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
Scientist: INTJ
Thinker: INTP
What do these signs mean—
Just one example: in MBTI, Se (extraverted sensing) is associated with life pleasures, excitement etc. By contrast, the socionic function
For this reason, we consider comparison between MBTI types and socionic types by functions to be rather useless than useful.
-Victor Gulenko, Dmitri Lytov
The Case for INTP (The Thinker) as INTp(The Observer)
I'll start you guys off with 3 examples. Make sure you check them in all four descriptions to make sure I'm not slipping anything past you. If I feel generous later with my apparently scarce knowledge of the truth, I'll provide more convincing examples from elsewhere on the Personality Page or Wikisocion (or some other socionics) website. The Personality Page portion of these 3 only refer to the paragraphs on the OP. I will find other personality page INTX pages for information in the future (with the link provided of course).
2 additional Descriptions I Referred to:
Logical Intuitive Introtim - Wikisocion
Intuitive Logical Introtim - Wikisocion
Ordering:
Personality Page INTP
Wikisocion INTp
Comments
They typically are so strongly driven to turn problems into logical explanations, that they live much of their lives within their own heads
They can spend a great deal of time simply thinking and may appear to live 'in their heads'.
An exact match; Neither the Scientist Description, nor the Wikisocion LII description mention anything about INTj/J's living in their own head.
(((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.)))
(((ILIs analyze situations and make decisions in a very logical and scientific manner. Their reliance on objectivity and accumulation of factual knowledge
leaves very little room for decisions based on emotional considerations.)))
(((Another exact match; Nothing Like this is included in the INTj or INTJ profiles. Looks like both systems see the same types of people. )))
When given an environment which supports his creative genius and possible eccentricity, the <thinker> can accomplish truly remarkable things.
With their often unusual perceptions, they may come across as unreachable, esoteric eccentrics.
In both the INTP and ILI descriptions the type is described as eccentric. This again, shows up nowhere in the INTJ or LII descriptions.
Dance, Puppets. Dance!
ILI (FINAL ANSWER)
Removed at User Request
I am quite certain it is Option A. I've been studying this for a while now.
Convincing people of it unfortunately seems hopeless!
The problem with using type 'descriptions' is that you will get a ton of confirmation bias ala astrology. You really need to examine the functions to accurately type someone imo.
Removed at User Request
Aside from my arguments, yes, I do believe what I voted is correct. Taking the entire descriptions into account, I relate to the description of Scientist more than Thinker. Not only in the paragraphs you posted, but also the Career, Relationship, and Personal Growth pages seem to match me fairly better with INTJ than INTP. There are many similarities, so I can understand people getting confused (at first) but the more you read, the more the differences separate the two to a noticeable degree.
ILI (FINAL ANSWER)
Yes; but I did not 'use' them because there was nothing to examine. There is no person to examine. This is just a 3rd party's perspective on the type.
The Scientist (compared to The Thinker) at many points sounds like a generic NT to me, but if i had to pick i'd say it's moreso Gamma NT, especially ENTj due to the valuing of competence, need for clarity, leadership qualities, and holding others to high standards.
The Thinker sounds consistently more like an alpha NT due to the focus on idea generation and theoretical possibilities, and moreso like an ENTp... including the self-aggrandizement part
that quote is pretty crucial i think, contrasting the differing focuses onHowever, their primary interest is not understanding a concept, but rather applying that concept in a useful way. Unlike the <thinker>, they do not follow an idea as far as they possibly can, seeking only to understand it fully. <scientists> are driven to come to conclusions about ideas. Their need for closure and organization usually requires that they take some action.
so if i were to vote i'd choose "Scientist to INTp, Thinker to INTj", but i don't think the difference is actually that clear-cut... then again this exercise has been useful, forcing me to evaluate my own understanding of the four NT types, and to see that i could probably learn to better distinguish between the alpha/gamma NT mirror pairs...
Removed at User Request
I was just expanding discussion, as usual. I could've just said:
Scientist - LII
Thinker - ILI
But that would've been boring. Do you want this to be boring?
ILI (FINAL ANSWER)
Trying to establish clear-cut parallels and contrasts between MBTI and Socionics types is a fool's errand. MBTI types are far too broad and vague to connect to one given Socionics equivalent -- let alone its direct equivalent.
What do these signs mean—
Just one example: in MBTI, Se (extraverted sensing) is associated with life pleasures, excitement etc. By contrast, the socionic function
For this reason, we consider comparison between MBTI types and socionic types by functions to be rather useless than useful.
-Victor Gulenko, Dmitri Lytov
Yes. Being driven to come to conclusions when exploring ideas and wanting to implement them practically (and have the effect/usefulness visible) is Te. And that's one of the strongest arguments/reasons for my SLI self-typing.that quote is pretty crucial i think, contrasting the differing focuses on
I'd be curious to hear how you, as a Te PoLR feel in regards to this.
“Whether we fall by ambition, blood, or lust, like diamonds we are cut with our own dust.”
Removed at User Request
I used to argue against these (and many other) MBTI descriptions. I don't think either of them resembles ILI, except maybe in fragments, and that inconsistently, but neither does as a whole.
hmm, i guess fully understanding something *is* what's useful to me, even if it is not something i visibly implement. when something is understood i can come to "conclusions" and feel secure in my beliefs and understanding, otherwise i often feel unsure or wavering.
hope that makes sense.
It does, and I relate to what you said. For certain things I am forced to just understand them well and not have them implemented in practice. A great example of this would be college, where I have courses in which I am supposed to learn a lot of theory because I "may" or will "probably" need it in real life, and the only implementation I ever get to do/see is through homework assignments, group projects, problem analysis etc. which is fine and can be amusing, but it's still very isolated from the real world, or a real job, in a way you can't clearly see the practical potential of what you're studying, and the ways in which it can be implemented into a profession where you will use it to work on "real" tasks/problems and actually earn from that.
EDIT: I'd have no idea how this translates into Socionics, but I guess my need to know how to practically implement my knowledge and perhaps also my eagerness to gather information and "try things out" even before I fully understand something, could be indicative of Te.
Last edited by Park; 10-23-2010 at 11:25 PM.
“Whether we fall by ambition, blood, or lust, like diamonds we are cut with our own dust.”
I didn't read the thread to spoil the surprise but what is the thinker, cause that's my twin brother.
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.
If you wanted to deliberately argue in a certain direction, you could. However, going by OP and not paying attention to specific details while instead giving attention to the bigger picture of the descriptions, I can offer what I gathered and confidently assert;
Scientist; I believe the scientist has heavy Te themes with its talk of practical and useful application complimented by directly observed real world knowledge. It's very outwardly focused and logical, i.e. an extroverted application of logic through engineering, the business world, etc. I can't see an ILE being of this type; it has little explicit concern for novelty or impulsive idea generation.
Stereotypically characteristic of LIE and ILI.
Thinker; The thinker seems most like Ne with logical undertones. In a search for the word 'new' it came up once in the first description and five times in the second; in the first it simply says the individual is capable of understanding new things, but in the second it shows that there is a passion for generation of new methods, ideas and perspectives. It even says in the closing statement that they are the ones responsible for new thoughts in society on the whole. All around theoretical obsession, persuit of theory and solutions, etc.
Mostly ILE, also LII-Ne. I've often read that normal LII behavior doesn't actively seek out new things as the ILE does; rather he puts new ideas to use in service of his base function.
If a consensus is reached, perhaps this will aid me in my self typing. I do relate most to the thinker and less to the scientist, but my analysis above remains untouched by any personal bias of that sort.
Disagreed, it is the 'rationals' (Ti, Te, Fi, Fe leads) that want to do this.
Depends on the person I'd think.
Yea it's tough to generalize a mass amount of types I guess. Planning and organizing just scream 'rational' to me.
Yeah. Dichotomies seem like the most correlative units and leastly-so correspondent unit of Socionics, so whether someone fits those descriptions, like rationality, perfectly, doesn't insure they're actually that correlated type. And rationality is more about getting to things without checking your internal state. Rationals base their thoughts and actions more on external demand. IM elements, intertype relations, and even VI, when there's a high certainty of correspondence, are definitely more useful.
Of the people, for instance, who test as INTJ in MBTI, many don't completely fit that Scientist description, but once they're engrossed in the theory they'd like to think they fit aspects they've never considered, a kind of fill-in-the-blank personality. MBTI descriptions have a way of sort of changing people's self-concept to lesser or greater degrees, I've noticed.
And by the way, I was just joking about ILIs always want to plan, lead, and organize everything. Making fun of all the possible assumed correlations.
I don't feel I can vote, as to say that the two profiles "correspond" with two Socionics types would not be right. There are a significant elements in both profiles which I think go against the grain of either Socionics type, but I suppose the second option is more likely.
This thread should really be moved to "Other personality typologies" on the grounds that it is discussing how a significantly artificial construct (rather than an aspect of personality) corresponds with Socionics...I'll leave it for now though
All of these are pretty distinct examples of Ti or INTj traits in general.
-Unlike the <thinker>, they do not follow an idea as far as they possibly can, seeking only to understand it fully. <scientists> are driven to come to conclusions about ideas. Their need for closure and organization usually requires that they take some action.
-<scientist>s are natural leaders
-When they are in leadership roles, they are quite effective
-may have little interest in the other people's thoughts or feelings.
-The <scientist>'s interest in dealing with the world is to make decisions, express judgments,
-Consequently, they are quick to express judgments.
-convinced that they are right about things.
-In these cases, <scientist>s tend to blame misunderstandings on the limitations of the other party, rather than on their own difficulty in expressing themselves.
-This tendency may cause the <scientist> to dismiss others input too quickly, and to become generally arrogant and elitist.
-<scientist>s are ambitious, self-confident, deliberate, long-range thinkers.
-They dislike messiness and inefficiency, and anything that is muddled or unclear.
-most always highly competent people, and will not have a problem meeting their career or education goals.
There's probably a language barrier on the fault of myself. When I was using the phrase 'rationals' I was using the term that Jung uses and not using dichotomies.
Just some more of what I found quite obvious descriptions of Ni and INTp traits.
-<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.
-They are the "absent-minded professors",
-able to be objectively critical in their analysis.
-seem "dreamy" and distant to others,
-<thinker>s do not like to lead or control people.
-they may become generally negative and cynical.
many of the things you hand-selected could apply to ILIs as well as LIIs, and some are not sufficiently explained.
Actually some of the statements directly butt-heads with each other. Read Jungs' descriptions of Ti and Ni and then tell that to me with a straight face.
I don't see how Jung is particularly relevant here.
That is unfortunate then. It would help your understanding between Ni and Ti tremendously.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote