Should my socionics type be the same as my MBTI type?

[Aquamarine]

I did a socionics test recently from this site and I got LII which I found out was related to INTJs in some way. I'm wondering if people usually get socionic types that are not correlated to their MBTI types.

[Alomoes]

I don't know. Met a guy who says he's INFP, is INFp, very much similar to my kind of shitposting.

[redbull8972]

still have some differences

Hi, sorry if my post can mark as Spam.
But I think it will have a big help if you can review and give my new Classic Solitaire recommendations with new updates about the theme: Sound and Effect.
An update for the16types members.
Now you can play world of solitaire for free online without download, install, or register.
Website: https://worldofsolitaires.co
App android: https://play.google.com/store/apps/d...aire.solitaire
Give me a recommendation for the next update. I want to have an excellent place to play solitaire for you. I so appreciate it.
Thanks all.

[Sol]

I'm wondering if people usually get socionic types that are not correlated to their MBTI types.

It's same typology of Jung.
Usual are typing mistakes as methods are not perfect. Common accuracy of today methods (including tests) and typers mb <50%.
MBTI test fits to Socionics by the theory, so types are the same.
There is no special "MBTI type". MBTI is just a test which identifies 4 traits which fit to 4 dichotomies in Socionics.

To get a help with a type is better to make a typing thread with a videointerview.

still have some differences

There is no _systematic_ difference in common MBTI related practice and normal Socionics to claim about other types.
There are mistakes in the theory which reduce the accuracy, but not change types systematically. Until such theories are not used as main way to identify types.

[Sol]

No, there are some differences, specially Se

The asked was about _principle_ difference in types. "Some differences" is not enough for this.
Also differences which are correct addition do not change types and hence are outside of the discussion.

MBTI practice _mainly_ uses same dichotomies as Socionics to identify types, but not 8 functions. So differences in 8 functions descriptions and functional model do not change types principally during a typing. Mistakes in secondary theories only reduce the accuracy.

Also
Definitions for 8 functions in MBTI texts are taken from Jung. Socionics accepts those core definitions too. Differences are possible in secondary extended interpretation of core functions definitions, where a part of the extended description may have mistakes. But fiting to more core theory is more weighty than to its secondary interpretation. Jung's own texts may have mistakes with such interpretations too. It's not a principle mistakes to claim about other typology traits or types (about what was asked), but only reduces the accuracy.

[Sol]

@one
Socionics and MBTI is Jung's typology.
The known differences are secondary to their core theory or main practice. So there is no basis to say about principally different types or different typologies. There are secondary mistakes and correct additions, but the core of both is the same in Jung types.

Also
Opposite ideas are developed to protect keeping mistakes, as existing in MBTI related texts about functional model. And to resist against Socionics usage as it is shown as something "special" but not known Jung typology/MBTI with useful additions (main is IR theory).
It's harmful to support the misleading that Socionics is not Jung typology or that it has other types than MBTI.

[myresearch]

If this person has spent considerable time learning MBTI there is a high chance that they have been exposed to stereotypes. Ti is mostly rules but in MBTI Ti isn’t regarded like that, it’s the Te types who are mainly considered part of the bureaucracy that Ti are so much against. INTP is supposed to be TiNe, who has IP temperament. That doesn’t make sense in Socionics.

Generally agreed. However, Ti isnt mostly rules, Ti-egos are against any kind of bureaucracy that doesnt make sense to them.

This kind of confusion is caused by focusing on type descriptions rather than understanding how IEs work. LSIs are described like that in some descriptions, I guess thats why they generally dont relate to descriptions because of that. Ofcourse there is some level of truth in those descriptions and it is due to how LSx operates in bureaucratic systems, not necessarily shows the distinction of Ti and Te.

[on a peaceful hiatus]

I think the the focus on rules has more to do with subtypes and is somewhat related to Ti. I don't really care all that much about them but normalising subtypes definitely do. my father is an LII-N and he's obsessed with specific rules.

[Sol]

@one

About a difference of Se in Socionics and MBTI related texts

Socionics is Jung typology with extentions.
So it uses Jung's core definitions for 8 functions. It may take Jung's interpretations of these definions and to add own details. Alike Augustinavichiute expanded introvertion with the idea of objects' links. Jung's description is also used in Socionics practice widely and I've explained how both these theory approaches may be matched by the reason.
If what is said by Jung or Augustinavichiute does not fit to core functions definitions - not by known reason, not by an experience/experiment - that should be thought as doubtful and did not used in practice. Authors may mistake. Similarly should be rejected any ideas which seem as not having good basis. Usage of functions descriptions with doubtful/wrong parts may reduce typing accuracy, but it's not another trait and it's doubtful to change result to other traits in most of cases to claim about different resulting types (about what was asked in the thread). When both function's descriptions are correct (it's no important what approach and how many details they have) and used correctly - they give the same result. When both approaches are the same typology of Jung, only mistakes in some parts of the theory and inappropriate theory usage (bad data and/or skills) may give not matching of results.
Sometimes these typology authors say ideas which seem as wrong. It can be such. But it also needs to think mb they inputed other sense in the words, and that can be correct in that context. And sometimes they may say what seems as contradicting opinions, while those can be about the same from different sides (as in case of introvertion's description).

Jung's core understanding of Se: the perception of objective material world.
Now what is by Augustinavichiute in her book "Socionics" (1998)
- vol1,p45: "Восприятие внешности и форм объектов." | "Perception of an exterior and forms of objects." Here she's very close to core Jung's definition for Se. More strange example there is about Te, but it's another theme to think; she could mistake in something with her Reinin's traits games. Core Jung's theory which has good reason always prevail, anyway. While we need practical use from Socionics's what does not need anything said by Augustinavichiute to be correct or be used.
And after she've accepted Jung's core definition for Se, she adds own details:
- vol1,p49: "его физических и энергетических данных, умении пользоваться своей волей, служебным положением, противопоставлять свою волю воле других людей." | "his physical and energy
hetical data, the ability to use his will, official position, to oppose his will to the will of other people"
And here came her mess about "will", "energy" etc. By Jung Se type is accented on surface physical materia and ways to solve tasks by means of physical materia (as physical force). Impression about human's energy more relates to F, not S. An abbility, power to influence physically on objects and their physical traits is only secondary linked to social posts, and also relates to Ti subordination rules.
A "will" in general sense is not linked to Se - as it's an abbility to follow own decisions (including against inner and external opposing). People have a higher "will" in strong functions used as a motivation - as they are assured in such decisions and have such motivations dominating in the consciousness. N types have good "will" to follow own imagination as a motivation, while S types have good "will" being motivated by concrete materia. Se types' "will" is accented on surface interacting with a materia: to influence on people by physical force, physical restrictions, money motivating, protecting and controling their physical state, situating people/objects in places, control what people evidently do in a concrete moment, etc. Se types more agree to tolerate body's discomfort and pain, while as S have good control of the body to keep the usefulness of physical activity - such "will" may impress N types. Se, being direct and earthy in expressing wishes, can be perceived as pressing what reminds a commanding, and such bulling may associate with "will". Se "will" relates only to surface material interactions, as a "will" to control own body as physical object, an interest to physically control external physical objects (including people). It's not about "will" to control own emotions, thoughts and an imagination. And not a general "will" to get what you want from people and the world, as there are important 3 other functions too and not lesser.
Resume: As was shown Jung's Se understanding Augustinavichiute accepted, but also added some mess to that. In her mind it all was about the same, while some links are not direct and some closer to wrong. Such mess being taken too literally and used intensively may reduce typing accuracy (not to change types principally).

*

MBTI texts
Should be noted, that MBTI related practice uses 8 functions not much to identify types to influence on a mismatch with Socionics, while dichotomies are correct and compatible in MBTI test.

MBTI related text about Se from I. Briggs Myers "Gifts Differing", p.80
"Values the object sensed rather than the subjective impression, of which the individual may hardly be aware. Sees things photographically, the impression being one of concrete reality and nothing more. Leads to concrete enjoyment, seizing very fully the momentary and manifest existence of things, and that only."

While the main idea copies Jung, the description also includes strange elements. That "enjoyment" - is subjective interpretation, so closer to Si.

"Develops a pleasure-loving outer self, very rich in undigested experience and unclassified knowledge of uninterpreted facts."

As the context is sensing function, here is the mix with Si in a pleasure.
Plus a mention of facts is inappropriate (stylistically as minimum) as a term "fact" is closer to a knowledge (T) than to a sensing perception (S).

Resume: Though Se description starts with correct by Jung approach, then appear issues in distinguishing Se and Si. Taking the situation of the mistake in dominating E/I kind of functions for introverted types such mix supported the mistake being lesser noticable.

[mfckrz]

The two systems overlap much more than most will admit. I typically see people having at least near-equivalence w/ their MBTI type.

But you'll see hare-brained theories abound nonetheless, e.g. that ENTP ≈ EIE, or that ENTJ = SLE because a type profile happened to be titled "Commander". Very rigorous analysis.

[Sol]

yes this is why I said there were differences

The talk was about _different types_ in usage of different approaches Socionics and MBTI texts. Alike popular nonsense with notations as "INTj" instead of INTJ and claims that INTJ is irrational or has undefined rationality in Socionics. That all is about different types in the sense of theory basis. While Socionics and MBTI texts are about same Jung typology, - they both accept Jung core views and then expand by secondary interpretations. Such can be said about main practice approach there.
If both approaches correctly use the theory which they accept they should identify types the same, as they should pay primary attention on core theory part, while this core part is identical there - it's Jung's core theory about types.

There can be situtations when types are differently _identified_ as typing accuracy as not 100%. Same as when it's done by different people in borders of the same theory.
The problem of accuracy appears from: 1) mistakes in a part of used theory (Jung and Socionics has doubtful and incorrect places in texts, not only MBTI texts), 2) not perfect typing skills and methods, 3) not totally correct and enough data used for a typing.

It's principally important to say not about different types in Socionics and MBTI approach, but about possible mistakes in the usage of any theories.
In other case is claimed the existence of different typologies. What is wrong.

If someones in Socionics will _mainly_ use wrong hypotheses (as Reinin traits and will set below the importance of fiting to Jung basics) - such may lead to different types indeed. If someone based on MBTI texts will use mainly 8 funcions + their incorrect model of introverts, while set dichotomies as lesser important to be fited - we'll get other types too.
In today practice we can't claim about such _general_ situations in Socionics or in MBTI related. Though, some typers as Gulenko are suspected to use own strange hypotheses in more degree than normal Socionics theory. And some typers may use strange methods as typing by face traits what may lead anywhere, including different types which just have similar names.
Augustinavichiute has some doubtful ideas which are a trouble to link with core Jung theory. Formally it's Socionics. Some of those ideas can be correct somehow or can be wrong. If a typer is responsible and experienced, he'll avoid doubtful theories and which do not fit to his experience. This much reduces the problem of possible systematic mistakes (other types) from wrong theory ideas.

As in example with Se. A "will" is incorrect there in general sense. A "will" of Se is accented on surface physical interactions. N gives an idea and S does physical efforts to achieve that imaginary idea, controls the progress by watching physical objects of the world. "Will" which can be reasonably linked with Jung's core understanding of Se can be used. Such "will" fits to MBTI related practice too, until they mainly identify types by correct Jung dichotomies. If someone will use Augustinavichiute's words literally as general "will" and then will apply _mainly_ to not Se related (as imagination "will"), will attach directly her strange words about human energy and social position (can be secondary linked with an abbility to influence on physical state of objects) - there can appear any problems. To avoid such situation it's imortant to know Jung's theory basics and so to understand the degree of trusting to different hypothetical ideas. It's also useful to have good criticism to own typing, to be able notice when some secondary ideas do not fit to facts and hence should not be trusted. It's inappropriately to trust blindly ideas, without a check of those by a reason and an experience.

A way to check theory correctness and typing skills for a typer can be practical. Common behavior of people and IR effects should fit good to identified types. As Socionics is based on Jung types, this also would mean that types are correct for any other typology approaches if those mainly use correct theory (as MBTI approach).
The majority who have high interest to Socionics for years and have significant practice should be alike people. As to get stably bad results and to take the typology seriously would be strangely. Except cases when non-Socionics additional theory can be intensively used to rationalize typing mistakes, or when a part of basic theory is rejected or even interpreted by exotic ways, - but that would not be normal Socionics.

-

This should be enough to understand why the only answer for
"Should my socionics type be the same as my MBTI type?"
is
YES

[Anglas]

[mfckrz]

That table is compiled from Russian socionists reading MBTI profiles and deciding which one they think fits. Not results from actual people.

Under Method 3 header: https://www.socioniko.net/en/article...vs-intro3.html

[Anglas]

That table is compiled from Russian socionists reading MBTI profiles and deciding which one they think fits. Not results from actual people.

Ohh my bad, i thought this was somewhat useful, well i guess not, makes sense, EyeSeeCold posted it. And yes i agree russians are not actually people

[Rebelondeck]

On most MBTI tests, I'm INTJ, which makes some sense because I'm a LII-Ti subtype. Since MBTI seems more about appearances, I would suppose that most LII-Ne subtypes would test as INTP. For those in the middle, it's all about (mis)interpretation of the test questions. In both systems, tests can be even more flawed than the models, against which they're trying to compare behaviour; many in Socionics are products of bad translations.

a.k.a. I/O

[CR400AF]

@one

About a difference of Se in Socionics and MBTI related texts

Socionics is Jung typology with extentions.
So it uses Jung's core definitions for 8 functions. It may take Jung's interpretations of these definions and to add own details. Alike Augustinavichiute expanded introvertion with the idea of objects' links. Jung's description is also used in Socionics practice widely and I've explained how both these theory approaches may be matched by the reason.
If what is said by Jung or Augustinavichiute does not fit to core functions definitions - not by known reason, not by an experience/experiment - that should be thought as doubtful and did not used in practice. Authors may mistake. Similarly should be rejected any ideas which seem as not having good basis. Usage of functions descriptions with doubtful/wrong parts may reduce typing accuracy, but it's not another trait and it's doubtful to change result to other traits in most of cases to claim about different resulting types (about what was asked in the thread). When both function's descriptions are correct (it's no important what approach and how many details they have) and used correctly - they give the same result. When both approaches are the same typology of Jung, only mistakes in some parts of the theory and inappropriate theory usage (bad data and/or skills) may give not matching of results.
Sometimes these typology authors say ideas which seem as wrong. It can be such. But it also needs to think mb they inputed other sense in the words, and that can be correct in that context. And sometimes they may say what seems as contradicting opinions, while those can be about the same from different sides (as in case of introvertion's description).

I Agree that core definitions should be followed. But I think the best definitions are the elemental dichotomy based definitions in Socionics. Otherwise it will be very hard to define and it will be easily messed up.

So for me, Se means Object-Static-Explicit information.

Secondary definitions lead to confusing. Especially the ones in MBTI which mix up Se and Si. Many mistypes are due to the use of such secondary definitions.