# What?!



## Hiemal (Jan 5, 2014)

Aleksei said:


> I don't know that MBTI is a usable system _at all_. My experience with it is that there are archetypes it fails to accurately define (*for instance, I would say that MBTI Fi and Fe both tend to describe tendencies and behaviors associated with Socionics Fi-ego*). However, what is clear is that MBTI uses a structure, definitions, and archetypes, that are somewhat alien to what they're supposed to be in Socionics. Ergo they are clearly different systems.


I would conjecture that the reason for this would be the variety of definitions for cognitive functions provided by not a set system like Model A, but the accordance of a few individuals on typology forums such as these, creating disconnects between certain cells that debate on what is Fe or Fi in MBTI. If we look past this anarchic system of definitions and to the actual processes themselves (rather than definitions handed to us) that operate within the human psyche, then we would probably see resounding similarity between the Extraverted Feeling of MBTI and Extraverted Ethics of Socionics. Therefore, the systems do not agree with each other in their interpretation of what is happening in the human psyche, but they are describing and interpreting the same phenomena.

I do agree that Socionics is a superior system to MBTI, and thus would also not prefer to draw correlations to a system that is becoming increasingly inferior (especially with confusion arisen from trying to understand one system from the viewpoint of another).


----------



## Aleksei (Apr 3, 2010)

Yeah honestly I find it easier to just not reference MBTI at all. I don't even care much what my MBTI type is, I just didn't wanna put "unknown type" in that field. :tongue:


----------



## Word Dispenser (May 18, 2012)

Aleksei said:


> They're two systems.


Well, I think that they transfer over, at the very least, with the typing.

Both systems describe Jung's cognitive functions-- Socionics just has more depth and dynamic, a more thorough analysis. But, they are essentially describing the same things.

I prefer Jung's thorough descriptions of each of the functions, whilst I appreciate that Socionics goes more into how the functions all work together. Overall, I trust a Socionics typing over an MBTI one.


----------



## TheAnonymousJ.M. (Sep 14, 2014)

I'm not sure if this also applies to ESTPs but I know that if you're an IEI (INFP) in socionics, chances are you're an INFJ in Myers Briggs, so it's super weird, at first. The thing that really helped me was when I started to look into the Cognitive Functions. Try taking cognitive function tests, and comparing different results that you get because you will most likely end up getting many different results.


----------



## Word Dispenser (May 18, 2012)

Aleksei said:


> They're two systems.
> 
> Though actually, my apologies, I was already on edge because of the discussion I was having with Entropic and co. in another thread. I should clarify.
> 
> ...


Fair enough.

I just find it easier to, if you find MBTI to be lacking as a system, just to transfer _from _Socionics, if you _must _utilize both systems.

And that would mean, for example, Fi-Ne-Si-Te, EII-INFj, would be INFP in MBTI. Only if you _must. _

But, I do agree that MBTI is lacking in many respects.

It's only that the Jungian definitions tend to be very reliable, and should not be ignored-- But, Jung is not synonymous with MBTI,of course.


----------

