Telling apart INTP and INTJ

[Artsu Tharaz]

Definitions are important! Anything other than how they score on a test means it's open to interpretation (even though the test itself is open to interpretation but w/e) so unless you want to start telling everyone that they are mistyped when they don't exhibit a certain intangible quality that causes you to admire them, it's best to stick with 'my test results say X so I am X'.

It seems that this implies that Typing isn't tell you anything about a person beyond a few vague dichotomies, which as you said, Big 5 does better, and even Big 5 apparently isn't even that good.

While a lot may be my tertiary Ti fitting systems which make sense to me, I'm quite certain that type does actually tell you a lot more about a person than what is observed there. A traits approach misses most of what Typology is saying with regards to how a person conceives of and interacts with the world.

I guess sticking to definitions is ok, but would't you rather follow whichever approach seems to have the most potential for understanding how people work instead of sticking to systems that have already been laid out?

The details are 'a certified professional talks with you about your results and helps you do a certified interpretation of each question according to their own certified understanding of it.'

Haha really? Well, probably just forget "technical" MBTI all together.

Those are never consistent :X

I disagree, but then without a thorough way of testing for this, we won't be able to prove that.

I agree with this sentiment, but the trouble is none of it works very well. Thinking it works well is um...what was it... Forer effect? or maybe something else.

There is some degree of Forer effect, or at least fitting models to how you conceive of yourself, but I believe we can test for it objectively, without any need for interpretation on the part of the subject.

Do you have no interest in trying to do this? Would you prefer just to use systems once they're already explicitly outlined rather than building your own intuition for it?

 

[Resonance]

It seems that this implies that Typing isn't tell you anything about a person beyond a few vague dichotomies, which as you said, Big 5 does better, and even Big 5 apparently isn't even that good.

While a lot may be my tertiary Ti fitting systems which make sense to me, I'm quite certain that type does actually tell you a lot more about a person than what is observed there. A traits approach misses most of what Typology is saying with regards to how a person conceives of and interacts with the world.

I guess sticking to definitions is ok, but would't you rather follow whichever approach seems to have the most potential for understanding how people work instead of sticking to systems that have already been laid out?

Well, the trouble is, I don't think it really tells you much more than Big 5. Like, knowing that someone is an INTP doesn't tell me much more than that they are less social than average, more open-minded than average, less agreeable, and less reliable. From that information you can pretty much deduce how they are going to act in a given situation where they're free to be themselves. And vice versa - if you know they are being themselves, you can deduce that that is their personality. But things like, say, the way they conceive of models in their head or whatever? Total forer effect IMO.

Haha really? Well, probably just forget "technical" MBTI all together.

Good start XD

I disagree, but then without a thorough way of testing for this, we won't be able to prove that.

If you look at my 'type me' threads on INTJf (don't bother) you'll see me reinterpret myself to fit all four INXX cognitive function structures, and people calling all kinds of alternatives into play, too. And all of them are viable. Ultimately, I picked INFJ because it 'feels right', not because the cognitive functions line up properly (they do, but so do all the other ones).

There is some degree of Forer effect, or at least fitting models to how you conceive of yourself, but I believe we can test for it objectively, without any need for interpretation on the part of the subject.

How?

Do you have no interest in trying to do this? Would you prefer just to use systems once they're already explicitly outlined rather than building your own intuition for it?

I already do; otherwise I wouldn't have gone typehunting again. But I built it out of everyone else's. And what a mess it is.

 

[technics]

Also technics... I've been meaning to mention this for a while now... I doubt that you are an INTJ. Your thought process has a very strong Ti/Fe lean. I'd be inclined to guess you are an INFJ male that has over rated his T function. I see Ni and Ti in you.

Yes, that's true... the Ni and Ti. I can't pin down myself actually. But what I'm quite sure of is that I'm an NT, and not an NF. And that I'm an introvert. And my occupation with MBTI/Jung is because I want to peel back the layers.

The Fe you're seeing is artificial. I know that my order is Intuition, Thinking, Feeling and Sensing. And it's probably Ni, T?, Fi, Se. My weakest are definitely Fe and Si. Ne is medium.

 

[VH]

I don't like cognitive-function-oriented tests either, because they are always horribly convoluted. Last time I took one I ranked myself as Ni>Ne>Ti>Te>Fe>Si>Fi>Se or something like that. You can kind of see the INFJ in there, but... damn, it's not clear at all. Plus, it's taking the theory one step further while eschewing both Jung and experimental data.

Heh, actually, those results imply either a strong Ni + Ti loop or simply being an INTJ female.

Ironic really... if it turns out you're an INTJ and technics is an INFJ. *ponder*

 

[VH]

Yes, that's true... the Ni and Ti. I can't pin down myself actually. But what I'm quite sure of is that I'm an NT, and not an NF. And that I'm an introvert. And my occupation with MBTI/Jung is because I want to peel back the layers.

These conditions are mutually exclusive, I'm afraid.

 

[Artsu Tharaz]

Well, the trouble is, I don't think it really tells you much more than Big 5. Like, knowing that someone is an INTP doesn't tell me much more than that they are less social than average, more open-minded than average, less agreeable, and less reliable. From that information you can pretty much deduce how they are going to act in a given situation where they're free to be themselves. And vice versa - if you know they are being themselves, you can deduce that that is their personality. But things like, say, the way they conceive of models in their head or whatever? Total forer effect IMO.

The model hasn't given you a greater understanding of thought processes etc.? I mean, if you're not conceiving of Ti and Te as very different, or dominant T and auxiliary T as very different then you're missing most of the theory. You can just ignore the model if you don't see potential in it I guess - focusing just on scientific models is a valid way to go.

Good start XD

Well, I never paid attention to what MBTI literally said anyway. I just recognised it as an extremely elegant model that they were using.

If you look at my 'type me' threads on INTJf (don't bother) you'll see me reinterpret myself to fit all four INXX cognitive function structures, and people calling all kinds of alternatives into play, too. And all of them are viable. Ultimately, I picked INFJ because it 'feels right', not because the cognitive functions line up properly (they do, but so do all the other ones).

Well, yeah that's basically what I did, except I did it through consideration of the functions. Ni-Fe-Ti-Se had to make sense, and other alternatives not make sense. Ti-Ne-Si-Fe sort of made sense, but I realised I was certainly not a T dominant, and that my intuition was basically the same as other INJs. I could also not see myself at all as an MBTI Te/Fi. The socionics model puts me as an Ne, which explains why I had thought of myself as an Ne originally, but the MBTI Ne doesn't fit me.

How?

Visually identifying the CFs someone is using could work, or using a socionics approach to identify the valued IMs.

I can't tell you a procedural approach to do it, but I'm sure some exist.

I already do; otherwise I wouldn't have gone typehunting again. But I built it out of everyone else's. And what a mess it is.

Well, if you're building your own understanding it should gradually get clearer and clearer. =/

Are you able to filter out what people say to find what actually makes the most sense, or are you just trying to find what it is other people think about it?

When I was trying to figure out what type I was, I was just looking for evidence that I could be various types, and then the rest was my own reflection until only one type made sense, which ended up being INFJ.

 

[VH]

If you look at my 'type me' threads on INTJf (don't bother) you'll see me reinterpret myself to fit all four INXX cognitive function structures, and people calling all kinds of alternatives into play, too. And all of them are viable. Ultimately, I picked INFJ because it 'feels right', not because the cognitive functions line up properly (they do, but so do all the other ones).

And now for the truth about all of this personality type stuff...

Your results...

Ni>Ne>Ti>Te>Fe>Si>Fi>Se

...are probably the most accurate representation of the activity in your cognition process. This is one of the reasons why you (and most others like myself who just don't fit a mold) could fit into any of those types you tried on.

However, just like Artsu, those of us with this ability almost always end up at INFJ. But, we'll never be summed up by any type. We're outside the pattern. I'm pretty sure technics will end up here as well.

 

[Artsu Tharaz]

However, just like Artsu, those of us with this ability almost always end up at INFJ. But, we'll never be summed up by any type. We're outside the pattern. I'm pretty sure technics will end up here as well.

I see myself as very much an INFJ. I just don't think doing tests or reading profiles will really get you anywhere. You just have to pick up the odd clue here and there that will make everything very apparent as to which you are.

 

[Resonance]

Heh, actually, those results imply either a strong Ni + Ti loop or simply being an INTJ female.

Ironic really... if it turns out you're an INTJ and technics is an INFJ. *ponder*

Naw, I was totally dissociated for like 12 years. That's long enough to have a stunted Fe, I think, at least if you're 24.

And now for the truth about all of this personality type stuff...

Your results...
...are probably the most accurate representation of the activity in your cognition process. This is one of the reasons why you (and most others like myself who just don't fit a mold) could fit into any of those types you tried on.

However, just like Artsu, those of us with this ability almost always end up at INFJ. But, we'll never be summed up by any type. We're outside the pattern. I'm pretty sure technics will end up here as well.

I'm pretty sure it's just because of the inadequacy of the descriptions and the plasticity of the functions (and of brains in general). It's not like everyone experiences them the same way, either.

The model hasn't given you a greater understanding of thought processes etc.? I mean, if you're not conceiving of Ti and Te as very different, or dominant T and auxiliary T as very different then you're missing most of the theory. You can just ignore the model if you don't see potential in it I guess - focusing just on scientific models is a valid way to go.

I have a few different conceptions of them for different contexts but I don't have a single unified idea of what each means, because I don't trust anyone to really 'know the answer,' and nobody has given me any reason to believe that they do (until Yukawa! But he's nowhere near done.)

Well, I never paid attention to what MBTI literally said anyway. I just recognised it as an extremely elegant model that they were using.

Well, yeah that's basically what I did, except I did it through consideration of the functions. Ni-Fe-Ti-Se had to make sense, and other alternatives not make sense. Ti-Ne-Si-Fe sort of made sense, but I realised I was certainly not a T dominant, and that my intuition was basically the same as other INJs. I could also not see myself at all as an MBTI Te/Fi. The socionics model puts me as an Ne, which explains why I had thought of myself as an Ne originally, but the MBTI Ne doesn't fit me.

I guess. I was into socionics for a while so that might be part of it. Certainly, cognitive functions were used, but they weren't really the final verdict or anything since they're so darn nebulous.

Visually identifying the CFs someone is using could work, or using a socionics approach to identify the valued IMs.

I can't tell you a procedural approach to do it, but I'm sure some exist.

Well, if you're building your own understanding it should gradually get clearer and clearer. =/

Are you able to filter out what people say to find what actually makes the most sense, or are you just trying to find what it is other people think about it?

When I was trying to figure out what type I was, I was just looking for evidence that I could be various types, and then the rest was my own reflection until only one type made sense, which ended up being INFJ.

No, I tend to give people the benefit of the doubt and assume they have made sense of it for themselves. Assuming everyone in question is reasonably Ni-friendly then I shouldn't have any trouble picking it up. And I don't, for the most part, but they all have such different angles... it's hard to put them together in a way that makes sense, basically. I'm very strict about what 'makes sense', btw.

 

[technics]

I'm pretty sure technics will end up here as well.

No, INFJ is too far. INTJ is the model that is closest to who I am. As a kid I was a Ni-Te, then in my teenager years came a layer of Ti. And then in college a layer of Fi. Roughly.

The more I recall my childhood the more I become convinced of Ni-Te. But I also don't want to dig up the past. The layers that have been added are achievements of development. My real self is not the Ni-Te child, my real self is who I am now.

 

[Limit]

I don't like cognitive-function-oriented tests either, because they are always horribly convoluted. Last time I took one I ranked myself as Ni>Ne>Ti>Te>Fe>Si>Fi>Se or something like that. You can kind of see the INFJ in there, but... damn, it's not clear at all. Plus, it's taking the theory one step further while eschewing both Jung and experimental data.

Ni > Ne > Ti > Te, etc. If this was really your true cognitive preferences, then you probably wouldn’t be able to use a computer. Having Ni and Ne as your two primary cognitive preferences would be like trying to look left and right at the same time.

Have you ever wondered why they don’t list the cognitive functions on ANY test (at least those by a doctor/analyst in the field)? It’s because they aren’t to be read as least to greatest Ne> Ni > Ti > Te. If they were, then they would be listed in that fashion, wouldn’t you think?


This doesn’t mean the test are anymore valid; however, you’re interpreting the test results incorrectly by thinking that the result given is Ni > Ne > Ti, etc.

One person hypothesized that you MAY be able to get a better idea by taking your results and subtracting each of the functions opposing attitudes. Take Ne-Ni = N. Then rank them according to their highest value after that, then apply your attitudes.

This still doesn’t take into consideration the margin of error created by what the user sees in themselves, coupled with questions that may or may not be bad.


Shouldn’t have come through the same door! Damn me!

 

[This]

I seriously doubt Jung knew everything about how the human brain works. Others theories are every bit as valid assuming they are well researched. The problem is that no one really started from scratch. Everyone has been expanding on others ideas. Obviously jungs ideas made personality more accessible than say saying someone has a "phlegmatic" personality. But Jungs ideas weren't analyzed under an fMRI either. So what functions actually exist and where those umbrellas overlap are somewhat subjective. There could easily be more functions or less. I find these "but Jung said blabity blabity blah" arguments somewhat silly when one is not asking specifically what Jung said but rather looking at a separate entity such as MBTI, Socionics, or Enneagram.

 

[MikeA]

I seriously doubt Jung knew everything about how the human brain works.

That is why he was so vague.

 

[Lea]

I seriously doubt Jung knew everything about how the human brain works.

Please kill me the day we know everything about the human brain.

 

[Resonance]

Please kill me the day we know everything about the human brain.

Careful what you wish for!

 

[technics]

Does your friend agree that you are so alike? If not - maybe that's one of the differences between the two types.

We share a lot of similarities. Back in high school, we had the same favorite subjects (science), the same interests etc. It was after high school that our ways departed: He went into physics "because it is somehow philosophical" (he meant the search for truths), and I went into computer engineering because I don't know lol.