How the heck can NeTi be a J?
Anyway, the idea of INTx is a bit silly considering that P or J is more like a derivative.
NeTi=P
NiTe=J
Te=implementation function
Ti=inner logical coherence
Hence, it makes better sense for Ti to be P and Te to be J
Thinking is a judging function, so in socionics an INTjs primary function would be Ti. INTps primary function isn't Te, it is Ni because they are introverted, nonetheless a perceiving type.
INTp: NiTe
INTj: TiNe
No extraverted functions are primary to an introvert personality, just as no judging functions are primary to a perceiving personality.
My MBTI is INTP, Socionics I got a INTx when taking the test. I found the MBTI description fits perfectly, although the functions seem off. However the Socionics INTj description fits me better, despite the fact that when it comes to P vs J, I find myself definitely a P. I wander aimlessly in my mind, am always late for things, care little for deadlines, procrastinate heavily...you name it.
So color me confuzzled.
You are very likely an INTj if the functions and description matches up. Then just one preference is a little bit fine-tuned, which is odd.
Wandering aimlessly in your mind sounds like Ni, but it can very well be Ti. Are the functions really matching up?
Look at the difference between INTps Ni and INTjs Ti:
Does this match you?
Introverted intuition in ILIs is predominantly characterized by well developed imaginative abilities and mental wanderings. ILI often spend a great deal of time simply thinking and may spend excessive amounts of time in their mind. This mental focus can be manifest by reflecting on scenarios, on pondering bodies of information, and assorted concepts of interest. They may be prone to excessive day dreaming, in creation of intricate inner worlds or universes, or on considering their past or future. ILIs may even have novelistic tendencies where they create intricate plots, characters, and places. However, ILIs are not always inclined to share their imaginative tendencies or thoughts with others.
ILIs are naturally attuned to hidden connections between things and hints of greater implications in everyday reality. They easily recognize patterns of events, repeating outcomes, and contradictory messages. This understanding of global patterns and human behavior often allows ILIs to critically analyze present situations and determine the immediate and far-reaching consequences of certain actions. This skill leads the ILI to be seen by others as generally intelligent. The mind of an ILI is an oasis of sorts where knowledge is treated as a toy or even a vehicle that allows them to visit complex mental landscapes that are shaped and continually revised by new information. Nonetheless, an ILI is likely to find the process of accumulating new information tiresome compared to their mental explorations; consequently, new information is often accumulated and updated in a rather lethargic, periodic, and occasionally incomplete fashion.
Or does this match you?
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. 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.
"Just because" is not in an LII's vocabulary. If there is a reason for something, the LII will probably want to find it. 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. 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.
. Jack Flak is the one who showed it to me. Socionics.com seems like it is still lacking some consistency, but has good resources if you read everything through.
