To answer you directly, yes, I have seen a classified INTP. I am one. I am classified because of theoretical consistency and pragmatic confirmation (although nothing is ever 100%). In theory, I am an INTP, and in practice, I am that which the character of INTP refers to.
You didn't answer the last question, why is this a correct conclusion if your only criteria is consistency to how you see yourself, and according to you, consistency alone cannot be trusted? You do not have any other proof than theoretical consistency. I have seen a classified Destroyer of worlds INFJ, both in theory and practice, so does that settle it? Shouldn't my experience validate my theory according to you?
Socionics? You know one of its main qualifiers for a type is practical confirmation right?
Energy Metabolism, Information Metabolism, Intertype-Relations.
All three of these can be self-experienced and self-studied. They can also be identified by third-parties which lessens the subjective factor.
Unlike MBTI and Keirsey.
In other words, you have more criteria to base theoretical consistency on. This is not objective evidence, this is getting a person or an analyst to agree that a person's behavior matches up to how the theory suggests what traits are supposed to be there. Perhaps they are there, but at what point does that prove that this is the only criteria that matters, and that it can be no other way?
Pod'Lair has a one-sided way of confirmation which is real-time reading.
It can be one-sided when reading a person, as one-side is all that is needed, you don't need a person to know themselves in order to read them. Similarly I'm sure you don't believe you need a person to know themselves in order to type them. However, what you see in a person whom you have read and all of the theory that it indicates, can all be self-experienced and self-studied, after all we are seeing something on them that is in fact there and occurring on a conscious level.
Don't flatter yourself. I'm against most abstract masturbatory theorizing without sufficient experience to draw from and relate to.
What makes you think this does not have sufficient experience to draw from and relate to? Why is my theorizing masturbatory and yours is not? Why are you not going around this forum and trying to stomp out everyone else's attempts at theorizing, because they too don't have sufficient evidence?
True. What I was pointing out initially was that there should be a cycle of confirmation: Read → Analyze → Apply → Cross-check for consistency → Compare → Repeat.
Usually people who find out about MBTI stop at the application process and believe they are a type.
Uh huh, that is how a strong theory should work, and what I pointed out is that none of you guys here do that.
This is what you are actually doing:
Analyze→Apply→Read→Cross-check for consistency → Compare → Repeat.
None of you guys started with experiencing reality, everyone here began with analyzing a theory (MBTI/JCE/Socionics), applying it to themselves, and then fitting in their environment to the theory. There is no way to confirm this, because when the questions come up:
"How do you know this person is an INTJ?"
"Because he matches the INTJ character."
"How do you know INTJs are supposed to act like that?"
"Because that is how all INTJs act."
"How do you know they can't act differently and still be INTJs?"
"Because if they did not act like this, they would not be INTJs."
This is not objective confirmation, Eyeseecold, this is an endless feedback loop of logical validation, but you never really can confirm if your logic is even valid with the way you are going at it. Theoretical Logic does not dictate how reality works.
