# Is there a different between dominant function in Socionics and MBTI ?



## nekobolas (Jul 15, 2016)

So here my model A in socionics








http://puu.sh/qhY90/8d466998ea.png 
By now I'm pretty sure that I'm IEI (INFp) because the description fits me well.I feel I belong to beta quadra with the IEI' eye

My hidden agenda :L: (Ti) and olr (Te) is as clear as crystal pepsi and I use my :t: (Ni) a lot in daily life . Although all the :rFi) I have but I don't want to show it to the others. 

But if I take the mbti test 90% It shows that I'm INFP. And After reading the INFP and INFJ description , I feel like I'm a weird cocktail that have both personality trait.

So I'm wondering if is there a different between MBTI and socionic in deciding which is the dominant function. Or simply I'm mistyped as INFP(mbti) or different in function description between socionics and MBTI


----------



## Snow (Oct 19, 2010)

In Socionics, he INFp is the equivalent to the INFJ in MBTI. They both have four primary (or valued) functions of: Ni > Fe > Ti > Se (in Socionics, that is ordered Dominant > Creative > Hidden Agenda > Dual Seeking).

Because most PerC users originate from an MBTI background, I recommend using the IME's letter designation over the shapes; most people will look at shape-using posts and either ignore it or become confused by it.


----------



## nekobolas (Jul 15, 2016)

So Correct me if I'm wrong, I'm sure that I'm IEI-Ni ,so does that make me INFJ in MBTI. ( what confusing me is my Fi in my Demonstrative Function sometime it's stronger than Ni mostly happen when I'm alone) So I'm wondering if dominant function in socionics and Mbti have the same definition.


----------



## ALongTime (Apr 19, 2014)

nekobolas said:


> So Correct me if I'm wrong, I'm sure that I'm IEI-Ni ,so does that make me INFJ in MBTI. ( what confusing me is my Fi in my Demonstrative Function sometime it's stronger than Ni mostly happen when I'm alone) So I'm wondering if dominant function in socionics and Mbti have the same definition.


I really wouldn't make the assumption that MBTI types have equivalent types in socionics. I guess part of it comes down to the fact that you have to assume that they are both equivalent and both valid theories, and that the MBTI test you took is valid and not based on stereotypes. The types are defined slightly differently and my recommendation is to get the best understanding of socionics as possible and find your type with a purely socionics understanding.

You could maybe try one of the questionnaires in the what is my socionics type subforum, I know these aren't always answered but being an EII maybe I have some insight on the differences that could be helpful.


----------



## nekobolas (Jul 15, 2016)

@ALongTime Thank you. Tbh, I already did the questionnaire Idk if I should try another type of questionnaire http://personalitycafe.com/whats-my...type-so-here-my-40q-philosophical-answer.html


Tbh I'm kinda unsure with questionnaire is I have to trust someone' else Intuition and experience to type me base on my vibe, and my view ,Not that I distrust anyone but I think sometime I think my views are too weird compare to the others (tritype 469 XD).
My Ti :L: want to learn more about socionics and type me by myself but I'm too lazy to read the whole book so ( I've just read a few page of function program and already get bored with it )

Btw thank you the only reason I want to know more about MBTI is because some company in my industry do the professional mbti test (they want INTJ for consulting) :laughing:. So I will probably leave Mbti there and I continue reading about socionics more then.


----------



## ALongTime (Apr 19, 2014)

nekobolas said:


> @ALongTime Thank you. Tbh, I already did the questionnaire Idk if I should try another type of questionnaire http://personalitycafe.com/whats-my...type-so-here-my-40q-philosophical-answer.html
> 
> 
> Tbh I'm kinda unsure with questionnaire is I have to trust someone' else Intuition and experience to type me base on my vibe, and my view ,Not that I distrust anyone but I think sometime I think my views are too weird compare to the others (tritype 469 XD).
> ...


Hmm, I'm having trouble typing you from the questionnaire, I'm sorry.

As for the professional MBTI test, I don't really trust tests whether MBTI or socionics, there will always be biases and inaccuracies. Socionics is really about how you metabolise information internally so I wouldn't worry about whether you outwardly fit in to a stereotype for a particular type.

Let's assume you're IEI for now, so you have:
Ego: :t: :e: (leading, creative)
Super Ego: :s: : (role, PolR)
Super Id: :f: :L: (suggestive, H.A.)
Id: :i: :r: (ignoring, demonstrative)

(in conventional charts, the role/polr are shown in reverse order, as are suggestive/h.a., but I've written them in function order)

Sorry if any of this is patronising, I don't know the level of your knowledge; on the other hand please ask if any of it doesn't make sense.

You would be most conscious of Ego and Super Ego, so they would be the easiest to identify. My theory is leading and role are the most conscious of all as they match your temperament (here, introverted irrational). The super-ego are the things you would know you're bad/less-good at, and dislike that kind of information from others, whereas the super-id are less conscious but are the types of information you appreciate from others. I would say this is because they allow you to avoid using your super-ego; an abundance of :L: information, for example, means you wouldn't have to create so much :.

The Id block is arguably the most difficult to understand, so it's best to let that fall into place at the end.

So to clarify your type, one way could be to look at what things you don't like. An IEI, for example, with PoLR : doesn't like to be micromanaged, or to follow step-by-step procedures. Whereas an EII, with PoLR :f: doesn't like conflict and aggression, prefering the comfort of :s: and the certainty of : which an EII is bad at producing him/herself.

I hope some of this helps, and ask any questions.


----------



## nekobolas (Jul 15, 2016)

ALongTime said:


> Hmm, I'm having trouble typing you from the questionnaire, I'm sorry.
> 
> As for the professional MBTI test, I don't really trust tests whether MBTI or socionics, there will always be biases and inaccuracies. Socionics is really about how you metabolise information internally so I wouldn't worry about whether you outwardly fit in to a stereotype for a particular type.
> 
> ...



I'm sorry about the questionnaire. I think will try the typical 80 questions later . 

Btw about Polr , So let say an LSE is trying to confront you about something, you know he will insult or say something about your belief . From what I've known about olr the IEI/SEI will say the LSE is idiot, ignore the LSE idea then duck down and run, and will try to avoid LSE for the rest of their life.
So I'm wondering what :folr will do in that case? since EII also dislike confrontation

And tbh my :f: and :s: are both equally bad. I don't really sure which one I value more. Among 8 functions , I mostly confused between Suggestive and Role function since both of them is "accepting and weak" and the different between :s: and :f: isn't that much to me.


----------



## Irene90 (Jun 30, 2016)

Nice test results. Where did you find that test? Seems pretty detailed. Did you make it?


----------



## ALongTime (Apr 19, 2014)

nekobolas said:


> I'm sorry about the questionnaire. I think will try the typical 80 questions later .
> 
> Btw about Polr , So let say an LSE is trying to confront you about something, you know he will insult or say something about your belief . From what I've known about olr the IEI/SEI will say the LSE is idiot, ignore the LSE idea then duck down and run, and will try to avoid LSE for the rest of their life.
> So I'm wondering what :folr will do in that case? since EII also dislike confrontation
> ...


No worries about the questionnaire, and don't feel you have to do another one if you don't want to - it was just a suggestion to get the ball rolling. I'm not that confident typing people online, I just hoped to clarify some things.

Now an LSE, this is my dual type, would be very unlikely to confront me in a way that I'm not comfortable, due to not valuing :f:. I also wouldn't feel threatened in terms of my :r: values because mine would be a lot stronger and he/she would be receptive to them. I worked with an LSE once, who happened to have very opposing views and standards to mine, but it seemed impossible to come in to any kind of clash with him and the relationship itself was very strong and productive, and in fact his presence always put me at ease.

Perhaps this is a bit of a generalisation, and I might go back on it, but perhaps a good way of distinguishing PoLR :f: from PoLR :, is that PoLR :f: doesn't like being told do something, and PoLR : doesn't like being told _how _to do something. Take with a grain of salt as it's probably a bit of a simplification.

For choosing between :f: and :s:, make sure you're really sure of the definitions in socionics firstly. When deciding which one you value, the main factor is the dichotomy Judicious (valued :s: and :i vs Decisive (valued :f: and :t, although the definitions of the Renins can be complex and sometimes misleading. :s: tends to value comfort and a gentle approach, :f: places more value on getting things done and its rewards.


----------



## nekobolas (Jul 15, 2016)

ALongTime said:


> For choosing between :f: and :s:, make sure you're really sure of the definitions in socionics firstly. When deciding which one you value, the main factor is the dichotomy Judicious (valued :s: and :i vs Decisive (valued :f: and :t, although the definitions of the Renins can be complex and sometimes misleading. :s: tends to value comfort and a gentle approach, :f: places more value on getting things done and its rewards.


Thanks, Like with IEI have Decisive dichotomy (it sounds really misleading XD ), because IEI belongs in Beta. And With :f: in suggestive and with all the possibilities that :t: can see make it so indecisive.

Btw I used LSE as example because they're IEI' conflict so  most likely There's gonna be headbutt


----------



## nekobolas (Jul 15, 2016)

Irene90 said:


> Nice test results. Where did you find that test? Seems pretty detailed. Did you make it?


I will Pm you the link to the test but I need 3 more posts to pm so please wait a little bit XD


----------



## Lord Fenix Wulfheart (Aug 18, 2015)

ALongTime said:


> Perhaps this is a bit of a generalisation, and I might go back on it, but perhaps a good way of distinguishing PoLR :f: from PoLR :, is that PoLR :f: doesn't like being told do something, and PoLR : doesn't like being told _how _to do something. Take with a grain of salt as it's probably a bit of a simplification.


It is a bit of a simplification, but I think it is a really good one nonetheless. Good job Fluttershy. XD


----------



## Lord Fenix Wulfheart (Aug 18, 2015)

nekobolas said:


> I will Pm you the link to the test but I need 3 more posts to pm so please wait a little bit XD


I would also like to see this test, if you wouldn't mind. Pretty please with a chocolate cherry on top? ^^


----------



## Sylas (Jul 23, 2016)

nekobolas said:


> By now I'm pretty sure that I'm IEI (INFp) because the description fits me well.I feel I belong to beta quadra with the IEI' eye
> 
> My hidden agenda :L: (Ti) and olr (Te) is as clear as crystal pepsi and I use my :t: (Ni) a lot in daily life . Although all the :rFi) I have but I don't want to show it to the others.
> 
> ...


There is no different dominant function.

If you are Fi-dominant, you would be INFP in MBTI and EII (INFj) in Socionics.
If you are Ni-dominant, you would be INFJ in MBTI and IEI (INFp) in Socionics.

You cannot be both rational judging Fi-dominant INFP and irrational perceiving Ni-dominant IEI at the same time, you have to pick either one or the other.



nekobolas said:


> So Correct me if I'm wrong, I'm sure that I'm IEI-Ni ,so does that make me INFJ in MBTI. ( what confusing me is my Fi in my Demonstrative Function sometime it's stronger than Ni mostly happen when I'm alone) So I'm wondering if dominant function in socionics and Mbti have the same definition.


Never heard 'Beta' types say that their Fi is stronger than other functions valued by their Quadra.



nekobolas said:


> My Ti :L: want to learn more about socionics and type me by myself but I'm too lazy to read the whole book so ( I've just read a few page of function program and already get bored with it )


If you are bored after a few pages you don't have much Ti after all ... do you have a 5 wing on that 4? Could be what you're thinking is Ti.


----------



## Figure (Jun 22, 2011)

Whether you see the Dominant MBTI function as being the same as the Base Socionics function will depend on whether or not you take descriptions of functions to define what the function is. If so, you may read descriptions of, say, MBTI Ti and think it is obviously different than, say Socionics Ti. For some people, that difference makes it impossible to fully reconcile the two theories and freely convert types. If you look at the description of Socionics Ti, it says the function does different things than MBTI says its Ti does, so they're different, and you can't say an INTP in MBTI = INTj in Socionics. 

If, however, your take on functions is open to different ways of describing the same process and you're open to not seeing type descriptions from different theories as being mutually exclusive, you may end up finding that these descriptions, while different, are describing the same overall process. The idea here is that yes, the descriptions are different, but those differences don't matter that much to the overall process being described and could even be two ways of explaining the same process. If your concept of each MBTI type was never dependent on the literal type descriptions and you felt confident in identifying types regardless of whether they would be described as such by MBTI, there's a good chance you'll feel fine converting freely between the two theories by way of the Base function. The downfall to this method is relying on your own impressions of "sameness" to see the similarity. 


My personal take is that Socionics encompasses much more precise tools and methods than MBTI anyway, so why even bother converting types. You would have a lot better knowledge knowing you were an LII than an INTP or INTJ. If apples are good for your health and oranges are not, who cares whether they are both fruit vs. completely different, you're best off eating apples and letting oranges rot.


----------



## Lord Fenix Wulfheart (Aug 18, 2015)

Indeed. As Figure says, there are those that see the theories as mutually exclusive. Then there are those that see the two theories as alternate viewpoints of the same thing. Its a matter of perspective.

I'd say it is more likely that both concepts are trying to get at the same thing, and most likely both fall short of the "true" concept. It hasn't revealed itself yet. Don't worry, we'll get there.


----------



## The Dude (May 20, 2010)

nekobolas said:


> So here my model A in socionics
> 
> 
> 
> ...


It's not as simple as flipping the J to a P or the P to a J for introverts and extroverts aren't automatically the same type in each system. Think of it like Spanish and Portuguese (or any other sibling languages)...both share similarities (the functions in the case of the MBTI-Socionics), but they're completely different with the exception of Ne which is the only function that is similar in both systems. 

Some important screenshots containing differences...
MBTI v. Socionics: http://i.imgur.com/UU4DGHa.png
Differences in perceiving functions: http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-CsNapEC53...1600/Screen+Shot+2015-06-11+at+3.42.14+PM.png 
Differences in judging functions: http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-XIJsNajyw...1600/Screen+Shot+2015-06-11+at+3.42.57+PM.png


----------

