I don't know how to determine the truth of your theoretical explanations here, but I don't disagree with what you say; it is compatible with my empirical observations.
And I completely agree with that too.
We seem to have an uncommon kind of consensus here. That doesn't seem to happen too often on this forum, so I find it interesting.
Perhaps even more interesting is that even though you, hitta, seem to think that we disagree in content and not just in words, I am not sure that is the case. On many things you say, I can't really find anything substantial that I clearly disagree with. You seem to be talking from an almost purely theoretical position, and you don't seem to have compared what you claim with reality. You seem to link some of your theoretical statements/descriptions with the wrong pieces of empirical reality, but it is hard to tell for sure, because you are so reluctant to discuss real life examples of famous person's with a supposed specific type.
Does that contradict anything I, or someone else, have said? In the practical sense of the word "economical" that you seem to be using here, I totally agree with you that INTjs are more "economical" in their behaviour than, for example, INTps. And I see that difference as in harmony with the differences between the Alpha and the Gamma quadra. INTjs are not risk takers, and they are reluctant to spend money.
In fact, most of the Alphas I have met in real life have shown a contempt towards gambling, financial risk taking, and accentuated market oriented perspectives in general. They have tended to not like the spirit of capitalism, and they have tended not to understand what I regard as the underlying mechanisms of a free market economy, which I strongly associate with Gamma. Personally, I also associate this Gamma perspective with game theory, Darwinism, socio-biology, empiricism, and a
-based view on science in general.
Many people have said that, but I still can't see any good reason why that could be even possible. It doesn't make sense to me, not even according to
your criteria. According to
your descriptions of the differences between INTjs and INTps, I seem to be an INTp even if I disregard my own criticism of some of your statements in your INTj and INTp desriptions.
I agree with that. But isn't it obvious that this is no argument against what I, ifmd95, or FDG have said? As FDG correctly put it: being economical does not equal being economical -- surely you must agree with that logical distinction and its relevance in this context?
But still, you seem to confuse the concepts here. I don't understand why you do it. There is no need to.
And you continue to view everything with your theoretical glasses on. When shall you start to check if your statements correspond with how these types are in real life? It's not impossible to do that, you know. There are many nearly indisputable examples of each type, whose attitudes and behaviours we can compare your theoretical predictions with.
You can't know for sure that your interpretations of those theoretical descriptions are correct, if you never go out in the real world and observe real life examples of the types in action, or read about them in biographies etc. And we can't know for sure that you have misinterpreted the theory either, if you refuse to discuss things in relation to (famous) people that we both have typed and whose type(s) we both have a strong opinion about. You still have the chance to comment on some, or all, of the famous people I have suggested a cerain type for -- for example Peter Singer, whom I see as an almost uniquely clear example of an INTp.