When there is a change of circumstances that throw your plans/expectations out of the window, do you easily adapt to the new circumstances or do you get very agitated before adapting?
- I easily adapt (p)
- I get very agitated before adapting (j)
When there is a change of circumstances that throw your plans/expectations out of the window, do you easily adapt to the new circumstances or do you get very agitated before adapting?
- I easily adapt (p)
- I get very agitated before adapting (j)
depends again: is the change an improvement or are things getting worse?Originally Posted by Hugo
Yes, I know, I'm a pain in the ass. But let's assume for now you're talking something "negative", then the answer is: if the change is directed against me, I get very agitated, if it is a crisis not directed against me, I get energized and welcome it as a challenge.
“I have never tried that before, so I think I should definitely be able to do that.” --- Pippi Longstocking
What do you mean by "not directed against me"?
it works for me. I'm pretty adaptable.
It ain't what you don't know that gets you into trouble. It's what you know for sure that just ain't so.-Mark Twain
You can't wake a person who is pretending to be asleep.
I've changed the original post slightly.
I'll give you a description of what I see as a typical P-problem:
When I moved into my new home, I needed a new washing machine, dishwasher, dryer and freezer. So I went shopping around. Now you need to know that I must have these items, but they are not exactly things I can get excited about, so I don't want to spend a lot of money. Now being Dutch and stuff, I want a good deal and buy all items at the same store, so I can negatiote a good bargain.
The problem was, that whatever store I went, I could never get all 4 items in such a way that I could negotiate a price that was better than buying the 4 items in 4 different stores. This bugged me, because I wanted I good deal. I kept going back and forth to different stores, trying to figure out a good deal, but couldn't make up my mind. In total frustration, I finally ended up buying the items from second-hand internet sites. This was not what I wanted, but okay, it got my problem solved.
The thing with P-types is that they will keep looking for additional information until they are abolutely sure they have it all to make a decision, and this need for information collection increases when frustrated.
Perhaps this helps?
“I have never tried that before, so I think I should definitely be able to do that.” --- Pippi Longstocking
I think this is related to the fact that you are type, rather than p type. I do the same as you. I'm INTj.Originally Posted by consentingadult
If the change makes me suffer badly without leaving me the options to change anything about it. I am the master of my own destiny.Originally Posted by Hugo
“I have never tried that before, so I think I should definitely be able to do that.” --- Pippi Longstocking
Okay, that's interesting, let me think about that...Originally Posted by Hugo
“I have never tried that before, so I think I should definitely be able to do that.” --- Pippi Longstocking
Depends on a lot of things.
Again, very broad.
Posts I wrote in the past contain less nuance.
If you're in this forum to learn something, be careful. Lots of misplaced toxicity.
~an extraverted consciousness is unable to believe in invisible forces.
~a certain mysterious power that may prove terribly fascinating to the extraverted man, for it touches his unconscious.
This is pretty good, except that the way it's phrased only shows the benefits of the p side. I think when worded this way, most people see themselves as adaptable. Every dichotomy is a tradeoff, and there are pros and cons to each side. Perhaps you could supplement the question with something like this: "When you're required to stick to a set plan, do you tend feel constrained by having to stick to the plan (even if you created it), or feel comfort in having a plan?"Originally Posted by Hugo
Of course, then again, Anndelise posted something suggesting a different point of view...that perhaps INTps feels less constricted by plans than, say, Alphas....
This is a very good description of the J/P dichotomy as described in MBTI. In MBTI, IP's are people with what MBTI sees as dominant introverted thinking or feeling. If one follows the Ij=IP/Ip=IJ view, one might hypothesize that Ijs in Socionics are P in the MBTI sense; however, that may not seem to work so well for ISTjs and ISFjs.The thing with P-types is that they will keep looking for additional information until they are abolutely sure they have it all to make a decision, and this need for information collection increases when frustrated.
If that is true, then maybe you are not an INTj, Hugo. How do you know that you are not an INTp?Hugo wrote:consentingadult wrote:
The thing with P-types is that they will keep looking for additional information until they are abolutely sure they have it all to make a decision, and this need for information collection increases when frustrated.
I think this is related to the fact that you are type, rather than p type. I do the same as you. I'm INTj.
Yes, it's a good description of a part of the J/P dichotomy as described in MBTI. It is also a good description of the same part of the J/P dichotomy as indirectly described in Socionics by Sergei Ganin and Dmitri Lytov. Ganin's articles on his site are clearly consistent with this description, and Lytov's test questions are even more clearly consistent with it. There seems to be no difference in how Socionics and MBTI describe the actual behaviors of J and P types.This is a very good description of the J/P dichotomy as described in MBTI.Quote:
The thing with P-types is that they will keep looking for additional information until they are abolutely sure they have it all to make a decision, and this need for information collection increases when frustrated.
Which is not the same thing as dominant or .In MBTI, IP's are people with what MBTI sees as dominant introverted thinking or feeling.
My previous comment shows why that is a mistake.If one follows the Ij=IP/Ip=IJ view, one might hypothesize that Ijs in Socionics are P in the MBTI sense
It doesn't work at all for them. And it doesn't work at all for ISTps and ISFps. Neither does it work for INXjs and INXps -- unless we suddenly make an exception for these types and re-define the J/P dichotomy completely in their case.however, that may not seem to work so well for ISTjs and ISFjs.
Don't mean to bring up 'old wounds' regarding the J/P thing; I'm just describing what I'm hearing people say.
The idea of INTjs showing P-like attributes just won't go away easily on the forum, or in Socionics literature. The quadra descriptions and functional descriptions that lead in that direction are ubiquitous in Socionics, even as the Socionics understanding of rational/irrational leads in the opposite direction. Hence, the contradictions are "built in" to the system.
For those that want to believe that IP-like behavior doesn't correlate directly with Ip or Ij, there are numerous possible solutions. One is to postulate that and both have a tendency to lead to J-like behaviors, making the "IPs" INTj, INFp, ISFp, and ISTp.
I'm not saying that's necessarily so; I'm just playing Devil's advocate.
I get very angry. I used to have panic attacks, but now its just anger.
All Hail The Flying Spaghetti Monster
Hmm. That's hard because I usually don't mind the change of plans unless I looked forward to it or I am going out of my way for that plan but usually, I don't mind which is why at first I thought I was P.
People keep saying it's the way you think.
So...like with relationships, do you like closure or you like to keep things wide open, thrown to the wind or something, have like five messy, opened relationships or do you like to definite each relationship to death...
INFP
I would say the I**J types probably have the most difficult time adapting but they will do so if you explain it to them, give them motivation, then leave them alone to make the decision themselves.
There are some situations as a 'p' type I don't adapt well to. Like being stuck in a place with strict rules and schedules or being in an environment that I felt a great deal of unnecessary rules. I will adapt, but I won't be all that happy doing it and will slip up at the first opportunity (sometimes on purpose).
Because of my personailty, in situations like that, I will actually try to change the situation to adapt to me and if I can't, will eventually leave it.
Polly
ENTp
Yeah, I know.Don't mean to bring up 'old wounds' regarding the J/P thing; I'm just describing what I'm hearing people say.
I agree with your general way of seeing it. I'm just trying my best to re-phrase the arguments so that maybe those who have such ideas eventually will start seeing what's wrong with them.The idea of INTjs showing P-like attributes just won't go away easily on the forum, or in Socionics literature.
Yes, clearly so. And for some obscure reason I don't like contradictions.The quadra descriptions and functional descriptions that lead in that direction are ubiquitous in Socionics, even as the Socionics understanding of rational/irrational leads in the opposite direction. Hence, the contradictions are "built in" to the system.
Was it meant to be fun? If yes then I get very agitated. If it was something I didn't really want to do it in the first place, I easily adapt.Originally Posted by Hugo
Obsequium amicos, veritas odium parit
Which is consistent with Rational behavior IMO.Originally Posted by FDG
, LIE, ENTj logical subtype, 8w9 sx/sp
Originally Posted by implied
Yeah possible. "Really pissed" can be freely used instea of "Nervous", too
Obsequium amicos, veritas odium parit
Yes, I do. And it has been a life-long stress causer for me. It's really hard for me to accept an inevitable adaptation. Sometimes (actually, probably most of the time) I try to manipulate the circumstences to see if I can still get my expectations (or some of them) realized and avoid the addaptation, even when it's 99% for certain that I 'll have to adapt and let go of my hopes.Originally Posted by Hugo
Is this suggesting that I might be a J type???
“Whether we fall by ambition, blood, or lust, like diamonds we are cut with our own dust.”
Originally Posted by Gilly
I think that the Rational/Irrational distinction is too difficult to accurately represent in a minimalist description of one or two sentences, it is too open to individual interpretations according to specific situations. That is why I think that the EP vs IJ or EJ vs IP is probably the best you can do.
, LIE, ENTj logical subtype, 8w9 sx/sp
Originally Posted by implied
According to this, I'm a j.Originally Posted by Hugo
[Stormy] [LII]
Rational - Acts by "rules"
Irrational - Acts by "moods"
I can't quite precisely define those terms at the moment though. The idea came from a combination of the rat/irr description on Rick's site and some of Smilex's Te socionics.
Combined with E/I...
Extravert - Influenced by the "external environment"
Introvert - Influenced by the "internal environment"
...we get:
EJ: "Rules" effected (yes, I do mean "effected" and not "affected") by the "external environment"
IJ: "Rules" effected by the "internal environment"
EP: "Moods" effected by the "external environment"
IP: "Moods" effected by the "internal environment"
This really isn't very useful for a test, though. I'm barely (if at all) communicating my thoughts here. I find it unlikely it could be used to produce a question that would be understood precisely enough not to wedge in actions that don't belong into the classification.
The adapt/frustration method doesn't quite work though. A rational can adapt by having "rules" in place that consider the contingency. An irrational may have a "mood" that makes them a bit frustrated not to handle something a certain way, or more likely, being forced to handle something in a specific way.
That faith makes blessed under certain circumstances, that blessedness does not make of a fixed idea a true idea, that faith moves no mountains but puts mountains where there are none: a quick walk through a madhouse enlightens one sufficiently about this. (A casual stroll through the lunatic asylum shows that faith does not prove anything.) - Friedrich Nietzsche