• OK, it's on.
  • Please note that many, many Email Addresses used for spam, are not accepted at registration. Select a respectable Free email.
  • Done now. Domine miserere nobis.

Socionics Vs. MBTI, what's the difference?

Cogitant

Fiducial Observer
Local time
Today, 08:48
Joined
Jun 8, 2017
Messages
157
Location
Invading your reality
Socionics Vs. MBTI

So, I took this test here:

http://www.sociotype.com/tests/

And discovered that I'm apparently type ILI-2Ni.

On the surface, socionomics seems to be a variant of MBTI, but scratching the surface it gets a little weirder.

-What's with the Ni?
In MBTI terms, 'INTP' is all about the Ti and the Ne...

But the descriptions here I found to be eerily accurate:

http://www.sociotype.com/socionics/types/ILI-INTp/

http://www.sociotype.com/socionics/types/ILI-INTp/subtypes/

Anyway, the purpose of this post is to ask what are the/why are there differences between MBTI and sociotype, and how do the two relate to each other and to Jung.

(edit) sorry, I accidentally posted in the wrong sub-forum. Ought to have been in MBTI and Typology, can't delete and move this post.
 

Artsu Tharaz

Resident Resident
Local time
Today, 17:48
Joined
Dec 12, 2010
Messages
3,000
They're both attempts to map out the psyche into 8 cognitive processes, however they use different descriptions and function orders for the types. The socionics function order and intertype relations are incorrect, and I am unsure how the model got as much information associated with it as it did. Socionics is quite mathematical, but when you're getting the math wrong all that really does is create a nice theoretical framework.

What you're referring to do with Ni for INTP is the difference in labelling the types based on their top two functions. MBTI uses P to mean that the introverted judgement and extroverted perception processes are involved in the top two, whereas socionics means that the top process is a perception process.

If you're wondering whether to learn more about it I would probably say don't bother, but if you do then keep in mind that you're dealing with very major inaccuracies. The correct order for the conscious processes of the INTP is Ti-Ne-Si-Fe, not Ti-Ne-Fi-Se, and the correct optimal pairing for Ti-Ne is Te-Ni, not Fe-Si.

Beyond this there's Reinin dichotomies, but I really doubt that the obscure divisions across types which are made from the on/off of other dichotomies really is valid. It's like there's all these dichotomies which probably do apply to types but not in the way that it's described by socionics. So it's an alright collection of possibilities relating to the psyche but it's nothing to pull definitive insights from.

I was interested in the subject for a while, but now I have no interest in it because of its glaring inaccuracies. Pod'lair incorporates the best aspects of the MBTI but goes far beyond it. In MBTI even there is no real way to determine someone's type, but Pod'lair details methodology of how to do so. But MBTI, or at least the collection of theories on typology that tend on the internet to be put under the MBTI heading, have a lot right in terms of the theory.

My favourite aspect at the moment of type dynamics is what may be termed the Peak Pathway, but I stumbled across it independently. What it means is that functions go around in a cycle, basically one after the other, in an order matching the full function order, which for INTP is Ti-Ne-Si-Fe--Te-Ni-Se-Fi--Ti-etc, so if you can determine your type you can see what order your functions move in, or conversely, if you can see what order your functions move in, you can determine your type (this is how I gained certainty over my type - I observed that I seemed to be using an Ni-Fe-Ti-Se function order in my posts).

So all these systems are an attempt to describe people according to 8 cognitive processes, and Jung was the first one to outline what he thought these processes basically were. The basic framework is something that modern approaches correlate with, but Jung was a pioneer, not the authority, so naturally there may be quite little of his work that remains in what we have now. Remember too that Jung wrote about much more than just the cognitive types, and so there is plenty about other aspects of the human condition in his work, such as archetypes, which are structure of the unconscious mind which operate behind the scenes in a kind of drama of the psyche and have their effects manifested in conscious thought and behaviour. It details how mythology relates to day to day functioning, and the process of individuation, of, alchemically speaking, turning lead to gold. So if your primary goal is to become the ultimate person you can be, the theory of types can give you a reference point as to what you should be doing on a psychological level, and more concrete in terms of your behaviour and interactions, and this can put you in a greater position of personal understanding and development. Theory is one thing, but ultimately you need a theory that will guide your everyday life and life-story, so you want a system which reflects accurate understanding or you'll flounder around when trying to understand it. The pieces will only come together if things are positioned in the right shape, so it is important to have the correct map if you're going to use a map to develop yourself.

So that's a brief rundown on my views of the subject, hopefully I half-answered your questions and provided you with more insight and things to muse over. :)
 

Cogitant

Fiducial Observer
Local time
Today, 08:48
Joined
Jun 8, 2017
Messages
157
Location
Invading your reality
hopefully I half-answered your questions and provided you with more insight and things to muse over. :)
Thanks for providing that read and your research experience, you've steered my thought-ship in a slightly different direction :)

I certainly thought that the Ni business was erroneous, it seemed counter-intuitive to me, even despite claims that Socionics is supposed to be 'scientifically valid' vs. MBTI.

I have, in the past, delved relatively deep into Jungian philosophy, particularly into archetypes and the collective unconscious (even became interested in Crowley at one point).
My interest in typology was late by comparison, and MBTI only came to my attention because of job applications. However, its accuracy astonished me, and I soon became compelled to learn more.

I'm actually going to see what Google can tell me about 'Peak Pathways' right now before I go to bed.

;)
 

Cogitant

Fiducial Observer
Local time
Today, 08:48
Joined
Jun 8, 2017
Messages
157
Location
Invading your reality
Having applied your observation of function sequences, I can confirm that I lead with Ti, although when I'm tired, I lose accuracy, and become progressively more Ne dom as I slip further toward a hypnagogic state. -Quite as you'd expect ;)
I recognize the pattern of functions, as you illustrated, in my own action of writing and reflection (I do a heck of a lot of writing), and in my thought process.

Anyway, thanks again for that insight.

-The model's a good one, and, although not everything on the site is to my taste or my philosophy, I found some aspects intriguing. Particularly the models, but swapped out the unfamiliar and slightly strange (Xai, Xyy etc.) for more familiar Jungian functions.

http://www.podlair.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=355&Itemid=385

On the soul/morphology model:
Anthroposcopy is certainly not a new thing. (Occult) history is filled with examples for measuring personalities/'souls' in terms of morphology; some even more dubious than others. On my journey, I have looked into everything from more commonly known palmistry to humors and planetary based physiognomy (eg. you have a Jupiter face).
You can possibly tell personalities from looks in many cases (+ genetics), but I'd need to see a lot of unbiased evidence or its as good as astrology.
-I'm intrigued by peoples perceptions and beliefs, and the power of their beliefs.

Anyway, it would appear as though I'm on a quest to break down personalities into formulas which I can apply effectively, or model from effectively (as per writing).
Glad to have found typology. It has also helped me to understand myself in relation to others as well as the people in my life and how they function, so ultimately it has had the knock-on effect of improving relations for me.

-Also, I know I'm NOT Ni dom / INTJ. I've never tested Ni before. (Brother is INTJ - although we're similar enough to share everything, we're different in how we think/go about things). I could be channelling Ni from him ;D
Socionics aside, I'm confident about my type since it's the only 1/16 that describes me accurately, and trust me, I've looked into it from many different angles.
:kodama1:
 

OmoInisa

Active Member
Local time
Today, 08:48
Joined
Jan 3, 2014
Messages
206
Location
London, UK
What you're referring to do with Ni for INTP is the difference in labelling the types based on their top two functions. MBTI uses P to mean that the introverted judgement and extroverted perception processes are involved in the top two, whereas socionics means that the top process is a perception process.
Yes

If you're wondering whether to learn more about it I would probably say don't bother, but if you do then keep in mind that you're dealing with very major inaccuracies.
Potential inaccuracies notwithstanding, more awareness is always better than less. There are insights to be found in Socionics that won't be found in MBTI (and vice versa).
Neither system falsifiable.

The correct order for the conscious processes of the INTP is Ti-Ne-Si-Fe, not Ti-Ne-Fi-Se
It's meaningless to compare the systems based on a notion of function "consciousness". The concept isn't the same in the two systems.

Ti-Ne-Fi-Se isn't really the "order" of processes in Socionics. It's more meaningful to think in terms of function blocks. Then you see that the Socionics function stacking isn't really different. It might be more accurately described as an extension of the MBTI stacking to account for all 8 functions rather than just 4.
Ti-Ne-Si-Fe are indeed the four valued functions of the Ti-Ne type in the two systems.

the correct optimal pairing for Ti-Ne is Te-Ni, not Fe-Si.
What is the basis of this?

Beyond this there's Reinin dichotomies, but I really doubt that the obscure divisions across types which are made from the on/off of other dichotomies really is valid. It's like there's all these dichotomies which probably do apply to types but not in the way that it's described by socionics. So it's an alright collection of possibilities relating to the psyche but it's nothing to pull definitive insights from.
Fair enough.
 

Cogitant

Fiducial Observer
Local time
Today, 08:48
Joined
Jun 8, 2017
Messages
157
Location
Invading your reality
Potential inaccuracies notwithstanding, more awareness is always better than less. There are insights to be found in Socionics that won't be found in MBTI (and vice versa).
Neither system falsifiable.
Fair enough.
I've made an account at http://www.the16types.info/vbulletin/forum.php, perhaps they can help me to understand socionics and shed insight into my socionics type/correctly type me according to socionics.

-I entirely agree, the more I can discover the better.
 

Ex-User (8886)

Well-Known Member
Local time
Today, 08:48
Joined
Sep 11, 2013
Messages
620
Re: Socionics Vs. MBTI

So, I took this test here:

http://www.sociotype.com/tests/

And discovered that I'm apparently type ILI-2Ni.

On the surface, socionomics seems to be a variant of MBTI, but scratching the surface it gets a little weirder.

-What's with the Ni?
In MBTI terms, 'INTP' is all about the Ti and the Ne...

But the descriptions here I found to be eerily accurate:

http://www.sociotype.com/socionics/types/ILI-INTp/

http://www.sociotype.com/socionics/types/ILI-INTp/subtypes/

Anyway, the purpose of this post is to ask what are the/why are there differences between MBTI and sociotype, and how do the two relate to each other and to Jung.

(edit) sorry, I accidentally posted in the wrong sub-forum. Ought to have been in MBTI and Typology, can't delete and move this post.
first - socionics doesn't have tests, so it's a fraud.
in socionics you are INTj, because j means that your first function is judging (LII)
socionics is more focused on human interactions, relationships and theoretical models instead of MBTI behavioral approach;
in socionics you're Ti-Ne-Fi-Se, because Fi-Se are your weak functions, that you are aware of, Si-Fe are uncoscious weak functions that can't be developed
you have unconscious strong Ni-Te functions (I will make another topic about that)
 

EyeSeeCold

lust for life
Local time
Today, 00:48
Joined
Aug 12, 2010
Messages
7,841
Location
California, USA

mudcaik

Redshirt
Local time
Today, 09:48
Joined
Sep 19, 2015
Messages
5
How true do you guys find the intertype relations in socionics, for instance Duality (INTP/ESFJ), Activity (INTP/ISFJ) etc?

I find them quite true, but I've yet to meet an ESFJ buddy yet. In MBTI you often hear that the ENTJ is the most compatible with the INTP, in my personal experience that has rarely been the case. I often end up in conflict with these people, though I do have a cousin ENTJ who I easily get along with and can have good conversations with. Our focuses are very shifted though, I find it hard to believe that we would be the most compatible. Meanwhile the ESFJs I've met have always been cheerful, and helpful people, and they possess qualities I can admire.

The relations of activity is also very accurate for my case, as I have a mother ISFJ and a good friend ISFJ. We can get along very well, but with extended interaction (after being with them a week) we start annoying eachother, and so we need to take a break.

I think the socionics intertype relations are quite accurate. What about you guys?
 

Cogitant

Fiducial Observer
Local time
Today, 08:48
Joined
Jun 8, 2017
Messages
157
Location
Invading your reality
Have you learned anything new?
Indeed.
It has inspired a full investigation, in fact, which necessitated obtaining a hard copy of the original musings of Jung: 'Psychological Types' (1923), which I finished reading last night as a matter of fact.

I'm now looking into reading up on Jung's own sources, and delving deeper into ancient systems of typology (yes, the planetary and humour related stuff which leads back to Hippocrates and beyond).
I've now studied the functions and the associated theoretical personality models of both MBTI and socionics, and considered how the ratio of functions and their interplay could influence behaviour.

The subtypes in socionics are an interesting concept, adding an element of potential precision.
Looking at the evidence on a whole, I was able to identify with confidence that I am LII (Ne variant, but can be heavy on Ti too).
I have also considered people that I know and made observations.

Morphology and physical expressions have begun to intrigue me. Perhaps there is something to it?
-As a matter of fact, I've found myself observing people out of my window and wondering...

My studies are potentially the basis for a pretty big project, or so it seems :cool:

All will be revealed here when theoretically solid.
 

viche

Active Member
Local time
Today, 00:48
Joined
Nov 13, 2010
Messages
238
Location
Florida
I find them quite true, but I've yet to meet an ESFJ buddy yet.
....
I think the socionics intertype relations are quite accurate. What about you guys?
I find them to be very true. I was in a long-term relationship with an ENTP and we encountered exactly the problems that socionics described, only back in the day I didn't know about it.

The easiest and least risky way I found to connect with "duals" is through Facebook. Facebook has groups for each MBTI type, including ESFJs, as well as socionics duality groups if you do a search for them. The biggest problem with this method is that there are very few extroverted sensors online (they prefer living life outside instead of the net) and often large geographical distances are involved that limit your interaction to online (perhaps phone/video if you become familiar enough). But there are still a few ESxx people around, that if you work up the courage and try to connect with them through FB messanger duals are very interesting to talk to. They have this way of positively reframing your own insecurities that is refreshing and humorously surprising at the same time.
 

QuickTwist

Spiritual "Woo"
Local time
Today, 02:48
Joined
Jan 24, 2013
Messages
7,182
Location
...

Auburn

Luftschloss Schöpfer
Local time
Today, 00:48
Joined
Sep 26, 2008
Messages
2,300
Indeed.
It has inspired a full investigation, in fact, which necessitated obtaining a hard copy of the original musings of Jung: 'Psychological Types' (1923), which I finished reading last night as a matter of fact.

I'm now looking into reading up on Jung's own sources, and delving deeper into ancient systems of typology (yes, the planetary and humour related stuff which leads back to Hippocrates and beyond).
Woa. :ahh:
Talk about devotion to interests!

Ok, I don't usually bother saying this since most members here don't really have an interest in typology... but I feel compelled to mention that those particular paths kindof reach a dead end, at some level. Maybe you'll reach a different conclusion, but from what I know it comes down to:

  • These categorizations/dichotomies struggle to produce dependable statistical results. Or ways to verify their existence. As such explanations for the functions spin around in circles in a kind of closed-system logic without means for someone to know which semantic interpretation best represents reality.
  • The most high-fidelity analog to the MBTI is the Big5, which has a decent body of work behind it, and generally describes I/E, N/S, T/F, P/J but in slightly different terms that are more academically substantiated.
  • Therefore switching from the MBTI to the Big5 is a better move, if you're going for scientific rigor. And ditching the circularity of those function models.
I say this despite believing in the existence of cognitive functions, but you're not gonna find the truth of them where you're looking. If you wanted to go balls-deep, look into cognitivetype. It's the only function-centric model i know of that uses empirical methods of identifying the functions and types without going through MBTI dichotomies.

It's naturally hard for me to be unbiased about this, as i'm part of the CT research group, but that's fine because it speaks for itself -- as it's observation-based. And I believe it may save you a lot of trouble, and get you straight to the answer dependably and filter out all this confusion.
 

Cogitant

Fiducial Observer
Local time
Today, 08:48
Joined
Jun 8, 2017
Messages
157
Location
Invading your reality
Woa. :ahh:
Talk about devotion to interests!
If you wanted to go balls-deep, look into cognitivetype. .
Thanks for the link.
It is useful to me and made some connections.
Relates to other things.
I like research for the sake of research to be honest.
The history and branching of systems interests me, I feel the need to know every aspect and facet of a concept rather than shortcut (my 'NiTe' brother loves shortcuts, we make a great team).
It all has a use to me as I write fiction so enjoy playing with a palette of contemporaneous-to-time-periods typology models (I'm using humourism/astrology for my c.15th series) and their associated philosophies and systems.
Certainly not a newcomer to older models and philosophies.
I value obscure source literature from mostly - forgotten minds such as Ibn Sina, Jabbir Ibn Hayyan, and Nicole Oresme.
 

mudcaik

Redshirt
Local time
Today, 09:48
Joined
Sep 19, 2015
Messages
5
The easiest and least risky way I found to connect with "duals" is through Facebook.
...
Lol, or I could try and meet 'em up IRL! Crazy thought I know :storks:
ESFJs are one of the more common types so there's a high probability of me encountering one of them in person.

:o:)
 
Top Bottom