Translating MBTI to Socionics

The Differences

MBTI was developed by Isabel Briggs and Katharine Briggs and first published in Form A in the United States in 1943.

Socionics was developed by Lithuanian psychologist Aushra Augustinavichiute around 1970.

MBTI uses a 4-letter code to describe the main characteristics of a type (INTP, ESFJ, etc.).

Socionics uses 3 letters for the same purpose (ILE, ESI, etc.).

MBTI functions are named: thinking, feeling, sensing, and intuiting.

Socionics functions are named: rationality, ethics, sensing, and intuiting.

In MBTI, the inferior function is in opposition to the dominant function.

In Socionics, the inferior function is in opposition to the first auxiliary.

The MBTI model usually has 4 functions in descending order of preference and development.

The Socionics model uses all 8 functions: 4 conscious and 4 unconscious.

The author Ligita Zīlīte, Dr. Sc. and lecturer of management at Turiba University in Latvia, having studied the works of more than one hundred and seventeen (117) socionics researchers and more than sixty-one (61) type theory (MBTI) researchers mainly for the purpose of her doctoral thesis, came to the conclusion that the two systems differ in their functional model explanations and the language they use. In other words, Ni in socionics ≠ Ni in MBTI, Ti in socionics ≠ Ti in MBTI, etc.

The official MBTI currently has four distinct questionnaire forms: Form M (93 items) computer and self-scorable, Step II Form Q (144 items), and Step III (222 items). Interpretations can be done by professionals or those who have completed the certification Step II and III programs. Such interpretations are inclined to give subjective results as they show how the person perceives himself, what he wants to be, and what interests him rather than who he really is.

Socionics uses methodology aimed at independent personal identification and the way a person interacts with the outer world. Socionics gives more importance to external identification, which is more objective but at the same time more complicated. It only allows for self-identification provided that an individual has a thorough Socionics theory background and knows particular features of different types. Moreover, in order to correctly define his own type, a person should have an objective point of view about himself, be free from social stereotypes, and not be biased by commonly accepted behavior patterns. Such prerequisites make self-identification in Socionics anything but simple.

The Controversy

Despite the differences in model structure, it's reasonable to think that similar dominant functions followed by first auxiliaries describe the same type in both models. So, according to this premise, a person with dominant introverted intuition and extraverted thinking as first auxiliary in MBTI (INTJ) corresponds to a person with dominant introverted intuition and extraverted rationality in Socionics (ILI).

This correlation exists only if the dominant and first auxiliary (positions 1 and 2) functions are considered. But if you only consider the second auxiliary and the inferior function (positions 3 and 4) of both models, then the correlation is different. In this case, a person with second auxiliary introverted feeling and inferior extraverted sensing in MBTI (INTJ) corresponds to a person with second auxiliary introverted feeling and inferior extraverted sensing in Socionics (LII).

Now, let's disregard the theoretical models and check some empirical evidence.

O. R. Menshikova is a lecturer of Financial Analysis at the Academy of National Economy in Moscow. Being an applied mathematician by profession, she opted to test her students with both systems in order to better organize the educational process based on their types. There were 539 people who took both tests. She noticed identical types only in 136 cases (25%). Another attempt to figure out the correlation between the two systems based on testing 333 people stated that the INTJ had more correlation to LII than to ILI. There are notably more correlations between introverted types with similar inferior functions (ISTJ-LSI, INFP-IEI, etc.), while extraverted types had more correlation with types with similar dominant functions (ESTJ-LSE, ENTP-ILE, etc.). But the results also show just a mild correlation between similar results in both models, sampling size and test limitations aside.

How to Translate MBTI to Socionics?

It was popularized among enthusiasts that the correct correlation is based on similarity between dominant and first auxiliary functions in both models, but the empirical evidence above shows otherwise, and researchers have different opinions. We should remember that these are models for cognitive functions and not real structures inside a person, meaning that they serve as analogies for what's really happening.

References