MBTI INFP visiting the Socionics world

[marmalade]

Hello everyone!

I've been interested in MBTI for a few years. In my diverse studies of typology, I've occasionally perused the various Socionics sites. Posting on forums is a new thing for me. I had posted some over at Socionix. I was trying to figure out where I fit in Socionics. I originally related more to the INFj descriptions that I read than the INFp ones, but none of them fit me well.

Someone there recommended the Filatova descriptions. Filatova's INFp was as accurate as most MBTI INFP descriptions. The only thing that didn't fit was the dressing well. I'm more of a casual and careless dresser along the lines of many MBTI INFPs.

Someone told me that they were a Ni subtype of INFp, and I think I might be the same. I don't fit the Fe subtype. I've got much more of a analytical streak to me.

I seem much more analytical than most MBTI INFPs also. I speculated this is b/c my dad is an MBTI ENTJ and influenced me greatly on the intellectual level. I learned to argue well from him.

I'll throw out a few questions:

Anyone else that started w/ MBTI before studying Socionics?

Anyone else fit both INFP and INFp?

Are any of you Ni subtypes of INFp or do you know this subtype well?

What are the fundamental differences b/t the Ni and Fe subtypes of INFp?

[That Guy]

Hello everyone!

I've been interested in MBTI for a few years. In my diverse studies of typology, I've occasionally perused the various Socionics sites. Posting on forums is a new thing for me. I had posted some over at Socionix. I was trying to figure out where I fit in Socionics. I originally related more to the INFj descriptions that I read than the INFp ones, but none of them fit me well.

Someone there recommended the Filatova descriptions. Filatova's INFp was as accurate as most MBTI INFP descriptions. The only thing that didn't fit was the dressing well. I'm more of a casual and careless dresser along the lines of many MBTI INFPs.

Someone told me that they were a Ni subtype of INFp, and I think I might be the same. I don't fit the Fe subtype. I've got much more of a analytical streak to me.

I seem much more analytical than most MBTI INFPs also. I speculated this is b/c my dad is an MBTI ENTJ and influenced me greatly on the intellectual level. I learned to argue well from him.

I'll throw out a few questions:

Anyone else that started w/ MBTI before studying Socionics?

Anyone else fit both INFP and INFp?

Are any of you Ni subtypes of INFp or do you know this subtype well?

What are the fundamental differences b/t the Ni and Fe subtypes of INFp?

I'm very analytical. My friends actually joke about it . I believe myself to be an MBTI INFJ, and i really am not sure of my Socionics type.

[Expat]

Anyone else that started w/ MBTI before studying Socionics?

I think most people here did.

Anyone else fit both INFP and INFp?

A few, I think.

What are the fundamental differences b/t the Ni and Fe subtypes of INFp?

This was discussed here:

http://the16types.no-ip.info/forums/...pic.php?t=8013

And there are these descriptions:

IDEALIST
Intuitive subtype appears by the calm, tactful, sluggish, uncertain of itself person. It seems torn from the reality, inert and little fitted out to the life. But this impression is erroneous, since it possesses the excellent intuition, which helps to it to establish useful connections and to find support in men of weight. It acts on those surrounding uspokaivayushche and rasslablyayushche. It is outwardly serene, but in the soul it is sentimental and inclined it takes a long time to survive its confusions. Mimicry is somewhat monotonous, frequently are expressed light surprise or complete interest by collocutor. View dreamy, slightly stressed, with the luster. It is frequently sad, attentive or only ironic. Speech measured off, smooth, intimate- sincere. On face almost constantly is present polite, locating to the confidence poluulybka. The gestures are modest, are timid, nedemonstrativnye. The gait is slow, is smooth.

DIPLOMAT
Ethical subtype produces the impression of soft, charming and emotional person. It usually appears voodushevlennym and optimistic. It possesses a good feeling of humor. About its problems and failures it can tell with the smile. It is ironic, sly, not predicted and inconsistent in the behavior and the conversation. Creating original contrasts, it can unexpectedly prick and so rapidly embrace, kiss. Artistichen, obayatelen, are natural in the contact, now and then even with the nuance of familiarity and unceremoniousness. It knows how to draw together distance. It is courteous, amiable and thoughtful. At times it is simply fascinating, is so great of its skill pleasing and of locating to itself people. It knows how to persuade. It presents requests in such form, which to it is difficult to refuse. Motions are elegant, even theatrical. The gait is graceful, is rapid. The speech is emotional, is rich in nuances, sometimes melodious.

[Dioklecian]

Hello everyone!

I've been interested in MBTI for a few years. In my diverse studies of typology, I've occasionally perused the various Socionics sites. Posting on forums is a new thing for me. I had posted some over at Socionix. I was trying to figure out where I fit in Socionics. I originally related more to the INFj descriptions that I read than the INFp ones, but none of them fit me well.

Someone there recommended the Filatova descriptions. Filatova's INFp was as accurate as most MBTI INFP descriptions. The only thing that didn't fit was the dressing well. I'm more of a casual and careless dresser along the lines of many MBTI INFPs.

Someone told me that they were a Ni subtype of INFp, and I think I might be the same. I don't fit the Fe subtype. I've got much more of a analytical streak to me.

I seem much more analytical than most MBTI INFPs also. I speculated this is b/c my dad is an MBTI ENTJ and influenced me greatly on the intellectual level. I learned to argue well from him.

I'll throw out a few questions:

Anyone else that started w/ MBTI before studying Socionics?

Anyone else fit both INFP and INFp?

Are any of you Ni subtypes of INFp or do you know this subtype well?

What are the fundamental differences b/t the Ni and Fe subtypes of INFp?

Overall I get much more of an INFJ vibe from you as compared to INFP (socinics that is).

As to your questions I agree with Expat.

[marmalade]

IDEALIST
Intuitive subtype appears by the calm, tactful, sluggish, uncertain of itself person. It seems torn from the reality, inert and little fitted out to the life. But this impression is erroneous, since it possesses the excellent intuition, which helps to it to establish useful connections and to find support in men of weight. It acts on those surrounding uspokaivayushche and rasslablyayushche. It is outwardly serene, but in the soul it is sentimental and inclined it takes a long time to survive its confusions. Mimicry is somewhat monotonous, frequently are expressed light surprise or complete interest by collocutor. View dreamy, slightly stressed, with the luster. It is frequently sad, attentive or only ironic. Speech measured off, smooth, intimate- sincere. On face almost constantly is present polite, locating to the confidence poluulybka. The gestures are modest, are timid, nedemonstrativnye. The gait is slow, is smooth.

The Four with a Five-Wing (Ni subtype)
(more intp than isfp)(more intellectual, original, reserved):

- less concerned about looks
- wants to remain as children and not have to deal with the adult world
- less emotionally dramatic
- less interested in te/ti activities/thinking
- enjoy learning about a wide range of new things
- theorize, come to conclusions a lot (not nesscarily connected to emotions)
- quest for knowledge
- need information for everything just so they can have it
- more withdrawn
- more dark
- less ambitious, less likely to do concrete + consistent work
- more social insecurity
- more intellectual depth and intensity
- create for for themselves, not audience
- more loners
- mix creativity, emotions & intelligence
- very independent and unconventional
- simpler lifestyle than the other subtype
- more original
- more need to pour into artistic creations
- when alienated, feel depressed, feel like they don't belong
- prone to feeling ashamed
- can be morbid and fall in love with death

Intuitive (Ni) subtype: (The Idealist)

(Valentine Meged & Anatoly Ovcharov) The intuitive subtype appears as a quiet, tactful, languid and diffident individual. They seem torn off from reality, inert and poorly adapted to life. However, such impressions are erroneous, for they possess a fine intuition, which aids them in establishing useful connections and obtaining support from influential people. Seem externally serene but sentimentally are disposed to experience moodiness and bouts of melancholy. While their voice at times seems monotonous they often induce a light surprise, even full interest, from the interlocutor. Outwardly are pensive, slightly strained/intense.. Prone to emanate sadness masked in sardonic irony. Speech is measured, smooth and intimately heart-felt. On their face they almost constantly exude a polite half-smile that easily wins people’s trust. Gestures are modest, shy. Gait is ponderous, elegant.

(Victor Gulenko) Facial expression is typically interrogative, and they seem calm, dreamy, and contemplative. Their line of behaviour is frequently passive. Romantic spirits. They live in the world of illusions, and they attempt to avoid negative emotions. They can be optimistic. They shrink away from conflict situations and support compromises. They are restrained in their clothing, elegant and refined. They can fulfill the functions of an abstract thinker, work in psychology and psychotherapy.

(Sexual behaviour) Act slowly, are patient and shy. Romantic, elevate themselves in feelings and dream about a great and prolonged love. Yielding in everyday demands (will try to be economically practical if their partner desires). Appear sexually timid, but their aim is for sexual harmony and the reaching of spiritual and physical perfection. Often act somewhat unsure of themselves. Require a volitional, decisive, active and energetic partner, whom possesses feelings of humor and inspiring confidence.

All of these Ni subtype descriptions fit me. I don't know if subtyping makes sense b/c I don't yet understand Socionics, but some of the INFp descriptions don't fit me. Someone at Socionix said that the foppish INFp type that some Russian Socionics describes didn't fit him either.

If subtypes don't exist, then how can descriptions of the same type be so different? Without subtype as an explanation, some of the descriptions would have to be incorrect. So, if only some of the descriptions can be correct, then going by my own self-understanding I'd have to say the Filatova one is correct.

[marmalade]

Overall I get much more of an INFJ vibe from you as compared to INFP (socinics that is).

Why do you say this? Which details in my self-description fit which INFj descriptions?

The Filatova INFj description fit me at best maybe 50%. The Filatova INFp description fit me almost perfectly.

[Republicus]

If subtypes don't exist, then how can descriptions of the same type be so different? Without subtype as an explanation, some of the descriptions would have to be incorrect. So, if only some of the descriptions can be correct, then going by my own self-understanding I'd have to say the Filatova one is correct.

Note this about all type descriptions, they fail to correlate back to a theory. They do not say, this type would display this behavior for this reason. I don’t trust MBTI, since they went as far as redefining Jung’s types, and we can’t see a lot of their material. At least in Socionics they accept Jung’s work as the axioms upon which it is based. The problem we get in English is that descriptions we are getting are derivations, and once again often fail to tie themselves back to main Socionics theory.

To this end, I feel Socionics has something of value, but I don’t trust a lot material associated with it, and restrict myself to cognitive psychology and Jung. I do believe that Jung made some very fundamental, and correct, observation and delineations regarding cognition. Unfortunately they are more like an impression of the mind, rather than a hard blueprint. Leaving huge sections blank, such as the precise nature of the subject and object. Terms with which his material uses constantly, but leaves purposefully ambiguous.

Jung’s system is such that most people will be in the middle of any place where he creates two fields. For instance, in the field of rational cognition you are feeling or thinking, not perfectly in between. He states it can be broken, but it is so rare he doesn’t ‘type’ it. This means that for even for individuals who both have differentiated Ti and Ne, they may have do so to greatly different degrees. They may be repressing the opposing function to differing degrees too. Their own innate abilities with those functions will be to varying degree. The basis of information, and the processes they have developed to use those functions, will be different for each person, even of the same “type”. This means that type, defined as cognitive functions producing consist universal behavior, is fairly limited.

Additionally, there is no basis of information which all people do, which I think would be almost more useful than type. For instance, human cognition, or the human mind, drives everyone to speak. Cognition play a role in this, I theorize that starting form a very early age though functions begin to mutate language to create what could be observable/predictable behavior based off type. Without such a basis, or frame of reference, for type theory to be developed off of, the type descriptions will always be arbitrary in content and one type description will contain something that another does not.

In regards to subtype, I believe that this is an attempt to account for two previously mentioned factors: The same type having functions developed and differentiated to different degree, and the same type having functions being repressed to different degrees. I think it is a sloppy attempt to band-aid broken type descriptions. I don’t trust, like typology. But, I think Jungian psychology, at least Jung’s cognitive psychology, and Socionics are at their core correct.

[Dioklecian]

Overall I get much more of an INFJ vibe from you as compared to INFP (socinics that is).

Why do you say this? Which details in my self-description fit which INFj descriptions?

The Filatova INFj description fit me at best maybe 50%. The Filatova INFp description fit me almost perfectly.

PErsonally I type by behavioural patern rather than descriptions (thats' because I am not a static type so I can't really see the Ti type qualities that the descriptions relate to).

The maner in which you approached the question seems to me to be INFJ in socionics. You seem to be asking for Te-Si rather than Se-Ti input.

I don't see a lot of Fe in your post.

Would like to tell us more about your life and yourself? (beyond the descriptions).

[marmalade]

[quote="Republicus"]

If subtypes don't exist, then how can descriptions of the same type be so different? Without subtype as an explanation, some of the descriptions would have to be incorrect. So, if only some of the descriptions can be correct, then going by my own self-understanding I'd have to say the Filatova one is correct.

Note this about all type descriptions, they fail to correlate back to a theory. They do not say, this type would display this behavior for this reason. I don’t trust MBTI, since they went as far as redefining Jung’s types, and we can’t see a lot of their material. At least in Socionics they accept Jung’s work as the axioms upon which it is based.

How do type descriptions(MBTI and Socionics fail to correlate back to theory? Or is it that you consider they don't correlate back to a theory you believe is correct? MBTI is a theory even if it doesn't perfectly correlate to Jung's writing. How could any theory correlate perfectly back to Jung considering that he was often vague and changed his mind over time?

Doesn't the functional ordering give an explanation of behavior? Could you give specifics in how MBTI deviates further from Jung than Socionics? Couldn't Jung have been incorrect about certain things? He had very limited ability to theorize about functional types b/c science was so limited at the time. Why are his personal observations more valid than later personal observations?

The problem we get in English is that descriptions we are getting are derivations, and once again often fail to tie themselves back to main Socionics theory.

To this end, I feel Socionics has something of value, but I don’t trust a lot material associated with it, and restrict myself to cognitive psychology and Jung.

Which material do you trust? And why? Which material do you not trust? And why?

In regards to subtype, I believe that this is an attempt to account for two previously mentioned factors: The same type having functions developed and differentiated to different degree, and the same type having functions being repressed to different degrees. I think it is a sloppy attempt to band-aid broken type descriptions. I don’t trust, like typology. But, I think Jungian psychology, at least Jung’s cognitive psychology, and Socionics are at their core correct.

What specifically do you mean by "broken type descriptions"? Aren't good type descriptions(Socionics or MBTI) based on functional ordering? Functional orderings certainly don't fit everyone, but theoretically their supposed to resemble a tendency of type development. As you said, subtype would be slight deviations from the general trend, but why do you consider this a band-aid solution? The question is can those deviations be explained by a theory. I don't know Socionics well enough to know.

Maybe the problem is there are many possible functional development orderings. In some MBTI-related theorizing(eg Singer and Loomis), this possibility is considered. Also, the functions in reality are inseparable manifestations of a singular body/brain.

I don't know if any of these theories have yet to discover the fundamental structure behind personality. Nonetheless, I'm of the opinion that any theory will always eventually prove false, but the real test is whether its useful. So, do individuals find subtypes useful?

[marmalade]

PErsonally I type by behavioural patern rather than descriptions (thats' because I am not a static type so I can't really see the Ti type qualities that the descriptions relate to).

The maner in which you approached the question seems to me to be INFJ in socionics. You seem to be asking for Te-Si rather than Se-Ti input.

I don't see a lot of Fe in your post.

Would like to tell us more about your life and yourself? (beyond the descriptions).

The reason I'm going by descriptions in Socionics is b/c I don't yet understand the specifics. I prefer going by behavioural patterns. In MBTI where I'm more knowledgeable, I do this. To me descriptions are less useful w/o theory and research behind them.

Could you explain what you mean by my "asking for Te-Si rather than Se-Ti input"?

Could you explain what you mean by not seeing a lot of Fe in my post?

As for your question of my divulging more about my life/self...

First off, I'm much more in intellectual mode when I'm on the computer. I have a light-hearted, silly, and child-like aspect that doesn't show up much on my postings. I only show this to people who know me well. I never much wanted to grow up, and I don't perceive myself as an overly responsible adult. This has had to do w/ others' expectations. I'm very independent-minded and introverted.

I'm very sensitive and idealistic. I have a deep sense of emotion, but rarely show it. I base my decisions on emotions and values, but I also analyze everything to death. My mind never shuts up. My feeings/values feel more important and real than my thoughts/beliefs. I can be very critical of myself and others. I'm prone to depression and apathy. I tend to procrastinate, and so I can feel like a lazy slob. I have lots of social fears.

I only desire a few really good relationships. I'm relatively close to my immediate family, but I couldn't care less about extended family. I have one life-long best friend, and one occasional friend. I don't trust easily. I feel it must be earned and that it is easily broken. I can forgive almost anything up to a point, and then beyond that there is no forgiveness ever. I can be infinitely giving when I feel very close, but if not then I'm absolutely selfish. I value my space tremendously and I hide out in my apartment except when working or hanging out w/ my best friend. I live alone.

I'm not ambitious and I don't care about material rewards. I need only basic security and comfort. I love animals and books.

My dad is an intellectual and I've learned how to think clearly and objectively from him, and how to argue well. I enjoy intellectual debate even when its vehement, but I don't enjoy conflict otherwise. I can be strong in my position, but I always strive to understand and empathize w/ others.

My mom is more introverted like me. I have a similar mental pattern to her. We both can be lost in our thoughts, but she is not intellectual. We both can be mindless while driving. We also can both pick up on a conversation from earlier in the day w/o either of us needing to remind the other about what we're talking about. This leaves my dad clueless. I learned to talk fast from my mom and how to break into a conversation rather than wait for the other to finish.

I'm more of an observer of life. I can completely cut out the world, but when I turn my attention outwards I'm capable of noticing infinite details. Also, I'm constantly interpreting people's behaviors and their deep motivations.

I'm fairly shy and quiet around all except those I'm around on a regular basis which includes fellow employees. People are surprised by how my expressed personality changes after they get to know me. I'm very difficult to read and I'm this way on purpose. My face is often blank. I'm often not responsive. I dislike social ettiquete and niceties, but I'm very good at playing a part when it suits me. People usually always like me.

I've always had good physical abilities. I have good balance and fast reflexes. I would be more athletic if it wasn't for my introversion, shyness, and depression.

[Dioklecian]

Wow, that seems to me definitely not INFP (socionics).

In particular your emotional containment.

INFPs are much more expressive.

Ican confidently tell you that in my opinion you are not INFP. INFJ seems more likely.

[Expat]

All of these Ni subtype descriptions fit me. I don't know if subtyping makes sense b/c I don't yet understand Socionics, but some of the INFp descriptions don't fit me. Someone at Socionix said that the foppish INFp type that some Russian Socionics describes didn't fit him either.

If subtypes don't exist, then how can descriptions of the same type be so different? Without subtype as an explanation, some of the descriptions would have to be incorrect. So, if only some of the descriptions can be correct, then going by my own self-understanding I'd have to say the Filatova one is correct.

Socionics typing is about a person's deeper motivations and ways of perceiving and judging reality, not primarily about behavioral traits. These provide a clue as to the person's motivations, though. Subtypes are based on observations of individuals who seemed to be of the same type, and yet behaved somewhat differently. A higher focus on one of the two ego functions seems a good explanation.

Couldn't Jung have been incorrect about certain things? He had very limited ability to theorize about functional types b/c science was so limited at the time. Why are his personal observations more valid than later personal observations?

These are excellent questions, and I agree with what you're suggesting. I also think that it's not useful to say that Socionics is necessarily wrong when it "deviates" from Jung. In some respects I think it improved on what Jung started.

I don't know if any of these theories have yet to discover the fundamental structure behind personality. Nonetheless, I'm of the opinion that any theory will always eventually prove false, but the real test is whether its useful. So, do individuals find subtypes useful?

I find them useful to explain differences between individuals of the same type; how they work in relationships is not fully clear yet.

Could you explain what you mean by my "asking for Te-Si rather than Se-Ti input"?

Could you explain what you mean by not seeing a lot of Fe in my post?

Most often I don't agree with Dio -- but this time I think he's partly on to something; you seem to value Te over Ti.

As for your question of my divulging more about my life/self...

First off, I'm much more in intellectual mode when I'm on the computer. I have a light-hearted, silly, and child-like aspect that doesn't show up much on my postings. I only show this to people who know me well. I never much wanted to grow up, and I don't perceive myself as an overly responsible adult. This has had to do w/ others' expectations. I'm very independent-minded and introverted.

I'm very sensitive and idealistic. I have a deep sense of emotion, but rarely show it. I base my decisions on emotions and values, but I also analyze everything to death. My mind never shuts up. My feeings/values feel more important and real than my thoughts/beliefs. I can be very critical of myself and others. I'm prone to depression and apathy. I tend to procrastinate, and so I can feel like a lazy slob. I have lots of social fears.

I only desire a few really good relationships. I'm relatively close to my immediate family, but I couldn't care less about extended family. I have one life-long best friend, and one occasional friend. I don't trust easily. I feel it must be earned and that it is easily broken. I can forgive almost anything up to a point, and then beyond that there is no forgiveness ever. I can be infinitely giving when I feel very close, but if not then I'm absolutely selfish. I value my space tremendously and I hide out in my apartment except when working or hanging out w/ my best friend. I live alone.

I'm not ambitious and I don't care about material rewards. I need only basic security and comfort. I love animals and books.

My dad is an intellectual and I've learned how to think clearly and objectively from him, and how to argue well. I enjoy intellectual debate even when its vehement, but I don't enjoy conflict otherwise. I can be strong in my position, but I always strive to understand and empathize w/ others.

My mom is more introverted like me. I have a similar mental pattern to her. We both can be lost in our thoughts, but she is not intellectual. We both can be mindless while driving. We also can both pick up on a conversation from earlier in the day w/o either of us needing to remind the other about what we're talking about. This leaves my dad clueless. I learned to talk fast from my mom and how to break into a conversation rather than wait for the other to finish.

I'm more of an observer of life. I can completely cut out the world, but when I turn my attention outwards I'm capable of noticing infinite details. Also, I'm constantly interpreting people's behaviors and their deep motivations.

I'm fairly shy and quiet around all except those I'm around on a regular basis which includes fellow employees. People are surprised by how my expressed personality changes after they get to know me. I'm very difficult to read and I'm this way on purpose. My face is often blank. I'm often not responsive. I dislike social ettiquete and niceties, but I'm very good at playing a part when it suits me. People usually always like me.

I've always had good physical abilities. I have good balance and fast reflexes. I would be more athletic if it wasn't for my introversion, shyness, and depression.

Yeah, so far you seem more INFj than INFp. But I haven't fully made my own mind yet, FWIW.

[Republicus]

...

Not going to let me get away with out explaining. I'll see what I can do about doing a better job explaining. In quick response though I will answer a few of your questions.

I do not suggest that something is inherently invalid because it deviates from Jung. Nor do I suggest something inherently invalid because it doesn’t follow scientific method. That doesn’t mean I accept any and everything that is thrown out there either.

In my understanding Socionics has two key parts: one is a function model and the other is a type relationship model. I don’t know whether there were originally type descriptions or not. I don’t think that there were. I haven’t seen any type descriptions with Augusta’s name on them. Model A, and these intertype relationships, appear to be natural extensions of Jungian material.

Jung’s functions, MBTI and Socionics are not scientific theories. A theory in the scientific sense must predict verifiable results. All of the aforementioned material does predict results. However, deviations can be explained as something occurring outside the model. They don’t isolate the variables. When someone acts in a manner inconsistent with their type, one can simply say it was caused by another aspect of the psyche. Thus it does not invalidate Jung/MBTI/Socionics. A system like this, while it cannot be invalidated, also cannot be validated for the same reason. It is therefore not, as I understand, a theory.

[marmalade]

I could be an INFj, but how could I determine that. I've looked at descriptions and that led me to INFp. Descriptions may not be the most accurate way to determine type. Could you help me understand the functions and other details in terms of type? I'm not sure even what type means nor whether its accurate or useful.

I'm 31. What I describe of myself now is partly simply what I've become which is largely determined by socio-political conditions and relationships, and life events. Change these and I could've turned out differently. Anyways, I only have a limited ability to precisely remember and convey how I was when younger.

I had learning difficulties growing up. I had difficulty w/ word recall and w/ this information recall. I hated school and would've flunked out of 7th grade if we hadn't moved. I disliked classes that necessitated analytical skills, abstract thinking, or straight memorization: science, math, history, etc. I learned how to straight memorization by repetition, but it took massive effort. However, even when I had the info memorized, I couldn't put it into essay form.

I've become very intellectual, but I don't know if this would've occurred if I didn't have an intellectual father who was very encouraging. My parents were very helpful to me in school. Still, I've always been a questioner b/c my mom says I asked deep questions even when a little child.

I was also more emotionally expressive as a child, but maybe all children are. I later learned to be more cautious, but I probably was always introverted and maybe always shy.

Also, I used to be very physically-oriented. I didn't become a book reader until around puberty when I didn't feel like I fit in socially.

So, what in my personality is inherent from birth?

[Republicus]

I had learning difficulties growing up. I had difficulty w/ word recall and w/ this information recall. I hated school and would've flunked out of 7th grade if we hadn't moved. I disliked classes that necessitated analytical skills, abstract thinking, or straight memorization: science, math, history, etc. I learned how to straight memorization by repetition, but it took massive effort. However, even when I had the info memorized, I couldn't put it into essay form.

I've become very intellectual, but I don't know if this would've occurred if I didn't have an intellectual father who was very encouraging. My parents were very helpful to me in school. Still, I've always been a questioner b/c my mom says I asked deep questions even when a little child.

I was also more emotionally expressive as a child, but maybe all children are. I later learned to be more cautious, but I probably was always introverted and maybe always shy.

Also, I used to be very physically-oriented. I didn't become a book reader until around puberty when I didn't feel like I fit in socially.

All this behavior may be caused by factors other than type/cognitive funcitons. Based on the way your group information into a related concept indicates Intution to me, specifically Ne. You appear to be a rational type based on the your descriptions of your introspective. Your description sounds a lot like the following quote (altough I dislike this particular translation and if your going to read more of Personality Types I would suggest the revised version.).

So you would be an INFj in the Socionics system.

. The Introverted Feeling Type

It is principally among women that I have found the priority of introverted feeling. The proverb 'Still waters run deep' is very true of such women. They are mostly silent, inaccessible, and hard to understand; often they hide behind a childish or banal mask, and not infrequently their temperament is melancholic. They neither shine nor reveal themselves. Since they submit the control of their lives to their subjectively orientated feeling, their true motives generally remain concealed. Their outward demeanour is harmonious and inconspicuous; they reveal a delightful repose, a sympathetic parallelism, which has no desire to affect others, either to impress, influence, or change them in any way. Should this outer side be somewhat emphasized, a suspicion of neglectfulness and coldness may easily obtrude itself, which not seldom increases to a real indifference for the comfort and well-being of others. One distinctly feels the movement of feeling away from the object. With the normal type, however, such an event only occurs when the object has in some way too strong an effect. The harmonious feeling atmosphere rules only so long as the object moves upon its own way with a moderate feeling intensity, and makes no attempt to cross the other's path. There is little effort to accompany the real emotions of the object, which tend to be damped and rebuffed, or to put it more aptly, are 'cooled off' by a negative feeling-judgment. Although one may find a constant readiness for a peaceful and harmonious companionship, the unfamiliar object is shown no touch of amiability, no gleam of responding warmth, but is met by a manner of apparent indifference or repelling coldness. [p. 493]

http://psychclassics.yorku.ca/Jung/types.htm

[FDG]

Now, the description of your life sounds like what happened to my INFp cousin, but hey. Up to you to decide. Although, if you say that INFp desc. is a perfect fit, and INFj desc 50 percent, that means something.

[anndelise]

Now, the description of your life sounds like what happened to my INFp cousin, but hey. Up to you to decide. Although, if you say that INFp desc. is a perfect fit, and INFj desc 50 percent, that means something.

I was thinking that marmalade sounded a lot like an INFp I know. In fact I was debating whether or not to get that INFp into this forum onto this thread so we could all read how an INFp feels about the self-descriptions marmalade wrote.

[marmalade]

. The Introverted Feeling Type

It is principally among women that I have found the priority of introverted feeling. The proverb 'Still waters run deep' is very true of such women. They are mostly silent, inaccessible, and hard to understand; often they hide behind a childish or banal mask, and not infrequently their temperament is melancholic. They neither shine nor reveal themselves. Since they submit the control of their lives to their subjectively orientated feeling, their true motives generally remain concealed. Their outward demeanour is harmonious and inconspicuous; they reveal a delightful repose, a sympathetic parallelism, which has no desire to affect others, either to impress, influence, or change them in any way. Should this outer side be somewhat emphasized, a suspicion of neglectfulness and coldness may easily obtrude itself, which not seldom increases to a real indifference for the comfort and well-being of others. One distinctly feels the movement of feeling away from the object. With the normal type, however, such an event only occurs when the object has in some way too strong an effect. The harmonious feeling atmosphere rules only so long as the object moves upon its own way with a moderate feeling intensity, and makes no attempt to cross the other's path. There is little effort to accompany the real emotions of the object, which tend to be damped and rebuffed, or to put it more aptly, are 'cooled off' by a negative feeling-judgment. Although one may find a constant readiness for a peaceful and harmonious companionship, the unfamiliar object is shown no touch of amiability, no gleam of responding warmth, but is met by a manner of apparent indifference or repelling coldness. [p. 493]

http://psychclassics.yorku.ca/Jung/types.htm[/quote]

Yes, I agree I'm Fi dominant in Jung and MBTI and w/ some other related theorists.

Ben Kovitz said on one of his wiki sites: "It sometimes seems to me that no two people in the Myers-Briggs world are using the letters to stand for the same things, and yet they don't notice."

http://lenore-exegesis.com/Ben_Kovitz

The following is where Fi is discussed in terms of Lenore Thomson's book:

http://lenore-exegesis.com/Introverted_Feeling

I'm beginning to think I'm Fi in Socionics as well. I was looking around the forum at various threads. I'm suspecting now that I maybe INFj. Whether INFp or INFj, I'm the Intuitive subtype.

[marmalade]

Here is my most recent post at my Socionix intro:

http://forum.socionix.com/index.php?...739&#entry3739

Yes, I'm mostly mellow.

I am very aware of my core, but I suppose I don't share my dreams initially w/ others. Also, as I said, when I'm on the computer I'm in intellectual mode and not in dreaming mode. This isn't to say the two modes are all that separated. I know who I am; I can't say I know what I fight for. I'm not much of a fighter in reality nor metaphorically.

What are my most memorable dreams?

I'm not absolutely certain what you're asking for, but I am a dreamer and I've had many dreams. I've always enjoyed the outdoors and animals. When I was young I assumed I'd be something like a naturalist or forest ranger when I grew up. As a kid, I'd wander all day through woods and in creeks often alone, but also w/ others. I was a kid that didn't worry about being dirty, and wasn't self-conscious about it. I sometimes played out a fantasy, but mostly I just meandered mindlessly. When I graduated, I actually dreamed of escaping civilization, cutting all my ties to the past and becoming a hermit. It seemed like a good idea at the time. I almost did this, but depression, apathy, and loneliness brought me back home. My dreams have been introverted as in generally only including me, but they have tended to have an idealistic aspect. I fantasized about how the world could be destroyed in elementary school. Part of me wanted to do something to save the world.

Now that I'm older, I dream of becoming a great writer and philosopher. I dream of writing a great novel or creating a theory of everything. I love studying and I amass tons of information. My mind is restless. Also, at times I dream of true love and soul mates(a friend once told me that when I finally fell in love I'd fall hard and I did). Mostly I dream of discovering a greater vision and myth for the world. To put it simply, I dream big. I like to say that if your dreams seem possible and practical, then your not dreaming big enough(ironic exaggeration intended).

How do my dreams correspond to the development of my personality?

Well, I tend to go back and forth b/t inspiration and despair. I'm idealistic and cynical. More specifically I'm idealistic in the big picture, but cynical in the here and now. I'm always refining my dreams and reaching further. I'm never satisfied and I see this as one of my strengths. I'm often lost in my thoughts and dreams. I listen to my heart and I try to follow it, but more often it just confuses me. There is some essence of truth and rightness that I feel that is beyond me and my abilities. So, I'm a hopeless dreamer. I'm very defensive of my dreams, and I don't share them easily. One's dreams often don't make sense to another. There just is no way to communicate the feeling and essence of a vision. In words, it will always seem a bit silly. My dreams are almost always w/ me. I filter reality through them or else I just don't differentiate reality from them. To me, reality is a dream. Even if they don't know it, I believe everyone is dreaming their reality. We never genuinely perceive an objective reality. The closest we seem to get to that is consensus reality, but thats just another dream.

Is there a central theme to my dreams?

My dreams are about becoming my best and about transcending my limited sense of self. As such, they involve the world. As I've matured, my dreams are less selfish or individualitic. Basically, my dreams have become visions of a spiritual nature, but I'm not particularly religious. I've always been obsessed w/ all things spiritual.

Actually, there is a more basic dream theme. I've most often have simply desired to be a good person. This is at the heart of all my dreaming I suppose. Just being a good person really has nothing to do w/ how big or deep I dream. In some ways, this is a simple dream, but one I feel so incapable of living up to. Ignore all the rest, I simply want to be a good person. The word simply is important here b/c simplicity is something I also dream about and related to it is authenticity. I have an ascetic side to me. Even in my dreams of greatness, I dream of humility. I don't care if I'm known and remembered, but I'd like that who I am and what I do be appreciated. Being a good person at heart involves the notions of Buddhist compassion and the definiton of love in A Course in Miracles. The stories and message of Jesus also influence me. Absolute sacrifice for something greater seems to me the highest of ideals.

What activities do I invest most of my time in?

Reading, studying, searching for information, writing in my journal, writing stories, and spending time in type-related forums. Also, I spend much time w/ my best friend and together we do the aforementioned. I also do more playful things w/ my friend b/c he is my childhood best friend and we retain some of our childhood relationship. We both like wandering in woods, climbing trees, and walking on frozen creeks. Beyond this I've spent a lot of time playing hackysack and have become fairly good at it. Hackysack is my connection to a different world. Its my one physical activity that I do w/ a group of people who I barely know, people who aren't the types I normally hang out w/. It represents the other side of my personality. I've always been drawn to the carefree alternative party crowd, but I never feel I belong to it. I'm an observer of that world: political activist peace-niks, homeless kids, punks, goths, etc.

How do I feel about indulgence and hedonism?

I'm a comfort junky, but I'm critical of outright hedonism and materialism. I used to be a junkfood junky. I eat healthier now, but I still love to snack. I don't get bored easily, but I do live for entertainment. I'm either reading, watching movies, playing on the internet, or hanging out w/ a friend. I try to not do anything that isn't enjoyable. I only get around to the necessities of life when I absolutely have to. I do have an ascetic streak and I live a fairly simple existence. I don't need much to keep me contented. My only expensive hobby is books and I'm constantly buying them. I indulge my desires b/c I don't strong willpower. I've tried to force myself to be other than I am, but I can only keep this up for short periods of time. I've learned my strength lies in acceptance...of myself and others. I do have a capacity for extreme willfulness when a value, ideal, or dream is awakened. I can be stubborn sometimes especially if I feel like someone is trying to control me.

How would I live if I didn't have to grow up?

Mostly the same as I do now, but w/o having to work for my living and w/ someone to take care of my necessities of life. I might travel some, but probably not. I'm actually doing what I want. I'm not one to deny myself, and yet my desires are not generally difficult to satisfy. Even if I was rich, I'd probaby only change minor details.

[Raver]

Anyone else that started with MBTI before studying Socionics?

Yes, I would fit into this category. You learn that both of these theories have their usefulness and weaknesses and that they are very similar aside from very important differences. MBTI isn't as bad as a lot of forum members may make it out to be in the forum. However, socionics is superior for two main reasons: It got the functions ordered and placed properly and it contains the inter-type relation theory. Welcome to socionics and the forum marmalade.