# How in the world do MBTI and Socionics NOT match?



## Kizuna

1) People are born with 4 conscious and 4 unconscious "functions". No one gets to "choose" one's "preferences" or have a say in which of their conscious functions will be their strengths (these are all predetermined genetically before birth).

2) The INFJ/IEI has _Ni Fe Ti Se_ consciously, and _Ne Fi Te Si_ unconsciously (aka INFJ-ENFP "duality"). The INFJ cannot use their unconscious "functions" consciously. I cannot say "I use Ni Ne Fi Fe Si" blablabla. As *Lord Pixel *stated, you are either NiFeTiSe (IEI/INFp/INFJ) or FiNeSiTe (EII/INFj/INFP) not BOTH, dude... No matter how you twist the "differences" between the MBTI and Socionics (and how they define Jungian functions oh so differently, plus the dichotomies of the MBTI, etc), there is no room for attributing two sets of opposite kinds of functions to_ the same person_. Huge blocks of text and fancy wording will never make that happen.

3) Both MBTI and Socionics are flawed beyond repair. But al least MBTI has less of some ridiculous notions like INFJ and ESTP being the ideal pairing. Ugh... (Why do people trust those "experts" and simply repeat what they postulate instead of observing real life phenomena themselves???)

4) Why not take what is logical and valuable from both systems instead of swearing undying loyalty to one?? I'm NiFeTiSe in both of them and I take what I consider true from both. Although Socionics (at least the descriptions in Russian) are quite often extremely dismissive of and even passive aggressive toward the IEI (the "lazy, useless, jobless sleepyhead"), there are some high quality descriptions as well, but the prevailing stereotypes of each TIM are a nuisance. I suspect that many Socionics authors might be Te users, while MBTI seems like a more Ti-based system. I don't know.

On a lighter note, we're all here to learn about ourselves and humanity, so please don't take my views too personally))))


----------



## Bastard

Kizuna said:


> 2) The INFJ/IEI has _Ni Fe Ti Se_ consciously, and _Ne Fi Te Si_ unconsciously (aka INFJ-ENFP "duality").


Nope. IEI has conscious Ni Fe Te Si. Ni Fe Ti Se are the valued. 



Kizuna said:


> But al least MBTI has less of some ridiculous notions like INFJ and ESTP being the ideal pairing.


Duals cover each other's weak points and act complimentarily. This doesn't mean that satisfaction or compatibility comes magically. Nothing worthwhile comes magically.



Kizuna said:


> I suspect that many Socionics authors might be Te users, while MBTI seems like a more Ti-based system. I don't know.


Socionics is the result of Alpha NTs thinking too much.


----------



## L P

DavidH said:


> What is difficult to understand that preferences do not have anything to do with inherent aptitudes?
> 
> What is difficult to understand that MBTI is defined as dichotomous preferences and not cognitive functions?
> 
> You want something to be a certain way, so you treat it as being truth, rather than treating it as only being the truth of your desires?
> 
> That may be INFP, but that is in no way shape or fashion EII.


So your saying the cognitive functions in MBTI are what, bullshit?

I read the IEI description and it fits me except the parts about quick short lived flashes of emotions, and most of the EII did not fit me.

But reading the information elements and their positions leading Fi fits, ignoring Ne does not fit, and Se vulnerable fits.

the IEI description sounds like an MBTI INFP description(unproductive idealist dreamer), but the IEs for EII sound like MBTI INFP, so what gives?

I mix the 2 systems because they make more sense to me, I have no idea wth is the mess of socionics but I know what works for me and what I have observed.


----------



## DavidH

Lord Pixel said:


> So your saying the cognitive functions in MBTI are what, bullshit?
> 
> I read the IEI description and it fits me except the parts about quick short lived flashes of emotions, and most of the EII did not fit me.
> 
> But reading the information elements and their positions leading Fi fits, ignoring Ne does not fit, and Se vulnerable fits.
> 
> the IEI description sounds like an MBTI INFP description(unproductive idealist dreamer), but the IEs for EII sound like MBTI INFP, so what gives?
> 
> I mix the 2 systems because they make more sense to me, I have no idea wth is the mess of socionics but I know what works for me and what I have observed.


Saying there are cognitive functions in MBTI in the first place is like saying people are made of gold because they have trace amounts of gold in their systems.

MBTI has something called Type Dynamics, which considers Cognitive Functions as a possible explanation for the reason that people have the preferences that they do, but Type Dynamics has been discredited by empirical studies.

Do you prefer apples or oranges?
Cats or dogs?
Hot or cold?
Yankees or Dodgers?

Now, if I told you that your brain was hardwired a certain way, because of your previous preferences, would you think I was an idiot?


----------



## DavidH

Kizuna said:


> 1) People are born with 4 conscious and 4 unconscious "functions". No one gets to "choose" one's "preferences" or have a say in which of their conscious functions will be their strengths (these are all predetermined genetically before birth).
> 
> 2) The INFJ/IEI has _Ni Fe Ti Se_ consciously, and _Ne Fi Te Si_ unconsciously (aka INFJ-ENFP "duality"). The INFJ cannot use their unconscious "functions" consciously. I cannot say "I use Ni Ne Fi Fe Si" blablabla. As *Lord Pixel *stated, you are either NiFeTiSe (IEI/INFp/INFJ) or FiNeSiTe (EII/INFj/INFP) not BOTH, dude... No matter how you twist the "differences" between the MBTI and Socionics (and how they define Jungian functions oh so differently, plus the dichotomies of the MBTI, etc), there is no room for attributing two sets of opposite kinds of functions to_ the same person_. Huge blocks of text and fancy wording will never make that happen.
> 
> 3) Both MBTI and Socionics are flawed beyond repair. But al least MBTI has less of some ridiculous notions like INFJ and ESTP being the ideal pairing. Ugh... (Why do people trust those "experts" and simply repeat what they postulate instead of observing real life phenomena themselves???)
> 
> 4) Why not take what is logical and valuable from both systems instead of swearing undying loyalty to one?? I'm NiFeTiSe in both of them and I take what I consider true from both. Although Socionics (at least the descriptions in Russian) are quite often extremely dismissive of and even passive aggressive toward the IEI (the "lazy, useless, jobless sleepyhead"), there are some high quality descriptions as well, but the prevailing stereotypes of each TIM are a nuisance. I suspect that many Socionics authors might be Te users, while MBTI seems like a more Ti-based system. I don't know.
> 
> On a lighter note, we're all here to learn about ourselves and humanity, so please don't take my views too personally))))


1) preferences are entirely chosen, which is why MBTI classifies them, instead of dealing with cognitive functions.


----------



## L P

DavidH said:


> Saying there are cognitive functions in MBTI in the first place is like saying people are made of gold because they have trace amounts of gold in their systems.
> 
> MBTI has something called Type Dynamics, which considers Cognitive Functions as a possible explanation for the reason that people have the preferences that they do, but Type Dynamics has been discredited by empirical studies.
> 
> Do you prefer apples or oranges?
> Cats or dogs?
> Hot or cold?
> Yankees or Dodgers?
> 
> Now, if I told you that your brain was hardwired a certain way, because of your previous preferences, would you think I was an idiot?


OK yea I see what you are saying, So in socionics would you go by the IEs or the descriptions? 

But I think these preferences are not really preferences but tendencies, because if they are just preferences then anybody can choose what type they are, and that's not the case.


----------



## DavidH

Lord Pixel said:


> OK yea I see what you are saying, So in socionics would you go by the IEs or the descriptions?
> 
> But I think these preferences are not really preferences but tendencies, because if they are just preferences then anybody can choose what type they are, and that's not the case.


In Socionics, I would reconcile the descriptions and the IEs by asking an expert on the matter, which I have done.

That is precisely the case. MBTI is, by definition, a self-reported type. An individual makes dichotomous choices of preferences, is given the most likely types’ description, and the individual then states which one they most identify with. Whether they are good at such or not is of zero consequences. Others either respect their viewpoints of themselves, or they don’t. That is a primary difference between the two systems: you’re not capable of being wrong about your MBTI type, but you are capable of being being wrong about your Socionics type.


----------



## PiT

DavidH said:


> Lost a longer reply.
> 
> ILE in Socionics considers their viewpoint paramount, but doesn’t realize that their viewpoint has little to do with being paramount. It’s most evident in the anecdotal account of female ILE by one author, who notes that being the perfect girl is of utmost importance to the female ILE. However, with 1D Fi, they lack the relationships wherewithal to realize that their entire social circle may consider their efforts to make them the opposite of the perfect girl. They can’t care about others feelings, because they can’t conceptualize others feelings. It’s like thinking you have awesome interpersonal skills when you don’t realize everyone else thinks you have horrible interpersonal skills. They get pretty butthurt if you call them out on it.


I also had a longer reply that I lost.

Interesting. I know a woman who I suspect to be an ILE. She described an opposition protest as "a small counterpoint to the vast majority", which seems to suppose that she has an understanding of the public sentiment, but I rather doubt this understanding is accurate. Grantian compatibilists try to impute Fe to TP-types, but they often boil this down to love and harmony, whereas Socionics defines Fe more broadly as something similar to a command of emotional situations. The comparison between Grantian Fe and Socionic Fe hits somewhat close to the mark with the F-types, but the link between these conceptions breaks down when dealing with T-types and leads to bizarre claims.


----------



## soop

So let me get this straight. You don't understand how something works but you're trying to criticize how it works. K...


----------



## DavidH

PiT said:


> I also had a longer reply that I lost.
> 
> Interesting. I know a woman who I suspect to be an ILE. She described an opposition protest as "a small counterpoint to the vast majority", which seems to suppose that she has an understanding of the public sentiment, but I rather doubt this understanding is accurate. Grantian compatibilists try to impute Fe to TP-types, but they often boil this down to love and harmony, whereas Socionics defines Fe more broadly as something similar to a command of emotional situations. The comparison between Grantian Fe and Socionic Fe hits somewhat close to the mark with the F-types, but the link between these conceptions breaks down when dealing with T-types and leads to bizarre claims.


That would be an EII operating in the Creative function. The person is not incorrect. The person referenced roughly 2% of the population.


----------



## DavidH

soop said:


> So let me get this straight. You don't understand how something works but you're trying to criticize how it works. K...


That is sometimes the case.


----------



## L P

Ok so pretty much combining these 2 systems makes things complicated I guess. All I know is that my MBTI type is INFP after doing extended research and then it seems I am EII in socionics based off the IRs and IEs.


----------



## DavidH

Lord Pixel said:


> Ok so pretty much combining these 2 systems makes things complicated I guess. All I know is that my MBTI type is INFP after doing extended research and then it seems I am EII in socionics based off the IRs and IEs.


You don’t come across as an EII at all.


----------



## L P

DavidH said:


> You don’t come across as an EII at all.


Well this turns into your word vs mine. Apparently I hear MBTI INFP translates to IEI in socionics by some people's opinion, and if I was IEI then I would be in your quadra, so does that mean you would be able to understand me or I would be able to understand you since that would mean I value Ti Se Ni Fe? or is that not the case? 

And I think this thread can show I do not value Ti actually, since I did not engage in an argument over the technical details of either system, because I am not concerned with it and it gives me a minor headache to be frank.


----------



## DavidH

Lord Pixel said:


> Well this turns into your word vs mine. Apparently I hear MBTI INFP translates to IEI in socionics by some people's opinion, and if I was IEI then I would be in your quadra, so does that mean you would be able to understand me or I would be able to understand you since that would mean I value Ti Se Ni Fe? or is that not the case?
> 
> And I think this thread can show I do not value Ti actually, since I did not engage in an argument over the technical details of either system, because I am not concerned with it and it gives me a minor headache to be frank.


EII easily understands systems like the ones spoken of in this thread.


----------



## L P

DavidH said:


> EII easily understands systems like the ones spoken of in this thread.


I easily understand MBTI, and socionics seems simple to understand but there are debates about whether it lines up with MBTI or not, to me it seems to but I'm wondering why there are debates in the first place. Your explanation about preferences makes sense, but I still don't see how INFP doesn't equal EII in socionics. And it's mostly based off my own experience relating to the descriptions of duality to what I have experienced in real life and descriptions of other IRs with what I have experienced in real life. I dualize with LSEs I know in real life if LSE is MBTI ESTJ. And I conflict with SLEs IRL if that's MBTI ESTP. And if that's not the case than maybe I all the ESTJs I know are really SLE, but they are not people who thrive in unpredictable situations and are people more driven by principles and like to plan out their entire day, so I say they line up with LSE more than SLE, and those people have the dualizing affect on me.

Also the IEs, I do' not relate to ignore Ne, leading Ni, Ignoring Fi. And I relate more to vulnerable Se, creative Ne the most. So yea, that's EII so I that must mean I'm EII. I don't think it's difficult or that I need an expert to tell me something.


----------



## DavidH

Lord Pixel said:


> I easily understand MBTI, and socionics seems simple to understand but there are debates about whether it lines up with MBTI or not, to me it seems to but I'm wondering why there are debates in the first place. Your explanation about preferences makes sense, but I still don't see how INFP doesn't equal EII in socionics. And it's mostly based off my own experience relating to the descriptions of duality to what I have experienced in real life and descriptions of other IRs with what I have experienced in real life. I dualize with LSEs I know in real life if LSE is MBTI ESTJ. And I conflict with SLEs IRL if that's MBTI ESTP. And if that's not the case than maybe I all the ESTJs I know are really SLE, but they are not people who thrive in unpredictable situations and are people more driven by principles and like to plan out their entire day, so I say they line up with LSE more than SLE, and those people have the dualizing affect on me.
> 
> Also the IEs, I do' not relate to ignore Ne, leading Ni, Ignoring Fi. And I relate more to vulnerable Se, creative Ne the most. So yea, that's EII so I that must mean I'm EII. I don't think it's difficult or that I need an expert to tell me something.


You’re not understanding things that are simple for EII. EII supervises Socionics. They have role Ti, meaning they are generally a “logical person.”

I didn’t say you were an NF in Socionics.


----------



## L P

DavidH said:


> You’re not understanding things that are simple for EII. EII supervises Socionics. They have role Ti, meaning they are generally a “logical person.”
> 
> I didn’t say you were an NF in Socionics.


I'm not saying what you think my type is, I'm refering to what I think my type is and what other's consider an INFP to be in socionics. Some consider it to be an INFj because of the JP switch, and other's say the JP switch doesn't exist soo INFP = INFp, while some others are more vague and make it seem like there is no 1:1 transition, so EII could be any type from MBTI, (which makes no sense to me). But you are saying MBTI is just your prefences, and since the cognitive functions have been disproved, you can have any MBTI but Socionics determines your IEs. So you could prefer intuition but be Ne or Ni Polr in socionics? I feel like that's a stretch.

It seems like there are multiple schools of thought in socionics so you cannot even be sure what is correct or not since Aushra says 1 thing and Gulenko and someone else say something else.

So I'm trying to reconcile the information to find out what my type is in socionics, and the only solid evidence I can find is through IR, and when I observe IR, I dual with LSE not SLE in real life, that experience to me trumps all the differing opinions about whether INFP = INFj or not. If the proof can be found in experience and IR then I have found it. It's really that simple for me. Dense Ti matters are not simple for me to understand, and physically cause me a headache and that also lines up with Ti role function, my Ti is suppressed by my Fi. You have Fi as a role function, how do you experience Fi?


----------



## DavidH

Lord Pixel said:


> I'm not saying what you think my type is, I'm refering to what I think my type is and what other's consider an INFP to be in socionics. Some consider it to be an INFj because of the JP switch, and other's say the JP switch doesn't exist soo INFP = INFp, while some others are more vague and make it seem like there is no 1:1 transition, so EII could be any type from MBTI, (which makes no sense to me). But you are saying MBTI is just your prefences, and since the cognitive functions have been disproved, you can have any MBTI but Socionics determines your IEs. So you could prefer intuition but be Ne or Ni Polr in socionics? I feel like that's a stretch.
> 
> It seems like there are multiple schools of thought in socionics so you cannot even be sure what is correct or not since Aushra says 1 thing and Gulenko and someone else say something else.
> 
> So I'm trying to reconcile the information to find out what my type is in socionics, and the only solid evidence I can find is through IR, and when I observe IR, I dual with LSE not SLE in real life, that experience to me trumps all the differing opinions about whether INFP = INFj or not. If the proof can be found in experience and IR then I have found it. It's really that simple for me. Dense Ti matters are not simple for me to understand, and physically cause me a headache and that also lines up with Ti role function, my Ti is suppressed by my Fi. You have Fi as a role function, how do you experience Fi?





> The Myers–Briggs Type Indicator (MBTI) is an introspective self-report questionnaire with the purpose of indicating differing psychologicalpreferences in how people perceive the world around them and make decisions.


An individual’s MBTI is constantly subject to change, per empirical testing, due to preferences not being a biological or static psychological state.

An individual could prefer private (Vital Superblock) or social (Social Superblock). An individual could prefer to spend time on their Strengths (4D or 3D functions) or on their Weaknesses (2D or 1D functions). An individual could prefer their own Values or the Values of others.

When operating in my base, I maintain normal relationships socially. When operating in my role, I maintain normal logic socially.

EII doesn’t have problems with white logic. They utilize it near constantly in social settings.


----------



## L P

DavidH said:


> An individual’s MBTI is constantly subject to change, per empirical testing, due to preferences not being a biological or static psychological state.
> 
> An individual could prefer private (Vital Superblock) or social (Social Superblock). An individual could prefer to spend time on their Strengths (4D or 3D functions) or on their Weaknesses (2D or 1D functions). An individual could prefer their own Values or the Values of others.
> 
> When operating in my base, I maintain normal relationships socially. When operating in my role, I maintain normal logic socially.
> 
> EII doesn’t have problems with white logic. They utilize it near constantly in social settings.


Ok you your saying the have empirical evidence that your MBTI type can change. Ok.


With socionics you can know your type for sure through Intertype Relations right? if the theory has any merit. Ok if that's the case, my IR suggests I am EII.

So you don't have problems with white ethics? Do you utilize it constantly in social settings? Ti for me can be overwhelming when heavily relied upon or heavily communicated. Advanced mathematics, heavy use of technical terminology, extremely long words that I am not familiar with, semantics, literal interpretation all give me a headache, and when I try to use this myself I fumble and sound like an amateur, but I use Ti to understand the workings of people, ethics, subjective values, but not mechanics, informational systems void of people, or just miscellaneous info, I could care less about that and prefer to only learn knowledge if it is useful (Te valued).

What socionics type would you think I am BTW, I am curious to see how far way from EII I am to you.


----------



## Wisteria

It still surprises me that people claim the theories match while doing very little research on socionics, or perhaps even both theories. Here's a couple of examples of how the information elements (or "functions") in socionics are completely different by definition, to the Cognitive functions; 



Lenore Thomson said:


> Introverted Intuition is the attitude of attunement to what cannot be said, by virtue of the structuring that "saying" requires.
> 
> For example: Why do we put North at the top of most maps? Because the mapmaking tradition began among northern-dwelling people, who considered people who lived further south to be less important. Putting North at the top of the map frames geography in a way that, perhaps unwittingly, conveys the belief that Europeans are better or more important than Africans. This can't be said by anything within the map; the very way that the map is structured and related to reality says it.


This example sounds very similar to Augusta's definition of Ti;


> *Description of Ti from "Dual Nature of Man" by A. Augusta*
> White (introverted) logic Ti
> We call 'logical' those feelings that arise from the process of comparing one object to another on the basis of some objective criteria — for example, a sense of distance, weight, volume, worth, strength, quality, etc. These are feelings of objective evaluation, which in certain situations help to activate or passivate the person who experiences them. Incoming information is recognized by such an individual as a sense of objects' proper or improper correlation and proportion, a sense of balance or imbalance between the objects, or a sense of understanding or lack of understanding of the advantages of one object over another. This also includes all feelings that result from knowing or not knowing objects and phenomena — curiosity, respect, fear, and a sense of the logicalness or illogicalness of things, as well as a sense of one's own power or powerlessness before different objects.


Could also see Se in the first example, as there is a focus on the power of the northern continents on the map. 
Cognitiveprocesses is also a commonly used source for the cognitive functions, so here is how Se is described;



> Extraverted Sensing occurs when we become aware of what is in the physical world in rich detail. We may be drawn to act on what we experience to get an immediate result.We notice relevant facts and occurrences in a sea of data and experiences, learning all the facts we can about the immediate context or area of focus and what goes on in that context.
> Extraverted Sensing is operating when we freely follow exciting physical impulses or instincts as they come up and enjoy the thrill of action in the present moment.





> *Black (extroverted) sensing Se*
> Perceives information about what might be called objects' "kinetic energy" — for example, information about how organized/mobilized a person is, his physical energy and power, and his ability to make use of his willpower or position and exercise his will in opposition to others'. This perception implies the ability to tell what reserves of "kinetic energy" people have and how useful they can be in getting things done. It defines the individual's ability or inability to exercise his willpower and energy in opposition to the will and energy of other people.


They are noticeably different, and generally the descriptions have overlaps. Some of them are similar, but not enough to match. And this isn't even taking Model A into account, where the functions work completely differently from the Harold Grant stack. This is very obvious as well but it just shows how little research people really put into the socionics theory before jumping to the conclusion that they are the same.


----------



## Daeva

Wisteria said:


> They are noticeably different, and generally the descriptions have overlaps. Some of them are similar, but not enough to match. And this isn't even taking Model A into account, where the functions work completely differently from the Harold Grant stack. This is very obvious as well but it just shows how little research people really put into the socionics theory before jumping to the conclusion that they are the same.


"This is very obvious" "it just shows how little research people really put into"

You are being myopic and presumptuous. There is good reason to do research in how the two systems overlap and where they do not. The conclusion that people make after comparing them is theirs to make, and you have little insight to the extent that others have invested in this topic.

Please be more considerate.


----------



## Dragheart Luard

Daeva said:


> "This is very obvious" "it just shows how little research people really put into"
> 
> You are being myopic and presumptuous. There is good reason to do research in how the two systems overlap and where they do not. The conclusion that people make after comparing them is theirs to make, and you have little insight to the extent that others have invested in this topic.
> 
> Please be more considerate.


About what you mentioned, I also found the full description of Ni from Lenore Thompson : https://www.personalitycafe.com/cog...92-lenore-thomsons-introverted-intuition.html and reading it the excerpt posted by @Wisteria barely shows that this description implies that Ni doms derive symbols from sensory perceptions, which indeed matches with Jung's Ni definition as well. So if you want to compare descriptions you need the full description and not pick the parts that support your ideas only.


----------



## Wisteria

Daeva said:


> "This is very obvious" "it just shows how little research people really put into"
> 
> You are being myopic and presumptuous. There is good reason to do research in how the two systems overlap and where they do not. The conclusion that people make after comparing them is theirs to make, and you have little insight to the extent that others have invested in this topic.
> 
> Please be more considerate.


You're disagreeing with my thoughts then telling me to be more considerate :/



Dragheart Luard said:


> About what you mentioned, I also found the full description of Ni from Lenore Thompson : https://www.personalitycafe.com/cog...92-lenore-thomsons-introverted-intuition.html and reading it the excerpt posted by @Wisteria barely shows that this description implies that Ni doms derive symbols from sensory perceptions, which indeed matches with Jung's Ni definition as well. So if you want to compare descriptions you need the full description and not pick the parts that support your ideas only.


When did I say the entire description matches socionics Ti? I was pointing out that there are some crossovers in the descriptions.

Why does it matter if it matches Jung's Ni? This is about MBTI and socionics matching each other as theories. The question should be whether or not Lenore's Thomson's description matches the socionics definition of Ni.


----------



## Dragheart Luard

Wisteria said:


> When did I say the entire description matches socionics Ti? I was pointing out that there are some crossovers in the descriptions.
> 
> Why does it matter if it matches Jung's Ni? This is about MBTI and socionics matching each other as theories. The question should be whether or not Lenore's Thomson's description matches the socionics definition of Ni.


The issue of using excerpts is that even if fragments of it may sound like something else, what matters is the concept as a whole, otherwise the context of that part gets lost and can be misinterpreted easily.

Both theories are derived from Jung, therefore you should also contrast both theories with the original source. Even wikisocion links to Jungian information.

Also for contrast, some socionics Ni definitions:

*Ni as leading function in IEI (INFp; Esenin) and ILI (INTp; Balzac)*

This person considers himself to be very ideological, consistent, principled, and is very conservative in this. Becomes irritated by those who criticize his ideas. He lives by the "wholeness" of the internal situation. *Often able to see "through" things, to the inner essence of something or someone.* Romantic and idealist. *Lives by his internal harmony, tranquility, serenity, is able to draw inspiration within himself, and gets annoyed by those who try to disturb it.* Generally does not like when people try to look inside of him, gets frustrated and angry when this happens. *Strives to be inwardly calm in all situations and internally consistent.* "Fluid like a river": involuntarily adjusts himself to the interlocutor in conversation by taking form of consciousness that is best fitted for the situation. By this he isn't playing a role, his consciousness is simply multifaceted and he is directed by his inner "wholeness". That is, he simply presents a version of himself. Communicating with you, he always feels your moods as if he is living through them together with you, adjusts himself to this. Loves to introspect and to meditate. In case of failure, can make a qualitative self-analysis. *Being present in some place he as if tunes himself out, tries to become invisible like a chameleon, especially if he perceives it as a threat to his inner tranquility: for example, in the workplace so that no one bothers him. Can even hide it in some clever way: arrange a barricade of folders so that behind them he is not visible. Does not like restless, internally discordant individuals, as their state can get transmitted to him, will try to escape from their company at any price.* This is especially funny in a situation where a male representative of this type flees from ladies, and they pursue him like prey, because they feel that he has something that they so desperately need: inner peace. But for him this inner "wholeness" is not the product but material for inner consumption, so he can only share this with a small number of people, but sometimes someone might snatch a piece - this makes him very angry. Often, especially in circle of family, he becomes a critic, since deviation in behavior away from his principles turns him aggressive. If in another situation he will somehow restrain himself, at home he may allow himself to explode with anger.


*Ni as creative function of EIE (ENFj; Hamlet) and LIE (ENTj; Jack London)*

These types like to find internally contradictory people, "dig" in them and create in them internal harmony and mood. They make for great artists, because they know how to and love to "become" one with an image of a man and play a role from his worldview. They are able to understand the essence of complex internal situations and make for potentially good analysts. Often it is difficult to find employment for them, as their "product" is the internal conflicts of man and essence, and to penetrate so far, into "the soul" of man, you just need to have permission. Often become unstable, vulnerable, fragile, just so that they can harmonize themselves, and sometimes can start to torment and tear into themselves and dig into their own issues. They have a difficulty finding adequate application to their creative function in the world, since it is not in high demand - not everyone wants someone else to dig into their internal states. Their product - bold ideas, principles, systems of belief and knowledge that they bring into the world and promote. But they do this beautifully, creatively, elegantly, not forcibly imposing them but promoting them in interesting ways. Search for internally contradictory situations, like to grasp their essence. Often realize themselves in art and writing, as this is also a good way to use the function. They are able to enter into various internal psychological states. A good speaker, as he is able to influence positively on the internal state of others. Their product is the "wholeness" of the internal state, and therefore they can find success in field of psychology, because it means that they are the healers of souls. In life they loved to dramatize everything. Everyone around becomes informed about the slightest change in their mood or internal state. Usually they are very fond of "making mountains out of molehills", for them this is a way to find work for their second function. The more they become exposed - the greater the realization of their personality in the world.


*Ni as activating function of LSI (ISTj; Maxim Gorky) and ESI (ISFj; Dreiser)*

*The area of self-esteem of these types is the "wholeness" of the internal situation, internal harmony, ideological consistency and consistency of principles, internal tranquility.* In order to protect this point, they usually just need a little break away from the people on this issue to resolve the inner conflicts, so they almost always cope successfully with this task. From the side, they always seem to be very consistent and principled people. *They always think, do and say the same things, that is, they never contradict themselves and expect the same out of others. Sometimes, for this reason, they are considered to be "too right". They are receptive to information only when it bears no risk of destroying this inner balance, which sometimes makes them very stubborn.* Will never strike a deal with his principles. Usually makes an impression of a restrained, polite, closed off, hidden, consistent person. Positive self-esteem is ensured by his ideals that may correlate poorly with the surrounding reality, which may cause neglect of what which is real. Effective in achieving specific goals, but accomplish this by breaking straight though, stopping at nothing, ignoring the outside world and external opinions. Feel good when this is reinforced by their situation: for example, position or occupation which underlines the legitimacy of such actions and means and grants them protection from the viewpoint of society. For example: "I am a soldier just doing my duty for the motherland" is to be understood as: "this grants legitimacy to my actions ". Often preach idealistic principles, stressing priority of ideas and principles over reality. Knows how to lead people, as he wants to believe that he's not lying but truly believes in his ideals. Finds that it's important to preserve internal "wholeness", thus he needs to feel monolithic correctness of their actions in terms of consistency, devotion to principle. Where the situation is too ambiguous, he will try to resolve it through simplification. In principle and consistency - "good", not in principle and consistency - "bad." Do not like those who sow contradictions and doubts. Even if he does something wrong, it's much more comfortable for him to never know about it, thus his self-esteem will be protected, so often will simply ignore it. For example, he may think that such people want to hurt him so their opinion does not matter. In general, anything that might disturb his inner ideational "wholeness" is not taken into account. "I may lose, but I will remain true to myself." Very often it is more important to them.

*Ni as suggestive function of SLE (ESTp; Zhukov) and SEE (ESFp; Napoleon)*

People of these types prefer environments where they experience no inner discomfort, contradictions with themselves, where ideas and principles are shared without requiring an explanation. If this is not achievable, then they simply move somewhere else. They like people who know how to raise their spirits, to create harmony in their soul, so that at heart they feel good. Suggestible by elevated moods and optimism of others, do not like to be in company of those whose spirits are low. May use alcohol or other substances to quiet down the soul searching meanwhile believing that everyone does the same thing, , which can lead to alcoholism. Their main requirement for environment is that it should not cause conflict with their ideals and principles. If this is not possible then he leaves saying "this is not my world, I do not find this existence interesting." Cannot live in conditions when the external situation "hurts the soul," brings up an inner "itch" that cannot get scratched. If the place is comfortable, then it automatically everyone there is accepted as their own, since they share his beliefs, and thus such place already has all the prerequisites to do and create what he sees fit. Therefore, likes to be accepted "warts and all" creating a microcosm of "own" people who accept each other's weaknesses and live with it. Treats such world and such people as "his clan", but can position himself as the "godfather." Existing in such microcosm he will put it in opposition with the "alien" worlds that do not share his principles. This person is aware of the need to maintain inner harmony, but rarely succeeds in this task, often swerves off the course and heads somewhere else. To keep it he needs someone who will intervene and extinguish these "flashes", who will reason through them and calm him down, something like: "Why are you so wound up? Everything is fine, it's good. " Poorly predictable in his behaviors for this reason, you never which mood will hover over him today and what he will do for this reason.

Those descriptions are more complete overall, as they not only focus on the time oriented part of Ni, which is mentioned here:

*Introverted intuition* () is an introverted, irrational, and dynamic information element. It is also called *Ni*, *T*, *temporal intuition*, or *white intuition*.
Ni is generally associated with the ability to recognize the unfolding of processes over time (how one event leads to another), have visions of the past and future, develop mental imagery, and see intangible hints of relationships between processes or objects.
Types that value Ni always like to have in mind a specific plan for how their life will develop in the future. Thus they have little time for the concept of "living for the moment" or "making the best of the present". They generally engage in pure leisure activities only for short periods of time, and even then their leisure activities generally involve a psychologically demanding or competitive aspect.

I think this can make easier to contrast both definitions, since Lenore Thompson also wrote descriptions for all the types that value Ni.


----------



## Wisteria

Dragheart Luard said:


> The issue of using excerpts is that even if fragments of it may sound like something else, what matters is the concept as a whole, otherwise the context of that part gets lost and can be misinterpreted easily.
> 
> Both theories are derived from Jung, therefore you should also contrast both theories with the original source. Even wikisocion links to Jungian information.
> 
> Also for contrast, some socionics Ni definitions:
> 
> *Ni as leading function in IEI (INFp; Esenin) and ILI (INTp; Balzac)*
> 
> This person considers himself to be very ideological, consistent, principled, and is very conservative in this. Becomes irritated by those who criticize his ideas. He lives by the "wholeness" of the internal situation. *Often able to see "through" things, to the inner essence of something or someone.* Romantic and idealist. *Lives by his internal harmony, tranquility, serenity, is able to draw inspiration within himself, and gets annoyed by those who try to disturb it.* Generally does not like when people try to look inside of him, gets frustrated and angry when this happens. *Strives to be inwardly calm in all situations and internally consistent.* "Fluid like a river": involuntarily adjusts himself to the interlocutor in conversation by taking form of consciousness that is best fitted for the situation. By this he isn't playing a role, his consciousness is simply multifaceted and he is directed by his inner "wholeness". That is, he simply presents a version of himself. Communicating with you, he always feels your moods as if he is living through them together with you, adjusts himself to this. Loves to introspect and to meditate. In case of failure, can make a qualitative self-analysis. *Being present in some place he as if tunes himself out, tries to become invisible like a chameleon, especially if he perceives it as a threat to his inner tranquility: for example, in the workplace so that no one bothers him. Can even hide it in some clever way: arrange a barricade of folders so that behind them he is not visible. Does not like restless, internally discordant individuals, as their state can get transmitted to him, will try to escape from their company at any price.* This is especially funny in a situation where a male representative of this type flees from ladies, and they pursue him like prey, because they feel that he has something that they so desperately need: inner peace. But for him this inner "wholeness" is not the product but material for inner consumption, so he can only share this with a small number of people, but sometimes someone might snatch a piece - this makes him very angry. Often, especially in circle of family, he becomes a critic, since deviation in behavior away from his principles turns him aggressive. If in another situation he will somehow restrain himself, at home he may allow himself to explode with anger.
> 
> 
> *Ni as creative function of EIE (ENFj; Hamlet) and LIE (ENTj; Jack London)*
> 
> These types like to find internally contradictory people, "dig" in them and create in them internal harmony and mood. They make for great artists, because they know how to and love to "become" one with an image of a man and play a role from his worldview. They are able to understand the essence of complex internal situations and make for potentially good analysts. Often it is difficult to find employment for them, as their "product" is the internal conflicts of man and essence, and to penetrate so far, into "the soul" of man, you just need to have permission. Often become unstable, vulnerable, fragile, just so that they can harmonize themselves, and sometimes can start to torment and tear into themselves and dig into their own issues. They have a difficulty finding adequate application to their creative function in the world, since it is not in high demand - not everyone wants someone else to dig into their internal states. Their product - bold ideas, principles, systems of belief and knowledge that they bring into the world and promote. But they do this beautifully, creatively, elegantly, not forcibly imposing them but promoting them in interesting ways. Search for internally contradictory situations, like to grasp their essence. Often realize themselves in art and writing, as this is also a good way to use the function. They are able to enter into various internal psychological states. A good speaker, as he is able to influence positively on the internal state of others. Their product is the "wholeness" of the internal state, and therefore they can find success in field of psychology, because it means that they are the healers of souls. In life they loved to dramatize everything. Everyone around becomes informed about the slightest change in their mood or internal state. Usually they are very fond of "making mountains out of molehills", for them this is a way to find work for their second function. The more they become exposed - the greater the realization of their personality in the world.
> 
> 
> *Ni as activating function of LSI (ISTj; Maxim Gorky) and ESI (ISFj; Dreiser)*
> 
> *The area of self-esteem of these types is the "wholeness" of the internal situation, internal harmony, ideological consistency and consistency of principles, internal tranquility.* In order to protect this point, they usually just need a little break away from the people on this issue to resolve the inner conflicts, so they almost always cope successfully with this task. From the side, they always seem to be very consistent and principled people. *They always think, do and say the same things, that is, they never contradict themselves and expect the same out of others. Sometimes, for this reason, they are considered to be "too right". They are receptive to information only when it bears no risk of destroying this inner balance, which sometimes makes them very stubborn.* Will never strike a deal with his principles. Usually makes an impression of a restrained, polite, closed off, hidden, consistent person. Positive self-esteem is ensured by his ideals that may correlate poorly with the surrounding reality, which may cause neglect of what which is real. Effective in achieving specific goals, but accomplish this by breaking straight though, stopping at nothing, ignoring the outside world and external opinions. Feel good when this is reinforced by their situation: for example, position or occupation which underlines the legitimacy of such actions and means and grants them protection from the viewpoint of society. For example: "I am a soldier just doing my duty for the motherland" is to be understood as: "this grants legitimacy to my actions ". Often preach idealistic principles, stressing priority of ideas and principles over reality. Knows how to lead people, as he wants to believe that he's not lying but truly believes in his ideals. Finds that it's important to preserve internal "wholeness", thus he needs to feel monolithic correctness of their actions in terms of consistency, devotion to principle. Where the situation is too ambiguous, he will try to resolve it through simplification. In principle and consistency - "good", not in principle and consistency - "bad." Do not like those who sow contradictions and doubts. Even if he does something wrong, it's much more comfortable for him to never know about it, thus his self-esteem will be protected, so often will simply ignore it. For example, he may think that such people want to hurt him so their opinion does not matter. In general, anything that might disturb his inner ideational "wholeness" is not taken into account. "I may lose, but I will remain true to myself." Very often it is more important to them.
> 
> *Ni as suggestive function of SLE (ESTp; Zhukov) and SEE (ESFp; Napoleon)*
> 
> People of these types prefer environments where they experience no inner discomfort, contradictions with themselves, where ideas and principles are shared without requiring an explanation. If this is not achievable, then they simply move somewhere else. They like people who know how to raise their spirits, to create harmony in their soul, so that at heart they feel good. Suggestible by elevated moods and optimism of others, do not like to be in company of those whose spirits are low. May use alcohol or other substances to quiet down the soul searching meanwhile believing that everyone does the same thing, , which can lead to alcoholism. Their main requirement for environment is that it should not cause conflict with their ideals and principles. If this is not possible then he leaves saying "this is not my world, I do not find this existence interesting." Cannot live in conditions when the external situation "hurts the soul," brings up an inner "itch" that cannot get scratched. If the place is comfortable, then it automatically everyone there is accepted as their own, since they share his beliefs, and thus such place already has all the prerequisites to do and create what he sees fit. Therefore, likes to be accepted "warts and all" creating a microcosm of "own" people who accept each other's weaknesses and live with it. Treats such world and such people as "his clan", but can position himself as the "godfather." Existing in such microcosm he will put it in opposition with the "alien" worlds that do not share his principles. This person is aware of the need to maintain inner harmony, but rarely succeeds in this task, often swerves off the course and heads somewhere else. To keep it he needs someone who will intervene and extinguish these "flashes", who will reason through them and calm him down, something like: "Why are you so wound up? Everything is fine, it's good. " Poorly predictable in his behaviors for this reason, you never which mood will hover over him today and what he will do for this reason.
> 
> Those descriptions are more complete overall, as they not only focus on the time oriented part of Ni, which is mentioned here:
> 
> *Introverted intuition* () is an introverted, irrational, and dynamic information element. It is also called *Ni*, *T*, *temporal intuition*, or *white intuition*.
> Ni is generally associated with the ability to recognize the unfolding of processes over time (how one event leads to another), have visions of the past and future, develop mental imagery, and see intangible hints of relationships between processes or objects.
> Types that value Ni always like to have in mind a specific plan for how their life will develop in the future. Thus they have little time for the concept of "living for the moment" or "making the best of the present". They generally engage in pure leisure activities only for short periods of time, and even then their leisure activities generally involve a psychologically demanding or competitive aspect.
> 
> I think this can make easier to contrast both definitions, since Lenore Thompson also wrote descriptions for all the types that value Ni.


I don't see why Jung's descriptions are important given the subject of this thread. The point of using that paragraph from the Lenore Thomson excerpt was to prove that the theories are different. Even if it was only a fragment, it still shows that the author has a different idea of what Ni is. Using the map example, socionics has completely different IEs involved, while Thomson calls it Ni.

Those descriptions don't seem very good if i'm honest. The parts you highlighted sound like any introvert (also don't understand why you have highlighted, what is the contrast for?) or even closer to socionics Si (comfort). It's describing Ni as some sort of strive for internal harmony and comfort. 

These descriptions are also more similar to the cognitive functions style ones because they don't have any reference to dimensionality and they only describe the valued ones while ignoring all the other four positions. 

Augusta's description is probably much closer to how socionics describes Ni. It probably looks like I'm cherry picking, but those are pretty weird descriptions of Ni. Socionics focuses more on the time aspect of Ni usually, so I think that is more accurate. I do find it more realistic personally.


----------



## Dragheart Luard

Wisteria said:


> I don't see why Jung's descriptions are important given the subject of this thread. The point of using that paragraph from the Lenore Thomson excerpt was to prove that the theories are different. Even if it was only a fragment, it still shows that the author has a different idea of what Ni is. Using the map example, socionics has completely different IEs involved, while Thomson calls it Ni.


Well, of course it will differ as the people involved aren't the same and come from a different cultural background. I don't know what type is Lenore's, but Augusta self typed as an ILE so their cognition also influence how they see the functions. Both culture and cognition definitely will generate a different theory, and so far I remember the differences are more evident with Se and Si definitions than Ne or Ni ones, or at least the descriptions of MBTI and Socionics ISXX types seem mismatched with the functions attributed to them (like ISFP looking more like SEI than ESI despite ISFP and ESI being FiSe).
I think comparing both theories without their base work will give an incomplete idea of what they try to accomplish. If you compare both with the original you can see what part of the definitions they picked for building their respective systems in the first place and have a better clue of where they diverged from Jung.



> Those descriptions don't seem very good if i'm honest. The parts you highlighted sound like any introvert (also don't understand why you have highlighted, what is the contrast for?) or even closer to socionics Si (comfort). It's describing Ni as some sort of strive for internal harmony and comfort.
> 
> These descriptions are also more similar to the cognitive functions style ones because they don't have any reference to dimensionality and they only describe the valued ones while ignoring all the other four positions.
> 
> Augusta's description is probably much closer to how socionics describes Ni. It probably looks like I'm cherry picking, but those are pretty weird descriptions of Ni. Socionics focuses more on the time aspect of Ni usually, so I think that is more accurate. I do find it more realistic personally.


I highlighted those because the whole time thing is too reductionistic for Ni. That's not the only relevant aspect of it, and socionics overly focusing on it bothers me since it fails to show a more complex idea of the function. Besides, Ni and Si are both introverted perception functions, therefore they will have some characteristics in common, despite one focusing on intuition and the other in sensing. I think it makes sense that Ni will look watered down, since Augusta is an Ni ignoring type and won't find it that relevant compared to her base Ne. Dunno if you value Ni or Ne, as that definitely will color your own perception of the definition as well, while for me SiNe ones seem fine in my experience, while for Si types those seem kinda butchered or too simplified.


----------



## Wisteria

Dragheart Luard said:


> Well, of course it will differ as the people involved aren't the same and come from a different cultural background. I don't know what type is Lenore's, but Augusta self typed as an ILE so their cognition also influence how they see the functions. Both culture and cognition definitely will generate a different theory, and so far I remember the differences are more evident with Se and Si definitions than Ne or Ni ones, or at least the descriptions of MBTI and Socionics ISXX types seem mismatched with the functions attributed to them (like ISFP looking more like SEI than ESI despite ISFP and ESI being FiSe).
> I think comparing both theories without their base work will give an incomplete idea of what they try to accomplish. If you compare both with the original you can see what part of the definitions they picked for building their respective systems in the first place and have a better clue of where they diverged from Jung.
> 
> I highlighted those because the whole time thing is too reductionistic for Ni. That's not the only relevant aspect of it, and socionics overly focusing on it bothers me since it fails to show a more complex idea of the function. Besides, Ni and Si are both introverted perception functions, therefore they will have some characteristics in common, despite one focusing on intuition and the other in sensing. I think it makes sense that Ni will look watered down, since Augusta is an Ni ignoring type and won't find it that relevant compared to her base Ne. Dunno if you value Ni or Ne, as that definitely will color your own perception of the definition as well, while for me SiNe ones seem fine in my experience, while for Si types those seem kinda butchered or too simplified.


Ethics in socionics are very different too. Cognitive functions never describe Fi as relationships or Fe as emotional states (simplifying the definitions ofc).

Yeah cognition could affect definitions of functions. However these authors may have written from observations of people rather than their own perspectives. Cultures can affect it for sure - even countries in the same region have different social norms and communication styles. Can't see how that would change the definitions of the information elements/cognitive functions though, but it might. It does probably does have influence of how each theory has developed. 

As far as I know, Lenore Thomsons definitions are purely inspired by Jung's psychological types while socionics is based from two theories - as you can see here, socionics is also based from the information metabolism theory.

Also, there is more to the socionics functions than valued/unvalued. The blocks and positions of the functions in model A are more complex than that. The ego block is very different from the super id for example.

The socionics IEs don't seem too simplified to me. What makes a person complicated is their individuality rather than their socionics TIM.


----------



## Aiwass

I used to think the theories could and should match, but I'm becoming skeptical now. Too many differences.

MBTI says Si is tradition/focus on past experiences, Socionics says Si is something completely different.
Te is much more authoritarian in MBTI than it is in Socionics.
Ti is more inflexible in Socionics than it is in MBTI. The same goes for Se.

I'm convinced I am a Beta type in Socionics. Actually, this is the only self-typing I am sure of. I could be some other type, even Fi in MBTI.


----------



## DavidH

Wisteria said:


> It still surprises me that people claim the theories match while doing very little research on socionics, or perhaps even both theories. Here's a couple of examples of how the information elements (or "functions") in socionics are completely different by definition, to the Cognitive functions;
> 
> 
> 
> This example sounds very similar to Augusta's definition of Ti;
> 
> 
> Could also see Se in the first example, as there is a focus on the power of the northern continents on the map.
> Cognitiveprocesses is also a commonly used source for the cognitive functions, so here is how Se is described;
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> They are noticeably different, and generally the descriptions have overlaps. Some of them are similar, but not enough to match. And this isn't even taking Model A into account, where the functions work completely differently from the Harold Grant stack. This is very obvious as well but it just shows how little research people really put into the socionics theory before jumping to the conclusion that they are the same.


Typology = poor classification abilities


----------



## Wisteria

DavidH said:


> Typology = poor classification abilities


Could be the case. What do you mean by "typology"?


----------



## DavidH

Dragheart Luard said:


> The issue of using excerpts is that even if fragments of it may sound like something else, what matters is the concept as a whole, otherwise the context of that part gets lost and can be misinterpreted easily.


Both matter equally. Two supposed identical wholes are not the same, if their constituent parts are not the same.

When you communicate, you attempt to express an idea. Some ideas are expressed with single words. When ideas do not have singular words to express them with, more words are utilized to build the expression of the idea from multiple singular ideas. Eventually, these ideas gain singular words of their own. If the idea already has a singular word of its own, but the expressor doesn’t know such, then it is up to someone else to utilize reduction of communication and terminologies. 

In the case of Socionics, the system, which is a collection of multiple singular ideas, has genesis from ILE, whom maintains one-dimensional communication abilities, per “Fi.” The sociotype which is responsible for communicative reductionism is the EII, which supervises the ILE.

I will provide an analogy for the compositions of the elements.

An individual values a certain type of juice, Fe, but does not value another certain type of juice, Fi. The individual describes them as being similar, but definitively different. The first he describes as tasting very much like apple. The second he describes as tasting very much like grape. He then begins attempting to describe the flavor which seems similar in both of them. Others chime in saying that they too have tasted similar and begin describing the flavor as well, but there are many disagreements and also many agreements about this flavor. The reality is that they are simply mistaken. They are not understanding the original person clearly, and as a result of such are describing completely different juices. They seem to be enjoying the conversation, so one individual remains silent. Eventually, the conversations fall apart and for the protection of the original person’s desire to express themselves, the silent individual simply states, “its cranberry juice. The one you like is cran-apple juice, and the one you don’t like is cran-grape juice. You like cranberry juice and apple juice, but you don’t like grape juice. Those two people are talking about mango juice, and the other one is talking about kiwi juice.”

Something either factually exists as a distinct entity, or it does not. If it does exist as a distinct entity, and it has a word that it is capable of being reduced to, but an individual does not know the word, then the individual will never communicate “the whole,” which in reality is a single word.


----------



## DavidH

Wisteria said:


> Could be the case. What do you mean by "typology"?


It’s creation and utilization. I never pointed out the uncanny coincidence of the prevalence of individuals on typology forums that don’t adhere to the absolute certainty of binary genders?

The part of the brain responsible for classifications is the same part of the brain responsible for bodily sensations. The mechanism behind both is identical. This isn’t hypothetical or arse-pull information. It is well-known and studied scientific fact. Those who created the various typologies are people who self-proclaimed, from the start, to be weak in this function of the brain for bodily sensations, while simultaneously proclaiming to be superior in the function of the brain for classifications, despite scientific fact that these two things are identical.

Norms of classifications for people trying to figure out their partner in a relationship = “girls are nuts, you’ll never figure them out” and “guys make no sense”

My son, I can tell you what he is going to do and how he is going to do it virtually every time. My wife and two girls is like betting on a rigged roulette wheel lol. Gave up trying to figure out girls decades ago, and figuring out that I’d never figure them out, is about as good at figuring them out as it possibly gets hahaha


----------



## Bastard

Lord Pixel said:


> How do the 2 systems not correlate?


Because MBTI functionistas.


----------



## L P

DavidH said:


> The thing is, Lord Pixel, you are weaker than the average individual at Fi and Fe, not by effect of your life experiences, but by your latent potential. What does this mean? If what you’re strongest at, by what you state, is weaker than the average individual? It means that you, as an individual, are inherently weaker than other people. I do not believe this. I do not believe that one person is born better or worse than any other person. Different? Perhaps. Born with strengths and opposing weaknesses that still make them equal? Seems fair enough, and valuable in its own way. But, I do not believe that people are inherently better or worse than others.
> 
> What you are considering “thinking,” I do not believe, at least, that an LSE is such. Forrest Gump is one of the most famed LSE fictional characters in existence, yet he wasn’t a “thinker.” “Administrator.” That is its label in Socionics. Not “super thinker.” Not “great at abstract concepts.” “Administrator.”
> 
> *It occurs to me, that you are LSE, operating in the Dual-Seeking function of EII.* A young, single person’s existence as displaying that which they want to be with. However, for such to exist, you must face things that you do not wish to face, and provide, to society, your own genuine self. When you do that, I think you will find the difference between systems, and be thankful for them.
> 
> Take care.


......No.


----------



## L P

Wisteria said:


> It still surprises me that people claim the theories match while doing very little research on socionics, or perhaps even both theories. Here's a couple of examples of how the information elements (or "functions") in socionics are completely different by definition, to the Cognitive functions;
> 
> 
> 
> This example sounds very similar to Augusta's definition of Ti;
> 
> 
> Could also see Se in the first example, as there is a focus on the power of the northern continents on the map.
> Cognitiveprocesses is also a commonly used source for the cognitive functions, so here is how Se is described;
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> They are noticeably different, and generally the descriptions have overlaps. Some of them are similar, but not enough to match. And this isn't even taking Model A into account, where the functions work completely differently from the Harold Grant stack. This is very obvious as well but it just shows how little research people really put into the socionics theory before jumping to the conclusion that they are the same.


 The first example of Ni doesn't sound like that example of Ti, only the Ni example they used because of the topci. Ultimately what the Ni descprition is saying that when they see why the North is at the top they look at the Origin of how that happened, Ni, Ti is about comparing objects, there is Ti in that example but that example is not demonstrating Ti but Ni's ability to see the singular origin of things. So I disagree there. 

And the Se descirptions aren't even at odds with each other, Socioinics just seems to expand on Se beyond it's sensational attributes, so I don't see how they don't match still. They seem to describe 2 sides, same coin.


----------



## Zidane

Wisteria said:


> It still surprises me that people claim the theories match while doing very little research on socionics, or perhaps even both theories. Here's a couple of examples of how the information elements (or "functions") in socionics are completely different by definition, to the Cognitive functions.


No, that's not the issue at all... You just fail at logic. It doesn't actually matter whether the functions are the same or not. The fact is that socionics has 8 types where A = a, B = b, C = c and D = d (the extraverts). Then, it also has 8 types where suddenly A = b, B = a, C = d and D = c. Now, obviously, an apple can't just turn into a banana. That's the issue here. So the problem is not that the introverts use different functions, the problem is that the extraverts DO NOT! The extraverts link the two systems together by virtue of their perfect consistency! On top of this, the introverts are also showing a link by simply switching up the functions. (Up is now down and down is now up. That's exactly the same universe, just the parralel version of it.) These are not two completely different systems, socionics is not like the enneagram, it's simply an alternative to MBTI, based on the same 16 cognitive functions. And even though the descriptions might be different, that's all nothing more than mere semantics. (I can call a thinker a banana too, but I can also call it A and a.) A sensor in MBTI will be a sensor in socionics. An intuitive in MBTI will be an intuitive in socionics. A feeler in MBTI will be an ethical in socionics. A thinker in MBTI will be a logical in socionics...


----------



## Wisteria

DavidH said:


> It’s creation and utilization. I never pointed out the uncanny coincidence of the prevalence of individuals on typology forums that don’t adhere to the absolute certainty of binary genders?
> 
> The part of the brain responsible for classifications is the same part of the brain responsible for bodily sensations. The mechanism behind both is identical. This isn’t hypothetical or arse-pull information. It is well-known and studied scientific fact. Those who created the various typologies are people who self-proclaimed, from the start, to be weak in this function of the brain for bodily sensations, while simultaneously proclaiming to be superior in the function of the brain for classifications, despite scientific fact that these two things are identical.
> 
> Norms of classifications for people trying to figure out their partner in a relationship = “girls are nuts, you’ll never figure them out” and “guys make no sense”
> 
> My son, I can tell you what he is going to do and how he is going to do it virtually every time. My wife and two girls is like betting on a rigged roulette wheel lol. Gave up trying to figure out girls decades ago, and figuring out that I’d never figure them out, is about as good at figuring them out as it possibly gets hahaha


I've seen various opinions on this forum about gender, often about their traditional roles. I've never you seen you mention that. Are you saying that forum users can't classify the differences, due to low dimensional Fi?

Which part of the brain is that, out of curiosity? If you're talking about perception (using sensory information to identify objects) that would make sense, but I think you're talking about something else. 

lol women express their feelings all the time, I don't get why men say they don't understand them.


----------



## Wisteria

Lord Pixel said:


> The first example of Ni doesn't sound like that example of Ti, only the Ni example they used because of the topci. Ultimately what the Ni descprition is saying that when they see why the North is at the top they look at the Origin of how that happened, Ni, Ti is about comparing objects, there is Ti in that example but that example is not demonstrating Ti but Ni's ability to see the singular origin of things. So I disagree there.
> 
> And the Se descirptions aren't even at odds with each other, Socioinics just seems to expand on Se beyond it's sensational attributes, so I don't see how they don't match still. They seem to describe 2 sides, same coin.


Then what about Si? Do you think socionics Ni is about understanding the origin of things?



Zidane said:


> No, that's not the issue at all... You just fail at logic.


Well that's obnoxious.


----------



## L P

Wisteria said:


> Then what about Si? Do you think socionics Ni is about understanding the origin of things?
> 
> 
> 
> Well that's obnoxious.


Ni is about looking at external data and synthesizing it to a bigger picture, usually a singular idea, origins fall in the cartergory of big picture singular ideas. Si can be like Ni in that it has a library of past knowledge and impressions it retains, but it does not piece together external data to come up with the big picture idea. I think both MBTI and socionics Ni does this big picture synthesizing.


----------



## Lunacik

@PiT covered it pretty well. Good job. Not much more to be said here.


----------



## Lunacik

StarLady said:


> I think a lot might get lost in translation, since Socionics is mostly a Russian phenomenon. Also Socionics is more of an open, evolving system. I personally notice more use of stereotypes in Socionics. Jung was more interested in archetypes himself and I think MBTI fits that mold better when considering the current state of both, but the continued research into Socionics will be fruitful I'm sure.


Socionics is of Lithuanian origins.


----------



## Felipe

Zidane said:


> Ah, it's good to see a person who is resistant to the dogma that the people here love to defend with endless pile of pseudointellectual garbage. *Ofcourse the functions are the same*.


The functions have the same name but they are described differently, so no, they are not the same. Just like when socionics refer to terms like ego, super-ego and id, they are not the same as described in Freudian terms.

You can easily see this difference when comparing mbit's *Se* against socionics *Se*

Se in mbti is about adventure seeking, pleasure coming from manipulating objects and creativity with sensing things.

Se in socionics is about understanding of power dynamics between people and exerting your will on the external environment.

Jungs's description in similar to mbti but adding the "attention to detail" and "being grounded by facts" part. In mbti that "being grounded" is described as a *Te* trait only.



Zidane said:


> can only mean two things:
> 1) One system is wrong and the other is right.
> 2) They're both wrong.


It depends, one system may be right in some things. I think if you use mbti with just the letters, ignoring functions completely, it is a valuable and solid system. As soon as you try to fit the letters into the functions it becomes like this:


----------



## DavidH

RGB said:


> Socionics is of Lithuanian origins.


Yeah, we call that Russian over here


----------



## DavidH

Felipe said:


> The functions have the same name but they are described differently, so no, they are not the same. Just like when socionics refer to terms like ego, super-ego and id, they are not the same as described in Freudian terms.
> 
> You can easily see this difference when comparing mbit's *Se* against socionics *Se*
> 
> Se in mbti is about adventure seeking, pleasure coming from manipulating objects and creativity with sensing things.
> 
> Se in socionics is about understanding of power dynamics between people and exerting your will on the external environment.
> 
> Jungs's description in similar to mbti but adding the "attention to detail" and "being grounded by facts" part. In mbti that "being grounded" is described as a *Te* trait only.
> 
> 
> 
> It depends, one system may be right in some things. I think if you use mbti with just the letters, ignoring functions completely, it is a valuable and solid system. As soon as you try to fit the letters into the functions it becomes like this:


I think they just use it as a symbol placeholder for rationalizing why they themselves are a square peg in a round hole.


----------



## Wisteria

Sometimes wonder if people see that both theories use the term "Se" then are like "they're obviously the same thing!" 

Forgot to comment earlier, but don't get why using the term "comfort" for Si is as stereotypical as the MBTI definition. "Traditional" isn't even a stereotype of Si because it's that inaccurate lol. I think socionics uses the idea of objects vs fields when describing the information elements, while the cognitive functions concept is Internal vs external, basically.


----------



## Daeva

Wisteria said:


> Sometimes wonder if people see that both theories use the term "Se" then are like "they're obviously the same thing!"
> 
> 
> 
> Forgot to comment earlier, but don't get why using the term "comfort" for Si is as stereotypical as the MBTI definition. "Traditional" isn't even a stereotype of Si because it's that inaccurate lol. I think socionics uses the idea of objects vs fields when describing the information elements, while the cognitive functions concept is Internal vs external, basically.


I cannot speak for others, but as I have explained earlier in this thread, the extent of my research goes far deeper than what you suggest.

MBTI Se and Socionics Se are both oriented to the objective sensing experience. This comes with the inevitable associations of being attuned to impact, power, impulse, appearance, style, assertiveness, aggression, etc. This remains consistent in both systems.

A common criticism to the supposed "stark difference" between the two systems in regards to Se is the MBTI Se's mention of pleasure. This critique implies that Socionics Se types don't seek out pleasure in the world. This is wrong. Pleasure for the Se type is linked to extravagance and materialism. Again, this is consistent in both systems.

MBTI Si and Socionics Si are both oriented to the subjective sensory experience. This comes with the inevitable associations of being attuned to comfort, stability of experience, inner sensations such as hunger, fatigue,... This remains consistent in both systems.

Here, the critique is linked to the notion of traditionalism that MBTI Si brings with it. In Socionics, Si types seek to spend their time doing enjoyable activities, with more time and effort being devoted to these activities than an Se type, and recreating these experiences to try and optimize them - which then, over time, creates a high level of proficiency in the Si user. Traditionalism is present in the Socionics Si type in regards to the repetitive honing of one's experience and skill with a limited palette of experiences. The Si type will go back to this time and time again. This is traditionalism. It is accurate and remains consistent in both systems.


----------



## L P

DavidH said:


> In simple terms, that is LSE with a very strong sx fix


The fact that you think you have enough information to correctly type this person as LSE is concerning. You typed me LSE for strange reasons and now type another person who says they are IEI as LSE for strange reasons with a very small amount of evidence. I don't know what is the issue with your typing skills but you might be taking people's words too literally and creating conclusions based off those literal interpretations. The fact that you were very wrong about my tight gives me no reason to not think you are probably very wrong about her type as well. Unless you have some explanation why based off that short post she's LSE.


----------



## Wisteria

Daeva said:


> MBTI Si and Socionics Si are both oriented to the subjective sensory experience. This comes with the inevitable associations of being attuned to comfort, stability of experience, inner sensations such as hunger, fatigue,... This remains consistent in both systems.


When do MBTI descriptions ever mention the terms "comfort" "bodily sensations" for Si? and in Se descriptions you never see the discussion of power, leadership or aggression. 

They both trying to explain the idea of subjective sensation, but they do it in very different ways. The difference in the theories becomes very apparent when you see how users are typed on each forum here. Even famous celebrities and fictional characters are typed differently in MBTI and socionics e.g ENFP, ESE. 



> Here, the critique is linked to the notion of traditionalism that MBTI Si brings with it. In Socionics, Si types seek to spend their time doing enjoyable activities, with more time and effort being devoted to these activities than an Se type, and recreating these experiences to try and optimize them - which then, over time, creates a high level of proficiency in the Si user. Traditionalism is present in the Socionics Si type in regards to the repetitive honing of one's experience and skill with a limited palette of experiences. The Si type will go back to this time and time again. This is traditionalism. It is accurate and remains consistent in both systems.


Socionics barely touches upon this idea of traditionalism. MBTI doesn't describe the recreation of aesthetic sensations, only accumulating facts and details and comparing the past with the present. It's not actual sensations either, as no person on this forum has ever described Si as being directly related to sensations. Yes you can say they are both theories are essentially describing the same idea, but why do they describe it so differently, and why do they focus on different aspects of the function? The cognitive functions approach the "judging" functions very differently as well, it's interesting that no one has discussed this. 

And in this thread everyone is comparing the cognitive functions with the information elements. What about the cognitive functions stack vs model a? Also the intertype relations? 



Lord Pixel said:


> The fact that you think you have enough information to correctly type this person as LSE is concerning. You typed me LSE for strange reasons and now type another person who says they are IEI as LSE for strange reasons with a very small amount of evidence. I don't know what is the issue with your typing skills but you might be taking people's words too literally and creating conclusions based off those literal interpretations. The fact that you were very wrong about my tight gives me no reason to not think you are probably very wrong about her type as well. Unless you have some explanation why based off that short post she's LSE.


Typing as your preferences isn't a strange reason for the LSE typing.


----------



## L P

Wisteria said:


> When do MBTI descriptions ever mention the terms "comfort" "bodily sensations" for Si? and in Se descriptions you never see the discussion of power, leadership or aggression.
> 
> They both trying to explain the idea of subjective sensation, but they do it in very different ways. The difference in the theories becomes very apparent when you see how users are typed on each forum here. Even famous celebrities and fictional characters are typed differently in MBTI and socionics e.g ENFP, ESE.
> 
> 
> 
> Socionics barely touches upon this idea of traditionalism. MBTI doesn't describe the recreation of aesthetic sensations, only accumulating facts and details and comparing the past with the present. It's not actual sensations either, as no person on this forum has ever described Si as being directly related to sensations. Yes you can say they are both theories are essentially describing the same idea, but why do they describe it so differently, and why do they focus on different aspects of the function? The cognitive functions approach the "judging" functions very differently as well, it's interesting that no one has discussed this.
> 
> And in this thread everyone is comparing the cognitive functions with the information elements. What about the cognitive functions stack vs model a? Also the intertype relations?
> 
> 
> 
> Typing as your preferences isn't a strange reason for the LSE typing.


How does one find someone to be Te leading, Si creative, and Fi DS from a short post like that?


----------



## Daeva

Wisteria said:


> When do MBTI descriptions ever mention the terms "comfort" "bodily sensations" for Si? and in Se descriptions you never see the discussion of power, leadership or aggression.
> 
> They both trying to explain the idea of subjective sensation, but they do it in very different ways. The difference in the theories becomes very apparent when you see how users are typed on each forum here. Even famous celebrities and fictional characters are typed differently in MBTI and socionics e.g ENFP, ESE.
> 
> Socionics barely touches upon this idea of traditionalism. MBTI doesn't describe the recreation of aesthetic sensations, only accumulating facts and details and comparing the past with the present. It's not actual sensations either, as no person on this forum has ever described Si as being directly related to sensations. Yes you can say they are both theories are essentially describing the same idea, but why do they describe it so differently, and why do they focus on different aspects of the function? The cognitive functions approach the "judging" functions very differently as well, it's interesting that no one has discussed this.
> 
> And in this thread everyone is comparing the cognitive functions with the information elements. What about the cognitive functions stack vs model a? Also the intertype relations?


When Googling "MBTI Se," the first link to show up is this one from Personalityjunkie. In it, Introverted Sensing is described as inner sensations. MBTI Se is described as thrill-seeking and there is a link between thrill-seeking and aggression.
Other sites describe MBTI Se as "... _good at sizing up a situation. They seem to almost intuitively know what they can get away with in a certain situation and just how far they can push it. This comes from experience of taking risks, being burned_," "_Extraverted Sensing users may also agree with the phrase, “It is harder to get permission than it is to ask for forgiveness_,” and "_The user may become reckless and unknowingly hurt those around them_." This is, again, playing on the thrill-seeking side of Se. Is this not an aggressive stance towards the world?

You say Socionics barely touches on the idea of traditionalism, yet in my previous post I explained to you that Socionics' description of Si fits the criteria of traditionalism. Do you disagree with my interpretation? Socionics may not be generous in the usage of the word, but it describes it nonetheless.

You may question the validity of the sources, of course, but I am working with the contemporary definition of MBTI funtions. Meaning that the perspectives on the definitions change over time - and seeing that these were the first links to pop up, it speaks for the interpretation of the functions by the MBTI community at large.

Your mention of the different interpretations of the Judging functions needs clarification.

----
To me, both systems describe the same phenomena (MBTI Se <> Socionics Se), but come at it from a different angle, for a different purpose, and from a different background/culture. As such, terminology (such as comfort, traditionalism, power,... which are vague terms to begin with - unless further defined by context) will differ, but it is easy for me to see that both takes on Jungian Functions meet in the middle.
----

I don't base my understanding of the models, or the validity between what I perceive as an essential underlying symmetry, on the typings of forum members. It would surprise me BIG TIME if the average typing accuracy even reaches 10%. So to me, bringing up the (self-)typings of forum goers means very little. Hell, even the typings of 'official sources' are highly suspect, as they tend to show very little consistency across the board and, as a common occurrence, typings between authorities tend to differ.


I find the correlation between the function stack and Model A high enough to be considered valid. There are differences, as is to be expected when comparing two separate theories side by side, but I find there to be an overlap in experience when applying both of them to my typings of people. As an example of something that doesn't translate 1-to-1: the ordering in Model A is done in such a way that it can account for further explorations of the IE's, such as dimensions, which the MBTI doesn't concern itself with. This is necessary for the internal consistency of the model, yes, but it doesn't prove its claim to correctness (when placed in contrast to the function stack) and it isn't supported by psychology.
John Beebe formulated his own theory on the ordering of the function stack for the MBTI, attempting to delve into the unconscious aspects of type. The attempt, whether one considers it to be accurate or not, is another example of the space that both theories take up: the mapping out the cognition of humans based on Jung's findings. Each created a theoretical construct to support its inner logical consistency, based on the authors' goals and influence (purpose of the model, background/culture, etc.) Personally, I find that the differences aren't great enough to dismiss the parallels that exist between both systems.


----------



## Wisteria

Daeva said:


> When Googling "MBTI Se," the first link to show up is this one from Personalityjunkie. In it, Introverted Sensing is described as inner sensations. MBTI Se is described as thrill-seeking and there is a link between thrill-seeking and aggression.
> Other sites describe MBTI Se as "... _good at sizing up a situation. They seem to almost intuitively know what they can get away with in a certain situation and just how far they can push it. This comes from experience of taking risks, being burned_," "_Extraverted Sensing users may also agree with the phrase, “It is harder to get permission than it is to ask for forgiveness_,” and "_The user may become reckless and unknowingly hurt those around them_." This is, again, playing on the thrill-seeking side of Se. Is this not an aggressive stance towards the world?


I've never come across this page before. It seems like you have selected information that has a similarity amongst a very lengthily page of information. The general idea of this description is "Se looks outwardly and experiences the world directly through the five senses" and Si clings onto things of the past, sticks to methods that are tried and true, and notices differences based on their own experience. Again it's that extremely basic external vs internal idea. I skimmed over the whole description, and it just doesn't seem like socionics. 

Also noticed that Si and Se seem to be the preferences of SJs and SPs only. In socionics the valued sensing function is either in the ego or super id. What if an individual with super id Se believes they are an Se type, because they have a preference towards these things?



Daeva said:


> You say Socionics barely touches on the idea of traditionalism, yet in my previous post I explained to you that Socionics' description of Si fits the criteria of traditionalism. Do you disagree with my interpretation? Socionics may not be generous in the usage of the word, but it describes it nonetheless.


I thought you were talking about MBTI Si there to be honest. It looks to me like you are moulding each definition of Si into one.



Daeva said:


> You may question the validity of the sources, of course, but I am working with the contemporary definition of MBTI funtions. Meaning that the perspectives on the definitions change over time - and seeing that these were the first links to pop up, it speaks for the interpretation of the functions by the MBTI community at large.


The interpretation of the community is reflective of the theory in general. There are less accurate sources around, but look at the defintions of the MBTI foundation; https://www.myersbriggs.org/my-mbti-personality-type/understanding-mbti-type-dynamics/the-eight-function-attitudes.htm



Daeva said:


> Your mention of the different interpretations of the Judging functions needs clarification.


MBTI: Extraverted Feeling: Seeks harmony with and between people in the outside world. Interpersonal and cultural values are important. Introverted Feeling: Seeks harmony of action and thoughts with personal values. May not always articulate those values.

Socionics: "Black (extroverted) ethics: Perceives information about processes taking place in objects — first of all, emotional processes that are taking place in people, their excitation or subduedness, and their moods..." "White (introverted) ethics Fi: This is the subjective relationship between two carriers of potential or kinetic energy that shows the level of attraction (or repulsion) between one object or subject and another object or subject."

...Is that enough?



> To me, both systems describe the same phenomena (MBTI Se <> Socionics Se), but come at it from a different angle, for a different purpose, and from a different background/culture. As such, terminology (such as comfort, traditionalism, power,... which are vague terms to begin with - unless further defined by context) will differ, but it is easy for me to see that both takes on Jungian Functions meet in the middle.


Taking it at different angle is different though. To me it seems like researches have read Jung's theory then taken it in their own direction. Ever wonder why cognitive function sources don't describe in much detail? The authors don't actually understand the theory in that much depth. They are simplifying it for the reader but I really do think their interpretation of the functions are just basic. 



> I don't base my understanding of the models, or the validity between what I perceive as an essential underlying symmetry, on the typings of forum members. It would surprise me BIG TIME if the average typing accuracy even reaches 10%. So to me, bringing up the (self-)typings of forum goers means very little. Hell, even the typings of 'official sources' are highly suspect, as they tend to show very little consistency across the board and, as a common occurrence, typings between authorities tend to differ.


Model a is the basis of the socionics theory, it's essential to understand it if you want to learn the socionics theory. You seem to be suggesting that forum members are not intelligent enough to type people  Anyway, MBTI is a self assessed test of your preferences. That's why there is so much disagreement on type. 



> I find the correlation between the function stack and Model A high enough to be considered valid. There are differences, as is to be expected when comparing two separate theories side by side, but I find there to be an overlap in experience when applying both of them to my typings of people. As an example of something that doesn't translate 1-to-1: the ordering in Model A is done in such a way that it can account for further explorations of the IE's, such as dimensions, which the MBTI doesn't concern itself with. This is necessary for the internal consistency of the model, yes, but it doesn't prove its claim to correctness (when placed in contrast to the function stack) and it isn't supported by psychology.
> John Beebe formulated his own theory on the ordering of the function stack for the MBTI, attempting to delve into the unconscious aspects of type. The attempt, whether one considers it to be accurate or not, is another example of the space that both theories take up: the mapping out the cognition of humans based on Jung's findings. Each created a theoretical construct to support its inner logical consistency, based on the authors' goals and influence (purpose of the model, background/culture, etc.) Personally, I find that the differences aren't great enough to dismiss the parallels that exist between both systems.


Maybe you aren't aware of the differences. All you mention with Model A is the IEs and their dimensions. The difference becomes stark when you compare age development between the two theories. They're hilariously different actually. MBTI, which I found on that link posted above, claims that a persons dominant function develops up into the 20s, then their auxiliary, and so on. It also describes these functions as the source of comfort and self esteem, the preferred way to go about things. Socionics begins with Id, then Super id, then Super ego, then finally Ego. If you think that EII is equivalent to INFP, then these two theories literally claim that their functions develop in the complete opposite order. The concept behind it is also different. If you're curious about that then you can find a thread about it here and the source here.


----------



## Wisteria

Lord Pixel said:


> How does one find someone to be Te leading, Si creative, and Fi DS from a short post like that?


I can't tell you because I didn't read all those posts and it wasn't me who said this. Just pointing out that reason in particular didn't seem strange to me.

LSE has super ego Ni-Fe by the way, which might make someone type as an IEI.


----------



## Daeva

Wisteria said:


> I've never come across this page before. It seems like you have selected information that has a similarity amongst a very lengthily page of information. The general idea of this description is "Se looks outwardly and experiences the world directly through the five senses" and Si clings onto things of the past, sticks to methods that are tried and true, and notices differences based on their own experience. Again it's that extremely basic external vs internal idea. I skimmed over the whole description, and it just doesn't seem like socionics.


Well, it's the first website that shows up for me when Googling "MBTI Se." 
Indeed, it isn't Socionics; I never claimed it to be. I was pointing out that the descriptions (MBTI Se <> Socionics Se) attempt to explain the same phenomena. Basic or not, it is accurate and Socionics' definition does not differ much from it.

I find it curious that you elected to ignore the similarities that I brought up. I also find it curious that you elected to "skim over the whole description," even though this page is number 1 on the Google search and you admitted to not knowing about it... while simultaneously ridiculing what you perceive as a lack of research in those you disagree with.



> Also noticed that Si and Se seem to be the preferences of SJs and SPs only. In socionics the valued sensing function is either in the ego or super id. What if an individual with super id Se believes they are an Se type, because they have a preference towards these things?


 They'd be wrong, as they aren't an Se type in either system.



> I thought you were talking about MBTI Si there to be honest. It looks to me like you are moulding each definition of Si into one.


I borrowed that description directly from Socionics Si. Perhaps you need to brush up on your idea of Socionics Si.



> The interpretation of the community is reflective of the theory in general. There are less accurate sources around, but look at the defintions of the MBTI foundation; https://www.myersbriggs.org/my-mbti...ype-dynamics/the-eight-function-attitudes.htm


Two short lines of text for each function is hardly representative of the full understanding of the functions. The official MBTI test doesn't use function theory, so myersbriggs.org doesn't pay much attention to them. I don't use that website as an in depth source for the functions.



> MBTI: Extraverted Feeling: Seeks harmony with and between people in the outside world. Interpersonal and cultural values are important. Introverted Feeling: Seeks harmony of action and thoughts with personal values. May not always articulate those values.
> 
> Socionics: "Black (extroverted) ethics: Perceives information about processes taking place in objects — first of all, emotional processes that are taking place in people, their excitation or subduedness, and their moods..." "White (introverted) ethics Fi: This is the subjective relationship between two carriers of potential or kinetic energy that shows the level of attraction (or repulsion) between one object or subject and another object or subject."
> 
> ...Is that enough?


No, this isn't clarifying much. What is the problem?



> Taking it at different angle is different though. To me it seems like researches have read Jung's theory then taken it in their own direction. Ever wonder why cognitive function sources don't describe in much detail? The authors don't actually understand the theory in that much depth. They are simplifying it for the reader but I really do think their interpretation of the functions are just basic.


Theorizers will pull the warm blanket of theory to their own side, so there is a good chance of it being different from where other theorizers take it. Thing is, I don't see this as being problematic. It's a natural process, and I'm just waiting for it to come back full circle.
Theorizer A sits on Mountain 1, Theorizer B sits on Mountain 2, both attempt to build a theory about the structure of the same village below. Their interpretations and explanations will undoubtedly differ, but does this mean that one is more "right" than the others? No. It's all about perspective. That's how I see the difference in MBTI vis-a-vis Socionics.

There are plenty of cognitive function sources that explain the functions with great depth, though. All I can say to that is.. look around more? I don't think the theory is worth dismissing - but if you must, don't disparage the intellectual integrity of those who disagree with you. The odds are high that things are different from what you think they 'seem' to be.



> Model a is the basis of the socionics theory, it's essential to understand it if you want to learn the socionics theory. You seem to be suggesting that forum members are not intelligent enough to type people  Anyway, MBTI is a self assessed test of your preferences. That's why there is so much disagreement on type.


Typing others or oneself is not about intelligence, so I was not suggesting that.

There is much ado when it comes to disagreement on type, more than what you describe. All this forum theorizing is an attempt at categorizing human cognition by mostly less-than-qualified individuals. I am being mild here. Low accuracy in typing, for the vast majority of people (yes I include myself in this), is normal.



> Maybe you aren't aware of the differences. All you mention with Model A is the IEs and their dimensions. The difference becomes stark when you compare age development between the two theories. They're hilariously different actually. MBTI, which I found on that link posted above, claims that a persons dominant function develops up into the 20s, then their auxiliary, and so on. It also describes these functions as the source of comfort and self esteem, the preferred way to go about things. Socionics begins with Id, then Super id, then Super ego, then finally Ego. If you think that EII is equivalent to INFP, then these two theories literally claim that their functions develop in the complete opposite order. The concept behind it is also different. If you're curious about that then you can find a thread about it here and the source here.


I brought up the IE's and the dimensions as examples to demonstrate a larger point, not as as my complete thesis on the subject. That should be obvious. Disagreement doesn't automatically mean that the other party is less informed. This was the reason of my first response to you on this thread.

I have strong disagreement with the way MBTI function theory explains the development of functions. Even at a mere glance one can see that reality is not as cut and dry. I have witnessed far too many exceptions to the rule for this to be... a rule. I also don't consider this to be core to the cognitive function stack model and as such can safely be dismissed.
The Socionics version of age development describes a different process; it includes the private and social areas of a person and more. Already this is more promising, but I am highly skeptical. Age development is a very complicated terrain - much moreso than 'normal adult cognition.' It is brave for the theorists to try and tackle this, but I hold off on seeing any of it as truthful as I am not personally familiar with children's development. I find it important to continuously check the theories with my reality and, as a result, to refrain from validating things blindly. Not suggesting that you do. My point here is that when comparing the two systems, I strongly devalue the developmental side, more out of personal ignorance than out of deep scrutiny. Though I can confidently say that the MBTI version is rubbish, even with my shallow understanding of this subject. Overall, this is but a side-point to the comparison of the two models, so I don't put much weight on it.


----------



## DavidH

Si isn’t traditionalism in Socionics. Why on earth would you think that?


----------



## Daeva

DavidH said:


> Si isn’t traditionalism in Socionics. Why on earth would you think that?


I already explained this. Why on earth would you ask such a redundant question?


----------



## DavidH

Daeva said:


> I already explained this. Why on earth would you ask such a redundant question?


You didn’t explain it at all. You just used false information as the premise for your line of reasoning. It isn’t being logical, if you start with false information. That’s being illogical.


----------



## Daeva

DavidH said:


> You didn’t explain it at all. You just used false information as the premise for your line of reasoning. It isn’t being logical, if you start with false information. That’s being illogical.


Then address my points and point out where the supposed illogical is located.

Your posts addressed to me have been meaningless and unsubstantiated. You have given me no reason to treat them seriously. If you continue this I will consider your behavior trolling.


----------



## DavidH

Daeva said:


> Then address my points and point out where the supposed illogical is located.
> 
> Your posts addressed to me have been meaningless and unsubstantiated. You have given me no reason to treat them seriously. If you continue this I will consider your behavior trolling.


Yeah, well you have fun with that. I’ll continue to point out that your posts are false and illogical.


----------



## Daeva

DavidH said:


> Yeah, well you have fun with that. I’ll continue to point out that your posts are false and illogical.


You haven't though, that's the irony of your position.

I can call your posts the most gracious things in existence since the coming of Jesus, but it would be just as useless and hollow as your commentary.


----------



## L P

Teen Rose said:


> Not shallow but simple and to the point and only neccessary and layman terms. It is not MBTI's mistake that* socionists like Gulekno want to bring the same old wine in new, newer bottles everytime.*


Very good point.


----------



## HIX

Yeah, I think MBTI and Socionics are the same thing


----------



## AnneM

Not going to read thru the whole thread, @L P , but _thank_ you for your sentiments on the matter. I have never had any difficulty whatsoever reconciling the systems. Socionics brought a depth to my understanding that MBTI, I think, seriously lacks. I never went too far into Socionics, though; I got what I needed and scooted. :happy:


----------



## Sol_

they use the same types and hence match totally where MBTI uses Jung's theory instead of nonsense alike where MBTI texts have assigned wrong functions to introverted types

also the ones who claim to use Socionics not always use it, but use theories of other authors besides Jung and Augustinavichiute. 
also some parts of Jung and Augustinavichiute's texts are doubtful as Reinin's traits (she used seriously only some of those traits, but all of them are baseless). not all, but many ones may use those doubtful parts

the mismatch in practical cases mostly should happen not from theories, but from the lack of skills and methods imperfectness


----------



## Soul Kitchen

I've copied this from one of my posts in another thread, but I've also expanded on a few points.

1. The J/P orientation is different for introverts between systems. With MBTI function theory, it's the extraverted function which is being matched to J or P, not the dominant function. MBTI function theory has the rest of the functions opposite to the dominant in orientation. For your information, the official function stacks for each type do not assign the orientation of the dominant to the tertiary. With Socionics, it's the dominant function which is being matched to J or P - one of the few things I like about Socionics. 
2. Socionics functions are different from MBTI ones. Despite some adjustments here and there, Socionics functions are closer to their corresponding Jungian types, whereas MBTI functions are specifically jerry-rigged to their matching letter combinations. Case in point, Ti describes TPs, whereas LII is a closer match to Jung's Introverted Thinking type, which would be an INTJ according to the MBTI.
3. There isn't a linear correspondence between someone's Socionics type and MBTI type. I think an INTP would most likely be an ILI, but it's also possible for an INTP to be any number of other Socionics types. However, INTP and LII are less typical because LII has much more of an emphasis on structure and organisation. Kant would be an LII, for instance, and he'd most likely produce INTJ on the MBTI indicator, but despite his strong J-ness, he's still often typed as an INTP on the basis of being a "Ti-dom".
4. Type sorting processes are different. With MBTI, you answer the inventory in "shoes off" mode, and the type you produce is what you are. With Socionics, you study the theory and decide what fits you best.

Despite these obvious differences, people try to merge the two into one. So, they'd import Socionics definitions of functions which make Ti and Fi take on J qualities and Ni and Si take on P qualities. Or, they'd import theoretical concepts such as functions blocks, PoLR, and quadras, distorting the MBTI into something completely different.


----------



## Dezir

Soul Kitchen said:


> I've copied this from one of my posts in another thread, but I've also expanded on a few points.
> 
> 1. The J/P orientation is different for introverts between systems. With MBTI function theory, it's the extraverted function which is being matched to J or P, not the dominant function. MBTI function theory has the rest of the functions opposite to the dominant in orientation. For your information, the official function stacks for each type do not assign the orientation of the dominant to the tertiary. With Socionics, it's the dominant function which is being matched to J or P - one of the few things I like about Socionics.


This is mere stylistics, so all INTJs should get ILI and all INTPs should get LII, even if Socionics calls INTJs as INTp it should be consistent.



Soul Kitchen said:


> 2. Socionics functions are different from MBTI ones. Despite some adjustments here and there, Socionics functions are closer to their corresponding Jungian types, whereas MBTI functions are specifically jerry-rigged to their matching letter combinations. Case in point, Ti describes TPs, whereas LII is a closer match to Jung's Introverted Thinking type, which would be an INTJ according to the MBTI.


This one is interesting and perhaps where the key difference lies. Can you elaborate more? 
What is the difference between Fi and Fe in MBTI and Fi and Fe in Socionics? How do they manifest differently? And how would that lead to a different ressult for the same person?
It would be great if you can make that with all fuctions, if not, even one for reference would be great.



Soul Kitchen said:


> 3. There isn't a linear correspondence between someone's Socionics type and MBTI type. I think an INTP would most likely be an ILI, but it's also possible for an INTP to be any number of other Socionics types. However, INTP and LII are less typical because LII has much more of an emphasis on structure and organisation. Kant would be an LII, for instance, and he'd most likely produce INTJ on the MBTI indicator, but despite his strong J-ness, he's still often typed as an INTP on the basis of being a "Ti-dom".


So it's just a guess game or is there any hard logic behind this?
If we are to compare the traits of a person, we should compare them with their opposite ends right? Like, is Kant more of a Ti-dom or Ni-dom rather than is Kant more of a Ti-dom or J, kind of Ti-dom let's go with INTP. That seems like stereotyping with no actual science.



Soul Kitchen said:


> 4. Type sorting processes are different. With MBTI, you answer the inventory in "shoes off" mode, and the type you produce is what you are. With Socionics, you study the theory and decide what fits you best.


You do that in MBTI as well, as most of the tests are inaccurate and will lead different ressults.



Soul Kitchen said:


> Despite these obvious differences, people try to merge the two into one. So, they'd import Socionics definitions of functions which makes Ti and Fi take on J qualities and Ni and Si take on P qualities. Or, they'd import theoretical concepts such as functions blocks, PoLR, and quadras, distorting the MBTI into something completely different.


Because on the surface, they seem to want and study the same thing, but if when you get into details find out that they are talking about different things even though they both call those different things "cognitive functions" then it gets kind of confusing and makes you wonder why did they do that and couldn't just agree to use different names to make it more clear or an all-encompassing theory.


----------



## Soul Kitchen

Dezir said:


> This is mere stylistics, so all INTJs should get ILI and all INTPs should get LII, even if Socionics calls INTJs as INTp it should be consistent.


Socionics doesn't usually call INTJs INTps, so your point is moot. I see that your type profile says you're an INFJ and an IEI. Do you self-type as an INFJ because you're structured and organised in how you engage with the external world, or because you're the variety of Ni-dom who likes lots of mind wandering at the expense of structure?



> This one is interesting and perhaps where the key difference lies. Can you elaborate more?
> What is the difference between Fi and Fe in MBTI and Fi and Fe in Socionics? How do they manifest differently? And how would that lead to a different ressult for the same person?
> It would be great if you can make that with all fuctions, if not, even one for reference would be great.


Here is a list of "official" definitions for each function.

I'm not going to break down the similarities and differences between every definition, so I'll focus on the "Perceiving" functions because that's where the differences are most transparent.

_Extraverted Sensing: Acts on concrete data from here and now. Trusts the present, then lets it go._

This is sort of related to Socionics Se, but Socionics has a more specific concept of Se which is about forcefulness in the external world; bending it to your will, in other words. You'll sometimes hear that SEE is Napoleon's type, although Napoleon would be an ENTJ in the MBTI. MBTI Se only describes a desire to experience the world.

_Introverted Sensing: Compares present facts and experiences to past experience. Trusts the past. Stores sensory data for future use._

Si as defined in Socionics describes a process of how physical sensations affect someone subjectively, and this is attributed to a desire for comfort and pleasure. MBTI Si takes a pragmatic bent where the emphasis is on how data is utilised to accomplish tasks.

_Extraverted Intuition: Sees possibilities in the external world. Trusts flashes from the unconscious, which can then be shared with others._

This is more or less identical to Socionics Ne. However, the MBTI definition of Ne can describe any of the NPs, ENPs and INPs both. Many introverted NPs are typed as IxEs through Socionics. I myself am an INTP according to the MBTI, but in Socionics, ILE is arguably my best fit type.

_Introverted Intuition: Looks at consistency of ideas and thoughts with an internal framework. Trusts flashes from the unconscious, which may be hard for others to understand._

The first sentence sounds a lot like Introverted Thinking, or Socionics Ti, which is based on Jung's Introverted Thinking type. The second sentence could fit with Jung's Introverted Intuitive type and can be matched with Socionics Ni, but it's too vague. Anyone can have gut feelings about things.

It's difficult to reach a consensus on how to define functions through the MBTI, because you have lots of homebrewed definitions competing with each other.



> So it's just a guess game or is there any hard logic behind this?
> If we are to compare the traits of a person, we should compare them with their opposite ends right? Like, is Kant more of a Ti-dom or Ni-dom rather than is Kant more of a Ti-dom or J, kind of Ti-dom let's go with INTP. That seems like stereotyping with no actual science.


It's not really a guessing game. What you do is you determine your MBTI type and your Socionics type separately, and it's only once you've got both sorted that you compare the two.

By opposite ends, you mean J/P, right? If we're comparing those, then I'd argue that Kant being an LII fits well with him being an INTJ, because both types would harness abstract ideas as a tool to organise and structure their affairs. To quote Sociotype, "LIIs are, in the colloquial sense, highly rational creatures and may pride themselves on so being. They may live highly structured or regimented lifestyles and can be quite proactive." Replace LII with INTJ, and it works just as well.



> You do that in MBTI as well, as most of the tests are inaccurate and will lead different ressults.


As flawed as the tests are, the type you'd be according to the MBTI is whichever type you produce on the official indicator. The MBTI guidelines clearly state to be wary of amateur sources on the internet which lead you astray.



> Because on the surface, they seem to want and study the same thing, but if when you get into details find out that they are talking about different things even though they both call those different things "cognitive functions" then it gets kind of confusing and makes you wonder why did they do that and couldn't just agree to use different names to make it more clear or an all-encompassing theory.


I'd argue that Socionics and the Enneagram want to study the same thing, but those systems are transparently different enough where people don't actively merge them into one. Why merge Socionics and MBTI into one?


----------



## Sol_

L P said:


> It is frustrating to see people say I'm an INTJ in MBTI but LSE in Socionics. And that typing I have actually seen!


MBTI is a test which uses preferences fully compatible with dichotomies in Socionics. The only difference is in E/I by Augustinavichiute, - she _expanded_ Jung term by the addition: E - objective traits, I - subjective links between traits. For example: Te - logical fact, Ti - links between the known facts (groups, comparisions, etc). Socionics texts and dichotomy tests keep Jung understanding of E/I, but also may add the said expansion.

As this part of the theory is correct, MBTI followers primarily use preferences to understand own types and also claim preferences (and only them) in own types names - there can be said about the match between MBTI types, Socionics types and Jung typology in general.
So it's incompetent to claim as having different types in MBTI and Socionics. 
The main problem is that people may get different types because of imperfect typing skills and methods. The same as they may get different types from different tests (even from the same test) and different MBTI followers, they may get another type from Socionics follower and different types from different Socionics followers. It's more people problem, not from the theory. 
Today, average real typing match can be <50% - there are many mismatches in typing practice. There is high speculativity in how your behavior can be interpreted to suppose your type. The today typing is a probability process - for what type there are more arguments and the weight of those arguments, it's never 100% clearness. Jung type itself is mostly about the probability in a behavior - more of this and lesser of that, - more of emotions (F types) in the consciousness or more of thoughts (T types), etc.

> How can someone be Ni dom in MBTI and Ni Polr in Socionics?

Can't. Only by typing mistake.

There is a situation when functions may be thought as different from _theory_ point.
There is theory _mistake_ in MBTI followers texts - they suppose introverted types having wrong functions. For example, INTJ type in MBTI texts is described as having 2 first functions of INTP type. They say an introverted J human has leading P function what is nonsense and controverts to Jung texts. Socionics has no this mistake.

INTJ
By Jung: Ti-Ne-Se-Fe
By MBTI texts: Ni-Te-Fi-Se [link]
By Socionics: Ti-Ne [ego block, Socionics uses 8-functional model] , by strenghtes: T-N-F-S

Socionics here has own and lesser seriouse mistake and a controvertion to Jung. It's more terms misinterpretation than a mistake.
Similarly as MBTI texts, model A of Socionics says as weakest Se. As the weakest was chosen the region most annoying (as weak and nonvalued) for the consciouse mind. It was also ignored that weaker function is also lesser noticed for the mind, so it may be perceived as hurting lesser. "Point of least resistance" - it's how in English is written what in Russian Socionics texts is mostly called as "pain function", though it's also called there as weakest what is a mistake (by Jung). As the weakest should be the least consciouse and such the function most opposite to most consciouse function - F, Fe for INTJ type. You may think that our weakest region has better anesthesia - a human may feel worse but it's least clear for him why. 
Socionics calls Fe of INTJ as suggestive function - the place most influenced from external, - place of least criticism, what means least consciouse control and should mean least consciouse and weakest place. But Augustinavichiute seems was influenced by MBTI texts more than should and missed an inner controvertion in own texts - she had observations and those reminded to name it as "weakest".

On practice you do not need to use model A and Augustinavichiute's texts in complete form. You may use only some useful parts of them and parts of initial Jung theory which may be taken as primary ones. Where it's hypotheses, - it's not obligate to be used. The formal limitation is that "Socionics" as a term should be used only when you stay in the borders of Jung and Augustinavichiute.

From Jung-Socionics theory I'm using: 4 dichotomies, 8 functions, functions strong/weak, functions valued/nonvalued, intertype theory. May use some parts of model A (for example, "role function" seems as useful sometimes). The more of theory and more doubtful and muddy it is - the higher chance of mistakes. This parts of the theory is enough to identify types, to suppose better pairs for people, to offer better occupations, regions of self improvement, etc.

The example of what I reject is the usage of Reinin's traits. Though formally those (mb some of them) can be related to Socionics and Augustinavichiute. That appeared later in her texts, so can be also said as not classical Socionics. 
There is also new theory from other authors besides Jung and Augustinavichiute, for example about subtypes by V. Gulenko. It's not Socionics and often too much doubtful. Sometimes it's called as Socionics - while it's not! There can be just any mess. On Russian and English sites relating to Socionics (as they claim) you easily may meet a theory mix of very different levels to trust and of distance from Jung and Augustinavichiute. A novice who do not know original texts, who never read good Russian texts, - can't distinguish what is what there.

To now moment, the only Socionics source in English what I may recommend is a book by Filatova. It's useful to read Jung "Psychological types". And mb Augustinavichiute's texts if there are good translated ones. There are popular Russian books about Socionics written for beginners and close to classics which mb useful to read too (Beskova, Gorenko). Only after understanding these basics you may read any mess about types and to have a criticism to it. I prefer do not risk to use new theories which are far from the core theory and so have no much interest to that - when those will be proved objectively, then mb I'll use them.


----------



## Blue Ribbon

Sol_ said:


> they use the same types and hence match totally where MBTI uses Jung's theory instead of nonsense alike where MBTI texts have assigned wrong functions to introverted types
> 
> also* the ones who claim to use Socionics not always use it, *but use theories of other authors besides Jung and Augustinavichiute.
> also some parts of Jung and Augustinavichiute's texts are doubtful as Reinin's traits (she used seriously only some of those traits, but all of them are baseless). not all, but many ones may use those doubtful parts
> 
> the mismatch in practical cases mostly should happen not from theories, but from the lack of skills and methods imperfectness


I think this is an important takeaway. A lot of people who claim to be into Socionics give a lot of weird interpretations of the text as well.


----------



## Sol_

Blue Ribbon said:


> A lot of people who claim to be into Socionics give a lot of weird interpretations of the text as well.


It's a minor and mb the least problem - a variety of _reasonable_ interpretations (for example, MBTI has evident nonsense about introverts functions) of the same text. Compared to what I meant in "the ones who claim to use Socionics not always use it", - when on Socionics sites are used theories by different authors outside of Jung and Augustinavichiute's texts. Gulenko's nonsense, for example. Those theory additions can be very far from Jung and Augustinavichiute, have no experimental proof and so should not be trusted and used, and even called as Socionics.

Then goes the problem what parts of Jung and Augustinavichiute texts should be trusted more and used on practice. Jung _core_ theory (his own interpretations of the core theory are lesser meaningful) has more _sense_ and priority above Augustinavichiute and so where she controverts him in acceptive/productive functions and what function is weakest - Jung's view should be taken. Or that her view should be taken as a special or expanded case, what I've tried to do with her "pain" function, - to explain why she've taken it as "polr" but not "suggestive" function like by Jung. It's also possibly to take Augustinavichiute's understanding about extravertion/introvertion as the addition to Jung's understanding (such happens in general Socionics practice) - as there can be done good connection with Jung.
And also there are doubtful parts in Jung's texts (his expanded functions descriptions, for example) and Augustinavichiute's texts (Reinin's traits, for example) which are better to stay away. Even when formally it can be related to Jung typology and Socionics. In practice you'll get more of mistakes and controvertions to core theory in case the used parts are wrong.

A novice which visits Socionics sites can't distinguish these details about the theory he gets there. It need to read basic texts, to think about the written, to watch types on practice. Then he'll understand what is Socionics theory and should do lesser of mistakes in the theory usage.

Then go practical problems. The difference in how the same people's behavior can be associated with types. But it's another story about what methods and information people use for typing and other types theory applications. Though ~50% of typing mismatches may relate to this, but not to theory problems - when people which accept the same and correct theory may decide about different types of the same people.


----------



## Red Panda

Sol_ said:


> INTJ
> By Jung: Ti-Ne-Se-Fe
> By MBTI texts: Ni-Te-Fi-Se [link]
> By Socionics: Ti-Ne [ego block, Socionics uses 8-functional model] , by strenghtes: T-N-F-S


Jung didn't have a stack, both of those are MBTI's. The first one is the first stacks M&B made because they believed the auxiliary will prescriptively be in the opposite attitude to bring balance, which was not Jung's belief, the 2nd is the Grant-Brownsword model they adopted later. Jung's whole book was about how the two attitudes can't be reconciled well consciously, and need the assistance of states such as dreaming to aid with bridging them (called it the 5th function, the Transcendental). A Jungian INTJ with a differentiated auxiliary, would favor it in the preferred attitude as well. Those 8 functions people are using were actually 8 types, and seeing them as 8 functions is a misunderstanding which has produced a lot of confusion and inconsistencies.


----------



## Arthrospira

I think Socionics is like a much more detailed MBTI. I don’t know how they don’t match up, even the PoLR and Inferior functions are the same. Functions are a bit different but I think general descriptions are highly similar. Everyone I know in real life typed the same in both systems (they’re all introverts) so I don’t even know where the switch the last letter idea came from.


----------



## counterintuitive

Arthrospira said:


> I think Socionics is like a much more detailed MBTI. I don’t know how they don’t match up, even the PoLR and Inferior functions are the same. Functions are a bit different but I think general descriptions are highly similar. Everyone I know in real life typed the same in both systems (they’re all introverts) so I don’t even know where the switch the last letter idea came from.


According to your profile, you type as LSI in Socionics, which is a Ti-Se ego type. You type as ISTJ in MBTI, which is an Si-Te type. So the letters match up: ISTj (LSI) and ISTJ. But the functions do not. If the functions are highly similar between the systems, then why do you type as Ti-Se in one system and Si-Te in the other? :tongue:


Btw, my POV is that I don't use the MBTI functions anymore; I only use the Facets (dichotomies) when it comes to MBTI and mostly use Socionics instead. I agree it's a much better system.


----------



## Arthrospira

counterintuitive said:


> According to your profile, you type as LSI in Socionics, which is a Ti-Se ego type. You type as ISTJ in MBTI, which is an Si-Te type. So the letters match up: ISTj (LSI) and ISTJ. But the functions do not. If the functions are highly similar between the systems, then why do you type as Ti-Se in one system and Si-Te in the other? :tongue:
> 
> 
> Btw, my POV is that I don't use the MBTI functions anymore; I only use the Facets (dichotomies) when it comes to MBTI and mostly use Socionics instead. I agree it's a much better system.


Yeah that’s also what I wrote? I said functions are different, general descriptons of types are similar. Ti-Se socionics type and Si-Te MBTI types(not functions on their own) sound pretty close to each other. 

That being said I agree with your second paragraph.


----------



## Grey Wolf

Arthrospira said:


> Yeah that’s also what I wrote? I said functions are different, general descriptons of types are similar. Ti-Se socionics type and Si-Te MBTI types(not functions on their own) sound pretty close to each other.
> 
> That being said I agree with your second paragraph.


Some of the introverted ones are strange, like ISTJ/ISTP. I don't know they got those types mixed up so much. That's why I never got into Socionics much when I thought I was an ISTP. Upon further testing and discovering I was an ENTP recently the Ne-ENTp/ILE fits quite well. I wish it were as easy for the introverted types.


----------



## counterintuitive

Arthrospira said:


> Yeah that’s also what I wrote? I said functions are different, general descriptons of types are similar. Ti-Se socionics type and Si-Te MBTI types(not functions on their own) sound pretty close to each other.
> 
> That being said I agree with your second paragraph.


Ok. When you wrote "Functions are a bit different but I think general descriptions are highly similar.", I interpreted that as _Functions are a bit different but I think general descriptions *of the functions* are highly similar._

I agree with the part of your post that I underlined. Understood now. Thanks.


----------



## Eren Jaegerbomb

It's weird. In MBTI I am INFP, in socionics I'm INFJ.

However in MBTI INFP and INFJ are totally different from each other. It's like in socionics they labeled the "judging" function as literally judgement of people instead of making a decision based on the environment or whatever the J types do in MBTI.

MBTI judging types prefer a routine and more structured environment, they would do good like working in the military because it's all routines and pre-planned activities etc. Its not about how you judge other people...

I really do not like routines where it's the same everyday, very predictable and that's just boring. I'm spontaneous, that's the most fun! So according to MBTI I am definitely a P type. If I really need a routine I can do the same things everyday but it doesn't have to be at the same time everyday. (Except for waking up.)

So IDK what's going on here lol.


Maybe I am ENFP. O.O or ISFP.... 

Well... whatever... :biggrin:


----------



## Ocean Helm

HoW iS aIr NoT tHe SaMe ThInG aS wAtEr?!? ThEy EvEn CaLl WaTeR aIr In InDoNeSiA!!!


----------



## Arthrospira

Eren Jaegerbomb said:


> It's weird. In MBTI I am INFP, in socionics I'm INFJ.
> 
> However in MBTI INFP and INFJ are totally different from each other. It's like in socionics they labeled the "judging" function as literally judgement of people instead of making a decision based on the environment or whatever the J types do in MBTI.
> 
> MBTI judging types prefer a routine and more structured environment, they would do good like working in the military because it's all routines and pre-planned activities etc. Its not about how you judge other people...
> 
> I really do not like routines where it's the same everyday, very predictable and that's just boring. I'm spontaneous, that's the most fun! So according to MBTI I am definitely a P type. If I really need a routine I can do the same things everyday but it doesn't have to be at the same time everyday. (Except for waking up.)
> 
> So IDK what's going on here lol.
> 
> 
> Maybe I am ENFP. O.O or ISFP....
> 
> Well... whatever... :biggrin:


Actually J/P determines whether you use a judging/perceiving function dominantly(socionics) or extravertedly(MBTI). In my experience J doesn’t have much to do with how planned you are rather than how your decision-making works. Military isn’t simply high structure, I know an ISTJ who’s hated his time in the army due to how redundant most of the things he did was. That being said both my INFP and INFJ friends typed as the same dichtonomies in both systems so it also depends on the person.


----------



## Miss Sophia 124

Arthrospira said:


> Actually J/P determines whether you use a judging/perceiving function dominantly(socionics) or extravertedly(MBTI). In my experience J doesn’t have much to do with how planned you are rather than how your decision-making works. Military isn’t simply high structure, I know an ISTJ who’s hated his time in the army due to how redundant most of the things he did was. That being said both my INFP and INFJ friends typed as the same dichtonomies in both systems so it also depends on the person.


Yes, yes. Sometimes people think I'm a perceiver because I struggle with things like organizing my time and punctuality. Remember the person who created MBTI Isabel Myers, would probably be bowling alley while all the "stereotype" mbti novices are paying the INFP (Isabel Myers' self mbti type) money or at least pay for the taxi ride (two-way trip, to and back) to go to the bowling alley.


----------



## TKDfan888

I think that I am a MBTI INFJ (I could be mistyped) and an ESI-Se in Socionics (I could very well be a Ti/Te ego type though).

I am NOT an IEI. That is one of the farthest Socionics types from my personality; I don't understand why I thought I was an IEI.

I may be an introvert but I do not experience the j/p switch. Socionics and MBTI define the functions differently. A MBTI INFJ can be an IEI, EII, or even ILI.


----------



## TKDfan888

Socionics xSIs are not described in the way that MBTI ISxPs are described as. Both of the xSIs are described like ISxJs, especially if they are type 1 ISxJs. LSI seems like a MBTI ISTJ and an ESI seems like a ISxJ type 1.


----------



## LadyBlueShoes

TKDfan888 said:


> Socionics xSIs are not described in the way that MBTI ISxPs are described as. Both of the xSIs are described like ISxJs, especially if they are type 1 ISxJs. LSI seems like a MBTI ISTJ and an ESI seems like a ISxJ type 1.


I would concur with this. It seems the Socionists don't quite understand ISTps and ISTjs for some reason. I've heard a lot of professional Socionists are Alpha Quadra, so that might be relevant in an explanation. I do believe the types should otherwise match, with a j/p switch for introverts.


----------



## TKDfan888

LadyBlueShoes said:


> I would concur with this. It seems the Socionists don't quite understand ISTps and ISTjs for some reason. I've heard a lot of professional Socionists are Alpha Quadra, so that might be relevant in an explanation. I do believe the types should otherwise match, with a j/p switch for introverts.


So you are saying that LSI = ISTP and ESI = ISFP? I can definitely see ESI in me, but there is no way that I am an ISFP in JCF. I am a 1w2 and I am very “J.” Correlation does not equal causation.


----------



## LadyBlueShoes

TKDfan888 said:


> So you are saying that LSI = ISTP and ESI = ISFP? I can definitely see ESI in me, but there is no way that I am an ISFP in JCF. I am a 1w2 and I am very “J.” Correlation does not equal causation.


I'm not sure I see an exact correlation for these types, especially for ISTPs and ISTJs.


----------



## Max

I’m ESTP and probably SEE-Se in Socionics now that I worked it out myself and found my best fit type. Functions are defined a bit different in both systems. Sometimes the totes overlap, sometimes not. They are two different, distinct systems and your MBTI type and Socionics type aren’t always the same. 


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## Abraxas

DavidH said:


> Bill prefers art. Bill is good at art.
> Bob prefers art. Bob is bad at art.
> 
> Socionics is your biological neurological strengths. MBTI is only what you prefer. What you prefer has no bearing on what your biological neurological strengths are, nor vice versa.


This is so succinct and well-put, I'm going to start quoting it everywhere I see people with the same confusion.

This is exactly the correct answer to the OP's question.


----------



## Electra

I can't remember what my socionics profile was, but I remember it didn't fit me. I'd like to test my self again, it's been a while.


----------



## Abraxas

Electra said:


> I can't remember what my socionics profile was, but I remember it didn't fit me. I'd like to test my self again, it's been a while.


I would recommend against testing yourself, but instead, find someone who the socionics community considers an expert and get them to do a verbal interview with you or analyze your text. An important distinction between MBTI and Socionics is their method of analysis of a person's TIM. The consensus within Socionics is that a person is unable to completely "mask" their personality when they communicate because of the information elements they have very little control or awareness of. But when you do a self-report inventory, you're just feeding the same information you put out back into your own brain, not allowing it to interact with anyone else or be processed by other TIMs, and thus your results will usually be extremely skewed or even upside down.

I'm by no means an expert and I'm still trying to memorize this stuff after many years of study, but I'd be willing to take a shot at it, at the very least for some practice to make sure I remember everything correctly, if you decide to post your answers to one of the questionnaires.


----------



## Electra

Abraxas said:


> I would recommend against testing yourself, but instead, find someone who the socionics community considers an expert and get them to do a verbal interview with you or analyze your text. An important distinction between MBTI and Socionics is their method of analysis of a person's TIM. The consensus within Socionics is that a person is unable to completely "mask" their personality when they communicate because of the information elements they have very little control or awareness of. But when you do a self-report inventory, you're just feeding the same information you put out back into your own brain, not allowing it to interact with anyone else or be processed by other TIMs, and thus your results will usually be extremely skewed or even upside down.
> 
> I'm by no means an expert and I'm still trying to memorize this stuff after many years of study, but I'd be willing to take a shot at it, at the very least for some practice to make sure I remember everything correctly, if you decide to post your answers to one of the questionnaires.


I think i'd like that  thanks!


----------



## Electra

Abraxas said:


> I would recommend against testing yourself, but instead, find someone who the socionics community considers an expert and get them to do a verbal interview with you or analyze your text. An important distinction between MBTI and Socionics is their method of analysis of a person's TIM. The consensus within Socionics is that a person is unable to completely "mask" their personality when they communicate because of the information elements they have very little control or awareness of. But when you do a self-report inventory, you're just feeding the same information you put out back into your own brain, not allowing it to interact with anyone else or be processed by other TIMs, and thus your results will usually be extremely skewed or even upside down.
> 
> I'm by no means an expert and I'm still trying to memorize this stuff after many years of study, but I'd be willing to take a shot at it, at the very least for some practice to make sure I remember everything correctly, if you decide to post your answers to one of the questionnaires.


Abrax I took a socionics test and scored IEI-the romantic


----------



## Abraxas

Electra said:


> Abrax I took a socionics test and scored IEI-the romantic


Cool. That would make you the same TIM as me actually. But I still think doing like an interview with someone, ideally a few pairs, gets you the best picture of yourself. The reason for this approach is because everyone has blind spots, right? Even if you read about this stuff, it doesn't mean you can do everything just as well as everyone else, in fact, the biggest difference between MBTI and socionics is the intertype relationships aspect of it that shows how people interact with each other in different situations. The basic premise is that you cannot "do" your weak functions as well as someone for whom those functions are strong. It isn't a matter of preference. I may prefer to do something I'm bad at for instance, because I just like doing it, even if other people are better suited to do it than me and I will never compete with them. If I then base my personality on that information, I might think I'm someone very different from what I actually am. So in this way you can get people with different perspectives that they are not in control of to look at you from that perspective and you will get a slightly different version of yourself from them. However, ask enough people who look at you differently who are all saying the same thing about you and maybe that's a clue that something is going on you aren't aware of inside yourself that is very important to include in your understanding of yourself, but that you alone cannot ever learn because of the blind spots in how you process information. The information just isn't accessible to you the way it is to someone who can see it clearly, and the reverse is true as well of course. You will know things about them, and about yourself that they cannot see either because they aren't the same as you.

Like, I often get accused of thinking I'm telepathic just because I can claim I'm more aware of what the other person is feeling than they themselves are aware. And that I'm arrogant because I have the ability through my white intuition to see patterns they cannot see that show me what their past might have been or what their future will be, and I can just observe how a person feels and put this information together in my head and know a person better than they know themselves. But I also miss things and I'm not perfect. I have my own blindness, which is mainly that I have willpower issues, I don't see how important it is that I actually fight for something in life. I care so much about my spiritual direction and my inner peace that I avoid any and all forms of responsibility, and that has led to me not understanding why people can get so aggressive sometimes when they want to achieve something. I simply will not ever, EVER be able to respond to that information the way other people do, so I need someone else in my life to help me with that stuff. I need someone who will motivate me to experience life in the fast lane, fight for things, how to fight properly, how to argue without being an asshole, because I suck at fighting and I suck at that stuff in general. I can't project force GRACEFULLY. It's crude and primitive when I do it and often I just seem passive aggressive, and to be honest, I usually am, because it's a weak spot for me.


----------



## Electra

Abraxas said:


> Cool. That would make you the same TIM as me actually. But I still think doing like an interview with someone, ideally a few pairs, gets you the best picture of yourself. The reason for this approach is because everyone has blind spots, right? Even if you read about this stuff, it doesn't mean you can do everything just as well as everyone else, in fact, the biggest difference between MBTI and socionics is the intertype relationships aspect of it that shows how people interact with each other in different situations. The basic premise is that you cannot "do" your weak functions as well as someone for whom those functions are strong. It isn't a matter of preference. I may prefer to do something I'm bad at for instance, because I just like doing it, even if other people are better suited to do it than me and I will never compete with them. If I then base my personality on that information, I might think I'm someone very different from what I actually am. So in this way you can get people with different perspectives that they are not in control of to look at you from that perspective and you will get a slightly different version of yourself from them. However, ask enough people who look at you differently who are all saying the same thing about you and maybe that's a clue that something is going on you aren't aware of inside yourself that is very important to include in your understanding of yourself, but that you alone cannot ever learn because of the blind spots in how you process information. The information just isn't accessible to you the way it is to someone who can see it clearly, and the reverse is true as well of course. You will know things about them, and about yourself that they cannot see either because they aren't the same as you.
> 
> Like, I often get accused of thinking I'm telepathic just because I can claim I'm more aware of what the other person is feeling than they themselves are aware. And that I'm arrogant because I have the ability through my white intuition to see patterns they cannot see that show me what their past might have been or what their future will be, and I can just observe how a person feels and put this information together in my head and know a person better than they know themselves. But I also miss things and I'm not perfect. I have my own blindness, which is mainly that I have willpower issues, I don't see how important it is that I actually fight for something in life. I care so much about my spiritual direction and my inner peace that I avoid any and all forms of responsibility, and that has led to me not understanding why people can get so aggressive sometimes when they want to achieve something. I simply will not ever, EVER be able to respond to that information the way other people do, so I need someone else in my life to help me with that stuff. I need someone who will motivate me to experience life in the fast lane, fight for things, how to fight properly, how to argue without being an asshole, because I suck at fighting and I suck at that stuff in general. I can't project force GRACEFULLY. It's crude and primitive when I do it and often I just seem passive aggressive, and to be honest, I usually am, because it's a weak spot for me.


Thank you for your long reply! You do sound a lot like me. I also struggle with much the same things. I have taken a course in jow to set limits for my self and say no, actually. It was called an "assertiveness-course" I think  
I think you do great, for example it was superkind of you to wtite me this long and interesting feedback for free, and you prolly do that a lot, how many other people do such things? I do have execution problems (I have adhd). I tend to drink several cups off coffee each day, haha. Well I hope you find everything that you look for in life. Thank you SO much for this information which could hwlp me grow as a person! I deeply appreciate all the effort you put in


----------



## Abraxas

Electra said:


> Thank you for your long reply! You do sound a lot like me. I also struggle with much the same things. I have taken a course in jow to set limits for my self and say no, actually. It was called an "assertiveness-course" I think
> I think you do great, for example it was superkind of you to wtite me this long and interesting feedback for free, and you prolly do that a lot, how many other people do such things? I do have execution problems (I have adhd). I tend to drink several cups off coffee each day, haha. Well I hope you find everything that you look for in life. Thank you SO much for this information which could hwlp me grow as a person! I deeply appreciate all the effort you put in


You're so nice! Thank you for the kind words!

I worry maybe I spend too much of my time doing this stuff and trying to help people understand it better, but I really think it can be useful as long as it doesn't cause a lot of frustration. I posted a questionnaire thread that I typed up from a book on Socionics that I own if you want to check it out sometime. It's in the Socionics Type sub-forum.

P.S. I was diagnosed with ADHD when I was younger, but after 4 years they said I didn't have it anymore. And I also drink a lot of coffee everyday, lol.


----------



## Ocean Helm

LadyBlueShoes said:


> I'm not sure I see an exact correlation for these types, especially for ISTPs and ISTJs.


There's definitely no exact correlation but pretty sure not flipping the letters gives you the best chance of being right.

LSE (ESTj) - can often type as intuitive or introverted in MBTI
LIE (ENTj) - can be very chaotic and type as MBTI ENTP
EIE (ENFj) - maybe the most emotionally chaotic/turbulent type, more likely ENFP than ENFJ
ESE (ESFj) - can be really any MBTI ExFx type
SEE (ESFp) - can be really any extraverted MBTI types except ENxP is unlikely
SLE (ESTp) - very likely ESTJ, bossy and enforcing of hierarchy. Can also be ENTJ/ESTP though
ILE (ENTp) - more NP in MBTI than anything - INTPs often are this. Some ENTps are typed as ENFJ in MBTI.
IEE (ENFp) - can often type as introverted or judging in MBTI


----------



## Lunacik

10 points for anyone who thinks MBTI / Socio = the same and can list out the ""function stacks"" of the ""same types"" side by side next to each other 

What's that? A Ti "dom" has their greatest weakness in Se in Socionics, and not Fe?
And it's defined differently than Jugian Function Se too?

Looks like little Johnny didn't do their homework!


----------



## Lunacik

TKDfan888 said:


> I think that I am a MBTI INFJ (I could be mistyped) and an ESI-Se in Socionics (I could very well be a Ti/Te ego type though).
> 
> I am NOT an IEI. That is one of the farthest Socionics types from my personality; I don't understand why I thought I was an IEI.
> 
> I may be an introvert but I do not experience the j/p switch. Socionics and MBTI define the functions differently. A MBTI INFJ can be an IEI, EII, or even ILI.


I agree that an INFJ can be the other two, but ILI / INFJ is quite a stretch even with the Fe function and Fe IE being different.


----------



## Ocean Helm

Hexcoder said:


> I agree that an INFJ can be the other two, but ILI / INFJ is quite a stretch even with the Fe function and Fe IE being different.


LII isn't a stretch though especially with how some people treat the INFJ type (for instance Michael Pierce would be LII).


----------



## Lunacik

Ocean Helm said:


> LII isn't a stretch though especially with how some people treat the INFJ type (for instance Michael Pierce would be LII).


Agreed, I don't think LII is too much of a stretch.


----------

