INTp Uncovered? WTF?

[Hitta]

Anyone find that a lot of Ganin's INTp uncovered profile sounds a lot like an INTj instead. I mean, he basically went from saying that INTps obey rules(in which they do) to say that they debate rules. His article contradicts itself. He goes from saying that:

"INTps fear rules and adore them, because what's clear - they fear, unclear - they dear! Nevertheless, they stick to the rules and they demand the same from others. The rules that can be interpreted in many ways guarantee freedom. Ironically, INTps learn about their environment through studying of the limitations. If the rule states you can't say "knee" and INTp decides to respect and obey it they could get extremely annoyed with someone who decides to ignore it.

The rules for INTps often transform into rituals and they have no problems with rituals. Because of this INTps could get comfortable with routine, often mistyping themselves into J types, resulting in many of them thinking of themselves as INTjs. However the most common way is for INTps to type themselves into INTxs, with undecided preference for J or P. "

to

"The arithmetic perhaps is the only discipline where INTps cannot use their powers of ambiguity. 2 + 2 = 4 will always remain true, although it is not inconceivable to assume that at some point an INTp was contemplating a different result. On the other hand, the very foundation of arithmetic was built upon few self evident axioms, and it is the self evident part of course that is very much INTp debatable.

In fact, INTps will debate for the sake of debate. The process becomes more important than the outcome. They often lose the point of a debate when they shift focus to other unrelated subjects in the process. When defeated, INTps can easily do a U turn on something they were arguing just seconds ago. They deserve respect for being able to accept the defeat and disrespect for never being truly committed in their views.



That quote sounds completely INTj, not INTp. I couldn't see an INTp debating an accepted idea. INTjs are the ones that debate things, not INTps.


And he's completely contradicting himself. He goes from saying that INTps "fear and adore" rules to an INTP " would not accept anything concrete and solid on principal. The more unshakable it seems the more challenging for INTp it appears. Irrefutable truth to them means death. If a sign "Take your hats off" is normally understood as a request to take headwear off, you may suddenly find yourself arguing with an INTp over what is considered a hat. Thanks God for dictionary! INTps respect it - it is printed and it is public. But beware of broad interpretations. A broad interpretation is INTp's ally; exact meaning is INTp's enema. "


He says INTps hate exact meaning, but that is not how Ni works. Ne is the function that works like this. Its like he doesn't know what he's talking about or something. I competely disagree with his profile.

[Rocky]

OK.

Hi5

[Hitta]

5
|-|
|-|
|-|
|-|

[Phaedrus]

Anyone find that a lot of Ganin's INTp uncovered profile sounds a lot like an INTj instead.

I competely disagree with his profile.

My comments (and others) at http://the16types.info/forums/viewto...r=asc&start=30 and the following page.

[reyn_til_runa]

put your tongue in your cheek and try again!

[krieger]

INTj's, as result based Ti types, are actually poor debaters, as whenever they talk about a subject they can't help but speak about their own ideas of it which are always the result of long preliminary deliberation, and don't have the patience to explain how they arrived at them to all parties involved. In fact we generally don't even remember how we arrive at our conclusions as there is little point in this from the INTj's own point of view.

It's a mistake to say INTj's see reality through a filter though... the accepting function is not our concrete function, and it is the concrete function which determines what 'reality' (eg. the point beyond which there is no deeper analysis) looks like. We know our conclusions are our own, and we know very well where the dividing line between reality and personal theory lies. That just doesn't mean we'll always go back to cross that line when strategic factors aren't favorable. (read; we don't always have the patience.)

INTp's on the other hand... concrete accepting intuition. They see the problem and flow along with it... The only thing that might make them less good debaters as the ENTj's is that there isn't always much use for companionship on the road from problem to solution (construct-creating + obstinate Te sparingly accepts outside input in the heat of the moment; though this tells about the stage following that of identifying a problem only).

[strrrng]

That quote sounds completely INTj, not INTp. I couldn't see an INTp debating an accepted idea. INTjs are the ones that debate things, not INTps.

wtf? they both debate, the INTj may be slightly more prone to debate due to perhaps a more direct, assertive nature, but still. I agree, that first part of the article is completely wrong; INTP's are insouciant people. They could care less about rules.

[Warlord]

"INTps fear rules and adore them, because what's clear - they fear, unclear - they dear! Nevertheless, they stick to the rules and they demand the same from others. The rules that can be interpreted in many ways guarantee freedom. Ironically, INTps learn about their environment through studying of the limitations. If the rule states you can't say "knee" and INTp decides to respect and obey it they could get extremely annoyed with someone who decides to ignore it.

It can appear this way, to outside observer.

Assuming there's something to gain from it. I brake and bend every rule possible, if I can get away with it. I almost always do. But there's also many rules, that following them is simply smart thing to do. Of course I demand that other people follow rules, it gives me an edge. Concerning the rules, only thing I'm "afraid" is getting punished.

"The rules for INTps often transform into rituals and they have no problems with rituals. Because of this INTps could get comfortable with routine, often mistyping themselves into J types, resulting in many of them thinking of themselves as INTjs. However the most common way is for INTps to type themselves into INTxs, with undecided preference for J or P. "

Sort of bull. I guess I could get comfortable with rutine, or don't have problem with it. But I'd rather not follow rutine. It's just necessary sometimes. That's why I guess this can also appear this way to outside observer.

"The arithmetic perhaps is the only discipline where INTps cannot use their powers of ambiguity. 2 + 2 = 4 will always remain true, although it is not inconceivable to assume that at some point an INTp was contemplating a different result. On the other hand, the very foundation of arithmetic was built upon few self evident axioms, and it is the self evident part of course that is very much INTp debatable.

In fact, INTps will debate for the sake of debate. The process becomes more important than the outcome. They often lose the point of a debate when they shift focus to other unrelated subjects in the process. When defeated, INTps can easily do a U turn on something they were arguing just seconds ago. They deserve respect for being able to accept the defeat and disrespect for never being truly committed in their views.

With this part I totally agree.

That quote sounds completely INTj, not INTp. I couldn't see an INTp debating an accepted idea. INTjs are the ones that debate things, not INTps.

You might have your INTp's and INTj's mixed then. INTj's usually start to back away, at the point when I'm just starting When INTj's can't use their parlour trick of getting their opponent angry, and thus diminishing their capability of thinking, they get really scared. When INTp's get "angry" it doesn't affect their logic much at all, it just means it's time to bring in the big guns.

But you could be partially right though. If you change that to "INTp's usually don't bother to debate". Because we are lazy, and debating is energy and time consuming. But on the other hand it's also fun.

And he's completely contradicting himself. He goes from saying that INTps "fear and adore" rules to an INTP " would not accept anything concrete and solid on principal. The more unshakable it seems the more challenging for INTp it appears. Irrefutable truth to them means death. If a sign "Take your hats off" is normally understood as a request to take headwear off, you may suddenly find yourself arguing with an INTp over what is considered a hat. Thanks God for dictionary! INTps respect it - it is printed and it is public. But beware of broad interpretations."

Well those two aren't the same exact thing. With this part, I agree with everything except:

A broad interpretation is INTp's ally; exact meaning is INTp's enema.

...it would make communication difficult if definations were vague. And I would only argue about what's hat and what is not. As a joke, or more likely to prove some point.

He says INTps hate exact meaning, but that is not how Ni works. Ne is the function that works like this. Its like he doesn't know what he's talking about or something.

Yeah true.

Overall I think the article might seem contradicting. Because INTp's are contradicting. Or would seem so. Because sort of similar situation isn't the exactly the same.

Rule isn't rutine isn't exact definition isn't un-ambigious opinion and so on.

I think it should just say:"INTp's don't get laid" and leave it at that

[Warlord]

So what is it that makes them so meticulously scrutinising? Being natively intuitive, INTps are not quite able to swallow big chunks of information. They choke on it. Big theories of everything are spam to them and people who make them are instant opponents. The combination of words like "in general", "on principal", "on the whole", "in most cases", "as a general rule" are not friends to INTps, as they befriend "in particular" in particular. They do not like trends, as trends usually encompass more than one tendency, making the trend more "in general" than "in particular". The notion that there are 16 psychological types is also alien to INTps, because in their heads the 16 types could be further dissected into oblivion, thus making them even more "in particular" than "in general".

This part I totally disagree with. I think the list of typical statements, contain things like "in general" etc. I use those all the time.

[Gilly]

INTj's, as result based Ti types, are actually poor debaters

Do you know who Noam Chomsky is?

[Phaedrus]

When INTj's can't use their parlour trick of getting their opponent angry, and thus diminishing their capability of thinking, they get really scared. When INTp's get "angry" it doesn't affect their logic much at all, it just means it's time to bring in the big guns.

That's true about INTps, and that's how some INTjs come across to me. Whether they really get scared or not, I don't know, though.

[Expat]

INTj's, as result based Ti types, are actually poor debaters

Do you know who Noam Chomsky is?

Or Robespierre.

[Logos]

When INTj's can't use their parlour trick of getting their opponent angry, and thus diminishing their capability of thinking, they get really scared. When INTp's get "angry" it doesn't affect their logic much at all, it just means it's time to bring in the big guns.

This sounds interesting. Can you explain what you mean a bit more? (Example)

Apparently whenever our INTj jedi mind-tricks do not work, INTps are superior debaters, but since we INTjs do not really use these jedi mind-tricks, I have no idea what he is talking about other than he must think that INTps have some natural superiority over INTjs in debating.

[Warlord]

When INTj's can't use their parlour trick of getting their opponent angry, and thus diminishing their capability of thinking, they get really scared. When INTp's get "angry" it doesn't affect their logic much at all, it just means it's time to bring in the big guns.

This sounds interesting. Can you explain what you mean a bit more? (Example)

Apparently whenever our INTj jedi mind-tricks do not work, INTps are superior debaters, but since we INTjs do not really use these jedi mind-tricks, I have no idea what he is talking about other than he must think that INTps have some natural superiority over INTjs in debating.

^ Example ^

For example that type of "I don't know what he is talking about"-statement, sarcasm, repeating etc.. Or are you Logos implying, that you have never ever irritated anyone when you have argued with them? And also are you implying that people usually are just as clear minded when they are angry or irritated? It's a "parlour trick" because it doesn't make persons arguments any stronger, but is an attempt to hurt the other persons concentration. My comment was based on what INTj's have told themselves. Not only INTj's use those. When used on INTp, it backfires.

And yes, INTp's are naturally better at debating than INTj's. You build chains, we brake chains that don't hold. It's faster to destroy than to build. You often place your entire argument on one logical construct, once it's broken, you fall on nothing. After that it takes you too long to recover, to answer the next onslaught. INTp's usually don't claim anything. It's very difficult to beat someone, who mostly concentrates in finding errors in everything others say. When we claim something, usually we soften the statement somehow, then we can always say something like "I didn't claim that, I said: maybe blaa blaa blaa". You form fixation to your staments, we can change our minds mid-argument. So then you fall back to finding some new proof to your already false stament, wich you can't do if it was false. Because you were too confident that it will hold, you never considered an alternate option. It's well known that INTj's are only confident when they are sure of something. When you no longer can be confident about what you were so sure about, your lack of confidence starts to show. And I suspect that when you lack confidence, it also impairs your thinking, not just makes you back down. And finally your alpha values make you softer.

When INTj's are right, it's unlikely that an INTp will start to argue in the first place.

[Logos]

For example that type of "I don't know what he is talking about"-statement, sarcasm, repeating etc.. Or are you Logos implying, that you have never ever irritated anyone when you have argued with them?

I have, but it is not intentional, or a goal or a trick that I use to my advantage. It is generally just a result of what I say being something which either runs counter to what the other person believes.

And also are you implying that people usually are just as clear minded when they are angry or irritated?

No I am not implying anything of the sort. They usually are not as clear minded.

]It's a "parlour trick" because it doesn't make persons arguments any stronger, but is an attempt to hurt the other persons concentration.

I suppose it would be "parlour trick," but that is not what is being questioned here, but the evidential validity of your statement that you made in regards to INTj's and their supposed use of "parlour tricks."

My comment was based on what INTj's have told themselves. Not only INTj's use those. When used on INTp, it backfires.

And my comment is based upon what INTjs have told themselves. I have seen plenty of INTps use it as well, and I have seen it backfire on an INTp when used against other INTjs too.

And yes, INTp's are naturally better at debating than INTj's. You build chains, we brake chains that don't hold. It's faster to destroy than to build.

And INTps destroy based upon , while INTjs destroy arguments based upon .

You often place your entire argument on one logical construct, once it's broken, you fall on nothing. After that it takes you too long to recover, to answer the next onslaught.

You often place your argument on one factual construct, once it's broken, you fall on nothing. After that it takes you too long to recover, to answer the next onslaught.

INTp's usually don't claim anything. It's very difficult to beat someone, who mostly concentrates in finding errors in everything others say.

INTjs may have their own system of , but they usually keep silent and do not claim anything, but focus on the arguments of others through a neutral lens of . It's very difficult to beat someone (interesting that you use the word "beat" to suggest dominance when an INTj would simply use the word "discuss"), who mostly concentrates in finding structural logical errors in everything others say.

When we claim something, usually we soften the statement somehow, then we can always say something like "I didn't claim that, I said: maybe blaa blaa blaa".

That actually sounds more like an INTj. INTjs often statements as a means of preserving the atmosphere. But if you soften statements as a means of being able to change the validity and factuality of what you said, then that would make INTps inconsistent debaters.

You form fixation to your staments, we can change our minds mid-argument.

You change your positions in mid-argument? How is that a sign of a good debater?

So then you fall back to finding some new proof to your already false statement, which you can't do if it was false.

So then you fall back to finding some new fact to supply to your already false statement. Again, INTjs, and especially ENTps, can debate a point without the need of to supply their logic.

Because you were too confident that it will hold, you never considered an alternate option. It's well known that INTj's are only confident when they are sure of something. When you no longer can be confident about what you were so sure about, your lack of confidence starts to show. And I suspect that when you lack confidence, it also impairs your thinking, not just makes you back down.

Likewise.

[Gilly]

Count me out of Alpha, then; I'm all about winning debates

[Gilly]

See, I just don't like losing.

[Logos]

Count me out of Alpha, then; I'm all about winning debates

Probably because you are a lawyer in training.

[Gilly]

Other way around.

[Logos]

Other way around.

No, I meant it as a lawyer-in-training, which can also be read as training to be a lawyer.

[Logos]

Other way around.

No, I meant it as a lawyer-in-training, which can also be read as training to be a lawyer.

i think Gilly meant the "cause and effect" works the other way around, right?

Which while true, becomes especially so as it is reinforced by a professional standard, so if you did not like winning before, you would not have as much of a choice afterwards.

[Warlord]

My comment was based on what INTj's have told themselves. Not only INTj's use those. When used on INTp, it backfires.

And my comment is based upon what INTjs have told themselves. I have seen plenty of INTps use it as well, and I have seen it backfire on an INTp when used against other INTjs too.

Sure, I was just saying it won't work on INTp's like it works on people in general. The difference is that, INTj's avoid getting aggraveted, INTp's get motivated by it.

And yes, INTp's are naturally better at debating than INTj's. You build chains, we brake chains that don't hold. It's faster to destroy than to build.

And INTps destroy based upon , while INTjs destroy arguments based upon .

That statement just doesn't hold true to how INTj's argue in reality. Most of time you try to build an argument, instead of finding weak spots in other peoples arguments. makes you mainly concentrate on what you think, instead on what the other person is saying. It's INTp's that are known as "Critics".

You often place your entire argument on one logical construct, once it's broken, you fall on nothing. After that it takes you too long to recover, to answer the next onslaught.

You often place your argument on one factual construct, once it's broken, you fall on nothing. After that it takes you too long to recover, to answer the next onslaught.

Not true, INTp's base arguments on many different angles. We don't fall down to nothing, we change to a new argument. Compared to INTp, it takes a little eternity for INTj to come up with a new argument. That's the difference between P and J. You obviously can write whatever you want, but that's not how it is in real life. Come up with your own material

It's very difficult to beat someone (interesting that you use the word "beat" to suggest dominance when an INTj would simply use the word "discuss"), who mostly concentrates in finding structural logical errors in everything others say.

Winning an argument was the issue, not "winning" a polite discussion. Nobody ever wins those.

When we claim something, usually we soften the statement somehow, then we can always say something like "I didn't claim that, I said: maybe blaa blaa blaa".

That actually sounds more like an INTj. INTjs often statements as a means of preserving the atmosphere. But if you soften statements as a means of being able to change the validity and factuality of what you said, then that would make INTps inconsistent debaters.

You form fixation to your staments, we can change our minds mid-argument.

You change your positions in mid-argument? How is that a sign of a good debater?

I didn't mean soften in way. I mean containing the factual vagueness of presented argument. That is not making absolutist statements in INTj vein.

IE. "Africans are poor" vs "most africans are poor".

Being consistently wrong just makes a stubborn fool. Winning some "good debater" browney points means squat, everywhere else except in some high-school debate club.

So then you fall back to finding some new proof to your already false statement, which you can't do if it was false.

So then you fall back to finding some new fact to supply to your already false statement. Again, INTjs, and especially ENTps, can debate a point without the need of to supply their logic.

As I said, INTp's mostly concentrate findind errors in what other people say. False statements need only to be proved false once.

What's the point trying to argue with someone who you think is right to begin with?

Because you were too confident that it will hold, you never considered an alternate option. It's well known that INTj's are only confident when they are sure of something. When you no longer can be confident about what you were so sure about, your lack of confidence starts to show. And I suspect that when you lack confidence, it also impairs your thinking, not just makes you back down.

Likewise.

Not true at all. There's no such thing as certain truth. Therefore we don't have to even believe in what we say. It's all about possibilities. Your arguments have to hold true with your internal thinking, otherwise you sound very inconfident saying it aloud.

[Phaedrus]

I don't necessarily agree with everything Warlord says about the differences between INTjs and INTps in debates, but I agree with this:

You build chains, we brake chains that don't hold. It's faster to destroy than to build.

And INTps have at least one natural advantage over INTjs in debates: we can be more aggressive if we want. If the dispute gets really hot, INTps can unleash their PoLR, and when that happens INTjs tend to take a step back. INTjs are not comfortable with seemingly uncontrolled aggressiveness, and they cannot be as aggressive themselves. They are almost always more emotionally controlled in their outward behaviour in such situations.

Having said that, I realize that it's probably the same thing Warlord has in mind in this quote:

The difference is that, INTj's avoid getting aggraveted, INTp's get motivated by it.

[Transigent]

LOL 1700 Posts by this idiot about how INTp's and INTj's differ and what is what. This guy sure knows what he is talking about.

NOT

[Logos]

Sure, I was just saying it won't work on INTp's like it works on people in general. The difference is that, INTj's avoid getting aggraveted, INTp's get motivated by it.

So if INTjs avoid getting aggravated, how does this make us bad debaters?

That statement just doesn't hold true to how INTj's argue in reality. Most of time you try to build an argument, instead of finding weak spots in other peoples arguments. makes you mainly concentrate on what you think, instead on what the other person is saying. It's INTp's that are known as "Critics".

That's great, but my reality experience with INTjs says differently. It's INTjs that are known as "Analysts" which is the deconstruction of arguments into base parts. And remember that part of the strength of the INTj-ESFj duality is that the INTj type is one of the few who do constantly listen to what they have to say, so why is it unreasonable to think that the INTj would not be listening to what others have to say?

Not true, INTp's base arguments on many different angles. We don't fall down to nothing, we change to a new argument. Compared to INTp, it takes a little eternity for INTj to come up with a new argument. That's the difference between P and J.

That's creative-.

You obviously can write whatever you want, but that's not how it is in real life. Come up with your own material

Likewise.

I didn't mean soften in way. I mean containing the factual vagueness of presented argument. That is not making absolutist statements in INTj vein.

Oh wow, factual vagueness. In which case, the INTj's lack of would be even better, wouldn't it? That way when we're asked to clarify, we can use actual demonstrative .

Being consistently wrong just makes a stubborn fool.

Which is not related to type. :wink:

Winning some "good debater" browney points means squat, everywhere else except in some high-school debate club.

In which case, probably the best way to win an argument would be with a baseball bat.

As I said, INTp's mostly concentrate findind errors in what other people say. False statements need only to be proved false once.

INTps find errors, whereas INTjs find errors.

What's the point trying to argue with someone who you think is right to begin with?

To see if you can find weaknesses in your own arguments or with the logic to the conclusion which this other person made.

Not true at all. There's no such thing as certain truth. Therefore we don't have to even believe in what we say.

Sounds like there. Don't let Phaedrus hear you talk like a Subjectivist now.

It's all about possibilities. Your arguments have to hold true with your internal thinking, otherwise you sound very inconfident saying it aloud.

Welcome to INTj-Land, and it does not necessarily have to hold true with our own internal thinking, but it does have to have a reasonably sound structure. INTjs are willing to entertain just about any possibility or idea due to creative-.

And INTps have at least one natural advantage over INTjs in debates: we can be more aggressive if we want. If the dispute gets really hot, INTps can unleash their PoLR, and when that happens INTjs tend to take a step back. INTjs are not comfortable with seemingly uncontrolled aggressiveness, and they cannot be as aggressive themselves. They are almost always more emotionally controlled in their outward behaviour in such situations.

Then what is to stop the INTj from unleashing their PoLR and causing the INTp to step back?

[Phaedrus]

Not true at all. There's no such thing as certain truth. Therefore we don't have to even believe in what we say.

Sounds like there. Don't let Phaedrus hear you talk like a Subjectivist now.

To say that there is no such thing as a certain truth is to talk about knowledge, that we can't know anything for sure, and that statement is perfectly consistent with being an Objectivist. In fact, that was the attitude of Socrates, who is one of the first known examples of a Gamma (he was either INTp or ENTj). It is quite another thing to say that truth itself is relative, which would be a Subjectivist's position.

And INTps have at least one natural advantage over INTjs in debates: we can be more aggressive if we want. If the dispute gets really hot, INTps can unleash their PoLR, and when that happens INTjs tend to take a step back. INTjs are not comfortable with seemingly uncontrolled aggressiveness, and they cannot be as aggressive themselves. They are almost always more emotionally controlled in their outward behaviour in such situations.

Then what is to stop the INTj from unleashing their PoLR and causing the INTp to step back?

How would unleashing the PoLR manifest itself in the INTj, according to you? And in what way would that be relevant to a debate situation and make the INTp step back?

Ironically... it's funny that the INTp's are acting exactly like INTp uncovered...

Why wouldn't they? Are you really surprised that the types behave like they are said to behave according to the type descriptions?

[Hitta]

Not true at all. There's no such thing as certain truth. Therefore we don't have to even believe in what we say.

Sounds like there. Don't let Phaedrus hear you talk like a Subjectivist now.

To say that there is no such thing as a certain truth is to talk about knowledge, that we can't know anything for sure, and that statement is perfectly consistent with being an Objectivist. In fact, that was the attitude of Socrates, who is one of the first known examples of a Gamma (he was either INTp or ENTj). It is quite another thing to say that truth itself is relative, which would be a Subjectivist's position.

And INTps have at least one natural advantage over INTjs in debates: we can be more aggressive if we want. If the dispute gets really hot, INTps can unleash their PoLR, and when that happens INTjs tend to take a step back. INTjs are not comfortable with seemingly uncontrolled aggressiveness, and they cannot be as aggressive themselves. They are almost always more emotionally controlled in their outward behaviour in such situations.

Then what is to stop the INTj from unleashing their PoLR and causing the INTp to step back?

How would unleashing the PoLR manifest itself in the INTj, according to you? And in what way would that be relevant to a debate situation and make the INTp step back?

Ironically... it's funny that the INTp's are acting exactly like INTp uncovered...

Why wouldn't they? Are you really surprised that the types behave like they are said to behave according to the type descriptions?

I see, you've had a lobotomy.

[Warlord]

Sure, I was just saying it won't work on INTp's like it works on people in general. The difference is that, INTj's avoid getting aggraveted, INTp's get motivated by it.

So if INTjs avoid getting aggravated, how does this make us bad debaters?

We are still talking about winning arguments, not some debate club bull, wich means nothing in the real world. "Good debater" is like a good loser.

And take an objective look on how you debate, hah!

That statement just doesn't hold true to how INTj's argue in reality. Most of time you try to build an argument, instead of finding weak spots in other peoples arguments. makes you mainly concentrate on what you think, instead on what the other person is saying. It's INTp's that are known as "Critics".

That's great, but my reality experience with INTjs says differently. It's INTjs that are known as "Analysts" which is the deconstruction of arguments into base parts. And remember that part of the strength of the INTj-ESFj duality is that the INTj type is one of the few who do constantly listen to what they have to say, so why is it unreasonable to think that the INTj would not be listening to what others have to say?

The "analysts" refers to large range different subject matters, not just arguments. Deconstructing an argument to it's basic parts, isn't same as destroying someones argument because it's false. Not by a long shot. Deconstruction is just a method to handle information elements.

Not true, INTp's base arguments on many different angles. We don't fall down to nothing, we change to a new argument. Compared to INTp, it takes a little eternity for INTj to come up with a new argument. That's the difference between P and J.

That's creative-.

Then your idea of creative is skewed, because that's not what INTj's show in their arguments. Have you come with any clever new angles? No. Your arguments are mainly sand-box "no, you are"-arguments. helps you open many windows, yes. But then crawl through one of them, and keep crawling until you hit the wall, then you have to crawl all way back to go through another window. Or you end up to right conclusion the first time. But that doesn't help you in arguments.

You obviously can write whatever you want, but that's not how it is in real life. Come up with your own material

Likewise.

Amazing how you managed to prove my 2 sentences right, with just one word

I didn't mean soften in way. I mean containing the factual vagueness of presented argument. That is not making absolutist statements in INTj vein.

Oh wow, factual vagueness. In which case, the INTj's lack of would be even better, wouldn't it? That way when we're asked to clarify, we can use actual demonstrative .

Not about clarifying either. There are no facts, just probabilities on what's true. It shows better vision of the truth, when the probability is also to be contained in the statement, not just the conclusion.

Being consistently wrong just makes a stubborn fool.

Which is not related to type. :wink:

Except for ESFj's :>

Winning some "good debater" browney points means squat, everywhere else except in some high-school debate club.

In which case, probably the best way to win an argument would be with a baseball bat.

That's how ESTp's win their arguments.

It's question about who comes closer to the truth, and who's vision of the truth is the one that prevails in the end. And in that debating skills mean nothing. Saying something like "that was an ad hominem argument" is a sign of losing an argument. It's same as:"I have nothing relevant to say, I'm just being a dork". Try that in the real world, and people will just laugh at you.

As I said, INTp's mostly concentrate findind errors in what other people say. False statements need only to be proved false once.

INTps find errors, whereas INTjs find errors.

Base is too slow, to be more useful in arguments than .

What's the point trying to argue with someone who you think is right to begin with?

To see if you can find weaknesses in your own arguments or with the logic to the conclusion which this other person made.

Well I can do that in my head, I don't have to start arguing with someone over it.

Not true at all. There's no such thing as certain truth. Therefore we don't have to even believe in what we say.

Sounds like there. Don't let Phaedrus hear you talk like a Subjectivist now.

That probably had nothing to do with type.

There's essentially 3 "truths": Subjective truth, social truth, and the real objective truth.

It's all about possibilities. Your arguments have to hold true with your internal thinking, otherwise you sound very inconfident saying it aloud.

Welcome to INTj-Land, and it does not necessarily have to hold true with our own internal thinking, but it does have to have a reasonably sound structure. INTjs are willing to entertain just about any possibility or idea due to creative-.

You are right about that. But that's also what makes INTj's weaker. In INTp-land we can confidently state statements even if they just sound credible. We don't have to be confidently believe that it will hold, to keep our confidence level up in an argument. Which returns to that INTj's receive a drop when their arguments fail, and they back down to rethink. While INTp's don't receive the drop, because the argument didn't matter in the first place, so we can keep attacking with something new.

Then what is to stop the INTj from unleashing their PoLR and causing the INTp to step back?

Well then physical size matters, not type And that's a reaction of someone who has lost an argument. I have never seen INTj actually do that, so what is stopping you?

[Logos]

Sure, I was just saying it won't work on INTp's like it works on people in general. The difference is that, INTj's avoid getting aggraveted, INTp's get motivated by it.

So if INTjs avoid getting aggravated, how does this make us bad debaters?

We are still talking about winning arguments, not some debate club bull, wich means nothing in the real world. "Good debater" is like a good loser.

Okay. So if INTjs avoid getting aggravated, how does this make us bad argument winners?

And take an objective look on how you debate, hah!

And how do you propose that I do that? And how do I know that you are? Telling me that you are an INTp and that makes you naturally objective just will not cut it either. I have heard that line way too many times from Phaedrus to take it seriously from anyone else claiming to be INTp.

The "analysts" refers to large range different subject matters, not just arguments. Deconstructing an argument to it's basic parts, isn't same as destroying someones argument because it's false. Not by a long shot. Deconstruction is just a method to handle information elements.

True, but INTjs analyze and attack the structure of arguments, whereas, INTps attack the falsifiability of the argument based on . You can easily use either to win an argument since these are only arguments of truthfulness and not debate teams with points. :wink:

Then your idea of creative is skewed, because that's not what INTj's show in their arguments. Have you come with any clever new angles? No. Your arguments are mainly sand-box "no, you are"-arguments. helps you open many windows, yes. But then crawl through one of them, and keep crawling until you hit the wall, then you have to crawl all way back to go through another window. Or you end up to right conclusion the first time. But that doesn't help you in arguments.

Then what is but the blind crawl through a single tunnel in which you hope ends to validity? Have you come with any clever new angles yourself? I suppose not, and sense I reverse your argument then I will thereby be accused of not using an original argument myself. Oh, the humanity of it all!

Re Bold: Please someone tell me that I am not the only one who sees the irony here in this statement. In the first sentence of this section here, I have been told essentially, "no, you are wrong about creative-" which is then followed by an accusation made against me of resorting to "mainly sand-box 'no, you are'-arguments." Mr. Pot, I would like to introduce to you my friend, Mr. Kettle. Mr. Kettle. Mr. Pot.

You obviously can write whatever you want, but that's not how it is in real life. Come up with your own material

Likewise.

Amazing how you managed to prove my 2 sentences right, with just one word [/quote]But the point was that your point was not especially valid and could equally be turned around as a point against you, thereby suggesting that it was in fact a weak argument that you originally made. You can continue to tell me how it is in real life, but if I tell you that real life is differently from what you have told me, on what basis are you going to continue your claims about how it is in real life? Unfortunately for you, you may have to expand your argument beyond the superficiality of "real life over the Internet."

Not about clarifying either. There are no facts, just probabilities on what's true. It shows better vision of the truth, when the probability is also to be contained in the statement, not just the conclusion.

In your opinion that is the case, but that still does not necessarily help you win arguments. And the arguments based on no facts, is the realm of where ideas and concepts are juggled based purely on the logic of the argument in itself.

Being consistently wrong just makes a stubborn fool.

Which is not related to type. :wink:

Except for ESFj's :>[/quote]And apparently INTps and INTjs now.

Winning some "good debater" browney points means squat, everywhere else except in some high-school debate club.

In which case, probably the best way to win an argument would be with a baseball bat.

That's how ESTp's win their arguments.

It's question about who comes closer to the truth, and who's vision of the truth is the one that prevails in the end. And in that debating skills mean nothing. Saying something like "that was an ad hominem argument" is a sign of losing an argument. It's same as:"I have nothing relevant to say, I'm just being a dork". Try that in the real world, and people will just laugh at you.

I'm not talking about debate team here, as I have clearly not used or established any formal rules of debates, just practices which are generally used to prevail in both arguments and debates, the only real one of which is changing your argument in mid-argument can be logically inconsistent, which you would be called out for having, and that a level head will generally be able to think more clearly and focused. And just saying "that was an ad hominem argument" probably would not work in the real life, but I honestly doubt that would be used even by INTjs. Instead, they would not label the argument, but critique and try and analogically demonstrate the error of such a line of a thought and how it could be further used to construct stupid arguments.

As I said, INTp's mostly concentrate findind errors in what other people say. False statements need only to be proved false once.

INTps find errors, whereas INTjs find errors.

Base is too slow, to be more useful in arguments than .

Have you timed the speed at which 's velocity changes? Then how do you know that base- is slower than ? Or do you merely assume that base- is slower since as you say base- is evaluating based upon a system? Of course since it is a primary function and the system is already in place and constantly checked anyway, I think that base- should be able to keep up with the speed of creative- just fine.

What's the point trying to argue with someone who you think is right to begin with?

To see if you can find weaknesses in your own arguments or with the logic to the conclusion which this other person made.

Well I can do that in my head, I don't have to start arguing with someone over it.

But unless you are somehow omniscient, you could not possibly know every possibility or argument which other people could make, may be one or an angle of one in which you have not considered. People are full of surprises.

Not true at all. There's no such thing as certain truth. Therefore we don't have to even believe in what we say.

Sounds like there. Don't let Phaedrus hear you talk like a Subjectivist now.

That probably had nothing to do with type.

There's essentially 3 "truths": Subjective truth, social truth, and the real objective truth.

And INTjs use the subjective truth reinforced with Demonstrative- for their arguments.

It's all about possibilities. Your arguments have to hold true with your internal thinking, otherwise you sound very inconfident saying it aloud.

Welcome to INTj-Land, and it does not necessarily have to hold true with our own internal thinking, but it does have to have a reasonably sound structure. INTjs are willing to entertain just about any possibility or idea due to creative-.

You are right about that. But that's also what makes INTj's weaker. In INTp-land we can confidently state statements even if they just sound credible. We don't have to be confidently believe that it will hold, to keep our confidence level up in an argument. Which returns to that INTj's receive a drop when their arguments fail, and they back down to rethink. While INTp's don't receive the drop, because the argument didn't matter in the first place, so we can keep attacking with something new.

Conversely, the INTj can make incredulous statements which sound credible and to be able to say BS with a straight face. And of course since this is just about winning arguments and not about debate team, the objective truth really does not matter. Only winning arguments matter.

Then what is to stop the INTj from unleashing their PoLR and causing the INTp to step back?

Well then physical size matters, not type And that's a reaction of someone who has lost an argument. I have never seen INTj actually do that, so what is stopping you?

But is more than just physical might and brutality; it is the function of will. So what is stopping me? That would be the role- function that you love so much. :wink:

[Warlord]

We are still talking about winning arguments, not some debate club bull, wich means nothing in the real world. "Good debater" is like a good loser.

Okay. So if INTjs avoid getting aggravated, how does this make us bad argument winners?

"Who dares wins"

And take an objective look on how you debate, hah!

And how do you propose that I do that?

If you need to ask. Then I have to assume you can't.

I have heard that line way too many times from Phaedrus to take it seriously from anyone else claiming to be INTp.

What has Phaedrus anything to do with this?

Then what is but the blind crawl through a single tunnel in which you hope ends to validity?

You obviously have no clue about then. I suggest you go read what is, before brainfarting.

You seem like you are really are just jealous of people with and . I have no beef with INTj's, just saying that you are more likely lose in an argument against INTp of same intelligence level, and with similar experience in arguments. I'm not saying that INTj's are bad, better than most, but just not as good as INTp's. Neither do I claim that INTp's are the best. Personally I think that ENTj's are best at argumentations. In my experiece. Although I have never really argued against an ENTj, I'm usually in tag-team with an ENTj, wich is an undefeatable combo

Re Bold: Please someone tell me that I am not the only one who sees the irony here in this statement. In the first sentence of this section here, I have been told essentially, "no, you are wrong about creative-" which is then followed by an accusation made against me of resorting to "mainly sand-box 'no, you are'-arguments." Mr. Pot, I would like to introduce to you my friend, Mr. Kettle. Mr. Kettle. Mr. Pot.

I have proven my points. You haven't proved most of what you say, you just state them. Just saying "likewise" proves nothing, except childish attitude.

You can continue to tell me how it is in real life, but if I tell you that real life is differently from what you have told me, on what basis are you going to continue your claims about how it is in real life?

My view of reality on this matter is based on empirical experience with INTj's. And you are just proving them right, right now.

Anyone can add up and compare the staments I have made and you have made, and wich of them have stronger proof and wich were disproved. And notice that you are way behind. But based on the assumption I made, above based on your statements. It would then imply that you couldn't do it yourself.

Not about clarifying either. There are no facts, just probabilities on what's true. It shows better vision of the truth, when the probability is also to be contained in the statement, not just the conclusion.

In your opinion that is the case,

And in the opinion of anyone with scientific worldview.

And the arguments based on no facts, is the realm of

It's the realm of , a generic vision of the state of the reality, connectiveness and causal connections. Invidual details of the vision may change, but it doesn't considerably alter the whole.

I'm not talking about debate team here, as I have clearly not used or established any formal rules of debates,

I wasn't talking about you.

changing your argument in mid-argument can be logically inconsistent

It's possible to make logically consistent statements that have nothing to with reality. Also it's possible to make statements that coincide with reality, while the statement contains logical jumps. The latter is more convincing. Except maybe to INTj's then.

Then how do you know that base- is slower than ?

From countless face-to-face discussions with different INTj's. Or I'm just much more intelligent than they have been and therefore much faster thinker. But that would be an arrogant assumption If that's case, I have been wrong, and I'm just special case of INTp and can't use myself to compare INTp's against INTj's in arguments.

you could not possibly know every possibility or argument which other people could make, may be one or an angle of one in which you have not considered. People are full of surprises.

Usually I just can't be bothered I'm not that interested.

Conversely, the INTj can make incredulous statements which sound credible and to be able to say BS with a straight face. And of course since this is just about winning arguments and not about debate team, the objective truth really does not matter.

Nontrue but credible sounding statements are more of a debate club thing.

Then what is to stop the INTj from unleashing their PoLR and causing the INTp to step back?

Well then physical size matters, not type And that's a reaction of someone who has lost an argument. I have never seen INTj actually do that, so what is stopping you?

But is more than just physical might and brutality; it is the function of will. So what is stopping me? That would be the role- function that you love so much. :wink:

So in the end. When INTp's "unleash" PoLR it helps them to win in arguments. While INTj's PoLR isn't advantage in arguments.

[Logos]

We are still talking about winning arguments, not some debate club bull, wich means nothing in the real world. "Good debater" is like a good loser.

Okay. So if INTjs avoid getting aggravated, how does this make us bad argument winners?

"Who dares wins"

This isn't about daring, but level heads. You can have a level head and still be daring. Next.

And take an objective look on how you debate, hah!

And how do you propose that I do that?

If you need to ask. Then I have to assume you can't.

That is your choice to do so, but that seems to be a somewhat baseless assumption. Perhaps I am asking merely so I can determine your standards and expectations of an objective look so I can see if I meet them. :wink:

Then what is but the blind crawl through a single tunnel in which you hope ends to validity?

You obviously have no clue about then. I suggest you go read what is, before brainfarting.

Like your brain-diarrhea of and ?

That comment was based off this general idea from the Wikisocion of as a primary function:

sometimes resulting in the ability to accurately predict general future trends and outcomes of certain events

Then combined with creative-, :the blind-crawl is the subjective aspect of , while the single tunnel is the subjective specialization that is prevalent in all of the introverted functions. And with , while there may be a backing up and out of holes, they are generally done at resounding speeds to match the speeds you have ascribed to (if not faster for simply being a perceiving function much like ) or have already been traversed prior.

You seem like you are really are just jealous of people with and . I have no beef with INTj's, just saying that you are more likely lose in an argument against INTp of same intelligence level, and with similar experience in arguments. I'm not saying that INTj's are bad, better than most, but just not as good as INTp's. Neither do I claim that INTp's are the best. Personally I think that ENTj's are best at argumentations. In my experiece. Although I have never really argued against an ENTj, I'm usually in tag-team with an ENTj, wich is an undefeatable combo

Jealousy? Come again? Mind if I accuse you of having a and superiority complex, Conan? Perhaps it is a matter of difference in argumentative styles in the determination as when victory has been attained, because I still would not say that INTps are somehow inherently better at winning arguments.

Re Bold: Please someone tell me that I am not the only one who sees the irony here in this statement. In the first sentence of this section here, I have been told essentially, "no, you are wrong about creative-" which is then followed by an accusation made against me of resorting to "mainly sand-box 'no, you are'-arguments." Mr. Pot, I would like to introduce to you my friend, Mr. Kettle. Mr. Kettle. Mr. Pot.

I have proven my points. You haven't proved most of what you say, you just state them. Just saying "likewise" proves nothing, except childish attitude.

You have hardly proven your points, you merely say that you have as a way to dismiss mine and to pretend that you have made a point. Many of these points which you claim that I have merely stated and not proven have been merely to prove that INTjs have functional equipment which allows them to equal the capabilities of an INTp in an argument.

And that childish attitude, I'll have you know, is just being a lovely lovely Alpha with an appreciate of humor even in arguments. :wink:

You can continue to tell me how it is in real life, but if I tell you that real life is differently from what you have told me, on what basis are you going to continue your claims about how it is in real life?

My view of reality on this matter is based on empirical experience with INTj's. And you are just proving them right, right now.

I'm glad to be of service, but my view of reality on this matter is also based on empirical experience with INTjs and INTps, and my empirical evidence is contradicting your empirical evidence. Now you can say that you this based on your empirical evidence, but just like in your scientific worldview to which you hold yourself to esteem, the data can be wrong.

Anyone can add up and compare the staments I have made and you have made, and wich of them have stronger proof and wich were disproved. And notice that you are way behind. But based on the assumption I made, above based on your statements. It would then imply that you couldn't do it yourself.

Well that is because we have different objectives. You are trying to prove that INTps are clearly superior in winning arguments, and I am taking what you say and arguing that this may not be the case.

Not about clarifying either. There are no facts, just probabilities on what's true. It shows better vision of the truth, when the probability is also to be contained in the statement, not just the conclusion.

In your opinion that is the case,

And in the opinion of anyone with scientific worldview.

On this point, I will concede, but that does not mean that INTps are somehow regurgitating the probabilities of the cosmos on command.

And the arguments based on no facts, is the realm of

It's the realm of , a generic vision of the state of the reality, connectiveness and causal connections. Invidual details of the vision may change, but it doesn't considerably alter the whole.

No it's the realm of , as is the structural logic that treats is quite neutral with , except as pieces which can be fit in the frame. is indeed a realm of no facts, as it is a perceiving function, but you have not disproved my assertion either. They are both subjective functions which do not deal directly with the observable rational world of either or , but instead, as you say in this case, :Ni is the casual connections of , while is the determination of the structure through real possibilities and potential perception ().

changing your argument in mid-argument can be logically inconsistent

It's possible to make logically consistent statements that have nothing to with reality. Also it's possible to make statements that coincide with reality, while the statement contains logical jumps. The latter is more convincing. Except maybe to INTj's then.

Like what?

Then how do you know that base- is slower than ?

From countless face-to-face discussions with different INTj's. Or I'm just much more intelligent than they have been and therefore much faster thinker. But that would be an arrogant assumption If that's case, I have been wrong, and I'm just special case of INTp and can't use myself to compare INTp's against INTj's in arguments.

Believe it or not, I am actually going to go with this case as you do seem quite an intelligent poster.

you could not possibly know every possibility or argument which other people could make, may be one or an angle of one in which you have not considered. People are full of surprises.

Usually I just can't be bothered I'm not that interested.

Your loss, I suppose. Oh well, but it really does not pertain much to this discussion.

Conversely, the INTj can make incredulous statements which sound credible and to be able to say BS with a straight face. And of course since this is just about winning arguments and not about debate team, the objective truth really does not matter.

Nontrue but credible sounding statements are more of a debate club thing.

No, it's more of a "I refuse to back down and admit I am wrong to my significant other or the person I am in an argument with, so in order to win and prove my point I make stuff up." You are more likely to be called out for BS in debate clubs or debates in school for that sort of stuff. My empirical evidence based on reality says as much.

Then what is to stop the INTj from unleashing their PoLR and causing the INTp to step back?

Well then physical size matters, not type And that's a reaction of someone who has lost an argument. I have never seen INTj actually do that, so what is stopping you?

But is more than just physical might and brutality; it is the function of will. So what is stopping me? That would be the role- function that you love so much. :wink:

So in the end. When INTp's "unleash" PoLR it helps them to win in arguments. While INTj's PoLR isn't advantage in arguments.

The INTp PoLR is only an advantage if it actually has an affect on the INTj, and that is questionable.

[Warlord]

This isn't about daring, but level heads.You can have a level head and still be daring.

= INTp.

But not INTj, who are only level headed. That's was the whole point. Just read any description of INTj's.

That is your choice to do so, but that seems to be a somewhat baseless assumption. Perhaps I am asking merely so I can determine your standards and expectations of an objective look so I can see if I meet them. :wink:

Obviously standard and expectation of being objective is being objective

Read them as you would be a stranger thinking differently than you think now, and think how convincing they really sound. How much there's backing to prove them etc.

Like your brain-diarrhea of and ?

Except that there's has been no such thing You are just saying so, and hoping to be right out of miracle. Ever considered having at least tiny bit of originality?

I have proven my points. You haven't proved most of what you say, you just state them. Just saying "likewise" proves nothing, except childish attitude.

You have hardly proven your points,

Or maybe you just haven't understood them.

Alpha with an appreciate of humor even in arguments. :wink:

Yeah I agree, some of your arguments are a joke

I'm glad to be of service, but my view of reality on this matter is also based on empirical experience with INTjs and INTps, and my empirical evidence is contradicting your empirical evidence. Now you can say that you this based on your empirical evidence, but just like in your scientific worldview to which you hold yourself to esteem, the data can be wrong.

Of course it can be wrong.

But I also have what other people have said, plus type descriptions on my side. You just have your own now alleged emperical evidence. Wich just as well could be total bullshit, and you are copying what I'm saying. Like you have been so far. It would be untypical for INTj suddenly change. Because that would be a P thing.

Plus you are losing this one

You are trying to prove that INTps are clearly superior in winning arguments, and I am taking what you say and arguing that this may not be the case.

Sure might not. But most likely it's how I'm claiming.

It's the realm of , a generic vision of the state of the reality, connectiveness and causal connections. Invidual details of the vision may change, but it doesn't considerably alter the whole.

No it's the realm of , as is the structural logic

Hows lack of structure suddenly same as structural logic?

It's possible to make logically consistent statements that have nothing to with reality. Also it's possible to make statements that coincide with reality, while the statement contains logical jumps. The latter is more convincing. Except maybe to INTj's then.

Like what?

Like: (the claims that have been made to come up with conclusion, that) ...the universe expands exponentially.

Or socionics

Then how do you know that base- is slower than ?

From countless face-to-face discussions with different INTj's. Or I'm just much more intelligent than they have been and therefore much faster thinker. But that would be an arrogant assumption If that's case, I have been wrong, and I'm just special case of INTp and can't use myself to compare INTp's against INTj's in arguments.

Believe it or not, I am actually going to go with this case as you do seem quite an intelligent poster.

Usually I just can't be bothered I'm not that interested.

Well thanks for the compliment.

But I don't think the INTj's that I'm comparing myself to, aren't unintelligent either.

But combining these two. I might win more often because I can pick battles better.

No, it's more of a "I refuse to back down and admit I am wrong to my significant other or the person I am in an argument with, so in order to win and prove my point I make stuff up."

Wich could be what you are doing right now

The INTp PoLR is only an advantage if it actually has an affect on the INTj, and that is questionable.

Well it has seemed to work, same according to other people too.

If you go to Ganins site, and read the Q&A. There are whines from (more than one) INTj's that some INTp they know, has been "emotionally stifling" etc. I think it's because the way INTp's argue.

[Logos]

This isn't about daring, but level heads.You can have a level head and still be daring.

= INTp.

But not INTj, who are only level headed. That's was the whole point. Just read any description of INTj's.

INTps lack . They value and seek it, but that does not necessarily mean that they act upon it. And if an INTj's PoLR has been pressured, then that INTj will be far less reluctant to dare.

Like your brain-diarrhea of and ?

Except that there's has been no such thing You are just saying so, and hoping to be right out of miracle. Ever considered having at least tiny bit of originality?

Why do you continue to say that as if by doing so validates your own misconceptions of and ? Miracles do not exist, and I do not require the aid of miracles to make my views of INTjs and INTps even more valid. And I am quite willing to lack of originality in the pursuit of truthful objectivity and validity any day.

I have proven my points. You haven't proved most of what you say, you just state them. Just saying "likewise" proves nothing, except childish attitude.

You have hardly proven your points,

Or maybe you just haven't understood them.

Perhaps and perhaps not, but if you have also failed to understand my points proven, then we obviously have mutually missed each other dearly.

Alpha with an appreciate of humor even in arguments. :wink:

Yeah I agree, some of your arguments are a joke

Well once I find your arguments in your past few piles of rubbish, I will provide be sure to provide a laugh. But the content is quite serious, and it is just their non-serious presentation and willingness to joke around even in argument that is Alpha.

I'm glad to be of service, but my view of reality on this matter is also based on empirical experience with INTjs and INTps, and my empirical evidence is contradicting your empirical evidence. Now you can say that you this based on your empirical evidence, but just like in your scientific worldview to which you hold yourself to esteem, the data can be wrong.

Of course it can be wrong.

But I also have what other people have said, plus type descriptions on my side. You just have your own now alleged emperical evidence. Wich just as well could be total bullshit, and you are copying what I'm saying. Like you have been so far. It would be untypical for INTj suddenly change. Because that would be a P thing.

But I have provided you with functional evidence, but you have chosen to ignore it. So I too have an understanding of the functions and empirical evidence in the content of past threads. So once again the point is that while the INTp is indeed incredible at winning arguments due to the presence of creative-, by no means are they necessarily the best as an INTj's use of primary functional , creative-, and demonstrative- is capable of being used as a method of keeping up with, and depending upon individual differences, exceeding INTps' capabilities of winning arguments. And also keep in mind that you said that INTps tend to be vague in what they say, well INTjs tend to generalize, and both of which offer a great deal of flexibility in an argument.

Plus you are losing this one

Or so you say. But saying that I am losing does not make it so, no more than if I were to now announce that I am clearly winning this case, which I am by the way.

It's the realm of , a generic vision of the state of the reality, connectiveness and causal connections. Invidual details of the vision may change, but it doesn't considerably alter the whole.

No it's the realm of , as is the structural logic

Hows lack of structure suddenly same as structural logic?

I never said that was the lack of structure nor was I trying to claim that what you were clearly describing as was in fact , but merely that can juggle the pieces of so that they fit into a structure of their choosing, so is as immaterial as .

It's possible to make logically consistent statements that have nothing to with reality. Also it's possible to make statements that coincide with reality, while the statement contains logical jumps. The latter is more convincing. Except maybe to INTj's then.

Like what?

Like: (the claims that have been made to come up with conclusion, that) ...the universe expands exponentially.

Or socionics

There are logical jumps? There are assumptions that act as constants (especially in regards to the exponentially expanding universe) which are used to generalize and since there is a lack of adequate evidence on those places, but I would not necessarily call them logical jumps, but more like lines of best fit used to describe the general pattern based upon the current existing evidence. They follow logical thought processes (often devised by scientific Alpha NTs like Einstein, Hawking, etc.), but there is little jumping about.

Well thanks for the compliment.

But I don't think the INTj's that I'm comparing myself to, aren't unintelligent either.

But combining these two. I might win more often because I can pick battles better.

In which case it is not about argument style, but when you choose to get into arguments and picking battles, and that would make sense as an INTj who finds himself getting into an argument may have done so as a result of an -PoLR. It is possible that since INTjs use creative- and are willing to entertain different ideas (and often bluntly) that it results in an indiscretion in selecting battles. The INTj does not pick battles, but kind of cause them. So since INTps pick their battles (and especially those they can win), they have a higher winning average, than the INTj whose blunt opinions attract arguments. Interesting idea, and one worth looking into elsewhere.

No, it's more of a "I refuse to back down and admit I am wrong to my significant other or the person I am in an argument with, so in order to win and prove my point I make stuff up."

Wich could be what you are doing right now

Of course, but it could also be something you are doing as well. Both exist as real possibilities.

The INTp PoLR is only an advantage if it actually has an affect on the INTj, and that is questionable.

Well it has seemed to work, same according to other people too.

If you go to Ganins site, and read the Q&A. There are whines from (more than one) INTj's that some INTp they know, has been "emotionally stifling" etc. I think it's because the way INTp's argue.

Then how would you say that an INTj's -PoLR would manifest itself in an argument (apart from physical violence, which is again a popular misconception of )?

[Warlord]

This isn't about daring, but level heads.You can have a level head and still be daring.

= INTp.

But not INTj, who are only level headed. That's was the whole point. Just read any description of INTj's.

INTps lack . They value and seek it, but that does not necessarily mean that they act upon it.

I was speaking about arguments still. And what I mean is, saying aloud, what other people would be afraid to say. There are other types that would do this even more strongly, but those still often want to avoid negative social stigma.

Why do you continue to say that as if by doing so validates your own misconceptions of and ?

What misconceptions? You haven't pointed to any. Not any that clash with classic socionics.

And I am quite willing to lack of originality in the pursuit of truthful objectivity and validity any day.

Well with originality you could find a new path. Rather than follow the ones I make. Except that you are walking in the wrong direction. Away from "truthful objectivity and validity"

Perhaps and perhaps not, but if you have also failed to understand my points proven

Saying "likewise" to just about everything, doesn't prove anything.

But I have provided you with functional evidence, but you have chosen to ignore it.

No, you have provided with some weird personal interpretation of some of the functions, that has no validation from socionics theory. Excluding the parts that I haven't even disagreed with.

And also keep in mind that you said that INTps tend to be vague in what they say, well INTjs tend to generalize, and both of which offer a great deal of flexibility in an argument.

Generalisation creates errors, vagueness eliminates them. One just needs to find one instance that doesn't hold, and entire generilisation becomes invalid.

INTj's use of primary functional , creative-, and demonstrative- is capable of being used as a method of keeping up with, and depending upon individual differences, exceeding INTps' capabilities of winning arguments.

You just say that this combination is better. But you don't say exactly how it would be better than the combination that INTp has. You haven't made any kind credible analysis that properly considers all the strenghts of each combination. To even be considered as any kind of "functional proof".

For starters you forget that with , INTp's can use to anticipate what the other person is going to say, even a few steps ahead. Making it's possible to trap them in the future. Especially against predictable J's. And that's not all that can be used for in argument. The more I know about the person and how he argues the better I can use to guess what they are going to say next.

But saying that I am losing does not make it so, no more than if I were to now announce that I am clearly winning this case, which I am by the way.

Except I also said why I'm winning. Wich you couldn't refute And you are just going to go on the same path as you have gone so far. Wich will ultimately lead to your loss.

Of course, but it could also be something you are doing as well. Both exist as real possibilities.

True at that.

Then how would you say that an INTj's -PoLR would manifest itself in an argument (apart from physical violence, which is again a popular misconception of )?

I don't see how INTj's could use it as their advantage in an argument situation. More likely it creates mistakes, or hinders INTj in argument. One advantage might be preserverence, but that can be wrongly timed. So INTj's keep on going, when they really shouldn't.

PoLR probably the real reason why PoLR attack works on INTj, because they interpret that as a sign of physical aggression. And what INTj's PoLR really does, is to make them back away from fear of possible physical confortation. My comment on "so why don't you?" was really to point out, that INTj's PLoR makes you back away rather than attack. Wich would be considered as the " onslaught".

So mainly it manifests in that INTj's don't want to turn discussions into heated arguments, and want to keep a more relaxed mood.

As you said PoLR can cause you to get in arguments, especially with the wrong people.

INTp's PoLR can also get INTp's in arguments, but it's more unlikely than with INTj's PoLR. Because when INTp's get accused of being inconsiderate etc. We are more likely agree and to turn it to something that's actually positive (from our point of view), or as fault of the victim.

Also the use of INTp's PoLR in argument is an error. It helps to win the argument. But as result it can make (and maybe too often does) INTp look like a mean jerk. For instance with my sister, I'm not sure "being right all the time" is worth that she unexpectedly starts to cry about something I have said.

[Jonathan]

That quote sounds completely INTj, not INTp. I couldn't see an INTp debating an accepted idea. INTjs are the ones that debate things, not INTps. ... He says INTps hate exact meaning, but that is not how Ni works. Ne is the function that works like this. Its like he doesn't know what he's talking about or something. I competely disagree with his profile.

I don't know that this will help you or anyone else here change your mind, but I'll mention it anyway.

You're not very specific about the sources behind your views, but I gather that what you're forming your impressions on is quadra profiles and stuff about how intellectual questioning is an Ne thing, and Ni is "time"...or something like that, as well as perhaps other threads on this forum. (The idea that all intellectual questioning is Ne is something that I imagine won't die on this forum, and it does have root in early Socionics writings, but that doesn't mean that it reflects the current state of Socionics.) Of course, I'm just guessing at where you're coming from; maybe if you mention what you're basing your views on, it would clarify the discussion.

Whatever system is ultimately "right," I'm rather sure that those who are experienced in Socionics wouldn't make some of the statements you're making here.

[Creepy-bg]

wow there sure is alot of reading to do in this thread... not really my thing, but please continue.

[Logos]

Why do you continue to say that as if by doing so validates your own misconceptions of and ?

What misconceptions? You haven't pointed to any. Not any that clash with classic socionics.

Primarily your misconception that types cannot somehow say what they do not believe, the speeds at which can operate, and as an equally immaterial function like . It is just that as a perceiving function, is more fluid, not necessarily faster, but merely fluid. is more like a computer program which receives a series of input and then processes the output based upon the program. And these computations can be as quick as an -projection (would you say that is an accurate choice of words?), as the program often has shortcuts or quick access to frequently used programmatic functions. And what you consistently interpret as the slowness of is not so much a slowness of but a careful deliberation of words so that the point can be more cleanly transmitted. So it is not that the system of is slow, but that + is just making sure that they do not just say whatever random thoughts comes to their mind, but to generalize and then organize their thoughts.

And I am quite willing to lack of originality in the pursuit of truthful objectivity and validity any day.

Well with originality you could find a new path. Rather than follow the ones I make. Except that you are walking in the wrong direction. Away from "truthful objectivity and validity"

How else can I help you with the errors of you ways but find you on the path you currently traverse and take you back home to the truth? Maybe if you remembered to bring your cell phone, I could merely call you, or if you had remembered your GPS unit, you would not be in need of rescue.

Perhaps and perhaps not, but if you have also failed to understand my points proven

Saying "likewise" to just about everything, doesn't prove anything.

But I am not trying to positively prove anything beyond that these points which can easily be addressed as likewise are generally lacking in substantial argument and can easily just be pointed back at you and be as equally valid of a concern. My lack of proof in this case is to show a reflection of your lack of a valid argument.

But I have provided you with functional evidence, but you have chosen to ignore it.

No, you have provided with some weird personal interpretation of some of the functions, that has no validation from socionics theory. Excluding the parts that I haven't even disagreed with.

And you have provided weird personal statements of empirical evidence that does not necessarily match with the Socionics theory or real life usage of the functions by INTjs. And at this point, I am convinced that your misunderstanding of INTjs is probably as great as your perception of my misunderstandings of INTps.

And also keep in mind that you said that INTps tend to be vague in what they say, well INTjs tend to generalize, and both of which offer a great deal of flexibility in an argument.

Generalisation creates errors, vagueness eliminates them. One just needs to find one instance that doesn't hold, and entire generilisation becomes invalid.

Generalization does not necessarily create error, but error has the potential of existing in it, much like how vagueness has a tendency to create error in the misinterpretation of the presentation. Generalization simplifies to the base idea being expressed and avoids the details as the idea is being stressed as more important than the facts themselves. And while error may exist in what an INTj says, if that factual error is irrelevant to the point being made, then being corrected on that aspect is of no real consequence and they will concede it and continue on with their argument.

INTj's use of primary functional , creative-, and demonstrative- is capable of being used as a method of keeping up with, and depending upon individual differences, exceeding INTps' capabilities of winning arguments.

You just say that this combination is better. But you don't say exactly how it would be better than the combination that INTp has. You haven't made any kind credible analysis that properly considers all the strenghts of each combination. To even be considered as any kind of "functional proof".

I am not saying that this combination is better, but that it is at least equal to the potential use of the same functions by an INTp, but each with their own strengths and weaknesses. As you say, you have defeated LII's of equal intelligence in arguments before, and I have defeated ILI's of equal intelligence in arguments as well, so there are obviously personal differences especially on depending upon how well either arguing participant knows what they are arguing. So whether the victor is ILI or LII is dependent upon these intellectual, knowledge, and functional variances. And assuming that the intellectual and knowledge base remain at a theoretical constant, again, both ILIs and LIIs have functional tools which more than make suitable matches for each other.

For the ILI, the primary function allows them to quickly synthesis information from their creative- function through the use of causal connections and use it as a method of pattern prediction. And it is as you say below in which their is a game of prediction and anticipation for arguments. But for the LII, the primary function provides for a solid framework for analysis and for processing facts and ideas and using -generalization and pattern-recognition as a way of seeing the big picture. So the LII sees the potential arguments and their logic that can be used, but still prefers to take them one argument at a time and address those arguments and their logic as they come up. So while the ILI may be hiding in waiting behind Door #1, the LII still sees greater potential in selecting Door #2, but may select Door #1 to entertain the ILI, who jumps out and yells "Surprise! Now try this argument for size!" only to find the LII already in the process of providing an argument or surprise of their own that they had prepared for such a possibility. Again, is a subjective function, and its predictions are not necessarily right all the time, much how like the logic of an LII can still be full of its own set of holes.

For starters you forget that with , INTp's can use to anticipate what the other person is going to say, even a few steps ahead. Making it's possible to trap them in the future. Especially against predictable J's. And that's not all that can be used for in argument. The more I know about the person and how he argues the better I can use to guess what they are going to say next.

And you forget that with creative-, the INTj can see potential paths to pursue as well as to generalize and get the basic idea of concepts quite quickly. Then through their use of sound structural logic () are able to prove the logic of those irrational P's wrong. And the more that I know about the person and how he argues as well as the jargon they use, the better I can relate my generalizations to match their jargon and get the central point across effectively. Then much like the INTp clarifying their vagueness, the INTj can use their to go back and to clarify or reinforce points with objective knowledge.

Now we can continue to play these theoretical ILI/LII war games all you want to, but that does not mean that your ILI Schlieffan Plan has much basis of operation in reality.

But saying that I am losing does not make it so, no more than if I were to now announce that I am clearly winning this case, which I am by the way.

Except I also said why I'm winning. Wich you couldn't refute And you are just going to go on the same path as you have gone so far. Wich will ultimately lead to your loss.

And I am winning because I do not have to prove myself right, but merely have to prove you wrong, which I have done thus far in my demonstrations of your underestimation of the INTj's functional capabilities to match and win potential arguments with INTps. Maybe I should be an INTp critic.

I don't see how INTj's could use it as their advantage in an argument situation. More likely it creates mistakes, or hinders INTj in argument. One advantage might be preserverence, but that can be wrongly timed. So INTj's keep on going, when they really shouldn't.

PoLR probably the real reason why PoLR attack works on INTj, because they interpret that as a sign of physical aggression. And what INTj's PoLR really does, is to make them back away from fear of possible physical confortation. My comment on "so why don't you?" was really to point out, that INTj's PLoR makes you back away rather than attack. Wich would be considered as the " onslaught".

So mainly it manifests in that INTj's don't want to turn discussions into heated arguments, and want to keep a more relaxed mood.

I have yet to interpret an PoLR attack as a sign of physical aggression, but I can see how it could be interpreted as such. But since INTjs can be too bull-headed to quit thanks to that -PoLR they can find victory in perseverance. And if you push the INTj -PoLR enough and push where it does not want to be pushed, then the INTj is quite willing to screw the Alpha-karma and retaliate, especially when they see themselves in the right.

As you said PoLR can cause you to get in arguments, especially with the wrong people.

But that does not necessarily stop them from winning them. It just means that they are more bruised by the time they are finished with them.

INTp's PoLR can also get INTp's in arguments, but it's more unlikely than with INTj's PoLR. Because when INTp's get accused of being inconsiderate etc. We are more likely agree and to turn it to something that's actually positive (from our point of view), or as fault of the victim.

Also the use of INTp's PoLR in argument is an error. It helps to win the argument. But as result it can make (and maybe too often does) INTp look like a mean jerk. For instance with my sister, I'm not sure "being right all the time" is worth that she unexpectedly starts to cry about something I have said.

Yes, I agree.

[Warlord]

Primarily your misconception that types cannot somehow say what they do not believe

I said that when INTj's don't believe in what they say will hold, they can't say so that they sound confident about it. Wich is a tell to the other person. And the end results is that, that statement is easily spotted and destroyed.

the speeds at which can operate, and as an equally immaterial function like .

That's just wishful thinking. Nothing is socionics theory supports that. Here on planet earth, hunch is always faster than a well constructed thought.

In arguments if you have to expose your program, as you say. If someone brakes your program, because it was faulty. First you try to keep using the same program, you just try fix it by reinforcing with , wich is slower than fixing error in . Wich could be compared to what happens when a rock is thrown in a stream. If your program is fundamentally erronous, you would need some "alone-time" to build a new one.

That's how I theorised your internal thinking, as sort of an analogue. In practice it happens like this: INTj says something, that I notice that it can't work/isn't true. Then I say:"that will never work because (some vague idea why not)". At this time, I would have dropped the whole idea and moved to something else. But INTj is thinking of some quick fix to so they still can use the same idea. My idea why it doesn't work sharpens, and I state the clearer image. INTj says the fix. I come up with 3rd reason why it doesn't work. This goes on, and INTj is getting more desperate, but doesn't want to drop the faulty idea. They can't form a idea about the same thing, unless they have to think for a very long time. So my idea why the idea doesn't work, doesn't necessary can't be really proven at first and might be partly incorrect, but it's ettached to reality unlike the faulty idea. Wich was a well constructed but a crackpot idea.

That's even how this discussion is going, except that this is turn based. It's likely that you will still try to reinforce what you have been saying, instead of looking it from another angle. Except maybe now that I've said you are going to, still unlikely.

Of course INTp's makes us come up with things that aren't real. But this was about observing what other people state.

But I am not trying to positively prove anything beyond that these points which can easily be addressed as likewise are generally lacking in substantial argument and can easily just be pointed back at you and be as equally valid of a concern. My lack of proof in this case is to show a reflection of your lack of a valid argument.

Educated guess that coincides with reality is more valid. Than proveless statement, that doesn't coincide with reality.

And you have provided weird personal statements of empirical evidence that does not necessarily match with the Socionics theory

Not necessarily, but likely with the theory. And doesn't go against the theory. But it holds with the results from observations of the socionist researchers. The qualities that are described in the type descriptions, make INTp's better at arguments.

or real life usage of the functions by INTjs.

What say to be as "the real life usage of the functions by INTJs", doesn't hold with the socionics theory. Again excluding the parts that I don't disagree with.

And while error may exist in what an INTj says, if that factual error is irrelevant to the point being made, then being corrected on that aspect is of no real consequence and they will concede it and continue on with their argument.

Point that doesn't hold with facts, is pointless

So while the ILI may be hiding in waiting behind Door #1, the LII still sees greater potential in selecting Door #2, but may select Door #1 to entertain the ILI, who jumps out and yells "Surprise! Now try this argument for size!" only to find the LII already in the process of providing an argument or surprise of their own that they had prepared for such a possibility.

It's more like that in argument INTj is traveling in his "train of thought", through the rail he have laid earlier. And INTp is flying above shouting:"you are going to hit a wall". But INTj is saying:"I don't see any wall, and my train can handle any wall", and keeps on going, instead of switching to an other trail. And after a corner he crashes in to a wall.

Then much like the INTp clarifying their vagueness, the INTj can use their to go back and to clarify or reinforce points with objective knowledge.

INTp can continously clarify the vaguness with . But if INTj's statement isn't reality based, no reinforcement is going to help against INTp's .

[Logos]

How about this for an alternate angle? You are right and you win? INTps are superior arguers (though not always right and still with some functional misconceptions and underestimations), though the INTj obviously trumps in other areas over the INTp. And I would say that the ENTp is better at winning arguments than the INTj, and is probably much closer to the INTp in skill than the INTj.

[Hitta]

This isn't about daring, but level heads.You can have a level head and still be daring.

= INTp.

But not INTj, who are only level headed. That's was the whole point. Just read any description of INTj's.

INTps lack . They value and seek it, but that does not necessarily mean that they act upon it. And if an INTj's PoLR has been pressured, then that INTj will be far less reluctant to dare.

Like your brain-diarrhea of and ?

Except that there's has been no such thing You are just saying so, and hoping to be right out of miracle. Ever considered having at least tiny bit of originality?

Why do you continue to say that as if by doing so validates your own misconceptions of and ? Miracles do not exist, and I do not require the aid of miracles to make my views of INTjs and INTps even more valid. And I am quite willing to lack of originality in the pursuit of truthful objectivity and validity any day.

I have proven my points. You haven't proved most of what you say, you just state them. Just saying "likewise" proves nothing, except childish attitude.

You have hardly proven your points,

Or maybe you just haven't understood them.

Perhaps and perhaps not, but if you have also failed to understand my points proven, then we obviously have mutually missed each other dearly.

Alpha with an appreciate of humor even in arguments. :wink:

Yeah I agree, some of your arguments are a joke

Well once I find your arguments in your past few piles of rubbish, I will provide be sure to provide a laugh. But the content is quite serious, and it is just their non-serious presentation and willingness to joke around even in argument that is Alpha.

I'm glad to be of service, but my view of reality on this matter is also based on empirical experience with INTjs and INTps, and my empirical evidence is contradicting your empirical evidence. Now you can say that you this based on your empirical evidence, but just like in your scientific worldview to which you hold yourself to esteem, the data can be wrong.

Of course it can be wrong.

But I also have what other people have said, plus type descriptions on my side. You just have your own now alleged emperical evidence. Wich just as well could be total bullshit, and you are copying what I'm saying. Like you have been so far. It would be untypical for INTj suddenly change. Because that would be a P thing.

But I have provided you with functional evidence, but you have chosen to ignore it. So I too have an understanding of the functions and empirical evidence in the content of past threads. So once again the point is that while the INTp is indeed incredible at winning arguments due to the presence of creative-, by no means are they necessarily the best as an INTj's use of primary functional , creative-, and demonstrative- is capable of being used as a method of keeping up with, and depending upon individual differences, exceeding INTps' capabilities of winning arguments. And also keep in mind that you said that INTps tend to be vague in what they say, well INTjs tend to generalize, and both of which offer a great deal of flexibility in an argument.

Plus you are losing this one

Or so you say. But saying that I am losing does not make it so, no more than if I were to now announce that I am clearly winning this case, which I am by the way.

It's the realm of , a generic vision of the state of the reality, connectiveness and causal connections. Invidual details of the vision may change, but it doesn't considerably alter the whole.

No it's the realm of , as is the structural logic

Hows lack of structure suddenly same as structural logic?

I never said that was the lack of structure nor was I trying to claim that what you were clearly describing as was in fact , but merely that can juggle the pieces of so that they fit into a structure of their choosing, so is as immaterial as .

It's possible to make logically consistent statements that have nothing to with reality. Also it's possible to make statements that coincide with reality, while the statement contains logical jumps. The latter is more convincing. Except maybe to INTj's then.

Like what?

Like: (the claims that have been made to come up with conclusion, that) ...the universe expands exponentially.

Or socionics

There are logical jumps? There are assumptions that act as constants (especially in regards to the exponentially expanding universe) which are used to generalize and since there is a lack of adequate evidence on those places, but I would not necessarily call them logical jumps, but more like lines of best fit used to describe the general pattern based upon the current existing evidence. They follow logical thought processes (often devised by scientific Alpha NTs like Einstein, Hawking, etc.), but there is little jumping about.

Well thanks for the compliment.

But I don't think the INTj's that I'm comparing myself to, aren't unintelligent either.

But combining these two. I might win more often because I can pick battles better.

In which case it is not about argument style, but when you choose to get into arguments and picking battles, and that would make sense as an INTj who finds himself getting into an argument may have done so as a result of an -PoLR. It is possible that since INTjs use creative- and are willing to entertain different ideas (and often bluntly) that it results in an indiscretion in selecting battles. The INTj does not pick battles, but kind of cause them. So since INTps pick their battles (and especially those they can win), they have a higher winning average, than the INTj whose blunt opinions attract arguments. Interesting idea, and one worth looking into elsewhere.

No, it's more of a "I refuse to back down and admit I am wrong to my significant other or the person I am in an argument with, so in order to win and prove my point I make stuff up."

Wich could be what you are doing right now

Of course, but it could also be something you are doing as well. Both exist as real possibilities.

The INTp PoLR is only an advantage if it actually has an affect on the INTj, and that is questionable.

Well it has seemed to work, same according to other people too.

If you go to Ganins site, and read the Q&A. There are whines from (more than one) INTj's that some INTp they know, has been "emotionally stifling" etc. I think it's because the way INTp's argue.

Then how would you say that an INTj's -PoLR would manifest itself in an argument (apart from physical violence, which is again a popular misconception of )?

One of an INTp's weaker functions is + /- ; this would cause an INTp to lack initiative and to lack the notice of positive physical sensations or the need for them. Because +/- is their dual seeking function, it should be part agenda. INTps should have a need to retaliate against attacks placed upon them. Also, INTps have a need to minimize the negative problems with their health, meaning they wash their hands a lot and other stuff (preventive -). An INTp's weakest function is -/+.
The lack of - means that most of the time INTps do not try to influence emotions through being bitching, yelling, hollering, meaning INTps for the most part are very calm. Lacking + also means that INTps have a hard time feeling happy about things(this to me is very obvious). INTps main agenda is -+. - is a funny function for the agenda, because its almost like the INTp has a need to feel depressed (which PoLR goes hand in hand with Hidden agenda which is obvious). INTps due to this like to push people away, and live in solitary. The + aspect of the hidden agenda calls for the INTp to actually have a need to understand and influence the individual, via lover or something, through positive emotions. INTps have a need to love, put they tend to push people away.