View Single Post
  #15  
Old 02/09/2009, 08:14 PM
Elevate's Avatar
Elevate Elevate is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Posts: 125
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Prometheus View Post
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.

. . .

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.
Sounds reasonable.
Reply With Quote