Do I sound more IEI or EII?

[Beautiful sky]

Always approach MBTI and socionics as separate system @OP, I have been at this for a while and I highly recommend not conflating the two. I wanted to mix-and-match at the beginning too, because why not, but the arguments are absolutely pointless imho. So approach them separately... a socionics type is not equivalent to a single other MBTI type.

I personally don’t really care about MBTI as much anymore..

no they are not. It's just that MBTI made an error in understanding what the functions were and how they were assigned to the introverts.

[Beautiful sky]

“Disruption in harmony” does not necessarily point to Fe and the MBTI descriptions, because they are vague enough to be interpreted million different ways, are prone to confirmation bias. Gulenko himself claims that looking the description of INFJ and INFP, “it’s like they have parts of EII and IEI mixed up and you can’t tell which one is which.” As I said earlier, at the very least, EII can be either INFJ or INFP. It’s not as simple a matter as “MBTI mixed up J/P.” The system is what it is. And EII-Nes might legitimately test as a P on MBTI, for example, etc. There are shades of gray and nuances.

You can go ahead and make whatever assumption at me or you can watch the videos i post. Thanks

[Tallmo]

“Disruption in harmony” does not necessarily point to Fe and the MBTI descriptions, because they are vague enough to be interpreted million different ways, are prone to confirmation bias. Gulenko himself claims that looking the description of INFJ and INFP, “it’s like they have parts of EII and IEI mixed up and you can’t tell which one is which.” As I said earlier, at the very least, EII can be either INFJ or INFP. It’s not as simple a matter as “MBTI mixed up J/P.” The system is what it is. And EII-Nes might legitimately test as a P on MBTI, for example, etc. There are shades of gray and nuances.

That's because they really have them mixed up. It should be clear to everybody now that Socionics/Jung has discovered the real types. What mbti is talking about is broken. Converting types is meaningless, but the only thing that makes sense is J=rational, P=irrational. Or just stick with the Socionics/Jung terminology.

[Beautiful sky]

I’m a rational type by socionics but MBTI irrational description fits me better than the rational one.
Which is why I don’t like this “INFJ is Fi and INFP is Fe.”

mbti Ni means fi, because they signed it to take on J qualities

[Beautiful sky]

They assign J/P by the auxiliary function for the introverts so I disagree that they assigned “J qualities” to Ni.

these are the top two google results for (MBTI) Ni and I think they are both talking about Ni proper:
https://www.careerplanner.com/8Cogni...-Intuiting.cfm
https://personalityjunkie.com/10/int...-intuition-ni/

why are you derailing this thread. Stick to the topic. Or open a new discussion. We have way too many threads that went to the graveyard this way. By attributing some of the J qualities to Ni...mbti is able to explain why INFJ is J and why their dominant auxiliary function (Fe) does the bulk of J ness.

Let's look at your fist link

"You are used to having insights and hunches that frequently turn out to be correct. These "aha" moments are introverted intuiting at work."
BOTH INFJ and INFP have epiphanies. the difference is INFP epiphanies are attributed to Ne rather than Ni and the sudden demonstrative visions of events that happen to INFJ is attributed to Ni. In fact I would surprise you in saying that ESTJ too have strong epiphanies. How is that possible being led by Te and Si? IDK you as the ESTJ Facebook group and find out. This is mbti's definition of "Ni" or Intuition.

Epiphany: Epiphany is defined as a sudden and profound understanding of something. An example of epiphany is when someone has been looking for their lost keys and suddenly has an idea of where they are.

"What happens is this. You feed your mind with information and data. You let your unconscious mind process the data. Then, perhaps when you are in the shower, or jogging, the answer just pops into your mind." Fine however INFJ are more in the Fi moment rather than Ni and INFP are more in the Ni moment than Fi

That's because they really have them mixed up. It should be clear to everybody now that Socionics/Jung has discovered the real types. What mbti is talking about is broken. Converting types is meaningless, but the only thing that makes sense is J=rational, P=irrational. Or just stick with the Socionics/Jung terminology.

MBTI wants Fi to be attributed to INFP because as they say INFP "feels" it's like a state to them however they misunderstood Fi which is to JUDGE

[Adam Strange]

Let's look at your fist link

Fist links are always problematic.

[Tallmo]

MBTI wants Fi to be attributed to INFP because as they say INFP "feels" it's like a state to them however they misunderstood Fi which is to JUDGE

Yes, they have the functional analysis messed up. When I use the four letters such as "INFJ" I simply refer to EII (FiNe). Even Jung uses "judging types" synonymously with rational types, so I just prefer to totally ignore the flawded mbti functional profiles. But the four letters are for some reason nice to use sometimes, I guess I just got used to them when I got into typology.

But mbti is not a separate system or has any essence of its own.

[Beautiful sky]

Yes, they have the functional analysis messed up. When I use the four letters such as "INFJ" I simply refer to EII (FiNe). Even Jung uses "judging types" synonymously with rational types, so I just prefer to totally ignore the flawded mbti functional profiles. But the four letters are for some reason nice to use sometimes, I guess I just got used to them when I got into typology.

But mbti is not a separate system or has any essence of its own.

It’s so nice to feel understood xD

[Beautiful sky]

I am sorry, I ignored this first one:


...but you are not above me in any hierarchical sense so I don't understand why you are taking that tone with me. Or why you expect me to follow through on them, especially stated that way.

The OP is trying to distinguish between EII and IEI and since you claimed that INFP IS IEI and EII, INFJ, I think this is on topic. However, if the OP wanted, I can move it.

I have never heard of this. Can you link a source for this? (not confrontational; curious) As far as I am aware, the sort of intuition talked about in those articles is almost exclusively assigned to Ni rather than Ne.


Like I said, I disagree.


Sure, I understand what Fi is, but how is contradictory to "INFP feeling state"?

Dude I’m not your boss or the boss of this place. I’ve been here for a long time and I have seen all the struggles with derailed threads

[Tallmo]

I’m a rational type by socionics but MBTI irrational description fits me better than the rational one.
Which is why I don’t like this “INFJ is Fi and INFP is Fe.”

What matters is to have experienced rationality/irrationality as the real psychic phenomenon it is. Descriptions are always more or less cryptic unless one is connected to the psychological reality behind them.

[Beautiful sky]

This is what I’m basing it on and I don’t believe it’s “cryptic”: https://www.myersbriggs.org/my-mbti-...perceiving.htm

i know the essence you speak of but my point is MBTI is not Jung directly, it’s someone’s interpretation of Jung, and so is socionics. One is not, for example, “mistyping” themselves should they see P type on MBTI based on that description but turn out to be J type on Socionics. Socionics subtypes might contribute to this some.
so no, “INFJ is not EII” or whatever. They are a separate system in that they have a (at least slightly) different thinking, history and interpretation of Jung behind them.

Mbti is Jung because “Gift Differing” by Isabel Myers references to Jung’s work it’s just that she misunderstood the introvert functions. She thought the INFJ is the introvert form of ENFJ and flipped the functions. She thought the introvert could be better explained by having extrovert Fe as a rational function of how they conduct the external world. She thought all rational types must have Fe or Te in order to be rational

I have the book right in front of me

[Beautiful sky]

This is what I’m basing it on and I don’t believe it’s “cryptic”: https://www.myersbriggs.org/my-mbti-...perceiving.htm

i know the essence you speak of but my point is MBTI is not Jung directly, it’s someone’s interpretation of Jung, and so is socionics. One is not, for example, “mistyping” themselves should they see P type on MBTI based on that description but turn out to be J type on Socionics. Socionics subtypes might contribute to this some.
so no, “INFJ is not EII” or whatever. They are a separate system in that they have a (at least slightly) different thinking, history and interpretation of Jung behind them.

Isabel took this paragraph from Jung’s work on the Subconscious attitude meaning the P types and turned it into the validation for why INFJ must contain Fe

“In a general way, the compensating attitude of the unconscious finds expression in the process of psychic equilibrium. A normal extraverted attitude does not, of course, mean that the individual behaves invariably in accordance with the extraverted schema. Even in the same individual many psychological happenings may be observed, in which the mechanism of introversion is concerned. A habitus can be called extraverted only when the mechanism of extraversion predominates. In such a case the most highly differentiated function has a constantly extraverted application, while the inferior functions are found in the service of introversion, i.e. the more valued function, because the more conscious, is more completely subordinated to conscious control and purpose, whilst the less conscious, in other words, the partly unconscious inferior functions are subjected to conscious free choice in a much smaller degree.”

It’s in her book

[Tallmo]

This is what I’m basing it on and I don’t believe it’s “cryptic”: https://www.myersbriggs.org/my-mbti-...perceiving.htm

i know the essence you speak of but my point is MBTI is not Jung directly, it’s someone’s interpretation of Jung, and so is socionics. One is not, for example, “mistyping” themselves should they see P type on MBTI based on that description but turn out to be J type on Socionics. Socionics subtypes might contribute to this some.
so no, “INFJ is not EII” or whatever. They are a separate system in that they have a (at least slightly) different thinking, history and interpretation of Jung behind them.

I get what you're saying. Your view could be true in theory. But this is not an abstract game. Imo you seem disconnected from the actual reality, the phenomenon. The Socionics / Jung types are such a fundamental discovery when you actually experience it. Saying that mbti has a "different interpretation" just seems like an excuse when they obviously got some things wrong. And why wouldn't they? Reading Jung is not easy. But Socionics managed somehow to get it right.

I really don't care much about this relativism. You can't invent a typology from thin air. The things you talk about have to be real and typical. Socionics with the intertype relationships gives us the tools we need to check things for ourselves.