:Ni: as the Function of Sequence

[krieger]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NdTjRumkT9k

[tcaudilllg]

Well once again a promising discussion has devolved into a what's Phaedus/Xox's type thread. (no offense to either of the above, of course)

I've actually come upon something that at first may not seem relevant, but actually has a lot to do with the discussion at hand.

Meet Nergal.

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pFLEu9PbuVE[/youtube]

Mr Nergal, as you may have observed from the video, is an INTp. In crosstype theory, we'd call him an INTP-ENFj pathological type. INTps use as a means of aggression, yes? In crosstype theory the personal knowledge function of INTp-ENFj is for information metabolism followed by for information exertion. follows as the producer master, and follows as the producer slave.

With this in mind, observe the following video. (Nergal is on the left)

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ITvYFWJ1hb4&mode=related&search=[/youtube]

Energy (in this case, ) is drawn inward via a sort of psychic vortex (accepting ) to a single point. An external field static () element (a singularity) emerges from the condensed energy. Releasal releases the energy from the static and influences the flow of time.

[Creepy-bg]

video games aren't real life Tcaud...

[tcaudilllg]

video games aren't real life Tcaud...

*thought I had him on ignore*

Ignoring this ignorant, irrelevant statement, let's let the discussion continue.

EDIT:
Nevermind, he's right: videogames are not real-life. But they are thought of by imaginative people who use socionics functions as the means of their imagination. Therefore there is no reason not to believe that *any* imaginative product cannot be thought of as an expression of function progression in model-A.

[Creepy-bg]

you put forth a 6 minute video of a fight scene from some shitty RPG as an illustration of a point and, even worse, imply this shitty RPG has the least bit to do with imagination... and you think I'm the ignorant, irrelevant, one?

[Jonathan]

I've always attributed it to a Se PoLR (because I have seen this in INFjs as well). When things aren't going well they complain about how unfair things are, how things never seem to go right for them no matter how hard they try, why can't they just get a break, why isn't anyone helping or even trying to help, blah blah blah. I don't know why they come to me for advice, because I always say, "So fix it," which is precisely what they feel powerless to do. I tell them stuff like, "Life isn't what happens to you, it's what you do about it" and "Stop waiting for things to get better and make them better. Nothing will improve until you lose this victim mentality" and "Things won't get better until you can picture it in your head and assume that mentality" and, trying to appeal to their logic, "Sit down and figure out what you want and what's keeping you from what you want, and from there you'll be able to think of ways to begin to deal with some of those things. It may take a little while, but you have to start." This advice is met with, "I try, I try so hard, but no matter what I do, bad things just keep happening." And they whine about health crap on top of it, saying how little they eat or how shitty their diet is or what's hurting and how much it hurts, etc. I tell them, "So go to a doctor and start eating better and find a job that isn't going to make it worse. Do something about it!" The cycle repeats itself until I give up. ...

I've never seen an INTj or INFj act like that. Has anyone else? Especially the part about whining and not being able to sit down and fix things for themselves. In my experience, INTjs keep their problems more or less to themselves, or pretend they don't have any problems. And they're the ones who are best at sitting down and thinking about what the priorities and solutions should be.

The only case I can see INTjs acting like this is if they're having a problem with something that's really F-related, like relationship problems, and then they'd only talk about them to someone they trust or whom they think is Fe.

Maybe you've seen some IFp types with Ti hidden agenda, or even EFjs, and they seem to be INTjs to you?

Actually, your description is almost identical to Smilex's description of ISFp in the Te view of each type thread that was in the Gamma folder way back...right up to the detail of wondering why they're coming to you with all this.

[tcaudilllg]

Joy, the problem lies in how you approach INTjs. You expect us to do the ENTj thing: get out, form new relationships, etc.. For me to form a relationship with someone, it must mean something to me in an emotional way because it implies a role that I will play in their lives. They only have so much energy to give, and substantial amounts of that energy must be spent acquiring resources for their own needs. Who am I to interfere with the pursuit of their needs? If I can't offer them something on a regular basis, how can I be playing a constructive role in their life?

Now that's just the INTj-ENFj view (though you wouldn't know anything about that, would you?), but the role bit applies to INTjs in general. We can only act in the world by means of a method that is consistent with our feelings, because is our role. To you, an ENTj, feelings barely come into it: they are just a means of satisfying your hidden agenda; but to us feeling is pivotal to our livelihood.

[Phaedrus]

You seem to be making an effort to sound like a Victim, both in Socionics and generally speaking.

I don't care if I sound like a Victim or not. If I am making any sort of effort here, it is to state the objective truth.

Almost like "everyone hates me" .

People are entitled to feel whatever they want about me. I can't control their feelings, and I am not particularly interested in it. I care much more about people's understanding of Socionics and the types, which sadly enough seem to be lacking in many people here.

It seems that you are pretty confident of your -- social role here? It seems that you are trying to get into, "they say that about me because they have decided that I am the black sheep". Now, is that focus on ?

At least it is not a focus on . If you believe that, you are totally misunderstanding my intentions and what I am saying.

Your almost total lack of knowledge in Socionics theory as defined by model A (which is, by the way, the model people whom you like to quote, like Rick, use) has been more than clearly demonstrated in the XoX type thread. Or do I have to quote the endless times you said "I don't understand this"?

You seem so completely blind sometimes, Expat. But you probably feel the same way about me, and that is just what we should expect about two competent and opinionated Mirrors. Just because I don't prefer to use model A as much as you and others do, it doesn't mean that I have a total lack of knowledge about it. The truth is that people like Joy, who suggest that we should ignore most other sources of information and concentrate on Model A, are saying things that are totally ridiculous from a general socionic point of view. They don't seem to have grasped the basics. Have they even read Dmitri Lytov's and Marianna Lytova's Introduction into Socionics? It doesn't seem so, and if they have they haven't understood it.

People who think that they can type people by using nothing else than Model A are idiots. It is useless if you don't have a basic, and more importantly correct, understanding of the types. They like to use their beloved technique, but they don't seem to realize that it is not much more than just a technique. If handled correctly it should give them the same typing results as I get when I use other typing methods. When we disagree it is more likely that they have made a mistake than that I have made one.

And it's not about not agreeing with model A, quadras, etc. It's perfectly legitimate to say that there is no reliable evidence that it's correct, as in the Fe>Fi thingy for INTps. However, in order to intelligently disagree with it, one should at least have done the homework and understand it - which you hadn't done.

I am not disagreeing with Model A. Like Smilingeyes I am just a tiny bit skeptical about it, and considering how many people on this forum are misusing it, that skepticism seems to have a sound basis.

You do have knowledge of a lot of type descriptions and some interpretations of them. Fine.

I didn't believe it first, but it has now become more and more clear to me, that I am probably the only person on this forum who can use type descriptions as a reliable typing tool. So, I was probably wrong and you were probably right when you have warned against using them. Most people just don't understand them correctly, and therefore they should probably use whatever method they can handle. In my case however, the type descriptions are one of the most powerful of all available typings methods. But in order to use it, you must have a very good general understanding of the types. To obtain such an understanding takes time, and most people are not willing to make the effort that is necessary to achive that level of competence.

Fine. So perhaps you are right about this: you do come across as different from INTjs such as UDP and tcaudilllg.

Yes, I am right about this. And you know that I am. I have never doubted that you can see that clearly. You and I have a very similar understanding of the types. We have got it by using different methods, but in the end we tend to agree on most of our typings. It is not even clear that we disagree much about XoX's type, where both you and I can see for example ENTp and INFp as possible types. The only clear difference in opinion is that you insist that XoX can't be an INTp, whereas I think that INTp is one of the most likely, if not the most likely, type for XoX. That we disagree on that is solely due to the fact that we use different typing methods and have different opionons on how reliable those methods are.

But then it's perfectly legitimate to ask -- how come INTps don't see you as INTp? Because they are logical subtypes and you are intuitive? So the subtype is so important as to eliminate the sense of identity?

First of all, none of those INTps who don't see me as an INTp understand the types as well as I do. I don't know for sure what those INTps think of Jonathan's type, but I know that some of those people who are convinced that I am not an INTp don't question Jonathan as an INTp, despite the fact that both Jonathan and I agree that we are extremely similar. How do you explain that? It is almost impossible that Jonathan and I are different types, and that we are so strikingly similar was obvious to me from the first post I ever read of Jonathan more than a year ago on SG's forum. Nothing since then has given me any strong reason to question the fact that Jonathan and I are probably the same type.

Maybe the subtype is very important for the sense of identify. But that doesn't seem to have been such a big problem for me. I saw almost immediately that niffweed and I are also most likely the same type. He is more obstinate of course, disagreeing with everyone on everything all the time, but my initial impression of him seems to turn out to be correct too. Or you could take dreikin, who I haven't seen posting for a long time now, so maybe he is no longer using this forum, but if you look at some earlier posts (if they were not destroyed in The Big Deletion) you will see that dreikin and I are also the same type (INTp) though not necessarily the same subtype. He is also rather clearly an INTp on V.I.

Then Cone. He is not so active either, but I haven't had any reason to question that he is also an INTp, and that we are therefore the same type. One of his earliest posts on this forum could just as well have been written by me; the way he described himself made him very similar to me. Of course both dreikin and Cone also consider themselves to be INTPs in MBTT. It is somewhat unclear to me which INTps you have in mind when you say that they don't see me as an INTp. Isha perhaps? Well, I don't know about Isha's type. Maybe it is INTp, but then there is something wrong with Isha's ability to spot other INTps, since I am not recognized as one.

[tcaudilllg]

Phaedrus: do you think you could be an INTp who puts his energy toward INTj things? (like Einstein put his ENTp "inventor" talents toward scientific analysis?)

[Joy]

I've always attributed it to a Se PoLR (because I have seen this in INFjs as well). When things aren't going well they complain about how unfair things are, how things never seem to go right for them no matter how hard they try, why can't they just get a break, why isn't anyone helping or even trying to help, blah blah blah. I don't know why they come to me for advice, because I always say, "So fix it," which is precisely what they feel powerless to do. I tell them stuff like, "Life isn't what happens to you, it's what you do about it" and "Stop waiting for things to get better and make them better. Nothing will improve until you lose this victim mentality" and "Things won't get better until you can picture it in your head and assume that mentality" and, trying to appeal to their logic, "Sit down and figure out what you want and what's keeping you from what you want, and from there you'll be able to think of ways to begin to deal with some of those things. It may take a little while, but you have to start." This advice is met with, "I try, I try so hard, but no matter what I do, bad things just keep happening." And they whine about health crap on top of it, saying how little they eat or how shitty their diet is or what's hurting and how much it hurts, etc. I tell them, "So go to a doctor and start eating better and find a job that isn't going to make it worse. Do something about it!" The cycle repeats itself until I give up. ...

I've never seen an INTj or INFj act like that. Has anyone else? Especially the part about whining and not being able to sit down and fix things for themselves. In my experience, INTjs keep their problems more or less to themselves, or pretend they don't have any problems. And they're the ones who are best at sitting down and thinking about what the priorities and solutions should be.

The only case I can see INTjs acting like this is if they're having a problem with something that's really F-related, like relationship problems, and then they'd only talk about them to someone they trust or whom they think is Fe.

Maybe you've seen some IFp types with Ti hidden agenda, or even EFjs, and they seem to be INTjs to you?

Actually, your description is almost identical to Smilex's description of ISFp in the Te view of each type thread that was in the Gamma folder way back...right up to the detail of wondering why they're coming to you with all this.

In all fairness, the people I'm writing about consist of:

- A physically unhealthy INTj (genetic disorder) who was severely neglected through his childhood and has Asperger's Syndrome
- A physically unhealthy INFj who, like the INTj, has a lot of legitimate health issues and severe chronic pain (and who, like the INTj, won't find a job that's less physically demanding for some reason that is just beyond my comprehension)
- A different INFj with mental health issues
- A different INTj... I don't know what the fuck his problem was... depression I guess, but it never seemed like anything more than self-pitying to me

Perhaps this manifestation of their PoLR (as I perceive it) wouldn't be as debilitating for a healthy INxj.

Also, every one of these people is someone who I am or was very close to, and all of them totally trusts/trusted me. They all tend to act apathetic around people they're not close to.

Joy, the problem lies in how you approach INTjs. You expect us to do the ENTj thing: get out, form new relationships, etc.. For me to form a relationship with someone, it must mean something to me in an emotional way because it implies a role that I will play in their lives. They only have so much energy to give, and substantial amounts of that energy must be spent acquiring resources for their own needs. Who am I to interfere with the pursuit of their needs? If I can't offer them something on a regular basis, how can I be playing a constructive role in their life?

Now that's just the INTj-ENFj view (though you wouldn't know anything about that, would you?), but the role bit applies to INTjs in general. We can only act in the world by means of a method that is consistent with our feelings, because is our role. To you, an ENTj, feelings barely come into it: they are just a means of satisfying your hidden agenda; but to us feeling is pivotal to our livelihood.

I get the part about valuing Fe and needing to feel that you have a role in someone's life (as opposed to someone who values Fi and needs to know they have a relationship with someone?), but what I don't understand is that you feel more of a need to fill your Role function than your hidden agenda? btw, feelings come into it for all types to some extent, and I'd say the difference has a lot to do with the individual, not just their type. Logical types may not recognize or understand ethical concerns/feelings as well as ethical types, but they're there nonetheless. And I find it interesting that you read loneliness in what I posted.

[tcaudilllg]

Health isn't a big concern... we (INTjs) are the logical foundation of the system and if we start screwing with it because we don't feel it has respected our need for good health, then people will pay attention to us. We'll get that health we want. And when I say the system, I don't mean "society as an institution", but the actual abstractions running beneath: THAT's where we'll make havoc, and no one can afford that.

Obviously other types can act similarly to defend their hidden agenda. The point is that it's not a big conscious concern to us. Feelings are much more pressing internal issues.

[Jonathan]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NdTjRumkT9k

It is like that, isn't it? Different conversations going on, all in a jumble. And then it goes around and around, and we get to a place where it seems we've been before, but each time we feel that we understand it a little bit better, and maybe, just maybe, next time around we'll finally get it...

[Phaedrus]

Phaedrus: do you think you could be an INTp who puts his energy toward INTj things? (like Einstein put his ENTp "inventor" talents toward scientific analysis?)

Yes, definitely -- except that I disagree with the claim that what I am interested in should be considered belonging to the INTj domain of "things". That is a flaw in the socionic INTj type descriptions (to a lesser degree that is relevant to the INTp descriptions) and the quadra descriptions. In fact, MBTT INTJ and INTP type descriptions give us a more correct picture of how INTjs and INTps are in real life when it comes to that particular aspect of what they are interested in putting their energy in. Due to the fact that Socionics attribute almost all these things to INTjs and very little, if anyhing, to INTps, you would get a much better picture of my interest profile if you read MBTT INTP descriptions.

This flaw in Socionics has been pointed out several times by Jonathan, and he is perfectly right about it.

[Phaedrus]

In all fairness, the people I'm writing about consist of:

- A physically unhealthy INTj (genetic disorder) who was severely neglected through his childhood and has Asperger's Syndrome
- A physically unhealthy INFj who, like the INTj, has a lot of legitimate health issues and severe chronic pain (and who, like the INTj, won't find a job that's less physically demanding for some reason that is just beyond my comprehension)
- A different INFj with mental health issues
- A different INTj... I don't know what the fuck his problem was... depression I guess, but it never seemed like anything more than self-pitying to me

Actually, I also happen to know an INTj with Asperger's Syndrome, and what Joy says is in a sense true of him. I also know an unhealthy INFj, who maybe also could fit Joy's description of their behaviours. But isn't Ms. Kensington's comment still true? There is no real contradiction between these "unhealthy" INXjs and what I have said about J and P behaviours and attitudes and its relation to the temperament -- something that is common knowledge in Socionics.

[Expat]

Ok, in order not to repeat myself, I will drop some issues and focus on what I think will be most productive:

At least it is not a focus on . If you believe that, you are totally misunderstanding my intentions and what I am saying.

"Misunderstanding my intentions" is used by you as -- argument very very often, as if that were the central issue. So let's stick to that -- for a moment.

Nearly all - if not indeed all - points you made whenever someone mentioned XoX's use of was "you are misunderstanding his intentions".

I know, one of INTp's basic motivations is thre "search for truth" etc.

Also (I am quoting from memory, I may be mistaken) I think you said something about "perhaps INFps also look at people as objects?")

Questions:

1) Would it be a correct interpretation to say that you regard "searching for truth" in the context of "seeing people as objects" as essentially INTp?

2) How exactly are people "objects" in this?

Just because I don't prefer to use model A as much as you and others do, it doesn't mean that I have a total lack of knowledge about it.

It doesn't. What did show your total lack of knowledge was your questions/statements in the XoX type thread, what I could easily demonstrate by quoting them.

First of all, none of those INTps who don't see me as an INTp understand the types as well as I do. I don't know for sure what those INTps think of Jonathan's type, but I know that some of those people who are convinced that I am not an INTp don't question Jonathan as an INTp, despite the fact that both Jonathan and I agree that we are extremely similar. How do you explain that?

I explain that simply by saying that Jonathan's type never became an issue - not nearly as much as yours. As simple as that. I wasn't aware that there were people who were sure you are not INTp and at the same time were convinced Jonathan is INTp. So I don't know which criteria, if any, they are using.

As far as I am concerned, one reason is that Jonathan does not seem to have an agenda to be this or that type -- what he does most of the time is ask questions - some of them repeatedly in one form or the other - rather than make clear statements of his own. He keeps a "lower profile", so to to speak. So people have had less of a chance - or inclination - to state clear opinions on his type than on yours. Unlike you, I don't think he has ever said anything like "so-and-so is probably INTp because I identify with him".

and that we are so strikingly similar was obvious to me from the first post I ever read of Jonathan more than a year ago on SG's forum. Nothing since then has given me any strong reason to question the fact that Jonathan and I are probably the same type.

Just for fun, I would love to see Jonathan say that he's an INFp or INTj.

Maybe the subtype is very important for the sense of identify. But that doesn't seem to have been such a big problem for me. I saw almost immediately that niffweed and I are also most likely the same type.

Stop right there. Does niffweed17 agree with that? I seems that he does not. In that case, why should that sense of identity be one-sided?

Of course both dreikin and Cone also consider themselves to be INTPs in MBTT. It is somewhat unclear to me which INTps you have in mind when you say that they don't see me as an INTp. Isha perhaps? Well, I don't know about Isha's type. Maybe it is INTp, but then there is something wrong with Isha's ability to spot other INTps, since I am not recognized as one.

The question is, did Cone, dreikin, niffweed17 ever also state clearly that they see you as INTp? Niffweed17 seems, if anything, to oppose the idea. So it's not only Isha. Which INTp has said "I definitely could see Phaedrus as INTp?"

[Phaedrus]

Nearly all - if not indeed all - points you made whenever someone mentioned XoX's use of was "you are misunderstanding his intentions".

Yes, perhaps. There is some truth in that, and let's agree on that to see where it leads us.

I know, one of INTp's basic motivations is thre "search for truth" etc.

Agreed.

Also (I am quoting from memory, I may be mistaken) I think you said something about "perhaps INFps also look at people as objects?")

I don't believe that they do, but I don't know for sure that they don't or can't do that.

1) Would it be a correct interpretation to say that you regard "searching for truth" in the context of "seeing people as objects" as essentially INTp?
2) How exactly are people "objects" in this?

Let's try to be exact here. INTps have a tendency to see people as objects, which is in line with their overall externalist world, where everything can, in principle, be explained in a scientific, naturalistic framework. And an INTp is always searching for the objective truth if he is interested in a subject matter. Like many NTs INTps are interested in systems, and if he happens to be interested in one type of system, for example working teams and their relations to the bigger system, like organizations and companies and maybe also in the even bigger system that organizations and companies are parts of (the market economy etc), then he would probably view the people who are parts of the team system as "objects". He is not interested in those people as people, he is primarily interested in how they function as parts of the system, the organization, and if it would be possible to optimize the functioning of those parts, make the system more effective, if we add some "soft-ware program" to it, for example a good version of the program Team Spirit 1.0.

[Phaedrus]

I explain that simply by saying that Jonathan's type never became an issue - not nearly as much as yours. As simple as that.

Yes, but both Jonathan and I are slightly surprised by that phenomenon. I'm not sure what the explanation is, but it probably has something to do with which threads I prefer to participate in and how I express my views.

I wasn't aware that there were people who were sure you are not INTp and at the same time were convinced Jonathan is INTp. So I don't know which criteria, if any, they are using.

I don't know either, but for some reason it seems easier for them to accept Jonathan as an INTp.

As far as I am concerned, one reason is that Jonathan does not seem to have an agenda to be this or that type -- what he does most of the time is ask questions - some of them repeatedly in one form or the other - rather than make clear statements of his own. He keeps a "lower profile", so to to speak. So people have had less of a chance - or inclination - to state clear opinions on his type than on yours. Unlike you, I don't think he has ever said anything like "so-and-so is probably INTp because I identify with him".

Yes, I was going to say something very similar to this. His lower profile is probably one of the reasons.

Just for fun, I would love to see Jonathan say that he's an INFp or INTj.

Fun or not, it would of course be interesting. But if he would say that he is an INTj, he would either be joking or have become totally confused. INFp makes much more sense, but, just like XoX and me, he seems to identify with being a logical type, and he seems to idenfify at least slightly more with INTp descriptions than with INFp descriptions.

Maybe the subtype is very important for the sense of identify. But that doesn't seem to have been such a big problem for me. I saw almost immediately that niffweed and I are also most likely the same type.

Stop right there. Does niffweed17 agree with that? I seems that he does not. In that case, why should that sense of identity be one-sided?

No, niffweed17 does not agree with that, unless he has changed his mind since the last time he said something related to that. My sense of identity is much stronger with Jonathan than with niffweed, but based on the things niffweed has said about himself he should be an INTp. And some of the things niffweed has said about his relations with for example ESFjs makes the case for INTp even stronger. If niffweed is not an INTp, I would guess that he is an ISTp.

The main reason niffweed can't see that I am an INTp is probably that he doesn't understand the types as well as I do yet. He is still in the exploring stage so to say. He is still learning and trying to put the pieces in the puzzle together. And his critical attitude is part of that, because when he questions things he does it partially in order to understand them better.

The question is, did Cone, dreikin, niffweed17 ever also state clearly that they see you as INTp? Niffweed17 seems, if anything, to oppose the idea. So it's not only Isha. Which INTp has said "I definitely could see Phaedrus as INTp?"

I don't know if any INTp has phrased it exactly like that. I think dreikin has come closest to that. We seemed to understand each other rather well in some threads about the function, for example. And he also had some good explanations for the fact that people misidentify me as an INTj. But the question how many INTps have stated that they see me as an INTp is irrelevant. It is simply obvious to me that I am very similar to both Cone and dreikin. And anyone who is trying to type us based on the things we have said about ourselves and how we relate to each other in our posts must come to the same conclusion, if that person is good at typing people by that method.

[Expat]

The main reason niffweed can't see that I am an INTp is probably that he doesn't understand the types as well as I do yet.

Shouldn't a sense of identity be easier than that?

One path -- you think you are INTp, you type him as INTp, then you say "we are identicals".

Another path -- you get a feeling of identity, then "we are the same type" and then you look at which type that is.

It seems that you shift back and forth between these two paths as it suits you. Regardless of niffweed17's and your types, his disagreement about the identity is already relevant in itself, if this kind of feeling is to be used as criteria.

I don't know if any INTp has phrased it exactly like that. I think dreikin has come closest to that. We seemed to understand each other rather well in some threads about the function, for example. And he also had some good explanations for the fact that people misidentify me as an INTj. But the question how many INTps have stated that they see me as an INTp is irrelevant.

So the "sense of identity" is only relevant when it's from your side.

[Phaedrus]

The main reason niffweed can't see that I am an INTp is probably that he doesn't understand the types as well as I do yet.

Shouldn't a sense of identity be easier than that?

I don't know. Maybe. My reasons for thinking that niffweed is an INTp is much more based on what he has said about himself than on some sense of similarity. But in one early thread about INTp descriptions his way of arguing was very similar to mine. We seemed to be focusing on almost the exact same things, and we seeem to very much agree in our conclusions. Nowadays he doesn't seem to want to discuss things with me anymore, and, as I have said before, in his attitudes I perceive him as similar to Rocky. But on the other hand, that is exactly what for example Smilingeyes has pointed out as a similarity between all three of us, so it is somewhat surprising that other people can't see that we are similar, even though I have realized that we are not as similar as Jonathan and I. Most people on this forum -- except you and some others -- have more trouble seeing me as intutive than as logical. That's probably why they think that I am an INTj. But then I don't understand why they don't think that I am more like niffweed than like Jonathan.

One path -- you think you are INTp, you type him as INTp, then you say "we are identicals".

Well, that's consequential, don't you think? If I am an INTp, and he is an INTp, we should be identicals. Nothing strange about that ...

Another path -- you get a feeling of identity, then "we are the same type" and then you look at which type that is.

Yes, but every time I have got that feeling of similarity I have already typed myself as an INTp. I would never base my typing of someone solely on my sense of identity with that person. It's just that I tend to get this feeling of similarity to persons that also fit many other criteria for being INTps. We get very similar test results, identify with the same type descriptions, etc.

It seems that you shift back and forth between these two paths as it suits you. Regardless of niffweed17's and your types, his disagreement about the identity is already relevant in itself, if this kind of feeling is to be used as criteria.

This kind of feeling is not to be used as criteria -- at least not by you. An outside observer should of course try to make a correct typing of us based on objective information, but if we both agree on the sense of similarity, as in Jonathan's and my case, that should at least count for something. It is an indication, but further proof is of course needed.

[crazymaisy]

The question is, did Cone, dreikin, niffweed17 ever also state clearly that they see you as INTp? Niffweed17 seems, if anything, to oppose the idea. So it's not only Isha. Which INTp has said "I definitely could see Phaedrus as INTp?"

I don't know if any INTp has phrased it exactly like that. I think dreikin has come closest to that. We seemed to understand each other rather well in some threads about the function, for example. And he also had some good explanations for the fact that people misidentify me as an INTj. But the question how many INTps have stated that they see me as an INTp is irrelevant. It is simply obvious to me that I am very similar to both Cone and dreikin. And anyone who is trying to type us based on the things we have said about ourselves and how we relate to each other in our posts must come to the same conclusion, if that person is good at typing people by that method.

I know I haven't phrased it exactly like that ... but I've clearly stated somewhere on this board, maybe more than once, that I think Phaedrus is indeed an INTp (and I haven't said it exactly THAT way either) -- and have always wondered at the phenom. surrounding Phaedrus' typing of himself ...

I haven't posted much overall, and had posts lost during that hubabaloo ... and can't find "where I said what" about it, it's either there or not, and I'm sure that someone will love to look into it to prove I said nothing much at all or am contradicting myself, which is WHY I haven't always posted when I had something to write.

(Yes, I am a victim :wink: )

Let this stand as my Official Endorsement of Phaedrus being seen as an INTp by an INTp.

[Phaedrus]

Yes, I forgot to mention you, craizymaisy, and I apologize for that. You have probably stated more clearly than anyone else on this forum that you see us as Identicals, and you have argued for it too. You pointed out how we both think in pictures, and we both agree that our thinking processes are very similar. I definitely have this sense of similarity towards you, and I don't think anyone on this forum has disputed the claim that you are an INTp. Instead they have put you on the list as a clear example of an INTp.

Thanks for your support, craizymaisy

[crazymaisy]

Yes, I forgot to mention you, craizymaisy, and I apologize for that. You have probably stated more clearly than anyone else on this forum that you see us as Identicals, and you have argued for it too. You pointed out how we both think in pictures, and we both agree that our thinking processes are very similar. I definitely have this sense of similarity towards you, and I don't think anyone on this forum has disputed the claim that you are an INTp. Instead they have put you on the list as a clear example of an INTp.

Thanks for your support, craizymaisy

Thank you too, and You are very welcome!

I have chuckled and LOL so much when I see myself on one of those "INTp lists" ... I have gotten away with murder somehow, it seems to me. :wink:

[Jonathan]

Phaedrus: do you think you could be an INTp who puts his energy toward INTj things? (like Einstein put his ENTp "inventor" talents toward scientific analysis?)

Yes, definitely -- except that I disagree with the claim that what I am interested in should be considered belonging to the INTj domain of "things". That is a flaw in the socionic INTj type descriptions (to a lesser degree that is relevant to the INTp descriptions) and the quadra descriptions. In fact, MBTT INTJ and INTP type descriptions give us a more correct picture of how INTjs and INTps are in real life when it comes to that particular aspect of what they are interested in putting their energy in. Due to the fact that Socionics attribute almost all these things to INTjs and very little, if anyhing, to INTps, you would get a much better picture of my interest profile if you read MBTT INTP descriptions.

This flaw in Socionics has been pointed out several times by Jonathan, and he is perfectly right about it.

Just to clarify...the problem that I have with Socionics in this issue is that sometimes Socionists seem to "shift" regarding whether the definitions of the functions are referring to the structural tendencies by which people think and process information, or whether they refer to the interest or motivation to be interested in certain areas (what I sometimes refer to as "content"). I'm not totally against the idea that a person's motivations in regard to subject matter interest may also cause that person to have certain characteristics of a type (and that type's intertype relations) on some level. Hence, I think Tcaud's idea of giving people more than one type...saying one is type X in one way and type Y in a different way or on a differently level, or according to a "different school of Soconics" has some merit. The challenge is to refine that idea to the point that it can actually be useful, and to verify that the appearance of dual- or triple- (etc.) typed people is real and not due to a misperception of type.

So, for example, let's take a rough stab at the "content" version of Socionics definitions. Some people's definitions of, say, T, or N, are roughly like this:
Ti is the motivation to have a rigorous understanding, to understand what is, and how and why things work
Ne is the motivation to come up with new ways of seeing things, to use divergent ideation, and to be creative in the intellectual sphere.
Ni is the motivation to have a conceptual view of things to be prepared for whatever may come up in the future.
Te is the motivation to know how to achieve goals
(I'm sure people will take issue with my wording; I'm just using these as examples; not as an ultimate statement on the functions.)

The point is, with these definitions, I would clearly identify with Ti/Ne, as I'm sure would Phaedrus...plus a number of people who have been typed by professional Socionists as Gamma NTs, such as Richard Feynman, Socrates, etc.

The "structural" version of Socionics has different definitions. Here's a rough take at what those might be:
Ti is the act of focusing on internally consistent rules or structures as a means of evaluating and deciding things, and ensuring that one's actions start from a solidly considered path of one's choosing.
Ne is the perception of opportunities regarding different paths or combinations and other ways that one might go about doing something
Ni is the formation of an imagination, conception, or story of the way things are or could be, that serves to guide one in the direction of promising paths.
Te is the formulation through data about the external world of a structural model that serves as a means to accomplish goals.

Now again, the point isn't the wording; I'm sure people will find plenty of problems with it; I'm just using these as rough examples.

Clearly, the two sets of definitions are similar and roughly parallel; but the emphasis is slightly different. It is possible, for example, to use Ni and Te as defined here in the service of Ti or Ne in the first set of definitions...or visa versa. The situation is complicated by the fact that Socionists have pointed out that quasi-identicals are often interested in similar things (in terms of content issues) and that the further definitions of accepting and creative functions make this more possible.

So, anyhow, perhaps something along the lines of Tcaud's thinking is plausible, perhaps even useful.

[krieger]

nm

[Jonathan]

nm

?

Is that related to M&Ms?

[Jonathan]

Just for fun, I would love to see Jonathan say that he's an INFp or INTj.

I've considered both. Some of my music sometimes sounds as if it were written by an IFp type, and I've had certain periods of time when I felt more "F." However, I'm more likely to "say the wrong thing" to an INFp than to an INTp.

I do see Phaedrus as similar to others that I feel an "identity" relation with. These types of people (likes to talk about intellectual topics, prefers a Socratic or formal-logic approach to challenging or defending points, focuses on establishing agreement over methods, flexible about specific positions) seem to be INTp according to what I regard as the "main" school of Socionics, but may also be TiNe according to other reasonable interpretations/definitions.

Anyhow, I'm not likely to make a definitive or simple statement of my type anytime soon, partly because I continue to believe that there is not one perfectly unified, satisfactory set of definitions of the functions, and partly because I believe I'm a particularly difficult case to type in a simple 16-type way. It may seem strange because I've thought about typology for decades; yet although it seems so easy to type people I meet, it is really hard for me to be objective about myself, at least in the sense of fitting myself into what seems like such a confining system. I can highly identify with people who aren't even in the same quadra, and can feel "dual-like" relations with people who are in opposing quadras.

Somehow, it's easier for me to think of types (as well as functions) as something one uses, rather than something one "is." It seems actually kind of weird that people are so obsessed about "being" this or that type. Yet on the other hand, I have the same inclination because I know I come off to others in some specific way; I certainly don't seem like every type, and may have a fair amount of trouble convincingly and consistently acting like some of the types. Nevertheless, I always prefer thinking of type as something that exists outside me, rather than something that one "is."

@Expat...By the way: You clearly disagree with Phaedrus's analysis of a number of issues. But I wasn't totally sure...what type do you think he is?...Do you have any firm position on that? ....here I'm getting back to "is" again....Just curious though.

[Expat]

Anyhow, I'm not likely to make a definitive or simple statement of my type anytime soon, partly because I continue to believe that there is not one perfectly unified, satisfactory set of definitions of the functions, and partly because I believe I'm a particularly difficult case to type in a simple 16-type way. It may seem strange because I've thought about typology for decades; yet although it seems so easy to type people I meet, it is really hard for me to be objective about myself, at least in the sense of fitting myself into what seems like such a confining system. I can highly identify with people who aren't even in the same quadra, and can feel "dual-like" relations with people who are in opposing quadras.

My inclination is to be really, really skeptical of people claiming to be able to type others accurately whilst not able to decide on one type for themselves. But I have seen this happening elsewhere and I start to see a pattern.

Still -- if you do understand the quadras and types, and above all understand why so apparently different types such as, say, INTj and ESFj should be duals, then you must also understand what makes each quadra "tick" and where you'd fit best or worst. That's why I'm skeptical.

Somehow, it's easier for me to think of types (as well as functions) as something one uses, rather than something one "is." It seems actually kind of weird that people are so obsessed about "being" this or that type. Yet on the other hand, I have the same inclination because I know I come off to others in some specific way; I certainly don't seem like every type, and may have a fair amount of trouble convincingly and consistently acting like some of the types. Nevertheless, I always prefer thinking of type as something that exists outside me, rather than something that one "is."

It reminds me of XoX's "inner chameleon" thingy.

@Expat...By the way: You clearly disagree with Phaedrus's analysis of a number of issues. But I wasn't totally sure...what type do you think he is?...Do you have any firm position on that? ....here I'm getting back to "is" again....Just curious though.

The problem is that at this point it's impossible to know which information to take at face value.

So I have no "firm position" on that. If I were to bet, and if the bet could somehow be settled, I would bet some money on both of you being INFps.

[Subteigh]

Hmm.. this is interesting. Despite what's been said about the INTps believing that the future is predetermined and thus unchangeable, whilst INTjs believe they can change the universe as they see fit

I'll have to very much disagree with this. From my observations and understanding of INTx types, INTjs are far more likely to believe they cannot control what happens to them, that they are at the mercy of their circumstances, etc.

I think the prime concern of INTjs is their local environment, but they become depressed if situations don't go their way (lack of , desire of ) - so they operate at this level, but are also susceptible to apathy when minor things go wrong. Because an INTj believes they are in control of their life + destiny, they become depressed when their actions lead to the wrong results. INTjs see things as changeable, but if they are in the wrong environment, they lose hope. INTps only (I say 'only' :wink: ) lose hope in daily interactions with people etc., because they seem so trivial. I think INTps are happy to be carrying out the will of the universe to a certain extent, they just want to get over the day to day trivialities (possibly?).

I think INTjs regard themselves as having one Self, which directs their quest(s) (as UDP might call it ) in life - they may follow many paths, but they are all directed by the Self, so their life appears to be a single, significant journey.

INTps seem to have many Selfs, in many time dimensions - their life is already determined, there is only one quest, not many, but they see life as a series of landscapes (one landscape in each time zone - I'm not sure if this is a vague time period, or if INTps 'know' the time period, or whether they see an order to this landscapes - e.g. by priority or time, but I'm just speculating ).

So, to an INTj, the Self is something which drives their goals in life, whereas to an INTp, the Self is a tool in order to complete their goals.

(I've been vague in places, and I've guessed some stuff too - so if I don't get away with it, I'll come back and make something else up :wink: - though I'm interested on what INTps might think - I have trouble picturing how they see themselves in relation to time + the universe, I only have a notion).

[tcaudilllg]

[/quote]
INTps seem to have many Selfs, in many time dimensions - their life is already determined, there is only one quest, not many, but they see life as a series of landscapes (one landscape in each time zone - I'm not sure if this is a vague time period, or if INTps 'know' the time period, or whether they see an order to this landscapes - e.g. by priority or time, but I'm just speculating ). [/quote]

This sounds like evolving ( exertion): successive progression of structure, a structure that is transient and malleable over time.

I don't think INTps see an order in time; time is what it is. However, they can see rules for the progression of events via transcendental .

[Jonathan]

My inclination is to be really, really skeptical of people claiming to be able to type others accurately whilst not able to decide on one type for themselves. But I have seen this happening elsewhere and I start to see a pattern.

I understand your skepticism, but the issue with me and some of the other "harder to pin down" people isn't a matter of understanding the basic theory or duality, but rather a tendency of some people to shift around or take part in very different kinds of groups. There are people who seem to use the two ego block functions fairly consistently (and are thus pretty easy to type), and then there are others who are more diverse.

You have to admit, some people are easier to type than others.

Still -- if you do understand the quadras and types, and above all understand why so apparently different types such as, say, INTj and ESFj should be duals, then you must also understand what makes each quadra "tick" and where you'd fit best or worst. That's why I'm skeptical.

I don't buy the implication that everyone who changes their views about their type or who sees greater gradations of complexity must therefore not understand the dynamics of duals.

It reminds me of XoX's "inner chameleon" thingy.

I'm not sure what XoX means by it, but I do notice that the opposite function of whatever person I'm talking too often gets stimulated in a positive way. This is why more than one type of person seems dual.

So I have no "firm position" on that. If I were to bet, and if the bet could somehow be settled, I would bet some money on both of you being INFps.

Not a bad guess (for myself; I can't speak for Phaedrus). At the very least, I have an INFp side to me. Sometimes I see myself as a Ti type who's Ip, which would be by definition a kind of INFp. But I don't think that's the whole story. The classical types are too simplistic.

[crazymaisy]

So I have no "firm position" on that. If I were to bet, and if the bet could somehow be settled, I would bet some money on both of you being INFps.

Not a bad guess (for myself; I can't speak for Phaedrus). At the very least, I have an INFp side to me. Sometimes I see myself as a Ti type who's Ip, which would be by definition a kind of INFp. But I don't think that's the whole story. The classical types are too simplistic.

Jonathan -- I think that you do NEED to see the classical types as "simplistic" and that's the thing: just a "base" of what you are. WHO you are isn't what your type is, per se, but your type is what you are, in the way of a structure that the building is based on ... the framework basically being INTp and then the actual finished parts of the building being WHO you are.

I do believe that Phaedrus is an INTp as he says he is (and has stated that and this in this thread along with me) and that I am very much like that too, I am an INTp, and both Phaedrus and I identify with being INTp with Ni subtype ... but let me surely state here that it's just the basicness of us and doesn't say everything about us. I don't really know any of y'all, but I do know me and that's a point about being an INTp, to accept it I feel that I had to come to a place of understanding it's just a framework -- not "everything about me" FWIW.

I can surely identify with ISTp to some degree for me, as well as INFp ... and that's just it, both are neighbors to me in some degree, and a type isn't made of stone, but is organic, isn't it? I do see it that way. It's real, living, organic, just as we are.

So the basic way of putting all people into one of 16 types is just a basic framework sort of thing, and doesn't speak of EVERYTHING about anyone for sure.

Look at Braintyping as one way to understand that "basic" categorical-ness ... it is such a limiting thing if one considers it as "all that they are" but it's freedom and understanding to see it as a basic framework that is one's underlying structure, and that's why 'behaviour' isn't entirely reliable for typing, but can aide one in seeing their underlying basic structure if they are able to see through the mush of their life

[Jarno]

some hints for jonathan.

1) i've met 2 INTP's that said they sometimes had INFP as a result.
They both were Intuitive subtypes. So no clear T.

2) If you like to watch the behaviour of people this doens't mean your an INFP. INTP like to watch behaviour of people like some kind of experiment, like they see people as organisms. An INFP would watch the behaviour to make a connection with them, to help them.

3) some lines in your posts remind me of my own writing style. I had this feeling also in posts of Iffy.
And that is an INTP for sure.

My (wild) guess would be that you're an INTP intuitive subtype.

in any case good luck with finding your type.

[Expat]

I understand your skepticism, but the issue with me and some of the other "harder to pin down" people isn't a matter of understanding the basic theory or duality, but rather a tendency of some people to shift around or take part in very different kinds of groups. There are people who seem to use the two ego block functions fairly consistently (and are thus pretty easy to type), and then there are others who are more diverse.

You have to admit, some people are easier to type than others.

Some people are easier to type than others. That's not the same thing as someone claiming to type others accurately, but not able to type themselves. At the very least, they should be able to explain why -- and beyond "I relate to that and that description" and "I get along equally well with XXXx and YYYy". That's not good enough.

I don't buy the implication that everyone who changes their views about their type or who sees greater gradations of complexity must therefore not understand the dynamics of duals.

I don't buy the nonsense that somebody who does understand how the relationships work - beyond reading the descriptions - can't at least explain how and why they supposedly get equally well with opposing quadras.

The thing is, that goes against the Socionics model. Now, it's perfectly legitimate to say that you don't think the model really works, of course. But if you can't explain how and why it doesn't work, beyond saying "it doesn't work for me", or "life is more complex that that" etc, I have to conclude that you don't even understand it well enough to really explain how you reached the conclusion that it doesn't work.

I'm not sure what XoX means by it, but I do notice that the opposite function of whatever person I'm talking too often gets stimulated in a positive way. This is why more than one type of person seems dual.

Perhaps you could give a description of some concrete examples of that.

But I don't think that's the whole story. The classical types are too simplistic.

Of course they are simplistic, but at least you should explain then more or less where you fit or not.

For instance, you just said that you see yourself as a Ti IP. That would be either INFp or ISFp. Now, let's get into this. If you are really most persuaded that you have an IP temperament and that you are Ti>Te, then, you are an INFp or ISFp. If you generally identify more with intuition than sensing generally, you'd be an INFp.

Ok, but then, say, you don't identify with a lot of the INFp descriptions, nor do you feel that ESTps should be your duals. Then we have to examine all those in detail. Perhaps you haven't typed ESTps properly. Or perhaps you are INTj and you just think that you have an IP rather than IJ temperament. Perhaps you are INTp and you just mixed up Te and Ti.

Or perhaps, indeed, the whole model didn't work for you. Perhaps the whole thing is nonsense.

However, before just saying "it doesn't work for me", it is just fair to see whether the flaw is not somewhere else. And perhaps that can't be discovered. Perhaps it won't be decided whether those ESTps are correctly typed or not, or whether IJ or IP is your temperament. But at least, in the process, we will have learned something.

[Expat]

INTP like to watch behaviour of people like some kind of experiment, like they see people as organisms. An INFP would watch the behaviour to make a connection with them, to help them.

To say that an INTp does not relate to people as people is total nonsense, you know.

[Phaedrus]

INTP like to watch behaviour of people like some kind of experiment, like they see people as organisms. An INFP would watch the behaviour to make a connection with them, to help them.

To say that an INTp does not relate to people as people is total nonsense, you know.

No, it's not nonsense. Jarno is right about what he says here. As an INTp myself I understand perfectly well what he is talking about. And it is exactly when it comes to this aspect that I think that you don't understand XoX, Expat. Because XoX also seem to think of people in this way based on the things he said about "team spirit".

[KSpin]

I sometimes wonder if everyone else is real, or just made up, sort of like robots. How can I tell that they're real?

[crazymaisy]

I see "people" as things.

One example: Like when I'm in a moving vehicle, not driving, just looking out the window, going along I see someone walking on a sidewalk the opposite direction I look at that and wonder 'Is that a "me" ... ?" since I'm told that there are other beings that are "people" but it's just so strange to try and consider that as true ... in such a case as that sort of "people watching" (as well as other venues of people watching.)

I also watch birds, and watch trees, plants and cats and dogs and bugs. People are just another organism (though I know that the ones close to me, a.k.a. My Family --the beings that live with me, are real people like I am.)

[Jonathan]

Some people are easier to type than others. That's not the same thing as someone claiming to type others accurately, but not able to type themselves. At the very least, they should be able to explain why -- and beyond "I relate to that and that description" and "I get along equally well with XXXx and YYYy". That's not good enough.

...

I don't buy the nonsense that somebody who does understand how the relationships work - beyond reading the descriptions - can't at least explain how and why they supposedly get equally well with opposing quadras.

I like to come to the forums and sometimes make comments, but your responses suggest investing a lot more time than is really realistic. I prefer to put most of my typology-related ideas into privates notes for myself rather than share everything in the forum at length. To explain myself much more fully than I do would just not make any sense time-wise, but I still think I've made useful and thoughtful contributions to the forum discussion.

At any rate, your responses suggest that I create the impression of having no clue about my type. That's not true. I just don't see the point of having to commit to or defend any type. Okay, we can say INTp Ni subtype as a working hypothesis...there. But as I said, there are times that I feel INFp, or other types. Perhaps later I can write a post and describe what it's like to feel a shift from one perceptual framework to another. I get the idea that you always feel more or less like one sort of person, and your posts also reflect a certain consistency. The idea of constant shifting probably makes no sense to you, perhaps because you haven't experienced it.

[Logos]

I sometimes wonder if everyone else is real, or just made up, sort of like robots. How can I tell that they're real?

Why does it matter?

[KSpin]

It was a rhetorical question... and it was meant as a reply to the general theme of the posts above it.