# Infp + entp?



## CIGgyStar (Sep 30, 2012)

just want to know if this is a good coupling, not necessarily for dating but just in general do ENTP and INFP get along?? i have an INFP friend and i am crazy about him we seem to agree on everything and we're both very cheerful people.. but i thought INFP's were supposed to be a bit more melancholic..?


----------



## aconite (Mar 26, 2012)

Are you talking about MBTI or Socionics? It's the Socionics subforum, but you're using MBTI notation.

If it's about socionics - illusionary relatons

Nevertheless, I suppose that getting along depends more on individual traits than people's types


----------



## Le Beau Coeur (Jan 30, 2011)

It sounds like it would be a good match but then again, as I always say, it's really about the individuals.


----------



## cyamitide (Jul 8, 2010)

CIGgyStar said:


> just want to know if this is a good coupling, not necessarily for dating but just in general do ENTP and INFP get along?? i have an INFP friend and i am crazy about him we seem to agree on everything and we're both very cheerful people.. but i thought INFP's were supposed to be a bit more melancholic..?


Socionics doesn't apply J/P letters the same way as does MBTI.

Socionics INFp is Ni leading and Fe creative which in MBTI terms is the INFJ type. INFps and ENTps are in relations of mirage.

MBTI INFP is Fi leading and Ne auxiliary which in Socionics would be closest to INFj. INFjs and ENTps are in relations of supervision where INFj supervises the ENTp.


----------



## Entropic (Jun 15, 2012)

I've started to suspect that enneagram plays a very large role with which people we get along with regardless of their functions.


----------



## CIGgyStar (Sep 30, 2012)

aconite said:


> Are you talking about MBTI or Socionics? It's the Socionics subforum, but you're using MBTI notation.
> 
> If it's about socionics - illusionary relatons
> 
> Nevertheless, I suppose that getting along depends more on individual traits than people's types


i guess i don't understand the difference, i was talking about MBTI..?


----------



## Entropic (Jun 15, 2012)

CIGgyStar said:


> i guess i don't understand the difference, i was talking about MBTI..?


In socionics INFP is INFj, because in socionics the J/P letter is defined by the dominant leading function. This means that all dominant introverted judgers in the MBTI system will be judgers in socionics and all dominant perceivers will be Ps. An MBTI INTJ is thus INTp in socionics. The MBTI system classifies according to the extraverted function, meaning that since all MBTI judgers (INTJ, ENFJ, ISTJ and so forth) all have an extraverted judgement function (Te or Fe), they are judgers in the MBTI system and all Pe users such as ESTP, INTP and ENFP are perceivers because their extraverted function is either Ne or Se.

Personally, I also think the MBTI system makes more sense because I like how it groups types together better showing the similarity between ENTP and INTP for example. This does not exist in socionics where ENTP is still ENTp (Ne + Ti) but INTP is INTj (Ti + Ne).


----------



## cyamitide (Jul 8, 2010)

CIGgyStar said:


> i guess i don't understand the difference, i was talking about MBTI..?


This is a socionics forum. Socionics type notation is somewhat different from MBTI, so there was confusion which one you're talking about.

In Socionics type 4-letter codes are written with one lower-case letter, like this ENTp or INFj, to distinguish them from MBTI types which are written all upper-case ENTP, INFP.


----------



## CIGgyStar (Sep 30, 2012)

cyamitide said:


> This is a socionics forum. Socionics type notation is somewhat different from MBTI, so there was confusion which one you're talking about.
> 
> In Socionics type 4-letter codes are written with one lower-case letter, like this ENTp or INFj, to distinguish them from MBTI types which are written all upper-case ENTP, INFP.


ok but what is the difference??


----------



## CIGgyStar (Sep 30, 2012)

LeaT said:


> In socionics INFP is INFj, because in socionics the J/P letter is defined by the dominant leading function. This means that all dominant introverted judgers in the MBTI system will be judgers in socionics and all dominant perceivers will be Ps. An MBTI INTJ is thus INTp in socionics. The MBTI system classifies according to the extraverted function, meaning that since all MBTI judgers (INTJ, ENFJ, ISTJ and so forth) all have an extraverted judgement function (Te or Fe), they are judgers in the MBTI system and all Pe users such as ESTP, INTP and ENFP are perceivers because their extraverted function is either Ne or Se.
> 
> Personally, I also think the MBTI system makes more sense because I like how it groups types together better showing the similarity between ENTP and INTP for example. This does not exist in socionics where ENTP is still ENTp (Ne + Ti) but INTP is INTj (Ti + Ne).


omg i don't get it at all DX my bad i guess i'm on the wrong forum lol


----------



## Entropic (Jun 15, 2012)

CIGgyStar said:


> ok but what is the difference??


ENTP = ENTp
INTP = INTj

As I wrote, in socionics the J/P letter code is determined by which function is your dominant function. If you are a dominant judging time you are a J and if a dominant perceiving type you are a P. INTPs are dominant judging types (Ti dominants) so in socionics they are INTjs and INTJs who are dominant perceiving types (Ni dominants) are INTps.


----------



## renna (Jan 28, 2011)

Here is my opinion ;-)

Regardless of MBTI or Socionics, let's just take the cognitive functions and break them down, shall we? 

I think ENTP and INFP types are rare regardless! I think upon the union and meeting of these two types, they both have a "oh my lanta!" moment and embrace mentally. You know what I mean? The reason for this is, the ENTP and INFP can both mutually share ideas with their Ne. Yet the INFP brings a softer Ne with their Fi and the ENTP brings more analysis with his Ti. Both love this at first but along the way, trouble can begin to brew. I have seen this TWICE with two other relationships with ENTP/INFP couples. I think it really boils down to the values not cohesively harmonizing as well as it could go. The INFP's values hang first and foremost = Fi, Ne, Si, Te. While the ENTP is not so concerned with values and as much as ideas and analyzing them to fit in a certain system for their lives/future = Ne, Ti, Fe, Si. 

So yes, the INFP and the ENTP do share two cognitive processes together, but their value cognitive process will clash with most harshness in the end. They CAN work this out as ANY type can be married, however my point is - I believe this is where one of the biggest problems will lie. 

It's best if the INFP can find their ENTJ mate and the ENTP find their INFJ mate.


----------



## aconite (Mar 26, 2012)

renna said:


> Regardless of MBTI or Socionics, let's just take the cognitive functions and break them down, shall we?


Actually, you can't do this, because MBTI INFP and Socionics' INFp don't share cognitive functions. So no "regardless".
INFP = Fi Ne
INFp = Ni Fe


----------



## renna (Jan 28, 2011)

I did start my message along the lines of: "in my opinion..." And did you also know that socionics utilizes a combination of theories? So with those two thoughts thrown together THAT was where I was coming from.


----------



## aconite (Mar 26, 2012)

renna said:


> I did start my message along the lines of: "in my opinion..." And did you also know that socionics utilizes a combination of theories? So with those two thoughts thrown together THAT was where I was coming from.


It's the Socionics subforum, so I have no idea why did you write about MBTI types. You can't use the cognitive functions approach since INFP and INFp differ in that aspect. INFj is the Fi+Ne type in Socionics, not INFp.

There are plenty of threads about compatibility between MBTI types, anyway.

Also, if you know about a Socionics theory where INFp uses Fi and Ne, not Fe and Ni, enlighten me please.


----------



## renna (Jan 28, 2011)

@aconite, why are you being so confrontational about this? Even you in your first post to the OP you asked "socionics or MBTI?" Whats Honestly man, I noticed this question from the homepage of PerC - I DID NOT go into 'Socionics' section to answer this. I saw the title of this thread and clicked it. 

Don't get confrontational with me for sharing my opinion with the OP (which was not intended for you btw). The original poster wanted opinions and feedback - ok yes tech you are correct, my answer had nothing to do with Socionics (frankly I don believe in the merits of it) but there is NOTHING wrong with bringing more ideas/options to the table. Wouldn't an Ne user like yourself not agree to that? Or do you not believe in cognitive functions either because you soley believe in Socionics? Please do us a favor and stop being confrontational, it would make your life and everyone else's easier. You can believe in anything you wan and that is your right, but no matte what your type is, you can share your thoughts and objections a smoother And in a less harsh way.


----------



## 2GiveMyHeart2 (Jan 2, 2012)

As an NF female personally...no NT dude for me, bro. Too insensitive


----------



## aconite (Mar 26, 2012)

renna said:


> @_aconite_, why are you being so confrontational about this? Even you in your first post to the OP you asked "socionics or MBTI?"


How is asking for clarification confrontational?



renna said:


> Whats Honestly man, I noticed this question from the homepage of PerC - I DID NOT go into 'Socionics' section to answer this. I saw the title of this thread and clicked it.


Why didn't you admit it as soon as I asked, then?



renna said:


> Don't get confrontational with me for sharing my opinion with the OP (which was not intended for you btw).


This is a public forum, in case you didn't notice. You could have sent a PM to the OP, had you really wanted to keep things private, after all.



renna said:


> The original poster wanted opinions and feedback - ok yes tech you are correct, my answer had nothing to do with Socionics (frankly I don believe in the merits of it) but there is NOTHING wrong with bringing more ideas/options to the table.


Have I said there's anything wrong with more opinions? I don't recall that.



renna said:


> Wouldn't an Ne user like yourself not agree to that? Or do you not believe in cognitive functions either because you soley believe in Socionics?


Since I wrote about functions in my last post, it would be logical to assume that I use them, don't you think? Moreover, I included my MBTI/Enneagram types in my signature, so no, I don't believe in Socionics only.



renna said:


> Please do us a favor and stop being confrontational, it would make your life and everyone else's easier. You can believe in anything you wan and that is your right, but no matte what your type is, you can share your thoughts and objections a smoother And in a less harsh way.


Us? What "us"? I can see only one person who has a problem with what I wrote. Namely, you. I hope you don't call me confrontational anymore, because you're the one being confrontational about the whole thing. Don't project your feelings onto me.

I'm not being harsh. I'm being straightforward. Since you finally admitted you hadn't noticed that the thread had been posted in the Socionics subforum, I hope you stop making convoluted explanations and seeking personal attacks in every sentence.


----------



## abigaleblues (Apr 11, 2012)

I'm cheerful on the outside, melancholic on the inside. I try not to let that side show very often because I have found that a positive attitude and friendly disposition will get you a lot further in your personal and professional life.

I've always wanted to meet an ENTP. I don't think I ever have. Seems like we would click! I really like NTs though.


----------



## abigaleblues (Apr 11, 2012)

oops, I didn't know this was socionics either. My apologies.


----------



## renna (Jan 28, 2011)

aconite said:


> How is asking for clarification confrontational?


I really don't want to argue with you because I do that enough in my personal life with an ENTP of my own, but when were you "really" asking for clarification? You weren't really asking for clarification to gain more understanding for any misunderstanding... let's just be honest here. This is will be my LAST reply to you, period.




aconite said:


> Why didn't you admit it as soon as I asked, then?


 Is that what you wanted all along? Besides I didn't realize HOW FREAKIN SERIOUS you were taking all this and how serious it was that I was "posting my opinion/ wrong information in the wrong section of the forum". 




aconite said:


> This is a public forum, in case you didn't notice. You could have sent a PM to the OP, had you really wanted to keep things private, after all.


 And when did I say I wanted to keep this private? I said my opinion was directed or meant FOR YOU so there was no need for you to blatantly point out in a confrontational way that CF was a wrong usage for Socionics. Just admit, it wasn't the necessary the way you did. There is nothing wrong with standing up to confrontation behavior. I'm just clearly pointing out that your behavior wasn't necessary. I said you were right, did I not? Yet, you cannot admit that the way you went about things wasn't necessary, no? because you have no humility. It takes humility to say you were right, clearly you lack that. 




aconite said:


> Have I said there's anything wrong with more opinions? I don't recall that.


 Your attitude says it all but since you are literal, AGAIN you are right - you did not say there is nothing wrong with that.




aconite said:


> Since I wrote about functions in my last post, it would be logical to assume that I use them, don't you think? Moreover, I included my MBTI/Enneagram types in my signature, so no, I don't believe in Socionics only.


 I was using sarcasm. Clarification complete. 




aconite said:


> Us? What "us"? I can see only one person who has a problem with what I wrote. Namely, you. I hope you don't call me confrontational anymore, because you're the one being confrontational about the whole thing. Don't project your feelings onto me.


 Of course NO ONE else has a problem with what you wrote because it wasn't targeted at ANYONE else but me. Like I said, it's not what you said, it's how you did and you know you could of done things a bit differently. Maybe we're both having bad days or maybe you are always like this? There is no need to project feelings onto you - communicating my thoughts and feelings _is not_ projection. You really should look into what project is if that is what you think is. 



aconite said:


> I'm not being harsh. I'm being straightforward. Since you finally admitted you hadn't noticed that the thread had been posted in the Socionics subforum, I hope you stop making convoluted explanations and seeking personal attacks in every sentence.


You obviously get very frustrated at people who try to communicate how they are feeling and things you say to them to make them feel what they feel. Why? My guess is, you don't know how to deal with others feelings and how it makes you feel. You get defense, argumentative and even more confrontational. Honestly, you did not hurt my feelings (I live with an ENTP for goodness sakes and dated an INTP for three years, I'm quite familiar with xNTPs), I just didn't appreciate your confrontation demeanor - that's all and I clearly expressed that to you. How you take it and push back, that is up to you. 


No more derailing this thread.


----------



## aconite (Mar 26, 2012)

@renna - I don't think there's a need to address every single point of your post.

I have absolutely no problem with your first post. You didn't notice where had the thread been posted, no big deal. Happens. I have a problem, though, with accusations, twisting my words and remote psychoanalysis you threw at me. Not every question is a personal attack (in fact, there were no personal attacks in what I wrote).

I believe in honesty and directness in communication, so please, don't look for something that isn't there. I get that I looked harsh and confrontational from your POV (which is way different from what I'm feeling about the whole thing); on the other hand, from my POV, you looked confrontational as well, and sulky to boot.

Moreover, I don't particularly fancy being pigeonholed. I am neither a clone of xNTPs you know, nor a bunch of letters (I wonder what would you write if I were an ESTJ, for example), I am an individual and I don't particularly like being seen through the lens of the type I chose. Why do you accuse me of disregarding others' feelings, if you don't care about mine at all? Respect should be mutual. Notice that I never wrote "don't argue with me, because you're a dumb Feeler and you can't think logically" - as I said, I don't believe in pigeonholing people into neat 16 boxes. I've met plenty of intelligent Feelers and dumb Thinkers. Plenty of selfish Feelers and compassionate Thinkers as well.

Also, it's nice to know that I didn't hurt your feelings, because I never intended that.


----------



## renna (Jan 28, 2011)

@aconite,

I learned last night that reading is subjective. When you read what someone has written, you miss out on their tone, facial expressions and body language. Technically there was nothing wrong with what you wrote to me initially - you were just clearly communicating to me. What _ I _ misread into was the air quotation marks that you supplied. I saw that as unnecessary and almost mocking me when really, looking back, you were being literal. That did make me confrontational because I assumed you were being confrontational and I am truly sorry for that. 

Yes, you are an individual, as we all are. My motivations for remarking on your type was not to put you in a "box" but rather I was trying to figure out where your line of thinking was coming from. I was imagining, from my past experience with these types, what it was that was really causing conflict between us. I will admit, that I do have the tendency to look into things too deeply that are not there OR as you put it "remote psychoanalysis" - and again, sorry for that. It's just that is how my brain works. Just as much as how your brain tries to process and figure out when you do not understand feelings, right? Just as much as I don't understand why logic has as to rule in all situations too, right? It is what it is and I'm glad we talked this out. Thank you for your patience.


Sorry for derailing the thread. 

.... Continue on....


----------

