Is my type INFp or INTp?

[Lord Java the 3rd]

I think maybe ILI, only think is though is that i've noticed you giving conflicting information more than once now..one i just noticed here is you said you've been into this stuff for three years, but then in an earlier post you said you didn't know much about it and were just starting out. You know the other stuff as well. It just makes me think about what information can be taken at face value. However, maybe I don't understand your motivation(s) yet, i'm just making some observations, you'll find your feet and all that.

Also..Khamelion is amazing. But then why do I state the obvious?

Socionics is new to me, MBTI is not. They use the same functions, and the functions I have been into for quite a while.

I'm starting to wonder about you Cyclops, I've seen some of your posts at Socionics.com and have to say, you're quite the intelligent person. You like to pretend to fall back on logic, but really, you have a weak mind, unable understand what people say, your arguments prove that much.

You're logical when ever someone says something you don't understand. You cut yourself off and either don't try to understand, or are unable to understand. I'm thinking it's the latter.

[Creepy-Cyclops]

Socionics is new to me, MBTI is not. They use the same functions, and the functions I have been into for quite a while.

I'm starting to wonder about you Cyclops, I've seen some of your posts at Socionics.com and have to say, you're quite the intelligent person. You like to pretend to fall back on logic, but really, you have a weak mind, unable understand what people say, your arguments prove that much.

You're logical when ever someone says something you don't understand. You cut yourself off and either don't try to understand, or are unable to understand. I'm thinking it's the latter.

Sure. Maybe your right, because I've no idea wtf your talking about.

I've posted under a few names at socionics.com-certainly at the q&a section, infact i am often 'anonymous' I've noticed about you is that you underestimate other people intelligence, much to the point were people can see through your attempts at trying to be condescending towards people. I'll be honest and say I don't like your attitude, and I sense in you that you will attempt to be slippery with your words.

[Lord Java the 3rd]

Sure. Maybe your right, because I've no idea wtf your talking about.

I've posted under a few names at socionics.com-certainly at the q&a section, infact i am often 'anonymous' I've noticed about you is that you underestimate other people intelligence, much to the point were people can see through your attempts at trying to be condescending towards people. I'll be honest and say I don't like your attitude, and I sense in you that you will attempt to be slippery with your words.

Slippery? I said what I meant, how was that slippery?

My attitude? Ever since I started posting on this forum, you've been hounding me. You made a public statement saying that I'm a lier, what's to be upset about? And I know you don't understand, you are too busy defending something inside of you to reach out and try to understand. I'm not your enemy, stop posting negative comments at me.

I'm getting the impression that for you, 'logic' is a means for defending a nest. And that all people need to be made aware of your nest and how not do disturb it.

[Creepy-Cyclops]

My attitude? Ever since I started posting on this forum, you've been hounding me. You made a public statement saying that I'm a lier, what's to be upset about? And I know you don't understand, you are too busy defending something inside of you to reach out and try to understand. I'm not your enemy, stop posting negative comments at me.

I said you gave conflicting information. I said it was observation.. observation anyone can make who's read your posts. I said it on your thread here so you had every opportunity to correct it here. Perhaps you could stop putting words in my mouth here.

Fact that I reading your posts is something should taken as compliment. I really can't be bothered to lock horns with you.

You new poster and so maybe you are nervous or something..but like I said earlier..i'm sure you find your feet.

[Lord Java the 3rd]

I said you gave conflicting information. I said it was observation.. observation anyone can make who's read your posts. I said it on your thread here so you had every opportunity to correct it here. Perhaps you could stop putting words in my mouth here.

Fact that I reading your posts is something should taken as compliment. I really can't be bothered to lock horns with you.

You new poster and so maybe you are nervous or something..but like I said earlier..I'm sure you find your feet.

Oh, well, uh... maybe. I wouldn't say i was nervous, but perhaps something... I don't know, but it does seem to have some weight to it.

[Elro]

Socionics is new to me, MBTI is not. They use the same functions, and the functions I have been into for quite a while.

But the functions are defined differently.

[Lord Java the 3rd]

But the functions are defined differently.

Picky, aren't you. None the less, I'm familiar with the system, despite any superficial changes. You might argue, but I've seen no leaps. The things that are different is the inter type relations, the descriptions, well you know*more to the point, I don't*. Anyway, it's pretty much the same, I'm not a moron, so why did you say what you did?

[Joy]

I agree with everything ScarlettLux said. And there's something else that just really jumped off the screen at me:

Picky, aren't you.

This statement screams Te PoLR > Te ego.

None the less, I'm familiar with the system, despite any superficial changes. You might argue, but I've seen no leaps. The things that are different is the inter type relations, the descriptions, well you know*more to the point, I don't*. Anyway, it's pretty much the same, I'm not a moron, so why did you say what you did?

Aside from the functions (information elements) being defined differently (to the extent of making MBTT definitions useless), the functions (information elements) that make up half of the types are different.

What are an INTP's first two function in MBTT? What are an ILI's first two functions in Socionics?

Also, Socionics is a theory about information processing. MBTT, at least pop MBTT, is more of a personality theory focusing on actual behavior.

Altogether, my time here has led me to believe that those who come here with a lot of knowledge about MBTT are at a severe disadvantage over those who aren't. It only serves to create confusion. Your best bet is to think of the theories as two completely different systems and to forget about MBTT entirely while you're learning about Socionics. Start fresh.

Wikisocion is probably one of the best places to start. Or you could just interact with others here for a little while and your quadra values will become apparent, and from there you can decide what your temperament is and figure out which of the information elements your quadra values are strongest in you.

[Phaedrus]

What are an INTP's first two function in MBTT? What are an ILI's first two functions in Socionics?

An INTP's first two functions are and , and an ILI's first two functions are also and . However, in MBTT they talk about and (without know it of course) in terms of "Ti" and "Ne".

Altogether, my time here has led me to believe that those who come here with a lot of knowledge about MBTT are at a severe disadvantage over those who aren't.

No, it's actually the other way around. Those who have a lot of knowledge about MBTT make far less typing mistakes than those who know only about Socionics.

It only serves to create confusion.

That's simply a totally false statement Those who create confusion are those who say that the MBTT types have no relation to the socionic types.

Your best bet is to think of the theories as two completely different systems and to forget about MBTT entirely while you're learning about Socionics. Start fresh.

That's the absolutely worst approach you can possibly have. Maybe that's why you have been so unable to determine anything for sure regarding your own type for such a long time. People who are saying things like those you are saying here are the ones with the most incorrect understanding of the types. Always.

Wikisocion is probably one of the best places to start.

There is so much total bullshit published there, that a big dose of caution is definitely called for. Not all of it is false, of course, but only those who already know pretty much about Socionics already are able to tell the difference.

Or you could just interact with others here for a little while and your quadra values will become apparent, and from there you can decide what your temperament is and figure out which of the information elements your quadra values are strongest in you.

DO NOT FOCUS ON THE QUADRAS.

[Joy]

Phaedrus, I've known my Socionics type (and not doubted it) for two years. What were you trying to accomplish by bringing it up? Were you hoping I'd be more likely to engage you in a debate if you said something that irritated or provoked me?

I'm not irritated, and I'm not going to debate you. I posted what I did knowing you'd pick apart and refute everything I said and simply not caring. You are free to believe whatever you'd like.

I just wanted to let you know that, because it's quite clear that no good could possibly come from it, I'm going to decline from responding to your points.

[Phaedrus]

Phaedrus, I've known my Socionics type (and not doubted it) for two years. What were you trying to accomplish by bringing it up?

Stating a simple fact and suggesting a possible explanation for the phenomenon that you are posting such a bunch of garbage when it comes to the question which typing methods people should use.

Were you hoping I'd be more likely to engage you in a debate if you said something that irritated or provoked me?

Of course not. Why would I say those things if I would I were interesting in engaging you in a debate. I don't want to discuss these things, I want you to stop posting garbage in the form of a bunch of totally false statements. There are more interesting things we could discuss if you are interested.

I'm not irritated, and I'm not going to debate you. I posted what I did knowing you'd pick apart and refute everything I said and simply not caring. You are free to believe whatever you'd like.

But I don't think that you are free to believe whatever you like. Not in the metaphysical sense, and not in the moral sense. You ought to correct your false views on the matter.

[Lord Java the 3rd]

I agree with everything ScarlettLux said. And there's something else that just really jumped off the screen at me:



This statement screams Te PoLR > Te ego.



Aside from the functions (information elements) being defined differently (to the extent of making MBTT definitions useless), the functions (information elements) that make up half of the types are different.

What are an INTP's first two function in MBTT? What are an ILI's first two functions in Socionics?

Also, Socionics is a theory about information processing. MBTT, at least pop MBTT, is more of a personality theory focusing on actual behavior.

Altogether, my time here has led me to believe that those who come here with a lot of knowledge about MBTT are at a severe disadvantage over those who aren't. It only serves to create confusion. Your best bet is to think of the theories as two completely different systems and to forget about MBTT entirely while you're learning about Socionics. Start fresh.

Wikisocion is probably one of the best places to start. Or you could just interact with others here for a little while and your quadra values will become apparent, and from there you can decide what your temperament is and figure out which of the information elements your quadra values are strongest in you.

You started your post with, "I agree with everything ScarlettLux said." which is quite the humorous comment coming from an NT. That one saying, "Great minds think alike." is completely wrong, great minds differ greatly. One who agrees with completely has lost the use of their minds more abstract facilities.
I'm not saying your not a very bright person, I'm just saying your making the rest of us look bad.

Next paragraph you use the word "scream", which is great, but you must keep in mind its uses. It's not exactly a logical argument, but intended to convenience the minds of people who don't require such.

Alas, you go on to say:

"...What are an INTP's first two function in MBTT? What are an ILI's first two functions in Socionics?..." in reference to the incompatibility of MBTT and Socionics functions... I digress, no wait, that was your bad. You see, that argument points to you not understanding the difference between title and function. The functions are what makes the person work, the title is supposed to be a sort of short hand to name the functions. The title changed in Socionics. Yet again, you continue-->

You stated *not exactly in order here*: "the functions (information elements) that make up half of the types are different." Which is fine, considering your speaking to stupid people. But the problem I have with this crude use of emphasis is that it is addressed to me. *?* What gives? I demand you support your claim that half the functions have changed, where is your proof?

I'm sort of thinking that I should shut up and absorb every thing you say, because I really don't take you offensively. I'm sort of inbetween thinking your doing this for your credit tokens that you'll receive from your leader, and informing me with an invisible reference to your previous trials*emphasis on trials, you smart person you*. I don't know really, why pick apart what you say? You were probably a very bright teenager that got burned out on extasy. I had a very good friend do that, and I could no longer associate with him, because he neglected my warnings when we were kids. He had such a great mind too, I feel such a loss for him, I wish he... I think I'm off topic.

Anyway, I realize I'm an arrogant prick. But not really. I'm actually toying with you people in aggravation. No, I don't mean toying in the sense you might think of. It's more like loneliness coupled with tempting you to think in a similar way to me so that you could see some of the things that I would love to show you. For they are very beautiful, for those who have patience, and the desire to see more.

[Joy]

You started your post with, "I agree with everything ScarlettLux said." which is quite the humorous comment coming from an NT. That one saying, "Great minds think alike." is completely wrong, great minds differ greatly. One who agrees with completely has lost the use of their minds more abstract facilities.
I'm not saying your not a very bright person, I'm just saying your making the rest of us look bad.

Next paragraph you use the word "scream", which is great, but you must keep in mind its uses. It's not exactly a logical argument, but intended to convenience the minds of people who don't require such.

Alas, you go on to say:

"...What are an INTP's first two function in MBTT? What are an ILI's first two functions in Socionics?..." in reference to the incompatibility of MBTT and Socionics functions... I digress, no wait, that was your bad. You see, that argument points to you not understanding the difference between title and function. The functions are what makes the person work, the title is supposed to be a sort of short hand to name the functions. The title changed in Socionics. Yet again, you continue-->

You stated *not exactly in order here*: "the functions (information elements) that make up half of the types are different." Which is fine, considering your speaking to stupid people. But the problem I have with this crude use of emphasis is that it is addressed to me. *?* What gives? I demand you support your claim that half the functions have changed, where is your proof?

I'm sort of thinking that I should shut up and absorb every thing you say, because I really don't take you offensively. I'm sort of inbetween thinking your doing this for your credit tokens that you'll receive from your leader, and informing me with an invisible reference to your previous trials*emphasis on trials, you smart person you*. I don't know really, why pick apart what you say? You were probably a very bright teenager that got burned out on extasy. I had a very good friend do that, and I could no longer associate with him, because he neglected my warnings when we were kids. He had such a great mind too, I feel such a loss for him, I wish he... I think I'm off topic.

Anyway, I realize I'm an arrogant prick. But not really. I'm actually toying with you people in aggravation. No, I don't mean toying in the sense you might think of. It's more like loneliness coupled with tempting you to think in a similar way to me so that you could see some of the things that I would love to show you. For they are very beautiful, for those who have patience, and the desire to see more.

Yep. you're definitely Fe/Ti, most likely IEI. Ti makes sense for a Hidden Agenda for you. Most of this post was complaining about the lack of Ti in my post.

[Joy]

Oh yeah, and when I said "half the functions" I was talking about all of the introverted types. Here's one example.

INTP: Ti and Ne
ILI: Ni and Te

It doesn't really matter though, but MBTT Ni, Ne, Te, and Ti are not the same as Socionics Ni, Ne, Te, and Ti. MBTT Te, for example, is more like Socionics Ti + Se than it is Te.

I have no interest in expanding upon any of this in discussion with you, but there are plenty of people on the forum who would be more than happy to provide you with explanations that you're be happier with. Try posting some questions in General, What's My Type, Alpha, or Beta and you'll have much better luck than the responses you're getting here in Gamma. In fact, most of the responses in your threads haven't even been from members of Gamma in the first place.

[crazedrat]

Joys I.M. conversation seems to have proven everything...
1: arguing with other people about what type ~they~ are = trying to dominate them with your opinion.
2: you said nothing about how a variety of Te impressions arranged in a coherent manner in the name of Ni creates a reactive Fi impression (this is the flow of ILI-Ni information); and how this impression is what you are identifying as "creative Fe"
3: the fact you are also thinking I am not ILI places you as the common denominator in two disputes of this nature, and this further suggests your ability to type ILI is the problem

[Elro]

Picky, aren't you. None the less, I'm familiar with the system, despite any superficial changes. You might argue, but I've seen no leaps. The things that are different is the inter type relations, the descriptions, well you know*more to the point, I don't*. Anyway, it's pretty much the same, I'm not a moron, so why did you say what you did?

Because they're SIGNIFICANT changes. It might not look like it at first, but... look, I used to know MBTI functions too and pretty much had to relearn everything. It's possible this is just out of my own incompetence, but I doubt it. Maybe the MBTI folks have changed their understanding over time to be more like Socionic functions, but I also doubt that - when I was there the general attitude was resistance to any Socionics influence. Although, it was from Rocky, Mr. "You all are stupid and wrong, Socionics is way better" so perhaps the delivery played a certain role in people's rejection of it.

An INTP's first two functions are and , and an ILI's first two functions are also and . However, in MBTT they talk about and (without know it of course) in terms of "Ti" and "Ne".

I think this is what you're saying, but just to clarify: INTP MBTI functional order is Ti-Ne-Si-Fe, I believe. (See: http://www.intp.org/intprofile.html, a particularly good description.) I think you're saying those are the labels but the functions described are Ni and Te in Socionics terms. Again, see the above link to see if you agree, if you're unfamiliar with the type.

[Phaedrus]

I think this is what you're saying, but just to clarify: INTP MBTI functional order is Ti-Ne-Si-Fe, I believe. (See: http://www.intp.org/intprofile.html, a particularly good description.) I think you're saying those are the labels but the functions described are Ni and Te in Socionics terms. Again, see the above link to see if you agree, if you're unfamiliar with the type.

I have commented on that type description of Paul James on several occasions on this forum. What he describes is a very clear example of an ILI. There is very much IP in that description, and in the Ti section he accentuates many of the most typical ILI themes. He also describes a person with a clear Objectivist outlook. Since it is so obvious that James is describing an ILI, what's the point of even discussing why he uses labels such as "Ti" and "Ne" to talk about the mental processes of an ILI?

[Elro]

Since it is so obvious that James is describing an ILI, what's the point of even discussing why he uses labels such as "Ti" and "Ne" to talk about the mental processes of an ILI?

Because that will clarify how Socionics and Myers-Briggs differ on functional definitions. Also, it might not be obvious to everyone; I'm unconvinced myself. I think the description describes me well, yet I'd be hard-pressed to label myself an ILI.

[Phaedrus]

Because that will clarify how Socionics and Myers-Briggs differ on functional definitions. Also, it might not be obvious to everyone; I'm unconvinced myself. I think the description describes me well, yet I'd be hard-pressed to label myself an ILI.

Why are you hard-pressed to label yourself ILI? (I don't remember right now which type you consider yourself to be.) What other type than ILI do you think fits James's description?

[Lord Java the 3rd]

Because they're SIGNIFICANT changes. It might not look like it at first, but... look, I used to know MBTI functions too and pretty much had to relearn everything. It's possible this is just out of my own incompetence, but I doubt it. Maybe the MBTI folks have changed their understanding over time to be more like Socionic functions, but I also doubt that - when I was there the general attitude was resistance to any Socionics influence. Although, it was from Rocky, Mr. "You all are stupid and wrong, Socionics is way better" so perhaps the delivery played a certain role in people's rejection of it.


I think this is what you're saying, but just to clarify: INTP MBTI functional order is Ti-Ne-Si-Fe, I believe. (See: http://www.intp.org/intprofile.html, a particularly good description.) I think you're saying those are the labels but the functions described are Ni and Te in Socionics terms. Again, see the above link to see if you agree, if you're unfamiliar with the type.

Please. To insinuate that I was reading corrupted pop material. Well I was actually, it was how I was introduced to type theory. But for you to say that the functions have changed? That doesn't say much at all about you and what you know. Um... Excuse me. I found your reply to be very nice actually*no sarcasm, important note*, I find it hard to reply to people with out arguing. But I feel nice that I'm getting a lot of attention, as it makes me feel that I'm apart of something(Joy: In this instance where Java used "feel" to express the inner workings of his mind, you can clearly see Fe in work. How he paused in mid-paragraph in order to correct himself for potentially offending people, clearly an Fe attribute... anyway, he continues"). I've learned from past posts that I can come off as quite abrasive, in fact thats what some coworkers said to me when I commented on a movie that I didn't like but other people did, "Stardust". I'm off topic.

I disagree with you in that Socionics functions are different then MBTI functions. Especially with that ridiculous reference to ILI and INTJ*mbti*. To say that the functions had changed when it was the title. Lets face it, MBTI is wrong, who cares if they didn't fully understand type. The argument was that the functions had changed, I'd like someone to point out to me, quite clearly, the differences between the ACTUAL *Fe perhaps, one of my most used functions* functions. You people sound like this to me --->

You hear something from a source that ranks higher than you do in this social network. Because you are learning from that source, you don't state your opinion as it really is, but an opinion that is edited in order to be inline with your authorities previous statements. It's almost laughable to watch as you try and connect your thoughts with what you perceive to be the decisions of those ranking higher than yourself, or perhaps what you think to be the thoughts of the majority. Hardly the thinking class you people perpetuate yourselves to be. For do not NT temperaments look at the words from authority at face value, thinking of what they said, not who they are?

As for the one MBTI INTP profile describing the ILI, I don't know what the fuss is about. Some people possess the unique ability to see very minute and possibly vague connections. Just because one person doesn't see it doesn't mean it doesn't exist, it also doesn't discredit it. However, it should be dealt with knowing that not everyone will understand, more over that most won't be able to make the same connections, because the formula to coming to that conclusion can be internalized information that can't be translated with out the use of a far superior language.