Question regarding Socionics and MBTI

[Dalek Caan]

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.

[kouhai]

^ 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.

[Dalek Caan]

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.