Balanced between subtype
I think the original idea by Gulenko is that you either belong to one subtype or you belong to the other subtype.
There is no half way.
I think being balanced between two subtypes is something created by Ganin, not Gulenko, because:
1) I have only seen Ganin talk about the possibility of being balanced between 2 subtypes
2) If Gulenko intended there to be a balance between 2 subtypes, he would have created 3 descriptions for each type.
What do you think?
It seems that I can flip-flop between them occasionally, but am predominatly one.
All Hail The Flying Spaghetti Monster
OMFUCKINGG IT'S A LIKE A TEETER TOTTER IT CAN GO BACK AND FORTH OR BALANCE!!!
I have a theory that a distinguishing factor between the subtypes is that they determine the behaviors typically thought of as related to rationality or irrationality (i.e., "J" or "P").
Hence, if I'm right, an INTj logical subtype has an IJ temperament, but an INTj intuitive subtype has an IP temperament and will function more like an "Alpha INTP."
I could see there being some truth to that, Jonathan, but I don't know how much. Hmm...
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.
@Jonathan
I get the impression (from this and some other posts) that you might think that you are an INTj intuitive subtype. But a huge problem with that hypothesis is that you and I think almost exactly alike. I have investigated my intertype relations with people whose type I am 100 % certain of, and I have come to the conclusion that my relations with them make perfect sense if I am an INTp, but if I am an INTj the descriptions of the intertype relations don't fit me. The most convincing proof of that is when I compare my relations with ENTps and ENTjs (as I said I am 100 % certain of their types), when it is very clear that I must be an INTp.Hence, if I'm right, an INTj logical subtype has an IJ temperament, but an INTj intuitive subtype has an IP temperament and will function more like an "Alpha INTP."
So, I would suggest the possibility that either there really are intuitive subtypes of INTjs that resemble INTps (but in that case you are not one of them), or the intuitive subtypes of INTjs don't exist because in reality they are INTps.
First, I don't know what either Gulenko or Ganin intended but my take is that there are 16 types, as defined by function use and intertype relationships and motivations; subtypes are helpful in explaining why some people are mistyped or more difficult to type than others. For instance, I have had long interactions with an ENTj intuitive subtype; the differences in behavior were there but in the end we got along well (or not) with the same kind of people generally.
I don't know if you can easily change from one subtype to the other but I don't think that there is a clear/cut dividing line between the subtypes, it's a continuum. So in one type, there will be people who are very obviously accepting subtypes, others that are accepting subtypes but not so obviously, and the same for the producing subtypes. And there will be those who are clearly that type but not one subtype or the other.
, LIE, ENTj logical subtype, 8w9 sx/sp
Originally Posted by implied
Remember that personality is mostly defined by the dominant and creative function pair. Subtypes is mostly a way to tell how the other functions are arranged.
For example:
INTj:
Ti Ne Fi Se - Fe Si Te Ni
INTp:
Ni Te Si Fe - Se Fi Ne Ti
An easy way to tell which type are you is to look at the last function. That one is well developed and it is engaged so naturally that you are mostly not aware of it. If you are organized and have a good sense of the time, then you are j.
[]
| NP | 3[6w5]8 so/sp | Type thread | My typing of forum members | Johari (Strengths) | Nohari (Weaknesses)
You know what? You're an individual, and that makes people nervous. And it's gonna keep making people nervous for the rest of your life. - Ole Golly from Harriet, the spy.
How is it possible not to be one of the 2 subtypes? If it were possible, surely Gulenko would have made 3 descriptons concerning subtypes.
.
Why "surely"? Are you sure that that is what he intended, and that he is necessarily right? Do all other Socionists agree?How is it possible not to be one of the 2 subtypes? If it were possible, surely Gulenko would have made 3 descriptons concerning subtypes.
As I said, my interpretation is this:
I don't think that there is a clear/cut dividing line between the subtypes, it's a continuum. So in one type, there will be people who are very obviously accepting subtypes, others that are accepting subtypes but not so obviously, and the same for the producing subtypes. And there will be those who are clearly that type but not one subtype or the other.
Diana's description seems about right for me.
All Hail The Flying Spaghetti Monster
The continuum concept can be applied to the whole of personality theory. It can be claimed that people cannot be placed into one of 16 personality "boxes".
Gulenko, in my opinion, is pretty much the King of Socionics.
Socionics is not a personality theory.
That's besides the point.
Some of your subtype descriptions, Hugo, are written in a way that most people would choose both of them anyway, regardless if the subtype phenomenon is discrete or continuous. For example, many an ISFp would have a hard time choosing between these two subtypes,
because both together describe the standard ISFp. There would definitely be ISFps out there who would have an easier time choosing between the two, but I would suspect the majority would opt for the middle ground.You possess “good taste” in terms of what is beautiful. You are a good judge regarding welfare. Comfort is very important to you. You love pleasures of the senses. Love to provide pleasure for yourself and other people. (S)
Emotional and sociable. Easily enter into any company of people. (F)
Binary or dichotomous systems, although regulated by a principle, are among the most artificial arrangements that have ever been invented. -- William Swainson, A Treatise on the Geography and Classification of Animals (1835)
That can indeed be claimed and it may even be true. We can't know for sure. I think that even Smilingeyes' fixed-temperament-but-changeable-quadra interpretation is too flexible. But it might be true.
My own opinion is that the 16 types - and their quadras - are fixed but that the subtypes are more like a continuum. Subtypes are not necessarily the same as types.
He's a very clever guy and I've read a lot of his articles but I don't think that even he would claim that he's always right or that his views should be followed unquestionably (if he does, he's a fool). Besides, are you sure that even he would say that you have to be a subtype? That is your interpretation.
As for "King" - - I acknowledge only one King, Elvis Presley.
I'd be interested in your findings about relations with other people. It's hard to say if my relations fit the model. I'll have to think about it more....I'm writing a list, but I notice it goes mostly like this: "Get along well with this type (except some people), get along well with that type (except some people)....etc."
I asked my wife what pictures on Dmitri's site I looked like. She thought the INTj description fit me, and that some of the more "curiosity-focused" people pictured there (on the right) looked like me, though not the ones with the "know it all expression" (i.e., on the left side). She also thought that one of the ENTps looked me. When I pose for the camera, she said I look like one of the INFps, but she didn't think the INFp description fit.
She didn't think I looked like any of the INTps pictured there, and she thought that the description as negative, critical, and unapproachable was very unlike me.
Of course, I'm not saying I'm INTj either....I'm probably a mixture.
i agree with expat entirely here.
the way i have always viewed subtypes is essentially a continuum. there are ESTjs who use Te much more than Si. There are ESTjs who use Si and Te about equally. There are ESTjs who use Te a little bit more than Si. There are ESTjs who use Te more than a little bit more than Si but not that much more. Ad. infinitum. That's the way that subtypes make sense to me; as a fixed dividing line they leave little room for interpretation.
Have you tried to make a comparison with the various descriptions of the intertype relations? It's like solving a puzzle. Every piece must fit.I'd be interested in your findings about relations with other people. It's hard to say if my relations fit the model. I'll have to think about it more....I'm writing a list, but I notice it goes mostly like this: "Get along well with this type (except some people), get along well with that type (except some people)....etc."
But the fact remains. Our thought processes seem to be too much alike. That is hard to explain if we are different types. And I wouldn't put to much trust in the V.I skills of somebody who has not had any serious training in it.I asked my wife what pictures on Dmitri's site I looked like. She thought the INTj description fit me, and that some of the more "curiosity-focused" people pictured there (on the right) looked like me, though not the ones with the "know it all expression" (i.e., on the left side). She also thought that one of the ENTps looked me. When I pose for the camera, she said I look like one of the INFps, but she didn't think the INFp description fit.
She didn't think I looked like any of the INTps pictured there, and she thought that the description as negative, critical, and unapproachable was very unlike me.
I don't believe in mixtures.Of course, I'm not saying I'm INTj either....I'm probably a mixture.
And, by the way, I don't disagree with Expat's view on subtypes at my current level of understanding.
Of course I've tried that, but with mixed results. A supervisor relationship is supposed to be difficult, but generally I seem very compatible with people I think are ENFjs. Sometimes I've felt intimidated by some ESTps though. I've been very close with some INFps. In some ways, I seem very similar to them, suggesting that they're almost the same type (Have you tried to make a comparison with the various descriptions of the intertype relations? It's like solving a puzzle. Every piece must fit.
I get along very well with ESFps, as coworkers, friends, etc. (suggesting possibility of a dual relationship), and tend to admire their friendliness and merriness. However, based on some observations, don't know if I'd want one as a parent. When I was a kid, I had a teacher who was very bubbly and charismatic but also a bit tyrannical, and she put the fear in me.....I've thought that she might have been an ESFp or ENFp. Usually, I get along with ENFps and ESFps...With ESFps, it depends on the 'implementation' of Se in the person....
Around ESFjs, I tend to appreciate that they graciously do things that I don't like to do, and I generally enjoy emotional expression in others (suggesting dual), but somehow I very rarely have contact with ESFjs or ISFps. I'm often curious about ISFPs, and when I do talk with them, I usually enjoy the conversation and find it interesting (suggesting activity), but our worlds rarely intersect (suggesting super ego).
These are just a few examples...not an exhaustive analysis. I'd be very interested in your analysis of relationships you've had with other people, as you've apparently come to something much more conclusive.
One of the problems is that clear definitions of and consensus on what the intertype relationships are supposed to be like are even harder to find than definitions for the types or functions.
By the way, why don't you believe in mixtures? Naturally, the types exist as real structures that affect how people think and how thoughts are structured...but why does one have to have a single type at all? It seems to me that all the type concepts are relevant, but that real people are more complex than the models. In the pristine models, the INTps (depending on the descriptions of course...I'm using Dmitri's site as an example here) seem like a bunch of sour-faced curmudgeons, and the INTjs a bunch of know-it-alls....but real people generally aren't like that exactly.....
what jonathan writes here is interesting because intertype relations has been one of the major sources of confusion in trying to figure out whether i am INTj or INTp.
based on my own typings of a bunch of people, i have had some very good and some very bad relationships with ESFjs. I have had several acceptable and one very bad relationships with ISFjs. i have had a very poor relationship with an ENFjs. the list goes on. essentially, not enough of the information is sufficiently consistent for either INTp or INTj to be a reasonable conclusion, which means that a lot of it is probably wrong (i.e. mistyping). also, the sample space is fairly small since i don't come into contact with all that many people.
First of all, I think it is important to focus on your relations with people whose type you are 100 % certain of. If you are not sure, "dismiss" them for the moment.A supervisor relationship is supposed to be difficult, but generally I seem very compatible with people I think are ENFjs.
Well, that's almost exactly my own experience. I can't be 100 % sure of which it is, but I think the former option is more likely.I've been very close with some INFps. In some ways, I seem very similar to them, suggesting that they're almost the same type (-based); but I could also see a relation of 'benefit' operating too.
I haven't had any longtime, close friendship with an ESFp, but I have noticed that there is a group of people, which I am now almost certain consist of ESFps, who I have many times during the years felt some strange attraction to. I have felt "at ease" with them in a special way that is different from the way I can feel at ease with some other types.I get along very well with ESFps, as coworkers, friends, etc. (suggesting possibility of a dual relationship), and tend to admire their friendliness and merriness.
One other type that I get along well with in most situations is the ENFp. I know more ENFps than ESFps, and I know them better. I tend to recognize them very fast, often using only V.I. At least the female ENFps come in two forms. One is the "Cher" type, the other is more "rounded". Both these forms of ENFp are described in Socionics, for example on SG's site. We usually have stimulating conversations and discussions. We can get irritated at each other, but that don't last long. It is difficult for me to put the character of that relation into exact words, but from several real life experiences I know when it is there. One thing, though, they are clearly recognizable (after a while) as N people. So, if you can spot that you won't confuse them with ESFps or some other S type.
The ESFj is a type that I recognize without problem (at least in women), and I have known several for years. One of them is my own mother. As I have said in some other posts before, I can't relax and feel at ease with them. I clearly feel that we live in different "life rhythms", and we have difficulties in conversations. Either we don't find anything to talk about, or if we do, we often find that we disagree and they don't want to discuss the issue further. If there is anything to this talk about two different life rhythms (J and P attitudes towards life), which I strongly believe there is, that alone should probably be enough to settle whether you and I are INTps or INTjs.Around ESFjs, I tend to appreciate that they graciously do things that I don't like to do, and I generally enjoy emotional expression in others (suggesting dual), but somehow I very rarely have contact with ESFjs or ISFps.
I have known a couple of ISFps for years, too. I find it rather easy to recognize them by V.I., and they also have characteristic shifting facial expressions. I'm not sure our type of relation fits the descriptions of Super-ego or not, but I think it is possible. We don't spend that much time together though, so it's hard to tell.I'm often curious about ISFPs, and when I do talk with them, I usually enjoy the conversation and find it interesting (suggesting activity), but our worlds rarely intersect (suggesting super ego).
Another type that I know well is the ISFj. I have never experienced any difficulties in the initial contact, and the character of our relation fits Activity rather well. Some of my male friends are ISFjs, and my partner for many years is also an ISFj. She and I can tire of each other in the way described, and we also experience some of the problems in everyday matters that are described in Activity relations. I think that I can tell for sure that she has the J attitude and I have the P attitude. But in that area we both compromise somewhat.
I have found three different short descriptions on the internet. We have those on SG's site, we have Rick's, and there is at least one more (forgot where). Put them together and compare them is my advice at the moment.One of the problems is that clear definitions of and consensus on what the intertype relationships are supposed to be like are even harder to find than definitions for the types or functions.
Because of the intertype relations, and because the functions are like "vectors". We probably can't be mixtures of INTp and INTj, because their thought processes go in clearly different directions, resulting in the frustrating phenomenon that neither the INTp nor the INTj can understand how the other type really thinks. Another reason is V.I., where there seem to be rather clear boundaries between the types. Whether that is true or not can probably be decided in the future with the help of "V.I computers", when we also probably will have a more exact knowledge of the human DNA.By the way, why don't you believe in mixtures? Naturally, the types exist as real structures that affect how people think and how thoughts are structured...but why does one have to have a single type at all?
I forgot to mention my experiences with ENTjs and ENTps.
I have known a couple of ENTjs for years, and there is usually a "formal" touch to our relation. The ENTj might suggest various things I could do to improve my situation, usually praising the virtue of hard work, in which area with play in clearly different leagues. We seem to have almost no trouble at all understanding how the other person thinks, which arguments his reasoning is based on, etc. And we can sometimes have really heated disputes, where we both get irritated and upset. We both "know" that we are right and the other person wrong, and we try to convince the other of that. In rare cases that might succeed, but usually not, though I think that we both think that we get a slightly better understanding of each other. These heated argument situations don't last for long, and those who witness them probably think that we hate each other, when we both might think that we are having an interesting, though somewhat emotionally strained, and stimulating debate.
One thing I have noticed in at least one of my ENTj friends is that he tends to view other people and society in general in a "power" perspective. He analyzes people's intentions and often believes that most people are agents, struggling to gain more power and influence, and that applies to nations and states too.
I have a clear tendency not to put much weight on such considerations. My perspective in general is much more naturalistic and cynical. I tend to analyze humans as objects in a world ruled by laws of physics and biology. My solutions to various problems in society are not dependent on people's good will, since I don't want to rely on that. So, instead of seeing people as agents, I lean towards a more deterministic perspective, where biological considerations (such as in Socionics and neuroscience) and game theory are important.
My relations with ENTps are different. I know quite many of them, and one ENTp has been a very close friend for about 20 years now. I and the ENTps seem to be drawn to each other. That I noticed long before I saw it mentioned on Rick's site. We can disagree and on rare occasions have debates with an emotional flavour to it, but in most cases we don't debate nearly as much as I do with ENTjs. With ENTps I can relax in a way that I can't with ENTjs. I think that has to do with the fact that we are both P types. We can sit and say nothing for minutes in a row. We also share a kind of weird, almost absurd kind of humour, that we usually don't show off in public.
One difference in my relations with ENTjs and ENTps is that I often have a harder time following the reasoning of an ENTp. They seem to make analogies and draw conclusions in a way where I sometimes can't see the connecting dots. As I said that almost never happens with an ENTj, whose arguments often appear cristal clear and lucid to me. I feel more "grown-up" when I am with ENTjs. We interact as adults. With ENTps we both can become more like children if we want, forgetting about responsibilities and "shoulds". I can be more creative with ENTps, but when it comes to make something out of it, to finish what we have started and make a product and sell it to others, we are both kind of lost. In that sense it clearly feels that we are both P types. One other thing. There can be long periods where I don't see or hear from my ENTp friends, they don't contact me and I don't contact them, until suddenly one of us do that, and then we go on as if no time has passed. That is different from my relations with ENTjs, who are more in tune with, and interested in, upholding normal rules of etiquette.
Well, our relations with other people are similar, right down to being with ISFjs.Because of the intertype relations, and because the functions are like "vectors". We probably can't be mixtures of INTp and INTj, because their thought processes go in clearly different directions, resulting in the frustrating phenomenon that neither the INTp nor the INTj can understand how the other type really thinks. Another reason is V.I., where there seem to be rather clear boundaries between the types. Whether that is true or not can probably be decided in the future with the help of "V.I computers", when we also probably will have a more exact knowledge of the human DNA.
Still, the contradictions loom with quadra descriptions, many things said in type descriptions, and the type/subtype descriptions that Hugo brings up, which he gets right from Gulenko and other such sources. My "radical subtype theory" (going beyond seeing subtypes as minor variations within a type (the way others are thinking of them here), but rather seeing them as crossing over P- and J- boundaries) is simply a way to try to resolve the contradictions.
As to the idea that quasi-identicals can't understand each other, I'm a little skeptical. I know it's been said (was it on SG's site, I think?); but I think I can understand all NT type languages without too much problem. Actually, an INTp ought to be better equipped to understand an INTj than an F type with weak.
Anyhow, I still think that none of the things said here really proves the non-existence of "ambidextrous" types that have more than 2 strong functions or whose strong functions oscillate at various times. Such people would probably be harder to VI, and understanding their relationships with others would be more complex, as there would be mixed dynamics, but anyhow, however frustrating it would be, I don't see any reason why such a person couldn't exist.
I was thinking of bringing that up. At the moment I am dissatisfied and sceptical about the quadra descriptions, if they are supposed to be taken as whole units, where there are clearly recognizable common elements in the way the four member types think and in their attitude towards life.Still, the contradictions loom with quadra descriptions, many things said in type descriptions, and the type/subtype descriptions that Hugo brings up, which he gets right from Gulenko and other such sources.
There are parts of the descriptions of the Alpha quadra that I can identify with better than with some parts of the Gamma quadra. And in some ways I can feel more at home with ENTps than with ENTjs. But it is also clear that I don't think at all like an ESFj. We don't seem to share many values or views on life.
The aspect of the Gamma quadra that I can identify most with is probably the role of the being a Critic -- someone who finds faults and imperfections in the views and theories of others. But I am not sure of the parts that has to do with how one looks upon society and one's role in it. There I in some ways feel more at home in Alpha -- except for it's dislike of mercantilistic views, where my father (INTj in my opinion) probably fits better.
I definitely think that the type relations are based on something real. But I don't mind if we change our view on the quadras completely if that is necessary.
In a sense yes. But the problem is not understanding the language, I think. It has more to do with how one reacts to the other type's behaviour and about one's expectations. It has also to do with how one really thinks "behind the words".As to the idea that quasi-identicals can't understand each other, I'm a little skeptical. I know it's been said (was it on SG's site, I think?); but I think I can understand all NT type languages without too much problem. Actually, an INTp ought to be better equipped to understand an INTj than an F type with weak
I have experienced what I interpret as "quasi-identical tensions". I have worked with an INTj for about a year in the past, and I have many years of experience of discussions and interactions with my own father. It is rather clear that we don't think alike, and that I have real trouble figuring out in exact what way we don't do that. I can't find any secure ground where I know for sure that we think the same way and really understand each other. We can talk for hours, discussing various theoretical problems, but I always get the feeling that maybe we don't attach the same meaning to our words.
You know that I have talked about two different kind of philosophical thinking, two "camps", and at least I and my father are definitely influenced by, and drawn to, different philosophical, scientific and political world views. I believe that that is no coincidence.
That said, I think that Gulenko's theory is based upon some dividing line between the two subtypes. He calls one "intitial" and the other "terminal". Does anyone know what these definitions mean?
Start and end? Maybe initial is the primary and terminal is the auxillary/creative.
Yeah, I think I know what you mean; and think I remember you said he's a mathematician....so with training in that particular displine, he probably sees things in a very unique way. I've noticed also that some people who may be INTjs seem to be so caught up in proving minute details based on other logical details that they don't always see what appear to me as more big-picture trends.I have experienced what I interpret as "quasi-identical tensions". I have worked with an INTj for about a year in the past, and I have many years of experience of discussions and interactions with my own father. It is rather clear that we don't think alike, and that I have real trouble figuring out in exact what way we don't do that. I can't find any secure ground where I know for sure that we think the same way and really understand each other. We can talk for hours, discussing various theoretical problems, but I always get the feeling that maybe we don't attach the same meaning to our words.
You know that I have talked about two different kind of philosophical thinking, two "camps", and at least I and my father are definitely influenced by, and drawn to, different philosophical, scientific and political world views. I believe that that is no coincidence.
I still think that there's some potential for gray area, in that I'm more comfortable with that sort of thinking than perhaps some of the people that have disputed us being INTps are. For example, I think there are INTps who are pretty much all
What you share isand
, not "P".
there can be definitive dividing lines between subtypes such that there still exist a continuum of sorts, i.e. an ESTj that uses Te exactly X times as much as Si is a logical subtype, while an ESTj that uses Te exactly X-1 times as much as Si is a sensory subtype.
nonetheless, the continuum theory gives a larger picture since the dividing line is somewhat arbitrary.
Well ... he is many things ... He has studied and taught mathematics for sure ... but he has also worked as a police man, he has a university degree in psychology ... and one in system theory (I'm not sure of the name in English ... science of systems?).Yeah, I think I know what you mean; and think I remember you said he's a mathematician....so with training in that particular displine, he probably sees things in a very unique way.
If that is the right way to put it, I agree. I think that I almost always try to focus on big-picture trends.I've noticed also that some people who may be INTjs seem to be so caught up in proving minute details based on other logical details that they don't always see what appear to me as more big-picture trends.
@detail
Think about it again, please.What you share is
What I have described in my relations with ENTps seem to be consistent with how the relation between ENTps and INTps is described in Socionics. I have left out Ganin's description because it might blur things in comparison to these two:
And what I have described in my relations with ENTjs seem to be consistent with how the Mirror relation is described in Socionics:Relations of Contrast
Partners can exchange information when they have common ground. They look at problems from different perspectives and, thus, their communication remains shallow – as if they talk foreign languages. They find it very hard to work together, because they can't concentrate even on the little things. They can't very well coordinate their actions. When they meet they usually get attracted by opponent's oddity, even mysteriousity. Should they get married, their family life usually keeps balancing on the edge of divorce and often results in one.
Extinguishment (from Rick's site)
Partners feel a strange draw to each other that seems to promise much but never delivers. Partners seem to be interested in the same fields and have similar yearnings, but they describe things in a strange and fascinating, but ultimately unfathomable way. Expectations that go beyond having an interesting conversation are almost never met.
We could of course discuss the details in these descriptions, but overall it is my understanding that it makes more sense to think of the ENTj as my Mirror than the ENTp.Mirror relations
These are relations of mutual correction. Mirror partners have similar interests and ideas, but a slightly different understanding of the same problems. Each partner can see only half of one problem. Therefore the partners always find what the other partner is thinking interesting. Usually partners quickly realise that they are very like-minded.
The area of confidence of one partner is always the area of creativity for the other partner. What one partner considers solid and final appears incomplete and changeable for the other partner. This difference may often puzzle the partners especially when they fulfil their mutual plans. It seems for them as if the other partner simply misunderstood the main concept. Therefore partners attempt to correct each other's understanding but usually fail, because each partner acts from their confident side. For the same reason, Mirror partners can be involved in really hot disputes and can even come to blows in the name of their opinion.
However, Mirror partners are often very good friends. When they work together on the same project, their mutual correction and adjustment becomes a constructive criticism that is usually accepted as useful. The main discomfort in these relations is caused by the difference in Judgement and Perception between the partners. Mirror partners generally agree about setting near future goals, but disagree about global aims. Mirror relations usually lack warm atmosphere between partners. This situation normally changes in presence of a third person who is Dual to one partner and an Activity partner to the other.
Relations of Mirror
Partners have a lot in common – they are both Thinkers or Feelers, albeit they differ on Extravert–Introvert and Rationality–Irrationality scales. This kind of relations results in active communication in their strong areas. Whatever is contemplated by one is immediately realized by the other. They can learn a lot from each other, but sometimes they are tempted to be obtrusive in teaching. Conflicts in this type of relations are very unlikely, since no strong sides oppress the weak sides of each other.
Mirror
Partners can be themselves around each other without causing misunderstandings. Partners have a correct intuitive understanding of each other and are rarely surprised by anything the other does or says. Arguments are very rare. They always have things to say on the same topics and easily come to a consensus, but at the same time put opposite emphasis on things, creating a revisionary effect. These relations are highly verbally oriented, with partners discussing their hobby topics (and avoiding most others) and revising and adding to each other's views. Partners tire from the discussionary nature of the relationship and try to separate for work and rest. Partners immediately liven up when someone else shows up who is the dual of one and the activator of the other partner.
i think i am an/
this, of course, was said merely to piss you off
Lion Fishhhhhhhhhhhhhh!
/childhoodmemories on
I have now once again read Stratiyevskaya's descriptions of INTj and INTp. And my impression is that the INTj description fits my father well, whereas the INTp description is a good characterization of me in most parts. I hope that as many as possible of you who believe that you are an INTj or an INTp read through both her descriptions carefully. It takes some effort, I know, but it might be worth it. There are many more interesting parts there besides those I am now about to mention.
If we focus on the Stratiyevkaya INTj for the moment, we find some statements about the INTj's attitude towards socitey that in some ways almost seem to contradict some parts of the descriptions of the quadras, for example those on Rick's site. Here are some quotes from Stratiyevskaya and my comments:
That is clearly in line with my experience of INTjs, and it fits my father much better than it fits me. That is also expressed in our writings.Robesp'er is always politically active (quality, inherent in all representatives of first and second kvadry). It always disturb the problems of society, in which it lives, disturb the social- humanitarian problems of its environment.
My creative works of art, mostly fictional writings, can be seen as expressions of l'art pour l'art. I invent fantasy worlds with little or no relation to the real world. Or I write short stories where, in ordinary life situations, something completely absurd happens. It is easy to see parallels with the "magic realism" of writers like Julio Cortazar or Garcia Marquez.
My father's fictional writings (two unpublished novels) have a clear political content. And he has said to me that it is important for him to have a political purpose. That might also be said about his scientific works in psychology and system theory.
But one may start to wonder how that fits this characterization of the Alpha quadra:
Types from the Alpha Quadra enjoy freely exchanging new ideas and theories as a form of intellectual leisure. They like to systematize knowledge and create new categories and speculative hypotheses without necessarily intending to see their theories tested or implemented (subduedI was surprised when Dmitri Lytov suggested that Sweden was an INTj country. I haven't seen it that way. But when I read a review today of a new book in Swedish about the Swedish mentality and its relation to society, I began to see what it could mean. The central thesis of the authors was that our relation to society is a combination of extreme individualism and a willingness to accept the government of a strong welfare state, that might help us be free from, among other things, the family ties. That now starts to make perfect sense, and it could explain some of my father's political views.... as an example it is possible to compare "robesp'erovskiy socialism" of the times of great French revolution and period of "war Communism" in Russia with socialism, accepted in modern Sweden, which today can be considered the model of the realization of robesp'erovskoy social theory.
Again, we could compare that with the quadra descriptions. For my part, I am clearly opposed to what is said in the last two sentences in the quote.In each of the representatives of this type its subjective idea about the "standard" and about the "luxury", that was formed under the effect of the obtained training and prevailing mental'nosti, relative to which he coordinates the distribution of possibilities (and the distribution of material goods) both for itself and for its environment. "person himself to bring up is obliged" – to the development of the personal abilities Of robesp'ery usually is paid sufficiently serious attention, but, as a rule, they always try this to make taking into account the real possibilities of applying the individual abilities. For example, if adult person is trained for a new profession to any "practical" specialty, this Robesp'er only greets. But if man at the ripe age expends last money on his personal instruction in music or in drawing, this behavior it will seem, putting it mildly, in frivolous.
Things like this I see as consistent with the tendency to socialism and socialistic views, which are always present in the Swedish society. I don't identify with that any more. In the last years I have bedun to feel more and more alienated from the typical Swedish mentality.But it is also oriented to the ethics of its duala of Hugo, which exactly is based on the principles of ethical validity (since it is calculated for the perception by its Robesp'erom), and first of all is checked etichnost' in the distribution of possibilities, being that allotted by equal rights it is not possible to misuse by unequal possibilities – roughly speaking: the one who can eat rapidly, is obligated to consider the possibilities of that, who eats slowly. Otherwise the society begins to live according to the law of "jungle".
This is a very accurate description of how both my parents (INTj and ESFj) treated me and my two younger sisters when we were little kids.On the basis of the ethical considerations, Robesp'er is checked the valid (equal) distribution of material goods for all members of society without the exception. For example, if in its family receiving children bring up, they are allotted exactly by the same rights and responsibilities, as its own of ("... we with the sister arranged picnic for the children: they divided entire food into an equal quantity – to each it was reached on two cutlets even to one patty.
The INTps are also focused on details when they work, according to Stratiyevskaya, so that might not be relevant here. What I think is relevant, though, is that she describes the INTj as a J type (especially the last sentence), clearly compatible with how J types are described in MBTI.It is very methodical, in everything he tries to find system – it considers as the its indispensable condition for the successful fulfillment of work. In the work it is characterized by accuracy, it scrupulously studies details. Simply so it entrusts no one, are checked both itself and partners. To check its very it is usually superfluous. Sequential and persistent. Any matter attempts to bring to the end, it does not love to throw on the middle.
In contrast, let's take a look at some quotes from Stratiyevskaya's INTp description:
Fits me perfectly. But how does it relate to this description of the Gamma quadra?:Following its constant tendency to avoid possible errors, Balzac frequently the beret to itself the role of strange observer, than gives occasion for the charge in the passive relation to the life.
This quadra believes that ideas and fortuitous events should be turned into something profitable and marketable — something that does some kind of work for people. The Gamma Quadra values self-sacrifice in the name of serving society.Clearly consistent with how P types are described in both Socionics and MBTI. I can identify with every sentence in that quote.If we give some work to it, but not to appoint the period of its fulfillment, Balzac will not at all consider this as the assigned work: he either will forget about it or he ignores. It should argumentatively explain, for which it is necessary and as its performance soon is required. Only it will be able to receive task in earnest after this. This approach to the matter is explained by the tendency not to make anything excess, not to make that no one it is necessary.
This is perhaps a small detail, but it points out a difference between myself and my father. I clearly identify with it.Balzac is always opened for the perception of new sensations. He with the children's curiosity will try new food.
I was somewhat surprised to find that in Stratiyevskaya's description, because I cannot recall having seen anything similar in MBTI. But it actually captures one of my personality traits pretty well. And don't you agree that it is full of P-ishness? It seems to clearly compatible with how INTPs are described in MBTI.Special attention is given to leisure and sleep. In some representatives of this type its, individual mode of operation and leisure is added. Sometimes Balzac does not see for himself special misdeed in falling asleep, where to it this suddenly was wanted. Sometimes it is possible to see Balzac with that sleeping at the work site or even during the monotonous work, that continues it to automatically make with hands, that sleeps during the lesson, during hearing of musical program.
This is also an accurate description of how I sometimes act under stress. The same phenomenon is accentuated in the MBTI descriptions of INTPs.In any ethical awkward situation Balzac feels himself very restlessly. Sometimes in the searches for output he aggravates the created stress, no longer discussing, rights it or it is guilty, striving as it is possible faster "to ischerpat'" situation how to it this not threatened. In such minutes it is capable to the act, about which it will then possible regret, but for the moment this for it does not have a value: its reason by poly-awn is subordinated to the whirlpool of emotions, before which it is helpless, and therefore it does not belong to itself.
And so is this one. Clearly INTP in the MBTI sense, too.Balzac never attempts to lead, preferring to remain figure "number two" - by "shady" leader with the powerful patron.
So true of me. I wish I had more of the J discipline.Balzac does not know how and does not love to subordinate someone to his will. He also does not transfer straight volitional pressure on himself.
More and more P traits in the MBTI sense. And a correct characterization of me.Irrespectively of its individual qualities precisely the device of personal life frequently causes in Balzac serious difficulties. Specifically, here all "weak points" its psychological type "work" against it: and passive relation to the life, and deep pessimism, and the unwillingness to make an excess effort, and fear before the possible experiences, and the lack of understanding of basic ethical concepts, and the overestimation of its own possibilities.
Couldn't have said it better myself.Frequently it demolishes itself apropos of its own missed possibilities - inevitable consequence of its passively observant relation to the life.
This is extremely accurate. I can identify with it 100 %. And every part of it can be found in the MBTI descriptions of INTPs.In any dispute Balzac holds demonstrative neutrality, trying no one not "to accompany". Its relation to any act it expresses not as particular, personal opinion, but seemingly advances certain, as it it seems, objective and correct evaluation. Balzac loves himself to place in the position of judge for it characteristically not simple to voice his opinion, namely "to carry judgment" for each question (even if to it it is proposed to only discuss theme).
This have been said of INTjs too, I think. But it is equally true of INTPs in MBTI. I'm not sure how to explain it.Accepting new information, Balzac immediately tries to connect it into the already existing system of knowledge. The information, which contradicts the prevailing systems or destroys them, it accepts very critically.
You do realize that the "number two" description is a very common theme of MBTI INTJs?And so is this one. Clearly INTP in the MBTI sense, too.Balzac never attempts to lead, preferring to remain figure "number two" - by "shady" leader with the powerful patron.
Johari Box"Alpha Quadra subforum. You will never find a more wretched hive of scum and villainy. We must be cautious." ~Obi-Wan Kenobi
Here's what i based myself on:@detail
Think about it again, please.What you share is
What I have described in my relations with ENTps seem to be consistent with how the relation between ENTps and INTps is described in Socionics. I have left out Ganin's description because it might blur things in comparison to these two:
Relations of Contrast
Partners can exchange information when they have common ground. They look at problems from different perspectives and, thus, their communication remains shallow – as if they talk foreign languages. They find it very hard to work together, because they can't concentrate even on the little things. They can't very well coordinate their actions. When they meet they usually get attracted by opponent's oddity, even mysteriousity. Should they get married, their family life usually keeps balancing on the edge of divorce and often results in one.
Extinguishment (from Rick's site)
Partners feel a strange draw to each other that seems to promise much but never delivers. Partners seem to be interested in the same fields and have similar yearnings, but they describe things in a strange and fascinating, but ultimately unfathomable way. Expectations that go beyond having an interesting conversation are almost never met.
Relaxing with your contrary is kinda like taking a sunbath on the edge of a volcano during an earthquake. To supress the tension, contraries have to constantly explain each other's basic outlook on life because there is usually no constructive understanding of the other party as there usually is when at least two quadra values functions are shared. There could probably be exceptions but you said you know many ENTps.
If you are contraries, they should think you "judge them in silence" when it happens. Do you think they do?
I have noticed that i can share weird and absurd humour with INTps only in public. The tone when we are alone is much more serious. That's why i assumed you were refering to
The remaining parts are examples of how i interpreted your description of your relationships with ENTps and of how i interpreted your relationship with ENTjs was not. I think IRL it's very rare for an ENTp and an INTj (Or probably any mirror couple) to be forced to both being sure of their points without agreeing for the discussion to end (It can happen more frequently online though). It's true that conflicts and misunderstandings are possible because of their IJ and EP temperaments (Generalizations: IJ: Too stuck up, doesn't take new info into account. EP: Too impulsive, doesn't consider old info and general rules) but a high frequency of such conflicts is not a defining point of any mirror relationship. Misunderstanding can usually be clarified calmly because there is a high level of "inner understanding" (Which is not present with your contrary) if we may call it like that.
Also, how does your relationship(s) with ENTps differ when there are other people around and when there are not?
Yes, but the first part of the sentence in the quote is not.You do realize that the "number two" description is a very common theme of MBTI INTJs?
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote