A Point Worth Thinking About - And A Question

[Ezra]

There is obscurity between MBTI/Keirsey and socionics and their correlation precisely because people are attempting to correlate them. In reality, if the correct way is approached and utilised, there will be no need for correlation.

If you scroll down on this page, you will find a table with the headings "Ego functions", "Formal name", "Social role", "Person" and "MBTI type". Now, when I look at that table, I can only assume - as any newcomer or beginner might do - that if I already know my MBTI/Keirsey type, I will find that it conveniently corresponds to my socionics type, so that I can find out more about myself and the socionics theory.

So, I come on the page, and I look at ENTJ. Now, thanks to my knowledge of MBTI/Keirsey, I know that the ENTJ's functions are:

* Dominant Extroverted Thinking (Te)
* Auxiliary Introverted Intuition (Ni)
* Tertiary Extroverted Sensing (Se)
* Inferior Introverted Feeling (Fi)

Then I think to myself 'maybe the functions don't correspond with socionics types. Maybe the ENTj in socionics has a different functioning order to that of MBTI/Keirsey. So, I look at the LIE's functions and how they correspond with MBTI/Keirsey functions of the ENTJ on the aptly named Wikisocion:

* 1st function
* 2nd function
* 6th function
* 5th function

And look! The first two functions are exactly the same! To check my calculations, I take another example. The ESFP of MBTI/Keirsey:

* Dominant Extroverted Sensing (Se)
* Auxiliary Introverted Feeling (Fi)
* Tertiary Extroverted Thinking (Te)
* Inferior Introverted Intuition (Ni)

I then compare it to the SEE:

* 1st function
* 2nd function
* 6th function
* 5th function

The same pattern emerges. It seems that socionics type clearly correlates with MBTI type. And for future reference, I know that MBTI/Keirsey ENTJ is definitely, and can only be, LIE in socionics and that MBTI/Keirsey ESFP is definitely and can only be socionics SEE. It is an indubitable truth. ENTJ = LIE and ESFP = SEE, and no one can tell you otherwise. It is fair to say that one can use ENTj/ENTJ/LIE interchangeably, and it wouldn't matter, because they mean exactly the same thing. The same can be done with the ESFP/ESFp/SEE.

Can this be done with all types? Now, since I've tried two types with an Extraverted leading function, to double check calculations I'll use an Introverted type; the INTJ. So, using the same method, MBTI/Keirsey INTJ's functions are as follows:

* Dominant Introverted Intuition
* Auxiliary Extroverted Thinking
* Tertiary Introverted Feeling
* Inferior Extroverted Sensing

I now look at the apparent socionics equivalent, LII, and its functional ordering:

* 8th function
* 7th function
* 3rd function
* 4th function

But oh shit. This can't be right. It doesn't follow on from my previous reasoning. So I begin to trawl through the types to find the type that DOES fit the original functional ordering that I found within the LIE/ENTj and the . Finally I find it. Yes, it's LII's irrational friend, ILI. And guess what the functional ordering is? That's right:

* 1st function
* 2nd function
* 6th function
* 5th function

Just by chance, to see if another Introverted MBTI type might follow the same patter as the INTJ, I use the ISFP. It's functional ordering in MBTI:

* Dominant Introverted Feeling
* Auxiliary Extroverted Sensing
* Tertiary Introverted iNtuition
* Inferior Extroverted Thinking

And its socionics equivalent SEI's functional ordering? It's:

* 8th function
* 7th function
* 3rd function
* 4th function

Interesting. It follows the same patter as the INTJ of MBTI. So, to find out what the ISFP is in socionics, I'll use the same method as I did with the INTJ, which leads me to ISFj, or ESI. And what do you know:

* 1st function
* 2nd function
* 6th function
* 5th function

Interesting. So, it seems that INTJ and ISFP have become INTp and ISFj when they are seen from the point of view of their socionics counterparts, despite the fact that ENTJ and ESFP retain their functional ordering from whichever point of view you look at it.

Why is this the case? Why is it that the MBTI ISFP becomes and ISFj rather than staying as an ISFp? Why, when I saw that table, couldn't - or rather wasn't - ISFp at the end of the table on the row that matched up to "Fi Se ESI (ethical sensory introvert) Conservator / Guardian Dreiser"? Why was it on the row that had "Si Fe SEI (sensory ethical introvert) Mediator / Peacemaker Dumas" on? Where's the logic in that? Surely the latter should have corresponded to ISFj and not ISFp, as it did. And more fundamentally, why is there no logical consistency in something that need not be correlated because it should naturally follow but doesn't (i.e. why is ENTJ LIE, ESFP SEE, but ISFP NOT ESI)?

[Elro]

You're assuming that the functions are defined in the same way in both theories. Are they?

[Phaedrus]

Take a look at this, Ezra: http://oldforumlinkviewtopic.php?t=4...r=asc&start=15

[Ezra]

You're assuming that the functions are defined in the same way in both theories. Are they?

They all come from one source - Jung - so yes, they are.

[Ezra]

Take a look at this, Ezra: http://oldforumlinkviewtopic.php?t=4...r=asc&start=15

Right, basically, there is a divide between those who believe they correlate, and those who do not.

[Elro]

You're assuming that the functions are defined in the same way in both theories. Are they?

They all come from one source - Jung - so yes, they are.

Dogs all came from the same source - wolves - yet look how many different breeds there are.

[Phaedrus]

Right, basically, there is a divide between those who believe they correlate, and those who do not.

That was not my point. You realize that there is an obvious correlation between the extraverted types. But do you also realize why there is no problem with the introverted types, even though it might seem so?

[Slacker]

I'm no expert on Jung, so I can't get very far into this conversation, but my understanding is that Aushra Augusta used Jung's types as a starting point but was not a purist, and I don't know if it can be assumed that Meyers and Briggs were purists either, so I don't think you can assume that they are talking about precisely the same things when you look at information aspects.

If you look at the home page for Socioniko.net there is a comparison of the two systems on that page.

Rick also has some comparisons between the two on his blog.

[Ezra]

Right, basically, there is a divide between those who believe they correlate, and those who do not.

That was not my point. You realize that there is an obvious correlation between the extraverted types. But do you also realize why there is no problem with the introverted types, even though it might seem so?

No. I have no idea. The only thing I can see is that Augusta suddenly decided that Myers and Briggs had got it wrong, and Oldham and Keirsey had also fucked up. She agreed that the Extraverted types were correct, but she thought they all had it wrong concerning Introverted types.

[Ezra]

You're assuming that the functions are defined in the same way in both theories. Are they?

They all come from one source - Jung - so yes, they are.

Dogs all came from the same source - wolves - yet look how many different breeds there are.

Yeah I was thinking about something roughly along those lines as I said it. It's a good point.

But why would they use MBTI equivalents just to confuse people if ENTJ didn't equate to LIE? It doesn't make sense to me.

[Ezra]

I'm no expert on Jung, so I can't get very far into this conversation, but my understanding is that Aushra Augusta used Jung's types as a starting point but was not a purist, and I don't know if it can be assumed that Meyers and Briggs were purists either, so I don't think you can assume that they are talking about precisely the same things when you look at information aspects.

If you look at the home page for Socioniko.net there is a comparison of the two systems on that page.

Rick also has some comparisons between the two on his blog.

That blog's great, I love it.

The socioniko.net one is quite helpful, if not slightly biased towards socionics theory.

[Creepy-bg]

You're assuming that the functions are defined in the same way in both theories. Are they?

They all come from one source - Jung - so yes, they are.

Dogs all came from the same source - wolves - yet look how many different breeds there are.

Yeah I was thinking about something roughly along those lines as I said it. It's a good point.

But why would they use MBTI equivalents just to confuse people if ENTJ didn't equate to LIE? It doesn't make sense to me.

because Russians are spiteful

[Ezra]

You're assuming that the functions are defined in the same way in both theories. Are they?

They all come from one source - Jung - so yes, they are.

Dogs all came from the same source - wolves - yet look how many different breeds there are.

Yeah I was thinking about something roughly along those lines as I said it. It's a good point.

But why would they use MBTI equivalents just to confuse people if ENTJ didn't equate to LIE? It doesn't make sense to me.

because Russians are spiteful

That's not an answer.

Really, I want to know, what's the deal? How can I be SLE and ENTJ at the same time?

[Phaedrus]

You can't, Ezra. You want a serious answer, but Bionicgoat (and some others) are not taking your question seriously. I am, and I have tried to explain in many of my posts on this forum exactly why there is no problem with the introverted types either, and why, for example, an ESI is always an ISFJ, and why an ILI is always an INTP. I don't know exactly where to find all that information in an instant, but if you are really interested you could do a search on my previous posts on this forum.

[Rocky]

You're assuming that the functions are defined in the same way in both theories. Are they?

They all come from one source - Jung - so yes, they are.

Dogs all came from the same source - wolves - yet look how many different breeds there are.

Yeah I was thinking about something roughly along those lines as I said it. It's a good point.

But why would they use MBTI equivalents just to confuse people if ENTJ didn't equate to LIE? It doesn't make sense to me.

because Russians are spiteful

FWIW, I think that was Ganin's doing, not the Russians.

[Birds]

Why is this the case? Why is it that the MBTI ISFP becomes an ISFj rather than staying as an ISFp? Why, when I saw that table, couldn't - or rather wasn't - ISFp at the end of the table on the row that matched up to "Fi Se ESI (ethical sensory introvert) Conservator / Guardian Dreiser"? Why was it on the row that had "Si Fe SEI (sensory ethical introvert) Mediator / Peacemaker Dumas" on? Where's the logic in that? Surely the latter should have corresponded to ISFj and not ISFp, as it did. And more fundamentally, why is there no logical consistency in something that need not be correlated because it should naturally follow but doesn't (i.e. why is ENTJ LIE, ESFP SEE, but ISFP NOT ESI)?

Because... in MBTI Introverted Perceivers have Perceiving functions as their Auxiliary function, while in Socionics it's the dominant function that makes them Rational/Irrational. I don't really know the reason for MBTI's rule. But then again even the definition of MBTI's Judging/Perceiving and Socionic's Rational/Irrational seems to be different.

[Rocky]

Why is this the case? Why is it that the MBTI ISFP becomes an ISFj rather than staying as an ISFp? Why, when I saw that table, couldn't - or rather wasn't - ISFp at the end of the table on the row that matched up to "Fi Se ESI (ethical sensory introvert) Conservator / Guardian Dreiser"? Why was it on the row that had "Si Fe SEI (sensory ethical introvert) Mediator / Peacemaker Dumas" on? Where's the logic in that? Surely the latter should have corresponded to ISFj and not ISFp, as it did. And more fundamentally, why is there no logical consistency in something that need not be correlated because it should naturally follow but doesn't (i.e. why is ENTJ LIE, ESFP SEE, but ISFP NOT ESI)?

Because... in MBTI Introverted Perceivers have Perceiving functions as their Auxiliary function, while in Socionics it's the dominant function that makes them Rational/Irrational. I don't really know the reason for MBTI's rule. But then again even the definition of MBTI's Judging/Perceiving and Socionic's Rational/Irrational seems to be different.

Because Myer's thought types with Ne and Fi for example were similar enough to classify as ENFP and INFP. Putting a P for both made typing people easier. It was for practical purpose.

[Phaedrus]

But then again even the definition of MBTI's Judging/Perceiving and Socionic's Rational/Irrational seems to be different.

Their criteria for distinguishing between P/irrational and J/rational types in tests, in the four scales, and in type descriptions, are almost identical. And they describe the differences between typical P/irrational and typical J/rational behaviours in the same way too. That's what's important here.

[Birds]

Well... no, I thought the difference between the J/P in MBTI was something like: the Judgers are "decisive, planning, inflexible, etc." while the Perceivers are "flexible, procrastinating, indecisive, etc.". While the difference between the Rational/Irrational in Socionics can be found here...

http://www.socionics.us/theory/rat_irr.shtml

Socionics seems to go a bit deeper than that.

MBTI's difference between J/P can be found here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mbti#Lifestyle_.28J-P.29

[Phaedrus]

Well... no, I thought the difference between the J/P in MBTI was something like: the Judgers are "decisive, planning, inflexible, etc." while the Perceivers are "flexible, procrastinating, indecisive, etc.". While the difference between the Rational/Irrational in Socionics can be found here...

http://www.socionics.us/theory/rat_irr.shtml

Socionics seems to go a bit deeper than that.

MBTI's difference between J/P can be found here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mbti#Lifestyle_.28J-P.29

If you compare some more descriptions of the differences between J and P types in both models, and also compare typical questions on MBTI tests with typical questions on socionic tests, you will see that they are extremely similar. The same stereotypical differences in behaviours are also seen in the type descriptions. Compare MBTI type descriptions with type descriptions in Socionics, and you will see that they describe J and P (rational and irrational) behaviours in very similar ways.

[Birds]

Similar in what ways? I'm not too big on type descriptions.

[Phaedrus]

Similar in what ways? I'm not too big on type descriptions.

Similar in that they describe J/rational types as orderly, inflexible, having their desks cleaned, planning, etc., and that they describe P/irrational types as messy, flexible, not taking care of the dishes, etc.

But it would be better if you read some type descriptions first, so we have a common ground for discussion. Misutii has done some nice translations of Filatova's type descriptions, so they are now much more readable than machine translations. You find them in the Articles section.

If you read for example Filatova's ISFj description, you will also see many of the typical traits of the SJ Guardian temperament in David Keirsey's model. I made a comparison in my second post in the thread to which I gave a link in my first post in this thread. Here is that link if you want to read my comparisons between type descriptions (second post):

http://oldforumlinkviewtopic.php?t=4...r=asc&start=15

[Birds]

Similar in that they describe J/rational types as orderly, inflexible, having their desks cleaned, planning, etc., and that they describe P/irrational types as messy, flexible, not taking care of the dishes, etc.

Erm... no, I thought those distinctions like "messy, orderly etc." were NOT what distinguishes between Rationals/Irrationals in Socionics. AFAIK, those traits that distinguishes between J/P are only used/described in MBTI, and not in Socionics.

But it would be better if you read some type descriptions first, so we have a common ground for discussion. Misutii has done some nice translations of Filatova's type descriptions, so they are now much more readable than machine translations. You find them in the Articles section.

If you read for example Filatova's ISFj description, you will also see many of the typical traits of the SJ Guardian temperament in David Keirsey's model. I made a comparison in my second post in the thread to which I gave a link in my first post in this thread. Here is that link if you want to read my comparisons between type descriptions (second post):

http://oldforumlinkviewtopic.php?t=4...r=asc&start=15

Again, I'm not too big on reading type descriptions... but I agree that there are some similarities between the Socionics type descriptions and the MBTI type descriptions...probably because they're both describing the same 16 types.

[Expat]

The only thing I can see is that Augusta suddenly decided that Myers and Briggs had got it wrong, and Oldham and Keirsey had also fucked up. She agreed that the Extraverted types were correct, but she thought they all had it wrong concerning Introverted types.

Stop right there.

You seem to be assuming that Augusta derived Socionics from Myers-Briggs and even Oldham and Kersey . That's not the case at all.

Both Augusta and Isabel Myers arrived at their typology independently from each other, and both based on Jung's types. Augusta had already developed her theory when she first heard of Myers-Briggs, and then Russian socionists took a closer look at it and started to refer to its types.

As to your other point, about the functions being the same: not necessarily. As Slacker Mom pointed out, Augusta used Jung's functions as the starting point, but then went her own way. Socionics functions are not exactly the same as Jung's, and not the same as Myers-Briggs either. That is a source of great confusion. Just like you are now demonstrating.

[Phaedrus]

Similar in that they describe J/rational types as orderly, inflexible, having their desks cleaned, planning, etc., and that they describe P/irrational types as messy, flexible, not taking care of the dishes, etc.

Erm... no, I thought those distinctions like "messy, orderly etc." were NOT what distinguishes between Rationals/Irrationals in Socionics. AFAIK, those traits that distinguishes between J/P are only used/described in MBTI, and not in Socionics.

Okay, now I think that I understand what you mean. You are right in saying that they define the J/P distinction differently in the two models. And when explaining, or rather identifying, the differences between J and P types they focus more on orderliness and outward behavaiour in MBTT. But take a look at Filatova's type descriptions. When she describes the actual types, she describes the rational types in pretty much the same way they describe the J types in MBTT. And she describes the irrational types as just as flexible and messy as in MBTT.

Again, I'm not too big on reading type descriptions... but I agree that there are some similarities between the Socionics type descriptions and the MBTI type descriptions...probably because they're both describing the same 16 types.

Agreed. Now you get my point.

[Ezra]

Again, I'm not too big on reading type descriptions... but I agree that there are some similarities between the Socionics type descriptions and the MBTI type descriptions...probably because they're both describing the same 16 types.

There are more than "some similarities"; most of them are practically identical. It would be more accurate to say there are "some differences between the Socionics type descriptions and the MBTI type descriptions... probably because they're describing the same 16 types but using their own interpretation to do so".

[Ezra]

The only thing I can see is that Augusta suddenly decided that Myers and Briggs had got it wrong, and Oldham and Keirsey had also fucked up. She agreed that the Extraverted types were correct, but she thought they all had it wrong concerning Introverted types.

Stop right there.

You seem to be assuming that Augusta derived Socionics from Myers-Briggs and even Oldham and Kersey . That's not the case at all.

Both Augusta and Isabel Myers arrived at their typology independently from each other, and both based on Jung's types. Augusta had already developed her theory when she first heard of Myers-Briggs, and then Russian socionists took a closer look at it and started to refer to its types.

I didn't know that. I thought she'd heard about it, then developed her own theory based on Jung's functions while taking into account some of the details she thought Myers and Briggs had got right and eliminating - forming her own theories about - elements which she believe M&B had been incorrect about.

As to your other point, about the functions being the same: not necessarily. As Slacker Mom pointed out, Augusta used Jung's functions as the starting point, but then went her own way. Socionics functions are not exactly the same as Jung's, and not the same as Myers-Briggs either. That is a source of great confusion. Just like you are now demonstrating.

Is the reason people have stuck with socionics over MBTI because they believe that Augusta's interpretation of Jung's functions is more correct than Myers and Briggs'?

[Phaedrus]

There are more than "some similarities"; most of them are practically identical. It would be more accurate to say there are "some differences between the Socionics type descriptions and the MBTI type descriptions... probably because they're describing the same 16 types but using their own interpretation to do so".

Yes.

Is the reason people have stuck with socionics over MBTI because they believe that Augusta's interpretation of Jung's functions is more correct than Myers and Briggs'?

Probably not. And it is not clear whether it is the functions in Socionics that are closer to Jung's functions or if it is MBTT's descriptions of the functions that are closer to Jung's. But the the introverted intuitive types in Socionics are closer to Jung's introverted intuitive types, and the introverted thinking types in Socionics are closer to Jung's introverted thinking types. MBTT has made a huge mistake here, since it is assumed in that model that INTPs and ISTPs are introverted thinking types in Jung's sense, when the truth is that are introverted intuitives and introverted sensors in Jung's type groupings. All the introverted types in MBTT are incorrectly identified as belonging to one group in Jung's outline, when the truth is that they belong to another of Jung's type groups.

[Expat]

Is the reason people have stuck with socionics over MBTI because they believe that Augusta's interpretation of Jung's functions is more correct than Myers and Briggs'?

Not sure about what you mean with this. Which "people" are you referring to? "People" may have different motivations.

It may well be that some people will choose Socionics or MBTT according to which one they see as closer to Jung. But that would be a very poor reason in my opinion. That would be akin to seeing Jung's work as some sort of "holy scripture", so a system is better because it's closer to Jung's. Why should we do that?

I can't speak for everyone, but I think the main reason many people prefer socionics to MBTT is because socionics explains and even predicts personal relationships. That also works to cross-check typings. My understanding is that Augusta noticed apparently unexplainable trends in personal relationships and tried to find ways to explain them. She started with Jung's types because they can be applied to healthy individuals, but then she shaped her own understanding of the functions by observing how they influenced personal relationships.

I don't think you get very far in explaining personal relationships by using Jung's types as they are, and Jung himself does not seem to have been very concerned with that apart from observing that extroverts tended to be best matched with introverts (if anyone knows better, I stand corrected).

So I - and those who prefer socionics for the reasons above - would recognize Augusta's debt to Jung, but also that she improved on Jung, rather than slavishly follow him.

But the the introverted intuitive types in Socionics are closer to Jung's introverted intuitive types, and the introverted thinking types in Socionics are closer to Jung's introverted thinking types. MBTT has made a huge mistake here, since it is assumed in that model that INTPs and ISTPs are introverted thinking types in Jung's sense

I agree with this. Jung's description of the Introverted Intuition type is of rather "out there" Ni dominants, more INFp than INTp, also illustrated as he elaborated further in an interview when he described what Introverted Intuition was. So his description is not a realistic description of what most Ni dominants are like, but the function is still recognizable Ni.

His description of the Introverted Thinking type is more a description of introverts who are thinkers, so a mixed bag of INTp, INTj, and ISTp and even ISTj to a lesser degree. But it's not a good description of Ti as a function, not in the socionics sense.

[Expat]

The above posts illustrate nicely the source of a lot of the Phaedrus-related "controversies" here.

To recap.

First Phaedrus says:

Similar in that they describe J/rational types as orderly, inflexible, having their desks cleaned, planning, etc., and that they describe P/irrational types as messy, flexible, not taking care of the dishes, etc.

And to this Birds replies:

Erm... no, I thought those distinctions like "messy, orderly etc." were NOT what distinguishes between Rationals/Irrationals in Socionics. AFAIK, those traits that distinguishes between J/P are only used/described in MBTI, and not in Socionics.

Which is a very key issue. Precisely. J and P definitions usually focus on such external behavioral traits much more than rational/irrational definitions do.

But then they miss the point saying:

Okay, now I think that I understand what you mean. You are right in saying that they define the J/P distinction differently in the two models. And when explaining, or rather identifying, the differences between J and P types they focus more on orderliness and outward behavaiour in MBTT. But take a look at Filatova's type descriptions. When she describes the actual types, she describes the rational types in pretty much the same way they describe the J types in MBTT. And she describes the irrational types as just as flexible and messy as in MBTT.

Again, I'm not too big on reading type descriptions... but I agree that there are some similarities between the Socionics type descriptions and the MBTI type descriptions...probably because they're both describing the same 16 types.

The point they're both missing is this. What makes an ESFj be an ESFj is NOT "orderly, inflexible, having their desks cleaned, planning etc". These are external behavioral traits, especially the "desks cleaned" and "planning". In the particular case of ESFjs - that is why I picked up this type - it is true that they usually, perhaps almost always, show those particular traits because they are, all things being equal, a logical manifestation of in the ego, with EJ temperament, and PoLR.

But a concern with having the desks tidy is ultimately a consequence of a focus on - aesthetic sensations, what's in front of you - and - your, and others', emotional responses. For this reason, it is not difficult at all to find individual ISFps - who are irrational types - who are very much concerned about things being tidy. Some of them are, some are not. It all depends on their individual irrational reaction. The same goes for ENFjs. Some of them - the "yuppie" kind in particular - are concerned about keeping their desks tidy, because they are concerned about the impression they are making on others - or perhaps on themselves. Other ENFjs, focused on other kind of emotional response, care less.

The same in the case of ENTjs. I couldn't care less about having my desk tidy for its own sake; I'm a typical example of the "classical" PoLR descriptions of ENTjs. Likewise, I don't care much about planning on a daily basis - my planning is longer-term. Would not that tend to put me in the P side according to those J/P criteria Phaedrus just listed? Of course they would.

The point is that those criteria are not what makes the types what they are. ESFps can often be very tidy, ISFjs can be rather messy.

And now for the point I suspect some will miss. Yes, it can be argued that MBTI and socionics are trying to describe the same types of people. But if you are grouping people together by "seeing a pattern" that makes them similar, if you follow the above understanding of J and P, you will end up grouping, say, some tidiness-obsessed ISFps together with some rational types, and some I-don't-give-a-damn-about-that ENTjs and ENFjs with some irrational types. And that will "contaminate" your whole "group" especially if you then go on typing by comparison.

It all depends on the criteria you are using. Suppose you see an ISFp who's very tidy. Those who follow the criteria Phaedrus described may be a bit confused at first, as in "hmm, that person is tidy, but otherwise has signs of irrationality, how do I solve this" - and then end up deciding that the tidiness obsession outweighs the other considerations and place that person in a rational or J group.

Which is why it is indeed important to make the points Birts started to address, that rationality and J are usually not defined in precisely the same way.

[Birds]

Um, thanks for the clear-up.