# Socionics just a MBTI ripoff?



## Captain Mclain (Feb 22, 2014)

I do believe I now own a good understanding of MBTI. But whats this Socionics? I get the vibe its a more "developed" version of mbti. Or maybe a snobby version of typing? A Russian ripoff because they did not want to use and give credit to something from USA. Its less popular and seems to be harder to understand. 

I did try to understand the point of it but got nowhere. Here follows a few questions about the issue. 

Is it just an other source for the thirsty, maybe more exclusive?
Does it give fresh perspective?
Is it more accurate then mbti?
Does it build on mbti or just correlate?
Are the functions different or just described different? 
Is the base same, jung functions, but descriptions and order of use different?

Whats the point? Many people seems to like it but why?


----------



## ThatOneWeirdGuy (Nov 22, 2012)

Both Socionics and MBTI are based of Carl Jung's Psychological Types. MBTI was made by two women during WWII to assist people in finding a career. Socionics was developed by a Lithuanian researcher in the '70's who did not have access much information outside of the Soviet Union, so, to my knowledge, she didn't know MBTI existed when she developed Socionics. Eventually, when the two typology worlds met, the acronymic types of Socionics were translated to something more akin to the MBTI notation so it would be easier for westerners to understand. 

Socionics is VERY different from MBTI; I suggest you just read about it yourself. They're just both built off of Jungian ideas. 

Wikisocion


----------



## Cellar Door (Jun 3, 2012)

@Captain Mclain

It's hard for you to understand because you're not a communist.


----------



## Tainted Streetlight (Jun 13, 2011)

No. I strongly believe that MBTI is more focused on Fi, and Socionics Fe.


----------



## Grandmaster Yoda (Jan 18, 2014)

Let's answer none of the OP questions.:laughing:


----------



## reckful (Jun 19, 2012)

ThatOneWeirdGuy said:


> MBTI was made by two women during WWII to assist people in finding a career.


The idea that the primary purpose behind Briggs and Myers's development of the MBTI was job placement is pretty much just one of those internet memes that get passed around.

Briggs and Myers developed the MBTI with the same core aim as Jung — namely, to help people better understand themselves and others who differed from them. Briggs was working on her own typology — not with any business purpose in mind, as I understand it — before Psychological Types was published, and later published two articles about Psychological Types in _The New Republic_. The Myers-Briggs typology was basically just a family hobby for the next 20 years or so, until the outbreak of World War II prompted Isabel Myers (Briggs' daughter) to start work on an MBTI _test_ because — as described in the introduction to Gifts Differing — "the suffering and tragedies of the war stirred Myers's desire to do something that might help peoples understand each other and avoid destructive conflicts." In addition, as noted on a CAPT website, "she noticed many people taking jobs out of patriotism, but hating the tasks that went against their grain instead of using their gifts."

The revised Preface (by Peter Myers) to the 1995 edition of Gifts Differing notes that Briggs and Myers put together an initial (largely untested) version of the MBTI in 1943 in hopes that it might be used in connection with wartime job placement, but no one was interested. Undaunted, they forged ahead, and for many years most of the widespread administration of the MBTI (during its initial development and evolution) involved student populations. It looks like the first official publication of a version of the MBTI indicator (Form F) didn't happen until 1958. And the test questions themselves, besides not having anything remotely resembling a predominant job focus, were painstakingly developed and adjusted based on statistical factor-correlation results — just like a Big Five or any other respectable personality self-assessment test.

Gifts Differing includes a chapter on Type and Occupation, along with chapters on, among other things, Type and Early Learning, Type and Growing Up, Type and Marriage, and Good Type Development. As Myers explained:



Myers said:


> In this material I hope parents, teachers, students, counselors, clinicians, clergy — and all others who are concerned with the realization of human potential — may find a rationale for many of the personality differences they encounter in their work or must deal with in their private lives. ...
> 
> Whatever the circumstances of your life, whatever your personal ties, work, and responsibilities, the understanding of type can make your perceptions clearer, your judgments sounder, and your life closer to your heart's desire.


----------



## LibertyPrime (Dec 17, 2010)

Same system, different wording. The MBTI is more simplistic in comparison to socionics.


----------



## Captain Mclain (Feb 22, 2014)

FreeBeer said:


> Same system, different wording. The MBTI is more simplistic in comparison to socionics.


Ok. Simplistic how?


----------



## Abraxas (May 28, 2011)

The two systems are vastly different just in terms of validity and reliability. I can't speak for socionics, but MBTI has a very large amount of empirical evidence to support itself with, despite the criticisms it faces by many experts. It is certainly imperfect, but not at all unreliable, nor is it systemically invalid. I can't say the same for socionics because I'm not as familiar with the scholarly and scientific research that backs it up. I'm not convinced anyone is else is either for that matter.

Socionics focuses on "information elements" which evolved out of Jungian functions, whereas MBTI focuses more on four dichotomies and their sub-facets that also evolved out of Jungian functions. MBTI comes to resemble the Five Factor Model a great deal in this respect, which further lends to its validity and reliability through corollary studies. However, Socionics has gone in a different direction entirely. I can't think of any other models to compare it with, which somewhat weakens its validity because it is harder to draw correlations between it and other established models and their associated research.


----------



## LibertyPrime (Dec 17, 2010)

Captain Mclain said:


> Ok. Simplistic how?


Focus only on the 4 valued functions and disregards the undervalued ones. 4 out of 8 is only half the picture. J-P in stead of focusing on Jung's original idea of rational-irrational. MBTI J-P apart from establishing function order is not part of how people's cognition works, its just organized vs disorganized dichotomy which has nothing to do with cognition. This last bit is part of what makes MBTI rather flawed when it comes to complying with Jung's original research. Its an extra layer that is as I stated before not part of explaining people's cognition unless we differentiate it. We are organized or disorganized for reasons other then cognition.

In comparison socionics boasts an 8 function model, where valued-undervalued, strong-weak functions have a clearly defined role in the cognitive process of the types. It also has thinking styles, quadras, and a multitude of reinin dichotomies based on the functional model.

MBTI in comparison to Socionics is simplistic and superficial ....its VERY easy to mistype. In essence the 2 systems are identical, for example:

ENFP in socionics has 8 functions and the valued functions according to function strength are as follows: Ne-Fi-Te-Si. Its essentially an advanced form of MBTI, it says the same thing, but its worded slightly differently aka it brings a different perspective to the table.

*Imo people who think Socionics and MBTI are different, simply do not understand either system sufficiently to see that they are one and the same. I know I thought like that when i didn't understand either sufficiently.*

*Keirsey's types, upon which this forum is constructed are neither MBTI nor Socionics, however they seem to reflect socionics types in the descriptions, for example Keirsey's ISFP is defined exactly like Socionics SEI aka Si-Fe ISFp.*


----------



## Doc Dangerstein (Mar 8, 2013)

... the question was more of government censorship than rejecting American ideas. Much of the texts going into Russia and the Soviet block were heavily edited or circulating in their original form in black market copies or hand typed with carbon paper on stolen typewriters. Typewriters were for government use only and each was encoded with a unique feature, like a chip to a letter or a bigger or smaller dot, and was kept under lock and key with a sample of its font on file. However, much of Socionics was developed after the fall of the Soviet Union but many ideas survived. 

Russian psychology was founded on the ideas of Ivan Pavlov who believed everything could be conditioned and explained in terms of stimulus and response. After his Nobel Prize, the west explored his ideas and developed behaviourism. Much of western psychology and thought stems from the introspective approach of Freud, Jung and company. Of course, behaviourism works by virute of habit formation and traumatizing the subject discouraging him from certain behaviours. I feel that MBTI/Jung is representative of introspective thinking and socionics continues with a behaviourist approach.

Think about it for a second, Type A interacts with Type B and the result is C. Stimulus and response ... I can't prove that is the case, but from my readings of socionics, MBTI and Jung there is enough sparks in the mist to make such a conjecture. My critique of both systems is that they neglect many variables including maturity, mental health, the will of the people involves, etc. and reduce it to simple arithmetic. With socionics there's the temptation of seeing all interactions as deterministic. MBTI is the study of the self. Socionics is the study of interaction. Both systems have their merits, their shortcomings and their essence is very different.


----------



## cyamitide (Jul 8, 2010)

Spastic Origami said:


> Russian psychology was founded on the ideas of Ivan Pavlov who believed everything could be conditioned and explained in terms of stimulus and response. After his Nobel Prize, the west explored his ideas and developed behaviourism. Much of western psychology and thought stems from the introspective approach of Freud, Jung and company. Of course, behaviourism works by virute of habit formation and traumatizing the subject discouraging him from certain behaviours. I feel that MBTI/Jung is representative of introspective thinking and socionics continues with a behaviourist approach.


Socionics types -- called TIM for short -- is not based on behaviorism. TIM stands for type of information metabolism. This means that socionics type is cognitive and informational in its nature and is not conditioned by behavior. It's a mistake many beginners make thinking that socionics types can be determined from descriptions of behavior or appearance.

The founder of socionics A. Augusta derived her ideas from publications of a Polish psychiatrist Antoni Kepinsky on information metabolism and a Swiss psychiatrist Carl Jung writing on psychological types. Her work doesn't reference Pavlov in any shape or form. You've invented that out of thin air.



Spastic Origami said:


> Think about it for a second, Type A interacts with Type B and the result is C. Stimulus and response ... I can't prove that is the case, but from my readings of socionics, MBTI and Jung there is enough sparks in the mist to make such a conjecture. My critique of both systems is that they neglect many variables including maturity, mental health, the will of the people involves, etc. and reduce it to simple arithmetic. With socionics there's the temptation of seeing all interactions as deterministic. MBTI is the study of the self. Socionics is the study of interaction. Both systems have their merits, their shortcomings and their essence is very different.


There are no socionics manuals floating about on how to illicit some stimulus. Where are you getting this information from?


----------



## Doc Dangerstein (Mar 8, 2013)

The ever elusive Antoni Kepinski. Always referenced, never cited. With MBTI, I am made to understand how the system functions around a very specific work of Carl Jung's. What work of Antoni Kepinski's am I to read to gain a closer understanding of his thinking and of information metabolism as it stands outside of socionics?

There is little information on Kepinski outside of Polish websites selling his books. None of the titles or their corresponding blurbs are suggestive of any sort of typology. When you consider information transfer and information transfer alone it makes sense to reason that there are varying degrees of compatibility. This translates to why people can communicate better with certain people and not with others. It is a mistake to think that compatibility has any value outside of itself.

If I were to meet my hypothetical dual all that would indicate is that I have a high bandwidth of communication with that person. That means that my message will get through with very little signal loss, interference and there would be very little need for redundancy. I might choose later to have nothing to do with this person because the content of our relationship is of little qualitative value. Or worse, detrimental to my being. To think that a realtionship with ones dual is fulfilling and absolute bliss is absurd. What if my dual turns out to be a sadistic killer who enjoys watching the care bears under the influence of cocaine? In turn, I might have a great relationship with someone who is theoretically difficult because I value what they have to offer. Albeit I would have to repeat myself because the communication bandwidth is low.

... now, when I see an equation of Type X coming in contact with Type Y and resulting in pattern Z, how else am I supposed to interpret this? The causal descriptions of relationships between types is just something that triggers my scepticism radar.


----------



## LibertyPrime (Dec 17, 2010)

Spastic Origami said:


> The ever elusive Antoni Kepinski. Always referenced, never cited. With MBTI, I am made to understand how the system functions around a very specific work of Carl Jung's. What work of Antoni Kepinski's am I to read to gain a closer understanding of his thinking and of information metabolism as it stands outside of socionics?
> 
> There is little information on Kepinski outside of Polish websites selling his books. None of the titles or their corresponding blurbs are suggestive of any sort of typology. When you consider information transfer and information transfer alone it makes sense to reason that there are varying degrees of compatibility. This translates to why people can communicate better with certain people and not with others. It is a mistake to think that compatibility has any value outside of itself.
> 
> ...


My guess would be that inter type relations basically assures cognitive information metabolism compatibility aaaand thats about it. If I value Fi-Ne-Te & Si I most likely will understand and communicate better with people who value the same functions, however this does not account for every other variable outside of this. As you said my dual may be psychopathic or worse and I conflictor may have my values.

The ideal match is someone who has the dual's cognition, same values as me, physically attractive within my rnage and other variables that I may consider attractive. >D this narrows down the list of people very strongly.

Imo its not a good idea to expect either MBTI or Socionics to fully explain who someone is, all either system says about someone is how they process information and what other types are more or less compatible cognitively.

As long as i understand how they think I can bridge the gap and figure out what they are trying to say / what the perspective is etc.. In this light socionics may be useful as long as I can recognize the other person's way of processing information.

For example conflict between a Fi valuing and Fe valuing individuals may come from the simple fact that the Fi user will disregard Fe values and will push personal values, despite understanding the Fe perspective quite clearly. *I get reprimanded a lot for ignoring Fe despite understanding it and when this happens i quite frankly do not care and never perceive it as important enough for it to illicit any negative feeling within me....aka the criticism isn't really perceived by me as one. More like it just annoys me that others expect me to comply. This is where the conflict starts lol, where I'd rather bail then fight about it.*


----------



## Captain Mclain (Feb 22, 2014)

FreeBeer said:


> My guess would be that inter type relations basically assures cognitive information metabolism compatibility aaaand thats about it.* If I value Fi-Ne-Te & Si I most likely will understand and communicate better with people who value the same functions*, however this does not account for every other variable outside of this. As you said my dual may be psychopathic or worse and I conflictor may have my values.
> 
> The ideal match is someone who has the dual's cognition, same values as me, physically attractive within my rnage and other variables that I may consider attractive. >D this narrows down the list of people very strongly.
> 
> ...


This make me think about schools. Would it maybe be a better way to teach and learn stuffs if the grouping was different. Instead of same age people would be groups with people with about the same age but same cognitive preferences? Less energy wasted for more information transfered between the kids-kids and kids-teacher. (Teacher have to be the same typeish). Could this work? Maybe entp teaching the intuitions and estj or estp teaching the sensing.

A few teachers per grouping with more different subjects but less different people.


----------



## LibertyPrime (Dec 17, 2010)

Captain Mclain said:


> This make me think about schools. Would it maybe be a better way to teach and learn stuffs if the grouping was different. Instead of same age people would be groups with people with about the same age but same cognitive preferences? Less energy wasted for more information transfered between the kids-kids and kids-teacher. (Teacher have to be the same typeish). Could this work? Maybe entp teaching the intuitions and estj or estp teaching the sensing.
> 
> A few teachers per grouping with more different subjects but less different people.


Hmm, maybe. The problem in school is that the kids have certain kind of innate preferences for how they process information (not just type related) and we are always trying to teach around 20+ kids in a class. This means that in order to accomplish this the teacher has to employ a general method. The kids in turn will react differently to this method. For some it will be easy, for others difficult.

I'd go as far as restricting class to only a few kids per teacher and pairing teacher preference and specialization up with how those few kids prefer to process information / learn. This however makes teaching more expensive and is probably not possible to apply due to economical constraints of the education system.

*A better idea would be to just teach kids to learn through their own preference and then allow them to have access to information. They will learn what interests them on their own, the best way they can. Because of the internet this is actually possible at this time.*

..however most schools are designed to produce workforce and obedient citizens, not to produce people who can think and learn for themselves.


----------

