# INFJ/j in both MBTI and Socionics? O_o



## PlushWitch (Oct 28, 2010)

Michaeldh0589 said:


> For the bolded:
> Sensing Ethical Introtim - Wikisocion [ISFp (socionics)/ISFJ (MBTI)] read that and compare it to the descriptions of ISFJ in MBTI, and do the same but for ISFP (MBTI)
> Ethical Sensing Introtim - Wikisocion [ISFj (Socionics)/ISFP (MBTI)]


Imo they're a LOT better than the ones in my book...and they also fit the people with the respective MBTI types. But my book... ugh... x)


----------



## Deus Absconditus (Feb 27, 2011)

Sneaky Bastard said:


> Imo they're a LOT better than the ones in my book...and they also fit the people with the respective MBTI types. But my book... ugh... x)


Put the book down, and let your tertiary Ti lead you to the truth so your Ni can further enhance your knowledge precisely .


----------



## Promethea (Aug 24, 2009)

Sneaky Bastard said:


> Does anyone know how and if that is possible? I'm not an expert yet... but I have read that a MBTI INFJ is an INFp in Socionics and vice versa. But I really did many tests from both theories and I got always the "same" results: INFJ/j. And it seems to me that they're really actually taking the same personality traits to say who is a J/j or P/p...
> 
> Any ideas?


Socionics and mbti are two different interpretations of jungs work. Its not as simple as "a j/p flip" -- in fact, the functions mean different things to varying extents. Mbti Te and Ti for example are two that I believe are very different from socionics Te Ti. The Ns however seem pretty similar cross-system. 

The models explanations of how the sets of functions affect each other are also vastly different. Their Fi Se type often looks like an edgy aggressive intellectual in practice, whereas mbti's Fi Se type is stereotyped as a soft-minded artistic person. Thats just one example. The whole system is a lot different, and I wouldn't bother trying to correlate anything in the two. 

Theres also a different emphasis put on the weight of the functions. In mbti its often believed that you're -either- a thinker, or a feeler, -either- an intuitor or sensor, however in socionics you're understood to use all of those things, just to have more of a lean toward one or the other.. and perhaps even only slightly. This is why I am more than willing to accept someone's typing for example, who claims different functions in each model. The types in socionics are often things that do not exist in mbti, the sli for example. And mbti tends to have shoddy function descriptions, and operates primarily on stereotypes.

In socionics its not -what- you do, but how you do it. In mbti we often see its how you appear on the surface in contrast to those around you.


----------



## Deus Absconditus (Feb 27, 2011)

Promethea said:


> Socionics and mbti are two different interpretations of jungs work. Its not as simple as "a j/p flip" -- in fact, the functions mean different things to varying extents. Mbti Te and Ti for example are two that I believe are very different from socionics Te Ti. The Ns however seem pretty similar cross-system.
> 
> The models explanations of how the sets of functions affect each other are also vastly different. Their Fi Se type often looks like an edgy aggressive intellectual in practice, whereas mbti's Fi Se type is stereotyped as a soft-minded artistic person. Thats just one example. The whole system is a lot different, and I wouldn't bother trying to correlate anything in the two.
> 
> ...


Read my first post, and analyze it and I include all 8 functions with both of their works. Also socionics Ti is Ti and not Te.

Introverted logic - Wikisocion, that's the clear example of Ti in socionics.

and in Socionics its about "why" you do it. A lot of these sites on the internet have a wrong interpretation of socionics which messes with peoples logic when trying to compare it to MBTI. A lot of the websites are made by people with opinions and their own interpretation of socionics, so yes using logic and how I compared them on my first post, shows it is as simple as a j/p, analyze it yourself, trust me.

I think a huge problem is that people try to ignore the J/p switch for introverts, so when you're INTp and you're thinking it's the same as INTP, you are starting to believe after reading INTp that they are misrepresenting Ti as Te, when in fact they are just explaining Te. What's then going on is these specific people are coming to forums and then explaining their interpretation to others who are taking it in as fact, or possibly right. After that most people don't try to study socionics and MBTI as a whole, reading and searching for interpretation of a function and even including read Jungs interpretation then comparing and contrasting all interpretations with his theory. If you study that link I just gave you, it teaches you a lot about socionics, a long with it's wikipedia page.


----------



## Promethea (Aug 24, 2009)

Michaeldh0589 said:


> Read my first post, and analyze it and I include all 8 functions with both of their works. Also socionics Ti is Ti and not Te.
> 
> Introverted logic - Wikisocion, that's the clear example of Ti in socionics.
> 
> and in Socionics its about "why" you do it. A lot of these sites on the internet have a wrong interpretation of socionics which messes with peoples logic when trying to compare it to MBTI. A lot of the websites are made by people with opinions and their own interpretation of socionics, so yes using logic and how I compared them on my first post, shows it is as simple as a j/p, analyze it yourself, trust me.


I don't care for anyones analysis of how the functions between the systems are the same, when the systems were developed through two different interpretations of jungs work, and are in fact different. Socionics Ti is not mbti Ti. Socionics Te is not mbti Te.

If the functions aren't the same to different extents, when you put the functions together you have a different formula for a type -- and examining what the types actually look like in socionics, they are much different than mbti types. No its not a simple j/p switch -- the reason there are differences in j and p between the systems is because the differences in actual functions change what the type is.


----------



## Deus Absconditus (Feb 27, 2011)

Promethea said:


> I don't care for anyones analysis of how the functions between the systems are the same, when the systems were developed through two different interpretations of jungs work, and are in fact different. Socionics Ti is not mbti Ti. Socionics Te is not mbti Te.
> 
> If the functions aren't the same to different extents, when you put the functions together you have a different formula for a type -- and examining what the types actually look like in socionics, they are much different than mbti types. No its not a simple j/p switch -- the reason there are differences in j and p between the systems is because the differences in actual functions change what the type is.


So you're going to refuse to read it yourself and analyze it yourself? Well I guess I can respect that, seems like there is nothing further to discuss. Thank you for your reply.


----------



## Promethea (Aug 24, 2009)

Michaeldh0589 said:


> So you're going to refuse to read it yourself and analyze it yourself? Well I guess I can respect that, seems like there is nothing further to discuss. Thank you for your reply.


What I meant, was that I have studied both systems myself, and I know that the functions are different. No offense meant to your idea, I simply disagree.


----------



## Deus Absconditus (Feb 27, 2011)

@Promethea, I can respect that, but I also have studied myself and with great depth and I found the common similarities. Now if you disagree, then I can only leave it at that. I've showed you the links, and my own formula for it, to put it in better perspective. If you still can't pull yourself to see what I see, then we can only agree to disagree. At least you take an interest in socionics, and I respect that.


----------



## PlushWitch (Oct 28, 2010)

I also had the impression that Socionics is more about the "why"...well... AND the "how". BUT it bugs me a bit. If you take the plain cognitive functions from MBTI it's quite exclusively the "how". It's clean and pure. With Socionics however, you have so many "why"s in every function description... And what bugs me about it is that in Socionics a dominant Si-user simply HAS to be an Enneagram 9 since the Si motivations seem to resemble those of 9s a lot (as far as I remember it correctly). Sure, they also say that there are different kinds of each Socionics type. But I doubt that it covers everything the MBTI cognitive functions PLUS the Enneagram would cover...

The MBTI *type* descriptions also use too many stereotypes and mix cognitive functions with Enneagram specific traits, but the cognitive functions don't.

Maybe Socionics really tries to cover the WHOLE personality. But I doubt they really succeed. Imo it's still possible for two people with exactly the same cognitive functions to have different motivations. In Socionics it doesn't seem to be.


----------



## Deus Absconditus (Feb 27, 2011)

Sneaky Bastard said:


> I also had the impression that Socionics is more about the "why"...well... AND the "how". BUT it bugs me a bit. If you take the plain cognitive functions from MBTI it's quite exclusively the "how". It's clean and pure. With Socionics however, you have so many "why"s in every function description... And what bugs me about it is that in Socionics a dominant Si-user simply HAS to be an Enneagram 9 since the Si motivations seem to resemble those of 9s a lot (as far as I remember it correctly). Sure, they also say that there are different kinds of each Socionics type. But I doubt that it covers everything the MBTI cognitive functions PLUS the Enneagram would cover...
> 
> The MBTI *type* descriptions also use too many stereotypes and mix cognitive functions with Enneagram specific traits, but the cognitive functions don't.
> 
> Maybe Socionics really tries to cover the WHOLE personality. But I doubt they really succeed. Imo it's still possible for two people with exactly the same cognitive functions to have different motivations. In Socionics it doesn't seem to be.


Idk, because I study both MBTI and Socionics in depth with enneagram and what I do is mix personalities in my head. Most ENTP descriptions don't talk in terms of 3's or 8's, most descriptions are about ENTP 7's. That confused until I got into socionics, because socionics explained ENTp from a different perspective, actually to me they spoke about the ENTp from a non enneagram perspective. Where you can see how an ENTp could be a 3,7, or 8. 

I think if you take socionics and MBTI as the same interpretation but different perspectives (socionics seems like a Ti user created it, while MBTI seems like a Te-Fi perspective) you can see that an Si user may be described as a 9 (which I'm not sure I agree yet, I'm going to need to study it with your perspective now) in socionics but MBTI will show you the other sides of the Si user, the 1's and 6's for instance. 

You also have to take into consideration all the different aspects of enneagram types themselves and try to combine those with both interpretations of Jungs cognitive functions and personality types to see all different perspectives of the personality type. I think people see the personality type as a paper with just words describing a person. That's not what personality is, personality is a sphere glowing of a soul with symbols from the psych all over the sphere, and us as the ones who are studying these works, we have to walk around the whole sphere and analyze every aspect to get a whole global understanding of what an individuals personality really is. It takes a lot of studying and combining really well written and highly known personality theories, finding the truth in them all, then combining all of them to unlock more of that personality sphere to analyze and study.


----------



## cyamitide (Jul 8, 2010)

Sneaky Bastard said:


> I also had the impression that Socionics is more about the "why"...well... AND the "how". BUT it bugs me a bit. If you take the plain cognitive functions from MBTI it's quite exclusively the "how". It's clean and pure. With Socionics however, you have so many "why"s in every function description... And what bugs me about it is that in *Socionics a dominant Si-user simply HAS to be an Enneagram 9 since the Si motivations seem to resemble those of 9s a lo*t (as far as I remember it correctly). Sure, they also say that there are different kinds of each Socionics type. But I doubt that it covers everything the MBTI cognitive functions PLUS the Enneagram would cover...


Socionics or MBTI cognitive functions are not about motivations. They are passive perspectives, passive filters for reality. You cannot mix them with enneagram types because enneagram is entirely different matter.

If you hang out with Socionics English-speaking community you will find that there are many Si-leading and Si-creative people there who type as 4s and 6s and 2s and so on, and not 9.



> Maybe Socionics really tries to cover the WHOLE personality. But I doubt they really succeed. Imo it's still possible for two people with exactly the same cognitive functions to have different motivations. In Socionics it doesn't seem to be.


Jung's 8 cognitive functions do not make you who you are. Jungian type only uncovers a part of your personality, and a smaller part at that, may be 10-20% if that. So it is not possible for socionics or MBTI to uncover the "WHOLE personality".


----------



## PlushWitch (Oct 28, 2010)

cyamitide said:


> So it is not possible for socionics or MBTI to uncover the "WHOLE personality".


I never said they did. x)

I was just trying to say that I feel that MBTI cognitive functions are more purely cognitive functions and therefore can be more easily combined with the Enneagram...in the sense that those two systems complete each other because they each cover entirely different aspects of the personality.

...and that I feel that Socionics also tries to cover motivations in the cognitive function descriptions which can't work that way, imo. ... SINCE any MBTI/Scocionics type could be any Enneagram type.


----------



## Tread Softly (Feb 8, 2012)

Sneaky Bastard said:


> Does anyone know how and if that is possible? I'm not an expert yet... but I have read that a MBTI INFJ is an INFp in Socionics and vice versa. But I really did many tests from both theories and I got always the "same" results: INFJ/j. And it seems to me that they're really actually taking the same personality traits to say who is a J/j or P/p...
> 
> Any ideas?


lol I used to get different results in Socionics and in MBTI. But now they seem to be the same. :/ Except in MBTI, INFP cognitive functions are said to follow this order: Fi, Ne, Si, Te. And in Socionics, the order for an INFP is: Ni, Fe, Ti, Se (which is an INFJ in MBTI). The cognitive functions I use most often and the least don't follow either of those orders perfectly but I guess I'm somewhere between both. You might be the same.


----------



## PlushWitch (Oct 28, 2010)

Tread Softly said:


> lol I used to get different results in Socionics and in MBTI. But now they seem to be the same. :/ Except in MBTI, INFP cognitive functions are said to follow this order: Fi, Ne, Si, Te. And in Socionics, the order for an INFP is: Ni, Fe, Ti, Se (which is an INFJ in MBTI). The cognitive functions I use most often and the least don't follow either of those orders perfectly but I guess I'm somewhere between both. You might be the same.


haha... again someone who answers to that post. :laughing: :wink:

I want to have a badge on it like "THIS POST IS F*ING OLD". :laughing:


----------



## Tread Softly (Feb 8, 2012)

Sneaky Bastard said:


> haha... again someone who answers to that post. :laughing: :wink:
> 
> I want to have a badge on it like "THIS POST IS F*ING OLD". :laughing:


But that's part of the beauty of PC!


----------



## Ethanol (Jul 31, 2010)

Oh and by the way... I still come out as an INFJ in both MBTI and Socionics... still... I took the Socionics test again, this time from the perspective of someone else looking at me, and the result was INTP -__-; lol


----------



## Entropic (Jun 15, 2012)

Ethanol said:


> Oh and by the way... I still come out as an INFJ in both MBTI and Socionics... still... I took the Socionics test again, this time from the perspective of someone else looking at me, and the result was INTP -__-; lol


Maybe stop rely on test results and start look into your cognition and peg that into the system instead of taking a test and assuming that defines how you operate. You need to reverse the process. First look at how you work, then see how that matches the system.


----------



## Ethanol (Jul 31, 2010)

LeaT said:


> Maybe stop rely on test results and start look into your cognition and peg that into the system instead of taking a test and assuming that defines how you operate. You need to reverse the process. First look at how you work, then see how that matches the system.


LOL Relax. *looks around for the person who is using quizes to define themselves" I'm sorry, don't think I see any here.

I'm too old for that lol I'm merely laughing at the jumbled results, in a "oh geez, do I believe in this shit anymore?" way.

I'm pretty sure my function is MBTI Ni but who knows, maybe I'm closer to the Socionics Fi? But then again, to look at your own cognitive processes objectively is difficult. Just one of those scenarios probably best left for an unbiased party to examine, perhaps a real psychologist, not a forum of self diagnosis.

I just find it curious that I can take these quizes and get different results. I think it just goes to show ya that the quizes aren't accurate to start... or perhaps that people are more complex than these quizes make us out to be and like some posters have said, the truth lay somewhere in between.

I'm not answering any of the questions differently, so why point to such a different cognition processes? I got a socionics INTp by doing so, answering questions the way others might see me, as opposed to how I see myself.

People grow, alot, after their experiences. I've grown up a lot, and I think in a way that makes it harder to pinpoint what's going on inside.. even for myself. No, it's not as simple as "which do you relate to more? which do you see yourself relying on heavily?". For some of us, the answer is most probably more than you think I do.

PS: Oh and PS... these days I relate to INTJs alot more... I see myself more as a thinker, than a feeler, but I still get feelers as a result. I think, for more well rounded personalities, the borderlines aren't as clear cut.


----------



## Kanerou (Oct 8, 2009)

Apologies if I'm repeating anything already said in this thread, but determining Socionics type over in the USSR tends to involve first-hand observation, interviews, etc. My understanding is that a good, accurate Socionics test is extremely difficult to come by.


----------



## Entropic (Jun 15, 2012)

Ethanol said:


> LOL Relax. *looks around for the person who is using quizes to define themselves" I'm sorry, don't think I see any here.
> 
> I'm too old for that lol I'm merely laughing at the jumbled results, in a "oh geez, do I believe in this shit anymore?" way.
> 
> ...


So how exactly do you relate to Ni in either system? How do you relate to Fi?


----------



## LibertyPrime (Dec 17, 2010)

MBTI function descriptions directly from www.myersbriggs.org

*Extraverted Feeling:* Seeks harmony with and between people in the outside world. Interpersonal and cultural values are important.

*Introverted Feeling:* Seeks harmony of action and thoughts with personal values. May not always articulate those values.

*Socionics Fi*

*Introverted ethics* () is an introverted, rational, and static information element. It is also called Fi, R, relational ethics, or white ethics.
is generally associated with the ability to gain an implicit sense of the subjective 'distance' between two people, and make judgments based off of said thing.
Types with valued strive to make and maintain close, personal relationships with their friends and family. They value sensitivity to others' feelings, and occasionally will make their innermost feelings and sentiments known in order to test the possibility of creating closeness with others.
Also, these types convey emotions in terms of how they were affected by something (such as "I did not like that"), rather than an extroverted ethics () approach that would describe the object itself without clear reference to the subject involved (such as "That sucked"). Much of their decisions are based on how they themselves, or others in relation to them personally, feel in contrast to considering how "the big picture" is affected (such as groups of people.)

*Extroverted ethics* () is an extroverted, rational, and dynamic information element. It is also called Fe, E, the ethics of emotions, or black ethics.
is generally associated with the ability to recognize and convey (i.e. make others experience) passions, moods, and emotional states, generate excitement, liveliness, and feelings, get emotionally involved in activities and emotionally involve others, recognize and describe emotional interaction between people and groups, and build a sense of community and emotional unity.
Types that value like creating a visible atmosphere of camaraderie with other people. They enjoy a loose atmosphere where anything goes, where people don't have to watch too carefully what they say for fear of offending others. This means these types try not to be too thin-skinned, taking jokes with a grain of salt. However, they are very conscious of the fact that the way something is said is very important to how it will be received, so they tend to add emphasis, embellishments, and exaggerations here and there to keep people engaged. The best way to say something is highly dependent on the situation and the implied purpose of the exchange, so of course levity is not appropriate in some situations.
Even after explosive arguments, these types find it hard to hold grudges, and can tolerate people they in principle don't like, as long as the situation is primarily social and doesn't require too close contact. They prefer misgivings to be out in the open; they believe that the silent treatment is one of the worst things you can do to a person, and only aggravates the underlying problem.

*Basically they are the same thing despite the long winded socionics descriptions. All MBTI functions line up with all socionics functions, they just embellish these in each system with "consequences" or behavior stemming from the preference in a different way.*

The MBTI J/P dichotomy does not make one more organized or prone to list making. That most likely is a learned habit that some types are more prone to adopt as it allows them to cope better with incoming information. I assume Si and Ni dom & aux users are more prone to adopt such methods as their Se and Ne are weak, so they have a harder time coping with sudden changes.  This is a simple information processing preference that differs among people.

*Think of Fe as consensus, considering other people's values, social harmony and acting based on that.
Fi on the other hand will not be able to tolerate consensus if the agreed upon values do not fall in line with personal ones. Fi users will tend to disagree and will state as to why thereby creating a subjective distance between them and others.*


----------



## Kanerou (Oct 8, 2009)

That conclusion requires a large amount of incredibly selective reading, even within the definitions you quoted.


----------



## LibertyPrime (Dec 17, 2010)

Kanerou said:


> That conclusion requires a large amount of incredibly selective reading, even within the definitions you quoted.


Complicated interpretable descriptions of functions are useless and lead to debating, disagreements and the sort of "I think this and you think that" approach, the never ending theorizing about who is right and how one should interpret what. This is precisely what I hated about studying psychology back in collage and why I prefer math or anything that has a solution that I can arrive to by following the logic. Nothing to interpret in more ways then one, just precise usable descriptions with results.

The functions can only be interpreted one way otherwise the whole theory falls apart. Subjective feeling and objective feeling/value preference. it is the same thing thus valid across MBTI and socionics.

ESI is ISFP, the descriptions are just badly written due to people actually being individuals and being complex enough for MBTI/Socionics type to only be a fraction of their personality.

This makes especially sense in socionics as it clearly states that if one has strong Fi, then one has strong Fe as well, just that it isn't valued / it isn't the main preference. ESI will still be a better Fe user then LII. This stuff isn't all or nothing, just simple preferences.


----------



## chaoticbrain (May 5, 2012)

Theres debate over weither "P" traits are associated with extroverted perception or dominant perception. Just learn about the socionics information elements.

One thing to note that I've heard is an INFj with an Fi subtype is more likely to be organized and test as an INFJ. Maybe the same thing with INFp Fe subtype ?


----------



## Sixty Nein (Feb 13, 2011)

FreeBeer said:


> If one has strong Fi, then one has strong Fe as well, just that it isn't valued / it isn't the main preference. ESI will still be a better Fe user then LII. This stuff isn't all or nothing, just simple preferences.


I disagree with such a statement in actuality. I largely consider socionics, the MBTI and Jung as mostly a general pattern inside of the human mind, and not actually the affects of their own actual ability. So if the LII's goal is to induce a sense of positive affectuality, and they have been on their people skills. It would probably make them better at actually doing than, then the ESI who probably doesn't really care about such things. I only see the ego blocks as IE that they are most comfortable with utilizing. It's why you can get Ethicals who are better at conceptual thinking than Logicals.

Besides MBTI Fi is generic. Most introverts with a basic sense of self satisfaction would see themselves as being more Fi and Fe from that description anyways. Fe types in socionics are generally less about external harmony, and mostly about shifting the social energy and being aware of such things. With Fi most Fi descriptions being that their relationships are mostly "static" and thus less likely to want to change these static relations. Though their reliability is quite suspect though.

Besides you are pretty "However, they are very conscious of the fact that the way something is said is very important to how it will be received, so they tend to add emphasis, embellishments, and exaggerations here and there to keep people engaged." to the point of where I find it obnoxious. More so than the actual Fi egos that I observed. Such as Kanerou being a prime example of what I would expect a Fe ignoring type to actually act like.


----------



## Entropic (Jun 15, 2012)

St Vual said:


> I disagree with such a statement in actuality. I largely consider socionics, the MBTI and Jung as mostly a general pattern inside of the human mind, and not actually the affects of their own actual ability. So if the LII's goal is to induce a sense of positive affectuality, and they have been on their people skills. It would probably make them better at actually doing than, then the ESI who probably doesn't really care about such things. I only see the ego blocks as IE that they are most comfortable with utilizing. It's why you can get Ethicals who are better at conceptual thinking than Logicals.
> 
> Besides MBTI Fi is generic. Most introverts with a basic sense of self satisfaction would see themselves as being more Fi and Fe from that description anyways. Fe types in socionics are generally less about external harmony, and mostly about shifting the social energy and being aware of such things. With Fi most Fi descriptions being that their relationships are mostly "static" and thus less likely to want to change these static relations. Though their reliability is quite suspect though.
> 
> Besides you are pretty "However, they are very conscious of the fact that the way something is said is very important to how it will be received, so they tend to add emphasis, embellishments, and exaggerations here and there to keep people engaged." to the point of where I find it obnoxious. More so than the actual Fi egos that I observed. Such as Kanerou being a prime example of what I would expect a Fe ignoring type to actually act like.


I think @_FreeBeer_ is referring to the two subtypes where the energy metabolism flows differently - either towards the subject or towards the object - resulting in inert and contact subtypes. Inert subtypes have elements 1, 4, 6 and 7 strengthened, whereas contact subtypes have elements 2, 3, 5 and 8 strengthened. 

The results is that those with inert subtypes will have all those elements strengthened even if they are not valued elements for that type. An ILI-Ni will for instance possibly look quite NF-y and may be mistaken for a beta IEI because Ni, Ne, Fe and Fi are all strengthed. An ILI-Te will in contrast look ST-y, because Si, Se and Ti and Te are strengthened.

One needs to remember how we operate each element when orientating ourselves and interacting with the world as well, and what it is people see versus what is going on underneath the surface. So for instance, looking at myself, I'm a contact subtype meaning I got Se and Te as strengthed elements. Because they are both extroverted elements, they can be "seen" from the outside. However, I think I am also quite aware of Si in that I have a weird on-off switch in relation to Si where I am either extremely aware of my body or I am not aware of it at all. Consider for instance when I was at work last week and the weather created very high air pressure causing people to have headaches. So I overheard these two people talking about how they were having headaches and suddenly I realize that I have a headache too and I was completely unaware of this prior of hearing that conversation. I have no recollection when I began having a headache but once I became aware of the fact that I had a headache I could not stop thinking about it and it was so severe I felt it impeded with my work. 

Also, I think it's important to consider that the way the elements operate in Model A is that all people have access to and can express themselves through the elements. One is however very unlikely to do so through those that are devalued (supergo and id block), so one needs to consider two things: First, devaluing a certain element means that we do not value its input when expressed by other people, but it does not mean we never will or cannot express ourselves using that element. Second, subtype theory as proposed by Meged and Ovcharov clarifies why a person may express themselves using an element not valued by their type more than others, or feel more "in touch" with that element within themselves, despite not valuing its output by others. 

With the energy flowing in a certain direction, the likelihood of expressing oneself through a devalued information element increases over another. ILI-Ni is for instance far more likely expressing themselves through Fe and an ILI-Te through Si.


----------



## LibertyPrime (Dec 17, 2010)

St Vual said:


> I disagree with such a statement in actuality. I largely consider socionics, the MBTI and Jung as mostly a general pattern inside of the human mind, and not actually the affects of their own actual ability. So if the LII's goal is to induce a sense of positive affectuality, and they have been on their people skills. It would probably make them better at actually doing than, then the ESI who probably doesn't really care about such things. I only see the ego blocks as IE that they are most comfortable with utilizing. It's why you can get Ethicals who are better at conceptual thinking than Logicals.
> 
> Besides MBTI Fi is generic. Most introverts with a basic sense of self satisfaction would see themselves as being more Fi and Fe from that description anyways. Fe types in socionics are generally less about external harmony, and mostly about shifting the social energy and being aware of such things. With Fi most Fi descriptions being that their relationships are mostly "static" and thus less likely to want to change these static relations. Though their reliability is quite suspect though.
> 
> Besides you are pretty "However, they are very conscious of the fact that the way something is said is very important to how it will be received, so they tend to add emphasis, embellishments, and exaggerations here and there to keep people engaged." to the point of where I find it obnoxious. More so than the actual Fi egos that I observed. Such as Kanerou being a prime example of what I would expect a Fe ignoring type to actually act like.


Hmm I agree. I meant more along the lines of despite not being able to show affection towards other people I for example am really good at reading body language, emotional charge, intention, emotional climate and so on, however I'm more comfortable making value judgments and adhering to my conscience. To me duty, justice, right and wrong, morality, humility, being fair and doing the work properly, giving proper useful advice are more important then emotionalism or taking care of other people's feelings. I specifically suck at giving emotional comforting as I do not know how to do it, find it odd and it makes me feel vulnerable...so I'd rather avoid it. I also do not know how to apply Fe directly to influence people in such ways. I have seen some other people who can hug easy, who touch people and display affection very easily. To me that is unsettling and I'm too inhibited to even try, wouldn't want to either.

I for example differ in 5 things from a stereotypical Keirsian ISFJ:

1. Authority issues as in I do not follow orders well if I don't agree with them. Tendency towards rebellion. (CP 6)
2. Boring detailed work makes me fall asleep, can't do it.
3. I do not value Si, neither MBTI nor Socionics, comfort, tradition and unpractical aesthetic crap lol. *scoff*
4. I'm not systematic, don't do lists, am chaotic and disorganized, display tactical adaptive intelligence.
5. Caring for others, displaying affection and emotional counseling makes me cringe and if ppl depend on me I feel like I need to get away. 

The rest of ISFJ is spot on. I agree with the observation about exaggeration, embellishment and so on. My writing style is full of that and it is Fe-ish yes.

However I am focused more internally feeling wise as I can meet those needs with ease, rather then the external focus which I tend to either reject and fall very short from being able or willing to meet such needs of others.

*What I meant was that despite being fully able to think in both ways, one way is subordinate to the other and external manifestations of it in behavior will be less efficient and subdued.*


----------



## Kanerou (Oct 8, 2009)

St Vual said:


> Besides MBTI Fi is generic. Most introverts with a basic sense of self satisfaction would see themselves as being more Fi and Fe from that description anyways. Fe types in socionics are generally less about external harmony, and mostly about shifting the social energy and being aware of such things. *With Fi most Fi descriptions being that their relationships are mostly "static" and thus less likely to want to change these static relations.* Though their reliability is quite suspect though.


Personally, I find this to fit. I value stability in life overall, though.


----------



## onion (Dec 27, 2013)

PlushWitch said:


> Does anyone know how and if that is possible? I'm not an expert yet... but I have read that a MBTI INFJ is an INFp in Socionics and vice versa. But I really did many tests from both theories and I got always the "same" results: INFJ/j. And it seems to me that they're really actually taking the same personality traits to say who is a J/j or P/p...
> 
> Any ideas?



Yeah if you go through the mbti infj type description with a fine tooth comb, you'll notice the inconsistencies. They describe a type who uses Fi, and then turn around and say the infj is Ni, Fe. Same with the isfj. They give a big spiel about how they hold their emotions in,and then say they use Fe. I think mbti took too many drugs back in the 60's.

Trust your own instincts. You're on the right track.


----------



## Aerosong (Nov 1, 2014)

Came here to read advice, found a shitstorm and now have a headache lol.


----------

