[Other Socionics] SEE-Fi in Socionics, ENFJ in MBTI

[VILLANELLE]

I feel lost again and it's really frustrated me, but I did a cognitive functions test to make sure, and I am an ENFJ.

I... ugh. I'm overthinking this and it's exhausting.

 

[erg]

It is certainly possible. What cognitive function test did you take?

Also, how do you know you are SEE-Fi in socionics?

 

[VILLANELLE]

Because I did a socionics test, obviously. I did the Celebrity Types cognitive functions test. And literally every time, I have gotten ENFJ. Like, it'll say at the bottom, "you could be ENFJ or ESFJ", but I've taken a few of their "[Type] or [Type]" tests and I have gotten ENFJ there as well.

 

[Kierva]

I feel lost again and it's really frustrated me, but I did a cognitive functions test to make sure, and I am an ENFJ.

I... ugh. I'm overthinking this and it's exhausting.

Tests don't help very much.

I've studied both systems extensively and my opinion is that they are 75% similar with the exception of /Se and /Si.

Your type combination is very weird in my book, because (what an object can do) roughly correlates to a part of Te, whereas is an elaboration of JCF's simplistic Se.

 

[erg]

Tests don't help very much.

I've studied both systems extensively and my opinion is that they are 75% similar with the exception of /Se and /Si.

Your type combination is very weird in my book, because (what an object can do) roughly correlates to a part of Te, whereas is an elaboration of JCF's simplistic Se.

Yep. There are more differences however.

One thing; if your MBTI type and your socionics type don't match, socionics has to take precedence. This is becaue socionics actually describes the way that you are perceiving information (the way you are hard-wired, your "true type"), and not the way you appear (MBTI). For the record; I've seen people type ENFJ celebrities that are SEE-Fi in socionics.

 

[Smilephantomhive]

Yep. There are more differences however.

One thing; if your MBTI type and your socionics type don't match, socionics has to take precedence. This is becaue socionics actually describes the way that you are perceiving information (the way you are hard-wired, your "true type"), and not the way you appear (MBTI). For the record; I've seen people type ENFJ celebrities that are SEE-Fi in socionics.

If this is true then I've been using mbti like socionics.

 

[VILLANELLE]

Yep. There are more differences however.

One thing; if your MBTI type and your socionics type don't match, socionics has to take precedence. This is becaue socionics actually describes the way that you are perceiving information (the way you are hard-wired, your "true type"), and not the way you appear (MBTI). For the record; I've seen people type ENFJ celebrities that are SEE-Fi in socionics.

I just feel confused and I'm not getting an answer here.

 

[erg]

I just feel confused and I'm not getting an answer here.

That if you are certain that you are SEE-Fi, you can go the legit route and type yourself ESFP in MBTI (Se Fi). Unless you really identify with the ENFJ description, in which case you could type yourself ENFJ. Or you can scrap MBTI altogether (like I have).

 

[VILLANELLE]

That if you are certain that you are SEE-Fi, you can go the legit route and type yourself ESFP in MBTI (Se Fi). Unless you really identify with the ENFJ description, in which case you could type yourself ENFJ. Or you can scrap MBTI altogether (like I have).

I'm sticking with ENFJ. My post feels useless now. May I ask why you scrapped MBTI altogether?

 

[Zeego]

Before you get bogged down in cognitive function theory and MBTI vs. Socionics, read this. It's quite enlightening.

 

[erg]

I'm sticking with ENFJ. My post feels useless now. May I ask why you scrapped MBTI altogether?

Because I've come to the conclusion that it is a useless theory.

 

[VILLANELLE]

Because I've come to the conclusion that it is a useless theory.

And why do you think it's a useless theory? Because four letters don't represent a whole person?

 

[erg]

And why do you think it's a useless theory? Because four letters don't represent a whole person?

Because it serves no purpose. Also, it is flawed and ridden with misconceptions and inaccuracies.

 

[VILLANELLE]

Because it serves no purpose. Also, it is flawed and ridden with misconceptions and inaccuracies.

Okay then.

 

[Mayflower]

That is an odd combination but possible. They both split off from Jung, but Socionics somewhat sticks to cognitive analysis rather than behaviorism that MBTI ascribes to. In that sense, socionics is more "accurate". But from the sessions of analysis on here, you are NF. Unless you want to do another round of that..?

 

[erg]

Okay then.

I don't know what else to say. Do you want me to try to convince you to abandon MBTI and turn to socionics(which is IMO, what everyone should do)?

 

[VILLANELLE]

That is an odd combination but possible. They both split off from Jung, but Socionics somewhat sticks to cognitive analysis rather than behaviorism that MBTI ascribes to. In that sense, socionics is more "accurate". But from the sessions of analysis on here, you are NF. Unless you want to do another round of that..?

No, I'm fine with my NF. I like the cognitives as opposed to the behaviorism.

 

[Psyclepath]

That is an odd combination but possible. They both split off from Jung, but Socionics somewhat sticks to cognitive analysis rather than behaviorism that MBTI ascribes to. In that sense, socionics is more "accurate". But from the sessions of analysis on here, you are NF. Unless you want to do another round of that..?

NF? You mean, the Keirsey temperament?

I'd tell you any day that Keirsey is an utter farce of an individual.

 

[Mayflower]

NF? You mean, the Keirsey temperament?

I'd tell you any day that Keirsey is an utter farce of an individual.

I think that's an understatement.

 

[Typh0n]

I like the cognitives as opposed to the behaviorism.

Yes, that's the point. Socionics is focused on the cognitive, MBTI the behaviorist.