Blended types?

[pivot]

Hi,

I've got a practical question. I consider myself INTj, however people give me many different types. I've been so far almost all types from alpha, some of beta, delta and gamma. In my opinion description of INTj matches with elements but some people say descriptions are irrelevant and say nothing and you shouldn't read them at all. So now I'm really confused. Is typing really possible if we say everything is irrelevant and we should only type according to changing elements.

I, after analysing elements, can't tell myself anymore from ENTj. I want , I've got -PoLR. My hidden agenda is to be healthy, I'm sure.
On the other hand the fact that ENTj has got -PoLR seems very close to me to the fact that they somehow "need it" as they can't cope with it by themselves. And what's more, I don't want . To make things complicated, some people started to claim I might be ENTp. How can I be ENTp with -PoLR? They are the same people that told me I can't use description as they refer to constant features rather than to socionics elements. So how can they now judge my type by my other features/life experience that influent the way of thinking and behaving?

My question is, how do you, guys, see it? Is there any possibility that there's no clear distinction between some types? That they're more "flowing" and interchanging - when the elements change their functions respectively? But in this case, socionics would be dynamic, not static, I guess. So, is there any solution to the problem?

[Appleteck]

Post a couple of pictures, thanks.

[pivot]

This is not what I meant exactly. Typing won't do here as another typing will be now only one among 8 others and won't solve the problem with the system I'm undergoing (and V.I. was also used with me).

[HotelStayer]

Originally Posted by pivot

Hi,

I've got a practical question. I consider myself INTj, however people give me many different types. I've been so far almost all types from alpha, some of beta, delta and gamma. In my opinion description of INTj matches with elements but some people say descriptions are irrelevant and say nothing and you shouldn't read them at all. So now I'm really confused. Is typing really possible if we say everything is irrelevant and we should only type according to changing elements.

I, after analysing elements, can't tell myself anymore from ENTj. I want , I've got -PoLR. My hidden agenda is to be healthy, I'm sure.
On the other hand the fact that ENTj has got -PoLR seems very close to me to the fact that they somehow "need it" as they can't cope with it by themselves. And what's more, I don't want . To make things complicated, some people started to claim I might be ENTp. How can I be ENTp with -PoLR? They are the same people that told me I can't use description as they refer to constant features rather than to socionics elements. So how can they now judge my type by my other features/life experience that influent the way of thinking and behaving?

My question is, how do you, guys, see it? Is there any possibility that there's no clear distinction between some types? That they're more "flowing" and interchanging - when the elements change their functions respectively? But in this case, socionics would be dynamic, not static, I guess. So, is there any solution to the problem?

I can sympathize with your conclusions. I have spent a while on my response and this is what I have chosen to say:

According to Jung type does change. Type is a person's conscious development of attitudes and beliefs. As a person's attitudes and beliefs change, so does a person's 'type'. But one person who represents a 'type' is not necessarily very much like another person who is of the same 'type' because some people are on a higher or lower development than others. Some are regressing and some are evolving.

As for notions of "hidden agenda" cannot the creative function be taken for the "hidden agenda" since it is an area of sensitivity where a person is looking for approval? If a person is not accepted by their society then can't a person perceive this area of creativity and strength as an area of weakness? We all have a personal mission and sometimes society does not accept that.

In many ways an adherence to socionics can inhibit personal development and breed fanaticism and many other problems. I say this from experience.

There is no doubt that there are many 'programs' we carry within which are not conscious and exist in a more or less disjointed manner. As a result of this one may claim that we indeed have many contradictory personalities living within which pull us in different directions. Since consciousness acts through matter our physical body is more prone to crystallize a certain range of these inner elements, resulting in what could be perceived as type, but that isn't necessarily who we really are.

Socionics seems like it will make life easier because it tells you who to marry, who to associate with and what to aspire toward. But is anyone ever really so sure of their type? Is anyone ever really so sure of someone else's type? Or of intertype relations? Socionics is a belief system--almost a religion--which is veiled in an obscure logic.

This is not to claim that there is nothing of value in Socionics.

[Cruiser]

is not exactly about being healthy. It is more about manual labor, perseverance, maintenance, physical progress...

The difference between INxj and ENxj is clear.

You will find INxjs feeling almost compelled to be working on something or themselves. They cannot help but take up exercising, projects, duties around the house, taking care of their environment... these things for them they inherently cannot live without. If they are not doing these things, they are researching methods to improve ways to do these things.

ENxjs on the other hand have an outright aversion to actually putting in some physical effort towards tasks, especially menial ones like daily maintenance. They are quick to shift the actual labor of projects to someone else. They show no observable progress in what they do, as things for them are developed "in their head".

[pivot]

Originally Posted by HotelStayer

According to Jung type does change. Type is a person's conscious development of attitudes and beliefs. As a person's attitudes and beliefs change, so does a person's 'type'. But one person who represents a 'type' is not necessarily very much like another person who is of the same 'type' because some people are on a higher or lower development than others. Some are regressing and some are evolving

Thanks for this point. This one is very interesting. For me it makes it all a living "circle of life".

As for notions of "hidden agenda" cannot the creative function be taken for the "hidden agenda" since it is an area of sensitivity where a person is looking for approval? If a person is not accepted by their society then can't a person perceive this area of creativity and strength as an area of weakness? We all have a personal mission and sometimes society does not accept that.

I'm not sure if I got you well here. In my understanding, the creative function is 2nd? And INTj has there. Did you mean that, or we just use different names? Anyway, I agree with it in general. What is more, I'd risk saying that even our base function can be considered as weakness. Try e.g. using your or when you talk with someone who uses or . This makes communication really hard at times and if you're minority, then... well. And yes, imo this might serve for hidden agenda as well.

resulting in what could be perceived as type, but that isn't necessarily who we really are.

Well, I truly believe that we have brains to make use of. I think that many situations just expect us to react in a given way, not necessarily according to our elements-functions. But then maybe better to treat socionics as a tool for communication rules rather than typing anyone?

Originally Posted by Cruiser

is not exactly about being healthy. It is more about manual labor, perseverance, maintenance, physical progress...

Yes, of course but I didn't say they were equivalent. I meant hidden agenda as one described in the article on the site. is surely bigger than that.

The difference between INxj and ENxj is clear.
You will find INxjs feeling almost compelled to be working on something or themselves. [...]
ENxjs on the other hand have an outright aversion to actually putting in some physical effort towards tasks

This was one of my points. You referred to type's decription, which some people claim to be irrelevant and stereotypical. So they reject them. Of course, if you use the descriptions, you are right - the differences are clear. But if you take their point of view, imo it makes it almost impossible to guess a type. Because when judging only by elements which change their function ( interchanges with or e.g.) no one is able to type anyone. At least I can't see how it could be done.

[HotelStayer]

Originally Posted by pivot

I'm not sure if I got you well here. In my understanding, the creative function is 2nd? And INTj has there. Did you mean that, or we just use different names? Anyway, I agree with it in general. What is more, I'd risk saying that even our base function can be considered as weakness. Try e.g. using your or when you talk with someone who uses or . This makes communication really hard at times and if you're minority, then... well. And yes, imo this might serve for hidden agenda as well.

Here is an example:
The area of creativity for can either be or which, as irrational functions, both compete for dominance. This causes the area of creativity to be a 'sensitive' area, because the person is not as confident with it as they are with the primary function. This is how the theory goes...

On this website this sensing-intuition conflict is roughly defined as a 'struggle between the spiritual and material self' and both the and have that, but they just have a different result. So as this struggle rages, one could see how both types share 'hidden agendas' because the second function isn't as permanent/confident. It is not the "unshakable foundation" like is. So sometimes the type's hidden agenda (in theory) is (to believe) whereas in other situations it is (to be healthy).

But we also find conflicts where a person isn't sure if they are introvert or extrovert, which seems to be your case. So what to do with these people? There is no way to totally confidently PROVE they are one type or another.

Here is one somewhat similar to your conflict:
Let us assume this person is "sure" they are intuitive, but unsure of or therefore we assume they have a logic versus ethics, or a 'struggle between intellectual and emotional' but we don't know whether their hidden agenda is , , or

According to Jung introversion versus extroversion deals with a person's general attitude toward the world they live in. Simply and vaguely put, extroverts 'conform' more and are more active in the world around them. They follow the trends, the norms and for that are less individualistic than the introvert is.

[pivot]

Ah, OK, I get it now. Thank you for this clear explanation. Yes, this might be the reason. And I think the fact that people give me so different types might stem from this problem (sctrictly speaking, they can't get why the type does not match me well and why they can't find any that does).