# Is it possible to be MBTI ENFP and socionics ENFj?



## Vianna

I very much relate to socionics description of ENFj, while I don't relate much to the MBTI ENFJ and I think my type is ENFP. Is it possible to be Fe+Ni in socionics and Ne+Fi in MBTI? The other type I thought about was INFp, but it's also Ni+Fe so it seems like my Ni+Fe functions in socionics are strong while in MBTI I use more Ne+Fi. Could this be?


----------



## Sol_

ENFj is ENFJ. Is it possible to be ENFP and ENFJ in the same time? Of course, no.
It's possible that someone incorrectly identified the type, - it's common situation, because average match in typings is <30%.


----------



## Vianna

Sol_ said:


> ENFj is ENFJ. Is it possible to be ENFP and ENFJ in the same time? Of course, no.
> It's possible that someone incorrectly identified the type, - it's common situation, because average match in typings is <30%.


But I really very much relate to ENFj in socionics description, but wehn I read the MBTI description I can't relate to more than just a few things in the profile. I'd say I am more an xNFP, my profile now says INFP, but the correct type for me would be xNFP, even though I've always so related to Ni description, I know I am not xNFJ. The most likely types in socionics for me are: ENFj, or INFp wich would me xNFJ. And now I am just what? :O I don't know if I made a mistake in MBTI, or socionics now.


----------



## Kanerou

MBTI and Socionics aren't equivalent systems. The type models are different, and the CFs are not defined the same as the IM elements. If you fit Ne + Fi in MBTI, and you fit Fe + Ni in Socionics, I don't see the problem.


----------



## liminalthought

Kanerou said:


> MBTI and Socionics aren't equivalent systems. The type models are different, and the CFs are not defined the same as the IM elements. If you fit Ne + Fi in MBTI, and you fit Fe + Ni in Socionics, I don't see the problem.


j/p switch for introverts and only introverts


----------



## Ardielley

I think so. I'm an INFP, and I got INFj when I took the Socionics test.


----------



## Vianna

Ardielley said:


> I think so. I'm an INFP, and I got INFj when I took the Socionics test.


as it was said in post before. P/J switch for introverts. INFPs and INFjs in socionics use exactly the same functions and are practicaly the same type. This doesn't count for extroverts. ENFPs and ENFjs use different functions.


----------



## Kanerou

liminalthought said:


> j/p switch for introverts and only introverts


No.


----------



## liminalthought

Kanerou said:


> No.












Nice move. But I believe in the heart of the cards.


----------



## Kanerou

ManOfGoldenWords said:


> as it was said in post before. P/J switch for introverts. INFPs and INFjs in socionics use exactly the same functions and are practicaly the same type. This doesn't count for extroverts. ENFPs and ENFjs use different functions.


Have you looked at the IM elements and compared them to the cognitive functions? There can be similarities at times, but they are not the exact same thing and should not be treated as such.


----------



## liminalthought

Kanerou said:


> Have you looked at the IM elements and compared them to the cognitive functions? There can be similarities at times, but they are not the exact same thing and should not be treated as such.


yes and no
As a beginners handicap yes, do not treat them the same. 
If you're already familiar with them, no. You will understand how far the similarities go and where socionics has built upon in addition, when you see for yourself.


----------



## Kanerou

liminalthought said:


> yes and no
> As a beginners handicap yes, do not treat them the same.
> If you're already familiar with them, no. You will understand how far the similarities go and where socionics has built upon in addition, when you see for yourself.


"When I see for myself." That implies I don't agree with you because I am ignorant or have too little information. This is not the case, so no.


----------



## Helios

liminalthought said:


> j/p switch for introverts and only introverts


But there are still some extroverted individuals I've come across who don't relate to the overall type description in one system versus the other despite this. What do you have to say about that?


----------



## liminalthought

Kanerou said:


> "When I see for myself." That implies I don't agree with you because I am ignorant or have too little information. This is not the case, so no.


1) My honest answer: I don't imply that. 
2) When I said "when you see for yourself", I wasn't addressing you specifically. 
3) I'm sure you are also well informed


----------



## Kanerou

liminalthought said:


> 1) My honest answer: I don't imply that.
> 2) When I said "when you see for yourself", I wasn't addressing you specifically.
> 3) I'm sure you are also well informed


Alright. I still disagree with the points you made.


----------



## liminalthought

Ananael said:


> But there are still some extroverted individuals I've come across who don't relate to the overall type description in one system versus the other despite this. What do you have to say about that?


hearsay?



Ananael said:


> But there are still some *extroverted* individuals...





liminalthought said:


> j/p switch for introverts _*and only introverts*_


----------



## liminalthought

Kanerou said:


> Alright. I still disagree with the points you made.


Thank you. At least there exists an opposing force.


----------



## phoenixpinion

Kanerou said:


> MBTI and Socionics aren't equivalent systems. The type models are different, and the CFs are not defined the same as the IM elements. If you fit Ne + Fi in MBTI, and you fit Fe + Ni in Socionics, I don't see the problem.


If you don't see the problem, then you need to have your brain checked. A dominant function of Ne is completely different than a dominant function of Fe. An auxiliary function of Fi is completely different than an auxiliary function of Ne. Sure, the systems are different, but then this difference should be reflected across the globe, like for example most if not all MBTI ENFP's testing as socionics ENFj's and vice versa, instead of a single case of mbti ENFP testing as socionics ENFj.

The MBTI and socionics functions are indeed somewhat different, but not completely different!


----------



## liminalthought

phoenixpinion said:


> If you don't see the problem, then you need to have your brain checked.


oh-oh.


----------



## Kanerou

phoenixpinion said:


> If you don't see the problem, then you need to have your brain checked.


The argument is there in my post. If you disagree with the principle behind my logic, fine. That's really the closest thing to a constructive answer that I can give to your words.


----------



## Vianna

Jesus I just wanted an opinion, not a fight!







But yeah, I also disagree, that being Ne+Fi in MBTI and Fe+Ni in socionics is not okay... Functions are functions!


----------



## Helios

ManOfGoldenWords said:


> Jesus I just wanted an opinion, not a fight!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> But yeah, I also disagree, that being Ne+Fi in MBTI and Fe+Ni in socionics is not okay... Functions are functions!


But no, really. An information element in isolation is not a function. They do correlate to roughly similar things, however.


----------



## liminalthought

Ananael said:


> But no, really. An information element in isolation is not a function. They do correlate to roughly similar things, however.


This is true. 

http://www.the16types.info/vbulletin/content.php/73-Information-Elements-Primer

http://www.the16types.info/vbulletin/content.php/6-Translation-Model-A
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"One of the most fundamental concepts in socionics is the idea of information elements, or facets of reality. The idea is that reality can be divided into categories that different individuals perceive with differing degrees of clarity and precision. *These information elements **correspond to Jung's 8 psychic functions**, but have been given a new meaning. If there are 8 possible different "leading functions" that perceive different aspects of reality, **then reality can itself be described in terms of these 8 different aspects*. This was a critical step in the development of socionics that led to everything else. Socionics makes a distinction between information elements (facets of external reality) and psychic functions (positions in the socionic model of the psyche).

*The socionic model of the psyche has 8 psychic functions for all 8 information elements. In other words, all 8 kinds of information are perceived by every type, but with different degrees of clarity and objectivity"
-------------------
*You have: 

psychic functions->information elements->information aspects

The divide between psychic functions and biology is what's bars socionics from becoming a science.

---------------------
Also: http://personalitycafe.com/socionic...ing-mbti-functions-socionics-im-elements.html 

J/P switch status: http://www.wikisocion.org/en/index.php?title=J/P_switch
There is no sure official decision yet. It has worked for me when evaluating someone's type. Arguments can be made for both sides.


----------



## Kanerou

phoenixpinion said:


> If you don't see the problem, then you need to have your brain checked. A dominant function of Ne is completely different than a dominant function of Fe. An auxiliary function of Fi is completely different than an auxiliary function of Ne. Sure, the systems are different, but then this difference should be reflected across the globe, like for example most if not all MBTI ENFP's testing as socionics ENFj's and vice versa, instead of a single case of mbti ENFP testing as socionics ENFj.


Well, of course. One cannot be Fe dominant and Ne dominant, or Fi aux and Ne aux, because he or she would have to be two MBTI types at once. Fe dominant and Ne base, or Fi aux and Ne creative, on the other hand, are not absolutely impossible. If the systems measure different things, use different type models, and have different definitions, then there does _not_ have to be any kind of set correlation.



> The MBTI and socionics functions are indeed somewhat different, but not completely different!


Oh, some of them are quite different. Have you looked at MBTI Se vs Socionics Se?


----------



## Vianna

It's not like I didn't read the functions... I relate to socionics Ni, but not Fe. But when I read the whole ENFj type I could relate pretty much. I know socionics Se is all about details, while MBTI's is more experience. Somehow it seems a bit like the mixture of Si/Se.


----------



## Kanerou

ManOfGoldenWords said:


> It's not like I didn't read the functions... I relate to socionics Ni, but not Fe. But when I read the whole ENFj type I could relate pretty much. *I know socionics Se is all about details, *while MBTI's is more experience. Somehow it seems a bit like the mixture of Si/Se.


Not really, no. Socionics Se does have a focus on the present and a preference for the tangible, but it largely focuses on exerting its own will on both itself and the objects/people surrounding it. Hence one of its names being Volitional Sensing. To that end, it tends to have a good idea of who holds the power in a given situation and how much force/pressure is necessary to achieve its desired goal. It doesn't adapt to its environment; it changes the environment.

http://www.wikisocion.org/en/index.php?title=Extroverted_sensing


----------



## phoenixpinion

It would be more likely to go from ENFP to INFp/INFj instead of ENFj. You don't just go from iNtuitive-dominant to Feeling-dominant, unless that F-dom type has the same function orientations, like ENFP/INFj(=INFP), even when crossing systems. That's because even though the socionics N is different from the mbti N, it is even alot more different than the mbti F. You may resonate more with the particular description of ENFj, but descriptions are superficial things.

Of all four idealists, ENFj has least in common with ENFP, besides the fact that they're both extraverts. 

However, I'm not saying that it isn't possible you're a socionics ENFj, but then your MBTI typing as ENFP would need reconsideration.


----------



## liminalthought

phoenixpinion said:


> However, I'm not saying that it isn't possible you're a socionics ENFj, but then your MBTI typing as ENFP would need reconsideration.


+1 yep


----------



## marsec

The systems aren't equivalent but they aren't that different. Socionics and even some of the 8 function MBTI models show how each function manifests at different levels of consciousness. Socionics ENFj has Ne / Fi in the Id block so check those out and see if they relate to your experience of them vs Ne / Fi from the ENFp's Ego block. 

I don't have a link off hand to the 8 function MBTI model besides this one I remember from the MBTItruths blog, but it is covered a little in this booklet Understanding Yourself and Others: An Introduction to the Personality Type Code - Linda V. Berens, Dario Nardi - Google Books

Here is the link to mbtitruths, compare for instance the Ne from Dominant and Senex perspectives

MBTI truths: Construct Your Own Profile


----------



## Vianna

marsec said:


> The systems aren't equivalent but they aren't that different. Socionics and even some of the 8 function MBTI models show how each function manifests at different levels of consciousness. Socionics ENFj has Ne / Fi in the Id block so check those out and see if they relate to your experience of them vs Ne / Fi from the ENFp's Ego block.
> 
> I don't have a link off hand to the 8 function MBTI model besides this one I remember from the MBTItruths blog, but it is covered a little in this booklet Understanding Yourself and Others: An Introduction to the Personality Type Code - Linda V. Berens, Dario Nardi - Google Books
> 
> Here is the link to mbtitruths, compare for instance the Ne from Dominant and Senex perspectives
> 
> MBTI truths: Construct Your Own Profile


I did not read the first link, 'cause it seems pretty long, but I analyzed the second link. I read about the functions and write down to what I relate, but the problem is... I relate to more, than just one level of development for one function. I wrote this on my papper: *Te: *inferior(IxFP), trickster (IxFJ), *Ti*: auxillary (ExTP), trickster (ExFP), *Fe: *opposing(IxFP) auxillary (IxFJ), *Fi: *teritary (IxTJ), *Se: *inferior (INxJ), trickster (INxP) and demon (ENxP) *Si:*teriraty (INxP), demon (INxJ), *Ne:, *opposing (INxJ), auxillary (INxP), *Ni: *​dominant (INxJ), teritary (ISxP), senex (INxP), opposing (ENxP) ...and now what?


----------



## cyamitide

ManOfGoldenWords said:


> It's not like I didn't read the functions... I relate to socionics Ni, but not Fe. But when I read the whole ENFj type I could relate pretty much. I know socionics Se is all about details, while MBTI's is more experience. Somehow it seems a bit like the mixture of Si/Se.


How much do you relate to MBTI ENFPs? If you visit and read ENFP and ENFJ forums, which one feels more welcoming and interesting for you?


----------



## Vianna

cyamitide said:


> How much do you relate to MBTI ENFPs? If you visit and read ENFP and ENFJ forums, which one feels more welcoming and interesting for you?


My relationship with ENFP profile is a bit love/hate... Everytime I make sure I am an ENFP, I start to doubt it, so I usually switch to INFP, or INFJ and then I usually feel like "No! I am an ENFP after all!" so I switch back to ENFP and then I usually doubt...wait am i? What if I am an INFP, or INFJ atfer all? and it's like my neverending doubt between these 3 types. I relate to ENFJ profile the least of all NF types. When I was typed as INFJ and was the most active in their subforum I made the most friends and felt like I am really welcomed, but then I guess it also might be because of INFJs have so great nature.


----------



## Scelerat

I'm not a huge fan of the whole "I relate more to X type" use the tools of the system, JCF for MBTI and Reinin dichotomies, cognitive styles, romance styles, clubs and temperaments, personally I'm not a huge fan of quadras but some people like them.


----------



## bearotter

Might I say, one key to answering whether or not one can be two different types in two different systems is tracking the nature of the extremely-at-times-subjective process used to translate the words defining the IE's and JCF's to something meaningful in the individual being typed....

People can barely agree whether they're seeing a given IE OR function in a given person at a given time, so I think largely how similar the typings are going to be is going to vary as per how people apply the system, even if they're intellectually honest as to what the IE's and/or JCF's actually are definition-wise.

Naturally, this leads to differences of perspective, where some will strongly wish to see some "underlying core similarity" to the two at least unconsciously guide how they apply one system to type someone _even_ if they "stick within its boundaries" . I see this a lot floating around -- it is what it is.


----------



## Ollyx2OxenFree

I think so. Depends though. If you're ENFP based heavily on test results or type descriptions, then yes. MBTI/Keirsey and Socionics aren't the same systems so you shouldn't assume you're ENFp just because you're ENFP in MBTI/Keirsey.

In this table the 16 descriptions of Keirsey were given to 108 socionists. They read each description and were asked to identify the Socionics types in the descriptions:














Here is another table illustrating where participants were asked to identify their type in both Keirsey and Socionics. 









"Do these tables represent the real correlation between the socionic types and the Keirsey types? We think they do not. They rather represent characteristic stereotypes of the socionics and the Keirsey typology. To compare these typologies objectively, we will need to test at least several hundreds of persons using both socionic and American methods. But at least we know now for sure that socionics, MBTT [sic] and Keirsey, in spite of their common origin from the Jungian typology, are not identical!"

Another thing to take into account is that both ENFjs and ENFps share the same dimensionality of information elements (cognitive functions). By this I mean that they both share 4d Fe and Ne, 3d Ni and Fi, 2d Te and Se, and 1d Si and Ti. They just don't value the same functions but basically have the same strength in functions. Difference would be that their information elements are in different blocks. ENFj has Fe and Ni in their Ego while Ne and Fi are in their Id and the ENFp has Ne and Fi in their Ego while Fe and Ni are in their Id. On the Socioniko website, it basically says that these two types can look similar at first as they are quasi-identicals and I believe it's because of their shared dimensionality of functions.

It may seem odd that you go from using one set of functions to another set but the systems aren't identical and even the Socionists see a lot of the ENFP description in ENFj. It may be better to look at Socionics with new eyes but that's just my take. Hope this helped!


----------



## Entropic

Those pictures are so miniscule it's impossible to read the contents.


----------



## Ollyx2OxenFree

ephemereality said:


> Those pictures are so miniscule it's impossible to read the contents.


Yeah, I realized. I'm trying to fix it up. Have any suggestions on how I could make it bigger? This is one of the links. http://www.socioniko.net/en/articles/table3.gif

EDIT: Never mind, got it!


----------



## Entropic

I see. I am not sure I agree with that the letter code should coincide for the introverts. Rather, I think an INTj should correlate to INTP since they are the same type functionally, so I am not sure that table treats extroverts and introverts the same. Granted, Keirsey does not operate based on functions but I still think it should hold true considering that he developed his idea based on the MBTI. 

I am not very surprised over these findings though and I can see how one would agree on these results if one were to just study the descriptions and cross-compare.


----------



## liminalthought

You have to keep in mind that the study was based on judging the _descriptions (only the descriptions) _of _keirsey's (not MBTI ) _16 types.

It would have been better if they counted people of certain types (typed with fair certainty), using the socionists themselves (only 108) seems very odd. 

They warn us with this:
"To compare these typologies objectively, we will need to test at least several hundreds of persons using both socionic and American methods." 

At best, according to them, this is a mock sample study.


----------



## cyamitide

Ollyx2OxenFree said:


> I think so. Depends though. If you're ENFP based heavily on test results or type descriptions, then yes. MBTI/Keirsey and Socionics aren't the same systems so you shouldn't assume you're ENFp just because you're ENFP in MBTI/Keirsey.
> 
> In this table the 16 descriptions of Keirsey were given to 108 socionists. They read each description and were asked to identify the Socionics types in the descriptions:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Here is another table illustrating where participants were asked to identify their type in both Keirsey and Socionics.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> "Do these tables represent the real correlation between the socionic types and the Keirsey types? We think they do not. They rather represent characteristic stereotypes of the socionics and the Keirsey typology. To compare these typologies objectively, we will need to test at least several hundreds of persons using both socionic and American methods. But at least we know now for sure that socionics, MBTT [sic] and Keirsey, in spite of their common origin from the Jungian typology, are not identical!"
> 
> Another thing to take into account is that both ENFjs and ENFps share the same dimensionality of information elements (cognitive functions). By this I mean that they both share 4d Fe and Ne, 3d Ni and Fi, 2d Te and Se, and 1d Si and Ti. They just don't value the same functions but basically have the same strength in functions. Difference would be that their information elements are in different blocks. ENFj has Fe and Ni while Ne and Fi are in their ID and the ENFp has Ne and Fi in their ego while Fe and Ni are in their ID. On the Socioniko website, it basically says that these two types can look similar at first as they are quasi-identicals and I believe it's because of their shared dimensionality of functions.
> 
> It may seem odd that you go from using one set of functions to another set but the systems aren't identical and even the Socionists see a lot of the ENFP description in ENFj. It may be better to look at Socionics with new eyes but that's just my take. Hope this helped!


This is an important point about these comparison tables:



Ollyx2OxenFree said:


> *"Do these tables represent the real correlation between the socionic types and the Keirsey types? We think they do not. They rather represent characteristic stereotypes of the socionics and the Keirsey typology.*


They are only comparing *stereotypes* between MBTI and Socionics. 
Not drawing correlations between actual types.

I've seen these tables before cited to support now MBTI and Socionics aren't the same typology. Looking at them closely there are several very questionable things about them. For example, somehow ~50 of MBTI's INTJs switched over to socionics as ESTps, The Legionnaire. All these Extraverted Sensors suddenly became Introverted Intuitives, which is rather dubious. Seems like they were compiled from crappy data.


----------



## Karma Butterfly

The_Wanderer said:


> Hey, I put a lot of effort into that non-inflammatory, highly insightful post. Don't give me your yawns.


Your efforts are far from "Highly insightful". Chill with your sense of self importance. Personality theories aren't math, so posting a formula has no merit.



liminalthought said:


> Neither can one say yep. The argument is beyond you and me and what we have available.


Oh I sure as hell can. And I'd love to know what gives you the notion that any argument is beyond discussing. Why are you even here, then?


----------



## liminalthought

Dancing_Queen said:


> Oh I sure as hell can. And I'd love to know what gives you the notion that any argument is beyond discussing. Why are you even here, then?


Well, you started it first by saying "nope" without explaining why. You don't need to explain why, but if you can I'm interested in getting more information on this topic enough to be able to make a solid conclusion.


----------



## Karma Butterfly

liminalthought said:


> Well, you started it first by saying "nope" without explaining why. You don't need to explain why, but if you can I'm interested in getting more information on this topic enough to be able to make a solid conclusion.


"Started it first"? Where are we, kindergarten?

I think it's perfectly clear for anyone who _really_ gets the concept of MBTI/Socionics, that they don't fit into each others molds. Even though they may use the same letters the concepts behind them are different. Socionics is far more close to working with Jung's initial theory than MBTI, which has its own ideas of what the functions mean.

I don't know if you have already read this, but these threads are worth visiting:

http://personalitycafe.com/socionic...ing-mbti-functions-socionics-im-elements.html 

http://personalitycafe.com/articles/39102-mbti-functions-vs-socionics-functions.html


Good luck with trying to come to a solid conclusion.


----------



## liminalthought

Dancing_Queen said:


> "Started it first"? Where are we, kindergarten?


I'm glad you caught that. I think it characterizes our exchange since the beginning pretty well, don't you think? 



Dancing_Queen said:


> I think it's perfectly clear for anyone who _really_ gets the concept of MBTI/Socionics, that they don't fit into each others molds. Even though they may use the same letters the concepts behind them are different. Socionics is far more close to working with Jung's initial theory than MBTI, which has its own ideas of what the functions mean.
> 
> I don't know if you have already read this, but these threads are worth visiting:
> 
> http://personalitycafe.com/socionic...ing-mbti-functions-socionics-im-elements.html
> 
> http://personalitycafe.com/articles/39102-mbti-functions-vs-socionics-functions.html


Aestrivex's essay brings up some good points, but he's just explaining his opinion. That essay alone is hardly sufficient to prove anything. Aestrivex's opinion essays and commentary hold no authority, I can't convince myself of truth solely based on that and the discussion you posted. Do you have anything else? I'm still willing to consider anything else you may have, including personal research.



Dancing_Queen said:


> Good luck with trying to come to a solid conclusion.


Looks like I'll have the worst luck with you, smarty pants.


----------



## Kabosu

ephemereality said:


> Are we talking about MBTI or Keirsey? I don't see them as the same systems at all actually. Keirsey doesn't support function theory for one. As for Se, I think both MBTI and socionics contain aspects of the Jungian Se.
> 
> 
> 
> Because Keirsey INTJ description sucks? I am not even sure how this person is an introvert more than socially. Cognitively what he seems to describe is an extrovert. Overall, Keirsey's descriptions are rather fucked overall and it doesn't help that he uses MBTI jargong. It just complicates it more imo.
> 
> Which is why I could see this fit an LSE, LSE more so than LIE I think. I don't relate to this whole efficiency stuff either as a Te type. Efficiency matters but I am not _this_ concerned. I am not even sure an actual Te base type would be this concerned since the greater precedence an IE has in the psyche, the more flexible we become as to how to apply it in the external world as well. I could for example see how an id Te type could try to be this way or desire this way almost more so than a Te base type.
> 
> 
> 
> Keirsey doesn't believe in Ni, heh, but yes, I've been thinking for a while now how Ni with a bit weaker Te that one can find in a creative type who over-values the base could perhaps seem more like Ti also. I think it ultimately goes back to the fact that introversion is introversion and that all the introverted IEs have this one trait in common.
> 
> 
> 
> Because I think an ESTp could be theoretical? Just not perhaps theoretical as how this description emphasizes here, true.
> 
> 
> 
> I actually think that this is one of the things MBTI has gotten wrong about Te. Te isn't about work, Te is about efficient production and producing tangible results. I think it's wrong of the MBTI system to associate workholism with Te to begin with, but the parts I do think MBTI Te does have is much closer to what I think is sensorics in general. I just don't think the MBTI Te description actually captures what is truly Te. Similarly, I think MBTI S often mixes up S with T. It's easy to see as to why this happens because it may appear similar in people but it fundamentally misses the point Jung was making, imo.
> 
> 
> 
> I guess it depends on the person.
> 
> 
> 
> Well, again, in a strict sense there is no "Te" in this description since this is Keirsey and not the MBTI. And as I noted in the above, I think this is actually what both MBTI and Keirsey got wrong. Te has nothing to do with willpower. Te is about seeing logical results. I've written elsewhere that what is typical of both LIEs and ILIs in this regard is the fact that they can actually sit in their office and come up with a bunch of productive ideas but there is never any real interest to _act_ on those ideas or those ideas are acted on rarely. Why? Se in id. Se in combination with Te can achieve the results what Keirsey describes here, but not Te alone imo. Te does not _act_ in itself since Te is first of all aligned with external logical systems, though Te can create goals.
> 
> 
> 
> Stereotypically at least but it's like how Keirsey's ESFP is all a party animal. I can't think of a single socionics type that it even remotely resembles.
> 
> 
> 
> From what I read here, there is nothing consistent with any sociotype. I see a lot of focus on Fe here, but then there's Se too but I don't see Ni for example that could suggest EIE, though one could make a weak argument towards Si with that health stuff though I don't like stereotyping like that. Uncharacteristically SEE anyway. Overall seems to be an Fe type he's writing about here.
> 
> What I find pretty consistent throughout though, is how Keirsey's descriptions don't really seem consistent with any specific function makeup in either system. It's just a theoretical mess. On the one hand he describes the INTJ as somewhat intuitive in the entire thinking ahead business, but then he goes on to describe the need for pragmatism and such which just makes no sense for someone who is supposed to be dominant intuitive. If there's anything Jung is pretty clear on is how an intuitive type is not pragmatic since it is sensation they reject the most.
> 
> 
> Heh, and I feel this is kind of what I am doing regardless of whether I am talking to them or not since people leave behind parts of their own thinking in whatever they do or not do for the matter. Like I can look at a celeb interview and I can pick up stuff about their person even though I am not the one talking to them per se. I don't have to though of course it helps doing so, because the info is already there. It may not be visible but it's definitely there.


I know it's said later in here about how there's more Enneagram than JCF in Keirsey. I haven't cared for his system since knowing more about typology, but yeah, I can see. 6s aren't going to maybe seem NF-idealist with their skepticism (in healthy ones, it's a healthy skepticism, too). A lot of their ideals can quickly get fucked. It doesn't really play a role with me and intuition and I'm a Ne dominant. I also tested as ISTP in the dichotomies for reasons like this. I think being sp dominant kind of gives me I traits and while like itsme45 I get a bit lost in translation with MBTI (which most introverts claim is not far off from cognitive even if it's more social), but I think observers are sometimes more likely to see the extroverts qualities of extroversion than that extrovert themselves. But if these systems (MBTI, Socionics, Jung; to an extent, Keirsey - I don't think his system is in the stricter sense a total typology thing, especially turning the typology elements into descriptors) are all kind of different, shouldn't typing on each be independent to what system we are using if we do that?

Also it's said later and thank itsme45 for clearing up the thing that Se is _not_ the only action-oriented extraverted function. That probably makes Ne users wonder why that function is even considered a part of the objective world.

Oh, and as for the quoted description of ESFP:


> Performers have the special ability, even among the Artisans, to delight those around them with their warmth, their good humor, and with their often extraordinary skills in music, comedy, and drama. Whether on the job, with friends, or with their families, Performers are exciting and full of fun, and their great social interest lies in stimulating those around them to take a break from work and worry, to lighten up and enjoy life.
> 
> Performers are plentiful, something over ten percent of the population, and this is fortunate, because they bring pleasure to so many of us. Performers are the people for whom it can truly be said "all the world's a stage." Born entertainers, they love the excitement of playing to an audience, and will quickly become the center of attention wherever they are. Performers aren't comfortable being alone, and seek the company of others whenever possible -- which they usually find, for they make wonderful playmates. Performers are smooth, talkative, and witty; they always seem to know the latest jokes and stories, and are quick with wisecracks and wordplay-nothing is so serious or sacred that it can't be made fun of. *Performers also like to live in the fast lane, and seem up on the latest fashions of dress*, food, drink, and music. Lively and uninhibited, Performers are the life of the party, always trying to create in those around them a mood of eat, drink, and be merry.
> 
> Join our research panel and earn rewards The Performers' talent for enjoying life is healthy for the most part, though it also makes them more subject to temptations than the other types. Pleasure seems to be an end in itself for them, and variety is the spice of life. And so Performers are open to trying almost anything that promises them a good time, *not always giving enough thought to the consequences.*
> 
> Like the other Artisans, Performers are incurably optimistic - "Always look on the bright side," is their motto -- and they will avoid worries and troubles by ignoring them as long as possible. They are also the most generous of all the types, and second only to the Composer Artisans [ISFPs] in kindness. Performers haven't a mean or stingy bone in their body-what's theirs is yours-and they seem to have little idea of saving or conserving. *They give what they have to one and all without expectation of reward, just as they love freely,* and without expecting anything in return. In so many ways, Performers view life as an eternal cornucopia from which flows an endless supply of pleasures.


Bolded are the statements that I'd deductively say _aren't_ me. I wouldn't even say this is even my everyday description, but what even my parents who were shocked when I was 13 and coming up that type didn't know is that sometimes among social groups, I can become the source of entertainment among the said group. I usually don't mind doing it even (and if it's not the only reason a person wants to be around me) and I'm into comedy and music (even have played at least 3 instruments).
If anything, Keirseyan SP is 7 as hell (same with 1 and SJ). I bet most people who find they're mistypes between ENxP and ESxP in MBTI mistype for that reason. And like the fact that I have just a wing of 7 and don't relate to its more hedonistic features, those are the main things I disagree with from my character in his descriptions.
Good call on the Fe thing. I think this is why at least a few people who initially come here as ISFP and as Keirsey readers later learn that people into typology consider them ESFP. I think actually some of those Fe-ish things are what they didn't do.

If it seems like I didn't put enough Socionics in my post, it's because I'm a newbie to the system (while I know it's similar to MBTI, I think it would be a mistake to come to conclusions just because they have similarities), but one thing that I can say with confidence is while I've seen variation of MBTI and Sociotype, MBTI demon is _never_ the Sociotype dominant, so even with what I said previously, I could in _no_ way be Socionics SEE-ESFp. Being a newbie is also why I don't have myself down as ILE, because I never test as that (but still come up intuitive) even though I know I fit the ENTP model way more than the others in MBTI. Also, this goes in line with the main reason this thread even exists.


----------



## Kabosu

Bricolage said:


> These questions depend on the functions and the MBTI/Socionics' differences. What I mean is that Se/Si are really different between systems so disjointed permutations involving those between the systems can reasonably exist - e.g., you could be SLI and INTP because there's really no Socionics' Si counterpart in MBTI. Because Ne/Fe are so different (in either system), for one thing one is perceiving and the other is judging, and the fact that each taxonomy puts these functions far from one another structurally, I don't find the ENFP/ENFj switch or concomitance that plausible. Also, Fi, the second function for an ENFP, isn't that different in Socionics so, again, not that plausible.


It took 7 pages to finally get to a response to the OP that makes much sense.


----------



## Karma Butterfly

liminalthought said:


> I'm glad you caught that. I think it characterizes our exchange since the beginning pretty well, don't you think?


 Never understood why you felt the need to reply to my yaw, to be honest.



liminalthought said:


> Aestrivex's essay brings up some good points, but he's just explaining his opinion. That essay alone is hardly sufficient to prove anything. Aestrivex's opinion essays and commentary hold no authority, I can't convince myself of truth solely based on that and the discussion you posted. Do you have anything else? I'm still willing to consider anything else you may have, including personal research.


All of these *waves arms around thread* is personal opinion. As far as I'm concern, neither of us is an specialist. And I have to say, I find your choice of words really entertaining. 

"Hardly sufficient to prove anything", "hold no authority", "I can't convince myself of truth", " I'm still willing to consider". Did you actually think it was _supposed _to prove anything? This isn't a judge court, it's a discussion forum. It's all about evidence at most, we hardly have any proofs.

I'm interested in who would you see as authority in this case. To me, unless Jung himself raises from the dead, there's no one. 




liminalthought said:


> Looks like I'll have the worst luck with you, smarty pants.


Well you invited yourself along for the ride, didn't you? You'd should have prepared for bumps, then.


----------



## liminalthought

Dancing_Queen said:


> Never understood why you felt the need to reply to my yaw, to be honest.


So, what you said was useless? I don't think you would think so. 



Dancing_Queen said:


> All of these *waves arms around thread* is personal opinion.


Not all of it really. I mean, you may think so, but people distinguish when they're giving opinion and when they're giving facts and reasoning (when they want to). Common sense.



Dancing_Queen said:


> As far as I'm concern, *neither of us is an specialist*. And I have to say, I find your choice of words really entertaining.
> 
> "Hardly sufficient to prove anything", "hold no authority", "I can't convince myself of truth", " I'm still willing to consider". Did you actually think it was _supposed _to prove anything? This isn't a judge court, it's a discussion forum. *It's all about evidence at most, we hardly have any proofs.*


Hence why I said "The argument is beyond you and me and what we have available." 

If we treated it like a judge court we might actually get something significant out of this discussion thread, if I can make it so.



Dancing_Queen said:


> I'm interested in who would you see as authority in this case. To me, unless Jung himself raises from the dead, there's no one.


I guess the authority would be those authors who have published articles and any work on socionics. Am I right? 

As for what you said about Jung, you can cry on my shoulder while I read you lines from his book, if you want. :laughing:




Dancing_Queen said:


> Well you invited yourself along for the ride, didn't you? You'd should have prepared for bumps, then.


To this I reply with the following attitude



Dancing_Queen said:


> Oh I sure as hell can.


----------



## Entropic

Doge said:


> But if these systems (MBTI, Socionics, Jung; to an extent, Keirsey - I don't think his system is in the stricter sense a total typology thing, especially turning the typology elements into descriptors) are all kind of different, shouldn't typing on each be independent to what system we are using if we do that?


But it matters only if you see them as such. I don't see the MBTI, socionics and Jung as different. I see them sharing the same common conceptual core of what functions are, and this holds true beyond the boundaries of their respective definitions. They bleed into each other and when they do, they also suggest something greater than what each system can offer stand-alone. This is for example why will see how my descriptions of the IM/function/whatever may not necessarily fit any canon description because I look far beyond that. I see something more and greater with how they all unite and formulate a common core of what they are and how this describes the human psyche. 



> Also it's said later and thank itsme45 for clearing up the thing that Se is _not_ the only action-oriented extraverted function. That probably makes Ne users wonder why that function is even considered a part of the objective world.


That just depends on how we define action. Se is per definition of taking action in the present moment and seeing physical possibilities not action-oriented in the same sense Se is and cannot be, being intuition.


----------



## Karma Butterfly

liminalthought said:


> So, what you said was useless? I don't think you would think so.


It was a mere expression of my boredom over reading the same inane argument being thrown around every time the issue comes up. And I don’t get why that upset you enough to reply. I wouldn’t have bothered.
Do you realize we’ve come this far because of four letters?





liminalthought said:


> Not all of it really. I mean, you may think so, but people distinguish when they're giving opinion and when they're giving facts and reasoning (when they want to). Common sense.


Honestly, it's cute how you think you can talk about reasoning and common sense when you think all you need to shut an argument down is post a cognitive functions math formula.

But you really see yourself as logical, no?




liminalthought said:


> Hence why I said "The argument is beyond you and me and what we have available."
> 
> If we treated it like a judge court we might actually get something significant out of this discussion thread, if I can make it so.


If I actually thought this was worth the effort. I've already had a stint in another thread about MBTI/Socionics correspondence and wasn't impressed with an ILI folk idea of "common sense". 

It was basically endless verbose backed by huge blocks of quotes from articles and books. There was nothing original, nothing came from him. It was all "So-and-so says, Mr. whatever wrote".

_Blah._




liminalthought said:


> I guess the authority would be those authors who have published articles and any work on socionics. Am I right?
> 
> As for what you said about Jung, you can cry on my shoulder while I read you lines from his book, if you want. :laughing:
> 
> To this I reply with the following attitude



I do not believe in authority in personality theory, except for the one who originated it. I can respect and even admire other people works, but hold their words as gospel? No, nothing is sacred when it comes to knowledge. Every thing and anything is up to questioning and rebuttal. 

Yes, that'd be lovely. I'm partial to German accents, so please work on that. roud:


----------



## liminalthought

Dancing_Queen said:


> It was a mere expression of my boredom over reading the same inane argument being thrown around every time the issue comes up. And I don’t get why that upset you enough to reply. I wouldn’t have bothered.


I'm not sure why you think that upset me, I was just continuing the kindergarten joke from before. You could say I share the same tired boredom when people take up a cause against it without explaining. 



Dancing_Queen said:


> Do you realize we’ve come this far because of four letters?


You insisted. No turning back now :crazy:



Dancing_Queen said:


> Honestly, it's cute how you think you can talk about reasoning and common sense when you think all you need to shut an argument down is post a cognitive functions math formula.
> 
> But you really see yourself as logical, no?


:laughing: math formula? That was no "formula". You can't tell me it doesn't work that way, I was only showing how the theory worked. If there's anything you want to correct me on in that post I'd be glad to hear it, otherwise I don't see anything wrong. I never intended to shut down anything with that post really, that may be just your impression. 




Dancing_Queen said:


> If I actually thought this was worth the effort. I've already had a stint in another thread about MBTI/Socionics correspondence and wasn't impressed with an ILI folk idea of "common sense".
> 
> It was basically endless verbose backed by huge blocks of quotes from articles and books. There was nothing original, nothing came from him. It was all "So-and-so says, Mr. whatever wrote".


I'm not sure where the "folk" plays in all of this. Also, I'm not sure what to say...I guess...you have...my sympathies? 
That aside, it would be very helpful if you posted the link to that discussion (or pm it to me) maybe I can glean something new from it on this topic. 



Dancing_Queen said:


> I do not believe in authority in personality theory, except for the one who originated it. I can respect and even admire other people works, but hold their words as gospel? No, nothing is sacred when it comes to knowledge. Every thing and anything is up to questioning and rebuttal.
> 
> Yes, that'd be lovely. I'm partial to German accents, so please work on that. roud:


I understand your value for the original, but it's unpractical to stay stuck on the originator of things. Best thing to do is not forget where things came from, foundation is important, but also not to fear to want more.

I actually meant I don't give a *** whether he's alive or not, but the way you took it is fine too.


----------



## Inveniet

All these walls of text and you all still can't agree.
Jung was right. It is not possible to reconcile the different stances.

*Picks everyones pocket while they are busy arguing. }:-D*


----------



## Karma Butterfly

liminalthought said:


> I'm not sure why you think that upset me, I was just continuing the kindergarten joke from before. You could say I share the same tired boredom when people take up a cause against it without explaining.


The kindergarten joke was made _after_ you replied to my first comment, so I don't see how you could have been just continuing it. As for you expecting people to actually follow up on each and every one word comment they make :laughing:




liminalthought said:


> You insisted. No turning back now :crazy:


Actually it's you who keeps on asking for clarification and more information. And yeah, I'm turning back right now.





liminalthought said:


> :laughing: math formula? That was no "formula". *You can't tell me it doesn't work that way*, I was only showing how the theory worked. If there's anything you want to correct me on in that post I'd be glad to hear it, otherwise I don't see anything wrong. I never intended to shut down anything with that post really, that may be just your impression.


Actually I was referring to another post I quoted on my original one. Since then that person dropped the issue and moved on, but I didn't check your username and lost track of who you were. My bad.




liminalthought said:


> I'm not sure where the "folk" plays in all of this. Also, I'm not sure what to say...I guess...you have...my sympathies?
> That aside, it would be very helpful if you posted the link to that discussion (or pm it to me) maybe I can glean something new from it on this topic.


The exchange I referred to in my last post was fruitless, time and energy consuming. Why would I bring it up again is beyond me. Generally I'm over this topic because _to me_, it is very clear one should look at each system on its own. The only reason I commented on the thread was because being and MBTI ENFP and a Socionics ENFj is precisely the position I'm in. The topic _itself (MBTI/Socionics)_ _correspondence_ is resolved to me, why would I waste my time if no new theory regarding was presented?



liminalthought said:


> I understand your value for the original, but it's unpractical to stay stuck on the originator of things. Best thing to do is not forget where things came from, foundation is important, but also *not to fear to want more*.
> 
> I actually meant I don't give a *** whether he's alive or not, but the way you took it is fine too.


Oh I do not fear wanting more, quite the opposite in fact. Thing is, I want more and _better_. And I'm still waiting for someone who knows more about what's he/she is talking about them Jung. He didn't originated the theory because he was the only one interested in human personalities, he did it because he as the one who _could_.

As fun as MBTI is to me, one only needs to take a look of how it was conceived to laugh out loud at people who take it so seriously as to fiercely defend it.

Anyway, this served to remember me I haven't checked in the Beta Quadra Thread in ages.

See you around


----------



## liminalthought

Dancing_Queen said:


> See you around


What you've said is pretty much made out of thin air, but I understand what you mean. I enjoyed this, I hope you talk to me again (please? ahahaha).


----------



## Karma Butterfly

liminalthought said:


> What you've said is pretty much made out of thin air, but I understand what you mean. I enjoyed this, I hope you talk to me again (please? ahahaha).


I _love_ your arrogance, it gives me life.

Well you breath air, no? So I'm happy to contribute with your existence.

Sure, see ya.


----------



## Kabosu

Is it possible to relate to Fi in IM but not mbti cognitive functions? Both are fairly Jungian but I can see why someone would relate with one of those in one system but not the other.


----------



## LibertyPrime

@Dancing_Queen

o.o I am IEE. Being IEE is sort of like being a rather less idealistic Te-ish, tough version of MBTI INFP. It half way resembles ISFP, but not quite the same ....I have had several people say I'm ISTJ, some said INFJ (thou I'm P-ish to the extreme). I have this odd Te-ish nature  without the J-ish components.

*Ask me anything.* I would have never typed as MBTI ENFP normally.

*MBTI J-P is messed up and wrongly thought out imo. It only partially matches Jung's Rational-Irrational...thus ENFj can be ENFP, but your functions as MBTI ENFP will be Fe-Ni-Se-Ti and NOT NE-Fi-Te-Si.*
*
This makes you a jungian ENFJ, who behaves like an ENFP. o.o this imo still makes you ENFJ*


----------



## Kanerou

Doge said:


> Is it possible to relate to Fi in IM but not mbti cognitive functions? Both are fairly Jungian but I can see why someone would relate with one of those in one system but not the other.


I'm ESI but divided between Fi and Fe in MBTI, so yes.


----------



## Karma Butterfly

FreeBeer said:


> @_Dancing_Queen_
> 
> o.o I am IEE. Being IEE is sort of like being a rather less idealistic Te-ish, tough version of MBTI INFP. It half way resembles ISFP, but not quite the same ....I have had several people say I'm ISTJ, some said INFJ (thou I'm P-ish to the extreme). I have this odd Te-ish nature  without the J-ish components.
> 
> *Ask me anything.* I would have never typed as MBTI ENFP normally.
> 
> *MBTI J-P is messed up and wrongly thought out imo. It only partially matches Jung's Rational-Irrational...thus ENFj can be ENFP, but your functions as MBTI ENFP will be Fe-Ni-Se-Ti and NOT NE-Fi-Te-Si.*
> *
> This makes you a jungian ENFJ, who behaves like an ENFP. o.o this imo still makes you ENFJ*


I really don't fit the description of IEE, specially when it comes to how they see/deal with interrelationships.

Absolutely agree on J/P being MBTI's Achilles Heel.

MBTI's Fe is definetely _not _one of my leading functions, but Socionics Ni-ENFj fits me like a glove.

Wouldn't it be great if Jung had created a fully realized theory? We wouldn't have to switch between them so much.


----------



## LibertyPrime

Dancing_Queen said:


> I really don't fit the description of IEE, specially when it comes to how they see/deal with interrelationships.
> 
> Absolutely agree on J/P being MBTI's Achilles Heel.
> 
> MBTI's Fe is definetely _not _one of my leading functions, but Socionics Ni-ENFj fits me like a glove.
> 
> Wouldn't it be great if Jung had created a fully realized theory? We wouldn't have to switch between them so much.


o.o lol....relationships are a problem :\...can't seem to maintain them, also not very social to begin with.

 I'm "flighty" when it comes to relationships. Interest may come and go...others need to invest time into contacting me imo, I'm fairly open and accepting otherwise...just not good at keeping in touch....>.> oh look...shiny! I wonder what that thing is! *disappears for 3 weeks...no life-signs*


----------



## Helios

FreeBeer said:


> @_Dancing_Queen_o.o I am IEE. Being IEE is sort of like being a rather less idealistic Te-ish, tough version of MBTI INFP. It half way resembles ISFP, but not quite the same ....I have had several people say I'm ISTJ, some said INFJ (thou I'm P-ish to the extreme). I have this odd Te-ish nature  without the J-ish components. *Ask me anything.* I would have never typed as MBTI ENFP normally.
> *
> MBTI J-P is messed up and wrongly thought out imo. It only partially matches Jung's Rational-Irrational...thus ENFj can be ENFP, but your functions as MBTI ENFP will be Fe-Ni-Se-Ti and NOT NE-Fi-Te-Si.
> **
> This makes you a jungian ENFJ, who behaves like an ENFP. o.o this imo still makes you ENFJ*


The J-P is only messed up with regards to introverts. The extroverts still have the same functions. The differences in the profiles also adds to confusion sure. But ENFP is not Fe leading in either system. The reason ENFj can be ENFP in MBTI is because both systems don't define the functions similarly and the IEs that correlate to MBTI functions don't translate over exactly.


----------



## LibertyPrime

Helios said:


> The J-P is only messed up with regards to introverts. The extroverts still have the same functions. The differences in the profiles also add to confusion sure. But ENFP is not Fe leading in either system. The reason ENFj can be ENFP in both systems because both systems don't define the functions similarly and the IEs that correlate to MBTI functions don't translate over exactly.


Most people mistake being a J for being organized / structured and P for lack of it. There is more to this ofc and the official MBTI recognizes the difference aka Rational vs Irrational. The official MBTI is practically identical with socionics types and with Kelsey's types, just that MBTI 4 letter code is derived differently (besed on introversion or extroversion of the judging function vs I-E of the base function) and Socionics function order differs from Beebe's model, yet the respective functions occupy the same roles, which makes ESI for example identical with ISFP.

If you take MBTI ENFJ, keirseyan ENFJ and EIE, they are identical however the ENFJ may be DISORGANIZED and MESSY, in which case it self types as ENFP. 

For introverts however: MBTI ISFP is socionics ISFj and Keirseyan ISFJ. MBTI ISFJ is socionics ISFp and Keirseyan ISFP....where both can be organized or messy.

*Being organized /structured or messy / disorganized is not a cognitive trait. It is learned behavior.*

My mother is ESE-ESFJ for example, yet she behaves like a stereotypical ESFP.One can only tell the difference in her Fe and Si usage, also in her weak Ne and Ti usage. She thinks like ESFJ and behaves like ESFP.

You can recognize real percievers by the amount of information they absorb and the time they take to hash out, debate and consider things when making a decision. Real Js will reach decisions faster, but may be less accurate, while a perciever will consider things and reconsider them as new information is brought into the mix. It takes longer and certain things may be left to "fate" aka whatever needs to happen will happen, there is more of an inclination toward being open ended because new info flows into the mix as time moves on and events unfold. A P will take on the role of observing and adapting while a J will more likely try to control the situation based on the initial assumption / judgment of how it should be.

This makes MBTI INFJ cognitively more flexible then MBTI INFP for example, the former being a P and the latter a J (Ni-Fe vs Fi-Ne)


----------



## Karma Butterfly

FreeBeer said:


> o.o lol....relationships are a problem :\...can't seem to maintain them, also not very social to begin with.
> 
> I'm "flighty" when it comes to relationships. Interest may come and go...others need to invest time into contacting me imo, I'm fairly open and accepting otherwise...just not good at keeping in touch....>.> oh look...shiny! I wonder what that thing is! *disappears for 3 weeks...no life-signs*


Ditto.


----------



## Karma Butterfly

Helios said:


> The J-P is only messed up with regards to introverts. The extroverts still have the same functions. The differences in the profiles also adds to confusion sure. But ENFP is not Fe leading in either system. The reason ENFj can be ENFP in MBTI is because both systems don't define the functions similarly and the IEs that correlate to MBTI functions don't translate over exactly.


Neither of us implied the J/P issue was tied to extroverts. In fact, what we meant was the MBTI definition of
what being a P/J is poor and misguided compared to the Socionics one. And we obviously know Fe is not the lead function fo ENFPs anywhere, what do you take us for?

If you had read the whole conversation and not just the last post you'd understand that the Fe comment referred to me @_Free_beer suggestion that I'm an ENFJ.

But thanks for the lesson, I guess.





FreeBeer said:


> Most people mistake being a J for being organized / structured and P for lack of it. There is more to this ofc and the official MBTI recognizes the difference aka Rational vs Irrational. The official MBTI is practically identical with socionics types and with Kelsey's types, just that MBTI 4 letter code is derived differently (besed on introversion or extroversion of the judging function vs I-E of the base function) and Socionics function order differs from Beebe's model, yet the respective functions occupy the same roles, which makes ESI for example identical with ISFP.
> 
> If you take MBTI ENFJ, keirseyan ENFJ and EIE, they are identical however the ENFJ may be DISORGANIZED and MESSY, in which case it self types as ENFP.
> 
> For introverts however: MBTI ISFP is socionics ISFj and Keirseyan ISFJ. MBTI ISFJ is socionics ISFp and Keirseyan ISFP....where both can be organized or messy.
> 
> *Being organized /structured or messy / disorganized is not a cognitive trait. It is learned behavior.*
> 
> My mother is ESE-ESFJ for example, yet she behaves like a stereotypical ESFP.One can only tell the difference in her Fe and Si usage, also in her weak Ne and Ti usage. She thinks like ESFJ and behaves like ESFP.
> 
> You can recognize real percievers by the amount of information they absorb and the time they take to hash out, debate and consider things when making a decision. Real Js will reach decisions faster, but may be less accurate, while a perciever will consider things and reconsider them as new information is brought into the mix. It takes longer and certain things may be left to "fate" aka whatever needs to happen will happen, there is more of an inclination toward being open ended because new info flows into the mix as time moves on and events unfold.


This was obviously what we were talking about in the last post. It was clear enough to me, but apparently not for other people.


----------



## Helios

Dancing_Queen said:


> Neither of us implied the J/P issue was tied to extroverts. In fact, what we meant was the MBTI definition of
> what being a P/J is poor and misguided compared to the Socionics one. And we obviously know Fe is not the lead function fo ENFPs anywhere, what do you take us for?





> *but your functions as MBTI ENFP will be Fe-Ni-Se-Ti and NOT NE-Fi-Te-Si.*


This is what triggered my response. 



> This was obviously what we were talking about in the last post. It was clear enough to me, but apparently not for other people.


It's obvious that organization vs disorganization is not a good criteria for determining types. However, my interpretation of J and P in MBTI is in relation to the nature of the highest extroverted function rather than being organized vs disorganized or other arbitrary traits.


----------



## LibertyPrime

Helios said:


> It's obvious that organization vs disorganization is not a good criteria for determining types. However, my interpretation of J and P in MBTI is in relation to the nature of the highest extroverted function rather than being organized vs disorganized or other arbitrary traits.


o.o which is exactly the cause of confusion and the problem with MBTI. What I meant by it is that one can be cognitively Fe-Ni-Se-Ti and still behave like a stereotypical MBTI ENFP.

I'm cognitively extroverted and socially reclusive for example. Base Ne and I behave like an introvert, minus certain peculiarities.


----------



## Karma Butterfly

Helios said:


> This is what triggered my response.
> 
> 
> 
> It's obvious that organization vs disorganization is not a good criteria for determining types. However, my interpretation of J and P in MBTI is in relation to the nature of the highest extroverted function rather than being organized vs disorganized or other arbitrary traits.



And again I must ask: _where_ in my post did I mention organization VS disorganization?

I wasn't referring to any arbitrary traits, in fact I didn't even specify _why_ I thought the MBTI J/P interpretation is bad. It isn't because of only that.


----------



## Helios

Dancing_Queen said:


> And again I must ask: _where_ in my post did I mention organization VS disorganization?
> 
> I wasn't referring to any arbitrary traits, in fact I didn't even specify _why_ I thought the MBTI J/P interpretation is bad. It isn't because of only that.


First of all I wasn't even addressing you in my initial response, but @FreeBeer. So I don't understand why you are asking me to look through your posts. And lastly, I was just giving my interpretation of MBTI J/P. If you want to specify why the MBTI J/P dichotomy is flawed, then by all means do so.


----------



## liminalthought




----------



## Helios

liminalthought said:


>


Get your popcorn out, mate.


----------



## liminalthought

Kanerou said:


> I'm ESI but divided between Fi and Fe in MBTI, so yes.


confirmation doesn't help.


----------



## liminalthought

Helios said:


> Get your popcorn out, mate.












LET THE BLOODBATH BEGIN!!!!!!!!!
(winter break legendary edition)


----------



## Kabosu

Kanerou said:


> I'm ESI but divided between Fi and Fe in MBTI, so yes.


what's more confusing for me is that I'm not even sure I'd be a base thinker/logical, but I'm far more familiar with MBTI's typology system and my attempt at changing to ENFP backfired and I don't relate much to their Fi.

While MBTI and Socionics have similar bases, I feel like suggesting a person isn't a certain type because it's not the usual can be like seeing a person has a rare but not impossible typology and Enneagram mix and states it could be a mistype. Unlikely isn't impossible and most people are somewhat... different. :tongue:


----------



## liminalthought

Doge said:


> what's more confusing for me is that I'm not even sure I'd be a base thinker/logical, but I'm far more familiar with MBTI's typology system and my attempt at changing to ENFP backfired and I don't relate much to their Fi.
> 
> While MBTI and Socionics have similar bases, I feel like suggesting a person isn't a certain type because it's not the usual can be like seeing a person has a rare but not impossible typology and Enneagram mix and states it could be a mistype. Unlikely isn't impossible and most people are somewhat... different. :tongue:


Everyone's unique. Nothing is impossible, we can do it. Don't lose hope. Be happy. :happy:


----------



## LibertyPrime

Helios said:


> First of all I wasn't even addressing you in my initial response, but @FreeBeer. So I don't understand why you are asking me to look through your posts. And lastly, I was just giving my interpretation of MBTI J/P. If you want to specify why the MBTI J/P dichotomy is flawed, then by all means do so.


When it comes to PerC we aren't talking about MBTI. We are talking about Keisey's types. He never based his types on the functions. The entire forum is set up for the Keiseyan types, just look at the layout. If a memeber says they are ISFP I automatically assume it is ISFP based on "Please Understand me 2"

Most descriptions you find out there are based on what Keirsey wrote in his book.

The confusion comes from equating these descriptions with the MBTI types.* That is flawed imo because Keirsey's ISFP description is virtually identical with Socionics ISFp SEI descriptions and both describe MBTI ISFJ, in other words a Si dominant with Fe preference.*
*
I personally believe we are confusing stuff here and all 3 systems are describing the same 16 types*.


----------



## Helios

FreeBeer said:


> When it comes to PerC we aren't talking about MBTI. We are talking about Keisey's types. He never based his types on the functions. The entire forum is set up for the Keiseyan types, just look at the layout. If a memeber says they are ISFP I automatically assume it is ISFP based on "Please Understand me 2"
> 
> Most descriptions you find out there are based on what Keirsey wrote in his book.
> 
> The confusion comes from equating these descriptions with the MBTI types.* That is flawed imo because Keirsey's ISFP description is virtually identical with Socionics ISFp SEI descriptions and both describe MBTI ISFJ, in other words a Si dominant with Fe preference.*


Hmmm. Fuck Keirsey. End of story. 

I don't place enough weight on the persona descriptions as much as I do how cognition operates. Also, the caricatures drawn out by Keirsey might not play out accurately since people with different enneagrams and people from different cultural backgrounds upbringings might not fit perfectly. Also since MBTI, JCF, and Socionics don't play by the exact same rules, I think equating types across the systems doesn't make much sense.


----------



## liminalthought

_*Sister Thread. Dual Discussion?*_

http://personalitycafe.com/socionic...g-mbti-functions-socionics-im-elements-9.html


----------



## liminalthought

Helios said:


> Also since MBTI, JCF, and Socionics don't play by the exact same rules, I think equating types across the systems doesn't make much sense.


What rules, or anything else, make you decide so confidently?
What in the process of your study made you decide with finality?


----------



## LibertyPrime

Helios said:


> Hmmm. Fuck Keirsey. End of story.
> 
> I don't place enough weight on the persona descriptions as much as I do how cognition operates. Also, the caricatures drawn out by Keirsey might not play out accurately since people with different enneagrams and people from different cultural backgrounds upbringings might not fit perfectly. Also since MBTI, JCF, and Socionics don't play by the exact same rules, I think equating types across the systems doesn't make much sense.


You are wrong, you just don't see it yet. Keep reading and thinking cross contextually, the pattern will reveal itself once you have a detailed enough overview and enough personal experience.

In other words imo you just lack data and can't see it yet.

What you think or see on a subjective level is irrelevant since the objective truth exists regardless of you understanding it or not.  the world is round whether you comprehend that or not, it doesn't matter, there is only one objective truth. This situation is similar.

I'll put this difference of opinion down to you being a subectivist and a Ti user while I'm objectivist and a Te user. Our judging function preference is in reverse.


----------



## Entropic

FreeBeer said:


> You are wrong, you just don't see it yet. Keep reading and thinking cross contextually, the pattern will reveal itself once you have a detailed enough overview and enough personal experience.
> 
> In other words imo you just lack data and can't see it yet.
> 
> What you think or see on a subjective level is irrelevant since the objective truth exists regardless of you understanding it or not.  the world is round whether you comprehend that or not, it doesn't matter, there is only one objective truth. This situation is similar.
> 
> I'll put this difference of opinion down to you being a subectivist and a Ti user while I'm objectivist and a Te user. Our judging function preference is in reverse.


I really wish CelebrityTypes would actually bother to describe functions and how it affects people's thoughts than just superficial behavior though. Why does Ne lead to such behavior? Why does Ti do this when auxiliary and Fi this? Fairly sure the typers of CelebrityTypes are TiSi/TiSe in some order of preference. I can't agree with their typing methods at all.


----------



## Entropic

Inguz said:


> Fear of being harmed and controlled as it usually is expressed.


Yes, and how does that manifest in the psyche? Not how people behave but how it informs their thinking, their core of being, the existential focus of to survive?


----------



## Inguz

ephemereality said:


> Yes, and how does that manifest in the psyche? Not how people behave but how it informs their thinking, their core of being, the existential focus of to survive?


That was my question to you. How does that motivation manifest in you?


----------



## Entropic

Inguz said:


> That was my question to you. How does that motivation manifest in you?


I am not interested in telling you since I think you push this because you still think I am 1-fixed, and your very analysis fails because you don't understand what I just asked you now but get stuck at behavior and outwards expression as opposed to how people operate internally and mentally. Hence I am far more interested in knowing how _you_ understand it so I can validate whether I'll even consider your attempt to analyze me relevant, which I'm likely not to.

If you cannot take people at face value you need to learn to read between the lines in order to validate what they just said was true, an ability you honestly seems to sorely lack.


----------



## Inguz

ephemereality said:


> I am not interested in telling you since I think you push this because you still think I am 1-fixed, and your very analysis fails because you don't understand what I just asked you now but get stuck at behavior and outwards expression as opposed to how people operate internally and mentally. Hence I am far more interested in knowing how _you_ understand it so I can validate whether I'll even consider your attempt to analyze me relevant, which I'm likely not to.


I'm asking since some 5s seems to consider 8 as their core which I do not understand why that is just yet. For me as an observer I find it difficult to confuse the two for each other.



> If you cannot take people at face value you need to learn to read between the lines in order to validate what they just said was true, an ability you honestly seems to sorely lack.


Yet you did neither to my question.


----------



## LibertyPrime

ephemereality said:


> Well, if you drop type descriptions that I dare say, tend to be heavily biased towards Se types to begin with, but look at type 8 solely from the point of view of motivations, then it's not so strange or impossible anymore. I sometimes seriously consider whether I am 8 core for example, and this is because of how strong the motivations show in me, not because I fit some specific stereotype behavior of type 8.





> *Eight*
> You have to be strong to survive.
> 
> *Motivation:*
> Toward: self-sufficient and strong making an impact on the world.
> Away from: Being weak, vulnerable, at the mercy of others.
> Focus of attention: Power and control. All or nothing.


I always thought 8s cultivate power and control over their environment as a means of defense. This assertive nature doesn't go well with Si specifically imo, especially with base Si. 8s in my mind carry that "physical presence" that is very much associated with Se.

I like to be independent, despise control and authority, have physical *revulsion* toward being told what to do or think, can suffer reactive anger when it happens, only accept it if I have no other choice and the alternative threatens my survival in some way in which case I have to supress a lot of internal turmoil. I fear being at the mercy of others and assert my independence, thou imo what always made me not type 8 is that I do not assert control over my environment and others in order to meet my needs of independence. I especially hate standing out and being a target.

A CP 6 thinks in terms of needing to be strong and independent to survive, but taking charge and asserting power & control is not what it would do. Similarly imo Si base SEI is not an 8 for this reason.

*type 9, 6, 7, 4, 2 are the most plausible enneagrm types for SEI.*

*An 8 may think in terms of taking charge of a situation in order to avoid being at the mercy of other people's incompetence. This is asserting control and leading.*

*Most likely types for 8: LIE, LSI, SLE, ESI, LSE, SEE and EIE.....ILIs who think they are 8s but have a streak of intellectualism are more likely to be type 5 imo (their point of integration).*


----------



## Entropic

FreeBeer said:


> I always thought 8s cultivate power and control over their environment as a means of defense. This assertive nature doesn't go well with Si specifically imo, especially with base Si. 8s in my mind carry that "physical presence" that is very much associated with Se.


Yes, and I think that's a stereotype. It's the same reason why I should not be able to be a 5 and Ni dom then, because Naranjo mentions that type 5 is more associated with Ti and to a degree Fi, which makes sense superficially if we directly translate the need for knowledge and understanding of type 5 with the need for internal logic found with Ti. 

The way I imagine an Si type 8 would work, would be that they would ward themselves against the world through the logic of Si, so it would for example occur in an attempt to reduce that which is seen as unpleasant and unpleasantness would be attempted to be controlled in various ways. 

8 is first of all a fear of being vulnerable, and once one understands this, then one can let go of this silly notion that 8 must be associated with this Se form of power. Anyone can fear being vulnerable. That's universally human and that's why the original enneagram cites that every person has each type represented within them. Power, that is relative. Si holds power over the environment by making it rightfully theirs in their minds, through the way they build experience. It becomes untouchable and removed from the external world. How is that not a form of power? 



> I like to be independent, despise control and authority, have physical *revulsion* toward being told what to do or think, can suffer reactive anger when it happens, only accept it if I have no other choice and the alternative threatens my survival in some way in which case I have to supress a lot of internal turmoil. I fear being at the mercy of others and assert my independence, thou imo what always made me not type 8 is that I do not assert control over my environment and others in order to meet my needs of independence. I especially hate standing out and being a target.


These are traits that may link to the core fears of 8, but they could equally be linked to the core fears of 6 or any other type, would one attempt to nitpick enough about it. 



> A CP 6 thinks in terms of needing to be strong and independent to survive, but taking charge and asserting power & control is not what it would do. Similarly imo Si base SEI is not an 8 for this reason.


No, but do they have to be? Your view of how to be assertive is narrow. There is one than one way to experience environmental control. It's not limited to Se. 

*type 9, 6, 7, 4, 2 are the most plausible enneagrm types for SEI.*



> *An 8 may think in terms of taking charge of a situation in order to avoid being at the mercy of other people's incompetence. This is asserting control and leading.*
> 
> *Most likely types for 8: LIE, LSI, SLE, ESI, LSE, SEE and EIE.....ILIs who think they are 8s but have a streak of intellectualism are more likely to be type 5 imo (their point of integration).*


I think you rely too much on the behavioral descriptions of R&H. You need to let go of behavior, they cannot describe someone's type ever. People often behave in very inextricable ways, sometimes appearing genuinely contradictory to who they are on the inside. Once you understand this you will see that enneagram as it works, will synergize with someone's cognition. It does not work with or against. It never does.


----------



## LibertyPrime

@ephemereality

I don't understand. Ni makes perfect sense for type 5 specifically due to it's relationship with the outside world. Ti dom also makes a lot of sense for type 5. LSI, SLI, ILI and LII even IEI (less so) imo are very common 5s.

Si is a perceiving function. I don't understand what you are talking about when you mean "Si logic". It just provides a subjective interpretation of perceived information. No judgments are made.

What other means of control? Avoidance of the uncomfortable? That is a type 9 and 7 strategy, potentially type 6 phobic.



> *8 is first of all a fear of being vulnerable*, and once one understands this, then one can let go of this silly notion that 8 must be associated with this Se form of power. Anyone can fear being vulnerable. That's universally human and that's why the original enneagram cites that every person has each type represented within them. Power, that is relative. Si holds power over the environment by making it rightfully theirs in their minds, through the way they build experience. It becomes untouchable and removed from the external world. How is that not a form of power?


That could be a potential 6 thing as well. *It doesn't have to be Se per say, it can be Te or Fi, Ti or Fe, just not Si or Ni base, Ne is also unlikely.* I don't see how Si and Ni doms could ever be type 8, for very obvious reasons and lets forget about the idealistic nonsense of equality and all that bs. Not everyone can be any type combo, that is wishful thinking.


> I think you rely too much on the behavioral descriptions of R&H. You need to let go of behavior, they cannot describe someone's type ever. People often behave in very inextricable ways, sometimes appearing genuinely contradictory to who they are on the inside. Once you understand this you will see that enneagram as it works, will synergize with someone's cognition. It does not work with or against. It never does.


I didn't quote R&H specifically because of this view people have. The descriptions can be rather crappy but contains grains of truth.

*I mainly use Helen Palmer's view and the basic proposition of type 8 is this:*



> *Basic Proposition:* Protection and respect are gained by becoming strong and powerful and by hiding vulnerability.
> 
> *Habitual Focus of Attention:* Power, Injustices and Control.
> 
> *What "Protectors" tell us about themselves:*
> 
> They want stimulation and excitement;
> 
> They are concerned with strength and protecting the weak;
> 
> "Protectors" are direct, confrontational and express their anger immediately;
> 
> They are aggressive, intimidating and impulsive; but
> 
> Deny their own vulnerability and weakness.


I think its important to note that motivations and behavior, cognition and behavior are inseparably linked.

*This is Si. Just how does it correlate with the type 8 motivation or behavior? I'm sorry, I don't get it.*



> Si focuses on tangible, direct (external) connections (introverted) between processes (dynamic) happening in one time, i.e. the physical, sensual experience of interactions between objects. This leads to an awareness of internal tangible physical states and how various physical fluctuations or substances are directly transferred between objects, such as motion, temperature, or dirtiness. The awareness of these tangible physical processes consequently leads to an awareness of health, or an optimum balance with one's environment. The individual physical reaction to concrete surroundings is main way we perceive and define aesthetics, comfort, convenience, and pleasure.
> 
> In contrast to extroverted sensing (Se), Si is related to following one's own needs instead of focusing on some externally-driven conception of what is necessary to acquire or achieve. S*o, whereas Se ego types feel capable to evaluate how justified others' preferences are, Si ego types will try to adjust to them in any way possible (given that it does not extremely affect their own comfort), wishing to minimize conflict.*


*I know type 8 is a popular type and that people want to be 8s, but tis not as simple as it is made out to be. We can try to interpret it or just rely on the information provided by people more knowledgeable on the subject. As a type that values Te I prefer to rely on what to me seems like evidence that has more backup, meaning books and Helen Palmer, R&H, Wikisocion translations etc.*


----------



## Entropic

FreeBeer said:


> @ephemereality
> 
> I don't understand. Ni makes perfect sense for type 5 specifically due to it's relationship with the outside world. Ti dom also makes a lot of sense for type 5. LSI, SLI, ILI and LII even IEI (less so) imo are very common 5s.
> 
> Si is a perceiving function. I don't understand what you are talking about when you mean "Si logic". It just provides a subjective interpretation of perceived information. No judgments are made.
> 
> What other means of control? Avoidance of the uncomfortable? That is a type 9 and 7 strategy, potentially type 6 phobic.


No, avoidance is when it is ignored, repressed etc. This is avoidance through control. Type 8 avoids to be vulnerable. You need to keep this logic in mind. 



> That could be a potential 6 thing as well. *It doesn't have to be Se per say, it can be Te or Fi, Ti or Fe, just not Si or Ni base, Ne is also unlikely.* I don't see how Si and Ni doms could ever be type 8, for very obvious reasons and lets forget about the idealistic nonsense of equality and all that bs. Not everyone can be any type combo, that is wishful thinking.


It's not wishful thinking, it is reality in my opinion. The reality is that enneagram is not linked to behavior but existential motivation, and as such, it deals with a different logic when it comes to people's psyches than psychological type. Therefore logically I do not see why some options should be impossible just because descriptions don't match. 

I have a very strong 8 fix. Why? Motivations. I relate strongly to the core issues. I feel them very intensely. What this actually means in reality is that I could potentially have become an 8 and if I had developed into one, my 8-ness would have taken the peculiarities Ni dom offers which is not going to fit the general description likely, but still line up with the core motivations. I don't relate much to the type 5 descriptions either. Most of them suck. Also, it's possible to be a cognitive extrovert just fine as a type 5 or likely even a social one since the withdrawing nature of type 5 is not the same as introversion per se. 



> I didn't quote R&H specifically because of this view people have. The descriptions can be rather crappy but contains grains of truth.


I disagree. I don't see much truth in R&H. Far too superficial for my own tastes. 



> *I mainly use Helen Palmer's view and the basic proposition of type 8 is this:*
> 
> 
> 
> I think its important to note that motivations and behavior, cognition and behavior are inseparably linked.


Behavior, not motivations. 



> *This is Si. Just how does it correlate with the type 8 motivation or behavior? I'm sorry, I don't get it.*


Because the motivation is the loss of innocence, the fear of vulnerability and the holy truth as holy origin. There's nothing Se about that, or Si or anything else, for the matter, because it deals with an entirely different aspect of human psychology. 



> *I know type 8 is a popular type and that people want to be 8s, but tis not as simple as it is made out to be. We can try to interpret it or just rely on the information provided by people more knowledgeable on the subject. As a type that values Te I prefer to rely on what to me seems like evidence that has more backup, meaning books and Helen Palmer, R&H, Wikisocion translations etc.*


I am not saying this because I think type 8 is a popular type. I just cannot logically see what you propose can be true in the light of what I know and understand about the enneagram system. It's as dumb as saying INTPs can't be 4s.


----------



## liminalthought

Is it just me, or does blue flare give eph automatic likes forum-wide?


----------



## Dragheart Luard

liminalthought said:


> Is it just me, or does blue flare give eph automatic likes forum-wide?


And it's just me, but you're that bored for looking at what the hell I give a like? seriously that snide remark is pointless, as I like posts that make sense to me or tell shit that I would also comment. Assuming that I don't read a post before thanking it is reading shit that doesn't exist.

P.D.: that remark is so paranoid...


----------



## d e c a d e n t

I guess Eph just have some likeable posts.


----------



## liminalthought

Blue Flare said:


> And it's just me, but you're that bored for looking at what the hell I give a like? seriously that snide remark is pointless, as I like posts that make sense to me or tell shit that I would also comment. Assuming that I don't read a post before thanking it is reading shit that doesn't exist.


Yikes! I'm sorry, I'll never question you again. 



Blue Flare said:


> P.D.: that remark is so paranoid...


I wonder where you got that from...:wink:


----------



## Dragheart Luard

Nonsense said:


> I guess Eph just have some likeable posts.


You nailed that down, there's no hidden meaning about the posts that I like.


----------



## Karma Butterfly

FreeBeer said:


> o.o ISFPs can't be type 8 imo, I still hold that assertion.


Let's agree to disagree on that.



FreeBeer said:


> Te for IxFPs and ExFPs is a valued but weak function (which is why it is within the first 4 functions and not in the shadow), this means both appreciate Te and Xi (Ni or Si) from others, but are not good at using these functions themselves.
> 
> ^^; based on what you said you can't be Fe base nor creative imo.


If not Fe neither creative, what's your opinion?



FreeBeer said:


> o.o I also noticed you are displaying a specific forum related behaviour mostly seen in T-s...you arent using social currency the way it is used by F-s in my experience. ^^;


What's the specific forum behavior? This is the first forum I ever participated in and so far the only one.

And what would be an example of social currency?



liminalthought said:


> I don't have a type me thread
> 
> 
> 
> How many people decided to ignore me?
> I call it: using the theory. Something I haven't been able to see you refer to at all in any of our exchanges. I trust you're able to use it too, just copy me, but that should be a matter of time right? I'm not going to recreate another typology and break off with the literature. *I can use any sources you'd like me to use* to be honest, as long as they're not outrageous. They all parrot the same thing.
> 
> 
> 
> All I asked was for your reasoning on why MBTI functions are not the same as socionics IEs, it's important for me to hear what *you* have to say when you claim there is no similarity. Obviously there has to be something that makes you think so, right? Or did you just pick a side? I want to know what that is.
> 
> 
> 
> What are you talking about? I never challenged your type.
> I welcome *you *to challenge my type, to the extent that you can prove what you claim. Though, it would probably be a good idea if you pm'd me instead of doing it in a thread where it doesn't belong.
> 
> 
> I am, especially after this exchange, completely certain that you are EIE. I never challenged your typing. I guess I'll keep "clinging" to ILI as you say as well. I don't really care about your typing or your challenge towards mine, the point in this new exchange was this:
> 
> All I asked was for your reasoning on why MBTI functions are not the same as socionics IEs, it's important for me to hear what you have to say when you claim there is no similarity. Obviously there has to be something that makes you think so, right? I want to know what that is.
> 
> There is no hostility here, I promise.


Yeah, that claim was a total inaccuracy because I meant to post that on another similarly themed thread I had open on a different tab. I was away for a while and when I came backit was too late to edit. *Major fail.*


Of course nothing would make sense thanks to that, but I find it interesting you have decided to follow up on that when it was obvious either a mistake or blatant lie since such a thing (the "type me thred" ) is not pertinent to you.


I would have stopped at the first sentence.



liminalthought said:


> Emotivist vs. Constructivist dichotomy. In her case, constructivist.


For the record I don't think Socionics and MBTI functions are completely different and unrelated, but take Socionics Fi for example: it definitely shares some MBTI Fe similarities. In fact I feel like this is where the two theories differ the most, Fe and Si.

You have the socially savvy Fe persona in MBTI vs the more artistic and actually emphatic Fe person in Socionics.

In Socionics Si deals with sensual connections to objects and environment (at times it sounds like MBTI Se) while MBTI Si deals with information about the object ignoring the sensual aspects.

This is a very superficial post because now I don't have the time to expand on it. I'll be back tomorrow.


----------



## liminalthought

Dancing_Queen said:


> For the record I don't think Socionics and MBTI functions are completely different and unrelated, but take Socionics Fi for example: it definitely shares some MBTI Fe similarities. In fact I feel like this is where the two theories differ the most, Fe and Si.
> 
> You have the socially savvy Fe persona in MBTI vs the more artistic and actually emphatic Fe person in Socionics.
> 
> In Socionics Si deals with sensual connections to objects and environment (at times it sounds like MBTI Se) while MBTI Si deals with information about the object ignoring the sensual aspects.
> 
> This is a very superficial post because now I don't have the time to expand on it. I'll be back tomorrow.


Excellent. I'll look into this also; the Fe, Fi, Si, Se anomalies.


----------



## Karma Butterfly

liminalthought said:


> I think she's mistaking me for ephemereality and is referring to his typing thread in her last post.
> http://personalitycafe.com/whats-my-socionics-type/161261-ephemerealitys-sociotype-round-4-a-13.html


Glad you caught on that, I was indeed having another go with him over the Beta hangout thread. It didn't go on after I refused to cooperate, and i'm never posting in two threads at the same time again.



ephemereality said:


> Well, if you drop type descriptions that I dare say, tend to be heavily biased towards Se types to begin with, but look at type 8 solely from the point of view of motivations, then it's not so strange or impossible anymore. *I sometimes seriously consider whether I am 8 core for example, and this is because of how strong the motivations show in me, not because I fit some specific stereotype behavior of type 8*.


Then you should look into it. Behavior has little to do with Ennegram which has its roots in internal motivations you could be an 8 even if you don't seem like one.



ephemereality said:


> Yes, and I think that's a stereotype. It's the same reason why I should not be able to be a 5 and Ni dom then, because Naranjo mentions that type 5 is more associated with Ti and to a degree Fi, which makes sense superficially if we directly translate the need for knowledge and understanding of type 5 with the need for internal logic found with Ti.
> 
> The way I imagine an Si type 8 would work, would be that they would ward themselves against the world through the logic of Si, so it would for example occur in an attempt to reduce that which is seen as unpleasant and unpleasantness would be attempted to be controlled in various ways.
> 
> *8 is first of all a fear of being vulnerable, and once one understands this, then one can let go of this silly notion that 8 must be associated with this Se form of power.* Anyone can fear being vulnerable. That's universally human and that's why the original enneagram cites that every person has each type represented within them. Power, that is relative. *Si holds power over the environment by making it rightfully theirs in their minds, through the way they build experience. It becomes untouchable and removed from the external world. How is that not a form of power? *
> 
> 
> 
> These are traits that may link to the core fears of 8, but they could equally be linked to the core fears of 6 or any other type, would one attempt to nitpick enough about it.
> 
> 
> 
> No, but do they have to be? Y*our view of how to be assertive is narrow. There is one than one way to experience environmental control. It's not limited to Se. *
> 
> *type 9, 6, 7, 4, 2 are the most plausible enneagrm types for SEI.*
> 
> 
> 
> *I think you rely too much on the behavioral descriptions of R&H. You need to let go of behavior, they cannot describe someone's type ever.* People often behave in very inextricable ways, sometimes appearing genuinely contradictory to who they are on the inside. Once you understand this you will see that enneagram as it works, will synergize with someone's cognition. It does not work with or against. It never does.


_*AMEN.*_



FreeBeer said:


> @_ephemereality_
> 
> I don't understand. Ni makes perfect sense for type 5 specifically due to it's relationship with the outside world. Ti dom also makes a lot of sense for type 5. LSI, SLI, ILI and LII even IEI (less so) imo are very common 5s.
> 
> Si is a perceiving function. I don't understand what you are talking about when you mean "Si logic". It just provides a subjective interpretation of perceived information. No judgments are made.
> 
> What other means of control? Avoidance of the uncomfortable? That is a type 9 and 7 strategy, potentially type 6 phobic.
> 
> 
> 
> That could be a potential 6 thing as well. *It doesn't have to be Se per say, it can be Te or Fi, Ti or Fe, just not Si or Ni base, Ne is also unlikely.* I don't see how Si and Ni doms could ever be type 8, for very obvious reasons and lets forget about the idealistic nonsense of equality and all that bs. Not everyone can be any type combo, that is wishful thinking.
> 
> 
> I didn't quote R&H specifically because of this view people have. The descriptions can be rather crappy but contains grains of truth.
> 
> *I mainly use Helen Palmer's view and the basic proposition of type 8 is this:*
> 
> 
> 
> I think its important to note that motivations and behavior, cognition and behavior are inseparably linked.
> 
> *This is Si. Just how does it correlate with the type 8 motivation or behavior? I'm sorry, I don't get it.*
> 
> 
> 
> *I know type 8 is a popular type and that people want to be 8s, but tis not as simple as it is made out to be. We can try to interpret it or just rely on the information provided by people more knowledgeable on the subject. As a type that values Te I prefer to rely on what to me seems like evidence that has more backup, meaning books and Helen Palmer, R&H, Wikisocion translations etc.*


Well I've told you several times before you have to let go of your correlation ideas, they just hurt your logic and make you sound ignorant.

I understand you're acting in a way that it's natural to your type, but it's not working in your favor. Just accept the fact you do _not _understand what type 8 is about,because frankly,you don't.

By the way, I _loathed _the idea of being a type 8 and tried my best to come out as nay other type for a while. So I'd advise you to stop assuming everybody wants to be an 8, specially when we have quite a bad rep in these forums.



ephemereality said:


> No, avoidance is when it is ignored, repressed etc. This is avoidance through control. Type 8 avoids to be vulnerable. You need to keep this logic in mind.
> 
> 
> 
> *It's not wishful thinking, it is reality in my opinion. The reality is that enneagram is not linked to behavior but existential motivation, and as such, it deals with a different logic when it comes to people's psyches than psychological type. Therefore logically I do not see why some options should be impossible just because descriptions don't match. *
> 
> I have a very strong 8 fix. Why? Motivations. I relate strongly to the core issues. I feel them very intensely. What this actually means in reality is that I could potentially have become an 8 and if I had developed into one, my 8-ness would have taken the peculiarities Ni dom offers which is not going to fit the general description likely, but still line up with the core motivations. I don't relate much to the type 5 descriptions either. Most of them suck. Also, it's possible to be a cognitive extrovert just fine as a type 5 or likely even a social one since the withdrawing nature of type 5 is not the same as introversion per se.
> 
> 
> 
> I disagree. I don't see much truth in R&H. Far too superficial for my own tastes.
> 
> 
> 
> Behavior, not motivations.
> 
> 
> 
> Because the motivation is the loss of innocence, the fear of vulnerability and the holy truth as holy origin. There's nothing Se about that, or Si or anything else, for the matter, because it deals with an entirely different aspect of human psychology.
> 
> 
> *I am not saying this because I think type 8 is a popular type. I just cannot logically see what you propose can be true in the light of what I know and understand about the enneagram system. It's as dumb as saying INTPs can't be 4s.*


It's not even your opinion, it's a fact.
@FreeBeer doesn't get what Ennegram is about and tries to make it the same as MBTI/Socionics.

_Motivations and not behaviors, Motivations and not behaviors, Motivations and not behaviors, Motivations and not behaviors..._

Let's see if hypnosis work.


----------



## LibertyPrime

@Dancing_Queen

:3 well, there is only one objective truth and we don't have the means to discern what that one truth is. You guys could be right or I could be right...either way atm its futile to debate this further.

<.< plus I'm not the one who is mistyping based on sterotypes and what not. I have nothing to add, the convo seems wasted imo.


----------



## fadly

Yeah.... Very possible!!!! Ur growing up environment. Maybe ur parent was a huge J


----------



## Karma Butterfly

FreeBeer said:


> @_Dancing_Queen_
> 
> :3 well, there is only one objective truth and we don't have the means to discern what that one truth is. You guys could be right or I could be right...either way atm its futile to debate this further.
> 
> <.< plus* I'm not the one who is mistyping based on sterotypes and what not*. I have nothing to add, the convo seems wasted imo.


Oh really, you're doing a good job of making it sound like you're doing it though.

Anyway, will you address my questions or not? You seem to have an opinion on my type based on my style of writing, what is it?


----------



## Scelerat

This thread makes me want to shoot myself in the face.


----------



## liminalthought

Scelerat said:


> This thread makes me want to shoot myself in the face.


How would you fix it?


----------



## Scelerat

liminalthought said:


> How would you fix it?


As far as I know it's pretty hard to fix a gunshot wound to the face, but I'd start with the emergency room and after that, most likely plastic surgery.


----------



## liminalthought

Scelerat said:


> As far as I know it's pretty hard to fix a gunshot wound to the face, but I'd start with the emergency room and after that, most likely plastic surgery.


Eventually someone would investigate why it all happened, and then you'd have to explain, and then they'd break the news to you telling you there are many threads like this, and then they'd contain you.

How would you fix it?


----------



## MNiS

liminalthought said:


> Eventually someone would investigate why it all happened, and then you'd have to explain, and then they'd break the news to you telling you there are many threads like this, and then they'd contain you.
> 
> How would you fix it?


Well it seems to me that the misunderstanding was deliberate. I don't think Scelerat wants to share his opinion on the matter.


----------



## Scelerat

liminalthought said:


> Eventually someone would investigate why it all happened, and then you'd have to explain, and then they'd break the news to you telling you there are many threads like this, and then they'd contain you.
> 
> How would you fix it?


Why would I have to explain why it happened?

This thread cannot be fixed, it's derailed into multiple streams of conversations only loosely related to the OP, and the posts are getting to a length where nitpicking tends to always happen.


----------



## liminalthought

MNiS said:


> Well it seems to me that the misunderstanding was deliberate. I thought it was funny.


My continuation was deliberate too. If it means there's no interest, then the joke ended this well.



Scelerat said:


> Why would I have to explain why it happened?


I wasn't asking for an explanation, just if you had any suggestions for me.

It lost direction as soon as the OP lost interest, since then a lot of time passed and arguing eventually reached the topic of whether MBTI functions are the same as the one's in socionics. After getting what I was after, I lost interest too and other people decided to talk about connections to enneagram. I don't see a point in trying to direct anything anymore since this thread is turning more into a talking space. This thread never had the chance to reach an end to begin with since it all leads up to socionics and MBTI comparison.


----------



## Scelerat

liminalthought said:


> I'm not asking for an explanation, just if you had any suggestions for me.


One of the things I've noticed here on Perc is that whenever a thread in one of the typing forums ends up with 2 - 4 people all trading fairly long posts it's only a matter of time before it devolves into a mix of nitpicking, personal attacks, questioning other people's types and has little to do with the original topic. This strikes me as a waste of time and energy for relatively little return. This is compounded if people start breaking down posts into 4+ different quotes, carrying on discussions through multiple multi-quote posts etc.

I'm all for discussing topics to bring clarity, cement your view on something, to kill some time, to learn something new or whatnot, but when a conversation gets to the level I described, it's more often than not tautology rather than argument.


----------



## liminalthought

Scelerat said:


> One of the things I've noticed here on Perc is that whenever a thread in one of the typing forums ends up with 2 - 4 people all trading fairly long posts it's only a matter of time before it devolves into a mix of nitpicking, personal attacks, questioning other people's types and has little to do with the original topic. This strikes me as a waste of time and energy for relatively little return. This is compounded if people start breaking down posts into 4+ different quotes, carrying on discussions through multiple multi-quote posts etc.
> 
> I'm all for discussing topics to bring clarity, cement your view on something, to kill some time, to learn something new or whatnot, but when a conversation gets to the level I described, it's more often than not tautology rather than argument.


The only way I know that works to prevent this is by having an active op clearing stating what he/she wants and and where limits should be. Most people aren't serious which leaves room for other's to hi-jack it. It depends a lot on the op to supply information and direct things, which leaves others with less options and a more narrow filter. The reason I asked you about how you would fix it was because I thought you might have had some obvious strategy that was sorely missed (which I thought may have been why you wanted to shoot yourself in the face).


----------



## Scelerat

liminalthought said:


> The only way I know that works to prevent this is by having an active op clearing stating what he/she wants and and where limits should be. Most people aren't serious which leaves room for other's to hi-jack it. It depends a lot on the op to supply information and direct things, which leaves others with less options and a more narrow filter. The reason I asked you about how you would fix it was because I thought you might have had some obvious strategy that was sorely missed (which I thought may have been why you wanted to shoot yourself in the face).


It just irritates me to see so much potentially productive intellectual energy put into a discussion, then a new thread opens and the same people have more or less the same discussion again. If I had an obvious strategy I would have said it initially. 

This thread had real potential for a synthesis of JCF and Socionics Information elements where each element/function could have been broken down and analyzed to a point where the key characteristic(s) could have been identified. With the two theories synthesized you would expand your tool-set substantially.


----------



## liminalthought

Scelerat said:


> It just irritates me to see so much potentially productive intellectual energy put into a discussion, then a new thread opens and the same people have more or less the same discussion again. If I had an obvious strategy I would have said it initially.
> 
> This thread had real potential for a synthesis of JCF and Socionics Information elements where each element/function could have been broken down and analyzed to a point where the key characteristic(s) could have been identified. With the two theories synthesized you would expand your tool-set substantially.


I decided to do something like that already in one of the stickies, after discussion in this thread. It's funny that the thread I'm using was made to contrast the functions. I'm holding off on finishing it so that when it does come up again I can make an impact. This thread is somewhat of a testing ground.


----------



## woollysocks

I think that the problem is that MBTI has a very limited understanding of exactly what Fe means. As a result, an EIE in Socionics using Fe and Ni may appear quite a bit less responsible and welcoming as an MBTI ENFJ. Instead of just being nice to people, Fe in Socionics is about illiciting emotional responses in others, not just being able to cheer people up but also being able to bring people to solemnity or anger. The Ni then provides a visionary effect of long term purpose.

As a result, a personality like Adolph Hitler would be a good example of an EIE in Socionics yet be far from the MBTI idea of ENFJ.

While you can just say you relate more to ENFP in MBTI despite being EIE in Socionics, I would simply say that Socionics and MBTI are the same Jungian theory in different stages of development. You may sound more like ENFP but are you really using Ne and Fi? Rather than call yourself an ENFP EIE, I'd just say to update to the more comprehensive system and be an EIE.


----------



## Alhazred

All contrary in my case. I relate VERY WELL to socionics ENFp, and I was typed by MBTI professional as ENFJ. En revanche, I don’t relate at all to socionics ENFj. 

In Socionics, ENFp is a relationship builder and maintainer, a person with amazing insight on other people potential, and their potential developer. ENFj is more like a creator of emotional atmosphere, kind of a showman. ENFp is turned to other people, ENFj makes other people turn to her/him. ENFp is more welfare/consumerist/democratic/humanistic/hardwork/optimist Delta Quadra, ENFj is young/fighting spirit/ideological/competitive/loser hating Beta Quadra. 

Cognitive functions described by Socionics and MBTI are not quite same. Emotional Ethics is not the same as Fe, and Feeling ethics is not the same as Fi.


----------

