Personality Cafe banner

1 - 20 of 39 Posts

·
Banned
Joined
·
2,416 Posts
Discussion Starter #1
Start Off, stereotypes:
SOCIONICS INTp:

  1. The computer geek who lives in virtual reality and understands computers and Internet communication, but lacks experience in real-life social situations.
  2. The mystic or spiritual philosopher who is into all things mystical, esoteric, or eastern and makes little sense to the material-minded.
  3. The encyclopedist or librarian type who knows literally all there is to know about vast areas of knowledge, but does not use his or her knowledge at work.
  4. The office introvert who will not let a sentence mean anything but what was technically said, and doesn't care about how uncomfortable he is making his co-workers.
MBTI INTJ:

  1. Master mind, the genius and greatest planner of all time.
  2. The Scientist, person of science who adheres to correct principle of supporting knowledge with clear practical objective evidence.
  3. The intellectual, common people are unable to communicate on his wave length, hence the pleb frustrate such beings.

This is just breaking the ice it seems as if there is a big difference in the project persona differences between the INTp and the INTJ.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
5,388 Posts
Yes, two different types from two totally separate typological models are completely different.
 

·
Banned
Joined
·
2,416 Posts
Discussion Starter #3
Yes, two different types from two totally separate typological models are completely different.
Are you an INTP/INTp in both? But either way I thought it would be a fun comparison to have.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Abraxas

·
King of Seduction
Joined
·
7,199 Posts
Start Off, stereotypes:
SOCIONICS INTp:

  1. The computer geek who lives in virtual reality and understands computers and Internet communication, but lacks experience in real-life social situations.
  2. The mystic or spiritual philosopher who is into all things mystical, esoteric, or eastern and makes little sense to the material-minded.
  3. The encyclopedist or librarian type who knows literally all there is to know about vast areas of knowledge, but does not use his or her knowledge at work.
  4. The office introvert who will not let a sentence mean anything but what was technically said, and doesn't care about how uncomfortable he is making his co-workers.
MBTI INTJ:

  1. Master mind, the genius and greatest planner of all time.
  2. The Scientist, person of science who adheres to correct principle of supporting knowledge with clear practical objective evidence.
  3. The intellectual, common people are unable to communicate on his wave length, hence the pleb frustrate such beings.

This is just breaking the ice it seems as if there is a big difference in the project persona differences between the INTp and the INTJ.
Where did you get the socionics info from?
 

·
Banned
Joined
·
2,416 Posts
Discussion Starter #5

·
Registered
Joined
·
184 Posts
It seems as though the Socionics descriptions were written by a sensor; they lack depth and show only a superficial, stereotypical 'understanding.'

It's also important to realize that those sets of descriptions aren't mutually exclusive.
 

·
Banned
Joined
·
2,416 Posts
Discussion Starter #7
It seems as though the Socionics descriptions were written by a sensor; they lack depth and show only a superficial, stereotypical 'understanding.'

It's also important to realize that those sets of descriptions aren't mutually exclusive.
Seriously?? you just reminded me of this clip
 
  • Like
Reactions: Helios and Perhaps

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,923 Posts
I'm 3-2/3. Oh wait, are we not doing that? :-(
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
312 Posts
MBTI: Emphasizes Te almost to the point of not acknowledging Ni. A bit broad and idealized. Check out the favorite fictional INTJs thread; most characters listed don't have much in common with real life INTJs.

Socionics: More in line with Jung calling Ni-doms cranks. Much more realistic.:wink:
 

·
Banned
Joined
·
2,416 Posts
Discussion Starter #11

·
Banned
Joined
·
2,416 Posts
Discussion Starter #13
Haha I wasn't stereotyping Socionics, only the author of that specific wiki page.
You don't fit the stereotypes, like "the office introvert"?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
831 Posts
Start Off, stereotypes:
SOCIONICS INTp:

  1. The computer geek who lives in virtual reality and understands computers and Internet communication, but lacks experience in real-life social situations.
Bla,bla,bla. He must understand life.

The mystic or spiritual philosopher who is into all things mystical, esoteric, or eastern and makes little sense to the material-minded.
The material-minded can understand, just you that are dumb.

The encyclopedist or librarian type
who knows literally all there is to know about vast areas of knowledge, but does not use his or her knowledge at work.
Someone that "literally" know all there is to know about vast areas of knowledge must be really impossible to exist. Not using his knowledge at work is also extremely unlikely that ever happened unless you are brain dead.

The office introvert
who will not let a sentence mean anything but what was technically said, and doesn't care about how uncomfortable he is making his co-workers.
So you are but-hurt because you told people that some person said what he didn't said, and was obviously wrong since you are so dumb.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
184 Posts
You don't fit the stereotypes, like "the office introvert"?
The idea is that the Socionics descriptions you posted were superficial and stereotypical, and that they aren't mutually exclusive with the MBTI descriptions.

That means that to the plebeian/prole someone who is truly a mastermind/intellectual might seem like an annoying office introvert, or a geek, or an eccentric philosopher.

Are we understanding this?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
5,388 Posts
Are you an INTP/INTp in both? But either way I thought it would be a fun comparison to have.
Well, that's a little complicated.

Personally, I prefer Socionics of late. I didn't at first, in fact, I avidly opposed it. But, I was swayed by some valid opinions coming from other users on this forum, and after re-evaluating the model, found things about it that I had glossed over the first time due to bad first impressions.

I have issues with MBTI. My biggest issue is that I feel that the whole model is geared more towards appealing to extroverts and feelers, and the whole thing is incredibly biased in those respects.

However, setting aside my own indifference, I would have to say that if I were to place myself upon the four dichotomies within MBTI, I would most likely and consistently show up as an INTP. Those are my preferences on the four personality scales of MBTI. But, MBTI assigns INTPs the dominant function of Ti, with the auxiliary of Ne. About that, I am hesitant. I am fluent in Jung, having read his Psychological Types over and over across the last year or so. I strongly identify with both his introverted thinking type, and his introverted intuitive type, so I am undecided on that matter.

Within Socionics, I strongly identify with the type descriptions given for the INTp, which is assigned Ni as a dominant function, and Te as an auxiliary. Obviously, it can't be both ways. I can't be a Ni and a Ti dominant type, so this implies that one or the other model is flawed in some basic way.

As I stated already, I lean somewhat more in favor of Socionics assessment of type over MBTI, if only because I see more of a resemblance to Jung's original work within Socionics than I do within MBTI. MBTI departs from Jung in several ways. For one strong example, MBTI declares that "according to a national survey" (this is printed within the MBTI Manual 3rd Edition) the balance of introverts to extraverts in American culture is roughly 50/50, with about a 5-10% variance either way. Carl Jung is notorious in his candid declaration that "Western culture is extraverted to all hell!" I think this discrepancy is worth noting, and calls the very foundation of MBTI theory into question as far as I am concerned.

But, anyway, if this thread is meant for a comparison of the two models, then I'm all for it. I apologize if I seemed overly hostile. I admit, I thought at first that you were just arbitrarily comparing the two models as if they had much in common. They are, after all, very different. On the surface they might bare a resemblance, and while they are founded on the same basic principles, they are definitely very different models once you study them deeper.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
5,388 Posts
MBTI: Emphasizes Te almost to the point of not acknowledging Ni. A bit broad and idealized. Check out the favorite fictional INTJs thread; most characters listed don't have much in common with real life INTJs.

Socionics: More in line with Jung calling Ni-doms cranks. Much more realistic.:wink:
This pretty much sums up my opinion as well.

Glad to see I'm not alone. :)
 

·
Banned
Joined
·
2,416 Posts
Discussion Starter #18
The idea is that the Socionics descriptions you posted were superficial and stereotypical, and that they aren't mutually exclusive with the MBTI descriptions.

That means that to the plebeian/prole someone who is truly a mastermind/intellectual might seem like an annoying office introvert, or a geek, or an eccentric philosopher.

Are we understanding this?
Confused??? I'm just listing the stereotypes socionics calls for INTJs & INTps, are thought people would add on the comparison.
 

·
Banned
Joined
·
2,416 Posts
Discussion Starter #19
This pretty much sums up my opinion as well.

Glad to see I'm not alone. :)
Sad to say but confirmation bias lead me to believe that I was a judger since it turns out that I always perceived cast judgement later on. For me personally the Ti vs Te difference (and some stereotypes) made me lean towards Te.
 

·
Banned
Joined
·
2,416 Posts
Discussion Starter #20
Well, that's a little complicated.

Personally, I prefer Socionics of late. I didn't at first, in fact, I avidly opposed it. But, I was swayed by some valid opinions coming from other users on this forum, and after re-evaluating the model, found things about it that I had glossed over the first time due to bad first impressions.

I have issues with MBTI. My biggest issue is that I feel that the whole model is geared more towards appealing to extroverts and feelers, and the whole thing is incredibly biased in those respects.

However, setting aside my own indifference, I would have to say that if I were to place myself upon the four dichotomies within MBTI, I would most likely and consistently show up as an INTP. Those are my preferences on the four personality scales of MBTI. But, MBTI assigns INTPs the dominant function of Ti, with the auxiliary of Ne. About that, I am hesitant. I am fluent in Jung, having read his Psychological Types over and over across the last year or so. I strongly identify with both his introverted thinking type, and his introverted intuitive type, so I am undecided on that matter.

Within Socionics, I strongly identify with the type descriptions given for the INTp, which is assigned Ni as a dominant function, and Te as an auxiliary. Obviously, it can't be both ways. I can't be a Ni and a Ti dominant type, so this implies that one or the other model is flawed in some basic way.

As I stated already, I lean somewhat more in favor of Socionics assessment of type over MBTI, if only because I see more of a resemblance to Jung's original work within Socionics than I do within MBTI. MBTI departs from Jung in several ways. For one strong example, MBTI declares that "according to a national survey" (this is printed within the MBTI Manual 3rd Edition) the balance of introverts to extraverts in American culture is roughly 50/50, with about a 5-10% variance either way. Carl Jung is notorious in his candid declaration that "Western culture is extraverted to all hell!" I think this discrepancy is worth noting, and calls the very foundation of MBTI theory into question as far as I am concerned.

But, anyway, if this thread is meant for a comparison of the two models, then I'm all for it. I apologize if I seemed overly hostile. I admit, I thought at first that you were just arbitrarily comparing the two models as if they had much in common. They are, after all, very different. On the surface they might bare a resemblance, and while they are founded on the same basic principles, they are definitely very different models once you study them deeper.
I guess you haven't been able to work out whether you subject logic, coercing it to subject (meaning), whilst objecting the intuition or doing things in reverse where you subject your intuition, coercing that into a subject, and objecting your logic. NiTe or NeTi look like they are the same when balanced use is a rchieved it seems, I thought this guy was an INTJ since I could relate to his thinking style a lot, but it was a surprise that he was an ENTP. @Raidant (ENTP) pointed this too with his friend an (INTJ).
 
  • Like
Reactions: Faklubrejle
1 - 20 of 39 Posts
Top