[NT] INTP vs INTJ - who is more manipulative?

[SolitaryWalker]

Well, at least we can agree that typology is unscientific and purely a form of philosophy. Half the people here are still hung up on looking for scientific proof of a system that doesn't even purport to be scientific.

I believe that Jung would endorse this view and in fact, the main message of my Principles of Typology was that typology is a philosophical discipline rather than psychological.

http://www.typologycentral.com/foru.../23728-typology-philosophical-discipline.html

Amazon.com: Principles of Typology (9781438927145): Aleksey Bashtavenko: Books

^^^philosophy can and should be scientific.

also re the other points raised prior to the interjections about Jung, folskiness and philosophy: if I'm both bullying and self-victimizing does that make me the master debater manipulator? or just a twat?

Typology isn't ready for scientific inquiry as neuroscience is not advanced enough to investigate the cognitive tendencies Jung had in mind. However, typology should make a shift from philosophy onto neuroscience as soon as possible.

yeah I don't really know how to express it, as I will make any number of semantic errors.

I'm not a "scientist" but I know that it's at least not accepted by all scientists, that "science=empiricism". I mean I know Marxist scientists who believe strongly in dialectical materialism (there's a good book called The Dialectical Biologst by two, umm, biologists, called Richard Levins and Richard Lewontin).

I don't think anyone has a monopoly on the term "scientific" and find it hard to accept that, the observance of tendencies whcih you support with empirical evidence, and then making hypotheses based on them, can't be called "scientific". Would you say Freud was "unscientific" for example?

But, I digress. And from my own thread no less.

There may be many different scholarly definitions of the term science, however, they all have one item in common: there must be a certain standard of rigor regarding empirical investigation and all scientific investigation is by definition empirical. An empirical method is rarely the sole feature of the scientific method, however, it is an indispensible part thereof. Hence, empiricism is a necessary though an insufficient condition for the definition of the scientific method.

 

[tcda]

There may be many different scholarly definitions of the term science, however, they all have one item in common: there must be a certain standard of rigor regarding empirical investigation and all scientific investigation is by definition empirical. An empirical method is rarely the sole feature of the scientific method, however, it is an indispensible part thereof. Hence, empiricism is a necessary though an insufficient condition for the definition of the scientific method.

Yes, I agree completely with this. I'm not a post-modernist who thinks empirical research is pointless. It's just that some people present it as if anything not reductible to empirical research, is not science, so I wary of some uses of the term.

I like the quote by Marx "if essences were the same as appearances, there would be no need for science".

 

[Ezra]

I believe that Jung would endorse this view and in fact, the main message of my Principles of Typology was that typology is a philosophical discipline rather than psychological.

[. . .]

Amazon.com: Principles of Typology (9781438927145): Aleksey Bashtavenko: Books

Ha, that was you?

I swapped a socionics book with a guy called Waddlesworth from the16types for your book. I read some of it, but I found it difficult to really take seriously. Don't take offence. It's just because it wasn't well structured enough, and seemed inconsistent. For example, why is the ENTP description, which is around thirty pages long, longer than the ESTP description, which is about five pages long? Most personality books address each type with equal consideration. It seems to have been written with a kind of unearned authority on the subject, based completely on subjective evaluations with very little backing.

Also, WRT the spelling, grammar and overall confusing layout, did you actually get it edited before it was published? I would've been happy to do this for you for free. Moreover, some of the headings for some types are completely lacking for others (e.g. functional descriptions are given for some types, but not for others). In fact, there was barely any structure to the writing at all. This is what annoyed me most about it. Because there were definitely some good observations there which could've been far more effectively utilised and elaborated upon with clarity. I think this book had much more potential.

At the end of the day though, fundamentally if you believe we should take a philosophical rather than psychological approach to typology, even though this doesn't excuse quality consideration when writing a book, I disagree with you anyway. Typology is a psychological - and perhaps sociological - exercise about people's beliefs and motivations. There is nothing philosophical about it.

 

[Ezra]

And to answer the thread (perhaps to re-rail it if it has been derailed): I don't see how INTPs are at all manipulative in the general sense of the word. Nor do I think INTJs are particularly manipulative, although if I had to choose, I'd say INTJs were more manipulative than INTPs.

 

[SolitaryWalker]

What errors in structure do you see?

For example, why is the ENTP description, which is around thirty pages long, longer than the ESTP description, which is about five pages long? .

Point out other aspects of the book that you think are inconsistent.

The faculty of Intuition is far more complex than Sensing, thus from the standpoint of my book there was more to say on the ENTP than the ESTP. However, most typology books however focus not on the cognitive tendencies of types but their behavior and their role in the Western culture. From their perspective, one can indeed compose a similar length profile for both the Sensing and the Intuitive types, from mine this is much more difficult to accomplish.

In other words, the fact that the profiles for the intuitive types are much longer than the profiles for the sensing types is simply not evidence of conceptual inconsistency. It is only a reflection of the fact that more material is available on the Intuitive types rather than the sensing types.

Most personality books address each type with equal consideration. It seems to have been written with a kind of unearned authority on the subject, based completely on subjective evaluations with very little backing..

Note: this was not a personality book. Subjective evaluations? The first chapter spelled out the method of my inquiry clearly, I even composed a long list of key terms all of which have been defined thoroughly and precisely. The rationale behind the profiles was very subtle and almost impossible for anyone to understand who has not carefully read the first chapter.


Very little backing? Read it again more carefully, especially focus on chapter one. The whole book grows out of the material established in that section of the work, if you do not understand it, you'd fail to see how the arguments are supported. The conclusions of the book were supported extensively both in the introductory and the concluding chapter, as well as the 16 profiles.

Also, WRT the spelling, grammar and overall confusing layout, did you actually get it edited before it was published? I would've been happy to do this for you for free. Moreover, some of the headings for some types are completely lacking for others (e.g. functional descriptions are given for some types, but not for others). In fact, there was barely any structure to the writing at all. This is what annoyed me most about it. Because there were definitely some good observations there which could've been far more effectively utilised and elaborated upon with clarity. I think this book had much more potential...

The book hasn't been proofread. As far as structure is concerned, it had some rather than none. For the very least, a chapter was alotted to the introduction of the system, another one to the conclusion as well as summary and of course, each of the 16 profiles has been addressed in a separate chapter.

At the end of the day though, fundamentally if you believe we should take a philosophical rather than psychological approach to typology, even though this doesn't excuse quality consideration when writing a book,.

There has been a quality consideration of this topic, especially in chapter one and also in chapter 18. Have you read either of those or have you just browsed through the profiles and derived your general conclusions about the book from that superficial overview alone?

AlsoAt the end of the day though, fundamentally if you believe we should take a philosophical rather than psychological approach to typology, even though this doesn't excuse quality consideration when writing a book, I disagree with you anyway. Typology is a psychological - and perhaps sociological - exercise about people's beliefs and motivations. There is nothing philosophical about it.

On what grounds do you disagree? In addition to the arguments I've presented in the book, I have also addressed this matter here. http://www.typologycentral.com/foru.../23728-typology-philosophical-discipline.html

What about you? Are you going to make an effort to support your conclusions with arguments?

 

[AphroditeGoneAwry]

slight derail..................please forgive.



Thank you, SWsquared (SW and SimWorld), for inspiring me to learn more about Carl Jung. It has been refreshing to be mentally stimulated again, and for that I am very grateful. I have enjoyed reading both of your posts, and your writings on typology, SW, and am looking forward to your book! And I ordered Jung's Types as well.

 

[JoSunshine]

Gee, I don't know. I dated both...the INTJ would get me to do what he wanted with hardly saying a word...he was gooooood! Half the time I was like, "Oh here let me get that for you....wait, why I am doing this again?" He had a way of making you feel like a baffoon if you didn't do things his way...once again without really saying much. It was like some wierd INTJ mind control

The INTP was more passive about getting his way. He would just say, "Yes, dear" and then do whatever he wanted to do anyway. I guess that's a kind of passive manipulation...

BTW...I liked them both and I wouldn't consider either to be "highly manipulative".

 

[Kalach]

Gee, I don't know. I dated both...the INTJ would get me to do what he wanted with hardly saying a word...he was gooooood! Half the time I was like, "Oh here let me get that for you....wait, why I am doing this again?" He had a way of making you feel like a baffoon if you didn't do things his way...once again without really saying much. It was like some wierd INTJ mind control

Really? Someone needs to do a write up on how that works.




Waitaminite, waitaminite, waitaminite... was that it? That was it, wasn't it. Cool.

 

[highlander]

Bullying is manipulation?

INTJs will overtly limit the number of options available to others in the environment, and will be snappish--perhaps even bullying--about it.

It's called being directive, bitches.

It could conceivably be called manipulation in that there's a message of do it my way or I don't like you any more. Find an INTJ who uses that message directly to get results and you'll have yourself a manipulative INTJ.

But otherwise, aren't we mostly too lacking in enthusiasm for the process to keep up screwing with people for too long? Chart the Course, bitches. We're more likely to actually tell you we're manipulating you.

I think Bullying can be a manipulating but more likely be done by types other than INTJ. INTJ may direct or bully like a steer in a china shop. However, I don't think there would be secrets while they were doing it or deceit and thus it is not manipulation

I'm ENFP and I could be really bossy when I was little. Never forget that ENFPs have tertiary Te, folks.

Good point

It's pretty intersting stuff. I haven't read Jung yet. That's next on my list.

It's next to my bed - for bedtime reading. I always start falling asleep before I get too far. Will keep trying.

What an INTJ will do is look for emo. That damned tertiary Fi will reach out to people and say, love me, tell me about values, let's be friends and care about things I say together, oh and, do things my way too *eyelash flutter*.

It ain't pretty, but there it is.

Yeah, really raising the bar on what counts as manipulative here. Lock up your daughters and hide your wallets, the INTJs are in town.

If you haven't you shouldn't be commenting on typology, just as you shouldn't be commenting on Christian theology if you've never read the New Testament.

I find this comment logical and yet to be a little extreme in the practical sense. Call me when I'm full of shit or wrong so it will help me grow. People say stupid things to me all the time - I gently coach them. The ability to communicate meaning to others is an important skill to have. After all, this is a forum for learning and growth, is it not?

 

[VagrantFarce]

At the end of the day though, fundamentally if you believe we should take a philosophical rather than psychological approach to typology, even though this doesn't excuse quality consideration when writing a book, I disagree with you anyway. Typology is a psychological - and perhaps sociological - exercise about people's beliefs and motivations. There is nothing philosophical about it.

Assuming that people do process and perceive the world differently (as typology does), philosophy can certainly be a great way of understanding those differing perspectives. So it's not total bupkis.

 

[Fluffywolf]

As an INTP, I notice I have great potential when it comes to manipulation. But I wouldn't be able to live with myself if I indulged myself in those practices with evil intent.

So I keep to the tiny little manips for everyones best interest.

 

[Riva]

The one with the highest ego.

I have noticed that people with egos are the least good at manipulating people. They since have an ego are unbending and are no flexible enough to manipulate cunningly.

Pushy maybe but not manipulative.

 

[Fluffywolf]

I have noticed that people with egos are the least good at manipulating people. They since have an ego are unbending and are no flexible enough to manipulate cunningly.

Pushy maybe but not manipulative.

I agree, it's the ones that pretend to have a super ego in order to market them as more appeasable by doing so obviously self depricating, that you need to be very, very worried about..

 

[Antimony]

I have an ego, but I definitely know how to manipulate. It is because I know how people work, or said person.

But I can see the INTJs being more manipulative.

 

[Riva]

I have an ego, but I definitely know how to manipulate. It is because I know how people work, or said person.

Narcissistic maybe? But not ego. Aren't they different?

 

[AphroditeGoneAwry]

I have noticed that people with egos are the least good at manipulating people. They since have an ego are unbending and are no flexible enough to manipulate cunningly.

Pushy maybe but not manipulative.

I like what you are getting at here. But I agree with orly (?) that people with healthy egoes are just less likely to manipulate, not that they can't easily do it, myself included.

 

[Antimony]

Narcissistic maybe? But not ego. Aren't they different?

Where do you see the difference? I don't think of my self as narcissistic.

 

[SolitaryWalker]

Assuming that people do process and perceive the world differently (as typology does), philosophy can certainly be a great way of understanding those differing perspectives. So it's not total bupkis.

The problem with your remark and his is that typology as conceived of by Jung is a study of the human mind or people's cognitive habits. These matters aren't easily researchable empirically because people's behavior does not indicate the nature of their mind-states with sufficient precision. An equation of behavior with mind-states has long been regarded as untenable by all academic disciplines with the minor exception of some spurious sub-disciplines in psychology.

Until neuroscience is able to precisely identify the nature of our cognitive states and their neural causes, we will not be able to employ an empirical approach in the study of typology. Since that is the case, a scientific inquiry into the subject or psychological and sociological cannot be acceptable. This result leaves us with no choice but to embrace the philosophical method of inquiry.

 

[Riva]

Narcissistic maybe? But not ego. Aren't they different?

Dear child,

On this particular post I am pointing out to you by asking you a question that there is a difference between ego and narcissism.

Where do you see the difference? I don't think of my self as narcissistic.

In this particular post you are telling me there is NO difference by asking me where I see the difference between ego and narcissism.

--------------------------------

WTF?

 

[Riva]

The problem with your remark and his is that typology as conceived of by Jung is a study of the human mind or people's cognitive habits. These matters aren't easily researchable empirically because people's behavior does not indicate the nature of their mind-states with sufficient precision. An equation of behavior with mind-states has long been regarded as untenable by all academic disciplines with the minor exception of some spurious sub-disciplines in psychology.

Until neuroscience is able to precisely identify the nature of our cognitive states and their neural causes, we will not be able to employ an empirical approach in the study of typology. Since that is the case, a scientific inquiry into the subject or psychological and sociological cannot be acceptable. This result leaves us with no choice but to embrace the philosophical method of inquiry.

Gosh I like you. You sound so cold and rational.

But I like to imagine you as Data from Star trek. He is also cold and rational but has a cute aura that makes us ALL forget he is a cold blooded (no blooded) android.

But since you do not have a cute aura to yourself you only sound like an android. Not a cute one either.




----------------

Ps - Are you an android?