INFP here
Hi all! Wanted to jump some more into the enneagram and saw alot of cool posts here that could help me expand my knowledge about this.
I'm an enneagram 9 sx/sp
If you have any useful posts about the 9 sx/sp, feel free to share it with me as I'm eager to learn more. The source of who wrote the post would be highly appreciative as well but I understand if you can't fish that one out.
Hope to have a pleasant time in this community with you.
Peace out amigos!
So you are MBTI INFP or Socionics INFp?Originally Posted by Acr
MBTI INFP. Not even heard about Socionics before? Care to explain?
Well, in Socionics it's INFj. So for introverted types there is J/P swap. So MBTI ENTP = Socionics ENTP, but INFP MBTI = INFj Socionics.
This is based on the primary functions, so the MBTI INFP functions are Introvert Feeling and Extroverted intuition and this is also true for INFj in Socionics.
This forum is about Socionics.
But with tests is another story. You see, if you test INFP in MBTI, you might be tested as INFj or INFp in Socionics. This is because MBTI is a mess and they didn't get this J/P right, it's a bit of blunder. And they base tests on this, so the tests asks you about J/P and not specific functions like Fi and Ne.
Huh.. Thats surprising. Been reading MBTI for years now and never came across this what so ever. But so you are saying that the J/P is a mess in MBTI? Why is that so?
Maybe it's not that much focus on it as the cognitive functions that MBTI explains but is it a mess really? Are you saying that Socionics are more focused on the J/P part rather than the Fi, Ne?
Some people like think that Jung's types gotten by same MBT methods which are used in Socionics may magically change when are written on Socionics sites.
INFP is IEI in Socionics. MBT notations are also correct here. The usage of low case "j/p" is senseless as J/P fits to rationality/irrationality in Socionics and MBTI uses same Jung's dichotomies which you may find in Socionics. But we have different opinions here is the direct conversion the appropriate.
There is some chance you could be incorrectly typed and then with more correct Socionics theory to understand this. But it's another story.
> But so you are saying that the J/P is a mess in MBTI?
It's not mess in direct description of this dichotomy in MBT. The mistake of MBT is the functional model of types, which contradicts to Jung. INFP in MBT has Fi-Ne-Si-Te, while by Jung it's Ni-Fe-Te-Se (the same in Socionics for 2 first functions) - you see other 1 and 2 functions in MBT which are at INFJ by Jung. But as 4-letter type notation describes only dichotomies and MBTI (which uses only dichotomies, but not wrong functional model) is the main typing method in MBT practice - there is no sense to change the types. If you got INFP in MBT and it's correctly there - you'll be IEI and irrational type in Socionics, but not EII. You may look at dichotomy tests used in Socionics and to see the same MBTI alike stuff.
Last edited by Sol; 05-22-2018 at 09:17 AM.
Socionics J types have 1st function judging like Feeling and Thinking. So if your first function is Introverted Feeling then in socionics you are INFj. But in MBTI, you are J type if you are extroverted and your first function is judging, or if you are introverted and your second function is judging. And this condition that for introverted types there is J/P swap is blunder because there is no logical reason for it really. And now, the tests are testing J/P dichotomy, so if you are introverted type, you might be tested differently in socionics, so you could be INFj or INFp with Introverted Intuition as 1st function.
Screenshot_20180522-111726.png
I just took a test and got this result. According to this test, my dominate function is Ni and Fe? Which is very confusing coming from an MBTI frame. How can that be? That a person can be MBTI INFP but in Socionics also a INFP using Ni & Fe? Doesn't make any sense in my world.
I had a hard time interpreting what you explained to me above, have any good articles for Socionics for newbies and why you can be two different personalities in MBTI and Socionics? For example in my case, MBTI INFP and Socionics INFJ. Doesn't make any sense to me at the moment
Honestly, everything about this is coming like a bomb for me, having a hard time interpreting what you mean exactly. But if I got anything right, you are saying that an INFP Socionics have the first two functions, Ni & Fe as the INFJ has in MBTI? The 3 and 4 function in Socionics for an INFJ will therefore be the same as for an MBTI INFP, Si & Te? Am I looking at this correctly here?Some people like think that Jung's types gotten by same MBT methods which are used in Socionics may magically change when are written on Socionics sites.
INFP is IEI in Socionics. MBT notations are also correct here. The usage of low case "j/p" is senseless as J/P fits to rationality/irrationality in Socionics and MBTI uses same Jung's dichotomies which you may find in Socionics. But we have different opinions here is the direct conversion the appropriate.
There is some chance you could be incorrectly typed and then with more correct Socionics theory to understand this. But it's another story.
> But so you are saying that the J/P is a mess in MBTI?
It's not mess in direct description of this dichotomy in MBT. The mistake of MBT is the functional model of types, which contradicts to Jung. INFP in MBT has Fi-Ne-Si-Te, while by Jung it's Ni-Fe-Te-Se (the same in Socionics for 2 first functions) - you see other 1 and 2 functions in MBT which are at INFJ by Jung. But as 4-letter type notation describes only dichotomies and MBTI (which uses only dichotomies, but not wrong functional model) is the main typing method in MBT practice - there is no sense to change the types. If you got INFP in MBT and it's correctly there - you'll be IEI and irrational type in Socionics, but not EII. You may look at dichotomy tests used in Socionics and to see the same MBTI alike stuff.
Jung also used for rational functions the term judging and for irrational ones - perceiving. If you have irrational/perceiving type then you have irrational function as the leading. By Jung all 3 weaker functions have other E/I. MBT messed all that, but luckily does not use this mistake much to type people. If you are INFP indeed, then you are IEI - irrational type, then you have Ni-Fe in ego. Socionics has no MBT mistakes and just follows to Jung. You may read "Psychological Types" by Jung and to see what he said there indeed.
You may make a typing theme with your video-interview. People will say what types you may also be.
> The 3 and 4 function in Socionics for an INFJ will therefore be the same as for an MBTI INFP, Si & Te?
at Jung for INFJ: Fi-Ne-Se-Te
Socionics uses 8 functional model, as your consciousness can to use any types of information related to all 8 functions. It has no clearly ranged all functions by the degree of its consciousness like Jung did, it uses other principle. But the first 2 functions in Socionics which are said as Ego, are the same like at Jung. IEI/INFP have them as Ni-Fe.
Another remarkable thing - you may meet in Socionics that the function which is 3rd by Jung is said as the weakest. It's probably Augustinavichiute's mistake, not serious as on practice is used only strong/weak difference between functions (Jung's 1-2 are strong, 3-4 are weak in Socionics). Probably she noticed people see more problems from 3rd function, but ignored the problems of 4th are lesser seen. Meanwhile in Socionics duals are said as the most helpful people - and they have the leading function which is your 4th - hence are able to help you the most there. So IR theory of the same Augustinavichiute does not follows good her assumption about weakest 3rd function, - she could to see on practice with which of types people feel better.
Acr, mbti made some mistakes how they assign the functions to types. Socionics corrects this. What really is the task for anybody coming from mbti is to find out what your real type is.
The decisive thing is not the reality of the object, but the reality of the subjective factor, i.e. the primordial images, which in their totality represent a psychic mirror-world. It is a mirror, however, with the peculiar capacity of representing the present contents of consciousness not in their known and customary form but in a certain sense sub specie aeternitatis, somewhat as a million-year old consciousness might see them.
(Jung on Si)
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote