There are two schools of thought when it comes to contrasting MBTI and Socionics:
I fall firmly into the incompatibilist point of view, because I think part of the basis upon which both systems are structured--namely the cognitive functions, or information elements--are fundamentally differently defined. So we might use the same terms--Ti, Fe--but we mean rather different things. Hence, if two parties say they both use the color green to paint forests, but one group defines 'green' as a blue-looking color and one defines 'green' as a red-looking color, their forests will look very different.
Here's a basic breakdown of how MBTI defines cognitive functions vs Socionics definitions. You can see how the systems focus on different ideas for each cognitive function/information element; even when they are similar, the focus is on different parts.
Sources:
Understanding the Myers Briggs Type Indicator, "The 8 Cognitive Functions"
The Meyers-Briggs Foundation, "The Eight Function Attitudes"
WikiSocion, "Information Elements"
For the great article discussing these two views, read "A brief overview of the two philosophical assumptions about the relation between MBTI and Socionics".Incompatibilist: A person's MBTI type does not necessarily correlate with its Socionics type.Compatibilist: A person's MBTI type does necessarily correlate with its Socionics type.
I fall firmly into the incompatibilist point of view, because I think part of the basis upon which both systems are structured--namely the cognitive functions, or information elements--are fundamentally differently defined. So we might use the same terms--Ti, Fe--but we mean rather different things. Hence, if two parties say they both use the color green to paint forests, but one group defines 'green' as a blue-looking color and one defines 'green' as a red-looking color, their forests will look very different.
Here's a basic breakdown of how MBTI defines cognitive functions vs Socionics definitions. You can see how the systems focus on different ideas for each cognitive function/information element; even when they are similar, the focus is on different parts.
Sources:
Understanding the Myers Briggs Type Indicator, "The 8 Cognitive Functions"
The Meyers-Briggs Foundation, "The Eight Function Attitudes"
WikiSocion, "Information Elements"
Serious chart work.
ReplyDeleteAs well as gut feeling of right or wrong (Fi), appropriateness is also determined by something semi-culture-specific called 'manners' - this can be proven by looking at how the NiTe (Fe Brake), NeTi (Fi Brake) are inappropriate in different ways. Fe ego types pay attention to manners. But remember; Fe doms have 'Control Fi' ie high information but low energy. And Fe Auxiliary types are 'Fi Creative' in Model G eg Ni+ Fi- and Si- Fi+.
ReplyDeleteComparing whole profiles can be enlightening eg in Viktor Gulenko's Si- Fi+ Dumas profile he categorises some Guardian behaviour under Ti+ eg launched by clear instructions. That would come under Si (algorithmic logic) in 'western type'. Also, VG's Se+ Fe- Model G profile categorises artisan traits under at least three different functions: Se+ Ne+ and Te-. For more see the Model G ESFP videos on my Vaserlan YouTube channel. So the same type of person is being observed thru different lenses. The next Gulenko-Nardi hangout will very probably be on Si again. The hormone Serotonin seems to be a bridge as it is associated with calmness/comfort and co-operation. It has also been studied by the enneagram institute. https://www.enneagraminstitute.com/the-enneagram-and-brain-chemistry/
ReplyDeleteHey, just wanted to say that your posts are very helpful!
ReplyDeleteThanks for tables
ReplyDeletehow so. i studied it and i can confirm it's accurate even though not entirely. bish it's summarized anyway.
ReplyDeleteMBTI got most things wrong. I believe the founder lady was INTJ. It doesn't surprise me.
ReplyDeleteMBTI is created by te user and Socionics is created by ti user.
Socionics is more accurate but too complex for regular people.
MBTI is overly simplified product created for mass market. It's astonishing to me that someone can create a more successful product without understanding the basics of it.