Socionics... Just how difficult can it get?

[SanityPanda]

Rant Rant :banghead:

Wish it could be as simple as MBTI in figuring out yourself. How do people do it?

[Nunki]

Have you tried visiting Wikisocion? It's a very good resource, much more extensive than anything I'm aware of for the MBTI.

[fripping]

difficult enough to ignore forever.

["?"]

The difficulty is made through the followers in making ill attempts to argue differences in the basic principles of the system. From all that I have read, Socionics follows Jung's cognitive process as well, but believes as Jung most likely would have that the introverted dominant function is apparent therefore the ending four letter code will be congruent with the type being a judging (j) or perceiving (p) one. In this case I agree with Socionics since contrary to MBTI the first extraverted function gives little credence to introverts since it is their auxiliary. I do like their theory on this that introverts are underestimated because onlookers may not see the real them.

Nevertheless the rest is moot since I am Ti-Se in both systems therefore ISTP in MBTI and ISTj in Socionics (contrary to some Socionics enthusiasts who argue that I would be the same code in either system). Some attempt to argue that, for example, Ti-Se in Socionics does not mean the same. Based on the defintions that I copied from Wiki they are the same:
SOCIONICS: Te is responsible for assessing the efficiency of actions, understanding of technical processes, the accomplishment of work, the efficient and prudent use of resources, factual accuracy, and the acquisition of relevant and useful information. Te understands the difference between effective and ineffective behavior when performing a procedure or accomplishing a task, and aspires to increase the frequency of productive outcomes within a system.

MBTI: Extraverted Thinking: Segmenting; organizing for efficiency; systematizing; applying logic; structuring; checking for consequences; monitoring for standards or specifications being met; setting boundaries, guidelines, and parameters; deciding if something is working or not.

SOCIONICS: Ti is responsible for understanding logic and structure, categorizations, ordering and priorities, logical analysis and distinctions, logical explanations, and the derivation of true statements from "self-evident" rules. Ti interprets information according to how it fits into a system. Ti is particularly aware of syntactic correctness and how concepts relate to each other in meaning and structure.

MBTI: Introverted Thinking: Analyzing; categorizing; evaluating according to principles and whether something fits the framework or model; figuring out the principles on which something works; checking for inconsistencies; clarifying definitions to get more precision.

SOCIONICS: Fe is responsible for the perception of an emotional state in an individual and the bodily and linguistic expression of emotions. Fe is able to influence others' emotional condition and to communicate its own, "infecting" others. Fe is used especially in generating and recognizing excitement and enthusiasm.

MBTI: Extraverted Feeling: Connecting; considering others and the group—organizing to meet their needs and honor their values and feelings; maintaining societal, organizational, or group values; adjusting to and accommodating others; deciding if something is appropriate or acceptable to others.

SOCIONICS: Fi is responsible for understanding the quality, nature, and proper maintenance of personal relations; makes moral judgments; and aspires to humanism and kindness. Fi has a strong understanding of the social hierarchy and how people feel about each other, their attitudes of like or dislike, enthrallment or disgust, repulsion or attraction, enmity or friendship.

MBTI: Introverted Feeling: Valuing; considering importance and worth; reviewing for incongruity; evaluating something based on the truths on which it is based; clarifying values to achieve accord; deciding if something is of significance and worth standing up for.

SOCIONICS: Se is responsible for the perception, control, defense, and acquisition of space, territory, and control. It assesses objective appearance and the geometric form of subjects, estimates whether forces are in alignment or conflict, and uses strength of will and power-based methods to achieve purposes. Se understands territory and physical aggression.

MBTI: Extraverted Sensing: Experiencing the immediate context; taking action in the physical world; noticing changes and opportunities for action; accumulating experiences; scanning for visible reactions and relevant data; recognizing “what is.”

SOCIONICS: Si is responsible for perception of physical sensations; questions of comfort, coziness, and pleasure; and a sense of harmony and acclimation with one's environment (especially physical). Si understand how well a person or thing's behavior agrees with its nature as well as the differences between comfortable behaviors and positions and uncomfortable ones.

MBTI: Introverted Sensing: Reviewing past experiences; “what is” evoking “what was”; seeking detailed information and links to what is known; recalling stored impressions; accumulating data; recognizing the way things have always been.

SOCIONICS: Ne is responsible for understanding the essence (permanent traits) of a thing, estimating opportunities and possibilities for people and things, and visualizing potential outcomes of events. It is responsible for the sense of interest or boredom. Ne will speculate as to why an event occurs, but sees the specific event as static and unalterable.

MBTI: Extraverted iNtuiting: Interpreting situations and relationships; picking up meanings and interconnections; being drawn to change “what is” for “what could possibly be”; noticing what is not said and threads of meaning emerging across multiple contexts.

SOCIONICS: Ni is responsible for the estimation of the passage of time, the understanding of a course of processes in time, and forecasting. Ni understand how things change and evolve over time and throughout history. Ni is acutely aware of events that are occurring outside of the immediate perception of the moment, and sees events as part of a continuous flow. Ni perceives the inevitability of future events and notices ties to the past.

MBTI: Introverted iNtuiting: Foreseeing implications and likely effects without external data; realizing “what will be”; conceptualizing new ways of seeing things; envisioning transformations; getting an image of profound meaning or far-reaching symbols.

[Nunki]

Nevertheless the rest is moot since I am Ti-Se in both systems therefore ISTP in MBTI and ISTj in Socionics (contrary to some Socionics enthusiasts who argue that I would be the same code in either system). Anyone who would argue that you'd be the same code in either system doesn't understand the relationship between Socionics and the MBTI. Only an extrovert's type code is bound (in theory) to remain the same across both systems. For an introvert, the last letter can go either way, depending on certain factors.

[Electric]

Yeah, I hate that about socionics. It's not very consistent, therefore to an extent wrong. For example, how it gets mixed up in translation between MBTI types and socionics types.

Socionics and MBTI use the same Jungian concepts. However, they describe the same thing in different ways. Socionics definition for Se includes "control" of territory, but "control" of territory can also be a part of Te. What territory or control refers to is left to the imagination. These descriptions are contextuals which leads people to interpret them in many ways.

To me, I've found that switching the intj and intp profile works.

I think it's ok if you draw wisdom from socionics while not following everything it offers.

["?"]

Anyone who would argue that you'd be the same code in either system doesn't understand the relationship between Socionics and the MBTI. Only an extrovert's type code is bound (in theory) to remain the same across both systems. For an introvert, the last letter can go either way, depending on certain factors.
Socionics and MBTI use the same Jungian concepts. However, they describe the same thing in different ways. Socionics definition for Se includes "control" of territory, but "control" of territory can also be a part of Te. What territory or control refers to is left to the imagination. These descriptions are contextuals which leads people to interpret them in many ways.Ummm.... I would not be too quick to make that great a distinction between Te/Se. Even Linda V. Berens provides similarities in saying, "Se and Te are often used when there is a focus on facts and emprical approach. Se being a perceptive process may consist of data gathering with questions, whereas Te as a judging process will question to establish logic." Combine that with Berens/Nardi's similarities in Ni/Ti in both having a sense of detachment and disconnection, and comfort with complexity, then you find it easy to confuse ESTP/ENTJ (http://bestfittype.com/estp_entj.html) (both having an "In Charge" interaction style) and ISTP/INTJ (http://bestfittype.com/istp_intpintj.html) (both having a "Chart the Course" interaction style). But for the most part I agree with you both that users of Socionics continue to muddle the specifics.

[fduniho]

Both Socionics and MBTI theory claim a one-to-one match-up between their 16 types and Jung's 16 types. On this basis, we should expect a one-to-one match-up between Socionics and MBTI types, which works like this: Each extraverted type is identified by the same four letters in both systems, but each introverted type is identified by only the same first three letters, switching J and P for the last letter. This should be all there is to it, but Socionics theorists muddy the waters by claiming that the two systems do not match up and arguing that only Socionics is true to Jung's types while MBTI typing is flawed. My take on this is that there may be differences in how the two camps have applied Jung's theories about psychological type, but this is only a difference in understanding and applying Jung's original ideas, not a fundamental difference in theory. I consider both theories rooted in Jung, and I believe the important thing to focus on with either theory is which Jungian type you are, not what your scores were on a test.

[alienhated]

I identify myself with the subtype ILI and that one corresponds to INTp of socionics, but I am INTP on MBTI so I should be INTj on socionics? and the subtype of INTj is LII... can someone explain it...?

[lemons]

Anyone who would argue that you'd be the same code in either system doesn't understand the relationship between Socionics and the MBTI. Only an extrovert's type code is bound (in theory) to remain the same across both systems. For an introvert, the last letter can go either way, depending on certain factors.

No that's quite wrong. Extroverts differ just as much (MBTI ESTP is commonly the socionics ESFp, and MBTI ESFP is usually not the socionics ESFp), introverts can be extroverts, visa versa, because Socionics preferences are different, especially E/I and P/J. Socionics and MBTI are only correlative in some ways. They aren't the same thing and were developed independent of each other.

That is the one thing you need to understand about Socionics, that the preferences are defined differently. Learn them separately. Don't relate them to MBTI until you think you're knowledgeable enough with them. Read around, use your intuition and profile examples to type people. Make sure the profiles match up with the theory, because just like MBTI, theres a lot of crappy Socionics resources out there that say different to the logical truth. Not many people notice these things. Take each resource with a grain of salt.

["?"]

Both Socionics and MBTI theory claim a one-to-one match-up between their 16 types and Jung's 16 types. On this basis, we should expect a one-to-one match-up between Socionics and MBTI types, which works like this: Each extraverted type is identified by the same four letters in both systems, but each introverted type is identified by only the same first three letters, switching J and P for the last letter. This should be all there is to it, but Socionics theorists muddy the waters by claiming that the two systems do not match up and arguing that only Socionics is true to Jung's types while MBTI typing is flawed. To the contrary and I don’t care for Socionics, but it’s MBTI which muddies the waters. Myers-Briggs made the decision to focus on her codes in coinciding with her indicator. The dichotomies determine the code easier. Yet the J/P dichotomy is useless since it merely reiterates the function that you extravert with either as dominant or auxiliary.

I have asked for years how two systems claiming to follow Jung, can be in direct contradiction, and which is correct. I was told that Myers-Briggs went directly to the source for her blessings, however there is no evidence that Jung and Myers-Briggs ever discussed her work in detail. From all accounts Myers-Briggs says that her codes for introverted types is inversed because Jung’s work focused on extraversion and gave little credence to introverts. She also says that the introverted functions are not easily recognizable, instead people see the auxiliary function of introverted types. This is partially true in application, but completely false in Jung’s theory since he says
The two types are so essentially different, presenting so striking a contrast, that their existence, even to the [p. 413] uninitiated in psychological matters becomes an obvious fact, when once attention has been drawn to it. Who does not know those taciturn, impenetrable, often shy natures, who form such a vivid contrast to these other open, sociable, serene maybe, or at least friendly and accessible characters, who are on good terms with all the world, or, even when disagreeing with it, still hold a relation to it by which they and it are mutually affected.So to the contrary Jung acknowledges and says that we do readily see the introverted function in a person. This in itself put’s MBTI to question in the reason for the inverted functions. Regardless and as I have already stated, I am Ti-Se in either system since my dominant function and auxiliary is fixed.
My take on this is that there may be differences in how the two camps have applied Jung's theories about psychological type, but this is only a difference in understanding and applying Jung's original ideas, not a fundamental difference in theory. I consider both theories rooted in Jung, and I believe the important thing to focus on with either theory is which Jungian type you are, not what your scores were on a test.And let us say…..AMEN!

[Technical]

It's important to note that the function definitions are different.

["?"]

It's important to note that the function definitions are different.Totally not true....... both systems say they derive from Jung’s cognitive functions. Also if you read the definitions of both, there is no difference. In fact Socionics does reference to LI also being known as Ti:
Introverted logic ( ) is an introverted, rational, and static information element. It is also called Ti, L, structural logic, or white logic. Introverted logic is generally associated with the ability to recognize logical consistency and correctness, generate and apply classifications and systems, organize systematic and conceptual understanding, see logical connections between things (including logical similarities, differences, and correlations) by means of instinctive feelings of validity, symmetry, and even beauty.Compare Socionics introverted logic to MBTIs introverted thinking
Using introverted Thinking is like having an internal sense of the essential qualities of something, noticing the fine distinctions that make it what it is and then naming it. It also involves an internal reasoning process of deriving subcategories of classes and sub-principles of general principles. These can then be used in problem solving, analysis, and refining of a product or an idea. This process is evidenced in behaviors like taking things or ideas apart to figure out how they work.I don’t think that anyone can argue Se since Socionics makes no attempt to call theirs anything but. However here again is Socionics and MBTIs definitions:
Extroverted sensing ( ) is an extroverted, irrational, and static information element. It is also called Se, F, volitional sensing, or black sensing.
Extroverted sensing includes the ability to know how much power, force, or influence is latent or required. Unlike , which is about one's subjective sensory experience (how intense or enjoyable it is), is about achieving an object of desire. It gives one the ability to influence, bend, and push situations and people in order to achieve such an object, rather than to enjoy the situation one is in.
You are one with the experience. There is no "naming" or describing - just pure, vivid experience. The whole scene comes into your awareness almost at once. You may be drawn to experience more and more, seeking any variation that will intensely excite the senses. Extraverted Sensing occurs when we scan for information that is relevant to our interests, then we mentally register data and facts such as baseball statistics, the locations of all the restaurants in town, or the names of all the actors in the popular television shows. They’re both using the same definitions, so determining that I prefer Ti-Se is the end result and should be easily transferred to either system and that should not change to Si-Te if both are being defined similarly.[/QUOTE]

[Technical]

Sorry for the mess that is this post, the formatting didn't turn out much at all the way I hoped...


Totally not true....... both systems say they derive from Jung’s cognitive functions.
I know, question mark.


Also if you read the definitions of both, there is no difference. In fact Socionics does reference to LI also being known as Ti: Quote:
Introverted logic ( ) is an introverted, rational, and static information element. It is also called Ti, L, structural logic, or white logic. Introverted logic is generally associated with the ability to recognize logical consistency and correctness, generate and apply classifications and systems, organize systematic and conceptual understanding, see logical connections between things (including logical similarities, differences, and correlations) by means of instinctive feelings of validity, symmetry, and even beauty.
Compare Socionics introverted logic to MBTIs introverted thinking Quote:
Using introverted Thinking is like having an internal sense of the essential qualities of something, noticing the fine distinctions that make it what it is and then naming it. It also involves an internal reasoning process of deriving subcategories of classes and sub-principles of general principles. These can then be used in problem solving, analysis, and refining of a product or an idea. This process is evidenced in behaviors like taking things or ideas apart to figure out how they work.


It's my assessment that MBTI Ti is too much like Jung/Socionics Te.



I don’t think that anyone can argue Se since Socionics makes no attempt to call theirs anything but. However here again is Socionics and MBTIs definitions: Quote:
Extroverted sensing ( ) is an extroverted, irrational, and static information element. It is also called Se, F, volitional sensing, or black sensing.
Extroverted sensing includes the ability to know how much power, force, or influence is latent or required. Unlike , which is about one's subjective sensory experience (how intense or enjoyable it is), is about achieving an object of desire. It gives one the ability to influence, bend, and push situations and people in order to achieve such an object, rather than to enjoy the situation one is in.
Quote:
You are one with the experience. There is no "naming" or describing - just pure, vivid experience. The whole scene comes into your awareness almost at once. You may be drawn to experience more and more, seeking any variation that will intensely excite the senses. Extraverted Sensing occurs when we scan for information that is relevant to our interests, then we mentally register data and facts such as baseball statistics, the locations of all the restaurants in town, or the names of all the actors in the popular television shows.
They’re both using the same definitions,
I don't see it that way. Def 1 is more about the not physically tangible than Def 2.

[This is in response to identification with Ti-Se]Well, you seem to have your conclusion, but in my opinion the people who test as ISTP and identify most with ISTP descriptions fit the functions Si-Te better than they fit Ti-Se. Such as in this description of SLI: http://www.wikisocion.org/en/index.php?title=SLI

[Vildechaya]

I have only taken one small socionics exam. I do agree with the ILI description. I haven't examined socionics suficiantly to have much of an opinion yet.