# MBTI Socionics Translations



## holysouljellyroll (May 9, 2013)

Sorry if this question has been asked into the ground already. I understand that judging and perceiving in socionics are about whether your dominant function is a judging(F/T) or perceiving(N/S) function and that INFP translates to INFJ because INFP's dominant function is Fi. I don't understand that MBTI INFP uses Si and Te and the equivalent type in socionics uses Ti and Se. Are Ti/Te and Si/Se to be understood differently in socionics? Because I understand my Si as it works with my Ne and I don't understand how I am using Se unless it means something else here?


----------



## Inguz (Mar 10, 2012)

It is correct that j/p is being decided by the leading function (or Information Element as it is called in socionics, shortened as IM). The difference is that MBTI uses upper case J/P while socionics uses lower case j/p, for example ENFP in MBTI and ENFp in socionics.

It is true that the different functions are defined differently in socionics compared to MBTI, however this is not the reason why the IMs are listed the way that they are. The socionics Model A (yes there is more than one, but this one is the most commonly used) has a different structure compared to MBTI -- Model A is two-dimensional compared to MBTI being one-dimensional. This is then structure according to these blocks, the first block being your preferred and strong elements, followed by the second one which you generally dislike or have little patience for. Then there is two more blocks, but only block 1 and block 3 is called "valued", meaning that these are the IMs that you prefer over the ones in the 2nd and 4th block. So a way to look at it is that block 1&3 is the elements that you prefer (for INFj is it Fi+Ne and then Si+Te).

You can take a look at it here: http://www.the16types.info/vbulleti...Functions-of-the-Socionic-Model-of-the-Psyche
I know that it is all overwhelming at first, but you can see the structure there and read more if you want to.

And here is another article about the information elements if you feel like reading up on that: http://www.the16types.info/vbulletin/content.php/73-Socionics-Information-Elements-Primer 

And a socionics wiki if you want a better overview of it all: http://www.wikisocion.org/en/index.php?title=Wikisocion_home


----------



## holysouljellyroll (May 9, 2013)

Inguz said:


> It is correct that j/p is being decided by the leading function (or Information Element as it is called in socionics, shortened as IM). The difference is that MBTI uses upper case J/P while socionics uses lower case j/p, for example ENFP in MBTI and ENFp in socionics.
> 
> It is true that the different functions are defined differently in socionics compared to MBTI, however this is not the reason why the IMs are listed the way that they are. The socionics Model A (yes there is more than one, but this one is the most commonly used) has a different structure compared to MBTI -- Model A is two-dimensional compared to MBTI being one-dimensional. This is then structure according to these blocks, the first block being your preferred and strong elements, followed by the second one which you generally dislike or have little patience for. Then there is two more blocks, but only block 1 and block 3 is called "valued", meaning that these are the IMs that you prefer over the ones in the 2nd and 4th block. So a way to look at it is that block 1&3 is the elements that you prefer (for INFj is it Fi+Ne and then Si+Te).
> 
> ...


Thanks so much.  I guess what I don't understand is that in MBTI I'm preferring Si and Te over Se and Ti and in socionics my preference is the other way around regarding that? I don't know if you answered this and I just didn't understand? I'll check out those links though.


----------



## Inguz (Mar 10, 2012)

holysouljellyroll said:


> Thanks so much.  I guess what I don't understand is that in MBTI I'm preferring Si and Te over Se and Ti and in socionics my preference is the other way around regarding that? I don't know if you answered this and I just didn't understand? I'll check out those links though.


First there is no necessity in using the same functions in both systems. Secondly if we do try to make a translation anyway, INFP uses Fi-Ne-Si-Te in MBTI and in socionics INFj prefers Fi+Ne in the first block and Si+Te in the third block. So in that regard there is no difference, but socionics is a much, much more extensive and complex theory.


----------



## Sleepy (Jan 18, 2009)

holysouljellyroll said:


> Sorry if this question has been asked into the ground already. I understand that judging and perceiving in socionics are about whether your dominant function is a judging(F/T) or perceiving(N/S) function and that INFP translates to INFJ because INFP's dominant function is Fi. I don't understand that MBTI INFP uses Si and Te and the equivalent type in socionics uses Ti and Se. Are Ti/Te and Si/Se to be understood differently in socionics? Because I understand my Si as it works with my Ne and I don't understand how I am using Se unless it means something else here?


Just forget MBTI and go socionics 100%. The socionics model of the psyche is correct and no need for any conversions. MBTI is sort of an approximation of the real types. You might not see it now, but you will thank me later.



> Are Ti/Te and Si/Se to be understood differently in socionics?


YES!

Si = comfort, sensuality, health etc.
Se = power, concrete reality


----------



## Zero11 (Feb 7, 2010)

Sleepy said:


> Si = comfort, sensuality, health etc.


Enneagram Self-Preservation Instinct isn´t really an argument for Socionics even if it´s not completely away from the truth.


----------



## Sleepy (Jan 18, 2009)

Zero11 said:


> Enneagram Self-Preservation Instinct isn´t really an argument for Socionics even if it´s not completely away from the truth.


I think I see what you mean. 

Si as health etc. is not to be taken as a formal definition. _It is a hint_. When we talk socionics we talk socionics, and things are referred to in a context of something very specific (model A in the psyche). There is a lot in a person that can be confused for being socionics related. It's up to each of us to do the work to learn what to look for and isolate this phenomenon.


----------



## Figure (Jun 22, 2011)

Yeah, Self-Pres and Si are a lookalikes. As an Ni type and Self-Pres in the enneagram, I can see how it's a huge confusion. The difference seems to be that Si is almost always physically/sensually aware, Self Pres doesn't have to be. Si types seem to take in information about their surroundings and may notice sensual differences, similarities, or disparities. 

A good example is my SEI mom and I when we used to get ready for me to go back to college. Mom would spend a lot of time going through what to take and what not to take, and paid close attention to packing clothes and necessities in certain ways that keep things organized so it would be neat when we got there (Si). I simply throw everything into a bag figuring I can deal with it later and don't care much about what is going anyway, but spent my time strategizing which classes with which professors were good fits given my type (haha), and whose classes were possible or not possible to get into. Both of us were focused on goals pertaining to self preservation, but my Si mom was paying more attention to the physical details while I was looking at what would give future payout. 

Think about how you spend your time, and how that may be different for other types - it helps delineate what you're putting your cognitive focus on.


----------



## holysouljellyroll (May 9, 2013)

Inguz said:


> First there is no necessity in using the same functions in both systems. Secondly if we do try to make a translation anyway, INFP uses Fi-Ne-Si-Te in MBTI and in socionics INFj prefers Fi+Ne in the first block and Si+Te in the third block. So in that regard there is no difference, but socionics is a much, much more extensive and complex theory.


I see! That's what I wasn't getting, thank you.


----------



## holysouljellyroll (May 9, 2013)

Sleepy said:


> Just forget MBTI and go socionics 100%. The socionics model of the psyche is correct and no need for any conversions. MBTI is sort of an approximation of the real types. You might not see it now, but you will thank me later.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Those are basically the differences between Si and Se in MBTI though aren't they? Part of the way I understand Si and Se is that Si is more oriented toward the past and Se more oriented toward the present, is that the case in socionics or no?


----------



## Entropic (Jun 15, 2012)

holysouljellyroll said:


> Those are basically the differences between Si and Se in MBTI though aren't they? Part of the way I understand Si and Se is that Si is more oriented toward the past and Se more oriented toward the present, is that the case in socionics or no?


Yes.


----------



## Inguz (Mar 10, 2012)

holysouljellyroll said:


> Those are basically the differences between Si and Se in MBTI though aren't they? Part of the way I understand Si and Se is that Si is more oriented toward the past and Se more oriented toward the present, is that the case in socionics or no?


No, it is not. Time is related to Ni, and since sensors got weaker intuition in general they will be more oriented towards the present. In the case of ESTj it does as an example turn out as excessive planning as Ni is their weakest function, they do not feel comfortable in speculations of time and therefore utilize their base (Te) to make schedules, routines and so on in order for the future to feel more predictable.


----------



## OrangeAppled (Jun 26, 2009)

holysouljellyroll said:


> Those are basically the differences between Si and Se in MBTI though aren't they? Part of the way I understand Si and Se is that Si is more oriented toward the past and Se more oriented toward the present, is that the case in socionics or no?


You'll notice that socionics is more behavioral, and even delves into what is "valued". 
MBTI is more true to Jung, focusing on psychological orientation to consciousness. 

To say Si is focus on the past is incorrect. Jung does not describe it this way. Rather, it's a focus on the arbitrary elements of reality that have stricken the individual enough to make an impact, and this is arbitrary because it has little relation to how forceful the experience actually is. It may seem totally mundane & not note-worthy to many other people. That's why Si is compared to impressionistic art; it's a highly individualized view of reality. 

The person tends to then, take on a mindset of being focused on what is most SURE about reality, or what they can predict about it. Because they are so enamored with their storehouse of impressions & facts, they enjoy experiencing them over & over again, and newness can be disruptive, perhaps shaking their inner vision of what is "real". They are introverts who very much want to feel what is real, but having the focus on the inner world, they end up recreating a sort of sentimental version within. They develop Je (Fe or Te) as a complement - a way to control and harness reality, to make it fit their internal model of how "reality is". They use external sources for their reasoning systems, as way to learn about what works & what does not, especially when they must deal with novelty. This makes them prone to taking in a lot of info, often about a niche area which interests them. They can range from rather ordinary, earthy kind of people to somewhat bookish, neurotic types.

You can see how this is simplified as a focus on the past, as the Si type finds experience of their own & of trusted experts to be "reality". But that oversimplification misses many nuances that can lead to mistyping (usually as something other than a Si type).

Se is not just focus on the present. It's focus on what is most relevant & striking in the moment, just as it is. This does not have to be action, but also information, conversation, even theory. But it's only interesting so much as it stimulates them NOW, not what it has done before nor will become. This is why they are seen as pragmatic and doers - if it's not real then it's not relevant to them. Similar to the Si-dom, what is real is what is most striking to them, but they give it a broader context of the outer world and discriminate less, meaning they prefer to jump from experience to experience, to get a wide sense of what is "real".
They also make things happen by jumping on something NOW, not bothering to delay gratification or plan it out, but merging with the moment as it develops. This can make them impulsive at times with a lack of foresight, but it can also make them good at taking advantage of things as they arise. They can manipulate situations as they happen well, sometimes by giving people the same sense of immediacy they have, drawing them into the moment & making it appear that there is no other option than what is real right NOW (hence associations with sales people, hahaha). The person may also seek out opportunities to experience more, and an impatience to do so can make them abandon something that is not currently very stimulating. They will have a drive to experience new sensations, and they tend to trust experience (their own or "general experience" of people) over abstract ideas. Their mentality, like the Si-dom, is focused on perceiving what is most REAL, but less so about what is sure, predictable, and the idealization of experiences, and more so on a broad grasp of how the world is, so as not to control it to fit an inner picture (like the Si type often does), but to merge with it as it unfolds, to really be a part of it. This is why they can seem very "alive" to people, experiencing sensory life very fully.

So yes, a connection to the present moment, but not to be misunderstood as having no big picture or no taste for novelty. They tend to get a big picture as their experience grows, and they are less detail oriented than focused on the over all impact. This is why people confuse a fair amount of Se types with Ne types.

When you think of Jungian types that way, you can see how MBTI was formed (and newer theories are more complex, such as Lenore Thompson's stacking or Beebe's & Beren's models).


----------



## Inguz (Mar 10, 2012)

@OrangeAppled Hey, you have good insight about Jung although in this thread we try to focus on socionics theory.


----------



## OrangeAppled (Jun 26, 2009)

Inguz said:


> @_OrangeAppled_ Hey, you have good insight about Jung although in this thread we try to focus on socionics theory.


I took the title to be contrast/comparison.


----------



## Inguz (Mar 10, 2012)

OrangeAppled said:


> I took the title to be contrast/comparison.


If you look at the question posed again you'll see that it is a question about how Si and Se relates to time in socionics.


----------



## Kanerou (Oct 8, 2009)

Inguz said:


> If you look at the question posed again you'll see that it is a question about how Si and Se relates to time in socionics.


Taken sheerly as a clarification/correction of the OP's statement of "Si = past, Se = present in MBTI" (yes, I'm simplifying a bit here), I don't see it as particularly out of place. Think of it as someone asking "if (premise) then (conclusion)?" and someone else explaining the error within the starting premise while offering a better perspective on it.


----------



## Inguz (Mar 10, 2012)

Kanerou said:


> Taken sheerly as a clarification/correction of the OP's statement of "Si = past, Se = present in MBTI" (yes, I'm simplifying a bit here), I don't see it as particularly out of place. Think of it as someone asking "if (premise) then (conclusion)?" and someone else explaining the error within the starting premise while offering a better perspective on it.


Quite a bit. Think of it this way "if (premise) then do I need a new (premise) for a (conclusion) about (new subject)?"


----------



## Kanerou (Oct 8, 2009)

@Inguz "Quite a bit" what, exactly?


----------



## Inguz (Mar 10, 2012)

Kanerou said:


> @_Inguz_ "Quite a bit" what, exactly?


"Quite a bit" of simplification.


----------

