User:Admin/Comparison of MBTI and Socionics

This is a study of MBTI descriptions and how compatible they are with socionics. I have chosen to use materials from the Myers & Briggs Foundation website in order to make sure my sources are as official as possible. There is always the possibility that I am comparing a "poor" MBTI description with an "ideal" socionics one, which is heavily influenced by my own understanding, or that I am subjecting MBTI descriptions to more rigorous criticism than socionics ones. Perhaps someone who spends more time reading socionics and/or MBTI descriptions can improve the objectivity of my study.

MBTI Dichotomies

Here is a summary of the MBTI dichotomies:

Favorite world: Do you prefer to focus on the outer world or on your own inner world? This is called Extraversion (E) or Introversion (I).

Information: Do you prefer to focus on the basic information you take in or do you prefer to interpret and add meaning? This is called Sensing (S) or Intuition (N).

Decisions: When making decisions, do you prefer to first look at logic and consistency or first look at the people and special circumstances? This is called Thinking (T) or Feeling (F).

Structure: In dealing with the outside world, do you prefer to get things decided or do you prefer to stay open to new information and options? This is called Judging (J) or Perceiving (P). [1]

In the MBTT, the emphasis is on "preferences," whereas in socionics it is ostensibly on how one "perceives, processes, and produces information." Both theories focus on general, long-term behavioral tendencies (which the MBTT calls "preferences"), but socionics tries to relate these to information processing. I personally would not use any of the above descriptions as adequate summaries of the socionic dichotomies.

Another key difference is that in the MBTT, there is de facto no longer a distinction between psychic functions (sensing, intuition, thinking, and feeling) and qualities determined by these functions (extraversion, introversion, judging, and perceiving). All these are now seen as being on the same plane. I do not know whether this factor contributes to differences in practice, however.

Extraversion or Introversion

Source

• Do you like to spend time in the outer world of people and things (Extraversion), or in your inner world of ideas and images (Introversion)? -> Different from socionics. "Ideas and images" are not associated with socionics introversion, but with intuition (or "images" — with irrationality).
• Don’t confuse Introversion with shyness or reclusiveness. They are not related. -> Really? Why then do MBTI tests ask about your degree of sociability?

Extraversion

• I generally feel at home in the world. -> Different from socionics.
• Before I start a project, I sometimes forget to stop and get clear on what I want to do and why. -> Different from socionics. This sounds like something related to socionic ethics or possibly irrationality rather than extraversion.

Introversion

• I like getting my energy from dealing with the ideas, pictures, memories, and reactions that are inside my head -> Sounds more intuition related than introversion related.
• Ideas are almost solid things for me. Sometimes I like the idea of something better than the real thing. -> ??? This sounds like socionics intuition.
• I sometimes forget to check with the outside world to see if my ideas really fit the experience. -> It's hard to imagine many sensing introverts (ESI, LSI, SEI, SLI) relating to this.

Judging or Perceiving

Source

• This preference may also be thought of as your orientation to the outer world. -> This is completely unlike socionics. The reason for this statement in MBTI is that it is believed that introverts' preference for this axis is determined by their extraverted second function rather than the first. This is a major disagreement between socionics and the MBTT.
• Some people interact with the outside world when they are taking in information. Whether they use the Sensing preference or the Intuitive preference, they are still interacting in the outside world. Other people do their interacting when they are making decisions. It doesn’t matter whether they are using a Thinking preference or a Feeling preference; they are still interacting in the outside world. -> This is a completely different explanation than in socionics, where there is far less separation (probably none at all, actually) of "making decisions" and "perceiving information" along the lines of rationality/irrationality. Rather, functions (or IM elements) from the outset have been viewed as elements/modules of information processing capable of both perceiving information and coming to conclusions.
• People who tend to focus on taking in information prefer Perceiving because they stay open to a final decision in order to get more information. -> What about the knowledge-hungry leading types? Note that 'facts' are often associated with sensing in MBTT, because they are not associated with "decision making". So LIEs and LSEs in MBTI might easily be categorized as, say, extraverted sensing types.
• The J or P preference only tells which preference the person extraverts. One person may feel very orderly/structured (J) on the inside, yet their outer life looks spontaneous and adaptable (P). Another person may feel very curious and open-ended (P) in their inner world, yet their outer life looks more structured or decided (J). -> I doubt this would seem to be a fitting description of irrational introverts (#1) and rational introverts (#2) in socionics.

Judging

• I appear to be task oriented. I like to make lists of things to do. I like to get my work done before playing. I plan work to avoid rushing just before a deadline. Sometimes I focus so much on the goal that I miss new information. -> These seem much less appropriate for rational ethical types than rational logicals. Socionics does not relate "tasks," "goals," and "getting things done" to rationality.

Perceiving

• I like to approach work as play or mix work and play. -> It's hard to imagine this applying more to a socionics SLE than an ESE.

Sensing or Intuition

Source

Sensing

• Less emphasis on than . No mention, for instance, of "being in tune with one's physical sensations."
• Emphasis on the study of "facts," which in socionics is more related to . Types such as SEI or ESE, possibly ESI and SEE, might not relate to the MBTI sensing description.

Intuition

• "Impressions" is not related to intuition in socionics.
• Think more about the future than the past -> Quite different from socionics (many types especially are fascinated by the past).

Thinking or Feeling

Source

• Socionics logic/ethics is not referred to as "the way one makes decisions." The MBTI description places more emphasis on the "judging" or "decision-making" aspect of this dichotomy in comparision with socionics.

Thinking

• I try to be impersonal, so I won’t let my personal wishes--or other people’s wishes--influence me. -> "Wishes" as in "desires" might be sensing related in socionics. Here socionists would prefer the word "sentiments" over "desires."

Feeling

• I like to do whatever will establish or maintain harmony. In my relationships, I appear caring, warm, and tactful. -> Perhaps a 'positive' use of ethics is being described.
• Focus generally seems to be more on than .
• It's hard to imagine a very intelligent person matching the 'feeling' description, despite the disclaimer that 'thinking' should not be confused with intelligence.

Summary

The MBTI dichotomy most different from socionics is Judging and Perceiving. It is explained in a fundamentally different way. Extraversion and Introversion is somewhat less incompatible with its socionics counterpart, but still contains substantial differences. Thinking and Feeling and Sensing and Intuition seem to be the least different, though there are still some differences of interpretation, for example "facts" being associated with sensing rather than logic, and feeling sounding more like typical rather than .

MBTI functions — general

Source: 1, 2, 3, and 4.

The MBTI type model uses four functions which differ in terms of strength, and thus priority of usage. Socionics tends to focus more on the workings of individual functions rather than simply say that 1 is strongest, 2 next strongest, etc. At the same time, socionics may at times bite off more than it can chew by trying to talk too specifically about functions. Once again, MBTI favors the word "preference" to describe functions, which is uncommon in socionics.

The MBTI functions correspond more or less to the 1st, 2nd, 4th, and 5th in socionics (correct me if I'm wrong). They do not appear to mention the allure of the suggestive function nor anything in the functions relating to expectations of other people, and thus the beginnings of a theory of intertype relations. Whether this reflects a difference of identification of functions in practice or is simply an omission on the part of MBTI practicioners is unclear.

What the MBTI does focus on is the development of functions over the lifespan. The view is prominently stated that functions develop in their order of strength, rising to increasingly conscious awareness as one ages. Socionists do not speak of this, and I think it reflects a fundamental difference of interpretation. From a socionics standpoint, the functions are "elements of information metabolism" and operate regardless of their degree of consciousness. One might become aware of certain values and assumptions as one ages, but this is probably not the function itself (i.e. mental mechanisms) that is becoming conscious, but rather its outward manifestations — and only a smattering of them at that. In addition, with 8 functions instead of 4 represented in each type model, socionics has a much more multi-faceted view of the interplay of functions in the type model. For instance, not only is there a vs. opposition, but also vs. . As only one of these functions is present in the MBTI type model, this direction of thought has not been developed, to my knowledge.

It's possible that the MBTI has a more sunny optimism regarding the rounding out of one's personality with age, whereas such a view does not seem to be held among socionists. Age brings both wisdom and increasing rigidity, and I wonder if the MBTI's view of personal development is not overly idealistic. Of course, similar criticism might be levelled at aspects of socionics.