Mystery person

[Jonathan]

I posted on this person's type a long time ago, but I've been thinking about it again...wonder what people think here.

This person strikes me as INTj or ENTj. (Some people have suggested ESTj; I still have trouble seeing him as S because he's so theoretical and anti-materialistic, but I guess I'll continue to consider it.) F or p are impossible for him (except for those who subscribe to the INTp=rational-behaviors school).

Anyhow, here are the cases for both the ITj and ITj points of view; see which one you think is more likely.

Case for INTj: He has very strong opinions on many things...and most of them are very unique. Yet if you listen to him, you'll see that there is a strong logical reason behind his views. He holds his views very confidently. He has always had an interest in politics and in defending what he views as just causes, ever since early childhood. He is strongly anti-materialistic. He knows what he wants and has followed a consistent path all his life. Understanding matters; material possessions mean nothing. It is usually difficult to argue with him.

Case for ENTj: He's a very hard worker, capable of absorbing a lot of material and doing a lot of work in a short time. One of his greatest strengths is general knowledge. Simply put, he "knows everything." This can come in handy in all sorts of practical situations. If you have an unusual tax problem, need to understand something in a foreign language, need to know who the governmental officials are in some remote region of the world, or have an obscure diagnosis and don't know what it means, he will know the precise answers to all of these things, even though they have nothing to do with his field of study or interest. He's a very capable speaker in front of a group. He knows how to be charming and act in the expected way. He's highly assertive and somewhat commanding, and always says exactly what he thinks.

I know this is very little to go on, but does this sound more ITj or ETj?

[Joy]

anti-materialistic

INTj

[Joy]

Honestly, he sounds like a very well-rounded and intelligent ESFj.

[aestrivex]

sounds more ENTj to me, but its hard to tell based on these excerpts.

[Jonathan]

anti-materialistic

INTj

By the way, I should mention: Although he's anti-materialistic, he has much more money than most people who are materialistic. He saves everything...almost never spends a dime. ....extremely frugal.

[stefana]

Please elaborate on the way he behaves in social settings, how he carries himself etc etc.

[Jonathan]

Honestly, he sounds like a very well-rounded and intelligent ESFj.

He is the most un-F person I know. He pretends not to have any feelings.

ESFjs are the heart-on-sleeve types. He's quite opposite.

He's well-rounded in knowledge. But he's not social in the way ESFjs are. He charming, but he prefers to socialize with only very very intelligent people. And the fact that he draws attention to his knowledge may inadvertently turn others off. That seems pretty anti-ESFj to me (?).

Anyhow, if he comes of as ESFj, that's probably an indication of him being INTj (same axis).

[aestrivex]

Anyhow, if he comes of as ESFj, that's probably an indication of him being INTj (same axis).

not necessarily; it could be indicative of Ej or a number of other things

[Jonathan]

Please elaborate on the way he behaves in social settings, how he carries himself etc etc.

Hmm...I'll have to think about that one. In family gatherings, he's pretty talkative about politics, etc. He seems charming around people, and likes to tell of his various exploits, stories, and interesting things about the people he knows professionally. As soon as he can slip away, he leaves and does work.

Around his friends, he usually sits and discusses at length stuff that's over most people's heads.

When encountering strangers, he seems pretty good at striking up a conversation, appearing charming, saying the right things. But he doesn't think he is. He may seem that way to me only in contrast to myself. In comparison to me, he's more inclined to have something definite to say, which makes him seem more extraverted than me...but that could just mean he's a j type.

One thing that's clear...he uses his knowledge of many things to help make a connection when talking to people. (Actually, I can relate; I do that too, except that I don't know very many things; I just pretend. )

If he meets someone who's a yqwertyuologist, he'll talk about yqwertyuology. Or if he meets someone from Gandykook, he'll know what to say about Gandykook. Most people get the impression that he knows a lot.

[stefana]

That's the male version of my political science lecturer.

I'm wavering between ISTj and ENTj for this guy.

[Joy]

ENTj it is.

But... when you say "anti-materialistic", do you mean that he's anti-profit, or that he's disgusted by the obsession some people have with social status and prestige and appearing wealthy at the expense of their relationships and morals?

[Expat]

ENTj. By "anti-materialistic" Jonathan seems to mean "anti-consumption" and that can be very ENTj. ENTjs do not necessarily spend money like water especially if they are focusing on the longer term.

ISTj is also possible, though.

[Jonathan]

ENTj it is.

But... when you say "anti-materialistic", do you mean that he's anti-profit, or that he's disgusted by the obsession some people have with social status and prestige and appearing wealthy at the expense of their relationships and morals?

Anti-consumption, as Expat says....also verbally criticizes what he sees as materialism...and has no problem turning down a job that pays more money if it's not what's he's interested in.

Why do people see ISTj > INTj?

[felafel]

sounds more ENTj to me, but its hard to tell based on these excerpts.

the bit descriptino on his case for an ENTJ you wrote resonates almost on all details with one ENTJ i know. I'm shooting for ENTj at the moment

[Expat]

Why do people see ISTj > INTj?

You are basically describing someone who has strong opinions and is assertive about them. That applies to both and , since the issue is what their strong opinions is based on. But you also describe someone who is assertive, almost unwielding, in the common understanding of the term. That makes a more Resolute impression, so ISTj rather than INTj or, if you prefer, a more Beta-Gamma, Se rather than Si as quadra value, impression.

[Jonathan]

Why do people see ISTj > INTj?

You are basically describing someone who has strong opinions and is assertive about them. That applies to both and , since the issue is what their strong opinions is based on. But you also describe someone who is assertive, almost unwielding, in the common understanding of the term. That makes a more Resolute impression, so ISTj rather than INTj or, if you prefer, a more Beta-Gamma, Se rather than Si as quadra value, impression.

Interesting. In some of the threads comparing INTj to INTp, there seemed to be a consensus that being unyielding would be more characteristic of INTj than INTp. I guess based on quadra values, INTps and INFp would be "resolute," yet their being irrational types makes them more fluid in their viewpoint.

You might wonder why I bring up INTj/INTp. The point is that I wonder if a person who is a rational type may appear unyielding to someone who is an irrational type...sort of another case of how things may appear different depending on the type perspective one's coming from.

Anyhow, the Str...skaya description of INTj doesn't sound like someone very yielding (if that's a word ). So that's why I wonder.

But thanks for your explanation...It helps explain why people were going in that direction, and tends to reinforce the ENTj answer.

[Joy]

INTjs don't like being told what to do, but they're not at all forceful.

[Jonathan]

INTjs don't like being told what to do, but they're not at all forceful.

So in your experience, if an INTp is told what to do, what is his/her response?

If it's not forceful, then how would you characterize it....passive aggressive?

[implied]

what are his views on religion?

[Joy]

INTjs don't like being told what to do, but they're not at all forceful.

So in your experience, if an INTp is told what to do, what is his/her response?

If it's not forceful, then how would you characterize it....passive aggressive?

I dunno... I generally would avoid telling an INTp what to do and instead present them with the information they need to make a logical decision. The only time I ever remember telling an INTp what to do was this one time when I was talking to my INTp brother about his relationship with his INFj girlfriend that he'd moved in with not that long ago. He was between jobs and has never been a tidy person... I'd heard from her that she made a lot of messes around the house and never cleaned. As soon as he said more or less the same thing in our conversation, I assumed a bossy tone and said, "Dan, she's supporting you. Don't make her pick up after you to. She deserves better than that." He agreed and the next time I talked to his girlfriend she was gushing about how he cleans stuff up around the house now. And now they're married.

But yeah, in spite of the fact that my parents sorta raised him through me once he was like 13, I can't think of any other time I've actually told him what to do, and I don't recall ever telling any other INTps what to do either.

So to answer your question, I don't know how INTps respond when you tell them what to do. I've seen INTjs get pretty damned passive aggressive though.

[Phaedrus]

I generally would avoid telling an INTp what to do and instead present them with the information they need to make a logical decision.

That's exactly how they want to be treated. I'm not sure what we should call their typical kind response if we don't treat them in Joy's way (and most are probably not that insightful when it comes to INTps) and how it may differ from a typical INTj response.

[implied]

I generally would avoid telling an INTp what to do and instead present them with the information they need to make a logical decision.

That's exactly how they want to be treated. I'm not sure what we should call their typical kind response if we don't treat them in Joy's way (and most are probably not that insightful when it comes to INTps) and how it may differ from a typical INTj response.

i really think this is more characteristic of INTjs heh. aren´t they the ones who won´t take direct orders?



somehow i think your degree of intellectualism wouldn´t set so well with an ESFp heh.

[Phaedrus]

I generally would avoid telling an INTp what to do and instead present them with the information they need to make a logical decision.

That's exactly how they want to be treated. I'm not sure what we should call their typical kind response if we don't treat them in Joy's way (and most are probably not that insightful when it comes to INTps) and how it may differ from a typical INTj response.

i really think this is more characteristic of INTjs heh. aren´t they the ones who won´t take direct orders?

No. But I didn't say that it is not a characteristic of INTjs. It is quite possible that INTps and INTjs are very similar in this respect.

somehow i think your degree of intellectualism wouldn´t set so well with an ESFp heh.

And you think it would set better with an ESFj? Clearly not.

[implied]

I generally would avoid telling an INTp what to do and instead present them with the information they need to make a logical decision.

That's exactly how they want to be treated. I'm not sure what we should call their typical kind response if we don't treat them in Joy's way (and most are probably not that insightful when it comes to INTps) and how it may differ from a typical INTj response.

i really think this is more characteristic of INTjs heh. aren´t they the ones who won´t take direct orders?

No. But I didn't say that it is not a characteristic of INTjs. It is quite possible that INTps and INTjs are very similar in this respect.

not really.

somehow i think your degree of intellectualism wouldn´t set so well with an ESFp heh.

And you think it would set better with an ESFj? Clearly not.

"clearly not" why?

:wink:

you can read through the literature and generally, ESFjs are more or less really stimulated by intellectual discussion. i think even the turbo-type assistant on socionics.com states that an ESFj wants a partner with whom they can discuss intellectual topics.

from the type description of INTj

He does not tolerate orders.

it´s the polr.

oldforumlinkviewtopic.php?t=66

INFj_____ Extraverted Sensing ____ Discussion of modest means,
INTj______________ orders, power(force) pressure

[felafel]

after re-reading the initial posts and arguments following that, i'm going for ISTJ at the moment. Especially the part about knowing how to strike a conversation with strangers and non, full of different pieces of knowledge/information, and slipping away to do work any moment they get.

[Phaedrus]

you can read through the literature and generally, ESFjs are more or less really stimulated by intellectual discussion.

Can you show me one concrete example from the literature where it says that ESFjs are stimulated by intellectual discussion? Maybe you mean something different than I do by the expression "intellectual discussion", but I have neither seen that trait of ESFjs mentioned anywhere in the literature, nor have I ever (not even once) met an ESFj who have been "stimulated by intellectual discussion". ESFjs are among the worst enemies of intellectual discussions in my opinion. (I'm not saying that ESFps are much better than ESFjs in that respect.)

i think even the turbo-type assistant on socionics.com states that an ESFj wants a partner with whom they can discuss intellectual topics.

In a relationship you seek excitement via an emotional bond with your partner. You skillfully combine your enthusiasm with an aesthetical understanding both at your home and in your appearance. A secure and predictable future is very important to you both in your personal and professional life. You like to see things simple and clear and the necessity to understand complicated things makes you nervous.

If that is supposed to show that ESFjs want to discuss intellectual topics, it is the exact opposite of what I have in mind when I use the expression "intellectual discussion".

[implied]

If that is supposed to show that ESFjs want to discuss intellectual topics, it is the exact opposite of what I have in mind when I use the expression "intellectual discussion".

ahahaha god.



this is what happens when i post after not much rest.


sorry. it could have been INTj who wants an partner w/ whom they can discuss intellectual topics heh. at any rate, it´s alpha and the polr seems more INTj!

[Joy]

beh

ESFjs like Ti. ESFps like Te.

INTjs resent being bossed around and don't respond well to Se. Even logical (read: Te) arguments won't convince an INTj to do something they don't want to do. I have been unable to coerce an INTj to do anything without resorting to Fe. (It wasn't pretty. )

INTps do respond well to Se, but I don't know how that corresponds to being bossed around when it's not paired with Fi, like what we saw in my example with my brother. Anytime I've wanted an INTp to do something I've communicated my reasoning mostly with Ni and also with Te, though at that point I'm usually just providing a back up for my Ni reasoning and it's really only necessary when they're unsure of what they want to do or when they're not aware of all of the contributing circumstances in the situation. It's like, I make my point mostly with Ni, and then I use Te to nail it in because it's at that point that they nod their head in argreement. I'll also note that with INTps who were attracted to me, all I've needed to do is indicate that I want something.

[Jonathan]

I generally would avoid telling an INTp what to do and instead present them with the information they need to make a logical decision.

That's exactly how they want to be treated. I'm not sure what we should call their typical kind response if we don't treat them in Joy's way (and most are probably not that insightful when it comes to INTps) and how it may differ from a typical INTj response.

i really think this is more characteristic of INTjs heh. aren´t they the ones who won´t take direct orders?



somehow i think your degree of intellectualism wouldn´t set so well with an ESFp heh.

Geez...All because I made a typo and asked Joy how an INTp reacts to direct orders when I meant to ask how an INTj reacts.

@Joy...I was asking because you said "INTjs don't like being told what to do, but they're not at all forceful." But at least you kind of answered my intended question by saying that you've met INTjs who are passive aggressive.

@implied: I think all types may be religious or not. This person isn't religious that I know of, although he has studied the history and beliefs of various faiths.

[Jonathan]

BTW: This is my observation about SFs and intellectualism...
...Basically, in my experience, all four SF types generally like the intellectualism of their duals, but they don't tend to debate the way NTs do. For them, it's more of a "fun" thing, not something they take so seriously.

[implied]

BTW: This is my observation about SFs and intellectualism...
...Basically, in my experience, all four SF types generally like the intellectualism of their duals, but they don't tend to debate the way NTs do. For them, it's more of a "fun" thing, not something they take so seriously.

i like this pretty well, honestly.

i think ISFps can react pretty viciously sometimes, however heh.

[Creepy-male]

Honestly, he sounds like a very well-rounded and intelligent ESFj.

He is the most un-F person I know. He pretends not to have any feelings.

ESFjs are the heart-on-sleeve types. He's quite opposite.

He's well-rounded in knowledge. But he's not social in the way ESFjs are. He charming, but he prefers to socialize with only very very intelligent people. And the fact that he draws attention to his knowledge may inadvertently turn others off. That seems pretty anti-ESFj to me (?).

Anyhow, if he comes of as ESFj, that's probably an indication of him being INTj (same axis).

hmm well I just jumped into this topic but correct me if I am wrong, but I've always viewed Thinking and Feeling in a different sense.

I think that Thinkers tend to trust logical coherence over feeling the 'meaning' in something. You could say they trust what makes logical sense.

While Feelers tend to trust the 'meaning' they feel behind something. They will act on motives without reason or rationale, very much unlike a thinker.

This does not mean feelers are nessicarily always emotional, nor does it mean thinker are not.

Emotions are experienced by both types, the key difference is you could say feelers are more confident in appraising the 'true' emotional state they experience and express their sincere emotions and acting with sincere convictions.

However thinkers tend to rationalize their emotions, not in a 'negative' sense. They tend to be more confident in logical and feel falling easily into emotion makes them lose their 'cool', and hamper their ability to appraise the logic behind something. Losing this ability they fear because they trust 'logical truth' over feeling based truth. They tend to express confidence over sincere emotions and act based on a logical conviction which is usually rationalized from emotional axioms.

From this I don't think its a proper usage of the concept to say, pretending to not have feelings means a non-feeler. In some cases I see certain people falter to express sincerity thats non feeler/thinker based. I see the difference as a thinker does so to maintain their calm, cool, collected, confident state. A feeler may tend to falter from sincerity, however its not because they want to keep a cool and collected state, their feelings may be uncomfortable for them to express in a certain situation, they may abstain from anger towards a person they really like at first because they find the conflict uncomfortable. However with feelers you don't get a cool, calm, confident vibe from them, in those cases you can sense they are holding back something for some reason rooted in feeling.

So it really matters in what way the guy pretends to not have feelings.

Is it because he wants to maintain his cool and confident state, thinking he will be 'out of control' when emotional.

Or is it alternatively because he is uncomfortable expressing these feelings in a situation, and hence you can kind of tell he is 'holding back' his feelings on a matter.

Also NF's tend to get really bent out of shape when they falter from sincerity, so they will tend to act extremely stressed when 'holding back', and if probed enough they can break easy and let out what they where 'holding back'. NT's however can usually reamain calm and amuse such probing with witty logic and debate.

In my opinion usually feelers which sometimes 'hold back' sincerity are kind of like dancing on the edge between feeler thinker, but the difference is they get pulled back to feeling.

Very much like thinkers can express emotion passionately at times, except they usually get pulled back to regaining their cool.

Feelers like to feel passionately about things, thinkers like to feel confident and collected. Both experience emotion.

[Jonathan]

hmm well I just jumped into this topic but correct me if I am wrong, but I've always viewed Thinking and Feeling in a different sense.

I think that Thinkers tend to trust logical coherence over feeling the 'meaning' in something. You could say they trust what makes logical sense.

While Feelers tend to trust the 'meaning' they feel behind something. They will act on motives without reason or rationale, very much unlike a thinker.

This does not mean feelers are nessicarily always emotional, nor does it mean thinker are not.

You're right, I was perhaps not explicit enough in my description. In his case, it's not that he's holding something back or hiding anything...the way, for example, I've noticed IEI types sometimes put up a shell or something.

In his case, he does everything based on logic; he always has a clear reason. He doesn't understand the psychological difficulties that people have; in fact, he distrusts the field of psychology altogether; it's not a "hard" enough science for him.

The main reason not to consider that he's an F type though is that there's simply no evidence that points to F. With some people, it's kind of mixed....even with myself, I can see one could make a case for both T and F, though T is more likely. With him, there would be no reason to consider F because there's nothing that would even point in that direction.