Personality Cafe banner
1 - 20 of 20 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
654 Posts
Discussion Starter · #1 ·
I wrote this on the wrong forum, so I'm re-posting it on the right one.
Hope you can help me.

Hi, this would be my first post ever.
So be gentle, and use lube.

I've done the MBTI test plenty of times, on plenty of different websites.
And I always get Extroverted, Intuitive and Thinking. 70%+ all the time...
So ther'es no question I'm ENT.

So, here's the thing.

In the Judging/Perceiving aspect, I always get 50% of each. (Aprox.)
So I either get 'ENTP' or 'ENTJ'.

I've done the Enneagram and Big 5 tests too.
I'm a Type 8w7 and SCOEI, which are all ENTJ-ish.

So, what is your opinion?
Thanks in advance...
Few traits of mine:

ENTP: I am one of the funniest people I know. As you just saw, I have a huge ego as well. I'm spontaneous. I love to annoy the shit out of people to see how they react. I'm cocky. I'm arrogant. I'm a troll. Extremely sarcastic. Consequentialist ("The end justifies the means"). I'm persuasive. Easily distracted. And I love to win. Lazy if uninterested. Selfish, but not in material matters, I don't know how to explain it. Not mean, but maybe insensitive. Only emotional when I allow myself to be (I can control it pretty well), like when I'm alone, or with my girlfriend. I cannot feel empathy. I would not say: "Oh, I understand you, I feel your pain, I'm sorry". I would say: "What can we do to fix the problem?"

ENTJ: I'm dominant. I'm possesive. I'm ambitious. I value success and hard work more than leisure, (I do play first and work later, though). I like to have control. I'm honest. I'm direct. I feel extremely powerful when I'm angry. I'm confident. I'm not scared about many things, but if I am, I don't show it and face whatever is ahead of me. I am very decisive, I don't like to leave my options open. I do need closure. I like to plan ahead. I know perfectly what I want in life. I think success is one of, if not the most important thing for me. I do believe there should be a sistem in which I approach things, but I do not like routine. I don't know if you understand that... I'm adaptable to change, but I prefer stability.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
7,779 Posts
I think it would help if you filled out one of the questionnaires, to go at this from another angle.
 

·
Registered
IEE
Joined
·
6,559 Posts
Well, scOei O part is usually assigned to J types but better fill questionnaire. 8 is rarer than 7 for ExxPs but happens frequently.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,345 Posts
ENTP and ENTJ are very different. Functions, attitudes, desires, demeanor, everything. Especially as extroverted types, you can definitely tell the difference when you meet them, and it should be obvious once you get to know them a bit better.

I would suggest filling out a questionnaire and then we can see more into this.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
654 Posts
Discussion Starter · #5 ·
Forgive my ignorance, but... what questionnaire?
 

·
Registered
IEE
Joined
·
6,559 Posts
Sticky posts in this forum section. 4 of them. Pick any.
 

·
Banned
Joined
·
1,428 Posts
Read this for your J/P enlightenment:

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:

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:



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."
This little J/P test for INTs doesn't hurt ENTs: INTJ or INTP Test - CelebrityTypes.com
 

·
Registered
IEE
Joined
·
6,559 Posts
Reading those traits of your it looks like High Te>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>any xxxP type to me.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
654 Posts
Discussion Starter · #9 ·
Short Effective Scenario Questionnaire 2.0 (Self-Type)

Scenario 1:

I would feel devastaded, obviously. Terrified of losing her. Angry at her for not telling me. Wonder what I'd do without her. Ask myself how could we have possibly missed any signs or symptoms. I'd then try to understand how she's feeling and I would stay with her during the process. The primary focus would be the fear of losing her and being alone.

Scenario 2:

This is a difficult one. I'd probably lie to him and tell him that I've not even started the test yet. If he persisted, I'd say that I'm busy, and that I can't tutor him. If he persisted, I'd tell him to ask help from someone else. I'd give the excuse that I'm not good at explaining and that he wouldn't understand me anyways if I tried. If he continued to persist, I would offer him to copy my answers when I'm "done". (I would give him a lot of wrong answers so he wouldn't get the same score as mine). Basically, I would lie my way out of it in order to avoid resent or something in case I need something from him.

Scenario 3:

Project 1 appeals to me the most. Totally. It's meaningful and important, so I see the benefit upon it's completion, (promotions, recognition, leadership, etc). Project 1 also needs logical thought for problem solving. That's attractive. I'd have the opportunity to lead a team. Leadership stimulates me. Project 2 is boring. It's specific. It's analysis (boring). I would not solve anything. I would not be stimulated. It's possible thet the outcome would not be significant, nor meaningful. I'd be alone. I would not even consider doing project 2. Project 1 would be the obvious choice.

Scenario 4:

I would write down all ideas first, (reject the useless ones from the start). We would then analyze and discuss them one by one, considering the pro's and con's, innovation, possible outcomes, etc... out of each one. Then decide on the best and most promising one, then one that would encourage positive and progressive change.

Scenario 5:

I'm an extrovert. So... there's no need for answering.

Scenario 6:

Entrepeneur, manager (as in 'CEO'), and engineer. Aspects that appeal to me: Leadership, being my own boss, being creative and innovative, creating strategies, being different, building something mine, recognition, achievement, success, etc... I would be most satisfied as CEO of an important company.

Scenario 7:

Things that stand out: The light, the vastness of the place, the trees, the 'architecture' of the rocks and it's symmetry.
Why do I focus on that? Maybe because it's closer to the exit. It makes me want to go out and find out what is out of that cave. Makes me want to go to where the light is. The dark area at the bottom of the picture does not appeal to me, it's total emptiness.
 

·
Registered
IEE
Joined
·
6,559 Posts
That's is so ENTJ you could secretly be Steve Ballmer or Lex Luthor. Hm, they are both bald. Te-Ni causes baldness? I'm so done with idiots I lost my hair? Lex loses his hair because of Superman, one way or another, though.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
7,779 Posts
I agree with Greyhart: ENTJ! Preference for Te over Ti is quite clear in answers #3 and #6; #7 strikes me as an Ni answer. Ni also shows in your focus on building something, on a clear line of progress, on the need to do something meaningful. Ne might want these things, but Ne-users usually find more enjoyment in playing with ideas.
 

·
Registered
IEE
Joined
·
6,559 Posts
Also aspects of the picture in the last Q. Se? Looks like clear vision. My ENTJ cousin tends to state it impressions of places we go to like that too.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
654 Posts
Discussion Starter · #13 ·
I think there's another issue to adress...
I identify myself more as an Ne user, than an Ni one. Any thoughts?
 

·
Banned
Joined
·
2,375 Posts
I think there's another issue to adress...
I identify myself more as an Ne user, than an Ni one. Any thoughts?
Because you are biased, that's why you posted here.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
654 Posts
Discussion Starter · #17 ·
What type should I claim I am, then? What do you think it's the most dominant?
 

·
Registered
IEE
Joined
·
6,559 Posts
Spend half an hour on ENTP forums especially in sticky posts and same amount of time on ENTJ forums. One of them will make you feel like you are bleeding internally, that won't be your type.
 

·
Registered
INFP
Joined
·
1,191 Posts
You could be a ENTX mixed type (50-50 J/P, both ENTJ and ENTP to some extent)
There's no such thing as a "mixed type." That would imply that all eight functions are in his stack, that he leads with both Te and Ne, so not possible.

Anyway, you definitely look like an ENTJ to me, although if after looking at information on Ne/Ni you still think you relate more to Ne, ESTJ could be a possibility (since they use both Te and Ne and have an inferior feeling function).
 
1 - 20 of 20 Posts
Top