Socionics vs MBTI: whose interpretation is right?

Update: see Socionics vs MBTI revisited for my revised addressal of this issue.

One of the biggest differences between Socionics and MBTI is the infamous J/P swap.  In the process of developing the MBTI, Myers changed one of the four Jungian dichotomies, making translation from Socionics over to MBTI difficult.  While there are other important differences between the two theories, many type enthusiasts want to know which Jungian functional breakdown fits with which type.  In short, is Myers's interpretation right?

Well, if you look closely, you'll notice that it is Myers who disagreed with Jung, not anyone on the Socionics side.  So if we assume that Jung was right, then Socionics is more accurate than MBTI.  The question then is, do we have reason to believe that Jung was wrong?  I see no reason why Isabel Myers would have the experience to overturn Jung's insights.  I would trust a man who spent his entire life studying people as a psychotherapist over a newly-minted PhD.  But the only real way to know is to see how it plays out in reality.

From my experience of helping others with MBTI, I am convinced that Socionics matches the Jungian functions better.  Introverts have to learn to be more objective to communicate with others, but they always prefer (by definition) their subjective orientation.  This is what wears introverts out: they have to change their thought process to be understood by others.  In my experience, Judging/Perceiving (the dichotomy that Myers created) is dependent more on your values and goals than on your personality, and people who consistently lean to one side tend to have very expressed ego fixations.

The problem with MBTI isn't that the dichotomies are wrong, it's that the dichotomies don't get at the core of human nature.  I admit it's very close, and MBTI type tends to remain stable, but it does change.  MBTI is still a great tool, probably the best for getting a quick read of a person's strengths and weaknesses, but it doesn't get at the core of a person's personality.  This is why many versions of the theory tout a 'best fit' type. Not everyone is described exactly by just one type, but most will relate to one or two types the most.  The value of MBTI is in its simplicity, not its accuracy.

If you're wondering how so many people could be attracted to MBTI when it has gotten the functions wrong, take a moment to consider how the two theories could be reconciled.  The biggest issue is the Judging/Perceiving dichotomy.  Consider how you are Judging, and how you are Perceiving.  Many people could save a lot of time on worrying about their type if they considered themselves to be a 'Judging' person with an INFP functional breakdown or a 'Perceiving' person with an INFJ breakdown.  Don't fit one type? Simple: combine two profiles.  MBTI is not that accurate.

People who are interested in knowing the truth, and seriously consider both systems, pick Socionics over MBTI.  I know many people who started with MBTI, then switched to Socionics.  I'm still looking for people who started with Socionics, then switched to MBTI:  I'd be curious to know why.  I spent a year studying type using MBTI before discovering Socionics, and the connection between Jungian functions and type made much more sense when I started studying Socionics.

However, the more accurate the types get, the more categorical and mathematical they become.  People are dynamic, and the underlying principles of their personality are pretty difficult to see.  It gets even worse when you get into the Falsification of Type.  The fact of the matter is that the MBTI makes what is very complex seem pretty straightforward.  But the moment you take type descriptions to be about a particular category of people, and not just how some people are sometimes, you'll be lead into misconceptions about how people really are.

If you're still not convinced that Myers's interpretation is off, study Jungian theory and test it out yourself.