MBTI & Socionics

[Ezra]

I agree with Ganin - I think socionics types generally correspond to one's MBTI type.

[XoX]

I agree with Ganin - I think socionics types generally correspond to one's MBTI type.

ZOMG! You opened Pandora's Box. I hope you can handle it

Of course you'd need to back this up with an argument

I think one common objection is that such comparison is not meaningful as the two are based on different premises and are fundamentally talking about different things (even if kind of share a common base). So the comparison is not meaningful at all and thus useless. MBTI type and socionics type are completely different theoretical constructs.

Another view is that even if socionics and MBTI are different systems they do talk about same "concrete types" which exist "out there" outside of the theoretical realm and which both systems try to model in their own way.

Then one view talks about how MBTI is more behavior based and relies heavily on type descriptions. It doesn't have a solid theory behind it. From this it follows e.g. that if you are a scientist -> NT. If you do sports -> S. If you like to walk alone -> I. And the type distributions are not even. Some types are very rare as some behaviors are rare. Some types are common as some behaviors are common. In socionics types are assumed to be more evenly distributed and such things as SF scientists and NT sports practitioners exists.

I think many other views exist too I'm not an expert.

[Slacker]

They are alike enough to make comparisons confusing, and different enough to make comparisons useless.

[Ezra]

Yeah, but consider this: I've been called ESTJ almost every time in MBTI, and the very first time I took the Type Assistant, I had no clue what socionics was, and it came out with ESTj.

The first time I took MBTI, I came out ENTP. This is probably me, because I wasn't bullshitting or influenced by knowing how the tests work. Recently, in socionics, ENTp is correlating with my personality.

I know this is only in one case, but come on, although the theories are different, they still pretty much show that if you're ESFJ based on MBTI, you're probably gonna be ESFj based on socionics. MBTI is based on the functions of Jung, as is socionics. So if you answer a question in MBTI which corresponds to the intuitive function of Jung, it'll probably be the same way of processing things as with socionics.

[ThePeddler]

MBTI is more focused on the dichotomies, while Socionics is supposed to be focused on the functions. And concerning the dichotomies between Socionics and MBTI, there are different focuses.

You believe that Socionics and MBTI are similar. What's your opinion on Keirsey?

[Slacker]

Yeah, but consider this: I've been called ESTJ almost every time in MBTI, and the very first time I took the Type Assistant, I had no clue what socionics was, and it came out with ESTj.

The first time I took MBTI, I came out ENTP. This is probably me, because I wasn't bullshitting or influenced by knowing how the tests work. Recently, in socionics, ENTp is correlating with my personality.

I know this is only in one case, but come on, although the theories are different, they still pretty much show that if you're ESFJ based on MBTI, you're probably gonna be ESFj based on socionics. MBTI is based on the functions of Jung, as is socionics. So if you answer a question in MBTI which corresponds to the intuitive function of Jung, it'll probably be the same way of processing things as with socionics.

This will probably turn into a long and ugly thread, but I'll explain my point of view.

Yes, for a good number of people the MBTI type and Socionics type are the same - particularly extraverts. But if you look at the function positions for types, MBTI has what they call INTp and INTj, for example, shown as opposites. In MBTI, INTP is and INTJ is , where those are reversed in Socionics. The actual descriptions seem to not generally follow the functional preferences they have assigned to those types - so the description for INTP looks more like an INTp than an INTj description, but in my opinion the introverted descriptions are somewhere in between rather than clearly one or the other. You will hear people who will strongly feel that we should just ignore what functions they say the types use and only look at the descriptions, but I think descriptions are only useful to give a general and overall picture of what a type looks like, because otherwise they become a bit like astrology descriptions - you can see a bit of yourself in many of them. I think people should type by functional preference.

Also, MBTI is all about those letters. N, S, T and F seem to generally correspond, but E and I are more about whether someone is outgoing than whether someone's leading function is introverted. If someone's leading function is introverted, that will very possibly come out in their behavior, but that person might look fairly extraverted by MBTI standards if that person is socially outgoing. Self esteem and the particular details of someone's circle of friends are greater determiners for how socially outgoing someone is than type IMO. And the same with J and P - Socionics defines this as by whether the leading function is a judging or perceiving function rather than whether someone is Judging or Perceiving by MBTI standards. Again, if someone's leading function is judging, that might very well and often will correspond with a Socionics J, BUT external factors like someone's career, someone's age and maturity level, etc. might make someone appear Judging by MBTI standards even if their leading function is a perceiving function.

So yes, in many cases the MBTI type will be the Socionics type, but how often? 50%? 70% 30%? I'd guess over half the time anyway, but how useful is that? And how do you know if you're one of those people? That's why I say they're similar enough to be confusing - you might very well be the same type, and many of their definitions seem to at least superficially correspond to Socionics definitions, but they're different enough that I don't think using MBTI information is really useful.

Now Phaedrus will post about how I'm stupid and that they really mean the exact same thing and are talking about the exact same types. And he uses a LOT of so he'll sound very authoritative and he'll be much more forceful than I am. I guess you'll have to decide what you think about this on your own.

[Blaze]

they correspond OK to a point. for my type at least, they differ on the ordering of the functions when it gets to 3rd and 4th functions. so for ego block functions they are pretty similar but then they start to change at the superego block which throws the whole thing off. so superficially they are similar, but when it comes to unconscious motivations, MBTI is off.

[Ezra]

So, based on that, what's the point of having dichotomies if they're shit?

Why have E/I, S/N, T/F, j/p at all if they a) just confuse people and, more importantly, b) don't actually explain anything?

Surely LII, ILE, EIE etc. mean more. j/p mean nothing - p generally has negative connotations in the professional world, and j the opposite - rationality and irrationality explain it a bit more. But P in MBTI is not 'irrational', nor is J particularly any more 'rational'.

[Not A Communist Shill]

MBTI probably correlates to the signs of the zodiac in some way, but it doesn't mean we should try and find correlations between MBTI and socionics - the extent of their compatibility is far from obvious - why even bother with treating MBTI as largely interchangeable with socionics, when it obviously isn't?

Why have E/I, S/N, T/F, j/p at all if they a) just confuse people and, more importantly, b) don't actually explain anything?

Probably because everyone knows what introverts + extroverts are, and what intuition, sensation, thinking, feeling is - MBTI doesn't use much brain power - it is simply lists of words, basically without much description.

Socionics will tell you how 'introverted intuition' manifests itself, rather than being a hash of the associated meanings of 'introversion' and 'intuition'.

[Expat]

So, based on that, what's the point of having dichotomies if they're shit?

Why have E/I, S/N, T/F, j/p at all if they a) just confuse people and, more importantly, b) don't actually explain anything?

Surely LII, ILE, EIE etc. mean more. j/p mean nothing - p generally has negative connotations in the professional world, and j the opposite - rationality and irrationality explain it a bit more. But P in MBTI is not 'irrational', nor is J particularly any more 'rational'.

On "rational" and "irrational" you are focusing too much on the words.

As for the point of having dichotomies, personally I wish socionics sites would de-emphasize them, however, they are useful when going for "live" visual identification, even though I prefer, even then, to think of temperaments and functions.

But yes, if you actually understand what the terms mean in socionics, you should be able to type by dichotomies, too. The thing is, by the time you know enough of socionics in order to use the dichotomies properly, you also see that they're not the best approach. But for a beginner to go through them as their first step and them decide that they know their types already, well, it's just silly.

[Ezra]

Probably because everyone knows what introverts + extroverts are, and what intuition, sensation, thinking, feeling is - MBTI doesn't use much brain power - it is simply lists of words, basically without much description.

Yes... so why can't people use LIE, LII, ILI, LSE etc. instead of ENTj, INTj, INTp, ESTj etc.? Using the MBTI model is completely pointless.

[Ezra]

As for the point of having dichotomies, personally I wish socionics sites would de-emphasize them, however, they are useful when going for "live" visual identification, even though I prefer, even then, to think of temperaments and functions.

I assume temperaments are the 3 letters of a type i.e. your temperament is LIE.

[Creepy-bg]

Probably because everyone knows what introverts + extroverts are, and what intuition, sensation, thinking, feeling is - MBTI doesn't use much brain power - it is simply lists of words, basically without much description.

Yes... so why can't people use LIE, LII, ILI, LSE etc. instead of ENTj, INTj, INTp, ESTj etc.? Using the MBTI model is completely pointless.

it's just a habit that's settled in... there have been various attempts over the past few years to get people to stop using the MBTI style codes, but they still persist. I think part of the problem is that for those of us who have been around here for awhile the two naming styles are pretty much interchangable so it doesn't make a difference which ones other people are using... we equate them to the same thing in our minds.

[tcaudilllg]

I agree with Ganin - I think socionics types generally correspond to one's MBTI type.

I've settled this argument once and for all in my exertion theory primer thread. It is useless to bring it up again. MBTI is simply an incorrect interpretation of Jung's psychology that has been intuitively corresponded to the personality structures better defined by socionics.

Forget MBTI. It is a relic.

Yes... so why can't people use LIE, LII, ILI, LSE etc. instead of ENTj, INTj, INTp, ESTj etc.?

For one thing, they are inferior. Better to have the base element's class said straight out than to demand people infer it again, and again, and again. Just as you shouldn't ask people to automatically pause before the "and" that follows a series of commas: it's just not reasonable.

[KSpin]

I think temperament is about IP, EJ, EP and IJ.

[Not A Communist Shill]

Yes... so why can't people use LIE, LII, ILI, LSE etc. instead of ENTj, INTj, INTp, ESTj etc.? Using the MBTI model is completely pointless.

it is naturally more difficult to 'decode' a three letter code that is also represented in a four letter code - also, each position with a four-letter code is binary, while the same three-letter representation has four possibilities for each position - it's far easier to picture things in binary terms...less mistakes. Also the Is in the 3 letter codes are difficult to distinguish from Ls if you're just glancing at it. I think thinking in terms of clubs (xNTx, xNFx...), and temperaments (Ixxj, Ixxp...) is also easier using the four-letter system - I also just don't like the three-letter system, O.K.? . Using a lower case j or p is sufficient IMO to show that we are part of some cult who don't take kindly to those from 'other' parts....

[Ezra]

I've settled this argument once and for all in my exertion theory primer thread. It is useless to bring it up again. MBTI is simply an incorrect interpretation of Jung's psychology that has been intuitively corresponded to the personality structures better defined by socionics.

Forget MBTI. It is a relic.

You don't even know what my motive is.

The reason I brought it up was to express that if socionics is to grow in popularity, and eventually cause the obsoleting of MBTI, a way in which to do this is to convert people new to socionics in a simple and effective way. More people will be attracted to it if the correlation is there. And it's easy to see that it is there. It's easy to get people like me into it - just tell me that I don't understand a theory, and I will take you on every time; it gives me an incentive to learn about socionics being told I need years of experience. I like to take up this kind of offer, I like the challenge, I like the test. But for those who will shy away from socionics when they could easily benefit much more from it than MBTI, it needs to have some sort of appeal. Correlation is the answer. It's like saying to them: "here, look at this. You are exactly the same person as you were in MBTI, only now you get to find your ideal match in love and/or business - it has practical value".

[discojoe]

I agree with Ganin - I think socionics types generally correspond to one's MBTI type.

Boring.

[Ezra]

Yeah good one discoboy.

[Expat]

The reason I brought it up was to express that if socionics is to grow in popularity, and eventually cause the obsoleting of MBTI,

I very much doubt that this will happen, and personally I hope it never happens.

Correlation is the answer. It's like saying to them: "here, look at this. You are exactly the same person as you were in MBTI, only now you get to find your ideal match in love and/or business - it has practical value".

If it were that simple, I think that the MBTI people would have found a consistent and reliable relationship theory ages ago. No, even though, as a whole, MBTI types, from their descriptions, are indeed reasonably recognizable as their Socionics counterparts (with a few problems), in fact, for practical purposes, especially due to how MBTI tests questions are phrased, too often people get mistyped in MBTI (from socionics' PoV). So it won't work that way.

[Ezra]

Expat, too often people get mistyped with any personality theory. In socionics, I've considered ExTx types. In MBTI, I've considered ESTJ, ENTJ and ENTP. In the Enneagram, I've considered 1, 3, 5, 6, 7, 8 and 9. For a long time I've thought of myself as an 8, but I'm not. I'm a sx cp6w5. I discovered that tonight.

Socionics is not flawless. It can't describe everything about a person. In that way at least, it is the same as MBTI (and the Enneagram).

[Expat]

That's not the point. Strawman argument.

Nothing is perfect, but if you do type the persons correctly, all things being equal, the relationships work as described. Now if there is already a risk of mistyping people in socionics, certainly that won't be helped by your suggestion of simply assuming that the MBTI type is the same as socionics.

[Ezra]

Yeah, sorry, I just wanted to reply to a topic.

It was an empty answer.

[tcaudilllg]

The reason I brought it up was to express that if socionics is to grow in popularity, and eventually cause the obsoleting of MBTI,

I very much doubt that this will happen, and personally I hope it never happens.

Why of course... socionics awareness should only be the responsibility of an elite who understands how to use it properly. How good of you to remind us of that all-important fact.

Correlation is the answer. It's like saying to them: "here, look at this. You are exactly the same person as you were in MBTI, only now you get to find your ideal match in love and/or business - it has practical value".

If it were that simple, I think that the MBTI people would have found a consistent and reliable relationship theory ages ago. No, even though, as a whole, MBTI types, from their descriptions, are indeed reasonably recognizable as their Socionics counterparts (with a few problems), in fact, for practical purposes, especially due to how MBTI tests questions are phrased, too often people get mistyped in MBTI (from socionics' PoV). So it won't work that way.

That may be what you think, but it's only a quarter of the reality.... The answer to the problem lies in the cultivation of the perception that socionics is the heir to Jung's typology. The acceptance of such by Jungian theorists, in particular, would transit the majority of Jungians into socionics practice. Most Jungians accept MBTI because it is consistent with a (flawed) interpretation of Jung's theory. By presenting Socionics as the correct interpretation of the structure observed by Jung in his theory of psychological types, analytical psychology as a whole can be persuaded to accept Socionics as fact. This will make Socionics as powerful a force in modern psychology as Jung himself is today.

The advent of socionics in the west will lead to more typologies concerning parts of the personality that are as mysterious today as were the type relations before socionics. We should not stand in the way of the natural course of scientific evolution.