I have doubts about my type

[Wavebury]

I havent told anyone on here but back in the day curious sent me a PM saying he thought I was INFj. I disagreed, and decided not to start a thread about it. But now Im beginning to beleive that Im INFp again. Thats what i beleived I was at first, but then changed to INTp, but now Im again having doubts. I sent a message to Curious soul today and explained some of reasons in there, and I decided it would be better for me to post this on here instead. Heres what I wrote to curious:

Hello.

A while back you sent me some messages saying you beleived, from an intuitive sort of guess, that my type was INFj. I disagreed and said I was probably more INTp. Do you remember?

Well, Im now having doubts as to my type being INTp. I think it may be INFp. The reason for this is that as I read type decsriptions I idnetify with alot of things in the INFp profile, but few things in the INTp profiles. Reading the Igor Weisband decsriptions on socioniko.net I seem to fit into the INFp decsription much better. And according to the + - descriptions on socionics.com, I am much more INFp than INTp. According to the Gulenko decsriptions on Socionics.com I could be either or neither type.

I printed out these descriptions and had my mom, whos known me all my life, read them and she says that the INFp + - decsription definalty decsribes while the INTp one doesnt very well, excpet for a few things.

Its kind of embarrassing to think I've been wrong about my type all this time. But I guess Im not the only one, and with the limited amount of material we have in English on socionics its, I guess, understandeable.The reason Im PMing you is cuz we've already talked about this already and I dont wanna start a thread because Im afraid people wont want to beleive I've been wrong, or that I've been stupid all along.

The reason I thought I was INTp was because I tend to identify with both the Thinking and Feeling decsription more or less equally, always scored as T on type assistant(except once I scored as X, but I didnt give as many answers as I could have) and INFp decsriptions fit me better, so I resorted to Ganin's "tie breaker" method(if you are INTp you find it much easier to transmit your knowledge and erudtion than show up your love and affection, and if you are INFp, vice versa). Since I've always felt more comfortable with a logical image than an emotional one,(perhaps that has to do with being male) I thought that was more like me. So, that was my reasoning behind it; if I am more comfortable being logical than emotional then Im a logical type, and if Im more comfotable being emotional Im an ethical type etc, regardless of whether I attribute equal importance to logic and emotion.

anyways, Im sorry this is so damn long, but I dont wanna make a scene on the forum yet, cuz Im kind of embarrassed. But I have much more to explain I just dont wanna write it all in this post.

...

-Cheerio

To think I've been worng all along is kind of emabrrassing... . But I identify with little in the INTp decsriptions. I realize decsriptions areent everything, but I dont think that they are based on a load of shit either. if INTps are said to be able to do certain things and behave in certain ways that, for the most part i dont idnetify with, I have my doubts, you know?

Im not asking any of you to type me, as you dont know me personally and it would be a bit like typing a celebrity but I wanna know what you guys think on this. are decsriptions really that good of a way of determining your type? Could they be completly wrong? Or is it me whos most likely off?

INTps are decsribed as being able to predict future events. This is something which recurrs in every description I read, that INTps have very precise, visualization of upcoming events and I dont have that, I think visually but my predictions are usually wrong and most often I dont care to predict the future, anyways. I prefer a sponantaniety towars the future, even stuff thats just about to happen, I dont make pedictions about dangers, I just either avoid the situation or go into it with enthousiasm, not making calculations or using caution. I do have a sense of upcoming dangers( which suggests ), but its more in regards to people's attitudes and not precise events, wich leads me to beleive Im rather than .

Also my way of dealing with problems is different from my dad, who I've typed as INTp. I get dramatic and emotional when things dont work for me, he tends to stay calm and stragetic and tries to calm me down if I get excited about a problem, which I find annoying. This leads me to suspect my creative function is and not . I just always thought it was the other way around- I get emotional because my is weak so i cant control it. My dad gets emotional sometimes, but when faced with a problem he tries to stay objective more than complain(even though he does complain and get annoyed, its like he never gets carried away in extreme situations).

EDIT: I have more to add. My dad resembles the IxTP + - descriptions well, whereas I resemble The IxFP ones more. For me, the order of the + - decsriptions from most like me to least like me is as follows:

1.INFp(most like me)
2.ISFp(mainly the negative aspects resemble me, which leads me to suspect as polr)
3.INTp
4.ISTp

For my dad, the order is as follows:

1.INTp
2.ISTp
3.INFp
4.ISFp

This lead me to beleive he has as polr, in cotrast to me having as polr. If is about being organized, methodical, functional, effectice in your work habits etc, then I am most likely not , even if I am into things which demand logic(like socionics). I am into intellectual pursuits and always have been since I was a kid, but I am not into applying or testing my knowledge. This makes me think I've confused with . And since Im into expressing emotion more than appying knowledge, it leads me to beleive Im an INFp obsessed with his hidden agenda, rather than an INTp.

For example, according to alot of decsriptions types are decsribed as being functional, methodical, practical, paying attention to strict logic etc in their work habits, and I have to say Im not like that at all. Im actually pretty impractical, like I dont care about paying attention to detail etc, I dont even have a work method, I just go through the work that has to be done, only when I really have to, and it gets done sloppily and in any way that I feel like doing it, really. Theres no "method" in my work habits, and people who comment on this piss me off.

What do you guys think about all this? Any serious help or advice would be appreciated.

[Creepy-]

oldforumlinkviewtopic.php?t=3251

This help? I don't think people can exercise much control over the creative function.

[CuriousSoul]

oldforumlinkviewtopic.php?t=3251

This help? I don't think people can exercise much control over the creative function.

I think creative function is the one you exercise most control over.

[Wavebury]

oldforumlinkviewtopic.php?t=3251

This help? I don't think people can exercise much control over the creative function.

Yes, I see your point. I guess emotions are just something you cant control because if you did they would be and not ?

I think the question I'm trying to answer is whether the logic I use is or . According to most decsriptions by socionists seems to be more about applying knowledge than theorizing about ideas which have no direct connection with your life circumstances, which would be more . Because If thats the case Im probably more than , in contrast with my dad who is probably INTp and doesnt like theories except when they pertain to whatever project he happens to be working on for his work as an architect. For example when he did a project in Japan, he studied Shinto beleifs to get and idea of how that can be reflected in his buildings, whereas I would be more likely to study those beleifs without ever even having been to Japan, and probably never would go(not that I wouldnt want to, but you get the point). In the article "INTj vs INTp" by Ganin it says intjs are more likely to gain understanding of ideas, whereas INTps are more into applying ideas and if I had to choose between the two I'd say Im more into gaining theoretical understanding but I find no interest in applying ideas, in fact people who always want to apply ideas sort of annoy me.

I guess the real question is whether the logic I use is and the ethics I use is , or if its the other way around. According the descriptions of socionists I read I would be more and , since Im not into applying my knowledge but I dont usually hold back expressing emotion. Unless my understading of the functions is simplistic? Could a type possibly comment on all this? Or someone else who knows their functions?

[CuriousSoul]

@ Cheerio
I think overanalyzing the functions as if they were separate entities that can be taken apart, observed and put back together is just not going to get you anywhere. I tried that in the past, but that analytical framework will just get you bogged down into a make-believe land of what ifs and "usually I do this, but sometimes I do that"... In a sense the functions are you, and the way you think and behave is what best shows your type. The problem I, and probably many others, have is that when we know so very little about you it is virtually impossible to say anything about your type.

One way of approaching the issue could be to forget all you know about socionics and give your fantasy free reign. Like I earlier wrote in a request to similar enquiry by Tepa: Tell us who your dual is and I tell you what your type is. Your dual is the type that can best support and compliment you. It is also the type that most needs you. It is though often times not a type you can find in the socionics type descriptions, but that is for another time... Try to think in terms of dialogue: What would you say or do, how would the girl of your dreams respond. What happens in the long run...

Sergei Ganin offered that you can find out your type by discovering your hidden agenda. He is, in my opinion, correct, but unfortunately this method is just not very practical. Evolution has built us to understand other people and learn to read their game, but strange as it may sound we have much less insight into the workings our own mind (and body).

[Wavebury]

@ Cheerio
I think overanalyzing the functions as if they were separate entities that can be taken apart, observed and put back together is just not going to get you anywhere. I tried that in the past, but that analytical framework will just get you bogged down into a make-believe land of what ifs and "usually I do this, but sometimes I do that"... In a sense the functions are you, and the way you think and behave is what best shows your type. The problem I, and probably many others, have is that when we know so very little about you it is virtually impossible to say anything about your type.

Its true that you guys dont know much about me. I dont like to talk about myself and intimacy has always made me feel uncomfortable unless its with someone I trust well, so I try to keep an "in the shadows" type profile on the internet. I have nothing horrible to hide, I just dont like self revealing like talking about myself and all that. I tried to decsribe on this thread some behaviors of mine and I was hoping people might at least be able to work with that. What else would like to know about me? Any questions, feel free to ask.

Its true that overanalyzing that functions can be confusing, but Im not overanalyzing, Im talking about just the basic manifestaions of the rational functions. I agree we are not linear but if is described as being "practical logic" by most socionists and is decsribed as "theoretical logic" and someone clearly identifies with one more than the other, wouldnt that make it rather hard to beleive that they do not use that one function, but they use the other? I agree with what youre saying about us not being linear but I think you kinda misinterpreted what i said.

One way of approaching the issue could be to forget all you know about socionics and give your fantasy free reign. Like I earlier wrote in a request to similar enquiry by Tepa: Tell us who your dual is and I tell you what your type is. Your dual is the type that can best support and compliment you. It is also the type that most needs you. It is though often times not a type you can find in the socionics type descriptions, but that is for another time... Try to think in terms of dialogue: What would you say or do, how would the girl of your dreams respond. What happens in the long run...

Well...its hard to say . i dont exactly expect just one type of person. Im open to different people, obviosly some more than others...but I dont have an image in my mind as to what I want the girl of my dreams to be, as I dream about lots of girls.

Sergei Ganin offered that you can find out your type by discovering your hidden agenda. He is, in my opinion, correct, but unfortunately this method is just not very practical. Evolution has built us to understand other people and learn to read their game, but strange as it may sound we have much less insight into the workings our own mind (and body).

The problem is that(as I've explained above) it seems I dont know how the hidden agenda manifests itself, especially not in INTp vs INFp because my hidden agenda could be either or , it all comes down to concrete examples of how these things manifest rather than saying "its important for you to like people" or "its important to understand ideas" etc. The same thing for The strong functions, we need concrete example of how they manifest and thats what type decsriptions are for.

Id still like a dominant or auxillary type to comment on what i've said, as that would be helpful.

Maybe I really I am an INTp and the decsriptions of are complelty off, but how would I know?