View Single Post
Old 03/06/2008, 11:51 AM
RSV3's Avatar
RSV3 RSV3 is offline
Senior Member
Join Date: Aug 2007
Posts: 550

Originally Posted by Prometheus View Post
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 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, I'll use that as support for this statement since you must have some regard for it:


"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. "

Increased expression of one function (1) suppresses the opposing intradichotomy function and (2) suppresses the opposing intrablock function (and vise versa).
Reply With Quote