# What is Socionics? How does it relate to Jung/MBTI?



## Pancreatic Pandora (Aug 16, 2013)

I thought I could make a good introduction to what Socionics is (and not getting right into the theoretical aspects) given that many people come to the forum not knowing what the theory consists of and how it relates to other tipologies, and organizing all that information in a neat way. Plus, I think it can be a useful read for those already familiar with the system to re-evaluate their understanding and look back to the very base this theory's been formed over.

First of all, What is Socionics?



> Socionics, in psychology and sociology, is a theory of information processing and personality type, distinguished by its information model of the psyche (called "Model A") and a model of interpersonal relations. It incorporates Carl Jung's work on Psychological Types with Antoni Kępiński's theory of information metabolism. Socionics is a modification of Jung's personality type theory that uses eight psychic functions, in contrast to Jung's model, which used only four. These functions process information at varying levels of competency and interact with the corresponding function in other individuals, giving rise to predictable reactions and impressions—a theory of intertype relations.
> 
> Socionics was developed in the 1970s and 1980s, primarily by the Lithuanian researcher Aušra Augustinavičiūtė, an economist, sociologist, psychologist, and dean of theVilnius Pedagogical University's department of family science. The name "socionics" is derived from the word "society", because Augustinavičiūtė believed that each personality type has a distinct purpose in society, which can be described and explained by socionics.


Source: Socionics - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia (Duh Wikipedia)

Socionics is a cognitive psychology. Cognitive psychology appeared around the '50s with the birth of cognitive science and borrows concepts from cibernetics. It was founded with the computational analogy in mind which, in other words, means studying and understanding the human mind as an information processor.

Aušra Augustinavičiūtė (normally shortened to Augusta for simplicity) founded the theory with an interest in relationships and why people are compatible with each other. Regarding her interest in human interaction:


> Socionist Igor Weisband reports that Augusta was perplexed by clan-based power structures in the Soviet Union that seemed to be based on personal relationships alone, and that this caused her to look for explanations outside of the official Marxist-Leninist ideology, which refused to consider personal relationships a significant factor in societal evolution. Other sources state that the main impetus for Augusta's intellectual search was the realization that people are often unable to have the good relationships that they want. She became deeply convinced that relationship quality was determined and was not subject to individuals' free will. Another influence may have been her own not-so-perfect relationship with her spouse, an LSE (relations of "benefit," or "request").


Augusta, Aushra - Wikisocion


How did Socionics came to be?

An amazing introductory article to Socionics is the following 2006 interview with Aleksandr Bukalov and Olga Karpenko: Socionics: Interview with Alexandr Bukalov and Olga Karpenko

A few things that stand out to me:



> To begin with, a few words about Jung's typology. For a long time nobody in the Soviet Union worked with Jung's typology, although his works had been translated into Russian and could be found in the major libraries. At the same time, Meyers-Briggs had been developing Jung's typology in America, though, in our opinion, they weren't completely true to what Jung originally had in mind.


So, Socionics came to be after MBTI had already made its appearance, yet the founders of Socionics obviously didn't feel satisfied with what this typology was doing. Bukalov himself says he didn't think it wasn't true to Jung's ideas, which points to us that some of Socionics' authors clearly approach Socionics with a Jungian background in mind. In fact, Victor Gulenko, one of Socionics' most prolific authors that we know of, has studied Jungian psychology in-depth:



> Gulenko considers himself an analytical psychologist and a disciple of Carl Gustav Jung. In his work he has sought to bring clarity to Jung's assertions and to show how socionics can justify them. He is also credited with Alexander Bukalov and Gregory Reinin, as a chief player in the later developments and standardization of socionics theory after Aušra Augustinavičiūtė.


Victor Gulenko - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Moreover, Gulenko has written an article where he compares MBTI, Jungian typology and Socionics:
Speaking Different Languages, Striving for the Same - Victor Gulenko

And I want to extract his conclusion (but I encourage you to read the full article):


> Having compared theoretical fundamentals of type theory and socionics, one can come to the conclusion that these typological trends reflect in many details the psychological types of their creators and main authors.Books on type theory are written in figurative and emotional language, are impressing and are easy to understand. One can find little complicated logic and “dry” scientific speculations in there. At the same time, books in socionics are full of schemes, complicated tables and theoretical constructions in a logic manner. The contrast between these two approaches is obvious.
> Speaking the language of socioanalysis, the type theory has been developed by Humanitarians (NF types – see Tab. 3), including the founders, Isabel Briggs Myers and Catherine Briggs (INFP and INFJ), and many of their adherents. By contrast, founders of socionic schools and most active socionists belong, like A.Augustinaviciute herself, to the group of Scientists (NT types – see Tab. 3).
> The contradiction between type theory, on the one hand, and socionics, on the other, is therefore implied by objective circumstances and in many details is similar to the classical dispute between the humanities and the sciences. The dispute between “physicists” and “poets” goes back into the deep past, and nobody has won in this dispute. And who still has doubts that the victory will profit no-one? The debate can only harm our common child, the scientific typology of personality and intertype relations.
> I want to finish this survey article with a suggestion to unite the forces of specialists both in the US and here in order to eliminate the discrepancy of concepts and conventional signs as soon as possible, to develop a mutually acceptable language of communication between different schools and to profit from difference of opinions in favor of the future information civilization. Let us avoid competition and strive to cooperation!


Next, how does Socionics work?


> Anyway, as a result, Aushra elaborated her concept of the information model of the psyche, and, most importantly, she determined the principles of information interchange between people. And that each psychic function — or "information metabolism function," as she called it, because cybernetics was in fashion then (these was the 60s and 70s)...


_"*R.D.* - Let me add a comment and a question. On my website I have a page on information elements. As I understand it, Jung developed the concept of functions, but he didn't relate functions to *characteristics of external reality*.
__*A.B. *- Yes, exactly._
_*R.D.* - So, in essence, Aushra just made one small step, since, well, it seems logical that if there eight psychic functions, these functions can also be used to describe aspects of reality._
_*O.K. *- It was a very difficult step to make, actually. That's a move from internal perception to objective external reality._
_*A.B. *- Yes. First of all, Jung was an *introvert*. External aspects didn't interest him at all. Secondly, *he didn't have the language to describe these things*. The concept of information metabolism only originated in the 1930s in the works of Polish psychiatrist Kempinsky. He was the first one to say that people become ill because they digest information wrong, much like eating the wrong food. This was in the 30s, and Jung wrote his work 15 years earlier, in 1918. And Jung didn't develop his typology further; he left it as it was."

_Here, we observe an epistemological distancing from Jung. I believe this is one of the main reasons Socionics' definitions have "changed" from Jungian ones. One is defining a mental process, a psychological filter in the mind of an individual, while the other actually describes informational aspects, things that exist outside of us (though not independently of us). A theory that can identify information through objective and consistent means is a step closer to the modern scientific paradigm than one that attempts to look at how subjects intepret the world around them without objectifying that information.

This fragment also gives us insight into how socionists understand the world. There's socionists who've actually "typed" nations or linked them to information aspects, which only makes sense within this epistemological point of view.

_"*A.B. *- (...) Anyway, Aushra wrote several more works, such as The Socion, The Theory of Intertype Relations, and lengthy descriptions of several types, where she examined in detail how the information model of the psyche works for each type, how intertype relations work and how they manifest themselves — or, to be precise, "intertype information interaction," out of which, on a subjective level, arise relationships. That's how we've formulated it in recent years.
__*O.K. *- In order to separate relationships from their information component._
_*A.B. *- Yes, information interaction and how relationships feel subjectively are not exactly the same. Aushra mixed the two, but that's natural."

_Here we find a general warning left by Bukalov. It's important to consider that Socionics won't tell you everything about your interpersonal relations. I might that add that it's often necessary to spend long time with a person and reduce the psychological distance to actually experience the effects of the intertype relations and, even then, other factors outside of Socionics' scope will affect the quality of your relationship because people are people first and not types.


Where to study Socionics?

There's plenty of websites:
- Wikisocion: Wikisocion
- Socionics.us: Socionics in the West
- The16types: Socionics - the16types.info - Home
- Sociotype.com: Sociotype.com: Socionics Applied

And I'd personally suggest to avoid socionics.com because of the site's questionable test, type descriptions and overall lack of information on the theoretical background.


[HR][/HR]
And that's it roud:. I invite you to give your opinion and if I see people like it I will ask a Mod to sticky this. Might create a new topic for that too. Also, corrections on grammar and format are welcome.


----------



## Pancreatic Pandora (Aug 16, 2013)

A few thanks and no comments so far. This is the perfect oportunity to nitpick so if anyone has any observation they want to make I'd appreciate that they share it.


----------



## Schweeeeks (Feb 12, 2013)

I still need to read all the articles.

The biggest problem I have with MBTI = Socionics is that it's completely based on one fitting the Jung definition of something.
But because both systems have distanced from Jung (and possibly warped it), how can we be sure that their MBTI signifies Socionics until they type within Jung's constructs?

It's like the difference between the words uncomfortable and irritated. The essence is same yes, but the connotations differ. You need to talk to the person to understand what's actually going on inside of them (the root) to see which one fits better.
Maybe they both do. But if the person is choosing the wrong word in the first place (but it's close to the word they were really looking for), then we miss over those individuals.

I still need to read Jung carefully. So far I agree with the premise that Jung's definitions encompass both MBTI and Socionics elements into there. MBTI and Socionics nut-shelled what they found most important about the definition for their system. 

Another thing...if someone is _beginning_ to differentiate into a certain function preference, but hasn't reached full completion yet, then the "Jung definition" will not wholly apply to them. I had this discussion with my ILI the other day. He said that "It is probable it will."
And maybe it is. But for everyone's sake, we need to define type *at this particular moment*, not where we think it may eventually end up. That's accurate for the future, but inaccurate for the present.


----------



## PaladinX (Feb 20, 2013)

The thing that I would like to know most is what is the authoritative source for Socionics. Where does the information come from? How do I know its legit and not someone else's interpretation?

For example, Psychological Types would be the main authoritative source for understanding types as Carl Jung conceived them. The MBTI manual or Introduction to Type booklet would be authoritative sources for MBTI type theory. This is a commonly referenced site for MBTI: The Personality Page Yet it is a 3rd-party site. The information found there is based on the owners' interpretation and does not necessarily reflect the stance of MBTI type theory itself.

If I were to learn more about Socionics, I would much rather look at it from the original sources than from 3rd party websites that contain a lot of their own interpretations. How do I know that the sites you've suggested contain valid material from the originator(s)?


----------



## Entropic (Jun 15, 2012)

PaladinX said:


> The thing that I would like to know most is what is the authoritative source for Socionics. Where does the information come from? How do I know its legit and not someone else's interpretation?
> 
> For example, Psychological Types would be the main authoritative source for understanding types as Carl Jung conceived them. The MBTI manual or Introduction to Type booklet would be authoritative sources for MBTI type theory. This is a commonly referenced site for MBTI: The Personality Page Yet it is a 3rd-party site. The information found there is based on the owners' interpretation and does not necessarily reflect the stance of MBTI type theory itself.
> 
> If I were to learn more about Socionics, I would much rather look at it from the original sources than from 3rd party websites that contain a lot of their own interpretations. How do I know that the sites you've suggested contain valid material from the originator(s)?


The authoritative source for Socionics would be Augusta and Kepinsky. With that said, would you say then that Thomson, Nardi, Berens, et al. and their theories are not a part of the MBTI? If the authoritative source is what counts, then what about the mushroom theories and ideas that surround that source? Are they a part of this or not?

I also want to add that I have contacted Viktor Gulenko about creating a unified theory or language for the MBTI and Socionics. I hope he is still interested in this since he wrote the article in '96 which is quite dated by now. He may have changed his ideas since then though seems a little odd seeing how his Socionics school isn't quite a part of mainstream Socionics in the first place so I doubt it. 

It would be awesome if it would be possible to actually create a genuine collaboration on this scale. I also wonder how many of the MBTI theorists are aware of Socionics. For some reason Dario Nardi comes first to mind as someone who would be interested in something like this.


----------



## PaladinX (Feb 20, 2013)

Entropic said:


> The authoritative source for Socionics would be Augusta and Kepinsky. With that said, would you say then that Thomson, Nardi, Berens, et al. and their theories are not a part of the MBTI? If the authoritative source is what counts, then what about the mushroom theories and ideas that surround that source? Are they a part of this or not?


What publication of Augusta's and Kepinsky? What is the informational source that the above websites pulled their information from? Or did Augusta and Kepinsky set up all those websites?

Thomson, Nardi, and Berens have their own perspectives and do not necessarily reflect the stance of the MBTI. Rather than having one singular truth of a function, I recognize each person or groups own perspectives of the given function. What I learned from my journey into MBTI and JCF is that there are a lot of misinterpretations out there, so in order to learn about a new theory, I want to make sure I understand what sources each piece of information comes from. And I would rather start at the source and see where it deviates from there.

Maybe I should replace the word "authoritative" with the word "original?" Essentially, I want to know where it comes from so that I can better see where each piece is going.


----------



## Pancreatic Pandora (Aug 16, 2013)

PaladinX said:


> The thing that I would like to know most is what is the authoritative source for Socionics. Where does the information come from? How do I know its legit and not someone else's interpretation?
> 
> For example, Psychological Types would be the main authoritative source for understanding types as Carl Jung conceived them. The MBTI manual or Introduction to Type booklet would be authoritative sources for MBTI type theory. This is a commonly referenced site for MBTI: The Personality Page Yet it is a 3rd-party site. The information found there is based on the owners' interpretation and does not necessarily reflect the stance of MBTI type theory itself.
> 
> If I were to learn more about Socionics, I would much rather look at it from the original sources than from 3rd party websites that contain a lot of their own interpretations. How do I know that the sites you've suggested contain valid material from the originator(s)?


Well, you can find Augusta's Dual Nature of Man here: "The Dual Nature of Man" (half of it, good translation) and here: Socionics - the16types.info - Dual Nature of Man by Ausra Augustinaviciute (complete, additional translation required). I don't think an officially translated version of Augusta's writings exist, for obvious reasons. Besides that, there's plenty of translated articles covering many aspects of the theory with authors cited. It's usually when it comes to things like the IEs definitions and Model A where original sources seem more scarce for some reason.

Edit: And, regarding Kepinsky, I don't know where to find any of his writings (I found this though http://www.wikisocion.org/en/index.php?title=Information_Metabolism) but I also have felt no need to? He didn't create the notion of information processing and I think whatever influence he's had can be seen in Socionics writings.


----------



## Wolfskralle (Nov 29, 2013)

Pancreatic Pandora said:


> Edit: And, regarding Kepinsky, I don't know where to find any of his writings (I found this though Information Metabolism - Wikisocion) but I also have felt no need to? He didn't create the notion of information processing and I think whatever influence he's had can be seen in Socionics writings.


I think Kępiński actually did create concept of information metabolism which, along with Jungs work, gave birth to socionics (you can find on wiki that information processing concept was created by someone else, but in fact Kępiński created whole information metabolism system).

AFAIK he never wrote a book about this concept though. He used it mostly as a tool to analyse his patients. You can find notions about information metabolism concept in his works: _Melancholy_, _Psychopathy_ and maybe in others too. These are about mental illnesses, but he introduces information metabolism concept there. These books are probably translated to english, but I'm not sure (I've read them in polish).


----------



## Pancreatic Pandora (Aug 16, 2013)

wolf12345 said:


> I think Kępiński actually did create concept of information metabolism which, along with Jungs work, gave birth to socionics (you can find on wiki that information processing concept was created by someone else, but in fact Kępiński created whole information metabolism system).
> 
> AFAIK he never wrote a book about this concept though. He used it mostly as a tool to analyse his patients. You can find notions about information metabolism concept in his works: _Melancholy_, _Psychopathy_ and maybe in others too. These are about mental illnesses, but he introduces information metabolism concept there. These books are probably translated to english, but I'm not sure (I've read them in polish).


Ah! I was thinking of information processing and remember the concept was created and developed by other people but I forgot to consider information metabolism might be something unique of Anthony. So you've read them? Cool.

Ok then, I'll rephrase what I said: I don't know where to find Anthony's original works translated to english, or even if they exist, but I think you can understand the concept of _information metabolism_ as it was incorporated by Augusta without the need to read his works.


----------



## shapatan (Apr 25, 2015)

If I were to learn more about Socionics, I would much rather look at it from the original sources than from 3rd party websites that contain a lot of their own interpretations. How do I know that the sites you've suggested contain valid material from the originator(s)? Prepare for Six Sigma Exams


----------



## tangosthenes (Oct 29, 2011)

shapatan said:


> If I were to learn more about Socionics, I would much rather look at it from the original sources than from 3rd party websites that contain a lot of their own interpretations. How do I know that the sites you've suggested contain valid material from the originator(s)? Prepare for Six Sigma Exams


Original material is scarce and incomplete, even if completed.


----------



## Despotic Nepotist (Mar 1, 2014)

Pancreatic Pandora said:


> A few thanks and no comments so far. This is the perfect oportunity to nitpick so if anyone has any observation they want to make I'd appreciate that they share it.


So, let me see if I understand this correctly. The focus of MBTI is more on a person's psyche as an individual, whereas Socionics is more on a person's psyche in relation to their role in society, hence the prefix of Socio-. Right?


----------

