Connections in behavior between the producing and accepting functions

[Hitta]

Well as I said in a previous post, INTjs organize what they initiate. Now the other question that can be brought up from this is "Why does the INTj only initiate and doesn't continue?". The answer has to be that there is a relationship between how the accepting and producing functions work(meaning that there could be possibly another division of the +/- system, though it wouldn't be as strong of a division as the first one). If the perceiving functions could be viewed as the energy and the judging functions could be viewed as the action, one could come to the conclusion that only a certain amount of energy could be spent via +Se or -Se. So if energy is spent by the judging functions actions, then the nonvalued functions exist only because energy is not infinite and the valued functions exist because energy is finite. If A was a valued judging function and B was a valued perceiving function, due to B being the potential or the kinetic energy of a given situation and A being the function, one could derive that D(POLR) is energyless and that C can't run because of this. So as an example, INTjs use function +Te with energy (+Ne/-Ni). Meaning that an INTj organizes what they initiate, INTjs try use to much of the energy doing that meaning INTjs are overly organized and perfect initiating, so they have no energy to to continue anything. So an INTj lacks the ability to finish things because they try to be overly perfect with what they do do. This translates in INTjs leaving things undone and appearing unorganized.

[Phaedrus]

Well as I said in a previous post, INTjs organize what they initiate. Now the other question that can be brought up from this is "Why does the INTj only initiate and doesn't continue?".

I am not saying that what you claim here is not true, but I wonder if you have any real life examples of INTjs who initiate but don't continue? Famous people are definitely preferable.

Meaning that an INTj organizes what they initiate, INTjs try use to much of the energy doing that meaning INTjs are overly organized and perfect initiating, so they have no energy to to continue anything. So an INTj lacks the ability to finish things because they try to be overly perfect with what they do do. This translates in INTjs leaving things undone and appearing unorganized.

In what way would an INTp act differently? As it stands, your description sounds just as much like an INTp -- if not more.

[Hitta]

I am not saying that what you claim here is not true, but I wonder if you have any real life examples of INTjs who initiate but don't continue? Famous people are definitely preferable.


In what way would an INTp act differently? As it stands, your description sounds just as much like an INTp -- if not more.

INTjs and INTps are opposites, I wish people would quit treating them like equals.

[Logos]

INTjs and INTps are opposites, I wish people would quit treating them like equals.

That really does not answer the questions that he raised in the slightest.

[Jonathan]

INTjs and INTps are opposites, I wish people would quit treating them like equals.

Although I don't follow the argument very well especially when you get to the part where you define A and B but then talk about C and D, it seems that this is somewhat related to the more traditional classical Socionics observation that INTjs have "weak ," being PoLR. However, INTps also have "weak ," because their is dual-seeking, meaning that they seek help in that area. So if that's true, then INTjs and INTps could be similar in their lack of action orientation.

[Hitta]

INTps are about routine and following old habits. They have hard time starting new things. They are stuck on don't the trivial things. Gulenko used the word voluntarism.

[reyn_til_runa]

INTjs and INTps are opposites, I wish people would quit treating them like equals.

why must your ideas be so impassioned?

INTps are about routine and following old habits. They have hard time starting new things. They are stuck on don't the trivial things. Gulenko used the word voluntarism.

i think it's time you start defending this a bit more. ostensibly, i dislike routine. sort of scoff at those who follow it too closely. but there's a strict order to my thinking, a need to revisit parts of the past to process it. i instinctively look for patterns, which necessitates following some degree of routine, but also an awareness of what is to come. because patterns take time to emerge and they are, by nature, a product of repetition, i see no contradiction in being both routine-oriented and into new things.

and since i cannot decipher the underlined sentence, i will take the liberty of interpreting it as: "they are stuck on donuts and trivia games."

[tcaudilllg]

If A was a valued judging function and B was a valued perceiving function, due to B being the potential or the kinetic energy of a given situation and A being the function, one could derive that D(POLR) is energyless and that C can't run because of this.

Interesting... so you would define the "flaw" I recently mentioned (see my latest thread here in Gen. Discussion) but could not define as the ability to use energy. You know that makes a lot of sense, because the energy of the superego is being spent by the id, and the superego is just its byproduct in the macro. That's a good observation.

So what you are saying is, strong functions are strong because they use energy, and weak functions are weak because they can't, being byproducts of the strong? That would seem to be a vote in favor of the relationship between dual functions in the same person: we do indeed unconsciously assist out duals, simply by using functional energy.