Socionics versus MBTI

[Braingel]

The functions merely do not equate in Socionics and MBTI, thus, it is possibility to be two different types, given the systems are not same.

I do not personally, think MBTI is completely worthless. It has explained the shadow function and loop theories, something Socionics has yet been unable, and has relied upon enneagram to dual with it, for explaining ill health, but I do believe functions can alter when one is under heavy stress. The supervisory relation is supposed to make one more focused on their PolR, which puts pressure is as far as I know, other than conflictor dynamic, what is bringing of one to stress.

I understand it is relationally focused, yet it still is incomplete and merely is more archetype and social metric in that then instance, rather than cognitive.

The systemic placements differ and mean different things. In MBTI the third function is the looping one, and feeds the second. Whereas it becomes the hidden agenda function in Socionics, the thing one yearns to grow in and display. Whereas in MBTi 8 model theory, the 6th function is what one most is demonstrative of. I as an MBTI INFP for instance, would display often Ni. It would be strong in me and also something I want display, but not my unconscious mode of operation...

The functions also differ slightly in definition. MBTI Ni does not elaborate on past focus, merely it is future, analyzing the trends of now to project a future. Si is about the past in MBTI (as it is internal bodiily sensation).. The focus on past and body sensation can make one want homeostasis, yet still, past focus is more Ni implied in Socionics...

Fe in MBTI is more focused on harmony than is expression. Fi is more defined as one's expressive medium, and not caring if the expression is contrary to group, whereas socionics Fi is more constrictive and just strictly internal. That MBTI in this way makes to it more archetypically, in this particular matter.

Se is focused on here and no, without seizing any force or impact in MBTI. Focusing on such things can make one more likely to yearn action, yet not necessarily so, and especially for the introverted types, who are more self-contained.

My here point is that it is completely possible to be different types, and also, there are some things MBTI is better at than Socionics, specifically in regards to stress response.

Socionics will infer traits (Renin) and relational dynamics to anticipate stress.

[Tim]

I think Socionics got it right, and MBTI is just a heap of logically incoherent garbage. As for the shadow function, Socionics unvalued function (id and superego block) covered that. I do think Te is stronger in an SeTi than in Si. As the loop theory, this is identical to how mobilizing function work. Bold and valued Fe in SLE is similar to Se-Fe loop.

I do think that what Socionics is trying to say is that if someone is INFP by dichotomies, they should be NiFe by function. Similarly, if someone is INFJ by dichotomies, then they should be FiNe by function. @pandemic candy and @Beautiful sky both argued that, and I happen to agree with them.

I think the reason why Fe is defined as harmony and Si as past and traditional is due to a misinterpretation of Jung as well as trying to fit functions into MBTI dichotomies. In my opinion, Socionics is closer to Jung than MBTI pop psychology is. However, Jung could get a bit one-sided in his definition. For example, Fe is defined as harmony because most of Jung's patient on Fe is ESE and not EIE. ESE have Fe and Si which makes perfect sense. ESE valued harmony but they also valued emotional expressive. Jung did say about Fe being "genuine-visible feeling." I think what makes Socionics better than MBTI or even Jung is that Socionics clarified Jung and made it more logically coherent and even applicable to real life. That said, I think the principles of Jung and Socionics is the same: "Fe is feelings in its extraverted attitude. Ti is thinking in its introverted attitude." As for Si in MBTI ISxJ, they just observed ESI and LSI and the fact that they valued tradition, loyalty, and past experiences.

[Beautiful sky]

Your smart dual explained it all

[Braingel]

Loops are not real, looping is mental illness in my book.

I could agree it may be indicative of ill psychopathology for serious case, and one who is unhealthy is more likely loop, however, there are natural parts of life such as grief and loss, not an illness, that may result in such thing. If it prolongs pr exacerbates in severity, it then becomes of an ill.

[Braingel]

I think Socionics got it right, and MBTI is just a heap of logically incoherent garbage. As for the shadow function, Socionics unvalued function (id and superego block) covered that. I do think Te is stronger in an SeTi than in Si. As the loop theory, this is identical to how mobilizing function work. Bold and valued Fe in SLE is similar to Se-Fe loop.

I do think that what Socionics is trying to say is that if someone is INFP by dichotomies, they should be NiFe by function. Similarly, if someone is INFJ by dichotomies, then they should be FiNe by function. @pandemic candy and @Beautiful sky both argued that, and I happen to agree with them.

I think the reason why Fe is defined as harmony and Si as past and traditional is due to a misinterpretation of Jung as well as trying to fit functions into MBTI dichotomies. In my opinion, Socionics is closer to Jung than MBTI pop psychology is. However, Jung could get a bit one-sided in his definition. For example, Fe is defined as harmony because most of Jung's patient on Fe is ESE and not EIE. ESE have Fe and Si which makes perfect sense. ESE valued harmony but they also valued emotional expressive. Jung did say about Fe being "genuine-visible feeling." I think what makes Socionics better than MBTI or even Jung is that Socionics clarified Jung and made it more logically coherent and even applicable to real life. That said, I think the principles of Jung and Socionics is the same: "Fe is feelings in its extraverted attitude. Ti is thinking in its introverted attitude." As for Si in MBTI ISxJ, they just observed ESI and LSI and the fact that they valued tradition, loyalty, and past experiences.

I think this is a fair presentation. I did not really look ever at the Super-ID, and now cannot, because wikisocion now is down and only is really, credible source, unless there is video on youtube, perhaps. One just can explain or I can figure some other way.

[Braingel]

I do think Socionics does a lot better than MBTI in defining function, and as well as making it literally the base as what P/J is in introvert, rather than going on an archetype of an Fi-Ne for instance, being more laidback because of their Si and Ne, and Ni-Fe as more tough, more cutting to core and being focused.

[Braingel]

It is indicative of a mental illness, and those loops are not specific to a certain type.

I took this randomly:
Retreating from the outside world excessively
Having a fatalistic, gloomy perspective of the future
Developing self-defeating attitudes as an excuse for not trying or persisting
Becoming paranoid and reclusive
Feeling like nobody can understand them
Using scapegoats to blame their misfortune on
Having a general lack of interest in new activities or opportunities

Supposedly Ti-Ni loop but I could find an LIE who has experienced this. A mentally ill one.

I personally would say it is dependent upon how long it is lasting. An acute amount of time, a matter of weeks, would not constitute an illness. Generally loops are longer-term, but even then, being in that for a few months and then it going away, was just a phase, not illness.

[roger557]

MBTI is a commodore 64, while Socionics is a quantum computer. For this reason, probably socionics hasn't become mainstream (yet).

[Braingel]

Well, most of Socionics lies in Russia, the institutes and whatnot and even degrees. It is not as globalized, and the sources are vestige, of a paucity; ones not Russian.

[Braingel]

I wrote this:https://www.quora.com/Is-it-possible...ara-Soylular-3

Yes. I am such a person, an MBTI Fi-Ne and in Socionics, Ni-Fe ego. How is this possibility? First, you have different definitions of function. Fe in Meyers Briggs is a matter of harmonizing and focusing on the collective group. In Socionics, Fe primarily has do with externally expressing oneself emotionally. All you have to do to be Fe in Soconics, is outwardly express your emotions. Apart of the Fe description does indeed incorporate group focus, but it more has do with the Quadric values of Beta (and alpha). An MBTI Fi valuer merely needs prioritize their own values and emotional state, and focus on their emotions more, to make them of an Fi dom. It is a bit more complex than this, of course, but this is the basic premise of how things are defined. Ni in Socionics, embodies what modern MBTI incorporates into its Si definition. Ni is a matter of evaluating trends and pattern overtime, and averting on past, present and future. Because of the past focus, it may be that the past-dwelling MBTI INFP, will move over to an Ni base. Ni is characterized by its reflective inertia, which Fi with Si, naturally has a very reflective archetype in Meyers. It is more a trait in MBTI, and in Socionics, it is actual processing of information metabolism. A beta type in Socionics wants impact society, and unite others. If one’s Fi values in MBTI transfer over to this ideal, it can be the MBTI Fi valuer, becomes Beta valuing in this instance. Then, IEI is a result type, which is very reminiscent of MBTI Ne, in some way.. It is characterized by starting things then abandoning them, and going out of order, getting a gist.. Gulenko’s DCNH sort of is a slap-on to make a type fit, but his creative subtype makes it even more possible for an INFP to in Socionics, be an Ni-Fe. The Ne variation of creative.. Then, you also have differential placements of system, that mean very different things. In Socionics, the 7th function is just as strong as is, the first. An IEI’s 7th function is Fi. It just is not as much valued, as emotional expression is prioritized in contrast to Socionic’s fi keeping emotion constricted within and reading relational distance in regards to others.. In another archetypal way, the relational distance reading is an Fe trait in MBTI, even if it is an introverted process in reality. It is something the “spirit” of Fe users will try do in an MBTI archetype sense. The 3rd function in MBTI becomes the Socionics 6th, the MBTI 5th is to be 8th in Socio.. The 8th is the ignoring function, and 6th hidden agenda in Socionics. The hidden agenda is what one aspires to be. The ignoring is self-exclamatory. But Gulenko’s DCNH can counteract that… IEI’s HA is Ti.. Ti in Socionics overlaps Ni in a way… The MBTI 7th function becomes the 4th in Socionics, known as te PolR (pont of least resistance) function. In an IEI, it is Te. Te does not much change in its definition, therefore, it still fits much with the inferiority of Te in an MBTI Fi-Ne INFP. It is a bit more Ti-like than the sole Te, but it still embodies most of the Te quality of MBTI. In the Jungian MBTI-like 8 model theory, an INFP’s Ni is their demonstrative function, meaning they will be just as strong in it, but rather, display it. And again, Ni still defines differently in that system. The 8th function instead of 4th, is the weakness. Because Ti still has some overlap to Te a little bit in Socionics, it still supports. It is the difficulty with structure that overlaps; in MBTI Te/Ti, and in Socionics, Ti 9and in external sense, Te, but it mostly is Ti). They both overlap. And an IEI seeks to grow into their Ti… Our Te is quite poor. With it overlapping some of MBTI’s Ti, it still symbolizes a difficulty there. It would be more of a convenience to make it where one types same all across various system, yet with differently defined function and placements that mean different things, as well as traits added like in the Renin dichotomy, it just is merely impossibility. It therefore, is a matter of which one you prefer and find less flawed. Both have their own shortcomings. Socionics has some slap-ons, and already has numerous models in attempt of its making, whereas MBTI could better define its functions, and make things more in line with Jung, rather than just more archetype. So as long one is made grow, it does not matter which method uses. It is for a sake of growth. If you grow, the purpose has served. They are best used as symbolism. The system, sine nothing exactly is concise and it is not a science. It just is symbolic and an abbreviation to explain a process as well as traits.

[Braingel]

I should add a bit more about PolR and of Si/Se difference, though..

[Braingel]

I added this:

Si and Se differently define in vast sense, and in an EII, the Socionics Fi-Ne ego, it is the 6th function. It concerns homeostasis and its sustenance. Whilst the past and internal bodily sensation can factor into being able preserve one’s own comfort, it is not enough to go by. And Se yearns for force and action, it is not just the MBTI’s “here and now” definition and external focus. Socionics adds a specific intent with it, impacting the boundary, pushing it. In an EII, the Socionics Fi-Ne, it is their weakest area. You cannot possibly be an EII if you do not seek to impact outside of you with force/strength. In an IEI, it is suggestive and what we seek out. I meet this qualification, by my wanting reform of society and my willingness to push the boundary and challenge head-on, of society. The EII struggles in initiation, and they want retort to their own inner circle of confided friends and family, what Fi is archetype-wise in Socionics. They want the safety, comfort and security, and with the hidden agenda Si, yearn for its making. They are peacemaker. They want stabilize… They do not seek to impact.

Whereas, my MBTI Si makes me more motivated with my experiences to make impact and change, and fuels my Fi value. It makes me use my own experiences to bring forth change, and in Socionics, it is my Ni doing this reflection, and then I am applying it out of myself with the Fe, how it defines Fe, to make the impact and display it (also meeting my enneagram 4 needs).

[Braingel]

And added of this:

The EII and IEI are Quasi Identical. The main things segregating them, are how one internally processes information (evaluating things overtime, versus reading distance between self to others), what the weakness is (using force for the Fi base, organizing externally for the Ni base, which is very much in already correspondence with MBTI’s Te inferior), what one seeks (to make impact and force and to have a strong partner and others who interact with you, versus someone who helps one to focus on organizing and planning, which is the mix of one another PolR), and what one also values; making impact to society collectively, or to make a small niche community. The base function of the IEI is just as strong in an EII, and vice versa. Making EII strong also in Ni just as much as Ni, and an IEI as strong in Fi as Ni, but the difference lies in how it is valued, and it is not the front of the ego. The unconscious first medium of getting info, though it still is unconscious and can be used, the lesser valued on

[Sol]

It's same Jung typology. Socionics and MBTI both formally accept it and the practice of both is based mainly on correct theory.

MBTI uses mainly dichotomies to identify types and this is correct theory.
Besides correct theory, Socionics and MBTI have wrong and doubtful ideas. Such ideas are not used in critical degree generally or can be not used so (and exist the significant number of ones who do not). Such situation leads that both approaches to Jung types keep the principle correlation, at least at significant number of experienced practitioneers.

For example. If some socionics user will use doubtful Reinin traits as main way - he may make the degree of mistakes too much, the correlation with correct types may become not more than accidental. Such dude will not correlate good with MBTI practice too, though _some_ of Reinin traits are formally (though hypothetically) "Socionics". Until most people prefer to trust higher to more basic types theory (which is closer to core Jung's definitions and has higher chance to be correct) - the problem of mistakes is significantly reduced. And until MBTI texts followers keep the tradition to trust the most to dichotomies and not to description of functional model there.

Socionics and MBTI can be said as same (much hypothethical) typologies by their formal relation and by practice, though which have some secondary (in today common practice) mistakes.
There can exist a wish to hide the existence in MBTI texts of a mistake about introverts' functional model and not good expanded description of 8 functions (though, Socionics have them not perfect too). For what falsly and unreasonably could be claimed that it's different typologies and so contradictions matter nothing.
It's hard to understand why many people trust to nonsense in MBTI texts about introverted model, except they do not use that much and so care not much, while still want be a part of "MBTI label". Similarly as not many ones in Socionics say a critique against Augustinavichiute texts, - they just do not use some its parts. Also many people among MBTI texts followers never read Jung and don't understand the typology enough to notice this mistake. Same as in Socionics many ones seriously take Reinin traits, while they have no good basis and Augustinavichiute used seriously only some of them and named in general as hypothetical "drafts". How many ones read Augustinavichiute's texts to notice this?

Also.
A significant theory which is used is not even Socionics, while baselessly was related to it. All those subtypes, dimensions, functions' signes etc.
What is incorrect in "formally Socionics texts" (or in Jung's texts) - is not Socionics too! It's just mistakes and not about Jung's types by their core definitions. Same as wrong functional model for introverts in MBTI texts is not about types identified by MBTI! It's just a mistake there, alien part of the theory about types. To notice incorrect theory or bad methods is possibly not only by having a data and thinking, by also by experiments - the lack of which allows mistakes be kept, same as hypothetical and not scientific status, to keep doubts in Jung types usefulness.
Until _the practice_ is mainly based on correct part of the theory - it will be useful and will match principally with any other approaches, even when those can have some mistakes.

[Averroes]

MBTI as it's normally applied seems to put too much stock on superficial traits; e.g. you can be a sporty INFp normie or an intelligent, introspective ESFp in socionics but probably not in MBTI

[Braingel]

MBTI as it's normally applied puts too much stock on superficial traits; e.g. you can be a sporty INFp but probably not a sporty INFP

I incline agreement. I still don't think MBTI is completely worthless, and I think both Socionics and MBTI are lacking. There after all, are different models in attempt to cover Socionics shortcoming.

I think most important take away is to better understand self and others.

[Beautiful sky]

I added this:

.
I am a peacemaker or rather peacekeeper

[Beautiful sky]

I internalize so much of other people’s pain and it becomes my own because when they tell me their story my mind makes the scene out and plays their pain and emotions; so it really stresses me out to no end; IEI are able to remain more objective and detached from their own pain

[Socionics Is A Cult]

There is no evidence supporting the theory behind the Socionics intertype relationships. Socionics cannot exactly claim to be better than MBTI.

The Reinin dichotomies similarly also have nothing to support them, and no doubt much to show them to be false.

[CR400AF]

I incline agreement. I still don't think MBTI is completely worthless, and I think both Socionics and MBTI are lacking. There after all, are different models in attempt to cover Socionics shortcoming.

I think most important take away is to better understand self and others.

As far as I'm concerned Socionics is quite enough when it comes to personality. But there are other factors which is not personality-related.

The main idea is that Socionics defines the functions exactly as Jung defined them, while MBTI defines the functions differently. Many believe the opposite such that they think MBTI definitions are closer to Jung. So this is the main point. It depends on the understanding of Jung's texts. From my point of view, Aushra understood Jung correctly.

[Braingel]

I internalize so much of other people’s pain and it becomes my own because when they tell me their story my mind makes the scene out and plays their pain and emotions; so it really stresses me out to no end; IEI are able to remain more objective and detached from their own pain

I wouldn't exactly say so.. I do take on people's pain strongly... I am brought to tears and intensive sensation within my body, and I embody it as if it were my own.

You can see here, how I act: https://qr.ae/pGuaCr.. I probably am far more expressive about it than would be you, though. And so I internalize lesser of it overtime, maybe.

[Braingel]

there was time on psych where I had shared how I just had nearly collapsed/passed out from having read story of a 25 year old mother who died after foot massage.. The overwhelming sensation it made me feel emotionally and in my body, with my autistic synesthesia almost made me black out. Uncomfortable sensations in my leg and feet persisted that whole night and it eventually transgressed into cramping.

Autistic people have mirror neurons, meaning we have very overactive affective empathy, almost to dangerous point at our detriment. Since Ni is affiliated with autism, as is synesthesia, I would argue that we are probably the type that experiences the most intensive empathy in an abstract, beyond emotional way, that it hurts us very bad, even on a physical level.

The autistic person/ Ni will mirror in their own body on an energy and neuron-firing level, the sensation and energy of the object outside of self. Whilst we struggle with cognitive empathy, our affective is hyperactive, so it really is different empathic form. Divergence.

[Braingel]

It's not an emotional/psychic level,as much as it is an engagement of my body and mind together, as they synchronize.. And a level beyond/outside of myself as well, as if I sort of "merge" with the person and leap out at them and share the sensation.

[Braingel]

I don't really think about how the person was feeling as much as do I, have the simultaneous unconscious body-mind-leap outside of self merge that synchronizes itself together and I cannot think about anything until the emotion-sensation (it is a hybrid) onset and strikes me and I am forced to feel empathy.

[Braingel]

I often get very upset by moral things as well.. I remember 3 1/2 years ago, I was crying straight hard for like 3 hours, over a girl who had died trying to stop her falling cousin from falling off into a waterfall, and she hoisted her up, but fell in place as she tried saving her, the weight reversed.. The other girl, Sara, had grabbed ahold of a rock or something and she got rest of herself to safety..

But it moved me hard, because we take someone's life who was selfless enough to try help another person like that and make them die so painfully.. I ended up getting overwhelmed by the emotion eventually as it was too much for my body to process (autism), and that prolonged the crying fit.

[Braingel]

why, not we

[Rebelondeck]

MBTI seems more about how types appear while Socionics is about how they are. Socionics is better classified but its descriptions often lack third-party perception. Both classification systems can learn from each other but neither has a decent model.

a.k.a. I/O

[Metaphor]

Hmmmm, keep in mind that both MBTI and Socionics are from the same root of system, which is Jung's Psychological Types/Jungian Typology Index.
I could see your point although, it depends on some occassions, for instance, I believe people rely on descriptions more than studying functions by themselves and trying to rationally and logically fit the definition of functions into the desired stack, e.g. Fi as Demo vs Fi as Role. And Ni = Future in MBTI is somewhat a fallacious approach to introduce functions, so as Si = Past, this term, unsurprisingly, came from John Beebe who introduced shadow functions by adopting the Model A stack + IME, and nowadays, here we have Nardian, whose functions definition are cannily similar akin to Beebian stack and of course Socionics due to its Model A, these due similarities, in my opinion, have nothing to do with the MBTI that Myers and Briggs had invented. By MBTI manual, Ni has a perception of intuition, which in the case, moved by the inner-consciousness or libido to form an abstraction. And this kind of similarity matches Psychological Types better except that MBTI failed to grasp the concept of Si in a sense that it isn't tangled by the past neither it has a detailed memory, moreever, maybe you should read this for the context:

http://sakinorva.net/library/contextualizing_functions

[Rebelondeck]

Hmmmm, keep in mind that both MBTI and Socionics are from the same root of system, which is Jung's Psychological Types/Jungian Typology Index.......

.....similar to Islam and Christianity being from the same root system; yet, the perception of the root is so different. IEs in both systems are more classification definitions than actual functional extrapolations.

a.k.a. I/O

[Metaphor]

What a concise ideology to explain this circumstance in which case I couldn't agree more.
And yep, that's correct, IMEs of Socionics are verily distinct akin to MBTI ones.