How often do MBTI types correlate with Socionic Types?

[Phaedrus]

I have tried to clarify this a couple of times before. I have never said that MBTI and Socioncs are compatible. In fact, I definitely think that they are incompatible in a theoretical sense, since I believe that Socionics is most likely a correct theory, whereas I believe that MBTT is a false theory. And MBTT is a false theory because it assumes that, for example, the group of INTPs is the same group of people as Jung's introverted thinkers.

I have said that MBTT and Socinics are comparable, though, and that they are talking about the same groups of people, even though they explain them differently. And it is only Socionics that is right in a theoretical sense (or so I believe anyway).

Based on this, how can you then assert that an MBTI ENTJ is definitely an LIE?

Because the models only disagree about the introverted types. All the extraverted types are described similarly, and they are attributed the same functions (even though the functions are defined slightly differently) in the ego block. So, there is no problem with the extraverted types. They are clearly talking about the same groups of people there.

That the extraverted types are identical becomes even more obvious if you look at how David Keirsey describes the 16 types in the light of his four temperament groups (SP Artisans, SJ Guardians, NF Idealists, and NT Rationals). The SLEs are clearly Artisans in Keirsey's sense, LSEs are clearly Guardians, and LIEs are clearly Rationals. And that is no coincident.

[Mea]

I have tried to clarify this a couple of times before. I have never said that MBTI and Socioncs are compatible. In fact, I definitely think that they are incompatible in a theoretical sense, since I believe that Socionics is most likely a correct theory, whereas I believe that MBTT is a false theory. And MBTT is a false theory because it assumes that, for example, the group of INTPs is the same group of people as Jung's introverted thinkers.

I have said that MBTT and Socinics are comparable, though, and that they are talking about the same groups of people, even though they explain them differently. And it is only Socionics that is right in a theoretical sense (or so I believe anyway).

Based on this, how can you then assert that an MBTI ENTJ is definitely an LIE?

Because the models only disagree about the introverted types. All the extraverted types are described similarly, and they are attributed the same functions (even though the functions are defined slightly differently) in the ego block. So, there is no problem with the extraverted types. They are clearly talking about the same groups of people there.

That the extraverted types are identical becomes even more obvious if you look at how David Keirsey describes the 16 types in the light of his four temperament groups (SP Artisans, SJ Guardians, NF Idealists, and NT Rationals). The SLEs are clearly Artisans in Keirsey's sense, LSEs are clearly Guardians, and LIEs are clearly Rationals. And that is no coincident.

Ok. So you agree that ILIs are not exactly the same as INTPs?

[Phaedrus]

Ok. So you agree that ILIs are not exactly the same as INTPs?

That depends on what you mean. I have explained my position (too) many times on this forum. They are not the same in a theoretical sense, because the theories are not identical, and the theoretical explanations and definitions are different. But the group of people that is correctly typed as the group of "ILIs" is exactly the same group of people as the group of correctly typed "INTPs". (The word "correctly" is extremely important in my last sentence.)

[Expat]

But that is irrelevant. Types are not descriptions of types. Types are not theoretical explanations of functions. Types are sets of real existing entities (people) that have certain structural characteristics in common. People with the same type have the same relevent brain structures that cause them to think and behave in certain typical and recognizable ways. They share the same relevant attitudes, values, and energy rhythms. And they also share structural similarities in body type and facial structure.

You spot the type by recognizing those and other similarities and differences -- you recognize the pattern that exists out there in the world independently of any theory designed to explain that pattern. That is what a type is. Not the theoretical explanation that comes after the type has been recognized in the first place. The type is an empirical, observable phenomenon -- not a theoretical construct.

Ok. So you agree that ILIs are not exactly the same as INTPs?

That depends on what you mean. I have explained my position (too) many times on this forum. They are not the same in a theoretical sense, because the theories are not identical, and the theoretical explanations and definitions are different. But the group of people that is correctly typed as the group of "ILIs" is exactly the same group of people as the group of correctly typed "INTPs". (The word "correctly" is extremely important in my last sentence.)

The big flaws in Phaedrus's reasoning - and central to the criteria/theory distinction - are these.

Phaedrus's reasoning - "the group of people that is correctly typed as the group of "ILIs" is exactly the same group of people as the group of correctly typed "INTPs"" - would be correct if the 16 groups already existed in a visible way - like the planet Venus, which he (misleadingly) mentioned in this context elsewhere.

If, for the sake of argument, some divine entity would separate, say, 1000 people into 16 groups that will correspond perfectly to the socionics types, and then say to people skilled in both MBTI or socionics, "I have created the groups for you, now you just have to identify them" - in that situation, then, I agree that it is more likely than not that the same group of people would end up being called "ENTJ" by the MBTI folks and "LIE" by the socionics folks. It might be in a "well there isn't any other type left for this group" way, but I think they would end up reaching that conclusion - if they carefully looked at all the people in all the groups, knowing beforehand that the typings are correct so as not to try to re-draw the groups.

And, in this hypothetical situation, Phaedrus would be right: it would not matter at all what the theoretical explanation for what makes a person an ENTJ and/or LIE is, if you are reaching the same conclusion.

When Phaedrus says things like this:

You spot the type by recognizing those and other similarities and differences -- you recognize the pattern that exists out there in the world independently of any theory designed to explain that pattern. That is what a type is. Not the theoretical explanation that comes after the type has been recognized in the first place. The type is an empirical, observable phenomenon -- not a theoretical construct.

What he keeps overlooking is that the groups - the types - are not in front of us. We have individuals, and WE are the ones putting them together in our minds.

On this:

People with the same type have the same relevent brain structures that cause them to think and behave in certain typical and recognizable ways. They share the same relevant attitudes, values, and energy rhythms. And they also share structural similarities in body type and facial structure.

We don't know that. We don't really know what makes a type what it is. We don't know for sure how closely things like body type and facial structure correlate with the type. Therefore, we can't know how reliable those, yes, criteria are.

When typing, we look at a woman (say) and have to decide whether to put her in group A or group B. This decision has to be made according to some criteria. Not theory, Phaedrus. You may not give two hoots as to what would make her be A or B theoretically, but you have to have some criteria - is she A or B?

Now you seem to be saying that this is no problem due to "same relevant attitudes, values, and energy rhythms. And they also share structural similarities in body type and facial structure". Well, "same" is sometimes not so clear-cut. Unless you think that people are caricatures, you will always have cases where it's not so obviously easy.

One example. When my brother and I were teens and my father was around 40-something, everyone said that the three of us looked very similar - so much so, that people who had only met one of us sometimes "recognized" the other if meeting him elsewhere by chance. My brother is ENTp, I am ENTj and my father was ISFp. Surely you can argue - perhaps rightly - that nevertheless it would be possible to see the type-related differences, but the point is that it's not always so black-and-white. We are the ones who have to decide where to draw the line between groups - they haven't been drawn by some divine entity. And for that we have to have criteria, and the criteria are based on what makes a type.

As you yourself said, types are an empirical, observable phenomenon. I agree with that. But what it overlooks is that the empirical data are often not clearly pointing in the same direction, as in the "J=rationality-tidiness" thing.

And if you just "see a pattern" and start creating the types in your mind, without clear criteria and understanding them, your inevitable mistypings end up contaminating all the next ones, since they become part of your "pattern".

That is why it's not just about the theoretical explanations. We have to have criteria, otherwise each different person will see a different "pattern" and therefore have, in a way, their own individual typology. Which happens to some extent in any case, but we can try to minimize it, and the way to do that is to agree on which criteria we are using. Which will also involve understanding some of the theory of what makes someone of a certain type.

[Mea]

When Phaedrus says things like this:

You spot the type by recognizing those and other similarities and differences -- you recognize the pattern that exists out there in the world independently of any theory designed to explain that pattern. That is what a type is. Not the theoretical explanation that comes after the type has been recognized in the first place. The type is an empirical, observable phenomenon -- not a theoretical construct.

What he keeps overlooking is that the groups - the types - are not in front of us. We have individuals, and WE are the ones putting them together in our minds.

That was good point put across so clearly, if even this isn't obvious enough... I don't know what to say.

[Expat]

Ezra is ESTp

According to Phaedrus' logic, if I am ENTJ in MBTI (which I know I am, so don't debate it with me), I can only be ENTj in socionics. Ergo, you are incorrect.

According to Phaedrus' "logic" is the key phrase there.

Slacker Mom, I would genuinely like to see you show me how I can suddenly go from having Extraverted Thinking and Introverted Intuition as dominant and auxiliary functions respectively to having Extraverted Sensing and Introverted Logic as leading and secondary functions respectively.

If you put it like that, it is obvious that you can't. The problem is not that simple logic, but the assumptions connecting it to reality.

MBTI is Jung is Socionics.

That is one of the flawed assumptions. That is not the case. Hence your reasoning collapses.

There's no way you can distort Jung's functions, because if you could you could easily end up coming to a conclusion like MBTI INFP = socionics LSE, which is just plain bullshit.

Socionics and MBTI have already "distorted" Jung's functions, where I am on firmer ground talking about socionics than about MBTI.

The key issue is that they are similar but not identical. They are similar enough to indeed make INFP = LSE just bullshit, but not identical enough to permit precise correlations.

And as to how similar they are, well, not in a sîmple and straightforward way. Also, note that the MBTI types were not built up from the functions. So to use functions to create yes-or-no straightforward correlations between the systems will get you nowhere. And that is why, yes, in practice, skilled MBTI typists will not necessarily type a LIE as ENTJ.

If you're looking for a formula, you won't find it. Or the one you do find will lead you to mistypings.

More to the point, fine, you can say you are ENTJ in MBTI since such a conclusion is a dead-end. But if you then conclude that you are LIE because of this, you will see that the intertype relationships don't work.

[Danielle]

Phaedrus, I have been evaluated by an MBTT type professional, more than once. Besides that, INFP is just very right. As surely as I know I'm a woman. That's why I said I am more sure of being INFP than of being EII. Socionics is something I'm studying on my own, and clearly my understanding of it is limited at best. I can't be sure I even understand what EII means. In fact, I'm positive I don't really understand what all of this means, not well enough that I could articulate it. I'm trying to completely disregard what I've learned from MBTT concerning the functions. I don't know yet that Socionics is right about the functions and MBTT wrong, but I can see from personal experience that there are clear differences. For example, in MBTT, Si is associated with time, specifically the past. It's the stabilizing function. In Socionics, doesn't seem to have anything to do with the past, but something about aesthetics, comfort, health. Whereas in MBTT, Se is related to physical health and aesthetics. In Socionics, is about power, movement, present-action, etc. All of this is a lot to digest. To make it worse, I have mainly understood the functions according to Lenore Thompson, not even MBTT.

But okay, forget the functions. What about the IJ/IP temperaments? All I know is what little I've read on the English socionics websites. As Expat said in another thread, these explanations are limited and perhaps misleading. For example, I am a go-with-the-flow person, externally. I'm usually down for whatever, as they say where I'm from. But when it comes to my feelings and values, they're as steady as a mountain.

I also don't think the MBTT understanding of Fi and the Socionics understanding of are that far apart. Si and yes. Oh, and sorry about my use of the word compatible. I should let you know that I'm not nearly as careful as you in my use of words. It's like, whatever to me. What I meant was, I'm not sure that knowing something about your type in MBTT will tell you anything at all in Socionics, and vice versa.

[Phaedrus]

Phaedrus, I have been evaluated by an MBTT type professional, more than once. Besides that, INFP is just very right. As surely as I know I'm a woman. That's why I said I am more sure of being INFP than of being EII.

I am not questioning your MBTT type, but you still haven't said much about the reasons why you are so sure that you are an INFP, for example which your exact test result was. You haven't said how many different, and exactly which, type descriptions you have compared, and you haven't said anything about problematic parts in those, or what other kinds of material you and your type professional have discussed, and how you reasoned. There is a lof of valuable information in such a typing process, and all that information can be analyzed.

What about the IJ/IP temperaments? All I know is what little I've read on the English socionics websites. As Expat said in another thread, these explanations are limited and perhaps misleading. For example, I am a go-with-the-flow person, externally. I'm usually down for whatever, as they say where I'm from.

If you are very sure about being an IP in MBTT you are probably an Ip in Socionics too, that's all I can say for now. Besides that, there are a few things you haven't commented, for example whether your body type is clearly leptosomic, as I assumed it to be if you were an INFj. If you are an INFp the chances increases that you are more normally built. And you haven't said whether you are an early bird or a night owl. None of these considerations prove anything either way, but they might give us a hint about your most likely type.

But when it comes to my feelings and values, they're as steady as a mountain.

Both an INFj and an INFp can relate to that. It doesn't tell us anything for sure about your type.

Oh, and sorry about my use of the word compatible. I should let you know that I'm not nearly as careful as you in my use of words. It's like, whatever to me.

I wasn't offended. I just wanted to clarify a logical detail that some people here have been slightly careless about. It's no big deal.

What I meant was, I'm not sure that knowing something about your type in MBTT will tell you anything at all in Socionics, and vice versa.

You don't have to be sure of that. It suffices that I am sure about it ...

FWIW you seem to understand me very well. You understand my true motivations correctly, you describe my actions correctly, and I also think that you analyze them correctly. Maybe that is an indication that you and I have the same leading function, . In some respects, some of the INFps on this forum have also understood me more correctly than other ethical types, maybe even better than other types in general, except from the INTps. My interactions with INFjs have been more limited, but none of the 2-3 real life INFjs I have met and discussed things with have understood me as well as the INFps.

[Danielle]

I'm sorry I'm not using quotes, but this computer I'm using is iffy and I have to work as simply and quickly as possible.

Phaedrus, I haven't detailed my discovery process re:being an MBTT INFP because it's a long story, inevitably colored by what I know now. But I guess I'm more in line with Expat's reasoning here: if you can so thoroughly question the sureness of my type and won't accept my self-reporting and self-knowledge (and there is nothing I have studied more than myself), then wouldn't that apply across the board? Like, if you had the theoretical 16 people of 16 different types, and we could all be sure, we could know that these 16 represented each of the 16 types, then yeah, the ENTJ should be ENTJ in both, and I'd daresay the INFP and the INFp should be the same. The problem I'm having is this: how can you be sure that they have been typed accurately, in either system?

What is it in the MBTT that you think relates to something in Socionics?

You keep referring to the Socionics temperaments, but there isn't much information available on them. And as you pointed out, these groupings (IP, IJ, EP, EJ) don't exist in MBTT. There is no defined "IP" type in Myers Briggs. There doesn't appear to be much available info on this temperament in Socionics either. Where are you getting enough evidence to back up your theory?

I'll give a brief outline of my INFP experience:
1. Took the MBTI and the Keirsey tests. Tested INFP with MBTI, ISXJ with Keirsey. This was about 7 years ago. Since then, i've consulted 2 different professionals. One I consulted two years ago, when I thought I was ISFJ, who first suggested INFP, asked me to try living as one for a week. I have never stopped. The second professional is a life coach that I hired, Vicky who runs INFJ.com. She gave me test after test over months and hours of consultations. Thoroughly educated me about MB typology. And no doubt I am INFP. I am now a happy INFP. I was not a happy person when I thought I was ISFJ.
2. Read the type descriptions of INFP, ISFJ, ISTJ and INFJ, most notably those found in "Type Talk", "Please Understand Me II". underlined parts of each description that fit, and noted those that didn't. INFP had the most fits. Major Discrepancies between me and INFJs:
a. INFJs and ISFJs are described as preferring a scheduled life. They are dependable and steady. I hate having my day scheduled. I like walking out the door not knowing where I'm going and deciding on the fly. I frequently miss and/or cancel appointments because I don't like the pressure of having to be somewhere or do something at a specified time.
b. INFJs and ISFJs are described as finishing what they start. I love starting things and coming up with new ideas, but I don't carry them out. Many times it's enough to say I thought of it.
c. INFJs are described as visionary and mentor-types, while INFPs are healers and advocates. The latter is definitely me. See how I am advocating for you on this very board, and trying to heal the pain of misunderstanding? I do this all the time. On the other hand, I don't have the energy to mentor someone. I can be someone's cheerleader, but I'm at a loss when it comes to giving them direction (other than love yourself). It's really not my thing. I think the worst problems are caused because good people don't accept and love themselves as they are. I'm not some Oprah or Ghandi, trying to elevate people from where they are. I want them to appreciate where they are.

3. I have also studied the Interaction Styles theory with my life coach. I am an Informing type, not a Directing type. To find out more, go to www.interactionstyles.com
Even my posts here reveal my informing style. I want people to buy in to what I perceive or want, I can't just tell them to think or do a certain way. I'll ask you if you're chilly too, and presume you'll understand that I'm chilly and turn up the heat. It takes a lot for me to say "Could you turn up the heat". I mean, what if you're not cold? I just can't be that way, it's bossy to me. But my INFJ life coach can't stand wishy-washy, indirect informing communication.
INFJs are always Directing, INFPs are always Informing. As are ISFJs, but I strongly identify with being a Keirsey NF. For years I tried to live as an SJ, and ended up depressed and feeling like a failure. Now, I'm an easy breezy nutcase, and that's how I like it.
4. Disregarding the MBTT functions, what about Lenore Thomson? I also studied her book, "Personality Type: An Owner's Manual". I did not identify with the description of Ni-types at all. For one thing, Ni wants to liberate the subject from context, an Ne wants to perceive the surrounding context. The latter is me.
5. Also, with regard to Fi, there is a great old book called "Conscious Orientation", and it contains a description of "The introvert of feeling type". It's so heartbreakingly me. I bought the book, which was written by a contemporary of Jung, and I don't resonate with the "introverted intuitive" type at all.
6. The best description of "me" that I have ever read is Personality Page's INFP description. I agree with every single sentence. Feel the same about the INFP description found in the type book by Dario Nardi. But I haven't compared the INFJ descriptions yet.

I think that's enough for now. This is years of introspection and analysis. As you can tell, I'm not wedded to any decision, I was quickly willing to reconsider my Socionics type based on your reasonableness. I don't know much about Socionics. But I'm not sure I should throw out being an INFP just to align with your theory, which may not even be testable with real people.

[Expat]

Danielle's post was one of the most useful ever.

A few brief comments.

a. INFJs and ISFJs are described as preferring a scheduled life. They are dependable and steady. I hate having my day scheduled. I like walking out the door not knowing where I'm going and deciding on the fly. I frequently miss and/or cancel appointments because I don't like the pressure of having to be somewhere or do something at a specified time.

That is precisely what I referred to elsewhere, recently, only I focused on the "tidiness" problem. In Kersey/MBTT, if you are a "J", by definition you prefer a scheduled life on a daily basis. Phaedrus's simplistic "J=rationality" approach would suggest that that would apply to socionics rationals. However, it does not.

b. INFJs and ISFJs are described as finishing what they start. I love starting things and coming up with new ideas, but I don't carry them out. Many times it's enough to say I thought of it.

Yep. That is the INFj going into , or ENFp mode. And, again, "to finish what you start" is usually "J" almost by definition.

5. Also, with regard to Fi, there is a great old book called "Conscious Orientation", and it contains a description of "The introvert of feeling type". It's so heartbreakingly me. I bought the book, which was written by a contemporary of Jung, and I don't resonate with the "introverted intuitive" type at all.

Is that similar to Jung's Introverted Intuitive type? That type is not a good representation of "normal" Ni types, for the record.

Danielle, everything you say about you, and just what you write, suggests you are EII. The only other possibility would be IEE, so INFj or ENFp. Delta NF.

[Danielle]

That is precisely what I referred to elsewhere, recently, only I focused on the "tidiness" problem. In Kersey/MBTT, if you are a "J", by definition you prefer a scheduled life on a daily basis. Phaedrus's simplistic "J=rationality" approach would suggest that that would apply to socionics rationals. However, it does not.

From what I know of MBTT/Keirsey, J/P don't have much to do with rationality or really anything internal. It's determined by your lifestyle, your outward behavior. It's supposed to be about what you "extravert", which in MB terms seems to mean what you show to the outside world and how you approach it. So an INFP may not be first a Perceiver, but since that's what everyone will see and since that's what is supposed to determine how she lives her life (as opposed to why), then that's why she's a P. It doesn't have anything to do with the dominant function, especially with Keirsey, who doesn't even believe in the functions.

So I'd want to ask Phaedrus, what does any of that have to do with Socionics? How do they relate? I don't think they're talking about the same thing, and my personal experience leads me to believe that you can be a lifestyle-P in MBTI and a rational-j in Socionics.

Socionics and the rationality/irrationality distinction may explain why I thought I had to be a J for years. Inside myself, I am pretty tough on myself, somewhat rigid, very decisive, steady, consistent, values-oriented etc. But it's almost like I'm so sure/steady inside (with regard to my values, feeling-based conclusions)that I don't need to create that on the outside.

Is that similar to Jung's Introverted Intuitive type? That type is not a good representation of "normal" Ni types, for the record.

Yes, it is similar. But I have a question then. How do you know what a "normal" Ni type is without reference to Jung, who invented the term?

[aka-kitsune]

I just have to say here that I really don't understand the concept of *paying* someone to come up with your personality type. Enneagram (but really all personality typologies, I suppose) is particularly notable for this coterie of "authorities" who can be consulted for a fee to definitively state your type for you.

But then, if you've PAID someone, why would you start questioning again? Wouldn't you think your investment of cash was worth the expert answer? Or was it just their opinion, which if you went with your own would not have cost you anything? (Except maybe the price of a few books).

For me, I take a couple of tests, see if the results make sense, read some further descriptions and bam! I'm INFP, INFp, and 4w5... never had to seriously question and my results have always come out pretty consistent. Well, of course there was that time I took the Keirsey and came out INFJ...

Generally, though, I really don't get indefinable type and retyping.

[Phaedrus]

Phaedrus, I haven't detailed my discovery process re:being an MBTT INFP because it's a long story, inevitably colored by what I know now. But I guess I'm more in line with Expat's reasoning here: if you can so thoroughly question the sureness of my type and won't accept my self-reporting and self-knowledge (and there is nothing I have studied more than myself), then wouldn't that apply across the board? Like, if you had the theoretical 16 people of 16 different types, and we could all be sure, we could know that these 16 represented each of the 16 types, then yeah, the ENTJ should be ENTJ in both, and I'd daresay the INFP and the INFp should be the same. The problem I'm having is this: how can you be sure that they have been typed accurately, in either system?

By critically examining all the evidence, using as many sources of information as possible, and analyzing it from many different angles. I have done a very thorough investigation of my own type, so I know that I am an ILI, and I know that I am an INTP in MBTT. I also know a lot of other things about my type(s) that is not directly related to Socionics but to other typologies that have been suggested through history. I am not questioning anyone's self-reporting or self-knowledge, as long as it makes sense and fit the other pieces of information we have access to.

What is it in the MBTT that you think relates to something in Socionics?

For example the four scales (dimensions). The criteria for determining if you are E/I, S/N, F/T, and J/P are, for all practical purposes, identical in Socionics and MBTT. Any difference between them are only a difference in method. Take a look at, for example, this passage taken from Filatova's book on Socionics (machine translated though):

You are rational, if:
— you attempt to organize all your works previously,
— you bring to the end that the fact that they began,
— to you is with difficulty given switching from one work to another,
— you attempt to live in the measured off rhythm,
— you [slyvete] by man punctual, compulsory,
— you easily adhere to the established rules of discipline and order.

You are irrational, if:
— in the organization of your works you prefer “to be orientated on the circumstances”,
— can throw on half way work, if to you this [razonravilos],
— you prefer to be free from the obligations and you make that which will propose the case,
— to you is easily given switching from one work to another,
— your work moves first of all entrainment,
— to you is difficult to live in the measured off rhythm, your life of — is faster improvisation.

You keep referring to the Socionics temperaments, but there isn't much information available on them. And as you pointed out, these groupings (IP, IJ, EP, EJ) don't exist in MBTT. There is no defined "IP" type in Myers Briggs. There doesn't appear to be much available info on this temperament in Socionics either. Where are you getting enough evidence to back up your theory?

You have mentioned that you have read Lenore Thomson, so you could take a look at how she describes the differences in life rhythm between J and P types, and how they represent two fundamentally different approaches to life. Then you could compare that with the 16 brain types, that Rocky is so fond of. You find information about that on the Internet. Even in Socionics it is often assumed that being a rational J type relates to the left hemisphere of the brain, whereas being an irrational P type relates to the right hemisphere. Though it is true that the most creative persons use both the hemispheres to more extent than the average person.

We also know, from independent non-Socionics research in neuro-psychology, that creative persons tend to fit the criteria for P much better than the criteria for J in attitudes and behaviour. Creative persons tend to be flexible, and not too orderly in lifestyle and outward behaviour. They don't make up their minds too fast, instead they are probing, seeking more information before coming to a conclusion. Their energy rhythm is uneven, oscillating between periods of inspiration and long periods of day-dreaming. Therefore it is natural to assume that irrational P types generally are more creative than rational J types. That hypothesis would be rather easy to test empirically.

I'll give a brief outline of my INFP experience:
1. Took the MBTI and the Keirsey tests. Tested INFP with MBTI, ISXJ with Keirsey. This was about 7 years ago. Since then, i've consulted 2 different professionals. One I consulted two years ago, when I thought I was ISFJ, who first suggested INFP, asked me to try living as one for a week. I have never stopped. The second professional is a life coach that I hired, Vicky who runs INFJ.com. She gave me test after test over months and hours of consultations. Thoroughly educated me about MB typology. And no doubt I am INFP. I am now a happy INFP. I was not a happy person when I thought I was ISFJ.
2. Read the type descriptions of INFP, ISFJ, ISTJ and INFJ, most notably those found in "Type Talk", "Please Understand Me II". underlined parts of each description that fit, and noted those that didn't. INFP had the most fits. Major Discrepancies between me and INFJs:
a. INFJs and ISFJs are described as preferring a scheduled life. They are dependable and steady. I hate having my day scheduled. I like walking out the door not knowing where I'm going and deciding on the fly. I frequently miss and/or cancel appointments because I don't like the pressure of having to be somewhere or do something at a specified time.
b. INFJs and ISFJs are described as finishing what they start. I love starting things and coming up with new ideas, but I don't carry them out. Many times it's enough to say I thought of it.

All of that suggests that if you are an INFP in MBTT, you are most likely an INFp in Socionics too.

c. INFJs are described as visionary and mentor-types, while INFPs are healers and advocates. The latter is definitely me. See how I am advocating for you on this very board, and trying to heal the pain of misunderstanding? I do this all the time. On the other hand, I don't have the energy to mentor someone. I can be someone's cheerleader, but I'm at a loss when it comes to giving them direction (other than love yourself). It's really not my thing. I think the worst problems are caused because good people don't accept and love themselves as they are. I'm not some Oprah or Ghandi, trying to elevate people from where they are. I want them to appreciate where they are.

But that doesn't tell us much about your type in Socionics. The main reason why INFJs are described as "visionary" is that they are (falsely) assumed to have introverted intuition as leading function. In Socionics the word "visionary" is associated with , and it is the INFp, not the INFj, that has that as leading function. If you have access to David Keirsey's Please Understand Me II, you could open that book at page 158 and read about how he describes the INFP Healers as seeking unity, wholeness, and living in a phantasy world. All of that is related to in Socionics. And when Keirsey says that the INFPs "are the Shaman, Medicine Man, or Witch Doctor of the tribe, the Prince or Princess in fairy tales, the True Knight or Defender of the Faith" he indirectly admits that he puts them in the same category, the same group of people, as Jung's introverted intuitives, as Jung describes them in Psychological Types (which you can find on the Internet).

4. Disregarding the MBTT functions, what about Lenore Thomson? I also studied her book, "Personality Type: An Owner's Manual". I did not identify with the description of Ni-types at all. For one thing, Ni wants to liberate the subject from context, an Ne wants to perceive the surrounding context. The latter is me.

That is an even stronger argument for INFp. Thomson's descriptions and explanations of "Ni" has almost nothing to do with in Socionics. I haven't studied her "Fi" much, but in her description of "Ti" (introverted thinking) there is a lot of . An ILI identifies much more with Thomson's "Ti" than with her "Ni". Maybe you could compare how she describes "Fi" and "Ti" to see if you can find any in both of them or not.

6. The best description of "me" that I have ever read is Personality Page's INFP description. I agree with every single sentence.

That INFP description is closer to IEI descriptions than to EII descriptions, but there is a general problem with the descriptions from Personality Page that they are too positive and too much of a mish mash in a socionic perspective. If you focus only on how they describe the behaviours and attitudes of the types, you can see that the INFP profile is closest to the IEI profiles in Socionics.

Conclusion: So far I have seen no very strong argument for INFj. Your most likely type in Socionics still seems to be INFp.

[Phaedrus]

From what I know of MBTT/Keirsey, J/P don't have much to do with rationality or really anything internal. It's determined by your lifestyle, your outward behavior.

No, that's a misunderstanding of MBTT (but you are not alone in assuming that). The J/P dimension has just as much to with how your internal psyche is structured as it has in Socionics. The only difference is that in MBTT they focus more on observing outer behaviour when they try to identify whether someone is a J or a P type. That is only a difference in typing method. The theoretical explanations for that phenomenon focus on the order of functions -- just as much in MBTT as in Socionics.

So I'd want to ask Phaedrus, what does any of that have to do with Socionics? How do they relate? I don't think they're talking about the same thing, and my personal experience leads me to believe that you can be a lifestyle-P in MBTI and a rational-j in Socionics.

In my opinion, you can't. And the reasons for that I indicated in my last post. The four scales are the same. And the criteria for identifying the four scales are also the same.

Socionics and the rationality/irrationality distinction may explain why I thought I had to be a J for years. Inside myself, I am pretty tough on myself, somewhat rigid, very decisive, steady, consistent, values-oriented etc. But it's almost like I'm so sure/steady inside (with regard to my values, feeling-based conclusions)that I don't need to create that on the outside.

INTPs tend to say very similar things about their thinking processes in relation to their outward behaviour. If we are similar in that respect, that is yet another argument for INFp (but perhaps not very strong).

[Expat]

Is that similar to Jung's Introverted Intuitive type? That type is not a good representation of "normal" Ni types, for the record.

Yes, it is similar. But I have a question then. How do you know what a "normal" Ni type is without reference to Jung, who invented the term?

He did invent it, but his Introverted Intuitive type describes what Jung called "mystics" and "crackpots". In a filmed interview, when asked to elaborate on this type, he mentioned a female patient who once told him, "doctor, I have a snake in my stomach". So his understanding of Ni would seem to refer only to people who are already, uh, "Ni stoned". Not the same understanding of Ni dominants as in socionics, obviously.

So, as I have repeatedly stated, just because Jung invented the term doesn't mean we have to slavishly stick to what he says. One thing is Jung's typology, another is Socionics, which got its starting point from the former but also differs from it.

Therefore, a person may well be Ni dominant in socionics and not identify with Jung's Introverted Intuitive type.

[Expat]

Conclusion: So far I have seen no very strong argument for INFj. Your most likely type in Socionics still seems to be INFp.

Except, of course, that elsewhere - especially in her "INFj/INFp" thread - she clearly seems to be and not , and Delta and not Beta. Which in socionics is a very strong argument.

[Phaedrus]

Conclusion: So far I have seen no very strong argument for INFj. Your most likely type in Socionics still seems to be INFp.

Except, of course, that elsewhere - especially in her "INFj/INFp" thread - she clearly seems to be and not , and Delta and not Beta. Which in socionics is a very strong argument.

Let's assume that you are right about that. In that case we have a contradiction. Some pieces of evidence suggest INFj, and some other pieces of evidence suggest not INFj (but INFp). Then we either have to show how the pieces of evidence are only seemingly contradicting and that they can be reconciled -- or we should try to find which of our assumptions are false.

[Expat]

Let's assume that you are right about that. In that case we have a contradiction. Some pieces of evidence suggest INFj, and some other pieces of evidence suggest not INFj (but INFp). Then we either have to show how the pieces of evidence are only seemingly contradicting and that they can be reconciled -- or we should try to find which of our assumptions are false.

As should be obvious from what I've written elsewhere, I think that the false assumption is that rationality definition, or saying that the criteria for the 4 scales are the same.

Your problem is that you've already made up your mind that rationality=J, quoting (as you always do) just the pieces of evidence that happen to suit what you already think, conveniently forgetting what contradicts it. So now you've picked up that Filatova quote. But you also know that Lytov - whom you also love to selectively quote whenever it suits you - has very clearly stated that they are similar, but not the same. And that becomes evident precisely in cases such as Danielle's.

It's funny that in that recent discussion on Lytov's Keirsey/Socionics chart, you were bending over backwards to brush aside the P/J "mix" there:

http://the16types.info/forums/viewto...r=asc&start=90

The nearly 50 % split between IEI and EII is to be expected, since the phenomenon is similar to the confusion between LIIs and ILIs.

Sooooo -- when it suits you, you say that a 50% mix-up between IEI/EII and INFP/INFJ "is to be expected". So, in that case, it should be no wonder that Danielle is EII in Socionics and yet identifies mostly with INFP in MBTT.

And if that is "to be expected" - to a 50% degree - this "phenomenon" can only mean that the 4 scales (among other things) are not identical. Similar, yes; identical, no -- and it is precisely this distinction that leads to "phenomenons" such as this and in Danielle's case.

[Danielle]

Phaedrus, by those Filatova descriptions you put up, on the surface I would seem to be an irrational type, just as I am a P in MBTT. But I guess I am questioning the overall significance of these kinds of lists and descriptions. Right here, you've cast doubt on Lenore Thomson's descriptions of Ni and Ti, and Expat has disparaged Jung himself. I'm not saying either one of you are wrong about that. But that just leads me to believe that descriptions have to take a back seat to the underlying structure, the theory itself. So while Jung's description of the "introverted intuitive" may be off, that there is such a group of people is strongly suggested by the theory itself (after all, if there is extraverted intuitive, there must be introverted). So who is to say the rationality/irrationality descriptions are sound enough just yet? (or the MBTT J/P descriptions, or the IJ/IP/etc. descriptions)

I admit that my experience leads me to be highly wary of tests and descriptions. I think self-reporting instruments are the least reliable, at least, I know they were for me. Once you've taken the tests a few times, you get how they work, and you start to skew your responses to fit how you think it should turn out. Not to mention where you are in your life may have an impact. For example, I come from a very close-knit family, in fact, we all still live together, even though the kids are in their late 20s. Everyone else in my family is Sensing, with a strong Extroverted lean. Now the only thing I knew for sure was that I was an introvert, but a lot of my intuitive perceptions I chalked up to my introversion. I never thought I could be an N. For one thing, I didn't think I was smart enough. And if I just went by descriptions, for example, Keirsey's descriptions, I'd probably still think that N=smart. I also thought I was too "practical" to be an N. But who really thinks they aren't practical? Only the self-aware. I took so many tests and read so many descriptions!

aka-kitsune, that's why I felt the need to pay someone to know for sure. Look at all of the people who change their types here on the Socionics board. Not only do we have Socionics masters right here to help, but tests like that long one Dmitri Lytov used to have (a test I took, and he said I was EII/INFj). But no matter what descriptions, no matter what tests, no matter what free help, and no matter that because this is about intertype relations, you have literally your whole life to examine for evidence...many people STILL don't know. The situation is not any better in MBTT land, even though there is more written information available and more available for the English-speaking public. Now I've noticed that a lot of people don't really take type all that seriously. So the lack of knowledge/lack of decisiveness doesn't matter so much to them. But I take all of my interests seriously. Even the reality tv shows I watch, and reality tv is bottom of the barrel. Everything teaches me more about myself and the world around me, so I don't waste time if I don't see the value. And I want the best, because I'm a perfectionist. So I hired a professional, who got to know ME, observe me, talk to me for hours, and give me all sorts of projects that can't be faked like tests. It's similar to what we have here, with invested people like Rick and Expat (sorry to hold you up as an authority Expat) who can give feedback. My coach was trained and has continually been trained for years. So it was worth the money to know for sure. And I actually haven't doubted my MBTT type since I found out for sure. Although strangely, it wasn't because some expert told me my type. It was because it's what felt right, it's the comfortable skin, like no skin has ever been before. My own intuition and feelings told me, as they always do, when I let them.

Personal feedback from people who can actually observe you and who are actually knowledgeable cannot be beaten by tests or descriptions. That's my belief. Expat referenced the thread I have over in "What's My Type", and I'd like to know your thoughts on what is being observed there Phaedrus. It seems obvious from this thread that I am INFP. And it seems obvious from that thread that I am, at the very least, Delta. So how can I be INFp?

[Expat]

Expat referenced the thread I have over in "What's My Type", and I'd like to know your thoughts on what is being observed there Phaedrus. It seems obvious from this thread that I am INFP. And it seems obvious from that thread that I am, at the very least, Delta. So how can I be INFp?

I predict Phaedrus won't even address this issue in the terms you expect, since he simply does not think in terms of quadras. He doesn't even understand why everybody there - Slacker Mom, Scartlettlux, myself - immediately saw you as Delta and not Beta. So he'll go back to using his own arguments based on the 4 scales and descriptions, and essentially dismiss the quadra and functional analysis as "irrelevant".

[Danielle]

Perhaps that is what will happen, Expat. But I would ask, why are the 4 scales descriptions more important than the Quadra descriptions? After all, the Quadras relate to the most important aspect of Socionics.....intertype relations. And I haven't even gotten into that yet, which is the greatest proof that I am INFj. I haven't even mentioned my relationships. Or the 11 hours I recently spent in the company of an ESTj who I'd just met....11 of the most comfortable, easy hours in my life. And that's just recent experience. I don't even see how we can talk about all this without the intertype relationships coming into play.

[Expat]

You have to ask Phaedrus that, since I agree with you.

[Phaedrus]

As should be obvious from what I've written elsewhere, I think that the false assumption is that rationality definition, or saying that the criteria for the 4 scales are the same.

That is not a false assumption (given that you have understood exactly what I am claiming to be true of the four scales and are not misinterpreting my point). So, we seem to be contradicting each other on that point. (But I'm not sure that we actually do that, since you can't be that blind to the truth. Assuming that you are rather intelligent, it would be more natural to think that you have misunderstood my position on that, at least slightly.)

The nearly 50 % split between IEI and EII is to be expected, since the phenomenon is similar to the confusion between LIIs and ILIs.

Sooooo -- when it suits you, you say that a 50% mix-up between IEI/EII and INFP/INFJ "is to be expected". So, in that case, it should be no wonder that Danielle is EII in Socionics and yet identifies mostly with INFP in MBTT.

If the type descriptions that the socionists got to read contained explanations of the functions (something we don't know for sure, unless that was made explicit by Lytov, which I don't remember exactly if he did or not), people usually get confused. It is no surprise if the socionists also got confused in that case.

In Danielle's case it could both be true that she "identifies mostly with INFP in MBTT" and that she is an EII in Socionics. But that is not what she says. She says things like "INFP is just very right. As surely as I know I'm a woman." It is of course not impossible (seen from perspective) that she is not really an INFP but an INFJ in MBTT. But in that case she has an incorrect view of herself and doesn't understand the differences betwen INFPs and INFJs correctly. At the moment I have no legitimate reason to doubt that she is telling the truth about her type in MBTT, but my only source of information about her type is what she is telling us. If that is not a reliable source of information, we of course have to reevaluate the situation.

And if that is "to be expected" - to a 50% degree - this "phenomenon" can only mean that the 4 scales (among other things) are not identical. Similar, yes; identical, no -- and it is precisely this distinction that leads to "phenomenons" such as this and in Danielle's case.

Not at all. The four scales are cristal clear in comparison to how the functions are explained in MBTT and Socionics. The everything else overshadowing reason why people don't know for sure if they are INTj or INTp in Socionics when they know that they are INTP in MBTT, or whether they are INFj or INFp when they know that they are INFP or INFJ, is that the functions seem to be twisted in the two models. And they seem to be twisted because the names of the functions are identical. But the referents to the names are not identical.

[Expat]

That is not a false assumption (given that you have understood exactly what I am claiming to be true of the four scales and are not misinterpreting my point). So, we seem to be contradicting each other on that point. (But I'm not sure that we actually do that, since you can't be that blind to the truth. Assuming that you are rather intelligent, it would be more natural to think that you have misunderstood my position on that, at least slightly.)

You see, Danielle, you've got one of your answers. That is one explanation to one of the points you've raised regarding some people's reactions to Phaedrus.

That's all it comes down to -- by definition, if you don't agree with him, you are incompetent or "not intelligent".

[Expat]

Not at all. The four scales are cristal clear in comparison to how the functions are explained in MBTT and Socionics.

Why even refer to MBTT functions? In order to find a socionics type, you use socionics functions, and you don't even have to think about the MBTT functions. There is no need whatsoever to bring MBTT functions in the picture.

The everything else overshadowing reason why people don't know for sure if they are INTj or INTp in Socionics when they know that they are INTP in MBTT, or whether they are INFj or INFp when they know that they are INFP or INFJ, is that the functions seem to be twisted in the two models.

Sheer rubbish. That is your whole problem, Phaedrus. Socionics types - which are, yes, inevitably connected to the intertype relationships, because that is how Augusta put it all together, and that is what holds the whole system together - can be deduced perfectly well from the functions. That is why those who think in terms of functions immediately saw that Danielle was obviously much more than .

Typing someone correctly in socionics - using socionics functions - does not need even to acknowledge the existence of MBTT functions, so this argument is a strawman.

And they seem to be twisted because the names of the functions are identical. But the referents to the names are not identical.

Again, that is total strawman. It is totally unnecessary to even think of MBTT functions when typing someone in socionics.

You have raised this point because you are confused about the functions, so you decided to dismiss them. That doesn't mean that others can't use them accurately - again, socionics functions.

[Phaedrus]

Expat referenced the thread I have over in "What's My Type", and I'd like to know your thoughts on what is being observed there Phaedrus. It seems obvious from this thread that I am INFP. And it seems obvious from that thread that I am, at the very least, Delta. So how can I be INFp?

I predict Phaedrus won't even address this issue in the terms you expect, since he simply does not think in terms of quadras. He doesn't even understand why everybody there - Slacker Mom, Scartlettlux, myself - immediately saw you as Delta and not Beta. So he'll go back to using his own arguments based on the 4 scales and descriptions, and essentially dismiss the quadra and functional analysis as "irrelevant".

What I can observe from what's being observed in the thread "INFp or INFj? How can one know for sure?" is that the case is not clear-cut. There are some aspects of your personality indicating INFj, and there are others indicating INFp. I spotted one incorrect conclusion though:

I've always been leisurely and slow, and I can't keep things clean at all. I feel like my soul is being drained when I have to clean something. My living quarters are always a mess. I won't clean the kitchen, but I also can't cook in a dirty kitchen, even mildly dirty/cluttered. If someone else were to clean for me, I'd definitely appreciate and respect that. I want things neat, organized and clean. I just can't do it. So what does that say with regard to ?

It says that you value but you need someone's help on that. That is, you have a ego type as your dual.

By the same reasoning one could conclude that the INTps must have an type as their dual, because what Danielle says about her attitude and behaviour towards cleaning and messiness is essentially no different from the INTps's attitude and behaviour in these matters. Here is the INTp's attitude in a nutshell:

Both at work and at home The Critic likes peace and harmony. He values comfort, cleanness and order. However, due to his inertia he does not always achieve what he wants.

[Phaedrus]

Not at all. The four scales are cristal clear in comparison to how the functions are explained in MBTT and Socionics.

Why even refer to MBTT functions? In order to find a socionics type, you use socionics functions, and you don't even have to think about the MBTT functions. There is no need whatsoever to bring MBTT functions in the picture.

You don't seem to get the point. The messiness of the MBTT functions is the explanation for the confusion leading to the result that both socionists and people in general don't know how to separate the INFPs and the INFJs by reading type descriptions. They can't see what is relevant and what is irrelevant in the MBTT type descriptions, because the functional explanations muddle things in their heads.

Socionics types - which are, yes, inevitably connected to the intertype relationships, because that is how Augusta put it all together, and that is what holds the whole system together - can be deduced perfectly well from the functions.

Of course. I have never disputed that.

That is why those who think in terms of functions immediately saw that Danielle was obviously much more than .

Yes ... that's what they concluded from their observations ... But in order for such a conclusion to be necessarily correct, you must have made correct observations ... And your conclusion must follow logically from the premises ...

It is totally unnecessary to even think of MBTT functions when typing someone in socionics.

Yes, of course. I have never disputed that either.

[Expat]

Socionics types - which are, yes, inevitably connected to the intertype relationships, because that is how Augusta put it all together, and that is what holds the whole system together - can be deduced perfectly well from the functions.

Of course. I have never disputed that.

Rubbish. Of course you have disputed that, and I will quote the relevant bits as soon as I can be bothered to do so.

[Expat]

You don't seem to get the point. The messiness of the MBTT functions is the explanation for the confusion leading to the result that both socionists and people in general don't know how to separate the INFPs and the INFJs by reading type descriptions. They can't see what is relevant

You're the one who don't get the point or see what's relevant. Those who could see that Danielle was much more likely EII than IEI did not need to rely on type descriptions at all. That is your weakness, Phaedrus. Don't project it onto others.

[Phaedrus]

Socionics types - which are, yes, inevitably connected to the intertype relationships, because that is how Augusta put it all together, and that is what holds the whole system together - can be deduced perfectly well from the functions.

Of course. I have never disputed that.

Rubbish. Of course you have disputed that, and I will quote the relevant bits as soon as I can be bothered to do so.

Okay, what I should have said was that I fully agree with the claim that the types can be deduced perfectly well from the functions -- that I have never disputed. But I have disputed the reliability of using that as a typing method. We can only deduce the types correctly if we have been observing the functions correctly, and the risk of making a mistake there is often too high, as is shown in several discussions on this forum.

Some people are convinced that they can observe the functions correctly, even when they are objectively wrong about it. Or you might be able to identify a certain function correctly, but then you still don't know for sure which type the person is, because many types can express the same function in similar situations.

[Phaedrus]

You don't seem to get the point. The messiness of the MBTT functions is the explanation for the confusion leading to the result that both socionists and people in general don't know how to separate the INFPs and the INFJs by reading type descriptions. They can't see what is relevant

You're the one who don't get the point or see what's relevant. Those who could see that Danielle was much more likely EII than IEI did not need to rely on type descriptions at all. That is your weakness, Phaedrus. Don't project it onto others.

You still don't know for sure which type Danielle is. First you have to explain the anomalies. You have to explain all the things suggesting INFp that I have mentioned in my posts. And she identifies with being a P type. It is true that many INFjs get the test result INFp or INFP, but she can't insist on identifying with the criteria and descriptions of irrational P behaviour if she is an INFj. She simply must identify with the J scale if she is an INFj. The issue is not settled until she has admitted that she was wrong about that, and changes her type to INFJ also in MBTT. If not, the INFp hypothesis is as strong as ever.

[Danielle]

I am definitely not an MBTT INFJ, and I know of no way to establish that here, since this is not a forum for in-depth discussion of MBTT.

If you want evidence that I am not an INFp, look at the differences between aka-kitsune and myself.

I am also not convinced that the rational/irrational scales in Socionics are measuring the exact same thing as the J/P scale in MBTT. Phaedrus, you seem pretty confident that you comprehend both systems well enough to say for sure what no other socionist has or will.

You have already said that MBTT doesn't get the functions right (I agree). Yet when I said that the J/P scale is said to be about external behaviors and lifestyle, you referred back to the MBTT functions:

The only difference is that in MBTT they focus more on observing outer behaviour when they try to identify whether someone is a J or a P type. That is only a difference in typing method. The theoretical explanations for that phenomenon focus on the order of functions -- just as much in MBTT as in Socionics.

bolding mine

How can you use MBTT theory with regard to functions you don't think the MBTT explains correctly?

I know you feel you have this all worked out in your head. This piecemeal driveby thing doesn't work for me, my brain doesn't comprehend things in that fashion. There is a widespread belief that you'll say anything to bolster whatever point you happen to be making at that moment, regardless of consistency. I know that in your mind, it is all consistent. But you have to actually say it. I feel like the greyhound forever chasing the rabbit.

[UDP]

I feel like the greyhound forever chasing the rabbit.

...which is really why this thread is continuing. Just realize that the chase is enjoyable to some, and the longer it goes on, the more entertaining it is. If it stopped right now, one would have to find other ways to use ones mind and be entertained. It is much easier to keep this going. Newton's laws, human nature, and pure intellectual complacency.

[Danielle]

Well at least this could be useful. Who's placing bets?

[Danielle]

More seriously, Phaedrus, I am open to exploring this with you. And we can continue to use me as an experiment. But you have to be willing to keep hashing this out with me. At the very least, I want to understand how you think this all works. This is what I understand so far:

The J/P scale used in the Myers Briggs Temperament Theory coincides with the rationality/irrationality scale used in Socionics. Actually, I just read that off Dmitri Lytov's website at socioniko.net. Is that what you are saying also? So if a person is a J then they must also be a j, and the same for P/p.

Another question occurs to me. What about the E/I scale? Do those scales exactly coincide as well? For example, why couldn't I be an INFP and an ENFp? Or must IP=Ip, EP=Ep, etc.?

I've already said that I don't like using type descriptions in order to determine type. It seems you like using descriptions. What has led you to trust them? What do you think are the best? We could begin this examination by having you select the descriptions you want me to compare, for both Socionics and MBTT, and I'll try to be very truthful about what applies to me and what doesn't. In fact, I'd rather just give my impressions of what I read and maybe you can tell from that, although that doesn't seem to be your method.

In addition to type descriptions, where is the great description of rationality/irrationality that will settle this confusion? Not to mention J/P. Where are you getting all of this information that has led you to these conclusions? You seem so sure of your sources that you're willing to disregard anything that anyone says, including people who can tell just from what I say that I am an EII. Shoot, it seems obvious to me when I read what I say. But apparently you have not studied intertype relations or the quadras. You don't even reference the functions except vaguely when it suits whatever tactical point you're trying to make. Okay, fine. I'm willing to work with that. If the scales are paramount, let's work with the scales. For one thing, I need to know where to find them and how to interpret them. You teach me.

[Expat]

I am definitely not an MBTT INFJ, and I know of no way to establish that here, since this is not a forum for in-depth discussion of MBTT.

There are two ways at least:

- you could post it on the "non-socionics type theories" subforum
- you could simply write it here; this is already a thread discussing MBTT, and it's in the context of discussing your socionics type.

There is a widespread belief that you'll say anything to bolster whatever point you happen to be making at that moment, regardless of consistency.

It's not a "belief", it's something he himself has confirmed. He'll just quote anything anyone has said, regardless of the source and identity of whoever said it, if the quote happens to support whatever he's saying. And regardless of consistency, since if the quote happens to be inaccurate, he then says it is "irrelevant" as happened with the Keirsey/Socionics chart by Lytov. He was the first to quote it as a reference, then said it was irrelevant.

The J/P scale used in the Myers Briggs Temperament Theory coincides with the rationality/irrationality scale used in Socionics. Actually, I just read that off Dmitri Lytov's website at socioniko.net. Is that what you are saying also? So if a person is a J then they must also be a j, and the same for P/p.

One observation -- I don't know the status of Lytov's site since a new owner took it over. But the original paper by Lytov said that the scales were similar but not identical. IF the only choices were between J/P shift or no, then Lytov's position would be clearly in favor of no J/P shift. But those are not the only choices.

[Expat]

By the way, Danielle, what you're illustrating is a dual-seeking person trying to get from a PoLR person. You will never get the kind of clarification you want from Phaedrus.

[Phaedrus]

I am definitely not an MBTT INFJ, and I know of no way to establish that here, since this is not a forum for in-depth discussion of MBTT.

As I have already said, I have no reason to question your MBTT type. If you are definitely not an INFJ, the exact same considerations apply to you as they apply to Ezra, who has said that he is definitely an MBTT ENTJ. If you are definitely not an INFJ, then you are not an EII/INFj in Socionics either, because that would lead to a contradiction. The EII is a rational type, a J type, whereas the INFP is an irrational type, a P type. And you can't be both a P type and a J type at the same time. The J/P distinction captures your behaviour and attitudes, and those are the same in both models. The basic problem of how to put people in the correct type "boxes" really is that simple.

If you want evidence that I am not an INFp, look at the differences between aka-kitsune and myself.

I could try to do that, if you link to the most relevant passages. But we have got the same problem here. How do we know for sure which type aka-kitsune is?

I am also not convinced that the rational/irrational scales in Socionics are measuring the exact same thing as the J/P scale in MBTT. Phaedrus, you seem pretty confident that you comprehend both systems well enough to say for sure what no other socionist has or will.

Yes. But I recommend that you read Dmitry Lytov's Introduction into Socionics if you haven't done that already. You find it at http://www.socioniko.net/en/1.1.types/index.html

You have already said that MBTT doesn't get the functions right (I agree). Yet when I said that the J/P scale is said to be about external behaviors and lifestyle, you referred back to the MBTT functions:

The only difference is that in MBTT they focus more on observing outer behaviour when they try to identify whether someone is a J or a P type. That is only a difference in typing method. The theoretical explanations for that phenomenon focus on the order of functions -- just as much in MBTT as in Socionics.

bolding mine

How can you use MBTT theory with regard to functions you don't think the MBTT explains correctly?

I don't use MBTT theory with regard to functions. I believe that MBTT is a false theory, but they describe the attitudes and behaviours of the 16 types correctly (more or less anyway). What I mean by the statement "The theoretical explanations for that phenomenon focus on the order of functions" is that if you know that a person is an introverted perceiving type, that is an IP, then according to MBTT you can logically deduce that the person has a leading rational function, either "Ti" as in ISTPs and INTPs, or "Fi", as in ISFPs and INFPs. Of course that doesn't mean that the person really has a rational leading function, only that they assume that in MBTT. But if MBTT is a false theory that assumption isn't necessarily true, and in fact I believe that it is false. I strongly believe that if you really are an INFP in MBTT, then you have the exact same leading function as every socionic INFp, and that function is called .

EDITED: Thanks, Thunder. The the typo is now corrected.

[Phaedrus]

More seriously, Phaedrus, I am open to exploring this with you. And we can continue to use me as an experiment. But you have to be willing to keep hashing this out with me. At the very least, I want to understand how you think this all works. This is what I understand so far:

The J/P scale used in the Myers Briggs Temperament Theory coincides with the rationality/irrationality scale used in Socionics. Actually, I just read that off Dmitri Lytov's website at socioniko.net. Is that what you are saying also? So if a person is a J then they must also be a j, and the same for P/p.

Yes, that is what I am saying also. You found the material without my help. If a person is J then they must also be a j, and the same for P/p. That assumption isn't questioned on the russian socinic sites some people on this forum have linked to. They seem to assume that the INFP profiles describe IEIs, but I don't know if they have been investigating that in depth or not.

Another question occurs to me. What about the E/I scale? Do those scales exactly coincide as well? For example, why couldn't I be an INFP and an ENFp? Or must IP=Ip, EP=Ep, etc.?

Yes, those scales coincide exactly as well. There is nothing strange about that, because introversion and extraversion is a biological phenomenon that you can observe independently of these theories. If you are an introvert your whole metabolism is structured differently than if you are an extravert. Your whole attitude and experience of life is different. There are lots of biological differences between introverts and extraverts. Jung is basically right about what he says about those differences in Psychological Types, but this is a difference that every psychologist agrees on. There is no problem here.

I've already said that I don't like using type descriptions in order to determine type. It seems you like using descriptions. What has led you to trust them? What do you think are the best? We could begin this examination by having you select the descriptions you want me to compare, for both Socionics and MBTT, and I'll try to be very truthful about what applies to me and what doesn't. In fact, I'd rather just give my impressions of what I read and maybe you can tell from that, although that doesn't seem to be your method.

Contrary to many people on this forum, I don't use only one typing method. I use as many as possible, but people make a big mistake when they think that type descriptions can be ignored. You can make a functional analysis, or a V.I. analysis, or a quadra analysis, or a lots of other analyses as well, and you can combinde them too. But if you in the end find that you don't fit the type descriptions of your type, then you have made a mistake somewhere in your typing process, and you will have to start from scratch again. Every relevant piece of the big puzzle must fit.

I don't prefer type descriptions to other methods, but since I have studied them so intensively, and more importantly extensively, I can use them as a rather reliable typing method. I see how they all fit together, but if you don't have that overall understanding of many, many type descriptions, then you should not trust your ability to type yourself correctly by using them, and they should never be your only typing method.

If I would mention one single typing method that I think has great potential, I would be visual identification (V.I.). If combined with insights in genetics, V.I. might be the most reliable method in the future.

In addition to type descriptions, where is the great description of rationality/irrationality that will settle this confusion? Not to mention J/P. Where are you getting all of this information that has led you to these conclusions?

Quite frankly, I don't understand why so many people are so blind to the truth. The information is everywhere, and you have most of the relevant information quite handily described in Lytov's Introduction into Socionics. Read and compare lists of criteria from both MBTT, Keirsey, and Socionics. Compare type descriptions, read Jung's Psychological Types, read Lenore Thomson again. You find the same consistent pattern if you look at many different sources of information and are not getting stuck in the details.

You seem so sure of your sources that you're willing to disregard anything that anyone says, including people who can tell just from what I say that I am an EII.

Yes. But have you given some thought to these questions: How reliable is the typing method those people are using when they say that you are an EII? How much information about your person do they have access to? Are they considering all the relevant information, or do they find a connection between something you have said about yourself and something else and immediately come to a conclusion about your type? Are the things they accentuate as evidence for EII really evidence for EII in such a way that it is also evidence against every other type, or could the same thing correctly be said of, for example, EIIs and IEIs?

It is a well-known fact that EIIs and IEIs have a lot of things in common, just as many things that can be correctly said about LIIs can also be correctly said about ILIs. And you are probably aware of the same phenomeon from your studies in MBTT. So, I wouldn't be so sure that those people that have said that you are an EII are necessarily right, if I were you. Don't take for granted that they know what they are talking about.

But apparently you have not studied intertype relations or the quadras.

And how do you know that? Have I said that to you? Or have someone else told you that? Or do you think that you can deduce that truth from what I have not said in the posts of mine that you have read so far?

You don't even reference the functions except vaguely when it suits whatever tactical point you're trying to make.

So, you think that the language you prefer to use to say something is a direct consequence of your insights? If I think that I can say the same thing in a more simple, ordinary language, does that imply that I don't understand what those who are trying to say the same thing in a functional perspective are talking about?

If there was a consensus, and if everyone agreed on how to describe and define the functions, we wouldn't have all this confusion that we now have. I prefer to focus on what can be observed by everyone, and that is behaviours, looks, attitudes, test results, etc. I know for a fact that some people on this forum don't understand the functions correctly, and if I were to insist on talking about functions, we would be debating over how to define words, and I don't believe in that approach.

[Rocky]

The EII is a rational type, a J type, whereas the INFP is an irrational type, a P type.

Nope. In MBTI, INFPs are rational types. Anyone with a decent background in the subject (meaning, not the average no-nothing on an internet forum) would tell you that. Myers herself said she was INFP after reading Jung's type descriptions. Her definition for J/P was NOT rational/irrational. She claimed P types were "accurate perception and informed judgement", and J types were "accurate judgement and informed perception".

Stop acting like you know everything.