Question

[Ezra]

Could some please explain to me:

a) What the difference is between MBTI and socionics i.e. why you can be ESTp or something on one and yet on Myers-Briggs be INTJ or something different
b) Why with MBTI, the letters are either all capitalised (e.g. ESTJ) or small if they're lesser (e.g. if your Thinking function is used about 52% you'd be EStJ), whereas if it's to do with socionics, only the last letter is lower case
c) Why some people who like socionics have a major problem with MBTI theory

[Expat]

Could some please explain to me:

a) What the difference is between MBTI and socionics i.e. why you can be ESTp or something on one and yet on Myers-Briggs be INTJ or something different

In principle, in an ideal world, you shouldn't. But that happens because of the way types are described in MBTI, or due to how most tests are made.

To use the example you made, in an exercise in Ukraine, a very large number of Russian socionists typed an INTJ profile as ESTp (others as ENTj, only a few as INTj). That happens because Myers-Biggs tends to leave out supposedly "negative" traits of types, such as the PoLRs, which misleads the Russians used to Socionics profiles.

b) Why with MBTI, the letters are either all capitalised (e.g. ESTJ) or small if they're lesser (e.g. if your Thinking function is used about 52% you'd be EStJ), whereas if it's to do with socionics, only the last letter is lower case

This is a matter of little importance. The "last letter in lower case" thing was, I think, invented by Sergei Ganin as a way to make clear that you're talking of the Socionics type, not the MBTI one, but still keep the types recognizable from MBTI's point of view.

When we want to make even more certain that we are talking of Socionics types, we use names such as LII for INTj, that is, logical-intuitive introvert.

c) Why some people who like socionics have a major problem with MBTI theory

Because we think that the moment you understand Socionics, MBTI becomes useless, so why bother with it.

[Jarno]

a) What the difference is between MBTI and socionics i.e. why you can be ESTp or something on one and yet on Myers-Briggs be INTJ or something different

They describe and define the types from a different angle, this confuses some people. The types are however based on the same 16 psychological categories of people.

b) Why with MBTI, the letters are either all capitalised (e.g. ESTJ) or small if they're lesser (e.g. if your Thinking function is used about 52% you'd be EStJ), whereas if it's to do with socionics, only the last letter is lower case

Yes it was Ganin who invented this, as a sort of compromise with the J/P switch thing. I would say, simple always capatalize everything.

c) Why some people who like socionics have a major problem with MBTI theory

Good question. It's because they are ignorant in my opinion. MBTI is very good when it comes to descriptions and tests. However the underlying functions are wrong and they don't describe the relationships. So most people favor Socionics instead, but as I've said before, you shouldn't narrow down your information sources especially don't throw away 40 years of study and experience as in the case of MBTI. So for tests and descriptions, you can also consult MBTI.

[Expat]

you shouldn't narrow down your information sources especially don't throw away 40 years of study and experience as in the case of MBTI.

Well they never managed to create a consistent and working intertype relationship theory, did they? Which is one of the core points of Socionics, which makes Socionics particularly useful, and which allows for some internal cross-checking. So I think that those 40 years of study weren't really as well employed as those used in Socionics.

[Jarno]

you shouldn't narrow down your information sources especially don't throw away 40 years of study and experience as in the case of MBTI.

Well they never managed to create a consistent and working intertype relationship theory, did they? Which is one of the core points of Socionics, which makes Socionics particularly useful, and which allows for some internal cross-checking. So I think that those 40 years of study weren't really as well employed as those used in Socionics.

Agreed, but i'm referring to tests and descriptions.

I sometimes even like MBTI descriptions more than Socionics. But in the end, they should both be used, because the different angles support us with a more total view.

[Expat]

I sometimes even like MBTI descriptions more than Socionics. But in the end, they should both be used, because the different angles support us with a more total view.

Then in my honest opinion, if you need MBTI descriptions to deepen your understanding of Socionics types, you don't truly understand Socionics.

[Jarno]

I sometimes even like MBTI descriptions more than Socionics. But in the end, they should both be used, because the different angles support us with a more total view.

Then in my honest opinion, if you need MBTI descriptions to deepen your understanding of Socionics types, you don't truly understand Socionics.

So you are claiming that MBTI has no added value when learning about the 16 types?

[Kristiina]

Could some please explain to me:

a) What the difference is between MBTI and socionics i.e. why you can be ESTp or something on one and yet on Myers-Briggs be INTJ or something different
b) Why with MBTI, the letters are either all capitalised (e.g. ESTJ) or small if they're lesser (e.g. if your Thinking function is used about 52% you'd be EStJ), whereas if it's to do with socionics, only the last letter is lower case
c) Why some people who like socionics have a major problem with MBTI theory

The more the merrier, right?

a)Socionics tries to describe the method of thinking and what goes on inside the mind. MBTI describes behavior more. So when you say that you are a structured and methodical person, MBTI will just say that you're probably a Judging type, whereas socionics will start asking questions like, "I wonder why you said it - is it because you are personally skilled at such things (ego block), or you want others to think you are (super-ego block), or you just generally admire this about people. And I wonder if it means you're judging or that you value Ti.". This means that typing in MBTI is more clear, but once you type a person by socionics scale, you'll know more about how their mind really works.

b) Named differently to differeciate from MBTI, but it barely helps. This is why there is a new name-system - ESTj is Logical-Sensory Extrovert or LSE. Most people still use the 4-letter names.

c) MBTI barely takes into account the inner reasons for behavioristic traits in my understanding of MBTI. The environment masks a person's true type, because it affects behavior. Highly educated people have to show Thinking-traits in everyday life, so they almost always test as T-types, even if their value system is based on ethical moral.

[Expat]

So you are claiming that MBTI has no added value when learning about the 16 types?

What I think is that since the commonly available MBTT descriptions (ie in the internet) are flawed from the point of view of Socionics, any added value they might have is more than "compensated" by their flaws, which are confusing.

I think it's best to focus on the many Socionics descriptions available -- there is no need to use the MBTT ones.

[leckysupport]

Could some please explain to me:

a) What the difference is between MBTI and socionics i.e. why you can be ESTp or something on one and yet on Myers-Briggs be INTJ or something different
b) Why with MBTI, the letters are either all capitalised (e.g. ESTJ) or small if they're lesser (e.g. if your Thinking function is used about 52% you'd be EStJ), whereas if it's to do with socionics, only the last letter is lower case
c) Why some people who like socionics have a major problem with MBTI theory

a) Theoretically they are both a bit different and the MBTI and socionics function descriptions conflict. Not only that, the majority of MBTIers have the attitude that Kristiina described. Although it's not a difference between MBTI and Socionics it's a difference between the thinking of the two communities, its still important.

b) The small last letter thing is Ganins attempt to help MBTIers identify with socionics, the correct acronyms for socionics are three letters (LIE for ENTj etc.).

c) I personally don't have any major problems, I just think they're wrong.

[Rocky]

you shouldn't narrow down your information sources especially don't throw away 40 years of study and experience as in the case of MBTI.

Well they never managed to create a consistent and working intertype relationship theory, did they? Which is one of the core points of Socionics, which makes Socionics particularly useful, and which allows for some internal cross-checking. So I think that those 40 years of study weren't really as well employed as those used in Socionics.

FWIW, there was never a consistent theory set up, but I've heard of MBTI followers studying relationships... it just seemed less systematic ("ESTJ seemed happy with INFP, but those were the only two types where the complete opposites had healthy relationships"... and stuff like that).

[Kristiina]

c) I personally don't have any major problems, I just think they're wrong.

hahahaha

[UDP]

I share Expat's opinions on this matter.

[Ezra]

Cheers.

Okay, so if I'm an ExTx (most likely ENTJ) MBTI, how do I find out my Socionics type? I found a test, and it was shit, because it didn't work properly.

[Expat]

FWIW, there was never a consistent theory set up, but I've heard of MBTI followers studying relationships... it just seemed less systematic ("ESTJ seemed happy with INFP, but those were the only two types where the complete opposites had healthy relationships"... and stuff like that).

Yeah, but there are contradictory "theories" -- one site says that the most important thing is that sensors and intuitives are "totally incompatible" but all the other dichotomies should be complementary, so the best match for an INTJ is the ENFP. For some reason they don't think that J and P would annoy each other, they seem to think they would "correct" each other.

Another theory is less clear, but says that the most puzzling type - what they call "enigma relationship" for the ENTJ is the ESFJ, and for the INTJ, the ISFJ etc -- why?? Even within MBTI's own internal logic, that makes no sense to me. But also, in typical MBTI "political correctness", they avoid saying that any relationship is really "bad".

So there seems to be nothing real for MBTI and relationships, which imho is already a very valid reason to drop it in favor of Socionics.

Cheers.

Okay, so if I'm an ExTx (most likely ENTJ) MBTI, how do I find out my Socionics type? I found a test, and it was shit, because it didn't work properly.

You could start by going the "slow way" and telling us what you can think of about yourself.

[Jarno]

So there seems to be nothing real for MBTI and relationships, which imho is already a very valid reason to drop it in favor of Socionics.

True concerning your part about MBTI relationships (they suck!), but your argument of dropping [/b]mbti descriptions[/b] because they failed in another field is false reasoning. They still can be good at descriptions.

The main reason for me to have examined them, is because there are a lot of (good) books written in Englisch about the 16 types from an MBTI angle.

But if there was more socionics to read in (understandable) English, I would certainly choose to...

[Expat]

True concerning your part about MBTI relationships (they suck!), but your argument of dropping [/b]mbti descriptions[/b] because they failed in another field is false reasoning. They still can be good at descriptions.

I see that as false reasoning.

The good Socionics descriptions, being aware of the relationships, will understand better, say, the difference between Ne and Ni in an ENTj, and between Se and Si in an ISFp, because they know that these two types are conflictors rather than duals. They will be aware of, if not always point out (although they often do), what is it about Ni that the ISFj welcomes but about Ne that the ISFj loathes.

Without understanding relationships, MBTI can't understand precisely the difference between quasi-identicals, and therefore not understand the functions precisely, and that sometimes finds its way in their descriptions. That is why, for instance, some ISTJ descriptions read like a LSI - SLI hybrid, the same for some INFP descriptions and EII-IEI, etc.

The best that can be said about the best MBTI descriptions is that they don't make this kind of mistake -- but in this case you don't need them, either, since they will be in effect identical to Socionics descriptions.

Sometimes I think that those who still cling to MBTI descriptions just dislike the idea that perhaps they spent time and money reading MBTI books and sites -- well, I say, tough. It's one process of learning.

[Ezra]

You could start by going the "slow way" and telling us what you can think of about yourself.

I'm an 8 (unknown wing) sp/sx/so on the Enneagram.

I'm loud, dominating and often very aggressive. I can also be very laid-back, laconic and can let things go if I'm in a more self-aware frame of mind. I like parties, but only once I'm at them - then the party begins. I don't like leaving people out of things, I like to be inclusive. I can be quite selfish and/or self-preservationist at times. I don't like being controlled, and don't mind taking control if it is necessary and/or a vacant position. I've been known to be cold-hearted and detached, and I'm impartial to romantic relationships and the relationship with my whole family. I often make lists, mainly about what I want to find out on the net i.e. on Wikipedia. I love to read, listen to music (but almost always while I'm doing something) and watch films. I'm happy to analyse them critically. I like Philosophy, but only when it has some sort of practical application. I can be very general/sweeping, but only for pragmatism or practicality's sake. I cut corners occasionally to get things done. I can get locked into a game/discussion/work for hours on end, and I often enjoy it IF it's productive/has some sort of reward at the end, like the feeling of having done something which is a) intense and b) good for me. I like to run and work out for that reason. I'm not always particularly systematic or logical in my reasoning. I don't like vagueness (even though I am often this). I like to find out about things that interest me. I occasionally can't articulate what I want or am feeling, but generally nearly always can. I can be quite the orator, and with a bit of practice, a good rhetorician. I'm intellectual. I've been called arrogant in the past, and although I don't admit that I am, I often question other people as to why they think that, and I generally like to make people think I'm arrogant for fun. I rarely think I'm wrong. My career choices are law and/or politics.

[Exodus]

You could start by going the "slow way" and telling us what you can think of about yourself.

I'm an 8 (unknown wing) sp/sx/so on the Enneagram.

I'm loud, dominating and often very aggressive. I can also be very laid-back, laconic and can let things go if I'm in a more self-aware frame of mind. I like parties, but only once I'm at them - then the party begins. I don't like leaving people out of things, I like to be inclusive. I can be quite selfish and/or self-preservationist at times. I don't like being controlled, and don't mind taking control if it is necessary and/or a vacant position. I've been known to be cold-hearted and detached, and I'm impartial to romantic relationships and the relationship with my whole family. I often make lists, mainly about what I want to find out on the net i.e. on Wikipedia. I love to read, listen to music (but almost always while I'm doing something) and watch films. I'm happy to analyse them critically. I like Philosophy, but only when it has some sort of practical application. I can be very general/sweeping, but only for pragmatism or practicality's sake. I cut corners occasionally to get things done. I can get locked into a game/discussion/work for hours on end, and I often enjoy it IF it's productive/has some sort of reward at the end, like the feeling of having done something which is a) intense and b) good for me. I like to run and work out for that reason. I'm not always particularly systematic or logical in my reasoning. I don't like vagueness (even though I am often this). I like to find out about things that interest me. I occasionally can't articulate what I want or am feeling, but generally nearly always can. I can be quite the orator, and with a bit of practice, a good rhetorician. I'm intellectual. I've been called arrogant in the past, and although I don't admit that I am, I often question other people as to why they think that, and I generally like to make people think I'm arrogant for fun. I rarely think I'm wrong. My career choices are law and/or politics.

ExTx is obvious. Most likely ESTp.

[Kristiina]

Cheers.

Okay, so if I'm an ExTx (most likely ENTJ) MBTI, how do I find out my Socionics type? I found a test, and it was shit, because it didn't work properly.

the easiest way to go - you start a new thread in what's my type and you post a picture with a brief description - about 5-10 sentences. Then you let the intuitive poeple tell you who you resemble, what the look in your eyes means in socionics, etc. You let them comment for 1-2 days (depending on the activity and interest in the thread, it can take more). Look at what the consensus says and read a little about this type. When the VI part has exhausted itself, and consensus has not told you the type that would be very likely, you go to phase 2 - critizise a couple of false posts, e.g. "This does not sound like me at all - I need my friends nearby 24/7.". Tell a little bit more about yourself.

[Expat]

ExTx is obvious. Most likely ESTp.

Yes, I agree.

[Kristiina]

ExTx is obvious. Most likely ESTp.

Yes, I agree.

one more vote to ESTp. Seems very very ESTp.

Ezra, If you also want to get VI'ed, you should post a picture in another thread a.s.a.p. because VI stops working when people start having an opinion of what type you are. They'll start seeing the type traits of whatever type they think you are. right now only a very few people have seen your description and it's not even in "what's my type".

[Ezra]

ExTx is obvious. Most likely ESTp.

Yes, I agree.

Ezra, If you also want to get VI'ed, you should post a picture in another thread a.s.a.p. because VI stops working when people start having an opinion of what type you are. They'll start seeing the type traits of whatever type they think you are. right now only a very few people have seen your description and it's not even in "what's my type".

What's "VI'ed"?

Right, okay, I'll post a picture and this description in the "What's my type?" section, and you can see me.

[ThePeddler]

Ask him to tell more

[Ezra]

Ask him to tell more

Look in that what's my type? thing. There's a lot more there.