Results 1 to 32 of 32

Thread: INTp, you and me?

  1. #1
    Creepy-

    Default INTp, you and me?

    This is in response to Tanzhe's last post. I had a similar INTj/INTp type confusion at first, but as I mentioned in an earlier post I made, the article up at socionics.com ("INTp or INTj?") ended the confusion for me because I knew instantly that my hidden agenda was "to love", or "to have an object of affection", or at least that this had something to do with me big time. Ever since I was a kid I remember having crushes on girls, or being fascinated with certain t.v. shows/toys for what has always felt to me like immature emotional reasons.

    I've also always been kind of sentimental and almost melancholic about past events, especially when it comes to past affections, and while growing up I had many idols/heros, and I would sometimes fantasize that someday I would be the hero/idol to someone else like myself.

    I often make mental hierarchies of things as well, namely in regard to hobbies. "Who's good?", "Who's on top?" "What's the fastest computer?", "Which is the nicest car"?; I would often try to find these kinds of things out to build such hierarchies possibly to justify an object of affection, or possibly a result of Ni/Te/Si/Fe style functioning. Certainly Te might be the powerhouse behind such categorizations.

    I definitely live in a world of Ni as described here at this site:

    http://greenlightwiki.com/lenore-exe...rted_Intuition

    (the site is using Myers Briggs style types, but the functional explanations are still interesting and may be of use, just substitue INp's for "INJ's")

    which I feel is totally oppossed to the world of Fe as described here:

    http://greenlightwiki.com/lenore-exe...verted_Feeling

    While I don't know how accurate exactly these descriptions are, I can say that personally I am sort of oppossed to the idea of roles set out by this explanation of Fe. More interesting to me is to live in a world of no roles or all roles, where simply the concept of said roles might be entertained, and I would only want to participate in one in order to better understand the concept of it, otherwise it holds no interest for me. (Unfortunately real life forces me to take some roles of course)

    Also on this sort of randomized topic of how I came to the conclusion that I have an INTp type, I'd like to say that the way I feel when conversating with ESFp types really drives it home. I knew a couple ESFp girls before I ever read about socionics/myers briggs or any of this stuff (I later found out that they were "text book" ESFp types), and I can tell you the "natural" way I felt around them was/is absolutely uncanny. I was always personally mystified and fascinated by my encounters with these people because despite how rediculously different they were from me (the radical clothing styles, the huge group of friends, the many parties they go to, etc.) we often had _very_ natural and _very_ comfortable conversations. It was a known real world observation that I had had that socionics happened to provide a strong explanation for.

    Lastly here are my original test results:
    I tested "INTp" on the socionics type assistant at www.socionics.com
    I tested "INTp" on this short little test here:

    http://www.humanmetrics.com/cgi-win/JTypes2.asp

    and I tested "INTJ" on the Myers-Briggs at my local community college.

    A word on the INTj types, the ones i've met seem quite a bit different from myself. These are types that tested "INTj" at the socionics.com type assistant, and I also confirmed these findings with my own observations.

    They seem different from me in that they are quite difficult to read emotionally, sometimes in conversation I can't tell whether they are smiling because they think i'm humerous or if they are smiling in pity because they think i'm a moron (maybe both?) . They often exhibit this grin that appears to be at a crosspoint between a grin of pure arrogence reflecting a brutal intellect inside and the kind of shy pensive happy grin that INFp types often make.

    Just about every INTj type i've met also seem to think things out a lot more carefully, they are more thorough and consistent in their thought processes and in their speech. They are the true intellectuals, and I have great respect for most of the INTj types i've met. I would argue though, that INTp types are more laid back, more dreamy, conceptual and flexible in their thought processes rather than sticking to sometimes very dry and calculative avenues. Those are just some of my observations, you can probably read up on all the typological differences on the websites.

    -Labyrinth

  2. #2

    Join Date
    Jan 2005
    Posts
    9
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Err, that was me who just posted that, darn thing logged me out
    INTp

  3. #3

    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Location
    Connecticut
    Posts
    109
    Mentioned
    1 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    They seem different from me in that they are quite difficult to read emotionally, sometimes in conversation I can't tell whether they are smiling because they think i'm humerous or if they are smiling in pity because they think i'm a moron (maybe both?)
    In this case I would be smiling because of your well considered and concise posting on the INTp type and how you came to the conclusion that you were an INTp. Self-awareness is something that INTjs value in both themselves (hence the interest in socionics), as well as in others. The INTps that I have known have always strived for self-awareness, although perhaps through more unorthodox (non-scientific) methods, which sometimes leaves me a little confused as to the root of their understanding. But, as I have learned through my experience with this type, it is there intuition about there own internal state, as well as that of others, that provides this. I have always wanted to be able to experience the richness of introverted intuitive perceptions, as introverted intuition (much like introverted thinking) is arguably the most profound of all the perceiving functions, and must create (I say this because I have not experienced it first hand, and am therefore assuming based on theory) a fantastically vivid imagination for those that posess it on a conscious level.

    often exhibit this grin that appears to be at a crosspoint between a grin of pure arrogence reflecting a brutal intellect inside and the kind of shy pensive happy grin that INFp types often make.
    Hmmm...interesting observation. We constantly question ourselves, which can often result in the grin you are talking about. Self-confidence is not something that we can depend on when we need it. Often it is there in spades, but it can leave, just as quickly as it came, resulting in a quick retreat from an argument or whatever situation we are depending on it for.

    Just about every INTj type i've met also seem to think things out a lot more carefully, they are more thorough and consistent in their thought processes and in their speech. They are the true intellectuals, and I have great respect for most of the INTj types i've met.
    We are pedantic. That's true. Sometimes this causes us to hesitate where we ought not, in order to maintain a certain level of accuracy and consistency in our thoughts. However...I would argue that INTps are much more stubborn in their principles than INTjs, who will always question them very critically, and often abandon them if they feel they are not well developed enough. INTps will rarely abandon a principle, even if no one agrees with them or follows the same. This makes them cunning debaters, difficult to convince, and at times, irritatingly stubborn. INTjs on the other hand, tend to be the dumping ground for new ideas, as we will never refuse a new theory immediately (as an INTp will often do simply on principle (why is this?)). We just cut through it quickly, identifying its flaws and either evaluating it as true, or false. INTps are much tougher critics. I like to say that if you can convince an INTp that a theory is true, you're already won the war (even if you lose many battles in between). As to INTjs being the "true intellectuals," it is a kind sentiment. But, in so far as intellectualism goes, we tend to be somewhat narrow-minded in what we focus our intellectual efforts on, making us somewhat dangerous intellectuals when it comes to areas in which we have not dedicated a lot of time (most INTjs will offer an opinion on anything if they see it as important, even if they have not had time to evaluate all the facts. They see this as harmless, as they will almost always come back to correct an inaccuracy if new information presents itself, but by then, the person who has taken their opinion might have already acted on their speculation and gone astray). This is why, as an INTj, I try to make sure the people I offer advice to receive the disclaimer, "I AM NO EXPERT", whenever I offer advice or opinions on a subject in which I do not evaluate myself to have reached a certain level of competency (and for the most part, INTjs are more or less honest about this, and we set higher standards than other types when it comes to determing what is competent, and what is not).

    I would argue though, that INTp types are more laid back, more dreamy, conceptual and flexible in their thought processes rather than sticking to sometimes very dry and calculative avenues.
    This is true. INTps make great artists because of this, allthough some of their conceptions can be scary to INTjs at times. I should also add that the "I AM NO EXPERT" disclaimer may apply to an extent to level of competency in socionics (although I've been familiar with it for 6+ years and have dedicated quite a bit of time to understanding its fundamentals). As it is a relatively new science however, I would probably put myself in the "more competent than not" category (even as I write this I am debating whether this is true or not). Thanks for the post. Very interesting insights.

  4. #4

    Join Date
    Nov 2004
    Posts
    206
    Mentioned
    1 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Labyrinth, thank you - that was a very interesting post, and I can draw some questions and answers from it.



    Quote Originally Posted by Labyrinth
    I knew instantly that my hidden agenda was "to love", or "to have an object of affection", or at least that this had something to do with me big time. Ever since I was a kid I remember having crushes on girls,
    Let’s be honest, having crushes on girls could just be a result of hormones chasing around in your system. Although any other manifestations of the hidden agenda ‘to love’ would be appreciated, because I know that my preferred environment is probably a Feeling one.


    Quote Originally Posted by Labyrinth
    or being fascinated with certain t.v. shows/toys for what has always felt to me like immature emotional reasons.
    Yes, I think I would agree with that. I’ve imitated people virtually all my life. I won’t go into details, but, yes, I think I would agree.


    Quote Originally Posted by Labyrinth
    I've also always been kind of sentimental and almost melancholic about past events, especially when it comes to past affections, and while growing up I had many idols/heros, and I would sometimes fantasize that someday I would be the hero/idol to someone else like myself.
    Recently, I’ve been my ‘natural self’ and therefore haven’t brooded or ‘thought myself down’ about my mistakes. So, perhaps this isn’t really a problem for me.


    Quote Originally Posted by Labyrinth
    Just about every INTj type i've met also seem to think things out a lot more carefully, they are more thorough and consistent in their thought processes and in their speech.

    … They seem different from me in that they are quite difficult to read emotionally, sometimes in conversation I can't tell whether they are smiling because they think i'm humerous or if they are smiling in pity because they think i'm a moron (maybe both?)
    Well, I think that any introvert would think before speaking. I also think that any introverted logical type is going to be difficult to read emotionally.


    I can't find the quote but I remember you saying that INTjs are usually more careful with their work and thinks before speaking - well, Socionics.com says that INTps are wise (think before speaking) and pedantic (careful with their work) and often possess an excellent erudition (careful with their work and obedient). So I'm not sure about that one.

    The other pointers you made about type I’ll be asking my resident ESFx - I might have the answers by this evening. So perhaps you should put off replying until that time, because then I'll be able to present more material.

  5. #5

    Join Date
    Nov 2004
    Posts
    206
    Mentioned
    1 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    BTW - I just remembered that I am still a teenager but my handwriting, literally, hasn't settled down because I keep copying the styles that I like. It sounds sad, yes, but it's something that I can't help. This may be something to do with INTp idolising - did you have the same experiences?

  6. #6

    Join Date
    Jan 2005
    Posts
    9
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    In response to SFVB:

    Ahh! To respond to some of these comments, first of all I can't say i'm an expert myself (maybe only folks like Mr. Lytov could enjoy such a title), but socionics has been a hobby of mine for years, and I find it most entertaining!

    The INTps that I have known have always strived for self-awareness, although perhaps through more unorthodox (non-scientific) methods, which sometimes leaves me a little confused as to the root of their understanding.
    Yes, I do agree with this, but I myself personally am extremely scientifically minded. I have seen INTp types though take a very spiritual perspective on things at times. I might hypothesize that, this has something to do with trying to find a very powerful and very generalized all encompassing type of perspective on things. Ni deals largely with perspective, but similar to Ne it also tries to generalize (effecitvely cutting out unimportant details, which is also a strength of an INTj's Ti/Ne axis) Obviously the most general perspective of all would encompass the entire universe and all of its happenings, and such a perspective would then undoubtedly become a spiritual one.

    I have always wanted to be able to experience the richness of introverted intuitive perceptions
    I can relate to wanting to experience another person's functions big time! The sharp intellect of the Ti/Ne of the INTj would be great, but also quite seductive would be the completely foreign worlds of the ESFp, ISFp, and maybe even the ESFj types if I took a really mature stance and forgot all the difficulty i've had with them.

    However...I would argue that INTps are much more stubborn in their principles than INTjs
    Well, I just have to comment on this one don't I! Really what i'm thinking now is that measuring type "stubborness" might not be a good road to go down (even though I kind of started it!). You could argue that "stubborness" is quite similar to "open mindedness", which both of these really vary from person to person and depend on just too many factors, many of them not specific to socionics types. Any type can be very open minded, or extremely stubborn, it really depends on the person. It would probably be easier to debate how noticeable a person's stubborness given their type, but then that would be just plain silly!

    INTjs on the other hand, tend to be the dumping ground for new ideas, as we will never refuse a new theory immediately (as an INTp will often do simply on principle (why is this?))
    I'm not quite sure what you mean by refusing new ideas on principle, I always try to justify or reject a position based on scientific reasoning or evidence, but the next time i'm in a debate i'll try to watch for this, maybe i'm doing it and I don't even know it!

    In response to Tanzhe:

    Let’s be honest, having crushes on girls could just be a result of hormones chasing around in your system. Although any other manifestations of the hidden agenda ‘to love’ would be appreciated,
    Well, it's a bit more serious than that. I had a big time crush on a girl in the 1st grade! I'm talking prepubescent obsessions with women! The times i've had these obsessions they tend to go about as deep as possible without me becoming a stalker. That person becomes my entire world, and I just plain fall in love with every atom of their body, every minor inflection in their voice, every psychological nuance in their mind. I see myself as becoming the perfect person for them, I see myself as becoming part of them and their world, I simply try to dive as deep into their "theme" as is humanly mentally possible and I don't necessarily want out again. Unconscious inferior Fi is a really intriguing concept as an explanation of this, because if we examine one explanation here found at

    http://greenlightwiki.com/lenore-exe...verted_Feeling ,

    "When we use Feeling in an Introverted way, it operates as a kind of inner flame--a sense of personal values that may be difficult to explain or express directly but whose character informs our choices and inclinations."

    I try to absorb the object of affection's "vibe" or "theme" such that it becomes part of the "emotional me". It is where I feel most content and good about myself and my place in this world. Either being around this person, or doing this activity, or studying this subject. I might hypothesize that part of this in an INTp is a kind of Ni/inferior unconscious Fi functionality happening, the Fi enjoying the satisfaction of its justification, and the Ni happy to entertain new perspectives. It might manifest itself (in fact i'm pretty sure it does) differently in the ISTp.

    Also, growing up I tended to want to associate myself with something, as part of a group or as being a certain kind of person (while simultaneously steering clear of that which is mainstream) . There were many groups that I wanted to be a part of, to be "one of the such and suchs", which obviously resulted in some negative experiences because most of these groups didn't want me in I would have also enjoyed having a title in the field of my affections, psychologist, neurophysiologist, world's nicest guy, you name it, because it becomes an identification of the self, and this to me is an emotional thing. In my maturity of course I have ventured into different and more mature ways of handling this phenomenon, but you get the idea. She/they/it is my object of affection, and by "loving" she/them/it I find a sense of emotional self.

    Well, I think that any introvert would think before speaking. I also think that any introverted logical type is going to be difficult to read emotionally.
    Well, I really think that INTp's are easier to read emotionally, even if they are sometimes immature in such emotions. Just imagine for a minute George Lucas reading your ideas (assuming you had ideas worth having George Lucas read heheh) for the next Star Wars movie, does he like it? Does he hate it? It's difficult to imagine being able to tell by his face. Now imagine say, John Travolta or Dustin Hoffman in a similar situation, it's just an iota easier isn't it? I got those names from the socionics site and I can't be sure how accurate they are, but it's the best I can describe this difference without somehow transmitting into your brain my exact observations and experiences with INTj and INTp types. (/me builds brain machine)

    I can't find the quote but I remember you saying that INTjs are usually more careful with their work and thinks before speaking - well, Socionics.com says that INTps are wise (think before speaking) and pedantic (careful with their work) and often possess an excellent erudition (careful with their work and obedient). So I'm not sure about that one.
    Ok but we are talking about two already intellectualish introvertedish type of folks, so yes they are careful and thoughtful, but if you observe the two closely or are either type you'll notice big time differences. The INTj's are slightly more thoughtful and consistent in their behavior (after all Ti is a judging function), and the INTp's just an iota more "care free" you could say. This difference is sort of hard to describe, but if you are either an INTj or INTp type and you meet the other, the difference is obvious. I'll post more about it if I think of how better to describe it.

    As for asking your resident ESFx, there is a _gigantic_ difference between the ESFj and the ESFp! At least in my opinion. I have a mucho difficult time with the ESFj types, I know because I have one that I work in close quarters with at work. I feel very uncomfortable around her and she kind of brings out the worst in me, and all the energy I put in to adapting to the situation seems to disappear into a deep dark abyss somewhere. After some time we eventually got a working relationship going, but her reality from my point of view is weird and scary and I want nothing to do with it. Let us know if you find out what type your resident is!

    BTW - I just remembered that I am still a teenager but my handwriting, literally, hasn't settled down because I keep copying the styles that I like. It sounds sad, yes, but it's something that I can't help. This may be something to do with INTp idolising - did you have the same experiences?
    You just remembered you're a teenager? I recommend seeing a neurologist pronto!
    I must confess, although it is a bit embarrassing, I copied people's styles in a variety of different areas very often in my life. As I got older though I sort of settled in to my own style of things, but it's kind of founded on the backs of all these earlier copied styles and perspectives. I remember distinctly as a teenager talking to a friend whose style of speech I liked very much then later talking to another friend (who didn't know the first friend) and copying the first guy's style of speech trying to use it to my advantage. I would have felt really embarrassed if someone called me on it, but no one ever did. Either I did a terrible job imitating or I was successfully very careful in not revealing either that I was copying or the source of the copied style.

    -Labyrinth
    INTp

  7. #7

    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Location
    M-H λ
    Posts
    2,609
    Mentioned
    1 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    On what you said about Ni being antithetical to Fe doesn't that make you want to experience the reality of the INFP something that theorhetically would be much eaiser than realizing Fe as the ESFJ does? Or did you mean as the primary function? On the whole Fi weakness thing I've always had the opposite problem and only had a vague understanding of it until I read your posts (I desire people to become a part of me not vice versa). Lastly, I'm not sure but I think Tanzhe meant he would submit the ideas you proposed to either resident ESFx meaning the first he ran into or to both his resident ESF P and J.

  8. #8

    Join Date
    Jan 2005
    Posts
    9
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    doesn't that make you want to experience the reality of the INFP something that theorhetically would be much eaiser than realizing Fe as the ESFJ does?
    Yeah it would theoretically be much less alien inside the head of an INFp than an ESFj for me. It would be neat though if everyone could experience another person's consciousness, because then we could have a much more peaceful world free of many misinterpretations and miscommunications that are probably happening between conflicting types/personalities.

    I really like the INFp types, well I only know two of them, one who took the test and met many 'observational requirements', and the other with observations only. My relationship with them though always seemed friendly at best, and I have trouble seeing myself in a romantic relationship with them, has anyone else gotten this feeling about their collaborative? Well I guess romantic relationships depend very strongly on a person's personality, often more so than their socionics type. What do you think? With me and the INFp types I always get into how "we both" feel or think towards something, and there isn't that "exchange" I feel happening with ENFp's, ESTp's, and ESFp's.

    I'm not sure but I think Tanzhe meant he would submit the ideas you proposed to either resident ESFx meaning the first he ran into or to both his resident ESF P and J.
    Ahh ok I could have misinterpreted tanzhe, sometimes I have been drinking quite heavily when i'm posting on forums

    I've always had the opposite problem and only had a vague understanding of it until I read your posts
    Thanks, that's exactly what I experience, I try to explain what I experience rather than trying to speak for all INTp's, after all even people with the same type must have radically different neurochemistries and life experiences. You desire people to become a part of you? That's quite intriguing, what type are you again?

    -Labyrinth
    INTp

  9. #9

    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Location
    M-H λ
    Posts
    2,609
    Mentioned
    1 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    ISTJs tend to piss me off as they have the same abilities but use them to different ends. I enjoy speaking with them but not being around them 'when practical things need to be done.' Supposably, I am INTJ but I am much more disorganized and not goal-oreinted. I attribute this to my philosophies that make "success" very useless to me and a family history of erratic behavior caused by mental illness. Crap I past post #100 and forgot to mention it. I took Dmitri's MT English test though we'll see what that says. It's become fairly simple to consciously alter the outcomes of any psychometric tools used on me though. I liked the 0, 1, 2, scale but I think it needs to be expanded to 'how do you react to this' on a scale of 2 to -2 maybe along with a short answer/essay format.

  10. #10

    Join Date
    Nov 2004
    Posts
    206
    Mentioned
    1 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Labyrinth
    Ahh ok I could have misinterpreted tanzhe, sometimes I have been drinking quite heavily when i'm posting on forums
    I put some questions to my resident ESFx because he is a good observer of my behaviour, and also discuss my personlity.

    So, here are the answers:


    1. What is your attitude to financial management in general and your attitude to money in particular?

    I am economical - I save and don’t spend much money. Usually, I prefer a lifestyle that isn’t centred around money - actually, I like a simple life. By ‘simple’, I mean that I have enough money to be financially secure but not so much that I am swimming in cash notes, and I have only possessions that matter to me.


    2. Do you form mental hierarchies of things, such as “Who’s better?” and “Who’s the fastest?”?


    Yes.


    3. Does this describe you? This function:

    "...draws our attention to immediate sensory phenomena. ... It prompts an interest in perception itself--the process of recognizing and interpreting what we take in."


    Yes

    "…prompts us to liberate our sense impressions from their larger context, thereby creating new options for perception itself."
    "..doesn’t really have ideas. The ideas are like trains at the edge of articulated knowledge. You can't claim them or advocate them. You put on a hat, grab hold of a boxcar door, and see where they go."
    "…suggests that absolute meaning is an illusion--the result of having incomplete information."
    "…tells us that patterns aren't 'out there' in the world, waiting to be discovered. They're part of us--the way we make sense of the riot of energy and information impinging on our systems. A disease syndrome is a useful construct, but that's all it is--an aggregate of observations attached to a label, telling us what to see and how to deal with it."


    Don't understand this.

    "…means that they experience no need to declare one conceptual standpoint inherently better than another. Indeed, these types have the disconcerting habit of solving a problem by shifting their perspective and defining the situation some other way."

    Yes

    "…tells him that truth isn't about logic. Truth is a frame of reference, a way of organizing information, which serves one set of needs or another."

    Don't know


    4. Does this describe you? Will offer an opinion on anything if they see it as important, even if they have not had time to evaluate all the facts. They see this as harmless, as they will almost always come back to correct an inaccuracy if new information presents itself.

    Yes and no.


    5. Which describes you best?

    A) Stubborn in their principles. Rarely abandon principles even if no one agrees with them or follows them. This makes them difficult to convince.

    B) Always questions principles critically. Will never refuse a theory immediately, but will cut through it.


    Both


    6. Does this describe you?

    More laid back, more dreamy, conceptual and flexible in their thought processes rather than sticking to sometimes very dry and calculative avenues.


    Yes


    7. Does this describe you?

    It is easy to read your reactions or feelings about various ideas.
    It is hard to read your reactions or feelings about various ideas.


    Both but, when asked to make a choice, it is easier to read my reactions.

  11. #11
    MysticSonic's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2004
    Location
    USA
    Posts
    2,993
    Mentioned
    4 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Wait, that's you asking your lrESFx questions, right?

  12. #12

    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Location
    M-H λ
    Posts
    2,609
    Mentioned
    1 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Heh I guess it was ESFx Labyrinth Tanzhe you don't know their type? How can they help you figure out your own then as the intertype relations can be interpreted either way?

  13. #13

    Join Date
    Jan 2005
    Posts
    9
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    My hypothetical/experiential descriptions were not meant to be used as questions! Some questions _anyone_ will answer "yes" to. Questions have to be written in a certain way to actually gain insight from the person's answer. If you are trying to determine someone else's type or your own ask/be asked socionics test questions, or better yet, have them or you take the test! Tests are here:

    http://www.socionics.com/sta/sta-1-r.html?0:::
    http://socion.hotbox.ru/MT-English.zip
    http://www.humanmetrics.com/cgi-win/JTypes2.asp

    Or even take the Myers Briggs, while obviously the test has problems it will certainly give you _some_ insight. The difference to me between an ESFj and an ESFp is like night and day! If they test ESFx on the type assistant, have them take the other tests, still confused? Then read the descriptions and the functions, does this person exhibit these traits? Does one stand out from the other?

    There is a very well known psychology experiment that is often given to psychology students in psychology 101; everyone reads a paper containing three type descriptions, the three descriptions are radically different from eachother, but nonetheless everyone chooses the same description to represent "them". The folks who help make happen typologies like socionics had to make sure to avoid general descriptions that everyone would agree to, and questions to which everyone would answer the same.

    Type descriptions by socionists or by just people describing themselves do not make good questions. For example your question of "1. What is your attitude to financial management in general and your attitude to money in particular?" isn't going to get a particularly useful answer from anyone. It is stated that INTp types might do well in business/finances. This is a hypothesized talent of their functional make up though, it doesn't mean that INTp's naturally gravitate towards business like baby turtles for the water, or that someone answering in a way that indicated a positive interest in financial matters is likely to be an INTp type. Even if you asked many INTp's if they were interested in business more wouldn't necessarily say "yes" than any other type.

    In fact after I had decided that my type fit best as "INTp" out of the 16 I had never thought about business until I read their descriptions (and I still have no interest in going into business). It's better to get a person's or you own type, then get into the descriptions of them in case they might provide more insight into yourself or others of the same type as well as maybe provide fields that take advantage of your functional makeup/abilities.

    So yeah, in conclusion i'd say be careful about the questions you ask, as they can lead you astray

    Also the last post is a little ambiguous, are you having your resident ask you these questions? If so why not just ask yourself these questions while reading the forum? And if you are asking your resident these questions what exactly are you trying to accomplish?

    -Labyrinth
    INTp

  14. #14

    Join Date
    Nov 2004
    Posts
    206
    Mentioned
    1 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    I have an ESFx who I deeply suspect to be my dual. The questions on these boards are usually the sort that need an independent observer - if you wanted to learn how you looked like without a mirror, you'd ask somebody, wouldn't you?

    I, personally, don't see why those posting here can't give me certain ways to tell between an INTp and an INTj. This means that I'm getting a bit frustrated - perhaps it would even be an idea to drop Socionics away from my life and just 'be myself' - even without Socionics I still have a fairly good idea of what I'm like.

  15. #15

    Join Date
    Sep 2004
    Posts
    992
    Mentioned
    1 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default Frustration

    Quote Originally Posted by Tanzhe
    I, personally, don't see why those posting here can't give me certain ways to tell between an INTp and an INTj. This means that I'm getting a bit frustrated - perhaps it would even be an idea to drop Socionics away from my life and just 'be myself' - even without Socionics I still have a fairly good idea of what I'm like.
    You are not the only one feeling slightly frustrated. I have not much faith in tests as they rely too much on outside authority - if socionics is of any real use people ought to be able to discover their type without the need to go making wild guesses to rather silly open-ended questions, and if we use the four scales we might as well stick with the MBTI. Perhaps somebody will eventually come up with a reliable way of typing but it seems to take an awful lot of time and effort.

    If you have found love cherish it while you can and do not allow socionics or any other theory to disturb you - even most of the leading socionists, like Aushra, Gulenko or Lytov seem to be married to spouses who are not their duals. At least for now I feel reasonably confident that I am INFJ - and that would make ESTJs my dual. Oh well, you live and learn...

  16. #16

    Join Date
    Nov 2004
    Posts
    206
    Mentioned
    1 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by CuriousSoul
    If you have found love cherish it while you can and do not allow socionics or any other theory to disturb you
    Don't be embarrassed, but my ESFx isn't my spouse. He's just somebody that I regularly come into contact with, and have been doing so for quite a while so he is well-placed to judge my behaviour.


    There are three other reasons why I may give up Socionics:
    1. I'm a teenager, and going through teenage 'things' - specifically, mood changes and I am rapidly maturing. So my personality may not really be 'set' and this might well be a bad time to type myself.
    2. I'm beginning to realise that the 'meaning' of life is to learn how to live, regardless of your personality. A person who is impolite by nature cannot ignore social norms of politeness so he must learn manners, regardless of personality.
    3. Is there really any scientific proof for Jung's theories? Without trying to divert this post, I've just realised that I don't know whether Socionics works at a fundamental level - How, for example, did Jung know that the primary function (in this case, we'll say Si) must be opposed by the second function? How did he know that one would be introverted and one would be extroverted, and one Judging and one Perceiving?

  17. #17

    Join Date
    Sep 2004
    Posts
    992
    Mentioned
    1 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Tanzhe
    Don't be embarrassed, but my ESFx isn't my spouse. He's just somebody that I regularly come into contact with, and have been doing so for quite a while so he is well-placed to judge my behaviour.]
    I should not have jumped into conclusions but since you did not specify the nature of your relationship I got carried away.

    There are three other reasons why I may give up Socionics:
    1. I'm a teenager, and going through teenage 'things' - specifically, mood changes and I am rapidly maturing. So my personality may not really be 'set' and this might well be a bad time to type myself.
    It sure can be, and for example every other teenager would probably agree that their lead function is "sudden shifts and vague anxiety", that does, however, not mean that they would all be INFPs.

    2. I'm beginning to realise that the 'meaning' of life is to learn how to live, regardless of your personality. A person who is impolite by nature cannot ignore social norms of politeness so he must learn manners, regardless of personality.
    I would say that one potential benefit of socionics is that enables us to better see also our hidden strengths. For example: at least in the right circumstances you are able to lead with your lead function and take much more responsibility and pressure than you may have realized.

    3. Is there really any scientific proof for Jung's theories? Without trying to divert this post, I've just realised that I don't know whether Socionics works at a fundamental level - How, for example, did Jung know that the primary function (in this case, we'll say Si) must be opposed by the second function? How did he know that one would be introverted and one would be extroverted, and one Judging and one Perceiving?
    There is not really any scientific proof - and that is why most mainstream psychologists stay away from MBTI as well as Socionics. Jung just postulated his theories loosely based on the observations he had made as a psychiatrist. Personality types were a very small part of Jung's work and apparantely he mainly intented them as a general guideline for clinical psychiatrists: people have different personalities, perceive the world in different ways and are likely to have different strengths and weaknesses depending on their personality type. Others then elaborated further based on his theories. There has been some research on how personality differences correlate with the functioning of the human brain but for the most part it all remains rather murky.

  18. #18
    Creepy-

    Default

    I find it very easy to type... just not myself. Also the difference between an ESFP and an ESFJ are astronomical how can you not tell? Maybe you should hang out with other ESF's to get a better idea of the differences and more easily type your friend there.

  19. #19

    Join Date
    Nov 2004
    Posts
    206
    Mentioned
    1 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Guest
    I find it very easy to type... just not myself. Also the difference between an ESFP and an ESFJ are astronomical how can you not tell? Maybe you should hang out with other ESF's to get a better idea of the differences and more easily type your friend there.
    I'm not very experienced in Socionics, and remember that Quasi-Identicals can sometimes behave in a very similar fashion. I think that typing accurately can only really be done if a) you are a typing genius or b) you talk with the person involved and get his views which may point to certain types.

  20. #20

    Join Date
    Nov 2004
    Posts
    206
    Mentioned
    1 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Well, I seem not to display the characteristic signs of Ni yet (although, since I haven't got info on how to identify it yet, then I can't really say for certain). I'm fairly sure that I have Te as a primary or secondary function because of my logical nature, and desire for answers (although I am, again, not entirely certain).

    So, I am xi Te or Te xi, perhaps. This is just speculation.

    So, if x is not N then it must be S. That would put me as ESTj or ISTp. I know that I am not an ESTj, just by looking at it, so could I be an ISTp?

  21. #21

    Join Date
    Nov 2004
    Posts
    206
    Mentioned
    1 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Anybody?

  22. #22
    Creepy-

    Default

    What did you test as?

  23. #23

    Join Date
    Sep 2004
    Posts
    992
    Mentioned
    1 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default INTJ-ISTP

    Quote Originally Posted by Tanzhe
    Well, I seem not to display the characteristic signs of Ni yet (although, since I haven't got info on how to identify it yet, then I can't really say for certain). I'm fairly sure that I have Te as a primary or secondary function because of my logical nature, and desire for answers (although I am, again, not entirely certain).

    So, I am xi Te or Te xi, perhaps. This is just speculation.

    So, if x is not N then it must be S. That would put me as ESTj or ISTp. I know that I am not an ESTj, just by looking at it, so could I be an ISTp?
    I am kind of running out of ideas so I may not be able to help you much, and I guess none of us really knows how to identify Ni. I thought I had "it" but now I think I probably don't. Maybe others can help more: I would currently very much like to know whether the MBTI descriptions of introverted and extroverted intuition on this site can be trusted. The functions in MBTI do not follow the same logic as in Socionics so maybe not, then again my own observations seem to suggest that the difference between the open-ended extroverted intuition and the compelling force of the introverted intuition may well be correct.

    It is not always easy to say whether one can trust all the theories in circulation but based on my understanding of socionics, and some practical observations, there are at least some generallly easily identifiable differences between INTJs and ISTPs:

    INTJs lead function is introverted thinkin Ti or more specifically:
    Negative (long range):
    abstraction, generality, universality, system, classification, typology, the general laws, objectivity, true, validity, the analysis, logic of a science, criteria

    The lead function is the "unshakeable foundation". Thus INTJs tend to be supremely confident with their logical abilities. And in order to be confident they want to become experts in some, usually rather narrow speciality, often the more far-fetched and counter-intuitive the better. Thus the INTJ stereotype could be something like the Single-Theory-To-Explain-Everything-Maniac:

    Groening draws this mad teacher with floppy ears and dark rings under his eyes (not unlike the way I look after a late night of grading papers), and writes him a word balloon that perfectly encapsulates his mania: "The nation that controls magnesium controls the universe!!!" Now, I'm not a Single-Theory-To-Explain-Everything-Maniac because I worship magnesium.
    http://www.imagesjournal.com/issue02...res/comics.htm

    ISTPs again have introverted sensing Si as their lead function, or more specifically:
    Negative (long range):
    Unpleasant sensations, discomfort, inconvenience, disharmony, disgrace, unattractiveness, weariness, pressure, illness, bad state of health, suffering, pain.

    What this means in practise seems to often be that ISTPs are unusually sensitive to all negative sensations and quite instinctively try to remove them from their surroudings in order to create comfort and suitable working conditions for themselves and those close to them. Because ISTPs are able to "anchor" their lead function on their own and with their creative extroverted thinking solve most practical problems that may arise, ISTPs tend to be pretty independent minded people who are able to take care of themselves in most possible circumstances, and may correspondingly often find it difficult to submit to discipline or to work under close supervision.
    ISTPs creative extraverted logic again means that they usually are more interested in the practical application of their knowledge and do not care much for theories that seem irrelevant to their lives.

    I do not know if this was of much help, but generally I think the more detailed and specific questions you can formulate, the more likely it is that we will be able to provide useful answers.

  24. #24

    Join Date
    Nov 2004
    Posts
    206
    Mentioned
    1 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Well, I won't say anything about the INTj-ISTp differences yet because this involves discussion. As for Ne-Ni, Labyrinth may be able to help.

    It would be interesting to double-check a vital piece of the puzzle - the E-I scale. To quote Socionics definitions, Extroversion:
    · focused on demands and objective nature of outside world rather than on one’s subjective ties with outside world
    · perceives world as objects that can be taken apart, studied, known, and compared to each other
    · objects are unchanging, ties between objects are changeable; changes interaction between objects to better fit qualities of objects
    · feel responsible for events happening around them and actively influence situations

    And introversion:
    · focused on one’s ties with and subjective perception of outside world rather than outside world itself
    · perceives world as ties/relationships between objects and comes to know objects by knowing their ties to other objects
    · ties are unchanging, qualities of object are changeable; adapts qualities of objects to better fit their relationships
    · care for quality of their own and others’ psychological field (nature of interaction between subject and outside world)

    Reading through those, I feel no real attraction towards one or the other; so help defining the E-I (just to be sure) would be appreciated. There is the possibility that we are spitting in the wrong corner and that I could be an extrovert.

    Perhaps, as well as ideas on E-I, we could think about identifying Si, Se. Ne-Ni will largely have to wait until Labyrinth or another confirmed INTp posts here.

    I'll give you some answers in a while.

  25. #25
    MysticSonic's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2004
    Location
    USA
    Posts
    2,993
    Mentioned
    4 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    I would like to object to some of these definitions of introversion and extroversion, and show how they contradict more thoroughly founded, or at least more integral to the system in which it is in, information.

    Extroversion:
    · focused on demands and objective nature of outside world rather than on one’s subjective ties with outside world

    This seems like a rather inadequate definitition, as feelers, whom estimate things through the method of defining what is "good" and what is "bad", at least when healthy, seem to function through a very subjective manner. Take for example extraverted feelers, whom generally assume the nature of things while projecting their own opinions upon the object of reference as it is truth. This is obviously a subjective behaviour which should be noted as evidence that the extroversion/introversion scale is not wholy about objectivity and subjectivity.

    · perceives world as objects that can be taken apart, studied, known, and compared to each other

    Introverted thinkers don't?

    · feel responsible for events happening around them and actively influence situations

    Introverted feelers don't?

    · objects are unchanging, ties between objects are changeable; changes interaction between objects to better fit qualities of objects

    I'm pretty sure when one's perceptiosn of the ties between two objects changes that one's perspective of the object itself changes.

    And introversion:
    · focused on one’s ties with and subjective perception of outside world rather than outside world itse

    I believe this is better defined as "focused on one's ties with and thoroughly sifted through perception of the outside world."

    However, it should be noted that I am NOT making the claim that introverts think MORE, or more COMPLEX then do extraverts, but simply that introverts tend to dawdle upon a certain topic of any sort of nature then do extraverts.

    · perceives world as ties/relationships between objects and comes to know objects by knowing their ties to other objects

    Extraverted inuitiers, most especially irrtaional extraverted inuiters, don't?

    · ties are unchanging, qualities of object are changeable; adapts qualities of objects to better fit their relationships

    This is down right silly. If the qualities of an object changes, then so does its relationships between other objects!

    · care for quality of their own and others’ psychological field (nature of interaction between subject and outside world)

    Huh? And Extraverted feelers don't?

    I believe the only difference between introverts and extraverts is that introverts tend to muddle around in certain trains of thoughts longer then extraverts, and recieve new information less readily then extraverts, whom thrive of new incoming information, most especially if the information is coming QUICKLY rather then simply IN BULK.

  26. #26

    Join Date
    Sep 2004
    Location
    Wilmington NC USA
    Posts
    666
    Mentioned
    4 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by MysticSonic
    I would like to object to some of these definitions of introversion and extroversion, and show how they contradict more thoroughly founded, or at least more integral to the system in which it is in, information.

    Extroversion:
    · focused on demands and objective nature of outside world rather than on one’s subjective ties with outside world

    This seems like a rather inadequate definitition, as feelers, whom estimate things through the method of defining what is "good" and what is "bad", at least when healthy, seem to function through a very subjective manner. Take for example extraverted feelers, whom generally assume the nature of things while projecting their own opinions upon the object of reference as it is truth. This is obviously a subjective behaviour which should be noted as evidence that the extroversion/introversion scale is not wholy about objectivity and subjectivity.

    · perceives world as objects that can be taken apart, studied, known, and compared to each other

    Introverted thinkers don't?

    · feel responsible for events happening around them and actively influence situations

    Introverted feelers don't?

    · objects are unchanging, ties between objects are changeable; changes interaction between objects to better fit qualities of objects

    I'm pretty sure when one's perceptiosn of the ties between two objects changes that one's perspective of the object itself changes.

    And introversion:
    · focused on one’s ties with and subjective perception of outside world rather than outside world itse

    I believe this is better defined as "focused on one's ties with and thoroughly sifted through perception of the outside world."

    However, it should be noted that I am NOT making the claim that introverts think MORE, or more COMPLEX then do extraverts, but simply that introverts tend to dawdle upon a certain topic of any sort of nature then do extraverts.

    · perceives world as ties/relationships between objects and comes to know objects by knowing their ties to other objects

    Extraverted inuitiers, most especially irrtaional extraverted inuiters, don't?

    · ties are unchanging, qualities of object are changeable; adapts qualities of objects to better fit their relationships

    This is down right silly. If the qualities of an object changes, then so does its relationships between other objects!

    · care for quality of their own and others’ psychological field (nature of interaction between subject and outside world)

    Huh? And Extraverted feelers don't?

    I believe the only difference between introverts and extraverts is that introverts tend to muddle around in certain trains of thoughts longer then extraverts, and recieve new information less readily then extraverts, whom thrive of new incoming information, most especially if the information is coming QUICKLY rather then simply IN BULK.
    I think Jung's definatition is the best...introverts simply regain libido stasis alone and the reverse is true for extraverts.

  27. #27

    Join Date
    Nov 2004
    Posts
    206
    Mentioned
    1 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Well, I still wonder whether my "introversion" has any bearing on my Socionics type. It may, it may not.

    For the moment, let's determine Si, Se, Ne or Ni.

  28. #28

    Join Date
    Sep 2004
    Location
    Wilmington NC USA
    Posts
    666
    Mentioned
    4 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Statistically, since you are on these forums, I would have to say the probability of is extremely high, and extremely low. In the beginning someone said a would never join this forum. As far as I know, they're right.

  29. #29

    Join Date
    Sep 2004
    Posts
    992
    Mentioned
    1 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default Ethical and Logical

    Quote Originally Posted by MysticSonic
    I would like to object to some of these definitions of introversion and extroversion, and show how they contradict more thoroughly founded, or at least more integral to the system in which it is in, information.

    Extroversion:
    · focused on demands and objective nature of outside world rather than on one’s subjective ties with outside world

    This seems like a rather inadequate definitition, as feelers, whom estimate things through the method of defining what is "good" and what is "bad", at least when healthy, seem to function through a very subjective manner. Take for example extraverted feelers, whom generally assume the nature of things while projecting their own opinions upon the object of reference as it is truth. This is obviously a subjective behaviour which should be noted as evidence that the extroversion/introversion scale is not wholy about objectivity and subjectivity..
    Read the following article very carefully. The difference between ethical and logical types is not so much about whether they are emotional or not, but perhaps rather more about to what extent their emotions are under conscious control and subject to conscious analysis:



    A Rational Decision? Don't Bet On It



    CHICAGO - Could it be there is no such thing as a rational decision when it comes to anything involving yourself?

    At A Glance

    *
    Brain scans suggest all personal decisions - no matter how simple - are made with emotional input.

    *
    The research corroborates the neuropsychological theory that the rational and emotional aspects of thinking are integrated, and illustrates why people who have suffered damage to the "emotion-processing" part of their brains have difficulty making even simple decisions.

    *
    The research could help in diagnosing some psychiatric disorders.


    Though they might be loathe to acknowledge it, even the most analytical people likely rely on emotions when making the simplest decisions that affect their lives, according to a brain imaging study being presented today at the 87th Scientific Assembly and Annual Meeting of the Radiological Society of North America (RSNA).

    Using functional magnetic resonance imaging (fMRI) in volunteers to scan brain activity during the decision-making process, researchers found the ventromedial frontal lobe (the part of the brain typically involved in emotions) was highly active even when the volunteers were making what typically would be considered rational decisions.

    "There's an increasingly accepted school of thought in neuropsychology that there is a significant emotional component to all personal decision-making, and the brain scans in our study support that hypothesis," said Dean K. Shibata, M.D., who performed the study at the University of Rochester School of Medicine, N.Y., and is now assistant professor of radiology at the University of Washington, Seattle. "There is corroborating evidence for this. For instance, Antonio Damasio and other researchers have found that people who have had strokes or brain tumors that caused injury to the prefrontal lobes of their brains, where emotions are processed, have a very difficult time making even routine personal decisions, such as scheduling a doctor's appointment."


    click to view
    While people with damage to that area of the brain can objectively make a decision that affects someone else's life - such as deciding what type of car to buy - when it comes to making the same decision for themselves, they are stymied, said Dr. Shibata.

    "If you eliminate the emotional guiding factors, it's impossible to make decisions in daily life," said Dr. Shibata. "Even while making a decision, such as 'Should I put on my seatbelt?' you intuitively realize that, without the seatbelt, you might get hurt in a crash. That's an emotional image. If you can't envision that, you can't make the decision to wear the seatbelt."

    The old concept of the brain and decision-making divided the concept of thinking into very separate "rational" and "emotional" components, while the current view is these components are very integrated and overlapping, said Dr. Shibata.

    In the study, 6 women and 5 men underwent 2 fMRI scans each. In each scan there were two task phases: choosing the better of two desirable events (such as taking a warm bath or eating a good meal), or choosing the worse of two undesirable events (such as being in a car accident or being the victim of a robbery). First, the people were asked to make their decisions based on how it would affect them personally. In a second scan, the people were asked similar questions, but told to base their choices purely on cost, and not as though the decision would affect their lives.
    On average the fMRI scans showed significantly more activity in the ventromedial frontal lobe when the people were making the simple personal decisions than when they were making the choices based on cost.

    The research results are a caution for surgeons to be careful to avoid the prefrontal lobe when performing brain surgery, notes Dr. Shibata. It also suggests fMRI might be useful in helping to diagnose psychiatric disorders such as schizophrenia or depression which may involve abnormal metabolism of the ventromedial frontal lobes.

    In fMRI, a software adaptation to a standard MR imaging machine, metabolic activity in the brain "lights up," showing researchers what part of the brain is active at that moment.

    Jianhui Zhong, Ph.D., is co-author of the study being presented by Dr. Shibata at the RSNA meeting.

    The RSNA is an association of more than 30,000 radiologists and physicists in medicine dedicated to education and research in the science of radiology. The Society's headquarters is located at 820 Jorie Blvd., Oak Brook, Ill. 60523-2251.
    http://www.pcipr.com/RSNA/news/thinking.asp

  30. #30
    Creepy-Rick

    Default

    Tanzhe:

    You look like me by your descrpitions (at least it seems so). You helped me a lot to know a little about myself, thanks.

    I am not expert in socionics or whatever. I am also interested to know how to solve my particular problems in order to "grow-up" (I am now 26 Years old).

    first, my considerations:

    A percepitve person makes a life more complex
    because of heterodox (uncommon) logics provided by the intuitive or sensing side. If you find it difficult that are two aspects (or both): one is a partial individuation of yours (personal growth), anothe is that perceptive people finds it difficult to identify themselves.

    Intuiton is something like a third eye that you know why but cannot explain in every single aspect. It is difficult to translate into reality because of its complexity.

    Lets see, do you remember your childhood well? before 5 years old or so?
    If yes, I must consider that you use your tertiary function to colect facts, something as a pleasure: a very significant party long ago (but long ago), your first date, or whatever. Intuitive people likes to live in the past too. My INFP mother likes to tell every single aspect of her life in a general idea.

    Reflect your childhood (until 12): It was full of ideas, dreams, creativity, a single toy with many meanings, inventions, an imaginary friend or toy
    and now you are more serious, find it difficult to express your real feelings.

    or your adolescence is full of ideas that you haven´t had before, you find it difficult to pay attention in classes now?

    First option: INTP
    Second: INTJ

    Try to know who pisses you off:
    if it is ENTP, ISFP, INTJ or ISFJ your preferences are for INTP, the are very confliting for INTP.

    or so if it is ISFJ, ENTJ, INTP, ESFP, your preferences are for INTJ.

    try to identify your basic FEAR (4° function and hidden agenda), and your basic PLEASURE (3° function).

    What are you wainting for (5° function)?

    -to someone helps you to love someone as suggestion from an expert or friend (INTJ) and try to express your sensing side by yourself?

    -or to someone helps you to express better your sensing side, asking for advice how to do things form an expert or friend and try to express your feeling side by yourself (INTP).

    If you think like an abandoned child (as if the the entire world must help you) in some of these areas above and you accept advice, help, suggestion, so you identified your 5° function.

    You said that you are passing by significative changes in your life (it is your tertiary function trying to develop): pay attention in what would you like to do NOW. It is self worth, to love yourself more? A experience, to know more what life has to offer and you were afraid to experiment? The second option suites best for INTP.

    A unconscion aspect of INTP (as well as ISTP) is that they do not really love themselves (6° function). My mother in particular said this to me, that I don´t love myself. It offended myself really, but it is reality. As they are unable to love themselves, it is difficult to love someone else (shyness). That´s why the hidden agenda of an INTP is to love (someone else) in despite that the don´t really love themselves. They want to love someone to hides from themselves the reality. It raises my mood when a person says that I must like myself more.

    If your mood is raisen when a person says that you do have a lot of personal experience, then you are INTJ.

    I ve been diaguinosed as a schizotypal in 2002, the major problem in typing is that Schizotypal is a personality disorder proper for INTJ (in my opinion for INTP, but not sure) personality, I may tell you that my life has been hard as a hell. I am trying to stand up for myself, but I find it difficult. Thats why I think Socionics important in despite of some incongruences of my own.

    I dont know but I expect a little of a help.

    Sorry for my foreign English and some mistakes that I was unware.

    Finally, try this:
    http://www.socionika.com/
    INTP vs. INTJ: http://www.socionika.com/rational_irrational.html
    and http://socionika.com/tipolog/rationa...ationality.htm (LOOK AT THE PICTURES, PLEASE)
    http://socionika.com/tipolog/rationa...ac-irrac_1.jpg

  31. #31

    Join Date
    Oct 2004
    Location
    Tallinn
    Posts
    595
    Mentioned
    1 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    I'm sceptical on your saing on emotional ascpect at making decisions,CuriousSoul. Yes, I admit, we all decide admiting emotional info, but this might not be related to Ethical functions. Jung separeted emotion and feeling. Emotion is anger, f.e, feeling is attitude toward something. Can't explain in detail, but my thoughts are, that this study is related to emotions, not feelings.

  32. #32
    Creepy-

    Default

    How reliable are those VI J-P diagrams on that website Rick suggested?

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •