# Does your Socionics type match your MBTi type?



## JonTay (Apr 4, 2016)

I'm still not certain of my type in socionics. I say I'm an SEE, but when I read descriptions of the Se function in socionics, I really don't relate to it. This idea of power, force, or control is not included in MBTI's definition of Se. I'm wondering if other people are having similar problems. 

Also, I know a lot of people believe that the types should always be the same in both systems. How can this be if the very definitions of the socionics information elements are different? 

Please share your thoughts.


----------



## Zero11 (Feb 7, 2010)

To what do you relate in Socionics?


----------



## Varyafiriel (Sep 5, 2012)

My MBTI type (INFJ) matches my Socionics type (EII INFj). 

In MBTI I relate to the different INFJ-type descriptions, in dichotomy tests I almost always get INFJ, I also relate to the MBTI-cog.-function-definitions, that seem to belong to the INFJ-type: Ni+Fe+Ti, I relate a little bit to Fi. Furthermore Se (in the MBTI sense) is certainly my inferior function).

In Socionics I read almost every type description that exists (in english). The only type I relate to is the EII (INFj). Also the Reinin dichotomies are consistent. When I read the Socionic-functions-definitions and when I look how they work in each "position", I certainly know that Fi is my leading function, Ne is my creative function and Se is my PoLR.

So you see, I relate to the type descriptions of both INFJ and EII (INFj). Also the dichotomies seem to fit. The only thing that's different is the "order" of the functions. But I think, functions in MBTI and Socionics are so differently defined, that you can't say MBTI Fi = Socionics Fi or MBTI Se = Socionics Se. I think INFJ and EII describe the same archetype, but use different terms to define how the type is built up. They use different terms but come to the same conclusion. Also I do think that, in case of the MBTI, they created the type descriptions on the basis of the simple dichotomies (E vs I, etc) and some oberservable behaviours/characteristics. Then, afterwards, the Neo-Jungians of the MBTI built up a certain "stack" for every type and defined the cog. functions (Ni, Fi, etc). accordingly, but very different from the Jungian original. This definitions of the cog. functions were adjusted to the type description, not the other way around. I think in Socionics it was vice versa. First they took the original Jungian descriptions, combined his ideas with psychological insights, put the functions into different IE and then wrote their type descriptions. So it's no surprise, that the functions in the two systems doesn't mean the same.


----------



## DOGSOUP (Jan 29, 2016)

Tbh I don't relate to "MBTI Fe" very much. 

Do you relate to Si or Fe in Socionics?


----------



## Wisteria (Apr 2, 2015)

Wondering the same thing. Do people on this forum set the MBTI as the equivalent to their socionics type (e.g IEI - INFJ) because the cognitive functions are more or less the same as socionics? 

I relate to Ne more in socionics and Se in MBTI. Because Ne in cognitive sounds too scattered and more about brainstorming than it 
does about the conceptual and realising potential. I would go for Sensing over Intuition preference in MBTI.

There are differences in the webs "cognitive functions" and the IEs. Si is more similar to MBTI Se as it's about physical sensations and sensory data. MBTI Te is somewhat like socionics Se in nature. MBTI Fe is very different from extraverted ethics, so is Fi.
@alyara what do you think of the LII and ESI descriptions? Do you not find them slightly relatable at least?


----------



## DavidH (Apr 21, 2017)

It is possible, but not probable.

The two systems share similar vocabulary, but they are separate and independent systems. Each maintains a 16 point classification. The probability of being the same type in each system is 16 * 16 = 256, or 1/256 chance to be the same type in each system.


----------



## owlet (May 7, 2010)

There are differences between the functions in each theory, so it's usually better to treat them as two facets, or interpretations, of the same core principle in a way (the cognitive functions).

For example, in JCF Ne is this:

* *







> Whenever intuition predominates, a particular and unmistakable psychology presents itself. Because intuition is orientated by the object, a decided dependence upon external situations is discernible, but it has an altogether different character from the dependence of the sensational type. The intuitive is never to be found among the generally recognized reality values, but he is always present where possibilities exist. He has a keen nose for things in the bud pregnant with future promise. He can never exist in stable, long-established conditions of generally acknowledged though limited value: because his eye is constantly ranging for new possibilities, stable conditions have an air of impending suffocation. He seizes hold of new objects and new ways with eager intensity, sometimes with extraordinary enthusiasm, only to abandon them cold-bloodedly, without regard and apparently without remembrance, as soon as their range becomes clearly defined and a promise of any considerable future development no longer clings to them. As long as a possibility exists, the intuitive is bound to it with thongs of fate. It is as though his whole life went out into the new situation. One gets the impression, which he himself shares, that he has just reached the definitive turning point in his life, and that from now on nothing else can seriously engage his thought and feeling. How- [p. 465] ever reasonable and opportune it may be, and although every conceivable argument speaks in favour of stability, a day will come when nothing will deter him from regarding as a prison, the self-same situation that seemed to promise him freedom and deliverance, and from acting accordingly. Neither reason nor feeling can restrain or discourage him from a new possibility, even though it may run counter to convictions hitherto unquestioned. Thinking and feeling, the indispensable components of conviction, are, with him, inferior functions, possessing no decisive weight; hence they lack the power to offer any lasting. resistance to the force of intuition. And yet these are the only functions that are capable of creating any effectual compensation to the supremacy of intuition, since they can provide the intuitive with that _judgment _in which his type is altogether lacking. The morality of the intuitive is governed neither by intellect nor by feeling; he has his own characteristic morality, which consists in a loyalty to his intuitive view of things and a voluntary submission to its authority, Consideration for the welfare of his neighbours is weak. No solid argument hinges upon their well-being any more than upon his own. Neither can we detect in him any great respect for his neighbour's convictions and customs; in fact, he is not infrequently put down as an immoral and ruthless adventurer. Since his intuition is largely concerned with outer objects, scenting out external possibilities, he readily applies himself to callings wherein he may expand his abilities in many directions. Merchants, contractors, speculators, agents, politicians, etc., commonly belong to this type.






* *






> Apparently this type is more prone to favour women than men; in which case, however, the intuitive activity reveals itself not so much in the professional as in the social sphere. Such women understand the art of utilizing every social opportunity; they establish right social con- [p. 466] nections; they seek out lovers with possibilities only to abandon everything again for the sake of a new possibility.
> It is at once clear, both from the standpoint of political economy and on grounds of general culture, that such a type is uncommonly important. If well-intentioned, with an orientation to life not purely egoistical, he may render exceptional service as the promoter, if not the initiator of every kind of promising enterprise. He is the natural advocate of every minority that holds the seed of future promise. Because of his capacity, when orientated more towards men than things, to make an intuitive diagnosis of their abilities and range of usefulness, he can also 'make' men. His capacity to inspire his fellow-men with courage, or to kindle enthusiasm for something new, is unrivalled, although he may have forsworn it by the morrow. The more powerful and vivid his intuition, the more is his subject fused and blended with the divined possibility. He animates it; he presents it in plastic shape and with convincing fire; he almost embodies it. It is not a mere histrionic display, but a fate.
> This attitude has immense dangers -- all too easily the intuitive may squander his life. He spends himself animating men and things, spreading around him an abundance of life -- a life, however, which others live, not he. Were he able to rest with the actual thing, he would gather the fruit of his labours; yet all too soon must he be running after some fresh possibility, quitting his newly planted field, while others reap the harvest. In the end he goes empty away. But when the intuitive lets things reach such a pitch, he also has the unconscious against him. The unconscious of the intuitive has a certain similarity with that of the sensation-type. Thinking and feeling, being relatively repressed, produce infantile and archaic thoughts and feelings in the unconscious, which may be compared [p. 467] with those of the countertype. They likewise come to the surface in the form of intensive projections, and are just as absurd as those of the sensation-type, only to my mind they lack the other's mystical character; they are chiefly concerned with quasi-actual things, in the nature of sexual, financial, and other hazards, as, for instance, suspicions of approaching illness. This difference appears to be due to a repression of the sensations of actual things. These latter usually command attention in the shape of a sudden entanglement with a most unsuitable woman, or, in the case of a woman, with a thoroughly unsuitable man; and this is simply the result of their unwitting contact with the sphere of archaic sensations. But its consequence is an unconsciously compelling tie to an object of incontestable futility. Such an event is already a compulsive symptom, which is also thoroughly characteristic of this type. In common with the sensation-type, he claims a similar freedom and exemption from all restraint, since he suffers no submission of his decisions to rational judgment, relying entirely upon the perception of chance, possibilities. He rids himself of the restrictions of reason, only to fall a victim to unconscious neurotic compulsions in the form of oversubtle, negative reasoning, hair-splitting dialectics, and a compulsive tie to the sensation of the object. His conscious attitude, both to the sensation and the sensed object, is one of sovereign superiority and disregard. Not that he means to be inconsiderate or superior -- he simply does not see the object that everyone else sees; his oblivion is similar to that of the sensation-type -- only, with the latter, the soul of the object is missed. For this oblivion the object sooner or later takes revenge in the form of hypochondriacal, compulsive ideas, phobias, and every imaginable kind of absurd bodily sensation. [p. 468]







And in socionics, Ne is:

* *







> Perceives information about objects' potential energy — for example, information about the physical and mental abilities and potential of a person. This perception grants the ability to understand the structure of objects and phenomena and grasp their inner content. This element determines a person's ability or inability to see the real potential energy of one's surroundings.






* *






> When this element is in the leading position, the individual has pronounced cognitive interests. This individual is constantly studying underlying phenomena, which he/she is able to communicate to others quite successfully by making complicated things simple. Such a person enjoys explaining his understanding of things to others. Under favorable conditions, he/she becomes a scientist or writer. He/she can find optimal ways of increasing the potential energy of objects. "Energizes" other people around him with his understanding of the possibilities and potential of the surrounding objects.
> *Ne is generally associated with the ability to recognize possibilities, create new opportunities and new beginnings, recognize talent and natural propensities in others, reconcile differing perspectives and viewpoints, rapidly generate ideas, and be led by one's intellectual curiosity and stimulate curiosity in others.*
> 
> Types that value Ne prefer to try out an opportunity rather than consider all possible ways in which it could not work out. They pick a few options and stick with them, in contrast to introverted intuition Ni types who pick one option and continue to doubt that option.
> They enjoy discussing unusual insights into the nature of the world and crazy out-there ideas, like space elevators. Typical Ne quadra humor juxtaposes seemingly unrelated phenomena.





ETA: Hm, some weird formatting is happening which I can't seem to fix. I hope it's okay.


----------



## Varyafiriel (Sep 5, 2012)

Wisteria said:


> @*alyara* what do you think of the LII and ESI descriptions? Do you not find them slightly relatable at least?


Yes, I do. I almost fully relate to the EII description. The LII-descriptions are also somehow relatable and I could find myself at least partially in IEI, EIE and ESI descriptions. 

In MBTI I relate most to INFJ-descriptions, followed by INTJ > INFP > ENFJ > ISFJ.....


----------



## JonTay (Apr 4, 2016)

Zero11 said:


> To what do you relate in Socionics?


I think I relate more to the Si/Ne in Socionics. At first I thought, maybe IEE, because in MBTI i relate to a lot of ENFP traits. But now I'm playing with the idea that I could be an SEI. Im definitely a "perciever" in both systems.


----------



## baitedcrow (Dec 22, 2015)

Personally, yes. Actually, my Socionics type is clearer and helped me to clarify my MBT best-fit. I'm a pretty exemplar Gamma quadra individual and ILI is the only Gamma type I could feasibly be + the subtype descriptions allow me to make clear that I'm a very Ni-reliant Te user. MBT dichotomies-wise I am close to INXX (though I do usually test INTJ) which early on made me question my type extensively. That I'm obviously ILI and ILI is the type that most closely matches MBT INTJ always made INTJ seem most likely to be like me of the four INXX types I considered.


----------



## Sir Kanra (Jun 27, 2017)

In Socionics I usually either get INTp or ENTp which, at least in mbti, would translate to INTJ and ENTP supposedly and I think I can guess which one I'm more like.

I believe my Quadra is Alpha.

I assume that any Socionics type that shares your mbti functions is basically part of the same mindset.


----------



## Farfadou57 (Feb 10, 2017)

I'm INFJ in MBTI and IEI in socionics, so I think, it match.


----------



## Indiana Jones Fan (Jan 24, 2017)

I don't know much about MBTI or Socionics, but my type does not appear to match, probably being an ISTJ in MBTI and possibly being an ESI/ISFj or ILI/INTp in Socionics.


----------



## brightflashes (Oct 27, 2015)

I'm INTJ and ILI, so they match. I haven't looked as much into socionics, but I am slowly starting to learn more about it on my own. I'm currently trying to master Beebe's conception of the 8 functions and from there I'm going to socionics.


----------



## Sir Kanra (Jun 27, 2017)

What must we assume if it doesn't match? Say I was INTp in socionics and xNTP in mbti. The functions would contradict and clash wouldn't they? So it shouldn't be possible.. unless it's something like a shadow type influence.


----------



## Varyafiriel (Sep 5, 2012)

The function definitions in Socionics and MBTI are different. Socionics Fi isn't MBTI Fi. You should use the two theories seperately. INFP isn't automatically INFj. If you read the different type descriptions you'll see, that the INFJ description is very similar to the INFj description whereas it has not so much in common with the INFp description. The j/p switch is a myth. Yes, there are cases where someone is INFP/INFj, but it's not the rule, because the theories aren't interchangeable and the functions are so differently defined.


----------



## Krayfish (Nov 3, 2015)

Mine do not match. Although I am admittedly not 100% sure of either, recent research has led me to believe that I am ILE (ENTp) in socionics and an ENFP in mbti. I cannot relate to the socionics version of Fi and recognize it as a weakness within myself, therefore see it more in my superego block. 

What I've heard is for extroverts, mbti and socionics type typically match and for introverts they do not. An INFJ in mbti, for example, would be more inclined to be an IEI- INFp in socionics because the functional stack would be more similar in nature. Still, apparently it isn't terribly uncommon to see "mismatched" typing due to the differences in the descriptions and function of the information elements and cognitive functions


----------



## iris345 (Jul 17, 2017)

My socionics is ILI and my MBTI is INTP-T


----------



## Celtic Maiden (Jul 19, 2017)

You should have the same cognitive functions in both systems, but there are discrepancies in how things are explained and understood for some types and that causes confusion. It seems easier for most people to find their type in MBTI.

I'm an INTP in MBTI and the LII subtype Ne-LII fits me exceedingly well.


----------



## Sir Kanra (Jun 27, 2017)

I've gotten

ILI
ILE

What heavily explains me

ILE - 85% (Ti subtype)
LII - 95% (Ne subtype)
ILI - 85% (Ni subtype)

LII > ILE <= ILI

I question the existence of an LII-ENTP let alone an ILI-ENTP but I'm still learning how these systems relate to one another in order to judge. There are just too many variables to sort through.


----------

