Frankly, I agree with Jag that "confirmed" is kind of a strong word. He may or may not be INTP. It's my instinct that he is, but absent the man's actual input all we've got is speculation. Most of us wish we had the courage of our convictions, and there's the desire to see that possibility reflected in the actions of another we deem to be "like us".
Truth. I was engaging in hyperbole to be sure. I would buy INFJ, also, but I consider the grounds for INTJ and ISTP that have been stated to be pretty shaky. (No INTP would have actually done something, so therefore, he CANNOT be INTP. Ok. )
I see a quixotic Ti/Fe obsession with truth all over his actions. The quotes you mentioned also speak to a lack of planning for the future that is not INTJ like at all. ISTP is more plausible, but the person claiming that put forth no explanation as to why he would use Extraverted Sensing rather than Extraverted Intuition. His statements suggest that this is someone who sees patterns, not hyperfocused details.
Forget the dead you've left; they will not follow you.
The vagabond who is rapping at your door, is standing in the clothes you once wore.
Here's a novel theory: facility at theory of mind (aka typing) is strictly a function of practice.
Which suggests that you are honestly not good at either. Which will be hard for you to disprove, since you have essentially zero data (ran a high-powered experiment lately?). My theory has excellent surface validity. It is, after all, exactly how Jung developed his theory of types in the first place.
^ We are running different algorithms, however, we all have a sufficient basis (an overcomplete basis, even) supporting the ability to generalize to nearly any task. Each basis has certain emphases in the type tradeoff space, which implies that typing certain types will come more naturally to each type than others. i.e., that it will be easier for each type to theorize about some minds than others (especially those that are particularly similar to them). Further, patterns of behavior are massively underdetermined, implying that with limited data it is literally impossible to reliably type someone.
Consider instead that nobody is intrinsically good at typing people. Theory of mind requires extensive practice, just like any other skill.
fyi, I own and have read Gifts Differing, Keirsey's books, Psychological Types, the MBTI manual, etc. So you're being a bit presumptuous. Sorry to deflate your ego.
Kalach, it's clear that you don't understand my post.
A brain is a machine that is capable of learning latent representations. In the case of theory of mind, that latent representation is, quite literally, the other person's mind. Practice is when you make a guess and you get feedback about your guess. This is how you train minds to learn latent representations. And someone's type is a latent representation. Type theory is not even required. It's just the magic of how brains work. Bro!
Tell me whether this is, let's not say true, let's say "is a suggestion"...
Ti people find the difference between types to have its origin in the distinctions written into the model by Jung. "Difference" then, for them, is observably quite shallow. Underneath all these hokey "types" there's still a whole lot of indeterminate stuff that's honestly probably all the same because whatever type is, really it's just something some guy made up. If pressed for an actual principle, Ti types will opt for an absence of distinction between people. "They're actually all just like me, and strive for the same kind of judgment and appreciate the same kind of perception.... and I'm saying this just to be objective."
Theory of mind is doing your best to actually experience what it's like to be another person by using your brain in the same way they use theirs.
The philosopher Nagel famously asked, "What is it like to be a bat?" Nagel is asking a question about the subjective experience of bats, and whether we can experience that. With bats, the answer is probably no. With other people, however, the answer is, to a degree, yes!. By having conversations with my INTJ friends I have figured out how, to some extent, to actually think like an INTJ. What is it like to be an INTJ? I actually know, to some extent. And that extent is directly related to practice.
This is why (in my opinion) people can't agree on Jung's type. He mastered them all. He could choose which type to be in any moment, and he shifted between them. He was the master of theory of mind. And anyone can master it.