Extraverted on socionics, introverted on MBTI?

[trebl]

I'm new to socionics, my interest has only been in MBTI til now (so when I make use of cognitive functions, I'm referring to the MBTI version). With MBTI, I considered myself INTJ for the longest time, and still do, though I started wondering about the possibility of being INFJ. It feels like I'm a blend for a number of reasons, but certainly I think my Fe is highly developed.

I got the following socionics score:




The immediate response for me is to convert these types to MBTI, and I see pretty high dominance with LIE (ENTJ) and EIE (ENFJ). This almost corresponds well with what I already "knew" (INTJ/INFJ), except the switch from I->E is also not really a minor difference (or is it?).

I'm quite surprised to get this, as I consider myself undoubtedly introverted in the cognitive sense of doing everything internally, getting drained easily, very sensitive to stimuli, etc.etc. Only thing is, I am a rather sociable and cheerful person.

I saw an overview comparing the socionics cognitive functions with MBTI functions, but in honesty I'm not keen on spending the many many hours required to deep dive into socionics at the moment to understand these results. If possible, I'd rather just get your thoughts and opinions - what do these results even mean considering the INTJ/INFJ MBTI background information? Hugely appreciated!

[khaki]

Well, your overall highest scores suggest you're intuitive and you're rational. These two data points, if correct, narrow down your type to Alpha LII, Beta EIE, Gamma LIE, and Delta EII. Since you're leaning more towards a "central" quadra (Beta & Gamma) and scored rather low on both Fi and Ti for either of those to be your leading element, Alpha LII and Delta EII can be excluded. Si being your weakest element by far also points to EIE or LIE. Comparing your Te+Fe and Te+Ti scores with Ti+Fi and Fe+Fi respectively lead in the direction that you're more likely to be a logical extrotim than anything else, so EIE could also be excluded, again, if these scores more or less correspond to reality. Now, I'm not questioning your sense of developed Fe by any means, but you being an IEI doesn't make any sense based on your results. Te is IEIs' weakest spot and they usually score just as low on Te as where your Si is. Or if by INFJ you were referring to EII, that doesn't make much sense either with your low Fi and high Te. It should be the other way around. Considering everything, if you're confident you're an introtim and you identify with ILI more than with LIE for example, you can look into the ILI-Te subtype descriptions or retake the test and give more nuanced answers.

[trebl]

Well, your overall highest scores suggest you're intuitive and you're rational. These two data points, if correct, narrow down your type to Alpha LII, Beta EIE, Gamma LIE, and Delta EII. Since you're leaning more towards a "central" quadra (Beta & Gamma) and scored rather low on both Fi and Ti for either of those to be your leading element, Alpha LII and Delta EII can be excluded. Si being your weakest element by far also points to EIE or LIE. Comparing your Te+Fe and Te+Ti scores with Ti+Fi and Fe+Fi respectively lead in the direction that you're more likely to be a logical extrotim than anything else, so EIE could also be excluded, again, if these scores more or less correspond to reality. Now, I'm not questioning your sense of developed Fe by any means, but you being an IEI doesn't make any sense based on your results. Te is IEIs' weakest spot and they usually score just as low on Te as where your Si is. Or if by INFJ you were referring to EII, that doesn't make much sense either with your low Fi and high Te. It should be the other way around. Considering everything, if you're confident you're an introtim and you identify with ILI more than with LIE for example, you can look into the ILI-Te subtype descriptions or retake the test and give more nuanced answers.

Thanks, this was great to follow along. As someone who has only been around MBTI reddits, the level of depth here is very refreshing lol. Stark difference.
I guess the conclusion is, the conclusions don't make sense. Either my self-typing is wrong, or I answered poorly and the test is wrong. I would doubt my answers to this test any day over what I've come to know otherwise.

[Adam Strange]

Thanks, this was great to follow along. As someone who has only been around MBTI reddits, the level of depth here is very refreshing lol. Stark difference.
I guess the conclusion is, the conclusions don't make sense. Either my self-typing is wrong, or I answered poorly and the test is wrong. I would doubt my answers to this test any day over what I've come to know otherwise.

Are you under age thirty? Until I was thirty, I looked like an introvert. All LIEs do. It is their pupal stage, where they are gathering information, prior to their coming out as extroverted, carnivorous scorpions.

Me, age thirty-one: https://imgur.com/a/ZWIkyhP

[khaki]

Thanks, this was great to follow along. As someone who has only been around MBTI reddits, the level of depth here is very refreshing lol. Stark difference.
I guess the conclusion is, the conclusions don't make sense. Either my self-typing is wrong, or I answered poorly and the test is wrong. I would doubt my answers to this test any day over what I've come to know otherwise.

I didn't bring this up in my first reply since I didn't want to offend you with something possibly wrong I had just pulled out of my ass, but your scores gave me the impression as if you were exaggerating some of your weaknesses, underestimating some of your strengths, and maybe were fixated a little on some aspects of your ideal self. Talanov's test (the one you filled) is one of the better ones but that doesn't mean all that much. No test is going to give you an assurance that is comparable to what researching the topic and self-reflecting can bring to you, I'm afraid. In general, people who type themselves as INTJs in MBTI often find out that they're LIIs, LSIs or LIEs and not necessarily ILIs. If this helps, the ILI and the LIE types are understood rather differently in Socionics than the INTJ and the ENTJ in MBTI. The ILI in Socionics is more like a blend between INTP and INTJ with some NF sensitivity felt inwardly in the mix which is not that far off from how you described yourself in your initial post while LIEs, as Adam hinted, can start out as nerdy and socially insecure and it takes time until they fully develop and round out the other side of their personality and get a little closer to the MBTI interpretation of the ENTJ.

[on a peaceful hiatus]

Are you under age thirty? Until I was thirty, I looked like an introvert. All LIEs do. It is their pupal stage, where they are gathering information, prior to their coming out as extroverted, carnivorous scorpions.

Me, age thirty-one: https://imgur.com/a/ZWIkyhP

do you sometimes look at what you are writing? you have been introverted for 30 years but suddenly you became extroverted like "all" LIEs? what is this nonsense. and how would you even know all people of a single type? I swear people just imagine reality on this site.

[Adam Strange]

do you sometimes look at what you are writing? you have been introverted for 30 years but suddenly you became extroverted like "all" LIEs? what is this nonsense. and how would you even know all people of a single type? I swear people just imagine reality on this site.

The guy in that picture of me that I posted above is someone whom I thinks looks like a young version of Spock from Star Trek TOS. I type Nimoy as ILI. (I know that most people think that Spock is LSI, but I don't share that opinion.) Add pointy ears to that guy and you're there.
I had one friend in HS, maybe two. The rest of the 2500 people in the school were non-entities.

Compare that picture (age 31) to this picture https://imgur.com/Xdbgnx0 (closer to age fifty). The more recent picture shows a guy who is 100% extroverted. I easily know at least six hundred people. They're not all close friends, but they'd come to my funeral.

We should ask @FDG if he looked introverted when he was younger, and how he thinks he appears now.

[Kurt Gabin]

Where did you get these charts? Judging by the text you are introvert and static. Plus, you introduced yourself through Ti an Ni / Ne, so, yes, EII (INFJ) looks most realistic version.

[FDG]

The guy in that picture of me that I posted above is someone whom I thinks looks like a young version of Spock from Star Trek TOS. I type Nimoy as ILI. (I know that most people think that Spock is LSI, but I don't share that opinion.) Add pointy ears to that guy and you're there.
I had one friend in HS, maybe two. The rest of the 2500 people in the school were non-entities.

Compare that picture (age 31) to this picture https://imgur.com/Xdbgnx0 (closer to age fifty). The more recent picture shows a guy who is 100% extroverted. I easily know at least six hundred people. They're not all close friends, but they'd come to my funeral.

We should ask @FDG if he looked introverted when he was younger, and how he thinks he appears now.

Did not look introverted at all. Actually maybe I was even more extroverted. I think there is a picture of me when I was 8 here somewhere....
Actually I think I know thousands and thousands of people all over europe, but thats because my job involves travel and I moved 5 times. Its also a necessity because when you travel alone you always have someone you can call. Not close friends but almost every time i take a plane in europe i know someone at the airport. My wife says that I am a VIP person but I don't perceive it that way at all.

[Adam Strange]

From the above chart, my guess as to what trebl might look like is an "LIE with lots of Fe". Someone like this guy, but even friendlier: https://imgur.com/xfLkJLk

[trebl]

I didn't bring this up in my first reply since I didn't want to offend you with something possibly wrong I had just pulled out of my ass, but your scores gave me the impression as if you were exaggerating some of your weaknesses, underestimating some of your strengths, and maybe were fixated a little on some aspects of your ideal self. Talanov's test (the one you filled) is one of the better ones but that doesn't mean all that much. No test is going to give you an assurance that is comparable to what researching the topic and self-reflecting can bring to you, I'm afraid. In general, people who type themselves as INTJs in MBTI often find out that they're LIIs, LSIs or LIEs and not necessarily ILIs. If this helps, the ILI and the LIE types are understood rather differently in Socionics than the INTJ and the ENTJ in MBTI. The ILI in Socionics is more like a blend between INTP and INTJ with some NF sensitivity felt inwardly in the mix which is not that far off from how you described yourself in your initial post while LIEs, as Adam hinted, can start out as nerdy and socially insecure and it takes time until they fully develop and round out the other side of their personality and get a little closer to the MBTI interpretation of the ENTJ.

Perhaps I was exaggerating in some ways without realizing. I felt I answered on this test a bit differently than normally, in that rather than answering based on reflection of what fits + comfort, in many cases of uncertainty, I tended to side with the uncomfortable answer, feeling there may be bias of an ideal self at play if I chose the comfortable answer. I'd describe this test as being taken more "pessimistically" about myself than optimistic, which ig reflects in what you said (exaggerating weakness, underestimating strengths).

I've tested ILI before a while back, but maybe by really buckling down to figure out this INTJ/INFJ fiasco, I'm actually overthinking my answers and making them less "correct". It feels like I know what I am, have long known what I am, but the introduction of this "other sub-possibility (INFJ)" has led me to not just understanding what I am, but actually thinking about it, trying to explicitly rationalize why I am what I understand I am (excuse the repetition lol). This thinking has me running in loops inconclusively, spurring doubts, able to imagine basically any scenario someone spits out as "that's wrong, but actuallyyyy if I think about it, itcould make sense. Maybe that's right". It's a sort of chaos and uncertainty in my thinking that I'm not used to encountering. About to just drop the whole thing lol, what difference does it even make is the sort of feeling I'm at by now

[trebl]

Where did you get these charts? Judging by the text you are introvert and static. Plus, you introduced yourself through Ti an Ni / Ne, so, yes, EII (INFJ) looks most realistic version.

https://www.aimtoknow.com/test_beta

EII is INFj which is more like MBTI INFP. My initial understanding was more like ILI vs. IEI. I'm curious what about the introduction demonstrates Ti/Ni/Ne to you?

[khaki]

Perhaps I was exaggerating in some ways without realizing. I felt I answered on this test a bit differently than normally, in that rather than answering based on reflection of what fits + comfort, in many cases of uncertainty, I tended to side with the uncomfortable answer, feeling there may be bias of an ideal self at play if I chose the comfortable answer. I'd describe this test as being taken more "pessimistically" about myself than optimistic, which ig reflects in what you said (exaggerating weakness, underestimating strengths).

I've tested ILI before a while back, but maybe by really buckling down to figure out this INTJ/INFJ fiasco, I'm actually overthinking my answers and making them less "correct". It feels like I know what I am, have long known what I am, but the introduction of this "other sub-possibility (INFJ)" has led me to not just understanding what I am, but actually thinking about it, trying to explicitly rationalize why I am what I understand I am (excuse the repetition lol). This thinking has me running in loops inconclusively, spurring doubts, able to imagine basically any scenario someone spits out as "that's wrong, but actuallyyyy if I think about it, itcould make sense. Maybe that's right". It's a sort of chaos and uncertainty in my thinking that I'm not used to encountering. About to just drop the whole thing lol, what difference does it even make is the sort of feeling I'm at by now

If you feel a little confused, perhaps going back to the 4 Jungian dichotomies could help you to see the shape and boundaries of your type from a distance and to decide whether you're a logical or an ethical type. Think about the image of how have you seen yourself for most of your life and how others generally see you. I'm not sure how old are you and age can be a factor here, but if you started to give more serious attention to your feelings later in life (experimenting with emoting, with being more thoughtful, attentive, and considerate, with being emotionally more self-revealing, with expressing empathy and compassion, with processing and verbalizing your feelings, etc.) and exploring your emotional self more deeply is a relatively newer thing to you, that would indicate that you're a logical type. If you were an ethical type, the stuff attributed to emotionally detached thinking and/or pragmatic problem-solving is what you would try to grow into.

[Kurt Gabin]

https://www.aimtoknow.com/test_beta

It doesn't work the way it does in MBTI, there is no official test in socionics, and you have to figure out the type yourself.

EII is INFj which is more like MBTI INFP.

The definitions of dichotomies are the same, and INFJ in MBTI is the same judging / rational type in socionics.

My initial understanding was more like ILI vs. IEI.

It's unlikely. Look how khaki writes. His thought flows continuously, he is a dynamic type, and we are static. Static introverts are LII, LSI, ESI and EII.

I'm curious what about the introduction demonstrates Ti/Ni/Ne to you?

Like, everything?

[Nunki]

The definitions of dichotomies are the same, and INFJ in MBTI is the same judging / rational type in socionics.

It really irks me when people make this claim, because I know it to be false. I am a very clear-cut INFJ in the MBTI, but I absolutely loathe Si and Ne in Socionics, which means I am not an EII. People don't necessarily keep the same letters when switching between the two systems.

[Kurt Gabin]

but I absolutely loathe Si and Ne in Socionics, which means...

...which means you simply have identified your MBTI type incorrectly and now you don't want to admit the mistake. Quite realistic behavior for INFP / IEI.

[Nunki]

...which means you simply have identified your MBTI type incorrectly and now you don't want to admit the mistake. Quite realistic behavior for INFP / IEI.

I score as an INFJ on every MBTI test I take, and I have taken quite a few of them. I also completely identify with the type's cognitive functions and its four dichotomies.

That an IEI and an INFP are two different types should be abundantly clear from the fact that INFPs are primarily a feeling type whereas the IEI is mainly intuitive and only secondarily feeling. Also, while Fi is fairly different between the two systems, Ne--the secondary function for INFPs--is nearly the same between Socionics and the MBTI, with the result that it would make little sense to say that someone prefers using it in one system but devalues it in the other.

[Kurt Gabin]

Look, there is you. You walk on the earth, breathe this air and you have a brain in which something happens. There is a system with dichotomies that Jung came up with to describe what exactly is happening there. And there are two systems that came after Jung. These two systems use his dichotomies, but in addition they also use functions. The problem is that dichotomies came to both systems from Jung, and the functions appeared later and do not coincide in these two systems. Since you only have one head, this means that in at least one of the systems the functions are defined incorrectly. Accordingly, when comparing your type in one and another system, you cannot look at the functions, since then you are guaranteed to make a mistake. Thus, any further reasoning about functions in the context of comparing MBTI and socionics does not make sense.

[trebl]

Look, there is you. You walk on the earth, breathe this air and you have a brain in which something happens. There is a system with dichotomies that Jung came up with to describe what exactly is happening there. And there are two systems that came after Jung. These two systems use his dichotomies, but in addition they also use functions. The problem is that dichotomies came to both systems from Jung, and the functions appeared later and do not coincide in these two systems. Since you only have one head, this means that in at least one of the systems the functions are defined incorrectly. Accordingly, when comparing your type in one and another system, you cannot look at the functions, since then you are guaranteed to make a mistake. Thus, any further reasoning about functions in the context of comparing MBTI and socionics does not make sense.

Not necessarily, if indeed one of the systems defines functions incorrectly to a very high degree, then sure. But it could simply be the case that the two systems define the functions differently or from a different angle, but not necessarily incompatible. In which case there would exist a mapping (perhaps lossy), but in any case a conversion process from one system to the other. I'm not saying this is the case, I don't know socionics well enough, but it is certainly imaginable. My impression was MBTI->socionics had a sort of reasonable-estimate conversion process, as opposed to two incompatibly distinct systems.

[Expansion]

NF types hail from an idealist camp, either about you becoming better thru time, and society growing progressively better in your ideas around those themes, and overall it is central to humanistic relational aesthetics, over bare pragmatism.

"INTJ" is a systems builder for themselves first.

T types = egocentric.

[anotherperson]

mbti description of INTJ reminds me of the former here^

[godslave]

I would say that to properly understand what Introversion and Extraversion really mean you should read read Jung and don't rely on MBTI.

It is essential to understand the basic structure of the Human Psyche according to Carl Jung and his Model.

To give you a very basic explanation, one has to acknowledge the existence of two distincts worlds that contain "objects" namely the Inner world and the outer world. Both worlds are obviously available and accessible to consciousness, however one has to understand that consciousness is governed by psychic phenomena that predisposes the individual to orient the Ego and thus to primarily adapt to either one of the two world's contents.

We talk about Extraversion when this adaptation occurs by influence of objects contained in the outer world (the environment), in this case the objective factor is determinant. We talk about Introversion when the adaptation occurs by influence of objects contained in the inner world (within the individual), in the this case the subjective factor is determinant. Extraversion and Introversion are two different attitude of consciousness. This phenomenon is also referred to as conscious orientation.

Forget about all that MBTI conceptualisation of Extraversion/ Introversion which is more a description of the social Introversion/Extraversion. I would add that even in the socionics community a lot of people (including some socionics Pro) don't have a proper understanding of this very basic concept. When it comes to definitions I would advise to strictly refer to Jung or at the very least to understand the basic concepts of his work.

That said, Socionics Models are different from that of Jung but they nonetheless uses a lot of Jung's nomenclatures which add some confusions. One has to compartmentalize Jung's Model (not to confound with "Model J" which is like a Beta version of Model A) which works in perfect adequation with Jung's Psychology, from Socionics Models which are not fully compatible with Jung's psychology. These Models run under different operating system so to speak. There is a paradigmatic departure on the socionics part which is induced by the integration of new concepts like Information Metabolism and Cybernetics. One has to keep that in mind.

[The Reality Denialist]

Ej: word salad gets served
Ep: look out for impulsive actions

What Jung said in a very general manner

[khaki]

Not necessarily, if indeed one of the systems defines functions incorrectly to a very high degree, then sure. But it could simply be the case that the two systems define the functions differently or from a different angle, but not necessarily incompatible. In which case there would exist a mapping (perhaps lossy), but in any case a conversion process from one system to the other. I'm not saying this is the case, I don't know socionics well enough, but it is certainly imaginable. My impression was MBTI->socionics had a sort of reasonable-estimate conversion process, as opposed to two incompatibly distinct systems.

Jung came up with his dichotomies to construct the 8 psychological functions his 8 types lead with and then made some comments on how the less dominant and less differentiated functions come into play within a type but preferred not to form a clear hypothesis. Both MBTI and Socionics started here, their theorists came up with their own interpretations of his functions and their own internal logic about the function stack of a type which, on one hand made it possible to break each of Jung's types down into two "sub-types" if you will, but on the other hand, they differ exactly in what Jung was unsure about. There's a lack of agreement on the proper stacking of the functions even between various MBTI authors and even between different schools of Socionics.

MBTI, being the more popular system, got more attention from scientific researchers and has been widely criticized for (among other things) not being able to provide empiric evidence that a person's type measured by the four letter preferences translate to its assigned function stack (or that the order of preference of people's psychological functions even follow a clear pattern), but there's no real assurance for it to translate to Socionics blocks or to any of the existing Socionics function models either. Where I'm going with this is that I don't think trying to find a matching Socionics type based on your MBTI function stack is going to lead you to any results you're going to be happy with, but on a higher level, if you're correctly typed and you're clearly an NT in MBTI, you should be an NT in Socionics too.

[The Reality Denialist]

What you should use with Jung typology is holism, which means that a person will display a number of contradictory characteristics on a surface level. MBTI will not work here socionics seems unclear but depending on your approach, I think it might work out (this indicates that you should learn to think how LII will think given Jung's premises).