[Karen]

I just bought a book called "Understanding the People Around You: An Introduction to Socionics," by Ekaterina Filatova. Here's an example of my confusion:

If I'm understanding it correctly, the book calls SiTe "The Craftsman," and the description sounds like an MBTI ISTP (TiSe). The book calls TiSe "The Structurist," and the description sounds like an MBTI ISTJ (SiTe).

Why would two different systems, both based on Jung, have entirely different personalities for the same dominant/auxiliary functions?

And is this book's Socionics the same as typical Socionics?

 

[Vlad Romanenko]

Hi Sarah, author of this book is one of the best socionics authors and is well-known in Russian speaking socionics world. She published a number of great books. So yes, her socionics is typical. Regarding type mismatch... There is a whole article about this - it is a well-known fact. Just search for MBTI on wikisocion.org, sorry as a new member I can't put a link here.

 

[LotusBlossom]

just different intepretations. Socionics still confuse me, they have stuff like ISFp and then SEI and then some geometric shapes to represent the types too...HUH lulwhut, and yeah, if you're an Introvert you gotta switch the j/p of your MBTI type to get your socionics type or something.

 

[Zero11]

http://personalitycafe.com/whats-my-personality-type/84425-intp-intj.html#post2091045
http://personalitycafe.com/infj-forum-protectors/82609-intj-vs-infj-12.html#post2079000
Si and Se is pretty much fucked up :angry: so as an example SEI (Visual Identification Description) = ISFP and ESI (Fi Se) = ISFP.

Socionics sucks :sad:

 

[Sleepy]

Why would two different systems, both based on Jung, have entirely different personalities for the same dominant/auxiliary functions?

MBTI made the mistake of interpreting J/P as extroverted or introverted judging function. Socionics just looks at if the dominant function is judging or percieving, so SiTe is a P type because percieving dominant function. Socionics does it the correct way. This also leads to different definitions of the functions between these systems. The types expressed in dichotomies are still often the same, or they refer to the same person. I am SEI / ISFP, but the MBTI functional analysis is fucked up, so I don't really think that much of my MBTI type.

Socionics sucks :sad:

You just don't understand it yet.

 

[itsme45]

I just bought a book called "Understanding the People Around You: An Introduction to Socionics," by Ekaterina Filatova. Here's an example of my confusion:

If I'm understanding it correctly, the book calls SiTe "The Craftsman," and the description sounds like an MBTI ISTP (TiSe). The book calls TiSe "The Structurist," and the description sounds like an MBTI ISTJ (SiTe).

Why would two different systems, both based on Jung, have entirely different personalities for the same dominant/auxiliary functions?

And is this book's Socionics the same as typical Socionics?

Oh very simple. Function definitions differ. Maybe you figured it out since then though. ;P

Did you wonder about Ne vs Se definition differences? In socionics these are also defined differently.

 

[cyamitide]

just different intepretations. Socionics still confuse me, they have stuff like ISFp and then SEI and then some geometric shapes to represent the types too...HUH lulwhut ...

Oh it's a very easy conversion between cognitive functions and socionics geometric denotations, described here: Socionics Information Elements

I just bought a book called "Understanding the People Around You: An Introduction to Socionics," by Ekaterina Filatova. Here's an example of my confusion:

If I'm understanding it correctly, the book calls SiTe "The Craftsman," and the description sounds like an MBTI ISTP (TiSe). The book calls TiSe "The Structurist," and the description sounds like an MBTI ISTJ (SiTe).

Why would two different systems, both based on Jung, have entirely different personalities for the same dominant/auxiliary functions?

And is this book's Socionics the same as typical Socionics?

Because MBTI looks at types from point of view of their extraverted function, while Socionics sticks to Jung and examines types from point of view of their leading function.

ISTP is "structuralist" in MBTI also since it is type dominant in Ti, which is structural logic, but most MBTI profiles won't mention that because they will examine ISTP from point of view of their extraverted Se, hence calling it the "mechanic". These typologies are actually examining same types but from different points of view. In the end I've found that Socionics is more accurate and more true to Jung.

Here are their ISTj and ISTp profiles so that you can compare:
ISTj, Ti-Se: Socionics ISTj profiles
ISTp, Si-Te: Socionics ISTp profiles

 

[itsme45]

Oh it's a very easy conversion between cognitive functions and socionics geometric denotations, described here: Socionics Information Elements

how is it an easy conversion if Si, Se, Fe etc. are defined very differently in socionics?

 

[Karen]

I had no idea this thread had been revived! I didn't mean to ignore the thread and ran around and thanked everyone to make up for it, lol. I ignored the "Notifications" section for a couple years, but now I keep up with it.

Looks like good info, and no I still haven't figured it out -- kind of gave up on it for a while. @itsme45, don't even tell me they have different definitions for Se and Ne. lol I'll check the info out later today.