Page 1 of 4 1234 LastLast
Results 1 to 40 of 127

Thread: Two versions of LII-INTj

  1. #1

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

    Default Two versions of LII-INTj

    One of the things that I've been pointing out is that the overal image of what LII looks like seems to be different depending on who you ask. I've decided to try to flesh out what these two different views would look like in the form of a description.

    Many people, based on their reading of Jung and intuition about what and are, seem to articulate a vision of LII that I'll call LII-a.

    People who are more in the "inner circle" of the Socionics community seem to describe something that I'd call LII-b.

    My intent is to try to make this divergence of views as crystal clear as possible. Of course, the question of which one is "correct" (i.e., which makes the intertype relationships work out properly, which one makes for appropriate patterns such as Reinin dichotomies, etc.) is open to debate.

    Hopefully, my wording of the descriptions is close enough to communicate what I see as these two opposing views of what LII must be like.

    If you feel that one of these really describes another type (i.e., ILI, ILE, LIE, etc.), I'd be very interested in your thoughts.

    LII-a:
    The LII's 1st function , allows him to think clearly about discrete concepts. He's good at seeing patterns and structures, and good at coming up with new theories. Unlike irrational types, he views the world with the precision and clarity of discrete logic. Because he works problems out to the nth degree, he's very aware of the limitations of his own knowledge, and may have trouble coming to decisions. His awareness that there's always more to know (because he works out systems in such detail) gives him a low-key personality, as he knows that he doesn't have all the answers.

    His second function, ,helps him to extend his understanding into areas that aren't formalized yet. Each time he grasps at a new concept through , he works at formalizing it with his structural logic.

    With a relative lack of , he does not make decisions easily, especially ones about external situations affecting him. With a focus on rather than on , he's not in tune with social heirarchies and external systems. His emphasis is more on understanding concepts, causing him to focus his attention on academic topics at the expense of other things. His obliviousness to the world around him may cause him to change course due to external factors that he doesn't really care about. As a result, he usually doesn't find himself in a position of leadership, although his vast technical abilities may lead him into such a position.

    Given his weak , he may seem somewhat passive. His dual-seeking can make him appear sensitive and caring. Focused on academic things, he lives a sheltered life, and sometimes his manner may seem almost childlike.

    LII-b:

    The LII's 1st function , allows him to make clear judgments and decisions, based on his sense of justice and his structural, systemmatic understanding of the world. Because he leads through his judging function, he may appear uncompromising, even stubborn. Although he's amenable to logical argument, it's generally very difficult to change his mind after he has made a decision. He places much trust in his extensive and very clear systemmatized understanding of reality. This creates the impression in other people that he appears to have all the answers. His judgmental tendencies may make him appear high-strung. One of his strengths, as a rational type, is that he's very good at making decisions and sticking with them.

    His second function, , helps him to implement his agenda. Since he has made very clear decisions on what he wants to do, his next step is figuring out how to realize his ideas, and allows him to see the best ways to apply and implement what he has already decided.

    Because of his rational nature, he's able to see what's important and what's not important. He's very able to understand systems and heirarchies. This helps him deal with organizations, social heirarchies, and external systems in general. As a result, he's very successful at influencing people and getting what he wants. Although he doesn't usually seek positions of leadership, his structured, systemmatic, decisive thinking often impresses others, leading him into positions of leadership when someone of obvious intelligence and uncompromising integrity is required.

    Although he prefers the conceptual to the practical worlds, he's very good at getting done what he has to, because he has a clear sense of priorities through his rational nature. Given his weak , he sometimes comes off as abrasive and bossy to others. He may be sarcastic and insensitive to other people's feelings.

  2. #2

    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    New York
    Posts
    6,074
    Mentioned
    2 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    LII-b sounds more than anything.

    LII-a is OK with me.
    MAYBE I'LL BREAK DOWN!!!


    Quote Originally Posted by vague
    Rocky's posts are as enjoyable as having wisdom teeth removed.

  3. #3

    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Location
    M-H λ
    Posts
    2,609
    Mentioned
    1 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Rocky
    LII-b sounds more than anything.
    I recommend this to you. Sorry I never responded to your pm but I think that will give you an idea of what is like in it's natural state. I do not think it really is capable of existing in such a form under current circumstances and I am not sure if that is a good or a bad thing.

  4. #4
    MysticSonic's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2004
    Location
    USA
    Posts
    2,993
    Mentioned
    4 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    I identify far more with LII-a.
    "To become is just like falling asleep. You never know exactly when it happens, the transition, the magic, and you think, if you could only recall that exact moment of crossing the line then you would understand everything; you would see it all"

    "Angels dancing on the head of a pin dissolve into nothingness at the bedside of a dying child."

  5. #5

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

    Default

    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.

  6. #6
    MysticSonic's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2004
    Location
    USA
    Posts
    2,993
    Mentioned
    4 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    INTjs do not lack Te---so the model states.

    And what makes you think that INTps do not come to decisions easily? It seems apparent to me that the matter is which decisions are made swiftly, not the general speed at which they are made.
    "To become is just like falling asleep. You never know exactly when it happens, the transition, the magic, and you think, if you could only recall that exact moment of crossing the line then you would understand everything; you would see it all"

    "Angels dancing on the head of a pin dissolve into nothingness at the bedside of a dying child."

  7. #7

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

    Default

    And what makes you think that INTps do not come to decisions easily? It seems apparent to me that the matter is which decisions are made swiftly, not the general speed at which they are made.
    Practical decisions, for example which course of action to take, are easier for LIIs.

  8. #8
    MysticSonic's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2004
    Location
    USA
    Posts
    2,993
    Mentioned
    4 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    That would seem to be an odd statement to make, when the function dealing with contingency matters, Ni, and the function dealing with the evaluation of a particular things traits, Te, more readily yield to the INTp's command than the INTj---so the model states.
    "To become is just like falling asleep. You never know exactly when it happens, the transition, the magic, and you think, if you could only recall that exact moment of crossing the line then you would understand everything; you would see it all"

    "Angels dancing on the head of a pin dissolve into nothingness at the bedside of a dying child."

  9. #9
    MysticSonic's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2004
    Location
    USA
    Posts
    2,993
    Mentioned
    4 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Though allow me to make it clear that by contingency I do not mean being prepared in advance for all-sorts of matters, but rather the "most-timely" and "most-practical" road to take to achieve what one desires. Of course, such traits only seem to arise from Ni when coupled with Te, usually.
    "To become is just like falling asleep. You never know exactly when it happens, the transition, the magic, and you think, if you could only recall that exact moment of crossing the line then you would understand everything; you would see it all"

    "Angels dancing on the head of a pin dissolve into nothingness at the bedside of a dying child."

  10. #10

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

    Default

    That would seem to be an odd statement to make, when the function dealing with contingency matters, Ni, and the function dealing with the evaluation of a particular things traits, Te, more readily yield to the INTp's command than the INTj---so the model states.
    Well, at least the LIIs are the ones who actually take action more quckly and easily than ILIs. If that is not compatible with the model, then that suggests that there is something wrong with the model, for example that the functions are not described correctly, or that our understanding of the functions is not correct.

  11. #11
    MysticSonic's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2004
    Location
    USA
    Posts
    2,993
    Mentioned
    4 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    I think that is usually true, though certain situations seem to render INTjs indecisive, when it's really just a matter of mental inactivity.

    As an INTj, however, I'm a rather placid, laid-back fellow who enjoys the occasional rabble-rousing for the hell of it, and do not identify with the second description all too much.

    Oh, and I usually don't have an agenda.
    "To become is just like falling asleep. You never know exactly when it happens, the transition, the magic, and you think, if you could only recall that exact moment of crossing the line then you would understand everything; you would see it all"

    "Angels dancing on the head of a pin dissolve into nothingness at the bedside of a dying child."

  12. #12
    MysticSonic's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2004
    Location
    USA
    Posts
    2,993
    Mentioned
    4 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    My point being, I think description b is flawed as well, at least as a tool for describing myself.
    "To become is just like falling asleep. You never know exactly when it happens, the transition, the magic, and you think, if you could only recall that exact moment of crossing the line then you would understand everything; you would see it all"

    "Angels dancing on the head of a pin dissolve into nothingness at the bedside of a dying child."

  13. #13

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

    Default

    As an INTj, however, I'm a rather placid, laid-back fellow who enjoys the occasional rabble-rousing for the hell of it, and do not identify with the second description all too much.

    Oh, and I usually don't have an agenda.
    It would be interesting to know in more detail which parts of those two descriptions you identify with and which you don't. From my perspective it is very easy to suspect that more than one INTj is mistaken about his or her type and is more likely an INTp. I'm not saying that you are not an INTj, but when you identify with LII-a and say those things about yourself in the quote, it makes me wonder. The description of LII-a has traits of INTp in it, and the description of LII-b is perhaps not entirely correct, but is has more of INTj in it and very little of INTp.

  14. #14
    MysticSonic's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2004
    Location
    USA
    Posts
    2,993
    Mentioned
    4 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    I appologize, that is a contrived problem that I am not willing to deal with at the moment, given the ambiguous definitions of the statements used and the subsequent clarification of them that would be required in order to express my idea of the matter clearly and sufficiently. I believe it would suffice to say that description A tends to reflect my inner-state, how I view myself, and description B tends to reflect how others view me, though the latter statement isn't true in regards to all circumstances.
    "To become is just like falling asleep. You never know exactly when it happens, the transition, the magic, and you think, if you could only recall that exact moment of crossing the line then you would understand everything; you would see it all"

    "Angels dancing on the head of a pin dissolve into nothingness at the bedside of a dying child."

  15. #15

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

    Default

    I believe it would suffice to say that description A tends to reflect my inner-state, how I view myself, and description B tends to reflect how others view me
    This is very interesting because in each paragraph, I described completely opposite behaviors, even though I derived them from a seemingly parallel process of functional analysis.

    Anyhow, it seems that, despite the imperfections of the descriptions, most people here find LII-a more compelling, and a LII-b a little more foreign, even suggesting . That's fine, but I want you to recognize that I got LII-b from Socionics descriptions of LII in various places, which should collectively be equally as foreign to your conception of what LII *should* be. Consider these excerpts from Stratiyevskaya:

    Block EGO * the 1st position * Program Function * The "logic Of relationships"

    A representative of this type always passionate champion for the validity. ... Frequently it reflects about the creation of the state of absolute validity, about the establishment of authority, which must begin its activity from the severe penalty of all, who conduct unrighteous life, i.e., he disrupts the principles of validity. (idea of "terrible law court"). ...

    Robesp'er tries produmanno and tselenapravlenno to select the measures for disciplinary action. Usually its punishment includes the element of the training: misbehaved compulsorily must be convincing proven its fault. ...

    A feeling of the protection of validity is highly developed. Protecting incorrectly obizhennogo, it frequently disregards its own benefit and safety. From the considerations of the protection of validity it can forego the bright professional career and be switched to the public activity (academician A d. Saxarov).

    Of robesp'eru to characteristically place the interests of truth and validity it is higher than its personal interests and the interests of its family. Making decision, Robesp'er first of all is counted its own conscience and least of all it is inclined to depend on strange opinion and authorities acknowledged in the society. Assuming for itself any idea. Robesp'er becomes its sequential supporter and it serves as it in a most fanatic manner: it subordinates all its thoughts and actions to this idea, subordinates to it entire its means of life. ...

    Robesp'er is always politically active (quality, inherent in all representatives of first and second kvadry). It always disturb the problems of society, in which it lives, disturb the social- humanitarian problems of its environment.

    Robesp'er is usually firm in its judgments. It is confident, that reasonable cannot be poor, "knowledge will save peace". ...

    Block Of ego*2-ya position * creative function * the "intuition of possibilities"

    Coming out as the creator of the project of absolute validity and the creator of the theory of objective truth, Robesp'er in each concrete situation searches for and find possibilities for the implementation of its logical program. It is possible to create the society of ideally valid system, if... Further is erected the project of the conditions, which must be artificially created in the society and to which it is necessary to pull each of its members. The logical program Of robesp'era always realizes by means of the search for the possibilities, which adapt the specific existing conditions to a certain abstract project. ...
    Here's the synopsis of similar ideas on www.socioniko.net:
    This is a type of a revolutionary or a political conspirator. In a conflict situation he usually organizes a committee to punish the offender. He believes that everything in the world must be logical and consequently just. He is capable of neglecting his own profit and safety when defending the offended. He sets for himself very high requirements. ... He appears extremely uncompromising, often looks down with a piercing look from under his philosopher’s forehead. He toughens himself, training for the cold, starvation, losses and disapproval of others.
    I used other sources of information for LII-b, so it's not all just from these quotes. But even just showing this much, wouldn't you agree that LII-b is closer to these descriptions than LII-a is?

  16. #16
    Rick's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    Former USSR (global nomad)
    TIM
    IEE
    Posts
    2,050
    Mentioned
    7 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Good observations. This is very useful! I think you've hinted at some very subtle distinctions in how the functions can be understood. I can't quite put my finger on it, but it is clearly there (I'll try below, actually).

    Description A seems to describe a socially helpless, reclusive intellectual. It suggests that LII is a type that is unable to deal with the outside world effectively (a false assumption according to socionics, but maybe not according to Meyers-Briggs) and lives a sheltered life in the world of ideas.

    It seems reminiscent of MBTI descriptions, which seem to be built around a social stereotype -- in this case, of the reclusive intellectual or academician.

    Description B seems reasonably in line with my image of LII and focuses less on social roles, although the following phrase sort of doesn't fit:

    As a result, he's very successful at influencing people and getting what he wants.

    This might be misleading, although in the context perhaps it means that the LII is able to get what he wants in an organizational setting, having a natural understanding of systems and hierarchies.

    A sample difference:
    A: "Given his weak , he may seem somewhat passive."
    B: (well, it doesn't say this, but it could): "Given his vulnerable , he tries hard to protect it from criticism."

    I think a subtle difference between the two is that description A tends to relate functions to static personality traits (!!! let me emphasize that please !!!), while a "correct" socionic description would link functions to desires, motives, behavioral niches, perception -- in short, the way one does things, and why.

  17. #17

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

    Default

    This might be misleading, although in the context perhaps it means that the LII is able to get what he wants in an organizational setting, having a natural understanding of systems and hierarchies.
    Yes, that's what I meant, thanks. I based that portion on something I read that's almost exactly the same as what you just stated here (maybe from one of your posts or your site).

    Of course, that leaves open what type people who identify with LII-a are...and, more importantly, what the qualities described in LII-a as and really are. I would think LII-a is closest to Socionics ILI, though some might see ILE because of the theme of seeking understanding through . Or maybe, based on things you pointed out, LII-a doesn't even contain enough information or the right kind of information to make a determination; but people still identify with that description or see others that they think fit it, which leaves them wondering...

  18. #18

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

    Default

    Description A seems to describe a socially helpless, reclusive intellectual. It suggests that LII is a type that is unable to deal with the outside world effectively (a false assumption according to socionics, but maybe not according to Meyers-Briggs) and lives a sheltered life in the world of ideas.

    It seems reminiscent of MBTI descriptions, which seem to be built around a social stereotype -- in this case, of the reclusive intellectual or academician.
    Which in the MBTI model is the INTP type, not the INTJ.

    I think a subtle difference between the two is that description A tends to relate functions to static personality traits (!!! let me emphasize that please !!!), while a "correct" socionic description would link functions to desires, motives, behavioral niches, perception -- in short, the way one does things, and why.
    Have you compared with David Keirsey's descriptions of the types? His focus is on what the types are good at doing:
    To take some of the guesswork out of temperament theory, I base my type definitions on what people do well, their skilled actions - what I call their "intelligent roles" - which are observable, and which thus can be defined more objectively.
    (David Keirsey: Please Understand Me II, p. 30.)

  19. #19
    Banned
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    TIM
    TiNe
    Posts
    7,967
    Mentioned
    11 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    I think this is a story of different subtypes. Compare LII-a and LII-b to Gulenko's intuitive and thinking INTJ subtypes, respectively.

    LII-a describes me, an intuitive subtype, very well. LII-b describes my mother, a thinking subtype, very well. My mother is much more in tune with people's motivations than I am, but she can be very ruthless when she feels the need. (sometimes enough to put me on edge...)

    I am ruthless about making people "see the big picture", sometimes using targeted psychological attacks to inhibit people's planned courses of action towards apparent stupidity. But I rarely intervene through threats.

  20. #20
    Mariano Rajoy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Posts
    1,120
    Mentioned
    2 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    i have found that at certain times in the past A would be more applicable than B, and at other times B would be more applicable than A. i would say that the distinction i draw is due to the function of Fi.

    during those times of tragedy in which the Fi presses upon the consciousness more often, discretion about decisions and an appearance of sensitivity would be more accurate.

    during those times of relative calm and stability in which the Fi stays in the background, having answers and being bossy would be more accurate.
    LII
    that is what i was getting at. if there is an inescapable appropriation that is required in the act of understanding, this brings into question the validity of socionics in describing what is real, and hence stubborn contradictions that continue to plague me.

  21. #21

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

    Default

    Rick: a "correct" socionic description would link functions to desires, motives, behavioral niches, perception -- in short, the way one does things, and why.
    I think this is the key to understanding classical Socionics. Perhaps Socionics descriptions of types and functions would be that much clearer if they referred explicitly to the issue of motivations, since this seems to be the core.

    When I use what appears to me to be , I use it as an intellectual skill to understand systems, with the motivation that one must understand systems so as to be able to effectively deal with the realities of the world...which is a classic INTp motivation.

    A classic Socionics INTj is motivated by wanting to implement systems in the world. Since the system is something external to the individual, and since the focus is on implementation, this may appear to be to someone with a Myers-Briggs background.

    Phaedrus: Have you compared with David Keirsey's descriptions of the types?
    We might summarize by saying:
    * Keirsey focuses on behaviors, actions, careers
    * Myers-Briggs focuses on traits
    * Socionics focuses on motivations (with the resulting differences in functional definitions and functional analysis from the previous two systems)

    Of these, I think Keirsey's approach is the most unreliable. He puts too much emphasis on career choices in determining type. But I agree that if all three approaches agree on the same four letters (but not functions), then that reinforces evidence for a type.

    tcaudillg: I think this is a story of different subtypes. Compare LII-a and LII-b to Gulenko's intuitive and thinking INTJ subtypes, respectively.
    This is my alternate hypothesis. It leads to a different understanding of Socionics. Many people think of subtypes as minor variations in a type. To consider LII-a and LII-b as different subtypes of the same type is what I would call "radical subtype theory"...that is, the idea that subtypes may be as different from each other in terms of behavior as any two types. (Notice that the behaviors in my descriptions are so opposite.)

    Left open is the question of how the intertype relations work with radical subtype theory. Does LII-a, or you could call it INTjP, have dual duality with ESFj and and ESFp, since it presumably shares functional characteristics with INTj but has behaviors and motivations similar to INTp? Or would this type, being almost like ENTp, be dual with ISFp? These are interesting questions; but apparently the Gulenko model...especially the "radical subtype" extension of it...while possibly correct, is nevertheless not classical Socionics.

    Mariano: during those times of relative calm and stability in which the Fi stays in the background, having answers and being bossy would be more accurate.
    Which suggests that you fit classic INTj model pretty well....the introduction of from the superego block being a response to stressful situations.

  22. #22
    Creepy-

    Default

    I'm so glad this thread was made. I wasn't sure how to articulate my.... questionings... but it is all presented here very well. I am interested in seeing where this goes.

    My comments probably don't have much weight, but...
    Mariano: during those times of relative calm and stability in which the Fi stays in the background, having answers and being bossy would be more accurate.
    As far as I'm concerned, the differentiation referenced here is present in my interactions. And as for the A/B differentiations, I am drawn towards B.

    One (minor) instance:
    Although he prefers the conceptual to the practical worlds, he's very good at getting done what he has to, because he has a clear sense of priorities through his rational nature
    I was slightly taken aback, in retrospect, when I first came here, and people questioned my use of (the word) "practical" in sentences. ((Perhaps I should have used "correct" more, but I can also understand that our meaning of words may not have been coordinated. "Rational" may be a better word. ...but in general, my early days here are a complicated matter, so perhaps bringing them up is more counterproductive than anything else. If that is the case, then just disregard all of this completely, I don't want to deteer the topic in that way.))

    Also, the main reason I was initially drawn to MBTI INTJ (before I knew anything at all about MBTI or SOCIONICS, ((not that I know a great deal more now, necessarily)) ) was because of the confidence associated with that type. "However there is one attitude that sets them apart from other Rationals: they tend to be much more self-confident than the rest, having, for obscure reasons, developed a very strong will". That is quote from here, http://keirsey.com/personality/ntij.html, albeit a keirsey page. I supplied it as a possible means to differntiate between the original post's Types A/B.


    As I said, though, I am interested in what the rest of you think about all this, more so the topic in general as opposed to my post.


    PS:
    Of these, I think Keirsey's approach is the most unreliable
    Yes, I agree... as there are essential elements of "LII" in the Keirsey's iNTp description, in my opnion. Etc etc

  23. #23
    MysticSonic's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2004
    Location
    USA
    Posts
    2,993
    Mentioned
    4 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Phaedrus: the focus of the INTjs Ti is to come to an understanding, not to serve as a means for implementation. You seem to be confusing base-function Ti with creative-function Te as described on http://socionics.com/advan/intjorintp.htm though such facets of Ti, the tendency towards understanding rather than implementation, may only manifest themselves when coupled with Ne in the ego block.

    Holy shit, this is the most serious I've taken Socionics in a long while.
    "To become is just like falling asleep. You never know exactly when it happens, the transition, the magic, and you think, if you could only recall that exact moment of crossing the line then you would understand everything; you would see it all"

    "Angels dancing on the head of a pin dissolve into nothingness at the bedside of a dying child."

  24. #24

    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    New York
    Posts
    6,074
    Mentioned
    2 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Pedro-the-Lion
    Quote Originally Posted by Rocky
    LII-b sounds more than anything.
    I do not think it really is capable of existing in such a form under current circumstances and I am not sure if that is a good or a bad thing.
    Huh?
    MAYBE I'LL BREAK DOWN!!!


    Quote Originally Posted by vague
    Rocky's posts are as enjoyable as having wisdom teeth removed.

  25. #25

    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    New York
    Posts
    6,074
    Mentioned
    2 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by MysticSonic
    Phaedrus: the focus of the INTjs Ti is to come to an understanding, not to serve as a means for implementation. You seem to be confusing base-function Ti with creative-function Te as described on http://socionics.com/advan/intjorintp.htm though such facets of Ti, the tendency towards understanding rather than implementation, may only manifest themselves when coupled with Ne in the ego block.

    Holy shit, this is the most serious I've taken Socionics in a long while.
    I'd actually agree. I don't really see LIIs as really rigid, high-strung, tyrants; rather the opposite. I've probably only meet a couple, and the ones on here, but that's my view of them.
    MAYBE I'LL BREAK DOWN!!!


    Quote Originally Posted by vague
    Rocky's posts are as enjoyable as having wisdom teeth removed.

  26. #26

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

    Default

    Of these, I think Keirsey's approach is the most unreliable. He puts too much emphasis on career choices in determining type.
    Yes, I agree... as there are essential elements of "LII" in the Keirsey's iNTp description, in my opnion.
    What you write here makes me wonder if you might have missed some of the more interesting parts of Keirsey's theory. Here are some things that I myself find interesting. Judge these quotes, from Keirsey's site and his book Please Understand Me II, for yourselves:

    The primarily problem with Myer's method of description is the problem of trying to take the "personality" or more specifically what Keirsey calls "temperament" (as opposed to Myers "type") and break it into four "independent" aspects. There is great utility in thinking about them as "independent" aspects, as people who follow the line of Myers are wont to do. The "Ts" tend to be like this, the "Fs" tend to be like that. The "Es" tend to be like this, the "Is" tend to be like that. This kind of talk is fine up to a point. This is where Keirsey and Myers-Jung followers part company. The problem comes in when some "Es" are different (such as the Provider Guardian "ESFJ") from other "Es" (such as Fieldmarshal Rational "ENTJ") because of temperament. The scales are not independent of each other. Of course, we are *not* talking about the myriad of other factors that complicate the analysis of personality, which includes gender, culture, etc. Those complications are another matter, irrespective of how to characterize "temperament".

    Jung (hence Myers) viewed Introvert/Extrovert scale as a strong aspect, so much so that they talked about Introverted Thinkers and Extroverted Thinkers (we will let the reader speculate out what they meant by these phrases). Keirsey, on the other hand, regards Jung's N/S "scale" as the first "cut" (which of course in reality we "can't" cut the temperament into pieces). In other words, "how" one's mind primarily processes the world (through concepts or percepts) is the major determinant on how one evolves and reacts in life; not, whether one is more or less comfortable with people. As an example, Albert Einstein (INTP) is quite different from Clint Eastwood (ISTP). On the other hand, if one tries to "talk about" what is "in the mind," one can start talking nonsense because we can't observe "mind".

    Moreover, Myers in her descriptions mostly treat the personality aspects as independent scales. Her descriptions of the sixteen types, essentially is a concatenation of the aspects. She has a descriptive paragraph for "I," and a paragraph for "E,", a paragraph for "N," and so on. To get her descriptions, for example, an INTP, she takes her "I", "N", "T", and "P" descriptive paragraphs sticks them together and "viola" you have a full description of a person (an INTP). The problem with this Chinese menu method of personality, is that its too simplistic. Partly to fix the problem of it being too simplistic, Myers and her followers tried to work in the notion of shadow or dominant functions, however, the speculation of "what's in mind", becomes complex and confusing, and worse of all, hard to remember.

    Keirsey is not concerned with "what's in mind", but what people do. What are the long-term behavior patterns: temperament. Keirsey's descriptions are not as much of a cookie cutter form as Myers-Briggs. His descriptions are more integrated. He looks at the notion of personality as whole. Thus, given that N/S is the "first" cut, the descriptions might be viewed as in a tree (or as an unfolding (emergence) of individual's temperament). As in the following. The lower level is constrained by the configuration above it.

    First cut
    "Ns" What Jung called "iNtuitives". Keirsey liken them to "Martians." Abstract. Introspective. Those who look *primarily* through their *own* "minds eye."

    "Ss" What Jung calling the aspect "Sensing" Keirsey liken them to "Earthlings" Concrete. Observant. Those who look *primarily* to the world by their "percepts", using what's out there.

    Second cut of the Ns
    "NTs" Myers called them "iNtuitive Thinkers" Keirsey calls them "Rationals".

    "NFs" Myers called them "iNtuitive Feeler" Keirsey calls them "Idealists".

    Second cut of the Ss
    (Myers or Jung never thought of using different criteria for different parts of the tree, because they didn't view it as a tree)
    "SPs" Keirsey calls them "Artisans"
    "SJs" Keirsey calls them "Guardians"
    If we compare the INTP and the INTJ from Keirsey's perspective we find, along with their many similarities, some clear differences:

    INTJs:
    All NTs are good at planning operations, but Mastermind INTJs are head and shoulders above all the rest in contingency planning or what is called "entailment management". A contingency plan has if-thens in it, put there with foreseeable operational errors and shortages of personnel and materiel ...

    Masterminds are able to grasp how each step necessitates or entails the next, and to prepare alternatives for difficulties that are likely to arise. INTJs never set the course of their current project without a Plan A firmly in mind, but they are always prepared to switch to Plan B - or C or D if they are called for ...

    Difficulties are highly stimulating to INTJs, who love responding to a problem that requires a creative solution. These traits of character lead them to occupations where theoretical models can be translated into actuality. They build data and human systems wherever they work, if given the slightest oppurtunity. They can be outstanding in scientific research and as excecutives in businesses...

    Masterminds are the highest achievers in school of all the types. And on the job, because of their tendency to drive others as hard as they drive themselves, they often seem demanding and difficult to satisfy. Their fellow workers often feel as if a Mastermind can see right through them, and often believe that they find them wanting.

    INTPs:
    Architectonics is the science of spatial relationships - organization, structure, build, configuration - and Architects from a very early age are preoccupied with spatial relativity and systems design. But INTps must not be thought of as only interested in configuring three-dimensional spaces such as buildings, bridges, and machines; they are also the architects of curricula, of corporations, and of all kinds of theoretical systems. In other words, INTPs are men and women whose aim is to design systemic structures and to engineer structural models ...

    For this type of Rational, the world exists primarily to be analyzed, understood, and explained. External reality in itself is unimportant, a mere arena for checking out the usefulness of ideas. What is important is that the underlying structures of the universe be uncovered and articulated, and that whatever is stated about the universe be stated correctly, with coherence and without redundancy. Curiosity concerning these fundamental structures is the driving force in INTPs, and they care little whether others understand or accept their ideas. Architects will learn in any manner and degree they can. If knowledge can be gathered from observing someone or taking some action, then such is worthwile; if not, then not ...

    They regard all discussions as a search for understanding, and believe that their function is to eliminate inconsistencies, no matter who is guilty of them. It is difficult for an INTP to listen to nonsense, even in a casual conversation, without pointing out the speaker's error, and this makes communication with them an uncomfortable experience for many.
    In the quotes we can see that Keirsey describes the thinking process of INTJs in a way that I think is similar to . It is also clear that INTJs want to use their models and systems for practical purposes.

    INTPs on the other hand, are focused on getting knowledge. They are described as critics (compare the quadras). The thinking process of an INTP is described in a way that makes it look like a right brain process. In this and other descriptions of the INTP's way of thinking it is about seeing how pieces (of information or whatever) fit together to form a coherent structure, a harmonious whole. Lenore Thomson and others from the MBTI camp call this Introverted thinking (Ti), but I think it has more in common with .

  27. #27

    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    New York
    Posts
    6,074
    Mentioned
    2 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    But you forgot one thing; Keirsey's a moron.
    MAYBE I'LL BREAK DOWN!!!


    Quote Originally Posted by vague
    Rocky's posts are as enjoyable as having wisdom teeth removed.

  28. #28

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

    Default

    But you forgot one thing; Keirsey's a moron.
    Maybe, I don't know about that. In any case Keirsey is an INTP/INTp. But I can't see the relevance of Keirsey's own person for how we should evaluate his theories.

  29. #29

    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    New York
    Posts
    6,074
    Mentioned
    2 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Because he's theories seem rather quack-ish.

    For example, he claims that it is impossible to explain types by what goes on, "in the mind", because it's too difficult. If we weren't talking about the mind, then what's with this "Please Understand Me" stuff? If the types were as shallow as Kiersey pretends (if you area composer you're ISFP, or whatever it is), then wouldn't understanding people's differences already be blindingly easy... at face value?

    Also, labeling Intuitives as Martians is wrong, because you can see many Intuitive types don't follow/believe in that path themselves.

    And lastly, he makes a contradiction. He places two, specific, Introverted qualities under the heading of "Intuition", which would just lead more people to mistypings.

    There are certainly more, but I won't continue now.


    Basically, there are some people who understand psychology and Jungian functions, but have a rather poor understanding of humans. There are others who have a sharp understanding of people, but not of psychology. Kiersey, unfortunatly, understands neither.
    MAYBE I'LL BREAK DOWN!!!


    Quote Originally Posted by vague
    Rocky's posts are as enjoyable as having wisdom teeth removed.

  30. #30

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

    Default

    MysticSonic: Phaedrus[,] the focus of the INTjs Ti is to come to an understanding, not to serve as a means for implementation. You seem to be confusing base-function Ti with creative-function Te as described on http://socionics.com/advan/intjorintp.htm though such facets of Ti, the tendency towards understanding rather than implementation, may only manifest themselves when coupled with Ne in the ego block.
    It would appear though that your disagreement is with Stratiyevskaya, Dmitri, and others, not just with Phaedrus.

    Sergei Ganin muddies the waters when he says that is about understanding, or when he says in his posts that is axiomatic logic or asking "why" questions, or when he says that ILI types are mainly interested in business while LII types are the ones interested in more academic topics. Anyhow, I think it's pretty clear that SG doesn't like INTps and makes every effort to describe them disparagingly, as in when he says that since INTps...

    ...can believe in things that are not necessarily there or actually true, INTps criticise a lot.
    All NT types are very interested in understanding the world around them. The difference is in the motivations.

    If one wants to understand Socionics in the way that the core group of Socionists see it, and in a way that's internally consistent, you can no longer think of as the intellectual skill of understanding systems. Instead, you have to think of as the motivation to have a systemmatic understanding and act according to it.

    INTjs act on their systemmatic understanding. INTps use their understanding to accurately observe the world around them and be prepared for future situations. At least this seems to be how the core group of Socionists see things.

    Gulenko may be an exception; some people who otherwise would be INTp might be a producing subtype of INTj in his system; but in the case of "producing" subtypes, it would appear that none of the collected knowledge on VI or intertype relationships is certain at this point.

  31. #31

    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    New York
    Posts
    6,074
    Mentioned
    2 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    ...can believe in things that are not necessarily there or actually true, INTps criticise a lot.
    Hmm, well, Ganin may be right.

    Though I would agree that Te is not soley business logic. Also, I have disagreed with Ti asking the why question; possibally it askes "how". But Te asks "why" if my understanding of the functions is correct.
    MAYBE I'LL BREAK DOWN!!!


    Quote Originally Posted by vague
    Rocky's posts are as enjoyable as having wisdom teeth removed.

  32. #32

    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    New York
    Posts
    6,074
    Mentioned
    2 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    All NT types are very interested in understanding the world around them.
    Not neccessarily. There are, for example, ISFPs who care about understanding the world around them more so than some ENTPs.
    MAYBE I'LL BREAK DOWN!!!


    Quote Originally Posted by vague
    Rocky's posts are as enjoyable as having wisdom teeth removed.

  33. #33
    MysticSonic's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2004
    Location
    USA
    Posts
    2,993
    Mentioned
    4 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Jonathan: you seem to have accumlated a perception over the time that you were here that a majority of socionists perceive Ti as such despite having only observed the traits in Strat., whomever ever it is that wrote the descriptions at Socionko(?), and Rick---I believe. It would then seem apparent to me that given such numbers, the plurality of people whom conceive of Ti as is popularly understood here is not significantly surpassed by the number of people whom believe of the Ti described in LII-b, with Socionko's descriptions seeming to not particularly exclude the possibility of Ti functioning as popularly described.
    "To become is just like falling asleep. You never know exactly when it happens, the transition, the magic, and you think, if you could only recall that exact moment of crossing the line then you would understand everything; you would see it all"

    "Angels dancing on the head of a pin dissolve into nothingness at the bedside of a dying child."

  34. #34

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

    Default

    Rocky: Though I would agree that Te is not soley business logic. Also, I have disagreed with Ti asking the why question; possibally it askes "how". But Te asks "why" if my understanding of the functions is correct.
    Interesting that Ganin thinks that Te is about asking "how."
    Anyhow, it seems that SG's main claim to fame is having gotten the best domain name first.

    There are, for example, ISFPs who care about understanding the world around them more so than some ENTPs.
    I wasn't saying NTs to the exclusion of all others. Anyhow, at least you agree that INTjs (or types for that matter) aren't the only ones who care about understanding.

    MysticSonic: with Socionko's descriptions seeming to not particularly exclude the possibility of Ti functioning as popularly described.
    Dmitri is the author of the Socioniko site, and I would suspect, based on his posts, and from his LII description which I quoted earlier in this thread, that his view would be closer to LII-b. Also, the VI examples on his site correspond very well with the way Rick describes VI for LIIs.

    I know this is a little subjective, but it's hard for me to see how you can look at the faces for LII on Socioniko.net and think they correspon to LII-a more than LII-b.

    But one thing I want to clarify: I'm not saying that the opposing view (the LII-a interpretation) is necessarily wrong. I think though that it's useful to get a clear sense of what the "core" understanding is in Socionics; and having that established, we can go off and discuss variants, such as what I call radical subtype theory, etc.

    If you have more authoritative information regarding the "core" views supporting LII-a, I'd love to hear it.

    The key thing that I wanted to point out, and I think is pretty much agreed here now, is that not everybody who's heavily involved in Socionics is meaning the same thing when they talk about or LII.

  35. #35

    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    New York
    Posts
    6,074
    Mentioned
    2 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    1)
    Quote Originally Posted by Jonathan
    Interesting that Ganin thinks that Te is about asking "how."
    Then maybe you should ask yourself which one makes more sense.

    2)
    Anyhow, it seems that SG's main claim to fame is having gotten the best domain name first.
    -->

    3)
    I wasn't saying NTs to the exclusion of all others. Anyhow, at least you agree that INTjs (or types for that matter) aren't the only ones who care about understanding.
    That's what I'm saying.

    4)
    Dmitri is the author of the Socioniko site, and I would suspect, based on his posts, and from his LII description which I quoted earlier in this thread, that his view would be closer to LII-b. Also, the VI examples on his site correspond very well with the way Rick describes VI for LIIs.
    Then I guess all we can accept is that there is a misunderstanding between people somewhere. I, for one, disagree with people like Rick and Lytov on this.

    5) I have noticed that the genuine LIIs on here (Pedro, Mystic, and Theodosis) write (think?) in a rather confusing, even convoluted manner, that drives people insane (which is why I asked Pedro to restate what he wrote earlier in this thread, as well as I found Mystic's last post to be rather hard to follow... just a different language). This could be a quality of Ti.
    MAYBE I'LL BREAK DOWN!!!


    Quote Originally Posted by vague
    Rocky's posts are as enjoyable as having wisdom teeth removed.

  36. #36
    Creepy-pokeball

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Rocky
    All NT types are very interested in understanding the world around them.
    Not neccessarily. There are, for example, ISFPs who care about understanding the world around them more so than some ENTPs.
    True!

  37. #37

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

    Default

    Rocky: Then maybe you should ask yourself which one makes more sense.
    I think that in the interpretation of people like Dmitri and Rick[EDIT], it makes most sense to understand and as motivations rather than directly as intellectual capabilities. With that approach:

    would be the motivation to guide one's decisions based on a structured, systemmatic view of reality.
    would be the motivation to make ones decisions based on functional, operative models of reality that work in the real world.

    Corresponding to these motivations are, of course, intellectual capabilities such as the ability to create or understand consistent systems independent of any empirical data, or being able to describe models that explain real data even when not all the causative factors are known. Both of these skills can be used to answer both "how" and "why" questions.

    I think that possibly Dmitri and Rick are more focused on the motivations, and possibly you're more focused on the intellectual skills. That may help explain the differences in interpretation.

    To reconcile these views, I've developed a theory of subtypes based on the idea that one may use a set of functions in the intellectual skills definitions to satisfy a different set of functions in the motivational definitions. Basically, the idea I'm thinking about is that my version of the accepting subtypes, which would be the classic Socionics types, would have both definitions in alignment, whereas my version of the producing subtypes would have them crossed.

    More on that later...

  38. #38
    Rick's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    Former USSR (global nomad)
    TIM
    IEE
    Posts
    2,050
    Mentioned
    7 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    I think that in the interpretation of people like Dmitri and Rocky, it makes most sense to...
    You probably meant Dmitri and Rick.

    Here are some people here who I feel have clearly demonstrated thinking. There may be plenty others that I haven't 'interacted' with as closely, so this is only about my personal experience:

    wym123 (http://the16types.info/forums/viewto...er=asc&start=0)
    tcaudillg (samples everywhere)
    Mariano Rajoy (there was a thread or two where he was in charge)

  39. #39
    Creepy-

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Rocky
    5) I have noticed that the genuine LIIs on here (Pedro, Mystic, and Theodosis) write (think?) in a rather confusing, even convoluted manner, that drives people insane (which is why I asked Pedro to restate what he wrote earlier in this thread, as well as I found Mystic's last post to be rather hard to follow... just a different language). This could be a quality of Ti.
    FDG strongly dislikes how I post.

    If I were to offer a suggestion, such odd typing patterns come from two things: 1 the massive influx of thought or concept that is tied to any situation or patter - one subject or idea is not necessarily seperate from the system ("the system" as in the internal machina of my consciousness or my thoughts) ; 2 (intuition?), in that simply thinking about a subject or thought brings up more possibilities and possible turns for the conversation.
    And then there is the nature of evaluating the amount of context neccesary to translate what it is that is going on in my mind into the computer via typing, which can be difficult and is very contingent. Especially here, where I have limited understandings of my audience in general or a specific person, even.


    However..... I'm not going to try to convince anyone of my "type" or how genuine it may or may not be, those are just my current thoughts.

    PS: I think it would be more accurate if I were not included in the "genuine" LII group yet, though, as my "ego" has not yet been "awakened" very much. More later about this.

  40. #40
    Creepy-

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Jonathan
    Sergei Ganin muddies the waters when he says that is about understanding, or when he says in his posts that is axiomatic logic or asking "why" questions, or when he says that ILI types are mainly interested in business while LII types are the ones interested in more academic topics. Anyhow, I think it's pretty clear that SG doesn't like INTps and makes every effort to describe them disparagingly, as in when he says that since INTps...

    ...can believe in things that are not necessarily there or actually true, INTps criticise a lot.
    It is not very difficult for that to occur, especially, I would imagine, if you had more and more conflicting nature in regards to INTps..

    =========
    =========

    !!!

    Oh, here's a question, and something I've had on my mind for the last 24 hours:



    How about LII in terms of relation to other types?
    Duality, conflict, and even reaction to INTps come to mind... -- how what do the rest of you think about that, or, using such relationships to gain perspective on a person's type (or designations of an LII) ?

Page 1 of 4 1234 LastLast

Posting Permissions

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