[MBTI General] ISFP + ENTP relations

[Stansmith]

That is true. Socionics and MBTI are alike, but are also mutually exclusive.

HOWEVER, it was just being spoken as if ISFp automatically means ISFP. It is MORE LIKELY that an MBTI ISFP is a Socionics ISFj.

I, myself, think I may be an MBTI INTJ and a Socionics INFp.

Or the other way around (INFJ, INTp).

I'm not quite sure....jury's out on that one.

Oh, my bad. Didn't read the OP.

 

[valaki]

I know I'm rehashing an old thread, but I was interested in the ISFP-ENTP relationship dynamic, and this thread is actually completely wrong.

ISFp in socionics = ISFJ

The ISFj is the ISFP, and they are actually Conflicting Relations in socionics.

OK. You can close this thread now. This just peeved me (there was a thread that had it wrong on PerC too, and no one questioned it).

If you only go by descriptions of the 4 letter type (dichotomies), then MBTI ISFP is closer to ISFp in socionics and ISFJ is closer to ISFj.

 

[Poki]

I am istp in both...so actually.... Its interesting when people turn...usually into always or sometimes into probably into always

 

[idkman24]

If you only go by descriptions of the 4 letter type (dichotomies), then MBTI ISFP is closer to ISFp in socionics and ISFJ is closer to ISFj.

I understand that.

But with the evolution of "personality types," (socionics was meant to be the 'next step up' from MBTI), ISFP - ISFj. This actually makes sense because the MBTI primary function of an ISFP is a Judging function. That's the point of the 'j.' With extroverts, they stay the same (ENTP = ENTp b/c in MBTI primary function is a Perceiving function).

The people that created Socionics would definitely say an MBTI ISFP is most likely to be a Socionics ISFj.

 

[valaki]

I understand that.

But with the evolution of "personality types," (socionics was meant to be the 'next step up' from MBTI), ISFP - ISFj. This actually makes sense because the MBTI primary function of an ISFP is a Judging function. That's the point of the 'j.' With extroverts, they stay the same (ENTP = ENTp b/c in MBTI primary function is a Perceiving function).

The people that created Socionics would definitely say an MBTI ISFP is most likely to be a Socionics ISFj.

No, socionics was not meant to be the next step from MBTI. It was developed independently of MBTI. Hell, these MBTI-ish abbreviations weren't even used in the system originally.

And nope it doesn't make sense if you consider the descriptions. I'm not quite sure if Augusta (the founder of socionics) would agree that MBTI ISFP is socionics ISFj.

 

[idkman24]

No, socionics was not meant to be the next step from MBTI. It was developed independently of MBTI. Hell, these MBTI-ish abbreviations weren't even used in the system originally.

And nope it doesn't make sense if you consider the descriptions. I'm not quite sure if Augusta (the founder of socionics) would agree that MBTI ISFP is socionics ISFj.

You misunderstand me.

It was independent, but they use ALL the same functions, terminologies, etc.

Just like Keirseyan temperaments.

Ugh fine I'll find you an article.

EDIT: oh wow I stand corrected. Introverts are ISFx, so you'd be right, an ISFP could very well be ISFp. Hmmm there ya go.

But, according to this link, ISFj is still MUCH more likely for ISFP than ISFp is. The reason being because an ISFp would be someone who is unsure about their Thinking/Feeling (even though Fi is the dominant function for the ISFP). So, an ISFp would feel more closely associated to the ISTP than the INFP (which doesn't seem right, but not out of the realm of possibility). If an ISFP finds that their Sensing and iNtuition are more in doubt than their Feeling and Thinking, THEN they'd be an ISFj (which should be most ISFPs, as I've already said).

Another example, me. I'm an MBTI INxJ. I don't know whether I'm an INFJ or INTJ, so I'm unsure about my two Judging functions but I'm CERTAIN about my Perceiving functions. Since I lean more towards INFJ, that would make me INFp. If I was CERTAIN that I used Fe-Ti as my auxiliary and tertiary functions, but wasn't sure if my primary-inferior functions were Ni-Se or Si-Ne, I would be an INFj.

So, in a sense, we're both right.

http://www.socionics.com/articles/howto.htm

I actually have an older cousin in his 30s that I struggle typing between ISFP and ISTP, BUT he's also EXTREMELY unhealthy (type of person that would punch someone that pisses him off which signifies undeveloped, inferior Fe, BUT also would get his feelings hurt rather too easily, which signifies possible unhealthy primary Fi).

 

[Stansmith]

[MENTION=20069]idkman24[/MENTION]

But, according to this link, ISFj is still MUCH more likely for ISFP than ISFp is. The reason being because an ISFp would be someone who is unsure about their Thinking/Feeling (even though Fi is the dominant function for the ISFP). So, an ISFp would feel more closely associated to the ISTP than the INFP (which doesn't seem right, but not out of the realm of possibility). If an ISFP finds that their Sensing and iNtuition are more in doubt than their Feeling and Thinking, THEN they'd be an ISFj (which should be most ISFPs, as I've already said).

A lot of ISFP's aren't really all that 'judgy' though...Socionics Fi-doms are much more externally righteous and type A. ISFp seems to fit the whole modest aesthete stereotype that's usually associated with Myers-Briggs ISFP.

Among ISFPs you'll see a decent mix of SEI and ESI..with a few IEI's here and there.

 

[idkman24]

[MENTION=20069]idkman24[/MENTION]



A lot of ISFP's aren't really all that 'judgy' though...Socionics Fi-doms are much more externally righteous and type A. ISFp seems to fit the whole modest aesthete stereotype that's usually associated with Myers-Briggs ISFP.

Among ISFPs you'll see a decent mix of SEI and ESI..with a few IEI's here and there.

I don't know, because I'm not an ISFP.

But what I do realize (especially with male IxFPs) is really have this "tough guy" persona that comes across as them being not so sensitive when, in reality, they are EXTREMELY sensitive (the most sensitive of the types, really). So, in that case, their Fi isn't really visible, but that's how many (if not all) the introverted functions are.

"Judging" doesn't mean "judgy." Again, I'll use the INFJ because I am one to illustrate. Our primary function (Ni) is a Perceiving function. I gather information through Ni. What I DO with that information is Judge it (with Fe -- a Judging function). It has nothing to do with "Type A" or "externally righteous." Because of this, I'm not a HUGE fan of the term "Judging" because when I started with MBTI, I thought it had a negative connotation. It's not meant to.

Think of it this way:
Perceiving functions are how one OBTAINS information (sort of like an input)
Judging functions are how one USES information (sort of like an output)

That's why dom-Judging types are usually said to be "ACT first, THINK later" types.

 

[valaki]

It was independent, but they use ALL the same functions, terminologies, etc.

Just like Keirseyan temperaments.

Actually, they don't use the exact same functions etc and that's another reason why ISFP doesn't translate too well to ISFj/ESI.

EDIT: oh wow I stand corrected. Introverts are ISFx, so you'd be right, an ISFP could very well be ISFp. Hmmm there ya go.

Heh yea my main point was that it could be either ISFp or ISFj (or even some other type altogether ), with ISFj definitely not being more likely than ISFp.

But, according to this link, ISFj is still MUCH more likely for ISFP than ISFp is. The reason being because an ISFp would be someone who is unsure about their Thinking/Feeling (even though Fi is the dominant function for the ISFP). So, an ISFp would feel more closely associated to the ISTP than the INFP (which doesn't seem right, but not out of the realm of possibility). If an ISFP finds that their Sensing and iNtuition are more in doubt than their Feeling and Thinking, THEN they'd be an ISFj (which should be most ISFPs, as I've already said).

Well that brings up another issue here; the relation between the 4-letter dichotomies and the functions. It's not a one to one thing unfortunately* :/ Thus the above argument doesn't work.

*: This less than perfect relationship does however make it possible that someone who types ISFP in MBTI and went by functions to arrive at this typing and managed to still identify with Fi in socionics too (though it's not the same function definition there so that's yet another caveat), will be ISFj in socionics. Otoh, some other ISFP who typed by functions in MBTI may conclude that the socionics Fi doesn't work for them and they go for ISFp in socionics or maybe some other type (I think I saw for example some MBTI ISFP here who types SEE-Fi, ESFp-Fi in socionics). And then a third ISFP maybe got typed by dichotomies and not functions in MBTI and decides the ISFp in socionics works for them, including the descriptions matching well enough for them. And so on and so on.

So, in a sense, we're both right.

Yeah in a sense. But note how basically there is no determining rule here, as explained above.

http://www.socionics.com/articles/howto.htm

That site isn't the best out there, try wikisocion.org or sociotype.com or socionics.us (perhaps http://techhouse.org/~nietzsche/ for some basics explained a bit differently)

I actually have an older cousin in his 30s that I struggle typing between ISFP and ISTP, BUT he's also EXTREMELY unhealthy (type of person that would punch someone that pisses him off which signifies undeveloped, inferior Fe, BUT also would get his feelings hurt rather too easily, which signifies possible unhealthy primary Fi).

Heh I know a lot of people who aren't extremely unhealthy and yet their type is best left unspecified to a degree. At least from my outsider position of attempting to type them.