# Is it possible to be an MBTI ENFP, but Socionics SEE / Se-lead?



## Animal (May 29, 2012)

I don't know socionics really, or the underlying implications of the system. I am certain of my MBTI type, which is ENFP. 

Close friends have told me I'm a clear IEE, but I always like figuring things out for myself, so what I am wondering is: Why do I seem to fit the SEE descriptions more than IEE? I've looked into some other types, and at this point I'm leaning heavily towards my creative function being Fi, but I do have a much more goal-oriented, action-oriented mentality than seems to be ascribed to socionics Ne lead. I am not sure if I'm missing something... or thinking about this in an over-simplified way, which may be the case because I'm new to the system. 

I don't mean to turn this into a type-me thread, but rather, I would love to hear thoughts about how the functions can be represented differently over the MBTI vs. Socionics platform - specifically, Se lead vs. Ne lead.


----------



## cyamitide (Jul 8, 2010)

There was a similar discussion started here: http://personalitycafe.com/socionics-forum/142669-socionics-ne-compared-jungian-se.html

You'd have to explain how MBTI intuition can be equivalent to Socionics sensing on your personal example.


----------



## aestrivex (Mar 7, 2011)

a discussion about how one element from one system purports to describe a function of a different system, is considerably different from the question at hand. to which i respond, i don't really care; i have no objection to the possibility.


----------



## itsme45 (Jun 8, 2012)

Maybe said:


> I don't know socionics really, or the underlying implications of the system. I am certain of my MBTI type, which is ENFP.
> 
> Close friends have told me I'm a clear IEE, but I always like figuring things out for myself, so what I am wondering is: Why do I seem to fit the SEE descriptions more than IEE? I've looked into some other types, and at this point I'm leaning heavily towards my creative function being Fi, but I do have a much more goal-oriented, action-oriented mentality than seems to be ascribed to socionics Ne lead. I am not sure if I'm missing something... or thinking about this in an over-simplified way, which may be the case because I'm new to the system.
> 
> I don't mean to turn this into a type-me thread, but rather, I would love to hear thoughts about how the functions can be represented differently over the MBTI vs. Socionics platform - specifically, Se lead vs. Ne lead.


Depends on how you use/view the systems. E.g. if you take MBTI as just cognitive thinking styles and socionics as some more behaviour based system, which you'd be doing if you only use type descriptions, then sure, why not Ne in one system and Se in the other one.

If you do view both systems as dealing with the cognitive level and behaviour is just on the side, then I'd say MBTI Ne doesn't directly translate to socionics Se in any way. It's still possible to be two different types though, for example if MBTI Ne describes one side of you and socionics Se another side of yours; or possible by neither being a particularly good fit 

I'm curious, does everything else fit you about socionics Ne beyond this issue of being a goal-oriented person?


----------



## LibertyPrime (Dec 17, 2010)

@Maybe

Reality is what it is and you are what and who you are. Only your own perception of yourself aka the reality that you percieve through your cognition is the problem here. People are not able to fully percieve reality and as such you will not be able to percieve yourself fully, objectively as a whole.

This means you as a whole never change, you remain your dynamic self, only your perception of your type changes. Regardless of what lable or identity you give yourself based on your flawed and subjective perception, you will remain what you are. What adds to the problem is that you are a dynamic active/reactive system which adapts to the world and/or makes the world adapt to itself. This plus the sheer range of behavior that isn't always predictable and which depends on a lot of variables makes typing based on abstract functions, descriptions or even through the help of others nigh impossibly difficult.

You will see one side of yourself, others may see another and another and so on, yet you still are just one person, unless you have Dissociative Identity Disorder, something that would complicate things further lol.

o.o so the answer would be yes and no, it depends on how you interpret Ne MBTi vs Se socionics, it changes nothing but your understanding of it.


----------



## Animal (May 29, 2012)

itsme45 said:


> I'm curious, does everything else fit you about socionics Ne beyond this issue of being a goal-oriented person?


I don't know... where can I find out more about each function and its meaning in socionics? 

I was typed by friends (who know me well and are good typers) at IEE, but as usual I like to figure things out for myself - so I started with a questionnaire...knowing nothing about socioinics. My friends still thought the questionnaire could point to IEE, but the other people on the typing thread thought it pointed to clear Se and Fi. I was told ESI is a possibility, but I don't really relate to the descriptions. I have yet to figure out what all of this actually means, so any direction would be helpful =) 

I know there are function lists and what they mean on this sub-forum, so I'll definitely go through those asap. Any other place you've learned about it?


----------



## itsme45 (Jun 8, 2012)

Maybe said:


> I don't know... where can I find out more about each function and its meaning in socionics?
> 
> I was typed by friends (who know me well and are good typers) at IEE, but as usual I like to figure things out for myself - so I started with a questionnaire...knowing nothing about socioinics. My friends still thought the questionnaire could point to IEE, but the other people on the typing thread thought it pointed to clear Se and Fi. I was told ESI is a possibility, but I don't really relate to the descriptions. I have yet to figure out what all of this actually means, so any direction would be helpful =)
> 
> I know there are function lists and what they mean on this sub-forum, so I'll definitely go through those asap. Any other place you've learned about it?


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

What reasoning do your friends use for your IEE typing?


----------



## Animal (May 29, 2012)

itsme45 said:


> Functions - Wikisocion
> Information elements - Wikisocion
> http://personalitycafe.com/socionic...ing-mbti-functions-socionics-im-elements.html
> 
> What reasoning do your friends use for your IEE typing?


Hmm.. I'm actually not sure because I haven't explored Socionics and I think they sort of 'worked it out amongst themselves' since they are good typers and they know me really well. But, I think a large part of it is they thought I'm Fi creative (which might come from looking at my music website or reading passages from my books?).... and so that left only two options - Ne or Se base - and I'm more of a 'whole picture thinker' and 'reading between the lines' thinker? I can ask them if they want to elaborate on this thread, or to me, because that might help too.

Thank you for the sources, though - I'm going to look at them all and I'll tell you what I think. I do realize that it's not as simple as 'reading a description and relating' because I have to understand *why* certain behaviors come about, but I have read a few descriptions for whatever it's worth, and I can equally see myself in IEE and SEE.


----------



## itsme45 (Jun 8, 2012)

Maybe said:


> I can ask them if they want to elaborate on this thread, or to me, because that might help too.


Yeah that sounds like a good idea.




> Thank you for the sources, though - I'm going to look at them all and I'll tell you what I think.


Okay 




> I do realize that it's not as simple as 'reading a description and relating' because I have to understand *why* certain behaviors come about, but I have read a few descriptions for whatever it's worth, and I can equally see myself in IEE and SEE.


Equally? Funny  Just an idea, but have you looked at the role functions of IEE and SEE yet? That would be Se and Ne again but not as leading function. See which one you relate to more.


----------



## Animal (May 29, 2012)

itsme45 said:


> Equally? Funny  Just an idea, but have you looked at the role functions of IEE and SEE yet? That would be Se and Ne again but not as leading function. See which one you relate to more.


No - is there a good place to look into this, or is it included in the above?


----------



## itsme45 (Jun 8, 2012)

Maybe said:


> No - is there a good place to look into this, or is it included in the above?


wikisocion or aestrivex's site (Main Page - WSWiki) have descriptions of the types that include role function descriptions


----------



## cyamitide (Jul 8, 2010)

Maybe said:


> No - is there a good place to look into this, or is it included in the above?


try these links:
Information Aspect in the Valued Functions
Information Elements: Descriptions by Functions
Information Elements: Primer


----------



## Entropic (Jun 15, 2012)

itsme45 said:


> What reasoning do your friends use for your IEE typing?





Maybe said:


> Hmm.. I'm actually not sure because I haven't explored Socionics and I think they sort of 'worked it out amongst themselves' since they are good typers and they know me really well. But, I think a large part of it is they thought I'm Fi creative (which might come from looking at my music website or reading passages from my books?).... and so that left only two options - Ne or Se base - and I'm more of a 'whole picture thinker' and 'reading between the lines' thinker? I can ask them if they want to elaborate on this thread, or to me, because that might help too.
> 
> Thank you for the sources, though - I'm going to look at them all and I'll tell you what I think. I do realize that it's not as simple as 'reading a description and relating' because I have to understand *why* certain behaviors come about, but I have read a few descriptions for whatever it's worth, and I can equally see myself in IEE and SEE.


I'm one of them who types her that way and it's because she does not cognitively fit Se base in my opinion. When you look at what she's doing and what she prefers, it comes back to generating a lot of possibilities in the present I personally find to be very hard to digest at times, because I have now changed my type to ILI-Te which in retrospect, makes a lot more sense Model A wise (and why I cannot be around my SEI/ESE 2w3 so/sp grandmother without feeling like slowly killing myself for any longer period of time). Se is simpler. Things just are. A table is a table, not all the things you can do with a table that leads somewhere else entirely. Se is just easier to deal with in terms of what kind of data it generates in contrast with Ne.

If looking at how she behaves, yes, she can seem very Se base, but I think this is because she is type 8. That's the problem with descriptions in that they tend to portray an archetype that is highly generalistic but it never provides with reasons or deeper patterns as to why this is. How do we know the SEE portrait is not also stereotyped around type 8? It probably is one way or another. 

Also, she is clearly holographic-panoramic in terms of cognition. SEEs are casual-determinists. I only need to look at @_Swordsman of Mana_ (sorry, I will never buy that EIE self-typing) and compare him to @_Maybe_ to see how they two operate and how differently they use their base functions of Se and Ne respectively. @_Swordsman of Mana_ is very attuned to the present _physical _moment in a way @_Maybe_ simply is not. If anything, one thing Maybe has made it very clear to me during the time I've known is that she feels very attuned with her body. 

I could probably also come up with other reasons but these are the ones I can think of from the top of my head. The problem when I type people in general is that I don't really get any strong impressions of "it is exactly that very thing there that means they are X type", but what happens is that I form a holistic impression. Pointing out concrete details is difficult since it's the entire "package" that gives me the impression why a person is a certain type. Having to look for actual evidence is sometimes quite annoying


----------



## Kanerou (Oct 8, 2009)

@LeaT 

I'd be interested to hear more about your switch to ILI. Another thread, maybe, if you're comfortable with that?


----------



## Swordsman of Mana (Jan 7, 2011)

@LeaT
I'm actually not attuned to the present physical moment at all, though your doubting of my self typing is fair enough


----------



## Entropic (Jun 15, 2012)

Swordsman of Mana said:


> @_LeaT_
> I'm actually not attuned to the present physical moment at all, though your doubting of my self typing is fair enough


I think what you've written in your questionnaire suggested otherwise, personally.


----------



## itsme45 (Jun 8, 2012)

LeaT said:


> I'm one of them who types her that way and it's because she does not cognitively fit Se base in my opinion. When you look at what she's doing and what she prefers, it comes back to generating a lot of possibilities in the present I personally find to be very hard to digest at times, because I have now changed my type to ILI-Te which in retrospect, makes a lot more sense Model A wise (and why I cannot be around my SEI/ESE 2w3 so/sp grandmother without feeling like slowly killing myself for any longer period of time). Se is simpler. Things just are. A table is a table, not all the things you can do with a table that leads somewhere else entirely. Se is just easier to deal with in terms of what kind of data it generates in contrast with Ne.


Oh wow type change, now we can't be a cool example of conflictors anymore :/ (I'll check out your threads on this.)

Btw yeah I do get your issue with digesting Ne vs Se. I have the same approach/issue with that.




> I could probably also come up with other reasons but these are the ones I can think of from the top of my head. The problem when I type people in general is that I don't really get any strong impressions of "it is exactly that very thing there that means they are X type", but what happens is that I form a holistic impression. Pointing out concrete details is difficult since it's the entire "package" that gives me the impression why a person is a certain type. Having to look for actual evidence is sometimes quite annoying


No worries, I understood you just fine.


----------



## Entropic (Jun 15, 2012)

itsme45 said:


> Oh wow type change, now we can't be a cool example of conflictors anymore :/ (I'll check out your threads on this.)


No, we can't, but it explains why I don't feel like tearing you to pieces either. Although this isn't exclusive to all Se ego types by any means. There are plenty of Se ego types on this forum I'd like to tear into pieces because they irk me one way or another, especially ironically, gamma SFs. See, this is why I thought Ne-Si cognition made sense.


> Btw yeah I do get your issue with digesting Ne vs Se. I have the same approach/issue with that.


Makes sense.

By the way, do you remember the post I made trying to explain Ni and Ne long time ago? In retrospect, I was probably just describing Ne as DA cognition, part. I don't remember how I described Ni anymore, but I think it was more NiTe in a general sense rather than the full DA probability process.


----------



## Sol_ (Jan 8, 2013)

Socionics uses same Jung types as MBTI
the both use compatible preferences/dichotomies theory
as MBTI uses primarily the dichotomies for the typing (it even claims types by dichotomies only), when they do it correctly (according to own dichotomies understanding) - they get the same Jung type when they would be correctly typed in Socionics

so ENFP in Socionics is the same type in MBTI

the problem is to identify types correctly. this makes mismatches. in _practice_, not from the theory side


----------



## HIX (Aug 20, 2018)

If you're an ENFP then you're Socionics type is IEE


ENFP Ne - Fi

IEE Ne - Fi


----------

