Yes. I am such a person, an MBTI Fi-Ne and in Socionics, Ni-Fe ego. How is this possibility? First, you have different definitions of function. Fe in Meyers Briggs is a matter of harmonizing and focusing on the collective group. In Socionics, Fe primarily has do with externally expressing oneself emotionally. All you have to do to be Fe in Soconics, is outwardly express your emotions. Apart of the Fe description does indeed incorporate group focus, but it more has do with the Quadric values of Beta (and alpha). An MBTI Fi valuer merely needs prioritize their own values and emotional state, and focus on their emotions more, to make them of an Fi dom. It is a bit more complex than this, of course, but this is the basic premise of how things are defined. Ni in Socionics, embodies what modern MBTI incorporates into its Si definition. Ni is a matter of evaluating trends and pattern overtime, and averting on past, present and future. Because of the past focus, it may be that the past-dwelling MBTI INFP, will move over to an Ni base. Ni is characterized by its reflective inertia, which Fi with Si, naturally has a very reflective archetype in Meyers. It is more a trait in MBTI, and in Socionics, it is actual processing of information metabolism. A beta type in Socionics wants impact society, and unite others. If one’s Fi values in MBTI transfer over to this ideal, it can be the MBTI Fi valuer, becomes Beta valuing in this instance. Then, IEI is a result type, which is very reminiscent of MBTI Ne, in some way.. It is characterized by starting things then abandoning them, and going out of order, getting a gist.. Gulenko’s DCNH sort of is a slap-on to make a type fit, but his creative subtype makes it even more possible for an INFP to in Socionics, be an Ni-Fe. The Ne variation of creative.. Then, you also have differential placements of system, that mean very different things. In Socionics, the 7th function is just as strong as is, the first. An IEI’s 7th function is Fi. It just is not as much valued, as emotional expression is prioritized in contrast to Socionic’s fi keeping emotion constricted within and reading relational distance in regards to others.. In another archetypal way, the relational distance reading is an Fe trait in MBTI, even if it is an introverted process in reality. It is something the “spirit” of Fe users will try do in an MBTI archetype sense. The 3rd function in MBTI becomes the Socionics 6th, the MBTI 5th is to be 8th in Socio.. The 8th is the ignoring function, and 6th hidden agenda in Socionics. The hidden agenda is what one aspires to be. The ignoring is self-exclamatory. But Gulenko’s DCNH can counteract that… IEI’s HA is Ti.. Ti in Socionics overlaps Ni in a way… The MBTI 7th function becomes the 4th in Socionics, known as te PolR (pont of least resistance) function. In an IEI, it is Te. Te does not much change in its definition, therefore, it still fits much with the inferiority of Te in an MBTI Fi-Ne INFP. It is a bit more Ti-like than the sole Te, but it still embodies most of the Te quality of MBTI. In the Jungian MBTI-like 8 model theory, an INFP’s Ni is their demonstrative function, meaning they will be just as strong in it, but rather, display it. And again, Ni still defines differently in that system. The 8th function instead of 4th, is the weakness. Because Ti still has some overlap to Te a little bit in Socionics, it still supports. It is the difficulty with structure that overlaps; in MBTI Te/Ti, and in Socionics, Ti 9and in external sense, Te, but it mostly is Ti). They both overlap. And an IEI seeks to grow into their Ti… Our Te is quite poor. With it overlapping some of MBTI’s Ti, it still symbolizes a difficulty there. It would be more of a convenience to make it where one types same all across various system, yet with differently defined function and placements that mean different things, as well as traits added like in the Renin dichotomy, it just is merely impossibility. It therefore, is a matter of which one you prefer and find less flawed. Both have their own shortcomings. Socionics has some slap-ons, and already has numerous models in attempt of its making, whereas MBTI could better define its functions, and make things more in line with Jung, rather than just more archetype. So as long one is made grow, it does not matter which method uses. It is for a sake of growth. If you grow, the purpose has served. They are best used as symbolism. The system, sine nothing exactly is concise and it is not a science. It just is symbolic and an abbreviation to explain a process as well as traits.