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)

kensi 03/06/2008 06:20 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by IntjWurm (Post 10160)
If you'd like to give me a better socionics test I'd be happy to give you detailed reasons for my answers.

you'll have to see if any links show up.
i've got a rather similar problem.

As a physicist of some sorts you probably know a thing or two about reference points and possible misinterpretations.

I suspect there is some sort of a missing link which isn't recognized in whole but only in part, the likes of which ,too, is not discernable for evidential standards. Knowing of such a link could produce a more fluid system.

This psychological stuff is different, its an ongoing thing almost like research to verify the
research you already made.:cool:

I'm sure RSV3 will do his own analysis. As someone claiming to be an INTj, this objectively is his thing more than mine.

Cyclops 03/06/2008 09:33 AM

Intxworm (;)), a test is only as good as the person that is taking it. Now of course you may be INTj, but your behaviour so far, putting textbooks and definitions aside, is more conducive with INTp than INTj.

Although you do have your mind fully made up, can you tell me though, (although you may have toned it down in last few posts) what has been the purpose of your antagonistic behaviour?

RSV3 03/06/2008 10:36 AM

Here is a short type test used to differentiate INTp from INTj. Just choose the best answer of the choices given; go with your instinct on each question and try not to analyze them. Note that neither or both of the answers may fit you but just pick the one that fits the best. Note that most of the options are not mutually exclusive of each other. In all likelihood this test will prove inconclusive, but many of the questions are more subtle and I purposely phrased many of them so that what type each answer correlated to would not be very clear; this was designed in the hope that it would minimize any subconscious attempts to try and find the answers that agreed with your preconceived type. The key to the test is to not spend much time thinking about the answer but go with your gut instinct.

1) Seeks to love someone or seeks a healthy lifestyle
2) Speaks in a serious tone with a low pitch or speaks in an informal tone with a high pitch
3) In class, prefers to listen attentively or daydream
4) want to find a docile caring partner or more aggressive proactive partner
5) When meeting new people: conscientious of social norms or emotionally indifferent
6) Detached from the present reality or attached to the present reality
7) Good at predicting the future as it unfolds or good at only predicting the distant future
8) Happy with who you are or seeking self-improvement
9) Finite or infinite
10) Hedonistic or social morality
11) Sees what will happen in the near future and will either not tell anyone or discusses with others
12) Memorizing large amounts of information because it is interesting (e.g., sports statistics) or because it has practical consequences (e.g., info that supports a theory)
13) Flexible or rigid gait
14) Prefers to initiate a relationship or have someone else initiate.

Prometheus 03/06/2008 11:03 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by kensi (Post 10132)
personally i would value the MBTI type designation and then just flip the j or p to get the socionics designation for all introverts

And that is idiotic, because J and P are the same in MBTT and Socionics. There is no flip.

The most relevant test result for IntjWurm is his RCOEI on Global 5. That is the most reliable evidence that I have access to at the moment. And that result indicates INTj.

Cyclops 03/06/2008 11:13 AM

Also
 
IntjWurm, are you left handed or right handed? (SG believes this indicates a type preference)

Prometheus 03/06/2008 11:24 AM

Okay, now I have seen IntjWurm's photo and taken a closer look at his style of writing, and that settles it. IntjWurm is clearly not an INTp. The V.I. verdict is very clear on this. The only other type that can come into consideration besides INTj is ENTj, but my conclusion is that we have absolutely no legitimate reason to doubt the correctness of INTjWurm's self-typing based on the available information. V.I. suggests INTj (or at least XNTj), all test results suggest INTj, self-identification suggests INTj, and writing style suggests INTj.

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.

RSV3 03/06/2008 11:51 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Prometheus (Post 10176)
Okay, now I have seen IntjWurm's photo and taken a closer look at his style of writing, and that settles it. IntjWurm is clearly not an INTp. The V.I. verdict is very clear on this. The only other type that can come into consideration besides INTj is ENTj, but my conclusion is that we have absolutely no legitimate reason to doubt the correctness of INTjWurm's self-typing based on the available information. V.I. suggests INTj (or at least XNTj), all test results suggest INTj, self-identification suggests INTj, and writing style suggests INTj.

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.

Again, testing often mistypes INTps as INTjs and VI is unreliable. I would agree with socioniko that IRL interaction/observation/inteviewing is the most reliable method. Since, I just noticed you referred Kensi to socioniko.net, I'll use that as support for this statement since you must have some regard for it:

From socioniko.net:

"Tests, although used, are considered to be insufficient and not always reliable. Methods similar to medical are more widely used, such as observation, interviewing, external data etc. However, socionists are not adepts of "visual identification" which is misrepresented as "know-how of socionics" at some popular sites. "

SG 03/06/2008 11:57 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Prometheus (Post 10173)
And that is idiotic, because J and P are the same in MBTT and Socionics. There is no flip.

What you're saying is quite absurd as well. Apples and pears are the same because they are fruits! Is that your argument? J & P are the same only if you specify under which circumstance. If you go by the bare theory they are not.

BTW IntjWurm, you look kinda INTpish on that photo. Do you have more photos? And are you left-handed?

RSV3 03/06/2008 12:00 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by SG (Post 10184)
What you say is quite absurd as well. Apples and pears are the same because they are fruits! Is that your argument? J & P are the same only if you specify under which circumstance. If you go by the bare theory they are not.

BTW IntjWurm, you look kinda INTpish on that photo. Do you have more photos? And are you left-handed?

There's the left-handed question cyclops. :) Hey SG, what's your theory on left-handed v. right-handed just out of curiosity?

SG 03/06/2008 12:05 PM

Brain hemispheres get swapped around, and so it kinda mirrors the face particulars.

Cyclops 03/06/2008 12:13 PM

People who are left handed tend to be p types, right handed people tend to be j types, I believe is the theory.

SG 03/06/2008 12:25 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Cyclops (Post 10188)
People who are left handed tend to be p types, right handed people tend to be j types, I believe is the theory.

Maybe p types tend to be left-handed and j type right-handed? You think that handedness influences type and not that type influences handedness?

Prometheus 03/06/2008 12:35 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by RSV3 (Post 10182)
Again, testing often mistypes INTps as INTjs and VI is unreliable.

INTps can test as INTjs, but it is not common that INTjs test as INTps. And the consistency in IntjWurm's test results is a strong argument against INTp. Also, V.I. is much more reliable than you think.

Quote:

Originally Posted by RSV3
I would agree with socioniko that IRL interaction/observation/inteviewing is the most reliable method. Since, I just noticed you referred Kensi to socioniko.net, I'll use that as support for this statement since you must have some regard for it:

From socioniko.net:

"Tests, although used, are considered to be insufficient and not always reliable. Methods similar to medical are more widely used, such as observation, interviewing, external data etc. However, socionists are not adepts of "visual identification" which is misrepresented as "know-how of socionics" at some popular sites. "

Lytov is known for deliberately not using V.I. as a typing method, and he is not good at it. But I suggest that you check for yourself. There is a very clear V.I. pattern to see if you just bother to compare the looks of those that you have typed correctly by the use of other typing methods. Compare with the real life persons you meet. V.I. works for most people, but not everyone is equally good at it. SG is quite good at V.I., and I probably am not much worse at it myself.

Quote:

Originally Posted by SG (Post 10184)
What you're saying is quite absurd as well. Apples and pears are the same because they are fruits! Is that your argument? J & P are the same only if you specify under which circumstance. If you go by the bare theory they are not.

You should not go by the bare theory, because one of the theories is false (MBTT), so of course the theoretical explanations differ. J and P are the same in the sense that all three models (Socionics, MBTT, and Keirsey) have the same empirical "object" or phenomenon in mind when they describe the differences in behaiovur and attitudes between J and P types.

What you, SG, have written yourself about the typical differences between rational and irrational types is perfectly true and consistent with the diffferences between J and P types in MBTT and Keirsey. You are clearly talking about the same typical differences in behaivour and attiutudes. And you are also, as you have described yourself, an INTJ in MBTT.

Cyclops 03/06/2008 12:38 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by SG (Post 10189)
Maybe p types tend to be left-handed and j type right-handed? You think that handedness influences type and not that type influences handedness?

I honestly don't know much about it, but i've been kindov thinking about it. Something of interest is that my father is one of those people who are naturally left handed but was forced to be right handed, and I can't honestly say wether he is ISTp or ISTj. He seems more ISTj and I would probably choose that one, but then there is almost like a latent ISTp there. It is odd.

What do you think?

SG 03/06/2008 12:42 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Prometheus (Post 10192)
You should not go by the bare theory

So why don't you state it as a premise in your argument? MBTT (T is for theory btw, makes it look inconsistent already with what you're saying) J & P are the same as in Socionics...BUT
Quote:

You should not go by the bare theory
No one would want to kill you Prom if you word it like this ;)

RSV3 03/06/2008 12:46 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Prometheus (Post 10192)
INTps can test as INTjs, but it is not common that INTjs test as INTps. And the consistency in IntjWurm's test results is a strong argument against INTp. Also, V.I. is much more reliable than you think.

Well I don't seem to get a lot right on the "test your VI skills" page but maybe I'll work on trying to improve my currently sub-par VI skills. :confused:

complicater-complexer 03/06/2008 12:48 PM

I am right-handed and I am a p. Most people are right-handed, but not most people are j's. Therefore there can't be an equivalence between j and right-handedness.

RSV3 03/06/2008 12:52 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by complicater-complexer (Post 10197)
I am right-handed and I am a p. Most people are right-handed, but not most people are j's. Therefore there can't be an equivalence between j and right-handedness.

You are correct in your observation that the J/P proportions is most likely not equivalent to the R/L proportions; however, this statement does not refute the theory that there is a correlation between J/P and R/L, although apparently the cause/effect of this is currently up for debate.

SG 03/06/2008 12:54 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Prometheus (Post 10192)
Also, V.I. is much more reliable than you think.

I honestly do not know how you or other people VI, all I can say is what it looks like to me. And contrary to the popular believe that you can VI almost anything, I disagree. I only can be sure in my own VI if I've seen someone similar before. Because my VI library in my head is quite large it helps me to get by. I would never think of VIing on demand, because if I haven't seen similar person before it becomes a guessing game, which I don't like. But some people I meet are bang on with my library, so that's always a pleasure to VI them lol.

RSV3 03/06/2008 12:56 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by SG (Post 10199)
I honestly do not know how you or other people VI, all I can say is what it looks like to me. And contrary to the popular believe that you can VI almost anything, I disagree. I only can be sure in my own VI if I've seen someone similar before. Because my VI library in my head is quite large it helps me to get by. I would never think of VIing on demand, because if I haven't seen similar person before it becomes a guessing game, which I don't like. But some people I meet are bang on with my library, so that's always a pleasure to VI them lol.

This explains my terrible VI--my small VI library. :D


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 01:22 PM.

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