Sergei Ganin

[CuriousSoul]

Sergei Ganin at www.socionics.com believes that he is an INTj. Let's assume he really is one. In that case most of the empirical evidence at this stage indicates that he and I are not the same type. So, if SG is an INTj, I am most likely an INTp, and since you, wym123, argue much more like me or like an ENTj, you wouldn't be an INTj either. If one of us is an INTj, I don't think that SG is an INTj.

http://the16types.info/forums/viewto...?p=70827#70827

I am glad someone brought this up. Does the chap know his own type?
I am not so sure...
Type suggestions obliged.
I think it is safer to debate the issue on this forum.

[wym123]

But for some dude to appear randomly and question SG's type is kinda silly. Especially silly is to type yourself based of off correspondances in posts like this.

WTF do I know though...

Actually, he mentioned that he debated on SG's forum so his doubt is not unjustified and "random." Also, he is not definitively disputing SG's type; all he is saying that he is fairly certain that he and SG cannot be of the same type. I don't know anything about SG so I am not really defending Phaedrus's position. I just wanted to clarify his position because the excerpt is taken out of context.

However, I do somewhat question SG's type because his comment about Ti/Te, energy, and poor eyesight is one of the stupidest thing I have ever heard. Maybe INTjs really can say such scientifically unjustified/nonsensical and idiotic things, oh well.

All functions have their own sector within the brain. Use of any function would require brain power. But I recon Ti and Te would normaly take more power. People with developed thinking tend to have weak eyesight. This is because when brain needs more energy, it takes it from the energy allocated for the body needs. Eyesight is easiest to suffer. You don't have to be Tj person or Tp to have developed Ti or Te.

[wym123]

Actually, my problem with his statement isn't so much that there is a problem with his "reasoning." It is just that he should have known that he is making a statement that can easily be refuted and shown to be stupid and nonsensical, unless he is completely ignorant about what Science can do. And if he really were an INTj, I doubt he would that ignorant about Science, given that most INTjs are secular. I just thought that INTjs are a bit more cautious about the things they say, especially when they are treading on territory that they are not familiar with, because anything idiotic they say can be used to attack them (most of the time with their own Ti mind). Perhaps nothing can hurt an INTj more than to show that he or she is truly illogical and stupid because such demonstrations basically attack his or her primary function, Ti, using Ti reasoning itself, which every INTj naturally respects, consequently eroding the INTj's self-esteem. So anyway, the fact that he made that statement with such "a matter of fact" isn't convincing at all that he is an INTj.

[Phaedrus]

One of my reasons for thinking that I and SG are different types is that I have from the very beginning in our discussions experienced what could definitely be an example of the Quasi-Identical tension he writes about himself. I recognize that feeling from earlier acqaintances with MBTI INTJ types. My father is one, but not the best, example of that. He (my father) sure is an INTJ in the MBTI model, and I am an INTP. But I also know other INTJs and we always have difficulties understanding each other in full. I'm actually very interested in the differencies between INTjs and INTps, and want to learn as much as possible about that.

SG seems to think that I'm an INTp. Several others on his site also think that now. Some people, who thought they were INTjs, have now become doubtful about their true nature and start to think that they might be INTps.

My impression of SG is that he is very cautious about what he says. In fact, he is most unwilling to answer my questions. Instead he likes to "trap" others, sometimes trying to make them look ridiculous, at least many seem to feel that. Maybe two INTjs can have that kind of "problems" when interacting. I don't know, because I don't know that many real life people with the same type as mine. The only thing that I'm sure of is that I am an INTP (MBTI type), and that I know about 4-5 INTJs (also MBTI types).

One thing is very clear. If SG is an INTj (TiNe), and I am not the same type, then either Socionics or MBTI misdescribes the Ti function (maybe that is obvious to you).

[Jonathan]

I resonate with Phaedrus's comments about different kinds of INTs. MBTI suggested to me that the resolute, decisive, in-your-face INT was Ni/Te, and the mild-mannered, pondering, always-seeking-to-discover, never-rejecting-any-possibility-totally kind of INT was Ti/Ne. But Socionics descriptions seem to turn that around, or suggest that the second type is perhaps an introverted ENTp.

My guess right now is that there may be a number of different dichotomies involved, some of which don't even have to do with the Jungian functions (?)...such as:

1) Whether a person is inclinced to state actual beliefs or just comment on logical consistency. Some INT types will be sure to tell one when one is wrong; In debating, I'm more inclined to comment only on purely logical points (i.e., that C doesn't follow from A and B). Which kind is the INTp or INTj? Not sure. The choice on how to apply logic and which things to believe is very personal and may result in lots of different INT types, not just two....or do you think that that's really an INTp vs. INTj thing?

2) Whether a person tends to link emotions with thoughts, or deals with them separately (e.g., the passionate T (linked) vs. the T who acts more F around people (T decoupled from F)). ...any connection with INTp vs. INTj? Again, not sure.

3) A possible "J" or "P" preference completely apart from any basis in Jungian functions...Or maybe it's subtypes...[INTj and INTp both logical subtype] being organized, task oriented, vs. [INTj and INTp both intuitive subtype] being more inclined toward "seeking" information, less decided about things. In this model, Socionics descriptions are probably focusing on the logical subtypes, or at least for INTj, whereas the MBTI descriptions assume logical subtype for INTJ (=INTp) and intuitive subtype for INTP (=INTj).

4) The degree to which one's personality is formed around one's type...Might there be NTs where NT is everything, and other NTs who are more NT than anything else but also have attitudes that say that there's more to the world than just T and being right?

Just some possibilities.

[Antigones]

I don't quite get it. What should be more important in world then T? Probably the problem is in communicating with each other. INTjs may not be too sensical to the impact their answers could have on the feelings of others. And why should they care? If they are right with their statement, there is no need to feel hurt.

[Gilly]

I resonate with Phaedrus's comments about different kinds of INTs. MBTI suggested to me that the resolute, decisive, in-your-face INT was Ni/Te, and the mild-mannered, pondering, always-seeking-to-discover, never-rejecting-any-possibility-totally kind of INT was Ti/Ne. But Socionics descriptions seem to turn that around, or suggest that the second type is perhaps an introverted ENTp.

I would say that the resolute, decisive, in-your-face NT would more likely be an ENTj; they are often confused with introverts. One of our own here, FDG, I believe, is an INTJ in MBTI and an ENTj in Socionics. This could very well be the answer to your question.

My guess right now is that there may be a number of different dichotomies involved, some of which don't even have to do with the Jungian functions (?)...such as:

1) Whether a person is inclinced to state actual beliefs or just comment on logical consistency. Some INT types will be sure to tell one when one is wrong; In debating, I'm more inclined to comment only on purely logical points (i.e., that C doesn't follow from A and B). Which kind is the INTp or INTj? Not sure. The choice on how to apply logic and which things to believe is very personal and may result in lots of different INT types, not just two....or do you think that that's really an INTp vs. INTj thing?

I don't think we can determine anything specific from this, but INTps have Te, which is often connected with bluntness in arguments, especially when one believes the other party to be wrong. However, once again, I would hold that the type most likely to do this would be an ENTj.

2) Whether a person tends to link emotions with thoughts, or deals with them separately (e.g., the passionate T (linked) vs. the T who acts more F around people (T decoupled from F)). ...any connection with INTp vs. INTj? Again, not sure.

INTps have been noted to be quite amiable and social at times, whereas INTjs are more widely acknowledged as being loners. However, in conversation, INTjs are usually polite and well-mannered (until they say something tactless :wink: ).

3) A possible "J" or "P" preference completely apart from any basis in Jungian functions...Or maybe it's subtypes...[INTj and INTp both logical subtype] being organized, task oriented, vs. [INTj and INTp both intuitive subtype] being more inclined toward "seeking" information, less decided about things. In this model, Socionics descriptions are probably focusing on the logical subtypes, or at least for INTj, whereas the MBTI descriptions assume logical subtype for INTJ (=INTp) and intuitive subtype for INTP (=INTj).

The P/J difference is much more subtle in Socionics, but does not have anything to do with the MBTI stereotypes of being messy. Intuitive types are more likely the ones that fail to take care of their environment. However, the differences often noted are that perceivers have less of a tolerance for structure in an environment, are more likely to be divergent thinkers, and have various mental states between which they are constantly oscillating.

4) The degree to which one's personality is formed around one's type...Might there be NTs where NT is everything, and other NTs who are more NT than anything else but also have attitudes that say that there's more to the world than just T and being right?

Just some possibilities.

There are, of course, varying degrees to which one represents the stereotypical behavior of one's type. I myself have been observed to be, at times, more "feelery" than most ENTps. There really is no set level of type representation in behavior that is necessary to be a representative of a type, so long as the thinking patterns and key behaviors fit for the most part.

[Joy]

I've seen Te but I don't think he's a Te type.

[Gilly]

I actually get a bit of Te from him too, but a fair amount of Ti. He does seem a tad aggressive for an INTj...perhaps ISTj?

EDIT: Upon reading further into his posts, I can see some Se. I would guess IST_.

[tcaudilllg]

...IxTJ?

(resemblence to Dick Cheney? I've not seen him so I don't know...)

[Waddlesworth]

That eyesight and brain energy idea is actually pretty cool and although it can't be confirmed I don't believe anyone can conclusively deny it. In cognition there are filter theories/attenuation models and signal detection theories which deal with the allocation of mental resources for different purposes. Conditioning occurs when we repeatedly perform tasks, but obviously when you are conditioned in one direction the allocation of energy altered. That means energy must be taken from one place and used in another. A generalized form of energy metabolism.

As for his type, I have talked to Sergei alot, even before he opened up his forum and chat. He's actually an interesting and understanding person. Obviously the similarities between he and an ISTj will be there, they're comparative types, but looking at his site its pretty obvious he is intuitive. If you don't believe that you can talk to him yourself... if you have the guts

[Jonathan]

gilligan87: Upon reading further into his posts, I can see some Se. I would guess IST_.

How would you detect Se in an Ij type? What would you look for?

gilligan87: but INTps have Te, which is often connected with bluntness in arguments, especially when one believes the other party to be wrong.

Does everyone agree with that? I think that's at the heart of this thread from the start...Phaedrus's post seemed motivated by the question of whether it's INTps or INTjs who are like that. It seems to me that many people think that they're using Ti, when maybe they're using Te, or they see someone who appears to be using Te, and it's really Ti.

I know this isn't very precise, but looks at the faces of INTjs and INTp on the www.socioniko.net site. The INTjs seem so decided, confident in their views....so different from the MBTI descriptions of INTP (Ti/Ne).

[Rick]

I think Sergei is LII. At least I see no real reasons to suppose that he isn't. Also, as a general rule, people who are really knowledgeable about intertype relations have correctly determined their type, since thinking you're a different type would throw everything way off.

[Jonathan]

I agree. Although it's not unheard of for typology experts to change their view about their own type (I've seen it happen), I don't think his type is really at issue. I've been posting only in reference to interesting issues that other people have brought up on this thread.

In a sense, maybe the thread is misnamed...It seems that the more interesting point here is how people react after meeting someone presumed to be of a certain type who maybe doesn't jive with their preconceptions about what that type would be like.

[CuriousSoul]

As for his type, I have talked to Sergei alot, even before he opened up his forum and chat. He's actually an interesting and understanding person. Obviously the similarities between he and an ISTj will be there, they're comparative types, but looking at his site its pretty obvious he is intuitive. If you don't believe that you can talk to him yourself... if you have the guts

Bump

I do not really doubt his intuition. Hosting vanity sites appears to be a mainly intuitive hobby anyway, but I just keep wondering if it could be possible that he is actually an INTP.

[Phaedrus]

I do not really doubt his intuition. Hosting vanity sites appears to be a mainly intuitive hobby anyway, but I just keep wondering if it could be possible that he is actually an INTP.

No, beyond reasonable doubt that is not possible. SG is showing many signs of being an INTj/INTJ. His "debating method" is one example of that. I have recently realized that I have, for many years, experienced something very similar with my own father, who is also an INTj/INTJ. I think we should take for granted that SG actually is an INTj and also an INTJ.

[MysticSonic]

SG doesn't debate, nor is his method of arguing typical of INTjs.

[MysticSonic]

That is how I think naturally----which is why I have a hard time understanding how I came to a conclusion a week later if I revist it. My thought process is too convoluted.

[science as magic]

Parodies are bad means by which to form an anology

He means that your observance of his atypical jargon doesn't imply non-intjness I believe.

[Joy]

I can think of few things more amusing than the idea of SG mistyping himself. I don't have much of an opinion on the matter other than that I saw Te when talking to him. But since internet typing is a sham and I didn't talk to him all that much to begin with, maybe 5 hours if you add it all up.

[Jonathan]

I can think of few things more amusing than the idea of SG mistyping himself. I don't have much of an opinion on the matter other than that I saw Te when talking to him. But since internet typing is a sham and I didn't talk to him all that much to begin with, maybe 5 hours if you add it all up.

That's opening up the age-old vs. question again.
Most people's conceptions of Te fit the MBTI view, which is that the decisive, confrontational, cut-off-all-discussion, I'm-right-and-you're-wrong kind of T must be Te, whereas Socionists tend to think Ti can be that way, but only if it's dominant...whereas Te if it's the 2nd function can be flexible, wavering, and accomodating.

[Joy]

so pretty much he's XXTj?

[Jonathan]

I guess if he's INTp, then the people on his forums that he thinks are INTp are probably INTj.

[Phaedrus]

I guess if he's INTp, then the people on his forums that he thinks are INTp are probably INTj.

And if that is true, then (among other things) this follows:

1. The socionic descriptions of INTjs and INTps are false and misleading.
2. The MBTI descriptions of the types are better than the socionic descriptions.
3. The socionic descriptions of J and P behaviour are totally false.
4. The descriptions of the quadras are false and probably also the whole idea of the quadras in its present state.
5. Many of the descriptions of the type relations are probably false.

So, what is more likely to be the case ... that it is true that SG is an INTp ... or that at least one of the statements 1, 2, 3, 4 and 5 is false? (You can't choose both options.)

[Rocky]

I can think of few things more amusing than the idea of SG mistyping himself. I don't have much of an opinion on the matter other than that I saw Te when talking to him. But since internet typing is a sham and I didn't talk to him all that much to begin with, maybe 5 hours if you add it all up.

That's opening up the age-old vs. question again.
Most people's conceptions of Te fit the MBTI view, which is that the decisive, confrontational, cut-off-all-discussion, I'm-right-and-you're-wrong kind of T must be Te, whereas Socionists tend to think Ti can be that way, but only if it's dominant...whereas Te if it's the 2nd function can be flexible, wavering, and accomodating.

Then why in socionics does it say that INTJ is more flexable and ISTP is rigid?

[Phaedrus]

Do you have trouble following logical reasoning, Transigent? I really can't understand what it is that irritates you so much. (I'm not joking or trying to be ironic or something here). My point is that SG can't be an INTp. How would you prefer that I argued for it?

[Joy]

Do you have trouble following logical reasoning, Transigent? I really can't understand what it is that irritates you so much. (I'm not joking or trying to be ironic or something here). My point is that SG can't be an INTp. How would you prefer that I argued for it?

He CAN'T be an INTp? As in, it is not realisically possible? It just can't be? No way? Inconprensible? Impossible? Nonsensical?

BURN.

[Phaedrus]

He CAN'T be an INTp? As in, it is not realisically possible? It just can't be? No way? Inconprensible? Impossible? Nonsensical?

It is theoretically possible that SG is an INTp, it is not incomprehensible, it is not impossible, it is not nonsensical, but almost every piece of empirical evidence suggests that he is not an INTp.

[Phaedrus]

I guess it's pretty obvious by now the best part of you ran down the crack of your mothers ass and ended up as a brown stain on the mattress.

There are so many things wrong with your idiot reasoning my brain would explode if I even began to think about it.

Thanks for all your compliments, Transigent!

I didn't start this thread about SG's type, and I don't doubt that he is an INTj. But why should anyone who might not be convinced of his type be treated as an idiot?

[Kim]

Who said you needed to argue it? Sergei Ganin is INTj. DUH! That is like, uh, obvious? He says he is. He has no reason to lie. He understands socionics. He's known about it for more then 15 years. He hasn't done anything to consistently show he is lying. So WTF?

I doubt he is INTj. He is too in-your-face condescending and rude ( gone bad). ESTp? ESTj?

Neither INTj nor INTp. Too unpleasant in an sort of way.

NOW TREAT ME LIKE AN IDIOT! YAY!

[Kim]

oh, I'll throw ENTj into the mix!

[FDG]

Who said you needed to argue it? Sergei Ganin is INTj. DUH! That is like, uh, obvious? He says he is. He has no reason to lie. He understands socionics. He's known about it for more then 15 years. He hasn't done anything to consistently show he is lying. So WTF?

I doubt he is INTj. He is too in-your-face condescending and rude ( gone bad). ESTp? ESTj?

Neither INTj nor INTp. Too unpleasant in an sort of way.

NOW TREAT ME LIKE AN IDIOT! YAY!

I personally think he's ISTj, and that would totally fit your observation.

ENTj is possible.

[Jonathan]

Rocky: Then why in socionics does it say that INTJ is more flexable and ISTP is rigid?

That's interesting. Where did you find that? I've heard ISTps described as wanting to do things their own way, but not as rigid.

Anyhow, rigid can mean a lot of different things. A more thorough description of the dichotomy at issue is at http://www.socionics.us/theory/rat_irr.shtml.

From this description, INTjs and other "rational" types like to keep things in order, like to plan, etc. From some of the threads, it seems that people are more likely to associate those behaviors with instead of ., because they more easily associate with a "law and order" mentality.

That's the ongoing and probably unresolvable / debate.

One common way that Socionists try to resolve that debate is by stating that the functions act very differently depending on if they're in the 2nd position in the ego block.

[Phaedrus]

Quote:
2. The MBTI descriptions of the types are better than the socionic descriptions.

Which MBTI type descriptions? Some of them are pretty good, but just try telling INFJs and INFps apart by trying to fit the type descriptions to "real humans".

I agree with you about the INFJs and INFPs, but I think that (given the assumptions made) the MBTI descriptions of INTJs and INTPs are better.

One thing often mentioned in the MBTI descriptions of INTJs is that they are system thinkers, or system builders. That might be a very important little fact if we want to understand the difference between INTjs and INTps. Yesterday I found this site of an INTJ: http://www.systemsthinker.com/intere...d/ptypes.shtml

I think that he is also an INTj. Can you see that he is extremely resemblant to the chess player Bobby Fischer, whom I have typed (after a rather deep research) INTJ/INTj?

The Quadras are an abstraction of some value... My observations seem to suggest that many people seem to prefer the company of people from their own Quadra. Do you not like Alpha? I am not 100% confident of your type by no means.

Well ... I like and have many friends who are ENTps, but I am very sure of the types of some other friends of mine, who are ISFj, ENTj and ESFp. When we are together I feel that sense of being part of a team, that I thought was typical of a complete quadra. I can relate strongly to being a critic. I also feel pretty strongly that I am very different from ESFjs (it's impossible that I have mistyped them) and that we live in "different worlds", whereas I am more at ease with ESFps. I am definitely a P type in the MBTI and Keirsey sense and also according to most definitions of P and J behaviour in Socionics. I am also definitely an introverted type, so ENTp is not an option either. (I am also clearly different from those friends of mine whom I know are ENTps.)

I appreciate your cool head and polite manners.

The appreciation is mutual.

Most of "the empirical evidence" actually suggests he is an INTP. I used the scare quotes, because there is no truly objective way to determine socionics types. And when the Truth is not available, we must think for ourselves. Introverted thinking is required.

I am of course very interested in hearing more about your arguments based on empirical evidence. One strong reason for me to be very suspicious about it is that if you are right, the whole socionic structure seems to fall apart, taking many things - the quadras, the type relations, the difference between J and P, and so on - with it in the fall.

[Rick]

If all goes well, I will meet Sergei in two months. If he doesn't mind, I'll write about our meeting and the socionics topics we discuss, including his type.

[Rocky]

If he's not INTJ then he's ISTJ. The level of Ti reasoning is apparent in his articles.

But I somehow doubt ISTJ because ISTJs are usually very cautious about what they say and do, whereas Ganin likes to boast theories all around the place. Some of the things he says really makes no sense to be honest.

[science as magic]

sergei is obviously a ninja. i am a pirate. we are duals.

YAAAARRRR!!!!

[Jonathan]

but I am very sure of the types of some other friends of mine, who are ISFj, ENTj and ESFp.

I've had very close friendships with these types too. But when I'm around ESFjs, ISFps, etc., it stimulates other sides of me that I like also. The relationship test is hard for me because whereas in Socionics you're supposed to be like a fixed thing that never changes, I really seem to go both ways.

The types with (ESFp, ISFj) seem to make me slow down a little bit, so I can focus on their situation with what seem to be and . Often, it seems just right; other times when I'm in what I perceive to be an Alpha state, I don't feel like "slowing down" and so I feel some cognitive dissonance inside. That would suggest possibly that I'm Alpha. But long-term relations with ESFjs and ISFps have just never developed, whereas I much more often find myself close to ESFps and ISFjs, which would suggest Gamma....So I guess it's inconclusive.

But I appreciate CuriousSoul for recognizing the "tough questions" that most people are avoiding.

[CuriousSoul]

Well ... I like and have many friends who are ENTps, but I am very sure of the types of some other friends of mine, who are ISFj, ENTj and ESFp. When we are together I feel that sense of being part of a team, that I thought was typical of a complete quadra. I can relate strongly to being a critic. I also feel pretty strongly that I am very different from ESFjs (it's impossible that I have mistyped them) and that we live in "different worlds", whereas I am more at ease with ESFps. I am definitely a P type in the MBTI and Keirsey sense and also according to most definitions of P and J behaviour in Socionics. I am also definitely an introverted type, so ENTp is not an option either. (I am also clearly different from those friends of mine whom I know are ENTps.)

I am of course very interested in hearing more about your arguments based on empirical evidence. One strong reason for me to be very suspicious about it is that if you are right, the whole socionic structure seems to fall apart, taking many things - the quadras, the type relations, the difference between J and P, and so on - with it in the fall.

Well, the J/P scale does not work for INFPs/INFJs. I was not trying to retype you. Then you most likely are an INTP. I think I got a bit carried away with my theory, but I had some intuitive illuminations, that seemed to fit together and there are some things I shall try to analyze. I have tried quite a many approaches to typing in the past, but nothing much seems to work. Perhaps the Ti/Te dichotomy can actually be useful in typing, and perhaps the other functions too...

[Phaedrus]

I think I got a bit carried away with my theory, but I had some intuitive illuminations, that seemed to fit together and there are some things I shall try to analyze.

Can't you give us some hints about your intuitive illuminations? I am also a very curious soul ... My own experience with being in a complete quadra is still rather limited, and I have had much more contact with ESFjs than with ESFps. I still want to understand why it seems to be so easy to misunderstand or be confused about these things. Since I have been wrong about these things in the past, I can never be 100 % sure that I am right now, even though I have never been as sure as I am now.