Welcome to INTJ Forum

This is a community where INTJs can meet others with similar personalities and discuss a wide variety of both serious and casual topics. If you aren't an INTJ, you're welcome to join anyway if you would like to learn more about this personality type or participate in our discussions. Registration is free and will allow you to post messages, see hidden subforums, customize your account and use other features only available to our members.


  • Content count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

About JasonM

  • Rank


  • MBTI
  • Enneagram
  • Brain Dominance


  • Biography
    I am human and alive
  • Location
    In my mind
  • Occupation
    Philosopher, Scholar, Sandwich Artist
  • Gender
  1. http://www.cambridgebrainsciences.com/challenge/introduction/2 - Interesting form of IQ test mainly measuring different elements of cognition.
  2. You have to realize that socionics is a different theory. It has a different function ordering and the functions mean different things. Which one is more accurate? I can't say for certain. (Although I suspect they both have flaws that should be worked out.) However, I find the socionics Se function description useful for this scenario - and I think it very well could be the case that being "tough" has nothing to do with being a cerebral, logical individual.
  3. "Firm" as a thinking trait - in the real world? If it were logical versus tender, I would be heavily thinking, but I can't stand tough-minded people and find nurturing people only slightly annoying, so I choose tender by default, but it certainly isn't accurate. In other words, this might be a false dichotomy and that is why I tend to find the MBTI to be somewhat inaccurate in general... EDIT: Even better: when dealing with people, it is important to not be too firm or too merciful but fair. When you're too firm, people become victimized for poor reasons. When too merciful, the victimized are not rewarded. (Even better is to deal with matters like these in a clever way...)
  4. After studying socionics, I've concluded that a lot of these people are strong-willed (favouring Se). If you look at the figures that are connected with Se - Maxim Gorky, Zhukov, and Napoleon - you see a lot of barbaric traits. In the end what these people will find out is what they thought was so "thinking" is more indicative of Planet of the Apes. The only other guess I have is that they are simply rebellious teenagers feigning as adults.
  5. I don't know if I agree with this entirely. I was administered the MBTI in high school. After receiving our type code, we were given only one personality profile. I don't remember what the individual who administered the test said exactly, but it seemed that the assumption was that you should only look at other profiles if you're not satisfied with the one you received. This normally only ensures that the test taker receives an adequate profile, not an optimal one. And even if they did place more emphasis on considering other profiles, the onus should not be on the person taking the test to explicitly request other profiles. After the test is administered, several relevant profiles should be given to everyone. (It's possible that my test was not administered properly, though.) I agree that people might develop functions other than the main function of their given type. What I don't agree with is that, for example, all INTPs have well-developed Ti or that Ti is naturally the strongest function for all of them, and I would assume that this is a basic tenet of the MBTI.
  6. I'm going to talk about the MBTI. One problem with the MBTI is its basic approach. Its creators thought that they noticed a pattern - people who exhibit judging characteristics extravert a judging function and people who exhibit perceiving characteristics extravert a perceiving function. The problem with this is that it's unproven. If you actually take a look at tests that measure function preference, you will find that, for example, not all INTPs favour Ti; some favour Ni, and some even favour Ne. Further, the MBTI is inaccurate in the way it defines extraversion and introversion; they aren't measured in the way that Jung defined them. Finally, the way Myers and Briggs define Si and Ni are not similar to Jung's conception of them. The reason for some of these problems is that the creators of the MBTI attempted to measure Jungian functions, but they did it indirectly. The best way to determine one's functional preferences is to create a test that is based on functional preferences. In other words, by determining which of the eight functions is the dominant function, and then administering a second test to see which of the two auxiliary functions is appropriate. Why an approach like this was not taken is beyond me. The other main problem with the MBTI is that it isn't used properly to determine the types it has defined. The MBTI should only be used as a guide to determining personality type. This means that just because you test as an INTP does not mean that you are an INTP. The real determinant of your type is which personality profile you identify with. The MBTI should only be used to eliminate certain types and bring other types into the picture. Would it make sense to say that you are an INTP only because you test as one, even if you fit the INTJ profile perfectly? It shouldn't. This is because the profiles are more relevant to personality than the preferences. To further consider this, think of a situation in which someone scores highly as an ENFJ but actually thinks and acts like an INTP. Would they fit in in an ENFJ forum? Would they be satisfied with ENFJ careers? Would they really be more of an ENFJ or an INTP? This example, while extreme, illustrates that the dichotomies are not as important as the profiles. Further, the tests aren't always accurate, and I can use myself as an example. I usually test slightly in favour of feeling. The problem is that the INTP profiles fit me far better than the INFP profiles; I could call myself an INXP, but, given what I've said, what sense would it make? I think what this example illustrates is that the profiles are most relevant when the preferences are close, but even then, that doesn't mean that because one's choices are not close they cannot be another type. That's why I suggest that you ignore your four letter score and take a good look at the profiles to see which type fits you best.
  7. I have an even better link for you about visual identification: http://socionist.blogspot.com/search/label/visual%20identification. It's written by Rick DeLong, the admin of Wikisocion and the creator of Socionics.us. Jason
  8. www.wikisocion.org http://socionist.blogspot.com/ That's only if you assume that visual identification is foolproof. It isn't. It's only something that some people use as a tool. (For example, to eliminate certain types.) And the fact is, most people do not drastically change from, for example, not caring about their appearance to always wearing flashy, extravagant clothes. Also, as I said, a lot of people in the Socionics community don't believe V.I. Take a look at this thread: http://www.the16types.info/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=8527 At the beginning, there are some explanations of what people think of V.I. (Note that one of the common misconceptions listed in the thread is that MBTI type = Socionics type - that's not what I'm saying, so don't use that as an argument against my theory; I don't think that they're equivalent, but that they are the best correlation between the two systems, and that is a different claim.)
  9. What I don't like about socionics its that they claim every personality has a type of body. That is visual identification that you're both referring to and it is not central to Socionics. I think what you've read might come from Socionics.com, which is an unpopular site in the Socionics community. And even the people who do believe in visual identification usually base their conclusions on things that can be controlled - e.g., clothing, hairstyle, etc.
  10. 've come to the conclusion that the Socionics function ordering is a better fit for the MBTI types than what Myers and Briggs have proposed. Consider the following observations: 1) ISTPs are considered to be introverted thinkers like INTPs, yet they display behaviour that doesn't fit with what Jung envisioned regarding introverted thinking. Take this quote from an ISTP profile as an example: "Like most SPs, ISTPs may have trouble with rote and abstract classroom learning, which tend not to be good measures of their actual intelligence." Jung's version of the introverted thinker is quite close to the prototypical intellectual. He said that introverted thinking "creates theories for their own sake", and that "the creative power of this thinking shows itself when it actually creates an idea which, though not inherent in concrete fact, is yet the most suitable abstract expression of it." What kind of introverted thinker would enjoy creating theories and thinking abstractly, but have problems with "abstract classroom learning"? Therefore, it seems wrong to classify ISTPs as introverted thinkers. 2) If you compare ISTPs with ISFPs and INTPs, it seems to me that they have more in common with ISFPs in terms of what types of careers they like, what types of interests they have, and with respect to their overall behaviour. For example, ISFPs and ISTPs are both drawn towards the skilled trades as career choices. Finally, when you look at ISTP and ISFP descriptions, they bear a good similarity with their Socionic equivalents. For example, ISTPs are said to be skilled with tools and ISFPs are good artists. In Socionics, the ISTp is considered the "craftsman", and ISFps are supposedly good artists as well. 3) MBTI descriptions of introverted intuition and introverted sensing bear little resemblance with what Jung had in mind. Consider the following descriptions of introverted intuitives taken from "Gifts Differing": - "Are determined to the point of stubborness" - "Are stimulated by difficulties, and most ingenious in solving them" - "Are stimulated willing to concede that the impossible takes a little longer--but not much" In what way are these descriptions of a perceiving function? Being driven and stubborn are more an aspect of will-power than perception. Therefore, I don't think that this is what Jung had in mind. In fact, it seems that aspects of the MBTI judging function are being infused into the descriptions. I would go into the introverted sensing function as well, but take my word that the pattern is similar. In contrast, I don't think that Jung's descriptions of introverted intuition and introverted sensing go against IP types. The way Jung describes them, these types are often artists, and I notice artistic tendencies in all four of these types. In fact, introverted intuitives are supposed to be very adept in abstract art, and wouldn't INFPs seem to fit this roll well (especially more so than INFJs)? 4) Every time I've seen a poll about what Socionics type fits what MBTI type, I've noticed that Socionics XXXx = MBTI XXXX more than any other possibility. Consider the following poll as an example: http://forums.****************/poll.php?do=showresults&pollid=1414. (EDIT: I can't get the forum to cooperate with me, so just take my word that INTp scored 38% while the next closest was INTj at 17.78%.) LII = INTp, and it is the most frequent choice for INTPs. What's interesting about that poll is that the test people used to decide for it was purely about what functions you value most. That means that most people in that poll preferred Socionics NiTe over TiNe. What all of this means to me is that the Socionics function ordering is more appropriate for the MBTI than what has been proposed. I don't think that the MBTI measures these functions flawlessly, but that there should be a better correlation with the Socionics function ordering. What that means is that the MBTI and Socionics are striving to be the same system, so, if Socionics becomes more popular in North America, perhaps someone will merge the two systems together, taking what is best from both of them, and maybe creating a test that accurately determines the 16 basic types. Also note that I think that the general MBTI descriptions of the types are generally better than the Socionics equivalents. However, both systems need some tweaking. Coming up with descriptions that are statistically validated might be a step in the right direction.
  11. INTP = TiNe = Socionics INTj. But it isn't that simple. The Socionics functions are somewhat different from the MBTI functions, and both are somewhat different from Jung's original functions.
  12. Another thing I should mention is that you should look into Socionics and its description of the INTp (Socionics INTps are different from MBTI INTPs). I looked at your profile, and I see that you are a CEO in IT. INTps are the most frequently found Socionics type in the computer industry. Another feature of INTps is that they consider feelings to be "harmful." They place very little value on them. Take a look at this INTp profile and see if it fits you: http://www.typelab.ru/en/1.1.types/tp.html. Now, the question is this: do feelings really have little value, or is that simply what you believe because you are inclined to see things this way? For example, as an INTj (with least valued Se - Se = aggressiveness), I view aggressiveness as "animalistic." Again, is it really that primitive, or is it only primitive to me because it's a subconsciously primitive function in me.
  13. I don't strongly believe in the notion of visual identification. However, I think it's possible that there are slight patterns to the way each type looks. There probably is not enough of a pattern that you could cleanly identify everyone, but enough that you could eliminate certain types, or bring certain types into the picture that you haven't considered for someone. I think it's also important to delineate what kind of visual identification you're referring to. For example, if someone doesn't take care of their appearance, it certainly says something about their personality. The way their chin is shaped, however, should not. As for the other elements of Socionics, I personally find them to be far superior to the MBTI. For example, in Socionics, I'm an INTj, while in the MBTI I'm an INXP. The reason I only partially identify with the MBTI thinking function is because it involves two elements: 1) generally firm or aggressive behaviour and 2) logical thinking. I have no problem with people who think logically, and I enjoy thinking logically. However, I have a hard time with people who have a "strong" personality. As I said, the MBTI equivocates these two characteristics. Socionics, on the other hand, considers them to be separate; logical thinking is associated with Ti (or maybe Te) and aggressive behaviour is associated with Se. I enjoy logic enough that it is my main function - Ti. However, I dislike Se enough that it is the function I have the hardest time with. To me, this is a much better explanation of my preferences than what the MBTI can give.
  14. Feelings are simply not cognitive. But that doesn't mean that they aren't important. There are people who are schizophrenic or who have brain damage to the prefrontal cortex who lose all emotion. Believe me, it's not pretty. Typically, they have no motivation, get no pleasure from anything, and lose every emotion they have. Because they have no passion for anything, they might, for example, spend the day looking at the wall. What this goes to show that emotion, although not cognitive, is an important ingredient in success. If you want to do anything successfully, there has to be some amount of emotion attached to it. The other important factor is talent or skill. The more passion for and the more skill you have in doing any activity, the more likely you will be successful at it.