MBTI Types are NOT the Same as Socionics Types

[aflyinge]

Types in MBTI cannot be translated into Socionics because the systems are so different. It doesn't matter that they have a common ancestor by the name of Carl Jung; chickens and dinosaurs have a common ancestor but nobody is arguing they are the same. After decades of developing apart there are significant differences between the two. MBTI types are not the same as Socionics types. It does not even make sense to ask the question "Is your MBTI type the same as your Socionics type?" ENFP in MBTI does not describe the same personality as ENFp/IEE in Socionics. Please do NOT try to use the MBTI system to find your Socionics dual. Instead, learn Socionics from scratch and find your and other people's types there.

Trying to find a compromise between MBTI and Socionics is futile. It’s like mixing oil and water. There is a perfectly good theory of thinking patterns called MBTI. There is another perfectly good theory of interpersonal relationships called Socionics that studies people’s responses to receiving certain kinds of information. There are correlations between the two as thinking patterns often affect the type of information that is communicated, but trying to blend them into a single theory (e.g. “If you are type X in MBTI then you can only be type Y or type Z in Socionics”) will produce a contaminated substance that has no practical use or aesthetic appeal.

There is no one-to-one correspondence between MBTI types and Socionics types. This fact has been well established and will remain true until the end of time. Nor is the correspondence between the systems one-to-two, one-to-three, or one-to-X where X is any number less than 16.

An example to clarify this point: ENFP ISTj/LSI. Seems impossible, doesn’t it? No, it is actually quite possible. The ENFP perceives information through Ne and rationalizes it with Te. Because Ne is a wide lens, the information will be vast and hazy as the details blend together. When the ENFP uses Te to rationalize this information, they create laws that explain the big picture, often neglecting edge cases and individual data points. This ability to impose logical order on a vast array of data, along with the ability to create universal laws on the fly, make the ENFP skilled at managerial positions and quick decision making. Now, let’s see the overlap with Aushra’s description of Ti base in Socionics:

“When this element is in the leading position, the individual is distinguished by his or her ability to logically evaluate relations of the objective static reality, or the world of objects. He also has the ability to change the interrelations between properties of different objects according to his wishes, and through this influence objects themselves as carriers of these properties.”

There is a clear overlap with the ENFP’s Ne-Te. But that’s not all. The ENFP uses a microscope called Si to perceive their personal values generated by Fi. This makes them certain about how they feel towards any specific thing they perceive. They have an uncompromising nature where personal values are not sacrificed for the sake of blending into the crowd. If someone were to try to transgress these values, the ENFP could stop that person in a variety of ways, using force if necessary. Now, let’s see the overlap with Aushra’s description of Se creative in Socionics:

“The individual takes direct action to accomplish his goals and desires in the face of external obstacles, and also the interests of his close friends, family, or associates. This may involve prodding others to take necessary action, deliberately applying pressure in specific situations, or abruptly taking on an organizational role. The individual does not generally seek out confrontation, but he is also not afraid of it.”

There is an overlap with the ENFP’s adherence to personal values. Because of these shared characteristics, the ENFP LSI is a perfectly logical combination. In fact, I personally know someone with this combination, a mechanical engineer. This example shows that a type combination that seems impossible at first glance can actually make sense if you understand both theories well enough. When one studies or creates a theory about personality, the first question that should be asked is, “What am I trying to measure?” If two personality theories measure different things, then they are viewing the same person from different angles. If you measure someone’s arm that does not imply anything about their height. If you measure someone’s hair color that does not imply anything about what they ate last week. These traits are correlated because they come from the same person, but it would be illogical to try to use one to determine the other. Studying personality typology can help us accomplish many things. In order to use it to our utmost benefit, we must have a rigorous understanding of the systems we are using.

[Biscuit]

I'm on the fence about whether MBTI and Socionics types are the same or different , but whenever I read how people justify strange combos like ENTJ SLE or whatever similar I notice the same mistake over and over : the justification process is done by comparing two superficial or brief descriptions, then ... here we go : I'm type x in MBTI and type y in Socionics
At the same time, a lot of inconsistencies, but no one seems to notice or care about them

As for ENFP LSI

1- There is a big difference in tempranments : in the case of extroverted types in particular : MBTI and socionics match in tempranments to some extent, read Ep description and you will find that it's identical to Ne and Se as a hero function in MBTI in many things
On the other hand, Ne hero is scattered, messy, mobile-seeker, not committed to routine and avoids constant situations , it doesn't match Ij as a main temperament at all which is totally the opposite

2-you neglected the strength of functions, in your example, ENFP, and although it works with Te , it's a 3rd function so it's not strong... therefore, ENFPs are prone to make mistakes and wrong judgments in Te , add to that the weaker and tricky Ti ( if you are using a MBTI model with 8 functions like John Beebee ) ... On the other hand, Ti as leading function has the four dimensions of the function (that is , it's one of the strongest 2 function in terms of perception of the function and taking into account aspects of information within the scope of the function ) and a 4D Ti = 3D Te (also strong) so mistakes are very few and if they occur (we are humans after all ) it's easy to notice and correct it

So , we have an ENFP who relies entirely on "I read that" and "I heard that" with a weak ability ( not the weakest though ) to distinguish right from wrong source on his own, and the inability to logically analyze what he read or heard ... at the same time, this ENFP is the LSI that has the highest ability to use Ti with a high ability to use Te and perceive aspects of both , this is not possible
The same contradiction you will find with other functions of the same combo, for example, S functions of LSI compared to what they are in ENFP

3- What makes a Fi user a Fi user is that they :
* are confident in their feelings and moral judgments
* focus on the within in building their feelings and judgments, even if it comes from an external source

As for imposing moral judgments on others, it depends on the Fi user himself, you can find a Fi user who considers imposing his ethics as a mandatory duty, just as you can find a Fi user who adopts the attitude of "live and let others live" ... both will judge you in the end, but the difference is that the first will force you, while the second will not care

The problem with linking Fi to Se is that you have limited Se to one side and that is the imposition of moral judgments ( which, as I pointed out, will not apply to every Fi user ) ... but Se egos don't use Se to impose moral judgments only : desires, will, Ideas, systems, etc .... so even if we consider this correlation to be true and reasonable, ENFP will have a very limited use of Se compared to the usual use of Mental Se

There are some additional points and notes, but I'm not going to write them down, that's enough for now

As for your friend, I think he might be LSI-C in Model G ... they usually appear like ExFx type

Side note : water and oil can be mixed using a soap

[Braingel]

Types in MBTI cannot be translated into Socionics because the systems are so different. It doesn't matter that they have a common ancestor by the name of Carl Jung; chickens and dinosaurs have a common ancestor but nobody is arguing they are the same. After decades of developing apart there are significant differences between the two. MBTI types are not the same as Socionics types. It does not even make sense to ask the question "Is your MBTI type the same as your Socionics type?" ENFP in MBTI does not describe the same personality as ENFp/IEE in Socionics. Please do NOT try to use the MBTI system to find your Socionics dual. Instead, learn Socionics from scratch and find your and other people's types there.

Trying to find a compromise between MBTI and Socionics is futile. It’s like mixing oil and water. There is a perfectly good theory of thinking patterns called MBTI. There is another perfectly good theory of interpersonal relationships called Socionics that studies people’s responses to receiving certain kinds of information. There are correlations between the two as thinking patterns often affect the type of information that is communicated, but trying to blend them into a single theory (e.g. “If you are type X in MBTI then you can only be type Y or type Z in Socionics”) will produce a contaminated substance that has no practical use or aesthetic appeal.

There is no one-to-one correspondence between MBTI types and Socionics types. This fact has been well established and will remain true until the end of time. Nor is the correspondence between the systems one-to-two, one-to-three, or one-to-X where X is any number less than 16.

An example to clarify this point: ENFP ISTj/LSI. Seems impossible, doesn’t it? No, it is actually quite possible. The ENFP perceives information through Ne and rationalizes it with Te. Because Ne is a wide lens, the information will be vast and hazy as the details blend together. When the ENFP uses Te to rationalize this information, they create laws that explain the big picture, often neglecting edge cases and individual data points. This ability to impose logical order on a vast array of data, along with the ability to create universal laws on the fly, make the ENFP skilled at managerial positions and quick decision making. Now, let’s see the overlap with Aushra’s description of Ti base in Socionics:

“When this element is in the leading position, the individual is distinguished by his or her ability to logically evaluate relations of the objective static reality, or the world of objects. He also has the ability to change the interrelations between properties of different objects according to his wishes, and through this influence objects themselves as carriers of these properties.”

There is a clear overlap with the ENFP’s Ne-Te. But that’s not all. The ENFP uses a microscope called Si to perceive their personal values generated by Fi. This makes them certain about how they feel towards any specific thing they perceive. They have an uncompromising nature where personal values are not sacrificed for the sake of blending into the crowd. If someone were to try to transgress these values, the ENFP could stop that person in a variety of ways, using force if necessary. Now, let’s see the overlap with Aushra’s description of Se creative in Socionics:

“The individual takes direct action to accomplish his goals and desires in the face of external obstacles, and also the interests of his close friends, family, or associates. This may involve prodding others to take necessary action, deliberately applying pressure in specific situations, or abruptly taking on an organizational role. The individual does not generally seek out confrontation, but he is also not afraid of it.”

There is an overlap with the ENFP’s adherence to personal values. Because of these shared characteristics, the ENFP LSI is a perfectly logical combination. In fact, I personally know someone with this combination, a mechanical engineer. This example shows that a type combination that seems impossible at first glance can actually make sense if you understand both theories well enough. When one studies or creates a theory about personality, the first question that should be asked is, “What am I trying to measure?” If two personality theories measure different things, then they are viewing the same person from different angles. If you measure someone’s arm that does not imply anything about their height. If you measure someone’s hair color that does not imply anything about what they ate last week. These traits are correlated because they come from the same person, but it would be illogical to try to use one to determine the other. Studying personality typology can help us accomplish many things. In order to use it to our utmost benefit, we must have a rigorous understanding of the systems we are using.

I skimmed the first paragraphs of what you’ve written, and I agree with the sentiments. What would be accurate to say is that socionics concerns how outward subjects interact between one another, and mbti has more do with cognition, though it’s been taken into also an archetypal form that has become synonymous with the socionics beavhiral appeoach, but still with vastly differing definitions.


What would be an accuracy to say is that one’s inherent cognition will largely limit what pool of behavioral types they can be, but there is far from only one, and other forms of developments of done in the formative years enough, can even push a less likely combination.

People who are Pan Jungian generally have a weak relation to Ni and to Ti. This isn’t a law, and you have LSI with its Ne polr in the behavioral side that can have this, but by cognitive it’s really less likely to find a person with good Ni, Ne and Ti to have this stance.

[BrainlessSquid]

MBTI is sexual intercourse
Socionics is love making

[CR400AF]

In my opinion, such a discussion lacks meaning. I think it's easy to get caught up in this kind of thinking when one is stuck on a literal level.

In fact, it's like learning math analysis. Jungian typology itself is a great treasure trove, but few people understand it accurately. If you want to discuss whether MBTI and Socionics can correspond, think again about whether the original MBTI and Beebe's MBTI are isomorphic, and whether Lenore Thompson's MBTI and Linda Berens' MBTI can correspond. Are Model A and Model G isomorphic in Socionics?

There is no point in discussing many models when they fail to achieve even the most basic logical self-consistency. In my opinion, these theories and models are nothing more than ideas and understandings generated by people with different levels of Jungian understanding and accuracy, most of which are fundamentally wrong. Model A, on the other hand, is the most valuable to learn, the closest to Jung's original meaning, and the most logically self-consistent, and although it has a few poorly articulated and minor errors, it is overall a more accurate understanding of Jung's original meaning, the and gives us an easier path to get started with Jung.

[Metaphor]

I agree they are different and therefore cannot necessarily be 1:1 by comparison within its own merits.
However, if you think ENFP LSI is anything logical, then I certainly will have to question your own logical mechanism here.

[Metaphor]

In my opinion, such a discussion lacks meaning. I think it's easy to get caught up in this kind of thinking when one is stuck on a literal level.

In fact, it's like learning math analysis. Jungian typology itself is a great treasure trove, but few people understand it accurately. If you want to discuss whether MBTI and Socionics can correspond, think again about whether the original MBTI and Beebe's MBTI are isomorphic, and whether Lenore Thompson's MBTI and Linda Berens' MBTI can correspond.

Or else, wait until they learn anything about Nardian MBTI or most likely any of these so-called "MBTI-featured" models or internet school that are derived from functions. Such a comparison is meaningless and therefore hilarious at best: It shouldn't be taken but with a grain of salt, if anything.

[Jarno]

MBTI has messed up the functions, but they use dichotomies anyways so the types correlate, however their functions don't correlate with socionics.

People who say the types don't match usually mean the functions don't match.

[Nunki]

MBTI has messed up the functions, but they use dichotomies anyways so the types correlate, however their functions don't correlate with socionics.

People who say the types don't match usually mean the functions don't match.

Actually, it's Socionics that has messed up the functions if I'm any indication. In terms of the dichotomies, I'm a clear INFJ, but I do not relate at all to being Fi-Ne. I'm primarily Ni in both systems.

[Still Alive]

the dichotomies likely aren't real so it doesn't matter anyway. the only thing that really matters is the cognitive functions which need way better definitions.