INTPs versus INTJs

[Olga]

I would like to consider critically the article by Sergey Ganin:

http://www.socionics.com/advan/intjorintp.htm

I believe that certain things are true and certain things are not. It ouwld be interesting to hear from INTJs and INTPs with what they can surely identify themselves and what seems to be as pure generalisations. I would assume that there are differences within those types too. It would be also nice if you can state you favourite colours - many thanks from the developer of colour theory . Anybody is welcome to contribute their real life encounters with those types.

[Phaedrus]

One general point is that the article is written by an INTj. As an INTp I can't be sure that I understand the key concepts in the same way as an INTj, because, as Quasi-Identicals, we never seem to understand each other's way of thinking fully. After many, many readings the article still makes me slightly confused, because I think that both the INTjs and the INTps are described incorrectly. At least it is not easy to determine which type you are from what is said in the article.

I think that colour preferences are related to type, Olga, at least there seems to be some indications of that, even though you link that to a theory and a concept of the soul that is probably crap. Anyway, I have a preference for blue (but I am not sure about the shade). I have always liked "calm" colours, and when I was younger I liked black. I still like black but not to the same degree. I dislike pink and don't like red that much either. When I was very young I thought that I liked green, but I think that I realized that blue is probably more of my kind of colour. The sky can be very tempting to watch, even in the night.

[Olga]

Thanks for suggesting that colour does sctually relates to type - ther is a hope to create at some point a colour test for typing :wink: .
Green in childhood is natural as children are more extraverted and go through the phase of interactive, extraverted learning due to their brain being not developed enough to learn at abstract level of thought.
Blue is associated with and black seem to be one of the INTP;s favourites: that magic black room of uncoscious - I think it is called kaaba:


http://www.toursaudiarabia.com/kaaba.html

I think we are coming to very interesting phenomenon. In colour theory we associate with orange colour how does it come to be black for INTPs? It is similar how INFJ and ENFPs like grey-silver colours as if changes the shade from pink to grey. It must be to do with the individual or original standpoint.
The fact that you don't like Pink - romantism Brian Adams staff -"I die for you" - this is understandable. You do not expect this from INTPs anyway. Red - powerful overted emotions and emotional Ego standpoint do not go along with sharp critical thinking either.

I think it is not too bad for a starter.

[aestrivex]

all right, lets go over this article and pick out the information which is not accurate.

it is possible that some INTps actually do behave in such way that they could be mistaken for Judging types. The common perception of Perceiving types is as disorganised, unreliable and wavering. There are INTps out there that are, on the contrary, organised, reliable and unwavering or at least they may behave as such. As a result they often score as Js.

this is definitely accurate.

Let's take a look at INTj's main function - introverted thinking ( ). INTjs are mainly interested in accumulating an understanding. They want to know why and what causes things happen the way they happen. They want to know and see the logic behind everything. If "it" does not contradict logic then "it" is right, otherwise "it" is wrong. INTps on the other hand seem to be logical too as their second strong function is extroverted thinking ( ). However, if for INTjs it is about gaining understanding, for INTps it is about exercising their knowledge, and therefore they mostly concern themselves with known facts. Moreover, INTj's logic is their area of confidence and conservatism. This makes their logic fundamental, meaning once the rules are established, they can be applied anywhere. INTps logic is their area of creativity. This makes their logic circumstantial and unpredictable - the rules apply here but may not apply there.

this seems sort of accurate. i'm not entirely sure about all of the concepts described, such as the INTp's not being concerned with understanding (although its true that often Ni draws the appropriate connections).

INTp's main function is introverted intuition ( ). Since introverted intuition is about internal wholeness or belief, this manifests itself in INTps being highly religious and spiritual people. It is also their area of confidence and conservatism and they will not welcome anything that could disturb that internal wholeness. And since you can believe in things that are not necessarily there or actually true, INTps criticise a lot. As for INTjs, their intuition is their second strong function, which is extroverted intuition ( ). Extroverted intuition is about perspective and potential and because it is INTj's creative output, their "creations" could be very unexpected and original, often bearing a high potential for future development. So, combining two and two together, INTjs are in their element when involved with science, invention, innovation, discovery, theory, explanation, interpretation, philosophy etc. INTps are in their element when involved with business, enterprise, commerce, industry, trade, financial institutions, church etc.

ok, here you have ganin going by the book and not actually basing his observations on empirical observations. INTps are DEFINITELY not religious. period. The idea that INTps will not welcome outside beliefs is incorrect, if the beliefs make enough sense to the INTp (this can be true if the beliefs completely contradict what the INTp knows). This thing about INTjs being in their element with science, philosophy, etc., while INTps are in their element with business, etc. also strikes me as fundamentally awkward; I'm sure both INTps and INTjs have succeeded in both those fields (they're certainly more capable in both than say, an INFj).

Another comparison will be between Dual-seeking functions. INTps are looking out for extroverted sensing ( ), INTjs are looking out for extroverted feeling ( ). Since both functions are the subconscious functions, they are likely to influence the subconscious choices. INTps would want to go power driven, moneymaking, sometimes risky places, whereas INTjs would prefer a happy, cheerful and exciting surrounding.

this seems absurd. i certainly do not believe it applies to me and i doubt it applies to other INTps or INTjs either, just from personal experience.

For INTjs their introverted sensing ( ) is their nightmare. Introverted sensing is mainly about the body, its functions, sensory perceptions etc. The only way they can balance that cone is for them to be physically healthy and if this is not that important to you, you are most probably not INTj. INTps are also trying to balance this cone on its head when it comes to introverted feeling ( ). Introverted feeling is love, affection, morality etc. It is important for an INTp to be involved with someone, to have an object of affection, to like people. If this doesn't concern you, you are probably a type other than INTp.

this is true, but the idea that it is merely "important to you" is not an adequate explanation of the hidden agenda. as a result this section is somewhat accurate but somewhat vague.



all in all, this description is not accurate enough to warrant much consideration.

[Phaedrus]

Let's take a look at INTj's main function - introverted thinking ( ). INTjs are mainly interested in accumulating an understanding. They want to know why and what causes things happen the way they happen. They want to know and see the logic behind everything.

This should be modified somehow. INTps are extremely interested in accumulating knowledge, more so than INTjs. And if what is said above about INTjs is not true of INTps, then one presupposes a logical distinction between knowledge and understanding that is obviously not obvious to most people. And if one insist on making that distinction, one should at least explain it. If you seek knowledge, and hence truth, don't you also want to understand?

And when it comes to logic, INTps are probably more accurate in their logical reasonings than INTjs. That they probably behave less logically is, of course, another matter.

However, if for INTjs it is about gaining understanding, for INTps it is about exercising their knowledge, and therefore they mostly concern themselves with known facts.

This is clearly mystifying, if not plain false. What does it mean to exercise your knowledge? The INTps are the ultimate knowledge seekers, but once they have gained their knowledge, they are less inclined than the INTJs to use that knowledge for practical purposes.

INTp's main function is introverted intuition ( ). Since introverted intuition is about internal wholeness or belief, this manifests itself in INTps being highly religious and spiritual people.

This is probably false. From my own experience, INTjs are more religious than INTps. The INTps are too critical of their own belief systems to make it accurate to say that they are religious people. Compare them with INTjs, who are often not critical of their own systems and their premises and presuppositions.

It is also their area of confidence and conservatism and they will not welcome anything that could disturb that internal wholeness.

This is misleading again. It is true that INTps want internal wholeness and perfection, but it is definitely the INTjs who don't welcome anything that might threaten their beliefs. The INTps, on the other hand, never stop questioning and re-examining their own views. They can more easily change their mind than INTjs.

And since you can believe in things that are not necessarily there or actually true, INTps criticise a lot.

It is true that INTps criticise a lot, but here one can get the impression that the cause of that is that they "believe in things that are not necessarily there or actually true", which is not true. It is quite the opposite. We criticise because we have a hard time believing something without evidence or at least good arguments.

So, combining two and two together, INTjs are in their element when involved with science, invention, innovation, discovery, theory, explanation, interpretation, philosophy etc. INTps are in their element when involved with business, enterprise, commerce, industry, trade, financial institutions, church etc.

This is very mysterious, and I'm not sure what to do with it. I don't know how to understand it or how to judge if it is true or not. Intuitively I think that most INTps would identify more with those things mentioned in relation to INTjs.

INTps are DEFINITELY not religious. period. The idea that INTps will not welcome outside beliefs is incorrect, if the beliefs make enough sense to the INTp (this can be true if the beliefs completely contradict what the INTp knows).

I totally agree with you here. I didn't read what you had written here before I wrote what I say about it above.

Another comparison will be between Dual-seeking functions. INTps are looking out for extroverted sensing ( ), INTjs are looking out for extroverted feeling ( ). Since both functions are the subconscious functions, they are likely to influence the subconscious choices. INTps would want to go power driven, moneymaking, sometimes risky places, whereas INTjs would prefer a happy, cheerful and exciting surrounding.

I don't know if it is absurd. Again, I'm not sure what to make of it. I don't know to what degree it applies or doesn't apply to me.

For INTjs their introverted sensing ( ) is their nightmare. Introverted sensing is mainly about the body, its functions, sensory perceptions etc. The only way they can balance that cone is for them to be physically healthy and if this is not that important to you, you are most probably not INTj. INTps are also trying to balance this cone on its head when it comes to introverted feeling ( ). Introverted feeling is love, affection, morality etc. It is important for an INTp to be involved with someone, to have an object of affection, to like people. If this doesn't concern you, you are probably a type other than INTp.

this is true, but the idea that it is merely "important to you" is not an adequate explanation of the hidden agenda. as a result this section is somewhat accurate but somewhat vague.

I think that I agree with you here.

[.thursday]

not a bad article

[Expat]

Another comparison will be between Dual-seeking functions. INTps are looking out for extroverted sensing ( ), INTjs are looking out for extroverted feeling ( ). Since both functions are the subconscious functions, they are likely to influence the subconscious choices. INTps would want to go power driven, moneymaking, sometimes risky places, whereas INTjs would prefer a happy, cheerful and exciting surrounding.

I don't know if it is absurd. Again, I'm not sure what to make of it. I don't know to what degree it applies or doesn't apply to me.

I think it's more accurate on the INTj side than on the INTp side.

I think the dual-seeking of INTps does not necessarily mean that they would want to go power-driven and moneymaking paths etc -- I think it means that they prefer that other people (who share the same broad goals) make the effort to take the initiative, and then exercising a sort of "veto" ("no, this is stupid") rather than the other way around. This may include the power-driven path, but not necessarily.

[mimisor]

Another comparison will be between Dual-seeking functions. INTps are looking out for extroverted sensing ( ), INTjs are looking out for extroverted feeling ( ). Since both functions are the subconscious functions, they are likely to influence the subconscious choices. INTps would want to go power driven, moneymaking, sometimes risky places, whereas INTjs would prefer a happy, cheerful and exciting surrounding.

I don't know if it is absurd. Again, I'm not sure what to make of it. I don't know to what degree it applies or doesn't apply to me.

I think it's more accurate on the INTj side than on the INTp side.

I think the dual-seeking of INTps does not necessarily mean that they would want to go power-driven and moneymaking paths etc -- I think it means that they prefer that other people (who share the same broad goals) make the effort to take the initiative, and then exercising a sort of "veto" ("no, this is stupid") rather than the other way around. This may include the power-driven path, but not necessarily.

It's accurate for both. This what you wrote i think it describes you (the ENTj), not the INTp.

It is a good article. Actually it says nothing out of the ordinary. It's already common sense in socionics. You guys are overinterpreting it (or misinterpreting it, lol)

[Phaedrus]

It's accurate for both.

As we have tried to show you it isn't. Or, even if we would accept that it is accurate, it still needs to be formulated in another way, because it is without doubt misleading. The inevitable consequence is that people mistype themselves and others.

This what you wrote i think it describes you (the ENTj), not the INTp.

What do you mean by that? An ENTj would never (?) think or behave in the way Expat suggested for INTps, which I can relate to somehow, I think.

It is a good article. Actually it says nothing out of the ordinary.

Maybe not. But then it is something wrong with the ordinary.

It's already common sense in socionics. You guys are overinterpreting it (or misinterpreting it, lol)

Interesting phenomenon this, but not unexpected. It says more about how INTjs view INTps than how INTps actually are. That we misinterpret it is a possibility. But in that case we should try to find some sort of "common language", a way of describing our differences that we both can accept. That might be impossible, but I hope not. Because then we are doomed ...

[aestrivex]

again, take a look at both my comments and phaedrus' comments. based on descriptions of the eight functions and their positions for INTjs and INTps in model A, this description is accurate. but this is compromised by two major factors which ganin does not account for, namely that the function descriptions he uses are not always right and that the positions and activities of the functions can be influenced by the other functions, changing their effects.

the fact is that INTps (and perhaps to a lesser extent, INTjs as well) do not share a majority of the characteristics which this article describes.

i hope that the inaccurate nature of this article can put sergey ganin to rest and demonstrate that he is incompetent and that he is not a credible source of information regarding socionics.

[Rocky]

again, take a look at both my comments and phaedrus' comments. based on descriptions of the eight functions and their positions for INTjs and INTps in model A, this description is accurate. but this is compromised by two major factors which ganin does not account for, namely that the function descriptions he uses are not always right and that the positions and activities of the functions can be influenced by the other functions, changing their effects.

the fact is that INTps (and perhaps to a lesser extent, INTjs as well) do not share a majority of the characteristics which this article describes.

i hope that the inaccurate nature of this article can put sergey ganin to rest and demonstrate that he is incompetent and that he is not a credible source of information regarding socionics.

... I agree a lot of the stuff about INTPs is wrong...

[Olga]

I really enjoyed reading the comments. This thread emphasise the importance of critical considerations of existing type descriptions. It also suggests the necessaty for this forum to create their own type descriptions as opposed to "official stand", so that the people will be not doomed and will know that there is a different perspective onto the type and this perspective is not less credible because it is actually comes from the people who has got this type. At the end of the day the socioninc is in the process of the development and ther is always possibility to gain better insight and correct the description. It looks actually good in the form of discussion rather than in a simple format of description. AS far as I remember Sergei produces his article based on the discussion. that means there should be a link to a discussion on his website. I hope that Sergei will not take this thread as no personal offence because we do not seek to put him down (he works his .... off by creating official socionics and truely belifes that his knowldege is objective because it does follow discussion and + extensive reading and some sort of research ). We simply are seeking the truth, aren't we?

We need to prove to people who visits this website that our knowldege is credible and they can rely on it or at least serously consider as an alternative to official knowledge. I think we have a lot of potential and accumulated enough knowledge to produce collective knowldege of a high quality value .

However before INTPs put the ariticle they need to agree on sensitive matters and this article sould be also discussed by socioninc board.

It would be interestin to know the types of those forum members who take part in the critical discussion in order to undersrand better where they come from. I know that Phaedrus and Niffweed ater obviously INTPs, Rocky - ISTP, I am ISFJ and what about Gugu-baba?

I will be looking at details of this article as soon as I have time.