INFJ list

[Sol]

they're both different personalities in there respective models

Code itself describes _preferences only_, but not all qualities of personality. In part of preferences personalities are the same. If a man is INFJ in socionics, then he is INFJ in MBT, and vice-versa.
The same man shall get the same code in both typologies, if all have done correctly (and inner results of typers are not contradictory).

 

[Quinlan]

Thanks, but I have found that when I'm in a really foul mood I relate more to the INFP's?

People do all sorts of atypical things when under some form of stress. What is most important is what feels natural and comfortable for you.

 

[Sol]

What happens if you test equally as an INFJ and INFP?

I suppose that if your type was J, you should probably had written this in other thread - with subject more corresponding to such question. There is a heap of test, and you may average out their results.

 

[arbygil]

What bugs me most about the tests is the "messy" part. They automatically assume that if you're messy you can't be a J. But there are different types of messy. If you can take the mess, you're more likely a "P". If you hate the mess and it depresses you, but you live with it anyway because you can't figure out where to start, it's more "J."

But oops! I've hijacked another thread. What was this one supposed to be again...? LOL! There are too many INFJ threads! I want to post in all of them...

 

[Sol]

If you hate the mess and it depresses you, but you live with it anyway because you can't figure out where to start, it's more "J."

J/P - is dominating lifestyle, it describes how to do easier for a concrete man. Primarily, it's not a question of love and hate.
For example, the J-person can admire P-style when man prepare for examination (not for easy one) in 1 day and night, but he will prefer to prepare in several free days befor examination (uniform working) because probability of success with this strategy is much higher for him.

 

[arbygil]

J/P - is dominating lifestyle, it describes how to do easier for a concrete man. Primarily, it's not a question of love and hate.
For example, the J-person can admire P-style when man prepare for examination (not for easy one) in 1 day and night, but he will prefer to prepare in several free days befor examination (uniform working) because probability of success with this strategy is much higher for him.

I know what you mean - but I think it's difficult to put every preference in one category, too. I admire the P side of things and I have a preference for many P-type situations, but I have more J preferences than P preferences. One can have a preference for many things outside of their "typical" type, and still be their type. Otherwise, wouldn't we all be cardboard cutouts of the same four-letter grouping system?

 

[Sol]

it's difficult to put every preference in one category

I used definition of this by Jung and by Myers-Briggs. Both of them talked about utilization, but not about loving.

I have a preference for many P-type situations, but I have more J preferences than P preferences.

You talked about messy as dominating style of behavior. "Messy" is too general characteristic. "J" can't be messy as _dominating_ style of life (in reasoning and therefore in behavior).If you are "J", may be we have different understanding of term "messy", or you mistake about dominating of messy behavior in your life.I saw sometimes, how people could not become clear about their type for years, and saw how different typers had different opinions about type of the same man. I strongly recommend you to think more about your type.

 

[enigma]

I too, can test out either P or J situationally. In reading the two profiles, I definately fall into the J side, but will test as a P If I take the test as if I were at work.

 

[Quinlan]

Some Js see mess that just isn't there to me.

 

[ohmermaid]

i like this:

Consequently, INFJs put a tremendous amount of faith into their instincts and intuitions. This is something of a conflict between the inner and outer worlds, and may result in the INFJ not being as organized as other Judging types tend to be. Or we may see some signs of disarray in an otherwise orderly tendency, such as a consistently messy desk.

 

[ZenCat]

Some Js see mess that just isn't there to me.

I can see mess anywhere if I look hard enough. I'm a chronic tidier.

 

[arbygil]

I used definition of this by Jung and by Myers-Briggs. Both of them talked about utilization, but not about loving.You talked about messy as dominating style of behavior. "Messy" is too general characteristic. "J" can't be messy as _dominating_ style of life (in reasoning and therefore in behavior).If you are "J", may be we have different understanding of term "messy", or you mistake about dominating of messy behavior in your life.I saw sometimes, how people could not become clear about their type for years, and saw how different typers had different opinions about type of the same man. I strongly recommend you to think more about your type.

No, I'm sure about my type. But it's the overall behavior that is important, not one characteristic of type. What I am saying is, you can have variations within your type that still denote your type. It's the overall makeup of type that denotes you who you are, not pieces of it. I am organized, and "messy" is relative. I know where everything is and I know where to find it. But it doesn't make me any less "J" to have a messy home.

That's a fallacy, IMO.

 

[Shaz]

I don't think the mess thing means much. I'm definitely INFJ and definitely messy. I explain it by the fact that I'm very Nish and disconnected from trivial reality sometimes. Mess is annoying sometimes but not enough to be more important than reading or dreaming or doing things that I consider interesting and worth doing.

Of course at some point I can't even see the floor/desk/kitchen table for the mess, then I tidy and clean EVERYTHING thoroughly. Until the next time (but this doesn't happen very often).

 

[Sol]

In reading the two profiles, I definately fall into the J side, but will test as a P If I take the test as if I were at work.

1) Tests are not perfect. For example, I'm getting introversion in most preferences' tests, but I'm extraverted (judging by behavior, profiles, and some other).
2) You may try socionics profiles, they are closer to Jung's understanding of introverted types.

 

[Lurker]

Interesting. I was reading a book on MBTI that said if you can't decide if you are an F or a T answer this question: You are the boss of a company and you need to make a member of a team redundant to cut costs. There are two people with the same job who are equally talented but one is 25 and the other is 60. Who do you pick? (Or something very similar to this).

Hehe, all things even, the 60 year old without a doubt, theoretically the 25 year old can be a long term investment *ninjas away from the elderly before they kick my ass*

Some Js see mess that just isn't there to me.

Oh HELL YEAH!

Code itself describes _preferences only_, but not all qualities of personality. In part of preferences personalities are the same. If a man is INFJ in socionics, then he is INFJ in MBT, and vice-versa.
The same man shall get the same code in both typologies, if all have done correctly (and inner results of typers are not contradictory).

No. Someone who scores as INFJ in MBTI is not automatically an INFj in Socionics (nor INFp), that's an accepted fact by MBTI and Socionics. The cognitive function order of MBTI INFJ is closer to Socionics INFp, this does not mean as a MBTI INFJ someone has to be an INFp in Socionics but it is quite possible.

Socionics INFj = Fi > Ne > Ti > Se
MBTI INFP = Fi > Ne > Si > Te

Socionics INFp = Ni > Fe > Si > Te
MBTI INFJ = Ni > Fe > Ti > Se

Anyone who had closely read all the articles about Socionics and MBTI® theory compatibility issues has already got a fair idea that there is no straightforward conversion between the two systems.

As an extrovert you may not have looked at this as extraverts generally stay the same however this is how Socionics converts introverts;

MBTI Socionics
INFJ - INFx
INTJ - INTx
INFP - INFx
INTP - INTx
ISFJ - ISFx
ISTJ - ISTx
ISFP - ISFx
ISTP - ISTx

Unsure about being T or F -> you are Socionics XXXp
Unsure about being S or N -> you are Socionics XXXj

 

[Sol]

But it's the overall behavior that is important, not one characteristic of type.

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.

you can have variations within your type that still denote your type

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

 

[Lurker]

What happens if you test equally as an INFJ and INFP?

Does that mean that I'm not really an INFJ and should find a new forum? :mcry:

Do you actually question your Jayness?

 

[Sol]

Someone who scores as INFJ in MBTI is not automatically an INFj in Socionics

As 1) preferences are the same and 2) INFJ describes preferences only, then _if preferences were identified correctly_, then INFJ in MBT is INFJ anywhere.

The cognitive function order

Cognitive functions and any other methods and factors used for type's identifying doesn't affect said by me upper.

P.S. I am bothred to repeat the same and obvious. If someone still disagrees, I recommend him to re-read written above and to think a little more. I shall not return to this question in this thread.

 

[Lurker]

As 1) preferences are the same and 2) INFJ describes preferences only, then _if preferences were identified correctly_, then INFJ in MBT is INFJ anywhere.

Cognitive functions and any other methods and factors used for type's identifying doesn't affect said by me upper.

P.S. I am bothred to repeat the same and obvious. If someone still disagrees, I recommend him to re-read written above and to think a little more. I shall not return to this question in this thread.

Um, did you read the quote I posted from the Socionics website where is says that there is no straightforward conversion between the two systems.

:noidea:


EDIT: Tell you what, here's the link, you can check it out yourself if you wanna understand better.

 

[Sol]

website where is says that there is no straightforward conversion between the two systems.

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.

Also I researched a little the situation from the practical point of view. When some tens experienced in using socionics people had gathered and had typed some men (well-known experiment "CRT-99" (1999), used interview and image methods without knowing results of each other during experiment) they got match of results in 16% only, - it's average "independent convergence" among using socionics. Also there's not rare situation with public famous people lists among using socionics, where convergence is 20% or lower. Recently I compared famous people types in one MBT site (there's rather big collection and people there think rather self-reliant): 3 of 4 socionics lists had convergence with this MBT list in 13-16%, that is near "independent convergence" among using socionics.