# MBTI vs Socionics: Which one is better



## elixare

And by better I mean which one is more accurate in explaining the personality of actual people in the real world

Look into yourself and in others

Does your MBTI/Socionics type explain yourself better than the other?
Does MBTI/Socionics explain the people you know better than the other?


----------



## L'Empereur

Sovietonics.


----------



## DMack

Both are not 100% accurate. I think that personality theory is still a far way off from being a science and there really isn't the "perfect" model out there. So use them both to get the best picture possible. Throw Keirsey and Ennegram in there too.


----------



## aestrivex

"accurate" seems to me to be the wrong question.


----------



## cyamitide

MBTI is good for beginners, for learning about cognitive functions and being introduced to 16 types. Socionics goes more in depth and covers many things about type that MBTI doesn't cover. For example it goes over how some types have similar forms of cognition and how different types contribute to social progress. 

Conversions between MBTI and socionics 3-letter types are very simple. Most types are going to convert as follows:
INTP-LII, ENTP-ILE, ESFJ-ESE, ISFJ-SEI 
ENFJ-EIE, INFJ-IEI, ISTP-SLI, ESTP-SLE 
INTJ-ILI, ENTJ-LIE, ESFP-SEE, ISFP-ESI
ENFP-IEE, INFP-EII, ISTJ-SLI, ESTJ-LSE


----------



## Functianalyst

Similar to both systems, the OP only offers forced choices when actually they're the same. They both depend on dichotomous codes which are neutral, not active. You can't actively use intuition, sensor, thinker, feeler, introvert, extravert, logical, etc. They can only be applied when you add the function to an attitude, now making intuition, extraverted intuiting, introverted thinking, extraverted feeling and so on. So to answer the question based on my experience of both, neither is better or worse than the other. Both systems have their good and negative. 

MBTI is a focus on the external world, therefore theorizes that the dominant function of introverting types is hidden or silent (thus the reason for the J/P inverting on these types). That’s not true, Jung says the introverting functions is just as noticeable as extraverting functions. Socionics in my opinion probably comes closest to indicating the correctness in Jung’s work in their four-letter code since the system recognizes that at least someone dominating with Ti or Fi is using a judging function and someone dominating with Ni or Si is using a perceiving function. But other than that the interpretation of the system by it’s followers is a boat load of crap in my opinion.


----------



## cyamitide

Functianalyst said:


> Similar to both systems, the OP only offers forced choices when actually they're the same.


 I agree with this, the distinctions are minimal.

Anyways I don't see a reason that you have to pick one over the other. MBTI has some things that socionics doesn't. Socionics has some things that MBTI doesn't. There is no reason to restrict yourself to only one typology.


----------



## elixare

cyamitide said:


> I agree with this, the distinctions are minimal.


If the distinctions are minimal then why do the function compositions differ between the two systems (besides the top 2 functions).....wouldn't those differences in function compositions make the two systems contradictory and therefore mutually exclusive?


----------



## gambit

There's only one eight function framework - *how you fill that framework with understanding and detail doesn't change it.* Whether you prescribe to socionics over MBTI will be a matter of belief and philosophy, not of the cognitive framework. Focus on the concepts and your life will fill the details _irrationally_, albeit naturally.

Trying to rationalize everything is like trying to prove whether "absolutes" exist or not and this is why there is never any agreement on anything - it all ends up boiling down to philosophy, which goes nowhere beyond belief and faith.


----------



## ozu

Socionics is the better tool for discussing intertype relations.
MBTI is the better tool for self-examination.

I'm far closer to IEE than I am to ENFP. 98% of V. Stratievskaya's stuff has proven useful to me; helps to speak Russian though as these translations are not stellar.


----------



## LiquidLight

> Socionics in my opinion probably comes closest to indicating the correctness in Jung’s work in their four-letter code since the system recognizes that at least someone dominating with Ti or Fi is using a judging function and someone dominating with Ni or Si is using a perceiving function. But other than that the interpretation of the system by it’s followers is a boat load of crap in my opinion.


+1

It's like Socionics heads down an interesting path, coming to similar conclusions as MBTI but maybe thought through better, but its like you have to divorce the premise of Socionics from the presentation of Socionics. Otherwise it gets wacky kinda quickly, the type descriptions on Socionics.com in particular make you question how serious they take this ("INFp's have long-thin noses and pointed chins," etc. WTF?).


----------



## ozu

LiquidLight said:


> INFp's have long-thin noses and pointed chins," etc.


I actually appreciate the hyperspecificity, correct or not. Gives Socionics lit a weirdly midcentury-fictional quality, as if one were watching a film about each type. I also love the little stories peppered here and there throughout the descriptions:



> Small [ISTp girl] rested with the parents in the south. Once of her happened fainting in the sun, and her it was necessary to hospitalize. After making a laminography, doctors in earnest were perturbed and said to mom that it is necessary to leave child in the hospital for the minimum of a week, to conduct more thorough inspection and to prescribe the appropriate treatment. Mom agreed, but she said: "Only, you know, she does not want to here remain, and she nevertheless will leave". When next day the doctor in attendance arrived to make circuit in the morning, no longer there was girl on the spot.


----------



## Karen

LOL ozu! This is somewhat specific too, right down to what the buttons are doing: 



> ENTps normally have a long, slim figure. Other parts of the body are also stretched, especially the legs and fingers. They often have rounded shoulders. Sometimes ENTps have a characteristic inwardly sloping chin. Because of their particular physical structure their clothes always seem to fit pretty badly, often slipping down and hanging off them in an unflattering manner. Their buttons also seem to have a habit of falling off.


Intuitive-Logical Extratim - ENTp (The Inventor)

I have at times come across Socionic descriptions of ENTPs that, more than MBTI, seem to hit at the heart of who they are rather than the specifics of their behavior. I frequently google both MBTI and Socionics to acquire a more well-rounded picture of a certain type. Though when it comes to quadras.... They don't make sense to me at all. :-o


----------



## LiquidLight

Sarah said:


> LOL ozu! This is somewhat specific too, right down to what the buttons are doing:
> 
> 
> 
> Intuitive-Logical Extratim - ENTp (The Inventor)
> 
> I have at times come across Socionic descriptions of ENTPs that, more than MBTI, seem to hit at the heart of who they are rather than the specifics of their behavior. I frequently google both MBTI and Socionics to acquire a more well-rounded picture of a certain type. Though when it comes to quadras.... They don't make sense to me at all. :-o


Yea this kinda stuff just _kills_ whatever validity Socionics might have in a greater sense. It's like a business analyst giving out financial advice via fortune cookies. WTF do buttons have to do with ENFp? Any type can be disheveled. 

I think the way that intertype dynamics are structured is kinda interesting, but again it gets way crazy really quickly and the fact that most of it is badly translated Russian doesn't help either.


----------



## Karen

LiquidLight said:


> Yea this kinda stuff just _kills_ whatever validity Socionics might have in a greater sense. It's like a business analyst giving out financial advice via fortune cookies. WTF do buttons have to do with ENFp? Any type can be disheveled.
> 
> I think the way that intertype dynamics are structured is kinda interesting, but again it gets way crazy really quickly and the fact that most of it is badly translated Russian doesn't help either.


A few days ago I got financial advice via a fortune cookie and my INTJ husband got the one about a party. I think the factory had us confused. :-o Just to keep the types straight and not confuse beginners, it's the ENTp's with the button problem, not the ENFp's. 

I was researching Reinin Dichotomies and Victor Gulenko a couple days ago and came across the following site: 

Machine Translation of "Life Scenarios" by Gulenko

"Those types, which are inclined to assume strange proposals to the examination occupy it."

By the end of the article I understood only slightly more than before I started reading. It's frustrating that so much information is locked up in the Russian language.


----------



## ozu

Sarah said:


> Machine Translation of "Life Scenarios" by Gulenko
> 
> "Those types, which are inclined to assume strange proposals to the examination occupy it."


Better translation of the full text of that paragraph:

"It further complicates the matter that both types of people enact their inner motivations -- favoring either work over personal life or the opposite -- in differing ways. Here it is likewise possible to identify two extremes between which people fluctuate."

Let me know if you guys need anything translated more closely. I speak Russian.


----------



## Sleepy

ozu said:


> Socionics is the better tool for discussing intertype relations.
> MBTI is the better tool for self-examination.


Understanding the model of intertype realtionships gives greater understanding of yourself. *Intertype relationships is not a separate thing, but they follow directly from the model of the psyche in socionics.* For example understanding the strengths of your dual gives greater understanding of your own weak, valued area. And the other way around: Understanding the weaknesses of your dual gives greater understanding of your own strong, valued area.


----------



## Sleepy

cyamitide said:


> Conversions between MBTI and socionics 3-letter types are very simple. Most types are going to convert as follows:
> INTP-LII, ENTP-ILE, ESFJ-ESE, ISFJ-SEI
> ENFJ-EIE, INFJ-IEI, ISTP-SLI, ESTP-SLE
> INTJ-ILI, ENTJ-LIE, ESFP-SEE, ISFP-ESI
> ENFP-IEE, INFP-EII, ISTJ-SLI, ESTJ-LSE


I think it's better not to use this conversion. There are too many exceptions, and often the type will be the same (SEI=ISFP) or something else. This table is just gonna give you superficially the same functions for MBTI and socionics types, but since the functions are defined differently it doesn't work. Just by checking the nicknames you see that LSI is called inspector and SLI is called craftsman. So no j/p swich for introverts in that case.
Socionic Types


----------



## Mind Swirl

LiquidLight said:


> Yea this kinda stuff just _kills_ whatever validity Socionics might have in a greater sense. It's like a business analyst giving out financial advice via fortune cookies. WTF do buttons have to do with ENFp? Any type can be disheveled.
> 
> I think the way that intertype dynamics are structured is kinda interesting, but again it gets way crazy really quickly and the fact that most of it is badly translated Russian doesn't help either.


 Agreed. Upon reading the descriptions, I noticed it started mentioning what the type looks like, what they wear, how their nose is shaped, their face shape, body types. Last time I checked, physical traits come from your parent's DNA. If your parents are both stocky with short noses and rounded faces, it's unlikely that you will have thin, sharp features, a lanky build, and a large pronounced nose. You could be S/N, J/P, I/E, or T/F but it's most likely you would be stocky with a round face unless you received some other recessive genes.


----------



## cyamitide

LiquidLight said:


> It's like Socionics heads down an interesting path, coming to similar conclusions as MBTI but maybe thought through better, but its like you have to divorce the premise of Socionics from the presentation of Socionics. Otherwise it gets wacky kinda quickly, the type descriptions on Socionics.com in particular make you question how serious they take this ("INFp's have long-thin noses and pointed chins," etc. WTF?).





Mind Swirl said:


> Agreed. Upon reading the descriptions, I noticed it started mentioning what the type looks like, what they wear, how their nose is shaped, their face shape, body types. Last time I checked, physical traits come from your parent's DNA. If your parents are both stocky with short noses and rounded faces, it's unlikely that you will have thin, sharp features, a lanky build, and a large pronounced nose. You could be S/N, J/P, I/E, or T/F but it's most likely you would be stocky with a round face unless you received some other recessive genes.


If you do a Google search for studies that link physical appearance to personality, you'll find that the correlation between the two has been established empirically (there are a few such studies linked in this thread: Personality and Physical Appearance). The fact that Socionics profiles go over some aspects of appearance doesn't discredit it in any way. This is supported by current research in psychology and neuroscience. It only shows once again that Socionics goes more in-depth than MBTI and covers aspects of personality that MBTI doesn't touch upon. Though there have been attempts among MBTI crowd as well to link physical appearance to type, for example this Guide to Typing in Real Time that was posted on INTP forums, so it's hardly a Socionics invention.

I frankly don't find this surprising at all that one's personality and looks have something in common. Back when I started to studying MBTI and typing people around me, I have noticed that people of same type would display similar mannerisms and facial expressions and that I could predict a person's type from a distance, then later talk to them and find out that I was correct more than chance would predict. With enough practice, going by physical cues turned out to be a neat short-cut to typing.

In Socionics identifying types by how they look is called VIing (VI stands for Visual Identification). VIing is definitely not the basis to Socionics types, but as I have described above it does prove to be very helpful initial aid and is useful for cases where you have limited information about a person. In this thread you can see how people of same type do have similar looks and expressions on photographs: Filatova's Portraits.


----------



## Functianalyst

cyamitide said:


> Socionics.us and Wikisocion are the most highly referenced websites among English-speaking Socionics community. Socionics.us has descriptions of information elements taken right from Aushra's writing and translated to English: Notes on "The Socion, or Socionics Basics" -- pg. 2. This website has profiles and articles published by Russian Socionists, some of which have been translated into English: the16types.info - Home


But the problem continues to be that not everyone claiming an interest in Socionics agrees with you. Sleepy made her comments known in post #28. Again the problem that socionics enthusiasts can’t agree among themselves what constitutes an accurate theory, makes any discussion of the system irrelevant. 

My annoyance with socionics enthusiasts is that contrary to their assertions, the make-up of types in that system correlate with mbti in a specific way. ISTj is not ISTJ, it’s ISTP and ISTp is ISTJ. When ENTps flock to the ISTP sub-forum, they become perturbed when I tell them they’re barking up the wrong tree. They should be going after ISTJ types in they have an interest in their duals. Also based on the fact that whether they want to change the cognitive function to a symbol or change the name from feeling to ethical, thinking to logical, it remains the same. This is where socionics enthusiasts refuse to see the difference. So I ask, does logical mean something different, or ethical? How are quadrants different from temperament? 


cyamitide said:


> I do not find this to be the case that people who study MBTI know its core principles and adhere to them. Like I've said before, there are very many books, publications, and websites devoted to MBTI containing different information. There does not seem to be more consensus among MBTI community on what MBTI is supposed to be and represent, how it is supposed to be used, than there is among Socionics community.


Myers-Briggs only wrote one book on type, that I am aware of. If people are learning type from anything but reading “Gifts Differing”, “Personality Type: An Owners Manual” or “Beside Ourselves”, then they’re not reading about MBTI. They’re reading hybrid theories that muddle temperament and type such as the Tiegers, Otto Kroeger. So to the contrary, they do not know MBTI. 


cyamitide said:


> Thank you for the link. In Socionics community it very much the same situation. Despite there being published articles from Russian sources as well as parts of Aushra's work, people studying Socionics often just on to make up their own systems and concepts and then argue that their ideas are more correct. Hence the lack of consensus. I frankly have learned to navigate through all this mess with both MBTI and Socionics.
> 
> This does indeed creates a stupid and convoluted debate. When I started learning Socionics I have bumped into such individuals, who would vehemently insist that Socionics is different and separate from Jung's work and from MBTI. But this is not the view espoused by all members of the community, and many debates have been waged on the issue between those who recognized the Jungian roots of the system and those who desired to keep Socionics to Aushra's work. Recently it has become more friendly for the former crowd.
> 
> Very much so. However, I found that if I put the "better" parts of both typologies together it yielded an overall better system. I could see how Socionics and MBTI could each advance through cooperation. Unfortunately, the prevailing attitude in Socionics community would not allow for this to happen.


When I began studying type over ten years ago, I was frustrated in learning the basic principles since Socionics and MBTI was inconsistent. It prompted me to go directly to the source to understand type. Since then, the only process that I trust is Linda V. Berens and Dario Nardi, because they distinguish the difference between the systems, especially Keirsey’s temperament. Since that time, going back to continue reading MBTI and Socionics would be a regression to learning a system using rudimentary tools.


----------



## cyamitide

Sleepy said:


> Well, this is the internet and anyone can make a website to spread their ideas. You have to do a little more research than just googling socionics.com to get into the theory.


I would not recommend socioniocs.com but this website it pretty good: Atricles: Content



Sleepy said:


> Physical characteristics IS NOT a part of socionics theory although many seem to think it is, just because socionics.com comes at the top when you google for socionics. Better sources are socionics.us or en.socionics.ru.
> 
> Socioincs is much more advanced and more correct than MBTI but it's also much harder to get information on it, although not impossible at all.


This is true, it is not part of main Socionics theory. Just something a few members do, but there is sufficient research to indicate that one's facial features are related to one's type.


----------



## elixare

cyamitide said:


> Forgot to answer to your reply. They do not differ. For example if you are INFP in MBTI your valued function are Fi/Ne/Si/Te. Socionics Ethical Intuitive Introvert type, EII, which comes closest to MBTI's INFP, has valued functions of Fi/Ne/Si/Te. The 16 types between the two typologies are exactly same.


What do you mean by "valued"....as far as I understand it, there are ego, super-ego, id, and super-id blocks...the ego block clearly maps to MBTI dom & aux, so that's pretty straightforward....the id block makes a lot of sense as well in which they are similar to the ego block but is unconscious, often ignored, and yet still strong...I see this to be the point where soc is more accurate than MBTI since MBTI simply doesn't discuss the id block functions...It's certainly true for me.....

The place where I see soc deviating from MBTI is with the super-ego and super-id blocks in which the super-id maps to MBTI tert and inf.....between the super-ego & super-id functions, which ones are stronger than the other...what is their ordering in terms of strength?


----------



## DonCoryon

This whole conversation reminded me of religion. We have the Jung (Judaism) and Myers-Briggs (Christianity). Then we have an offshoot from the same base religion Jung (Judaism) into something different Islam (Socionics).


----------



## cyamitide

childofprodigy said:


> What do you mean by "valued"....as far as I understand it, there are ego, super-ego, id, and super-id blocks...the ego block clearly maps to MBTI dom & aux, so that's pretty straightforward....the id block makes a lot of sense as well in which they are similar to the ego block but is unconscious, often ignored, and yet still strong...I see this to be the point where soc is more accurate than MBTI since MBTI simply doesn't discuss the id block functions...It's certainly true for me.....


In Socionics the 16 types are divided into 4 quadras (kind of like in MBTI you have smaller grouping STs, NFs, etc.) Each quadra has four valued functions and four un-valued functions. This is described here: Quadra - Wikisocion click on quadra names and it will describe "dominant" and "subdued" elements aka valued and un-valued.

MBTI's dominant and auxiliary corresponds to Socionics ego function of leading and creative. 
MBTI's tertiary and inferior corresponds to Socionics SuperId function of mobilizing and inferior. 
SuperEgo and Id contain what in MBTI is called "shadow" functions, or un-valued functions.



childofprodigy said:


> The place where I see soc deviating from MBTI is with the super-ego and super-id blocks in which the super-id maps to MBTI tert and inf.....between the super-ego & super-id functions, which ones are stronger than the other...what is their ordering in terms of strength?


It doesn't deviate, just groups them slightly differently.

Strength is Ego > SuperID > ID > Superego, which is same an in MBTI dominant & auxiliary > tertiary and inferior > "shadow" functions.


----------



## elixare

cyamitide said:


> Strength is Ego > SuperID > ID > Superego, which is same an in MBTI dominant & auxiliary > tertiary and inferior > "shadow" functions.


Why is the SuperID stronger than ID though.....I thought the ID functions were supposedly "strong and unconscious" whereas the SuperIDs are "weak and unconscious"....if that is the case, shouldn't ID be greater than SuperID?


----------



## cyamitide

childofprodigy said:


> Why is the SuperID stronger than ID though.....I thought the ID functions were supposedly "strong and unconscious" whereas the SuperIDs are "weak and unconscious"....if that is the case, shouldn't ID be greater than SuperID?


 SuperID is stronger because it contains valued functions. ID contains un-valued functions. So while socionics purports that you are able to use ID functions, they will be sort of like annoyance to you, while the SuperID function you will use yourself, seek them and encourage their use in others (which forms the basis of Socionics inter-type relations, that people seek out those who have their SuperID functions as strong Ego functions).


----------



## elixare

cyamitide said:


> SuperID is stronger because it contains valued functions. ID contains un-valued functions. So while socionics purports that you are able to use ID functions, they will be sort of like annoyance to you, while the SuperID function you will use yourself, seek them and encourage their use in others (which forms the basis of Socionics inter-type relations, that people seek out those who have their SuperID functions as strong Ego functions).


Interesting....a few more questions....why are there subtypes within types and how do those subtypes differ from each other in terms of cognitive functions....eg. what is the difference between ENTj-Te and ENTj-Ni in terms of cognitive functions....why are they called the Te subtype and the Ni subtype....do they use Te/Ni differently? 

Also do you know of any good info (books/articles/etc) that goes more in depth regarding Information Aspects? The ones in Wikisocion, etc don't convey that much info and I find this Information Aspects concept rather interesting....


----------



## cyamitide

childofprodigy said:


> Interesting....a few more questions....why are there subtypes within types and how do those subtypes differ from each other in terms of cognitive functions....eg. what is the difference between ENTj-Te and ENTj-Ni in terms of cognitive functions....why are they called the Te subtype and the Ni subtype....do they use Te/Ni differently?


Subtypes arise from the fact that different individuals will stress different functions. Some will place more emphasis on their dominant function, others - on their creative/auxiliary. The producing subtype simply gets more of a mental 'high' from using auxiliary/creative function (it also reinforces their suggestive or what is known as inferior function in MBTI). The accepting subtype spends more time on using their dominant/leading function, and is also more adept at using their tertiary/mobilizing but has more problems with inferior. There are indeed easily noticeable differences in how accepting and producing subtypes think and interact with others.



childofprodigy said:


> Also do you know of any good info (books/articles/etc) that goes more in depth regarding Information Aspects? The ones in Wikisocion, etc don't convey that much info and I find this Information Aspects concept rather interesting....


Don't know of any books, I've simply done a search and collected information from Socionics - the16types.info forums there are many threads there with posters discussing what information aspect are.


----------



## cyamitide

Sleepy said:


> You learn socionics by reading, reading and making observations and then making more observations. I have never found a system that predicts compatibility between people as well as socionics does. But you have to meet lots of people and get a feeling for how these things work in practise. Find your own type, your dual, etc. Learn to type people etc. Learn what it's like to be supervised, how it's like to meet a dual, a semidual. These things are all there in real life.


This is the best way to study MBTI or Socionics - observe plenty and learn to type other people.



Sleepy said:


> There are hours of analysis of the question on how MBTI functions fit to socioncis functions at the16types.info. It's not a simple question. The functions just has the same name, but it doesn't refer to the same thing in the real world between the systems. MBTI and Socionics interpret Jung differently.


 This I disagree with. The functions are same across what Jung and MBTI and Socionic try to describe.


----------



## Erbse

cyamitide said:


> Subtypes arise from the fact that different individuals will stress different functions. Some will place more emphasis on their dominant function, others - on their creative/auxiliary. The producing subtype simply gets more of a mental 'high' from using auxiliary/creative function (it also reinforces their suggestive or what is known as inferior function in MBTI). The accepting subtype spends more time on using their dominant/leading function, and is also more adept at using their tertiary/mobilizing but has more problems with inferior. There are indeed easily noticeable differences in how accepting and producing subtypes think and interact with others.


This is confusing me, assuming we talk about Jung being the foundation of both systems. Socionics here attempts to try to take care of intertype differences from my understanding. Jung however *clearly* stated that one's dominant functions *cannot* be overthrown by an of the other functions, but they at best serve the dominant function as slaves.

This for me implies, taking the MBTI ISTP and INTP as an example, that these two types at all times speak Ti, hence at all times simply get and understand each other (intertype relation as within their own type). Of course there are minor difference that stem from the perceiving function (Se / Ne) but general approach towards things and understanding of frameworks overlaps just completely and creates resonance between the types when communicating.

In that sense I don't understand what Socionics tries to do here, but to an extend tries to permit mistyping, so to speak. Jung hasn't lost a word about the standard auxiliary function not being interchangeable by another, if as ISTP (Ti / Se) then preferred to primarily use Ne and be a "Ne-ISTP" (assuming such a thing exists) I'd basically be an INTP (in terms of MBTI function sets, that is) while trying to get away with something I'm not in reality. 

So I find that somewhat confusing to deal with.

When I looked over the quadras I certainly could identify with it, or more precisely could agree to some extend as far as the "generalized" relationships between the quadras work - certainly more than with Keirsey's temperaments. I however went with ISTp being an ISTP, rather than switching to an ISTj.

Inevitably however, no matter how I look at it I'm staring at a bowl of goo that's been thrown together by different pieces that don't seem to interact consistently.


----------



## cyamitide

Erbse said:


> This is confusing me, assuming we talk about Jung being the foundation of both systems. Socionics here attempts to try to take care of intertype differences from my understanding. Jung however *clearly* stated that one's dominant functions *cannot* be overthrown by an of the other functions, but they at best serve the dominant function as slaves.


In Socionics functions don't have ordering but rather roles. Dominant function is called "leading" and auxiliary is called "creative". These two are the strongest function of a type being placed together in its ego block. Their roles never become reversed, however, difference people may place different amount of emphasis on them. Some give more weight to cognitive products of their leading functions, others - to creative. This differentiates subtypes, described here: Type and subtype descriptions



Erbse said:


> This for me implies, taking the MBTI ISTP and INTP as an example, that these two types at all times speak Ti, hence at all times simply get and understand each other (intertype relation as within their own type). Of course there are minor difference that stem from the perceiving function (Se / Ne) but general approach towards things and understanding of frameworks overlaps just completely and creates resonance between the types when communicating.


Subtypes do not imply that INTP placing heavy emphasis on his or her creative function just slowly merges into ENTP. Creative function remains within its role. Compatibility and inter-type relations are, however, slightly affected by subtypes. Usually IxxJ types get along better with ExxP and ExxJ types of the same subtype as themselves.



Erbse said:


> In that sense I don't understand what Socionics tries to do here, but to an extend tries to permit mistyping, so to speak. Jung hasn't lost a word about the standard auxiliary function not being interchangeable by another, if as ISTP (Ti / Se) then preferred to primarily use Ne and be a "Ne-ISTP" (assuming such a thing exists) I'd basically be an INTP (in terms of MBTI function sets, that is) while trying to get away with something I'm not in reality.


Subtypes simply create smaller, less important categories within the type. Subtypes do not imply that functions can supersede one another.

There is no such thing as Ne-ISTP. ISTPs come only in two subtypes: Ti-ISTP and Se-ISTP as you can read in the article I linked.



Erbse said:


> So I find that somewhat confusing to deal with.


I hope I've clarified some of the confusion.



Erbse said:


> When I looked over the quadras I certainly could identify with it, or more precisely could agree to some extend as far as the "generalized" relationships between the quadras work - certainly more than with Keirsey's temperaments. I however went with ISTp being an ISTP, rather than switching to an ISTj.


 If you are Ti-dominant then you would be either LSI (ISTj) or LII (INTj). Ti is structural logic in socionics as well, so if you are dominant in this function in MBTI then same would be true of in socionics.

Here you can read over some profiles:
INTj: INTj description
ISTj: ISTj description


----------



## PlushWitch

Well... from my understanding there's quite a difficult difference between those two systems.

Ni => Ni
Ne => Ne
Fe => Fe
Fi => Fi
Te => Te
Ti => Ti

but:

Se => Si
Si => Se

Types with the same order of the first strongest functions in both theories:
IEI (INFp) = INFJ
EII (INFj) = INFP
IEE (ENFp) = ENFP
EIE (ENFj) = ENFJ
ILI (INTp) = INTJ
LII (INTj) = INTP

! Types with different function order and reversed judging function (remember: Se and Si are defined reversedly!) than in MBTI !:
SEI (ISFp) = ISFP
ESI (ISFj) = ISFJ
SEE (ESFp) = ESFJ
ESE (ESFj) = ESFP
SLI (ISTp) = ISTP
LSI (ISTj) = ISTJ
SLE (ESTp) = ESTJ
LSE (ESTj) = ESTP


----------



## elixare

PlushWitch said:


> Se => Si
> Si => Se


Nah, socionics just plain confused Se with Enneagram 8.....many of the Se descriptions in socionics are blatantly false and are better explained through enneagram 8

Their Si descriptions are also incomplete....MBTI Si descriptions are much better


----------



## Abx

I just skimmed this thread, LII describe me better than LSI.
Even I have a strongest personality, I still don't want to be number 1 in family.
Probably it is just me...


----------



## Abx

Uhm...I can't edit my post.


----------



## elixare

Abx said:


> I just skimmed this thread, LII describe me better than LSI.
> Even I have a strongest personality, I still don't want to be number 1 in family.
> Probably it is just me...


I'm not sure what you're trying to say....LII = MBTI INTP while LSI = MBTI ISTP.....and yet it says that you're INTJ


----------



## Abx

childofprodigy said:


> I'm not sure what you're trying to say....LII = MBTI INTP while LSI = MBTI ISTP.....and yet it says that you're INTJ


Sorry, I don't read much actually, I just click and read the LSI & LII link that cyamitide gave.


----------



## PlushWitch

childofprodigy said:


> Nah, socionics just plain confused Se with Enneagram 8.....many of the Se descriptions in socionics are blatantly false and are better explained through enneagram 8
> 
> Their Si descriptions are also incomplete....MBTI Si descriptions are much better


That's probably true. They often confuse Enneagram with cognitive function, but so does the MBTI-based theory.

And they're still doing this whole reverse thingy for Sensing types. 

If you read the descriptions for ISFj (ESI) for example, it becomes clear that they're describing an ISFJ of which they're saying that they have dominant Fi and secondary Se, which resembles the MBTI Si a lot more than the Socionics Si does.

And there's another interesting thing I have found: I've had a discussion with someone lately ( @LiquidLight , was it you?) in which we both agreed that ESFPs can appear to be using Fe. And that's EXACTLY what Socionics say MBTI ESFPs are using. They're calling them ESFj (ESE) and the ESFj descriptions sound a lot like ESFP and the other way round! So they basically claim that and ESFj has dominant Fe - which sounds really legitimate to me considering the cognitive function test scores of my oldest friend - an (MBTI) ESFP.


----------



## PistolShrimp

Anyone else find Socionics prognoses for any relationships outside of duality, activity, and identity depressing? I find it bizarre that MBTI tells me my ENTP-INFJ relationship is the bomb diggity, but Socionics says ENTp-INFp is "Illusionary" and we're merely deluded into thinking we're a good match. :/


----------

