Personality Cafe banner

1 - 20 of 50 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
4,038 Posts
Discussion Starter #1
Does anyone know how and if that is possible? I'm not an expert yet...:unsure: but I have read that a MBTI INFJ is an INFp in Socionics and vice versa. But I really did many tests from both theories and I got always the "same" results: INFJ/j. And it seems to me that they're really actually taking the same personality traits to say who is a J/j or P/p...:confused:

Any ideas?
 
  • Like
Reactions: onion

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,131 Posts
Does this (How to convert MBTI® type to Socionics type) help?

I'm no expert on Socionics, but have been trying to relate the J/j thing for understanding my own type. I came to the conclusion that there is no such thing as a rule of J=p and P=j.

Also, this (J/P switch - Wikisocion) can give more info on the relation between MBTI and Socionics...

But as I said I'm no expert... Just saying, there may not be a very clear answer to this...
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
4,038 Posts
Discussion Starter #3 (Edited)
I had already read on those pages before. But now you made me read them again and I guess I came to the same conclusion as you did. :happy:

Though I found it quite difficult to understand what they're trying to say and had to read that stuff several times ...even read it out loud... :confused:

Imo, they should make their pages a bit less complicated for "foreign" readers. :crazy:

but yeah, thanks. :happy:
 
  • Like
Reactions: penchant

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,325 Posts
I've been getting the same results where I'm an INFJ in both MBTI and Socionics O__O;
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
4,961 Posts
Socionics INFj is Fi leading and Ne creative so unless you are MBTI INFP I would say the test gave you wrong results.

The type that is Ni leading and Fe creative is INFp.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,325 Posts
Socionics INFj is Fi leading and Ne creative so unless you are MBTI INFP I would say the test gave you wrong results.

The type that is Ni leading and Fe creative is INFp.
Is there another test from any other quiz that could confirm this for me?

I'm pretty sure I'm Ni leading, but I have no idea what Fe creative means. I thought Fe was more an accommodation for other people in regards to feeling.

Edit: Blah, actually ignore this post. I can google it all, and am doing that currently :D
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,704 Posts
Actually, an INFJ can be either INFp or INFJ.
It has to do with that MBTI and socionics got different function stacks.

I'm INFP and INFp.

INFJ - Ni Fe Ti Se
INFp - Ni Fe Si Te
INFP - Fi Ne Si Te
INFj - Fi Ne Ti Se

It's 2 interpretations of how the functions are oriented.

The more Jung view of the stacks is rather:
INFJ - Ni Fe Te Se
INFP - Fi Ne Se Te
Since he believed that the strength of the dominant function is so strong that the others must be of opposite direction to balance a person's mind.

It all depends on what interpretation you trust the most.
MBTI, Socionics, or Jung.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,767 Posts
Actually, an INFJ can be either INFp or INFJ.
It has to do with that MBTI and socionics got different function stacks.

I'm INFP and INFp.

INFJ - Ni Fe Ti Se
INFp - Ni Fe Si Te
INFP - Fi Ne Si Te
INFj - Fi Ne Ti Se

It's 2 interpretations of how the functions are oriented.

The more Jung view of the stacks is rather:
INFJ - Ni Fe Te Se
INFP - Fi Ne Se Te
Since he believed that the strength of the dominant function is so strong that the others must be of opposite direction to balance a person's mind.

It all depends on what interpretation you trust the most.
MBTI, Socionics, or Jung.
I'm sorry but I have to fix a few things you said, because I realized people have a really huge misconception on what Socionics is. Socionics never changes function order, it just re categorizes it in different boxes. Try to look at it like this, each function is put in a separate box, now you have 8 boxes and you put them in an order that makes up the INFP (Fi Ne Si Te Fe Ni Se Ti). Now in those respected boxes in the specific order they are in to make up that specific type, are functions that do what they are intended to do in that zone (leading zone, auxiliary zone, tertiary zone, inferior zone etc.). To help you understand better, look at how a Fi tertiary user is different from a Dom Fi user in the respects of what Fi does alone (internal values).

Now going back to socionics, they have a set up with the functions, creating new zone names which differs from the Myers and Briggs zone categories. Socionics set up goes like this:

Ego:
Leading Function
Creative Function

Super Ego:
Role Function
Vulnerable Function

Super Id:
Suggestive Function
Mobilizing Function

Id:
Ignoring Function
Demonstrative Function

------------------------------

Those function zones, just like the Myers and Briggs have functions that have specific roles in those zones. When comparing it to MBTI you must rearrange orders of the functions because the zones speak of the same thing but are organized differently. Socionics compared to MBTI to INFP function set up:

Ego:

Leading function = Dominant function = Fi
Creative Function = Auxiliary Function = Ne

Super Ego:

Role Function = Devil Function = Ti
Vulnerable Function = Deceiving Function = Se

Super Id:

Suggestive Function = Inferior Function = Te
Mobilizing Function = Tertiary Function = Si

Id:

Ignoring Function = Opposing Function = Fe
Demonstrative Function = Critical Parent Function = Ni

------------------------------------------

Socionics is a Jungian study just as is MBTI, but they organize the functions differently but explain the same process and come up to the same type. Jungian Cognitive Functions is the foundation, the fundamentals of both Socionics and Myers and Briggs, they look different, but they have the same origin, so you don't compare Socionics/MBTI to Jungian, you can only compare Socionics to MBTI because they are both Jungian. A good analogy (even if your not religious) is you can compare Muslim to Christian, but you can't compare Muslim/Christian to Abrahamic because they are both Abrahamic. You can compare Mormons to Catholics but you can't compare Mormons/Catholics to Christianity, because they are both Christian religions.

So when looking at Socionics compared to MBTI, it is an efficient system comparison when you leave out your own personal "ideals" on the two and just look at the two for the logical orders they are in alone. So an INFP = INFj = EII (Ethics, Intuitive, Introvert).

Here is a great website to compare the two systems and your own type in each system in a logical in depth about the functions way: Ethical Intuitive Introtim - Wikisocion
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,704 Posts
Thank you, I am quite aware of that.
Socionics is a Jungian study just as is MBTI, but they organize the functions differently
Still socionics use a different function order since the socionics and MBTI functions mean the same thing.

The reason I added Jung is because he had a third way of looking at it.
They might have based it on what he sad, but the function order is different.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,767 Posts
I don't see it as a third way of looking at it but instead that Socionics and MBTI looked at the Cognitive Functions and how their ordered from the perspectives. All three perspectives are saying the same thing, but MBTI is more about how people will act, while Cognitive functions is why they act the way they act, and Socionics is a more in depth look at the Cognitive functions from a logical stand on it. So how Christianity is the belief in Christ, Mormons and Catholics are looking at it from different perspectives, but they are still Christian never the less. It really all comes down to perspective, but if you get rid of perspective and look at it for what the logic shows, then it becomes easier to see the connections and the differences.

Btw, the J/p switch is if you're an Extrovert in MBTI then you don't switch, but if you're an Introvert then you switch. So an ENTP=ENTp, but an INFP=INFj
 
  • Like
Reactions: Figure

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,704 Posts
I don't see it as a third way of looking at it but instead that Socionics and MBTI looked at the Cognitive Functions and how their ordered from the perspectives. All three perspectives are saying the same thing, but MBTI is more about how people will act, while Cognitive functions is why they act the way they act, and Socionics is a more in depth look at the Cognitive functions from a logical stand on it. So how Christianity is the belief in Christ, Mormons and Catholics are looking at it from different perspectives, but they are still Christian never the less. It really all comes down to perspective, but if you get rid of perspective and look at it for what the logic shows, then it becomes easier to see the connections and the differences.
They aren't saying the same thing, it's as simple as that.
INFP means different things according to the different systems.
INFP - Fi Ne Si Te
INFp - Ni Fe Si Te
FiNe - Fi Ne Se Te
The last being Jung.

MBTI and Jung thinks that INFPs are Fi doms, socionics thinks Ni doms.
MBTI and Jung thinks that and INFPs got Ne as auxiliary function, socionics thinks Fe.
MBTI and Socionics think that INFPs got Si as tertiary function, Jung thinks Se.
The only thing they all share is that INFPs got Te as last function.
THAT is different perspectives.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,767 Posts
They aren't saying the same thing, it's as simple as that.
INFP means different things according to the different systems.
INFP - Fi Ne Si Te
INFp - Ni Fe Si Te
FiNe - Fi Ne Se Te
The last being Jung.

MBTI and Jung thinks that INFPs are Fi doms, socionics thinks Ni doms.
MBTI and Jung thinks that and INFPs got Ne as auxiliary function, socionics thinks Fe.
MBTI and Socionics think that INFPs got Si as tertiary function, Jung thinks Se.
The only thing they all share is that INFPs got Te as last function.
THAT is different perspectives.
I'm not disagreeing there, hence why, INFP does not equal to INFp but instead INFj, which if you look at that first post I wrote the INFP (Fi-Dom, Ne-Aux, Si- Tert, Te-Inferior) = INFj ( Fi-Leading, Ne-Creative, Si- Mobilizing, Te-Suggestive). So MBTI, Jung, and Socionics all see the same type as having Fi as the dominant/leading function, but they categorized that same type with different names (INFP/INFj), but never the less INFP = INFj.
 

·
Banned
Joined
·
4,227 Posts
They aren't saying the same thing, it's as simple as that.
INFP means different things according to the different systems.
INFP - Fi Ne Si Te
INFp - Ni Fe Si Te
FiNe - Fi Ne Se Te
The last being Jung.

MBTI and Jung thinks that INFPs are Fi doms, socionics thinks Ni doms.
There are a lot of problems with this.

Firstly, Jung did not propose a four letter "type." Not once. He proposed cognitive functions, with one having sovereignty over the others. He also did not propose a functional hierarchy beyond one function having sovereignty over the others. The functional hierarchy comes from MBTI, not Jung. Therefore, there is no INFP, or any four-lettered type, in Jung.

Socionics INFp is not comparable to the MBTI INFP if you believe that the cognitive functions are the same between the two systems, and if you base MBTI type off of Jung's functions instead of MBTI holistic descriptions such as the less-specific ones available, in many flavors, on some websites out there. If you don't believe the functions between the two describe the same thing, then the debate is irrelevant anyway.

If you base your MBTI type off of the qualitative descriptions, you will have a tough time discovering your true socionics type. You may find one you feel comfortable with, but this will not necessarily be your true type. You really need to use the functions in socionics, just like in MBTI to find your true type. And functionally speaking, a socionics INFp uses Ni as their leading function - and is therefore equivalent to the Jungian function-based MBTI hierarchy INFJ (not necessarily the Keirsey one, where it just says what they're like IRL).

In socionics, a "perceiver" uses a perceiving function as their leading function - Ne, Se, Si, or Ni. In MBTI, a perceiver uses an extraverted perceiving function - Ne or Se - as their dominant or auxiliary. I think the former makes more sense anyway, TBH.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,767 Posts
There are a lot of problems with this.

Firstly, Jung did not propose a four letter "type." Not once. He proposed cognitive functions, with one having sovereignty over the others. He also did not propose a functional hierarchy beyond one function having sovereignty over the others. The functional hierarchy comes from MBTI, not Jung. Therefore, there is no INFP, or any four-lettered type, in Jung.

Socionics INFp is not comparable to the MBTI INFP if you believe that the cognitive functions are the same between the two systems, and if you base MBTI type off of Jung's functions instead of MBTI holistic descriptions such as the less-specific ones available, in many flavors, on some websites out there. If you don't believe the functions between the two describe the same thing, then the debate is irrelevant anyway.

If you base your MBTI type off of the qualitative descriptions, you will have a tough time discovering your true socionics type. You may find one you feel comfortable with, but this will not necessarily be your true type. You really need to use the functions in socionics, just like in MBTI to find your true type. And functionally speaking, a socionics INFp uses Ni as their leading function - and is therefore equivalent to the Jungian function-based MBTI hierarchy INFJ (not necessarily the Keirsey one, where it just says what they're like IRL).

In socionics, a "perceiver" uses a perceiving function as their leading function - Ne, Se, Si, or Ni. In MBTI, a perceiver uses an extraverted perceiving function - Ne or Se - as their dominant or auxiliary. I think the former makes more sense anyway, TBH.
This is a perfect description on how I connect all three in a logical order, for a second I thought I was the only one out there to see that, now I feel like I'm not alone in the world. Also I believe one of the most efficient ways to find your true type is when all three fields of studies connect in ones personality. So if someone is INFp (socionics), then their INFJ (MBTI), which are Ni dom (Jung) then that person has found their true personality. When people think they are INFp/INFP and has a Ne Dom (according to cognitive function test, which are just horrible) then you know that person hasn't found their true personality yet.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,704 Posts
Sorry, I was maybe not clear since I wrote that at around 5 am and I hadn't slept in quite some time.
You might be right about Jung, I only stated what I heard from someone else somewhere, but you might be right since socionics and MBTI would probably be more alike if Jung was more specific.

My point was.

INFp - Ni Fe Si Te
INFP - Fi Ne Si Te
INFj - Fi Ne Se Ti

I marked which functions they share.
You can't base a type on just 2 letters, even if it's the dominant or aux.
Which functions that are tertiary or inferior says a lot as well.

Thus if you fit Fi Ne Si Te in MBTI, you don't fit any type in Socionics.
But Socionics isn't my area, I am simply giving my ideas from what I've read about it.

I'm still tired since I just woke up, but I think you understand my point.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,767 Posts
Sorry, I was maybe not clear since I wrote that at around 5 am and I hadn't slept in quite some time.
You might be right about Jung, I only stated what I heard from someone else somewhere, but you might be right since socionics and MBTI would probably be more alike if Jung was more specific.

My point was.

INFp - Ni Fe Si Te
INFP - Fi Ne Si Te
INFj - Fi Ne Se Ti

I marked which functions they share.
You can't base a type on just 2 letters, even if it's the dominant or aux.
Which functions that are tertiary or inferior says a lot as well.

Thus if you fit Fi Ne Si Te in MBTI, you don't fit any type in Socionics.
But Socionics isn't my area, I am simply giving my ideas from what I've read about it.

I'm still tired since I just woke up, but I think you understand my point.
Please read my first post, I explained it quite well. The Se and Ti that you speak of in INFj (Socionics) is not equal to the Tertiary and Inferior in MBTI, it is equal to the Devil and Deception function. The organization is different, but the organizing doesn't say them same thing. In MBTI, the order goes from most used function to least used function, in Socionics it goes Ego functions, then Super Ego functions, then Super Id, Then Id, but Ego does not filter through Super Ego, they are just different parts of the mind.

So INFj (Socionics)

Fi Ne does not filter through Si Te. Socionics went a different direction then MBTI and instead of trying to explain from most to least used, they explained what each function does in its respected zone in each type.

INFj (Socionics): Fi Ne Ti Se Te Si Fe Ni = INFP (MBTI): Fi Ne Si Te Fe Ni Se Ti, both MBTI and Socionics are saying the same functions of those types do the same thing in their respected spots hence why:

INFj (Socionics) = INFP (MBTI)

Ego:

Leading function = Dominant function = Fi
Creative Function = Auxiliary Function = Ne


Super Ego:

Role Function = Devil Function = Ti
Vulnerable Function = Deceiving Function = Se

Super Id:

Suggestive Function = Inferior Function = Te
Mobilizing Function = Tertiary Function = Si


Id:

Ignoring Function = Opposing Function = Fe
Demonstrative Function = Critical Parent Function = Ni
------------------------------------------------------------

The Suggestive and Mobilizing role of The INFj (socionics) is equal to the Tertiary and Inferior role of the INFP (MBTI), so when looking at it, you have to not look at the order, because the two studies ordered the functions in different ways for different means. MBTI goes from most to least used while Socionics goes from part to part of the mind, not which functions filter through which all together, but how functions work in their specific role spots.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
4,038 Posts
Discussion Starter #17
My point was.

INFp - Ni Fe Si Te
INFP - Fi Ne Si Te
INFj - Fi Ne Se Ti

I marked which functions they share.
You can't base a type on just 2 letters, even if it's the dominant or aux.
Which functions that are tertiary or inferior says a lot as well.

Thus if you fit Fi Ne Si Te in MBTI, you don't fit any type in Socionics.
But Socionics isn't my area, I am simply giving my ideas from what I've read about it.

I'm still tired since I just woke up, but I think you understand my point.
If you take Beebe's MBTI cognitive function model, it says about the same as what Socionics says:

INFJ

dominantIntroverted Intuition
secondaryExtraverted Feeling
left-brainIntroverted Sensation
alternatives
Extraverted Thinking
right-brainIntroverted Feeling
double-agents
Extraverted Intuition
tertiaryIntroverted Thinking
inferiorExtraverted Sensing













The only thing is that the description of Si in Socionics seems to me to be more in the realms of Se in MBTI...and the other way round. :confused:

...just a side note: I don't score INFj in Socionics anymore. :wink: I guess it was more of a bias effect whatever thingy I had back then... in 2010. :laughing:

 
  • Like
Reactions: Deus Absconditus

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,767 Posts
The only thing is that the description of Si in Socionics seems to me to be more in the realms of Se in MBTI...and the other way round. :confused:
[/I]
Introverted sensing - Wikisocion
Extroverted sensing - Wikisocion

Read those, it actually clarifies the misunderstanding

Unlike Si, which is about one's subjective sensory experience (how intense or enjoyable it is), Se is about achieving an object of desire
To help clarify the line a little better. One may think that Se would be about enjoying the present moment, and that is true but what Socionics is saying about Si, is how one perceives what is intense and enjoyable to them as individuals and you connect that with MBTI sense of Si, which is an introverted world of stored sensory data based off of the past, so what is enjoyable to them is what they have stored to be enjoyable to them previously in life. While Se in socionics is focused on the "object of desire" which connecting with Se in MBTI, the "object of desire" is about what one is perceiving or wanting in the immediate sensory moment.

...just a side note: I don't score INFj in Socionics anymore. :wink: I guess it was more of a bias effect whatever thingy I had back then... in 2010. :laughing:


It's not your fault, most of us make these mistakes when we first learn about these personality types, we assume the test are accurate, but a test can't decide what your type is, it can only guide you to your true type. You are the only person that can decide truly what your true type is, it may take longer for some than others though. Also, when one lacks certain knowledge in a specific subject, that can be crucial to how one perceives that subject, which creates the Bias effect. That's good you are looking into Socionics though, I favor it over MBTI, it's much more in depth and in a logical fashion.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
4,038 Posts
Discussion Starter #19
It's not your fault, most of us make these mistakes when we first learn about these personality types, we assume the test are accurate, but a test can't decide what your type is, it can only guide you to your true type. You are the only person that can decide truly what your true type is, it may take longer for some than others though. Also, when one lacks certain knowledge in a specific subject, that can be crucial to how one perceives that subject, which creates the Bias effect. That's good you are looking into Socionics though, I favor it over MBTI, it's much more in depth and in a logical fashion.
Yet, it seems to me that there some huge inconsistencies withing Socionics. I've got the book by Ekaterina Filatova Understanding The People Around You: An Introduction To Socionics and she lists the functions for an INFp as (in MBTI language) Ni Fe Te Se. From the descriprions you've liked me to (which - I have to admit - I didn't read fully) and from what you said, I can totally see how it can be true that Se = Se and Si = Si. But from Filatova's descriptions I can't see the ISFJ in an ISFp and I can't see the ISFP in an ISFj.

Even though I basically started with Socioncs when I started with the MBTI, Socionics often seems like a huge mess to me that makes my head spin (at least when I try to combine what my book says with what "the internet" says and with what people around me are like....).
 
  • Like
Reactions: onion

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,767 Posts
Yet, it seems to me that there some huge inconsistencies withing Socionics. I've got the book by Ekaterina Filatova Understanding The People Around You: An Introduction To Socionics and she lists the functions for an INFp as (in MBTI language) Ni Fe Te Se. From the descriprions you've liked me to (which - I have to admit - I didn't read fully) and from what you said, I can totally see how it can be true that Se = Se and Si = Si. But from Filatova's descriptions I can't see the ISFJ in an ISFp and I can't see the ISFP in an ISFj.

Even though I basically started with Socioncs when I started with the MBTI, Socionics often seems like a huge mess to me that makes my head spin (at least when I try to combine what my book says with what "the internet" says and with what people around me are like....).
Socionics isn't inconsistent, but the people trying to explain it are inconsistent in their logic and what they are perceiving when learning Socionics. For instance, a person may learn MBTI first and adapt it's fundamentals and then try to apply it to socionics, so for instance the fundamentals of MBTI is to take the functions and order them in a most used function to a least used function, as I said before Socionics doesn't do it like that, instead it just organizes them by where they are located in the mind. So a person going from MBTI to Socionics would perceive Socionics differently from how Socionics is initially intended to be looked at.

In order the functions will look like this without the labels for each MBTI and Socionics:

INFp (Socionics): Ni Fe Si Te Se Ti Ne Fi
INFJ (MBTI): Ni Fe Ti Se Ne Fi Te Si
-----------------------------------------------

The average person would look at that order and be like they are saying two different things, when in reality their not, hence why we have those respected zones. So when you have a person who doesn't know what the respect zones are for in Socionics, and how Socionics doesn't use the "most-least" used method for functions as MBTI they will easily misinterpret that when dealing with the types in Socionics.
---------------------------

If we go off the model I showed you earlier it would make much more sense:

INFp (Socionics) - INFJ (MBTI)


Ego:

Leading function = Dominant function = Ni
Creative Function = Auxiliary Function = Fe


Super Ego:

Role Function = Devil Function = Si
Vulnerable Function = Deceiving Function = Te

Super Id:

Suggestive Function = Inferior Function = Se
Mobilizing Function = Tertiary Function = Ti


Id:

Ignoring Function = Opposing Function = Ne
Demonstrative Function = Critical Parent Function = Fi
---------------------------------------------------

See how when you use this model, and you apply it to compare Socionics to MBTI, it makes so much more sense. Socionics is much more organized then you think but you have to understand MBTI didn't make Socionics, Jungian Cognitive Functions made both MBTI and Socionics, but Socionics does not derive from MBTI. So when looking at Socionics, just like MBTI you should know the functions and what they do, but that's as far as it goes when comparing the two and learning them simultaneously. Their Fundamentals are completely different, so the organizing is completely different, you have to really get rid of everything you have ever learned in the MBTI sense, go back to Jungian Cognitive Functions, start there and then go straight to Socionics using only the knowledge you have gathered from JCF, any knowledge not talked about in the JCF but is mentioned in MBTI is irrelevant to Socionics. Once you understand Socionics as a completely different study then MBTI then it becomes easier to compare and contrast the two, because you can now see why they are ordered in their respective ways but end up saying the same thing.
------------------------

For the bolded:
http://www.wikisocion.org/en/index.php?title=SEI [ISFp (socionics)/ISFJ (MBTI)] read that and compare it to the descriptions of ISFJ in MBTI, and do the same but for ISFP (MBTI)
http://www.wikisocion.org/en/index.php?title=ESI [ISFj (Socionics)/ISFP (MBTI)]
 
1 - 20 of 50 Posts
Top