# MBTI INFJ = Socionics INFp?



## nichya

Tellus said:


> Okay, but this is not related to type conversion.


How is it -not- related?


----------



## Jeremy8419

nichya said:


> How is it -not- related?


People are just recognizing what they observer in situations, without acknowledging the situations themselves. They're just typing what they observe, independent of context, and calling it the Ego. It's basically them simply typing MBTI and putting a "Socionics" sticker over it. Most even refuse to acknowledge the reality of the differences in behaviors online and in real life, let alone the situations which exist around individuals being online. Try not to let it get to you, especially since you already easily grasped what they seem incapable of doing.


----------



## Tellus

Jeremy8419 said:


> It happens with both. There simply isn't any sort of switch on direct conversion between systems on that aspect, so people more easily assume the factuality of the conversion.


We aren't really interested in a direct conversion between the systems. We want to know a person's best-fit type in a) MBTI and b) Socionics.


----------



## Tellus

Jeremy8419 said:


> People are just recognizing what they observer in situations, without acknowledging the situations themselves. They're just typing what they observe, independent of context, and calling it the Ego. It's basically them simply typing MBTI and putting a "Socionics" sticker over it. Most even refuse to acknowledge the reality of the differences in behaviors online and in real life, let alone the situations which exist around individuals being online. Try not to let it get to you, especially since you already easily grasped what they seem incapable of doing.


Do you acknowledge that Ego exist?

If yes, then you have either observed a trait that corresponds to Ego or you haven't. There are only two options.

Everything else is irrelevant.


----------



## Jeremy8419

Tellus said:


> We aren't really interested in a direct conversion between the systems. We want to know a person's best-fit type in a) MBTI and b) Socionics.


Oh, that's easy. MBTI is simply whatever element pair you're currently using.

Socionics type is simply whatever element pair you're currently using in relation to the present situation.


----------



## Jeremy8419

Tellus said:


> Do you acknowledge that Ego exist?
> 
> If yes, then you have either observed a trait that corresponds to Ego or you haven't. There are only two options.
> 
> Everything else is irrelevant.


Exist? In what sense? It's not a factual thing outside of a discussion in which you're treating it as something which actually exists, if that's what you're asking. It's no different than discussing astrology and stating someone is such-and-such because their natal chart is so-and-so; it's something known to not actually exist, but is capable of being discussed under the premise of if it did exist.

That said, Ego is that which we confidently supply to society through conscious effort when free from the effects of environmental and/or social sense of danger to our personal well-being.


----------



## Tellus

Jeremy8419 said:


> Oh, that's easy. MBTI is simply whatever element pair you're currently using.
> 
> Socionics type is simply whatever element pair you're currently using in relation to the present situation.


You keep coming up with new definitions of type  A type is defined by the two functions that are easiest to process consciously.


----------



## Aurus

Tellus said:


> You keep coming up with new definitions of type  A type is defined by the two functions that are easiest to process consciously.


It depends on the individual. 
It's not just because you have X-W-Y-Z functions that means that X-W-Y-Z are used or are perceived as developed in that exact order.
I am an Ni-Fe-Ti-Se but i can be really perceived sometimes as Ni-Te or Ne-Fi because i have an extremely well developed Ti, therefore i might come across as an Te user or Ne-Ti instead of Ni-Fe-Ti . And i am sure that i am not the only one that has this trait. That's probably the reason why i am an ILE in Socionics.


----------



## Tellus

Aurus said:


> It depends on the individual.
> It's not just because you have X-W-Y-Z functions that means that X-W-Y-Z are used or are perceived as developed in that exact order.
> I am an Ni-Fe-Ti-Se but i can be really perceived sometimes as Ni-Te or Ne-Fi because i have an extremely well developed Ti, therefore i might come across as an Te user or Ne-Ti instead of Ni-Fe-Ti . And i am sure that i am not the only one that has this trait. That's probably the reason why i am an ILE in Socionics.


No, it does not depend on the individual. Nobody has two Leading functions.

"That is probably _why I get typed_ ILE in Socionics". If the dominant structure of your psyche is NiFe, then it cannot suddenly change to NeTi. That would require brain surgery.


----------



## Aurus

Tellus said:


> No, it does not depend on the individual. Nobody has two Leading functions.
> 
> "That is probably _why I get typed_ ILE in Socionics". If the dominant structure of your psyche is NiFe, then it cannot suddenly change to NeTi. That would require brain surgery.


LOL, you didn't understood what i was trying to say xD
I wasn't saying that you can have two leading functions. I was saying that sometimes an individual can have *a very well developed function that is maybe tertiary*,* i didn't said it was going to change the structure*. But yes, it does depend on the individual. Otherwise every INFJ would behave the same, think the same, be the same and would be typed the same in every single test. But this isn't the case because everyone is different. Even if i am typed the same type as someone in every single typology test, we would still be very different. You wanting it or not, agreeing with my opinion or not, it is right to say that every single test depends on the particular psyche of the individual.


> "Socionics is a theory of how individuals select and process information. It can be categorized as a type of nomothetic psychology. Although information metabolism is at the theory's most elementary level, most applications of socionics focus on the direct and indirect manifestations of a person's information metabolism. This primarily includes studying the effect of information metabolism on one's personality (behavior, mannerisms, etc.), but it also extends to studying interpersonal relationship dynamics, group dynamics, potential careers, societal role, and more. Socionics has 16 sociotypes, with each sociotype representing a specific and unique mode of information metabolism. A person only has one sociotype." - http://www.sociotype.com/socionics/"


Even if my Myer Briggs type says that i am Ni-Fe-Ti-Se i can process information and act in society differently from this. So yes, it does depend in the individual because *MYERS BRIGGS IS SUBSTANTIALLY DIFFERENT FROM SOCIONICS.*
Guys, never forget what Jung said about *his own method*:* "Every individual is an exception to the rule".*


----------



## Tellus

Aurus said:


> LOL, you didn't understood what i was trying to say xD
> I wasn't saying that you can have two leading functions. I was saying that sometimes an individual can have *a very well developed function that is maybe tertiary*,* i didn't said it was going to change the structure*. But yes, it does depend on


But we are not talking about the exact structure of your psyche. We are trying to determine your type, so only function 1 and function 2 are relevant.


----------



## Aurus

Tellus said:


> But we are not talking about the exact structure of your psyche. We are trying to determine your type, so only function 1 and function 2 are relevant.


Not entirely true for Socionics.
I think that having such a minimalistic view for Socionics it's what drives people away from it.
You have 8 functions in total and they are all distributed in 4 blocks that map out the human way to process information , apply it and act it in a social situation. I think that if you REALLY want an actual relevant and meaningful interpretation of Socionics you should look into the full spectrum of your cognitive functions. 
What do you think?


----------



## Jeremy8419

Tellus said:


> You keep coming up with new definitions of type  A type is defined by the two functions that are easiest to process consciously.


On the contrary, I am using definitions of Socionics within the discussion on Socionics. It is commonly accepted that the creators of Socionics are ILE within Socionics, and the creators of MBTI are INFJ and INFP within MBTI. If we then treat your assertion that the two are equivalently convertible as fact, then this would place the creators of MBTI as IEI and EII, respectively. Thus, by your own assertions, the logical systems of the creators of Socionics within the context of Socionics are Situational Parameter, and the logical systems of the creators of MBTI within the context of Socionics are Normative Parameter.

Congratulations. You've now successfully proven that not only can the two not be translated bi-directionally, but also that MBTI can be contained within Socionics under the pretense that it is one of many potential situations within a system of observable traits categorized by situations and devoid of the ability to recognize a singular reference point in time, the Time Parameter.

Therefore;
MBTI: Ability to categorize currently observable traits of individuals without consideration of specific situation and without consideration of specific reference point in time
Socionics: Ability to categorize observable traits of individuals with consideration of specific situation and without consideration of specific reference point in time
Unknown: Ability to categorize observable traits of individuals with consideration of specific situation and with consideration of specific reference point in time


----------



## Tellus

Aurus said:


> Not entirely true for Socionics.
> I think that having such a minimalistic view for Socionics it's what drives people away from it.
> You have 8 functions in total and they are all distributed in 4 blocks that map out the human way to process information , apply it and act it in a social situation. I think that if you REALLY want a actual relevant and meaningful interpretation of Socionics you should look into the full spectrum of your cognitive functions.
> What do you think?


Do you want to redefine metres or yards as well? ... so that your metre is a third of the remaining 7.4 billion people's definition.


----------



## Aurus

Jeremy8419 said:


> On the contrary, I am using definitions of Socionics within the discussion on Socionics. It is commonly accepted that *the creators of Socionics are ILE within Socionics, and the creators of MBTI are INFJ and INFP within MBTI.* If we then treat your assertion that the two are equivalently convertible as fact, then this would place the creators of MBTI as IEI and EII, respectively. Thus, by your own assertions, the logical systems of the creators of Socionics within the context of Socionics are Situational Parameter, and the logical systems of the creators of MBTI within the context of Socionics are Normative Parameter.
> 
> Congratulations. You've now successfully proven that not only can the two not be translated bi-directionally, but also that MBTI can be contained within Socionics under the pretense that it is one of many potential situations within a system of observable traits categorized by situations and devoid of the ability to recognize a singular reference point in time, the Time Parameter.
> 
> Therefore;
> MBTI: Ability to categorize currently observable traits of individuals without consideration of specific situation and without consideration of specific reference point in time
> Socionics: Ability to categorize observable traits of individuals with consideration of specific situation and without consideration of specific reference point in time
> Unknown: Ability to categorize observable traits of individuals with consideration of specific situation and with consideration of specific reference point in time


I completely agree with you.
But the bolded part... I must tell you that i actually smiled because i am an ILE in Socionics and INFJ in MBTI.
And i completely agree with the last part, because the actual specifics (which by the end of the day it is what really matters in one's personality) can't be explained. 
And in my personal opinion you can be any type in MBTi and have any type in Socionics. In my honest opinion you could easily be and ENFP in MBTI and end up being types as an SEI (ISFP equivalent) in Socionics.


----------



## Tellus

Jeremy8419 said:


> If we then treat your assertion that the two are equivalently convertible as fact,


Huh? We are talking about 'best-fit type', we are not converting anything.


----------



## Aurus

Tellus said:


> Do you want to redefine metres or yards as well? ... so that your metre is a third of the remaining 7.4 billion people's definition.


Why not both? 
But i am not redefining anything, i am just proposing a full and meaningful analysis of every variable on the equation. Not just the ones that gives a high odds of an accurate type. 

Lol, i love this!


----------



## Tellus

Aurus said:


> Why not both?
> But i am not redefining anything, i am just proposing a full and meaningful analysis of every variable on the equation. Not just the ones that gives a high odds of an accurate type.
> 
> Lol, i love this!


Fine... but then you realize that either INFJ or ILE (or both) is incorrect .


----------



## Aurus

Tellus said:


> Fine... but then you realize that either INFJ or ILE (or both) is incorrect .


Why do you think so? I identify a lot with Myer Brigss INFJ and a lot with ILE in Socionics. And the INFJ overview in MBTI is really similar of ILE in Socionics.


----------



## Jeremy8419

Aurus said:


> I completely agree with you.
> But the bolded part... I must tell you that i actually smiled because i am an ILE in Socionics and INFJ in MBTI.
> And i completely agree with the last part, because the actual specifics (which by the end of the day it is what really matters in one's personality) can't be explained.
> And in my personal opinion you can be any type in MBTi and have any type in Socionics. In my honest opinion you could easily be and ENFP in MBTI and end up being types as an SEI (ISFP equivalent) in Socionics.


Yes. MBTI may go into Socionics when considering the situation surrounding the typing in MBTI. In your case, it would mean that the situation you are considering when typing in MBTI would be one of your two greatest weaknesses and one of your two greatest strengths, 1D and 4D, respectively.

Given that the creators of MBTI consider Norms, but fail to address the situation, it is relatively safe to place them as one of the 2D Ti TIM's within Socionics.

In example, when querying someone on aspects to determine their MBTI type, does the subject consider themselves under stressful negative pressure that they are consciously aware of and thus answering through at least part of the Super-Ego? Or do they consider themselves in a safe situation with familiars, free to exercise their conscious strengths, and thus answering through the Ego? From empirical testing, I have asked several SEE complete strangers to test in MBTI and had them type as solid ENFP, yet after further discussion and becoming familiar with each other, had them reject IEE typings and unambiguously attest to SEE, which places their MBTI as the situation of Role+Creative in their Socionics TIM of SEE.


----------



## Tellus

Aurus said:


> Why do you think so? I identify a lot with Myer Brigss INFJ and a lot with ILE in Socionics. And the INFJ overview in MBTI is really similar of ILE in Socionics.


What is the most obvious and most important part of your personality? The dominant function. Let's say you spend at least 50% of your time processing that function. If you are INFJ in MBTI and ILE in Socionics then Ni (mbti) must be very similar to Ne (Socionics). Do you think the descriptions of Ni in MBTI correspond to the descriptions of Ne in Socionics?


----------



## Jeremy8419

Tellus said:


> What is the most obvious and most important part of your personality? The dominant function. Let's say you spend at least 50% of your time processing that function. If you are INFJ in MBTI and ILE in Socionics then Ni (mbti) must be very similar to Ne (Socionics). Do you think the descriptions of Ni in MBTI correspond to the descriptions of Ne in Socionics?


Oh. I see what the problem is. I'm not going to speak for someone else's type, but your problem seems to be that you're mistaking MBTI for something which it isn't. MBTI is an assessment. You're assessed, and that's it. Try not expanding things to outside of their proper scope of application, and you should be able to understand things easier.


----------



## nichya

Tellus said:


> Do you want to redefine metres or yards as well? ... so that your metre is a third of the remaining 7.4 billion people's definition.


Excatly. At times like these, people, please remember socionics is definition of mainly one and MBTI of another (or two if that will please your precision )


----------



## nichya

Because MBTI doesn't even mention the ID and socionics does not consider how strong it might be all the while not quite separating it from the ego, people are working a Model G so that they can emphasis the role and strength of the ID function, surprise surprise another manmade theory, I doubt it will be the next big thing but it is on spot for now where the current models do not suffice. Their podcasts are over 2.5 hours each though so I have just read the main part about strengths what this guy mentions in the video, I assume it was shot before they work on the model, although simplistic I find it on spot. It is not hard sciences it will never be precise or accurate enough. I really don't think socionics die hard fans understand just because the theory is consistent in itself is the truth. That being said, yes I don't think there will be elaborate differences, e.g. I don't think an NF MBTI will be an NT on socionics, they might however have a -seemingly- high Ti or an illusion of it if they are overcompensating their tertiary etc. Some types are quite interchangable though due to this whole ego, ID confusion e.g. INFj INFp


----------



## Tellus

nichya said:


> Because MBTI doesn't even mention the ID and socionics does not consider how strong it might be all the while not quite separating it from the ego, people are working a Model G so that they can emphasis the role and strength of the ID function, surprise surprise another manmade theory, I doubt it will be the next big thing but it is on spot for now where the current models do not suffice. Their podcasts are over 2.5 hours each though so I have just read the main part about strengths what this guy mentions in the video, I assume it was shot before they work on the model, although simplistic I find it on spot. It is not hard sciences it will never be precise or accurate enough. I really don't think socionics die hard fans understand just because the theory is consistent in itself is the truth. That being said, yes I don't think there will be elaborate differences, e.g. I don't think an NF MBTI will be an NT on socionics, they might however have a -seemingly- high Ti or an illusion of it if they are overcompensating their tertiary etc. Some types are quite interchangable though due to this whole ego, ID confusion e.g. INFj INFp


*The functions are ordered from the most conscious to the least conscious, so strength or preference is irrelevant. ID is still irrelevant.*

I like Leon but he is confused as well, sorry. Preference equates to strength. Valued functions is a hugely misinterpreted concept in Socionics.

This is accurate (don't add or subtract anything!!!):

Verbal (discursive) functions, 1 2 5 6 (or overvalued) belong to clusters of ego and super-Id. They provide the active exchange of information between people. Information on these functions is interesting, and easily discussed. They tend to self-development. 

Non-verbal (working, cooperative) functions, 3 4 7 8 - belong to the blocks of super-ego and id. Aspects of these functions are not negotiable, prefer to receive help through action, deeds. Activity is limited to immediate needs and demands of society.


----------



## Tellus

Jeremy8419 said:


> Oh. I see what the problem is. I'm not going to speak for someone else's type, but your problem seems to be that you're mistaking MBTI for something which it isn't. MBTI is an assessment. You're assessed, and that's it. Try not expanding things to outside of their proper scope of application, and you should be able to understand things easier.


Are you trying to use the Jedi mind trick on me? LOL

You are dead wrong, again. MBTI is an assessment which indicates the structures of someone's psyche.


http://www.myersbriggs.org/my-mbti-personality-type/mbti-basics/

The purpose of the Myers-Briggs Type Indicator® (MBTI®) personality inventory is to make the theory of psychological types described by C. G. Jung understandable and useful in people's lives. The essence of the theory is that much seemingly random variation in the behavior is actually quite orderly and consistent, being due to basic differences in the ways individuals prefer to use their perception and judgment.


----------



## Aurus

Tellus said:


> What is the most obvious and most important part of your personality? The dominant function. Let's say you spend at least 50% of your time processing that function. If you are INFJ in MBTI and ILE in Socionics then Ni (mbti) must be very similar to Ne (Socionics). Do you think the descriptions of Ni in MBTI correspond to the descriptions of Ne in Socionics?


Yes, i do think so. And in Socionics proposal, i think i fit in better in ILE, but in MBTI proposal i fit in better with INFJ type.

Ne from Socionics pov


> Ne is generally associated with the ability to recognize possibilities, create new opportunities and new beginnings, recognize talent and natural propensities in others, reconcile differing perspectives and viewpoints, rapidly generate ideas, and be led by one's intellectual curiosity and stimulate curiosity in others. - See more at: Socionics Information Elements: Ne


Ni from MBTI pov


> They enjoy tinkering with ideas, perspectives, theories, visions, stories, symbols, and metaphors. Their dominant function, Introverted Intuition (Ni), serves as the veritable foundation for this inner playhouse [...] To the rational mind, two contradictory assertions cannot simultaneously coexist; one of the them must be rendered false. But according to Jung, the unconscious, through it’s innate creativity, is adept at reconciling opposites and transcending paradoxes. - See more at  Introverted Intuition (Ni)


They are very much alike, in my opinion.



Jeremy8419 said:


> Oh. I see what the problem is. I'm not going to speak for someone else's type, but your problem seems to be that you're mistaking MBTI for something which it isn't. MBTI is an assessment. You're assessed, and that's it. Try not expanding things to outside of their proper scope of application, and you should be able to understand things easier.


Yes, exactly. MBTI and Socionics are two different things. And as you said, in MBTI you're assessed, Socionics is more into the way of how you process and interprets information + social assessment. Two different things


----------



## greco

In most cases, MTBI INFP is socionics INFj. Similarly with all introvert types. 

I am an ILI (INTp) and INTJ in MBTI. Much confusion and exceptionalist arguments to this stem, I suspect, from the fact that many of the INTJs in the cafe are mistyped as such, and probably the same goes with all other types


----------



## Jeremy8419

Tellus said:


> Are you trying to use the Jedi mind trick on me? LOL
> 
> You are dead wrong, again. MBTI is an assessment which indicates the structures of someone's psyche.
> 
> 
> The Myers & Briggs Foundation - MBTIÂ® Basics
> 
> The purpose of the Myers-Briggs Type Indicator® (MBTI®) personality inventory is to make the theory of psychological types described by C. G. Jung understandable and useful in people's lives. The essence of the theory is that much seemingly random variation in the behavior is actually quite orderly and consistent, being due to basic differences in the ways individuals prefer to use their perception and judgment.


You're confusing two separate concepts internally, Tellus. MBTI is an assessment of the present, not the ongoing dynamic nature of personality. Although such a system would be considered inappropriate to the context in which you wish to apply, it is actually quite useful on a practical level. It's means of simply assessing the present situation is invaluable in the business world, where it is utilized to assess the present work situation from an interpersonal personality perspective. What you have done, unknowingly, is simply transposed the proper application of Socionics onto MBTI. It's not inherently "wrong," but when discussing two different things, you must remember the proper scope of application, or you lose any attempts to properly communicate your questions and concerns to others.

Treat things as they are, not as how you wish them to be, and recognize the differences between the two, or you will find yourself out of touch with reality and without the proper tools to return to such.


----------



## Tellus

Aurus said:


> Yes, i do think so. And in Socionics proposal, i think i fit in better in ILE, but in MBTI proposal i fit in better with INFJ type.
> 
> Ne from Socionics pov
> 
> Ni from MBTI pov
> 
> They are very much alike, in my opinion.


I disagree... 

_Ni is about visions, stories, symbols, and metaphors, 

but Ne is about recognize talent and natural propensities in others bility to recognize possibilities, create new opportunitie

_Ne is creative, Ni is about fantasy/scenario thinking

...and besides these rather poor descriptions, you must consider the 'e' and 'i' in Ne an Ni. Perhaps they mean something...


----------



## Jeremy8419

greco said:


> In most cases, MTBI INFP is socionics INFj. Similarly with all introvert types.
> 
> I am an ILI (INTp) and INTJ in MBTI. Much confusion and exceptionalist arguments to this stem, I suspect, from the fact that many of the INTJs in the cafe are mistyped as such, and probably the same goes with all other types


Actually, the primary confusion is that too many people base their own validity and worth on their appearance to and acceptance by others. If you're assessed in MBTI as a type, that's what you presently are in the current situation. People confusing their own situation for those of others, and the subsequent expansion of scope of application to validate their own situation, leads people into a downward spiral of internal confliction between parties of already weakened internal fortitude.


----------



## Tellus

Jeremy8419 said:


> You're confusing two separate concepts internally, Tellus. MBTI is an assessment of the present, not the ongoing dynamic nature of personality.


No, no, no ... MBTI _is_ an assessment of "ongoing nature of personality". You must distinguish between their intention and the actual test results. Their intention is most certainly to assess someone's innate type, not just to get a some daily evaluation. Furthermore, I really doubt that "assessment of the present" is a problem. You are implying that the tests results for an individual vary from day to day, which I don't believe for a second.


----------



## Aurus

Tellus said:


> I disagree...
> 
> _Ni is about visions, stories, symbols, and metaphors,
> 
> but Ne is about recognize talent and natural propensities in others bility to recognize possibilities, create new opportunitie
> 
> _Ne is creative, Ni is about fantasy/scenario thinking
> 
> ...and besides these rather poor descriptions, you must consider the 'e' and 'i' in Ne an Ni. Perhaps they mean something...


You're right, they were quite poor. But those were brief sections of a full assessment on Ni and Ne. But i think that you could be both in different situations/proposals. In MBTI assessment i obviously am (obvious to me and people close to me) Ni dom- Fe sec. And in Socionics approach (information processing internally and socially) i clearly am Ne dom - Ti sec. And it can be analysed as in a more natural state of mind i use my Ti less than Fe, and i am more introspective and reflective. But professionally and intellectually i can be more creative and argumentative (Ne) and rational and theoretical (Ti). It really depend on the situation if you ask me.


----------



## Jeremy8419

Tellus said:


> No, no, no ... MBTI _is_ an assessment of "ongoing nature of personality". You must distinguish between their intention and the actual test results. Their intention is most certainly to assess someone's innate type, not just to get a some daily evaluation. Furthermore, I really doubt that "assessment of the present" is a problem. You are implying that the tests results for an individual vary from day to day, which I don't believe for a second.


You're incorrect.

Also, you should look into why MBTI is not considered a legitimate part of the psychiatric community. The test results do change for individuals. As I mentioned previously, yours appears to maintain consistent to you, because you unknowingly internally expanded the scope of application into the realm of 3D Ti, which is the realm of Socionics.


----------



## greco

Jeremy8419 said:


> You're incorrect.
> 
> Also, you should look into why MBTI is not considered a legitimate part of the psychiatric community. The test results do change for individuals. As I mentioned previously, yours appears to maintain consistent to you, because you unknowingly internally expanded the scope of application into the realm of 3D Ti, which is the realm of Socionics.


Last night, I was present to a long meeting-lecture of 40-odd psychoanalysts and psychiatrists. If you had witnessed, as I did, the degree to which they struggled with basic Jungian concepts, not to mention the outright dangerous assumptions that some of them held on pretty fundamental things such as the necessity of possessing and using a personal moral compass, you would attach much less weight to what the "community" considers legitimate on the basis of adequate utility or (I am afraid) on almost any basis.


----------



## Tellus

Jeremy8419 said:


> You're incorrect.
> 
> Also, you should look into why MBTI is not considered a legitimate part of the psychiatric community. The test results do change for individuals.


Big Five and MBTI are fundamentally different. Big Five includes emotions and more "dichotomies", but that does not mean MBTI is conceptually incorrect. It just means that MBTI isn't very usable for psychologists and psychiatrists.

No, I don't think the test results change for individuals. Online tests yes, the official test no.

You want to restrict the MBTI type to be "whatever you got on the official test"... and that's fine. We can differentiate between Jungian type and MBTI, no problem. However, you are contradicting yourself (again) since you were talking about MBTI and functions in previous posts.

Post 54:

"Mental/Vital doesn't exist in Jung nor MBTI, nor do any of the blocks. Someone can be one thing in MBTI and different in Socionics, because Socionics considers the situation involved with the observable type. *Someone being Fi-Ne in MBTI* could be a multitude of different types in Socionics due to such, and both types be accurate. If one spends the majority of their time in Super-Id in Socionics, they will maintain the appropriate Sociotype, while their MBTI type will be completely different since it does not consider anything besides the present mode of the individual."

Post 34:

"MBTI isn't about the functions. Don't try and turn it into something it's not."


----------



## Jeremy8419

greco said:


> Last night, I was present to a long meeting-lecture of 40-odd psychoanalysts and psychiatrists. If you had witnessed, as I did, the degree to which they struggled with basic Jungian concepts, not to mention the outright dangerous assumptions that some of them held on pretty fundamental things such as the necessity of possessing and using a personal moral compass, you would attach much less weight to what the "community" considers legitimate on the basis of adequate utility or (I am afraid) on almost any basis.


You're agreeing that they give it no weight. Jung isn't used in modern psychiatry. His studies are something you learn for history behind modern psychiatry, not something you currently use in practice.


----------



## Jeremy8419

Tellus said:


> Big Five and MBTI are fundamentally different. Big Five includes emotions and more "dichotomies", but that does not mean MBTI is conceptually incorrect. It just means that MBTI isn't very usable for psychologists and psychiatrists.
> 
> No, I don't think the test results change for individuals. Online tests yes, the official test no.
> 
> You want to restrict the MBTI type to be "whatever you got on the official test"... and that's fine. We can differentiate between Jungian type and MBTI, no problem. However, you are contradicting yourself (again) since you were talking about MBTI and functions in previous posts.
> 
> Post 54:
> 
> "Mental/Vital doesn't exist in Jung nor MBTI, nor do any of the blocks. Someone can be one thing in MBTI and different in Socionics, because Socionics considers the situation involved with the observable type. *Someone being Fi-Ne in MBTI* could be a multitude of different types in Socionics due to such, and both types be accurate. If one spends the majority of their time in Super-Id in Socionics, they will maintain the appropriate Sociotype, while their MBTI type will be completely different since it does not consider anything besides the present mode of the individual."
> 
> Post 34:
> 
> "MBTI isn't about the functions. Don't try and turn it into something it's not."


You do not think? It's already empirically studied.

To be clear, I am restricting nothing. I am using the system within proper context. You are set on leaving the objectivity of the subject matter at hand and are considering your opinions to be factual, which they are not. If you want to discuss the systems on a theoretical basis of expanding their scopes to being outside of their proper scope of application, we may do so, but only under the clear understanding and agreement that we are discussing our own opinions and interpretations of such, and not what the systems factually are.


----------



## Tellus

Jeremy8419 said:


> If one spends the majority of their time in Super-Id in Socionics


You are really clueless... Jung's and Aushra's models would be pointless.


----------



## Jeremy8419

Tellus said:


> You are really clueless... Jung's and Aushra's models would be pointless.


Tellus, it may serve you well to look at the nature of the threads you start and the St behind them.


----------



## Endologic

Entropic said:


> lol.
> 
> EII=INFj
> IEI=INFp
> 
> Nice try though.


Wtf

Thanks for making me realize. #dyslexia

I already knew, that
IEI means Intuitive Ethical Introvert, meaning Intuition comes first, meaing INFJ/INFp
EII means Ethical Intuitive Introvert, meaing Feelings come first, meaning INFP/INFj.

I just got them mixed up.


----------



## Tellus

Emologic said:


> I'm done. If you can't grasp something this simple, it's simply not possible to carry on a conversation with you.


Nice to see an LII on this forum. We are not spoiled with logic as you probably have noticed


----------



## Entropic

Emologic said:


> Wtf
> 
> Thanks for making me realize. #dyslexia
> 
> I already knew, that
> IEI means Intuitive Ethical Introvert, meaning Intuition comes first, meaing INFJ/INFp
> EII means Ethical Intuitive Introvert, meaing Feelings come first, meaning INFP/INFj.
> 
> I just got them mixed up.


Yes, it happens. I tend to think of it as leading with a J function=j, and leading with a P function=p. Most of all I avoid using the lower case j/p precisely because it just adds confusion. The three-letter code is more than sufficient.


----------



## elegant.poupee

Hi, everyone! I'm rather new to socionics and wanted to get everyone's thoughts on this, because I don't feel like I understand it enough to reach any sort of conclusion. From what I know, MBTI and socionics typing should pretty much be considered completely separately, right? Because I have tested as an INFJ for ten years on the MBTI and find the function stacking to be accurate for me, but I've taken the socionics test three times and gotten EII. Does that make sense getting these rather contradictory results (since the functions are basically opposite: Ni-Fe vs Ne-Fi)?


----------



## Entropic

elegant.poupee said:


> Hi, everyone! I'm rather new to socionics and wanted to get everyone's thoughts on this, because I don't feel like I understand it enough to reach any sort of conclusion. From what I know, MBTI and socionics typing should pretty much be considered completely separately, right? Because I have tested as an INFJ for ten years on the MBTI and find the function stacking to be accurate for me, but I've taken the socionics test three times and gotten EII. Does that make sense getting these rather contradictory results (since the functions are basically opposite: Ni-Fe vs Ne-Fi)?


I think that if you are an MBTI INFJ you are a socionics IEI because both share Ni and Fe as their top two functions. I wouldn't rely on test results in order to figure out your type but I would study the system. 

I only think they make sense insofar that I think MBTI tests suck in general and typology tests suck in general so one ought to get different results over time. I for example get different on the J/P depending on how J/P is asked for/measured in the MBTI.


----------



## Jeremy8419

Emologic said:


> I'm done. If you can't grasp something this simple, it's simply not possible to carry on a conversation with you.


You can't carry on a conversation with me, because you can't grasp that names and positions don't make definitions equivalent.


----------



## Jeremy8419

Tellus said:


> You're like a chameleon who keeps shifting arguments. Post 34:
> 
> "MBTI isn't about the functions. Don't try and turn it into something it's not."
> 
> 
> IM elements and MBTI functions would be identically defined... but unfortunately we only have (quite good) descriptions.
> 
> 
> You really don't seem to grasp the concept of DEFINITION (a year later!!!). A type is DEFINED by the first two functions in Socionics and MBTI, so any stackings of the functions are IRRELEVANT.


What a magical, special little world you must live in.


----------



## Endologic

Jeremy8419 said:


> You can't carry on a conversation with me, because you can't grasp that names and positions don't make definitions equivalent.





Jeremy8419 said:


> What a magical, special little world you must live in.


I cannot believe how narrow-minded you are.


----------



## The_Wanderer

elegant.poupee said:


> Hi, everyone! I'm rather new to socionics and wanted to get everyone's thoughts on this, because I don't feel like I understand it enough to reach any sort of conclusion. From what I know, MBTI and socionics typing should pretty much be considered completely separately, right? Because I have tested as an INFJ for ten years on the MBTI and find the function stacking to be accurate for me, but I've taken the socionics test three times and gotten EII. Does that make sense getting these rather contradictory results (since the functions are basically opposite: Ni-Fe vs Ne-Fi)?


From a cognitive functions/information elements viewpoint they're describing the same thing, yet cognitive functions are poorly defined and only given passing emphasis in the official MBTI. It's pretty much all dichotomies in MBTI.

Overall I think it depends how "meta" your mindset is when approaching Socionics and MBTI as to whether you view them as completely separate or the same thing; it's far _safer _(especially when starting out) to disregard what you think you know about MBTI when learning the ins and outs of Socionics.



Emologic said:


> I cannot believe how narrow-minded you are.


You know it's pretty bad when _Robespierre_ is rightly accusing others of narrow mindedness!




Entropic said:


> The three-letter code is more than sufficient.


You merciless destroyer of delicate worldviews! How are people supposed to feel special if they can't see themselves as the freest of free spirits, or as the knightly hero who brings order to a world corrupted with chaos?


----------



## Jeremy8419

Things such as ancestry, OOP, and science must confuse the hell out of some of you.


----------



## The_Wanderer

Jeremy8419 said:


> Things such as ancestry, OOP, and science must confuse the hell out of some of you.


_Ad hominem _​makes for poor argument.


----------



## Jeremy8419

The_Wanderer said:


> _Ad hominem _​makes for poor argument.


Appeals to fallacies makes for a poor argument. There's a reason people don't run around using them every day.


----------



## The_Wanderer

Jeremy8419 said:


> Appeals to fallacies makes for a poor argument. There's a reason people don't run around using them every day.


I think if people looked in mirrors more often they would notice how often they appeal to fallacies. Either or, I don't particularly think somebody lacking the ability to self-type themselves confidently should be preaching the finer points of Socionics.


----------



## Jeremy8419

The_Wanderer said:


> I think if people looked in mirrors more often they would notice how often they appeal to fallacies. Either or, I don't particularly think somebody lacking the ability to self-type themselves confidently should be preaching the finer points of Socionics.


You talking about yourself?


----------



## The_Wanderer

Jeremy8419 said:


> You talking about yourself?


While I am being partially self-deprecating and _love_ to look at myself in the mirror, I'm just noting that it seems strange for a guy who is an _unknown personality_ and has _no backing from his peers_ to be act like such an avid Guru of Socionics.


----------



## Jeremy8419

The_Wanderer said:


> While I am being partially self-deprecating and _love_ to look at myself in the mirror, I'm just noting that it seems strange for a guy who is an _unknown personality_ and has _no backing from his peers_ to be act like such an avid Guru of Socionics.


You're not my peer.


----------



## Tellus

If you use these INCORRECT definitions of information aspects/elements:

Information elements | School of System Socionics

... then a MBTI type DOES NOT necessarily correspond to a Socionics type. For example, SSS's LIE is not the same as SSRI's LIE.


----------



## Jeremy8419

Tellus said:


> If you use these INCORRECT definitions of information aspects/elements:
> 
> Information elements | School of System Socionics
> 
> ... then a MBTI type DOES NOT necessarily correspond to a Socionics type. For example, SSS's LIE is not the same as SSRI's LIE.


If you go by the narrative descriptions, J is most similar to j and P is most similar to p; e.g., ISFJ descriptions are very similar to ISFj.


----------



## Felipe

Tellus said:


> A type is DEFINED by the first two functions in Socionics and MBTI, so any stackings of the functions are IRRELEVANT.


In theory, yes. But as soon as you start to read description of types, mbti DO NOT focus on the functions. Socionics focus a little bit but soon starts to go on a trip and make shit up. For example:

Description of SEI from Filatova SEI - Wikisocion

Related to CF(Si): "Into this concept enters the sensations of his body, his health or illness. Also concerns food and its preparation, the sensation of comfort in his environment (including at work), clothing (its aesthetic value and convenience)."

Making shit up: "SEI knows how to wonderfully prepare, and tastefully eat up, food. An excellent culinary specialist, he often invents something new and original."

Related to CF(Fe): "His tendency to provide pleasure for himself and close ones frequently serves to make him the soul of the gathering. But if a group does not serve to please him he will simply find another circle of people that he finds more likeable."

Making shit up: "Generally SEI tries to avoid tension by any means necessary" and "His emotionalism is developed in every respect"


----------



## Tellus

Jeremy8419 said:


> If you go by the narrative descriptions, J is most similar to j and P is most similar to p; e.g., ISFJ descriptions are very similar to ISFj.


If we go by _your_ narrative descriptions (i.e. those from 16types that you insist upon using), then J could perhaps correspond to j for both extroverts and introverts. 

If we go by SRSI's and SSS's definitions of information aspects, and some "suggested" definitions of Jungian functions (N.B. we only have descriptions), then SRSI types correspond with MBTI types and SSS types DO NOT correspond with MBTI types.


----------

