Sergei Ganin

[Jonathan]

It's important to read SG's description of INTps as being about INTps from his perspective (that is, INTp from INTj eyes, if he's in fact INTj). SG is frustrated that INTps don't accept what he accepts as solid foundations. I don't think this contradicts the Reinin objectivist dichotomy thing that Phaedrus likes to talk about.

The issue is that INTps don't accept a given, fixed system, because the INTp views external reality (what's actually true) as being beyond it.

[Exodus]

They often lose the point of a debate when they shift focus to other unrelated subjects in the process.

lol, so true. When I talk to my brother it's like "what the hell are you trying to say?!"

[Logos]

LIIs are supposed to be interested in discussing new ideas and open to different ideas. However, I suppose an LII might really like his own ideas and therefore react strongly against other people's contrary ideas....That would be Robespierre, I guess.

Every one of the real life INTjs I know are much more like Robespierre in that respect than "interested in discussing new ideas and open to different ideas". I think it is likely that some of the person people have in mind when they describe INTjs as open-minded in that way are not really INTjs.

Or these close-minded LII are actually LSI, and LII are indeed "interested in discussing new ideas and open to different ideas." But even if someone's system or ideas seem to contradict the LII's system, I do believe that LII are still willing to entertain these ideas, but treat them as looking at a separate system apart from their own with potential parts to salvage or incorporate into their own internal system.

One thing this touches on, I think, is a possible misconception about LSIs and Se in general. People generally view what they see as forceful behavior as suggesting Se...and suggesting LSI in particular if it seems dictatorial. However, in my experience, types with Se want to be in charge in a certain way, but they don't care so much whose idea wins. They're actually somewhat oblivious to other people's ideas (and to who's right or wrong), and focused more on accomplishing their own purpose.

I agree with that. The last two sentences are especially important, I think. LIIs are more dictatorial than LSIs, at least the ones I know in real life, and at least in the sense that the LIIs want to have it "their way or no way".

More dictatorial? That is a new one. Perhaps LII are more awkwardly dictatorial, thereby being more obvious in their weak attempts to use it, but to be called more dictatorial than LSI? And besides, the LII is an asker with a Se-PoLR and not a declarer, so LII's behaving like dictators are essentially treated as FDG stated above or like how you treat spoiled children with tempers.

[Expat]

I don't think this contradicts the Reinin objectivist dichotomy thing that Phaedrus likes to talk about.

That dichotomy means nothing more nor less than Te-Fi instead of Ti-Fe preference, and to call it "objectivist" and refer it to philosophers etc only throws sands in some people's eyes (also against the wind). To that extent, it is true that what Ganin refers to is someone with Ti preference looking at someone with Te preference.

Whether that applies to Phaedrus's own "quest for truth" and whether he really doesn't accept a given system is another story.

The issue is that INTps don't accept a given, fixed system, because the INTp views external reality (what's actually true) as being beyond it.

Can you please elaborate on that, as to what you precisely mean?

[Exodus]

I don't think this contradicts the Reinin objectivist dichotomy thing that Phaedrus likes to talk about.

That dichotomy means nothing more nor less than Te-Fi instead of Ti-Fe preference, and to call it "objectivist" and refer it to philosophers etc only throws sands in some people's eyes (also against the wind).

Yes, the subjectivist/objectivist dichotomy is probably the most poorly named, especially in that Subjectivists are more likely to make a big fuss about "being objective" than Objectivists are.

[Expat]

One thing this touches on, I think, is a possible misconception about LSIs and Se in general. People generally view what they see as forceful behavior as suggesting Se...and suggesting LSI in particular if it seems dictatorial. However, in my experience, types with Se want to be in charge in a certain way, but they don't care so much whose idea wins. They're actually somewhat oblivious to other people's ideas (and to who's right or wrong), and focused more on accomplishing their own purpose.

I agree with that. The last two sentences are especially important, I think. LIIs are more dictatorial than LSIs, at least the ones I know in real life, and at least in the sense that the LIIs want to have it "their way or no way".

More dictatorial? That is a new one. Perhaps LII are more awkwardly dictatorial, thereby being more obvious in their weak attempts to use it, but to be called more dictatorial than LSI? And besides, the LII is an asker with a Se-PoLR and not a declarer, so LII's behaving like dictators are essentially treated as FDG stated above or like how you treat spoiled children with tempers.

Yeah, I agree with Logos and FDG, although LIIs can be dictatorial in a way, but not more than a LSI. "Have it their way or no way" applies at least as well to LSIs if not more.

Having said that, that's related to why I thought Maxime Robespierre had been LSI rather than LII, but having read a biography that describes his behavior and interactions with people, and how they reacted to him, I have to say that LII makes more sense. But I wonder, then, if Maxime was really "dictatorial". He was in the sense that he was the only one who was always right in his view, but his power stemmed ultimately from the fact that most people in the Convention agreed with him; he had no personal bodyguard, secret police, or the like. The moment they decided to get rid of him, they did, very easily and quickly.

A present-day example is the president of South Africa, Thabo Mbeki, who's a "dictatorial" LII in the realm of ideas, because he's always right, and he could be a true dictator in the correct political circumstances, but not more than a LSI.

Syria gives us two examples:

A LSI dictator, Hafez al-Assad:




And his son, a LII dictator, Bashar:

[Expat]

Yes, the subjectivist/objectivist dichotomy is probably the most poorly named, especially in that Subjectivists are more likely to make a big fuss about "being objective" than Objectivists are.

One thing that Reinin wasn't very good at was in giving good and clear names to his bloody dichotomies --

And you're definitely on to something with your last point imo.

[Phaedrus]

I would say that LIIs are open to discussing new ideas until they contradict the LIIs system.

I agree with putting it that way. And I would like to add that their clear tendency to dismiss what I regard as empirical facts often looks (seen from my perspective) like an unwillingness to discuss "new ideas". They are often not willing to critically scrutinize their own assumptions.

[Phaedrus]

He has now also written an INTp Uncovered profile, which is quite accurate. The first three main passages in that profile are right to the point.

Some parts are really good; at least I know he's talking about people I think of as INTp when I read it, which is the main thing.

Yes, it is very clear that he really has INTps in mind in that profile.

Personally, I'm not really bothered when people express enthusiasm. Are you? I actually like it, as long as they don't waste my time with endless unecessary stuff or question whether I'm being enthusiastic enough.

We don't mind it until we are required to join in the enthusiasm. That's the main thing. We are not enthusiastic ourselves.

The parts about re-interpreting the rules, debating everything, and attacking what SG sees as "solid foundations" are very, very true. They explain his behavior towards people he regards as INTp on his site.

Yes.

But I don't think the parts about INTps being against ambitious theories is true. INTps will see them as a challenge, and will attack them, but is drawn to them because INTps like theories. The attack is how INTps show interest.

You are perfectly right about that.

I don't think INTps are overly concerned with whether other people follow insignificant rules either. However, an INTp may value an Fi-related position about how people should act that an INTj might think is insigificant.

Also, INTps aren't really against people talking about things "in general" or talking about trends, etc. On the contrary, they can intuitively see where someone is coming from, if the source of the idea is intuitive. However, when critiquing something, they rely more on Te than Ni, so they make very fine distinctions.

We agree on that too. If you read the comments to that thread you'll see what I mean.

[Phaedrus]

He has now also written an INTp Uncovered profile, which is quite accurate. The first three main passages in that profile are right to the point.

I just read it. Not a really nice story. Although it had SOME truth in it.

It is not meant to be nice. But you recognize yourself in it, don't you?

[Phaedrus]

The highlighted bits would seem to contradict what you usually say about INTps:

INTps would not accept anything concrete and solid on principal. The more unshakable it seems the more challenging for INTp it appears. Irrefutable truth to them means death.

Everything (especially other people's opinions) can be criticized by the INTp, and the more unshakable it seems (especially to others) the more of a challange it is to the INTp. INTps love such challanges. It has been a challenge to me for years (a challenge that I strongly believe that I have conquered) to criticize and refute the nowadays popular doctrine that there are no objectively valid truths or foundations (= all sorts of postmodernist influenced forms of relativism). SG is right in the sense that if every truth becomes irrefutable, INTps would then be unable to practise what they love to do: to search for truth(s).

exact meaning is INTp's enema.

That phrase is not to my liking. INTps love exactness and precision in thinking, but I have said before that INTps see a clear difference between language and the (objective) world and that they can see a meaning without being able to define it exactly in words. It is more important what a word refers to in the objective world than how to define the word. My guess is that ENTjs would be strongly inclined to agree with me on that since our preference for concrete examples (= referents) of whatever someone is talking about is an expression of . In that way we are able to understand something without knowing its exact definition. This is an important aspect of being an Objectivist; referents are "out there" for everyone to see -- so why do we need we confuse things with relativistic interpretations of the general phenomenon that there are a lot of different uses (= meanings) of a certain word?

2 + 2 = 4 will always remain true, although it is not inconceivable to assume that at some point an INTp was contemplating a different result.

That's kind of ironic. In a debate on SG's forum a long time ago I was the one using 2 + 2 = 4 as an example of a truth that could not be doubted, whereas SG was (or at least seemd to be) questioning the objectivity and irrefutability of that statement.

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

Well, the process is very enjoyable in itself, and since we are less interested than the INTjs in actually doing the hard work of implementing the results of our investigations in practical ways, we might turn to another subject when the first one has lead to a dead end. And it is probably true that we are never truly committed in our views. We change them more easily than INTjs, and therefore we can also more easily accept "defeat" when one or two of our views turned out to be false. I am not very committed to any specific "truths" (opinions), only to truth itself.

The issue is that INTps don't accept a given, fixed system, because the INTp views external reality (what's actually true) as being beyond it.

Can you please elaborate on that, as to what you precisely mean?

I think Jonathan means the same thing I have been talking about as the difference between language and reality. INTps see truth as determined by the objective reality itself. The world has a structure in itself, and that structure might or might not correspond with what a given system is about. Any system, any theory, any belief can criticized if it doesn't seem to fit external reality. And if the system doesn't correspond with reality, it is of course a false (incorrect) system and should be abandoned, or at least modified.

SG's attitude has always been that if you don't accept the system and its given assumptions, you should leave it ("if it doesn't work for you"). INTps (at least not Jonathan and I) are not as "committed" to Socionics as SG seems to be himself, and maybe that's what he has in mind when he talks about INTps not being committed in their views.

[Jarno]

That's kind of ironic. In a debate on SG's forum a long time ago I was the one using 2 + 2 = 4 as an example of a truth that could not be doubted, whereas SG was (or at least seemd to be) questioning the objectivity and irrefutability of that statement.

I once read a nice story about bertrand russell, how he was proving this axiom to be false.

Two must be two of something and the proposition 2+2=4 is useless unless it can be applied.

he had proof that it could never be applied as you have never 2 exactly the same things.

guess he was just trying to be anoying.

[Jonathan]

The issue is that INTps don't accept a given, fixed system, because the INTp views external reality (what's actually true) as being beyond it.

Can you please elaborate on that, as to what you precisely mean?

I guess another way of putting it is that sometimes INTjs might identify reality with the system that they have accepted to be true, and INTps are more likely to question the underlying assumptions (i.e., to be skeptical of the specific Ti structure).

In the case of SG, what he didn't like, and I think what he was complaining about in his "INTp uncovered" description, is that INTps tend to critique the foundations, finding various contradictions, and problems, doubting the fundamental premises, and so forth. They're doing it because that's their way of seeking truth, though an INTj could just as easily feel that by clinging to what seems to him to be a clear and workable system, he's also seeking truth and that the INTp is ruining it in some way.

In reality, probably, most people sometimes play the role of clinging to a particular understanding of things, and sometimes play the role of questioning or doubting a particular understanding. It's just that INTps are more likely than most to believe that any particular system or understanding is probably flawed in some way and in need of revision, and that "reality" is a separate thing that requires a constant open-mindedness and willingness to revise.

[Jonathan]

By the way, I should add that some people who consider themselves INTj may identify with what I just said about INTp.

But if, for a moment, we view things from the point of view presented by SG (e.g., that SG is INTj, that the people he's describing are INTps, etc.), then I think what I said above is quite accurate.

[Phaedrus]

Yes. As usual you express my thoughts more clearly than I manage to do myself. I absolutely agree with everything you say in your last post about INTps. It is very accurate.

[Expat]

In the case of SG, what he didn't like, and I think what he was complaining about in his "INTp uncovered" description, is that INTps tend to critique the foundations, finding various contradictions, and problems, doubting the fundamental premises, and so forth. They're doing it because that's their way of seeking truth, though an INTj could just as easily feel that by clinging to what seems to him to be a clear and workable system, he's also seeking truth and that the INTp is ruining it in some way.

In reality, probably, most people sometimes play the role of clinging to a particular understanding of things, and sometimes play the role of questioning or doubting a particular understanding. It's just that INTps are more likely than most to believe that any particular system or understanding is probably flawed in some way and in need of revision, and that "reality" is a separate thing that requires a constant open-mindedness and willingness to revise.

I have no problem with this, but if that is what is meant by "seeking truth", I question the value of even putting it into that grandiose-sounding phrase, "to seek truth". So INTjs as dominants will tend to perceive reality in terms of structured systems, whether on "small scale" - as in any daily example - or in "large scale" - perhaps as a religion, sense of cosmic order, whatever. And INTps as demonstratives and creatives will be inclined to question any such structures whenever the information they get shows a flaw in them.

That is very simple. So why call it "seeking truth"? Is any type "seeking falsehood"?

[Hitta]

I think Ganin has a mixed up sense of INTjs and INTps, and I also think that most people on this forum that think they are INTps are INTjs and vice versa.

[Creepy-bg]

I think Ganin has a mixed up sense of INTjs and INTps, and I also think that most people on this forum that think they are INTps are INTjs and vice versa.

a few... maybe
most... probably not

[Expat]

Those who think it is difficult to differentiate quasi-identicals - no matter which pair - don't have a clue about socionics.

[Hitta]

INTjs are more relativist. INTps are more absolutionist. Ne is about looking at all the possibilities of a given situation. An INTj would be the one that would question whether 2 + 2=4 or not, not INTps. INTjs love debates. They would probably just annoy an INTp. The vast majority of the descriptions in the INTp Uncovered profiles, except for the part about accepting laws, is more INTj. I actually think that SG might be INTp. That or SG has no idea what an INTp is. Fortunately for SG, his INTj uncovered profile was ok.

[Hitta]

Those who think it is difficult to differentiate quasi-identicals - no matter which pair - don't have a clue about socionics.

that is definitely a true statement

[Rocky]

SG has a cool website URL address.

And that's where the compliments end.

[Hitta]

SG has a cool website URL address.

And that's where the compliments end.

agreed, hes a complete moron

[Phaedrus]

INTjs are more relativist. INTps are more absolutionist.

Yes, in a sense.

An INTj would be the one that would question whether 2 + 2=4 or not, not INTps.

Yes, at least sometimes. As I think I mention in that thread, SG questioned the objective truth of that statement when I used it as an example of an universally valid and true statement at his forum some year(s) ago.

INTjs love debates.

And so do INTps.

I actually think that SG might be INTp.

Please read my comments in that thread. I can assure you that SG is not an INTp.

That or SG has no idea what an INTp is.

He knows how to spot an INTp, but his INTp profiles are not among the best, and he has some slight misconceptions about the true nature of an INTp's thinking process and attitudes.

The ILI profile at http://wikisocion.org/en/index.php?t...gical_Introtim gives us a much more correct picture of what an INTp is really like. If hope you agree with me on that. (In case you don't it is you who have those two types confused ... )

[Rocky]

No one, ever, under any circumstances, can get away with saying "I am right because if you don't agree with me then you're wrong".

Until you understand that, no one will take you seriously. Just saying.

[Hitta]

INTjs are more relativist. INTps are more absolutionist.

Yes, in a sense.

An INTj would be the one that would question whether 2 + 2=4 or not, not INTps.

Yes, at least sometimes. As I think I mention in that thread, SG questioned the objective truth of that statement when I used it as an example of an universally valid and true statement at his forum some year(s) ago.

INTjs love debates.

And so do INTps.

I actually think that SG might be INTp.

Please read my comments in that thread. I can assure you that SG is not an INTp.

That or SG has no idea what an INTp is.

He knows how to spot an INTp, but his INTp profiles are not among the best, and he has some slight misconceptions about the true nature of an INTp's thinking process and attitudes.

The ILI profile at http://wikisocion.org/en/index.php?t...gical_Introtim gives us a much more correct picture of what an INTp is really like. If hope you agree with me on that. (In case you don't it is you who have those two types confused ... )

For starters, theres a bunch of things about the INTj/INTp profiles on Wikisocion that need improvement. Although INTps do lack initiative, an INTj lacks the willpower to start much of anything. INTjs are very unmotivated people, and I think Wikisocion got that deal sort of mixed up. Also, Ne is a relativistic function. Ni is an absolutist function. Ne is about seeing the different viewpoints of everyone. INTjs, especially Ne subtypes, tend to think that their is no such thing as right or wrong, they see everything as being up for subjection. INTps think that there is a right answer, due to Nis seeing the ultimate possibility perception, and Tes factual information. I know as an INTj, I do not believe in facts. I believe that everything is an opinion. I can not say that other INTjs will agree with this, but this is an example of how Ne works.

[Phaedrus]

No one, ever, under any circumstances, can get away with saying "I am right because if you don't agree with me then you're wrong".

Until you understand that, no one will take you seriously. Just saying.

I know that people tend to think that way, but I don't care much about it, since such considerations are irrelevant. If people are not interested in the truth, they should do something else than participate in these discussions. My only concern is telling the truth -- you can listen to it, or you can ignore it. The choice is yours.

[Creepy-bg]

No one, ever, under any circumstances, can get away with saying "I am right because if you don't agree with me then you're wrong".

Until you understand that, no one will take you seriously. Just saying.

I know that people tend to think that way, but I don't care much about it, since such considerations are irrelevant. If people are not interested in the truth, they should do something else than participate in these discussions. My only concern is telling the truth -- you can listen to it, or you can ignore it. The choice is yours.

I think if you were truly interrested in the truth (beyond what you think is truth) you'd be willing to consider other viewpoints more.

[Hitta]

If I had to guess, I'd say that Phaedrus is INTj, not INTp.

[Rocky]

No one, ever, under any circumstances, can get away with saying "I am right because if you don't agree with me then you're wrong".

Until you understand that, no one will take you seriously. Just saying.

I know that people tend to think that way, but I don't care much about it, since such considerations are irrelevant. If people are not interested in the truth, they should do something else than participate in these discussions. My only concern is telling the truth -- you can listen to it, or you can ignore it. The choice is yours.

Truth is relative, dumbass.

[Phaedrus]

Ne is a relativistic function. Ni is an absolutist function. Ne is about seeing the different viewpoints of everyone. INTjs, especially Ne subtypes, tend to think that their is no such thing as right or wrong, they see everything as being up for subjection. INTps think that there is a right answer, due to Nis seeing the ultimate possibility perception, and Tes factual information. I know as an INTj, I do not believe in facts. I believe that everything is an opinion. I can not say that other INTjs will agree with this, but this is an example of how Ne works.

We agree on the overall picture you describe here, but you are one of few people on this forum who realizes and accepts that this is a general difference between INTjs and INTps. Essentially, it is the difference between Subjectivists and Objectivists.

And the LII description at Wikisocion is not as good as the ILI description.

[Hitta]

If I had to guess, I'd say that Phaedrus is INTj, not INTp.

or maybe not

[Phaedrus]

Truth is relative, dumbass.

Certainly not, Fox trotter.

[Hitta]

Truth is relative, dumbass.

Certainly not, Fox trotter.

Of course it is, ... Rocky you sure your ISTp?

[Rocky]

Truth is relative, dumbass.

Certainly not, Fox trotter.

Something can only be true if you agree on rules that make something true. But rules are abstract and many people have have different sets of rules for everything they believe in. So what's "true" is relative. Don't argue with me.

[Phaedrus]

If I had to guess, I'd say that Phaedrus is INTj, not INTp.

Many people have guessed that, and only a few of them have realized their mistake.

or maybe not

Now you are on the right track again ...

[Hitta]

heh Rocky may not be ISTp imo though

[Hitta]

Truth is relative, dumbass.

Certainly not, Fox trotter.

Something can only be true if you agree on rules that make something true. But rules are abstract and many people have have different sets of rules for everything they believe in. So what's "true" is relative. Don't argue with me.

Also to note, its impossible to define a set of rules because there are infinite categories

[Hitta]

There are at least two problems with LII-a:

1. LIIs in general do make decisions rather easily. They know what they want. ILIs, in contrast, have much more trouble coming to decisions.

2. LIIs are less passive and less childlike than ILIs.

If we compare these two types further we should realize that it is the ILIs who are the knowledge seekers, whereas the LIIs are the system thinkers. LIIs seek meaning (maybe that has something to do with "understanding"), whereas ILIs seek truth.

This is a post you made before, um, you could have some misconceptions about INTps and INTjs.

[Phaedrus]

Something can only be true if you agree on rules that make something true.

Wrong. Typical relativist-subjectivist-assumption-mistake, and an example of the general tendency among Subjectivist Ti-philosophers to put more emphasis on Meaning than on Truth (facts).

But rules are abstract and many people have have different sets of rules for everything they believe in.

True, but trivial, and therefore irrelevant.

So what's "true" is relative.

Incorrect conclusion (which if true would contradict the premises and therefore be logically inconsistent.)

Don't argue with me.

That's what the Relativists want -- to sabotage any rational debate by refusing to think logically. And then they expect to be respected for such an idiotic attitude. No, sir. That won't work, Fox Muddlerer.