How can one person test as INFj in socionics and INFJ in MBTI?
Hi everyone,
I am still quite new to socionics and trying to understand it better to determine struggles in my current romantic relationship with an ENFJ. I have been typed as INFJ in MBTI by a professional typing service. When I take socionics tests online I get INFj as a result which - as far as I learnt to navigate the system - would imply an entirely different set of cognitive functions.
How is it possible to have this result?
You shouldn't use mbti at all. It contains too many flaws. Your task is to find your real type, and you can use socionics for that. If you start to mix in mbti it will just mess up things. You don't need any conversions between systems. Use the ITR and socioincs descriptions to determine your type and forget mbti.
I've noticed that it can take a long time for people to get mbti out of their heads. One needs to understand what the real types are, and if you come from mbti you will not have that understanding. I did this myself when I first started using Socionics. It took me probably 2 years to understand that now I was finally dealing with the real types and that mbti didn't have any use anymore.
The decisive thing is not the reality of the object, but the reality of the subjective factor, i.e. the primordial images, which in their totality represent a psychic mirror-world. It is a mirror, however, with the peculiar capacity of representing the present contents of consciousness not in their known and customary form but in a certain sense sub specie aeternitatis, somewhat as a million-year old consciousness might see them.
(Jung on Si)
Socionics and MBTI type is the same
Here are the reasons why I see people mistype themselves as a type in one system and another type in the other system:
Low self awareness
DCNH : Some DCNH descriptions look like another type
Enneagram ( sometimes) : for example, I know LSI-Se girls who thought they are SLI because they are enneagram 9 ( which makes them less pushy and more peaceful/relaxed )
Bad descriptions of functions/types in MBTI:
In my opinion that's the main reason
honestly I haven't seen any good description of types in MBTI ( except one person in the Arab typology community, his type descriptions were good except INTJ and ISFP ones , that's if I want to ignore his bad understanding of what Ni and Se are )
So , to find your type:
Te seeking or Se seeking ( seeking= inferior ) :
https://www.the16types.info/vbulleti...and-Se-seeking
There are also other ways that you can determine whether you're IEI or EII but I won't talk about it unless the previous link didn't help you
MBTI is the worst when it comes to descriptions
However, it can be so useful to explain some behaviours and type's condition in some situations , I'm talking about loop and grip in particular
It's notOriginally Posted by Missmessy
Then give your reasons why
i always got INFP and EII on both tests.. maybe you need to redo them until both results match.. ?
https://typevolution.com/2016/09/24/...cs-conversion/
"Ben Vaserlan, a fellow YouTuber who’s been conducting interviews with Gulenko himself, told me that he concluded Gulenko largely agrees with the j/p switch, basically with all the Intuitives, but there are some differences with the Sensors. ISxx types have some discrepancies, especially ISTx. Gulenko’s own DCNH subtype model makes one subtype of LSI sound like ISTP, one like ESTJ, and the other like ISTJ"
It seems like you understood me wrong
What I mean by the same type is that FiNe here = FiNe there , not that INFJ=INFj
Oh sorry haha, then I agree
Socionic's INFjs have demonstrative Ni, so they tend to be extremely similar in behavior to mbti INFJs. But your question is the exact reason for which I abandoned MBTI as a typing method.
The explanation: where MBTI considers "visions", "mysticism" etc. as a superpower and thus dominant trait (since Ni MBTI deals more with the archetype), socionics views this behavior as something which the individual feels he has to take care of but ultimately does not evaluate in its primary use, resulting in superstition and religiosity, more than contemplation, evolution and mastery of the perception of converging time.
For example: many INFJs in MBTI keep saying that their impressions / insights (in most of the cases about people they love or hate, because of Fi lead) will come true, but through a more careful analysis you can clearly see that they are simply brainstorming the worst-case scenarios (Ne creative), demonstrating them on the outside with the use as "premonitions" (Ni Demonstrative), and if it comes true they will feel like wizard with a crystal ball.
The reason: The individual is moved to worry about future developments in order to be safe - this is connected with its mobilizing Si function, which is the pursuit of optimal physical and mental health, which can counteract anxiety (its nemesis).
So, usually in the case of the two types with Ni Demonstrative it is linked to Si, translated into the fear of disease and death. This would lead to the individual being very quiet and developing a strong desire for a secure future, even after death. It is no coincidence that many LII scientists are believers and a lot of EIIs believe in reincarnation.
I would say that the INFJ MBTI is more similar to the socionics INFjs, rather than the INFp (which usually has more ISFP connotations), so ther's nothing absurd about it (at least, this is my experience).
Ni differences through models: In brief, the characteristics of Ni dom (MBTI) are considered by socionics as "negative" attributes that Ni gains when PolR / Demostrative. Of course, that doesn't mean the function is just a harm. At least it helps the individual to be ready for the occurrences and in part gives him confidence in the future managing to make him accept events by virtue of a hope. It is simply not a use that would be made by those who have a complete control on it. They have a good understanding of it too (4D function)
Socionics unmask us. While we give ourselves a MBTI type to pamper ourselves thinking that certain behaviors are dominant or well-controlled by us, socionics highlights our true fears, and explains that these behaviors we have are mainly used to counter our weak spots, even though they are not our true guide.
This is well-known problem of MBTI: all introverts there have functions of their quasi-identical type. So, if you typed as MBTI INFJ and you want to know your MBTI functions, you should look at MBTI INFP. And vise versa, if you typed as MBTI INFP, you should search for your functions in the description of MBTI INFJ.
This is caused by a mess in the MBTI system and has nothing to do with other systems.
From my personal experience, it seems like there could be two possible problems if MBTI and socionics are the same. The first problem is the one that Missmessy discussed, which is that, due to low self awareness, you may appear to be a certain MBTI type that you actually aren't. I would guess that this could be caused by your type in other typing systems, such as enneagram (which might give you characteristics that are more classic of some other cognitive functions) or attitudinal psyche (which might make you develop and prioritize cognitive functions that you usually wouldn't).
The second problem, which is also the problem that Missmessy discussed, is that you may be taking the socionics test wrong due to low self awareness (you may think that a cognitive function they test for has a higher amount of importance than your natural one). Like the first problem, this could also be caused by other typing systems.
I don't have enough knowledge to say whether MBTI and socionics are the same, but there seem to be different flavors of MBTI or socionics. As far as I know, the classic ENTP is a chaotic idea generator that seems to be interested in ideas out of curiosity, or sometimes for the sake of the idea itself. However, some voters on personality typing forums, such as personality-database, believe that some ENTP's are SLE's (in the case of Nobunaga, an old Japanese warlord, one of the rationales given was that Nobunaga greatly valued innovative ideas and came up with good and innovative battle strategies, but was ultimately more interested in power/influence than ideas). Therefore, you could say that someone might be an MBTI type with a different/contradicting socionics flavor, or a socionics type with a different/contradicting MBTI flavor.
I would generally say that if you have compatibility issues with an ENFJ, there is probably an issue related to either socionics or a non MBTI system, as compatibility theories in MBTI generally say that types are either compatible by letter similarity or cognitive function similarity (INFJ's and ENFJ's have both). Perhaps you're an INFj and your partner is an ENFj (the two types don't have an ideal relationship).
I used to get ISTJ, ISTP, and INTP on MBTI tests. I think that if you view yourself as having a certain characteristic (maybe if you view that characteristic as core to your identity), you might not get the right MBTI type unless you try to change your view about your identity. I wouldn't recommend this though because I think that it might theoretically cause psychological stress or MBTI shadow mode (I think that I read somewhere that people can enter MBTI shadow mode if their dominant function-based world view is called into question).
Truth is pretty important, so I guess the ideal situation is to try to find a way to figure out what you are without really being personally affected by it. I think that most of the identity related problems that people might have would be related to the stereotypes associated with certain personality types. The solution might therefore be to consider the possibility that you might be a non-stereotypical version of the type.
Edited.
I might have misunderstood your comment, but I think that he was saying that IxyJ doesn't necessarily correspond to Ixyp (at least for sensors). Therefore, Socionics functions in a type like ISTj may work differently somehow compared to MBTI ISTP functions, even though they have the same labels. Whether that has relevance to INFj's/INFP's depends on whether the functions are different from MBTI, or whether the theory that explains how they create the types are.
Edited.
There is a misnomer about the MBTI 4-letters naming, and it's related to their misconception about Jungian Rationality/Irrationality dyad, which later claimed to be Inquisitive (P = Pe) vs Non-Curious (J = Pi) Perceiver-- yes, it's technically Big 5 but in the context of psychological functions.
By this, MBTI would, for example, identify Ni dominant with Je auxiliary as INxJ while Fi with Pe auxiliary as IxFP. Another thing about MBTI other than misnomer akin to Socionics is the oversimplification of functions definition, whereas Ni is simply explained as the hindsight bias due to an instant insight, for example. However, to address what the others have said about that MBTI and Socionics, I don't really agree to this very notion that these personality models explain the same thing. I'd rather say it's because there are differences when it comes to mechanism of IMEs akin to the "Jungian" functions (they are not, just the oversimplification of Psychological Types) since from what I've noticed, for example, Pathos seems to resemble Fe more in Socionics, yet MBTI Fi is rather alike to this appeal of emotion according to the Aristotlean Ethics.
Therefore, to answer your question, it's because despite they were made based on the same premise (Psychological Types), each of model came up with the entirely different interpretations and theories. However, this doesn't mean you can't be the same type in both systems.
Comparison of Semantic Content - MBTI and Socionics Functions
History - Contextualizing Jungian Cognitive Functions
Last edited by Metaphor; 09-28-2022 at 06:48 PM.
Georg Wilhelm Friedrich Hegel: "The history of the world is none other than the progress of the consciousness of freedom."
I might have the wrong impression of Fe in socionics or Fi in MBTI, but MBTI seems like it deals with internal feelings and ethics, while Fe in socionics seems to deal with external ethics. Fe seems more similar to MBTI Fe.
I actually do think that they're distinct systems though. In my case, my experience with psychological stress and what seemed like shadow mode would probably indicate that I'm an INFP in MBTI, but I have to be ILI according to the socionics dichotomies. Socionics seem to be more of a prioritizing of information elements, while MBTI seems to be sort of the role of the functions in the person's life.
The shadow functions descriptions seem accurate based on my personal experience i guess. That and cognitive functions are how I've been typing people after i figured out the system.
From my personal experience, the answer is that MBTI doesn't actually use cognitive functions. Cognitive functions and shadow mode are a characteristic of socionics, which has been heavily correlated to MBTI (but is not the same).
You're an INFP by cognitive functions. Your partner is probably an ENFJ by cognitive functions, and the two of you can't understand why you both express certain qualities of yourself.
MBTI is referring to cognitive function at least in part. They copied Jung's terminology, but they didn't get everything right. They are trying to describe the same types as Jung and Socionics but they switched the j/p for introverts and misunderstood Jung's description of Si (probably the hardest function to understand). As a result MBTI actually talks about the same types at least in part, but in part it's also just a mess and functions are missing or assigned incorrectly. Lot's of shallow labeling things just for the sake of labeling.
There's no reason to use MBTI or correlate anything. People seem to like this still, but imo it's completely meaningless. Socionics already provides us with the correct 16 types. Or one can use Jung, who also talks about the same types as Socionics.
The decisive thing is not the reality of the object, but the reality of the subjective factor, i.e. the primordial images, which in their totality represent a psychic mirror-world. It is a mirror, however, with the peculiar capacity of representing the present contents of consciousness not in their known and customary form but in a certain sense sub specie aeternitatis, somewhat as a million-year old consciousness might see them.
(Jung on Si)
I think that shadow mode theory might be useful, and that it could be applied to socionics. I think the psychological stress model and the shadow mode model explain real life phenomenons that happen to certain socionics types.
Generally, I think that the MBTI type descriptions are stereotypical, and don't apply to many real humans.
A few points to consider:
-tests don't measure functions (usually) but only dichotomies
-tests reflect your self-esteem and thus aeren't very accurate
-it's totally possible to be one type in MBTI and something else in socionics
-and socionics is not just one typology system but several typologies
-functions aeren't described in the same way in every system
That being said, welcome to the healthy chaos that is Jungian typology. I hope you find the niche that makes sense to you.
Cheers.
-
Jung has detailed descriptions of problems with the inferior function (suggestive) for all types. That can be said to be the shadow. (It's in chapter X of "Psychological Types"). I have seen MBTI mention something about shadow, but it seems more shallow, or what exactly is this "shadow mode"?
Type descriptions will always be stereotypical because they only focus on what's typical and ignore the rest. But the Jung/Socionics descriptions are at least true to the real type phenomenon. I don't know how much time you have had to observe the types, since you seem to be new in the forum. But Jung/Socionics is a very fundamental cognitive phenomenon and it's possible to check because of the intertype relationships etc. It's very rare for people to actually know the types correctly, because most people have only heard of MBTI, but if you learn Socionics/Jung you will be one of the few people on this planet who knows this million year old pattern of human cognition.Generally, I think that the MBTI type descriptions are stereotypical, and don't apply to many real humans.
The decisive thing is not the reality of the object, but the reality of the subjective factor, i.e. the primordial images, which in their totality represent a psychic mirror-world. It is a mirror, however, with the peculiar capacity of representing the present contents of consciousness not in their known and customary form but in a certain sense sub specie aeternitatis, somewhat as a million-year old consciousness might see them.
(Jung on Si)
I've seen stupid crap like INFJ MBTI and LIE socionics
MBTI doesn't have functions, they adopted Jungian and translated it into their own interpretation, which is Jungian Cognitive Functions in an addition of Grantian or Harold Grand broken stacks. Also, the link I've provided about the difference between Socionics IME and MBTI functions were the words of Talanov himself. I'm aware that he might be incorrect but I didn't see any inaccuracies from what I've read of it.
Georg Wilhelm Friedrich Hegel: "The history of the world is none other than the progress of the consciousness of freedom."
It's ur unconsciousI have seen MBTI mention something about shadow, but it seems more shallow, or what exactly is this "shadow mode"?
your unvalued functions
People enter the shadow when they are anxious or stressed
There are other details that I won't mention now ( since it might take hours of explanation) such as when people fall into the shadow trap, and when they project things on others and so on
Souls know their way back home
I actually now think that MBTI cognitive function phenomenons, such as shadow mode, actually use Socionics functions. I'm not really sure why a professional personality typing service would think that someone is a different type than they are in Socionics. Perhaps other personality factors make him look like a certain type?
I kept thinking that I was an ISTJ when I first got into personality types, and I think that this happened due to a mix of enneagram (type 6's are insecure) and attitudinal psyche (I'm 1F). My insecurities would make me detail oriented like an MBTI ISTJ. The 1F would also make me aware of the physical realm.
MBTI cognitive functions are mostly wrong. In Jung and Socionics' Model A, introversion means to orient towards the archetypes in our collective uncounsciousness and to focus on the patterns of relationships between objects. On the other hand, MBTI, Model G and Big Five understand introversion as low energy, needing energy from outside, disliking social communications.
I would suggest this MBTI test instead of the ones you usually do :
https://www.michaelcaloz.com/personality/
You have to scroll down a little bit and click get started , then go down and click next several times until you get to the test
It will gave you a better result but it still depends on how accurate are your answer
Souls know their way back home
I got INTP. I got a high score in Ni, and a balanced score in Fe/Fi, but when I was taking the Fe portion, I think that I got much higher points in Fi.
I would say that INTP would be strange considering I have low Fe and higher Fi, but considering I got a higher Si score than Se score and a fairly high Ti score, it really makes just as much sense as the other options. So I guess I'll just assume that in one system, I can be typed as an INTP.
I guess I should trust that the other factors that contributed to the Fe score are important. I was wary about doing so because I wasn't sure about my answers for the stress question.
Edited.
The type isn't always the first result
Souls know their way back home
I see. I kind of overlooked the other options.
I guess we could say that I'm more likely to be an INTP than an INTJ, and an INTJ than other types. But for some reason, I have a higher chance of being an ENTP than an INTJ. Which is kind of an interesting thought.
Edited.
I’ve done this one a few times, it’s definitely better than many of the MBTI ‘alternative’ tests.
My results:
1. INFJ
2. INFP
3. ENFJ
4. ENFP
If you go strictly by functions, then it makes sense (INFJ is actually NiFe, not FiNe, for example), and as far as I’m concerned that’s not too far off.
All I can be fairly certain of in Socionics is that I’m Beta NF, so there’s nothing in the results that really contradicts that.
As it says before the test starts, you need to answer them as if you were free from stress or the notion of thinking ‘how you should act.’ In which case, you’ll probably get something close to your actual Socionics type in the first 4 answers.
Shadow function is a doubtful theory. And no, I don't think they really equate to each other.
http://socionavigator.com/socionics#add1
Georg Wilhelm Friedrich Hegel: "The history of the world is none other than the progress of the consciousness of freedom."
Well, it's not necessarily wrong, it's just being interpreted by Myers differently.
And speaking of which, I don't necessarily agree that Model A has exactly the same definition about Introversion/Extraversion akin to Psychological Types. Aushra's self-explanatory of this dichotomy seems to be quite different but still is similar akin to Jung's notion about it either:
Introversion - the informational relation between objects in the interpersonal subjectivity
Extroversion - the informational energy between objects in the environmental objectivity
Georg Wilhelm Friedrich Hegel: "The history of the world is none other than the progress of the consciousness of freedom."
The "Socionic functions and sociotypes as strategies for survival" seems interesting. I see myself as using the EII strategy. I'm not sure whether this corresponds with me historically.
I think that I might fit the Ne definition in MBTI. I have visions of how different futures could play out. I think that my insights (MBTI Ni) are usually negative and disruptive of my plans. They're also not necessarily trustworthy.
I don't think there can be better or worse results without a solid, constant instrument for comparison. Everyone has their own idea of what MBTI is in their heads, officially the test doesn't even use functions.
I think MBTI and Socionics are looking for different things, there's too many theoretical differences that make them non-complementary. Correlation can happen but they also sometimes go in opposite directions. I've looked at this test and some of the things it consider Te are Se in Socionics, some of Ti is Ne, some of Si is instead Ni (or Si is rationality, oddly enough), some of Ni is Se and some of it is rationality and terminating characteristics. Fe is Fi and vice-versa, just some examples. I guess it's consistent with the usual MBTI function definitions you see online, but high chance the type you'd get from it is different than what you'd get in Socionics, functions-wise I mean, because they're just different things. The J-P switch is not a real rule, it's on a case by case basis.
Only in MBTI can a transformation coach and counselor who writes down a whole questionaire like this with the goal of help others with their self-growth and relationships self-identify as ENTP. Wouldn't be surprised if this guy was an EIE.
He did seem disorganized somehow, I guess. And he seemed like he was interested in the novel or scientific aspect of MBTI from what was said on the site. Maybe he typed himself using the MBTI stereotypes for ENTP.
So I made an interesting observation. I think that I seem to fit the EII ITR's based on my interactions with and perceptions of some members of this forum. However, I can't be a Filatova EII because I've historically had good business logic. My approach to finishing assignments seems to fit the Filatova SLI, in that I tended to chronically procrastinate on them. I don't think that this would be possible for a Filatova EII.
Another interesting note is that I've historically had aspects of the ILI, such as poor control over my emotions when emotionally distressed, and a desire to fulfill a sort of vanity. In terms of my imagination, it doesn't perfectly fit the ILI imagination described by Filatova, but it seems to involve moving objects.
My guess is that one of the systems applies to a different set of cognitive functions or cognitive function definitions. It's also possible that the Filatova descriptions describe classic or typical versions of each type, and that people can take on the aspects of other types.
Have you thought about EII Ne ?
Also , do you know Psyche Yoga? Your procrastination and lack of control over your emotions indicate weak V and 1/3E
Note that I'm talking about Psyche Yoga not about Attitudinal Psyche )
Souls know their way back home
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
