This video convinced me that I’m an INTj. I have been going around in circles, “trying on” different types, never feeling settled. I’ve even been typed as an INTP according to CPT and still not satisfied. Your video perfectly explained why this process is what I’ve been using all along and this is why it’s been so difficult for me to land on any certain type. I constantly want to look at things and analyze things from different angles. You could so I don’t want to leave any stone unturned in my exploration of self. I appreciate your videos. They’re explained well and they’ve very helpful
@@Coneman3 If it didn't make any money, I wouldn't be able to justify spending my limited time doing it. I'd have to do something a lot less interesting to make money.
This was exemplary. I've seen this video before. But then I had only trace amounts of Socionics awareness. I've really doubled down on better understanding its workings, and have since concluded that I was LII all along. (Probably LII-Ti) With my new perception of things. I could clearly understand your explanation of the type, and feel eminently assured that LII is my type. Thank for making this video. 👍
The finest definition of symmetry I have ever found, was Richard Feynman explaining how good theories are formulated. It was part of the Messenger lecture series if I remember right.
It's interesting how LII are better with Fi than with Se , when Se is more objective and reality based yet they still struggle to apply their Ti-Ne to supplement Se. that they are an nt yet are still sensitive and can be very emotional I really enjoyed that you Give Heart to NTs the Ravenclaws you cant have a high iq and not have high empathy even if only cognitive empathy and not emotional empathy . Also imagination/ creativity, sensitivity and neurodivergence good video
With your description of demonstrative Ni for INTJs, I wonder if a INTJ may somewhat mimic an INTP by detaching from the present situation when stressed or depressed, which may lead to mistype.
This was interesting. When you mention philosophy and even theology it was much easier for me to recognize myself. Usually only math and technologocal understanding is mentioned but I think that the quest for harmony and wholeness in much more important. How does it work and how is it related to everything else. I started asking why when I turned 3 and I have never stopped. I can also recognise that struggle with belonging and the total inability to force things.
As a 77 year old women thank you very much for your explanation of of the INTJ. I have studied for years the cognitive stacking of INTJ, but your explanation so resonates with my thinking and behavior patterns.
Good stuff! I'd love to see some videos on how the different functions inform each other depending on where they are located. Perhaps a few practical examples and then navigate how the process flows through the functions. Does that make sense and are there such videos on youtube anywhere? Like how the typical social interaction would be processed through the functions. Or perhaps when considering to purchase a new car/computer. I'm new to all this and I struggle to grasp it in my minds eye (build a workable model of it). Usually I have to put a lot of unrelated puzzle pieces on the table and slowly connect some pieces to form small islands before I find the pieces that links some of those islands together that then makes up larger continents and then the map starts to take shape from there. Can any INTJ/LII's recognize that way of processing? Is that what Ti/Ne looks like?
im ... stupid. intp because ti is subconsciously doing things, yet since i grew older i use ne to consciousness try to make me know why i do things and try to let my conscious run in front of my subcobscious so it doesnt get lost
In other words, if you're INTP (common name), you read up on LII INTj socionics. This is like a British explaining the numerical value of a billion to an American.
INTJ is a Ti dom so all about what I think so INTJ constanty thinks, ISTP is Si dom so all about my senses so what I see, hear, smell, touch and taste. Which of these 2 questions are you more likely to use?: "How can you stop your thoughts and not think about anything?" (so if you try it then thoughts start to generate and you think about not thinking about anything :D so maybe you can't fall asleep because of this) or: "How can you not see reality? Reality is everywhere!" A dominant function means that it's everywhere and you are probably the best at it, introverted function= it's your and it's objective, T= thinking, S= what is, what exists=> So are you the most T type or the most S type? Are you a thinker or a sensor? These 2 types are hard to distinquish because ISTP (ISTJ in mbti) is known for following the rules and INTJ (INTP in mbti) is the logician but in math you follow the rules and they lead you to the 1 correct answer.
probably not but you can think of these a) in ILE the Ne Te Fe and Se are bold in LII its those that are cautious b) Ni is bold in LII and ignored!!!! in ILE while Te is ignored in LII and its bold in ILE you shouldnt see the ignored much c) Se and Fe shouldnt show in LII really but will in ILE Si and Fi will not show in ILE but will in LII it should be possible to differ with all that in mind
@@WorldSocionics I'm not entirely sure what would be considered strong or weak Fe or Si, but I'm not very emotive and I keep my emotions mostly to myself and I dislike others who are overtly emotive most of the time. I often feel other peoples emotions very strongly and I feel that people can be quite emotionally manipulative. Regarding Si I still have difficulty understanding what exactly it entails. I was diagnosed with ADHD a few months back and for some reason I feel like it relates to Si/Se quite a bit... I hate to be pushed around by what I think I understand to be Se or Fe types. I tend to hyperfocus and pay close attention to details but I get very easily distracted. Not sure if any of this helps?
I think the problem with Socionics is that it keeps trying to cannabilze and assimilate the Myers Briggs system. Socionics just needs to be its own system instead of trying to "correct" another system. Just my 2 cents.
1. Cause it provides a new perspective, food for thought 2. Cause its useful in a way its not popular for 3. Cause its a system thats pretty flexible and leaves a lotta room for individual interpretation. Each system has its own merits, which i dont like to discard
Either way i prefer socio over mbti, but diminishing one of its existence cause its more abstract and stupid aint neccessary Its enough to keep them seperate and allow others to polish each individually Dont hesitate to correct me if im missing something
@@Pako-ow3uo what is the food for thought, or new perspective, of MBTI? Isn't it a bit rudimentary for that? What is it useful for? Does Socionics not have flexibility? 4 of its functions are situational. Another 4 of its functions are flexible. How does MBTI improve upon this flexibility without just becoming an 'anything can be anything' phenomenon?
Also many people think Isaac Newton to be an ILI, but really he was an LII being very theoretical, and not as practical oriented as the former. He was an intense thinker and introspective, albeit he got into a few quibbles in the academic world.
@@gabriellucus2915 In many way I do with regards to my intense interest in mathematics and philosophy like he was, albeit I would not consider myself to the great genius that he was.
@@sylviaowega3839 you enjoy math ? Hmm do you like solving the problems or getting the result? Is there a spiritual experience that comes with it ? Not super natural more like being in flow
@@gabriellucus2915 I enjoy most the process of solving problems in both, in philosophy and in mathematics. I was always very curious about searching and understanding certain truths. There is certainly a spiritual aspect to becoming enlightened and understanding nature. I achieve a sense of transcending my mode of being and becoming one with the universe
But isn't ti ne is actually the dominant & auxiliary functions of intp? This doesn't make sense to me, intj is the introverted intuitive thinker, and intp is the introverted thinker right?
Well, why would it make sense that a Judger should have iNtuition, an Irrational element, as their Dominant function? It's MBTI convention that doesn't make sense.
@@WorldSocionics judgers in mbti theory has extroverted judging function, intjs has Te, esfjs has Fe etc ..and perceiving types has introverted judging function like intps has Ti, esfps has Fi etc..in socionics, i don't think a socionic type stands for one single mbti type, i e LII fits both intjs & intps an intj can be LII "logical intuitive introvert" when they has developed Ti , we all use the 8 functions you know, intjs has Ti as their critical parent but yes they can be LII if they developed Ti but being an LII doesn't make Ti their dom function cuz they may use Fi> Fe, Se> Si, Ni> Ne so their function stack is Ni Te Fi Se which stands for intjs, or they simply use Ti as their dom function so their mbti type is intp ( in my opinion i think intps fits LII better) , i am an intj who has LIE as his socionic type, i know that when someone see LIE they think of entjs, but for me i have a strong Te but that doesn't make it my dom function cuz Fi>Se , so if we balanced things a bit , my function stack will be Ni Te Fi Se , the idea is a socionic type doesn't stand for one mbti type it is all about balancing things, correct me if i'm wrong.
@@karla-kv9ru Yes, I know what the rule is for J/P in MBTI. My question is deeper... does the rule itself make any sense? Does it make sense to ignore the Dominant function and determine J/P from theAuxilary function for Introverts, under the very questionable belief that only extroverted functions determine your observable behaviour? It just doesn't stand up to scrutiny. It's not the case that only half our elements are externally observable. Extroversion is not simply 'what you can see in the outside world' and Introverted elements aren't some unfalsifiable inner thing no one can see. Sounds like you may enjoy my next video coming out tomorrow. I'm doing ENTJ/LIE. It's not that you're REALLY an INTJ though. It's that there is statistical multicollinearity between Introversion and Thinking in the MBTI, which leads to a distortive effect where many Extroverted Thinkers score as Introverts, and this is especially common for ENTJs who often score 'INTJ'. Similarly, a lot of 'ESFPs' are actually ISFP for the reverse reason. Now, because of this effect and others, the way that profiles describe INTJ and ENTJ has been affected, with a lot of ENTJ going into INTJ and a lot of ESTP going into ENTJ. So, yes, because INTJ is often described wrongly, you will most likely prefer the INTJ profile when coming purely at it from MBTI literature.
I agree us LIIs seek to bring things/theories together. LII Kant successfully brought the ideas of Descartes and Hume together. As an LII I unsuccessfully tried to bring Socionics and mbti together. But failed because neither are clearly defined. Socionics thinks it's clearly defined. But the many different schools that contradict one another dispell that idea.
Reminds me of the points TheEndlessKurtis made when he debated Jack about socionics not being a unified theory. Like Kurtis said, it’s not as simple as jack makes it when he says things like “this is how it works in socionics” as if he represents the theory as a whole. As well as the inaccuracies of claiming to be “classical socionics” when it’s far more complicated when one considers the difference between wss and original Agusta.
There are different takes on the theory, and you could even say that there are multiple theories of Socionics, but only one take can be correct. Which one is the correct one? If you say there is no 'correct' one, then which one develops the theory to have the greatest explanatory power and internal consistency? There's also nothing inaccurate about calling a Model A-centric approach to Socionics "Classical Socionics". That's the only meaningful standard to use, as was demonstrated by the failure of the "whatever Ausra thought or may have thought" standard that Kurtis tried to use, which is self-contradictory because she changed her mind over time.
@WorldSocionics I like Model A. I just have a hunch that those thst use it define the information elements that get plugged into it in different ways. Which is why you can't translate Socionics into MBTI the way you can translate Greek into Latin. And until there is a unified coherent way to translate Socionics into mbti I see both as less than a science.
There is no MBTI INTP. It's an incoherent, inaccurate way of describing the INTJ of Jungian typology. An MBTI-centric perspective is exactly what I hope to shake you out of, because it's wrong and falls apart the more one logically interrogates it.
@@WorldSocionics but in MBTI, INTPs are the ones who have TiNe, not INTJ. I think I understood your point after reading some replies. You're saying INTJs are actually perceivers and INTPs are actually judging types. I'm a lil confused. These are my questions: 1. Could you explain why MBTI and certain other systems use J instead of P and P instead of J? 2. Which of these two systems are being relied on more than the other for new theories and systems? 3. MBTI is based on Jungian analytical psychology. So is Socionics a very different system from Jung's? Looks so. 4. If I am INTj, that means I am INTP in MBTI bcuz I prefer TiNe according to MBTI. So how is MBTI wrong about Jungian typology? Are you saying they misinterpreted the difference between J vs P types or is it just a matter of the judging functions letters coming first and last? What's your logic here?
@mackennawilson Sort of, but the perspective I'm offering is not a simple P/J switch, but that there's just Jungian Type, and only one system can get closest to understanding Jungian type fully. MBTI is not simply a different system that has its own merits and internal logic. It has all sorts of internal contradictions. A lot of the MBTI descriptions of Jungian types are mishmashes rather than consistent sets of priorities and motivations, so they can't actually represent something real. It needs to be replaced by a better model for understanding Jungian type. I have a video on here called Perceiving vs. Judging explained correctly that might help.
hello friend shouldn't people know this already let's not be to inflexible without first finding common ground to create a solution , I don't agree with everything jack says and does but i know I like him regardless and he's still makes not only great points but useful , and way more than most so lets try to give him a little praise too because he does know what he knows and im sure he doesn't run to your channel to contradict you right ? or does he friend also whatever mistakes he makes people can just find your channel to compare and contrast
@@WorldSocionics What if someone used this logic to say that the red color of a stop light was like an animal becoming nocturnal because it cannot compete in the daylight, and they said that it not also being green was inherently sub-optimal? This is a very Se-Fi view you're making here Jack, and I do think you are an ENTP. I think though that once you realize the treading you are doing on others, if capitalization is the issue, just reverse the order. The Russian MBTI version of an ISFJ, which leads with Si and then has Fe should be JFSI, which then literally leads with a judging function, having Fi and then Se. Again though, great work in explaining the types. It's really top notch in that regard.
@@WorldSocionics Language isn't a competition. It's not correct or incorrect: it can't be, it's just labels. Language is an intrinsic collaboration between the two parties on mutually understood meaning of that string of sounds/markings on a page/series of hand gestures (even if those two parties are current you and future you when you write yourself a shopping list!), most usually relying heavily on standard conventions (and clarification where conventions break down or clash). A "chat" isn't any more correctly or usefully a friendly, informal chinwag or a fluffy, mewling, slightly aloof type of pet. The utility of either entirely depends on the mutual understanding of the participants, in this case maybe whether you're talking to Pierre in Paris or Penny in Portsmouth! There are some conventions to use a term in the form of, say, LII to reference socionics type categories, and ones such as INTP to reference MBTI type categories. In so far as the two formats overlap, there's also a convention to use labels of the format INTj to reference labels of the MBTI format but where the final "dichotomy" is defined in a slightly different manner which leads to it being flipped wherever the label starts with 'I'. (And these three are all different methods of referring to the exact same ordering of cognitive functions!) In so far as these different labelling formats are commonly understood, they allow for people to understand different, if related, concepts by the use of each type of label. It might be that you think you are speaking to an audience where INTJ is most commonly understood as referring to what I've described as INTj above. You might think you're metaphorically in Paris complaining about a "chat" stealing a fish from your windowsill. It may be of course that you are honestly mistaken, and you're actually in a conceptual Portsmouth and communication is thus thwarted (if you saw many comments questioning this labelling format, it might suggest this for instance). But if you *know* you're metaphorically in Portsmouth and are deliberately using "chat" to mean a bewhiskered house pet then that wouldn't be, couldn't be, any more optimal or more correct, but simply perversely non-Gricean, deliberately uncooperative.
@@WorldSocionics Because of how the encoding works. IxxJs are perceiving types and ExxJs are judging types. Introversion flips what function you lead with, but preserves the blocks.
@@oflameo8927doesn't makes sense. If Ti dom intp mbti have search all possible theory and find best one and think that's truth, since his second is Ne, then he's perceiving? Nah. Dominant function is what creates persona, it's always first function because it's their first priority.
This video convinced me that I’m an INTj. I have been going around in circles, “trying on” different types, never feeling settled. I’ve even been typed as an INTP according to CPT and still not satisfied. Your video perfectly explained why this process is what I’ve been using all along and this is why it’s been so difficult for me to land on any certain type. I constantly want to look at things and analyze things from different angles. You could so I don’t want to leave any stone unturned in my exploration of self. I appreciate your videos. They’re explained well and they’ve very helpful
Thanks Hilly! If you'd like to learn more about Socionics and all aspects of the theory, I have a course.
@@WorldSocionics oh so socionics is about making money lol
@@Coneman3 If it didn't make any money, I wouldn't be able to justify spending my limited time doing it. I'd have to do something a lot less interesting to make money.
This was exemplary. I've seen this video before. But then I had only trace amounts of Socionics awareness. I've really doubled down on better understanding its workings, and have since concluded that I was LII all along. (Probably LII-Ti) With my new perception of things. I could clearly understand your explanation of the type, and feel eminently assured that LII is my type. Thank for making this video. 👍
Excellent video here, as I find as an INTj myself it is exactly how approach and view the world.
The finest definition of symmetry I have ever found, was Richard Feynman explaining how good theories are formulated. It was part of the Messenger lecture series if I remember right.
So spot on. I'm 37 now and that Mobilizing function is definitely kicking in
How does it show up for you?
This one makes the most sense to me, thanks
It's interesting how LII are better with Fi than with Se , when Se is more objective and reality based yet they still struggle to apply their Ti-Ne to supplement Se.
that they are an nt yet are still sensitive and can be very emotional
I really enjoyed that you Give Heart to NTs the Ravenclaws
you cant have a high iq and not have high empathy even if only cognitive empathy and not emotional empathy . Also imagination/ creativity, sensitivity and neurodivergence
good video
With your description of demonstrative Ni for INTJs, I wonder if a INTJ may somewhat mimic an INTP by detaching from the present situation when stressed or depressed, which may lead to mistype.
This was interesting. When you mention philosophy and even theology it was much easier for me to recognize myself. Usually only math and technologocal understanding is mentioned but I think that the quest for harmony and wholeness in much more important. How does it work and how is it related to everything else. I started asking why when I turned 3 and I have never stopped.
I can also recognise that struggle with belonging and the total inability to force things.
As a 77 year old women thank you very much for your explanation of of the INTJ. I have studied for years the cognitive stacking of INTJ, but your explanation so resonates with my thinking and behavior patterns.
I keep testing as ILE and ENTP, and this INTJ description describes my tendencies to a tee.
How do you find the ENTP video?
Good stuff!
I'd love to see some videos on how the different functions inform each other depending on where they are located. Perhaps a few practical examples and then navigate how the process flows through the functions. Does that make sense and are there such videos on youtube anywhere? Like how the typical social interaction would be processed through the functions. Or perhaps when considering to purchase a new car/computer.
I'm new to all this and I struggle to grasp it in my minds eye (build a workable model of it). Usually I have to put a lot of unrelated puzzle pieces on the table and slowly connect some pieces to form small islands before I find the pieces that links some of those islands together that then makes up larger continents and then the map starts to take shape from there. Can any INTJ/LII's recognize that way of processing? Is that what Ti/Ne looks like?
Thanks.
That kind of detail is available in my Socionics Course. For more information, please email worldsocionics@hotmail.com
What you describe is very consistent with an introverted, Ti oriented type.
excellent video
im ... stupid. intp because ti is subconsciously doing things, yet since i grew older i use ne to consciousness try to make me know why i do things and try to let my conscious run in front of my subcobscious so it doesnt get lost
In other words, if you're INTP (common name), you read up on LII INTj socionics.
This is like a British explaining the numerical value of a billion to an American.
Why do you think common understandings of INTP are coherent enough to map to anything else?
@@WorldSocionics
INTP (common name aka MBTI name)
INTj LII in socionics.
I'm still acquainting myself to socionics.
Hard to distinguish INTJ and ISTP sometimes.
Why?
@@gabriellucus2915 both introverted thinkers, and share valued perceiving functions - Ne/Si.
@@kevinvictor911 my bad duh right I was thinking mbti terms I got confused and projected that on to you .
INTJ is a Ti dom so all about what I think so INTJ constanty thinks, ISTP is Si dom so all about my senses so what I see, hear, smell, touch and taste. Which of these 2 questions are you more likely to use?: "How can you stop your thoughts and not think about anything?" (so if you try it then thoughts start to generate and you think about not thinking about anything :D so maybe you can't fall asleep because of this) or: "How can you not see reality? Reality is everywhere!"
A dominant function means that it's everywhere and you are probably the best at it, introverted function= it's your and it's objective, T= thinking, S= what is, what exists=> So are you the most T type or the most S type? Are you a thinker or a sensor?
These 2 types are hard to distinquish because ISTP (ISTJ in mbti) is known for following the rules and INTJ (INTP in mbti) is the logician but in math you follow the rules and they lead you to the 1 correct answer.
Wife is an INTJ and I am an INTP we are interested in learning how you have suggested they are reverse in leading function and parent role.
My Judger vs Perceiver video may help.
Great videos
MBTI: INTP Socionics: LII (INTj) Confused me at first.
So cool!
Very interesting
would love to see a Jack and Dario Nardi conversation:)
He'd have to unblock me first.
@@WorldSocionics oh dear - okay
Is there an easy way to discern a INTJ and an ENTP? I recognize myself very much in both descriptions.
probably not but you can think of these
a) in ILE the Ne Te Fe and Se are bold in LII its those that are cautious
b) Ni is bold in LII and ignored!!!! in ILE while Te is ignored in LII and its bold in ILE
you shouldnt see the ignored much
c) Se and Fe shouldnt show in LII really but will in ILE
Si and Fi will not show in ILE but will in LII
it should be possible to differ with all that in mind
or just watch jacks video on entp and compare
are you stronger in Fe or Si?
@@WorldSocionics I'm not entirely sure what would be considered strong or weak Fe or Si, but I'm not very emotive and I keep my emotions mostly to myself and I dislike others who are overtly emotive most of the time. I often feel other peoples emotions very strongly and I feel that people can be quite emotionally manipulative.
Regarding Si I still have difficulty understanding what exactly it entails. I was diagnosed with ADHD a few months back and for some reason I feel like it relates to Si/Se quite a bit... I hate to be pushed around by what I think I understand to be Se or Fe types. I tend to hyperfocus and pay close attention to details but I get very easily distracted.
Not sure if any of this helps?
@@Bibbzter666 sounds complex. Maybe a diagnostic interview could help.
Lower case 'J'
Lower case is for wimps
@@WorldSocionics??
@@user-vv6vf7mw9p milquetoast people who believe in staying in their lane and not challenging the typology status quo.
Keep it up Jack!
I think the problem with Socionics is that it keeps trying to cannabilze and assimilate the Myers Briggs system. Socionics just needs to be its own system instead of trying to "correct" another system. Just my 2 cents.
Why should the Myers Briggs still be around when Socionics improves upon it in every way?
1. Cause it provides a new perspective, food for thought 2. Cause its useful in a way its not popular for 3. Cause its a system thats pretty flexible and leaves a lotta room for individual interpretation. Each system has its own merits, which i dont like to discard
Either way i prefer socio over mbti, but diminishing one of its existence cause its more abstract and stupid aint neccessary
Its enough to keep them seperate and allow others to polish each individually
Dont hesitate to correct me if im missing something
@@Pako-ow3uo what is the food for thought, or new perspective, of MBTI? Isn't it a bit rudimentary for that?
What is it useful for?
Does Socionics not have flexibility? 4 of its functions are situational. Another 4 of its functions are flexible. How does MBTI improve upon this flexibility without just becoming an 'anything can be anything' phenomenon?
Also many people think Isaac Newton to be an ILI, but really he was an LII being very theoretical, and not as practical oriented as the former. He was an intense thinker and introspective, albeit he got into a few quibbles in the academic world.
As an LII do you find yourself to be at the same level as Sir Isaac Newton ?
Does your thoughts mirror his?
@@gabriellucus2915 In many way I do with regards to my intense interest in mathematics and philosophy like he was, albeit I would not consider myself to the great genius that he was.
@@sylviaowega3839 you enjoy math ?
Hmm do you like solving the problems or getting the result?
Is there a spiritual experience that comes with it ? Not super natural more like being in flow
@@gabriellucus2915 I enjoy most the process of solving problems in both, in philosophy and in mathematics. I was always very curious about searching and understanding certain truths.
There is certainly a spiritual aspect to becoming enlightened and understanding nature. I achieve a sense of transcending my mode of being and becoming one with the universe
@@sylviaowega3839 that's kinda beautiful
But isn't ti ne is actually the dominant & auxiliary functions of intp? This doesn't make sense to me, intj is the introverted intuitive thinker, and intp is the introverted thinker right?
this is socionics
@@eloy..
I know but when he said "this is the real intj" i messed up, btw is LII associated with intjs only?
Well, why would it make sense that a Judger should have iNtuition, an Irrational element, as their Dominant function?
It's MBTI convention that doesn't make sense.
@@WorldSocionics judgers in mbti theory has extroverted judging function, intjs has Te, esfjs has Fe etc ..and perceiving types has introverted judging function like intps has Ti, esfps has Fi etc..in socionics, i don't think a socionic type stands for one single mbti type, i e LII fits both intjs & intps an intj can be LII "logical intuitive introvert" when they has developed Ti , we all use the 8 functions you know, intjs has Ti as their critical parent but yes they can be LII if they developed Ti but being an LII doesn't make Ti their dom function cuz they may use Fi> Fe, Se> Si, Ni> Ne so their function stack is Ni Te Fi Se which stands for intjs, or they simply use Ti as their dom function so their mbti type is intp ( in my opinion i think intps fits LII better) , i am an intj who has LIE as his socionic type, i know that when someone see LIE they think of entjs, but for me i have a strong Te but that doesn't make it my dom function cuz Fi>Se , so if we balanced things a bit , my function stack will be Ni Te Fi Se , the idea is a socionic type doesn't stand for one mbti type it is all about balancing things, correct me if i'm wrong.
@@karla-kv9ru Yes, I know what the rule is for J/P in MBTI. My question is deeper... does the rule itself make any sense? Does it make sense to ignore the Dominant function and determine J/P from theAuxilary function for Introverts, under the very questionable belief that only extroverted functions determine your observable behaviour? It just doesn't stand up to scrutiny. It's not the case that only half our elements are externally observable. Extroversion is not simply 'what you can see in the outside world' and Introverted elements aren't some unfalsifiable inner thing no one can see.
Sounds like you may enjoy my next video coming out tomorrow. I'm doing ENTJ/LIE.
It's not that you're REALLY an INTJ though. It's that there is statistical multicollinearity between Introversion and Thinking in the MBTI, which leads to a distortive effect where many Extroverted Thinkers score as Introverts, and this is especially common for ENTJs who often score 'INTJ'. Similarly, a lot of 'ESFPs' are actually ISFP for the reverse reason.
Now, because of this effect and others, the way that profiles describe INTJ and ENTJ has been affected, with a lot of ENTJ going into INTJ and a lot of ESTP going into ENTJ. So, yes, because INTJ is often described wrongly, you will most likely prefer the INTJ profile when coming purely at it from MBTI literature.
I agree us LIIs seek to bring things/theories together.
LII Kant successfully brought the ideas of Descartes and Hume together.
As an LII I unsuccessfully tried to bring Socionics and mbti together. But failed because neither are clearly defined.
Socionics thinks it's clearly defined. But the many different schools that contradict one another dispell that idea.
Reminds me of the points TheEndlessKurtis made when he debated Jack about socionics not being a unified theory. Like Kurtis said, it’s not as simple as jack makes it when he says things like “this is how it works in socionics” as if he represents the theory as a whole. As well as the inaccuracies of claiming to be “classical socionics” when it’s far more complicated when one considers the difference between wss and original Agusta.
@@krux-The-Rat Jack has rigid +L creative that would like to think there is purely defined Socionic theory.
There are different takes on the theory, and you could even say that there are multiple theories of Socionics, but only one take can be correct. Which one is the correct one? If you say there is no 'correct' one, then which one develops the theory to have the greatest explanatory power and internal consistency?
There's also nothing inaccurate about calling a Model A-centric approach to Socionics "Classical Socionics". That's the only meaningful standard to use, as was demonstrated by the failure of the "whatever Ausra thought or may have thought" standard that Kurtis tried to use, which is self-contradictory because she changed her mind over time.
@WorldSocionics I like Model A. I just have a hunch that those thst use it define the information elements that get plugged into it in different ways. Which is why you can't translate Socionics into MBTI the way you can translate Greek into Latin.
And until there is a unified coherent way to translate Socionics into mbti I see both as less than a science.
Do you find yourself as an LII to share the same thoughts as Kant?
"focused on theoretical explorational space" yet you think they are judgers. ?
Yes, they judge what makes sense in theory.
Are you talking about INTP (MBTI)? INTP in MBTI is INTj in Socionics. So the type you are talking about here is actually INTP, right?
There is no MBTI INTP. It's an incoherent, inaccurate way of describing the INTJ of Jungian typology. An MBTI-centric perspective is exactly what I hope to shake you out of, because it's wrong and falls apart the more one logically interrogates it.
@@WorldSocionics but in MBTI, INTPs are the ones who have TiNe, not INTJ. I think I understood your point after reading some replies. You're saying INTJs are actually perceivers and INTPs are actually judging types.
I'm a lil confused. These are my questions:
1. Could you explain why MBTI and certain other systems use J instead of P and P instead of J?
2. Which of these two systems are being relied on more than the other for new theories and systems?
3. MBTI is based on Jungian analytical psychology. So is Socionics a very different system from Jung's? Looks so.
4. If I am INTj, that means I am INTP in MBTI bcuz I prefer TiNe according to MBTI. So how is MBTI wrong about Jungian typology? Are you saying they misinterpreted the difference between J vs P types or is it just a matter of the judging functions letters coming first and last? What's your logic here?
@mackennawilson Sort of, but the perspective I'm offering is not a simple P/J switch, but that there's just Jungian Type, and only one system can get closest to understanding Jungian type fully. MBTI is not simply a different system that has its own merits and internal logic. It has all sorts of internal contradictions. A lot of the MBTI descriptions of Jungian types are mishmashes rather than consistent sets of priorities and motivations, so they can't actually represent something real. It needs to be replaced by a better model for understanding Jungian type.
I have a video on here called Perceiving vs. Judging explained correctly that might help.
Correct title: "INTj - "Analyst" - LII - Not what you think it is"
Use of lower case is like an animal becoming nocturnal because it cannot compete in the daylight. It's inherently sub-optimal.
INTP in MBTI - if there are differences to Socionics, feel free to point me to a video which explains the differences
hello friend
shouldn't people know this already let's not be to inflexible without first finding common ground to create a solution , I don't agree with everything jack says and does but i know I like him regardless and he's still makes not only great points but useful , and way more than most so lets try to give him a little praise too
because he does know what he knows and im sure he doesn't run to your channel to contradict you right ? or does he friend
also whatever mistakes he makes people can just find your channel to compare and contrast
@@WorldSocionics What if someone used this logic to say that the red color of a stop light was like an animal becoming nocturnal because it cannot compete in the daylight, and they said that it not also being green was inherently sub-optimal?
This is a very Se-Fi view you're making here Jack, and I do think you are an ENTP. I think though that once you realize the treading you are doing on others, if capitalization is the issue, just reverse the order. The Russian MBTI version of an ISFJ, which leads with Si and then has Fe should be JFSI, which then literally leads with a judging function, having Fi and then Se.
Again though, great work in explaining the types. It's really top notch in that regard.
@@WorldSocionics Language isn't a competition. It's not correct or incorrect: it can't be, it's just labels. Language is an intrinsic collaboration between the two parties on mutually understood meaning of that string of sounds/markings on a page/series of hand gestures (even if those two parties are current you and future you when you write yourself a shopping list!), most usually relying heavily on standard conventions (and clarification where conventions break down or clash). A "chat" isn't any more correctly or usefully a friendly, informal chinwag or a fluffy, mewling, slightly aloof type of pet. The utility of either entirely depends on the mutual understanding of the participants, in this case maybe whether you're talking to Pierre in Paris or Penny in Portsmouth!
There are some conventions to use a term in the form of, say, LII to reference socionics type categories, and ones such as INTP to reference MBTI type categories. In so far as the two formats overlap, there's also a convention to use labels of the format INTj to reference labels of the MBTI format but where the final "dichotomy" is defined in a slightly different manner which leads to it being flipped wherever the label starts with 'I'. (And these three are all different methods of referring to the exact same ordering of cognitive functions!) In so far as these different labelling formats are commonly understood, they allow for people to understand different, if related, concepts by the use of each type of label.
It might be that you think you are speaking to an audience where INTJ is most commonly understood as referring to what I've described as INTj above. You might think you're metaphorically in Paris complaining about a "chat" stealing a fish from your windowsill. It may be of course that you are honestly mistaken, and you're actually in a conceptual Portsmouth and communication is thus thwarted (if you saw many comments questioning this labelling format, it might suggest this for instance). But if you *know* you're metaphorically in Portsmouth and are deliberately using "chat" to mean a bewhiskered house pet then that wouldn't be, couldn't be, any more optimal or more correct, but simply perversely non-Gricean, deliberately uncooperative.
+
Then say INTP instead, Mr. "Explained Correctly".
Why would a J dominant type be a P?
@@WorldSocionics Because of how the encoding works. IxxJs are perceiving types and ExxJs are judging types. Introversion flips what function you lead with, but preserves the blocks.
@@oflameo8927doesn't makes sense. If Ti dom intp mbti have search all possible theory and find best one and think that's truth, since his second is Ne, then he's perceiving? Nah. Dominant function is what creates persona, it's always first function because it's their first priority.