View Single Post
  #14  
Old 02/09/2009, 07:51 PM
Prometheus's Avatar
Prometheus Prometheus is offline
House Robot
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Posts: 1,022
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by sandals View Post
Anyone who reads carefully and seeks to understand it for themselves, can probably figure it out.
But as you can see for yourself in this thread, most people insist on seeing it as (introverted thinking, Ti) when it is in fact not.

Quote:
Originally Posted by sandals
It will probably take some time, but they will probably figure it out eventually.
So far that has never happened during the time I have been around (four years or something like that). It doesn't matter how many times you try to explain to people that they are wrong and that they should correct their understanding of the functions and the types -- they refuse to do learn anyway. A minority of forum members understand it correctly, but they are almost always marginalized by the incompetent majority, and thus we have this crazy situation where people are brainwashed by incompetent people who are certain that they are right. It's very irritating, but similar patterns can be seen everywhere in society, so it's not extremely surprising. But the intellectual level of the discussions on these forums is very low due to all these spreadings of incorrect information, mistypings, etc.

It is always the INTj type that is in focus and is most often misunderstood and misrepresented in these "debates". For some reason many people believe that they are INTjs, when it is quite obvious that many of them are not. I made the very same mistake in the beginning, when I hadn't investigated the causes of the misunderstandings properly.

But the only likely explanation for this phenomenon, where people incorrectly type themselves and others as INTjs and incorrectly think that a certain kind of behaviour (as in Cyclops's initial quote in this thread) should be attributed to , is that they have read INTP type profiles and descriptions of Ti (introverted thinking) in MBTI. Because in MBTI they claim that this way of thinking is typical of INTPs and they also claim that it is Ti.

But in Socionics it is not . And in Socionics it is not the INTj (who has leading ) who thinks like an INTP in MBTI. In Socionics it is the INTp (the ILI) who thinks like an INTP in MBTI, and it is the ILI/INTp in Socionics that exhibits the exact same typical behaviour and attitudes as the INTP in MBTI.

The reason why this is so hard for people to understand is because both models use the same name, the same label, "Ti" for two different functions and two different types. And INTj in Socionics correspond to the INTJ in MBTI, and the INTp in Socionics correspond to the INTP in MBTI, despite the fact that they seem have different functions if you only look at what they happen to call those functions in each theory.
Reply With Quote