Results 1 to 9 of 9

Thread: MBTI & socionics confusion over functions?

  1. #1

    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Posts
    7
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default MBTI & socionics confusion over functions?

    hjhjg
    Last edited by unbornesia; 09-08-2011 at 04:23 PM.

  2. #2
    Coldest of the Socion EyeSeeCold's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2010
    Location
    Holy Temple of St. Augusta
    Posts
    3,699
    Mentioned
    5 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Different systems, different understandings, different functions.
    (i)NTFS

    An ILI at rest tends to remain at rest
    and an ILI in motion is probably not an ILI

    31.9FM KICE Radio ♫ *56K Warning*
    My work on Inert/Contact subtypes

    Socionics Visual Identification(V.I.) Database
    Socionics Tests Database
    Comprehensive List of Socionics Sites


    Fidei Defensor

  3. #3
    Jarno's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    Netherlands
    TIM
    ILI-Te
    Posts
    5,280
    Mentioned
    19 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by unbornesia View Post
    Personally I don't think MBTI functions make as much sense as socionics, but how come some people claim to belong to types with very different functions in MBTI than their socionics type? Like for example alot of MBTI INFP's Fi, Ne (primary and auxillary) claiming to be INFp's Ni, Fe (ego block) in socionics aswell.. wouldnt every correctly typed INFJ be INFp looking at the strongest functions? I'm not understanding something here. I've even heard ENTJ's claiming to be ESTp's.

    INFP = INFp because they have the same dichotomies.

    Stop using mbti functions, they are flawed. Once you notice that, everything fits perfectly.

  4. #4
    not a bumblebee octo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    TIM
    IEI 4-6-9 apparently
    Posts
    2,759
    Mentioned
    30 Post(s)
    Tagged
    1 Thread(s)

    Default

    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.
    Quote Originally Posted by Agee The Great View Post
    Nobody here...besides me, seems to know what SLE is except for maybe Maritsa.

  5. #5
    Haikus
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Posts
    8,347
    Mentioned
    15 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    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.

  6. #6
    "Information without energy is useless" Nowisthetime's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Location
    near Russia
    TIM
    SEI
    Posts
    1,030
    Mentioned
    6 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    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.

  7. #7
    Breaking stereotypes Suz's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Location
    On a chatbox diet
    TIM
    IDK
    Posts
    6,303
    Mentioned
    148 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by unbornesia View Post
    Personally I don't think MBTI functions make as much sense as socionics, but how come some people claim to belong to types with very different functions in MBTI than their socionics type? Like for example alot of MBTI INFP's Fi, Ne (primary and auxillary) claiming to be INFp's Ni, Fe (ego block) in socionics aswell.. wouldnt every correctly typed INFJ be INFp looking at the strongest functions? I'm not understanding something here. I've even heard ENTJ's claiming to be ESTp's.

    This is exactly the thought process that got me stuck in my opposing quadra when i first arrive on this forum. I type MBTI INFJ, and along exactly the lines you are talking about, I arrived at INFp for my socionics type.

    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

  8. #8
    Bananas are good. Aleksei's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Location
    The Rift
    TIM
    C-EIE, 7-4-8 sx/sp
    Posts
    1,632
    Mentioned
    2 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by octopuslove View Post
    The definitions of the functions are different, sometimes subtlely, sometimes obviously. ESTp = ENTJ probably comes from how theorising = socionics Ti, MBTI NT.
    Socionics Ti is categorization, classification, precision and structuring. Jungian Ti is either searching for internal consistency of concepts (Lenore Thomson), or deductive reasoning (Linda Berens). Neither is really theorizing.

    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

  9. #9
    not a bumblebee octo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    TIM
    IEI 4-6-9 apparently
    Posts
    2,759
    Mentioned
    30 Post(s)
    Tagged
    1 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Aleksei View Post
    Socionics Ti is categorization, classification, precision and structuring. Jungian Ti is either searching for internal consistency of concepts (Lenore Thomson), or deductive reasoning (Linda Berens). Neither is really theorizing.
    That's what I meant by theorising, I guess it wasn't the best word. Playing around with theories? Reading and thinking about theories, that sort of stuff, rather than hypothesising.
    Quote Originally Posted by Agee The Great View Post
    Nobody here...besides me, seems to know what SLE is except for maybe Maritsa.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •