Ignoring the title, and actually reading the content, do you identify this description?
Yes
No
I am not LII (I am a retard - I don't even know why I'm answering this poll to be honest)
Ignoring the title, and actually reading the content, do you identify this description?
Completely, though I disagree with some of the function attributions. (for example, memorizing a sequence of events is Ni, not Si). But given a four function model, you work with what you've got.
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
I'm sorry tcaudilllg, but you simply cannot identify completely with that type description. You probably haven't studied it enough. It does not describe a person with an IJ temperament, which you must have if you are a LII. It describes a person with an IP temperament and an Objectivist world outlook -- not the Subjectivist outlook that a LII necessarily must have. In the Fe section of that profile we see the behaviour of a person with PoLR being described, etc.
LIIs are not the providers of clarity -- that is simply not what they are focused at, and they are not very good at it either. Neither do LIIs seek the truth above else, and they don't believe that knowledge is the key to everything. Instead the LIIs tend to criticize the very notions of objective knowledge and and objective truth and focus more on meaning. LIIs are not lazy, and they do not believe that doing is of lower necessity than knowing, as is described in that profile.
It is an obvious fact that people here are bad at comparing type descriptions. They identify with some parts of a description (there are always such parts that are almost identical in the descriptions of different types) but they ignore the parts that are in conflict their own type. A LII should realize that James's INTP description is not a description of a LII. I expect all of you "LIIs" to recognize that fact.
C'mon Expat, why'd you have to drag Phaedrus into our section of the forum?
JRiddy
—————King of Socionics—————
Ne-ENTp 7w8 sx/so
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.
Johari Box"Alpha Quadra subforum. You will never find a more wretched hive of scum and villainy. We must be cautious." ~Obi-Wan Kenobi
The problem with your assertion, Phaedrus, is that only INTjs use words "like swords". That's 7th function -Te at work, and I do it all the time.
The bottom line is, does Model-B not imply everything in that passage as true for LIIs? The answer is yes, it does.
Another description:
http://users.viawest.net/~keirsey/PUMintp.html
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.
, LIE, ENTj logical subtype, 8w9 sx/sp
Originally Posted by implied
That is just a detail, and in order to see which type is being portrayed in that type description we simply have to look at the overall picture while at the same time comparing details between INTJ and INTP type profiles in MBTT. If I would have read only INTJ type descriptions and was not aware of the existence of INTP type descriptions, my reaction would be very similar to some people's here. They INTJ and INTP type profiles are much more similar to each other than they are different, and that's exactly why tyou have to scrutinize them in depth in order to see which type they are referring to. I spent at least a couple of months before I came to a definite conclusion about the nature and differences beteen INTPs and INTJs. I'm pretty sure that no one else on this forum has studied type profiles as much as I have.
Irrelevant.Originally Posted by tcaudilllg
In that particular type description we see a clear Objectivist world outlook, and a clearly accentuated IP temperament. It is not a description of an INTj.Originally Posted by tcaudilllg
The reason I posted this was because Phaedrus said that no LII could possibly identify with this description.
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.
LII
that is what i was getting at. if there is an inescapable appropriation that is required in the act of understanding, this brings into question the validity of socionics in describing what is real, and hence stubborn contradictions that continue to plague me.
Can you specify some of the problems you see in that description? Rather than throwing the whole description away, I think we should try to understand the exact resons why different types identify with it. I am sure we can learn something important about Socionics from it. And it is still a fact that James is an ILI and that that description fits the ILI type better than any other type, so how can so many other types incorrectly identify with it?
LII
that is what i was getting at. if there is an inescapable appropriation that is required in the act of understanding, this brings into question the validity of socionics in describing what is real, and hence stubborn contradictions that continue to plague me.
LII
that is what i was getting at. if there is an inescapable appropriation that is required in the act of understanding, this brings into question the validity of socionics in describing what is real, and hence stubborn contradictions that continue to plague me.
You don't answer my questions. What problems do you see with the description? How is it not ILI? I have already given an example in this thread of an aspect, pointed out by Expat, of how it is written, and that aspect is in itself an indication of ILI. Compare with how people perceive what I write as repeating the same thing(s) over and over again.
It is a real problem that people don't immediately recognize that type description as portraying an ILI, because it seems to prove that people don't know how to read a type description. Now, try to explain why you are not convinced that it is an ILI description,
That description is a bit overwhelming.
Johari Box"Alpha Quadra subforum. You will never find a more wretched hive of scum and villainy. We must be cautious." ~Obi-Wan Kenobi
Johari Box"Alpha Quadra subforum. You will never find a more wretched hive of scum and villainy. We must be cautious." ~Obi-Wan Kenobi
Improving your happiness and changing your personality for the better
Jungian theory is not grounded in empirical data (pdf file)
The case against type dynamics (pdf file)
Cautionary comments regarding the MBTI (pdf file)
Reinterpreting the MBTI via the five-factor model (pdf file)
Do the Big Five personality traits interact to predict life outcomes? (pdf file)
The Big Five personality test outperformed the Jungian and Enneagram test in predicting life outcomes
Evidence of correlations between human partners based on systematic reviews and meta-analyses of traits
Johari Box"Alpha Quadra subforum. You will never find a more wretched hive of scum and villainy. We must be cautious." ~Obi-Wan Kenobi
Improving your happiness and changing your personality for the better
Jungian theory is not grounded in empirical data (pdf file)
The case against type dynamics (pdf file)
Cautionary comments regarding the MBTI (pdf file)
Reinterpreting the MBTI via the five-factor model (pdf file)
Do the Big Five personality traits interact to predict life outcomes? (pdf file)
The Big Five personality test outperformed the Jungian and Enneagram test in predicting life outcomes
Evidence of correlations between human partners based on systematic reviews and meta-analyses of traits
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.
, LIE, ENTj logical subtype, 8w9 sx/sp
Originally Posted by implied
Ooh, valuing! How exciting!Originally Posted by Logos
Johari Box"Alpha Quadra subforum. You will never find a more wretched hive of scum and villainy. We must be cautious." ~Obi-Wan Kenobi
Indeed, look how ridiculous the discussion gets. Phaedrus makes no better case for James's description being one that only ILIs should correctly identify with than that he, Phaedrus, identifies with it. That's his very convenient, and easy, "argument". And we're supposed to prove that he's wrong.
I think that description is contradictory, and a lot of what it says is a lot of -- nothing. It's easy to get lost in it. However, why bother?
, LIE, ENTj logical subtype, 8w9 sx/sp
Originally Posted by implied