Reinin dichotomies --- The differences between Socionics and MBTI

[JohnDo]

There is still no consensus on this forum when it comes to the question: What are the differences in the interpretation of the Jungian dichotomies?

Some people believe that the Jungian dichotomies are "defined" differently, that MBTI uses different "definitions". The truth is, it is almost impossible to define those dichotomies properly. They can only be interpreted correctly by looking at different people.

Okay, so where are the mistakes in the way MBTI interprets them? This question might be answered by using Reinin dichotomies:

Hypothesis:
MBTI Judging = judging*strategic*process*serious in socionics
MBTI Perceiving = perceiving*tactical*result*merry in socionics

On Myers Briggs Personality Test MBTI Personality Types they say that Judging types "complete meaningful segments before moving on" wheras Perceiving types "Like to multitask". In socionics, this difference has not much to do with judging/perceiving - it is called process/result instead. There are types that are judging*result (INTj, ESFj, ENTj, ISFj). They plan ahead (judging) but multitask a lot (result). And there are types that are perceiving*process (ENTp, ISFp, ESFp, INTp). They don't plan ahead that much but they don't multitask, either.

On Judging-Perceiving are Preferences for Ordering Your World! they say that Judging types "like to set and reach goals", "goal oriented". In socionics, being goal-oriented has not that much to do with judging/perceiving - we rather call it tactical/strategic. There are judging types that are tactical (= not very goal oriented), they rather focus on methods instead of thinking about goals (ESFj, ISTj, ISFj, ESTj). There are also perceiving*strategic types (ISFp, ESTp, ESFp, ISTp). Especially in the case of ESTp and ESFp it is simply wrong to assume that they are not goal oriented.

The same page says that Judging types are "more formal and conventional,
more serious" whereas Perceiving types are "more casual and unconventional
more playful". In socionics, this difference has not much to do with judging/perceiving - it is called merry/serious. judging*merry types are NOT "formal, conventional, serious" and perceiving*serious types are not "casual, unconventional, playful".

[Aleksei]

Some people believe that the Jungian dichotomies are "defined" differently, that MBTI uses different "definitions". The truth is, it is almost impossible to define those dichotomies properly. They can only be interpreted correctly by looking at different people.

I disagree. Jungian attitudes aren't real features of neurocognitive processing. They can't be observed on a brain scan and established before interpreting them. They are abstract, so they can't be interpreted at all without first assigning them a concrete role, which is a process essentially carried out by defining them.

[Aiss]

MBTI P/J is usually contrasted as an organized doer (described a lot like socionics Ej) vs disorganized observer (similar to socionics Ip). Process/Result, Merry/Serious and Strategic/Tactical have little if anything to do with that. FWIW I'm about as P as it's possible in MBTI, while by your standards I'd be on the fence about that one. Static types (Ij + Ep) seem to be uncertain about this dichotomy much more often.

[717495]

Yeah I think levels mean something. In Socionics if you're a little bit more of one dichotomy, it doesn't really mean much at all. But in MBTI, if you're a little more of a dichotomy, then it correlates inevitably to that type, because types are formed as dichotomies. Socionics types aren't formed in dichotomies, in my opinion, they're primarily defined as "creative function tinged dominant function" or basically human relationships based on values. You can say "dichotomies" are values in MBTI, that's the only thing it has going for it.

With that being said, I think a strong dichotomy level in Socionics on the contrary is pretty indicative of you being one of those 8 types. I'm a very strong I in MBTI/Socionics.

[Jonathan]

There is still no consensus on this forum when it comes to the question: What are the differences in the interpretation of the Jungian dichotomies?

Some people believe that the Jungian dichotomies are "defined" differently, that MBTI uses different "definitions". The truth is, it is almost impossible to define those dichotomies properly. They can only be interpreted correctly by looking at different people.

Okay, so where are the mistakes in the way MBTI interprets them? This question might be answered by using Reinin dichotomies:

Hypothesis:
MBTI Judging = judging*strategic*process*serious in socionics
MBTI Perceiving = perceiving*tactical*result*merry in socionics

I think this is a very interesting hypothesis and analysis. If I understood you correctly and didn't make a mistake with my process of elimination (very possible), then INFp would be the only fully "perceiving" type in the sense you've outlined, and INFj would be the only fully "judging" type. It's interesting that they'd come out as quasi-identity types.

I would caution, though, that using disparate sources in discussing MBTI has some pitfalls. MBTI definitions are strictly defined by CAPT, so whatever any other website or people with opinions on MBTI say may not represent it very well. The "official" interpretation of the J/P scales just says that J people prefer to use judging functions to deal with the "external" world whereas P people prefer to use perceiving functions to deal with it.

Jung's Theory of Psychological Types and the MBTI Instrument - CAPT.org

This reflects the MBTI's theoretically view that which function one uses to deal with "external" things is what's most salient in producing the kinds of preferences tested in the J/P questions.

Now it's very possible many of these other ideas about what J/P is all about correlate with actual J/P scores or have a face-value similarity with actual J/P questions on the MBTI.

On the other hand, I tend to think that the particular Reinin dichotomies you've chosen aren't right. I would be very surprised if MBTI J/P correlated with serious vs. merry. I also think the idea that MBTI J types are process-oriented and P types result-oriented is a bit of a stretch. Associating J/P with strategic/tactical as you've defined it here makes a little more sense. The problem there is that like many of the Reinin dichotomies, the behaviors associated with the dichotomy aren't necessarily all that observable in actual people of the various types. That's one of the problems with using Reinin dichotomies in general...They get these elaborate descriptions, but then when you think of the people who by every other standard would be of a given type, you find that the Reinin stuff doesn't always work so well.

I actually thought you would have brought in judicious/decisive, which in previous discussions seems to be the Reinin dichotomy that's most often brought up in this context (e.g., decisive being equated more with MBTI-J) [not that I agree with that one either].

Really the difference between MBTI and Socionics comes down to slightly different theories of how things go together, and different tools and techniques used in identifying type.

[Beautiful sky]

In MBTI, an INFj has Ni as their dominant function...that's not correct, so obviously that system did not follow Jung's theory, but the result comes to the INFj that I am. The system probably couldn't figure out the difference between Ni and Ne; or the other functions; anyway MBTI confuses me sometimes.

Socionics says that the INFj's base function is Fi; that sounds true to Jungian psychology.

[Jonathan]

In MBTI, an INFj has Ni as their dominant function...that's not correct, so obviously that system did not follow Jung's theory, but the result comes to the INFj that I am. The system probably couldn't figure out the difference between Ni and Ne; or the other functions; anyway MBTI confuses me sometimes.

Socionics says that the INFj's base function is Fi; that sounds true to Jungian psychology.

It's not so much that MBTI doesn't follow Jung's theory. It's that it has a different interpretation of Jung's theory. You really shouldn't use terms like "INFj" for an MBTI type. The idea of writing the "j" as a small letter instead of "J" was conceived as a way to distinguish Socionics types from MBTI types.

A large part of MBTI theory has to do with their theory of what would cause a person to come out one way or another on their J/P scale. MBTI uses the hypothesis that it's whatever function is extraverted that determines whether a person is more or less "open-ended" in one's approach. Socionics basically says that idea is wrong. When you strongly identify with INFJ but also with Fi as opposed to Ni, you're basically validating in your own situation that MBTI is misguided about this.

[EyeSeeCold]

Recently, I've thought that because of the way MBTI tests J/P, what is calculated is your corresponding Id. So when converting to Socionics, you would be the inverse of that Id, to have the correct Ego.

[Aleksei]

In MBTI, an INFj has Ni as their dominant function...that's not correct, so obviously that system did not follow Jung's theory

That's just dumb. Jung never designed the P/J dichotomy. The reason EIIs are Fi/Ne and INFJs (no small j) are Ni/Fe is because Isabel Meyers decided a Judger is someone who has a preference for extroverted Judgment, whereas Augusta decided a Rational is someone who has a Rational base function. I've actually confirmed independently that both approaches are correct, because MBTI dominant functions are interpreted differently from Socionics base functions.

[Jonathan]

Recently, I've thought that because of the way MBTI tests J/P, what is calculated is your corresponding Id. So when converting to Socionics, you would be the inverse of that Id, to have the correct Ego.

In other words, you'd do the "J/P flip" for both introverts and extroverts?

There have been a lot of discussions in the past about the "J/P flip." The problem is that there are just too many differences to find a consistent pattern like that. Basically, if you look at the type descriptions, you'll see that they work best with no J/P flip, but if you look at individual typings, they're all over the place. MBTI practitioners and Socionists just use very different tools, so they come up with different results. For example, MBTI practitioners will generally accept someone who self-identifies as an introvert as being an introvert, whereas Socionists may come up with a completely different type for the person based on VI, etc. The structure of the theory may be similar, but the tools are so different.

(Actually, even within Socionists, people are all over the map in what they think. It's the mathematical structure of the tesseract that everyone agrees with.)

[Aleksei]

Interestingly, I find that the most consistent connection between MBTI and Socionics is all letters being constant save J/P (So ESFx = ESFx, INTx = INTx, etc.) Which is somewhat amusing, because it means half of people of a given MBTI type are opposing quadras to the other half (though this is by no means constant -- ENTPs are usually not LIE, although geeky type ENTJs are often ILE).

[EyeSeeCold]

In other words, you'd do the "J/P flip" for both introverts and extroverts?

No. Sorry I meant this for only introverts.

But this is how it happens:

MBTI: INTP 'demonstrates' with TiNe, this is the 'competent' Ego or Id.
Socionics: TiNe of INTP gets placed in the Id, NiTe becomes the 'learning' Ego making it an INTp still.

This is why I think MBTI describes INTPs as scientists, mathematicians and engineers because TiNe is what they already have a knack for, but their active interest is in philosophy, psychology, government and sociology.

This is all so clear to me, but I understand it may seem highly subjective.

[Aleksei]

MBTI doesn't use function blocks.

[EyeSeeCold]

I know that. I said MBTI is geared to test for Socionics' concept of the Id. Thus it is the same type in both systems. I think MBTI's description of introverts is that of their demonstrating nature, not their natural disconnected attitude.

[Aleksei]

I'd be inclined to differ. Introverts score higher for introverted functions in MBTI than extroverted functions, which does very much reflect their disconnected attitude. Then of course there's the fact that trying to draw direct equivalences between Jungian functions in Socionics and MBTI is somewhat useless, as the Socionics interpretation of them differs slightly from the MBTI interpretation -- jarringly so in the particular cases of Fe, Fi and Si (and to a lesser extent Se).

[EyeSeeCold]

I'd be inclined to differ. Introverts score higher for introverted functions in MBTI than extroverted functions, which does very much reflect their disconnected attitude. Then of course there's the fact that trying to draw direct equivalences between Jungian functions in Socionics and MBTI is somewhat useless, as the Socionics interpretation of them differs slightly from the MBTI interpretation -- jarringly so in the particular cases of Fe, Fi and Si (and to a lesser extent Se).

Not disconnected as in introverted as opposed to extraverted, but left to one's own devices i.e. their natural state away from societal pressure to interact. When there is no need to present oneself.

[Jonathan]

No. Sorry I meant this for only introverts.

But this is how it happens:

MBTI: INTP 'demonstrates' with TiNe, this is the 'competent' Ego or Id.
Socionics: TiNe of INTP gets placed in the Id, NiTe becomes the 'learning' Ego making it an INTp still.

This is why I think MBTI describes INTPs as scientists, mathematicians and engineers because TiNe is what they already have a knack for, but their active interest is in philosophy, psychology, government and sociology.

This is all so clear to me, but I understand it may seem highly subjective.

That's an interesting and possibly useful theory. As you know, there have been countless discussions on this forum over the years about people who some people believe are ILI and others think must be some Alpha or other type because they appear to "use" Ti & Ne. Similarly, there are always opposing views of what the ILI person is like, with some people associating ILI with people they know who are intellectual, creative, and easygoing, and other people associating the type with being with highly practical, materialistic, organized, and businessy. The same conversation keeps coming up as if the identical texts are repeated but just the names are changed.

However, nobody has offered a clear theory or examples about how the id would show up so prominently. There's Tcaud's idea that separates "information metabolism" from "information exertion," and then there was that theory emphasized by Hitta that any time one used Te+ it came with Ti- and so forth. But none of that ever added up to clarity for me.

Personally, I like where you're coming from, because I feel that I use all functions, and I disagree with the schools (such as Asthonian socionics, etc.) that believe the "opposing quadra's" IM elements "unexist" for a person.

But still, one is left with the question of describing how to properly describe the function of the ID block in respect to the ego block, in such a way that one can still recognize which one is which.

In Socionics literature, the 8th function is often used in a corrective sense; so an ILI would use Ti to spot mistakes. It's less clear how the 7th function is supposed to be used, as it's called the ignoring function, but I suspect it has a bigger role than that.

In any case, to view the id block as prominent, one then must graduate from using the descriptors "on" and "off" for ego and id respectively, and substitute for them some other qualifier, so that you can know in a person's discourse whether something is characteristic of the ego or the id. And in doing so, I think we need to either ignore that the "id" takes on the Freudian terminology "id," or else explain why it deserves such a name.

This also leads to an interesting question about the Conflict and Super-ego types. Rather than being merely conflictual, these types would appeal to a certain part of one's psyche, namely the id block part. There would need to be some sort of understanding on how there is a connection with these people at some level, but a conflict at another level, and a definition of what those two levels are and how they differ. I think definitely that I connect with people of opposing quadras, so I think there's something to this; it just needs to be fleshed out.