# What is the difference between MBTI and socionics?



## WarriorDreamer

If someone could help answer this question I would be grateful, thank-you.

I would like to know the difference between the MBTI theroy as a whole and the website socionics and exactly how they look at types and relationships differently.

Thanks!


----------



## LiquidLight

Socionics is a sort of Russian take-off of MBTI/Jung. Many of the ideas are same, some are just plain kinda out there (like the whole ENTps have crooked noses and loose their buttons stuff). But they really have their own idea of the psyche and the types, which are loosely similar to MBTI (they at least get the J/P correct in introverts, where its backwards in MBTI, so a MBTI INFP is really an INFj in Socionics which is correct since INFPs lead with a judging function, Fi). But there's a lot of stuff out there that's sort of takes them a few steps backwards for every step forward they make in my opinion (I think largely due to the fact that there's little research on it, its mostly badly translated Russian, and I think the relative homogeneity of the Russian culture compels them to make assumptions, like the ones about certain types having certain physical characteristics, that probably don't hold up as an archetype).


----------



## NeedsNewNameNow

WarriorDreamer said:


> If someone could help answer this question I would be grateful, thank-you.
> 
> I would like to know the difference between the MBTI theroy as a whole and the website socionics and exactly how they look at types and relationships differently.
> 
> Thanks!


Socionics is sort of like the Soviet version of MBTI. I understand that there is much information on it not translated into English.
One of the biggest gothas is in their lettering, they use a lowercase letter for p & j, and it does not mean the same thing as MBTI! If your lead function is a J function, you are a j, or else you are a P. 

This means that Introverted types have their p/j flipped vs MBTI. MBTI INTP= socionics INTj but an MBTI ENFP is still ENFp in socionics. 

It also has alot of theory about how to type people by their appearace, and on relationships between types.


----------



## WarriorDreamer

Oh okay this clears it up a bit. Since I was assuming for a long time that it was the same! :/


----------



## cyamitide

WarriorDreamer said:


> Oh okay this clears it up a bit. Since I was assuming for a long time that it was the same! :/


The functions are same, but some of the terminology isn't. If you have typed yourself correctly in MBTI as INTP with cognitive function of Ti,Ne,Si,Fe then it is very likely that you are Ti,Ne,Si,Fe type in Socionics. But this type is called INTj there.

At their base, there are a lot of similarities. They were both based on Jung's Psychological Types. They both have 16 types based on same dichotomies E/I, T/F, and N/S. But some things don't coincide, for example Socionics doesn't have Judger/Perceiver dichotomy, what they have instead is Rational/Irrational which is why the J/P letters for socionics types aren't assigned in the same manner and are written in lower case to designate that difference.


----------



## Donovan

i thought socionics was interesting a few years back when i first looked into it--until i saw on a type-by-picture-forum, "this person appears to have the rounded forehead of an INTJ... yes, yes"--that's about when i stopped looking into it.


----------



## cyamitide

celticstained said:


> i thought socionics was interesting a few years back when i first looked into it--until i saw on a type-by-picture-forum, "this person appears to have the rounded forehead of an INTJ... yes, yes"--that's about when i stopped looking into it.


Visual typing is something a few socionics enthusiasts engage in, but it's not the main part of socionics. MBTI enthusiasts do same, fyi, take a look at this MBTI typing by eye movements and facial expressions Physiognomy: The Eight Cognitive Functions, Guide for Typing in Real Time, yet all of this doesn't stop you from participating in MBTI discussion. Kind of a biased approach if you ask me; it's wrong for socionics, but perfectly acceptable to do this in MBTI.


----------



## Donovan

no, both are stupid methods. if typing by appearance isn't the main aspect, then ok, but from my perspective it seemed to be something that isn't "frowned upon" either, which immediately puts everything else they say into suspicion (personally). not a stance that's hard to understand; i mean would you be willing in to listen to the "wisdom" of another person if they were convinced the earth was flat and that elvis lived in their basement? this may be something that i have to overcome, thank you.

i didn't mean to belittle something that you have an attachment to or to show a frame of mind that would antagonize you either (which is funny because that's exactly the same problem that i have with that "slim aspect" of socionics).


----------



## cyamitide

celticstained said:


> no, both are stupid methods. if typing by appearance isn't the main aspect, then ok,


Generally speaking, the whole idea that personality has some influence on one's appearance isn't that nonsensical. There have been many research studies done that show that there are indeed correlations between personality and looks, a few of these. So it is quite possible that there are some commonalities in looks and mannerisms of people of same MBTI type.



> but from my perspective it seemed to be something that isn't "frowned upon" either, which immediately puts everything else they say into suspicion (personally).


Everyone studying socionics picks what they want to believe (same with MBTI, you pick your interpretation of functions and types you follow) and some socionics enthusiasts discount the idea of VI completely even after being involved with it for years. There isn't this homogenous "they".



> not a stance that's hard to understand; i mean would you be willing in to listen to the "wisdom" of another person if they were convinced the earth was flat and that elvis lived in their basement? this may be something that i have to overcome, thank you.


Personally I would be willing to listen to them  likely because I score very high on Openness factor on Big 5 so I'm usually very open to weird ideas and imaginative thinking (I've been told that I am very open-minded by people who know me). However, even though I am willing to listen to and consider some wild possibilities, I will later check them. In case of types and visual identification I am willing to consider this possibility because there are multitudes of studies from accredited institutions that already show that there is a connection between one's character traits and one's looks. So it is not difficult to imagine that this could be true of MBTI types (or Socionics types). However since there haven't been any studies done that would directly involve these typologies, I remain skeptical of this practice. But I am not willing to just discount it completely and close off my mind to it being possible.


----------



## Dastan

It does not only have different type terminologies like INTj/INTp etc. The order or combination of functions is completely different. Extraverts in both theories actually have the same two first functions (ENFj: Fe, Ni), but the other ones are different. Introverts with the same name have got different first two function but the same two next functions. There is not the same dominant-inferior-constellation as MBTI, every type is like *Ji, Pe, Ji ,Pe* or *Je, Pi, Je, Pi* etc instead of *Ji, Pe, Pi, Je*... For example ENFj: *Fe, Ni, Te, Si*. So an MBTI *INFP(Fi, Ne, Si, Te)* is actually not a socionic *INFj(Fi, Ne, Ti, Se)*. The function theories of the MBTI and Socionics are mutually exclusive!


----------



## Donovan

@_cyamitide_

thanks for the link. i'll check 'em out.

edit: ok the link was interesting, but even they say one can't rely on visual stimulation since "external stimulus information is of little inherent value". what is of value is what all ten people said or felt upon seeing one person, not necessarily that they were correct in their evaulation. from the article, it's not so much, "let me see what personality characteristics i can gather from your physical characteristics", but more, "let's see how people react to certain characteristics and let's see what theories about the said person they come up with". completely different than how i saw it being used, which is still bullshit in my opinion--i mean, all you have to do is to look at pictures of certain types and see the diversity with their appearances. now one may come out and say, "how do you know they're all typed correctly" which is opening a whole 'nother barrel of snakes (and any claim of legitimacy shouldn't be made on another's inability to disprove what you've said, it should rely on one's ability to _prove what they're saying). _not to mention that this would mean that personality theory and cognitive functions would be split up and divided racially since no two races look at that similar (unless one want's to argue from an anthropological standpoint and use skull shape, narrowing it down to asian, caucasian, and african--but even then, you'd be saying that only certain types could be "type XXXX" since their people typically have rounded foreheads, and people from a different racial group would be less likely to be "type XXXX" since based on their own genetics, it's a rarity for them to express the gene that gives one a rounded forehead). 

in short, it is interesting, but i would rather spend my free time studying something that isn't as intially damning to itself as this facet of socionics is. it seems like they had to skip over a lot of explaining to get to the point that they're at (maybe you can correct me here), or, that others have taken it and ran with the theory or experiment in a way that wasn't intended--that is, one can't get a lot of information based off the looks of another, but they can gain information about another person (or people in general) as that person attempts to get information through facial features (people are normally attracted to "X", or intimidated by "Y", and so on). 

my 2 cents.


----------



## Dastan

Another interesting thing about Socionics: in parallel to the fact that j and p are defined by judging or perceiving function as a dominant function and not by the first extraverted function, especially the functions Fi, Fe and Ti are described in another way than in MBTI:
Fi: ethics of relationships (MBTI: more like Fe)-> can effect J-behavior/rationalism
Fe: ethics of emotion (MBTI: also similar to Fi-Pe)-> can be second function in spite of P-behavor/irrationalism
Ti: logic of structure (MBTI: some aspects of Te)-> can effect J-behavior/ rationalism

Of course the other functions also have differences... but these are interesting because of the j/p.

So it is much more complicated to compare the type descriptions of both theories. Lots of people here compare IXXP with socionics IXXj and vice-versa, but 1. It's *not *the same function order and 2. Socionics is very faithful to its division of j and p.


----------



## WarriorDreamer

Well what I was really interested in was the relationship theories they have. Since all you have to do is choose two types and you get a full description of the kind of relationship someone could expect from the other.

I would never _live_ by something like that, but I find it interesting to see what they think.

But if particular types are different to the actual MBTI result then I would like to know what each type is in MBTI to Socionics. If you could could you make a list of what the MBTI type to socionic type is? Thanks.


----------



## MNiS

WarriorDreamer said:


> If someone could help answer this question I would be grateful, thank-you.
> 
> I would like to know the difference between the MBTI theroy as a whole and the website socionics and exactly how they look at types and relationships differently.
> 
> Thanks!


Socionics is a Soviet era adaptation typology based on Carl Jung and some Russian psychologists who're prominent to Socionics itself. It's pretty much the same as MBTI except Socionics claims that each type can look at information and cognitively process it in a unique manner. Because of this, each type is supposed to have conscious areas of strength and areas of weaknesses. Also, each type supposedly has a subconscious area of strength and weakness and are suggestible through those means.

From the idea that each type processes information through the 8 Jungian functions in a unique way forms 16 distinct types, it logically follows that each type interact with each other in a predefined manner. In other words, Socionics claims that it can predict the outcome of relationships between the various types. For example, Socionics ENFP and ESFJ are considered relations of benefit where the ESFJ benefits from ENFP interactions. 

I'm glossing over a lot of relevant details but that's the gist of it. It's just MBTI that claims to predict the success of relationships. To be perfectly honest, I much prefer MBTI to Socionics but that's just me as I've found the relationship predictions to not be very good or correct.


----------



## Kevinaswell

The difference is negligible.

Both models are based on psychological pseudo-science, which makes both not only obsolete, but completely irrelevant.

Type theory is as credible as stereotyping is credible. Which is only superficially. 

So enjoy investing time in learning a personality model that is irrelevant... this forum LOVES dumb shit!!!


----------



## MNiS

WarriorDreamer said:


> Well what I was really interested in was the relationship theories they have. Since all you have to do is choose two types and you get a full description of the kind of relationship someone could expect from the other.
> 
> I would never _live_ by something like that, but I find it interesting to see what they think.


Ask and you shall receive. 

Wikisocion



> But if particular types are different to the actual MBTI result then I would like to know what each type is in MBTI to Socionics. If you could could you make a list of what the MBTI type to socionic type is? Thanks.


Yeah, for introverts, you're supposed to switch the P to a j and likewise the J to a p. Extroverts keep the same J or P. So an MBTI INFP is supposed to be a Socionics INFj and an MBTI ENFP is supposed to be a Socionics ENFp. I say _supposed to be_, because there's really very little correlation between MBTI and Socionics so if you want to know your Socionics type, you'll have to likely start all over with typing yourself.


----------



## ai.tran.75

im quite suure enfp doesnt test enfp, im an enfp with mbti but somehow im an infp in socionic


----------



## Snow

If anyone is interested, see my post on learning Socionics in this "MBTI to Socionics" tutorial.



WarriorDreamer said:


> I would like to know the difference between the MBTI theroy as a whole and the website socionics and exactly how they look at types and relationships differently.



* *





To start, the “socionics.com” website is not a good representation of what Socoinics is. It has an interesting test, some interesting descriptions, but in all honesty lacks in a lot of accuracy and usefulness.

To answer your question as simply as possible, Socionics is a system that, like MBTI, is based off Carl Jung's work on cognitive functions. The ultimate and original goal was to identify how different types of people relate to one another. The system is highly relevant to relationships, whereas MBTI was founded based on simple “types” of people.

Furthermore, Isabel and Myers took Jung's knowledge and threw it together in a neat system using logic from their understanding of everything. This created an interesting but not really complete perspective of what “typology” is, as they took Jung's incomplete work on Cognitive Functions for the bible and ran with it. Additionally, the MBTI system has endured hundreds of attempts to “prove” it without any success beyond the very very basics (basically that yes, people have cognitive functions and people tend to be more I or E). On the other hand, Socionics has had some limited success in proving its own theory, however most of that is in Russian.

Socionics is NOT built off of anything related to MBTI, however later Socoinics did try to adapt some of it to MBTI so that MBTI-familiar people could understand it from their level. Hence they added things like the eight cognitive functions (Fe, Ni, Te, etc.) and even updated MBTI's version of using the eight dichotomies (E/I, N/S, F/T, J/P) to make more “accurate” sense.






LiquidLight said:


> Socionics is a sort of Russian take-off of MBTI/Jung.


This is incorrect; Socionics reworked Jung's work, and later decided to use some MBTI terminology so that us MBTI-familiar individuals wouldn't have to learn a whole new language.



> Many of the ideas are same, some are just plain kinda out there (like the whole ENTps have crooked noses and loose their buttons stuff).





NeedsNewNameNow said:


> It also has alot of theory about how to type people by their appearace, and on relationships between types.





Donovan said:


> ...until i saw on a type-by-picture-forum, "this person appears to have the rounded forehead of an INTJ... yes, yes"--that's about when i stopped looking into it.



* *





Just like in MBTI or Enneagram, there are “popular theories” which the actual Socionics community rarely accepts. For example, in MBTI it's popular to believe that intuitives are more intelligent than sensors, that judgers are cleaner and more organized than perceivers, etc. These are incorrect stereotypes. Socionics has them too, including what is called “VI” (Visual Identification) which may have some minor correlation but no understanding of causation (and any correlation may be simply incorrect in the first place).

A good metaphor might be conspiracy theorists. They exist everywhere in one form or another; in Socionics, VI typing is sort of a “fringe idea” that may just be true, but still has no real evidence.

Other examples of Socionics-related systems which are not fully accepted include: subtype theory, DCNH, and the +/- (plus and minus) theory. Some Socionics experts (i.e. Gulenko) are involved in proving some of them, but they still do not claim these as absolute.






Dastan said:


> It does not only have different type terminologies like INTj/INTp etc. The order or combination of functions is completely different. ...The function theories of the MBTI and Socionics are mutually exclusive!



* *





Yes and no. I personally prefer to look at Socionics functions (cognitive functions, that is) in a linear format similar to MBTI. For example, the EIE (ENFJ) in Socionics looks (to me) like this: Fe > Ni > Se > Ti. Unlike most MBTI theory, the “shadow” functions are all not only “used” in Socionics, they are just as powerful as their “non-shadow” counterpart. So every type shows their four primary functions and beside them their “non primary” functions that are not “preferred” but still just as powerful. For example, the ENFJ's functions looks like this to me:

MBTI: Fe > Ni > Se > Ti. Shadow functions: Fi > Ne > Si > Te.

Socionics:
Fe / Ne
Ni / Fi
Se / Te
Ti / Si

The “valued” functions are on the left, while the “devalued” functions are on the right. (There is a slight change in shadow function theory in how it translates to Socionics “order of power,” but the shadow theory is not considered overly accurate in the first place; you can discount a lot of it.) Regardless, if you understand the first four functions in MBTI, you can understand how Socionics determines the “dimensionality” (power/strength) of those first four functions.

The biggest difference is that Socionics never “lined up” functions like in MBTI. In fact a “function” in Socionics referes to the LOCATION of the cognitive function, not the actual cognitive function itself. But this part of the theory isn't necessary to learn right away when transferring from MBTI to Socionics. Instead, learn it over time as you go.






WarriorDreamer said:


> If you could could you make a list of what the MBTI type to socionic type is?



* *





ENFP – ENFp - IEE
ENFJ – ENFj - EIE
ENTP – ENTp - ILE
ENTJ – ENTj - LIE
ESFP – ESFp - SEE
ESFJ – ESFj - ESE
ESTP – ESTp - SLE
ESTJ – ESTj - LSE
INFP – INFj - EII
INFJ – INFp - IEI
INTP – INTj - LII
INTJ – INTp - ILI
ISFP – ISFj - ESI
ISFJ – ISFp - SEI
ISTP – ISTj - LSI
ISTJ – ISTp – SLI

The three letter designation refers to if a person is Logical (Te/Ti), Ethical (Fe/Fi), Sensor (Se/Si), or Intuitive (Ne/Ni) in their cogntiive functions first then second. For example the SEI suggests Sensor Ethical (in that order) as the ISFJ has cognitive functions: Si > Fe > etc., and the last designation (third letter) is Introvert or Extravert. So SEI is Sensor > Feeler > Introvert.






ai.tran.75 said:


> im quite suure enfp doesnt test enfp, im an enfp with mbti but somehow im an infp in socion


Unfortunately, there are no good Socionics tests. The only reason there are decent MBTI tests is because MBTI is largely stereotype-based, so the j/p people who get them mixed up often find similarities in their fellow type. (INFPs type as INFJs a lot, for instance.) Additionally, MBTI usually suggests an N or S “can't” do what the other can do, therefore typing can get confusing when someone notices they actually can do both N and S functions. Because there is high N bias, most people type as intuitive in these tests.


----------



## Tao Jones

First of all, very few Socionists type by visual identification. It's as much a joke in the Socionics community as it is here.

Okay, now that that's out of the way, both Socionics and MBTI are based on the work of Carl Jung. They went in sorta different directions. Socionics is primarily about intertype relations. Each person has a different relation with each of the 16 types, and it's based off the notion that opposite information elements compliment each other as shown below:



> *Se and Ni*
> Se is the readily observable, outward characteristics of things/people including appearance, physical traits, strength, and readiness to mobilize. Those with strong Se sense how ready a person is to act and thus how much pressure can/should be applied in a given situation. Ni is the beneath the surface connections in events. Those with strong Ni focus on the how events connect across time and hidden or underlying causes of events. They are aware of how what they've done in the past impacts the present and how what they are doing now impacts their future. There is also a focus on global events (and their causes and ways to impact them) rather than what's immediately in front of them.
> Se types are prone to acting without full consideration of the consequences or without considering the best timing. Ni types point those things out so that Se types can put their incredible power to do to the best use. Ni types, however, are prone to watching all of the patterns and causation and plotting without taking decisive action. Se types push them into action, and they appreciate it.
> 
> *Ne and Si*
> Ne is the potential, inherent, latent, beneath the surface characteristics of things/people including their hidden states and possible or alternative traits that are not already visibly manifested. Those with strong Ne like to explore options and possibilities. Si is the connections in readily observable events, how what's happening impacts self, others, and things. Those with strong Si are very aware of what's going on with their (and others') bodies as well as the physical interactions between things. There's a focus on comfort, pleasant vs unpleasant sensations, health, and physical needs.
> Ne types are filled with wonder and awe and love considering and exploring many possibilities. They may, as a result of their mental wanderings, neglect their physical needs and comfort. Si types enjoy caring for the physical needs and comfort of themselves and others. Si types can fall into ruts though and may lack the keen imagination that Ne types have, so they appreciate when someone comes along to offer a new way of looking at something and novel ideas.
> 
> *Te and Fi*
> Te is the outward characteristics of events, what's happening at the surface. Those with strong Te focus on effectiveness, efficiency, usefulness, productivity, and practicality. Fi is stable, personal or beneath the surface connections. Those with strong Fi are very aware of and focused on interpersonal connections between people, likes vs dislikes, desires, and personal attitudes of right vs wrong (including the characters of people).
> Te types are good at navigating practical concerns, but they may not have a strong sense of their own desires, the depth and nature of their relationships, who they can trust, and their personal values. Fi types help them with their sense of these things, and Te types find it stabilizing to be able to count on the Fi type’s sensibilities in these areas. Fi values guide their Te activities. Fi types, on the other hand, know what they value but don’t have the strong practical know how that helps to accomplish it efficiently and effectively, so they appreciate aid in those areas.
> 
> *Fe and Ti*
> Fe is what's happening beneath the surface such as emotional/energy activity within people or in the atmosphere. Those with strong Fe focus on the emotional current in a situation: mood, passion, and inspiration. Ti is stable, clearly defined or surface connections. Those with strong Ti are very aware of and focused on logical structure, systems/categorization of information, hierarchy, logical consistency, and right vs wrong based on logical principles.
> Fe types appreciate the logic that Ti types have to offer because it creates the structure within which their Fe can play, and Ti types appreciate how Fe types liven things up and help present their Ti principles and rules in a way that people will accept them.


Also, the information elements are called information elements (sorry, not sure what to refer to them as for MBTI people? functions?) and are defined as follows:



> The basic premise is that for every situation/thing we observe or consider, there are eight different perspectives, and different people see these perspectives in different ways. These eight different perspectives are called Information Aspects (once they're being perceived or considered they're called Information Metabolism Elements, or IMEs, as they're commonly called), and they're compromised of the following:
> 
> External: These aspects are readily apparent, measurable, easily definable, or on the surface.
> Internal: These aspects are abstract, immeasurable, not easily definable, or beneath the surface.
> 
> Static: These aspects are about the states.
> Dynamic: These aspects are about events/activities.
> 
> Objects: These aspects are about something in and of itself.
> Fields: These aspects are about the connections/relationships between objects (including between oneself and other people/things).
> 
> These areas combine to create the eight Information Aspects. Please note that it's impossible to use one IME at a time, so all examples will technically include at least very basic use of at least one other IME.
> 
> Se: External, Static, Objects. Se is the readily observable, outward characteristics of things/people including appearance, physical traits, strength, and readiness to mobilize. Those with strong Se sense how ready a person is to act and thus how much pressure can/should be applied in a given situation.
> Ne: Internal, Static, Objects. Ne is the potential, inherent, latent, beneath the surface characteristics of things/people including their hidden states and possible or alternative traits that are not already visibly manifested. Those with strong Ne like to explore options and possibilities.
> Te: External, Dynamic, Objects. Te is the outward characteristics of events, what's happening at the surface. Those with strong Te focus on effectiveness, efficiency, usefulness, productivity, and practicality.
> Fe: Internal, Dynamic, Objects. Fe is the underlying events, what's happening beneath the surface such as emotional activity within people or in the atmosphere. Those with strong Fe focus on the emotional current in a situation: mood, passion, and inspiration.
> Si: External, Dynamic, Fields. Si is the connections in readily observable events, how what's happening impacts self, others, and things. Those with strong Si are very aware of what's going on with their (and others') bodies as well as the physical interactions between things. There's a focus on comfort, pleasant vs unpleasant sensations, health, and physical needs.
> Ni: Internal, Dynamic, Fields. Ni is the beneath the surface connections in events. Those with strong Ni focus on the how events connect across time and hidden or underlying causes of events. They are aware of how what they've done in the past impacts the present and how what they are doing now impacts their future. There is also a focus on global events (and their causes and ways to impact them) rather than what's immediately in front of them.
> Ti: External, Static, Fields. Ti is stable, clearly defined or surface connections. Those with strong Ti are very aware of and focused on logical structure, systems/categorization of information, hierarchy, logical consistency, and right vs wrong based on logical principles.
> Fi: Internal, Static, Fields. Fi is stable, personal or beneath the surface connections. Those with strong Fi are very aware of and focused on interpersonal connections between people, likes vs dislikes, desires, and personal attitudes of right vs wrong (including the characters of people).
> As stated previously, different people see the above perspectives in different ways. Those ways are determined by their Socionics type. A Socionics type is the way the above IMEs are arranged in a model of functions. The most widely recognized and utilized Socionics model is Model A.


Which brings us to Model A. Technically there are lots of models, but personally I would recommend ignoring others and just focusing on Model A. One of the main differences from MBTI is that in Socionics, we all use all of the IMEs, not just the ones we value.



> 1. Lead (MBTI dom): The eyes through with we see the world. This function is strong, rigid, and confident. We actively consider and decide with it. We're aware of norms for how it's used by others, but we can also consider the nuances of the situation and apply it accordingly. We track changes to this area through time.
> 2. Creative (MBTI aux): This is a tool that we use to support our lead function. It's used more flexibly, and it's an area in which we can learn and grow. Like the first function, we actively consider information related to it and think through things. We also understand norms related to this area yet do our own thing if we feel the situation calls for it.
> 3. Role: This is an "unvalued" area that we feel we're supposed to consider, and we do so consciously. We're aware of norms related to this area, but we lack the nuanced understanding that allows us to simply disregard them. This function balances out the first one and is used when we don't have enough proper input into our 5th function from others. This is another area in which we can grow over time.
> 4. Vulnerable: This is an area that we actively consider, but we're unaware of norms here. We can only get information in it through our own personal experiences, but it never really grows, so we may have a difficult time properly sorting/retaining/utilizing that information. We try to avoid using this when possible, and we're sensitive to criticism here. We don't want attention drawn to it.
> 5. Suggestive (MBTI inferior): This is another area where we don't understand the norms of how people use it, but we're able to learn about it through our own experiences. This is an area where we want/need input from others. When we use it, it happens automatically, and we're only aware of it after the fact. We're able to grow in this area throughout our lives, and as we do, we learn to utilize our lead function more effectively. This may also be an area of fear, and we may avoid using it because we're uncertain and insecure in it if we don't have strong, proper input from others. Thinking tends to be simplistic/black and white in both the 4th and the 5th functions.
> 6. Mobilizing (MBTI tertiary): This is our "try hard" function, and in many individuals it is one of their most visible. It's automatic/reactive, we understand norms related to it and desire to rigidly follow them. We're energized by use of this function, and we love compliments on it. We like to think we're better at this than we actually are, and like a small child, we want to do it ourselves. If it sounds to you like this combination may lead us to make a fool of ourselves, you're right!
> 7. Ignoring: This is automatic and rigid. We understand norms, but our understanding of this is good enough to know when we can disregard those norms. We don't really value the input of others here, and we don't have much interest in engaging others with it since we're not even actively considering it ourselves. "Yeah, whatever. It's fine."
> 8. Demonstrative: This is used boldly and reactively. We see plenty of nuance here. We're quite good at it and can track changes through time, but it's not particularly important to us. We don't particularly care to actively engage others in this area, but we can hold our own when we want to use it. This is also an area in which we can grow throughout our lives.


----------



## Snow

@Tao Jones

Good information. Thank you for sharing. Yes, IMEs are called "functions" in MBTI.


----------



## ALongTime

My approach is a bit different to @Snow here, I'm not saying this to go after you or anyone personally but I felt the need to put forward my point of view on the subject.

I personally don't touch MBTI anymore, I consider socionics to be a much more interesting and more complete system, and I'm sceptical of the MBTI test itself and the usual understanding of functions in MBTI. So I would recommend to anyone looking to learn socionics to try to learn and understand socionics yourself and try to come up with your type using a socionics understanding. Unfortunately in most cases the general understanding of MBTI is too different from socionics to be carried across but similar enough to cause confusion.

As for the infamous P/J switch, that's always been controversial in socionics J/P switch - Wikisocion

Just as an example, an ESI in socionics in many cases would be expected to be quite assertive and opinionated (of course depending on the individual), due to ego block :r: :f:, but I don't think this is a usual stereotype for an ISFP in MBTI.

In my opinion the biggest problem is that socionics, in the west at least, has adopted a lot of MBTI terminology, which creates confusion between the two systems. Where possible, when I'm discussing socionics if there's the choice I'll try to always use purely socionics terminology - such as saying "introverted ethics" or :r: (you can find these in the smilie list), or even 'R', instead of Fi - which may be correct but leads people more familiar with MBTI to assume that they're talking about the same thing as the function Fi as it's understood in MBTI. Or instead of saying 'NTs', you could say 'researchers' so it's not confused with talking about Keirsey temperaments which is a very different idea to the socionics idea of clubs.

I don't mind if not everyone follows this, but I think it's helpful for people transitioning from MBTI to socionics not to come with preconceptions. Otherwise what you end up with is people writing off socionics as some kind of weird MBTI variant with visual identification added on (which is rarely taken seriously in socionics anyway), I blame socionics.com for a lot of that. Or they try to import things like relations and quadras into MBTI without the socionics understanding. I've been guilty of both in the past.

Regarding socionics as a pseudoscience (not addressing anyone in particular but it was mentioned earlier): you could say that to the extent that it hasn't been fully verified with the scientific method yet, but to me as things stand it's a hypothesis that's deep and interesting to play with, it's a model that can be used as a tool to see yourself in relation to others and appreciate others' differences, and it's still relatively new and developing so it's something with potential at the moment.

I'm just back from a year's hiatus of typology as a hobby, so I don't expect people to recognise me.


----------



## dawnriddler

So i did this test and got SLE
Can someone explain to me what's with the blocks?
Ego Block, Super-Ego Block, Super-Id Block, Id Block? :suspicion:


----------



## Kimchi

This is weird. MBTI tests give me tons of different results over an extended period of time. But on Socionics tests I always get INTj, and when I write always I mean ALWAYS.

I'd like to know if Socionics tests are more reliable than MBTI ones and if it is normal to always get the same result, while getting tons of different results on the MBTI counterparts.


----------



## Sylas

dawnriddler said:


> So i did this test and got SLE
> Can someone explain to me what's with the blocks?
> Ego Block, Super-Ego Block, Super-Id Block, Id Block? :suspicion:


Socionics groups 8 functions into 4 blocks which comprise the Model A. These blocks have different properties, which I'm not going to go over here (would be too much writing) but you can check the articles on Wikisocion to get a sense of them. Recommended reading: Socionics Blocks and Functions of Model A ; Socionics Functions ; Socionics Model A.

Generally: 

1. Ego block - contains your most conscious and strongest valued functions: leading aka "program" function and creative function (similar to dominant and auxiliary functions in mbti). These are the functions that you prefer to use to solve different problems, and that significantly color your attitudes, memories, and outlook on life.

2. Superego block - contains your weakest and most annoying functions: painful function and role function. These functions are unvalued by your type and unvalued in your quadra. You prefer that other people don't demand this information directly from you, don't draw attention to them and don't stress them for you, and simultaneously look to people around you to quietly fulfill them.

3. Super-id - these functions are weak, unconscious or semi-conscious, valued and needed by you: the activating function and the suggestive aka "dual-seeking" function (equivalents of tertiary and inferior functions of mbti). Both these functions are strong (Ego block) functions of your duals. You need them by struggle to provide them for yourself, but your dual type can provide them for you (some other types, like the beneficiary, can partially supply for this need).

4. Id - contains functions that you have greater tolerance for than the Superego, but that are unvalued by your type and in your quadra: ignoring function and demonstrative function. You can tolerate their presence, but generally find them uninteresting and would like "shush" it down. These functions correspond to the weakest and most annoying Superego block of you dual, so you use them to protect this block for you dual type.


----------



## dawnriddler

@Sylas thanks!


----------

