[Edmond Zedo]

^Socionics functions are more accurate than MBTI's are, with Ni as dominant for both INTPs and INFPs. Of course, neither system is as accurate as mine, which removes Jung's erroneous i/e orientation. Long story.

INFP for Rez, between the two types under consideration.

 

[Edmond Zedo]

Socionics and MBTI types aren't the same. People who test as INTPs in the MBTI can be either INTps or INTjs depending on a criteria which I forgot. Something to do with how certain you are of being a T, possibly?

Also. Me? Ni as a dominant function? I don't think so.:crazy: (Come to think of it I'm pretty sure I tested as an INTj)

I disagree, and I've written about it. Quoting myself:

-Perceving and Judging mean the same things under both systems, in the context of describing the types in general.

-INTPs test as ILI (INTp) much, much more than they test as LII.

-See www.wikisocion.org. Using the descriptions there, It should hopefully be undeniable that ISTP=ISTp, and ISTJ=ISTj. The ISTp is even called the "Craftsman," hardly a typical title for ISTJs.

-If you take a look at Socionics interpersonal relations, you'll notice that if ESFj and INTj are duals (Best possible long-term match). ESFJs are notoriously bad matches for INTPs, but not so for INTJs.

-The vast majority of those who would disagree, and say some nonsense like "INTP=INTj," do so because they've prioritized the function assignments over all else, especially sense.

Why assume that the arbitrarily assigned function order for both systems is the one thing that's accurate, as opposed to everything else? Even if one of the two "has it right," which they don't, the function orders never match up, no matter how you slice it. ILI=Ni-Te-Si-Fe, INTJ=Ni-Te-Fi-Se.

As for you not identifying with "Ni," I would say that the MBTI definitions are not equal to Jung's, and futhermore, if you take a look around any MBTI forum, you might notice the people who talk the most about what MBTI functions they use tend not to know their own types. Those function assignments aren't Jungian, nor useful.

 

[Edmond Zedo]

I guess I'm an exception, then. :bored:

*Goes and takes test for nth time*

And now I'm getting ILE (ENTp), but with LII (89% as likely as ILE) and ILI (81% as likely as ILE). I'm not sure if I'm annoyed or if I just love doubting my own type and researching and coming back to my previous conclusion.



Why is it erroneous?

He mistook the actual I/E difference, which is solely respective of desire and tolerance for social interaction, with subject/object focus. Subject/object focus differences are determined by the J/P split.

FYI, cognitive processes tests use the distorted MBTI function definitions. Those definitons are based on analysis of people of the types, not based on the Jungian definitions. It gets complicated, but suffice to say Isabel Myers assigned the "wrong" functions to Introverts as dominant. For example, I am decidedly Intuition dominant (Ni, most specifically) according to Jung's actual work, but I test as "Ti/Te/Ne/etc." on cog. proc. tests. Because they aren't based on Jung's definitions.