INTj description (by me)

[Hugo]

Analytical. They use logical reasoning in all matters. They try to make information as simple and clear as possible, by cutting out things they consider of lesser importance. The problem with this is that they neglect secondary information, which although is of lesser importance, is still nevertheless important. They think about “What is the main thing?”. They are fair in their approach with people. They seek to have an ideal systemic order in place on a “big picture” scale, which can be over the top and unrealistic. If they notice that something is unclear they ask questions to seek clarification, even on subtle details.


They are absent-minded daydreamers. They come up with ways of improving things. They are global thinkers, looking at the big picture. Good researchers.


They inappropriately use logical reasoning in matters concerning personal relationships. They do not think about how their words and actions affect people’s feelings. Rather than think about these things, to be safe, they are very polite and friendly and are unassertive. They giggle nervously and inappropriately with people they do not know well. They daydream when someone speaks to them, and so they ask questions to keeps up with the conversation. They can be over technical in their ethics, which can lead to problems in relationships. They are over conscious of people looking at them, because when people look at them they feel people are monitoring their behaviour. They bring up topics of conversation that are inappropriate for the moment.


They are lazy.


They are emotionally sensitive. This can lead them to be tearful on the one hand or happy on the other hand. Emotion is their driving force. They express their love, in words or actions, to people that matter to them.


They are impatient when it comes to eating tasty food - they dislike waiting. They worry about their health deteriorating because they neglect it. They may put effort into maintaining their health, and go over the top in this regard, but this lasts only for a short time, and then they go back to how they were doing things before. They do not give as much attention to their physical appearance as they would like to - they seek long term solutions to their physical appearance. They try to find and apply a logical formula to having a good physical appearance. They do not dress appropriately, for the moment.


They are unproductive. However, when they are under time pressure they become very efficient. They are very tight in spending money. When they spend money, they think of the items long term benefit. They may also spontaneously spend money on something that reflects their mood, but not without thinking how much money they can afford to dispose of. They do not follow a fixed periodic routine because it would dampen their motivation.


They are aware of time frames. With this knowledge, they tend to do things at the last minute, but within time. The quality of their work is poor because they do things rushed at the last minute. They are impatient and impulsive. They makes predictions of the distant future. They refrain from taking actions that they foresee as having disastrous long term consequences - this foresight of disaster is of the worst case scenario if they take a certain course of action, which is highly unlikely to occur, but nevertheless a possibility. They foresee certain actions as having the consequence of a very bright future, which again is highly unlikely to occur, but nevertheless a possibilities - this foresight makes them spring into action. When those bright hopes do not materialize, they feel sadness, but that does not make then lose heart and give up on their dreams. They will think of other ways of achieving their dreams. They don’t value symbolism.

[oyburger]

They are lazy.

Lots of people I know would agree all to readily with this part (though I try to deny it).

The rest looks good too.

[Hugo]

I thought you'd be the first to reply.

Feel free to add additional points.

[oyburger]

I think is the reason I developed social anxiety disorder.

[Rocky]

OK Hugo, since you thought I was INTJ... I'll BOLD everything here that I think applies to me;

Analytical. They use logical reasoning in all matters. They try to make information as simple and clear as possible, by cutting out things they consider of lesser importance. The problem with this is that they neglect secondary information, which although is of lesser importance, is still nevertheless important. They think about “What is the main thing?”. They are fair in their approach with people. They seek to have an ideal systemic order in place on a “big picture” scale, which can be over the top and unrealistic. If they notice that something is unclear they ask questions to seek clarification, even on subtle details.


They are absent-minded daydreamers. They come up with ways of improving things. They are global thinkers, looking at the big picture. Good researchers.


They inappropriately use logical reasoning in matters concerning personal relationships. They do not think about how their words and actions affect people’s feelings. Rather than think about these things, to be safe, they are very polite and friendly and appear unassertive. They giggle nervously and inappropriately with people they do not know well. They daydream when someone speaks to them, and so they ask questions to keeps up with the conversation. They can be over technical in their ethics, which can lead to problems in relationships. They are over conscious of people looking at them, because when people look at them they feel people are monitoring their behaviour. They bring up topics of conversation that are inappropriate for the moment.


They are lazy.


They are emotionally sensitive. This can lead them to be tearful on the one hand or happy on the other hand. Emotion is their driving force. They express their love, in words or actions, to people that matter to them.


They are impatient when it comes to eating tasty food - they dislike waiting. They worry about their health deteriorating because they neglect it. They may put effort into maintaining their health, and go over the top in this regard, but this lasts only for a short time, and then they go back to how they were doing things before. They do not give as much attention to their physical appearance as they would like to - they seek long term solutions to their physical appearance. They try to find and apply a logical formula to having a good physical appearance. They dress appropriately, for the moment.


They are unproductive. However, when they are under time pressure they become very efficient. They are very tight in spending money. When they spend money, they think of the items long term benefit. They may also spontaneously spend money on something that reflects their mood, but not without thinking how much money they can afford to dispose of. They do not follow a fixed periodic routine because it would dampen their motivation.


They are aware of time frames. With this knowledge, they tend to do things at the last minute, but within time. The quality of their work is poor because they do things rushed at the last minute. They are impatient and impulsive. They makes predictions of the distant future. They refrain from taking actions that they foresee as having disastrous long term consequences - this foresight of disaster is of the worst case scenario if they take a certain course of action, which is highly unlikely to occur, but nevertheless a possibility. They foresee certain actions as having the consequence of a very bright future, which again is highly unlikely to occur, but nevertheless a possibilities - this foresight makes them spring into action. When those bright hopes do not materialize, they feel sadness, but that does not make then lose heart and give up on their dreams. They will think of other ways of achieving their dreams. They don’t value symbolism.

[Logos]

They are lazy.

The truth hurts. We lack initiative.

[MysticSonic]

It's like you're looking into my soul.

[oyburger]

It's like you're looking into my soul.

A good example of INTj sarcastic humor

[snegledmaca]

This description made me LOL. I'll bold the parts that apply to me

Analytical. They use logical reasoning in all matters. They try to make information as simple and clear as possible, by cutting out things they consider of lesser importance. The problem with this is that they neglect secondary information, which although is of lesser importance, is still nevertheless important. They think about “What is the main thing?”. They are fair in their approach with people. They seek to have an ideal systemic order in place on a “big picture” scale, which can be over the top and unrealistic. If they notice that something is unclear they ask questions to seek clarification, even on subtle details.


They are absent-minded daydreamers. They come up with ways of improving things. They are global thinkers, looking at the big picture. Good researchers.


They inappropriately use logical reasoning in matters concerning personal relationships. They do not think about how their words and actions affect people’s feelings. Rather than think about these things, to be safe, they are very polite and friendly and appear unassertive. They giggle nervously and inappropriately with people they do not know well. They daydream when someone speaks to them, and so they ask questions to keeps up with the conversation. They can be over technical in their ethics, which can lead to problems in relationships. They are over conscious of people looking at them, because when people look at them they feel people are monitoring their behaviour. They bring up topics of conversation that are inappropriate for the moment.

Actually I am overly conscious of looking at people, because when I look at people they might feel like I am monitoring their behaviour and I don't want that. I feel like bringing up topics of conversation that are inappropriate for the moment but am constantly restraining myself.


They are lazy.


They are emotionally sensitive. This can lead them to be tearful on the one hand or happy on the other hand. Emotion is their driving force. They express their love, in words or actions, to people that matter to them.


They are impatient when it comes to eating tasty food - they dislike waiting. They worry about their health deteriorating because they neglect it. They may put effort into maintaining their health,and go over the top in this regard, but this lasts only for a short time, and then they go back to how they were doing things before. They do not give as much attention to their physical appearance as they would like to - they seek long term solutions to their physical appearance. They try to find and apply a logical formula to having a good physical appearance. They dress appropriately, for the moment.


They are unproductive. However, when they are under time pressure they become very efficient. They are very tight in spending money. When they spend money, they think of the items long term benefit. They may also spontaneously spend money on something that reflects their mood, but not without thinking how much money they can afford to dispose of. They do not follow a fixed periodic routine because it would dampen their motivation.


They are aware of time frames. With this knowledge, they tend to do things at the last minute, but within time. The quality of their work is poor because they do things rushed at the last minute. They are impatient and impulsive. They makes predictions of the distant future. They refrain from taking actions that they foresee as having disastrous long term consequences - this foresight of disaster is of the worst case scenario if they take a certain course of action, which is highly unlikely to occur, but nevertheless a possibility. They foresee certain actions as having the consequence of a very bright future, which again is highly unlikely to occur, but nevertheless a possibilities - this foresight makes them spring into action. When those bright hopes do not materialize, they feel sadness, but that does not make then lose heart and give up on their dreams. They will think of other ways of achieving their dreams. They don’t value symbolism.

[Hugo]

Actually when I made this description, I was thinking to myself how similar INTjs and INFps are.

I agree with this for INTjs:

I am overly conscious of looking at people, because when I look at people they might feel like I am monitoring their behaviour and I don't want that.

[snegledmaca]

Actually when I made this description, I was thinking to myself how similar INTjs and INFps are.

I agree with this for INTjs:

I am overly conscious of looking at people, because when I look at people they might feel like I am monitoring their behaviour and I don't want that.

Actually, it's one of the biggest complaints my ENFp friend has. He just doesn't understand how anybody can be like that. He tries to "correct" it.

[Ms. Kensington]

Bolding things I agree with, my comments italicized:

Analytical. They use logical reasoning in all matters. They try to make information as simple and clear as possible, by cutting out things they consider of lesser importance. The problem with this is that they neglect secondary information, which although is of lesser importance, is still nevertheless important. They think about “What is the main thing?”. They are fair in their approach with people. They seek to have an ideal systemic order in place on a “big picture” scale, which can be over the top and unrealistic. If they notice that something is unclear they ask questions to seek clarification, even on subtle details.

They are absent-minded daydreamers. They come up with ways of improving things. They are global thinkers, looking at the big picture. Good researchers.


They inappropriately use logical reasoning in matters concerning personal relationships. They do not think about how their words and actions affect people’s feelings. Rather than think about these things, to be safe, they are very polite and friendly and are unassertive. They giggle nervously and inappropriately with people they do not know well. They daydream when someone speaks to them, and so they ask questions to keeps up with the conversation. They can be over technical in their ethics, which can lead to problems in relationships. They are over conscious of people looking at them, because when people look at them they feel people are monitoring their behaviour. They bring up topics of conversation that are inappropriate for the moment.

That surprised me, its not something you see in every description and it's true for me!


They are lazy. if you mean, they cannot act.


They are emotionally sensitive. This can lead them to be tearful on the one hand or happy on the other hand. Emotion is their driving force. They express their love, in words or actions, to people that matter to them.

Is this last part Fi-ish?


They are impatient when it comes to eating tasty food - they dislike waiting. They worry about their health deteriorating because they neglect it. They may put effort into maintaining their health, and go over the top in this regard, but this lasts only for a short time, and then they go back to how they were doing things before. They do not give as much attention to their physical appearance as they would like to - they seek long term solutions to their physical appearance. They try to find and apply a logical formula to having a good physical appearance. They do not dress appropriately, for the moment.

Again, something not found in other type descriptions, and accurate. (try to come up with a logical formula for good appearance).


They are unproductive. However, when they are under time pressure they become very efficient. They are very tight in spending money. When they spend money, they think of the items long term benefit. They may also spontaneously spend money on something that reflects their mood, but not without thinking how much money they can afford to dispose of. They do not follow a fixed periodic routine because it would dampen their motivation.

not sure about the last part.


They are aware of time frames. With this knowledge, they tend to do things at the last minute, but within time. The quality of their work is poor because they do things rushed at the last minute. They are impatient and impulsive. They makes predictions of the distant future. They refrain from taking actions that they foresee as having disastrous long term consequences - this foresight of disaster is of the worst case scenario if they take a certain course of action, which is highly unlikely to occur, but nevertheless a possibility.They foresee certain actions as having the consequence of a very bright future, which again is highly unlikely to occur, but nevertheless a possibilities - this foresight makes them spring into action. When those bright hopes do not materialize, they feel sadness, but that does not make then lose heart and give up on their dreams. They will think of other ways of achieving their dreams. They don’t value symbolism.

not sure what the unbolded parts mean..

[Phaedrus]

Hugo, have you also written a description of INTps, or could you write one? It would be very interesting to compare them, because my first impression is that this is more of a description of INTps than of INTjs.

[xiuxiu]

i think it's very lucid

[UDP]

Oh, I guess I'm not really an INTj, then.

[oyburger]

Oh, I guess I'm not really an INTj, then.

[Jonathan]

Almost everything in Hugo's version of INTj fits me to a tee. The only parts that don't seem to apply are:

* "The problem with this is that they neglect secondary information, which although is of lesser importance, is still nevertheless important."
(Actually this is true of me if it means neglecting tasks of lesser importance. I guess it call comes down to what you mean by "secondary information.")
* Giggling nervously (I don't do that)
* "They are impatient when it comes to eating tasty food" (I savor my food)
* Not valuing symbolism (I guess it depends on what you mean by symbolism in this context).

Anyhow, like Phaedrus, I would be very interested in your version of what INTps are like.

Overall, your view of INTjs as daydreamers who see possibilities and do things at the last minute (instead of planning ahead) doesn't fit the people I would tend to think of as INTjs. But again, it all comes down to the version of Socionics one is considering, in your version, I'm an INTj, and the people whose behavior seems more rational-type-like (in Socionics terms) are probably INTp in your version of it.

It's interesting that you see INTjs as very similar to INFps....perhaps much more similar than you'd think INTps are to INFps?

[Gilly]

Hugo, have you also written a description of INTps, or could you write one? It would be very interesting to compare them, because my first impression is that this is more of a description of INTps than of INTjs.

You only think that because you believe yourself to be ILI when you are, in fact, LII. In other words...

Welcome to Alpha.

[UDP]

Emotion is their driving force.

Hmm... I wonder if that is applicable for all the types --- rationals base things logically, have the components of their rational (as in T or F) funciton, but need something irrational to motivate them (secondary/helping function).
INTjs need 'possibility' / Ne, which Ido experience in an 'emotional way'

For an irrational, it is flipped around. For instance, an ESFp would have sensing as the leading function, but it is motivated by the secondary/helping function, Fi.


I might not be stating anything new here, but I am sort of testing and observation for myself - what do you think about it? Does what I said seem correct?

[Phaedrus]

@All of you who are convinced that I am an INTj

Don't you realize that no matter how you cut it, we have got big problems to solve?

For example, if you are right, then the difference between rational (J) types and irrational (P) types is described incorrectly at every socionic site I have seen so far. That and other problems must be fixed somehow. So why don't you help us trying to solve them? I have analyzed my possible socionic type from almost every conceivable angle many, many times, using many, many different sources of information, and most of the evidence clearly suggest that I am an INTp.

Everything indicates that I have made a more thorough investigation of the difference between INTjs and INTps than most of you, so I have no legitimate reasons to think that you are right about this. But if you can come up with some really good arguments that I haven't considered yet, then of course I will reinvestigate it.

[xiuxiu]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Forer_effect

[Nessy]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Forer_effect

Plus INTj-centrism.

[Jonathan]

@All of you who are convinced that I am an INTj

Don't you realize that no matter how you cut it, we have got big problems to solve?

For example, if you are right, then the difference between rational (J) types and irrational (P) types is described incorrectly at every socionic site I have seen so far. That and other problems must be fixed somehow. So why don't you help us trying to solve them? I have analyzed my possible socionic type from almost every conceivable angle many, many times, using many, many different sources of information, and most of the evidence clearly suggest that I am an INTp.

Everything indicates that I have made a more thorough investigation of the difference between INTjs and INTps than most of you, so I have no legitimate reasons to think that you are right about this. But if you can come up with some really good arguments that I haven't considered yet, then of course I will reinvestigate it.

There are some potential solutions; however it may be difficult to find consensus around them. One approach is to say that classical Socionics tends to describe the accepting subtypes and not the producing ones, and that I(N)Tj is essentially "P." In this view, Hugo describes however the I(N)Tj whereas the more usual definitions in Socionics are IN(T)j. I(N)Tjs would more easily identify with I(N)Tps and would be more likely to act like I(N)Tps at times, whereas IN(T)js would act like similarly to IN(T)ps.

Another possibility is that certain people transcend the simplistic prototypes of Socionics, and hence can never fit into them; hence, a person with strong use of Ni, Te, Ti, and Ne will always have one foot in two different quadras.

In any event, the strain of Socionics represented by Hugo's posts, INTj more-or-less maps to INTP in other typologies, and the description of rationals and irrationals in Socionics sites is contradicted. It is a reasonable solution to postulate that maybe those descriptions on the sites are at fault. Someone from an MBTI perspective would tend to see rationality/irrationality in very different terms (e.g., rationals being IPs and EJs, etc.).

In the context of Hugo's version, what's less clear is the understanding of other introverted types.

Hugo mentioned that he sees INTj very similar to INFp. Hugo, I wonder, could we extend this and say that INTj has something in common with INFps, ISFps, and ISTps, namely an exploratory approach toward life, valuing spontaneity, wanting to do one's own thing....whereas INTp has something in common with INFjs, ISFjs, and ISTjs, namely being task-oriented, a focus on getting things done, focus on practical results, etc.?

[Expat]

They are lazy.

I'd change this to lacking initiative and forcefulness.

I agree with that. It's closer to my understanding of and it fits the Resolute/Judicious dichotomy for INTjs.

I agree that if Phaedrus understands the differences between IP and IJ temperaments, and he identifies with IP, then he is an INTp.

I think the confusion comes essentially from the above point -- INTps are Resolute but Irrational, INTjs are Judicious but Rational. That leads to the mistaking of INTjs (especially intuitive subtypes, indeed) for being "P".

[Hugo]

What is the Resolute/Judicious dichotomy?

What are Ip and Ij temperaments?

[Rocky]

Almost everything in Hugo's version of INTj fits me to a tee. The only parts that don't seem to apply are:

* "The problem with this is that they neglect secondary information, which although is of lesser importance, is still nevertheless important."
(Actually this is true of me if it means neglecting tasks of lesser importance. I guess it call comes down to what you mean by "secondary information.")
* Giggling nervously (I don't do that)
* "They are impatient when it comes to eating tasty food" (I savor my food)
* Not valuing symbolism (I guess it depends on what you mean by symbolism in this context).

Anyhow, like Phaedrus, I would be very interested in your version of what INTps are like.

Overall, your view of INTjs as daydreamers who see possibilities and do things at the last minute (instead of planning ahead) doesn't fit the people I would tend to think of as INTjs. But again, it all comes down to the version of Socionics one is considering, in your version, I'm an INTj, and the people whose behavior seems more rational-type-like (in Socionics terms) are probably INTp in your version of it.

It's interesting that you see INTjs as very similar to INFps....perhaps much more similar than you'd think INTps are to INFps?

Well, Jon, I believe when you first came here I asked if you were INTJ, and you said you weren't sure. I don't know what Hugo uses to classify J/P behavior, but I guess my way is similar, too. But I don't agree that they are similar to INFPs. Now THAT could be explained by the forer effect if anything.

[Expat]

But I don't agree that they are similar to INFPs. Now THAT could be explained by the forer effect if anything.

Yes, I agree -- I was a bit surprised about that.

[Hugo]

What is the Resolute/Judicious dichotomy?

What are Ip and Ij temperaments?

[Expat]

REASONABLENESS - RESOLUTENESS
Reasonable (I and IV kvadry):

1. Reasonable in the natural state are weakened; they maximally will mobilize, they are concentrated only to the period of the accomplishment of any objective, and after task is executed, they again leave from mobilization state. Weakening (absence of mobilization) - this is the natural state of reasonable.
2. reasonable before the important, critical matter it is necessary to be in the natural state of weakening (to rest, to be distracted) - the better it will rest, the more effective will be the subsequent mobilization, the concentration at the necessary moment, the better it will be possible to carry out the matter. The more difficult the "thrust", the greater before it it is necessary to be weakened.
3. output from mobilization state, switching to leisure for the reasonable present no difficulties. However, reasonable can experience difficulties with the "mobilization" (difficult to leave the natural state). Therefore often they need any special stimuli in order to mobilize (they are inclined to place itself in the situation, when to their action the external circumstances force or someone decides for them).
4. reasonable is inclined to divide the forthcoming large matter into several stages. It will mobilize for fulfilling each stage inside the matter, in the spaces between them it returns to the natural state (small matter it can compose one stage).
5. its own readiness is realized by reasonable at the moment of the beginning of consideration, i.e., even at the minimum level. The moment of decision making is realized comparatively badly and, often, is not memorized.
6. reasonable better they realize and considers more valuable the preparatory stage before decision making (consideration, consideration, the selection of the version of actions, etc.), is given to this stage more than forces and time. The stages strictly of the solution and its performance seemingly are implied and comparatively less they value, less than the attention is given by them.
7. with respect to work for the reasonable the specific level of conveniences, freedom and comfort is more important. Place itself the works (that how they they are occupied) are more inclined to evaluate from the point of view of the conditions for its fulfillment. Reasonable are not inclined to enter by comfort, convenience, it is not always ready to endow by working conditions for the results (for example, larger money reward): however, "well 4 I not can without leisure!".
8. vocal special features: they describe, as and why they arrived at some solution, but is not separated very moment of decision making; in the conversation about the work they speak about the conditions (convenience, interruptions, proximity of the house, etc.).
Decisive (II and III kvadry):

1. Decisive will often mobilize even before this proves to be actually necessary, as subconsiously they are prepared for the accomplishment of the objectives forthcoming in the future; after the accomplishment of any objective decisive remain still mobilized in a certain period. Readiness - natural state of decisive.
2. decisive to the end of the fulfillment of the important critical matter it is necessary to be in the natural state of mobilization - the more effective the mobilization will be, those more complete, the deeper, nasyshchenneye there will be leisure. ("you do not walk to the work - and to rest it does not be desirable").
3. after the accomplishment of difficult or prolonged objective output from mobilization state in decisive is especially hindered (frequently this it is expressed in certain "confused", unintelligent activity). Therefore decisive are frequently necessary complementary factors, stimuli (for example, the entertainments specially are planned: "after examination compulsorily I descend in the cinema") or the participation of other people in order to be weakened and to forget about the urgent task.
4. decisive is not inclined to divide the forthcoming large matter into the separate stages, it will mobilize to the period, necessary for fulfilling entire matter as a whole. Thus far task is not executed, the state of internal readiness is supported in decisive.
5. its own readiness is realized by decisive at the moment of decision making, i.e., when it reaches already sufficiently high level. The moment of decision making is realized and is memorized.
6. decisive better they realize the stage strictly of action, beginning from the moment of decision making, and is given more than time and forces to adherence to the decision as most, in their opinion, the valuable part of the work. The preparatory stage, which precedes decision making, is realized and values by them considerably less than strictly the solution and its fulfillment.
7. decisive are more inclined to work for the result (for example, money reward), in contrast to the reasonable, they can for this be received by conveniences, by comfort. The place of work is evaluated from the point of view what fruits give the spent efforts (including in terms of money).
8. vocal special features: is separated the moment of decision making and they in detail describe the stage of fulfillment; in the conversation about the work they speak about its fruits; in the speech frequently sounds the word of "money".
Note

The fundamental difference between the reasonable and the decisive consists in the development of cycle "mobilization - activity - weakening" with the accomplishment of any difficult, critical objective. Concept "natural (base) state" concerns not entire process of the vital activity of man - it is certain "starting point" in the cycle indicated. The natural state of reasonable - weakening, decisive - readiness. Those, etc. oshchushchayut these states "on the contrast", clearly they are distinguished. Some osoznanno will mobilize (reasonable), others rest (decisive) - in the sense that they derive itself from the natural and bring with "power method" to state necessary at the given moment.
Hypotheses

1. For the sensorikov- the decisive mobilization - concept is the sensory, describing physiological, solid state (mobilization it is received by them as solid stress). Intuity- decisive oshchushchayut (and respectively, they describe) mobilization state faster as internal readiness, inspiration and the like is analogous, weakening for the sensorikov- the reasonable - this physical sensation, the absence of stress in the tele-, and for the intuitov- the reasonable to the foreground leaves movement to the rhythm, where the opposite states change each other. In this case weakening can be manifested as the abstraction of attention, and the mobilization - as the concentration of attention.
2. decisive realize the accepted by them solution as their own, and circumstances - as the associated factors. By reasonable the solution is frequently realized as forced or involuntary.
3. reasonable better than decisive, know how to distribute energy and to evaluate its reserve and expenditure; the decisive better than reasonable, maintain the high level of "charge" in the long period.
4. decisive frequently prefer the "job-rate" method of fulfilling the works - when necessary (for example, for the large reward) for a while - several days, weeks - napryazhenno to work, then then it takes a long time to rest. For the reasonable the "job-rate" operating mode is unnatural, they prefer so that the work (large matter) would be carried out by "small portions".
5. Vertnost' strengthens the manifestations of this sign: extraversion strengthens resoluteness, intro-version strengthens reasonableness.
Examples

Reasonable:
"before the examination in last day 4 never I am prepared. To the ides to take a walk, book I read a little any ". "specially I do not weaken, but also accurately sit not I will be to six mornings. Simply everything is calculated so as after ten in the evening already everything to finish. Evening I carry out as usual, and which me must interfere with?". "if strongly it got tired - simply I rest how much necessarily". "above one problem it cannot be sat for long, it is necessary to put off". "with the moment of decision making everything is complicated. It is not tracked. Preparatory stage and moment of decision making occur automatically, but the future to this does not relate. Decision making - by itself action, to it it is possible to return to any moment ". "consideration - this is the basic work, after which the moment of decision making is not tracked. If we must something still make... with the "rear number" I realize the circumstances, which me nevertheless will force this to make. Itself "force" into this situation ". "goes the primary selection: must or not must - and there as it will be formed. The solution is somehow received, but as the certain unconscious means. But if it is accepted, then this does not mean that it the hands will reach ". "consideration - this is good, until it is necessary to make decision. It is still better, if after this to make nothing is necessary ". "to the adoption solution of considerations there is much. What start the solutions, otsledit' I cannot... "twisted" in the different versions - already virtual it made ". "if is assigned the matter, it must be it takes a long time considered. I do not have such moment, at which I decide, that I will something make ". the "main thing in the work - the freedom of organization, freedom of choice". "is important the possibility to be restored, I do not want to process". "is compulsory convenient working place and only my".

Decisive:
"podnapryazhemsya" let us make - we will then rest ". "me terrifically was derived, when me they attempted to distract, to somehow rastormoshit' before the examination. Why? It mixes concentration, so let us say, to inspiration ". "it occurs, that so you will get tired, that even fall asleep cannot". "diploma I wrote continuously three days, and it then arrived home and" it were cut down "". "decision making I separate into the separate action. Any doubts and fluctuations occur to the moment of decision making ". "each time I track the moment of decision making. If I make decision, then further "falls mountain on the arms", appears responsibility ". "" to hover "in the process of consideration not I will be... Is separated the phase of decision making ". "if it decided to look film, then nevertheless I will look". "naturally, I remember, when assumed the solution". "man something speaks - I accept as signal to the action, and this was simply idea... The solution - this is intermediate stage. Decision is made - this does not mean that something is made ". "4 he did not understand - we already something solved or still no?". "work must be interesting. But money - well this by itself!". "I work for the money, I do not consider leisure value. I work as much, as they pay ".

And

http://babelfish.altavista.com/babel...%2ftemper.html

IJs consistently follow more or less rigid personal rules; IPs make and change them as they go along.

[Hugo]

How about Ep and Ej?

[Expat]

EPs - try to shape the rules of their environment
EJs - try to follow the rules of their environment

[Jonathan]

I would be great if someone would translate even part of the "REASONABLENESS - RESOLUTENESS" thing into English

All I was able to get out of that is that "reasonable" people do things to accomplish them, and then go back to whatever they were thinking about, whereas "resolute" people are in a constant state of readiness, sort of typified by the way ENTjs look in VI pictures.

By the way, what types are reasonables/resolutes? Are Gammas and Betas the resolutes???

Anyhow, the difference between IP and IJ temperaments and reasonable/resoluteness (e.g., in I types) is a very worthy thing to discuss.

IJs consistently follow more or less rigid personal rules; IPs make and change them as they go along.

It would be useful to come up with examples. "Rules" can mean lots of things to different people. When I identify myself with IP, I generally mean that I avoid external structure and commitments because I want to be free for inspiration and discovery and don't want to be trapped in preconceived notions or to be too attached to plans that end up not working out.

Also, I tend to get caught up in my activity, so that it doesn't necessarily have an end point...E.g., if I'm doing something I enjoy, I don't stop just because something is done, but keep doing it until I feel like doing something else. Would that be an expression of being a "resolute" type????

[snegledmaca]

But I don't agree that they are similar to INFPs. Now THAT could be explained by the forer effect if anything.

Not in my case. Here, ill give you a step by step explanation of why exactly I identify with parts of that description that I said I do.

Analytical.

Using this definition

Analytical - Dividing into elemental parts or basic principles.

This is my "understanding", my observer mode, my childlike mode. In this mode I am a child trying to understand the world.

They use logical reasoning in all matters.

I don't. I mostly don't care how you live for instance.

They try to make information as simple and clear as possible, by cutting out things they consider of lesser importance.

Totally true. I always start with broad concepts, definitions, and slowly wind my way down to a basic principle that can explain it, the most fundamental part.

The problem with this is that they neglect secondary information, which although is of lesser importance, is still nevertheless important.

I'm not sure how valid this claim is. The secondary information I neglect is not important. That's the reason I neglect it. But I could be mistaken and if I am then this statement would be true.

They think about “What is the main thing?”.

For me this should be slightly rephrased, I don't think what is the main thing, I concentrate on expressing the essence of what is before me. In a sense it is concentrating on the main thing but not just analytically.

They are fair in their approach with people.

I try to be. My nature is gentle. Parts regarding my nature are pure coincidence.

They seek to have an ideal systemic order in place on a “big picture” scale, which can be over the top and unrealistic.

Exactly, I strive to have a simple way to express complicated concepts.

For what I have just said for Ti look here for evidence.
The way I described concepts there is the method I use.

If they notice that something is unclear they ask questions to seek clarification, even on subtle details.

This is very true for myself. I was the kid that asked all of those theoretical questions in physics class. I try to build systems that will be absolutely true so when I acquire information I want it rock solid so my understanding will be final so I can build upon it. I don't want my whole understanding crumbling down because I had wrong information.


They are absent-minded daydreamers. They come up with ways of improving things. They are global thinkers, looking at the big picture. Good researchers.

True for myself. But this would be my nature.


They inappropriately use logical reasoning in matters concerning personal relationships.

I'd rather not go into this as this is a personal matter. This matter is independent from the way I treat people. It's difficult to explain, personal relations are a structure while one on one is not.

They do not think about how their words and actions affect people’s feelings.

One thing people say (Including my mother) is that I can really bring a person down. Not in a sarcastic, cruel way, but like in an emotionless, inconsiderate way, the one that makes you depressed. This happens when I detach and start making my observations. "You look like a slut" "You look fat". In this childlike mode I cannot lie.
I am reminded of that time when a dear friend of mine asked me "If you didn't know me, and just met me for the first time, what would I think of me?" and I responded either a kindergarten nurse or a whore. But the thing is that when I'm not in this mode I know when to keep my mouth shut.

Rather than think about these things, to be safe, they are very polite and friendly and are unassertive.

This is my nature. I am polite and friendly because I do not want to hurt your feelings.

They giggle nervously and inappropriately with people they do not know well.

I am quite comfortable around people I don't know well.

They daydream when someone speaks to them, and so they ask questions to keeps up with the conversation.

When people speak of something I find interesting my mind is constantly in tangent mode. For moments I stop listening to them. Usually I daydream and often interrupt conversations with random questions but this would be on topic daydreaming.

They can be over technical in their ethics, which can lead to problems in relationships.

Yeap, but the technicality is a way to rationalize my irrationality which is giving me my arguments.

They are over conscious of people looking at them, because when people look at them they feel people are monitoring their behaviour. They bring up topics of conversation that are inappropriate for the moment.

Like I said, I am overly conscious of looking at people, because when I look at people they might feel like I am monitoring their behaviour and I don't want that. (That is unless I'm in my observer mode, then I look, people say stare, you straight in the eyes and ask "creepy" questions) I feel like bringing up topics of conversation that are inappropriate for the moment but am constantly restraining myself. (Again, unless I'm in observer mode)


They are lazy.

I have an ESFj mother. She does everything.


They are emotionally sensitive.

No I'm not. Only disharmony emotionally upsets me.

This can lead them to be tearful on the one hand or happy on the other hand.

I have a firm grip on my emotions.

Emotion is their driving force.

Emotions are tools.

They express their love, in words or actions, to people that matter to them.

I don't have people that matter to me in that way. Yet


They are impatient when it comes to eating tasty food - they dislike waiting.

I don't care, it's food. I just want it to taste good

They worry about their health deteriorating because they neglect it.

I neglect my health so naturally I'm worried.

They may put effort into maintaining their health, and go over the top in this regard, but this lasts only for a short time, and then they go back to how they were doing things before.

Exactly. Every so often I start thinking about my health and get really worried and decide to change. I make plans and stuff but always it dies of shortly. I have never been able to stick to a long term plan regarding anything. I just can't plan my future.

They do not give as much attention to their physical appearance as they would like to - they seek long term solutions to their physical appearance.

Thinking about my physical appearance is effort wasted. I'd rater spend it on something more useful and enjoyable like devising a new theory.

They try to find and apply a logical formula to having a good physical appearance.

I try to use minimal effort for maximum payout in maintaining physical appearance. A logical formula is formed if it exists. I guess I got a little carried away here

They do not dress appropriately, for the moment.

I do.


They are unproductive.

Very lol.

However, when they are under time pressure they become very efficient.

I know exactly when to do something, how long it will take, how long I can make it take and so on. I can munipulate the time aspect of things

They are very tight in spending money.

Lol, who isn't? I if were rich this wouldn't be valid.

When they spend money, they think of the items long term benefit.

Like the previous statement, if I were rich...

They may also spontaneously spend money on something that reflects their mood, but not without thinking how much money they can afford to dispose of.

But money is also made for spending. I know how much money I can spend, and never go over that margin. That way I can spend and do not have to worry about it. But I do tend to spend such money irrationally

They do not follow a fixed periodic routine because it would dampen their motivation.

True.


They are aware of time frames. With this knowledge, they tend to do things at the last minute, but within time. The quality of their work is poor because they do things rushed at the last minute. They are impatient and impulsive. They makes predictions of the distant future. They refrain from taking actions that they foresee as having disastrous long term consequences - this foresight of disaster is of the worst case scenario if they take a certain course of action, which is highly unlikely to occur, but nevertheless a possibility. They foresee certain actions as having the consequence of a very bright future, which again is highly unlikely to occur, but nevertheless a possibilities - this foresight makes them spring into action.

Ok so maybe I exaggerated in this last sentence. It doesn't make me spring into action. The reason is mentioned in the Fi section.
The rest is true.

When those bright hopes do not materialize, they feel sadness, but that does not make then lose heart and give up on their dreams.

But I always do dream about it happening.

They will think of other ways of achieving their dreams.

True.

They don’t value symbolism.

I do