What is the difference between MBTI Se,Si vs Socionics Se, Si?
What is the difference between MBTI Se,Si vs Socionics Se, Si?
MBTI functions cannot be used or compared. They change rationality of introverted types (which is wrong), so everything gets blurred because of that. Fortunately mbti doesn't use functions that much and relies more on type descriptions and dichotomies. Which are comparable to socionics.
Just some random things that come to my mind about the socionics functions:
Socionics Si: sensations, harmony, environment, mechanics, esthetics, composition, awareness.
Socionics Se: will power, forceful, space, colors, shapes, touching, observing.
Here niffweed and his forumers talk about the differences between the two systems dealing with MBTI cognitive functions, and socionics information elements. One thing I am sure of is how hard it is to compare the two systems. It's best if you learn from scratch what the socionics information elements are, that is first make no comparison or correlation, because you will be tempted to make false judgments intertwining the two systems, and all of this while keeping in mind that MBTI does share some commonality with socionics, only some.
socionics.ws - View topic - analysis of cognitiveprocesses test
I would use the word strict for socionics. Problems I've had typing myself with MBTI have been on a very introspective basis, and problems I've had typing myself with socionics have been theoretical, because I've had a harder time fitting the strict rules to who I am. In order for duality to work, along with quadra/type relations, is that you need to be able to fit to these strict rules, even if there is some skepticism. MBTI is wishy-washy, but its also been easier to type myself with, because I'm fairly introspective, so the problems were miniscule. It doesn't have much use.
jixmixfix, I am assuming you are familiar with MBTI and do not dismiss it wholesale as many do here. Neither do I, so I'll answer your question as best I can.
In MBTI, Si is about the past. Past experiences, memories, that sort of thing. Those who have dominant or secondary introverted sensing (MBTI SJs) want to bring their environment and experiences in line with what they have known from the past. The best-fit-type website, which has some of the best unbiased descriptions of what MBTIers call "cognitive processes", describes introverted sensing thus:
There is nothing there about enjoyment, comfort, convenience or any of the things Jarno mentioned. I have never heard of MBTI's version of introverted sensing having anything to do with "harmony, environment, mechanics, esthetics, awareness" as Jarno says about Socionics introverted sensing. Maybe sensation, since it is sensing after all. In fact, many of those attributes are more likely to be attributed to extraverted sensing in the MBTI world.Introverted Sensing: Reviewing past experiences; “what is” evoking “what was”; seeking detailed information and links to what is known; recalling stored impressions; accumulating data; recognizing the way things have always been. Remembering the last time you wore a particular item or the last time you were at a similar event—maybe even remembering how you felt then.
In fact, this is what that site says about extraverted sensing:
So for MBTI, things like "aesthetics, environment, awareness" would all be part of extroverted sensing. Now in my opinion the MBTI version of extraverted sensing and Socionics are not that incompatible, but the MBTI version is missing any of that "exertion of will and force" stuff.Extraverted Sensing: Experiencing the immediate context; taking action in the physical world; noticing changes and opportunities for action; accumulating experiences; scanning for visible reactions and relevant data; recognizing “what is.” Noticing what was available, trying on different items, and seeing how they look.
What ends up happening is no one wants to be an SJ (maybe they would if they could have anything besides "living in the past"), and SPs just seem fun and cool (and essentially harmless).
If only Isabelle Myers had not made the mistake of switching the rationality of introvert types... MBTI would have had the same functions as Socionics. I wonder how long it will take before some important MBTI representative sais that they will change the functions in accordonance with Socionics. But then again, it's probably easyer just to switch to socionics and forget all about mbti.
I use both systems and don't have a problem with it. The utility of Socionics is greatly hampered by the inaccessibility of the system. No one seems willing to come down to earth a bit and write about the system in such a way that people can actually understand and apply it in their lives. The MBTI-proponents are way ahead of the curve on that. For all the slagging against the "NFs" who invented and promoted MBTI, as if they're inferior to the "NTs" who won't let Socionics out of their grasps, those "NFs" sure knew how to make something psychological and intangible into something that many people (and corporations) get great use out of.
I think someone should write one of those relationship books (always very popular, everyone wants to know how to have good relationships), based on Socionics (the intertype relations theory), and see what happens. Maybe then start a Socionics dating site for English-speakers and promote it this time.
The cognitive functions have never been the focus of popular MBTI writings. It's the whole type descriptions and the simplistic dichotomies (are you I or are you E?) that get the most play. MBTI has also spread out through other models, like Keirseyan temperament, which has only helped it to grow in popularity. Expansion, growth, simplicity. These are some good lessons to learn.
MBTI Si seems to be based more around peoples observations of Keirsey's Guardian temperament rather than purely Jung. I think MBTI Te has some elements in it, also.
I would like to add just a few things here. First, MBTI was intended as a way to measure concepts from Jung, so the definitions for Si/Se are very similar to what Jung actually came up with, and the emphasis from Jung's description is clearly somewhat different from in Socionics.
But what is interesting to me is the way both systems attempt to explain the difference between Si and Se in terms of dynamic vs. static. People may think that dynamic vs. static is a Socionics concept, and specifically a Reinin dichotomy, and certainly the terms are not used to my knowledge in MBTI literature; nevertheless, the concepts are implicitly used.
For example, in understanding Si, MBTI attempts to implement the concept of dynamic-S by seeing Si as having to do with continuity of physical awareness...and that has to do with connection to the past (possibly both distant and very recent), so that it is a sensory awareness not of what is around you (what's there at the same time, i.e., static) but what is changing (dynamic). I think that to the MBTI perspective, then Si would help you do actions, such as various chores and physical processes, and that fits into the descriptions of both ISJ and ESJ.
Jung describes Se as having to do with hedonism because it is assumed that enjoying the senses means enjoying what is static...what is out there in the present moment.
Socionics of course has a different understanding of Si/Se that leads to a different understanding of what functions a person is using, and sometimes different typings altogether. Socionists understood that the "dynamic" expression of S is not only associated with the sort of adept processing of bureaucratic processes and chores that we might expect from LSEs and ESEs, but that it can also be associated with a more self-absorbed, less externally directed sense of process, which could be seen in doing crafts, artistic endeavors, and getting involved in the process of working on something in a physical way.
One thing that is often said in Socionics, and I think is a correct representation of what well-regarded Socionists think, but is not necessarily valid, is that what makes dynamic-Si dynamic is that it is the way the senses affect you. This seems arbitrary and forced to me; it's like saying that Si is about static sensory situations, but then adding that little "how they affect you." Nevertheless, despite that somewhat illogical construction, I think that Socionics correctly grasps the connection that Si has to do with experiencing something and is dynamic in that sense, and that this sense of experiencing, when not directed by base-Te or base-Fe, can create a personality that is "irrational" in the sense of common descriptions of SLI and SEI.
As to the other point...that Socionists don't write something that can be easily understood. Well, that's because it comes from Russia, so much of the stuff is in Russian. I think that Rick is writng a book (?). And his website is excellent but I haven't gone on ever since it was hacked a year ago or so, as I tend to a little paranoid about computer viruses.
The real reason though why Socionics seems less accessible is of course that not everyone agrees on the basics. People act like they do; they agree on structure, of course. But it's kind of a free-for-all, whereas MBTI is owned by CAPT, so what they say is always the official, final word.
That's of course why people love to speculate on Socionics...It is a free-for-all; everyone can have their own opinion.
Jonathan, thank you for your response to the thread, it was really enlightening. Dynamic versus static is something I am still trying to understand.
In the book "Personality Type: An Owner's Manual", which is not exactly an MBTI book but certainly owes a lot to the system, Lenore Thompson describes introverted sensing thus:
"From an Introverted Sensate viewpoint, immediate conditions have no stable meaning. They're just an influx of data impinging on the senses. And our response to these impressions depends on our mood, our state of mind, our desires, our feelings. It's our commitments and priorities, the facts we hold inalienable, that give our circumstances enduring significance."
Whereas she describes extraverted sensing as being oriented to the situation exactly as it is in that moment.
Basically, I see static/dynamic as simply another way of looking at introversion/extraversion and rat/irrat. Se and Ne may be thought of as relating to some external reality, and Ti and Fi as ways of organizing that reality. In that way, these elements may be seen as sort of like a "map." In contrast, Ni and Si may be thought of as a more subjective experience of reality, and Te and Fe as the way of guiding that experience. In that way, these elements may be seen as sort of like being a driver and making decisions along the way. So focusing on the "map" is static, whereas focusing on the changing experience is dynamic.
Of course, as you know, MBTI's way of seeing the functions gives the name Judging to dynamic and Perceiving to static, but in Socionics the Ip types are dynamic yet have behaviors more similar to the IP types in MBTI. It's just a difference between how the two theories relate the theoretical constructs with actual behaviors.
Reinin apparently had another way of looking at dynamic/static, which is that there would be some sort of difference in linguistic patterns. I tend to view all descriptions of the behaviors associated with Reinin dichotomies as pure conjecture.