An Ni subtype INTp/INFp Profile

[Expat]

It does describe a strongly , , irrational, IP person.

A lot of the details are not type related as has already been pointed out.

Some people have also suggested INFp as a possible type for me -- Ganin, Smilingeyes, and most recently Expat (with surprisingly strong emphasis).

Thanks for mentioning that. I would like to note that my conclusion in this regard has been reached independently of Smilingeyes or Ganin, and each of them - us - has different criteria for typing. Isha also sees you as INFp. So I think we're on to something.

My "surprisingly strong emphasis" has to do with my interpretation that your approach to Socionics is indication of Ti hidden agenda, and I suspect (as a guess) that that may have been Ganin's reasoning too. That and the Fe/XoX thing.

I am still clearly an INTp rather than an INFp according to every socionic type description I have ever read, and I still think that type descriptions are much more reliable as a typing tool, than any subjective interpretation of which intertype relations you have. So, even if I should come to the conclusion that I fit the intertype relations of an INFp better than those of an INTp, I can't change my type to INFp without a really good explanation for the fact that I don't fit the INFp type descriptions and not the

Let me put it this way.

If you want to go for a "type-description-based" version of Socionics, then, ok, let us say you are INTp. But if you go for a functional-analysis version of Socionics (and for relationships with other people also typed according to functional analysis) then my present view is that you are INFp.

(For instance) the people at Socionix have a -- version of Socionics where I am ESTj, Ashton and FDG are ENTj, Isha is INFp. That has obvious problems - like making me and Isha conflictors, which suprises us both - but they will have their criteria I suppose. Likewise, I think your "descriptons-are-the-end-all" version of Socionics will never be a consistent system and will never hold together if you include functional analyses. I can't know it for sure but that is my view.

socionic criteria for being an ethical type either.

In true Socionics criteria, this ethical type/logical type is trickier. You have to look at quadra values and functional preferences. So, yes, a logical type such an INTj and ENTp or ISTj may very well be very emotionally expressive and mirror other people's emotions. An ethical type like an ISFj may not be very emotionally expressive and dislike the idea of mirroring other people's emotions.

If we should not trust the type descriptions, we should not trust the descriptions of the intertype relations either.

They also have to be used carefully. As a guide.

People like Expat rely heavily on his own interpretations of the intertype relations and the quadras,

Because we understand the system. And the interpretations are not really contradictory with the essence of most descriptions, only with details.

unless there are two different versions of Socionics that are mutually exclusive, making the whole theory logically inconsistent : the intertype relations and the quadras on one hand, and the type descriptions and the criteria for distinguishing between the four dimensions on the other.

They are not mutually exclusive. They have a huge overlap. The thing is understand what the descriptions are really saying through functional analysis, and what is really type-related and that isn't.

If that is true, I don't know where the Reinin dichotomies fit in.

The Reinin dichotomies are not really accepted by many Socionists like Lytov, and Rick is also cautious. Smilingeyes managed to put together a whole system based on them, but I would argue that that system, although consistent and valid and useful, may on occasion contradict the model A-based version. It's also possible that Smilingeyes's version is not exactly the same as Reinin himself intended for the dichotomies. So Reinin dichotomies have to be used with care.