jason_m's Type Blog

[jason_m]

I was almost certain that I am an INTj. Now it's been questioned, so everything is up in the air again. Therefore, I've decided to start a type blog, so that people will get a better idea of who I am. I've considered several types for myself, but I'd rather not say and influence your opinion. Also, feel free to type me as whatever you think I am. I've decided to accept whatever type I really am, instead of having a closed mind. Finally, if you think this isn't going to last, then I won't argue with you; as long as I am motivated to continue this thread, I will do so. So, let's begin.

Every night I go to bed at about three or four in the morning. (This is an improvement. I used to go to bed at 7 am.) I get up at about noon. The first thing I do when I get up is go through Starbucks drive through and get an iced coffee (nothing too expensive). You see, I'm sort of a creature of habit. I will go to certain restaurants or do certain things everyday for several weeks, months, etc., but then, all of a sudden, I'll get sick of it and stop doing it. I'm the same way with my interests, except my interests have a cyclical nature. Right now, I'm interested in Socionics. Very interested. It's what I spend most of my time thinking about. However, that will get boring, and I'll move on to something else. Then, in a few years, after having been involved in several different interests, I'll probably be into Socionics again.

Another thing about me is that everyday, I like to come up with ideas. If I haven't thought of something new, then I feel my day has been useless. I thought that maybe I could write them down, and then later, organize them. Then, in a few years, if I have enough information, I could write a book surrounding my ideas on a certain topic. The problem is follow-through. I might come up with the notion of writing down my ideas, and it sounds good, but it's hard to make it into a reality. When I come up with the idea, I don't want to have to be bothered to sit down and write it out. Doing that would take me out of my thoughts, and I'd lose whatever inspiration I have. Maybe if I make it into a habit, it could work.

What I'll mention now are some ideas I came up with today. I was thinking that in a million years, what is the likelihood that the theories we have now will still hold? Therefore, you should not hold too strongly to any theory. What you should be concerned with is how clever the theory is, how much it allows you to look at things in a new way. A clever theory will always be a clever theory. On top of this, I considered that there are some theories that are more likely to be turned over. It seems to me that the further a theory is related to us in time and/or space, the more likely it is untrue. The reason for this is because things that are far removed from you are more difficult to accumulate accurate data about. Now, this also applies to other things that are still close in space/time, but are far removed from you. For example, particles that can only be viewed with extremely high-tech equipment. However, even though this is slightly different, the principle is the same. Finally, there is another type of theory that I think is more likely to be overturned: a theory that is based on something that is difficult to define. For example, a theory about behaviour in psychology; behaviour is a very "fuzzy" concept. The reason that I think such a theory can be more easily overturned is because it's so open to interpretation, and something that isn't grounded in something solid has less convincing power. I must tell you though, that this idea about difficult to define concepts is somewhat unclear to me; it's more of a conjecture.

Anyway, that's it for today.

Jason

[jason_m]

I went to the casino with my mother and father yesterday (it was their anniversary, so I agreed to go with them). I am not into casinos, so I was very bored. When I'm bored, I usually think to myself. Actually, I've been thinking a lot to myself over the past couple days. Thinking to myself, I came up with several ideas (much of this was thought of while I was at the casino):

- A video game based on gambling. You pay to play. If you win, you win money. If you lose, you lose money. The problem is that I can't see this working; if someone gets very good at the game, then they can keep playing and keep winning. I'm not sure if there is any way to salvage this idea.

- A statistics algorithm that constantly calculates the odds of what could happen in a sporting event, based on the outcome of each play. I'm not sure if this is feasible, but if it is, you could create a betting program based on each play in a live football game. There is time in between plays to make bets, so it might work. You would bet on how many yards the play will go for, if it will be a touchdown, whether it will be a pass or a run, etc. And, if that doesn't work, then maybe you could create a gambling game based on video game AI that simulates a football game and involves the same gambling idea.

- A decent advertising scheme for a casino (in Vegas, perhaps). What this casino would have to do is research the odds of winning at the other casinos, and then set the odds of winning to be slightly higher than every other casino in town. Then, they would run a series of advertisements that states the research they've done and that they now pay out more than any other casino in town. (I'm assuming that lying about this would be false advertising, so people would have to believe them.)

- I was asked the odds of winning a jackpot. I didn't know, but I eventually figured it out. There was a hall of fame outside the casino that showed all the people who won. Assuming the wall is fairly complete, the odds of winning are approximately equal to the 25 (roughly) people who were posted on the wall to the thousands of people who have visited the casino since its opening.

Here are some non-gambling ideas that I thought of over the past couple days:

- During the day today, I was listening to a cd on my computer. There were a series of visual images being displayed as I was listening. I realized that these images had no relation to the music; even in between songs, when the music wasn't playing, they were still there. However, what if someone created an artform in which specific sounds were related to specific images? The music would then create a pattern of images that correspond to the sounds - art. What's even more interesting is if people could go down the other route. What if this program allowed you to create the series of visual images, and then you see what the music sounds like? Anyway, I thought that that's an interesting artistic idea.

- My last idea is about research. From what I understand, at the university level, research is conducted on an independent basis by professors. In other words, the professor comes up with the idea, conducts the research, and then publishes the results. What if this process were broken up? What if people who are most skilled at generating ideas do just that. These people then hand over the ideas to people who are most skilled at determining what's feasible or not. These people hand over the feasible ideas to people who are good at developing experiments. Then, these people hand over their results to those who are skilled at writing - writers. This way, instead of expecting a professor to be a jack of all trades, we have groups of people who are skilled at doing what they do best.

Anyway, I don't like criticism of my ideas, but I understand the need for it. So, if you see anything wrong with what I've posted, or if you want to add to it, feel free.

Jason

[jason_m]

I said before that I won't talk about my type, but I've reconsidered this. Actually, if you're going to understand why I have such a hard time typing myself, then you're going to have to know what I agree with and don't agree with about the types. Let's start with the INTj type.

What I agree with: the socionics.com descriptions of the INTj, and what seems to be people's vague intuition about what Ti is about; people say I sound like I'm using a lot of Ti. I guess I would have to agree with this. The problem is that I don't know whether people have a shallow understanding of Ti. It seems to me that anyone who speaks intellectually about a lot of things is automatically deemed as being Ti dominant. To me, that seems false.

What I don't agree with: The basic disagreement I have is that it's assumed that Ti dominant types rely on Ti for everything, that they apply it to their life - they like rules, they create hundreds of laws, they think that everything is logical, they always speak using logical language, etc. For me, logic is a game, much like Dungeons and Dragons. I enjoy playing with it (very much, actually), it gives me entertainment, it challenges me, but I compartmentalize it. Now, thinking that I would apply this to me life is as crazy to me as thinking that someone who likes Dungeons and Dragons will apply the rules of that game to their life. It just doesn't make sense to me. This leads me to one of three conclusions:

1) I am an INTj, but most INTj descriptions are bad, and therefore, do not fit me.

2) I am an INTj, and most descriptions are good, so I am an outlier with respect to how well the descriptions describe me.

3) I am not an INTj.

Now, if I'm not an INTj, then there are only two other options: 1) I'm an INFj or 2) I'm an ENTp. The problem with these is that the INFj descriptions only seem to be describing a very superficial aspect of my personality (they don't really describe the theme of my life), no one seems to believe that I'm an ENTp, and the only ENTp description that seems accurate is the one at socionics.com Now, it could be that most of these descriptions are not very good or that most people do not understand what ENTps are really like, but, in any event, there is a serious problem here.

What's interesting is that the MBTI INTP descriptions generally fit me quite well, and I usually score as INTP on many MBTI tests. (Occasionally, I score as INFP, but that is usually only on tests that basically reduce thinking to how firm you are, not whether you value your thoughts more than your feelings.) INTPs are types that like problem solving and theorizing - this is exactly what I like doing. Also, there is no mention that this is applied to how they live their life. With Socionics, there is no type like this; INTjs are logical, but they like to apply logic to everything - i.e., they like rules, ENTps are good at problem solving, but they are more interested in what's new and novel more than the purely intellectual, and INTps are theoretical, but they are more into using models to predict things than to simply generate ideas for their own sake (plus, they seem to have a bitter streak that doesn't fit me). Therefore, I feel like I have no truly valid Socionics type. And yes, it's frustrating.

Jason

[jason_m]

I do this.

Are you being sarcastic? If you aren't, then that's more evidence for me to believe that I have no truly valid Socionics type. I'm not arguing that INTjs do this. I'm arguing that I should identify with this - i.e. it's evidence that I'm not an INTj.

Jason

[Not A Communist Shill]

I don't like rules as such - I just expect that if I follow them, everyone else should as well. So I suppose I see the rules as necessary for their sake. I like making rough estimates for things, and I'm able to pick holes in arguments, but I'm never able to do anything useful. I think I'm good at summarising something without leaving anything out though.

It's unlikely I'm an ENTp, but I'm unable to decide one way or another between INTj and INFj myself.

I have a systematic thought process, but then I also have a pool of fantasy which can complete absorb me, and I wonder about people and the nature of things. When combined together, I can't really say which I prefer.

[Creepy-Cyclops]

I don't think your INTj imo, could be INTp

[jason_m]

It's interesting that you identified with Description 15 of this test Expat posted. (I don't think that you're an ENFj.) What did you think of Descriptions 3, 7, 11 and 16?

Let's go over them, shall we?

3:

1. The world is full of riddles, which conceal unusual possibilities. To solve those riddles is the embodiment of the possibilities that help the creation of fundamentally new logical concepts.

This fits me well.

2. When work concerns the principles which I believe in, I can manifest stability, perseverance and obstinacy at work. But these principles never involve material goods.

This doesn't fit me well, in the sense that I don't like working. However, I used to enjoy computer science. At that time, this would have applied to me.

3. For me moral criteria are very important in the contact with the people, many consider it excessively overstated. But, unfortunately, I cannot always feel the nuances of the attitudes of people toward each other and to me.

The first part is true. I'm not sure if the second part is. I'm sensitive to how people perceive me, but I'm not sure what "subtle nuances" exist in people's attitudes. I'm just not sure how to interpret that.

7 - does not fit me at all.

11

1. At the foundation of all of that happens is the defined conformity with principles, which must be discovered, for then it follows that it is possible to investigate more deeply the essence of the phenomena and processes.

I disagree with this more than I agree with it. I believe that there are principles out there, but that doesn't mean that most of them can be discovered. Theories are overturned all the time. I also don't like to "deeply" investigate phenomena. My thinking process is more a matter of free-association based on whatever happens to come into my head, as opposed to a deep investigation.

2. To me, it is not easy comprehend the motives of behavior of people, and their relation to me; therefore I try to behave sufficiently with restraint in order not to get in awkward situations.

This is quite true; I don't know how to comprehend other people's motives. There are times when I think people are being cruel, when it turns out to be quite the opposite. I don't really behave with restraint, though. I try to figure out some way of determining what the person's motivations really are.

3. Any pressure based on authority always ennerves me. It is possible to logically prove to me the need for one or other activity or another. But if you can’t prove it logically, then, I should not have to do it.

I don't like pressure based on authority, but it doesn't matter to me whether someone proves to me the logical need for an activity. I simply dislike doing activities that bore me, and I will do anything to get out of them. However, if it isn't anything that's really demanding, then, as long as the person is polite, I don't mind doing it.

16

1. The condition of normal life of is the harmony of human relations, the observance of the norms of ethics when dealing with people, therefore it is necessary to be occupied by moral improvement, to bring up and to develop spirituality, to seek in others their true values.

This does not fit me. Don't get me wrong, morals are important. However, this is not what I consider to be my main purpose in life.

2. I do not always succeed in logically and correctly thinking over, and organizing my labor, putting all into a system; therefore I spend unjustifiably much energy, where others succeed in making that considerably easier.

This does not fit me. I have never noticed any problem with how logically and efficiently I do my work. In fact, I have been able to find shortcuts in my work that allow me to achieve my goals without having to put in too much effort.

3. I consider violence against the individual the heaviest sin. No one has right to decide the fate of another man without his consent.

This is true in some sense for me, and false in another. I consider violence against the innocent to be the heaviest sin. If it's especially cruel, it can irk me to no end. However, I have nothing against violence against the perpetrators of such crimes. In fact, I consider it to be the appropriate response.

(You're right in that Description 16 makes no referral to the intellectual abilities of INFjs. On the other hand, the descriptions are attempting to highlight information processing differences as captured by Model A, as opposed to more 'superficial' factors like whether or not someone does well at school.)

The problem is that INFjs are also intuitives. This means that they might enjoy developing ideas. I never see any mention of this in the descriptions.

Jason

[Phaedrus]

Jason, how can you believe that you are a J-type in Socionics if you test as INTP or INFP? What is your reason for dismissing empirical data suggesting that you are an irrational type?

[jason_m]

Jason, how can you believe that you are a J-type in Socionics if you test as INTP or INFP? What is your reason for dismissing empirical data suggesting that you are an irrational type?

I just don't fit the Socionics description of introverted intuition. However, I do fit the Jungian description of it. Otherwise, an irrational type would be my first choice. Of the two, I think INFp would be a better fit than INTp. However, ENTp describes me quite well, even though I don't score as an extravert on MBTI-type tests.

Jason

[Phaedrus]

I just don't fit the Socionics description of introverted intuition.

So what? The socionic descriptions of are not very good, and you cannot determine which function is your leading one by reading functions descriptions anyway. You should not try to type yourself that way.

However, I do fit the Jungian description of it.

Which Jungian description exactly?

Otherwise, an irrational type would be my first choice.

Why? Are you clearly more P than J according to every description of the four dichotomies you have read, or are you "indetermined" (closer to 50/50 or "can't decide")?

Of the two, I think INFp would be a better fit than INTp.

Why? I can see that as a possibility, especially if you are an irrational type, and it would explain some anomalies that have come up so far, but what are the arguments for INFp, and what are the arguments against INTp?

However, ENTp describes me quite well, even though I don't score as an extravert on MBTI-type tests.

Many ENTps score as introverts because they don't understand the difference between Introversion and Intuition and confuse them.

[jason_m]

Which Jungian description exactly?

The one in "Psychological Types." I don't have a strong understanding of it, but, from what I think I understand, I seem to fit it. For example, I could see myself as a "wise simpleton", and I am preoccupied with what seem to be ideas that come from my subconscious. These ideas are usually visual metaphors that illustrate some kind of concept.

Why? Are you clearly more P than J according to every description of the four dichotomies you have read, or are you "indetermined" (closer to 50/50 or "can't decide")?

In the MBTI, I am more J than P. With Socionics, it is closer, but I seem to be slightly more irrational than rational.

Why? I can see that as a possibility, especially if you are an irrational type, and it would explain some anomalies that have come up so far, but what are the arguments for INFp, and what are the arguments against INTp?

For INFp: I could see myself as a dominant intuitive. Also, since neither thinking nor feeling are strong, I could see myself having a secondary ethics function. (However, most of the descriptions do not fit very well.)

Against INTp: I do not identify with any of the INTp descriptions, and I do not identify with extroverted thinking - in any system.

Many ENTps score as introverts because they don't understand the difference between Introversion and Intuition and confuse them.

I identify with some ENTp descriptions, especially the one at Socionics.com. I've also shown two different ENTp descriptions to my brother, and he thinks that both fit me. However, I do not identify with some aspects of the descriptions. For example, even though I try to hide my feelings, I do not view myself as tactless. I try to be polite with people, unless they do something that gets on my nerves.

Jason

[Phaedrus]

The one in "Psychological Types." I don't have a strong understanding of it, but, from what I think I understand, I seem to fit it. For example, I could see myself as a "wise simpleton", and I am preoccupied with what seem to be ideas that come from my subconscious. These ideas are usually visual metaphors that illustrate some kind of concept.

This could mean just about anything. You could be an INTj, INFj, INFp, or perhaps even INTp based on that.

In the MBTI, I am more J than P. With Socionics, it is closer, but I seem to be slightly more irrational than rational.

That means that you have no reason to believe that you are an irrational type. And you have no strong reason to believe that you are a rational type either. Your fourth dichotomy is undetermined. But keep in mind that you are necessarily the same in both models. You cannot be a J type in one model and a P type in the other.

For INFp: I could see myself as a dominant intuitive. Also, since neither thinking nor feeling are strong, I could see myself having a secondary ethics function. (However, most of the descriptions do not fit very well.)

Which descriptions don't fit, and what is wrong with them?

Against INTp: I do not identify with any of the INTp descriptions, and I do not identify with extroverted thinking - in any system.

That probably means that you are an ethical type. It is a strong argument against both INTp and INTj.

I identify with some ENTp descriptions, especially the one at Socionics.com. I've also shown two different ENTp descriptions to my brother, and he thinks that both fit me. However, I do not identify with some aspects of the descriptions. For example, even though I try to hide my feelings, I do not view myself as tactless. I try to be polite with people, unless they do something that gets on my nerves.

It is not likely (but perhaps not impossible) that an ENTp would express it like that. Based on this recent information you are most likely either INFp or INFj.

[jason_m]

That means that you have no reason to believe that you are an irrational type. And you have no strong reason to believe that you are a rational type either. Your fourth dichotomy is undetermined. But keep in mind that you are necessarily the same in both models. You cannot be a J type in one model and a P type in the other.

Argn. A typo. What I meant to say is that I'm more P than J, which would probably give me strong reason to believe that I'm an irrational type.

Which descriptions don't fit, and what is wrong with them?

The one on Socionics.com kind of fits. However, the Wkisocion description
does not. Here are the points from the two main functions of the description that do not fit:

- "IEIs perceive, process, and produce information concerning trends and patterns over time most intensively. They constantly and inadvertently make judgments, assessments, and assumptions about relationships based on what they see as recurring trends from past behavior."

- "IEIs apply their understanding of trends of behavior over time to observing, analyzing, and influencing people's moods. They make contact with other people by attempting to influence their emotions positively, which is their way of creating something in themself worthy of being included in interaction."

- "IEIs' speech and voice usually have a certain dramatic affect and depth of feeling, which influence the emotions in the atmosphere; these feelings can be used to generate elation and boisterous laughter. If IEIs prefer, they can also generate and communicate their feelings of sadness and loss."

- "The IEI will often say something that sounds very deep and heartfelt, only to immediately realize the ridiculousness of what they are saying, and then make light of it."

It is not likely (but perhaps not impossible) that an ENTp would express it like that. Based on this recent information you are most likely either INFp or INFj.

The ENTp descriptions seem to fit better than the INFp ones, however. In my opinion, that makes an argument for either ENTp or INFp. To me, this makes sense, as I definitely see myself as a dominant intuitive type.

Jason

[Phaedrus]

Argn. A typo. What I meant to say is that I'm more P than J, which would probably give me strong reason to believe that I'm an irrational type.

Are you clearly an early bird or clearly a night owl?

The ENTp descriptions seem to fit better than the INFp ones, however. In my opinion, that makes an argument for either ENTp or INFp. To me, this makes sense, as I definitely see myself as a dominant intuitive type.

It doesn't make sense to be in doubt between ENTp and INFp. You can be in doubt about one dichotomy but not two. You must be able to determine if you are an extravert and logical or an introvert and ethical. And you should read the socionic descriptions of the Clubs and decide whether you are a Researcher (NT) or a Humanitarian (NF). It is the same grouping in Keirsey's temperament theory between Rationals (NTs) and Idealists (NFs).

[jason_m]

Are you clearly an early bird or clearly a night owl?

I am clearly a night owl. A short while ago, I was staying up until 6 AM every night.

It doesn't make sense to be in doubt between ENTp and INFp. You can be in doubt about one dichotomy but not two. You must be able to determine if you are an extravert and logical or an introvert and ethical. And you should read the socionic descriptions of the Clubs and decide whether you are a Researcher (NT) or a Humanitarian (NF). It is the same grouping in Keirsey's temperament theory between Rationals (NTs) and Idealists (NFs).

I'm not sure about ET or IF, but I read up on the descriptions of the Clubs, and Researcher > Humanitarian, so ENTp it is.

Jason

[Phaedrus]

And what is your Enneagram type, Jason? In another thread you said that you thought it described you better than Socionics.

[jason_m]

And what is your Enneagram type, Jason? In another thread you said that you thought it described you better than Socionics.

Type 5.

Jason

[Hot Scalding Gayser]

LSE possible, or ILE or LII.

[Phaedrus]

Type 5.

If you really are completely sure that you are a 5, and you really are a 5 too, then you should be an INTp, based on all the information you have provided about yourself. That's the only type that fits all the aspects of your type, assuming that what you have said about yourself is correct. Here are some of the reason's why:

1. Both INTjs and INTps can identify and fit the descriptions of type 5 in the Enneagram, but INTjs are typically early birds and INTps are typically night owls. And the prototypical 5 is definitely an INTp, whereas INTjs in many respects fit type 1 better.

2. INTps are almost always sure that they are intuitive types, whereas INTjs often hesitate between N and S.

3. It is extremely typical -- almost a rule -- that INTps get a near 50/50 test result on the J/P dichotomy and have a hard time deciding which it is. Correctly typed INTjs have no trouble seeing that they are J types.

4. What you have said about yourself fits INFp rather well, but INFps are not 5s but 4s (or perhaps in some cases 9s). And INFps should definitely identify more strongly with being a Humanitarian (Idealist) than with being a Researcher (Rational). And the same argument applies to INFjs, who might get a 50/50 J/P result like the INTps but would also definitely identify with being a Humanitarian and an Idealist. And INFjs cannot be 5s. They are either 4s or 6s.

5. It is possible to imagine that you are an ENTp who is confused about the E/I dichotomy and misidentify your strong intuition with introversion. But ENTps are not 5s but 7s. They can identify with type 5, and they often score high on that type, but they always also score high on type 7, and they should definitely identify rather strongly with type 7. And INTp does not identify with type 7, so there's a "test" you can use to determine whether you could be an ENTp or not.

An INTp should identify most strongly with the types 5, 9, 4, 1, and perhaps 6. The opposites of an INTp are the types 2 and 3. The opposites of an ENTp are the types 1 and 6.

[Phaedrus]

Bullshit.

No, I'm sorry but it is the truth.

[Phaedrus]

Bullshit.

No. The only thing that is full of bullshit here is you.

[Phaedrus]

Have you been able to provide those references to where it is stated in the type descriptions that being an early bird is prerequisite of being an INTj yet?

There are no such references, you idiot. How can you stand being so stupid?

[Not A Communist Shill]

Carla, it was obvious to a person of average intelligence that Phaedrus had no references...why must you make Phaedrus call you an idiot when you show he has no empirical basis for his claim? Surely all us intelligent folk already knew this?

[Not A Communist Shill]

I'm just evil, I guess. I must prove that I'm evil so that Ezra will think that I'm INTj worthy.

Idiots can't be evil...and according to Phaedrus, INTjs are stupid. Ergo, how can INTjs be evil?