Enneagram type 5w4s

[krieger]

For some reason the people here think that INTjs are robots or some stupid shit, in which case mentally they are probably more fluid then the majority of the other types. Idiosyncratic is the best word to describe an Alpha NT. We analyze , not systematize. We sort of have "x-ray vision" as Gulenko calls it. We see things for what they really are, we see through the stereotypes. Anyone that thinks that INTjs are systematizing, rule creating type of people need to review their socionics.

I agree. Thank you. Very well said.

[redbaron]

I can see INTj and 5w4 for you, Sub. I def. think you're more INTj than INTp. Not that I know you all that well but I find your comments often hilariously random and creatively insightful.

[Phaedrus]

Well, people should be aware of the fact that of the people that is spreading bullshit around here, at least labcoat is not an INTj. It is actually quite possible that no one of the "INTjs" that has posted so far in this thread really is an INTj.

It's a fascinating phenomenon, isn't it? The socionic LII type descriptions seem to function like magnets, attracting other types as well. That is because those type descriptions are misleading and should be improved, but the question is how exactly. Though it is a certainty that this forum has way too many "INTjs" among its members.

[Creepy-Cyclops]

What a mess

[Logos]

Well, people should be aware of the fact that of the people that is spreading bullshit around here, at least labcoat is not an INTj. It is actually quite possible that no one of the "INTjs" that has posted so far in this thread really is an INTj.

It's a fascinating phenomenon, isn't it? The socionic LII type descriptions seem to function like magnets, attracting other types as well. That is because those type descriptions are misleading and should be improved, but the question is how exactly. Though it is a certainty that this forum has way too many "INTjs" among its members.

If you had it your way, you would "improve" it by making all LIIs sound like utter idiots. And what of the people who are incorrectly attracted to the ILI description, like yourself?

[Phaedrus]

If you had it your way, you would "improve" it by making all LIIs sound like utter idiots.

As most of the type profiles now stand they are glorifying the LII in a way that does not correspond with reality. Jung had a correct understanding of , but unfortunately that understanding is somewhat absent in many socionic LII profiles.

And what of the people who are incorrectly attracted to the ILI description, like yourself?

Like so many other ILIs I was at first more attracted to the LII descriptions. The difference between me and some other ILIs is that I did a more thorough research and found out the truth. The only totally obvious and absolutely indisputably clear LIIs on this forum (viewed from my perspective) are tcaudilllg and Huitzilopochtli. There are probably other LIIs as well, but they are not as easy to spot in a crowd consisting of so many mistyped "LIIs".

[Logos]

As most of the type profiles now stand they are glorifying the LII in a way that does not correspond with reality. Jung had a correct understanding of , but unfortunately that understanding is somewhat absent in many socionic LII profiles.

The extent to which type glorifies the LII is much less than the extent to which you try to belittle and paint them with stupidity. Jung has an outdated understanding of .

Like so many other ILIs I was at first more attracted to the LII descriptions. The difference between me and some other ILIs is that I did a more thorough research and found out the truth. The only totally obvious and absolutely indisputably clear LIIs on this forum (viewed from my perspective) are tcaudilllg and Huitzilopochtli. There are probably other LIIs as well, but they are not as easy to spot in a crowd consisting of so many mistyped "LIIs".

Remove the needle from your own eye first, LSI.

[Phaedrus]

The extent to which type glorifies the LII is much less than the extent to which you try to belittle and paint them with stupidity.

No. ILIs look stupid in the eyes of an LII, and LIIs look stupid in the eyes of an ILI. There's nothing strange about that from a socionic perspective, because that is exactly what we should expect from a Quasi-Identical relation.

Jung has an outdated understanding of .

From a common socionic perspective -- yes. And that is what's wrong with the socionic descriptions of , because Jung's understanding is closer to what INTjs are like in real life. And remember that Jung was an INTj himself (that is now a proven fact -- look at the videos where Jung is interviewed if you're still in doubt about his correct type). The problem with the socionic descriptions is that they lead to mistypings. We see that irritating phenomenon over and over again, not the least on this forum.

[Hitta]

Phaedrus, may I ask you an honest question? I'm just curious and am not being sarcastic or disparaging. But why do you believe that Jung's description matches reality better than the socionics descriptions? It seems to be the linchpin for your case about Ti.

Thank you

Jung would laugh at Phaedrus' interpretation of types and functions.

[Phaedrus]

Phaedrus, may I ask you an honest question? I'm just curious and am not being sarcastic or disparaging. But why do you believe that Jung's description matches reality better than the socionics descriptions?

Because I have compared the real types with the descriptions of the types and the descriptions of the functions. From my own empirical observations of INTjs I know that Jung's description of Ti is more accurate in at least one very important sense than the socionic Ti descriptions. Jung understood Ti in a way that is closer to how INTJs are described in MBTT, and that is the correct way to understand INTjs and .

[Phaedrus]

Very well. Then it's because of your own empirical observations...

Which are also perfectly in line with how the socionic types are described in the literature. The correctness of my understanding of the types, including the INTj, is confirmed not only by my own empirical observations and real life encounters with the types, but also by the socionic type descriptions and Reinin dichotomies.

This "very important sense" in which MBTT-Ti and differ, is that MBTT-Ti is more subjective.

Absolutely not. MBTT-Ti is more objective, because MBTT-Ti is a mixture of and with a grain of too. MBTT INTPs are described as objective in the exact same sense as socionic ILIs are described as objective. is not objective, but it is often incorrectly described in a way that can give people the false idea that LIIs and are objective. LIIs and MBTT INTJs are both subjective in the same sense as Jung has described the nature of Ti and Ti types.

What are your criteria for defining "subjectivity"? Why is it even consistent with Jung's interpretation?

In the context of Socionics I use the term "subjectivity" in the same way Jung used it, which is the same sense in Reinin's Subjectivist/Objectivist dichotomy. Every serious socionist should know what is meant by being a Subjectivist and what is meant by saying that is subjective in contrast to the objectivity of . Have you not read Jung's Psychological Types where all of this is explained?

It is ridiculous that I should have to defend what is common knowledge in Socionics and that people don't know the basics. Why the hell can't you study the most simple texts and understand them correctly, you idiots?

Why don't you believe that is subjective, just as Jung mentioned repeatedly in his psychological types essay? ie. both functions "map out the inner world of archetypes"... cant get more subjective than that.

I have never said that is not subjective. I have said that is objective, and that ILIs are objective in comparison with the subjective LIIs. And that is just the facts. You can't dispute it because it is basic knowledge about the socionic types. It is their creative that makes the ILIs objective, not their . All of this is verified by empirical observations of the attitudes and behaviours of the types in real life, and it is also described in the type profiles.

[Enters Laughing]

I can see INTj and 5w4 for you, Sub. I def. think you're more INTj than INTp.

I also think I'm more likely to be an INFp than an INTp, and yet I think the 5w4 descriptions are more me than the 4w5 descriptions.