Jonathan - Just for the fun of it

[Jonathan]

In all this time, I've never done a blatant "Me" post in "What's My Type." I figured it was fairly pointless. But since Sarah's post in http://the16types.info/forums/viewtopic.php?t=4948 questioned my type, I thought gee, let's open this up.....Not that having people vote on one's type is a very reliable method of determining anything, but like many of the rest of us I'm a the16types.info junkie and I do this to relax.

At this point, I have I think well over 300 posts (scary!), so it shouldn't be hard to find material. Rick thought I look like INTp, with a slight possibility of ISFp (but not INFp for some reason...actually I think a few of my pictures look like INFp, but I'm different from the INFps I know...anyhow, sorry but I'm not going to post my picture online).

As you're probably aware, a number of other people have mentioned INTp, but there have always been others who say I'm Alpha. As I've often stated, the differences probably have more to do with different versions of Socionics than with anything about the person being typed.

That said...I'm just curious what you'll say if I post this....

[Joy]

anything but the second to last choice

[Jonathan]

anything but the second to last choice

Well I thought I'd give tc a chance to work with a willing subject, but it seems that most people so far on this poll think I'm INTj. I wonder how many people who consider themselves INTj here think that.

[Jonathan]

Of course, to accomodate the view of INTj, we have to look at the ramifications...One possible solution is my "radical subtypes theory" so that you have four distinct types:

INTjP INTpP
INTjJ INTpJ

The other is that among Ns, p's display rational-type behaviors, and j's display P-like behavior, and it's the other way around for Ss...

Which actually makes sense when you consider that INjs are in the same quadra with ISps, and INps with ISjs.....

[Jonathan]

77% INTj....Phaedrus isn't going to like this.

Actually, I think whoever's voting has a point.... is clearly my weakest function, and ENFj never made any sense as my supervisor type...ESTp fits better as supervisor...And INFp as benefactor makes sense...

[Joy]

Jonathan, you're a Ni type.

[Jonathan]

Jonathan, you're a Ni type.

At least some people think so. Actually, it's getting closer now...3 for , 7 for .

I think there's a good case to be made for both....but I suspect that the people who think I'm INTj and those who think I'm INTp have different images of what those two types are....not that that's anything new.

Curious - what things about me point to Ni, in your view?

[anndelise]

Jonathan, you're a Ni type.

or maybe jonathon is an intj AND you have a mirror relationship with him.

[Joy]

i've been trying to do a few of these (really!) but they are all coming out as descriptions. i'm not sure i have much to contribute that hasn't been already said in the thread.

Remember how this started. I wrote a description for INFp in the thread; and despite my best efforts for it to fit in that thread, people recognized it as being from an IP perspective; or at least, that's what people perceived (as I'm always skeptical about what my type really is). So anyhow, in this context, someone repeated something that had been said earlier, namely, Let's start an thread.

The bottom line is, if you're INTp, what you write is something that you'll think is , but others will recognize as being . So just write something, but don't feel it has to imitate the way they do it in the thread...i.e., personifying the type as one individual and writing about how that type is useful or not useful for worldly endeavors.

On the contrary, I think it would be more natural for an type to write generally (not as a single "he" or "she"), with focus on how the other person affects your own mental state.

Far from concern about duplicating the thread, the bigger issue is that type descriptions are more likely to be like the kinds of descriptions people have grown accustomed to, since many people believe Jung was -dominant himself.

However, it would still be interesting to see what other people's perceptions are.

In particular, I'd like to know how *other* INTps perceive ESFjs in real life....because in my experience, I just don't see the "conflict" there....with the possible exception of when I was a kid and had ESFjs as teachers; but whether those teachers I'm thinking of (i.e., the ones who over-emphasize routine homework assignments and memorization) were really ESFj is open to debate.

perhaps this can serve as a clue?

[Sarah]

perhaps this can serve as a clue?

I think this part is important:

In particular, I'd like to know how *other* INTps perceive ESFjs in real life....because in my experience, I just don't see the "conflict" there....

I definitely conflict with ESFjs.

[Joy]

Is NiFe an possibility?

[Jonathan]

Is NiFe an possibility?

I've considered it...that's one reason INFp is one of the 8 types in the poll. Because I have a tendency to go on type 'excursions', I think there have been some times when I've been INFp-like. So, I think it's part of my makeup, just as a number of other types are.

But there are a number of reasons that INFp as my main type seems problemmatic...

1) In my experience, people who seem to be clearly INFp or NF in general seem different from me, even though there are similarities (related to being N).

2) With in the ego block, I should be more socially aware. It's not that I'm that bad, but for to be in the ego block would suggest it should be one of my top strengths.

3) Most NFs I know tend to associate T with S....That is, the more T they get, the more S they get too....and they sometimes have trouble distinguishing the two. They often have the viewpoint that logic and creativity are somehow opposed. That viewpoint is foreign to me.

4) Most NFs I know are drawn to ST types. I'm more drawn to SFs.

5) Most NFs tend to lose interest if I get too technical or talk about things that aren't people related.

6) Most of the time, I'm not particularly aware of feeling any particular way.

7) I tend to register the most sense of identity-type awareness (the feeling of 'wow...that person is just like me') with people who are INTP. The question has always been is that because they're INTP in the sense of INTp=INTP or in the sense of INTj=INTP.
.......It all depends on whether you
a) see INTps as the open-minded creative types who like to talk freely about ideas but can sometimes ignore practical reality for too long (e.g., people like me) and INTjs as more structured types who like control and mastery, and who see things in terms of there being right and wrong answers, and like to set people straight about those
....or
b) if you see the first group as INTjs and the second as INTps.
.......I take it that Sarah and Colonel Agnus tend to see things in way (b) (???).
.......Of course there are threads gallore on that issue. But maybe it's worthwhile to confront it directly....which of those two descriptions matches which of those two types....

[Jonathan]

Sarah: I definitely conflict with ESFjs.

Now you're sounding like Niffweed. Curious: In what ways do you conflict with ESFjs?

[Phaedrus]

Jonathan, niffweed17, and I are INTPs (in the MBTI sense). To believe that INTPs like us can be INTjs has the consequence that rational J behaviour is described incorrectly in Socionics, for example on Dmitri Lytov's site and on Sergei Ganin's site. On almost every single question used to distinguish between rational and irrational types in Lytov's test I am an irrational P type, which of course is just what one should expect since the J/P dichotomy described there is very much like MBTI's. At least the criteria in both models lead to the same kind of behaviour in real life.

SG considers himself to be an INTj, and he also thinks that he fits at least one description of MBTI INTJs better than (another) description of INTPs thinking process. Ganin is clearly different from Jonathan and me.

On V.I. I look more INTp than INTj just like Jonathan says he does. Ganin looks INTj.

If I, Jonathan and niffweed17 are not INTps but INTjs, then Sergei Ganin, Dmitri Lytov, and Expat have incorrect conceptions of INTjs.

As Jonathan has pointed out, there are clearly two different and incompatible views on INTjs among the members of this forum. Both sides in this controversy should at least agree on that. It is clear that some of us have incorrect conceptions of INTps and INTjs. I don't know for sure whether I am a member of that group or not, but I know that if I am wrong about my own type (and Jonathan's and niffweed17's and others), then we have to face the problems I mention above (and others which I don't mention).

[Ms. Kensington]

"Jonathan, niffweed17, and I are INTPs (in the MBTI sense). To believe that INTPs like us can be INTjs has the consequence that rational J behaviour is described incorrectly in Socionics, for example on Dmitri Lytov's site and on Sergei Ganin's site. On almost every single question used to distinguish between rational and irrational types in Lytov's test I am an irrational P type, which of course is just what one should expect since the J/P dichotomy described there is very much like MBTI's. At least the criteria in both models lead to the same kind of behaviour in real life."

i dont think that any of the sites mean that you will in fact behave in a stereotypically j manner. As i've said before, it makes sense to me that an INTj would act P according to stereoptypical behaviors as described by MBTI since what it is that is J is hidden and modified with things that are not readily visible (as opposed to an S type).

"SG considers himself to be an INTj, and he also thinks that he fits at least one description of MBTI INTJs better than (another) description of INTPs thinking process. Ganin is clearly different from Jonathan and me.

...

If I, Jonathan and niffweed17 are not INTps but INTjs, then Sergei Ganin, Dmitri Lytov, and Expat have incorrect conceptions of INTjs. "

i dont follow you here.. what? so what if Ganin fits at least one INTJ description better? a bad description, or anything less than a perfect description of either INTx type could fit someone of either type and not contradict the other type.

"As Jonathan has pointed out, there are clearly two different and incompatible views on INTjs among the members of this forum. Both sides in this controversy should at least agree on that. It is clear that some of us have incorrect conceptions of INTps and INTjs."

To me there is one conception of the INTj on this forum. If anything, to me there is a crude stereotypical one and a more nuanced one. Are you speaking about your own view as the second conception? To me this is not a conception as of now because if it is totally new then you either have not yet explained it (other than saying its obvious what everyone means by INTj, in which there would only be one conception again) or you have and i have not seen it.

"I don't know for sure whether I am a member of that group or not, but I know that if I am wrong about my own type (and Jonathan's and niffweed17's and others), then we have to face the problems I mention above (and others which I don't mention)."

what do you think of jonathan's new description of Ni? If you agree with it, what is your description of Ti? Did you have a problem with functions before you learned of socionics (did the description of Ti mesh with you as the first function, etc)?

[Jonathan]

To me there is one conception of the INTj on this forum.

Well, that's the one place where I have to take a stand. There are just too many threads proving that there's more than one conception. Anyhow, you mentioned my Ni thread...so if you disagree with it that just proves that there are different conceptions because a whole bunch of people chimed in on that thread to say that they agreed with it...but apparently Sarah doesn't, so we can at least agree that there's disagreement.

And there are earlier threads that prove very clearly that there are a few different views about what INTjs are like. However, if you think that one view is *clearly* the best or dominant view, please elaborate.

[FDG]

so if you disagree with it that just proves )

God. I so fucking HATE when both you and Phaedrus use this kind of argument! If one of you two disagree on something, it means that you disagree on something, not that anything is proven. Suppose that you sample 1000 people of type X; if one of them disagrees on charateristic a of type X, does this disprove that type X has the charateristic a? No, no no no! That would be a misapplication of formal logic.

[aestrivex]

if you disagree with me that just proves...

oh no. you can't say something like that. if you disagree with X it cannot mean Y. that would be a misapplication of logic.

... that there are different conceptions.

gee, are there different conceptions? i thought that their disagreement indicated that they had the same conception of the situation.

[Phaedrus]

That there are (at least) two different conceptions of how the members of the INTj group are in comparison with the members of the INTp group is foremost an empirical observation. It is not that important what follows or does not follow logically here. Some people seem to have roughly the same conception of the difference between INTjs and INTps as I have, others seem to have quite another conception, and it seems as though that other conception makes sense if those who have it are looking at the MBTI group of INTJs when they (according to their conception) are looking at real life INTps and are looking at an MBTI INTP when they think that they are looking at a real life example of an INTj.

[FDG]

That there are (at least) two different conceptions of how the members of the INTj group are in comparison with the members of the INTp group is foremost an empirical observation. It is not that important what follows or does not follow logically here. Some people seem to have roughly the same conception of the difference between INTjs and INTps as I have, others seem to have quite another conception, and it seems as though that other conception makes sense if those who have it are looking at the MBTI group of INTJs when they (according to their conception) are looking at real life INTps and are looking at an MBTI INTP when they think that they are looking at a real life example of an INTj.

Why do you keep blabbering this nonsense since you came here? Your only contribution so far has been to confuse yourself about your own type.

[Ms. Kensington]

To me there is one conception of the INTj on this forum.

Well, that's the one place where I have to take a stand. There are just too many threads proving that there's more than one conception. Anyhow, you mentioned my Ni thread...so if you disagree with it that just proves that there are different conceptions because a whole bunch of people chimed in on that thread to say that they agreed with it...but apparently Sarah doesn't, so we can at least agree that there's disagreement.

And there are earlier threads that prove very clearly that there are a few different views about what INTjs are like. However, if you think that one view is *clearly* the best or dominant view, please elaborate.

here is what i said earlier:

"To me there is one conception of the INTj on this forum. If anything, to me there is a crude stereotypical one and a more nuanced one. Are you speaking about your own view as the second conception? To me this is not a conception as of now because if it is totally new then you either have not yet explained it (other than saying its obvious what everyone means by INTj, in which there would only be one conception again) or you have and i have not seen it. "

so i made these statements wondering if Phaedrus meant his own conception as the second conception. yes, i am not aware of the different conception of the INTj among other forum members other than yourself and phaedrus. I believe i still have not heard what your (same?) conception is, if it is the one commonly thought of as INTp in socionics or if it is the group of people that are described INTP in MBTI and how is it a conception if it is not somehow verbally formed? Although i do not discount the possibility it seems like one could not be too solid of their conception if you cant word it clearly.

EDIT: I don't mean you have to come up with a complete theory but right now i am just trying to get my bearings on what exactly you are claiming.

[Phaedrus]

I believe that my conception of INTps (and probably INTjs too) is very similar to Expat's. I could probably also name a few others, since there seem to be one or two persons on this forum who also believe that their conception of INTps are similar to Expat's. I have not experienced any clear difference between my view on these two types and Expat's view. Maybe there is, but in that case I haven't realized it yet. When Expat said that he thought that Stratiyevskaya's description of INTps was good, I looked at it more carefully, and I also believe that Stratiyevskaya's description is very similar to mine, and I also believe that she is describing real life INTPs (in MBTI's sense).

But when some people seem so convinced that there is something wrong with my conception of INTps and INTjs (that impression is based on the opposition I meet when I say things about those types) I will have to assume that there are more than one view on these types. And it also seems that our views are almost twisted, so that those who I believe are INTjs the other "school" believe are INTps, and the other way around.

[Jonathan]

FDG: God. I so fucking HATE when both you and Phaedrus use this kind of argument! If one of you two disagree on something, it means that you disagree on something, not that anything is proven. Suppose that you sample 1000 people of type X; if one of them disagrees on charateristic a of type X, does this disprove that type X has the charateristic a? No, no no no! That would be a misapplication of formal logic.

I agree with you, and I actually don't use that kind of argument much. Phaedrus does, but only in collaboration with other information.

Anyhow, I don't mean to be overly argumentative here, but the reason why it was logical for me to use it in this case was that Ms. K. was saying that there's no disagreement. So it's perfectly logical to say that if Ms. K. disagrees then there's obviously disagreement.

Even if only two people disagree, that alone does prove that there's disagreement. However, in addition, I mentioned some other supporting evidence for my point.

[Jonathan]

Ms. K.: so i made these statements wondering if Phaedrus meant his own conception as the second conception. yes, i am not aware of the different conception of the INTj among other forum members other than yourself and phaedrus. I believe i still have not heard what your (same?) conception is, if it is the one commonly thought of as INTp in socionics or if it is the group of people that are described INTP in MBTI and how is it a conception if it is not somehow verbally formed? Although i do not discount the possibility it seems like one could not be too solid of their conception if you cant word it clearly.

EDIT: I don't mean you have to come up with a complete theory but right now i am just trying to get my bearings on what exactly you are claiming.

Sorry about the lack of info...I post here just when I feel like taking a break, so I was kind of incomplete in my statements.

Here are two threads that should help elucidate the issue:

http://the16types.info/forums/viewtopic.php?t=4064
http://the16types.info/forums/viewtopic.php?t=3360

In the top thread, I show two possible descriptions of INTj. As the thread progreses, it becomes clear that there is more than one view. The lower thread, particularly Dmitri's responses, helps shed light on one way of looking at INTp. There are a number of other threads like these, but I think those two should be enough for now.

One thing that keeps coming up is that people see something I, Phaedrus, or Niffweed says that they say sounds -based, so they say we're INTj. Phaedrus resonates with Socionics descriptions of irrational types (P) (as I do also), so he always argues against INTj.

For myself, I'm willing to entertain the possibility that I might be INTj in terms of functions but still tend towards "P" behaviors....or that the broad categories (I + N + T + P) may be more stable characteristics than model A. That hypothesis would be a modification of the theory. It's something I've considered though...I call it radical subtype theory...the idea that there can be an INTjP and and INTpP that are very similar except with some differences in their intertype relationships with other types.

Anyhow, there must be some way to chat live with people who are most likely INTj and INTp....It might shed some light on those theories.

[Expat]

I believe that my conception of INTps (and probably INTjs too) is very similar to Expat's. I could probably also name a few others, since there seem to be one or two persons on this forum who also believe that their conception of INTps are similar to Expat's. I have not experienced any clear difference between my view on these two types and Expat's view. Maybe there is, but in that case I haven't realized it yet. When Expat said that he thought that Stratiyevskaya's description of INTps was good, I looked at it more carefully, and I also believe that Stratiyevskaya's description is very similar to mine, and I also believe that she is describing real life INTPs (in MBTI's sense).

Perhaps you give me too much credit.

"My" conception of INTps is that of the Stratiyevskaya functional description, not only because I think that her descriptions overall are the best available, but also because two individuals I kno/ew fit that description perfectly. My INTp profile in the Te Gamma thread was very easy to write because I was mostly describing someone I know very well, using the Stratiyevskaya profile (and the one on socioscope.com) simply to explain her behavior.

So I have an image of what an INTp is in my mind (possibly incomplete). Perhaps because of this, I am often baffled by these endless discussions regarding whether someone is an INTj or INTp. Unfortunately I don't have as precise an image of INTjs since I don't know any that well.

But when some people seem so convinced that there is something wrong with my conception of INTps and INTjs (that impression is based on the opposition I meet when I say things about those types) I will have to assume that there are more than one view on these types. And it also seems that our views are almost twisted, so that those who I believe are INTjs the other "school" believe are INTps, and the other way around.

I haven't read all those discussions in detail, and I don't feel I have a good impression of Jonathan to say anything clear about his type. But my impression is that all those discussions about who is INTp or INTj become too bizarre. It should be a clear matter if people know themselves and also know the descriptions.

By the way, the Stratiyevskaya INTp description is simply the longest and best -- it does not contradict the others in socionics.org or the one in socioscope.com. I have to assume that the confusioin is caused by some bits in Ganin's descriptions, or in this site here, which concentrate on some bits (like the INTp's supposed "spirituality") that are wrong or non-essential to the type.

[Phaedrus]

@Expat

Perhaps you give me too much credit.

The only thing I know for sure here is that, seen from my perspective, you and I (with perhaps a few minor exceptions) tend to make the same typings of people. I could easily relate to your INTp description in the Gamma thread, and I thought it was accurate. It was clearly in line with my view of INTps.

I have also an image of what an INTp is in my mind, and since I can't anything that you say about INTps that I disagree with it seems that we probably have the same group of people in mind. I also have an image of how INTjs are (rather precise regarding their looks and outer behaviour, much more vague when it comes to what it is like to think like an INTj). The difference between INTjs and INTps seen from the outside is pretty clear I think, if we compare the overall impressions they make on us. If we only base our understanding of them on readings of type descriptions they are not that easy to separate. And to base our understanding of them only on our interpretations of which function they use in different situations makes us even more susceptible to make mistypings.

Stratiyevskaya's description of INTps is surprisingly accurate and comprehensive. It contains some things that I have never before seen in any description, whether from MBTI or Socionics, but which I have observed in myself.

I haven't read all those discussions in detail, and I don't feel I have a good impression of Jonathan to say anything clear about his type. But my impression is that all those discussions about who is INTp or INTj become too bizarre. It should be a clear matter if people know themselves and also know the descriptions.

Yes, it should. But the fact seems to be that it isn't. That's one of the reasons I have continued to discuss this problem. There is something in the descriptions that makes it difficult for those who are INTjs and INTps to figure out which type they really are. I don't know exactly what it is, but Jonathan and I have had very similar experiences in this regard, and I suspect that others have had too.

I have thought that I am an INTj, based on the type descriptions, but when I compare that hypothesis with reality I can clearly see that there is something wrong with it. I have a clear image of ENTjs, based on many type descriptions and real life friends who fit the ENTj descriptions perfectly. As I said above, I also have a pretty clear image of how real INTjs are. They are distinctly different from the ENTjs, but they fit the MBTI descriptions of INTJs very well (which I don't even though I thought that for a while). Since the socionic descriptions of INTjs have many similarities with the MBTI description of INTJs (if we keep the functions aside) they fit the descriptions of INTjs too. But they do not fit the socionic descriptions of INTps, whereas I do exactly that. In some respects I can relate to Stratiyevskaya's description of INTjs (just as I can relate to some aspects of the MBTI description of INTJs), but I fit her INTp description much better.

By the way, the Stratiyevskaya INTp description is simply the longest and best -- it does not contradict the others in socionics.org or the one in socioscope.com.

I tend to agree with you here. Neither does Stratiyevskaya's description contradict the MBTI descriptions of INTPs (except, on the surface level, the function analysis). The longest INTP description is the one of Paul James at www.intp.org

I have to assume that the confusioin is caused by some bits in Ganin's descriptions, or in this site here, which concentrate on some bits (like the INTp's supposed "spirituality") that are wrong or non-essential to the type.

Yes, at least it is partly caused by those bits.

[Jonathan]

But my impression is that all those discussions about who is INTp or INTj become too bizarre.

It may be, but if you look at the vehemence of the posts in the "Alphas get out" thread under the Gamma section, you'll see that the sense of ambiguity persists. A number of people in that post state in no uncertain terms that they can't accept Phaedrus as an INTp, whereas he's fully satisfied with INTp as his type.

One could ignore them of course, but I'm curious why they feel so strongly...Look at Sarah's posts in particular.

It may be that what they're noticing is really just the difference between INTps who pretty much only use the ego block versus ones who use all the functions more fully, and that may be why they can't accept some of us as being INTps.

Or it could be that some of those people are just confused, as you say, but some of the errant descriptions.

As for me, I have a little trouble identifying with the Strat...skaya description of INTp. Although this may be a Russian/English translation issue, it seems to be saying that INTps are really good at showing up places on time and finishing things on time, without having to ever rush at the last minute.

If I'm reading that right, it sounds more like the way I see Js, since such an ability would clearly be the result of good advance planning.

I tend to wing things; I don't stress about things much; I don't rush and I hate rushing, and still usually get stuff done; but because of my dislike of following plans, I do find myself having to rush at the last minute sometimes, especially if I don't consciously strive to compensate. So, if I read Strat...skaya correctly, that would be in contrast to what's supposed to be one of the primary skills of an INTp.

[Expat]

As for me, I have a little trouble identifying with the Strat...skaya description of INTp. Although this may be a Russian/English translation issue, it seems to be saying that INTps are really good at showing up places on time and finishing things on time, without having to ever rush at the last minute.

If I'm reading that right, it sounds more like the way I see Js, since such an ability would clearly be the result of good advance planning.

No, I think this is wrong and a source of confusion.

INTps and other types, including ENTjs, are more confident in their ability to evaluate how much time they will need to do something. So they are ok with postponing things, because they "know" that somehow they will find the time to do it later. That may include rushing at the last minute. But it's not correlated necessarily to good advance planning.

Weak types - ESFj, ESTj, ISTj, and ISFj - dislike postponing things and they do prefer to use advance planning - and so are, as I have said, the most uncontroversial "J" types, besides their inclination for tyiding up - precisely because they lack confidence in their ability to manage their time if they don't use advance planning.

[anndelise]

But my impression is that all those discussions about who is INTp or INTj become too bizarre.

It may be, but if you look at the vehemence of the posts in the "Alphas get out" thread under the Gamma section, you'll see that the sense of ambiguity persists. A number of people in that post state in no uncertain terms that they can't accept Phaedrus as an INTp, whereas he's fully satisfied with INTp as his type.

One could ignore them of course, but I'm curious why they feel so strongly...Look at Sarah's posts in particular.

It may be that what they're noticing is really just the difference between INTps who pretty much only use the ego block versus ones who use all the functions more fully, and that may be why they can't accept some of us as being INTps.

Or it could be that some of those people are just confused, as you say, but some of the errant descriptions.

As for me, I have a little trouble identifying with the Strat...skaya description of INTp. Although this may be a Russian/English translation issue, it seems to be saying that INTps are really good at showing up places on time and finishing things on time, without having to ever rush at the last minute.

If I'm reading that right, it sounds more like the way I see Js, since such an ability would clearly be the result of good advance planning.

I tend to wing things; I don't stress about things much; I don't rush and I hate rushing, and still usually get stuff done; but because of my dislike of following plans, I do find myself having to rush at the last minute sometimes, especially if I don't consciously strive to compensate. So, if I read Strat...skaya correctly, that would be in contrast to what's supposed to be one of the primary skills of an INTp.

Just thought I would point out that the timing thing and awareness of the internal processes of a project would come from the Ni of the INTp, which would aid in the planning of Te such as what to do, and when. Being that INTps deal with this information so easily/readily, this ability allows to them to make notes of what needs to be covered and produce their talk on the fly. It may also be what helps them to not stress as much over deadlines and plans, as well as the ability to compensate for alterations without much stress.

Those who aren't using their NiTe as effecient as an INTp would feel somewhat hemmed in with plans, as well as have to deal with last minute rushes due to inefficient timing and awareness of the project's processes.

It seems to me that INTjs like to know what they are going to be dealing with before it happens. Many times, the unknown will agitate them, some even becoming obsessed over what might possibly happen. They tend to stress over last minute changes and have a somewhat difficult time compensating for timing and changes in the process, etc. INTjs, like the other Ne types (INFj, ENFp, ENTp) may create a plan to follow...but when it comes to actually following the plan...that's a different story. Each of them, though, tend to feel more comfortable if they have an idea of what to expect, of what changes will occur, and when they will occur. This allows them time to prepare themselves and their work/life before it happens. Often times procrastinating on the actual deeds to do.

Ne types don't do so well when sudden changes keep occurring...
Ni types are better able to adjust after each sudden change.

[anndelise]

INTps and other types, including ENTjs, are more confident in their ability to evaluate how much time they will need to do something. So they are ok with postponing things, because they "know" that somehow they will find the time to do it later. That may include rushing at the last minute. But it's not correlated necessarily to good advance planning.

Weak types - ESFj, ESTj, ISTj, and ISFj - dislike postponing things and they do prefer to use advance planning - and so are, as I have said, the most uncontroversial "J" types, besides their inclination for tyiding up - precisely because they lack confidence in their ability to manage their time if they don't use advance planning.

Hmm, it seems that what i had just wrote, and what you've written here may conflict with each other. But the conflict in the first paragraph above comes when mentioning the postphoning and procrastination. If we took out each of our statements in that, then we seem to agree. Perhaps postphoning and procrastination are an individual thing and not a type thing?

The second paragraph seems to apply only to those people who recognize that they have weak timing of a process, and so take steps to ensure that it doesn't affect them. If so, then again, we seem to be agreement of the weak Ni types.

[aestrivex]

Those who aren't using their NiTe as effecient as an INTp would feel somewhat hemmed in with plans, as well as have to deal with last minute rushes due to inefficient timing and awareness of the project's processes.

It seems to me that INTjs like to know what they are going to be dealing with before it happens. Many times, the unknown will agitate them, some even becoming obsessed over what might possibly happen. They tend to stress over last minute changes and have a somewhat difficult time compensating for timing and changes in the process, etc. INTjs, like the other Ne types (INFj, ENFp, ENTp) may create a plan to follow...but when it comes to actually following the plan...that's a different story. Each of them, though, tend to feel more comfortable if they have an idea of what to expect, of what changes will occur, and when they will occur. This allows them time to prepare themselves and their work/life before it happens. Often times procrastinating on the actual deeds to do.

Ne types don't do so well when sudden changes keep occurring...
Ni types are better able to adjust after each sudden change.

this is particularly interesting. i do make a lot of plans and then scrap them, either because they no longer seem like good ideas or they are impossible to follow through upon or they are not interesting enough to follow through upon.

i'm not sure that this is the best analysis of things because this partially conflicts with the next idea of the INTp being able to accept change.

[Phaedrus]

Jonathan wrote:
As for me, I have a little trouble identifying with the Strat...skaya description of INTp. Although this may be a Russian/English translation issue, it seems to be saying that INTps are really good at showing up places on time and finishing things on time, without having to ever rush at the last minute.

If I'm reading that right, it sounds more like the way I see Js, since such an ability would clearly be the result of good advance planning.

Expat wrote:
No, I think this is wrong and a source of confusion.

INTps and other types, including ENTjs, are more confident in their ability to evaluate how much time they will need to do something. So they are ok with postponing things, because they "know" that somehow they will find the time to do it later. That may include rushing at the last minute. But it's not correlated necessarily to good advance planning.

I agree with Expat here. I thought about that aspect when I read Stratiyevskaya's description, Jonathan, and I tried to compare it with her description of INTjs. If I have interpreted what she writes about that correctly (I'm not 100 % sure about that, for obvious reasons ...) I didn't find what you read into it. I think that she describes the INTjs as more J-like in the way you seem to think of it. But I probably have to read both descriptions again to be sure.

[Logos]

It seems to me that INTjs like to know what they are going to be dealing with before it happens. Many times, the unknown will agitate them, some even becoming obsessed over what might possibly happen. They tend to stress over last minute changes and have a somewhat difficult time compensating for timing and changes in the process, etc. INTjs, like the other Ne types (INFj, ENFp, ENTp) may create a plan to follow...but when it comes to actually following the plan...that's a different story. Each of them, though, tend to feel more comfortable if they have an idea of what to expect, of what changes will occur, and when they will occur. This allows them time to prepare themselves and their work/life before it happens. Often times procrastinating on the actual deeds to do.

Well thankfully INTjs have this somewhat covered with their tendencies towards contingency planning. They don't like getting caught with with their pants down, so to speak, so they plan for a plethora of possible outcomes or directions. But yes, INTjs hate unexpected events that throw wrench after wrench into how they planned the day in their head. From my experiences, the INTj will become moody and visibly irritated over a period of time of having to deal with prolonged unexpected events. And part of what upsets them so much about this, is because they are upset that they didn't think of it as one of the possible outcomes.

[oyburger]

It seems to me that INTjs like to know what they are going to be dealing with before it happens. Many times, the unknown will agitate them, some even becoming obsessed over what might possibly happen. They tend to stress over last minute changes and have a somewhat difficult time compensating for timing and changes in the process, etc. INTjs, like the other Ne types (INFj, ENFp, ENTp) may create a plan to follow...but when it comes to actually following the plan...that's a different story. Each of them, though, tend to feel more comfortable if they have an idea of what to expect, of what changes will occur, and when they will occur. This allows them time to prepare themselves and their work/life before it happens. Often times procrastinating on the actual deeds to do.

Well thankfully INTjs have this somewhat covered with their tendencies towards contingency planning. They don't like getting caught with with their pants down, so to speak, so they plan for a plethora of possible outcomes or directions. But yes, INTjs hate unexpected events that through wrench after wrench into how they planned the day in their head. From my experiences, the INTj will become moody and visibly irritated over a period of time of having to deal with prolonged unexpected events.

Yeah, my family, friends and just about everyone I know makes fun of me for this. Especially how I become so angry when something specific I had planned doesn't work out, Instead of letting go, I get angry and I have to make a whole new plan. Everything in my life runs on schedules and I don't think that I could cope without them.

[anndelise]

It seems to me that INTjs like to know what they are going to be dealing with before it happens. Many times, the unknown will agitate them, some even becoming obsessed over what might possibly happen. They tend to stress over last minute changes and have a somewhat difficult time compensating for timing and changes in the process, etc. INTjs, like the other Ne types (INFj, ENFp, ENTp) may create a plan to follow...but when it comes to actually following the plan...that's a different story. Each of them, though, tend to feel more comfortable if they have an idea of what to expect, of what changes will occur, and when they will occur. This allows them time to prepare themselves and their work/life before it happens. Often times procrastinating on the actual deeds to do.

Well thankfully INTjs have this somewhat covered with their tendencies towards contingency planning. They don't like getting caught with with their pants down, so to speak, so they plan for a plethora of possible outcomes or directions. But yes, INTjs hate unexpected events that through wrench after wrench into how they planned the day in their head. From my experiences, the INTj will become moody and visibly irritated over a period of time of having to deal with prolonged unexpected events.

oyburger and logos...
yeah, that was the point i was trying to get at.
intps don't seem to mind so much the constant changes, i mean, yeah, it's probably a bit irritating...but they seem to have a far easier time altering the plan than the intj does.

[oyburger]

Its wierd though because I didn't start doing that until I was about eight and created my own bed time and wake up time (I grew up in a house with very few rules) and I remeber the times before when I didn't do this, I seemed so much happier. However if I try to give that up now I feel like I'm drowning in chaos.

[Jonathan]

Anndelise: Just thought I would point out that the timing thing and awareness of the internal processes of a project would come from the Ni of the INTp, which would aid in the planning of Te such as what to do, and when. Being that INTps deal with this information so easily/readily, this ability allows to them to make notes of what needs to be covered and produce their talk on the fly. It may also be what helps them to not stress as much over deadlines and plans, as well as the ability to compensate for alterations without much stress.

Those who aren't using their NiTe as effecient as an INTp would feel somewhat hemmed in with plans, as well as have to deal with last minute rushes due to inefficient timing and awareness of the project's processes.

But that again sounds like INTps being the Js....not feeling hemmed in by a plan, whereas other types would feel hemmed in if they had to follow a plan. That's exactly the interpretation that I find difficult to reconcile with standard notions of what irrational types are supposed to be like.

[Jonathan]

Expat: INTps and other types, including ENTjs, are more confident in their ability to evaluate how much time they will need to do something. So they are ok with postponing things, because they "know" that somehow they will find the time to do it later. That may include rushing at the last minute. But it's not correlated necessarily to good advance planning.

Weak types - ESFj, ESTj, ISTj, and ISFj - dislike postponing things and they do prefer to use advance planning - and so are, as I have said, the most uncontroversial "J" types, besides their inclination for tyiding up - precisely because they lack confidence in their ability to manage their time if they don't use advance planning.

is the "activation" (hidden agenda) function of ISjs....so shouldn't it be stronger in those types than it is in ISps?

Anyhow, as far as being ok with postponing things, what about someone who doesn't stress about things, is very calm, is sure that he'll get everything done eventually, and doesn't want to worry about it....but in fact doesn't get a lot of things done because he really is just as susceptible to not foreseeing certain steps or possible delays as anybody else....Would that be kind of behavior be likely in an INTp?

[anndelise]

Anndelise: Just thought I would point out that the timing thing and awareness of the internal processes of a project would come from the Ni of the INTp, which would aid in the planning of Te such as what to do, and when. Being that INTps deal with this information so easily/readily, this ability allows to them to make notes of what needs to be covered and produce their talk on the fly. It may also be what helps them to not stress as much over deadlines and plans, as well as the ability to compensate for alterations without much stress.

Those who aren't using their NiTe as effecient as an INTp would feel somewhat hemmed in with plans, as well as have to deal with last minute rushes due to inefficient timing and awareness of the project's processes.

But that again sounds like INTps being the Js....not feeling hemmed in by a plan, whereas other types would feel hemmed in if they had to follow a plan. That's exactly the interpretation that I find difficult to reconcile with standard notions of what irrational types are supposed to be like.

J no longer computes.

I propose a challenge to you.
1. Instead of using "INTp" use NiTe.
2. Instead of using "INTj" use TiNe.

Perhaps this will help clear up some confusion.

Now, your paragraph above could be saying one of two things...
1. What I wrote sounds like NiTe being TeNi.
OR
2. What I wrote sounds like NiTe being TiNe.

Which interpretation fits?

[Jonathan]

Now, your paragraph above could be saying one of two things...
1. What I wrote sounds like NiTe being TeNi.
OR
2. What I wrote sounds like NiTe being TiNe.

Which interpretation fits?

Really, I'm not talking about what the terminology is...I'm talking about the behaviors. But if you want to phrase it this way, saying that INTps feel less hemmed in by plans (i.e., are more inclined to follow plans than other types) sounds more the way I thought Socionics would describe both TeNi and TiNe types.