# Which theory is more accurate in terms of compatibility socionics or Mbti



## Foxyfox (Oct 21, 2016)

I’ve just recently started learning about socionics earlier this year and it has a whole different way of matching type compatibility and the ideal match from the mbti system is completely different from socionics. I do find the socionics one more accurate since I’ve seen how successful the “dual” couples are in real life. Anyone care to explain why they 2 theories are so different in terms of ideal couplings?


----------



## Figure (Jun 22, 2011)

It's been awhile since I last delved into MBTI world, but the closest thing I've ever seen to a true compatibility theory in MBTI are those "ideal matches" that pop up on community websites and YouTube. From what I have seen with these theories, most of the time the ideal matches appear to be derived from Socionics - someone converts Socionics types to MBTI via the cognitive functions, then tells you which types you'd get along best with. 

What MBTI doesn't have that Socionics does are the archetypes for each relation - like "Dual." MBTI enthusiasts tend to make general assumptions around who gets along with whom, such as "N's will communicate better with other N's," but you're reading someone else's opinion column, so to speak. 

The power in Socionics relations isn't just about Romantic compatibility - it's more specifically the _impact_ you're likely to feel from interacting with each type, and maybe even the reaction to it. These impacts are often relevant to Romantic, but also to work, family, and social relations as well. Socionics tells us there is a distinct, common set of impressions felt both ways that go along with each intertype that, for the most part, are uncontrollable and felt no matter which type is at play. So if I generally know what impressions and feelings go along with "Supervision," I can intuit what it could potentially feel like to, say, an ENTP interacting with an Fi-heavy person, even though my type is very different from an ENTP and I really_ like_ Fi. Nothing like this exists in MBTI. 

Another big difference is that MBTI relations often focus on the verbal side. Socionics focuses also on non-verbal exchanges. It tells us that Temperaments, and even functions contribute to our level of activity, body language, expressions, and "life rhythm." So it's possible to guess a person's type by watching them on a video with the sound turned off - based on how we're consuming what they give off informationally. 

The risk in Socionics is taking it too literally. To "get" the intertypes I feel it's important to also be able to identify micro-impressions, in yourself and others. This can take a lot of practice. Also, some of the type descriptions prescribe only part of the truth of an intertype - for example, it says "Superego relations are negative," but depending on certain factors you may like a Superego type, or appreciate certain things about the person even if the micro-impressions point more negatively.


----------



## Foxyfox (Oct 21, 2016)

@Figure That was the best explanation I’ve read online. MUCH appreciated


----------



## richard nixon (Sep 14, 2017)

Socionics, but you have to take subtypes into account.


----------



## Tarver (Oct 15, 2015)

I first learned MBTI, but later when I learned about socionics, everything just made so much more sense. Especially the quadras, the blocks, and the intertype relationships.


----------



## Sylas (Jul 23, 2016)

Socionics has got it right, in my 10+ years of relationship & dating experience.

Where Socionics intertype relationships become too biased is that it works just as well outside of intimate relationships. So co-worker, parent-child, employee-boss, neighbors, etc. are still subject to the same intertypes and "duality" doesn't have to be romantic. It could well be a relationship between friends.

MBTI ideal type matches are either mirage or contrary types, for example INTP-ENTJ or INFJ-ENFP, which do have an easier way of connecting to each other than connecting to their duals. Over long-term, there is often a sense of something missing within these couples. Which is where you get those spooked INTP or ENTJ posts saying well MBTI predicted we were ideal match together but we're still so distant. What gives?


----------



## Doggy (Feb 11, 2019)

Socionics is much better and the subtypes + relations are spot on. MBTI tests seem to be accurate enough to get the four letters right, at least.


----------



## Inveniet (Aug 21, 2009)

Socionics is much better, MBTI is literal garbage.

Cognitive function theory seems to redeem it, 
but when I argued with purists, (who don't want the functions)
I came to the conclusion that MBTI is quasi-behaviorist bullshit.
It is an attempt to divorce Jungian theory from the types, 
ignore everything that isn't observable, (like subjective stuff)
and then track the distribution of these traits in the general population.

No wonder that science won't embrace it, 
as it holds a questionable middle ground between Jung and Behaviorism.
Took me a long time to get to the point of saying this, but here I am!


----------



## The red spirit (Sep 29, 2015)

They are exactly the same, unless we are talking about several stupid overcomplications of socionics


----------



## Veni Vidi Vici (Jun 8, 2018)

Socionics. MBTI does not offer any consistent ITR theory.


----------

