Then I know a looooot of IxTJs, dude
Ok, lemme try this again.
ISTP or ENFP comes in on this forum.
He/SHe makes a thread about the dynamic between the two MBTI types
Says it goes great, but communication can be...difficult coz they are so different, but there is an instant draw and great chemistry because of those differences.
Inevitably, someone comes in and tells them this is coz they are duals in socionics.
Are they right[?]...
No, they're not right.
The idea of duals is that your dual is your shadow.
That is all you have to know.
Any screwing up that occurs after that is caused either by a problem with one system or the other, or user error.
If you are an SiTe type in one system, you
should be an SiTe type in the other.
The problem is that MBTI puts "Jish" qualities in SiTe-type descriptions, while Socionics puts "pish" qualities in SiTe-type descriptions.
This makes Socionics descriptions of SiTe types (ISTp in Socionics; ISTJ in MBTI) sound "pish".
It also makes Socionics descriptions of TiSe types (ISTj in Socionics, ISTP is MBTI) sound "jish".
And, likewise, this makes MBTI descriptions of SiTe types (ISTp in Socionics; ISTJ in MBTI) sound "Jish".
It also makes MBTI descriptions of TiSe types (ISTj in Socionics, ISTP is MBTI) sound "Pish".
Hence, why ISTJs (SiTe) in MBTI will often identify with ISTj (TiSe) profile descriptions in Socionics, and why ISTPs (TiSe) in MBTI will often identifty with ISTp (SiTe) profilfe descriptions in Socionics. And likewise for all the introverted types (the least likely to do so, tho, are the INTx types, for an interesting reason).
But what this issue really points to is this question: which types actually have "Jish/jish" qualities and which have "Pish/pish"?
Is it the dominant function being either a
judging or a
perceiving function that affects this? <--- Socionics
Or is it whether one's foremost
judging function is introverted or extroverted? <--- MBTI
The truth, as usual, is that it's both; that it's somewhere in between.
Hence, the 4 EJs (or Ejs) are Js/js in both systems, and are far and away the most "Jish/jish" of all 16 types.
But types that are Js in one system but ps in the other, or Ps in one system but js in the other (which, due to the structure of the two systems, ends up being all eight introverts), are kinda in between being "Pish/pish" and "Jish/jish".
Hence, INTPs (INTjs in Socionics) can sometimes seem very prickly/Jish, and INTJs (INTps in Socionics) can sometimes seem very spacy/Pish.
Because INTPs are dominant judgers, and hence are kinda judgerish, but their foremost extroverted function is a perceiving function, so they can also come off rather perceiverish.
Likewise, INTJs are dominant perceivers, and hence can be kinda perceiverish, but their foremost judging function is extroverted, so they can also come off more judgerish.
As such, interestingly, and as makes perfect sense, functionally, it's when the INTPs are more introverted that they seem more Jish (Ti[Si {loop}]), whereas it's when the INTJs are more extroverted that they seem more Jish (Te[Se {loop?}]).
Other types that are like this (i.e., all the introverts), share this same issue, and thus, are kinduva blend between perceiver and judger.
Depending on which system's profile descriptions you're reading, you should keep this in mind.
INTJs are often gunna be more perceiverish than what their MBTI profile descriptions say, and INTps are often gunna be more judgerish than what their Socionics profile descriptions say.
And so on.
For all the introverted types.
EPs (Eps), though, are gunna be super-perceiverish, regardless of system, just like the EJs (Ejs) are super-judgerish.
As to why you identify with INFJs (INFps) in Socionics, Amar: it's probably just shitty profile descriptions.
You probably share qualities with INFJs (INFps) anyway, being an NF, and you're just catching onto certain elements of the INFp profile descriptions in Socionics and identifying with them.
Also, as I showed in
this post above, the quadras are problematic concepts, because they group duals (i.e., shadow types) together, and then act like the two types share these common qualities, because they share the same functions. That's an idiotic conceptual maneuver, as it ignores the fact that types usually suppress/reject their shadow functions, and thus are often actually extremely
different than their shadow type.
(The story gets more complicated, if we start developing our shadow functions, and thus start reducing the rejective/suppressive relationship we usually have with our shadow functions, but that's less of a typical state of affairs, and more an advanced state of affairs, and one shouldn't be basing normal type descriptions based on that advanced state of affairs [especially considering, even when someone of particular type does develop beyond normal, and thus does lessen the suppressive/rejective relationship with their shadow functions, that doesn't mean they simply become exactly like their shadow type {e.g, INTJ->ESFP}; rather, when this more advanced level of development does actually occur, we still tend to experience our shadow functions in different ways than our shadow types do, as they are still inferior to our dominant functions {dom and aux}, and we are not nearly as adept at using them as our shadow types are]).
Because of this, there might be elements in the ENFp descriptions that you're rejecting/not identifying with (i.e., because some Socionics profile descriptions might be based on this idiotic conceptual move, and thus are making ENFPs sound too much like ISTJs [and, likewise, might be making INFJs sounds too much like ESTPs, which, as an EP, you are somewhat identifying with]).
...or is there another reason for the dynamic between these two mbti types?
There is.
It's a similar dynamic between ENFPs and all the IT types.
ENFPs are attracted to the inertness/lack of emotionality that IT types tend to display.
And how come Socionics - if it aint right - doesn't seem to confirm this?
I have no idea what this is asking.