Removed at User Request
Scientist and Thinker: INTj or INTp?
Removed at User Request
Last edited by Pied Piper; 10-26-2010 at 10:54 PM.
lol I was about to do what you explicitly asked us not to do
The trouble with these sorts of descriptions is that they're made with those stereotype words in mind, like "possibilites" and "theory". I mean, those kinds of words appear in pretty much every type description, so I can't really see how they can be avoided. Another trouble is that both types are made out to be extremely E5, which doesn't allow for much variability within the types.
Even so, thinker sounds definitively INTj. "What things could be turned into" reminds of the idea of Ne being equatable to "permutation". The search for "absolute truth" seems like something I've seen in several Ti egos.
That whole paragraph about "people not understanding scientists" seems like it's trying to come across as Fe PoLR, but that could just as easily apply to a mentally unwell INTj. However, since the thinker one sounds much more INTj than not, that leaves INTp for the scientist.
Scientist: ENTj
Thinker: INTj/INTp
Scientist: Te-LIE
Thinker: Ti-LII (Alpha NT)
“Whether we fall by ambition, blood, or lust, like diamonds we are cut with our own dust.”
Originally Posted by Gilly
Scientist: LIE, ILE
Thinker: LII, ILI
Can I say which MBTI type is which, or will it ruin the surprise?
What do these signs mean—,
, etc.? Why cannot socionists use symbols Ne, Ni etc. as in MBTI? Just because they have somewhat different meaning. Socionics and MBTI, each in its own way, have slightly modified the original Jung's description of his 8 psychological types. For this reason,
Just one example: in MBTI, Se (extraverted sensing) is associated with life pleasures, excitement etc. By contrast, the socionic function(extraverted sensing) is first and foremost associated with control and expansion of personal space (which sometimes can manifest in excessive aagression, but often also manifests in a capability of managing lots of people and things).
For this reason, we consider comparison between MBTI types and socionic types by functions to be rather useless than useful.
-Victor Gulenko, Dmitri Lytov
Removed at User Request
Well, if I had to choose, I'd take 'Scientist to INTj, Thinker to INTp'. Of course, there are many things which are right, but most of it is totally mixed and other facts you can actually apply to both types. I wouldn't recommend to link one of these descriptions with a socionics type directly, it would only cause more confusion. Maybe we should throw all these facts together and decide on every single one where it belongs. I think MBTI and Socionics aren't compatible. Unfortunately, people always assume connections because of their similar origin and type notations. After I learned about Socionics and accepted it as the 'better' system of these two, I refuse to make a statement about my MBTI type because I know it won't be precise.
„Man can do what he wants but he cannot want what he wants.“
– Arthur Schopenhauer
I'm replying to this post first, without looking at the other replies, to avoid bias.
It seems pretty cut-and-dried to me -- the "Scientist" is clearly ILI, and the "Thinker" is clearly LII.
For example:
Scientist
- "However, their primary interest is not understanding a concept, but rather applying that concept in a useful way." -- this is clearly Te>Ti
- "It is not easy for the <scientist> to express their internal images, insights, and abstractions. The internal form of the <scientist>'s thoughts and concepts is highly individualized, and is not readily translatable into a form that others will understand." -- this is very characteristic of Ni types.
- "They are the supreme strategists - always scanning available ideas and concepts and weighing them against their current strategy, to plan for every conceivable contingency." -- this is actually a pretty good description of the dialectical-algorithmic cognitive style, as manifested in ILI.
Thinker
- "<thinker>s live in the world of theoretical possibilities. They see everything in terms of how it could be improved, or what it could be turned into." -- a decent description of Ego Ne.
- "They live primarily inside their own minds, having the ability to analyze difficult problems, identify patterns, and come up with logical explanations." -- a decent description of Ego Ti
- "They love new ideas, and become very excited over abstractions and theories. They love to discuss these concepts with others." -- Ego Ne again.
- "The <thinker> has no understanding or value for decisions made on the basis of personal subjectivity or feelings. They strive constantly to achieve logical conclusions to problems, and don't understand the importance or relevance of applying subjective emotional considerations to decisions." -- Ti > Fi
Personally speaking, the "Thinker" describes me pretty accurately, and I don't really relate to the "Scientist" at all.
[Edit: Having read the other posts in this thread, I do agree with what some people said, that the Scientist description could be more of a generic Gamma NT description. It doesn't describe a lot of IP-specific traits.
Out of curiosity, Pied Piper, I know you don't self-type as either one of these two, but which one do you feel is closer to describing you?]
Last edited by Krig the Viking; 10-24-2010 at 12:49 AM.
Quaero Veritas.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote