# Socionics vs. MBTI. What do you prefer, and for what reason(s)?



## itsme45 (Jun 8, 2012)

aestrivex said:


> why, by baseless conjecture, of course!


Meh, Lol


----------



## aestrivex (Mar 7, 2011)

itsme45 said:


> Meh, Lol


if you have not figured it out, my glib frivolity typically has an element of truth. the extent of that element varies widely, i admit...


----------



## itsme45 (Jun 8, 2012)

aestrivex said:


> if you have not figured it out, my glib frivolity typically has an element of truth. the extent of that element varies widely, i admit...


Yeah, I thought so


----------



## Bricolage (Jul 29, 2012)

cyamitide said:


> a chart i found comparing MBTI to Socionics


Methods similar to medical...I always find it funny when psychology tries to substantiate itself like that. At any rate, I would say the biggest difference is four functions (MBTI) versus eight functions (Socionics), although the function orders are dissimilar as well.


----------



## FlightsOfFancy (Dec 30, 2012)

unctuousbutler said:


> Methods similar to medical...I always find it funny when psychology tries to substantiate itself like that. At any rate, I would say the biggest difference is four functions (MBTI) versus eight functions (Socionics), although the function orders are dissimilar as well.


The MBTI would gain so much more credulity if it were written in the fashion of typelogic.com/"Was that really me?" (I believe that's the book) in which they describe the functions in terms of their positive, neutral, and negative effects. Also, some of the maladaptive signs/behaviors of reliance on a few functions and simultaneous exclusion of others would lend it credence as well.

*Aside (My unwanted 2 cents):*
I don't personally think it's fair to claim Socionics is better in the objective/empirical sense. I believe its internal logical consistency is far better. Occam's razor may be a little upset with the intertype/quadra-value bases; some are so complex that you wonder if they are describing one person--surely, an SEE in Western society will not have values of that of an Eastern, etc. Race, socio-economic status, sex, upbringing, and other factors may indeed have a large toll. 

The MBTI's weakness and strength arises from its palpability--NTs, SJs, SPs, NFs. These are quite like the quadra values in a loose sense; in fact, its just a much looser version of it from my current understanding. But it leaves enough ambiguity in it to actually have it "fit"; I can more EASILY find the intellectual-masturbators from the adrenaline junkies than I can the merry/aristocratic etc (if this sounded stereotyped, it's because that's what the MBTI does quite a lot..). However, it really throws people for a loop when, in reality, people don't exist on these extremes. 

In essence, I think socionics has the most going for it, but it loses some potential by trying too hard to fit all of human behavior/cognition; the MBTI is in the same vein of saying, "Asians are good at math" at times. 

The best of the three, IMO, is the enneagram--it seems to have qualities of both without being too rigid or too laxed for application. It doesn't breed the same elitism either because it is almost negativistically slanted to begin with. I don't really know why it isn't more on the forefront as its both superficially and introspectively powerful (take a peak at the enneagram typings--the behaviors on the forum are normally, IMO, more correlated with them than sociotype/MBTI)

END 2 Cents


----------



## Yedra (Jul 28, 2012)

itsme45 said:


> You talk about liking/disliking people. I assume you meant to connect this to your statement that relationships depend on type. However, I can use myself as a counterexample here. I can't put all the people I've liked in my life into the same few categories (type or any other such category). I will also admit I have not attempted to type everyone in my life, I just find it's too difficult without enough information and especially without seeing into their minds, interviewing them on these topics etc. but even if I try that, it often doesn't give unambiguous information for typing. Types are just nowhere near as clear-cut as you make it sound like here :/
> 
> So that's why I found your statement that "it's a fact of life" to be false. It's a statement that's way too strong for the only one real fact: that there are some slight correlations.
> 
> PS: Eh... Don't get me started on VI


I meant like/dislike speaking in the most general terms. What I mean is initial reaction to a person, ease of communication, frequency of conflict/tension, mutual values/interests (okay, to a certain degree) etc. I believe this depends on type. I know how easy communication and solving of arguments is within my own quadra and how difficult basic understanding can be with people from different quadras.

For example, my friends and I are a close-knit group. I am IEI, one is EIE, one LSI, one SLI and one I can't type for the life of me but our relationship can be defined as irresistible force meets immovable object.
We are all close but my communication with the EIE and the LSI is waaay easier than with the other two. There are just no stumbling blocks of misunderstanding. Even when we disagree, we understand where our differences lie. With the other two often a lot of time is spent trying to understand what the other person meant in the first place before discussing it any further.
The SLI and I are not friends because we hit it off well right at the start. If it were for that, we would've never become friends. Circumstances brought us together and we went through a lot of things together and that brought us closer. But if you listened to any of our conversations the difference in outlook would be plainly obvious. But neither of us two is overly confrontational when around each other, that's why we can get along and give each other space.
The untyped one and I always fight or so it would appear to an onlooker, there is definitely more confrontation. It's always about outsmarting the other one and pushing one's worldview onto the other but it's not always in the fun and complementary way. But she is a thoroughly good and fiercely loyal person and that's what matters to me.

And yes types are clear cut, our methods of recognizing them aren't. You might ask how we could know for sure they are if they haven't been proven yet and that would be a valid argument. And while it might be true that it's not a _proven _fact of life, I give you that, I believe it's a fact of life. Don't have the patience to wait for proof.


----------



## itsme45 (Jun 8, 2012)

Yedra said:


> I meant like/dislike speaking in the most general terms. What I mean is initial reaction to a person, ease of communication, frequency of conflict/tension, mutual values/interests (okay, to a certain degree) etc. I believe this depends on type. I know how easy communication and solving of arguments is within my own quadra and how difficult basic understanding can be with people from different quadras.


Yes I meant these things *too* by like/dislike. 

As for explaining them, I think the statement that "this depends on type" is too strong. Forget socionics for a second and think of everything else you've ever heard of before socionics to see how many other influential factors there are. Your own personality is also made up by / affected by a lot of other factors, not just socionics IEs. These functions on their own just don't predetermine everything about you. I'm sure though that communication gets affected by different viewpoints/wordviews, no matter if those worldviews are to do with socionics or not. Part of that may be what socionics talks about, though  (No it doesn't follow that the socionics theory itself must be great too)




> For example, my friends and I are a close-knit group. I am IEI, one is EIE, one LSI, one SLI and one I can't type for the life of me but our relationship can be defined as irresistible force meets immovable object.
> We are all close but my communication with the EIE and the LSI is waaay easier than with the other two. There are just no stumbling blocks of misunderstanding. Even when we disagree, we understand where our differences lie. With the other two often a lot of time is spent trying to understand what the other person meant in the first place before discussing it any further.
> The SLI and I are not friends because we hit it off well right at the start. If it were for that, we would've never become friends. Circumstances brought us together and we went through a lot of things together and that brought us closer. But if you listened to any of our conversations the difference in outlook would be plainly obvious. But neither of us two is overly confrontational when around each other, that's why we can get along and give each other space.
> The untyped one and I always fight or so it would appear to an onlooker, there is definitely more confrontation. It's always about outsmarting the other one and pushing one's worldview onto the other but it's not always in the fun and complementary way. But she is a thoroughly good and fiercely loyal person and that's what matters to me.


I see. Did you by any chance type the LSI and EIE based on the fact you're getting along so good / did you let your typing of them be affected by this fact? I assume so because you mentioned it earlier: "It makes it so much easier to type people IRL by just observing who they associate themselves with and what types they are romantically attracted to. So when I see, for example, that someone identifies as, say, MBTI INTJ and then claims that their husband/wife is ISFJ or something, I immediately think that that is highly unlikely and that someone mistyped either themselves or the other person"

Then there is danger of circular logic. Considered that yet?




> And yes types are clear cut, our methods of recognizing them aren't. You might ask how we could know for sure they are if they haven't been proven yet and that would be a valid argument. And while it might be true that it's not a _proven _fact of life, I give you that, I believe it's a fact of life. Don't have the patience to wait for proof.


Okay. 

I just have to ask, how do you know if not by proof? Intuition eh?


----------



## Entropic (Jun 15, 2012)

@_Yedra_ just for some annoying but interesting food for thought, but did you ever consider ExI, especially ESI instead of IEI? 

I'm kind of with @_itsme45_ on this one and she and I are supposed to be in a conflictor relationship in socionics. While I do tend to automatically flinch away from most SLEs I don't find her presence annoying at all and that could be due to many factors completely unrelated to socionics (whether this would hold true outside of forum experience I cannot say though). I do find that intertype can be a decent tool at figuring out people's types around you but I wouldn't base that on whether I like or dislike someone solely. I would also try to look at things a bit more objectively and study the person's actual cognition. There are plenty of ExIs I don't like on this forum despite that we're all supposed to share the same base function and thus be identicals/kindreds that are both positive relationships as a whole. 

People keep stating this for duals but I am not sure why it's forgotten when it comes to other relationships. Just like engaging with someone who happened to be your dual doesn't mean you will automatically become romantic partners for life because you are duals, engaging with people who in terms of intertype are experienced as positive or negative relationships doesn't mean you must automatically like or dislike them because they happened to reflect this specific intertype relationship, either.

As a whole, I do think sharing functions helps communication but it's not the end of when it comes to our relationships. I'm good friends with an ILI-Ni and despite our differences in rationality-irrationality I don't notice the differences in Ni-Se and Ne-Si. We also think that we are both enneatype 5s really help and smooth out communication because we base our worldview on rationality and logic with similar worldviews even if how we understand the world itself is slightly different. I'm quite sure that there are ILIs out there I would on the other hand find quite annoying and not get along well with at all though, despite commonly shared Fi-Te.

There are also some Te dominants on this forum whose Te drive me utterly up the walls. As much as I enjoy and appreciate good use of Te there's only so much Te I can stand when the person in question for instance entirely rejects everything subjective and tries to generalize everything based on external logical structures. 

Is communication easy? Yes, we both tend to see where we are coming from. Does it mean I like the person? No, it doesn't. Especially if said Te dominant also seems to represent values I do not personally want to represent or associate myself with.


----------



## Yedra (Jul 28, 2012)

itsme45 said:


> Yes I meant these things *too* by like/dislike. As for explaining them, I think the statement that "this depends on type" is too strong.


Why is it too strong? If there is a logical explanation for everything why wouldn't there be one for human relationships?


itsme45 said:


> Forget socionics for a second and think of everything else you've ever heard of before socionics to see how many other influential factors there are. Your own personality is also made up by / affected by a lot of other factors, not just socionics IEs. These functions on their own just don't predetermine everything about you. I'm sure though that communication gets affected by different viewpoints/wordviews, no matter if those worldviews are to do with socionics or not. Part of that may be what socionics talks about, though  (No it doesn't follow that the socionics theory itself must be great too)


I don't expect Socionics, MBTI or any other system to define any person completely but tendencies can be observed, strong tendencies. You don't even have to use any typological terms to group people, it happens naturally. There is no need to be acquainted with Socionics, MBTI etc to know that some people are similar, complementary, different and so on. I'm not claiming that every apple is identical to every other apple there is. I'm saying that you can distinguish between apples, oranges, pears etc based on their basic features.


itsme45 said:


> I see. Did you by any chance type the LSI and EIE based on the fact you're getting along so good / did you let your typing of them be affected by this fact? I assume so because you mentioned it earlier: "It makes it so much easier to type people IRL by just observing who they associate themselves with and what types they are romantically attracted to. So when I see, for example, that someone identifies as, say, MBTI INTJ and then claims that their husband/wife is ISFJ or something, I immediately think that that is highly unlikely and that someone mistyped either themselves or the other person"Then there is danger of circular logic. Considered that yet?


I typed the EIE and the SLI and then I made them take the test and this way I got the confirmation (sort of, you never know for sure). They didn't know anything about typology back then and they don't know much about it now, the EIE toyed with the theory for a day or two and that was it. I haven't made the LSI take the test yet. And I said that I couldn't type the fourth friend, so I don't rely solely on the kind of relationship I have with a person when typing them. And even if I did, where exactly is the problem? If I haven't mistyped myself and if the intertype theory is accurate and if my relationships with other people are the way they are outlined in the descriptions, then what better way is there to type people at the moment? If it's all wrong, it'll be revised one day. If it proves to be right, then great.


itsme45 said:


> Okay. I just have to ask, how do you know if not by proof? Intuition eh?


The patterns are there and I can't unsee them, ha ha!


LeaT said:


> @_Yedra_ just for some annoying but interesting food for thought, but did you ever consider ExI, especially ESI instead of IEI?


Oh sure, I've considered all the introverted types and I still do it now and then. I'm convinced that I am IEI but my world wouldn't collapse if I found out I wasn't. The thing with types is that we all have a certain expectation of what each of them should be like. So when I say I don't think I am ESI, it basically means I don't identify with what I imagine the ESI to be like, while in fact I could be one. Although I said that I considered all the introverted types, I'm pretty sure now that I don't lead with J.


LeaT said:


> I'm kind of with @_itsme45_ on this one and she and I are supposed to be in a conflictor relationship in socionics. While I do tend to automatically flinch away from most SLEs I don't find her presence annoying at all and that could be due to many factors completely unrelated to socionics (whether this would hold true outside of forum experience I cannot say though). I do find that intertype can be a decent tool at figuring out people's types around you but I wouldn't base that on whether I like or dislike someone solely. I would also try to look at things a bit more objectively and study the person's actual cognition. There are plenty of ExIs I don't like on this forum despite that we're all supposed to share the same base function and thus be identicals/kindreds that are both positive relationships as a whole.


That's a good point actually. From what I've seen so far conflict relations between static types are not as dramatic as those between dynamic ones. While the bad communication between an LII and SEE is certainly funny it is not nearly as hostile as it is between ILI and ESE or IEI and LSE.The relations of benefit are also not all the same. I know an SLE-ESE couple and they are married and have a lot of common ground, whereas my SLI friend and her LII boyfriend have almost no interests in common and overall they process information differently. But in both relationships you can observe the benefit theme and both benefactors have the upper hand emotionally speaking. Today I observed the interaction of two identicals. My mom and the SLI's mom are both ESE. They haven't known each other for very long and haven't interacted very often but looking at them today one could think that they've known each other for their entire life, they agreed on every freaking thing, they look at things the same way, have similar reactions and my friend's mom told me later how much she liked my mom and that she can imagine them being real good friends.


LeaT said:


> People keep stating this for duals but I am not sure why it's forgotten when it comes to other relationships. Just like engaging with someone who happened to be your dual doesn't mean you will automatically become romantic partners for life because you are duals, engaging with people who in terms of intertype are experienced as positive or negative relationships doesn't mean you must automatically like or dislike them because they happened to reflect this specific intertype relationship, either.


Of course it doesn't make sense that any time someone encounters their dual, that this person must magically be the love of their life. But from my own experience I can tell that interactions with my duals didn't always grow into the closest bonds but they were the easiest and most natural I've had. It didn't matter whether they were male or female, old or young, something always clicked right away.It's also important how you look at it. It can be observed that certain people have a special effect on each other and Socionics decided to call it dual relations. I don't think it was the other way around, i.e. creating the theory of duals and trying to see if anyone would fit the description in the real world.


LeaT said:


> As a whole, I do think sharing functions helps communication but it's not the end of when it comes to our relationships. I'm good friends with an ILI-Ni and despite our differences in rationality-irrationality I don't notice the differences in Ni-Se and Ne-Si. We also think that we are both enneatype 5s really help and smooth out communication because we base our worldview on rationality and logic with similar worldviews even if how we understand the world itself is slightly different. I'm quite sure that there are ILIs out there I would on the other hand find quite annoying and not get along well with at all though, despite commonly shared Fi-Te.There are also some Te dominants on this forum whose Te drive me utterly up the walls. As much as I enjoy and appreciate good use of Te there's only so much Te I can stand when the person in question for instance entirely rejects everything subjective and tries to generalize everything based on external logical structures. Is communication easy? Yes, we both tend to see where we are coming from. Does it mean I like the person? No, it doesn't. Especially if said Te dominant also seems to represent values I do not personally want to represent or associate myself with.


All I'm saying is that people within a quadra communicate easier, that doesn't mean you will like them and that also doesn't mean you can't like people from other quadras but more conscious effort, monitoring, self-censoring will be necessary to communicate with them.


----------



## iamcharlie (May 2, 2013)

I prefer the function order because it is more accurate than any of the less accurate Socionics or MBTI theories.


----------



## itsme45 (Jun 8, 2012)

Yedra said:


> Why is it too strong? If there is a logical explanation for everything why wouldn't there be one for human relationships?


Doesn't mean we already have the whole/correct explanation.




> I don't expect Socionics, MBTI or any other system to define any person completely but tendencies can be observed, strong tendencies. You don't even have to use any typological terms to group people, it happens naturally. There is no need to be acquainted with Socionics, MBTI etc to know that some people are similar, complementary, different and so on. I'm not claiming that every apple is identical to every other apple there is. I'm saying that you can distinguish between apples, oranges, pears etc based on their basic features.


Yes, it doesn't however mean that socionics is an all-encompassing theory in this area.

Example, there's been quite some research on factors of attraction in social psychology incl. questions on the effect of similarity vs differences that has nothing to do with socionics.




> I typed the EIE and the SLI and then I made them take the test and this way I got the confirmation (sort of, you never know for sure). They didn't know anything about typology back then and they don't know much about it now, the EIE toyed with the theory for a day or two and that was it. I haven't made the LSI take the test yet. And I said that I couldn't type the fourth friend, so I don't rely solely on the kind of relationship I have with a person when typing them. And even if I did, where exactly is the problem? If I haven't mistyped myself and if the intertype theory is accurate and if my relationships with other people are the way they are outlined in the descriptions, then what better way is there to type people at the moment? If it's all wrong, it'll be revised one day. If it proves to be right, then great.


Lots of "IF's" here. -.-

Also, I started from this statement of yours: _"So when I see, for example, that someone identifies as, say, MBTI INTJ and then claims that their husband/wife is ISFJ or something, I immediately think that that is highly unlikely and that someone mistyped either themselves or the other person"

_What would you do/think if it turned out that after all they are really INTJ and ISFJ?




> The patterns are there and I can't unsee them, ha ha!


Hopefully not just apophenia ;P


----------



## Yedra (Jul 28, 2012)

itsme45 said:


> Doesn't mean we already have the whole/correct explanation.


But you agree there is one.




itsme45 said:


> Yes, it doesn't however mean that socionics is an all-encompassing theory in this area.
> 
> Example, there's been quite some research on factors of attraction in social psychology incl. questions on the effect of similarity vs differences that has nothing to do with socionics.


I don't know exactly what data you are referring to, so I can't really comment but socionics as a system can be developed further to explain things that it didn't cover yet. No matter how complex something is, there is a pattern to it and it can be recognized. If, how, who and when is a different matter.




itsme45 said:


> Lots of "IF's" here. -.-


Well, what can I say. No one has proof yet for any of this. We can only speculate. But just because someone else's approach _looks_ better or _looks_ more objective, doesn't mean it's accurate.



itsme45 said:


> Also, I started from this statement of yours: _"So when I see, for example, that someone identifies as, say, MBTI INTJ and then claims that their husband/wife is ISFJ or something, I immediately think that that is highly unlikely and that someone mistyped either themselves or the other person"
> 
> _What would you do/think if it turned out that after all they are really INTJ and ISFJ?


I'd think that it surely must have been an arranged marriage! :laughing:

I'm sure there are such couples once in a blue moon but I'm also pretty sure that they are way outnumbered by INTJ-ISFP or INTJ-ENFP couples, for example.






itsme45 said:


> Hopefully not just apophenia ;P


Very funny.


----------



## itsme45 (Jun 8, 2012)

Yedra said:


> But you agree there is one.


And...?




> I don't know exactly what data you are referring to, so I can't really comment but socionics as a system can be developed further to explain things that it didn't cover yet. No matter how complex something is, there is a pattern to it and it can be recognized. If, how, who and when is a different matter.


Well why not read up on it if you want? 

You'd be surprised to find there's so many things outside socionics.

I don't really see socionics as this all-encompassing theory of everything psychology... how about you?




> Well, what can I say. No one has proof yet for any of this. We can only speculate. But just because someone else's approach _looks_ better or _looks_ more objective, doesn't mean it's accurate.


And...?




> I'd think that it surely must have been an arranged marriage! :laughing:
> 
> I'm sure there are such couples once in a blue moon but I'm also pretty sure that they are way outnumbered by INTJ-ISFP or INTJ-ENFP couples, for example.


Go make a study on that. 




> Very funny.


Oh, you're not too offended I hope. (And yeah I know it wasn't the best joke ever )


----------



## Entropic (Jun 15, 2012)

After studying and actually getting socionics in even greater detail than before, I have to say that socionics is miles ahead of the MBTI. Socionics even manages to make sense why some people type the way they do in the MBTI system. How clever.


----------



## NothingHere (Apr 18, 2013)

I find it confusing to be honest. Socionics says I'm dominant Si with no Se making me not very aggressive while MBTI says I'm dominant Ti with secondary Se and I can be pretty aggressive. Then my enneagram says I'm very aggressive. So what the hell am I? Socionics explains why my comfort zone is so strong with dominant Si but I feel like it's only describing one side of me. MBTI explains me pretty well generally but it's missing some stuff. Not sure if enneagram is to be trusted it doesn't seem to be built on anything.

I could probably come up with a better system myself. I would just need to build on MBTI.


----------



## Haydn (Sep 20, 2012)

I have studied both over a period of several years and I do not think I prefer one to the other overall. MBTI has a very good type description of me that clearly describes my functions and behaviors accurately. Socionics describes my relationship with types that have different functions from myself better and more accurately but I think there type descriptions for introverts are weak and confused. 

I really dislike how MBTI is overly positive & makes it seem that we can all get along provided that we are healthy, I think the opposite is true. I really dislike how MBTI almost idealizes certain types including mine. I really dislike how MBTI assumes that for example all NFs would value the same things because they are NF while disregarding the fact that half have totally different functions from the other half and by extension different world views.


----------



## sinigang (May 5, 2012)

sniperpanda said:


> I find it confusing to be honest. *Socionics says I'm dominant Si with no Se making me not very aggressive while MBTI says I'm dominant Ti with secondary Se* and I can be pretty aggressive. Then my enneagram says I'm very aggressive. So what the hell am I? Socionics explains why my comfort zone is so strong with dominant Si but I feel like it's only describing one side of me. MBTI explains me pretty well generally but it's missing some stuff. Not sure if enneagram is to be trusted it doesn't seem to be built on anything.
> 
> I could probably come up with a better system myself. I would just need to build on MBTI.


ISTp is *not* ISTP.

Did you try to find out which socionics type had Ti-Se?


----------



## aestrivex (Mar 7, 2011)

sniperpanda said:


> So what the hell am I?


What you are, apparently, is willing to draw broadly-reaching conclusions despite the fact that have pointed out elsewhere that you know nothing about the subject at hand.


Although, you are in good company.


----------



## NothingHere (Apr 18, 2013)

sinigang said:


> ISTp is *not* ISTP.
> 
> Did you try to find out which socionics type had Ti-Se?


I know that. I tested as an SLI ISTP. Socionics lacks elegance some of the stuff just seems made up.


----------



## Kanerou (Oct 8, 2009)

sniperpanda said:


> I know that. I tested as an SLI ISTP. Also Socionics lacks elegance some of the stuff just seems made up.


The majority of socionics tests are worthless. MBTI tests aren't that great, either. Have you looked through the respective functions/IEs and considered how they apply to you? That's the best way to find your type in either system.


----------

