Socionics Forums

Socionics Forums (http://www.socionics.com/forums/index.php)
-   Ramble Mumble (http://www.socionics.com/forums/forumdisplay.php?f=1)
-   -   Does intpwurm sound better than intjwurm? (http://www.socionics.com/forums/showthread.php?t=871)

Kanerou 03/06/2008 06:58 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by IntjWurm (Post 10295)
Thanks Kanerou, that explains a lot and I think that your theory of socially-motivated compensation is very interesting.

Huh?

Quote:

Originally Posted by IntjWurm (Post 10295)
However I believe that INTJ's PoLR is Se, not Fi.

So I discovered. I'd still like someone to explain them to me, though. It's thoroughly possible that you do not perceive yourself as antagonistic, and perhaps you do not mean to be, but that's how you were coming across, BTW. You seem to have noticed this.

Quote:

Originally Posted by IntjWurm (Post 10295)
I also don't have a definite verbal bias if that's what you're thinking (I scored much higher in the math than the verbal both times I took the SAT).

Not at all. Was this directed at me?

Prometheus 03/06/2008 07:02 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by kensi (Post 10297)
Obviously, you dont know what you're talking about.

Obviously you don't know what you are talking about. If you want to criticize SG, do it then. SG identifies with INTJ behaviour and attitudes. It is a fact that he is closest to that type in MBTT whatever his views may be on the correlations between the two models.

Quote:

Originally Posted by kensi
MBTI INTJ is gamma no different than Socionics INTp.

Totally incorrect. Both INTJs and LIIs are known as the systems builders. Both types (which are actually one and the same, as I have said many times now) want to implement their systems/models in the real world. Both the INTJ and the LII have an IJ temperament, and they are both rational (judging) types.

Quote:

Originally Posted by kensi
Your interpretations seem to be your own personal fantasies. If there are other factors which give rise to inconsistencies then those are Subtype issues. You cant safely get into subtype issues cause there isn't a valid model but only theories.:)

Now, you shall listen and learn, kensi. You don't understand any of these two theories, and yet you have the nerve to act like an expert. Contrary to you, I know exactly what I am talking about, and I am telling you the truth. Study the material yourself.

kensi 03/06/2008 07:08 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Kanerou (Post 10254)
Do not make light of what you have not seen. I've seen a type thread for him, and I have no wish to go there again.
.

But i do. You're a recent member: then it must be in the system somewhere.........i'd like to take a quick look at it.

complicater-complexer 03/06/2008 07:08 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Cyclops (Post 10286)
Complicator complexor, I checked that thread I hadn't realised the post. What I believe pandapanda means is that Fe types like others to show friendly emotions, among other things, so if you are ISTp then they may not think you are doing this.

Honestly, I still couldn't understand. Don't worry, I asked her in the thread.

Cyclops 03/06/2008 07:15 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by kensi (Post 10306)
But i do. You're a recent member: then it must be in the system somewhere.........i'd like to take a quick look at it.

hi kensi, kan and I know Prom from another forum, so you won't find that thread here.

IntjWurm 03/06/2008 07:18 PM

Yo Yo Yo
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by Kanerou (Post 10291)
Since it's in your Super-Ego block, which holds conscious and painful functions, you don't really want other people telling you you're bad at it. Wikipedia says something about a basic inability to use one's PoLR, but I sharply disagree.

I was talking about this theory.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Kanerou (Post 10303)
Not at all. Was this directed at me?

I initially stressed my verbal score to reflect the action of the :Tis: function as suggested by Prometheus, but I do not want to appear unbalanced with regard to language, mathematics, or any other logical systems.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Prometheus (Post 10176)
So, basically everything suggests INTj as IntjWurm's correct type, and if you look at his longer posts recently you will see a rather typical example of the :Tis: influenced writing style of INTjs. What you should take a closer look at is how he construct his sentences and his use of abstract nouns. This style of writing is similar to tcaudilllg's at the16types and of course you can compare with Kant's style of writing if you like.


kensi 03/06/2008 07:36 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Kanerou (Post 10291)
To go along with Cyclops' earlier assertion, my _SFj mother.

Hun:) , how can you not know if she's ISFj or ESFj....there's quite a contrast there. The observation is purely external in comparison, unlike trying to type yourself. She's your mom too.

complicater-complexer 03/06/2008 07:40 PM

Verbally Ti operates to use the right word. Your verbal intelligence seems more of a words play kind which is typical to intuition.

IntjWurm 03/06/2008 07:40 PM

MBT(S)
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by kensi (Post 10297)
MBTI INTJ is gamma no different than Socionics INTp.

Evidence in this forum contradicts this premise.

kensi 03/06/2008 07:55 PM

master and servant
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by IntjWurm (Post 10302)
Possibly...what is a sub-quasi rationalization?

just lingo to point to the fact that any type can use any other type's functional array for a limited interval of time. It's the only way you grow and come to accept other forms of logic.

Sub-quasi refers to your ability to use your Quasi-Identical's energy TiNe (for you) in a servant capacity while maintaining your own overall master identity as NiTe.

It's hard to believe, but you could temporarily try to pull a "prometheus"(or any other type) yourself:) !

Quote:

Originally Posted by Prometheus (Post 10305)
Obviously you don't know what you are talking about. If you want to criticize SG, do it then. SG identifies with INTJ behaviour and attitudes. It is a fact that he is closest to that type in MBTT whatever his views may be on the correlations between the two models.


Totally incorrect. Both INTJs and LIIs are known as the systems builders. Both types (which are actually one and the same, as I have said many times now) want to implement their systems/models in the real world. Both the INTJ and the LII have an IJ temperament, and they are both rational (judging) types.


Now, you shall listen and learn, kensi. You don't understand any of these two theories, and yet you have the nerve to act like an expert. Contrary to you, I know exactly what I am talking about, and I am telling you the truth. Study the material yourself.

the only way i'll ever get answers out of you is to ask you simple,simple questions......so....

explain in your own words what each of the 8 funcions of Socionics mean to you.

Quote:

Originally Posted by IntjWurm (Post 10312)
Evidence in this forum contradicts this premise.

maybe, but of what quality is this so called evidence ?

IntjWurm 03/06/2008 07:57 PM

Linguistic Elements As Distinguishing Factors
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by complicater-complexer (Post 10311)
Verbally Ti operates to use the right word. Your verbal intelligence seems more of a words play kind which is typical to intuition.

'Ti is particularly aware of syntactic correctness and how words relate to each other in meaning and structure.

Te is responsible for assessing the efficiency of actions, the efficient and prudent use of resources, and the acquisition of relevant and useful information.'

The article also lists this site as a reference (#12).

As 'word play' involves the relations between words (:Tis:)
and 'using the right word' displays information relevance (:Tes:),
you seem as though you might have been somewhat mistaken.

complicater-complexer 03/06/2008 08:06 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by IntjWurm (Post 10316)

As 'word play' involves the relations between words (:Tis:)
and 'using the right word' displays information relevance (:Tes:),
you seem as though you might have been somewhat mistaken.

Mistaken about what? My type? If yes, you know what might my type be?

IntjWurm 03/06/2008 08:09 PM

MBT(S) II
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by kensi (Post 10313)
maybe, but of what quality is this so called evidence ?

INTj: TiNeSeFi
INTP: TiNeSiFe

So as you can tell, they are not the same. Is this what you mean by sub-type discrepancy?

Quote:

Originally Posted by complicater-complexer (Post 10317)
Mistaken about what? My type? If yes, you know what might my type be?

No, you may be mistaken about the statements you made which I quoted.

Cyclops 03/06/2008 08:17 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by IntjWurm (Post 10316)
'Ti is particularly aware of syntactic correctness and how words relate to each other in meaning and structure.

Te is responsible for assessing the efficiency of actions, the efficient and prudent use of resources, and the acquisition of relevant and useful information.'

The article also lists this site as a reference (#12).

As 'word play' involves the relations between words (:Tis:)
and 'using the right word' displays information relevance (:Tes:),
you seem as though you might have been somewhat mistaken.

Do you think :Ses::Tis: (ESTp) would 'verbalise' differently than :Tis::Nes: (INTj)?

IntjWurm 03/06/2008 08:27 PM

[]/\ & O[]
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by Cyclops (Post 10320)
Do you think :Ses::Tis: (ESTp) would 'verbalise' differently than :Tis::Nes: (INTj)?

Since :Tis: is a dominant function in INTj and a creative function in ESTp, it is very unlikely that it will operate in exactly the same fashion in both, and so may affect different aspects of verbal expression differently.

Cyclops 03/06/2008 08:45 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by IntjWurm (Post 10323)
Since :Tis: is a dominant function in INTj and a creative function in ESTp, it is very unlikely that it will operate in exactly the same fashion in both, and so may affect different aspects of verbal expression differently.

Precisely. One should think about the person and also the function in relation to the other functions.

As I mentioned earlier a function on it's own is different than when within the psyche and so as I said it's difficult to assign Ti for instance to verbalisation, because it can come out differently just like you have said. Also for instance the person may just seem to speak differently because they want to or have been educated to.

There is somethings that can be spotted..maybe more so in what a person is saying as well as how they are saying it, and also maybe other things?

kensi 03/06/2008 08:48 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by IntjWurm (Post 10316)
'Ti is particularly aware of syntactic correctness and how words relate to each other in meaning and structure.

Te is responsible for assessing the efficiency of actions, the efficient and prudent use of resources, and the acquisition of relevant and useful information.'

The article also lists this site as a reference (#12).

As 'word play' involves the relations between words (:Tis:)
and 'using the right word' displays information relevance (:Tes:),
you seem as though you might have been somewhat mistaken.

........i agree

complicater-complexer 03/06/2008 08:50 PM

What I meant by the right word is: the word that describes the best one's thoughts. We are talking about coherence here=> Ti.

IntjWurm 03/06/2008 09:07 PM

On The Social Epistemologies
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by complicater-complexer (Post 10326)
What I meant by the right word is: the word that describes the best one's thoughts. We are talking about coherence here=> Ti.

So you are suggesting that 'Te' types prefer foundationalism?

complicater-complexer 03/06/2008 09:13 PM

Explain what you exactly mean by foundationalism.


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 07:25 AM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.1
Copyright ©2000 - 2020, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright 2007 SOCIONICS.COM