:Ni: as the Function of Sequence

After a lot of research, I've come to the conclusion that :Ni: is, completely the function of sequential appreception. Not surprisingly, this is related to the peculiarly sequence-related talents of individuals who possess :Ni: as base.

:Ni: appears in two forms, information metabolism and information exertion. The metabolism form (:Ni: as master, or determinant) always devotes itself to the perception of exertion at points in a definite sequence. This can be used either to remember how a function behaved at a point in time (by using :Ni: to apprehend sequences of events that have happened or are happening), or to determine how it might behave in the future given that it follows a definite formula.

Sequence, by its nature, avoids timelessness. (Jonathan made a point about this) It avoids the consequential and the endurant: sequence does not imply consequence, only progression. The sequence continues on as it must because that is simply the way it progresses; there is no other justification necessary for its existence. Indeed, it does not even imply existence, because it is only progression of action without apprehension of its meaning, or even of its subjective persistence. It is natural, therefore, for :Ti: and :Fi: to be relegated to the subconscious by :Ni:, due to their depreciation of the appreception of sequential progression for its own sake.

By perceiving :Ni: as the appreception of sequential progression, we are allowed to solve for ourselves any mysteries regarding the talents of either :Ni: or :Ne: dominant individuals. Alone among all the types are the INTps in suggesting that mathematics is beautiful: through the lense of sequential progression we see why. What is a formula other than a sequential progression? First do this... then this... then this.... Certainly it is structured, but once structured one only needs :Ni: to repeat its sequence. For that matter, why not further sequentialize mathematics by assigning the entire formula to a single symbol, removing the symbol as far from an pretense of structure or feeling as possible? Make it ethereal, existant only in so far as it represents a progression of events.... Why not make the whole world that way, :Ni: asks.

Taking this view of :Ni: as a sequential progression into consideration, we see that the recognition of the meaning of this symbol is a sequential progression in itself. :Ni: looks at the symbol, and recalls that it itself attributed a sequence of events unto it. :Ni: never sees the symbol, only the progression of events which it implies. Thus we see in mathematics a desire to encapsulate entire mathematical formula into mysterious, seemingly meaningless symbols. And the more deeply the encapsulation, of one formula into one symbol, into another formula, into another symbol, the more removed from all that is sequentially irrelevant the mathematics becomes. No wonder :Ti: and :Fi: rise as shadows of opposition against this endlessly abstract, non-existant world.

In the case of information exertion, :Ni: is the method by which a function is applied. Given that :Ni: is the appreception of sequential progression, then we see that if the use of the master implies the use of the slave (metabolism implies exertion) then we must always speak of exerted :Ni: as an evolutionary progression of events. Let's consider an example, :Fe: mastering :Ni:. We consider first elements of subjective perception, which are the domain of :Fe:. By following :Fe: with :Ni:, we assume the existence of a sequence which :Fe: elements will undergo, not unlike a mathematical formula whose terms are :Fe: elements. By iterating through the formula in sequence, :Ni: perceives the influence distinct manifestations of :Fe: have on each other over time. This interoperability of functions between each other in accordance with a progressive sequence is the method of human perception of evolution.

From this deduction, that evolution as apprehended by the human mind is a consequence of observing the interrelations of similar information elements over the span of a progressive sequence, we may conclude that...
[conclusion forthcoming...]

Interesting. Though I can not make any assertions about the validity of this idea as it seems that :Ni:-people insist on maintaining the idea that no one can or should be able to understand them. But the idea of :Ni: as sequential imagery make sense in most contexts of how :Ni: is used or described even by those with :Ni: in their primary two functions.

I'd like to say that my initial impression with regard to my (delayed) conclusion is that every function implies a sequence somehow. I'm not sure that's the case though. If it were true, it would seem to recall the concept of conversion between mass and energy in relativity; in this case, that you could from a standpoint transform one function's information into the information for another function.

Quote:

---

Alone among all the types are the INTps in suggesting that mathematics is beautiful: through the lense of sequential progression we see why.

---

Mathematics is beautiful, so you might be on to something. Can you give more concrete examples? What would the opposite be? Can you contrast this "sequence" way of seeing it with how an INTj would see mathematics? I have to find the key to how to understand it -- I have to see what you mean.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Phaedrus

Quote:

---

Alone among all the types are the INTps in suggesting that mathematics is beautiful: through the lense of sequential progression we see why.

---

Mathematics is beautiful, so you might be on to something. Can you give more concrete examples? What would the opposite be? Can you contrast this "sequence" way of seeing it with how an INTj would see mathematics? I have to find the key to how to understand it -- I have to see what you mean.

---

INTjs rely on the structure: this causes this, not "this follows this". To us, "this follows this" makes little sense. In particular, it seems to imply a fatalism and submission to fate were we to accept it. We like to think that we can change the cause, therefore change the outcome. Think of it as having a choice between two formulae that are similar to a point, then diverge.

I'll get back to you on this. In particular, I suspect it would be worthwhile to consider the role of :Fi: as an antagonist to :Ni:.

The idea of :Ni: having to do with sequence makes a certain sense to me, as all types with :Ni: are considered "dynamic" types and are paired with :Te: or :Fe: (:Te: and :Fe: types often tend to emphasize the sequence of things).

However, that reason would imply that :Si: is just as much about sequence as :Ni:. Perhaps :Ni: is sequence in the world of imagination / willfull control, whereas :Si: involves sequence in a more down-to-earth sense (what actually happens, the way things are when you watch them go by).

I don't get the idea of seeing :Ni: as in conflict with :Fi:. It's not directly paired with either :Fi: or :Ti: of course, but in theory :Ni: with :Te: is paired with :Fi:.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by tcaudilllg

INTjs rely on the structure: this causes this, not "this follows this". To us, "this follows this" makes little sense. In particular, it seems to imply a fatalism and submission to fate were we to accept it. We like to think that we can change the cause, therefore change the outcome. Think of it as having a choice between two formulae that are similar to a point, then diverge.

---

I think this is actually a good statement of the difference between rational and irrational types, although it's obviously weighted towards describing LII vs. ILI. Both types make choices, but rational types are more comfortable with imposing their choices, starting with the choice. So it makes sense that LII types would be very aware of what choice to make; the choice to make is critical.

Irrational types are more inclined to a sort of fatalism in that they make themselves slaves to their perception (to impose a choice seems like not really living to them). But then they're always thinking of creating structure out of their experiences ("this is what I imagined; what does it say about the world?")

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by tcaudilllg

INTjs rely on the structure: this causes this, not "this follows this". To us, "this follows this" makes little sense.

---

I am not sure it makes much more sense to me. That depends on what you mean, I still don't know what you have in mind when you phrase it like that. I could say about myself that I also rely on structure, but it is very unclear what exactly we are talking about here. Since your way of describing the difference is clearly similar to how David Keirsey describes the difference in thinking processes between INTJs and INTPs (except that he has the INTJ thinking in sequences and the INTP thinking in structures) you may want to have a look at that. In outer behaviours Keirsey's INTJs are very similar to how INTjs are desribed in Socionics, and his INTPs are of course similar to INTps.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by tcaudilllg

In particular, it seems to imply a fatalism and submission to fate were we to accept it.

---

This might be a possible key to focus on. INTps tend to be fatalists (determinists) and INTjs tend not to.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by tcaudilllg

We like to think that we can change the cause, therefore change the outcome.

---

Yes, we both agree on that. There is a clear difference between INTjs and INTps here -- a difference that some other self-diagnosed "INTjs" don't seem to be aware of ...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Phaedrus

INTjs rely on the structure: this causes this, not "this follows this". To us, "this follows this" makes little sense.

I am not sure it makes much more sense to me.

---

You're basically reasoning precisely that way here:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Phaedrus

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by tcaudilllg

In particular, it seems to imply a fatalism and submission to fate were we to accept it.

---

This might be a possible key to focus on. INTps tend to be fatalists (determinists) and INTjs tend not to.

---

When an INTj reads that last sentence, alarm bells start ringing. "What makes you say that? Where's the rationale? Where is the structure?"

Expect an INTj to say something along the lines of "INTp's, in contrast to INTj's, are dynamics, which according to theory leads to an elevated importance of external rules and actions over personal ones, leading to a more deterministic life philosophy."

Or as tcaudilllg puts it:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by tcaudilllg

In particular, it seems to imply a fatalism and submission to fate were we to accept it.

---

That is not to say all INTj reason remotely alike though... I've had a hunch for a while that the exertion type plays a much greater role in cognition that just the releasal of the master's products. I have no idea why else it is that tcaudilllg's explanations and research rarely 'help' me understand anything. If the master is what determines how information is metabolized, shouldn't I cognize things in the same way as he does? From what I can tell, I definitely do not.

From my perspective it seems more like the master is a 'humunculus' or 'inner eye', completely absorbed in the world fed to it by the slave. I could describe myself as an analyst enclosed in a world of interesting psychological phenomena (ENFp). I can analyze anything, but it's only the Ne-Fi stuff that spontaneously reaches my inner mind to broken down... If that's not how the master-slave pairing works, I guess I've got the two swapped around. (I'm sure I'm some combo of INTj and ENFp though, cause I've sustained both Se and Ti PoLR hits on different levels of interaction.)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Phaedrus

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by tcaudilllg

INTjs rely on the structure: this causes this, not "this follows this". To us, "this follows this" makes little sense.

---

I am not sure it makes much more sense to me. That depends on what you mean, I still don't know what you have in mind when you phrase it like that. I could say about myself that I also rely on structure, but it is very unclear what exactly we are talking about here. Since your way of describing the difference is clearly similar to how David Keirsey describes the difference in thinking processes between INTJs and INTPs (except that he has the INTJ thinking in sequences and the INTP thinking in structures) you may want to have a look at that. In outer behaviours Keirsey's INTJs are very similar to how INTjs are desribed in Socionics, and his INTPs are of course similar to INTps.

---

Remember that Tcaud's analysis is focusing on the individual functions, so because the ego block contains one judging and one perceiving function, eveyone has structure; the question is whether it is accepting or producing.

Keirsey's INTJ in a number of ways sounds more like ENTj than like either INTj or INTp. Even if the people he's thinking of are INTj, his explanations are in conflict with Socionics and thus only relevant in the context of trying to understand how the two theories got so far off from each other.

Another thing to consider is what I said in my other thread about "stagnant" PoLR and conflict-duality. I think that INTjs, perhaps unconsciously, use Te to present their thoughts, but they think little of it. Similarly, INTps may "cast a light" on Ti, trying to make things plain and clear. This may account for some of the confusion.

If you're really INxp or some form of :Ni::Ti: type, it would complicate things further. :)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by labcoat

I have no idea why else it is that tcaudilllg's explanations and research rarely 'help' me understand anything.

---

But you've adopted his master-slave type theory and terminology. :)
I think the idea of different types on different levels makes sense. But why is there only one slave, then? I suppose there could be several?
I like Tcaud's ideas here, but I'm not ready to accept the master-slave thing (or that I'm ENTj-ENFp) quite yet without further exploration.
One thing it may help explain though is why people feel that they're structurally one type, but identify with another quadra in terms of interests.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by labcoat

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Phaedrus

INTps tend to be fatalists (determinists) and INTjs tend not to.

---

When an INTj reads that last sentence, alarm bells start ringing. "What makes you say that? Where's the rationale? Where is the structure?"

---

It might be the case here, just as we realized when we discussed the concept "universal truth" here: http://oldforumlinkviewtopic.php?t=9...r=asc&start=15 that INTjs and INTps have a different understanding of the word "structure". What would you would say if I phrased it this way: As an INTp I am a determinist, who believes that no one can change the future, because it is already fixed. Every objective truth of the universe always have been, always is, and always will be true. What will be, will be, and free will is an illusion. I could even say that the very reason I see it that way is because I believe that the whole universe is a static structure, comparable to how Einstein described it as a four-dimensional continuum. In an important sense, time does not exist. Nothing really happens. Everything just is.

What is the difference between our uses of the word "structure" here? Is there a difference or not? What does an INTj think about the kind of world view I just described?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by labcoat

Expect an INTj to say something along the lines of "INTp's, in contrast to INTj's, are dynamics, which according to theory leads to an elevated importance of external rules and actions over personal ones, leading to a more deterministic life philosophy."

---

That makes sense. An INTp's typical world view is externalist. I am just a material object influenced by external forces, and whatever I "decide" to "do" is nothing but an event in that impersonal, objective world -- an event that, in principle, can be described and explained in physics.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Phaedrus

It might be the case here, just as we realized when we discussed the concept "universal truth" here: http://oldforumlinkviewtopic.php?t=9...r=asc&start=15 that INTjs and INTps have a different understanding of the word "structure". What would you would say if I phrased it this way: As an INTp I am a determinist, who believes that no one can change the future, because it is already fixed. Every objective truth of the universe always have been, always is, and always will be true. What will be, will be, and free will is an illusion. I could even say that the very reason I see it that way is because I believe that the whole universe is a static structure, comparable to how Einstein described it as a four-dimensional continuum. In an important sense, time does not exist. Nothing really happens. Everything just is.

What is the difference between our uses of the word "structure" here? Is there a difference or not? What does an INTj think about the kind of world view I just described?

---

INTps indeed see things as objective truths, and that the universe is predetermined - but ironically, they have no valid reason to believe so - how do you experiment when you only have one universe, and no way of changing the variables if the variables are objective and therefore constant? :P (their one assumption is that there are objective truths) - a INTj, being a static type, sees the environment as malleable, as though they truly have agency in their actions (which is the INTj's assumption). INTjs see life as an experiment in order to determine localised laws (the properties of objects in their surrounding environment etc.), whereas INTps see life as a gradual process, where nothing is a trivial experiment. INTjs are pessimists because they believe they cannot operate on an universal level (they cannot truly gain this knowledge) and INTps are pessimists because they believe they have no real control about what is going to happen.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Subterranean

INTps indeed see things as objective truths, and that the universe is predetermined - but ironically, they have no valid reason to believe so - how do you experiment when you only have one universe, and no way of changing the variables if the variables are objective and therefore constant? :P (their one assumption is that there are objective truths)

---

Let's not get side-tracked here. :) I know that we disagree, and that's one of the reasons we can both see that we are not identicals. I am not interested in defending my view here. I am interested in reaching a consensus on how to describe and explain the differences between INTjs and INTps.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Subterranean

- a INTj, being a static type, sees the environment as malleable, as though they truly have agency in their actions (which is the INTj's assumption). INTjs see life as an experiment in order to determine localised laws (the properties of objects in their surrounding environment etc.), whereas INTps see life as a gradual process, where nothing is a trivial experiment.

---

Good. That is perfectly consistent with my view on INTjs.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Subterranean

INTjs are pessimists because they believe they cannot operate on an universal level (they cannot truly gain this knowledge) and INTps are pessimists because they believe they have no real control about what is going to happen.

---

Very good. :)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Phaedrus

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Subterranean

INTps indeed see things as objective truths, and that the universe is predetermined - but ironically, they have no valid reason to believe so - how do you experiment when you only have one universe, and no way of changing the variables if the variables are objective and therefore constant? :P (their one assumption is that there are objective truths)

---

Let's not get side-tracked here. :) I know that we disagree, and that's one of the reasons we can both see that we are not identicals. I am not interested in defending my view here. I am interested in reaching a consensus on how to describe and explain the differences between INTjs and INTps.

---

:) I probably worded that a bit strongly - I was trying to point out that both INTps and INTjs are 'wrong' or 'right', but they see each other as 'wrong' - INTjs see INTps as impractical because they INTjs work on a localised basis, with 'real' quantifiable things, whereas INTps see INTjs as impractical because they are only concerned with trivial things, not how things really are - which seems contradictory, but works on different levels. (It's actually quite funny that you told me not to get sidetracked :P ).

Subterranean is right anyway.

Hmm.. this is interesting. Despite what's been said about the INTps believing that the future is predetermined and thus unchangeable, whilst INTjs believe they can change the universe as they see fit, I've strayed away from the typical INTp view on the world in that I believe that it is possible to change the future. This is only something I've come to realise recently though.. I'll have to think some more on this. Feel free to shoot my observations down as you see fit in the mean time, I'm not confident that I have any clue what I'm talking about anyway.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by BLauritson

Hmm.. this is interesting. Despite what's been said about the INTps believing that the future is predetermined and thus unchangeable, whilst INTjs believe they can change the universe as they see fit

---

I'll have to very much disagree with this. From my observations and understanding of INTx types, INTjs are far more likely to believe they cannot control what happens to them, that they are at the mercy of their circumstances, etc.

Hmm.. I was just echoing what Phaedrus and Subterranean were saying on Page 1 there. Gah, I don't care about whether I'm wrong or not anymore, I'll learn better if I post bullshit that gets corrected rather than just sitting here thinking about things and wondering whether or not I'm right. If Ni is indeed about sequences of events, surely an Ni-dominant would be the one most likely to know they can change the future? If you know what causes something, you can change the cause and thus prevent the consequence that was going to happen. To use a very simple and somewhat silly example: I know that if I pour water in a kettle, then switch the kettle on, then provided nothing untoward happens, the water will boil. I know that the water will only boil if the kettle is switched on, therefore if I don't want the water to boil, I just won't switch the kettle on. Stupid analogy I know, but I can't think of anything better right now.

EDIT: While I think of it, this is how I first came to fully realise (consciously, at least) that I have control over what happens to me:

Over a year ago now, at my workplace we hired a temp worker who I was interested in. Towards the end of her contract, we all had a leaving do for one of the permanent staff who was leaving and the temp came along also. We got chatting and, as far as I can tell, there was mutual interest, but nothing happened. We lost contact since she finished her contract with us that week. Anyways, looking back on it now, I think there definitely was mutual interest, but we were both relying on the other person to take the initiative (all things considered I'd have to guess she was also an INTp). It was then it hit me. Had I pushed past my fear and taken the initiative, it's likely something would have happened. Yet because neither of us did, nothing happened. Fate had nothing to do with this particular moment - it was down purely to the participants involved. It was perhaps a month or so ago that this realisation came to me - prior to that, I'd wavered on whether or not I believed in fate, and if so, the extent to which I believed in it varied. Now though, I'm a firm believer that, while there are a huge number of other forces out there (such as other individual people who, themselves, have free will), what happens to me largely depends on the decisions I make and the actions I take.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by BLauritson

Despite what's been said about the INTps believing that the future is predetermined and thus unchangeable, whilst INTjs believe they can change the universe as they see fit, I've strayed away from the typical INTp view on the world in that I believe that it is possible to change the future.

---

Well ... not every INTp believes that the future is predetermined, of course. It's just a tendency, but it is a tendency that is described in the socionic type descriptions. Joy, thinks otherwise. I think that she is wrong, but without concrete examples of people (preferably well-known world wide) it is difficult to discuss this.

But why do you state in your signature that you are an INTJ in MBTT, BLauritson? That suggests that your overall behaviour fit the criteria for the J scale in both models. Have you come to the conclusion that you are an MBTT INTJ by reading type descriptions? In that case you will see, if you compare the described behaviours in Socionics for INTjs with the described behaviours for MBTT INTJ, that they are very similar, but that the leading functions are different. And the same goes for INTPs and INTps. Now, the truth is that MBTT has got the leading functions wrong, and you should not switch between the models like you do now. If you are an INTJ in MBTT you are an INTj in Socionics. And if you are an INTp in Socionics, you are definitely not an INTJ in MBTT -- then you are an INTP in that model too.

(By the way, if you really are an Enneagram 5w4, then you probably have got your type in Socionics right, and therefore you are probably not an INTJ in MBTT but an INTP.)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by BLauritson

Hmm.. I was just echoing what Phaedrus and Subterranean were saying on Page 1 there. Gah, I don't care about whether I'm wrong or not anymore, I'll learn better if I post bullshit that gets corrected rather than just sitting here thinking about things and wondering whether or not I'm right.

---

That's always been my preferred way of doing things. :lol:

Quote:

---

If Ni is indeed about sequences of events, surely an Ni-dominant would be the one most likely to know they can change the future? If you know what causes something, you can change the cause and thus prevent the consequence that was going to happen.

---

Yes.


Pheadrus... I'm unwilling to get into a debate or lengthy discussion, but there is something I'm curious about... On a scale of 1 to 10, 1 being a "life is what you make it" attitude and 10 being a "life is what happens to you" attitude, where would you place yourself?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Joy

On a scale of 1 to 10, 1 being a "life is what you make it" attitude and 10 being a "life is what happens to you" attitude, where would you place yourself?

---

That depends somewhat on what you are after. I am not very proactive. I observe things happening to me, I observe the world changing, and I am kind of stoic about it. And I am a determinist, who doesn't believe there is a free will, so in a sense I could place myself at 10.

On the other hand, it is not impossible to to be proactive and make choices deliberately in order to steer the course of your life. Such choices and such an attitude can sometimes be very helpful if you are going to succeed. That might sound like a contradiction, but it isn't. Even though we don't have a free will, and the future is fixed, we can still make choices (or rather will make choices) to act -- choices that have an impact on what will happen. Every choice you make is of course predetermined, but that doesn't mean that you can't choose, only that you can't choose what you will choose.

So, if you wonder how much of a "P" attitude I have, the answer is: very much. If you wonder what kind of attitude I think is the best to have if you want to achieve your goals, the answer is that it is probably better to be placed between 1 and 5 on that scale. To be a J type is probably better in most cases, especially for introverts. Having an IP temperament can often feel like a handicap.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Phaedrus

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Joy

On a scale of 1 to 10, 1 being a "life is what you make it" attitude and 10 being a "life is what happens to you" attitude, where would you place yourself?

---

That depends somewhat on what you are after.

---

lol

Quote:

---

So, if you wonder how much of a "P" attitude I have, the answer is: very much. If you wonder what kind of attitude I think is the best to have if you want to achieve your goals, the answer is that it is probably better to be placed between 1 and 5 on that scale. To be a J type is probably better in most cases, especially for introverts. Having an IP temperament can often feel like a handicap.

---

What I'm asking has nothing to do with temperament. Furthermore I think you should forget about all of this P/J crap and focus on understanding each of the 8 dual pairs and their interactions. That's a different matter though.

Anyways, from my observations, INTjs are about as close to the 10 end of the scale as you can get. I'm not trying to tell you what type you are, just that your attitude sounds Ti > Te and Si > Se.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Phaedrus

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Joy

On a scale of 1 to 10, 1 being a "life is what you make it" attitude and 10 being a "life is what happens to you" attitude, where would you place yourself?

---

That depends somewhat on what you are after. I am not very proactive. I observe things happening to me, I observe the world changing, and I am kind of stoic about it. And I am a determinist, who doesn't believe there is a free will, so in a sense I could place myself at 10.

On the other hand, it is not impossible to to be proactive and make choices deliberately in order to steer the course of your life. Such choices and such an attitude can sometimes be very helpful if you are going to succeed. That might sound like a contradiction, but it isn't. Even though we don't have a free will, and the future is fixed, we can still make choices (or rather will make choices) to act -- choices that have an impact on what will happen. Every choice you make is of course predetermined, but that doesn't mean that you can't choose, only that you can't choose what you will choose.

So, if you wonder how much of a "P" attitude I have, the answer is: very much. If you wonder what kind of attitude I think is the best to have if you want to achieve your goals, the answer is that it is probably better to be placed between 1 and 5 on that scale. To be a J type is probably better in most cases, especially for introverts. Having an IP temperament can often feel like a handicap.

---

There are so many logical contradictions here...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Joy

What I'm asking has nothing to do with temperament.

---

Then I don't know what you are asking for. Being proactive and trying to steer the course of your life has very much to do with your temperament. EJ is the most proactive temperament. The EJs are the ones that is trying harder than any other temperament to steer the course of their lives. And IP is the least proactive temperament, whereas the other two are somewhere in the middle.

Being proactive does also correlate with extraversion. Extraverts tend to be more proactive than introverts, but there are of course many individual exceptions in this general pattern. ISFjs are proactive when they keep a lot of products in storage and always make sure there are reserves, but their tendency to be somewhat pessimistic can be a burden to them. That is probably less of a problem for ISTjs, who therefore might have a relatively higher chance of succes in comparable areas.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Joy

Furthermore I think you should forget about all of this P/J crap and focus on understanding each of the 8 dual pairs and their interactions.

---

Why not focus on both? They are not contradictory, you know. If an analysis would result in incompatible results in some dimensions, you can be sure that you have made a mistake somewhere.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Joy

Anyways, from my observations, INTjs are about as close to the 10 end of the scale as you can get.

---

Well, then you haven't been observing INTjs -- unless you mean something very different by "life is what you make it" and "life is what happens to you" than I do when I use those expressions.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Phaedrus

But why do you state in your signature that you are an INTJ in MBTT, BLauritson? That suggests that your overall behaviour fit the criteria for the J scale in both models. Have you come to the conclusion that you are an MBTT INTJ by reading type descriptions? In that case you will see, if you compare the described behaviours in Socionics for INTjs with the described behaviours for MBTT INTJ, that they are very similar, but that the leading functions are different. And the same goes for INTPs and INTps. Now, the truth is that MBTT has got the leading functions wrong, and you should not switch between the models like you do now. If you are an INTJ in MBTT you are an INTj in Socionics. And if you are an INTp in Socionics, you are definitely not an INTJ in MBTT -- then you are an INTP in that model too.

(By the way, if you really are an Enneagram 5w4, then you probably have got your type in Socionics right, and therefore you are probably not an INTJ in MBTT but an INTP.)

---

lol, ah, there seems to be a certain novelty in being asked this. Perhaps it is because I've observed this sort of debate so many times on this forum (I read a lot more than I post). But anyway, to get on with the answer:

I started off on the whole journey of personality type by doing a very simplified MBTI test which the BBC did as part of a one-off psychology/typology programme several years ago. Basically, the scales were Planner/Spontaneous (J/P), Ideas/Facts (N/S), Heads/Hearts (T/F), Introvert/Extrovert (Not sure what this one might have been...). I came out as INTP by that (bearing in mind they didn't use the letters, just the labels, so I was Spontaneous + Ideas + Heads + Introvert). I was 16 at the time, their small description seemed to fit somewhat well, or so I thought.

As time went on, I became intuitively unsatisfied with it, though I couldn't reason why. For some reason I wanted to have Planner rather than Spontaneous. Anyways, I honestly can't remember how, but I came across MBTI at some point. I took the Jung typology test at humanmetrics and got INTJ (I was 17 by this point). I felt a certain satisfaction at the time with this, like this was the type I wanted to be. So I studied various descriptions at the time of INTJs, also studied other type descriptions to a smaller extent. Learned about what functions relate to the letters, etc. etc. etc.. I think personalitypage.com was the main website I got my descriptions from. Anyway, I was content with this for a while.

Now we move onto Socionics. I first came across Socionics from some website with multiple MBTI links, one of them leading to Socionics.com. Naturally, I went to the INTj description. I sort of agreed with it, although some bits didn't quite fit, yet I couldn't explain why. I didn't know about the whole MBTI/Socionics conflict that is so famous in the Socionics community yet. Anyways, I sort of wavered between Socionics and MBTI/Keirsey for a while here, sometimes preferring the former, sometimes preferring the latter. I remember reading a wikipedia article on Socionics and it listed the INTj as a logical-intuitive intratim (obviously). I remember this was the first alarm bell that told me I wasn't an INTj in Socionics. Basically, the thing that convinced me I was INTJ in MBTI, and also led me on the path to deciding upon INTp as my type in Socionics, was I was convinced that my dominant function was Introverted Intuition. Regardless of any other factors, I could not accept that I was an introverted thinking type. Why? My intuition, funnily enough. Intuitively, I knew I was an Ni dominant type. Of course, it could have all been false intuition guiding me, but I'm certain enough that that's not the case.

Anyways, so I decided INTj was wrong and started to consider Socionics INTp. By this point I was much preferring Socionics over MBTI and I think this was the last time the metaphrorical pendulum swung before sticking firmly with Socionics (which it has done to this day). I thought about it more and more, and INTp seemed to be right. Bearing in mind at this point, socionics.com was still my primary reference for Socionics, so I hadn't been exposed to the larger world of Socionics yet. But yeah, the intertype relations seemed to fit much more clearly (considering I knew my boss to be an ENTj, I was surprised that, when I still believed myself to be INTj, that the intertype relations were so bad, as we've always been quite close. Obviously considering myself as INTp, that then meant mirror relations, which definitely fits much better). But yeah, I think I was 18 or 19 by this point. I can't remember what finalised the decision exactly, but eventually I decided, beyond reasonable doubt, that I was a Socionics INTp. And upon making this decision, I felt a strange sense of comfort, which lasted for about 30 seconds. It's almost like my intuition knew all along that I was an INTp, and I'd finally reached the destination. I'd never felt this sudden sense of comfort (physical, mental and spiritual) before, and only once again have I felt it to date, which I shall detail shortly.

So yeah, by this point I've lost a lot of care for what my MBTI type is, to be honest it wouldn't bother me if I came up ESFJ on an MBTI test now. I have two theories as to why I came up as INTJ in MBTI before: Firstly, I'd recently come out of chronic depression which had plagued me for as long as I could remember, and it felt like I'd been reborn (I won't go into this now, it's another story entirely). As a result, I had to discover myself again. I felt like a new person and the INTJ profiles that I'd read, looking back on it I think I saw the type descriptions as a sort of role model for myself - something I wanted to be. The other theory I have, which I'm more or less certain is why I came up as J, was because I made an effort at the time to appear outwardly organised. I didn't like to think of myself as lazy or anything like that, I wanted to be organised, self-motivated, etc.. So as far as tests were concerned, I seemed to be J.

Ah yes, to return to the final bit, which was finding my subtype (I know some contest the existence of subtypes, but for the purposes of this story I'm going to assume they exist). For a long time I was uncertain of what my subtype could be - a) because I lacked any evidence for or against either one, and b) because I still didn't understand what it meant to be one subtype or another (to be honest I'm still not 100% certain, but meh). I remember one Socionics test that I took somewhere (can't remember where now) suggested INTp logical subtype as one possibility. So I considered that one for a bit. Anyway, at some completely random point, I had the urge to compare and contrast the subtype descriptions for INTp. I can't remember which one I used now, probably one on this website somewhere, but I remember this particular one said that intuitive subtypes tend to have a more slim build, whereas logical subtypes tend to be more plump. Or something like that, I don't know now. But based on whatever it said, I decided I must be intuitive subtype. I got that same sensation of comfort again that I first got when deciding on INTp being my type, only this time it was stronger.

So yeah, all in all (assuming anyone's still reading this), as far as I'm concerned, my main reference point type-wise is that I'm a Socionics INTp. Regardless of what any letters may say, I'm certain that my dominant function is Introverted Intuition - since finding out about the functions, I've always had some sort of certainty in the back of my mind that I'm an Ni type. Again, it was only through intuition that I believed this, so interpret that how you will, but that is the one factor that remained steadfast in my mind. Even when I was mostly into MBTI, I couldn't accept being an INTP purely because MBTI theory states that INTP is TiNe. I had to be NiTe, regardless of whether that meant being INTJ, INTP, ESFJ, BLEH, FNORGLE, I couldn't care less what letters were used, it was the functions that held the most importance for me.

Hmm.. I think I've pretty much said everything I have to say on that subject. Like I said earlier, I'm not really bothered what letters are used for my MBTI type anymore, I'm no longer attached to that. As long as I'm an INTp in Socionics, I'm content.

EDIT: How interesting. I can work single-mindedly (nearly) on writing something like this, yet I failed at my previous attempt to write an autobiography. Oh well.

nm, I don't have time right now to explain what I meant, but it has to do with Se/Ni and Si/Ne. I'll prolly make a thread about it at some point.

BLauritzon, from the way you write, and the things you say about yourself here, I wouldn't be surprised if you and I are the same subtype of INTp. And if you are, and if you ever want to look at MBTT type profiles again, I can guarantee you that you will identify more with INTP than INTJ in that model. Sometimes the MBTT profiles contain things that are not always mentioned in the socionic INTp profiles.

If you dare, it would be very interesting to hear what if you relate to anything of all that stuff XoX has been talking about in the long thread about his type. If you and I are the intuitive subtype of INTp, maybe we both would relate to the same things. And I would like to know if our reactions to XoX's posts are similar or not, if you feel that XoX is similar to you, and if if you think that you understand him very well or not.

But beware of the hounds ... It is not always very pleasant to be an INTp nowadays, especially not on this forum. Be prepared to be misunderstood, or ridiculed, or worse, if you decide to be open you mouth and express your honest opinion. That can happen, but maybe they will spare you, since they already have decided that I am the black sheep. Anyway, welcome to the club of intuitive INTps. (By the way, have you taken a look at the Ni-INXp profile I put together? It would be interesting to hear how much you relate to that one too.)

I've done some further thinking in regard to the relationship of :Ni: base to :Ti: determining, and of :Ti: base to :Ni: determining.

In particular, there seems to me a relationship between one's perspective of the 8th function, and one's view of death. For me, death is absolute :Ni: as we have described it here: sequence without apprehension, experience, feeling, thought, sensation, or interaction. A time without imagination. I look toward the world without my existence, and I see something almost narcissistic in character: a world devoid of change, a road whose course is set, predictable, inevitable. I look back from before I lived, and I see the same. A parade of characters and events, little more than a timeline. But to look on the world of our times, I see nothing like a timeline. I see rather, a brilliant, vibrant history populated not by automatons, but imaginative, emotional, four-dimensional people who are bound primarily by their individiuality, and not by external circumstances. And that is actually, how I see most people who I have not met. Before I meet them, they are wandering, unable to resist the flow of forces from without them. They are like unto the characters on a sitcom. I look back on their journal entries from before they met me, before they were aware of me, and they seem so... automated, unoriginal. And then afterward, their views are changed: they have met me and, invariably, been impacted by me. Before, I would enliven their lives with the search for timeless truth; now, I show them socionics... I endevor to demonstrate to them their role in this real life Matrix, this cruel, unfeeling progression of events. To me, evil is :Ni: absolute, and to give them awareness of the rules by which this sequence operates, I hope to against all hope give them the inner strength to find happiness. :Ni:, the sequence of events, cares nothing for whether people feel happy or sad, regretful or fulfilled. We look back in history and we see so many people who's lives were cut short, and those who lived life in vain hope of finding someone who could complete them, to make them feel whole. And we see those that had all of these things to, and what were the differences? Often there was no pathopsychology directly involved; some people just ended up finding what they were looking for and some didn't. The sequence of events, which held for them only longing and vain hope against total despair, grinded along.... I see so many people on these dating sites living alone -- good people, worthy people -- and my heart goes out to them. There are so many forces against us... it seems to me only socionics can give us hope for resolution. The concept of the perfect dual... should not everyone seek out this person? Is it really so bad to desire a relationship that only gives, and offers no conflict?

To me, :Ni: is a cold, calculating overlord. But an overlord that desires its own destruction. An overlord that hopes for redemption through the envitability of its own loss.... I can only imagine that INTps, in particular, feel similarly about :Ti:. The non-sequence, the cold static, the relentless logic that drives them forward into untold perils and laments. Into forsaken corners and lonesome enterprises. At this point I can say little about the :Ni: experience of :Ti:, or of the :Ni: experience of :Fi:. What is the view of stasis from :Ni:'s vantagepoint, of the uncompromising cold?

Quote:

---

I think the idea of different types on different levels makes sense. But why is there only one slave, then? I suppose there could be several?
I like Tcaud's ideas here, but I'm not ready to accept the master-slave thing (or that I'm ENTj-ENFp) quite yet without further exploration.

---

The only reason we call it the "master" is due to its position at the beginning of the cycle. It makes sense to refer to it as the master versus the slave given that we place one before the other. But the entire "master/slave" terminology could be discarded, technically. Both functions must agree on a course of action -- in a sense -- before progress is made in the ring of Model-A. Under the dual-type model, only the acceptor can influence the flow of information by choice; the producer must respond to the will of the acceptor master, which is exerted by means of the acceptor slave. The dual-type model postulates that information is always accepted based its potential to influence the work of the producer. (this is a :Ti::Ne: theory, after all)

There was a quote by Napoleon which seems demonstrates the "mastery" concept.

Quote:

---

"Is it because he is lucky that a man becomes great? No, but because he is great, he has learned to master luck."

---

Additionally, consider this poem from the game Tales of Phantasia. This seems to capture the acceptor/producer-master/slave relationship perfectly.

Quote:

---

Call the bringer of destruction in the direction that smells of death.
If you feel the breath of life, then this is where the Spirit of Life
belongs. The maiden who cries over the fallen belongs with death on
the left. Wind faces the maiden, blowing on all in the direction of
the flow of time.

---

Bringer of destruction: acceptor master
Spirit of life: acceptor slave
Maiden who cries over the fallen: producer master
Wind facing the maiden: producer slave
direction of the flow of time: ring of model-A

But we're getting off-topic.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Phaedrus

So, if you wonder how much of a "P" attitude I have

---

Not really.

True. The only other people I've seen argue for their type to the extent phaedrus has have been rational types. :lol:

yes, it's a joke

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by tcaudilllg

INTjs rely on the structure: this causes this, not "this follows this". To us, "this follows this" makes little sense. In particular, it seems to imply a fatalism and submission to fate were we to accept it. We like to think that we can change the cause, therefore change the outcome. Think of it as having a choice between two formulae that are similar to a point, then diverge.

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Joy

On a scale of 1 to 10, 1 being a "life is what you make it" attitude and 10 being a "life is what happens to you" attitude, where would you place yourself?

...

Anyways, from my observations, INTjs are about as close to the 10 end of the scale as you can get.

---

Wait a second. These two statements together don't wash. Tcaud is describing his perspective of life as an LII, with an emphasis on being able to change the outcome. Then, somehow later in the same thread, Joy says that LIIs take the attitude that "life is what happens to you."

It would appear they're working from two different models, two different versions of Socionics.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Joy

True. The only other people I've seen argue for their type to the extent phaedrus has have been rational types. :lol:

yes, it's a joke

---

Who else has ever argued for their type like that on this forum?

myself and kristiina... don't recall if there have been any others that pushed it like any of the three of us

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Joy

myself and kristiina... don't recall if there have been any others that pushed it like any of the three of us

---

Okay, I could see how that could be type-related in some cases. Rational types often want things to be official...I'm officially this, or officially that. It's not conclusive, but it could be a clue to someone's type. It's no doubt the main reason people give Phaedrus such a hard time.

Still, how do you square your observations with Tcaud's comments? Surely a life-is-what-happens-to-you, go-with-the-flow attitude isn't what Tcaud or any of the other self-declared LIIs on this forum describe as being their experience. Maybe they seem passive or unattentive to certain things in comparison to you. But that's different. Would you agree that you characterization of LIIs just seems to be quite at odds with Tcaud is saying?

One really must start to wonder at some point ... Does anyone of you (and here I am referring to Joy and others in the gang of people who consistently are questioning my type, my self-understanding, my knowledge of Socionics, my view on the types, etc.) ever read and try to learn something from the many posts on this forum that are written by correctly typed INTjs? Your behaviour is rather pathetic, considering that all the evidence is right in front of your eyes and you only have to open them and point them in the right direction.

None of you who are so convinced that I am an INTj and state that as an obvious fact is an INTj yourself. You are all some other type, who think that you can tell from outside, based on your own distorted view on the types, who is a real INTj and who isn't. I have had several very interesting and fruitful discussions with the real INTjs on this forum. They can see that I am not one of their Identicals, and I can see that they are not mine. Our level of discussion usually rises above that kinder garten level where you prefer to play around. If you started to read some of our discussions, you might actually learn something about the differences between INTjs and INTps. And if you want to learn what a rather typical INTj is like in his outer behaviour, you could focus on for example UDP, who has written quite a lot about himself.

oh, i though joy meant how INTjs can cop a "victim" attitude because they are Fe dual seeking, and if they are confronted with less hospitable environments they can fall into depression which is dealt with with Si. In this way it can look the way that Joy described.

I think Ixxps are the ones who are supposed to have a "thats the way it is" mentality but that's why they don't get upset, because they don't think its a failure if they can't change their circumstances. Of course what anything is is what it is and yet people can have a different attitude toward that, feeling as if we do create something called a destiny. So it is in fact the INTj who thinks he can change the environment moreso than the INTp, but the INTp who has the attitude that it's something he can work with rather than the INTj who needs to be careful of despair.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Jonathan

Rational types often want things to be official...I'm officially this, or officially that. It's not conclusive, but it could be a clue to someone's type. It's no doubt the main reason people give Phaedrus such a hard time.

---

It just struck me the other day, that something like that could actually be true, and that makes it even more pathetic. Could the reason people don't accept me as an INTp really be that when I came to this forum the hard work had already been done? I had already typed myself correctly, I knew that I was an INTp, and I didn't ask for their advice and help in order to determine my correct type.

I have never once seriously questioned my type on this forum. There has been no objective ground for that, even though some people have raised legitimate questions and come up with some possibly strong counter arguments. And that is fine, that's what I welcome, becuase then I can learn something. But if anyone really think that he or she is better suited at typing me than I am myself, if he or she really thinks that that can be done with any reliablility based only on my posts on this forum, even if the result contradicts the result of my own typing process, and if he or she actually believes that the result of such an Internet typing would be more likely correct than my own typing of myself, which is based on so many independent and strong arguments that he or she probably wouldn't be able to hold all that information in his or her head at the same time, then he or she is a complete fool.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ms. Kensington

I think Ixxps are the ones who are supposed to have a "thats the way it is" mentality but that's why they don't get upset, because they don't think its a failure if they can't change their circumstances. Of course what anything is is what it is and yet people can have a different attitude toward that, feeling as if we do create something called a destiny. So it is in fact the INTj who thinks he can change the environment moreso than the INTp, but the INTp who has the attitude that it's something he can work with rather than the INTj who needs to be careful of despair.

---

Good point.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ms. Kensington

oh, i though joy meant how INTjs can cop a "victim" attitude because they are Fe dual seeking, and if they are confronted with less hospitable environments they can fall into depression which is dealt with with Si. In this way it can look the way that Joy described.

---

I've always attributed it to a Se PoLR (because I have seen this in INFjs as well). When things aren't going well they complain about how unfair things are, how things never seem to go right for them no matter how hard they try, why can't they just get a break, why isn't anyone helping or even trying to help, blah blah blah. I don't know why they come to me for advice, because I always say, "So fix it," which is precisely what they feel powerless to do. I tell them stuff like, "Life isn't what happens to you, it's what you do about it" and "Stop waiting for things to get better and make them better. Nothing will improve until you lose this victim mentality" and "Things won't get better until you can picture it in your head and assume that mentality" and, trying to appeal to their logic, "Sit down and figure out what you want and what's keeping you from what you want, and from there you'll be able to think of ways to begin to deal with some of those things. It may take a little while, but you have to start." This advice is met with, "I try, I try so hard, but no matter what I do, bad things just keep happening." And they whine about health crap on top of it, saying how little they eat or how shitty their diet is or what's hurting and how much it hurts, etc. I tell them, "So go to a doctor and start eating better and find a job that isn't going to make it worse. Do something about it!" The cycle repeats itself until I give up. I seriously don't know why they come to me for advice. :? I have to be just about the worst person for them to try to get encouragement from, but I guess when you're someone they know they can trust and vent to and who cares (regardless of how unsympathetic I may sound) that trumps the ineffectiveness about what I say in response to them.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Phaedrus

But beware of the hounds ... It is not always very pleasant to be an INTp nowadays, especially not on this forum. Be prepared to be misunderstood, or ridiculed, or worse, if you decide to be open you mouth and express your honest opinion. That can happen, but maybe they will spare you, since they already have decided that I am the black sheep.

---

You seem to be making an effort to sound like a Victim, both in Socionics and generally speaking. Almost like "everyone hates me" . It seems that you are pretty confident of your -- social role here? It seems that you are trying to get into, "they say that about me because they have decided that I am the black sheep". Now, is that focus on :Te: ?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Phaedrus

One really must start to wonder at some point ... Does anyone of you (and here I am referring to Joy and others in the gang of people who consistently are questioning my type, my self-understanding, my knowledge of Socionics, my view on the types, etc.)

---

Your almost total lack of knowledge in Socionics theory as defined by model A (which is, by the way, the model people whom you like to quote, like Rick, use) has been more than clearly demonstrated in the XoX type thread. Or do I have to quote the endless times you said "I don't understand this"? And it's not about not agreeing with model A, quadras, etc. It's perfectly legitimate to say that there is no reliable evidence that it's correct, as in the Fe>Fi thingy for INTps. However, in order to intelligently disagree with it, one should at least have done the homework and understand it - which you hadn't done.

If you try to deny it, I will just pull a "XoX" on you and quote back to you all the times when that became clear.

You do have knowledge of a lot of type descriptions and some interpretations of them. Fine.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Phaedrus

ever read and try to learn something from the many posts on this forum that are written by correctly typed INTjs? Your behaviour is rather pathetic, considering that all the evidence is right in front of your eyes and you only have to open them and point them in the right direction.

---

Fine. So perhaps you are right about this: you do come across as different from INTjs such as UDP and tcaudilllg.

But then it's perfectly legitimate to ask -- how come INTps don't see you as INTp? Because they are logical subtypes and you are intuitive? So the subtype is so important as to eliminate the sense of identity?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NdTjRumkT9k

Well once again a promising discussion has devolved into a what's Phaedus/Xox's type thread. (no offense to either of the above, of course)

I've actually come upon something that at first may not seem relevant, but actually has a lot to do with the discussion at hand.

Meet Nergal.

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pFLEu9PbuVE[/youtube]

Mr Nergal, as you may have observed from the video, is an INTp. In crosstype theory, we'd call him an INTP-ENFj pathological type. INTps use :Ne: as a means of aggression, yes? In crosstype theory the personal knowledge function of INTp-ENFj is :Ne: for information metabolism followed by :Fi: for information exertion. :Ti: follows :Fi: as the producer master, and :Ne: follows :Ti: as the producer slave.

With this in mind, observe the following video. (Nergal is on the left)

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ITvYFWJ1hb4&mode=related&search=[/youtube]

Energy (in this case, :Fi:) is drawn inward via a sort of psychic vortex (accepting :Ne:) to a single point. An external field static (:Ti:) element (a singularity) emerges from the condensed :Fi: energy. Releasal :Ne: releases the :Fi: energy from the :Ti: static and influences the flow of time.

video games aren't real life Tcaud... :8*

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Bionicgoat

video games aren't real life Tcaud... :8*

---

*thought I had him on ignore*

Ignoring this ignorant, irrelevant statement, let's let the discussion continue.

EDIT:
Nevermind, he's right: videogames are not real-life. But they are thought of by imaginative people who use socionics functions as the means of their imagination. Therefore there is no reason not to believe that *any* imaginative product cannot be thought of as an expression of function progression in model-A.

you put forth a 6 minute video of a fight scene from some shitty RPG as an illustration of a point and, even worse, imply this shitty RPG has the least bit to do with imagination... and you think I'm the ignorant, irrelevant, one? :lol:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Joy

I've always attributed it to a Se PoLR (because I have seen this in INFjs as well). When things aren't going well they complain about how unfair things are, how things never seem to go right for them no matter how hard they try, why can't they just get a break, why isn't anyone helping or even trying to help, blah blah blah. I don't know why they come to me for advice, because I always say, "So fix it," which is precisely what they feel powerless to do. I tell them stuff like, "Life isn't what happens to you, it's what you do about it" and "Stop waiting for things to get better and make them better. Nothing will improve until you lose this victim mentality" and "Things won't get better until you can picture it in your head and assume that mentality" and, trying to appeal to their logic, "Sit down and figure out what you want and what's keeping you from what you want, and from there you'll be able to think of ways to begin to deal with some of those things. It may take a little while, but you have to start." This advice is met with, "I try, I try so hard, but no matter what I do, bad things just keep happening." And they whine about health crap on top of it, saying how little they eat or how shitty their diet is or what's hurting and how much it hurts, etc. I tell them, "So go to a doctor and start eating better and find a job that isn't going to make it worse. Do something about it!" The cycle repeats itself until I give up. ...

---

I've never seen an INTj or INFj act like that. Has anyone else? Especially the part about whining and not being able to sit down and fix things for themselves. In my experience, INTjs keep their problems more or less to themselves, or pretend they don't have any problems. And they're the ones who are best at sitting down and thinking about what the priorities and solutions should be.

The only case I can see INTjs acting like this is if they're having a problem with something that's really F-related, like relationship problems, and then they'd only talk about them to someone they trust or whom they think is Fe.

Maybe you've seen some IFp types with Ti hidden agenda, or even EFjs, and they seem to be INTjs to you?

Actually, your description is almost identical to Smilex's description of ISFp in the Te view of each type thread that was in the Gamma folder way back...right up to the detail of wondering why they're coming to you with all this.

Joy, the problem lies in how you approach INTjs. You expect us to do the ENTj thing: get out, form new relationships, etc.. For me to form a relationship with someone, it must mean something to me in an emotional way because it implies a role that I will play in their lives. They only have so much energy to give, and substantial amounts of that energy must be spent acquiring resources for their own needs. Who am I to interfere with the pursuit of their needs? If I can't offer them something on a regular basis, how can I be playing a constructive role in their life?

Now that's just the INTj-ENFj view (though you wouldn't know anything about that, would you?), but the role bit applies to INTjs in general. We can only act in the world by means of a method that is consistent with our feelings, because :Fi: is our role. To you, an ENTj, feelings barely come into it: they are just a means of satisfying your hidden agenda; but to us feeling is pivotal to our livelihood.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Expat

You seem to be making an effort to sound like a Victim, both in Socionics and generally speaking.

---

I don't care if I sound like a Victim or not. If I am making any sort of effort here, it is to state the objective truth.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Expat

Almost like "everyone hates me" .

---

People are entitled to feel whatever they want about me. I can't control their feelings, and I am not particularly interested in it. I care much more about people's understanding of Socionics and the types, which sadly enough seem to be lacking in many people here.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Expat

It seems that you are pretty confident of your -- social role here? It seems that you are trying to get into, "they say that about me because they have decided that I am the black sheep". Now, is that focus on :Te: ?

---

At least it is not a focus on :Fe: . If you believe that, you are totally misunderstanding my intentions and what I am saying.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Expat

Your almost total lack of knowledge in Socionics theory as defined by model A (which is, by the way, the model people whom you like to quote, like Rick, use) has been more than clearly demonstrated in the XoX type thread. Or do I have to quote the endless times you said "I don't understand this"?

---

You seem so completely blind sometimes, Expat. But you probably feel the same way about me, and that is just what we should expect about two competent and opinionated Mirrors. Just because I don't prefer to use model A as much as you and others do, it doesn't mean that I have a total lack of knowledge about it. The truth is that people like Joy, who suggest that we should ignore most other sources of information and concentrate on Model A, are saying things that are totally ridiculous from a general socionic point of view. They don't seem to have grasped the basics. Have they even read Dmitri Lytov's and Marianna Lytova's Introduction into Socionics? It doesn't seem so, and if they have they haven't understood it.

People who think that they can type people by using nothing else than Model A are idiots. It is useless if you don't have a basic, and more importantly correct, understanding of the types. They like to use their beloved technique, but they don't seem to realize that it is not much more than just a technique. If handled correctly it should give them the same typing results as I get when I use other typing methods. When we disagree it is more likely that they have made a mistake than that I have made one.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Expat

And it's not about not agreeing with model A, quadras, etc. It's perfectly legitimate to say that there is no reliable evidence that it's correct, as in the Fe>Fi thingy for INTps. However, in order to intelligently disagree with it, one should at least have done the homework and understand it - which you hadn't done.

---

I am not disagreeing with Model A. Like Smilingeyes I am just a tiny bit skeptical about it, and considering how many people on this forum are misusing it, that skepticism seems to have a sound basis.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Expat

You do have knowledge of a lot of type descriptions and some interpretations of them. Fine.

---

I didn't believe it first, but it has now become more and more clear to me, that I am probably the only person on this forum who can use type descriptions as a reliable typing tool. So, I was probably wrong and you were probably right when you have warned against using them. Most people just don't understand them correctly, and therefore they should probably use whatever method they can handle. In my case however, the type descriptions are one of the most powerful of all available typings methods. But in order to use it, you must have a very good general understanding of the types. To obtain such an understanding takes time, and most people are not willing to make the effort that is necessary to achive that level of competence.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Expat

Fine. So perhaps you are right about this: you do come across as different from INTjs such as UDP and tcaudilllg.

---

Yes, I am right about this. And you know that I am. I have never doubted that you can see that clearly. You and I have a very similar understanding of the types. We have got it by using different methods, but in the end we tend to agree on most of our typings. It is not even clear that we disagree much about XoX's type, where both you and I can see for example ENTp and INFp as possible types. The only clear difference in opinion is that you insist that XoX can't be an INTp, whereas I think that INTp is one of the most likely, if not the most likely, type for XoX. That we disagree on that is solely due to the fact that we use different typing methods and have different opionons on how reliable those methods are.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Expat

But then it's perfectly legitimate to ask -- how come INTps don't see you as INTp? Because they are logical subtypes and you are intuitive? So the subtype is so important as to eliminate the sense of identity?

---

First of all, none of those INTps who don't see me as an INTp understand the types as well as I do. I don't know for sure what those INTps think of Jonathan's type, but I know that some of those people who are convinced that I am not an INTp don't question Jonathan as an INTp, despite the fact that both Jonathan and I agree that we are extremely similar. How do you explain that? It is almost impossible that Jonathan and I are different types, and that we are so strikingly similar was obvious to me from the first post I ever read of Jonathan more than a year ago on SG's forum. Nothing since then has given me any strong reason to question the fact that Jonathan and I are probably the same type.

Maybe the subtype is very important for the sense of identify. But that doesn't seem to have been such a big problem for me. I saw almost immediately that niffweed and I are also most likely the same type. He is more obstinate of course, disagreeing with everyone on everything all the time, but my initial impression of him seems to turn out to be correct too. Or you could take dreikin, who I haven't seen posting for a long time now, so maybe he is no longer using this forum, but if you look at some earlier posts (if they were not destroyed in The Big Deletion) you will see that dreikin and I are also the same type (INTp) though not necessarily the same subtype. He is also rather clearly an INTp on V.I.

Then Cone. He is not so active either, but I haven't had any reason to question that he is also an INTp, and that we are therefore the same type. One of his earliest posts on this forum could just as well have been written by me; the way he described himself made him very similar to me. Of course both dreikin and Cone also consider themselves to be INTPs in MBTT. It is somewhat unclear to me which INTps you have in mind when you say that they don't see me as an INTp. Isha perhaps? Well, I don't know about Isha's type. Maybe it is INTp, but then there is something wrong with Isha's ability to spot other INTps, since I am not recognized as one.

Phaedrus: do you think you could be an INTp who puts his energy toward INTj things? (like Einstein put his ENTp "inventor" talents toward scientific analysis?)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Jonathan

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Joy

I've always attributed it to a Se PoLR (because I have seen this in INFjs as well). When things aren't going well they complain about how unfair things are, how things never seem to go right for them no matter how hard they try, why can't they just get a break, why isn't anyone helping or even trying to help, blah blah blah. I don't know why they come to me for advice, because I always say, "So fix it," which is precisely what they feel powerless to do. I tell them stuff like, "Life isn't what happens to you, it's what you do about it" and "Stop waiting for things to get better and make them better. Nothing will improve until you lose this victim mentality" and "Things won't get better until you can picture it in your head and assume that mentality" and, trying to appeal to their logic, "Sit down and figure out what you want and what's keeping you from what you want, and from there you'll be able to think of ways to begin to deal with some of those things. It may take a little while, but you have to start." This advice is met with, "I try, I try so hard, but no matter what I do, bad things just keep happening." And they whine about health crap on top of it, saying how little they eat or how shitty their diet is or what's hurting and how much it hurts, etc. I tell them, "So go to a doctor and start eating better and find a job that isn't going to make it worse. Do something about it!" The cycle repeats itself until I give up. ...

---

I've never seen an INTj or INFj act like that. Has anyone else? Especially the part about whining and not being able to sit down and fix things for themselves. In my experience, INTjs keep their problems more or less to themselves, or pretend they don't have any problems. And they're the ones who are best at sitting down and thinking about what the priorities and solutions should be.

The only case I can see INTjs acting like this is if they're having a problem with something that's really F-related, like relationship problems, and then they'd only talk about them to someone they trust or whom they think is Fe.

Maybe you've seen some IFp types with Ti hidden agenda, or even EFjs, and they seem to be INTjs to you?

Actually, your description is almost identical to Smilex's description of ISFp in the Te view of each type thread that was in the Gamma folder way back...right up to the detail of wondering why they're coming to you with all this.

---

In all fairness, the people I'm writing about consist of:

- A physically unhealthy INTj (genetic disorder) who was severely neglected through his childhood and has Asperger's Syndrome
- A physically unhealthy INFj who, like the INTj, has a lot of legitimate health issues and severe chronic pain (and who, like the INTj, won't find a job that's less physically demanding for some reason that is just beyond my comprehension)
- A different INFj with mental health issues
- A different INTj... I don't know what the fuck his problem was... depression I guess, but it never seemed like anything more than self-pitying to me

Perhaps this manifestation of their PoLR (as I perceive it) wouldn't be as debilitating for a healthy INxj.

Also, every one of these people is someone who I am or was very close to, and all of them totally trusts/trusted me. They all tend to act apathetic around people they're not close to.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by tcaudilllg

Joy, the problem lies in how you approach INTjs. You expect us to do the ENTj thing: get out, form new relationships, etc.. For me to form a relationship with someone, it must mean something to me in an emotional way because it implies a role that I will play in their lives. They only have so much energy to give, and substantial amounts of that energy must be spent acquiring resources for their own needs. Who am I to interfere with the pursuit of their needs? If I can't offer them something on a regular basis, how can I be playing a constructive role in their life?

Now that's just the INTj-ENFj view (though you wouldn't know anything about that, would you?), but the role bit applies to INTjs in general. We can only act in the world by means of a method that is consistent with our feelings, because :Fi: is our role. To you, an ENTj, feelings barely come into it: they are just a means of satisfying your hidden agenda; but to us feeling is pivotal to our livelihood.

---

I get the part about valuing Fe and needing to feel that you have a role in someone's life (as opposed to someone who values Fi and needs to know they have a relationship with someone?), but what I don't understand is that you feel more of a need to fill your Role function than your hidden agenda? btw, feelings come into it for all types to some extent, and I'd say the difference has a lot to do with the individual, not just their type. Logical types may not recognize or understand ethical concerns/feelings as well as ethical types, but they're there nonetheless. And I find it interesting that you read loneliness in what I posted. http://us.i1.yimg.com/us.yimg.com/i/...ticons7/39.gif

Health isn't a big concern... we (INTjs) are the logical foundation of the system and if we start screwing with it because we don't feel it has respected our need for good health, then people will pay attention to us. We'll get that health we want. And when I say the system, I don't mean "society as an institution", but the actual abstractions running beneath: THAT's where we'll make havoc, and no one can afford that.

Obviously other types can act similarly to defend their hidden agenda. The point is that it's not a big conscious concern to us. Feelings are much more pressing internal issues.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by labcoat

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NdTjRumkT9k

---

It is like that, isn't it? Different conversations going on, all in a jumble. And then it goes around and around, and we get to a place where it seems we've been before, but each time we feel that we understand it a little bit better, and maybe, just maybe, next time around we'll finally get it...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by tcaudilllg

Phaedrus: do you think you could be an INTp who puts his energy toward INTj things? (like Einstein put his ENTp "inventor" talents toward scientific analysis?)

---

Yes, definitely -- except that I disagree with the claim that what I am interested in should be considered belonging to the INTj domain of "things". That is a flaw in the socionic INTj type descriptions (to a lesser degree that is relevant to the INTp descriptions) and the quadra descriptions. In fact, MBTT INTJ and INTP type descriptions give us a more correct picture of how INTjs and INTps are in real life when it comes to that particular aspect of what they are interested in putting their energy in. Due to the fact that Socionics attribute almost all these things to INTjs and very little, if anyhing, to INTps, you would get a much better picture of my interest profile if you read MBTT INTP descriptions.

This flaw in Socionics has been pointed out several times by Jonathan, and he is perfectly right about it.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Joy

In all fairness, the people I'm writing about consist of:

- A physically unhealthy INTj (genetic disorder) who was severely neglected through his childhood and has Asperger's Syndrome
- A physically unhealthy INFj who, like the INTj, has a lot of legitimate health issues and severe chronic pain (and who, like the INTj, won't find a job that's less physically demanding for some reason that is just beyond my comprehension)
- A different INFj with mental health issues
- A different INTj... I don't know what the fuck his problem was... depression I guess, but it never seemed like anything more than self-pitying to me

---

Actually, I also happen to know an INTj with Asperger's Syndrome, and what Joy says is in a sense true of him. I also know an unhealthy INFj, who maybe also could fit Joy's description of their behaviours. But isn't Ms. Kensington's comment still true? There is no real contradiction between these "unhealthy" INXjs and what I have said about J and P behaviours and attitudes and its relation to the temperament -- something that is common knowledge in Socionics.

Ok, in order not to repeat myself, I will drop some issues and focus on what I think will be most productive:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Phaedrus

At least it is not a focus on :Fe: . If you believe that, you are totally misunderstanding my intentions and what I am saying.

---

"Misunderstanding my intentions" is used by you as -- argument very very often, as if that were the central issue. So let's stick to that -- for a moment.

Nearly all - if not indeed all - points you made whenever someone mentioned XoX's use of :Fe: was "you are misunderstanding his intentions".

I know, one of INTp's basic motivations is thre "search for truth" etc.

Also (I am quoting from memory, I may be mistaken) I think you said something about "perhaps INFps also look at people as objects?")

Questions:

1) Would it be a correct interpretation to say that you regard "searching for truth" in the context of "seeing people as objects" as essentially INTp?

2) How exactly are people "objects" in this?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Phaedrus

Just because I don't prefer to use model A as much as you and others do, it doesn't mean that I have a total lack of knowledge about it.

---

It doesn't. What did show your total lack of knowledge was your questions/statements in the XoX type thread, what I could easily demonstrate by quoting them.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Phaedrus

First of all, none of those INTps who don't see me as an INTp understand the types as well as I do. I don't know for sure what those INTps think of Jonathan's type, but I know that some of those people who are convinced that I am not an INTp don't question Jonathan as an INTp, despite the fact that both Jonathan and I agree that we are extremely similar. How do you explain that?

---

I explain that simply by saying that Jonathan's type never became an issue - not nearly as much as yours. As simple as that. I wasn't aware that there were people who were sure you are not INTp and at the same time were convinced Jonathan is INTp. So I don't know which criteria, if any, they are using.

As far as I am concerned, one reason is that Jonathan does not seem to have an agenda to be this or that type -- what he does most of the time is ask questions - some of them repeatedly in one form or the other - rather than make clear statements of his own. He keeps a "lower profile", so to to speak. So people have had less of a chance - or inclination - to state clear opinions on his type than on yours. Unlike you, I don't think he has ever said anything like "so-and-so is probably INTp because I identify with him".

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Phaedrus

and that we are so strikingly similar was obvious to me from the first post I ever read of Jonathan more than a year ago on SG's forum. Nothing since then has given me any strong reason to question the fact that Jonathan and I are probably the same type.

---

Just for fun, I would love to see Jonathan say that he's an INFp or INTj.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Phaedrus

Maybe the subtype is very important for the sense of identify. But that doesn't seem to have been such a big problem for me. I saw almost immediately that niffweed and I are also most likely the same type.

---

Stop right there. Does niffweed17 agree with that? I seems that he does not. In that case, why should that sense of identity be one-sided?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Phaedrus

Of course both dreikin and Cone also consider themselves to be INTPs in MBTT. It is somewhat unclear to me which INTps you have in mind when you say that they don't see me as an INTp. Isha perhaps? Well, I don't know about Isha's type. Maybe it is INTp, but then there is something wrong with Isha's ability to spot other INTps, since I am not recognized as one.

---

The question is, did Cone, dreikin, niffweed17 ever also state clearly that they see you as INTp? Niffweed17 seems, if anything, to oppose the idea. So it's not only Isha. Which INTp has said "I definitely could see Phaedrus as INTp?"

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Expat

Nearly all - if not indeed all - points you made whenever someone mentioned XoX's use of :Fe: was "you are misunderstanding his intentions".

---

Yes, perhaps. There is some truth in that, and let's agree on that to see where it leads us.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Expat

I know, one of INTp's basic motivations is thre "search for truth" etc.

---

Agreed.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Expat

Also (I am quoting from memory, I may be mistaken) I think you said something about "perhaps INFps also look at people as objects?")

---

I don't believe that they do, but I don't know for sure that they don't or can't do that.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Expat

1) Would it be a correct interpretation to say that you regard "searching for truth" in the context of "seeing people as objects" as essentially INTp?
2) How exactly are people "objects" in this?

---

Let's try to be exact here. INTps have a tendency to see people as objects, which is in line with their overall externalist world, where everything can, in principle, be explained in a scientific, naturalistic framework. And an INTp is always searching for the objective truth if he is interested in a subject matter. Like many NTs INTps are interested in systems, and if he happens to be interested in one type of system, for example working teams and their relations to the bigger system, like organizations and companies and maybe also in the even bigger system that organizations and companies are parts of (the market economy etc), then he would probably view the people who are parts of the team system as "objects". He is not interested in those people as people, he is primarily interested in how they function as parts of the system, the organization, and if it would be possible to optimize the functioning of those parts, make the system more effective, if we add some "soft-ware program" to it, for example a good version of the program Team Spirit 1.0.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Expat

I explain that simply by saying that Jonathan's type never became an issue - not nearly as much as yours. As simple as that.

---

Yes, but both Jonathan and I are slightly surprised by that phenomenon. I'm not sure what the explanation is, but it probably has something to do with which threads I prefer to participate in and how I express my views.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Expat

I wasn't aware that there were people who were sure you are not INTp and at the same time were convinced Jonathan is INTp. So I don't know which criteria, if any, they are using.

---

I don't know either, but for some reason it seems easier for them to accept Jonathan as an INTp.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Expat

As far as I am concerned, one reason is that Jonathan does not seem to have an agenda to be this or that type -- what he does most of the time is ask questions - some of them repeatedly in one form or the other - rather than make clear statements of his own. He keeps a "lower profile", so to to speak. So people have had less of a chance - or inclination - to state clear opinions on his type than on yours. Unlike you, I don't think he has ever said anything like "so-and-so is probably INTp because I identify with him".

---

Yes, I was going to say something very similar to this. His lower profile is probably one of the reasons.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Expat

Just for fun, I would love to see Jonathan say that he's an INFp or INTj.

---

Fun or not, it would of course be interesting. But if he would say that he is an INTj, he would either be joking or have become totally confused. INFp makes much more sense, but, just like XoX and me, he seems to identify with being a logical type, and he seems to idenfify at least slightly more with INTp descriptions than with INFp descriptions.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Expat

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Phaedrus

Maybe the subtype is very important for the sense of identify. But that doesn't seem to have been such a big problem for me. I saw almost immediately that niffweed and I are also most likely the same type.

---

Stop right there. Does niffweed17 agree with that? I seems that he does not. In that case, why should that sense of identity be one-sided?

---

No, niffweed17 does not agree with that, unless he has changed his mind since the last time he said something related to that. My sense of identity is much stronger with Jonathan than with niffweed, but based on the things niffweed has said about himself he should be an INTp. And some of the things niffweed has said about his relations with for example ESFjs makes the case for INTp even stronger. If niffweed is not an INTp, I would guess that he is an ISTp.

The main reason niffweed can't see that I am an INTp is probably that he doesn't understand the types as well as I do yet. He is still in the exploring stage so to say. He is still learning and trying to put the pieces in the puzzle together. And his critical attitude is part of that, because when he questions things he does it partially in order to understand them better.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Expat

The question is, did Cone, dreikin, niffweed17 ever also state clearly that they see you as INTp? Niffweed17 seems, if anything, to oppose the idea. So it's not only Isha. Which INTp has said "I definitely could see Phaedrus as INTp?"

---

I don't know if any INTp has phrased it exactly like that. I think dreikin has come closest to that. We seemed to understand each other rather well in some threads about the :Ni: function, for example. And he also had some good explanations for the fact that people misidentify me as an INTj. But the question how many INTps have stated that they see me as an INTp is irrelevant. It is simply obvious to me that I am very similar to both Cone and dreikin. And anyone who is trying to type us based on the things we have said about ourselves and how we relate to each other in our posts must come to the same conclusion, if that person is good at typing people by that method.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Phaedrus

The main reason niffweed can't see that I am an INTp is probably that he doesn't understand the types as well as I do yet.

---

Shouldn't a sense of identity be easier than that?

One path -- you think you are INTp, you type him as INTp, then you say "we are identicals".

Another path -- you get a feeling of identity, then "we are the same type" and then you look at which type that is.

It seems that you shift back and forth between these two paths as it suits you. Regardless of niffweed17's and your types, his disagreement about the identity is already relevant in itself, if this kind of feeling is to be used as criteria.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Phaedrus

I don't know if any INTp has phrased it exactly like that. I think dreikin has come closest to that. We seemed to understand each other rather well in some threads about the :Ni: function, for example. And he also had some good explanations for the fact that people misidentify me as an INTj. But the question how many INTps have stated that they see me as an INTp is irrelevant.

---

So the "sense of identity" is only relevant when it's from your side.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Expat

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Phaedrus

The main reason niffweed can't see that I am an INTp is probably that he doesn't understand the types as well as I do yet.

---

Shouldn't a sense of identity be easier than that?

---

I don't know. Maybe. My reasons for thinking that niffweed is an INTp is much more based on what he has said about himself than on some sense of similarity. But in one early thread about INTp descriptions his way of arguing was very similar to mine. We seemed to be focusing on almost the exact same things, and we seeem to very much agree in our conclusions. Nowadays he doesn't seem to want to discuss things with me anymore, and, as I have said before, in his attitudes I perceive him as similar to Rocky. But on the other hand, that is exactly what for example Smilingeyes has pointed out as a similarity between all three of us, so it is somewhat surprising that other people can't see that we are similar, even though I have realized that we are not as similar as Jonathan and I. Most people on this forum -- except you and some others -- have more trouble seeing me as intutive than as logical. That's probably why they think that I am an INTj. But then I don't understand why they don't think that I am more like niffweed than like Jonathan.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Expat

One path -- you think you are INTp, you type him as INTp, then you say "we are identicals".

---

Well, that's consequential, don't you think? If I am an INTp, and he is an INTp, we should be identicals. Nothing strange about that ...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Expat

Another path -- you get a feeling of identity, then "we are the same type" and then you look at which type that is.

---

Yes, but every time I have got that feeling of similarity I have already typed myself as an INTp. I would never base my typing of someone solely on my sense of identity with that person. It's just that I tend to get this feeling of similarity to persons that also fit many other criteria for being INTps. We get very similar test results, identify with the same type descriptions, etc.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Expat

It seems that you shift back and forth between these two paths as it suits you. Regardless of niffweed17's and your types, his disagreement about the identity is already relevant in itself, if this kind of feeling is to be used as criteria.

---

This kind of feeling is not to be used as criteria -- at least not by you. An outside observer should of course try to make a correct typing of us based on objective information, but if we both agree on the sense of similarity, as in Jonathan's and my case, that should at least count for something. It is an indication, but further proof is of course needed.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Phaedrus

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Expat

The question is, did Cone, dreikin, niffweed17 ever also state clearly that they see you as INTp? Niffweed17 seems, if anything, to oppose the idea. So it's not only Isha. Which INTp has said "I definitely could see Phaedrus as INTp?"

---

I don't know if any INTp has phrased it exactly like that. I think dreikin has come closest to that. We seemed to understand each other rather well in some threads about the :Ni: function, for example. And he also had some good explanations for the fact that people misidentify me as an INTj. But the question how many INTps have stated that they see me as an INTp is irrelevant. It is simply obvious to me that I am very similar to both Cone and dreikin. And anyone who is trying to type us based on the things we have said about ourselves and how we relate to each other in our posts must come to the same conclusion, if that person is good at typing people by that method.

---

I know I haven't phrased it exactly like that ... but I've clearly stated somewhere on this board, maybe more than once, that I think Phaedrus is indeed an INTp (and I haven't said it exactly THAT way either) -- and have always wondered at the phenom. surrounding Phaedrus' typing of himself ... :8*

I haven't posted much overall, and had posts lost during that hubabaloo ... and can't find "where I said what" about it, it's either there or not, and I'm sure that someone will love to look into it to prove I said nothing much at all or am contradicting myself, which is WHY I haven't always posted when I had something to write. :)

(Yes, I am a victim :wink: )

Let this stand as my Official Endorsement of Phaedrus being seen as an INTp by an INTp.

Yes, I forgot to mention you, craizymaisy, and I apologize for that. You have probably stated more clearly than anyone else on this forum that you see us as Identicals, and you have argued for it too. You pointed out how we both think in pictures, and we both agree that our thinking processes are very similar. I definitely have this sense of similarity towards you, and I don't think anyone on this forum has disputed the claim that you are an INTp. Instead they have put you on the list as a clear example of an INTp.

Thanks for your support, craizymaisy :)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Phaedrus

Yes, I forgot to mention you, craizymaisy, and I apologize for that. You have probably stated more clearly than anyone else on this forum that you see us as Identicals, and you have argued for it too. You pointed out how we both think in pictures, and we both agree that our thinking processes are very similar. I definitely have this sense of similarity towards you, and I don't think anyone on this forum has disputed the claim that you are an INTp. Instead they have put you on the list as a clear example of an INTp.

Thanks for your support, craizymaisy :)

---

Thank you too, and You are very welcome!

I have chuckled and LOL so much when I see myself on one of those "INTp lists" ... I have gotten away with murder somehow, it seems to me. :wink:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Phaedrus

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by tcaudilllg

Phaedrus: do you think you could be an INTp who puts his energy toward INTj things? (like Einstein put his ENTp "inventor" talents toward scientific analysis?)

---

Yes, definitely -- except that I disagree with the claim that what I am interested in should be considered belonging to the INTj domain of "things". That is a flaw in the socionic INTj type descriptions (to a lesser degree that is relevant to the INTp descriptions) and the quadra descriptions. In fact, MBTT INTJ and INTP type descriptions give us a more correct picture of how INTjs and INTps are in real life when it comes to that particular aspect of what they are interested in putting their energy in. Due to the fact that Socionics attribute almost all these things to INTjs and very little, if anyhing, to INTps, you would get a much better picture of my interest profile if you read MBTT INTP descriptions.

This flaw in Socionics has been pointed out several times by Jonathan, and he is perfectly right about it.

---

Just to clarify...the problem that I have with Socionics in this issue is that sometimes Socionists seem to "shift" regarding whether the definitions of the functions are referring to the structural tendencies by which people think and process information, or whether they refer to the interest or motivation to be interested in certain areas (what I sometimes refer to as "content"). I'm not totally against the idea that a person's motivations in regard to subject matter interest may also cause that person to have certain characteristics of a type (and that type's intertype relations) on some level. Hence, I think Tcaud's idea of giving people more than one type...saying one is type X in one way and type Y in a different way or on a differently level, or according to a "different school of Soconics" has some merit. The challenge is to refine that idea to the point that it can actually be useful, and to verify that the appearance of dual- or triple- (etc.) typed people is real and not due to a misperception of type.

So, for example, let's take a rough stab at the "content" version of Socionics definitions. Some people's definitions of, say, T, or N, are roughly like this:
Ti is the motivation to have a rigorous understanding, to understand what is, and how and why things work
Ne is the motivation to come up with new ways of seeing things, to use divergent ideation, and to be creative in the intellectual sphere.
Ni is the motivation to have a conceptual view of things to be prepared for whatever may come up in the future.
Te is the motivation to know how to achieve goals
(I'm sure people will take issue with my wording; I'm just using these as examples; not as an ultimate statement on the functions.)

The point is, with these definitions, I would clearly identify with Ti/Ne, as I'm sure would Phaedrus...plus a number of people who have been typed by professional Socionists as Gamma NTs, such as Richard Feynman, Socrates, etc.

The "structural" version of Socionics has different definitions. Here's a rough take at what those might be:
Ti is the act of focusing on internally consistent rules or structures as a means of evaluating and deciding things, and ensuring that one's actions start from a solidly considered path of one's choosing.
Ne is the perception of opportunities regarding different paths or combinations and other ways that one might go about doing something
Ni is the formation of an imagination, conception, or story of the way things are or could be, that serves to guide one in the direction of promising paths.
Te is the formulation through data about the external world of a structural model that serves as a means to accomplish goals.

Now again, the point isn't the wording; I'm sure people will find plenty of problems with it; I'm just using these as rough examples.

Clearly, the two sets of definitions are similar and roughly parallel; but the emphasis is slightly different. It is possible, for example, to use Ni and Te as defined here in the service of Ti or Ne in the first set of definitions...or visa versa. The situation is complicated by the fact that Socionists have pointed out that quasi-identicals are often interested in similar things (in terms of content issues) and that the further definitions of accepting and creative functions make this more possible.

So, anyhow, perhaps something along the lines of Tcaud's thinking is plausible, perhaps even useful.

nm

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by labcoat

nm

---

?

Is that related to M&Ms? :)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Expat

Just for fun, I would love to see Jonathan say that he's an INFp or INTj.

---

I've considered both. Some of my music sometimes sounds as if it were written by an IFp type, and I've had certain periods of time when I felt more "F." However, I'm more likely to "say the wrong thing" to an INFp than to an INTp.

I do see Phaedrus as similar to others that I feel an "identity" relation with. These types of people (likes to talk about intellectual topics, prefers a Socratic or formal-logic approach to challenging or defending points, focuses on establishing agreement over methods, flexible about specific positions) seem to be INTp according to what I regard as the "main" school of Socionics, but may also be TiNe according to other reasonable interpretations/definitions.

Anyhow, I'm not likely to make a definitive or simple statement of my type anytime soon, partly because I continue to believe that there is not one perfectly unified, satisfactory set of definitions of the functions, and partly because I believe I'm a particularly difficult case to type in a simple 16-type way. It may seem strange because I've thought about typology for decades; yet although it seems so easy to type people I meet, it is really hard for me to be objective about myself, at least in the sense of fitting myself into what seems like such a confining system. I can highly identify with people who aren't even in the same quadra, and can feel "dual-like" relations with people who are in opposing quadras.

Somehow, it's easier for me to think of types (as well as functions) as something one uses, rather than something one "is." It seems actually kind of weird that people are so obsessed about "being" this or that type. Yet on the other hand, I have the same inclination because I know I come off to others in some specific way; I certainly don't seem like every type, and may have a fair amount of trouble convincingly and consistently acting like some of the types. Nevertheless, I always prefer thinking of type as something that exists outside me, rather than something that one "is."

@Expat...By the way: You clearly disagree with Phaedrus's analysis of a number of issues. But I wasn't totally sure...what type do you think he is?...Do you have any firm position on that? ....here I'm getting back to "is" again....Just curious though. :)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Jonathan

Anyhow, I'm not likely to make a definitive or simple statement of my type anytime soon, partly because I continue to believe that there is not one perfectly unified, satisfactory set of definitions of the functions, and partly because I believe I'm a particularly difficult case to type in a simple 16-type way. It may seem strange because I've thought about typology for decades; yet although it seems so easy to type people I meet, it is really hard for me to be objective about myself, at least in the sense of fitting myself into what seems like such a confining system. I can highly identify with people who aren't even in the same quadra, and can feel "dual-like" relations with people who are in opposing quadras.

---

My inclination is to be really, really skeptical of people claiming to be able to type others accurately whilst not able to decide on one type for themselves. But I have seen this happening elsewhere and I start to see a pattern.

Still -- if you do understand the quadras and types, and above all understand why so apparently different types such as, say, INTj and ESFj should be duals, then you must also understand what makes each quadra "tick" and where you'd fit best or worst. That's why I'm skeptical.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Jonathan

Somehow, it's easier for me to think of types (as well as functions) as something one uses, rather than something one "is." It seems actually kind of weird that people are so obsessed about "being" this or that type. Yet on the other hand, I have the same inclination because I know I come off to others in some specific way; I certainly don't seem like every type, and may have a fair amount of trouble convincingly and consistently acting like some of the types. Nevertheless, I always prefer thinking of type as something that exists outside me, rather than something that one "is."

---

It reminds me of XoX's "inner chameleon" thingy.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Jonathan

@Expat...By the way: You clearly disagree with Phaedrus's analysis of a number of issues. But I wasn't totally sure...what type do you think he is?...Do you have any firm position on that? ....here I'm getting back to "is" again....Just curious though. :)

---

The problem is that at this point it's impossible to know which information to take at face value.

So I have no "firm position" on that. If I were to bet, and if the bet could somehow be settled, I would bet some money on both of you being INFps.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Joy

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by BLauritson

Hmm.. this is interesting. Despite what's been said about the INTps believing that the future is predetermined and thus unchangeable, whilst INTjs believe they can change the universe as they see fit

---

I'll have to very much disagree with this. From my observations and understanding of INTx types, INTjs are far more likely to believe they cannot control what happens to them, that they are at the mercy of their circumstances, etc.

---

I think the prime concern of INTjs is their local environment, but they become depressed if situations don't go their way (lack of :Se: , desire of :Si: ) - so they operate at this level, but are also susceptible to apathy when minor things go wrong. Because an INTj believes they are in control of their life + destiny, they become depressed when their actions lead to the wrong results. INTjs see things as changeable, but if they are in the wrong environment, they lose hope. INTps only (I say 'only' :wink: ) lose hope in daily interactions with people etc., because they seem so trivial. I think INTps are happy to be carrying out the will of the universe to a certain extent, they just want to get over the day to day trivialities (possibly?).

I think INTjs regard themselves as having one Self, which directs their quest(s) (as UDP might call it :P ) in life - they may follow many paths, but they are all directed by the Self, so their life appears to be a single, significant journey.

INTps seem to have many Selfs, in many time dimensions - their life is already determined, there is only one quest, not many, but they see life as a series of landscapes (one landscape in each time zone - I'm not sure if this is a vague time period, or if INTps 'know' the time period, or whether they see an order to this landscapes - e.g. by priority or time, but I'm just speculating :oops: ).

So, to an INTj, the Self is something which drives their goals in life, whereas to an INTp, the Self is a tool in order to complete their goals.

(I've been vague in places, and I've guessed some stuff too - so if I don't get away with it, I'll come back and make something else up :wink: - though I'm interested on what INTps might think - I have trouble picturing how they see themselves in relation to time + the universe, I only have a notion).

[/quote]
INTps seem to have many Selfs, in many time dimensions - their life is already determined, there is only one quest, not many, but they see life as a series of landscapes (one landscape in each time zone - I'm not sure if this is a vague time period, or if INTps 'know' the time period, or whether they see an order to this landscapes - e.g. by priority or time, but I'm just speculating ). [/quote]

This sounds like evolving :Ti: (:Ni: exertion): successive progression of structure, a structure that is transient and malleable over time.

I don't think INTps see an order in time; time is what it is. However, they can see rules for the progression of events via transcendental :Ne:.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Expat

My inclination is to be really, really skeptical of people claiming to be able to type others accurately whilst not able to decide on one type for themselves. But I have seen this happening elsewhere and I start to see a pattern.

---

I understand your skepticism, but the issue with me and some of the other "harder to pin down" people isn't a matter of understanding the basic theory or duality, but rather a tendency of some people to shift around or take part in very different kinds of groups. There are people who seem to use the two ego block functions fairly consistently (and are thus pretty easy to type), and then there are others who are more diverse.

You have to admit, some people are easier to type than others.

Quote:

---

Still -- if you do understand the quadras and types, and above all understand why so apparently different types such as, say, INTj and ESFj should be duals, then you must also understand what makes each quadra "tick" and where you'd fit best or worst. That's why I'm skeptical.

---

I don't buy the implication that everyone who changes their views about their type or who sees greater gradations of complexity must therefore not understand the dynamics of duals.

Quote:

---

It reminds me of XoX's "inner chameleon" thingy.

---

I'm not sure what XoX means by it, but I do notice that the opposite function of whatever person I'm talking too often gets stimulated in a positive way. This is why more than one type of person seems dual.

Quote:

---

So I have no "firm position" on that. If I were to bet, and if the bet could somehow be settled, I would bet some money on both of you being INFps.

---

Not a bad guess (for myself; I can't speak for Phaedrus). At the very least, I have an INFp side to me. Sometimes I see myself as a Ti type who's Ip, which would be by definition a kind of INFp. But I don't think that's the whole story. The classical types are too simplistic.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Jonathan

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Expat

So I have no "firm position" on that. If I were to bet, and if the bet could somehow be settled, I would bet some money on both of you being INFps.

---

Not a bad guess (for myself; I can't speak for Phaedrus). At the very least, I have an INFp side to me. Sometimes I see myself as a Ti type who's Ip, which would be by definition a kind of INFp. But I don't think that's the whole story. The classical types are too simplistic.

---

Jonathan -- I think that you do NEED to see the classical types as "simplistic" and that's the thing: just a "base" of what you are. WHO you are isn't what your type is, per se, but your type is what you are, in the way of a structure that the building is based on ... the framework basically being INTp and then the actual finished parts of the building being WHO you are.

I do believe that Phaedrus is an INTp as he says he is (and has stated that and this in this thread along with me) and that I am very much like that too, I am an INTp, and both Phaedrus and I identify with being INTp with Ni subtype ... but let me surely state here that it's just the basicness of us and doesn't say everything about us. I don't really know any of y'all, but I do know me and that's a point about being an INTp, to accept it I feel that I had to come to a place of understanding it's just a framework -- not "everything about me" FWIW.

I can surely identify with ISTp to some degree for me, as well as INFp ... and that's just it, both are neighbors to me in some degree, and a type isn't made of stone, but is organic, isn't it? I do see it that way. It's real, living, organic, just as we are.

So the basic way of putting all people into one of 16 types is just a basic framework sort of thing, and doesn't speak of EVERYTHING about anyone for sure.

Look at Braintyping as one way to understand that "basic" categorical-ness ... it is such a limiting thing if one considers it as "all that they are" but it's freedom and understanding to see it as a basic framework that is one's underlying structure, and that's why 'behaviour' isn't entirely reliable for typing, but can aide one in seeing their underlying basic structure if they are able to see through the mush of their life ;)

some hints for jonathan.

1) i've met 2 INTP's that said they sometimes had INFP as a result.
They both were Intuitive subtypes. So no clear T.

2) If you like to watch the behaviour of people this doens't mean your an INFP. INTP like to watch behaviour of people like some kind of experiment, like they see people as organisms. An INFP would watch the behaviour to make a connection with them, to help them.

3) some lines in your posts remind me of my own writing style. I had this feeling also in posts of Iffy.
And that is an INTP for sure.

My (wild) guess would be that you're an INTP intuitive subtype.

in any case good luck with finding your type. :)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Jonathan

I understand your skepticism, but the issue with me and some of the other "harder to pin down" people isn't a matter of understanding the basic theory or duality, but rather a tendency of some people to shift around or take part in very different kinds of groups. There are people who seem to use the two ego block functions fairly consistently (and are thus pretty easy to type), and then there are others who are more diverse.

You have to admit, some people are easier to type than others.

---

Some people are easier to type than others. That's not the same thing as someone claiming to type others accurately, but not able to type themselves. At the very least, they should be able to explain why -- and beyond "I relate to that and that description" and "I get along equally well with XXXx and YYYy". That's not good enough.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Jonathan

I don't buy the implication that everyone who changes their views about their type or who sees greater gradations of complexity must therefore not understand the dynamics of duals.

---

I don't buy the nonsense that somebody who does understand how the relationships work - beyond reading the descriptions - can't at least explain how and why they supposedly get equally well with opposing quadras.

The thing is, that goes against the Socionics model. Now, it's perfectly legitimate to say that you don't think the model really works, of course. But if you can't explain how and why it doesn't work, beyond saying "it doesn't work for me", or "life is more complex that that" etc, I have to conclude that you don't even understand it well enough to really explain how you reached the conclusion that it doesn't work.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Jonathan

I'm not sure what XoX means by it, but I do notice that the opposite function of whatever person I'm talking too often gets stimulated in a positive way. This is why more than one type of person seems dual.

---

Perhaps you could give a description of some concrete examples of that.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Jonathan

But I don't think that's the whole story. The classical types are too simplistic.

---

Of course they are simplistic, but at least you should explain then more or less where you fit or not.

For instance, you just said that you see yourself as a Ti IP. That would be either INFp or ISFp. Now, let's get into this. If you are really most persuaded that you have an IP temperament and that you are Ti>Te, then, you are an INFp or ISFp. If you generally identify more with intuition than sensing generally, you'd be an INFp.

Ok, but then, say, you don't identify with a lot of the INFp descriptions, nor do you feel that ESTps should be your duals. Then we have to examine all those in detail. Perhaps you haven't typed ESTps properly. Or perhaps you are INTj and you just think that you have an IP rather than IJ temperament. Perhaps you are INTp and you just mixed up Te and Ti.

Or perhaps, indeed, the whole model didn't work for you. Perhaps the whole thing is nonsense.

However, before just saying "it doesn't work for me", it is just fair to see whether the flaw is not somewhere else. And perhaps that can't be discovered. Perhaps it won't be decided whether those ESTps are correctly typed or not, or whether IJ or IP is your temperament. But at least, in the process, we will have learned something.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Jarno

INTP like to watch behaviour of people like some kind of experiment, like they see people as organisms. An INFP would watch the behaviour to make a connection with them, to help them.

---

To say that an INTp does not relate to people as people is total nonsense, you know.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Expat

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Jarno

INTP like to watch behaviour of people like some kind of experiment, like they see people as organisms. An INFP would watch the behaviour to make a connection with them, to help them.

---

To say that an INTp does not relate to people as people is total nonsense, you know.

---

No, it's not nonsense. Jarno is right about what he says here. As an INTp myself I understand perfectly well what he is talking about. And it is exactly when it comes to this aspect that I think that you don't understand XoX, Expat. Because XoX also seem to think of people in this way based on the things he said about "team spirit".

I sometimes wonder if everyone else is real, or just made up, sort of like robots. How can I tell that they're real?

I see "people" as things.

One example: Like when I'm in a moving vehicle, not driving, just looking out the window, going along I see someone walking on a sidewalk the opposite direction I look at that and wonder 'Is that a "me" ... ?" since I'm told that there are other beings that are "people" but it's just so strange to try and consider that as true ... in such a case as that sort of "people watching" (as well as other venues of people watching.)

I also watch birds, and watch trees, plants and cats and dogs and bugs. People are just another organism (though I know that the ones close to me, a.k.a. My Family --the beings that live with me, are real people like I am.)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Expat

Some people are easier to type than others. That's not the same thing as someone claiming to type others accurately, but not able to type themselves. At the very least, they should be able to explain why -- and beyond "I relate to that and that description" and "I get along equally well with XXXx and YYYy". That's not good enough.

...

I don't buy the nonsense that somebody who does understand how the relationships work - beyond reading the descriptions - can't at least explain how and why they supposedly get equally well with opposing quadras.

---

I like to come to the forums and sometimes make comments, but your responses suggest investing a lot more time than is really realistic. I prefer to put most of my typology-related ideas into privates notes for myself rather than share everything in the forum at length. To explain myself much more fully than I do would just not make any sense time-wise, but I still think I've made useful and thoughtful contributions to the forum discussion.

At any rate, your responses suggest that I create the impression of having no clue about my type. That's not true. I just don't see the point of having to commit to or defend any type. Okay, we can say INTp Ni subtype as a working hypothesis...there. :) But as I said, there are times that I feel INFp, or other types. Perhaps later I can write a post and describe what it's like to feel a shift from one perceptual framework to another. I get the idea that you always feel more or less like one sort of person, and your posts also reflect a certain consistency. The idea of constant shifting probably makes no sense to you, perhaps because you haven't experienced it.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by KSpin

I sometimes wonder if everyone else is real, or just made up, sort of like robots. How can I tell that they're real?

---

Why does it matter?

It was a rhetorical question... and it was meant as a reply to the general theme of the posts above it.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Jonathan

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Expat

Some people are easier to type than others. That's not the same thing as someone claiming to type others accurately, but not able to type themselves. At the very least, they should be able to explain why -- and beyond "I relate to that and that description" and "I get along equally well with XXXx and YYYy". That's not good enough.

...

I don't buy the nonsense that somebody who does understand how the relationships work - beyond reading the descriptions - can't at least explain how and why they supposedly get equally well with opposing quadras.

---

I like to come to the forums and sometimes make comments, but your responses suggest investing a lot more time than is really realistic. I prefer to put most of my typology-related ideas into privates notes for myself rather than share everything in the forum at length. To explain myself much more fully than I do would just not make any sense time-wise, but I still think I've made useful and thoughtful contributions to the forum discussion.

At any rate, your responses suggest that I create the impression of having no clue about my type. That's not true. I just don't see the point of having to commit to or defend any type. Okay, we can say INTp Ni subtype as a working hypothesis...there. :) But as I said, there are times that I feel INFp, or other types. Perhaps later I can write a post and describe what it's like to feel a shift from one perceptual framework to another. I get the idea that you always feel more or less like one sort of person, and your posts also reflect a certain consistency. The idea of constant shifting probably makes no sense to you, perhaps because you haven't experienced it.

---

For what it is worth, my current status as "probable ESFJ" represents my best current understanding of socionics and is contingent on many variables, such as my understanding of socionics being correct, the typings of Dioklecian being accurate, the relevance and accuracy of Smilexian Socionics, etc. I do not think it is currently possible to know one's type for sure - but it can be worthwhile to adopt and play with different identities.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by CuriousSoul

For what it is worth, my current status as "probable ESFJ" represents my best current understanding of socionics and is contingent on many variables, such as my understanding of socionics being correct, the typings of Dioklecian being accurate, the relevance and accuracy of Smilexian Socionics, etc. I do not think it is currently possible to know one's type for sure - but it can be worthwhile to adopt and play with different identities.

---

Let's not include Dio's typings as primary evidence, okay? :) He's an interesting person, raises interesting points, and can be very interesting to have a conversations with, but his typings (on his admission) are more intended to spark debate than to be a primary source of what mainstream Socionics says. I'd recommend Rick's and Dmitri's typings just mainly because of their knowledge of the Socionics community, so at least we get a clear sense of what "mainstream Socionics" may be like, and then once we understand that we can know what we're tearing to shreds when we do so.

But anyhow, I agree with you...all those parameters come into play. The fact that I never assume that either my understanding of Socionics or Socionics itself is accurate surely complicates things. :) Hence I'm left with "I'm this if I consider this set of definitions, but I'm that if I consider this other set of definitions." Labcoat has even included in his signature his type based on classical, Tcaudian, and I think even Smilexian Socionics.

BTW, so what led you to consider ESFj > INFj? It's kind of hard to tell on a forum...not much info to go on just from posts. :)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Jonathan

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by CuriousSoul

For what it is worth, my current status as "probable ESFJ" represents my best current understanding of socionics and is contingent on many variables, such as my understanding of socionics being correct, the typings of Dioklecian being accurate, the relevance and accuracy of Smilexian Socionics, etc. I do not think it is currently possible to know one's type for sure - but it can be worthwhile to adopt and play with different identities.

---

Let's not include Dio's typings as primary evidence, okay? :) He's an interesting person, raises interesting points, and can be very interesting to have a conversations with, but his typings (on his admission) are more intended to spark debate than to be a primary source of what mainstream Socionics says. I'd recommend Rick's and Dmitri's typings just mainly because of their knowledge of the Socionics community, so at least we get a clear sense of what "mainstream Socionics" may be like, and then once we understand that we can know what we're tearing to shreds when we do so.

But anyhow, I agree with you...all those parameters come into play. The fact that I never assume that either my understanding of Socionics or Socionics itself is accurate surely complicates things. :) Hence I'm left with "I'm this if I consider this set of definitions, but I'm that if I consider this other set of definitions." Labcoat has even included in his signature his type based on classical, Tcaudian, and I think even Smilexian Socionics.

BTW, so what led you to consider ESFj > INFj? It's kind of hard to tell on a forum...not much info to go on just from posts. :)

---

Please don't refer to dual-type theory as TCaudian. And please don't mention my name in any way as relevant to the mention of this theory. It's an objective truth, devoid of any personal attatchment to anybody.

I didn't make the rules, they are just there. :)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by tcaudilllg

Please don't refer to dual-type theory as TCaudian. And please don't mention my name in any way as relevant to the mention of this theory. It's an objective truth, devoid of any personal attatchment to anybody.

I didn't make the rules, they are just there. :)

---

Okay, sorry, but you did come up with it, and the term "information exertion," right? Also, you're the one who knows what the rules are and how to type by that method, right? I was just giving you credit. :)

I see you've typed Phaedrus as INTp-INTj...so that pretty much solves this whole question with Phaedrus, right? I'm still waiting for why I'm ENTj-ENFp. :) Maybe you can set Expat straight on why he's misreading XoX's type, since he's assuming people have only one.

And by the way, I like your idea, and I think you're onto something. I just wish I understood it better.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Jonathan

I see you've typed Phaedrus as INTp-INTj...so that pretty much solves this whole question with Phaedrus, right?

---

Really? Where? Have I missed that?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Phaedrus

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Expat

To say that an INTp does not relate to people as people is total nonsense, you know.

---

No, it's not nonsense. Jarno is right about what he says here. As an INTp myself I understand perfectly well what he is talking about. And it is exactly when it comes to this aspect that I think that you don't understand XoX, Expat. Because XoX also seem to think of people in this way based on the things he said about "team spirit".

---

Then please give me your interpretation of the INTp's :Fi: hidden agenda.

How do you see it, for yourself and in INTp's generally? What do you think it means?

A secondary point, more to make you think: if INTps and ENTjs are mirrors, it should be easier for me to understand this bit, shouldn't it (feel free to argue that one answer is that I can't be ENTj).

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by crazymaisy

I see "people" as things.

One example: Like when I'm in a moving vehicle, not driving, just looking out the window, going along I see someone walking on a sidewalk the opposite direction I look at that and wonder 'Is that a "me" ... ?" since I'm told that there are other beings that are "people" but it's just so strange to try and consider that as true ... in such a case as that sort of "people watching" (as well as other venues of people watching.)

---

Wait a moment -- those are "people" with whom you have no one-to-one contact, you don't really see them as individuals. You don't have to be an INTp (or whichever type) to see people as "things" in that situation. I don't think that is what we're talking about here.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Expat

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by crazymaisy

I see "people" as things.

One example: Like when I'm in a moving vehicle, not driving, just looking out the window, going along I see someone walking on a sidewalk the opposite direction I look at that and wonder 'Is that a "me" ... ?" since I'm told that there are other beings that are "people" but it's just so strange to try and consider that as true ... in such a case as that sort of "people watching" (as well as other venues of people watching.)

---

Wait a moment -- those are "people" with whom you have no one-to-one contact, you don't really see them as individuals. You don't have to be an INTp (or whichever type) to see people as "things" in that situation. I don't think that is what we're talking about here.

---

Hey, hold on there, it's just ONE EXAMPLE ... but I can see it's moreso that I didn't explain it well enough ... and can't --I guess. Let's just look at it this way:

People doesn't equal "person" to me across the board --unless somehow some sort of "fully understanding human element that connects to my interior shows me that they are more than a thing" on a case-by-case standard, and it's quizical, perhaps it's one of those "symbolic" things that has so much attached to it in meaning and no way to explain it, you can't see the picture in my head that which does explain it, but words fail to paint that picture outwardly. Even that phrase I'm using "human element" doesn't convey what I mean.

Anyhow, I didn't claim that only INTp's look at people as things, just inferring my own INTp outlook into what I wrote in this thread before since it was brought up --> and it's NOT about "individuals" like you are saying. I didn't say that, you are saying that's what I mean, and it's not what I mean.

It's more Velvelteen Rabbit than anything, but that's not exactly it either. FWIW

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Expat

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Phaedrus

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Expat

To say that an INTp does not relate to people as people is total nonsense, you know.

---

No, it's not nonsense. Jarno is right about what he says here. As an INTp myself I understand perfectly well what he is talking about. And it is exactly when it comes to this aspect that I think that you don't understand XoX, Expat. Because XoX also seem to think of people in this way based on the things he said about "team spirit".

---

Then please give me your interpretation of the INTp's :Fi: hidden agenda.

How do you see it, for yourself and in INTp's generally? What do you think it means?

---

Why do you think that it has anything to do with what we are talking about here? Why should seeing people as objects be related to the hidden agenda? What is the relevance here? You can love someone, or some thing, and still view everyone (including yourself) and everything as objects. You can be kind and thoughtful, and caring, and sympathetic even towards inanimate objects. It is not necessary to view them as persons in any meaningful metaphysical way that would imply that they are not objects.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Jonathan

At any rate, your responses suggest that I create the impression of having no clue about my type. That's not true. I just don't see the point of having to commit to or defend any type. Okay, we can say INTp Ni subtype as a working hypothesis...there. :)

---

Ok, fair enough. Then I had misunderstood you.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Jonathan

But as I said, there are times that I feel INFp, or other types.

---

Fair enough, again.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Jonathan

Perhaps later I can write a post and describe what it's like to feel a shift from one perceptual framework to another. I get the idea that you always feel more or less like one sort of person, and your posts also reflect a certain consistency. The idea of constant shifting probably makes no sense to you, perhaps because you haven't experienced it.

---

Let me get into this a bit.

First, no-one - not even myself :o - behaves consistenly like one type every second of their lives. Personally, and agreeing with Smilingeyes's interpretation here, I feel most often as an EJ, and most of the time as an ENTj. On occasion I have "moments" of ESTj, ENFj and ESFj. When I am unsure of what to do, I "become" a sort of INTp. Under extreme stress, I may even "become" an ISFp as I suggested some time ago. So, that much is clear.

That is not the same thing, however, as not knowing which my "default mode" is, and which is what defines my relationships, for instance (I get along best with ISFjs because I behave mostly as an ENTj, not necessarily 100% of the time).

If, however, you say that you "shift constantly" to the extent that, say, you get along equally well with (for instance) an ESTj and an ESTp, then I think we're talking of something else.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Phaedrus

Why do you think that it has anything to do with what we are talking about here? Why should seeing people as objects be related to the hidden agenda? What is the relevance here? You can love someone, or some thing, and still view everyone (including yourself) and everything as objects. You can be kind and thoughtful, and caring, and sympathetic even towards inanimate objects. It is not necessary to view them as persons in any meaningful metaphysical way that would imply that they are not objects.

---

"Being kind and thoughtful and sympathetic" is not necessarily related to the :Fi: hidden agenda, so that's not the point. Unless you think that it is indeed necessarily related to the :Fi: hidden agenda, in which case it's an interesting piece of information.

However, what I was getting at should be perfectly clear to those who do understand the model (even if not agreeing with it - again, disagreeing with it and not understanding it are two different things).

Anyway, that is a dead-end discussion - for the moment. I have my own views on its possible implications, but it will go nowhere because it will be difficult to agree on what precisely we're talking about when we say phrases like "view people as objects".

@crazymaisy: ok.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Expat

"Being kind and thoughtful and sympathetic" is not necessarily related to the :Fi: hidden agenda, so that's not the point. Unless you think that it is indeed necessarily related to the :Fi: hidden agenda, in which case it's an interesting piece of information.

---

I deleted the first version my post where I had mentioned that the existence of something that we should call "the hidden agenda" isn't accepted by all socionists, becuase I thought we both agreed on that. Maybe that was a mistake.

If you accept Ganin's interpretation of the hidden agenda for INTps and ISTps, you are simply wrong -- being kind and sympathetic is then necessarily related to an INTp's hidden agenda, at least indirectly, because we have an unconscious need to be able to show our affection towards another.

If you don't accept Ganin's understanding of the hidden agenda for INTps, then you should at least be aware of the fact that for example Stratiyevskaya also mentions that kind of behaviour in relation to :Fi: in INTps.

So, cut the crap, will you. It should be obvious to any real INTp that you don't understand that type nearly as well as you think.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Phaedrus

If you accept Ganin's interpretation of the hidden agenda for INTps and ISTps, you are simply wrong -- being kind and sympathetic is then necessarily related to an INTp's hidden agenda, at least indirectly, because we have an unconscious need to be able to show our affection towards another.

---

This actually is against you being an INTp. You're always an ass to everybody here. Never seen any kindness in your arrogant words.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by FDG

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Phaedrus

If you accept Ganin's interpretation of the hidden agenda for INTps and ISTps, you are simply wrong -- being kind and sympathetic is then necessarily related to an INTp's hidden agenda, at least indirectly, because we have an unconscious need to be able to show our affection towards another.

---

This actually is against you being an INTp. You're always an ass to everybody here. Never seen any kindness in your arrogant words.

---

Ah, give him a break. :) Even if you don't agree with him, wouldn't you agree he seems nice and respectful to people on the forum?

But the phrase "we have an unconscious need to be able to show our affection towards another" could actually apply to everyone, whatever the model says. Anyhow, if INTps show affection because of Fi, INFps and INTjs show affection because of Fe, so it doesn't really solve anything. :)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Expat

If, however, you say that you "shift constantly" to the extent that, say, you get along equally well with (for instance) an ESTj and an ESTp, then I think we're talking of something else.

---

I will admit, it may be related to inadequate experience with certain kinds of people. In my own little creative world, it seems that I use all functions confidentally at times, but it may be different in social situations. I feel I get along great with both ESFj and ESFp (though that's from my perspective; I'm not sure what the other person thinks). With ESTj and ESTp, I can think about to some really good friendships with both, and also some strained relations with both. (...assuming I've typed those people correctly).

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Phaedrus

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Jonathan

I see you've typed Phaedrus as INTp-INTj...so that pretty much solves this whole question with Phaedrus, right?

---

Really? Where? Have I missed that?

---

http://the16types.info/forums/viewtopic.php?t=10726

Thank you, Jonathan.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Jonathan

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Expat

If, however, you say that you "shift constantly" to the extent that, say, you get along equally well with (for instance) an ESTj and an ESTp, then I think we're talking of something else.

---

I will admit, it may be related to inadequate experience with certain kinds of people. In my own little creative world, it seems that I use all functions confidentally at times, but it may be different in social situations. I feel I get along great with both ESFj and ESFp (though that's from my perspective; I'm not sure what the other person thinks). With ESTj and ESTp, I can think about to some really good friendships with both, and also some strained relations with both. (...assuming I've typed those people correctly).

---

It can be said the same to me, in the sense that, the categories of people I do not get along with are more readily visible if we take into consideration non-socionics issue (say, political leanings) rather than types. I think that this stems from how we're not talking about close psychological distance.

Quote:

---

Ah, give him a break. Smile Even if you don't agree with him, wouldn't you agree he seems nice and respectful to people on the forum?

---

He doesn't to me. I'm not saying it out of a personal bias against him, here - he genuinely seems to be arrogantly disrespectful to almost anybody. Even worse, he is not openly disrespectful, but rather his anger slips here and there from the wording he gives to his sentences.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by FDG

Quote:

---

Ah, give him a break. Smile Even if you don't agree with him, wouldn't you agree he seems nice and respectful to people on the forum?

---

He doesn't to me. I'm not saying it out of a personal bias against him, here - he genuinely seems to be arrogantly disrespectful to almost anybody. Even worse, he is not openly disrespectful, but rather his anger slips here and there from the wording he gives to his sentences.

---

Well, that sounds like good and honest feedback. I think one of the things to remember is that the point of studying typology isn't just as a theoretical exercise, or just to understand ourselves better, but also to understand how we (and others) misfire, or come off to other people in ways we aren't aware of. Then, people can learn to correct those behaviors, and hopefully come off in ways that are more acceptable to others. I do think these things are type-related, even if they're not seen in every person of a particular type.

Although you may not agree, what you're describing does sound like Fe PoLR, which would especially make sense since you value Fe. In any case, whether it's an Fe or Fi weakness, the key is to bring these sorts of things out, help each other work on them, and also (when possible), to give each other extra space, recognizing better other people's weak areas so that they don't bother us as much.

If we can do that, then this Socionics stuff is worthwhile; otherwise, it's just a mere theoretical exercise (in my opinion). :)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Phaedrus

I deleted the first version my post where I had mentioned that the existence of something that we should call "the hidden agenda" isn't accepted by all socionists, becuase I thought we both agreed on that. Maybe that was a mistake.

---

For clarification --

1) When I refer to the "hidden agenda", I mean the 6th function, which is also called the "activation function". In that context, it is perfectly consistent with model A.

2) The way I see it, it's not that as if the "existence" of the hidden agenda would be accepted or not. The 6th function is sort of "unique" in being a weaker quadra value (weaker than the ego function) where you don't expect to be helped in it by someone else (as with the dual-seeking function); it's something you value and wish were more confident in but you don't quite manage it. So I think there is something to Ganin's concept, except (1) I think he exaggerates its importance and visibility and (2) I think his definitions are often either too simplistic, or erroneous, or misleading, or all of the above.

3) I used the term "hidden agenda" also for your benefit, since I mistakenly thought that would help the discussion.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Phaedrus

If you accept Ganin's interpretation of the hidden agenda for INTps and ISTps, you are simply wrong -- being kind and sympathetic is then necessarily related to an INTp's hidden agenda, at least indirectly, because we have an unconscious need to be able to show our affection towards another.

---

"show your affection" is at least as related to Fe as it is to Fi, if not more so.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Phaedrus

So, cut the crap, will you. It should be obvious to any real INTp that you don't understand that type nearly as well as you think.

---

On the contrary, it is obvious to the real INTps that it's you who don't understand the type, and I think that a "XoX criterion" - who among the supposed INTps sees INTp as a likely type for XoX - could be a very good way for determining who understands INTps.