Scientist and Thinker: INTj or INTp?

[Pa3s]

And why would you say that?

It's my impression that INTps are those who always try to bring order into chaos. They have, unlike INTjs, the ablity to 'read' chaotic situations. But at the same time, they may have problems if they need to understand other people's systems and structures. That's why they order the information in an own way. INTjs can analyze external systems very well, but it can be difficult for them if they have no structure at all to study. That's why they prefer their information in an organized way and INTps want them raw.

[JohnDo]

Both descriptions are INTx.

Discussions are pointless. See this thread.

And once again: Those personalitypage descriptions are not professional MBTI descriptions!

MBTI INTJ = Socionics INTj
MBTI INTP = Socionics INTp
personalitypage INTJ = MBTI INTX = Socionics INTx
personalitypage INTP = MBTI INTX = Socionics INTx

[717495]

Personality page has NJs as more practical Te-ish seeming than NPs. So INTJ automatically seem Te valuing in some places because they make Js out to be more practical, productive, more result focused, and they do this with INFJs too, and Ps are their own world, or a more theoretical/debatable one. P supposedly means to question and J to answer. So I wonder if MBTI INTJs are really supposed to be like that. + I'm aware that INTps aren't really like that, aside from wanting more a practical result. The Jness constitutes the more ENTj/ESTj Te or maybe Ti-dominant as well, INTps aren't supposed to be dominantly focused on being productive, proactive or decisive.

And once again: Those personalitypage descriptions are not professional MBTI descriptions!

Ok so where are the professional ones?

[Crispy]

Both descriptions are INTx.

Discussions are pointless. See this thread.

And once again: Those personalitypage descriptions are not professional MBTI descriptions!

MBTI INTJ = Socionics INTj
MBTI INTP = Socionics INTp
personalitypage INTJ = MBTI INTX = Socionics INTx
personalitypage INTP = MBTI INTX = Socionics INTx

This actually seems plausible given the poll results, and the mass amounts of confusion in general. I don't think sites like Kiersey are going to do any better though. There has to be at least 2-3 good sets of MBTI descriptions out there that don't let functions interfere with descriptions. I guess it's research time.

[Creepy-Pied Piper]

Removed at User Request

[Crispy]

I don't see how someone could put Maritsa and someone else in the same group. Maritsa is one-of-a-kind.

[Creepy-Pied Piper]

Removed at User Request

[717495]

Personality page sounds somewhat more like Keirsey too. Keirsey is not going to fit very well, but the better MBTI descriptions do.

Here are descriptions from a book Jarno recommended me:

INTJ
INTP

[xerx]

I moved this back. Just a little misunderstanding.

[Aiss]

It's all exclusively about those descriptions and Socionics.

Those descriptions don't work for any socionics type, IMO.

[JohnDo]

The best way of dealing with MBTI/Keirsey/personalitypage: Ignoring it completely.

One year ago, when I entered this forum, I was of a different opinion. I thought the MBTI/Keirsey/personalitypage descriptions were very useful and strongly related to INTJ. Today I know much more about my personality so I can't identify with neither INTJ nor INTP.

In MBTI (or on personalitypage) types are defined by the forur preferences . Judging/perceiving on personalitypage is not much different than in socionics:

We are using Judging when we:
Make a list of things to do
Schedule things in advance
Form and express judgments
Bring closure to an issue so that we can move on

We are using Perceiving when we:
Postpone decisions to see what other options are available
Act spontaneously
Decide what to do as we do it, rather than forming a plan ahead of time
Do things at the last minute

In other words: An INTj can't be INTP and an INTp can't be INTJ. It obviously doesn't work. The type descriptions are just bad because of the wrong order of functions...

[Aleksei]

This actually seems plausible given the poll results, and the mass amounts of confusion in general. I don't think sites like Kiersey are going to do any better though. There has to be at least 2-3 good sets of MBTI descriptions out there that don't let functions interfere with descriptions. I guess it's research time.

There's your problem right there. Descriptions that pay no heed to functions are inherently incorrect, as MBTI is built specifically on a foundation of Jungian functions. Kersey isn't, but Keirsey isn't a system of Jungian typology.

[Pa3s]

The best way of dealing with MBTI/Keirsey/personalitypage: Ignoring it completely.

Yes, I agree. I don't have anything against a thread where people should say what they think more sounds like LII/ILI, but in general, I think you have to decide which one of these system you accept. Reading and referring to both just ends up in confusion I think.

[Aleksei]

I tend to use both separately, as they're both useful systems but divorced from one another.

[Krig the Viking]

Yes, I agree. I don't have anything against a thread where people should say what they think more sounds like LII/ILI, but in general, I think you have to decide which one of these system you accept. Reading and referring to both just ends up in confusion I think.

Agreed x2. From what I can tell, Meyers' and Briggs' typing skills left something to be desired, so what wound up happening is that each group of people that they based their type descriptions on contained a mixed bag of different types, resulting in imprecise descriptions. This is especially apparent with the INTx types. It's also the reason why MBTI never developed a reliable intertype relations system -- when your "INTJ" group contains both LIIs and ILIs and possibly others, the intertype relations of that group are going to be somewhat unpredictable [/understatement].

In fact, now that I think of it, don't MBTI websites often give ENFP and ENTP as INTJ's most compatible relationships? That would be Supervisee and Mirror for LII, and Mirage and Contrary for ILI. It seems to me that those are the relationships (along with Identity/Quasi-Identity) that both ILI and LII can agree are relatively OK; everything else either LII loves and ILI hates, or vice-versa.

[Aleksei]

And while the MBTI descriptions are very flawed, I do not know of any description which is flawless, but I suppose Socionics descriptions tend towards being more on the mark.

They're more on the mark about Socionics types (being Socionics descriptions and all), which are really not the same as MBTI types.

[Aiss]

Yes, I agree. I don't have anything against a thread where people should say what they think more sounds like LII/ILI, but in general, I think you have to decide which one of these system you accept. Reading and referring to both just ends up in confusion I think.

So it's better to lock oneself in a chosen one? Seems kind of backwards. No system is perfect, but they at least give multiple perspectives - to be considered, not "accepted" or believed or whatever like that. Merely in my opinion, of course.

[Pa3s]

So it's better to lock oneself in a chosen one? Seems kind of backwards. No system is perfect, but they at least give multiple perspectives - to be considered, not "accepted" or believed or whatever like that. Merely in my opinion, of course.

No, I didn't mean it that way. The problem with Socionics and MBTI is that they appear to be very similar, which leads to confusion. At some point you think it's just the same, but some facts are still different. Because both theories had the same origin, the work of C.G. Jung, they are like different branches of the same tree. As you can see, people here naturally combine Enneagram and Socionics. That's also what I do and I view it as a gain of my own personal typing. Maybe I have had a bad choice of words, with "accept" I didn't mean to take it as a given truth or a irrevocable fact, but to use socionics (rather than MBTI or an other theory) as the framework in which you make your assumptions. Without a framework at all you can't make clear statements on how your personality differs compared to others.

[krieger]

Agreed x2. From what I can tell, Meyers' and Briggs' typing skills left something to be desired, so what wound up happening is that each group of people that they based their type descriptions on contained a mixed bag of different types, resulting in imprecise descriptions. This is especially apparent with the INTx types. It's also the reason why MBTI never developed a reliable intertype relations system -- when your "INTJ" group contains both LIIs and ILIs and possibly others, the intertype relations of that group are going to be somewhat unpredictable [/understatement].

In fact, now that I think of it, don't MBTI websites often give ENFP and ENTP as INTJ's most compatible relationships? That would be Supervisee and Mirror for LII, and Mirage and Contrary for ILI. It seems to me that those are the relationships (along with Identity/Quasi-Identity) that both ILI and LII can agree are relatively OK; everything else either LII loves and ILI hates, or vice-versa.

In "Please Understand Me 1", Keirsey even recommends the conflictor relation under a 1 on 1 dichotomy wise correlation with socionics. In "Please Understand Me 2", he recommends supervisor/supervisee with matching N/S and makes a very suble remark about the conflictor relation being good too and theoretically better but too impractical.

[Krig the Viking]

In "Please Understand Me 1", Keirsey even recommends the conflictor relation under a 1 on 1 dichotomy wise correlation with socionics. In "Please Understand Me 2", he recommends supervisor/supervisee with matching N/S and makes a very suble remark about the conflictor relation being good too and theoretically better but too impractical.

Makes sense, if MBTI has difficulty distinguishing between Introverted Quasi-Identicals.