| 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 #1153422351 | Thursday, 20-Jul-2006 |
|
|
| Does the fact that my mind is not capable of going as in-depth as many others here on the subject (too complicated) indicate a certain type or aspect of type... I think I'm an INFP but am not really sure? -- Elizabeth |
Your Answers: 1+ |
| A1 Not at all, in my opinion. I'm an INTj to the hilt, but many people would criticize me for not being "ideationally capable" enough. Often people who think they're smart simply don't explain a given subject in an understandable way. That's their fault, not yours. Also, in my specific case (just as an example) my specialty is gathering and processing information, not creating it so much. Does that mean I'm not smart? Hardly! -- econdude |
| A2 Hi I'm INFP too, I think it's to do with what you're interested in, there are certain aspects of personality typing that fascinate me - mostly the soft stuff about intertype relations, and I have virtually memorised the profiles of ppl closest to me, but when it gets technical I zone out. And as for not capable I don't think that's true, Jung was about building a rounded personality, so while you might find something more difficult, or less enjoyable there is no reason your type should hold you back from doing anything. -- Anonymous |
| A3 I'm an ISFp and it can be very difficult sometimes. Theory and the ambiguity of it puts my mind into a fog. I learn best when I actually SEE things happening. Like with intertype relations. Sometimes how I relate and feel about another person helps me type them. So for me to really learn, it has to be more hands-on. It's not because I'm not intelligent. I'm intelligent in a different sense and the way I learn is different from people who can easily pick up on theory. -- Another Elizabeth |
| A4 Good point A2, it has alot to do with your interests, field of knowledge, and what details you really strike you as interesting, particularly for INFPs. As a self professed INFP, the hidden agenda "to understand" really applies to me. I often feel Im not doing my best at interpreting, and feel that I cheat myself when I find some pattern that I was not intended to find therefore failing to actually understand the process, especially in math. But it seems that relative to most NT types out there, Im a highly gifted in fields such a science and philosophy, and anything involving a powerful abstract understanding. I just don't pay attention to many details and cheat myself. But your capacity to understand can be refined, and even improved with a little work. Its really just developing an intense deep fascination with any bit of material, its all about energy. Statistically, being a female, on top of being an INFP means that you aren't quite as well equipped to deal with such things, relative to an analytical male though any skill can be improved. I found that if I took in a bunch of tedious info all in one go checking back time and time again, whatever you wish to understand will often just hit you if you say reflect or daydream about it. -- Anonymous |
| A5 Well, I would just say that it is because you are S. -- Anonymous |
|
|
| A6 I view intuitives (N) as top down thinkers and feelers, where sensors (S) feel and think from the bottom, up. Intuitives usually take the overview perspective like a music composer so if a mood or notion interests them, they will likely pursue, explore or refine it. However, sensors may view them as ‘in the clouds’ and non-productive most of the time. Sensors focus on detail like a musician so if a feeling or thought interests them, they will expend the effort to put it into context. However, intuitives may view them as unintelligent and intransigent most of the time. Therefore, the term “in-depth” has two perspectives. -- I/O |
| A7 building on the theme of A6, as a musician/composer and a definite N, I find that in order to understand/comprehend a piece of music, I must be able to look at the whole thing. For example, when learning a particular piece, I must first play through the entire thing all at once! and then I will understand it and be able to play it well and learn it, because I already see the entire framework. I have had past teachers who insisted that the best way to learn music is one section at a time, sometimes even a section as small as only a few measures (a couple seconds' worth, to the un-musical), and add each segment to the previous... Both approaches can yield skilled musicians, but the best will be those who have strengthened whichever (S/N) was their area of weakness. All this to say, because each person learns in a unique way and sees a different perspective, just because one may not seem as "intelligent" as another (or to another!)does not mean they cannot be more "skilled", or more sensitive to others, or more able to lead, etc. If I may say so, it seems to me that the best way to type oneself (if you're less confident of your own abilities) is to go by the strengths others who know you well see in you. You may be surprised at the things you've missed that are obvious to those around you! -- anonininomulous |
| A8 I'm an INFP too. I throw myself into this kind of stuff because I'm sort of in crisis mode and doing the identity seeking thing that characterizes us. On the other hand, I know a better well adjusted INFP who is interested in the topic but doesn't really concern himself with the finer points of theory. If you do feel like this is a tool that you could use to work some stuff out, I suggest reading the last bit of Jung's book "Psychological Types," getting a grasp on Myers-Briggs, and then working your way down the left column of this site. -- Anonymous |
| *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.)
|
|
