# ENFP and ISTP duality socionics...?



## Duck_of_Death

Ha, ha!

I really hope this relationship goes gravy for the OP only out of self-interest...we will certainly hear all about it if not.


----------



## MrAdder

Khys said:


> This is why I can't be with an ENFP.
> 
> ENFP: BLARGH! EMOTIONS EMOTIONS EMOTIONS FEELINGS!! 10 PAGES OF FEELINGS!! I FEEL THIS WAY ALWAYS AND FOREVER UNTIL YOU FIX IT!!!
> 
> ISTP: *thinks for 3 days* Ok, i thought about it, here's what I think
> 
> ENFP: Oh I'm fine now. I was just in a mood and needed to vent.


Sorry for not adding value, but I just have to say: hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahHahahahaha. I love it.


----------



## Eliza. Peace to you.

Can't leave this one be! @marrymehotcheeto, I will write more on this and maybe on my ISTP if I can do more writing on Sunday. But for now, before the PerC Lent Police catch me, I just want to share some general Dual info, as Duality and my ISTp are favorite topics for me! 

For all Duals, the relationship can start rocky, and be hard to get off the ground, but once it does, it only gets better and better, more and more solid. Just getting together in the beginning is a challenge, as you may have read, for Duals. The older they are when they meet, the more "issues" they have accumulated in life that can make getting together harder. The ISTp handles the beginning-challenge by often times putting on the brakes or creating distance so he can think and process before jumping in, while the ENFps whose intuitive-feeling knows a good thing and wants to jump in with both feet must just be patient, _very_ patient. 

I think 78% of Socionics ISTps are Briggs-Meyers ISTPs? There is a study somewhere with the numbers. Furthermore there are two "kinds" of ISTp's: the subtypes Sensing or Thinking, like there are two ENFp's - subtypes Intuitive or Feeling. _My ISTp's subtype is Sensing, which happens to go just right with my ENFp subtype, Intuitive._  [ISTp-subtype-Thinking also goes nice in a Dual with ENFP-subtype-Feeling].

[Sidenote: I see alot of ENFp-subtype-Feeling on ENFP Perc Subforum. I hardly ever see ENFP-subtype-Inuitive like me there. Maybe 80% are Feeling subtype there? Add to that, I am very bordeline I-E, and it seems like there are a lot strong Extraverted Feelings on the ENFP subforum... just an observation].

Not sure I have this right, but I think Briggs-Meyers says the primary functions for ISTP are Ti and Se??? [someone can correct me, i think I have this wrong]. 

Whatever it is, its not the same as Socionics, which says that primary functions for ISTp is Si and Te, in that order, which fits my ISTp/ISTP. 

At any rate, the block-layout explaining the function priorities in Socionics is _extremely interesting_. And in that layout, you can see why the Duals fit perfect; their functions compliment each other perfectly, and doing so they protect each other's weak points, naturally, just by being themselves. 

Therefore its very addictingly peaceful to be with your Dual. Which, knowing my ISTp, I think its his deepest longing in a relationship - peaceful, happy, companionship - and that is exactly what he is going to get with me.. and I think he is _finally_ just beginning to realize it; I can see his hope growing, and he is taking action now, getting bolder in declaring his feelings - taking me by surprise with that after so much patience!

There is so much about Duality that desciribes the developing relationship of my ISTp and I. I love how it says that Dual reltiaons are the most _"psychologically therapeutic of all relationship types"_. I am glad becasue my ISTp needs a bit of healing, and it is so good to know that just by being our natural selves, we will heal each other.

This is a good article on what it looks like when Duals come together:
Experiencing Dual Relations Those 8 steps my ISTP and I have both much experienced. Its delightful for me to read them and realize when I or he felt that way.

So, you have already seen that the Socionics researchers studied that for all 16 types, there are 16 different types of relationships, a different one with each type, and one of those is Duality. 

Well, I found an intersting article that further breaks down Duals - describing the characteristics of the 8 distinctly different types of Dual relationships. I bolded some parts that particularly speak to me of my developing ISTp/ENFp Dual relationship. Here it is [I also adjusted male/female so the description would make better sense to me, which helps, because some very interesting and informative Socionics articles are bad translations from the Russian!]:


[from this:Socionics - the16types.info - Compilation of Duality Descriptions (V.Meged, A.Ovcharov.)]

*"The Craftsman" = ISTp = SLI
"The Psychologist" = ENFp = IEE*

The Craftsman easily detects smallest deviations from esthetic standards in the surrounding world; such disharmony makes him feel distressed, awakes in him a feeling of discomfort, the desire to improve the situation, to perfect what he achieved or actually possesses – not only in the material world, but in his intellectual and spiritual development as well. This is why The Craftsman is exacting or demanding to himself and often also to the others. He likes nothing drab, trite and banal, strives for improvement of his own, his friends and family, beginning from the appearance and health, and up to the mental development. He is very curious, has wide range of interests, often he is not self-confident because of increased self-criticism. He needs praise of his capabilities, encouragement of his efforts.

The Psychologist is just the kind of person who notices talents of the others, inspires them with belief in their capabilities, readily tells compliments. She notices even hidden capabilities and willingly encourages their development. This in turn very much commands respect of The Craftsman, who does not feel bored with such a partner. _*The Psychologist is useful to him also because she easily finds solutions to difficult situations, which would otherwise make The Craftsman feel depressed. *_Being thankful for that, The Craftsman takes care of the mental and external comfort of the one solving his internal problems.

_*The Psychologist very much needs a caring partner and finds relaxation for her emotional and restless soul in the 'quiet haven' of a friend, who is constant in his words and deeds, reliable and faithful. *_The Craftsman creates convenience and comfort for The Psychologist, who is not much adapted to the real life, thus giving her the opportunity to focus on spiritual and intellectual values, generate new ideas, which will bring the taste of novelty into their common affairs.

Everyday chores are usually undertaken by The Craftsman, who believes he can do them better.  The Psychologist takes initiative in relations, can unite people around herself, and becomes the 'life of the party'. She gains people's favor, willingly advises on solving personal problems. She is a subtle psychologist, who understands well hidden motives of people. She emotionally demonstrates her attitude towards people; her sincerity, warmth and ingenuousness make others forgive her excessive straightforwardness and hot temper. She corrects The Craftsman's ethical mistakes, and often even her own, since she is not rancorous and likes people very much. _*Her trustfulness disarms the incredulous Craftsman, and emotionality softens her more cold-tempered and reserved partner.*_

The Craftsman is reticent enough and does not like to demonstrate his feelings. He can put a distance in communication, seems to be arrogant and non-sociable. *But in the very depths of his soul he is thankful to the person who takes responsibility for ethical issues on herself. He likes The Psychologist's spirit of trust, whose permanent optimism, capability of foreseeing the future and perspectives of various undertakings, finding ways out of any problems. The Psychologist raises The Craftsman's confidence of the future, decrease his skepticism and mistrust towards everything new, not well known or not proven by practice. In addition, The Craftsman is sometimes excessively nervous and mistrustful; he exaggerates possible dangers not to mention real ones. But The Psychologist, who lives more in the future than in the present, 'calculates' everything in advance and in such moments call for caution, and at the same time calms down her partner when an alarm is false.*

The Craftsman is very technological and practical. He can work quickly and is well organized. He plans all stages of his work in advance, acquires all the necessary things in advance. He is enduring in perfecting details of his work, can separate important things from trifles, which is not an easy task for The Psychologist. The Psychologist's efficiency of working is high only in critical situations, while routine and monotonous, non-creative work deteriorates her vital tonus, being a source of boredom for this restless creative personality.

*The Psychologist gladly accepts a role of 'second' or 'assistant', which suits The Craftsman's commanding nature. The Craftsman does not like when others impose on him other ways of doing things than he would prefer.* He is strives for real benefit and profit, unlike altruistic Psychologist, and this contributes to growth of material welfare of this dual pair.

The Psychologist needs a partner indulgent enough to her weak points: negligence at work, lack of consideration to rules, norms and hierarchy, outbursts of non-motivated aggression. The Craftsman is indulgent to such, sometimes they even amuse him. _*He likes the independent nature of The Psychologist, which does not encroach on his own independence.*_

_*The characteristic features of this dual pair are the independence from each other, as well as from others, harmony of relations and a restless spirit of creativity and self-development.*_


----------



## Delok

Duck_of_Death said:


> Ha, ha!
> 
> I really hope this relationship goes gravy for the OP only out of self-interest...we will certainly hear all about it if not.


I think it is now out of our hands...


----------



## Erbse

Delok said:


> I think it is now out of our hands...


Has it ever been in ours to begin with?

Another one bites the dust.

*does a twist*


----------



## cyamitide

marrymehotcheeto said:


> I'm interested in learning more about the ENFP and ISTP duality relationship according to Socionics. I admit that I'm attracted to the idea, and also have done a lot of amateur internet research on the topics.
> I've been totally trolling personality cafe reading about relationship experiences between enfps and istps, to gather a gist of what the common perceptions and complaints are. There tends to be a lot of negative opinions about enfps circulating amongst istps. What's up with that?


You know there is a Socionics forum to discuss Socionics if you want to.

The Duality isn't between ISTP and ENFP but between ISTJ and ENFP. In Socionics the ISTp is Si dominant and corresponds to MBTI's ISTJ. The dual of ISTP is really the ENFJ. 

You can read more about dualities in this article.


----------



## Eliza. Peace to you.

cyamitide said:


> ...You know there is a
> The Duality isn't between ISTP and ENFP but between ISTJ and ENFP. In Socionics the ISTp is Si dominant and corresponds to MBTI's ISTJ. The dual of ISTP is really the ENFJ....




Re: ISTP=ISTJ - This is not true. Socionics ISTps are about 78% ISTP in Briggs-Meyers. It is true that _some_ ISTps are ISTJs. But _not most_. 

It is true that though both personality theories are based on Jung theory, the function dominance differs between Briggs-Meyers and Socionics. Socionics functions are much more complexly explained and are backed with extensive research. Particularly because of function differences, trying to learn Briggs-Meyers and Socionics at the same time can be very confusing. 

Which is why I rarely bring it up here any more, it makes people annoyed, many like to keep these two Jung-based personality theories completely separate. I only discussed it here in this thread because the OP opened it concerning Socionics Duality.

As to Briggs-Meyers Duality, it is really interesting to consider that the ISTP Dual is ENFJ! Because *for the 78% of ISTps who are ISTPs, the ENFj is their Socionics Conflicting Relationship*. When you line up the Socionics block lay-out of the ISTp/ENFj functions, it is clear that the two types of functions for ISTp/ENFjconflict in the most vulnerable places. 

So for ISTPs who suspect they are Socionics ISTps, consider your relationships with ENFj/ENFJs and if they match this "Conflictor" description. They start out looking good: promising, "special", unique, but when they are together as a couple over time they only get worse and worse and worse - and you can't stop the worsening! The mutual distrust of each other deepens in time together and the only relief is when they break, which is a great relief for both! 

I understand the Briggs-Meyers relationship theories are based on theoretical ideas of the writers of them, vs. Socionics relationships typing, which is based on extensive clincial research studies that form the theories.


----------



## cyamitide

Eliza. Peace to you. said:


> Re: ISTP=ISTJ - This is not true. Socionics ISTps are about 78% ISTP in Briggs-Meyers. It is true that _some_ ISTps are ISTJs. But _not most_.
> 
> It is true that though both personality theories are based on Jung theory, the function dominance differs between Briggs-Meyers and Socionics. Socionics functions are much more complexly explained and are backed with extensive research. Particularly because of function differences, trying to learn Briggs-Meyers and Socionics at the same time can be very confusing.
> 
> Which is why I rarely bring it up here any more, it makes people annoyed, many like to keep these two Jung-based personality theories completely separate. I only discussed it here in this thread because the OP opened it concerning Socionics Duality.
> 
> As to Briggs-Meyers Duality, it is really interesting to consider that the ISTP Dual is ENFJ! Because *for the 78% of ISTps who are ISTPs ...*


*
Not true. In any case, even if some convert as ISTp rather than ISTj it is unwise to tell these people that their relationship is that of conflict, because what if they fall into that other 22%? Then such advice may ruin their relationship. 

Much better advice is to tell people that they should investigate Socionics types and intertype relations on their own, and determine what works for them (especially since there is entire forum dedicated to the subject of socionics and several websites).*


----------



## marrymehotcheeto

@cyamitide Thanks, I was looking into that. Whether the socionics categorization is the same as MBTI's way of classifying personality types is questionable for me. I think it's possible that Socionics and MBTI are classifying the same personality type, but with different functions. For ex: MBTI says ISTPs 1st and 2nd functions are Ti/Se, while Socionics classifies ISTp's as Si/Te, yet it still describes the same "person".


----------



## Eliza. Peace to you.

cyamitide said:


> Not true.


You say this based on ???



> In any case, even if some convert as ISTp rather than ISTj it is unwise to tell these people that their relationship is that of conflict, because what if they fall into that other 22%? Then such advice may ruin their relationship.


 I agree, this whole subject of Socionics relationship-types can be upsetting for people in committed relationships, who are having problems and then learn they are in a "doomed" type. Actually, not sure if any types are truly doomed. Some types are worse than the "worst" [Conflictor] because Conflictors at least have mutual mistrust of each other, which keeps them both safe from psychological harm. 

In contrast, relationships such as, Supervsion - there are two, one your type is Supervisee and the other is your type is Supervisor: it is very bad to be in the Supervisee position. With ISTp/ESFj the ESFj supervises the ISTp. This for the ISTp this is worse than Conflictor because the ISTp trusts the ESFj when he _should mistrust him/her_, as the ESFj relentlessly tears down the ISTp at his wekest points with his strongest points, making this the most psychologically damaging of all 16 types for the ISTp. In this long-term relation with the ISTp as the Supervisee, it can risk making him insane...

But this is Socionics, and not all the ISTPs here are ISTp's! 

For the 78% that are ISTps, and the small percentage of those that are in committed relationships with their Conflictor, I say that though the truth hurts, it can set you free. Much is written on Conflicting relations, and I remembered reading a page on how to improve/make-livable your Conflicting relations (and if you are in one, its no news that it is a relationship of increasing difficulty!) . I sent it on to my sis-in-law who is determined make whatever adjustments are necessary to keep her family intact while her children grow up. (This choice to find a way to stay together benefits first and foremost the children, the most vulnerable of the family, and really both parents, too, who will save a pile of money and trouble raising their family in the same home). It involves a list of suggestions, including one I remember, giving each other plenty of regular space and time apart, which helps them both refuel, so that when they reunite it takes longer before the inevitable conflicts resurface, which adds up to more peace in the home.


----------



## marrymehotcheeto

Khys said:


> This is why I can't be with an ENFP.
> 
> ENFP: BLARGH! EMOTIONS EMOTIONS EMOTIONS FEELINGS!! 10 PAGES OF FEELINGS!! I FEEL THIS WAY ALWAYS AND FOREVER UNTIL YOU FIX IT!!!
> 
> ISTP: *thinks for 3 days* Ok, i thought about it, here's what I think
> 
> ENFP: Oh I'm fine now. I was just in a mood and needed to vent.



What are you referring to?


----------



## Erbse

Eliza. Peace to you. said:


> For the 78% that are ISTps, and the small percentage of those that are[...]


You do realize that you refer to 22% as 'small', while 22% are more than 1 out of 5 and almost 1 out of 4.

Small perhaps would be more adequate if we talked about 5% or less.


----------



## Eliza. Peace to you.

Erbse said:


> You do realize that you refer to 22% as 'small', while 22% are more than 1 out of 5 and almost 1 out of 4.
> 
> Small perhaps would be more adequate if we talked about 5% or less.


Oh, sorry, yes! It is certainly not small, and it is a good reason to not make assumptions about the connections between Briggs-Meyers and Socionics. Well, I know that the ISTP I love is ISTp so that is a reason for my particular inteerst in this subject of Duality... And Erbse, you think you possibly might be Socionics ISTj?? Or you are maybe like Duck_of_Death, whom I guess is an ISTp, Thinking sub-type, vs. the ISTp Sensing subtype my ISTP is. Or he is ISTP Briggs, ISTJ Socio... You probably know what you are, Erbse, because I think you have a better grasp on the functions than I do... you have superior Ti AND superior Te...


----------



## Duck_of_Death

I am ISTp. Good call.


----------



## Erbse

I don't know what I am in socionics, while I certainly identify with the Ti / Se overall I think my Ni is more developed than my Se. So as far as subtypes are concerned, I'd probably be on the intuitive end, as far as that's possible anyway.

While I can speak Te fluently, to me it is 'troll logic', pretty much what Ti is an Te user's eye.

Sticking to Jung's original function descriptions however, there isn't a shred of conscious Si inside of me - which makes it impossible for me to be ISTp, as long as Socionics hasn't re-defined the functions.


----------



## reletative

i am socionics LSI.


----------



## U-80

I dismiss socionics. It's a flawed system.

ENFPs seem to love it though... probably because it complicates something that should be simple. (Not an uncommon occurrence in the feeler-dominated world of pseudo-science.)


----------



## pinkrasputin

Era said:


> I dismiss socionics. It's a flawed system.
> 
> ENFPs seem to love it though... probably because it complicates something that should be simple. (Not an uncommon occurrence in the feeler-dominated world of pseudo-science.)


I don't know any ENFPs who love it, and I personally think it's crap.


----------



## U-80

I'm glad we agree that socionics is crap, but my generalization still stands.

If anyone comes forward to defend it at this point, it'll be an ENFP (I bet).


----------



## JamieBond

@marrymehotcheeto ... I assume that when you think about being in love all the time, it's like you're longing/wanting/anticipating that. Positive feelings attributed to being "in love", right?"

(sidenote: how can you be "in love"? is it like being "in prison"? something that's unaviodable and uncontrollable? and "love" isn't a place, is it? is it somewhere you can go? is it somewhere you can come back from? when someone calls your phone and you can't answer, does your voicemail say, "sorry, I'm in love, not very good phone reception here"?. what if this other person isn't "in love" with you (not in love with you, but "in love" with you, as is with you in this place called love)? are there extra carrier fees for emails, texts, calls, etc.?)

hmmm.. kinda a rant... now i forgot where I was going with this.

Oh, right. ENFPs (and dare I say, Nfs in general) have a positive association with love. The bubbly feelings, floating on air, giggles, always talking about their crushes, the OMG we're going to live happily ever after complex... (I have an ENFx as a sister, I know...). 

ISTPs tend to... not. RESERVED is the key word here. So while we may still love the other person (love is a VERB, not a PLACE), we don't show it like ENFPs do. When ISTPs love people, they talk to them and spend time with them. When ENFPs love people, it's like BAM, LOVE ME OR DIE.

Just my thoughts in posting form.


----------



## Seamaid

If you find someone who can stick with you through thick and thin, who comes from the same box of rocks as you, who shares and agrees with most of your core values, does it matter that they don't fit perfectly snug with every nook and cranny of your personality? Maybe there's a gap or two, but that gap doesn't undermine the structural stability of your bond because everything else + love holds it all together in a tender, beautiful, and totally original way. 

What does it matter what theory says when you've found genuine love with someone who's, if not theoretically perfectly suited, still well-suited for you in real life? The guy whose snoring I've grown to adore, who makes me laugh every day, who I'm learning so much about love, trust, boundaries, acceptance, forgiveness, patience, etc. from, is not just a cardboard type -- he's somebody unlike any other who specifically knows me, loves me, is committed to sailing through life with me, and not because I'm some type either. 

It's simple: we're compatible because we're happy together. Or maybe we're happy because we're compatible. The theories rank our compatibility somewhat low, but then why is our happiness so much higher than to be expected? It is not perfect, to be sure, but we are happy, in all the simple, exciting and mundane ways a happy couple should be. 

To be more happy than this, I suppose is possible, but that's like getting free vanilla ice cream on a hot day and sadly wishing it was butter pecan because butter pecan really hits your spot. I really don't think there's some huge difference between a good "dual" person and a good non-"dual" person. If you find a good person, it's a good person. Love that PERSON. At least with theory out of the way, you can be sure you're not just with someone because of their type.


----------



## wayupnorth

Lots of ENFP + ISTP threads all over the place here. 

Is it easy? No. Are any long term relationships easy? No. 

We love the heck out of each other and even though we separated, got right back together. He would not give up on me and forced himself in my life, which I am thankful for. Loyal as heck.

No right answers. I'm an independent and pretty introverted ENFP with well-developed Ti. We have similar interests (guns, nature, south park, hauling ass on road trips, fucked up satire, solving problems, trying new things) and beliefs and are in the same career area (drilling). Both enneagram 9 which is good and bad.

*Verbal* communication is very difficult. I understand his body language and his animal growl language - I even growl or rawr right back at him! 

And as people have said already, best sex ever.


----------



## ISTPlady

i think you can date based on personality types. they were written and discovered because we're just animals, and people try to avoid that. 
i have an enfp male friend, and we get along awesomely, he's my best friend. he's just short, fat, and ugly. he used to have a crush on me, but now he has a crush on someone else and i realized i got a little jealous. so, i was thinking maybe even i can start looking past that, because our personalities are so compatiable. but if you read the enfp/istp duality description, it describes it pretty perfectly


----------



## Eliza. Peace to you.

ISTPlady said:


> i think you can date based on personality types. they were written and discovered because we're just animals, and people try to avoid that.
> i have an enfp male friend, and we get along awesomely, he's my best friend. he's just short, fat, and ugly.* he used to have a crush on me, but now he has a crush on someone else and i realized i got a little jealous. so, i was thinking maybe even i can start looking past that,* because our personalities are so compatiable. but if you read the enfp/istp duality description, it describes it pretty perfectly


Personally I wouldn't "look past it" but sort of withdraw. Not with drama but just get real "missing" while you happily do your own thing, having lost a lot of interest in someone not so interested in you any more. That's the best way i can describe it. If you put some space in there he may well realize he misses you and decide to close the space. Whereas tolerantly still hovering while he crushes on someone else might just encourage him to tarry too long. Giving him a hurdle or two to jump will likely heighten his interest. You value what you work for... [as long as you don't play this like a game].


----------



## pinkrasputin

wayupnorth said:


> *Verbal* communication is very difficult. I understand his body language and his animal growl language - I even growl or rawr right back at him!
> 
> And as people have said already, best sex ever.


I've always thought sex was good anytime I was involved. :tongue:

As far as my previous ISTP relationships, I've touted "amazing sex" in particular because I'm so starved communication-wise. So the _only_ expression I'm getting (physical), I will praise the hell out of. I can't help it. I'm an ENFP. I am well-skilled at looking at what is best in people. In my opinion, ENFP/ISTP sex is amazing because that was in large, the _only_ validation I was getting. It _magnified_ our particular sexual combo because I tend to focus on what someone is giving me, rather than on what they are not. I'm also known for creating monsters because of this. 

I believe in taking personal responsibility for having good sex. Selfish partner aside, if you are not having good sex, chances are you are not communicating enough. I think "amazing sex" could happen between any two personality types.


----------



## ontic

I'm 5 months into an ISTP-ENFP relationship. We love each other, and we get along great. Yes we have our arguments, but guess what, with a bit of effort on both sides they get resolved, and we're stronger for it.

The whole duality thing is overdone a lot in this forum, I think. Yes duality is special, but only if you're willing to work at it.

But don't you think that just sounds just like every other relationship out there?


----------



## Esoteric Wench

I am an ENFP who is married to an ISTP. We've been married for six months, dated for 4.5 years, and been friends for about 22 years (which means I know him and understand his type inside and out). Our relationship really works and I never would have expected it. If you had asked me when I was single if an ISTP was the kind of man I would have wanted for a life partner, I would have said, "no way!" But now that I've experienced this pairing first hand, I can say with certainty that these two types can be a really good match. I'd be happy to answer any questions you guys might have.


----------



## Ink

This thread shows why having an MBTI and socionics forum combined is a bad idea. Dualization describes the concept of two types having cognitive functions that balance eachother out, a dominant Ti with a dominant Fe for example. MBTI ENFPs and ISTPs share NO functions with eachother, making them Conflictors  Conflicting relations between psychological ("personality") types ), which definitely describes the dynamics of their relationships with eachother described here better.


----------



## Ink

Esoteric Wench said:


> I am an ENFP who is married to an ISTP. We've been married for six months, dated for 4.5 years, and been friends for about 22 years (which means I know him and understand his type inside and out). Our relationship really works and I never would have expected it. If you had asked me when I was single if an ISTP was the kind of man I would have wanted for a life partner, I would have said, "no way!" But now that I've experienced this pairing first hand, I can say with certainty that these two types can be a really good match. I'd be happy to answer any questions you guys might have.


Is he a Ti dominant or a Si dominant?


----------



## Entropic

I'm getting the feeling that many people who claim to be ENFPs are in fact confused ESFPs and as such ISTP-ENFP could work since they are in a supervision relationship. That, or the ISTP and ENFP are in fact neither type they think they are. I find the latter very likely. By that I mean of course type in the cognitive sense,not behavioral sense.


----------



## Hedge pig

I am an ENFp. If I may speak for my type, we are often silly, frivolous people who take ourselves too seriously even though we know we are not that serious, which I think is why we actually open ourselves up to criticism more than any other type. That being said, I think we are also geniuses in the disguise of fools. My advice would be, if you are an ENFp, and you find an ISTp who undervalues your awesome intelligence, your exquisite taste, your infinite capacity for fun and your irresistible easy-going social splendor, then don't waste your time. There are plenty of Assholes of every type, and no shortage of them are ISTp. Besides, ENFps are super-independent. If an ISTp does not want you, you will be fine.


----------



## Promethea

"ENFP and ISTP" aren't duals.

ENFp and ISTp are duals.

ISTP is Ti Se. ISTp is Si Te.

Not that I think dualz are lolmagical~ like a lot of people who are into socionics (*airwank*), but pair a socionics Ti Se type with an Ne Fi type (these two quadras aren't even adjacent) and expect it to click the way socionics claims 'duals' do, and you have even more of a mess than merely trying to base it on actual dual relations. 

Anyway, this is why I prefer to use the three letter labels for socionics, so that theres no confusion about whats meant.

LSI and EIE are duals.
SLI and IEE are duals.

(I'm also not saying lsi and iee is an _impossible_ match, just that in general, deltas are going to find betas a bit more intense than they'd prefer.)

(Though I don't think dualz are magical, I think there is vaguely something to be said about getting along better with those of your quadra or at least adjacent quadra.)


----------



## LibertyPrime

Promethea said:


> "ENFP and ISTP" aren't duals.
> 
> ENFp and ISTp are duals.
> 
> ISTP is Ti Se. ISTp is Si Te.
> 
> Not that I think dualz are lolmagical~ like a lot of people who are into socionics (*airwank*), but pair a socionics Ti Se type with an Ne Fi type (these two quadras aren't even adjacent) and expect it to click the way socionics claims 'duals' do, and you have even more of a mess than merely trying to base it on actual dual relations.
> 
> Anyway, this is why I prefer to use the three letter labels for socionics, so that theres no confusion about whats meant.
> 
> LSI and EIE are duals.
> SLI and IEE are duals.
> 
> (I'm also not saying lsi and iee is an _impossible_ match, just that in general, deltas are going to find betas a bit more intense than they'd prefer.)
> 
> (Though I don't think dualz are magical, I think there is vaguely something to be said about getting along better with those of your quadra or at least adjacent quadra.)


>D uuu this makes you my conflictor! (wonders if he is annoying)

o.o so far I have gotten along really well with IEIs from beta.

I still like reading stuff you write...and in real life I usually end up arguing with MBTI Si<->Te<-Fe> SJs (it seems yeah even ISFJs or to be precise specically with them...idk why thou)...however this mostly seems to carry over to any type of MBTI J. Maybe its just my problems with authority :\ especially nonsensical ones...^^; so no idea about this dual-conflictor stuff.

In my experience how I process and behave does not mesh well with them as I'm very chaotic/random-loosey-goosey-non serious-take stuff as it comes / mostly does not plan for anything, and they are the exact opposite: stuff should be as they think it should, things need to be planned and prepared for, preconceptions and ideas about should and oughts, a need to change how things are.

o.o thou I did notice one specific disconnect from beta types and it has to do with the functions imo. I seem to be more objectivist-realist, while I percieve beta thinking often as "magical" logic and ethics. It seems more removed from reality compared to my thinking...kinda "meta".

I wouldn't say it is as big of a problem as being MBTI J and arguing with me about my disorganized internal and external chaos. Yeah I lack internal as well as external structure or I don't percieve/am not aware of either. You can tell from this post alone that my way of thinking is rather chotic and disjointed, at times connections become even less obvious :\... some people find it hard to follow / annoying...especally if I rant at them about some fun suff I found and most Js I have met get annoyed by it, IEI INFJ being the exception...possibly the same for INTJ-ILI as well.

*As far as SLIs go...I haven't met a properly typed one, so no idea.*  if ISTJs are SLI..then I have no idea how that will work....I dislike structure despite needing it or do I really need it? External maybe...but no idea about internal.


----------



## zinnia

FreeBeer said:


> I still like reading stuff you write...and in real life I usually end up arguing with MBTI Si<->Te<-Fe> SJs (it seems yeah even ISFJs or to be precise specically with them...idk why thou)...however this mostly seems to carry over to any type of MBTI J. Maybe its just my problems with authority :\ especially nonsensical ones...^^; so no idea about this dual-conflictor stuff.
> 
> In my experience how I process and behave does not mesh well with them as I'm very chaotic/random-loosey-goosey-non serious-take stuff as it comes / mostly does not plan for anything, and they are the exact opposite: stuff should be as they think it should, things need to be planned and prepared for, preconceptions and ideas about should and oughts, a need to change how things are.
> 
> [...]
> 
> I wouldn't say it is as big of a problem as being MBTI J and arguing with me about my disorganized internal and external chaos. Yeah I lack internal as well as external structure or I don't percieve/am not aware of either. You can tell from this post alone that my way of thinking is rather chotic and disjointed, at times connections become even less obvious :\... some people find it hard to follow / annoying...especally if I rant at them about some fun suff I found and most Js I have met get annoyed by it, IEI INFJ being the exception...possibly the same for INTJ-ILI as well.
> 
> *As far as SLIs go...I haven't met a properly typed one, so no idea.*  if ISTJs are SLI..then I have no idea how that will work....I dislike structure despite needing it or do I really need it? External maybe...but no idea about internal.


Okay I know you weren't talking to me but I just feel overly talkative today -butts in-

I think it really is about the individual and in what context you interact with them. In MBTI-land, I am super super whoa holy crap J, if I follow the stereotypes (part of it maybe because I have mild OCD but no more than 10%, I'd say). But your posts really don't bother me =/ My thought process is usually unorganized too, which makes "stuffy" people (not necessarily J's, just... unpleasant people, like my old manager who would say hi to everyone else and downright ignore me) really annoyed. 

Maybe when it comes to behavior I get annoyed... A good friend of mine from college is IEE and she can't plan for shit. We try to get together, and I always have to be the one to say "okay we'll meet here at 1" because she's just like LOL WHEE and then she gets there at 2 because... I dunno, she saw snow and had to stop and play P: That can bother me because it shows disregard for plans, which I take personally as disregard for me and our time together... I try not to though because I know that isn't how she meant it, she's just nuts... unfortunately that's just the way I am, too. P:

I guess I do get into "shoulds" and "oughts" sometimes, about basic respect for others... but not really what one "should" find interesting or how they "ought" to think. That just sounds like controlling people with little regard for personal boundaries and differences... which is kinda opposite of basic respect, as I see it.


----------



## randomshoes

FreeBeer said:


> o.o so far I have gotten along really well with IEIs from beta.


Dating one of those. Betas are awesome.


----------



## randomshoes

Yeah, I don't know an SLI in real life, but I know two probable LSIs. One I have had major conflicts with and I think is pretty close-minded and old-fashioned. The other one is newish in my life but flexible and funny and generally nice.

SLIs in fiction I find calm and sweet. Not rigid, just comforting, slow, and quiet. SEIs are adorable and I just want to hug them and drink tea with them (off-topic, but not sure which of those two is definitely my dual).

At any rate, I don't really buy into the traditional MTBI "Si is so rigid and controlling OMG" thing. Si in socionics is very soft. Also, food. I like food...


----------



## Promethea

FreeBeer said:


> >D uuu this makes you my conflictor! (wonders if he is annoying)
> 
> o.o so far I have gotten along really well with IEIs from beta.


Tbf, many have typed me as iei, but I think I am the other flavour of beta-introvert. 
I have never found you annoying. I have wondered once or twice if I was accidentally offensive to you. 



> I still like reading stuff you write...and in real life I usually end up arguing with MBTI Si<->Te<-Fe> SJs (it seems yeah even ISFJs or to be precise specically with them...idk why thou)...however this mostly seems to carry over to any type of MBTI J. Maybe its just my problems with authority :\ especially nonsensical ones...^^; so no idea about this dual-conflictor stuff.


I still think p/j is overemphasized and not one of the most important parts of jungian based typology models. It seems to me, different people of whatever type have both perceiving and judging tendencies in different areas. Some lean much further to one side than others, but even two people of the same type can seem much different in this regard; one "j" seems a lot less "j" than the other -- or maybe this is just something more about balanced vs unbalanced type.



> In my experience how I process and behave does not mesh well with them as I'm very chaotic/random-loosey-goosey-non serious-take stuff as it comes / mostly does not plan for anything, and they are the exact opposite: stuff should be as they think it should, things need to be planned and prepared for, preconceptions and ideas about should and oughts, a need to change how things are.


I also wonder about exceptions to intertype relations, like, say you as an individual value certain traits, and those traits are commonly found in a different quadra. My past experiences with my dual could be why I do not prefer my dual, for example.



> o.o thou I did notice one specific disconnect from beta types and it has to do with the functions imo. I seem to be more objectivist-realist, while I percieve beta thinking often as "magical" logic and ethics. It seems more removed from reality compared to my thinking...kinda "meta".
> 
> I wouldn't say it is as big of a problem as being MBTI J and arguing with me about my disorganized internal and external chaos. Yeah I lack internal as well as external structure or I don't percieve/am not aware of either. You can tell from this post alone that my way of thinking is rather chotic and disjointed, at times connections become even less obvious :\... some people find it hard to follow / annoying...especally if I rant at them about some fun suff I found and most Js I have met get annoyed by it, IEI INFJ being the exception...possibly the same for INTJ-ILI as well.
> 
> *As far as SLIs go...I haven't met a properly typed one, so no idea.*  if ISTJs are SLI..then I have no idea how that will work....I dislike structure despite needing it or do I really need it? External maybe...but no idea about internal.


I'm typing things in response to you with broken up postquotes and everything, but the content isn't even directly related to the bits I have divided out. *sips coffee*


----------



## LibertyPrime

Promethea said:


> Tbf, many have typed me as iei, but I think I am the other flavour of beta-introvert.
> I have never found you annoying. I have wondered once or twice if I was accidentally offensive to you.


..ah, same here (the underlined+maybe I have annoyed you; worry), thou I never perceived you as offensive.



> I also wonder about exceptions to intertype relations, like, say you as an individual value certain traits, and those traits are commonly found in a different quadra. My past experiences with my dual could be why I do not prefer my dual, for example.


Cognitive functions are one thing, who the other person is...well that is another. 



> I'm typing things in response to you with broken up postquotes and everything, but the content isn't even directly related to the bits I have divided out. *sips coffee*


*envies you because he is taking a break from coffee..still wants some* This may be funny  but I'm not aware of any differences when drinking or not drinking coffee. I just like the taste...I feel the same with or without a mug of strong coffee in me.



randomshoes said:


> At any rate, I don't really buy into the traditional MTBI "Si is so rigid and controlling OMG" thing. Si in socionics is very soft. Also, food. I like food...


o.o this reminds me...I'm hungry.


----------



## Promethea

FreeBeer said:


> thou I never perceived you as offensive.


----------



## MNiS

I don't think I've ever met a female SLI to be honest. Or if I have I've never noticed. I mean, going by stereotypes I'd probably be asking my dual to be doing things like working on my car or fixing things around the house. I guess that'd be nice but it doesn't exactly sound like the foundation for a relationship lol.

I guess that'll be it. I'll determine how much I like an SLI by how well she can fix my car. That seems fair even if it does sound typical and somehow vaguely insulting considering I'm also fairly well mechanically inclined myself. -_-


----------



## Entropic

FreeBeer said:


> Yeah, exactly!
> 
> Imo there is something wrong with MBTI.
> 
> If you disregard functions you'd be INTP in both systems, however cognition counts, thus functions+IEs count and this makes you a *Ni-Te INTP aka ILI*. I'm pretty sure @ephemereality is the same way.


That's how I type yes. I also found this helped in socionics, because once I began looking into the MBTI functions it made no sense given the descriptions that almost sound like they describe Te doms that are decidedly not me, either way. I'm ultra slob and let's leave it at that. Socionics would also describe this behavior because of role Si.


----------



## spiderfrommars

I and the two ILIs I know in real life are the biggest slobs, and the most forgetful people, that I know. We're all terrible Js.


----------



## Entropic

spiderfrommars said:


> I and the two ILIs I know in real life are the biggest slobs, and the most forgetful people, that I know. We're all terrible Js.


lol.

I blame it on my LII dad who is also suffering from this problem.


----------



## Qaellech

that's just wrong. The assigning of functions for MBTI and Socionics are way way different. Trying to fit MBTI into Socionics, assuming the same dynamics, plus spreading this info will only spread illegitimate information...thus confusing all the more the confused onlookers. Socionics is not MBTI, I know you know this, but please take another THOROUGH look at the dynamics of both theories. You should know that there should be a distinction of approach between the two.


----------



## richardbutt

Socionics is imo a lot more complex than the MBTI but they aren't necessarily incompatible. A base function is not unlike a dominant function - it's your most important function, the one you use the most, the one you value the most and the one you're least likely to compromise in favour of other functions. The auxiliary function and the creative function follow the same logic - you're good at it and you use it often but it's subservient to your most important function.

The functions you were born with (i.e. your hardware) don't change based on what test you're taking and while there may be discrepancies here and there it'd be pretty silly to suggest that theories that operate using the same fundamentals from the same psychologist should NEVER EVER be considered concurrently. Think of, say, an older science textbook and a newer science textbook describing the same basic thing but going with different descriptors and/or electing to describe only some parts of a whole. When these parts don't overlap all that much you'd be tempted to say that they describe integrally different things and should never be considered concurrently, but this doesn't make them different. I'm getting a little offtrack here but my main point is that Socionics and the MBTI are (sometimes slightly, sometimes dramatically) different interpretations of the same phenomena.

Now onto duality! The main reason behind why a whole lot of people feel compatible with ENFps (possibly causing them to eschew the idea of duals when they're not SiTe themselves) is because the creative Fi function makes them natural psychologists. They're good at figuring people out, understanding them and establishing a comfortable psychological distance, and as a result a whole lot of people feel compatible with them.

But of course, what you want isn't the only thing that matters! What an ENFp wants out of a relationship matters as well. ISTps are appealing to ENFps for a whole buttload of reasons (tonnes of articles on why they're the most compatible with each other if you're willing to google around) but the initial attractor is almost always because ISTps are enigmatic and difficult to figure out. Which makes sense when you think of figuring someone out as an activity of the Fi function and remember that Fi is an ENFp's creative function. That it's so challenging to get close and remain close to ISTps is a huuuge factor behind why ENFps are so fond of them. But like I said, I'm oversimplifying it a whole lot (the appeal of qualities inherent to Si-base users when considering the flaws inherent to Ne-base users or the functional importance of creative Te, for example). You'd get much more rounded answers from reading socionics articles.

(I generally don't like talking about ENFps "or" ENFPs with the I pronoun seeing as there's always a chance that I've typed myself wrong but I AM pretty sure that I'm an ENFP. I definitely lose interest in people who open up to me too easily and I know a few other ENFPs that have shared similar sentiments. I'm always interested in hearing about whether or not other ENFPs agree!)


----------



## LibertyPrime

Qaellech said:


> that's just wrong. The assigning of functions for MBTI and Socionics are way way different. Trying to fit MBTI into Socionics, assuming the same dynamics, plus spreading this info will only spread illegitimate information...thus confusing all the more the confused onlookers. Socionics is not MBTI, I know you know this, but please take another THOROUGH look at the dynamics of both theories. You should know that there should be a distinction of approach between the two.


They are the same system. For example the valued functions according to function strength for ENFP & ISTx (Si-Te) are the same as the MBTI functions:

*Socionics IEE= Ne>Fi>Te>Si -all valued-prefered functions & MBTI ENFP= Ne-Fi-Te-Si - worst function Ti.
Socionics SLI= Si>Te>Fi>Ne -all valued-prefered functions & MBTI ISTJ= Si-Te-Fi-Ne - worst function Fe*

They just tell the story in different ways using different language, so it seems like they are different but they are not, just different perspectives on the same thing.

The only difference is that Socionics considers rational vs irrational as jung intended and has no J-P organized vs disorganized, thus ISTp-SLI will be described as a irrational aka kinda disorganized and lazy Keirseyan ISTP (aka IP temperament). Si-Te types are the real mechanics of either system. 

If one doesn't type exclusively based on function preference & strength, and of one misinterprets and doesn't see the functions correctly (requires many months to years of trying to understand it)  then one can horribly mistype based on descriptions and stereotypes.

For example Extroverts may not be social at all, yet MBTI describes them as exclusively that on many misinformed sites, minus the official ones where it is specifically mentioned that Social=/= extrovert.

*Only the objectively correct answer backed up by evidence is what counts and if one doesn't think like this then one doesn't have a Te preference. Subjective logic Ti has its merits but ultimately to a Te user it is irrelevant because the facts and the objectively valid logic is what counts. This is the same for NFPs. All Te users are OBJECTIVISTS.*

*SLI-ISTp aka MBTI ISTJ in a nutshell:*



> Sensoric-logical introverts (SLI) prefer a bird in hand to two in the bush. With a talent in everything related to handwork, they’re just so good in creating comfort in their everyday life. They like expensive clothes showing their high status.
> 
> SLI’s weaknesses are ethics of emotions and intuition of time.
> 
> Very vulnerable and secretly afraid of being misunderstood, they prefer to hide their true attitude to others. However, if humiliated in public, they can lose their temper and burst into tears and/or shout at the offender. SLI remember even the smallest offence and can break a relationship after a serious quarrel.
> 
> SLI’s weak intuition of time shows in their desire to plan everything in advance. Excessively conservative and cautious, they’ll never make a final decision without a thorough and detailed analysis.


<.< @ephemereality I think I found a good example for ENFp-ISTp, opinion?

*Taiga Asaka - IEE*- Not openly emotional, hides stuff - volatile & doesn't try to improve the mood (no Fe preference), goes overboard EP with bad use of Se. Not practical at all & ignores her surroundings (her home reminds me of what happens with mine :S yuck). <.< despite being a girl she kinda reminds me of myself..fuck.
*Ryuuji Takasu - SLI* - brick wall on the outside, likes cooking & practical, highly attentive to surroundings, sensations.

It is Ryuuji who completes Taiga in the Si end, where she tends to just suck at: taking care of herself and her surroundings.






@richardbutt

 I know a couple of SLI dudes and despite getting along really well with both of them the most interesting thing about them for me seems to be that they are like a calm brik wall on the outside. Its a challenge to figure out what is going on inside which often remains a mystery and I enjoy cracking/figuring them out. :laughing:


----------



## Entropic

@FreeBeer I can't comment since I haven't seen the show. Another example I can think of from the top of my head is from K with Kuro and Shiro though.


----------



## LibertyPrime

ephemereality said:


> @FreeBeer I can't comment since I haven't seen the show. Another example I can think of from the top of my head is from K with Kuro and Shiro though.


I recommend TORADORA, its a rare gem, kinda delta-gama-ish. Warning it has a very everyday life/comfort feel about it.


----------



## Direct

It's so funny to me when people think someone is their dual, they get convinced that it's their dual, and the person ends up being their conflictor. This shows disconnection from the heart, and being in the head, thinking "HE IS MY DUAL, HE IS MY DUAL, HE IS MY DUAL" and not feeling anything. You can sense your conflictor miles away if you are in tune with your heart. 
What I mean by "Heart" is not a function. Feelers/Ethical types don't have advantage when it comes to this. I have like 5 conflictors(feelers), that claim they are in love with me. Thank God I avoided them. I sensed something is off.


----------



## Vermillion

@_richardbutt_ I like people who do their reading before beginning to post, instead of entering the forum with only fluff in their heads and making obnoxious threads asking about the meaning of the A-Z of typology. Thank goodness you're the first kind! 

Anyway that part you mentioned about a whole lot of people being compatible with ENFps; I'm not sure how true that is. I mean a good portion of it depends on how the ENFp behaves and how much they're interested in socialization and making themselves socially and emotionally available. Sure they can attempt to create comfortable distances in relationships, but who is to say that they want to do that, or that they're interesting enough? I have Fi in the same capacity and most people find me unapproachable; some even have called me scary. So just a word of caution about making that generalization.



FreeBeer said:


> I recommend TORADORA, its a rare gem, kinda delta-gama-ish. Warning it has a very everyday life/comfort feel about it.


Toradora is absolutely beautiful. If you can convince eph to watch that show, I'll be really proud of you. I've tried asking him thrice and I failed each time.




Direct said:


> It's so funny to me when people think someone is their dual, they get convinced that it's their dual, and the person ends up being their conflictor. This shows disconnection from the heart, and being in the head, thinking "HE IS MY DUAL, HE IS MY DUAL, HE IS MY DUAL" and not feeling anything. You can sense your conflictor miles away if you are in tune with your heart.


Also I think that just makes them bad at typology.




> I have like 5 conflictors(feelers), that claim they are in love with me. Thank God I avoided them. I sensed something is off.


Just because they're conflictors doesn't mean they can't be nice people? It just means there are heavy communication differences because stuff you say hits that person's weak spot and they warp it to convey it back through their own dominant function, which hits your weak spot. So there's just misunderstanding all through, but I see no reason why conflictors can't maintain cordial, even friendly relationships as long as there's an element of acceptance and openmindedness.

Unless of course, those people who are in love with you are obsessive stalkers or something of that sort. Then yes, avoid them as much as you can rofl.


----------



## LibertyPrime

Amaterasu said:


> Anyway that part you mentioned about a whole lot of people being compatible with ENFps; I'm not sure how true that is. I mean a good portion of it depends on how the ENFp behaves and how much they're interested in socialization and making themselves socially and emotionally available. Sure they can attempt to create comfortable distances in relationships, but who is to say that they want to do that, or that they're interesting enough? I have Fi in the same capacity and most people find me unapproachable; some even have called me scary. So just a word of caution about making that generalization.
> 
> 
> 
> Toradora is absolutely beautiful. If you can convince eph to watch that show, I'll be really proud of you. I've tried asking him thrice and I failed each time.


 I have a nickname: "The Lich King", its from Warcraft (the old days lol) and there is a reason for it. So yeah I hear ya.

^^ maybe he will watch now that 2 Fi aux users recommended it? Its a good show, would be a waste not to see it.


----------



## richardbutt

I'm not sure of how to mention people in posts (and feeling a little lazy right now so I haven't looked it up) but to Amaterasu: the whole thing about ENFps not necessarily getting along with everyone is definitely true! Assuming that the subject is open to some sort of connection, creative Fi concocting individually-tailored closeness and comfortability isn't going to be functionally useful if said creative Fi user isn't interested in using it on the subject. Motivation precludes the capabilities of the skillset itself. (As a sidenote, I think the intimidation factor associated with SEEs _may_ come from the Se-base. It's the function associated with the conqueror style of romance, after all!)

To FreeBeer: YES, the brick wall thing. Since SLI facial expressions usually aren't indicative of what they're feeling or thinking figuring them out becomes that much more engaging! That whole sensation of feeling like we need to explore and that there's always something new around the corner in the psychology of the SLI is so very appealing to cranked up Ne.

As for conflictors, at least one friend of mine is an ISTj. A very dependable, stand-up guy who I'm glad to have in my corner. Imo as long as you tread lightly and maintain the optimal psychological distance you should be able to maintain friendly relations with conflictors.


----------

