INTJs vs. INTPs

[Luke]

Originally Posted by proteanmix

Since I've been reading Jung's Psychological Types, it seems that Socionics is truer to his original theories than what MBTI is. I can't vouch for the visual identification parts but MBTI left out so much detail about the versatility and motivations of each function. They look so one-dimensional according to MBTI.

I'm reading right now that Jung applies the concept of "abstract" to both Sensing and Intuiting. He calls Se abstract sensing and Ne abstract intuiting. Ni is concrete intuiting and Si is concrete sensing. In MBTI, abstraction is only connected to intuition, which excludes so much of what these functions are truly capable of. I'm just amazed at this man's ideas and how much MBTI has forsaken just to be formulaic.

I notice that F types are more drawn to the abstract (art), whereas T is more concrete (science). I would say S and T are both concrete, N and F are both abstract. I would say the concrete relates to forms of control, and the abstract relates to more subtle influence.

Also, I figure S and F are more about motivating (social), whereas T and N are more about justifying (theory).

It gets interesting when you compare types based on what they prefer to introvert-extrovert, instead of just what they are strong/weak at.

I basically define introvert (in a trait) as "internally defined / more resistant to change / harder to discuss openly" and extrovert as "externally defined / more changeable / easier to discuss openly". I think this is all fairly consistent with MBTI, Socionics, and Jung.


INTJ (and any Gamma NTJ/SFP) prefers to extrovert ST and introvert NF.
Their sense of control and concrete reality is externally defined and more changeable, more easy to discuss openly.
Their sense of influence and abstract reality is internally defined and more resistant to change, harder to discuss openly.

INTP (and any Alpha NTP/SFJ) prefers to extrovert NF and introvert ST.
Their sense of influence and abstract reality is externally defined, more changeable, more easy to discuss openly.
Their sense of control and concrete reality is internally defined and more resistant to change, harder to discuss openly.

[MerkW]

Originally Posted by Luke

INTJ (and any Gamma NTJ/SFP) prefers to extrovert ST and introvert NF.
Their sense of control and concrete reality is externally defined and more changeable, more easy to discuss openly.
Their sense of influence and abstract reality is internally defined and more resistant to change, harder to discuss openly.

INTP (and any Alpha NTP/SFJ) prefers to extrovert NF and introvert ST.
Their sense of influence and abstract reality is externally defined, more changeable, more easy to discuss openly.
Their sense of control and concrete reality is internally defined and more resistant to change, harder to discuss openly.

Alpha? Gamma? One must be reminded that Socionics and MBTI are two separate theories, as previously stated. Despite the assumption that many people seem to hold, an MBTI INTJ does not have to be a Gamma ILI (INTp), nor does an INTP have to be an Alpha LII (INTj). If you will observe my signature, you will see that ILE Ti subtype is my Socionics type. I have reached this conclusion by taking several socionics tests, reading socionics material, and gathering opinions from socionics forums.
But how does such a result occur? Well, that question was already answered: MBTI functions and Socionics functions do not directly correlate.

[MacGuffin]

Originally Posted by Wolf

MacGuffin is an ISTJ.

I thought I was ISTP!

Originally Posted by INTJMom

I understand where you're coming from, and I agree with you, but on the other hand, I had never even heard of leading process functions until I started coming here a few weeks ago, and I've known about MBTI for over 15 years! I've just never delved that deeply into it.

So it's possible a person just hasn't heard about leading process yet.

Right, which means they don't know what they are talking about.

[Luke]

Originally Posted by athenian200

So the difference between the two definitions of Ti is that one of them includes numerous, very specific rules and hierarchies as being part of it, while the other only allows it to evaluate evaluate things against general principles, and to be geared mostly towards finding leverage and inconsistency.

With Si, it's more pronounced. MBTI usually defines Si as forms or essences that represent reliable past experience, and are used to compare the present situation to what's familiar. Socionics defines it as being aware of your inner state, and trying to seek comfort.

Socionics theory is addressing a different aspect of things than MBTI, but I'm pretty sure it's not actually giving a substantially different result.

Se is actually about seeking a given specific physical situation. Si is about eliminating undesirable elements from the physical situation in general. That's the difference between introvert and extrovert -- introverts are all about avoiding undesired forms of stimulation whereas extroverts are all about finding stimulation in the desired form.

As a Ti, I tend to focus on logical issues for a long time, until the flaws are all apparent and I can thus eliminate them from my thinking, which will enable me to solve problems of that class in general. Te types instead process information in real-time and try to figure out what tools can possibly be used to solve the problems they want to solve.

It's not about actions (seeking comfort, solving problems) but about methods and motives. Si is about guarding against undesired physical situations in general. That's what the whole SJ ethic is about. It's not about keeping tradition or keeping a neat house. SP can do that if they want, and SJ might not do so if they feel there are more important situations to avoid.

Do these really sound like the same definitions?

And this is all in addition to the fact that Socionics defines all 8 functions in any given model as Producing/Accepting, Vital/Mental, Id/Ego/Superego/Superid, and Conscious/Unconscious. It incorporates assumptions about the structure of the psyche that MBTI doesn't make.

That's all rather speculative stuff, but not outside the range of possibility. It certainly could fit within the basic structure of the MBTI model. But it doesn't really have much bearing on what type you are -- the first two functions tell you that. The dichotomy of preferred/shadow is the same. Only the conscious/unconscious dichotomy is really at odds (on the four weaker traits), and that isn't going to affect type assessment.

[Luke]

Originally Posted by Merkw

Alpha? Gamma? One must be reminded that Socionics and MBTI are two separate theories, as previously stated. Despite the assumption that many people seem to hold, an MBTI INTJ does not have to be a Gamma ILI (INTp), nor does an INTP have to be an Alpha LII (INTj). If you will observe my signature, you will see that ILE Ti subtype is my Socionics type. I have reached this conclusion by taking several socionics tests, reading socionics material, and gathering opinions from socionics forums.
But how does such a result occur? Well, that question was already answered: MBTI functions and Socionics functions do not directly correlate.

Well you talk like an ILE.

I hold the theory that they do in fact correlate because that seems the most reasonable possible point of view. I am aware that some people do not think this is correct, but I strongly disagree. I don't think it's reasonable to assume that Socionics traits address a completely separate natural phenomenon from what MBTI traits address.

So in my (humble and limited) opinion: if you're really ILE, you're really ENTP.

[Athenian200]

Originally Posted by Luke

I hold the theory that they do in fact correlate because that seems the most reasonable possible point of view. I am aware that some people do not think this is correct, but I strongly disagree. I don't think it's reasonable to assume that Socionics traits address a completely separate natural phenomenon from what MBTI traits address.

Even if they do address the same phenomenon, how do you know that they're using the same labels in the same manner? The other theory was developed in Russia, and they might have interpreted what the functions were measuring differently.

I just have personally seen definitions of functions in MBTI that didn't seem to fit with Socionic definitions of the "same" functions, and I'm now tempted to locate the original definitions and learn Russian just to determine once and for all whether there are or are not in fact significant differences.

[Luke]

Originally Posted by athenian200

Even if they do address the same phenomenon, how do you know that they're using the same labels in the same manner? The other theory was developed in Russia, and they might have interpreted what the functions were measuring differently.

I just have personally seen definitions of functions in MBTI that didn't seem to fit with Socionic definitions of the "same" functions, and I'm now tempted to locate the original definitions and learn Russian just to determine once and for all whether there are or are not in fact significant differences.

That's a good question, really. But if they were using different labels for the same phenomenon, you'd get two consistently differentiated systems. If a given system were too vague or self-contradictory, the system would contain flaws in terms of itself -- which I don't think would stand up to scrutiny within the given community for very long.

Say one defines Sensing as an abstract function and iNtuition as a concrete function, whereas the other system defines it opposite. This would make all sensors from one system be intuitors in the other system. I'm not saying this is the case, but it would be an example of a consistent error... you could account for it in translating by isolating the variables that get changed from the ones that are the same.

I still think they are covering the same basic phenomena and using different approaches to describe them. For example, Socionics describes things in terms of bodies and fields -- extroverted information and introverted information -- because that's how introverted and extroverted traits tend to see things. So while they're paying attention to a different aspect, it's still the same types and the same traits being analyzed.

[booyalab]

Originally Posted by MacGuffin

The "INTX" is a myth.

yeah, but it's useful for determining who the extreme Ps are.