Differences between LII-INTj and ILI-INTp

[Park]

Which one is your preference?

INTp for me.

[Phaedrus]

Which one is your preference?

INTj
It attempts to improve or to supplement any theory or development. Alternative ideas do not slip off from its attention. It persistently completes the passed components it of the system interesting. It possesses capability for the generation of ideas, a brainstorm.

INTp
In the mind it checks the logic of actions and expenditure of resources, as if reducing the balance of useful and useless. The aim is to find the shortest and most advantageous path target. It is thrifty in the rotation with the money. It knows how to make reserves.

This is a good example of those kind of questions and dichotomies in Socionics that lead to mistypings. Many INTps would choose the first alternative (INTj) because it is about theory and ideas. Both INTjs and INTps are interested in theories and ideas but in slightly different ways. INTjs are more interested in using theories for practical purposes, whereas INTps are more interested in the theories in themselves, if they see them as a path to the truth. That means that INTps are interested in eliminating flaws in theories, criticizing them, and comparing them. INTjs might be the type that "persistently completes the passed components it of the system interesting", since they are more disciplined than INTps. Maybe they are also better at brainstorming, I'm not sure about that.

[Jonathan]

Maybe they are also better at brainstorming, I'm not sure about that.

I think the descriptions that started this thread are more from the school that equates INTj with what we'd tend to think of as INTp, and visa versa. In the ABCD=ABCd school, INTp is probably better at brainstorming.

[Phaedrus]

I think the descriptions that started this thread are more from the school that equates INTj with what we'd tend to think of as INTp, and visa versa.

You could be right about that. By the way, which school do you belong to yourself? You seem to have avoided to take a definitive stand, or I have missed it ...

In the ABCD=ABCd school, INTp is probably better at brainstorming.

I'm still not sure about that. I have no empirical justification for such a claim. My father might be better at brainstorming than me, and he is an INTj. I also think that ENTps are better at brainstorming than INTps, and they would probably beat the INTjs at that sport too, if they are equally intelligent.

[Kristiina]

In the ABCD=ABCd school, INTp is probably better at brainstorming.

I'm still not sure about that. I have no empirical justification for such a claim. My father might be better at brainstorming than me, and he is an INTj. I also think that ENTps are better at brainstorming than INTps, and they would probably beat the INTjs at that sport too, if they are equally intelligent.

Brainstorming depends on the subject. If it's something completely new, ENTp is better, but INTp is better when the solution is a combination of past ideas and the brainstormer needs to combine a working solution in that particular situation.

[oyburger]

Equally comfortable with both

I'm also equally comfortable with both

[Hugo]

What does an INTp have in their that an INTj doesn't have in their ?

[stevENTj]

The INTp says to their INTj friend, "wow thanks for your ! I never would have thought of that. Now I'll see what I can do with this and logically classify it with my such that I can get a more favorable outcome over time with ".

I can use , but I use much more naturally. In that respect, maybe INTjs are better at coming up with original ideas, but don't quite know what to do with them all the time. Maybe an INTp is better at figuring out how an idea will play out over time, but isn't so good at actually coming up with any ideas on their own. They need other people for that.

[Jonathan]

So you're no longer an ENTj then?

I just can't see "knowing what to do with something" as a definition of , even if you tack on the word "time" at the end.

is a form of intuition. The idea that and are completely unrelated, or that is about ideas and is about being practical just doesn't wash with me.

I would say that a mark of any N-dominant person is that they'll say or come up with things on the basis of a hunch rather than having to derive it logically from the details. ENTps will say "zany" things and try to shock people with their boldness. INTps hide their intuition by covering their tracks with and making it look as if it's all based on logic and knowledge.

The idea that INTps don't come up with new ideas is popular in some quarters in Socionics, but it would mean that most of the famous people who are typed as INTp must be mistyped.

[stevENTj]

is a form of intuition. The idea that and are completely unrelated, or that is about ideas and is about being practical just doesn't wash with me.

is not about being practical. It's simply having a sense of how thigns will play out over time. Classification of somethign as being practical or not is what is.

The idea that INTps don't come up with new ideas is popular in some quarters in Socionics, but it would mean that most of the famous people who are typed as INTp must be mistyped.

I'm making generalizations, which you're taking literally. Anybody can use any function, just the focus and preferences are different.

[Jonathan]

is a form of intuition. The idea that and are completely unrelated, or that is about ideas and is about being practical just doesn't wash with me.

is not about being practical. It's simply having a sense of how thigns will play out over time. Classification of somethign as being practical or not is what is.

The idea that INTps don't come up with new ideas is popular in some quarters in Socionics, but it would mean that most of the famous people who are typed as INTp must be mistyped.

I'm making generalizations, which you're taking literally. Anybody can use any function, just the focus and preferences are different.

Maybe I misunderstood you before. Anyhow, I never said was "being practical." Seeing how something may play out over time makes sense as a trait, but before it seemed you were saying was about knowing what to do with an idea and how to put it into action (as contrasted with coming with the idea) which sounded like an orientation toward a practical perspective, even somewhat like .

[Hugo]

INTp
If you are in good physical form, you are confident and energetic. You require “pushing” from someone in power, otherwise you are slack and lazy. You do not tolerate aggression. To maintain good physical health you take part in energetic sports, but you lack the will power to do it regularly.

INTj
You judge relationships between people according to their level of ease. You seek simple, democratic relationships. You are a soft and gentle person. You are not forceful. You have a need for territorial independence. You don’t know how to subordinate people. You poorly defend your day-to-day interests. You are indecisive. You are a cool, calm person. You ignore violence and power pressure. It is not possible to obtain anything from you by force.



INTp
You judge relationships according to emotions displayed by others. You get irritated by stormy, open emotions, which make you act depressingly. In the extreme situation or when you have hidden hostility, you openly show your sharp irritation. You become ironic. You show your poor mood in the form of dark humour. You spend time alone when in a poor mood.

INTj
You show calm friendliness and positive emotions. When in a good mood you become sociable and witty. You make contact with close friends/relatives in a happy state. You pass on your optimistic attitude to the person you are with. You extinguish negative emotion by logical analysis.

[UDP]

INTj
You show calm friendliness and positive emotions. When in a good mood you become sociable and witty. You make contact with close friends/relatives in a happy state. You pass on your optimistic attitude to the person you are with. You extinguish negative emotion by logical analysis.

That's the best description of what I do that I've ever heard of.


I've logically removed negative emotions from my life... kind of like the Buddha :wink:

[UDP]

It is not possible to obtain anything from you by force.

Don't you know who I am?
I'm an INTj, bitchhhhhhhhh~!!


Quite true.

[oyburger]

INTj description is correct for me but the description for both INTp and INTj apply to me depending on if I'm happy or angry.

[Hugo]

INTj description is correct for me but the description for both INTp and INTj apply to me depending on if I'm happy or angry.

Does this apply to you:

You become ironic. You show your poor mood in the form of dark humour.

[oyburger]

When I don't feel like being social, but am forced to; or when I'm just in a bad mood, yes.
I could identify with the complete descriptions of both statements.

[UDP]

For me, the INTj was overwhelmingly more appplicable than the INTp descriptions, for both and .

I can relate to INTp , but clearly what is listed under INTj connects more with me.

[Jonathan]

[Oops...sorry, I didn't notice that this was an old thread. ...Well I'll leave my comments though.]

INTp
If you are in good physical form, you are confident and energetic. You require “pushing” from someone in power, otherwise you are slack and lazy. You do not tolerate aggression. To maintain good physical health you take part in energetic sports, but you lack the will power to do it regularly.

INTj
You judge relationships between people according to their level of ease. You seek simple, democratic relationships. You are a soft and gentle person. You are not forceful. You have a need for territorial independence. You don’t know how to subordinate people. You poorly defend your day-to-day interests. You are indecisive. You are a cool, calm person. You ignore violence and power pressure. It is not possible to obtain anything from you by force.



INTp
You judge relationships according to emotions displayed by others. You get irritated by stormy, open emotions, which make you act depressingly. In the extreme situation or when you have hidden hostility, you openly show your sharp irritation. You become ironic. You show your poor mood in the form of dark humour. You spend time alone when in a poor mood.

INTj
You show calm friendliness and positive emotions. When in a good mood you become sociable and witty. You make contact with close friends/relatives in a happy state. You pass on your optimistic attitude to the person you are with. You extinguish negative emotion by logical analysis.

The odd thing about these INTj/p posts isn't that they're so ubiquitous. Naturally, this is one of the biggest ongoing debates on the forum (or used to be anyway). What's odd is that we keep getting these ones that simply assert one side of the debate with little comment as to how it relates to the other side.

I'm not sure if Josh came up with these ones or translated from somewhere...does anyone know? It would be interesting to see what roots exist within the Socionics world for this debate. I remember Hugo posted a lot of these, and was largely influenced by DarkAngelFireWolf69.

To recap, the different views regard whether INTp or INTj is more forceful and decisive.

The side that says INTp is forceful, decisive, and (in the case of this post) athletic tends to argue like this: "INTps are part of the Gamma quadra. Gammas value which means that they're kind of forceful and even jock-like. Furthermore, INTps have Te which makes them business-like, practical, and even more forceful. INTjs are part of the Alpha quadra. Alphas don't value Se, so they're nice and gentle. Furthermore, because INTp's Ti makes them care mostly about intellectual things, and because their Ne makes gives them a free, exploratory nature, they're indecisive, not really knowing what they want unless it concerns the intellectual thing they're working on. With their extraverted-facing N, they want to keep their options open."

The other side goes like this: "INTjs are rational types, which make them decisive. They know what they want, and they have have clearly-defined views. Their accepting T can make them seem insistent, and even forceful. INTps are irrational types, which causes them to want to keep their options open. Furthermore, because Se is their dual-seeking function, that means it's generally weak and an area that they rely on others for. Consequently, they're not inclined to appear like Se types, but will appear more as if they have a gap in the Se department, which Se types will want to fill."

As stated in previous posts, the second view seems more in line with official Socionics, although the first view isn't totally without support in the Socionics literature.

As to which type is more athletic: I don't think one can really say. You could probably have an athlete of any type. However, most people I know who would appear to be Ni types aren't athletic.

Also, the idea of someone who is in good shape and into extreme sports but too lazy to exercise much is a contradiction in terms. How does someone stay in shape if they don't work out? It's an illusion, and a recipe for injury.

As to the comments...These, unfortunately, do seem to echo the Socionics literature. I say unfortunately because I think their ridiculuous.

Let's summarize the comments:

INTj:
INTp:

That's pretty much it. Why is the Socionics literature so bent on the idea that INTps are miserable grouches? I really think it has to do with culture in that part of the world. I don't think INTps in outside of Russia are like that.

[Kristiina]

INTp
If you are in good physical form, you are confident and energetic. You require “pushing” from someone in power, otherwise you are slack and lazy. You do not tolerate aggression. To maintain good physical health you take part in energetic sports, but you lack the will power to do it regularly.

INTj
You judge relationships between people according to their level of ease. You seek simple, democratic relationships. You are a soft and gentle person. You are not forceful. You have a need for territorial independence. You don’t know how to subordinate people. You poorly defend your day-to-day interests. You are indecisive. You are a cool, calm person. You ignore violence and power pressure. It is not possible to obtain anything from you by force.



INTp
You judge relationships according to emotions displayed by others. You get irritated by stormy, open emotions, which make you act depressingly. In the extreme situation or when you have hidden hostility, you openly show your sharp irritation. You become ironic. You show your poor mood in the form of dark humour. You spend time alone when in a poor mood.

INTj
You show calm friendliness and positive emotions. When in a good mood you become sociable and witty. You make contact with close friends/relatives in a happy state. You pass on your optimistic attitude to the person you are with. You extinguish negative emotion by logical analysis.

wow, there are very good descriptions. Good, easy, simply written, descriptive, don't consist of machine-translated text... best INTj vs INTp that I've seen in a while.

[UDP]

It is not possible to obtain anything from you by force.

Don't you know who I am?
I'm an INTj, bitchhhhhhhhh~!!


Quite true.

"God damn right they cain't"

[Phaedrus]

Let's summarize the comments:

INTj:
INTp:

At least there is more truth to this than to the opposite view (INTj: , INTp: ), don't you agree?

I don't think INTps in outside of Russia are like that.

Maybe it depends on what we mean here. Rick has put some pessimists in his INTj gallery, but I think that I disagree with at least one of them, and in general I think that INTps are more pessimistic than INTjs in the sense that they are more inclined to be determinists and even fatalists -- passive, disillusioned and resigned observers of the world, the activity of others, and the inactivity of themselves. And even though INTps are said to be successful in business matters, I think that only applies to a minority, and that many of them have trouble finding a satisfying job career. INTjs, on the other hand, are more successful in academia (one of the most successful of all the types) and other fields due to their rational behaviour. The second description

"INTjs are rational types, which make them decisive. They know what they want, and they have have clearly-defined views. Their accepting T can make them seem insistent, and even forceful. INTps are irrational types, which causes them to want to keep their options open. Furthermore, because Se is their dual-seeking function, that means it's generally weak and an area that they rely on others for. Consequently, they're not inclined to appear like Se types, but will appear more as if they have a gap in the Se department, which Se types will want to fill."

is of course much more correct than the first one.

[Ms. Kensington]

INTp
If you are in good physical form, you are confident and energetic. You require “pushing” from someone in power, otherwise you are slack and lazy. You do not tolerate aggression. To maintain good physical health you take part in energetic sports, but you lack the will power to do it regularly.

INTj
You judge relationships between people according to their level of ease. You seek simple, democratic relationships. You are a soft and gentle person. You are not forceful. You have a need for territorial independence. You don’t know how to subordinate people. You poorly defend your day-to-day interests. You are indecisive. You are a cool, calm person. You ignore violence and power pressure. It is not possible to obtain anything from you by force.


INTp
You judge relationships according to emotions displayed by others. You get irritated by stormy, open emotions, which make you act depressingly. In the extreme situation or when you have hidden hostility, you openly show your sharp irritation. You become ironic. You show your poor mood in the form of dark humour. You spend time alone when in a poor mood.

INTj
You show calm friendliness and positive emotions. When in a good mood you become sociable and witty. You make contact with close friends/relatives in a happy state. You pass on your optimistic attitude to the person you are with. You extinguish negative emotion by logical analysis.

I relate slightly more with INTj on both functions. I just realized that i related to all of this.

[Jonathan]

many of them have trouble finding a satisfying job career.

Yes, I think that's extremely true of Ni types in general. It's not that they can't find okay jobs, but many Ni types dream of careers that are hard to pull off.

However, I also think that irrational types often take themselves less seriously than rational types, and are more able to just enjoy life and ignore the lack of meeting certain objectives.

Sometimes, I have seen rational types get very depressed, because they think that they have figured out or experienced "the way it is." I have observed this in some INTjs and Fe types. Sometimes people feel that they have reached the limit of knowledge, that they've figured everything out, or that there's no more left to do....which can make them very unhappy.

Of course, any type can be depressed, or happy...

[UDP]

Yeah, I' can relate to the rational description there.
The only thing left for me is doing. Thinking, discorvering, I just see limitations, generally.

But at the same time, I worry about careers

[Dmitri Lytov]

You are indecisive.

It's not exact description of INTj. In fact, they are not "indecisive", they have the inborn problem called "I need more information". For this reason, socionic INTj's may even get scored P according to MBTI. They are rational and do not like obstacles on their way, they need to prepare in advance, because when they meet obstacles, they often prove to be too inertial to smash them.

By contrast, being irrational people, INTp's perceive life as a game of probabilities and veritabilities. They even like to play risky games, e.g. in politics or in business, but need strong "force support", because those who lost those games may want to revenge using "unsportsmanlike" methods. Their need for support is in fact engendered by their sense of fear; their allows to predict too many unpleasant events.

[Phaedrus]

I also think that irrational types often take themselves less seriously than rational types, and are more able to just enjoy life and ignore the lack of meeting certain objectives.

Are you sure about that when it comes to INTjs and INTps? It seems to contradict the quadra spirits and the Reinin dichotomies, where the Alpha INTjs would take life less seriously than the Gamma INTps. INTjs would belong to the Merry group of people and INTps to the Serious group.

(It would be interesting to hear what Dmitri Lytov thinks about it.)

You are indecisive.

It's not exact description of INTj. In fact, they are not "indecisive"

I definitely agree with this, and I think that any talk about INTjs as "indecisive" is clearly misleading. A typical trait of every real life INTj I have met is that they know what they want, and they tend to get irritated by the behaviour of some irrational types (for example INTps) who postpone and hesitate in practical matters too much.

By contrast, being irrational people, INTp's perceive life as a game of probabilities and veritabilities. They even like to play risky games, e.g. in politics or in business, but need strong "force support", because those who lost those games may want to revenge using "unsportsmanlike" methods. Their need for support is in fact engendered by their sense of fear; their allows to predict too many unpleasant events.

This also makes a lot of sense and is consistent with my view on INTjs and INTps. Wouldn't an INTp be rather lost in the real world (more so than an INTj) without a strong support? To say that

Gammas value which means that they're kind of forceful and even jock-like. Furthermore, INTps have Te which makes them business-like, practical, and even more forceful.

isn't that to confuse what INTps want (but lack) with what they are good at? They are not good at things, and therefore they are often perceived as impractical, passive observers -- dreamers in a world they are not the most well suited to survive in.

It is interesting that Socionics and MBTT agree on which is the weakest function of INTjs/INTJs and INTps/INTPs. For example, the PolR of an INTp is , and because it is the weakest function it coincides with the inferior Fe of INTPs in MBTT. The expression of this weak function in INTps and INTPs is described in very much the same way in both models. But whereas MBTT seem to be leaning towards the view that INTPs therefore need and seek Fe (similar to a dual-seeking function in Socionics), Socionics says that INTps seek . The socionic view on the dual-seeking function of INTps makes more sense to me than the MBTT view on INTPs (assuming, as I do, that they are describing the same group of people), and the explanation for the mistake in MBTT is of course that they incorrectly believe that the dominant function of an INTP is Ti instead of Ni.

It is somewhat less clear when it comes to INTjs and INTJs, because and Se are described differently in Socionics and MBTT. Here the behaviour of an INTJ under extreme stress might be more explainable in terms of an INTj's hidden agenda ( ), but, as we all know, there is no consensus on these matters in Socionics, and I am not sure what to think about it myself.

[Slacker]

I can't imagine anyone calling an INTj indecisive. The INTjs I know are most annoyed by my indecisiveness. Oh wait, no, probably my inability to follow through on things. Hmm, maybe it's that they think I'm not very reliable . . . Hmmmmmm dunno.

(yeah I did that on purpose)


Oh I think they also don't like that I just skim over posts, don't really read anything in depth and don't even try to understand what was written, and then comment anyway.

[krieger]

What makes you think we don't do it too?

Dmitri Lytov's 'wanting more information' thing applies in my case.

[Kristiina]

Lytov's post is interesting. I have a hard time with decisions because I constantly need more information to eliminate realistic negative possibilities that I have foreseen. Is that the combination of valuing both and ? BTW, I got INTj on Lytov's test.

[Jonathan]

You are indecisive.

It's not exact description of INTj. In fact, they are not "indecisive", they have the inborn problem called "I need more information". For this reason, socionic INTj's may even get scored P according to MBTI.

This is very interesting. I know we've discussed this before, but I seem to never tire of probing deeper regarding your insights on this topic.

I have often remarked that descriptions of rationality/irrationality in Socionics sound like descriptions of J/P in MBTI, causing the theories to be directly contradictory regarding the behavior of introverts. (For example, on your site, "The socionic criterion of rationality/irrationality, according to Jung, describes rigidity or lability of the central neural system. Rational types are rigid, judgment-focused: they strive for being consistent, systematic in their deeds, keep plans even when situation changes. By contrast, irrational people are more flexible, perception-focused: they adapt to the changing situation, and their emotional outbursts do not last too long, even when they are strong. ")

How would you characterize the "I need more information" problem and its ramifications in behavior? Do you mean simply a quest for more knowledge, or a need to keep gathering information in order to make or be certain about decisions?

If it's the latter, maybe the two theories aren't as contradictory as they might appear.

[Tov]

Maybe they need more information in order to go through with a plan, otherwise they choose to not do it at that moment or not at all. Some people associate that with indecisiveness since the decission is masked.

[krieger]

they strive for being consistent, systematic in their deeds, keep plans even when situation changes.

I think if you're going to interpret the descriptions literally you'll find them to apply to the topmost 'well-defined' judgers only (ISTj, ESTj)... Keep in mind that INTj's have 'not-well-defined' perception; while we are rigid and unbending about what we want, we are vague, global and a bit indecisive about how to get there.

[Tov]

while we are rigid and unbending about what we want, we are vague, global and a bit indecisive about how to get there.

I thought this out before I even finished reading it.

[Jonathan]

they strive for being consistent, systematic in their deeds, keep plans even when situation changes.

I think if you're going to interpret the descriptions literally you'll find them to apply to the topmost 'well-defined' judgers only (ISTj, ESTj)... Keep in mind that INTj's have 'not-well-defined' perception; while we are rigid and unbending about what we want, we are vague, global and a bit indecisive about how to get there.

Well, if Socionics descriptions of rat/irrat are incorrect, then they should be revised.

When you say "while we are rigid and unbending about what we want, we are vague, global and a bit indecisive about how to get there," you seem to be echoing the functions: Ti-rigid, Ne-vague/global.

The question is whether functions 1&2 are sort of co-equal, or if one dominates. Socionists seem to disagree on that question. Those who see them as co-equal are more likely to view things as described by "Josh." Those who view the accepting function as way stronger than the creative one will tend to have the reverse view.

BTW, why do you see yourself as a Ti subtype?

Also, in your view, who is more decisive....LIIs or ILIs?

[UDP]

they strive for being consistent, systematic in their deeds, keep plans even when situation changes.

I think if you're going to interpret the descriptions literally you'll find them to apply to the topmost 'well-defined' judgers only (ISTj, ESTj)... Keep in mind that INTj's have 'not-well-defined' perception; while we are rigid and unbending about what we want, we are vague, global and a bit indecisive about how to get there.

Ti via Ne

[krieger]

The question is whether functions 1&2 are sort of co-equal, or if one dominates. Socionists seem to disagree on that question. Those who see them as co-equal are more likely to view things as described by "Josh." Those who view the accepting function as way stronger than the creative one will tend to have the reverse view.

This also raises the question wether there is a point at which the accepting function grows so strong in comparison to the creative function that the former completely supresses the latter's influence. Since I currently think the perception functions and judgment functions serve different purposes, I find this hard to believe.

If there are tasks that can only be handled by the perception function, then, even the most concentrated Ti subtype INTj will display the characteristics of a person with an intuitive perception function when executing these tasks.

Now what if there was not a split between the judgment and perception functions... That's a bit of a disconcerting thought, since then it would almost be pointless to speak of functions at all. Maybe smilex is right and there exists such a thing as an INTj/ISTj border type.

BTW, why do you see yourself as a Ti subtype?

It was suggested by smilingeyes. Does your insight tell you something different?

Also, in your view, who is more decisive....LIIs or ILIs?

The LII is probably more decisive. But keep in mind decisive and forceful mean completely different things. Language is an issue here.

[Jonathan]

BTW, why do you see yourself as a Ti subtype?

It was suggested by smilingeyes. Does your insight tell you something different?

There's not a lot here that's definitive about recognizing subtypes, and there's probably even less agreement in that area than with types.

However, the openness you seem to show to different perspectives suggests to me that you're more likely an Ne subtype.

Some subtype literature suggests that a Ti subtype would be closer to that INTj/ISTj border type that you mentioned.

On the other hand, I think a lot of T people view themselves as T subtypes if only to point out the strong value they give to clear logic.

[tcaudilllg]

subtype would be very unopen because they seem to follow their inner sense of certitude more rigidly. subtypes will take some time to work it out before coming to a conclusion; subtypes just "know" it.

He definitely seems subtype to me.

[Gilly]

subtype would be very unopen because they seem to follow their inner sense of certitude more rigidly.

This is precisely the opposite of the truth.