INTj or INTp?

[MysticSonic]

This is the sort of vagary I have come to disdain within the Socionics system. You may hear one thing about a sort of type within one instance, yet here the exact inverse of the what was previously mentioned. This sort of fluidity and lack of structure in the system is is derrogatory to the objectivity of the system and further research done upon it. Pyschology that has not been tested and verified multiple times tends to have a sort of entropy affect on the research, pulling it farther and farther away from reality. Justification of such nonsense is apprehensible and should not be tolerated to no degree.

[pax]

Any case in which you can become a victim but you do it anyway is a victimness behaviour. Sky diving, street racing, rock climbing, any extremal sport are big examples. Well. Ok. It can be named as 'riskiness'. Just keep in mind that Russian Socionics is using word 'victimness' (it sounds like 'victimnost' in Russian).

How does Ni result in a desire for extreme sports? Socionics descriptions make no mention of such a desire.

Any base function activity ejects a diametrically opposed function from consciousness. The Se is diametrically apposed function for the Ni. So if Ni is a base function, Se can be received only from outside. Otherwise lack of suggestion (Se is suggestive function for INTp) results in permanent depression, alcoholism, etc

Base Ni is such point of view on the reality. INTp looks around through a prism of Ni. What is visible through Ni? Others call it 'spiritual things', INTp calls it 'the reality', but only Socionics calls it 'intuitive structure'.

How can you spot this, from the outside (looking at the INTp) and while actually being the INTp?

If you are adept in practice of meditation you know what is a Ni look. Only imagine that a meditation is your natural look at the reality.

Friendship in example.
If there is an ESFp around there is no need of a riskiness for INTp.

If the INTp has an ESFp dual close to him, will he:
a) Seek no more friends?
b) Have no more need to go to risky places?
c) Both of the above?

ESFp is very sociable type with sudden behavior. So if ESFp around, there is no lack of friends and risky (or at least unexpected) situations.

[Tanzhe]

Pax, what is your type?

Any base function activity ejects a diametrically opposed function from consciousness. The Se is diametrically apposed function for the Ni. So if Ni is a base function, Se can be received only from outside. Otherwise lack of suggestion (Se is suggestive function for INTp) results in permanent depression, alcoholism, etc

How can one have 'suggestion'? And what is the suggestive function's manifestation for an INTj (remember, this is an 'INTj or INTp' post)

If you are adept in practice of meditation you know what is a Ni look. Only imagine that a meditation is your natural look at the reality.

What exactly do you mean? Meditation has no 'natural look.'

[pax]

Pax, what is your type?

INTj

If you are adept in practice of meditation you know what is a Ni look. Only imagine that a meditation is your natural look at the reality.

What exactly do you mean? Meditation has no 'natural look.'

I mean that even if a meditation skill may be acquired for others, it is a natural skill for INTp (and INFp). Only imagine that a meditation is your own look at the reality.

Any base function activity ejects a diametrically opposed function from consciousness. The Se is diametrically apposed function for the Ni. So if Ni is a base function, Se can be received only from outside. Otherwise lack of suggestion (Se is suggestive function for INTp) results in permanent depression, alcoholism, etc

How can one have 'suggestion'? And what is the suggestive function's manifestation for an INTj (remember, this is an 'INTj or INTp' post)

In INTp case. If you have a meditative look at the reality, you may easy forget about hardness or softness of objects. So just a pat on the back means more than words of argeement.

In INTj case. If you have an analitical look at the reality, you may easy forget about emotions. So any positive exclamation ("Wow! This is a very cool!") means more than words of agreement. Any kind of emotional attitude suggests INTj.

That is one from differences between INTj and INTp. Physical reaction is good for INTp but terrible for INTj. Emotional attitude is good for INTj but terrible for INTp.

[Tanzhe]

Pax - sometimes I have difficulty in understanding you. So you may be my Quasi-Identical. Since you are an INTj, that would place me at INTp.

But, just to be sure, is English your first language?

[Creepy-]

Pax - sometimes I have difficulty in understanding you. So you may be my Quasi-Identical. Since you are an INTj, that would place me at INTp.

But, just to be sure, is English your first language?

English isn't my first language (not even second). 8) Surely, when you can't understand me, it's my fault. :roll:

[Tanzhe]

How assertive is The Analyst?
How assertive is The Critic?
How cold is The Critic?
How cold is The Analyst?

[Tanzhe]

What's PDA?

And what is the difference between sharing and showing emotions? What type does which?

[Tanzhe]

So The Analyst would be able to speak about their emotions that they have for another person, albeit with some hesitation at first. However, The Analyst is awkward when it comes to physically displaying emotion in such ways as hugging or holding hands.
The Critic would be able to physically show emotion with less awkwardness but would be very uncomfortable when it comes to talking about whether they love you, especially in the presence of others.


How can you tell which is which? For example, in my case, I only express my emotional observations with whom I feel absolutely comfortable with. In this sense, I am 'lyrical.' I can physically display emotion but I am reluctant to do so; however, I do not know how I would physically display love because I have not loved.



'Coldness' is a difficult concept to define. Generally, however, I can group coldness into two types of people:
The first group is one in which coldness manifests itself as arrogance. They appear haughty and disregard rules. They do not open letters, because they see no need to. They project an aura of intention and confidence, meaning that they seem to be the ones who can handle anything. This is 'hard' coldness.
The second group is one in which coldness manifests itself as impassiveness and little expression. They are quiet, but pleasant to be with, but not expressive and quite lukewarm. These people have less stiff upper lip an arrogance than the first group, but they can sometimes be unaware of how they carry themselves and how hard they phrase their words.

[Tanzhe]

By the way, the second group has 'soft coldness.'

I think that I belong to the second group - what group do you think that is according to Socionics?

[MysticSonic]

I'd more or less say that "soft coldness" would be a trait of INFs, but I would expect sensory introverted thinkers to be more assertive and "haughty" then introverted intuitive thinkers, due to their prominent sensing functions, especially the ISTj, with volitional sensing at it's disposal as his secondary functions. That is, with your grouping in mind, that would make INTjs and INTps both "hard" and "soft", thus one would obviously have to mingle the traits into one another.

[Creepy-test]

test

[metaiwan]

Please continue the topic here...the last topic got corrupted apparently...


Pedro-The-Lion



Joined: 04 Dec 2004
Posts: 67
Location: California

PostPosted: Tue Dec 28, 2004 11:58 am Post subject: Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post View IP address of poster
Whichever one is your POLR will cause "ennervations" (a term which implies a physical response so acute that the individual has a physical reaction) like facial ticks, twitching, tears, hysterics, momentary inability to respond. Pressure on something that is not weak but not POLR will cause avoidance reactions like changing the conversation, suddenly "remembering" to need to be somewhere else, making a joke, philosophizing the issue, losing interest in the conversation, ect.

Coldness has to do with introversion.
Hard coldness with being emotionless (weak F).
Soft coldness with "not being present" (strong N).

Hard coldness- I T.
Soft- I N.

So you could be INTJ, INTP, INFJ, INFP. Not that that helps you much.
_________________
Pedro the Lion Samples. Gotta love independent music Smile Free Legal PTL Downloads.
Enjoy!
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail
MysticSonic



Joined: 13 Sep 2004
Posts: 123
Location: USA

PostPosted: Wed Dec 29, 2004 1:25 am Post subject: Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post View IP address of poster
I'd more or less say that "soft coldness" would be a trait of INFs, but I would expect sensory introverted thinkers to be more assertive and "haughty" then introverted intuitive thinkers, due to their prominent sensing functions, especially the ISTj, with volitional sensing at it's disposal as his secondary functions. That is, with your grouping in mind, that would make INTjs and INTps both "hard" and "soft", thus one would obviously have to mingle the traits into one another.

[Tanzhe]

Pedro, can you give me examples of Fe and Se situations. Perhaps I'll be able to see which one usually causes enervations and which one causes avioidance reactions.

Usually my avoidance reactions come when an awkward, personal question is asked - perhaps this is Se?

[Tanzhe]

Is there a way to determine type (INTJ or INTP) by finding out which function is your 3rd and 4th?

If so, just ask me some questions to find out. I'll post my answers, and then you can tell me after I've posted my thoughts what my answers indicate.

[discourse]

Pedro-The-Lion, an interestind thing is, that being with ESTp, we start to argue about who's right. It's a fight who controlls who. And then we start to talk about some stuff where ESTp uses Ti and we are good boddies. That's why I think, no matter how impossible it sounds, that I might be ENTp.

I didn't want to make new topic. I wanted to say ,that if the woman is T (NT or ST), then she is not logical subtype usually. If the man is F (SF or NF) ,then that man wants to develope his T. My ESFj buddy has very strong Te. And i have met women who are Ts and they are all intuitive subtypes. I think that it can't be mare coincidence. Sociaty wants women to be emotional and men to be soberminded. After all, 60%men are Logical types and 60% women are Ethical types. That's why women don't show so much their T and men their F. The moreover makes the rules.

[science as magic]

@Tanzhe: I'm no good at remote typing. As is evidenced by Kaido21/Male21.

@Kaido: I don't believe in subtypes.

[discourse]

I also wouldn't believe into subtypes, if Sergei Ganin or Gulenco, who are smarter than us, wouldn't work with it.

[Tanzhe]

@Tanzhe: I'm no good at remote typing. As is evidenced by Kaido21/Male21.

Firstly, I was addressing not just you when I posted.
Secondly, I'm asking for questions, not remote typing. In other words, I do the work of examining myself whilst you (you meaning all who post here) provide the data.

[science as magic]

who says they're smarter than us? subtypes make no sense because this next sentence is self-contradictory: I am using a function other than my primary function as my primary function. If you use something as your primary function THAT DETERMINES YOUR TYPE! To say someone is an INTJ with an Intuitive subtype means that they are an ENTP because if Ne is their main function and Ti (pushed down from the "INTJ" part) is their secondary then THEY ARE ENTP! What would make sense would be type metamorphosis but not subtypes. I guess you could have subtypes if you created new categories for them to fall in Like this Switzl is a function that would take what would normally be an introvert and transform them into an extravert

[MysticSonic]

But don't hidden agenda oriented masktypes use their 6th function "as their primary function"?

[Creepy-meistaiwan]

I thought the 3rd function was the function that caused the problems in mask types(I am what I think I should be not what I am).
I don't think subtypes are really useful or valid but for a slightly different reason...An introvert can put themselves in a situation where they have to use an extraverted function(say a Percieving, changing situation or around P types, around alot of people in general, no alone time), and vice versa. So it wouldn't be people using their secondary function 'as' their first function, it was just be a more developed secondary function than usual..

[science as magic]

I would agree with that analysis but as I understand it subtypes are used all the time and their differentiation is equal to that of their primary function which if possible would be extremely rare. I'm not saying you can't use other functions than your primary and secondary but, when you do you will act as a person of that type would vis a vis a more infantile expression of what that type is capable of. Also, I would say once you develop a type it would be incredibly hard to change it permanently and doing so may be a cause of insanity.

[MysticSonic]

I assumed the general basis for being able to use the secondary function not as mask-type but as a sub-type was related to how well we use it, as if it would hinder psychological health, it would be considered a "mask-type", would it not?

[Tanzhe]

Can we keep this threat on-topic, please?

I don't mean that in a patronising tone, just try to stay on-topic. If you want, start another post discussing subtypes.

[Tanzhe]

Now, I started the original post because I wanted to clarify my type. So, since I want to get an answer, here are some of my observed behaviours:

1. Do you feel bad about yourself if you're not in a relationship with someone, and yet find it difficult to create relationships and when you do, often discover after the fact that they were detrimental to your well being?

2. Do you feel bad about yourself if you're not healthy, and yet never want to go to the doctor, or actively take care of yourself (forgetting to eat, not sleeping, never exercising)?

Answers:
1. I think that I may feel bad about myself. I have not really had any relationships with people to compare the feelings to. But I do find it difficult to create relationships - or, more correctly, I find it difficult to find the will to create relationships and, when I do, the relationships must be ‘natural.’ If I force myself, I cannot form them. I do also find relationships to be somewhat detrimental.
2. I do feel bad when I am not healthy, but I do take good care of myself - I exercise a lot, I eat (usually) and sleep (usually).


I am not very expressive. My speech is a little monotonous.

Sometimes I have difficulty concerning psychological distance. I sometimes don't know how to proceed with relationships. This would indicate weak F. However, I don't necessarily feel bad when people criticise me about this quality, although I really wish they'd just be more accepting that there are other types of people in this world other than themselves. Sometimes, I even feel proud about this quality of coldness (although I probably shouldn't) - for example, I may watch a movie that has a very calm/cold character in it, and I feel attracted to that character. I think I even (completely involuntarily) owe some of my mannerisms to these characters, even though I have made no attempt to copy them.

My balance between T and F is difficult to define. As I've said, I have difficulty in maintaining a steady psychological distance. I get annoyed when people try to be friends with me when I don't want to be friends with them. I also get annoyed when people think that I want to make conversation, just because either a) I'm polite (ie. smile and laugh in the right places) or b) I made conversation yesterday. I also get really annoyed when people ask me very personal questions, especially questions about sexual or of a sexual nature.

But, at the same time, I am pleasant to be with (I think). Just HOW arrogant, cold, critical and aloof I am is difficult to say because I'd need a completely unbiased observer whom I would trust. But I think I am sufficiently cold, arrogant, critical and aloof to be somewhat unapproachable. I don't know how others see me.

I am sensitive. I feel bad about myself if I hurt someone that I am very close to (particularly if I hurt them physically). If 'sensitive' means able to empathise (ie. judge what others feel, not actually experience the same emotions as them) and able to observe your own emotions well, then I am sensitive.

I do have a sharp sense of justice.

I get annoyed when people make much bigger issues out of things that they need be. If I, for example, were to have a really bad hair day, I would feel terribly self-conscious (as long as I wasn't thinking about something) because I would be expecting some smart aleck to make a snide comment about my hair. I can remember taking the bus back from school, and the driver accidentally closed the door just before I got off and a person from the back (who I was on strictly neutral terms with) said, "It's OK Tanzhe, I'm here to hold your hand!" A bully's sneering remark I know, but making deals out of that, and smaller things like wiping something off the board, just really gets to me or makes me feel bad about life. I also feel somewhat angry if people tell me to get a social life and try to advise me on how to be 'more normal' - because that isn't important to me.

I don't know whether I try to 'hide' my emotions or whether I do it naturally. Perhaps the truth is that I hide my emotions but hide them too much so that it either becomes instinctive or I appear cold instead of calm.

What I really hate about myself sometimes is that I go red easily. I don't like it, probably because it reveals emotion and shows people what pushes buttons in me. Snide comments and personal questions being said/asked by people who I don't trust usually turn me red - but perhaps they are just joking, trying to belittle me into thinking that I am embarrassed.

I am also quite critical and set high standards. I can usually name two or three things wrong with a theory straight away, though it does depend.

I am quite strong with my convictions, and can be inflexible if I see that what the opposition are trying to say is fundamentally flawed or immature.

I have a need for clear, applicable methods to problems and clear-cut, direct answers (with both the methods and the answers being immediate).


I know that this is a little long, but I just thought I'd tell you now as well as providing a subject for the post to continue on.

[discourse]

Well, I have to post something now. I think that subtypes are permanent, if not we don't grow in our life time from one type to another, when we develope our second function. But in that case shouldn't we talk about type evolution stages?

First and second function belong to our EGO block and they are easily used by concious. It is our lead block. So i think that prefering second function over the first one means that how much do you demonstrate your creative function. But your type is still your type, INTj is still INTj. The thing is that you can't use your second f as a first one, because it is not your programm function. Second f is your show offing creative f. It ends tasks (can we even see it in use, it does everithing automaically, doesn't it?), as S. Ganin sayd that your programm function takes the clay and your second makes it into a pottery. INTj intuitive just shows more Ne.

I really don't like to argue on that. I know too little. But i do think that the subtypes idea came because socionists marked that some types, f.e ENTPs, one ENTP is very intuitive and irrational and the second one is balanced and quiet. So there could be two types of ENTPs to see and they thought they can explain it by preffering creative function longer time over the programm function is the answer.

And now let's go back to the main theme.

[Tanzhe]

(continued from my last post) I also have a problem concerning my approaches to people. I sometimes have a habit of making my words sound hard, or being too blunt, or sounding too confrontational.

Furthermore, I sometimes whine - I just make a minor point big in order to vent my feelings. If someone presents a solution that requires me to put in some effort, I want to find weaknesses in it and attack them purely so that I can continue to moan. I find it hard to say, "Yes, good idea, I'll try it."

[discourse]

Female ISFJs and ESFPs are the biggest slanders of all types. Their fave past time activity is discussion on how badly or immoraly someone acted. My satanic mother does it all the time in any place. So INTp or ENTj would subconciously be interested in womens tattle.

[Tanzhe]

Perhaps someone would like to judge what my type may be from my posts concerning my behaviour. I would like some feedback and exchange of questions and ideas. I will try to answer truthfully and honesty and without bias.

[metaiwan]

Tanzhe:
If theres one thing I do know for sure in Socionics it's my own type, and that's INTJ.
All of your posts make a whole lot of sense to me, in fact a lot of the time you'll say exactly what I would have said which leave me with nothing to say myself. I usually have nothing to add or correct to your posts. So I would say that you are very likely INTJ in my opinion.

[Tanzhe]

I'd prefer to look at my behaviour more than what I say over the forums. There are some types who are very good at explaining things, especially logical types. So I'd prefer just to stick to how my psyche is structured.

[Tanzhe]

I think that I express myself in a different way on the computer than I do in real life. On the computer, I condense my sentences, making them more logical.

If you read translated books, they are simple English. On the computer, that is what I aim for - simple English. I think in real life I am not that logical with my speech - however, perhaps I am more logical than I think I am but I just do not see it. I will try to clarify this with other people. The trouble with such clarification, however, would be that some people would understand me more than others (ie. my dual would understand me very well).

I have also tried to clarify the type of one person I know who is almost certainly my dual (we exhibit classic signs of duality, I think). He has taken an interest in Socionics and took the Type Assistant - he got ESFx, conscious J unconscious P.

Another question - the Reinin dichotomies. I know that they are supposed to be used in conversation with someone to quickly narrow their type down, but how reliable are these dichotomies?

Added to answering these points raised, what are your thoughts on my behaviour as manifestations of my psyche? I must stress that I really want to get to the bottom of my type, I am only interested in the structuring of the psyche and not things such as VI. I also would like to focus more on the basics; that is to say, I want solid, reliable but practical and accurate methods of Type ID that will leave me in no doubt about my type.

[discourse]

Tanchze, one thing I've noteiced, is that INTj are always using facts when they talk ( I am not shure who I am, but the description of INTj on socionics.com fits me quite good,but STA sayd that my subconcious is P etc ) No offence! And you sound just like one of them. MysticSonic, he says he is INTp, doesn't use a lot of factual material in his speech. I don't think that this manner of speach is learnable. I think that how type talks, is inborn perhaps and it doesn't change in our life time. I think that there are sociolects in langauges. So aniways, I think that you are INTj. Wanna do poll for that?

And I have seen Quasi Identical Relations, I know married couple. They fight a lot. Thoug relations between the sexes are different from the relations with same sex people, I think that no matter who you are and where you're from, in QIR you start to argue cause you are not saddisfied by your partner, you feel yourself smarter than he or she is.

[Tanzhe]

Trying to recognise a type by how much detail they use seems a little foggy and wooly. I also cannot see how an INTp cannot be precise because they have Te which is based more on facts whilst Ti is based more on theory.

And remember, we are not sure of MysticSonic's type yet.

[metaiwan]

Based on your behavior, I have no idea what type you are...I don't know you. I only see your posts on the forums, that's all I can go on.

I've never been able to verify reinin's dichotomies, they don't seem reliable to me. I don't know if this is my problem or if they are bunk. They make sense though.

I've noticed that I sometimes have problems reading stuff by INTPs, and I think that Tolkien is an INTP. Consider that Gandolf in his books is almost stereotypical INTP. I can't read the Hobbit, it's just about impossible, because it's so literal and discriptive. I can't get past about 10 pages or so before I just give up.
Now Heinlen on the other hand is extremely easy to read, I think he's probably got in there somewhere, if not outright INTj.

My problem with recognizing INTPs between INTJs is that the INTPs I've met have more differences than I've seen between people of the same type. I can't classify these people as anything besides INTPs, but their 'core' personality and reactions are so different...I don't understand the thinking processes of INTps enough to have too much confidence telling them apart...

[Tanzhe]

I've read The Lord of the Rings all the way through. I think that I liked and understood it well - though that was nearly two years ago.

[Tanzhe]

I think we should take into accoud that Tolkein uses 'old' English and is therefore perhaps a little harder to understand .

[Tanzhe]

By 'behaviour', I mean the behaviours and habits that I have specified in my posts earlier in this topic.

Any thoughts - CuriousSoul, I would be especially interested in your views, because you seem to be able to present accurate ideas of my types backed up with solid theory.

[Tanzhe]

More behaviours:

I have a lack of self-esteem.
I am pleasant to be with but occasionally I appear sad and even grumpy.
I have a tendency to dwell on minor, trivial issues and irritations that happen and magnify them so that they become much more prominent than they actually are; this, combined with an attention to detail, causes me to lose sight of the bigger picture.
I have a tendency to dwell on the past and what could be.
I am a perfectionist.
I easily find problems and flaws with something which can make me difficult to advise.
I am logical but compassionate/sensitive.

Should I start a dedicated post in the 'What's My Type' forum?