Results 1 to 36 of 36

Thread: Question regarding Socionics and MBTI

  1. #1

    Join Date
    Dec 2018
    Posts
    16
    Mentioned
    3 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default Question regarding Socionics and MBTI

    I'd like to ask something regarding a widespread notion on MBTI and Socionics. I've seen alot of people saying that it's possible to directly convert types across both systems, but I don't understand how that's possible when both systems define their types differently since the types are based on different criteria. Socionics defines it's types based on the IEs. MBTI defines it's types based on cognitive functions. Cognitive Functions and IEs are defined differently across both systems, so shouldn't that make direct conversion impossible ?
    Also, to give an example of the difference in definitions, Fe in MBTI is defined as being about other people's values whereas in Socionics it's about emotions. It's the Feeling and Sensing functions that are defined the most differently across both systems.

  2. #2
    Dalek Caan's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2018
    Posts
    82
    Mentioned
    1 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Olimpia View Post
    Try to forget everything you've ever known about MBTI when you study Model A.

    But then later, don't make the mistake and think that the types are totally different from one another.

    I've written about that issue before here.
    ^ This post is not a bad place to start thinking about this.

    But mainly, both systems were derived from Jung's psychological types, though they clearly differ in how they represent it among their personality inventories.

  3. #3
    What's the purpose of SEI? Tallmo's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2017
    Location
    Finland
    TIM
    SEI
    Posts
    1,761
    Mentioned
    126 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Myers-Briggs is simply wrong in their analysis, they messed up the J/P thing for introverts etc. but they are trying to describe the same phenomena as Socionics. But you will not know that when you are new to Socionics, people are confused and wonder how to "convert between systems". There is no need for conversions. When you know your Socionics type and you have confirmed it for years with relationships etc, then that is your true type.

    But of course you can always express it using 4 letter dichotomies if you like. So I am SEI, so that can be written ISFP if we by P mean irrational type.

    (I also typed ISFP in MBTI before I found socionics. However, the functional analysis (FiSe) was wrong.).

  4. #4
    Metaphysician thehotelambush's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    TIM
    LII
    Posts
    7,874
    Mentioned
    270 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by kouhai View Post
    I'd like to ask something regarding a widespread notion on MBTI and Socionics. I've seen alot of people saying that it's possible to directly convert types across both systems, but I don't understand how that's possible when both systems define their types differently since the types are based on different criteria. Socionics defines it's types based on the IEs. MBTI defines it's types based on cognitive functions. Cognitive Functions and IEs are defined differently across both systems, so shouldn't that make direct conversion impossible ?
    Also, to give an example of the difference in definitions, Fe in MBTI is defined as being about other people's values whereas in Socionics it's about emotions. It's the Feeling and Sensing functions that are defined the most differently across both systems.
    You're absolutely right. Straight type conversion doesn't make sense for those reasons.
    The higher, the fewer

    Articles - Questionnaire - Typology Network - Blog

  5. #5

    Join Date
    Dec 2018
    Posts
    16
    Mentioned
    3 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Tallmo View Post
    Myers-Briggs is simply wrong in their analysis, they messed up the J/P thing for introverts etc. .
    A J/P dichotomy was created separately for MBTI and Socionics. Your statement implies that a J/P dichotomy used in labelling types was created by Jung and existed before Myers-Briggs, which is simply not the case, and even if it were, it seems unusual to me to completely denounce a system only because of a discrepancy in the way labels are assigned in it. Additionally, both Socionics and MBTI used the J/P dichotomy to refer to different things, with it referring in to the rationality/irrationality of first function in Socionics, while Myers-Briggs used the J/P dichotomy to refer to the rationality/irrationality of the first extroverted function, believing that it's extroverted functions that determines one's primary attitude in interacting with the external world.

    Quote Originally Posted by Tallmo View Post
    But you will not know that when you are new to Socionics, people are confused and wonder how to "convert between systems".
    Except... I did know that ? Very early on ? Way before I asked this ? I'm not asking this because I'm confused as to why the label their types differently, I'm asking this because I'm confused as to why people believe conversions can be made across both systems even though they define their types on the basis of different things.

  6. #6

    Join Date
    Dec 2018
    Posts
    16
    Mentioned
    3 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Dalek Caan View Post
    ^ This post is not a bad place to start thinking about this.

    But mainly, both systems were derived from Jung's psychological types, though they clearly differ in how they represent it among their personality inventories.
    I've read the article you linked and it still doesn't address what I asked about. How is it possible that an "ESFP" in MBTI is the same thing as an "ESFp" in Socionics when both systems use those terms to refer to different things ? In MBTI an "ESFP" has their dominant function as "Se", and "Se" in MBTI (And more consistently with Jung's original definition btw) is defined as the function that deals with objective, reality-based experiences and sensations. It is concerned with what can be seen, felt, and perceived by anyone in the moment. An ESFp in Socionics has the Information Element "Se" as their base/program function, and "Se" in Socionics is defined as being about force, willpower, the acquisition of territory and material possessions and the perception of the immediate physical qualities of objects. Different things.

    BTW, I'm using the term MBTI not to refer to the dichotomies but to function-based typology that evolved independently from Socionics. So, not the official Myers-Briggs, but more like the stuff you'd find on r/mbti.

  7. #7
    Rebelondeck's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2016
    Posts
    957
    Mentioned
    83 Post(s)
    Tagged
    1 Thread(s)

    Default

    @kouhai The systems do differ in perspective so you are correct about them being not comparable although they are trying to quantify the same observations. MBTI seems to take a third-person perspective; what does type look like from the outside. Socionics seems to take a motivational approach; what internal classifications cause types to do the things they do. Socionics descriptions lack proper observer perspectives while MBTI really doesn't come close to addressing information processing. Both perspectives talk of function but neither really define it properly so the models aren't that enlightening. It's somewhat like developing atomic theory when everyone is still trying to redefine air. water, earth, and fire.........

    a.k.a. I/O

  8. #8

    Join Date
    Dec 2018
    Posts
    16
    Mentioned
    3 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Alot of sources on MBTI focus more on cognitive motivations behind behaviour rather than on the resultant behaviours themselves. Most of the behaviourist stuff on MBTI is on the "surface level" of the community.

  9. #9
    Dalek Caan's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2018
    Posts
    82
    Mentioned
    1 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by kouhai View Post
    I've read the article you linked and it still doesn't address what I asked about. How is it possible that an "ESFP" in MBTI is the same thing as an "ESFp" in Socionics when both systems use those terms to refer to different things ? In MBTI an "ESFP" has their dominant function as "Se", and "Se" in MBTI (And more consistently with Jung's original definition btw) is defined as the function that deals with objective, reality-based experiences and sensations. It is concerned with what can be seen, felt, and perceived by anyone in the moment. An ESFp in Socionics has the Information Element "Se" as their base/program function, and "Se" in Socionics is defined as being about force, willpower, the acquisition of territory and material possessions and the perception of the immediate physical qualities of objects. Different things.

    BTW, I'm using the term MBTI not to refer to the dichotomies but to function-based typology that evolved independently from Socionics. So, not the official Myers-Briggs, but more like the stuff you'd find on r/mbti.
    Put simply, if you and I come to different conclusions about Socionics types, it doesn't mean we have two different typing systems. It just means we disagree.

    So MBTI and Socionics disagree on interpreting Jung perhaps, but they are still attempts to describe the same Jungian types.

  10. #10

    Join Date
    Dec 2018
    Posts
    16
    Mentioned
    3 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    If we say that both are only "interpretations" of Jung's work then Socionics becomes a really weird interpretation when most of it's definitions don't seem to have a retraceable root in Jung's work. If we compare the type descriptions Jung wrote in Psychological Types to the modern type descriptions of MBTI and Socionics, and we approach both as being purely "interpretations", then we can say that they're really poor interpretations because of how much they differ from their supposed source material. They're not describing the same types because the types in both systems are defined as being different things, because the types in both systems are defined on the basis of different things. The way many people I've seen as of yet approach the topic makes it appear as if types and functions/information elements are tangible things which we can observe in order to accurately describe and not abstract categories we create in order to make it easier for ourselves to understand reality, which isn't one I've really ever gotten.

  11. #11
    Metaphysician thehotelambush's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    TIM
    LII
    Posts
    7,874
    Mentioned
    270 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by kouhai View Post
    If we say that both are only "interpretations" of Jung's work then Socionics becomes a really weird interpretation when most of it's definitions don't seem to have a retraceable root in Jung's work. If we compare the type descriptions Jung wrote in Psychological Types to the modern type descriptions of MBTI and Socionics, and we approach both as being purely "interpretations", then we can say that they're really poor interpretations because of how much they differ from their supposed source material. They're not describing the same types because the types in both systems are defined as being different things, because the types in both systems are defined on the basis of different things. The way many people I've seen as of yet approach the topic makes it appear as if types and functions/information elements are tangible things which we can observe in order to accurately describe and not abstract categories we create in order to make it easier for ourselves to understand reality, which isn't one I've really ever gotten.
    Very well put.���� Socionics is "a really weird interpretation" of Jung because (surprise) Augusta engaged in actual research that wasn't meant to preserve Jung's ideas as some kind of holy scripture. She says that in this process some of his ideas were changed completely. She simply found that they didn't agree with reality.

    If you do think Jung is holy scripture, then why not just use Jung's theory and ignore socionics? If you do use them both either 1) you have to ignore the glaring contradictions between the two or 2) you have to say that Jung was "wrong about his own types", which is absurd. Most self-professed Jungians in this community tend do (1) with occasional examples of (2).
    The higher, the fewer

    Articles - Questionnaire - Typology Network - Blog

  12. #12
    What's the purpose of SEI? Tallmo's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2017
    Location
    Finland
    TIM
    SEI
    Posts
    1,761
    Mentioned
    126 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Ok, so now I now better where @kouhai stands

    I think Socionics clearly shows that they have in fact found the real types. The 16 types of IM. The amazingly accurate structure of intertype relationships, model A etc. shows this. I mean it is a practical matter of confirming this that one can do and has been done.

    So Socionics is not just a matter of "interpretation". It reveals a very fundamental structure in the mind that shows itself everywhere.

    What is then Jung? Obviously he had also seen the same phenomenon, at least in part, anything else would be absurd to assume. The question is how accurate he could describe this. From what I've read he seems to be talking about the same types as Socionics, but he is more of a phenomenologist who is interested in very precise descriptions of psychic content. For example, when reading Jung on Si, I can totally relate this to Socionics Si.

    Definitions and descriptions can deviate from each other but still refer to the same phenomenon, so I am not too picky when reading Jung.

    MBTI is more problematic. They too are talking about the same types, at least in principle. A quick look at the type descriptions shows this. But the analysis of functions is too different from Socionics, and they seem incompatible. Because MBTI doesn't understand the type relationships, they lack additional data that is needed in order to get the types right.

  13. #13
    Humanist Beautiful sky's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Location
    EII land
    TIM
    EII INFj
    Posts
    23,232
    Mentioned
    559 Post(s)
    Tagged
    6 Thread(s)

    Default

    MBTI ran into problems when it started to implement functions into their system. They were doing okay with the four letter system in determining type. They misdefined the functions and created a lot of problems. Take myself for instance. I'm EII lead with Fi, in MBTI terms an Fi is INFP however when I take the test any test in MBTI I'm INFJ that is because the tests are broken down into four dichromaties not two. So I'm not NiFe...I'm indeed Fi and mbti should label INFJ as Fi because with Jung it is Fi that is the rational function of an introverted rational type.
    -
    Dual type (as per tcaudilllg)
    Enneagram 2w1sw(1w9) helps others to live up to their own standards of what a good person is and is very behind the scenes in the process.
    Tritype 1-2-6 stacking sp/sx


    I'm constantly looking to align the real with the ideal.I've been more oriented toward being overly idealistic by expecting the real to match the ideal. My thinking side is dominent. The result is that sometimes I can be overly impersonal or self-centered in my approach, not being understanding of others in the process and simply thinking "you should do this" or "everyone should follor this rule"..."regardless of how they feel or where they're coming from"which just isn't a good attitude to have. It is a way, though, to give oneself an artificial sense of self-justification. LSE

    Best description of functions:
    http://socionicsstudy.blogspot.com/2...functions.html

  14. #14
    Queen of the Damned Aylen's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2013
    Location
    MACS0647-JD
    TIM
    psyche 4w5 sx/sp
    Posts
    10,585
    Mentioned
    850 Post(s)
    Tagged
    42 Thread(s)

    Default

    This INFP description easily fits EII. Others fit IEI and some would fit other types like SEI. I agree that anyone who consistantly gets very high J on MBTI tests (not Nardi's function test since it is kind of different from most MBTI tests) are probably a socionics J too. If you are riding that line then look into the different profiles and take socionics tests and read different descriptions to help you figure out your type.


    Portrait of an INFP - Introverted iNtuitive Feeling Perceiving
    (Introverted Feeling with Extraverted Intuition)
    The Idealist

    As an INFP, your primary mode of living is focused internally, where you deal with things according to how you feel about them, or how they fit into your personal value system. Your secondary mode is external, where you take things in primarily via your intuition.

    INFPs, more than other iNtuitive Feeling types, are focused on making the world a better place for people. Their primary goal is to find out their meaning in life. What is their purpose? How can they best serve humanity in their lives? They are idealists and perfectionists, who drive themselves hard in their quest for achieving the goals they have identified for themselves

    INFPs are highly intuitive about people. They rely heavily on their intuitions to guide them, and use their discoveries to constantly search for value in life. They are on a continuous mission to find the truth and meaning underlying things. Every encounter and every piece of knowledge gained gets sifted through the INFP's value system, and is evaluated to see if it has any potential to help the INFP define or refine their own path in life. The goal at the end of the path is always the same - the INFP is driven to help people and make the world a better place.

    Generally thoughtful and considerate, INFPs are good listeners and put people at ease. Although they may be reserved in expressing emotion, they have a very deep well of caring and are genuinely interested in understanding people. This sincerity is sensed by others, making the INFP a valued friend and confidante. An INFP can be quite warm with people he or she knows well.

    INFPs do not like conflict, and go to great lengths to avoid it. If they must face it, they will always approach it from the perspective of their feelings. In conflict situations, INFPs place little importance on who is right and who is wrong. They focus on the way that the conflict makes them feel, and indeed don't really care whether or not they're right. They don't want to feel badly. This trait sometimes makes them appear irrational and illogical in conflict situations. On the other hand, INFPs make very good mediators, and are typically good at solving other people's conflicts, because they intuitively understand people's perspectives and feelings, and genuinely want to help them.

    INFPs are flexible and laid-back, until one of their values is violated. In the face of their value system being threatened, INFPs can become aggressive defenders, fighting passionately for their cause. When an INFP has adopted a project or job which they're interested in, it usually becomes a "cause" for them. Although they are not detail-oriented individuals, they will cover every possible detail with determination and vigor when working for their "cause".

    When it comes to the mundane details of life maintenance, INFPs are typically completely unaware of such things. They might go for long periods without noticing a stain on the carpet, but carefully and meticulously brush a speck of dust off of their project booklet.

    INFPs do not like to deal with hard facts and logic. Their focus on their feelings and the Human Condition makes it difficult for them to deal with impersonal judgment. They don't understand or believe in the validity of impersonal judgment, which makes them naturally rather ineffective at using it. Most INFPs will avoid impersonal analysis, although some have developed this ability and are able to be quite logical. Under stress, it's not uncommon for INFPs to mis-use hard logic in the heat of anger, throwing out fact after (often inaccurate) fact in an emotional outburst.

    INFPs have very high standards and are perfectionists. Consequently, they are usually hard on themselves, and don't give themselves enough credit. INFPs may have problems working on a project in a group, because their standards are likely to be higher than other members' of the group. In group situations, they may have a "control" problem. The INFP needs to work on balancing their high ideals with the requirements of every day living. Without resolving this conflict, they will never be happy with themselves, and they may become confused and paralyzed about what to do with their lives.

    INFPs are usually talented writers. They may be awkard and uncomfortable with expressing themselves verbally, but have a wonderful ability to define and express what they're feeling on paper. INFPs also appear frequently in social service professions, such as counselling or teaching. They are at their best in situations where they're working towards the public good, and in which they don't need to use hard logic.

    INFPs who function in their well-developed sides can accomplish great and wonderful things, which they will rarely give themselves credit for. Some of the great, humanistic catalysts in the world have been INFPs.
    Of course I have seen similar to the above written about MBTI INFJ. Just rephrasing what is written above and throwing in something about psychic and mystical.

    If there is an EII here here who can't identify with the above I am curious to know what parts they have an issue with.

    "When I ought to be thinking of heaven he will nail me to earth"

     




  15. #15
    Dalek Caan's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2018
    Posts
    82
    Mentioned
    1 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by thehotelambush View Post
    Very well put.���� Socionics is "a really weird interpretation" of Jung because (surprise) Augusta engaged in actual research that wasn't meant to preserve Jung's ideas as some kind of holy scripture. She says that in this process some of his ideas were changed completely. She simply found that they didn't agree with reality.

    If you do think Jung is holy scripture, then why not just use Jung's theory and ignore socionics? If you do use them both either 1) you have to ignore the glaring contradictions between the two or 2) you have to say that Jung was "wrong about his own types", which is absurd. Most self-professed Jungians in this community tend do (1) with occasional examples of (2).
    People can do whatever they want, but most people that look into Socionics haven't looked into Jung. And they really aren't knowledgeable enough to say they are not complementary. Then add on to the fact that the Jungian stuff is lot more esoteric and requires a study of philosophy to really appreciate and it's immediately obvious to me how flawed this idea of them being incompatible is.

    In fact, there's never been a proper thread on here that has explained irrefutably why they wouldn't agree on a theoretical level. And saying Socionics is about information metabolism and Jung about the psyche (which is the only argument I've heard) is an extremely poor argument. There's no reason one can't follow from the other...

  16. #16
    Dalek Caan's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2018
    Posts
    82
    Mentioned
    1 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Tallmo View Post
    What is then Jung? Obviously he had also seen the same phenomenon, at least in part, anything else would be absurd to assume. The question is how accurate he could describe this. From what I've read he seems to be talking about the same types as Socionics, but he is more of a phenomenologist who is interested in very precise descriptions of psychic content. For example, when reading Jung on Si, I can totally relate this to Socionics Si.
    Yes, exactly.

  17. #17

    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Posts
    9,398
    Mentioned
    848 Post(s)
    Tagged
    3 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by kouhai View Post
    I've seen alot of people saying that it's possible to directly convert types across both systems
    it's the same Jung's types

    MBT uses dichotomies mostly to type people in practice. dichotomies are fully compatible with Socionics - there are the same descriptions with some additions. MBT uses for types' names only dichotomies in 4 letter code. so from theory and practical points - it's the same types

    ENTP = ILE
    INTJ = LII
    etc

    > Socionics defines it's types based on the IEs

    based on Jung's functions and dichotomies. IE is only the variant of naming

    Socionics is Jung's typology with addition of 8 functional model, IR, more correct expanded functions descriptions, expanded E/I description and mb some other expansions. It's how it may and should be used, it's how it works (including IR theory).

    The other understanding is baseless bs to mislead people and to push away from Socionics, what MBT authorities (who clearly controvert to Jung in functions of introverted types) would want. Also mb met at the ones who prefers the reasoning above the reality, besides incompetent in the basic theory to understand it correctly (including due to low quality of English sources) and in practical typing to be able to notice the mistakes they do.

    There are places where Augustinavichiute controverts to Jung in core things (like where polr is), but those are either baseless and Jung should be prefered or the view from other side. In case of polr - the problem is in what to name as "weak" - what annoys in the consciousness the most (Augustinavichiute's approach for 3rd function) or where we are lesser conscious and more primitive (Jung's one for 4th).
    Also there is baseless heresy alike Reinin's traits which are better to ignore, though were described as a draft and partly seriously used in Augustinavichiute's texts. Other more and lesser doubtful places at Augustinavichiute and Jung which are better to avoid or to use with lesser priority than more principle ideas. When there will appear experimental basis for that heresy - only then it mb thought as something more than bs. The other approach is to use much doubtful hypothesis with good chance of mistakes.

    Resume

    Socionics is Jung's typology. Fully compatible with MBT types.
    The ones who think the other are John Snows overloaded by bs from low quality English Socionics sites and intentionally misleading MBT sites.
    It's the only practically effective approach.
    Types examples: video bloggers, actors

  18. #18
    Humanist Beautiful sky's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Location
    EII land
    TIM
    EII INFj
    Posts
    23,232
    Mentioned
    559 Post(s)
    Tagged
    6 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Aylen View Post
    This INFP description easily fits EII. Others fit IEI and some would fit other types like SEI. I agree that anyone who consistantly gets very high J on MBTI tests (not Nardi's function test since it is kind of different from most MBTI tests) are probably a socionics J too. If you are riding that line then look into the different profiles and take socionics tests and read different descriptions to help you figure out your type.



    Of course I have seen similar to the above written about MBTI INFJ. Just rephrasing what is written above and throwing in something about psychic and mystical.

    If there is an EII here here who can't identify with the above I am curious to know what parts they have an issue with.
    I posted a better MBTI description of INFJ that I relate to almost to the letter. Would you take a look at it when you get a chance. I feel like someone switched it again from INFJ to INFJ...my head is going to fall off lol
    -
    Dual type (as per tcaudilllg)
    Enneagram 2w1sw(1w9) helps others to live up to their own standards of what a good person is and is very behind the scenes in the process.
    Tritype 1-2-6 stacking sp/sx


    I'm constantly looking to align the real with the ideal.I've been more oriented toward being overly idealistic by expecting the real to match the ideal. My thinking side is dominent. The result is that sometimes I can be overly impersonal or self-centered in my approach, not being understanding of others in the process and simply thinking "you should do this" or "everyone should follor this rule"..."regardless of how they feel or where they're coming from"which just isn't a good attitude to have. It is a way, though, to give oneself an artificial sense of self-justification. LSE

    Best description of functions:
    http://socionicsstudy.blogspot.com/2...functions.html

  19. #19
    Humanist Beautiful sky's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Location
    EII land
    TIM
    EII INFj
    Posts
    23,232
    Mentioned
    559 Post(s)
    Tagged
    6 Thread(s)
    -
    Dual type (as per tcaudilllg)
    Enneagram 2w1sw(1w9) helps others to live up to their own standards of what a good person is and is very behind the scenes in the process.
    Tritype 1-2-6 stacking sp/sx


    I'm constantly looking to align the real with the ideal.I've been more oriented toward being overly idealistic by expecting the real to match the ideal. My thinking side is dominent. The result is that sometimes I can be overly impersonal or self-centered in my approach, not being understanding of others in the process and simply thinking "you should do this" or "everyone should follor this rule"..."regardless of how they feel or where they're coming from"which just isn't a good attitude to have. It is a way, though, to give oneself an artificial sense of self-justification. LSE

    Best description of functions:
    http://socionicsstudy.blogspot.com/2...functions.html

  20. #20

    Join Date
    Dec 2018
    Posts
    16
    Mentioned
    3 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Weew.
    I'm aware that Aushra's publications on Socionics were not supposed to be works of pure interpretation. My comment stating that Socionics would be a "really weird interpretation" was aimed to say that Socionics and MBTI can't just be considered interpretations of Jung, and I began it by saying "If we say that both are only "interpretations" of Jung's work".
    My aim in posting this either is not to support or defend function-based MBTI in any way or the notion that MBTI should ever have implemented functions into their system instead of sticking to the dichotomies.
    While an SEE and ESFP in both systems are Se-Fi, what the terms Fi and Se mean in different systems differs. In Socionics Fi is information about feelings of attraction and repulsion (Or at least that's how it's defined in "Dual Nature of Man") and information abut emotional distance. In Jung's system, and in MBTI (keep in mind that when speaking about this I'm mostly focusing on the publications of Isabel Myers Briggs, Linda Berens, John Beebe, Dario Nardi, Daryl Sharp and Lenore Thomson's publications on Jungian Cognitive Functions, since it's their works that were the most influential of the field on western function-based typology, which is what I'm calling MBTI) it refers to subjective value evaluation. Se, in Socionics, is information about power, force and influence (taken from Wikisocion). In Jung's framework, it's sensation as unaffected by the subjective factor of unconscious influence (which is what he believed made Si subjective compared to Se). MBTI definitions of Se all roughly correspond to Jung's.
    And those definitions differ. "Se" and "Fi" are not the same thing across these systems.
    Now to compare descriptions of how Se manifests in ESFPs:
    Here's Gulenko's description, taken from the SHS site:
    Feels good alignment of forces. Quickly catches who is strong and who is weak, who can be pressed, and whom it is better not to touch. Groping for weaknesses of people with whom he is closely acquainted. Influencing the pain points, changes their behavior in the direction advantageous for themselves. Itself does not obey to attempts of direct pressure. Cleverly dodges. Able to stand up for themselves. Reacts violently when it is limited in choice. Commanded by those less determined and less self-confident. With a stronger partner communicates on an equal footing. Always find a way to attract attention.
    Here's Jung's description of Dominant Se:
    No other human type can equal the extraverted sensation-type in realism. His sense for objective facts is extraordinarily developed. His life is an accumulation of actual experience with concrete objects, and the more pronounced he is, the less use does he make of his experience. In certain cases the events of his life hardly deserve the name 'experience'. He knows no better use for this sensed 'experience' than to make it serve as a guide to fresh sensations; anything in the least 'new' that comes within his circle of interest is forthwith turned to a sensational account and is made to serve this end. In so far as one is disposed to regard a highly developed sense for sheer actuality as very reasonable, will such men be esteemed rational. In reality, however, this is by no means the case, since they are equally subject to the sensation of irrational, chance happenings, as they are to rational behaviour.Such a type—the majority arc men apparently—does not, of course, believe himself to be 'subject' to sensation. He would be much more inclined to ridicule this view as altogether inconclusive, since, from his standpoint, sensation is the concrete manifestation of life—it is simply the fulness [sic] of actual living. His aim is concrete enjoyment, and his morality is similarly orientated. For true enjoyment has its own special morality, its own moderation and lawfulness, its own unselfishness and devotedness. It by no means follows that he is just sensual or gross, for he may differentiate his sensation to the finest pitch of æsthetic purity without being the least unfaithful, even in his most abstract sensations, to his principle of objective sensation. Wulfen's Cicerone des r¨cksichtlosen Lebensgenusses is the unvarnished confession of a type of this sort. From this point of view the book seems to me worth reading.
    Upon the lower levels this is the man of tangible reality, with little tendency either for reflection or commanding purpose. To sense the object, to have and if possible to enjoy sensations, is his constant motive. He is by no means unlovable; on the contrary, he frequently has a charming and lively capacity for enjoyment; he is sometimes a jolly fellow, and often a refined æsthete.
    In the former case, the great problems of life hinge upon a good or indifferent dinner; in the latter, they are questions of good taste. When he 'senses', everything essential has been said and done. Nothing can be more than concrete and actual; conjectures that transcend or go beyond the concrete are only permitted on condition that they enhance sensation. This need not be in any way a pleasurable reinforcement, since this type is not a common voluptuary; he merely desires the strongest sensation, and this, by his very nature, he can receive only from without. What comes from within seems to him morbid and objectionable. In so far as lie thinks and feels, he always reduces down to objective foundations, i.e. to influences coming from the object, quite unperturbed by the most violent departures from logic. Tangible reality, under any conditions, makes him breathe again. In this respect he is unexpectedly credulous. He will, without hesitation, relate an obvious psychogenic symptom to the falling barometer, while the existence of a psychic conflict seems to him a fantastic abnormality. His love is incontestably rooted in the manifest attractions of the object. In so far as he is normal, he is conspicuously adjusted to positive reality—conspicuously, because his adjustment is always visible. His ideal is the actual; in this respect he is considerate. He has no ideals related to ideas—he has, therefore, no sort of ground for maintaining a hostile attitude towards the reality of things and facts. This expresses itself in all the externals of his life. He dresses well, according to his circumstances ; he keeps a good table for his friends, who are either made comfortable or at least given to understand that his fastidious taste is obliged to impose certain claims upon his entourage. He even convinces one that certain sacrifices are decidedly worth while for the sake of style.
    But the more sensation predominates, so that the sensing subject disappears behind the sensation, the more unsatisfactory does this type become. Either he develops into a crude pleasure-seeker or he becomes an unscrupulous, designing sybarite. Although the object is entirely indispensable to him, yet, as something existing in and through itself, it is none the less depreciated. It is ruthlessly violated and essentially ignored, since now its sole use is to stimulate sensation. The hold upon the object is pushed to the utmost limit. The unconscious is, accordingly, forced out of its me[accent]tier as a compensatory function and driven into open opposition. But, above all, the repressed intuitions begin to assert themselves in the form of projections upon the object. The strangest conjectures arise; in the case of a sexual object, jealous phantasies and anxiety-states play a great role. More acute cases develop every sort of phobia, and especially compulsive symptoms. The pathological contents have a remarkable air of unreality, with a frequent moral or religious colouring. A pettifogging captiousness often develops, or an absurdly scrupulous morality coupled with a primitive, superstitious and 'magical' religiosity, harking back to abstruse rites. All these things have their source in the repressed inferior functions, which, in such cases, stand in harsh opposition to the conscious standpoint; they wear, in fact, an aspect that is all the more striking because they appear to rest upon the most absurd suppositions, in complete contrast to the conscious sense of reality. The whole culture of thought and feeling seems, in this second personality, to be twisted into a morbid primitiveness; reason is hair-splitting sophistry—morality is dreary moralizing and palpable Pharisaism—religion is absurd superstition—intuition, the noblest of human gifts, is a mere personal subtlety, a sniffing into every corner; instead of searching the horizon, it recedes to the narrowest gauge of human meanness.
    The specially compulsive character of the neurotic symptoms represent the unconscious counterweight to the laisser aller morality of a purely sensational attitude, which, from the standpoint of rational judgment, accepts without discrimination, everything that happens. Although this lack of basic principles in the sensation-type does not argue an absolute lawlessness and lack of restraint, it at least deprives him of the quite essential restraining power of judgment. Rational judgment represents a conscious coercion, which the rational type appears to impose upon himself of his own free will. This compulsion overtakes the sensation-type from the unconscious. Moreover, the rational type's link to the object, from the very existence of a judgment, never means such an unconditioned relation as that which the sensation-type has with the object. When his attitude reaches an abnormal one-sidedness, he is in danger of falling just as deeply into the arms of the unconscious as he consciously clings to the object. When he becomes neurotic, he is much harder to treat in the rational way, because the functions to which the physician must appeal are in a relatively undifferentiated state; hence little or no trust can be placed in them. Special means of bringing emotional pressure to bear are often needed to make him at all conscious.
    Pay attention to the "crude-pleasure seeking" part, which attributes sensory pleasure to Se, something that most in Socionics attribute instead to Si.
    And here's Berens' description of Dominant Se. I believe her work is sufficient enough to represent how most in the function-based MBTI community also believe dominant Se to manifest in ESxPs, especially considering that it's had alot of influence on it.
    Berens-Se.PNG
    Different definitions. Different ideas on their implications follow.
    it's the same Jung's types
    Socionics is Jung's typology with addition of 8 functional model, IR, more correct expanded functions descriptions, expanded E/I description and mb some other expansions. It's how it may and should be used, it's how it works (including IR theory).
    Those are differences. If two things differ they're not the same. If Socionics and Jung's Typology differ, they are not the same, regardless of how whether these differences affect them for the better or not.
    Socionics defines it's types based on the IEs

    based on Jung's functions and dichotomies. IE is only the variant of naming
    Based on. Not identical to. You even mentioned that the definitions are expanded upon in Socionics.
    An SeFi in Jung's Typology is not the same as an SeFi in Socionics because Se and Fi are terms that refer to different things in different systems.

  21. #21
    f.k.a Oprah sbbds's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2018
    TIM
    SLE
    Posts
    1,560
    Mentioned
    89 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    I disagree that they’re different really. They are trying to describe the same thing in reality, they just both get carried away in different ways with inflating stereotypes about the types.

    There are only 16 types and the valued IEs in ego and cognitive functions are fairly straightforward and comparable to each other. While they aren’t the same word for word, the overarching concept is basically the same, there are 16 types with the cognition/values/strengths of their ego functions, and weakness/seeking of their inferior function or IE.

  22. #22

    Join Date
    Dec 2018
    Posts
    16
    Mentioned
    3 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Where do we draw the line between them being different and the same ? Where do we draw the line between the actual types they describe and the "inflated stereotypes" they make about them ?
    I agree that both are describing the fact or reality that people can be categorized into 16 types, but the criteria for these categories is where I think they differ. Also I don't get how descriptions of IEs and functions are comparable, I think I demonstrated them differing in my previous post.

  23. #23
    Queen of the Damned Aylen's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2013
    Location
    MACS0647-JD
    TIM
    psyche 4w5 sx/sp
    Posts
    10,585
    Mentioned
    850 Post(s)
    Tagged
    42 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Beautiful sky View Post
    I posted a better MBTI description of INFJ that I relate to almost to the letter. Would you take a look at it when you get a chance. I feel like someone switched it again from INFJ to INFJ...my head is going to fall off lol
    Don't know how I forgot this. I meant to respond. I would like to see the one you relate to.

    "When I ought to be thinking of heaven he will nail me to earth"

     




  24. #24
    Queen of the Damned Aylen's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2013
    Location
    MACS0647-JD
    TIM
    psyche 4w5 sx/sp
    Posts
    10,585
    Mentioned
    850 Post(s)
    Tagged
    42 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by kouhai View Post
    Here's Jung's description of Dominant Se:

    Pay attention to the "crude-pleasure seeking" part, which attributes sensory pleasure to Se, something that most in Socionics attribute instead to Si.
    The key word there is "crude" since I don't think the term crude really applies to Si leads in socionics but I could be wrong. Se leads can certainly seem like "crude pleasure seekers" to those more "refined".

    "When I ought to be thinking of heaven he will nail me to earth"

     




  25. #25

    Join Date
    Dec 2018
    Posts
    16
    Mentioned
    3 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    My point was to say that he attributed sensory pleasure to Se, something usually in Socionics instead attributed Si.
    EDIT: Also, I think he was attempting to describe Se when overindulged in as crude, and said that Se doms can be "fine aesthetes", which would mean that they can have a refined taste in sensation.
    Last edited by kouhai; 01-30-2019 at 04:27 PM.

  26. #26
    Queen of the Damned Aylen's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2013
    Location
    MACS0647-JD
    TIM
    psyche 4w5 sx/sp
    Posts
    10,585
    Mentioned
    850 Post(s)
    Tagged
    42 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by kouhai View Post
    My point was to say that he attributed sensory pleasure to Se, something usually in Socionics instead attributed Si.
    EDIT: Also, I think he was attempting to describe Se when overindulged in as crude, and said that Se doms can be "fine aesthetes", which would mean that they can have a refined taste in sensation.
    His description of Si actually makes more sense for Si doms in socionics than Se doms when read as whole but you also have to take into account IEs in socionics. I don't get hung up on words like "pleasure" in any of the descriptions since that is a subjective thing. I find most ASMR videos grating yet some people derive a lot of pleasure from them.

    Se doms in socionics have strong Si and vice versa.

    Introverted sensing is an irrational, introverted, and dynamic information element. It is also referred to as Si, S, experiential sensing, or white sensing. Si is associated with the ability to internalize sensations and to experience them in full detail. Si focuses on tangible, direct (external) connections (introverted) between processes (dynamic) happening in one time, i.e. the physical, sensual experience of interactions between objects. This leads to an awareness of internal tangible physical states and how various physical fluctuations or substances are directly transferred between objects, such as motion, temperature, or dirtiness. The awareness of these tangible physical processes consequently leads to an awareness of health, or an optimum balance with one's environment. The individual physical reaction to concrete surroundings is main way we perceive and define aesthetics, comfort, convenience, and pleasure.

    In contrast to extroverted sensing (Se), is related to following one's own needs instead of focusing on some externally-driven conception of what is necessary to acquire or achieve. So, whereas Se ego types feel capable to evaluate how justified others' preferences are, Si ego types will try to adjust to them in any way possible (given that it does not extremely affect their own comfort), wishing to minimize conflict. In contrast to introverted intuition (Ni), Si is about direct interaction and unity (or discord) with one's surroundings, rather than abstract process and causal links.

    Types that value Si prefer to spend their time doing enjoyable activities rather than straining themselves to achieve goals. They like to believe that if activities are done with enjoyment, people will give them more effort and time, and also becoming more skilled at what they are doing in the long run. They believe that goals should suit people's intrinsic needs rather than shaped by the demands and constraints of the external world, and so do not try to force others into doing things they don't want to do. They also try to be easygoing and pleasant, preferring peaceful coexistence to conflict, except when their personal well-being or comfort is directly at stake.
    The predominance of introverted sensation produces a definite type, which is characterized by certain peculiarities. It is an irrational type, because it is oriented amid the flux of events not by rational judgment but simply by what happens. Whereas the extraverted sensation type is guided by the intensity of objective influences, the introverted type is guided by the intensity of the subjective sensation excited by the objective stimulus. Obviously, therefore, no proportional relation exists between object and sensation, but one that is apparently quite unpredictable and arbitrary. What will make an impression and what will not can never be seen in advance, and from outside. Did there exist an aptitude for expression in any way proportional to the intensity of his sensations, the irrationality of this type would be extraordinarily striking. This is the case, for instance, when an individual is a creative artist. But since this is the exception, the introvert's characteristic difficulty in expressing himself also conceals his irrationality. On the contrary, he may be conspicuous for his calmness and passivity, or for his rational self-control. This peculiarity, which often leads a superficial judgment astray, is really due to his unrelatedness to objects. Normally the object is not consciously devalued in the least, but its stimulus is removed from it and immediately replaced by a subjective reaction no longer related to the reality of the object. This naturally has the same effect as devaluation. Such a type can easily make one question why one should exist at all, or why objects in general should have any justification for their existence since everything essential still goes on happening without them. This doubt may be justified in extreme cases, but not in the normal, since the objective stimulus is absolutely necessary to sensation and merely produces something different from what the external situation might lead one to expect.

    Seen from the outside, it looks as though the effect of the object did not penetrate into the subject at all. This impression is correct inasmuch as a subjective content does, in fact, intervene from the unconscious and intercept the effect of the object. The intervention may be so abrupt that the individual appears to be shielding himself directly from all objective influences. In more serious cases, such a protective defence actually does exist. Even with only a slight increase in the power of the unconscious, the subjective component of sensation becomes so alive that it almost completely obscures the influence of the object. If the object is a person, he feels completely devalued, while the subject has an illusory conception of reality, which in pathological cases goes so far that he is no longer able to distinguish between the real object and the subjective perception. Although so vital a distinction reaches the vanishing point only in near-psychotic states, yet long before that the subjective perception can influence thought, feeling, and action to an excessive degree despite the fact that the object is clearly seen in all its reality. When its influence does succeed in penetrating into the subject because of its special intensity or because of its complete analogy with the unconscious image even the normal type will be compelled to act in accordance with the unconscious model. Such action has an illusory character unrelated to objective reality and is extremely disconcerting. It instantly reveals the reality alienating subjectivity of this type. But when the influence of the object does not break through completely, it is met with well-intentioned neutrality, disclosing little sympathy yet constantly striving to soothe and adjust. The too low is raised a little, the too high is lowered, enthusiasm is damped down, extravagance restrained, and anything out of the ordinary reduced to the right formula-all this in order to keep the influence of the object within the necessary bounds. In this way the type becomes a menace to his environment because his total innocuousness is not altogether above suspicion. In that case he easily becomes a victim of the aggressiveness and domineeringness of others. Such men allow themselves to be abused and then take their revenge on the most unsuitable occasions with redoubled obtuseness and stubbornness.

    If no capacity for artistic expression is present, all impressions sink into the depths and hold consciousness under a spell, so that it becomes impossible to master their fascination by giving them conscious expression. In general, this type can organize his impressions only in archaic ways, because thinking and feeling are relatively unconscious and, if conscious at all, have at their disposal only the most necessary, banal, everyday means of expression. As conscious functions, they are wholly incapable of adequately reproducing his subjective perceptions. This type, therefore, is uncommonly inaccessible to objective understanding, and he usually fares no better in understanding himself.

    Above all, his development alienates him from the reality of the object, leaving him at the mercy of his subjective perceptions, which orient his consciousness to an archaic reality, although his lack of comparative judgment keeps him wholly unconscious of this fact. Actually he lives in a mythological world, where men, animals, locomotives, houses, rivers, and mountains appear either as benevolent deities or as malevolent demons. That they appear thus to him never enters his head, though that is just the effect they have on his judgments and actions. He judges and acts as though he had such powers to deal with; but this begins to strike him only when he discovers that his sensations are totally different from reality. If he has any aptitude for objective reason, he will sense this difference as morbid; but if he remains faithful to his irrationality, and is ready to grant his sensations reality value, the objective world will appear a mere make-believe and a comedy. Only in extreme cases, however, is this dilemma reached. As a rule he re-signs himself to his isolation and the banality of the world, which he has unconsciously made archaic.

    His unconscious is distinguished chiefly by the repression of intuition, which consequently acquires an extraverted and archaic character. Whereas true extraverted intuition is possessed of a singular resourcefulness, a "good nose" for objectively real possibilities, this archaicized intuition has an amazing flair for all the ambiguous, shadowy, sordid, dangerous possibilities lurking in the background. The real and conscious intentions of the object mean nothing to it; instead, it sniffs out every conceivable archaic motive underlying such an intention. It therefore has a dangerous and destructive quality that contrasts glaringly with the well-meaning innocuousness of the conscious attitude. So long as the individual does not hold too aloof from the object, his unconscious intuition has a salutary compensating effect on the rather fantastic and overcredulous attitude of consciousness. But as soon as the unconscious becomes antagonistic, the archaic intuitions come to the surface and exert their pernicious influence, forcing themselves on the individual and producing compulsive ideas of the most perverse kind. The result is usually a compulsion neurosis, in which the hysterical features are masked by symptoms of exhaustion. --Jung

    "When I ought to be thinking of heaven he will nail me to earth"

     




  27. #27
    itsthem's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2009
    TIM
    ISTp
    Posts
    92
    Mentioned
    9 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    i rather just think of mbti functions as being incorrect (either by the way they're laid our or by their definitions, or... whatever; it doesn't matter to me) than bother attempting to translate things. most of the archetype descriptions are similar enough between both systems and that's how the majority of people start to type themselves anyway. all that function stuff in mbti was probably just added on later and people bent the definitions to fit their understanding of the types, which for most people usually results in an eventual superficial stereotyping rather than having a working mental model of the underlying mechanisms of personality to explain the why and how instead of simply the what. people on here do the same thing though. i consider most discrepancies between the two systems to be a result of this and/or mistypings for whatever reason. bad tests, too-similar descriptions, people being unrealistic about themselves, who knows. the INFP/INFJ types seem to be the most often muddled, maybe it's just an enneagram 4 thing, i dont know.

  28. #28

    Join Date
    Dec 2018
    Posts
    16
    Mentioned
    3 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Whether or not they're correct or not isn't what I'm getting at here, I'm trying to see whether or not they differ or not. The MBTI test itself is a fucking trainwreck and so is most of the content around it and I don't want to try defending it. Anyways, as far as I know, Myers-Briggs intended that the dichotomies were supposed to be a way for figuring out one's type as defined by functions and viewed the 16 types as defined by both their function stacks and dichotomy preferences,or at least that's what I understand from reading her book Gifts Differing, and didn't decide later on to include functions and deliberately changed their definitions from Jung in order to make them compatible, and most of her function descriptions line up with Jung's as far as I'm aware. Maybe that's the case for the wider online MBTI community, but I already stated that I'm talking about MBTI as based on the works of authors who have been most influential on the subject and not the way that community interprets their works.
    The archetypes may be similar but I don't care about that since what I'm talking about here is the types as described on the basis of specific functions.

  29. #29
    Blackberry's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2017
    TIM
    0-D ISTp sx/sp
    Posts
    2,477
    Mentioned
    313 Post(s)
    Tagged
    2 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by kouhai View Post
    I've read the article you linked and it still doesn't address what I asked about. How is it possible that an "ESFP" in MBTI is the same thing as an "ESFp" in Socionics when both systems use those terms to refer to different things ? In MBTI an "ESFP" has their dominant function as "Se", and "Se" in MBTI (And more consistently with Jung's original definition btw) is defined as the function that deals with objective, reality-based experiences and sensations. It is concerned with what can be seen, felt, and perceived by anyone in the moment. An ESFp in Socionics has the Information Element "Se" as their base/program function, and "Se" in Socionics is defined as being about force, willpower, the acquisition of territory and material possessions and the perception of the immediate physical qualities of objects. Different things.

    BTW, I'm using the term MBTI not to refer to the dichotomies but to function-based typology that evolved independently from Socionics. So, not the official Myers-Briggs, but more like the stuff you'd find on r/mbti.


    Socionics and Mbti share a common background (Jung's work) and use common labels, but they still being two different systems with not much more in common beyond names and some stereotypes. Attempting to convert types could simply end in mistype. Our type in one of the systems could be used as reference for the possible type in the other system, but shouldn't be used as a rule. Insisting in a rigid method of conversion between systems would just lead to mistypings.

    About the quote, an ESFP in MBTI and an ESFp in socionics share the first and second function in same order, Se-Fi. The usual problem when ppl try to convert between systems is about the Introverted types as you probably know already. The definition of Se in socionics depends on what Socionist or source you are taking as refernce and how each function works in each type also depends on the position it has in each type stacking. In socionics each type has all the functions and it's manifested in a more or less predictable way, similarly in mbti, but more complex. Socionics (as mbti) parts from Jung's work to develop a system, consisting in Socionists observations, definitions and descriptions about the same types and functions (some even propose different models). There is no single one organized way to do Socionics. There are as many as socionics teachers. This could be confusing and frustrating when you are new to the socionics of course. Over the time you can get the common ground between most of them.

    As additional info, MBTI has also incorrect definitions (deviating from Jung text) of functions and types, such as Si, which is defined as memory and past, resulting in a rigid traditionalist judging type. That has nothing to do with Si in Jung. I believe this originated in a misinterpretation of the illustration Jung gave as example of Si, along with willingly ignoring Jung saying that Si was an element in sub specie aeternitatis (from the perspective of the eternal) and his references to future along with past in his illustration of the subjective perception of introverted sensing.

    Subjective sensation apprehends the background of the physical world rather than its surface. The decisive thing is not the reality of the object, but the reality of the subjective factor, i.e. the primordial images, which in their totality represent a psychic mirror-world. It is a mirror, however, with the peculiar capacity of representing the present contents of consciousness not in their known and customary form but in a certain sense sub specie aeternitatis, somewhat as a million-year old consciousness might see them. Such a consciousness would see the becoming and the passing of things beside their present and momentary existence, and not only that, but at the same time it would also see that Other, which was before their becoming and will be after their passing hence. To this consciousness the present moment is improbable. This is, of course, only a simile, of which, however, I had need to give some sort of illustration of the peculiar nature of introverted sensation. Introverted sensation conveys an image whose effect is not so much to reproduce the object as to throw over it a wrapping whose lustre is derived from age-old subjective experience and the still unborn future event. Thus,mere sense impression develops into the depth of the meaningful, while extraverted sensation seizes only the momentary and manifest existence of things.
    Beyond that, you can get into whatever system you prefer or think as more reliable or true. All of them are just theories after all. But If you ask for personal opinion, socionics Model A fits better in my experiences with the complexity of people psychological constitution and personality than mbti and others. Jung made a great work in proposing the 16 types, however, I personally find his definitions (especially type descriptions) as biased and limited, extremely subjective and negativistic as he describes the limited abilities of introversion and subjectivism.

    I hope some of this answer at your questions.
    Last edited by Blackberry; 02-01-2019 at 02:18 AM.

  30. #30

    Join Date
    Dec 2018
    Posts
    16
    Mentioned
    3 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    The MBTI view of Si as the function responsible for the recording and storage of sense impressions I think mainly comes from a quote from Emma Jung that described it as similar to a 'sensitive photographic plate' that absorbed sensations into the psyche, i.e. recorded them, and essentially equated Si to a mechanism by which memories are stored. Jung associated Si with the unconscious, and believed it's influence to be it's subjective factor, and later on describing it also associated it with the collective unconscious. Socionics as well deviates from Jung in this area, though Augusta at least admits to having disagreed with Jung on his function descriptions.

  31. #31
    Queen of the Damned Aylen's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2013
    Location
    MACS0647-JD
    TIM
    psyche 4w5 sx/sp
    Posts
    10,585
    Mentioned
    850 Post(s)
    Tagged
    42 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by kouhai View Post
    My point was to say that he attributed sensory pleasure to Se, something usually in Socionics instead attributed Si.
    EDIT: Also, I think he was attempting to describe Se when overindulged in as crude, and said that Se doms can be "fine aesthetes", which would mean that they can have a refined taste in sensation.
    Incidentally the word best fitting a pleasure seeker is hedonist.

    A fine aesthete would have refined perception through their senses, such as an eye for beauty, so not precisely refined taste in sensations. Sensations in a pleasure seeking sense is hedonism and people can have refined hedonistic tendencies. This does not contradict being Se dom. Types with weak Se are also said to have refined aesthetic perception too which is often based upon their intuitive, emotional or psychological states. Most people have senses since that is how we perceive the world. Just wanted to add that for clarity.

    "When I ought to be thinking of heaven he will nail me to earth"

     




  32. #32
    Metaphysician thehotelambush's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    TIM
    LII
    Posts
    7,874
    Mentioned
    270 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by itsthem View Post
    i rather just think of mbti functions as being incorrect (either by the way they're laid our or by their definitions, or... whatever; it doesn't matter to me) than bother attempting to translate things. most of the archetype descriptions are similar enough between both systems and that's how the majority of people start to type themselves anyway. all that function stuff in mbti was probably just added on later and people bent the definitions to fit their understanding of the types, which for most people usually results in an eventual superficial stereotyping rather than having a working mental model of the underlying mechanisms of personality to explain the why and how instead of simply the what. people on here do the same thing though. i consider most discrepancies between the two systems to be a result of this and/or mistypings for whatever reason. bad tests, too-similar descriptions, people being unrealistic about themselves, who knows. the INFP/INFJ types seem to be the most often muddled, maybe it's just an enneagram 4 thing, i dont know.
    ^

    Quote Originally Posted by kouhai View Post
    The MBTI view of Si as the function responsible for the recording and storage of sense impressions I think mainly comes from a quote from Emma Jung that described it as similar to a 'sensitive photographic plate' that absorbed sensations into the psyche, i.e. recorded them, and essentially equated Si to a mechanism by which memories are stored. Jung associated Si with the unconscious, and believed it's influence to be it's subjective factor, and later on describing it also associated it with the collective unconscious. Socionics as well deviates from Jung in this area, though Augusta at least admits to having disagreed with Jung on his function descriptions.
    Jung's descriptions are very much "colored" by his own TIM, i.e. with Ni. This is understandable, he was still feeling things out. Augusta also mentions how he was biased towards an "introverted" view i.e. he didn't recognize that the functions were objective aspects of the world. MBTI also doesn't really make this distinction very well if at all.
    The higher, the fewer

    Articles - Questionnaire - Typology Network - Blog

  33. #33
    Blackberry's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2017
    TIM
    0-D ISTp sx/sp
    Posts
    2,477
    Mentioned
    313 Post(s)
    Tagged
    2 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by kouhai View Post
    The MBTI view of Si as the function responsible for the recording and storage of sense impressions I think mainly comes from a quote from Emma Jung that described it as similar to a 'sensitive photographic plate' that absorbed sensations into the psyche, i.e. recorded them, and essentially equated Si to a mechanism by which memories are stored. Jung associated Si with the unconscious, and believed it's influence to be it's subjective factor, and later on describing it also associated it with the collective unconscious. Socionics as well deviates from Jung in this area, though Augusta at least admits to having disagreed with Jung on his function descriptions.
    I'll greatly appreciate a link, source or quote if you have it. For the rest, yes, though I see some Jung type descriptions somehow prejudiced, pessimistic and limited (some socionics descriptions are this way too). Not saying Jung descriptions are necessarily a lie, but as I see it, at times he seemed more interested in describe the negative aspects of personalities, giving the impression that his work was mainly done to describe the sick nature of man, instead of personality types objectively. In this sense, socionics offers a wider perspective. Finally, function descriptions doesn't translate identically from Jung to most socionics authors, but, type descriptions are similar as it was already mentioned in other's comments.

    Edit.

    I'm not able to find any reference of Emma Jung saying that Si is "similar to a 'sensitive photographic plate' that absorbed sensations into the psyche, i.e. recorded them, and essentially equated Si to a mechanism by which memories are stored."

    What I found is a book of Daryl SharpThe introverted sensation type is like a highly sensitized photographic plate. The physical sensitivity to objects and other people takes in every smallest shate and detail-what they look like, how they feel to the touch, their taste and smell and the sounds they make. Von Franz writes that she first understood this type when Emma Jung gave a paper on introverted sensation as her own dominate function.

    "When somebody comes into the room, such a type notices the way the prison comes in, the hair, the expression on the face, the clothes, and the way the person walks…every detail is absorbed. The impression comes from the object to the subject; it is as though a stone fell into deep water-the impression falls deeper and deeper and sinks in Outwardly, the introverted sensation type looks utterly stupid. He just sits and stares, and you don't know what is going on within him. He looks like a piece of wood with no react at all…but inwardly the impression is being absorbed…The quick inner reactions go on underneath, and the outer reaction comes in a delayed way. These are the people who, if told a joke in the morning, will probably laugh at midnight."

    p.79-80 Personality Types: Jung's Model of Typology
    Darly is another one who introduces this myth about Si equivalence of past, as he intentionally quotes Jung mutilating the part of impressions of the objects not just evoking past but able to get their future of the object and Si being atemporal also in the page 80.

    Daryls book
    Last edited by Blackberry; 02-06-2019 at 12:59 AM.

  34. #34

    Join Date
    Dec 2018
    Posts
    16
    Mentioned
    3 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Jung says that Si imbues sensation with "the patina of subjective experience" and that it not only sees some of it's future but also some of their past. At least he says so in the Princeton University Press edition of Psych Types, which may differ in some aspects from the translation on Wikisocion.
    As for the Emma Jung quote, I haven't read a qoute itself but I've seen it mentioned in John Beebe's book Energies an Patterns in Psychological Type.Source he cites is Von Franz's "The Inferior Function" lecture.
    This is, by definition, the work of introverted sensation, which EmmaJung, herself an introverted sensation type, explained as being “like a highlysensitized photographic plate” (von Franz, 1971/1998, p. 34). Jung has said ofthis type, “he very quickly gets a clear picture and then withdraws so as not tobe overwhelmed by the object. He has a mimosa-like quality and is hypersensitive” (1935–1936, May 8, 1936, lecture).

  35. #35
    Alomoes's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2015
    TIM
    LII INTj
    Posts
    430
    Mentioned
    5 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    I really don't know or care much about this, I just know that the concensus is that MBTI is not as effective, and that socionics is better, so I study socionics.
    If I stop responding or posting, I've probably taken a break from posting stuff. This really taxes me for whatever reason. Said break could last anywhere from a month to a year. I will likely be back, as socionics is one of my interests. If I'm not on here, you can contact me on steam.

    I got a new computer, so I'll not type on mobile as much any more.

  36. #36

    Join Date
    Dec 2018
    Posts
    16
    Mentioned
    3 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    I haven't seen much information on the empirical validity of Socionics so I don't think I can comment on that. I'm not fully aware of how much there's been published on the MBTI's validity either, though the most popular article (from what I've seen at least) claiming it's invalidity is questionable.

Posting Permissions

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