User Tag List

First 23456 Last

Results 31 to 40 of 53

Thread: INTJs vs. INTPs

  1. #31
    only bites when provoked
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    MBTI
    INTJ
    Posts
    2,127

    Default

    MacGuffin is an ISTJ.
    I 100%, N 88%, T 88%, J 75%

    Disclaimer: The above is my opinion and mine alone, it does not mean I cannot change my mind, nor does it guarantee that my comments are related to any deep-seated convictions. Take everything I say with a whole snowplow worth of salt and call me in the morning, if you can.

  2. #32
    Lex Parsimoniae Xander's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    MBTI
    INTP
    Enneagram
    9w8
    Socionics
    INTj
    Posts
    4,463

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Wolf View Post
    MacGuffin is an ISTJ.
    Nah. INFP fer sure. He's just so warm and cuddly.
    Isn't it time for a colourful metaphor?

  3. #33
    Senior Member INTJMom's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    MBTI
    INTJ
    Posts
    5,349

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by MacGuffin View Post
    ...Like you say, X could have merit, but I find it difficult to believe one can't figure out what their leading process is. Ni and Ti are not similar at all.
    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.

  4. #34
    @.~*virinaĉo*~.@ Totenkindly's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    MBTI
    FREE
    Enneagram
    594 sx/sp
    Socionics
    LII Ne
    Posts
    42,333

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Xander View Post
    Nah. INFP fer sure. He's just so warm and cuddly.
    *unsure*

    "But... that clown.. mommy.... why does he have big sharp pointy TEETH???"

    *hides face*
    "Hey Capa -- We're only stardust." ~ "Sunshine"

    “Pleasure to me is wonder—the unexplored, the unexpected, the thing that is hidden and the changeless thing that lurks behind superficial mutability. To trace the remote in the immediate; the eternal in the ephemeral; the past in the present; the infinite in the finite; these are to me the springs of delight and beauty.” ~ H.P. Lovecraft

  5. #35
    Junior Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    MBTI
    INTX
    Posts
    25

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by athenian200 View Post
    Socionics shouldn't even use the same nomenclature, because it's a different system with different assumptions about the functions and the arrangement of the psyche. Some of the functions have subtle but important differences in their meaning. In fact, a person can be a different type in Socionics than in MBTI, and vice-versa.
    So are you basically claiming that Ti, Te, Fi, Fe, Si, Se, Ni, and Ne each have completely separate definitions in Socionics that are not compatible with the corresponding definitions used for MBTI purposes? If so, how incompatible, and how do you know when someone has two different types versus just being incorrect on one count or the other?

  6. #36
    Protocol Droid Athenian200's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    MBTI
    INFJ
    Enneagram
    4w5
    Posts
    8,828

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Luke View Post
    So are you basically claiming that Ti, Te, Fi, Fe, Si, Se, Ni, and Ne each have completely separate definitions in Socionics that are not compatible with the corresponding definitions used for MBTI purposes? If so, how incompatible, and how do you know when someone has two different types versus just being incorrect on one count or the other?
    Well, that's a good question. I would say that they do have separate definitions, but there may be some overlap since they're both derived from Jungian theories. The point is, Socionics takes several different assumptions into account versus MBTI, and there are subtle differences.

    Let's use Ti and Si as an example. In MBTI, Ti is defined basically as a function that evaluates things against principles/frameworks. Si is usually defined as a function that measures things against past experience.

    In Socionics, however, there are subtle differences (especially with the perceiving functions). Ti is defined in two ways: objective situation of fields, or as systems of rules and categories, and hierarchies.

    Si is also defined in two ways: concrete processes of fields, or how events affect your inner state, being related to creating comfort.

    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.

    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.

  7. #37
    Plumage and Moult proteanmix's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Enneagram
    1w2
    Posts
    5,514

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by athenian200 View Post
    Well, that's a good question. I would say that they do have separate definitions, but there may be some overlap since they're both derived from Jungian theories. The point is, Socionics takes several different assumptions into account versus MBTI, and there are subtle differences...
    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.
    Relationships have normal ebbs and flows. They do not automatically get better and better when the participants learn more and more about each other. Instead, the participants have to work through the tensions of the relationship (the dialectic) while they learn and group themselves and a parties in a relationships. At times the relationships is very open and sharing. Other time, one or both parties to the relationship need their space, or have other concerns, and the relationship is less open. The theory posits that these cycles occur throughout the life of the relationship as the persons try to balance their needs for privacy and open relationship.
    Interpersonal Communication Theories and Concepts
    Social Penetration Theory 1
    Social Penetration Theory 2
    Social Penetration Theory 3

  8. #38
    Senior Member ptgatsby's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    MBTI
    ISTP
    Posts
    4,474

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by proteanmix View Post
    Since I've been reading Jung's Psychological Types, it seems that Socionics is truer to his original theories than what MBTI is.
    MBTI is really minimally Jung-ish. They seperated ways the moment the methodolody between Jung and Myers' changed. Socionics is an advancement of Jungian theory using Jungian methodology, whereas MBTI took a seperate approach (validation and reliability studies) to Jung's theories.

  9. #39
    Member Aven's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    MBTI
    INTP
    Posts
    66

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Luke View Post
    It has certainly bugged me a lot, and I'm probably an INTP.

    Basically I would decide on a type, then months later something would make me reconsider.

    What I think is important to understand is that INTP is the Ti-dominant, and INTJ is the Ni-dominant. If you decide on one or the other, it should be based on your empathizing more strongly with one of these as the dominant trait, as well as Ne or Te as the supporting trait. More advanced analysis might include looking at the tertiary and inferior. (Si and Fe for INTP, Fi and Se for INTJ. So INTJ likes physical excitement a little more, thinks about loyalty more, INTP likes to express emotion a little more, thinks about being comfortable more.)

    You can't just go around deciding based on whether you "feel" more J or more P based on profiles or tests or whatever. The test percentages don't mean you are really only 51% J or whatever -- it only means the test is having a harder time pegging you, even though you are one or the other. (I think my first test was 52% J. It was the humanmetrics.com test.)

    I think my need to resolve issues on a logical plane, coupled with a tendency towards flashes of inexplicable insight, points towards INTP. Whether the generally held INTP stereotype is based on the same type as me, or not, I feign no hypothesis.
    Well I didn't decide it based on whether I felt it or not initially, I took a legit test that was given to me by an University.
    Then I continued to test throughout the years after I remembered it again and like I said I felt more comfortable with the INTP description, meaning I could intuitively relate to it better than the INTJ one.

    I also relate more to INTPs than to INTJs, but hey, who knows, like I said, I highly doubt I am a J, just show more Jness than an average P, but then again I am a weird INTP to begin with, but thanks for the clarification .
    Deja que pasemos sin miedo.

  10. #40
    Senior Member MerkW's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Posts
    534

    Default

    Thanks for all the replies. After reading more material, I think that I have come to the conclusion that I am in fact an INTJ (nevertheless, one with a rather under-developed auxiliary function).
    "The mathematician's patterns, like the painter's or the poet's must be beautiful; the ideas like the colours or the words, must fit together in a harmonious way. Beauty is the first test: there is no permanent place in the world for ugly mathematics..." - G.H. Hardy

    "Another roof, another proof." - Paul Erdős

    INTJ (I = 100, N = 100, T = 88, J = 43)
    Solitary/Idiosyncratic, 5w6 sp/sx
    RL(x)EI (RlxE|I|)- Inquisitive Dominant
    Reserved Idealist
    ILI-Ni/INTp

Similar Threads

  1. [NT] INTJ vs INTP: A Guide
    By VagrantFarce in forum The NT Rationale (ENTP, INTP, ENTJ, INTJ)
    Replies: 297
    Last Post: 08-10-2015, 01:39 PM
  2. Video: INTJ vs INTP
    By highlander in forum Typology Videos and RSS Feeds
    Replies: 2
    Last Post: 02-02-2015, 06:08 PM
  3. [MBTItm] STEM INTP VS INTJ VS ENTJ VS ENTP
    By Cryonium in forum The NT Rationale (ENTP, INTP, ENTJ, INTJ)
    Replies: 3
    Last Post: 02-14-2013, 09:44 AM
  4. INTJ vs INTP
    By Doctorjuice in forum Myers-Briggs and Jungian Cognitive Functions
    Replies: 113
    Last Post: 12-17-2012, 10:58 PM
  5. [NT] INTJ vs INTP
    By Giggly in forum The NT Rationale (ENTP, INTP, ENTJ, INTJ)
    Replies: 11
    Last Post: 06-12-2011, 12:00 AM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
Single Sign On provided by vBSSO