Heh, idk. Rmcnew and Gilligan say I am the logical subtype, and it does seem to fit me. Hmm, I guess this pole is pointless. lol.
Printable View
Heh, idk. Rmcnew and Gilligan say I am the logical subtype, and it does seem to fit me. Hmm, I guess this pole is pointless. lol.
Logical subtype would be more similar to INTj.
No.
You're N subtype, your humor is very N.
Why would having N humor make me an Intuitive subtype?Quote:
Originally Posted by FDG
Because you're no way similar to an INTj
FDG, he's an ENTp. Notice the N. He's not going to have S humor, is he? Besides, what exactly is Ti humor? Stating a fact and expecting people to laugh?
Besides, I'm definitely N subtype, and Kim is quite convinced that I'm no ENFp. I'd like to see a list of ways in which discojoe and I are similar.
Well, maybe the logical subtype would make he appear more ENTj-alike?
No, he's no way similar to you or rmcnew, but probably because he's a lot smarter.
I love people who make assumptions about intelligence based on what they read on a message board. How very J of you.
Moving on...
Think about it like this: Is joe closer to ENTj or ENFp? That should answer your subtype question.
.
Listen.Quote:
Originally Posted by gilligan87
If Joe would be a logical subtype, by description he would be more similar to an INTj, not to an ENTj.
Being intuitive subtype wouldn't make him any more like an ENTj, now would it? It would make him more like an ENFp than ESTp. ENTjs don't really have anything to do with it, but if anything, being logical would make him more ENTj.
You're not adressing the point that what you sustain - which means, him being a logical subtype - would lead to him being more similar to an INTj. And he's not.
ENTp = :Ne: :Ti:Quote:
Originally Posted by gilligan87
INTj = :Ti: :Ne: which is why a logical subtype ENTp resembles an INTj, in particular an intuitive subtype.
ENTj = :Te: :Ni: which shares no 1st or 2nd functions with an ENTp.
ENFp = :Ne: :Fi: which, superficially, would mean that intuitive ENTps and ENFps would have something in common (namely very strong :Ne: ), but don't forget that an ENTp's PoLR is :Fi: and an ENFp's, :Ti: - so ENFps and ENTp are very different beings, regardless of subtypes.
An intuitive subtype ENTp is at the far end of an scale and would not resemble any other type.
So an INTj with an intuitive subtype would resemble an ENTp?
An intuitive subtype INTj and a logical subtype ENTp are very difficult to differentiate.Quote:
Originally Posted by Zeia
Expat, what you say is true. However, what I'm saying is that a logical subtype would be easily confused with an ENTj or ESTp; moreso than an intuitive sub, in any case. An Intuitive sub would be more likely mistaken for an ENFp (like myself).
FDG, have you not seen people accuse Joe of being INTj before? I believe it was rmcnew who did it. Might want to check on who it was, but I'm sure it's happened. You might not see him as an INTj, but to another ENTp, it seems possible.
You people are getting carried away with this subtype theory... I personally think that out environment determines which subtype we are, and since our environment can change, so can our subtype.
As for discojoe's subtype, I would tend to think he's the logical subtype, but I'm going to hold off on voting for now...
How are you coming to the conclusion of ENTp logical subtype being confused with ENTj. I dont even see that as a possibility.....Quote:
Originally Posted by gilligan87
How sure are you of this?Quote:
Originally Posted by Expat
I wouldn't say very difficult, but I do think that they would look similar at times. The ENTp would appear particularly INTj-ish at times, since ENTps are less consistant than INTjs.
I'm as "sure" of that as I am of anything regarding socionics.Quote:
Originally Posted by gilligan87
First, it makes sense.
Second, the descriptions of the subtypes are almost identical.
Third, in rmcnew's forum, I helped someone find her type. Her test results - not only rmcnew's but Hugo's - kept shifting back and forth between INTj and ENTp, the same happening with profile identification. In the end, helped by what seemed to be a clear relationship of supervision with an ISTj, we concluded that ENTp logical subtype was the most likely typing.
First, it doesn't really make that much sense. An ENTp is still an ENTp, and a logical sub ENTp is still going to be more like an intuitive sub ENTp than he is any other type, regardless of subtype. I don't care what their subtypes are; get an ENTp and an INTj in the same room and it will be pretty clear which is which.
Second, are you REALLY such a sheep that you think type descriptions dictate everything?
Thirdly, uhhh...you're not really saying anything here. Joy has been confused for an ESFj, and that doesn't say anything about her subtype, now does it? Your statement says more about intertype relations than subtype.
And in any case, as I've said, people have mistaken Joe for an INTj, a fact that has been mysteriously/conveniently ignored for a page and a half.
That depends on your definition of the word "easily".Quote:
Originally Posted by gilligan87
Ok, perhaps a logical ENTp would be more easily mistaken for an ENTj than an intuitive one. But then, I think that, at first glance, all xNTx types will have common characteristics, far more so than between an xNTx and an xSTx or xNFx, regardless of subtype.
Well I've been taken for an ENFp, haven't I?
:lol: nice Gilligan
People have said that they thought I was ENTj in the past because of my attitude about money. That doesn't mean I'm the logical subtype. I am the intuitive subtype... there's no question there...
But see, you're a pretty straightforward case. Peter, on the other hand, certainly isn't. Besides, that has nothing to do with you're interpersonal attitude, that's just one tiny thing...
interpersonal attitude?
The way you act around people. Money is one teeny tiny thing, and doesn't really reflect on how you deal with people (unless we're talking about a business situation).
I agree with that, and that is why, in the case I described, the relationship with the ISTj was of supervision rather than illusion.Quote:
Originally Posted by gilligan87
That does not invalidate the proposition that I(N)Tjs and EN(T)ps are difficult to differentiate. I said nothing about that being more difficult than between ENTp subtypes. This argument is meaningless.
That experiment is not always available.Quote:
Originally Posted by gilligan87
That is an interesting - if feeble - attempt to take the discussion from the realm of :Ti: to that of :Se: , by saying "REALLY" and calling me a "sheep". I don't think you are an ENFp, you may be an E(N)Tp with remarkably feeble :Ti: . That is not an insult, it's a suggestion.Quote:
Originally Posted by gilligan87
I don't think type descriptions "dictate everything", I think they are useful, my own personal observations are consistent with them and they are part of my argument - which I present as a "possibility", I'm not "sure" of it. I hope your :Ne: is less feeble than your :Ti: , so you can understand that.
That depends on who mistook Joy for an ESFj, and on which grounds. Irrelevant.Quote:
Originally Posted by gilligan87
Personally I have "ignored" it because I don't remember it. If that mistake was based on solid grounds, I'd be happy to consider that Joe is a logical subtype.Quote:
Originally Posted by gilligan87
It's not meaningless. I'm stating that an ENTp L-sub is first and foremost an ENTp, and is therefore more likely to be mistaken for other types (ENTj, ESTp, ENFp) than for an INTj (unless introversion results are high), regardless of subtype.Quote:
I agree with that, and that is why, in the case I described, the relationship with the ISTj was of supervision rather than illusion.
That does not invalidate the proposition that I(N)Tjs and EN(T)ps are difficult to differentiate. I said nothing about that being more difficult than between ENTp subtypes. This argument is meaningless.
I tend to trust my own observations of these types more than poorly translated, and rather cryptic, Russian texts. I'm nearly positive that I'm an ENTp intuitive subtype, and I don't see the behaviors in Joe that I believe qualify me as such.Quote:
That is an interesting - if feeble - attempt to take the discussion from the realm of Introverted Thinking to that of Extraverted Sensing , by saying "REALLY" and calling me a "sheep".
Well, then why does it matter that your friend mistook herself for an INTj? Others' observations of our types are often more accurate than our own. One person mistaking his or her type does not qualify the type of another, as you yourself have said.Quote:
That depends on who mistook Joy for an ESFj, and on which grounds. Irrelevant.
I believe it was either mcnew or cone. It's somewhere here on the board. It had to do with his decidedly Ti behavior, which I, at least, see fairly clearly. If you read his more substantial posts, you'll see that he relies quite heavily on Ti; moreso than Ne, I daresay.Quote:
Personally I have "ignored" it because I don't remember it. If that mistake was based on solid grounds, I'd be happy to consider that Joe is a logical subtype.
I don't think that they are really that similar. One of them has their *strongest* form of expression through Introverted Judgement, and his weakest form of expression through Extraverted Perception. The other is the complete opposite in that regard.Quote:
Originally Posted by Expat
I'd agree to that. I think the only thing that makes an ENTp Logical sub look like an INTj is that they tend to be slightly more introverted. Remember, when reading a subtype description, you have to tack that on to a full type description. A subtype are not a revision of a type; more like an ammendment, I'd say.
I think you are giving too much weight to the "common sense" definition of "extrovert", if I understood correctly where you are coming from. At the very least, you are exaggerating the importance of the 1st function as standing alone, independently from the 2nd.Quote:
Originally Posted by gilligan87
An individual can be functionally - and as confirmed by intertype relationships - an extrovert, in the sense of having an extroverted first function, so ENTp with :Ne: , or introverted in the sense of having an introverted first function, as in INTj with :Ti: . But an ENTp can be more or less "extroverted", as an INTj can be more or less "introverted".
I will grant you this: an ENTp who is also outwardly extroverted in the common sense definition will be perhaps more easily mistaken for, say, an ENTj than an INTj. I can't imagine ever mistaking - in real life - an ENTp for an ENFp for long and I have experience with both types.
I do not disagree with that. Personally I only feel confident enough to move on to subtypes when I think I am already identifying the type easily enough. In my case, that includes ENTj, ISFj, ESFp, ESFj, and, to a lesser extent, INTj and ENTp. That is no claim to infallible typing, by the way.Quote:
Originally Posted by gilligan87
I agree, and I think that it's one of the reasons that typing online can be so tricky.Quote:
I can't imagine ever mistaking - in real life - an ENTp for an ENFp for long and I have experience with both types.
Perhaps I am putting to much weight on "traditional interpretations," but it's what :Ne: is telling me to do. :Ne: tells me that I would be much less likely to be talking to a person and say to myself "This person is giving off :Ne " than I would be to say "This person is an Extrovert." Does that make sense?
Wow. Only after reading my last post have I realized how rediculously :Ne: it was. I've always assumed it, but wow...those last few sentences really put it into perspective for me, somehow...
*gives plane controls back to pilot*
It makes sense as it stands, but I disagree with it. I think it's misleading, and one of the main problems of MBTI (I'm not saying that you are using MBTI).Quote:
Originally Posted by gilligan87
Both steventj and myself at first typed ourselves as introverts, and were even perceived by others as such. Yet that was mainly due to a dislike for small talk, partying, casual relationships, etc. After a lot of thinking and discussion, we have no reasonable doubt that we are ENTjs.
I also have an INFj friend whom I know very well. Again, I have very little doubt that she is an INFj. Yet, the first impression she makes is of being very outgoing, so she could easily be mistaken for an extrovert.
But I think that, after knowing someone for some time, it's probably clearer.
yeah, like I said, I'm reserving my vote for now
I said split but I think the logic is stronger.
On the contrary I'd go with Intuitive. I don't know how you act in real life, but from your posts, you don't sound like the logical subtype. The 'Logical subtype tries to produce the impression of serious person. It can be sharp, at times even unceremonious,' and I don't get that impression of you from your threads, while other ENTPs such as Rmcnew seem to be much more of this leaning. However, as I said before, because I believe the subtypes are more a manifestation of the spectrum of personalities in every type, and because they would be affected by external factors such as the environment, whatever subtype you are at the moment (if there are such things as subtypes) would probably be liable to change from day to day and thus no one would know better than you yourself.
that's sorta what I was saying, but I don't think he leans more toward intuitive overall, though, once again, I'm reserving my vote for now