| Socionics Personals |  | Female
Straight
16-25
Oceania
Libra
ENFj |
|  | Male
Straight
16-25
Middle East
Sagittarius
INTj |
|  | Male
Straight
26-35
North America
Pisces
INXj |
| | Join now! |
Who is who?Learn how to convert between different systems
V.I.An introduction into the widely used Socionics Visual Identification technique
TestsA collection of Socionics related tests and quizes
Q & AsAsk a Socionics related question or provide an answer to an existing one
ArticlesVarious articles on the subject of Socionics and Types in general
ForumsWant to discuss Type? Head to Socionics Forums!
|
| Questions & Answers |
| Question #1122148586 | Saturday, 23-Jul-2005 |
|
|
| I am pretty sure that I have an INTP personality type, as I have taken several tests and carefully considered the alternatives, such as INFP and INTJ. I'm sure I prefer Perceiving over Judging. If I have an INTP personality type, then why do all the INTJ descriptions in this site fit me better? -- Anonymous |
Your Answers: 1+ |
| A1 It would help if you can give several specific "fit me better" examples supporting your claim. You can take the test @ http://socionicstypeassistant.com and provide the intercode, which could also help to answer your question. Alternatively, you can look here and here if you haven't done so yet. -- Admin
|
| A2
After submitting my question I compared INTJ and INTP descriptions again and found the INTP profile fit me better than I had previously thought (To which you respond "Why am I not surprised?"). I thought that the INTJ descriptions fit me better because it listed more behaviours I had observed in myself than the INTP descriptions. However as "INTJ or INTP?" stated, type is not about how you behave, it is about how your psyche is structured. Anyways, I do have two questions relating to the "INTJ or INTP?" article. It was stated that INTJs are mainly interested in gaining an understanding, and INTPs in exercising their knowledge. But I'm primarily interested in understanding, and actually doing is secondary or not a priority. Why is that? -- Anonymous
|
|
|
| A3
Maybe you just have a logical subtype (refer to the subtypes question somewhere in Q&As). -- Admin
|
| A4
Also, "INTJ or INTP?" stated that INTJs are in their element when involved in science, invention, innovation, discovery, theory, explanation, interpretation, philosophy, etc. and INTPs are in their element when involved in business, enterprise, commerce, industry, trade, financial institutions, church etc. I am strongly interested in most of the areas listed as examples of the INTJ's element, and have almost no interest in the areas listed as the INTP's element, church excepted, though I wouldn't want that as an occupation. If INTPs are more naturally suited to these fields, shouldn't I have some interest in them? -- Anonymous
|
| A5
"Being in your element" is not quite the same as "being interested in" something. The areas listed for INTp (Socionics modelling) show the most obvious Ni+Te fields of activity (ability), which could also be the areas of interest for an INTp or not. -- Admin
|
A6 When Isabel Myers and her daughter Katherine Myers-Briggs started typing people they noted that extraverts exhibited certain behavioral preferences, they either preferred structure and closure, or flexibility and open endedness. Carl Jung from whom they barrowed their theory used the terms judging and perceiving to describe the roles rational and irrational functions respectively. So Isabel and Katherine added a J/P dimension to their type description which indicated whether a person preferred closure or open endedness. However the correlation between preference of closure or open endedness and whether a person's rational functions (thinking and feeling) are dominant or not was only valid for extraverts. This resulted in irrational introverts being typed as J's, and rational introverts being typed as P's, completely contrary to what Jung meant by the terms judging and perceiving. Socionics attempted to correct this discepency by substituting 'j' and 'p' for J and P, where j according to socionics means that a person's rational function (T or F) is primary, and likewise p according to socionics means the irrational function (S or N) is primary. All this correction really accomplished was confusion, since many people are already familiar with the Myers-Briggs code and not so many with socionics, or with Jung and fewer still with what Jung actually said. Having said all of that, it should be evident now that an MB INTP is a socionics INTj and vice versa. -- metroGnome, the ostensible INTj
|
|
| Although theoretically metroGnome is right, in practice there is never a straight forward conversion between MBTI and Socionics, because sometimes MBTI INTP is Socionics INTj but sometimes MBTI INTP is also Socionics INTp. |
| A7 I am intp in MBTI,and i am more inclined to be intp in Socionics.Read the article "intp uncovered" and you`ll see more differences.maybe with VI (visual identification) we can clear that up? is VI really that reliable? -- Dexter |
| *Please note that the opinions expressed are not necessarily those of socionics.com* |
Page 1 |
| Would you like to add anything? |
(When posting, we ask you to make the effort to qualify your opinions.)
|
|
