# INTJ and Socionics



## Dralud (Jan 5, 2011)

I've passed the last 4 days intensely studying Socionics, and i must say, im impressed.
Seriously. I've been tested as an INTJ for Kersey, Myers-Brigg and Socionics, but I must say that the most accurate one, for me anyways, is the Socionics. When i say "The most accurate", I mean that I have all of the physical INTJ traits, the psychological ones and the "relations" chart is mindblowingly on the spot. I was wondering what other INTJ's thought of it.

Enlighten me.


----------



## hoom (Jan 22, 2011)

I think they have a rather nice testing technique, at least the one test available on their site with the adjectives was rather well done... however... I disagree with just about all of their theories where they differ from MBTI.... particularly regarding relationships - even though I do see where their opinion might be coming from. I think they have a faulty analysis of the end-goal of relationships, that being to be 'balanced' and 'normal' as opposed to genuinely attracted and happy. It's been a month or two since I've looked into it, but I don't remember reading a single philosophical detail of theirs that I liked more than MBTIs.


----------



## Paradox of Vigor (Jul 7, 2010)

The physical trait qualities is all it has going for it. Everything else Keirsey, MBTI, and Jung have already well explored. 

I think it's cool and I've been planning on reading more into it because I think some of it might be true.


----------



## Dralud (Jan 5, 2011)

hoom said:


> I think they have a rather nice testing technique, at least the one test available on their site with the adjectives was rather well done... however... I disagree with just about all of their theories where they differ from MBTI.... particularly regarding relationships - even though I do see where their opinion might be coming from. I think they have a faulty analysis of the end-goal of relationships, that being to be 'balanced' and 'normal' as opposed to genuinely attracted and happy. It's been a month or two since I've looked into it, but I don't remember reading a single philosophical detail of theirs that I liked more than MBTIs.


In regards to their theory, I agree that it has holes that you could fly a jumbo jet in, however from a purely product point of view, what are your thoughts on it?


----------



## aestrivex (Mar 7, 2011)

hoom said:


> I think they have a faulty analysis of the end-goal of relationships, that being to be 'balanced' and 'normal' as opposed to genuinely attracted and happy.


and what exactly is your interpretation of socionics' end-goal of relationships, and from what sources?


----------



## hoom (Jan 22, 2011)

Dralud said:


> In regards to their theory, I agree that it has holes that you could fly a jumbo jet in, however from a purely product point of view, what are your thoughts on it?


You're going to need to define 'product point of view' for me there.



aestrivex said:


> and what exactly is your interpretation of socionics' end-goal of relationships, and from what sources?


The interpretation is exactly what you quoted.

Most of the source material was Socionics' website... I went through quite a few of the pages on there... I also bring to the table 'the source of life'.... in which I've observed just about everything they claim (that differs from Jung and MBTI) to be false. For example.... they claim that the INTJ relationship of duality, the one that we should all strive for... is with ESFJs..... who happen to be the type I like the _least_. I've even lived with one for years (not by choice)... so it's not a matter of not knowing them well enough.... every time they open their mouth.... eugh. Now of course we can play the argument 'not all members of a single type are the same', and that's true.... but I've met a good number of ESFJs and I don't like any of them. They try to change me (as I'd call it, on the personality type level) and don't recognize that not only do I not want to be changed, I don't even want to talk to them.

Like I said in my last post, it's been a while since I've gone through any material on them, simply because I found it so inaccurate and thus a waste of my time, so I can't say I recall anything else of their theory, but I did read into the other aspects of it and recall being dissatisfied. The one thing that I _did_ like about their process was this test, because it had a unique and interesting approach to the matter that looked worth-while despite being rather time-consuming.


----------



## aestrivex (Mar 7, 2011)

hoom said:


> The interpretation is exactly what you quoted.


what i quoted is obviously a simplification. i wouldn't classify that relations of duality tend towards either the domain of balance/harmony or intensity of attraction in a strictly relational sense -- some dual pairs perhaps tends towards one or the other to a greater or lesser extent, but duality as a concept has a great deal to do with complementarity in other domains -- from a standpoint, for instance, of the different complementary "roles" that people take in their relationships (generally, not romantically) that come from complementary life focuses.



> I also bring to the table 'the source of life'.... in which I've observed just about everything they claim (that differs from Jung and MBTI) to be false. For example.... they claim that the INTJ relationship of duality, the one that we should all strive for... is with ESFJs..... who happen to be the type I like the _least_. I've even lived with one for years (not by choice)... so it's not a matter of not knowing them well enough.... every time they open their mouth.... eugh. Now of course we can play the argument 'not all members of a single type are the same', and that's true.... but I've met a good number of ESFJs and I don't like any of them. They try to change me (as I'd call it, on the personality type level) and don't recognize that not only do I not want to be changed, I don't even want to talk to them.


only if you assume that your typings in MBTI are correct (which i make no statement on -- but if you were making _socionics_ typings and not MBTI typings i would explicitly not assume they were correct unless you convinced me of their archetypal appropriateness), and that they translate perfectly into socionics (which i believe is unrealistic).


also, there is no singular "socionics website," especially if by that you refer to socionics.com (which is terrible, imo) which you almost certainly do.


----------



## hoom (Jan 22, 2011)

aestrivex said:


> what i quoted is obviously a simplification. i wouldn't classify that relations of duality tend towards either the domain of balance/harmony or intensity of attraction in a strictly relational sense -- some dual pairs perhaps tends towards one or the other to a greater or lesser extent, but duality as a concept has a great deal to do with complementarity in other domains -- from a standpoint, for instance, of the different complementary "roles" that people take in their relationships (generally, not romantically) that come from complementary life focuses.


Complementary roles is a euphemism for balancing each other out and moving both partners towards the 'norm'.... something I have no desire for in the least.



> only if you assume that your typings in MBTI are correct (which i make no statement on -- but if you were making _socionics_ typings and not MBTI typings i would explicitly not assume they were correct unless you convinced me of their archetypal appropriateness), and that they translate perfectly into socionics (which i believe is unrealistic).
> 
> 
> also, there is no singular "socionics website," especially if by that you refer to socionics.com (which is terrible, imo) which you almost certainly do.


I'm fairly certain, if you choose not to believe me, that's your problem.

In any event, I'm done discussing this with you, neither of us are going to change our minds. *goes away*.


----------



## aestrivex (Mar 7, 2011)

hoom said:


> Complementary roles is a euphemism for balancing each other out and moving both partners towards the 'norm'.... something I have no desire for in the least.


i would disagree with this characterization of duality as well. balancing occurs in the context perhaps of meeting a very individualistic and self-driven psychological need, but not at all in the sense that balanced quadra values are still at odds with one another.


----------



## vel (May 17, 2010)

hoom said:


> ... they claim that the INTJ relationship of duality, the one that we should all strive for... is with ESFJs..... who happen to be the type I like the _least_. I've even lived with one for years (not by choice)...


In socionics the last letter corresponds to the dominant function, so INTJ is really INTp whose duality partner is ESFp not ESFj. But don't use Sergei Ganin's website Socionics.com. He's got his descriptive profiles mis-matched to functions and I hear he is not even active in socionics any more. The duality for INTJ is the ESFP, the spontaneous go-with-the-moment doer and initiative-taker personality that can provide INTJ with some grounding in the physical world that the INTJ is disconnected from. ESFPs like INTJs use introverted feeling so they can understand where you're coming from emotionally better that Fe-types who are likely to think you're selfish if you're not openly emoting and showing your emotion. ESFJ is your conflictor type.

For socionics information stick to Wikisocion and Socionics.us. There is also Socionics.org but their information is in Russian though you can read it with google translator.
www.wikisocion.org/ - for Ni leading Te creative personality search for ILI and at the very bottom of profile there will be relationship grid
Socionics Theory
Socionics.org


----------



## hoom (Jan 22, 2011)

vel said:


> In socionics the last letter corresponds to the dominant function, so INTJ is really INTp whose duality partner is ESFp not ESFj.


I'm fairly certain I've read that that doesn't always hold true... in any event, neither of those two types appeals to me in real life. ENFPs are the ones for me.

PS: I don't intend to be quoted or reply any further... the OP asked for an opinion and I gave one, I'm done. I may read some of those websites you listed later (thanks I suppose) if I'm bored and reevaluate if necessary (though I suspect it won't be), but for now I'm done.


----------



## vel (May 17, 2010)

hoom said:


> I'm fairly certain I've read that that doesn't always hold true... in any event, neither of those two types appeals to me in real life. ENFPs are the ones for me.
> 
> PS: I don't intend to be quoted or reply any further... the OP asked for an opinion and I gave one, I'm done. I may read some of those websites you listed later (thanks I suppose) if I'm bored and reevaluate if necessary (though I suspect it won't be), but for now I'm done.


heh after spending 5 years in a relationship with my mirage partner the ENTP (ENFP is your mirage) I believe it, but I guess you will need to live through it first to see it


----------



## Sanskrit (Feb 6, 2011)

hoom said:


> You're going to need to define 'product point of view' for me there.
> 
> Like I said in my last post, it's been a while since I've gone through any material on them, simply because I found it so inaccurate and thus a waste of my time, so I can't say I recall anything else of their theory, but I did read into the other aspects of it and recall being dissatisfied. The one thing that I _did_ like about their process was this test, because it had a unique and interesting approach to the matter that looked worth-while despite being rather time-consuming.


It indeed was rather ingenious way to construct a test. I tried it out and got the usual though
Normal mode	Reversed mode	Combined mode
INTj INTj INTj 
This summarises your type as:

INTj a.k.a. Logical-Intuitive Intratim "The Analyst".

Scoring factor
Normal mode	Reversed mode	Combined mode
0.75 0.69 0.72 

It appears that one can be INTJ in both test types, at least when conducted in this manner.


----------



## MuChApArAdOx (Jan 24, 2011)

vel said:


> heh after spending 5 years in a relationship with my mirage partner the ENTP (ENFP is your mirage) I believe it, but I guess you will need to live through it first to see it


@vel
Are you saying you're basing 1 5yr relationship with an ENTP to be the fail of all ENTP's ? Are you saying that if an INTJ has a relationship with an ENFP the chances are it will fail ? I have no words really, it's all too shallow for me to comprehend. Relationships are individualist , each person knows the kind of person they want to spend time with, who can make them happy and whole as a couple. We know what kind of people bore us, doesn't interest us, and more importantly, doesn't understand or relate to us. With that being said we are all different within our own types. It may have not worked out with this ENTP, but who's to say it wouldn't with a completely different ENTP. Relationships fail with people, not with a group of types.


----------



## vel (May 17, 2010)

MuChApArAdOx said:


> @vel
> Are you saying you're basing 1 5yr relationship with an ENTP to be the fail of all ENTP's ? Are you saying that if an INTJ has a relationship with an ENFP the chances are it will fail ? I have no words really, it's all too shallow for me to comprehend. Relationships are individualist , each person knows the kind of person they want to spend time with, who can make them happy and whole as a couple. We know what kind of people bore us, doesn't interest us, and more importantly, doesn't understand or relate to us. With that being said we are all different within our own types. It may have not worked out with this ENTP, but who's to say it wouldn't with a completely different ENTP. Relationships fail with people, not with a group of types.


I have not said that it is "fail of all ENTPs". In fact I have said "I believe it" in my reply above. You have deduced something negative out of my reply on your own and then proceeded to attach your judgement to it. Mirage is only one _flavor_ of relationships described in socionics. Which one works out best for you is each person's individual choice and not up to your judgement or how shallow or wholesome that person's choice is. Besides him I've known many other ENTPs and so I do have experience in mirage friendships and relationships than one as do many ENFPs and INTJs who have actually dated each other rather than discussing it on these boards.



MuChApArAdOx said:


> I have no words really, it's all too shallow for me to comprehend.
> ...
> We know what kind of people bore us, doesn't interest us, and more importantly, doesn't understand or relate to us.


Exactly, so I do not know why you proceed to judge other people's choices and not follow your own advice, sounds rather hypocritical to me.


----------



## MuChApArAdOx (Jan 24, 2011)

vel said:


> I have not said that it is "fail of all ENTPs". In fact I have said "I believe it" in my reply above. You have deduced something negative out of my reply on your own and then proceeded to attach your judgement to it. Mirage is only one _flavor_ of relationships described in socionics. Which one works out best for you is each person's individual choice and not up to your judgement or how shallow or wholesome that person's choice is. Besides him I've known many other ENTPs and so I do have experience in mirage friendships and relationships than one as do many ENFPs and INTJs who have actually dated each other rather than discussing it on these boards.
> 
> 
> Exactly, so I do not know why you proceed to judge other people's choices and not follow your own advice, sounds rather hypocritical to me.


Your original posting wasn't clear. I was responding to your response to hoom in regards to your opinion with mirage relationships. When you said " I believe it ", i perceived it as being a negative response with your wording. You perceived my questions, yes questions with ? at the end as me judging you. It wasn't a judgement, it was simple questions. The rest of the post was my personal overall opinion, which again you took as me judging you. I'm not surprised although. I have INFJ in my family, they are the most over sensitive, over emotion people i know. I don't see anywhere in my posting leaving judgement towards you personally. This is something you decided to take all on your own. My apologies you perceived it this way.

You also have to keep in mind that not everyone here at the forums believe in socionics as strongly as you. I know this for a fact because i have read many of your postings that include socionics to backup your statements. For me personally i take them with a grain of salt, as i do the MBTI. Sure they may be fun to play with, and we might see many similarities within the guidelines, although i would never take them so seriously as to quote anyone who they may or may not be compatible with using socionics as truth.They are guidelines only, nothing about the information is carved in stone. People want to be treated like people first and foremost, not numbers or letters. So before you take everything i've said here as judgement towards you personally, which i can only assume you will, i want to make it perfectly clear this is not my intent. It just thoughts and opinions only.


----------



## vel (May 17, 2010)

MuChApArAdOx said:


> Your original posting wasn't clear. I was responding to your response to hoom in regards to your opinion with mirage relationships. When you said " I believe it ", i perceived it as being a negative response with your wording. You perceived my questions, yes questions with ? at the end as me judging you. It wasn't a judgement, it was simple questions.


It was not a question, it was a statement. I'll quote it for you if truly you don't see where you made a judgement though I find that hard to believe:


> Are you saying that if an INTJ has a relationship with an ENFP the chances are it will fail ? I have no words really, it's all too shallow for me to comprehend.





MuChApArAdOx said:


> The rest of the post was my personal overall opinion, which again you took as me judging you. I'm not surprised although. I have INFJ in my family, they are the most over sensitive, over emotion people i know.


That was an opinion but also a value statement on your part, or in other words a judgement of something as "shallow". Single INFJ in your family doesn't have anything to do any INFJ on these boards, not to mention it has nothing to do with socionics or original discussion. Don't try to extend of what you know of single person in your family onto entire type and people whom you never met and don't know. That's just stereotyping and very poor stereotyping at that. Like you said "people want to be treated like people first and foremost, not numbers or letters". You are not following your own advice once again.



MuChApArAdOx said:


> You also have to keep in mind that not everyone here at the forums believe in socionics as strongly as you. I know this for a fact because i have read many of your postings that include socionics to backup your statements. For me personally i take them with a grain of salt, as i do the MBTI. Sure they may be fun to play with, and we might see many similarities within the guidelines, although i would never take them so seriously as to quote anyone who they may or may not be compatible with using socionics as truth.They are guidelines only, nothing about the information is carved in stone. People want to be treated like people first and foremost, not numbers or letters. So before you take everything i've said here as judgement towards you personally, which i can only assume you will, i want to make it perfectly clear this is not my intent. It just thoughts and opinions only.


This second paragraph has nothing to do with discussion. More value statements and assumptions. You don't know how much anybody on these forums puts stock in MBTI or socionics or astrology or tarot or palmistry or whatever. That I participate in discussions about socionics this is frankly because MBTI has gotten boring, and after socionics gets boring I am going to be studying big 5 and after that I got a few other subjects lined up. Beware of making judgements and forming opinions about people without actually knowing them.


----------



## MuChApArAdOx (Jan 24, 2011)

vel said:


> It was not a question, it was a statement. I'll quote it for you if truly you don't see where you made a judgement though I find that hard to believe:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


@Val
You make my head hurt, literally. Not only do i not care about anything written here, i don't have the time or energy for negative things . I've read many of your postings. So you like debates, and also love to be right, yes, you do, at least your version of it. You also have issues when proven wrong. Yes, i've seen it here many times with your babble with the INTJ. You make some valid points in your discussions, i give you that, although not always. You take everything personal, use what you've learned with MBTI and socionics to try and make yourself right ..ironically funny  Good luck with your research with whatever it is your doing. You see i don't care about those things, being right or wrong has never been my goal in life. So with that being said, a response from you at this point is fruitless. I'm bored, sorry ...and what was it we were talking about again. Lol.


----------



## vel (May 17, 2010)

MuChApArAdOx said:


> @Val
> You make my head hurt, literally. Not only do i not care about anything written here, i don't have the time or energy for negative things . I've read many of your postings. So you like debates, and also love to be right, yes, you do, at least your version of it. You also have issues when proven wrong. Yes, i've seen it here many times with your babble with the INTJ. You make some valid points in your discussions, i give you that, although not always. You take everything personal, use what you've learned with MBTI and socionics to try and make yourself right ..ironically funny  Good luck with your research with whatever it is your doing. You see i don't care about those things, being right or wrong has never been my goal in life. So with that being said, a response from you at this point is fruitless. I'm bored, sorry ...and what was it we were talking about again. Lol.


You have not proven me right or wrong, only mis-interpreted what I was saying, then made value judgement about me, and proceed to essentially not follow what you yourself were telling me to do. Misinterpretation, followed by value statements on people you don't know about, then this kind of hypocrisy - this is what I have issues with. I don't go along with it in real world and don't like it on forums either. Kudos at least for admitting that you did misinterpret my post. Tl'dr of what I replied - I said be careful with forming pre-mature opinions of people and stereotyping or overgeneralising across the type too much.

I'm sorry for making your head hurt  it is probably because you don't have any use of introverted logic. Logical coherence and consistency in one's thinking and behavior are important to INFJs and INTPs while value judgements on poster's character like the ones you're making are dismissed as "ad hominem" attacks and largely irrelevant to the argument.


----------



## Dralud (Jan 5, 2011)

Pardon me for my bluntness, but I did not post this thread to have people arguing over whatever you guys are arguing about. Allso, I might add as a sidenote that the title of this thread is "INTJ and Socionics", not "any type that hangs around the INTJ forum and Socionics". In short, if your here to argue, GTFO.


----------



## MuChApArAdOx (Jan 24, 2011)

Dralud said:


> Pardon me for my bluntness, but I did not post this thread to have people arguing over whatever you guys are arguing about. Allso, I might add as a sidenote that the title of this thread is "INTJ and Socionics", not "any type that hangs around the INTJ forum and Socionics". In short, if your here to argue, GTFO.


 @Dralud
Agreed  Pardon me for my bluntness, its killing me you spelled Also with double L, correction


----------



## MuChApArAdOx (Jan 24, 2011)

Dralud said:


> Pardon me for my bluntness, but I did not post this thread to have people arguing over whatever you guys are arguing about. *Allso,* I might add as a sidenote that the title of this thread is "INTJ and Socionics", not "any type that hangs around the INTJ forum and Socionics". In short, if your here to argue, GTFO.


Agreed  Pardon me for my bluntness, its killing me you spelled also with double L, correction 

Edit: Sorry, the first one didn't post, so posted again. Then it magically appeared.


----------



## Dralud (Jan 5, 2011)

its ok. We all have our little grammar nazi inside.


----------

