:Ni: as the Function of Sequence

[tcaudilllg]

After a lot of research, I've come to the conclusion that is, completely the function of sequential appreception. Not surprisingly, this is related to the peculiarly sequence-related talents of individuals who possess as base.

appears in two forms, information metabolism and information exertion. The metabolism form ( as master, or determinant) always devotes itself to the perception of exertion at points in a definite sequence. This can be used either to remember how a function behaved at a point in time (by using to apprehend sequences of events that have happened or are happening), or to determine how it might behave in the future given that it follows a definite formula.

Sequence, by its nature, avoids timelessness. (Jonathan made a point about this) It avoids the consequential and the endurant: sequence does not imply consequence, only progression. The sequence continues on as it must because that is simply the way it progresses; there is no other justification necessary for its existence. Indeed, it does not even imply existence, because it is only progression of action without apprehension of its meaning, or even of its subjective persistence. It is natural, therefore, for and to be relegated to the subconscious by , due to their depreciation of the appreception of sequential progression for its own sake.

By perceiving as the appreception of sequential progression, we are allowed to solve for ourselves any mysteries regarding the talents of either or dominant individuals. Alone among all the types are the INTps in suggesting that mathematics is beautiful: through the lense of sequential progression we see why. What is a formula other than a sequential progression? First do this... then this... then this.... Certainly it is structured, but once structured one only needs to repeat its sequence. For that matter, why not further sequentialize mathematics by assigning the entire formula to a single symbol, removing the symbol as far from an pretense of structure or feeling as possible? Make it ethereal, existant only in so far as it represents a progression of events.... Why not make the whole world that way, asks.

Taking this view of as a sequential progression into consideration, we see that the recognition of the meaning of this symbol is a sequential progression in itself. looks at the symbol, and recalls that it itself attributed a sequence of events unto it. never sees the symbol, only the progression of events which it implies. Thus we see in mathematics a desire to encapsulate entire mathematical formula into mysterious, seemingly meaningless symbols. And the more deeply the encapsulation, of one formula into one symbol, into another formula, into another symbol, the more removed from all that is sequentially irrelevant the mathematics becomes. No wonder and rise as shadows of opposition against this endlessly abstract, non-existant world.

In the case of information exertion, is the method by which a function is applied. Given that is the appreception of sequential progression, then we see that if the use of the master implies the use of the slave (metabolism implies exertion) then we must always speak of exerted as an evolutionary progression of events. Let's consider an example, mastering . We consider first elements of subjective perception, which are the domain of . By following with , we assume the existence of a sequence which elements will undergo, not unlike a mathematical formula whose terms are elements. By iterating through the formula in sequence, perceives the influence distinct manifestations of have on each other over time. This interoperability of functions between each other in accordance with a progressive sequence is the method of human perception of evolution.

From this deduction, that evolution as apprehended by the human mind is a consequence of observing the interrelations of similar information elements over the span of a progressive sequence, we may conclude that...
[conclusion forthcoming...]

[Logos]

Interesting. Though I can not make any assertions about the validity of this idea as it seems that -people insist on maintaining the idea that no one can or should be able to understand them. But the idea of as sequential imagery make sense in most contexts of how is used or described even by those with in their primary two functions.

[tcaudilllg]

I'd like to say that my initial impression with regard to my (delayed) conclusion is that every function implies a sequence somehow. I'm not sure that's the case though. If it were true, it would seem to recall the concept of conversion between mass and energy in relativity; in this case, that you could from a standpoint transform one function's information into the information for another function.

[Phaedrus]

Alone among all the types are the INTps in suggesting that mathematics is beautiful: through the lense of sequential progression we see why.

Mathematics is beautiful, so you might be on to something. Can you give more concrete examples? What would the opposite be? Can you contrast this "sequence" way of seeing it with how an INTj would see mathematics? I have to find the key to how to understand it -- I have to see what you mean.

[tcaudilllg]

Alone among all the types are the INTps in suggesting that mathematics is beautiful: through the lense of sequential progression we see why.

Mathematics is beautiful, so you might be on to something. Can you give more concrete examples? What would the opposite be? Can you contrast this "sequence" way of seeing it with how an INTj would see mathematics? I have to find the key to how to understand it -- I have to see what you mean.

INTjs rely on the structure: this causes this, not "this follows this". To us, "this follows this" makes little sense. In particular, it seems to imply a fatalism and submission to fate were we to accept it. We like to think that we can change the cause, therefore change the outcome. Think of it as having a choice between two formulae that are similar to a point, then diverge.

I'll get back to you on this. In particular, I suspect it would be worthwhile to consider the role of as an antagonist to .

[Jonathan]

The idea of having to do with sequence makes a certain sense to me, as all types with are considered "dynamic" types and are paired with or ( and types often tend to emphasize the sequence of things).

However, that reason would imply that is just as much about sequence as . Perhaps is sequence in the world of imagination / willfull control, whereas involves sequence in a more down-to-earth sense (what actually happens, the way things are when you watch them go by).

I don't get the idea of seeing as in conflict with . It's not directly paired with either or of course, but in theory with is paired with .

[Jonathan]

INTjs rely on the structure: this causes this, not "this follows this". To us, "this follows this" makes little sense. In particular, it seems to imply a fatalism and submission to fate were we to accept it. We like to think that we can change the cause, therefore change the outcome. Think of it as having a choice between two formulae that are similar to a point, then diverge.

I think this is actually a good statement of the difference between rational and irrational types, although it's obviously weighted towards describing LII vs. ILI. Both types make choices, but rational types are more comfortable with imposing their choices, starting with the choice. So it makes sense that LII types would be very aware of what choice to make; the choice to make is critical.

Irrational types are more inclined to a sort of fatalism in that they make themselves slaves to their perception (to impose a choice seems like not really living to them). But then they're always thinking of creating structure out of their experiences ("this is what I imagined; what does it say about the world?")

[Phaedrus]

INTjs rely on the structure: this causes this, not "this follows this". To us, "this follows this" makes little sense.

I am not sure it makes much more sense to me. That depends on what you mean, I still don't know what you have in mind when you phrase it like that. I could say about myself that I also rely on structure, but it is very unclear what exactly we are talking about here. Since your way of describing the difference is clearly similar to how David Keirsey describes the difference in thinking processes between INTJs and INTPs (except that he has the INTJ thinking in sequences and the INTP thinking in structures) you may want to have a look at that. In outer behaviours Keirsey's INTJs are very similar to how INTjs are desribed in Socionics, and his INTPs are of course similar to INTps.

In particular, it seems to imply a fatalism and submission to fate were we to accept it.

This might be a possible key to focus on. INTps tend to be fatalists (determinists) and INTjs tend not to.

We like to think that we can change the cause, therefore change the outcome.

Yes, we both agree on that. There is a clear difference between INTjs and INTps here -- a difference that some other self-diagnosed "INTjs" don't seem to be aware of ...

[krieger]

INTjs rely on the structure: this causes this, not "this follows this". To us, "this follows this" makes little sense.

I am not sure it makes much more sense to me.

You're basically reasoning precisely that way here:

In particular, it seems to imply a fatalism and submission to fate were we to accept it.

This might be a possible key to focus on. INTps tend to be fatalists (determinists) and INTjs tend not to.

When an INTj reads that last sentence, alarm bells start ringing. "What makes you say that? Where's the rationale? Where is the structure?"

Expect an INTj to say something along the lines of "INTp's, in contrast to INTj's, are dynamics, which according to theory leads to an elevated importance of external rules and actions over personal ones, leading to a more deterministic life philosophy."

Or as tcaudilllg puts it:

In particular, it seems to imply a fatalism and submission to fate were we to accept it.

That is not to say all INTj reason remotely alike though... I've had a hunch for a while that the exertion type plays a much greater role in cognition that just the releasal of the master's products. I have no idea why else it is that tcaudilllg's explanations and research rarely 'help' me understand anything. If the master is what determines how information is metabolized, shouldn't I cognize things in the same way as he does? From what I can tell, I definitely do not.

From my perspective it seems more like the master is a 'humunculus' or 'inner eye', completely absorbed in the world fed to it by the slave. I could describe myself as an analyst enclosed in a world of interesting psychological phenomena (ENFp). I can analyze anything, but it's only the Ne-Fi stuff that spontaneously reaches my inner mind to broken down... If that's not how the master-slave pairing works, I guess I've got the two swapped around. (I'm sure I'm some combo of INTj and ENFp though, cause I've sustained both Se and Ti PoLR hits on different levels of interaction.)

[Jonathan]

INTjs rely on the structure: this causes this, not "this follows this". To us, "this follows this" makes little sense.

I am not sure it makes much more sense to me. That depends on what you mean, I still don't know what you have in mind when you phrase it like that. I could say about myself that I also rely on structure, but it is very unclear what exactly we are talking about here. Since your way of describing the difference is clearly similar to how David Keirsey describes the difference in thinking processes between INTJs and INTPs (except that he has the INTJ thinking in sequences and the INTP thinking in structures) you may want to have a look at that. In outer behaviours Keirsey's INTJs are very similar to how INTjs are desribed in Socionics, and his INTPs are of course similar to INTps.

Remember that Tcaud's analysis is focusing on the individual functions, so because the ego block contains one judging and one perceiving function, eveyone has structure; the question is whether it is accepting or producing.

Keirsey's INTJ in a number of ways sounds more like ENTj than like either INTj or INTp. Even if the people he's thinking of are INTj, his explanations are in conflict with Socionics and thus only relevant in the context of trying to understand how the two theories got so far off from each other.

Another thing to consider is what I said in my other thread about "stagnant" PoLR and conflict-duality. I think that INTjs, perhaps unconsciously, use Te to present their thoughts, but they think little of it. Similarly, INTps may "cast a light" on Ti, trying to make things plain and clear. This may account for some of the confusion.

If you're really INxp or some form of type, it would complicate things further.

[Jonathan]

I have no idea why else it is that tcaudilllg's explanations and research rarely 'help' me understand anything.

But you've adopted his master-slave type theory and terminology.
I think the idea of different types on different levels makes sense. But why is there only one slave, then? I suppose there could be several?
I like Tcaud's ideas here, but I'm not ready to accept the master-slave thing (or that I'm ENTj-ENFp) quite yet without further exploration.
One thing it may help explain though is why people feel that they're structurally one type, but identify with another quadra in terms of interests.

[Phaedrus]

INTps tend to be fatalists (determinists) and INTjs tend not to.

When an INTj reads that last sentence, alarm bells start ringing. "What makes you say that? Where's the rationale? Where is the structure?"

It might be the case here, just as we realized when we discussed the concept "universal truth" here: http://oldforumlinkviewtopic.php?t=9...r=asc&start=15 that INTjs and INTps have a different understanding of the word "structure". What would you would say if I phrased it this way: As an INTp I am a determinist, who believes that no one can change the future, because it is already fixed. Every objective truth of the universe always have been, always is, and always will be true. What will be, will be, and free will is an illusion. I could even say that the very reason I see it that way is because I believe that the whole universe is a static structure, comparable to how Einstein described it as a four-dimensional continuum. In an important sense, time does not exist. Nothing really happens. Everything just is.

What is the difference between our uses of the word "structure" here? Is there a difference or not? What does an INTj think about the kind of world view I just described?

Expect an INTj to say something along the lines of "INTp's, in contrast to INTj's, are dynamics, which according to theory leads to an elevated importance of external rules and actions over personal ones, leading to a more deterministic life philosophy."

That makes sense. An INTp's typical world view is externalist. I am just a material object influenced by external forces, and whatever I "decide" to "do" is nothing but an event in that impersonal, objective world -- an event that, in principle, can be described and explained in physics.

[Socionics Is A Cult]

It might be the case here, just as we realized when we discussed the concept "universal truth" here: http://oldforumlinkviewtopic.php?t=9...r=asc&start=15 that INTjs and INTps have a different understanding of the word "structure". What would you would say if I phrased it this way: As an INTp I am a determinist, who believes that no one can change the future, because it is already fixed. Every objective truth of the universe always have been, always is, and always will be true. What will be, will be, and free will is an illusion. I could even say that the very reason I see it that way is because I believe that the whole universe is a static structure, comparable to how Einstein described it as a four-dimensional continuum. In an important sense, time does not exist. Nothing really happens. Everything just is.

What is the difference between our uses of the word "structure" here? Is there a difference or not? What does an INTj think about the kind of world view I just described?

INTps indeed see things as objective truths, and that the universe is predetermined - but ironically, they have no valid reason to believe so - how do you experiment when you only have one universe, and no way of changing the variables if the variables are objective and therefore constant? (their one assumption is that there are objective truths) - a INTj, being a static type, sees the environment as malleable, as though they truly have agency in their actions (which is the INTj's assumption). INTjs see life as an experiment in order to determine localised laws (the properties of objects in their surrounding environment etc.), whereas INTps see life as a gradual process, where nothing is a trivial experiment. INTjs are pessimists because they believe they cannot operate on an universal level (they cannot truly gain this knowledge) and INTps are pessimists because they believe they have no real control about what is going to happen.

[Phaedrus]

INTps indeed see things as objective truths, and that the universe is predetermined - but ironically, they have no valid reason to believe so - how do you experiment when you only have one universe, and no way of changing the variables if the variables are objective and therefore constant? (their one assumption is that there are objective truths)

Let's not get side-tracked here. I know that we disagree, and that's one of the reasons we can both see that we are not identicals. I am not interested in defending my view here. I am interested in reaching a consensus on how to describe and explain the differences between INTjs and INTps.

- a INTj, being a static type, sees the environment as malleable, as though they truly have agency in their actions (which is the INTj's assumption). INTjs see life as an experiment in order to determine localised laws (the properties of objects in their surrounding environment etc.), whereas INTps see life as a gradual process, where nothing is a trivial experiment.

Good. That is perfectly consistent with my view on INTjs.

INTjs are pessimists because they believe they cannot operate on an universal level (they cannot truly gain this knowledge) and INTps are pessimists because they believe they have no real control about what is going to happen.

Very good.

[Socionics Is A Cult]

INTps indeed see things as objective truths, and that the universe is predetermined - but ironically, they have no valid reason to believe so - how do you experiment when you only have one universe, and no way of changing the variables if the variables are objective and therefore constant? (their one assumption is that there are objective truths)

Let's not get side-tracked here. I know that we disagree, and that's one of the reasons we can both see that we are not identicals. I am not interested in defending my view here. I am interested in reaching a consensus on how to describe and explain the differences between INTjs and INTps.

I probably worded that a bit strongly - I was trying to point out that both INTps and INTjs are 'wrong' or 'right', but they see each other as 'wrong' - INTjs see INTps as impractical because they INTjs work on a localised basis, with 'real' quantifiable things, whereas INTps see INTjs as impractical because they are only concerned with trivial things, not how things really are - which seems contradictory, but works on different levels. (It's actually quite funny that you told me not to get sidetracked ).

[FDG]

Subterranean is right anyway.

[BLauritson]

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've strayed away from the typical INTp view on the world in that I believe that it is possible to change the future. This is only something I've come to realise recently though.. I'll have to think some more on this. Feel free to shoot my observations down as you see fit in the mean time, I'm not confident that I have any clue what I'm talking about anyway.

[Joy]

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.

[BLauritson]

Hmm.. I was just echoing what Phaedrus and Subterranean were saying on Page 1 there. Gah, I don't care about whether I'm wrong or not anymore, I'll learn better if I post bullshit that gets corrected rather than just sitting here thinking about things and wondering whether or not I'm right. If Ni is indeed about sequences of events, surely an Ni-dominant would be the one most likely to know they can change the future? If you know what causes something, you can change the cause and thus prevent the consequence that was going to happen. To use a very simple and somewhat silly example: I know that if I pour water in a kettle, then switch the kettle on, then provided nothing untoward happens, the water will boil. I know that the water will only boil if the kettle is switched on, therefore if I don't want the water to boil, I just won't switch the kettle on. Stupid analogy I know, but I can't think of anything better right now.

EDIT: While I think of it, this is how I first came to fully realise (consciously, at least) that I have control over what happens to me:

Over a year ago now, at my workplace we hired a temp worker who I was interested in. Towards the end of her contract, we all had a leaving do for one of the permanent staff who was leaving and the temp came along also. We got chatting and, as far as I can tell, there was mutual interest, but nothing happened. We lost contact since she finished her contract with us that week. Anyways, looking back on it now, I think there definitely was mutual interest, but we were both relying on the other person to take the initiative (all things considered I'd have to guess she was also an INTp). It was then it hit me. Had I pushed past my fear and taken the initiative, it's likely something would have happened. Yet because neither of us did, nothing happened. Fate had nothing to do with this particular moment - it was down purely to the participants involved. It was perhaps a month or so ago that this realisation came to me - prior to that, I'd wavered on whether or not I believed in fate, and if so, the extent to which I believed in it varied. Now though, I'm a firm believer that, while there are a huge number of other forces out there (such as other individual people who, themselves, have free will), what happens to me largely depends on the decisions I make and the actions I take.

[Phaedrus]

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've strayed away from the typical INTp view on the world in that I believe that it is possible to change the future.

Well ... not every INTp believes that the future is predetermined, of course. It's just a tendency, but it is a tendency that is described in the socionic type descriptions. Joy, thinks otherwise. I think that she is wrong, but without concrete examples of people (preferably well-known world wide) it is difficult to discuss this.

But why do you state in your signature that you are an INTJ in MBTT, BLauritson? That suggests that your overall behaviour fit the criteria for the J scale in both models. Have you come to the conclusion that you are an MBTT INTJ by reading type descriptions? In that case you will see, if you compare the described behaviours in Socionics for INTjs with the described behaviours for MBTT INTJ, that they are very similar, but that the leading functions are different. And the same goes for INTPs and INTps. Now, the truth is that MBTT has got the leading functions wrong, and you should not switch between the models like you do now. If you are an INTJ in MBTT you are an INTj in Socionics. And if you are an INTp in Socionics, you are definitely not an INTJ in MBTT -- then you are an INTP in that model too.

(By the way, if you really are an Enneagram 5w4, then you probably have got your type in Socionics right, and therefore you are probably not an INTJ in MBTT but an INTP.)

[Joy]

Hmm.. I was just echoing what Phaedrus and Subterranean were saying on Page 1 there. Gah, I don't care about whether I'm wrong or not anymore, I'll learn better if I post bullshit that gets corrected rather than just sitting here thinking about things and wondering whether or not I'm right.

That's always been my preferred way of doing things.

If Ni is indeed about sequences of events, surely an Ni-dominant would be the one most likely to know they can change the future? If you know what causes something, you can change the cause and thus prevent the consequence that was going to happen.

Yes.


Pheadrus... I'm unwilling to get into a debate or lengthy discussion, but there is something I'm curious about... On a scale of 1 to 10, 1 being a "life is what you make it" attitude and 10 being a "life is what happens to you" attitude, where would you place yourself?

[Phaedrus]

On a scale of 1 to 10, 1 being a "life is what you make it" attitude and 10 being a "life is what happens to you" attitude, where would you place yourself?

That depends somewhat on what you are after. I am not very proactive. I observe things happening to me, I observe the world changing, and I am kind of stoic about it. And I am a determinist, who doesn't believe there is a free will, so in a sense I could place myself at 10.

On the other hand, it is not impossible to to be proactive and make choices deliberately in order to steer the course of your life. Such choices and such an attitude can sometimes be very helpful if you are going to succeed. That might sound like a contradiction, but it isn't. Even though we don't have a free will, and the future is fixed, we can still make choices (or rather will make choices) to act -- choices that have an impact on what will happen. Every choice you make is of course predetermined, but that doesn't mean that you can't choose, only that you can't choose what you will choose.

So, if you wonder how much of a "P" attitude I have, the answer is: very much. If you wonder what kind of attitude I think is the best to have if you want to achieve your goals, the answer is that it is probably better to be placed between 1 and 5 on that scale. To be a J type is probably better in most cases, especially for introverts. Having an IP temperament can often feel like a handicap.

[Joy]

On a scale of 1 to 10, 1 being a "life is what you make it" attitude and 10 being a "life is what happens to you" attitude, where would you place yourself?

That depends somewhat on what you are after.

lol

So, if you wonder how much of a "P" attitude I have, the answer is: very much. If you wonder what kind of attitude I think is the best to have if you want to achieve your goals, the answer is that it is probably better to be placed between 1 and 5 on that scale. To be a J type is probably better in most cases, especially for introverts. Having an IP temperament can often feel like a handicap.

What I'm asking has nothing to do with temperament. Furthermore I think you should forget about all of this P/J crap and focus on understanding each of the 8 dual pairs and their interactions. That's a different matter though.

Anyways, from my observations, INTjs are about as close to the 10 end of the scale as you can get. I'm not trying to tell you what type you are, just that your attitude sounds Ti > Te and Si > Se.

[FDG]

On a scale of 1 to 10, 1 being a "life is what you make it" attitude and 10 being a "life is what happens to you" attitude, where would you place yourself?

That depends somewhat on what you are after. I am not very proactive. I observe things happening to me, I observe the world changing, and I am kind of stoic about it. And I am a determinist, who doesn't believe there is a free will, so in a sense I could place myself at 10.

On the other hand, it is not impossible to to be proactive and make choices deliberately in order to steer the course of your life. Such choices and such an attitude can sometimes be very helpful if you are going to succeed. That might sound like a contradiction, but it isn't. Even though we don't have a free will, and the future is fixed, we can still make choices (or rather will make choices) to act -- choices that have an impact on what will happen. Every choice you make is of course predetermined, but that doesn't mean that you can't choose, only that you can't choose what you will choose.

So, if you wonder how much of a "P" attitude I have, the answer is: very much. If you wonder what kind of attitude I think is the best to have if you want to achieve your goals, the answer is that it is probably better to be placed between 1 and 5 on that scale. To be a J type is probably better in most cases, especially for introverts. Having an IP temperament can often feel like a handicap.

There are so many logical contradictions here...

[Phaedrus]

What I'm asking has nothing to do with temperament.

Then I don't know what you are asking for. Being proactive and trying to steer the course of your life has very much to do with your temperament. EJ is the most proactive temperament. The EJs are the ones that is trying harder than any other temperament to steer the course of their lives. And IP is the least proactive temperament, whereas the other two are somewhere in the middle.

Being proactive does also correlate with extraversion. Extraverts tend to be more proactive than introverts, but there are of course many individual exceptions in this general pattern. ISFjs are proactive when they keep a lot of products in storage and always make sure there are reserves, but their tendency to be somewhat pessimistic can be a burden to them. That is probably less of a problem for ISTjs, who therefore might have a relatively higher chance of succes in comparable areas.

Furthermore I think you should forget about all of this P/J crap and focus on understanding each of the 8 dual pairs and their interactions.

Why not focus on both? They are not contradictory, you know. If an analysis would result in incompatible results in some dimensions, you can be sure that you have made a mistake somewhere.

Anyways, from my observations, INTjs are about as close to the 10 end of the scale as you can get.

Well, then you haven't been observing INTjs -- unless you mean something very different by "life is what you make it" and "life is what happens to you" than I do when I use those expressions.

[BLauritson]

But why do you state in your signature that you are an INTJ in MBTT, BLauritson? That suggests that your overall behaviour fit the criteria for the J scale in both models. Have you come to the conclusion that you are an MBTT INTJ by reading type descriptions? In that case you will see, if you compare the described behaviours in Socionics for INTjs with the described behaviours for MBTT INTJ, that they are very similar, but that the leading functions are different. And the same goes for INTPs and INTps. Now, the truth is that MBTT has got the leading functions wrong, and you should not switch between the models like you do now. If you are an INTJ in MBTT you are an INTj in Socionics. And if you are an INTp in Socionics, you are definitely not an INTJ in MBTT -- then you are an INTP in that model too.

(By the way, if you really are an Enneagram 5w4, then you probably have got your type in Socionics right, and therefore you are probably not an INTJ in MBTT but an INTP.)

lol, ah, there seems to be a certain novelty in being asked this. Perhaps it is because I've observed this sort of debate so many times on this forum (I read a lot more than I post). But anyway, to get on with the answer:

I started off on the whole journey of personality type by doing a very simplified MBTI test which the BBC did as part of a one-off psychology/typology programme several years ago. Basically, the scales were Planner/Spontaneous (J/P), Ideas/Facts (N/S), Heads/Hearts (T/F), Introvert/Extrovert (Not sure what this one might have been...). I came out as INTP by that (bearing in mind they didn't use the letters, just the labels, so I was Spontaneous + Ideas + Heads + Introvert). I was 16 at the time, their small description seemed to fit somewhat well, or so I thought.

As time went on, I became intuitively unsatisfied with it, though I couldn't reason why. For some reason I wanted to have Planner rather than Spontaneous. Anyways, I honestly can't remember how, but I came across MBTI at some point. I took the Jung typology test at humanmetrics and got INTJ (I was 17 by this point). I felt a certain satisfaction at the time with this, like this was the type I wanted to be. So I studied various descriptions at the time of INTJs, also studied other type descriptions to a smaller extent. Learned about what functions relate to the letters, etc. etc. etc.. I think personalitypage.com was the main website I got my descriptions from. Anyway, I was content with this for a while.

Now we move onto Socionics. I first came across Socionics from some website with multiple MBTI links, one of them leading to Socionics.com. Naturally, I went to the INTj description. I sort of agreed with it, although some bits didn't quite fit, yet I couldn't explain why. I didn't know about the whole MBTI/Socionics conflict that is so famous in the Socionics community yet. Anyways, I sort of wavered between Socionics and MBTI/Keirsey for a while here, sometimes preferring the former, sometimes preferring the latter. I remember reading a wikipedia article on Socionics and it listed the INTj as a logical-intuitive intratim (obviously). I remember this was the first alarm bell that told me I wasn't an INTj in Socionics. Basically, the thing that convinced me I was INTJ in MBTI, and also led me on the path to deciding upon INTp as my type in Socionics, was I was convinced that my dominant function was Introverted Intuition. Regardless of any other factors, I could not accept that I was an introverted thinking type. Why? My intuition, funnily enough. Intuitively, I knew I was an Ni dominant type. Of course, it could have all been false intuition guiding me, but I'm certain enough that that's not the case.

Anyways, so I decided INTj was wrong and started to consider Socionics INTp. By this point I was much preferring Socionics over MBTI and I think this was the last time the metaphrorical pendulum swung before sticking firmly with Socionics (which it has done to this day). I thought about it more and more, and INTp seemed to be right. Bearing in mind at this point, socionics.com was still my primary reference for Socionics, so I hadn't been exposed to the larger world of Socionics yet. But yeah, the intertype relations seemed to fit much more clearly (considering I knew my boss to be an ENTj, I was surprised that, when I still believed myself to be INTj, that the intertype relations were so bad, as we've always been quite close. Obviously considering myself as INTp, that then meant mirror relations, which definitely fits much better). But yeah, I think I was 18 or 19 by this point. I can't remember what finalised the decision exactly, but eventually I decided, beyond reasonable doubt, that I was a Socionics INTp. And upon making this decision, I felt a strange sense of comfort, which lasted for about 30 seconds. It's almost like my intuition knew all along that I was an INTp, and I'd finally reached the destination. I'd never felt this sudden sense of comfort (physical, mental and spiritual) before, and only once again have I felt it to date, which I shall detail shortly.

So yeah, by this point I've lost a lot of care for what my MBTI type is, to be honest it wouldn't bother me if I came up ESFJ on an MBTI test now. I have two theories as to why I came up as INTJ in MBTI before: Firstly, I'd recently come out of chronic depression which had plagued me for as long as I could remember, and it felt like I'd been reborn (I won't go into this now, it's another story entirely). As a result, I had to discover myself again. I felt like a new person and the INTJ profiles that I'd read, looking back on it I think I saw the type descriptions as a sort of role model for myself - something I wanted to be. The other theory I have, which I'm more or less certain is why I came up as J, was because I made an effort at the time to appear outwardly organised. I didn't like to think of myself as lazy or anything like that, I wanted to be organised, self-motivated, etc.. So as far as tests were concerned, I seemed to be J.

Ah yes, to return to the final bit, which was finding my subtype (I know some contest the existence of subtypes, but for the purposes of this story I'm going to assume they exist). For a long time I was uncertain of what my subtype could be - a) because I lacked any evidence for or against either one, and b) because I still didn't understand what it meant to be one subtype or another (to be honest I'm still not 100% certain, but meh). I remember one Socionics test that I took somewhere (can't remember where now) suggested INTp logical subtype as one possibility. So I considered that one for a bit. Anyway, at some completely random point, I had the urge to compare and contrast the subtype descriptions for INTp. I can't remember which one I used now, probably one on this website somewhere, but I remember this particular one said that intuitive subtypes tend to have a more slim build, whereas logical subtypes tend to be more plump. Or something like that, I don't know now. But based on whatever it said, I decided I must be intuitive subtype. I got that same sensation of comfort again that I first got when deciding on INTp being my type, only this time it was stronger.

So yeah, all in all (assuming anyone's still reading this), as far as I'm concerned, my main reference point type-wise is that I'm a Socionics INTp. Regardless of what any letters may say, I'm certain that my dominant function is Introverted Intuition - since finding out about the functions, I've always had some sort of certainty in the back of my mind that I'm an Ni type. Again, it was only through intuition that I believed this, so interpret that how you will, but that is the one factor that remained steadfast in my mind. Even when I was mostly into MBTI, I couldn't accept being an INTP purely because MBTI theory states that INTP is TiNe. I had to be NiTe, regardless of whether that meant being INTJ, INTP, ESFJ, BLEH, FNORGLE, I couldn't care less what letters were used, it was the functions that held the most importance for me.

Hmm.. I think I've pretty much said everything I have to say on that subject. Like I said earlier, I'm not really bothered what letters are used for my MBTI type anymore, I'm no longer attached to that. As long as I'm an INTp in Socionics, I'm content.

EDIT: How interesting. I can work single-mindedly (nearly) on writing something like this, yet I failed at my previous attempt to write an autobiography. Oh well.

[Joy]

nm, I don't have time right now to explain what I meant, but it has to do with Se/Ni and Si/Ne. I'll prolly make a thread about it at some point.

[Phaedrus]

BLauritzon, from the way you write, and the things you say about yourself here, I wouldn't be surprised if you and I are the same subtype of INTp. And if you are, and if you ever want to look at MBTT type profiles again, I can guarantee you that you will identify more with INTP than INTJ in that model. Sometimes the MBTT profiles contain things that are not always mentioned in the socionic INTp profiles.

If you dare, it would be very interesting to hear what if you relate to anything of all that stuff XoX has been talking about in the long thread about his type. If you and I are the intuitive subtype of INTp, maybe we both would relate to the same things. And I would like to know if our reactions to XoX's posts are similar or not, if you feel that XoX is similar to you, and if if you think that you understand him very well or not.

But beware of the hounds ... It is not always very pleasant to be an INTp nowadays, especially not on this forum. Be prepared to be misunderstood, or ridiculed, or worse, if you decide to be open you mouth and express your honest opinion. That can happen, but maybe they will spare you, since they already have decided that I am the black sheep. Anyway, welcome to the club of intuitive INTps. (By the way, have you taken a look at the Ni-INXp profile I put together? It would be interesting to hear how much you relate to that one too.)

[tcaudilllg]

I've done some further thinking in regard to the relationship of base to determining, and of base to determining.

In particular, there seems to me a relationship between one's perspective of the 8th function, and one's view of death. For me, death is absolute as we have described it here: sequence without apprehension, experience, feeling, thought, sensation, or interaction. A time without imagination. I look toward the world without my existence, and I see something almost narcissistic in character: a world devoid of change, a road whose course is set, predictable, inevitable. I look back from before I lived, and I see the same. A parade of characters and events, little more than a timeline. But to look on the world of our times, I see nothing like a timeline. I see rather, a brilliant, vibrant history populated not by automatons, but imaginative, emotional, four-dimensional people who are bound primarily by their individiuality, and not by external circumstances. And that is actually, how I see most people who I have not met. Before I meet them, they are wandering, unable to resist the flow of forces from without them. They are like unto the characters on a sitcom. I look back on their journal entries from before they met me, before they were aware of me, and they seem so... automated, unoriginal. And then afterward, their views are changed: they have met me and, invariably, been impacted by me. Before, I would enliven their lives with the search for timeless truth; now, I show them socionics... I endevor to demonstrate to them their role in this real life Matrix, this cruel, unfeeling progression of events. To me, evil is absolute, and to give them awareness of the rules by which this sequence operates, I hope to against all hope give them the inner strength to find happiness. , the sequence of events, cares nothing for whether people feel happy or sad, regretful or fulfilled. We look back in history and we see so many people who's lives were cut short, and those who lived life in vain hope of finding someone who could complete them, to make them feel whole. And we see those that had all of these things to, and what were the differences? Often there was no pathopsychology directly involved; some people just ended up finding what they were looking for and some didn't. The sequence of events, which held for them only longing and vain hope against total despair, grinded along.... I see so many people on these dating sites living alone -- good people, worthy people -- and my heart goes out to them. There are so many forces against us... it seems to me only socionics can give us hope for resolution. The concept of the perfect dual... should not everyone seek out this person? Is it really so bad to desire a relationship that only gives, and offers no conflict?

To me, is a cold, calculating overlord. But an overlord that desires its own destruction. An overlord that hopes for redemption through the envitability of its own loss.... I can only imagine that INTps, in particular, feel similarly about . The non-sequence, the cold static, the relentless logic that drives them forward into untold perils and laments. Into forsaken corners and lonesome enterprises. At this point I can say little about the experience of , or of the experience of . What is the view of stasis from 's vantagepoint, of the uncompromising cold?

I think the idea of different types on different levels makes sense. But why is there only one slave, then? I suppose there could be several?
I like Tcaud's ideas here, but I'm not ready to accept the master-slave thing (or that I'm ENTj-ENFp) quite yet without further exploration.

The only reason we call it the "master" is due to its position at the beginning of the cycle. It makes sense to refer to it as the master versus the slave given that we place one before the other. But the entire "master/slave" terminology could be discarded, technically. Both functions must agree on a course of action -- in a sense -- before progress is made in the ring of Model-A. Under the dual-type model, only the acceptor can influence the flow of information by choice; the producer must respond to the will of the acceptor master, which is exerted by means of the acceptor slave. The dual-type model postulates that information is always accepted based its potential to influence the work of the producer. (this is a theory, after all)

There was a quote by Napoleon which seems demonstrates the "mastery" concept.

"Is it because he is lucky that a man becomes great? No, but because he is great, he has learned to master luck."

Additionally, consider this poem from the game Tales of Phantasia. This seems to capture the acceptor/producer-master/slave relationship perfectly.

Call the bringer of destruction in the direction that smells of death.
If you feel the breath of life, then this is where the Spirit of Life
belongs. The maiden who cries over the fallen belongs with death on
the left. Wind faces the maiden, blowing on all in the direction of
the flow of time.

Bringer of destruction: acceptor master
Spirit of life: acceptor slave
Maiden who cries over the fallen: producer master
Wind facing the maiden: producer slave
direction of the flow of time: ring of model-A

But we're getting off-topic.

[Exodus]

So, if you wonder how much of a "P" attitude I have

Not really.

[Joy]

True. The only other people I've seen argue for their type to the extent phaedrus has have been rational types.

yes, it's a joke

[Jonathan]

INTjs rely on the structure: this causes this, not "this follows this". To us, "this follows this" makes little sense. In particular, it seems to imply a fatalism and submission to fate were we to accept it. We like to think that we can change the cause, therefore change the outcome. Think of it as having a choice between two formulae that are similar to a point, then diverge.

On a scale of 1 to 10, 1 being a "life is what you make it" attitude and 10 being a "life is what happens to you" attitude, where would you place yourself?

...

Anyways, from my observations, INTjs are about as close to the 10 end of the scale as you can get.

Wait a second. These two statements together don't wash. Tcaud is describing his perspective of life as an LII, with an emphasis on being able to change the outcome. Then, somehow later in the same thread, Joy says that LIIs take the attitude that "life is what happens to you."

It would appear they're working from two different models, two different versions of Socionics.

True. The only other people I've seen argue for their type to the extent phaedrus has have been rational types.

yes, it's a joke

Who else has ever argued for their type like that on this forum?

[Joy]

myself and kristiina... don't recall if there have been any others that pushed it like any of the three of us

[Jonathan]

myself and kristiina... don't recall if there have been any others that pushed it like any of the three of us

Okay, I could see how that could be type-related in some cases. Rational types often want things to be official...I'm officially this, or officially that. It's not conclusive, but it could be a clue to someone's type. It's no doubt the main reason people give Phaedrus such a hard time.

Still, how do you square your observations with Tcaud's comments? Surely a life-is-what-happens-to-you, go-with-the-flow attitude isn't what Tcaud or any of the other self-declared LIIs on this forum describe as being their experience. Maybe they seem passive or unattentive to certain things in comparison to you. But that's different. Would you agree that you characterization of LIIs just seems to be quite at odds with Tcaud is saying?

[Phaedrus]

One really must start to wonder at some point ... Does anyone of you (and here I am referring to Joy and others in the gang of people who consistently are questioning my type, my self-understanding, my knowledge of Socionics, my view on the types, etc.) ever read and try to learn something from the many posts on this forum that are written by correctly typed INTjs? Your behaviour is rather pathetic, considering that all the evidence is right in front of your eyes and you only have to open them and point them in the right direction.

None of you who are so convinced that I am an INTj and state that as an obvious fact is an INTj yourself. You are all some other type, who think that you can tell from outside, based on your own distorted view on the types, who is a real INTj and who isn't. I have had several very interesting and fruitful discussions with the real INTjs on this forum. They can see that I am not one of their Identicals, and I can see that they are not mine. Our level of discussion usually rises above that kinder garten level where you prefer to play around. If you started to read some of our discussions, you might actually learn something about the differences between INTjs and INTps. And if you want to learn what a rather typical INTj is like in his outer behaviour, you could focus on for example UDP, who has written quite a lot about himself.

[Ms. Kensington]

oh, i though joy meant how INTjs can cop a "victim" attitude because they are Fe dual seeking, and if they are confronted with less hospitable environments they can fall into depression which is dealt with with Si. In this way it can look the way that Joy described.

I think Ixxps are the ones who are supposed to have a "thats the way it is" mentality but that's why they don't get upset, because they don't think its a failure if they can't change their circumstances. Of course what anything is is what it is and yet people can have a different attitude toward that, feeling as if we do create something called a destiny. So it is in fact the INTj who thinks he can change the environment moreso than the INTp, but the INTp who has the attitude that it's something he can work with rather than the INTj who needs to be careful of despair.

[Phaedrus]

Rational types often want things to be official...I'm officially this, or officially that. It's not conclusive, but it could be a clue to someone's type. It's no doubt the main reason people give Phaedrus such a hard time.

It just struck me the other day, that something like that could actually be true, and that makes it even more pathetic. Could the reason people don't accept me as an INTp really be that when I came to this forum the hard work had already been done? I had already typed myself correctly, I knew that I was an INTp, and I didn't ask for their advice and help in order to determine my correct type.

I have never once seriously questioned my type on this forum. There has been no objective ground for that, even though some people have raised legitimate questions and come up with some possibly strong counter arguments. And that is fine, that's what I welcome, becuase then I can learn something. But if anyone really think that he or she is better suited at typing me than I am myself, if he or she really thinks that that can be done with any reliablility based only on my posts on this forum, even if the result contradicts the result of my own typing process, and if he or she actually believes that the result of such an Internet typing would be more likely correct than my own typing of myself, which is based on so many independent and strong arguments that he or she probably wouldn't be able to hold all that information in his or her head at the same time, then he or she is a complete fool.

[Phaedrus]

I think Ixxps are the ones who are supposed to have a "thats the way it is" mentality but that's why they don't get upset, because they don't think its a failure if they can't change their circumstances. Of course what anything is is what it is and yet people can have a different attitude toward that, feeling as if we do create something called a destiny. So it is in fact the INTj who thinks he can change the environment moreso than the INTp, but the INTp who has the attitude that it's something he can work with rather than the INTj who needs to be careful of despair.

Good point.

[Joy]

oh, i though joy meant how INTjs can cop a "victim" attitude because they are Fe dual seeking, and if they are confronted with less hospitable environments they can fall into depression which is dealt with with Si. In this way it can look the way that Joy described.

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 seriously don't know why they come to me for advice. I have to be just about the worst person for them to try to get encouragement from, but I guess when you're someone they know they can trust and vent to and who cares (regardless of how unsympathetic I may sound) that trumps the ineffectiveness about what I say in response to them.

[Expat]

But beware of the hounds ... It is not always very pleasant to be an INTp nowadays, especially not on this forum. Be prepared to be misunderstood, or ridiculed, or worse, if you decide to be open you mouth and express your honest opinion. That can happen, but maybe they will spare you, since they already have decided that I am the black sheep.

You seem to be making an effort to sound like a Victim, both in Socionics and generally speaking. Almost like "everyone hates me" . 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 ?

One really must start to wonder at some point ... Does anyone of you (and here I am referring to Joy and others in the gang of people who consistently are questioning my type, my self-understanding, my knowledge of Socionics, my view on the types, etc.)

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"? 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.

If you try to deny it, I will just pull a "XoX" on you and quote back to you all the times when that became clear.

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

ever read and try to learn something from the many posts on this forum that are written by correctly typed INTjs? Your behaviour is rather pathetic, considering that all the evidence is right in front of your eyes and you only have to open them and point them in the right direction.

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

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?