Socionics j/p vs MBTI(r) J/P Take #2
by Sergei Ganin
Both systems recognise the existence of so called dominant function (MBTI) a.k.a 1st or main function (Socionics) and auxiliary function (MBTI) a.k.a. 2nd function (Socionics) which is synonymous with Jung's work on psychological types. But this is where the similarly ends.
Your Comments: 1+
|C1 Socionics pretty much leaves introverts in the dark. By functions/IM elements, INTP corresponds with INTj. The j definition in Socionics means rational, however, the definition of a rational is that of a judger in MBTI. This creates a contradiction: INTj has the psychological attributes of INTP, but the dichotomy description of INTJ. -- EyeSeeCold|
|C2 If you read this article http://www.socioniko.net/en/articles/lytovs-intro1.html and particularly the third part http://www.socioniko.net/en/articles/lytovs-intro3.html you will find explanations about this problem. For instance MBTT ISFP (FiSe) is similar to Socionics ISFp (SiFe) but MBTT INTJ (NiTe) can be either Socionics INTj (TiNe) or INTp (NiTe) or vice versa Socionics INTj (TiNe) can be either MBTT INTJ (NiTe) or MBTT INTP (TiNe) Socionics is much more correct than MBTT about introverted types and closer to Jung's ideas. Current MBTT types also don't match Myer's concept and were distorted in order to make them fit with Keirsey's 4 temperaments NT, NF, SJ, SP -- piccolo_michel|
|Would you like to add anything?|
(When posting, we ask you to make the effort to qualify your opinions.