Do INTpJ and INTjP types exist?

[Jonathan]

I think I've read that Mike_intj considers himself an INTp in Socionics but an INTJ in MBTI...i.e., INTp with "J" behaviors...presumably, likes closure, likes things to be decided, good at having closure and moving on, etc.

...Which leads to the question of whether these types exist:
INTpJ (INTp..that is , but J).
INTjP (INTj but P).
ENTp introverts (an overall introverted point of view, but dominant)
ISFp with stronger N and T than S and F (ISFp in outlook, NT in strength of functions)
INTp with + instead of as the first function, and as the second. (+ would combine, sort of like a neutron and positron, to form a sort of , with the part making the more focused on finding that "special idea")

More importantly, how would one tell if someone were one of these variants? How would that person behave?

[Creepy-]

I think you might be placing too much significance on J/P and I/E.

For example:

An ENTp could be introverted in the social sense of the word because the social definitions are not the same as Socionics definitions and only loosley correlate. ENxPs are meant to be the shyest of the extroverts, anyway.

Also, it must be remembered that "J" and "P" are merely indicators of the first function and are meaningless when considered as facets in their own right.

As for your ISFp example - Socionics is irrelevant when you are alone, so it is plausible.

[Transigent]

Edited for gayness.

[CuriousSoul]

Very good my boy.
And now how about ENTP who is in the Beta ENFJ.
And yes, that would be you.
Maybe...

[UDP]

Lemme break it down for ya, k?

INTp who is in Alpha = INTj

INTp who is in Gamma = INTp

INTj who is in Alpha = INTj

INTj who is in Gamma = INTp

Learn the Quadras! Seriously, it makes things MUCH easier, especially when dealing with stuff like this.

And not for the feint of hart:

INTp who is in Beta = INFp

INTp who is in Delta = ISTp

INTj who is in Beta = ISTj

INTj who is in Delta = INFj

K now? Thank you, come again.

There is another agreement!

[Gilly]

Very good my boy.
And now how about ENTP who is in the Beta ENFJ.
And yes, that would be you.
Maybe...

That would be ESTp, actually.

[Jonathan]

think you might be placing too much significance on J/P and I/E.

Every major Socionics websites has some discussion of J/P (which in Socionics is rational/irrational types) and I/E. At issue isn't whether I think these concepts apply as individual qualities to different types. Rather, the issue is whether the Socionics sites and articles that clearly state that they do are correct.

By the way, by suggesting the hypothesis that I/E and J/P are not correlated with type, you're basically agreeing with me that these various combinations I proposed are possible, or even possibly the norm. The question is their behaviors, what they're like, etc.

An ENTp could be introverted in the social sense of the word because the social definitions are not the same as Socionics definitions

Actually, discussion of the "social sense of the word" isn't really relevant because my post made no mention of sociability. Instead, at issue here is whether extraversion/introversion in Socionics correlate to Jung's definition of these terms, or in fact to any coherent definition of extraversion/introversion at all. For example, Jung wrote about how introverts and extraverts see the world differently. Many people believe that they're extraverts or introverts not because of sociability, but because they think differently. Perhaps in Socionics, no coherent definition of extraverion/introversion has any relationship to the extraverted and introverted types. That would be a big break from Jung, and from the stated theory.

[Jonathan]

Learn the Quadras! Seriously, it makes things MUCH easier, especially when dealing with stuff like this.

So, I'm to take it that we should throw out all the functional analysis, etc., etc., and rely on a short couple of sentences describing each quadra?

If Alpha is all about "bringing new ideas," minimzing conflict, "enjoying investigating new ideas and possibilities while in a comfortable atmosphere" and Gamma is all about criticizing "flaws and mistakes" and "sharp rejection of obsolete ideas," then I guess I must be Alpha, and am probably INTj or ENTp. That would mean that Phaedrus's analysis, while useful as a type-based insight into philosophy, doesn't quite work with how Socionics is supposed to apply to people (at least I'm to put that much stuck into the type descriptions...I don't mean to criticize Phaedrus's view here; I'm just pointing out a contradiction between viewpoints).

It would also mean that a lot of the conclusions people have been making on this site are wrong...Actually wrong isn't quite the word; I believe that there are two separate camps, two separate views about exactly which people (or which image of a person) fits into the different types, and Socionists really don't speak the same language even though they think they do, because they have different images in mind.

That said, my observation is that most of the people who bring new ideas are also the very same people who criticize ideas they see as flawed. In fact, I think you'll find that there's a very big correlation between criticizing old ideas and coming up with new ones. Often, to see the new, you must destroy the old misconceptions. The new comes from the ruins of the old.

So it seems to me that the quadra descriptions are based on some false dichotomies.

Above this, they appear to have a real NT slant. I mean, is ESFp really about criticizing flaws and mistakes?

[Rocky]

Above this, they appear to have a real NT slant. I mean, is ESFp really about criticizing flaws and mistakes?

Most definately yes.


J/P qualities change as often as E/I (when you are using a judging function, you are judging, and so on).

[Phaedrus]

This is a good thread, and you have made some very good points here, Jonathan. I'd like to add a few comments.

So, I'm to take it that we should throw out all the functional analysis, etc., etc., and rely on a short couple of sentences describing each quadra?

In a sense I would like to say: Yes, if some socionists didn't focus so much on the functional analysis, they would probably come to more correct conclusions about people's types. The quadras is one way of looking at the types, one perspective out many possible perspectives. And I think it is a useful one. But it is not enough.

The descriptions of the quadras might give us a correct view of the types and their relations, but it is incomplete in a way that makes them misleading and confusing if you only look at the quadras. From my general perspective I think I can see that there definitely is something in it that is correct, but I would probably go astray if I didn't also know something about Keirsey's temperaments, Sheldon's body types, all the different type descriptions from various models like the MBTI, Socionics, the Enneagram, and so on. Together all those sources they give us a view of the types that is correct for most practical purposes. But if you leave out one aspect, if you for example ignore V. I. or Keirsey's temperaments and only use functional analysis and quadra knowledge, you can easily make incorrect type suggestions that could have been ruled out if you knew about the other things I've mentioned.

Jonathan wrote:
Above this, they appear to have a real NT slant. I mean, is ESFp really about criticizing flaws and mistakes?

Most definately yes.

I agree.

It would also mean that a lot of the conclusions people have been making on this site are wrong...Actually wrong isn't quite the word;

Actually "wrong" is the right word for it. And one reason why their conclusions are wrong I have mentioned above.

I believe that there are two separate camps, two separate views about exactly which people (or which image of a person) fits into the different types, and Socionists really don't speak the same language even though they think they do, because they have different images in mind.

It definitely seems so, yes.

[Transigent]

Edited for gayness.

[Joy]

Yeah, these two have taken the concept of ejaculating into each other's thighs one step too far.

[Phaedrus]

You people ramble on with excess words, making no sense, and understanding nothing.

That the level of intelligence is not equally distributed around the world is a sad fact of life that one probably just have to accept ...

[Transigent]

Edited for gayness.

[Phaedrus]

Ironic that you pointed this out for me...

Is it? No ... you can't be serious! But I don't understand irony, so maybe I've missed something here ...

[Phaedrus]

Don't ever move to America, we have enough idiots here.

Well ...

[Jonathan]

Don't mind them. Unfortunately, in any public internet forum, there are always people who feel they have to deface every conversation with vulgarities. It's sad, in a way, that in an unmonitored site, like this one, these kinds of people end up dominating. It has to do with the depravity of human nature, the lack of any spiritual awareness or understanding. This is what Golding wrote about in the "Lord of the Flies."

That said, I hope that people who read this thread aren't intimidated to read it from the point of view of a serious intellectual discussion. The most those who want to play the role of "internet thugs" can do is add a bunch of vulgar, irrelevant posts between everything. At least they don't own this particular site.

As for others who have responded negatively to this particular thread...well, new ideas are threatening. I understand that. The purpose of this thread was to explore the possibility of types that don't display the expected behaviors according to lists like http://www.socionics.us/theory/rat_irr.shtml, and other unusual type combinations. It's unfortunate that people lash out as soon as anything like this is suggested.

As to those people who lash out, either in extreme or less extreme ways, remember this: You don't have to respond to a post if it doesn't interest you. Just ignore it. You don't have to deface the site.

[Transigent]

Edited for gayness.

[Apollonian]

*Laugh* *sigh* I'm not much for vulgarity, but I do find it ironic how socionics speaks to this sort of forum-post behavior (and especially interesting to note those types). Forum thugs are at points amusing, at points annoying, but generally I find it funny how some people can get so emotional and/or worked up about text which they can easily ignore.

Taken from: http://www.socionics.com/prof/entp.htm

ENTps do not know how to keep the right psychological distance with people. This becomes especially noticeable during long term interaction. One day they can be friendly and the next day they can be completely opposite. They often behave unceremoniously and can rudely butt in on others conversations.

*laugh*

Anyway... Seriously, does anyone have any further thoughts? I am interested. What would an INTjP seem like?

[UDP]

It seems kind of foolish....... almost like an MBTI infustion. I mean, if that were the case, I could justify myself as INTjPJ, because I can generate a lot of play in the P/J catagories, though I always test an "MBTI" INTJ on those pety tests.



But I'm definitely alpha quadra.

So, I don't know. "Whatever". If you guys want to hash something out of this, I'll keep watching. But I am not sure of what the real issue is, here.

[Transigent]

Edited for gayness.

[Apollonian]

Well, what isn't mentioned is the reasons for this. Apparently you missed the whole Phadreus/Jonathan/Promethus/etc. thing. They are being extremely gay, and have been jerking each other off for a WHILE now.

I'm curious. Why do I see a lot (if not most) of your posts which read "Edited for Gayness" ? Is this an attempt not to maintain a double standard?

Back to the point... what is wrong with comparing the MBTI with Socionics? Isn't the subtlety between P/J p/j something to be considered?

[Transigent]

Edited for gayness.

[Apollonian]

So...you see, it's pretty silly to add all sorts of extra things to stuff that is just an estimate in the first place!

I disagree here.

[edited for obfuscation]

I will summarize my point:
- I do not see typology as 'estimating' anything. Rather the 'estimate' comes when individuals identify themselves (insufficiently) as a given type when the reality is much more complicated (there is no type which describes the gestalt).
- Typology exists as a model by which we may compare human behavior (especially our own) in order to direct our inquiry into the "what" "how" and "why". In this way, it is a tool not a law of psychology.
- For those familiar with the concept of a Taylor Series Expansion, I look at typology as the first and maybe second order terms in understanding the full (infinite) reality. http://mathworld.wolfram.com/TaylorSeries.html

This being said, I am interested in learning the difference the model has between J/P and j/p so that I may direct my inquiry into why it is that my behavior with regard to those elements still doesn't seem to fit. Thereby, I may name some of my weaknesses in order to fix them (for which I would then have no excuse as Transigent has pointed out in another post).

[Jonathan]

Okay, a few things here. First of all, I'm not gay, and I find the comments being made about me to be extremely distasteful.

Second, the fact that Phaedrus agrees with my posts or resonates with them is just a fact and should be no concern of yours. Actually, it's nice when a few people actually agree with what you wrote, for a change. I don't know why you're making such a big deal about that.

Third, talking about J/P, or rationality/irrationality, is not an MBTI infusion. The rationality/irrationality dichotomy is part of Socionics; it's theorized in a way that's very similar to J/P in MBTI, but not the same.

Finally, the functions are concepts that relate to realities about how people think. The functions themselves are not estimates. If you take a test, or use VI, or reflect on how you think, you may come up with an estimate of what functions are involved, but the functions themselves aren't estimates.

[Apollonian]

Actually, it's nice when a few people actually agree with what you wrote, for a change.

I agree.

[Transigent]

Edited for gayness.

[Apollonian]

J/P as it is described: a lifestyle

Since when has J/P been about lifestyle? I thought, at least in MBTI, that J and P had to do with one's timeframe orientation and willfullness. This is an important but small subset of lifestyle from what I understand. e.g. You can lead a "lifestyle" which is entirely averse to your natural preferences (type). I don't think the two are correlated necessarily, though they do affect each other.

My understanding of J vs P from an MBTI perspective is this:
J - willfull and oriented toward closure.
"I know what I want and I'm working toward getting it."
P - consiliatory and oriented toward present process.
"I am on a journey and I want to see where it takes me."

I find this description useful, but it doesn't seem to fit well with "type" since I find these can tend to be more learned traits tied to personal experience. This is why I am interested in socionics.

However, if I am wrong about MBTI, please at least give me a reference or detailed rebuttal.

[Transigent]

Edited for gayness.

[Jonathan]

Well this matter (whether there is a certain quality of being a rational or irrational type that can be observed in people of those types) actually seems to be in dispute among Socionists, at least judging by sites dedicated to Socionics.

On one hand, there certainly are those who say that the distinction is merely technical, that it only has to do with whether you have a rational or irrational function.

On the other hand, you will find Socionics sites saying that the rationality/irrationality distinction is important and observable; for example, see http://www.socionics.com/main/types.htm or the more nuanced http://www.socionics.us/theory/rat_irr.shtml.

To answer the question of the difference between J/P vs. j/p, basically, MBTI uses descriptions that are slightly different from Socionics, but not all that different. The main difference is that MBTI theory postulates that only people with Te or Fe would display judging behavior, and only people with Ne or Se would display perceiving behavior. In my post, though, I mean INTjP to refer to someone who's but who fits even the Socionics descriptions of an irrational type (and of an introvert).

At risk of a long post, I'm going to cite one other source to show that the idea of the rationality/irrationality dichotomy being observable accross types is, in fact, a standard view in Socionics.

Consider Dmitri's Introduction into Socionics Part 1 (http://www.socioniko.net/en/articles/lytovs-intro1.html). He discusses the origin of Socionics in Jung's work, and describes the rationality/irrationality dichotomy as follows:

this last dichotomy deals with adherence to principle (rationality) or spontaneity, flexibility (irrationality). Psychology has an almost synonymous term: rigidity/lability.

Lest you think that this applies only to the Jungian roots, and not to Socionics itself, consider his description of his multifactor questions in part 2 http://www.socioniko.net/en/articles/lytovs-intro2.html:

4. Judgment/perception (in socionics: rationality / irrationality; C.G. Jung used the BOTH terms as synonyms, while Myers and Keirsey distinguish them).
The socionic criterion of rationality/irrationality, according to Jung, describes rigidity or lability of the central neural system. Rational types are rigid, judgment-focused: they strive for being consistent, systematic in their deeds, keep plans even when situation changes. By contrast, irrational people are more flexible, perception-focused: they adapt to the changing situation, and their emotional outbursts do not last too long, even when they are strong.

This descriptions was first given by Jung, accepted by Isabel Myers… and misinterpreted by her! She understood judgment as strong will, perception as weakness of character. Since such her interpretation contradicted to the original Jung's descriptions of types, she later invented a very strange model, where judgment/perception was described as something else than rationality/irrationality. Still, her model embarrasses people when they read original Jung's works! And such interpretation resulted in some bugs in her test, which we have already described above.

But let us return to socionics. Augusta completely accepted the original Jung's description of this criterion. However, initially she made another mistake. She wrongly identified this criterion with E.Kretschmer's schizothymes / cyclothymiacs. Later this hypothesis was disproved by other socionists. But still, some adepts of socionics, who read only early Augusta's work, wrongly believe that rationals are “gaunt and asthenic, with strict motions”, while irrationals are “cat-gaited, with roundish motions”.

Here are the questions from our test that correlate with rationality/irrationality.

Lability (irrationality): positive answers
13. When I practice my hobby, time ceases to exist for me. As a result, I can even forget about some important plans or promises made to other people.

64. I live in harmony with my feelings and do not like to force myself to do things which I do not like or limit myself with plans and schedules.

166. I believe that successful solutions are determined rather by freedom and spontaneity than by planning and organized actions.

253. When I fulfill any of my ideas, a different tempting idea can easily distract me, and then I can abandon my undertaking halfway.

283. Even possessing good thinking, I often lack the skill and desire to plan my work.

Rigidity (rationality): positive answers
31. I can easily plan my day so I can make all the needed contacts and visits in time.

42. I do not like to leave a work uncompleted.

91. First my work, then my rest, but never vice versa!

210. I prefer to schedule my time in advance, and for this reason, I have to now about other's people plans.

219. I am consequent in my actions.

254. I succeed in keeping my affairs in order, and I am allergic to any chaos or unsystematic actions.

261. I am a person of obligations (before my family, friends, and work).

275. When my work is more or less complicated, I first plan it, and then methodically follow my plan.

291. I never give worthless promises and do not respect people who make them too easily.

[Jonathan]

(PS...one small side note...I don't necessarily agree with the statement that Myers "understood judgment as strong will, perception as weakness of character." But that point aside, the quotes and references show clearly that Socionists do consider the rationality/irrationality dichotomy valid to use to figure out and describe Socionics types.)

[Creepy-]

Jonathan,

Yes, rationality/irrationality is important in figuring out type, however it is not nearly as important as the functions that determine them. Rationality is a mere side effect of having predominant Thinking or Feeling, as irrationality is a mere side effect of having predominant Sensation or Intuition.

[Transigent]

Edited for gayness.

[Creepy-]

Tests are NOT a good way to determine type, because of something called ADAPTATION.

Jonathan should also read these threads:

oldforumlinkviewtopic.php?t=3269
oldforumlinkviewtopic.php?t=3329

[Jonathan]

Yes, rationality/irrationality is important in figuring out type, however it is not nearly as important as the functions that determine them. Rationality is a mere side effect of having predominant Thinking or Feeling, as irrationality is a mere side effect of having predominant Sensation or Intuition.

I understand that that's the theory. However, I'm challenging the theory. Specifically, I'm asking the question about whether there are times when the behaviors that Socionists say are characteristic of rational or irrational types incorrectly predict which function is dominant, and if so, what would the associated behaviors be?

To say simply that rationality/irrationality isn't quite as important as the functions doesn't help; the fact is, it is important (as you stated), and many instruments to determine type, such as Dmitri's multifactor test and others, use it. Plus, rationality/irrationality behaviors are often very clearly seen in individuals, whereas sometimes the functions are more obscured.

I understand that if you're only looking at the theory, you might find the question irrelevant. After all, if what I'm suggesting is different from what the theory predicts, then it must be some weird quirk or simply wrong.

However, I'm asking the question from an empirical point of view. If you don't know anybody who would fit what I'm describing, then fine; it doesn't really concern you then. However, what I'm interested in is whether other people have either:
1) observed people (themselves or others) who seem to fit what I'm describing, or
2) observed people who only appear to fit it, but really don't (and here's why they don't...).

Those kinds of observations I would consider useful. Just saying "well you obviously don't understand the theory, since you're saying something that's different from what the theory says" isn't really useful because I know it's not what the theory says. And to say "well, I don't see it as important" is just a subjective statement about what you personally feel is important, and it's obviously important to me, which is why I'm posing the question.

[Jonathan]

By the way, this really isn't about tests either, even though I used the multifactor test as an example. I understand that tests are fallible, that self-observation is subject to bias, etc., etc.

You're talking about the fallibility of methods; I'm just talking about an essential question here regarding rat/irrat behaviors. The methods to determine this is a separate issue...and certainly I would agree that forums aren't the best tool...but at least it's interesting to see what people say, if they're willing to offer some constructive ideas.

[Creepy-]

Jonathan, what you don't realise is that ultimately I am on your side!

People don't always conform to the typical characteristics of J/P, and the theory supports this because they are less important than T/F/S/N.

Also, I feel that the said characteristics can be learned without too much struggle (unlike an Intuitive trying to learn "Sensation" which is much more difficult).

[Creepy-]

For example:

(From Rick's website)

Strengths of Rationality

* act decisively and keep correct course in stable circumstances
* keeping things under order
* completing one task before starting another

Easily learned. They can also be fairly easily unlearned, resulting in...

Strengths of Irrationality

* act decisively in unstable circumstances
* improvisation; changing plans midstream
* doing several tasks at once

[Transigent]

Edited for gayness.

[FDG]

- go because maybe you can laugh and have fun

- go because you can maybe do something productive or learn something

I relate to both, but more strongly to the one. What does this mean?