Socionics Personals
Eastern Europe
South America
Join now!

Questions & Answers
Question #1123089662Wednesday, 3-Aug-2005
Category: Advice Functions Math and science INTj INTp
INTs are described as being good in mathematics & science. I score as an INTP/J but I did literature, liked it, & chose to NOT take science or maths as I was weak in those subjects. Nevertheless, I do think a scientific approach is good to have. DO you think I am in someway making a mistake while taking the personality assessment tests? Pls guide as I wish to know more about myself. BTW I don't get involved with the characters I read about so I guess I am not one of the NF types. Could my Thinking be very weak? -- Anusha
Your Answers: 1+ 16+
A1 As an INTp myself, I would say that you much more likely to be an INTp than an INTj! Not all INTs are necessarly good at science and math, per say. INTps are more metaphysical than INTjs. An INTj is a better strategist than an INTp. An INTp physicist CAN be good at calculations, but s/he will be more interested in the implications of the theory of relativity than s/he would doing the calculations for NASA to get us to the moon. There are many INTps are good with calculations. There are also many INTps who aren't that good with calculations. An INTj is going to pick a box, and master it. This is why INTjs make great lawyers. In court, there are rules to making arguements. An INTj loves to learn the rules and the plan a master strategy. So an INTj lawyer will learn the law, and master the art of courtroom strategy. An INTp is more likely to "think outside of the box." Two famous historical INTPs are Einstein and Nietzsche. The former was definately an "outside the box" thinker, as he rewrote the "rules" of physics! Nietzsche is an example of an INTp who was not that interested in mathmatical calculation. As an INTp, Nietzsche was an exellent manipulator of abstract ideas, and loved to consider multiple perspectives on things! So INTps can be interested in all types of ideas other than scientic ideas or mathmatical ideas! Many INTps are more interested in things like music, philosophy, spirtuality, literature, etc. -- Taylor Rhodes
A2 People should be careful with the way they frame their advice. I'm so glad the previous poster stated with such authority and overwheling evidence the types of Einstein and Nietzche. Also, with respect to the final line "INTps are more interested in things like music, philosophy", begs the question: more than which type? Presumably, you are refering to INTjs, and this statement is not necessarily true; in fact, from past expereiences I find the opposite to be true; INTjs are often more interested in these subjects than INTps. Of course this is based on my limited experience and I do not hold thos out as an absolute fact. -- BH INTj
A3 [Caveat: I think socionics, and all jungian-based typologies are incomplete. I also think relevant information can be extracted from them.] Einstein and Neitzsche were variants of introverted thinkers. (Nietzsche himself is used by Jung in "Psychological Types" as one of the examples of introverted thinking, though Jung saying it doesn't automatically make it accurate.) To Anusha: Most likely INTp/INFp/ISTj. If you took ANSIR and/or an enneagram test, I could attempt to interpolate from those results. Any particular music or books you like or don't like? Potentially ISTj (there are many highly intelligent "sensates" in the world, way too many of them mistype as "intuitives" given negative/positive stigmata that accrues either way.). Given the limits of my current understanding of correlatives, if you test as a 3w4 on a comprehensive enneagram test, I'd most likely consider you to be a socionics ISTj. If you test as a 4w3, you're a socionics INFp. If you test as a 4w5, you're most likely a socionics INTp.) Your use of the divisor "NOT" is generally indicative of a strong enneagram 4 component. -- rse
A4 "INTs are described as being good in mathematics & science." is a rather general statement. In fact, INTPs are more interested in practical maths and science while INTJs are more interested in theoretical maths and science. I guess you're more likely an INTP than an INTJ as academic maths and science are usually theorectical. You say that you don't take these subjects and that a scientific approach is good to have are good reasons why you are probably an INTP. As an INTP myself, my academic science subjects are not good and I don't like them as I find them impractical unless I want to be a scientist. In daily life, my job is a speculator in stock markets and I like using simple maths such as probability or percentage calculation to calculate risks, forecast market trends and make profits. I accept to use a practical but not 100% always true theory rather than spend time finding an absolute always true theory. So, if you like the practical side of literature and you like adding some scientific element to it or in other aspects of your daily life, you should be an INTP. -- an INTP
A5 Does the INTp type you talk about have introverted thinking as a dominant fucntion? -- robby
A6 BH INTj -- let me clarify what I meant. I meant to say that while some INTps are interested in science and math, not all INTPs are interested in science or math. A lot of INTps can be interested things like literature, music, etc. that don't necessarly require lots of calculations. I was not comparing the INTp to the INTj. To respond to A4 -- I agree that INTps are more likely to learn how to make complicated calculations if they have some practice use for the INTP than if the have no practical use for the INTP. -- TR
A7 This is in response to A3(rse).I had never taken an Enneagram Test prior to reading your reply. I tested as a no.6 at .( I must be secure and safe to be happy.) Pls tell me wat this means. No.6 was closely followed by no.4. -- Anusha
A8 This is in response to A5.According to the INTP (myself) has a dominant iNtuition (88%). hope this is the answer that u were looking for. -- Anusha
A9 The general statement that INT's are good at math and science doesn't necessarily ring true of every INT. Though INT's as a rule are in their element when working with abstract concepts that are based upon logic, which are after all what the contents of math and science are. INT's are also found in abundance in the fields of linguistics, philosophy, psychology, etc. Taylor Rhodes comment that INTp's are more likely to "think outside the box" [than INTj's] is not necessarily true either. To someone unfamiliar with Jungian typology there is almost no discernable difference between an INTp and an INTj. However, in my experience it is INTp's who tend to be more *stuck-in-the-box*. The focal interest of the Gamma quadra, to which the INTp belongs, is the elimination of error. In this pursuit INTp's can be irritatingly dogmatic. I had an INTp math professor once whose goal in giving an examination was to have us reproduce proofs line for line the way he had written them during his lectures. I am INTj myself and my disputes with INTp's have always seemed to follow a pattern. Me: "The answer is x." INTp: "How do you know the answer is x? Did you work through all fifteen steps of the verification procedure?" Me: "Hell, no. Steps 3 through 13 don't apply in this case." INTp: "Then you can't be certain of what you're saying, can you?" Boss: "The answer is x." Me: -- Anonymous
A10 Math and science strategies can be worthwhile, even though you may not find any use for hard science knowledge. You should try to determine how you solve problems; it will help you discover your exact personality profile. Take my relationships with my mother and boyfriend for an example. I have an INTJ mother and an INTP boyfriend. My mother tries to create the optimal turnover in situations, while my boyfriend looks for the easiest, most efficient solution. Basically, my mother is not willing to risk failure if she knows something can serve to prevent loss. She is the little engine that will. My boyfriend, on the other hand, is more risky in order to prevent perceived wasted time. To him, time is best spent when he doesn't have to do adjust anything. The simplest solution is usually his favorite. -- completely surrounded by INT's
A11 INTs do not necessarily have to be strong at maths. My INTJ professor is a linguist, and I know two INTPs who study literature. -- Ezis
A12 In response to A9, you should not use one example to generalize INTP's and INTJ's. It seems as if you are not being objective and you are a bit biased due to arrogance. (Typical INTJ behaviour ) Stop rushing to conclusions like you did with that math problem. Next time you might not be right. -- L
Bookmark and Share

A13 A9: Abstract proofs may come easier for an INTj as their dominant function is logic. For an INTp, a proof generally must be accompanied by a strong intuition, as we understand the relations between mathematical objects through images rather than strict logical relations. Therefore, a competent INTp with well-developed secondary logic function are also very keen on solving the same problems in many different ways, since it is the intuitive picture behind the proof that interests them. However, due to the 'divergent' thinking style of an INTp, they can sometimes lose control of a sequential logical flow of an argument. Thus, those who do not feel confident in their logical function may in fact become very careful in not making logical mistakes, as they think this is their weakness.(relative to INTj of course) -- Anonymous
A14 A9: you say the "focal interest of Gamma quadra is the elimination of error." Where are you getting this from and what are the other quadras' focal interests? -- Anonymous
A15 A3: Actually, Nietzsche was typed by Jung to be an introverted intuitive type(see pg 146 of his "psychological types". It is Schiller who was used by Jung to be of introverted thinking type. -- Anonymous
*Please note that the opinions expressed are not necessarily those of*
Page 1 2
Would you like to add anything?
(When posting, we ask you to make the effort to qualify your opinions.)

Name: (leave blank for "Anonymous")

10 Most recent
By category
All questions
Submit a question