Socionics and MBTI

[nondescript]

I am fully well aware that you can't turn your MBTI type into a Sociotype(because, truth be told, Sociotype is much, much more advanced). Let me make an analogy:

In chemistry there are reversible and irreversible processes. I'll use general form of writing:

El.A + El.B -> El.AB, but:
El.C + El.D < - > El.CD

What this means is that we can disocciate El.CD into his building blocks(El.C, El.D9 under the right conditions and then retry synthesizing El.CD again(under different right conditions).

I know that you can't do MBTI -> Socio, but can you do this:

MBTI <- Socio?

Hm?

[Pookie]

I am fully well aware that you can't turn your MBTI type into a Sociotype(because, truth be told, Sociotype is much, much more advanced). Let me make an analogy:

In chemistry there are reversible and irreversible processes. I'll use general form of writing:

El.A + El.B -> El.AB, but:
El.C + El.D < - > El.CD

What this means is that we can disocciate El.CD into his building blocks(El.C, El.D9 under the right conditions and then retry synthesizing El.CD again(under different right conditions).

I know that you can't do MBTI -> Socio, but can you do this:

MBTI <- Socio?

Hm?

Nope. The boundaries of the types are different between the two. You cant backtrack for the same reason you cant go forward. Any given sociotype will encompass parts of different mbti types. The process wouldnt be able to compensate for that.

[Jarno]

MBTI types are pretty much the same as Socionics.

Both theorist have discovered the same phenomenon, namely 16 different types among people. Only when describing them they used a slightly different angle, which is normal if 2 people describe a same phenomena.

Though the underlying explanation differs a bit, especially on functions (which are screwed up in MBTI) but dichotomies and types are pretty much the same. So MBTI~Socionics.

Tests are difficult to make so you might be inclined to think that one can be different types in those two theories, but that's often the cause of the bad tests. Socionics is more broader and more accurate though.

[nondescript]

MBTI types are pretty much the same as Socionics.

Both theorist have discovered the same phenomenon, namely 16 different types among people. Only when describing them they used a slightly different angle, which is normal if 2 people describe a same phenomena.

Though the underlying explanation differs a bit, especially on functions (which are screwed up in MBTI) but dichotomies and types are pretty much the same. So MBTI~Socionics.

Tests are difficult to make so you might be inclined to think that one can be different types in those two theories, but that's often the cause of the bad tests. Socionics is more broader and more accurate though.

So, you say that ESI ~ ISFJ? I'd argue that it is. I base my assumption(only that at this time) based on Static/Dynamic < -> P/J correlation.

Plus, just read an ISFP(MBTI "ESI") description. And ask yourself...is this Dreiser we're speaking of or rather Dumas? ...you know the answer

[Persephone]

There is a huge project at the moment to compare how MBTI and socionics typings correlate, led by one Russian socionist who is using Talanov's system (700 questions) and official MBTI step 1 questionnare. The output will be known in a couple of months.

[dragoned]

There is a huge project at the moment to compare how MBTI and socionics typings correlate, led by one Russian socionist who is using Talanov's system (700 questions) and official MBTI step 1 questionnare. The output will be known in a couple of months.

A huge pile of shite more like.

[nondescript]

There is a huge project at the moment to compare how MBTI and socionics typings correlate, led by one Russian socionist who is using Talanov's system (700 questions) and official MBTI step 1 questionnare. The output will be known in a couple of months.

So, it is actually being done! Fascinating!

Both are very open(step I is out there afaik iirc) and it'll be most interesting to see how it develops.

I heard about Talanov, but what is his system? 700 questions sounds awful like MMPI(it has some 570 questions iirc) if done right.

edit: are you refering that guy who tried to raise a Kickstarter for socionics?

[nondescript]

A huge pile of shite more like.

...explanation?

[Jarno]

There is a huge project at the moment to compare how MBTI and socionics typings correlate, led by one Russian socionist who is using Talanov's system (700 questions) and official MBTI step 1 questionnare. The output will be known in a couple of months.

it's not so much about if the types are the same, it's more about if the tests are the same, and accurate.

if you would have 2 different people describe 10 cars, but both get to see the SAME group of 10 cars, then you might think after reading their results that they had for example seen only 8 the same cars and 2 different. But you know this is not the case. Then you can conclude that the difference is because of the angle from where they looked or from how they wrote their results, but it's not because of the cars.

Some people have trouble with understanding statistics and so there's a lot of bad info online about the reason why mbti and socionics give different answers at times. I hope to have cleared it up.

[ghost of forum past]

If you have a good understanding of Jung's functions and their placements in MBTI and Socionics, you can't deny that theoretically TiNe must = TiNe: therefore, for example, INTP must = LII / INTj.

The problem arises when you look at differing descriptions of functions. Both theories claim to be sourced in Jung, but both are not exactly consistent in this claim. Socionics clearly is not MBTI "Se", for example.

Another problem is the way that type descriptions are written in both theories. Aushra, the founder of Socionics, was ILE. The people that she influenced, and their subsequent writings, are all biased towards Alpha: painting it in the best light from an Alpha's perspective. Gammas, ESIs in particular, are made out to be someone's clean-freak mom, gold-diggers, strict schoolteachers, etc. That's not really fair.

MBTI descriptions, on the other hand, are garbage. They aren't consistent, they make reaching assumptions, and they are very shallow. They do not take in to account the actual personality of the person, just their behaviors.

Therefore, you can't exactly compare a MBTI description to a Socionics description. There is just too much variance.

Additionally, the "J" dichotomy is extremely problamatic for conversion, obviously. It was basically invented by MBTI, and is essentially based upon whether or not your room is clean. The Socionics "j" dichotomy was only made to make typology "easier" for people coming from MBTI. I think that it has failed in that regard, as this discussion won't ever be settled.

Anyways, I know that I haven't really offered a solution for conversion. I think that it's best to completely disregard MBTI for real typology, while giving it a subtle "thanks" for introducing many of us here to Socionics. MBTI is essentially the gateway drug of typology, anyway.

[Myst]

it's not so much about if the types are the same, it's more about if the tests are the same, and accurate.

if you would have 2 different people describe 10 cars, but both get to see the SAME group of 10 cars, then you might think after reading their results that they had for example seen only 8 the same cars and 2 different. But you know this is not the case. Then you can conclude that the difference is because of the angle from where they looked or from how they wrote their results, but it's not because of the cars.

The problem is the "car" isn't the human mind itself but the collection of observed data. That is, the phenomena being analysed by the models will not match because it's a different collection of observations for each theory. Now if it was the human mind itself, I'd agree with you but it isn't that simple, unfortunately.

EDIT: I'll add clarification, the car Jarno originally meant was specifically an analogy for the cognitive functions in the human mind. And my point was that we are not seeing the functions in the mind per se, only some observations that are often unrelated to the functions actually. Sometimes maybe related but the whole collection of observed data in one cognitive function theory that's then analysed isn't going to be about the same cognitive functions (the phenomena that we attempt to build the model about) when compared to the collections and analyses of them in the other theories.

[chemical]

The thing is the "general idea" of the function-attitudes/information elements might be something everyone can agree on across all theories stemming from Jung, but it's worth noting even in the more data-driven theories like Big 5, things like Extroversion are multifaceted dimensions, where it's safe to say there's a general theme with many specific instances that are different, of that theme.

So the most likely explanation for why socionics/MBTI/etc will never fully match up is they emphasize different aspects of the same themes. What's more, none of these systems is just measuring your function-attitudes from scratch..they're fitting them into specific patterns they've seen.

Were you to measure function-attitudes, with the widest interpretation of their underlying ideas possible, it is very unlikely they'd neatly arrange into any of the models studied by socionics, MBTI, or Jung. The models isolate particular interplays among specific versions of the overall themes of the function-attitudes, so each really has to be understood for its own emphasis.

To illustrate this, there's little in Jung about extraverted sensation and "force", but the overall idea is that extraverted sensation involves the most directly involved interface with objects, hence it is natural this is the consciousness whereby one can move them and so forth (leading to the changing potentials Ni observes).
This idea of moving objects is emphasized in a pretty particular way in socionics sources, and yes it fits in with what Jung called extraverted sensation, but it's also safe to say the emphasis on what aspect of extraverted sensation consciousness is defining of beta and gamma quadra is quite distinct from what defines Se-oriented types in the MBTI. Similarly for extraverted feeling.

[Persephone]

it's not so much about if the types are the same, it's more about if the tests are the same, and accurate.

if you would have 2 different people describe 10 cars, but both get to see the SAME group of 10 cars, then you might think after reading their results that they had for example seen only 8 the same cars and 2 different. But you know this is not the case. Then you can conclude that the difference is because of the angle from where they looked or from how they wrote their results, but it's not because of the cars.

Some people have trouble with understanding statistics and so there's a lot of bad info online about the reason why mbti and socionics give different answers at times. I hope to have cleared it up.

Logically those tests cannot be the same, since there are 700 questions in one (5 point scale + 3 dimension analysis) and 94 questions in the other one (a simple choice between two proposed absolutes). It's very easy to mistype in MBTI, there is no "truth" indicator nor deep analysis behind.

[Persephone]

So, it is actually being done! Fascinating!

Both are very open(step I is out there afaik iirc) and it'll be most interesting to see how it develops.

I heard about Talanov, but what is his system? 700 questions sounds awful like MMPI(it has some 570 questions iirc) if done right.

edit: are you refering that guy who tried to raise a Kickstarter for socionics?

Talanov is a well known socionist, you must mix with WSS, it's not the same dimension.
http://www.the16types.info/vbulletin...anov-s-Model-T

[nondescript]

Talanov is a well known socionist, you must mix with WSS, it's not the same dimension.
http://www.the16types.info/vbulletin...anov-s-Model-T

Where can I read / learn more?

[Persephone]

Where can I read / learn more?

Try this with google translate.
http://www.newsocionicsmodel.narod.r...l_kratko2.html

[MaryFrance]

I find this whole argument pointless. Both systems are interpreting the same 8 functions. You can't be Ne-Ti in one system and then Fe-Ni in the other. The typical argument is that MBTI and Socionics define functions differently. I have yet to really notice this.

[Jarno]

I find this whole argument pointless. Both systems are interpreting the same 8 functions. You can't be Ne-Ti in one system and then Fe-Ni in the other. The typical argument is that MBTI and Socionics define functions differently. I have yet to really notice this.

The define the dichotomies the same, so you are right, you cannot be for example an introvert in mbti and extravert in socionics.

However i did notice a function cluster fuck up in mbti, though i'm not up to date lately. I remember an ILI who is the INTP in mbti and has in MBTI the Ti as his first function. They have a weird criteria of which function to put first. I remember the functions were the same as in socionics for extraverts but fucked up for some reason for introverts.

MBTI started out with the dichotomies, so they never build up their system based on functions. They were attached later on.

[Myst]

The define the dichotomies the same, so you are right, you cannot be for example an introvert in mbti and extravert in socionics.

Actually I think only S/N and T/F are the exact same. I/E and J/P are slightly differently defined.

[Jarno]

Actually I think only S/N and T/F are the exact same. I/E and J/P are slightly differently defined.

yes but now the question is what is the reason for this difference in the definition, are they defining different phenomena or are they defining the same phenomena but from a different perspective?

[Myst]

yes but now the question is what is the reason for this difference in the definition, are they defining different phenomena or are they defining the same phenomena but from a different perspective?

Different phenomena. Remember my response about your car analogy? It's in this same thread, post #11

[nondescript]

The problem is the "car" isn't the human mind itself but the collection of observed data. That is, the phenomena being analysed by the models will not match because it's a different collection of observations for each theory. Now if it was the human mind itself, I'd agree with you but it isn't that simple, unfortunately.

I'm sorry, but what are you talking about? Both of you actually. Are you talking about cars, human mind, how the latter sees the former, some weird mixture of the three or all of them?

...these analogies are really gibberish. Why can't people be more concrete?

[Myst]

I'm sorry, but what are you talking about? Both of you actually. Are you talking about cars, human mind, how the latter sees the former, some weird mixture of the three or all of them?

...these analogies are really gibberish. Why can't people be more concrete?

Guess you don't like either Jarno's Ni or my Ti or both

I don't like analogies either, btw, unless strictly logical; that condition most analogies fail to meet though.

Now, why would any of us mess around talking about "weird mixtures", though? No no no just no. You interpreted these posts in a really weird way and I don't even follow how on earth you could've ended up at these possibilities for interpretation. Wtf lol.

OK I can try explaining though. I added a clarification to my post in #11. If that doesn't help then tell me exactly which part you got stuck at and why.

[Jarno]

Different phenomena.

oke. but how did you arrive at that conclusion. Can you rule out that they are not talking about the same phenomena?

[Computer Loser]

MBTI types are pretty much the same as Socionics.

Both theorist have discovered the same phenomenon, namely 16 different types among people. Only when describing them they used a slightly different angle, which is normal if 2 people describe a same phenomena.

Though the underlying explanation differs a bit, especially on functions (which are screwed up in MBTI) but dichotomies and types are pretty much the same. So MBTI~Socionics.

Tests are difficult to make so you might be inclined to think that one can be different types in those two theories, but that's often the cause of the bad tests. Socionics is more broader and more accurate though.

100 percent agreed. Good to see some common sense around here.

[Myst]

oke. but how did you arrive at that conclusion. Can you rule out that they are not talking about the same phenomena?

I ruled it out, yes. To me it seems some different things are analyzed (while of course some other things are the same) and the somewhat different models are the result of that.

Note I'm not saying it's all very very different, just that they are not identical phenomena.

[chemical]

Having read Jarno's question regarding whether there are different phenomena being studied but both called extroversion: I think it's very clear/not disputable that Jung's original introvert/extravert category contains 2+ distinct aspects of personality, distinct in the precise sense that they concern "inner" vs "outer" as a broad theme, yet in ways that appeal to very different psychologies.

One example: Jung believed the introvert was more oriented by fantasy (aka, that which has origin in the subjective mind). Yet, he also viewed the introvert as the person who, in his words, withdraws libido from the object, exhibiting an unrelatedness to it and an overall difficulty responding with sufficient strength of positive affect.
Modern research strongly suggests that the reward-orientation associated with tendency to experience positive affect upon stimulation by an object doesn't have to do with the same psychology as the so-called fantasy vs sensation distinction (which Jung associated to introversion/extraversion a good lot).

And really forget that research, even we can arrive at the same thing: in one case, we're talking the type of introversion found in an enneagram 5 portrait by Naranjo, aka an unrelatedness to objects, and hence a detachment to seeking reward and instead a clutching at self. In the other case, we're talking of exploration of the inner life -- ideas, fantasy, and so forth. While there is some truth that an unrelatedness to objects may confine one to the inner life, encouraging one to subsist on it, a vibrant inner life is not at all tied to or even mostly associated with the enneagram 5 type of introversion -- it can easily exist in synergy with the opposite of that type of introversion.

So more or less, the point to be taken away is yes, socionics CAN be talking of a different type of E from MBTI. The type of external-orientation to do with say MBTI-Fe or Jungian-Fe that had to do with the type of "external" concerning letting external factors determine the evaluation mostly, is related to other ideas... things like external validation and conventionality and so forth. Those are quite distinct from the external-orientation that is outward-moving energy, covered by things like socionics Fe (known for greater expressiveness, esp in beta quadra, as opposed to the nature of Fi-valuing quadras concerning those static ethical relations existing independent of direct influence on an object's arousal).

You could vaguely say they are "both about outer stuffs" but at the end of the day, we're studying psychological type, and if the psychological motives leading to development of one or the other of these are sufficiently distinct, they deserve to be placed in distinct categories.