus on these two since they are the extremes (i.e. you should develop your own take that feels comfortable and seems logical). For those who are less-familiar with socionics, my hope is to present the socionics IE’s in a way that is easy to grasp, given prior knowledge of MBTI, while prompting further discussions on the subtle differences between the two systems. You could, of course, start “from scratch” with socionics by learning it from ground level as well, but it might be helpful to compare the MBTI functions you’re already familiar with, to the IE’s. This is not an all-inclusive guide, though, and another article can be used to lay out the fundamentals of the theory - this is just for those who want to convert their type using what they already know. This guide is _not _the whole of socionics theory - but you _might _be able to convert types using the same cognitive functions of MBTI, if you know them. 

A Comparison “Cheat Sheet”​
*Socionics*
*IE*​*Description of Informational Element*​*MBTI*​*Description of Cognitive Function*​









Si​

Internalize sensations and experience them in full detail 
 

Unity or discord with one’s physical surroundings 
Awareness of physical fluctuations between objects - sound, motion, heat 
Awareness -> ideas of comfort, aesthetics, health, enjoyability 
Si​

Storing _past _data and information 
Comparing current situation to similar ones 
Linkage of present to prior experience 
“Reliving” of past experience through images 
Dependence on past for lessons in present or future 










Se​

Understanding power, force, or influence 
Competition 
Achieving an object of desire 
Push and bend situations and people to accomplish a goal 
Se​

Notice relevant facts among many and act for an immediate result 
Thrill of action in the present moment 
Oneness with surrounding physical world in the present 
“How far can I go” in a present situation “to get the impact I want?” 










Ni​

Recognize unfolding processes over time 
Visons of past and future 
Mental images 
Hidden relationships between people, processes, and events 
Trends beyond the physical 
Ni​

Paradoxes and contradictions to new understandings 
New, unimagined realizations 
Sureness of the future 
Uses symbols to represent abstract connections and predictions 
Systems -> universal realizations 










Ne​

Ability to recognize possibilities and opportunities 
Recognize talent and propensities in others 
Rapidly generate ideas 
Pick a few options and stick with them 
Juxtaposes the seemingly unrelated  
Ne​

Many possible interpretations from one idea 
Juggles many ideas considering each as possibly true 
Weaves themes together 
Plays with possible situations and scenarios 
Brings concepts in from the “here and now” outside 










Ti​

Logical consistency and correctness 
Classification of systems 
Similarities, differences, and correlations between concepts and objects - beauty, symmetry, etc 
Internal consistency of positions 
Personal standards of truth rather than those of authority 
Ti​

The right word for clear expression of an idea 
Awareness of the essential underlying qualities of an object 
“Inherentness” and general principles  
Classification of systems 
Take something apart to see how it works 
Different sides of an issue to find inconsistency 
Logical inconsistencies between frameworks to evaluate likely accuracy 










Te​

How, what, when, and where of events 
External activity and its rationale/functionality/usefulness 
Factual accuracy and consistency as demonstrated  
Te​

Planning, scheduling, and organizing 
Efficiency and productivity 
Reasonable conclusions based on external facts 
Urges one to follow someone else’s logic, sequence, order 










Fi​

Implicit sense of the emotional “distance” between two people 
Close, personal relations with friends and family 
Use innermost feelings to make relationships with others 
Emotions are referred to with respect to how they affected someone (not how they “are”) 
Personal, not group ethics and morals 
Fi​

Images and gut reactions as opposed to externalized words 
Filters what is meaningful or worthwhile 
Situational worth instead of shared 
Concerned with value compromising 
Expression through action 
Subjective sense of the “essence’ of a person, situation, or object 










Fe​

Ability to convey, and make others experience passions, moods, emotional states 
Generates excitement, liveliness, feelings, and emotional involvement 
Recognize emotional interactions between groups to foster group unity 
Atmosphere of camaraderie 
Not too thin-skinned, take jokes with a grain of salt 
Loose atmosphere where “anything goes” 
Emphasis, embellishments, and exaggerations 
communication based on the climate of the group, given the situation 
Prefer misgivings out in the open 
Dislike the “silent treatment” 
Fe​

Obvious expressions of warmth and displeasure 
Politeness and friendliness to match the group and its expressed or unexpressed needs and wants 
Know others so you can adjust to them 
Responsibility for others’ feelings to the point of not separating them from our own 
Recognize shared values and norms to get along 





*Problems with Empirical “Typing”*​If you look closely at the descriptions above, you will notice that there are several differences between the functions themselves in both systems that make cross-system typing tricky, even when one has identified the correct function in MBTI. Consider the two Fe descriptions: MBTI accentuates “obvious expressions of warmth and displeasure,” but makes no mention of the “loose atmosphere where ‘anything goes,’” or even “not too thin-skinned, take jokes with a grain of salt.” The debate is - are these differences significant enough to let some slip through the cracks as correctly typed one way by MBTI, and typed another by socionics? What if, for example, we have two “ENFJ” friends, one who likes to rough-house to suit the emotional atmosphere of the moment, and one who prefers a more calm and regulated, but still fun environment? The latter seems to use a different function than the socionics Fe, but might still fit the MBTI description of Fe very well. 

Here are some suggestions for dealing with this dilemma - 

*Tip 1: Socionics Depends on the Functions Too*​One  of the biggest criticisms of socionics by MBTI users calls to attention the speculative parts of socionical descriptions - the physical characteristics, generalized behaviors, etc. Keep in mind that the _real _focus of socionics is the functional system, similar to the Beebe and even MBTI functional hierarchies. If you’re going to convert between MBTI and socionics, make sure you’re depending on the functional systems of each - not their wacky descriptions. Same guidelines as before. There are, as you can see, a great number of similarities between the functions of both systems, and many differences do not necessarily make the two mutually exclusive - a person of the same type between both systems can often "do" some of the same things that both say are characteristic of functions preferred by his or her type, even if they are not mentioned by both. 

*Tip 2: Consider Not Using a “One System Fits All” Approach*​This will likely appeal to those who do not feel comfortable enough with the functions in both theories as to make a judgment call, as well as Ti-users who feel that there are significant differences and inconsistencies between the systems. For example, one could be an ENTP by MBTI, but an INTj by socionics, simply because the functions are considered to be _that _different. You may not feel as though you fit into any category at all - just remember, however, that this is a potential downfall of MBTI and Jungian typology when they stand alone as well, and that you may have to “start from scratch” with socionics to figure out your type. 

*Tip 3: Don’t Isolate Functions From Their Roles*​If you do decide to convert between MBTI and socionics, you risk making significant errors if you depend only on one, or even two functions to determine type. This is true for MBTI on its own as well, since function order, with respect to Jung, is at best myth - one can prefer functions outside of their type’s “hierarchy.” In socionics, the problem is a bit different though. Unlike the MBTI functional hierarchy, socionics sorts its functions by their “roles” in the human psyche, and the way that we perceive their influence. You can see this very important model, called Model A, here. In this sense, socionics is similar to John Beebe’s Jungian model. To rely on the “dominance” of a function is to ignore its actual role within an individual’s psychological makeup - it’s not that an ISTJ uses Si “first,” and Te “second,” for example. He or she would use Si as the leading function - as a motivational force (perhaps physical comfort) - and Te to form the basis of personal interests and pursuits (stable careers, etc). 

If this wasn’t obvious already - you need to learn both the socionics IE’s as well as their roles!

*Tip 4: Consider Using the Interrelationships Table*​When you know your own type but not someone else’s, it is sometimes possible to determine socionics type by considering intertype relations. Socionics interrelationships theory uses the functional purposes to predict how you will react to experiences with various functions from others. Say you’re an ENFP, and your point of least resistance is Ti. Your worst enemy co-worker seems like he’s picking on you to be more organized. Consider the possibility of him being ISTj (MBTI ISTP) - this would be your “conflict” relationship. This doesn’t sound like a translational issue as much as one involving the utility of socionics, but surprisingly, type can sometimes seem more clear between the two when the functions are considered in regards to real-life experience. You can _sometimes _use the relationships table to “go backwards,” but the same rules apply as with any typological system - careful observation, and objective data, rather than hunches. You can also “check your work” once you’ve narrowed down types. This is better, in general, as a _long-term _approach to determining one’s type than it is as a short, quick fix. It also works better with people you interact with frequently, since you have a wider pool of observations to draw from. 

*Tip 5: You’re Dealing With Both Models and Reality*​Socionics is a model, which, by definition, is likely to be neither 100% precise nor accurate. Don’t try to “force” people into types from one system to the other if they don’t _really _fit. 

Did this guide sound very mechanical and calculating to you? It probably is. I would argue that socionics is perhaps more prone to be applied in a “mechanical” way than MBTI and some of the other typological theories. The truth is, _all _typological theory is myth. It doesn’t, and can’t capture every intricacy of one’s existence. As MBTI, Jung, and typology in general, socionics is an approximative tool, which can be used for both fantastic humanistic causes and interpersonal devastation. The hands of the blacksmith should be well-fit for the hammer, but know when to put its tools down for the better.


----------



## myst91 (Sep 9, 2014)

Figure said:


> Socionics interrelationships theory uses the functional purposes to predict how you will react to experiences with various functions from others. Say you’re an ENFP, and your point of least resistance is Ti. Your worst enemy co-worker seems like he’s picking on you to be more organized. Consider the possibility of him being ISTj (MBTI ISTP) - this would be your “conflict” relationship. This doesn’t sound like a translational issue as much as one involving the utility of socionics, but surprisingly, type can sometimes seem more clear between the two when the functions are considered in regards to real-life experience.


I'm sorry but that's not going to be MBTI ISTP - MBTI ISTP isn't exactly known for picking on others to be more organized. Quite the opposite.

It's made clear in this article initially that the functions are different between the two systems; so no need to attempt translating between the systems like that.

Good summary otherwise.


----------



## Jeremy8419 (Mar 2, 2015)

Figure, some things to consider:

Relationship between J/P and Mental/Vital.

Observable behaviors and thoughts could be anywhere within TIM. A lazy person who basically lives off others is most likely going to display only signs of Vital, with Mental functions largely unobservable.


----------



## Jeremy8419 (Mar 2, 2015)

Information elements | School of System Socionics


----------



## Lord Fenix Wulfheart (Aug 18, 2015)

An interesting and insightful read. Thank you, and bookmarked.


----------

