Ok, I can't wait anymore

[MysticSonic]

My ambiguity on my own type is killing me, and this recent topic has only made my view upon it more unclear. The physical decription of the INTp is strikingly accuarate, so accuarate it's spooky, why, with my neck hung as though my head was "disproportionate", and my eyes seemingly reflecting widsom, although I've heard many times over I just seem "constantly angry." I sometimes speak in a very monotone manner, although this quickly dissapears when I get aroused, which at times I closely resemble the INTj, as my eyes begin to glimmer and my emotionality is continiously aroused.

More to the point, my amiguity lies in that I am uncertain as to whether or not I'm an INTp, INTj, or the type I consider the least, although still keep my mind open to the fact that I might be one, INFp, as the hidden agenda of this particular pscyhe is that of Ni, to understand, although my issues with it seem to be on a more conscious level.

Now, I tend to enjoy the company of ENTps and INTJs very much so, although I feel little attraction to what would be my dual if I were an INTj, the ESFj, although I am very much so attracted to the energetic qualities of the ESFp, but my ability to deal with situatiosn regarding voliltility remains largely undeveloped, and I fear such situations to the extreme.


My ability to predict future events isn't so developed, and neither is my spiritual bent, but my questioning of my dominant function would not seem as a frivilous matter as it may first appear, as my ability to organize my enviornment is nill, and I am THE most disorganized person in my school, bar none, although I can quite readily fend off any claims of my dominant function being Ne, as I do no possess and affable manner and often maintain a VERY large psychological distance between others until I have assessed them for about, at the least, a few days, unless apporached first, and I do not share the same uncertainty in my ability to handle others that the ENTp has, although I do have the aspect of losing emotional connections with others, even those I hold most dear.

I was wondering if you could attempt to analyse my picture. It is not the best picture, as I am still an adolescent, and my features not so developed, and the picture distorted, as you can plainly see, but seeing as I have no access to pictures besides the one I currently am displaying, this is all I can do for now.

[CuriousSoul]

I kind of thought this question is bound to come up...
This case would call for the skills and supreme confidence of Sergei Ganin himself. I have rather sadly come to the conclusion that my VI skills are not that good and furthermore I think you need to discover your type yourself.

Now there are a few points...
The type descriptions are always inevitably rough generalizations, like Ekaterina Filatova noted how it can seem to be difficult to find any commonalities with people of the same type but nonetheless if there were none - what is the point of socionics. Perhaps generally as socionics.com noted rationals types are fully logical or ethical, and I would suppose conversely irrationals are fully intuitive or sensory. Thus INTJs would often be less emotionally sensitive, live in a world of their own conception, whereas INTPs try not to show much emotions, but they would be internally more sensitive to the emotions of others. Also the fact that you are posting here could be interpreted as an expression of a spiritual need, religion is just one expression of spirituality. And as I said sometimes you can observe other people better than yourself:
INTPs are good at noticing contradictions in theories or opinions and can focus others attention to this.

Most people do not understand INTJs and try to keep away from them.
This is a very common sentiment, especially at your age, certainly myself included. It is good to remember that these type descriptions were written by an INTJ. It is always easy to see the difficulties of your own type but often the strange behaviour of people of other types appears, well just strange:
During conversation INTPs may project their lower lips forward. INTPs often show poor control of their lower jaw, allowing them to hang down. INTPs normal facial expressions usually reflect wisdom and great life experience or sadness and victimisation

According to socionics theory the lead function is defined slightly differently depending on the type so things that apply to me may not apply to INTPs, I'll try to find the source... You said that your: ability to deal with situations regarding volitionality remains largely undeveloped., and I fear such situations to the extreme. It is difficult, many if not most, INTPs and INFPs would find such situations difficult too. For example INTPs might not hesitate to follow the lead of their partner - but naturally only after they can be sure they can trust their partner. Nobody likes bullying for example but when I was your age I spent most of my breaks discussing with my INTJ friend who at the times even seemt to take pleasure in arguing with would be bullies. Then again everybody is different and the intuitive subtype is probably more sensitive.

Then INFPs still, INFPs often do not show that much emotions, especially if they do not feel confident with the people they talk to. Generally my experience has been that all other people's emotions come very strongly to my consciousness, like on an INFP Yahoo group one female INFP said that it feels like I have some X-ray vision that I can tell other's emotions and find it strange when I discover that others cannot. Therefore it can be burdensome to be in a company with a negative emotional atmosphere, sometimes even too much emotional "information processing" in general can feel tíring but of course this is all pretty general. Then I do not know if this is just me but I for example have not gone through any change of introversion/extroversion scale and even othervice would say that I have been internally pretty much the same person ever since I remember but of course when you grow your enviroment changes and people treat you differently. Perhaps the brains of rational types really do change more during adolescense, well it is just speculation as usual but my observations seem to indicate that there would seem to be a trend.

The intertype relations are complicated. Types are just one aspect that influences relations. Duality only really works on a close distance. Also typing others is difficult, etc.

Finally:
No one can give you better advice than yourself. -- Cicero
http://www.legendinc.com/Pages/Archi...owThyself.html
Quotes - always a good substitute for a brain.

[MysticSonic]

Perhaps generally as socionics.com noted rationals types are fully logical or ethical, and I would suppose conversely irrationals are fully intuitive or sensory. Thus INTJs would often be less emotionally sensitive, live in a world of their own conception, whereas INTPs try not to show much emotions, but they would be internally more sensitive to the emotions of others.

I am, at times, sensitive to others opinnions of me, and I do certainly try to "hide" my emotions, but people also say that I appear cold and indifferent and that I don't "give a **** about what other people think", and in fact think of me as bizarre.

Also the fact that you are posting here could be interpreted as an expression of a spiritual need, religion is just one expression of spirituality.

I doubt it, I'm hardly spiritual at all by nature, whether you speak of spirituality in the religious sense or in simple belief in some metaphysical wholeness.

And as I said sometimes you can observe other people better than yourself: "INTPs are good at noticing contradictions in theories or opinions and can focus others attention to this. "

What exactly are you trying to say by this?

Also, I have a sharp sense of justice, which is actually one of the many reasons other think of me as bizarre, as I tend to, at least I try to, avoid doing that which is senseless and meaningless, such as brushing my hair or changing my clothes often, as I see no consequence of these actions beyond the social stigmas that might come along with such behaviour. Also, most of my political opinions, albeit immature, are vastly different then that of others, and at times resemble the political views of bohemians. Of course, I've learned not to share many of these views, as expressing them leads no where and only incites chaos, although I do enjoy debating such topics a great deal...

[CuriousSoul]

I am, at times, sensitive to others opinnions of me, and I do certainly try to "hide" my emotions, but people also say that I appear cold and indifferent and that I don't "give a **** about what other people think", and in fact think of me as bizarre..

It happens, typically INTPs would be more bothered by it than INTJs. One reason could well be that if you are intellectually far ahead of your peers, finding common understanding and even things to talk about can be difficult.

I doubt it, I'm hardly spiritual at all by nature, whether you speak of spirituality in the religious sense or in simple belief in some metaphysical wholeness.

Well yes but it is complicated. There are great many atheist INTPs, like Abiola whom I quoted. I tried to give my personal opinion on the inner wholeness business, and what it might mean from my perspective but it is most likely different for everyone.

And as I said sometimes you can observe other people better than yourself: "INTPs are good at noticing contradictions in theories or opinions and can focus others attention to this. "

What exactly are you trying to say by this?

That you did it. :wink: It is just circumstantial evidence. Now I could go on speculating whether you are prone to overreact because of your painful ethics of emotions... Your style of approaching socionics also seemt quite different from Tazhe... Your complaining could indicate that you belong to the victim types... You were eager to give advice and seemt more prone to develop the abilities of others than your own that could be an indication of extroverted intuition as your function of concrete art... you showed good ability at exercising your knowledge...
You see how the evidence just keeps on piling up... :mrgreen:

Also, I have a sharp sense of justice, which is actually one of the many reasons other think of me as bizarre, as I tend to, at least I try to, avoid doing that which is senseless and meaningless, such as brushing my hair or changing my clothes often, as I see no consequence of these actions beyond the social stigmas that might come along with such behaviour.

Sharp sense of juctise could be an INTJ trait - or more generally often associated with highly intelligent children - then again among highly intelligent children intuitive irrationals are highly overrepresented...

Also, most of my political opinions, albeit immature, are vastly different then that of others, and at times resemble the political views of bohemians. Of course, I've learned not to share many of these views, as expressing them leads no where and only incites chaos, although I do enjoy debating such topics a great deal...

Well show me if you are willing to face the chaos that you chose to create. :twisted:

[metaiwan]

I don't have much to add except talking about creative extraverted intuition. This allows you to always see the 'other side' of things, probablly contributing to INTj's supposed sense of justice(but then INFJ should have the same thing). I would comment more, but I tried to use Reinin's dichotomies through everyone's postings and couldn't use it at all, so I'm discovering I don't really know as much as I think I do, although I know for sure my own type is correct. I'm trying to get the Statics-Dynamics down right now, because supposedly they should be obvious in conversation, although I don't know about text postings.

[Moniker04]

results in seeing the other sides of situations and so when this is combined with the strictness of introverted thinking, a desire for justice often is the result.
combined with results in a willingness to see ethical sitiuations in various ways and this results in mercy, not justice.

Peace,
an intj 2 lazy to sign up

[Bear]

My guess is INTP or ENTP, not INTJ.
Your answers fit into my view of INTPs. They are usually VERY unsure about what other people think of them, they always need some kind of confirmation of person's attitude to them. They don't like to show it though, and can appear indifferent to some people. They try not to show their emotions also, INTJ is not likely to do it on purpose.
INTJ is usually not really bothered by other people' opinions about him. He has a rather stable viewpoint in almost every situation, and it is really difficult to show him that he is wrong.
Picture looks like INTP or ENTP.

[metaiwan]

My guess is INTP or ENTP, not INTJ.
Your answers fit into my view of INTPs. They are usually VERY unsure about what other people think of them, they always need some kind of confirmation of person's attitude to them. They don't like to show it though, and can appear indifferent to some people. They try not to show their emotions also, INTJ is not likely to do it on purpose.
INTJ is usually not really bothered by other people' opinions about him. He has a rather stable viewpoint in almost every situation, and it is really difficult to show him that he is wrong.
Picture looks like INTP or ENTP.

Are you an INTP? It would be nice to get an INTP's input if we are trying to decide between INTJ and INTP. Seeing as I'm an INTJ and have always been one, I really know INTJs and how they act, and an INTP would know INTPs. But I would disagree with some parts of what you said. INTJs are very conscious of how other people view them, it's just they aren't likely to change themselves or their opinions because of what other people think.

What do you think so far mystic?

[Tanzhe]

Without any thorough analysis, I cannot say which type you are by VI. But I do not think that you are an INTj, based on my own experience: when I was an adolescent, I did have a slight angularity on my jaw (admittedly though, it was not very noticable).

[Tanzhe]

I am, at times, sensitive to others opinnions of me, and I do certainly try to "hide" my emotions, but people also say that I appear cold and indifferent and that I don't "give a **** about what other people think", and in fact think of me as bizarre.

Same with me. I can remember one person, at school, got very angry with me, telling me that I was cold, arrogant, aloof and very critical, in not as few words. Even removing some of the anger by taking into account teenage mood swings, this person was still quite frustrated.

Secondly - your eyes in your picture. They appear to be dreamy, deep, dark, sleepy, or far away, I can't quite pinpoint which. This seems to infer that you are an Intuitive. It also seems to disprove the theory that you are an INTj. I believe that INTjs do not have dreamy eyes, but have a piercing look (please, anybody, correct me if I am wrong).

[CuriousSoul]

Sometimes I do wonder whether there is much sense in socionics, but then I just get back to reading more weird theories and forget about my worries. :|
This one should explain how the base/program/lead functions are different, positive or negative, for each type. Intuitively I would say that there is something to these value-laden descriptions, and just maybe they can be of use in typing as well.
This was from www.laser.ru
Filatova
Information field and mental functions

The sign description of functions

The analysis which has been lead Gulenko, allows to reveal more "thin" structure of mental functions of one kind. So, " black ethics " Hamlet differ from similar function Hugo a little. It has allocated this distinction by means of signs + and-. "Decoding" of these differences (what function for what "answers") below is resulted:

1. "Black" ethics, ethics of emotions:
(+) Positive emotions — pleasure, fun, emotional rise, enthusiasm, laughter, enthusiasm, optimism, good mood, experience of happiness; (on the first place this function at Hugo, ESFJ)

(-) Negative emotions — mountain, grief, grief, emotional recession, depression, crying, tears, discontent, pessimism, bad mood, experience of misfortune. (on the first place Hamlet, ENFJ this function)

2. "White" ethics, ethics the attitude:
(+) Good relations — love, friendship, sympathy, an attraction, heat of attitudes, the sociability, a close psychological distance, kindly, pity; (on the first place this function at Dostojevski, INFJ)

(-) Bad attitudes — hatred, enmity, antipathy, pushing away, estrangement, the unsociability, a far psychological distance, angrily, ruthlessness. (on the first place this function at Dreiser, ISFJ)

3. "Black" logic, business:
(+) Advantage, benefit, profitability, technology, the facts, purchases, accumulation, the purchase, savings, putting in order, a practicality; (on the first place this function at Sherlock Holmes, ESTJ)

(-) Uselessness, unprofitableness, use, application, deterioration, charges, expenditure, risk, experiment, sale, trade, actions in conditions of chaos, an ingenuity. (on the first place this function at Jack London, ENTJ)

4. "White" logic, logic of attitudes:
(+) Reality, detail, detailed study, carefulness, severity, place in hierarchies, laws, decisions, instructions, a choice of the best variant, logic of the organization, (on the first place this function at Maxim, ISTJ)

(-) abstraction, generality, universality, system, classification, typology, the general laws, objectivity, true, validity, the analysis, logic of a science, criteria. (on the first place this function at Robespierre, INTJ)

5. "Black" intuition, intuition of opportunities:
(+) Prospects, opportunities, positive potential, essence, essence, the principles, new ideas, promotion of hypotheses, the theory, an insight, interest, originality, singularity, unreality, belief; (on the first place this function at Don Quixote, ENTP)

(-) Hopelessness, alternative, negative potential, absence of essence, senselessness, the paradox, overlooked old, serost, the mediocrity, the suppressed opportunities, disbelief, sensation. (on the first place this function at Huxley, ENFP)

6. "White" intuition, intuition of time:
(+) The future, change of a situation in time, a prediction, a prediction, gradual development, evolution, a scheduled accession, dynamics of changes, a time stream, imagination, consistency, imperceptible changes — step by step, a convergence, convergence; (on the first place this function at Balzac, INTP)

(-) The past, error check, avoiding of danger, uneasiness, vague anxiety, nazrevanie crisis, revolution, jump in time, skill to be insured against troubles, sharp shifts, discrepancy, the moment of resolute actions, a divergence, divergentsija. (on the first place this function at Yesenin, INFP)

7. "Black" sensorika, strong-willed:
(+) - Deduction of authority, insubordination, protection, defense, retaliation, counterattack, hardness, upholding of the interests, strong-willed pressure from below upwards, will power, possession; (on the first place this function at Napoleon, ESFP)

(-) Capture of authority, submission, attack, aggression, attack, the initiative, persistence, insistence, strong-willed pressure from top to down, the statement of the interests due to others, overthrow, weakness, lack of will, mastering. (on the first place this function at Zhukov, ESTP)

8. "White" sensorika, sensorika sensation.
(+) Pleasant sensations, comfort, convenience, harmony, beauty, appeal, rest, health, slackness, good state of health, pleasure, pleasure, sensitivity; (on the first place this function at Dumas, ISFP)

(-) Unpleasant sensations, discomfort, inconvenience, disharmony, disgrace, unattractiveness, weariness, pressure, illness, bad state of health, suffering, pain. (on the first place this function Gaben, ISTP)

[Tanzhe]

On a Socionics Q&A site, there was something interesting.

It said that, if you are an INFp, 'you may often pay too much attention to your thinking-logical side, which in return leads you to believe that it is as strong as your feeling-emotional side. However in reality, you find it much easier to show up your love and affection rather than to demonstrate your knowledge and erudition.'

If you are an INTp, 'you may often pay too much attention to your feeling-emotional side, which in return leads you to believe that it is as strong as your thinking-logical side. However in reality, you find it much easier to demonstrate your knowledge and erudition rather than to show up your love and affection.'


I believe that you can also apply this to, in my example, ISTj and INTj. So, bearing in mind that this is speculation:

If you are an INTj, 'you may often pay too much attention to your sensing-phsyical side, which in return leads you to believe that it is as strong as your intuitive-spiritual side. However in reality, you find it much easier to demonstrate your knowledge of the abstract rather than to show your knowledge of the concrete.'

If you are an ISTj, 'you may often pay too much attention to your intuitive-spiritual side, which in return leads you to believe that it is as strong as your sensing-phsyical side. However in reality, you find it much easier to demonstrate your knowledge of the concrete rather than to show up your knowledge of the abstract.'

[Tanzhe]

If you are an INTj, 'you may often pay too much attention to your sensing-phsyical side, which in return leads you to believe that it is as strong as your intuitive-spiritual side. However in reality, you find it much easier to demonstrate your knowledge of the abstract rather than to show your knowledge of the concrete.'

If you are an ISTj, 'you may often pay too much attention to your intuitive-spiritual side, which in return leads you to believe that it is as strong as your sensing-phsyical side. However in reality, you find it much easier to demonstrate your knowledge of the concrete rather than to show up your knowledge of the abstract.'

I am not sure that this is true. If it is wrong, then can somebody please correct me.

[CuriousSoul]

I am not sure that this is true. If it is wrong, then can somebody please correct me.

I think it should be basically right. This method of typing could be very promising as the socionics types are more about one's natural style of communication rather than about any deeply held values. It does though require good self-awareness and I am not quite convinced whether most people would be able to correctly answer these "decider section" questions, or could they?

[MysticSonic]

That quote alone is enough reason, and is one of the reasons, for me to believe that I could possibly be an INFp. As for my ability to demonstrate my concrete knowledge, I'm most certain that others are certainly aware, and I myself, that concrete knowledge is far from my forte. If Si would be my hidden agenda, then I would most certainly take upon myself the strategy of "hiding my Achillee's(SP) Heel", rather then exposing it as an attempt to coax others into believing that it is my "strong point." On the other hand, the inverse would seem to be true if I were an INFp. But in either case, both tendancies do no allow for a greater division between the INTp, INFp, and INTj models, as the INTp neither has Si as his strong point, nor Ti, although I could form a cojecture that my willingess to accept help and show to others my Si function would seem to point to the fact that it may be my role function, but this is also applicable to the INFp.

On the aspect of the visiual identification side of this arguement, there seems to be some truth to what you stated Tanzche.

Take a look for yourself: http://ru.laser.ru/socion/references/filatova/INTj/
http://ru.laser.ru/socion/references/filatova/INTp/

Here's an arguement on whether or not murder is wrong. I believing this would be a good example of the INTp's pedantic nature.

"It's not merely a "bit" out of place, it's completely out of place. In the light of the belief of lack of meaning beyond the justification of our own built in emotional needs, such things as "rights" and whatnot are certainly subject to the same relativity as morals are, for that which you believe is your "right" is certainly not the case, and in fact, no two events are linked in such a way for you to "deserve" something, that's just an abstraction of the human intellect.

In fact, the human intellect is the case here. The intellect arose as a tool to cope with situations that are otherwise out of grips of one's instincts, yet there are certain instincts that are needed in order to maintain a sense of meaning, for if the intellect were to supercede emotions entirely, to eliminate our desires, there would no longer be reason for the intellect to function, thus allowing it to go to waste.

Now, as we evolved, we have evolved in such a way that would be most profitable to the genetic succesion of ourselves, yet the case may have it that murder is the case of the conflict between the genetically set instincts and the intellect and it's abstractions. The intellect is nothing more then a means to satisfy our desires, but the intellect is far weaker then needed, as our ability to discern which situation will be most profitable to us in the long-run is almost nill, thus we set up strict moral codes to stand-by. These codes are merely nothing but another abstract notion for the mind to concoct in order to satisfy these instincts, these desires, in a way that would be most profitable, and as stated earlier, the means for the intellect to survive are held within the emotions, thus eliminating them in order to see more clearly shall do no good, emotions must evolve with the intellect.

Rambling aside, the moral-code that deticts the immorality of murder is merely the intellect attempting to satisfy the moral needs in such a way that is most profitable, but then the ability of the intellect comes into play, and thus allows the self to make decision which are not benefiicial. This depiction of the human intellect is nothing more than an attempt to show to you how the human mind is flawed in it's thinking and thus can only concoct thoughts and ideas that are fit to meet their appearent needs, which are simply wants blown out of proportion, even those "needs" that are the most fundamental, such as hunger and thirst.

In conclusion, the human mind is performing a balancing act, so you can't expect it to truly see the truth in all it's light, do you? So how can you argue that which we percieve as right to be right? You alluded to the fact that no such right existed, but I thought I might as well clarify that it DOESN'T exist. "

Me acknowledging that I rambled a bit:

"It is true that the majority of that post could have been simplified to a form much more relevent to the issue, as I must admit, about half way through the post I felt like a Freudian, but how you seem to be addressing the issure still seems to be a bit misguided.

Now, right or wrong do not exist, as morals are relative. This relativity allows for no such things as fixed as a "right", for in order for these "rights" to be "rights" they must possess some sort of truth to them, which these "abstractions" simply do not. No matter what effects it may have on our society, murder is not, and never will be, more then an act commited by an organism in an attempt to satisfy their desires, and neither will the moral-code of murder being wrong be anything more then an abstraction of the human mind to control society in order to make it more productive.

I would like you to attempt to prove to me how truth can arise out of relativity, I really would."

Of course, the rambling was merely an attempt to show the person who I was arguing with what subconscious fears would be present that would stop him from acknowledging such a truth, but I think I may have went a bit overboard...

Now, as for the subtypes, I seem to most closely identify with the researcher subtype Curious(soul?) posted and the contradictor subtype that Malyshka posted.

[Tanzhe]

I have two points to make.

1. What is the manifestation of an INTj's Ni? This will help me as well as MysticSonic.


2. I had an idea. The idea is that there are many subconscious conflicts in an INTj's psyche. This is purely speculation, and the deeper realms of type function somewhat mystify me. Much of this is based on anecdotal evidence (ie. what my personal experiences are, and other's personal experiences). So, if I have completely missed the mark, then sorry.


Ti Ne Fi Se Fe Si Te Ni

The Ti and Fe are in a constant battle. The child Analyst uses the Fe a lot, and appears extroverted. But the Ti reasserts itself, usually just before puberty. After this re-assertion, the Analyst’s life becomes a constant battle between the Ti and the Fe - he always scolds himself for becoming too sociable or nervous.

Moreover, because the battle creates tension, and because the Analyst frequently is not religious, his Ni will be uncertain. He seems to have no definite personality - he always views it that he became too panicky, or smiled too much. Thus, he seems to lack a spiritual guide, and his Ni makes him acutely aware of this syndrome. In addition, since the Analyst prefers to remain aloof (ironically because of his Ti-Si, which will be discussed shortly), then he feels lonely and without guidance.

However, it is almost impossible for the Analyst to bring warmth to relationships. Firstly, if he does, he somewhat regrets it (unless it is with his dual, the Bonvivant) due to the Ti. Secondly, he associates, in his youth, idiots and socialising. He views these idiots as pranks who play dangerous games with each other, which are usually practical jokes. Since he has no wish to injure his body (out of the Si, and hidden agenda of remaining healthy) then he detaches and continues to associate friendliness with threat to the Si. Although this, by no means, should be interpreted that the Analyst cannot make friends, it is just as if he is afraid of socialising with common people, the practical jokers.

The Ti further does the Analyst no good. The Ti allows him to make ruthless and impersonal decisions. But he will forever chide himself, because the Ti-Ne relationship produces a need for justice. If his Ti wants to make cold decisions, his Ne justice and Fe warmth oppose him.

And, finally, he will usually try to make it appear as though his sensing is as strong as his intuition. This causes another constant battle. He sometimes finds it difficult to distinguish between the two, and could cause a ‘S-N identity disorder.’


Now, as I said, this is purely speculation. If I have made gross errors, then sorry. I just had a flash of inspiration and decided to make a quick note.

Although I have painted the Analyst in a negative way, perhaps you should bear in mind that I am currently going through a strange phase in my life. These 'complexities of the Analyst' are possibly just me trying to find a rational explanation for my phase using typology.

[MysticSonic]

The other day an idea came to me, inuitively, about how you said that you became more introverted as you entered adolescence. I remembered about how I once heard that the brain becomes more aware of abstract ideas and discovers nuances of intersocial stimuli that it has not noticed before, thus becoming more self-conscious. I believe this is either taken in one or two ways, depending upon one's psychic structure. One can become counter-phobic, attempting to rid one's self of their self-consciousness, or one can become introverted, or at least SHY, and thus causing them to seem more introverted. The result of both can result in a fomration of a mask type or simply a compliance with their normal psychic orientation.

In either case, your cojecture seems justified to the extent that it can be justified wihout thorough research. It could simply be that the developing abstract ability of the mind causes one to become more aware of their deficiencies, more aware of their strengths, and act accrodingly. It would seem as though an INTj would act in such a way, although your S-N identity crisis would seem only to be true for those who have acquired the mask specific to those who wish to portray it as a strength. Your Ti-Si comparison was very interesting though. I have to say I completely agree with you.

[CuriousSoul]

That quote alone is enough reason, and is one of the reasons, for me to believe that I could possibly be an INFp. As for my ability to demonstrate my concrete knowledge, I'm most certain that others are certainly aware, and I myself, that concrete knowledge is far from my forte. If Si would be my hidden agenda, then I would most certainly take upon myself the strategy of "hiding my Achillee's(SP) Heel", rather then exposing it as an attempt to coax others into believing that it is my "strong point." On the other hand, the inverse would seem to be true if I were an INFp. But in either case, both tendancies do no allow for a greater division between the INTp, INFp, and INTj models, as the INTp neither has Si as his strong point, nor Ti, although I could form a cojecture that my willingess to accept help and show to others my Si function would seem to point to the fact that it may be my role function, but this is also applicable to the INFp.

One way of differentiating between INTPs and INFPs could be to look at the ideal partner one would imagine. INTPs would typically want someone who is capable of cheering them up:

5.Unapproachable and thus desired. A girl-student by the name of Laima (The Politician) gave a good description of this type when she tried to describe the hero of her dreams: "He must be handsome and smart, with big and sad eyes, not talkative. He does not tell compliments, and by that he creates an impression of his inapproachability. He is taunted by myriads of problems, which, in my opinion are nothing to be bothered with. I am attracted by his sadness, seriousness, so I try to amuse him, to raise his spirits, to make him happy. If such a boy is present at a party, I wouldn’t be bored." This is a vivid description of this personality type, who is constant in his feelings, does not like adventures, and desires total dependence of his demanding partner.
http://www.socioniko.narod.ru/

Whereas INFPs are emotionally more or less self-sufficient and would rather prefer someone who is, to put it bluntly, emotionally dependant on them; ideally perhaps a kind of fascinating mixture of tough exterior and poorly hidden emotional vulnerability.
Conversely ESFPs want someone who needs their creative ethics of relations and I have noticed how ESFPs can sometimes first start a conversation only to quickly lose all interest when I show positive emotions.

Here's an arguement on whether or not murder is wrong. I believing this would be a good example of the INTp's pedantic nature.

"It's not merely a "bit" out of place, it's completely out of place. In the light of the belief of lack of meaning beyond the justification of our own built in emotional needs, such things as "rights" and whatnot are certainly subject to the same relativity as morals are, for that which you believe is your "right" is certainly not the case, and in fact, no two events are linked in such a way for you to "deserve" something, that's just an abstraction of the human intellect.

In fact, the human intellect is the case here. The intellect arose as a tool to cope with situations that are otherwise out of grips of one's instincts, yet there are certain instincts that are needed in order to maintain a sense of meaning, for if the intellect were to supercede emotions entirely, to eliminate our desires, there would no longer be reason for the intellect to function, thus allowing it to go to waste.

Now, as we evolved, we have evolved in such a way that would be most profitable to the genetic succesion of ourselves, yet the case may have it that murder is the case of the conflict between the genetically set instincts and the intellect and it's abstractions. The intellect is nothing more then a means to satisfy our desires, but the intellect is far weaker then needed, as our ability to discern which situation will be most profitable to us in the long-run is almost nill, thus we set up strict moral codes to stand-by. These codes are merely nothing but another abstract notion for the mind to concoct in order to satisfy these instincts, these desires, in a way that would be most profitable, and as stated earlier, the means for the intellect to survive are held within the emotions, thus eliminating them in order to see more clearly shall do no good, emotions must evolve with the intellect.

Rambling aside, the moral-code that deticts the immorality of murder is merely the intellect attempting to satisfy the moral needs in such a way that is most profitable, but then the ability of the intellect comes into play, and thus allows the self to make decision which are not benefiicial. This depiction of the human intellect is nothing more than an attempt to show to you how the human mind is flawed in it's thinking and thus can only concoct thoughts and ideas that are fit to meet their appearent needs, which are simply wants blown out of proportion, even those "needs" that are the most fundamental, such as hunger and thirst.

In conclusion, the human mind is performing a balancing act, so you can't expect it to truly see the truth in all it's light, do you? So how can you argue that which we percieve as right to be right? You alluded to the fact that no such right existed, but I thought I might as well clarify that it DOESN'T exist. "

Me acknowledging that I rambled a bit:

"It is true that the majority of that post could have been simplified to a form much more relevent to the issue, as I must admit, about half way through the post I felt like a Freudian, but how you seem to be addressing the issure still seems to be a bit misguided.

Now, right or wrong do not exist, as morals are relative. This relativity allows for no such things as fixed as a "right", for in order for these "rights" to be "rights" they must possess some sort of truth to them, which these "abstractions" simply do not. No matter what effects it may have on our society, murder is not, and never will be, more then an act commited by an organism in an attempt to satisfy their desires, and neither will the moral-code of murder being wrong be anything more then an abstraction of the human mind to control society in order to make it more productive.

I would like you to attempt to prove to me how truth can arise out of relativity, I really would."

Of course, the rambling was merely an attempt to show the person who I was arguing with what subconscious fears would be present that would stop him from acknowledging such a truth, but I think I may have went a bit overboard...

Just reading this conversation gave me me the impression that your type is more likely INTP than INTJ. This is of course just a subjective assesment largely based on generalizing from few people I know well.

Now, as for the subtypes, I seem to most closely identify with the researcher subtype Curious(soul?) posted and the contradictor subtype that Malyshka posted.

Well as many have noted the subtypes theory is currently a mess and you should try to find your type first, but how about INTP, intuive subtype, the Philosopher? Or just perhaps INFP, intuitive subtype? In my opinion typing people of your own type can be most difficult because it is easy to see how they are different from yourself but the similarities, even when obvious to outsiders, can seem most elusive.

And yes Curious was me, I was too lazy to log in and I have also come to have doubts on whether I should refer to myself as a Soul when I cannot honestly believe I posses any metaphysical essence in addition to my physical being.

[MysticSonic]

Oh lord, I would never want anyone to depend on me. And I do enjoy the company of ESFps very much so, for the same reason you said; they cheer me up.

[Tanzhe]

MysticSoinc:

I don't have an S-N identity crisis. I was exaggerating for the purposes of my thoughts. Everybody who looked at my post said that I had Ne, and Ti as well. Since I know that I can't be an ENTp, because I am hardly an extrovert or a perceiving, then I must be an INTj.

What I meant when I coined the phrase 'S-N identity crisis' was that, since an INTj is a judging type, they have more trouble identifying their S-N scale. It is the opposite for perceiving types. In other words, it is difficult to identify your auxiliary function but easy to define your dominant function.

[MysticSonic]

Oh, no, I wasn't saying YOU had an S-N identity crisis, I was simply stating that the S-N identity crisis you proposed only holds true if one takes on a particular mask.

[CuriousSoul]

Most Highly Honorable and Exalted Master
MycticSonic

I think I may well have discovered your type.

Reading through your posts I have come to think that your type is most likely either INTP or ENTP, and strange as it may sound I am currently inclined to favor ENTP. I noted how your writing style, and particularly the discussion you quoted, bears a strong resemblance to Razib of the blog Gene Expression, for example this post discussing the background of Islamic terrorists:


Literacy and institutions devoted to intellectual pursuits bind together transcommunity information networks and have resulted in the rise of Civilization as we know it, but, these same forces often have an acidic impact on common sense notions of decency and proportionality mediated by insitutions and cognitive states shaped by our EEA. (The Environment of Evolutionary Adaptation ) http://evolution.massey.ac.nz/assign2/NM/environm.htm
The "intellectual" is profoundly unnatural, and the notion that one would give up one's life so that someone on the other side of the world would eventually profess the same set of axioms about some theological or metaphysical construct likely seems bizarre to most people because it is rather bizarre.

And this is where the natural sciences come in. If you spend much of your adult life focusing on methods and techniques that are highly esoteric and often counterintuitive, but, manage to make predictions that are uncanny in their fidelity to reality, is it surprising that you would take the axioms of your religion to heart, and start constructing a chain of inferences? Additionally, many of these individuals are psychologically distinct from the general population, as training in the natural sciences often selects for an individual who has a specific set of interests and predispositions at variance with the norm (so they are less buffered by "normal" considerations in keeping their ideas in perspective). People who are religiously trained are, in my experience, often great at the double-think that suggests that though religious belief A implies bizarre behavior B ("love thine enemy"), it really doesn't mean you should act weird!. Acting weird is for heaven, or for a religious elite, or some other loophole that allows normalcy free rein. Groups that do act weird, like the Shakers for instance, tend to have an ephemeral existence because their ideas are not that attractive to most people (their ideas often elicit admiration but not conversion). Many people without religious training, and especially those from the sciences where plain & transparent axioms exist to construct testable models, diagnose patients or engineer mechanical devices seem to treat religious commandments in the same fashion. Mix this with a relative lack of social fluency & a mobile unrooted lifestyle ((so there are fewer normal constraints on bizarre behavior), and you get a mindset that I think normal people have a hard time comprehending simply through introspection.
http://www.gnxp.com/MT2/archives/003188.html?entry=3188
(I quoted a short excerpt but it is well worth reading the whole post)

or on creationism:

To Jim, I responded that it is important for me to know what the majority of my co-citizens believe. I am interested in human culture and history, and religion is a substantial element of the modal definition of a "human." That is part of it. But there is something else: it is to Witness effectively. What do I mean by that? This is what I mean: a few years ago I was half asleep, and a local talk show host, a liberal New Agey guy of Jewish background decided to talk about the "controversy" about evolution. What resulted that a parade of callers offered the host with all sorts of "disproofs" of evolution. One of the most common things mentioned was that The Second Law of Thermodynamics shows that evolution can't happen.

How did the talk show host respond to this? All he said was "very interesting." Why? Well, how many people have taken a college level course where they encountered thermodynamics? Terms like "enthalpy" aren't in common circulation. Entropy is nothing more than a catch-phrase, and most people couldn't connect it explicitly to thermodynamics. I talked to a friend of mine who is a lawyer, and he told me he wouldn't know what to say to someone who asserted that The Second Law of Thermodynamics means evolution can't occur, because he didn't know what it was. These are just buzzwords to disorient those outside of the know. They add a patina of scientific respectibility to a certain subset of religious fundamentalist beliefs.

I called in, and simply asserted that the law in question only matters in the context of a closed system, blah, blah, blah. These were canned answers you can find at talk.origins, and I really didn't believe that most listenders knew or cared what I was talking about. But the calls about The Second Law of Thermodynamics ceased. I have talked to friends who were Creationists who tried to bullshit me with their talkings points from their Church. I know all the tactics and buzzwords, and respond pretty unthinkingly with the responses you can find on the internet or from books. Does this mean that my friends are no longer Creationists? No, of course not, the ground of their faith is not in the various quasi-scientific jargon they parrot, it is just a tool, a means, to convince others.
http://www.gnxp.com/MT2/archives/003024.html
Once again, I quote the juicy bits, you read the whole post, or else! :twisted:


This "Writing Style" method is still very much work in progress and it is quite possible that I am talking out of my b**kside, but this method of typing definitely has potential. If you search the blog archives you should find that there are many other posts by Razib well worth reading, just do not ask me for any proof of his type. :roll: If there is anything to this method that I am hoping to gradually perfect, you should be able notice how his style is significantly closer to yours than for example Abiola's was.


Naturally there are also other clues:

Oh lord, I would never want anyone to depend on me. And I do enjoy the company of ESFps very much so, for the same reason you said; they cheer me up.

This statement, and much more, do seem to fit the ENTP profile

He needs to feel emotional enthusiasm and ardor, and thus needs permanent sensory and emotional "recharge". He is unable to supply it himself, so he depends a lot on his surrounding. If nobody feeds him with impressions and positive emotions (nobody can do it as well as his dual The Mediator) – he mopes about life, loses ability to work and taste for life. To compensate for the absence of his dual he begins to mix with a lot of friends, becomes active in social projects, starts up clubs or scientific schools
and
ENTPs do not know how to keep the right psychological distance with people. This becomes especially noticeable during long term interaction. One day they can be friendly and the next day they can be completely opposite. They often behave unceremoniously and can rudely butt in on others conversations. ENTPs can also find it difficult to evaluate how others feel about them and therefore can make mistakes when choosing friends.

much better than the INTP:

He likes strong people who know their way in life, who demand concessions: such people release him from the necessity to invent goals, while using methods invented by him (he is a master of inventing methods.)
and
This is a vivid description of this personality type, who is constant in his feelings, does not like adventures, and desires total dependence of his demanding partner.

and there is a great deal more if you are willing to see where this path will take you...


***EDIT***

For those of you who should - against all odds - stumble upon this old thread I would like to express my doubts. Razib whom I quoted in this post may actually be an ENTJ. He has tested as both ENTP and ENTJ. My "writing style" method of typing has unfortunately proved to be far too unreliable, and thus I have put it on hold, although I am still hoping for further progress in the future...

[Tanzhe]

and there is a great deal more if you are willing to see where this path will take you...

What do you mean?

What I mean from this statement is: how does this apply to me as well as MysticSonic?

[CuriousSoul]

What do you mean?

What I mean from this statement is: how does this apply to me as well as MysticSonic?

No!!!
I thought we already established that your types is INTJ. I am totally lost if no one can see the light and eventually become confident they have got their type right.

I was just trying to say that we need to find many methods of typing that all converge to the same result in order to build on firm ground and not on running sand - as I said before if we cannot type people correctly everything else in socionics is more or less meaningless.

[Tanzhe]

No!!!
I thought we already established that your types is INTJ. I am totally lost if no one can see the light and eventually become confident they have got their type right.

I was just trying to say that we need to find many methods of typing that all converge to the same result in order to build on firm ground and not on running sand - as I said before if we cannot type people correctly everything else in socionics is more or less meaningless.

Sorry. I misunderstood what you were trying to say.

[Bear]

An interesting thread indeed.
MysticSonic, I guess, is still unsure of his type. He needs more and more FACTS about type representatives. This is kinda INTP approach to determining one's type - gather A LOT of facts, double check them, then see how they fit into type description and their view of the type, if something doesn't fit then start all over ))).
Meanwhile three people have already agreed on INTp version.
INTj are usually faster at typing themselves, and they look more into theory, into model A and different functions. When all the functions fit into their places, INTj sees that they fit into model and is ever since sure of his type.

2CuriousSoul: I'm INTj, thanks for the correction of my statements, I meant the same but was unable to state it properly due to some problems in english, maybe )).
What I wanted to say is that INTj usually sees how other people think about him, but he isn't really bothered by their attitude. He has his own stable point of view and is not usually willing to change it.

[MysticSonic]

Here are some major reasons why I don't believe I'm an INTp:

-Comlete lack of self confidence in all of my abilities.

-Lack of predictive ability and foresight.

-I don't really identitfy with the hidden agenda to love, although of course this is my HIDDEN agenda and thus I could very well not be aware of this. Yet on the other hand, it would seem that this hidden agenda would be far easier to detect as the obscure hidden agenda to be healthy, but that's just my opinion.

-Not assertive at all, very easily bullied, unless the situation requiring assertion it involves an intellectual arguement and maintains a certain degree of rationality to it. I could definately see Se as my place of least resistence.

-I'm not inclined to reach a practical result or implement my knowledge and use it in some sort of way. I've tried this, and have failed miserably in the past. I just don't have the energy to keep going after all the conceptualizing is over.

-I love hanging out with both ENTps, INTjs, and what I believe to be are ISFps

Now, here are some reasons that may support the fact that I'm an INTp

-Acidic reaction to what I believe to be are ESFjs

-I enjoy the company of what I believe to be are ESFps

-I do not understand very well other's disposition towards me

-I can become very pedantic in my search for knowledge

-I am able to see inconsistencies in other's thinking fairly easy.

I just simply doubt the fact that I'm an INTp. I never identified at all with the INTJ profile yet very much so with the INTP profile. I can't readily say that I'm an ENTp as I'm a bit hermitic, but either then that I can identify with it's inuitive abilities, or perhaps I wish I could.

[CuriousSoul]

Here are some major reasons why I don't believe I'm an INTp:

-Complete lack of self confidence in all of my abilities.

This is just a phase you are going through. It is, in my humble opinion, not really related to Socionics types.

-Lack of predictive ability and foresight.

This ability may develop better with maturity as you gradually come to notice how predictable creatures most people actually tend to be. Most INTPs, and I think INFPs as well, would though probably have some ability already at your age so I think it is circumstantial evidence against the INTP hypothesis.

-I don't really identitfy with the hidden agenda to love, although of course this is my HIDDEN agenda and thus I could very well not be aware of this. Yet on the other hand, it would seem that this hidden agenda would be far easier to detect as the obscure hidden agenda to be healthy, but that's just my opinion.

The hidden agenda is a difficult concept; generally the hidden agenda is indeed not what you have foremost on your mind but have you considered that your hidden agenda might be Fe, extroverted feeling, or to be loved, as Socionics.com put it.
The model that Socionics.com uses is quite a simplified interpretation by one school of Socionics, yet I would say that it seems to agree with reality fairly well though according to my observations the hidden agenda is generally more easily noticeable in irrational types and it is worth keeping in mind what Socionics.com states: Some people are more affected by it than others.

-Not assertive at all, very easily bullied, unless the situation requiring assertion it involves an intellectual arguement and maintains a certain degree of rationality to it. I could definately see Se as my place of least resistence.

This might be but it is awfully difficult to say - as I said nobody likes bullying.

-I'm not inclined to reach a practical result or implement my knowledge and use it in some sort of way. I've tried this, and have failed miserably in the past. I just don't have the energy to keep going after all the conceptualizing is over.

-I love hanging out with both ENTps, INTjs, and what I believe to be are ISFps

Presuming you have typed your friends correctly this could indeed imply that you are ENTp, or just maybe INTJ.

Now, here are some reasons that may support the fact that I'm an INTp

-Acidic reaction to what I believe to be are ESFjs

-I enjoy the company of what I believe to be are ESFps

This all only makes sense if you can type people reliably. As you are not even sure of your own type it seems unlikely that your typing can be fully trusted. Therefore I think you need some general guidelines that can help you get started:

Some ISFPs, possibly the sensory subtype, are rather quiet and relaxed whereas others, possibly the ethical subtype, are highly affable and sociable and could easily be mistaken for extroverts. For example if you have watched Friends, Matt LeBlanc, Joey on Friends, was typed, in my opinion correctly, as ISFP by Socionics.com. The succes of the series was at least partly due to the fact that there was not too large a mismatch between the personalities of the characters and the actors who played them. The ISFP features that I can mention of top of my head would be at least Joye's ability to regulate emotional distance in communication and the habit to occasionally slam the door and walk away rather than openly quarrel. Or more generally:

Another behavioural pattern peculiar to ISFPs is their tendency to try and stay in the middle. To be neither the best or to be the worst. This is the reason that they do not like to openly criticise people and do not get involved in confrontations. ISFPs always try to keep well away from bosses and other authoritative figures. They do not like briefings and other boring business meetings. They try to negotiate on an informal level using only safe and reliable acquaintances. ISFPs try to maintain peaceful relations with everybody.

Alternatively ISFPs can be prone to misuse their creative extroverted feeling Fe:

Is it possible for a seemingly healthy ISFP to be catty and manipulative, or can you pretty much always take their kindness at face value? (I wish to know because I am ENTP, and I can't figure out if my ISFP girlfriend and I are playing games with each other or if it's all in my head)

Yes, ISFPs can be very manipulative and catty and opportunistic and masters of intrigue. You can also find them amongst politicians. Here is mini "ISFP uncovered": During the school years ISFPs often manage to successfully manipulate their group opinion, usually against one particular person, initiating the group bitching and backstabbing. However after awhile, the tables turn on ISFPs too and they loose their authority and respect of the group. This loss they may never recover.
http://www.socionics.com/advan/qa070304.htm


ESFPs again may be either rather cuddly and kind, possibly the ethical subtype, like Paul McCartney, ESFP also because his mimicry in one interview I watched was very similar to my ESFP uncle. :wink: In these cases their creative introverted feeling, Fi: now I like you/now I don't could be expressed as playful teasing: She needs to be teased, doesn't she. Alternatively some ESFPs, possibly the sensory subtype, may have a very blunt approach to human relations: I had one ESFP come up to me and almost out of the blue declare: I hate you! Then he went on to launch a lengthy tirade on why engineers, and yes, he was an engineering student, are superior creatures who are the backbone of the national economy, and pretty much everybody else just sponges off them. We went on to have a long discussion and quite soon it became apparent that this was not really his well thought out opinion but just his way of starting a soul-searching conversation. As an INFP I found his style mildly amusing but most INTJs and ENTPs seem to find this ESFP version positively detestable. INTPs who have introverted feeling, Fi, as their hidden agenda and extroverted sensing, Se, as their duality-seeking function might well like this kind of emotionally unstable strong personalities, at least if they happen to listen to the INTP's calm and reasonable advice:

He likes strong people who know their way in life, who demand concessions: such people release him from the necessity to invent goals, while using methods invented by him (he is a master of inventing methods.) He is capable of pouring a bucket of cold water out on the head of an enthusiast. But on the other hand, he is likewise capable of easing one’s despair, when they are unlucky, when things go the wrong way, when destiny seems to be hostile…


I should write more about ESFJs later but as a general rule: as rational types their emotions tend to be more rational: They say what they mean and what you see is what you get:

ESFJs also can show a wide range of emotions during conversation. They have very characteristic negative emotions, periodically showing indignation which can flare up without warning and which can die down just as quickly. Their negative behaviour often cannot be explained logically as they can create a drama from something that may seem unimportant. During conversation ESFJs pay close attention to the ethics and good behaviour of others. They like to give ethical evaluations and analyses on who behaved well and who did not. They also watch that the norms of politeness are obeyed. ESFJs react negatively to people who do not obey ethical norms. This is why others can sometimes consider them to be confrontational and difficult to live with. Many people believe ESFJs could be very demanding and tactless.

-I do not understand very well other's disposition towards me

ENTps have difficulty in understanding the boundaries of relations between people. They find it especially difficult to understand other peoples true disposition towards them. After they have intuitively understood a person they tend to lose interest as if they do not know what to do after. This often turns people against them. They have difficulty identifying their enemies. ENTps also have difficulties in keeping good stable relations with people who know them well. They may accidentally show tactless behaviour often destroying maintained harmony.

-I can become very pedantic in my search for knowledge

-I am able to see inconsistencies in other's thinking fairly easy

I just simply doubt the fact that I'm an INTp. I never identified at all with the INTJ profile yet very much so with the INTP profile. I can't readily say that I'm an ENTp as I'm a bit hermitic, but either then that I can identify with it's intuitive abilities, or perhaps I wish I could.

The introversion/extroversion scale usually appears the most obvious, yet it can easily be the most misleading and difficult. This quote from your first post in this thread was one of the reasons that got me thinking that you could very well be ENTP:

My ability to predict future events isn't so developed, and neither is my spiritual bent, but my questioning of my dominant function would not seem as a frivilous matter as it may first appear, as my ability to organize my enviornment is nill, and I am THE most disorganized person in my school, bar none, although I can quite readily fend off any claims of my dominant function being Ne, as I do no possess and affable manner and often maintain a VERY large psychological distance between others until I have assessed them for about, at the least, a few days, unless apporached first, and I do not share the same uncertainty in my ability to handle others that the ENTp has, although I do have the aspect of losing emotional connections with others, even those I hold most dear.

- ENTps find it hard to keep them organised and disciplined. Because of this they often let everyday matters get out of control. This often leads to the cancellation of business plans, interruption of their work routine and interference in family matters. ENTps do not respond well to pressure.

Your thoughts?

[Moniker04]

[quote]had one ESFP come up to me and almost out of the blue declare: I hate you! Then he went on to launch a lengthy tirade on why engineers, and yes, he was an engineering student, are superior creatures who are the backbone of the national economy, and pretty much everybody else just sponges off them. We went on to have a long discussion and quite soon it became apparent that this was not really his well thought out opinion but just his way of starting a soul-searching conversation

An ESFP engineer? That can't be good

[MysticSonic]

Some more examples of my writing style:

"I despise these right-wing fundamentalists who claim that life beings at conception. Such thinking is idiotic when the term "life" is being loosely used here and not at all in the appropriate context. Life would designate all that: adapts, grows, regerates, and reproduces, thus, by this definition human fetuses wouldn't be considered life. But, beyond these superficial qualities whicih only seek to define the biological properties of life, we find that these Creationist views are nonsensical and mal-adapted to what one "unconsciously" considers HUMAN life. Human life, as far as I'm concenred, is defined by sentience, the ability to have a sense of self, the ability to produce conscious thought. Up until the age of 2 or so, the human mind lacks the sense of self, although most obviously has the ability to reason, which implies conscious thought. Now, a fetus, especially five day old fetuses, on the otherhand has neither the ability to reason nor sentience. Since when could a mass of blob think?

This "blob" does not emote, does not think, does not feel, and primitively adapts, which is akin to those used by amoebas. We are not oppresing their "will to live" as they do not have one, they do not even possess a brain in the early stage of embryonic development.

You will now see how I, indirectly, answered the question: does the end justify the mean? What we have are cells with ENORMOUS potential, for braincell transplants, spinal chord repair, lung repair, heart repair, and so on. This vast and expansive prospect, I believe, most CERTAINLY justifies the means."

"Let's say God made things differently...

...like, he made us and created us in such a state that it would be friviolous to worry about sinning, since we know nothing "of sin", just merely experiencing and being aware of only bliss and euphoria.

Let's say God KILLED Lucifer, or had something else done that would rid him of his and his followers access to our world. Would that not seem more sensical then just "throwing him in hell", thus ridding God of this pesky fallen angel and his litte cherubs with horns forever?


What's the sense of just throwing us into hell, whatever that may be? What is the sense? Since we did not choose to believe in him we are impure, but even though God has the ability to pure us, since he's omnipotent, he doesn't do so?

What's the sense of creating the universe as we know it? Did God just decide one day that he'd much rather enjoy watching us in pain and suffering, seeing if we would make the "right choice" and believe in him? "

"
"It seems christians and athiests alike seem to enjoy pulling shit out of their ass in an attempt to assemble a rebuttle that later on becomes nothing but a fallacy who's only effect has been making a fool at the person who thought of, or borrowed from someone else, such reasoning. What we forget is that we're dealing with something beyond the physical realm, thus Science cannot deal with it directly, and an attempt to synthesize the two schools of thought, scientific empiralisms and religious faith, is doomed to failure . While one can safely state the rules of this world with only a certain degree of innacuarcy, as all thoughts assembled by a perceptual being are infinitely flawed, one cannot apply the rules to an aspect of reality where the rules do not apply. But, this is where the Christians attempt to use this as a scapegoat, simply implying that "faith" is a sufficient means to believe in something, and is justifiable logically. The ironic thing in that statement there is they believe in the illogical and attempt to reconcile these inconsistencies with LOGIC. A Christian can go on forever with this scapegoat, never attempting to acknowledge the logic presented by those opposed to such views, and rightfully so; they can claim the illogical all they want, for we are infinitely illogical, and this is the heart of the matter. This is the issue that people fail to recognize, that we are in no way fit to logically justify our perceptions, when they are merely our perceptions; the accuarcy of such perceptions is equivelent to the state that the tools we use to percieve such perceptions are in.

Conceptualization is a subjective process: one has to gather the information one desires to acquire, reflect upon the gathered information, and come to a conclusion, although this conclusion is ALWAYS brought to an end prematurely, thus we attempt to justify our points of view that are not founded on reality. Even this statement, an attempt to logically explain that which we percieve is infinitely flawed and thus cannot be justified, is infinitely flaed, thus creating a paradox of sorts, a particularly NASTY one. One can never come to a truly objective truth through the means that we have, although this statement and the entire thesis of this post is based on such means, and is thus infinitely flawed. So, the only thing one can be sure of is that one cannot be sure of anything, and even that you cannot have complete certainty. Now, I see no reason not to argue out of sport, but I figured I may as well point this out, as there truly is NO sense to it but to satisfy our desires TO make sense of it."

Perhaps me posting several of my arguements is the hidden agenda "to love" manifesting itself?

[Tanzhe]

MysticSonic:

Your idea of putting up schoolwork to see how you write is a good idea. To that end, I've mananged to unearth some of my own essays. I am not attempting to analyse your writing style because I am not very good at that sort of type ID. Whether this is useful to you or not, my passages will be useful for a comparison, especially to see whether you might have Ti Ne or Ne Ti.

Firstly:

Birling, throughout this speech, repeats the phrase, ‘Hard-headed, practical man of business.’ He believes that they ‘have to have a say’ in national affairs sometime. The way in which he talks of this concept seems to suggest that he views the ‘practical men of business’ as people who belong in a social élite. In several ways, the notion of a practical businessman is of the same importance to Birling as the notion of the Aryan race was to Nazi philosophy. They are an entire category of their own, independent of the rankings of lower-, middle- and upper-classes. This independence may be linked to a dissatisfaction with his middle-class origins; so, Birling has decided to remain aloof. This is supremely ironic when we realise that Birling sees himself as a realist.


Secondly:

At line 147 (A3 S1), Antony will, no doubt, have already heard of Caesar’s assassination. From evidence gathered later in play (which will be analysed in due course), we discover that Antony is a quick thinker. He will have had to formulate a strategy on limited information, so we can assume that the following exchange, between him and the conspirators over Caesar’s body, is spontaneous. In this state, he has searched for, and found, the conspirators, at whose feet lies the bloody body of Julius Caesar.

[CuriousSoul]

I have started to have doubts regarding the usefulness of these advanced methods. Sometimes there can be a kind of instinctive recognition but generally the writing style method can be quite confusing.
In theory the difference between INTPs and ENTPs should, as far as I know, be that ENTPs start by combining different observations and then "see the hidden meaning" and draw general conclusions, the real reason these things happen is...

Whereas INTPs start with general scepticism, yet another crackpot theory... and then draw some more specific conclusions: well maybe something of real use can be salvaged from these wild theories.... But as always it is more of a statistical pattern, not an absolutely reliable sorter.

What you should do in order not to get completely lost in wild speculation is to get back to basics and learn how the four scales are defined in Socionics, in my opinion it does help to clarify one's thinking about the types, though I may well be somewhat blinded by my intensive interest in Socionics.

Study the scales carefully and choose what feels instinctively natural for you.
http://www.socionika.com

[MysticSonic]

Here's a different picture with me, and my friend, whom I'm pretty sure is an INTj, as he is completely obssesed with being clean and healthy.

Yeah, we're pretty young.

[Creepy-PedroTehLion]

I had an ENFJ friend who was a germaphobe (completely freaked out about germs). Just because he is obsessed with being clean and healthy doesn't mean he's INTJ but he probably does have inferior Sensing.

[MysticSonic]

Well, of course I have my subsidary reasons, such as him being very analytical and detached. He also keeps things together in such an orderly fashion that it oftens sickens me. But, the main reason I believe him to be an INTj are his quadrable values.

And to eleaborate upon my statement of being "clean and healthy", I would be required to point out in order to this post relevant, that his obsesion with being "clean" did not extend in an isolated fashion towards being "healthy", but has much more to do with his sensory perceptions. For instance, if he were to have syrup stuck on his hands, or any similar substance, he would wash it off immiedately, but not for health benefits, but in order to cease his experience with his sensory perceptions.

[Creepy-]

Wow...you look like a young Carl Jung.

The problem with V.I. is that although types have similarlities in appearance, there are many subtype differences. As a result, people are more likely to closely resemble those from the same subtype.



http://ru.laser.ru/gallery/minto/index.html

So whatever Jung's type is, you are likely to have the same type/subtype.

[Creepy-]

True.

But the KEY difference is in the facial expression, eyes, smile/or lack of, and mannerisms.

[SFVB]

Quick questions for you on the INFp/INTp/INTj identification issue.

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 excercising)?
3. Do you feel bad about yourself if you don't understand something very well, and when you feel you do, do you purport to be an expert on it and expose your lack of understanding to everyone, forcing you to start over, re-learning what you thought you already knew?

If you answered yes to the first question, you are an INTp (socionics)

If you answered yes to the second question, you are an INTj

If you answered yes to the third question, you are an INFp

If you answered yes to all three or more than one, choose which one happens the most often.

If none of them apply to you, then I'll have to ask more questions.

[MysticSonic]

1. Yes; Frequency: Uncommon
2. Yes. Frequency: Common to a certain extent
3. Yes to the first part, no to the second.

Edit: Actually, when I think about it, the prospect of an intimate relation with someone is actually quite horrifying.

[SFVB]

I'd bet you were probably an INFp. One of the interesting things I've noticed about beneficiaries and benefactors, is that for some reason, the benefactors often imitate the personalities of their beneficiaries, because it is easy for them to do so. For example, it would be very easy for me to pass myself off (from a distance) as a lazy, superficial, anti-social ISTp, but only on the surface, and not for a very long time. I've noticed many INFps imitate the serious nature of INTjs when necessary, and it comes across as very genuine from a distance but dissapears upon closer inspection.

Perhaps this results from the idea that the benefactors don't see anything particularly complicated or special about the personalities of their beneficiaries, and therefore find it easy to mimic them when the situation calls for it. I've noticed I find it VERY difficult at times to determine a person's type whom I don't know very well when I see them in a formal situation, and I always end up narrowing it down to two or three types all having either relations of benefit (instruction) or supervision. It's an interesting phenomena which I have attributed to the need for people to mimic other personalities in order to survive in difficult situations, much like a chameleon.

This often makes it very difficult to type people remotely, and when this is not taken into account, many people end up being mis-typed which makes socionics a less viable science in the eyes of skeptics.