Differences between MBTI and Socionics

[Minde]

Where are good resources for being able to define differences between Meyers Briggs and Socionics? I have several friends who "dwell in the dark side" and I want to be able to convert them - or at least talk coherently with them. Plus be able to point them toward those resources.

Along those lines, any experience any of you have yourselves in figuring out the differences?

[Sol]

Where are good resources for being able to define differences between Meyers Briggs and Socionics?

MBT is good only in preferences. MBT types are compatible with Socionics and Jung like INTJ=LII. Functional model in MBT controverts to Jung and introverted types are described wrongly. There is no good descriptions of 8 functions. There is no intertype relations theory. MBT has no all 8 functions in model, while it's evident people may think any type of information.

Offer your pals to read Jung's "Psychological Types", chapter X to understand why MBT is wrong.

[Pookie]

Wikisocion was big for me, that and reading through old threads for golden nuggets of wisdom.

Both took extensive reading on my part, though. When I explain this topic to people, I use the metaphor of folding hamburgers and hotdogs(Folding a paper on the long edge and short edge respectively). Some of the types and info behind it is the same whether you go MBTI or Socionics, but half the info will be different. Socionics and Mbti are basically trying to describe the same phenomena but because they use different parameters, its essentially hotdogs and hamburgers. Half the fold will be the same either way you fold it, but you gotta respect that they're essentially opposite folds.

[ScarlettLux]

I feel like the major "click" for me was the inter type relations. The Socionics ones made perfect sense, and the functions were also explained better. MBTI is more straight up here are 4 letters and let me take them at face value. Also the Quadras. Quadras were HUGE for me.

[Jeremy8419]

Socionics has even type distributions. MBTI does not. A significant portion of S's in MBTI will be N's in Socionics, and a fair amount of J's will be P's. And this is independent of mistyping in either system.

[Myst]

Where are good resources for being able to define differences between Meyers Briggs and Socionics? I have several friends who "dwell in the dark side" and I want to be able to convert them - or at least talk coherently with them. Plus be able to point them toward those resources.

Along those lines, any experience any of you have yourselves in figuring out the differences?

Get them to forget the makeshift JCF bullcrap. (Lenore Thomson and whatever other forum fanfiction definitions of MBTI functions)

Also, get them to understand how the J/P dichotomy is not directly dependent on functions in the way it's assumed.

Then they can start fresh with the basics of Socionics

[Minde]

So there's this: https://www.facebook.com/notes/world...39865386033179

I think you have to be a part of the WSS FB group to see it, though.

[Myst]

So there's this: https://www.facebook.com/notes/world...39865386033179

I think you have to be a part of the WSS FB group to see it, though.

Copypaste?

[Minde]

MBTI is NOT the same as Socionics
by Paul Assen
(original source)

MBTI cannot be considered or treated as the same system as Socionics. If you have a type in MBTI, you cannot assume you will be the same or similar type in Socionics. Some very wrongly think you can treat Extroverted types as the same and just do a J/P Switch for Introverted types.

There are two reasons for why this is NOT the case.

1. The Four Dichotomies of MBTI mean something different in Socionics.

Extroversion/Introversion in MBTI has got a lot to do with how socially energised you are i.e. if you feel more energised around people or need time alone. In Socionics, this need for interaction with people specifically is more Ethics-related and indeed many Logical Extroverts in Socionics have little need for social interaction, their Extroversion being more about getting behind lots of projects rather than socialising. Similarly an Ethical Introvert in Socionics can be a very sociable person, requiring continuous interaction with those who they are close to. They just don't drive or energise the social scene like an Ethical Extrovert.
iNtuition/Sensation in MBTI is highly biased to the point where only iNtuitive people seem capable of free-thought and thinking outside the box. At the same time, the practical and daily competence of Sensory types is greatly diminished. In Socionics, Intuition and Sensation are far better balanced in their respective areas of capability.
Thinking/Feeling in MBTI has got a lot to do with being 'tough minded' or 'warm hearted'. While objective thinking is indeed connected to Socionics Logic, this is not necessarily going to make you more 'tough', 'competitive' or 'aggressive'. Instead, this is more related to Socionics Se, which means that many Se-types in Socionics become Thinkers in MBTI. At the same time, Ethics in Socionics has less to do with being a kind or generous person, but has more to do with your personal and interpersonal capabilities. Many more Se-valuing Ethical types may use their Ethics for social control and manipulation, rather than necessarily being nice and a 'bleeding-heart'.
Perceiving/Judging in MBTI seems almost entirely focused on organisation and planning. In Socionics, this is connected to Logic and not at all to Ethics. As a result, a lot of Ethics-leading types are going to be labelled Perceivers in MBTI. Instead, the Rational/Irrational dichotomy of Socionics focuses on whether you approach things in terms of how they should or ought to be, rather than how they how they are, which means that Ethical Rational types like EIE or EII can still be chaotic or disorganised, but have strong opinions on either what they feel is RIGHT or how people OUGHT to feel.

2. The Cognitive Functions of MBTI are different in their definitions to the IM Elements of Socionics. Parts of some are actually essential parts of others, leading to a mishmash or mix-up, rather than any clear correlation:

Parts of MBTI Se (living in the moment, pleasure-seeking, aesthetics) are covered by Socionics Si.
Parts of MBTI Si (memory, history, comparison, time-sense) are covered by Socionics Ni.
Parts of MBTI Si (rule-following) are covered by Socionics Ti.
Parts of MBTI Ti (e.g. figuring out how things work) are covered by Socionics Te.
Parts of MBTI Te (or just 'Jness') (power, command, hierarchy) are covered by Socionics Se.
Parts of MBTI Fi (e.g. emotional states) are covered by Socionics Fe.
Parts of MBTI Fe (e.g. relationality, social appropriateness) are covered by Socionics Fi.

3. MBTI primarily groups types by 'temperaments' based on pairs of dichotomies i.e. NTs being competent and clever, NFs being idealistic and warm hearted, SPs being free-spirited hedonists who like crafts and SJs being narrow-minded traditionalists without free thought. In Socionics the most important groups are Quadras based on valued Information Elements i.e. the fun-loving, analytical Alphas, the revolutionary, ideological Betas, the strategic, harsh-humoured Gammas and the peaceful, practical Deltas.

[ghost of forum past]

He's right that MBTI != Socionics, but some of the assumptions made about the MBTI dichotomies and supposed "correlations" to Socionics functions just pour gas on the fire, i.e. convolute it for those who would prefer to seek a more clear and concise understanding.

If you ignore MBTI functions and just go by the dichotomies, you are left with a relatively unscientific but interesting system for dividing people into 16 basic categories. Having little theoretical compatibility with Socionics, MBTI poses no threat to Socionics "science".

Edit: sorry, I now see that you were looking for external sources... This post doesn't help with that, sorry.

[silke]

this was posted up by glam in the 16t articles: Speaking Different Languages, Striving for the Same (Socionics vs American typology)

[Minde]

this was posted up by glam in the 16t articles: Speaking Different Languages, Striving for the Same (Socionics vs American typology)

Yessss, thank you.

[Chakram]

iNtuition/Sensation in MBTI is highly biased to the point where only iNtuitive people seem capable of free-thought and thinking outside the box. At the same time, the practical and daily competence of Sensory types is greatly diminished. In Socionics, Intuition and Sensation are far better balanced in their respective areas of capability.

3. MBTI primarily groups types by 'temperaments' based on pairs of dichotomies i.e. NTs being competent and clever, NFs being idealistic and warm hearted, SPs being free-spirited hedonists who like crafts and SJs being narrow-minded traditionalists without free thought. In Socionics the most important groups are Quadras based on valued Information Elements i.e. the fun-loving, analytical Alphas, the revolutionary, ideological Betas, the strategic, harsh-humoured Gammas and the peaceful, practical Deltas.

Made me laugh because it's true. I kind of wish Mbti would be abolished, parts of it are just so bad. Unfortunately it's a giant money making program and will continue along it's path of non-enlightenment and nothing will change in it, maybe someday.

[Myst]

He's right that MBTI != Socionics, but some of the assumptions made about the MBTI dichotomies and supposed "correlations" to Socionics functions just pour gas on the fire, i.e. convolute it for those who would prefer to seek a more clear and concise understanding.

Absolutely.

If you ignore MBTI functions and just go by the dichotomies, you are left with a relatively unscientific but interesting system for dividing people into 16 basic categories. Having little theoretical compatibility with Socionics, MBTI poses no threat to Socionics "science".

Actually MBTI dichotomies are the most scientific so far in the proper sense of the word.

And, the dichotomy based version of the system is also the most compatible with Socionics. The functions are hopelessly fucked up in MBTI.