Differences between LII-INTj and ILI-INTp

[Phaedrus]

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

No they are not.

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

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

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

[MysticSonic]

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

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

[Expat]

Phaedrus,

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

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

[Olga]

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

[Phaedrus]

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

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

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

MysticSonic, Expat and everyone else,

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[MysticSonic]

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

Yep.

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

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

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

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

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

See above.

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

That is not necessarily so.

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

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

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

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

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

[Rocky]

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

[MysticSonic]

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

Probably.

[Olga]

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

[Rocky]

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

[Expat]

@Phaedrus

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

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

[niveK]

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

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

[Rocky]

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

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

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

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

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

[Hugo]

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

12 functions???

[niveK]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Phaedrus]

@Expat

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

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

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

[Phaedrus]

@MysticSonic

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

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

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

[niveK]

@MysticSonic

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

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

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

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

[Phaedrus]

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

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

[Rocky]

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

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

[niveK]

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

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

This presumes that the functions are entirely coded in the physical structure of the brain instead of being dynamically created to serve the psyche. Think of it as the difference of hardware vs software on a PC (I assume you're familiar enough with computing to understand this analogy). One must not have a change of hardware to change the software on the PC, excepting when the software requires more computing power than is currently available. However, this factor is irrelevent to the discussion. The analogy isn't perfect, but it communicates what I'm saying.

[niveK]

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

This sort of creates and chicken and egg paradox. In , the facts effect the creation of logical system. In , the system effects the creation of facts. There's clear causality there. I'm not sure how the causality would work with ambiverted functions.

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

And thus why both sides of the function exist in the psyche, one conscious, the other unconscious. This, I think, is that magical concept of "balance" of which so many people speak, but few seem able to actually define. (and I'm personifying here) must accept that sometimes the system needs modification. , likewise, must accept that "facts" can be wrong. This perhaps wouldn't be the case if perception were somehow perfectly objective, but since its imperfect, modifications are necessary.

On a semi-related note: While thinking through this, it also occurred to me how, while we consider E to be objective and I to be subjective, while T and F can also be consider objective and subjective, respectively. T is concerned with "facts," immutable characteristics of the universe in which we live. F is concerned with "ethics," concepts created by the human mind and society to facilitate the coexistence of humans. Therefore, T is in its way objective, while F is subjective.

Likewise, we can somewhat apply similar qualities to S and N. S percieves reality "as is," while N (as I see it) percieves reality in connections and trends similar to those that facilitate memory (note how one can more easily remember a series of known three letter words than a series of "words" consisting of three random letters). Thus S, in its way shows objectivity, while N is the subjective side.

As I recall, somewhere on this board (I think) someone posted the idea that ESTj's are the most "objective" type. This seems to fit rather well with the thoughts I've expressed here.


Should we start a new thread and let these people get back to INTj vs INTp?

[niveK]

F is concerned with "ethics," concepts created by the human mind and society to facilitate the coexistence of humans.

After further thought, I'm no longer pleased with this definition for F. I'm not entirely sure how to explain how it fits with . I'll reword it in a minute.

[Ms. Kensington]

i will also bold those things that apply to me because its fun.

hmm italicized portions are things that are half truths.

INTj

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

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

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

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

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

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

Mentally intense.

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

Writing style: lifeless and robotic

Speaking tone: informal and somewhat high pitch

Listening: daydreams during a conversation

Posture: slouching

Intuition: detached from the present reality







INTp

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

Does productive (Te) things calmly (Ni).

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

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

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

Mentally tranquil.

Reading style: reading every word and sentence calmly.

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

Speaking tone: seriousness and somewhat low pitch

Listening: attentive

Posture: more or less upright

Intuition: attached to the present reality

listening depends on if the person i am listening to

[Ms. Kensington]

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

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

hm well its a warrior mentality, not a warrior-- do-ality so i would agree with that description. I think i would live and die for my ideas, or close to it. I know i've suffered greatly for them already.

[Cone]

I've always seen INTps and INTjs as both being characterized by an avoidant personality, but they differ on how they achieve such a goal. An avoidant person mainly is concerned with becoming increasingly independent of their environment, which may mean both being undefined by it (not following trends, interests are esoteric, goals are not directly involved with socially-predefined goals) and being independent of it (escaping the group mentality, goals go unchecked with environmental trends, needs and wants are very minimal). There are two ways of achieving this effect: prediction (INTj) and avoidance (INTp). The INTj sacrifices some of his independence in order to more effectively predict a path for avoiding external influences. This means he looks more socially-integrated than the INTp and will often be interested in many things considered "normal" by society. However, his "normal" interests are lower in count than other types that use a strategy like his. All of this allows him to "blend in with the crowd" and appear nearly invisible, while allowing him to also measure environmental trends accurately to predict and avoid potentially dangerous things. The INTp is more focused on preserving his independence no matter the circumstances. He does this by effectively removing himself from his environment (removing responsibilities) and watching for anything that looks like a threat. Thus he is more socially-awkward and esoteric than the INTj, however he is also usually smoother and calmer. One way of securing himself from small external influences is by adopting an uncaring attitude that makes him invulnerable to irking.

[Jonathan]

Cone: There are two ways of achieving this effect: prediction (INTj) and avoidance (INTp). The INTj sacrifices some of his independence in order to more effectively predict a path for avoiding external influences. This means he looks more socially-integrated than the INTp and will often be interested in many things considered "normal" by society. However, his "normal" interests are lower in count than other types that use a strategy like his. All of this allows him to "blend in with the crowd" and appear nearly invisible, while allowing him to also measure environmental trends accurately to predict and avoid potentially dangerous things. The INTp is more focused on preserving his independence no matter the circumstances. He does this by effectively removing himself from his environment (removing responsibilities) and watching for anything that looks like a threat. Thus he is more socially-awkward and esoteric than the INTj

Interesting. Most descriptions of INTp say that INTps are the predictors. Actually, that's supposed to be the chief characteristic of INTps....not to say that's correct, though. Your view may be more correct. But what I notice is that your view of INTps and INTjs appears quite different, even opposite, from Gaypog's

[Jonathan]

Of course, this relates to what is now probably apparent to most people here about Socionics...namely that there are many different strains of thought, not always as convergent as we might expect. That may be one reason why people have such a hard time typing themselves and others. However, as this thread shows, one of the most salient dichotomies appears to be between the ABCD=ABCd school and the IJ=Ip/IP=Ij school.

Much of what seems mysterious about Socionics becomes much clearer when you recognize these two schools. Rather than simply argue for one of these schools or another, I think we need to accept that different parts of Socionics thought are influenced by one of these schools or the other, and that sometimes descriptions, etc., have a little bit of influence from both schools, which makes it messy, but that's the way it is.

"ABCD=ABCd" proponents tend to describe Ip and Ij types in ways consistent with Socionics conceptions of what rational and irrational types are supposed to be like.

They like to point out things like this:
isn't just understanding; it's a judging function, so a Ti-dominant person must be very decided about things.

INTps are often described as liking to play a passive role socially, so they can focus on their "inner world."

INTjs are described as people who fight for a certain position; they seem to be more connected with society's structures than INTps. [EDIT: MysticSonic, I just noticed your point that it's just a few descriptions that say that....But one of those is by that Str....skaya person that so many people like, and we can't forget that Augusta's naming the INTj type after Robespierre was apparently intended to emphasize that interpretation.]

Posts by Phaedrus, Dmitri and Rick tend towards this school.

****

In contrast, the IJ=Ip/IP=Ij school people tend to like to focus more on quadra descriptions. A common thing that is said by people in this school is that " is understanding." In this school of thought, means finding an organized principle behind the way things are.

Of course, understanding things doesn't necessarily lead to decisiveness; quite the opposite; the more relationships, categories and complexities you see, the less likely that you'll make "black and white" decisions. So people of this school tend to see INTjs as free-wheeling, easy-going, big-picture people who aren't very decisive in life but are very logical in their analysis.

People in the IJ=Ip/IP=Ij school tend to like to play down Socionics descriptions of rational and irrational types; they see these as a throw-back to MBTI. However, their definitions of the functions are much closer to MBTI than to the ABCD=ABCd Socionists.

Gaypog's post, while well thought out in terms of definitions outside of Socionics, is a clear expressino of the IJ=Ip/IP=Ij school, and somewhat at odds with many Socionists, but still representing a school of thought that has influence in many Socionics descriptions, especially when it comes to the quadras.

Here are some examples:

INTj...

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

Note that many Socionists see doing something productive as more related to than to , and that as a 2nd function doesn't necessarily make someone practical-focused.

Observant of small details (Si) in the surroundings, rather than being observant of the whole surroundings (Ne suppresses Se).

These definitions of Si and Se are very insightful, but different from the way Socionists typically define them. An ISFp may have a certain "scanning" quality, which is why other typologies see ISFP as having extraverted sensing. but Socionics definitions and in different terms.

INTp...

Crystal clear observation of his whole surroundings (Se). Is doubtless dues to excellent observation and reliance on that observation (Se).

This statement is probably the most at odds with the ABCD=ABCd school. I would imagine that many INTps here would say that statement describes INTjs more than INTps. ...that is, not that INTjs have strong , but that they're more in tune with the extrernal environment than INTps, who are more focused on their imaginations, theories, and pet projects.

[Cone]

Interesting. Most descriptions of INTp say that INTps are the predictors. Actually, that's supposed to be the chief characteristic of INTps....not to say that's correct, though. Your view may be more correct. But what I notice is that your view of INTps and INTjs appears quite different, even opposite, from Gaypog's

INTps ARE the predictors--but only because it is more obvious in INTps than it is in INTjs. There are two different types of prediction: an INTp predicts things in order to avoid them by a direct escapement, a coward's way out, if you will. An INTj predicts things in order to CONTROL them, to order them, to reduce their power. This type of prediction is much, much more long-term and much, much more heuristical. What do you think is the point of a judging type being neat and orderly? Or being highly moral? Or being highly rational-like? It is not obvious that this behavior is a form of prediction, thus the INTp gets the rep for being the psychic.

[Olga]

Well, I wanted to discuss the Sergei's article but I will try to say what I think here without critics. I have got no idea about MBTI and do not read much of socionics either at the moment. For me however things are clear and I can not quite understand why people mix and much characteristics of both types. I did like what NiveK wrote. Potentially I think it would be good if INTPs and INTJs could create a nice description of both types showing the differnces more clearly in detail.

I am not going to say much new as I think it has been already said a lot.
I am not sure about 12 functions at the moment. I would like to consider the types from the point of model B. I am gonna to look into psychdynamics and interaction of functions. As my understanding is limited please fill free to correct and to fill in the gaps.

INTJ: attracts INTJ on the automatic/subconscous level. It can be software or something logical which has got an application in the real world and logical structure. Why it does attracts him instantly? Because he has got - ability to think in terms of pure logic and to take the thing apart and to look what is inside. It is a toy for him and he likes to play with his toys. So he will not be attracted as much to because it is a pure theory. Why to go to study theory if he is naturally good at it?
For example, I am ISFJ who is hardly reads Bible or philosphy or anything like that. So INTJ just needs a few clues and he can pick it up on the wind. ISFJ is poor on theory and that is why he is studying this and that and enjoyes it.

So objectively existing reality Te attracts Ti. Because Te and Ti are associated with rationality - INTJ is attracted to rationality and collects a rational info. When info is collected the irrational and extraverted process of producing begins Ne : possibilities of what you can do with the object in space and what possibilities the object has got. Because he exercises this function a lot at the end of the day he will develop a good Ni a learning process of causality. This next step is called external producing. INTJ will say to you what you can do and not to do with the object. It will show you an amount of possibilities. So rational INTJ will produce irrational info and will think about consequences after the exploration of the many possibilities of the object.. he may sunk in the process of everlasting considering and changing if it is to do with his major interest.

INTPs will do things on the opposite. They will be attracted to real life possibilities instantly and subconsciously because they have got abilities to play with all different possibilities like with Lego, they can consider different possibilities and direct them the way they want. I guess it is fun for them. That is why it is difficult to argue with them - they can always turn it the way they want to and you will be in trap. This is irrational info, they catch it on the wind. After irrational info is internally collected - you have to act upon it. What are you going to do if you have an ability to direct possibilities in time inside of your mind ?
You need to apply this ability to the reality and see what it will produce. The rational process of external producing begins. INTP will apply the intuition of the development in time to the real world objects turning them up and down from all possible perspectives until he is sure that he has actually created the real product of something you can touch and feel., something which is going to have life - something rational Te.and he isnot going to be lost in time as he feels time better thatn INTJ.
While exercising this external rational producing he will eventually get enough understanding of Ti - which is what? Abstract logical thinking.

As you can see there are a lot similarities between both but there are differences which you can not possibly mix up. I hope that I made myself clear. The idea is that INTPs and INTJ are slightly different as regards to their natural gifts. It is also expected according to the personality development that practice makes master and will they acquire the qualities of each other and they are going to change if they really want to be happy and to achieve Nirvana (a joke). However I do not suggest that they will change to the degree that they will change the type because their inborn mechanisms will attract them potentially to different aspects of life. They develop the qualities of the opposite only to the degree which will support them to balance themselves as too much of anything makes no good.

I have considered only two first functions and only two blocks from Life wheel, not much has been said about Id block but I gave clear idea what properties suppose to make them happy, content, fulfilled..

[Jonathan]

What Olga says makes a lot of sense and corresponds quite well to my observations. Both INTps and INTjs use a lot of & , and see those in the other. This is what makes typing people (as opposed to typing structures) so difficult. After one has mastered different ways of thinking, it can be quite hard to know what the "natural" abilities are.

In reality, people are a complex mix, and the 16-type model is at best an approximation...a theory that seeks to understand a real reality, but one that's many times more complicated.

Even the functions themselves are at best clusters of qualities that are merely typically related, and that in actual people may appear in different degrees and combinations.

Going beyond Rocky's idea of a middle ground between extraverted and introverted extremes of a function (which makes perfect sense to me), one can further notice that people often habitually direct functions in certain very specific ways. So, for example, describing the use of functions as introverted or extraverted is sort of like only having the words "North" and "South" to describe a complex terrain.

This isn't to suggest that there isn't a core reality, or that the simplifications inherent in typology aren't useful; but circumstances constantly remind us that the realities are far more complicated than the simplified models.

And of course, complicating things further is the existence of behaviors that may not necessarily have a strong correlation with type dynamics. I sense from the quadra descriptions that some INTjs or others want to describe INTps as rowdy, materialistic jocks, which doesn't seem to describe practically anyone here who considers him or herself an INTp. One thing that may promote such descriptions is that there are people who are a certain way, and others want to place them in a type. But in fact, there is no "rowdy" type; there is no "mean" type, or any such thing. There simply are people like that, and others often assume that the behavior is due to Sonionics type, leading them to describe the entire type in those terms.

[Phaedrus]

Was Ludwig Wittgenstein an INTj or was he an INTp?

I would like to decide this question once and hopefully for all, if that is practically possible. Do you have an opinion on this matter? If so, how sure are you and why?

I think that how one is inclined to answer this question might have something, or even very much, to do with one's conception of how INTjs and INTps are in general. I agree with Jonathan that there seems to be what we could call two schools of thought here. It would also be beneficial to know which of these two "schools" you think is closest to your own view of the relation between the types described in Socionics and MBTI. That is especially important if you happen to believe that Wittgenstein was a different type in different models.

Comments on this discussion (which some of you might have missed) are very welcome. It is taken from the thread Truth: oldforumlinkviewtopic.php?t=4474&start=45

Phaedrus:

Ms. Kensington wrote:
This is interesting, because this discussion of Ti truth reminds me of the TRactatus (wittgenstein), who we all know was our favorite INTp.

I still haven't heard any arguments for the claim that Wittgenstein was an INTp. I have said several times that I think that Wittgenstein was an INTj, and that is also Rick's estimation of Wittgenstein's type. I don't rule out the possibility that Wittgenstein was an INTp, but the impression he gives me is of an INTj more than an INTp.

Can't you try to argue for your claim that he was an INTp? I really want to know how you think. Even though I now think that Wittgenstein was wrong about many things, there was a time when I was heavily influenced by his philosophy (the later W. mostly).

Ms. Kensington:
I suppose i have rather unscientific reasons for thinking W. was INTp, but then again, what is scientific about other holistic typing methods in socionics.

One thing i think was present in both earlier and later W. is the style in which the philosophy was presented, as a kind of, well, holistic way. It was something that could not be explained really, you'd have to either get it or not get it. And this kind of thinking is what i see consistent with Ni, not Ti. When is the last time an INTj did not think something could be explained, even if this explanation was poorly delivered? A personal antecdote:I am an INTj, and while i felt cut from the same cloth as Kant I had to rearrange my mind to study W. For example, my method for studying W. was to read one of those one liners, then close my book and look off into space until i "got" it. *giggle*

Upon further thought, i see that his behaviors--speaking as if making an earth shattering revelation with each statement, with the great emotonal pain of someone passing a gallstone--could be characteristic of INTjs as well.

So, i am not sure that W. is an INTp. Perhaps it was not his thoughts but his diction that made study difficult. However i know some people from gamma who seem to have the opposite problem as me.

So, it is his holistic way of presenting his thoughts that made me initially think INTp. There is a religious quality to the thought--"the mystical" comes to mind--but more a sort of final quality to them... i hope you understand what I mean. You either get it or you don't, that attitude. While an INTj could feel awe at things, be religious, and look as if passing a gallstone when speaking, he would explain it not only with examples but also with a string of something he called logic to point the direction.

Phaedrus:
Now, this is interesting, and it might be relevant to the ongoing discussion in the thread INTp v INTj here:

http://oldforumlinkviewtopic.php?t=4...er=asc&start=0

You see things like

One thing i think was present in both earlier and later W. is the style in which the philosophy was presented, as a kind of, well, holistic way. It was something that could not be explained really, you'd have to either get it or not get it.

and

There is a religious quality to the thought--"the mystical" comes to mind--but more a sort of final quality to them... i hope you understand what I mean. You either get it or you don't, that attitude.

as arguments for INTp. But I have only seen that attitude in INTjs (and perhaps in some other types too), never in INTps.

Another interesting thing is that you say that you had to "rearrange" your mind to study Wittgenstein. It was the same for me too. It took me a couple of years of intensive study to come to the point where I thought that I understood his philosophy.

Here are some arguments for the hypothesis that Wittgeinstein was an INTj:

1. His philosophical thinking was alien to Bertrand Russell's, who was an probably an ENTj, even though some socionists claim that he was an ENFp, and I myself have thought that Russell was an INTp, because it has always been so easy for me to understand what he is talking about and his arguments.

Russell is a clear example of the scientific approach to philosophical problems, which I also have myself, and which I see as one of the main characteristics of the objectivist group of philosophers, emanating from Socrates (INTp), going through the empiricist tradition and the Enlightenment in general to the analytical school of today's philosophy. The central aim of the objectivist philosophers is to find Truth.

Wittgenstein's philosophical thinking is not scientific in the same sense. Many of his influences are obscure, mystical writers, and in many ways he is much more a representative of the subjectivist group of philosophers, emanating from the sophists (for example Protagoras). Kant could also be a representative of that group, and many believe that Kant was an INTj.

The main characteristic of the subjectivist group of philosophers is their focus on the limitations of human knowledge, which often leads them to embrace relativistic theories of truth and knowledge. They tend to talk about different cultures, different kinds of science, different belief systems, different language games, different forms of life ... We can see clear examples of this kind of philosophical thinking in hermeneutics and today's postmodernists. Many of the philosophers in the continental tradition I would put in that group, like Heidegger and most of the French philosophers. The central aim of the subjectivist philosophers is (I think) to find Meaning.

2. Wittgenstein took criticism very personally. That trait I have seen in real life INTjs, but not at all to the same extent in INTps. According to Jung it can be seen in Ti-dominant types.

3. Wittgenstein's religious beliefs, his obsession with thoughts about sin, guilt, how he was going to be judged etc. -- all of that I see as arguments for INTj and against INTp.

So, I can't help to wonder ... How can you be so sure that you are an INTj, Ms. Kensington? Are you really sure that you are not an INTp, who, in the exact same way as I and Jonathan did, think that you are an INTj because of some faulty and easily misinterpreted descriptions of INTjs and INTps and the and functions? There was a time when I was so sure that I was an INTj, but I was wrong. I am an INTp and an INTP. If you really are an INTj, you should clearly identify more with the MBTI descriptions of INTJs than with the MBTI descriptions of INTPs.

So, i am not sure that W. is an INTp. Perhaps it was not his thoughts but his diction that made study difficult. However i know some people from gamma who seem to have the opposite problem as me.

What are you referring to here? Which problem do they from Gamma have?

[Olga]

Thanks to Jonanthan.

I think you right we need to keep the description of type as objective as possible because people are too sensitive to negative info about them.
Again, if you say about somebody like me- slowheaded, it will not impact negatively because it is true: my feelings work faster than my head. But it should be an explanation there that disadvantage of this is because of advantage like that.

As far as I understand the forum members are mainly interested in understanding the types to the degree that typing people will be as easy and accurate as possible. We do criticise or develop new insight not because we are interested to do it for the sake of it but for our own benefit of understanding. For example, if I or somebody say something too hard or too idiotic - we should take it easy because at the end of the day I am very thankful to tohers to provide the perspectives which are different to mine. It make me aat least aware that the world is not as I see it throgh my eyes and the conflict of viewpoints is often interesting. We do not need to agree with each other on every little detail.


I wanted to tell something else about INTP and INTJs briefly. The well known difference between them is that INTPs like to argue around and INTJs not. What purpose it has? May be you did not infer it clearly from what I said abovethese types? I don't think it is the way Sergei presented it in his article.

When INTP argues it seems as irrational exercise because they will doubt and criticise everything for the sake of the arguement to go on. What purpose it does exactly serves? Yes, it has been mentioned the INTP's reference to the facts. INTPs consider any perspective from the point of applied/practical logic which makes sense for him. His aim is to proove that you are actually talking nonsense, useless from the point of the practical logic in the worst scenario or in the better scenario he will agree that you are not a failure from the point of logic. The aim is practical - to prove their judgement. While you try prove them wrong they will find something else to ask or to say if only they understand what you aer talking about. if you take them into area of unknown like , they will say sorry I do not believe in things like that or they do not make sense from the point of . That was rational producing to find irrational meaning.

If you consider the thread "Truth" you will see how Phaedrus shwoed to me very quickly that I am talking nonsence from the point of (mix up different concepts) and reffered to the books of Phylosphy for the correct definition of the concept truth . thank you very much Phaedrus. If you would not do it - I would not have a fresh real life example.

INTJ like Ms. Kensington had no wish for some reason to argue that passionately with me. She agreed that what Phaedrus said did make sense to her due to the fact that she has ability in but somehow she pointed to a different possibility to consider the knowldege about truth from different (wholistic) perspective (of one of the philosophers) which results in a certain consequences (you either get it or you not get it). Which was actually irrational producing to find the rational meaning.

There was however more agreement between Phaedrus/INTP and Expat/ENTj, it looks like they understand better where they both come from. I do not tremember exactly what was the problem about but they did find sense in what they meant.


ISFJ, me, said that is not easy to grasp quickly and that I do not really bothered about correctenes of what I am saying from the point of logic . And then I showed that no matter what people say I got a power of ( air) to get you in places you can not expect (all around) which however will be related not to or but - the world of people to find the insight in order to find that little detail you are looking for . I remember what niveK (If i remember right?) said about the difference of Se and Si. That was irratonal producing to find the ratonal meaning.

I have analysed functions of somet types and as you see there will be differences between the types because their functions will be at large affected by what is the base function. I guess the of INTJ will be different from of INFJ, so of INTP will be different from that of ISTP and of ISTJ will be different from of ISFJ.

When we become very clear about those differences we shall be able to type people more correctly because we shall know that this type of behaviour is aimed to produce this and that or manifest that and this interset. I am not sure if we should go deeper in subtypes until we can see clearly these differences between the types.

I have considered types only from interaction of two major functions. something which is strongly represented in type behaviour something which should be obvious to the observer. Thanks again to those who understand what I am writing - you keep me going.

[Olga]

I have posted my last post and then I discovered the one of Phaedrus.
Interesting. I do not know the philosofers or I know the names and that is all. INTPs have more rational approach and INTJs wondering approach.
INTPs want to prove that the world is a black sqaured box and INTJ are not interested to prove things like that , they are more preoccupied with possibilities. You right the difference is between form and meaning, shape and content. May be we all look the same or have sort of the same shape but the content is more obscure that what we can see with our eyes or grasp with our brains.

[FDG]

Phaedrus: I cannot, and therefore will not, produce a definitive argument in response to your questions. However, I can safely say that:

- Wittgenstein came extremely easy to understand for me; everything he wrote was exactly what I had previously thought about the issues he wrote about; therefore, I grasped everything at first read.

- On the contrary, Betrand Russel was unreadable. In spite of agreeeing with his conclusion, I could not follow his - muddled, IMHO - line of reasoning throughout his longer essays. I have no problem with the short and concise ones, but I have real trouble understanding the long ones.

[Phaedrus]

- Wittgenstein came extremely easy to understand for me; everything he wrote was exactly what I had previously thought about the issues he wrote about; therefore, I grasped everything at first read.

Okay, I could also say that I find him easy to read in a sense. Perhaps too easy to read. But do you also think that you have understood Wittgenstein correctly? According to Wittgenstein himself almost nobody in the whole world understood him correctly. Many tried to follow in his footsteps, but everyone misunderstood his points, and draw the wrong conclusions, he thought. And there are a lot of different interpretations of his philosophy. Do you agree with him or not? Are you a wittgensteinian or do you think that his philosophy (as you understand it) is mistaken (= false)?

- On the contrary, Betrand Russell was unreadable. In spite of agreeeing with his conclusion, I could not follow his - muddled, IMHO - line of reasoning throughout his longer essays. I have no problem with the short and concise ones, but I have real trouble understanding the long ones.

I agree with you that the shorter ones are probably more readable. Do you agree with Russell's conclusions in general? I don't mean all of them, rather his approach to philosophy and science in contrast to Wittgenstein's?

How certain are you of your own type, FDG? Is it possible or impossible for you to imagine that you might be another type, for example an INTj? (The only reason I ask this question is to secure the foundation of further possible arguments based on what we know of people and their types.)

[Olga]

I wonder what are you talking about: the form of presentation of thougts and ideas? Is it rational or irrational form, the pattern? Can you associate wit colour, rythm? It would be interesting to have a look at list on the style of writing. Phaedrus, may be you could find a link or something for those who have no idea what you are talking about? Or provide pictures - e could try to VI them.

[Phaedrus]

Bertrand Russell's type is not really the issue here, since we are discussing the differences between INTps and INTjs, and (to my knowledge) no one has seriously claimed that he was any of those two types. But Wittgenstein was definitely either an INTp or an INTj. Any other type is out the question in his case. Here are a couple of links:

About Wittgenstein's style of writing:
http://users.rcn.com/rathbone/lwtocc.htm
http://www.galilean-library.org/pi1.html

Pictures of Wittgenstein:
http://www.socionics.us/celebrities/lii.shtml
http://images.google.se/images?svnum...&btnG=S%C3%B6k

[Hugo]

i will also bold those things that apply to me because its fun.

hmm italicized portions are things that are half truths.

INTj

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

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

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

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

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

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

Mentally intense.

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

Writing style: lifeless and robotic

Speaking tone: informal and somewhat high pitch

Listening: daydreams during a conversation

Posture: slouching

Intuition: detached from the present reality







INTp

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

Does productive (Te) things calmly (Ni).

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

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

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

Mentally tranquil.

Reading style: reading every word and sentence calmly.

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

Speaking tone: seriousness and somewhat low pitch

Listening: attentive

Posture: more or less upright

Intuition: attached to the present reality

listening depends on if the person i am listening to

Ms K I'd say you are intp

[Hugo]

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.