.
Define the difference between E/I in Socionics and MBTI
.
Last edited by female; 07-09-2015 at 02:57 PM.
they are basically the same, except in MBTI all extroveted behavior points to being an extrovert, and all introverted behavior points to being an introvert. They dont take into account extroverted introverts and introverted extroverts etc.
Socionics is more subtle since it judges by function, which leads to theory of subtypes, in which one can be an introverted extrovert or extroverted introvert.
Introverts, like myself, as described by ESE boss is, living inside my head; that without a healthy source of exposure to senses, in my case that would be Si, that I can easily get caught in Ti, overanalysis of my feelings. I can not be left to dwell on my thoughts and on my self for too long because I go intoand lose touch with S or Sensory perception and begin to focus too harshly on my short comings, going into my dark sides. I types need E types to call their attention out, to help us focus on the sensory or intuitive information otherwise there is unhealthy shifts.
I types, like Airborne said once, look vacant, quiet, shy, refrained, inside their thoughts and in their minds more often then on outside sources.
I agree with Typhon that they are basically same as MBTI.
-
Dual type(as per tcaudilllg)
Enneagram 5 (wings either 4 or 6)?
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
Filatova's Socionics Book.
Extroverts - people focused on everything going on around them; are able to change a situation if it does not suit them; easily socialize both personally and professionally.
Introverts - people focused on their inner feelings about one issue or another; adapt to situations instead of changing them; have difficulty making acquaintances in unfamiliar situations.
Myers Briggs Website
My MBTI Personality Type - MBTI Basics - Extraversion or Introversion
Extroverts - I like getting my energy from active involvement in events and having a lot of different activities. I’m excited when I’m around people and I like to energize other people. I like moving into action and making things happen. I generally feel at home in the world. I often understand a problem better when I can talk out loud about it and hear what others have to say.
Introverts - I like getting my energy from dealing with the ideas, pictures, memories, and reactions that are inside my head, in my inner world. I often prefer doing things alone or with one or two people I feel comfortable with. I take time to reflect so that I have a clear idea of what I’ll be doing when I decide to act. Ideas are almost solid things for me. Sometimes I like the idea of something better than the real thing.
ILI (FINAL ANSWER)
I just got Filatova's book but haven't opened it yet, and this is what I find separates the two:
Being Extraverted vs Introverted in MBTI is dependent on where you get your energy from, which commonly tied to the conventional thought of the descriptive words outside of Jung-related nomenclature. If you look to "recharge" yourself with things outside of yourself, commonly with people as that seems to be where other energy is stored, you're Extraverted, while if you predominantly need time alone to "recharge," you are Introverted. When being tested via MBTI, you are asked questions relating to this and your sociability, how often you like to be with other people, if you prefer small or large groups, do you have many or few friends, etc.
In Socionics, Extraverted vs Introverted is more of a detail that is the consequence of other more important factors. What matters more is that you're- leading rather than you being Extraverted or Introverted. I honestly believe that there's a misplaced importance to the E/I dichotomy here, which is probably due to having a strong MBTI influence. Being Extraverted in Socionics just means you share the common traits of being
-,
-, and
If that's the case they have an introverted subtype, and are therefore an introverted extrovert. On a 1-10 scale of introversion-extroversion, the person would be 6-8 (closer to extrovert) and when confronted with a question like:Originally Posted by Mattie
The only people that would say no to this (I never want to be alone!) are extreme clearly expressed extroverts (9-10 on the scale) so those more in the middle, even if on the extroverted side will choose yes and all score introvert points. MBTI is notorious for bad questions, NOT inaccurate dichotomies.http://www.humanmetrics.com/cgi-win/JTypes2.asp
"After prolonged socializing you feel you need
to get away and be alone"
Another easily abused question is
Which describes an extreme clearly expressed introvert (1-2 on the scale). There are plenty of introverted types that put parties ahead of books, and a lot of them would score extrovert points on this question. MBTI focuses on extremes, hence why it has bad questions."Often you prefer to read a book than go to a party"
Here's some Math
X = the going's on around oneself.
Y = the going's on in ones inner world.
MBTI:
Extroverts get energy from X
Introverts get energy from Y
Socionics
Extroverts focus on X
Introverts focus on Y
Getting Energy from something is not fundamentally different from Focusing on something. They are two different ways to describe the Same Process.
In Pokemon there is a move called Focus Energy, where the Pokemon powers up, and then is FOUR TIMES more likely to score a critical hit.
http://bulbapedia.bulbagarden.net/wi...rgy_%28move%29
I don't see how they are not the same.
Last edited by Crispy; 08-25-2010 at 01:30 AM.
ILI (FINAL ANSWER)
there's no such thing an enfj 4w5
In MBTI, extraverts in theory are more active than reflective: they do something, then think about it, then do some more somethings.
Introverts in theory are more reflective than active: they thing about something, then act, then think some more.
In practice it's a cluster of traits, including social extroversion/introversion and whether you spend energy to get energy, or if you need downtime to recharge your batteries.
E/I in Socionics is somewhat ambiguous. It's fully describable as a loose cluster of traits that are dichotomous in nature. Where the Introvert is focused on their inner world and how things influence, the Extravert is focused on the constellations of objects outside the self. Where the Introvert is energised by attention and focus from others, the Extravert is energised by having others to focus on and give attention to. The list goes on.
I'm not sure about MBTI, but in Keirsey and such, E/I refers to extroversion/introversion, and refers to where one gets their energy from. It's usually socially oriented.
...
From what little I've learned about enneagram, E/I could refer to where the focus is...connecting with others (so or sx) vs protecting the self (sp).
The draw to others could fit the common ideas of extroversion.
While the focus on self could fit the common ideas of introversion.
Such that an so/sx or sx/so would be an extroverted extrovert.
An so/sp or sx/sp would be primarily an extrovert with introverted tendencies.
An sp/so or sp/sx would be primarily an introvert with extroverted tendencies.
...
Then there's the whole locus of control and attribution style thing.
When we offer explanations about why things happened, we can give one of two types:
• External Attribution: assigns causality to an outside agent or force. Some outside thing motivated the event. (events outside our personal control)
• Internal Attribution: assigns causality to factors within the person. The person was directly responsible for the event. (what we personally do)
Attribution style refers to the cause of success/failure in a similar way.
...
And finally we get to the objects/field part of E/I (nodes/links).
A person focusing on nodes can easily jump from node to node, with there seemingly little connection between the nodes (any connections between nodes have a more subconscious connection than conscious). Jumping from node to node can be done quickly, with little forethought. This tends to be viewed as random and chaotic. This person would also find it easier to split up an idea/concept into parts.
A person focusing on links takes longer to move between nodes. And the nodes that are brought up...are usually consciously related to the previous nodes. There's quite a bit of forethought when moving between nodes. This person would also find it more difficult to split up an idea/concept into different parts, instead insisting that it all be considered together or at once.
If we were to compare, it might look something like:
E: e1 e2 e3 e4 e5 e6 e7
I: e1-l1-e2-l2-e3-l3 to e1.
Ok, so trying to spell it out linearly sux. But the point is, the object focused person can jump to say 8 objects in the time it might take a field focused person to bring up 3-4 objects. The more time allotted, the higher the difference between the number of nodes brought up. This doesn't mean that the object focused one is processing information faster, it just means that they move between objects quicker than the field focused person. The field focused person as the advantage in that the objects presented are closer connected than the object focused person's are.
One of the ways we notice this in others is how quickly a person puts information 'out there'. An object focused person would feel more comfortable putting information out quickly. However, they may try to go back over to edit the info, put it out there, then edit the info, then put it out there, etc. They would also find it easier to list ideas prior to trying to put those ideas into a format. And they would have a tendency to "think out loud".
While a field focused person would take more time to gather and format the info prior to putting it 'out there', and may never even bother to finish it, or may give a 'delayed response'.
An object oriented person may let you know what the 'thought of the moment' is.
A field oriented person may eventually let you know what their 'true thought' is.
IEE 649 sx/sp cp
Several forum members claim to be. Myself, Morcheeba, Lefty. I dont see why its impossible.
Hm. I don't even know what Socionics E/I is. Let alone MBTI.
Where is that awesome diagram someone posted once, in Gamma i think?
Enneagram: 9w1 6w5 2w3 so/sx
you're all wrong then.
lol. Why? I could give you some famous examples too if youd like.
I'll give an example of a definition that I found. Try to see the difference
MBTI: introverts are responders, extraverts are initiators
Socionics: introverts are responders, extraverts are initiators
source: MBTI step 2, Ricks site (if I remember correctly)
BTW, you didn't answer here.
Step 2 is only carried out once MBTI I/E is determined, by then it's too late to pick up the real extratims and introtims, even if it were 100% possible by just dichotomies, and with that to be able to correlate introtim and extratim with I and E with a equally 100% match.source: MBTI step 2, Ricks site (if I remember correctly)
I think we are talking about different step 2.
I meant MBTI step II. Which uses slightly modified criteria for determining I/E dichotomy
MBTI Step II - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Hi, when I said here I meant here.
For some reason the link didn't go through.
Yeah,
"Each of the original four preference pairs (dichotomies) is broken down into five facets"
So as I understand it, this is used not to determine the dichotomies at all.
eg:
"In other words, you can not say that, for example, a preference for Thinking over Feeling is simply a combination of the five Thinking facets (Logical, Reasonable, Questioning, Critical and Tough)."
And
"Whilst in MBTI Step I, each of the preference pairs is considered to be a polar opposite, some of the Step II facets are more "trait like" - i.e. there may be degrees of strength or aptitude."
Which says that MBTI test measures polar opposites, dichotomies, and Step II is if anything at best, a description of how that already definied polarity exists, but what it really is, is applied as a description of personality not psychological type so it's even less Jung.
I don't see the problem.
Well, you initially said there was a bimodal hump because you read it in one of your MBTI books as if it 'proved' MBTI (which is what MBTI were doing also), however there is no bimodal hump and dichotomous split so scientifically MBTI dichotomies don't exist.
ALSO, MBTI Step II isn't related to whether the actual MBTI polarity - and the type of questions they actually use when determining their dichotomies. Despite the evidence showing MBTI dichotomies don't actually exist in people, Step II is just a way to try and describe personality traits in people which can change.
dichotomies don't exist? it's the base of how Jung discovered psychological types. But I guess looking at your posts that you haven't read that book.
Well, if you had read the study I had posted instead of coming out with an answer before reading it, you'd see that what is in your MBTI book is out of date and incorrect.
So yes, MBTI dichotomies don't exist.
To go back to the initial, if you want to say that socionics dichotomies are the same as MBTI dichotomies then you are basically saying socionics doesn't exist either.
Fact is that socionics are applied differently, as already discussed on the other thread. You are demonstrating a mental block over the dichotomy issue which I had hoped to correct, but I am now starting to think I am in error to try to do that, as i'm beginning to realise you are only seeing what you want to see.
Yes I only see what I see, I see a great similarity between mbti dichotomie and socionics dichotomie. If you are saying mbti dichotomie doesn't exist, then indeed socionics does not exist.
socionics has further divided the dichotomies and came up with underlying structure. This does't mean that their isn't behaviour attached to it on the surface.
edit: i've just read your study. I can imagine that there is no bimodal division. it rather proves that the questions should be altered so a clearer distinction can take place.
Socionics' and MBTI's dichotomies are both the same four that Jung discovered in his works.
MBTI's description of dichotomies focuses on extremes.
Socionics' description of dichotomies focuses on the seperation line.
MBTI dichotomies don't exist = Jung dichotomies don't exist = Socionics dichotomies don't exist
If that's the case, why are you still here?
It's obvious that intertype relations work. Which means Jung's dichotomies and functions work, which should mean MBTI, in spite of its shitty descriptions, works as well.
ILI (FINAL ANSWER)
Well, socionics applies the dichotomies slightly differently for one thing. For instance, in socionics, an LSE might be subdued in an
So if you want to say that socionics dichotomies = MBTI dichotomies, then you are wrong in practice (as to how the MBTI test is measured), and crucially, socionics understands that such things are concerned with functional interaction.
But you raise a better point, well, 2. First of all, even with above in mind, maybe socionics really is all bs too. I disagree that it's obvious that inter-type relations work, because there are plenty people who reject their dual and plenty people who are married to their conflictor, so somethings not right.
Second, I am here because from a philosophical POV, there is something to the idea of socionics. I don't expect socionics to be proven on the forum (although wouldn't that be great if it was), but I sort of enjoy talking about it from a philosophical perspective, seeing that sometimes it does indeed work, and sometimes it doesn't.
Overall, i'd like to discuss socionics with a skeptical, scientific mind. I don't want to approach it as a religion and then get caught up in justifying everything in my life or the forum through something which for all we know is as bs as astrology might be. We don't know, because so far there is zero % proof of it at least that i'm aware of, and if there is any proof, could you direct me to a link? That would be great, thanks.
change inter-type relations to intertype interaction and it all fits perfectly.
Interaction with a dual is always good, yet this doesn't mean that you will still marry him or her if she/he is fat or has crazy hobbies. Socionics doesn't take that into account. Only interaction patterns. And those patterns exist.
Instead of trying to find proof in a book, leave your home, date some people, and find it out for yourself. I don't need to read in a book that there exists two types of gender, I found that out myself. Just like I found socionics to be correct by observing and coming independantly to the same conclusions as socionics. (I had a conflict relationship before I heared about socioniocs, the way they described it in detail on russian sites, was exactly how I experienced the relationship. There is your proof...)
If your truly sceptical, you don't rely on proof out of a book, but you want to see the proof for yourself '-)
Jung did speak about Rational/Irrational but didn't explain it in terms anywhere near those of either the MBTI or Socionics.Socionics' and MBTI's dichotomies are both the same four that Jung discovered in his works.
He called rational 'including judgement' and irrational 'perceiving only'
Sounds near to me.
Socionics Introverted functions operate in both the internal and the external worlds, unlike in MBTI, and Socionics Extroverted functions operate in both the internal and external worlds, unlike in MBTI. Also a key point made by Rick in the past is that MBTI has more of a quantitative approach rather than a qualitative one - perhaps because MBTI relies far too much on tests, thus directing you away from a proper analysis of how you process information and relate to other people.
If you have typed at least yourself and someone you have a lot of daily interaction with correctly, you will find how obvious it is that inter-type relations work. If inter-type relations have not proved useful to you yet, you might need to retype everyone around you, using a better method this time.
Socionics is meant to be approached as a science, and there is no room for faith based assumptions when discussing socionics. But the descriptions, functions and especially inter-type relations are readily observable to a patient, sober mind. Practice careful analysis in your interactions with others, and you may be surprised at what you find.
ILI (FINAL ANSWER)
That's true, mistyping (of yourself or someone else) can often lead to an impression that intertype relation doesn't work. Although I suppose looking at things unrelated to information processing - emotions, for one - can have the same effect.
Posting Permissions
