Socionics functions vs MBTI functions vs Jung
So I mentioned Socionics and MBTI functions are different. They both come from the same source, Jung’s cognitive functions, which are rather different, too. Here’s how.
Se
Jung: Perceives in a realistic, concrete way--concerned with facts but not with drawing logical conclusions from them. Strong aesthetic sensibility--even draws moral conclusions based on “aesthetic purity.”
MBTI: Perceives “here and now” or “with the 5 primary senses.” Pleasure seeking, loves novelty, loves beauty. Good in high-intensity situations. Needs freedom, individualistic, fun.
Socionics: Perceives in terms of “kinetic energy.” Knowing what levers to pull and buttons to push to get results. Seeing weak points. Powerful, willful, competitive. Associated with aesthetics but only for their power value--cool, fashionable, intimidating.
Si
Jung: Absolutely fucking epic mythological internal world, but barely any ability to communicate appropriately with the outside world. Would be a great artist but tragically rarely will.
MBTI: Boring. Staid. Your parents. Your boss. Conservative. Terrific memory. Responsible. Level headed. Needs structure. Dislikes change. Nostalgic and focused on the past. Really good at improving at something gradually over time (because muscle memory, etc).
Socionics: Relaxed, cozy, love beauty, strong aesthetic sensibility, good at organizing their environment to produce the best internal sensations for them, carefree, very adaptable and willing to adapt without requiring explanation, poor long term planners.
Fe
Jung: Women be crazy, don’t they?
MBTI: Social and popular, smooths things over, good at blending in/getting along. Focused on finding objective moral conclusions. Tries to find a solution that is best for everyone.
Socionics: Can read and create passions, excitement, liveliness, fun, moods, emotional states. Can calm things down but is more likely to shake them up. Gets emotionally invested, gets others emotionally invested. Dislikes secrets. Focused on the immediate social/emotional landscape rather than the relationships it may impact.
Fi
Jung: Women be crazy but in a different way, don’t they?
MBTI: Personal values, individual morality. Always knows what they believe and puts their own individual opinions over the group. May seem less feeling, “still waters run deep.” Skeptical of conventions and norms.
Socionics: Evaluates relationships and psychological distance. Sense of etiquette and propriety. Does not see a need to be very demonstrative with emotions. Principled and serious.
Te
Jung: The reason nobody takes my ideas seriously. Concerned with concrete facts, data, organization, goal setting.
MBTI: Wants to make the external world more rational, by creating and upholding objective standards. Impersonal, blunt, “to the point.” Might believe that facts don’t care about your feelings.
Socionics: Deals with how things work and how they could be made to work better. Has a need to gather factual information, might love research and books. Really disturbed by saying anything they know not to be factually true, so blunt, not socially graceful.
Ti
Jung: Subjective, uses deductive reasoning, wants to abstract a system to its most fundamental principles. When they have created an idea/structure, they’ll release it into the world like the most negligent parent, letting it sink or swim on its own. Jung was Ti (Ti-S or what potentially might be Ti-Se).
MBTI: Concerned with how things fit together logically and if they “make sense,” not whether they are factually true or false. Wants to understand the “essence” of things. Independent, prefers working alone, potentially rebellious because of being critical of externally imposed structure, sometimes rigid.
Socionics: Can evaluate if things are logically consistent/correct, generate systems and structure, prefer to rely on their own experience/conclusions rather than authorities. Sensitive to redundant information. Dislike practicality. Dislike those who behave “irrationally.”
Ne
Jung: Function of entrepreneurs. In a few respects sounds more to me like how the other systems define Se and/or Te. Brainstormer, flighty, indecisive, focused on potential--in these ways, clearly not Se/Te-like.
MBTI: Wacky and creative, “outside the box,” can always see more possibilities, “looks behind” the data to find new connections and hidden potentials. Loves novelty, needs freedom, might seem scatterbrained.
Socionics: Able to see new possibilities, to accurately assess the talents (potential) of themselves and others, to see parallels between very different types of information. Sees many different ways something could happen. Likes the beginning stages of things.
All of them: Focused on potential, unable to tie own shoes, one of the better types.
Ni
Jung: Pulls together a wide array of phenomena into one, synthesized, image. Difficult to sway from their worldview and the images they perceive, which are often heavily abstracted from the reality that others see around them. With no outlet, is a “voice crying out in the wilderness.” Two subtypes: one for whom the imagery/associations they perceive is the only thing of value, and one who recognizes a moral value in these images and wants to communicate it.
MBTI: May appear “psychic” or have insights that “come out of nowhere” after they subconsciously piece something together. Feel things will play out with certainty according to what they foresee. Interest in archetypes and resolving paradoxes. “About the box” (as opposed to outside). Jung was Ni (INFJ).
Socionics: “Intuition of time.” Sees how things are developing, and where they are going. Focused on cause and effect. Rich mental world. Lazy and inactive. Can thrive in situations where they’re inexperienced or lack data. (However, they do not improve over time, unlike Si types.)
I’m sorry. This turned into much more of a shitpost than it was supposed to be.
I don’t think these definitions are fundamentally incompatible--in fact, I’ve illustrated each with a gif of a character who I think is correctly described by each system--but they don’t overlap 100% of the time.