Go Back   Socionics Forums > Ramble Mumble

Ramble Mumble Anything goes, but please make an effort to stay positive and keep it socionics related.


Reply
 
Thread Tools
  #21  
Old 15/09/2006, 05:56 PM
SG's Avatar
SG SG is offline
Moderator
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Posts: 2,521
Default Re: J/P = problem

shit happens
Reply With Quote
  #22  
Old 15/09/2006, 09:14 PM
jsb'07's Avatar
jsb'07 jsb'07 is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Posts: 160
Default Re: J/P = problem

I think that j/p is a problem when two people are being together and one of them is irrational and the second one is rational. What one does is unexpected to other. This brings confusion and irritation. They have diferent rythms of life and this phenomenon where one is irrational and the other is rational is called arythimcal relationship.
Reply With Quote
  #23  
Old 16/09/2006, 12:58 AM
theEvaluator theEvaluator is offline
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Posts: 28
Default Re: J/P = problem

metroGnome, I know what you mean by the introvert-extrovert j/p flip re: dominant functions btwn MBTI vs Socionics. I have been skeptical of the functional analysis laid out by both MBTI and Socionics, studying from my own consistent system and experimenting with different ways of mapping it out for some time. Socionics offers interesting info (esp. what Sergei has provided) re: VI and intertype relations, and to some extent, profiles. I agree with what you posted earlier about MBTI - its career profiles can be helpful but again, doubt the accuracy of their testing methods.

metroGnome and SG - so far through this whole thread, metroGnome's struck me as the true INTP and Sergei, the true INTJ!

BLauritson, you still sound so very ISTJ to me. Perhaps you are identifying with your Benefactor ideal, yet, your Beneficiary ISFP-self shines through in your posts (which is a quality I've always found delightful in ISTJs, their ISFP "bottom-notes", since ISFP is my own Benefactor). And your descriptions about your inner complexities makes perfect sense. It is quite strange how INFJs get the wrap for being APPEARING "complex" - implying enigmatic ... as (unless I'm projecting) it's the ISTJs that can have trouble discerning their inner sea of feelings - unless they happen to be irate about something that did not meet their high expectations.

As far as having good relations with an ESFp - can totally relate. I have gotten on so well with ENTps I even thought perhaps they were my dual, at one point. But on consideration, ENTPs do make a fuss once in a while and I just let them have their way, perceiving a weakness their perception and they, a weakness in my ability - in a way that suits the Supervisor-Supervisee relation (which some have posted and suggest can work very well). If you and your ESFp friend get together and physical activity (Se) just seems to be an ongoing theme in your connections, to both of your delight, I would once again suggest you are ISTJ and this is a relation of supervision per socionics. (For me and ENTPs, the Ne goes wild, with ENTP usually leading! It feels very healthy and self-validating, spending time with them.) Per me` own little developing understanding, I'd say this relation with your ESFP bud is a dual relation with your aspirational self, and so feels the most progressive and aspirational ego-assuring.

ALL people are like complex wines. The types are interlinked, progressive. We can be centered, fall back on our root selves, act out our aspirational selves, but ones theoretical center always remains the same. Maybe restart by studying the rings of Benefit anew. I would think that one should be able to identify with both their benefactor and beneficiary's profiles, to some extent, and have a mix of talents from both.
Reply With Quote
  #24  
Old 16/09/2006, 01:07 AM
theEvaluator theEvaluator is offline
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Posts: 28
Default Re: J/P = problem

btw ...

SG, your uncanny perception of time is so very intriguing!

Do you cook? Invent recipes? Are you usually able to imagine what certain flavors will taste like together before ever actually having tried the combo?
Reply With Quote
  #25  
Old 16/09/2006, 07:16 AM
SG's Avatar
SG SG is offline
Moderator
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Posts: 2,521
Default Re: J/P = problem

Quote:
Do you cook? Invent recipes? Are you usually able to imagine what certain flavors will taste like together before ever actually having tried the combo?
Yeah, I can cook when I feel like it. Imagining flavours? Not really my thing, I can estimate what it will taste like based on my memories with similar foods. If you study different foods you can notice patterns of what goes with what nicely. It is like lego system. Based on this I can make up a dish, but it would probably exist already. Oh yeah and there are also compatible and incompatible foods from nutritional point of view.
Reply With Quote
  #26  
Old 16/09/2006, 11:42 AM
BLauritson's Avatar
BLauritson BLauritson is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Posts: 156
Default Re: J/P = problem

Apologies for the long post, I didn't realise I'd end up writing one this long. But, I have a point to prove :P

Right, I've had a look at the ring of benefit. Assuming I'm an INTp, my benefactor would be ISTj and my beneficiary would be INFj. I semi-identify with both of these. To be specific:

ISTj

I agree with the following quotes from the profile:
"Many ISTjs find it quite easy to interact with strangers and considering that they are introverts can feel quite close to someone even after a relatively short amount of contact." - To a certain extent, yes. I'm actually quite socially insecure, so I'll maintain very little contact with strangers where possible, prefering to keep it short and simple, and I try to break contact if they're getting too talkative. Strangers who randomly spark up conversation with me, to be frank, scare me (last time that happened was on an aeroplane journey).

"ISTjs try always to be punctual and appreciate this quality in others very much." - Note, only the former applies to me in this one. I make an effort to be punctual where possible, but I'm more or less indifferent to the punctuality of others, provided they're not ridiculously late.

"When they in informal surroundings they are often inclined to talk about subjects related to philosophy or morality. They may show an interest in religion, mysticism and predictions. ISTjs are always ready to share their knowledge with others and readily give people advice based on their own experiences." - Not so much morality, I strongly disdain the idea of morality as absolute, and therefore don't think it's really something that can be debated since it's too subjective. Not so much religion (subjectivity again) but mysticism and predictions yes, I do take an interest in the occult. I am ready to share knowledge with others, which is probably my Te coming out, although I tend to wait for others to ask me a question which I can respond to rather than coming straight out. I do give advice, but only to people I care about. I could be considered arrogant in this regard, unless someone has proven their worth to me, I don't bother to help them out since I consider them unworthy of my attention.

"ISTjs like to collect reference material, encyclopaedias and dictionaries." - Sort of. Not so much encyclopaedias and dictionaries, although the availability of such materials on the internet may explain this. I do like to purchase books relating to my fields of interest now and again (the most recent one being Please Understand Me 2 by David Keirsey), although not to the extent that I "collect" them. I only have a few books on any given topic.

"They do not require much variety in their food and can eat the same thing for several days without any problem as long as it's of a high quality." - This one's debatable. I actually eat the same foods everyday, and I'm unconcerned about quality so long as it's not bad. So even if it was mediocre quality it would suffice. I don't think this is related to type though, as I have a somewhat rare phobia-related eating disorder, so I think it's related to that instead.

And now for quotes I directly disagree with:
"ISTjs often have a very firm, solid figure, especially males." - I'm not certain of my interpretation of "firm, solid figure", so I might simply be misinterpreting it, but I actually have quite a flexible/agile body. I've basically got the build such that, if I were to train myself, I could potentially be a gymnast or some other thing like that. That's just speculation though, I'm generally uninterested in my body ("Why exercise your body when you can exercise your mind?" as I like to say to people who comment on my lack of physical fitness) so it's not something I've pursued.

"Male ISTjs often wear a moustache. If they do not have one then there probably is a logical reason for it, as in general they all agree that a moustache is a good idea." - I must admit I find this quote amusing for some reason. Something about the general consensus that a moustache is a good idea. But no, I've never seen the appeal of a moustache, so I prefer to be clean shaven.

"They take great care of their appearance and may criticise people who do not." - I take very little care of my appearance (so long as I don't consider myself scruffy, and I'd have to look pretty bad to go that far since I have low standards for appearance). What's more, I actually criticise people who take too much care of their appearance, since I consider it to be shallow.

"They try to work everything out in depth and down to the last detail." - Not really. So long as I have a general idea of something, I'm happy. Details just annoy me if I've got a general understanding, unless they happen to be relevant to a specific goal or objective I'm working towards.

"ISTjs are very realistic people." - Hardly. Though I can be serious when working with something important, for the most part I'm very fantastical, since I far prefer my internal world and imagination over the real world. I only venture into the real world when necessary, and return to my fantasy world when possible. I feel more comfortable there. So basically, unless it's something important, such as making a career-related decision or something like that, I'm not very realistic at all.

"They are not supporters of unproved ideas or theories and will hesitate in undertaking uncertain projects." - I LOVE unproven ideas or theories. Gives me so much to think about and reflect upon. And most importantly, I learn more from ideas than I do facts (I value the process of learning more than knowledge, even though the latter is still important to me).

"They like and respect authority and always obey subordination." - I'll obey my superiors in the workplace, since obviously I have a job to do and I don't want to compromise said job. Whether or not I like authority depends on the actual person in charge. If I respect them, I'll be happy to follow them. If they've done something to lose my respect, I'll only follow them for the sake of keeping out of trouble, and will do so reluctantly. If I can, then I'll avoid orders from leaders I don't respect, but only if I know I can get away with it. As far as I'm concerned, in a perfect world there would be minimal authority, I'd much prefer an anarchist state over a police state if I were forced to choose between the two. I'm very distrustful of police authority as I feel threatened by their presence.

"They will never admit that they do not know something within the field of their activity." - Much as I may like to think I know everything (an image I project more for the sake of humour than anything else), I'm always directly honest about what I know and what I don't. I have more respect for someone who has little knowledge on a subject but is not afraid to admit it, than someone who knows a lot about a subject but will not admit that there's something they don't know. Nobody's omniscient, so there's no point pretending to be.

Right, that's the ISTj profile dissected. Anything in the profile I didn't comment on, I neither agree nor disagree with. I'll analyse the INTp profile now:

INTp

I agree with the following quotes from the profile:
"Although INTps are introverts, some of them may behave in a very extroverted manner." - Until I read this profile (around this time, I read about the INTj/INTp controversy when trying to convert from the MBTI INTJ type. I'd previously assumed INTj was the same as INTJ, but after learning about that whole matter I later decided upon INTp as my type in socionics. Anyways, back to the story), I was actually becoming unsure of whether or not I was an introvert, because of my tendency to become hyperactive and act in a very crazy fashion rather spontaneously. After reading this profile (and this particular quote was one of the things that stapled me to the profile, thinking "Yes, this fits me") I felt once again at ease over my I/E status.

"INTps with more developed aesthetic taste are neat and tidy. They look after their clothes which they know well how to compose and combine. When they interact with others they are softly spoken and unobtrusive, leaving others the impression that they are intelligent and educated. When asking someone for something, they usually do it in such a way as to rarely be denied." - Yep, this applies to me. Well, I'm not so sure about the looking after their clothes bit, but I am generally neat and tidy, and I do generally converse in a pleasant manner.

"INTps are good at noticing contradictions in theories or opinions and can focus others attention to this." - Definitely true. Don't really have anything else to say on this one.

"They try to keep others from being passionate as they consider strong emotions to be harmful." - If there's one thing I just cannot stand, it is people who get too emotional. I'm wary of emotions in general, since I think they're generally more destructive than constructive, but regardless I hate it when people get too passionate or emotional over something. A good example of this is when people express romance in public. I'm not an unromantic person myself, but I think it should be a private thing, and so I get very irritated when people express it in public (especially when it comes to music. Love songs really get on my nerves).

"For example, they may wash their hands more often than others do. They pay a lot attention to hygiene and sanitation." - True. I don't like my hands to be messy, if they do get messy for whatever reason, I wash them. I could never be a car mechanic or anything like that, I'd spend too much time washing myself.

"Usually they are relaxed and only undertake projects that show considerable return and profit." - True. One could say my philosophy on this is "Low payoff is no payoff".

"However when it comes to spending money on themselves, they can be very generous." - True. I don't spend money on myself that often, but when I do spend money on myself, I usually buy expensive things.

"INTps usually work slowly, paying a lot of attention to detail." - Generally true, yes. I worry sometimes that I misexpress myself when it comes to my preference for details, so this sums it up the best. I don't like stand-alone facts or details purely for their own sake, however if it's relevant to my current goal/objective, or it helps me grasp the general concept or big picture of something, THIS is when facts or details are useful to me, and when I'll pay attention to them.

The only quote I disagree with is this one:
"Because of this quality they usually try to appear poorer than they actually are." - I don't really care how other people see me financially, so I don't make any secret about how much money I have. The preceding statement about not liking to give money/presents away is true though. If there's one thing I'm absolutely not, it's charitable.

All other bits I either agree with, or (in the case of the appearance section) I don't really understand them enough to decide upon.

Finally, the INFj profile. Apologies again for the long post, but like I said, I have a point to prove :P

INFj

I agree with the following quotes from the profile:
"INFjs have a special ability to listen to people and as a result they are often asked for advice or sympathy." - Not so much sympathy, since I'm not a very sympathetic person (I feel awkward expressing genuine sympathy. I can feel it, but I don't like to express it), but advice, yes. Then again, I'm not very often asked because it's only people who know me well enough to see the more fatherly side of me who would ever ask me for advice. I am good at listening to people though, but again this is something that only people who know me well seem to pick up on.

"INFjs are always ready to help friends in difficult life situations." - My friends are my allies (well, good and close friends anyway. I don't go out of my way for merely casual friends), and so any care I do have for people is reserved for my allies, so yes, I'm very loyal to those who I consider worthy. I generally expect the same back, whether in that form or a different form. I basically operate a mutual benefit policy when it comes to helping people.

"They care not with words but with real actions." - This is true for me also. I'm more affectionate towards me friends in what I do, rather than in what I say. Perhaps that's one reason that even most of my friends still perceive me as cold and distant, because I express that side of me (Fi) more subtly through my actions, leaving plain logic (Te) to express myself with verbally.

"They like a calm and measured style of life and therefore try to prepare and anticipate everything beforehand, often making them quite reliable." - This is quite true. David Keirsey described the Mastermind Rational (MBTI INTJ, which I believe myself to be) as contingency planners, and I think as far as day to day life goes, that does indeed apply to me. I like things to run smoothly, so any problems that could potentially arise, I seek to prevent happening beforehand.

And again, the quotes I disagree with:
"INFjs know how to establish peace between conflicting sides. They take a neutral position in the conflict, often being fired upon from both sides." - This one's a bit iffy. If a conflict doesn't concern me personally, I remain neutral in the sense that I stay away from the conflict altogether. If I am in the conflict, I seek one of two things, either resolution as early and as cleanly as possible, minimising the damage done (if I'm in conflict with someone I either care about, or who is in some way superior to me and therefore has the power to ruin my life in one way or another) and basically trying to resolve things diplomatically so that everyone is happy at the end of it, or else I seek the absolute destruction of my opponent (not to say I'd try to kill them, much as I may fantasise about it afterwards), but rather I try to come out on top of the conflict and force my opponent into submission. The latter case is only if doing so wouldn't have any negative long-term consequences for myself.

"They rarely push, shout or show aggressiveness." - Another iffy one. I try and remain calm for as long as possible, but once pushed over the edge I flare up in a very fiery, albeit controlled manner. Basically I still keep a clear head, but my decision making becomes oriented towards more aggressive and destructive goals, and I often employ an aggressive tone of voice and generally fearsome manner, which is all a front, but I suppose it's an instinctive way of scaring off any threats to avoid any damage to myself. Survival instinct and whatnot.

The rest of the things in the profile I don't really lean either way on, so I don't have anything to comment on.

Whew, that took me at least an hour to write, possibly more. Don't think I've ever spent so long writing a forum post. But anyways, that's my analysis of the benefit ring as you suggested.

One more thing, I took another test, the Keirsey Temperament Sorter 2, to see what that rated me as. There were 10 questions relating to E/I preferences, and 20 questions for S/N, T/F and J/P respectively. Bearing in mind Keirsey's temperaments relate more to MBTI than socionics, but regardless, it came out as Mastermind Rational (INTJ), and my results were as follows:

- 2 points for Extraversion (20%), 8 points for Introversion (80%)
- 4 points for Sensing (20%), 16 points for Intuiting (80%)
- 19 points for Thinking (95%), 1 point for Feeling (5%)
- 18 points for Judging (90%), 2 points for Perceiving (10%)

So all in all, I remain convinced that I'm a socionics INTp and an MBTI INTJ.

Just out of curiosity though, what is it about me that made you think I was ISTj rather than INTp? Maybe that would provide some insight into it.
Reply With Quote
  #27  
Old 18/09/2006, 11:31 PM
theEvaluator theEvaluator is offline
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Posts: 28
Default Re: J/P = problem

SG, however one labels your type and mine, all our Ni-Ne-Si-Se functions are most likely aligned (whereas metroGnomes are a little out-of-phase from ours).

Incidentally, who wrote the +/- profiles?

Anyway, once testing methods are refined, all profiles will resolve more clearly into focus. Right now, even though MBTI and socionics profiles can both be helpful, they are still reflecting some measure of error because of faulty assumptions behind the testing methodology (i.e., the "do you prefer axis X or Y?" variety). Here's why (as you may already know) (note, these are not listed in any meaningful order):

1) people's level of self-awareness vary dramatically

2) people may respond according to what they aspire to be and are actively working toward with what they truly are at the root, i.e., since childhood (e.g., people can become bored with their most centered selves, take their own innate talents for granted/find them uninteresting, and seek to grow beyond their core self (from their perspective) - which is pretty natural.)

3) there is a pattern that can be discerned in how an individual responds to stress (or even great contentment, or boredom, perhaps?!!) which, throughout its progression, can lead to new preferences for f-t and/or s-n, even over long periods of time.

4) Valid testing might involve dynamic cross-functional analysis that is not, e.g., F vs. T, so much as Fi vs. Fe, etc. (I'm working on this.)

5) IMO, j vs. p should be ignored in testing (at least/esp. for introverts) because these functions share too many incidental definitions with other existing function combos, depending on their placement.

6) projection really complicates analysis!

I hope my posts do not come off sounding too negative. I think a lot of wonderful research and work has been done. It is simply that - seeing so many VERY different people "test" in the same ways (some accurately, some not), and given the fact that their are undecided people out there on their type, for "balanced" results, this means an opportunity for further enhancement. So please don't think I'm bashing anything, as my language online sometimes can get a bit ... well ... blunt.

BLauritsen(sp) wrote a very long post ... I feel bad for soliciting so much time and energy for the explanation! I will respond to it soon ... (i.e., within next few days as time permits) ...
Reply With Quote
  #28  
Old 19/09/2006, 05:33 AM
booyakasha booyakasha is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 37
Default Re: J/P = problem

This argument by BLauritson is very Te-ish to me. I would like to see his picture-- INTp's are usually fairly easy to recognize. It's the sad eyes that usually gives the whole thing away.
Reply With Quote
  #29  
Old 19/09/2006, 02:25 PM
theEvaluator theEvaluator is offline
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Posts: 28
Default Re: J/P = problem

Before he posts it, I'd like to put my vote in for an MBTI ISTJ (socionics ISTp?) - who fits much of the ISTp +/- profile (mostly) but V.I.s like the ISTj celebrities on this site.


OK, more later - had to put in my wager before any pictures went up ...
Reply With Quote
  #30  
Old 19/09/2006, 06:01 PM
BLauritson's Avatar
BLauritson BLauritson is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Posts: 156
Default Re: J/P = problem

Right, in absence of an available camera (I would use my phone camera but that's been damaged so the picture would be too unclear/distorted), I'll have to rely on some older pictures. Then again I don't think my appearance has changed much in the last year or two, so maybe they'll suffice. If I do get my hands on an available camera then I'll take some more recent ones. There are a couple of recent ones on my MSN space, but they're quite long distance and the quality is meh-y as it is, so you can't really make anything out. But I'll post 'em anyway if requested. Right:

The most recent one of me that's relatively close-up
Me about a year ago
Me with a poor quality camera trying to look psychotic (about a year or two old)

Right, given what's available to me, those will have to do. Let the VI begin :P

On an entirely different note which is not so much entirely different but rather related to what booyakasha mentioned, how exactly does one define "sad eyes" exactly?

EDIT: Don't feel bad about how much time and effort I put into my explanation, it was worth it.
Reply With Quote
  #31  
Old 19/09/2006, 06:19 PM
theEvaluator theEvaluator is offline
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Posts: 28
Default Re: J/P = problem

Dear BLauritson,

The reason why I said you struck me as an ISTJ is because I have lived intimately with ISTJs as well as had additional ISTJ friends over the years. I have also had INTP friends, at least as close (admittedly, closer). The ways in which you express yourself in your profiles was an uncanny echo of my previous and ongoing ISTJ interactions. It's how you formulate language, react to my posts, express your thoughts, view yourself, express your preferences and describe your behaviors - absolutely everything. Now, perhaps it just so happens that my ISTJ friends who did take MBTI tests inaccurately tested as ISTJ, and you are the one in the right. Even though the numbers are stacked against your favor, admittedly my population sampling here is quite small (considering the grand scheme of things). Even if I were to compare the results of say, 12 people vs. yours, that might not really be large enough either to do a thorough scientific analysis. Rigid population sampling is not my style. I jump to other clues too quickly for cross-validation, which yields more efficient, probablistic results). In addition, my ISTJ friends just so happen to resemble the ISTJ celebrities on this site, in terms of V.I., just as my INTP friends over the years V.I. well with the INTPs on this site. (Incidentally, one of those INTP friends tested as an INFP. He was a techy network programmer type, who found my imagination a bit off the wall and too much for his own liking. Struggling with his overactive Fi, among other things, he eventually committed suicide. He demonstrated great empathy toward others yet had the characteristic INTP look (e.g., rounded and tragically withdrawn eyes, appearing "short-sighted" in how he focused in his immediate physical environment, etc.) - ultra-critical disposition - etc., etc.)

Now, another thing that is interesting is that you test as an INTP, and so do I. Right now for me, it's marginal ... almost F. But sometimes it has been much stronger. Like you, I can read various Kiersey profiles and relate to them to some degree (e.g., INTP, ISFP, etc.) Anyway, I can tell simply by conversing online with you that we definitely do not have the same type. I suspect our relations are either super-ego or activity(!). I am slightly energized whenever I read your posts and inclined to respond more than I feel I am pragmatically able.

I can act VERY much like an INTP, and share many stereotypical characteristics (e.g., building theories, analytical, good at adv maths and hard sciences, easily ace logic tests, etc.) But am I really? Maybe you can act very much like an INTP, too. But are you REALLY? This is why I think typology is a bit complicated. We can learn to develop some functions which are not our initial orientation for oodles of reasons - e.g., to integrate what we are seeking in a dual partner within our own selves, to adjust to job conditions, because we admired so&so years ago who was like X, and so we've striven to become more like X, because our primary functions cannot find satisfactory expression in our immediate life circumstances, etc. But my suggestion is that our innate natures, our true types do not REALLY change.

Also, it was my j/p questioning that lead to my contributions to this thread. So I very much apologize to everyone reading, especially you "left-brained" folks, if I have been confusing in how I throw my j's and p's around, upper case and lower. :O) I don't have much time online to post, and so my posts are indeed rushed ... as I focus on the main point and big picture, then, rather than the details. :O(

Also, I am currently requestioning the V.I. presented for all introverted types, as well as which introverts I've known really are really j vs. p. Here is just one small sample of the many problems I'm sorting through: after studying facial expressions in recent films and matching them with various people I've known, I have a hard time believing that Joe Pantollsaijfoagino(sp and Calista Flockhart are both INFjs - one seems like the quasi-identical of the other. So anyway, please bear with me for not being as faithful to the current definitions you are all holding to.

And in terms of trying on various profiles, comparing, contrasting, questioning, etc. - in search of any deeper truth, you have to shake the leaves quite a bit before you can truly discern the structure of the trees.
Reply With Quote
  #32  
Old 19/09/2006, 08:16 PM
booyakasha booyakasha is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 37
Default Re: J/P = problem

Those pictures are SOO INTp!!
Reply With Quote
  #33  
Old 19/09/2006, 11:23 PM
SG's Avatar
SG SG is offline
Moderator
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Posts: 2,521
Default Re: J/P = problem

Quote:
Right, given what's available to me, those will have to do. Let the VI begin :P
LOL, I have to admit I went back to re-read the long post after seeing your pics. INTp? Maybe not. I don't think you are Ixxp, judging by the pictures. My guess would be INTj or even ENTp but not an INTp.
Reply With Quote
  #34  
Old 20/09/2006, 12:01 AM
theEvaluator theEvaluator is offline
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Posts: 28
Default Re: J/P = problem

(FYI, he posted pix while I was editing my post that followed soon after, so I hadn't seen them yet.)

Quote:
Those pictures are SOO INTp!!
Well, the clothes and the knife bit are no doubt true to the INTP type in a strikingly ironic, archetypal way.

What in particular inclines you to believe he looks like an INTp?

A few of us mentioned the bit about looking "sad" already - which, of course, is kind of generic ... since we all can look sad!

So, to be more specific ... the following is what I have observed about what I call INTp's. (Describing the subtleties of energetic V.I. - oh boy, here it goes!)

INTps have eyes which, among other traits, give one the impression that they are strongly sucking visual input very narrowly and INWARDLY through them, with the energetic focus directed toward the BACK of the head. This is why their eyes, often pale in color, typically appear rather piercing (e.g., John Travolta). The type can also appear to have "limited vision" - seeming to focus very narrowly within a small range of their immediate environment, rather than the normal sense of peripheral vision you would sense from most. When they talk to you (if not looking down at the floor, or whatever), they can appear to be talking DOWN to you as though looking at you with haughty eyes. If any energy is projected outward from the eyes, it seems to be thinly from the very top of them, straight out. If depresses and talking to you, they have a habit of not looking anyone in the eye, rather, the floor. If they're experiencing a decent sense of well-being, this straight-out energy at the top of the eyes may even be skewed slightly downward direction when they are interacting with/interrogating you. This same thin, outward energy at the top of the eyes will seem to "flap" upward when they tilt their head back with some interjection and a laugh.

With INTps, there are also two prominent energetic centers behind the head: 1) consider approximately where their ears are located, vertically, 2) project those positions to a plane directly behind the head, 3) raise those positions along the same vertical axes so that they're now just above the top of the head, 4) imagine them as somewhat circular.

I realize this sounds bizarre. Those with strong Ne and loads of V.I. practice are most likely to discern what I'm talking about (if you don't, please tell me so I can adjust my model!)

Other things could be described, but for the purposes of this example, these basics are sufficient.

By contrast, BLauritson fits the prototype face I was expecting to see, resembling close friends of mine both past and present. His eyes appear more almond-shaped than "beady", much softer with a more outward energetic projection than strongly inward, and more attuned to the outside world suggesting a more engaging level of awareness of his immediate physical environment. No need to go on from here. None of the preceding INTp descriptions fit.

But seeing as how he identifies strongly with the INTp/INTJs profiles, there must of course be a great deal of validity to that. My sense is simply that this identity is not his CORE type, but learned. But of course for the sake of objectivity I must allow the possibility of being entirely wrong, and so completely welcome the ideas of others on this.

SG, how would you V.I. this lad?

BLauritson, thank you for sharing your photos! They are plenty indeed, and hopefully will solicit even more intriguing, detailed discussion on V.I., etc.
Reply With Quote
  #35  
Old 20/09/2006, 06:58 PM
BLauritson's Avatar
BLauritson BLauritson is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Posts: 156
Default Re: J/P = problem

Wow, that's been some interesting information there. I suppose it's true that typology is extremely complex in practice and so it's very easy to mis-identify people's types.

I do wonder how the various things in my life so far have affected me psychologically. My mother's type is ISFJ and my Dad's type is ENFJ. They divorced when I was 6 years old and so I was raised by my mother. My memory's very vague (never have had a good memory for past experiences) but from what I recall, she was very overprotective of me which I think is partly responsible for my diminished self-confidence that's plagued me throughout my life (it's improved over the past couple of years as I've grown more autonomous and self-sufficient). We also had a lot of conflict between us, which, if I am an INTJ, is quite likely to happen due to diametrically opposite temperaments, as Mr. Keirsey would say. Basically I never fit her idealistic image of how her child is supposed to be, and she was always trying to make me more sociable and family-orientated (something which I stubbornly rejected). So I was always considered weird, and often scolded for it, as though everyone else was normal and I was the only different one. This led to a lot of self-doubt, which may explain my great interest in psychology, and especially personality typology, since I've felt better about myself knowing that my traits aren't as unusual as I was always led to believe. This in turn inspired me to pick myself up and face the world head-on, rather than being confused and self-hating like I was before. Strangely enough, I felt more.."comfortable", for lack of a better term, as though my intuition was telling me that this was the right way to be. The more I've learned about typology (initially MBTI, and then more recently Socionics), the more convinced I've become about my type being INTJ/INTp, and the better quality of life (internally speaking) I've come to have.

Anyways, life story over, I think that's one of the most major factors that's likely to confuse the way I express my type (whatever it may be), and in turn result in confusion when judging my type based on my behaviour and whatnot.

Ah yes, something else I meant to mention ("Oh great, more of his stupid life story" I hear you thinking :P). Regarding my Dad's situation, up until about 2-3 years ago, I didn't see much of him due to unfavourable circumstances on his side. Nowadays, I see him in a social setting (specifically, there's a quiz night and karaoke night at a local pub that he goes to regularly, so I go there for the quiz/karaoke nights) and we've come to know eachother better. I identify better with him than I do my mother, although I've found that in more relaxed settings I start to feel uneasy around him, although I can't explain why. If my belief in my INTp-ism is correct then it could be the whole Supervision relations that causes that, since in some ways that does seem to fit our relationship to a certain extent, although I don't really spend enough time with him to test that.

But yeah, as if the current prevailing confusion wasn't enough, there's some more fuzziness to digest. I'm not really sure if I've explained anything in there, but whenever I think about this issue (despite my sureness of being an INTJ/INTp, I still question certain elements that might result in me being a different type, although I never really get very far before something else in my mind distracts me). Oh well, I'm interested in seeing what the general consensus is anyway, see if there is something about me I'm missing. I'm certain that I'm an introvert, since I generally prefer solitude over socialising (not to say I dislike socialising, but I can only handle limited doses before I get either bored or depressed), and I'm very sure that I'm a Thinker (although this sureness only comes from my understanding of the whole hidden agenda thingy. Prior to this I was beginning to question my T/F preference, and I've definitely acknowledged a strong Fi feature that likes to rebel against me occasionally (such as yesterday when I was very angry pretty much throughout the day for no reason whatsoever, which unfortunately caused quite a bit of tension at my workplace that day. I've returned to my normal self today though)). I've come to acknowledge the existence of my intuition over time, moreso as I've understood exactly what its function is, psychologically speaking. I also wonder if I've taken my intuition for granted throughout life, since that may explain why I've often considered obscure connections that I make in my mind to be obvious, and then become surprised when nobody else understands it until I explain it to them. I also have lots of (albeit usually minor) premonitions about little things that I usually find happens the next day or so. The only major premonition I can remember having is when I had a dream that, in a somewhat obscure way, actually predicted the death of my Dad's girlfriend approximately 6 months before it happened (I didn't even notice the connection until it happened, but I realised it very soon afterwards without even thinking about it much). Anyway, enough on that. I'm sure of my J-ness in an MBTI sense because of my preference for structure, organisation and generally keeping things neat and tidy in any areas I have responsibility or control over (such as my work desk, this computer desk, my bedroom, etc.). When I first came to Socionics, as so many others do, I assumed that the acronyms were the same as MBTI, and so initially believed I was an INTj, although I found several things that didn't feel right with the INTj profile on here. Once I read the article about the whole MBTI/Socionics discrepancy (or rather, one of the articles), I realised that the thing about finding it hard to keep a balance between the emotional/intellectual self actually fit me very well, at which point I started to read and think about the INTp description, which felt a lot more accurate in describing me, and so I've since identified myself as INTp in Socionics.

Gah, sorry about the long post again. I get so absorbed in writing these things, I don't realise how much I've written until I look back over it. It's like there's a tree of my thoughts, and when writing I (more or less without realising) seem to go down each and every available branch of that tree and speculate upon it. RIGHT, I will stop now.

I did have one other question I wanted to ask, but fortunately for everyone reading this post I can't remember what it was now.
Reply With Quote
  #36  
Old 20/09/2006, 07:16 PM
SG's Avatar
SG SG is offline
Moderator
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Posts: 2,521
Default Re: J/P = problem

Quote:
I realised that the thing about finding it hard to keep a balance between the emotional/intellectual self actually fit me very well
Would you mind to make a long post on that, please?
Reply With Quote
  #37  
Old 20/09/2006, 07:25 PM
BLauritson's Avatar
BLauritson BLauritson is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Posts: 156
Default Re: J/P = problem

lol. Is that a genuine request for more info or a joke about my tendency to post huge...posts? Or perhaps even both..
Reply With Quote
  #38  
Old 20/09/2006, 07:37 PM
SG's Avatar
SG SG is offline
Moderator
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Posts: 2,521
Default Re: J/P = problem

I am actually serious, the longer the better.
Reply With Quote
  #39  
Old 20/09/2006, 09:32 PM
BLauritson's Avatar
BLauritson BLauritson is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Posts: 156
Default Re: J/P = problem

Right, very well then. Now, where to begin..

Well, the issue of emotions for me has always been a rocky one. When I was younger (that's another thing I meant to mention in the last post come to think of it, in case it has any relevance, is that I suffered with depression for as long as I can remember up until the age of 17. It was after coming out of my depression that I came to identify myself as an INTJ (during my depression, the one time I took a test (a much simplified version of MBTI done by the BBC, adjusted to be more user-friendly to the masses), I tested as an INTP, which I think is due to the fact I was very laid back, borderline lazy, and rather disorganised when I had depression, which AFAIK was either a direct or indirect symptom of the depression. Anyways..)), basically during the time when I had depression, I was very easily wound up or angered, something which was heavily exploited by my peers. This often resulted in angry outbursts (would that count as Fe being invoked there?), which I suppose only served to damage my self-esteem further. I've calmed down a lot since that pivotal point and I have a much better hold on my emotions. Unfortunately, as yesterday at work proved for me, occasionally my emotions seem to flare up over absolutely nothing.

I'm not really sure if that has any relevance, but thought I'd add that anyway. One thing that does often make me question my T/F preference is the way things like my compassion work. I'm not really sure how to explain all this, but here goes:

Basically, for the most part my feelings/emotions are very reserved. I'm completely unaffected by tragedy, things like natural disasters or whatever, don't affect me emotionally whatsoever. I figure that I don't know anybody who may have been killed in the disaster, therefore there's no reason for me to be affected by it. Whether this is a natural type-related thing or simply a way I've learned to be over the years, I don't know. On the other hand however, I have what seems to be an inexhaustible amount of (albeit hidden) compassion for my friends (well, not really casual friends, but good or close friends). When it comes to them, I'm always willing to listen if they have any problems, always happy to help them out in some way, and essentially it could be said that I love my close friends as if they were my brothers and sisters. Another thing is that I tend to find I fall in love easily, although I'm always very secretive about it when this happens.

I dunno, it's hard to explain. I have a lot of difficulty in understanding my emotions, but it seems they constantly come up to the surface as if requiring my attention for something. I know it doesn't really sound much like a struggle between T and F, but it's definitely there. Thinking about it, when I'm reflecting upon something I always seem to have some sort of emotional reaction to it rather than thinking about it logically. I wonder if maybe it's because (if I am an INTJ/INTp), I have Te coupled with Fi. So when I'm in extraverting mode (such as when I'm working.. I also seem to have my more crazy head on when working actually.. I wonder if my function arrangement explains that at all?) I seem to deal with things logically, and don't really bring feelings into it. On the contrary however, when I'm introspecting I seem to primarily deal with my feelings instead. That's not to say that feelings are excluded when I'm doing something in the outside world, nor is logic excluded when I'm doing something in the inside world, but those seem to be the dominant forces in both.

Hmm.. I still don't feel like I'm really explaining myself properly. In comparison though, I'm pretty certain that the "need to maintain a balance between the physical and spiritual self" doesn't apply to me. I'm very spiritual in my own way, although I don't follow any form of organised religion, I have my own strongly-held beliefs which are rooted in spiritualism. I have little regard for my physical self, in the sense that provided I don't cause myself any long-term harm, I'll use and abuse my body as I see fit. I'm uninterested in physical fitness since I'm not required to exercise my body to achieve any of my interests, and I'll only look after my health so much as is necessary to keep myself functioning. On the contrary I'm very interested on topics such as the soul and on things relating to life after death, reincarnation, basically any sort of spiritual philosophy I like to think about in order to gain an understanding of things. So long as I'm physically comfortable, I very rarely feel the desire or need to pay attention to my physical self, which is the main reason why I'm sure that the physical/spiritual balance doesn't apply to me.

Well, I don't really feel like I extracted everything I could on this topic, but I think mainly based on a reduced awareness or understanding of the feeling side of my personality, I find it very difficult to come to definite conclusions about them.

Anyways, I hope that's enough information to go on for now anyway. If there's any specific questions regarding this, I'll see if I can answer them.
Reply With Quote
  #40  
Old 20/09/2006, 11:57 PM
SG's Avatar
SG SG is offline
Moderator
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Posts: 2,521
Default Re: J/P = problem

Well, I wouldn't be so sure about you being an INTp yet. Your case for T/F ambiguity basically wins nothing. However:

Quote:
- 4 points for Sensing (20%), 16 points for Intuiting (80%)
- 19 points for Thinking (95%), 1 point for Feeling (5%)
one doesn't have to be a mathematical genius to notice that 20% vs 80% for S/N shows more uncertainty towards this preference than 95% vs 5% for T/F.
Reply With Quote
Reply


Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off



All times are GMT +1. The time now is 11:37 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.1
Copyright ©2000 - 2019, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright 2007 SOCIONICS.COM