Need help in defining type

[Tanzhe]

Hello. I’m new to this board, so this is more of a trial post. But, anyway, I do have a problem that I thought I might as well post. This is the problem:

Through Socionics I have got narrowed my type down to three types; INTj, ISTj and INTp. But I’m not quite sure how to finally prove, beyond reasonable doubt, my type. It seems simple but, on closer scrutiny, then problem becomes more complicated, and seems to even become something of a riddle.

For example, CuriousSoul has mentioned three types of INTjs - the fascinating weirdos, the rather dry intellectuals/ISTj look-alikes, and the lazy-boned ISTp look-alikes. So, can anybody help me with the S-N preference since, if I am an INTj, I am an ISTj look-alike.

The ‘INTj or INTp’ article on Socionics was interesting, but not quite specific enough for me. For example, the agenda of being healthy cannot necessarily be attributed to any specific type, as, for example, an intelligent INTp may deduce that living healthily is beneficial to his mental productiveness. The difference between accumulating an understanding (Ti) and applying knowledge (Te) can actually be quite vague.

And, thirdly, I am trying to ascertain whether I am a J or a P through Introverted Complexity No. 47, but I don’t know whether I am actually suffering from the I. C. What’s more, if I am a victim, then I am a little confused on how to apply the theory of I. C. 47 to determine type.

So, in short, this is what I want: ways to prove my type beyond reasonable doubt. For example, one such ‘way’ might be for somebody to say that ‘INTjs are highly judicial, much more so than other types. So, if you’ve been, for all your life, seeing things in an almost black-and-white sense of right-and-wrong, then chances are you are an INTj.’ I just plucked that off the top of my head, from my knowledge that INTjs are highly judicial.

Thanks in advance. 8)

[MysticSonic]

The thing about the hidden agenda is that it is an unconscious one, and not only that, it is also an extremely sensitive area of one's psyche. Understanding that being healthy will allow one to function in a more efficient way is not the same thing as having an unconscious obsession with it, and I hope you understand that. Now, I agree with you on the notion that the differences between Ti and Te are minimal, or at least the descriptions that we are given are awfully "vauge", but when the positions of the functions are changed the differences between the two functions become greater or lesser, depending upon which blocks of the psyche are being compared. Thus, the INTp's logic is not only focused on the act of applying their knowledge, the degree to which they are logical varies, much more so then the INTj. The INTj on the other hand has extraverted inuition as it's second function, and I believe there is a very clear distinction between introverted inuition and extraverted inution. One is focused on possibliities, while the other is focused on a sort of "map", an inner guidance, and it is this inner guidance that makes many INTps spiritual, whereas the INTj's extraveted inuition serves as a focusing tool: it refines the data brought in by the introverted thinking function, and elaborates on it.

Now, if you analyze the fourth function, the place of least resistance, you shall see a stark contrast between the INTp and INTj. INTjs can be horrified of physical conflict, whereas, if sufficient support is available, the INTp can be assertive, but only in the presence of one with a extraverted sensing as a dominant or auxilary function, otherwise the INTp fears such conflict and shys away from it.

Now, the differences between the ISTj and INTj are more defined, although still not enough make a a solid assumption, or at least when analyzed at first glance.

The ISTj and INTj can behave in a percuilarly similar manner, whilst at other times can seem to be polar opposites of each other. The INTj is extremely idiosyncratic, never assuming the validity of another's statements without being presented with a sufficient amount of data, especially when these statements entail in them how to behave properly, while the ISTj can at times seem like the stereotypical biggot, using his base function in conjunction with his auxilary function, thus creating a very strong persona. But, when presented with an ambigous situation, they are apt to either cower in fear of being criticized, or act in a rather counter-phobic way in order to reduce the anxiety associated with such situations.

The stark difference in their spiritual natures are also readily appearent, as the INTj often does not actively participate in religious rituals, whereas the ISTj will be an active participant in religion, if brought up to believe in it. If they are brought up as an athiest, however, they will adhere to the atheistic principles, as the ISTj do not want to draw attention to their belief system, rather diverting attention from it in order to hide their "achillees heel".

[metaiwan]

I can't say much about ISTjs because I don't know them very well, but I can describe an intj first hand and how they are different than INTps. I don't know about being 'highly judicial', I wouldn't say I see things in black and white at all. I definately am not religous, INTjs almost never are. As far as the hidden agenda goes, I can't see firsthand how 'being healthy' is an unconscious obsession of mine but it may be more obvious from the outside. I can see the role function and the function of least resistance clearly, I definately feel that my social role is to 'be loved', and I shy away from 'willfull' or people I think are stubborn or use physical force to get what they want. INTps do not like emotional outbursts, INTjs kind of like them. INTjs do not like imposing their will or having others impose their will using force or not, INTps don't mind. I hope that helps some...

[CuriousSoul]

One way of approaching the perennial issue: INTJ or INTP?, could be to compare the writing styles of the two types. Maybe one of these two ways of thinking just instinctively feels closer to your heart?

First INTJs: Dienekes Pontikos, one of the Bloggers I often follow:

Are "ethnic genetic interests" behind ethnocentrism? A test.
After the last long post on the origin of ethnocentrism, I have pretty much exhausted my thoughts on the subject. But an idea occurred to me as I was writing that post which illustrates why attempts to explain ethnocentrism in terms of "ethnic genetic interests" are fundamentally misguided and ethnocentrism is best understood as a psychological-cultural phenomenon. I have conceptualized this idea as a simple test:
An omnipotent being presents itself before you, posing a simple dilemma: either George, an 18-year-old co-ethnic, or Michael, an 18-year-old foreigner will be killed. You are also told that (a) neither George or Michael are your close kin, and (b) that Michael is twice closer to you genetically than George. You can decide to spare either George or Michael. Who would you choose?
If ethnocentric behavior arises from our desire to further our genetic interests, then we would choose to spare Michael. If it arises from our desire to support members of our ethnic group irrespective of genetic interests, then we would choose to spare George.

I would personally choose to spare George. I suspect that this would be the case for at least most of my countrymen, that they would choose to spare a fellow Greek rather than e.g., Turk or Bulgarian who happened to be closer to them genetically. Even though condition (b) is an ideal case for the "genetic ethnocentrism" thesis (you are told the exact degree of relatedness of the individuals affected by our actions), I believe that it does not create nearly the same motivation to save Michael than the simple notion that "George is a Greek" does to save him.

Condition (a) is very important to elicit the above choice. Imagine for example that you're an American of German ancestry fighting in WWII. If you're an ethnocentric German-American, then you will doubtlessly choose to kill a German to protect a fellow American, even though you're most likely closer kin to the German than to the American. But, if you knew that the German e.g., was your cousin, then you might be tempted to look the other way.
http://dienekes.blogspot.com/2004/10...ts-behind.html

Here are some examples of creative extroverted intuition by the INTJ host of www.socionics.com
Sergein Ganin:

All functions have their own sector within the brain. Use of any function
would require brain power. But I recon Ti and Te would normaly take more
power. People with developed thinking tend to have weak eyesight. This is
because when brain needs more energy, it takes it from the energy allocated
for the body needs. Eyesight is easiest to suffer. You don't have to be Tj
person or Tp to have developed Ti or Te.
Tiredness is a bit different thing yet related to the functions.

Sergei.
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/socionics/message/193

Keeping the above in mind, I would'n try come out with rational
explainations about the type population. If you want to hear my own opinion
on this matter, I can tell you that the ratio between the types changes
according to the world situation. The society or let's call it Socion,
produces types according to the task to be fulfiled. Otherwise we wouldn't
be here now. For example if whole Earth or part of it would be inwolved in
quite long perion of wars, socion would produce more Fe types which are
ISTj, ESTps, ISFjs, and ESFps. Or maybe it works otherway. If there are
more people of these types, world starts having frequent wars.
Sergei.
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/socionics/message/53

Sometimes there is a fine line between discovering great possibilities and plain dumbass speculation...

INTPs on the other hand, typically would prefer to stick with the proven facts. This entry from another old favourite, Abiola Lapite:

Take the Loner Test and find out. I scored a mere 35, despite being an INTP who leans strongly towards the "I" end of things, which ought to tell you how seriously to take this test.
Like many people, the test-designers seem to mistake the capacity for being alone with a positive dislike of others; for instance, I'd never ignore a personal acquaintance I ran into in public unless the person and I were on less than speaking terms, and I've always considered those who act in such a fashion to be ill-mannered in the extreme. Another mistake people tend to make is to equate "introvert" with "shy": although I don't mind spending a week without talking to a single soul if need be, I've never been tongue-tied in company, and I'm definitely not the sort to shrink into a corner of the room at a party. What introversion means to me is that companionship is a take-it-or-leave it thing, enjoyable enough but easy enough to do without when more pressing or interesting tasks arise.
To be fair though, the test doesn't make any pretensions to validity, and if you're looking for others to compare scores with, you can do worse than check out the Monkeyfilter thread on which I originally spotted it.
PS: Anyone who'd like to take the Myers-Briggs inventory test can find a version here. Judging by the questions posed and the result I received, it seems reliable enough.

Very nice Skepdic entry on why even the MBTI must be taken with a pinch of salt, especially with regards to those who fall close to the center of the continuum on any of the scales (though all of the material on Jung's fuzzy theories doesn't really prove anything about the validity of the Meyers-Briggs per se, as shoddy theories can give birth to worthwhile ideas - alchemy and chemistry being one example).
A more hard-headed assessment than the Skepdic entry would want to look at statistical issues like the precise shape of the distributions (the article says that scores are normally distributed, but one would like to know more, especially about the distributions of the individual components), whether the various axes (T-F, I-E, N-S, P-J) were truly independent of each other (factor analysis), how it holds up in terms of test-retest reliability, and whether under a randomized test design, the personality profiles assessed for individuals prior to the test (say, by interview or self-description) did indeed correspond to the types they were eventually assigned to. Whether all of these things been done by now I cannot say.

Still, I wouldn't say that the MBTI is entirely useless, and in particular, I do know for a fact that at least one of the scales has stood up to scrutiny in other contexts: the Introversion-Extroversion scale that is particularly salient for this discussion. It may yet prove possible to rescue something of real scientific value from the MBTI with a little effort, though given the ownership of the trademark and copyright by a particular organization, it's really out of anyone else's hands.
But enough of all the psychometric mumbo-jumbo for one evening; I did file this post under "Entertainment" for a reason ...
Posted by: Abiola Lapite | November 2, 2004 07:35 PM

By the way, here's a paper
http://foreigndispatches.typepad.com...tzSIOP2003.pdf
that argues that the MBTI does indeed have some validity as a testing instrument, though I still think it would be more meaningful if it were switched from using binary "types" to just giving raw numbers along each axis and leaving things at that.
And with that, I really am done for the night, I swear.
http://foreigndispatches.typepad.com...u_a_loner.html

Finding more relevant and illustrative examples would take some effort but just a little Googling goes a long way...

[Tanzhe]

Sergein Ganin:

All functions have their own sector within the brain. Use of any function
would require brain power. But I recon Ti and Te would normaly take more power. People with developed thinking tend to have weak eyesight. This is because when brain needs more energy, it takes it from the energy allocated for the body needs. Eyesight is easiest to suffer. You don't have to be Tj person or Tp to have developed Ti or Te.
Tiredness is a bit different thing yet related to the functions.

Sergei.
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/socionics/message/193


Thanks for the response so far, but I'll need a little time to look over the information in a completely systematic way.

In response to the above quote, could anybody clarify how tiredness is related to functions? And, when he refers to developed thinking, does he mean as a primary, auxiliary or both? I'm particularly interested in the latter question because I am myopic (short-sighted).

[CuriousSoul]

Sergein Ganin:

All functions have their own sector within the brain. Use of any function
would require brain power. But I recon Ti and Te would normaly take more power. People with developed thinking tend to have weak eyesight. This is because when brain needs more energy, it takes it from the energy allocated for the body needs. Eyesight is easiest to suffer. You don't have to be Tj person or Tp to have developed Ti or Te.
Tiredness is a bit different thing yet related to the functions.
Sergei.
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/socionics/message/193


Thanks for the response so far, but I'll need a little time to look over the information in a completely systematic way.

In response to the above quote, could anybody clarify how tiredness is related to functions? And, when he refers to developed thinking, does he mean as a primary, auxiliary or both? I'm particularly interested in the latter question because I am myopic (short-sighted).

The discussion I quoted did not shed light on how tiredness is related to functions, often people just need more sleep... Perhaps though having to constantly work on your weaker functions is more stressful than being able to rely on your strongest functions at your work/studies etc.

I am also myopic. I have read that there are several theories on why short-sightedness has been getting so much more common. It most likely has to be primarily something enviromental: i.e. perhaps to do with the modern lifestyle requiring so much consentrated looking at close distance: E.g. more reading, computers, TVs, etc, or artificial lightning, especially at late hours, or maybe something to with the typical modern diet. Personally I do not find Sergei's theory persuasive:
This is because when brain needs more energy, it takes it from the energy allocated for the body needs. Eyesight is easiest to suffer.
There is, for one thing, not a shred of evidence to support it.

I wish there were more information available but currently if you are not wholly convinced by your test result you are pretty much on your own. I discussed the INTP/INTJ issue because it seems to arouse so much interest but of course it is very well possible that your type is something else entirely.
Yet another way of typing would be to look at the intertype relationship chart. Tell me who your dual is I shall tell to you who are you. Other intertype relations that might be fairly easy to recognize would probably be conflicting, benefactor-beneficiary and supervisor-supervisee. Read the descriptions of all the intertype relations, now also on this site, maybe something matches. And as I wrote earlier on another thread even the pictures of people with the 16 types might be worth looking at. If only typing was not so difficult. :|

[Tanzhe]

I just want to filter through everything and get to the essentials. The essentials are listed here, and if I've missed anything please say so. I've also included my own personal view.

1. Ne is a possibilities-based function, and makes the INTj creative.
2. Ni serves as an inner map. An inner map to what, exactly?
3. INTjs can be horrified of physical conflict. I am not horrified, as I do a martial art. However, I do try to avoid it and don't like a physical environment with lots of punching etc.
4. INTps can be assertive with an Se partner. I am hardly ever assertive with my voice.
5. INTjs are idiosyncratic. The word 'individualistic' suits me better.
6. INTjs only change opinions when presented with sufficient data, and are quite stubborn when the data forces them to change their personality. I think that's true.
7. INTj is often not religious. I was brought up as a Christian, but left it and simply became someone who's not sure. Although I do recall, after leaving it, looking into alternative philosophical viewpoints. I don't know why, perhaps it is an Ni trait to do that (?)
8. INTps like to work with accepted facts. Is there an easily-spotted manifestation of this (perhaps being too literal, too pedantic etc.)?

And, finally, what characterises an INTjs writing style, if they don't focus on accepted facts? One cannot speculate all the time.


Curious Soul, a few ideas:
1. How can I tell you my dual when I don't know my own type? I might look into different relations, but, as you say, typing yourself is very difficult, and I find typing others to be quite a confused affair.
2. My test result was INTj for the Socionics Type Assistant. The trouble is that my 'self-awareness' score is usually about 0.8, meaning that the results may be somewhat innaccurate.
3. It's not that an INTj type description doesn't fit me, it's just that I want to be absolutely sure.

[MysticSonic]

What he means by 'telling you who your dual is' is that, try to determine which type manifests a relationship that would seem like identity, and of course, this sort of test works with about any sort of relationship, although I believe it MAY or may NOT serve as a better tool, as duality is experienced as having the most potential for a relationship, after the two duals begin to become acquainted with an other. Of course, I also believe if you were to use this train of thought, semi-duality, activiation, and relationships of benefit where you are the benefactor can also provide an insight strong enough your type, but of course, these tests only work if you are certain of the other's whom you are subjecting to this analyses type, which is often not the case.

As for Ni serving as an "inner map", it is an inner map for how one should live one's life, and how immediate events will unfold. Those whom possess Ni as their dominant function tend to be spiritual because of this, as they'd very much adhere to a set principle of beliefs, seeing as how disturbing this inner wholeness is a situation they'd very much want to avoid.

Also, I seem to have mistated what I meant to say about the INTp's suggestive function. They willingly seek out events that stimulate them in such a way that their sense of strength is reinforced, although they have a hard time actually picking up the project of initiating a search that would bring about such a circumstance, although they readily seek out persons who would do it for them, and these persons are those with extraverted sensing as a dominant or auxilary function.

On a side note, I once heard that excessive amounts of reading and excessive strain on one's eyes, can lead to one becoming short sited. I think this may account for Curious Soul's myopic vision.

[metaiwan]

I found these are kinda funny but seem to be dead on:

Is the glass half full or half empty?
INTp -- Yes, that glass will be the flivvium container.
INTj -- Well, it seems just a little more than half full--assuming that it is water...
ISTj -- So? It's water. Big deal!

or
INTp - How can you say it's half-full? It's half-empty! I refuse to listen to your reasoning!
INTj - What? (Looks up in bewilderment after being distracted from his mathematical theory book)
ISTj - Eh. Just water. Needs to be spiked with some Jack Daniels though.

If types were cats:
ISTj "The Problem-Solver": This is the cat that will figure out how to get the giblets out of the bottom of the garbage can without knocking anything over. Appreciates his pleasures but not a glutton. Stand-offish, but will put up with an occasional petting session.
INTj "The Flake": Will play with toys, but bored quickly. If you give in, you'll quickly have a closet full of cat toys he won't touch any more. He'll sit, apparently doing nothing, and then be off on a tear. When walking across a room, will suddenly sit down and start grooming himself.
INTp "The Limit-Setter": If you have to be around, fine, but he'd prefer that you just showed up once a week to drop off a case of canned food. If you stay home sick, he'll glare at you, since after all it's his scheduled day to have the house to himself.

i swear some of those are more on target than some type descriptions i have read.

as far as determining your type by your relationship to other people, this is useful but hard to do, especially at first. it's easy to pick one sentence out of a description of a relationship and think it's right on, but it just has personal significance and may not be the actual relationship type. also, doing typing by eyesight seems to be interesting, maybe there is a connection, but it would be seriously hypothetical and I doubt it will help you much in finding your real type. I would stick to the easiest things if possible.

INTj: Ti, Ne: love theories, like socionics. like to find logic in complex systems and can quickly find inconsistencies in the data. they like to simply. will learn something just for the personal satisfaction of knowing it with no plans to use it.
INTp: Ni, Te: like to observe processes, to imaging would could or will happen. think of Te as series of events and Ni as internal pictures representing those events(or algorithms). i find INTps tend to be behaviorists and don't simply as much as INTjs. They like to use their knowledge or be useful.

Hope that helps

[Tanzhe]

At the moment, I'm waiting for more information to come in about the INTj-INTp-ISTj question. But a thought did occur to me.

What about the so-called Introverted Complexity No. 47?

How can you tell if you're a victim?

And, if the answer to the above question is 'Yes,' then how can you resolve the issue?


What are the manifestations of trying to balance your physical-spiritual or intellectual-emotional sides?

And, also, a Socionics Q&A page said that INTps concentrate too much on their feeling-ethical side, which leads them to believe that it is as strong as their thinking-logical side, but in reality they'll always feel more comfortable displaying their knowledge and erudition rather than displaying emotion. Is there a similar idea for INTjs?

[discourse]

Firstly i wrote one text, but i had to change it. I'm very emotional and act like ESFj sometimes, which i'm not cause i am good at coming into new ideas and inventions ( i usually invent two free things per day), so i couldn't use the idea that you are actually ESFj who scored as ESFjs dual, time to time it happendes. So now i'm quessing that you are ENTp actually. I think that you are E cause in Extraverts stroy the stroy teller is usualy in center of attention.You are logical, but not falling into deep analize or complexity like metaiwan does, who is INTj, so your logic seems to be strong, but not showing much attention. You seem to be good at noticing strong sides of something or giving evaluations how good something is so this is much like Ne. I think that you are ENTp.

Is this similar to you: i meat a person and i know in what he or she might be good at; i easily know if i can make a task, like automatically i can tell if i will have time to get on the bus; i have sudden idea flashes which motivate me into actions like new approach for the topic in socionics forum; your one of the favourite past time activities is coming with out getting tired into new ideas, f.e a new way how to use msn messenger for communications. If this is similar to you, then your strongest function is Ne.

Our strongest function is what we do automatically. That's why it's hard to say what it might be. Also our programm function is what makes us to feel as a personality, for ENTp it's a knowing that i am what are the possibilities around me ( i am a writer cause i know that i can write and i know that even with out needing to think about it- it's so obious)

Also if we ask questions we activate the function what we were using at that time. Also it activates it's dual seeking function, if the ESFj asks a question by using the Fe, then she or he will want an answer either made by Fe (emotion with emotion) or Ti (emotion with explanation). That's my theory, i don't know if the socionists have the same idea.But i do believe that a lot of nagging in our relations might come cause we want an answer to our question made by same function, f.e ESTp father sais to INTj son:''Are you gone destroy your enemies in football field?'' which was made by Se and because Se is painfull function in INTj the INTJ might say something like:''Stop bullieng me!'' and from that starts an argue, the father steped on a delicate theme on sons soul, the INTj couldn't answer with agression to agression.

All ideas on my writing are wellcomed. And excuse my bad English, i would be thankfull if somebody would explain others what i meant. My posting is quite messy and i'm bad at talking clearly in English.

[Tanzhe]

male21:

In that case, I'll expand the remit of this post to INTj, ISTj, INTp and ENTp.

As for Ne as a primary function, I'll say this:
1. As for meeting people and evaluting them, I can't be very precise. I would say, however, that my knowledge of Socionics typing means that I regularly classify people as Introverts-Extroverts etc.
2. Easily know if I can do a task - not sure. Give me some time.
3. Sudden idea flashes - yes, very much so. I'll be at work, or on the way home, and I'll suddenly get out a piece of paper (kept for this eventuality) and scribble down, say, 'On the16types Forum post, mention I. C. 47.'
4. Coming up regularly with new ways to use things - new ways, yes. Regularly, not sure.

The possibility of being an ENTp does intrigue me. All of a sudden, I notice that, in the right company, I can be very talkative, although I can be somewhat easily embarrassed and have a tendency to retire into solitude in an unfriendly environment. Perhaps this is due to the ENTp's spaced-out nature - someone absent-minded will seem introverted.

So, two main conclusions:
1. The remit of this post now includes the possibility of me being an ENTp.
2. I would like some more information on I. C. 47, please.

[MysticSonic]

I.C. 47 is a complexity that arises when one is typed as specific type in the MBTI system or Socionics system, and attempts to apply this knowledge in a direct manner by simply calling themselves the type that they were previously identified as. The problem with this is, the P/J scale only tests whether or not your EXTRAVERTED dominant or auxilary function is irrational, but in the case of the introvert, the auxilary function is an irrational one, but as we know, if you are to label one an irrational type then they would have an irrational dominant function, but appearently that is not the case in the MBTI system, where the rational function is dominant if one has an irrational extraverted function. The mistake in this thinking is would be that there is an assumption that only extraverted activity can account for the ordering and processing for the external world, but this just isn't true! An introverted function operates from a more subjective view-point then the extraverted function, yes, but it is able to sort out the external world and thus their decisions through different means, which is the exact opposite then the MBTI system is attempting to indicate.

Due to all of this, the introverted types within the Socionic system have a tendancy to type a person as the SAME type, when looked at from the first two functions, yet with a different nomenclature. Although, a full corellation between the two types seems frivilous, as the descriptions of the types are built from the functional order of one's psyche, and thus, with both types not fully correpsonding, there cannot be a full correlation between the two.

I think this is right....

Edit-Also, the ENTJ MBTI description would NOT be the same as the ENTp Socionic description for the same exact reason, function stacking, but the results of the test ARE interchangeable, as they test for the dimensions.

[Tanzhe]

To MysticSonic:

Thanks for the information.

1. But, bluntly, I would like to know how I can apply I. C. 47 to help sort out my type (the Socionics site's description on the applying is somewhat wooly and not precise). Everything in my posts that are numbered are usually points that I would like to focus on.

2. How can you tell an Extrovert from an Introvert, in the light of male21's evaluation of me as an ENTp? Because, as we know, type is about the way your psyche is structured, and not necessarily how we directly behave.

The E-I question raised a memory. When I was much younger, approximately before I was ten years old, I was quite friendly, outgoing - an Extrovert. Then, for some reason, I changed to an Introvert. I have two theories as to why this happened.

The first is that, as an I, my extroversion was allowing my somewhat clumsy social skills to be seen. I didn't really go out much (I probably never went out) and so the meaning of certain words, phrases, and 'what was cool' eluded me.

The second is that I saw introverts, observed their behaviour, and copied it. Why I might have copied it; perhaps an acceptance of my introversion? perhaps a Perciever's preference for change? I have read that INTjs usually have an extroverted (or lively) life before realising that this lifestyle does not give them what they wanted.

Just an idea.

[Tanzhe]

Thanks CuriousSoul, but I'll need a while to think over your points. I'm posting to add a few ideas:

1. These 'manifestations' of your real type - what are they? My Introverted preference only keeps if I remain self-controlled, and in an interesting conversation I sometimes lose that control. So, an I-preference could be my mask type.
2. Socionics mentioned derivatives of types. Could I get derivatives of the Four Types (ISTj, INTj, ENTp and INTp), please?
3. What is the manifestation of the dual-seeking function of Introverted Sensing? For example, an INTj's function of Fe means that they like happy and cheerful surroundings. Could the Si seeking function (if I am an ENTp) be a reason for my 'conversion' to introversion?
4. Can you tell my possible type functions from the way I write, or is that just speculation?

[metaiwan]

Thanks CuriousSoul, but I'll need a while to think over your points. I'm posting to add a few ideas:

1. These 'manifestations' of your real type - what are they? My Introverted preference only keeps if I remain self-controlled, and in an interesting conversation I sometimes lose that control. So, an I-preference could be my mask type.
2. Socionics mentioned derivatives of types. Could I get derivatives of the Four Types (ISTj, INTj, ENTp and INTp), please?
3. What is the manifestation of the dual-seeking function of Introverted Sensing? For example, an INTj's function of Fe means that they like happy and cheerful surroundings. Could the Si seeking function (if I am an ENTp) be a reason for my 'conversion' to introversion?
4. Can you tell my possible type functions from the way I write, or is that just speculation?

1. That sounds just like how the introverted thinking / extraverted feeling link works. This would be INTj/ENTpish
2. Theres are several different documents you might want to look at. One's got a sticky and describes people in relationships, and the other are the Reinin types and I think both documents have the types listed.
4. It's just speculation but it would be cool to hear people guess. I'd guess INTj or ENTp. It's hard to do without knowing you.

[Tanzhe]

I'll look into the Reinin types.

Adding two more ideas:
1. These 'idea flashes' of an Ne primary function - for me, they only happen after I have been thinking about something. I just let my mind wander for a minute or so, then I suddenly realise something.
2. Mathematics and 'hard sciences' (whatever those are) are supposed to be Te subjects. Can anybody contribute as to what would be Ni, Ne and Ti subjects?

Thanks

[CuriousSoul]

Thanks CuriousSoul, but I'll need a while to think over your points. I'm posting to add a few ideas:

1. These 'manifestations' of your real type - what are they? My Introverted preference only keeps if I remain self-controlled, and in an interesting conversation I sometimes lose that control. So, an I-preference could be my mask type.

I think the key to understanding subtypes and unsual cases is that even though people often develop skills unusual of their types and behave in ways which are far from the standard type descriptions, the intertype relations remain according to the true type because in close communication, once the parties have established sufficient mutual trust, the mask gradually falls off and people revert to their natural strong functions.

For example: because of their hidden agenda people might develop their sixth function to the extent that it appears to be their strongest function. Let us consider ENTPs who can be very much in need of positive emotions and if they do not othervice get this emotional recharging they may behave very emotionally themselves in order to get the emotional response they crave and thus may appear to be ethical types, easily mistaken for ENFJs. What they most want from their partner is still emotional support adapted to the needs of the moment - ideally their dual ISFP - and thus their intertype relations, among other things, would give away their true type.
Or let us imagine a know-it-all INFP self-proclaimed socionics expert who kind of gets frustrated with people who have not done their homework and carefully studied the information available. :twisted:

2. Socionics mentioned derivatives of types. Could I get derivatives of the Four Types (ISTj, INTj, ENTp and INTp), please?

Sorry but you are not allowed. Everyone has only one permanent true type. Othervice nothing makes sense in socionics - and you know it. This is the opinion of about 90% of socionists. It is also corroborated by my own careful observations. The type can be accurately detected in children as young as 5 or 6 years and it does not change during your lifetime. People's behaviour, values and skills on the other hand can, and often do, change tremendously. You can though have several mask types, well developed weaker functions and very poorly developed self-awareness.

3. What is the manifestation of the dual-seeking function of Introverted Sensing? For example, an INTj's function of Fe means that they like happy and cheerful surroundings. Could the Si seeking function (if I am an ENTp) be a reason for my 'conversion' to introversion?

Introverted Sensing as a duality-seeking function means that you would like to be in comfortable, aesthetic surroundings, enjoy good food, drinks other physical comforts and generally be pampered and taken care of. Of course everybody wants this kind of things at least to some extent but ENTPs and ENFPs could be especially attracted to the easy life. They are typically poorly able to create this kind of comfort and appreciate very much if others provide it for them. ENTPs in particular would often not hesitate to accept this kind of care even when it might not be socially acceptable in that situation, for example Our Lord Jesus Christ:

36Now one of the Pharisees invited Jesus to have dinner with him, so he went to the Pharisee's house and reclined at the table.
37When a woman who had lived a sinful life in that town learned that Jesus was eating at the Pharisee's house, she brought an alabaster jar of perfume,
38and as she stood behind him at his feet weeping, she began to wet his feet with her tears. Then she wiped them with her hair, kissed them and poured perfume on them.
39When the Pharisee who had invited him saw this, he said to himself, "If this man were a prophet, he would know who is touching him and what kind of woman she is--that she is a sinner."
40Jesus answered him, "Simon, I have something to tell you."
"Tell me, teacher," he said.
41"Two men owed money to a certain moneylender. One owed him five hundred denarii,[4] and the other fifty. 42Neither of them had the money to pay him back, so he canceled the debts of both. Now which of them will love him more?"
43Simon replied, "I suppose the one who had the bigger debt canceled."
"You have judged correctly," Jesus said.
44Then he turned toward the woman and said to Simon, "Do you see this woman? I came into your house. You did not give me any water for my feet, but she wet my feet with her tears and wiped them with her hair.
45You did not give me a kiss, but this woman, from the time I entered, has not stopped kissing my feet.
46You did not put oil on my head, but she has poured perfume on my feet.
47Therefore, I tell you, her many sins have been forgiven--for she loved much. But he who has been forgiven little loves little."
48Then Jesus said to her, "Your sins are forgiven."
49The other guests began to say among themselves, "Who is this who even forgives sins?"
50Jesus said to the woman, "Your faith has saved you; go in peace."
http://bible.gospelcom.net/cgi-bin/b...+7&version=NIV
Luke 7:36-50

4. Can you tell my possible type functions from the way I write, or is that just speculation?

Insufficient data, INTP seems unlikely, INTJ or ENTP are possible but I would not rule out sensory types either:

Personally I think that people should be able to identify their own type no matter what their subtype is. That is why when they read description,
description could not match 100%. If you are intuitive type you can figure
that if the discription is like you or not like you. If you are sensing
type it is not so clear. Basicaly finding your type through the model is
personality free. (Sergei Ganin)
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/socionics/message/131

We have supplied you with so much info on the differences between INTPs and INTJs that if you can not discover yourself it starts to seem your type could be something else. Forget about the Reinin matrices, they are far too difficult and unreliable for typing yourself but remember that introversion and extroversion in socionics do not mean what people usually think: Extroversion does not equal sociability. The Extroversion/Introversion scale appears to be the easiest but it is easily the most misleading. It is worth reminding ourselves of what Carl Gustav Jung, who invented the whole consept, originally wrote about introverts and extraverts (his spelling):

Through insights gained from the clinical study of patients, two broad personality types are distinguished’—the introverted and the extraverted. In the introduction to “Psychological Types,” the theory is stated; the method to be followed to understand them is described; and, the definition, characteristics and effects of these two personality types are summarized. For the introverted personality, subjective and psychological processes are the center of interest: all life-giving energy seeks the subject himself; the object has a lower value than the subject. The extraverted personality, on the other hand, is drawn to the object as the center of interest: ultimate value rests in the object and the subject subordinates his own subjective processes to the object. The psychological result of these two standpoints is two totally different orientations: one sees everything in terms of the objective event (extraverted); the other sees everything in terms of his own situation (introverted). This broad classificatiow does not exclude the existence of a second set of psychological types deter-mined by the four basic psychological functions: thinking, feeling, sensation, and intuition, found within both introverted and extraverted personalities. This work, then, will discuss both sets of types: one determined by the predominant center of interest; the other determined by the predominance of one of the four basic psychological functions. I reference.
http://www.cgjungpage.org/content/view/270/

What you need to figure out is whether your lead function is subjective or objective - not whether you are outgoing or socially withdrawn, have good people skills or suffer from shyness. What people usually associate with introversion and extraversion are the secondary manifestations of the scale: if the lead function is subjective people tend to be more hesitant in social contacts because they are aware that their interpretation of the world is subjective - not how thing are but what they self think/feel/sense/intuit. Thus the question is: what is your most conscious function that wants followers, causes sturbbornness in you and can also take a lot of beating. For example: everybody gets ideas but is inventiveness what defines you as a person - do the ideas come to your mind strongly and constantly and would you like people to pay attention to them and turn them into reality. Try to study also the other functions and give us some concrete and detailed examples of your thinking and acting in different situations.

I also think you should add at least ESTJ to your list of possible types. They need and demand a lot of concrete information because their intuition is poorly developed. They might well test as INTJs because many ESTJs are surpisingly shy and find casual socializing difficult. Extraverted Intuition is also what they try to balance, the hidden agenda, and therefore they might well test as intuitive types. ESTJs get a totally undeserved negative press even though often they are the pillars of society who ensure that things run smoothly and reliably. Your extra bonus is that then you get to have INFJs as your dual. They can be the most kind and sensitive people you could hope to find. Some of them are also really clever like the Russian socionist Yekaterina Filatova so one way of learning socionics would be to try to find an INFJ to make sense of the bloody mess that socionics often seems to be, or as one commentator posted: you learn easily if your dual explains things for you.

Now here is a short excerpt from an interview of the conservative columnist John Derbyshire, in which he explains his opinions and basic view of the world, perhaps his sober mind and solid moral values naturally resonate with you. His picture is included because it is a good example of how visual identification really does work, well at least sometimes - and if you do not see it, it is not my fault.



Yes: "the greatest part of men are gross," no less now than in 1778. Probably no more, either; but nowadays they have the vote, and money to spend. They have shucked off all notions of rank or authority, of deference or respectability, of hierarchy or standards in taste, and they believe that everyone's pleasure is as good as everyone else's. That's the world we live in, for better or worse - in some ways, let's be honest, much for the better - and it's not easy to imagine us going back.

All we - we conservatives - can do is to hold on to the truth, to standards, to intellectual discipline. Speak the truth!

* No, people in past times were not less intelligent than ourselves.

* Yes, some productions of the human imagination are superior to others, for reasons to do with eternal values.

* No, it is not the case that white people are inherently wicked (though some are) and un-white people inherently virtuous (though some are).

* Yes, words have meanings, and refer to real things in a real world.

* No, money is not the root of all evil; but too much obsessing about it will deaden you to things of the spirit.

* Yes, human nature exists. It contains both good and evil, always has, and always will.

* No, peace is not always preferable to war, not even to aggressive war.

* Yes, this is a commercial republic, and except in times of grave national danger, government work, however worthy, must take second place to commerce.

* No, gay is not just as good as straight, the ancient Egyptians did not have black skin, a woman needs a man much, much more than a fish needs a bicycle, rhyme and meter (to say nothing of sense) are not obsolete features in English versification, and self-love is not the greatest love of all, but the least.

* It is highly unlikely that any one of us is a uniquely talented individual with a precious gift to offer the world. It is vastly more probable that we are mere atoms in the mass of humanity, who must find fulfillment in a lifetime of performing humdrum tasks on behalf of our family, neighbors, and fellow-citizens, while we each explore our individuality in small rewarding hobbies and private devotions.

I don't think conservatism is necessarily gloomy, and in fact the conservatives I hang out with are, most of them, happy and witty people who enjoy life. (NR editorial conferences are a laugh riot.) However, we conservatives are people of the Cold Eye, which sees things as they are. Wishful thinking is the province of the Left, and the end result of it, always and ever, is the one spelt out by conservatism's greatest poet:

.... after this is accomplished, and the brave new world begins,
When all men are paid for existing and no man must pay for his sins,
As surely as Water will wet us, as surely as Fire will burn,
The Gods of the Copybook Headings with terror and slaughter return!
http://www.enterstageright.com/archi...derbyshire.htm


Keep on posting though - maybe one day we really can uncover your true type with near absolute certainty. 8)

[discourse]

CuriousSoul, they say that in each of us, there is a little bit extraversion and introversion. What do socionists say about that? I began to think that psychologists say that extravert is 60%extravert and 40% introvert usually.
So according to psychology and extravert needs to live more than half of extraverts time in outer world seing itself as becoming part of events around and less than half of his time in inner world getting in touch with experiences what he lives through inside. In other words introvert needs much time for inner experiences and less time for connecting with reality as a object. Does socionists accept this idea?

[Tanzhe]

CuriousSoul:

In response to your idea of me being as ESTj, I'd say that my facial structures don't work with Sensing.

My face is an oval shape. The jaw is nicely curved but with a slight angularity. Overall, the shape is more triangular, which is a hallmark of Intuitives.

So, while I won't dismiss the possibility of being an ESTj, I don't think that it's likely.


And, secondly, I'm posting in general to help move the discussion along and to accumulate the evidence. Then I will say what type I am. It's not that I am uncertain, but I seem to have acquired a fixation with defining my Socionics type and getting it right.


Finally: you wanted some descriptions of me.

As I've already said, I was much more extroverted (not in the Jungian sense) and friendly and enthusiastic. Then, at the start of my teenage years, I slowed down and became quieter and more self-controlled. Nevertheless, my enthusiasm does occasionally break my restraint.

I am given to, when I'm on my own, ponder and reflect. This is the state in which I 'generate' ideas.

I can remember my first 'relationship.' A shy, very squeamish (probably Fi or Fe) person was in regular contact with me through events in school. Initially, our interaction was a friendly her-asking-questions-me-deflecting-questions but it gradually grew to really annoy me. When I showed this annoyance, she would discount it as me being in a bad mood and would try again the day afterwards. Her behaviour grew more and more intrusive and really made me uncomfortable.

If you want any more information about me, then just ask, because telling me that you'd like more descriptions of me leaves a lot of options open.

And, by the way, if I seem a little irritated during this post, then sorry. It's just that I feel strangely lost and angry, now that I must consider the possibility that I may be, say, an ENFj. I don't know why.

[CuriousSoul]

2. Socionics mentioned derivatives of types. Could I get derivatives of the Four Types (ISTj, INTj, ENTp and INTp), please?

Sorry I should have read you more carefully.
What do you mean with derivatives? Socionics.com does not discuss them, as far as I know. There are descriptions of subtypes, also on this site. Sergei Ganin does not think that they are permanent but in my opinion at least the two basic subtypes would appear to be permanent although people certainly can go through different phases and the descriptions of subtypes are downright terrible.

CuriousSoul:

In response to your idea of me being as ESTj, I'd say that my facial structures don't work with Sensing.

My face is an oval shape. The jaw is nicely curved but with a slight angularity. Overall, the shape is more triangular, which is a hallmark of Intuitives.

So, while I won't dismiss the possibility of being an ESTj, I don't think that it's likely.

Well there are several different faces for every type and those basic rules are only very rough average tendencies. Visual identification seems so very promising to me but nobody really seems to know anything for sure.

And, secondly, I'm posting in general to help move the discussion along and to accumulate the evidence. Then I will say what type I am. It's not that I am uncertain, but I seem to have acquired a fixation with defining my Socionics type and getting it right.

Thank you for posting here, it is nice to have others posting here too. I hope I can help you with your fixation - at least our disorders are closely related. :mrgreen:

Finally: you wanted some descriptions of me.

As I've already said, I was much more extroverted (not in the Jungian sense) and friendly and enthusiastic. Then, at the start of my teenage years, I slowed down and became quieter and more self-controlled. Nevertheless, my enthusiasm does occasionally break my restraint.

I am given to, when I'm on my own, ponder and reflect. This is the state in which I 'generate' ideas.

I can remember my first 'relationship.' A shy, very squeamish (probably Fi or Fe) person was in regular contact with me through events in school. Initially, our interaction was a friendly her-asking-questions-me-deflecting-questions but it gradually grew to really annoy me. When I showed this annoyance, she would discount it as me being in a bad mood and would try again the day afterwards. Her behaviour grew more and more intrusive and really made me uncomfortable.

If you want any more information about me, then just ask, because telling me that you'd like more descriptions of me leaves a lot of options open.

Children naturally tend to be more social than adults. They do need to learn to speak and master the basic social skills, for example. It is rather difficult to say anything based on such a general description, and it is only natural not to want to go into details on a public forum with perfect strangers, so maybe this method is not so good after all.

And, by the way, if I seem a little irritated during this post, then sorry. It's just that I feel strangely lost and angry, now that I must consider the possibility that I may be, say, an ENFj. I don't know why.

I know and I really did not mean to insult you, it also goes to show that one should be careful with deadpan humor. You know yourself certainly much, much better than any one of us, so if you think you are INTJ it may very well be the case. It just makes me wonder if there is something wrong with socionics when people cannot recognize their type - and that is kind of agonizing. :wink:

[Tanzhe]

CuriousSoul:

You did not insult me. I think I just felt a little off-balance. Not knowing who I am seems to make me feel more insecure (which MAY be a sign of Introversion, purely speculation).

(Sidenote - didn't a particular INTj description say that they react sharply when reprimanded? Could this also be applied to they become frustrated when their perfectionistic standards are not met, or when a piece of unexpected information totally unbalances the equation?)


The 'derivatives' (for lack of a better word) are those people who have the same type but behave in different ways. The first page of Socionics Q&A seems describes this with ESFjs as an example. The word 'derivative' is a word of my own invention. The concept of derivatives is non-type related, so it is a less scientific side of Socionics.

In retrospect, this idea of derivatives is actually a little foolish, since there are probably many billions of derivatives, so it's mainly just a idea that has now died.


And finally, you say that you sometimes wonder if there is something wrong with Socionics. I'd say no - it is complicated, that's all, and finding your type has many different factors. It's not that I cannot recognise my type - I've had a lot of information coming through, and I've been posting just as ideas pop into my head. I'm now looking through your feedback and forming questions to put to myself, and I'm looking into different type functions to see if I can identify my primary and auxiliary. That should give us some pointers.

[metaiwan]

Note: This is mostly speculation.

I really do think you are INTj at this point...as far as I can tell. Here's some notable things:

at socionics.com, most searches that led to the page were from intj, intp, infp, infj, every year. extraverted sensors(with as their main function) are rare on these sites, and the other sensors are fairly rare as well. From everything you have written, it seems obvious that you are intuitive.

Another big indicator is that you scored as INTj on the type sorter. that thing seems to be damn accurate.

Like everyone else mentioned, it is frustrating that determining your own type or other people's types is difficult, and sometimes it can seem as though these types are subjective or made up. But I think one of the main problems is that we simply can't communicate all that well online, I find it really easy to type people in person. Supposedly socionics claims that types are static and will not change, ie a person has a type, one type, and only one type. Then it should be fairly easy to type someone, yet it is not. Don't get discouraged though, I still believe these types are real for all of the evidence I have seen especially the type relations. Tanzhe...have you tried typing other people, finding your relation with them for the top types you think you are, and then seeing which type seems to have the most accurate relations with these people??

[Tanzhe]

Tanzhe...have you tried typing other people, finding your relation with them for the top types you think you are, and then seeing which type seems to have the most accurate relations with these people??

No. The main reason is that my knowledge of Socionics is not advanced enough to do that. VI and behavioural ID requires a lot of experience to use effectively. So, instead of getting an innaccurate result, I've opted to not use it at all.

it seems obvious that you are intuitive.

It seems obvious to me now that I think about it. I've always been more prone to analysing facts rather than regurgitating them, for example, and there are many other things about me that strongly suggest that I am an intuitive.

Like everyone else mentioned, it is frustrating that determining your own type or other people's types is difficult, and sometimes it can seem as though these types are subjective or made up.

It's not that I'm getting frustrated. Perhaps I have not explained this clearly, but this thread is more of a means of getting information about the differences between types. Only now have I started to process the information (and that could take a while, due to the quantity). This forum is more of a 'collections department' to help me.


Hopefully, I'll be able to give your my preferred functions soon, which should narrow the field down. Then we can work on what order the functions come in, using what has already been posted on this thread.

[Tanzhe]

Hopefully, I'll be able to give your my preferred functions soon, which should narrow the field down. Then we can work on what order the functions come in, using what has already been posted on this thread.

Since it is difficult to separate Te from Ti, I'll concentrate on intuition. I hope that, in this manner, I'll be able to isolate my two preferred functions to help me find my type.

So, this is my question: what are the differences between Ni and Ne? I know that this question has already been covered extensively with the INTj-INTp section of this post. When I ask this question, I mean it from a different perspective. I mean it from your inner perspective.

For example, one person said that Ne is a possibilities-based function and that Ni is an inner map. But how do I know if I'm more possibilities-orientated than most other people? Male21's questions to identify Ne as the dominant are more along the lines of what I want.

[CuriousSoul]

Reading through your posts I noted a few things which would seem to point at INTJ although this kind of impersonal typing is inevitably quite speculative:

-INTJs usually have the ability to judge correctly also what they do not know and thus they typically would not want to jump into conclusions. Even though some ENTPs seem to be quite private people they still usually would not hesitate to express their hunches and impress others with their cleverness.

Although the first impression of INTJs is that they are emotionless, when they become inspired during conversation an emotionality previously unseen begins to emerge. Their eyes start flashing with a fanatic light and their passion increases as the conversation progresses. However, they still try to maintain their self-control. INTJs sustain conversations only if they find them interesting. They prefer to keep silent rather than give an opinion on a subject to which they are indifferent.

-INTJs appear to want to keep their calm but often do seem to have some favourite topics or hobbyhorses which can get them excited - and if you ask me usually all too rarely. For example the speech of INTPs on the other hand often seem to run like a steadily flowing river even when they are fully engaged in an debate.

Imagine you are a potter. You need to prepare some clay first and then you can start shaping it up. The dominant and the auxiliary functions work in similar way. The dominant function prepares the "clay" while the auxiliary function shapes it up. So the type of "clay" your dominant function processes, determines the type of your Information Metabolism (IM). ESTJ is the type of IM and it will always have dominant Te. An ESTP will always have dominant Se. The auxiliary function takes the "clay" from the dominant function and makes it into a form. ESTJ will shape Te into Si, ESTP will make Ti out of Se. You can prefer the preparation process, in this case you prefer your dominant function. You can prefer the forming process, in this case you prefer your auxiliary function. You can have no preference for any process, in this case you have the preparation and the forming balanced. So if some ESTJ prefers Sensing over Thinking, he or she prefers the auxiliary function, which is involved in the shaping process. In other words such ESTJ will be quite creative with his or her Si, but this will not change his or her type of IM, which will still be ESTJ. This may however make this ESTJ to adopt some of ISTP's style of behaviour.
http://www.socionics.com/advan/qa231003.htm

-The natural style of your thinking process would seem to be to first carefully logically "prepare the clay" and only then when the you can be sure you have mastered the basics "make it into a form" by your extroverted intuition. With intuition as a lead function one would first start off straight away by speculating on all the details and implications of the theory that come to mind, and then gradually put everything together by drawing the logical conclusions.

-INTJs have introverted logic as their base function and once they have carefully laid the foundations they would not want to shake them, sometimes up to a point of not willing to see the things from another point of view. For example Sergei Ganin often did not show much willingness to consider views that did not agree with his understanding of socionics, for example:

>Again, I find this hard to swallow (and not just because it contradicts what
>I said).
>
>Assuming for a moment that ADD is real, it gives someone EP like traits.


First of all what are EP traits?! For your information EP means ENTP, ENFP,
ESFP, ESTP. What are EP traits that would be true for all these four types?
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/socionics/message/57

and later

>I'm not the one making the "sweeping" judgments. I said that I was open to
>alternative theories -- all I said is that my explanation (one others have
>stated as well) best fits the available data. If there is another possible
>explanation I'll be happy to hear it.

You definitely won't get it from me, because I just can't stand your
negative attitude. Go find it yourself.
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/socionics/message/77

I also added the two INTJ subtype descriptions under INTJs in the Apha Quadra. Since we cannot judge your appearance, now it is time to for you to show us if these subtype descriptions are worth their salt or not.

[CuriousSoul]

Oh dear me.
I read more of John Derbyshire's articles and looked at other pictures of him. It may be that he is actually INTP and his writing is better explained as expression of his creative extroverrted thinking - or then again maybe not, incontrovertible evidence is extremely difficult to get. Unfortunately my ability to distinguish what I know or do not know is not very well developed - certainly a hallmark of some types.

Should anyone actually read these old threads - and I think you should, there are a lot of worthy comments here - by now I actually feel quite confident that John Derbyshire is an ESTJ through and through, in good and in bad. Many of his columns are, in my opinion, quite well worth reading.
http://www.olimu.com/

[Tanzhe]

Thanks CuriousSoul.

The slight stubborness of the INTj may be what led me onto thinking about being an ISTj. Just speculating.

Anyway, I've narrowed my functions down to Ne and Ti. I don't know which order they come in. I would be interesting for you to post subtypes of ENTps.

[MysticSonic]

1) inventor

Inventor has a feeling for everything new. Often he becomes the author of a great number of inventions and discoveries. He’s an unsurpassed generator of ideas and is very daring in his propositions. However he easily gives up boring work and switches over to something new and more fascinating. He may show his worth in business. It’s typical of Inventor to be dynamic, to have a fast speech and use a plenty of gestures. Attaches great importance to his appearance.

2) extractor

Extractor is a self-profound and thoughtful person. He is attracted to ideas what have nothing to do with the reality, for example philosophy, religion, bio-energetics etc. His favourite occupation is to compare different systems of logic - he’s a typical armchair scientist. He may be awkward, he does not pay attention to his appearance, and doesn’t care about health.

http://the16types.info/forums/viewtopic.php?t=29

[Tanzhe]

At this stage, I think that I will have my type within two days. It seems to be INTj (logical subtype), but I have one burning question:

How do you explain my 'extroversion' (not in the Jungian sense) at an earlier stage of my life? Is this characteristic of INTjs? I read once that they lead a happy life initially, before realising that this lifestyle gives them something other than what they want.

[CuriousSoul]

As for Ni serving as an "inner map", it is an inner map for how one should live one's life, and how immediate events will unfold. Those whom possess Ni as their dominant function tend to be spiritual because of this, as they'd very much adhere to a set principle of beliefs, seeing as how disturbing this inner wholeness is a situation they'd very much want to avoid.

Also, I seem to have mistated what I meant to say about the INTp's suggestive function. They willingly seek out events that stimulate them in such a way that their sense of strength is reinforced, although they have a hard time actually picking up the project of initiating a search that would bring about such a circumstance, although they readily seek out persons who would do it for them, and these persons are those with extraverted sensing as a dominant or auxilary function.

I have kind of come to think what this "internal wholeness of being" really means. As I said I find it intriguing that we cannot know how others experience their "being alive" - only sometimes does it seem to become abundantly obvious that the very same things happening to us can be perceived very differently. Or how does introverted intuition mean seeing how immediate events will unfold. I think there is something to this. Like for example I can easily imagine how different people would react in different situations - sometimes even having discussions in my mind vividly imagining how the other party would respond. But of course real people are not predictable robots and such a modelling can also lead to misunderstandings. And how do other people and types relate to this, does not everyone do it, at least to some extent?

To large extent it would indeed also seem to be the case that I do not welcome things that would disturb my "inner wholeness". Like it can be a relief to switch off my telephone and stay out of reach, or I can and want to keep troubling things out of my mind whereas others cannot rest until they have solved their problems. These things would though seem to be mainly differences of degree rather than kind.

Descartes is famous for the saying I think - therefore I am. Is this just a philosophical statement or does it really descripe the way how INTJs experience their exisctence as human beings.
I myself would rather say: I exist therefore I am. In a way an utter platitude but what I mean is that the experience and feeling of being, and perhaps because of my dominant introverted intuition, above all being in my mind, even quite physically inside my head, is primary, and thinking, a kind of usually continous, meandering flow of thoughts comes secondary.

What is the nature of consciousness, how is it different and similar for different people, or types? Does this make any sense?

[discourse]

Tanzhe, i am not still convinced that you are an INTj. There's something wrong in you being introverted.

Here's a way to discover your lead function. Lead function is your programm function, it makes you to do what you usually do. Do you think a lot, act a lot, are emotional a lot etc. These actions (thoughts ,emotions) are strongly grounded. For example you can take strongly criticism, which you wouldn't believe, concidering it to be wrong.

ESFj type for example is very emotional, always reacting with emotions to something, and if someone tell's her that this emotionalism is wrong, then the ESFj will not take it seroiusly believing they were wrong (or even should appologize). ESFj strongly believes that she or he sees the thing right way, the emotional way.

So please tell me what kind of critique doesn't bother you and sometimes make you feel as if they are wrong? In which your oppinion is so strong that you feel confident for showing disacreement (literally, written word, by actions)

In which field you feel like your oppinnion is the rightest. Is so strong that nobody would talk you over?

F.e ENTp's oppinion in possibility that something can be done, is so strong that he will concider others to be unsmart.

Also, being bossibly ENTp (though i don't know why do i behave very emotionally lately) you now just saw how an ENTp can talk like an INTj and besides also think like an INTj. But this doesn't last long, takes a lot fo energy and needs a lot of self controlling. An ENTp couldn't think INTj way for a long time.

[Tanzhe]

Something tells me that I do not have Ni as my dominant function. I perceive Ni to be predicting future events subconsciously, being your mind flowing effortlessly through predictions and ideas. Your mind becomes something of a river, or lake, of thoughts, constantly moving.

I really do not think that I am an extrovert. I am somewhat self-conscious. I am slightly smaller than normal, have a voice that doesn't seem to be commanding, and, in general, do not have the initiative or abilities of extroverts.

As for F-T, that is more difficult. It occurred to me that, if INTjs are dominated by their Fe when they are younger, and if they control the Fe at their teenage years, then their life becomes a constant battle between Ti and Fe. The Ti wants to keep them restrained and unemotional, the Fe wants them to be outgoing and friendly, and the INTj is caught between the middle. I do feel that I suffer from this; I get the feeling that I should have 'had more control' or should not have 'done this or that.'

Some questions:
1. I am remote, even aloof, but once I get into an interesting conversation a light comes to my eyes and I become more emotional. What is this characteristic of? Also, I've already mentioned about my previous extroversion.
2. My face does poorly express meaning. Usually, my face is slightly dog-eared and sad. Would this indicate IxTx or IxFx?
3. My face has approximately the same type of eyebrows as the first INTj on the ‘Test your VI skills’ section of Socioncs. I also have approximately the same type of nose - a normal size, not protruding, and rounded.
4. The cold penetrating view of an INTj, I can maintain, but sometimes I feel that I just cannot control my expressions (as mentioned before). It seems more to be a sullen, sorrowful look, but penetrating may be well-suited as I have piercing blue eyes (as one person put it).
5. I am polite in conversation (usually). It depends who I talk to - immediate superiors, I am polite to, but I sometimes feel as though I am a little rude or cold with people on the same level. If strangers make conversation, I just nod and smile at what I view to be appropriate times. I am sensitive, in the sense that I consider other people - you could call me 'emotionally mature' - but I [try to] maintain a cold or indifferent exterior (or believe that I do).

The fifth point is a thought of conflict for me. When I was younger, my parents thought that I was emotionally mature, judging on what they saw of me but they couldn't know how I behaved at school. Therefore, I somewhat dismiss that idea, though not totally.

It really depends on what you define as 'sensitive.' I am able to empathise with others, but I cannot feel their emtions. It's like the difference between recognising that someone else has a piece of string and touching the string to see what it feels like.

[CuriousSoul]

Something tells me that I do not have Ni as my dominant function. I perceive Ni to be predicting future events subconsciously, being your mind flowing effortlessly through predictions and ideas. Your mind becomes something of a river, or lake, of thoughts, constantly moving.

Do not pay too much attention to what I write. This kind of description of the workings of one's own mind is inevitably highly subjective and imprecise. A more scientific approach would require more precisely formulated questions and comparison of a large number of answers.

I really do not think that I am an extrovert. I am somewhat self-conscious. I am slightly smaller than normal, have a voice that doesn't seem to be commanding, and, in general, do not have the initiative or abilities of extroverts.

Then you probably are not an extrovert. Usually one knows - at least after studying the basics of socionics - it is just that sometimes people seem to think that shyness and introversion are pretty much the same thing.

As for F-T, that is more difficult. It occurred to me that, if INTjs are dominated by their Fe when they are younger, and if they control the Fe at their teenage years, then their life becomes a constant battle between Ti and Fe. The Ti wants to keep them restrained and unemotional, the Fe wants them to be outgoing and friendly, and the INTj is caught between the middle. I do feel that I suffer from this; I get the feeling that I should have 'had more control' or should not have 'done this or that.'

Emotions are slightly different from the Socionics functions. Being ethical type is more about paying close attention to your and other people's emotions but it is pretty complicated...

Some questions:
1. I am remote, even aloof, but once I get into an interesting conversation a light comes to my eyes and I become more emotional. What is this characteristic of? Also, I've already mentioned about my previous extroversion.

It fits with the INTJ description but probably INTJs would be better able to comment. Also read the link at the end of the post.

2. My face does poorly express meaning. Usually, my face is slightly dog-eared and sad. Would this indicate IxTx or IxFx?

Not necessarily either. It is what happens in your mind that counts.

3. My face has approximately the same type of eyebrows as the first INTj on the ‘Test your VI skills’ section of Socioncs. I also have approximately the same type of nose - a normal size, not protruding, and rounded.

Circumstantial evidence, and I seem to be the only one around here to have much faith in VI but, yes, it would seem to support the INTJ hypothesis.

4. The cold penetrating view of an INTj, I can maintain, but sometimes I feel that I just cannot control my expressions (as mentioned before). It seems more to be a sullen, sorrowful look, but penetrating may be well-suited as I have piercing blue eyes (as one person put it).

Poor ability, and the perceived need, to control one's expressions rather than to use them to influence others are generally characteristics of logical types.

5. I am polite in conversation (usually). It depends who I talk to - immediate superiors, I am polite to, but I sometimes feel as though I am a little rude or cold with people on the same level. If strangers make conversation, I just nod and smile at what I view to be appropriate times. I am sensitive, in the sense that I consider other people - you could call me 'emotionally mature' - but I [try to] maintain a cold or indifferent exterior (or believe that I do).

Sounds like introverted logical type but beyond that it is hard to say.

The fifth point is a thought of conflict for me. When I was younger, my parents thought that I was emotionally mature, judging on what they saw of me but they couldn't know how I behaved at school. Therefore, I somewhat dismiss that idea, though not totally.

It is very common, and generally perfectly normal, to behave in different ways in different enviroments.

It really depends on what you define as 'sensitive.' I am able to empathise with others, but I cannot feel their emotions. It's like the difference between recognising that someone else has a piece of string and touching the string to see what it feels like.

Sound like logical type again, and more likely rational than irrational.

I think you should also read this article that discusses how our brains grow and mature. It could at least partly explain how you behaviour has changed. Generally I think socionics could make more real progress if it would strive to become a subdiscipline of neurology rather than an alternative to astrology.
http://www.todaysparent.com/teen/art...ontent=1284540

[Tanzhe]

I think you should also read this article that discusses how our brains grow and mature. It could at least partly explain how you behaviour has changed. Generally I think socionics could make more real progress if it would strive to become a subdiscipline of neurology rather than an alternative to astrology.
http://www.todaysparent.com/teen/art...ontent=1284540

That article talks about the brain undergoing a rapid change just before puberty. That's exactly when I 'moved' to introversion.

Another thing, which is purely speculation, but something that I think may be vaguely related. Once you decide your preferences and your type, is it a good sign if you feel happy being that type even with its inherent weaknesses?

Let me put it this way. If I am an INTj, then they are intellectual but bad at making friends. This does not offend me, because I place more importance on my intellectual development than my social life. I do not mean that this is a valid means of type ID, but could it be true?

As I said, purely speculation.

[discourse]

I was so wrong. You are INTj @my side of view. But this Are means that it's a guess. There's a point where you just have to believe that you are INTj. People can't be convinced 100% to be someone. Or better to say, some type.

[Tanzhe]

I realise that all descriptions are not 100% accurate.

How accurate are they usually, if you have the right type? 95%? 90-70%?

[MysticSonic]

I'd say 70%, 80% at best.

[metaiwan]

Another thing, which is purely speculation, but something that I think may be vaguely related. Once you decide your preferences and your type, is it a good sign if you feel happy being that type even with its inherent weaknesses?

Let me put it this way. If I am an INTj, then they are intellectual but bad at making friends. This does not offend me, because I place more importance on my intellectual development than my social life. I do not mean that this is a valid means of type ID, but could it be true?

YES! I have thought the same thing, well not really that INTjs are just intellectual and bad at making friends, but that when you look at the type description you would think that it would be your favorite, or you would think "yes this is me, why would I want to be any other way". But I wouldn't say INTjs place more value on intellectual development over friends, but they might find getting smart is easier for them than making friends. not necessarily a value thing but an abilities thing. Introverted logic is good for machines and computers, and does not help INTjs with people. Thus working with objects and systems are easy and human relations more difficult. The opposite with say an ESFj, human relations are easy yet working with objects and systems is more difficult. But yes. I would always imagine when someone of a type looks at a description of their type, they see nothing wrong with the percieved or real inheirent weaknesses or problems of a type and see the strengths as the most important.

[Tanzhe]

Thanks, metaiwan.

You see, the major ambiguity in my type was the S-N and J-P scale. Reading descriptions of ISTjs made me wish that I wasn't an ISTj. That is no offence to ISTjs, I just didn't like them.

Imagine that you are able to 'decide', with whatever deity that you worshp, what personality that you should be once you are conceived. When I put my mind in that position, the thought of being an ISTj is not appealing. An INTp or INTj is more 'attractive.'


I'd like to know how accurate your type descriptions are, on a percentage scale. I was going to go with MysticSonic, but his post saying that he's unsure of his type means that I'm looking for other replies.