Socionics Description: The Best INFP Guide Ever Written

It is hard to just see the conclusions of the research and decide what to believe... we have not done the research therefore don't really understand it too well.

Hello...this is my first post but I've been reading forums like this and about personality types for over a year now.

Anyway, the reason I'm finally posting is because this Socionics vs MBTI argument has been driving me crazy for a long time. I would love someone to prove me wrong, but I actually think Socionics is closer to Jung's original theory (I have his 'Psychological Types' book). Here's why:

• Jung calls the Ni and Si types the 'Introverted Irrational types"
• He makes it clear that these types 'lack judgement'. So this would mean that Ni and Si types are perceivers.
• But in MBTI, these types would be Judging types!

Here is a key description Jung gives of these 'Introverted Irrational Types':

"As their main activity is directed inwards, nothing is outwardly visible but reserve, secretiveness, lack of sympathy, uncertainty, and an apparently groundless embarassment" -sounds very INFP to me.

Depressingly, he also says that these types' "efforts to be forthcoming are, as a matter of fact, of an inferior character". In other words, Jung is saying that other people only see their weaker secondary function (Fe in the case of an INFP).

Oh, and one more thing. If every 'INFP' on this forum took the Socionics test, there would be a split of INFjs and INFps. Doesn't anyone else see that there seems to be two types of people here? The more value oriented people (Fi dominant INFjs), and the more imaginative people (Ni dominant INFps).

I need other people's opinions of this, because as an INFP, I'm typically unsure of any conclusions I come to. Sorry if I haven't explained it well -I don't expect many replies very soon!

no message

Originally Posted by Costello

Hello...this is my first post but I've been reading forums like this and about personality types for over a year now.

Anyway, the reason I'm finally posting is because this Socionics vs MBTI argument has been driving me crazy for a long time. I would love someone to prove me wrong, but I actually think Socionics is closer to Jung's original theory (I have his 'Psychological Types' book). Here's why:

• Jung calls the Ni and Si types the 'Introverted Irrational types"
• He makes it clear that these types 'lack judgement'. So this would mean that Ni and Si types are perceivers.
• But in MBTI, these types would be Judging types!

Here is a key description Jung gives of these 'Introverted Irrational Types':

"As their main activity is directed inwards, nothing is outwardly visible but reserve, secretiveness, lack of sympathy, uncertainty, and an apparently groundless embarassment" -sounds very INFP to me.

Depressingly, he also says that these types' "efforts to be forthcoming are, as a matter of fact, of an inferior character". In other words, Jung is saying that other people only see their weaker secondary function (Fe in the case of an INFP).

Oh, and one more thing. If every 'INFP' on this forum took the Socionics test, there would be a split of INFjs and INFps. Doesn't anyone else see that there seems to be two types of people here? The more value oriented people (Fi dominant INFjs), and the more imaginative people (Ni dominant INFps).

I need other people's opinions of this, because as an INFP, I'm typically unsure of any conclusions I come to. Sorry if I haven't explained it well -I don't expect many replies very soon!

Ni & Si dominants in MBTI are called "judgers" because their extroverted functions are judging (ie. for an INFJ, their auxiliary function is Fe). The face they present to the world is a judging one, so yes, the weaker auxiliary function is how people see them. That's why MBTI has introverted perceiving dominant types called "J" and introverted judging dominants called "P". The J/P determines which function is extroverted, not which is dominant.

Socionics labels them by their dominant function, not their extroverted function, so INFP should equal INFj in Socionics, but it doesn't, because Socionics has deviated from Jungian theory, where MBTI has mostly "built" on it.... Have you read "Gifts Differing" yet? That's the book that started the MBTI system. It explains how the letters relate to the functions and why the system was made the way it is.

Jung's description of Fi describes a person who is also somewhat passive, inexpressive of their complex inner world, and not showing much positive emotion.

Originally Posted by Jung on the Introverted Feeling Type

'Still waters run deep' is very true of such [a person]. They are mostly silent, inaccessible, and hard to understand; often they hide behind a childish or banal mask, and their temperament is inclined to melancholy. They neither shine nor reveal themselves. As they are mainly guided by their subjective feelings, their true motives generally remain hidden.

If this outward aspect is more pronounced, it arouses a suspicion of indifference and coldness....

.....strangers are shown no touch of amiability, no gleam of responding warmth, but are met with apparent indifference or a repelling coldness.

Expression of feeling, therefore, remains niggardly...

Originally Posted by Jung on Fi

[Fi] seldom appears on the surface and is generally misunderstood. It is a feeling which seems to devalue the object, and it therefore manifests itself for the most part negatively. The existence of positive feeling can be inferred only indirectly.

It makes people silent and difficult of access; it shrinks back like a violet from the brute nature of the object in order to fill the depths of the subject. It comes out with negative judgments or assumes an air of profound indifference as a means of defense.

Thanks, I was hoping you would be the replyer -you seem to know a lot about the functions.

I am aware that in MBTI, Judging or Perceiving is determined by the extraverted function. But this is where it seems to differ from Jung's original idea -he makes it pretty clear that Ni & Si dominants are perceivers.

Is this where you're saying that MBTI 'has mostly built on it', and that Jung was originally wrong about typing people by their dominant function alone? Has Myers understood the types better than Jung did?

Originally Posted by OrangeAppled

Jung's description of Fi describes a person who is also somewhat passive, inexpressive of their complex inner world, and not showing much positive emotion.

But could this be a description of an INFJ/ISFJ?

Originally Posted by OrangeAppled

Have you read "Gifts Differing" yet?

I actually just got the book this morning! Hopefully that will organise my mind. I think my main problem is that (as far as I know) I've never met another INFP or an INFJ in my life, so it's hard for me to compare with anyone and work out what functions they use.

Personally I couldn't give F**k less about some tart with a huge fortune.."inclined to marry for money" I would go as far as to say big money makin' might be exactly why I wouldn't marry someone.

Originally Posted by Costello

Thanks, I was hoping you would be the replyer -you seem to know a lot about the functions.

I am aware that in MBTI, Judging or Perceiving is determined by the extraverted function. But this is where it seems to differ from Jung's original idea -he makes it pretty clear that Ni & Si dominants are perceivers.

Is this where you're saying that MBTI 'has mostly built on it', and that Jung was originally wrong about typing people by their dominant function alone? Has Myers understood the types better than Jung did?


But could this be a description of an INFJ/ISFJ?



I actually just got the book this morning! Hopefully that will organise my mind. I think my main problem is that (as far as I know) I've never met another INFP or an INFJ in my life, so it's hard for me to compare with anyone and work out what functions they use.

Ni & Si doms ARE dominant perceivers, as Ni & Si are perceiving functions. In MBTI, IxFJs are given the letter J because of the face they present to the world (the auxiliary function). EVERYONE perceives & judges though, but one function will be preferred & thus be dominant. As said above, MBTI labels based on the extroverted function, not the dominant function, which is why an INFP is a P even though the dominant function is a judging one (Fi). However, it's the definitions of the functions themselves in MBTI that are closer to Jung's prototypes; Socionics seems to create its own definitions. Jung's Fi-dom IS both imaginative and value-oriented, but Socionics seems to reduce Fi to simply being "ethical".

Jung's idea stopped at the dominant functions though - he did not go on to make a system which paired it with an auxiliary function and inferior functions, although he made small comments that implied he believed that people had use of the other functions (and how those functions may be determined). So Jung never made full personality types, but rather created descriptions of a "pure" type who is one function, and of course, no real person amounts to one function. As you read Gifts Differing, you will see how MBTI expounded on Jung's theory and made a typing system, but did not change what his function definitions are. That is why the MBTI INFP is an imaginative person with a strong sense of inner values.

No, I don't think that could be a description of an IxFJ because it is a description of a Fi-dom, so it would apply to an IxFP in MBTI. Since Socionics labeling is different, it may apply to an INFj, since INFj is Fi-dom, but I notice that Socionics seems to define Fi differently than Jung does. That's why mixing MBTI and Socionics is like mixing oil & water .

Originally Posted by OrangeAppled
Jung's idea stopped at the dominant functions though - he did not go on to make a system which paired it with an auxiliary function and inferior functions, although he made small comments that implied he believed that people had use of the other functions (and how those functions may be determined).

The part of the book that explained this was the answer I was looking for, so I'm back to preferring MBTI! Jung's "one function" definitions were what confused me. He typed Ni and Si dominants as perceiving types, but obviously this is because he wasn't taking the other functions into account. Most of the other information in 'Gifts Differing' I already knew, but it does organise my mind.

I would still like to know how INFJs/ISFJs 'perceive' their inner world. It just seems odd to me that someone can be inwardly uncertain but outwardly judging. Wouldn't someone's inner world affect how they act in the outside world?

Originally Posted by Raakakaakao
Personally I couldn't give F**k less about some tart with a huge fortune.."inclined to marry for money" I would go as far as to say big money makin' might be exactly why I wouldn't marry someone.

I agree that this socionics description is ridiculous, but the whole of socionics . com seems wrong. Seems like it's been translated badly from the Russian language.

Originally Posted by thehigher

I really don't see eye to eye with a lot of this. The function order is wack as well. Ni?....yea right.

socionics is a whole other systemmm....

Originally Posted by Costello

The part of the book that explained this was the answer I was looking for, so I'm back to preferring MBTI! Jung's "one function" definitions were what confused me. He typed Ni and Si dominants as perceiving types, but obviously this is because he wasn't taking the other functions into account. Most of the other information in 'Gifts Differing' I already knew, but it does organise my mind.

I would still like to know how INFJs/ISFJs 'perceive' their inner world. It just seems odd to me that someone can be inwardly uncertain but outwardly judging. Wouldn't someone's inner world affect how they act in the outside world?

ok... I quoted the wrong thing... but you mentioned INFP's being split into a fi dominant and Ni dominant groups...
yeah! I think that happens with the INFJ's too because we get into some crazy debates from misscomunication...
I noticed it... and noticed socionics and was like... wwelll hey... this connection makes sense...
so I have thought the same thing. you are not crazy...

I agree that this socionics description is ridiculous, but the whole of socionics . com seems wrong. Seems like it's been translated badly from the Russian language.

also.. yeah... ha ha... I was reading the descriptions and laughed a bit... cause the spelling mistakes were quite funny. but so are my own. lol
I think socionics is more accurate for me.
but hey doing both could help too ya know...
especially if you are not sure about function use.
I am INFp and INFJ
but relate more to socionics version... rather than the semi-psychic INFJ.
and I really REALLY love this description... describes me pretty well.

a lot of INFP/INFj and INFJ/INFj don't like it because of the looks part...
anyway... I thought it was pretty cool.

Originally Posted by GreenCoyote
but hey doing both could help too ya know...especially if you are not sure about function use.

I've taken the socionics test and turn out INFp in that as well, which means I'm Ni dominant in socionics and Fi dominant in MBTI. But I don't think this means much because the functions themselves have different meanings.

Perhaps Socionics is just about how we act, because its main use is for seeing how different types get on with each other. This would lead us to relate to the decription here more, because we can actually see how we act.

MBTI is supposed to measure how our brains function, so I guess this would be harder for them to write more detailed descriptions of. Anyway, I hate how I always have to over-analyse everything!