# I relate to INTp in socionics and INTP in MBTI....



## FlightsOfFancy (Dec 30, 2012)

lycanized said:


> Actually, though. mbti is less superficial than that, I mean if you give it the energy


it really is, but the common places that interpret it normally do not give it the depth it deserves. I am not sure if it's the theory or the people, so I won't stomp so hard in my critique.


----------



## cyamitide (Jul 8, 2010)

Blissful Melancholy said:


> Except Ti-Dominant in MBTI is labeled Perceiving..And INTp is Irrational...So there is only contradiction function-wise. The systems just mix this up for some reason.The INTP profile doesn't seem to care that Ti is a judging function and really insists on the ''laid-back'' nature of the INTP or whatever.


Except that MBTI doesn't label INTP as perceiving because of its Ti-dominance but because it is Ne auxiliary, since MBTI describes introverted types from point of view of their auxiliary function unlike Socionics. INTP is still a *dominant judging* Ti-type despite having auxiliary perceiving Ne function.

There have been many discussion on INTP and INTJ forums about how INTPs are much more structured than INTJs in their thinking because _on the inside_ they are judgers.



Blissful Melancholy said:


> What I mean to say is that I identify myself as perceiving and irrational in your descriptions (they seem quite compatible, no?), hence the confusion. I guess I can just say I am an INTJ in MBTI and just ignore their description.


Every type has judging and perceiving features, so you have to figure out which ones belong to your 1st functions and which are a consequence of your 2nd function.

For example, INTP (Ti-Ne) is introverted judger but extraverted perceiver.
While INTJ (Ni-Te) is introverted perceiver but extraverted judger.

Any type has both features. What you need to do is figure out _the e/i orientation of your judging and perceiving_. It may very well be that you are Ni-INTJ with heightened irrationality who is confusing your strong Ni dominance for being a perceiving type.


----------



## Psithurism (Jun 19, 2013)

cyamitide said:


> It may very well be that you are Ni-INTJ with heightened irrationality who is confusing your strong Ni dominance for being a perceiving type.


This could be the case. Quite peculiar though.


----------



## liminalthought (Feb 25, 2012)

Blissful Melancholy said:


> I used to ''manipulate'' people for fun when I was younger (never with evil intent though). I had an easy time figuring out how to make people react a certain way (positively or negatively) and still do pretty much. This made me be seen either as a provocative or charming person.
> 
> 
> I actually thought before of being a psychotherapist (or just helping people in general) also for this reason. I am good at making people feel comfortable when I want to. It is overall a useful tool to have as well.


You have to be ILI.


----------



## cyamitide (Jul 8, 2010)

liminalthought said:


> You have to be ILI.
> ILI-Ni


He doesn't have to be anything.
He needs to explore typology on his own.


----------



## liminalthought (Feb 25, 2012)

cyamitide said:


> He doesn't have to be anything.
> He needs to explore typology on his own.


True. That would be the takeaway lesson from this thread.


----------



## Vaka (Feb 26, 2010)

cyamitide said:


> Except that MBTI doesn't label INTP as perceiving because of its Ti-dominance but because it is Ne auxiliary


Actually, the jungian functions Ne, Se, Ti, and Fi are put into the P category for being right brained and Ni, Si, Te, and Fe put into the J category for being left brained. These two systems are different man


----------



## cyamitide (Jul 8, 2010)

lycanized said:


> Actually, the jungian functions Ne, Se,* Ti, and Fi are put into the P category* for being right brained and Ni, Si, Te, and Fe put into the J category for being left brained. These two systems are different man


No, T and F functions are "put into J category" and considered to be Judging functions.
Right/left brain has nothing to do with it.


Introduction to MBTI: MBTI Personality Types
Two Kinds of Functions
Sensing (S) and Intuition (N) are considered Perceiving Functions. They are two contrasting ways of taking in information. *Thinking (T) and Feeling (F) are considered Judging Functions*. They are two contrasting ways of making decisions.


Wikipedia: Myers-Briggs Type Indicator - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jung identified two pairs of psychological functions:
- The two perceiving functions, sensing and intuition
- *The two judging functions, thinking and feeling*


----------



## Vaka (Feb 26, 2010)

cyamitide said:


> No, T and F functions are "put into J category" and considered to be Judging functions.
> Right/left brain has nothing to do with it.
> 
> 
> ...


What I'm trying to get across to you is that the way a JiPe mind words in mbti/jungian theory is not gonna translate always to rational types in socionics. The way socionics looks at it is different. Different concepts. And I'm sure that's not the only place it applies. I'm kind of stuck, though. I really don't know how to get it across, I just think this will confuse the op, and it really doesn't need to. I don't fit into any systems perfectly, but I'm some INxP and IEI


----------



## liminalthought (Feb 25, 2012)

lycanized said:


> What I'm trying to get across to you is that the way a JiPe mind words in mbti/jungian theory is not gonna translate always to rational types in socionics. The way socionics looks at it is different. Different concepts. And I'm sure that's not the only place it applies. I'm kind of stuck, though. I really don't know how to get it across, I just think this will confuse the op, and it really doesn't need to. I don't fit into any systems perfectly, but I'm some INxP and IEI


-If you could say which mind words
-if you could say how socionics looks at it different, which different concepts

I would like to know what you're trying to get across, so we can have a target. Cyamitide will follow through with the facts.

(remember our pm's? I still stick with EII as your typing, for my record at least)


----------



## Vaka (Feb 26, 2010)

liminalthought said:


> -If you could say which mind words
> -if you could say how socionics looks at it different, which different concepts
> 
> I would like to know what you're trying to get across, so we can have a target.


Admittedly, still trying to understand socionics, I've just realized it has a different emphasis to where it's sometimes futile to try and have the types correlate because there's just a different focus, delving into different facets. For one, I was talking about in response to Ananael that relationship between Ji, Ne, and Si the INP can have. INPs use their Ne for exploration of their inner world, abstraction, conception. The default state for the INP is to explore and delve into their personalized worlds. Less Jish and more Pish. But socionics puts and emphasis on something different...the judgment. For a lot of INPs, the "judgment" is more of a world, it's how they see things, but they are not just Ji based creatures, they are Ne creatures, Ne is crucial, they need to explore because the Si world is still a weakness. I know some go into a different state where they're completely resistant to anything outside of their own viewpoint, but that's not most. There's a reason they are Ps, they tend to be more imaginative and spontaneous, more openended, not much into planning, very inert and self identified as lazy. Some INPs might even have the intuition completely permeate their world. This creates someone who can even less be called structure-minded

It's a difference in what the two systems emphasize, so an irrational type doesn't have to be Pe or Pi dominant in mbti. It's a different way of looking at them. It's variable. All the little facts cyamitide keeps mentioning are kind of missing the point, that there's a difference of ideas in the systems and that they don't have to correlate


> (remember our pm's? I still stick with EII as your typing, for my record at least)


And yeah, you just never really commented on my thread. I read some EII articles,though. I can't see it atm


----------



## Vaka (Feb 26, 2010)

@liminalthought
I don't fit like a glove into this system, I just fit this type better than any other


----------



## Sol_ (Jan 8, 2013)

Blissful Melancholy said:


> Considering they both use different functions.


INTP is same type in MBT and Socionics with same functions. MBT's function model of introverted types controverts to Jung and is wrong.


----------



## Entropic (Jun 15, 2012)

FlightsOfFancy said:


> I'd say the INTJ of MBTI is actually more how ENTJs would be. ENTJs are described as uber-social in the MBTI, when I have not found this to be the case. Sure, they tend to me more social than extroverts--but they have a very clear idea on why they are social, and it isn't always for energy from the crowd as much as to enact some goal (not to say they cannot be friendly--another stereotype of Te).


I suppose if we consider subtypes, the MBTI INTJ description fits ILI-Te decently if you read the ones uploaded on Wikisocion recently since MBTI INTJ descriptions still seem to emphasize that INTJs are introverts, but then they do go on and over-emphasize the role of Te, and furthermore also makes some weird claims regarding leadership ability which goes very against the idea of Ni base in socionics since all introverts are seen as very inert and thus suffer from lack of action. I honestly don't know where that stereotype comes from even. I suppose that an INTJ as in, NiTe, don't mind leading, structuring and organizing systems or groups of people (I have done it myself), but it is definitely not something I personally desire to do. I leave that for the Je doms. So one could equally argue that the MBTI INTJ description could also fit LIE-Ni as it does ILI-Te. LIE-Nis are often much more introverted. 

Also, Fe suggestive tends to give a bit more outgoing and social character from what I've observed. LxEs tend to appear friendly but more in this salesman manner whereas in the xLI with Fe vulnerable, this is much more subdued.


----------



## Entropic (Jun 15, 2012)

lycanized said:


> I meant ask them how many of them relate to those traits. Most INPs self identify with P traits, not J


See, this is why I scored INTP on MBTI tests. It makes perfect sense because in MBTI, the type descriptions over-emphasize the first extroverted function for all types. For INTPs it's Ne. If one would only judge my MBTI type based on P/J rather than function preference, then I'm a P, clearly. And this is why socionics does it better because in socionics it actually lines up - Ni doms are described as not very structured. 


> This is where socionics seems limited so far. They are effectively irrational so much so that they would be an irrational type in socionics because socionics from what I've seen doesn't account for the relationship between functions like that. The only way they are judgment I is that they are deeply involved in their own little world and explore it with their Ne


I have to sorely disagree here. I think if anything, what socionics really places emphasis on is actually how functions and their respective IEs interact. Not just in intertype, but how it formulates your psyche. And if you toss in the various subtype theories and the information metabolism flow, you have a very complex system that actually explains this quite elaborately, especially compared to the MBTI that doesn't even consider this is any greater detail at all. I have yet to read something on this, anyway.



lycanized said:


> Actually, the jungian functions Ne, Se, Ti, and Fi are put into the P category for being right brained and Ni, Si, Te, and Fe put into the J category for being left brained. These two systems are different man


Yes, this is Lenore Thomson's idea and is completely unfounded in my opinion, and she's also the only MBTI theorist who thinks this way. She was trying to draw parallels because there was some cognitive science suggesting that people who are right-brained fit what she probably thought was the P stereotype and those with preference towards left-brain activities fit J, so therefore all P types in MBTI were thus labeled right-brained and all J types left-brained, though if we go by Nardi's studies, this entirely contradicts Thomson's theory because according to Nardi, the Ni dom is extremely right-brained, Ne doms seem to not really prefer any portion of the brain at all due to their Christmas tree pattern cognition and so on. 



lycanized said:


> Admittedly, still trying to understand socionics, I've just realized it has a different emphasis to where it's sometimes futile to try and have the types correlate because there's just a different focus, delving into different facets. For one, I was talking about in response to Ananael that relationship between Ji, Ne, and Si the INP can have. INPs use their Ne for exploration of their inner world, abstraction, conception. The default state for the INP is to explore and delve into their personalized worlds. Less Jish and more Pish. But socionics puts and emphasis on something different...the judgment. For a lot of INPs, the "judgment" is more of a world, it's how they see things, but they are not just Ji based creatures, they are Ne creatures, Ne is crucial, they need to explore because the Si world is still a weakness. I know some go into a different state where they're completely resistant to anything outside of their own viewpoint, but that's not most. There's a reason they are Ps, they tend to be more imaginative and spontaneous, more openended, not much into planning, very inert and self identified as lazy. Some INPs might even have the intuition completely permeate their world. This creates someone who can even less be called structure-minded
> 
> It's a difference in what the two systems emphasize, so an irrational type doesn't have to be Pe or Pi dominant in mbti. It's a different way of looking at them. It's variable. All the little facts cyamitide keeps mentioning are kind of missing the point, that there's a difference of ideas in the systems and that they don't have to correlate


I think the problem here is that you get hung up on what the letter P represents in terms of behavior, but you aren't looking at it from a strict function perspective. What you describe here is a very good example of irrational thought patterns, not that of judgement. Since you think you are an MBTI INTP you think that this is what the MBTI label also represents since you identify as one, but that's not necessarily true. If I am going to be crass, what I really get a sense of here is that you are attempting to justify why you type as an INTP in the MBTI by placing such great emphasis on the P letter.

I agree with @cyamitide and I think she's right to place emphasis on how Ji doms are ultimately judgers, and how they need to rationally categorize their inner world. This blob of just experiencing things you described in the above, that's typical of how irrational types operate, it's the cause of perception. Leading with perception would thus mean you would score the letter P in MBTI because I do too usually, for the same reasons, but the problem is that the letter P poorly represents the function theory MBTI attempts to depict. 

See the examples I provided in the above how the Ni dom in Nardi's studies almost entirely relies on right-brain activity, which contradicts what you've part been claiming here.

There are several Ji doms here I think would disagree with how you experience the world, such as RosoDude or ThatOneWeirdGuy. I mean, they both identify being Ti types so if you want an honest account of Ti dominance, you should go ask if they actually relate to what you are describing here. They also type as Ti in both systems for the same reasons cyamitide outlined earlier. Just like how I type as Ni dom in both systems even though the INTJ description doesn't fit me that well and the INTP description fits me better. But I am not an INTP because I do not think like one. I do not prefer the functions of the INTP. 

So ultimately, it becomes a matter of how you want to type yourself. Do you want to type strictly by function preference or more by the letter code that represents the type?


----------



## Vaka (Feb 26, 2010)

ephemereality said:


> There are several Ji doms here I think would disagree with how you experience the world, such as RosoDude or ThatOneWeirdGuy. I mean, they both identify being Ti types so if you want an honest account of Ti dominance, you should go ask if they actually relate to what you are describing here. They also type as Ti in both systems for the same reasons cyamitide outlined earlier. Just like how I type as Ni dom in both systems even though the INTJ description doesn't fit me that well and the INTP description fits me better. But I am not an INTP because I do not think like one. I do not prefer the functions of the INTP.


My inner world description? That's what it can be. Plus, apparently they are actually LII, that makes a difference. Not every INTP is LII. The LII descript was definitely off for me, that's for sure



> I think the problem here is that you get hung up on what the letter P represents in terms of behavior, but you aren't looking at it from a strict function perspective. What you describe here is a very good example of irrational thought patterns, not that of judgement. Since you think you are an MBTI INTP you think that this is what the MBTI label also represents since you identify as one, but that's not necessarily true. If I am going to be crass, what I really get a sense of here is that you are attempting to justify why you type as an INTP in the MBTI by placing such great emphasis on the P letter.


I just wrote yesterday I find a lot INTPs boring, I don't care to be one. I rarely post in the INTP section because of that. Whether this is because I'm not one or the fact I probably have loads of 4 in me, I don't know right now. I'm actually trying to explain why the systems are different and why a judgment type isn't necessarily gonna be rational. It varies by person. Some will be, some won't. But it's not about external characteristics, which is what cyamitide wrote, actually. External characteristics. This is what I don't see socionics accounting for...some intuitive seconds are heavily intuitive because it's not so locked into one position. It's not that it's second, it's that it has a different 'place'. It's not that they're less intuitive(or irrational), it's that their intuition is used a different way. This is a difference. And this is all just my thoughts, not a justification. It probably makes little sense to people who are more into socionics than mbti, but that doesn't matter...it's just a manifestation of what I'm talking about. Different systems use different eyes and angles, other wise it wouldn't have been made into a different system. If so desired, one could just be rejected


----------



## Psithurism (Jun 19, 2013)

ephemereality said:


> So ultimately, it becomes a matter of how you want to type yourself. Do you want to type strictly by function preference or more by the letter code that represents the type?


Function preference of course. Isn't Jung the source of this all anyways?


----------



## Entropic (Jun 15, 2012)

lycanized said:


> My inner world description? That's what it can be. Plus, apparently they are actually LII, that makes a difference. Not every INTP is LII. The LII descript was definitely off for me, that's for sure


Yes, but then what is INTP to you? Is the cognitive preference of Ti with Ne where Ti, and I emphasize this, _is the dominant function_, or is it the letter code of I, N, T and P? You seem to be more of the former idea. I don't discredit that, but then you understand MBTI very differently to how we (cyamitide, I, RosoDude at least) understand the MBTI where we think each letter represents a specific function and function attitude, thus resulting in that an INTP is a person whose cognition is Ti Ne Si Fe, which correlates well to what you see in socionics too. 



> I just wrote yesterday I find a lot INTPs boring, I don't care to be one. I rarely post in the INTP section because of that. Whether this is because I'm not one or the fact I probably have loads of 4 in me, I don't know right now. I'm actually trying to explain why the systems are different and why a judgment type isn't necessarily gonna be rational.


How can you describe how the systems are different when you have admitted that you don't understand one of them that well?



> It varies by person. Some will be, some won't. But it's not about external characteristics, which is what cyamitide wrote, actually.


What cyamitide was trying to explain was how the external characteristics overlap in how they actually understand the internal characteristics. This is why she emphasized that an INTP can seem externally messy because this is what the INTP description emphasizes, placing more importance on the appearance of Ne than it does Ti, but the cognition of an INTP will always first of all be about Ti, being an Ti dominant type. 



> External characteristics. This is what I don't see socionics accounting for...some intuitive seconds are heavily intuitive because it's not so locked into one position. It's not that it's second, it's that it has a different 'place'. It's not that they're less intuitive(or irrational), it's that their intuition is used a different way. This is a difference. And this is all just my thoughts, not a justification.


Yes, this is definitely your own personal understanding of MBTI that you are expressing here, that doesn't necessarily correlate with any official writings on the matter that I have encountered anyway. Though what you will understand, especially if you study socionics, is that when the intuition has a different place (different function in Model A), it will also take a different character. MBTI tries to explain this to a degree with auxiliary, tertiary and inferior, though the relationships between functions is still not as heavily expanded upon as it is in Model A. 

So in Model A, you will for instance see that when a type has intuition as their creative function e.g. an LII, even if they are Ne subtype, they can appear very Ne in life and perhaps even be mistaken for an Ne dom, and they can strongly identify with Ne in their cognition, but ultimately it doesn't matter because Ti is dominant. Ti is what rules their psyche. There is a stark difference between intuition base and rational base, and this is something I find to be true in the MBTI as well, because what I look for is what cognition people prefer. Then you find that no matter how intuitive the INTP seems to be, it is still Ti that is the first go-to function the INTP relies on when making sense of the world, both inner and outer. This is why they are INTPs or Ti doms. 



> It probably makes little sense to people who are more into socionics than mbti, but that doesn't matter...it's just a manifestation of what I'm talking about. Different systems use different eyes and angles, other wise it wouldn't have been made into a different system. If so desired, one could just be rejected


Of course, and it proves how different types when attempting to understand the same phenomenon also arrive at somewhat different results although the base phenomenon studied is the same. As to why people may prefer socionics, I can only speak for myself but I prefer it because it is simply the better system. It is better defined and allows for more tools to understand cognition and it covers a lot of areas that the MBTI just isn't concerned itself with unless you also consider Keirsey a part of the MBTI.


----------



## Entropic (Jun 15, 2012)

Blissful Melancholy said:


> Function preference of course. Isn't Jung the source of this all anyways?


Agreed in a sense, though this question was aimed at lycanized and not you. The reason why I asked is because I find that her understanding of MBTI type isn't entirely based on the Jungian functions but more on the letter code.


----------



## Vaka (Feb 26, 2010)

ephemereality said:


> Yes, but then what is INTP to you? Is the cognitive preference of Ti with Ne where Ti, and I emphasize this, _is the dominant function_, or is it the letter code of I, N, T and P? You seem to be more of the former idea. I don't discredit that, but then you understand MBTI very differently to how we (cyamitide, I, RosoDude at least) understand the MBTI where we think each letter represents a specific function and function attitude, thus resulting in that an INTP is a person whose cognition is Ti Ne Si Fe, which correlates well to what you see in socionics too.


It's the former, it's just that socionics ideas are different and...



> How can you describe how the systems are different when you have admitted that you don't understand one of them that well`


I'm going pretty much based on what I've read in peoples' posts around here about socionics and how it works. What rational and irrational are. My mind has been described as irrational before, and I suppose it is. But the understanding of Ti>Ne is different when you bring mbti in. Some INTPs/INFPs are more on the irrational side because of the different relationship between functions



> What cyamitide was trying to explain was how the external characteristics overlap in how they actually understand the internal characteristics. This is why she emphasized that an INTP can seem externally messy because this is what the INTP description emphasizes, placing more importance on the appearance of Ne than it does Ti, but the cognition of an INTP will always first of all be about Ti, being an Ti dominant type.


Even less contradictory actually



> Yes, this is definitely your own personal understanding of MBTI that you are expressing here, that doesn't necessarily correlate with any official writings on the matter that I have encountered anyway. Though what you will understand, especially if you study socionics, is that when the intuition has a different place (different function in Model A), it will also take a different character. MBTI tries to explain this to a degree with auxiliary, tertiary and inferior, though the relationships between functions is still not as heavily expanded upon as it is in Model A.


Most articles don't really go into much depth...Most of the wonderful stuff comes from people around forums, that's one thing that makes it more user friendly at first. They are separate systems, though. This is what I'm saying. Some people reject it, like Promethea, which I can understand...but understanding one is not understanding the other, so combining is confusing




> Of course, and it proves how different types when attempting to understand the same phenomenon also arrive at somewhat different results although the base phenomenon studied is the same. As to why people may prefer socionics, I can only speak for myself but I prefer it because it is simply the better system. It is better defined and allows for more tools to understand cognition and it covers a lot of areas that the MBTI just isn't concerned itself with unless you also consider Keirsey a part of the MBTI.


Rejecting it makes sense. it's just combining them is pretty worthless because it actually makes little sense to people who are into mbti. And I get the idea a lot of people around here are not into mbti


----------



## Psithurism (Jun 19, 2013)

ephemereality said:


> Study how you and lycanized are reasoning and then compare to how I reason. You will see similarities but also differences, but your thinking is more similar to each other than it is similar to mine. Same vibe.


Perhaps. Although it's hard to say with just that. I just never related to Fe much.

That being said, I will take your observation into account. One's own self-analysis is not optimal. Especially because one must be aligned with the theory to be able to not make faulty personal assumptions about themselves.


----------



## Vaka (Feb 26, 2010)

ephemereality said:


> Why cannot Ni be holistic? I too experience myself as a big picture thinker and it was recently pointed out to me that I often think in a generalized rather than particular way. I for a long time identified with Ne for this reason, not realize how faulty that was. Listening to people's self-perception can be interesting but it again assumes people understand themselves correctly in theory. What if that person that explained Ni to you was in actuality not an Ni type at all in any system? These are the problems you run into when utilizing this kind of methodology. It's not sound.


It's a feeling, I suppose, getting some initial feel as to whether it's a correct type or not

Anyway...I know that I've heard quite many say they are more linear in their thinking, even ones who do a lot of thinking about the system. I wish I had the thread so I could have some more of what he had to say on that. What I've heard some say is that they can't take all the crap of Ne and make one piercing look into whatever they're looking at and just see. If what I said in my last post about a difference is right, then it would be more that Ne starts at the big picture and Ni ends at it

And I don't close the door on INFJ either, I just can't see it right now


----------



## itsme45 (Jun 8, 2012)

cyamitide said:


> When someone types themselves as INTp (Ni-dominant) and INTP (Ti-dominant) they are saying that their dominant function is both rational and irrational at the same time, that they are a scheduled, regimented, list-maker who is also spontaneous, flexible, improvising, and often changes their decisions. See the contradiction here?


Not an actual contradiction. (Though sure it'd be a contradiction if we assumed the two systems are the same thing.) I can be either of these. One doesn't have to have a strong clear J/P preference in MBTI. Though yeah I guess I notice the P side more because it can cause problems but if I get rid of the bias then I can see my J side too. Yup. In socionics it could easily be explained by subtype, haha.




cyamitide said:


> Any type has both features. What you need to do is figure out _the e/i orientation of your judging and perceiving_.


Yeah. Though that approach has also been called into question before.




> It may very well be that you are Ni-INTJ with heightened irrationality who is confusing your strong Ni dominance for being a perceiving type.


Does that sentence have a typo?




liminalthought said:


> You have to be ILI.


Now why's that ILI-specific? What you quoted by @_Blissful Melancholy_ actually sounds something with Fe to me. I don't think however that this must be so type related so sure he can still be ILI for all I know.




lycanized said:


> I'm going pretty much based on what I've read in peoples' posts around here about socionics and how it works. What rational and irrational are. My mind has been described as irrational before, and I suppose it is. But the understanding of Ti>Ne is different when you bring mbti in. Some INTPs/INFPs are more on the irrational side because of the different relationship between functions


Supposedly actual research supports your position with this.


----------



## Vaka (Feb 26, 2010)

I don't know about similarities between Blissful melancholy and I, though, the vibe. He uses language differently, when I speak I usually feel some bit of rawness from inside


----------



## itsme45 (Jun 8, 2012)

lycanized said:


> I don't know about similarities between Blissful melancholy and I, though, the vibe. He uses language differently, when I speak I usually feel some bit of rawness from inside


Okay, I don't know either of you at all  I was only responding to that tidbit because it really struck me.

btw, I don't think each member of a group of the same type would have to have the same style and vibe... 16 types, 7 billion people huh?

PS: rawness, like in your avatar, huh?  your stuff is interesting for sure


----------



## Vaka (Feb 26, 2010)

itsme45 said:


> Okay, I don't know either of you at all  I was only responding to that tidbit because it really struck me.
> 
> btw, I don't think each member of a group of the same type would have to have the same style and vibe... 16 types, 7 billion people huh?


I was actually replying to ephemereality because he said we vibe the same, I just didn't quote him because I figured he might read it anyway


----------



## RoSoDude (Apr 3, 2012)

unctuousbutler said:


> You are aware that the information elements in Socionics are somewhat different from the functions in MBTI, right? In other words, the differences go beyond the qualitative (e.g., how profiles are written) and "function" order. For instance I don't think there's a perfect MBTI counterpart for Socionics' Si.


I am aware that they are different. Part of the reason is that MBTI functions mostly examine _how_ functions manage information, while Socionics information elements are largely about _what_ information is being processed. There is a difference, sure, but I honestly think that they're still describing the same thing, and the systematic elements of both theories are essentially the same. I would also say I am more of a proponent of Socionics theory, which I use to make sense of MBTI types and type relations, and which I sometimes supplement with MBTI type knowledge. I find that using them entirely separately is rather silly, because even if they come at the topic from different angles, they're still taking the same slice of personality.


----------



## Entropic (Jun 15, 2012)

lycanized said:


> I don't know about similarities between Blissful melancholy and I, though, the vibe. He uses language differently, when I speak I usually feel some bit of rawness from inside


It's not about language use, but it's about how you think, perceive and the reason that strikes me as very much the same. Language use is superficial.

It is also possible you are of different subtypes. I wouldn't hesitate to put you as an IEI-Fe but I might consider the OP more of an IEI-Ni.

Also, I really wish you'd stop assuming I will see a certain post or not. Sometimes that prediction is accurate, sometimes it's not accurate. I came back here now because you quoted me once already, but I might have not paid any attention to that otherwise.


----------



## Vaka (Feb 26, 2010)

ephemereality said:


> It's not about language use, but it's about how you think, perceive and the reason that strikes me as very much the same. Language use is superficial.
> 
> It is also possible you are of different subtypes. I wouldn't hesitate to put you as an IEI-Fe but I might consider the OP more of an IEI-Ni.
> 
> Also, I really wish you'd stop assuming I will see a certain post or not. Sometimes that prediction is accurate, sometimes it's not accurate. I came back here now because you quoted me once already, but I might have not paid any attention to that otherwise.


I don't know if you noticed or not, but you replied to me without actually quoting or mentioning, so I didn't see it as offlimits

Also, I'm not IEI-Fe. Fe was the one thing getting in the way of IEI actually fitting. I've read about Fe, which is all I can do, I haven't said anything to you that's actually Fe-ish because you haven't actually delved into my mind. Especially with what you've said about Fi versus Fe, your understanding of it. It makes no sense. If you'd actually delve into it, you'd see that


----------



## Entropic (Jun 15, 2012)

lycanized said:


> I don't know if you noticed or not, but you replied to me without actually quoting or mentioning, so I didn't see it as offlimits


¨

Sure I did, but I don't make assumptions about whether you'll read it or not. That's quite a big difference. I post it there and if you read it, then you might response, quote or not quote, that I don't care about, but it's about the assumption that you will assume I will read it that is very annoying. 



> Also, I'm not IEI-Fe. Fe was the one thing getting in the way of IEI actually fitting. I've read about Fe, which is all I can do, I haven't said anything to you that's actually Fe-ish because you haven't actually delved into my mind. Especially with what you've said about Fi versus Fe, your understanding of it. It makes no sense. If you'd actually delve into it, you'd see that


It's not so much about your mind and how it appears to you in this case, but it is that you actually quite strongly so, constantly express some reasoning that is tinted with Fe. This entire post of yours, for instance. Now compare to someone like FlightsOfFancy, he doesn't do this. It might come up once in a while but as a whole his approach is more reserved and less "emotional" for the lack of a better word. More categorical and more impersonal. And this is because of a stronger connection to Ti, his cognition being more of a combination of Ni-Ti than it is Ni-Fe. In subtype theory about contact and inert, you will see that the IEI-Ni will be described as coming off as more NT-y, and this is pretty much the way I think FoF appears as. You don't come across this way to you me. 

You can also somewhat see this when it comes to the reasoning process itself actually, in that your thinking when you reason doesn't hinge as much on Ti as he does. Like that entire point you made about listening to people and their minds, that's very Fe-informed, and the way you reason about the MBTI seems to be more a result of a little wonky Ti than Ti I'd associate with someone whose consciousness is more used to rely on it as a constant thing. This view too of seeing and understanding things holistically, that seems tinted with Fe perception in that I think Fe is inclined to think of things in this way to a degree, of everything being connected and being a part of some grand collective. 

And of course I cannot delve into your mind but honestly, I am not sure I want to be a part of your mind. Why? Because the output is quite Fe. There is a problem when it comes to rational elements that they are seen as rational by the type who expresses them, and this is regardless if it's logic or ethics. 

As an example here, you think it is a rational way to convince me that the only way to convince me is to talk about yourself interpersonally, how you appear to I and vice versa. But by doing this, you aren't making any categorical definitions. You mention Fe vs Fi, but you for example don't define them. You just stay my understanding is odd. That is making a value judgement about my character or how to put it. Yet you could have gone on to simply describe how you see Fe vs Fi and categorize them and that could equally stand as a convincing argument. So why not? 

And this is also part why we can never seem to reach an agreement in argument because judgement preference is different and it's a strong difference. You don't part seem to agree with my conclusions because it doesn't quite fit your Fe perception of how to reason.


----------



## Vaka (Feb 26, 2010)

ephemereality said:


> ¨
> 
> Sure I did, but I don't make assumptions about whether you'll read it or not. That's quite a big difference. I post it there and if you read it, then you might response, quote or not quote, that I don't care about, but it's about the assumption that you will assume I will read it that is very annoying.


To be honest, I was gonna say, I don't actually care if you read either or miss it. I don't know why it's annoying, though. It wouldn't annoy me, not enough to tell a stranger on the internet at least




> It's not so much about your mind and how it appears to you in this case, but it is that you actually quite strongly so, constantly express some reasoning that is tinted with Fe. This entire post of yours, for instance. Now compare to someone like FlightsOfFancy, he doesn't do this. It might come up once in a while but as a whole his approach is more reserved and less "emotional" for the lack of a better word. More categorical and more impersonal. And this is because of a stronger connection to Ti, his cognition being more of a combination of Ni-Ti than it is Ni-Fe. In subtype theory about contact and inert, you will see that the IEI-Ni will be described as coming off as more NT-y, and this is pretty much the way I think FoF appears as. You don't come across this way to you me.


They're tinted with feelings, at least, but feelings because I just love something raw, indulgence in myself. It's more related to enneagram than anything



> You can also somewhat see this when it comes to the reasoning process itself actually, in that your thinking when you reason doesn't hinge as much on Ti as he does. Like that entire point you made about listening to people and their minds, that's very Fe-informed, and the way you reason about the MBTI seems to be more a result of a little wonky Ti than Ti I'd associate with someone whose consciousness is more used to rely on it as a constant thing. This view too of seeing and understanding things holistically, that seems tinted with Fe perception in that I think Fe is inclined to think of things in this way to a degree, of everything being connected and being a part of some grand collective.


Why do you think I want to listen to what people have to say? It's not because I value listening to people, it's because I want something rich, not rich emotionally on their part, rich in a very intangible, abstract way. I'm not saying that belongs to any function, I'm saying you think you know how to spot things you don't know how to spot because you make very hasty judgments

My holistic-ness has nothing at all to do with people or emotions or ethics either




> And of course I cannot delve into your mind but honestly, I am not sure I want to be a part of your mind. Why? Because the output is quite Fe. There is a problem when it comes to rational elements that they are seen as rational by the type who expresses them, and this is regardless if it's logic or ethics.


You think it's Fe, what I'm saying is that it's not. It's a pretty superficial way of looking at it




> As an example here, you think it is a rational way to convince me that the only way to convince me is to talk about yourself interpersonally, how you appear to I and vice versa. But by doing this, you aren't making any categorical definitions. You mention Fe vs Fi, but you for example don't define them. You just stay my understanding is odd. That is making a value judgement about my character or how to put it. Yet you could have gone on to simply describe how you see Fe vs Fi and categorize them and that could equally stand as a convincing argument. So why not?


I'm thinking disconnect from the type...looking at it from a detached position. I never made a value judgment about your character, though. I think you misunderstood what I was saying

Fe from what I read is about affecting people, it's about some emotional energy outside of yourself...which I'm not as in tune with as I should be if I was IEI-Fe. I'm in tune with my own emotions, yeah, and feeling tinges to my thinking(4w5 and 5w4), but that's not Fe. The feeling tinges are about my indulgence in core myself, not bringing in others. Otherwise I think you're completely misunderstanding where I'm coming from




> And this is also part why we can never seem to reach an agreement in argument because judgement preference is different and it's a strong difference. You don't part seem to agree with my conclusions because it doesn't quite fit your Fe perception of how to reason.


I'm not sure how you got there...tbh, I mean not everyone of your type is gonna agree with you or see things the same way


----------



## Vaka (Feb 26, 2010)

I don't even feel I relate to you in as many ways as you think we are similar, I just never felt it


----------



## Entropic (Jun 15, 2012)

lycanized said:


> To be honest, I was gonna say, I don't actually care if you read either or miss it. I don't know why it's annoying, though. It wouldn't annoy me, not enough to tell a stranger on the internet at least


It annoys me because you tell me what I think should think, be or do.


> They're tinted with feelings, at least, but feelings because I just love something raw, indulgence in myself. It's more related to enneagram than anything


How so? Core 5 is removed from feeling, generally speaking.


> Why do you think I want to listen to what people have to say? It's not because I value listening to people, it's because I want something rich, not rich emotionally on their part, rich in a very intangible, abstract way. I'm not saying that belongs to any function, I'm saying you think you know how to spot things you don't know how to spot because you make very hasty judgments


You said it earlier that you enjoyed listening to how people describe their minds and you find that more interesting than reading up on theory? I did not once make any mention why you do that.


> My holistic-ness has nothing at all to do with people or emotions or ethics either


Fe isn't all about people, emotions or ethics. Fe is, at its most basic sense, a specific way of viewing the world. There is a component to Fe where Fe desires to see things from a collective point of view. This is for example why inferior Fe types might desire to feel a part of belonging to something greater than themselves.


> You think it's Fe, what I'm saying is that it's not. It's a pretty superficial way of looking at it


And you aren't making hasty judgements dismissing me now? Superficial would be to get hung up on specific descriptions, words, buzzwords, what have you, to understand a function.


> I'm thinking disconnect from the type...looking at it from a detached position. I never made a value judgment about your character, though. I think you misunderstood what I was saying


The point I was making was, why infer about my character when you could just go on and describe it logically according to some system? 



> Fe from what I read is about affecting people, it's about some emotional energy outside of yourself...which I'm not as in tune with as I should be if I was IEI-Fe. I'm in tune with my own emotions, yeah, and feeling tinges to my thinking(4w5 and 5w4), but that's not Fe. The feeling tinges are about my indulgence in core myself, not bringing in others. Otherwise I think you're completely misunderstanding where I'm coming from


Yes and no. "Being in tune in" is vague, since we don't often pay attention to or notice the creative.


> I'm not sure how you got there...tbh, I mean not everyone of your type is gonna agree with you or see things the same way


Sure, but intertype says something about how we conceive the world and how we will agree or disagree. You always seem to disagree with me because you don't judge the data the same way. It's always from a more personal point of view or how to put it. 

But whatever, I still can't make you see it. The Fe is very much there though, very strong, very constant and a very obvious presence.


----------



## Vaka (Feb 26, 2010)

ephemereality said:


> It annoys me because you tell me what I think should think, be or do.


I don't really look at things like that, should be or should think. I never think people are gonna take that much from my words, really throws me off. the fact someone could see that much in it makes me feel weird



> How so? Core 5 is removed from feeling, generally speaking.


I'm pretty sure I'm actually a 4w5, especially since it hurts so much more to look at. Still, even the 4 wing I think makes it more feeling indulgent, not to the point of a 4 of course. But I think it relates more to the thoughts..the thoughts being more individualized and certain things being received as just bland just as 4 can take in the outside world 



> Fe isn't all about people, emotions or ethics. Fe is, at its most basic sense, a specific way of viewing the world. There is a component to Fe where Fe desires to see things from a collective point of view. This is for example why inferior Fe types might desire to feel a part of belonging to something greater than themselves.


Collective point of view doesn't even come at any place for me if it means what I think it means to you, actually



> Sure, but intertype says something about how we conceive the world and how we will agree or disagree. You always seem to disagree with me because you don't judge the data the same way. It's always from a more personal point of view or how to put it.
> 
> But whatever, I still can't make you see it. The Fe is very much there though, very strong, very constant and a very obvious presence.


Do I seem, or am I what you see?

It is more personal, though. At the core, I'm a slave to what satisfies a need for intensity and richness in my mind. That is the tinge you see in my words. I don't see a place for this in socionics though, not thus far, at least. Not even in your sentence about Fe since at the core it's so much more locked into myself, not something collective. And I don't think this has been quite obvious to you, that's my thing here, it's only implied, yet so easy to misunderstand


----------



## Psithurism (Jun 19, 2013)

@_lycanized_ How did you come to the conclusion you use Fe ''second'' (IEI)? I would like to hear your reasoning in case I can relate.

@_ephemereality_ What would you suggest would be the best way to ''figure out'' my type? Should I fill the questionnaire in the forum? Or should I just read Jung's work?

Your first guess/impression is that I am Ni-Fe (or maybe Fe-Ni), right?


----------



## FlightsOfFancy (Dec 30, 2012)

@_lycanized_ 

I'm pretty much resolved to an INFJ 5w4; I think Fe does play in our cognition as a 'warming' function, or at least provides us with a push/pull between logic and warmth in a way that other 5 types (detached) do not often appear to be.

The key word here however is 'appear'. No idea wtf this convo is about as of now as it has gone in about 3 different directions since the two prior pages.


----------



## Vaka (Feb 26, 2010)

FlightsOfFancy said:


> @_lycanized_
> 
> I'm pretty much resolved to an INFJ 5w4; I think Fe does play in our cognition as a 'warming' function, or at least provides us with a push/pull between logic and warmth in a way that other 5 types (detached) do not often appear to be.
> 
> The key word here however is 'appear'. No idea wtf this convo is about as of now as it has gone in about 3 different directions since the two prior pages.


Why 5w4? I've been reading a bunch of articles on enneagram types. It's how I realized I'm probably a 4w5, although I definitely have key 5 habits and outlooks. Especially 5w4. I just realized how deeply shame/envy plays a part in my life, and also the fact that even my relationship with my thoughts might primarily be 4w5 rather than 5w4. Detachment is still a 5 trapped state, though. Even if they are more emotionally indulgent than the others. I wasn't much thinking of warmth when I said that, though. For me, I'm really awkward with emotional expression, it's not my mode of being, I don't like to bring people in, it feels like an instinct to pull away rather than let them in, even if I try expressing with people I love like my family, it might actually sound unemotional and just terribly awkward. There was an emergency about a week ago and it's just kind of heightened things. With people I'm close to, I'm pretty intense with feelings, mostly in romantic relationships


----------



## Entropic (Jun 15, 2012)

Blissful Melancholy said:


> @_ephemereality_ What would you suggest would be the best way to ''figure out'' my type? Should I fill the questionnaire in the forum? Or should I just read Jung's work?
> 
> Your first guess/impression is that I am Ni-Fe (or maybe Fe-Ni), right?


Jung is a good start in my opinion. His way of understanding the world might jive with you, being an IEI himself, so I think it will make a lot of sense if you read Jung.


----------



## Vaka (Feb 26, 2010)

Blissful Melancholy said:


> @_lycanized_ How did you come to the conclusion you use Fe ''second'' (IEI)? I would like to hear your reasoning in case I can relate.
> 
> @_ephemereality_ What would you suggest would be the best way to ''figure out'' my type? Should I fill the questionnaire in the forum? Or should I just read Jung's work?
> 
> Your first guess/impression is that I am Ni-Fe (or maybe Fe-Ni), right?


It's something I've been exploring. I'm very new to socionics...I read some descriptions online and I feel like I can relate to the Ni, but I can't to the Fe near as much, even if in ephemereality's universe I do. I can tell you it doesn't fit as easily, the affecting of people, the feeling comfortable with people, the wanting to manipulate the emotionality around, personal causes. But if you read Te descriptions, I fit them even less. It's that idea of "facts" mentioned so much with Te. The Fe feels like I was dropped at birth and it fucked up, the Te feels like it'd take away the richness of the inner world


----------



## liminalthought (Feb 25, 2012)

ephemereality said:


> The Fe is very much there though, very strong, very constant and a very obvious presence.


I have to say, this is kinda funny.


----------



## liminalthought (Feb 25, 2012)

Blissful Melancholy said:


> Ah, I missed your post. Do you have a similar behavior sometimes?


I also remember being told that about my childhood. In my opinion, modeling behavior and using that to predict things is characteristic of Ni. Whether you would rather use Te or Fe, I'm still not sure.

Also, have you taken up this? 


cyamitide said:


> He needs to explore typology on his own.


It's getting dangerous around here, best to arm yourself and gain some independance.
http://personalitycafe.com/socionics-forum/116599-socionics-tests-links-resources.html

Like people have said, start with Jungian descriptions of cognitive functions, _skip MBTI_, build up to socionics basics, then study the more advanced stuff that socionics has to offer (like inter-type relations, for example).


----------



## FlightsOfFancy (Dec 30, 2012)

lycanized said:


> Why 5w4? I've been reading a bunch of articles on enneagram types. It's how I realized I'm probably a 4w5, although I definitely have key 5 habits and outlooks. Especially 5w4. I just realized how deeply shame/envy plays a part in my life, and also the fact that even my relationship with my thoughts might primarily be 4w5 rather than 5w4. Detachment is still a 5 trapped state, though. Even if they are more emotionally indulgent than the others. I wasn't much thinking of warmth when I said that, though. For me, I'm really awkward with emotional expression, it's not my mode of being, I don't like to bring people in, it feels like an instinct to pull away rather than let them in, even if I try expressing with people I love like my family, it might actually sound unemotional and just terribly awkward. There was an emergency about a week ago and it's just kind of heightened things. With people I'm close to, I'm pretty intense with feelings, mostly in romantic relationships


Hmm, my 5ishness doesn't really show as much here because I don't like alienating people from discussions. If you speak to @Flatlander who I've spoken to more fervently, you'll see how 5 is more core.

In short, my emphasis has always been knowledge and the acquisition of such by virtue of believing that such would bring prosperity in my own realm--even the physical at times. I think this is why I thought I was an INTJ for quite sometime, but I never quite 'fit in' with the NT crowd, aside from being in their fields (save the enneagram, Kiersey would most likely put me in NT temperament). 

My initial thoughts as a child were to figure out how things worked, how people worked, everything in sight really. My fondness for science, and eventually math spawned from this, but it was something that was somewhat remote from immediate desire until later in life. 

I'm just as liable to discuss emotional repercussions as I am to go on a rant about electromagnetics. Again, that's not as visible here because it's more ostracising than assisting. 

It's a rare combo, but there are a few here who fit the mold quite well.


----------



## Psithurism (Jun 19, 2013)

liminalthought said:


> I also remember being told that about my childhood. In my opinion, modeling behavior and using that to predict things is characteristic of Ni.


In my teen years, it got to be a bit extreme, I would literally have fun trying to adopt different ''personas'' just to play around with people around me to the point where no one could ever figure out who I was really was because I was so unpredictable. Very weird behavior to say the least. I also loved to play with my facial expressions to either put people at ease or make them very uncomfortable. I just wanted to see their reactions and see if they matched what I was expecting. Same with the way I would phrase myself when talking/typing to people. 

Now that I think about it, I don't know why I did all of that...It was just ''fun'' for me. It was just a game. There was never any bad intent though. This could be a Ni-Fe thing perhaps.

I'm starting to think I am indeed Ni-Dominant (after considering mostly Ti for the last months). IEI uses Ti so perhaps that's what I am...


----------



## liminalthought (Feb 25, 2012)

[see the extra bit I added to that post]
The loose uncertainty that plagues you is also a characteristic of Ni. I get it too. It helps to gather more info.


----------



## Entropic (Jun 15, 2012)

Blissful Melancholy said:


> I also loved to play with my facial expressions to either put people at ease or make them very uncomfortable. I just wanted to see their reactions and see if they matched what I was expecting. Same with the way I would phrase myself when talking/typing to people.


Yeah, Fe logic-ish.


----------



## Vaka (Feb 26, 2010)

FlightsOfFancy said:


> Hmm, my 5ishness doesn't really show as much here because I don't like alienating people from discussions. If you speak to @_Flatlander_ who I've spoken to more fervently, you'll see how 5 is more core.
> 
> In short, my emphasis has always been knowledge and the acquisition of such by virtue of believing that such would bring prosperity in my own realm--even the physical at times. I think this is why I thought I was an INTJ for quite sometime, but I never quite 'fit in' with the NT crowd, aside from being in their fields (save the enneagram, Kiersey would most likely put me in NT temperament).
> 
> ...


What kind of prosperity? I feel the feeling of lack of anything inside to deal with things in the present, so then my nature is to detach and observe and run into my mind into an idea or concept and to develop something I have and others don't. But it has less to do with knowledge and more to do with something very personal and individualized. I think it's my primary nature to not be in touch and to withdraw into a fantasy, even thinking approached as a fantasy of sorts. It's even more personal and individualized, placing a higher emphasis on something real and intense and something at the very core. I have such a pull between feeling tinged thoughts and thought tinged feelings. Both are a home, it's just by virtue of that realness, it's probably even more evident it's about _me_. When I read in depth descriptions of the 4w5 type, it emphasizes so many of the problems I've had through out life, the contradictory push between inferiority and superiority, the image and identity attention, the emotions, and it even helped me understand the problems I caused in my last relationship were ultimately stemmed from low self esteem, envy, and needing to feel I was loved. So it hurts to read, 5 doesn't hit just as deeply. 5w4 vs 4w5 is an interesting discussion

I think both infj and intj fit 5w6 better than 5w4, but it's not that hard to imagine an infj 5w4, especially one with heavy Ti. Supposedly some musicians fit the title. What would be even harder to comprehend is intp 4w5


----------



## Psithurism (Jun 19, 2013)

lycanized said:


> I think both infj and intj fit 5w6 better than 5w4, but it's not that hard to imagine an infj 5w4, especially one with heavy Ti. Supposedly some musicians fit the title. What would be even harder to comprehend is intp 4w5


I think I am a 5w4. I also majored in Philosophy which is pretty much Ti Land in many cases. This could have been what led me to believe I was Ti-Dominant also.


----------



## FlightsOfFancy (Dec 30, 2012)

lycanized said:


> What kind of prosperity? I feel the feeling of lack of anything inside to deal with things in the present, so then my nature is to detach and observe and run into my mind into an idea or concept and to develop something I have and others don't. But it has less to do with knowledge and more to do with something very personal and individualized. I think it's my primary nature to not be in touch and to withdraw into a fantasy, even thinking approached as a fantasy of sorts. It's even more personal and individualized, placing a higher emphasis on something real and intense and something at the very core. I have such a pull between feeling tinged thoughts and thought tinged feelings. Both are a home, it's just by virtue of that realness, it's probably even more evident it's about _me_. When I read in depth descriptions of the 4w5 type, it emphasizes so many of the problems I've had through out life, the contradictory push between inferiority and superiority, the image and identity attention, the emotions, and it even helped me understand the problems I caused in my last relationship were ultimately stemmed from low self esteem, envy, and needing to feel I was loved. So it hurts to read, 5 doesn't hit just as deeply. 5w4 vs 4w5 is an interesting discussion
> 
> I think both infj and intj fit 5w6 better than 5w4, but it's not that hard to imagine an infj 5w4, especially one with heavy Ti. Supposedly some musicians fit the title. What would be even harder to comprehend is intp 4w5





> I feel the feeling of lack of anything inside to deal with things in the present, so then my nature is to detach and observe and run into my mind into an idea or concept and to develop something I have and others don't.


4s and 5s are pretty self-indulgent and detatching types; however, you do so out of lack of feeling, while I do so out of desire to be informed and to have something worked out, so to speak. It's much colder than what you've related. 



> I have such a pull between feeling tinged thoughts and thought tinged feelings.


Pretty much all IEIs from that I've seen.



> I think both infj and intj fit 5w6 better than 5w4, but it's not that hard to imagine an infj 5w4,* especially one with heavy Ti. *Supposedly some musicians fit the title. What would be even harder to comprehend is intp 4w5[


My Ti is quite heavy, actually. Some here were surprised to find this to be so once I talked about something rather serious. I could easily fool some people into thinking I was an LII---for a short period of time before someone noticed a lack of Ne.

Also, recall there are two subtypes to each type. ILI-Ni will be more in touch with their Fi, while IEI-Ni will be more in touch with their Fi; however, they will always have the same degree of creative functions--it's just very, very unconscious to them. When I do this, I feel like I'm in a 'mode', which is very common for functions lower in the echelon.
ccur
5w4 for IXI-Ni types is really not that uncommon then. I'd say it's more common for ILI-Ni because well, 5(Te)w4(Fi), but I've just grown fond of Ti. The 5w4 descriptions, unlike the others, are very accurate for me. I'm almost a stereotyped one.



> Supposedly some musicians fit the title.


I'm a musician as well; head over to the Art Forum, darlin'


----------



## itsme45 (Jun 8, 2012)

FlightsOfFancy said:


> Also, recall there are two subtypes to each type. ILI-Ni will be more in touch with their Fi, while IEI-Ni will be more in touch with their Fi; however, they will always have the same degree of creative functions--it's just very, very unconscious to them. When I do this, I feel like I'm in a 'mode', which is very common for functions lower in the echelon


Are you saying that the creative function (Te or Fe) will be unconscious in the case of IxI-Ni types? You're in a "mode" when? Did you just mean to use the word "mobilizing" instead of "creative"?


----------



## FlightsOfFancy (Dec 30, 2012)

itsme45 said:


> Are you saying that the creative function (Te or Fe) will be unconscious in the case of IxI-Ni types? You're in a "mode" when? Did you just mean to use the word "mobilizing" instead of "creative"?


No, I meant mode. I feel as though when I engage Ti, it is something I strive for but is not completely natural. Although I did do mostly sciences, it became apparent that Ti was not a dominant for me or creative over time.

For example, I don't have the ability to be bombarded with data and keep making sense like LSI or SLE have, or even LII/ILE have. It's a bit more of 'concentration and focus' that I tend not to need when connecting with people (in fact, I find I'm better at this if I DONT think of it at all)


----------



## itsme45 (Jun 8, 2012)

FlightsOfFancy said:


> No, I meant mode.


I think you misread my question. I was asking if you wanted to say "mobilizing" here instead of "creative": _"however, they will always have the same degree of creative functions--it's just very, very unconscious to them"_.




> I feel as though when I engage Ti, it is something I strive for but is not completely natural. Although I did do mostly sciences, it became apparent that Ti was not a dominant for me or creative over time.
> 
> For example, I don't have the ability to be bombarded with data and keep making sense like LSI or SLE have, or even LII/ILE have. It's a bit more of 'concentration and focus' that I tend not to need when connecting with people (in fact, I find I'm better at this if I DONT think of it at all)


Ah I see. Yeah I thought you meant Ti about the mode thing.

I also need concentration to use Ti for abstract sciences. Is there any other - not so abstract - area where you use Ti and feel you need to make an effort to do so?


----------



## FlightsOfFancy (Dec 30, 2012)

itsme45 said:


> I think you misread my question. I was asking if you wanted to say "mobilizing" here instead of "creative": _"however, they will always have the same degree of creative functions--it's just very, very unconscious to them"_.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


No, no, I meant creative. In that, they will always have the same degree of Te/Fe, but they won't be as aware.

Um, not really, I feel like it's always something I concentrate on. I hate it when people say 'stop focusing so much' or 'you seem lost'. It really is kind of a stretch. Now I'm good at it apparently, but it just is not as fast as an SLE or LII etc. 

If you're lookin' at me or there's sensory bombardment, it's just not very accessible, period. People have actually thought I was quite dumb because of this, then I'd go alone in a corner and come back with the answer + some.

I would say it's deep an accurate as opposed to fast. I've had SLEs win debates by simply throwing a volley of ideas at me in rapid succession. One even said "I just can't let you have time to think"


----------



## itsme45 (Jun 8, 2012)

FlightsOfFancy said:


> No, no, I meant creative. In that, they will always have the same degree of Te/Fe, but they won't be as aware.


I thought creative function was in the ego block thus conscious, not unconscious... I don't think subtype is supposed to have that much of an effect on type? 




> Um, not really, I feel like it's always something I concentrate on.


I don't feel that way if it's to do with concrete things, only if it's analysis of abstract topics.




> *If you're lookin' at me* or there's sensory bombardment, it's just not very accessible, period.


That's interesting  The bolded especially... so you're saying eye contact kills your Ti? Would be a good trick to know 




> I would say it's deep an accurate as opposed to fast. I've had SLEs win debates by simply throwing a volley of ideas at me in rapid succession. One even said "I just can't let you have time to think"


So what counted as a "win"? You saying to the debate partner "okay you're right"?

Anyway yeah SxE descriptions always say that about quick thinking, too quick mentally, bad Ni


----------



## FlightsOfFancy (Dec 30, 2012)

itsme45 said:


> I thought creative function was in the ego block thus conscious, not unconscious... I don't think subtype is supposed to have that much of an effect on type?
> 
> 
> 
> ...





> I thought creative function was in the ego block thus conscious, not unconscious... I don't think subtype is supposed to have that much of an effect on type?


It's kind of like walking with a tack in your foot--eventually you get desensitized to it--well depending on how deep it is etc, but u get the picture.



> I don't feel that way if it's to do with concrete things, only if it's analysis of abstract topics.


Yes, well your Ni would be about as strong as my Ti, so yeah, it takes me a bit as just it takes you with abstract concepts--cept it takes me that long period. 



> That's interesting  The bolded especially... so you're saying eye contact kills your Ti? Would be a good trick to know


Completely. I sometimes feel like I've lost my brain if I have to make complete eye contact. If someone asks me a complex question, I look at the floor in this "where did he go?" type look for at least a few (2) seconds, depending on complexity




> So what counted as a "win"? You saying to the debate partner "okay you're right"?
> 
> Anyway yeah SxE descriptions always say that about quick thinking, too quick mentally, bad Ni


Well, they often throw strawmen and other fallacies, to the point where I just get frustrated. This is why I often write it out.


----------



## Entropic (Jun 15, 2012)

FlightsOfFancy said:


> My Ti is quite heavy, actually. Some here were surprised to find this to be so once I talked about something rather serious. I could easily fool some people into thinking I was an LII---for a short period of time before someone noticed a lack of Ne.
> 
> Also, recall there are two subtypes to each type. ILI-Ni will be more in touch with their Fi, while IEI-Ni will be more in touch with their Fi; however, they will always have the same degree of creative functions--it's just very, very unconscious to them. When I do this, I feel like I'm in a 'mode', which is very common for functions lower in the echelon.
> ccur
> 5w4 for IXI-Ni types is really not that uncommon then. I'd say it's more common for ILI-Ni because well, 5(Te)w4(Fi), but I've just grown fond of Ti. The 5w4 descriptions, unlike the others, are very accurate for me. I'm almost a stereotyped one.


You mean IEI-Ni with Ti lol? IEI-Fi would only be possible in Gulenko's weird subtype theory I don't understand much if at all. It's Ti masturbation at its finest. 

As for 5 with wing 4, I don't see 5 so much linked with Te as it is Ni, honestly. The truths I seek are Ni-related, not Te related. To seek some grand truth or meaning about this life or universe. The way I organize this might be related to Te, but overall it's very Ni-driven. I feel my 4w3 fix is more informed by Fi than my wing 4 on 5 because the 4w3 has to do with my own self-expression of who I am. It's very personal and has to do with how I understand myself and figure out what I want and where I want to go. In contrast, I feel that it is the introverted aspect of my thinking overall that the wing 4 might influence in that the understanding has to me mine and it has to be my own and it has to be unique to me. 

I also notice that when I do get in a 4 mood, I get Fi-moody as well. Kind of critical of myself and others and everything just sucks. 



itsme45 said:


> That's interesting  The bolded especially... so you're saying eye contact kills your Ti? Would be a good trick to know


I wonder if that's just not to do with Ni. Eye-contact kills my thinking too, when I become aware of it anyway. I just need to look away or I can no longer formulate my thoughts. I get too caught up looking at the person and it just counter-acts my ability to think. Not sure why, but sensory information does that in general. I can either focus on the sensory or I can focus on my own thinking. I can't do both at the same time.

The more enmeshed I am in my own thinking the more spaced out I probably appear as well. I can likely stare at the same spot for several minutes while I am thinking/holding a speech about something very complex and not realize I am.


----------



## FlightsOfFancy (Dec 30, 2012)

ephemereality said:


> You mean IEI-Ni with Ti lol? IEI-Fi would only be possible in Gulenko's weird subtype theory I don't understand much if at all. *It's Ti masturbation at its finest.
> *
> As for 5 with wing 4, I don't see 5 so much linked with Te as it is Ni, honestly. The truths I seek are Ni-related, not Te related. To seek some grand truth or meaning about this life or universe. The way I organize this might be related to Te, but overall it's very Ni-driven. I feel my 4w3 fix is more informed by Fi than my wing 4 on 5 because the 4w3 has to do with my own self-expression of who I am. It's very personal and has to do with how I understand myself and figure out what I want and where I want to go. In contrast, I feel that it is the introverted aspect of my thinking overall that the wing 4 might influence in that the understanding has to me mine and it has to be my own and it has to be unique to me.
> 
> ...


That's kind of pejorative, but I can see how someone would draw that conclusion if they were to see me in seclusion. Reason being if that Ni is already quite disruptive and hard to anchor; then throw in Ti which is quite similar in this regard, and it can become this quite easily. Though, this occurs mainly in seclusion. If Jung was an LSI-Ti type, then he sounds like the type to be in a serious Ti/Ni masutbration fest; I mean..the man locked himself away until he saw all angles to which to explain the human psyche. 

I was talking to flat about how these two functions, while very powerful in regards of learning complex logical systems (math, science, psychology, sociology), they aren't too great at allowing the mind to rest. It's not uncommon for me to, especially by people who are not of said subtype, to be accused of over-thinking. Rather than to be based on data (Ne) or (Se), it can go about its merry little way.

I posted Magneto as an example of IEI-Ni largely because his Fe is quite apparent--yet his abundance of Ti would make some question it unless they looked closely. He teaches himself to control his omega-level power by reading a bunch of books on electromagnetics--not a common feat, especially to the expertise he's mustered (you'd think he had a PhD in the field).





Yes, I do believe Ni-doms to like to shut out things, but I think IEIs have more difficulty with this because its not their strongest function to begin with. I have had my thinking process--not stumped or stilted by bombardment--but almost halted. Likewise, I've seen ILIs throw feeling out the window and resort to almost cold and direct logical bombardment, which would make sense, as their Te is their creative.


----------



## Figure (Jun 22, 2011)

FlightsOfFancy said:


> I was talking to flat about how these two functions, while very powerful in regards of learning complex logical systems (math, science, psychology, sociology), they aren't too great at allowing the mind to rest. It's not uncommon for me to, especially by people who are not of said subtype, to be accused of over-thinking. Rather than to be based on data (Ne) or (Se), it can go about its merry little way.


Guilty as charged. Although, even as the Logical subtype, our non-lead IEs aren't valued enough to really hang around for a significant amount of time. You eventually tire out of them.

Ni in general is a function of time - there is always a return to waiting, revisiting, or projecting - at the expense of doing. And in tandem, an expectation that someone else will be actionable upon the idea. We're kind of left holding these bags of perceptions that we may not even know are perceptions, let alone pragmatic ones. I'm not sure about IEI, but at least with ILI there can be a tendency for miscues to get caught incorrectly in their algorithmic system of thought, and cause the ILI to lock in on absolute absurdity. The only real solution is someone else's initiative, unless the ILI can wait it out and tangle through their own brambles, even then with no real guarantee. 

That's actually the best way to tell if you are a socionics Ni lead. It's not that they are merely "bad" at Se, it's that they expect it subconsciously.


----------



## itsme45 (Jun 8, 2012)

FlightsOfFancy said:


> It's kind of like walking with a tack in your foot--eventually you get desensitized to it--well depending on how deep it is etc, but u get the picture.


Yeah but to the point of making an ego function unconscious?




> Yes, well your Ni would be about as strong as my Ti


Hey wait you see me as LSI? If not then I'll take that about Ni as a compliment haha 




> so yeah, it takes me a bit as just it takes you with abstract concepts--cept it takes me that long period.


I see. Btw about abstract concepts, it doesn't have to take long at all if I can "channel" it through Se. Or at least it doesn't take much effort then even if it's a while before I get the needed insight.




> Completely. I sometimes feel like I've lost my brain if I have to make complete eye contact. If someone asks me a complex question, I look at the floor in this "where did he go?" type look for at least a few (2) seconds, depending on complexity


Hmm I'll have to ask what I look like when I'm making up an answer about something theoretical.




> Well, they often throw strawmen and other fallacies, to the point where I just get frustrated. This is why I often write it out.


You could make them understand that strawmen etc are not a valid direction for the argument


----------



## Vaka (Feb 26, 2010)

FlightsOfFancy said:


> Pretty much all IEIs from that I've seen.


I could probably see that, but it's like the fantasies I create with those thoughts and feelings have become so much part of my world that reality can easily be seen to not exist or anything else can just feel overwhelming, and I wonder if anyone else is actually like that...overrelying on them

By the way, I've heard two covers of yours, including the Creep one I commented on. I happen to be a good fan of Radiohead. I still think including the word "fucking" ups the quality dramatically


----------



## nichya (Jul 12, 2014)

I think I am on the same boat. I am dominantly INFP in mbti and also dominantly INFp / beta quadra in socionics. I was made believe that I should be INFj in socionics but everytime I checked it out I couldn't relate to it at all and thought socionics didn't make sense but when I read about INFp and beta quadra and romance styles and interactions I found that INFp was fitting perfectly. I have observed that indeed -most- INFPs become INFjs and vice versa but even my friends agree that my behavior is very beta quadra. I really think it maybe doesn't work for -all- but -most-. I haven't looked into the functions but I think they handle them in a different way with different conversions. Also I see some pattern about INFPs being a little offbeat, rebellious and -keyword- romantic in both INFP and INFp descriptions.


----------



## Entropic (Jun 15, 2012)

nichya said:


> I think I am on the same boat. I am dominantly INFP in mbti and also dominantly INFp / beta quadra in socionics. I was made believe that I should be INFj in socionics but everytime I checked it out I couldn't relate to it at all and thought socionics didn't make sense but when I read about INFp and beta quadra and romance styles and interactions I found that INFp was fitting perfectly. I have observed that indeed -most- INFPs become INFjs and vice versa but even my friends agree that my behavior is very beta quadra. I really think it maybe doesn't work for -all- but -most-. I haven't looked into the functions but I think they handle them in a different way with different conversions. Also I see some pattern about INFPs being a little offbeat, rebellious and -keyword- romantic in both INFP and INFp descriptions.


That's why you shouldn't type off descriptions because then yes, you will think it will seem like they are different types because they are described differently. 

The most and real important question is: do you cognitively lead with Fi or Ni? Anything else is just irrelevant.


----------



## Vermillion (Jan 22, 2012)

Wistfulness said:


> I am definitely ''whimsical'', very much so. Daydreamer as well...I can see the fruitless part a bit as well.


It's not "fruitless", it's "useless", remember?


----------



## Psithurism (Jun 19, 2013)

Amaterasu said:


> It's not "fruitless", it's "useless", remember?


I'll let you go because I'm glad you didn't necro a one year old thread just to say that. Now that would have been useless.


----------



## Entropic (Jun 15, 2012)

Wistfulness said:


> I'll let you go because I'm glad you didn't necro a one year old thread just to say that. Now that would have been useless.


That's what they call nice necro.


----------



## Vermillion (Jan 22, 2012)

Wistfulness said:


> I'll let you go because I'm glad you didn't necro a one year old thread just to say that. Now that would have been useless.


w/e man, mutuality accounts for everything.


----------



## Entropic (Jun 15, 2012)

Needlessly nice necro'ing 
never noticing notorious
names


----------



## Vermillion (Jan 22, 2012)

Entropic said:


> Needlessly nice necro'ing
> never noticing notorious
> names


wtf was this supposed to be cool?

?????????


----------



## Psithurism (Jun 19, 2013)

Amaterasu said:


> wtf was this supposed to be cool?
> 
> ?????????


I suggest you do the same thing as me and pretend it never existed.


----------

