NT descriptions

[Jonathan]

Okay, another one of *these* posts...but I was thinking the other day of another angle on it. Consider the following set of descriptions for N and T functions. Which do you think is more "correct"?

NT functions school A
Ti: Focus on "correctness"; anal retentive; exacting; organized; mastery of systems
Ni: Constantly refining a very fluid image of the way things are; imaginative, flexible understanding
Ne: Recognizing external possibilities and opportunities; understanding implications and possibilities for implementation; awareness of what's "hot" and what's going on in the world of discussion of ideas
Te: Finding common ground; clarifying; shared reasoning; seeking objectivity; investigating problems according to a notion of external truth

NT functions school B
Ti: Logical thinking related to academic/intellectual pursuits; thinking related to theoretical pursuits (as opposed to applied); thinking "about" things (as opposed to goal oriented thinking); understanding
Ni: Skill in estimating time; able to estimate how long a project will take; able to be on time without hurrying; does everything at just the right time
Ne: Intellectual creativity; thinking "outside the box"; coming up with substantially new ideas
Te: Business logic; thinking associated with accounting, business, and engineering; "applied" thinking (as opposed to pure theory); productivity; goal-oriented thinking; calculation of profit

[Expat]

You still don't understand Ni.

[Jonathan]

You still don't understand Ni.

Well, the two Ni descriptions I've included are the most common ones that are discussed around here. Do you have another one?

[Expat]

I do, in my description of how Ni types perceive reality in the Te views thread in Gamma. Also the difference between ENTjs and ESTjs in the same thread.

[Expat]

The problem is that those functional descriptions are, at most, about some superficial manifestations of the functions, not about what the functions really are.

[Jonathan]

I do, in my description of how Ni types perceive reality in the Te views thread in Gamma. Also the difference between ENTjs and ESTjs in the same thread.

Those are good threads. I'm looking forward to your Ti and Se descriptions. Fi is particularly good.

For your Ni description, you seem to focus on what I would call "monitoring current processes" [EDIT: and monitoring relevant future potential obstacles as they relate to current processes]. That would be closer to my definition under "School B" even though your description doesn't reference the "time" thing directly. If a person is monitoring current processes, not paying too much attention to unimportant details but also not getting too side-tracked either, that person will likely have a good sense of time.

Rick's descriptions of Ni seem more like "School A" and don't have much to do with monitoring current processes.

[Jonathan]

The problem is that those functional descriptions are, at most, about some superficial manifestations of the functions, not about what the functions really are.

That's the reason why I used the term "descriptions" rather than "definitions." The descriptions that are used point to different overall understandings of behavior, which in turn would suggest different understandings of the underlying process.

I refer to descriptions, superficial as they are, because that seems to be the best way to highlight these different nuances in understanding. I don't think my wording of these descriptions is far off from how they're discussed on the forum; I'm just pulling from stuff that people have said here to put some of differences into sharper relief.

[aestrivex]

of these two, i find the A version of definitions to be a lot better and more accurate as a general interpretation.

[Smilingeyes]

of these two, i find the A version of definitions to be a lot better and more accurate as a general interpretation.

QFT

[BLauritson]

Definitely school A which does it for me. I've never really considered myself to be a master of time, despite what a lot of Ni descriptions seem to describe about it. I've never really been in a position to test this, but I'd actually imagine myself far over-estimating the length of time a project would take to complete, for example. What I do know though, is that I am very imaginative when I'm in the right frame of mind, and I do constantly refine my understanding of the way things are, etc. etc.

[pezzonovante]

is by far the most misunderstood function.

It is often described as "connections between events in time". What does this really mean? is the ability to see that if A happens, B will happen later on. It is cause and effect, it is predicting the future (not knowing for sure but having a pretty good idea what's going to happen). That's why it is intuition of time. It doesn't have much to do with having a good sense of time itself (sensors are probably better at that).

It took me a long time to understand what really is. But once I really had it figured out it took away any doubt that I had regarding my type because it is what I'm really really good at (I'm an intuitive subtype). I would consider my greatest talent to be long-term strategy, plotting the optimal path to success by taking actions in the present that will lead to the greatest long-term benefit, and anticipating future problems and avoiding/preparing for them.

[Jonathan]

is by far the most misunderstood function.

It is often described as "connections between events in time". What does this really mean? is the ability to see that if A happens, B will happen later on. It is cause and effect, it is predicting the future (not knowing for sure but having a pretty good idea what's going to happen). That's why it is intuition of time. It doesn't have much to do with having a good sense of time itself (sensors are probably better at that).

It took me a long time to understand what really is. But once I really had it figured out it took away any doubt that I had regarding my type because it is what I'm really really good at (I'm an intuitive subtype). I would consider my greatest talent to be long-term strategy, plotting the optimal path to success by taking actions in the present that will lead to the greatest long-term benefit, and anticipating future problems and avoiding/preparing for them.

So for Ni, you're closer to "school B" here. What about the other functions? (I've also responded in your Ni thread. Basically, I would conjecture that your response may be more crea-Ni for LIE.)

[Phaedrus]

It took me a long time to understand what really is. But once I really had it figured out it took away any doubt that I had regarding my type because it is what I'm really really good at (I'm an intuitive subtype). I would consider my greatest talent to be long-term strategy, plotting the optimal path to success by taking actions in the present that will lead to the greatest long-term benefit, and anticipating future problems and avoiding/preparing for them.

The problem with such a view on is that INTjs are often described as being good at that (ENTjs are of course good at it too).

[Smilingeyes]

It took me a long time to understand what really is. But once I really had it figured out it took away any doubt that I had regarding my type because it is what I'm really really good at (I'm an intuitive subtype). I would consider my greatest talent to be long-term strategy, plotting the optimal path to success by taking actions in the present that will lead to the greatest long-term benefit, and anticipating future problems and avoiding/preparing for them.

The problem with such a view on is that INTjs are often described as being good at that (ENTjs are of course good at it too).

Except that that part in INTJ descriptions is wrong. They choose the most direct path, not the best path. Actually they almost always use a completely horribly bad path to any destination.

[Dmitri Lytov]

Neither of the two options. If I had more options, e.g.. evaluation of EACH statement, I would find some correct; but as grouped by the author of the topic, both are rather incorrect.

[Expat]

I would consider my greatest talent to be long-term strategy, plotting the optimal path to success by taking actions in the present that will lead to the greatest long-term benefit, and anticipating future problems and avoiding/preparing for them.

Which is perfeclty consistent with having as a creative function. It's common to see your creative function, not your dominant one, as your greatest talent -- you sort of take your dominant function for granted; it's "what any normal person does".

[Phaedrus]

It's common to see your creative function, not your dominant one, as your greatest talent -- you sort of take your dominant function for granted; it's "what any normal person does".

Yes, that is a plausible explanation for the phenomenon that so many people tend to mistype themselves. It could, for example, explain why many INTps identify with Ti descriptions in MBTT. Maybe it could also explain why Jung mistyped himself as an introverted thinking type (given the assumption that he really did mistype himself, which I doubt). But what are the consequences? How many people are mistyped? If that phenomenon is very common, it becomes almost impossible to know for sure that you have typed yourself correctly from reading and identifying with functions descriptions. To read about Model A would be totally insufficient in that case, and overall type descriptions who focus on people's behaviours would be a more accurate typing tool.

[FDG]

It's common to see your creative function, not your dominant one, as your greatest talent -- you sort of take your dominant function for granted; it's "what any normal person does".

Yes, that is a plausible explanation for the phenomenon that so many people tend to mistype themselves. It could, for example, explain why many INTps identify with Ti descriptions in MBTT. Maybe it could also explain why Jung mistyped himself as an introverted thinking type (given the assumption that he really did mistype himself, which I doubt). But what are the consequences? How many people are mistyped? If that phenomenon is very common, it becomes almost impossible to know for sure that you have typed yourself correctly from reading and identifying with functions descriptions. To read about Model A would be totally insufficient in that case, and overall type descriptions who focus on people's behaviours would be a more accurate typing tool.

Stop already to always talk about the same shit over and over, you broken record machine

[Jonathan]

Neither of the two options. If I had more options, e.g.. evaluation of EACH statement, I would find some correct; but as grouped by the author of the topic, both are rather incorrect.

Please elaborate. Which combination do you agree with, and which ones do you find bad? In grouping them this way, I certainly didn't mean that they can only be discussed in a group. I grouped them that way only because sources&posts seem to be grouped more or less in one of the two interpretations. But I'd be very interested to hear your take on the individual descriptions here.

[Dmitri Lytov]

Ti: Focus on "correctness"; anal retentive; exacting; organized; mastery of systems

Rather yes than no.

Te: Finding common ground; clarifying; shared reasoning; seeking objectivity; investigating problems according to a notion of external truth

Both applicable to Te and Ti. Moreover, in such formulation best applicable to ENTp, whose T is introverted.

Ni: Constantly refining a very fluid image of the way things are; imaginative, flexible understanding
Ne: Recognizing external possibilities and opportunities; understanding implications and possibilities for implementation; awareness of what's "hot" and what's going on in the world of discussion of ideas

Both applicable to both intuitions and are interchangeable.

Ti: Logical thinking related to academic/intellectual pursuits; thinking related to theoretical pursuits (as opposed to applied); thinking "about" things (as opposed to goal oriented thinking); understanding

Almost true.

Te: Business logic; thinking associated with accounting, business, and engineering; "applied" thinking (as opposed to pure theory); productivity; goal-oriented thinking; calculation of profit

Not exactly. The term "business logic" used by some Russian socionists may be misguiding. This kind of T deals with operationalization of matters, whether in business or elsewhere. Ti, by contrast, is conceptual, descriptive, it deals with processes quite passively; if they are, let them be, or - if they are "bad" - let us propose a slight concept how to change them, and let other people perform this change.

Ni: Skill in estimating time; able to estimate how long a project will take; able to be on time without hurrying; does everything at just the right time

Applicable to 2nd Ni, not quite good for 1st Ni.

Ne: Intellectual creativity; thinking "outside the box"; coming up with substantially new ideas

Um... maybe. However, formulation is not good. For example, ENTj may be intellectually very creative. However, ENTj's ideas deal mostly with operationalization (again Te) while ENTp's ideas are rather conceptual.
Enrico Fermi, Robert Wood, Bill Gates, probably Thomas Edison seem to me to be good examples of ENTj - i.e., of operationalizing thinking.
By contrast, Al Gore is a good example of Ne and Ti (he uses a lot of facts, but these facts represent rather global concepts than well-elaborated procedures).

[Smilingeyes]

Te: Finding common ground; clarifying; shared reasoning; seeking objectivity; investigating problems according to a notion of external truth

Both applicable to Te and Ti. Moreover, in such formulation best applicable to ENTp, whose T is introverted.

Untrue. Best applicaple to ENTj Te. Almost no applicability to ENTp.

[Phaedrus]

Te: Finding common ground; clarifying; shared reasoning; seeking objectivity; investigating problems according to a notion of external truth

Both applicable to Te and Ti. Moreover, in such formulation best applicable to ENTp, whose T is introverted.

You seem to describe and slightly differently from how those functions are described in The Semantics of the Information Elements. For example, you say that objective regularities and laws are themes, whereas Kochubeeva, Mironov, and Stoyalova list them as themes. Clarifying and seeking objectivity are also seemingly themes rather than themes in their classification, and I think so too. The notion of objective truth is also clearly a theme more than a theme according to both Jung and Reinin. So, why ENTp? How do you reason?

[Jonathan]

Some good questions here. Hopefully we can get to the bottom of some of these things.

Te: Finding common ground; clarifying; shared reasoning; seeking objectivity; investigating problems according to a notion of external truth

Both applicable to Te and Ti. Moreover, in such formulation best applicable to ENTp, whose T is introverted.

It seems that what some people here object to most strongly is the association of "seeking objectivity" with Ti. You use the term "operationalizing" for Te, which still seems to imply what one might consider applied endeavors (building technology) as opposed to pure science or other pure research (which some Te types insist they're interested in).

I see a potential resolution though: Perhaps testing (including mental testing) is a form of operationalizing. Would you agree that phrases like "Let's test to see if this is how it really works," or "how might we conduct an experiment to see if this is true" would be typical Te formulations (or at least Te as a 2nd function), since it involves operationalizing, but for the purpose of investigation?

It may be that when Te types approach matters that involve finding out what is true (e.g., Socionics, or any scientific field), they take a testing/verification approach that seems to them more "objective" than an Alpha approach?

As to why the statement quoted may seem ENTp...I'll address further down.

Ti: Logical thinking related to academic/intellectual pursuits; thinking related to theoretical pursuits (as opposed to applied); thinking "about" things (as opposed to goal oriented thinking); understanding

Almost true.

This is also how many ILI types see themselves...would you agree? Somehow with acc-Ni and crea-Te they seem to come up with a sense of themselves that always appears to fit Ti.

I wonder if that's how my description of Te also may seem to fit an ENTp. I can see an ENTp identifying with a lot of what I wrote there..."clarifying (here, though, in the sense of explaining)...investigating problems (a typical pursuit of ENTps, but I think of INTps too)...external truth (as extraverts, ENTps identify with the external).

So, I see this as a parallel case of what we might call the "quasi-identiy mirage." Here's a definition of this proposed idea:

The quasi-identity mirage principle states that for each quasi-identical pair, the way the 2nd function's nature is different from the way it works when it is a 1st function precisely conspires to cause each member of the quasi-identical pair to identify (at least at first glance) with the major themes and description of the other.

Ni: Skill in estimating time; able to estimate how long a project will take; able to be on time without hurrying; does everything at just the right time

Applicable to 2nd Ni, not quite good for 1st Ni.

I'm glad you mentioned that. I was thinking exactly the same thing recently, and I think this is a good resolution to an issue that used to bother me quite a bit in Socionics.

[pezzonovante]

I would consider my greatest talent to be long-term strategy, plotting the optimal path to success by taking actions in the present that will lead to the greatest long-term benefit, and anticipating future problems and avoiding/preparing for them.

Which is perfeclty consistent with having as a creative function. It's common to see your creative function, not your dominant one, as your greatest talent -- you sort of take your dominant function for granted; it's "what any normal person does".

I agree. However I do think my is rather weak, hence my being an intuitive subtype. My utilization of seems to be more inconsistent compared to my which is always on 100%.

[Logos]

It took me a long time to understand what really is. But once I really had it figured out it took away any doubt that I had regarding my type because it is what I'm really really good at (I'm an intuitive subtype). I would consider my greatest talent to be long-term strategy, plotting the optimal path to success by taking actions in the present that will lead to the greatest long-term benefit, and anticipating future problems and avoiding/preparing for them.

The problem with such a view on is that INTjs are often described as being good at that (ENTjs are of course good at it too).

Except that that part in INTJ descriptions is wrong. They choose the most direct path, not the best path. Actually they almost always use a completely horribly bad path to any destination.

And what you say actually seems to go against what is included in most descriptions of INTjs.

[Expat]

It's common to see your creative function, not your dominant one, as your greatest talent -- you sort of take your dominant function for granted; it's "what any normal person does".

Yes, that is a plausible explanation for the phenomenon that so many people tend to mistype themselves.

[ --]

But what are the consequences? How many people are mistyped? If that phenomenon is very common, it becomes almost impossible to know for sure that you have typed yourself correctly from reading and identifying with functions descriptions. To read about Model A would be totally insufficient in that case, and overall type descriptions who focus on people's behaviours would be a more accurate typing tool.

There is no royal path to typing yourself and others; the way is to understand as much about behaviors, types, quadras, functions, etc, until you realize that the reason why some other people behave "oddly" or "stupidly" or "arrogantly" or "unethically" or etc etc is because they don't share your dominant function.

[Smilingeyes]

Except that that part in INTJ descriptions is wrong. They choose the most direct path, not the best path. Actually they almost always use a completely horribly bad path to any destination.

And what you say actually seems to go against what is included in most descriptions of INTjs.

I know. That false information being repeated in so many places is one reason there's such a glut of people who think/hope they are INTjs but are not. INTjs choose the path that they'd like to be the best or would hope or think that logically should be the easiest/best. They're about as dumb as bricks on catching real hints about what the best path to anything is. You can lay down rock-solid evidence, you can explain word for word, you can even bloody well show them by doing it and they still don't believe/understand. It's like a bloody superpower, complete immunity to reason. INTjs are all about the highly idealistic abstract utopia world that happens to exist in their heads. It all collapses when they try to apply it to anything. Ne Ti is the combination of fantasy with sophistry, not a good union to guide real life actions. Brats.

[Jonathan]

Except that that part in INTJ descriptions is wrong. They choose the most direct path, not the best path. Actually they almost always use a completely horribly bad path to any destination.

And what you say actually seems to go against what is included in most descriptions of INTjs.

I know. That false information being repeated in so many places is one reason there's such a glut of people who think/hope they are INTjs but are not. INTjs choose the path that they'd like to be the best or would hope or think that logically should be the easiest/best. They're about as dumb as bricks on catching real hints about what the best path to anything is. You can lay down rock-solid evidence, you can explain word for word, you can even bloody well show them by doing it and they still don't believe/understand. It's like a bloody superpower, complete immunity to reason. INTjs are all about the highly idealistic abstract utopia world that happens to exist in their heads. It all collapses when they try to apply it to anything. Ne Ti is the combination of fantasy with sophistry, not a good union to guide real life actions. Brats.

Now, now, surely Alpha NTs aren't as useless as all that. I can understand your aversion if from an LIE perspective, but from an LSE perspective, don't you at least have something good to say about your illusionary partner and beneficiary-dependent?

LIIs tend to choose an impractical path when it comes to a lot of matters, and may insist on ways that don't make sense when dealing with life issues, but surely they have a lot of talents too (?).

@pezzonovante:

Wouldn't an LIE with particularly weak Te be an EIE?

[Logos]

Except that that part in INTJ descriptions is wrong. They choose the most direct path, not the best path. Actually they almost always use a completely horribly bad path to any destination.

And what you say actually seems to go against what is included in most descriptions of INTjs.

I know. That false information being repeated in so many places is one reason there's such a glut of people who think/hope they are INTjs but are not. INTjs choose the path that they'd like to be the best or would hope or think that logically should be the easiest/best. They're about as dumb as bricks on catching real hints about what the best path to anything is. You can lay down rock-solid evidence, you can explain word for word, you can even bloody well show them by doing it and they still don't believe/understand. It's like a bloody superpower, complete immunity to reason. INTjs are all about the highly idealistic abstract utopia world that happens to exist in their heads. It all collapses when they try to apply it to anything. Ne Ti is the combination of fantasy with sophistry, not a good union to guide real life actions. Brats.

I am not sure how much weight I can put into anything worded this blatantly lopsided in perception. Sorry. But if you do not mind I will just continue living in my delusion while you continue to live out your own about INTjs.

[CuriousSoul]

An awful lot of socionics discussion seems to revolve around the question: to what extent are people referring to the same set of people when they talk about a type.

As a statement of personal preference I would like to make it publicly known that I am heavily indebted to Dioklecian, whose typings skills, in particular, I hold in high esteem (although he is not without his flaws either.)

[Smilingeyes]

@pezzonovante:

Wouldn't an LIE with particularly weak Te be an EIE?

Not if they happen to have an even weaker Fe. It's all relative.

Now, now, surely Alpha NTs aren't as useless as all that. I can understand your aversion if from an LIE perspective, but from an LSE perspective, don't you at least have something good to say about your illusionary partner and beneficiary-dependent?

LIIs tend to choose an impractical path when it comes to a lot of matters, and may insist on ways that don't make sense when dealing with life issues, but surely they have a lot of talents too (?).

Oh, I appreciate them. There's enough of them around in the circles that I hang in that it's better to like them for what they're good in. But liking someone is no reason to lie that s/he has some good quality that s/he doesn't.

Particular skills/positive qualities that ENTps and INTjs share:
1. They're fun and rather loose. So you can have fun with them as well.
2. Organizatory ability. They can put anything into a clear and understandable order.
3. Appreciation of the skills of others.
4. Candidness (of a sort), they seem to believe what they say when they say it, so in that sense (and only that sense) you can trust them. The positive aspect of this is that they're energized by their chosen environment and can become quite good at what they're doing for that reason, good grounds to gain a lot of experience and become an expert in their field.
5. Ability to introduce surprising new twists into old theorems, see what others don't (though they're not always right about what they see, it's still an important and significant ability).
6. Willingness to state their opinions matter of factly and thereby move discussions onward.
7. Ability to "take five", distance themselves of an issue and stick with what they see as the most important matter.

Of these Gamma NTs are equally good only at number 7.

[Jonathan]

@pezzonovante:

Wouldn't an LIE with particularly weak Te be an EIE?

Not if they happen to have an even weaker Fe. It's all relative.

I stand corrected. You're right of course. I just couldn't resist saying that.

Oh, I appreciate them. There's enough of them around in the circles that I hang in that it's better to like them for what they're good in. But liking someone is no reason to lie that s/he has some good quality that s/he doesn't.

Particular skills/positive qualities that ENTps and INTjs share:
1. They're fun and rather loose. So you can have fun with them as well.
2. Organizatory ability. They can put anything into a clear and understandable order.
3. Appreciation of the skills of others.
4. Candidness (of a sort), they seem to believe what they say when they say it, so in that sense (and only that sense) you can trust them. The positive aspect of this is that they're energized by their chosen environment and can become quite good at what they're doing for that reason, good grounds to gain a lot of experience and become an expert in their field.
5. Ability to introduce surprising new twists into old theorems, see what others don't (though they're not always right about what they see, it's still an important and significant ability).
6. Willingness to state their opinions matter of factly and thereby move discussions onward.
7. Ability to "take five", distance themselves of an issue and stick with what they see as the most important matter.

Of these Gamma NTs are equally good only at number 7.

...Which sort of thinking makes me sometimes doubt if I'm Gamma NT. I identify a lot with 5 and 3. Of course, I'm aware you tend to see me as closer to Beta.

[Jonathan]

An awful lot of socionics discussion seems to revolve around the question: to what extent are people referring to the same set of people when they talk about a type.

As a statement of personal preference I would like to make it publicly known that I am heavily indebted to Dioklecian, whose typings skills, in particular, I hold in high esteem (although he is not without his flaws either.)

Exactly....that's the key question.
What do you see as the key elements of Dioklecian's approach, and how might they shed light on this discussion?

One other thing I notice as that the views about which people fall in a given type tend to fall somewhat into quadra lines, though not totally. So, generally, definitions by Alphas will place more theoreticians, intellectuals, and people involved in pure research into the Alpha camp, whereas Gammas and other types may define things in such a way that more of these people are in their quadras. Alphas may react in disbelief, thinking "Why are you even interested in that stuff when your type is clearly is more into operationalizing, setting up processes and enterprises, and so forth?"

[Phaedrus]

An awful lot of socionics discussion seems to revolve around the question: to what extent are people referring to the same set of people when they talk about a type.

That is an extremely important question. We should do everything we can to ensure that we are referring to the same set of people when we talk about a certain type.

As a statement of personal preference I would like to make it publicly known that I am heavily indebted to Dioklecian, whose typings skills, in particular, I hold in high esteem (although he is not without his flaws either.)

And that proves that we are not.

[aestrivex]

As a statement of personal preference I would like to make it publicly known that I am heavily indebted to Dioklecian, whose typings skills, in particular, I hold in high esteem (although he is not without his flaws either.)

who was it that thought dio was not LII?

[pezzonovante]

@pezzonovante:

Wouldn't an LIE with particularly weak Te be an EIE?

Not if they happen to have an even weaker Fe. It's all relative.

I couldn't have said it better myself. I would say that I use as my primary source of information, and with that information I take action using my two tools - and . My is definitely stronger than my , although not as strong as some other ENTJs or ESTJs. At times though my really gives a stellar performance and combined with the other two functions will get the job done very well.