You have been my greatest teacher in regard to typology, and it is a wonderful feeling to know that you also acknowledge the compatibility between myres-briggs and socionics.
You just need to know the two strongest functions for each type. If you really want to make it more complicated, add the two functions they search for in their dual type. It's that simple
It isn't a controversy if MBTI and socionics are incompatible, it's a fact they're not if you just juxtapose their Si or their LSI and ISTP, LSI will turn out much more like ISTJ and is typically associated with high conscientiousness very unlike the ISTP's slick image in the MBTI
What's important to keep in mind about abstract conceptual systems such as personality typologies (like Socionics) is that, while they can certainly be fun and interesting, are merely made-up constructs to give us a way of perceiving an inconceivably neuanced phenomena in the real world (like human personality) and a means of communicating it. If it's helpful; great! But it isn't and could never be the absolute. In other words: Don't mistake the map for the territory.
I kinda have a problem with the use of the word "logic" because I always viewed thinking types as types that are rational rather that logical. The difference between logic and rationality is that logic is understanding complicated concepts (also connected to intuition) while rationality is basically just making smart decisions (well thats a big simplifucatuon but I hope you get my point) these two things were proven to be something completely different as far as I know
Cool video as always. I have a suggestion for difficult names: show them spelled out in the video and just say 'this person' and that's it. Actually, spelling out many of the key words you use in general in your presentation is a good teaching device and better than just using images or graphs
fascinating! i also "invented" that same function-sharking group system… i didn't give them fancy names though. another interesting trend that i seem to be observing lately is that people will use their 5th or 6th functions even if their 4th (inferior) isn't developed yet… those being the id block, which could account for why they seem to show up strongly in people. i like to use the eight function system as well, with the four regular/preferred functions on top and then the "mirror" functions beneath. i am an INTJ in mbti and found myself hard to type because my 6th function (Ti) was so developed, which lead me to believe i was an INTP for a long time. i've noticed the same thing in my step-dad, and ESFP who uses their Si much more than their Ni even though the Ni is farther up the stack. thanks for posting
Thanks again for another video. Simple, insightful, stuctured, plesantly Hal-9000-y: everything I've come to expect and love from this channel. The quality of the comments on these videos is, I believe, a direct reflection of the quality of the content. Keep it up. (PS I like "Royalty" as a descriptive name for the Gamma quadra, granted for me the concept of kingship is more connected to Tolkien than Prince William.)
The Ven Diagram is brilliant beyond brilliant for those seeking to gain a basic understanding for functional relations between quadras, This incredibly difficult to see from the physical layout of Model A where the gamma quadra stacks under the Alpha quadra whereas those two moreover contrast each other. Great introductory video & incredible content, Michael. I pray more people can use this information to teach themselves, learn and recognize how I, myself am as the humanitarian i see myself to be through the struggles in my life. Thank you, kindly ~
This was a fantastic introduction, thank you. I was struggling to find any type of intro video or podcast that actually gave a general but informative overview of the theory. Cheers!
For some reason, most Socionics guides or forums describe the introverted types almost exactly the same as MBTI ones. For instance, Socionics ISTp is not described as an MBTI equivalent of ISTJ, but in fact of ISTP.
Most of the ISTPs (the 9w8s) are SLI. It's easier to convert the whole combination into a Sociotype than to convert an MBTI type. There are even ISTP ILIs like Magnus Carlsen.
I studied socionics for several years. I was also typed by all known Gulenko. Socionics is a great tool but I still combine it with MBTI... however, I feel that being an ESI (Draizer) I'm not at all an ISFp but more of an ISFJ ... the reason is Si (the black circle) has a totally different meaning in socionics. The black circle stands for power, control, money... doesn't have anything to do with memory and experiences
After investigating socionics, I realized that Fi is not hierarchical. I think you might have taken that notion from celebrity types, I remember they had this half-baked article about Fi-Te as hierarchical. I actually think the beta quadra (saints) like social hierarchy and power dynamics. "Saints" does not really fit them, the more I interact with them the more I realized socionics has it right: NFJ-STP are fun-loving, rowdy, boisterous, dramatic. The opposite of saints actually. In a good way, I admire these qualities about them.
The Te/Fi axis is hierarchical - however the hierarchal nature comes from the interaction of the two functions: Te's desire to organize, evaluate and optimize and Fi's desire for independence. Fi alone isn't very hierarchical at all. As I wrote in the Fe v. Fi video comments: To the INFPs out there confused if you are INFPs because you don't feel all the "one man is better than the next" stuff - don't be. One important thing about the Te/Fi axis is that Fi is indeed individuating and wants everyone to be who they really want to be and to be able to express themselves freely. But I think Michael accidentally put a bit of Te into his Fi description - the Te/Fi axis' tendency for hierarchy, belief in inequality and a certain dogged drive for excellence is born from Te's desire to measure, organize and optimize the outside world. To put this into display, here are some rather blunt quotes from INTJs (Ni Te Fi Se), who prefer Te over Fi, but consciously have both: Nietzsche: "What is good? All that heightens the feeling of power, power itself in man. What is bad? All that proceeds from weakness." Nietzsche: "Active, successful natures shun the dictum 'know thyself' and follow the commandment: 'Will thyself.'" Nietzsche: "Not all men ought to be free. There are many who threw off their final worth when they threw off their bondage." Fischer: "Most people are sheep, and they need the support of others." Nash: "Don't ... depend on current fashion or ... popular opinion." Nash: "[One] could think of Zarathustra as simply a madman. ... But without his 'madness' [he would] have been only another of the ... billions of human individuals who have lived and then been forgotten." Asimov: "Those people who think they know everything are a great annoyance to those of us who do." Asimov: "Never let your sense of morals get in the way of doing what's right." Heraclitus: "One man is worth ten thousand if he is extraordinary." Heraclitus: "Most men have sated themselves like cattle. ... Greater men are allotted greater destinies." With a less abrasive tone: Hegel: "[I] want to restore the human race to its full totality." Paracelsus: "If you have been given a talent, exercise it freely and happily like the sun: give everyone from your splendour." Power: "Cold-blooded reason is a tool that you can employ on behalf of what you believe in." The INTJs have a tendency to believe that some people are indeed superior to others, but exhort everyone to be the best they can be. A life of mediocrity is not a worthwhile one. Find yourself, realize yourself, lift yourself to greatness to set a path for others to follow. Now, contrast with the INFPs who repress the hierarchical, optimizing, ordering conqueror/bulldozer out of the conscious mind and are left with the idealistic, individualistic, romantic Fi ruling their psyche: Kierkegaard: "To pace about, looking to obtain status, looking to attain 'importance' - I can think of nothing more ridiculous." Camus: "Nobody realizes that some people expend tremendous energy merely to be normal." Camus: "To be happy, we must not be too concerned with others." Orwell: "What I have most wanted to do ... is to make political writing into an art. My starting point is always a feeling of partisanship, a sense of injustice." Tolkien: "I [am] a mere individual ... with intense feelings more than ideas." Tolkien: "The most improper job of any man ... is bossing other men. Not one in a million is fit for it, and least of all those who seek the opportunity." C. S. Lewis: "[There is] in me ... a distaste for all that is public, all that belongs to the collective." Lewis: "Friendship arises ... when two [people] discover that they have in common some ... interest or taste ...which, till that moment, each believed to be his own unique treasure." George R. R. Martin: "My own heroes are the dreamers, those ... who tried to make the world a better place. ... Some failed ... but it is the effort that's heroic, as I see it." Saint-Exupery: "If you want to build a ship, don't drum up the men to gather wood, divide the work and give orders. Instead, teach them to yearn for the vast and endless sea." Kafka: "[People are] quite different. What grips me need hardly touch you at all. ... What is innocence in you may be guilt in me. ... What has no consequences for you may be the last nail in my coffin." Augustine: "The good man, though a slave, is free; the wicked, though he reigns, is a slave, and not the slave of a single man, but - what is worse - the slave of as many masters as he has vices." Wright: "'Natural' is the last thing [people] would let you be if they could prevent it. ... That's why they ... make all these senseless rules [and] foolish regulations." Hans Fritzsche (Head of radio propaganda in Nazi Germany): Fritzsche: "Because my nature was completely strange to feelings of power, I always considered it a burden to decide on the fate of people - even such little things as whether they should be hired or discharged in my office."
Komatik Yes, but on the other hand, I get a lot of hierarchical statements from Fe and Se users too. When I talk to ENFJs (Fe + Se) there appears to be a bit of a human hierarchy in their heads, from a social standpoint. There is INFJ Plato (Fe + Se) and his "philosopher kings" who rule over others. From Se-doms there is a need to dominate, to become the alpha. They sense the level of power in you. You see glimpses of this Se hierarchical power dynamic in ENFJs and INFJs. The people you mentioned are INTJs, which means they use Se. Nietzsche was obviously driven by Se, a sort of dog-eat-dog kind of attitude. Therefore, I think "hierarchy" cannot fit along the Te-Fi axis at all if HALF of the equation (Fi) rejects hierarchy. I think it comes from the idea that Fi likes uniqueness, but it also perceives everyone else as being unique. Fi is humble and self-effacing, at times too humble. The difference I see in INFP and INFJ is that actually INFJs appear a little aristocratic, and if unhealthy rather arrogant like an unhealthy INTJ. However there is a noticeable "snobbery" in regards to this arrogance, in which the INFJ would like the finest wines, restaurants, houte culture. These are only some INFJs. This is less likely the INFP tendency--an unhealthy INFP would not be taking responsibilities for their own lives and wine and complain about the people in power and worship weakness.
I also think the STJs and NFPs should be called "Saints" or "Moralists"...not saying that they are better but simply have a more strong sense of a stringent ethics that comes from Fi and Te. Also the lack of Se causes in favor of an Si contributes to the moralist stance.
"Therefore, I think "hierarchy" cannot fit along the Te-Fi axis at all if HALF of the equation (Fi) rejects hierarchy." This does not follow. It's like saying Se cannot live in the here and now because Ni doesn't like to live in the here and now, or that Ne cannot love future possibilities because Si is a bit suspicious of the future. That Ti cannot love unyielding logical truths because abiding by them would make some people unhappy. No, the whole point is that the functions on an axis are opposites. It is precisely because they are opposites that they balance each other out and end up complementing one another. The perception functions add up to a complete view of time and observe both the object and the ideas it inspires, one of the judging functions is impartial and cold, the other partial and warm. One loses itself in the world, one grounds the person in immutable principle. Consider why mature, individuated people feel well-rounded? It is because the functions' opposite attitudes lend the overall character a balance. If they simply played to the same tune from a different pitch, we'd have a ton of very monotone people on our hands. That other functions are also interested in social status is a correct observation, though, Te, Fe, Si and Se being the big main ones.
Te is hierarchical, but not Fi. I am not saying Te is not hierarchical. I am saying that "hierarchical" is inadequate to describe the "Te-Fi" axis. Michael Pierce's description of "Se-Ni" as intensive works because both Se and Ni are intensive. It has been suggested that Fi is "hierarchical" because of a need to scale values. That does not make sense to me, as all the other judging functions seem to be scaling something. Plus the connotation of "hierarchical" does not work for Fi, because it is one of the least hierarchical functions. Te has a strong hierarchical vibe, but Fe and Se has some of that too.
I'd say that switching letters is the worst way of typing someone...the right way is to do a good proper socionics test. What happens if you fit in one mbti type but when it comes to that switching you dont fit with it? I'm ISTP on mbti (1 hundred times tested and else) but when I go to socionics...I'm not ISTj at all. I do the socionics test and I score SLI with really high Ti (but lightly more Si than Ti), and obviously I dont score Si high on mbti functions tests...so, switching letters? I dont think its so simple dude. Of course, this is not just me, there are a lot of people that don't fit in that switching game.
Same here, my understandings about what you called "axis" and other combinations like temperaments, clubs, quadra. Strangely coincided with socionics under different names.
INTP: Great video! A little labeling would help when the "blocks" are being shown. As an MBTI professional, I appreciate the crossover and look forward to your other videos in this series.
Great video. Interested to see more of what you think about Socionics theory. Sums it up pretty well. I think a lot of the ideas can shed light on some of the more vague MBTI concepts; however, I have a couple questions/comments to make. First off, a while back a looked a lot into Socionics and, of course, read a bit about the correlation or otherwise lack thereof between MBTI and Socionics, and found some different viewpoints as you suggested. In particular, there is some debate around translating MBTI types into Socionics types and vice versa. The example you used, MBTI ISFJ being Socionics ISFp, seems to be the general principle most agree on, i.e., switching the J or P of the introverted MBTI type. Can't find the link with the info that I'm referencing right now, but I read that this may be a misconception and that actually there isn't a very clear 1:1 correlation when trying to translate MBTI into Socionics. I've read that an ISFJ may actually type as either ISFp or ISFj in Socionics, for example, and the same follows for all introverted MBTI types. Whether this idea is the result of some thought towards general function incompatibility or something else, I'm not sure. As you said, there seems to be a pretty good correlation between Jungian function, at least by your specific definitions, and Socionics functions in theory, though how those functions manifest themselves or at least are said to manifest themselves in an MBTI type and a Socionics type is a bit different if only at face value. Something to look into, I suppose. If I find the link I'll let you know. It was some website that was put together for the purpose of teaching Socionics theory and nothing more if I remember correctly. I remember back when I looked into it I actually personally concluded that MBTI types couldn't be translated into Socionics, or that I at least couldn't figure out how to do it clearly at all, even if the functions are pretty much the same essentially. And it seems a number of people are having this difficulty as well in the comments regarding their Socionics type in relation to their MBTI. Very unsure about this, however. The second thing has to do with intertype relations, which seems to me to be the defining aspect of Socionics that really sets it apart and makes it especially interesting. I'm curious to hear if you don't mind, what your opinion is on the system not just in theory but in practice. I personally think that in theory, it makes a great deal of sense and, when utilized correctly, can produce and insightful analysis of types and their functions. It seems to be a great deal for further understanding the differences and similarities between types as well as the relationship between them and their functions and how they all tend to work together or interact; however, I find that this doesn't translate very well at all to actual people. As you probably know, there are a great deal of compatibility and relationship theories and ideas built upon MBTI that are largely unexplored and undeveloped, or at least from what I can gather that appears to be the case. Most of those theories come from rather dubious forums or websites, while others have been explored a bit on more reliable places such as CelebrityTypes. Pretty sure they a single article on their sight summing up some general ideas about the relationship between types, in theory of course. In all cases, however, I personally find it important to stress the fact that these theories often don't translate very well in reality. Sometimes they do, sometimes they don't. I think they are better understood as a tool to be differentiate between the types and the functions and to gain a better understanding thereof, but the effects of trying to use these theories on real people in the real world are often misleading and sometimes harmful. Or perhaps a different approach could be taken to eliminate those problems? I am unsure. In my experience, however, when people start thinking in terms of "ESTP is supposed to be my ideal type, therefore I must only ever consider romantic relations with an ESTP if I want anything truly worthwhile as any other relation will be relatively sub-par.," they often find themselves vastly confused and disappointed. Using intertype relations as a dating/friendship tool is probably not a good idea in my opinion. Using it to understand the nature of types and functions however, is wonderful. From there, you may draw upon insights to better understand actual people, as the actual interactions between people in daily life tend to drawn upon a variety of complex factors that are highly difficult at best to pin down and attribute to very specific things in such a theory. Though perhaps one's perception and opinion of intertype relations and how best to utilize it is in itself related to that person's type in some part. So I may be biased. And after watching your intertype relations video, I can't help but wonder if those specific relationships described aren't wholly a result of type/function relationships as the theory would claim. They certainly describe very true things about the relationships between people and types in the real world in many cases but, for example, I think INFp may very well experience a dual relation as it is described with a type that is not ESTp, and that may be with a radically different type. I wonder if the relations between people may be better described in some terms that fall outside the direct scope of Socionics/Typology, or at least in a way that hasn't yet been explored within the systems as they are. And sure it may be demanding a lot to fault a theory for not having a perfect 1:1 correlation, but I think the implication is that people tend to be very mislead by it, I personally think. So perhaps there is a better way to approach, and I do very like how you approached in your video by the way, in balancing the descriptions like you did. It's certainly a problem when some of the only positive relation you read is between dual types and all the others are largely negative while the dual relation has almost nothing negative if anything. In any case, I'll stop ranting now, and I hope I've said things that may have made some sense. Interested to hear your opinion on that, however, if you don't mind. And thank you for your time.
Alex Cavender Well, you'll probably be happy to know that I find myself agreeing with everything you said :) So to answer: 1) I ran into the same thing when looking more fervently into Socionics: where people are strongly recommended that I take a different Socionics test, because in the Socionics system I may actually be, for example, ISFj instead of ISFp (correlating with ISFJ in MBTI), just like you said. Unfortunately, I don't have an answer for you on that one. Obviously, I didn't give much attention to that in the video because I don't know enough about it and just found it distracting...but I can't see anyone saying it without a good reason. But I'm just not knowledgeable enough on the subject right now to know where those Socionists are drawing their distinction. 2) I agree with everything you said on intertype relations; I myself have had a bit of a back-and-forth relationship with them. I've seen them seem to describe relationships I've had with uncanny accuracy, and I've found myself struggling to reconcile the way I actually experienced a relationship with what the theory says. I made the video because I find it an interesting theory, and because (though I sometimes forget) my original reason for doing UA-cam was to try to make more accessible these fundamental ideas in the community that I haven't found made accessible anywhere else. Whether or not I'm succeeding is up to you, of course. In any case, one of my most rewarding relationships has been what Socionics would call a "contrary" relation, which is described quite often as doomed to fail, though they always explain it in nearly medical phraseology. I suppose one could say in Socionics' defense that these relationships describe what would happen if the functions, treated as discursive mathematical concepts, interacted in pure space, but the muddiness of real life lowers its accuracy considerably. For example, I actually got along *marvelously* with an ENTJ *while living in very close quarters with them for over a month*, but according to Socionics that should have been awful. While I can see shadowy elements of how that *could* have been the case, the fact of the matter was other factors were more prominent, so that it wasn't the case. For example, our shared interests and backgrounds, us both having just escaped rather difficult psychological circumstances and suddenly being able to breathe again, etc. I definitely do not like the doom and gloom that seems to accompany the intertype relations; I'm almost afraid that if I give credence to them they'll become self-fulfilling prophecies. Yet, my time with that ENTJ was really very good for both parties, and I have no reason to believe that we wouldn't get along marvelously if we ran into each other again. Anyway, those are my thoughts -- did that address all of your thoughts?
Michael Pierce Thanks for the reply. I think that's fair. While it's fairly difficult to find really good sources for info on Typology/MBTI, it's at least twice as hard to find reliable Socionics sources and tests too, at least from what I've experienced. Certainly it is distracting; definitely put me off from Socionics for a while, but beyond that I suppose it isn't vastly important in relation to the rest of what is being said. Just something I was wondering about. As for intertype relations, I agree entirely. At first, I'm always really interested in what the descriptions have to say about relationships and such, and often find them to be very accurate, but have to keep reminding myself that it's probably a bad idea to place too much stock in that. Like trying to translate MBTI types into Socionics types, in relation to reality, I found the intertype relations to be distracting and potentially harmful at that, beyond the insights gleaned from pure theory. But of course, I was only curious as to what your personal thoughts were on that. As for making these ideas more accessible, your videos generally succeed at doing even more than just that. As I said, it's very difficult to find a lot of this sort of info on the internet, or books that are fairly accessible to most people without finding a lot of horribly misleading, unreliable information as well as just personally misinterpreting a lot of it. So certainly in this regard, this all beyond helpful, I think. And allowing people to draw their own conclusions is always important. I appreciate your personal example as well. I suppose it may depend on how much one thinks Typology or Socionics or whatever can explain about a person to begin with. But "self-fulfilling prophecy" is definitely a good term to use, there. It's easy to over-simplify one's current and potential relationships whenever you internalize a sort of expectation of that sort. Seems to be the core of the issue I personally find in it. I really like the more balanced approach you took in your intertype relations video, however. Most descriptions I've read are horrendously to extreme either way, I think. honestly look forward to seeing whatever else you may do on Socionics, and other systems as well. Speaking of which, out of curiosity, have you looked into Enneagram much? Whereas Typology is less about personality directly and more about fundamental patterns and preferences of thought, which of course form the basis for one's personality and general character oftentimes, Enneagram is more centered around direct personality traits, it seems. It examines motivations/instincts of character and coping mechanisms, personal growth and so on. It's also often related to a multitude of other theories, such as Freudian Id, Ego, and Super-ego. Very interesting stuff. Not much has been done on the relation between it and any other system such MBTI/Typology, though some have tried relating functions to various Enneagram types. Riso and Hudson's book seems to be the standard for Enneagram theory. Curious what you think about if you've looked into much at all. Hope I'm not asking way too many questions by the way. Thanks for the reply, again, and the thoughts. Really appreciate it.
Yay! Glad I could be of service! This is a short reply, just because of how busy I've been, and I'd rather send a short reply than no reply at all. Anyway, I have begun looking into enneagram; I find it quite interesting and plan to do an intro video in the near future.
Yeah most of the Mbti's question marks filled by me were actually found in socionics. Still socionics has some question marks themselves though I haven't fully looked at socionics yet.
Have you ever considered your channel branching out to cover other personality type models separate from those derived from Jungian psychology such as Enneagram?
IndigoXYZ18 I have, you're not the first to ask :) I'll see what I can do in the future, I just need time to become much more acquainted with them than I am right now.
There is a one to one translation between MBTI and Socionics based on differing definitions of functions, e.g. Socionics Se = MBTI Ni + Te, which when taken into consideration leads to the following direct translation between the systems: ILE -> ENTP SEI -> INFP ESE -> ENFP LII -> ISTJ EIE -> ESFJ LSI -> ENTJ SLE -> INTJ IEI -> ISFP SEE -> ESTJ ILI -> INTP LIE -> ESFP ESI -> INFJ LSE -> ESTP EII -> ISFJ IEE -> ENFJ SLI -> ISTP If you are any one of the types on the left in Socionics, you can only be the type on the right in MBTI. No exceptions.
I tend to like Socionics because I think in very similar way as it is was formulated. I tend to do/create/formulate these kinds of systems fairly often myself. Aushra was an ENTp and so am I. MBTI had Te/Fi perspective so it is systemically inferior. However (excuse my Fi resentment) it is related to just self acceptance/understanding coined with business logic. It is a product but not a great system because it has to sell acceptance (others and self) for the masses (Te-Fi axis). It does pretty good job in that respect. However I don't like its approach when I go deeper. Logically broken. You are referring to Model A there are more of them like Model B or Model G. I'm not very good at visuospatial tasks/tests but still very good at mathematics (go and figure). In that respect I see how intuition base people might have problems with perception. At least I do to some extent.
Thank you. this was very helpful. having watched this and taken a look at some relational outcome material I can say that it is not a good lens through which to view relationships. I would say as a whole analytical psychology is best used to help understand individuals, not relationships. I believe that burden falls on the individual in the relationship.
Very good video. Very clear and consistent explanations. I'm very familiar with MBTI, but not so much with Socionics, and I find it fascinating and am struggling to keep up with all of this new information. :P. Thanks for the video, very helpful
Trae Hesket both topologies have pretty much the same definitions for basic dichotomies, and therefore result in the same types; translating J and P to j and p is a failed attempt to solve a problem that lies in a completely different realm. The problem lies in how both typologies describe intro/extra functions depending on their place in the model. Which is funny, because with all the differences both mbti and socionics often borrow from each other and ultimately produce the same results, with only minor deviations from each other in a whole.
Which one do you think is more accurate? I find socionics to be a bit more appealing to me. Mbti gives me this feeling that there is always something more into it that we can't understand. Socionics seems more straight forward and structured.
Mr.Kokoras It can be so because it's primarily built as a logical system based on its own axioms. Whether it describes reality better is another thing entirely (and then there's the problem of MBTI the test vs. a functional approach which I wouldn't even call MBTI, the two have diverged so much nowadays)
Mr.Kokoras I'm inclined to second Komatik here, so I couldn't tell you which is more 'accurate'. I do empathize with your impression of MBTI vs. Socionics. I prefer MBTI because I've personally found its take on the ideas to be richer and allow more room for error.
WANT TO EASILY UNDERSTAND the Socionics DCNH model??? Read this condensed complete summary in plain English from pages 347 to 357 of Gulenko's "64 Types" book ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Why do people of the same Socionic type behave so differently? When 3-4 people of the same type gather to put together a puzzle, for example, some will be more active, others more passive, some more resourceful, and others more reserved, etc. With larger numbers of people an ever-wider variety of behaviors appear. Creating behavioral subtypes to the primary Socionic type. Yet unlike the Socionics primary type, behavioral subtypes are not static. But can change through a person's lifetime with sufficient internal motivation or pressures from unique life experiences. The Humanitarian Socionics School (HSS) have verified four to eight types of behavior within small group collective hierarchies. But for practical purposes (such as knowing what to look for when filling a leadership position) the DCNH subtype system is based on the following 4 functional subtypes with their primarily roles, associated attributes, and leading information elements (cognitive functions): • Dominant (Leader): Competitive; often recognized as the leader; sets clear objectives; ambitious (even when claiming the contrary); agrees only to temporary compromises with an eye on winning; acts decisively in complicated situations; has a high standard of performance; able to delegate responsibility; authoritarian but not in the details; communicates with a wide range of people while possessing only a small circle of close friends. (Reinforced through the linear-assertive functions Fe and Te. Fe energy resonates with Te engagement. Conversely, physical Te movements inevitably charges Fe emotions as well.) • Creative (generator of ideas): Change oriented; searches for new directions and allies; obsessed with originality; rebellious and individualistic; have the power of originality (and sometimes folly); pugnaciousness; ignores common standards; impulsive; dislikes following lengthy procedures. (Reinforced through the flexible-maneuvering (flexible-adaptive) functions Ne and Se. Ne (opportunities intuition) simultaneously resonates with Se (force sensing.)) • Normalizing (finisher): Accurate; compliant; disciplined; efficient; seeks routine work environments that require little flexibility or important decision making; patient; pays attention to detail; conservative; has a narrow circle of trusted friends. (Reinforced through the balanced-stable functions Ti and Fi. Ti (structural logic) as a set of formal rules is supported by Fi (relational ethics) which are guided by informal norms and traditions.) • Harmonizing (corrector): Externally calm looking yet easily embarrassed; anxiously hoping for the best; frugal and simple; emotionally sensitive, compliant; avoids conflict, irritable when feeling smothered; tolerant for the sake of habitual comfort; generous and able to empathize with the weak; allusive. (Reinforced through the receptive-adaptive functions Si and Ni. These functions are enhanced as pairs because they have similar energy. A state of Si (physical relaxation) activates the flight of Ni (imagination) and vice versa.) If the group has 3 people, instead of 4, then one person combines two roles. The most successful combined roles are leaders/idea generators, and finishers/harmonizers, since they are closer to energy. Although in real life many shades of Grey exist. When a small group is made up with different primary Socionic types, the DCNH subtype is primary and the person's primary type secondary in influencing what role each person will play within the social hierarchy. DCNH subtypes measured by the following 3 Polarities of situational behaviors: 1) Under stress and facing a direct challenge: Contact: Willing to accept it with vigor and excitement. (Dominant/creative) Distant: Distances themselves from confrontation to avoid freezing or losing a foothold. (Normalizing/harmonizing) 2) Projects and relationships: Terminal: Seeks closure, following through from start to the end, and streamlining. (Dominant/normalizing) Initial: Initiates and switches easily to a new activity, multitasking. (Creative/harmonizing) 3) External environmental changes: Connective: Reacts with a lot of sensitivity. (Dominant/harmonizing) Ignorative: Pays little attention (Creative/normalizing) Combining these three polarities, we get the following DCNH subtypes: • Contact, terminal, connective - dominant (D) • Contact, initial, ignorative - creative (C) • Distant, terminal, ignorative - normalizing • Distant, initial, connective - harmonizing (H) In real life there are lots of shades of grey between each of these polarities. Similar to how in MBTI a judger may at times act like stereotypical perceiver by not always having clear plans. (Terminal/Initial being similar to the judging/perceiving dichotomy.)
This is my first look at Socionics. Interesting that it so closely corresponds to the MBTI. Weren't they developed along parallel paths in different timeframes?
I was hoping you'd touch on Socionics--this is awesome, thank you so much! I can't wait to see your future videos regarding it! :) So, if I'm understanding correctly, as an ENFj, my 7th and 8th functions would be Fi and Ne (of which I'm unconsciously strengthened in)? How does this line up with the MBTI shadow functions theory (or does it at all)? From what I've read, Fi, in my case, would be my "stressed" function, while Ne would be my "critical parent" function. So MBTI holds the latter 4 functions are all simply weak? Apologies if you've already covered this at some point!
One way that socionics describes the id function block is that of boredom. For instance one may acknowledge that the opposite orientation of one's dominant function is in deed useful, but does not hold conscious interest for the subject. For instance, INTj's (LII) can often be found using objective principles and internal intuition to guide their introverted thinking and objectively divergent conscious thinking. These are subconscious elements are used as tools for the conscious functions of the opposite orientation. In your case, one could postulate that you use your own unconscious deeply subjective ethics in order to define your outwardly expressed ethics. In a similar manner, the external qualities of objects' potentials must act as a base for the subject connections of introverted intuition, because the inward perception cannot exist without some outward perception (that is Ne) for reference. You may also see these functions (Fi and Ne) as uninteresting while still acknowledging their practicality. That's just my interpretation. Hope it helped.
Melina Pulos I'll defer to Neil Smucker here as far as Socionics goes; from what I understand, I don't think it truly lines up well with the MBTI shadow function theory, not because they aren't similar, but because the function placement is different, the roles are different, and subtle parts of the structure are different. For example, you are correct to say that according to Socionics, as an ENFj your 7th and 8th functions are Fi and Ne (the attitude opposites of your dominant functions Fe and Ni). But in the MBTI shadow function theory, your 7th and 8th Shadow functions are Si and Te. Interestingly, in Socionics Si and Te are the super-id block functions (5 and 6), which like the MBTI shadow functions tend to be troublesome, but as to how, I believe there are a number of differences between the theories. I'm not as familiar in this area though. The long and short of it is you got it right in your questions -- so yes, sort of, and yes. :)
Are the rational introverts really "stable and balanced" and the irrational introverts "versatile & easygoing" (Last slide in video). Doesn't appear so at least on the surface.
Type Tips Good catch -- I didn't make that chart, I just grabbed it because I was having trouble finding charts that just showed other people's interpretations of those categorizations; I don't have any connection to those terms; sorry for the confusion.
FromBehindTheBoard Mostly just for the reasons I mentioned: I don't believe that the functions are best modeled by considering them as eight separate blocks. I prefer the more original Jung interpretation, where the functions are separate from their general attitudes, meaning if someone 'prefers' Ne, this is both at the expense of sensation (opposite of N) and an introverted attitude; furthermore, if you prefer Ne, then for my purposes, to try to talk about the manifestations of Ni in your personality misses the point of determining your *preference*.
FromBehindTheBoard I second Komatik's comments too; for various reasons I didn't see his reply before I posted mine. I personally think an eight function model cultivates the feeling that sometimes makes it really hard for people to feel certain about their type: that is, they are worried if they stick to a type then they will somehow lose certain abilities or lock themselves into a way of thought because they're giving up the potential advantages ascribed to the other functions. Thus, the eight function model is used to say "don't worry, you actually do have all those functions". But like Komatik explained very well, Jungian typology is about preferences, not really about "having" functions, as though you owned them.
Michael Pierce I'm inclined to agree that the 8 function models are much too specific about the roles that the various functions play (but frankly I think the current form of Myers-Briggs is too specific too.), but it also seems odd to me to exclude some people from certain modes of thought. Saying that because I use Ne, I never use Ni, seems like an unjustified condition to me, because Ne and Ni don't seem as though they're conflicting behaviors, but rather just better suited to different contexts. Likewise with Te and Ti, although feeling and sensation seem to come more in direct conflict between the different attitudes.
Komatik "A function is preference, predilection, tendency, aptitude, not a prerequisite to act in a certain way." Perhaps this hinges on your definition of function (and also on your definition of "act," whether you are talking about cognition or behavior), but if you are doing something (or more appropriately cognating, if that's a word) that fits the category of Ti, then by definition aren't you doing Ti? As Te-favoring type, that might be uncomfortable, and perhaps not very indicative of your character, but it seems odd to me to say that it's not happening.
FromBehindTheBoard What I mean is that a function is an ingrained preference for a certain way of taking in information, of dissecting and organizing it in the mind. It's a natural pattern of thinking. Basically, to me typology is a tool for explaining and dissecting a person's character and cognition. Not only strengths, but those peculiar, characteristic weaknesses and quirks of character that arise from having certain functional preferences. So when I say I have or use Te, I mean that I am inclined to do my cold, impartial reasoning according to a certain pattern (and likewise inclined to deal with my emotions and value judgments according to another). To say I "use Ti" when I do symbolic logic seems kind of silly - I'm thinking in a certain way, forcibly so. That I have a Te preference should already tell that I'm not naturally inclined to think in that way, and that it is draining and taxing. The contrast with an actual person who uses Ti is easy to see - they grasp the subject with more ease and navigate it with more ease because they naturally think in terms of hard rules, not probabilistic ones. Doing things because instead of "achieves tangible result X" is alsoi far more up their alley, while it'd be constantly bothering me. Anyone can acquire a skill. Doing something essentially by force doesn't say much about the person's cognition or character. Hrm. Probably not the best of explanations, but I hope it clarified something at least. If someone got my point, could they please reword it into something more structured?
I've been typed as an INFJ for the MBTI years ago. but everytime I've taken the Socionics I get INFj. I have some confusion, if you could clear up for me that'd be great. INFj is actually INFP in MBTI according to this correct? If so, I may need to be typed again and any advice on that as well?! Anyways another great video very informative cleared up a few other things for me.
Mac Hammac Well, as I understand it, yes: INFj = INFP, while INFp = INFJ. As far as making certain your type, the best I can suggest is the tests on CelebrityTypes.com. Glad you enjoyed the video! Thanks for the support!
Michael Pierce Thank you for the response. I took that one actually gonna do it again here in a little bit I legit scored split 50%/50% on it Hah! But I think what is getting in my way and why I'm looking for some "outside" Input is because the words that are synonymous with with INFP and INFJ like Artistic, creative, Idealistic can kinda sway between the two and unfortunately, as an artist *my actual job* I know for a fact because I've seen this word associated with them both it's going to be next to impossible for me to be completely objective about the decision on my own.
+Mac Hammac i know your feels, i identify myself to INTJ and INTj.. Let me say that by your tastes and picture you look much more like people i believe are INFJ than INFP... I crave to know the bias on this. Have you reached a conclusion on your types?
I've looked pretty deep in to the MBTI, but am struggling to reconcile some of the differences (inconsistencies, maybe?) between them, like the differences in the ordering of cognitive functions for a given type, etc. Also, for whatever reason, no matter how many times I've taken Socionics tests (including the more extensive ones), I test as INTp, but I always test as INTP in MBTI (and cognitive function tests/intuition seem to mostly support INTP/INTj). I also seem to relate much more to archetypal descriptions of INTP/INTj (though perhaps slightly more so with the former than the latter, although the differences seem slight) than with INTJ/INTp (same as above). Anyone have any input/advice to help straighten this out in my head? Thank you
Trae Hesket Same deal for me - I typed as an ISTP in MB and an ISTp in Socionics. I'm pretty sure about both, after a good bit of research and thought. I'm definitely not an ISTj, and I'm not an ISTJ in Myers Briggs. From what I can tell the Socionics information elements are definitely different from the Myers Briggs functions. For example, the Se function is about external perception, while the Se information element has to do with power and force.
All personality tests are unreliable. Check out CS Joseph and watch his videos on the INTP and INTJ and see if one of them resonates with you. Also check out his videos on temperament and interaction style. He has the best channel on UA-cam when it comes to practical application and use of typology.
The main thing I get from socionics is that the categories of NF, NT, ST, and SF and more prominent than the functions themselves. If the 1st, 2nd, 7th, and 8th functions are strongest, then we are strongest in only two functions (regardless of attitude)- as you have said- and so I'm guessing SFs will be very alike for instance since they'll all be strong with Fe,Fi,Se, and Si in various order. To what degree can an ISFj really differ from an ESFj if their primary feeling functions "spill" into the opposite attitude?
Zacharyzmp Well, that is simply an idea I brought up to reconcile Socionics' differing order of functions to MBTI; the difference between the types, in my opinion, is never one of mathematical rigidity or categorization, which I feel Socionics to some degree is going for. Rather, its a difference of tendencies, preferences, and regular flow of psychic energy, if you will. So the difference between an ISFj (ISFP) and ESFj (ESFJ) is that the one's manifestation of feeling is preferably extroverted, while the other is preferably introverted, but because feeling is so dominant in general, if one wanted to reconcile MBTI with Socionics to a degree, they could say that the sum total of the type's "usage" of feeling ended up with 85% Fe and 15% Fi. The proportions would carry down through the functions, but the actual "amount" of usage would decrease as the portions decreased. So, the degree to which an ESFJ and ISFP differ would be the same degree to which their attitudes (E vs. I) differed.
What do you mean by the "the actual amount of usage would decrease as the portions (proportions?) decreased"? Do you mean the decrease that you see going down the stack?
In some of your videos you reference previous videos, please provide links either in the video or the description. How did you conclude your categories from Jung's work?
DinosaurFilms Well, I just looked up a few descriptions of 5w4: they seemed to fit me very well! Kudos to you! With similar uncanny elements/insights that I got when I first took an MBTI assessment, on which I typed as INFJ, and have continued to strongly identify with that many more tests later. I have gotten a number of requests for an enneagram video, and I am working on it, but I'm still having to do some research like I did before the Socionics video, but it shouldn't be too much longer. :)
there is a question if u can help, i think ur good at this stuffs just latly im learning about shadow functions, most of times i typed as ENTP, and im caring and warm its explained by Fe , but at same time i'm very moral deeply Moral so i dubted that i'm en ENFP after hearing that ENTP's lack of moralty by that blindspote Fi as 7th fuctions, i like sport and and im skilled at sports so that make doubt about ESTP, but im procrastinator ,and i it clear that Ne is so strong in me and Se in real life is weak,PEAPOL are amazed that i cant memorize well roaeds of streets i pass by it many times, cus im in my thinking when im walking, driving eating, even when im swimming lol, and im pterry sure about my kind of thinking is Ti, and clear that im perciever and and procrasitinator, and messy, nd have many interstin my life, and i get distcarted alot, and in studies, im kind who act wat if, why we didnt do that that way for other informations, i have master degree in pruduction of hydrocarbbons, and i work in that field, and i also study politic since and im very interested in psycho, and im willing to study it hope u can help?? i will apreciate thanks
Hey are you bubbly and child like aura?How well do you connect with people?How are you with children?Mostly likely an ENFP I am myself INFP and a master proscrinator.
I found the socionic test clunky, vague and actually boring. If you really want to help this community of the interested, come up with a new test that is more black and white and perhaps interesting and fun! Haha, sorry for the forwardness of this comment. I am sure you have me pegged somewhere on the wheel. Thanks
TheMaleAvenger Ha! That makes the music I chose for the opening hilarious! I still prefer MBTI, but there are a lot of people interested in it, so I am obliging. Glad you still liked it!
Philosophers - Alpha
Saints - Beta
Royals - Gamma
Free Spirit - Delta
YES
I'm not so sure on the last one.
I like this video but still find Socionics very user unfriendly
Something as complicated as the mind isn't user friendly.
It's not that complex
try linux
You have been my greatest teacher in regard to typology, and it is a wonderful feeling to know that you also acknowledge the compatibility between myres-briggs and socionics.
i have struggled to understand socionics, and i am still a long way off, but this video really helped shed some light for me, so thank you.
You just need to know the two strongest functions for each type.
If you really want to make it more complicated, add the two functions they search for in their dual type. It's that simple
It isn't a controversy if MBTI and socionics are incompatible, it's a fact they're not if you just juxtapose their Si or their LSI and ISTP, LSI will turn out much more like ISTJ and is typically associated with high conscientiousness very unlike the ISTP's slick image in the MBTI
What's important to keep in mind about abstract conceptual systems such as personality typologies (like Socionics) is that, while they can certainly be fun and interesting, are merely made-up constructs to give us a way of perceiving an inconceivably neuanced phenomena in the real world (like human personality) and a means of communicating it. If it's helpful; great! But it isn't and could never be the absolute. In other words: Don't mistake the map for the territory.
I kinda have a problem with the use of the word "logic" because I always viewed thinking types as types that are rational rather that logical. The difference between logic and rationality is that logic is understanding complicated concepts (also connected to intuition) while rationality is basically just making smart decisions (well thats a big simplifucatuon but I hope you get my point) these two things were proven to be something completely different as far as I know
Cool video as always. I have a suggestion for difficult names: show them spelled out in the video and just say 'this person' and that's it. Actually, spelling out many of the key words you use in general in your presentation is a good teaching device and better than just using images or graphs
fascinating! i also "invented" that same function-sharking group system… i didn't give them fancy names though. another interesting trend that i seem to be observing lately is that people will use their 5th or 6th functions even if their 4th (inferior) isn't developed yet… those being the id block, which could account for why they seem to show up strongly in people. i like to use the eight function system as well, with the four regular/preferred functions on top and then the "mirror" functions beneath. i am an INTJ in mbti and found myself hard to type because my 6th function (Ti) was so developed, which lead me to believe i was an INTP for a long time. i've noticed the same thing in my step-dad, and ESFP who uses their Si much more than their Ni even though the Ni is farther up the stack. thanks for posting
Thanks again for another video. Simple, insightful, stuctured, plesantly Hal-9000-y: everything I've come to expect and love from this channel. The quality of the comments on these videos is, I believe, a direct reflection of the quality of the content. Keep it up.
(PS I like "Royalty" as a descriptive name for the Gamma quadra, granted for me the concept of kingship is more connected to Tolkien than Prince William.)
Wonderful work, Michael. I always look forward to your videos, please continue!
Bethany Rutherford Thanks! :)
The Ven Diagram is brilliant beyond brilliant for those seeking to gain a basic understanding for functional relations between quadras, This incredibly difficult to see from the physical layout of Model A where the gamma quadra stacks under the Alpha quadra whereas those two moreover contrast each other. Great introductory video & incredible content, Michael.
I pray more people can use this information to teach themselves, learn and recognize how I, myself am as the humanitarian i see myself to be through the struggles in my life.
Thank you, kindly ~
This was a fantastic introduction, thank you. I was struggling to find any type of intro video or podcast that actually gave a general but informative overview of the theory. Cheers!
Thank you for taking the time to put this together. I've been searching for an explanation like this for a long time.
Would love to see a 2 hour version of this. Amazing condensation!
For some reason, most Socionics guides or forums describe the introverted types almost exactly the same as MBTI ones. For instance, Socionics ISTp is not described as an MBTI equivalent of ISTJ, but in fact of ISTP.
No.
Tharlo Yep, 3 years ago I was misinformed lol
Most of the ISTPs (the 9w8s) are SLI. It's easier to convert the whole combination into a Sociotype than to convert an MBTI type. There are even ISTP ILIs like Magnus Carlsen.
100%
I studied socionics for several years. I was also typed by all known Gulenko. Socionics is a great tool but I still combine it with MBTI...
however, I feel that being an ESI (Draizer) I'm not at all an ISFp but more of an ISFJ ... the reason is Si (the black circle) has a totally different meaning in socionics. The black circle stands for power, control, money... doesn't have anything to do with memory and experiences
After investigating socionics, I realized that Fi is not hierarchical. I think you might have taken that notion from celebrity types, I remember they had this half-baked article about Fi-Te as hierarchical. I actually think the beta quadra (saints) like social hierarchy and power dynamics. "Saints" does not really fit them, the more I interact with them the more I realized socionics has it right: NFJ-STP are fun-loving, rowdy, boisterous, dramatic. The opposite of saints actually. In a good way, I admire these qualities about them.
The Te/Fi axis is hierarchical - however the hierarchal nature comes from the interaction of the two functions: Te's desire to organize, evaluate and optimize and Fi's desire for independence. Fi alone isn't very hierarchical at all.
As I wrote in the Fe v. Fi video comments:
To the INFPs out there confused if you are INFPs because you don't feel all the "one man is better than the next" stuff - don't be. One important thing about the Te/Fi axis is that Fi is indeed individuating and wants everyone to be who they really want to be and to be able to express themselves freely. But I think Michael accidentally put a bit of Te into his Fi description - the Te/Fi axis' tendency for hierarchy, belief in inequality and a certain dogged drive for excellence is born from Te's desire to measure, organize and optimize the outside world.
To put this into display, here are some rather blunt quotes from INTJs (Ni Te Fi Se), who prefer Te over Fi, but consciously have both:
Nietzsche: "What is good? All that heightens the feeling of power, power itself in man. What is bad? All that proceeds from weakness."
Nietzsche: "Active, successful natures shun the dictum 'know thyself' and follow the commandment: 'Will thyself.'"
Nietzsche: "Not all men ought to be free. There are many who threw off their final worth when they threw off their bondage."
Fischer: "Most people are sheep, and they need the support of others."
Nash: "Don't ... depend on current fashion or ... popular opinion."
Nash: "[One] could think of Zarathustra as simply a madman. ... But without his 'madness' [he would] have been only another of the ... billions of human individuals who have lived and then been forgotten."
Asimov: "Those people who think they know everything are a great annoyance to those of us who do."
Asimov: "Never let your sense of morals get in the way of doing what's right."
Heraclitus: "One man is worth ten thousand if he is extraordinary."
Heraclitus: "Most men have sated themselves like cattle. ... Greater men are allotted greater destinies."
With a less abrasive tone:
Hegel: "[I] want to restore the human race to its full totality."
Paracelsus: "If you have been given a talent, exercise it freely and happily like the sun: give everyone from your splendour."
Power: "Cold-blooded reason is a tool that you can employ on behalf of what you believe in."
The INTJs have a tendency to believe that some people are indeed superior to others, but exhort everyone to be the best they can be. A life of mediocrity is not a worthwhile one. Find yourself, realize yourself, lift yourself to greatness to set a path for others to follow.
Now, contrast with the INFPs who repress the hierarchical, optimizing, ordering conqueror/bulldozer out of the conscious mind and are left with the idealistic, individualistic, romantic Fi ruling their psyche:
Kierkegaard: "To pace about, looking to obtain status, looking to attain 'importance' - I can think of nothing more ridiculous."
Camus: "Nobody realizes that some people expend tremendous energy merely to be normal."
Camus: "To be happy, we must not be too concerned with others."
Orwell: "What I have most wanted to do ... is to make political writing into an art. My starting point is always a feeling of partisanship, a sense of injustice."
Tolkien: "I [am] a mere individual ... with intense feelings more than ideas."
Tolkien: "The most improper job of any man ... is bossing other men. Not one in a million is fit for it, and least of all those who seek the opportunity."
C. S. Lewis: "[There is] in me ... a distaste for all that is public, all that belongs to the collective."
Lewis: "Friendship arises ... when two [people] discover that they have in common some ... interest or taste ...which, till that moment, each believed to be his own unique treasure."
George R. R. Martin: "My own heroes are the dreamers, those ... who tried to make the world a better place. ... Some failed ... but it is the effort that's heroic, as I see it."
Saint-Exupery: "If you want to build a ship, don't drum up the men to gather wood, divide the work and give orders. Instead, teach them to yearn for the vast and endless sea."
Kafka: "[People are] quite different. What grips me need hardly touch you at all. ... What is innocence in you may be guilt in me. ... What has no consequences for you may be the last nail in my coffin."
Augustine: "The good man, though a slave, is free; the wicked, though he reigns, is a slave, and not the slave of a single man, but - what is worse - the slave of as many masters as he has vices."
Wright: "'Natural' is the last thing [people] would let you be if they could prevent it. ... That's why they ... make all these senseless rules [and] foolish regulations."
Hans Fritzsche (Head of radio propaganda in Nazi Germany):
Fritzsche: "Because my nature was completely strange to feelings of power, I always considered it a burden to decide on the fate of people - even such little things as whether they should be hired or discharged in my office."
Komatik Yes, but on the other hand, I get a lot of hierarchical statements from Fe and Se users too. When I talk to ENFJs (Fe + Se) there appears to be a bit of a human hierarchy in their heads, from a social standpoint. There is INFJ Plato (Fe + Se) and his "philosopher kings" who rule over others. From Se-doms there is a need to dominate, to become the alpha. They sense the level of power in you. You see glimpses of this Se hierarchical power dynamic in ENFJs and INFJs. The people you mentioned are INTJs, which means they use Se. Nietzsche was obviously driven by Se, a sort of dog-eat-dog kind of attitude. Therefore, I think "hierarchy" cannot fit along the Te-Fi axis at all if HALF of the equation (Fi) rejects hierarchy. I think it comes from the idea that Fi likes uniqueness, but it also perceives everyone else as being unique. Fi is humble and self-effacing, at times too humble. The difference I see in INFP and INFJ is that actually INFJs appear a little aristocratic, and if unhealthy rather arrogant like an unhealthy INTJ. However there is a noticeable "snobbery" in regards to this arrogance, in which the INFJ would like the finest wines, restaurants, houte culture. These are only some INFJs. This is less likely the INFP tendency--an unhealthy INFP would not be taking responsibilities for their own lives and wine and complain about the people in power and worship weakness.
I also think the STJs and NFPs should be called "Saints" or "Moralists"...not saying that they are better but simply have a more strong sense of a stringent ethics that comes from Fi and Te. Also the lack of Se causes in favor of an Si contributes to the moralist stance.
"Therefore, I think "hierarchy" cannot fit along the Te-Fi axis at all if HALF of the equation (Fi) rejects hierarchy."
This does not follow. It's like saying Se cannot live in the here and now because Ni doesn't like to live in the here and now, or that Ne cannot love future possibilities because Si is a bit suspicious of the future. That Ti cannot love unyielding logical truths because abiding by them would make some people unhappy.
No, the whole point is that the functions on an axis are opposites. It is precisely because they are opposites that they balance each other out and end up complementing one another. The perception functions add up to a complete view of time and observe both the object and the ideas it inspires, one of the judging functions is impartial and cold, the other partial and warm. One loses itself in the world, one grounds the person in immutable principle.
Consider why mature, individuated people feel well-rounded? It is because the functions' opposite attitudes lend the overall character a balance. If they simply played to the same tune from a different pitch, we'd have a ton of very monotone people on our hands.
That other functions are also interested in social status is a correct observation, though, Te, Fe, Si and Se being the big main ones.
Te is hierarchical, but not Fi. I am not saying Te is not hierarchical. I am saying that "hierarchical" is inadequate to describe the "Te-Fi" axis. Michael Pierce's description of "Se-Ni" as intensive works because both Se and Ni are intensive. It has been suggested that Fi is "hierarchical" because of a need to scale values. That does not make sense to me, as all the other judging functions seem to be scaling something. Plus the connotation of "hierarchical" does not work for Fi, because it is one of the least hierarchical functions. Te has a strong hierarchical vibe, but Fe and Se has some of that too.
I'd say that switching letters is the worst way of typing someone...the right way is to do a good proper socionics test. What happens if you fit in one mbti type but when it comes to that switching you dont fit with it? I'm ISTP on mbti (1 hundred times tested and else) but when I go to socionics...I'm not ISTj at all. I do the socionics test and I score SLI with really high Ti (but lightly more Si than Ti), and obviously I dont score Si high on mbti functions tests...so, switching letters? I dont think its so simple dude. Of course, this is not just me, there are a lot of people that don't fit in that switching game.
Same here, my understandings about what you called "axis" and other combinations like temperaments, clubs, quadra. Strangely coincided with socionics under different names.
INTP: Great video! A little labeling would help when the "blocks" are being shown. As an MBTI professional, I appreciate the crossover and look forward to your other videos in this series.
Wax on, wax off... Covertly been teaching competency in socionics this whole time lol. Good work!
Great video. Interested to see more of what you think about Socionics theory. Sums it up pretty well. I think a lot of the ideas can shed light on some of the more vague MBTI concepts; however, I have a couple questions/comments to make.
First off, a while back a looked a lot into Socionics and, of course, read a bit about the correlation or otherwise lack thereof between MBTI and Socionics, and found some different viewpoints as you suggested. In particular, there is some debate around translating MBTI types into Socionics types and vice versa. The example you used, MBTI ISFJ being Socionics ISFp, seems to be the general principle most agree on, i.e., switching the J or P of the introverted MBTI type. Can't find the link with the info that I'm referencing right now, but I read that this may be a misconception and that actually there isn't a very clear 1:1 correlation when trying to translate MBTI into Socionics. I've read that an ISFJ may actually type as either ISFp or ISFj in Socionics, for example, and the same follows for all introverted MBTI types. Whether this idea is the result of some thought towards general function incompatibility or something else, I'm not sure. As you said, there seems to be a pretty good correlation between Jungian function, at least by your specific definitions, and Socionics functions in theory, though how those functions manifest themselves or at least are said to manifest themselves in an MBTI type and a Socionics type is a bit different if only at face value. Something to look into, I suppose. If I find the link I'll let you know. It was some website that was put together for the purpose of teaching Socionics theory and nothing more if I remember correctly. I remember back when I looked into it I actually personally concluded that MBTI types couldn't be translated into Socionics, or that I at least couldn't figure out how to do it clearly at all, even if the functions are pretty much the same essentially. And it seems a number of people are having this difficulty as well in the comments regarding their Socionics type in relation to their MBTI. Very unsure about this, however.
The second thing has to do with intertype relations, which seems to me to be the defining aspect of Socionics that really sets it apart and makes it especially interesting. I'm curious to hear if you don't mind, what your opinion is on the system not just in theory but in practice. I personally think that in theory, it makes a great deal of sense and, when utilized correctly, can produce and insightful analysis of types and their functions. It seems to be a great deal for further understanding the differences and similarities between types as well as the relationship between them and their functions and how they all tend to work together or interact; however, I find that this doesn't translate very well at all to actual people. As you probably know, there are a great deal of compatibility and relationship theories and ideas built upon MBTI that are largely unexplored and undeveloped, or at least from what I can gather that appears to be the case. Most of those theories come from rather dubious forums or websites, while others have been explored a bit on more reliable places such as CelebrityTypes. Pretty sure they a single article on their sight summing up some general ideas about the relationship between types, in theory of course. In all cases, however, I personally find it important to stress the fact that these theories often don't translate very well in reality. Sometimes they do, sometimes they don't. I think they are better understood as a tool to be differentiate between the types and the functions and to gain a better understanding thereof, but the effects of trying to use these theories on real people in the real world are often misleading and sometimes harmful. Or perhaps a different approach could be taken to eliminate those problems? I am unsure. In my experience, however, when people start thinking in terms of "ESTP is supposed to be my ideal type, therefore I must only ever consider romantic relations with an ESTP if I want anything truly worthwhile as any other relation will be relatively sub-par.," they often find themselves vastly confused and disappointed. Using intertype relations as a dating/friendship tool is probably not a good idea in my opinion. Using it to understand the nature of types and functions however, is wonderful. From there, you may draw upon insights to better understand actual people, as the actual interactions between people in daily life tend to drawn upon a variety of complex factors that are highly difficult at best to pin down and attribute to very specific things in such a theory. Though perhaps one's perception and opinion of intertype relations and how best to utilize it is in itself related to that person's type in some part. So I may be biased. And after watching your intertype relations video, I can't help but wonder if those specific relationships described aren't wholly a result of type/function relationships as the theory would claim. They certainly describe very true things about the relationships between people and types in the real world in many cases but, for example, I think INFp may very well experience a dual relation as it is described with a type that is not ESTp, and that may be with a radically different type. I wonder if the relations between people may be better described in some terms that fall outside the direct scope of Socionics/Typology, or at least in a way that hasn't yet been explored within the systems as they are. And sure it may be demanding a lot to fault a theory for not having a perfect 1:1 correlation, but I think the implication is that people tend to be very mislead by it, I personally think. So perhaps there is a better way to approach, and I do very like how you approached in your video by the way, in balancing the descriptions like you did. It's certainly a problem when some of the only positive relation you read is between dual types and all the others are largely negative while the dual relation has almost nothing negative if anything. In any case, I'll stop ranting now, and I hope I've said things that may have made some sense. Interested to hear your opinion on that, however, if you don't mind. And thank you for your time.
Alex Cavender Well, you'll probably be happy to know that I find myself agreeing with everything you said :)
So to answer:
1) I ran into the same thing when looking more fervently into Socionics: where people are strongly recommended that I take a different Socionics test, because in the Socionics system I may actually be, for example, ISFj instead of ISFp (correlating with ISFJ in MBTI), just like you said. Unfortunately, I don't have an answer for you on that one. Obviously, I didn't give much attention to that in the video because I don't know enough about it and just found it distracting...but I can't see anyone saying it without a good reason. But I'm just not knowledgeable enough on the subject right now to know where those Socionists are drawing their distinction.
2) I agree with everything you said on intertype relations; I myself have had a bit of a back-and-forth relationship with them. I've seen them seem to describe relationships I've had with uncanny accuracy, and I've found myself struggling to reconcile the way I actually experienced a relationship with what the theory says. I made the video because I find it an interesting theory, and because (though I sometimes forget) my original reason for doing UA-cam was to try to make more accessible these fundamental ideas in the community that I haven't found made accessible anywhere else. Whether or not I'm succeeding is up to you, of course. In any case, one of my most rewarding relationships has been what Socionics would call a "contrary" relation, which is described quite often as doomed to fail, though they always explain it in nearly medical phraseology. I suppose one could say in Socionics' defense that these relationships describe what would happen if the functions, treated as discursive mathematical concepts, interacted in pure space, but the muddiness of real life lowers its accuracy considerably. For example, I actually got along *marvelously* with an ENTJ *while living in very close quarters with them for over a month*, but according to Socionics that should have been awful. While I can see shadowy elements of how that *could* have been the case, the fact of the matter was other factors were more prominent, so that it wasn't the case. For example, our shared interests and backgrounds, us both having just escaped rather difficult psychological circumstances and suddenly being able to breathe again, etc.
I definitely do not like the doom and gloom that seems to accompany the intertype relations; I'm almost afraid that if I give credence to them they'll become self-fulfilling prophecies. Yet, my time with that ENTJ was really very good for both parties, and I have no reason to believe that we wouldn't get along marvelously if we ran into each other again.
Anyway, those are my thoughts -- did that address all of your thoughts?
Michael Pierce Thanks for the reply.
I think that's fair. While it's fairly difficult to find really good sources for info on Typology/MBTI, it's at least twice as hard to find reliable Socionics sources and tests too, at least from what I've experienced. Certainly it is distracting; definitely put me off from Socionics for a while, but beyond that I suppose it isn't vastly important in relation to the rest of what is being said. Just something I was wondering about.
As for intertype relations, I agree entirely. At first, I'm always really interested in what the descriptions have to say about relationships and such, and often find them to be very accurate, but have to keep reminding myself that it's probably a bad idea to place too much stock in that. Like trying to translate MBTI types into Socionics types, in relation to reality, I found the intertype relations to be distracting and potentially harmful at that, beyond the insights gleaned from pure theory. But of course, I was only curious as to what your personal thoughts were on that. As for making these ideas more accessible, your videos generally succeed at doing even more than just that. As I said, it's very difficult to find a lot of this sort of info on the internet, or books that are fairly accessible to most people without finding a lot of horribly misleading, unreliable information as well as just personally misinterpreting a lot of it. So certainly in this regard, this all beyond helpful, I think. And allowing people to draw their own conclusions is always important. I appreciate your personal example as well. I suppose it may depend on how much one thinks Typology or Socionics or whatever can explain about a person to begin with. But "self-fulfilling prophecy" is definitely a good term to use, there. It's easy to over-simplify one's current and potential relationships whenever you internalize a sort of expectation of that sort. Seems to be the core of the issue I personally find in it. I really like the more balanced approach you took in your intertype relations video, however. Most descriptions I've read are horrendously to extreme either way, I think. honestly look forward to seeing whatever else you may do on Socionics, and other systems as well.
Speaking of which, out of curiosity, have you looked into Enneagram much? Whereas Typology is less about personality directly and more about fundamental patterns and preferences of thought, which of course form the basis for one's personality and general character oftentimes, Enneagram is more centered around direct personality traits, it seems. It examines motivations/instincts of character and coping mechanisms, personal growth and so on. It's also often related to a multitude of other theories, such as Freudian Id, Ego, and Super-ego. Very interesting stuff. Not much has been done on the relation between it and any other system such MBTI/Typology, though some have tried relating functions to various Enneagram types. Riso and Hudson's book seems to be the standard for Enneagram theory. Curious what you think about if you've looked into much at all. Hope I'm not asking way too many questions by the way.
Thanks for the reply, again, and the thoughts. Really appreciate it.
Yay! Glad I could be of service! This is a short reply, just because of how busy I've been, and I'd rather send a short reply than no reply at all. Anyway, I have begun looking into enneagram; I find it quite interesting and plan to do an intro video in the near future.
I like this. Let's create a group and learn, and be inspired.
Yeah most of the Mbti's question marks filled by me were actually found in socionics. Still socionics has some question marks themselves though I haven't fully looked at socionics yet.
Have you ever considered your channel branching out to cover other personality type models separate from those derived from Jungian psychology such as Enneagram?
IndigoXYZ18 I have, you're not the first to ask :) I'll see what I can do in the future, I just need time to become much more acquainted with them than I am right now.
LOL pronouncing that name.
Congratulations on having your framework coincide with socionics! Wow!
There is a one to one translation between MBTI and Socionics based on differing definitions of functions, e.g. Socionics Se = MBTI Ni + Te, which when taken into consideration leads to the following direct translation between the systems:
ILE -> ENTP
SEI -> INFP
ESE -> ENFP
LII -> ISTJ
EIE -> ESFJ
LSI -> ENTJ
SLE -> INTJ
IEI -> ISFP
SEE -> ESTJ
ILI -> INTP
LIE -> ESFP
ESI -> INFJ
LSE -> ESTP
EII -> ISFJ
IEE -> ENFJ
SLI -> ISTP
If you are any one of the types on the left in Socionics, you can only be the type on the right in MBTI. No exceptions.
For ILI, shouldn’t be INTp?
I like your term “Royals” for Gamma Quadra. I’d keep it
I tend to like Socionics because I think in very similar way as it is was formulated. I tend to do/create/formulate these kinds of systems fairly often myself. Aushra was an ENTp and so am I.
MBTI had Te/Fi perspective so it is systemically inferior. However (excuse my Fi resentment) it is related to just self acceptance/understanding coined with business logic. It is a product but not a great system because it has to sell acceptance (others and self) for the masses (Te-Fi axis). It does pretty good job in that respect. However I don't like its approach when I go deeper. Logically broken.
You are referring to Model A there are more of them like Model B or Model G.
I'm not very good at visuospatial tasks/tests but still very good at mathematics (go and figure). In that respect I see how intuition base people might have problems with perception. At least I do to some extent.
Thank you. this was very helpful. having watched this and taken a look at some relational outcome material I can say that it is not a good lens through which to view relationships. I would say as a whole analytical psychology is best used to help understand individuals, not relationships. I believe that burden falls on the individual in the relationship.
Not gonna lie, Ti PoLr reaaaaaallllllyyyyy hampers my ability to enjoy socionics 😆
Those are some fascinating correlations
Very good video. Very clear and consistent explanations. I'm very familiar with MBTI, but not so much with Socionics, and I find it fascinating and am struggling to keep up with all of this new information. :P. Thanks for the video, very helpful
Trae Hesket both topologies have pretty much the same definitions for basic dichotomies, and therefore result in the same types; translating J and P to j and p is a failed attempt to solve a problem that lies in a completely different realm. The problem lies in how both typologies describe intro/extra functions depending on their place in the model. Which is funny, because with all the differences both mbti and socionics often borrow from each other and ultimately produce the same results, with only minor deviations from each other in a whole.
Which one do you think is more accurate? I find socionics to be a bit more appealing to me. Mbti gives me this feeling that there is always something more into it that we can't understand. Socionics seems more straight forward and structured.
Mr.Kokoras It can be so because it's primarily built as a logical system based on its own axioms. Whether it describes reality better is another thing entirely (and then there's the problem of MBTI the test vs. a functional approach which I wouldn't even call MBTI, the two have diverged so much nowadays)
Mr.Kokoras I'm inclined to second Komatik here, so I couldn't tell you which is more 'accurate'. I do empathize with your impression of MBTI vs. Socionics. I prefer MBTI because I've personally found its take on the ideas to be richer and allow more room for error.
Interesting... Im an N Dom type on mbti and I definitely find myself thinking in terms of time a lot. Nice explanation! thanks
I'd say socinics uses a similar function stack approach as mbti does
That was absolutely fantastic!
WANT TO EASILY UNDERSTAND the Socionics DCNH model???
Read this condensed complete summary in plain English from pages 347 to 357 of Gulenko's "64 Types" book
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Why do people of the same Socionic type behave so differently?
When 3-4 people of the same type gather to put together a puzzle, for example, some will be more active, others more passive, some more resourceful, and others more reserved, etc.
With larger numbers of people an ever-wider variety of behaviors appear. Creating behavioral subtypes to the primary Socionic type.
Yet unlike the Socionics primary type, behavioral subtypes are not static. But can change through a person's lifetime with sufficient internal motivation or pressures from unique life experiences.
The Humanitarian Socionics School (HSS) have verified four to eight types of behavior within small group collective hierarchies. But for practical purposes (such as knowing what to look for when filling a leadership position) the DCNH subtype system is based on the following 4 functional subtypes with their primarily roles, associated attributes, and leading information elements (cognitive functions):
• Dominant (Leader): Competitive; often recognized as the leader; sets clear objectives; ambitious (even when claiming the contrary); agrees only to temporary compromises with an eye on winning; acts decisively in complicated situations; has a high standard of performance; able to delegate responsibility; authoritarian but not in the details; communicates with a wide range of people while possessing only a small circle of close friends.
(Reinforced through the linear-assertive functions Fe and Te. Fe energy resonates with Te engagement. Conversely, physical Te movements inevitably charges Fe emotions as well.)
• Creative (generator of ideas): Change oriented; searches for new directions and allies; obsessed with originality; rebellious and individualistic; have the power of originality (and sometimes folly); pugnaciousness; ignores common standards; impulsive; dislikes following lengthy procedures.
(Reinforced through the flexible-maneuvering (flexible-adaptive) functions Ne and Se. Ne (opportunities intuition) simultaneously resonates with Se (force sensing.))
• Normalizing (finisher): Accurate; compliant; disciplined; efficient; seeks routine work environments that require little flexibility or important decision making; patient; pays attention to detail; conservative; has a narrow circle of trusted friends.
(Reinforced through the balanced-stable functions Ti and Fi. Ti (structural logic) as a set of formal rules is supported by Fi (relational ethics) which are guided by informal norms and traditions.)
• Harmonizing (corrector): Externally calm looking yet easily embarrassed; anxiously hoping for the best; frugal and simple; emotionally sensitive, compliant; avoids conflict, irritable when feeling smothered; tolerant for the sake of habitual comfort; generous and able to empathize with the weak; allusive.
(Reinforced through the receptive-adaptive functions Si and Ni. These functions are enhanced as pairs because they have similar energy. A state of Si (physical relaxation) activates the flight of Ni (imagination) and vice versa.)
If the group has 3 people, instead of 4, then one person combines two roles.
The most successful combined roles are leaders/idea generators, and finishers/harmonizers, since they are closer to energy. Although in real life many shades of Grey exist.
When a small group is made up with different primary Socionic types, the DCNH subtype is primary and the person's primary type secondary in influencing what role each person will play within the social hierarchy.
DCNH subtypes measured by the following 3 Polarities of situational behaviors:
1) Under stress and facing a direct challenge:
Contact: Willing to accept it with vigor and excitement. (Dominant/creative)
Distant: Distances themselves from confrontation to avoid freezing or losing a foothold. (Normalizing/harmonizing)
2) Projects and relationships:
Terminal: Seeks closure, following through from start to the end, and streamlining. (Dominant/normalizing)
Initial: Initiates and switches easily to a new activity, multitasking. (Creative/harmonizing)
3) External environmental changes:
Connective: Reacts with a lot of sensitivity. (Dominant/harmonizing)
Ignorative: Pays little attention (Creative/normalizing)
Combining these three polarities, we get the following DCNH subtypes:
• Contact, terminal, connective - dominant (D)
• Contact, initial, ignorative - creative (C)
• Distant, terminal, ignorative - normalizing
• Distant, initial, connective - harmonizing (H)
In real life there are lots of shades of grey between each of these polarities. Similar to how in MBTI a judger may at times act like stereotypical perceiver by not always having clear plans. (Terminal/Initial being similar to the judging/perceiving dichotomy.)
This is my first look at Socionics. Interesting that it so closely corresponds to the MBTI. Weren't they developed along parallel paths in different timeframes?
I LOVE YOU!
You've done a fantastic job of making socionics make sense, because to be honest, their site isn't as good.
Your pfp is everywhere
@@kinarast I am a man of great influence.
interesting.. would you make some more videos about Socionics and personalities. Thanks
I was hoping you'd touch on Socionics--this is awesome, thank you so much! I can't wait to see your future videos regarding it! :)
So, if I'm understanding correctly, as an ENFj, my 7th and 8th functions would be Fi and Ne (of which I'm unconsciously strengthened in)? How does this line up with the MBTI shadow functions theory (or does it at all)? From what I've read, Fi, in my case, would be my "stressed" function, while Ne would be my "critical parent" function. So MBTI holds the latter 4 functions are all simply weak? Apologies if you've already covered this at some point!
One way that socionics describes the id function block is that of boredom. For instance one may acknowledge that the opposite orientation of one's dominant function is in deed useful, but does not hold conscious interest for the subject. For instance, INTj's (LII) can often be found using objective principles and internal intuition to guide their introverted thinking and objectively divergent conscious thinking. These are subconscious elements are used as tools for the conscious functions of the opposite orientation.
In your case, one could postulate that you use your own unconscious deeply subjective ethics in order to define your outwardly expressed ethics. In a similar manner, the external qualities of objects' potentials must act as a base for the subject connections of introverted intuition, because the inward perception cannot exist without some outward perception (that is Ne) for reference. You may also see these functions (Fi and Ne) as uninteresting while still acknowledging their practicality.
That's just my interpretation. Hope it helped.
Melina Pulos I'll defer to Neil Smucker here as far as Socionics goes; from what I understand, I don't think it truly lines up well with the MBTI shadow function theory, not because they aren't similar, but because the function placement is different, the roles are different, and subtle parts of the structure are different. For example, you are correct to say that according to Socionics, as an ENFj your 7th and 8th functions are Fi and Ne (the attitude opposites of your dominant functions Fe and Ni). But in the MBTI shadow function theory, your 7th and 8th Shadow functions are Si and Te. Interestingly, in Socionics Si and Te are the super-id block functions (5 and 6), which like the MBTI shadow functions tend to be troublesome, but as to how, I believe there are a number of differences between the theories. I'm not as familiar in this area though. The long and short of it is you got it right in your questions -- so yes, sort of, and yes. :)
Are the rational introverts really "stable and balanced" and the irrational introverts "versatile & easygoing" (Last slide in video). Doesn't appear so at least on the surface.
Type Tips Good catch -- I didn't make that chart, I just grabbed it because I was having trouble finding charts that just showed other people's interpretations of those categorizations; I don't have any connection to those terms; sorry for the confusion.
Hi Michael. Thank you for the explanation.
Why do you favor a four function model over an eight function one?
FromBehindTheBoard Mostly just for the reasons I mentioned: I don't believe that the functions are best modeled by considering them as eight separate blocks. I prefer the more original Jung interpretation, where the functions are separate from their general attitudes, meaning if someone 'prefers' Ne, this is both at the expense of sensation (opposite of N) and an introverted attitude; furthermore, if you prefer Ne, then for my purposes, to try to talk about the manifestations of Ni in your personality misses the point of determining your *preference*.
FromBehindTheBoard I second Komatik's comments too; for various reasons I didn't see his reply before I posted mine. I personally think an eight function model cultivates the feeling that sometimes makes it really hard for people to feel certain about their type: that is, they are worried if they stick to a type then they will somehow lose certain abilities or lock themselves into a way of thought because they're giving up the potential advantages ascribed to the other functions. Thus, the eight function model is used to say "don't worry, you actually do have all those functions". But like Komatik explained very well, Jungian typology is about preferences, not really about "having" functions, as though you owned them.
Michael Pierce I'm inclined to agree that the 8 function models are much too specific about the roles that the various functions play (but frankly I think the current form of Myers-Briggs is too specific too.), but it also seems odd to me to exclude some people from certain modes of thought. Saying that because I use Ne, I never use Ni, seems like an unjustified condition to me, because Ne and Ni don't seem as though they're conflicting behaviors, but rather just better suited to different contexts. Likewise with Te and Ti, although feeling and sensation seem to come more in direct conflict between the different attitudes.
Komatik "A function is preference, predilection, tendency, aptitude, not a prerequisite to act in a certain way."
Perhaps this hinges on your definition of function (and also on your definition of "act," whether you are talking about cognition or behavior), but if you are doing something (or more appropriately cognating, if that's a word) that fits the category of Ti, then by definition aren't you doing Ti? As Te-favoring type, that might be uncomfortable, and perhaps not very indicative of your character, but it seems odd to me to say that it's not happening.
FromBehindTheBoard What I mean is that a function is an ingrained preference for a certain way of taking in information, of dissecting and organizing it in the mind. It's a natural pattern of thinking.
Basically, to me typology is a tool for explaining and dissecting a person's character and cognition. Not only strengths, but those peculiar, characteristic weaknesses and quirks of character that arise from having certain functional preferences.
So when I say I have or use Te, I mean that I am inclined to do my cold, impartial reasoning according to a certain pattern (and likewise inclined to deal with my emotions and value judgments according to another). To say I "use Ti" when I do symbolic logic seems kind of silly - I'm thinking in a certain way, forcibly so. That I have a Te preference should already tell that I'm not naturally inclined to think in that way, and that it is draining and taxing.
The contrast with an actual person who uses Ti is easy to see - they grasp the subject with more ease and navigate it with more ease because they naturally think in terms of hard rules, not probabilistic ones. Doing things because instead of "achieves tangible result X" is alsoi far more up their alley, while it'd be constantly bothering me.
Anyone can acquire a skill. Doing something essentially by force doesn't say much about the person's cognition or character.
Hrm. Probably not the best of explanations, but I hope it clarified something at least. If someone got my point, could they please reword it into something more structured?
I've been typed as an INFJ for the MBTI years ago. but everytime I've taken the Socionics I get INFj. I have some confusion, if you could clear up for me that'd be great. INFj is actually INFP in MBTI according to this correct? If so, I may need to be typed again and any advice on that as well?! Anyways another great video very informative cleared up a few other things for me.
Mac Hammac Well, as I understand it, yes: INFj = INFP, while INFp = INFJ. As far as making certain your type, the best I can suggest is the tests on CelebrityTypes.com. Glad you enjoyed the video! Thanks for the support!
Michael Pierce Thank you for the response. I took that one actually gonna do it again here in a little bit I legit scored split 50%/50% on it Hah! But I think what is getting in my way and why I'm looking for some "outside" Input is because the words that are synonymous with with INFP and INFJ like Artistic, creative, Idealistic can kinda sway between the two and unfortunately, as an artist *my actual job* I know for a fact because I've seen this word associated with them both it's going to be next to impossible for me to be completely objective about the decision on my own.
+Mac Hammac i know your feels, i identify myself to INTJ and INTj.. Let me say that by your tastes and picture you look much more like people i believe are INFJ than INFP... I crave to know the bias on this. Have you reached a conclusion on your types?
It’s almost like the two Psychologists have inverted views or totally different perceptions in regards to socionics.
I've looked pretty deep in to the MBTI, but am struggling to reconcile some of the differences (inconsistencies, maybe?) between them, like the differences in the ordering of cognitive functions for a given type, etc.
Also, for whatever reason, no matter how many times I've taken Socionics tests (including the more extensive ones), I test as INTp, but I always test as INTP in MBTI (and cognitive function tests/intuition seem to mostly support INTP/INTj). I also seem to relate much more to archetypal descriptions of INTP/INTj (though perhaps slightly more so with the former than the latter, although the differences seem slight) than with INTJ/INTp (same as above).
Anyone have any input/advice to help straighten this out in my head? Thank you
Trae Hesket Same deal for me - I typed as an ISTP in MB and an ISTp in Socionics. I'm pretty sure about both, after a good bit of research and thought. I'm definitely not an ISTj, and I'm not an ISTJ in Myers Briggs. From what I can tell the Socionics information elements are definitely different from the Myers Briggs functions. For example, the Se function is about external perception, while the Se information element has to do with power and force.
Me too
All personality tests are unreliable. Check out CS Joseph and watch his videos on the INTP and INTJ and see if one of them resonates with you. Also check out his videos on temperament and interaction style. He has the best channel on UA-cam when it comes to practical application and use of typology.
The main thing I get from socionics is that the categories of NF, NT, ST, and SF and more prominent than the functions themselves. If the 1st, 2nd, 7th, and 8th functions are strongest, then we are strongest in only two functions (regardless of attitude)- as you have said- and so I'm guessing SFs will be very alike for instance since they'll all be strong with Fe,Fi,Se, and Si in various order.
To what degree can an ISFj really differ from an ESFj if their primary feeling functions "spill" into the opposite attitude?
Zacharyzmp The main thing I get from this video*
Zacharyzmp Well, that is simply an idea I brought up to reconcile Socionics' differing order of functions to MBTI; the difference between the types, in my opinion, is never one of mathematical rigidity or categorization, which I feel Socionics to some degree is going for. Rather, its a difference of tendencies, preferences, and regular flow of psychic energy, if you will. So the difference between an ISFj (ISFP) and ESFj (ESFJ) is that the one's manifestation of feeling is preferably extroverted, while the other is preferably introverted, but because feeling is so dominant in general, if one wanted to reconcile MBTI with Socionics to a degree, they could say that the sum total of the type's "usage" of feeling ended up with 85% Fe and 15% Fi. The proportions would carry down through the functions, but the actual "amount" of usage would decrease as the portions decreased. So, the degree to which an ESFJ and ISFP differ would be the same degree to which their attitudes (E vs. I) differed.
What do you mean by the "the actual amount of usage would decrease as the portions (proportions?) decreased"? Do you mean the decrease that you see going down the stack?
Michael Pierce what is your socionics and MB type?
I believe I am INFJ in MB, and correspondingly INFp in Socionics (IEI).
Thank you. This helped a lot. :)
Very informative! Thanks!
this is so interesting oml
In some of your videos you reference previous videos, please provide links either in the video or the description. How did you conclude your categories from Jung's work?
#SocionicsModelG
I am just curious. Why do you endorse 4 functions rather than 8 functions?
Will you be doing an enneagram video? Also what is your type? If I had to guess i'd say you're a 5w4.
DinosaurFilms Well, I just looked up a few descriptions of 5w4: they seemed to fit me very well! Kudos to you! With similar uncanny elements/insights that I got when I first took an MBTI assessment, on which I typed as INFJ, and have continued to strongly identify with that many more tests later. I have gotten a number of requests for an enneagram video, and I am working on it, but I'm still having to do some research like I did before the Socionics video, but it shouldn't be too much longer. :)
Michael Pierce It's also my type so it's kinda easy to tell :) Great, I'm looking forward to it!
there is a question if u can help, i think ur good at this stuffs just latly im learning about shadow functions, most of times i typed as ENTP, and im caring and warm its explained by Fe , but at same time i'm very moral deeply Moral so i dubted that i'm en ENFP after hearing that ENTP's lack of moralty by that blindspote Fi as 7th fuctions, i like sport and and im skilled at sports so that make doubt about ESTP, but im procrastinator ,and i it clear that Ne is so strong in me and Se in real life is weak,PEAPOL are amazed that i cant memorize well roaeds of streets i pass by it many times, cus im in my thinking when im walking, driving eating, even when im swimming lol, and im pterry sure about my kind of thinking is Ti, and clear that im perciever and and procrasitinator, and messy, nd have many interstin my life, and i get distcarted alot, and in studies, im kind who act wat if, why we didnt do that that way for other informations, i have master degree in pruduction of hydrocarbbons, and i work in that field, and i also study politic since and im very interested in psycho, and im willing to study it hope u can help?? i will apreciate thanks
Hey are you bubbly and child like aura?How well do you connect with people?How are you with children?Mostly likely an ENFP I am myself INFP and a master proscrinator.
ok so i understand but i dont
Keep on👏🏻
re: Te/Fi Ni/Se label:
Friedrich Nietzsche: "[Heraclitus had] a regal air of certainty."
Michael Pierce, the Butcher :D
I'm watching this cause I am INFP and I got INFj in socionics so... surprise me random stranger on the internet :) :D
yay lietuviams! :D just fyi, it's pronounced Aushra
I found the socionic test clunky, vague and actually boring. If you really want to help this community of the interested, come up with a new test that is more black and white and perhaps interesting and fun! Haha, sorry for the forwardness of this comment. I am sure you have me pegged somewhere on the wheel. Thanks
0:05 Ewwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwww!
Seriously though, good video. I'm not interested in socionics, however.
TheMaleAvenger Ha! That makes the music I chose for the opening hilarious! I still prefer MBTI, but there are a lot of people interested in it, so I am obliging. Glad you still liked it!
Michael Pierce Of course. =)
I sound so conservative, though. Oh, well. Nothing wrong with that. X)
MBTI is empirical!
Socionics is theoretical!