INFjs, what is your MBTI type?
Just curious if you're INFP or INFJ and if you think Fi-Ne is defined similarly there.
I was adminstered a test in my teens and got INFP. I'm in my 30's now and pretty much settled on INFP. I entertained the idea I was an "S", but that was due to some misunderstandings on function definitions.
i usually test INFJ on the dichotomies but always related more to the Fi and Ne descriptions even in MBTI, and thought the overall descriptions of INFP described me better than INFJ descriptions.
i think there are other EIIs around who identify more with INFJ. i would guess most of us probably score either INFP or INFJ, but since no direct correlation has been established, i wouldn't worry about it. technically i think you could be pretty much any MBTI type, though obviously some would be a lot more likely.
INFP and INFJ(and all other types for that matter) are two whole different types with different expectations and approaches to life. I don't see how there cannot be a more than 50% tendency to correlate with Socionics types.
because mbti descriptions are usually vague and flowery? because most mbti tests rely only on dichotomies? because people of similar socionics types often report having various mbti types? because mbti doesnt have the intertype relations to confirm and validate type?Originally Posted by EyeSeeCold
i dunno..i'm hard pressed to imagine an ESTP EII, but since i'm not prepared to make a list of plausible and implausibe, i just left it open. its also been years since i've looked at anything mbti, so i concede i'm rusty there.
In my view, Fi-Ne seems to correspond well between the two systems, but I'm still new to this. Subtypes and such seem to complicate things.
I don't know a lot of INFJs, but they correspond well with INFp or even ENFj. There are a couple of exceptions though.
It's difficult saying I'm INFp myself. I like individuals, but I seem to be opposite quadra-wise, or in intertype relations. I'm not going to derail on that, but I have plenty of anecdotes.
I bet we both have the same "exceptions" in mind.
I test as INFJ on dichotomy tests but INFP (FiNe) on function tests. I don't care for MBTI type descriptions.
Yup.
Close Sesame.
Interestingly, as an ENFp, I've consistently tested INFJ in MBTI. I have always related quite a bit to the INFJ descriptions, though i never really studied the INFP descriptions so i can't really comment on which one fits me best. All i can say is, after reading the bad advice on socionics.com about introverted MBTI J-types generally converting to the corresponding introverted socionics p-type, I spent my first 3-4 months here typing myself IEI. And I felt that I generally related to the IEI descriptions, which sort of fueled my identity with that self-mistyping.
I think the problem is that all the NFs are in the same club. We relate to a lot of similar things, but in a sort of different "language", which can be difficult to distinguish through type description. So, you may indeed relate to the other NF descriptions.
The key was in the interpersonal interactions i had with the beta quadra members versus the delta quadra members. There were a beta NFs on here who i became fast friends with and enjoyed talking to (redbaron, numbers), but after a couple months of interacting, some clues started surfacing that we were looking at things in a sort of different way especially where romantic relationships were concerned. Add to that the fact that the SLEs came off as extremely mean and trashy (as did some other IEIs and EIEs) to me, that I soon started questioning whether i'm really a beta NF or not.
My point is, knowing whether you're beta vs delta isn't always that clear, and perhaps the best way to find out is to see which quadra members you relate the most to. Sometimes the differences dont surface for a while, and until you get to a certain psychological proximity. And on the other hand, sometimes you may clash right away.
Enneagram: 9w1 6w5 2w3 so/sx
Yeah, like I said, I have anecdotes on the quadra thing myself. Mostly from offline though. I'm even willing to say I'm closer to ISTp than I am ENFj, strange as that sounds. I mean, some things I aspire to or focus on have a Si and Te element to them.
Directions for finding your REAL MBTI type:
1. Disregard Subtypes.
2. Become 100% certain of your socionic's type.
3. Make sure you fit all 4 letters of you socionic's type, as well as it's Club and Temperament.
4. Look at the corresponding MBTI type with the same letters.
5. Realize that the MBTI description of this type correlates well with the four socionic dichotomies, Club, AND Temperament. (And everything else except Functions, which are broken).
6. Congratulations! You found your Real MBTI type!
Note: The reason Socionics makes it easier to gain certainty on type is because it uses functions That Are Not Broken. This is supported by the fact that Socionics is based on a Working set of inter-type relations (which I'm sure you've seen observable results on if you've been studying Socionics long enough). No such Working set of inter-type relations exist in MBTI because of their botched functions for introverts.
ILI (FINAL ANSWER)
Method fails for me. I'm a socionics INTj and an MBTI INTP. At least those are the descriptions I best relate to.
Are you implying that the J/P switch cannot happen?
LII-Ne with strong EII tendencies, 6w7-9w1-3w4 so/sp/sx, INxP
No it cannot. The easiest way to determine this alone would be to look at ISFP/ISFJ descriptions in MBTI and ISFp/ISFj descriptions in socionics. The correlation should be very clear. You can't be both IP and Ij temperaments. Subtype can shift you Towards the other side, but not To the other side. Intuitives get confused with J/P more often (than sensors) because sensors don't take the time to look at the functions, and don't get as confused when crossing over.
ILI (FINAL ANSWER)
Yes. It's funny that people are quick to put down Socionics' accuracy and usefulness when there is an objective intertype relationship theory to back it up. While in MBTI all you have are descriptions that have been misinterpreted from misconceptions leading to misapplication over the span of decades.
So, by Crispy's method, I'd be MBTI INFJ..?
That sounds so off...
I agree that the way Si is defined between the two systems would neatly correlate with MBTI ISFP. I just don't see that with Ni and Ne. Or Fi or Fe, for that matter. Or the fact that I know MBTI INFJs and ENFJs who hang around ESTps, while me (the MBTI INFP) can barely stand 30 minutes in the same room without looking like a cariacture of Filatova's pissed off EII portrait.
That means what I think it means ?
Not EII, but I've met EIIs who in MBTI are the following types: INFJ, INFP, ISFJ, ISFP, and possibly an ENTJ (not likely, but he self-types as ENTJ and I don't quite have enough info to contradict him).
Overall I think EII is most likely for INFJs.types tend to care more for social harmony and good graces than INFPs tend to. However, INFJs can as easily be ESI, or IEI. INTJs for their part are usually resolute and Rational types -- LSI followed by LIE.
What do these signs mean—,
, etc.? Why cannot socionists use symbols Ne, Ni etc. as in MBTI? Just because they have somewhat different meaning. Socionics and MBTI, each in its own way, have slightly modified the original Jung's description of his 8 psychological types. For this reason,
Just one example: in MBTI, Se (extraverted sensing) is associated with life pleasures, excitement etc. By contrast, the socionic function(extraverted sensing) is first and foremost associated with control and expansion of personal space (which sometimes can manifest in excessive aagression, but often also manifests in a capability of managing lots of people and things).
For this reason, we consider comparison between MBTI types and socionic types by functions to be rather useless than useful.
-Victor Gulenko, Dmitri Lytov
EIIs don't default on harmony. They can be tactful, but the ethics are static. I could leave it there, but it's incorporating Ne that lends to the more harmonious aspects. Yet, being Fi leading, there are times when it's not in their interest to do that. I think I'm a "Ne subtype" (if there is such a thing) and do try to live up to this - but it isn't in my interest to be harmonious fulltime. Probably the most harmonious type is an SEI, while IEI is even more harmonious in the sense that Ni-Fe at least makes them more playful with many more people. I don't want to generalize and call them more relativistic, but perhaps they tend to be. Even whoever wrote the IEI wikisocion entry is kind of bombastic, in how they "see all" and "be all to all". Here's the EII take on harmony. You must have overlooked it.Not EII, but I've met EIIs who in MBTI are the following types: INFJ, INFP, ISFJ, ISFP, and possibly an ENTJ (not likely, but he self-types as ENTJ and I don't quite have enough info to contradict him).
Overall I think EII is most likely for INFJs.
EIIs are usually very straightforward about their feelings in front of others; what you see from them is what you get. Even at a party where everyone is supposed to be happy, they still find it hard to conceal their true feelings when they are in a bad mood. This can create distaste among the rest who feel that the EII is not cooperating by contributing to the positive and boisterous mood. This tends to lead others who don't know the EII well to have a misconception that he/she is a grouchy person by nature.
Or.. Gulenko (the nefarious part is a bit farfetched, but I can see what he means):
INFjs do not show intense positive emotions, instead they simply smile. All their facial expressions openly reproach nefarious happenings.
.. INFjs can be very touchy and this may strain the easy atmosphere of a conversation. Sometimes they adopt a monotone speech pattern that can snuff out all playfulness in others. INFjs have a special ability to listen to people and as a result they are often asked for advice or sympathy. They never push people away and are always prepared to listen for as long as it takes to make others feel better, even if they theoretically have better things to do. INFjs are always ready to help friends in difficult life situations. They care not with words but with real actions.
It isn't that different than various Fi descriptions in MBTI.
It is often hard to assign words to the values used to make introverted Feeling judgments since they are often associated with images, feeling tones, and gut reactions more than words. As a cognitive process, it often serves as a filter for information that matches what is valued, wanted, or worth believing in. There can be a continual weighing of the situational worth or importance of everything and a patient balancing of the core issues of peace and conflict in life’s situations. We engage in the process of introverted Feeling when a value is compromised and we think, “Sometimes, some things just have to be said.” On the other hand, most of the time this process works “in private” and is expressed through actions. It helps us know when people are being fake or insincere or if they are basically good. It is like having an internal sense of the “essence” of a person or a project and reading fine distinctions among feeling tones.
Wikisocion on
INFjs have a special ability to listen to people and as a result they are often asked for advice or sympathy.In MBTI, that's Fe.They never push people away and are always prepared to listen for as long as it takes to make others feel better, even if they theoretically have better things to do. INFjs are always ready to help friends in difficult life situations. They care not with words but with real actions.
What do these signs mean—
Just one example: in MBTI, Se (extraverted sensing) is associated with life pleasures, excitement etc. By contrast, the socionic function
For this reason, we consider comparison between MBTI types and socionic types by functions to be rather useless than useful.
-Victor Gulenko, Dmitri Lytov
Hmm, I think MBTI INFPs can do that too. I don't go for all the fluffy descriptions like some were saying above, but they do get described with sympathetic tendencies and get the "healer" moniker often.
Anyways, I was just trying to say that EII's aren't necessarily harmonious.
Let's just ignore current MBTI material and rewrite all of their descriptions for them, and change what the dichotomies mean so that they fit Socionics. That would piss the MBTI forum off.
Well, yes there will be similarities. You must adopt new semantics and a new perspective to understand Socionics from MBTI. But once you do that you can see that MBTI functions are meshed together when equated with Socionics.
Hey guys, I didn't give up on my conversion consensus project but I'm taking my time. I'm gathering all data I can as many people already tried to look deeper into the correlation issue in the past.
I found some interesting stuff about the "meshing" described but I still don't know if it's possible to pinpoint it precisely or not. The subject is far from trivial. I'm also looking forward that new book about both systems (I posted the link somewhere else) as I'm sure it covers the correlation topic.
But as I see it and to simplify (and I thought it was only for introverts but I found interesting bits about extroverts blotching too) there is no j/p switch if you read the MBTI textual descriptions only, there is a j/p switch if you read the functional breakdowns only (or at least function order on paper).
I'm aware there are also many cases where you think you are reading something that makes sense, but if you look very carefully you see it's all warped (ex: Ti described almost as a P function etc)
In the end I have something practical in mind:
1) try to create an online conversion wizard/form, including many questions to determine why the person thinks he/she is that MBTI type + j/p sorting question (in fact the wizard could include some mini test to check quadra values and dual seeking etc, making user read function descriptions etc)
2) update the sticky thread here with what we find (if we do...)
3) update the wikisocion page about j/p switch too
I'll setup a thread at some point and I hope you'll contribute!
"Everyone carries a shadow, and the less it is embodied in the individual’s conscious life, the blacker and denser it is.
At all counts, it forms an unconscious snag, thwarting our most well-meant intentions."
C. G. Jung
-
Yeah I'm with you on this. I dont think there's a correlation between MBTI and socionics type. Each is a separate entity that describes personality, but happens to use similar letters and symbols. Neither one is wrong--just different, looking at different things.Not EII, but I've met EIIs who in MBTI are the following types: INFJ, INFP, ISFJ, ISFP, and possibly an ENTJ (not likely, but he self-types as ENTJ and I don't quite have enough info to contradict him).
Overall I think EII is most likely for INFJs.
Enneagram: 9w1 6w5 2w3 so/sx
No this is really a mental shortcut I'm afraid. But if you feel better thinking this way, fine, it's also a valid point of view (until proven otherwise) But as both systems are from same Jungian grounds, saying they are so much different really sounds like "I don't want to care"...
"Everyone carries a shadow, and the less it is embodied in the individual’s conscious life, the blacker and denser it is.
At all counts, it forms an unconscious snag, thwarting our most well-meant intentions."
C. G. Jung
-
I pretty much type as an INFP in MBTI
INFj
9w1 sp/sx
That's interesting as I was also undecided on the j/p dichotomy (mostly due to this annoying non-consensus in conversion) and I also had hard times telling by quadra values...
I also felt that many beta members were either rude or mean, and not subtle at all (but many members are also very young, say around 23 years old, so what do you expect?) but at the same time, I also found some alphas to be too childish, some gammas to be too serious, and many deltas to be fucking boring, like old persons....
I still have some amounts of incertitude in me (for instance PP thinks I'm ILE...) but everytime I consider another type, everything collapses and I question all my surroundings types again in the process, including the intertype relations etc... and in the end, I realize it's just impossible that I'm another type because that would imply having to change too many people's types around me!
Your story is intriguing though, especially when considering IEI and IEE have same "algorithm" but completely reverse polarity (both are NFTS)
"Everyone carries a shadow, and the less it is embodied in the individual’s conscious life, the blacker and denser it is.
At all counts, it forms an unconscious snag, thwarting our most well-meant intentions."
C. G. Jung
-
It's as if people think Jung created typology out of thin air. It's a phenomenon he observed. At the very least both MBTI's and Socionic's original goals was to Model the Same Phenomenon that Jung describes. The only difference is that one made a fail set of functions and one made a successful set of functions, which led to discovery of inter-type relations. This mistake does not change the identity of the 4 dichotomies in MBTI, which are identical to the 4 dichotomies in socionics.
ILI (FINAL ANSWER)
Perhaps the problem is that without intertype relations, MBTI is just "good enough" as is... When used in a career orientation or personal coaching way, being undetermined on the J/P dichotomy (capital letters here) is not that a big deal...after-all both types are in same club and are likely to share many centers of interest.
On the other hand, for MBTI mating/dating they do have problems! The J/P indetermination could cause your service to make conflictors meet each others! That's why they play it safe and only propose their users to meet their identical (and as both used the same test, they don't care about J/P switch at all)
Because they don't have intertype relations to assert their types, I think many people just take their first MBTI result and are fine with it, and we end up with people telling that any socionics type can be any MBTI type. But this is bullshit! It just means they were never properly typed in MBTI because they had no way to be sure!
"Everyone carries a shadow, and the less it is embodied in the individual’s conscious life, the blacker and denser it is.
At all counts, it forms an unconscious snag, thwarting our most well-meant intentions."
C. G. Jung
-
In MBTI, I am XXFP. I'm very Feeling and Perceiving, fairly Introverted, and slightly Intuitive. However, the people on Similarminds thought I acted more E than I. I'm very social in a reclusive way.
In Jungian functions, I am Ne>Fi>Fe>Ni>Si>Se>Ti>Te. Although that comes out to NeFi, I am passable at Si and horrible at Te, so INFP fits better. I suppose that would make me Ne-sub INFP, if they had such a thing.
Johari/Nohari
"Tell someone you love them today, because life is short; shout it at them in German, because life is also terrifying."
Fruit, the fluffy kitty.
this is MBTI? i identify with it a lot more than with most socionics Fi descriptions.
i also relate to the other socionics Fi descriptions you posted a lot...more than the stuff about being self-sacrificingly empathetic that aleksei quoted.
i think the beta NFs i've known have come across a lot "nicer" than i do. i think i tend to come across as more "polite" in a way that gets associated with Fi, but its not because i really care about being nice so much as i just feel most comfortable maintaining the sort of distance that the formality of politeness provides with people i don't know very well. but i don't think that either Fi or Fe is necessarily more affable or whatever (depending on intertype interpretations, maybe).
and i also feel like noting that aushra augusta was Fi polr. :wink:
edit: after thinking about it for a minute, i'm not sure i prefer to maintain distance with people i don't know well. i don't know. i guess i'm polite mainly because i don't want to piss people off, lol. it's like a self-preservational thing, if that makes sense. but i'm not really sure if i can explain. i apologize for the complete lack of coherency in this post, haha.
I self-typed INFJ in MBTI a long time ago.
I wish this test still worked: http://www.cognitiveprocesses.com/as...velop_old.html
The writer is associated with Linda Berens, a fairly well known MBTI writer. But if you look at the Ni questions, they aren't different than Socionics Ni, with all of the future based thinking and symbolism and such. This is another illustration of my confusion on why INFJ or INTJ would be Socionics INFj or INTj.
Section 8: introverted Intuiting
How often do you...
1. have sudden realization
experience a premonition or foresee the unexpected
feel pulled to the symbolic, archetypal or mysterious
suddenly realize an "ah ha!" answer out of nowhere
2. trust future change
feel energized when dwelling on an image of future change or transformation
stay focused on fulfilling a vision or dream of how things will be in the future
feel certain that future changes will unfold in a foreseen way
3. use magical guide
rely on a focal device or symbolic action to predict, enlighten or transform
gain a profound realization from a mystical state or catharsis
layout how the future will unfold based on unseen trends and telling signs
4. create innovative answers
work out a complex concept or system of thinking about things in a new way
deliberately pick a specific problem to sleep on and awaken with the full answer
conceive of symbolic or novel ways to understand things that are universal
5. sustain transformed existence
regularly use ideas and tools that transform how you understand existence
transform yourself in a specific way by focusing on another version of yourself
create transcendent experiences or solutions that transcend a problem
This is exactly what I think led us to where we are today. I can't prove it because nobody as yet said "I know I'm this type because it's what I got on the test", but I'm sure at least 75% of people who are different types in both systems did this, while the other 25% failed in some other obscure way.I think many people just take their first MBTI result and are fine with it
Attention: If you are still relying on shitty tests to tell you who you are, please don't advertise your results to the unsuspecting populace because the tests are Meaningless. If you want to find out your real type in either theory, please read all 16 descriptions from at least 3 different sources.
Too much bad data.
ILI (FINAL ANSWER)
i usually score INFJ in MBTI tests, so in theory then i would have scored correctly. i changed my MBTI type to INFP after reading descriptions of Fi and Ne. is this where you would say i went wrong? by relying on function descriptions in MBTI which are screwed? should MBTI types be determined strictly by dichotomies, disregarding functions? does that make them kind of pointless?
sorry for the inquisition, lol, just trying to understand where you're coming from.
I don't know what's so special about that test. This one tests the same thing but actually mixes up the questions so its not so obvious to people taking.
You keep making this assertion. Can you prove it?
What do these signs mean—
Just one example: in MBTI, Se (extraverted sensing) is associated with life pleasures, excitement etc. By contrast, the socionic function
For this reason, we consider comparison between MBTI types and socionic types by functions to be rather useless than useful.
-Victor Gulenko, Dmitri Lytov
Most tests would just to do the typical N/S E/I J/P dichotomies (where there are cases of people typing as "J", just because they might be kind of organized or something like that - when they might not have preferences for Ni at all). When you get to more detailed definitions of MBTI functions, you start seeing more correlations with Socionics (not entirely.. but Ne/Ni definitions are fairly close. To be a clearcut MBTI Ni dominant and to say they're not INFp or INTp is puzzling to me).
It's good that it's mixed up, but it's slimmed down.. there are more specifics and extra questions in the older one.
jdfdadsda. i want to know how he came up with it! after messing around on google for about 10 minutes, this is the most i found:
(ugh can't link it bc it was from google books - Routledge Encyclopedia of Philosophy, Volume 1 By Edward Craig)
this doesn't refer specifically to his development of the functions, though. i did find something else that said he went through a period of "introspection and empirical research" before coming out with the book psychological types.nevertheless, his system of psychology, beginning as it does with the word association test, and emphasizing the biological foundations of cognition and behaviour, thereby anticipating more recent developments in cognitive theory and evolutionary psychology, rests on far stronger empirical foundations than most other depth psychologies.
anybody else have more info about this?
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
