# INFP and IEI. Is this possible?



## murkyneko (Aug 18, 2016)

I don't know much about socionics.. but I looked up the functions of IEI and apparently it says that I'm an INFJ according my socionics type..

But I'm pretty sure that my second function in mbti is not Fe.
So I'd like to ask you if it's possible to be an INFP and IEI ?


----------



## angelfish (Feb 17, 2011)

So technically... MBTI is cognitive preference. Myers expanded Jung's 4 functions into 8 cognitive functions mapping to the 16 types after applying J/P and I/E. Other personality psychologists have expanded upon that in a number of ways - Beebe, Berens, etc. Socionics combined Jungian theory with Kepinski's "information metabolism" theory (how the brain processes psychic energy, much like how the body processes nutritional energy). 

Since the MBTI describes preference while Socionics assigns a social role... and since the functions are described a bit differently... technically, yes, you could have two different types. 

That said, it doesn't usually make much sense, and after a fair amount of study many people end up condensing down to one type.


----------



## Haludh (Jul 6, 2016)

When you get down to the skinny of the systems, the functions are defined differently. Also, compared to Socionics, MBTI can actually hardly be described as a system (I recognize that sounds like an insult to MBTI, which I don't mean it to be).


----------



## Sylas (Jul 23, 2016)

As far as I understand - no, it's a possible mistype in either system.

You cannot be Ni dominant perceiver and Fi dominant judger at the same time. That's nonsensical. The functions have somewhat different descriptions, but MBTI and Socionics haven't flipped juging and perceiving functions around - Ni is still perceiving irrational function in both, and Fi is still judging rational function - and you are dominant in either one or the other, it cannot be both at the same time.

This is a thread on NiFe vs. FiNe type differences that you might want to read through: http://www.the16types.info/vbulleti...i-identical-differences-IEI-INFp-and-EII-INFj


----------



## murkyneko (Aug 18, 2016)

Okay. Thank you, I think the socionics tests I've taken were inaccurate lol Because I'm 99% sure that I'm a Fi dom


----------



## Haludh (Jul 6, 2016)

Sylas said:


> As far as I understand - no, it's a possible mistype in either system.
> 
> You cannot be Ni dominant perceiver and Fi dominant judger at the same time. That's nonsensical. The functions have somewhat different descriptions, but MBTI and Socionics haven't flipped juging and perceiving functions around - Ni is still perceiving irrational function in both, and Fi is still judging rational function - and you are dominant in either one or the other, it cannot be both at the same time.
> 
> This is a thread on NiFe vs. FiNe type differences that you might want to read through: Quasi-identical differences: IEI-INFp and EII-INFj


If MBTI and Socionics define functions differently, why would a different type in each system imply a mistyping? They are interpretations of the human mind's metabolism, not _the_ metabolism itself.


----------



## Sylas (Jul 23, 2016)

radagast said:


> If MBTI and Socionics define functions differently, why would a different type in each system imply a mistyping? They are interpretations of the human mind's metabolism, not _the_ metabolism itself.


"Somewhat differently" as per my post does not imply "completely different", which is what your post is implying.

Think about it this way. Different enneagram authors have described enneagram types in different ways. Does this mean that if you test or identify as Type 9 description by Helen Palmer and Type 4 description from Claudio Naranjo that you are type 9 in "the Palmer" system and simultaneously type 4 in "the Naranjo system"? Of course not. That the enneagram authors have written somewhat different descriptions of enneagram types, and have even disagreed on some conceptual points, does not mean that we have 5+ different enneagram-like typologies. Same with Jung, Aushra, Kiersey, Myers and Briggs, etc. - they were all trying to describe the same system of 16 types, and the fact that their descriptions aren't identical to each other does not mean that we have 3+ different typologies and that each poster here has at least 3 different types. That already looks unreasonable.

The mistyping is implied in changing the nature of dominant function. MBTI and Socionics do not define the rational judging and irrational perceiving nature of the functions differently. In both judgement implies structuring, ordering, scheduling, creating value systems, and perception implies free, value-less sensation or perception of the object. So when somebody claims to be a dominant judger in one system and a dominant perceiver in another that creates a contradiction for them and implies that they have gotten something wrong, because a person cannot be both dominant judger and perceiver at the same time.


> They are interpretations of the human mind's metabolism, not the metabolism itself.


If you disagree that MBTI and Socionics models present an approximation of some part of human mind's metabolism, then it's unreasonable to take up and study either.


----------



## Haludh (Jul 6, 2016)

Sylas said:


> "Somewhat differently" as per my post does not imply "completely different", which is what your post is implying.
> 
> Think about it this way. Different enneagram authors have described enneagram types in different ways. Does this mean that if you test or identify as Type 9 description by Helen Palmer and Type 4 description from Claudio Naranjo that you are type 9 in "the Palmer" system and simultaneously type 4 in "the Naranjo system"? Of course not. That the enneagram authors have written somewhat different descriptions of enneagram types, and have even disagreed on some conceptual points, does not mean that we have 5+ different enneagram-like typologies. Same with Jung, Aushra, Kiersey, Myers and Briggs, etc. - they were all trying to describe the same system of 16 types, and the fact that their descriptions aren't identical to each other does not mean that we have 3+ different typologies and that each poster here has at least 3 different types. That already looks unreasonable.
> 
> The mistyping is implied in changing the nature of dominant function. MBTI and Socionics do not define the rational judging and irrational perceiving nature of the functions differently. In both judgement implies structuring, ordering, scheduling, creating value systems, and perception implies free, value-less sensation or perception of the object. So when somebody claims to be a dominant judger in one system and a dominant perceiver in another that creates a contradiction for them and implies that they have gotten something wrong, because a person cannot be both dominant judger and perceiver at the same time.


I just disagree. "Somewhat differently" is still different, and human descriptions of natural processes are exactly that: human understanding applied to natural processes. I also do think one could align themselves with one theorist's system as opposed to another regardless of the set of systems in question—again, these are all human descriptions.

For example, I study astrology. Astrology itself is a complex structure based on human interpretation of the metaphysical effects the cosmos might have on the organisms existing on one planet, and those who study astrology are limited by our perspective: beings on _this_ planet, none other. There are many different ideas, most sharing an historical foundation, of how the cosmos affect us, and astrologers, after studying them all, might settle on one idea/system that best describes how they, themselves, within their limited perspective, have experienced these effects.

In short, like astrological interpretations are not the metaphysical properties of the cosmos themselves, psychological type systems are not the psychology itself. Who is to say one can't be a dominant judger and perceiver? We are people, not systems. We might identify with both dominant functions, as while judging and perceiving are defined very similarly (identically?) in each system, the specific functions are not. The theorists of MBTI and Socionics used the same foundation but have built different houses.



Sylas said:


> If you disagree that MBTI and Socionics models present an approximation of some part of human mind's metabolism, then it's unreasonable to take up and study either.


That's an opinion. One's motivations for studying something might be different from your own.


----------



## To_august (Oct 13, 2013)

It depends on why you think you're an Fi dom.


----------



## Sygma (Dec 19, 2014)

murkyneko said:


> I don't know much about socionics.. but I looked up the functions of IEI and apparently it says that I'm an INFJ according my socionics type..
> 
> But I'm pretty sure that my second function in mbti is not Fe.
> So I'd like to ask you if it's possible to be an INFP and IEI ?


It is very very possible since IEI - INFP is the most common translation from one system to another. Nothing weird here, the functions are working very differently


----------



## RoSoDude (Apr 3, 2012)

In my view, no. I'm with @*Sylas* here. I've already written about this in length in some very heated arguments, so I'll try to keep it short and hopefully respectful.

MBTI and Socionics on the surface appear to have some rather substantial differences. This is especially apparent if you take to reading type descriptions or even function descriptions as your basis for understanding types and their cognition. I can't deny that Socionics description of the Sensing functions in particular is somewhat at odds with, or at least of a different sort compared to, the description given by western followers of Jung.

However, type and function descriptions are not what Socionics or MBTI are fundamentally about, in my view. What Jung laid out in Psychological Types was the foundation for the idea that there are discrete elements which make up a person's personality, and these occupy distinct roles with respect to one another in the psyche. There are a number of competing systems which have this concept as their basis. While you could argue that they branch out so far from another so as to allow for type discrepancies such as the one offered by @*murkyneko*, I would respond by noting that these systems usually contain the same theoretical underpinnings and claims. Compare Socionics' Model A with the models proposed by Lenore Thompson or John Beebe and you will find much of the same information about how the functions stack up and form the basis of the 16 types -- the algebra, as well as the abstract content, is nearly identical. It's to the point that I would umbrella the systems under the same general theory, just as slightly tweaked models to explain the same phenomena.

[As a brief aside, I would say that I'd actually be convinced by an argument that MBTI/Socionics differ greatly enough in the fundamental aspects from original Jung to be considered as a separate family of theories altogether, as Jung had some ideas about the conscious/unconscious expression of functions and their attitudes/orientations that don't square with the typological systems that follow]

The differences, to me, are just a question of the angle that is taken to describe the particulars that arise in such systems. That is to say, if we agree that there are at base 8 cognitive functions which have certain rules in how they build up personality types, what is the makeup of each of these functions and what characteristics are shared by the personalities that follow? Where western Jungian systems take the view that the cognitive functions are a class of "input-output" features in the mind, Socionics says that there are actually 8 types of information which objectively exist in the world which correspond to the information elements (cognitive functions), and hence the question is not what cognitive process you're using to view the same information, but rather what information you're actually processing and in what way. This may partially explain why Socionics has somewhat type descriptions; for the most part, these just reflect a different flavor on very similar themes. I would personally argue that any area where the descriptions of two systems are truly in conflict is an area where one or both of the systems is _in error_, the trivial case of which would be that no typological system is really that accurate at all.

(Nope, looks like I failed to keep it short as usual. Well, I hope I was at least tactful so as to meet one of my goals)


----------



## Elisa Artista (Aug 23, 2016)

murkyneko said:


> Okay. Thank you, I think the socionics tests I've taken were inaccurate lol Because I'm 99% sure that I'm a Fi dom


That would be my first thought, if you're certain you are an Fi dom. Most Socionists are Russian and a lot of resources just aren't available for Socionics in English. This means Socionics isn't understood as well as MBTI for most English speaking typology enthusiasts. The online tests are designed to point you in the right direction and shouldn't be used as a be all, end all of typing. If you relate to the EII descriptions I would not hesitate for a heartbeat to throw that IEI result out of the widow.


----------



## Mr Oops (Jun 29, 2016)

Usually I would say when you can pin point socionics type you can convert it into MBTI type.

Socionics ->MBTI: works systematically
but
MBTI-> Socionics: you have to reassess yourself critically and find your actual type.

Keirsey: it is like people are different with different set of preferences. Individuals won't matter if you ask me.

Socionics is logically ruthless. MBTI as "system" is Fi driven (function which tries to deny systematic boxes but uses the method in hand waver fashion).


----------



## throughtheroses (May 25, 2016)

I have the same problem. 

Of course it's possible. Anyone who says otherwise is discrediting both systems and failing to recognize their intriguing differences. There's no 1:1 match between MBTI and Socionics, and even though they use similar terminology, they're applied quite differently.


----------



## myst91 (Sep 9, 2014)

Sylas said:


> As far as I understand - no, it's a possible mistype in either system.
> 
> You cannot be Ni dominant perceiver and Fi dominant judger at the same time. That's nonsensical. The functions have somewhat different descriptions, but MBTI and Socionics haven't flipped juging and perceiving functions around - Ni is still perceiving irrational function in both, and Fi is still judging rational function - and you are dominant in either one or the other, it cannot be both at the same time.


The thing is, MBTI did flip some judging and perceiving functions around 




> "Somewhat differently" as per my post does not imply "completely different", which is what your post is implying.


No, "somewhat different" means the differences still have to be taken into account, they are not to be ignored. 




> Think about it this way. Different enneagram authors have described enneagram types in different ways. Does this mean that if you test or identify as Type 9 description by Helen Palmer and Type 4 description from Claudio Naranjo that you are type 9 in "the Palmer" system and simultaneously type 4 in "the Naranjo system"? Of course not. That the enneagram authors have written somewhat different descriptions of enneagram types, and have even disagreed on some conceptual points, does not mean that we have 5+ different enneagram-like typologies.


If they do disagree on some conceptual points then yes we have 5+ different enneagram typologies.




> The mistyping is implied in changing the nature of dominant function. MBTI and Socionics do not define the rational judging and irrational perceiving nature of the functions differently.


Except they _do_ define them differently.

In MBTI an Si-dom is a jungian Rational type.

In Socionics an Si-base is a jungian Irrational type.

In MBTI an Ti-dom or an Fi-dom is an Irrational type.

In Socionics Ti-base and Fi-base are Rational types.

And so on.




> In both judgement implies structuring, ordering, scheduling, creating value systems, and perception implies free, value-less sensation or perception of the object. So when somebody claims to be a dominant judger in one system and a dominant perceiver in another that creates a contradiction for them and implies that they have gotten something wrong, because a person cannot be both dominant judger and perceiver at the same time.


Exactly, so at least one of the systems is gonna be wrong in their function model. I say it's MBTI that's wrong.




radagast said:


> Who is to say one can't be a dominant judger and perceiver? We are people, not systems. We might identify with both dominant functions, as while judging and perceiving are defined very similarly (identically?) in each system, the specific functions are not. The theorists of MBTI and Socionics used the same foundation but have built different houses.


Even the foundation isn't entirely the same...


----------



## myst91 (Sep 9, 2014)

RoSoDude said:


> MBTI and Socionics on the surface appear to have some rather substantial differences. This is especially apparent if you take to reading type descriptions or even function descriptions as your basis for understanding types and their cognition. I can't deny that Socionics description of the Sensing functions in particular is somewhat at odds with, or at least of a different sort compared to, the description given by western followers of Jung.


Western followers of Jung - do you mean MBTI'ers? They are not true followers of Jung since MBTI fundamentally changes some things from the jungian view.




> However, type and function descriptions are not what Socionics or MBTI are fundamentally about, in my view. What Jung laid out in Psychological Types was the foundation for the idea that there are discrete elements which make up a person's personality, and these occupy distinct roles with respect to one another in the psyche. There are a number of competing systems which have this concept as their basis. While you could argue that they branch out so far from another so as to allow for type discrepancies such as the one offered by @*murkyneko*, I would respond by noting that these systems usually contain the same theoretical underpinnings and claims.


No, unfortunately they do not exactly contain the same theoretical underpinnings and claims.

In some aspects yes, in other aspects no.




> Compare Socionics' Model A with the models proposed by Lenore Thompson or John Beebe and you will find much of the same information about how the functions stack up and form the basis of the 16 types -- the algebra, as well as the abstract content, is nearly identical. It's to the point that I would umbrella the systems under the same general theory, just as slightly tweaked models to explain the same phenomena.


No, not "nearly identical". I can go into this more if you want.




> [As a brief aside, I would say that I'd actually be convinced by an argument that MBTI/Socionics differ greatly enough in the fundamental aspects from original Jung to be considered as a separate family of theories altogether, as Jung had some ideas about the conscious/unconscious expression of functions and their attitudes/orientations that don't square with the typological systems that follow]


That's right. Though Socionics does keep more consistent with Jung in the principles it kept from Jung's system, compared to MBTI. 




> The differences, to me, are just a question of the angle that is taken to describe the particulars that arise in such systems. That is to say, if we agree that there are at base 8 cognitive functions which have certain rules in how they build up personality types, what is the makeup of each of these functions and what characteristics are shared by the personalities that follow? Where western Jungian systems take the view that the cognitive functions are a class of "input-output" features in the mind, Socionics says that there are actually 8 types of information which objectively exist in the world which correspond to the information elements (cognitive functions), and hence the question is not what cognitive process you're using to view the same information, but rather what information you're actually processing and in what way. This may partially explain why Socionics has somewhat type descriptions; for the most part, these just reflect a different flavor on very similar themes. I would personally argue that any area where the descriptions of two systems are truly in conflict is an area where one or both of the systems is _in error_, the trivial case of which would be that no typological system is really that accurate at all.


The descriptions are slightly different flavours, yes, the function models themselves differ more than just being slightly different flavours, however. 

Btw lol about the idea that the 8 types of information objectively exist in the world... no, they are just in our minds. It does map to the outside reality in a reliable enough way but it's not the same as the IEs actually existing out there. No, really, they are just the way the brain structures the information about the world.


----------



## Mustaffa (Sep 3, 2016)

I think the confusion lies in the the fact that mbti messed with the function order for the introverts when they really shouldn't have. Isabell Myers Briggs and her mother Katherine were novelists. They were interested in characters for their novels. Katherine noticed the same characters appearing in literature throughout the ages and after reading Jungs work she came to the conclusion that there were in fact 16 distinct character/personality types. She wrote to Jung and he wasn't very impressed with her. I don't think they were qualified to mess around with the function order for the introverts when setting up the mbti test. They also changed the definition of some of the functions. Si is said to be about looking into the past and being preocupied with tradition, so you can see why an istj would think they use Si. Jung's definition of Si was more like focusing on inner sensations in the here and now, which is more in line with Socionics definition of Si. 

Mbti contradicts itself when it comes to describing the types and which functions they use. 

Look at this example on isfj's. Here it says: _ More so than other types, ISFJs are extremely aware of their own internal feelings, as well as other people's feelings. They do not usually express their own feelings, keeping things inside. If they are negative feelings, they may build up inside the ISFJ until they turn into firm judgments against individuals which are difficult to unseed, once set. 

Just as the ISFJ is not likely to express their feelings, they are also not likely to let on that they know how others are feeling._

That is clearly describing Fi, not Fe. Portrait of an ISFJ

And from the isfj personal growth page it states: _The main driver to the ISFJ personality is *Introverted Sensing, whose function is to define the properties of and locate and recognise the sometimes abstract and innate qualities of and between the objects of the outer world.* If an ISFJ's picture of the world is threatened by external influences, the ISFJ generally tries to shut such new information out of their lives. _

ISFJ Personal Growth

Now that is NOT what introverted sensing is. Not even by mbti's own definition. If an isfj is shutting out new information that is a sign of weak Ne. And what planet are they on saying that an INTROVERTED function is concerned with objects in the OUTER world??? 

The part mbti got right was to identify the 16 types and it does a good job of describing their strengths and weakness and areas for growth. If you look at the characters being described in mbti and disregard the functions, then an mbti INFJ does equal a Socionics INFj, more or less. They have the same strengths and weaknesses. I think the whole reason Socionics calls it ISFj is in reference to mbti. Why else would they use those abbreviations?


----------



## Mustaffa (Sep 3, 2016)

Another example of mbti contradicting itself from the infj page:

_They have strong value systems, and need to live their lives in accordance with what they feel is right._

Portrait of an INFJ


That is clearly describing a Fi type. Not Fe.


----------



## myst91 (Sep 9, 2014)

Mustaffa said:


> I think the confusion lies in the the fact that mbti messed with the function order for the introverts when they really shouldn't have. Isabell Myers Briggs and her mother Katherine were novelists. They were interested in characters for their novels. Katherine noticed the same characters appearing in literature throughout the ages and after reading Jungs work she came to the conclusion that there were in fact 16 distinct character/personality types. She wrote to Jung and he wasn't very impressed with her. I don't think they were qualified to mess around with the function order for the introverts when setting up the mbti test. They also changed the definition of some of the functions. Si is said to be about looking into the past and being preocupied with tradition, so you can see why an istj would think they use Si. Jung's definition of Si was more like focusing on inner sensations in the here and now, which is more in line with Socionics definition of Si.


True.




> Mbti contradicts itself when it comes to describing the types and which functions they use.


It contradicts itself already when defining J/P :laughing:

Look at the nonsense here from the horse's mouth: The Myers & Briggs Foundation - Judging or Perceiving




> Look at this example on isfj's. Here it says: _ More so than other types, ISFJs are extremely aware of their own internal feelings, as well as other people's feelings. They do not usually express their own feelings, keeping things inside. If they are negative feelings, they may build up inside the ISFJ until they turn into firm judgments against individuals which are difficult to unseed, once set.
> 
> Just as the ISFJ is not likely to express their feelings, they are also not likely to let on that they know how others are feeling._
> 
> ...


Seems ESI/ISFj alright.




> Now that is NOT what introverted sensing is. Not even by mbti's own definition. If an isfj is shutting out new information that is a sign of weak Ne. And what planet are they on saying that an INTROVERTED function is concerned with objects in the OUTER world???


Yes actually that's MBTI's Si-dom. It neatly lines up with Introverted Judging functions in the Jungian and in the Socionics way.

As for the objects of the outer world: "between the objects of the outer world", that's pretty much what Socionics's introverted information elements are about 




> The part mbti got right was to identify the 16 types and it does a good job of describing their strengths and weakness and areas for growth. If you look at the characters being described in mbti and disregard the functions, then an mbti INFJ does equal a Socionics INFj, more or less. They have the same strengths and weaknesses. I think the whole reason Socionics calls it ISFj is in reference to mbti. Why else would they use those abbreviations?


It's ISFj because of Rationality. MBTI's J isn't all that different from Rationality for ISXX types.


----------



## Mustaffa (Sep 3, 2016)

Thank you Myst! I've been arguing this point for the past 5 years on the internet. You're the ONLY person who understood what I was saying. I've been called crazy so many times I went through a phase of questioning my own sanity. But it became apparent over time that I was in fact talking sense and the people calling me crazy were just parroting what the "experts" said about the J/P switch for the introverts when converting between systems. 

10 years ago on this forum the consensus was that an INFP's opposite was the ESTJ. It was common knowledge they were a bad match. Then Socionics came along and all of a sudden everyone was saying the ESTJ was the INFP's dual, soulmate, the one who'll make their dreams come true! Ffs! And I was ousted as the crazy one for pointing this out. 

Thank you again for having a brain! You just made my day.


----------

