INTJ = INTj. Straightforward. MBTI just uses a wrong order of functions.
INTJ = INTp. MBTI just uses a wrong definition of the j/p dichotomy.
INTJ = INTj or INTp. Depends on subtype!
INTJ = INTj or INTp or ENTj or ENTp. MBTI uses different definitions for I/E and p/j.
INTJ = ???. MBTI uses different definitions for all dichotomies.
Other opinions...?
On a related note, it's interesting that people keep saying I'm a good example of a judging subtype INTj when in my everyday life I lack pretty much every supposed definining property of a judger. I don't live a structured life. I get almost nothing done during an average day. I never plan anything I do. I always postpone things until the deadline is close. Etc...
There is no way. My studies show that many people score within their quadra; I posted this study that I conducted with 30 college students to show that of them only one scored their own type. Not even did I score my own type from MBTI to Socionics. Most people scored their mirror or activity, others scored their dual type (as I did), and very few scored outside quadra.
-
Dual type(as per tcaudilllg)
Enneagram 5 (wings either 4 or 6)?
I'm constantly looking to align the real with the ideal.I've been more oriented toward being overly idealistic by expecting the real to match the ideal. My thinking side is dominent. The result is that sometimes I can be overly impersonal or self-centered in my approach, not being understanding of others in the process and simply thinking "you should do this" or "everyone should follor this rule"..."regardless of how they feel or where they're coming from"which just isn't a good attitude to have. It is a way, though, to give oneself an artificial sense of self-justification. LSE
Best description of functions:
http://socionicsstudy.blogspot.com/2...functions.html
fwiw, I typed as an INFP MBTI before I found out about Socionics.
INFj
9w1 sp/sx
In MBTI, NT = relatively smart person whose interests are primarily intellectual/scientific.
Where is the information about 4 words to be found? I didn't see it in the article.Originally Posted by Jarno
can you post me the link where the article was.
Cause I'm certain I have read something like that. I've once studied this table in depth. But cannot remember every detail...
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
