# Does your MBTI type always have to match it's socionics counterpart?



## Theophania (Sep 7, 2014)

So I'm an a INFJ, and I always score as an INFp or IEI, just as expected since INFp is the socionic counterpart of the INFJ. However, my friend claims to be an ISFP MBTI type and a EIE/ ENFj socionic type. Is this even possible?


----------



## MNiS (Jan 30, 2010)

Theophania said:


> So I'm an a INFJ, and I always score as an INFp or IEI, just as expected since INFp is the socionic counterpart of the INFJ. However, my friend claims to be an ISFP MBTI type and a EIE/ ENFj socionic type. Is this even possible?


Well, your friend can label themselves however they want but the reality is they're mistyped in MBTI, Socionics or both. Going by functions, it should be relatively straightforward to switch between the two systems but if typing by descriptions or tests then there can definitely be some honest confusion.

The type descriptions and conversions are especially bad for the ISPs and ITJs which is why a lot of MBTI ISTPs are SLIs, ISTJs; LSIs, ISFJs; ESIs and ISFPs; SEIs.

For example, I'm an ESFP:SEE(Gamma) while there's a good chance that an ISFP will be ISFP:SEI(Alpha). Isn't that just crazy? :shocked:

Also, a lot of sensors on this forum like to type themselves intuitive so trying to type by conversion can be an extremely messy affair.


----------



## Bash (Nov 19, 2014)

Theophania said:


> So I'm an a INFJ, and I always score as an INFp or IEI, just as expected since INFp is the socionic counterpart of the INFJ. However, my friend claims to be an ISFP MBTI type and a EIE/ ENFj socionic type. Is this even possible?


It is possible to identify with different functions in MBTI and Socionics. The question one must then ask oneself, is how relevant the type desciptions are.


----------



## nichya (Jul 12, 2014)

Oh we have discussed this here: http://personalitycafe.com/whats-my-personality-type/393490-intj-mbti-lii-intj-socionics.html

I am convinced the conversion is a myth, especially for us INFP-INFj and vice a versa. Well it is indicated that the conversion works for a slight greater population but not the rest. Please also find the post where it links an article about theories on conversion and there is far greater good argument to believe it doesn't exist.

So no it is not crazy, the functions are handled and defined differently. Please refer to the post but say Ni is handled as imagery and creative mind producing mental worlds and such. Which is very ambiguous and applies to both INFPs and INFJs.

Anyhow ISFP MBTI EIE/ ENFj however sounds like a very long shot.


----------



## Entropic (Jun 15, 2012)

Theophania said:


> So I'm an a INFJ, and I always score as an INFp or IEI, just as expected since INFp is the socionic counterpart of the INFJ. However, my friend claims to be an ISFP MBTI type and a EIE/ ENFj socionic type. Is this even possible?


Well, seeing how big that type discrepancy is, I'd say no. If it was something like ISFP and SEI, or ISFP and SEE or something like that, then sure, because those types share at least something in common with each other and can at least somewhat resemble each other in various ways. ISFP and EIE is just... extremely contrary though.



nichya said:


> Oh we have discussed this here: http://personalitycafe.com/whats-my-personality-type/393490-intj-mbti-lii-intj-socionics.html
> 
> I am convinced the conversion is a myth, especially for us INFP-INFj and vice a versa. Well it is indicated that the conversion works for a slight greater population but not the rest. Please also find the post where it links an article about theories on conversion and there is far greater good argument to believe it doesn't exist.
> 
> ...


Depends on the basis on what you type on, no? Whether it's a myth or not. If the functions are the absolute basis of type, then it should be the same or something is very fucked up somewhere.

Fyi, there's a sticky thread about this subject already, where famous socionist Viktor Gulenko wrote an article as old as in the mid-90s about how he thinks the types should actually equally correspond.


----------



## nichya (Jul 12, 2014)

@Entropic But check how Ni is defined in socionics (INFp socionics)


1st function: Ni 

IEIs typically have richly developed mental landscapes. They are highly attuned to trends, patterns, and conceptual connections of past behaviors, experiences, relationships, and their role in the world. They are often highly reflective and imaginative, and the fantastic tendencies of IEIs are often vivid and complex. Many IEIs find an inner calling to express their unique perspectives, and often find ways to make use of a myriad of expressive forms, sometimes including poetry, novels, storytelling, photography, or other media.

They can come across as fickle, indecisive and vapid, and their fantasies can be often esoteric; they often may seem idealistic and focused on unrealistic or other-worldly utopias. They also can demonstrate a lack of attentiveness to daily affairs, and sometimes a generally withdrawn, inactive deportment. At the same time, they sometimes can be prophetic, prescient, and profound in their visions, and sometimes reflect a far more rebellious, aggressive, or outspoken demeanor. 

In your opinion, without the labels, which MBTI function or personality is described here?


----------



## Entropic (Jun 15, 2012)

nichya said:


> @Entropic But check how Ni is defined in socionics (INFp socionics)
> 
> 
> 1st function: Ni
> ...


Very little of this actually touches on Ni as an actual cognitive outlook, though. 



> They can come across as fickle, indecisive and vapid, and their fantasies can be often esoteric; they often may seem idealistic and focused on unrealistic or other-worldly utopias. They also can demonstrate a lack of attentiveness to daily affairs, and sometimes a generally withdrawn, inactive deportment. At the same time, they sometimes can be prophetic, prescient, and profound in their visions, and sometimes reflect a far more rebellious, aggressive, or outspoken demeanor.
> 
> In your opinion, without the labels, which MBTI function or personality is described here?[


Lots of behavior here, not touching on actual cognition much. I don't type based off descriptions and behavior; I type based on the functions I see present in people's psyches.


----------



## nichya (Jul 12, 2014)

But this is how they describe the first -function- of an INFp - Ni in the socionics website. It is not a profile description. So apparently, how the function itself is handled or imagined to be is different than how briggs myers did and that changes the whole game. 



Entropic said:


> Very little of this actually touches on Ni as an actual cognitive outlook, though.
> 
> 
> 
> Lots of behavior here, not touching on actual cognition much. I don't type based off descriptions and behavior; I type based on the functions I see present in people's psyches.


----------



## RoSoDude (Apr 3, 2012)

You'll find a lot of controversy on this issue in this forum. Many argue staunchly that MBTI and Socionics are partly or completely separate from one another and that it is possible to be one type in the former system and a different type in the latter. That argument typically relies on the fact that popular function descriptions as well as type descriptions can differ wildly between systems.

The opposing viewpoint, which I take, is that the core elements of both MBTI and Socionics are the same, and hence the types that result should correspond exactly. While it's true that the Western Jungian tradition and the Russian Socionics tradition have deviated slightly in their analysis and approach to typology, ultimately they arise from the same observed patterns and fundamental axioms. There is a key difference at this basis, however, which is that in MBTI, functions are viewed as cognitive processes, while the information elements in Socionics are viewed as mental categories that correspond to objective information types. This is a slight difference, but ultimately it mathematically and practically boils down to the same types. If you examine Model A vs. the theories of Lenore Thompson or Beebe you will find that they say essentially the same thing about the role of function order in personalities, as they are built from the same ideas of balance of opposites in the psyche. In my opinion, the idea that you can be one type in one system yet a different type in another system on the basis of their type descriptions tells me that one or both of your typings is wrong, as you are doing it based on descriptions, which can have bias, poor translation, or just poor interpretation of the theory.

Any aspect in which the two interpretations of the fundamental building blocks of type differ should cast aspersions on one or both interpretations. A common example given is introverted sensing, which MBTI seems to describe as relating to memory, details, and organization, whereas Socionics puts it as relating to inner sensations and dynamic connections between physical states. If we are supposing that there is a such thing as "Si" and that we can construct a theory of type using it, it shouldn't be so different between systems. It's possible that the idea is utter nonsense in the first place (pretty likely, but that's the trivial conclusion), or that one or both of these descriptions are incorrect or at the very least incomplete. I like to think that due to their slightly different approaches, with MBTI making no claims on the information that exists in the world but with Socionics including the idea of information metabolism, the two systems are merely looking at projections of the same concepts and patterns that exist in personality but which are more complex than either can fully describe in a singular approach, giving value to both systems without having to think of them as completely distinct.


----------



## nichya (Jul 12, 2014)

@RoSoDude Well I have never claimed that you can be ISFP in one and ENFJ in other BUT in types such as INFP and INFJ there is a lot of ambiguity. As in the definition of the function -Ni- of socionics I have posted. It feels like it is boiled down to very similar things with both Ni of an INFJ and Ne of an INFP. Actually I don't want to start a whole another discussion here but here you can find the same topic being discussed: http://personalitycafe.com/whats-my-personality-type/393490-intj-mbti-lii-intj-socionics.html

Also about the conversion myth, some brief but collected theories:

J/P switch - Wikisocion


----------



## Entropic (Jun 15, 2012)

nichya said:


> But this is how they describe the first -function- of an INFp - Ni in the socionics website. It is not a profile description. So apparently, how the function itself is handled or imagined to be is different than how briggs myers did and that changes the whole game.


But they aren't describing Ni, how Ni cognitively works. It is a profile description or it wouldn't say Ni in the INFp, would it? You are drawing faulty conclusions. Type descriptions can very well include shallow function descriptions as a part of the type, e.g. an INTP profile may go into briefly describing the role of Fe in the INTP. However, what makes it a description of type and not a description of function is that it does not actually describe what the function is, how it works, what it does etc. It did so very briefly and in an extremely shallow way. I don't relate to this description of Ni much because it sounds like they are describing some kind of fantasy-prone daydreamer kind of person, and I'm not like that, and I lead with base Ni too. If it was a good and accurate description of Ni, it should capture both ILI and IEI equally, since both lead with base Ni. 

In other words, it is not actually describing the function and role of Ni in the psyche, and since it is not doing this, how can you say that they are describing Ni? They're not going into what symbolic imagery means to the Ni type, or how they perceive time etc. That would be describing Ni, how it functionally operates. At best you get something like "a rich inner world", which are just empty buzzwords. I don't have a rich inner world lol, nor am I fantasy-prone. Ni isn't fantasy; it's still a perceiving function.


----------



## nichya (Jul 12, 2014)

INFp in socionics is referred to the functions of INFJ in MBTI. That is why people believe there is a conversion. This is not the type description but the Ni description as the first function of socionics INFp. All the blocks are separately discussed. 

" they are describing some kind of fantasy-prone daydreamer kind of person" that is the exact problem ! Which could both apply to MBTI INFP and INFJ, actually -more- INFP Ne if you ask me.

"a rich inner world", which are just empty buzzwords - and this.

But these are exactly what leads to wrong conclusions, exactly. You want to just go with functions but there is the typing part also right? What I am saying is it just does not work. And all you are telling me is that I should go with functions and disregard every typing, quadra, whatever it comes in socionics. It just does not work for me when I read about interactions with other quadras or types when I go with my functions. That is where it fails dramatically.
So we are not really discussing the function and role of Ni in the psyche, but I am saying the categorizing of socionics fails. Exactly, you see how they customized Ni for a type. That is why it does not work. They are boiling types together. Actually notice how it clearly describes an INFP? Like, have you ever met an outspoken rebellious INFJ? And they use keywords like - idealist - for INFp (MBTI INFj) and - empath- for INFj (MBTI INFP). It is the exact opposite. There are so many keywords and key "famous" people they keep referring to, but in opposite.

So following the functions of MBTI INFP I should be INFj in socionics, but I am not and I assure you I am not mistyping myself, I am very comfortable with my typing as I had no doubts, I never had any results to raise doubts. 

Socionics INFp however fits me perfectly, my quadra and my inter-type relations are clearly defined. But then I would have to discard all the psyche and that is the problematic part cause it doesn't make sense.

and follow that link please there are a bunch of theories supporting the conversion and a bunch that is counter. There is even an experiment, which sounds problematic also, but suggests that conversion works only for a slighter majority. So you can see that INFPs and INFJs are lumped together in typing part. Some INFPs become INFjs and some become INFps.






Entropic said:


> But they aren't describing Ni, how Ni cognitively works. It is a profile description or it wouldn't say Ni in the INFp, would it? You are drawing faulty conclusions. Type descriptions can very well include shallow function descriptions as a part of the type, e.g. an INTP profile may go into briefly describing the role of Fe in the INTP. However, what makes it a description of type and not a description of function is that it does not actually describe what the function is, how it works, what it does etc. It did so very briefly and in an extremely shallow way. I don't relate to this description of Ni much because it sounds like they are describing some kind of fantasy-prone daydreamer kind of person, and I'm not like that, and I lead with base Ni too. If it was a good and accurate description of Ni, it should capture both ILI and IEI equally, since both lead with base Ni.
> 
> In other words, it is not actually describing the function and role of Ni in the psyche, and since it is not doing this, how can you say that they are describing Ni? They're not going into what symbolic imagery means to the Ni type, or how they perceive time etc. That would be describing Ni, how it functionally operates. At best you get something like "a rich inner world", which are just empty buzzwords. I don't have a rich inner world lol, nor am I fantasy-prone. Ni isn't fantasy; it's still a perceiving function.


----------



## somnuvore (Sep 27, 2013)

My answer is no it does not; consider these factors:

A. If you compare the descriptions, many are very different (i.e. MBTT descriptions aren't based in the functions.) For example, compare the ENTj to the ENTJ, and you'll see that the ENTJ is described as having an Se equal in power to his Te; how can this be? I believe the ENTJ description is far more fitting for an ESTp, esp. taking into account the stereotype of ENTJs not caring who gets in their way and steamrolling over people to get the job done (which sounds more Se-dom / Fi PoLR to me.) ENFJ shares a similar fate; the descriptions match up closer with an ESFp, rather than an ENFj. This leaves a problem: where do the ENTjs and ENFjs fit in? They identify with other types (often times introverted types), which muddies the water between who's who; since they don't know their actual function order, they go with whatever makes the most sense, which makes it very difficult to understand the functions in people through empirical evidence.

B. MBTT tests for the 1st extroverted function. This is a big problem for introverts because they're naturally going to test for their 1st function, which is introverted; as a result, it's very easy to get one's J/P dichotomy completely incorrect, and that's even assuming the individual is really an introvert (which is another shallow distinction in MBTT that causes a lot of extroverts to type as introverts.) An individual with dominant Ni is going to test as a perceiver because they're literally perceivers and should, if the MBTT has any merit, identify closely to the P dichotomy; this means the Ni-dom will believe he's an INXP. Because of all this muddying between types in MBTT, I theorize that the type descriptions reflected these general groups of similar-minded people rather than reflecting the core functions and order (e.g. you're an INTP if you're an awkward philosophical homebody, not if you have TiNe, which is separate from the INFJ who is a socially dependent philosophical homebody, but nothing like the INFP because all INFPs are sensitive fiction writers who live in fantasy land.) As a result, in any introverted type, you're going to have a minority of that type's actual type, followed closely by the type's opposing J/P dichotomy, followed by extroverts who (through no fault of their own) identify as the MBTT's definition of an introvert.

With all this said, a person seeking their type is going to do the following:

1. Test
2. Read description and agree or disagree; if disagree, test again
3. Upon agreeing on a description, they will interact with people who share their type, such as on this forum

Step 3 is where everything goes downhill; more likely than not, there will be both a strong and shallow connection to the people within that type since they share similar values and lifestyles, but fundamentally they won't consistently connect on a psychological level because so many of them will be using different functions in different orders, esp. noticeable when using functions the individual doesn't value whatsoever, esp. noticeable when trying to find the difference between Ji and Pi in people and failing to see a difference since so much of the testable population is inconsistent in their cognitive styles.

That's fine for the individual who doesn't take a peek at the underbelly of the system; they figure they're just fully unique from others of that same type and keep the type they liked and don't think too much on it. It's when they start to dig deeper into the theory that they start to realize that everything they thought they knew about themselves was for someone else, and once they do start understanding their true function order, they realize the type description for them just doesn't fit right. We see this all the time: "unknown personality". The only way it works out is if the individual picks the closest type and doesn't think about it too much, which is an utter shame as it defeats the purpose of involving oneself in this matter in the first place, thereby wasting time and stopping these theories from moving anywhere beyond a hobbyist level since "I've been learning about this stuff for months and I still don't know who I really am" is not a tempting review; this is the barrier between theory and market value, why few businessmen want to risk doing something productive with this system and why the ones who have don't go far.

Anyway, to answer your question: if you're an extrovert (aside from the ENXj exceptions), it probably works out much better for you and the two systems will correlate somewhat well. If you're an introvert, abandon all hope; the MBTT has no introverted type which will match the description to the functions faithfully. If you still want to use it, go by the type description alone (since this is what other people will expect out of you), and use socionics instead for functional self-assessment; don't bother matching up the functions between both systems, it will just give you a headache. It's not because the functions are radically different from one another (there are differences but they're not enough to throw the types completely off base), it's just MBTT getting old and its initial problems becoming worse as time goes on.


----------



## Entropic (Jun 15, 2012)

nichya said:


> INFp in socionics is referred to the functions of INFJ in MBTI. That is why people believe there is a conversion. This is not the type description but the Ni description as the first function of socionics INFp. All the blocks are separately discussed.


It is a type description of the INFp type, because it does not really delve much into the actual functional properties of the type. It's describing behavior and outwards manifestation of how the type may look like, which is a type description. 



> " they are describing some kind of fantasy-prone daydreamer kind of person" that is the exact problem ! Which could both apply to MBTI INFP and INFJ, actually -more- INFP Ne if you ask me.


Except that has nothing to do with Fi and Ne as cognitive functions. 



> "a rich inner world", which are just empty buzzwords - and this.


Again, has nothing to do with type. 



> But these are exactly what leads to wrong conclusions, exactly. You want to just go with functions but there is the typing part also right? What I am saying is it just does not work. And all you are telling me is that I should go with functions and disregard every typing, quadra, whatever it comes in socionics. It just does not work for me when I read about interactions with other quadras or types when I go with my functions. That is where it fails dramatically.


You are being very erroneous in your comparison, because you cannot on the one hand compare type descriptions and then say but this description sounds like an INFP and this description here sounds exactly the same except it's an INFp so therefore they must be different types while at the same time declaring that the INFp description is focused on Ni and Fe but the INFP description *does not*. If you are going to compare types, you need to compare it at the same structural level, in this case the cognitive makeup of how they are defined. So what you should really be looking at is does an INFP whose type is made up of Fi and Ne, structurally speaking, actually correlate to the INFp whose functional makeup is Ni and Fe? And the answer to this question is in my opinion a resounding no, because if you actually study what Fi really _is_, even when you pair it with Ne/intuition, it becomes very clear that Fi is very different from Ni. What has Fi got anything to do with being dreamy? Not much, to be honest. When you focus on behavioral traits and outwards manifestations of a type, you lose sight of its actual functional dimension because if you start extrapolating on the idea on that all people who experience themselves as dreamy etc. must be INFPs and INFps, you open up to the room of severe mistyping since dreamy is not a quality that is explicit or unique to the INFp or INFP. It's faulty type logic. 



> So we are not really discussing the function and role of Ni in the psyche, but I am saying the categorizing of socionics fails. Exactly, you see how they customized Ni for a type.


I see stereotyping, not customization. 



> That is why it does not work. They are boiling types together. Actually notice how it clearly describes an INFP?


No, I don't. I don't see them describing Fi and Ne here. 



> Like, have you ever met an outspoken rebellious INFJ?


I don't see how rebelliousness and outspokenness got anything to do with INFJ, but if we are going by type logic, then yes, an INFJ, who values Ni and Se, is going to be more outspoken, rebellious and aggressive than an INFP because Se is much more physically forceful in the present moment than Si is. 



> And they use keywords like - idealist - for INFp (MBTI INFj) and - empath- for INFj (MBTI INFP). It is the exact opposite. There are so many keywords and key "famous" people they keep referring to, but in opposite.


Why go off keywords instead of actually going off, you know, the actual structural dimension of what makes the type? 



> So following the functions of MBTI INFP I should be INFj in socionics, but I am not and I assure you I am not mistyping myself, I am very comfortable with my typing as I had no doubts, I never had any results to raise doubts.


I think you are mistyped lol, because you are ignoring the fact that an INFP in the MBTI is Fi and Ne, and where in your cognition have you expressed that you identify with Fi and Ne or is cognitively oriented towards Fi and Ne? In fact, I wonder if you are an IEI too, because your Ti is so bad. 



> Socionics INFp however fits me perfectly, my quadra and my inter-type relations are clearly defined. But then I would have to discard all the psyche and that is the problematic part cause it doesn't make sense.


What things don't make sense? 



> and follow that link please there are a bunch of theories supporting the conversion and a bunch that is counter. There is even an experiment, which sounds problematic also, but suggests that conversion works only for a slighter majority. So you can see that INFPs and INFJs are lumped together in typing part. Some INFPs become INFjs and some become INFps.


Not really, no. I don't buy into this type logic. You cannot work with functions in one system and ignoring the functions in another and then go on and declare that base on that logic, of course the types are different, when you aren't even making the comparison fair in the first place.


----------



## nichya (Jul 12, 2014)

@Entropic

Since you have a tendency to focus on everything else than the point I am making here and somehow feeling the need to play the guessing game of my personality, I will just copy what you have written yourself

"When you focus on behavioral traits and outwards manifestations of a type, you lose sight of its actual functional dimension because if you start extrapolating on the idea on that all people who experience themselves as dreamy etc. must be INFPs and INFps, you open up to the room of severe mistyping since dreamy is not a quality that is explicit or unique to the INFp or INFP. It's faulty type logic."

This is WHY the socionics typing fails. You seem to be stuck at the psyche and functions level. I don't question that I use Fi and Ne. I question where Socionics is trying to put me under as a type and why it fails. 

"I don't buy into this type logic. You cannot work with functions in one system and ignoring the functions in another" This is how I feel Socionics is doing.

I really don't understand why you are closed to discussing this part and take the topic back to functions. Notice my emphasis on -typing-


----------



## nichya (Jul 12, 2014)

well you might go ahead and say who needs typing? Well, personally I don't. I know what functions I use but when I try to make sense of inter-type and inter-quadra relations, again, it fails because of that typing of socionics and the follow up.

And I assure you the only reason I have checked in this in the first place is how confident I am with -Fi-

anyhow, using your functions approach fails dramatically again in observations and behaviors as INFJs are far less outspoken than the average INFP. Observations need to meet theories and only then they make sense if you want to not only understand yourself but your interaction with others.

I don't need any typing or personality index to understand myself at all, but at most to reason and mostly to observe others and find my place among the intertype relationships.


----------



## Entropic (Jun 15, 2012)

nichya said:


> @Entropic
> 
> Since you have a tendency to focus on everything else than the point I am making here and somehow feeling the need to play the guessing game of my personality, I will just copy what you have written yourself


Perhaps then, you aren't being overly clear. It's another reason why I fail to see kindred with you, though. 



> "When you focus on behavioral traits and outwards manifestations of a type, you lose sight of its actual functional dimension because if you start extrapolating on the idea on that all people who experience themselves as dreamy etc. must be INFPs and INFps, you open up to the room of severe mistyping since dreamy is not a quality that is explicit or unique to the INFp or INFP. It's faulty type logic."
> 
> This is WHY the socionics typing fails. You seem to be stuck at the psyche and functions level. I don't question that I use Fi and Ne. I question where Socionics is trying to put me under as a type and why it fails.


What? This doesn't even make any sense. 



> "I don't buy into this type logic. You cannot work with functions in one system and ignoring the functions in another" This is how I feel Socionics is doing.
> 
> I really don't understand why you are closed to discussing this part and take the topic back to functions. Notice my emphasis on -typing-


Because when you type people you need to look at their functional makeup since that is what defines the type.



nichya said:


> well you might go ahead and say who needs typing? Well, personally I don't. I know what functions I use but when I try to make sense of inter-type and inter-quadra relations, again, it fails because of that typing of socionics and the follow up.
> 
> And I assure you the only reason I have checked in this in the first place is how confident I am with -Fi-
> 
> ...


Except you don't seem to evaluate situations based on Fi.


----------



## ALongTime (Apr 19, 2014)

The more I study socionics the more I tend to believe that the MBTI descriptions are incomplete (from a socionics perspective, I'm not saying there's no value in MBTI), and this vagueness could lead to overlap.

It's already been posted but I seriously recommend reading the J/P switch - Wikisocion article as it shows that it's far from clear-cut and still very much disputed. My suggestion is to choose a system and understand your type, and then hypothesise on how it might relate to the other system, but there's no right answer.


----------



## Wunderkind (Oct 26, 2014)

> But they aren't describing Ni, how Ni cognitively works.


First, my apologies to dive into this conversation. @Entropic: Do you know how they came up with those type descriptions? I personally cannot close the gap between the cognitive function definitions and the type descriptions. Neither in socionics nor in MBTI.


----------



## Captain Mclain (Feb 22, 2014)

On OT. Yes I think so. Both theories have different focuses and have probably tweaked their description from the functions of Jung's to make it more relevant. But in the end a description is just a description, the actual thing is the same.


----------



## Entropic (Jun 15, 2012)

Wunderkind said:


> First, my apologies to dive into this conversation. @Entropic: Do you know how they came up with those type descriptions? I personally cannot close the gap between the cognitive function definitions and the type descriptions. Neither in socionics nor in MBTI.


I assume they did because that is how they as authors, conceptualized it, based on Jung's original works.


----------



## tanstaafl28 (Sep 10, 2012)

Usually with Socionics, it's the introverts that don't match. The extroverts seem to line up better for some reason.

Socionics is overly complex and poorly translated from Lithuanian into English. It's not for the dilettante, or faint of heart.


----------



## ruskiix (Sep 28, 2013)

RoSoDude said:


> You'll find a lot of controversy on this issue in this forum. Many argue staunchly that MBTI and Socionics are partly or completely separate from one another and that it is possible to be one type in the former system and a different type in the latter. That argument typically relies on the fact that popular function descriptions as well as type descriptions can differ wildly between systems.
> 
> The opposing viewpoint, which I take, is that the core elements of both MBTI and Socionics are the same, and hence the types that result should correspond exactly. While it's true that the Western Jungian tradition and the Russian Socionics tradition have deviated slightly in their analysis and approach to typology, ultimately they arise from the same observed patterns and fundamental axioms. There is a key difference at this basis, however, which is that in MBTI, functions are viewed as cognitive processes, while the information elements in Socionics are viewed as mental categories that correspond to objective information types. This is a slight difference, but ultimately it mathematically and practically boils down to the same types. If you examine Model A vs. the theories of Lenore Thompson or Beebe you will find that they say essentially the same thing about the role of function order in personalities, as they are built from the same ideas of balance of opposites in the psyche. In my opinion, the idea that you can be one type in one system yet a different type in another system on the basis of their type descriptions tells me that one or both of your typings is wrong, as you are doing it based on descriptions, which can have bias, poor translation, or just poor interpretation of the theory.
> 
> Any aspect in which the two interpretations of the fundamental building blocks of type differ should cast aspersions on one or both interpretations. A common example given is introverted sensing, which MBTI seems to describe as relating to memory, details, and organization, whereas Socionics puts it as relating to inner sensations and dynamic connections between physical states. If we are supposing that there is a such thing as "Si" and that we can construct a theory of type using it, it shouldn't be so different between systems. It's possible that the idea is utter nonsense in the first place (pretty likely, but that's the trivial conclusion), or that one or both of these descriptions are incorrect or at the very least incomplete. I like to think that due to their slightly different approaches, with MBTI making no claims on the information that exists in the world but with Socionics including the idea of information metabolism, the two systems are merely looking at projections of the same concepts and patterns that exist in personality but which are more complex than either can fully describe in a singular approach, giving value to both systems without having to think of them as completely distinct.


Haven't read all of the thread yet so forgive me if this has already been asked and answered, but how do you reconcile the last two functions being different in MBTI and socionics? INFj is Fi Ne Ti Se. If an INFJ absolutely has Ti/Se in those places, but is more between Fe/Fi and Ne/Ni, but absolutely has those somewhere in the top two functions, how would you handle those differences?


----------



## ruskiix (Sep 28, 2013)

Wunderkind said:


> First, my apologies to dive into this conversation. @_Entropic_: Do you know how they came up with those type descriptions? I personally cannot close the gap between the cognitive function definitions and the type descriptions. Neither in socionics nor in MBTI.


I believe they're just general suggestions for what a particular cognitive function in a particular location in stack would operate. To explain how tertiary Ti would be different from dominant Ti, for example. Since location of functions is so crucial to typing.

The explanation of the last 4 functions is why I like socionics. Si as a mobilizing function, for example.


----------



## ruskiix (Sep 28, 2013)

Entropic said:


> But they aren't describing Ni, how Ni cognitively works. It is a profile description or it wouldn't say Ni in the INFp, would it? You are drawing faulty conclusions. Type descriptions can very well include shallow function descriptions as a part of the type, e.g. an INTP profile may go into briefly describing the role of Fe in the INTP. However, what makes it a description of type and not a description of function is that it does not actually describe what the function is, how it works, what it does etc. It did so very briefly and in an extremely shallow way. I don't relate to this description of Ni much because it sounds like they are describing some kind of fantasy-prone daydreamer kind of person, and I'm not like that, and I lead with base Ni too. If it was a good and accurate description of Ni, it should capture both ILI and IEI equally, since both lead with base Ni.
> 
> In other words, it is not actually describing the function and role of Ni in the psyche, and since it is not doing this, how can you say that they are describing Ni? They're not going into what symbolic imagery means to the Ni type, or how they perceive time etc. That would be describing Ni, how it functionally operates. At best you get something like "a rich inner world", which are just empty buzzwords. I don't have a rich inner world lol, nor am I fantasy-prone. Ni isn't fantasy; it's still a perceiving function.


The website that's from does include descriptions of the cognitive functions outside of a particular type's context, but the type specific descriptions are meant to illustrate how the function acts in a particular hierarchy for that type. Like for INFj, the description of Ne isn't at all meant to be what Ne is, but how it supports dominant Fi.

This is Ni from the same website:

"Introverted intuition is an introverted, irrational, and dynamic information element. It is also called Ni, T, temporal intuition, or white intuition. Ni is generally associated with the ability to recognize the unfolding of processes over time (how one event leads to another), have visions of the past and future, develop mental imagery, and see intangible hints of relationships between processes or objects. Types that value Ni always like to have in mind a specific plan for how their life will develop in the future. Thus they have little time for the concept of "living for the moment" or "making the best of the present". They generally engage in pure leisure activities only for short periods of time, and even then their leisure activities generally involve a psychologically demanding or competitive aspect. - See more at: http://www.sociotype.com/socionics/information_elements/Ni#.dpuf"

Those descriptions specific to type shouldn't be used to decide between extroverted or introverted versions of a function. They should be used as a rough estimate of how other types work or to more clearly illustrate parts of yourself you have trouble spelling out. Functions are clearly defined elsewhere on the site.


----------



## nichya (Jul 12, 2014)

ruskiix said:


> Those descriptions specific to type shouldn't be used to decide between extroverted or introverted versions of a function. They should be used as a rough estimate of how other types work or to more clearly illustrate parts of yourself you have trouble spelling out. Functions are clearly defined elsewhere on the site.


Sorry I will just repost this: "This is WHY the socionics typing fails. You seem to be stuck at the psyche and functions level. I don't question that I use Fi and Ne. I question where Socionics is trying to put me under as a type and why it fails.well you might go ahead and say who needs typing? Well, personally I don't. I know what functions I use but when I try to make sense of inter-type and inter-quadra relations, again, it fails because of that typing of socionics and the follow up.
"

But please refer to previous comments where I explain -why-


----------



## ruskiix (Sep 28, 2013)

nichya said:


> Sorry I will just repost this: "This is WHY the socionics typing fails. You seem to be stuck at the psyche and functions level. I don't question that I use Fi and Ne. I question where Socionics is trying to put me under as a type and why it fails.well you might go ahead and say who needs typing? Well, personally I don't. I know what functions I use but when I try to make sense of inter-type and inter-quadra relations, again, it fails because of that typing of socionics and the follow up.
> "
> 
> But please refer to previous comments where I explain -why-


Im not certain I understand what you mean. Do you mean you disagree with how they define those functions versus Myers Briggs? Or how they believe the particular functions interact with model A? Or just the type relationships? The last part in particular, maybe you just haven't found the proper type in socionics? I've found it shockingly accurate. But you do have to be careful with finding the right type with their function definitions. Especially with Fi/Fe--they define them very differently. MB's Fi isn't at all socionics Fi.

If your insistence on being Fi/Ne is from a MBTI perspective you really should consider swapping them in socionics, they really are different enough that it's likely. Just finding some relationships with extroverts you're certain of and finding out what type that implies you are would be a decent way of finalizing your type in that system. Mirror relationships for me are especially obvious, and supervisor relationships. I imagine duality is too, but I don't know any ESTJs to judge for myself.


Sorry if I'm just misunderstanding. I did read the whole thread but a lot of comments were vague and unclear for me.


----------



## ruskiix (Sep 28, 2013)

Nichya, I reread your earlier posts and realized we're arguing the same thing. Haha. I thought you were disagreeing with me, some of your posts were a bit confusing. I actually had trouble with the idea that I use Fi in socionics because of how certain I am that I DONT use it in MBTI descriptions. I actually sort of hate that version of Fi. I ultimately decided I'm INFJ in both systems because of type relationships and quadras. I think it's just a dramatically different way of viewing the functions, really.


----------



## nichya (Jul 12, 2014)

Hey @ruskiix

 Sorry I just didn't want to go over it again, I was being lazy.

I am an INFP and I do use Fi Ne in MBTI, I have never had any doubts however when I read about the switch I was made believe that I should be INFj in socionics and I have read INFj profiles, inter-type relationships and all and it made almost no sense to me to the point that I thought socionics was junk. Then I happened to read INFp in socionics, quite a time later, and wow it felt like it was written for me. While being in parallel with MBTI it sheds a light on why I come a little bit different and unexpected to the MBTI profile INFP. I am very much a beta quadra as well. It just fits so perfectly and explains that different vibe, even my friends confirm that I act very beta and it is so uncanny that I see my delta group of friends just the way it is described how beta quadra sees deltas etc. Even the inter-type relationships, romance and everything fits me as INFp socionics.

So far so good, I am a INFP MBTI and INFp socionics with no doubt. BUT they have totally different functions, how can it be?

This is what I am discussing. 

So a lot of people focus on that I can't be both INFP and INFp because the functions are just the opposite but I see that while -typing- socionics have defined each function according to the type and it is unambiguous at best, actually I honestly think that INFp socionics (which people claim to be INFJ MBTI according the switch myth J/P switch - Wikisocion) the Ni description for example is while explaining common traits of both types, is even much more Ne in MBTI sense. 

Or maybe like you said "MB's Fi isn't at all socionics Fi."

In the end, the switch is a theory and there are quite enough counter-theories, although I have observed that indeed the switch works for quite a bunch but not all. Like that link says it favors to a slightly larger group.

So I believe we can not make a conversion, something is very very wrong in the typing at least. I believe socionics is a lot different than MBTI but many people opposes that. socionics has a lot to consider like ration/irrational concept and all. So naturally I see it failing but more because I see it fails so dramatically for me -if- I were to make a conversion.


----------



## Pancreatic Pandora (Aug 16, 2013)

nichya said:


> actually I honestly think that INFp socionics (which people claim to be INFJ MBTI according the switch myth J/P switch - Wikisocion) the Ni description for example is while explaining common traits of both types, is even much more Ne in MBTI sense.


Explain yourself. I don't think Socionics Ni is anything like MBTI's Ne and I think MBTI's Ne, on the other hand, is awfully similar to Socionics Ne.


----------



## nichya (Jul 12, 2014)

Pancreatic Pandora said:


> Explain yourself. I don't think Socionics Ni is anything like MBTI's Ne and I think MBTI's Ne, on the other hand, is awfully similar to Socionics Ne.


Sigh. I DID explain myself in previous posts. Reposting again, after discussing this awhile it gets boring.
Please notice what I have said earlier is: Ni defined in socionics under INFp profile(commonly believed to be INFJ MBTI) profile. Not the individual function itself.


how Ni is defined in socionics (INFp socionics)


1st function: Ni 

IEIs typically have richly developed mental landscapes. They are highly attuned to trends, patterns, and conceptual connections of past behaviors, experiences, relationships, and their role in the world. They are often highly reflective and imaginative, and the fantastic tendencies of IEIs are often vivid and complex. Many IEIs find an inner calling to express their unique perspectives, and often find ways to make use of a myriad of expressive forms, sometimes including poetry, novels, storytelling, photography, or other media.

They can come across as fickle, indecisive and vapid, and their fantasies can be often esoteric; they often may seem idealistic and focused on unrealistic or other-worldly utopias. They also can demonstrate a lack of attentiveness to daily affairs, and sometimes a generally withdrawn, inactive deportment. At the same time, they sometimes can be prophetic, prescient, and profound in their visions, and sometimes reflect a far more rebellious, aggressive, or outspoken demeanor. 

In your opinion, without the labels, which MBTI function or personality is described here? or even function.


----------



## RoSoDude (Apr 3, 2012)

ruskiix said:


> Haven't read all of the thread yet so forgive me if this has already been asked and answered, but how do you reconcile the last two functions being different in MBTI and socionics? INFj is Fi Ne Ti Se. If an INFJ absolutely has Ti/Se in those places, but is more between Fe/Fi and Ne/Ni, but absolutely has those somewhere in the top two functions, how would you handle those differences?


You've been confused by the way Socionics' Model A is structured (I was too at first, it's kind of weird). Taking INFj for example, Model A will tell you function order is "Fi Ne Ti Se Te Si Fe Ni". However, this is not the same structure of function order as MBTI's, which will tell you that the INFP's function order is "Fi Ne Si Te Fe Ni Se Ti". Isolating the first four functions, this looks like the type order differs as follows:


*INFj (Model A)**INFP (MBTI)*FiFiNeNeTiSiSeTe

However, MBTI function order is ordered by function preference, while Model A is ordered by presence in consciousness. An INFj in Socionics does _not_ prefer Ti and Se over Si and Te as this would suggest. Ti and Se are actually their least preferred functions, as the MBTI "shadow function" order similarly indicates.

Model A is structured into four blocks which represent different degrees of consciousness and valuation. You could reorder Model A to obtain the exact same information as MBTI function order as detailed by Lenore Thompson or John Beebe. The order in which the information is displayed is arbitrary, but the insights are important. In each of these blocks, there is a rational and irrational function, and one is always displayed first according to the type's dominant function. MBTI orders functions so as to balance rational and irrational functions instead (for the INFP, Fi is balanced by Te, and Ne by Si). This is the Model A order for the INFj, for example:


*Block**Function**Rational/Irrational**Strong/Weak**Valued/Rejected*EgoFiRationalStrongValuedNeIrrationalStrongValuedSuper-EgoTiRationalWeakRejectedSeIrrationalWeakRejectedSuper-IdTeRationalWeakValuedSiIrrationalWeakValuedIdFeRationalStrongRejectedNiIrrationalStrongRejected


As you can see, the most valued functions for the INFj are Fi Ne Te Si, just as with the INFP in MBTI. They are strong with both Fi and Fe as well as both Ne and Ni, though they don't value Fe and Ni. The ego and superego blocks are first because they are highest in consciousness, while the super-id and id are further down.

In both systems, the basic ideas are identical. Any type which favors and is strong with feeling and intuition will have a weakness for thinking and sensing. If this type favors Fi and Ne, they will not see the value of Fe and Ni, for feeling occurs to them as more appropriately subjective and intuition as more objective. They will, however, see the value in Te and Si, because these functions balance their judgment and perception. Why will this type reject Ti and Se, then? This is because Ti will clash with Fi, and Se with Ne. The INFj (or INFP) is primarily focused on making subjective (introverted) judgments based on ethics, and so Ti's language of impersonal logic (not grounded in empirical results as Te) will appear harsh and discordant with this purpose. The polarity between Ne and Se is similar.

If you examine either system, the basic idea comes from Jung's notion of balance in the psyche. Favoring Fi naturally causes you to disfavor Ti, while seeking duality with Te -- in this scheme, Fe seems superfluous. Ne has the same effect with Se, Si, and Ni. However you want to spin it, or in the case of MBTI and Socionics, however you want to order it, the ideas and principle are equivalent.

Read more here about the makeup of Model A


----------



## nichya (Jul 12, 2014)

Hmm I like how this explains the aligning and I do agree for example that Fi and Ne should be in my ego block. But what does socionics do to fail the profiles and quadras and relationships? I just don't understand.



RoSoDude said:


> You've been confused by the way Socionics' Model A is structured (I was too at first, it's kind of weird). Taking INFj for example, Model A will tell you function order is "Fi Ne Ti Se Te Si Fe Ni". However, this is not the same structure of function order as MBTI's, which will tell you that the INFP's function order is "Fi Ne Si Te Fe Ni Se Ti". Isolating the first four functions, this looks like the type order differs as follows:
> 
> 
> *INFj (Model A)**INFP (MBTI)*FiFiNeNeTiSiSeTe
> ...


----------



## Pancreatic Pandora (Aug 16, 2013)

nichya said:


> Sigh. I DID explain myself in previous posts. Reposting again, after discussing this awhile it gets boring.
> Please notice what I have said earlier is: Ni defined in socionics under INFp profile(commonly believed to be INFJ MBTI) profile. Not the individual function itself.
> 
> 
> ...


Nothing about it is Ne, do you really think that description describes Ne in ENTPs or ENFPs? The similarity you are seeing is more to do with INFPs specifically. Moreover, _both_ INFPs and INFJs or IEIs and EIIs may identify with this description because it's very general and vague. Hell, maybe there's even SLEs that will identify with it. That's why it's not worth much, it can give you a general idea of how the type manifests itself but, at the same time, lots of people who are not IEIs will identify with it. And those people are not IEIs because the rest of the theory just doesn't fit if we tried to apply it to those people.

On the other hand, Ni in MBTI is also described as focusing in "the big picture", having "visions", seeing into the future, making predictions, finding patterns. I'm surprised you don't see the similarity. Plus, Ne in socionics is all about potential and possibilities too.


----------



## nichya (Jul 12, 2014)

Pancreatic Pandora said:


> Nothing about it is Ne, do you really think that description describes Ne in ENTPs or ENFPs? The similarity you are seeing is more to do with INFPs specifically. Moreover, _both_ INFPs and INFJs or IEIs and EIIs may identify with this description because it's very general and vague. Hell, maybe there's even SLEs that will identify with it. That's why it's not worth much, it can give you a general idea of how the type manifests itself but, at the same time, lots of people who are not IEIs will identify with it. And those people are not IEIs because the rest of the theory just doesn't fit if we tried to apply it to those people.
> 
> On the other hand, Ni in MBTI is also described as focusing in "the big picture", having "visions", seeing into the future, making predictions, finding patterns. I'm surprised you don't see the similarity. Plus, Ne in socionics is all about potential and possibilities too.


-_-' pffff that is what I have been telling ! Goodness, are we not communicating here? 

I posted this from the socionics site of INFp socionics profile where it explains Ni as their first function IN ORDER TO exactly draw attention to how general and vague this is ! Exactly my point !


----------



## nichya (Jul 12, 2014)

I think this is so far the best argument to my question, lol. Maybe I shouldn't be looking for reasons to why it fails.



tanstaafl28 said:


> Socionics is overly complex and poorly translated from Lithuanian into English. It's not for the dilettante, or faint of heart.


----------



## Pancreatic Pandora (Aug 16, 2013)

nichya said:


> -_-' pffff that is what I have been telling ! Goodness, are we not communicating here?
> 
> I posted this from the socionics site of INFp socionics profile where it explains Ni as their first function IN ORDER TO exactly draw attention to how general and vague this is ! Exactly my point !


Then if it's general and vague, why does it matter that it resembles MBTI's INFP?


----------



## RoSoDude (Apr 3, 2012)

nichya said:


> Hmm I like how this explains the aligning and I do agree for example that Fi and Ne should be in my ego block. But what does socionics do to fail the profiles and quadras and relationships? I just don't understand.


I'm confused by the wording of your question. What do you want to know about the profiles, quadras, and relationships? If you're comparing MBTI and Socionics in their analysis of these things, I'd say that Socionics is simply more complete and more systematic about it. MBTI intertype relationships are very poorly studied for some reason, and MBTI groupings have been naively copied from Kiersey's temperaments despite not being symmetric by function (Socionics quadras are defined by preferred functions, which is ideal). As for type profiles, MBTI and Socionics both are guilty of having terribly written, inaccurate, and specious claims about types. Google "INFP description" and read anything on Socionics.com and you'll see what I mean.


----------



## nichya (Jul 12, 2014)

Pancreatic Pandora said:


> Then if it's general and vague, why does it matter that it resembles MBTI's INFP?


Because this vague and general description belongs to INFp (MBTI INFJ) and resembles just any intuitive type but more as INFP MBTI behavior in the second paragraph.

While a conversion is believed to exist, despite counter theories, and in my opinion the conversion only works as much as a coin-toss ( And it does, really. Not opposing to that either), I think more importantly it shows how problematic socionics can be.


----------



## nichya (Jul 12, 2014)

RoSoDude said:


> I'm confused by the wording of your question. What do you want to know about the profiles, quadras, and relationships? If you're comparing MBTI and Socionics in their analysis of these things, I'd say that Socionics is simply more complete and more systematic about it. MBTI intertype relationships are very poorly studied for some reason, and MBTI groupings have been naively copied from Kiersey's temperaments despite not being symmetric by function (Socionics quadras are defined by preferred functions, which is ideal). As for type profiles, MBTI and Socionics both are guilty of having terribly written, inaccurate, and specious claims about types. Google "INFP description" and read anything on Socionics.com and you'll see what I mean.


Well I was in this thread to only discuss how the conversion does not work for all. I agree with you. I think what I am trying to do is though to put my finger on -what- is causing the inconsistency of the profiles and relationships while I know what functions I use in the psyche. I am aware that I just may not be able to put my finger on a clear point but that is what I am trying to explore and discuss.

How should I read into quadra, a follow up to typing the way I see it, for example without the step of typing of socionics? My mindset, my drive, my language and behavior as I see and as seen by others suggests beta quadra with no doubt while I just can't get there using functions.


----------



## kitsu (Feb 13, 2013)

Raawx said:


> Aha. I was going through the thread and thinking the same thing.


Same here haha. I've been periodically coming in here, thinking "ah this is giving me a headache", and leaving.


----------



## MNiS (Jan 30, 2010)

Merry blues said:


> Same here haha. I've been periodically coming in here, thinking "ah this is giving me a headache", and leaving.


I thought it was entertaining. In the sense that while reading through the second half of this thread I was thinking, "Ohhh... so *this* is what IEI and EII trolling is like?".


----------



## kitsu (Feb 13, 2013)

MNiS said:


> I thought it was entertaining. In the sense that while reading through the second half of this thread I was thinking, "Ohhh... so *this* is what IEI and EII trolling is like?".


I have yet to see a reason to believe those typings to be honest but that's not my call to make.

The headache was more because my brain was imploding from trying to figure out a way to explain why you can't have two types. Because "but it just makes sense" and "MBTI is hogwash" are not valid arguments. My logic is derp...


----------



## MNiS (Jan 30, 2010)

Merry blues said:


> I have yet to see a reason to believe those typings to be honest but that's not my call to make.
> 
> The headache was more because my brain was imploding from trying to figure out a way to explain why you can't have two types. Because "but it just makes sense" and "MBTI is hogwash" are not valid arguments. My logic is derp...


I think their (nichya and ruskiix) Socionics self-typings are correct. They're just mistyped in MBTI and refuse to admit it for whatever personal reasons they have. Considering IxxP <--> IxxJ are pretty common mistypes in MBTI it shouldn't really come as a surprise. Heck, I thought I was an ENTP but tested INTJ when I first started learning MBTI! :shocked:

As for explaining why, there are a lot of good reasons why. You just have to pick one and run with it.  Maybe because the functions aren't so different that the two systems aren't incompatible on a functions level. It's just that the MBTI tert and inferior are so ambiguous that one could make the argument that they're either the DS and HA or role and polr.


----------



## nichya (Jul 12, 2014)

MNiS said:


> I think their (nichya and ruskiix) Socionics self-typings are correct. They're just mistyped in MBTI and refuse to admit it for whatever personal reasons they have. Considering IxxP <--> IxxJ are pretty common mistypes in MBTI it shouldn't really come as a surprise. Heck, I thought I was an ENTP but tested INTJ when I first started learning MBTI! :shocked:
> 
> As for explaining why, there are a lot of good reasons why. You just have to pick one and run with it.  Maybe because the functions aren't so different that the two systems aren't incompatible on a functions level. It's just that the MBTI tert and inferior are so ambiguous that one could make the argument that they're either the DS and HA or role and polr.


Oh please dear lords of the Internet, I love how you all have an idea about me by reading my a bunch of posts here. Obviously, the rest of the world is plain dumb not to conquer this magical piece of land of a forum to feel important. I thought this was a place to share and learn and explore but of course one shall never NEVER question the holy book of Socionics. Are you even aware that these theories are written by -people-? and not necessarily by plugging everyone's brain to a computer and measuring signals? Oh by the way MBTI was rewritten by its own author. How dare ! So yes, I don't see better arguments from your perspective either.

What kind of personal reason could I have, please? I have been rolling my eyes forever, why don't you like go somewhere else, perhaps the real world to compensate?


----------



## Entropic (Jun 15, 2012)

nichya said:


> Oh please dear lords of the Internet, I love how you all have an idea about me by reading my a bunch of posts here. Obviously, the rest of the world is plain dumb not to conquer this magical piece of land of a forum to feel important. I thought this was a place to share and learn and explore but of course one shall never NEVER question the holy book of Socionics. Are you even aware that these theories are written by -people-? and not necessarily by plugging everyone's brain to a computer and measuring signals? Oh by the way MBTI was rewritten by its own author. How dare ! So yes, I don't see better arguments from your perspective either.
> 
> What kind of personal reason could I have, please? I have been rolling my eyes forever, why don't you like go somewhere else, perhaps the real world to compensate?


You don't need to know people in order to pick up on what type they are. I can pick up a person's cognitive types seconds after I meet them.


----------



## nichya (Jul 12, 2014)

Entropic said:


> You don't need to know people in order to pick up on what type they are. I can pick up a person's cognitive types seconds after I meet them.


Look, telling me that I am Fe doesn't necessarily add anything to my life, my understanding of self, my experience with others. It is not informative, it is not really bringing a new insight. Well I would appreciate what makes you think so, had you told about your reasons and perhaps given a link to a source to socionics Fe that you find valuable, but to me it sounds like creating a hostile environment. Clearly you haven't met me, and half of my comments are attempts in reply to hostile and/or oh I am so important and I clearly need this forum to pat me on the back posts. I don't see any value to that, sorry.


----------



## kitsu (Feb 13, 2013)

nichya said:


> Oh please dear lords of the Internet, I love how you all have an idea about me by reading my a bunch of posts here. Obviously, the rest of the world is plain dumb not to conquer this magical piece of land of a forum to feel important. I thought this was a place to share and learn and explore but of course one shall never NEVER question the holy book of Socionics. Are you even aware that these theories are written by -people-? and not necessarily by plugging everyone's brain to a computer and measuring signals? Oh by the way MBTI was rewritten by its own author. How dare ! So yes, I don't see better arguments from your perspective either.
> 
> What kind of personal reason could I have, please? I have been rolling my eyes forever, why don't you like go somewhere else, perhaps the real world to compensate?


To be fair, he was also defending you against my refusal to accept your self-typings.

The thing is, to question the system we'd need to see a reason to do so, and you haven't really given us one. It's proven itself to us thus far, and if we're going to accept that there are exceptions we need more than your word for it. Granted, we haven't done the best job of convincing you either, and I agree that it's not respectful of any of us to call you out on your type unwarranted, but you're being a little irrational now. No one suggested you were dumb, and it's a little insulting that you think we're interested in socionics just to feel important. Please don't resort to generalized insults.



Entropic said:


> You don't need to know people in order to pick up on what type they are. I can pick up a person's cognitive types seconds after I meet them.


Watch out you've probably got some kind of god complex comment heading right for you.


----------



## nichya (Jul 12, 2014)

Merry blues said:


> No one suggested you were dumb, and it's a little insulting that you think we're interested in socionics just to feel important. Please don't resort to generalized insults.


No I don't think you are interested in socionics just to feel important but perhaps to think -this thread is entertaining- as it suggests -IEI and EII trolling- and that your desire to chip in your - because I say so and socionics say so- comment despite the headaches it is giving you.

Please get my emphasis right. This thread's so low right now, even I feel low to keep replying.

I have no problem with people with god complex, as long as they can muster it.


----------



## Entropic (Jun 15, 2012)

nichya said:


> Look, telling me that I am Fe doesn't necessarily add anything to my life, my understanding of self, my experience with others. It is not informative, it is not really bringing a new insight. Well I would appreciate what makes you think so, had you told about your reasons and perhaps given a link to a source to socionics Fe that you find valuable, *but to me it sounds like creating a hostile environment.* Clearly you haven't met me, and half of my comments are attempts in reply to hostile and/or oh I am so important and I clearly need this forum to pat me on the back posts. I don't see any value to that, sorry.


lol, it's funny you'd write that. Noticing how I'm affecting the emotional atmosphere is such an Fe observation and tbh, I couldn't care less. I don't need to meet you to pick up on your cognition when you put it on such obvious display. If you think I want to be patted on my back, go ahead, but you'd be hard-pressed to explain why I have chosen to not participate in this thread then. You mentioned me so I responded to it. I had before that lost interest in this thread. 



Merry blues said:


> Watch out you've probably got some kind of god complex comment heading right for you.


Well, that's old.


----------



## nichya (Jul 12, 2014)

Oh by the way, I wasn't the one who mentioned you but I -do- in fact see what a good observer you are to even fail to notice that but still claim I am Fe, because you don't need to meet a person - apparently you don't need to read who wrote what either.

In case you don't know Fi combined with Ne can pick on the emotional atmosphere and empathy with others but I would say it was just my Fi being done with this nonsense. 

On contrary to your delusions btw, I am open to discussion and tangible perspectives as to why but this conversation is plain nonsense and far from my point.



Entropic said:


> lol, it's funny you'd write that. Noticing how I'm affecting the emotional atmosphere is such an Fe observation and tbh, I couldn't care less. I don't need to meet you to pick up on your cognition when you put it on such obvious display. If you think I want to be patted on my back, go ahead, but you'd be hard-pressed to explain why I have chosen to not participate in this thread then. You mentioned me so I responded to it. I had before that lost interest in this thread.
> 
> 
> Well, that's old.


----------



## The_Wanderer (Jun 13, 2013)

No, primarily because MBTI descriptions - at least the numerous unofficial ones, as the official ones don't even _touch_ cognitive functions - are far removed from what the actual personalities are.



nichya said:


> In case you don't know Fi combined with Ne can pick on the emotional atmosphere


Stop trying to "educate" people far more knowledgeable than yourself, I don't care about being respectful; you just look like an idiot.


----------



## nichya (Jul 12, 2014)

well if he thinks this -but to me it sounds like creating a hostile environment.- makes me Fe I doubt his ability to apply his knowledge. 

I have made my point, he is not even aware that I am not the one who mentioned him, it is very ambiguous at this point how he came up with his Fe observation when he can't even separate two different user names.

And Wanderer, whenever I see your posts you are downtalking people. What is it so much of a lack that you keep compensating for? 

And no not even checking who said what then saying I am Fe and then adding a ridiculous sentence to prove that I am Fe, then further insisting he can label anyone just like that - even if he can't differentiate me from the person who mentioned him- and talking as if a person can not catch a so obvious hostile environment had they lack Fe by disregarding the empathy of INFPs..might look like that

But I won't call him an idiot because you are much more deserving the title by making it personal. 

You can't even catch my point of questioning why knowledge doesn't apply to my experience, obviously because you are so stuck with knowledge and knowledgeable people. That might explain your compensation indeed.

Seriously just move.




The_Wanderer said:


> No, primarily because MBTI descriptions - at least the numerous unofficial ones, as the official ones don't even _touch_ cognitive functions - are far removed from what the actual personalities are.
> 
> Stop trying to "educate" people far more knowledgeable than yourself, I don't care about being respectful; you just look like an idiot.


----------



## The_Wanderer (Jun 13, 2013)

To be fair, I didn't _call_ you an idiot. I said you _look like one_.


----------



## nichya (Jul 12, 2014)

The_Wanderer said:


> To be fair, I didn't _call_ you an idiot. I said you _look like one_.


That is why I technically refrained from calling you one, you are welcome.


----------



## Entropic (Jun 15, 2012)

nichya said:


> Oh by the way, I wasn't the one who mentioned you but I -do- in fact see what a good observer you are to even fail to notice that but still claim I am Fe, because you don't need to meet a person - apparently you don't need to read who wrote what either.
> 
> In case you don't know Fi combined with Ne can pick on the emotional atmosphere and empathy with others but I would say it was just my Fi being done with this nonsense.


Eh? Fi is about like/dislike, attraction/repulsion etc. Ne would, in the INFP, help the INFP to expand what options there are for like/dislike, attraction/repulsion etc. I mean, of course Fi can empathize and sympathize with people, but it will not do that on the basis of emotional atmospheres. 

So the cognitive emphasis of the Fi ego type would not be on emotional atmospheres, it would be on attraction/repulsion, like/dislike etc. This is my primary issue with how you have been arguing all along; you get stuck on buzzwords like "empathic" but empathy is not cognitively related. It's a human thing. Anyone can empathize (lest they be suffering from APD) so it doesn't at all prove or make a sound argument how you are an INFP. Judge the INFP based on what they cognitively are like. Empathy is not a part of that.

I mean, you can't challenge and argue that I am less knowledgeable or understands the types less when you aren't even sticking to the basic definitions of what cognitively defines the type. 



> On contrary to your delusions btw, I am open to discussion and tangible perspectives as to why but this conversation is plain nonsense and far from my point.


It's a little difficult to have a conversation when I have yet to see you make a strong claim as to why you think the way you and why it's valuable and has merit. The last argument you offered was that "this isn't the real world", but that argument applies to all forms of typology which then kind of defeats the point of what typology is about and how it works. They are predictive models and while their predictions should be altered to fit the real world, at some point you also need to retain its own framework or you aren't dealing with the system anymore.


----------



## The_Wanderer (Jun 13, 2013)

Eh, waddaya think @_Entropic_? Te as Vulnerable or Role?



nichya said:


> And Wanderer, whenever I see your posts you are downtalking people. What is it so much of a lack that you keep compensating for?


I'd argue that's inaccurate, and based on our run-ins with each other. It just happens that, more often than not, we happen to be advocating conflicting points.



nichya said:


> But I won't call him an idiot because you are much more deserving the title by making it personal.


It's not personal, not to me. I told you that you were acting like an idiot. I might be doing the same by pointing this out, you can argue that if you like, but nevertheless I was doing it for a good reason.



nichya said:


> Seriously just move.


Why? :happy:


----------



## Entropic (Jun 15, 2012)

The_Wanderer said:


> Eh, waddaya think @_Entropic_? Te as Vulnerable or Role?


Of who?


----------



## The_Wanderer (Jun 13, 2013)

Entropic said:


> Of who?


Of Nichya. Watching the conversation between the two of you has been both amusingly grating yet interesting.


----------



## Vermillion (Jan 22, 2012)

@The_Wanderer

Is it really necessary to walk into a thread and call someone an idiot for holding an opinion that doesn't jive well with yours? If this was something about human rights or whatever, I'd understand, but it's just a conflict in understanding the theory between @nichya and the people she is arguing with.

As far as she is concerned, she isn't obliged to shut up for the sake of people who are more "knowledgeable" than she is. She has the right to consider herself more informed than them (whether or not _objectively_ speaking that is true), without being called an idiot for it (or saying she "looks like one", the offense is the same). You _are_ making this more personal than it is supposed to be, and that's unwarranted. 

If you disagree with what she is saying, you can explain that to her, and you have the right to think she is wrong or misled. It is not a good reason to insult her just because you can, especially seeing as she said nothing to _you_ to warrant that. Even if you have unpleasant history with each other.


----------



## Entropic (Jun 15, 2012)

The_Wanderer said:


> Of Nichya. Watching the conversation between the two of you has been both amusingly grating yet interesting.


I have already offered my opinion.


----------



## The_Wanderer (Jun 13, 2013)

Amaterasu said:


> As far as she is concerned, she isn't obliged to shut up for the sake of people who are more "knowledgeable" than she is. She has the right to consider herself more informed than them (whether or not _objectively_ speaking that is true), without being called an idiot for it.


If you say so, but does that mean I have a right to disagree with you? 



Amaterasu said:


> It is not a good reason to insult her just because you can, especially seeing as she said nothing to _you_ to warrant that.


I don't particularly think something needs to be directly aimed at you before you react to it. You agree, evidently... nevertheless, what's your opinion on the other thread topic(s)?

(AKA TL;DR. I know it wasn't necessary, it probably wasn't the wisest or most respectful action to take either. It was a small bit amusing, though.)



Entropic said:


> I have already offered my opinion.


Ah! I've probably forgotten, time to re-read this thread from the start again.


----------



## Vermillion (Jan 22, 2012)

The_Wanderer said:


> If you say so, but does that mean I have a right to disagree with you?


Absolutely. Rights come with duties, however, and I'm of the opinion that we're civilized enough to hold conversations of disagreement that do not degenerate into personal insult unless very warranted. Nichya certainly wasn't doing anything that required what you said to her. 



> I don't particularly think something needs to be directly aimed at you before you react to it. You agree, evidently... nevertheless, what's your opinion on the other thread topic(s)?


Yes, I agree with that. What's the use of you pointing it out, though? I hope you realize all reactions don't have to be insults. You can defend the other posters here who are disagreeing with nichya, and also "react" to her logical arguments, without calling her an idiot. 

I think @RoSoDude summarized my opinion well, so he can take the credit for writing that long and well-thought-out post.


----------



## MNiS (Jan 30, 2010)

nichya said:


> Oh please dear lords of the Internet, I love how you all have an idea about me by reading my a bunch of posts here. Obviously, the rest of the world is plain dumb not to conquer this magical piece of land of a forum to feel important. I thought this was a place to share and learn and explore but of course one shall never NEVER question the holy book of Socionics. Are you even aware that these theories are written by -people-? and not necessarily by plugging everyone's brain to a computer and measuring signals? Oh by the way MBTI was rewritten by its own author. How dare ! So yes, I don't see better arguments from your perspective either.


I wasn't offering a perspective. I said you and your cohort were trolling, because if you examine anything remotely relevant to what the two of you were saying then you're wrong. Plain and simple. That probably sounds like a pretty overly confident thing to say but MBTI screwed up the concept of "Rationality" and "Irrationality" as defined by Jung which is why the dichotomy switch was proposed in the first place. If you think the MBTI tert and inferior are the DS and HA, then the j/p switch applies to introverts. If you think the MBTI tert and inferior are the role and polr, then the j/p switch applies to the extroverts. However, it's pretty clear its the introverts that had their functions switched up so that's why the switch applies to the introverts.

Think about this way: ENFJ and INFJ both have Ni and Fe. Do you think it's sensible that ENFJ are Beta and INFJ are Delta when converting between the two? Same goes for ENTP and INTP and every other pair.



nichya said:


> What kind of personal reason could I have, please? I have been rolling my eyes forever, why don't you like go somewhere else, perhaps the real world to compensate?


How about this? Know what you're talking about because it's pretty clear you've been talking out of your ass the entire time in this thread. If you think bullshitting is how you get around in the real world, then you must not have very intelligent friends.


----------



## nichya (Jul 12, 2014)

We are all aware that socionics don't have a clear extroversion and introversion concept as in MBTI. However the way I see it is introversion is more subjective and extroversion is more of a form of observance and reporting. 

I can see the difference very clearly, say Fi feels strongly about people or things and there is always an element of personal judgement or morality. In that sense I get that very often, my friends tell me I always have strong likes and dislikes and it is difficult to get me involved in a plan which I don't enjoy doing. And they say and I noticed that I do tend to say I,me a lot and I talk about my experiences a lot. I notice that even when I am giving an advice to a person, I tend to fetch an experience from my memory and try to relate it to the point. It is just how I function. We have discussions about music a lot and I do give it a go when my friends suggest some music, and although I immediately know if it is something -I like- or -not- I do keep it a little longer than I am past boredom and then I say I just don't like it for example, and I don't see a need to discuss this and when my friend does I say yea I agree, the music I like may not be as musically of good quality as your suggestion but I like what I like.

So the way I see it yes Fi tends to know exactly how they feel about something and although I am open to consider my choices, I do can't help getting bored with things I don't like or join them for activities I don't feel strong about. It is more like something I have already formed of like forming a mixture of gaussians and then taking the new -thing- and comparing to the -what I like- gaussian to immediately label it as something I like or not. And when I am talking about emotions themselves I use words of love, like, hate, dislike, don't like and I tend to preach about honesty, loyalty, feeling betrayed, trusting, showing sympathy while I feel like -most- of my INFJ friends will talk in a way that is more objective say they say oh I gotto tell you this, it is funny - referring to the event, or it is disappointing or they have anxiety because of an event. Or sometimes they tell about this person they like and they have asked them out and they are sad because they said clearly no and that they won't even give it a chance and they begin to feel insecure about this while I tend to correct them and say you know what it is not this reason or that reason a person likes what they like and I am like that myself if I don't -feel it- I don't have a tendency to try and see because you just know if you would like a person or not. This is the hardest thing that seems to get in their head really and they will try to change the equations or believe in a reason that they see must be the problem rather than an immediate like/dislike situation. Another difference we have is that they tend to evaluate things in a social context, say when it is okay to lie when it is beneficial to hide things from other, when it would be good if I would not speak my mind all the time and just adjust and say whatever is needed to be said, this is a no no for me as I strongly feel about things out of context as well. They tend to say you must play along and you must not be like this or like that on society when I tend to say you must not change your ways to fit in the situation . I just say that no it is not okay. I often times find it difficult to break my ideals and morals to get to what I want or desire, while they tend to play it cool and act differently than how they feel about things. I just feel like my ethics come first and I will not push it to others or judge them because they don't function like me -unless- it involves me, but I will feel like I should be consistent with what I believe in. And if their wrong behavior involves me or another person who I can see is affected then I will get really possessive of my ethics and I will not hesitate to preach them about them or just how they made me feel and how that is not acceptable and I don't hesitate much to burn the bridges if the behavior persists. It can be a major no no for me or it can be a repeated behavior like being nice for the sake of being nice when your ideas are different, if I notice a pattern I will try to express it in indirect and subtle ways but if it keeps happening then I will clearly and probably also with negative feelings express it. While I see most of my INFJ friends are not like this at all and they are not temperamental at all, they will just play it nice and at best just stop inviting you for a while. So you see it is actually a mixture of Fi and Fe in this occasion.

About my group behavior, my INFJ(+ 1 ENFP and +1 INFP) circle says that I am too animated, dramatic, theatrical, loud and domineering. When we gather I tend to throw a bunch of ideas and they tend to say -ok- but I say I want to hear their ideas. So I am not pushing my idea on them but actually I am trying to find an event everyone can enjoy and say I plan to go to a histocial theatre that I think they will like and then we can take a walk around and go to an italian bakery so I am planning a package that I believe everyone will enjoy but they usually don't have a preference or they don't speak their mind which makes me really disappointed because I have to try harder to understand what they will enjoy or not. When I am organizing an event I do care a lot that everyone is together and enjoying themselves indeed, I do care about my guest list, I usually invite a circle with common friends and tell them to bring their friends if they like, say I won't invite a person that I believe will be bored because they don't know anybody and their interests are different. I do care about the atmosphere and I do tend to have themes with music, food and decoration. In all aspects but particularly when I organize an event, I feel responsible if people are not being sincere and does not share the passion. While my INFJ circle prefers to meet over lunch everyday or meet regularly at someone's place every weekend or very often make study groups or organize -parties- that they can prepare posters for some seminar taking place. When I join their activities as a single person, I feel like my outspoken behavior and my theatrical expressions are not welcomed, not that they express it but I observe that people take turns or just discuss different things in smaller groups but the emotional level is suppressed where when I think something is funny I feel like I am laughing too much and too -heartily- when they keep it very brief and in turns themselves. That is why I feel utterly bored. And they tend to talk a lot about others, in a way that I believe must be private. I actually told them that I am really uncomfortable because they tend to gossip about people that I don't even know too much. Actually I feel that mostly the topic is about projects of others, a common school subject as they are all grad students or gossip about someone that is not present there. But no topic gets too personal and usually the more in depth conversations go on in smaller group but then again it never gets too deep in personal experience and I do tend to see them lacking a drive but meeting just for the sake of physically being in the same place, really. And they have expressed that they tend to see me as too -intense- and always driven by -passion- or -like- or I just won't join them and that makes me a difficult person. 

So it is like a socionics beta / delta open book to me. This applies perhaps more heavily on romance styles as well. My own experience and the tendency I see in my INFJ circle which is more like people with similar interests - say PhDs in the same department taking the same courses- to decide to be in a relationship while for me it is all about passion, a special person and romance.

Why I believe I -use- Fe:
Because I do care about the mood of others and I am in tune with how they feel but I believe this is secondary to how I feel. I feel like I am proactively choosing to -care- about the feelings of others and I do feel I am showing an effort which I believe using my Ne to put myself in the shoes of the other and using my Fi to understand how that would feel. So I do understand and care about people's emotions. I do have a tendency to try to change a gloomy mood by telling a joke or drawing the conversation to myself, I tend to chose myself as a topic often not to brag or anything but an experience or to talk about a movie even, but it is a start point. But I don't have this experience of -reporting- how one feels as my INFJ friends does. But it is more like -feeling what they feel- and I can shut it off just like that. Say if that person makes me feel bad, I will shut it off and focus on my emotions and I will become emotionally distant and cold and I will most probably be thinking why this person makes me feel bad. Or say I am just in an emotional state that does not fit the mood and I am not the one who organized an event, I find it easy to slip in my own feelings and ignore the group completely or unless someone interacts me and even the I will keep it brief and go back to distancing whether it being lost in thoughts or playing with the cat of the house or observing others but not being in tune to their feelings or mood.

Reasons why I believe I -am- Fi:
The same exact reason of me being able to shut off being in tune with the mood and emotions of others and that I don't ever feel the need to share my emotions with another and the way I deal with things internally. I prefer to limit my interaction with people to a minimum and have a more unique and genuinely fun time or otherwise I feel too grumpy or bothered to meet people often. I can go long periods of no human interaction. I even shut it off when I am at school and work and just interact on a minimum basis by being shut off unless I feel like someone is in need of me caring about their emotions. Say a friend calls because they feel down, then I will. But I almost never feel the need to call someone to talk because I am emotionally down. I just prefer to stay in and listen to music or just sleep in to deal with them and unlike my INFJ circle, I never really feel confused about my own feelings but I take this time to mostly reflect on the people and behaviors of others that made me sad for example. Or I will be feeling with heartbreak or being let down by a friend and I will feel betrayed and I will be questioning their lack of ethics and integrity with the final judgement of me being better off. I feel like I am a layered person and I do care about the sincerity and integrity of others and once I believe you are inconsistent, insincere, fake or not someone I approve of -although I am pretty openminded- someone who are not in integrity with my ethics I will either take you out of my life or put on a more distant layer while I will keep the closer people in my deeper layers and base my interaction according to this. I am tired...overall I can say that one key element of my life is my ethics and where people and society falls according to that. I always chose my ethics and how I feel, how someone makes me feel in my relationships with others. Well, it is not that I expect proactively being felt good by others but it is more like not being done wrong or made feel bad by others. 

So although I believe I do use Fe or Fe like behavior because of my caring for others' emotional state using my Ne and Fi, I believe at the end of the day I am highly Fi. 

so I'll just stop here because I obviously can not report every feeling and incident and mindset of my life which I like to call experience. I doubt I could do it fully if I had all the time in the world simply because my mind is just not conveyable in words.

So I would prefer if you care more or at least acknowledge my life, feelings, ethics and experience when I tell you that I am Fi rather than suggesting I am wrong and that I am Fe because I say it is a hostile environment @Entropic By the way what I had in my mind when I wrote that particular sentence was I felt bad for being aggressive towards @ruskiix because I was in a defensive mode due to the hostile environment when she was only questioning and looking for answers herself (the person I am mistaken for btw) and all in all I feel the quality of this conversation is ground zero simply because of people being rude or personal and feeling the comfort to stick to a book or someone else's -knowledge- disregarding the feelings and experiences of people. And mind you, it is not only me or one another person in this thread that feels that there is a gap that can not quite explain things. How am I supposed to feel when you tell me that I am wrong and I am a Fe user when you clearly can not even separate two different user names? I am sorry but unlike many here, I don't base my life on -knowledge- or -knowledgeable- people as @The_Wanderer does clearly, but I feed it to my own experience and feelings. And if you won't be discussing it in an intelligent and respectful manner, I suggest you either keep silent or not get low or try to compensate or make it personal. I really don't know how you all expect me to take a translated study and not question it when my experience conflicts with it. I never make anything or anyone my bible but I am open to exploring and that was my original intention to question, I really have a hard time defining your motivations to get so low on this thread though when it clearly shows that you are, and you know I am excluding the people that actually did contribute to the conversation, not even slightly better than copy pasting information and it does show you are quick to label me not to understand how I function when I can clearly see the differences of Fi and Fe. 

As information worshipers by the way, I question why you never really pay attention to the scientific experiment that only slightly suggests the conversion because it is roughly a coin toss separation of the types actually fitting into conversation and that is of course excluding the counter theories as well.
@MNiS I think you show how intelligent you and your friends are and I don't need to comment on that. Your overcompensation and rudeness are clearly more powerful than my words. I will though suggest not being so low of a being. And you absolutely have no idea about my friends, so please don't make me laugh.

And thanks @Amaterasu for speaking up and expressing your view because honestly I fail to see how people can't see this


----------



## MNiS (Jan 30, 2010)

nichya said:


> @_MNiS_ I think you show how intelligent you and your friends are and I don't need to comment on that. Your overcompensation and rudeness are clearly more powerful than my words. I will though suggest not being so low of a being. And you absolutely have no idea about my friends, so please don't make me laugh.


I only have to say this: If you come strolling into this subforum and assume something is garbage when it's pretty clear that your understanding is what's wrong; on top of which you're starting arguments with everyone else and don't know why you'd be disliked for that, then well... 

I'd suggest you work on your approach when dealing with people. Especially if you don't agree with them.


----------



## nichya (Jul 12, 2014)

MNiS said:


> I think the only thing low here is you and your level of intelligence. You start by making assumptions about me and you wonder why you don't receive a positive response. Are you seriously that stupid?


Did I start making assumptions? Are you clearly not able to read or remember? and please stop overcompensating, really, based on your hypothesis of being intelligent which I fail to see. Perhaps because you don't show any of it.


----------



## MNiS (Jan 30, 2010)

nichya said:


> Did I start making assumptions? Are you clearly not able to read or remember? and please stop overcompensating, really, based on your hypothesis of being intelligent which I fail to see. Perhaps because you don't show any of it.


Do you know how to do anything other than to try to insult people? 

If you were think you weren't trolling then maybe you should re-read this thread. Unless you love drama in which case mehh... stay away from me, kthxbye.

BTW, you're a Beta NF. So much so that I'd actually say you suggest IEI and an extreme Fe subtype. Otherwise, I've said what I needed to say and I'm moving on now.


----------



## nichya (Jul 12, 2014)

MNiS said:


> Do you know how to do anything other than to try to insult people?
> 
> If you were think you weren't trolling then maybe you should re-read this thread. Unless you love drama in which case mehh.... I've said what I needed to say and I'm moving on now.


I am the one that insults and creates drama? Oh my, and I thought I had talent in imagery.


----------



## The_Wanderer (Jun 13, 2013)

MNiS said:


> BTW, you're a Beta NF. So much so that I'd actually say you suggest IEI and an extreme Fe subtype.


Yeah. Reading some of those paragraphs of doom was giving me a headache, and *not* because of any (nonexistent) dislike of the written word.


----------



## Wunderkind (Oct 26, 2014)

This is going nowhere. It is giving headache to so many people including me, so I would like to have this thread closed. 
@Theophania: Since this is your thread, I think it's fair when you do it.


----------



## nichya (Jul 12, 2014)

MNiS said:


> BTW, you're a Beta NF. So much so that I'd actually say you suggest IEI and an extreme Fe subtype. Otherwise, I've said what I needed to say and I'm moving on now.


Well thanks for your overly edited opinion and not using a swear word for once. I do appreciate your opinion but I highly doubt you see the difference I see between Fi and Fe. I have expressed that I am highly beta quadra in the beginning by the way (which still doesn't answer why -most- of my INFJ circle show delta quadra behaviors) but I believe I am highly Fi because I see that difference which may be subtle to you but means the world to me. But I do show Fe behavior at times, again, I believe by using my Fi and Ne perhaps? simply because I am aware of it and I can switch it on and off and it is nowhere like a Fe user, in the end it is always my Fi that makes me the person I am and it is not moved or changed by my environment.


----------



## nichya (Jul 12, 2014)

The_Wanderer said:


> Yeah. Reading some of those paragraphs of doom was giving me a headache, and *not* because of any (nonexistent) dislike of the written word.


Uhuh, keep sticking on opinions of others and reading some of a text. Makes you an awesome person, but you know you can stop the headaches simply by not being here or stressing over a text anyway.


----------



## Entropic (Jun 15, 2012)

@nichya I don't even know why you mention me, but you need to realize that cognition *is not a set of behaviors*. Fe types do not necessarily behave X and Fi types Y, so if you behave as both X and Y you are both Fe and Fi. It doesn't work that way. Cognition is a particular mental outlook about how you reason and take in information about the world. So when you say you typed your INFJ friends the way you do, I suspect you did based on dichotomies/behavior, not their actual cognition. Therefore I may argue that your typing of them is faulty in the first place because you cannot argue that Fi is a set of behaviors the way you do and then go on and overlook what Fi really is in terms of cognition. Then you aren't necessarily typing people according to what Fi really is. People keep offering you actual definitions of what the functions are and you insist retaining your own definition of them even though your definition isn't necessarily correct. I think people have the right to get frustrated at that point and to express that.


----------



## nichya (Jul 12, 2014)

Entropic said:


> @nichya I don't even know why you mention me, but you need to realize that cognition *is not a set of behaviors*. Fe types do not necessarily behave X and Fi types Y, so if you behave as both X and Y you are both Fe and Fi. It doesn't work that way. Cognition is a particular mental outlook about how you reason and take in information about the world. So when you say you typed your INFJ friends the way you do, I suspect you did based on dichotomies/behavior, not their actual cognition. Therefore I may argue that your typing of them is faulty in the first place because you cannot argue that Fi is a set of behaviors the way you do and then go on and overlook what Fi really is in terms of cognition. Then you aren't necessarily typing people according to what Fi really is. People keep offering you actual definitions of what the functions are and you insist retaining your own definition of them even though your definition isn't necessarily correct. I think people have the right to get frustrated at that point and to express that.


I wrote that long post -only- to give you an idea of how I behave because you -did- decide that I use Fe on my -behavior- without having a clue about my motivation, that is the only reason why I mentioned you and no I am not judging their behavior, I simply asked them to take the test and then I observe the pattern of their behavior. I am actually careful to use -most- to define them as I see they are not all the same either. I honestly wrote this all -to- emphasize the difference between my mindset and my quadra behavior. I am not inconsistent either, I do function with my mindset, I can not ever conflict my mindset but you can't say I am Fe because I do care about others' emotion and yes I do when I interact with people not because I am being exposed to their feelings or I am not trying to change the -emotion- but I feel for the people and I care about their feelings. I m actively engaged while my natural mindset is always there and independent of others and within me. My mindset exists as a separate being, that does not make me a total goof to my surrounding but yes I get that a lot as well, not being engaged often as I prefer to meet when I feel like meeting rather than a regular basis and I am a distant independent person unless I chose to be engaged. And I do get that a lot that I have a strong personality in a negative connotation as they say it is difficult to change my mindset and that I don't evaluate things in a society based context.

The only problem here you are following a bottom-up approach and I am trying to get a top-down approach and question and explore personal experiences. I am perfectly capable of googling definitions, I wanted that strike that pulls a specific part of information from a personal view.
But you are all very closed to even discuss and making this a very low thread. I am not arguing that I am close enough to perfectly describe Fi - I doubt I ever could unless you are in my mind as it is clear to me but I have to invent ways to express that- but I feel like most of the people who just copy pastes a definition don't really see the difference between Fi and Fe as well as a person who dominantly uses them. And I do like to question and research and observe for a pattern and for inconsistency, I believe which was the motivation of Jung and others in the first place and I don't necessarily feel that conversation is over when you post a description when it is not that strike I am looking for. 

To me it is as clear as my conversations with them.

-That is the problem with these tests, -you- answer them
-Yes I see your point but who knows a person better than themselves
-But that is the problem, I don't know who I am or what I want
- But you decided that you want to be with this girl somehow
- I don't know, I like that you grow with a person you know that right?
-No, not really
-Well I do need company of others

Anyhow, indeed it is not the place and not the right people to discuss with I see but somehow it just draws the negative attention, it is not my thread either but it is for the better to be closed indeed.


----------



## Entropic (Jun 15, 2012)

nichya said:


> I wrote that long post -only- to give you an idea of how I behave because you -did- decide that I use Fe on my -behavior- without having a clue about my motivation,


No. I did not judge you based on your behavior. I judged you based on the source of where that seemed to come from, what it says about your cognition, where your awareness and attention goes to, how you conceptualize and reason about reality. My point by pointing out that your disagreement with me lies in the fact that I'm creating a to you, hostile atmosphere, is very much in line with Fe cognition, not Fi. It suggests that the kind of information your psyche naturally and innately prefers to look out for is Fe content, not Fi. Fi would tell me stuff like I'm rude, behaving inappropriately etc. but it would not tell me that I'm creating a hostile atmosphere. 



> that is the only reason why I mentioned you and no I am not judging their behavior, I simply asked them to take the test and then I observe the pattern of their behavior. I am actually careful to use -most- to define them as I see they are not all the same either. I honestly wrote this all -to- emphasis the difference between my mindset and my quadra behavior. I am not inconsistent either, I do function with my mindset, I can not ever conflict my mindset but you can't say I am Fe because I do care about others' emotion


Caring about people is basic human empathy and not necessarily at all Fe or Fi related. That's my entire point and has been from the very beginning. 



> and yes I do when I interact with people not because I am being exposed to their feelings or I am not trying to change the -emotion- but I feel for the people and I care about their feelings.


That's empathy which is not the same as Fi-derived reasoning.



> I m actively engaged while my natural mindset is always there and independent of others and within me. My mindset exists as a separate being, that does not make me a total goof to my surrounding but yes I get that a lot as well, not being engaged often as I prefer to meet when I feel like meeting rather than a regular basis and I am a distant person unless I chose to be engaged.


To me, this just seems to suggest you think Fe = group think or the like. Not really. 



> The only problem here you are following a bottom-up approach and I am trying to get a top-down approach and question and explore personal experiences. I am perfectly capable of googling definitions, I wanted that strike that pulls a specific part of information from a personal view.


This isn't about bottom-up or top-down or experience vs. experience, but it's about actually creating an accurate understanding of something. 



> But you are all very closed to even discuss and making this a very low thread. I am not arguing that I am close enough to perfectly describe Fi but I feel like most of the people who just copy pastes a definition don't really see the difference between Fi and Fe as well as a person who dominantly uses them.


The real question is: do you? Because based on what you've written thus far, I have the impression that you don't.



> To me it is as clear as my conversations with them.
> -That is the problem with these tests, -you- answer them
> -Yes I see your point but who knows a person better than themselves
> -But that is the problem, I don't know who I am or what I want
> ...


None of this necessarily points to any feeling function in particular really.


----------



## nichya (Jul 12, 2014)

Entropic said:


> No. I did not judge you based on your behavior. I judged you based on the source of where that seemed to come from, what it says about your cognition, where your awareness and attention goes to, how you conceptualize and reason about reality. My point by pointing out that your disagreement with me lies in the fact that I'm creating a to you, hostile atmosphere, is very much in line with Fe cognition, not Fi. It suggests that the kind of information your psyche naturally and innately prefers to look out for is Fe content, not Fi. Fi would tell me stuff like I'm rude, behaving inappropriately etc. but it would not tell me that I'm creating a hostile atmosphere.


Well I told you my motivation and it seems to not change things even a bit. I don't have to publicly write that I felt ashamed that I lashed out at another person because I happened to read their comment in between rude and inappropriate posts. It conflicts with the person I am, which I should have evaluated separately and tried better to understand but I didn't because I was angry that I can't even have a decent conversation and she can't have a decent conversation or find answers to what she is looking for and I did felt bad because I could relate to her, because she is just like me simply observing the same things as I do and being lashed out instead of her content taken serious. So, I felt bad because in a moment of anger I behaved in conflict with the person I am. And I was not targeting you specifically and it is a mixture of behaviors from different users so I generalized because I would have used different words for each as they make me feel differently each and I do find them inappropriate in different ways each. So no observing one sentence is not much telling at all, but whatever.


----------



## Entropic (Jun 15, 2012)

nichya said:


> Well I told you my motivation and it seems to not change things even a bit. I don't have to publicly write that I felt ashamed that I lashed out at another person because I happened to read their comment in between rude and inappropriate posts. It conflicts with the person I am, which I should have evaluated separately and tried better to understand but I didn't because I was angry that I can't even have a decent conversation and she can't have a decent conversation or find answers to what she is looking for and I did felt bad because I could relate to her, because she is just like me simply observing the same things as I do and being lashed out instead of her content taken serious. So, I felt bad because in a moment of anger I behaved in conflict with the person I am. And I was not targeting you specifically and it is a mixture of behaviors from different users so I generalized because I would have used different words for each as they make me feel differently each and I do find them inappropriate in different ways each. So no observing one sentence is not much telling at all, but whatever.


It wasn't observation in a bubble but it's an observation that's very much in line with the rest of how you think and express yourself. Your emotional motivation is not the same as cognitive reasoning in the sense that the cognitive functions in a Jungian sense, do not in themselves deal with say, I feel ashamed so I make XYZ action. That's enneagram-related perhaps, but not cognitively so.


----------



## nichya (Jul 12, 2014)

@Entropic But thanks anyway, you make me realize one thing. I have learnt to put things more objectively when I am making a point because I simply learnt in life that people think you are being irrational when you try to make a point based on your subjective feelings. I am surrounded by mostly intuitive thinkers so that might be a reason when I interact with strangers or people I am not comfortable with. Also I refrain from calling people something negative too quickly even if I feel that way and that they are extremely rude because that is some form of respect I expect from others and try to be that way myself. The same reason why I don't reply people's insults in the same way they are done. Anyway, have a good day


----------



## Modal Soul (Jun 16, 2013)

you can be anything if you try

with friends like timothy by your side!


----------



## Modal Soul (Jun 16, 2013)

s/o to @Sherlock Hotes for giving me my 500th thank

i appreciate your existence a whole lot. please keep existing like you do


----------



## Golden Rose (Jun 5, 2014)

Modal Soul said:


> s/o to @<span class="highlight"><i><a href="http://personalitycafe.com/member.php?u=114361" target="_blank">Sherlock Hotes</a></i></span> for giving me my 500th thank
> 
> i appreciate your existence a whole lot. please keep existing like you do


Will do. A serial thanker takes no prisoners unless they can be traded for cartoony raccoons.
Damn right, every type should be converted to TIMOTHY now. Seatbelt!






-rolls in, rolls out- I'd have enjoyed a(n acid) trip with the Frizz much better tho.


----------



## VoodooDolls (Jul 30, 2013)

People don't get how easy is to know S or N. S is about being well equipped for reality. N is about being not.
It doesn't matter how much effort you put in your words to make you sound more classy NF/T. The message is important, the form of it is irrelevant.
From now on i declare myself a bunkitonka-tochin-balls.


----------



## Deus Absconditus (Feb 27, 2011)

MeTheParrot said:


> People don't get how easy is to know S or N. S is about being well equipped for reality. N is about being not.
> It doesn't matter how much effort you put in your words to make you sound more classy NF/T. The message is important, the form of it is irrelevant.
> From now on i declare myself a bunkitonka-tochin-balls.


The fuck? Objective possibilities is not equipped for reality? Potential in objects is not equipped for reality? Reading the mental states of others is not equipped for reality? 

The nonsense I see on these threads. Forgoodnes sake intuitive and sensors both live in reality. Everything in reality is equipped for reality, sensors just go about it differently than intuitives but both are well equipped for reality.


----------



## MNiS (Jan 30, 2010)

nichya said:


> Well thanks for your overly edited opinion and not using a swear word for once. I do appreciate your opinion but I highly doubt you see the difference I see between Fi and Fe. I have expressed that I am highly beta quadra in the beginning by the way (which still doesn't answer why -most- of my INFJ circle show delta quadra behaviors) but I believe I am highly Fi because I see that difference which may be subtle to you but means the world to me. But I do show Fe behavior at times, again, I believe by using my Fi and Ne perhaps? simply because I am aware of it and I can switch it on and off and it is nowhere like a Fe user, in the end it is always my Fi that makes me the person I am and it is not moved or changed by my environment.


You were just too much of an eager beaver and kept replying while I was still in the process of finalizing my posts. I edit my posts for a good 20 minutes after I post because I change my mind on what I want to say very often. I admit it's a bad habit and if you're the type of person who replies almost instantly, I'll try not to do that around you. Otherwise, I'm not trying to hide anything malicious by editing my posts. The posting then editing drives Fi-PoLR types and ILEs in particular kind of batty though. So maybe I should stop for the sake of others. XD

Anyway, before you start trying to assert any level of authority on well... anything, you should recheck your own understanding. There's a reason why people here kept saying you're wrong about what Fe and Fi are, and I'm pretty sure it's not because everyone else is wrong. Because you're trying to say only Fi can have morals and ethics which is just wrong and shows there's something off about your understanding of Fe and Fi. Otherwise, almost everything you wrote is pure Fe. 

You've wrote repeatedly that your ethics are relative to the people in your life; that's Fe. Ethics and morality that is external and focused on the object as opposed to a subjective ethic of fields (which applies to a general set of situations).

In MBTI no one really cares about the functions because most everyone in MBTI focuses on type descriptions and the dichotomies. Anything functions related is literally an afterthought. In Socionics, it's all about the functions. So you're going to have a lot more people challenge you if they don't agree or think you may be mistaken. If you find that to be hostile, then maybe Socionics isn't for you.


----------



## nichya (Jul 12, 2014)

MNiS said:


> You've wrote repeatedly that your ethics are relative to the people in your life; that's Fe. Ethics and morality that is external and focused on the object as opposed to a subjective ethic of fields (which applies to a general set of situations). I wouldn't even want to bother working with you on this because I'm pretty sure it would be wasted effort on my part since you're just being a bonehead and assuming everyone else is wrong and that you're right.


I have repeatedly wrote my ethics are NOT relative to the people in my life. That it is NOT external and that it IS out of context. I am not a native speaker but I do believe I was trying to put that nicely so I am not sure how you came up with the opposite conclusion really. My morals are driven from within me to the point that it makes my life difficult and I always stand out in society. They often find me naive and reckless, it is not that I don't see the benefit of changing my ways I simply feel very opposed to that so I refuse that. I think you are more of a waste of time at this point if you didn't catch what I have been writing and you are free to leave really. I am already discouraged and I don't like the attitude. I gave an example, it is like I have a model of values and likes/dislikes and when something -new- is there I tend to compare it to MY morality and immediately decide what is right/wrong what I like/don't like. I a not trying to convince anyone in anything I am not, so this is ridiculous, I was trying to get past that point but it doesn't seem to work. My mind, my values, my likes exist out of context and are independent of others and my environment. I feel very strong about this to say it is a major part of my identity, so I really don't know what you want to hear.



MNiS said:


> In MBTI no one really cares about the functions because most everyone in MBTI focuses on type descriptions and the dichotomies. Anything functions related is literally an afterthought. In Socionics, it's all about the functions. So you're going to have a lot more people challenge you if they don't agree or think you may be mistaken. If you find that to be hostile, then maybe Socionics isn't for you.


I am okay with challenge, I am not okay with unintelligent insults and negative posts that does not add anything to topic.

Yes I do edit my posts a lot too but I found it awkward that you are trying to put something sensible in a post full of insults.


----------



## MNiS (Jan 30, 2010)

nichya said:


> I have repeatedly wrote my ethics are NOT relative to the people in my life. That it is NOT external and that it IS out of context. I am not a native speaker but I do believe I was trying to put that nicely so I am not sure how you came up with the opposite conclusion really. My morals are driven from within me to the point that it makes my life difficult and I always stand out in society. They often find me naive and reckless, it is not that I don't see the benefit of changing my ways I simply feel very opposed to that so I refuse that. I think you are more of a waste of time at this point if you didn't catch what I have been writing and you are free to leave really. I am already discouraged and I don't like the attitude. I gave an example, it is like I have a model of values and likes/dislikes and when something -new- is there I tend to compare it to MY morality and immediately decide what is right/wrong what I like/don't like. I a not trying to convince anyone in anything I am not, so this is ridiculous, I was trying to get past that point but it doesn't seem to work. My mind, my values, my likes exist out of context and are independent of others and my environment. I feel very strong about this to say it is a major part of my identity, so I really don't know what you want to hear.
> 
> I am okay with challenge, I am not okay with unintelligent insults and negative posts that does not add anything to topic.
> 
> Yes I do edit my posts a lot too but I found it awkward that you are trying to put something sensible in a post full of insults.


Best of luck to you then. 

If you'd like to try again without calling things you don't understand garbage, or insulting people repeatedly by calling them a lowlife or out of touch with the real world  then maybe you'll have better luck then. Otherwise, best of luck to you in your endeavors.


----------



## Deus Absconditus (Feb 27, 2011)

@nichya, I can care less on what you think Fe or Fi is, nor do I care about your views on mbti or socionics. What I do care about is your relation to these specific quotes. Can you do me a favor, and tell me which quote applies to you.

This:



> *It is a feeling which seems to devalue the object, and it therefore manifests itself for the most part negatively. *The existence of positive feeling can be inferred only indirectly. Its aim is not to adjust itself to the object, but to subordinate it in an unconscious effort to realize the underlying images. *It is continually seeking an image which has no existence in reality, but which it has seen in a kind of vision. It glides unheedingly over all objects that do not fit in with its aim.* It strives after inner intensity, for which the objects serve at most as a stimulus. The depth of this feeling can only be guessed— it can never be clearly grasped. It makes people silent and difficult of access; it shrinks back like a violet from the brute nature of the object in order to fill the depths of the subject. *It comes out with negative judgments or assumes an air of profound indifference as a means of defence*.





> The feeling of harmony, therefore, lasts only so long as the object goes its own moderate way and makes no attempt to cross the other’s path. *There is little effort to respond to the real emotions of the other person; they are more often damped down and rebuffed, or cooled off by a negative value judgment. *Although there is a constant readiness for peaceful and harmonious co-existence, strangers are shown no touch of amiability, no gleam of responsive warmth, but are met with apparent indifference or a repelling coldness. Often they are made to feel entirely superfluous. Faced with anything that might carry her away or arouse enthusiasm, this type observes a benevolent though critical neutrality, coupled with a faint trace of superiority that soon takes the wind out of the sails of a sensitive person.


Or this:



> The extravert’s feeling is always in harmony with objective values. For anyone who has known feeling only as something subjective, the nature of extraverted feeling will be difficult to grasp, because it has detached itself as much as possible from the subjective factor and subordinated itself entirely to the influence of the object. *Even when it appears not to be qualified by a concrete object, it is none the less still under the spell of traditional or generally accepted values of some kind*.* I may feel moved, for instance, to say that something is “beautiful” or “good,” not because I find it “beautiful” or “good” from my own subjective feeling about it, but because it is fitting and politic to call it so, since a contrary judgment would upset the general feeling situation*. A feeling judgment of this kind is not by any means a pretence or a lie, it is simply an act of adjustment. A painting, for instance, is called “beautiful” because a painting hung in a drawing room and bearing a well-known signature is generally assumed to be beautiful, or because to call it “hideous” would presumably offend the family of its fortunate possessor,* or because the visitor wants to create a pleasant feeling atmosphere, for which purpose everything must be felt as agreeable*. These feelings are governed by an objective criterion. As such they are genuine, and represent the feeling function as a whole.


Now I agree with everyone else that your statement on picking up on the emotional atmosphere is more representative of Fe, because of the focus on external feelings. I'm willing to accept that you've simply made a mistake and thought it was the emotional atmosphere you were picking up on, when in fact it may have been something else, in your case, an intuition.


----------



## nichya (Jul 12, 2014)

Shadow Logic said:


> @nichya, I can care less on what you think Fe or Fi is, nor do I care about your views on mbti or socionics. What I do care about is your relation to these specific quotes. Can you do me a favor, and tell me which quote applies to you.
> 
> This:
> 
> ...


Hey Shadow Logic, I will go with the first, especially for these parts:

Its aim is not to adjust itself to the object, but to subordinate it in an *unconscious effort* to realize the underlying images. *It is continually seeking an image which has no existence in reality*,* but which it has seen in a kind of vision*. It glides unheedingly over all objects that *do not fit in with its aim*. It strives after *inner intensity*, for which the objects serve at most as a *stimulus*. 

I am not sure if this applies word by word by I do resonate with this a great deal:
Althoughthere is a constant readiness for peaceful and harmonious co-existence, strangers are shown no touch of amiability, no gleam of responsive warmth, but are met with apparent indifference or a repelling coldness. Often they are made to feel entirely superfluous. Faced with anything that might carry her away or arouse enthusiasm, this type observes a benevolent though critical neutrality, coupled with a faint trace of superiority that soon takes the wind out of the sails of a sensitive person.

I think most importantly I feel very opposed to the second option because I am that person to call something hideous if I am comfortable with that person. And if I am not comfortable and I am shy to I might try to keep my opinion to myself but if I am asked specifically about it I will and (I have) call it hideous or at best try to pick better words or try to focus on something good about it, which I -believe- is good say I like how the color of the frame matches the furniture and I will do that with an effort that will make me feel unpleasant. That is the best I can do.


----------



## Deus Absconditus (Feb 27, 2011)

nichya said:


> Hey Shadow Logic, I will go with the first, especially for these parts:
> 
> Its aim is not to adjust itself to the object, but to subordinate it in an *unconscious effort* to realize the underlying images. *It is continually seeking an image which has no existence in reality*,* but which it has seen in a kind of vision*. It glides unheedingly over all objects that *do not fit in with its aim*. It strives after *inner intensity*, for which the objects serve at most as a *stimulus*.
> 
> ...


Good, now that we got that out of the way, explain to me why then, that you don't relate to this following quote:



> Introverted ethics (Fi) is an introverted, rational, and static information element. It is also called Fi, R, relational ethics, or white ethics.
> Fi is generally associated with the ability to gain an implicit sense of the subjective 'distance' between two people, and make judgments based off of said thing.
> Types with valued Fi strive to make and maintain close, personal relationships with their friends and family. They value sensitivity to others' feelings, and occasionally will make their innermost feelings and sentiments known in order to test the possibility of creating closeness with others.
> *Also, these types convey emotions in terms of how they were affected by something (such as "I did not like that"), rather than an extroverted ethics Fe approach that would describe the object itself without clear reference to the subject involved (such as "That sucked"). Much of their decisions are based on how they themselves, or others in relation to them personally, feel in contrast to considering how "the big picture" is affected (such as groups of people.)*


And this quote also:



> The individual sees reality primarily through static personal ethics and stable interpersonal bonds between individuals, including himself, where the status of such interpersonal bonds is determined by his personal ethics. _*The individual is very confident in evaluating the ethical or moral qualities, and their consistency, of other people.*_ This makes the individual seem "judgemental" or "self-righteous" to people less so inclined. *If he has difficulty in deciding the status of a personal relationship, he will take action to try to reach a conclusion but if that continues to elude him, he will regard the relationship as not worth it.* His own sense of constancy in personal ethics and in his relationships with others is a very strong factor in his sense of self-worth.
> Fi in this position implies the ability to almost instantly recognize whether someone is a friend or an enemy, whether they are demonstrating good will or ill will, and whether they are drawn to or repelled by the individual.


----------



## nichya (Jul 12, 2014)

Shadow Logic said:


> Good, now that we got that out of the way, explain to me why then, that you don't relate to this following quote:
> And this quote also:


Well I do relate to this - a lot -

Types with valued Fi strive to make and maintain close, personal relationships with their friends and family. They value sensitivity to others' feelings, and occasionally will make their innermost feelings and sentiments known in order to test the possibility of creating closeness with others.

So, I assume you mean the bold part.

I have mentioned earlier as well, for example if I feel sad I tend to focus on what makes me sad. Say a person's behavior. I will say the person makes me feel sad or his behavior makes me sad rather than seeing it as an instance. Or like I gave an example, when my friend suggests some new music and I start listening to it and I can say if I don't like it right away, then he will try to talk sense to me and say it is good quality and it has received well reviews and such and I will try my best to see his point but in the end -and we always have this discussion- I say you might be right but I like what I like and he says I am not refined and I am not openminded but I say it is not that, I did give it a try but it is pointless to discuss it because I like what I like. And sometimes we discuss about this circle of people and he suggests that there is no reason for me to not see a person in a group gathering but I say the person made me feel this way and that way so I don't want to be in the same environment and I don't feel I am entitled to be there just because it is appropriate. I don't know if we are on the same page?

So yea I don't relate to saying -that sucked- although I am not sure of the context but maybe that is the thing, it is too vague and how does an event that sucked relate to me? Or did it suck for others and was I just observing? but I believe like the example I gave, I make my decision based on how I feel about a person even when it would be appropriate for me to be in the group on someone's birthday. Because I simply don't think I can fake manners and I don't want to be in the same environment because I don't want to experience those feelings or see that person. And if we go back to painting example, I feel that I am not entitled to like something because someone else does and I acknowledge that they might but my view stays independent. Of course it is easier to say a painting is hideous then saying a person is ridiculous because I care about the feelings of others.


----------



## Deus Absconditus (Feb 27, 2011)

nichya said:


> Well I do relate to this - a lot -
> 
> Types with valued Fi strive to make and maintain close, personal relationships with their friends and family. They value sensitivity to others' feelings, and occasionally will make their innermost feelings and sentiments known in order to test the possibility of creating closeness with others.
> 
> ...


Good, So far everything you are stating is revolved around introverted feeling/introverted ethics or so it seems, it could still be Pi/Fe though. I have one last question, do you care to create a positive emotional environment, as in, is having a positive emotional environment essential to your wellbeing? If so, can you explain it?


----------



## nichya (Jul 12, 2014)

Shadow Logic said:


> Good, So far everything you are stating is revolved around introverted feeling/introverted ethics or so it seems, it could still be Pi/Fe though. I have one last question, do you care to create a positive emotional environment, as in, is having a positive emotional environment essential to your wellbeing? If so, can you explain it?


Okay, to be fair though in relation to previous one, as I was driving, I must add sometimes I say -it hurts- when I am trying to tell somebody that the situation hurts me, as plain as that, I want to say -I hurt- but I don't want to be seen weak and I don't want them to think that someone has control over me to hurt me, even when it is true. I find this to be the only thing when I conflict with myself. I tend to act like I am though and I don't hurt so I am conscious when I play with words in specific situations.


I don't care to create a positive emotional environment but I prefer to and I don't think it is essential to my well being, however I do believe that it is essential that people show me their genuine feelings instead. I can't stand when people are being nice and pretending to be happy when it is not the way they feel about things. I want the real emotions and I don't care if they are negative or too blunt or that it would hurt me. Actually I find negative emotions to be necessary for my being as I believe they should coexist and maybe that is why I have a problem with people who are obsessed with happiness. But of course I mean if I feel strongly hurt I will avoid the people or the environment, if it is directed at me. It will be avoiding them though not trying to cheer them up so I don't feel bad.

However if one of my friends is sad, I will try to understand them and yes try to cheer them up, make jokes to uplift their mood or encourage them and tell them the good things about themselves and their potential and suggest optimistic views. It is not essential for my well being but I think it is for them?

And when I am organizing events that is why I want to hear people's opinions and find something everyone can enjoy. Simply because I don't enjoy doing specific things and I am fully conscious that another person would feel the same about the thing I like. So I try to find something that we all enjoy together so that I don't feel burdened thinking I am stealing people's time and pushing them to do something they won't be enjoying themselves. It makes me happy when I see everyone enjoying themselves rather than being bored. That is why I go to concerts alone mostly as I know my friends are not into the music and they won't be enjoying themselves and I will feel burdened and responsible. I find going to a concert alone more liberating. So in that sense I prefer people to be happy but no it is not essential for my own being at all.

and what is a Pi/Fe if I may ask? I will be checking it


----------



## Deus Absconditus (Feb 27, 2011)

@nichya, with all evidence you have provided on your psychological makeup I've concluded that you are no other, than an INFP/EII. Here's the reasoning:



> And sometimes we discuss about this circle of people and he suggests that there is no reason for me to not see a person in a group gathering but *I say the person made me feel this way and that way so I don't want to be in the same environment and I don't feel I am entitled to be there just because it is appropriate*.





> I make my decision based on how I feel about a person even when it would be appropriate for me to be in the group on someone's birthday. *Because I simply don't think I can fake manners and I don't want to be in the same environment because I don't want to experience those feelings or see that person*.





> * I don't care to create a positive emotional environment and I don't think it is essential to my well being, however I do believe that it is essential that people show me their genuine feelings instead.* I can't stand when people are being nice and pretending to be happy when it is not the way they feel about things. I want the real emotions and I don't care if they are negative or too blunt or that it would hurt me. *Actually I find negative emotions to be necessary for my being as I believe they should coexist and maybe that is why I have a problem with people who are obsessed with happiness*. But of course I mean if I feel strongly hurt I will avoid the people or the environment, if it is directed at me. It will be avoiding them though not trying to cheer them up so I don't feel bad.





> However if one of my friends is sad, I will try to understand them and yes try to cheer them up, *make jokes to uplift their mood or encourage them and tell them the good things about themselves and their potential and suggest optimistic views*.


All of this not only is directly related to both Jung's definition of Fi, along with socionics but it is no way related to Fe, especially as a second function. This is Fe as a second function in socionics:



> *The person is sensitive to the emotional atmosphere around him*, either from an individual, or a group, or even from inanimate objects such as the landscape, the state of the physical environment he happens to be in, or his own emotional associations with the place or people around him. A *positive emotional atmophere is essential for his sense of well being and inner peace, and he either tries to promote it himself by directly *influencing it around him, or by simply moving away from the environment or the people causing a negative emotional environment in his view.
> 
> For the SEI, this takes an on-the-spot aspect and is reflected in cracking jokes, trying to make people laugh, or simply moving away from people he perceives as affecting him negatively. *For the IEI, this takes a longer-term perspective; so the focus, rather than being on the immediate emotional environment, is on the perceived longer-term emotional state of others towards the individual, *and is reflected in trying to be on good terms with those he interacts with or seeking distance or protection from, or seeking distance or protection from, or "preventively" attacking, those he sees as irremediably hostile emotionally.


Everything you have said, and particularly what I have bolded, is a complete antithesis to the way Fe is used a secondary function. In no way, could you be an IEI, since everything you dislike is essential for their well being. You are an Fi Dom, you have related to both Jung's, along with socionics, description of Fi Dom's and you want absolutely nothing that Fe as a secondary has to offer. 

Your type in socionics: EII
Your type in MBTI: INFP
Your type in Jungian: Introverted Feeling Type

There should be no more confusion on your part about whether or not you are an EII or IEI.

Pi/Fe is introverted perception with extraverted feeling secondary. Si-Fe or Ni-Fe.


----------



## nichya (Jul 12, 2014)

@Shadow Logic

Thank you for your time and effort, I truly truly appreciate it. Especially for your patience. 

That was my original question actually I do believe I am Fi-Ne, so why my relationship with others and romance is beta quadra, which I believe is very dominant -because I really can't explain it with functions. I still can't. Then somehow the thread went crazy  Again, thank you.




Shadow Logic said:


> @nichya, with all evidence you have provided on your psychological makeup I've concluded that you are no other, than an INFP/EII. Here's the reasoning:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


----------



## nichya (Jul 12, 2014)

To be honest now I am more curious how on earth a person that uses Fi given all the points above can be delta quadra? I don't want to start another war but just think about it???


----------



## Deus Absconditus (Feb 27, 2011)

nichya said:


> @Shadow Logic
> 
> Thank you for your time and effort, I truly truly appreciate it. Especially for your patience.
> 
> That was my original question actually I do believe I am Fi-Ne, so why my relationship with others and romance is beta quadra, which I believe is very dominant -because I really can't explain it with functions. I still can't. Then somehow the thread went crazy  Again, thank you.


Are you asking me why do you relate to the beta quadra? Or why does it say you are part of the beta quadra?

If the latter, than the answer is that you aren't a part of the beta quadra but the delta quadra. Now understand that these quadras are more so side effects of types than actual properties of types, because they describe behavior more than cognitive functioning. 

Now if you meant the former than I need to ask why you think yo to the beta quadra, especially since what you wrote here in our discussion is in conflict with behavior of betas. 



> The subdued IM elements of the Beta Quadra are Fi, Te, Si, Ne that correspond to symbols Symbol r.gif Symbol p.gif Symbol s.gif Symbol i.gif, respectively. These elements reflect aspects of reality which Beta Quadra types prefer to keep to themselves and not discuss openly.
> Fi blocked with Ne, Symbol r.gif Symbol i.gif
> Beta types are not inclined to enjoy discussions of personal experiences when the focus is on a person's own inner feelings, especially when described in a subdued way.
> *Beta types tend to be skeptical of another individual's potential for personal growth in terms of abilities and character, and dislike being the subject of such a discussion by others about themselves.*





> *For Betas atmosphere is more important than specific activity or topic. Groups of betas spend time together to entertain each other. *They exchange fun (and often loud) stories to feed the atmosphere, so that the group energy won't run out. People talk fast and they often add comments to other people's stories if they feel that the pace is slowing down. When someone starts to talk, he takes on the obligation to entertain for the duration of the monologue and, in a friendly group, other people only interrupt to try and help him keep control of the atmosphere.
> Talking about personal matters in a group is not something that Betas generally do. It's viewed almost as treachery when something that was told in a one-on-one conversation is retold in front of a group, or when someone criticizes another person's traits in front of the group. Betas believe such things should be told in private and should not be used to embarrass or belittle a friend.


In delta:



> Ne blocked with Fi: Symbol i.gif Symbol r.gif
> Delta types love to share personal experience mixed with their own sentiments regarding their experiences, but all in an insightful and non-dramatic manner.
> Delta types like to talk about new beginnings, opportunities for personal growth, and their plans and prospects for the future.





> Groups made up of primarily Delta types tend to be focused on working on projects, enjoying physical recreation, or finding out interesting things about each other. Laughter is usually subdued and brief; instead, people smile a lot and try to be witty and welcoming. Groups need to be focused on some specific productive activity or topic of discussion, or else they fall apart. In Delta groups, there is a lot of splintering and decentralization. This allows for more focused and productive interaction with only those who share your particular interests or sentiments. People jump from small group to small group easily to keep up their interest level. *No one demands that the entire group listen to one person or that everyone do the same thing*. Delta Quadra types believe that if everyone just pursues their own interests and makes some accommodations for others, the group will be better off anyway. Delta Quadra types do not focusing on building group identity or unity of purpose, but prefer for the group to remain splintered and decentralized.


Everything you have said here is directly related to the delta group, and far opposes the beta group. So I'm confused on how you confused the two, especially since betas want what you can care less about, a positive atmosphere.


----------



## nichya (Jul 12, 2014)

Oh alright, I didn't want to bother you with this anymore but since it is there. 

I made a quick correction just before you posted, I am not sure if it changes the equation: I don't care to create a positive emotional environment (edit: but I prefer to) and I don't think it is essential to my well being, however I do believe that it is essential that people show me their genuine feelings instead. 

But my mindset is the same, it is not essential for me at all, to be honest my interaction with other has little to do with my own being unless someone hurts me. I welcome negative feelings so I really don't have any problem with that but I do have a problem when people pretend a positive environment actually, so yes I prefer genuine feelings whether they are negative or positive. It does not affect my own well being but if I am meeting people and especially if I am organizing I want them to enjoy themselves, for the same reason I think it is essential for them and I feel like I am responsible when they are bored or not enjoying themselves. So in that sense, I care, otherwise I feel like I am stealing their time. I just feel like my own being is well independent.

Reading your response though there are things I resonate with both, I think some parts of your response are new to me.

So,

Beta types are not inclined to enjoy discussions of personal experiences when the focus is on a person's own inner feelings, especially when described in a subdued way.
Beta types tend to be skeptical of another individual's potential for personal growth in terms of abilities and character, and dislike being the subject of such a discussion by others about themselves. / clearly does not apply to me.

For Betas atmosphere is more important than specific activity or topic. Groups of betas spend time together to entertain each other. They exchange fun (and often loud) stories to feed the atmosphere, so that the group energy won't run out. People talk fast and they often add comments to other people's stories if they feel that the pace is slowing down. When someone starts to talk, he takes on the obligation to entertain for the duration of the monologue and, in a friendly group, other people only interrupt to try and help him keep control of the atmosphere./ I am like this - a lot- in a group, especially when I am organizing for the reason I mentioned, I do want people to enjoy themselves and be genuine and not repressed, repressed in a sense that they shouldn't feel they can't be loud or laugh too heartily. 

Talking about personal matters in a group is not something that Betas generally do. It's viewed almost as treachery when something that was told in a one-on-one conversation is retold in front of a group, or when someone criticizes another person's traits in front of the group. Betas believe such things should be told in private and should not be used to embarrass or belittle a friend./ This applies a lot too because I am a very private person although yes I talk about myself a lot but I only share my deeper layers with a few and I am not comfortable with everything being retold in a group and when it is about someone else I simply relate to that person even when they are not present in the group because it goes against my ethics.

What I find conflicting about Delta and my behavior:

Groups made up of primarily Delta types* tend to be focused on working on projects, enjoying physical recreation, or finding out interesting things about each other* // *I am not like this at all, I wish to meet people just to enjoy ourselves, experience something new or just have a genuine good time, I tend to disregard meeting with a project. I want the meeting to be the focus itself. I will do my projects on my own in my free ti me rather **Laughter is usually subdued and brief; instead, people smile a lot and try to be witty and welcoming.* // *I honestly don't see how this is Fi, I want people to laugh heartily instead or if they are annoyed they are welcomed to express that, I don't want anyone to be repressed * *Groups need to be focused on some specific productive activity or topic of discussion, or else they fall apart. * // *Not at all, I see my time with others as playtime, I honestly don't like to mix it with any productive activity at all. *In Delta groups, there is a lot of splintering and *decentralization* // *I am okay with some of it but I really want the group to stay together in general. ** This allows for more focused and productive interaction with only those who share your particular interests or sentiments.* // *This is something I do and prefer to, even crave for, but I do this when I am one-on-one with people. * People jump from small group to small group easily to keep up their interest level. No one demands that the entire group listen to one person or that everyone do the same thing. Delta Quadra types believe that if everyone just pursues their own interests and makes some accommodations for others, the group will be better off anyway.* Delta Quadra types do not focusing on building group identity or unity of purpose, but prefer for the group to remain splintered and decentralized.* // *I don't *

And when it comes to romance, I am heavily beta quadra and very anti-delta. Even reading the delta quadra romance leaves a distaste and I really disregard it.








Shadow Logic said:


> Are you asking me why do you relate to the beta quadra? Or why does it say you are part of the beta quadra?
> 
> If the latter, than the answer is that you aren't a part of the beta quadra but the delta quadra. Now understand that these quadras are more so side effects of types than actual properties of types, because they describe behavior more than cognitive functioning.
> 
> ...


----------



## nichya (Jul 12, 2014)

In addition to that:

My friends often say I am domineering, too -passion- driven (yes in a negative way - this seems to bother some), too dramatic, animated, stubborn with strong likes and dislikes so it makes me a difficult person, loud and I see my delta friends -I believe they are delta because their behavior suggests so (mostly INFJs+1 ENFP and +1INFP) as too -muted-, repressed and they always do meet for projects or a common topic such as a course they are taking or to even study together or prepare cards and posters for a seminar, to discuss a book which I find it rude and boring when they begin talking about their very own specific topics in smaller groups. I just feel like I could be elsewhere and at home instead of being bored and if i am organizing I feel like the others are being left out.

Betas want to express their views and opinions very openly, while Deltas want everyone to keep any possibly offensive views to themselves. // I am very much beta according to this, I do want sincerity and I do want to hear peoples ideas and personal views. Again I fail to see how a Fe user would prefer a positive environment and want others to express their views and opinions openly even when it is offensive. Isn't it conflicting?

And I always get that I am outspoken, rebellious, decisive WITH my feelings, wants and likes if not otherwise- and a little aggressive, not in the way that I start a fight but in the sense that I can confront or speak my mind and refuse to do things that I don't like instead of fitting in or being appropriate to the situation


This is me written all over it: 
Beta romantic relationships tend to start from intense exchanges of emotions, either of a playful, aggressive sort, or of a more "tormented" sort based on personal images of special meaning, "romantic" in a 19th-century sense. The two sorts merge together to make Beta the quadra most inclined towards "romantic courtship" in the everyday sense of the term. A relationship is felt to be "lacking" if not accompanied by intense demonstrations of emotions. Romantic relationships are also held together by a sense of common goals and purpose, and of the other person as the best partner towards achieving them. Betas are the most intense of all quadras in terms of exchanges of emotional and sensual interplay.

while this is plain distasteful for me and I fail to see how it is Fi when the intensity, romance and genuine feelings are disregarded and practicality is the key. I never feel low key with someone I am interested in. I do not see how this relates to MBTI romance of INFPs. 


Delta romantic relationships usually begin simply as the encounter of two individuals interested in a relationship and each other in a particular moment, with very little in terms of outward demonstrations of "romance" in the "wooing" sense of the term or in strong external demonstrations of emotions. Deltas are more focused on the present moment than Gammas, and therefore even relationships of very strong attachment do not lead to constant concerns as to their longer-term practical feasibility. Deltas see as optimal romantic relationships those where partners spend time together on fun activities and sharing ideas of potential practical application. Romantic atmospheres are low-key, based on comfort but practicality.


Funny thing is that circle of friends (of mostly INFJs and an ENFP and an INFP) are the ones that show the delta behavior and romance while they voice that I am very beta quadra in a way that only a delta would see me.

That is why this part is confusing for me. The INFP for example, even the others say that she is not like me at all but more like them but not exactly like them either while I see her idealist part but I do agree that her behavior is delta quadra. And one of the INFJs I believe shows beta quadra behaviors although he prefers to put a delta logic to things while making choices even if it falls in conflict with how he feels. And I find one INFJ to be slightly more beta than others. But all in all their behavior and romance is much like delta description while mine fits -mostly- under beta but see? there is the part you brought up that does not fit.

Sorry for additions keep coming up, but it really makes me curious -why- beta quadra fits my behavior so well more than the question of why delta is not fitting well enough.

Well my enneagram is also has a different strike although 4 is very common with INFPs, I get a high 8 among my tritype and of course I am not holding socionics and ennegram the same but it could be telling? Well someone said they believe the delta quadra resonates with enneagram 9 more while beta quadra is temperamental and passionate as a 4. Of course, not explainable with psyche but an observation which I could agree.


----------



## Deus Absconditus (Feb 27, 2011)

nichya said:


> Oh alright, I didn't want to bother you with this anymore but since it is there.
> 
> I made a quick correction just before you posted, I am not sure if it changes the equation: I don't care to create a positive emotional environment (edit: but I prefer to) and I don't think it is essential to my well being, however I do believe that it is essential that people show me their genuine feelings instead.
> 
> ...


They create this atmosphere, and feed into it, because it is essential to their well being that a positive emotional atmosphere is present among groups. If this isn't essential to your well being then this doesn't apply to you.



> Talking about personal matters in a group is not something that Betas generally do. It's viewed almost as treachery when something that was told in a one-on-one conversation is retold in front of a group, or when someone criticizes another person's traits in front of the group. Betas believe such things should be told in private and should not be used to embarrass or belittle a friend./ This applies a lot too because I am a very private person although yes I talk about myself a lot but I only share my deeper layers with a few and I am not comfortable with everything being retold in a group and when it is about someone else I simply relate to that person even when they are not present in the group because it goes against my ethics.


The reason this bothers them is because talking about personal matters in groups tends to dim the emotional atmosphere, especially when personal matters or criticism is present, this prevents a positive emotional atmosphere from thriving which they have a problem with because their well being is dependent on it. You dislike it because it goes against your personal ethics. Still not applicable to you, because the motives are different.



> What I find conflicting about Delta and my behavior:
> 
> Groups made up of primarily Delta types* tend to be focused on working on projects, enjoying physical recreation, or finding out interesting things about each other* // *I am not like this at all, I wish to meet people just to enjoy ourselves, experience something new or just have a genuine good time, I tend to disregard meeting with a project. I want the meeting to be the focus itself. I will do my projects on my own in my free ti me rather *


I dont know, this seems contradictory to what you were saying earlier about organizing events, that sounds like a project to me. Even stating that you want the meeting to be the focus is making it into a project. Also you stated you wanted people to show you their genuine feelings, which would inevitably include finding out interesting things about each other. Also you stated earlier that you like to understand what the other person enjoys so you can find something that both of you can have a good time at, which would imply enjoying a physical recreation.







> *Laughter is usually subdued and brief; instead, people smile a lot and try to be witty and welcoming.* // *I honestly don't see how this is Fi, I want people to laugh heartily instead or if they are annoyed they are welcomed to express that, I don't want anyone to be repressed *


It's not Fi, its Fi-Ne/Te-Si, that this relates to. Fi-Ne would try to be witty and welcoming because Ne is a witty function while Fi personally values wittiness, because of the energy derived from use of Ne which is pleasurable for the Ne-Fi/Fi-Ne user. Laughter is subdued and brief to give room for Ne to be witty, or Te to be engaging. You ma enjoy them to express their laughter, but would you consider it excessive after some point, or too much?



> *Groups need to be focused on some specific productive activity or topic of discussion, or else they fall apart. * // *Not at all, I see my time with others as playtime, I honestly don't like to mix it with any productive activity at all. *In Delta groups, there is a lot of splintering and *decentralization* // *I am okay with some of it but I really want the group to stay together in general. ** This allows for more focused and productive interaction with only those who share your particular interests or sentiments.* // *This is something I do and prefer to, even crave for, but I do this when I am one-on-one with people. *


* 

This is contradictory, at first you say you don't want to mix the interaction with productive activity at all, then you later claim to prefer, and even crave, for the interaction to be productive.

*


> People jump from small group to small group easily to keep up their interest level. No one demands that the entire group listen to one person or that everyone do the same thing. Delta Quadra types believe that if everyone just pursues their own interests and makes some accommodations for others, the group will be better off anyway.* Delta Quadra types do not focusing on building group identity or unity of purpose, but prefer for the group to remain splintered and decentralized.* // *I don't *
> [/B] People jump from small group to small group easily to keep up their interest level. No one demands that the entire group listen to one person or that everyone do the same thing. Delta Quadra types believe that if everyone just pursues their own interests and makes some accommodations for others, the group will be better off anyway.* Delta Quadra types do not focusing on building group identity or unity of purpose, but prefer for the group to remain splintered and decentralized.* // *I don't *
> 
> And when it comes to romance, I am heavily beta quadra and very anti-delta. Even reading the delta quadra romance leaves a distaste and I really disregard it.


What about the romance of delta quadra leaves a distaste in your mouth, and what about the beta quadra do you relate to so heavily? To be fair, Socionics relationship department isn't that accurate, per say.


----------



## nichya (Jul 12, 2014)

The_Wanderer said:


> Dominant does not equal Demonstrative, that is all.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


I think you guys are missing the point completely. 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. If you think you have to start with only reasonable assumptions to make science, I am sorry but you are dead wrong. On the contrary, it is more often used than you think and is indeed used to debunk theories stemming from -reasonable assumptions- only which wouldn't be proven wrong otherwise 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

I really don't understand why people resist any method other than building from bottom to top.

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.


----------



## To_august (Oct 13, 2013)

nichya said:


> What the study believes in: real correlation between the socionic types and the Keirsey types does not exist


I haven't read the whole thread, but I believe barely anyone claimed that Keirseyian types correlate with the Socionics ones. 
The very idea behind the j/p switch is _not _that _descriptions_ between systems correlate, but that MBTI's four functions of a certain type correlate with valued IM elements of another type in Socionics, being located in corresponding positions of corresponding models of those systems.

Otherwise, what's the point in comparing descriptions? Those psychologists could be given descriptions of Chinese zodiac signs, or whatever else descriptions they choose, for comparison with Socionics ones. Surely they would be able to find some similarities and state that there is no significant correlation between them. Imo, it's incorrect to compare systems that significantly differ at their very basis upon which they are built.

I'm not surprised that they choose to completely disregard functions, judgment/perception criterion and the rest of MBTI dichotomies, but instead went out with such simplification as keywords. Socionists do not think highly, putting it mildly, of MBTI's credibility in terms of recognizing functions and their manifestations in real people and deem this system to be all about _dichotomies _particularly.


----------



## Sangmu (Feb 18, 2014)

I sometimes think I like socionics more that MBTI.

I believe some are types directly convertable (INFP = INFj) and others are totally new and you just gotta a roll with it (socionics thinks the archetypical personality we know here as ISTJ doesn't use introverted sensing but introverted logic! LSI isn't meant to be converted to MBTI's ISTP, they're too different in description). This doesn't automatically mean someone "mistyped". Socionics has a totally different way of looking at and assigning functions and it _may_ be a more accurate than MBTI.


----------



## nichya (Jul 12, 2014)

To_august said:


> I haven't read the whole thread, but I believe barely anyone claimed that Keirseyian types correlate with the Socionics ones.
> The very idea behind the j/p switch is _not _that _descriptions_ between systems correlate, but that MBTI's four functions of a certain type correlate with valued IM elements of another type in Socionics, being located in corresponding positions of corresponding models of those systems.
> 
> Otherwise, what's the point in comparing descriptions? Those psychologists could be given descriptions of Chinese zodiac signs, or whatever else descriptions they choose, for comparison with Socionics ones. Surely they would be able to find some similarities and state that there is no significant correlations between them. Imo, it's incorrect to compare systems that significantly differ at their very basis upon which they are built.
> ...


No, it is not the correlation of Keirsey and Socionics.

I believe there is a gap between the descriptions and functions of Socionics. I am not discussing the function level but the profile and quadra level. I have discussed the matter numerous of times in the thread so I won't go in detail.

I am aware of the j/p switch comes from the alignment of the functions I have also mentioned that.

I just think you are missing the point of the experiment and why I posted it here, there are many ways to evaluate a system. It forms an example and a good one in my opinion.

Following the very basis Socionics is built on, the functions, I should be FiNe INFj but using this typing or the functions I can not work it from there up to the profiles, inter-type relationships and quadra behavior. More interestingly, it is not that I am in a limbo either but I do relate to profile, intertype relationships and quadra behavior of INFp tremendously while I just can not with INFj. So there is an experience I can not ignore just because it does not fit in a theory. I have again, explained this point with more examples and observances in former posts.


----------



## Entropic (Jun 15, 2012)

nichya said:


> No, it is not the correlation of Keirsey and Socionics.
> 
> I believe there is a gap between the descriptions and functions of Socionics. I am not discussing the function level but the profile and quadra level. I have discussed the matter numerous of times in the thread so I won't go in detail.
> 
> ...


To be honest, I cannot even grasp at what point you are trying to "grasp at" in the first place. What is the point? That descriptions don't match? Of course descriptions don't match because descriptions will ultimately reflect more upon the person who wrote them and what they think about the types than they necessarily will the actual type in question. I really utterly fail to see why this is a problem because descriptions barely if ever truly tap into the actual functional makeup of the type, and even when they do it's done very shallowly so. Rarely do they reflect back on the structure which defines what the type really is and that _is_ the problem. The system is the *heart and the core*. Without that, all you got are some caricature type portraits that in themselves mean nothing. They could as well be descriptions of your Zodiac sign, or Mars people versus Venus people etc. Why is it so difficult to disconnect from this? They are not supposed to describe anything of value anyway, and they cannot, if they do not tie back to the definitional core of what the type they are trying to describe is. The core is the definition of the pattern, not the description of the pattern. 

Most importantly and the tl;dr question: why isn't this thread dead yet? Why keep beating the dead horse with a stick?


----------



## Deus Absconditus (Feb 27, 2011)

nichya said:


> Well I dont know if this is a shallow definition but I see productivity as working on something and getting things done, probably in an efficient way and having solid output although it might be anything really, so it might differ from a person to a person. For me I will know when I am productive through the deadline of a project as I will simply put more effort in less time or it could be a day I did -something- I like, like seeing -that- movie you wanted to see or shop or read that book, prolly more about not wasting time in my case but also something to do with getting things done.
> 
> Practicality for me is more about daily tasks of life, makes the wheel turning, such as grocery shopping or hands-on application?? Well say you are given some homework if you start doing it right away in an acceptable way I think you are practical but I see productivity as something of more quality, you don't just get things done but you get them done in a more creative way for example. In the relationship sense, where I used it, I see it as two people getting in a relationship because it is more -convenient- say they go the the same department, they study on the same project or they just happen to live closer and that gives them a sense of closeness? I am not sure. Or they help each other with things and that creates a habitual environment?
> 
> ...


So I think your problem is how you are viewing these words that are tripping you up, such as practical. Practical for you is hands on but practical could be used differently under socionics. The same goes with productive, you don't have a complete definition of it, so when it gets brought up in descriptions you have a harder time to relate to it. 



> . Groups need to be focused on some specific productive activity or topic of discussion, or else they fall apart. In Delta groups, there is a lot of splintering and decentralization. *This allows for more focused and productive interaction with only those who share your particular interests or sentiments.*


The word productive in this statement is focused on being able to continue interactions, in order to have productive interactions there must be a topic at hand, or activity that can keep the interactions continous. In other words production in this statement is more so about producing continous interaction with a desired result, either an actual activity or discussing a specific topic. 



> *Delta romantic relationships usually begin simply as the encounter of two individuals interested in a relationship and each other in a particular moment*, with very little in terms of outward demonstrations of "romance" in the "wooing" sense of the term or in strong external demonstrations of emotions.


The bold proves that deltas are spontaneous since their relationshipa start off simply as the encounter between two individuals with shared interests, which is what you have already stated that you crave, a spontaneous relationship that is focused on shared interests. Your need for one on one interactions is clearly tied into you Sx instinctual variant, and is where you feel your most comfortable when it comes to interactions.



> Deltas are more focused on the present moment than Gammas, *and therefore even relationships of very strong attachment do not lead to constant concerns as to their longer-term practical feasibility*. Deltas see as optimal romantic relationships those where partners spend time together on fun activities and sharing ideas of potential practical application.


Also right here it states that Deltas aren't focused on their long term practicality because they are more present moment oriented. The focus isn't to much on implementing practical procedures, but they do focus on sharing their ideas of potential practical application, the key word is potential which can be referred to any idea that could be practical. The deltas focus is also on fun activities which you have already stated to be one of your main focuses in a relationship also. 

So to be honest I think you're taking the words of context, but not just individual words, you are also taking some statements out of context because you don't relate to how you are judging the statement, rather than understanding the statements has and the choice of words within the context given.

I also think you are letting your enneagram cloud your understanding of Jungian functions and types. Understand that both aspects of your personality work in unison with each other, but they do not discount the facts of the other, instead they can blurry the facts. Enneagram 4s are highly romantic idealists, so their relationships will be affected by this, but this does not mean that how your enneagram deals with relationships determines what socionic type you are. You have to separate your understanding of functions, Jungian types apart from your understanding of enneagram and instinctual variants.


----------



## nichya (Jul 12, 2014)

@Shadow Logic Thank you for your opinion. I really appreciate it and I value it. Although I am looking for explanations and I did find your suggestion of me making the events a project for example very relatable, sorry but I fail to see this one. I think this is over-over reading my perception. I honestly can't relate this stemming from the words as I see it clearly in the concept as well. Yes I do relate to this "The bold proves that deltas are spontaneous since their relationships start off simply as the encounter between two individuals with shared interests" where I take the shared interest as how passionate one is about music or if we have that chemistry or that mutual immediate understanding of one another and if the person is as emotional and as romantic as me. But see I can't relate to this "with very little in terms of outward demonstrations of "romance" in the "wooing" sense of the term or in strong external demonstrations of emotions." because I need to feel special for them as well.

Deltas see as optimal romantic relationships those where partners spend time together on fun activities and sharing ideas of potential practical application. - "The deltas focus is also on fun activities which you have already stated to be one of your main focuses in a relationship also. "

Actually I consider fun activities to be something to do with my friends, that is why I mentioned it in the quadra group behavior, I also find myself to have clear distinctions of a friend and a lover. Perhaps that is also the reason why I can't feel that special connection with my friends even when there is a charm and they ask me out. For me, I don't need to engage in fun activities with a lover, it can be a person I share absolutely nothing with but someone who will share a deep connection with me with intense emotions. Sure, I do like going to concerts so it would be a bonus I guess but I usually feel uneasy being in a group with a lover. It doesn't actually count as quality time with a lover nor a fun activity with the group. I want to be alone with the person and feel the intensity and just spend time doing nothing but sharing the emotions and feel like hell is others. It doesn't have to be often but it has to be intense and disconnected from the world. So this of delta quadra actually does not make me not happy: " Romantic atmospheres are low-key, based on comfort but practicality."

And another thing is I relate so much to beta quadra romance style, so I am not sure if it is about me ditching delta for misunderstanding of keywords only really. It goes both ways, on the other hand, beta quadra has me written all over it.

And yes, I am a enneagram 4 and I am also sx/sp so it might be -clouding- it but I don't think I am supposed to separate my being just to view a theory and I seriously doubt I could even if I tried to strip that part of me out just for that purpose. It just doesn't feel right and I am not a clay figure that I can bend and reshape to fit in something that doesn't feel right.

I am aware I am not making this easy and thanks a lot for your guidance I really value your ideas but I am sorry I just can't relate to this one.

And I do try to explain and not fit myself in what I view to be the perfect either, I have taken both the original and the longer version of the tests on that famous site long before I knew about quadras and such and I got INFp on both. 1Fe INFp and 2 Fe INFp whatever they mean, even the shortest one resulted in INFp. Reading comments here and thinking I should be INFj I tweaked my answers and tried again and got INFj once. To be honest I think the tests are too biased. If I weren't comfortable with my functions I would have been mistaken but I feel like the theory and description just governs two separate beings.


----------



## nichya (Jul 12, 2014)

Entropic said:


> To be honest, I cannot even grasp at what point you are trying to "grasp at" in the first place. What is the point? That descriptions don't match? Of course descriptions don't match because descriptions will ultimately reflect more upon the person who wrote them and what they think about the types than they necessarily will the actual type in question. I really utterly fail to see why this is a problem because descriptions barely if ever truly tap into the actual functional makeup of the type, and even when they do it's done very shallowly so. Rarely do they reflect back on the structure which defines what the type really is and that _is_ the problem. The system is the *heart and the core*. Without that, all you got are some caricature type portraits that in themselves mean nothing. They could as well be descriptions of your Zodiac sign, or Mars people versus Venus people etc. Why is it so difficult to disconnect from this? They are not supposed to describe anything of value anyway, and they cannot, if they do not tie back to the definitional core of what the type they are trying to describe is. The core is the definition of the pattern, not the description of the pattern.
> 
> Most importantly and the tl;dr question: why isn't this thread dead yet? Why keep beating the dead horse with a stick?


Well it is refreshing after being preached about the flawlessness of the system and the theory and being a Fe and mistyped person. I do believe the system is well studied on the function level and when I read the reasoning of the inter-type relations and quadras it does make sense but just because you can build something with the building block theories I believe it does not have to be ever-accurate. Like you have mentioned I believe perhaps the descriptions reflect a person's more subjective values and experiences with whom she has believed to be of that type. The system might be heart and the core but there is room still, say when she was building her theories on quadras she might have integrated her experiences as well. I do see that the theories are mostly based on functions but it might as well be motivated by the experience. 

" The core is the definition of the pattern, not the description of the pattern..Why is it so difficult to disconnect from this? "
Well I don't think I have ever opposed to that, actually it is my belief that the theory and description just governs two separate lives- somehow- That is exactly where I want to point out. What bothers me is the lack of the element of randomness. So I can not see this disconnect as something simply as a zodiac sign. What bothers me is the exclusiveness of randomness and other types and the focus.

Also, just because a system is well built on solid grounds it does not mean it is and has to be accurate. That is why again proof by contradiction is a great example. Also you can build anything by adding on theories if you don't have the concern to relate it to real experiences or -descriptions- so it does not hold much value for me if it forms a contradiction to my experience and so many other's experiences or when I see the keywords and overlaps and inconsistencies on the description level. You can generate infinite theories using math, putting building blocks of theories on top of one another and linking assumptions to more assumptions but it is only valuable when it is used to explain or discover or to have some form of application. Something that governs itself as a separate being might be accurate but it does not hold value to all extensions. 

Sure, I do see why socionics is important for specific tasks and how it can be used to evaluate people. But I believe it is more related to functions anyway, if it is a task that requires me to be attentive and alert I wouldn't make the best candidate but a Se-dom an ESTp would. But when the system works higher to relationships and quadras, the system the heart and the core is an idea which requires consistency to become a pattern. So I really don't understand when people ask of me to leave a system alone because it is well built.

I believe there is an unsubscribe option


----------



## The_Wanderer (Jun 13, 2013)

Still sticking to Fi+Ne for yourself @nichya? You're unlike anybody of that type that I know. Online or Off.


----------



## nichya (Jul 12, 2014)

The_Wanderer said:


> Still sticking to Fi+Ne for yourself @nichya? You're unlike anybody of that type that I know. Online or Off.


I don't even know you and you definitely don't know me and btw we past that phase, I guess you missed it because you don't like long texts. How I love when you jump out of the blue and tell me what I am random person but I find the content of your posts pretty much repeating itself. I believe your doubt might be stemming from the lack of Fi and Ne I see in you but who am I to tell? And I don't want to know. You are free to run in circles.


----------



## The_Wanderer (Jun 13, 2013)

I do kindly request with the utmost sincerity that you consider the possibility that it is _not_ my intention to be hostile, as it is seemingly clear that you are reacting in this way. Possibly, just maybe, I might be suggesting alternative perspectives; an individuals perspective of themselves is rarely the most objective. 



nichya said:


> I believe your doubt might be stemming from the lack of Fi and Ne I see in you.


Please explain. I eagerly await your response.


----------



## nichya (Jul 12, 2014)

The_Wanderer said:


> Please explain. I eagerly await your response.


Maybe you should refer to previous posts so that you won't repeat yourself and run the thread in circles without suggesting anything new. Don't take my words out of context, I told you I don't believe in trying to type a random person I know nothing of and I am not even interested. But I rarely find you speaking your own mind without referring another that you seem to believe is knowledgeable and taking sides and when you do, the content or the lack of I must say is bothering me especially when it keeps repeating itself and is rigid and closed to discussion anyway.


----------



## nichya (Jul 12, 2014)

The_Wanderer said:


> I do kindly request with the utmost sincerity that you consider the possibility that it is _not_ my intention to be hostile, as it is seemingly clear that you are reacting in this way. Possibly, just maybe, I might be suggesting alternative perspectives; an individuals perspective of themselves is rarely the most objective.


I would be happy if you could work on your language and refrain from making -clear cut judgments- while trying to suggest alternatives and perhaps care to read previous threads for a change?


----------



## The_Wanderer (Jun 13, 2013)

I'll refrain from responding to personal attacks and stuff. 



nichya said:


> But I rarely find you speaking your own mind without referring another that you seem to believe is knowledgeable and taking sides and when you do


I think this seems to indicate a weak-but-valued Te, what do you think? I won't disagree with this observation though. I like efficient, knowledgeable and factually correct individuals. I don't see it as "taking sides" so much as agreeing with the argument that is efficient and factual.

How would _you_ define Fi? Is it as simple as "speaking your mind and being indifferent to the input of others?". I want to see _your personal definition_ so I can see how it correlates to other information sources, would you be against this?



nichya said:


> I would be happy if you could work on your language and refrain from making -clear cut judgments- while trying to suggest alternatives and perhaps care to read previous threads for a change?


What is wrong with my language? is it unclear, nonsensical and hard to understand? Or do you find it to be offensive and violating? 

I admit I've been following this thread and reading most responses, I do to an extent glaze over your long paragraphs; not because they're long, but because there doesn't seem to be viable or practical alternatives or new information proposed. 

Type descriptions rarely perfectly match in the systems themselves, because they are written by different individuals relaying information through their own, individual, subjective viewpoint. I don't see what you propose by noting they don't match in differing systems - it seems to me (I don't mean to offend here) obvious and superfluous. 

I would be happy if you could be a bit more clear about what you're doing, I don't seem to be the only one having trouble making sense of what your actual point is.


----------



## To_august (Oct 13, 2013)

nichya said:


> I believe there is a gap between the descriptions and functions of Socionics. I am not discussing the function level but the profile and quadra level. I have discussed the matter numerous of times in the thread so I won't go in detail.


I don't know then what the argument is all about.
Yes, descriptions are far from being perfect, but so they are in MBTI (let alone Keirsey... ugh). I personally relate more to INTJ descriptions in MBTI and LII/LSI in Socionics, but that doesn't make me Ni or Ti dom. 
It can be fun to rant on descriptions, but why fixate on them? They do not represent the absolute truth and can not substitute cognitive basis of the theory framework. If one properly understood the system, its model, meaning of the elements, how they interact with each other - type, quadra, intertype relationship and all the rest should fall in place.


----------



## ruskiix (Sep 28, 2013)

MNiS said:


> I think their (nichya and ruskiix) Socionics self-typings are correct. They're just mistyped in MBTI and refuse to admit it for whatever personal reasons they have. Considering IxxP <--> IxxJ are pretty common mistypes in MBTI it shouldn't really come as a surprise. Heck, I thought I was an ENTP but tested INTJ when I first started learning MBTI! :shocked:
> 
> As for explaining why, there are a lot of good reasons why. You just have to pick one and run with it.  Maybe because the functions aren't so different that the two systems aren't incompatible on a functions level. It's just that the MBTI tert and inferior are so ambiguous that one could make the argument that they're either the DS and HA or role and polr.


Not even close to catching up on this thread but if you think I'm mistyped with MBTI but not socionics, I'd love your feedback to my "what type am I" survey.

http://personalitycafe.com/whats-my-personality-type/410250-confirm-im-infj-infj-please.html

I've never had a single person suggest I could be INFP but I'd be genuinely interested in an argument for it with my answers there. I didn't get more than one person answering there, and it seems like it could be very helpful for anyone thinking I'm just mistyping myself to actually show me how and where I'm making the mistakes, with actual personal examples.


----------



## ruskiix (Sep 28, 2013)

And before I try to sort through this insane thread to catch up, I'd just like to add that I personally think my conflict comes from being an enneagram 1 INFJ, which makes me act more like an Fi type, I think. But all of my internal standards/opinions/feelings/whatever you want to call the internal compass of Fi come from Fe. Just Fe I've made myself closely monitor and control and filter over the years. I have trouble imagining how else an enneagram 1 Fe user could look--everything I come up with is much more 2ish.


----------



## ruskiix (Sep 28, 2013)

Entropic said:


> To be honest, this thread is giving me a headache and I am not sure I really have sufficient intellectual interest to really arse to straight out this fucking mess. I'm likely going to spend more energy than what I will gain from doing that.


Does that include not spending energy skimming my answers to that survey? Not looking for an argument in that thread. It's just the first time I've ever answered a "type me" survey here, I think.


----------

