INTP or INTJ? Socionics/MBTI Confusion

INTP or INTJ? Socionics/MBTI Confusion

Hello Guest! Sign up to join the discussion below...
Page 1 of 2 1 2 LastLast
Results 1 to 10 of 15
Thank Tree10Thanks

This is a discussion on INTP or INTJ? Socionics/MBTI Confusion within the Socionics Forum forums, part of the Personality Type Forums category; ...

  1. #1

    INTP or INTJ? Socionics/MBTI Confusion

    **I'll be posting this on both the MBTI and the Socionics forum to see what people think. If there are any more suitable forums, please let me know!**

    So, there's this Socionics website that I often use to test relations and devise strategies on how to work with individuals more effectively. I used to be 100% INTP both according to both descriptions of Socionics and MBTI. The physical description of Socionics used fit me perfectly, strengths and weaknesses of Socionics fit me perfectly, and the MBTI descriptions fit me perfectly... I used to be so obsessed that I kept repeatedly taking different MBTI tests and getting the same results.

    Things have changed in less than a year. Physical description, strengths and weaknesses fit me perfectly for INTJ. Both MBTI descriptions fit me equally for INTJ and INTP. I'd naturally think that I would be a definite Perceiver according to MBTI, as I procrastinate and do everything else Perceivers have been described to do. However, after taking this Socionics test that gives both MBTI results and Socionics results (as for Introverted personalities in Socionics, the last letter may or may not be swapped, depending if you are more confident N/S or T/F) it came up that according to Socionics I am an INTP, but according to MBTI am an INTJ (Well, it didn't actually say INTJ. It gave me MBTI type dynamics with the result of an INTP, but then gave me Ni,Te,Fi,Se, which is INTJ).

    So... either I'm interpreting this wrong, I am misunderstanding, or I have found a glitch. I'll try to copy and paste what I mean, but I don't know if it will appear well on here.

    Summary
    Normal mode Reversed mode Combined mode
    INTp INTp INTp
    This summarises your type as:

    INTp a.k.a. Intuitive-Logical Intratim "The Observer".

    Assuming you have fully understood and were following the suggested guidelines to operate the test, this result may indeed indicate your type. However, it is your own responsibility to verify the accuracy of this result.

    Extended summary
    By preference By function MBTI® Type Dynamics
    INTp Ni,Te,Fi,Se
    If your type is INTp a.k.a. Intuitive-Logical Intratim "The Observer", you are confident and concrete regarding your own beliefs and fantasies, creative and inventive regarding your expertise in know-how and how-to, delicate and insecure regarding how you feel about something or someone, and you wish to have a clear perception and consistency regarding your physical strength or position of authority.



    Additional information:
    -In my group, I have received a leadership position and I have been taking control more often than usual. I normally don't enjoy controlling people, but when people ask me for help I have found I am much more confident than I used to be. Could that be a factor?
    -I am Enneagram 5w6

    My basic question is, am I an INTP or an INTJ, for both Socionics and MBTI? Thanks!



  2. #2

    I'm inclined to think neither based off this and my gut tells me ESI/ISFP vs EIE/ENFJ. You need to look into the theory beyond tests and surface descriptions and get to the actual structure of it. Start with the functions/elements and get an idea of how they work. With socionics, you also need to know how Model A operates. After you've done that, then try to figure out how to apply them to yourself and your daily life.

  3. #3

    @ephemereality I'm curious: Why ISFP or ENFJ by gut instinct? Is it my typing voice? If so, I could have adapted this way of speaking from the ENFJ and ISFP that I have worked with. Maybe I speak my age, 15?

    By functions/elements do you mean, for example, INTP equals Introverted Thinking as its dominant? ENFJ equals Extroverted Feeling as its dominant (and INTP's inferior, according to MBTI?)

    Out of your two selections, I know I could never be ENFJ. The ENFJ that I knew a few years back did teach me the importance of extroverted feeling by example, although I could not understand it at the time.

    Lastly, what is this ESI/EIE you speak of? I have never heard of it before. I will search Model A.

    Sorry if that is a lot of questions. I'm quite new to Socionics and still getting used to this. Thank you for your time.

  4. Remove Advertisements
    PersonalityCafe.com
    Advertisements
     

  5. #4

    Quote Originally Posted by 509087 View Post
    @ephemereality I'm curious: Why ISFP or ENFJ by gut instinct? Is it my typing voice? If so, I could have adapted this way of speaking from the ENFJ and ISFP that I have worked with. Maybe I speak my age, 15?

    By functions/elements do you mean, for example, INTP equals Introverted Thinking as its dominant? ENFJ equals Extroverted Feeling as its dominant (and INTP's inferior, according to MBTI?)

    Out of your two selections, I know I could never be ENFJ. The ENFJ that I knew a few years back did teach me the importance of extroverted feeling by example, although I could not understand it at the time.

    Lastly, what is this ESI/EIE you speak of? I have never heard of it before. I will search Model A.

    Sorry if that is a lot of questions. I'm quite new to Socionics and still getting used to this. Thank you for your time.
    Based on this post alone you are most definitely an fe type and it's egoic so some kind of fj in mbti. I would start looking into how the fe function works as described by jung. It's obvious that your ego id oriented towards fe here. I might also consider alpha sf.

    And no age has nothing to do with it. You are just a feeler type and I could tell from your op.

  6. #5

    @ephemereality Interesting! Your opinion has brought to me to believe that I have strengthened what was once a trouble area for me (Fe). The strengthening might just be the root of my type confusion, which means this is a solution to one of my questions. I will just have to wait out the confusion and see. I am still convinced that I have a preference for thinker however, as all the thinker traits fit me in contrast to feeler traits, especially as compared on this website. http://www.ittybittycomputers.com/Essays/VenusMars.htm

    @ Anyone who can answer this question: Does anyone know how to decipher the italicized content in my op? It is still unclear to me why the results put Ni, Te, Fi, Se under the MBTI category, calling it INTP while Ni, Te, Fi, Se is INTJ.
    IncoherentBabbler thanked this post.

  7. #6

    Quote Originally Posted by 509087 View Post
    Interesting! Your opinion has brought to me to believe that I have strengthened what was once a trouble area for me (Fe). The strengthening might just be the root of my type confusion, which means this is a solution to one of my questions. I will just have to wait out the confusion and see. I am still convinced that I have a preference for thinker however, as all the thinker traits fit me in contrast to feeler traits, especially as compared on this website. Thinker-Feeler Differences

    @ Anyone who can answer this question: Does anyone know how to decipher the italicized content in my op? It is still unclear to me why the results put Ni, Te, Fi, Se under the MBTI category, calling it INTP while Ni, Te, Fi, Se is INTJ.
    You haven't strengthened Fe, Fe is one of your strong functions (that's why Eph mentioned that you're some FJ type), and if you got a 'thinker result' was because the tests suck. I also checked the link and to be honest doesn't make sense to me, so I agree that you should read more about cognitive functions. Besides Fe types tend to relate a lot to descriptions, issue that's completely strange for me, and I noticed that you're doing that from I could read in your posts.
    Entropic thanked this post.

  8. #7

    @ Blue Flare, we can agree to disagree. I may be interested in descriptions, but I'm also interested in the application of them. Fe is one of my weaker functions... I am not good at all with relating to people or sympathizing with them. Online I try to keep a polite identity. When I see people being so incredibly kind, I look at them like, how can that come natural to them? I try to understand how. In school, however, I'm a loner that's on the verge of antisocial, and I isolate myself from many people. I don't think I'm an extroverted feeler, but you all seem to think so for some reason. I will have to reconsider myself. At the moment, I really am unsure what I am.

  9. #8

    Quote Originally Posted by 509087 View Post
    @ Blue Flare, we can agree to disagree. I may be interested in descriptions, but I'm also interested in the application of them. Fe is one of my weaker functions... I am not good at all with relating to people or sympathizing with them. Online I try to keep a polite identity. When I see people being so incredibly kind, I look at them like, how can that come natural to them? I try to understand how. In school, however, I'm a loner that's on the verge of antisocial, and I isolate myself from many people. I don't think I'm an extroverted feeler, but you all seem to think so for some reason. I will have to reconsider myself. At the moment, I really am unsure what I am.
    I really think that this could clear many of your doubts about Fe, as Fe is related to how you derive ethics.


    Jung's Description of the Extraverted Feeling Type (Fe-dominant)

    A verbatim excerpt taken from Chapter 10 of Carl Gustav Jung's work "Psychological Types" (1921):

    =============================================

    (III) THE PECULIARITIES OF THE BASIC PSYCHOLOGICAL FUNCTIONS IN THE EXTRAVERTED ATTITUDE

    3. Feeling

    Feeling in the extraverted attitude is orientated by objective data, i.e. the object is the indispensable determinant of the kind of feeling. It agrees with objective values. If one has always known feeling as a subjective fact, the nature of extraverted feeling will not immediately be understood, since it has freed itself as fully as possible from the subjective factor, and has, instead, become wholly subordinated to the influence of the object. Even where it seems to show a certain independence of the quality of the concrete object, it is none the less under the spell of. traditional or generally valid standards of some sort. I may feel constrained, for instance, to use the predicate 'beautiful' or 'good', not because I find the object 'beautiful' or 'good' from my own subjective feeling, but because it is fitting and politic so to do; and fitting it certainly is, inasmuch as a contrary opinion would disturb the general feeling situation. A feeling-judgment such as this is in no way a simulation or a lie -- it is merely an act of accommodation. A picture, for instance, may be termed beautiful, because a picture that is hung in a drawing-room and bearing a well-known signature is generally assumed to be beautiful, or because the predicate 'ugly' might offend the family of the fortunate possessor, or because there is a benevolent intention on the part of the visitor to create a pleasant feeling-atmosphere, to which end everything must be felt as agreeable. Such feelings are governed by the standard of the objective determinants. As such they are genuine, and represent the total visible feeling-function.

    In precisely the same way as extraverted thinking strives to rid itself of subjective influences, extraverted feeling has also to undergo a certain process of differentiation, before it is finally denuded of every subjective [p. 447] trimming. The valuations resulting from the act of feeling either correspond directly with objective values or at least chime in with certain traditional and generally known standards of value. This kind of feeling is very largely responsible for the fact that so many people flock to the theatre, to concerts, or to Church, and what is more, with correctly adjusted positive feelings. Fashions, too, owe their existence to it, and, what is far more valuable, the whole positive and wide-spread support of social, philanthropic, and such like cultural enterprises. In such matters, extraverted feeling proves itself a creative factor. Without this feeling, for instance, a beautiful and harmonious sociability would be unthinkable. So far extraverted feeling is just as beneficent and rationally effective as extraverted thinking. But this salutary effect is lost as soon as the object gains an exaggerated influence. For, when this happens, extraverted feeling draws the personality too much into the object, i.e. the object assimilates the person, whereupon the personal character of the feeling, which constitutes its principal charm, is lost. Feeling then becomes cold, material, untrustworthy. It betrays a secret aim, or at least arouses the suspicion of it in an impartial observer. No longer does it make that welcome and refreshing impression the invariable accompaniment of genuine feeling; instead, one scents a pose or affectation, although the egocentric motive may be entirely unconscious.


    Such overstressed, extraverted feeling certainly fulfils ęsthetic expectations, but no longer does it speak to the heart; it merely appeals to the senses, or -- worse still -- to the reason. Doubtless it can provide ęsthetic padding for a situation, but there it stops, and beyond that its effect is nil. It has become sterile. Should this process go further, a strangely contradictory dissociation of feeling develops; every object is seized upon with feeling- [p. 448] valuations, and numerous relationships are made which are inherently and mutually incompatible. Since such aberrations would be quite impossible if a sufficiently emphasized subject were present, the last vestige of a real personal standpoint also becomes suppressed. The subject becomes so swallowed up in individual feeling processes that to the observer it seems as though there were no longer a subject of feeling but merely a feeling process. In such a condition feeling has entirely forfeited its original human warmth, it gives an impression of pose, inconstancy, unreliability, and in the worst cases appears definitely hysterical.


    4. The Extraverted Feeling-Type

    n so far as feeling is, incontestably, a more obvious peculiarity of feminine psychology than thinking, the most pronounced feeling-types are also to be found among women. When extraverted feeling possesses the priority we speak of an extraverted feeling-type. Examples of this type that I can call to mind are, almost without exception, women. She is a woman who follows the guiding-line of her feeling. As the result of education her feeling has become developed into an adjusted function, subject to conscious control. Except in extreme cases, feeling has a personal character, in spite of the fact that the subjective factor may be already, to a large extent, repressed. The personality appears to be adjusted in relation to objective conditions. Her feelings correspond with objective situations and general values. Nowhere is this more clearly revealed than in the so-called 'love-choice'; the 'suitable' man is loved, not another one; he is suitable not so much because he fully accords with the fundamental character of the woman -- as a rule she is quite uninformed about this -- but because [p. 449] he meticulously corresponds in standing, age, capacity, height, and family respectability with every reasonable requirement. Such a formulation might, of course, be easily rejected as ironical or depreciatory, were I not fully convinced that the love-feeling of this type of woman completely corresponds with her choice. It is genuine, and not merely intelligently manufactured. Such 'reasonable' marriages exist without number, and they are by no means the worst. Such women are good comrades to their husbands and excellent mothers, so long as husbands or children possess the conventional psychic constitution. One can feel 'correctly', however, only when feeling is disturbed by nothing else. But nothing disturbs feeling so much as thinking. It is at once intelligible, therefore, that this type should repress thinking as much as possible. This does not mean to say that such a woman does not think at all; on the contrary, she may even think a great deal and very ably, but her thinking is never sui generis; it is, in fact, an Epimethean appendage to her feeling. What she cannot feel, she cannot consciously think. 'But I can't think what I don't feel', such a type said to me once in indignant tones. As far as feeling permits, she can think very well, but every conclusion, however logical, that might lead to a disturbance of feeling is rejected from the outset. It is simply not thought. And thus everything that corresponds with objective valuations is good: these things are loved or treasured; the rest seems merely to exist in a world apart.


    But a change comes over the picture when the importance of the object reaches a still higher level. As already explained above, such an assimilation of subject to object then occurs as almost completely to engulf the subject of feeling. Feeling loses its personal character -- it becomes feeling per se; it almost seems as though the [p. 450] personality were wholly dissolved in the feeling of the moment. Now, since in actual life situations constantly and successively alternate, in which the feeling-tones released are not only different but are actually mutually contrasting, the personality inevitably becomes dissipated in just so many different feelings. Apparently, he is this one moment, and something completely different the next -- apparently, I repeat, for in reality such a manifold personality is altogether impossible. The basis of the ego always remains identical with itself, and, therefore, appears definitely opposed to the changing states of feeling. Accordingly the observer senses the display of feeling not so much as a personal expression of the feeling-subject as an alteration of his ego, a mood, in other words. Corresponding with the degree of dissociation between the ego and the momentary state of feeling, signs of disunion with the self will become more or less evident, i.e. the original compensatory attitude of the unconscious becomes a manifest opposition. This reveals itself, in the first instance, in extravagant demonstrations of feeling, in loud and obtrusive feeling predicates, which leave one, however, somewhat incredulous. They ring hollow; they are not convincing. On the contrary, they at once give one an inkling of a resistance that is being overcompensated, and one begins to wonder whether such a feeling-judgment might not just as well be entirely different. In fact, in a very short time it actually is different. Only a very slight alteration in the situation is needed to provoke forthwith an entirely contrary estimation of the selfsame object. The result of such an experience is that the observer is unable to take either judgment at all seriously. He begins to reserve his own opinion. But since, with this type, it is a matter of the greatest moment to establish an intensive feeling rapport with his environment, redoubled efforts are now required [p. 451] to overcome this reserve. Thus, in the manner of the circulus vitiosus, the situation goes from bad to worse. The more the feeling relation with the object becomes overstressed, the nearer the unconscious opposition approaches the surface.


    We have already seen that the extraverted feeling type, as a rule, represses his thinking, just because thinking is the function most liable to disturb feeling. Similarly, when thinking seeks to arrive at pure results of any kind, its first act is to exclude feeling, since nothing is calculated to harass and falsify thinking so much as feeling-values. Thinking, therefore, in so far as it is an independent function, is repressed in the extraverted feeling type. Its repression, as I observed before, is complete only in so far as its inexorable logic forces it to conclusions that are incompatible with feeling. It is suffered to exist as the servant of feeling, or more accurately its slave. Its backbone is broken; it may not operate on its own account, in accordance with its own laws, Now, since a logic exists producing inexorably right conclusions, this must happen somewhere, although beyond the bounds of consciousness, i.e. in the unconscious. Pre-eminently, therefore, the unconscious content of this type is a particular kind of thinking. It is an infantile, archaic, and negative thinking.


    So long as conscious feeling preserves the personal character, or, in other words, so long as the personality does not become swallowed up by successive states of feeling, this unconscious thinking remains compensatory. But as soon as the personality is dissociated, becoming dispersed in mutually contradictory states of feeling, the identity of the ego is lost, and the subject becomes unconscious. But, because of the subject's lapse into the unconscious, it becomes associated with the unconscious thinking -- function, therewith assisting the unconscious [p. 452] thought to occasional consciousness. The stronger the conscious feeling relation, and therefore, the more 'depersonalized,' it becomes, the stronger grows the unconscious opposition. This reveals itself in the fact that unconscious ideas centre round just the most valued objects, which are thus pitilessly stripped of their value. That thinking which always thinks in the 'nothing but' style is in its right place here, since it destroys the ascendancy of the feeling that is chained to the object.


    Unconscious thought reaches the surface in the form of irruptions, often of an obsessing nature, the general character of which is always negative and depreciatory. Women of this type have moments when the most hideous thoughts fasten upon the very objects most valued by their feelings. This negative thinking avails itself of every infantile prejudice or parallel that is calculated to breed doubt in the feeling-value, and it tows every primitive instinct along with it, in the effort to make 'a nothing but' interpretation of the feeling. At this point, it is perhaps in the nature of a side-remark to observe that the collective unconscious, i.e. the totality of the primordial images, also becomes enlisted in the same manner, and from the elaboration and development of these images there dawns the possibility of a regeneration of the attitude upon another basis.


    Hysteria, with the characteristic infantile sexuality of its unconscious world of ideas, is the principal form of neurosis with this type.
    Entropic and 509087 thanked this post.

  10. #9

    Q.) So how do these functions work from MBTI to Socionics?

    So, let's say I do happen to be an Extroverted Feeler. What would I be (in MBTI terms)? There is no way that I could be an ESFJ, those with Extraverted Feeling as a Dominant. For Auxiliary, INFJ and ISFJ. Extroverted Feeling as tertiary, ESTP and ENTP. Extroverted Feeling as an Inferior, INTP and ISTP.

    Extrovert types and the inferior functions out of the picture, that would leave INFJ and ISFJ. I have two exact INFJs in my immediate family. I am nothing like them. So, ISFJ, apparently. The description doesn't match me at all. It doesn't make sense.

    (I have these according to this chart: http://personalbrandingforintroverts...y-inferior.png)

  11. #10

    Quote Originally Posted by 509087 View Post
    Q.) So how do these functions work from MBTI to Socionics?

    So, let's say I do happen to be an Extroverted Feeler. What would I be (in MBTI terms)? There is no way that I could be an ESFJ, those with Extraverted Feeling as a Dominant. For Auxiliary, INFJ and ISFJ. Extroverted Feeling as tertiary, ESTP and ENTP. Extroverted Feeling as an Inferior, INTP and ISTP.

    Extrovert types and the inferior functions out of the picture, that would leave INFJ and ISFJ. I have two exact INFJs in my immediate family. I am nothing like them. So, ISFJ, apparently. The description doesn't match me at all. It doesn't make sense.

    (I have these according to this chart: http://personalbrandingforintroverts...y-inferior.png)
    That's why you should learn first about the functions and model A, as descriptions aren't good, specially if you still are using the MBTI ones, and if you wonder, ISFJ in MBTI is the same as ISFp in socionics if you consider the cognitive functions. Besides I wouldn't discard the extroverted types, as it is related of how you process information, so better forget all the MBTI buzzwords that could cause more confusion.
    Entropic thanked this post.


     
Page 1 of 2 1 2 LastLast

Similar Threads

  1. INTP or INTJ? Socionics/MBTI Confusion
    By 509087 in forum Myers Briggs Forum
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 03-13-2014, 03:51 PM
  2. [INTJ] Socionics INTp vs MBTI INTJ persona
    By Boolean11 in forum INTJ Forum - The Scientists
    Replies: 38
    Last Post: 09-23-2012, 10:44 AM
  3. [INTP] Socionics INTj vs MBTI INTP persona
    By Boolean11 in forum INTP Forum - The Thinkers
    Replies: 9
    Last Post: 09-21-2012, 07:46 PM
  4. INTP/INTJ confusion.
    By lymy in forum NT's Temperament Forum- The Intellects
    Replies: 12
    Last Post: 01-29-2011, 08:22 PM
  5. Socionics INTp = MBTI INTJ?
    By Azwan in forum Socionics Forum
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 12-10-2010, 12:16 AM

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  
All times are GMT -7. The time now is 05:04 AM.
Information provided on the site is meant to complement and not replace any advice or information from a health professional.
© 2014 PersonalityCafe
 

SEO by vBSEO 3.6.0