This is your chance to tell me what you really think

[Creepy-Diana]

.

[Expat]

I think you're INFj.

You thought you were INTj, and I don't think ENFps would be likely to think that.

[Creepy-Diana]

.

[Creepy-Diana]

.

[Rocky]

Delta... INFj... maybe...

[Raver]

Read the descriptions here:

http://www.typelogic.com/enfp.html
http://www.typelogic.com/infp.html
http://www.typelogic.com/infj.html
http://www.typelogic.com/enfj.html

I know their not socionics!!!! They are MBTI, however their descriptions are very useful because they are personal and helped me discover who I was even if their ordering may be incorrect in your opinion.

Note: In socionics infp switches with infj.

[Creepy-]

Ummm.... ENFj?

[Creepy-]

Read the descriptions here:

http://www.typelogic.com/enfp.html
http://www.typelogic.com/infp.html
http://www.typelogic.com/infj.html
http://www.typelogic.com/enfj.html

I know their not socionics!!!! They are MBTI, however their descriptions are very useful because they are personal and helped me discover who I was even if their ordering may be incorrect in your opinion.

Note: In socionics infp switches with infj.

MBTI descriptions still aren't useful in a Socionics context even if you do switch the J/P for Introverts. The types just don't reliably translate into each other, even for extroverts on occasion.

You're linking her to the INFP decription, but I am an INFP in MBTI and over here I'm an INFp. There is more than one Socionics INTj who is an MBTI INTJ. Not to mention a Socionics ENTj who is an MBTI INTJ, and I'm sure there are lot more anomalies out there.

If you like them and they help you, fair enough, but they aren't useful for finding your Socionics type!

[UDP]

I think you're a dynamite lady



please don't waste time in responding to this post. Idon't want to derail the thread.

[Raver]

Read the descriptions here:

http://www.typelogic.com/enfp.html
http://www.typelogic.com/infp.html
http://www.typelogic.com/infj.html
http://www.typelogic.com/enfj.html

I know their not socionics!!!! They are MBTI, however their descriptions are very useful because they are personal and helped me discover who I was even if their ordering may be incorrect in your opinion.

Note: In socionics infp switches with infj.

MBTI descriptions still aren't useful in a Socionics context even if you do switch the J/P for Introverts. The types just don't reliably translate into each other, even for extroverts on occasion.

You're linking her to the INFP decription, but I am an INFP in MBTI and over here I'm an INFp. There is more than one Socionics INTj who is an MBTI INTJ. Not to mention a Socionics ENTj who is an MBTI INTJ, and I'm sure there are lot more anomalies out there.

If you like them and they help you, fair enough, but they aren't useful for finding your Socionics type!

Yes they are useful! Stop badmouthing the MBTI descriptions. Okay, sorry I know that sounded childish. Well, the thing is I wanted her to ignore the order of functions completely, but focus on the personal decription that works very well on deciphering who you are, doesn't matter whether you adhere to socionics or MBTI, it is still very good.

Also go to http://www.personalitypage.com/high-level.html to read some descriptions. I think the socionics descriptions are fine, but their not personal enough and confuse people.

[MySaviour]

You could very well be an INTj, Diana..

I remember looking at your test result and getting INFp as your most probable type. So, if you aren't an INFp, then you may be the beneficiary trying to be like the benefactor (making you an INTj).

I remember looking at your picture, and thinking that you were ISFj.

I remember for some weird reason that you kiiiiiiiiiinda resembled ishy.. but that could have been the pose you had in the picture.

So I think:

INTj
INFp
ISFj

[Creepy-]

Yes they are useful! Stop badmouthing the MBTI descriptions. Okay, sorry I know that sounded childish. Well, the thing is I wanted her to ignore the order of functions completely, but focus on the personal decription that works very well on deciphering who you are, doesn't matter whether you adhere to socionics or MBTI, it is still very good.

Also go to http://www.personalitypage.com/high-level.html to read some descriptions. I think the socionics descriptions are fine, but their not personal enough and confuse people.

I'm not badmouthing MBTI descriptions. You obviously didn't pay any attention when I said that MBTI and Socionics don't reliably translate into each other. Did you even read the examples I gave?

Finding yourself in an MBTI description gives little indication of what your Socionics type is going to be. If you want to know your Socionics type - read Socionics descriptions. If you want MBTI, go and read those descriptions then.

You are aware, of course, that Socionics and MBTI are not related to each other and are only superficially similar?

[Expat]

Note: In socionics infp switches with infj.

No, as ishy said, not necessarily -- that's an over-simplification that just confuses things. In fact, my personal experience is that MBTI INFJs are more likely to be socionics INFjs than INFps.

As a first step, knowing your MBTI type may be useful to eliminate the obvious - for instance, a MBTI INFJ is not likely to be a socionics ESTp. But it may also be misleading if you insist on some formula to translate your MBTI type to a socionics type.

That is why it's best to keep an open mind and approach each method independently from each other.

[science as magic]

infj

your comments really annoy me sometimes

not implying causation

[Joy]

What I really think... cmon, I'm an ENTp. We don't say what we're really thinking.

anyways.... ISFj is out. We get along way too well. I think you're ethical. I still vote for INFj, but I'm not certain.

[Raver]

Yes they are useful! Stop badmouthing the MBTI descriptions. Okay, sorry I know that sounded childish. Well, the thing is I wanted her to ignore the order of functions completely, but focus on the personal decription that works very well on deciphering who you are, doesn't matter whether you adhere to socionics or MBTI, it is still very good.

Also go to http://www.personalitypage.com/high-level.html to read some descriptions. I think the socionics descriptions are fine, but their not personal enough and confuse people.

I'm not badmouthing MBTI descriptions. You obviously didn't pay any attention when I said that MBTI and Socionics don't reliably translate into each other. Did you even read the examples I gave?

Finding yourself in an MBTI description gives little indication of what your Socionics type is going to be. If you want to know your Socionics type - read Socionics descriptions. If you want MBTI, go and read those descriptions then.

You are aware, of course, that Socionics and MBTI are not related to each other and are only superficially similar?

Well, I understand what your saying, but were talking about two different chapters in the same novel. I know the differences between socionics and MBTI, I have read them and I understand the general concept very easily. I'm just saying that the descriptions in MBTI (If you've read them) have nothing to do with the ordering.

It doesn't talk about the concept, but rather a personal experience with a person of that type. For example, the ENFP description actually states that it has to do with dealing of ENFPs. It talks about how they act, what their strengths and weaknesses are and how they would appear to you if you met them. The bottom descriptions are the ones I said to ignore because they have to do with MBTI typing.

Also, I personally believe that ignoring one theory over another isn't the best idea. They are both theories and I believe both of them and regard them as equals, I look at both theories when trying to understand myself and others. Also, an ENTJ in socionics and an ENTJ in MBTI are the same type, however the confusion begins when you have to relate to introverted and judging types, though if you read a personal description you would understand that it doesn't even matter.

[Kirana]

Anybody else? Even if you want to say, "what, who are you? I haven't even noticed your presence here, so how could I possibly say anything?" or "you bore me to tears, and I can't bring myself to make any kind of comment"

i think INFj too. you're a scientist, aren't you? due to the scientific training, might be the Fi's been trained to take a less dominant position in your mind when answering the questions, when actually it's important to you. maybe the INTj result is your 'at work' face? just a thought.

[XoX]

It has been suggested that I might be ENFp -
It has been suggested more often that I might be INFj.

I'm fine with either of those. Just don't convert to anything else

But seriously...you should be able to tell if you are E or I...try to focus now...

[Creepy-]

Well, I understand what your saying, but were talking about two different chapters in the same novel. I know the differences between socionics and MBTI, I have read them and I understand the general concept very easily. I'm just saying that the descriptions in MBTI (If you've read them) have nothing to do with the ordering.

It doesn't talk about the concept, but rather a personal experience with a person of that type. For example, the ENFP description actually states that it has to do with dealing of ENFPs. It talks about how they act, what their strengths and weaknesses are and how they would appear to you if you met them. The bottom descriptions are the ones I said to ignore because they have to do with MBTI typing.

Also, I personally believe that ignoring one theory over another isn't the best idea. They are both theories and I believe both of them and regard them as equals, I look at both theories when trying to understand myself and others. Also, an ENTJ in socionics and an ENTJ in MBTI are the same type, however the confusion begins when you have to relate to introverted and judging types, though if you read a personal description you would understand that it doesn't even matter.

An MBTI ENFP is not a Socionics ENFp. The entire concept is ridiculous. Sure, maybe they're pretty similar but they are not the same. I'm not even talking about the order of functions.

I am not telling anybody to ignore MBTI, just pointing out that MBTI descriptions are useless in this context! Come on, do you use Brainfuck when you're programming in Visual Basic? Somehow I don't think so.

And guess what, you can ignore the order of functions by reading your generic Socionics type description. You know, like the ones on this website?

[Creepy-]

Well, I understand what your saying, but were talking about two different chapters in the same novel. I know the differences between socionics and MBTI, I have read them and I understand the general concept very easily. I'm just saying that the descriptions in MBTI (If you've read them) have nothing to do with the ordering.

It doesn't talk about the concept, but rather a personal experience with a person of that type. For example, the ENFP description actually states that it has to do with dealing of ENFPs. It talks about how they act, what their strengths and weaknesses are and how they would appear to you if you met them. The bottom descriptions are the ones I said to ignore because they have to do with MBTI typing.

Also, I personally believe that ignoring one theory over another isn't the best idea. They are both theories and I believe both of them and regard them as equals, I look at both theories when trying to understand myself and others. Also, an ENTJ in socionics and an ENTJ in MBTI are the same type, however the confusion begins when you have to relate to introverted and judging types, though if you read a personal description you would understand that it doesn't even matter.

An MBTI ENFP is not a Socionics ENFp. The entire concept is ridiculous. Sure, maybe they're pretty similar but they are not the same. I'm not even talking about the order of functions.

I am not telling anybody to ignore MBTI, just pointing out that MBTI descriptions are useless in this context! Come on, do you use Brainfuck when you're programming in Visual Basic? Somehow I don't think so.

And guess what, you can ignore the order of functions by reading your generic Socionics type description. You know, like the ones on this website?

So your saying that even though I'm an ENFP in MBTI, that means I'm probably not an ENFP in socionics? The difference between extraverted types in socionics and MBTI is very minimal and has nothing to do with the first two functions, since they remain the same. An ENFP in MBTI and socionics has both and as main functions, the 3rd and 4th functions are entirely different, but they don't matter, since their not used often and used well.

I read the socionics descriptions, but they don't talk about the individual, you know what I mean? They just talk about the ordering and that's why I don't like them. MBTI manages to talk about the individual without talking about the ordering for the first half.

Now, if your learning about psychology in school and from two different teachers at the same time. They are both teaching about the same concept, but different interpretations of the same concept. They both delve into how their interpretations work. However, if one of them happens to give examples to how the same concept relates to you personally and the other doesn't, which one would you read?

[Raver]

I did above post.

No, as ishy said, not necessarily -- that's an over-simplification that just confuses things. In fact, my personal experience is that MBTI INFJs are more likely to be socionics INFjs than INFps.

As a first step, knowing your MBTI type may be useful to eliminate the obvious - for instance, a MBTI INFJ is not likely to be a socionics ESTp. But it may also be misleading if you insist on some formula to translate your MBTI type to a socionics type.

That is why it's best to keep an open mind and approach each method independently from each other.

I agree with what your saying entirely and even what ishy said. However, I'm just stating that the descriptions in MBTI are personal descriptions. For example, instead of talking about the functions of the ENTJ and saying how their function works, instead the MBTI descriptions talks about how an ENTJ would be if you met them face to face, you know what I mean?

Now the first half of the description is very useful, the second half is talking about MBTI ordering and functioning and that can be ignored if you want to find out your socionics type. They should be approached independently like you said, but you have to realize that the first half of the description does not even talk about MBTI at all. The second half deals with that. I hope that you understand what I'm trying to say.

[Expat]

I agree with what your saying entirely and even what ishy said. However, I'm just stating that the descriptions in MBTI are personal descriptions. For example, instead of talking about the functions of the ENTJ and saying how their function works, instead the MBTI descriptions talks about how an ENTJ would be if you met them face to face, you know what I mean?
.

I think that you're looking only at a very limited number of socionics descriptions.

I suggest taking a look at some of those:

http://www.socionics.com/prof/prof.htm

Especially the "+/-" ones - although personally I take the physical descriptions with a grain of salt.

rmcnew had some good descriptions in his site, socion.info, which he has replaced with functional ones. But you still can find most of them in the forum, in each quadra forum - unfortunately, not ENFp.

But for ENTj: oldforumlinkviewtopic.php?t=922

ISTp: oldforumlinkviewtopic.php?t=1351

Etc

Just look for references to "socion.info" profiles in the threads.

Also, in each quadra there are threads that start simply "ENFp" or "ISTp" or "ENTj" etc. They usually start with a profile description.

Finally, IMO the very best descriptions - tons of versions for each type - are found in the Russian socionics.org, you can read a babelfish translation here:

http://babelfish.altavista.com/babel....socionics.org

But you have to keep an open mind to read the awkward "English" and some sentences make no sense at all.

It has many different versions of profiles - functional and descriptive - for each type. I think that the 15-page by Stratiyevskaya are unsurpassed.

I hope this helps

[Raver]

I agree with what your saying entirely and even what ishy said. However, I'm just stating that the descriptions in MBTI are personal descriptions. For example, instead of talking about the functions of the ENTJ and saying how their function works, instead the MBTI descriptions talks about how an ENTJ would be if you met them face to face, you know what I mean?
.

I think that you're looking only at a very limited number of socionics descriptions.

I suggest taking a look at some of those:

http://www.socionics.com/prof/prof.htm

Especially the "+/-" ones - although personally I take the physical descriptions with a grain of salt.

rmcnew had some good descriptions in his site, socion.info, which he has replaced with functional ones. But you still can find most of them in the forum, in each quadra forum - unfortunately, not ENFp.

But for ENTj: oldforumlinkviewtopic.php?t=922

ISTp: oldforumlinkviewtopic.php?t=1351

Etc

Just look for references to "socion.info" profiles in the threads.

Also, in each quadra there are threads that start simply "ENFp" or "ISTp" or "ENTj" etc. They usually start with a profile description.

Finally, IMO the very best descriptions - tons of versions for each type - are found in the Russian socionics.org, you can read a babelfish translation here:

http://babelfish.altavista.com/babel....socionics.org

But you have to keep an open mind to read the awkward "English" and some sentences make no sense at all.

It has many different versions of profiles - functional and descriptive - for each type. I think that the 15-page by Stratiyevskaya are unsurpassed.

I hope this helps

Yeah they are actually pretty good, thanks . I didn't know these personal socionics descriptions existed, Diana should read those to figure out her type. Also, I think that my dad is an ENTJ and this one sounds a lot more like him than the typelogic description.

[Creepy-Diana]

.

[Creepy-Diana]

.

[Raver]

For introverts, MBTI IxxJ jungian type is IxxP in Socionics and vice versa. For introverts, J and P are switched in the name.

...when talking about Socionics types, use the lowercase j or p. For example, ENFJ in MBTI is ENFj in Socionics, and ISTP in MBTI is ISTj in Socionics.

Hmmm...interesting, Ishy doesn't this contradict what you said that an INFJ in socionics is an INFJ in MBTI? I always knew that they switched even before I read that post. It's too obvious, for me at least.

[Creepy-Diana]

.

[Raver]

I went to the Russian site, but when I click on "descriptions" I get an error. It might just be my internet acting up, I'll have to try later.

The russian site is pretty good, though I'd say look at each section where the types you can possibly be, like delta for example and read the descriptions. Expat said that the ones that are titled only ENFP or only INFJ should have the description. I don't know why, but for some reason when I read the ENFP description I felt sick.

[Raver]

I went to the Russian site, but when I click on "descriptions" I get an error. It might just be my internet acting up, I'll have to try later.

The russian site is pretty good, though I'd say look at each section where the types you can possibly be, like delta for example and read the descriptions. Expat said that the ones that are titled only ENFP or only INFJ should have the description. I don't know why, but for some reason when I read the ENFP description I had this sick gut feeling.

[Gilly]

Sweet more double posts.

[Creepy-]

For introverts, MBTI IxxJ jungian type is IxxP in Socionics and vice versa. For introverts, J and P are switched in the name.

...when talking about Socionics types, use the lowercase j or p. For example, ENFJ in MBTI is ENFj in Socionics, and ISTP in MBTI is ISTj in Socionics.

Hmmm...interesting, Ishy doesn't this contradict what you said that an INFJ in socionics is an INFJ in MBTI? I always knew that they switched even before I read that post. It's too obvious, for me at least.

Hang on hang on.... I said that an INFj in socionics is an INFJ in MBTI? You must have me confused for someone else, and not even someone I know

Btw, if you pull rank (even someone else's rank) you can be pretty certain I won't take you seriously.

[Creepy-]

http://oldforumlinkviewtopic.php?t=2...asc&highlight=

Watch it grow.

[Creepy-]

So your saying that even though I'm an ENFP in MBTI, that means I'm probably not an ENFP in socionics? The difference between extraverted types in socionics and MBTI is very minimal and has nothing to do with the first two functions, since they remain the same. An ENFP in MBTI and socionics has both and as main functions, the 3rd and 4th functions are entirely different, but they don't matter, since their not used often and used well.

No, I'm not saying that. I'm saying that your MBTI type isn't an indication of your Socionics type, even if there are common functions.

[Expat]

Hmmm...interesting, Ishy doesn't this contradict what you said that an INFJ in socionics is an INFJ in MBTI? I always knew that they switched even before I read that post. It's too obvious, for me at least.

Hang on hang on.... I said that an INFj in socionics is an INFJ in MBTI? You must have me confused for someone else, and not even someone I know
.

I think he means me, but that is not what I said. I did not say that an MBTI INFJ is necessarily a socionics INFj. In reply to the comment on j/p shifiting, what I did say was:

No, as ishy said, not necessarily -- that's an over-simplification that just confuses things. In fact, my personal experience is that MBTI INFJs are more likely to be socionics INFjs than INFps.

As a first step, knowing your MBTI type may be useful to eliminate the obvious - for instance, a MBTI INFJ is not likely to be a socionics ESTp. But it may also be misleading if you insist on some formula to translate your MBTI type to a socionics type.

That is why it's best to keep an open mind and approach each method independently from each other.

[XoX]

Well, in the normal sense of the word, I'm an introvert, but I've heard around on this site that it's not so cut and dry for socionics. So, I've left that option open.

Normal sense sounds good to me. You are an INFj. Stick with that as long as you feel ok with your choice. I remember reading that INFjs are maybe the most introvert type of them all but can sometimes "fool" people with their behaviour to think they are more extrovert than the average I-type is.

You could of course be INTj who has developed some emo. One way to verify the type is via type relationships. INTj and INFj should relate quite differently.

I would be surprised if you are ENFp.

[Gilly]

It's perfectly possible to be the same thing in MB as you are in Socionics. Why? Because MB tests for each individual letter, and disregards functional analysis (at least for testing). Socionics, on the other hand, tests mostly using functons. Since the mechanisms are completely different, it's perfectly possible for an MB INFP to test as an INFp in socionics; the switch is not always necessary. However, if the MB functional descriptions (http://www.typelogic.com/) fit well, and you are INFP, you may find that the INFj profile fits you better. The discrepency lies in that that MB's functional descriptions aren't as Jung-based as those in socionics, so even if the MB functional analysis fits you, you may still end up as the same type. There's no definite way to switch between the two; you really have to take the tests and hash it out before you can expect to know your type for sure.

[Creepy-Diana]

.

[Joy]