# Based on the Jungian dichotomies MBTI and Socionics types should be the same



## LibertyPrime (Dec 17, 2010)

....so to simplify MBTI INFP is Socionics IEI or INFp for example.

Introversion/Extroversion is the same in both theories, sensing/intuitive is the same, ethical/logical is the same.

The one difference which most people don't seem to know or notice, which leads me to believe they don't read socionics theory or their understanding of it is lacking (possible trolling included) is that socionics too has the J and P dichotomy...more specifically the following:

*Rationality and irrationality* (also: Judging / Perceiving or Shizotyme / Cyclotyme ) is one of the 4 Jungian dichotomies, and one of the 15 Reinin dichotomies.

*Rational types are:* ESE, LII, EIE, LSI, LIE, ESI, LSE, and EII. <=== MBTI Js
*Irrational types are:* ILE, SEI, SLE, IEI, SEE, ILI, IEE, and SLI. <=== MBTI Ps

*Rationals*

(Also called shizotymes in early socionics literature)

Tend to plan ahead, make decisions early.
Are more often rigid and stubborn.
Do not like to change their decisions.
Tend to finish what they started.
Usually have stiff movements.
Usually more 'authoritarian' leadership style.
Low stress tolerance.

*Irrationals*

(Also called cyclotymes in early socionics literature)

Tend to wait and see, more spontaneous.
Are more often flexible and tolerant.
Change their decisions frequently.
Tend to start new things without finishing them.
Usually have gentle movements.
Usually more 'democratic' leadership style.
High stress tolerance.

*This leads me to believe that if the types differ in the two systems, then the person who has been typed as such...is mistyped either in one or both systems due to certain variables that obscure and make the typing process difficult. *

ESE=ESFJ 
LII=INTJ 
EIE=ENFJ 
LSI= ISTJ 
LIE=ENTJ 
ESI=ISFJ 
LSE=ESTJ
EII=INFJ

ILE=ENTP
SEI=ISFP
SLE=ESTP
IEI=INFP
SEE=ESFP
ILI=INTP
IEE=ENFP
SLI=ISTP


I'm still skeptical about functions as they can't be measured against anything and typing by function preference is one hell of an illogical guessing game imo. You can measure how far along both extremes of a dichotomy a person is and you can contrast too see objectively...something that can't be done with functions imo and I find that typing directly by deciding on function preference is a critical mistake when looked at logically from afar. One can assume function order based on type once it is established as an explanation for how the information processing leads to the 4 dichotomies.

It is still lacking in comparison to the BIG5 as that considers level of mental health in the form of neurotic tendencies or lack of these as a 5-th element to the equation. 

*For example* a neurotic INFP can still be considered imo xNFP as the level of health and specific problems that manifest could be distorting the type. This would be the case of a social anxiety sufferer, who is in reality extroverted and will be once the problems are fixed.

*Discuss.*


----------



## echidna1000 (Apr 20, 2009)

The assumption made is that the dichotomies mean the same thing in both.


----------



## LibertyPrime (Dec 17, 2010)

Jack Oliver Aaron said:


> The assumption made is that the dichotomies mean the same thing in both.


That assumption is correct, they are the same thing. It is a fact. I'm pulling this off wikisocion. To me this looks and feels correct, the logical structure is firm and solid, descriptions match up. I'm waiting for someone to demolish it if they can through evidence.


----------



## Kanerou (Oct 8, 2009)

@Rim In short: no. 

There is far, far more to Socionics than the function dichotomies. IM elements are _very_ important in determining type. You are trying to link both theories through the connection between two sets of very broad dichotomies when at least one one of them (MBTI) is not always horribly useful or accurate. I would argue function/IM element incompatibility, but as you are not convinced the former really exists, that seems pointless.


----------



## LibertyPrime (Dec 17, 2010)

Kanerou said:


> @Rim In short: no.
> 
> There is far, far more to Socionics than the function dichotomies. IM elements are _very_ important in determining type. You are trying to link both theories through the connection between two sets of very broad dichotomies when at least one one of them (MBTI) is not always horribly useful or accurate. I would argue function/IM element incompatibility, but as you are not convinced the former really exists, that seems pointless.


Can you show me how you measure IM elements or functions, do it and gather data to disprove the theory I just posted or quote someone that has done it in a scientifically valid way? Unless you can measure function preference, typing based on them is futile imo, a waste of effort and they remain inaccessible to testing.

You can conduct tests with the fMRI scanner nowadays to measure how introverted or extroverted someone is based on neurological activity as introvert and extrovert brains are wired to respond differently to variables in the form of stimulation. My point is that we can measure, compare and contrast dichotomies such as the 5 presented in the Big5, but not the functions which are assumed to be there through the hypothesis, functions which are inaccessible. 

So yeah, naturally I ignore basing things on them, its the logical step imo.


----------



## Kanerou (Oct 8, 2009)

Rim said:


> Can you show me how you measure IM elements or functions, do it and gather data to disprove the theory I just posted or quote someone that has done it in a scientifically valid way? Unless you can measure function preference, typing based on them is futile imo, a waste of effort and they remain inaccessible to testing.
> 
> You can conduct tests with the fMRI scanner nowadays to measure how introverted or extroverted someone is based on neurological activity as introvert and extrovert brains are wired to respond differently to variables in the form of stimulation. My point is that we can measure, compare and contrast dichotomies such as the 5 presented in the Big5, but not the functions which are assumed to be there through the hypothesis, functions which inaccessible.
> 
> So yeah, naturally I ignore basing things on them, its the logical step imo.


Maybe pop culture personality theory isn't for you, then? So little of it can be proven scientifically.


----------



## aestrivex (Mar 7, 2011)

Rim said:


> You can conduct tests with the fMRI scanner nowadays to measure how introverted or extroverted someone is based on neurological activity as introvert and extrovert brains are wired to respond differently to variables in the form of stimulation. My point is that we can measure, compare and contrast dichotomies such as the 5 presented in the Big5.


Untrue. Your source?


----------



## Boolean11 (Jun 11, 2012)

@Rim 

MBTI only cares about your external irrationality or rationality, that is made explicit in their J/P dichotomy.


----------



## cyamitide (Jul 8, 2010)

Rim said:


> That assumption is correct, they are the same thing. It is a fact. I'm pulling this off wikisocion. To me this looks and feels correct, the logical structure is firm and solid, descriptions match up. I'm waiting for someone to demolish it if they can through evidence.


Socionics doesn't use the same dichotomy for J/P letters as does MBTI.
In MBTI the J/P letter denotes Judger/Perceiver and corresponds to the highest order extraverted function.
In Socionics the j/p letter denotes Rational/Irrational and corresponds to dominant function.

Lets take Ni-dominant Te-auxiliary type (Ni,Te,Fi,Se) as an example or what in MBTI is the INTJ type. 

In MBTI this Ni-Te type would be a *J-type* because it's highest order extraverted function is a *judging function, Te => Ni-Te in MBTI is INTJ
*
In Socionics this Ni-Te type would be a *p-type* because it's dominant function is *perceiving one, Ni => Ni-Te in Socionics is INTp*

Because the MBTI's Judger/Perceiver dichotomy is not the same as Rational/Irrational dichotomy, you can see that you cannot convert MBTI types into Socionics types letter-for-letter i.e. types aren't the same.


----------



## echidna1000 (Apr 20, 2009)

Oy vey! Can we just agree that ILIs don't mix well with Socionics? 
@_Rim_ @_aestrivex_ @_Boolean11 @Zero11_


----------



## aestrivex (Mar 7, 2011)

Jack Oliver Aaron said:


> Oy vey! Can we just agree that ILIs don't mix well with Socionics?
> @_Rim_ @_aestrivex_ @_Boolean11 @Zero11_


the other typings aside, none of which i agree with, can we just agree that you are too "slapjack" as you put it in your own words to comprehend the complexities of the topic?


----------



## Boolean11 (Jun 11, 2012)

Jack Oliver Aaron said:


> Oy vey! Can we just agree that ILIs don't mix well with Socionics?
> @_Rim_ @_aestrivex_ @_Boolean11 @Zero11_


Do ILI seem like they hate each other?


----------



## echidna1000 (Apr 20, 2009)

aestrivex said:


> the other typings aside, none of which i agree with, can we just agree that you are too "slapjack" as you put it in your own words to comprehend the complexities of the topic?


Interestingly, your typing was the only one I didn't intuitively agree with  Haha!



aestrivex said:


> Do ILI seem like they hate each other?




But 'hate' is such a STRONG word! Maybe a slow, icy, intellectual dislike? It's not so expressive as 'hate' after all


----------



## aestrivex (Mar 7, 2011)

Jack Oliver Aaron said:


> Interestingly, your typing was the only one I didn't intuitively agree with  Haha!
> 
> 
> 
> But 'hate' is such a STRONG word! Maybe a slow, icy, intellectual dislike? It's not so expressive as 'hate' after all [/COLOR]


you know -- when i first encountered you i thought you were mostly perceptive -- i didn't realize that you were also so puny and ostentatious. but now i see both sides much more clearly.


----------



## Kanerou (Oct 8, 2009)

Jack Oliver Aaron said:


> But 'hate' is such a STRONG word! Maybe a slow, icy, intellectual dislike? It's not so expressive as 'hate' after all [/COLOR]


It doesn't make sense for people of any given type to inherently hate or necessarily dislike each other on principle. Perhaps ILIs simply have fewer problems openly disagreeing or speaking up when they despise someone/think the person stupid.


----------



## echidna1000 (Apr 20, 2009)

aestrivex said:


> you know -- when i first encountered you i thought you were mostly perceptive -- i didn't realize that you were also so puny and ostentatious. but now i see both sides much more clearly.


Well, I'm 5'2'' and I do Musical Theatre as a hobby. So not too far off.


----------



## LibertyPrime (Dec 17, 2010)

cyamitide said:


> Socionics doesn't use the same dichotomy for J/P letters as does MBTI.
> In MBTI the J/P letter denotes Judger/Perceiver and corresponds to the highest order extraverted function.
> In Socionics the j/p letter denotes Rational/Irrational and corresponds to dominant function.
> 
> ...


The two are the same thing named differently. The meaning behind the descriptions satys constant. U can call an apple apple or u can call it alma  it is still the same thing. Read wikisocion and weap.



Boolean11 said:


> @Rim
> 
> MBTI only cares about your external irrationality or rationality, that is made explicit in their J/P dichotomy.


<__< well BUMMER! That can be learned behaviour and NOT a sign for how one processes information internally. Imo rational dom in socionics would equal exactly what inborn J tendencies are. I have never really fallen for the P & J sterotypes in the MBTI as the idea of neat vs messy being inborn trait is crazy imo.

Also socionics information elements =/= MBTI functions. They aren't the same ^^;.



aestrivex said:


> Untrue. Your source?


Quiet: The Power of Introverts - By Susan Cain



Jack Oliver Aaron said:


> Oy vey! Can we just agree that ILIs don't mix well with Socionics?
> @_Rim_ @_aestrivex_ @_Boolean11 @Zero11_


x.x I wouldn't know I'm IEI. Feel my Ni! *burn* XD


----------



## cyamitide (Jul 8, 2010)

Rim said:


> The two are the same thing named differently. The meaning behind the descriptions satys constant. U can call an apple apple or u can call it alma  it is still the same thing. Read wikisocion and weap.


They aren't and Wikisocion is wrong on this one 

MBTI P/J depends on EXtraverted function. Socionics j/p depends on DOminant function. They cannot be the same. Whoever wrote this in Wikisocion got it wrong.


----------



## Kanerou (Oct 8, 2009)

Rim said:


> <__< well BUMMER! That can be learned behaviour and NOT a sign for how one processes information internally. Imo rational dom in socionics would equal exactly what inborn J tendencies are. I have never really fallen for the P & J sterotypes in the MBTI as the idea of neat vs messy being inborn trait is crazy imo.


I believe what he meant is that MBTI looks at whether your extroverted function (be it dom or aux) is rational or irrational, not your dominant function as per Socionics.


----------



## LibertyPrime (Dec 17, 2010)

cyamitide said:


> They aren't and Wikisocion is wrong on this one
> 
> MBTI P/J depends on EXtraverted function. Socionics j/p depends on DOminant function. They cannot be the same. Whoever wrote this in Wikisocion got it wrong.


o.o depends on what you understand in J & P. I reject the MBTI definition of it and have since substituted it with one developed by an INTP on youtube which made a lot more sense to me. Its the same idea as rational vs irational. I understood in the beginning, 2 years ago why Ne or Se in the primary or secondary position means P ^^; ty, you don't have to clarify...I comprehend the function model and the information element models no problem .



Kanerou said:


> I believe what he meant is that MBTI looks at whether your extroverted function (be it dom or aux) is rational or irrational, not your dominant function as per Socionics.


Yeah but functions and information elements aren't the same thing...socionics Fe for example is a mix of MBTI Fi and Fe for example. Ni isn't what MBTI would call Ni...etc. The way they are put together isn't the same either, however the same 16 types are used imo.


----------



## cyamitide (Jul 8, 2010)

Rim said:


> o.o depends on what you understand in J & P. I reject the MBTI definition of it and have since substituted it with one developed by an INTP on youtube which made a lot more sense to me. Its the same idea as rational vs irational.


It doesn't depend on what you understand. Highest order extraverted function _*is not the same as*_ dominant function for introverts, hence MBTI J/P _*is not the same as*_ Socionics j/p. This is a fact that does not depend on one personal, subjective understanding.

As you said above, the meaning is same underneath the 4-letter codes. Types are same but are represented in different manner i.e. the 4-letter codes differ in one last j/p letter even though the underlying type is same.


----------



## Kanerou (Oct 8, 2009)

Rim said:


> Yeah but functions and information elements aren't the same thing...socionics Fe for example is a mix of MBTI Fi and Fe for example. Ni isn't what MBTI would call Ni...etc. The way they are put together isn't the same either, however the same 16 types are used imo.


No one is saying they are the same thing (which is another reason for not assuming the types are the same across system), simply that your "Socionics Rational/Irrational = MBTI J/P" is invalid because J/P is derived by different methods across the two systems.

Edit: Well, some people say they're the same. They aren't, but you know.


----------



## Kanerou (Oct 8, 2009)

cyamitide said:


> As you said above, the meaning is same underneath the 4-letter codes. Types are same but are represented in different manner i.e. the 4-letter codes differ in one last j/p letter even though the underlying type is same.


Isn't this difficult if the building blocks (functions/elements) for each type differ based on the system? Also, a UK socionist slapped the MBTI-esque labels onto Socionic types to make them more relatable to a Western audience. Russian socionists don't use them.


----------



## cyamitide (Jul 8, 2010)

Kanerou said:


> Isn't this difficult if the building blocks (functions/elements) for each type differ based on the system?


We aren't talking about that. That is a separate issue. What we're talking about is that MBTI and Socionics don't apply the same dichotomy to determine J/P letters, hence the 4-letter codes aren't identical between the two systems.



Kanerou said:


> Also, a UK socionist slapped the MBTI-esque labels onto Socionic types to make them more relatable to a Western audience. Russian socionists don't use them.


Russians use names of famous people associated with each type (IEE-Huxley, EII-Dostoyevsky, LSE-Schtirlitz, etc.) and avoid the MBTI-like nomenclature all together.


----------



## Kanerou (Oct 8, 2009)

cyamitide said:


> We aren't talking about that. That is a separate issue. What we're talking about is that MBTI and Socionics don't apply the same dichotomy to determine J/P letters, hence the 4-letter codes aren't identical between the two systems.


I know the general trend of the discussion. From the way your previous post was worded, I got the impression that you were saying the types were the same across systems regardless of the differences in how J/P was determined. "Underlying type is the same," you said.



> Russians use names of famous people associated with each type (IEE-Huxley, EII-Dostoyevsky, LSE-Schtirlitz, etc.) and avoid the MBTI-like nomenclature all together.


Which is a slight rephrase of what I said.


----------



## LibertyPrime (Dec 17, 2010)

Kanerou said:


> No one is saying they are the same thing (which is another reason for not assuming the types are the same across system), simply that your "Socionics Rational/Irrational = MBTI J/P" is invalid because J/P is derived by different methods across the two systems.
> 
> Edit: Well, some people say they're the same. They aren't, but you know.


o.o te result is what counts, 2 different methods can reach the very same result. The underlying meaning is the same regardless of how the 2 systems reached the conclusion.

What is so difficult to understand on that? ^^; all of you are treating existing preestablished ideas as such sacred things...o.o mix it up a little, see what makes sense, experiment? This makes more sense to me even if i have to disregard methods used in reaching the conclusion ...there is more then one way to skin a cat ya know.


----------



## Kanerou (Oct 8, 2009)

Rim said:


> o.o te result is what counts, 2 different methods can reach the very same result. The underlying meaning is the same regardless of how the 2 systems reached the conclusion.


You are disregarding that the building blocks of those types, the _cognitive lenses_ that can produce the commonly-seen behaviors in the type descriptions to which you cling, are not defined in the same way or stuck into the same boxes.



> What is so difficult to understand on that? ^^;


Could ask the very same thing of you, actually.



> all of you are treating existing preestablished ideas as such sacred things...o.o mix it up a little, see what makes sense, experiment?


I am working with what makes sense.



> This makes more sense to me even if i have to disregard methods used in reaching the conclusion ...there is more then one way to skin a cat ya know.


By all means, continue to skin your feline with a hammer.


----------



## Boolean11 (Jun 11, 2012)

@Rim

There are both multiple versions of MBTI and Socionics, equally the way you see the functions in both systems affects how you perceive them. IM is just the Russian interpretation of functions in my translation, so I use the same terminology interchangeably. Everyone has their own version of Socionics and MBTI.


----------



## cyamitide (Jul 8, 2010)

Kanerou said:


> I know the general trend of the discussion. From the way your previous post was worded, I got the impression that you were saying the types were the same across systems regardless of the differences in how J/P was determined. "Underlying type is the same," you said.


I considered mentioning that since interpretation of elements is considered by many to not be the same, then types aren't the same, but then anyone who has studied socionics for any length of time should already know this.



> Which is a slight rephrase of what I said.


Then we're in agreement.


----------



## cyamitide (Jul 8, 2010)

@Rim post this same discussion on 16types and see what they have to say since most people over there have practiced socionics for long period of time so should have some insights on its relationship with MBTI.


----------



## LibertyPrime (Dec 17, 2010)

cyamitide said:


> @Rim post this same discussion on 16types and see what they have to say since most people over there have practiced socionics for long period of time so should have some insights on its relationship with MBTI.


Apart from one crazy EII woman most ppl there seem bored and like to troll for fun, plus o.o I don't really like any heated discussions ^^; would like to avoid most of this kind of thing if possible, if pressure for too long I may even stop posting so...yeah not in the mood for it....especially not for them to take ages to respond. That place is a ghosttown.

@Kanerou

o.o well yeah, however we are assuming the the functions exist. The behaviour exists yes ^^; but the functions you can't measure so while they are interesting and fun to ponder, you can't really base anything on them.

 this is kind of why taken together with the MBTI self report test, this whole thing is considered preudoscience by psychologists, unusable poppsychology.

Imo why smeone thinks in a certain way has more to do with how one's brain functions, chemistry and is infinately more complicated then functions ...the underlying reasons are for neuroscience to answer.

^^; by all means stick with considering EIIs INFPs and IEIs INFJs because the functions sort of match XD. (sort of because they don't)


----------



## cyamitide (Jul 8, 2010)

Rim said:


> Apart from one crazy EII woman most ppl there seem bored and like to troll for fun, plus o.o I don't really like any heated discussions ^^; would like to avoid most of this kind of thing if possible, if pressure for too long I may even stop posting so...yeah not in the mood for it....especially not for them to take ages to respond. That place is a ghosttown.


The discussions over there are never heated. I suggested it because there may be some people over there who have more of an informed opinion having studied socionics and MBTI for long period of time. As for Maritsa, I assume that's who you are referring to by "one crazy EII woman" just ignore her replies.


----------



## LibertyPrime (Dec 17, 2010)

cyamitide said:


> The discussions over there are never heated. I suggested it because there may be some people over there who have more of an informed opinion having studied socionics and MBTI for long period of time. As for Maritsa, I assume that's who you are referring to by "one crazy EII woman" just ignore her replies.


o.o yeah thats her....hmm I'll consider it.


----------



## echidna1000 (Apr 20, 2009)

Rim said:


> Yeah but functions and information elements aren't the same thing...socionics Fe for example is a mix of MBTI Fi and Fe for example. Ni isn't what MBTI would call Ni...etc. The way they are put together isn't the same either, however the same 16 types are used imo.


I think you're confused as to what the cognitive functions are... Fe in MBTI (Judging functions in MBTI merely serve to evaluate information coming in from the Perceiving functions) is simply group valuing over personal valuing rather than the command of a group with emotional expression and passion.


----------



## aestrivex (Mar 7, 2011)

Rim said:


> Quiet: The Power of Introverts - By Susan Cain


I don't own the book. Can you post the relevant section or at least some page numbers?



> x.x I wouldn't know I'm IEI. Feel my Ni! *burn* XD


I think i agree.


----------



## Kanerou (Oct 8, 2009)

Rim said:


> @_Kanerou_
> 
> o.o well yeah, however we are assuming the the functions exist. The behaviour exists yes ^^; but the functions you can't measure so while they are interesting and fun to ponder, you can't really base anything on them.


I don't believe the functions or IM elements have to have a tangible manifestation in order for the systems to be valid and helpful in their own way (which I have definitely found them to be).



> this is kind of why taken together with the MBTI self report test, this whole thing is considered preudoscience by psychologists, unusable poppsychology.
> 
> Imo why smeone thinks in a certain way has more to do with how one's brain functions, chemistry and is infinately more complicated then functions ...the underlying reasons are for neuroscience to answer.


Then why are you attempting to cling to MBTI or Socionics, to the point of discarding very important aspects just to reconcile them in your mind? Go play with something more scientific.



> ^^; by all means stick with considering EIIs INFPs and IEIs INFJs because the functions sort of match XD. (sort of because they don't)


Never, _ever,_ have I said I believe this. In fact, were you paying attention, you would notice that I always go out of my way to say that there is no correlation whatsoever.


----------



## Zero11 (Feb 7, 2010)

Rim said:


> Yeah but functions and information elements aren't the same thing


They aren´t anything they are attempts to describe innate existing 8 mental processes.



> ...socionics Fe for example is a mix of MBTI Fi and Fe for example. Ni isn't what MBTI would call Ni...etc.


There is no such a thing as "socionics Fe" or "mbti Fe" the both are attempts to describe "true Fe" in it´s own way and not some crucial laws of a system itself.

Socionics Fe and mbti Fe are both a bit wrong and a bit right this explains the difficulties to explain it.

The Ej temperament in Socionics is the Je in jungian terms - just switch the letters.
the same with Ep (Pe), Ij (Ji), Ip (Pi)

Fe is extroverted judgment as it is in MBTI. It is described in the way that it is fit for the inter-type relations, described on the basis of Fe so essentially it is still true Fe. It can´t be introverted judgment(Fi) just because the descriptions could be something else because that is not the case.



Jack Oliver Aaron said:


> Oy vey! Can we just agree that ILIs don't mix well with Socionics?
> @_Rim_ @_aestrivex_ @_Boolean11 @Zero11_


What?



> o.o te result is what counts, 2 different methods can reach the very same result. The underlying meaning is the same regardless of how the 2 systems reached the conclusion.
> 
> What is so difficult to understand on that? ^^; all of you are treating existing preestablished ideas as such sacred things...o.o mix it up a little, see what makes sense, experiment? This makes more sense to me even if i have to disregard methods used in reaching the conclusion ...there is more then one way to skin a cat ya know.


Thats a overgeneralization you can´t mix something up without knowing what fits together. It´s already a bit formed and needs adjustment.


----------



## LibertyPrime (Dec 17, 2010)

x.x meh fuck it, this shit is too complicated, contradictory and nothing fits together in a way that would make sense for typing myself...I'm just going to abandon MBTI and socionics out of sheer frustration lol :/. There is no point if I can't make it fit into a unified theory lol.

Back to the drawing board.


----------



## Boolean11 (Jun 11, 2012)

Rim said:


> x.x meh fuck it, this shit is too complicated, contradictory and nothing fits together in a way that would make sense for typing myself...I'm just going to abandon MBTI and socionics out of sheer frustration lol :/.


I'm an expert typer though I'd find real time first analysis to be the best since it allows me to actually analyse the way you process information. And in the version of Socionics I ascribe to, that is the only and proper way to establish type as oppose to working with Reinin's crap or Gulenko's alien writings. Its all about finding your innate patterns as well as going through your flaws honestly studying the weak sides of psyche for every type. I fins that going back to Jung and understanding him when he talks about subjectibity is the best remedy especially if you can come out of that being able to comprehend the dynamic patterns he saw in his patients.


----------



## Kanerou (Oct 8, 2009)

Rim said:


> x.x meh fuck it, this shit is too complicated, contradictory and nothing fits together in a way that would make sense for typing myself...I'm just going to abandon MBTI and socionics out of sheer frustration lol :/. There is no point if I can't make it fit into a unified theory lol.
> 
> Back to the drawing board.


There is plenty of point in both, used to complement each other or separately. Why do you have a need to make them the same in order to accept them at all? (That's not a rhetorical question.)


----------



## Kanerou (Oct 8, 2009)

Boolean11 said:


> I'm an expert typer though I'd find real time first analysis to be the best since it allows me to actually analyse the way you process information. And in the version of Socionics I ascribe to, that is the only and proper way to establish type as oppose to working with Reinin's crap or Gulenko's alien writings. Its all about finding your innate patterns as well as going through your flaws honestly studying the weak sides of psyche for every type. I fins that going back to Jung and understanding him when he talks about subjectibity is the best remedy especially if you can come out of that being able to comprehend the dynamic patterns he saw in his patients.


I have difficulty believing you are an expert typer when your off-the-cuff analysis had my base function as my PoLR. o.0


----------



## Zero11 (Feb 7, 2010)

Kanerou said:


> I have difficulty believing you are an expert typer when your off-the-cuff analysis had my base function as my PoLR. o.0


Te PoLR - Socionics :ninja:


----------



## Kanerou (Oct 8, 2009)

Zero11 said:


> Te PoLR - Socionics :ninja:


That is irrelevant to my point.


----------



## Boolean11 (Jun 11, 2012)

Kanerou said:


> I have difficulty believing you are an expert typer when your off-the-cuff analysis had my base function as my PoLR. o.0


Text is not a good tool for reading into the dynamic processes that drive the innate information people utilize. My hunch was right that you valued "ST" logic.


----------



## Kanerou (Oct 8, 2009)

Boolean11 said:


> Text is not a good tool for reading into the dynamic processes that drive the innate information people utilize. My hunch was right that you valued "ST" logic.


You pinned me as my Conflictor/Supervisee, and based at least partially on unsubstantiated and/or sorry reasoning. Whatever you say about me valuing "ST" logic, that's still pretty bad.


----------



## cyamitide (Jul 8, 2010)

Kanerou said:


> There is plenty of point in both, used to complement each other or separately. Why do you have a need to make them the same in order to accept them at all? (That's not a rhetorical question.)


may be Rim is Ni-seeking so he is looking for common essence in both theories
Ne-types appear to have less of a problem accepting them as separate



> Ni as mobilizing 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.


http://www.the16types.info/vbulletin/content.php/193-Aspects-in-the-Valued-Functions-Dmitry-Golihov


----------



## Boolean11 (Jun 11, 2012)

Kanerou said:


> You pinned me as my Conflictor/Supervisee, and based at least partially on unsubstantiated and/or sorry reasoning. Whatever you say about me valuing "ST" logic, that's still pretty bad.


A person who process information that is inline with your Conflictor is not necessarily my equivalent hence I'm don't perceive the same nuances you would do. As I'm building a way to quickly determine types with very poor information I'm obviously going to make mistakes.


----------



## Boolean11 (Jun 11, 2012)

cyamitide said:


> may be Rim is Ni-seeking so he is looking for common essence in both theories
> Ne-types appear to have less of a problem accepting them as separate
> 
> 
> http://www.the16types.info/vbulletin/content.php/193-Aspects-in-the-Valued-Functions-Dmitry-Golihov


It seems like abstract static types see it that way since they view the information without ascribing any meaning to it, as part of Ne's objectivity. You always have good insights into Socionics as usual.


----------



## Kanerou (Oct 8, 2009)

Boolean11 said:


> A person who process information that is inline with your Conflictor is not necessarily my equivalent


Could you clarify this please? 



> hence I'm don't perceive the same nuances you would do.


It has nothing to do with "nuance". You weren't "slightly off-base". You weren't even "out in left-field". You were completely out of the ballpark.



> As I'm building a way to quickly determine types with very poor information I'm obviously going to make mistakes.


A workable solution would be to not analyze people based on so little information and/or to know what you're talking about in the first place.


----------



## Boolean11 (Jun 11, 2012)

Kanerou said:


> Could you clarify this please?


Your "functions" affect the way you see relations between different types and equivalently my "functions" do the same resulting in different results since they are different from yours. So when I speculate that I see "X" type with incomplete information due to our innate function differences with the same information you could speculate that the individual is a different type given the same data.

We see things differently so we are likely to end with different conclusions. 


Kanerou said:


> It has nothing to do with "nuance". You weren't "slightly off-base". You weren't even "out in left-field". You were completely out of the ballpark.


Abstract information can easily have multiple interpretations something I referred to as "nuances". 


Kanerou said:


> A workable solution would be to not analyze people based on so little information and/or to know what you're talking about in the first place.


I'm an abstract subjective irrational type, Ni dominant, I don't need to objectively reference my "intuition" to generate a meaning. Speculating in cases where insufficient information is available is something I find easy to do, its my natural home turf.


----------



## LibertyPrime (Dec 17, 2010)

Kanerou said:


> There is plenty of point in both, used to complement each other or separately. Why do you have a need to make them the same in order to accept them at all? (That's not a rhetorical question.)


I'm trying to get to the essence of it...well I'm always trying to converge on one point regarding personality, which is to understand it as a complete interconnected dynamic system. Imo real understanding is only gained when one can link together everything and visualize the flow of the system...its a very euphoric moment when I understand how everything works together in real time and can see it in my mind's eye. (I know I know its a weird explanation).

The way I understand this is that both systems are explaining the same thing, they just took slightly different paths. As I said there is more then one way to skin a cat, its fun to approach the same thing in different ways, but it doesn't matter how many perspective shifts one makes. If I can get solid lead in one system to a type, then I should be able to deduce it's equivalent in the other systems or at least what contributes to it and how other things interact with it to form the whole. There is something here and its driving me up the wall in trying to figure it out, to make it work. I'll be honest...its fun on a certain level...but its also annoying (mostly to other ppl and because I can't really explain my thoughts well enough to convey exactly what i'm thinking about).


----------



## Sleepy (Jan 18, 2009)

The types are the same, sort of. It's not hard to see that, looking at the type nick names. The difference is that Socionics got things right, and MBTI didn't. It leads nowhere going on comparing these "systems". You can spend years trying to sort things out as a pointless academical exercise, but if you want to learn about types, you learn socionics and forget MBTI. It's "broken".


----------



## RoSoDude (Apr 3, 2012)

Sleepy said:


> The types are the same, sort of. It's not hard to see that, looking at the type nick names. The difference is that Socionics got things right, and MBTI didn't. It leads nowhere going on comparing these "systems". You can spend years trying to sort things out as a pointless academical exercise, but if you want to learn about types, you learn socionics and forget MBTI. It's "broken".


Such is largely my opinion as well. Even without its stupid parts (J/P, focus on dichotomies instead of functions), I find that the function order MBTI presents is much more limited in what can be drawn from it. Dario Nardi and others have done interesting work with it but at the end of it, I find that it's too easy to get caught up in "these are my two strong functions, the other two I suck with, and the other four are evil" while ignoring how all eight functions interact to create a personality. With Model A, there's much more insight into how introverted and extraverted elements across the ego, superego, id, and superid blocks interact and develop, which I think is sorely lacking in the MBTI function ordering. Additionally, I think that Socionics has a more wholesome view of the information elements. The reason it's difficult to reconcile the functions with the IM elements is because what the functions are by common perceptions kinda _sucks._

@_Rim_, you speak of a desire to unify the systems, and if you'd like, there is a very easy solution: say the functions and IM elements are largely equivalent to the degree that when Socionics says EII and MBTI says INFP, they're both talking about what Jung wrote about as the "Introverted Feeler". Both systems have (well, not so much anymore for MBTI) their theoretical basis in Jung's writings, so you'd think that they should share those fundamental aspects. MBTI dichotomies and Socionics dichotomies are just ways to denote function order. If you'd like to debate function models across systems, this may be more insightful. Otherwise, your claim has to stomach some strange assumptions about what the differences between functions and IM elements are; I prefer to just say that they're different interpretations of the very same processes, and that the way we've treated MBTI (and the way Myers treated MBTI) has made the functions into something that's not as on the mark as it could have been.


----------

