My take on INTx

[Hugo]

INTps are not likely to say they are INTj because they are more confident and rely on their instincts.

INTjs are likely to waver and say "I might be INTp, but then I might be INTj", because of their .

[Jonathan]

In classic Socionics theory, it should actually be the opposite. INTj types, with a primary judging function, should be more inclinded to be decided.

INTp types, as irrational types, should be more likely to change their mind based on their inner state.

...Which isn't to discount your version as a possibility....but it's important to recognize the different versions...the different interpretations of Socionics.

As I mentioned in my post yesterday to your test, Socionics often emphasize that the secondary function doesn't operate the same as a primary function. Hence, INTj types, even with in their ego block, don't behave like "introverted ENTps." The classic Socionics descriptions, such as by S...skaya, etc., give a more limited role to in INTj.

Similarly, by this way of thinking, INTps aren't "introverted ENTjs"; their is used mainly to make sense of their intuitions and articulate them to others.

Anyhow, that's just another view, and I think it shows why some people have trouble reconciling their view of their own type and how they come out in your tests.

But, as I said, your view has its points too; it's much closer to the way the functions are seen in MBTI.

[oyburger]

All I can say to this is that no matter how I've acted, I've never doubted my INTj-ness.

[Phaedrus]

All I can say to this is that no matter how I've acted, I've never doubted my INTj-ness.

Which is an argument for the claim that you actually are an INTj.

Let's not lose focus of this again. It is very important. What Jonathan says in his post is obviously true. There really are two clearly different versions of the true nature of INTjs and INTps.

On a surface it seems as though Hugo's interpretation of it is contrary to Stratiyevskaya's and Sergei Ganin's. After several discussions with Ganin on his site about this problem, I think I can say that I know for sure that he clearly sees the INTj as a J type in pretty much the same way as is described in the MBTI descriptions of INTJs. He seems to think in a way that is clearly different from the way I and Jonathan thinks. It is not reasonable to doubt that Jonathan and I are the same type, but it would be extremely difficult to explain the obvious differences between the three of us if we all three are INTjs. That is almost impossible to imagine. If Ganin is an INTj (and do we really have any legitimate reason to doubt that?) then Jonathan and I must be INTps (or so it seems).

Stratiyevskaya's version of INTjs and INTps is in line with Ganin's. Those of you who manage to read her descriptions will realize that.

So, I just want to remind you of what you are up against. If you insist that I and Jonathan are INTjs, based on your current understanding of INTjs and INTps, you have to try to prove that Ganin and Stratiyevskaya (and probably some other socionists as well, like Dmitri Lytov) are wrong, and that their type descriptions are incorrect and give us the wrong picture of those two types.

[Gilly]

Ok, what IS it exactly that makes you INTp as opposed to INTj? You keep sayng that we have to prove something wrong, but you NEVER say just what this thing actually IS. What are these contradictions that would HAVE to exist if you're INTj? All I EVER see in your posts are these retarded declarations about how SOMETHING must be wrong with socionics if you're INTj (which, by the way, is VERY MUCH behavior; you'll find that most people will agree with me here), but where have you actually stated what these contradictions are? I've read ALL of the Strat descriptions, as well as Ganin's AND Gulenko's and a few that, in all probability, you haven't, and regardless, I see you as an INTj. Observations of functions in individuals should take presidence over these over-generalized behavioral descriptions that can't really be completely tied to concrete manifestations of functions.

[Rocky]

INTps are not likely to say they are INTj because they are more confident and rely on their instincts.

INTjs are likely to waver and say "I might be INTp, but then I might be INTj", because of their .

NOTHING to do with Ne.

[Phaedrus]

Ok, what IS it exactly that makes you INTp as opposed to INTj? You keep sayng that we have to prove something wrong, but you NEVER say just what this thing actually IS. What are these contradictions that would HAVE to exist if you're INTj? All I EVER see in your posts are these retarded declarations about how SOMETHING must be wrong with socionics if you're INTj (which, by the way, is VERY MUCH behavior; you'll find that most people will agree with me here), but where have you actually stated what these contradictions are? I've read ALL of the Strat descriptions, as well as Ganin's AND Gulenko's and a few that, in all probability, you haven't, and regardless, I see you as an INTj. Observations of functions in individuals should take presidence over these over-generalized behavioral descriptions that can't really be completely tied to concrete manifestations of functions.

The most obvious contradiction is the descriptions of the differences between rational (J) and irrational (P) behaviour.

In every article about that aspect on Ganin's site he describes the J behaviour in a similar way as it is described in MBTI, and that way is not compatible with what Hugo has said about INTjs in some posts.

Stratiyevskaya describes the INTj in a way that is consistent with Ganin's, Lytov's and others but inconsistent with Hugo's (at least in some parts).

Both Jonathan and I are clearly P types according to the criteria used by Ganin and Lytov, and, as I have read countless of MBTI descriptions of INTJs and INTPs, I can see clearly that Stratiyevskaya's INTp description is much closer to an MBTI INTP than to an MBTI INTJ. Her descriptions of INTj is also more similar to MBTI INTJs than to MBTI INTPs. It is also absolutely certain that, based on the MBTI type descriptions, I (and therefore also Jonathan) are INTPs in the MBTI model, not INTJs. It is also absolutely certain that Sergei Ganin identifies more with the INTJ as described in MBTI than with the INTP. That must be explained somehow. The most simple explanation, and the one that makes most sense, is that I and Jonathan are INTps in Socionics, too.

Whether my behaviour is or not is not that clear if you think about it. What is it that I do? I criticize and point out "contradictions" and "inconsistences" in Socionics. The INTp is supposed to be good at that, if you look at the type descriptions (for example Ganin's/Gulenko's). And how do I do it? Instead of sticking to the model, which is what one would expect from an INTj, I question the validity of the model if there is empricial evidence that I think is incompatible with the model. I look at the model from the outside, whereas a typical INTj would look at reality from inside the model.

My arguments could be interpreted as more -based than -based, if we keep those things in mind. I am also much less inclined to focus on the functions. Many self-proclaimed INTjs here seem to put much emphasis on the functions and how they are supposed to be understood according to the model of Socionics, whereas my natural inclination is to start with the (empirical) types. I want my empirical observations to fit the model. The INTj, as I see it, wants the model to fit reality, but if it doesn't the INTj tend to stick to the model and ignore those empirical arguments that points in another direction.

Compare my way of arguing with the way Expat and Rocky argue and also with the way some "INTjs" argue on this forum. I think you will see some similarities between me, Rocky and Expat. I can understand why many people see in my writings, but that phenomenon is perhaps not necessarily tied to my type. To at least some degree it could be something I have learnt from intensive studies of philosophy during the past 20 years or so. Look at what kind of arguments I prefer and compare that with the arguments the "stick-to-the-model-INTjs", like Sergei Ganin, prefer.

[olduser]

In classic Socionics theory

what the fuck!

[Gilly]

Ok, what IS it exactly that makes you INTp as opposed to INTj? You keep sayng that we have to prove something wrong, but you NEVER say just what this thing actually IS. What are these contradictions that would HAVE to exist if you're INTj? All I EVER see in your posts are these retarded declarations about how SOMETHING must be wrong with socionics if you're INTj (which, by the way, is VERY MUCH behavior; you'll find that most people will agree with me here), but where have you actually stated what these contradictions are? I've read ALL of the Strat descriptions, as well as Ganin's AND Gulenko's and a few that, in all probability, you haven't, and regardless, I see you as an INTj. Observations of functions in individuals should take presidence over these over-generalized behavioral descriptions that can't really be completely tied to concrete manifestations of functions.

The most obvious contradiction is the descriptions of the differences between rational (J) and irrational (P) behaviour.

In every article about that aspect on Ganin's site he describes the J behaviour in a similar way as it is described in MBTI, and that way is not compatible with what Hugo has said about INTjs in some posts.

Stratiyevskaya describes the INTj in a way that is consistent with Ganin's, Lytov's and others but inconsistent with Hugo's (at least in some parts).

Both Jonathan and I are clearly P types according to the criteria used by Ganin and Lytov, and, as I have read countless of MBTI descriptions of INTJs and INTPs, I can see clearly that Stratiyevskaya's INTp description is much closer to an MBTI INTP than to an MBTI INTJ. Her descriptions of INTj is also more similar to MBTI INTJs than to MBTI INTPs. It is also absolutely certain that, based on the MBTI type descriptions, I (and therefore also Jonathan) are INTPs in the MBTI model, not INTJs. It is also absolutely certain that Sergei Ganin identifies more with the INTJ as described in MBTI than with the INTP. That must be explained somehow. The most simple explanation, and the one that makes most sense, is that I and Jonathan are INTps in Socionics, too.

Whether my behaviour is or not is not that clear if you think about it. What is it that I do? I criticize and point out "contradictions" and "inconsistences" in Socionics. The INTp is supposed to be good at that, if you look at the type descriptions (for example Ganin's/Gulenko's). And how do I do it? Instead of sticking to the model, which is what one would expect from an INTj, I question the validity of the model if there is empricial evidence that I think is incompatible with the model. I look at the model from the outside, whereas a typical INTj would look at reality from inside the model.

My arguments could be interpreted as more -based than -based, if we keep those things in mind. I am also much less inclined to focus on the functions. Many self-proclaimed INTjs here seem to put much emphasis on the functions and how they are supposed to be understood according to the model of Socionics, whereas my natural inclination is to start with the (empirical) types. I want my empirical observations to fit the model. The INTj, as I see it, wants the model to fit reality, but if it doesn't the INTj tend to stick to the model and ignore those empirical arguments that points in another direction.

Compare my way of arguing with the way Expat and Rocky argue and also with the way some "INTjs" argue on this forum. I think you will see some similarities between me, Rocky and Expat. I can understand why many people see in my writings, but that phenomenon is perhaps not necessarily tied to my type. To at least some degree it could be something I have learnt from intensive studies of philosophy during the past 20 years or so. Look at what kind of arguments I prefer and compare that with the arguments the "stick-to-the-model-INTjs", like Sergei Ganin, prefer.

I didn't need all that. But thanks, you gave me more to work with :wink:

First of all, cut the MBTI bullshit. It's old. It's outdated. And it's not compatible with Socionics, no matter how hard you try.

Secondly, Ganin is whack. I don't care what you say about him being a qualified socionist or any of that shit; his typings (even of himself ) are inconsistent, very controversial, and questioned by just about every legitimate authority in the field, most notably Dmitri Lytov (for whom I have infinitely more respect in regards to matters of Socionics).

For fuck's sake, he said that I am an ESTp.

Let's go into P and J. Basically, it's no suprise that you see yourself as a P. Many INTjs, from our experience here, exhibit quite distinct P-like behavior. Look at MysticSonic: he acts like a perceiver, says that he behaves like one IRL, and even LOOKS like a perceiver, and yet in the context of the WHOLE system of Socionics, it becomes quite clear that he is, in fact, INTj. I believe that you and Jonathan may very well be similar cases.

As for your argument against your behavior being , what you're failing to see is that it's not what you're arguing aboout but how you argue it, and in my opinion (and that of others), your argument style and method of presentation is QUITE .

Your argument style, syntax, and even grammar are MUCH more like the INTjs on this forum than they are when compared with, say, Dreikin (an obvious INTp IMO) or CPig.

That's all for now; maybe more later (when I'm not hung over -_- )

[Phaedrus]

Ok, Gilligan. How do we go further from this? You have not given me anything new to investigate so far. You have stated your view on this once again. I agree with what you say about MysticSonic, and I would not be surprised if he and I are the same type (I think I have said that in one of my earlier posts). But it is still an open question which type we are. I think MysticSonic has claimed that he is an INTP in MBTI, which of course makes sense to me.

How can we test which of our incompatible views is the correct one? Do you have access to any link to any text that might help to clarify things? I have tried to look at the context of the whole system of Socionics, and everything I have read so far seems to support my understanding of it.

I have never said that MBTI is compatible with Socionics. I have said that it is comparable, which of course it is. When I compare those two models, I come to the conclusion that an INTP resembles an INTp the most of the socionic types and that an INTJ is most similar to an INTj.

The only reasonable interpretation I can come up with when it comes to your position is that you must think that an INTP is more like an INTj in most cases, and that an INTJ is more like an INTp in most cases. Is that correct? That does'nt mean that the two models are compatible, it is just a simple comparison between type descriptions.

[Expat]

INTps are not likely to say they are INTj because they are more confident and rely on their instincts.

INTjs are likely to waver and say "I might be INTp, but then I might be INTj", because of their .

NOTHING to do with Ne.

OK. What does it have to do with IYO?