XoX's type - Evidence and Discussion

[XoX]

........ 11 pages down the road and you still aren't clear on things..... that isn't 'appealing' to an INTj, (necessarily)..........

Not even a little bit?

So anyways,
What do do you think you are, XoX, and why?
Write it out for me, please. You can just write one or two types, and one sentence describing why - that's all I'll ask for.

My main problem with writing these is that I seem to constantly be in a hurry and thus I tend to just blurt out my answers. I should somehow make myself calm down to actually think. Perhaps that is why I like people who have a calming effect on me I don't mean emotionally calming really. Just someone who is slow paced in such a way which makes me slow down my pace too. Intellectual pace that is. To help me spend 30 minutes instead of 3 minutes in thinking about some thing.

So why...quick take

ENTp: I relate to ENTp descriptions, I could see Ne as my leading function as I relate to descriptions of it, I am somewhat ackward in establishing relationships and keeping stable psychological distance. I could see EP as my temperament. There are some problems too but this was about "why" instead of "why not". Ok then of course all the arguments which claim I'm from Fe/Ti Quadra.

ENFp: Like ENTP but because of the usual people focus I'm more skeptic

ENFj: I identifie surprisingly well with many descriptions even though there are always badly incorrect parts too.

INFp: I could see Ni (or any intuitive function) as my leading function. IP temperament is possible. I think I'm introvert at least in traditinal sense of the word. ESTp as a dual..umm..perhaps but well... Then all the Fe/Ti Quadra arguments.

INTp: I relate to INTp descriptions perhaps the most. IP temperament is possible. Ni leading is possible. I tend to think that my competence lies in problem solving and I am not much an idealist so Te-creative is possible. I have always seen natural scientific or technology career as my only choice. I tend to meet very little new people and I think that is good . I create and follow a plan or model in almost anything I do e.g. finances and what I eat and so on. ESFp as a dual is as or more possible than ESTp but still I would have to find a bit less needy ESFp than they usually are And yes ESFp can have a calming and stress-relieving effect on me. They generally think my problems are something I should just forget about. They dismiss them alltogether which relieves my stress (opposite to some ISFjs). Then I have a hidden need for strong ethics which I apparently am bad at manifesting externally (HA?). Um...what else. I have a tendency to piss people of if I'm not careful (might be more ENTp trait) I like strategic and tactical games and competition and winning (well I'm not sure if these all point to INTp).

Ok, I could figure out more but it is very late and tomorrow is an important day

XoX currently strikes me most as an ENFp who thinks it wants to be some other type. But have I read every post in this thread? Certainly not.

There have been good arguments against ENFp but certainly a Ne-type like ENFp is possible. I would think ENFps are more into people and such. Doing a lot of stuff with different people and so on. They might come in different flavours though. However I have to comment on that. I don't really "want" to be any type. I just want to find internal confidence about whatever type I eventually stick to. Oh and I have problems relating to ENFp descriptions.

I still haven't found time to do a deep commentary on the descriptions or do reinin dichotomy modeling...I'm on to that though...eventually...

[UDP]

You are just so totally not INTp.........

Perhaps that is why I like people who have a calming effect on me Smile I don't mean emotionally calming really. Just someone who is slow paced in such a way which makes me slow down my pace too. Intellectual pace that is. To help me spend 30 minutes instead of 3 minutes in thinking about some thing.

There have been good arguments against ENFp but certainly a Ne-type like ENFp is possible. I would think ENFps are more into people and such. Doing a lot of stuff with different people and so on. They might come in different flavours though. However I have to comment on that. I don't really "want" to be any type. I just want to find internal confidence about whatever type I eventually stick to. Oh and I have problems relating to ENFp descriptions.

I still haven't found time to do a deep commentary on the descriptions or do reinin dichotomy modeling...I'm on to that though...eventually...

You must have absolutely no idea what is, huh?

INTp: I relate to INTp descriptions perhaps the most. IP temperament is possible.

Perhaps that is why I like people who have a calming effect on me I don't mean emotionally calming really. Just someone who is slow paced in such a way which makes me slow down my pace too. Intellectual pace that is. To help me spend 30 minutes instead of 3 minutes in thinking about some thing.

INTp: I relate to INTp descriptions perhaps the most. IP temperament is possible.

Don't you see a problem there?



Let's try this again:

My main problem with writing these is that I seem to constantly be in a hurry and thus I tend to just blurt out my answers. I should somehow make myself calm down to actually think. Perhaps that is why I like people who have a calming effect on me Smile I don't mean emotionally calming really. Just someone who is slow paced in such a way which makes me slow down my pace too. Intellectual pace that is. To help me spend 30 minutes instead of 3 minutes in thinking about some thing.

INTp: I relate to INTp descriptions perhaps the most. IP temperament is possible.

?

You don't know what you're talking about.
And if you do, then you are a severely messed up INTp and need to calm down. But I doubt, really doubt, you are an INTp. I cannot imagine what you see yourself relating to in an INTp profile.

[Phaedrus]

You don't know what you're talking about.
And if you do, then you are a severely messed up INTp and need to calm down. But I doubt, really doubt, you are an INTp. I cannot imagine what you see yourself relating to in an INTp profile.

UDP III's critique is well-founded, but XoX's way of reasoning is much easier for me to follow, understand and relate to than that of probably every ENFp I have met or read on this forum and in real life. He also doesn't strike me as very ENTp, even though that is probably a more likely type than ENFp.

How do other dominants on this forum relate to XoX's way of thinking based on his posts? How do you relate to how he describes himself?

[FDG]

XoX, do you know anybody that has very similar movements and gestures to you?

Is there anybody that you have typed for sure as a given type? What are the worst relations that you have had, the ones that you feel bad even when the person is just near you?

Well there are not many I relate to. However in some interviews Christian Bale
has similar discussion style and body language as I have (using a lot of hand gestures and searching for words (I do that often). I also think he has many features similar to me. His face shape for example. I also could see myself acting some of his roles e.g. the one he does in Batman Begins.

In this video he is very much like me. Almost like a copy. Even my wife immediately noticed the similarities in body language and discussion style and everything. Of course I have a bit of variation e.g. in my energy levels and whether I listen more or talk more but this person in the video is very very much like me:
[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6Bzxc2Grx7w[/youtube]

So if I had to pick a celebrity who is most likely my identical it would be him (based on what little I have seen him of course, couple of movies and couple of interviews).

About my worst relations...a tough one...I rarely if ever have really bad relations. I almost always have some problems in every relation but never really I dislike someone to the point of calling a relations bad.

One of the worst relations had been with an ex-Boss who I often refer to. I think that person is ENTp. My only known ENTp. But could be ENTj. I stick with the ENTp since he was more like the ENTps who have been VI'd here and I believe he was strong in Ne and Ti but not so strong in Te. It was all about developing abstract concepts for him and the actual solution development was left to other people (like me). Also concept development seemed like the only real skill there is to him. So it was like "here is a concept, use it to develop an innovative solution for me, but remember that I don't really appreciate your contribution because doing new concepts is the thing I appreciate, so basically I only appreciate myself". Then I was like...yes..I'm really motivated now, lol. But ok I guess we appreciated each other's strenghts enough to keep working together.

It was a long time ago and I have typed him afterwards based on memories. Even though we managed to work together for quite a long time it got worse and worse all the time. These was some weird curtain of misunderstanding which kept on bothering us. And certainly somekind of war of values. Then both of us thought to have better understanding of certain things and it was a bit hard to respect the other person's point of view. It always seemed a bit faulty. We also appreciated somewhat different skill sets in people. We had to share something though as we cooperated so long. There was an ESTj too in the same team who had good relations with both of us and had some trouble understanding how he doesn't have any communication problems with either of us but we had communication problems with each other.

What else...male INTjs can bug me. But I also like them. Female INTjs are more peaceful somehow. I have one male INTj friend and he can piss me off badly because he is so stubborn in his opinions and refuses often to listen to counter arguments on things he has "already thought about and reached a conclusion". Then again we have had some good moments there too which is why we keep contact. And the INTj guy was a work mate too and a rather good one. I really respected his abilities and learned from him and the communication with him was way better than with the ENTp despite the fact that I always had to get pass his first line of defense to get him to actually listen (he also had problems with the ENTp but not quite as much as I did and a bit different, in their case it wasn't really about communication problems but some other problems).

What else...I can't figure out anything else, lol. The thing is I'm not in contact with too many people generally so I don't really recall anyone who really pisses me off. I would have to ask other people whether I piss them off. I'm quite immune to annoying behavior myself. And I'm pissed of now I probably won't be tomorrow. I kind of forget that I was pissed off. Umm.

Ah you're ENFj then, okay.

[Expat]

In case it is of any use I apologize from Expat that I was suspicious of his motives and all that. Also a little bit from Ishy.

I guess I also need to apologize from anndelise Because the reason is hard to explain here I will let it stay as a secret

Apologies are not really the point, especially as (as you yourself said) you don't really understand why it was offensive. So apologies are a bit empty, are they not?

You said that you are suspicious of everyone's motives, especially when in positions of "power" and that I should not expect "special treatment" (I don't recall if you actually used this expression but I think the sense is the same) and that I have to "prove" I am "trustworthy" - oh, ok, not only I but "everyone".

Well, the thing is, we have been interacting here for a few months now, and I have very patiently tried to help you with your type over PM too. I have never banned anyone for frivolous reasons (and if I did, I would ask not to be a moderator anymore). So, yes, I do expect to be seen differently from someone with whom you have had no interaction and whose behavior you've had no opportunity to observe, and my own behavior should be proof enough that I am "trustworthy".

If it isn't, then I have to conclude that (1) you can't trust anyone, no matter what people have done or not or (2) you are unable to relate to people as individuals, they are some sort of amorphous mass to you . Or (3), that people have actually to "reassure" you with, "yes you can trust me, I am trustworthy" which is totally meaningless for the reasons Slacker Mom and implied have mentioned.

Now, of course you are entitled to be mistrustful of anyone you want, but to me it means that I have to watch my step with you, too, since if you don't see me as an individual, you might do something to me based on what someone else has said or done - just because that person belongs to the same "group" as I, whatever the group may be. It goes both ways, you see?

[Creepy-bg]

XoX you don't have that super annoying condescending tone of an ENTj (if our representative ENTjs are worthy of comparisons)... just thought I'd throw that out there

[Expat]

XoX you don't have that super annoying condescending tone of an ENTj (if our representative ENTjs are worthy of comparisons)... just thought I'd throw that out there

That's a good point.

[Creepy-bg]

[XoX]

You must have absolutely no idea what is, huh?

I was hoping you would enlighten me about it "structural and holistic logic" or something The INTj I know can create very good and internally consistent software architectures. That must be related to Ti. It would require a lot for me to develop myself to that same level. But he was a self-proclaimed "guru" and very strong both in Ti and very experienced too so his having a lot more experience might contribute to him having a sort of advantage over me. Or perhaps he supervises me..who knows. My one target it to figure out a way to become better than him even though it might not be possible.

INTp: I relate to INTp descriptions perhaps the most. IP temperament is possible.

Perhaps that is why I like people who have a calming effect on me I don't mean emotionally calming really. Just someone who is slow paced in such a way which makes me slow down my pace too. Intellectual pace that is. To help me spend 30 minutes instead of 3 minutes in thinking about some thing.

INTp: I relate to INTp descriptions perhaps the most. IP temperament is possible.

Don't you see a problem there?

I do basically. But I was trying to not let this awareness from stopping my flow of thought. I tried to just write. And yes INTps are generally known for their external calmness. I'm often externally very calm too with occasional overflows of emotions. Now many people say INTps don't have these "overflows" but some descriptions say they do have problems controlling their emotions in stressful or irritating and such situations because they lack control over their Fe.

About how well INTps can concentrate...unknown to me. All I know that some INTps have said (e.g. Cone) that they have problems concentrating e.g. on the same book for long periods of time and like to switch tasks often. This seems like a p-trait more than INTp trait though and is more often a Ne than Ni feature.

Now I was thinking that perhaps my apparently very strong N-subtype makes it harder for me to concentrate on my rational functions and this might be what causes me to use them very carelessly not necessarily e.g. Ti-PoLR.

Let's try this again:

My main problem with writing these is that I seem to constantly be in a hurry and thus I tend to just blurt out my answers. I should somehow make myself calm down to actually think. Perhaps that is why I like people who have a calming effect on me Smile I don't mean emotionally calming really. Just someone who is slow paced in such a way which makes me slow down my pace too. Intellectual pace that is. To help me spend 30 minutes instead of 3 minutes in thinking about some thing.

INTp: I relate to INTp descriptions perhaps the most. IP temperament is possible.

?

To add some more. I'm in a hurry since I have so many things I need to do. This is a mental need more than a physical need. When I go to bed I want to feel I have done all the things I intended to do and I'm "on schedule" with my future plans and direction and such. So...at the moment I have scheduled certain amoint of time to write these forum posts and there are so many of them that the quality of each answer suffers a bit. I'm still hopeful they are useful.

You don't know what you're talking about.
And if you do, then you are a severely messed up INTp and need to calm down. But I doubt, really doubt, you are an INTp. I cannot imagine what you see yourself relating to in an INTp profile.

Yes, I need to calm down but currently I'm "driven" and there seems to be more to do than there is time...I'm also a bit slow in doing stuff and my effectiveness tends to fluctuate day to day which doesn't help it I doubt I'm a rational type. But I'm on to the task to do a detailed analysis of some descriptions (like ENTp, INFp, INTp and perhaps others like ENFp and ENFj). Just that I have not managed to do that yet.

Then Reinin dichotomies is another important road. So far I have always thought myself as negativist narrator which I think points to INTp and ENFp more than INFp and ENTp. I have to do a more holistic analysis of ALL the dichotomies though and not just those too. I could see myself as taciturn too perhaps but it is a bit hard to see the positivist. Then again I might have misunderstood what it means.

[XoX]

Apologies are not really the point, especially as (as you yourself said) you don't really understand why it was offensive. So apologies are a bit empty, are they not?

You were again touching the same thing anndelise often is. Individual vs. group thinking. Now I don't know what that actually means since it sounds like aristocracy but it is still different from how ENFps (who are aristocrats) tend to think.

About the apology. I don't apologize my opinions as such. They are my opinions after all and there is nothing to apologize in having an opinion. However I apologize the way I presented them and the fact that they might have offended someone. I guess it is good to occasionally keep your mouth shut in things which can cause bad blood. The purpose wasn't to offend but well what can I say. I feel bad about the whole mess.

What you do with that apology is your own business. If you wish to feed it to the dogs it not my business. It belongs to you now so do whatever you wish with it.

[Creepy-bg]

Apologies are not really the point, especially as (as you yourself said) you don't really understand why it was offensive. So apologies are a bit empty, are they not?

You were again touching the same thing anndelise often is. Individual vs. group thinking. Now I don't know what that actually means since it sounds like aristocracy but it is still different from how ENFps (who are aristocrats) tend to think.

About the apology. I don't apologize my opinions as such. They are my opinions after all and there is nothing to apologize in having an opinion. However I apologize the way I presented them and the fact that they might have offended someone. I guess it is good to occasionally keep your mouth shut in things which can cause bad blood. The purpose wasn't to offend but well what can I say. I feel bad about the whole mess.

What you do with that apology is your own business. If you wish to feed it to the dogs it not my business. It belongs to you now so do whatever you wish with it.

I <3 this post

[Expat]

Fair enough. Now that that's settled:

You were again touching the same thing anndelise often is. Individual vs. group thinking. Now I don't know what that actually means since it sounds like aristocracy but it is still different from how ENFps (who are aristocrats) tend to think.

The way I see it, Delta Aristocracy is about including individuals in their own groups, while Beta Aristocracy is about deciding to which group the individual belongs to to begin with. But I'm not sure.

[Phaedrus]

Beta Aristocracy is about deciding to which group the individual belongs to to begin with. But I'm not sure.

That may be true, but we must not confuse this with another important difference: NFs (which are only found in Beta and Delta) are often not too happy about putting people in different "boxes", they tend to view persons more in their individuality than in relation to some theory (like a typology for example), and they can be opposed to explain people's behaviours and thinking patterns in a scientific framework as "objects" of a certain kind. NTs (which are only found in Alpha and Gamma) on the other hand, have a natural inclination for doing just that -- sort out the categories, define things, make distinctions, come to general conclusions, etc.

[Expat]

That may be true, but we must not confuse this with another important difference: NFs (which are only found in Beta and Delta) are often not too happy about putting people in different "boxes", they tend to view persons more in their individuality than in relation to some theory (like a typology for example)

I don't see it that way at all. They also put people in "boxes", only it's their own personally-designed boxes rather than necessarily those of a typology. Now, they themselves might not see them as "boxes", but only as "the way real people are".

[Phaedrus]

That may be true, but we must not confuse this with another important difference: NFs (which are only found in Beta and Delta) are often not too happy about putting people in different "boxes", they tend to view persons more in their individuality than in relation to some theory (like a typology for example)

I don't see it that way at all. They also put people in "boxes", only it's their own personally-designed boxes rather than necessarily those of a typology. Now, they themselves might not see them as "boxes", but only as "the way real people are".

Yes, I agree. I just wanted to point out a possible way to misinterpret what you were trying to say. And besides that, I think that XoX's general attitude and approach when it comes to this probably points more towards NT than towards Beta. But I am not yet completely sure about that. I have to go through some of the things he has said again, and maybe compare with other things he has said in the past.

[Creepy-bg]

Yes, I agree. I just wanted to point out a possible way to misinterpret what you were trying to say.

excellent save!

[Expat]

No. Phaedrus, in my opinion you're totally on the wrong track here. You're mixing up objectives with tools. A formal system of typology, such as Socionics, may be more attractive to NT types as a tool, while NF types may generally prefer to rely on their own perceived "people skills". It's not the same thing as saying that their motivations, or even views of groups or individuals, are the same within the clubs.

[Phaedrus]

No. Phaedrus, in my opinion you're totally on the wrong track here. You're mixing up objectives with tools. A formal system of typology, such as Socionics, may be more attractive to NT types as a tool, while NF types may generally prefer to rely on their own perceived "people skills". It's not the same thing as saying that their motivations, or even views of groups or individuals, are the same within the clubs.

What is your point? What do we disagree about? At least I totally agree with this: " A formal system of typology, such as Socionics, may be more attractive to NT types as a tool, while NF types may generally prefer to rely on their own perceived "people skills"."

[Expat]

My points are --

1) by definition (assuming that there is anything at all to the Aristocratic/Democratic dichotomy) is that it is the Democratic Alpha/Gamma who is more likely to "view persons more in their individuality" rather than the Aristocratic NF, as you stated just a bit above
2) in their Democracy, Alpha/Gamma NT types may still be more likely to use a "box typology" such as Socionics (and the like) as a tool even if to view persons more in their individuality, while NFs may be more likely to use their own perceived people skills to view people in groups (of whatever kind) while not considering necessary to rely on typology as a tool
3) by definition, obviously, there are many NF types here discussing Socionics, so those who are indeed here also find it useful, which again nullifies your "people in box" argument for NFs who are here (or any other club, obviously)
4) XoX's approach is "only more NT than Beta" to the extent that he is interested in Socionics at all, but that means nothing due to (3)
5) Again to the extent that there is anything to Aristocracy/Democracy, his instinctive approach is the ultimate in Aristocracy if anyone's is
6) On a more practical level, his approach is actually - as UDP also pointed out - 80% discussing his type with people here and 20% (or whatever) finding about Socionics himself, which if you want to use clubs points away from NT not towards it.

So, Aristocratic NF is the most obvious conclusion.

[Phaedrus]

1) by definition (assuming that there is anything at all to the Aristocratic/Democratic dichotomy) is that it is the Democratic Alpha/Gamma who is more likely to "view persons more in their individuality" rather than the Aristocratic NF, as you stated just a bit above

Yes, and that's exactly why it is so important to be able to distinguish somehow (I don't know exactly how) the Democratic sense of viewing persons in their individuality from how NTs are in general, because what I said about NTs is obviously true.

2) in their Democracy, Alpha/Gamma NT types may still be more likely to use a "box typology" such as Socionics (and the like) as a tool even if to view persons more in their individuality, while NFs may be more likely to use their own perceived people skills to view people in groups (of whatever kind) while not considering necessary to rely on typology as a tool

You could be right about that. At least I haven't disputed it yet.

3) by definition, obviously, there are many NF types here discussing Socionics, so those who are indeed here also find it useful, which again nullifies your "people in box" argument for NFs who are here (or any other club, obviously)

Clearly not. You only have to look at the general pattern that can be seen from reading people's posts on this forum to realize that there is at least some truth to my "people in box" argument for NFs.

4) XoX's approach is "only more NT than Beta" to the extent that he is interested in Socionics at all, but that means nothing due to (3)

You seem to have missed the way he sees teams as "tools" and other aspects of this. The initial impression one gets from reading his posts is that his approach is clearly more NT than NF, but I haven't put too much emphasis on that yet. Maybe it is time to do that soon. Or maybe the initial impression is misleading for some yet unknown reasons.

5) Again to the extent that there is anything to Aristocracy/Democracy, his instinctive approach is the ultimate in Aristocracy if anyone's is

Which clearly suggests that the Aristocracy/Democracy dichotomy should not be used as a tool for typing people, since it is obviously unreliable.

6) On a more practical level, his approach is actually - as UDP also pointed out - 80% discussing his type with people here and 20% (or whatever) finding about Socionics himself, which if you want to use clubs points away from NT not towards it.

This forum can be used as a tool for finding out your true type if you are not yet sure about it. That's how I have used it, and that's how Jonathan has used it. What UDP says is more relevant for INTjs than for INTps, that's for sure.

So, Aristocratic NF is the most obvious conclusion.

Maybe. But probably not the most correct one.

[anndelise]

hehe
just wanted to point out that one of the issues that NFs (at least the nfps I know) have with many NT/SF theories about people that go along the lines of "if people were more like this, then [insert theoretical conclusion (such as economics, social psychology, etc)]". NFp: "but numerous individuals aren't like that so that theory doesn't work" NT/SF: "yes, but if people were like that.." repeat ad naseum....


I have an esfj friend. She got married 17 or so years ago to a man who drank all the time, was irresponsible, wouldn't keep a job to support himself nor his family, and never acted as a father to the two boys he was raising. She expected him to become her ideal of a husband/father at the moment of saying "I do". Many times after listening to a complaining session, I'd ask her "did he ever show any signs of being capable of or at least wanting to be the type of man you expect of him?" After a lot of hemming and hawing she said "no", but now he's a father of two girls and now he's a husband, he should want to change. Her reasoning was that now he's a father, so he should act as fathers should act, now he's a husband so he should act as husbands should act. Not once in 17 years did she treat him as the individual he is, instead trying to treat him as the ideal of what she wanted, and then getting upset when he wouldn't conform to her ideal.



Basically, I don't see NTs and SFs treating people as individuals with NFs treating people as groups.
To me that idea seems to go against what democratic is about, perhaps I'll have to reread it. It just would seem to me that Democratics would lump people into groups based on "the majority rules" kind of thing...like, if 52% of people are A, people in general are A (ignoring the 48% that aren't and treating them as if they are/should be A). I've seen this attitude/behavior most of the time in a number of Democratic types I know. Alas, I've also seen a bit of this attitude/behavior in a couple of NFs I know as well...so my understanding of the democratic/aristrocratic thing could be off.

(edited to add:
there's also something different between how the statics group people vs how dynamics group people...statics focusing on continuous(integral) objects/concepts and discrete relationships between those objects.....dynamics focusing on continuous(integral) relationships and discrete objects/concepts....end result may look very similar. this idea has been begging me to see how/if it fits into personal observations, but to be honest, I'm kinda burned out regarding socionics so it's not likely I'll force myself to sit down and try to put this abstract idea into concrete examples to see if theory meets reality)

[Phaedrus]

I have an esfj friend. She got married 17 or so years ago to a man who drank all the time, was irresponsible, wouldn't keep a job to support himself nor his family, and never acted as a father to the two boys he was raising. She expected him to become her ideal of a husband/father at the moment of saying "I do". Many times after listening to a complaining session, I'd ask her "did he ever show any signs of being capable of or at least wanting to be the type of man you expect of him?" After a lot of hemming and hawing she said "no", but now he's a father of two girls and now he's a husband, he should want to change. Her reasoning was that now he's a father, so he should act as fathers should act, now he's a husband so he should act as husbands should act. Not once in 17 years did she treat him as the individual he is, instead trying to treat him as the ideal of what she wanted, and then getting upset when he wouldn't conform to her ideal.

In this scenario I totally agree with your way of seeing it, anndelise. I usually emphasize the importance of not believing in vain that people can change. My basic attitude is that we have to accept that people are different, and that we should not expect them to be able to change their personality and behaviour as the result of an act of free will.

I don't believe in the existence of a free will. My world view is determinsitic and naturalistic. But I think that my kind of scientific world view, where people are seen as "objects" is usually not very appealing to NFs, since such a view in a sense takes away the importance of individual, personal differences. People are not seen as persons but as objects. We are all biological organisms whose behaviours can be explained by science.

[krieger]

Purely theoretically speaking the labels aristocracy and democracy refer to how there is an unequal, repectively equal distribution of external functions (T, S) among a quadras members. External functions are generally associated with greater immediate power than internal functions, hence an unequal distribution of power in these quadras is assumed (and assumed to be expected by its members).

Theres a risk of misinterpreting the box-thinking stereotype. The justification for it seems to be in how aristocrats see judging functions as concrete, which makes social accords of a much greater absolute and immutable value.

[anndelise]

In this scenario I totally agree with your way of seeing it, anndelise. I usually emphasize the importance of not believing in vain that people can change. My basic attitude is that we have to accept that people are different, and that we should not expect them to be able to change their personality and behaviour as the result of an act of free will.

I don't believe in the existence of a free will. My world view is determinsitic and naturalistic. But I think that my kind of scientific world view, where people are seen as "objects" is usually not very appealing to NFs, since such a view in a sense takes away the importance of individual, personal differences. People are not seen as persons but as objects. We are all biological organisms whose behaviours can be explained by science.

(bolded emphases is mine.)

Then hopefully you are taking into consideration that those people who expect others to change personality/behavior are not expecting these things due to free will, and thus are only being who/what they are due to their own nature. So, perhaps the "should" "shouldn't" apply. :wink:

[Expat]

Clearly not. You only have to look at the general pattern that can be seen from reading people's posts on this forum to realize that there is at least some truth to my "people in box" argument for NFs.

Perhaps you could describe the general pattern you see.

The initial impression one gets from reading his posts is that his approach is clearly more NT than NF

How so, precisely?

Which clearly suggests that the Aristocracy/Democracy dichotomy should not be used as a tool for typing people, since it is obviously unreliable.

In most cases, which tend to be "blurred" - it should not; this case here is not blurred.

This forum can be used as a tool for finding out your true type if you are not yet sure about it. That's how I have used it, and that's how Jonathan has used it. What UDP says is more relevant for INTjs than for INTps, that's for sure.

I wonder how many INTps have actually thought - for quite some time, and after long discussions - that ENFj, of all types, was a very likely type.

The explanation for that would be:

- an INTp who actually thinks that his PoLR might be his base function. Yes, possible. But only if, after all this time, said INTp still hasn't got a clue of what or an INTp or a PoLR or a base function or an ENFj is. A true INTp should just need to read a couple of ENFj descriptions to think "ack! No way that's me!"

If you don't agree with that, why not?

[snegledmaca]

Basically, I don't see NTs and SFs treating people as individuals with NFs treating people as groups.
To me that idea seems to go against what democratic is about, perhaps I'll have to reread it. It just would seem to me that Democratics would lump people into groups based on "the majority rules" kind of thing...like, if 52% of people are A, people in general are A (ignoring the 48% that aren't and treating them as if they are/should be A). I've seen this attitude/behavior most of the time in a number of Democratic types I know. Alas, I've also seen a bit of this attitude/behavior in a couple of NFs I know as well...so my understanding of the democratic/aristrocratic thing could be off.

Same here. IME ESE-s have been the most expressively (And openly aggressive) aristocratic types, constantly perceiving reality through divisions on us, them and so on. To be honest I can't imagine how somebody could function like that and this has been one of the key problems I have in relating to ESE-s (This is one of the issues where I constantly have to halt things and explain to them how what they are doing is wrong and so on. Doing this is problematic cause they don't even see how what they are doing is wrong).

[Phaedrus]

Then hopefully you are taking into consideration that those people who expect others to change personality/behavior are not expecting these things due to free will, and thus are only being who/what they are due to their own nature.

Of course. Everyone is what they are and doing what they do due to their own nature and the natural laws of physics.

So, perhaps the "should" "shouldn't" apply. :wink:

This is much more difficult to explain, but basically what we should do is totally independent of what we will do. In principle, a person's actions can be morally wrong, and he/she can be morally responsible for them, even if we know that he/she was only acting in accordance with his/her own nature.

[eunice]

XoX you don't have that super annoying condescending tone of an ENTj (if our representative ENTjs are worthy of comparisons)... just thought I'd throw that out there

ENTj annoying and condescending? Maybe I don't feel this way 'cos I feel that they are always right in terms the judgements they make, probably because they did it very convincingly by stating step-by-step how they get to their conclusion. I can't help but agree wholeheartedly with them even though sometimes I don't really understand what they had said or wrote down.

[Expat]

XoX you don't have that super annoying condescending tone of an ENTj (if our representative ENTjs are worthy of comparisons)... just thought I'd throw that out there

ENTj annoying and condescending? Maybe I don't feel this way 'cos I feel that they are always right in terms the judgements they make, probably because they did it very convincingly by stating step-by-step how they get to their conclusion. I can't help but agree wholeheartedly with them even though sometimes I don't really understand what they had said or wrote down.

Well he meant me in particular.

[Phaedrus]

Perhaps you could describe the general pattern you see.

I thought I did (very bried of course, but still) -- the differences between NTs and NFs. At an even more general level every F type tend be somewhat opposed to being seen as an object to be scrutinized in the scientist's microscope, and then explained by a theory.

The initial impression one gets from reading his posts is that his approach is clearly more NT than NF

How so, precisely?

Here we encounter some problems due to our type differences. As an observer of fields with introvert perception it is somewhat difficult for me to be "precise" about the general patterns I observe. But I mentioned that I think that XoX sees teams as "tools". He also seems to be more interested in systems than in people. Another trait is that he doesn't trust his intuition in the same way that for example a typical INFp does when making decisions. As I have already said, I have found no clear difference between XoX and me (except in our specific views regarding religion for example), which makes it difficult for me to think that he must be another type than I am.

But ... let's say that I am a type with strong Ni (which is probably true). That would make it harder for us to see the difference between me and the intuitive subtype of INFp. The distinction between the intuitive subtypes of INTp and INFp would become blurred. Despite the impression that many people probably have gotten from me as Obstinate and Construct-creating, I have now begun to suspect that those labels are probably inaccurate. I have always identified more with descriptions of the intuitive subtype of INTp than with the logical, and when I now look at the arguments for each alternative, I think that I understand better than before that I really am (most of the time) an IP with "huge" intuition. In Smilingeyes' outline that means that I would have qualities of resolute (big picture thinking, communal ability, and getting to the core of a subject), tactics (a willingness to adapt to the environment), victimized (manifesting itself as detachedness, and an unwillingness to take personal responsibility for the unfolding of events), and calculating (lacking in personal effort but directing what I manage to do for optimal success).

Now, just for the sake of argument, let's say that the above is true. What happens then to the intertype relations? Would they also become blurred? Would it be difficult to determine, for example, whether I have a relation of Activity to an ISFj or if am a Beneficiary to the ISFj? Would my relations with ENTjs be something in between relations of Mirror and relations of Supervision? How shall we understand it? Or are the intertype relations more "set in stone" than the types? What is your opinion on that?

I wonder how many INTps have actually thought - for quite some time, and after long discussions - that ENFj, of all types, was a very likely type.

No, that doesn't make a lot of sense, I agree. But a lot of people on this forum seem to focus too much on the intertype relations, resulting in similar very strange changes of opinion on which type they are, so I am not too surprised. I don't really think that XoX is now taking the ENFj possibility seriously. Anyway, I think that it can be dismissed as impossible (if he hasn't misdescribed himself completely). In everything he says he comes across as an irrational type, in my opinion.

A true INTp should just need to read a couple of ENFj descriptions to think "ack! No way that's me!"

If you don't agree with that, why not?

Of course I agree with that. That's one of the reasons I think people should not just dismiss the importance of reading type descriptions. If they immediately start with the intertype relations they can come up with anything. They haven't got a clue what they are doing and how they should interpret their relations if they haven't got a basic understanding of the types by other means.

[Expat]

I thought I did (very bried of course, but still) -- the differences between NTs and NFs. At an even more general level every F type tend be somewhat opposed to being seen as an object to be scrutinized in the scientist's microscope, and then explained by a theory.

If you phrase like that, yes. Not only F types. But we have quite a few F types here, so even if those are a minority among ethical types, it's not helpful to argue about the type of someone who's obviously already here.

What happens then to the intertype relations? Would they also become blurred? Would it be difficult to determine, for example, whether I have a relation of Activity to an ISFj or if am a Beneficiary to the ISFj? Would my relations with ENTjs be something in between relations of Mirror and relations of Supervision? How shall we understand it? Or are the intertype relations more "set in stone" than the types? What is your opinion on that?

My own opinion is that, all things being equal - as always in Socionics - the intertype relationships are affected, so yes, you would have a difference. For instance, I have witnessed a Ni-ENTj - Fi-ESFp relationship that was, imho, like a mix of duality and activity. However, in such cases it becomes difficult to separate what is due to factors specific to the individuals and their circumstances, and what is due to precise subtype fine-tunings.

Of course I agree with that. That's one of the reasons I think people should not just dismiss the importance of reading type descriptions. If they immediately start with the intertype relations they can come up with anything. They haven't got a clue what they are doing and how they should interpret their relations if they haven't got a basic understanding of the types by other means.

I don't dismiss the importance of reading them, that's still the most obvious first step.

Anyway, in this case, I just think it adds to the general non-INTp impression, and if you want to use comparisons to yourself, that's probably one aspect in which that doesn't work either.

[Phaedrus]

What happens then to the intertype relations? Would they also become blurred? Would it be difficult to determine, for example, whether I have a relation of Activity to an ISFj or if am a Beneficiary to the ISFj? Would my relations with ENTjs be something in between relations of Mirror and relations of Supervision? How shall we understand it? Or are the intertype relations more "set in stone" than the types? What is your opinion on that?

My own opinion is that, all things being equal - as always in Socionics - the intertype relationships are affected, so yes, you would have a difference. For instance, I have witnessed a Ni-ENTj - Fi-ESFp relationship that was, imho, like a mix of duality and activity. However, in such cases it becomes difficult to separate what is due to factors specific to the individuals and their circumstances, and what is due to precise subtype fine-tunings.

If I assume that I am an INFp, some of my intertype relations might make more sense than if I am an INTp, whereas some others probably make less sense. I get two different scenarios, which both could be true, but it is hard to determine for sure which one of them makes most sense. My relations with ISFjs could probably be interpreted as relations of Benefit, and (maybe) also my relations with INTjs, but that depends on what kind of relation I have to the ENFj (and that I don't know because I don't have had enough experience with ENFjs in real life situations). It makes quite a lot of sense to see my relations with ISTjs as Activity. Also my relations with ENTps and ENFps can rather easily be interpreted as though I have Illusionary relations with ENTps and Contrary relations with ENFps. Maybe even my relations with ESFjs can be seen as Supervision, but that also depends on which kind of relation I have to ESTjs, and my experience with ESTjs is also rather limited. I don't know about ISTps (hard to tell due to limited empirical evidence) and ENTjs (perhaps you could tell me ...), and it is somewhat difficult for me to see the ESTp as my Dual ...

The only thing that is clear is that I fit the INTp type descriptions much better than I fit the INFp type descriptions. I am not a typical INTp in every way though. For example, I am more of a philosopher than a natural scientist, and I have always been interested in seeking my true identity (which can be said to be more typical of INFps than of INTps). Besides that almost every other aspect of my behaviour and attitudes are more INTp than INFp as those two types are typically described.

Anyway, in this case, I just think it adds to the general non-INTp impression

How? I can't see that because I see so many similarities with myself. If you see XoX as an INFp, you would find him similar to me (because I am perhaps more similar to an INFp than an average INTp), wouldn't you? How can you tell us apart?

and if you want to use comparisons to yourself, that's probably one aspect in which that doesn't work either.

Why not?

[Ms. Kensington]

I just read through about 12 pages and I realized how my comment about the VI would have been annoying, seeing as you answered the question several times already!

ahem anyway, I think VI is not as trivial a typing tool as one might think. In real life, the vibes one gets from someone can be all visual, and yet we still feel drawn to some people for otherwise inexplicable reasons. Does this make me Ixxp now? I wish I could say something to add to your typing but I basically had the same thoughts as others have been posting based on the information you gave.. some things that I felt were too hastily arrived at were eventually smoothed out so.

Honestly, this is a little bit of information overload

[UDP]

Yes, I need to calm down but currently I'm "driven" and there seems to be more to do than there is time...I'm also a bit slow in doing stuff and my effectiveness tends to fluctuate day to day which doesn't help it I doubt I'm a rational type. But I'm on to the task to do a detailed analysis of some descriptions (like ENTp, INFp, INTp and perhaps others like ENFp and ENFj). Just that I have not managed to do that yet.
......

Nothing in that post made me think "no, you are not an ENFp".
REGARDLESS - You're rush job won't do anyone any good.

My suggestion is to stop socionics for a time, until you can patiently read and absorb and think, and understand things holistically, as you say you fail to do. Rushing through it doesn't work. You will be left with lots of fluff, as this thread has become.
Until you're ready to pay the price for socionics this shouldn't be taken seriously: you are wasting your time and everyone else's.
Until you make the time to take socionics seriously, then you shouldn't waste other people's time wanting them to take you seriously about socionics.
You dig? Re-read it again if you don't.


What if you were taking a course at college, never went to class, but ran through the book, and then stopped by your professor's office hours, blurting out things this fast, and repeatedly saying "oh I have so many other things to do, sorry I can't really do this very well" ? He would tell you to drop the course.

Respect it at least, don't treat it like some song on the radio you want to memorize.
Drop socionics for a bit. You're not ready.

[Expat]

ENTjs (perhaps you could tell me ...),

You don't seem - or "feel" - like a "typical" INFp to me, but neither like the way I (FWIW) generally perceive INTps.

Besides that almost every other aspect of my behaviour and attitudes are more INTp than INFp as those two types are typically described.

I think the key word is "typical" (and no pun intended), which was the main point of what I wrote on descriptions generally.

Anyway, in this case, I just think it adds to the general non-INTp impression

How? I can't see that because I see so many similarities with myself. If you see XoX as an INFp, you would find him similar to me (because I am perhaps more similar to an INFp than an average INTp), wouldn't you? How can you tell us apart?

What I meant is that the biggest difference between you two is precisely that you, yourself, have (as I understand) also heavily relied on your own investigations of types to at least eliminate the most obvious absurdities (such as ESFj, ENFj etc).

Also, I do not necessarily see XoX as an INFp. I just can't see him as an INTp, for many reasons.

My argument is --

1) if you, yourself, are an INTp and at the same time you are so sure that you and XoX are very alike, to the point of thinking you are of the same type, the only explanation is that you are INTp and he is INFp - simply because I can't see him as INTp.

2) of course, another possibility is that you are both INFp.

3) or this "we are so similar" thingy is just not reliable for typing (as I personally think, generally). It could mean a lot of things, not necessarily the same precise type.

As for how I would tell you apart: from quadra values generally.

and if you want to use comparisons to yourself, that's probably one aspect in which that doesn't work either.

Why not?

As I said, because you (as far as I know) also relied on your own investigations to at least eliminate the most obvious absurdities such as ENFj or ESFj or ENFp etc.

[Phaedrus]

You don't seem - or "feel" - like a "typical" INFp to me, but neither like the way I (FWIW) generally perceive INTps.

Could you at least give me a hint then (even though a full exposition would be even more welcome) -- what do you perceive as the main difference(s) between me and a typical INTp?

Besides that almost every other aspect of my behaviour and attitudes are more INTp than INFp as those two types are typically described.

I think the key word is "typical" (and no pun intended), which was the main point of what I wrote on descriptions generally.

Yes, but that doesn't explain why both XoX and I identify with more with INTp type descriptions, given the assumption that at least one of us is an INFp. You admit the possibility that I am an INFp. But then there must be a socionic explanation for the phenomenon that I don't identify very much with the INFp descriptions but much more with the INTp descriptions, and that I think that I am a logical type. I have pointed out myself that I have only seen that strange phenomenon in ethical types (that you are mistaken about your F/T-ness), but even if I would (hypothetically) be an example of that myself, I still want to understand how that can be.

As for how I would tell you apart: from quadra values generally.

Could you be more specific? Do you think that I express more Gamma than Beta values? Which ones? What makes me non-Beta?

[Phaedrus]

That XoX is rushing through things and not taking Socionics seriously could perhaps be explained by external, accidental factors, but I agree with UDP III that those traits in general can be seen as an argument against INTp and for XNFp.

At Ganin's site there is a newly written ENFp Uncoverd profile which pretty accurately captures the essence of being an ENFp (though unfortunately it is not written by SG himself, so it is a little bit to nice). There is also an INFp Uncovered description, but there is less point in reading that one, because there is no INTp Uncovered profile to compare it with. Here is the ENFp Uncovered anyway: http://www.socionics.com/articles/unenfp.html

[Expat]

Could you at least give me a hint then (even though a full exposition would be even more welcome) -- what do you perceive as the main difference(s) between me and a typical INTp?

That would be one, for instance -- a more typical INTp (again, imho) approaches this differently. A little more -- indifferent? Skeptical? Also skeptical of my knowledge?

Yes, but that doesn't explain why both XoX and I identify with more with INTp type descriptions, given the assumption that at least one of us is an INFp. You admit the possibility that I am an INFp. But then there must be a socionic explanation for the phenomenon that I don't identify very much with the INFp descriptions but much more with the INTp descriptions, and that I think that I am a logical type. I have pointed out myself that I have only seen that strange phenomenon in ethical types (that you are mistaken about your F/T-ness), but even if I would (hypothetically) be an example of that myself, I still want to understand how that can be.

The phenomenon is what I pointed out in my "flaws in descriptions" thread. The INFp descriptions focus more on the more typical INFps.

Now, the thing is -- if the Socionics types, per definition, were the descriptions, then this discussion would be pointless. But they are the functional use + temperament + quadras.

Could you be more specific? Do you think that I express more Gamma than Beta values? Which ones? What makes me non-Beta?

The most clear example of non-Gamma values is in the "team spirit" story, which to me is one manifestation of Fe-Ti focus, which is not to mean that all Fe-Ti people will agree with it (which is what many people thought I mean, and I did not at all).

(to illustrate what I mean: a belief in Marxist "course of history" and communism as something inevitable is a Ti concept; it does not mean at all that all Ti types will necessarily agree on this particular concept. It does mean that Fi-Te types will not believe it, although they might believe that communism, in practive, is the most ethical system)

[Phaedrus]

Could you at least give me a hint then (even though a full exposition would be even more welcome) -- what do you perceive as the main difference(s) between me and a typical INTp?

That would be one, for instance -- a more typical INTp (again, imho) approaches this differently. A little more -- indifferent? Skeptical? Also skeptical of my knowledge?

Yes, we could take niffweed, for example. He is much more like Rocky, but that only shows that niffweed is more on the logical side than the intuitive, doesn't it? How do you know that the picture you have formed of INTps is not too heavily influenced by logical subtypes? And do you really think that Paul Jame's long INTP description on www.intp.org is mainly based on INFps? It is true that everyone agrees (well, not exactly everyone, but at least Smilingeyes, Ganin, and some other Russian socionists) that James describes a person with very strong , and that his "INTP" therefore might be seen as very similar to the intuitive subtype of INFp, but can't INTps be like that?

The phenomenon is what I pointed out in my "flaws in descriptions" thread. The INFp descriptions focus more on the more typical INFps.

Yes, of course. They have stronger (and perhaps weaker ) in comparison with me. But that is no explanation.

Now, the thing is -- if the Socionics types, per definition, were the descriptions, then this discussion would be pointless. But they are the functional use + temperament + quadras.

And that is no explanation either. Why does an INFp identify more with INTp descriptions than with INFp descriptions? Wouldn't he at least have some trouble deciding between them? Wouldn't he identify with both to about the same degree?

The most clear example of non-Gamma values is in the "team spirit" story, which to me is one manifestation of Fe-Ti focus, which is not to mean that all Fe-Ti people will agree with it (which is what many people thought I mean, and I did not at all).

So, you see that as a very strong argument (perhaps conclusive) for the hypothesis that I am an INFp? That is not very convincing, in my opinion.

to illustrate what I mean: a belief in Marxist "course of history" and communism as something inevitable is a Ti concept;

Definitely, yes.

It does mean that Fi-Te types will not believe it, although they might believe that communism, in practive, is the most ethical system)

I have many similar examples suggesting that I am a Fi-Te type rather than a Fe-Ti type. There seems to be a clear dividing line between Subjectivists and Objectivists. (And besides the countless empirical falsifications of Marxism and communism, they are not even good ethical systems in principle. They are morally wrong in all respects.)

[snegledmaca]

Why does an INFp identify more with INTp descriptions than with INFp descriptions?

You underestimate the power of self delusion.

I think one, when typing, should ignore the content of the other persons "self perceptions" and just look at what can be falsified, the style of their writings, the manner and attitude, things that are concrete and real and upon which one can build true conclusions. Otherwise one could end up deep in the woods of self delusions (Like for example on the 14-th page of it).