Last edited by unbornesia; 09-08-2011 at 03:23 PM.
Different systems, different understandings, different functions.
The definitions of the functions are different, sometimes subtlely, sometimes obviously. ESTp = ENTJ probably comes from how theorising = socionics Ti, MBTI NT.
Also, current interests and preferences heavily affect MBTI results, not so much in socionics, e.g. if you are currently studying something you enjoy and it takes up a lot of your life, you will probably test T.
I definitely want to say MBTI takes the assumptions about dichotomies too far to be of use to Socionics, so it somewhat gets the functions wrong esp. when practically applying, and esp. where J and P is considered, not so much just reading them. Which is why you may, for instance, have a divide with a stereotyped INTJ, one taking the Ni dominant interpretation, and the other who doesn't identify with Ni who is a real INTJ, possibly identifying more with Keirsey's INTJ because he doesn't assume Ni, or retyping as INTP because it identifies more with Ti. In fact, some INTJs are not even Socionics NTs, because they relate to other Jungian terms and ideas not much at all emphasized in more quick and easy personality sorters like MBTI--I know one who's an Si-ISFP: and she would say, because of having some introverted Si characteristics, she actually attributes these to being an N, and she relates more to being a T, similar to how some INFPs on here do as well. So you know where I'm going with this. I personally believe that all types use their valued functions at a pretty even degree, with some more natural emphasis on their ego, especially when speaking of any well-rounded person. This is why dichotomies can be troublesome if you don't know what type you're looking for.
However the basic truth is there is a correctness in these functions, if you go back before MBTI times and read Jungian types and dichotomies, and ignore MBTI descriptions, you'll find yourself in the right, even though its more advanced stuff. It even helps to ignore individual dichotomies and focus on what functions or type one is representing as a whole, which takes practice. The links in my signature will help you out significantly. I think dichotomies interpreted shallowly tend to make type interpretation strict where newbies are considered, ie. thinking ENFPs are slackers and INFJs are hard-workers, or plenty of others stereotypes which are definitely not type sociotype related, but often MBTI correlated.
when I look back at my pre-socionics days with MBTI it seems that what I percieved as my "dominant Fi" was actually a mix of base Si, creative Fe and demonstrative Fi, or something like that. But I remember having some doubts, thinking that "my Fi" seemed too physical, lol. The "auxiliary Se" was also pretty hard to locate by introspection. I remember thinking that there probably was something wrong with me. Then I read somewhere that ISFPs can have "problems with their extraverted sensing, focusing too much on Fi". I accepted that explanation then, because I figured that I was an unbalanced/depressed ISFP, which I in fact was.
Pretty much as soon as i started interacting with the betas and getting to know them, i knew something wasn't right. At first i thought this place was full of weirdos and mean people (with the exception of a couple nice beta NFs). And even the nice betas were, when giving me relationship advice, telling me to behave in ways that would require me to go totally against my natural state, and theoretically, such advice was supposed to be 2nd nature to an IEI. I think this was actually the clincher for me that made me realize i should reconsider my type. That, and the fact that there was a growing consensus among the betas that i was not beta.
So, in contrast to MBTI, in socionics you can use interpersonal interactions as information regarding what quadra you are in and what type you might be.
Another huge contrast between the two, which may ultimately be the reason why MBTI Fe is not socionics Fe, and MBTI Ne isn't socionics Ne, etc etc, is that MBTI attempts to describe behavioral traits, whereas socionics is getting at describing information processing.
i.e. the same behavioral traits can result as a consequence of different ways of processing information. So if you're looking at a similar behavioral trait itself among multiple people of one MBTI type, you may actually be looking potentially at people of several different socionic types just perhaps manifesting with a similar behavior which was motivated by and arrived at for different reasons.
Enneagram: 9w1 6w5 2w3 so/sx
As for which functions are which, I've found the following:
- General assertiveness, but moreso related to Si.
- Squarely Se
- Ne, elements of Se (Se-dominance fits HA and PoLR almost by default)
- Ni, Si-auxiliary
- Slightly more Te than Ti
- Slightly more Ti than Te
- Mostly incompatible with higher Fe.
- Mostly incompatible with higher Fi.
What do these signs mean—, , etc.? Why cannot socionists use symbols Ne, Ni etc. as in MBTI? Just because they have somewhat different meaning. Socionics and MBTI, each in its own way, have slightly modified the original Jung's description of his 8 psychological types. For this reason, (Ne) is not exactly the same as Ne in MBTI.
Just one example: in MBTI, Se (extraverted sensing) is associated with life pleasures, excitement etc. By contrast, the socionic function (extraverted sensing) is first and foremost associated with control and expansion of personal space (which sometimes can manifest in excessive aagression, but often also manifests in a capability of managing lots of people and things).
For this reason, we consider comparison between MBTI types and socionic types by functions to be rather useless than useful.
-Victor Gulenko, Dmitri Lytov