[NT] INTJs vs. INTPs

[Luke]

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]

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]

MacGuffin is an ISTJ.

I thought I was ISTP!

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

The "INTX" is a myth.

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

 

[Spamtar]

I tend to be naturally both fond and tollerant of INTJs.

Even though they can be naughty and more inclined to piss the other types off, they can also be extremely kickass.
For me, it is like the Incredible Hulk comic book character. When under strong stress or pressure I become an INTJ or "super INTJ". However it is not an out of control madman like in the Hulk, rather a super genius ninja. Seriously in extreme stressful situations it feels like having super natural powers in less than extreme stress it still feels pretty James Bond.

I am so thankful too, because I would never get anything done on time if not for this metamorphisms. I would probably be dead, in jail/homeless or severely disfigured/crippled/emotionally shattered if not for being saved by my "superego INTJ self".

The in-between metamorphosis is not as quick and takes its toll, like a junky crashing/hangover. It is as if having the worst between a INTP/INTJ returning to my normal self. Long restorative sleep and being alone, sci fi/action movies and mass about of trivia and books with useless facts and sugary and salty junkfood for return process.
Therefore because of the toll they generally take on me I like to limit these transformations yet they nevertheless are essential.

 

[Edgar]

When I first took and MBTI test, I scored as an INTJ. I then took several other MBTI tests, only to receive identical results. However, approximately 6 months later, I took one MBTI test on which I scored INTP. After that, I began to score INTP on many tests. Right now I am having quite a lot of trouble settling on whether I am INTP or INTJ, and to be quite honest, it has been irritating me quite a lot. Also, for the record, I believe that I am an Oldham Idiosyncratic, 5 sp/sx (wings are relatively balanced, but I am still pretty sure that I am w4).

I think the INTJ description might fit be better than INTP except for one thing. In comparing several INTP and INTJ descriptions, I have found that INTPs are perceived as more absent-minded and impractical. Can an INTJ be absent-minded and/or highly impractical? Wouldn't, technically speaking, a very strong Ni dominant be the most unaware of physical reality, taking the weak Se into consideration? I think the problem I am having is distinguishing between strong Ni-dominant/weak Te-auxiliary vs. balanced Ti-dominant/strong Ne auxiliary. What are your opinions?

INTPs are more logical than INTJs in a sense that they explore and weigh in all the options before coming to a conclusion. INTPs also tend to be habitual mental masturbators, spending a lot of time thinking and trying to solve things that have little, if any, real life application. A lot of times INTPs get so overwhelmed with options that they end up doing absolutely nothing because they are tangled in their own overthinking.

INTJs are more prone to consequntial logic than INTPs, in a sense that they make a decision based on their intuition and then use logic to justify it. INTJs are a lot better at identifying and "trimming the fat" of intellectualism, i.e. disregarding the things that have little real life application. They are quick to make a decision and to follow it. However, INTJs occasionally fall into a "crackpot" category, where they think they have a simple answer to any number of complicated situations.

So go ahead and pick one of the descriptions. And if you have trouble picking one, you are probably an INTP.

 

[Spamtar]

INTPs are more logical than INTJs in a sense that they explore and weigh in all the options before coming to a conclusion. INTPs also tend to be habitual mental masturbators, spending a lot of time thinking and trying to solve things that have little, if any, real life application. A lot of times INTPs get so overwhelmed with options that they end up doing absolutely nothing because they are tangled in their own overthinking.

INTJs are more prone to consequntial logic than INTPs, in a sense that they make a decision based on their intuition and then use logic to justify it. INTJs are a lot better at identifying and "trimming the fat" of intellectualism, i.e. disregarding the things that have little real life application. They are quick to make a decision and to follow it. However, INTJs occasionally fall into a "crackpot" category, where they think they have a simple answer to any number of complicated situations.

So go ahead and pick one of the descriptions. And if you have trouble picking one, you are probably an INTP.

YYes this is mostly true. My first thought was when the OPs first tests were INTJ she was INTJ and her learning about MB and what answers to what questions bring what results, resulting in a corrupted secondary tests.

The fact OP seem sincere and open to continue to get more facts and opinions without a hard and fast decision indicates as the above poster notes "And if you have trouble picking one, you are probably an INTP".

A happy medium between INTP and INTJ would be grand. The INTP seems to throw and extra large frame beyond what is needed to make sure they don't miss a vital portion of the answer they are drawing. Also getting lost in the details attempting to find perfection like Gustav Flaubert writing and editing the same sentence over and over again looking for perfection. It takes a long time and often the painting never gets finished.

The INTJ on the other hand is faster and more practical. They will use a smaller frame and get the job done quickly and methodically. The style will be sharper and often more clear as to its conclusions. They are usually right too yet when they are wrong they will often choose denial over admitting their mistakes. As noted "INTJs are more prone to consequential logic than INTPs, in a sense that they make a decision based on their intuition and then use logic to justify it." This is often a much quicker way to draft a decision. INTJ however they will often ignore conflicting data even when such conflicts involve a controlling fact/authority an INTJ will instead distinguish the fact/authority fact/controlling authority to the point of absurdity or simply ignore the fact, minimalist it, bury it or otherwise cause a side distraction.

However even on the rare occasion when the INTJ construct something (real or theoretical) which is flawed in will nevertheless usually work to some degree, at least in the short term.
INTP will likely be the archiectect for a superior deign with all the cause and effects consequences and with the highest degree of efficiency. That is they will work out such a design in their mind. As to the final product, unlike Flaubert, it will usually be a cheap knock off to the design sought and figured out (which will nevertheless often be extremely good in comparison of what is out on the market). As the INTP will be mostly happy with simply able to convince that most discernable arbitrator (the INTP themselves). Therefore it is usually best if managing the team to get the design from the INTP after they figure it out, give it to an INTJ of like mind to clean up and tighten, and then pass it onto a worker bee to proof and construct.

 

[INTJ123]

Bleh you are like me, just leave it at INTX, with your weakest functions being Se and Fe, well mine at least.

 

[Ace_]

Any person with an X in their mbti type is definitely a perceiver.