# MBTI vs. Socionics & the Gossip



## Promethea (Aug 24, 2009)

@Zero11
Noooooo.

This is something comparing/contrasting the IM elements/mbti functions, originally @Aleksei wrote it up, and then Aestrivex (retired member) shared a criticism, but overall it should make some points that the IM elements are not the same as the mbti functions:

User:Aestrivex/essays/Contrasting JCF and socionics - WSWiki

I have my own ideas about their difference, similarities, most different being the Ts or Logic
Least different being the N functions/IM elements

Anyway, I think that the IM elements and mbti functions are illuminating different parts, and perhaps *sometimes* those beams overlap in *some* places -- but not all, not by a long shot.

And Aleksei: if you still believe they are different, maybe you can be of help, if you care. A socionics forum will be added soon, and I think that I'm going to sink fast in all of this 'they're the same things' business. In most of the mbti types here, I see very little consistency between 'whut socionics type that would be' -- and unless people can keep them straight, on this obviously mbti focused board, I see lots of disaster.


----------



## Zero11 (Feb 7, 2010)

@Promethea

Your link doesn´t changes anything for me I still believe that the functions are the same. Through Real-time recognition of the dominant types to understand the functions as they work and not how a system is on the go to interpret this things based on their theoretical model. The thing is that it is hard to understand the cognitive functions through their blurring (they work in pairs e.g. Ni/Se Ti/Fe) this abstraction from the complete picture is a huge advantage in my opinion. I am far more interested in this stuff than I am into the Enneagram. The functions are giving me the opportunity to dig deeper and to explore the patterns on my own :blushed:


----------



## MrShatter (Sep 28, 2010)

Zero11 said:


> I am far more interested in this stuff than I am into the Enneagram. The functions are giving me the opportunity to dig deeper and to explore the patterns on my own :blushed:



The enneagram does seem boring compared to MBTI until you get into it. Enneagram is so much more intricate and detailed, you just have to understand it more to fully appreciate it I think.


----------



## JungyesMBTIno (Jul 22, 2011)

As cool as the enneagram is, it's definitely the one that parrots more than MBTI (beyond the tests) and Jung.


----------



## MrShatter (Sep 28, 2010)

JungyesMBTIno said:


> As cool as the enneagram is, it's definitely the one that parrots more than MBTI (beyond the tests) and Jung.


parrots?


----------



## Figure (Jun 22, 2011)

Zero11 said:


> @_Promethea_
> 
> Your link doesn´t changes anything for me I still believe that the functions are the same. Through Real-time recognition of the dominant types to understand the functions as they work and not how a system is on the go to interpret this things based on their theoretical model. The thing is that it is hard to understand the cognitive functions through their blurring (they work in pairs e.g. Ni/Se Ti/Fe) this abstraction from the complete picture is a huge advantage in my opinion. I am far more interested in this stuff than I am into the Enneagram. The functions are giving me the opportunity to dig deeper and to explore the patterns on my own :blushed:


I agree, I believe they are equatable as well. _*NOT *_with respect to the ways in which they function within the system, as a Ti user might see it, but as they mesh experientially on the basis of shared, inherent connections. In other words, *I don't understand why many descriptive elements of JCF's and **socionics cognitive functions cannot be combined.* Lack of "sameness," in other words, doesn't necessitate complete separation of the functions in both systems. I may be biased here for _not _relating the MBTI INTJ nearly as much as the N subtype socionics INTp. 

The problem is, this perspective is entirely Te-based, and a Ti user will never see it as accounting for what he or she would see to be the critical elements of the functions they have deduced after immense pondering. They've spent a long time pondering the system and I've spent a long time observing it in the real world. Let the games, and systems building, begin. 

MBTI and JCF's are general enough to not spark as significantly disparate perspectives.


----------



## JungyesMBTIno (Jul 22, 2011)

MrShatter said:


> parrots?


I guess it's the one where there's less to it in terms of exploring dynamics behind it (so, it sort of tells you who you are, and then you are done in that department after the fact), but more to it relative to MBTI in terms of exploring the influence it has over your own individual personality (JCFs are very much a borderline separate concept from what makes you your own unique person, I understand). Then again, I'm not sure how other people commonly approach the enneagram - from what other angles people might approach it. I like it for very different reasons than I do MBTI/Jung.


----------



## MrShatter (Sep 28, 2010)

JungyesMBTIno said:


> I guess it's the one where there's less to it in terms of exploring dynamics behind it (so, it sort of tells you who you are, and then you are done in that department after the fact), but more to it relative to MBTI in terms of exploring the influence it has over your own individual personality (JCFs are very much a borderline separate concept from what makes you your own unique person, I understand). Then again, I'm not sure how other people commonly approach the enneagram - from what other angles people might approach it. I like it for very different reasons than I do MBTI/Jung.


I shared this opinion in the past - but now, I really enjoy the Enneagram. At first, I had trouble breaking it down into simpler components (MBTI is very neat about that) but once you can separate the enneagram and recognize its parts, the nuances are amazing. The reason I think it's so difficult is because the Enneagram is very fluid - it is circular in it's depiction and circular by nature. Everything is much more intertwined & holistic. The cognitive functions that Jung created/observed are very much like building blocks or legos. 

:tongue: I enjoy both quite thoroughly and I see them as complements to each other. Cognitive functions provide the structure and Enneagram the fluidity. 
I think there are hidden nuances in the Enneagram that people miss unless they look a little deeper. Like many things, it gets better with understanding.

Curious: I see you're a five  To what extent have you looked into the enneagram?

:frustratingop quiz!: How many times did I use the word Enneagram in that post?!


----------



## MrShatter (Sep 28, 2010)

LXPilot said:


> I agree, I believe they are equatable as well. _*NOT *_with respect to the ways in which they function within the system, as a Ti user might see it, but as they mesh experientially on the basis of shared, inherent connections. In other words, *I don't understand why many descriptive elements of JCF's and **socionics cognitive functions cannot be combined.* Lack of "sameness," in other words, doesn't necessitate complete separation of the functions in both systems. I may be biased here for _not _relating the MBTI INTJ nearly as much as the N subtype socionics INTp.
> 
> The problem is, this perspective is entirely Te-based, and a Ti user will never see it as accounting for what he or she would see to be the critical elements of the functions they have deduced after immense pondering. They've spent a long time pondering the system and I've spent a long time observing it in the real world. Let the games, and systems building, begin.
> 
> MBTI and JCF's are general enough to not spark as significantly disparate perspectives.


I'm not quite sure what you're trying to say here. Why can't Socionics and MBTI be one?


----------



## Alarox (Jun 12, 2012)

MrShatter said:


> I'm not quite sure what you're trying to say here. Why can't Socionics and MBTI be one?


Probably saying that some of interconnections that many people use to understand MBTI won't be in place in Socionics, or at least in a different form. That things will seem similar, but interpreted in different ways in MBTI compared to Socionics. There are also some things quite different (Judging/Perceiving).

The two systems have a similar foundation but are built up with some differences.

It's kind of like doing math with base 10 (like everyone one Earth uses), and then trying to do math in base 15 (where there's 14 individual symbols before you add a second digit).

Kind of like growing up with the Metric System and then living in the English System, except worse.

In either example, you're basically doing the same thing except describing it in a different way. Technically you could combine them, but it get's messy simply because of how the systems are built, yet still definitely possible when you cut through semantics and different ways of describing the same thing. Similar to MBTI and Socionics.

At least, that's what I've gotten from his posts and this thread thus far.


----------



## JungyesMBTIno (Jul 22, 2011)

MrShatter said:


> I shared this opinion in the past - but now, I really enjoy the Enneagram. At first, I had trouble breaking it down into simpler components (MBTI is very neat about that) but once you can separate the enneagram and recognize its parts, the nuances are amazing. The reason I think it's so difficult is because the Enneagram is very fluid - it is circular in it's depiction and circular by nature. Everything is much more intertwined & holistic. The cognitive functions that Jung created/observed are very much like building blocks or legos.
> 
> :tongue: I enjoy both quite thoroughly and I see them as complements to each other. Cognitive functions provide the structure and Enneagram the fluidity.
> I think there are hidden nuances in the Enneagram that people miss unless they look a little deeper. Like many things, it gets better with understanding.
> ...


As a 5, I haven't really looked into the enneagram nearly as much as MBTI/Jung, although I'm into it (I probably have a ratio of about 900 thoughts about the enneagram to 6000 thoughts about MBTI/Jung regularly) - I find it to be a colorful system and quite fun to apply to reality, but somehow, I've never really picked up on its circular nature and depiction as you put it, other than visually, lol. I suppose I'm missing the nuance as well (I struggle with quite putting my finger on where this special nuance lies, even though I suspect it). I do agree about the two systems complementing each other mighty well though. Jung's my greater addiction currently (always has been), while the enneagram adds a ton of the flavor to it.

Pop quiz answer: 7..? >< (5 with a capital E, 2 with a lowercase e) Or 6 if you discount the "Pop quiz" sentence? Or in the "curious" post, once? You used "the word Enneagram" once. LOL, I'm way overanalyzing this, aren't I...(that's the kind of test taker I tend to be IRL, LOL).


----------



## LibertyPrime (Dec 17, 2010)

JungyesMBTIno said:


> If not for J/P being such a big deal in MBTI, I don't think there would be so much confusion between the two systems. I think Socionics does a better job overall.


From what i understood socionics is based on how one is perceived by others, not how one is internally. For example I have been typed ISTp in socionics because that is what I seem like to others, while according to the JCF I'm a Fi dom Ne second.

I prefer the enneagram over both as it tends to give more solutions and motivations are more palpable then socionics and mbti stuff, thus credibility of the system is higher. Also it tends to just work after one has found the right type.

My skepticism of both MBTI and socionics stems from the fact that no system of verification has been developed as of yet, which could prove their existence / validity.

Neurophysiology could verify, but I don't see people using it for this purpose. Its a shame.


----------



## JungyesMBTIno (Jul 22, 2011)

Rim said:


> From what i understood socionics is based on how one is perceived by others, not how one is internally. For example I have been typed ISTp in socionics because that is what I seem like to others, while according to the JCF I'm a Fi dom Ne second.


So is MBTI (hence the J/P designation - to indicate the dominant nature of your extraversion, which is what everyone sees). It's the same system very generally speaking, but socionics obeys Jung's principle of the dominant function determining the J/P of the person, unlike MBTI. Speaking of which, Ti and Fi are basically nothing alike, beyond being both Ji functions. The former is concerned with conceptual definitions and terminology (so basically, logic in relation to what makes sense to how a person thinks), while the former is concerned with evaluative significance by one's own sense of how they seek significance with self-congruence (so, it's a logic that has nothing to do with "making sense" of anything, but instead, about reasoning on the premises of who they feel they are or should be as a person).


----------



## LibertyPrime (Dec 17, 2010)

JungyesMBTIno said:


> So is MBTI (hence the J/P designation - to indicate the dominant nature of your extraversion, which is what everyone sees). It's the same system very generally speaking, but socionics obeys Jung's principle of the dominant function determining the J/P of the person, unlike MBTI. Speaking of which, Ti and Fi are basically nothing alike, beyond being both Ji functions. The former is concerned with conceptual definitions and terminology (so basically, logic in relation to what makes sense to how a person thinks), while the former is concerned with evaluative significance by one's own sense of how they seek significance with self-congruence (so, it's a logic that has nothing to do with "making sense" of anything, but instead, about reasoning on the premises of who they feel they are or should be as a person).


Here is what I am trying to say:

I doubt either theory exists in reality. Both are based in behaviorism and Jung's functions were developed through introspection...a practice shunned by behaviorists. MBTI functions differ from how Jung saw them, socionics functions were altered as well. Both did it to suit the model.

1. Anything based on introspection is unreliable
2. These are just theoretical constructs with no scientific proof behind them. Even the psychologist community regards both the MBTI and Socionics as theories without proper scientific proof, unreliable tests and statistics.

Don't get me wrong, the theories are good, but until one can't compare them to reality..they remain as just theories.

*Now to the theories themselves:*

- We have to take into account that function descriptions differ, Se in socionics is not Se in MBTI.
- Socionics has model A and the quadras to help in determining type, something MBTI doesn't.
- Yes socionics INFj has same functions as MBTI INFP, because the dominant function is Fi, which is a judging function (thou function descriptions differ).
- Socionics uses all 8 functions in model A



I need to say this, because it is true. One can not base someone's personality on behavior observable by a 3rd party. Why? Because we are looking at motivations, internal variables that determine behavior. If we take E6 for example, I manifest vastly contradictory behaviors stemming from the same motivation (the mental state of: lack of security) and this happens depending on the context I find myself in, at random (its in the 6 description ad yeah its tue). Fi for example is not observable if we use the JCF description and the lack of observable feeling in a Fi dom's behavior leads to people thinking "oh, he is a T". This all needs Fi to exist, however I'm not sure about that bit.

What does me aligning with authority at one point and then fighting it with all I got in a another, obeying rules in one situation and breaking them in another, being logical and objective in a certain situation, but then pushing my own ideal in another say? I can go from friendly, communicative and engaging to withdrawn and uncommunicative under seconds. I behave with every person differently and mold my interaction style to how they manifest. The inconsistency of my behavior may have some consistent patterns but it is unreliable for typing based on functions imo.

One day people may think I'm ENFP, the other ISTJ etc..some may say I exhibit Fe stuff at one point then at another I won't.

This is probably why I still haven't decided on any type other then Enneagram, the information I'm getting constantly contradicts itself. It isn't good for settling on a type.

If I'd base settling my enneagram on behavior, I'd have the same problem. Good thing I can settle it on motivation.


----------



## Figure (Jun 22, 2011)

MrShatter said:


> I'm not quite sure what you're trying to say here. Why can't Socionics and MBTI be one?


Basically, because many believe that the cognitive functions are different between the two systems, and therefore you can't directly "convert" types between the two. I'm basically saying that the differences aren't really that pronounced, and that they are "close enough." I've never heard a good argument as to _why or how _the differences between the two are so intense as to make it an issue. 

Sorry if that sounded really rhetorically guarded. I've seen too much argumentation about it in other places here to not feel as though I need to be really careful with phrasing. Socionics can be kind of a difficult debate topic, since it seems to take something we're familiar with and tweaks a few little things in a big way.


----------



## MrShatter (Sep 28, 2010)

LXPilot said:


> Basically, because many believe that the cognitive functions are different between the two systems, and therefore you can't directly "convert" types between the two. I'm basically saying that the differences aren't really that pronounced, and that they are "close enough." I've never heard a good argument as to _why or how _the differences between the two are so intense as to make it an issue.
> 
> Sorry if that sounded really rhetorically guarded. I've seen too much argumentation about it in other places here to not feel as though I need to be really careful with phrasing. Ha, socionics can be kind of a difficult debate topic between INTP and INTJ


Yes... I would agree. IEI (Ni-Fe) fits me perfectly. But I have a sibling who is a MBTI: ESTP who related to Socionics Ne strongly in the romantic profiles here: Romance styles - Wikisocion suggesting that there is a sort of dissonance between the translation. He hasn't let me grill him further, unfortunately, so I am unable to identify the origin of the inconsistency :frustrating:.

Warning: Tangent below!


* *





(I don't expect anyone to fully get this (very unorganized), so if you're confused just ask me or ignore my ramblings )

I did find something interesting. It seems that the perception functions in Socionics relate to certain "needs". 
Victim (Ni) - Certainty
Aggressor (Se) - Significance 
Caregiver (Si) - Connection
Infantile (Ne) - Uncertainty

Another Tangent, 
More on the "needs":
These needs were identified by Anthony Robbins and they were corroborated in Roger Hamilton's Wealth Dynamics system. However, I think the translation is a little more skewed. 









Here, 
Intuition = Significance
Sensing = Connection
Extraversion = Uncertainty 
Introversion = Certainty

However, I think the "dichotomies" in the WD picture are a bit more superficial - like the MBTI code for the cognitive functions ("N" meaning you prefer intuition over sensing and nothing more.)
(also the fact that Introversion and Extraversion don't exist independently suggests that the dichotomies may be just a manifestation of a certain perspective)
Though I do understand the basic Creation/Intuition Extravert/Supporter...

I know sensors who reside in the intuitive section and intuitive who reside in the sensing section, So the cognitive function correlation is off. BUT I do know three Enneagram ones who are mechanics and two E2s who are supporters - there may be a significant Enneagram correlation.

My brother the ESTP is a supporter (Uncertainty/Ne?), Like my mother, who is an ENFP.
(My brother was not used as the E2 correlation example, as I am unsure of his E-type - though he is quite generous) 

Then we still have Fe correlating to the E2 and so I've still got a lot of kinks... but I am confident there is something here 

I know an ISTP who is a mechanic, (In my theory (Se+Ni/Significance+Certainty) Lord who is Ni dominant (ME!) Both the two supporters I mentioned (INFP + ENFP) use Ne... an INTJ mechanic... an ISFJ dealmaker (Si+Ne)... I do know an INTP Lord though.
[/END RANDOM THINKING SPREE]

P.S. If any of you are familiar with WD or would like to understand it more PLEASE DO. I'm dying to discuss it with someone and it's one of the most incredible personality tools I have encountered (in terms of real-life applicability and it's just interesting)


----------



## MrShatter (Sep 28, 2010)

@_Rim_

I thought Jung developed the cognitive functions through observation of his psychological patients.
I also have a huge MBTI manual here that is full of research for the instrument, so I'm sure there is evidence. At least for MBTI anyway. (If you want some >.>)


----------



## LibertyPrime (Dec 17, 2010)

MrShatter said:


> @Rim
> 
> I thought Jung developed the cognitive functions through observation of his psychological patients.
> I also have a huge MBTI manual here that is full of research for the instrument, so I'm sure there is evidence. At least for MBTI anyway.


He needed to gain insight into their psyche, which was done through introspection and psychoanalysis. If one introspects and then one talks to the therapist about what one found  its still introspection in use. Psychoanalysis still focuses on internal workings of the mind and not on external behavior.


> *
> Psychoanalysis, focuses on understanding the un-measureable, un-definable unconscious motivations that drive behavior. It’s the philosophical opposite of of behaviorism.*





> In Jung’s (1963: 176-181) Memories, Dreams, Reflections, he recognized that evil was ingrained in human culture, and that people needed to learn how to handle it in order to over come all of the feared consequences evil could bring. This learning comes primarily from introspection. Since Jung was a psychiatrist, he valued individuals and thought that each person had the ability to control their evil nature or shadow. This has to be done by completely understanding one’s self. Introspection seemed to be the key, and the assistance of psychoanalysis was also thought to be necessary. Jung felt that once an individual recognized the fact that there was an evil side within him or herself, a person has a greater chance of controlling the impulses which cause his or her evil behavior (Jung, 1963: 176-181).


Neither method in use on which the JCF is based on works well with what we are trying to do in the MBTI and Socionics...which is to base personality and the functions off outside observable behavior.

Also Jung had nothing to do with the MBTI's development. It was just based off his stuff, just like Socionics was based off it.

Different behavior could stem from the same psychological state. In the case of enneagram type 6 fear can lead to phobic or counterphobic reactions of varying degrees or a mix of both camouflaged by the given context for example.

Fi and Ti users could basically act the same way but out of different internal reasons. <--just an example.

Assuming the functions are correct (and yes they make sense) we'd need to find a way to test for them. Current questionnaires are ill equipped for this. If the individual being tested doesn't have sufficient self knowledge or worse is deluding him/herself, then a self report test isn't worth squat and we can all through our results in the trash .

This is why getting to know yourself through introspection, observation of behavior and defense mechanisms, as well as the ability to face one's unpleasant and darker side is important. 

*I am who I am and you are who you are regardless ow what we name it, what system of categorization we use. So if I'm INFP in one system and ISTP in another, then it is still the same me, the problem is only with not seeing it as it is (distortion of reality), the names for the type or what the system is looking at.*

I for example clearly use Fi as dominant, Ne as aux and the rest I'm not sure of, but tend to resort to Si and Te when stressed out, so from a functional point of view I am INFP, however I don't identify with the description or the behavior that is being described. Some of it yes, some of it no and I partially test as one with differences here and there. However I used to test as ENTP, ENFJ, INFJ, INTP, INTJ, ISTJ, ISFP and ISFJ as well. (test is flawed when you don't know yourself and this is true for socionics as well).

*When one tests for socionics type, one plays by that particular box's rules and not by MBTI rules. There is no good correlation between the systems, much the same as Enneagram vs MBTI*


----------



## MrShatter (Sep 28, 2010)

Rim said:


> He needed to gain insight into their psyche, which was done through introspection and psychoanalysis. If one introspects and then one talks to the therapist about what one found  its still introspection in use. Psychoanalysis still focuses on internal workings of the mind and not on external behavior.
> 
> Neither method in use on which the JCF is based on works well with what we are trying to do in the MBTI and Socionics...which is to base personality and the functions off outside observable behavior.
> 
> ...


Ahh yes... ehh whatever, you need to get inside the head to understand the head I say. I think introspection is a good source of information - as long as you can navigate yourself properly. It's just mostly unexplored territory so no one knows what they're doing. I see Jung as kind of a map maker for introspection - he made it a more reliable study. 
You would argue that it's unreliable because it's unverifiable? I would still say we can rely on introspection. I mean Jung hasn't done too badly for himself and we can definitely see the Extraverted functions.

My research book says INFJs aren't very fond of Behaviorists. I'm bias :tongue:

On a side note: feel free to derail (up to a certain point) I don't care what we discuss and getting off topic doesn't matter that much to me. If someone wants to come in and bring us back to Socionics vs. MBTI feel free.

Go Psychoanalysis! Although, I've noticed behaviorism becomes quite handy with the Enneagram - (I had trouble for a while until I accidentally recorded myself) Use both! 

It seems like we agree 

When you say both theories are "based in behaviorism" I disagree. I think they are based in Psychoanalysis and the behaviors are just trying to manifest themselves in that way. In a way behaviorists can understand - so to speak.
Behaviors can't even exist without the psychological constructs behind them. In a puppet show, "psychoanalytics" would be the puppeteer - and we see the puppets (behavior).

hehehe - I add to my post as I go along too. 



> I for example clearly use Fi as dominant, Ne as aux and the rest I'm not sure of, but tend to resort to Si and Te when stressed out, so from a functional point of view I am INFP, however I don't identify with the description or the behavior that is being described. Some of it yes, some of it no and I partially test as one with differences here and there. However I used to test as ENTP, ENFJ, INFJ, INTP, INTJ, ISTJ, ISFP and ISFJ as well. (test is flawed when you don't know yourself and this is true for socionics as well).


I think you make a very good point here. The descriptions (in my mind) are just trying to give meaning to the functions and hold no inherent value of their own. As @_JungyesMBTIno_ points out so nicely in his signature.

Also, I do think there are expressions of the introverted functions that you can identify from an external point of view.


----------



## LibertyPrime (Dec 17, 2010)

@MrShatter

^^ yes, you are right. The truth is always somewhere in the middle and never to either extreme.

We mainly have a problem with the method of testing for the functions and what the descriptions are (based in behavior). Stuff like ESTJs are supposed to act like *insert stereotype* and so forth. 

With the socionics vs MBTI I'm more worried of people yet again falling for the stereotypes and getting a different 4 letter code as a result of testing and then being upset that the descriptions don't match, functions aren't the same and such things.

aka MBTI and Socinics INFJ isn't the same type, for example.

We could simplify and say that in most cases socionics ENFP is MBTI ENFP, however for the introverted types socionics INFP is mbti INFJ. for example, INTP is INTJ, etc, thou not always :\...

They also have different descriptions like IEE or SLE and it would be better to use those in stead of the 4 letter code.

Example:

Socionics INFp: Ni Fe Si Te Se Ti Ne Fi
MBTI INFJ: Ni Fe Ti Se Ne Fi Te Si
MBTI INFP: Fi Ne Si Te Fe Ni Se Ti

*As you can see the function order is not the same.*


----------



## MrShatter (Sep 28, 2010)

You're actually supposed to be typed by a certified practitioner :mellow: so the inaccuracy stems from the "black market" nature of these online tests and descriptions. Those who don't take the time to understand the instrument are condemned to ignorance. MWAHAHAHA.
:happy:

The actual process has a .9 accuracy rating (out of 1) for up to three letters and a .8 for all 4 letters. Or something like that.


----------



## LibertyPrime (Dec 17, 2010)

^^ also functions don't mean the same thing in MBTI and socionics:

*MBTI Extraverted Sensing:* Acts on concrete data from here and now. Trusts the present, then lets it go.

*Socionics Se* is responsible for the perception, control, defense, and acquisition of space, territory, and control. It observes outward appearances, estimates whether forces are in alignment or conflict, and uses strength of will and power-based methods to achieve purposes. Se understands territory and physical aggression. It is also the function of contact and apprehension of qualia.


----------



## MrShatter (Sep 28, 2010)

Rim said:


> ^^ also functions don't mean the same thing in MBTI and socionics:
> 
> *MBTI Extraverted Sensing:* Acts on concrete data from here and now. Trusts the present, then lets it go.
> 
> *Socionics Se* is responsible for the perception, control, defense, and acquisition of space, territory, and control. It observes outward appearances, estimates whether forces are in alignment or conflict, and uses strength of will and power-based methods to achieve purposes. Se understands territory and physical aggression. It is also the function of contact and apprehension of qualia.


You sure socionics Se isn't saying the same thing in more complicated terms?
What is the fundamental difference between these two?


----------



## Flatlander (Feb 25, 2012)

MrShatter said:


> You sure socionics Se isn't saying the same thing in more complicated terms?
> What is the fundamental difference between these two?


The difference appears to include the presence of reasoning in the function in socionics. In JCF, as far as I know, Se is purely perceptual, and some judgement function would piece it together into reasoning.


----------



## Zero11 (Feb 7, 2010)

Rim said:


> My skepticism of both MBTI and socionics stems from the fact that no system of verification has been developed as of yet, which could prove their existence / validity.


I find this "weakness" to be a huge advantage :mellow: openness and freedom of interpretation to certain degree of classification. Maybe this is because I am a P-dom.



> From what i understood socionics is based on how one is perceived by others, not how one is internally.


Socionics is based on intertype relationships and the mbti on extraverted behaivour and job applications.



Rim said:


> - We have to take into account that function descriptions differ, Se in socionics is not Se in MBTI.


It doesn´t matter: you only need to understand the function abstracted and the theoretical basis from C. G. Jung about the Psyche. Plus a real example of a dominant Se-user it´s getting even better if you have more data (like auxiliary Se in action) e. g. artistic work (either music or art) from an ISFP(Sensate perception formed through Fi into a piece of human art).

An excerpt from Lenore Thomson's book:



> BECAUSE EXTRAVERTED SENSATION ENCOURAGES PHYSICAL ENGAGEMENT with the outer world, it´s often described as sensory awareness -our knowledge that physical things exist. But this function is a good deal more than means of acquiring perceptual information. *As a right-brain function, Sensation comes into play when events are changing so rapidly that linear analysis is impossible. We respond immediately, on the basis of visual and tactile information, guided by what we´ve done before.*
> For example, we may learn to tango by a following chart of steps, but once we actually know how to dance we aren´t thinking about rules or instructions. We´re directly engaged by our surface perceptions--the rhythm of the music, the movements of a partner.
> 
> Robert Pirsig, in _Zen and the art of Motorcycle Maintance_, describes Sensate experience this way, with regard to a mechanic working on a motor:
> ...


This explains why Se-dom or auxes are so good when it comes to physical activities.
What remains is the distinction between different theoretical Systems (the difference in the interpretation), the observed process in itself remains the same.
Now you understand what Se actually is and how it manifests  you can observe and recognize it. Different theoretical explanations doesn´t really matter anymore. Because you are able to understand it in its pure nature (obviously only to the extent you are able to).
Volitional Sensing (willpower) is only a byproduct through the preferred process (a directly-driven learning process shaped by physical activity) remember Socionics is based on intertype relationships.



> - Socionics uses all 8 functions in model A


Just make use of an extension :wink:
INFJ Archetypes



LXPilot said:


> I may be biased here for _not _relating the MBTI INTJ nearly as much as the N subtype socionics INTp.


I found myself in both Subtype descriptions :laughing: In my opinion subtypes are utter Bullshit. A differentiation that isn´t really necessary.


----------



## Figure (Jun 22, 2011)

Zero11 said:


> I found myself in both Subtype descriptions
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Not bullshit, but incomplete, and so discriminating in some cases as to deem themselves irrelevant. I do think some people fit into the subtypes we already have, though. Just not everyone. 

If you _did _buy into them, it'd be interesting to study how they influence the subtleties of the relationships between types. I oddly tend to get along better with Se-oriented SEE/ESFp than I do with the Fi ones. The dualizing seems stronger.


----------



## Zero11 (Feb 7, 2010)

LXPilot said:


> Not bullshit, but incomplete, and so discriminating in some cases as to deem themselves irrelevant. I do think some people fit into the subtypes we already have, though. Just not everyone.


Okay  but without enough material I´m not going to change my opinion about that.



> I oddly tend to get along better with Se-oriented SEE/ESFp than I do with the Fi ones. The dualizing seems stronger.


Yeah strong Fi hurts my tertiary function :laughing:


----------



## LibertyPrime (Dec 17, 2010)

MrShatter said:


> You sure socionics Se isn't saying the same thing in more complicated terms?
> What is the fundamental difference between these two?


Certain bits and pieces are added in one and subtracted from the other, probably because they matter in one theory and don't in the other. It isn't exactly the same. Both are just an interpretation of how Jung saw them and not exactly how he saw them. The modifications were probably needed to fit the new theory model.

Its this level of interpretation that takes away the credibility and solidity of such a theory. It fluctuates too much from one system to the other imo.

If we look only at the core, then yeah they roughly mean the same thing.


----------



## MrShatter (Sep 28, 2010)

Rim said:


> If we look only at the core, then yeah they roughly mean the same thing.


And so that would lead us to conclude what?


----------



## LibertyPrime (Dec 17, 2010)

MrShatter said:


> And so that would lead us to conclude what?


^^ well guess then. If the functions are sort of the same and the function order is not, nor is the model the same...means the types won't correspond and there is a big enough difference in the 2 systems.

For example INFj or EII is kinda like an INFP, just that it has what the MBTI refers to as J tendencyes, being orderly, organized and also some bits of MBTI INFJ description (Fe-ish stuff). 

IEI or INFP is kinda like an INFJ, but disorganized. There are other differences as well, sort of being a hybrid of INFP and INFJ.


<_< this all doesen't make much sense to me so I find both systems to be too problematic to use properly. They also don't give much helpful insight anyway and sound more like specualtion then something I could actually relate to.

Its fun to mess around with them, but not much else.

The only system that gave me the " Oh fuck..this is me and I don't like what I'm reading here! " was the enneagram and I actually benefited from it ^^ so that one is my recommendation (assuming one can find the correct type, it ain't easy)


----------



## JungyesMBTIno (Jul 22, 2011)

> I oddly tend to get along better with Se-oriented SEE/ESFp than I do with the Fi ones. The dualizing seems stronger.


Perhaps you're not very introverted then? I tend to get along a lot better with Fi types than Se types (e.g. ISFPs over ESFPs). That's interesting, because one would think that "dualizing" would make it harder to sort of enter the mental realm of your mirror image type (like, I get them in a very very very general and vague way, but at the same time, they come across as literally backwards to me (I don't mean backwards with any negative connotations - it's like they're just extraordinarily adaptable and professional with everything that I'm not - all the things I want done and over related to inferior Se, as well as using it as a serious ego goal, which is totally unimaginable to me)). The neat thing I'm finding with dominant Se is that they tend to give me a feeling that what they've accessed is some realm I can never completely access - they have this way of honing the present moment to their advantage that has always mystified me. They're never absent from it.


----------



## Figure (Jun 22, 2011)

JungyesMBTIno said:


> The neat thing I'm finding with dominant Se is that they tend to give me a feeling that what they've accessed is some realm I can never completely access - they have this way of honing the present moment to their advantage that has always mystified me. They're never absent from it.


Yes. This all depends on whether or not you are an INTp, though, since conversion between MBTI and Socionics types is debatable at this point. The whole idea of dualization is that your most comfortable psychic processes are complemented and driven forward by another function, and that your dual uses this as their most comfortable function, and likewise you for them. Ni would misfunction and perhaps wither away without _some _exposure to the present moment at some point. Think of the way we INTJ are good with images - we need at least some exposure to a stimulus to whip up the metaphors and mental models we rely on. Ni needs some physical platform from which to leap - it can't exist in a vacuum. A lot of times, I get into Ni death spirals, and an ESFp somehow comes long at the perfect moment and forces me to do something I would have never considered doing before - then Ni feels refreshed and ready to run smoothly again. It feels like a dream, that things have been "reset" almost magically. There are additional functional reasons for this, but that's dualization in a nutshell.

Duals don't often realize how much they complement each other at first. The key, though, is _complement_, not initial perfect understanding. You might get along better with ISFP because INTp and ISFj are activity partners, who stimulate each other and get along easily, but tire out after awhile. For us, Te takes some energy to use since we use it to process the world, and Se for them as well - it helps, but it can't be sustained. You might, however, not understand the ISFj as much as you think - though it is easier to coexist with them initially.


----------



## aconite (Mar 26, 2012)

Found via Google here:










However:


> Do these tables represent the real correlation between the socionic types and the Keirsey types? We think they do not. They rather represent characteristic stereotypes of the socionics and the Keirsey typology. To compare these typologies objectively, we will need to test at least several hundreds of persons using both socionic and American methods. But at least we know now for sure that socionics, MBTT and Keirsey, in spite of their common origin from the Jungian typology, are not identical!


While I'm an INTP in the MBTI system, I don't think I'm an INTj or an INTp, FWIW. I'm not an expert on Socionics, though.


----------



## bionic (Mar 29, 2010)

This thread is unfortunate. I'm gonna refrain from talking about Socionics on typology boards. It's bad enough that is it heavily misrepresented and misunderstood on various forums. So to save myself the headache, I'd appreciate it if my name was kept out of Socionic discussions. Thanks.


----------

