Unsure of My Type

[jason_m]

I'm unsure of my type; I will show a couple pictures of myself, but I believe that typing by appearance is a very inaccurate way of typing someone. How it can be concluded that there is a relationship between one's appearance and one's type eludes me.

I'm basically unsure as to whether I'm an INTj, INFj, INFp, or ENTp. All of those descriptions fit me to some extent. Let me describe myself.

I received an honours degree with distinction in computer science. I planned on going to graduate school, but I hated the research course that I took so much, that I decided not to. I like reading about computer science theory, especially when it's laid out nicely in textbook format, but I have a hard time coming up with solutions to research problems that are not well-laid out. It's also possible that I just had a bad instructor, but I liked learning about computer science theory more than doing research. So, instead of going into industry and doing programming (which I find monotonous), I decided to go for a second degree. I'm in a very impractical field - philosophy. My thinking is that since I enjoy it so much, it's possible for me to get a graduate degree and teach at the university level. If not, then I have a math and computer science background to fall back on, and so I can teach high school.

Now, let's get to my personality. As is implied by the types I'm uncertain about, I get borderline results on the T/F scale. The way I see it, logic and emotion are not as opposed as some may believe. Sure, it's impossible to be logical and emotional at the same time, but I think that it's also impossible to be intuitive and logical at the same time. You could come up with intuitions and then analyze them for truth, but couldn't you have feelings and then analyze what they imply as well? Therefore, I think that the types are just generalities that represent specific trends in personality, trends that are not set in stone. Anyway, I can be very sensitive at times. If someone criticizes me or my ideas, I take it personally. It irks me and makes it difficult for me to reason critically. However, when I'm in a dispassionate state, I love coming up with all sorts of ideas and analyzing things just for the sake of it. The problem is that I can have such strong emotions that it takes a while for me to be able to get into this state. However, when I get there, I feel that I'm functioning at my best. I'm also irked by violence, not just any violence, but violence that's aimed towards the innocent. I'm not irked by violent aimed at someone who is "evil", as it is justice.

As I said, I like coming up with ideas. I'm not big on reading just for the sake of reading. When I read, I usually read with a specific purpose in mind. If I want to learn more about something, and it's usually something specific, I will devote a reasonable amount of time to understanding it. It's usually related to me or a theory I have. For example, if I question whether humour is a "right-brained" function, then I will do a Google search for -humor brain-, and skim through a few articles to see what they say, just so I can get a general picture of where in the brain humour resides. The only time I will devote a lot of time for reading is when there is a purpose behind it. For example, if I have to read a textbook to prepare for a test.

Now that I've described myself, here is my reasoning for agreeing/disagreeing with the characteristics of the types I've mentioned:

INTj: I like being logical. I'm very good at deductive logic, such as mathematics and formal logic (I got all As in the math courses I took in university), but I'm not so good at using logic in certain situations. For example, when I'm in a debate, I'm not very good at defending my viewpoint, because my ideas come about more intuitively than logically. It's only when I'm really certain about something that I can defend it well. Also, I'm not good at games of strategy, such as chess. I just have no feel for the game. However, if I were to ever be so motivated as to read a book about chess, then I would probably be much more capable.

ENTp: I fit the description at www.socionics.com really well, but I simply don't see myself as extraverted. Yes, I have a desire to share my ideas with others, but I don't like socializing just for the sake of socializing. I spend much of my time pondering my ideas by myself.

INFj, INFp: I'm lumping both of these together, because, as I said, I'm sensitive and have strong feelings, and I'm quite not sure which one is a better fit. The INFj description fits me quite well, but, if I were a feeler, I'd see myself as more of a dominant intuitive than a dominant feeler. What goes against these types is that I have a strong desire to reason logically.

(INTp: I test as INTp on www.socionics.com, but the description doesn't fit me at all, and, as I said, I'm close on the T/F axis.)

As for the MBTI forums that I habituate, I like the INTJ (INTp) forum, as I find they are analytical and straightforward, but I also dislike it, because a lot of them strike me as being harsh or emotionally negative. I also like the INTP (INTj) forum, because they are less critical and more detached, but I find that they go off-topic and don't usually have deep discussions like they do on the INTJ forum.

Finally, here are a couple pictures:





(Obviously, in this one I'm on the far left.)

Jason

[hellothere]

hey jason, welcome to the forum.

you shouldn't put too much weight on what I say, because I'm still not confident in my knowledge of socionics, but there's something about you in that second pic which reminds me of myself. What you wrote also reminds me of my INTj friend (though some here thought he was INFp) - even the bit about being sensitive and having strong emotions. So I guess I'd suggest INTj or INFj as being most likely, but I could be wrong.

Also, people here will suggest that you try not to think too much in terms of T/F, S/N dichotomies. Instead look at whether you value Te and Fi, or Ti and Fe.

Finally, some people here don't think much of the socionics.com site. Other sites you could look into are www.socionics.us and www.wikisocion.org

anyway, good luck with finding your type!

ETA: after seeing Expat's post, the INFj suggestion was purely because of some resemblance to me. It's interesting because one of the first posts in my own thread was (I think it was glamourama) saying something like "I don't know your type, but you sure look like an INTj"

[Expat]

That was very interesting.

First, a bit of information -- your post indicates that you're taking a few things for granted, such as the INTJ=INTp switch. I don't think anyone here defends the notion that the switch is accurate. It's based on a few misconceptions.

There are a couple of other things; for instance, socionics works with base on functions and not just simply on a T/F or E/I scale, and in socionics, being "extraverted" is not necessarily the same as "socializing for the sake of socializing".

As for the pictures, it's not just - or even mainly - about a person's appearance; it's what comes across from the person's personality from pictures. I mean, assuming that it's representative, you already come across differently from the other two guys in the second picture.

Now getting to your type (finally):

I think INFj is very unlikely. You had very little focus on (Introverted Feeling) in your self-description.

What comes across in your text is (introverted thinking), a liking for (extroverted feeling). The rest is more ambiguous, but you seem to dislike (extroverted sensing).

Overall you seem most like LII (or INTj), to me.

[Phaedrus]

Jason, you have a typical rational facial structure, which in combination with your typical body type and V.I. look overall suggest INTj or INFj as the two most likely types. These two types can look very similar (especially in body type), but from what you have written INTj is the prime candidate type for sure.

What is perhaps most interesting here is that the way you describe yourself fits INTj very nicely, while at the same time it also fits the INTJ type in MBTT extremely well too. This is not surprising of course, since the INTj (LII) and the INTJ are the same type, but the important thing to realize and accept is that INTjs tend to identify with how the "Ni" function is described in MBTT. INTps, on the other hand, don't tend to identify with "Ní" in MBTT but much more with "Ti".

This "anomaly" is the cause of major misunderstandings and mistypings in Socionics, especially among people who believe that the functions are very similar in the two models. There are only two possible solutions to this problem:

1. "Ni" in MBTT is rather different from in Socionics, and "Ti" is rather different from , in such a way that "NiTe" describes the same ego block type as , and that "TiNe" describes the same type as . This is the explanation I have favoured so far as the most likely.

2. MBTT's functional ordering is a better theory than Socionics in that the INTp (ILI) is more of an introverted thinker than the INTj (LII), who is more of an intuitive thinker in MBTT's and perhaps even Jung's sense.

The main argument for the second solution is that INTps tend to be more focused on, and are often also better at, conceptual logical reasoning than INTjs, that INTps identify strongly with "Ti" in MBTT, which is described in a way that fits a typical INTp (ILI) behaviour perfectly, and that INTjs identify with "Ni" in MBTT, which is described in a way that fits nicely the "practical implementation of subjective systems" attitude that is described in both INTJ profiles in MBTT and INTj profiles in Socionics.

A major objection to this hypothesis is that if it is true, then we have to modify the intertype relations theory, because it is still an indisputable fact that ESFjs are the Duals of INTjs and that ESFps are the Duals of INTps. That we know from empirical observations of the types in real life, and we also know how INTjs and INTps look like on V.I., so it is not possible that we have somehow confused them. We know for sure in which group to put a real life example of each type.

But there are some fundamental problems in how the types INTj and INTp are described in Socionics, and those problems should not be ignored. One such problem is that leading is associated with mysticism, religious beliefs, etc. Empirical observations of the types don't seem to substantiate this correlation, and it is actually the INTjs that show much more of a tendency to be drawn to religious ponderings and beliefs than INTps. It is clear that Jung himself was not an INTp (I am sure of this now), and the only strong reason to think that Jung was an INTp is the fact that he had these strongly accentuated religous and mystical delusions.

So if we insist on attributing mysticism and such things to , then we probably should take the second solution to the anomalies more seriously. And in any case we have to make at least some small changes in the theory of Socionics, because it is not entirely logically consistent as it now stands.

[Steve]

Ti INTj works for me. I can see your movements being more ij-ish as opposed to ep, although a few more pics would validate that further. Definitely ti alpha nt.

[JuJu]

After reading your post and looking at the pictures, I believe that INTj is a good bet.

[jason_m]

I've been researching socionics quite a bit since I originally started this thread. I'm not sure what type I am. I could be an LII or an EII (or maybe some other type). Certain LII descriptions describe me really well, but others don't describe me well at all. All EII descriptions fit me reasonably well, but it seems that they're lacking something. For each one, while I agree with most of the EII description that is written, I can't help but feel as if they are describing the entirety of a house by only looking at one room. There is a lot of emphasis on my feelings, but not much emphasis on how I think, generate ideas, etc.

Since most said that I'm an LII, I will evaluate the Ti description of the LII from Wikisocion, and people here can provide feedback to tell me if I'm interpreting the text correctly, and what type I sound like.

Ti:

"The LII naturally assesses statements, opinions, and actions in terms of conformance to certain principles. These principles may in practice be rules of thumb based on experience, but LIIs will usually appeal to more general, self-evident reasons, if the need arises."

- I don't even know what it means to evaluate statements in terms of "principles." For example, when I'm reading, I read only to understand. It's only after I read that certain ideas come into my mind, and many of these ideas have nothing to do with the truth of what I have read. Sometimes they do, but usually it's about putting something into perspective.

"The LII is most engaged in communication when he is critically analyzing people's decisions and actions as well as how they generally are or are not consistent with certain pre-established goals."

- As I said, when I'm engaging in communication, I'm just listening open-mindedly. After the conversation is over, an idea might come into my head about how someone is being inconsistent, but this is only to an extent; it's not a theme for me.

"'Just because' is not in an LII's vocabulary. If there is a reason for something, the LII will probably want to find it."

- This fits to some extent.

"The LII can effortlessly reduce things to their most essential aspects, and mentally recreate the whole from the bottom up. The LII's theoretical tendencies can often leave him out of touch with reality, and if unchecked may lead to 'crackpot' theories that are internally consistent but seem somewhat eccentric to others."

- I don't mentally recreate the whole from the bottom up, I usually create it from the top down. Normally, I get some sort of insight that globally describes one underlying concept. After getting this insight, I will flesh out the various details so that it is understandable to me and to others.

"The LII may explore many avenues of thought, but in the end only tell others his refined conclusions, because he sees the intermediate steps as irrelevant. He is often too concise for his own good, making it difficult for others to understand his ideas."

- When I communicate with others, I try to be as clear as possible. This means filling in necessary details that will allow others to understand. I never give a conclusion without some justification.

Could I still be an LII, even though I really don't identify at all with this description? If not, which type do I sound like?

Jason

[Exodus]

I think some parts of the description are a bit ambiguous, and most of your problems with it sound consistent with LII - but maybe more with ILE.

[jason_m]

I think some parts of the description are a bit ambiguous, and most of your problems with it sound consistent with LII - but maybe more with ILE.

Let me give you another example. There are times that I'm bad with logic, and times that I'm good. Let's compare me to my friend who I believe to be an INTp. I think he's an INTp because he definitely fits the role of a "critic." He's very picky about his food, is critical of almost every movie that we watch, he can pour cold water on someone's enthusiasm, and he tries to be polite, but sometimes unintentionally comes across as being harsh.

He's good at understanding what people do and what to do. Being good at understanding what people do, he can predict the ending to many movies, even ones that are can be very difficult to predict. Being good at what to do, he knows how to solve all sorts of problems at work, and he's good at games like chess that involve being logical in what you *do*. I seem to be just the opposite. I can never predict the endings to movies, I'm terrible at chess, and I am not as good as him at knowing what to do. For me, my logic comes from questioning "what does this mean"?

For example, if I had to design an IQ test, I would look at what IQ *means*. As it has to apply to real life, the questions should be as close to real life situations as possible, but not so close that they are too specialized, because not everyone who is intelligent has all kinds of specialized skills - we should be testing the underlying skills used in real life situations. As there are many skills that we define to be "intelligent", we should test many diverse skills, regardless of whether or not they correlate, because being intelligent is not about correlating skills, but acting "intelligently." Therefore, we would come up with a list of as many intelligent skills as we can, figure out what the underlying abilities are, and then create a test that measures these abilities. All of this stems from looking at what it means to be intelligent.

In comparison, I'm terrible at chess, because I don't see any meaning to the arrangement of the pieces. However, I'm better than my INTp friend at vocabulary, mathematics, and philosophy - all of these seem to involve understanding the meaning of something.

Finally, when I'm talking to him, I often end up feeling incompetent, because he often sees things that I don't, and he can predict things that I never could. What does this sound like? What socionics relation between the INTp would be this way?

Jason

[Exodus]

Let me give you another example. There are times that I'm bad with logic, and times that I'm good. Let's compare me to my friend who I believe to be an INTp. I think he's an INTp because he definitely fits the role of a "critic." He's very picky about his food, is critical of almost every movie that we watch, he can pour cold water on someone's enthusiasm, and he tries to be polite, but sometimes unintentionally comes across as being harsh.

He's good at understanding what people do and what to do. Being good at understanding what people do, he can predict the ending to many movies, even ones that are can be very difficult to predict. Being good at what to do, he knows how to solve all sorts of problems at work, and he's good at games like chess that involve being logical in what you *do*. I seem to be just the opposite. I can never predict the endings to movies, I'm terrible at chess, and I am not as good as him at knowing what to do. For me, my logic comes from questioning "what does this mean"?

For example, if I had to design an IQ test, I would look at what IQ *means*. As it has to apply to real life, the questions should be as close to real life situations as possible, but not so close that they are too specialized, because not everyone who is intelligent has all kinds of specialized skills - we should be testing the underlying skills used in real life situations. As there are many skills that we define to be "intelligent", we should test many diverse skills, regardless of whether or not they correlate, because being intelligent is not about correlating skills, but acting "intelligently." Therefore, we would come up with a list of as many intelligent skills as we can, figure out what the underlying abilities are, and then create a test that measures these abilities. All of this stems from looking at what it means to be intelligent.

In comparison, I'm terrible at chess, because I don't see any meaning to the arrangement of the pieces. However, I'm better than my INTp friend at vocabulary, mathematics, and philosophy - all of these seem to involve understanding the meaning of something.

Finally, when I'm talking to him, I often end up feeling incompetent, because he often sees things that I don't, and he can predict things that I never could. What does this sound like? What socionics relation between the INTp would be this way?

Jason

All of this is definitely a good description of Alpha NT vs. ILI, but idk between LII and ILE. I'd say LII by VI. Do you have any more pictures?

[jason_m]

All of this is definitely a good description of Alpha NT vs. ILI, but idk between LII and ILE. I'd say LII by VI. Do you have any more pictures?

Jason

[Ms. Kensington]

Could I still be an LII, even though I really don't identify at all with this description? If not, which type do I sound like?

Jason

i think the way you ask your questions is like an introverted Ti type. for what its worth, i think this particular combination of types that you have selected that you identify with (ENTp, INTj, INFj, and INFp) is common for an INTj who is learning about personality typing.

I also identify with the way you talked about your debate skills (my self typing is INTj).

[Exodus]

Yeah, LII > ILE.