# Confused about socionics in relation to MBTI



## Ploppz (Sep 29, 2013)

High! Just read a bit around on different things. In this explanation of IEI, it says it's the same as INFp, but the explanation and order of cognitive functions describe and INTJ. It would also be logical that it is INTJ as it has Intuition as its dominant function.

In this explanation of EII, it says it's the same as INFj, but the explanation and order of cognitive functions describe an INFP. It would also be logical that it is INFP as it has Ethics (I guess this is kind of synonym with feeling) as its dominant function.

Is there something I have misunderstood? Isn't socionics comparable to MBTI? Another site descripes p (percieving) as just what it is in MBIT.


----------



## Kanerou (Oct 8, 2009)

Where do those descriptions state that they have a certain correlating MBTI type? I don't see that anywhere. 

To answer your question, they are both Jung-based but were taken in different directions by different people (Isabel Myers in the US, Aushra Augusta in the Soviet Union). You will find some similarities in the descriptions of the IM elements (Socionics) and the cognitive functions (MBTI/JCF), whereas others vary a lot/completely. The type models are also different, as are the purposes of each system. They have the same starting point but are not the same system and shouldn't be treated as such.


----------



## Scelerat (Oct 21, 2012)

Kanerou said:


> Where do those descriptions state that they have a certain correlating MBTI type? I don't see that anywhere.
> 
> To answer your question, they are both Jung-based but were taken in different directions by different people (Isabel Myers in the US, Aushra Augusta in the Soviet Union). You will find some similarities in the descriptions of the IM elements (Socionics) and the cognitive functions (MBTI/JCF), whereas others vary a lot/completely. The type models are also different, as are the purposes of each system. They have the same starting point but are not the same system and shouldn't be treated as such.


Here is how the type models line up:


Model A (Socionics) 
8 function model (John Beebe)
Ego – Leading function
Hero – Dominant
Ego – Creative function 
Good Parent – Auxiliary 
ID – Mobilizing function 
Eternal child – Tertiary 
ID – Suggestive function 
Anima - Inferior function 
Super-ID – Ignoring function
Opposing function 
Super-ID – Demonstrative 
Critical parent 
Super-ego – Vulnerable
Trickster 
Super-ego – Role function
Demon


----------



## Eps (Nov 18, 2013)

I am also confused by this, I plan to read a book about it all while on holiday next month!


----------



## Helios (May 30, 2012)

Scelerat said:


> Here is how the type models line up:
> 
> 
> Model A (Socionics) 8 function model (John Beebe)Ego – Leading functionHero – DominantEgo – Creative function Good Parent – Auxiliary Super-ID – Mobilizing function Eternal child – Tertiary Super-ID – Suggestive function Anima - Inferior function ID – Ignoring functionOpposing function ID – Demonstrative Critical parent Super-ego – VulnerableTrickster Super-ego – Role functionDemon


Fixed.


----------



## Chesire Tower (Jan 19, 2013)

Scelerat said:


> Here is how the type models line up:
> 
> 
> Model A (Socionics)
> ...


In some ways, I prefer this model to Socionics which is also useful but different. The Socionics model describes they way each type uses the IMs where as Beebe's model explains how the various functions can work for or against you:

An Overview of the Eight Function Model - Sherlock Character Analysis



> An Overview of the Eight Function Model
> 
> So, as I promised last time, the next series of posts will analyze Sherlock and John’s friendship within the framework of Myers-Briggs personality theory. Before we start though, I need to explain a bit about John Beebe’s Eight Function Model, as I will be employing several concepts from that theory for my analysis. If you aren’t familiar with basic Myers-Briggs theory (as explained by functions, not just the four letters), I strongly recommend that you read this overview before continuing on.
> 
> ...


----------



## Chesire Tower (Jan 19, 2013)

> INFJ Archetypes
> 
> Last Revised December 29, 107
> 
> ...



Okay, it now makes sense why I mistrust Fi; I experience Fi judgement from someone as the "critical parent" or "witch".


----------



## itsme45 (Jun 8, 2012)

TreasureTower said:


> Okay, it now makes sense why I mistrust Fi; I experience Fi judgement from someone as the "critical parent" or "witch".


Interesting.

For me what I can really make sense of is functions 2-3-4-6-7-8.

I don't get 5th at all... I do not see how that plays out in my life. But then I would need to know which Si definition to use for that, anyway 

All that's based on post 6# though. 7# didn't add much :/


----------

