# Different type in socionics=mistype in MBTI?



## Valtire (Jan 1, 2014)

Night Huntress said:


> How _reck_less of you.


Has reckless suddenly appeared and randomly lectured you on a point that's not even remotely related to your post? Because it's happened to me at least 5 times.


----------



## Entropic (Jun 15, 2012)

Fried Eggz said:


> Has reckless suddenly appeared and randomly lectured you on a point that's not even remotely related to your post? Because it's happened to me at least 5 times.


Because he cares more to promote his agenda than he cares for your actual person, insofar that your post seems to go against his agenda.


----------



## Captain Mclain (Feb 22, 2014)

Entropic said:


> Because he cares more to promote *his* *agenda* than he cares for your actual person, insofar that your post seems to go against his agenda.


Which is?


----------



## Valtire (Jan 1, 2014)

Captain Mclain said:


> Which is?


Reck is absolutely adamant that Jung put introversion/extroversion as the main determining factors in type. So that an introvert has an introverted dom AND aux. He wants everyone to believe it.

Heck, I actually agree with his reasoning, but not his conclusion.


----------



## Jeremy8419 (Mar 2, 2015)

Fried Eggz said:


> Reck is absolutely adamant that Jung put introversion/extroversion as the main determining factors in type. So that an introvert has an introverted dom AND aux. He wants everyone to believe it.
> 
> Heck, I actually agree with his reasoning, but not his conclusion.


In context of socionics, he is referring to leading and demonstrative, which is not far off-base. Both are the end outlet to the external world.


----------



## Mr inappropriate (Dec 17, 2013)

hey guys, I randomly came up with this reading a thread



> Descriptions (behavioral wise) IEI and INFP are the same (so do INFJ and EII; SLI and ISTP, LSI and ISTJ). In MBTI to score J over P, you have to have some characteristics which are also mentioned more often in Socionics counterpart EII-INFj. However Socionics claims that these characteristics are caused by judging leading (Fi leading and Ne creative, Fi-Ne) yet MBTI its because of the attitude of higher judging function is extraverted (Ni-Fe)


Am I stating the obvious ? Am I wrong about socs. and mbti's take ? Because I'm fairly sure that IEI has been renamed INF*p* as a means for translation to mbti descriptions. 

or am I awesome ? :happy:


----------



## Jeremy8419 (Mar 2, 2015)

Verity said:


> This was one of the things that really bothered me with MBTI, like, how was such a vast study performed?..


I'm more concerned with why it was designed to make the creator part of a minority. What's the point of a system where you compare 1% of the population versus a couple other groups of low %'s and a bunch of high % groups? Lol. Seriously, just... Why? Lol.


----------



## Jeremy8419 (Mar 2, 2015)

crashbandicoot said:


> hey guys, I randomly came up with this reading a thread
> 
> 
> 
> ...


The point is, some people want to live in reality despite being hard, and some people want to live in fantasy land because it is easy.


----------



## Jeremy8419 (Mar 2, 2015)

@reckful

/tags you in. Your turn to explain obvious reality to some people.


----------



## Mr inappropriate (Dec 17, 2013)

Jeremy8419 said:


> The point is, some people want to live in reality despite being hard, and some people want to live in fantasy land because it is easy.


hmm, I also start to get uncomfortable after dinners, lately. Is it my blood sugar or what ?


----------



## Jeremy8419 (Mar 2, 2015)

crashbandicoot said:


> hmm, I also start to get uncomfortable after dinners, lately. Is it my blood sugar or what ?


Describe it.


----------



## Mr inappropriate (Dec 17, 2013)

Jeremy8419 said:


> Describe it.


Feeling like needing to sleep, fatigue, tiredness and a sense of doom.

Now can you explain what did you mean by


> The point is, some people want to live in reality despite being hard, and some people want to live in fantasy land because it is easy.


and how it related to what I said ?


----------



## Jeremy8419 (Mar 2, 2015)

crashbandicoot said:


> Feeling like needing to sleep, fatigue, tiredness and a sense of doom.


Is it after eating fatty, greasy, or fried foods?



> Now can you explain what did you mean by
> and how it related to what I said ?


P and p basically being the same is common sense, and lets you move forward from theory of typology to application. People don't accept such, because they want to live in a fantasy world that keeps them perpetually stuck in the theory of typology so they don't have to get off their butts and go work at interpersonal relationships.


----------



## Mr inappropriate (Dec 17, 2013)

Jeremy8419 said:


> Is it after eating fatty, greasy, or fried foods?
> 
> 
> P and p basically being the same is common sense, and lets you move forward from theory of typology to application. People don't accept such, because they want to live in a fantasy world that keeps them perpetually stuck in the theory of typology so they don't have to get off their butts and go work at interpersonal relationships.


Fatty greasy ones. Especially when i eat a bit faster. :crying:

But dont you think it applies to ni-fe being the same in both systems by common sense either ?


----------



## Jeremy8419 (Mar 2, 2015)

crashbandicoot said:


> Fatty greasy ones. Especially when i eat a bit faster. :crying:


You need to get checked for gall stones.



> But dont you think it applies to ni-fe being the same in both systems by common sense either ?


Yeah, if you ignore the fact that the basic definitions of both are completely different between systems, and that MBTI shows how introverts extrovert their J/P preference, as though extroverts and introverts models should both be based upon extroverting a dichotomy, whereas Socionics just directly shows the preference on the first element. Socionics: "If rational and extroverted, put Je first." Socionics: "If rational and introverted, put Ji first." MBTI: "If rational and extroverted, put Je first." MBTI: "If rational and extroverted, put Je second." From preferences and behaviors to the model is different between the systems. The process from reality to cognitive model determination is different. The only way you can make J/P switch accurate is to just call the preferences and behaviors for each type wrong for J/P.


----------



## Angelic Gardevoir (Oct 7, 2010)

crashbandicoot said:


> hey guys, I randomly came up with this reading a thread
> 
> 
> 
> ...


My god. Is this what Jeremy has been trying to explain the whole time? If so, you have actually done it in a way that is actually comprehensible. So basically MBTI INFP descriptions describe Ni-Fe and not Fi-Ne. Not sure if I agree or not, but dang it Jeremy, why didn't you just say something like this in the first place? You really need to work on clarity.



Jeremy8419 said:


> Yeah, if you ignore the fact that the basic definitions of both are completely different between systems, and that MBTI shows how introverts extrovert their J/P preference, as though extroverts and introverts models should both be based upon extroverting a dichotomy, whereas Socionics just directly shows the preference on the first element. Socionics: "If rational and extroverted, put Je first." Socionics: "If rational and introverted, put Ji first." MBTI: "If rational and extroverted, put Je first." MBTI: "If rational and extroverted, put Je second." From preferences and behaviors to the model is different between the systems. The process from reality to cognitive model determination is different. The only way you can make J/P switch accurate is to just call the preferences and behaviors for each type wrong for J/P.


And he shows that he actually does understand how functions in MBTI work! I think hell has frozen over!


----------



## Jeremy8419 (Mar 2, 2015)

Angelic Gardevoir said:


> My god. Is this what Jeremy has been trying to explain the whole time? If so, you have actually done it in a way that is actually comprehensible. So basically MBTI INFP descriptions describe Ni-Fe and not Fi-Ne. Not sure if I agree or not, but dang it Jeremy, why didn't you just say something like this in the first place? You really need to work on clarity.
> 
> And he shows that he actually does understand how functions in MBTI work! I think hell has frozen over!


Uh, I gave you the descriptions and you know the descriptions of MBTI types. The descriptions and questionnaire answers for INFP are the same things placed as IEI. The models are different, so you can't go by direct translation of MBTI functions into socionics functions unless you typed via functions and called it your MBTI type (which isn't MBTI, it's JCF).


----------



## Angelic Gardevoir (Oct 7, 2010)

Jeremy8419 said:


> Uh, I gave you the descriptions and you know the descriptions of MBTI types. The descriptions and questionnaire answers for INFP are the same things placed as IEI. The models are different, so you can't go by direct translation of MBTI functions into socionics functions unless you typed via functions and called it your MBTI type (which isn't MBTI, it's JCF).


You never said what @_crashbandicoot_ said however. You never said specifically that you believe INFP descriptions are describing Ni-Fe. The way you kept explaining it, it made it sound like you flat out didn't understand that INFP is classified as Fi-Ne in current MBTI theory or how the letter code works differently for introverts in MBTI. And it's not just that...I have a hard time making out what you are trying to say in posts you've made in other threads as well. Maybe I'm dumb. However, I'm not trying to attack you. I'm offering constructive criticism.


----------



## Jeremy8419 (Mar 2, 2015)

Angelic Gardevoir said:


> You never said what @_crashbandicoot_ said however. You never said specifically that you believe INFP descriptions are describing Ni-Fe. The way you kept explaining it, it made it sound like you flat out didn't understand that INFP is classified as Fi-Ne in current MBTI theory. And it's not just that...I have a hard time making out what you are trying to say in posts you've made in other threads as well. Maybe I'm dumb. However, I'm not trying to attack you. I'm offering constructive criticism.


Well, you can't say INFP is describing Ni-Fe, because socionics Ni isn't given the same descriptions and properties as MBTI Ni, which is part of people's confusions. Also, you would still have to say MBTI INFP descriptions are the same as Socionics Ni-Fe descriptions, or again, people get confused because you didn't specify enough on terminology.

MBTI INFP is given descriptions for people who are P on questionnaires and assessments and they are called "MBTI Fi-Ne", with the Fi being most like Creative Fe + Demonstrative Fi in Socionics, and the Ne being most like Leading Ni + Ignoring Ne in socionics.

Sorry, for the confusion, but I go through this on basically a weekly basis with different people on here who each are different personality types and have their own needs of explaining it to them in a way that "works" for their understanding. Half the people just call all descriptions in both systems BS, and want both systems to be some magical little thing inside their head that has no bearing on actual reality. Then you have people who are oblivious as to how they actually behave compared to other people and come up with really delusional descriptions about themselves. Then you have people who type based upon Jungian Cognitive Functions and tell you they are, for instance, Si-Te in MBTI, but fail to realize that MBTI Si-Te is not Jungian Cognitive Function Si-Te (Socionics is), and argue left and right that they are "ISTJ in MBTI" when they are ISTP in MBTI, and just confused as shit on how to type via functions in MBTI.

Also, sorry, but yes, part of the confusion is due to my tendency to talk wayyyy over people's heads. In person, most people don't question me. On here, though, people like to argue mind-vs-mind, and seem oblivious to intelligence, so I lose patience for spoon feeding them, because most people on here want to live in some fantasy make-belief world and there is ZERO that will ever make them want to accept reality.

When I read INFP, descriptions match individuals who test as INFP to a very high degree. I read IEI descriptions and they seem the same as INFP's. I read element descriptions and IEI's valued functions seem identical to what INFP's values are. The two are basically the same. It is pretty obvious. When someone reads IEI and INFP descriptions, you would assume that people instantly realize this, but they don't, and some never do. Instead, they read descriptions of IEI's that are written by forum children that sound like INFJ descriptions and say "hey, yeah, INFJ is just like IEI!" But socionics doesn't say that; Stupid kids on the internet say that then go around telling people that "socionics says this" when it F***ing doesn't. The socionics elements and mbti functions don't even have the same definitions for each one, yet, again, stupid kids on the internet run around saying "MBTI Ni is basically Socionics Ni", and it isn't. Neither system says that. Yet here the internet kids go, running around, telling all the other kids that they are the same thing.

/end rant.

This place is like being a substitute teacher in a middle school.


----------



## joup (Oct 5, 2014)

There are plenty of "xNFPs" who are actually ESFJs, They are givers, but in a different way what a Te/Fi expects. ESFJs are philosophical in their spare time, thanks to Tertiary Ne. Which can fool most people, they are such chameleons.

It's true that in Socionics, that ILI-INTp or (MBTI INTJ) is the conflicting dual of the ESE-ESFj. Yes _they_ write most of the time it as a conflict type relation, but there are 2 duals in the system. The conflicting dual attracts so much, but inevitably it bursts into flames in the first week. It can be fun and pure torture at the same time. In the end, the LII-INTj (MBTI INTP) can handle brutal inferior Ti.

(Yeah I know I'm mixing inferior/MBTI with unaware/sub conscience Socionics functions, but they mean the same thing)


----------

