Socionics INTx descriptions vs functional stack

[RaBind]

Based on the socionics functional stack I've self typed myself as an INTj, which shares the functions with MBTI INTP. However apart from the descriptions of the functions themselves, I've found that other descriptions of the INTj aren't very accurate. Going by behavioural descriptions I fall into neither INTj nor INTp as there are some major aspects of both types that are inaccurate. The best fit in terms of behavioural descriptions seems to be a mix of INTj and INTp.

I wanted to know if this is the case for most mbti intps or if most of them transition to socionics INTjs.

Heres a page that compares the behavioural differences between INTjs and INTps. Some of the descriptions that don't align with the mbti INTP are listed in this spoiler:

Spoiler

13. INTps are not as inclined to compare and verify concepts as INTjs. INTps assume that these can have only one unique interpretation (the "correct" interpretation), and INTps often do not think about the fact that the other person may be interpreting them differently. Much more than INTjs, INTps apply concepts such as "objective reality," "unequivocal facts," and de-emphasize concepts; INTps consider that they know the "right" way of doing things, how something "truly is," etc.

19. The "comparison and verification of concepts" is a more common phenomenon among INTjs than INTps. This comparison not only concerns INTjs methods, but also their understanding, terminology, etc. INTjs are attuned to the fact that different people might understand and interpret different concepts and terms differently. They perceive terminology as well as actions of other people as part of the subjective concept inseparable from personal opinion, position, intent, etc. In contrast to INTps who perceive terminology as "objective," INTjs understand personal differences behind terminology (this applies even to well established terms) and they attempt to compare and verify them.

This (the "comparison and verification of concepts") I feel is more of an mbti INTJ thing; What you mostly see here on intpforum is that semantics is really only discussed when people are already well into the conversation and come to disagreements, where are bogged down to having to have the discussion on semantics.

17. INTjs tend to plan ahead, making decisions early. On the other hand, INTps tend to prefer a wait and see, more spontaneous approach.

This is debatable. You could argue that mbti intps think things in the background a lot but I don't know if you could term that as "planning". In mbti intps are know to prefer the wait and see approach more that intjs.

23. INTps are relatively more flexible and tolerant than INTjs.

Isn't this the other way around in mbti?

29. INTps tend to start more tasks and other projects than INTjs, but the INTps are less likely to complete all of them.

Same with this one.

38. INTjs tend to put more effort than INTps into finishing any new project they start.

If this means mbti Intps find finishing projects harder (i.e. they need to put in more effort than mbti intjs) than it'd be correct, if it means mbti intps just generally finish projects they start more often then mbti intjs it'd be wrong.

http://www.sociotype.com/tools/type-comparison/LII-ILI

The Reinin dichotomies are really good at showing the inaccuracies. Where I differ from the INTj dichotomies are I associate more so with Constructivist, serious, process and declaring.

http://www.wikisocion.org/en/index.php?title=Reinin_dichotomies

Here's a test based on the dichotomies.

http://www.zhilkin.com/socio/en/"]http://www.zhilkin.com/socio/en/"]http://www.zhilkin.com/socio/en/

 

[Reluctantly]

It all feels and reasons very fuzzy to me in the end. I'd say if you feel like an INTx and can't decide between the two, you're more honest with yourself than most that have to choose one over the other.

 

[EyeSeeCold]

The Reinin dichotomies are interesting, but I would not give the descriptions much weight. Last I checked they were just arbitrary interpretations applied to Socionics' inherent mathematical symmetry. The translation from Russian to English may be lost on me though.

Also it's really not a good idea to mix systems and try to correct your idea of INTP/INTJ to INTp/INTj. Just start fresh from whatever seems most compatible to you.

If there was one significant thing I would take away from Socionics, it's these certain special rings:

ENFp-INTp-ESTp-ISFp (negativist-declaring-irrational)
prone to individual self-stimulating activities

ENFj-INTj-ESTj-ISFj (negativist-asking-rational)
prone to social order, clubs, and meetings

The idea is that first group internalizes and withdraws within themselves to resolve issues, whereas the second group externalizes and seeks out others to help them with their concerns. It's my personal theory, but if you belong to one of the groups you should feel similar to the adjacent types.

 

[PmjPmj]

For what it's worth, I'm far more ENTj in Socionics.

So long as you're confident in your dominant function, meh. I prefer Socionics in some ways - I think it's far more down to earth than the oft fluffy MBTI.

 

[Saski]

The INTj description does resonate with me in the first. I find it very difficult to have a discussion when terms are poorly defined and many different consequences in the logic chain can be due to differing meanings, not out of struggle, but inefficiency. That could possibly be because of the tendency to like phylosophical subjects, where the definition of concepts - and therefore premises - will make or break a train of thought.

17. INTjs tend to plan ahead, making decisions early. On the other hand, INTps tend to prefer a wait and see, more spontaneous approach.
This is debatable. You could argue that mbti intps think things in the background a lot but I don't know if you could term that as "planning". In mbti intps are know to prefer the wait and see approach more that intjs.

I personally tend to draw schemes and plan structures, although with a particular distaste for schedules, very often when appliable and the situation is complex enough. Things like (trying) to always lay a master plan for minecraft; making spreedsheets for comparing and making statistical distributions of prices of books, games and consume; categorizing pokemon of same species on a notebook and this kind of shit.
I admittedly struggle with decisions when they are needed, but I do have a initial drive to organize things from the start. Then I get tired of it and give up. Perhaps is something similar the author refers here.

On 23. 29. and 38. I agree with the objections.

I typed INTP and INTj on more than one survey, but also do not think the descriptions for the INTj fit with me. In many descriptions I find myself closer to an INTp supposed behaviour than that of an INTj, to the point where I thought I mistyped in socionic tests. But the functions' order, for all I have seen, are indeed closer to the INTj.

The Reinin dichotomies are interesting, but I would not give the descriptions much weight. Last I checked they were just arbitrary interpretations applied to Socionics' inherent mathematical symmetry. The translation from Russian to English may be lost on me though.

Also it's really not a good idea to mix systems and try to correct your idea of INTP/INTJ to INTp/INTj. Just start fresh from whatever seems most compatible to you.

If there was one significant thing I would take away from Socionics, it's these certain special rings:

ENFp-INTp-ESTp-ISFp (negativist-declaring-irrational)
prone to individual self-stimulating activities

ENFj-INTj-ESTj-ISFj (negativist-asking-rational)
prone to social order, clubs, and meetings

The idea is that first group internalizes and withdraws within themselves to resolve issues, whereas the second group externalizes and seeks out others to help them with their concerns. It's my personal theory, but if you belong to one of the groups you should feel similar to the adjacent types.

I don't understand it. How do you discern between Introversion and being "prone to individual self-stimulating activities"? Isn't it usually described as a I characteristic? What kind of example would you make to show the distinctions?

 

[OmoInisa]

Based on the socionics functional stack I've self typed myself as an INTj, which shares the functions with MBTI INTP. However apart from the descriptions of the functions themselves, I've found that other descriptions of the INTj aren't very accurate. Going by behavioural descriptions I fall into neither INTj nor INTp as there are some major aspects of both types that are inaccurate. The best fit in terms of behavioural descriptions seems to be a mix of INTj and INTp.

I wanted to know if this is the case for most mbti intps or if most of them transition to socionics INTjs.

You're certainly not the only one. It becomes plainly obvious after examining Socionics for a while that it has split (and mixed together) the introverts, relative to how they're categorised in the MBTI. Though it's not an even bisection. Most INTPs do end up LII/INTj, because the split weighs more heavily on the side of the INTj. When all is said and done the dominant function is the modus operandi, and the function definitions across the two systems are simply not different enough for there not to be a rough pattern of translation.

The problem of the people who fail to maintain their dominant across the two systems is no bigger than the issue of those people who fail to maintain their dominant between different tests (or instances of the same test) within the same system.

The root of the issue is the different takes of the two systems on the concept of rationality/irrationalty. Socionics holds rationality in the absolute to a large extent.
MBTI makes no use of such a notion. In MBTI rationality/irrationality exists in attitude.

The result of the above is a rather curious thing. In terms of function definitions, Socionics has a more sophisticated conception than MBTI. It more fully grasps the beauty and power of Jung's type descriptions in that sense.
However it errs in leaning so heavily on an absolute rationality/irrationality.

Due to its J/P concept, MBTI captures the essence of functions in attitude, though its actual function descriptions are shallow and sometimes fantastical (notably in the case of Ni, which is maximised, and Si, which is minimised). So MBTI lacks the sheer intellectual firepower of Socionics, but it more realistically and accurately describes reality.
Socionics is in aggregate heavily the product of Ji, while MBTI is more of a mix, but there's a discernible pre-eminence of Je. And this shows in both cases.

As a result of its take on rationality, the Socionics description of an LII/INTj is inevitably actually a description of a non-existent [big Ti + small Te] dom, and the description of an ILI/INTp is actually a description of a [big Ni + small Ne] dom.
In the extroverts, rationality/irrationality is unified with its attitude.

 

[EyeSeeCold]

I don't understand it. How do you discern between Introversion and being "prone to individual self-stimulating activities"? Isn't it usually described as a I characteristic? What kind of example would you make to show the distinctions?

The negativist-declaring-irrational group(ESTp-INTp-ENFp-ISFp), they do it because of a need to be self reliant, to suppress pessimism and maintain a stoic demeanor. When they let off steam they do it in private. Since they're all Irrational types(p vs j) their stress can be managed by simply engaging in some intense activity.

Remember that introversion does not mean you are asocial, it the psychic force that pulls attention, thoughts, values, and understanding inward. As an introvert, spending too much time with others can be draining if you aren't doing for your own purpose, but you may still have your circle of acquaintances(school, family, internet, work etc) and still be social. The difference is compartmentalization.

ISFj is very social, maybe timid at times, but they don't hesitate to call someone up or show up at someone's door to blow off steam. On the other hand, ESTp will compartmentalize. They'll withdraw (possibly to 1-2 friends) eat away at the stress by smoking, videogames, etc then come back to their normal extraverted life with no mention of a previous problem.