# Ni dom in MBTI, Fi dom in Socionics... Possible?



## Flange78 (Dec 30, 2014)

Here's the deal... I am definitely an INFJ in MBTI (I can't find my paperwork.. argh!). I have taken various online Socionics tests and keep getting EII/INFj, which I am told I am wrong and should be getting EIE/INFp. I wonder if the discrepancy could be in that my second function often comes up as Fi on the MBTI/Jung online tests? An example of one was Ni-Fi-Fe-Si-Ne-Te-Ti-Se. Would this maybe result in a dom/lead of Fi when taking the Socionics test? Also, on the MBTI/Jung online test, my J/P are often close percentage-wise (like 53% J, 47% P). When I read the descriptions in Socionics, I identify strongly with EII, but don't feel quite as "rigid", and EIE often sounds too "dreamy". I feel like I just want to give up on the whole Socionics thing! :frustrating: MBTI just seems much less complicated and seems to "fit" me so much more easily. :tongue:


----------



## Sixty Nein (Feb 13, 2011)

From your paragraph from above, I honestly don't really get any sort of feeling that you are an EII at all. You seem to be rather "bright" in your expression, mostly spreading your emotional content outward.

And no, it's not possible. You are more or less the same type in both systems, as they largely describe the same phenomenon


----------



## fadeaway (Sep 27, 2014)

Not possible to be both. They both do the same thing. Yes, they look really different, but fundamentally... man... same old shit. Both are interesting, though... You should probably read the theory behind it all and decide for yourself rather than rely on a test to do it for you.


----------



## Dastan (Sep 28, 2011)

Even though you cannot be both theoretically, both can be the type of each model that describes you the best, practically.


----------



## periwinklepromise (Jan 26, 2015)

It is my belief that the Feeling functions are defined in very different ways when trying to "switch" between MBTI and Socionics. I'm same as you - Ni dom in Myers Briggs but a wrestle in Ni and Fi emphasis in Socionics. But have you read some descriptions of the Socionics Feeling functions? Fi is called the ethics of relations, while Fe is the ethics of emotions. Because this school interprets these functions like so, Fi resonates with me. You'd expect an INFJ to have Ni or Fe emphases, but it doesn't work like that. The Thinking functions don't seem to have this problem. Sensing can be a little fuzzy, but not overly so. Then Feeling just confuses things. If Socionics doesn't work for you, I say don't worry about it.


----------



## perpetuallyreticent (Sep 24, 2014)

maybe? the possibilities are.......

_in*FiNi*te_



..... :|


----------



## nichya (Jul 12, 2014)

Repost Repost:



nichya said:


> I am sorry to be repetitive, but take Fi of INFj (not the function itself but when it is the dominant function of INFj )
> 
> "EIIs are very attuned to the psychological atmosphere of interaction and to their own feelings towards people and things. They treasure deep feelings of attachment and strive to deepen emotional bonds between people and harmonize relationships. When those people that the EII is close to suffer emotionally, the EII will do everything in her power to raise the emotional condition in the individual, often at the EII's expense.
> 
> ...


- this is from someone's reply to me but I forgot their username and please do check the Ni description -of a first function- of INFp

"Functionally, INFPs and INFjs do convert evenly, but the functions are defined in different ways in each system so the conversion is largely pointless. Socionics Ni-doms (including INTps) are described as principled and idealistic, whereas MBTT INFPs are described in the same way. As a result, the sensitivity experienced in putting one's ideas out there and having them potentially trashed produced a very strong emotional effect in the Ni-dom, which is misconstrued as feeling introverted (which has nothing to do with emotions in particular.) Ni is also described in socionics as being able to produce mental imagery and alternative universes wherein the individual's "characters" thrive (I'm not sure if there's any Ni-dom who doesn't have novelistic tendencies, which of course line up perfectly with the INFP.) So as a result, a lot of Ni-doms in that system get placed as INFPs in MBTT, such as Tolkien, R. R. Martin, and any other person with an obviously powerful, even epic, imagination (either that or they're involved in really long discussions about how they could be INFJ as well.) This is basically the work of stereotypes, as opposed to actual functional analysis, and you'll find that this is rampant in the MBTT circles."



nichya said:


> Also I found more details from the experiment mentioned in the wiki article on j/p switch (J/P switch - Wikisocion - you can find counter theories briefly mentioned here) .
> 
> Introduction into Socionics you can see the results under Method 3 in the two tables. Of course there is room for not trusting the experiment either as I have come across a lot so called empirical junk science and I have no idea about the credibility but I think discarding every observance just because it defies the theory would also be fallacy in my opinion. Again these are about descriptions and not functions, my point.
> 
> ...





Moaarrr repost:

This is due to socionics putting Fe as a performer, awkwardly enough I do it as well and more but my performance face is optional, I have full control over it and I do it actively when I want to keep people in a fun mood. I act quite like beta quadra though, it feels like it is written for me, socionics tests me as INFp (INFJ) as well but I know that I am not, well I am in the description sense but I am not in the functional stacking sense. Not only I am highly Fi, I am also an anti-Fe, meaning yes I disregard it precisely because I find it fake and manipulating. Socionics might be well studied and an extensive study but I think the descriptions fail miserably. Everyone seems to be stuck at how gorgeous the theory sounds but I honestly think if it is not applicable to people, something is very wrong.

Like OrangeAppled says I believe that the enneagrams make a huge difference. Socionics base the theories on functions but I feel like these theories are affected by the person's observations as well. While I, a sx/sp 4w5 478 archetype act quite like beta quadra I find 9w1 INFPs quite delta quadra and very different then how I am, very serious too. Just like my INFp (INFJ) friends who I believe act strongly as delta quadra. 

I think another reason is if you check the descriptions of Ni as a first functions of INFp(INFJ) you will see that it is quite a mixture of INFJs and INFPs, and perhaps much more INFPs, unless you have ever met an outspoken INFJ, I haven't  (forum doesn't count) I feel like socionics is not able to separate INFPs and INFJs perhaps especially when their functions are not aligned. Yes I know Ni is my critical parent but the fact that it comes as high as right after my Ne makes me think I might not be as quite explainable as an INFP with FiNeSi order, that might also be telling about my experiences which I can relate and you guys refer as -Ni-

I also find the descriptions and keywords to be highly misplaced, say romantic is our keyword in MBTI and everything there is really and in socionics it is switched and used for INFps(INFJ) while the keyword empath is used for INFjs (INFP). Even the poster boy/girl lists of each group.

I also find the descriptions conflicting a lot. Again, if INFps(INFJ) are outspoken, rebellious and aggressive and all how is it not interfering with their performer face and keeping a positive atmosphere for their own well being?


)) Sorry for the cluttered reposts, I have been discussing this here and there so didn't want to go through it all over again


----------



## with water (Aug 13, 2014)

Someone sell me on Socionics. Because it seems bizarre and not useful to me.


----------



## nichya (Jul 12, 2014)

WT_Neptune said:


> Someone sell me on Socionics. Because it seems bizarre and not useful to me.


I find quadras and relationships useful but I think socionics is flawed for the j/p switch topic or the lack of, possibly because of the projections of more generic terms of intuition and introverts and enneagram observations playing a part in the function-based theories? I dunno, I would warn against following blindly or being stuck at the functional theories because if you don't have real-life matching concerns, you can build anything with theories like building with toyblocks. It only makes sense when I take INFp there because I can relate to its profile, beta quadra and relationships over 98% while I can't relate to delta quadra at all.


----------



## Captain Mclain (Feb 22, 2014)

Twrankt said:


> From your paragraph from above, I honestly don't really get any sort of feeling that you are an EII at all. You seem to be rather "bright" in your expression, mostly spreading your emotional content outward.
> 
> *And no, it's not possible. You are more or less the same type in both systems, as they largely describe the same phenomenon*


I agree with this. I do not understand why @nichya always is bringing up those charts when they obviously do not prove anything or make any solid point. Not with functions anyway. Just some people who read the descriptions one time and pick one. Its not solid at all.


----------



## nichya (Jul 12, 2014)

Captain Mclain said:


> I agree with this. I do not understand why @nichya always is bringing up those charts when they obviously do not prove anything or make any solid point. Not with functions anyway. Just some people who read the descriptions one time and pick one. Its not solid at all.


Truth is I don't see how you don't see in what relation I bring it. I am not sure if you would like me to explain, being referred as 3rd person, I assume not but in case there are others can't see the relation,

again, for example, from my own post:

Fi of INFj (not the function itself but when it is the dominant function of INFj )

"EIIs are very attuned to the psychological atmosphere of interaction and to their own feelings towards people and things. They treasure deep feelings of attachment and strive to deepen emotional bonds between people and harmonize relationships. When those people that the EII is close to suffer emotionally, the EII will do everything in her power to raise the emotional condition in the individual, often at the EII's expense.

EIIs are very capable of "sizing people up". They rely heavily on their instincts to understand the inner feelings of an individual. They are very empathetic people and find it very easy to feel with others. This makes them very sensitive to the moods of people, and they treat them the way they want to be treated, that is, with respect."

Empathy and need for emotional deep bonds sounds like both INFJ and INFP but this description sounds too much like MBTI Fe. So it is not I don't understand functions alignment and the theory but when the profiles and quadras come into the picture the descriptions get vague and even switched.

So I am suggesting that -no- in the Jungian sense if you know your functions it does not change. If you evaluate the Socionics functions or information elements it should be clear what functions you use. HOWEVER when you check the Fi -as a first function of INFj like above- you will see the vagueness and even how much it recalls Jungian Fe. Same thing with Ni -as a first function- of INFp.

So I really don't understand how is my point not clear? I don't have a problem with theory or how it builds, because how can you have a problem with that anyway? If you think of Jungian functions as building blocks, you can build -anything- really. That is why to make it science you need to show how it applied to real life.

About the study,

It is not uncommon to prove something by suggesting a counter-theory or an assumption believed to be wrong. Proof by contradiction, for example is a great method to prove a point by contradicting the wrong assumptions you have set. It is more often used than you think and is indeed used to debunk theories stemming from -reasonable assumptions- which otherwise wouldn't be proven wrong in a million years

What the study believes in: real correlation between the socionic types and the Keirsey types does not exist
How can we prove this: Let's -assume- the correlation exists and try to prove it does
Study: They ask people to fill a questionnaire to see if correlation exists
Result: The study results contradict the assumption of existence of a correlation. (But as a side result it also suggests there is a fair amount of correlation, with the knowledge that fair amount =/= correlation)
Therefore, they show their belief holds true

Also if you check method 1 and method 2 it explains why they chose method 3 including an explanation of the pitfall of the assumption of Keirsey being the same as MBTI and exactly why they can not use it to prove this.

So what is MY personal take from this experiment???

Well this goes for all but especially to draw your focus:

If you check the INFJ and INFP you will see there is no randomness, there is a great and strict pattern which excludes almost all other types. 

57 of the subjects find INFj description to be correlated to INFJ while 42 thinks INFj is correlated to INFP

Likewise,
52 of the subjects find INFp description to be correlated to INFJ while 46 thinks INFp is correlated to INFP

self typing results are not that different either ( but I like the emphasis on how many INFps find INFPs relating to them)

So there IS a correlation and then there IS NOT a correlation that would count as a rule of a j/p switch.

Discarding all other typing systems yes we can type ourselves working from bottom to top, as I am a FiNe I should be INFj in socionics but why then there is so much ambiguity and yet lack of randomness in the experiment with descriptions? Especially when two types does not even share a single common function?

AND even to make it more interesting, the chart shows that a "majority" of subjects thought the description of ISFP and ISFp are the same. 

Same thing with the ISTP and ISTp

We are talking about people who should have different functions but when the descriptions are thought as adjectives and traits, yet they are the same.

Fi Se vs. Si Fe
Ti Se vs Si Te

and yet you ask two different systems and they describe them the same way.

About the subjects of the study,

All the subjects were chosen among the people who did not know about the theories so that when they read the descriptions of the profiles they could make more objective judgement on deciding which MBTI profile sounds like which socionics profile. And again, they were tested on the spot. They actually explain their reasoning for picking this method, I think it is clear why you would want to eliminate the factors of learnt prejudgment and misinformation, considering how confused people are on what they are and what they should be or all the mistyped people. I believed that socionics did not make sense at all because I was told that I should be INFj and went ahead and read the descriptions and thought it was junk because I couldn't relate at all. Quite some time later I came across INFp profile and the quadras and only then I noticed how much I could relate to this profile and now I see what might be causing this and sharing it.

Maybe my question should have been, in what way do you think these tables are not related?


----------



## Captain Mclain (Feb 22, 2014)

nichya said:


> Truth is I don't see how you don't see in what relation I bring it. I am not sure if you would like me to explain, being referred as 3rd person, I assume not but in case there are others can't see the relation,
> 
> again, for example, from my own post:
> 
> ...


Why I can not relate with your reasoning is that you see the descriptions as the backbone of the theory while I see them only as something that points at a phenomenon.


----------



## nichya (Jul 12, 2014)

Captain Mclain said:


> Why I can not relate with your reasoning is that you see the descriptions as the backbone of the theory while I see them only as something that points at a phenomenon.


Well I have many times declared that it is not the case. "So I am suggesting that -no- in the Jungian sense if you know your functions it does not change. If you evaluate the Socionics functions or information elements it should be clear what functions you use. HOWEVER when you check the Fi -as a first function of INFj like above- you will see the vagueness and even how much it recalls Jungian Fe. Same thing with Ni -as a first function- of INFp." endless quoting myself, I have explained it in more detail in other threads.

Not only I don't see descriptions as the backbone of the theory in anyway I find that the understanding and the vagueness over the functions that might be stemming from personal observations to be the problem of the theory -as- I believe the functions should be the backbone. If you check my Fi example you should be able to see how observation of Fi becomes vague and even more Fe as the first function of an INFj. 

Also as a scientific point I keep repeating myself, just because a theory is based on solid grounds does not always make it right. If you take Jungian functions as building blocks and make assumptions based on that, your theory can never be proven wrong HOWEVER it might not reflect real life or may not apply. In the way that you can make infinite number of formulas and observations based on solid theories in math does not mean you make a viable product and unless one uses proof by contradiction, your theory will always be right because it starts at a solid point.


----------



## Captain Mclain (Feb 22, 2014)

nichya said:


> Well I have many times declared that it is not the case. "So I am suggesting that -no- in the Jungian sense if you know your functions it does not change. If you evaluate the Socionics functions or information elements it should be clear what functions you use. HOWEVER when you check the Fi -as a first function of INFj like above- you will see the vagueness and even how much it recalls Jungian Fe. Same thing with Ni -as a first function- of INFp." endless quoting myself, I have explained it in more detail in other threads.
> 
> Not only I don't see descriptions as the backbone of the theory in anyway I find that the understanding and the vagueness over the functions that might be stemming from personal observations to be the problem of the theory -as- I believe the functions should be the backbone. If you check my Fi example you should be able to see how observation of Fi becomes vague and even more Fe as the first function of an INFj.
> 
> Also as a scientific point I keep repeating myself, just because a theory is based on solid grounds does not always make it right. If you take Jungian functions as building blocks and make assumptions based on that, your theory can never be proven wrong HOWEVER it might not reflect real life or may not apply. In the way that you can make infinite number of formulas and observations based on solid theories in math does not mean you make a viable product and unless one uses proof by contradiction, your theory will always be right because it starts at a solid point.


So we are in Cognitive Functions forum. There are supposedly 8 of them and those would be static. People use them mixed up which create the information flow and judgement systems. These are some more dynamic but somewhat solid. Thats why there are more then 16 types of people, you can if you like make subtypes in subtypes in subtypes. Just make loads of description based on different degrees of function-usage in all types. But whats the point of that? You are lacking logic in your reasoning and use faulty data. And, you are probably EII in Socionics, congratz.


----------



## nichya (Jul 12, 2014)

Captain Mclain said:


> So we are in Cognitive Functions forum. There are supposedly 8 of them and those would be static. People use them mixed up which create the information flow and judgement systems. These are some more dynamic but somewhat solid. Thats why there are more then 16 types of people, you can if you like make subtypes in subtypes in subtypes. Just make loads of description based on different degrees of function-usage in all types. But whats the point of that? You are lacking logic in your reasoning and use faulty data. And, you are probably EII in Socionics, congratz.


Well congrats for skipping my every point and example and coming to the conclusion that "You are lacking logic in your reasoning and use faulty data." just because you feel like it. In case you are not aware, Fi+Te derives logic objectively versus Ti+Fe driving logic subjectively. I am really bothered that in none of your posts you try to use logic and reasoning but think you are right anyway, I am also bothered how narrow your view is and you refuse any discussions further than what doesn't fit the theory from the bottom up approach. Any other point of view to the system should be hushed. And the way you call it -faulty data- simply because you can't grasp the reasoning of the experiment in favor to a theory with no data at all which even Jung himself has warned against using blindly to label people. You are also highly unaware of many ways of working science and you think it IS science to accept a theory as is. And thanks for vague-ly writing something that would in fact only support my point but is too generic to even care for reading and needless to say shoots a parallel universe to my point.


----------



## Captain Mclain (Feb 22, 2014)

nichya said:


> Well congrats for skipping my every point and example and coming to the conclusion that "You are lacking logic in your reasoning and use faulty data." just because you feel like it. In case you are not aware, Fi+Te derives logic objectively versus Ti+Fe driving logic subjectively. I am really bothered that in none of your posts you try to use logic and reasoning but think you are right anyway, I am also bothered how narrow your view is and you refuse any discussions further than what doesn't fit the theory from the bottom up approach. Any other point of view to the system should be hushed. You are also highly unaware of many ways of working science and you think it IS science to accept a theory as is. And thanks for vague-ly writing something that would in fact only support my point but is too generic to even care for reading and needless to say shoots a parallel universe to my point.


You are not doing science, you are just overdoing your Te. Just read my first post and stop there. I was not searching for an in-depth discussion with you. we had this before and it never leads to anything good.


----------



## nichya (Jul 12, 2014)

Captain Mclain said:


> You are not doing science, you are just overdoing your Te. Just read my first post and stop there. I was not searching for an in-depth discussion with you. we had this before and it never leads to anything good.


precisely because you are closed to use logic and reasoning and discussing it but somehow quick to say "You are lacking logic in your reasoning and use faulty data." without considering any point I make, experiment I refer to and example I give simply because you fail to grasp my point. Maybe you shouldn't tell people where to stop when you were the one who brings things up or to say something just to say something with no intentions to discuss it or support your reasoning in doing so.

Also in case you haven't, I suggest you read OP's post rather than just the title, even though the thread is on cognitive functions.


----------



## Captain Mclain (Feb 22, 2014)

nichya said:


> precisely because you are closed to use logic and reasoning and discussing it but somehow quick to say "You are lacking logic in your reasoning and use faulty data." without considering any point I make, experiment I refer to and example I give simply because you fail to grasp my point. Maybe you shouldn't tell people where to stop when you were the one who brings things up or to say something just to say something with no intentions to discuss it or support your reasoning in doing so.


My standpoint is that the functions exist outside descriptions. Yours are that the descriptions define the functions. Its like the opposite.


----------



## nichya (Jul 12, 2014)

Captain Mclain said:


> My standpoint is that the functions exist outside descriptions. Yours are that the descriptions define the functions. Its like the opposite.


You really really fail to understand what I am saying and coming up with oversimplified and -wrong- conclusions so indeed this never leads to anything good, not until you will try to understand my point even when I explained multiple times. It is funny you don't even grasp what I am saying but go far to say I am lacking logic and reasoning and just because you say so and nothing more, really.


----------



## Captain Mclain (Feb 22, 2014)

nichya said:


> You really really fail to understand what I am saying and coming up with oversimplified and -wrong- conclusions so indeed this never leads to anything good, not until you will try to understand my point even when I explained multiple times. It is funny you don't even grasp what I am saying but go far to say I am lacking logic and reasoning and just because you say so and nothing more, really.


Why do you keep responding my posts? What are you trying to prove, really?


----------

