An example of how MBTI differs from Socionics in regards to functional ordering:

INTJ = | | |

INTj = | | |

I like to use the analogy that the MBTI is to Active Server Pages (ASP) as Socionics is to PHP: Hypertext Processor. We can argue till the ends of time which one is superior, technically speaking although we already know which one is more popular due to mass-marketing from names we can supposedly trust. Hence how you can train to become an MBTI certified practitioner or an uncertified Socionics enthusiast.

I first came into contact with MBTI tests, profiles and descriptions and certainly experienced the awe moments of idenfication. In a hidden desire for self-discovery I certainly believed that since I tested as INTJ I was indeed "a natural brainstormer" and "applier of theoretical systems" as a typical INTJ description would discuss.

On the other hand, after studying the Socionics INTj functions i came to a new realisation that my greatest strength was not necessarily ideas per se but "seeking to understand" systems of interest and "noticing endless possibilites" in the outer world of objects.

In essence, out of one pigeon hole and into another. Kind of like the ASP programmer who later realised that PHP, albeit more seemingly alien at first, was a new solution they preferred - similiar to Socionics, it's not usually something you learn formally in the Academic world. Take my Multimedia Technology degree for example, the bureaucracy decided that we were to learn Macromedia Director and not Flash, Maya and not 3DSMax, ASP not PHP and the list goes on. I only learnt Flash when i decided indpendently, "hold on a second, this is 2003, i'm doing a Multimedia degree and i don't even know Flash" which i then proceeded to self-learn and later became an integral and necessary part of my final year project.

Back to MBTI vs Socionics. We have to remember that MBTI attempts to give us a descriptions of our personalities based on psychometric testing. On the other hand as i'm aware, Socionics needs us to also pigeon hole ourselves for a different purpose: to understand relationships with regard to how functions affect eachother consciously/subconsciously and in what way (information metabolism).

A dichotomy arises. "Certified/Centralised Knowledge" and "Non-Certified/Decentralised Knowledge" as in the case of MBTI vs Socionics. Also known as inside-the-box vs outside-the-box thinking - thus when doe the outside-the-box thinker "retire" their thoughts into a final artefact e.g. write the (final?) book on a subject and move onto the next?

A quote perhaps, to describe why Socionics is not widely known (yet) in the Academic world:

“New opinions often appear first as jokes and fancies, then as blasphemies and treason, then as questions open to discussion, and finally as established truths.” -- George Bernard Shaw
MBTI has it's place and so does Socionics. The only reason I prefer Socionics is because of the rationalisation of intertype relations. MBTI does provide some idea or reasoning for which types go together but i never really understood it hence my and exerting itself to figure things out with Socionics just like the ASP programmer who concedes defeat that PHP is simply better for X, Y and Z reasons even though ASP still does the job to an extent. For arguements sake, my ESFj friend would recommend ASP and I would prefer PHP simply because we think differently - traditional "known" vs unconventional "variation of the known".

If Socionics is to the Pros of an open-source community as the MBTI is to the Cons of a closed-source community then I think Socionics does a very good job of explaining things considering the more forward momentum of this niche community at large.

"Today the network of relationships linking the human race to itself and to the rest of the biosphere is so complex that all aspects affect all others to an extraordinary degree. Someone should be studying the whole system, however crudely that has to be done, because no gluing together of partial studies of a complex nonlinear system can give a good idea of the behaviour of the whole.” -- Murray Gell-Mann
I reguarly combine Socionics with Keirsey's Temperement theory more so as another tool for type idenfication.