An Ni subtype INTp/INFp Profile

[Phaedrus]

In a not very serious attempt to describe a person with strong dominant , that is, a person who can be seen as some sort of mixture between an INTp and an INFp, I have tried to put together those parts of misutii's translations of Filatova's INTp and INFp descriptions that I can identify with to a reasonable or high extent, and I have eliminated all other parts. I have also added a few parts from a description of an Enneagram 5w4. Sometimes I have rewritten the original description, either reformulating it or adding or subtracting sentences as I have found appropriate. Almost all references to functions are eliminated.

The result is a description of a person that might, or might not, be an accurate representation of who I am. But at least it is a description that I can identify with without reservations. There are no parts in it that I don't identify with.

If someone wants to analyze it in a functional perspective, that would be welcome and interesting. It would also be interesting to see how many people can identify with it, especially if they think that they are INTps or INFps.


An IN p Profile – A Phaedrusian Synthesis

The IN p's principal goal is to find out the truth about himself, the world, and his place in it.

With his strong the IN p perceives general patterns in the external world in a timeless perspective, where both logic and ethics should form a unified whole.

He is primarily an observer. In a sort of meditative, passive state, he observes the flow of time and the events and processes in it. The consciousness of the IN p easily encompasses countless moments in time, moving back and forth between them with ease as he is traversing the time axis. His attitude towards time is friendly and accepting. What will be, will be.

He is a dreamer with a strong romantic side that is not immediately obvious to others. He is a philosopher, contemplating the meaning of life and his own existence in a universe he wants to understand as clearly and accurately as possible. He is drawn towards novels containing fantasy, adventure, mysteries and logical enigmas.

The IN p sometimes love to give himself up, dreaming. His dreams, as a rule, focus on something beautiful or logical: the "round-the-world" journey that at the same time is a journey to discover his own identity. And maybe the world in which such a journey takes place is not our world, even though it might resemble it. It is more likely that it is a fantasy world, full of unexpected events, mysteries and philosophical puzzles, in which he or the character he identifies with acts like a detective, trying to solve fascinating enigmas with his analytical intellect.

The imagination of the IN p takes in the dynamics of the world, which he is trying to make sense of with the help of reason. He easily appears to model the behaviour of people and events, examining what he can predict in the future as a consequence of the aftereffects of activities that people complete in the present or as the result of what happens in the world. Possessing the gift of foresight he often already knows what is going to happen, or at least which future scenario is the most likely. Frequently it seems as though he knows, and sees straight through, everything (and in a certain sense this is correct).

The ability to penetrate right to the essence of a problem and to see the eventual result represents the nature of enlightenment. Indeed the IN p will sometimes, in speaking or writing, cite wise historical figures and philosophers. His forecasts, as a rule, are painted with skepticism, thus he primarily voices his fears when necessary (i.e. to safeguard those close to him from acting rashly). He himself repeatedly, and scrupulously, checks everything before beginning to act. He tends to be somewhat disappointed when others, despite his warnings and critical observations, make mistakes due to thinking or acting to hastily. With respect to his own abilities and talents there is an internal, frequently secret, conviction that he exceeds others in his talents, knowledge, and analytical abilities, but as a rule he tries not to demonstrate this conviction too openly – unless the stupidity of others reaches above a certain limit or he is stressed out by too much opposition or outer stimuli.

One of the principal attributes of the IN p is his pride, connected with his self assertion. Frequently he observes that others are lacking in ability in doing things that come naturally to him. Many of his mental abilities are relatively superior to others. People with this psycho-type often have a splendid memory. The IN p puts to use his powerful base of knowledge to identify the source of a question and to comprehend all facets of a problem.

He often seems encyclopedically formed. But his tendency to feel himself significant does not, in any way, mean that he will attempt to find a higher placement or status in society. He rather prefers to raise himself as high as possible in the field of knowledge, which for him represents a deeper degree of insight. Through this he is able to feel superior to others.

But he is also painfully aware of the fact that he lacks natural ability in many areas where most people do not run into any problems. He harbours conservative qualities relating with his distrust of anything new, which has not survived sufficient criticism or any sort of process with an unknown conclusion. He can also have a tendency to ignore reality, and it is often difficult for him to cope with the practical demands that are necessary for his own survival.

The IN p knows how to obtain a bird's eye view, from above, on the dynamics of an ongoing process. Once he has predicted the eventual result he awaits the "right moment" to act and will not do anything until such a moment arrives (he will never undertake useless work). After he is aware of the real prospects he might move into action.

His ability to recognize the whole of something sometimes leads the IN p to multiple solutions for the same problem. Thus, now and again, he finds it difficult to give preference to one thing over another. He does not like being hurried; he waits for a problem to "mature" and his opinions to be incorporated into the big picture of things, which is already present in his imagination. In the IN p is characteristic a certain reservation; he tries to leave enough room for possible corrective measures to be taken in the future. If and when he finally reaches a conclusion, and is confident in its correctness, and if those that surround him fail to understand or accept his conclusions, the IN p's indignation and emotionalism can sometimes reach such a degree that, for a long period, he cannot be quieted, as he continues, with fervor, to prove his position to all.

The IN p's fitness for work is exceptionally selective. If he finds the proper career he can immediately display remarkable energy and fantastic fitness in his tasks. His life can be a continuum of sleepless nights and states of extreme stress, which may last for weeks or months. He naturally works in solid and pedantic manner.

On the other hand if he fails in finding the right job or career, then his skepticism begins to take over as he asks himself: "Why is all of this necessary? Nothing good can come of this…" He cannot even force himself to meet the bare minimum expectations, which may lead to serious repercussions, such as being dismissed from work or dropping out of college or university. In such cases he feels helpless to do anything, and his irrationality leaves him at difficulty even to meet the minimum needs for survival.

If the IN p survives the attack of melancholy, disappointment, and frustration, he tends to isolate himself. When the dark period comes to a close he will once again emerge, bright and alert, with positive expectations directed towards changes in his life. If he finds himself in an understanding and supporting atmosphere his best qualities are revealed: his extreme natural curiousity which leads him to investigate more and more areas of human understanding and sometimes come up with original and unexpected solutions, often in the form of syntheses between seemingly unrelated fields of knowledge – a result of his ability to see things from many different perspectives at the same time from a very general view point.

The IN p has a natural sense of esthetics. He can respond to many forms of art. He understands music and poetry, and frequently creates his own. He also have natural literary gift. Many writers can be found in this psycho-type.

Being weakly orientated in the area of emotions, the IN p prefers to hide his feelings. However, if strongly afflicted his emotionality can literally lash out, he may lose control of himself. In order to protect himself from such situations the IN p prefers to maintain a psychological distance. Too much familiarity makes him feel at least slightly awkward. He feels fully confident only among selected few, to which he is open and sincere. His kindness, now and again, is astonishing, but towards most people he remains neutral.

The IN p is focused on his dreams and they help him hide from reality, which sometimes proves to be too rough and severe for his tastes.

His activity in business is unpredictable, since his fitness depends exclusively on his mood: short flash-assaults alternate with periods of prolonged inaction. As a rule, he possesses a low energy drive, and therefore finds it difficult to force himself to work. The inherence of asthenia – rapid enervation and low activity – is frequently compensated for by the need for a prolonged night sleep. For this very reason, without the necessary moral support, he frequently finds himself at a lower social position than would correspond with his abilities. Thus the IN p is prone to regard energetic people, whom hold a higher social status, with a secret sense of envy, to consider that life has wronged him. Meanwhile he comforts himself in the fact that his high principles do not permit him to act by the same methods as others. Thus he justifies his passivity by placing himself morally above those that surround him, thereby psychologically protecting his weak areas. The IN p finds it difficult to accept personal responsibility, because he is not confident that he will be able to deliver if he promises to do something. Routine work he only accepts reluctantly, and if not limited in time, it tends to bore him.

If he falls ill the IN p is able to strictly observe his physician’s instructions and scrupulously follow a regimen in diet and medicine etc.

His inherent strengths frequently manifest a bi-polar nature: some individuals of this psycho-type develop an enviable sense of purpose and perseverance, while others on the contrary demonstrate complete inertia. In conclusion, it must be said that, for the IN p, the proper job or career is especially important to find, or his innate talents will be utterly wasted.

The IN p does not strive to be a leader, but he is no follower either. He always goes his own way, alone if necessary. Favourable conditions for activity must be, as much as possible, creative. He finds it difficult to manifest initiative, to clash with his environment, and thus he often tries to adapt to the norms and principles dictated by the society in a way that is consistent with his own principles.


The IN p at work and in the home:

Although the IN p clearly does not strive to be a leader, he would like to have an influence on the strategic course of events, as strategic thinking is one of his main assets.

With subordinates the IN p prefers a logical style of contact; he knows well how to distinguish the abilities of one coworker over the other and put such knowledge to use. However, he is not always confident in entrusting subordinates with work. He is inclined to check over everything and is not reconciled with the thought that another can work better than himself.

In terms of lifestyle and health he remains completely dependent on his significant other.

Indecisive and somewhat sentimental, he does not love to take responsibility for others and barely for himself. The IN p prefers not to occupy offices of leadership. If, nevertheless, fate forces him into such a position he can successfully manage strategic tasks. He gently associates with subordinates.

In family life he finds it difficult to occupy himself with domestic tasks. If you rigidly and scrupulously require the execution of domestic responsibilities from an IN p, you will attain little besides embitteredness; in such a state he may even provoke arguments in the domestic sphere. In order to solve this problem in an acceptable manner the IN p tends demonstrate his helplessness. He wants others to help him in avoiding domestic tasks and shifts responsibility away from himself. He often finds excuse for that kind of behaviour in his lacking practical ability.


Summary:

1. The IN p dynamically comprehends all worldly processes. He has the ability to traverse the time axis and see distant prospects. He is skeptical and critical, but at the same time he is a dreamer and a romantic that is easily separated from reality. He is capable of proposing new ideas in areas of interest. He sometimes loves to speak about moral problems, but his approach to them is scientific. His ultimate goal is a unified Theory of Everything, in which esthetics, ethics, and science all have their places.

2. His fitness for work is exceptionally selective and unpredictable, since it depends exclusively on his mood. He frequently possesses low energy and therefore finds it difficult to force himself to work. If he finds an appropriate job he works without tiring, indeed are difficult to stop. He is a meticulous and scrupulous pedant, who knows how to separate information within a system.

3. The IN p tries not to act emotionally since he is not confident that he can always control his feelings. When he does lose control, his behaviour towards others, and himself, is unpredictable. With close people he prefers to associate at a close psychological distance, tries to be polite, to develop relations over time; however, he does not always succeed, because he is sometimes capable of offending others without noticing it.

4. He feels well in a comfortable and cozy home, but he is unwilling to spend the necessary time and resources to create such an environment himself and so prefers if another would take this responsibility. Sometimes it is difficult for him to mobilize himself to carry out necessary activities; he appears as if paralyzed, and in such cases external interference might prove useful in helping him "untwist". He ably feels the beauty, harmony, and commensurability in the world, but badly manages practical tasks.


Professional Possibilities:

The IN p natural home is in the intersection between Art and Science. He combines intellectual and emotional imagination, and he enjoys the realm of philosophy and beautiful constructs of thought. The marriage of mental perspective and aesthetics is the best of life for him.

[Jonathan]

This is very good...nicely written .I think that to describe individual people, one has to get away from the standard 16-type prototypes somewhat. I like the way you've phrased this.

Earlier, you had resisted the idea that a person might be "between types" or "on the border," or that subtypes were even helpful, whenever I or others suggested those possibilities. Anything in particular caused you change your mind?

[Phaedrus]

Earlier, you had resisted the idea that a person might be "between types" or "on the border," or that subtypes were even helpful, whenever I or others suggested those possibilities. Anything in particular caused you change your mind?

Yes. I am now able to see much more clearly that if I am any subtype of INTp I must be the intuitive one. Some people have also suggested INFp as a possible type for me -- Ganin, Smilingeyes, and most recently Expat (with surprisingly strong emphasis). I am still clearly an INTp rather than an INFp according to every socionic type description I have ever read, and I still think that type descriptions are much more reliable as a typing tool, than any subjective interpretation of which intertype relations you have. So, even if I should come to the conclusion that I fit the intertype relations of an INFp better than those of an INTp, I can't change my type to INFp without a really good explanation for the fact that I don't fit the INFp type descriptions and not the socionic criteria for being an ethical type either.

If we should not trust the type descriptions, we should not trust the descriptions of the intertype relations either. In both cases we rely on type descriptions, and I think that the intertype relations are much more vague and open to different possible interpretations that the type descriptions. People like Expat rely heavily on his own interpretations of the intertype relations and the quadras, I rely more heavily on type descriptions and a general knowledge of the types and the many different dimensions in which they manifest themselves in their behaviours. We use two slightly different methods, but we study the same empirical phenomenon, and in case our conclusions are different at least one of us must be wrong -- unless there are two different versions of Socionics that are mutually exclusive, making the whole theory logically inconsistent : the intertype relations and the quadras on one hand, and the type descriptions and the criteria for distinguishing between the four dimensions on the other. If that is true, I don't know where the Reinin dichotomies fit in.

Jonathan, you have now access to three slightly different type descriptions: Filatova's INTp, Filatova's INFp, and this IN p synthesis. Which one of them to you identify with most? Is any of them an accurate description of you?

[aestrivex]

did you compile this description by just taking pieces of other descriptions?

see, that's a very poor strategy. i personally think there's an awful lot in this description that, although you may identify personally with, doesn't have anything whatsoever to do with Ni, and is often unrelated to type entirely. just to name a couple of examples:

If he falls ill the INNip is able to strictly observe his physician’s instructions and scrupulously follow a regimen in diet and medicine etc.

INNip is prone to regard energetic people, whom hold a higher social status, with a secret sense of envy, to consider that life has wronged him. Meanwhile he comforts himself in the fact that his high principles do not permit him to act by the same methods as others.

The INNip has a natural sense of esthetics. He can respond to many forms of art. He understands music and poetry, and frequently creates his own. He also have natural literary gift. Many writers can be found in this psycho-type. as much as you will bash me over this one, i firmly believe this has no relation to type

One of the principal attributes of the INNip is his pride, connected with his self assertion. Frequently he observes that others are lacking in ability in doing things that come naturally to him. Many of his mental abilities are relatively superior to others. People with this psycho-type often have a splendid memory. The INNip puts to use his powerful base of knowledge to identify the source of a question and to comprehend all facets of a problem.

He often seems encyclopedically formed. But his tendency to feel himself significant does not, in any way, mean that he will attempt to find a higher placement or status in society. He rather prefers to raise himself as high as possible in the field of knowledge, which for him represents a deeper degree of insight. Through this he is able to feel superior to others.

The INNip's principal goal is to find out the truth about himself, the world, and his place in it. one possible goal; does not apply for all Ni dominants.

[Phaedrus]

did you compile this description by just taking pieces of other descriptions?

Mostly. I thought I had explained how I did it in my "foreword".

see, that's a very poor strategy. i personally think there's an awful lot in this description that, although you may identify personally with, doesn't have anything whatsoever to do with Ni, and is often unrelated to type entirely.

I have never said that everything in that description must have something to do with Ni. Most of it hasn't. What I have been trying to descripe is a type, a type that I can identify with, even though some parts of that descriptions might seem to contradict each other due to coming from two different type profiles. Such a type may not exist in real life, and I have not been trying to describe functions, only behaviours. If it is possible to make sense of that description in a functional perspective, so much the better. If not, then it might not be possible for such a "crosstype" to exist. Anyway, I think the description is more INTp than INFp, but I haven't checked that in depth.

If he falls ill the INNip is able to strictly observe his physician’s instructions and scrupulously follow a regimen in diet and medicine etc.

That is taken from Filatova's INTp description. I have thought about deleting it, because it sort of "hangs in the air".

INNip is prone to regard energetic people, whom hold a higher social status, with a secret sense of envy, to consider that life has wronged him. Meanwhile he comforts himself in the fact that his high principles do not permit him to act by the same methods as others.

From Filatova's INFp description, slightly reformulated by me to fit my preferences.

The INNip has a natural sense of esthetics. He can respond to many forms of art. He understands music and poetry, and frequently creates his own. He also have natural literary gift. Many writers can be found in this psycho-type. as much as you will bash me over this one, i firmly believe this has no relation to type

Every typology, not the least Socionics, points out that it definitely is type related. And I think it is.

One of the principal attributes of the INNip is his pride, connected with his self assertion. Frequently he observes that others are lacking in ability in doing things that come naturally to him. Many of his mental abilities are relatively superior to others. People with this psycho-type often have a splendid memory. The INNip puts to use his powerful base of knowledge to identify the source of a question and to comprehend all facets of a problem.

That is, I think, taken almost directly, without alterations, from Filatova's INTp description.

He often seems encyclopedically formed. But his tendency to feel himself significant does not, in any way, mean that he will attempt to find a higher placement or status in society. He rather prefers to raise himself as high as possible in the field of knowledge, which for him represents a deeper degree of insight. Through this he is able to feel superior to others.

Filatova's INTp.

The INNip's principal goal is to find out the truth about himself, the world, and his place in it. one possible goal; does not apply for all Ni dominants.

It's a synthesis between the principal goal of an INTp and an INFp according to Filatova, and it is a goal that I personally can identify with very much. Every INTp/INTP in Socionics, Keirsey, and MBTI is said to be interested in objective knowledge about the world. That is usually accentuated as the primary goal of that type, and I totally identify with it. Every INFp/INFP in those three models is said to be interested in finding his own identity, to find out the truth about himeself. Keirsey is perhaps generalizing to much when he claims that every Rational NT is seeking knowledge and every Idealist NF is an identity-seeking person who wants to find the meaning of life, but in any case I identify with both those "goals". I think that one possible explanation for the phenomenon that I can rather easily idenfity with an Idealist's way of thinking is that Keirsey describes their thinking process as very similar to how is described in Socionics.

[aestrivex]

I have never said everything in that description must have something to do with Ni. Most of it hasn't. What I have been trying to descripe is a type, a type that I can identify with, even though some parts of that descriptions might seem to contradict each other due to coming from two different type profiles. Such a type may not exist in real life, and I have not been trying to describe functions, only behaviours. If it is possible to make sense of that description in a functional perspective, so much the better. If not, then it might not be possible for such a "crosstype" to exist.

i'm glad that you at least admit this. this is an aspect of socionics and other similar typologies that you don't seem to be able to grasp: types are not necessarily inherently the same. types are used to measure the personas of people who are observed to be similar, but not all people to which you hold some similarity will act exactly the same as you. trying to write a description of whatever type you think you are based solely on your own experience and comportment is therefore an excellent way to create a description that you will identify with perfectly and nobody else will.

[Jonathan]

Earlier, you had resisted the idea that a person might be "between types" or "on the border," or that subtypes were even helpful, whenever I or others suggested those possibilities. Anything in particular caused you change your mind?

Yes. I am now able to see much more clearly that if I am any subtype of INTp I must be the intuitive one. Some people have also suggested INFp as a possible type for me -- Ganin, Smilingeyes, and most recently Expat (with surprisingly strong emphasis). I am still clearly an INTp rather than an INFp according to every socionic type description I have ever read, and I still think that type descriptions are much more reliable as a typing tool, than any subjective interpretation of which intertype relations you have. So, even if I should come to the conclusion that I fit the intertype relations of an INFp better than those of an INTp, I can't change my type to INFp without a really good explanation for the fact that I don't fit the INFp type descriptions and not the socionic criteria for being an ethical type either.

If we should not trust the type descriptions, we should not trust the descriptions of the intertype relations either. In both cases we rely on type descriptions, and I think that the intertype relations are much more vague and open to different possible interpretations that the type descriptions. People like Expat rely heavily on his own interpretations of the intertype relations and the quadras, I rely more heavily on type descriptions and a general knowledge of the types and the many different dimensions in which they manifest themselves in their behaviours. We use two slightly different methods, but we study the same empirical phenomenon, and in case our conclusions are different at least one of us must be wrong -- unless there are two different versions of Socionics that are mutually exclusive, making the whole theory logically inconsistent : the intertype relations and the quadras on one hand, and the type descriptions and the criteria for distinguishing between the four dimensions on the other. If that is true, I don't know where the Reinin dichotomies fit in.

Jonathan, you have now access to three slightly different type descriptions: Filatova's INTp, Filatova's INFp, and this IN p synthesis. Which one of them to you identify with most? Is any of them an accurate description of you?

I haven't had time to go through it in detail, but yours is a more accurate description of me than either of Filatova's.

I'm not sure I follow with your pitting intertype relationships and quadra on one hand against type descriptions on the other. As you know, I regard quadra descriptions with suspicion, because I feel they're too much based on content-interest rather than actually how one thinks. However, if one can get a type reading from intertype relationships, that is always the best way, because it's the most empirical method. (Of course, per your point, it's hard to get a reading from intertype relationships if you don't have a clue about anyone's type.) Maybe we need to create 16 robots of "pristine" types so that people can type themselves by relating to them. (Of course, in using intertype relationships, one must focus on long-term compatibility, not just attraction in casual conversation.)

I think type descriptions and typings of famous people are tools to check that people agree on theoretical constructs. If people write different type descriptions or type famous people differently, it's evidence that they have a different theoretical model. If they converge, it's evidence that they agree on definitions.

Type descriptions by themselves are less helpful because they describe a sort of caricature that nobody fits exactly. One problem with most type descriptions is that they're not annotated; one has no idea why the author choose to include this or that detail or exclude others. Nevertheless, if we only talked of functions and never of type descriptions, it would be harder to tell if we all meant the same things.

@Isha, niffweed: Your comments are largely about phrases by Filatova, as well as the structure she has used which Phaedrus borrowed (i.e., starting with an overriding goal for the type). I think we need to clearly distinguish between the following:

*Things that aren't type-related
*Things that don't apply to everyone in a given type (or subtype, or whatever)

I believe the difference is often not well-understood on this forum. There are a lot of behaviors that are in fact a "playing out" of type issues that nevertheless don't always apply to a given type, function, etc. A good example is "INNip is prone to regard energetic people, whom hold a higher social status, with a secret sense of envy." I haven't checked, but it sounds like it probably came directly from Filatova. It's a way of saying "Ni people look up to Se people." Naturally, not all people with higher social status are Se, and probably not all Ni people would agree with the statement. Nevertheless, it's consistent with how an Ni might behave.

Let's put it another way: a lot of the things that aren't completely related to type aren't necessarily completely unrelated either.

[Expat]

It does describe a strongly , , irrational, IP person.

A lot of the details are not type related as has already been pointed out.

Some people have also suggested INFp as a possible type for me -- Ganin, Smilingeyes, and most recently Expat (with surprisingly strong emphasis).

Thanks for mentioning that. I would like to note that my conclusion in this regard has been reached independently of Smilingeyes or Ganin, and each of them - us - has different criteria for typing. Isha also sees you as INFp. So I think we're on to something.

My "surprisingly strong emphasis" has to do with my interpretation that your approach to Socionics is indication of Ti hidden agenda, and I suspect (as a guess) that that may have been Ganin's reasoning too. That and the Fe/XoX thing.

I am still clearly an INTp rather than an INFp according to every socionic type description I have ever read, and I still think that type descriptions are much more reliable as a typing tool, than any subjective interpretation of which intertype relations you have. So, even if I should come to the conclusion that I fit the intertype relations of an INFp better than those of an INTp, I can't change my type to INFp without a really good explanation for the fact that I don't fit the INFp type descriptions and not the

Let me put it this way.

If you want to go for a "type-description-based" version of Socionics, then, ok, let us say you are INTp. But if you go for a functional-analysis version of Socionics (and for relationships with other people also typed according to functional analysis) then my present view is that you are INFp.

(For instance) the people at Socionix have a -- version of Socionics where I am ESTj, Ashton and FDG are ENTj, Isha is INFp. That has obvious problems - like making me and Isha conflictors, which suprises us both - but they will have their criteria I suppose. Likewise, I think your "descriptons-are-the-end-all" version of Socionics will never be a consistent system and will never hold together if you include functional analyses. I can't know it for sure but that is my view.

socionic criteria for being an ethical type either.

In true Socionics criteria, this ethical type/logical type is trickier. You have to look at quadra values and functional preferences. So, yes, a logical type such an INTj and ENTp or ISTj may very well be very emotionally expressive and mirror other people's emotions. An ethical type like an ISFj may not be very emotionally expressive and dislike the idea of mirroring other people's emotions.

If we should not trust the type descriptions, we should not trust the descriptions of the intertype relations either.

They also have to be used carefully. As a guide.

People like Expat rely heavily on his own interpretations of the intertype relations and the quadras,

Because we understand the system. And the interpretations are not really contradictory with the essence of most descriptions, only with details.

unless there are two different versions of Socionics that are mutually exclusive, making the whole theory logically inconsistent : the intertype relations and the quadras on one hand, and the type descriptions and the criteria for distinguishing between the four dimensions on the other.

They are not mutually exclusive. They have a huge overlap. The thing is understand what the descriptions are really saying through functional analysis, and what is really type-related and that isn't.

If that is true, I don't know where the Reinin dichotomies fit in.

The Reinin dichotomies are not really accepted by many Socionists like Lytov, and Rick is also cautious. Smilingeyes managed to put together a whole system based on them, but I would argue that that system, although consistent and valid and useful, may on occasion contradict the model A-based version. It's also possible that Smilingeyes's version is not exactly the same as Reinin himself intended for the dichotomies. So Reinin dichotomies have to be used with care.

[Jonathan]

My "surprisingly strong emphasis" has to do with my interpretation that your approach to Socionics is indication of Ti hidden agenda, and I suspect (as a guess) that that may have been Ganin's reasoning too.

That is one reason why have sometimes considered IEI as a possible type for myself, although I feel I'm quite different from other IEIs in a number of ways. Can you flesh out what Ti hidden agenda looks like, and how you would notice it in others? Also, how do you distinguish it from simply a Gamma NT who happens to be relatively strong in Ti?


Anyhow, interesting possible result: FDG and Phaedrus...duals.

[aestrivex]

@Isha, niffweed: Your comments are largely about phrases by Filatova, as well as the structure she has used which Phaedrus borrowed (i.e., starting with an overriding goal for the type). I think we need to clearly distinguish between the following:

*Things that aren't type-related
*Things that don't apply to everyone in a given type (or subtype, or whatever)

I believe the difference is often not well-understood on this forum. There are a lot of behaviors that are in fact a "playing out" of type issues that nevertheless don't always apply to a given type, function, etc. A good example is "INNip is prone to regard energetic people, whom hold a higher social status, with a secret sense of envy." I haven't checked, but it sounds like it probably came directly from Filatova. It's a way of saying "Ni people look up to Se people." Naturally, not all people with higher social status are Se, and probably not all Ni people would agree with the statement. Nevertheless, it's consistent with how an Ni might behave.

Let's put it another way: a lot of the things that aren't completely related to type aren't necessarily completely unrelated either.

very true. i probably should have distinguished more clearly between the two, but it would make sense to me that neither of these be included in type descriptions, which should focus more on motivations and less on manifestations of these, which can vary. highly common behaviors might warrant inclusion, but they are of secondary importance to functional descriptions and motivations.

[aestrivex]

Anyhow, interesting possible result: FDG and Phaedrus...duals.

that prospect alone has to speak strongly against the possibility of phaedrus being IEI, although i suppose it's not completely impossible. i still think LII is more probable.

[Expat]

i'm glad that you at least admit this. this is an aspect of socionics and other similar typologies that you don't seem to be able to grasp: types are not necessarily inherently the same. types are used to measure the personas of people who are observed to be similar, but not all people to which you hold some similarity will act exactly the same as you. trying to write a description of whatever type you think you are based solely on your own experience and comportment is therefore an excellent way to create a description that you will identify with perfectly and nobody else will.

Thank you, too.

I think type descriptions and typings of famous people are tools to check that people agree on theoretical constructs. If people write different type descriptions or type famous people differently, it's evidence that they have a different theoretical model. If they converge, it's evidence that they agree on definitions.

Or they haven't really studied that particular famous person. For instance, I have read several books on John Kennedy and people of that time, including people who knew him well. To me it's obvious that he was EIE and not LIE, and that he and his wife Jackie were not duals. Yet their "official" typing in the literature is LIE-ESI, which to me is absurd. I do not think it's a misunderstanding in Socionics, it's a disagreement on how they were as people. That's just one example.

Type descriptions by themselves are less helpful because they describe a sort of caricature that nobody fits exactly. One problem with most type descriptions is that they're not annotated; one has no idea why the author choose to include this or that detail or exclude others. Nevertheless, if we only talked of functions and never of type descriptions, it would be harder to tell if we all meant the same things.

Precisely. Type descriptions are very useful to get an understanding on how the functions are supposed to be manifested, but they are indeed a sort of caricature. Of course, most people, upon carefully reading all the 16 descriptions, should be able to at least discard those which are most obviously wrong, but they may not get the precise type right.

I, personally, happen to fit the LIE Stratiyevskaya description to an astonishing degree. But I have learned that this is not the case for most people with most descriptions.

Let's put it another way: a lot of the things that aren't completely related to type aren't necessarily completely unrelated either.

Sure.

[Jonathan]

Or they haven't really studied that particular famous person. For instance, I have read several books on John Kennedy and people of that time, including people who knew him well. To me it's obvious that he was EIE and not LIE, and that he and his wife Jackie were not duals. Yet their "official" typing in the literature is LIE-ESI, which to me is absurd. I do not think it's a misunderstanding in Socionics, it's a disagreement on how they were as people. That's just one example.

That's a good point; it makes things mroe complicated. Personally, I think typing famous people is a great tool because it creates a frame of reference, but if the person's conception who of the famous person is wrong, then it totally fails.

It would help if Socionists gave a "degree of certainty" rating to their typings, or if they focused on typing just those people they're most certain about. It's also easier to type famous people who are alive today and who are part of one's own culture. Unfortunately, Russian Socionists are naturally most familiar with Russian celebrities that I've never heard of.

[Jonathan]

trying to write a description of whatever type you think you are based solely on your own experience and comportment is therefore an excellent way to create a description that you will identify with perfectly and nobody else will.

At least it does tend to indicate introversion.

[Expat]

My "surprisingly strong emphasis" has to do with my interpretation that your approach to Socionics is indication of Ti hidden agenda, and I suspect (as a guess) that that may have been Ganin's reasoning too.

That is one reason why have sometimes considered IEI as a possible type for myself, although I feel I'm quite different from other IEIs in a number of ways. Can you flesh out what Ti hidden agenda looks like, and how you would notice it in others? Also, how do you distinguish it from simply a Gamma NT who happens to be relatively strong in Ti?

Well, as I pointed out on my thread on the hidden agenda, I think that "to have understood" is a more accurate interpretation than Ganin's "to understand".

I also said: "deciding too quickly that they have mastered a subject, and afterwards disliking it when new information is provided to them on that subject" - if the new information contradicts the previous understanding.

It looks like a simple definition of Ti>Te, as in my "bookshelf" metaphor, but it's different from Ti>Te in INTjs and ISTjs. It's basically a question of confidence. The ISTj or INTj reaches a system that is consistent in his own mind and after that they are supremely confident about its correctness and about which information they can reject or not - like the ideological communists, like Stalin, or Robespierre. They can, however, define their own system in a perfectly consistent way. It may not be consistent with outside reality but it's internally consistent. And, when it is consistent with outside reality, it will be very powerful.

Ti hidden agenda is about aiming at doing the same, but doing it, well, clumsily. The system is reached without the logical consistency of a Ti IJ system. Basically an INTj or ISTj would say that the ISFp or INFp decided on their system "too early" or "too inconsistently".

Gamma NTs are a different story. If you'd look at all my posts here (the ones that survived ) - and I'm not suggesting that you actually do it - you can follow my evolution in Socionics. A lot of what I wrote early I see today as nonsense. At several points I thought "I had got almost got it" and then I realized, "oh, I had understood this wrong. No matter". I have reviewed my understanding several times, but each time I was building a provisional, "half-baked" if you will, logical system. I have built several understandings of Socionics in my mind and discarded them whenever the evidence - and the practical application - showed that I was wrong.

More recently, precisely because I have discarded - in my mind - so many versions, I am now convinced that I pretty much understand the system, as much as I care. I will probably make some arrangements now and then, minor ones.

And how is that different from what ISTjs and INTjs do - in my view? Because I am constantly testing the systems with "data". My system is never actually completed, it will always remain slightly "half-baked" because I am willing to apply it even if not every single tiny piece fits because what really counts is if it works.

So, for instance, I do not really think that the Enneagram is a consitently logical system. Yet I think it has tons of useful information. I use the bits that I can see do work - in my judgement - and leave the construction of a consistent system for later. If I ever do it.

I have now an understanding of how Socionics works in my mind. This gives me confidence to, yes, discard some descriptions as crappy, because I can see how my understanding works in practice. It's not how it should work - it's how it does work. Now, suppose that during the London meeting, talking to Rick and others, I realize that my system still had major flaws. No big deal - I will correct them. It's like a car that I'm continuously upgrading. But if the car already moves, I will already drive it, even if not fully upgraded yet.

[Expat]

By contrast --

The way I see it, from my point of view, a Ti hidden agenda person is (very simplistically) in either one of two states:

1) Collecting information, not sure of what is important or not, trying to reach a logical system but not yet certain that they're there

2) They have already reached their own understanding - then they get rather disturbed at the implication that they haven't actually understood it and need further information, but neither are they so confident of that understanding as an ISTj or INTj would be.

[Expat]

It would help if Socionists gave a "degree of certainty" rating to their typings, or if they focused on typing just those people they're most certain about. It's also easier to type famous people who are alive today and who are part of one's own culture. Unfortunately, Russian Socionists are naturally most familiar with Russian celebrities that I've never heard of.

They have done so, but that's precisely when many of them say that they think JFK was LIE and that sort of thing makes me skeptical.

Also, the thing about Julius Caesar being SEE which is the predominant view among Russian Socionists. I don't find that typing as absurd as I once did (so perhaps one day I will even accept it ), but I have read the paper in which they make the case for Caesar as SEE. From the point of view of the historical sources available, it was, well, amateurish. They do not touch on the very few detailed descriptions of Caesar as a person as by Suetonius, in Cicero's letters (an eyewitness) and in Pliny the Elder's history. They rely too much - both for Caesar and for JFK - on political decisions, which except in the case of an absolute monarch with total freedom of action is tricky to relate to type.

So typings of famous people can be used as reference, but only if the reasons for the typing are included.

[Expat]

Anyhow, interesting possible result: FDG and Phaedrus...duals.

that prospect alone has to speak strongly against the possibility of phaedrus being IEI, although i suppose it's not completely impossible. i still think LII is more probable.

LII and even LSI have been suggested. The problem with that is the total identification with IP temperament and Ni dominance, which makes LSI particularly unlikely.

[FDG]

It would help if Socionists gave a "degree of certainty" rating to their typings, or if they focused on typing just those people they're most certain about. It's also easier to type famous people who are alive today and who are part of one's own culture. Unfortunately, Russian Socionists are naturally most familiar with Russian celebrities that I've never heard of.

They have done so, but that's precisely when many of them say that they think JFK was LIE and that sort of thing makes me skeptical.

Also, the thing about Julius Caesar being SEE which is the predominant view among Russian Socionists. I don't find that typing as absurd as I once did (so perhaps one day I will even accept it ), but I have read the paper in which they make the case for Caesar as SEE. From the point of view of the historical sources available, it was, well, amateurish. They do not touch on the very few detailed descriptions of Caesar as a person as by Suetonius, in Cicero's letters (an eyewitness) and in Pliny the Elder's history. They rely too much - both for Caesar and for JFK - on political decisions, which except in the case of an absolute monarch with total freedom of action is tricky to relate to type.

So typings of famous people can be used as reference, but only if the reasons for the typing are included.

Well what if you have time to waste propose a counterpaper to that typing. I don't think honestly that Russian socionists have much more knowledge of historical typing than you.

[Expat]

Well what if you have time to waste propose a counterpaper to that typing. I don't think honestly that Russian socionists have much more knowledge of historical typing than you.

I tried to, at one point -- but it wasn't conclusive, either. Odd as it may seem, I am starting to think that the likely types for him are LIE or SEE, not LIE or SLE.

Oddly, despite the much larger amount on information on Caesar than on Caligula - much larger - there isn't a true eyewitness report of his behavior, such as Philo's on Caligula. Cicero, who knew Caesar well over decades and didn't like him particularly, said that his chief character trait was "mercy and clemency". Not much more, not so directly.

[Jonathan]

My "surprisingly strong emphasis" has to do with my interpretation that your approach to Socionics is indication of Ti hidden agenda, and I suspect (as a guess) that that may have been Ganin's reasoning too.

That is one reason why have sometimes considered IEI as a possible type for myself, although I feel I'm quite different from other IEIs in a number of ways. Can you flesh out what Ti hidden agenda looks like, and how you would notice it in others? Also, how do you distinguish it from simply a Gamma NT who happens to be relatively strong in Ti?

I think the point is that it seems like a weak point of yours.

Well of course. That's clear. I was thinking maybe Expat was alluding to the idea of an IEI with stronger-than-usual Ti.

I think this argues against Phaedrus as a clear-cut IEI, especially since so many here see him as LII. However, between-IEI-and-ILI seems reasonable.

Anyhow, interesting possible result: FDG and Phaedrus...duals.

that prospect alone has to speak strongly against the possibility of phaedrus being IEI, although i suppose it's not completely impossible. i still think LII is more probable.

I bet they'd get along better if they met in person.

[Expat]

Well of course. That's clear. I was thinking maybe Expat was alluding to the idea of an IEI with stronger-than-usual Ti.

I think this argues against Phaedrus as a clear-cut IEI, especially since so many here see him as LII. However, between-IEI-and-ILI seems reasonable.

My main reason to be skeptical of LII is his total identification with Ni IP behavior.

[aestrivex]

i'm not sure that phaedrus' analyses of his own behavior can be trusted.

[Phaedrus]

Ti hidden agenda is about aiming at doing the same, but doing it, well, clumsily. The system is reached without the logical consistency of a Ti IJ system. Basically an INTj or ISTj would say that the ISFp or INFp decided on their system "too early" or "too inconsistently".

Gamma NTs are a different story. If you'd look at all my posts here (the ones that survived ) - and I'm not suggesting that you actually do it - you can follow my evolution in Socionics. A lot of what I wrote early I see today as nonsense. At several points I thought "I had got almost got it" and then I realized, "oh, I had understood this wrong. No matter". I have reviewed my understanding several times, but each time I was building a provisional, "half-baked" if you will, logical system. I have built several understandings of Socionics in my mind and discarded them whenever the evidence - and the practical application - showed that I was wrong.

More recently, precisely because I have discarded - in my mind - so many versions, I am now convinced that I pretty much understand the system, as much as I care. I will probably make some arrangements now and then, minor ones.

And how is that different from what ISTjs and INTjs do - in my view? Because I am constantly testing the systems with "data". My system is never actually completed, it will always remain slightly "half-baked" because I am willing to apply it even if not every single tiny piece fits because what really counts is if it works.

So, for instance, I do not really think that the Enneagram is a consitently logical system. Yet I think it has tons of useful information. I use the bits that I can see do work - in my judgement - and leave the construction of a consistent system for later. If I ever do it.

I have now an understanding of how Socionics works in my mind. This gives me confidence to, yes, discard some descriptions as crappy, because I can see how my understanding works in practice. It's not how it should work - it's how it does work. Now, suppose that during the London meeting, talking to Rick and others, I realize that my system still had major flaws. No big deal - I will correct them. It's like a car that I'm continuously upgrading. But if the car already moves, I will already drive it, even if not fully upgraded yet.

Basically I identify very much with your approach as you describe it here. You seem to construct a working model at a rather early stage -- a model that you may replace with another one later -- in order to be able to start to use the system. The main difference between our approaches seem to be that I collect more information before I think I am able to use the system. You describe an EJ's way of doing it. I do it in an IP way. I also test my understanding of the system with "data", but you are in more of a hurry to use it. I want to be more sure that I have got the facts straight before I even think of using it, but when I finally reach that point I am probably more convcinced that I am right in my understanding than you are. And you use the system primarily as a tool. For me it is also a tool, but more important for me is to know that I have access to the objective truth. That's one of the reasons I emphasize the importance of not discarding pieces of the puzzle that don't fit. I could probably go on forever testing the system by attacking it with pieces that don't fit, in order to see if those pieces can be explained by the system, or if it results in necessary changes within the system, or maybe even in a total collapse of the system.

But now comes the tricky question: How can you tell the difference between an INFp who approaches Socionics the way I do and, and INTp's approach?

Everyone agrees that INTps are extreme knowledge-seekers. An INTp is an information addict, who "read much and it is properly absorbed by the process of the knowledge of peace. In their head enormous quantity of information from the most different regions is accumulated". In the typical IP way an INTp continues to collect more and more information from more and more sources in more and more fields of knowledge: "As a rule, with the age mind in BALZACS anywhere does not get to, but only it increases in the sizes. Proportionally to it in it grow malice, witticism and craftiness." This quote from Stratiyevskaya is also illuminating. I find it extremely accurate as a description of my own behaviour and attitude towards this, and, perhaps interestingly, she says it in relation to an INTp's in his ID Block:

Balzac prefers not to encumber his memory by encyclopaedic information, and although an enormous quantity of exclusively erudite people is encountered among the representatives of this type, Balzac first of all strikes with the depth of his knowledge.

Balzac loves and knows how to learn, trying to obtain new information consecutively and gradually so that this would not leave far beyond the framework of its observations: first of all of it the connections between the already studied phenomena interest.

Accepting new information, Balzac immediately tries to connect it into the already existing system of knowledge. The information, which contradicts the prevailing systems or destroys them, it accepts very critically.

To Balzac unusually blind admiration before the authorities. Referring to someone, it supports its statement by precise and appropriate quotation, always explaining, what relation it has to its reasonings.

Balzac frequently supports his reasonings by instructive parable. Sometimes parable presents instead of the reasonings, so that to listener there remains only to guess, this was said to what. In actuality Balzacs are frequently "covered" by parable, attempting to discuss about the fact that badly yields to their understanding as, for example, the aspect of the ethics of emotion or ethics of relations.

So, how is an INTp's behaviour different from an INFp's with Ti HA for an outside observer?

in INFps:

The 6th function is a function of doubt and uncertainty, as a person may never really know where they stand with it beyond the unconscious and instinctual drive towards its realization. However, a person cannot truly manifest this function alone. Without support from others, a person may secretly place no or little hope in a true manifestation of this function within themselves. Because of its aggressiveness, some may become convinced it is a strong and resourceful function. In the presence of another in good command of the function, it becomes feisty and energetic, but only temporary. A person under consistent influence of this function may display odd, annoying, or specific behavioral patterns that seem noticeably out of place or out of character and could appear shady, slick, or sly to the casual observer.

in INTps:

Without the suppression of the second function, this function needs guidance, as it must use a concrete means to manage itself. When unrestrained, a person may realize this function chaotically and without self-control, appearing indulgent and uncanny. People under the influence of the 8th function may have no direction and no productive aims or goals besides the self-gratification of the manifested function involved.

[Jonathan]

I'm skeptical of Strat's ILI description, in part because it says that ILIs have a gift of always being on time.
But apart form that, both ILIs and IEIs have a tendency to accumulate information. IEI's tendency to research and read a lot has been commented on a bit.

Determining whether Ti is the 6th or 8th function is a little difficult because strength is relative. It would be a mistake for someone to say you have weak Ti just because they disagree with you or think you're in error. A "strong" function doesn't necessarily mean one is competent. A "weak" function doesn't necessarily mean one is incompetent. However, one is theoretically more competent in one's strong functions than in one's weak ones.

Here are some behaviors in full-fledged IEI types I've seen that may suggest HA Ti:
* Enjoying "deep" conversations with a T person or leading a discussion with a T person into philosophical territory but relying on the other person to develop and organize the concepts or supply the logic.
* Reading a lot of books on science but avoiding the really mathematical stuff.
* Focusing on less technical areas of intellectual interest
* Accepting new theories and schools of thought uncritically
* Accepting weak theories on the same footing as stronger theories
* A tendency not to innovate in the technical area but rather to accept the standard views "as is"
* Become a devoted follower of other people's Ti

On the other hand, there seems to be a border area; some people who are IEI may have very strong technical skills, for example.

[Phaedrus]

I'm skeptical of Strat's ILI description, in part because it says that ILIs have a gift of always being on time.

I think that little detail in her description is of minor importance, but let's see how you relate to this:

I usually know how long it would take for me to reach a certain destination. For example, when I am going to catch a train or meet someone near the railway station, I know that it will take me about between 20 and 25 minutes to get there depending on how fast I walk. If I have less than 20 minutes left when I leave my home I know that I am going to be late, unless I ran or walk very fast some parts of the distance. Always when I am going to walk that distance, I am unable to start earlier than at the last minute. When I start I know beforehand if I am going to be there on time or if I am going to be late, and I know how late I am going to be. If it is an important meeting, I will be there exactly on time, usually by the minute.

My ISFj partner is much more nervous about not being able to be on time. It doesn't help how much I try to explain to her that we will be their with plenty of time left. (When we walk together we usually start about 5-10 minutes earlier, because I know that she hates to be there at the last minute. She can't function effectively with very little time left, whereas I act very calmly in such circumstances.) I tell her that will will have at least 5 minutes to buy tickets and such things, but she is still not very comfortable with it.

Another example is that I have, on many occasions stayed up very late when I had to go to work the next day, and have had to choose what to do given the fact that I had no alarm clock. What I do in such situations is to go to sleep anyway, even if I have as little as 2 hours before I have to wake up, which I had on one occasion in the past when I had been partying with some friends and was going to have to catch a train in the morning if I was not going to come at least half an hour late for work. So, I went to sleep, and exactly in time I woke up, not extremely alert, but very much more refreshed than when I went to "bed" (which happened to be a floor on that special occasion).

The same thing happened almost every day when I was doing my military service. I often stayed up later than most others, but I didn't like to be called awake by someone else, so I almost always woke up, without any alarm clock, just in time before the reveille.

Here are some behaviors in full-fledged IEI types I've seen that may suggest HA Ti:

* Enjoying "deep" conversations with a T person or leading a discussion with a T person into philosophical territory but relying on the other person to develop and organize the concepts or supply the logic.

I don't relate to that very much. Usually I am the one organizing the concepts and try to supply the logic. If I don't see the logic or don't know the concepts I ask critical questions (often quite aggressively) to sort things out. If we are talking about some area of knowledge where the person I am talking to is more of an expert than I am, I try to grasp the essence of the fundamental concepts and assumptions in that area, and sometimes I attack those fundamentals if I see them as flawed, incoherent, or based on false assumptions, and I do that from a more general philosophical perspective. As I have said in some other posts, I think that some theories, or even whole disciplines, can be discarded completely, based on the fact that their basic premises are incorrect.

* Reading a lot of books on science but avoiding the really mathematical stuff.

Okay, that may apply to me. I often read books where the mathematical stuff is beyond my level of understanding. But I know some mathematics, and I seem to be better than an average person in estimating risks and statistical probabilities intuitively. I probably think more "objectively" than most people, due to the fact that I naturally think of problems in an impersonal way, without taking people's feelings into consideration (neither my own). That is of course perfectly in line with what is said about INTps in Socionics, but it has also been confirmed in empirical studies that people on the autism spectrum, for example those with Asperger, are better than others on that. That is no surprise of course, since the INTp type in itself is described as slightly autistic. (That doesn't mean that everyone who is an INTp also has Asperger, but it is clear as day that the ILI really has a lot of Asperger traits, and if you don't believe me in that you could ask Dmitri Lytov who has explicitly said that himself without being asked about it. A lot of those Asperger traits can also be found in the Ni-INXp profile above.)

* Focusing on less technical areas of intellectual interest

I can relate to that.

* Accepting new theories and schools of thought uncritically
* Accepting weak theories on the same footing as stronger theories

I can definitely not relate to that. It would be much easier for me if I weren't so critical and had to spend so many years testing and comparing theories and facts to find out the objective truth. I am always second-guessing my conclusions, at least for a couple of years -- that is my usual pattern of behaviour.

* A tendency not to innovate in the technical area but rather to accept the standard views "as is"

I don't relate to that, and I doubt that anyone seriously would accuse me of accepting the standard views "as it is" more than as a preliminary starting point. After that I try to find if it can be true or not, and I sometimes find that the standard view could be wrong. On the other hand, I am clearly not as innovative in the technical area as many others on this forum, for example.

* Become a devoted follower of other people's Ti

Absolutely not. I have a habit of attacking Ti-based systems of thought -- sometimes with a lot of passion and phrenecy.

[Expat]

That's a good point; it makes things mroe complicated. Personally, I think typing famous people is a great tool because it creates a frame of reference, but if the person's conception who of the famous person is wrong, then it totally fails.

It would help if Socionists gave a "degree of certainty" rating to their typings, or if they focused on typing just those people they're most certain about. It's also easier to type famous people who are alive today and who are part of one's own culture. Unfortunately, Russian Socionists are naturally most familiar with Russian celebrities that I've never heard of.

Back to that -- for what it's worth, I never saw any reason to disagree on the "official" typing of those Russian or near-Russian celebrities I am also familiar with: Peter the Great as SLE, Nicholas II as EII, Alexander I as SEI, Nicholas I as LSI, Catherine the Great as SEE, Lenin as SLE, Stalin as LSI, Gorbachev as SEE, Yulia Tymoshenko as LIE. So I think that in the case of JFK etc, the disagreements are not about Socionics as such but on how the specific people are perceived. For instance, I think that Lytov is too quick to automatically type communist tyrants such as Pol Pot as LSI, while I think that if you actually read about him more closely EIE becomes far more likely.

[Expat]

But now comes the tricky question: How can you tell the difference between an INFp who approaches Socionics the way I do and, and INTp's approach?

Everyone agrees that INTps are extreme knowledge-seekers. An INTp is an information addict, who "read much and it is properly absorbed by the process of the knowledge of peace. In their head enormous quantity of information from the most different regions is accumulated".

The point you're missing is this.

You're not as much as an "extreme knowledge-seeker" as you think. You are very interested in Socionics (among other systems), and despite seeing a lot of examples of functional analyses, you never really tried to get into the theory. So lots of people - not only myself - were typing people and discussing Socionics in terms of functional preference, quadra values, etc, and you obviously never stopped to think, "hmm, this may be important, I should take a look at that piece of information too".

So, even unconsciously, you already decided that the information related to quadras and functions was less important and that you already had, yes, the makings of a system based on your type descriptions. You did precisely what you said that you never do, and never realized it.

[XoX]

Here are some behaviors in full-fledged IEI types I've seen that may suggest HA Ti:
* Enjoying "deep" conversations with a T person or leading a discussion with a T person into philosophical territory but relying on the other person to develop and organize the concepts or supply the logic.
* Reading a lot of books on science but avoiding the really mathematical stuff.
* Focusing on less technical areas of intellectual interest
* Accepting new theories and schools of thought uncritically
* Accepting weak theories on the same footing as stronger theories
* A tendency not to innovate in the technical area but rather to accept the standard views "as is"
* Become a devoted follower of other people's Ti

On the other hand, there seems to be a border area; some people who are IEI may have very strong technical skills, for example.

How would this differ from ENFp (except that they would likely become devoted followers of other people's Te instead of Ti)? Actually how would this differ considerably from any NF type?

[FDG]

Everyone agrees that INTps are extreme knowledge-seekers.

Ah, so you agree with the fact that you're not an INTp, fine.

[Jonathan]

How would this differ from ENFp (except that they would likely become devoted followers of other people's Te instead of Ti)? Actually how would this differ considerably from any NF type?

Good point. What I was saying applies a lot to NFs in general; at issue was distinguishing between INTp and INFp, so I didn't focus on distinguishing INFp from ENFp.

My experiences with ENFps and INFps are a bit different though. The ENFps I know generally lead the conversation and like to be at the center of attention. They may mention "philosophical" ideas that invariably are really psychological observations. They like to show that they can learn a lot of technical details. They like it when an ITp can help them verify the validity of what they say.

[Jonathan]

You're not as much as an "extreme knowledge-seeker" as you think. You are very interested in Socionics (among other systems), and despite seeing a lot of examples of functional analyses, you never really tried to get into the theory. So lots of people - not only myself - were typing people and discussing Socionics in terms of functional preference, quadra values, etc, and you obviously never stopped to think, "hmm, this may be important, I should take a look at that piece of information too".

I think that's maybe a little bit harsh. As I recall, Phaedrus, being versed in MBTI, was disturbed by the fact that the two systems appeared to deduce different behaviors (and temperaments) based on what seemed to be the same set of functions (though defined somewhat differently). Similarly, he saw some apparent contradictions between quadra descriptions and other information. So he did what I think is very common with introverts, especially IN-- types: He made a decision to be selective about what information to consider. It's like saying "I don't trust that Socionists are right about this, so I'll choose which parts to focus on."

Whether he's wrong or right doesn't prove whether a function is strong or not. I know a lot of people I fervently disagree with but I accept as T types.

[Jonathan]

I'm skeptical of Strat's ILI description, in part because it says that ILIs have a gift of always being on time.

I think that little detail in her description is of minor importance, but let's see how you relate to this

I can identify with that. However, sometimes I get so much into what I'm doing that I leave too late. Yes, I'm usually on time, but I know that the strategy of trying to get places "on the dot" can result in being late due to factors beyond one's control (traffic jams, etc.). I used to be much worse at this, believing that 5 minutes (or even 0 minutes) was enough time to get anywhere, and then realizing at the last minute that there were lots and lots of steps involved in actually getting there.

[Phaedrus]

Yes. Last time I was going to the railway station I started about 3 minutes too late. I calculated that I would have to go too fast than I wanted (partially because I felt that I perhaps was about to catch a cold) if i was going to be there on time. But I was lucky and "won" about a minute or a minute and a half at the first traffic lights, where I could cross without having to wait. But when I was almost there, and realized that I might be there exactly on time after all (I had paced up just a little bit despite my intentions), then I had to stop and wait in at least two minutes for a train to pass (that happens very rarely at the exact place where I cross the rails.)

And I am slightly late quite often.

[Expat]

Whether he's wrong or right doesn't prove whether a function is strong or not. I know a lot of people I fervently disagree with but I accept as T types.

That has nothing to do with what I described.

[Jonathan]

Whether he's wrong or right doesn't prove whether a function is strong or not. I know a lot of people I fervently disagree with but I accept as T types.

That has nothing to do with what I described.

Yes, I see that what you're thinking of is probably more subtle than that. The general tone of the thread (not just your comments) seemed to be tending in a direction such that an observer would reasonably conclude that people are questioning Phaedrus's NT-ness on the basis of whether his logic or knowledge-gathering were solid.

But you were perhaps making a more subtle point. I think I've met a number of Ni, basically ILI types would nevertheless have a "special need" for Ti, a tendency to dwell on Ti, causing them to appear more Beta. It all comes down to the fact that the various mental connections involved are much more complex than any one type. I once had a friend who demonstrated this well; he loved to discuss things on a philosophical level, and was really all about seeking meaning and various "profound" things; this was an obviously Beta theme, but there was an attachment to making everything logical that was unlike most "pure" IEIs. Perhaps Tcaud's master-slave model may have some bearing here, though I still find that possibly too rigid or simplistic, or just don't completely understand it.

[Phaedrus]

I think I've met a number of Ni, basically ILI types would nevertheless have a "special need" for Ti, a tendency to dwell on Ti, causing them to appear more Beta. It all comes down to the fact that the various mental connections involved are much more complex than any one type. I once had a friend who demonstrated this well; he loved to discuss things on a philosophical level, and was really all about seeking meaning and various "profound" things; this was an obviously Beta theme, but there was an attachment to making everything logical that was unlike most "pure" IEIs.

That sounds like me. If we correctly can attribute themes like identity-seeking, trying to find the meaning of life, unearthiness, and attempts to combine Art and Science in for example works of literature in the Enneagram 5w4 way, then I identify with that. But to make everything logical, objective, and impersonal, is very important, and that is an aspect of it that is almost impossible to attribute to INFps.

[Expat]

Going back to this for a moment.

According to model A, the ordering of the functions from 1 to 8 is this:

INTp:
INFp:

So it's the same with regard to Ni, Ne, Si, Se - as would be expected.

Let us assume that the strong Ni subtypes focus even more on Ni and Ne.

Then we have something like this for the Ni IP:

Common to both types : Ne Ni Se Si plus IP temperament, and the peak of Resolute, Victim, Tactics and Calculating according to dichotomies

Differentiating the types: Fe-Ti for INFp, Fi-Te for INTp, plus slight preference for other dichotomies, too slight to be of much use IMO

So, for Ni IPs, Ni INTps and Ni INFps, every trait that can be related to:

Strong Ne, strong Ni, weakish Se, weakish Si, IP temperament, and being Resolute, Victim, Tactics and Calculating is totally useless for deciding between INTp or INFp.

The only traits that can clearly decide between the two types are the Fe-Ti or Fi-Te preferences, Fe>Fi or Fi>Fe, Ti>Te or Te>Ti.

To focus on other traits doesn't help at all to decide the issue.

[Gilly]

1. You're still an idiot.
2. Ni IPs are the ULTIMATE followers. If you're going to be one, you're going to have to accept it.
3. INFps are decidedly NOT "weakly orientated in the area of emotions"
4. Since when is pride a characteristic Ni trait? Go eat some dogfood, it'll be better for your brain than whatever nonsense you're feeding it now.
5. I'm guessing that most of this probably came from the Stratievskaya description (crappy, biased) and your own incoherent ramblings, because most of it is entirely unrelated to type.

[Expat]

5. I'm guessing that most of this probably came from the Stratievskaya description (crappy, biased) and your own incoherent ramblings, because most of it is entirely unrelated to type.

You're biased yourself, against Stratiyevskaya - no wonder, as you are conflictors. A large part of that description Phaedrus compiled comes from Filatova.

I do think though, that descriptions such as Stratiyveskaya's only make sense if you read them entire, to get an overall view of the type. If you select details, you end up selecting non-important observations.