INFJ list

[Lurker]

Ganin's arguments didn't round me. So far 2 conditions above are not disproved there's no rational reasons to change point of view.

P.S. I saw Ganin's site long ago, and read some articles by other authors about this question too. There was nothing convincing to change my opinion.

Well obviously he's not the only one saying that the J/P for MBTI doesn't match up with Socionics;

www.socionics.us

They are fundamentally different and cannot be treated as "the same types, but with different type names”.

The four socionic dichotomies appear to be very similar to the dichotomies used by the MBTI system. However, close inquiry reveals that there are many subtle differences. If you assume the dichotomies are the same and equate each socionic type to an MBTI type, some socionic types will overlap to a large degree with their MBTI counterparts, others will partially overlap, and yet others will seem to be completely different. If the types were truly equivalent, a similar theory of intertype relations would have arisen in the MBTI system – but there is none. On the whole, MBTI and socionics types seem to correlate in roughly 30% of cases. That is not nearly enough to consider the two typologies close approximations of each other.

www.socioniko.net

The meaning of three socionic criteria, extroversion/introversion, logic/ethic, sensation/intuition is almost the same as in MBTI for E/I, T/F and S/N criteria.

Although the J/P criterion in the Myers-Briggs theory resembles rationality-irrationality by its description, it's not the same. As it was proved by Gregory Shulman, J/P is not dichotomy (i.e. it does not split the 16 socionic types into 2 equal parts). It is a pseudo-dichotomy that represents two poles with multiple transitional options; in other words, one or two types in socionics may be called "super-J", and another one or two types "super-P", while other types tend more or less to one of these poles. This explains, for example, why ENFP or ENFJ in socionics may both get scored ENFP according to MBTI, etc.

So than we have arguments from those denying the J/P switch from www.wikisocion.org, they dispute for the following reasons;

Myers-Briggs Typology does not attempt to measure introverted and extroverted forms of functions directly, and since it does not define the functions and their forms in the same way as Socionics, the Myers-Briggs view of functions cannot directly be compared to Socionics functions as defined by Model A.

One argument in favor of this claim is type descriptions. That overall Myers-Briggs Judgement resembles more socionics Rationality, and its Perception more socionics Irrationality

Another argument is that MBTI is in many ways a very different and less sophisticated theory than socionics, and that any attempt to definitively measure socionics type in terms of MBTI type is by nature flawed.

Saying it’s just preferences doesn’t even match up with those who deny the validity of the J/P switch unless you're going to talk about definitions of judging, perceiving, rationality and irrationality. Opponents here are claiming that the descriptions are close or that they shouldn't be measured against each other. The site goes on to explain a test on the type descriptions that was conducted;

108 socionists were asked to read all Keirsey type descriptions and rate which Socionics type was being described... the table of results could be viewed as mildly supportive of the J/P switch for IN-- Keirsey types

I am genuinely interested as to why you say they are exactly the same when most accept otherwise? Although if you’re gonna say ‘they’re just preferences’ best leave it cause I need something more concrete than that, happy for you to direct me to a site though.

 

[arbygil]

Different typers may type you differently. I don't know exactly wich theories and methods were used to you. But know that many using theories have no scientific basis and there's no method of type's identifying with seriously based high validity. Hence, there's considerable probability of mistake. In such situation, that what you said about your messy is rather strong factor to doubt in the type.



Not so strong variations (messy as dominating style of J). Either type was identified wrong, or there's error in assessment of behavior.

*Sigh.* I think we're going in circles about the argument. You're assuming messy is such a strong indicator of type that you're not willing to balance it with people's natural behavior. You're putting people in categories that are far too strict.

Let me put things in very simple terms: If one takes the MBTI test, one seldom receives this result: 100% I, 100% N, 100% F or 100% J. It's a gradient scale. It's not one or the other and it's not black and white. It's an *average.*

My average is closer to this: 94% I, 82% N, 60% F, and 64% J. All together that averages to INFJ. So I say yes to messy, but not to disorganized (and no, messy and disorganized are not mutually equal).

I'm not 100% introvert - does that make me not an introvert? No, it means I have a very strong introvert preference. I'm 82% Intuitive. Does that mean I'm a Sensor? No! It means I have a strong preference for Intuiting. And equally so for Feeling and Perceiving. I have moderate/mild preferences for both areas. Sometimes I'll do things that are considered Perceiver-ish (if you'll allow me to use less technical terms). Sometimes I'll do things that are considered "Thinker-like". But the bottom line is, overall I am INFJ. It doesn't change my type just because I do other things. It just means in the realm of all INFJs, I exhibit more - or fewer - examples of the overall make up of INFJ.

Now, I'm sorry if you're having problems understanding what I mean - and I'm not sure if I understand what you're implying, either. I think we're just speaking on two different sides of things and we may never come to a conclusion that satisfies both of us.

 

[brokenxtheory]

Shannen Doherty is an INFP? Wow, didn't see that coming. Are they sure about that? Interesting list, though.

 

[Sol]

Well obviously he's not the only one

Obviously I saw this popular site in past - there's nothing new. His arguments follow from types' descriptions, wich are influenced by functional models and from functional models themself. I have said already, that this factors are external. This is because preferences can be identified or checked directly, without any other theories. He should compare _qualities of preferences_ in both typologies to check are they the same in essence, to say that types designated by these preferences are not the same.

from www.wikisocion.org

I saw article about preferences there too. They try, but there's still nothing convincing to change opinion. In many, they repeat wrong stategy of argumentation from above, plus added some assertions I don't agree, plus they described some secondary and minor differences and decided that they overbalance many core similarities. English-language people (on that site too) have great lack of information about situation in socionics, it's difficult for them to evaluate correctly what is said them from different "gurus" (from both typologies).

you're going to talk about definitions of judging, perceiving, rationality and irrationality

Preferences are in their general definitions, in lists of qualitites of preferences, and in tests of preferences. Also different qualities have different weights. All preferences in both typologies are identical by essence, but there may be some minor and secondary differences how different authors understand and describe the same.

I am genuinely interested as to why you say they are exactly the same when most accept otherwise?

I have said my arguments.

if you’re gonna say ‘they’re just preferences’ best leave it cause I need something more concrete

Yes, 4-letter code itself means preferences only (which can be identified directly), it's obviously. And if one agrees that preferences are the same, it's enough to share my point of view. The only concrete you need - information to understand that preferences are the same, - for this you have to read 3-4 socionics books (for ex. by Filatova, Beskova, Gorenko, Stratievskaya, etc.) and to look at 3-4 socionics preferences' tests (for ex. by Gulenko, Filatova, Gorenko, Meged-Ovcharova, etc.), and then compare them with MBT ones. [all these socionics popular books and tests are in Internet, but in Russian language]

 

[Sol]

You're assuming messy is such a strong indicator of type that you're not willing to balance it with people's natural behavior.

Messy as dominant style of behavior is definitely not the quality of J. I have nothing to add, so question is closed from my side.

 

[Shaz]

Hmmm...

...

 

[Sol]

Shannen Doherty is an INFP? Wow, didn't see that coming. Are they sure about that?

List consists of my opinions only.
There's almost no "they" (in practice), because when using socionics don't know versions of others during typing they have the same result in 15-30% only.

P.S. Having regard that profiles (if they were used for assessment) are influenced by function models, I recommend to read socionic descriptions for introverted types in my list. Types designated by preferences are the same, but their socionics profiles are more correct. They are based on Jung's model not perverted by Myers. And for extraverted types too, also it's less important.

 

[waterbaby]

I thought I was INTP because, well cause I thought of myself as a thinker.

Still do. I am an F however, because I realize that I'm thinking in relation to other people, what they think, how my actions effect them.

And lets not forget the mushy ones. I have a love affair with everyone.

I don't want to but I do.

Me too.