Personality Cafe banner
1 - 20 of 23 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,703 Posts
Discussion Starter · #1 ·
I mean this in a very specific way, the cognitive functions.

Here are two stereotypical descriptions of the INTP/INTJ:

INTP:

INTJ:

INTP:
Ti -> Dwelve deeply into a problem, considering it carefully from many angles to reach a conclusion that makes sense + hard to communicate.
Ne -> Broad abstract connections about the world around them.
Si -> Take in the world in a concrete sensory way.
Fe -> Connect emotionally with others and support their needs + INTP has problems with this, doesn't know how.

INTJ:
Ni -> Dense network of ideas in their head + hard to articulate.
Te -> Takes information from Ni (aka based on ideas) and use it to organise the world around them.
Fi -> Takes information from Ni and makes internal value judgments on it, to find their personal ethics + Hard to express. (Critical to understand the less logical parts of their life)
Se -> Takes in concrete information about the world around them + has problem with this often missing a lot of information.

Ok, now this may seem very different, but at least from my perspective are actually very similar when you try to put the pieces together, this is the main reason I can't find my type, they are so similar.

1) Ti and Ni, same thing different words. Both reach conclusions about things in their heads (for the "Ni only perceives" my arguments is that: 1) Show me the source not just your opinion, and 2) Because everybody makes judgment about the things they perceivice it happens at the same time, the only questin is "how", they are called beliefs.), both users may seem detached, both thinks about abstract things, both are hard to express. They are basically discribed as being the same thing, are there any differences between them at all ? I mean concrete stuff like: what does Ni do that Ti doesn't ? and what does Ti do that Ni doesn't ? or doesn't like ?

2) Ne and Ni. Ne is often described as "Broad abstract connections about the world around them.", Ni does the same, so where is the difference ? again concrete stuff, what does Ni do that Ne never does, and what does Ne do that Ni never does ? (And for the, "they are just tendencies not set in stone stuff" or "it's just a theory it doesn't have to happen all the time". They are supposed to be set in stone stuff, because the function stack is set in stone stuff INTJ uses dominant Ni and doesn't have as their primary functions Ne for a reason. INTP uses auxiliary Ne and doesn't have primary Ni for a reason, for a logical reason as far as the theory is concerned).

3) Se vs Si. Data ? Ok so they both work with concrete data, the difference is that Si actually "stores all this data for future use". This is not a difference, this is only something they usually say about Si and never mention about Se. So what is Se supposed to do with that information, they don't have memory ? they don't act on it ? What is that Se is doing and Si never does ? And Si does that Se never does ? And why they say that only Si stores data, Se doesn't ?

4) Fe vs Fi. Pleasing others vs Pleasing yourself. Not in a selfish way, but other's values vs your values. First of all, pleasing others is actually a descructive behaviour, we are thought to help others when needed but not to try to please other people before we please ourselves. What makes it very specific about the INTP vs INTJ thing, is that both are described as: being bad with expressing emotions. Does that mean that INTP doens't have his own value filter ? if so why isn't it described for the INTP and only for the INTJ's Fi ? Does that mean Fe never has personal values ? and that Fi never wants to help other people ? If so why isn't those mentioned for both Fi and Fe ?


Before dismissing it as "noob, you know nothing about MBTI", let go of your prejudice, read it, and see if it makes sense.


I want to take my case for example and take this cognitive functions descriptions to ilustrate that one man (not only myself simply can't just have half)

INTP:
Ti -> Dwelve deeply into a problem, considering it carefully from many angles to reach a conclusion that makes sense + hard to communicate.
Ne -> Broad abstract connections about the world around them.
Si -> Take in the world in a concrete sensory way.
Fe -> Connect emotionally with others and support their needs + INTP has problems with this, doesn't know how.

INTJ:
Ni -> Dense network of ideas in their head + hard to articulate.
Te -> Takes information from Ni (aka based on ideas) and use it to organise the world around them.
Fi -> Takes information from Ni and makes internal value judgments on it, to find their personal ethics + Hard to express. (Critical to understand the less logical parts of their life)
Se -> Takes in concrete information about the world around them + has problem with this often missing a lot of information.


1) I have a lot of internal personal ideas and abstractions in my head. Could be both Ni or Ti.
2) I make abstract connections in the world. Is Ne, isn't Ni.

(Based on them I make my abstraction, I don't see how else one would make it, therefore I don't see how Ni is supposed to make it since Ne is the one making the broad abstract connections in the world. So logically, it's opposite atttiude won't do that otherwise it wouldn't be mentioned only for Ne)

3) I do have 5 senses.Both Si and Se. And I do store information. Si
4) I like to help others and connect emotionally with people sometimes but I don't do so all the time. Fe.
5) I make decisions based on my ideas (what I think it's true). Te.
6) I make decisions based on what I think it's important. Fi

So why I am ? Or perhaps some better questions would be: [SUP]Tatatatam[/SUP]

A) Can any human being on this planet not have certain ideas in their head ?
(The answer is no, but this is both valid for Ni and Ti so I won't mention that, but if the case was an INFP, Ne + Te, he would have no ideas in his head, based on the descriptions I'm not making any interpretations).
B) Can anyone not make abstract connection in the world ? (Ni anyone ?)
C) Can anyone not try to store information ? Memory (Se anyone ?)
D) Can anyone not make any decisions based on what he believe in, whether these are ideas or values ?
(Ti anyone ? because apparently, only Te is supposed to do that, same goes for the Ni and Se case.)
E) Can anyone not make personal values decisions any only follow the crowd trying to please others (Fe anyone ?)

Any thoughts ? On the subject I mean.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,892 Posts
IMO, one big difference. For you, which side do you come down on? Which is more important to you, the system or the facts that make up the system? The INTJs I know tend to be a tad more externally oriented in how they want their ideas to come to fruition, whereas the INTPs tend to be "I have this great idea!" and that's it. Bringing their ideas to fruition is much harder, whereas INTJs I know tend to _need_ to bring their ideas to reality, and tend to be a bit more "pushy" at it. My wife is involved with a small group of ladies who created something. There are three theoretical ladies who talk a lot, and who have really formulated and "matured" the concepts. I know them, they are definitely INTPs. And there is one more lady--an INTJ. She's the de facto leader who can truly be credited for bringing their work to reality. She is a machine when she gets going. I would also say this. Her ideas tend to be more disjointed and scattered (Ni), whereas my wife (one of the INTPs) is very, very organized, precise and "tight" in her logic internally, but is very bad at bringing her ideas to fruition. The problem is that both types like logical order, but the real difference is _where_ that order must reside. For the INTP, it's internally, but for the INTJ, it's more externally. I would guess that the INTJ is chaos internally, but ordered externally--at least in their areas of expertise.

I'm just an observer of actions and words, so I can't really give you much more. BTW, I wouldn't say that an INTP's Ti concepts are difficult to communicate. My wife has never, ever struggled with that. The main problem she has is an _unwillingness_ to communicate what she's thinking. Most of the time, she simply doesn't see the value. She is very precise--extremely so--some would say pedantic, even. I would add that the internal order she has--man... mind-blowing!

Oh, saying that reminds me of something... Celebritytypes has a fascinating article in their members area on the difference between NTPs and NTJs, and the difference between knowing and willing. He probably says things better than I do...

Here's a summary of the article:


In the Knowing mode:


We aspire to let the whole of our own consciousness be determined by the external object. Thus our motives are neatly aligned with Ne.
We wish merely to discover the object on its own terms, without taking sides or deploying it for any specific purpose. We employ a mode of inquiry where, ideally and in the final respect, we do not even require a consciousness to be conscious of the object. Hence this mode of attention blends well with Ti.
We are more at ease if an object of consciousness is already existent and agreed upon, prior to our engagement with it. These properties of the object are soothing to Fe and Si.
But in the Willing mode:


We invariably let the external object be determined by our consciousness of it, which is akin to Ni.
We push for specific goals and outcomes; goals that may make considerable and skillful use of external facts, but which are ultimately given precedence (i.e. one goal is pursued over another) by the means of our personal consciousness, thus allowing the exerciser of Te.
We crave freedom from the already existing and the communally agreed upon, which speaks to the fancies of Fi and Se over those of Fe and Si. We want to arrive at results that are iconoclastic and seminally new; not a brilliant reorganization of an already existing body of knowledge (as in the case of the NTPs).
We are preoccupied with the aspirations of our personal consciousness and thus cannot be self-forgetful.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,491 Posts
For my take on the silly notion that moving from J to P flips all your functions, see this post.

And for a long recycled-reckful roundup on J/P, see the spoiler.

 
1. The J/P dichotomy

 
The first thing to note about J/P is that — contrary to what you sometimes hear from forum posters and other internet sources who overemphasize the "functions" at the expense of the "dichotomies" — J/P is not only about whether the (purported) extraverted function in your top two is a judging function (T or F) or a perceiving function (S or N). As a side note, and as Myers acknowledged, most Jung scholars believe (and I agree) that Jung thought the auxiliary function would have the same attitude as the dominant function, not the opposite attitude, and you can (if you're interested) read more about that in this post. But setting that issue aside and accepting Myers' opposite-attitudes dom/aux model — which certainly dominates MBTI internet forums — Myers also characterized J/P as a separate dimension of personality and, in fact, the chapter in Gifts Differing on the "Effect of the JP Preference" is the longest of the four chapters devoted to the dichotomies.

As you probably know, the official MBTI — like virtually all dichotomy-based MBTI tests — types you J or P based on certain personality characteristics common to J's and P's, rather than by making any determination about the attitude of one of your "cognitive functions." And it appears that the J/P dimension is essentially (albeit with some theoretical variation) tapping into the Big Five Conscientiousness dimension. Consistent with all that, if I'm trying to figure out whether someone's a J or a P, I focus on the characteristics associated with J's and P's — as well as characteristics associated with combinations like NJ and SJ and TJ — rather than on anybody's cognitive functions model.

As a final introductory note, I think youth has at least some tendency to exert what you might call a P-ward tug, and that N's (NJs and NPs both) can have a tendency to feel somewhat rebellious and free-spirited when they compare themselves to the SJs that often make up a substantial percentage of the adults they deal with — e.g., high school teachers and (especially) administrators. The J preference is one that, especially if it's mild, may not really come into what you might call "full bloom" until a person is a bit older. A student may well feel like they have all the structure they need (and maybe more) imposed on them from outside. After a J's been out of school for a couple years, I suspect it's not uncommon to discover (as I did) that there's more damn J in there than they might have realized. So if a school-age person feels like they're more or less in-the-middle on J/P, that somewhat inclines me to think that they may actually be more or less in-the-middle or they may have a mild J preference, but that it's maybe unlikely that they've got a substantial P preference.

Here's a J/P sorter I put together a while ago. You can see how you respond:

How do you react to the word "spontaneous"?

P: It's got a magical ring to it. Most of my friends would describe me as spontaneous.

J: I'm allergic to spontaneous. Quit trying to distract me.


J's have a tendency to feel that if you just leave the world to its own devices and let things happen, mediocrity is likely to result (if not chaos or something worse). If you want to have a good/meaningful experience, achieve good results, etc., it behooves you to plan/structure/filter the world. J's err on the side of taking their responsibilities too seriously, can tend to be worrywarts, are more likely to show up a little early to things than significantly late, and will tend to get out of sorts if their plans get changed at the last minute. Keirsey notes that J's tend to embody a "work ethic" rather than a "play ethic." And J's tend to be strong-willed — domineering if they're extraverts, and stubborn if they're introverts.

P's are more likely to feel (or at least want to believe) that things tend to happen for a reason and have a way of working out for the best. If you plan/structure/filter too much, you're liable to get so caught up in your own net that you'll miss out on a lot of good stuff that you would have experienced if you'd let yourself drift/wander more freely, open to respond, moment by moment, to whatever the world throws your way. P's can err on the side of taking their responsibilities too lightly, are more carefree than worrying, tend to run late, and are good at adapting to — and, in fact, may welcome, not to mention cause — last-minute changes to plans. P's tend to embody a "play ethic" rather than a "work ethic." And P's tend to be less strong-willed (more easygoing and flexible) than J's.​

----------------------------------------------------------------

Here's some of the J/P table that Briggs prepared and Myers included in Gifts Differing:

JP
Live according to plans, standards, and customs not easily or lightly set aside, to which the situation of the moment must, if possible, be made to conform.Live according to the situation of the moment and adjust themselves easily to the accidental and the unexpected.
Make a very definite choice among life's possibilities, but may not appreciate or utilize unplanned, unexpected, and incidental happenings.Frequently masterful in their handling of the unplanned, unexpected, and incidental, but may not make an effective choice among life's possibilities.
Rational, they depend upon reasoned judgments ... to protect them from unnecessary or undesirable experiences.Empirical, they depend on their readiness for anything and everything to bring them a constant flow of new experience—much more than they can digest or use.
Like to have matters settled and decided as promptly as possible, so that they will know what is going to happen and can plan for it and be prepared for it.Like to keep decisions open as long as possible before doing anything irrevocable, because they don't know nearly enough about it yet.
Take real pleasure in getting something finished, out of the way, and off their minds.Take great pleasure in starting something new, until the newness wears off.
Inclined to regard the perceptive types as aimless drifters.Inclined to regard the judging types as only half-alive.
Aim to be right.Aim to miss nothing.
Self-regimented, purposeful, and exacting.Flexible, adaptable, and tolerant.

----------------------------------------------------------------

Notwithstanding the fact that Lenore Thomson's perspective is more function-centric than dichotomy-centric, she devotes a chapter of Personality Type: An Owner's Manual to "The Fourth Type Category." She notes that J's "prefer structure; will organize time and efforts to meet goals and deadlines," while P's "resist structure; may not start a project until motivated by the arrival of a deadline." She says J's "are responsible, firm, true to their word, but may be unwilling to change, even when things are going badly," while P's "are curious, adaptable, masters of improvisation, but may not follow through or stick to something very long." She says J's "can be controlling — may take authority instinctively, certain they know what needs to be done," while Ps "can be reckless — may not consider risks or time constraints when drawn to something exciting." And Thomson also discusses "the P/J split in pop culture," citing Felix and Oscar in The Odd Couple as one example.

2. J/P and obligations

 
As already noted, the Big Five dimension that corresponds to J/P is most often referred to as Conscientiousness. To quote most of the first paragraph of the Wikipedia article:

Conscientiousness is one trait of the five-factor model of personality, and ... is manifested in characteristic behaviors such as being efficient, organized, neat, and systematic, also including such elements as self-discipline, carefulness, thoroughness, self-organization, deliberation (the tendency to think carefully before acting), and need for achievement. Conscientious individuals are generally hard working and reliable. When taken to an extreme, they may also be "workaholics," perfectionists, and compulsive in their behavior. People who score low on conscientiousness tend to be more laid back, less goal-oriented, and less driven by success; they also are more likely to engage in antisocial and criminal behavior.
The "compulsion" element is interesting. Here's a study that suggests that OCPD (obsessive-compulsive personality disorder) may "represent a maladaptive variant of normal range conscientiousness." (As a side note, in case you're unfamiliar with OCPD, it is not to be confused with its substantially more "disordered" cousin, OCD.) I'd say my J preference is quite strong and I'll admit that, when I read at least some parts of OCPD descriptions, I think to myself, OK, I am definitely not that bad, but... I can relate.

I think it may be fair, at least to some extent, to view the conscientiousness aspect of a J preference as arising from something of a gut-level compulsion to meet your obligations. It's not that a J doesn't have free will, or that a J never shirks a responsibility, and it's not that a P isn't perfectly capable of living up to their obligations, but it seems to me that at least part of what causes a J preference to correlate with reliability and punctuality and a P preference to correlate with a greater tendency to shirk is that, for a P, whether to perform or shirk is more a matter of free intellectual choice, with less of anything like a gut-level tug that would make it what you might call internally uncomfortable to shirk. Describing J's as people who "wear their responsibilities heavily" and P's as people who "wear their responsibilities lightly" is another way to capture the same difference, and again, it's not so much a matter of ultimate behavioral performance (the world is full of P's who you can pretty much count on to meet their important obligations) as a matter of what's going on at the gut level — although it's hardly surprising that there turn out to be significant behavioral correlations, at least if you're talking about people in whom the relevant preference is reasonably strong.

But note: Does this mean a J enjoys having obligations and responsibilities? Speaking as a strong J, I'd say, for the most part: hell, no. In fact, and to some degree, I think the fact that my obligations tend to weigh as heavily on me as they do can make me more reluctant — at least in some cases — to take them on in the first place. More than once, in the course of internet forum discussions, I've seen ENFPs called out for their tendency to run late and heard ENFPs defend themselves on the ground that, yeah, but it's because we want to do too much and have trouble saying no and end up with too many things on our plates. And one of the people I know best in this world is a strong-P ENFP and that fits her to a T. She means well, and she basically wants to fulfill her obligations — although nobody who knew us would have much trouble deciding which of us is better described as dutiful. But failing to meet a responsibility — whether it's missing a deadline and getting it done late or ending up having to duck it completely, and especially if she feels like it wasn't really her fault (including because of her own overfilling of her plate) — really doesn't mortify her the way it mortifies me (on those spectacularly rare occasions when, for some reason, I fail to perform). Hell, failing to meet an obligation mortifies me even if I have what anybody would agree is a bulletproof excuse and I shouldn't feel bad. And anytime I've arguably got too much on my plate — and even though there's a possibility I'll manage to get it all done on time — I'm still going to be in an uncomfortable state, while my ENFP friend is much better at saying hey, I'm only human, and I'm going to do my best, and what gets done, gets done. And so... circling back to the start of the paragraph, the result is that, in some cases at least, you may find a conscientious J acting more responsibility-averse — in terms of their willingness to pile another task on their plate — than a less-conscientious P. Being a J doesn't mean that you like to be obligated so much as that, to the extent that you have an obligation, you're likely to experience a stronger (relative to a P) temperamental compulsion to fulfill it (and fulfill it on time).

Speaking for myself, I'd describe a perfect day as a weekend day where I wake up with no responsibilities on my plate. No work, no errands: nothing. Because even if there are only a couple tasks on the day's to-do list and they're only likely to take an hour or so to get done, I'm still likely to experience those tasks as a little cloud hanging over my day until I freaking get them done. Then I can relax and enjoy whatever other stuff I decide to do to a greater degree than I would if the day's chores were still unfinished. (The classic "work first, play later" mentality.)

Let's say you've got a bunch of stuff that you're responsible for getting done next week, and you think it might be more than a week's worth of stuff. And let's say it's not really your fault that you're in that position. Are you more the type to, if anything, err on the side of letting your responsibilities weigh too heavily on you, and worry and maybe lose sleep about being "out of control" in that scenario even though you know worrying doesn't do any good? And in any case, under those circumstances, are you likely to pretty much spend every waking hour tending to your responsibilities? Or are you more the type to, if anything, err on the side of taking your responsibilities a little too lightly, and have an attitude more like my ENFP friend — hey, I'm only human, and I'm going to work reasonably hard this week, and if I end up missing a deadline, it won't be the end of the world? For that matter, might we even find you scheduling some play time for yourself at some point that week, despite the risk that it'll increase the amount that you don't get done on time?

3. Rovers and sitters

 
I noted in my J/P sorter that J's are more likely than P's to be worrywarts, but I also think that's a good example of a personality characteristic (and there are many) that more than one of the MBTI dimensions can contribute to, each in its own way. I'd say how much of a risk-averse worrier someone tends to be is something that being Limbic — i.e., above-average in neuroticism (the Big Five dimension that lacks a corresponding MBTI dimension) — is likely to contribute to, and that introversion can also contribute to. A June 2011 OpEd piece by Susan Cain in the New York Times described an experiment involving impulsive and cautious fish ("rovers" and "sitters"), and here's a bit of it:

Susan Cain said:
We even find "introverts" in the animal kingdom, where 15 percent to 20 percent of many species are watchful, slow-to-warm-up types who stick to the sidelines (sometimes called "sitters") while the other 80 percent are "rovers" who sally forth without paying much attention to their surroundings. Sitters and rovers favor different survival strategies, which could be summed up as the sitter's "Look before you leap" versus the rover's inclination to "Just do it!" ...

In an illustrative experiment, David Sloan Wilson, a Binghamton evolutionary biologist, dropped metal traps into a pond of pumpkinseed sunfish. The "rover" fish couldn't help but investigate — and were immediately caught. But the "sitter" fish stayed back, making it impossible for Professor Wilson to capture them. Had Professor Wilson's traps posed a real threat, only the sitters would have survived. ...

Next, Professor Wilson used fishing nets to catch both types of fish; when he carried them back to his lab, he noted that the rovers quickly acclimated to their new environment and started eating a full five days earlier than their sitter brethren. In this situation, the rovers were the likely survivors. "There is no single best ... [animal] personality," Professor Wilson concludes, ... "but rather a diversity of personalities maintained by natural selection."
Cain, as you may know, is the author of the best-selling Quiet: The Power of Introverts, and I'd say she errs in framing the rover/sitter duality exclusively in E/I terms. The most well-established Big Five test (McCrae & Costa's NEO-PI-R) breaks Conscientiousness — i.e., J/P — down into six "facets," and one of those facets is called Deliberation. As McCrae and Costa explain: "Deliberation is the tendency to think carefully before acting. High scorers on this facet are cautious and deliberate. Low scorers are hasty and often speak or act without considering the consequences. At best, low scorers are spontaneous and able to make snap decisions when necessary." And decades of both MBTI and Big Five data have pretty clearly established that E/I and J/P are essentially independent dimensions of personality.

So, again, I'm inclined to say that the J/P dimension and the neuroticism dimension (which includes anxiety-proneness) are also meaningful contributors to the rover/sitter duality — in people, at least — but I'd also say that viewing E/I as a contributor is consistent with most MBTI sources and, in any case, I think it's probably fair to say that the most impulsive, bold, plunge-right-in types are the Calm EPs and the most cautious, look-before-you-leap, think-before-you-speak, worry-prone types are the Limbic IJs (like me).

I also think frugality is something that both I and J can contribute to, with IJs tending to be the most frugal types and EPs at the other end of the spectrum.

4. Difficult decisions

 
As previously noted, one of the rows in the J/P table in Gifts Differing declares that J's "like to have matters settled and decided as promptly as possible," while P's "like to keep decisions open as long as possible," and I think that's true as far as it goes, but I'm less willing to accept the arguably-related idea — not infrequently encountered on the internet — that J's generally find it easier to make decisions than P's.

Although, all other things being equal, I'd agree that J's have more of a core drive to have something settled, I'd also say that, if it's an important decision, and if it's the kind of decision that could, from an objective standpoint, turn out to have been the right decision or the wrong decision, a J is not very likely to make what most people would consider a rushed judgment — and I think that, partly due to other aspects of their overall MBTI temperament, that's arguably more true of INTJs than some of the other J types. And as a side note — and, again, assuming it's an important decision — I wouldn't say INTJs are notable sinners in the sense of being likely to stick with a decision and refuse to reconsider it in the face of new facts or evidence that it isn't working out well.

And now let's focus on the most horrible kinds of decisions everybody faces in life — namely, really big life decisions where there probably is no such thing as a right answer, or at least no way to confidently determine it in advance (and maybe not in hindsight either). For those kinds of decisions — law school or film school; career or employer choices; buying a house — I disagree with the idea that a J is significantly less likely to agonize over one of those decisions, or feel really "at sea" about one of those decisions, than a P. In fact, I think there are reasons to think an average J may tend to agonize more about one of those life decisions. For one thing, because of a J's greater drive to have things settled, it's arguably more important to a J to feel like whatever decision they make will turn out to have been the right one. A P is at least somewhat more likely to be OK with viewing their decision as tentative, and to be more comfortable with the notion that, oh well, if Plan A doesn't work out, they can always switch to Plan B and give that a try.

As a final note, I think an INTJ may be more prone to overagonize about a big life decision than at least some of the other types because an INTJ is more prone to overanalyze than some other types. An INTJ is probably more inclined than most types (although not more than INTPs, I wouldn't say) to feel like, if they just think about the decision long enough, and gather enough information, etc., dammit, they'll hopefully end up figuring it out — or, in any case, that the more INT-ish analysis they do, the more likely it will be that they'll make the right decision. You'd expect an ESTP, by contrast, to be somewhat more likely to be the one who throws up his hands at some point and says, "Who the hell knows? Flip a coin."

5. INTJ's as doers

 
It's not uncommon to hear INTPs say, in the course of forum INTJ vs. INTP discussions, that INTPs are happy to be slackers who just think about stuff and INTJs are "doers" with a core drive to be racking up actual accomplishments in the outside world. But, although there may be a kernel of truth there, I'd say E and S both have substantially more to do with whether someone craves external-world results than J does. An INTJ can be quite content to learn about things, and master skills, that the INTJ isn't likely to be putting to much (if any) real-world use, and I'd point to my longstanding MBTI dweebishness as one anecdotal example.

Compared to INTPs, INTJs may be doers. But, compared to most other types, INTJs are theorizer/analysts who are more likely to err on the side of neglecting the practical-application side. Here are Keirsey & Bates, from Please Understand Me, talking about all NTs:

Power fascinates the NT. Not power over people, but power over nature. To be able to understand, control, predict, and explain realities. ... These forms of power, however, are but means to an end, the end best expressed by the word competence. So it is not exactly power that the NT wants but rather competencies, capabilities, abilities, capacities, skills, ingenuity — repertoire.

The NT loves intelligence, which means: doing things well under varying circumstances. The extreme NT can even be seen as addicted to acquiring intelligence, hooked on storing up wisdom. ...

"Wanting to be competent" is not a strong enough expression of the force behind the NT's quest. He must be competent. There is urgency in his desire; he can be obsessed by it and feel a compulsion to improve, as if caught in a force field.​

And again, to the extent that I was inclined to distinguish NTs with a drive to put their "repertoire" to actual use from NTs who are more content to just build up the repertoire for the sheer love of repertoire, I'd say that's substantially more of an ENT/INT distinction than an NTJ/NTP distinction.

You may have heard it said that, because of INTJs' relatively asocial nature, most people's significant contacts with INTJs are limited to the work setting. That seems right to me. And most work involves actually getting stuff done in the world. And INTJs tend to take their work responsibilities really seriously, and take deadlines really seriously. So most INTJs at work are doers, to a substantial degree, because that's what they're getting paid for. (Most INTPs at work are doers, too, for that matter, but I wouldn't disagree that, on average, they're arguably more reluctant doers than the dutiful INTJs.)

Put an INTJ and INTP side by side and, on average, you could say the INTP will be the more impractical, head-in-the-clouds ponderer. But put an INTJ in a work setting dominated by SJs (I speak from experience), and the INTJ will be seen as the impractical, head-in-the-clouds ponderer. The INTJ will be the one who the SJs view as too unwilling to cut corners on a project for the sake of budget or time constraints, or deviate from what he views as the "right way" for the project to be because of pesky client demands — because the INTJ will be the dweeby one whose primary loyalty is to the quality of the project itself, rather than to the practical context surrounding it.

Give me a challenging project to do — hopefully one that involves learning and/or devising significantly new things — and give me the time to do it right and I'm a happy INTJ. If the client goes bankrupt the day after I finish and the project never gets put to practical use, I couldn't care less.

Finally, and in case you're interested, here's a study that found that INTJs were more likely to want to retire early than most other types. As compared to the other 14 types, I'd say that both INTJs and INTPs can fairly be described as people content to spend much of their lives inside their own heads.

6. Punctuality and procrastination

 
First, as an introduction to the punctuality issue, let me mention the neatness issue. Internet forumites inclined to badmouth the MBTI (or the J/P dichotomy in particular) as a collection of superficial stereotypes often point to the notion that J's are neat and P's are messy and roll their eyes. And it's true that, to a large degree, neat/messy isn't a very good J/P indicator, especially if you're talking about NJs and NPs. Neatness, to the extent that it functions as at least a half-decent type indicator, is more of an SJ thing than a general J thing. But FYI, there are no J/P items on the official "Step I" MBTI that relate to neatness.

Punctuality, on the other hand... can be an excellent J/P indicator. Not a definitive indicator, and that's first and foremost because it's generally a mistake to take any one personality-related characteristic as definitive with respect to any of the MBTI preferences. That said, though, if you're talking about one of those people who's almost never late to anything — and in fact, is much more likely to be somewhat early, because they habitually allow extra time for unexpected delays — that's not a bad J indicator. And if you're talking about one of those people who's chronically late to things, that's actually a substantially stronger P indicator than almost-never-lateness is a J indicator. Why the asymmetry? Because it makes more sense to look to temperament if you're trying to explain why somebody has a tendency to err in one direction or the other than if the attitude or behavior in question is something that pretty much just makes sense from a rational perspective, regardless of anybody's "personality type." It's not that hard to imagine a P — and especially a mild P — with somewhat of a temperamental tendency to run late eventually learning their lesson and adjusting their attitudes and practices to compensate for the temperamental tugs, with the result that they end up being reliably J-like in the on-time department. By contrast, why would a J with a temperamental tendency to be on time want to willfully adjust their attitudes and practices to be habitually late?

----------------------------------------------------------------

It's not uncommon to find forum type-me subjects giving themselves P points because they consider themselves procrastinators. But procrastinating things you'd rather not be doing is really more of a human nature thing than a P thing. I'd say a tendency to procrastinate should only get somebody P points if they're someone who's not unlikely to procrastinate things to the point that it ends up having a significant negative impact — from missing the deadline, to meeting the deadline but only because they did an overly-hasty job, to keeping somebody waiting, etc.

If the great majority of somebody's procrastination just consists of "putting off until tomorrow" those things that really can wait until tomorrow (even though they might feel better about themselves if they did them today), that's not really a significant P indicator.

7. J/P misc.

 
I think J/P's a duality where it's common for people on either side to wish they had at least a little more of what's on the other side. Talking to a J who was reading The Tao of Pooh, I pointed out that it's J's that read books to help them learn to loosen up and go with the flow. P's read books about how to get some damn discipline and organization into their lives. The going-with-the-flow bit comes naturally to them. :p

As I said in my J/P sorter, J also correlates with being strong-willed, which may more characteristically manifest itself as stubbornness in an introvert — rather than the bossiness you're more likely to get with an EJ. In any case, whether I or E, I'd say J's tend to be the types you're least likely to want to get in an argument with. Would you say your friends would be more likely to describe you as stubborn or easygoing?

I think of NJ as the know-it-all combination. When you're talking about a subject you really think you understand, and you're talking to someone who knows less than you do, would you say you have something of a tendency to want to sound like an "authority" on the subject — and that others might say you sometimes come off as a know-it-all — or would you say you have more of a tendency to express yourself modestly, even when you're talking about something where you really are something of an authority? Does your tone tend to have more of a "this is what I think" flavor or more of a "let me enlighten you" flavor?

If you're involved in some kind of debate, would you say there's a significant risk you'll err on the side of taking yourself too seriously or getting too caught up in having to be right — with the result that you may end up talking as if you're surer of yourself than you really are or overstating what you know — or are you more likely to take a playful, easygoing attitude toward the debate, and state your position in a more modest or exploratory way (even if you really know what you're talking about)? When you're arguing vigorously about something, do people sometimes accuse you of being angry, even though, as you try to explain to them, you're "not angry"? (I think that's kind of an NJ thing, although more likely for an NTJ than an NFJ.)

Speaking of INTJs vs. INTPs in particular (NFs can skip this paragraph): If there are two N types I'm most inclined to associate with a "life is a game" attitude, it's the NTPs. And it's something of an internet forum cliché, in my experience, that if there's a single MBTI type most often associated with treating debates/discussions/etc. as games and being willing to take insincere positions, throw things out just to get a reaction, bullshit people and so on, it's the ENTP. By contrast, I think a typical INTJ engaged in a debate — especially if it's an issue they care much about or think there's a right and wrong perspective on — is more likely to come off as earnestly authentic, and demonstrate a drive to not only let people know what they really think, but also to try to change the mind of anybody who doesn't understand or otherwise has the wrong view. INTPs are one letter away from ENTPs and one letter away from INTJs but, in this case, I think it's the J/P that makes the most difference — making INTPs more like ENTPs than INTJs in this regard. So if somebody's significantly more inclined to treat a debate as an opportunity to enlighten the misguided than a coolly intellectual sport where they're happy to take either side, I'd say that's probably worth a point or two on the J side.

BUT NOTE: As a point of clarification: I think it's pretty characteristic for an INTJ to have at least a mild wiseass streak. And if that seems arguably inconsistent with my description of INTJs' tendency to be earnest in debates, I'd say the explanation is that, when an INTJ is being a joker, you know it (I'd say an INTJ will tend to be more disinclined to troll), and also that, as I said, if there's a debate going on and it concerns an issue the INTJ has a strong view on, the INTJ is more likely than the INTP to exhibit an unmistakably serious/sincere desire to change their opponent's mind.

Back on the planful/impulsive side of J/P, think about being at a store and walking past an unexpected sale item that's something you might buy on occasion but wasn't part of today's plans. My strong-P ENFP friend is a total sucker for those, and likes stores where the merchandise rotates quite a lot and you're likely to find a surprise or two if you're a browsy shopper. But even on a trip to an ordinary grocery store where she's not really in browse mode, if an aisle display grabs her attention — and especially if it's kind of a fun item — she's likely to treat it as if the universe just sent her a message. Sold! My temperament, on the other hand, resists that kind of surprise — even if it's something that I'd enjoy and could probably be persuaded to buy if my friend was along and I considered it a bit. My gut has a default negative response to anything not on the agenda, as if the universe is trying to pull a fast one on me and/or distract me from the task at hand.

Going back to the MBTI's roots, Jung viewed temperament as the source of people's crazinesses and difficulties as much as their strengths — and I definitely think it makes sense to look to temperament to explain some of the things anybody does that fail to perfectly match the circumstances. If a J and a P are each about to make an important phone call, they're both perfectly capable of writing out a list of points they want to make on the call — or planning/rehearsing some of the most important things they want to say. But if they err significantly in the planning department, a strong J is more likely to err on the side of over-planning the call (which is not likely to hurt the call, but may waste a fair amount of time), while a strong P is more likely to err on the side of under-planning the call — saying, "Screw it, let's do this" a bit too soon, and over-relying on their ability to successfully improvise "in the moment." To the extent that you sometimes fail to get the J/P balance right, are you more likely to overdo or underdo in the structure/planning department? If you're hosting a party, are you likely to be the kind of host who's so conscientiously focused on the planning/managing that it's hard for you to relax and enjoy the party, or is it more likely you'll drop the ball on a few things but take a back seat to no one in the party spirit department?

The world is full of relationships (both romantic relationships and friendships) where one person is more J than the other — maybe a strong J while the other is a P or more in the middle; or maybe in the middle while the other is a well-defined P. Whenever the difference is pronounced, the two people can tend to bring out — and sometimes accentuate — the difference in the other party. A teenage mild J who's somewhat mischievous and/or otherwise P-ish when reacting to and interacting with her SJ parents or school authorities may find herself in semi-"parental" mode when she's interacting with a strongly P friend. Or a woman who's a very mild P (or pretty much in the middle) with a boyfriend who's a strong J may end up being more P-ish in her interactions with her overly-uptight boyfriend (playing the child, playing the fool, leaning on him to take care of responsibilities) than she would if she was on her own, or especially than she would if she had a strongly-P boyfriend. If you've been involved in any relationships where this kind of dynamic came into play, would you say you've almost always found yourself on one particular side? Or have you been on both sides, with different people?

As already noted, I thinks it's reasonably clear that J/P is essentially tapping into the same underlying personality dimension as the Big Five Conscientiousness factor, and the most well-known version of the Big Five is McCrae & Costa's NEO-PI-R. The NEO-PI-R breaks down each of the factors into six facets, and here are the six Conscientiousness facets, with some of McCrae & Costa's descriptions:

  • Competence: "This facet refers to the sense that one is capable, sensible, prudent, and effective. High scorers on this scale feel well prepared to deal with life."
  • Order: "High scorers on this scale are neat, tidy, and well organized. They keep things in their proper places. ... Carried to an extreme, high Order might contribute to compulsive personality traits."
  • Dutifulness: "In one sense, conscientiousness means 'governed by conscience,' and that aspect of Conscientiousness is assessed as Dutifulness. High scorers on this scale adhere strictly to their ethical principles and scrupulously fulfill their moral obligations."
  • Achievement Striving: "Individuals who score high on this facet have high aspiration levels and work hard to achieve their goals. ... Very high scorers, however, may invest too much in their careers and become workaholics."
  • Self-Discipline: "This term means the ability to begin tasks and carry them through to completion despite boredom and other distractions."
  • Deliberation: "Deliberation is the tendency to think carefully before acting. High scorers on this facet are cautious and deliberate. Low scorers are hasty and often speak or act without considering the consequences."
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
745 Posts
For my take on the silly notion that moving from J to P flips all your functions, see this post.
In regards to this post...

While impressively well thought out, your post seems to undermine what the cognitive functions actually do. Yeah, on the surface INTJs and INTPs, or INFJs and INFPs look incredibly similar. Hence the grouping in their respective temperaments. The reason people confuse them so much is because they look at these types in a stereotypical sense. To the untrained eye, they can look exactly the same in a lot of ways. They see that INTJs and INTPs both think about things logically, both very introverted, impersonal and detached, etc. The whole "P vs J depending on how messy my room is" posts are asinine and totally ignore how these respective types reach conclusions and how they process information. If you actually look at how these two types recall information, you can see many fundamental differences between them.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
745 Posts
It seems like you created your own incredibly concise descriptions of the functions as you interpret them and then used it to further categorize yourself. Your descriptions of all the functions are incredibly vague, and you have to remember that when certain functions are paired together, it influences a person's thoughts/behavior.

For example, Ne and Ti will look slightly different in an ENTP and INTP because of the order. An ENTP will trust their Ne and process all the boring stuff later, not worrying about all the logical "kinks" that might come along. Whereas an INTP will trust their Ti and determine whether their ideas or connections are logically sound first, before expanding on the idea further. You can see this where an ENTP is much more likely to get carried away by an idea that might not be realistic at all. The INTP may get too caught up in their own head and their logic may dismiss every idea that comes along.

1. A good way to look at Ni vs Ne is that Ni users tend to be specialists, whereas Ne users tend to be a jack of all trades. Ni tends to filter ideas and patterns they see to a select few, and then building upon them. They can appear much more close-minded in this way. Ne users can't get enough new ideas, but they can appear too open-minded, and they may never get around to bolstering the plethora of ideas they have. Ni users tend to be much more sure of themselves, and their overall purpose in life. Ne users will constantly second guess and have a lot of trouble committing to one particular idea. This is why they can seem flaky.

2. Ti and Te can be looked at as top-down and bottom-up reasoning, respectively. Ti is systematic, it breaks down concepts and ideas to their simplest forms and see how they fit together. Ti is better at finding flaws and poking holes in established concepts. Te is more objective and factual. They care much more about credibility and the source of the information they receive. They're much more likely to prove their point through tangible means like graphs, charts, statistics, etc. Ti users on the other hand are more likely to be skeptical of studies and tests and they care more about how the test itself was conducted. They can actually go wrong where they think something is logically sound in their head, so it should work in real life where that may not be the case at all. In conversation, Te users are like bulldozers, they jump from fact to fact and are much more methodical in their debate style. Ti users often stop to recall information, and then speak. They do a lot of processing on the fly, and can seem as if they're "pulling random points out of their ass" as I've seen it described.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,491 Posts
In regards to this post...

While impressively well thought out, your post seems to undermine what the cognitive functions actually do. Yeah, on the surface INTJs and INTPs, or INFJs and INFPs look incredibly similar. Hence the grouping in their respective temperaments. The reason people confuse them so much is because they look at these types in a stereotypical sense. To the untrained eye, they can look exactly the same in a lot of ways. They see that INTJs and INTPs both think about things logically, both very introverted, impersonal and detached, etc. The whole "P vs J depending on how messy my room is" posts are asinine and totally ignore how these respective types reach conclusions and how they process information. If you actually look at how these two types recall information, you can see many fundamental differences between them.
Yeah, yeah, those silly, superficial, dichotomy-based stereotypes.

Congratulations. It sounds like you're a faithful subscriber to the straw-manny myths of the Cognitive Functions Kids.

Well, FYI, there are no J/P items on the official MBTI that ask about how neat or messy you are, and I talk about that issue in the post you've replied to. And the function-flipping post I linked to at the start of my post talks about the goofy notion — based on a function stack that's inconsistent with both Myers and Jung — that INTJs and INTPs may have quite a few superficial similarities, but whoa, if you go deep down, they're more like opposites, dude.

Contrary to the notion that a function-centric perspective offers more richness and depth than a (properly framed) dichotomy-centric perspective, and as Reynierse (rightly) points out in the article I link to below, it's actually the dichotomy-centric perspective that's richer and more flexible.

Myers spent quite a lot of Gifts Differing talking about aspects of personality that corresponded to any number of dichotomy combinations, including the combinations that purportedly correspond to the cognitive functions. But it's worth noting that she really didn't treat the function-related combinations as if they had any special significance — and in fact, Myers thought the most meaningful preference combinations were ST, SF, NT and NF (each of which includes four types with four different dominant functions).

In any case, though, any deep, true thing that can be said about a (supposed) Ti-dom, for example, can just as well be said about an I_TP. If you're looking for a limiting framework, give a listen to any of the large number of forumites whose posts indicate that the MBTI "letters" really don't say much about anyone, and that INTJs and INTPs have little in common — because I and N and T (and the IN and NT and IT combinations) pretty much just correspond to trivial "surface" stuff. There's the limiting and impoverished perspective if you ask me. And it certainly isn't a Jungian perspective. Jung spent more of Psychological Types talking about the things he thought extraverts had in common and introverts had in common than he spent talking about all eight of the functions put together.

Just in case you're open to some deprogramming on the Harold Grant function stack, the relationship between the dichotomies and the functions, the place of the functions (or lack thereof) in the MBTI's history, and the tremendous gap between the dichotomies and the functions in terms of scientific respectability, you can find a lot more from me on those issues in this post, this post, this post, and this long INTJforum post.

---------------------------------------------

Links in INTJforum posts don't work if you're not a member, so here are replacements for two of the links in that last linked post:

McCrae & Costa article (click on the pic on the right to access the full article)
Reynierse article
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
745 Posts
Yeah, yeah, those silly, superficial, dichotomy-based stereotypes.

Congratulations. It sounds like you're a faithful subscriber to the straw-manny myths of the Cognitive Functions Kids.

Well, FYI, there are no J/P items on the official MBTI that ask about how neat or messy you are, and I talk about that issue in the post you've replied to. And the function-flipping post I linked to at the start of my post talks about the goofy notion — based on a function stack that's inconsistent with both Myers and Jung — that INTJs and INTPs may have quite a few superficial similarities, but whoa, if you go deep down, they're more like opposites, dude.

Contrary to the notion that a function-centric perspective offers more richness and depth than a (properly framed) dichotomy-centric perspective, and as Reynierse (rightly) points out in the article I link to below, it's actually the dichotomy-centric perspective that's richer and more flexible.

Myers spent quite a lot of Gifts Differing talking about aspects of personality that corresponded to any number of dichotomy combinations, including the combinations that purportedly correspond to the cognitive functions. But it's worth noting that she really didn't treat the function-related combinations as if they had any special significance — and in fact, Myers thought the most meaningful preference combinations were ST, SF, NT and NF (each of which includes four types with four different dominant functions).

In any case, though, any deep, true thing that can be said about a (supposed) Ti-dom, for example, can just as well be said about an I_TP. If you're looking for a limiting framework, give a listen to any of the large number of forumites whose posts indicate that the MBTI "letters" really don't say much about anyone, and that INTJs and INTPs have little in common — because I and N and T (and the IN and NT and IT combinations) pretty much just correspond to trivial "surface" stuff. There's the limiting and impoverished perspective if you ask me. And it certainly isn't a Jungian perspective. Jung spent more of Psychological Types talking about the things he thought extraverts had in common and introverts had in common than he spent talking about all eight of the functions put together.

Just in case you're open to some deprogramming on the Harold Grant function stack, the relationship between the dichotomies and the functions, the place of the functions (or lack thereof) in the MBTI's history, and the tremendous gap between the dichotomies and the functions in terms of scientific respectability, you can find a lot more from me on those issues in this post, this post, this post, and this long INTJforum post.

---------------------------------------------

Links in INTJforum posts don't work if you're not a member, so here are replacements for two of the links in that last linked post:
McCrae & Costa article (click on the pic on the right to access the full article)
Reynierse article
I have no qualms with the temperament ordering, or even a potential ordering based on the two middle letters. I'm not saying isolating particular letters is completely useless, as it's good for ordering certain types together based on certain things. Just because two types share two or four functions doesn't mean they'll be entirely similar. They may have a similar process, but their general outlook on life and their drive may be incredibly different. For example, just because ENTPs and ENFPs share the same dominant function, and more than likely react similarly to one another under stress, it doesn't mean they'll have similar values. All of the NFs are similar because they're people oriented, much like the NTs are similar in the sense that they are more theory oriented.

I never claimed I was a stickler for sticking to Jung's, or anybody's particular theory on the matter. If we're honestly talking about credibility here, I think we can all agree personality typing, MBTI, whatever you want to call it, is above all else a pseudoscience. It is certainly highly observable in the outside world, and definitely fun to speculate about, but it has no actual place outside of the theoretical realm. You seem far more hung up on "sticking to the original theory" and insist that deviating from something isn't actually set in stone, is wrong, and it simply can't be expanded upon or improved. I really don't see why the cognitive function theory is any less plausible, or simply can't be expanded upon. If anything all of these schmucks running around declaring they just took the test but aren't sure if they're a feeler or a thinker are a lot worse than these "internet forumites" as you refer to them, who apparently regurgitate false information, are. If anything I look at the dichotomy approach as a "foot in the door" to personality typing. The cognitive function approach seems much more precise and addresses common misunderstandings. The reason so much confusion happens is because say, if an INTP or an INTJ feel emotions they doubt that they're a T. How reliable of a system is that? The cognitive function approach is much more precise in explaining these instances. None of this sliding spectrum bullshit.

The cognitive functions are far more consistent in my experience when observing others. I think it's the absolute best way to assess one's own personal strengths and weaknesses, and how your thought processes develop. How the way an ESTJ and an ISTP will think differently, for instance. They address how, and why these types all behave a particular way, and the elaborate process itself. It's more complex than N = abstract, S = concrete, and such. I simply just cannot look at the dichotomous approach as anything other than personality typing for dummies. It's just so vague and it causes far more confusion in the long run.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,491 Posts
If we're honestly talking about credibility here, I think we can all agree personality typing, MBTI, whatever you want to call it, is above all else a pseudoscience. It is certainly highly observable in the outside world, and definitely fun to speculate about, but it has no actual place outside of the theoretical realm.
There are hard sciences, soft sciences and pseudosciences, and unlike, say, astrology, temperament psychology — in any of its better-established varieties, including the Myers-Briggs typology and the Big Five — belongs (along with most of psychology) in the "soft science" category.

Anyone who's interested can read quite a lot about the scientific respectability of the MBTI, based on thousands of studies that have been done over the past 50 years, and that continue to be done — and about several other issues often raised by people claiming to "debunk" the MBTI — in this post and in this post (also linked to in the first linked post).

It's true that the scientifically respectable side of the MBTI is the dichotomy-centric side, rather than the "cognitive functions" (aka "type dynamics") side. But as I noted earlier in this thread, the dichotomy-centric version of the MBTI doesn't exclude the many aspects of personality associated with preference combinations — e.g., things that NTs or SJs tend to have in common. And there's no question that descriptions of, say, "Si" can actually have validity as well as long as they don't go beyond what you might call the piggybacked validity that they get from lining up with the additive effects of the two (or three, as applicable) corresponding dichotomies.

You seem far more hung up on "sticking to the original theory" and insist that deviating from something isn't actually set in stone, is wrong, and it simply can't be expanded upon or improved.
Sticking to the original theory? You can't have read my linked posts if you think that's where I'm coming from. Here's a paragraph from that long INTJforum post:

The more I reread Psychological Types, the more I appreciate the extent to which getting from Jung to the Myers-Briggs typology involved substantial adjustments and additions. I think the formidable job Briggs and Myers did in separating the Jungian wheat from the chaff and modifying and supplementing Jung's theory is grotesquely underappreciated by many internet forumites. Myers may not have been as smart as Jung, and she may not have had a psychology degree, but she and her mother had the benefit of standing on Jung's shoulders, and Myers then spent many years, as a labor of love, designing and refining her test instrument and gathering data from thousands of subjects, leading her to conclude — among other things — that the four dichotomies (as she conceived them), and not the functions, were the main event. I think Myers' conceptions of the dichotomies and the types still leave plenty of room for further improvement but, fifty years later, the results of many more studies — and, in particular, the correlation of the MBTI dichotomies with the Big Five — suggest that, in terms of the basics, Myers pretty much got it right. If Jung were still around, I think he'd mostly approve.​
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
7,978 Posts
The cognitive functions are far more consistent in my experience when observing others. I think it's the absolute best way to assess one's own personal strengths and weaknesses, and how your thought processes develop. How the way an ESTJ and an ISTP will think differently, for instance. They address how, and why these types all behave a particular way, and the elaborate process itself. It's more complex than N = abstract, S = concrete, and such. I simply just cannot look at the dichotomous approach as anything other than personality typing for dummies. It's just so vague and it causes far more confusion in the long run.
And that's a good deal for somebody lucky enough to get one of the 16 "correct" combinations of cognitive functions. What about the people stuck with one of the 40,304 "incorrect" combinations?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
745 Posts
And that's a good deal for somebody lucky enough to get one of the 16 "correct" combinations of cognitive functions. What about the people stuck with one of the 40,304 "incorrect" combinations?
What do you mean, like you're Ti-Ni-Si-Fe or something? The functions balance each other out. If someone had no introverted or extroverted functions they'd be totally unbalanced.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
7,978 Posts
What do you mean, like you're Ti-Ni-Si-Fe or something?
Yes.

When I took the test online, I got:

(Strongest) Ne, Fi, Ti, Ni, Te, Si, Se, Fe (Weakest).

Of the 16 "correct" types, the closest match is

INFP: Fi, Ne, Si, Te, Fe, Ni, Se, Ti

with the closest seconds being

ENTP: Ne, Ti, Fe, Si, Ni, Te, Fi, Se
INTP: Ti, Ne, Si, Fe, Te, Ni, Se, Fi

The functions balance each other out. If someone had no introverted or extroverted functions they'd be totally unbalanced.
Anytime you come up with a system where you start with the categories ("We're going to look at the orders of functions that balance each other out") and then have adjust the people measured in order to fit the categories better ("[Ne, Fi, Ti, Ni, Te, Si, Se, Fe] is not on the list, so we're going to call you [Fi, Ne, Si, Te, Fe, Ni, Se, Ti] instead"), my thinking is that the people being measured are not the problem.
 

·
Banned
Joined
·
1,428 Posts
Tom Soy Sauce said:
Te is more objective and factual. They care much more about credibility and the source of the information they receive. They're much more likely to prove their point through tangible means like graphs, charts, statistics, etc.


Insofar as Personalitycafé is concerned there is no difference in this domain. Give the INTs a topic, and they will enthusiastically post about it without ever considering established facts that are easily accessible online. They really believe in the powers of their own minds.

reckful said:
As already noted, I thinks it's reasonably clear that J/P is essentially tapping into the same underlying personality dimension as the Big Five Conscientiousness factor, and the most well-known version of the Big Five is McCrae & Costa's NEO-PI-R. The NEO-PI-R breaks down each of the factors into six facets, and here are the six Conscientiousness facets, with some of McCrae & Costa's descriptions:

Competence:
"This facet refers to the sense :) that one is capable, sensible, prudent, and effective. High scorers on this scale feel well prepared to deal with life."

Order: "High scorers on this scale are neat, tidy, and well organized. They keep things in their proper places. ... Carried to an extreme, high Order might contribute to compulsive personality traits."

Dutifulness: "In one sense, conscientiousness means 'governed by conscience,' and that aspect of Conscientiousness is assessed as Dutifulness. High scorers on this scale adhere strictly to their ethical principles and scrupulously fulfill their moral obligations."

Achievement Striving: "Individuals who score high on this facet have high aspiration levels and work hard to achieve their goals. ... Very high scorers, however, may invest too much in their careers and become workaholics."

Self-Discipline: "This term means the ability to begin tasks and carry them through to completion despite boredom and other distractions."

Deliberation: "Deliberation is the tendency to think carefully before acting. High scorers on this facet are cautious and deliberate. Low scorers are hasty and often speak or act without considering the consequences."
This is an excellent description of the INTJ/INTP difference.

Because it is an excellent description of the J/P difference.​
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
745 Posts
I see only modest similarity between the two. Don't care for the functions? Meet an INTJ and meet an INTP. Come back and say they are the same.
This is what bugs me about this whole discussion about dismissing the functions. If you look at it from the spectrum angle it implies that all of the characteristics of perceiving and judging are the only difference which isn't even remotely close to being the case. You mean to tell me a value of structure and organization is the only difference between INTPs and INTJs? Of course not.

If anything yourself and I would be more similar despite the E/I divide. On the surface we won't look the same though.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
31,290 Posts
This is what bugs me about this whole discussion about dismissing the functions. If you look at it from the spectrum angle it implies that all of the characteristics of perceiving and judging are the only difference which isn't even remotely close to being the case. You mean to tell me a value of structure and organization is the only difference between INTPs and INTJs? Of course not.

If anything yourself and I would be more similar despite the E/I divide. On the surface we won't look the same though.
Well as I already expressed on another thread, if you remove the functions (and I honestly wouldn't blame you if you wanted to somehow expand the concept to open study, I don't exactly share that goal myself) then you need to start from scratch. If that's their "model" then yes, the only difference between INTP and INTJ is the J/P dichotomy. I would concede, because they are obviously not referring to the same thing as what you would be describing using functions. I see no derivative from the letter code that insists that INTPs are "Ti" analytical thinkers and INTJs are "Ni" intuitive thinkers. I don't see how that's derived unless it's just being recycled from stuff that's previously been rejected. There's no justification to continue using descriptions based on functions when you are an advocate of removing the functions. That's how I see it.
 

·
I love my everything
Joined
·
10,949 Posts
These functions still have to be able to do the same thing in the end (take in information and process it), so they have be similar in goal. It's how that goal is reached that's different.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2 Posts
Hey guys,

I stumbled upon the same problem, my function are Ni 97%, Te 67%, Se 59%, Fe 49%. According to the functions test i did it said i was INTJ or INFJ. After that i did a socionics test wich came to LII-2Ne (INTj). I cannot yet post links <15 posts.

Is it safe to assume that my type is INTJ indeed although in Jungian functions it's Fi?

Thanks.
 
1 - 20 of 23 Posts
Top