| Socionics Personals |  | Female
Straight
16-25
Oceania
Libra
ENFj |
|  | Male
Straight
16-25
Middle East
Sagittarius
INTj |
|  | Male
Straight
26-35
North America
Pisces
INXj |
| | Join now! |
Who is who?Learn how to convert between different systems
V.I.An introduction into the widely used Socionics Visual Identification technique
TestsA collection of Socionics related tests and quizes
Q & AsAsk a Socionics related question or provide an answer to an existing one
ArticlesVarious articles on the subject of Socionics and Types in general
ForumsWant to discuss Type? Head to Socionics Forums!
|
| Questions & Answers |
| Question #1264167620 | Friday, 22-Jan-2010 |
|
|
| I know this might be annoying, and I don't mean to be rude, but I really don't understand the underlying differences between Socionics and MBTI. To me it seems as if the J/P have been switched in terms of preference order. I don't understand how an ISTJ can be an ESTP, for example, in Socionics. I don't understand how Socionics explains how one thinks and MTBI doesn't. I don't understand how the dichotomies differ; I read the choices for each dichotomy in Socionics and it's extremely similar to that of the MBTI dichotomies. I don't mean to sound ignorant, but really, I kind of am. 8P Thank you.. -- Drew |
Your Answers: 1+ |
| A1 I faced the same problem. Both structures seemed to have been constructed from the bottom up. From a systems perspective, both appear mired in early 20th century concepts. MBTI seemed to have focused on classifying observed behaviours of individuals, with the dynamics of functions as an afterthought. Socionics seemed to have concentrated more on classifying functions which better predicts interaction of types; however, individual behaviour seemed to have been an afterthought. Science still needs to develop a modern top-down system structure. -- I/O |
| A2 It's true Myers-Briggs-theory and Socionics are both grounded on Jung's theories. But, while Myers-Briggs called "J" types those with an "extraverted judging" function among the first 2 ones and "P" types those with an "extraverted perceiving" function, Socionics calls "J" types those with a "dominant judging" function and "P" types those with a "dominant perceiving" function. So extraverted types have to be the same in both systems and it has to be a J/P switch for introverted types. However it works not so simply! Because of an emphasis on different aspects of functions their definitions aren't the same so that EJ = Ej, EP = Ep, IJ = Ip and IP = Ij is only very partially true. If however it sometimes or often works for "E" types and "IN" types, it is almost always wrong for "IS" types! Actually, while in both systems, EP/Ep are change-seeking, EJ/Ej are statu-quo-seeking, INJ and INp are change-seeking, INP and INj are statu-quo-seeking ACCORDING TO THE DOMINANT function, ISP and ISp are change-seeking in both systems and ISJ and ISj are statu-quo-seeking in both systems, what looks like totally incoherent! This phenomenon comes from the fact that definitions for "S" functions are almost totally different, maybe because "typing-systems" were developed upside down, definitions having to fit the model and not the model having to fit definitions! Besides these 2 systems Keirsey developed his own version of the 4 temperaments which looked like to more or less correlate with NT, NF, SJ and SP of the Myers-Briggs-theory. From the agglomeration of both these systems a new system, mainly developed by Dr Linda Berens, puts the 4 groups of types in a relation similar with the one of the 4 summits of a tetrahedron, i.e. without "opposite". Finally, as Keirsey despised and neglected the "extraverted vs introverted" dichotomy, extraverted- and introverted-types are more subtype-variants of the same types in the current MBTI-system. Personally, because of these differences, I'm a "guardian" in Keirsey's system, an ISFJ in Myers-Briggs' system and an ISTp in Socionics! -- piccolo_michel |
| A3 Well, in some ways I think they are the same as well, but in others not. MBTI seems to play more on the stereotypes, such as intelligent = N type, someone who talks a lot at work might be typed E, socionics tries to delve deeper, who we actually are around our true relationships, when the "walls" are more down, MBTI has became more superficial with assigning more stereotypical traits to types. In practice, we can be the same type in both systems, but sometimes not, and in practice, a little of both can be useful i've found, but i'm more interested in what makes people tick rather than superficial behaviour which can dissolve over time, hence socionics works better I think - if you're more so into that. -- Cyclops |
| A4 Michel, perhaps I should have added this comment to my article on temperament. I think that one has to look upon S and N as colourizations of input, and T and F as colourizations of output - rather than as functions onto themselves. Therefore for example, introverted output has shades of both Fi and Ti, one eventually becoming more overshadowing to varying degrees. Whether one uses closed-loop or open-loop processing is the first facet of type that solidifies in ones development – both processes use introverted and extroverted perspectives so I know from where Keirsey could be coming. Becoming input or output oriented is the second facet of type; it gets solidified later but still in early years. However, colourization of functioning is a developmental process that can take more than twenty years to be fully realized, and to a certain degree, may be an ongoing refinement throughout life. -- I/O |
|
|
| A5 Thank you so much! I really do understand more about the basis of Socionics, now I will do my research! 8) -- Drew |
| *Please note that the opinions expressed are not necessarily those of socionics.com* |
Page 1 |
| Would you like to add anything? |
(When posting, we ask you to make the effort to qualify your opinions.)
|
|
