Do INTpJ and INTjP types exist?

[Transigent]

Edited for gayness.

[FDG]

- go because maybe you can laugh and have fun

- go because you can maybe do something productive or learn something

I relate to both, but more strongly to the one. What does this mean?

Nothing. Everyone likes to have fun FDG.

I guess I was preoccupied since I'm supposed not have fun due to

[Transigent]

Edited for gayness.

[Apollonian]

Given recent discussion and the points about all functions being present, I would still venture to say that socionics makes a point of indicating which are dominant or preferential functions. Right?

However, if this is the case, what about the influence of other factors within psychology but outside socionics? For instance, I have known friends and family members who have mood disorders (depression/anxiety) which systematically changes their behavior. Is a factor like this sufficient to "supress" a dominant function, leaving the auxiliary functions at level or even more prominant?

As most things in the natural world, is there a range of the level of dominance that different individuals have in a dominant function, rather than just a categorization?

Lastly, and given the previous question, is it possible to have a nearly even equilibrium between irrational and rational tendency, to the point where one "code switches" between the two behaviors dependent upon the situation? Or is this just a phantom of what Transigent calls "Adaptation"? (And is there a way to tell the difference?)

[FDG]

However, if this is the case, what about the influence of other factors within psychology but outside socionics? For instance, I have known friends and family members who have mood disorders (depression/anxiety) which systematically changes their behavior. Is a factor like this sufficient to "supress" a dominant function, leaving the auxiliary functions at level or even more prominant?

Actually, the change in behaviour is usually respondent to the main function. For example, a neurotic ENTj is the classical jump-to-the-throat-at-the-first-error, which is unbound , for example. A neurotic ESFp is the classical gold-digger wife, etc etc

[Apollonian]

I meant with regard to rational/irrational specifically, since those are the ones in question.

For instance, given a rational behavior like a need for closure and to plan out activities in advance, under depression is this likely to move toward a more apathetic, existential behavior? If this is the case, is this moving toward more irrational behavior or are the two uncorrelated?

I cannot see how a depressive episode could make a rational's "planning" behavior more prominant. I can see, perhaps, how neurosis would do this, though. Yet, I have seen depression emphasize and expand irrational behavior (unwillingness to plan; taking things as they come though not necessarily acting on opportunities).

Ultimately, I don't think my knowledge of psychology is precise enough to distinguish the more subtle points of this matter. Especially since I've never really studied pathology, though I have studied cognitive science a bit with regards to neurosis and depression.

[Jonathan]

Aleesha: Jonathan, what you don't realise is that ultimately I am on your side!

People don't always conform to the typical characteristics of J/P, and the theory supports this because they are less important than T/F/S/N.

Also, I feel that the said characteristics can be learned without too much struggle (unlike an Intuitive trying to learn "Sensation" which is much more difficult).

Thanks; sorry if I seemed overly combative. At least people see that it's possible people may "cross over" in terms of the characteristics. On the other hand, I didn't necessarily have coping behaviors (or the effects of neurosis and depression) in mind.

Although I don't have research figures here, it does seem to me from what I've read and observed that qualities similar to rat/irrat in Soconionics are stable qualities; that is to say that while a person can learn to keep things under order (say, for a job) or learn to be able improvise more (say, again, for a job), people will still feel more comfortable or more natural doing things one way or another.

But what I really had in mind has to do with the nature of the function responsible for this "rat/irrat" designation in the first place. I'll explain that next.

[Jonathan]

So, here's what I'm really thinking about. I'm going to focus only on LII as an example. So, LII has dominant . In theory, assuming no coping behavior or unusual stress, etc., the LII displays signs of being a rational type, based on having primary .

The next question is, why...That is, how might we observe the path by which is reflected in rational type behavior (beyond by definition of course...I mean the characteristics, as mentioned before).

One possible way is that logic, by its nature, is systemmatized, formalized, and therefore has a more discrete quality. When you think with logic (vs. with intuition), there is perhaps more of a black and white quality. So you recognize that "this must be either A or B and can't be both," and thinking from that logic quality may help spur rational behaviors.

But here's where it gets a little more complicated. A very primitive structural model of understanding that a person has about the world around him or her may be very black and white...no in betweens. As a person matures, that logical structure, while still very intricately developed, may become more nuanced. One recognizes that it's not
always this way or that way.

Furthermore, those logical principles one chooses to hold as the basis for one's structural understanding of the world may be ones that lend themeselves to greater flexibility.

So, even within the realm of , there may be a great variation between people who think more linearly, more in black and white as it were, and those who see more exceptions, more different possibilities.

Naturally, the more exceptions one sees in one's logical reasoning, the more one's behavior is going to appear like the irrational type. At least that's my deduction and observation. So it seems to me that a person who sees lots of exceptions and lots of nuance might be an INTjP, and would be different from an INTp....

....unless of course a more nuanced somehow becomes ...that is morphs into ...or unless such nuanced is really an indication that it's not at all but a producing (i.e., 2nd position) somehow.

But if indeed INTjs can be divided into those with very linear, "this is the way it is" kind of and those with very nuanced, lots-of-exceptions , then indeed you almost need two different descriptions for INTj...and that's what I'm getting at.

[MysticSonic]

A more perceptive INTj, that is, one whom perceives in greater numbers the possible manifestations of a particular something, could merely be explained by a greater reliance on Ne, which seems to be a more plausible explanation than an INTj morphing his thought process from a Ti-dominant one to an Ni-dominant one, seeing as how Ne itself is demarcated as dealing with possiblities.

[Transigent]

Edited for gayness.

[Jonathan]

A more perceptive INTj, that is, one whom perceives in greater numbers the possible manifestations of a particular something, could merely be explained by a greater reliance on Ne, which seems to be a more plausible explanation than an INTj morphing his thought process from a Ti-dominant one to an Ni-dominant one, seeing as how Ne itself is demarcated as dealing with possiblities.

Exactly...in which case then, you have what's called subtype theory, so that the more perceptive INTj is the intuitive subtype (or producing subtype) of INTj.

From there, it's not much of a stretch to come up with what I call "radical subtype theory," which is the idea that subtypes may be so far apart to be almost like a different type, with the accepting subtype (in INTj's case), being a rational type, and the producing subtype being more like an irrational type, or like a different kind of irrational type.

is the house of understanding.

I like to think so. But then I always wonder...Surely INTps and ENTjs understand stuff; do they do it all with their 7th and 8th functions? How about ENFps, like Rick, many of whom are very successful in academic careers and the like....Do they do their understanding all with their super ego block? I'm not saying that your statement is wrong; it's just always a paradox there.

INTj's will try to build one nice elaborate house, and they are more resistant in tearing the whole thing down to start again, and would rather modify it and the ideas they have in mind for it then tear it down.

The perceptive INTjs I'm thinking of build their house out of the most flexible materials they can find, so that they won't have to tear it down no matter what. In this sence, it goes beyond just relying more on ; it's a matter of what materials they use, and how they put those together. So, the ideal of the "flexible thinker" is to have a way of thinking that, while internally consistent, is so flexible, so universal, that the person comes off as being an irrational type.

Then again, if the means to be this "flexible thinker" are such that the thinking becomes more about methods, ways of thinking, process, etc., then it morphs into ; to the extent that one can have a systemmatic way of seeing things that's also heavy on methods or processes, you have a more complex thought process that's a little bit and a little bit .

[Transigent]

Edited for gayness.

[Jonathan]

I just wanna say though, that these are styles of thought, so who knows if they are exactly correlated with types.

Yeah, I read that. I just chose to comment on other aspects of what you were saying. Personally, I think that ultimately the Jungian types are about phenomena in general...about the mathematical order to which all concepts must conform. And so, accordingly, they probably apply to many things on many different levels.

That said, I think "styles of thought" is pretty close to the level that Socionics is supposed to be about. I mean, so much of what's written about Socionics talks about how people think, their strengths and weaknesses, etc. It's also about relationships, but ultimately about how people think. So, while I'm always open to disclaimers and recognize that it's good to qualify what we're saying, I don't see any reason to dismiss your analogy just because of your disclaimer.

I actually think your analogy is a really good one, as it points out one reason to think that INTjs would exhibit P (irrational type) behaviors...namely, that if one doesn't want to have to tear down the house, one will build it as flexibly as possible...which is exactly why MBTI categorizes Ti types as P types (in the MBTI definition of P).