MBTI types vs Socionics

MBTI types vs Socionics

Hello Guest! Sign up to join the discussion below...
Page 1 of 9 1 2 3 ... LastLast
Results 1 to 10 of 88
Thank Tree83Thanks

This is a discussion on MBTI types vs Socionics within the Socionics Forum forums, part of the Personality Type Forums category; During the past few weeks I have been doing a great deal of research on psychological profiling and tests (e.g. ...

  1. #1

    MBTI types vs Socionics

    During the past few weeks I have been doing a great deal of research on psychological profiling and tests (e.g. MBTI, Enneagram, Big 5 etc.). This research inevitably led to Socionics which has been a source of confusion to me, and as a result I have a number of questions as to the nature of Socionics and its relation to the MBTI.

    1) What is the rough equivalent of Socionics types to MBTI types? My initial impression is that various types, such as INTJ in MBTI, are given names that are similar to other MBTI profiles, such as INTp in Socionics.

    2) How respected is Socionics scientifically? I have gotten some very lukewarm reactions to Socionics here and other forums, but various peer-review papers I have read on it seem very enthusiastic.

    3) Can anyone recommend any good papers/books on the subject of Socionics, profiling, or general psychology? Anything would be helpful, I'm relatively new to the field.

    4) What is Socionics' basis for the physical descriptions?



  2. #2

    Neither MBTI nor Socionics is respected by the scientific community.

    Most books are in russian.

    There are differencs like model A and function order, function meaning, the quadras, typing based on physical characteristics.

    People typed me ISTP in socionics based on looks, quadra and visible behaviour, while I'm NFP in MBTI.

    I recommend the Enneagram, that one seems to work because its based in defense mechanisms and motivations, tendencies.

  3. #3

    Quote Originally Posted by Sollertis View Post
    1) What is the rough equivalent of Socionics types to MBTI types? My initial impression is that various types, such as INTJ in MBTI, are given names that are similar to other MBTI profiles, such as INTp in Socionics.
    Extraverts transfer with same functions. Introverts flip the j/p letter. This will work only if you have typed yourself correctly in MBTI after a thorough study of cognitive functions rather than stereotypes gleamed from type profiles. Otherwise there is a good chance for mistyping oneself in MBTI as well as Socionics.

    Quote Originally Posted by Sollertis View Post
    2) How respected is Socionics scientifically? I have gotten some very lukewarm reactions to Socionics here and other forums, but various peer-review papers I have read on it seem very enthusiastic.
    In Eastern Europe it has tens of thousands of researchers, hobbyists, and enthusiasts, and conferences with hundreds attending. In the US it's poorly known, though it has been gaining some more momentum recently with some dedicated meetups occuring in some locations.

    Quote Originally Posted by Sollertis View Post
    3) Can anyone recommend any good papers/books on the subject of Socionics, profiling, or general psychology? Anything would be helpful, I'm relatively new to the field.
    Wikisocion is one source of information. This forum for english-speaking community is another resource.

    Quote Originally Posted by Sollertis View Post
    4) What is Socionics' basis for the physical descriptions?
    Read the introductory paragraph here.
    Zero11, Alhazred, Figure and 2 others thanked this post.

  4. Remove Advertisements
    PersonalityCafe.com
    Advertisements
     

  5. #4

    RE: OP

    Socionics theory does not necessitate visual descriptions. This is merely one offshoot of the that has been among the most frequently translated into English, hence most people think it's part of the theory's fundamental principles. Filatova, who proposed the visual identification aspect of socionics, is one of the field's more prodigious authors, but approaches it more like MBTI than Augusta did. I think of her as being kind of like Keirsey is to Jung, if that makes sense.

    What you want to do is study Model A, like cyamitide presented. Model A is basically an expanded, more-detailed functional matrix like the MBTI hierarchy. It describes, basically, the way the cognitive functions are used and interpreted (much like Beebe's model). It also accounts for all 8, whereas MBTI only covers 4. From this, you can model the possible routes any relationship will take under "default" circumstances, and add other factors such as the enneagram, externalities, etc into your model.

    The enneagram alone is no better than any of the aforementioned systems, and anyone that says it is is sadly naive. It measures entirely different things.
    cyamitide, Julia Bell and Boolean11 thanked this post.

  6. #5

    1) @cyamitide has already answered this question

    2) Heuristic recognition is the way you identifiy the 8 jungian functions. It isn´t really scientific

    3)
    Model A: Functions - Wikisocion
    https://personalitycafe.com/whats-my-...ml#post2758951 (here I´ve merged the both systems)
    Reinin Book (functions marked)
    https://docs.google.com/document/d/1...Vg0zUelII/edit
    cyamitide and Boolean11 thanked this post.

  7. #6

    Quote Originally Posted by Rim View Post
    Neither MBTI nor Socionics is respected by the scientific community.

    Most books are in russian.

    There are differencs like model A and function order, function meaning, the quadras, typing based on physical characteristics.
    That's important to remember, that neither MBTI nor Socionics has much empirical backing. Too often I see people spend months and even years exploring the theories then realizing that they might be nothing more than castles in the sky. Socionics is more advanced than MBTI, people start studying it when they grow bored of MBTI, but it has about the same level of credibility.
    FreeBeer, FreeBeer, FreeBeer and 12 others thanked this post.

  8. #7

    Disagree,

    Primo, the socionics functions are a bit different than MBTI ones. You can roughly convert Ti and Te in Structural and Practical logic, but Se is not exactly the same as Will Sensorics, neither Fe is Emotional Ethics.

    Secoundo, p/j are not/not always switching. Example, compare ISTP (MBTI) and ISTj (Socionics). They have both Ti (Structural logic) as primary function, Se (Will sensorics) as secondary. Yet, when you read the descriptions you have two quite different types, despite same hierarchy of their functions. Moreover, ISTP (MBTI) is much more like ISTp (socionics), despite the fact that ISTP and ISTp have different functions (Ti+Se vs Interior Sensation Sensorics (kinda Si)+Practical Logic (kinda Te)).

    Tertio, then again, when you compare INFP and INFp, not only they don't have same functions, but their descriptions are different.

    So WTF?

    Yet, I think MBTI is much more credible than socionics. MBTI don't pretend to describe your personality, your values and your soul-mate in details. MBTI concentrates on describing some basic traits of your personnality (in relationship as well) and predict which activity you will have more facility to do/which activity will be more difficult for you. Plain and simple. Moreover, serious MBTI is mostly developed by psychologists and used by professionals in business. Socionics is developed by partially sociologists, partially by modern hobbyists/enthusiasts, lacking scientific education, and often heavily loaded with fanciful, yet poorly grounded theories. It tries to explain everything about you: your look, your speech, your relationship with someone, way you walk and wear clothes... It goes too damn far.

    Moreover, as someone who came from there (Russia), I'm very sceptical to everything which comes from this part of Europe, with an exception of weapons, some valuable food/clothing, arts/music/litterature/theater. Don't trust too much in all "scientific" products coming from there. Serious and competent Soviet/USSR science is dead, and what came to replace it is often very unprofessional and pseudo-scientific.
    Last edited by Alhazred; 01-16-2013 at 06:42 AM.
    Kanerou, ParetoCaretheStare, itsme45 and 2 others thanked this post.

  9. #8

    Quote Originally Posted by Alhazred View Post
    Secoundo, p/j are not/not always switching. Example, compare ISTP (MBTI) and ISTj (Socionics). They have both Ti (Structural logic) as primary function, Se (Will sensorics) as secondary. Yet, when you read the descriptions you have two quite different types, despite same hierarchy of their functions. Moreover, ISTP (MBTI) is much more like ISTp (socionics), despite the fact that ISTP and ISTp have different functions (Ti+Se vs Interior Sensation Sensorics (kinda Si)+Practical Logic (kinda Te)).

    Tertio, then again, when you compare INFP and INFp, not only they don't have same functions, but their descriptions are different.

    So WTF?
    It's because the main dichotomy in Socionics is rational-irrational for which the dominant function is the key one. Socionics profiles have been written describing types from perspective of dominant function.

    In MBTI the main dichotomy is judging-perceiving that takes highest-order extravered function as the main one. MBTI profiles have been drafted from perspective of this function.

    Thus Socionics profiles describe introverted types from "inside" while MBTI types describe them from "outside". It's like taking a coin and describing it from different sides, from one you're going to describe heads and from the other you're going to describe tails and then wonder why the profiles are so different. That's because they are describing different sides of the same thing.

    In confirmation of this, notice how the profiles differ only for introverted types. Profiles for extroverts don't share this fate. This is because it's only for introverts that the rational-irrational and judger-perceiver dichotomies begin to diverge (dominant function of introverts is not same as highest order extraverted function) while for extroverts these dichotomies coincide, hence their profiles coincide.

    So for Ji-Pe introverted types, MBTI profiles describe their perceiving, irrational Pe side of personality, while Socionics profiles are describing their rational, judging Ji features. For Pi-Je introverts once again the profiles are flipped - MBTI describes their rational Je traits of these types, while Socionics is going into their irrational Pi traits.

    Quote Originally Posted by Alhazred View Post
    Moreover, as someone who came from there (Russia), I'm very sceptical to everything which comes from this part of Europe, with an exception of weapons, some valuable food/clothing, arts/music/litterature/theater. Don't trust too much in all "scientific" products coming from there. Serious and competent Soviet/USSR science is dead, and what had replaced it is often very unprofessional and pseudo-scientific.
    The groundwork for Socionics was developed in 1970s and 80s when USSR was still functional and it was developed by old school researchers, not what you'd have there nowadays I assume. Present day socionics is behind the times though, still living on the backbone of the 80s.
    Zero11, Alhazred, mav04 and 3 others thanked this post.

  10. #9

    Quote Originally Posted by Alhazred View Post
    Disagree,

    Primo, the socionics functions are a bit different than MBTI ones. You can roughly convert Ti and Te in Structural and Practical logic, but Se is not exactly the same as Will Sensorics, neither Fe is Emotional Ethics.
    JCF > MBTI, Socionics functions
    They are only attempts to describe 8 innate existing mental processes which makes them the same.

    Secoundo, p/j are not/not always switching. Example, compare ISTP (MBTI) and ISTj (Socionics). They have both Ti (Structural logic) as primary function, Se (Will sensorics) as secondary. Yet, when you read the descriptions you have two quite different types, despite same hierarchy of their functions. Moreover, ISTP (MBTI) is much more like ISTp (socionics), despite the fact that ISTP and ISTp have different functions (Ti+Se vs Interior Sensation Sensorics (kinda Si)+Practical Logic (kinda Te)).
    https://personalitycafe.com/infj-foru...ml#post1087695

    leading - dominant
    creative - auxiliary
    mobilizing - tertiary
    suggestive - inferior
    ignoring - opposing
    demonstrative - witch/senex
    vulnerable / PoLR - trickster
    role - demon

    Tertio, then again, when you compare INFP and INFp, not only they don't have same functions, but their descriptions are different.

    So WTF?
    INFP (Fi Ne) P = auxiliary perception (only introverts); Static (Ji Pe / Ij, Ep)
    INFp (Ni Fe) p = leading perception; Dynamic (Pi Je / Ip, Ej)
    INFJ (Ni Fe) J = auxiliary judgment (only introverts); Dynamic (Pi Je / Ip, Ej)
    INFj (Fi Ne) j = leading judgment; Static (Ji Pe / Ij, Ep)

  11. #10

    I've read the description ISTP vs ISTp, they are not very different, even quite similar.

    But read INFP vs INFp, they are different, from exterior and from interior. INFP is roughly sweet, highly moralistic, idealistic, and creative; perfectionist may be a bit messy can and will defend her/his values like crazy. INFp sweet on the surface, can create relaxing atmosphere, , but inside cruel, manipulative, irresponsible with money (his own and of others), lazy, craving for money, parasitic, lack of empathy, hatred and disrespectful to unsuccessful people, likes strong sensations, not only don't defend ideals/moral values, but they are in DEMONSTRATIVE function position, means, something you’ll talk about but something SUBDUED to another agenda (security, money, search for protection). The will sensorics is in the position of suggestive function of INFp. Means they admire worship and obey to physical force, bravery and aggressiveness. It’s not always so for INFP.

    How can you explain all that?
    Second thing, in socionics the ESTp is the ultimate dual of INFp. MBTI, although intertype relationship is not it’s focus, seems to claim that NF/ST is one of the most challenging relationships. ESTP/INFP compatibility threads seem to confirm what MBTI says. What do you think about this?


     
Page 1 of 9 1 2 3 ... LastLast

Similar Threads

  1. MBTI vs Socionics: Which one is better
    By elixare in forum Socionics Forum
    Replies: 105
    Last Post: 07-16-2016, 02:05 PM
  2. Help with Socionics/MBTI!
    By The Ultimate Square Peg in forum Socionics Forum
    Replies: 4
    Last Post: 03-31-2012, 07:07 PM
  3. !! MBTI v Socionics !!
    By Jason Chan in forum Myers Briggs Forum
    Replies: 18
    Last Post: 01-30-2012, 10:13 PM
  4. Socionics or MBTI?
    By azrinsani in forum Member Polls
    Replies: 25
    Last Post: 11-17-2011, 10:41 AM
  5. MBTI or Socionics?
    By mav04 in forum What's my personality type?
    Replies: 2
    Last Post: 02-09-2011, 04:14 AM

Tags for this Thread

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  
All times are GMT -7. The time now is 08:16 PM.
Information provided on the site is meant to complement and not replace any advice or information from a health professional.
© 2014 PersonalityCafe
 

SEO by vBSEO 3.6.0