ATTN INTjs LIIs do you identify with this description?

[Logos]

I don't trust other people's V.I. abilities. People on this forum are not very good at V.I.

What guarantee then do I have at your ability to accurately V.I.?

The P types are clearly different. They are not trying to control the course of events but are instead trying to adapt to them in the most optimal way. That's also a clearly observable manifestation of irrationality in Socionics.

That's another rather clear indication of rationality, and there seems to be no reason for you to identify with P in MBTT. You have simply misunderstood the nature of Se-PoLR and/or the nature of P in MBTT.

Following this understanding, then I would lean more towards J, but the way that J is described in MBTI is far too rigid and inflexible.

The Se-PoLR of INTjs has nothing to do with P in MBTT. Somehow you and others have managed to completely misunderstand this. I don't know how that could have happened and why you don't understand what P is about. I can only guess.

The Se-PoLR of the INTj is related to outer pressure, which the INTj resists. He doesn't want to be pushed by others to do things or be forced to fit into a hierarchy. But the INTj is internally driven, he can push himself to do things. He is good at planning and to stick to his plans. That's exactly what J is about in MBTT, and that's also one observable aspect of rationality in Socionics. The J types want to be in control of their own destiny, they want to steer their course in life.

This is a very well-articulated statement about Se-PoLR in LIIs. It would be interesting to see the degree to which LIIs agree with this.

As to Logos's view, you must admit that not only is he not alone in that perception, but that there are quite a few people who think that way...in fact, the idea that LIIs are "P-like" because of Se-PoLR goes way back...at least on this forum.

The LII may be internally driven, but there is still an incorrect perception that because of the "J-like" the LII/EII is not a procrastinator or cannot somehow be lazy and exhibit "P-like" qualities. Again, the J discussion in a great deal of MBTI creates the picture of an incredibly rigid and inflexible character. This is an empirical misconception.

So let's keep Phaedrus's statement about the Se-PoLR in the LII in mind when looking at the INTP description, shall we?

Independence, derived primarily from strongly introverted Thinking, leads to perhaps the most difficult aspect (for others) of the INTP, namely stubbornness. If an INTP is pushed into doing something he will automatically resist. The reason for the resistance is simply that any action must first be filtered by the Ti, guided by the Ne. He must be given the chance to reach an independent decision, approving or rejecting the action. Hence, he must withdraw to allow the analysis process to work. If withdrawal is not allowed then stubborn resistance is the inevitable result. However, others may not always find the INTP excessively stubborn, since the decision-making process can sometimes be rapidly accelerated when intuition takes the upper hand. The best way to get an INTP to do something is to suggest the idea as an option and let him sleep on it. Ultimately, the INTP must always believe that it is his decision. Once he is satisfied that the decision was independently reached, then he is content.

External pressure.

[Expat]

Not that it matters much, but for the record, my point was that people were saying that Phaedrus is annoyed by people who make speculative or hypothetical points, or points that they're not determined to stick with....and I was showing some examples that countered that. That's all.

I don't think that your post achieved that at all.

[Phaedrus]

But another aspect of it is that I don't see the Alphas on the forum as really "debating." Most Alphas discuss...mentioning their ideas, perhaps defending them...perhaps stating that they're opposed to someone else's idea, but not really debating. What Gammas do, it seems, is have this somewhat competitive-like joust going on, where they sharpen their skills in coming up with points for or against an opinion.

A very correct observation. That's one of the most obvious and most irritating differences between us. I very often feel as if I have to force the Alphas to have a serious discussion with me. And I usually don't succeed. Their Merriness is frustrating to me in some (but not all) situations.

[Phaedrus]

What guarantee then do I have at your ability to accurately V.I.?

The fact that the correctness of my V.I. typings is confirmed by the use of other typing methods. You cannot know that that is the case of course. You should focus on training your own V.I. skills. When you have become good at it, you will realize that I am right.

Following this understanding, then I would lean more towards J, but the way that J is described in MBTI is far too rigid and inflexible.

That you perceive it that way is probably because you focus too much on exact phrasings instead of trying to understand the empirical phenomenon they are referring to. You should try to understand what they are talking about instead of how they are talking about it.

So let's keep Phaedrus's statement about the Se-PoLR in the LII in mind when looking at the INTP description, shall we?

External pressure.

Yes. ILIs resist external pressure to. It is a typical feature of the IP temperament. That trait is probably even more accentuated in ILIs than in LIIs. James's description of the behaviour of INTPs is totally correct as a description of how ILIs are.

[Rubicon]

Can we call it a day
Now would that be okay
Can we just go our own separate ways

Cause I'm cold and I'm wet
And I'm willing to bet
That you constructed this maze

I stumble around
Trying to follow the sound
Then something takes hold of my hand

If you've caused such a mess
And I'd venture to guess
That you concocted this plan

And I don't know what to do
Cause it's always with you
Who helped me to make up my mind

But I'll stake my life
And I'll swear by this knife
That it's all by your design

Enough has been said
It goes around in my head
Until I break down and cry

I wouldn't be surprised
If that look in your eyes
Was your way of saying goodbye

Can we call it a day
Now would that be okay
Can we just go our own separate ways
Cause I'm cold and I'm wet
And I'm willing to bet
That you constructed this maze

My hand

You concocted this plan

I don't know what to do
Cause it's always been you
Who helped me to make up my mind

But I'll stake my life
And I'll swear by this knife
That it's all by your design
Yeah, it's all by your design

.

[Logos]

That you perceive it that way is probably because you focus too much on exact phrasings instead of trying to understand the empirical phenomenon they are referring to. You should try to understand what they are talking about instead of how they are talking about it.

The what is indeed important to understand, and that is what I am focusing on, but the how is the method that I arrive at the what. If they are unable to adequately explain what they are talking about then the focus of the empirical phenomenon becomes lost in translation.

Yes. ILIs resist external pressure to. It is a typical feature of the IP temperament. That trait is probably even more accentuated in ILIs than in LIIs. James's description of the behaviour of INTPs is totally correct as a description of how ILIs are.

Incorrect. The IP temperament to which you refer is not one of resisting and controlling, but adapting to environmental stimuli. The IJ desire to control surroundings plus the Se-PoLR that resists external pressure is better suited to that description in the INTP. You will find this trait featured with greater frequency and magnitude in LII descriptions than you will in ILI ones. That is a fact.

[tcaudilllg]

A very correct observation. That's one of the most obvious and most irritating differences between us. I very often feel as if I have to force the Alphas to have a serious discussion with me. And I usually don't succeed. Their Merriness is frustrating to me in some (but not all) situations.

Well we don't have to debate when you do all the debating for us. :wink: Alphas takes the results of Gamma discussions (at any given point) and uses them as validation material for their theories.

[Phaedrus]

Well we don't have to debate when you do all the debating for us. :wink: Alphas takes the results of Gamma discussions (at any given point) and uses them as validation material for their theories.

And that's very irritating. The silence of Alphas in serious matters is irritating. I am not fond of having monologues, I want to hear counter arguments and/or confirmations on exactly which points we agree and disagree. Your stance is not scientific. Critical, open debates are the road to truth.

[Mariano Rajoy]

No. It is a proven fact that there are no general criteria for truth and that there can't be any.

Haha Phaedrus!

[Phaedrus]

Haha Phaedrus!

What are you laughing at? Are you laughing at Gödel and Tarski? Are you laughing at a mathematically proven fact? Are you trying to make a joke to illustrate the non-seriousness of Alphas in general? I don't think that any of that is funny.

[tcaudilllg]

Phaedrus, am I right in thinking that you would align the institutionally accepted model of MBTT INTP (introvert thinking dominant, extrovert intuition auxiliary, introvert sensing tertiary, extrovert feeling inferior) with INTJ instead, and align the existing INTJ model with INTP? (thus aligning the same with socionics?)

[Phaedrus]

Phaedrus, am I right in thinking that you would align the institutionally accepted model of MBTT INTP (introvert thinking dominant, extrovert intuition auxiliary, introvert sensing tertiary, extrovert feeling inferior) with INTJ instead, and align the existing INTJ model with INTP? (thus aligning the same with socionics?)

That depends on what exactly you mean when you say that. I believe that introverted thinking in Jung's sense is in line with how INTJs think. And I believe that MBTT has incorrectly associated INTPs with Jung's introverted thinking.

INTPs in MBTT are described as objective, and their overall approach is also more than in nature, whereas INTJs are described as subjective in a sense that is more in line with the nature of in Socionics and introverted thinking in Jung's Psychological Types.

I have tried to explain these differences between the types in the two models in several posts of mine in the past.

[tcaudilllg]

That depends on what exactly you mean when you say that. I believe that introverted thinking in Jung's sense is in line with how INTJs think. And I believe that MBTT has incorrectly associated INTPs with Jung's introverted thinking.

INTPs in MBTT are described as objective, and their overall approach is also more than in nature, whereas INTJs are described as subjective in a sense that is more in line with the nature of in Socionics and introverted thinking in Jung's Psychological Types.

I have tried to explain these differences between the types in the two models in several posts of mine in the past.

That's exactly what I meant. Yes, OK then. I'm at a loss, though, as to how to persuade the MBTT people that the truth you see is superior to their own opinions....

[Phaedrus]

That's exactly what I meant. Yes, OK then. I'm at a loss, though, as to how to persuade the MBTT people that the truth you see is superior to their own opinions....

How do you know that their opinion differs from mine? They don't know about Socionics, so I have no reason to be sure that they wouldn't agree with me if I tried to explain to them that what they call the INTP is the same type as the ILI type in Socionics.

More important is whether you and I can agree on anything here. And if so, what exactly can we agree on? For example, do you see the "Ti" function in MBTT as more or less identical to in Socionics? Yes or no? And why or why not?

Another question: Why don't you agree with INTJ profiles in MBTT? Is the only reason that they talk about "Ni" and "Te" etc? Or do you disagree with the described behaviours and attitudes as well?

[Phaedrus]

TiSe of ISTjs doesn't really seem to correlate with the definition of Ti in MBTI that it is a subjective sort of logic... with ISTjs, their logic attempts to categorize very discrete classifications of defined object sets (Se)... and is a very objective sort of thinking if you take into account the fact that ISTjs will generally only speak about what is "concretely" defined, from their perspective anyway.

hmm... my two cents anyway.

That is close to how "Si" is described in MBTT.

[Phaedrus]

so unless how i understand ISTjs is woefully wrong, what you're suggesting ISTJ ≈ ISTj, because Si ≈ ?

Yes, but it is somewhat more complicated than that, because ISFJs also identify with "Si", so it must be related to too.

Ni ≈ INTJ ≈ INTj
Ti ≈ INTP ≈ INTP

No, it is rather "NiTe" = and "TiNe" = .

Fi ≈ ISFP ≈ ISFJ
or, Fi ≈ INFP ≈ INFP (?)

otherwise, there's no other basis for saying that ABCD = ABCd applies uniformly across all types.

Not quite, because it is the same situation here. "FiSe" = = ISFP = SEI and "FiNe" = = INFP = IEI.