Just some possibilities about different kinds of INT types
I resonate with Phaedrus's comments about different kinds of INTs. MBTI suggested to me that the resolute, decisive, in-your-face INT was Ni/Te, and the mild-mannered, pondering, always-seeking-to-discover, never-rejecting-any-possibility-totally kind of INT was Ti/Ne. But Socionics descriptions seem to turn that around, or suggest that the second type is perhaps an introverted ENTp.
My guess right now is that there may be a number of different dichotomies involved, some of which don't even have to do with the Jungian functions (?)...such as:
1) Whether a person is inclinced to state actual beliefs or just comment on logical consistency. Some INT types will be sure to tell one when one is wrong; In debating, I'm more inclined to comment only on purely logical points (i.e., that C doesn't follow from A and B). Which kind is the INTp or INTj? Not sure. The choice on how to apply logic and which things to believe is very personal and may result in lots of different INT types, not just two....or do you think that that's really an INTp vs. INTj thing?
2) Whether a person tends to link emotions with thoughts, or deals with them separately (e.g., the passionate T (linked) vs. the T who acts more F around people (T decoupled from F)). ...any connection with INTp vs. INTj? Again, not sure.
3) A possible "J" or "P" preference completely apart from any basis in Jungian functions...Or maybe it's subtypes...[INTj and INTp both logical subtype] being organized, task oriented, vs. [INTj and INTp both intuitive subtype] being more inclined toward "seeking" information, less decided about things. In this model, Socionics descriptions are probably focusing on the logical subtypes, or at least for INTj, whereas the MBTI descriptions assume logical subtype for INTJ (=INTp) and intuitive subtype for INTP (=INTj).
4) The degree to which one's personality is formed around one's type...Might there be NTs where NT is everything, and other NTs who are more NT than anything else but also have attitudes that say that there's more to the world than just T and being right?
Just some possibilities. :)
Re: Just some possibilities about different kinds of INT typ
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jonathan
I resonate with Phaedrus's comments about different kinds of INTs. MBTI suggested to me that the resolute, decisive, in-your-face INT was Ni/Te, and the mild-mannered, pondering, always-seeking-to-discover, never-rejecting-any-possibility-totally kind of INT was Ti/Ne. But Socionics descriptions seem to turn that around, or suggest that the second type is perhaps an introverted ENTp.
I would say that the resolute, decisive, in-your-face NT would more likely be an ENTj; they are often confused with introverts. One of our own here, FDG, I believe, is an INTJ in MBTI and an ENTj in Socionics. This could very well be the answer to your question.
Quote:
My guess right now is that there may be a number of different dichotomies involved, some of which don't even have to do with the Jungian functions (?)...such as:
1) Whether a person is inclinced to state actual beliefs or just comment on logical consistency. Some INT types will be sure to tell one when one is wrong; In debating, I'm more inclined to comment only on purely logical points (i.e., that C doesn't follow from A and B). Which kind is the INTp or INTj? Not sure. The choice on how to apply logic and which things to believe is very personal and may result in lots of different INT types, not just two....or do you think that that's really an INTp vs. INTj thing?
I don't think we can determine anything specific from this, but INTps have Te, which is often connected with bluntness in arguments, especially when one believes the other party to be wrong. However, once again, I would hold that the type most likely to do this would be an ENTj.
Quote:
2) Whether a person tends to link emotions with thoughts, or deals with them separately (e.g., the passionate T (linked) vs. the T who acts more F around people (T decoupled from F)). ...any connection with INTp vs. INTj? Again, not sure.
INTps have been noted to be quite amiable and social at times, whereas INTjs are more widely acknowledged as being loners. However, in conversation, INTjs are usually polite and well-mannered (until they say something tactless :wink: ).
Quote:
3) A possible "J" or "P" preference completely apart from any basis in Jungian functions...Or maybe it's subtypes...[INTj and INTp both logical subtype] being organized, task oriented, vs. [INTj and INTp both intuitive subtype] being more inclined toward "seeking" information, less decided about things. In this model, Socionics descriptions are probably focusing on the logical subtypes, or at least for INTj, whereas the MBTI descriptions assume logical subtype for INTJ (=INTp) and intuitive subtype for INTP (=INTj).
The P/J difference is much more subtle in Socionics, but does not have anything to do with the MBTI stereotypes of being messy. Intuitive types are more likely the ones that fail to take care of their environment. However, the differences often noted are that perceivers have less of a tolerance for structure in an environment, are more likely to be divergent thinkers, and have various mental states between which they are constantly oscillating.
Quote:
4) The degree to which one's personality is formed around one's type...Might there be NTs where NT is everything, and other NTs who are more NT than anything else but also have attitudes that say that there's more to the world than just T and being right?
Just some possibilities. :)
There are, of course, varying degrees to which one represents the stereotypical behavior of one's type. I myself have been observed to be, at times, more "feelery" than most ENTps. There really is no set level of type representation in behavior that is necessary to be a representative of a type, so long as the thinking patterns and key behaviors fit for the most part.