What type does this list of features describe?

[XoX]

Here is a list of features. What type do you think it most accurately describes? You can choose more than one type if you see the list describing common features from several types. If you think it doesn't accurately define any type then choose the one (or ones) which are closest. If you want to please explain your choice in "layman" or socionics terms.

Features:

- Detached from environment
- Detached from physical body

- Very self-critical and requires competence from self in subjects of interest
- Rarely achieves refined competence because jumps to new subjects after "reasonable" level is achieved
- Not self-critical in subjects of uninterest (i.e. doesn't care about outside pressure in this)

- Automatic resistance if being forced
- I.e. Must be given a chance to reach an independent decision, approving or rejecting an action (or will resist)

- Makes speculative, controversial arguments which seem serious even if they really are not
- In the end is unsure whether he really stands by his argument but even if not there is likely an intuitive sense that the core of truth is there

- In efforts it is all or nothing. There is no half-work. There is full effort or no effort.
- Dislikes restrictions of teamwork and co-operation

- Main source of humor is taking things out of context
- Humor can be zany and warped and hard to understand
- Humor can be black and tactless

- Dislikes having lives planned (here I must say I have all kinds of processes in place which guide my life)
- Feels unease before most fixed appointments and cannot fully relax until event is over or at least in progress
- The even itself is, however, rarely as bad as the imagined picture of it was and actually brings satisfaction
- Never joyfully anticipates a social event

- Skeptical and mistrusting of people
- Dislike making the first move
- Mirror emotional content of other person
- Resembles a chameleon

- Can argue something he doesn't believe himself for intellectual stimulation or challenge or to avoid early conflict
- One to one conversation is preferred over group situation
- In group situation are sensitive to whether they are listened to or not

[aestrivex]

no good correlation to any one type.

[anndelise]

Features:

- Detached from environment
N
- Detached from physical body
N

- Very self-critical and requires competence from self in subjects of interest
not type related
- Rarely achieves refined competence because jumps to new subjects after "reasonable" level is achieved
p or E
- Not self-critical in subjects of uninterest (i.e. doesn't care about outside pressure in this)
not type related

- Automatic resistance if being forced
there have fairly recently been a number of threads regarding force, demands, and expectations. Not type related
- I.e. Must be given a chance to reach an independent decision, approving or rejecting an action (or will resist)
not type related

- Makes speculative, controversial arguments which seem serious even if they really are not
not particularly type related, I've seen SFps do this as well as NTs, and NFs, quite probably based on previous experience of this type of argument tactic/strategy
- In the end is unsure whether he really stands by his argument but even if not there is likely an intuitive sense that the core of truth is there
not particularly type related, see above

- In efforts it is all or nothing. There is no half-work. There is full effort or no effort.
i can see most people believing they are all or nothing with no half-jobs.....obsessive compulsive?...dunno really. but i would think that a person who is full effort or no effort wouldn't write half way posts because he doesn't have enough time to respond at the moment, i would think that he would instead prefer to think about what he is going to write in response, making the communication as clear and precise as possible. a half-worked paper is still half an effort.
- Dislikes restrictions of teamwork and co-operation
i'd have said Fe/Ti, but some Ti's have refuted the concept, I'd have then suggested maybe dynamic, but some gamma dynamics have refuted the concept, so, i dunno anymore. Seems kind of odd though that a person who was just involved in promoting the concept of teamwork would the next day claim to dislike restrictions of teamwork

- Main source of humor is taking things out of context
N
- Humor can be zany and warped and hard to understand
N
- Humor can be black and tactless
N, T not necessarily together. The istp I knew had black and tactless humor. I've also known estps, istjs, various nts, infps and an infj to have black and tactless humor.

- Dislikes having lives planned (here I must say I have all kinds of processes in place which guide my life)
see comment about feeling forced description
- Feels unease before most fixed appointments and cannot fully relax until event is over or at least in progress
any typethat is anticipating anything and is unsure of outcome
- The even itself is, however, rarely as bad as the imagined picture of it was and actually brings satisfaction
see above
- Never joyfully anticipates a social event
never? even introverts have been known to like some types of social events, what type of social event? even a date? a marriage? a child's birth?

- Skeptical and mistrusting of people
any type, dependent upon previous experiences even as a child
- Dislike making the first move
role-informative
- Mirror emotional content of other person
depends on what you mean, mirror as in smiles when those around smiles, attempts to laugh when others laugh, looks withdrawn when others are withdrawn/sad...someone of any type that is unsure of how to be or may be trying to make a good impression; mirror as in feels happy when those around are happy, feels agitated when those around are agitated, feels sad when those around are sad...could be anytype, really depends upon the situation
- Resembles a chameleon
see comment above as I think the chameleon is referencing the description above

- Can argue something he doesn't believe himself for intellectual stimulation or challenge or to avoid early conflict
entps, estps, infps, intps and rocky (is he istp or istj?)
- One to one conversation is preferred over group situation
depends upon the circumstances, enfps, infps, infjs, esfps, isfp, entp, intj, istj, entj, intp have all been known to prefer one-to-one conversations over group situations. again, it seems kind of odd that a promoter of teamspirit would prefer one-to-one over group situations...though I guess i could see it's possibility
- In group situation are sensitive to whether they are listened to or not
tough one, i think any person regardless of type would like to have some kind of acknowledgement of their input, preferably validating the worth of their input, otherwise why stay in that group?

[Exodus]

Huh?:
- Detached from environment
- Detached from physical body
- Resembles a chameleon

Not type-related:
- Very self-critical and requires competence from self in subjects of interest
- Not self-critical in subjects of uninterest (i.e. doesn't care about outside pressure in this)
- Main source of humor is taking things out of context
- Dislikes having lives planned (here I must say I have all kinds of processes in place which guide my life)
- In group situation are sensitive to whether they are listened to or not

F:
- Mirror emotional content of other person

Ep:
- Rarely achieves refined competence because jumps to new subjects after "reasonable" level is achieved

These point away from Si-ego types:
- Automatic resistance if being forced
- I.e. Must be given a chance to reach an independent decision, approving or rejecting an action (or will resist)

N:
- Makes speculative, controversial arguments which seem serious even if they really are not
- Can argue something he doesn't believe himself for intellectual stimulation or challenge or to avoid early conflict

NF:
- In the end is unsure whether he really stands by his argument but even if not there is likely an intuitive sense that the core of truth is there

Se:
- In efforts it is all or nothing. There is no half-work. There is full effort or no effort.

Ip:
- Dislikes restrictions of teamwork and co-operation

NT:
- Humor can be zany and warped and hard to understand

INTp:
- Humor can be black and tactless

IT:
- Feels unease before most fixed appointments and cannot fully relax until event is over or at least in progress
- The even itself is, however, rarely as bad as the imagined picture of it was and actually brings satisfaction
- Never joyfully anticipates a social event
- Skeptical and mistrusting of people
- Dislike making the first move

I:
- One to one conversation is preferred over group situation




Basically what niffweed said: it's mostly fluff. I do NOT think this will help you find your type.

[FDG]

It strikes me as an "INTj-Ne gone wrong"

[Expat]

It strikes me as an "INTj-Ne gone wrong"

Yeah, good one.

[implied]

Basically what niffweed said: it's mostly fluff. I do NOT think this will help you find your type.

agree wholeheartedly with both of you.

[XoX]

It strikes me as an "INTj-Ne gone wrong"

Yeah, good one.

Do you mean the description is a somewhat "gone wrong" version of INTj-Ne? or do you think the person in the description is INTj-Ne who is somehow "gone wrong" psychologically, heh

But ok there are some surprises there in the analysis but mostly it is what I thought it is. In case you haven't followed the other thread related then this is from one MBTI INTP description and those parts of the description describe me well.

Even though I get an irrational vibe from that somehow it also brought up the thought of INTj-Ne. It also seemed like logical type because the contrast to corresponding ethical type description is great. Of course this is from MBTI so it is expected that T/F descriptions are strikingly different in that sense.

There were some things like the somewhat tactless black humor at weird moments thing which imho doesn't seem to fit my understanding of ENFps and such types. I think it means more than it was perhaps given credit for.

I don't think this material was used to its maximum potential but it appears the usefulness of this description for typing can be legitimately questioned.

Oh and the teamwork thing there was probably caused by me and wifey misunderstanding the meaning of it. Discard that bullet from the list.

[Expat]

It strikes me as an "INTj-Ne gone wrong"

Yeah, good one.

Do you mean the description is a somewhat "gone wrong" version of INTj-Ne? or do you think the person in the description is INTj-Ne who is somehow "gone wrong" psychologically, heh

Both. Or neither.

The only one more or less consistent and perhaps useful thing for Socionics is a general impression of an intuitive person.

But then you have a bit of stubborness, a bit of passivity, the "emotional chameleon" thing that can only be attributed to being receptive to Fe, a dislike for conflict despite the stubborness, some some social inadequacy despite the "emotional chameleon" thing. All of that suggests a bit of INTj but not quite.

What is missing is the impression of a true logical-rational type.

[KSpin]

New to the forum, first post in fact, but isn't this a bullet-pointed version of the INTp Profile that can be found on Google?

Edit: Since I didn't add the one I was talking about: http://www.intp.org/intprofile.html

In fact, it sounds like all of the ones I've ever read all mixed into one.

[aestrivex]

there are a hundred million INTP profiles on google. all of them are wrong.

[KSpin]

Editted my above post to make more sense.

[aestrivex]

yes; actually, he based that list off of that profile. it's not a socionics profile under any circumstances and doesn't correlate to one particular socionics type.

[Creepy-bg]

trickery!

[KSpin]

I don't even pretend to know much/anything about socionics, I just knew I'd seen it somewhere before. I'm interested in learning more though.

[Creepy-Diana]

.

[KSpin]

*Tips hat in a non-derailing manner*

[Phaedrus]

New to the forum, first post in fact, but isn't this a bullet-pointed version of the INTp Profile that can be found on Google?

Edit: Since I didn't add the one I was talking about: http://www.intp.org/intprofile.html

In fact, it sounds like all of the ones I've ever read all mixed into one.

Most of the other members of this forum refuse to tell you the truth, KSpin, so I will step in here an do that. Paul James's INTP description is a description of an INTp, intuitive subtype, more than it is a description of any other type in Socionics. When you read it you should completely ignore everything James says about the functions, since Myers-Briggs type theory have them all wrong. The socionic ordering of the functions for an INTp is the correct one, even for an INTP in MBTT, but James' description is more or less correct for an intuitive INTp if you focus on the behaviours he describes.

By the way, every MBTT INTP description on the Internet describes a socionic INTp (if you ignore the function analysis). Don't listen to the objections of the other members on this forum. They are wrong, and I am right about this.

[KSpin]

Excellent, because most, if not all, of the behavioural patterns/preferences describe me. Or at least who I used to be before I was forced to talk to drunken fools. (We used to own a pub).

[niveK]

Features:

X- Detached from environment
X- Detached from physical body

- Very self-critical and requires competence from self in subjects of interest
- Rarely achieves refined competence because jumps to new subjects after "reasonable" level is achieved
- Not self-critical in subjects of uninterest (i.e. doesn't care about outside pressure in this)

- Automatic resistance if being forced
- I.e. Must be given a chance to reach an independent decision, approving or rejecting an action (or will resist)

- Makes speculative, controversial arguments which seem serious even if they really are not
- In the end is unsure whether he really stands by his argument but even if not there is likely an intuitive sense that the core of truth is there

X- In efforts it is all or nothing. There is no half-work. There is full effort or no effort.
- Dislikes restrictions of teamwork and co-operation

- Main source of humor is taking things out of context
- Humor can be zany and warped and hard to understand
- Humor can be black and tactless

- Dislikes having lives planned (here I must say I have all kinds of processes in place which guide my life)
- Feels unease before most fixed appointments and cannot fully relax until event is over or at least in progress
- The even itself is, however, rarely as bad as the imagined picture of it was and actually brings satisfaction
X- Never joyfully anticipates a social event

- Skeptical and mistrusting of people
- Dislike making the first move
X- Mirror emotional content of other person
(Huh?)- Resembles a chameleon

- Can argue something he doesn't believe himself for intellectual stimulation or challenge or to avoid early conflict
- One to one conversation is preferred over group situation
- In group situation are sensitive to whether they are listened to or not

That by which there is an X I feel doesn't apply to me. And there's also the one (Huh?) by the chameleon statement because I can't figure out what that's supposed to mean, unless it's meant to describe people with four feet, a tail of reasonable length, and some serious peripheral vision, but I don't think that would be the right interpretation.

If it helps, I feel the ENFp type fits me best (although I can identify with several other descriptions to some extent). However, I'm also becoming more and more convinced that the efficacy of socionics is an illusion and there's no true value to it.

[KSpin]

I think the whole chameleon thing is about hiding your true self, in order to look like somebody else/another type.

Edit: Or to blend in.

[Creepy-Diana]

.

[Phaedrus]

I don't think this is a very good approach. Because if you look at the list, and then notice niveK's X marks, I believe there's only one X I'd take off, and add somewhere else and it'd fit me.

And I'm neither an INTp nor an ENFp.

If you read the whole description from which those quotes are taken, there is no way in the world that you can fit that description, Diana.

[Creepy-Diana]

.

[Phaedrus]

I don't think this is a very good approach. Because if you look at the list, and then notice niveK's X marks, I believe there's only one X I'd take off, and add somewhere else and it'd fit me.

And I'm neither an INTp nor an ENFp.

If you read the whole description from which those quotes are taken, there is no way in the world that you can fit that description, Diana.

But that's kind of the point. That isn't the whole description. That's only the parts that XOX agreed with from the description. And it's MBTI anyway isn't it?

Yes, it is MBTT. But James is describing real persons with as leading function and IP as temperament. And the only reason XoX posted those quotes was because people questioned and ridiculed James's description, even though it should be clear to anyone who can read and compare type descriptions that he is describing an intuitive subtype of INTp. You can find details in any type description that would fit almost anyone, but if you look at the description as a whole unit, then one type fits better than the other types. And if you are not an intuitive subtype of INTp, you don't fit James's description, even though you can identify with some details in it.

[Creepy-Diana]

.

[niveK]

I don't think this is a very good approach. Because if you look at the list, and then notice niveK's X marks, I believe there's only one X I'd take off, and add somewhere else and it'd fit me.

And I'm neither an INTp nor an ENFp.

If you read the whole description from which those quotes are taken, there is no way in the world that you can fit that description, Diana.

But that's kind of the point. That isn't the whole description. That's only the parts that XOX agreed with from the description. And it's MBTI anyway isn't it?

Yes, it is MBTT. But James is describing real persons with as leading function and IP as temperament. And the only reason XoX posted those quotes was because people questioned and ridiculed James's description, even though it should be clear to anyone who can read and compare type descriptions that he is describing an intuitive subtype of INTp. You can find details in any type description that would fit almost anyone, but if you look at the description as a whole unit, then one type fits better than the other types. And if you are not an intuitive subtype of INTp, you don't fit James's description, even though you can identify with some details in it.

For sake of discussion, I'll assume that's true, that the description is indeed describing an I(N)Tp. Xox doesn't fit the whole description, just the parts that he pulled out of it. And as you said yourself, "You can find details in any type description that would fit almost anyone." Out of the pieces he chose to extract from the description, the majority could fit people of a variety of types. So it doesn't work very well as a typing method.

It also suggests to me that the description was padded with such all-encompassing info. I wonder how much useful content is left when you strip away that which isn't very unique.

[KSpin]

Those bullet points that XoX pulled out?

[niveK]

Those bullet points that XoX pulled out?

Well, if I'm understanding Diana and Phaedrus correctly, those bullet points are part of a description. That particular part of the description is of no value because it describes nothing unique. I haven't seen the full description to know how much of the total description this particular section represents. However, if there isn't much left after taking out this part, or there's more of this "padding," then the description as a whole becomes significantly less impressive.

[Phaedrus]

I haven't seen the full description to know how much of the total description this particular section represents. However, if there isn't much left after taking out this part, or there's more of this "padding," then the description as a whole becomes significantly less impressive.

The description is probably the most accurate one available on the Internet of a highly intuitive INTP, but some parts of it, for example those that describe musical interests should probably not be taken too seriously.

[niveK]

I haven't seen the full description to know how much of the total description this particular section represents. However, if there isn't much left after taking out this part, or there's more of this "padding," then the description as a whole becomes significantly less impressive.

The description is probably the most accurate one available on the Internet of a highly intuitive INTP, but some parts of it, for example those that describe musical interests should probably not be taken too seriously.

Well, if the example here is characteristic of the description as a whole, then its accuracy isn't very meaningful at all.

[Phaedrus]

I haven't seen the full description to know how much of the total description this particular section represents. However, if there isn't much left after taking out this part, or there's more of this "padding," then the description as a whole becomes significantly less impressive.

The description is probably the most accurate one available on the Internet of a highly intuitive INTP, but some parts of it, for example those that describe musical interests should probably not be taken too seriously.

Well, if the example here is characteristic of the description as a whole, then its accuracy isn't very meaningful at all.

That is irrelevant. Every type description should be read as a whole. But many people don't realize that. They insist on focusing on details, and think that that proves that the description is not accurate or is not describing any particular socionic type. And that is simply wrong. If you read the whole descriptions as a whole you must agree that it is a description of an INTp, intuitive subtype. If you don't agree with that, you are unable to read type descriptions correctly. So, of course you agree with that, don't you?

[Expat]

Most of the other members of this forum refuse to tell you the truth, KSpin

That's the same as calling everyone who doesn't agree with you -- a liar. Is that what you're saying?

[niveK]

I haven't seen the full description to know how much of the total description this particular section represents. However, if there isn't much left after taking out this part, or there's more of this "padding," then the description as a whole becomes significantly less impressive.

The description is probably the most accurate one available on the Internet of a highly intuitive INTP, but some parts of it, for example those that describe musical interests should probably not be taken too seriously.

Well, if the example here is characteristic of the description as a whole, then its accuracy isn't very meaningful at all.

That is irrelevant. Every type description should be read as a whole. But many people don't realize that. They insist on focusing on details, and think that that proves that the description is not accurate or is not describing any particular socionic type. And that is simply wrong. If you read the whole descriptions as a whole you must agree that it is a description of an INTp, intuitive subtype. If you don't agree with that, you are unable to read type descriptions correctly. So, of course you agree with that, don't you?

The "emperor's new clothes" argument doesn't work with me. If a chunk of description fits all people generically, then it can be stripped from the description without taking away valuable details specific to the type being described. If you barely have anything left, then the likelihood of it actually being attributable to some concept of type that affects overall behavior shrinks significantly.

I don't disagree with you because I'm too stupid to see the beautiful clothes of the emperor. I disagree because the emperor's fucking naked.

[Phaedrus]

Most of the other members of this forum refuse to tell you the truth, KSpin

That's the same as calling everyone who doesn't agree with you -- a liar. Is that what you're saying?

No, that's not what I meant to imply. Those who don't agree with me on this particular aspect refuse to realize the truth of it, and they insist on telling everyone that I am not telling the truth, which means that they are probably too stupid to realize the truth. That is much more likely than that they are liars. Since you and I have almost the same view on this, that means that they indirectly are accusing you of being as confused as they think that I am.

The only thing I am accusing you of, Expat, is not evaluating the evidence and the reliability of different typing methods correctly. Okay, one more thing ... you realized that James's INTP description was a description of someone with strong and an IP temperament. So, far so good, but then you refuse to admit that it is a description of an INTp, which means that you are not as good at reading type descriptions as you might think.

[Creepy-Diana]

.

[Expat]

No, that's not what I meant to imply. Those who don't agree with me on this particular aspect refuse to realize the truth of it, and they insist on telling everyone that I am not telling the truth, which means that they are probably too stupid to realize the truth. That is much more likely than that they are liars. Since you and I have almost the same view on this, that means that they indirectly are accusing you of being as confused as they think that I am.

Well, I'm not sure now which is the view that we're so close on -- you mean the INTP description by Paul James? I agree that if any person fits that description closely, it will be more likely a Ni IP than a Ti IJ.

However, as James himself says:

The descriptions below are based on personal experience combined with knowledge derived from other MBTI sources

So it's not clear what are his personal descriptions and what he has just borrowed from MBTI profiles. From the functional point of view, if you take all the bits and pieces at face value, I think it may be best described as an INTp-INFp hybrid, so Ni IP. As much as that is concerned, yes, I agree.

But on this:

Since you and I have almost the same view on this, that means that they indirectly are accusing you of being as confused as they think that I am.

Well *shrug* perhaps, but I don't care for the moment. I won't go out of my way to find reasons to feel insulted. I do feel insulted when insulted directly, as it should be clear. I won't feel insulted because someone disagrees with me on how a description should be read. That's silly. I don't even feel insulted because some people think I'm ESTj, even though they are "indirectly" accusing me of being confused as to and .

The only thing I am accusing you of, Expat, is not evaluating the evidence and the reliability of different typing methods correctly. Okay, one more thing ... you realized that James's INTP description was a description of someone with strong and an IP temperament. So, far so good, but then you refuse to admit that it is a description of an INTp, which means that you are not as good at reading type descriptions as you might think.

No, it means that I don't agree with you on what makes a person a "core" INTp and what does not. I would expect Ni-INTps to find a lot to identify with in that description. The fact that you do identify a lot with it is, to me, certainly not a reason not to think you are INTp. Where I disagree is in that description as a particularly good one for INTps, even Ni-INTps, generally, even discounting the bits on music, photography, etc. I think that Ni-INFps with a self-perception of being "logical" - the solitary, brooding kind of INFp, not the charming, socially-confident ones - will also find a lot to identify with in that description.

[Phaedrus]

Well, I'm not sure now which is the view that we're so close on -- you mean the INTP description by Paul James? I agree that if any person fits that description closely, it will be more likely a Ni IP than a Ti IJ.

Yes, that was my point. My view is this one, which I explained in my first post in this thread:

Paul James's INTP description is a description of an INTp, intuitive subtype, more than it is a description of any other type in Socionics. When you read it you should completely ignore everything James says about the functions, since Myers-Briggs type theory have them all wrong. The socionic ordering of the functions for an INTp is the correct one, even for an INTP in MBTT, but James' description is more or less correct for an intuitive INTp if you focus on the behaviours he describes.

You and I agree that it descripes an IP temperament with strong . If you also add the PoLR he is talking about at the end, and the key INTp themes he is talking about in the first two parts, you will realize that it is an INTp, intuitive subtype, that he is describing.

From the functional point of view, if you take all the bits and pieces at face value, I think it may be best described as an INTp-INFp hybrid, so Ni IP. As much as that is concerned, yes, I agree.

For the reasons I just explained I think it is not a description of an INFp. Besides from that we agree.

No, it means that I don't agree with you on what makes a person a "core" INTp and what does not. I would expect Ni-INTps to find a lot to identify with in that description. The fact that you do identify a lot with it is, to me, certainly not a reason not to think you are INTp. Where I disagree is in that description as a particularly good one for INTps, even Ni-INTps, generally, even discounting the bits on music, photography, etc.

I only meant that it is one of the best among the MBTT profiles. The socionic profiles are better in most respects, but the problem with some of them is that they focus too much on things that are more relevant for the logical subtype of INTp, whereas James's description is a much more "pure" intuitive subtype description.

I think that Ni-INFps with a self-perception of being "logical" - the solitary, brooding kind of INFp, not the charming, socially-confident ones - will also find a lot to identify with in that description.

Maybe. But they should not identify with the PoLR behaviour that is described at the end. James describes the PoLR in almost the exact same way as it is usually described in Socionics (and MBTT too for that matter).

[Expat]

You and I agree that it descripes an IP temperament with strong . If you also add the PoLR he is talking about at the end, and the key INTp themes he is talking about in the first two parts, you will realize that it is an INTp, intuitive subtype, that he is describing.

Maybe. But they should not identify with the PoLR behaviour that is described at the end. James describes the PoLR in almost the exact same way as it is usually described in Socionics (and MBTT too for that matter).

Not quite. That's one big problem with that description, which perhaps is more an indication of James not expressing himself well, or uncritically mixing up MBTI descriptions, or not knowing what he was talking about, or whatever. That supposed PoLR at the end mixes weak with weak , or focuses merely on dislike for accepting rather than addressing creative . Early on - on top - it describes the "emotional chameleon" aspect that XoX was quick to pick up, and that to me refers to focus on creative rather than a PoLR.

[crazymaisy]

You and I agree that it descripes an IP temperament with strong . If you also add the PoLR he is talking about at the end, and the key INTp themes he is talking about in the first two parts, you will realize that it is an INTp, intuitive subtype, that he is describing.

Maybe. But they should not identify with the PoLR behaviour that is described at the end. James describes the PoLR in almost the exact same way as it is usually described in Socionics (and MBTT too for that matter).

Not quite. That's one big problem with that description, which perhaps is more an indication of James not expressing himself well, or uncritically mixing up MBTI descriptions, or not knowing what he was talking about, or whatever. That supposed PoLR at the end mixes weak with weak , or focuses merely on dislike for accepting rather than addressing creative . Early on - on top - it describes the "emotional chameleon" aspect that XoX was quick to pick up, and that to me refers to focus on creative rather than a PoLR.

That may or may not be true, according to actual function descriptions, but I can attest to this:

INTPs dislike making the first move and tend to mirror the emotional content of the other person. A jolly person will quickly bring the INTP out of his shell, as much as that is possible, while a serious person will find a serious INTP looking back at him. In this sense, INTPs preference for intuitive perception (rather than action) with respect to people results in them resembling a chameleon. The INTP can fit into many different modes of behaviour, even contradictory ones, in order to get into the mindset of the other person. The goal is to gain enough intuitive data to analyse and assess the person. In doing this, the INTP remains somewhat reserved, never wholly identifying himself with his surroundings. As chameleons, INTPs are therefore approachable and open, unless the Ne tells the INTP that the other person is a type he doesn't like, in which case the reserved attitude may become too obvious. The chameleon behaviour can be particularly strong when discussing something. The INTP may even argue something that he doesn't really believe himself. Sometimes it is for the intellectual stimulation that comes with the challenge of arguing from a variety of standpoints. Otherwise, it may be to avoid early conflict before the situation has been fully assessed. Chameleons hide their true selves. INTPs do not do this cynically, or indeed all the time, but it is a result of the strong desire to remain detached and observe.

from the Paul James profile of an INTP does fit well with how to describe MY own INTp chameleon-like-ness, a term I've long used to describe my social-outward -with-others (before knowing about MBTI or any "typing" of people besides temperments, which never fit me to a "T" in how they were presented to me) and also how I am very dependant on my dual-husband for attitudes often -- if he wants a certain reaction and way of being out of me, it's up to him to be the right thing so my chameleon-self can adapt, so if he doesn't like what I'm like at a particular time with him, it's up to him to understand that "it's up to him".

I am one that identifies highly with the Paul James profile, ignorning what he says about what functions are, the descriptions of things are key on for an INTp, or INTp Ni-subtype moreso.