Yes
No
I am not LII (I am a retard - I don't even know why I'm answering this poll to be honest)
Interesting.
So Phaedrus identifies with that description.
Elro (so I understood) identifies with it.
And now tcaudilllg.
Now we have a few possibilities:
1) That description is very good, and all of the above are of the same type
2) That description is very good, and one or more of the above were hasty in identifying with it
3) That description sucks, so lots of people of different types could relate to it.
I'm inclined to go for (3).
, LIE, ENTj logical subtype, 8w9 sx/sp
Originally Posted by implied
Bingo. It is a description that just about NT would be able to resonate with while reading. But MBTI sucks like that anyway.
Johari Box"Alpha Quadra subforum. You will never find a more wretched hive of scum and villainy. We must be cautious." ~Obi-Wan Kenobi
yes i remember when i first read that i was like zomg
I am right on the line of the J/P functions.
I am far more P in my relationships....or under stress.
When I am freaking out over something important, I have come to realize I have my P on and am going to over analyze the heck out of things. It can be a curse sometimes, though generally I appreciate the 'pause' it creates in my decision making.
I'm not sure about that.
What I'm thinking is this. If you read the description as a whole, in a "forest instead of trees" manner, especially if you leave out the bits about specific tastes in music, etc, then yes, I think most NTs (and some NFs) would resonate with it. Because what it most consistently describes it essentially a person with more focus on, but in such a way that might also resonate with
If, on the other hand, you actually read it in detail - "trees rather than the forest" - there is a lot of stuff that doesn't make much sense to me. It describes a person who's "afraid of emotions out of control", whatever that means, but who's also an "emotional chameleon" who's somehow skilled in using emotions to "take the measure" of other persons. It describes a person who's supposedly detached, but on the other hand concerned with status and image - the bit about either being seen as the genius, the center of attention, or then a critic. That is, if I'm not seen as the big enchilada, I will criticise whoever it is. Or, in other words, I'm so sure of being right, that all is well only if others acknowledge that; if they don't, then they are wrong and I will tear them apart. Which is pretty much Phaedrus's stance; but is that of ILIs generally? I think not.
My point is this: if that description is read in a broad-brush way, then, I do think that lots of different types will identify with its overall flavor (in a way that, say, ESEs or SEIs would not), but then it's so broad as to make that mean little in terms of precise types.
If that description is read in detail, painfully analyzing stuff like what I mentioned above (and much more), I wonder who'd actually, truly, identify with it without raising their eyebrows now and then. Besides Phaedrus that is.
Correct.If you read the description as a whole, in a "forest instead of trees" manner, especially if you leave out the bits about specific tastes in music, etc, then yes, I think most NTs (and some NFs) would resonate with it. Because what it most consistently describes it essentially a person with more focus on
That is strange, because you should be expected to see what it is about. But on the other hand your capacity for reading type descriptions correctly is, even though not as limited as some others, still rather limited.
It means the exact same phenomenon that is described in the ILI profiles.
You have always totally misinterpreted that passage. It does not say, nor does it mean, that the INTP is skilled in using emotions. It has nothing at all to do with. It is rather the opposite, and the behaviour of the INTP would not be seen as an expression of social competence when he is in the "chameleon" mode. It is all about collecting data that can be analyzed. In a sense, it can be seen as a somewhat cynical use of other people as some sort of guinea-pigs in order to test hypotheses about their behaviours. On the other hand, the INTP uses himself as a guine-pig too (as pointed out in James's profile). It is a perspective in which both the INTP himself and other people are perceived as objects to study. Compare that attitude with typical descriptions of the attitudes of ILIs, and you will see the similarities (hopefully).
Yes, and this detachment is very typical of ILIs. There is no other socionic type that have that detachment to a similar degree. Here's an example:
His analysis is devoid of any self-encouragement. “You shouldn’t have a different attitude towards life than you have for the kitchen – the same amount of stinking odor; if you want to cook a dish, you’ll have to get your hands dirty, just make sure you’ll be able to wash the dirt off once you are done; that’s the entire moral of our day and age." So speaks Vautrin, a hero of Balzac’s books. Such misanthropy can kill the anybody’s spirits, except his dual (Julius Caesar, The Politician)!
Total misunderstanding on your part. This is the exact same problem that you have always had. It is exactly in this respect that you have completely misunderstood the motives of me and other ILIs on this forum. It has nothing at all to do with status and image. There is no other type that is less interested in status and image than the ILI or the INTP.
Your general understanding of the ILI type is simply flawed. You misunderstand us. Correct your false views, please.
Again, it's good to know I don't have to take Phaedrus's nonsense seriously:
From the 2nd paragraph of the "Extraverted Intuition" section:
And from the 6th paragraph of the same section:an INTP will often make controversial, speculative points of argument, often annoying the discussion-partner, and make them in such a way as to leave the impression that he is very serious about what he says. In reality, the INTP is not actually even certain himself whether he really stands by what he is saying, but his Ne strongly suggests that there must be a core of truth there. The purpose then of his outspoken style of argument is to sharpen his own intuitive understanding by testing the reaction of the listener, and indeed to examine the logic of his own arguments in real time while speaking them out.
Or have I also misinterpreted those passages?The chameleon behaviour can be particularly strong when discussing something. The INTP may even argue something that he doesn't really believe himself. Sometimes it is for the intellectual stimulation that comes with the challenge of arguing from a variety of standpoints. Otherwise, it may be to avoid early conflict before the situation has been fully assessed.
Utter bullshit. ILI's are not detached. Their attitude is better described as "dissolved" or "immersed". If you do a search on the forum you'll find posts by both Cone and Smilingeyes emphasizing an inability on the part of ILI's to fully control their reaction to events outside of them. Cone (ILI) says you can tell an ILI apart from LII by testing their reaction to questions like "do you like that girl?". A really detached person would have no problem simply answering no, but what does the ILI characteristically do according to Cone..? Stutter, bumble, try to find a way out... This is coming from an ILI. Smilex describes the IxTp personality class as "controlling their reaction to events, not the emotions themselves". Again, this is NOT what people mean when they use the word "detached".Yes, and this detachment is very typical of ILIs.
Detachment = LII, not ILI.
This reaction is tied into the INTp hidden agenda, to love. The INTp has difficulties in commencing the relationship, they are ok when it's up and running. The ISTp with the same HA has no problems starting the relationship, they're problems arise when the relationship *is* up and running. I attribute this difference to the S/N dichotomy.
This is due to the IxTp Fe PoLR.Smilex describes the IxTp personality class as "controlling their reaction to events, not the emotions themselves". Again, this is NOT what people mean when they use the word "detached".
This part is subjective. I'm not convinced either way, but personally I *would* attach the word "detach" to my experiences with ILI.Detachment = LII, not ILI.
Sure, we've got a lot of pretty words to explain those dispositions with. That's not what's at issue here though. We're discussing wether the ILI should or should not be described as "detached" and if they typically can't control their reactions then they are not typically detached. Simple as that.
BTW, from cyclops reaction we can deduce that he finds the behaviors I highlighted to be in line with his experiences. Add another ILI to the list of ILI's without typical detachment.
So you like to play with words? Fine. Then you can explain exactly what you see as the most relevant difference between detachment and dissolution or immersion. How do you tell the difference in someone's behaviour?
Yes, what's the problem with that? Do you really believe that those attitudes are incompatible?
More play with words. There is also another sense of the word detached according to which an ILI is definitely more detached than the LII. That sense has to do with how objective you can be toward your own reactions and your own feelings. LIIs are more emotionally sensitive than ILIs in this respect. They are in a sense more "human", an aspect that is also tied to the fact that LIIs see humans as agents, whereas ILIs tend to see them as material objects. An ILI is usually much more "scientifically detached" than any LII in that the ILI have a tendency to see everything, including himself, from a scientific perspective.
Wrong for the reasons just stated.
By the way, what Cyclops says regarding INTps in # 53 is totally correct.
Detached means "unattached". A detached person is separate from their environment. Whatever goes on around them does not affect them, except if they intend fot it to do so. An "immersed" person has a continuous flow going on between evironment and themselves. Whatever goes on has an immediate counterpart in the person's thoughts. ILI's immersed in this sense and LII's detached. You'll find this to be in line with the descriptions of the thought styles in the associated thread. Process + Dynamic = immersed, Result + Static = detached.So you like to play with words? Fine. Then you can explain exactly what you see as the most relevant difference between detachment and dissolution or immersion. How do you tell the difference in someone's behaviour?
I find myself wondering where you get these ideas as in my experiences and probably in those of a lot of other people as well the INTj posesses just the same kind of objectivity, be it that they practice it in a different way. INTj's see the full range of possible standpoints a person can take to an issue. Lenore Thompson describes this attitude in her INTJ description. I'm sure you're aware of the passage. This is just as much an objective attitude, and just as much a detached one.There is also another sense of the word detached according to which an ILI is definitely more detached than the LII. That sense has to do with how objective you can be toward your own reactions and your own feelings. LIIs are more emotionally sensitive than ILIs in this respect. They are in a sense more "human", an aspect that is also tied to the fact that LIIs see humans as agents, whereas ILIs tend to see them as material objects. An ILI is usually much more "scientifically detached" than any LII in that the ILI have a tendency to see everything, including himself, from a scientific perspective.
But INTJ's are detached in both these ways, INTP's in just one.
And it either goes in two directions: too narrow or too broad.
Johari Box"Alpha Quadra subforum. You will never find a more wretched hive of scum and villainy. We must be cautious." ~Obi-Wan Kenobi
To me that description manages to go in both directions.
It's too narrow in that it actually writes at length, in a tiresome way, about how the functions are supposed to manifest themselves; but it does so by saying the same things over and over. And it's too broad in that it goes for the thing about preferences in music and the like.
Yes, and there is an explanation for that: the profile is definitely written by an ILI.
The reason I posted this was because Phaedrus said that no LII could possibly identify with this description.
Phaedrus is a liar. Of course he's going to attempt to cover up his lies by saying that those LIIs who identify with the description are obviously mistyped. He is an idiot.
They are not necessarily mistyped. But they are necessarily misidentifying it as a description of the LII type in Socionics. It is totally obvious that Paul James is himself an ILI, and that his INTP profile is a description of the ILI type to a much greater extent than it is a description of the LII type. And everyone must recognize that fact.
+1,000
JRiddy
—————King of Socionics—————
Ne-ENTp 7w8 sx/so
That description is a bit overwhelming.
I haven't said that no LII could possibly identify with it. I have said that no LII should identify with it.
Hey cool, that description explains some things.
From the 2nd paragraph of the "Extraverted Intuition" section:
And from the 6th paragraph of the same section:an INTP will often make controversial, speculative points of argument, often annoying the discussion-partner, and make them in such a way as to leave the impression that he is very serious about what he says. In reality, the INTP is not actually even certain himself whether he really stands by what he is saying, but his Ne strongly suggests that there must be a core of truth there. The purpose then of his outspoken style of argument is to sharpen his own intuitive understanding by testing the reaction of the listener, and indeed to examine the logic of his own arguments in real time while speaking them out.
What a relief, so Phaedrus doesn't really mean it when he argues so strongly for some points. That's the case, isn't it, since Paul James's description perfectly describes Phaedrus, doesn't it?The chameleon behaviour can be particularly strong when discussing something. The INTP may even argue something that he doesn't really believe himself. Sometimes it is for the intellectual stimulation that comes with the challenge of arguing from a variety of standpoints. Otherwise, it may be to avoid early conflict before the situation has been fully assessed.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote