Results 1 to 25 of 25

Thread: A different perspective on Challenge #3

  1. #1

    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Posts
    1,969
    Mentioned
    2 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default A different perspective on Challenge #3

    Here's another portrait of Person #3 (i.e., self portrait). But this time, the purpose is no longer to be strictly objective. Instead, the purpose is to enable a differential analysis. In this portrait, I'm going to describe those aspects of myself that seem possibly Ne. The idea is that if it still comes out sounding Ni, then I must be Ni, whereas if I describe only those things that are more Ni and it comes off as Ni, then I'll always wonder if I was really Ne.

    Person #3, second portrait:
    When he decides to do something, he can get so fixated on the idea that "it must be possible" that he'll do things that other people consider totally unrealistic and absurd; but these may lead to workable and convenient solutions.

    Here are a few simplistic examples..nothing special, but perhaps symbols of this way of thinking. Years ago, when he didn't want to be perceived once more as doing less than his share of practical tasks, he showed up early before he was supposed to help move a heavy object. He found a way of using objects as ramps and moved the thing where it needed to go before everybody else came to to move it. Another time, he insisted on purchasing a heavy cabinet that was on sale, and though at the time he didn't have the means to pay for moving it around, he imagined that there must be some way with a helium balloon. (Eventually, he convinced other people to help move it.)

    He has sometimes put his view that "there must be a way to do it" to good use in computer programming jobs. If a client wants a certain bit of functionality, and everyone says that it would be too difficult, he enjoys coming up with a way that it wouldn't be too hard after all. He's bored by run-of-the-mill problems, to the point that he becomes inefficient. But he perks up when a problem calls for more creativity or a more unusual solution.

    He comes up with many story ideas and ideas for artistic projects, though he brings only very few to fruition. He enjoys keeping a file of names to use for characters of stories that he might someday write, and of inventions that he hopes someday to do something with. Many of the ideas he comes up with are of the "there ought to be a such-and-such" variety.

    Somehow, he entertains the notion that he will accomplish certain things in the future, even though it doesn't look likely in the present. One person once said that the difference between them was that he considered what might happen, whereas she considered what was likely to happen.

    When working on a problem, he prefers to have the flexibility to reconsider the problem's definition. He's good at asking questions that challenge whether a project has been framed correctly to begin with.

    When working on an artistic project, he often thinks in terms of problem solving. Maneuvering into a situation where there is a "problem" and finding just the right solution creates the illusion of inevitablity in a work of art. He likes it when some unusual technique becomes the inevitable, perfect solution.

    In order to find that perfect solution, he often considers many alternatives. Once, he was working out the ending to something, and considered so many ways of how the ending could go that he had to write out all the combination and found that there were 360 combinations of ways things could go. He then empirically tested them and felt much better that the ending had something "right" about it.

    Sometimes, he finds it easier to go back and forth between assignments than to try to finish one up to its completion. He likes to scan for different avenues, different approaches. While work assignments may cause him to need to converge, sometimes getting in an "expansive" mode where he considers lots of possibilities helps him get things going.

    He gets some of his best ideas by getting away from it all and taking a walk, and then sometimes he gets this idea that overwhelms him and seems to solve what he was trying to solve.

    At times, he seems to have an answer without a solution. Sometimes the problem is to find the problem that the answer is an answer to.

    He spends a lot of time thinking about things like Socionics and making posts like this one, rather than thinking about what he *should* be doing, or where he should be going, or completing his posts and doing something useful like...

  2. #2

    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Posts
    1,294
    Mentioned
    3 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Edited for gayness.
    ENTp

  3. #3

    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    Sweden
    Posts
    4,833
    Mentioned
    6 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    These parts are then ones I can relate especially well to:

    He comes up with many story ideas and ideas for artistic projects, though he brings only very few to fruition. He enjoys keeping a file of names to use for characters of stories that he might someday write, and of inventions that he hopes someday to do something with.
    Somehow, he entertains the notion that he will accomplish certain things in the future, even though it doesn't look likely in the present.
    When working on a problem, he prefers to have the flexibility to reconsider the problem's definition. He's good at asking questions that challenge whether a project has been framed correctly to begin with.
    In order to find that perfect solution, he often considers many alternatives.
    ... and felt much better that the ending had something "right" about it.
    Sometimes, he finds it easier to go back and forth between assignments than to try to finish one up to its completion. He likes to scan for different avenues, different approaches. While work assignments may cause him to need to converge, sometimes getting in an "expansive" mode where he considers lots of possibilities helps him get things going.
    At times, he seems to have an answer without a solution. Sometimes the problem is to find the problem that the answer is an answer to.
    He spends a lot of time thinking about things like Socionics and making posts like this one, rather than thinking about what he *should* be doing, or where he should be going, or completing his posts and doing something useful like...

  4. #4

    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Posts
    1,969
    Mentioned
    2 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Transigent: I find the best way to do it is keep it simple and keep it social. Then your "type mask that you wear but can't take off even if you wanted too" is clear as day
    That's a good way of putting it. I see type sometimes as a door out into the world. Sometimes I can go out through different doors in special situations, but I usually go out through the same door.

    Phaedrus: These parts are then ones I can relate especially well to:
    You might as well have just copied the whole thing. Don't worry, I'm not going to doubt my INTp nature any longer. I mean, one can question the model, but if the way most people understand here it is correct, I couldn't be anything else.

  5. #5

    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    Sweden
    Posts
    4,833
    Mentioned
    6 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    My tells me that you will give up your last barrier of resistance within a week or two, Jonathan, and finally accept that you are an INTp.
    Don't worry, I'm not going to doubt my INTp nature any longer. I mean, one can question the model, but if the way most people understand here it is correct, I couldn't be anything else.
    Eight days ... Right?

  6. #6

    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Posts
    1,969
    Mentioned
    2 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Eight days ... Right?
    Yep, I wanted to give it to you. Except for one thing....Do you ever find that you're with a group of people and everyone's so quiet that you're the one drawing everyone out? ...the one who's the only person willing to speak first? Like, everyone else is in their shell, and you're the one person who's just out there in the open, talking to people?

    When I'm with introverts, all of the sudden I feel like I'm the most extraverted person around, and at that moment I feel as if I'm an ENTp, not an ENTj.
    Sorry, sounds like I'm going back on my word here.

    But maybe that's an INTp thing too, or just maybe morphs into when I'm around introverts....I don't know, maybe T people seem extraverted around introverts who are F....or I just go both ways.

    Well, maybe you're like that too....Are you the kind of person who isn't afraid to speak up, who strikes up conversations without hesitation?

    Of course, I know that sociability isn't the same as extraversion in Socionics....It's just that's the one thing that makes me feel extraverted...that I'm always out there; I don't have as much of a shell or barrier as everyone else....but if I'm around loud people, then I go into my shell or just leave.

  7. #7

    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Posts
    1,969
    Mentioned
    2 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Yeah, sorry, I thought I had it down. I thought I had it "in the bag." I just feel so extraverted today.

    That Stwrqyzqxqzqxqyzqzqyxqzqsky really doesn't help the interpretation of me as INTp.

    It is possible to only envy so that it never anywhere hurries and never anywhere it is late.
    Nope, not me at all. I'm always late and I often hurry just not to be too late.

    In its life never it occurs nothing unforeseen
    Would be nice!

    No matter how is sad, but Balzac with the characteristic of it pessimism frequently fulfills the function of that most fairytale stone, which he foretells: "you will go to the right - you will lose horse, you will go to the left - head you will accumulate..." And like it remains no other possibilities, except as to turn back.
    I'm a perpetual optimist.

    Balzac loves philosophically to look at proceeding; therefore "comforts" by sayings of the type: "everything passes", "we all will be there", "tomorrow yet not the end of the light", "this it will pass"...
    Okay, I do do that.

    Balzac's time is filled with the matters or by reflections about how it is better to make them.
    I don't spend most of my time thinking about how to make the most of my time, if that's what Sxqxqxqxqxqxqxsky is saying.

    It is very assiduous, with the pleasure it is occupied by labor-consuming tedious work, it thoroughly studies details. , before returning work, it attentively checks, trying not to commit errors. It is very important for Balzac so that the error analysis in his work would be timely and, most importantly, design.
    I don't really like tedious work.

    **
    As to Swxwxwxwssswswexexesky's ENTp profile:

    Reflecting, Don Quixote dreams, dreaming - it reflects.
    I dream and reflect a lot.

    Don Quixote has a habit to generously give away his ideas. And the more generous he them gives away, the more them he generates.
    I tend to think that way, I think.

    New ideas in Don Quixote appear suddenly, at the most unexpected moment, in the process of any activity: during the food, during the conversation, during hearing of music, the survey of film - appear as the result of activity its subconsciousness. Generate ideas Don Quixote can even in the sleep.
    That's totally me.

    Okay, I know I'm disappointing you. Actually, it's probably the fault of the descriptions. Anybody who is sufficiently N probably identifies with the ENTp profile more than any other, whether that person is ENTp or not. They're just describing someone having ideas, or valuing ideas, and not really describing ENTp as a separate type...almost as if they've put everything about having ideas into one type. Anyhow, I know this is crazy to back out of INTp-land now. I'm just in an ENTp mood...sorry.

  8. #8

    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    Sweden
    Posts
    4,833
    Mentioned
    6 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Do you ever find that you're with a group of people and everyone's so quiet that you're the one drawing everyone out? ...the one who's the only person willing to speak first? Like, everyone else is in their shell, and you're the one person who's just out there in the open, talking to people?
    Yeah, that has happened many times.

    When I'm with introverts, all of the sudden I feel like I'm the most extraverted person around, and at that moment I feel as if I'm an ENTp, not an ENTj.
    Yes, with introverts I often feel that I am the most extraverted person around, but I have never felt that I am either ENTp or ... ENTj(?). I have known, since I first started to read some psychology when I was around 10-12 years old, that I am an introvert. I am definitely not an ENTp. They are clearly different from me, but some other types who just read descriptions of INTps/INTPs and ENTps/ENTPs may have some trouble distinguish which type I am if they only focus on the kind of situations you are thinking of in this context.

    Well, maybe you're like that too....Are you the kind of person who isn't afraid to speak up, who strikes up conversations without hesitation?
    I am nowadays. As the years have passed by, I have become much less shy and more confident in who I am and what I think. I don't hesitate to speak up for myself or others. But when I was a child I was very shy, and I'm still not that good at small talk.

    I'm a perpetual optimist.
    I have always had trouble deciding if I am an optimist or a pessimist. I am probably neither in any clear way.

    Balzac loves philosophically to look at proceeding; therefore "comforts" by sayings of the type: "everything passes", "we all will be there", "tomorrow yet not the end of the light", "this it will pass"...
    Okay, I do do that.
    Definitely me too.

    I don't really like tedious work.
    Me neither.

    I dream and reflect a lot.
    Me too.

    Don Quixote has a habit to generously give away his ideas. And the more generous he them gives away, the more them he generates.
    I tend to think that way, I think.
    Me too.

    But I am still an INTp. I have never ever questioned that I am an introverted type, but maybe it is more difficult for you, if you don't know any clear case examples of ENTps in real life. From my perspective the difference between me and an ENTp is obvious.

    Have you read everything about the differences between introversion and extraversion? Read Jung and some other articles about it on the Internet or elsewhere and I think it will probably start to make more sense to you. If you have already done that, read it again.

  9. #9

    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Posts
    1,969
    Mentioned
    2 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Have you read everything about the differences between introversion and extraversion? Read Jung and some other articles about it on the Internet or elsewhere and I think it will probably start to make more sense to you. If you have already done that, read it again.
    What do you recommend on internet?...because the interesting thing is that Socionists like to point out that their definition of introversion/extraversion is unique...that it has more to do with taking initiative vs. conserving (both of which I do) than with more traditional ways of seeing this dichotomy.

    When I read Jung's definitions long ago, it seemed to me that the difference was that extraverts live in a shared language, whereas introverts live in what they think is a private language, even though I think Wittgenstein said that there is no private language, although I never read the whole argument.

    Jung's description of extraverts gave me the impression that extraverts don't perceive a clear delineation between their own perceptions and judgments and their surroundings...or, to be more precise, that extraverts perceive their perceptions and judgments to be one and the same as the shared experience of the community, whereas introverts perceive that they have unique thoughts and perceptions that aren't shared by others. (That's not what Jung said exactly, but it's what I took away from what he wrote, after much reflection and experimentation.) I'll have to find that book again.

    In any case, based on that definition of E vs. I, and many others, I must be an introvert. And I'm glad to know that I'm not alone being an introvert who often feels like the most extraverted person in the room.

    Anyhow, I've never seen Socionists talk about introversion vs. extraversion in the way I've understood it. In fact, if anything, Socionists seem to talk as if it's extraverts who have a clearly sense of the difference between subject and object. In any case, I haven't been clear to what extent Socionics I vs. E fits Jung's...My impression is that it's a little bit different.

    One thing I think is clear....as nice as it is that Swerwoeifjwoeisky writes descriptions that customize the whole model A for each type, her descriptions of INTp and ENTp seem to be pretty misleading.

  10. #10

    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Posts
    1,969
    Mentioned
    2 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Of course then again, there are certain ways in which I perceive that I operate in a shared reality...as regards concepts....

    Anyway, I know a number of clear ENTps who are so E that they can blend in with ESTps, and I'm definitely not like that....

  11. #11

    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Posts
    1,294
    Mentioned
    3 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Edited for gayness.
    ENTp

  12. #12

    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Posts
    1,969
    Mentioned
    2 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    You guys are both INFp.
    That would let me be both and , but I thought Expat and others had some good arguments for me not being INFp in oldforumlinkviewtopic.php?t=3838.

    I think I'd be able to read people's feelings better and not tick people off as much if I were INFp; also, I think I'd be more conscious of my own feelings, not just when intentionally thinking of feelings when performing music, but most of the time.

    ...but I'll listen to what you have to say.

    Anyhow, what's your case?

  13. #13

    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Posts
    1,969
    Mentioned
    2 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Phaedrus, I'm curious: Inspite of INTp, does the Sqwqwqwqwskaya description of ENTp overall fit you to a tee?

    One other thought is that we might both be ENTp in Socionics only taking into account Socionics' unusual definitions for E/I. If you think of persons #1 and #2 I described, they are, or at least #1 is introverted by many reasonable definitions....but unless one believes in and extends suptype theory, a type with Te who's J must be extravert; there's no other choice in Socionics.

    Accordingly, very different kinds of people may be lumped into ENTj, some of whom any reasonable person would consider to be introvert.

    Similarly, it may be that in Socionics, it is correct to lump people that by any reasonable definition would be introverted into ENTp strictly from the point of view of being P and having one's N be more extraverted than one's T is. Hence, there would be both introverted ENTps and extraverted ENTps, and they would be very different, but the same type as far as Socionics is concerned.

  14. #14

    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    Sweden
    Posts
    4,833
    Mentioned
    6 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    What do you recommend on internet?...because the interesting thing is that Socionists like to point out that their definition of introversion/extraversion is unique...that it has more to do with taking initiative vs. conserving (both of which I do) than with more traditional ways of seeing this dichotomy.
    I can't recall exactly where I have read anything that will clarify the issue. Maybe the Socionic definitions of introversion and extraversion are better than Jung's and other "more traditional ways of seeing" it, but you can use Jung and others as a tool to determine your own type here. It doesn't matter if they are 100 % right or not.

    When I read Jung's definitions long ago, it seemed to me that the difference was that extraverts live in a shared language, whereas introverts live in what they think is a private language, even though I think Wittgenstein said that there is no private language, although I never read the whole argument.
    Introversion and extraversion has to do with a lot of things, for example how you get energized, how you feel about external stimuli, how you learn things, and so on. Wittgenstein's private language argument is not relevant here, I think, and it is mistaken anyway, because Wittgenstein, like so many others in the "subjectivist" camp, confused concepts with words.

    I'll have to find that book again.
    You can always find something about it here: http://psychclassics.yorku.ca/Jung/types.htm

    Here are some other links that I found on the Internet:
    http://cfge.wm.edu/documents/Introversion.html
    http://www.giftedservices.com.au/han...%20Article.doc
    http://www.trytel.com/~jfalt/Ene-med/e-i.html

    There are many more of course, and I don't know if you will find anything of interest in the above links, but if you read them critically they might help you to better understand why you are an introvert. Use them as tools to get a better overall picture of the differences. If they are wrong about some details, that is irrelevant. The main issue here is to determine if you are an introverted type or an extraverted type, and if you are an INTP in the MBTI model for example, you don't become an ENTp in Socionics, just because the definitions of "introversion" and "extraversion" are different. You are still the same type in both models.

    Of course then again, there are certain ways in which I perceive that I operate in a shared reality...as regards concepts....
    Yes, of course. Concepts (= universals) are parts of a shared (objective) reality.

    You guys are both INFp.
    That would let me be both and , but I thought Expat and others had some good arguments for me not being INFp in oldforumlinkviewtopic.php?t=3838.

    I think I'd be able to read people's feelings better and not tick people off as much if I were INFp; also, I think I'd be more conscious of my own feelings, not just when intentionally thinking of feelings when performing music, but most of the time.
    The simplest explanation of this is that it might be difficult for an external observer to distinguish us from INFps. For me it is quite easy to see that I am an INTp, and if you study the problem from many different perspectives, like MBTI, Keirsey's temperaments, etc., and compare yourself with real life INFps, it becomes even more obvious. The distinction between T types and F types is one of the easiest to determine in my own case, and it is also one of the easiest to determine from V. I. and real life conversations, at least for me. But our subtype of INTp is probably closer to INFp than some other subtypes.

    Phaedrus, I'm curious: Inspite of INTp, does the Sqwqwqwqwskaya description of ENTp overall fit you to a tee?
    No, but there are many similarities.

    One other thought is that we might both be ENTp in Socionics only taking into account Socionics' unusual definitions for E/I.
    No. That is an illustration of what might happen if you focus only on the model and its definitions of the functions, and from your understanding of those functions try to determine someone's type. How can one be so sure that one has understood those functions to such an extent that one is also able to determine for sure whether some specific aspect of a person's behaviour really is a manifestation of those functions? It is easier to determine someone's type, at least if you are like me, if you focus on the types instead of the functions. And I think that my "method" leads to results that are at least as reliable if you are interested in determining the type.

    Accordingly, very different kinds of people may be lumped into ENTj, some of whom any reasonable person would consider to be introvert.

    Similarly, it may be that in Socionics, it is correct to lump people that by any reasonable definition would be introverted into ENTp strictly from the point of view of being P and having one's N be more extraverted than one's T is. Hence, there would be both introverted ENTps and extraverted ENTps, and they would be very different, but the same type as far as Socionics is concerned.
    In that case they are "lumped into" a certain type for the wrong reasons. You are either an introverted type or an extraverted type. Nothing in between. Whether you consider a person to be an introvert or not is irrelevant. And you can't make an introvert an extravert by changing your definitions of introversion and extraversion. That would be the same kind of mistake that many "subjectivists" commit when they confuse language with reality, that is words with concepts. Introversion and extraversion is a biological phenomenon, not a linguistic.

  15. #15

    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Posts
    1,969
    Mentioned
    2 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    That's a great source, thank you! That's exactly the article by Jung that I read many years ago.

    I hope my continued "what if, what about, etc." stuff isn't exasperating you.

    I don't doubt that I'm an introvert, by the way. I wasn't doubting whether I'm an introvert or an I+N+T+P by any reasonable definition. That's an important modifier of my comments...."by any reasonable definition."

    I was doubting whether the Socionics approach fits the reasonable, readily-understood, generally accepted view of what introversion and extraversion are. I also doubt whether I, or any of a number of other people, can ever, ever fit neatly enough into the Socionics model unless it's significantly revised.

    Introversion and extraversion is a biological phenomenon, not a linguistic.
    I actually believe that if we were to get the definitions clear enough, we would find that the entire model and its concepts are actually mathematical truths that apply to phenomena, and only reflected biologically, sort of the way shells use the golden mean, which exists as a mathematical concept outside the shells themselves.

    You are either an introverted type or an extraverted type. Nothing in between.
    I actually think that the mind is much more complex than we give it credit, and that the idea that one is one or another is really an illusion, sort of like the illusion that mass and energy are completely different. The types are like different doors we walk through, and if you were to go to a place where nobody knew you, you could just act like a different type of person, and nobody would know that the people back home would be astonished that that was you if they only knew.

    That may be an extreme example, but for example, I think that each person uses functions in highly unique ways that go way beyond Model A, and that people have little subsets of their consciousness that may exhibit different types...that the types reflect on us in different aspects, in terms of our processes, our attitudes, etc. To other people, it may not be apparent that all this is going on, of course, only because they know you from a distance.

  16. #16

    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Posts
    1,294
    Mentioned
    3 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Edited for gayness.
    ENTp

  17. #17
    I'm back, assholes! Herzy's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2005
    TIM
    SLE
    Posts
    5,098
    Mentioned
    44 Post(s)
    Tagged
    7 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Transigent
    This'll probably give you guys a big ol' boner:

    Guelnko breaks down the functions.
    I just popped a big one.
    , Se-sub
    8w8-3w8-7w8 sx/sx

  18. #18

    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    Sweden
    Posts
    4,833
    Mentioned
    6 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    I hope my continued "what if, what about, etc." stuff isn't exasperating you.
    No, not at all.

    I was doubting whether the Socionics approach fits the reasonable, readily-understood, generally accepted view of what introversion and extraversion are. I also doubt whether I, or any of a number of other people, can ever, ever fit neatly enough into the Socionics model unless it's significantly revised.
    Well, that's still open for debate for me.

    I actually believe that if we were to get the definitions clear enough, we would find that the entire model and its concepts are actually mathematical truths that apply to phenomena, and only reflected biologically, sort of the way shells use the golden mean, which exists as a mathematical concept outside the shells themselves.
    I'm not saying that you can't be right about this, but at the moment I don't know what to think about it or how to judge it. Every definition of introversion, extraversion and other concepts put forward so far could be misleading. My general point is that there is something out there that exists independently of our definitions. The referents of the words "introversion", "extraversion", and so on, might be different from what we conceive them to be, but the referents still exist, in one form or another, as objective features of reality.

  19. #19

    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Posts
    1,969
    Mentioned
    2 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    My general point is that there is something out there that exists independently of our definitions. The referents of the words "introversion", "extraversion", and so on, might be different from what we conceive them to be, but the referents still exist, in one form or another, as objective features of reality.
    Yeah, agreed. However, the typical assumption is that there's one thing that each theory is looking at. There may be 5 or 6 (or more) different "I vs. E" dichotomies that are all valid, all equally part of the reality. So it may all be rooted in a very definite reality, and there may be different theories that overlap and only contain a part of the truth.

    (Transigent, feel free to do your "edit" thing to that particular post. )

    This is interesting stuff; I like the idea of exercises where people can experience all the functions consciously for themselves. However, by no means would I agree with Gulenko's recommendations. Just look at what he has for and , or for the other functions, for that matter. I think you'll agree that for the most part, his conception of how to stimulate the functions shows a certain superficiality of understanding. Of course, that was back in 1995. Maybe the level of understanding has gone up sine then.

    But imagine, assuming we're INTp, that for someone to become like us, they should just eat a special diet and then reflect on time, etc. and meditate, and they will become like us. Or if we're really , well then to become like us, a person should eat eggs. Actually, I must say that someone will become closer to my mindset by following the recommendations (studying interesting stuff), but that exactly is my point. Socionists have a superficial understanding that lumps intellectual, idea generators into ENTp.

    The subtleties you address about how one might think of inventions, technology, intellectual things in various ways, introverted, extraverted, realist, subjectivist, etc., are at a level that the people who are writing the articles haven't even thought about that clearly.

    To really fit INTp as they see it, well then you have to go about reflecting about time and meditating, etc.

    If this 1995 article is any indication, there's a lot of work for Socionists to do.

    The question still in my mind is that despite the difference between myself and clear extraverts, and despite my severe reservations about Socionics theory in general, is it possible that, at least during certain states of mind, any of the intertype relations dynamics associated with ENTp show up...

    Because ultimately, the theory can at best point to some useful predictions, so as much skepticism as one has for the theory, one may always think about those predictions and see if there's some truth.

    Maybe my focus should be less on *my* type and more on a better understanding of intertype relations as experience by each type, and also the fundamentals of *why* those intertype relations take place, and experiencing that *why* in action.

  20. #20

    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Posts
    1,294
    Mentioned
    3 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Edited for gayness.
    ENTp

  21. #21

    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Posts
    1,969
    Mentioned
    2 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Now, I pretty much know I am not ENTp from that, I think you should be able to figure it out too.

    -----

    Easy way to tell also is intertype relations. Is there a type that seems like they are running in place? Either they suck up to you and you don't consider them of much consequence, or they seem tense and apologetic. You can either bite your tounge until it bleeds when you are around them, or you can piss them off or make them nervous.

    Take a look at ISTj's and ESTj's, which one do you respect and view as more or less complete, and which one do you think needs to do something to get rid of the problems you see in them?
    Some good ideas for testing...I don't find it that easy. First of all, there are definitely situations where I left or made myself scarce because I felt I wasn't being accepted or paid attention to, and other situations where I left or just didn't go out and socialize at all because I had better things to do. I suppose it's usually because I have better things to do.

    As to ISTjs and ESTjs, well their strengths and weaknesses shouldn't depend on what type the observer is. Personally, I've seen good and bad in both.

    ISTjs good - Professional, effective, high standards, efficient
    ESTjs good - Seeks advice, seeks input from others, helps put things into practice, does what it takes, amenable to logical argument
    ISTjs bad - Can be narrow-minded, insists on doing everything sequentially, values only efficiency
    ESTjs bad - Can be bossy without real knowledge; can stand in the way of real progress; micromanaging, lacking big picture

  22. #22

    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Posts
    1,294
    Mentioned
    3 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Edited for gayness.
    ENTp

  23. #23

    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Posts
    1,969
    Mentioned
    2 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Surely you must have a PERSONAL opinion?

    That's what I meant. Surely there is one that fills you up with buttloads of "WTF's".

    For instance, using the worst examples possible of ISTj and ESTj. Usually everyone hates them. ISTj's for thier harsh and marginalizing opinions, and ESTj's for thier "I know everything, and I know you, and I know what you need to do, you need to..." attitude.

    Now, ISTj's piss off everyone except for me. I think they are great. What could be better then a person that loves to just make descisions...ANY kind of descision...without a second thought? Who else has an extreme opinion on ANY subject out there? It is like a simple worldview in a tiny tiny box!

    ESTj's piss everyone off as well as me. Well, I am a pretty hard person to piss off, and even if people hate you I will still want you to be involved in some way, but ESTj's are the ones that make me regret it. They are always trying to portray themselves as "better" then the average person...but with words...and they are too combustive to be better then anyone...which is pretty obvious to anyone with a brain.

    Of course, these are extreme examples based off of the worst possible samples (not all of them are like this of course) but you get the idea.
    That's a pretty good description of STjs at their worst. I guess if I had to choose between the "bad" kind of each, I might choose ISTj because once you figure out what they want, they're pretty consistent; in my experience, they care mainly about efficiency, so my ideas are less likely to clash with them, as long as I make it appear that I'm mostly concerned with efficiency too. Nevertheless, it would be a real hard choice. Plus, I know some "good" ESTjs and think they're really great.

  24. #24

    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Posts
    1,294
    Mentioned
    3 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Edited for gayness.
    ENTp

  25. #25

    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Posts
    1,969
    Mentioned
    2 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Most ISTj's and ESTj's are fine. I am just saying which extreme one would most annoy you. I love most of them I know, but the bad ISTj's I can tolerate wayyyy more then the bad ESTj's.

    Get the drift?
    Okay, we kind of agree on that one, but it's real subtle. How about on the other side of the supervision equation? Personally, I think ENFjs and INFjs are both really nice most of the time. If I'm INTp, ENFjs are supposed to be my "supervisor." But I don't think I have any problem with them. What's your experience?

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •