Differences between LII-INTj and ILI-INTp

This is a paper I'm working on for my graduation project for school, so it is apt to be incomplete and apt to change. Any input from you guys will be greatly appreciated. I need more INTjs and INTps to examine, especially INTjs.

This post was originally meant as a response for Tanzhe's INTj or INTp question, but I decided to give it its own topic. So, I will write this as though I'm answering Tanzhe's question.

I've been through this dilemma with myself plenty of times before, and I came out with INTp, I guess making me the second INTp in here next to Labyrinth. I'll try to clear up some inconsistencies here, and maybe we can see if we can figure out your type. With myself being an INTp and my cousins being INTj and ISTj, I should be able to make some valid judgements on some of your points. Just hold on while I bring up the topic window...so much stuff to sort through...

Let me start out with an interesting observation I have noticed that definitely helped me out. A person of one type may imagine that he is characteristic of his beneficiary. In other words, an INTj may think he is an ISTp, and he may often come up with this type on MBTI tests (MBTI ISTJ.) For instance, my INTj cousin consistently came up with MBTI ISTJ on such and such internet tests. Also, I, for a while, thought that I might be an INFj, of course when I actually made friends with an INFj, he found it easy to get excited around me, whereas I found it difficult to excited around him. I find him a bit boring, as what he likes I can't stand (of course he sees this and constantly tries to convert me to his world, and this classically characterizes a Relation of Benefit.) Another example can be found with my mom; when I first tried to determine her type, she described the MBTI INTP type as being most accurate, even though she was eventually typed as an INFp (INFp > INTj). So, a person would have troubles sifting out his type between his Quasi-Identical and Beneficiary type. Thus, an INTj would be confused between INTj, INTp, and ISTp, as you seem to be, and an INTp would be confused between INTp, INTj, and INFj, as I have been. An ISTp would be confused between ISTp, ISTj, and ISFj, which haven't come up here. Also, did you ever look at the internet type statistics? ISTps are the least represented of the types on the internet, so the chances of an ISTp appearing on a web forum are pretty slim. Plus, ISTps often act like know-it-alls even when they don't know anything about what's being discussed, so the last thing an ISTp would be doing is doubting his type. From this information, I can pretty sure that you are an INTj, but you are probably still not convinced.

About Introverted Complexity No. 47: you asked a question of what the 'spiritual self' is. Maybe I can answer this by using what my INFj friend said about it. He often describes the whole spiritual/physical balance as a balance between order and chaos. For instance, if half of his day has been sitting in a well-ordered environment such as school (order), then he can't wait to get home and do something unordered, like listen to hard rock and roll, go to a party, or do something very physical (chaos). Thus, the 'spiritual self' is simply the ordered, systematic part of yourself, where the 'physical self' is simply the chaotic, energetic part of yourself. Here's another example from the MBTI INTP profile found at www.intp.org/intprofile.html:

Quote:

---

INTPs are often drawn to dissonance. Indeed, they may even thoroughly strive for dissonant sound worlds. When in such moods, consonant harmonies, especially of the three-chord-melody variety, are dismissed as boring and uninspired. If an INTP is forced to listen to simple harmonic music for a while, he usually can't wait to feel the relief provided by a few minutes of pure dissonance.

---

Although I highly disagree with some of the theoretical material on that site, the behaviors are quite accurate. As you can see, this spiritual/physical balance also applies to things like music and art. On the opposite end, INTps tend to be imperceptive of this balance. They live life in a more relaxed mode, often residing in a spiritual state mostly, with occasional physical outbursts, although they are quick to return to that spiritual, ordered state. They feel no need to balance the two.

For an INTp, he often feels a need to balance the intellectual/emotional self. In his intellectual pursuits, he often comes to a point where he begins to want to add the human factor into the equation. Here's a problem I often have: in my English classes, whenever I have to write something creative (as a journal, some types of essays, or poems), I often strive to add that deep, emotional factor to my creation that seemingly comes so easily to an INFj, or in this case, my ENFj friend. I start out with an emotional idea, but as I finish the paper, I find that it has that unmistakable essence of intellectualism. I become very envious of my ENFj friend whenever he can use so well the perfect mixture of metaphors and deeply-felt emotions in his writing, and then I stand up and read my overly-intellectual poem/essay/journal and get such praises as "very scientific" or "You're a pretty smart intellectual." And this intensely irks an INTp. He absolutely hates to be praised for how smart or intellectual he is; he would much rather be praised for his depth of emotionality. This directly corresponds with Introverted Feeling being the Estimative Function or Hidden Agenda of an INTp. On the other hand, INTjs are imperceptive of this intellectual/emotional balance. They live life in a systematic mode, where emotions tend to come out in occasional outbursts. They then consciously try to inject intellectualism into their emotions, thereby repressing them further. One thing my INTj cousin instantly said about himself when I tried to find out his personality type was, "I hide my emotions." It was something he was absolutely sure of, as though he saw emotions as plagues of the mind. An INTp, although he may recognize that he tends to hide his emotions, will never directly say, "I hide my emotions." Ironically, however, the INTj shows more emotion than the INTp. INTjs tend to cry more than INTps, although it could just be my cousin. :)

Here's a little INTp uncovered for pax's question on how you would react to a statement like, "Hey! I see you love her!":

INTp is admiring a girl from afar when his friend notices him.
Friend: Who are you staring at?
INTp: (surprised) Huh? What are you talking about? Noone!
Friend: You were looking at that girl! You like her, don't you?
INTp: What? No! I mean...shut up! Go away! I didn't say anything like that!
Friend: Come on, you know you like her.
INTp: No!!! I mean, just, just shut up and leave me alone! Ok, geez!
The INTp then stands up and hurriedly leaves, lest his friend probe any deeper into this subject.

Notice how the INTp becomes extremely defensive. He doesn't want to say, "Yes, I like her," yet he doesn't want to say, "No, I hate her!" Thus, the only thing he can do is leave the situation. He then will try to avoid his friend, but if he does happen to come into contact with him, he becomes extremely tense, hoping that his friend had forgotten about the situation.

Wanna know an easy way to completely incapacitate an INTp? Publicly announce his feelings toward someone, especially his feelings of love for another. He will instantly back down, running for the nearest corner to hide in. You can also get a previously unemotional INTp to cry by doing this. Of course, he will hate you intensely, but don't worry, it's not like he will seek you out for a fight. Admitting opinions of hate is just as bad as admitting opinions of love.

And here's something very strange that I've just noticed about myself. I like talking about my weaknesses. The more weaknesses I have, the better I feel about myself. Extremely strange. I think it may have something to do with INTps being in the Gamma Quadrable, the Death-Rebirth Struggle, BPM III. This idea sounds very masochistic in a way, and isn't sadomasochism an idea in BPM III? Maybe you guys can figure this out. Labyrinth, have you ever felt this way?

And also, I seem to like it when others reveal their weaknesses. It's kind of like a group sympathy.

Anyway, the :Fe: -- :Fi: axis as the PoLR -- Estimative Function axis for INTps is absolute hell. As stated above, INTps hate it when their :Fi: is revealed in any way, yet they enjoy praise for being "deep". But on the other side of the axis, :Fe: takes, perhaps, an even worse beating. :Fe: is all about how others feel about you. This function surrounds such things as criticisms and opinions. This leads INTps to be extremely shy, especially during their school days. They are very sensitive to how others feel about their ideas, motives, behaviors, likes and dislikes, etc. They hate criticisms about anything they do, thus they try never to criticize others (of course, that attitude can drastically change once the INTp gets to really, really know you.) They never seem to hold grudges for very long, as they hate hating people, which directly corresponds with the hidden agenda, "to love." Conversely, my INTj and ISTj cousins never seem to drop anything. If you do one thing they don't like, they'll sit there and moan about it for hours. Also, INTps hate when others criticize another person.

Another problem for INTps is that they never know exactly what others think of them. They are very sensitive about this. For instance, say an INTp is walking down a hall, and he passes a girl he really likes. If, say, the girl doesn't look over to him when he looks at her, he instantly assumes that she hates him and wants nothing to do with him. Irrational, I know. He continues to dwell on this insignificant detail, fighting off thoughts of worthlessness, hopelessness, and whatnot. Of course, this can easily be alleviated. Just by simply showing an INTp a simple gesture that you think he's an ok guy, you can instantly lighten his mood, even if he hated you before. An INTp's moods are extremely variable.

The funny thing is, INTps may have such a big problem with :Fe: that they think at first that their hidden agenda is "to be loved," as in the ENTp. The big marked difference between ENTps and INTps, however, is that INTps tend to keep a huge psychological distance between people at first, so much that it may take years to get an INTp to come out of his shell, whereas the ENTp never knows how to keep the right psychological distance between himself and another, loving you one day and ignoring you the next.

I'm not really sure of how the :Se: -- :Si: axis works in an INTj; maybe some of you INTjs can elaborate on this? And also, I'm sorry if I dwelled too much on the INTp's behaviors, but you know, I know myself way, way better than I know others. But that's where you guys come in.

Anyway, let me try and explain some of Tanzhe noticed behaviors.

Quote:

---

Low self-esteem.

---

Any type can have low self-esteem (look at me!) It's just that INTjs lack self-confidence in their abilities, where INTps know exactly if they can or can't do something.

Quote:

---

Lack of ‘predictive ability and foresight.’

---

I pride myself and am often amazed by my predictive abilities and foresight. In fact, that's how I approach most problems. I try to predict what will happen as the situation unfolds, and from there I can make decisions. It really helps in business applications.

Quote:

---

Lack of religiousness - although this may be subject to change and I know that religion does not equal spirituality - please clarify on that.

---

I'm an atheist, but that's mostly because of influences from my INFp mother (although she still believes in 'a' god, just not the Christian's god. It's very important for INFps to believe in something, way more than INTps, for if they don't, they tend to fall into Nihilistic and Existentialistic ideas and often feel very lost and lonely. This is a big thing for types from the Beta Quadrable, the Cosmic Engulfment with No Exit, BPM II.) And on spirituality: I explained this somewhere above.

Quote:

---

I don’t identify with the hidden agenda ‘to love.’

---

You shouldn't. Here's an easy way to spot someone with that hidden agenda. They often have an obsession with petting and loving up pets. They will pet and cuddle an animal so much, that it causes the pet to get annoyed and run away. But that doesn't stop them. They run after it, trying to catch it and love it up again, often in a rough manner. I've often been yelled at by my ISFj dad for bothering the cat too much. They often feel hurt if the pet doesn't want to cuddle with them.

Quote:

---

Not assertive at all. I could see Se as a place of least resistance.

---

INTps tend to be like that, until they get a taste of power. Then nothing is negotiable with them. No ideals compromised, no plans adjusted, nothing. They often try to seize complete power over a problem, so that they can push it to completion exactly how they want it. Also, INTps usually have an obsession with being the best at something. They often get extremely annoyed when they come in second in something they know they're good at. And if something doesn't seem to want to work for an INTp, they react in the natural male way: force it in until it does. And INTps tend to be quite temperamental and aggressive.

For INTjs, they are often sensitive of their abilities and physical strength. They hate to be criticized in this area. Thus, it tends to be that INTjs hate gym class. Those shy, quiet types that seem to do nothing and can't throw a dodgeball are probably either INTjs or INFjs.

Quote:

---

I do not understand what others think of me.

---

Doesn't any logical type feel that way?

Quote:

---

I am not quite certain about the self-control of an INTj and INTp.

---

INTjs have more self-control than INTps. They get mad alot less than INTps. It just so happens that INTps tend to lack self-control and self-discipline. INTps are often happy with who they are, thus they have little or no interest in self-improvement.

Quote:

---

As for self-control, I asked the person that I knew and he said that I had an appearance of self-control - not getting excited or jumping for joy. I am not sure whether that is an INTp trait.

---

Obviously, you've never seen an INTp in his natural environment. They go completely crazy. In fact, when an INTp is having alot of fun, they tend to become very extroverted, even if there are strangers around.

Some marked differences in INTjs and INTps:

- INTps love to explain things to people, even to people that don't really care about what the INTp is talking about. INTjs on the other hand have a hard time explaining things, thus they are usually private about their interests.

- INTjs usually depend on theoretical facts when they discuss things. INTps depend on real-life examples.

Keep adding to this list, folks!

That's all I'm going to type for now. I still have 'miles to go', so don't think I've finished my dissertation. Any opinions or criticisms will be greatly appreciated (or so I say.) :)

Oh, and Tanzhe, I would definitely venture to say that you are a clear-cut INTj. An easy way to spot an INTj is that he keeps doubting his type through pages and pages of questions and theories. Yet, other INTjs are the only ones present who try to answer the question, so, the INTj never really knows what he is.

Your Quasi-Identical INTp friend,

Cone

Oh, almost forgot. If you guys watch cartoons, you may want to look at Hey Arnold! and Rocko's Modern Life. Pheobe is a clear-cut INTp, whereas they say that Filburt is an INTj.

This is partially in response to Cone’s submission,

Intjs have extraverted sensing as their POR. As result, they are often hesitant to put forth their views or channel their thoughts into something tangible unless they are encouraged in a way that impacts their extraverted feeling in a postive manner. That is why the esfj-intj relationship works well on the intj's end. This emotional comfort engergizes him and gives him that added boost of confidence, and thus he feels more inspired to do something productive with his skills.

Using that logic, I argue that quite a few Intjs enjoy gym class, provided that they have good friends to share the athletic experiences with. I (an intj) loved gym class, particulary dodgeball. Not because I enjoyed "socking it to people", but because I enjoyed the camaraderie that resulted from collaboration with my fellow teammates.

However, if an intj feels unappreciated, and his extraverted feeling is neglected, then the athletic experience will not be very pleasant, unless this particular intj has a vast amount of experience with the sport, and thus this opportunity to show off his skills (making use of extraverted intuition) somewhat negates the unpleasantness that occurs when there is focus on extraverted sensing oriented activities.

As in all cases, the fulfillment of the dual seeking functions makes one's POR less sensitive. Doesn't mean it not still a problem, just means that it is less of a problem. Hence, the benefits of duality.

I don't want to speculate as to how this applies to intps, as that is something intps are better qualified to do.

I would like to write something about the intj hidden agenda and POR in greater detail but this will consider some greater thought and soul-searching. Of course, this is a topic of great importance for the vast group of intjs that congregate on this board.

Jetto-INTj

INTP or INTJ?
One way of approaching the perennial issue: INTP or INTJ, could be to look at your fourth function, the function of coordination:
If your function of coordination is Fe, then you are INTP, like Bill Clinton:


http://images-eu.amazon.com/images/P...8.LZZZZZZZ.jpg

Americans deserve better, and in this city today there are people who want to do better, and so I say to all of you here, let us resolve to reform our politics, so that power and privilege no longer shout down the voice of the people. Let us put aside personal advantage, so that we can feel the pain and see the promise of America. Let us resolve to make our government a place for what Franklin Roosevelt called "bold, persistent experimentation, a government for our tomorrows, not our yesterdays." Let us give this capitol back to the people to whom it belongs.
http://www.worldwideschool.org/libra...es/chap53.html
I feel your pain.





If your function of coordination is Se, then you are INTJ, like Madonna:

http://www.gregsgrooves.com/imagesm-...na_erotica.jpg

Give it up, do as I say
Give it up and let me have my way
I´ll give you love, I´ll hit you like a truck
I´ll give you love, I´ll teach you how to ...

I´d like to put you in a trance, all over
Erotic, erotic, put your hands all over my body [repeat twice]
Erotic, erotic

Erotica, romance
I´d like to put you in a trance
Erotica, romance
Put your hands all over my body

I don´t think you know what pain is
I don´t think you´ve gone that way
I could bring you so much pleasure
I´ll come to you when you say
I know you want me
I´m not gonna hurt you
I´m not gonna hurt you, just close your eyes

Erotic, erotic [repeat several times]
Put your hands all over my body
All over me, all over me
http://www.gregsgrooves.com/imagesm-...na_erotica.jpg

I'm MORE then certain Madonna is not an INTj. The typing on http://ru.laser.ru is actually that of an INTp, if you hadn't noticed that that particular set of pictures lies within the Gamma quadra, as well as the fact that all those whom surround the supposed list of INTJs are all Gamma Quadra members.

Thank you both for the replies. They will definitely be helpful to me. Just keep on replying, people!

First of all, Jetto. You bring up some very interesting points, thank you. It's just that, of all the INTjs I've seen in gym class, everyone ignores them. So, they tend to be passive and weak. I'll be sure and try to encourage some of them so that I can see how they react.

So you want to know how the dual-seeking function displaces the PoLR in INTps? Well, in gym class, the basic dominating function present is, probably, :Se:. And because of the nature of :Se:, the more chaotic and power-driven the sport, the better. So what could be more chaotic than good old-fashioned German dodgeball? (not the same as regular dodgeball; I dislike regular dodgeball, it's too...oh...ordered and too team-spiritlike.) Put an INTp in that environment and he instantly becomes more extroverted; :Fe: , the PoLR, is displaced. He's not so sensitive to criticisms and opinions on his behavior that others may deal out (although they never seem to deal out criticisms and opinions anyway, much to the INTp's surprise. But he's still quite sensitive; they just might say something, you never know!) The extroversion becomes even more pronounced if there are friends around. And if everyone's his friend? Watch out! He goes crazy, and may even tend to be annoying at times (like an ESFp.) :Fe: is completely displaced, so his behavior becomes unrestrained.

CuriousSoul, Bill Clinton is an INTp? Wow, I never would have guessed. Interesting points, though, especially on the associative function, :Se: , of INTjs. So your saying it's almost sadistic in INTjs and INFjs? That would explain a little thing I've heard about love in Relations of Benefit. The relationship can take on a sadomasochistic taste if left uncontrolled. That would explain my masochistic feelings about my weaknesses.

Here's a little experiment: I, an INTp, will find a female INFj, fall in love, and see what happens.

Your Quasi-Identical INTp friend,

Cone

Oh, and another thing. INTps hate it when you criticize, compliment, or simply comment on one of their abilities. But they do like it when you agree with them or say something nice about them.

Hint hint... :wink:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MysticSonic

I'm MORE then certain Madonna is not an INTj. The typing on http://ru.laser.ru is actually that of an INTp, if you hadn't noticed that that particular set of pictures lies within the Gamma quadra, as well as the fact that all those whom surround the supposed list of INTJs are all Gamma Quadra members.

---

I am afraid I do not fully trust anybody's typing. Unfortunately ru.laser.ru has a vey high error rate in their typing. I shall write more later, these types are correct though.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Cone

CuriousSoul, Bill Clinton is an INTp? Wow, I never would have guessed. Interesting points, though, especially on the associative function, , of INTjs. So your saying it's almost sadistic in INTjs and INFjs? That would explain a little thing I've heard about love in Relations of Benefit. The relationship can take on a sadomasochistic taste if left uncontrolled. That would explain my masochistic feelings about my weaknesses.

---

Only the one that hurts you can make you feel better
Only the one that inflicts pain can take it away
http://www.letrascanciones.org/madon...ca/erotica.php

Sadism and masochism are just two sides of the same coin. Some things are better left to fantasies though.

Quote:

---

Here's a little experiment: I, an INTp, will find a female INFj, fall in love, and see what happens.

---

Fell in love with an INTP girl, didn't work. Other way round, could work - you need to find one with a strong need of love and appear full of inner happiness but without roughness or sliminess. Theory says you would not be happy in the longer run, but theory is as theory does.

Thanks for the replies.

Hey, do you guys think you can describe some things you hate about INTps? I want to write an INTp uncovered, but I need some more objective views toward them. Tanzhe wrote one for INTjs; why not one for INTps?

Please, be gentle. My psyche can only take so much. :)

I believe INTps have a tendancy to form rather antognistic behaviours of the world, in which they believe that behaving as such will lead to their "ideal", whether they are on the conservative side or liberal side of the spectrum.

Also, CS, I had simply assumed that you got this typing from the website, which unintentionally types Madonna as an INTJ. I most certainly agree with you that it is not wise to trust other's typing, but Madonna most certainly expresses the desire for money and power.

Good point, MysticSonic. One thing about INTps and being in the Gamma quadrable is that they are always in conflict with someone or something. They like to see themselves as either the underdog or, more often, the rogue. Their extreme need for individualism and to be different often manifests itself into disagreeing with something, no matter what it is. Thus, they often use their introverted intuition to try and pull some discrepancy out of a theory, and then they step in and criticize the hell out of it. Ironically, INTps hate to be criticized, yet they have no qualms about criticizing others.

Another way of asserting their individualism is by acting different. They often act goofy to try and be acknowlegded as different. I knew an INTp who is in Germany right now who used to act that way alot. Some other ways of being different: taking the hard way out when everyone else takes the easy way, being the best, being strong where others are weak (often negatively), being weak where others are strong, being liberal when everyone else is conservative, then switching to independent when everyone switches to liberal, then ultimately dropping out and becoming indifferent to the subject when there is no more room to be different, then having a neurosis once you find out that no matter where you are, you are agreeing with someone.

Sadly, though, after this extensive quest for independence, the INTp finds himself quite alone and ignored, withering away in his little corner all by himself. For what's the point of being different if no one cares if you are or not?

I suppose you'll want my opinions - well, here they are.

"Thus, an INTj would be confused between INTj, INTp, and ISTp, as you seem to be, and an INTp would be confused between INTp, INTj, and INFj, as I have been. An ISTp would be confused between ISTp, ISTj, and ISFj, which haven't come up here."

I was/am confused between INTj, INTp, ISTp and, I was for a while, an ISTj. But these were MBTI types and, quite frankly, I guessed at my Socionics type based on these. So I'm not sure about using this as a method to determine my type.


"Plus, ISTps often act like know-it-alls even when they don't know anything about what's being discussed, so the last thing an ISTp would be doing is doubting his type."

I occasionally wonder at whether I am arrogant, or whether I have controlled arrogance.


"On the opposite end, INTps tend to be imperceptive of this balance. They live life in a more relaxed mode, often residing in a spiritual state mostly, with occasional physical outbursts, although they are quick to return to that spiritual, ordered state. They feel no need to balance the two."

This describes me well, actually.


"For an INTp, he often feels a need to balance the intellectual/emotional self."

I can imagine myself trying to inject more emotion into myself - particular when, say, reading to somebody.


"And this intensely irks an INTp. He absolutely hates to be praised for how smart or intellectual he is; he would much rather be praised for his depth of emotionality. This directly corresponds with Introverted Feeling being the Estimative Function or Hidden Agenda of an INTp. On the other hand, INTjs are imperceptive of this intellectual/emotional balance. They live life in a systematic mode, where emotions tend to come out in occasional outbursts. They then consciously try to inject intellectualism into their emotions, thereby repressing them further. One thing my INTj cousin instantly said about himself when I tried to find out his personality type was, "I hide my emotions." It was something he was absolutely sure of, as though he saw emotions as plagues of the mind. An INTp, although he may recognize that he tends to hide his emotions, will never directly say, "I hide my emotions." Ironically, however, the INTj shows more emotion than the INTp. INTjs tend to cry more than INTps, although it could just be my cousin."

Well, I actually don't try to restrain my emotions. I don't try to control them - I've found that doing so leads to bad states. But even without the control, I'm still usually calm. I can control myself with respect to patience and anger.

I agree that I will never directly say, "I hide my emotions."

I don't like to be fussed over too much. I haven't ever really been praised for my depth of emotionality, so I don't know what it feels like. But perhaps my earlier extroversion was due to this desire for emotions, and I have gradually become more intellectual?


"Notice how the INTp becomes extremely defensive. He doesn't want to say, "Yes, I like her," yet he doesn't want to say, "No, I hate her!" Thus, the only thing he can do is leave the situation. He then will try to avoid his friend, but if he does happen to come into contact with him, he becomes extremely tense, hoping that his friend had forgotten about the situation."

This accurately describes me - I try to shrug such questions off.


"Wanna know an easy way to completely incapacitate an INTp? Publicly announce his feelings toward someone, especially his feelings of love for another. He will instantly back down, running for the nearest corner to hide in. You can also get a previously unemotional INTp to cry by doing this. Of course, he will hate you intensely, but don't worry, it's not like he will seek you out for a fight. Admitting opinions of hate is just as bad as admitting opinions of love."

I think that would describe me, but I have never had my feelings publicly announced.


"This leads INTps to be extremely shy, especially during their school days. They are very sensitive to how others feel about their ideas, motives, behaviors, likes and dislikes, etc. They hate criticisms about anything they do, thus they try never to criticize others (of course, that attitude can drastically change once the INTp gets to really, really know you.) They never seem to hold grudges for very long, as they hate hating people, which directly corresponds with the hidden agenda, "to love." Conversely, my INTj and ISTj cousins never seem to drop anything. If you do one thing they don't like, they'll sit there and moan about it for hours. Also, INTps hate when others criticize another person."

I don't hold grudges for too long. I was shy during my earlier school days, and perhaps my ESFx saying that I was sensitive to discomfort would result from the above paragraph. I think I am sensitive to how others think/feel.


"Another problem for INTps is that they never know exactly what others think of them."

I think that's me.


"The big marked difference between ENTps and INTps, however, is that INTps tend to keep a huge psychological distance between people at first, so much that it may take years to get an INTp to come out of his shell, whereas the ENTp never knows how to keep the right psychological distance between himself and another, loving you one day and ignoring you the next."

Yeah - I'm generally distrustful at first.


"You shouldn't. Here's an easy way to spot someone with that hidden agenda. They often have an obsession with petting and loving up pets. They will pet and cuddle an animal so much, that it causes the pet to get annoyed and run away. But that doesn't stop them. They run after it, trying to catch it and love it up again, often in a rough manner. I've often been yelled at by my ISFj dad for bothering the cat too much. They often feel hurt if the pet doesn't want to cuddle with them."

Well, I've never had pets, so I've never experienced any 'pet' feelings or responses.


"Also, INTps usually have an obsession with being the best at something."

That might be me - not sure.


"- INTps love to explain things to people, even to people that don't really care about what the INTp is talking about. INTjs on the other hand have a hard time explaining things, thus they are usually private about their interests."

Sometimes I'll explain things to myself in my room - perhaps this is related?


"Your Quasi-Identical INTp friend,"

Strange - I mostly understood your article.


"Well, in gym class, the basic dominating function present is, probably, . And because of the nature of , the more chaotic and power-driven the sport, the better. So what could be more chaotic than good old-fashioned German dodgeball? (not the same as regular dodgeball; I dislike regular dodgeball, it's too...oh...ordered and too team-spiritlike.) Put an INTp in that environment and he instantly becomes more extroverted; , the PoLR, is displaced. He's not so sensitive to criticisms and opinions on his behavior that others may deal out (although they never seem to deal out criticisms and opinions anyway, much to the INTp's surprise. But he's still quite sensitive; they just might say something, you never know!) The extroversion becomes even more pronounced if there are friends around. And if everyone's his friend? Watch out! He goes crazy, and may even tend to be annoying at times (like an ESFp.) is completely displaced, so his behavior becomes unrestrained."

There are certain situations in which I go "crazy" relative to my normal, calm state. But I don't know how that looks - my "crazy" could be everyone else's "a little ruffled".


"Oh, and another thing. INTps hate it when you criticize, compliment, or simply comment on one of their abilities. But they do like it when you agree with them or say something nice about them."

I think that might describe me. As for the hint - good article. :)


"A: INTPs have a propensity to be "goofy" INTJs to be aloof.
B: INTps like to be funny and quirky to get attention. INTJs are funny and quirky in ways that isolate them from others."


Not sure.


As for Gamma goofiness and individualism - again, not sure. I don't know how others view me, so I can't really tell.


I have a slight fear about something - I do martial arts. There is a certain "alchemy" that takes place when one does martial arts that changes their characters and makes them a more complete person. Sometimes I wonder if that has any bearing on Socionics.


Thanks, Cone - some interesting thoughts. 8)

Oh, and Tanzhe, I would definitely venture to say that you are a clear-cut INTj. An easy way to spot an INTj is that he keeps doubting his type through pages and pages of questions and theories. Yet, other INTjs are the only ones present who try to answer the question, so, the INTj never really knows what he is.



I wonder what you are basing this on. I am very skepticial to your saying that one who is skeptical towards his type is necessarily an INTj, this seems a bit weird, because anyone can adopt a skeptical attitude.


On the socionics site, it says that INTps are generally critical of others beleifs. This is because of the dominant Ni which makes it easy to beleive in an idea or theory combined with auxillary Te which causes skepticism. In the experience of INTps they beleive things rather easily, but the Te may come out and smash their initial certainity.

So im a skeptical of your statement.

INTps KNOW what they KNOW. They are only sceptical to OTHER'S beliefs and statements, not their own, quite like the ISTp. No one is going to tell them what is what, and most especially, what to believe in.

I'm interested in the 'alchemy' process in martial arts..which martial arts are you talking about?

Here are my ideas of the Eastern world(and martial arts) and wisdom

First off I respect the culture of most of the Eastern world, because they allow for introversion, not speaking unless spoken to, etc. If you are quiet in India or China(at least in ancient times) you might be considered wise or meditating. If you are an introvert in the (extraverted West, aka US) there is something wrong with you, let's give you Ritlin for being ADD, let's poke you with a stick etc.

Now on wisdom. Jung talked about alchemy and the I Ching in his research of all archetypes throughout history. It showed alchemists and I Ching, along with other religions having not only the same archetypes, but showed early knowledge of the psyche without being able to explain it, thus making Gods, symbols, etc. I think that the Eastern world, at least before the Westernization started, respected wisdom. I would say wisdom is (knowing) something works, without necessarily understanding it. Acupuncture, for instance. However when these Easterners find themselves in the US, they feel the need to make up connections to the 'hard sciences' of intellectualism that the Western world has been built on. On this, they fail. They can't explain their wisdom because they don't understand it. But they still know it works. Knowing without understanding = wisdom.
Now the opposite, psychologists vs neurologists in the West. Or let's say Socionists in the West vs neurologists. Neuroscience (a hard science) is beginning to make leaps forward with the technology we now have, with the brain previously being basically a completely unknown organ. I'm not sure where I was going with that...sorry for getting off topic...
Jimmy - INTJ

For all of you INTJs and INTPs out there, what do you do when people start argueing?? I for one shut the hell up and get out of there. POLR :Se: in action.

-Jimmy INTJ

Thank you, Tanzhe. It's going to take me awhile to come up with some comments on what you said, so bear with me.

First off, Cheerio:

Quote:

---

I wonder what you are basing this on. I am very skepticial to your saying that one who is skeptical towards his type is necessarily an INTj, this seems a bit weird, because anyone can adopt a skeptical attitude.

---

You didn't understand what I said. I said that an INTj will keep "doubting his type through pages and pages of questions and theories." Sure, every type can be skeptical, but only an INTj (and possibly ENTp) will argue it through eternity, never falling on one conclusion. This is brought on by the Ti-Ne axis, where Ti never instantly disregards a theory or possibility, Ti passes this into Ne, which Ne extrapolates many different possibilities and ideas from. Thus, INTjs are heavy doubters. And since they are generally unconfident in their abilities and ideas, they ask alot of questions. Why do you think it's mostly INTjs on intellectual forums all over the Internet?

Plus, INTps doubt their abilities and conclusions, too. It's just that they are much more confident in their abilities to solve a problem that they generally never ask for help for something. If ISTps think they know everything, then INTps think they can solve and understand everything. And since they think they can solve and understand everything, they criticize to an extreme extent. Just look at me on this forum!

Quote:

---

On the socionics site, it says that INTps are generally critical of others beleifs. This is because of the dominant Ni which makes it easy to beleive in an idea or theory combined with auxillary Te which causes skepticism. In the experience of INTps they beleive things rather easily, but the Te may come out and smash their initial certainity.

---

Everything looks good there, except that the roles of Ni and Te should be reversed. Ni is all about pattern recognition, observation, etc., so Ni is the skeptical one. It looks for patterns and repeated material in ideas and observations, so if it sees something fishy, it will instantly reject it. They pull from the vast store of facts and observations that Te provides to further their conviction that it's "just another crackpot theory!" For instance, I don't believe in the quantum physics theory that says that it defies Newtonian physics, because it's just another group of scientists who are to lazy to look for patterns deep in between the Newtonian and quantum universes, so they make up some stupid theory that makes wild, lazy claims. Yes, the quantum world exists, but does it really defy all that we hold true? Wouldn't it affect the outside world in some way?

Then they say, "no, it doesn't affect the outside world because it defies reality." Oh? Can you prove that? How do you know your measurements are valid, in that they measure what they are supposed to measure? I find it very dubious that one can start with a theory, then find out that the facts and observations magically fit right into it. And isn't that what Introverted Thinking is all about?

Anyway, enough ranting.

However, here's the catch: INTps may be very sceptical of a new idea, but if they see something they like, they swallow it whole. Thus, they become true believers in the entire thing, regarding everything to be valid. This manifests itself in the INTp beng quite impressionable. They may have a minimal amount of beliefs, but they believe in them wholeheartedly. On the other hand, I would expect (since I don't really know) that INTjs are much less sceptical at first, yet they still keep wary about swallowing the whole thing in one bite.

Your Quasi-Identical INTp friend,

Cone

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by admin

For all of you INTJs and INTPs out there, what do you do when people start argueing?? I for one shut the hell up and get out of there. POLR :Se: in action.

-Jimmy INTJ

---

maybe i don't count because i'm entp, but i stand there and make fun of them xD

I do enjoy a good argument; I usually act as the observer, listening and criticizing each point in my head. But I think I make a bad arguer, because 1) I too convicted in my ideas. Although I do strive for compromise, I'm too much like North Vietnam: only on my terms. 2) I'm mentally slow in building an argument; I'm often stuck trying to think of what to say, so the argument ends quite abruptly. And no one wants to restart an argument they've already won. And 3) I'm too afraid to speak up for myself, not wanting to make myself a spectacle.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Cone

Plus, INTps doubt their abilities and conclusions, too. It's just that they are much more confident in their abilities to solve a problem that they generally never ask for help for something. If ISTps think they know everything, then INTps think they can solve and understand everything. And since they think they can solve and understand everything, they criticize to an extreme extent. Just look at me on this forum!

---

I'd draw your attention to this:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MysticSonic

INTps KNOW what they KNOW. They are only sceptical to OTHER'S beliefs and statements, not their own, quite like the ISTp. No one is going to tell them what is what, and most especially, what to believe in.

---

Not quite sure what you're trying to say...

How about I put it this way: INTps SEEM like they "KNOW what they KNOW."

Exactly. 100% exactly.

I'm very sorry, though. I'm still not sure whether you're disagreeing with me, agreeing, just saying something...

My logical thinking skills aren't that great...sorry...

Actually, what I was distracted and forgot to explain what I was going on about. You were saying that an INTj would doubt his type through pages and pages, and that an INTp knows what he knows. What I was going to say was that I only have a very limited knowledge of Socionics, certainly not as much as at least some of the posters here. I keep on doubting my type for two reasons: 1) I don't know much about Socionics so I am forced to rely a lot on the posters here and 2) I've yet to find clear, definitive differences between INTps and INTjs that I can identify in myself.

Yeah, sorry I've been away for awhile. I've been trying to woo an ESFp girl for the past few days, so that will take some time. I might not post anything for maybe as long as a week, so until then, I'll say this:

Tanzhe, you need to figure out your type for yourself. It has to be your decision, not mine. I can give you as many facts as I can, but ultimately, you have to choose.

Just a friend,

Cone

Oh, and also:

Quote:

---

It is best to say that they appear to be "self-confident" for they are "crushed" - sometimes beyond measure - when they have analyzed incorrectly and made a mistake.

---

Something I worry about every time I post here...

Yes, but Cone, you said, "Thank you, Tanzhe. It's going to take me awhile to come up with some comments on what you said, so bear with me."

Sorry? Have I misunderstood something?

You forgot that I was an INTp:

I change my mind alot.

But I will comment on your responses eventually. It's just that my life has all of the sudden shifted into fifth gear and the brakes are failing.

Your friend,

Cone

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Cone

From a purely VI standpoint, you look remarkably like an INTj.

Note the chin and wideness of the face. INTjs often have a rounded face with a small distance between the mouth and chin. Also, the chin is usually pointed outward to form a kind of ball-chin, if I may use such a term. Plus, the eyes look subdued and blank, and the eyebrows are widely-spaced and quite thin and faded, all characteristic of INTjs.

Now that I think about it, you look remarkably like a kid in chorus who I can now assume is an INTj.

---

Could you give me a similar idea for ISTps and INTps, and possibly ISTjs (just in case)? This isn't on the Socionics site, and it could be quite useful.

Quote:

---

I see what he's saying.... Drawing inconsistencies in your words trying to force you to revise your theory or abandon it. Ironically that's Ti behavior... and thus promotes your interpretation of his personality. Basically, he is saying if INTPs know what they know then how can they doubt their conclusions as knowledge and doubt are in logical opposition to one another. Either they know and thus do not doubt or they do not know (for sure) and thus doubt.

---

But remember, people aren't stereotypes!

Quote:

---

Actually, what I was distracted and forgot to explain what I was going on about. You were saying that an INTj would doubt his type through pages and pages, and that an INTp knows what he knows. What I was going to say was that I only have a very limited knowledge of Socionics, certainly not as much as at least some of the posters here. I keep on doubting my type for two reasons: 1) I don't know much about Socionics so I am forced to rely a lot on the posters here and 2) I've yet to find clear, definitive differences between INTps and INTjs that I can identify in myself.

---

I was kind of just kidding about the INTj doubting his type through pages and pages (although there may be some truth to it.) And also, I know how you seem to depend on me to give you my knowledge, but remember, I also "have a very limited knowledge of Socionics." It's just that most of my other knowledge comes from real-world observation and inductive and sometimes deductive reasoning.

Here's another inductive conclusion: as an INTp, I seem to be able to absorb complex theoretical abstractions quite simply and can use them easily, yet they aren't organized in my mind, being an amalgam of knowledge that has yet to be ordered systematically. And how do I eventually systemize it? By explaining it. My full understanding of a concept comes from being forced to explain it, so by integrating real-world examples into my explanation, I find that I fully understand it. Thus I explain things to myself constantly.

On the other hand, and I'm only guessing, INTjs usually need the knowledge already pre-ordered in a systematic way, and that's the best way to absorb information for them. However, they can only really explain the theoretical details of the situation. Thus, their explanations tend to be somewhat wordy with a quite advanced vocabulary.

Quote:

---

I've yet to find clear, definitive differences between INTps and INTjs that I can identify in myself.

---

And I doubt you ever will. If you look at the Model A of a person's type, you will find that every function is present in the psyche. The only determining factor of individual type is where the function is placed and to what extent the function influences actions and thoughts. Thus the only real differences between types are the degrees of influence of each function on a person. Types that have like functions placed in completely opposite places are quite easy to tell apart, such as in the INTj and ESFp. But when the functions are placed close together or scattered seemingly randomly, it becomes even more difficult to tell the type, because the degrees of influence are alot closer. Thus, behaviors of the INTj are very much like the behaviors of the INTp. The only determining factor is how each one views the world and thinks about things. But that doesn't really help, because it's nearly impossible to get a truly objective view of your subjective world.

Oh, and MysticSonic:

Quote:

---

I'm just not convinced I'm not an INFp, that's all.

---

INFps in my experience tend to view people in a somewhat pessimistic view, as they tend to distrust people at first and almost never take the initiative. INFjs tend to feel negative feelings directed toward them from other people, thus they stay secluded from new people in a room and once again almost never take the initiative. INTjs and INTps, however, are nearly blind to this, so they see everyone in a kind of passive view.

And here's a question: do you often get strange intuitions that something is about to happen, then you find out later that your intuition was correct? If so, you are probably an INFp. Otherwise, you're not.

Another question: do you ever get intuitions about something that might have just happened, then you find out later that your intuition was correct? If so, you could possibly be an INFj. Otherwise, you're not. (This one's a little shaky. I'm just describing what my INFj friend told me.)

And here is something else: INFps usually have poor logical and reasoning skills. They may be exceptionally intelligent, yet logic is something that almost always escapes them.

Quote:

---

Could you give me a similar idea for ISTps and INTps, and possibly ISTjs (just in case)? This isn't on the Socionics site, and it could be quite useful.

---

Maybe, but I doubt it. I can identify a type by looking at the face, yet I can't really give any general guidelines on how I do it. I think the formation of general guidelines is more of something an INTj can do, as they possess much better deductive reasoning skills than I do, me being more inductive in nature.

And why am I so horrible in solving detective mysteries? I must have watched 30+ of them on TV, and I have yet to solve one. Are INTjs better at this than I am?

Your Quasi-Identical INTp friend,

Cone

"NFps in my experience tend to view people in a somewhat pessimistic view, as they tend to distrust people at first and almost never take the initiative. INFjs tend to feel negative feelings directed toward them from other people, thus they stay secluded from new people in a room and once again almost never take the initiative. INTjs and INTps, however, are nearly blind to this, so they see everyone in a kind of passive view."

I'm generally too wrapped up in my own world to care what others think, although when I am not, I feel the sting of my own conscious strongly, and will at that time most closely identify with the feelings of the INFj

"And here's a question: do you often get strange intuitions that something is about to happen, then you find out later that your intuition was correct? If so, you are probably an INFp. Otherwise, you're not."

No, I don't.

"Another question: do you ever get intuitions about something that might have just happened, then you find out later that your intuition was correct? If so, you could possibly be an INFj. Otherwise, you're not. (This one's a little shaky. I'm just describing what my INFj friend told me.)"

Do you mean in reference towards the past?

"And here is something else: INFps usually have poor logical and reasoning skills. They may be exceptionally intelligent, yet logic is something that almost always escapes them."

I have a basic grasp of logical concepts, and I would like to think that I am logical; I see no reason to believe that I am not "logical" at least to a certain extent; I've always been fascinated with the sciences, most especially astronomy and the like. It was only in the past few years which I have become intensely interested in psychology, and to be completely honest, I find it rather dull. I never seem able to quite grasp the concepts behind certain things; there are so many theories, so many assumptions, that I am sickened to the core; I do not know which to believe, and all that I sift through seem equally plausible, as they are all "unfalsifiable", and yet, here I am, still attempting to ascertain the truth behinds these introspective hypotheses. However, neurobiology is extremely appealing to me, and I see it as the future of psychology.

Quote:

---

I'm generally too wrapped up in my own world to care what others think.

---

INTj.

Quote:

---

although when I am not, I feel the sting of my own conscious strongly, and will at that time most closely identify with the feelings of the INFj.

---

INTj/INFj.

Quote:

---

Do you mean in reference towards the past?

---

Not really. Here's a little story my INFj friend told me once:

On the way home from somewhere, he began to feel a strange feeling, accompanied by a slight sickness. He didn't know exactly why he was feeling this way, just that he did feel this way. A little after he got home, he turned on the news, and, lo and behold, Princess Diana had just died.

So I mean in reference towards the present. I'm not exactly sure I would believe in intuitions, though, as there's always the hindsight bias to watch out for. Yet, it seems to me that xNFx types report these feelings way more often than any other types do. As an INTp, I can't say that I've ever gotten any intuitions.

But here's another thing. My INFj friend also always tells me about experiences and images that seem to stem from the collective unconcious. For instance, he will tell me about vague past-life experiences and deja-vu. Once again, as an INTp, I've never felt this way.

And here's a little relationship test you can use to test for Relations of Benefit: They seem to be one of the quickest to start, and they are extremely open; I swear, you can talk about anything. But that doesn't mean either one will really listen to you.

Your Quasi-Identical INTp friend,

Cone

"He didn't know exactly why he was feeling this way, just that he did feel this way. A little after he got home, he turned on the news, and, lo and behold, Princess Diana had just died. "

That's PURE coincidence. And, no, I've never really gotten any of those inuitions, but my mom has, and she's most certainly NOT an inuitive type.

Quote:

---

That's PURE coincidence.

---

Prove it.

Quote:

---

And, no, I've never really gotten any of those inuitions, but my mom has, and she's most certainly NOT an intuitive type.

---

Then maybe it's just an F thing.

Seriously. Someone feeling "sick" in the car isn't an unusual event, and neither is the accompanied "strange feeling" most likely brought on by the nauesea.

Of course I can't PROVE it's a coincidence, I just believe it's sillly to believe otherwise without proof.

"Then maybe it's just an F thing."

Yeah, seeing as how my mom's an SF, I believe.

Quote:

---

Seriously. Someone feeling "sick" in the car isn't an unusual event, and neither is the accompanied "strange feeling" most likely brought on by the nauesea.

Of course I can't PROVE it's a coincidence, I just believe it's sillly to believe otherwise without proof.

---

I do agree with you. It's just that these feeling types get intuitions so often that it also seems silly to just disregard them completely.

Quote:

---

Yeah, seeing as how my mom's an SF, I believe.

---

I know what it's like. My mom's an INFp.

Cone says:

Some marked differences in INTjs and INTps:

- INTps love to explain things to people, even to people that don't really care about what the INTp is talking about. INTjs on the other hand have a hard time explaining things, thus they are usually private about their interests.

- INTjs usually depend on theoretical facts when they discuss things. INTps depend on real-life examples.

I disagree.

Explain how a fact can be theoretical. :shock:

I'd like to say that you can't have theory without experience/observation.

Also INTj's don't have a hard time explaining things. Who told Cone that?

Who brought this topic up again? I was hoping it would stay dead forever...

Quote:

---

Also INTj's don't have a hard time explaining things. Who told Cone that?

---

Carl Jung did, but I do think it's the other way around. INTjs probably have an easier time explaining things because they use facts pertaining to either theories or concrete knowledge. I, on the other hand, have a hell of a time explaining things, because I have the understanding with none of the details.

Jung might have said that Introverted Thinkers make horrible teachers, because he was basing this fact off of his observations of himself. If he really is an INTp, then that's where the confusion is.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by admin

For all of you INTJs and INTPs out there, what do you do when people start argueing?? I for one shut the hell up and get out of there. POLR :Se: in action.

-Jimmy INTJ

---

it depends on the arguement, what it's about, if i know anything about it, and who i can egg on safely. usually i'll take a side and egg people on. i like doing that. otherwise i'll speak my side of it, until they either agree, cave in, or give up - until i win, one way or the other.

Damnit, STOP REVIVING MY OLD TOPICS!!!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Cone

Damnit, STOP REVIVING MY OLD TOPICS!!!

---

Cone, do you say this because you believe your old writings to be wrong?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Anonymous

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Cone

Damnit, STOP REVIVING MY OLD TOPICS!!!

---

Cone, do you say this because you believe your old writings to be wrong?

---

It would piss me off too. Strange INTp thing? I don't like when old things get brought up.

Poor Cone.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Anonymous

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Cone

Damnit, STOP REVIVING MY OLD TOPICS!!!

---

Cone, do you say this because you believe your old writings to be wrong?

---

Yes, very much so.

INTj hidden agenda stems from :Si:, Si, and is described as being concerned with being healthy and left at that in pretty much all socionics material. But :Si: is more broadly about sensitivity to sensation, is that hidden agenda too narrow then?

INTp's hidden agenda stems from :Fi:, Fi, and is described as the desire to love. I wonder if INTjs could appear to have the hidden agenda "to love" when in actuality, what they deeply desire is the physical comfort that tends to accompany romantic relationships. I've read a few socionics articles that offer the hidden agenda as a means of settling type disputes but I think this method is just as uncertain in the case of INTj and INTp.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by alex

INTj hidden agenda stems from :Si:, Si, and is described as being concerned with being healthy and left at that in pretty much all socionics material. But :Si: is more broadly about sensitivity to sensation, is that hidden agenda too narrow then?

---

If you aren't healthy, you're going to be experiencing all sorts of unwanted sensations.

Quote:

---

INTp's hidden agenda stems from :Fi:, Fi, and is described as the desire to love. I wonder if INTjs could appear to have the hidden agenda "to love" when in actuality, what they deeply desire is the physical comfort that tends to accompany romantic relationships. I've read a few socionics articles that offer the hidden agenda as a means of settling type disputes but I think this method is just as uncertain in the case of INTj and INTp.

---

INTJs are always looking for a conclusion to something. An end. The INTp always looks to the horizon, which they hope goes on forever.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by CuriousSoul

INTP or INTJ?
One way of approaching the perennial issue: INTP or INTJ, could be to look at your fourth function, the function of coordination:
If your function of coordination is Fe, then you are INTP, like Bill Clinton:

---

There is no way Bill is an INTp or INTj. Most likely an ENFp or ENTp.

The easiest way for me to determine if I am INTp or INTj is to focus on NiTe or TiNe. Does T support N or does N support T. NiTe seems to be extremely logical on first impressions, but the more you get to know them, the more you see the N. TiNes seem odd at first (maybe weird), but, the more you get to know them, the more logical they seem.

I still don't get the difference.

socionics will take me a long time.

It's some very bizarre puzzle. To my type, I want to make it more clear. I cannot believe that the visual symbols and descriptions in socionics (and all the cross-referencing) can't be simpler and more intuitive.

I wonder if things might be clearer if we look into the aspect (+ and - ) descriptions.

Here's INTj's hidden agenda:

Quote:

---

+Si

* the ability to feel the physical properties of the objects of the nearest environment.
* tendency toward the cosiness and the skill it to create in the limited space.
* the skill to surround itself by beautiful things.
* aesthetics and the accordion of object, ergonomics of object.
* tendency toward the satisfaction of its physical needs (sibaritstvo), the skill to avoid discomfort.
* memory to the personal physical sensations, the ability to reproduce them.
* orientation to the information about the close surrounding space, obtained through the well developed sensory organs, directed toward the pleasant sensations, weakening, enjoyment, pleasure.
* tendency toward the tactile contact: the sensitivity of touchs.
* health as the collection of the sensations of body.

---

(my summary) sensuality, comfort, aesthetics. health as comfort(how I feel)
and

Quote:

---

-Se

* the estimation of the external (form, physical force) and volitional qualities of man, in the context of the capability of the latter for leadership and control.
* the skill to defend the collective interests: piercing power, persistence, confidence in itself.
* the assertion of its interests due to the collective: collective interests prevail and overgrow into the personal.
* the skill to mobilize the large groups of people for achieving of the goal presented: exactingness, control, volitional pressure from top to bottom, the power methods of achievement of the objective.
* the assumption of power, leadership: offensive tactics - attack, aggression, attack, initiative.
* marginal importance to the possession of atributikoy authority.
* the skill to estimate the arrangement of forces of the opposing groups: subordination to the external superior forces (collaboration), the destruction of weak.
* the clear sensation of space around itself and objects, the sensation of the influence of space on the objects.
* capability for overcoming of elements.
* health as public institute.

---

my summary the capability(not necessarily the action of) defending ones group and their interests, the ability to recognize authority systems, not sure about 'health as a public institute'

and here is INTp's hidden agenda:

Quote:

---

-Fi

* the moral estimation of behavior and judgments of people as societies.
* the skill to understand, to estimate interrelations between the people in the groups, the associations, the society.
* the rules of behavior, accepted in the association, society.
* the estimation of the social relations: the open expression of its views on them.
* manipulation on the relations between the people in the groups, the skill to erect deep multipass intrigue in the association, using any psychological distances, to create and to impose its moral standards.
* tendency toward the rigid morals with the polar views - hatred- love, confidence- suspiciousness, mercy- ostracism, good- evil and so forth, etc.
* a feeling of debt, responsibility with respect to of group, organization, association, society, in which there is membership.
* generally - the relation between the people in the society, general human ethical rituals, the morals of society.

---

(my summary) to understand others and society's morals, to understand relations between people, taking polar views of morals and expressing them, belonging to a group
and this

Quote:

---

+Fe

* understanding the emotional state of individual person, influence on his mood.
* the skill to force man emotionally to be opened, to appear its feelings: the skill to find individual approach to the man, to play "on the necessary strings" the showers through the manifestation of its positive emotions.
* the open expression of its emotions, the demonstration of its feelings, epatazh, tendency toward the theatricality in the chamber situation.
* sensitiveness, drops in the moods, fervency in the local situations; - the animation of different objects of custom (?).
* the creation of the emotional atmosphere in the small association (forcing of situation, enthusiasm, emotional lift): control of the emotional background of small group, directed toward the creation of happiness, merriment, enthusiasm, optimism, generally good mood.
* tendency toward recitations, artistic taste for "its" (entire spectrum of intonations, expressive pauses, significant views, rich mimicry).
* personal emotions, its mood, its passion, personal artistic taste and artistic taste of one concrete actor, its nervousness, power engineering its the nearest environment.

---

(my summary) affecting the mood and feelings(not ethics) of the current group and individuals (that one sucked)
[/b]

Thank you, metaiwan.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by tcaudilllg

INTJs are always looking for a conclusion to something. An end. The INTp always looks to the horizon, which they hope goes on forever.

---

this is confusing. Maybe this INTj feels confused by her Ne.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by metaiwan

Here's INTj's hidden agenda:
....
(my summary) sensuality, comfort, aesthetics. health as comfort(how I feel)

---

also, this would answer why INTjs seem hedonistic sometimes.

Quote:

---

(my summary) to understand others and society's morals, to understand relations between people, taking polar views of morals and expressing them, belonging to a group

---

Hah, sounds like me. I'm forever getting pissed when I don't understand things of that nature.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Cone

INTjs have more self-control than INTps. They get mad alot less than INTps. It just so happens that INTps tend to lack self-control and self-discipline. INTps are often happy with who they are, thus they have little or no interest in self-improvement.

---

This is so true. INTps are happy with who they are. I could notice this in one former classmate. He had this chillout attitude all the time. I am never content with myself or my work and also appear more inflexible.

I suppose this would go for all j/p

j types are more strict and oriented to self-improvement
p types have a more relaxed approach

Quote:

---

Obviously, you've never seen an INTp in his natural environment. They go completely crazy. In fact, when an INTp is having alot of fun, they tend to become very extroverted, even if there are strangers around.

---

yes, that's true also from my observations. INTps talk a lot in a relaxed way, and are not afraid of being misunderstood

What is this? The piss Cone off thread? Stop posting in it. Poor Cone.

Quote:

---

This is so true. INTps are happy with who they are. I could notice this in one former classmate. He had this chillout attitude all the time. I am never content with myself or my work and also appear more inflexible.

I suppose this would go for all j/p

j types are more strict and oriented to self-improvement
p types have a more relaxed approach

---

I am generally never content with something I do... I still think that I suck at chess and can not play the guitar very well, even though respected people have complemented me on both of them. I have noticed that j types are more likely to purchase self-improvement books.

One of the reasons I hate this thread is that the date it was written was March 2, 2005, the day after I joined this forum. In fact, I started writing it the night of the day I joined. It just seems WAY too soon to start writing such an integral part of the forum.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Cone

In fact, I started writing it the night of the day I joined. It just seems WAY too soon to start writing such an integral part of the forum.

---

So what? Cone so anxious to share his knowledge.. :lol:
not that's a bad thing or anything..

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by gugu_ baba

[
So what? Cone so anxious to share his knowledge.. :lol:
not that's a bad thing or anything..

---

No, it might just mean that he's an :Te: :Ni: instead of :Ni: :Te: :lol:

Yeah, but I didn't have much knowledge before that.

INTp
-Sees the future as something gradual, piece-after-piece.
-Tend to predict the near future.

INTj
-Sees the future as a "lump". Tends not to breakdown the future into pieces. Rather than see a future possibility as a gradual development of events, INTj's only see the possible end result.
-Tend to predict the distant future.

That works.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Hugo

INTp
Sees the future as something gradual, piece-after-piece.

---

Yeah, when Josh was all fucked up he had this dream that was like, 10 years long and seemed to pass in real time. He saw a very detailed account of the end of the world and his involvement. :lol:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Hugo

INTp
Sees the future as something gradual, piece-after-piece.

INTj
Sees the future as a "lump". Tends not to breakdown the future into pieces. Rather than see a future possibility as a gradual development of events, INTj's only see the possible end result.

What do you think?

---

i can't speak for the intp. however i do see things as a lump, however, i also break it down. and i would see ALL the possible results, or atleast as many as i can generate. but in order to generate possibilities, it has to be broken down.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by mike_INTJ

...however, i also break it down. and i would see ALL the possible results, or atleast as many as i can generate. but in order to generate possibilities, it has to be broken down.

---

What do you mean by breaking down the possibilities?

What I was talking about was that intjs do not look into the future by seeing it as a gradual development of events. They just see an end result.

That was me.

When I said possibilities, I meant with regards to the prediction of the future.

It works for me. I always picture my 50th birthday and imagine what my life is like. I imagine how to get there but generally I have one huge goal.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Anonymous

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by mike_INTJ

...however, i also break it down. and i would see ALL the possible results, or atleast as many as i can generate. but in order to generate possibilities, it has to be broken down.

---

What do you mean by breaking down the possibilities?

What I was talking about was that intjs do not look into the future by seeing it as a gradual development of events. They just see an end result.

---

we do, but then we reverse engineer it into blocks of information. because what good is seeing the cake, without knowing how to make it?

Yes, I see what you're saying. :)

...however, that's not what I'm talking about.

hm, i do the second thing. in fact, usually see several possible end results, and sometimes have a strong gut feeling about a few or one of them. especially when it's a feeling of impending doom. (why is it i never get a strong gut feeling of impending pleasant outcomes?) i don't see the steps, i tend to work those out later - but that's a conscious effort, as opposed to the more spontaneous 'sight'.

Yes...this works for me. It's usually when I'm working on problems though...I think of a logical path, then visualize 'end results' for that path, if I don't like that picture, I make a new logical path, until I am satisfied with the end results picture.

Also, INTps tend to predict the near future, while INTjs tend to predict the distant future.

INTj

Eager (Fe) to do something intellectual (Ti).

Not eager to do something productive (Fe suppresses Te).

Observant of small details (Si) in the surroundings, rather than being observant of the whole surroundings (Ne suppresses Se). Has doubts (Ne) and seeks to remove doubts by finding evidences (Si). The void of the “unknown” is filled by the use of rational arguments (Ti).

Not attentive to relationships with people, and as a safeguard is over-actively over-friendly and under-conflicting when it comes to people (Ti suppresses Fi).

Attentive to health (Si), but under actively (passively and inadequately). Welcomes those who looks after their health.

Ideal sexual activity consists of tender touches and caresses, emotion and passion.

Mentally intense.

Reading style: not reading every word and sentence somewhat hurriedly.

Writing style: lifeless and robotic

Speaking tone: informal and somewhat high pitch

Listening: daydreams during a conversation

Posture: slouching

Intuition: detached from the present reality







INTp

Crystal clear observation of his whole surroundings (Se). Is doubtless dues to excellent observation and reliance on that observation (Se). The void of the “unknown” is filled with what he believes (Ni).

Does productive (Te) things calmly (Ni).

Not attentive to health, therefore over-actively over-thorough in hygiene (Ni suppresses Si)

Attentive to relationships (Fi), but under-actively (passively and inadequately). People may get the impression that the INTp doesn’t care about them (which is untrue). Welcomes those who help them maintain stable relationships.

Ideal sexual activity is very dynamic and characterized by acrobatic behaviour of the partners. Lead by the partner for having sex, without resistance. Willingly submit to the partners control.

Mentally tranquil.

Reading style: reading every word and sentence calmly.

Writing style: somewhat edgy and with flair, down to earth

Speaking tone: seriousness and somewhat low pitch

Listening: attentive

Posture: more or less upright

Intuition: attached to the present reality

The stuff in bold for INTj is what works for me.

Eager (Fe) to do something intellectual (Ti).

Not eager to do something productive (Fe suppresses Te).

Observant of small details (Si) in the surroundings, rather than being observant of the whole surroundings (Ne suppresses Se). Has doubts (Ne) and seeks to remove doubts by finding evidences (Si). The void of the “unknown” is filled by the use of rational arguments (Ti).

Not attentive to relationships with people, and as a safeguard is over-actively over-friendly and under-conflicting when it comes to people (Ti suppresses Fi).

Attentive to health (Si), but under actively (passively and inadequately). Welcomes those who looks after their health.

Ideal sexual activity consists of tender touches and caresses, emotion and passion.

Mentally intense.

Reading style: not reading every word and sentence somewhat hurriedly.

Writing style: lifeless and robotic

Speaking tone: informal and somewhat high pitch

Listening: daydreams during a conversation I'm very sorry to everyone in my life because when you talk I'm not really listening

Posture: slouching

Intuition: detached from the present reality


Of the things that arn't in bold, they work when they are a mix of the corresponding things in INTp

as you will be able to see in another thread, a purely functional comparison of the INTj and INTp is inadequate.

I would be INTj based on these definitions.

But there are a number of threads that cast doubt on this interpretation.

The Socionics definition of :Ti: can be a bit confusing and counter-intuitive.

INTjs are often described in Socionics as people who tend to be very decided about things, and who have a sort of warrior mentality, fighting for their own conception of "justice."

I'm not sure the description of INTjs as slouched over, daydreaming, skipping-over-words-to-get-the-big-picture, etc., fits with the way a lot of Socionists see that type.

"INTjs are often described in Socionics as people who tend to be very decided about things, and who have a sort of warrior mentality, fighting for their own conception of "justice." "

No they are not. Is it not commonly conceived that INTjs---the entire alpha quadra---do not even have the balls to stand up for such justice and thus lay such a responsibility upon the betas? Isn't that pretty fundamental and thus indicative of the case being otherwise than what you stated?

"I'm not sure the description of INTjs as slouched over, daydreaming, skipping-over-words-to-get-the-big-picture, etc., fits with the way a lot of Socionists see that type."

You think so? Yeah, probably not, but Socionists are often wrong.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MysticSonic

You think so? Yeah, probably not, but Socionists are often wrong.

---

so are people on messageboards.

The difference is, my statement had a point, yours was directed at boosting yourself up and feeling good about perceiving how you made another one of those "fools" look like an idiot.

That is the difference between discussion(which most people at this board like to practice) and your blatantly idiotic one liners that serve no purpose.

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

INTjs are often described in Socionics as people who tend to be very decided about things, and who have a sort of warrior mentality, fighting for their own conception of "justice."

---

No they are not.

---

Yes, they are. In the sense described for example here (it is perhaps not the best description but it is good enough to show my point) http://www.typelogic.com/intj.html they definitely are. If you can't see that decisiveness, that "knowing what they want" mentality in a real life INTj -- not even if you look into the mirror -- then perhaps you are not looking at an INTj but at an INTp ...

Quote:

---

Is it not commonly conceived that INTjs---the entire alpha quadra---do not even have the balls to stand up for such justice and thus lay such a responsibility upon the betas? Isn't that pretty fundamental and thus indicative of the case being otherwise than what you stated?

---

No it is not. It is indicative of the fact that there is something wrong, or at least misleading, with the quadra descriptions.

"Yes, they are. In the sense described for example here (it is perhaps not the best description but it is good enough to show my point) http://www.typelogic.com/intj.html they definitely are. If you can't see that decisiveness, that "knowing what they want" mentality in a real life INTj -- not even if you look into the mirror -- then perhaps you are not looking at an INTj but at an INTp ... "

I do not believe that MBTI and Socionics describes the same types, and can only be roughly correlated. The "warrior" mentality and the sort of INTj "fighting for their own conception of justice" can only be found in a few select Socionic texts.

Phaedrus,

That's where I think that the overlaps between MBTI and socionics types begin to overstretch - - I agree with you that the types are broadly the same, but not exactly.

That INTJ description is one of the breaking points -- actually I identify with it a lot, more so than with the ENTJ description in the same site. I think that description was "contaminated" a lot by ENTjs who dislike :Fe: and so were seen as "introverted". Yes an ENTj would not fit the correct MBTI definition of "introversion" but I'm talking about those profiles only.

I did actually like the descriptions of this thread. I probably focuse on general differences and you all look more into details. This is interesting. I wonder, shall we ever be able to arrive to some sort of objective descriptions which will make everybody more or less happy. We do criticise a lot, can we produce improved and objective descriptions of types? I do not like when people do a lot of noise and then....nothing!

Quote:

---

I do not believe that MBTI and Socionics describes the same types, and can only be roughly correlated. The "warrior" mentality and the sort of INTj "fighting for their own conception of justice" can only be found in a few select Socionic texts.

---

Quote:

---

That's where I think that the overlaps between MBTI and socionics types begin to overstretch - - I agree with you that the types are broadly the same, but not exactly.

That INTJ description is one of the breaking points -- actually I identify with it a lot, more so than with the ENTJ description in the same site. I think that description was "contaminated" a lot by ENTjs who dislike and so were seen as "introverted". Yes an ENTj would not fit the correct MBTI definition of "introversion" but I'm talking about those profiles only.

---

MysticSonic, Expat and everyone else,

Has anyone of you guys, who insist on claiming that MBTI and Socionics are not describing the same types, really thought that through? In that case I am desperately eager to understand how you think, because from my perspective you are confusing language with reality, i.e. the model with the objective world it is trying to describe.

1. MBTI and Socionics do not describe INTJs and INTjs in the same way. Neither do they describe INTPs and INTps in the same way. They do not describe any of the types in the exact same way. It is as simple as that, and we all agree on it.

2. How many types are there in the real world? Answer: 16 (if we exclude possible subtypes).

3. Which are those 16 types? Answer: They are ENTj, INTj, ENTp, INTp, ESTp, ISTp, ESFp, ISFp, ESTj, ISTj, ESFj, ISFj, ENFj, INFj, ENFp and INFp. An INTJ in the MBTI model is not yet another type. It is not a 17th type of some sort, because there are no other types than the 16 types in Socionics! So, both MBTI and Socionics describe the same types, but some parts of their descriptions are probably misleading, and some parts are probably false. They are probably also somewhat "contaminated" in Expat's sense.

4. What is it that determines which type you are? Answer: the structure of your brain. You can not be two different types, because you are only one type -- the one that is determined by the structure of your brain.

5. My brain (Phaedrus's brain) has a certain structure. That structure is the structure of the type that is called INTP in MBTI and INTp or ILI in Socionics.

6. Which structure has the brain of MysticSonic? Either it has the same structure as Phaedrus's brain in exactly those respects that are relevant to determine which type Phaedrus is, or the brain of MysticSonic has another structure, and in that case MysticSonic can not be the same type as Phaedrus, i.e MysticSonic can not be an INTp and he can not be an INTP.

7. Which structure has the brain of Expat? If Expat is an ENTj his brain has the same structure as every other ENTj brain in the real world. Let us assume that Expat's brain has the ENTj structure. In that case we can compare his brain with all those persons in the real world who believe themselves, or who someone else believes, to be INTJs. Given those premises, if Expat really is an INTJ, then every correctly typed INTJ is an ENTj! To be an INTJ it is not enough to test as an INTJ or identify with some parts of some descriptions of INTJs. You have to have the same relevant brain structure as every other INTJ, otherwise you are not an INTJ but some other type.

8. Which type descriptions in the MBTI model are the most accurate descriptions of the type that has the same relevant brain structure as every living INTj? Answer: the type descriptions of INTJs. To think otherwise is not a serious option, considering the fact that millions of people have been tested by now. Some, or even a lot, of those persons have been mistyped of course, but statistically speaking we can be sure that the type descriptions of INTJs are mainly based on real life INTjs, because the definitions of I, E, S, N, J and P, even though they are not exactly the same, are not dissimilar enough to make it warranted to assume that they lead to incorrect typings in the majority of all cases. The descriptions of J and P behaviour, and the descriptions of E and I, are simply too much alike. They must, practically speaking, inevitably lead to the consequence that most of the people that MBTI practitioners and Keirsey followers would put in the INTJ group the socionists would put in the INTj group. Anything else is so unlikely that we can disregard it as negligible.

"1. MBTI and Socionics do not describe INTJs and INTjs in the same way. Neither do they describe INTPs and INTps in the same way. They do not describe any of the types in the exact same way. It is as simple as that, and we all agree on it. "

Yep.

"2. How many types are there in the real world? Answer: 16 (if we exclude possible subtypes). "

Or, possibly, 16 Socionic types and 16 MBTI types, one type from one system not being exclusatory of an individual being another type of a dissimilar acronym in the other system, which is a scenario that seems far more probable to me.

"3. Which are those 16 types? Answer: They are ENTj, INTj, ENTp, INTp, ESTp, ISTp, ESFp, ISFp, ESTj, ISTj, ESFj, ISFj, ENFj, INFj, ENFp and INFp. An INTJ in the MBTI model is not yet another type. It is not a 17th type of some sort, because there are no other types than the 16 types in Socionics! So, both MBTI and Socionics describe the same types, but some parts of their descriptions are probably misleading, and some parts are probably false. They are probably also somewhat "contaminated" in Expat's sense. "

I believe the type descriptions of both systems are merely statements of a possible, commonly occuring manifestation of both the introverted and extraverted qualities of an individual, thus it is quite possible that one could be both INTj in one system and INTP in the other---though perhaps only through functional mean(that is, INTj functinally, with an INTP exterior personality), or the person's personality(their behaviors) are merely approximated most efficiently by the two descriptions in comparison with the others.

"4. What is it that determines which type you are? Answer: the structure of your brain. You can not be two different types, because you are only one type -- the one that is determined by the structure of your brain. "

See above.

"5. My brain (Phaedrus's brain) has a certain structure. That structure is the structure of the type that is called INTP in MBTI and INTp or ILI in Socionics. "

That is not necessarily so.

"6. Which structure has the brain of MysticSonic? Either it has the same structure as Phaedrus's brain in exactly those respects that are relevant to determine which type Phaedrus is, or the brain of MysticSonic has another structure, and in that case MysticSonic can not be the same type as Phaedrus, i.e MysticSonic can not be an INTp and he can not be an INTP. "

MysticSonic cannot be an INTp and have a brain structure relevant to Socionic type that is different from Phaedrus, no, but he can be an INTP and an INTj and still possess a brain structure relevant to MBTI type that is identical to Phaedrus' while remaining INTj---given that the two brain structures are independent ENOUGH of one another.

"Which type descriptions in the MBTI model are the most accurate descriptions of the type that has the same relevant brain structure as every living INTj?"

Again, the relevant brain structures within each system are not necessarily identical.

And, of course, this is all said assuming a materialistic position on the brain. For the sake of argument, however, I will assume that said position is true.

Am I the only one who thinks that there are 12 functions (ambiverted ones that is)?

"Am I the only one who thinks that there are 12 functions (ambiverted ones that is)?"

Probably.

Rocky, I am sorry to say I did not read about your proposal of 12 functions. Could you give here a brief description of your concept so that those who is unfamiliar with it would have at least some idea what you mean?

There are four basic functions; Thinking, Feeling, Sensing and Intuition. And each of those four functions has a direction; Extraversion or Introversion. So we have eight functions; Te, Ti, Fe, Fi, Se, Si, Ne, Ni. I think that there is a more middle ground in the energy level of each of the functions that when you are there has seperate qualities from both the purely Extraverted and purely Introverted ones. In short, it would be allowing in both objective and subjective data, as opposed to just making a decision on one or the other (objective= Extraverted, subjective= Introverted).

@Phaedrus

I broadly agree with your general views, as I understand them. And I think that the best solution is that I am an ENTj in socionics, which should be easily recognizable as the same creature as the ENTJ in MBTI but it isn't, not always --

It is probably a problem of "language", as you put it, but the point is, you were using that precise INTJ description to make a precise point about INTjs, and the validity of that is what I was questioning. That was all.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Rocky

There are four basic functions; Thinking, Feeling, Sensing and Intuition. And each of those four functions has a direction; Extraversion or Introversion. So we have eight functions; Te, Ti, Fe, Fi, Se, Si, Ne, Ni. I think that there is a more middle ground in the energy level of each of the functions that when you are there has seperate qualities from both the purely Extraverted and purely Introverted ones. In short, it would be allowing in both objective and subjective data, as opposed to just making a decision on one or the other (objective= Extraverted, subjective= Introverted).

---

So in short, you think the Extraversion/Introversion dichotomy isn't fully discrete?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by niveK

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Rocky

There are four basic functions; Thinking, Feeling, Sensing and Intuition. And each of those four functions has a direction; Extraversion or Introversion. So we have eight functions; Te, Ti, Fe, Fi, Se, Si, Ne, Ni. I think that there is a more middle ground in the energy level of each of the functions that when you are there has seperate qualities from both the purely Extraverted and purely Introverted ones. In short, it would be allowing in both objective and subjective data, as opposed to just making a decision on one or the other (objective= Extraverted, subjective= Introverted).

---

So in short, you think the Extraversion/Introversion dichotomy isn't fully discrete?

---

Yes, very much so. I think Extraversion/Introversion is more like a scale.

Introversion-------------Thinking--------------Extraversion

Somthing like that. So with Introverted Thinking for example, if you have that as a dominant function, it will eventually "transform" to the Extraverted side (Ti is in a way dependant on Te). And there is probably a "middle area" between the two as well.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Rocky

Am I the only one who thinks that there are 12 functions (ambiverted ones that is)?

---

12 functions??? :shock:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Rocky

Yes, very much so. I think Extraversion/Introversion is more like a scale.

Introversion-------------Thinking--------------Extraversion

Somthing like that. So with Introverted Thinking for example, if you have that as a dominant function, it will eventually "transform" to the Extraverted side (Ti is in a way dependant on Te). And there is probably a "middle area" between the two as well.

---

The primary characteristics I see in I and E (from which the others flow):
Extraversion - The symbols (the "objects" of focus of the function in question) are of importance. Interrelationships are malleable.

Introversion - The interrelationships between the symbols are of primary importance. The symbols are malleable.

Both sides of the function exist in the function's space, but as the system stands, one side is held static while the other side shifts to harmonize the information into consistency. In the example of Thinking/Logic, :Ti: finds the logical connections between facts of importance, and so when a fact fails to fit the system, it's found lacking and changes are made to the facts so that they fit the connections that are regarded so highly. :Te: on the other hand gives preference to the facts and if they don't relate in a way they are expected to relate, the relations are changed to work with the facts.

Can an ambiverted function work in this model (which from the information I've gathered is the way socionics currently perceives it), and if so, how, or do you have an idea for a model that reflects what is currently observed, while accomodating for ambiverted functions?

Note: For some of this (perhaps most of it), I made up terminology as necessary. Context should be able to provide an accurate picture of what I intended by some terms, but should you be unsure of my meaning, feel free to ask.

@Expat

Quote:

---

It is probably a problem of "language", as you put it, but the point is, you were using that precise INTJ description to make a precise point about INTjs, and the validity of that is what I was questioning. That was all.

---

Yes, I understand that. And it is of course legitimate to question the validity of that claim about INTjs. But I really think that that part of the description of INTJs/INTjs that had to do with decisiveness is more or less true.

I think that socionists can learn something about socionic types by studying MBTI descriptions, if they accept that ABCd=ABCD. It is still a rather open question which of the MBTI and socionic descriptions of the types are the most accurate (disregarding the function analyses). The MBTI descriptions often mention facts about the types that are not often, or never, mentioned in the socionic descriptions (and vice versa of course). So, the socionic descriptions are at least not complete. They can be extended if we want and still be true.

@MysticSonic

Quote:

---

MysticSonic cannot be an INTp and have a brain structure relevant to Socionic type that is different from Phaedrus, no, but he can be an INTP and an INTj and still possess a brain structure relevant to MBTI type that is identical to Phaedrus' while remaining INTj---given that the two brain structures are independent ENOUGH of one another.

---

No. The relevant question to ask is this: Are Phaedrus and MysticSonic the same type, or are they different types? If we have identified our relevant brain structures, we have identified our types. It is irrelevant if you identify with different type descriptions in different models. In that case it is either something wrong with the descriptions, or it is something wrong with your understanding of yourself.

Types should be defined by brain structures -- not by type descriptions. Types don't change, brain structures don't change (at least usually not so much that they change your type), but type descriptions might change when we realize that they are inaccurate. And, as we have seen in various threads, the type descriptions (both in Socionics and in MBTI) should change in some cases.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Phaedrus

@MysticSonic

Quote:

---

MysticSonic cannot be an INTp and have a brain structure relevant to Socionic type that is different from Phaedrus, no, but he can be an INTP and an INTj and still possess a brain structure relevant to MBTI type that is identical to Phaedrus' while remaining INTj---given that the two brain structures are independent ENOUGH of one another.

---

No. The relevant question to ask is this: Are Phaedrus and MysticSonic the same type, or are they different types? If we have identified our relevant brain structures, we have identified our types. It is irrelevant if you identify with different type descriptions in different models. In that case it is either something wrong with the descriptions, or it is something wrong with your understanding of yourself.

Types should be defined by brain structures -- not by type descriptions. Types don't change, brain structures don't change (at least usually not so much that they change your type), but type descriptions might change when we realize that they are inaccurate. And, as we have seen in various threads, the type descriptions (both in Socionics and in MBTI) should change in some cases.

---

I think I'll ask one of Smilingeyes's questions. Why don't types change?

Quote:

---

I think I'll ask one of Smilingeyes's questions. Why don't types change?

---

I don't know. That's a question to be answered by neuroscience. And I am not an expert on that. But I think that most scientists in that field would agree that the brain's structure remains more or less intact from the age of 20-20 or something like that. That could mean that your type might not be determined when you are a little kid, but on the other hand, from real life experience and empirical research, it seems more likely that your type is determined from birth and probably earlier. The fact that V.I. seems to work is also, in my opinion, an argument against the hypothesis that types change.

Ambiverted Thinking would collect facts and immediately formulate a "system" with those facts (Ti) without any preconceived notion of how something *should* work (Te).

Just think of extreme examples of INTJs and ENTJs. A "too" Introverted Thinking INTJ can come off as wierd and completely off-based to most other people without realizing it (tcaudlllig, Dio), whereas a "too" Extraverted Thinking ENTJ can come off as a complete asshole (marcus the manic).