Psychological Types

[Like Ra]

BOTH Sociopathy & Psychopathy.

They are synonyms. AFAIK, there is no actual difference between them.

[Lycalopex]

BOTH Sociopathy & Psychopathy.

They are synonyms. AFAIK, there is no actual difference between them.

There is, but nobody can agree what that difference is.

Also this isn't even remotely how psychopathy and sociopathy actually work.

[Zooy]

i might have one which might explain me
https://openpsychometrics.org/tests/LSRP.php

This is interactive version of the Levenson Self-Report Psychopathy Scale, a test of sociopathy?


Did you try this one:
http://openpsychometrics.org/tests/OEJTS/

Took this last test and ended with INTP.
But there is one thing that bothers me a bit:
They want you to mark one of the o's in
    A  o o o o o  B
according to whether you are more into A or into B.
But I see a big difference between: "I care for neither", or "sometimes I do A and sometimes I do B, depending on the circumstances". In both cases I could only put the o in the middle. This does not seem right.

[Like Ra]

There is, but nobody can agree what that difference is.

OK, agree. Hence, both terms are used left & right without carrying any actual load. Kinda, psychopath is a next level sociopath.

[Lycalopex]

There is, but nobody can agree what that difference is.

OK, agree. Hence, both terms are used left & right without carrying any actual load. Kinda, psychopath is a next level sociopath.

As far as I can tell, the "primary" difference is that a sociopath can still have a conscience, or at least standards, whereas a psychopath is less likely to.

It's not very clear-cut. I've also heard it as "a sociopath knows that what they do is wrong, a psychopath does not".

[Lycalopex]

But there is one thing that bothers me a bit:
They want you to mark one of the o's in
    A  o o o o o  B
according to whether you are more into A or into B.
But I see a big difference between: "I care for neither", or "sometimes I do A and sometimes I do B, depending on the circumstances". In both cases I could only put the o in the middle. This does not seem right.

In cases like this I always go with first instinct. I find these tests get less consistent when you stop to think about it for too long; just pick the response which calls to you immediately and move on.

[Zooy]

But there is one thing that bothers me a bit:
They want you to mark one of the o's in
    A  o o o o o  B
according to whether you are more into A or into B.
But I see a big difference between: "I care for neither", or "sometimes I do A and sometimes I do B, depending on the circumstances". In both cases I could only put the o in the middle. This does not seem right.

In cases like this I always go with first instinct. I find these tests get less consistent when you stop to think about it for too long; just pick the response which calls to you immediately and move on.

In several cases my quick decision was the one in the middle. Like you say.
It is just that this gives me the impression that the test is designed by people who do not really understand themselves the people about whom they want to make statements.
It is a feeling I have had my whole life: that nobody really understands me, with one exception many years ago. I may not even understand myself.

[Like Ra]

It is a feeling I have had my whole life: that nobody really understands me,

That's one of the NLP statements - nobody can understand each other.

As for typology - nobody is 100% one type. It's not possible. 80% is the "normal maximum".
Also, every type might behave as another type under "abnormal" situations. For example, during social adaptations (new collective), during critical situations, during the exhaustion periods.

To properly "classify" someone, you need to watch that person for some time. Interrelationships are very important. How the person physically moves is important (sensory vs intuitive, rational vs irrational).

In tests, people tend to replace their own actual traits with what they value most. E.g. types with weak sensory functions might choose comfort as very important. And this is true, but such a response does not say anything about the strength of the "introverted sensation" function:
- comfort is important, so the subject automatically creates and adjusts it even without thinking ( can be in the 1st or 8th position)
- comfort is important, and the subject plays with it quite creatively ( can be in the 2nd position)
- comfort is important, but the subject needs someone else, who can provide it ( is in the 5th position)
- comfort is important, but the discussion on what the person finds comfortable or not is uncomfortable by itself ( is in the 4th position)

So, it's impossible to create a test, which can reliably tell you your type.

[Lycalopex]

Basically, yeah. My tests usually say INTJ, but I've gotten ISTJ, INFP, and INTP before.

[Like Ra]

Basically, yeah. My tests usually say INTJ, but I've gotten ISTJ, INFP, and INTP before.

You are definitely not INFP 🤣

The main difference between INTJ and ISTJ is intuitive vs sensory. ISTJ is a dominant type (typical ISTJ is Jason Statham), and INTJ "hates" any pressure from others. OTOH, ISTJ "hates" choices and multiple variants.

INTP is possible. INTPs are "victims", they absolutely need to feel the power of a partner. That, actually, makes them similar to INFP. INTJs are "infantiles".

INTJ and INTP might "look" similar on paper (they are even called "look alike" in socionics). But INTJ is very rigid, with an almost constant, strong, complex system of viewpoints, opinions and beliefs. Usually, INTJ does not even see anything, that does not belong to the system, which is EXTREMELY difficult to change. If INTJ does not believe in "green UFO men", INTJ would not see them even if they are marching around. But within that system, INTJ is like a dolphin in water - an absolute expert. Most likely, Steve Jobs was an INTJ. Sheldon from "The Big Bang Theory" is a typical INTJ.

OTOH, INTP is flexible, very critical, almost emotionless, they are very overwhelmed and easily irritated by emotions of others (typical examples: Uma Thurman, Dita von Teese).