# Can i be an INFP in MBTI ILI(INTp) in socionics?



## IntrovertHero (Jan 13, 2017)

Hello,

I'am sure of being an Enneagram type 4w5(with huge 5 wing), also i consider myself an INFP in MBTI because i relate alot to the cognitive functions, while however i don't recognise myself at all with the general INFP description. I'am too cynical and misanthropic to relate to the "kind loving hippie" description. Also i have a very high T (i always score INTP in MBTI tests). However i'am sure of not using Ti/Fe. 

The only reason i dont consider myself and INTJ in MBTI is because i'am sure of being a P rather than a J. The "Mastermind" personality is not me at all, as i'am a known procrastinator. 

However everything changes with Socionics where i recognise myself completely in the INTp description and not much with the INFj. I think this could make sense since my T and F are almost at the same level and if you think about it INTJ is the J type of INFP (rather than INTP as many people seems to think, due to cognitive functions). 

I'am the only one who recognise with both INFP MBTI and INTp socionics?


----------



## lifeinterminals (Mar 19, 2018)

Idk, this does still sound like it'd pass for an unhealthy or otherwise compromised EII.


----------



## Judson Joist (Oct 25, 2013)

You could be a "turbulent" INTJ. We have a lot in common with INFPs when it comes to being "emo."


----------



## Ocean Helm (Aug 25, 2016)

Yes, I know one currently in existence. Thus it is possible.

I was even probably ILI when I was INFP. I don't know what else would've fit better.


----------



## Interpretatio Socionica (Aug 14, 2017)

No, you cannot be INFP and ILI. INFP is EII. ILI is INTJ. How can you be two different types?



Ocean Helm said:


> I was even probably ILI when I was INFP. I don't know what else would've fit better.


You believe your type has changed over your lifetime? And you also believe that your MBTI type was different from your Socionics type during that time? I don't know what's worse...


----------



## DavidH (Apr 21, 2017)

IntrovertHero said:


> Hello,
> 
> I'am sure of being an Enneagram type 4w5(with huge 5 wing), also i consider myself an INFP in MBTI because i relate alot to the cognitive functions, while however i don't recognise myself at all with the general INFP description. I'am too cynical and misanthropic to relate to the "kind loving hippie" description. Also i have a very high T (i always score INTP in MBTI tests). However i'am sure of not using Ti/Fe.
> 
> ...


That means you're an INTP in MBTI. If you identify with the INTP dichotomies by testing, and you identify with the INTP descriptions, then you're an INTP.

The functions aspect of MBTI is called "MBTI Type Dynamics." Type dynamics is one possible explanation for the underlying structures for the existence of the MBTI types. They are not the only possible explanation. They are not widely used, and they are largely discredited by empirical testing.

That aside, you are capable of being any MBTI type and Socionics type combination.


----------



## DavidH (Apr 21, 2017)

Interpretatio Socionica said:


> No, you cannot be INFP and ILI. INFP is EII. ILI is INTJ. How can you be two different types?
> 
> You believe your type has changed over your lifetime? And you also believe that your MBTI type was different from your Socionics type during that time? I don't know what's worse...


Everything you state is completely wrong.


----------



## Sylas (Jul 23, 2016)

DavidH said:


> That aside, you are capable of being any MBTI type and Socionics type combination.


Of course, you can be INFP 4 in MBTI and SLE (ESTp) 8 in Socionics. The sky is the limit.

In reality no, you cannot be any MBTI and Socionics combination. That's wishful thinking speaking to your ego. 


@IntrovertHero if you go back to the foundations of MBTI and Socionics types, which are cognitive function, you see that the functions for INFP and ILI are somewhat different. 

INFP is [Fi,Ne,Si,Te]
ILI is [Ni,Te,Fi,Se]

So by typing as INFP and ILI you're typing yourself as both Fi-dominant and Ni-dominant at the same time. While some try to argue that Socionics and MBTI don't define functions in the same way, intuition is still intution in both typologies. Socionics does not change intuition into feeling and MBTI does not describe feeling as intuition. Thus, it is an impossibility to be both Fi-dom and Ni-lead at the same time. IE there is somewhere where you took a wrong turn in your typing process.


----------



## Ocean Helm (Aug 25, 2016)

Sylas said:


> Of course, you can be INFP 4 in MBTI and SLE (ESTp) 8 in Socionics. The sky is the limit.


Why even bring Enneagram types into this? Just makes your argument look intellectually dishonest.


> In reality no, you cannot be any MBTI and Socionics combination. That's wishful thinking speaking to your ego.


You say "in reality", and then you...


> @IntrovertHero if you go back to the foundations of MBTI and Socionics types, which are cognitive function, you see that the functions for INFP and ILI are somewhat different.


...go straight to The Functions, with which no "reality" link has been ever demonstrated...


> INFP is [Fi,Ne,Si,Te]
> ILI is [Ni,Te,Fi,Se]


...equate MBTI with a Harold Grant stack, and try to turn Socionics into a Harold Grant stack...


> So by typing as INFP and ILI you're typing yourself as both Fi-dominant and Ni-dominant at the same time. While some try to argue that Socionics and MBTI don't define functions in the same way, intuition is still intution in both typologies. Socionics does not change intuition into feeling and MBTI does not describe feeling as intuition. Thus, it is an impossibility to be both Fi-dom and Ni-lead at the same time. IE there is somewhere where you took a wrong turn in your typing process.


...and then draw an equivalence between MBTI functions and Socionics information elements, and use that as a premise for saying it's an *impossibility*.

With all this pretzel logic, you still have the confidence to tell someone that they took a wrong turn in their typing process. Well, damn.


----------



## Sylas (Jul 23, 2016)

Ocean Helm said:


> Why even bring Enneagram types into this? Just makes your argument look intellectually dishonest.


Don't try to deflect the attention from your own dishonesty and mislead the newbies. An EII in Socionics is never an ESTP in MBTI. It is no matter how many lies, how much posturing, and how much misinformation you spread. A Fi-Ne type will never be Se-Ti, not matter how much you try to twist the theory and misinform the new posters on this forum.



Ocean Helm said:


> *You say "in reality", and then you...
> ...go straight to The Functions*, with which no "reality" link has been ever demonstrated...
> ...equate MBTI with a Harold Grant stack, and try to turn Socionics into a Harold Grant stack...


Both Katherine Myers and Islabel Briggs have based their description of MBTI types on Carl Jung's work about the functions, as has the founder of socionics, Aušra Augustinavičiūtė.

It is really a mystery for why would you lie so much and pretend like C.G.Jung's psychological functions have nothing to do with the type profiles. 



Ocean Helm said:


> ...and then draw an equivalence between MBTI functions and Socionics information elements, and use that as a premise for saying it's an *impossibility*.
> 
> With all this pretzel logic, you still have the confidence to tell someone that they took a wrong turn in their typing process. Well, damn.


It's because I know what I'm talking about, which by your meandering haphazard replies makes you sound all that little confused and bloated lol


----------



## Ocean Helm (Aug 25, 2016)

Sylas said:


> Don't try to deflect the attention from your own dishonesty and mislead the newbies. An EII in Socionics is never an ESTP in MBTI.


Maybe? I find it hard to imagine too, but I can imagine a hypothetical where someone is just a tad to each side of every midpoint on different type characteristics. Like 51% E, 51% S, 51% T, 51% P - could it be here where we find the black swan ESTP EII?

But why are we even moving the goalposts here anyway? We were talking about INFP ILIs, not ESTP EIIs. Bringing two different Enneagrams into it really brought goalpost-shifting into the absurd, where 4 is literally different from 8.


> It is no matter how many lies, how much posturing, and how much misinformation you spread. A Fi-Ne type will never be Se-Ti, not matter how much you try to twist the theory and misinform the new posters on this forum.


Huh? If you want to actually address my supposed "lies" and "misinformation", you are free to do so, instead of moving the goalposts and beating up on straw men.

"Fi-Ne" is a really poor way to represent EII in Socionics anyway, and really only something I've seen newbies do.


> Both Katherine Myers and Islabel Briggs have based their description of MBTI types on Carl Jung's work about the functions, as has the founder of socionics, Aušra Augustinavičiūtė.


Regardless of its basis, people are assigned MBTI types purely based on The Letters, not The Functions, either by test or with the help of a Certified MBTI Professional. So if you "are" ESTP in MBTI, it means that you are E, S, T, and P: not necessarily even matching Myers' function definitions tailored to fit the letters. But in both MBTI and Socionics, The Functions have changed in meaning, away from their Jungian roots. This is especially true in MBTI which prioritized the empirical letters and forced the function model into obedience.


> It is really a mystery for why would you lie so much and pretend like C.G.Jung's psychological functions have nothing to do with the type profiles.


If you want some fiction, look at your posts accusing me of lying, not my own. "Nothing to do with the type profiles"? Huh? This is not like anything I've ever said. Your poor straw man is getting quite battered here. :crying:


> It's because I know what I'm talking about, which by your meandering haphazard replies makes you sound all that little confused and bloated lol


You've used a lot of words to insult my replies, but rather than address the implied faults with my post, you instead went into straw man-beating mode, aiming at goalposts you wheeled into another country and lobbing ad hominems.


----------



## Interpretatio Socionica (Aug 14, 2017)

Ocean Helm said:


> ...equate MBTI with a Harold Grant stack, and try to turn Socionics into a Harold Grant stack...


The MBTI stack _is_ the Harold Grant stack. There is no distinction.

As for Socionics, you have to keep in mind that Model A does not portray the functions in order of strength. If you rearranged them in order of strength it would be the same as the MBTI stack.


----------



## lifeinterminals (Mar 19, 2018)

Interpretatio Socionica said:


> The MBTI stack _is_ the Harold Grant stack. There is no distinction.
> 
> As for Socionics, you have to keep in mind that Model A does not portray the functions in order of strength. If you rearranged them in order of strength it would be the same as the MBTI stack.


IIRC, Myers posited that everything other than the dominant was in the opposite attitude. IEEE or EIII. The alternating scheme was definitely Grant et al., but I'm not sure how that grew to prominence.


----------



## Ocean Helm (Aug 25, 2016)

Interpretatio Socionica said:


> As for Socionics, you have to keep in mind that Model A does not portray the functions in order of strength. If you rearranged them in order of strength it would be the same as the MBTI stack.


I think you mean if you rearranged the *valued* ones in order of strength it'd be the same as the Grant stack. But there's unvalued ones that interrupt the order.


----------



## Interpretatio Socionica (Aug 14, 2017)

Ocean Helm said:


> I think you mean if you rearranged the *valued* ones in order of strength it'd be the same as the Grant stack. But there's unvalued ones that interrupt the order.


The unvalued ones would go after the valued ones, which is consistent with the MBTI stack.


----------



## lifeinterminals (Mar 19, 2018)

Interpretatio Socionica said:


> The unvalued ones would go after the valued ones, which is consistent with the MBTI stack.


The MBTI stack and the Grant Stack aren't the same.

For example:

*INTP*

MBTI - Ti-Ne-Se-Fe
Grant - Ti-Ne-Si-Fe

It's a common misconception, though! *shakes fist at tertiary*

You could go into primary sources at your own leisure, but this is a bit of context:
https://www.truity.com/blog/personality-type-theory-nobody-can-agree-part-i


----------



## DavidH (Apr 21, 2017)

Sylas said:


> Of course, you can be INFP 4 in MBTI and SLE (ESTp) 8 in Socionics. The sky is the limit.
> 
> In reality no, you cannot be any MBTI and Socionics combination. That's wishful thinking speaking to your ego.
> 
> ...


The foundation of MBTI is a dichotomous preference test, not cognitive functions.


----------



## DavidH (Apr 21, 2017)

@Ocean Helm

Maybe skip the forums back-and-forth for a while, and just consider the actual information. For some reason, the forums got into some strange "hey lets all imagine a new system and then endlessly rationalize our own views versus others" at some point. MBTI is just an interpersonal tool to help describe how different people prefer things to be. People take it and sometimes you're like, haha yeah that does seem like you, and other times you're like wow I didn't know you felt that way and I should be more respectful and observent of your views and attitudes, and that's all there is to it. Socionics lays out your various strengths and weaknesses in different situations as far as how naturally gifted you are at various aspects of life. Sometimes that means you have a tougher time than some people at some things, and sometimes it means you have an easier time with other things. It is in now way shape or fashion, nor MBTI, designed to dictate who you can or cannot be, the things you can or cannot achieve, and the people you can or cannot love. All those things exist within each individual and that individual alone, and each individual has their own inalienable right to pursue happiness in respect of the same rights of others to whatever ends they wish to be and whatever things they wish to be a part of them. Just take a step back, view both systems through both the respect of your own individuality, the respect of others individuality, and things should fall into place.


----------



## Sylas (Jul 23, 2016)

DavidH said:


> The foundation of MBTI is a dichotomous preference test, not cognitive functions.


Cognitive functions ARE representations of dichotomies. 

Saying that you're Ti dominant is no different from saying that you has first preference for T on T-F dichotomy and 'i' introversion on E-I dichotomy. This information is abbreviated by saying your dominant cognitive function is Ti.


----------



## Conscience Killer (Sep 4, 2017)

Sylas said:


> Cognitive functions ARE representations of dichotomies.
> 
> Saying that you're Ti dominant is no different from saying that you has first preference for T on T-F dichotomy and 'i' introversion on E-I dichotomy. This information is abbreviated by saying your dominant cognitive function is Ti.


 Ugh _thank you._ It is not possible to derive cognitive functions _from the dichotomy test_ but _each dichotomy result is tied to a specific set of cognitive functions_. Just because they're not interchangeable doesn't make it false. If you only take the dichotomy test and get ISTP, you can't be sure of your cognitive functions. But if you are sure you are Ti+Se, you can be sure you're an ISTP.


----------



## Ocean Helm (Aug 25, 2016)

Conscience Killer said:


> Ugh _thank you._ It is not possible to derive cognitive functions _from the dichotomy test_ but _each dichotomy result is tied to a specific set of cognitive functions_. Just because they're not interchangeable doesn't make it false. If you only take the dichotomy test and get ISTP, you can't be sure of your cognitive functions. But if you are sure you are Ti+Se, you can be sure you're an ISTP.


This is anti-MBTI: using The Functions as an input into the process which determines your type. I honestly don't know why people are so insistent on redefining what the MBTI type codes are to something else outside of MBTI. I don't know why not just use a new coding system, like "Ti-Se". Now there's no confusion.


----------



## wizexi (Mar 2, 2021)

IntrovertHero said:


> Hello,
> 
> I'am sure of being an Enneagram type 4w5(with huge 5 wing), also i consider myself an INFP in MBTI because i relate alot to the cognitive functions, while however i don't recognise myself at all with the general INFP description. I'am too cynical and misanthropic to relate to the "kind loving hippie" description. Also i have a very high T (i always score INTP in MBTI tests). However i'am sure of not using Ti/Fe.
> 
> ...


I have the same situation here. Im INFP in MBTI with high percentage of T (%49) and INTp in Socionics and 4w5 in enneagram.


----------



## Electra (Oct 24, 2014)

IntrovertHero said:


> Hello,
> 
> I'am sure of being an Enneagram type 4w5(with huge 5 wing), also i consider myself an INFP in MBTI because i relate alot to the cognitive functions, while however i don't recognise myself at all with the general INFP description. I'am too cynical and misanthropic to relate to the "kind loving hippie" description. Also i have a very high T (i always score INTP in MBTI tests). However i'am sure of not using Ti/Fe.
> 
> ...


I don't know because tbh I don't agree with socionics. I consider to remove it from my profile.


----------



## 1.048596 (Jan 7, 2022)

INFP ILI is possible, Ni in socionics has some aspects of MBTI Fi.


----------



## dw614 (10 mo ago)

Of course you can. If you join the introvert j/p switch idiots (that believe, say, MBTI ISTJ must be SLI) then you have to experience the greatest possible cognitive dissonance known to man which is saying with a straight face that Javert from Les Miserables is either an MBTI ISTP OR that he's a socionics SLI and doing so after you have read Jung's Psychological Types book AND tons of MBTI AND socionics material.


----------



## paradox_conqueror (Jun 19, 2021)

IntrovertHero said:


> Hello,
> 
> I'am sure of being an Enneagram type 4w5(with huge 5 wing), also i consider myself an INFP in MBTI because i relate alot to the cognitive functions, while however i don't recognise myself at all with the general INFP description. I'am too cynical and misanthropic to relate to the "kind loving hippie" description. Also i have a very high T (i always score INTP in MBTI tests). However i'am sure of not using Ti/Fe.
> 
> ...


It is possible, but INTps have feeling as their weakest function. The fact that you identify with your feeling function would therefore be odd if you are INTp. Maybe you have Fi-Hidden Agenda?


----------



## paradox_conqueror (Jun 19, 2021)

paradox_conqueror said:


> It is possible, but INTps have feeling as their weakest function. The fact that you identify with your feeling function would therefore be odd if you are INTp. Maybe you have Fi-Hidden Agenda?


Another argument: how about INFp as your type? They share the same leading function, but are a feeling type...


----------



## IntrovertHero (Jan 13, 2017)

paradox_conqueror said:


> It is possible, but INTps have feeling as their weakest function. The fact that you identify with your feeling function would therefore be odd if you are INTp. Maybe you have Fi-Hidden Agenda?


Thanks but now i found i'am an INFP and EII in socionics. I'am for sure don't relate to Fe in neither and use Ne and Fi.


----------

