Results 1 to 26 of 26

Thread: MBTI to socionics conversion

  1. #1

    Default MBTI to socionics conversion

    Correct me if I'm wrong, but extroverts in MBTI are the same type in socionics, right? And introverts have the last letter of their type flipped, to correspond with their judging or perceiving dominant function.

    Basically:

    MBTI
    socionics
    ESFP ESFp
    ENFP ENFp
    ESTP ESTp
    ENTP ENTp
    ENTJ ENTj
    ESTJ ESTj
    ESFJ ESFj
    ENFJ ENFj

    and for introverts
    MBTI
    Dominant Function Socionics
    ISFP Fi ISFj
    INFP Fi INFj
    ISTP Ti ISTj
    INTP Ti INTj
    INTJ Ni INTp
    INFJ Ni INFp
    ISFJ Si ISFp
    ISTJ Si ISTp

  2. #2
    rob timidly hacim's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2014
    Location
    personal space station
    TIM
    LII
    Posts
    342
    Mentioned
    45 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    That is theoretically correct, assuming that the functions are defined in the same way. However, the functions aren't defined in similar ways in some cases. Therefore, the equivalents for introverts are sometimes J=j, P=p, and sometimes J=p, P=j.

    Something important to remember is that MBTI types people based solely on their (self-perceived) external behaviors, without accounting for their personal desires. Socionics can take personal desires and explain them with the functions that you seek.

    Socionics has the theoretical backbone of Model A, which organizes Jung's (more or less) functions in a way specific to one of the 16 types. Functions have been indispensable to Socionics since its conception. MBTI began with the 4 dichotomies, later superimposing a flawed model of Jung's functions. So the theories shouldn't be 100% compatible because their root structures are too different.


    When I take a MBTI test, and there are many, ones that focus more on Jung's functions would give me INTP (Ti-Ne) whereas a basic 4 dichotomy test would give me INTJ (Ni-Te). That's why I have more or less ditched MBTI for Socionics, because depending on how you are tested you can end up being completely different types.

    I do wish that the types could be converted that easily, since if they claim to be based in Jung then they should define the functions the exact same way.

    Now, here are some general rules that can be extracted from my babble above:

    if typing by the 4 dichotomies, ABCD = ABCd. so INTJ=INTj.
    if typing purely by Jung's functions, f1f2 = f1f2. so TiNe (INTP) = TiNe (INTj/LII).

    The problem is clear as day. I advocate forgetting MBTI when one engages study in Socionics, and using 3-letter type names (LII, ESE, etc.) so that MBTI and Socionics types bear no resemblance. That creates a mental separation between what one associates as a MBTI type and a Socionics type.
    Last edited by hacim; 08-04-2015 at 03:32 AM. Reason: socionics pseudo math

  3. #3

    Join Date
    Apr 2014
    Posts
    557
    Mentioned
    34 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    They are derivatives of Jung, but definitely rotate some things, I think. E.g. some things that count as N in MBTI would be included in Jung's thinking function.

    The other thing is that we'll never get a full convergence, because at the end of the day, Jung didn't depict the 8 function-attitudes as separate information elements. Instead, he depicted them as peculiarities of one of the four functions in each attitude, while viewing ultimately each mental process as 1/4 --- the principle defining what it was supposed to tell you was defined accordingly too, vs with the MBTI folk which try to split it up into 8 types of things you are told. Socionics followed suit with the latter approach too.

    One can never really reduce one of Jung's 4 functions working in an attitude to a single type of consciousness, because there's simply many aspects of consciousness that fall under an extraverting umbrella, or introverting one, which are considerably different.

    All we can do is try to pick the ones most meaningful and fundamental to cognition, as opposed to other aspects of consciousness -- things which make meaningful philosophical distinctions in what kind of info was understood.
    I think socionics does a pretty nice job with its selections, to be honest. E.g. emotive ethics, the ethics that arouses, moves, thus belongs to dynamic consciousness, vs relational ethics --- this is a great distinction in my experience which splits the overall function of evaluating through feeling into two aspects.... the a priori relation between two things must exist before evaluation can take place, and represents the more withdrawn consciousness (rather than the one which interacts, so that the two's states are changed).

    This diverges from how Jung thought of introversion/extraversion, but I think for the better, because he somewhat overloaded his E/I with too many things, that I'd think of as different "types" of inner vs outer orientation. For instance, he wasn't terribly clear with separating the sensation-orientation implied by extraversion (since sensations exist "Outside") and the one implied by the sensation function. And if I'm not mistaken, that's due to some genuine confusion. After all, he identified as a sensation-type initally and later identified as someone who more or less always had a bad relation with reality, and was more intuitive. Quite plausibly, since he was a pioneer, and had not yet identified himself as an intuitive type, he was explaining away some thins with introversion, which belonged in his intuitive tendencies.

  4. #4

    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Posts
    5,115
    Mentioned
    386 Post(s)
    Tagged
    1 Thread(s)

    Default

    same types. no conversion: INTJ in MBT is INTJ in Socionics, ENTP is ENTP, etc
    MBT uses wrong, not Jungian, functional model for introverted types. But as MBT's types are written by preferences this changes nothing. Their main method MBTI uses only preferences, anyway, so they practically mistake less than could.
    Types examples: video bloggers, actors

  5. #5

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Sol View Post
    same types. no conversion: INTJ in MBT is INTJ in Socionics, ENTP is ENTP, etc
    MBT uses wrong, not Jungian, functional model for introverted types. But as MBT's types are written by preferences this changes nothing. Their main method MBTI uses only preferences, anyway, so they practically mistake less than could.
    Could you explain this a bit more? What do you mean mbti uses wrong, not jungian model?

  6. #6

    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Posts
    5,115
    Mentioned
    386 Post(s)
    Tagged
    1 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by ConcreteButterfly View Post
    What do you mean mbti uses wrong, not jungian model?
    In "Psychological types" Jung have described rational types wich also called as judging, irrational types called perceiving also. All J types have leading rational function T or F, nevertheless extraverted or introverted. When MBT says INTJ has leading function intuition - this controverts to Jung; MBT says functions order for INTJ as it is for INTP, while for extraverted types there was no change.
    Socionics uses J/P preferences, but calls them rational and irrational - their descriptions are identical to J/P. J/rational types in Socionics as at Jung have leading rational functions for introverted types. INTJ has Ti as leading, while MBT wrongly says INTJ has Ni as leading.

    One of things we get from the situation. While most (all if the test was perfect) of correctly typed in Socionics as introverted rational types will be J in MBTI, when they read MBT's types descriptions they may see closer descriptions of some irrational types as types descriptions take into account functional models. And vice versa, after reading their MBT descriptions INTJ typed so by MBTI may see closer types descriptions of INTP/ILI wich are in Socionics. But as 4-letter type notation has only preferences, they are same/compatible and these preferences have means to be directly checked in MBT and in Socionics, such mess with descriptions does not mean types are other. As I've said, MBT have changed Jungian model to wrong for introverted types and their descriptions for them is a mix of correct preferences and incorrect functions.
    Last edited by Sol; 08-09-2015 at 08:52 AM.
    Types examples: video bloggers, actors

  7. #7

    Join Date
    Jun 2015
    TIM
    ESI 684
    Posts
    661
    Mentioned
    28 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Hacim View Post
    That is theoretically correct, assuming that the functions are defined in the same way. However, the functions aren't defined in similar ways in some cases. Therefore, the equivalents for introverts are sometimes J=j, P=p, and sometimes J=p, P=j.

    Something important to remember is that MBTI types people based solely on their (self-perceived) external behaviors, without accounting for their personal desires. Socionics can take personal desires and explain them with the functions that you seek.

    Socionics has the theoretical backbone of Model A, which organizes Jung's (more or less) functions in a way specific to one of the 16 types. Functions have been indispensable to Socionics since its conception. MBTI began with the 4 dichotomies, later superimposing a flawed model of Jung's functions. So the theories shouldn't be 100% compatible because their root structures are too different.


    When I take a MBTI test, and there are many, ones that focus more on Jung's functions would give me INTP (Ti-Ne) whereas a basic 4 dichotomy test would give me INTJ (Ni-Te). That's why I have more or less ditched MBTI for Socionics, because depending on how you are tested you can end up being completely different types.

    I do wish that the types could be converted that easily, since if they claim to be based in Jung then they should define the functions the exact same way.

    Now, here are some general rules that can be extracted from my babble above:

    if typing by the 4 dichotomies, ABCD = ABCd. so INTJ=INTj.
    if typing purely by Jung's functions, f1f2 = f1f2. so TiNe (INTP) = TiNe (INTj/LII).

    The problem is clear as day. I advocate forgetting MBTI when one engages study in Socionics, and using 3-letter type names (LII, ESE, etc.) so that MBTI and Socionics types bear no resemblance. That creates a mental separation between what one associates as a MBTI type and a Socionics type.
    You are taking the wrong tests. As you said, MBTT is about BOTH the preferences and the behaviour. That's what a metric shit ton of online "MBTT" tests do not do. They are mostly a mashup of some semi behavioural approach. The true MBTT Step I is going to ask you BOTH about PREFERENCES and about BEHAVIOUR. Then you'll get your type. And MBTT is about dichotomies and it's better of because of it.

  8. #8
    rob timidly hacim's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2014
    Location
    personal space station
    TIM
    LII
    Posts
    342
    Mentioned
    45 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by nondescript View Post
    You are taking the wrong tests. As you said, MBTT is about BOTH the preferences and the behaviour. That's what a metric shit ton of online "MBTT" tests do not do. They are mostly a mashup of some semi behavioural approach. The true MBTT Step I is going to ask you BOTH about PREFERENCES and about BEHAVIOUR. Then you'll get your type. And MBTT is about dichotomies and it's better of because of it.
    If you're saying that a MBTI type is only valid if you take the "official" test by the creators, then I hope you don't proclaim that there is any "official" Socionics test. I have yet to find one by Aušra Augustinavičiūtė.

    Also, dichotomies alone are an oversimplification. You have to have theory and functions as a foundation, or else people's types won't be clear.

    But I've contributed enough to this tired issue.

  9. #9

    Join Date
    Jun 2015
    TIM
    ESI 684
    Posts
    661
    Mentioned
    28 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Hacim View Post
    If you're saying that a MBTI type is only valid if you take the "official" test by the creators, then I hope you don't proclaim that there is any "official" Socionics test. I have yet to find one by Aušra Augustinavičiūtė.

    Also, dichotomies alone are an oversimplification. You have to have theory and functions as a foundation, or else people's types won't be clear.

    But I've contributed enough to this tired issue.
    No, you do not have to understand anything and there does not need to be a theory that is understandable to layman. That's why experts are here. And it's their place to tell me official stuff. Just like if I have troubles with breathing, I'll try to book a pulmologist via my family doctor. I certainly won't go to a bankar or to a automechanic for breathing problems wtf...

  10. #10
    Chacha's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2015
    Location
    France
    TIM
    ESI
    Posts
    45
    Mentioned
    1 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    The fact is that both Socionics and MBTI theories come from Jung's work. Even if the way of explainging function aren't the same, they remain the same in their essence. Therefore, I don't understand how an Fe-dom can come to an Fi result when switching to Socionics. That wouldn't make any sense. INTP, INTj INTp, blablah → These are just a way of naming some functions dynamics. Who cares about the name of the type? An Fi-dom is an Fi-dom, and will remain an Fi-dom. That's all. You won't transform into any other type just by switching model. Otherwise, that would mean that you didn't get the functions.

  11. #11
    Soupman's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2013
    Location
    Grand Britain
    TIM
    Dyslexic 17
    Posts
    330
    Mentioned
    26 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Chacha View Post
    The fact is that both Socionics and MBTI theories come from Jung's work. Even if the way of explainging function aren't the same, they remain the same in their essence. Therefore, I don't understand how an Fe-dom can come to an Fi result when switching to Socionics. That wouldn't make any sense. INTP, INTj INTp, blablah → These are just a way of naming some functions dynamics. Who cares about the name of the type? An Fi-dom is an Fi-dom, and will remain an Fi-dom. That's all. You won't transform into any other type just by switching model. Otherwise, that would mean that you didn't get the functions.
    socionics is incompatible with itself - different schools are at odds with each other. Now to say something as different as MBTI is even compatible is just silly.

    ESFP - SEI ESE
    ESTP - SEE
    ENTJ - SLE
    ESTJ - LSI
    ISTJ - LSI

    ENTP - ILE
    INTP - ILI LII ILE
    INTJ - LIE LII

    ESFJ - ESI
    ISFJ - ESI

    ISTP - SLI

    INFJ - EII
    INFP - IEI
    ENFJ - ESE

    These are rough matches too, forget the function bullshit, the IMs are observable behaviours not Jung's abstract wank

  12. #12
    Haikus Beautiful sky's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Location
    EII land
    TIM
    EII INFj
    Posts
    22,740
    Mentioned
    531 Post(s)
    Tagged
    6 Thread(s)

    Default

    INFp are supposed to be lyracist/poet. I'm not that kind of romantic. I am romantic in they way I care for someone not in the poet romantic type. I do identify with INFj

  13. #13
    Jarno's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    Netherlands
    TIM
    ILI-Te
    Posts
    5,375
    Mentioned
    30 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    The 4 dichotomies are exactly the same in both theories hence the types are the same. However there are a lot of bad descriptions, there are in this world approx 5 billion ways of interpretating something, so it's bound to give some noise in the descriptions and understanding. The fact that on a website of 20 'experts' i found they disagreed on the type of John Travolta and he got 14 out of possible 16 types named. This sais something about the average socionics or mbti expert, not so much about the theorie of types.

  14. #14
    Jarno's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    Netherlands
    TIM
    ILI-Te
    Posts
    5,375
    Mentioned
    30 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Hacim View Post
    If and only if you consider the four main dichotomous preferences, the types should be the same. The second that you investigate the shitty MBTI "descriptions" where false stereotypes are propagated and "function orders" which are generally recognized as incorrect, the waters are muddied. INTJ descriptions don't exactly match your standard LII description, for example.
    I agree with that!

    MBTI messes up for several reasons, one is they want their descriptions to match their incorrect functions, hence the descriptions become incorrect too. I've even seen MBTI sites where INTP descriptions are basically the same as INTJ descriptions on another MBTI site. So one of them has fucked up for sure, but it means that a lot of people are reading fucked up information which gives a snowball effect.

  15. #15
    Resonare's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2015
    TIM
    ESI-Se 1w9
    Posts
    510
    Mentioned
    47 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Mistyping as your activity partner rather than quasi-identical seems to be rather common as well.

  16. #16
    Chains's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Posts
    2,308
    Mentioned
    65 Post(s)
    Tagged
    1 Thread(s)

    Default

    It is of my opinion that it is the overall type description, while still quite vague, is the most useful and accurate; INTP roughly correlates with INTp, INTJ with INTj, etc. Conversion based on cognitive functions, however, is quite inconsistent, and even contradictory, making it more subjective and debatable. This is because the definitions of the functions are somewhat different between the two systems making a 1:1 correlation impossible.

  17. #17
    Jarno's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    Netherlands
    TIM
    ILI-Te
    Posts
    5,375
    Mentioned
    30 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Skepticurus View Post
    It is of my opinion that it is the overall type description, while still quite vague, is the most useful and accurate; INTP roughly correlates with INTp, INTJ with INTj, etc. Conversion based on cognitive functions, however, is quite inconsistent, and even contradictory, making it more subjective and debatable. This is because the definitions of the functions are somewhat different between the two systems making a 1:1 correlation impossible.
    Correct. It seems to me that the order is that meyers/briggs first started with dichotomies, discovered 16 types and made descriptions, and when all that was done, they tried to make up some formula to put some functions behind those types. The formula proved incorrect as we now know, but it confused people who take the functions as a starting point or as criteria for comparison with socionics.

  18. #18
    Chains's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Posts
    2,308
    Mentioned
    65 Post(s)
    Tagged
    1 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Jarno View Post
    Correct. It seems to me that the order is that meyers/briggs first started with dichotomies, discovered 16 types and made descriptions, and when all that was done, they tried to make up some formula to put some functions behind those types. The formula proved incorrect as we now know, but it confused people who take the functions as a starting point or as criteria for comparison with socionics.
    That is certainly part of the problem. There is a disconnect between the questions asked and the individual type descriptions. For example, say you find through the questionnaire that you prefer I,N,T, and P. The questions are looking for general, dichotomous preferences, such as if you prefer Thinking over Feelings, etc. Then once you have your preferences given, there is a leap to specific cognitive functions. You prefer INTP, that means you use TiNeSiFe. It is a logical leap to make such an inference.

    Socionics has a similar problem.

  19. #19
    Jarno's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    Netherlands
    TIM
    ILI-Te
    Posts
    5,375
    Mentioned
    30 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Skepticurus View Post
    That is certainly part of the problem. There is a disconnect between the questions asked and the individual type descriptions. For example, say you find through the questionnaire that you prefer I,N,T, and P. The questions are looking for general, dichotomous preferences, such as if you prefer Thinking over Feelings, etc. Then once you have your preferences given, there is a leap to specific cognitive functions. You prefer INTP, that means you use TiNeSiFe. It is a logical leap to make such an inference.

    Socionics has a similar problem.
    Well socionics can proof that is has the right formula order, because of the intertype relationships. You can 'somewhat' empirically test it.

  20. #20
    Chains's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Posts
    2,308
    Mentioned
    65 Post(s)
    Tagged
    1 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Jarno View Post
    Well socionics can proof that is has the right formula order, because of the intertype relationships. You can 'somewhat' empirically test it.
    This is where I disagree. I have yet to see a valid empirical proof of cognitive functions, let alone one that proves they appear in any specific order. How can you prove intertype relations if one can't prove not only that a person prefers particular functions , but that they prefer them in a manner specific to socionics theory? "Certainties" of such things are largely subjective.

  21. #21
    suedehead's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2014
    Posts
    3,025
    Mentioned
    195 Post(s)
    Tagged
    1 Thread(s)

    Default

    ISFP: ESI, SEI, Si-SLI
    ISTP: SLI, LSI, Ti-SLE
    INFP: IEI, EII
    INTP: LII, ILI, Ni-IEI, Ti-ILE

    ENFP: IEE
    ENTP: ILE, Ti-SLE (head triad in Enneagram), Ni-EIE
    ESFP: SEE, Fe-SEI
    ESTP: SLE

    ISTJ: LSI, SLI, LSE, ESI
    ISFJ: SEI, Fi-EII, ESI
    INTJ: ILI, LII, Ni-LIE, Ti-ILE, Ti-SLE, essentially a motley crew of misanthropes
    INFJ: IEI, EII, EIE

    ENFJ: Fe-EIE, ESE, Fi-IEE
    ENTJ: LIE, Ti-SLE, Se-LSI, LSE, anyone who has a 'dominant' personality
    ESFJ: ESE, Fe-SEI
    ESTJ: LSE
    Last edited by suedehead; 03-13-2016 at 01:19 AM.

  22. #22
    Word Definition Warrior – WDW Troll Nr 007's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2015
    Location
    dispersed into the cosmos
    TIM
    H-ILE-Ne 7w6-2w1-1w9
    Posts
    1,975
    Mentioned
    69 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    If we are talking about Keirsey+MBTI hybrid theory (which it seems to be in practice). The most problematic types are ISTJ, ISFP, ISTP throw in some ENTJs and ENFJs. In general ISs and to lesser degree ENs are pretty messy.

    SLIs and LSIs are very good examples of this problem.
    Enneagram 3 blindspot. Visual deficits in 4, 8. Triple instinctual blindspot.

    Highly immature Discord channel
    because enneagram is just too simple and therefore we need to develop a new classification system called Rhombic triacontahedron with life module containing eukaryotes, prokaryotes and virus.

  23. #23
    Jarno's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    Netherlands
    TIM
    ILI-Te
    Posts
    5,375
    Mentioned
    30 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Skepticurus View Post
    This is where I disagree. I have yet to see a valid empirical proof of cognitive functions, let alone one that proves they appear in any specific order. How can you prove intertype relations if one can't prove not only that a person prefers particular functions , but that they prefer them in a manner specific to socionics theory? "Certainties" of such things are largely subjective.
    Well augusta build model A, and when you put two people of a certain type together, they tend to interact in a way that confirms the model A. I wonder if it should be called subjective, cause the relationship interaction is described over and over in the same way by different people. So at one point i guess it starts to become somewhat of a general fact. Probably the most important example of it all is duality. Everyone who gets in that kind of relationship for the first time, gets pleasantly surprised and tells a similar story. Model A alone predicts a lot of things about every type of relationship. Surely I was very skeptikal too in the beginning, but after a lot of dating and life experience I feel safe for myself to conclude that socionics/model A is a reliable explanation of relationship interaction.

  24. #24
    Queen of the Damned Aylen's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2013
    Location
    MACS0647-JD
    TIM
    SEER ~ 458 sx/sp
    Posts
    9,897
    Mentioned
    734 Post(s)
    Tagged
    40 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by suedehead View Post
    ISFP: ESI, SEI, Si-SLI
    ISTP: SLI, LSI, Ti-SLE
    INFP: IEI, EII
    INTP: LII, ILI, Ni-IEI, Ti-ILE

    ENFP: IEE
    ENTP: ILE, Ti-SLE (head triad in Enneagram), Ni-EIE
    ESFP: SEE, Fe-SEI
    ESTP: SLE

    ISTJ: LSI, SLI, LSE, ESI
    ISFJ: SEI, Fi-EII, ESI
    INTJ: ILI, LII, Ni-LIE, Ti-ILE, Ti-SLE, essentially a motley crew of misanthropes
    INFJ: IEI, EII, EIE

    ENFJ: Fe-EIE, ESE, Fi-IEE
    ENTJ: LIE, Ti-SLE, Se-LSI, LSE, anyone who has a 'dominant' personality
    ESFJ: ESE, Fe-SEI
    ESTJ: LSE
    I went through and checked my results on different sites, including Keirsey, which I am pretty sure I paid for it twice now. I got ENFJ on that one, many years ago, and INFJ the second, INFP the third time. I have tested INFJ, INFP, INTP and INTJ just since joining this forum. I get Ni highest on function tests but INFJ on the free short (official?) MBTI test more than INFP but it is so close on j/p usually that I have to go by descriptions. I often test close on f/t too. By descriptions I am a combo of INFP and INFJ. By socionics descriptions I relate way more to IEI than EII as it hits on specifics that MBTI doesn't. I still see both IEI and EII descriptions as a combination of INFP and INFJ descriptions.

    I looked up the description of functions for both and I can see why those coming from MBTI get confused.

    Jung and Myers considered the attitude of the Auxiliary, Tertiary, and Inferior functions to be the opposite of the Dominant. In this interpretation, if the Dominant function is extraverted, then the other three are introverted, and vice versa. However, many modern practitioners hold that the attitude of the Tertiary function is the same as the Dominant.[22] Using the more modern interpretation, the cognitive functions of the INFP are as follows:

    Dominant: Introverted feeling (Fi)[edit]

    Fi filters information based on interpretations of worth, forming judgments according to criteria that are often intangible. Fi constantly balances an internal set of values such as harmony and authenticity. Attuned to subtle distinctions, Fi innately senses what is true and what is false in a situation.[23] With Fi as their dominant function, INFPs live primarily in a rich inner world of emotion.[24] Ideally, they would like everything they do to be in congruence with their personal beliefs. They want to live a life as true to themselves as possible.[25]

    Auxiliary: Extraverted intuition (Ne)[edit]

    Ne finds and interprets hidden meanings, using “what if” questions to explore alternatives, allowing multiple possibilities to coexist. This imaginative play weaves together insights and experiences from various sources to form a new whole, which can then become a catalyst to action.[26] INFPs engage the outside world primarily with intuition. They are adept at seeing the big picture, sensing patterns and the flow of existence from the past toward the future.[24] Extraverted Intuitives also have a very entrepreneurial mindset. Ne users see possibilities of what could be all around them. They have a desire to make things happen and “put a dent in the world.” Extraverted Intuitives can get very excited about these possibilities, making them naturally charismatic. Ne users can be inspiring leaders that are catalysts for change.[27]

    Tertiary: Introverted sensing (Si)[edit]

    Si collects data in the present moment and compares it with past experiences, a process that sometimes evokes the feelings associated with memory, as if the subject were reliving it. Seeking to protect what is familiar, Si draws upon history to form goals and expectations about what will happen in the future.[28] This function gives INFPs a natural inclination toward "other-worldliness" and makes them more easily distracted.[24]

    Inferior: Extraverted thinking (Te)[edit]

    Te organizes and schedules ideas and the environment to ensure the efficient, productive pursuit of objectives. Te seeks logical explanations for actions, events, and conclusions, looking for faulty reasoning and lapses in sequence.[29] This function helps INFPs focus on external details, but being the inferior function, requires the expenditure of greater energy and is not as reliable.[24]

    Shadow functions[edit]

    Later personality researchers (notably Linda V. Berens)[30] added four additional functions to the descending hierarchy, the so-called "shadow" functions to which the individual is not naturally inclined but which can emerge when the person is under stress. The shadow processes "operate more on the boundaries of our awareness…We usually experience these processes in a negative way, yet when we are open to them, they can be quite positive."[31] For INFP, these shadow functions are (in order):


    • Extraverted feeling (Fe): Fe seeks social connections and creates harmonious interactions through polite, considerate, and appropriate behavior. Fe responds to the explicit (and implicit) wants of others, and may even create an internal conflict between the subject’s own needs and the desire to meet the needs of others.[32]
    • Introverted intuition (Ni): Attracted to symbolic actions or devices, Ni synthesizes seeming paradoxes to create the previously unimagined. These realizations come with a certainty that demands action to fulfill a new vision of the future, solutions that may include complex systems or universal truths.[33]
    • Extraverted sensing (Se): Extraverted sensing focuses on the experiences and sensations of the immediate, physical world. With an acute awareness of the present surroundings, it brings relevant facts and details to the forefront and may lead to spontaneous action.[34]
    • Introverted thinking (Ti): Ti seeks precision, such as the exact word to express an idea. It notices the minute distinctions that define the essence of things, then analyzes and classifies them. Ti examines all sides of an issue, looking to solve problems while minimizing effort and risk. It uses models to root out logical inconsistency.[35]

    Jung and Myers considered the attitude of the Auxiliary, Tertiary, and Inferior functions to be the opposite of the Dominant. In this interpretation, if the Dominant function is extraverted, then the other three are introverted, and vice versa. However, many modern practitioners hold that the attitude of the Tertiary function is the same as the Dominant.[21] Using the more modern interpretation, the cognitive functions of the INFJ are as follows:[20]

    Dominant: Introverted intuition (Ni)[edit]

    Attracted to symbolic action or devices. Ni synthesizes seeming paradoxes to create the previously unimagined. These realizations come with a certainty that demands action to fulfill a new vision of the future, solutions that may include complex systems or universal truths.[22]

    Auxiliary: Extraverted feeling (Fe)[edit]

    Fe seeks social connections and creates harmonious interactions through polite, considerate, and appropriate behavior. Fe responds to the explicit (and implicit) wants of others, and may even create an internal conflict between the subject’s own needs and the desire to meet the needs of others.[23]

    Tertiary: Introverted thinking (Ti)[edit]

    Ti seeks precision, such as the exact word to express an idea. Ti notices the minute distinctions that define the essence of things, then analyzes and classifies them. Ti examines all sides of an issue, looking to solve problems while minimizing effort and risk. Ti uses models to root out logical inconsistency.[24]

    Inferior: Extraverted sensing (Se)[edit]

    Se focuses on the experiences and sensations of the immediate, physical world. With an acute awareness of the present surroundings, it brings relevant facts and details to the forefront and may lead to spontaneous action. Weak Se in the INFJ may result in a detachment from the sensory reality, but when the function is in use it adds a playful counter to the serious nature of Ni.[25]
    Shadow functions[edit]

    Later personality researchers (notably Linda V. Berens)[26] added four additional functions to the descending hierarchy, the "shadow" functions to which the individual is not naturally inclined but which can emerge when the person is under stress. For INFJ these shadow functions are (in order):


    • Extraverted intuition (Ne): Ne finds and interprets hidden meanings, using hypothetical questions to explore alternatives, allowing multiple possibilities to coexist. This imaginative play weaves together insights and experiences from various sources to form a new whole, which can then become a catalyst to action.[27]
    • Introverted feeling (Fi): Fi filters information based on interpretations of worth, forming judgments according to criteria that are often intangible. Fi constantly balances an internal set of values such as harmony and authenticity. Attuned to subtle distinctions, Fi innately senses what is true and what is false in a situation.[28]
    • Extraverted thinking (Te): Te organizes and schedules ideas and the environment to ensure the efficient, productive pursuit of objectives. Te seeks logical explanations for actions, events, and conclusions, looking for faulty reasoning and lapses in sequence.[29]
    • Introverted sensing (Si): Si collects data in the present moment and compares it with past experiences, a process that sometimes evokes the feelings associated with memory, as if the subject were reliving it. Seeking to protect what is familiar, Si draws upon history to form goals and expectations about what will happen in the future.[30]
    You almost have to flip it for it to make sense. Mine naturally borders the line and probably flips naturally so it doesn't really seem like much of a difference to me. There are parts of both INFJ/INFP that I relate and don't relate to.

    I am curious how the IEI and EII here correlate by functions and still decide they are the same in both systems.

    "When I ought to be thinking of heaven he will nail me to earth"

     







  25. #25
    Chains's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Posts
    2,308
    Mentioned
    65 Post(s)
    Tagged
    1 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Jarno View Post
    Well augusta build model A, and when you put two people of a certain type together, they tend to interact in a way that confirms the model A. I wonder if it should be called subjective, cause the relationship interaction is described over and over in the same way by different people. So at one point i guess it starts to become somewhat of a general fact. Probably the most important example of it all is duality. Everyone who gets in that kind of relationship for the first time, gets pleasantly surprised and tells a similar story. Model A alone predicts a lot of things about every type of relationship. Surely I was very skeptikal too in the beginning, but after a lot of dating and life experience I feel safe for myself to conclude that socionics/model A is a reliable explanation of relationship interaction.
    In order for these to be proved scientifically, one would first have to have participants typed consistently by numerous "experts" who do not share information or opinion with one another before one could even begin such type relation experiments. Has this been done? Having one or two people perform all the typing before relation studies is not objective due to the subjective nature of the typing process.

    Then, one would have to put people of known type together and observed by people who do not know their type at all and have their relations analyzed. From what I have read, this has never been done. Usually, the person analyzing the intertype relations is the same person that typed the people to begin with. This is fertile grounds for confirmation biases, and is what I mean by subjective.

  26. #26
    Jarno's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    Netherlands
    TIM
    ILI-Te
    Posts
    5,375
    Mentioned
    30 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Skepticurus View Post
    Then, one would have to put people of known type together and observed by people who do not know their type at all and have their relations analyzed. From what I have read, this has never been done. Usually, the person analyzing the intertype relations is the same person that typed the people to begin with. This is fertile grounds for confirmation biases, and is what I mean by subjective.
    I've happen to meet a guy who worked with augusta during a socionics meeting in Germany. I forgot his name, but i can look it up probably. He shared some stories and one of those was about putting people who had never met together and asking them afterwards how they described their interaction. Also there is a large russian community, i've even seen socionics came up in a research paper of the university of amsterdam in my country. I think more people are starting to become aware, experience and study the phenomena of socionics.

    I agree there is lot's of subjectiveness in the whole socionics 'science' but a certain percentage of faults will not destroy the whole set up of the experiment i guess. It's a social/soft science with all the problems asociated with it. There is just too much of this -soft- evidence to just ignore it. Just don't ask for -hard- evidence in a -soft- science, I would guess...

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •