Closely related introvert types

[Siúil a Rúin]

For introverts, the 'first cousins' as i like to call them represent the types most closely related internally. The 'second cousins' are more often confused in their external communication styles. Confusing these pairings is the most common mistypings among introverts.

Here are the first cousins = most internally alike in their world view

INTP - Ti, Ne, Si, Fe
ISTP - Ti, Se, Ni, Fe

INFJ - Ni, Fe, Ti, Se
INTJ - Ni, Te, Fi, Se

INFP - Fi, Ne, Si, Te
ISFP - Fi, Se, Ni, Te

ISTJ - Si, Te, Fi, Ne
ISFJ - Si, Fe, Ti, Ne

These are second cousins = most alike in their external communication styles.
Note the primary functions are opposites. This makes for a fundamentally different world view masked behind a similar external dialog.

INTP - Ti, Ne, Si, Fe
INFP - Fi, Ne, Si, Te

INFJ - Ni, Fe, Ti, Se
ISFJ - Si, Fe, Ti, Ne

ISTJ - Si, Te, Fi, Ne
INTJ - Ni, Te, Fi, Se

ISTP - Ti, Se, Ni, Fe
ISFP - Fi, Se, Ni, Te

 

[FFF]

Actually, I find the most similar type to the INTP is the INTJ. I know the functions don't match, but they're both, I, N, and T.

 

[Usehername]

Actually, I find the most similar type to the INTP is the INTJ. I know the functions don't match, but they're both, I, N, and T.

That's been my experience, but I also have an awful time with the ones the OP mentioned. Even ISTJ INTJ and I'm one of the two!

 

[amber_rk]

I got along with ESTJ and liked her really much because I loved the way she organized, planned, and implemented what she had in mind. I prioritized according to the core needs and she agreed mostly with my judgements so it was very easy and efficient to work with her.

For INTPs, I like their unconventional ideas and interests, but became disappointed quickly because they did not seem to be 'masters' in anything. An INTP I knew had a broad knowledge of just about everything but did not seem to have mastered the knowledge in a fully detailed way(which I thought it was pointless to have knowledges without details).

 

[Siúil a Rúin]

There are a couple of distinctions i should mention. First, those pairings don't refer necessarily to whom enjoys interaction, but what types can be confused either by observers or self.

I realize there is comradely between INTP and INTJ. They especially work well in tandem on problem solving. It is interesting to note the percentage of INTJs that end up banned or reprimanded at INTPc. There is some fracture of perspective between the two types that is observable. It is that very fracture that results in them being very effective partners in problem solving.

************************************************************
The following indulges a bit of metaphor based on musical terms - my home turf.

I do find as an INFJ, I have an interesting symbiosis with INTJs that is unique among other types. It is something like sharing a common background drone onto which contrasting pitches and rhythm are painted. When interacting with INTJs there is this fascinating common backdrop, or sense of alignment. The communication styles are wildly different, but that background drone is unmistakable. I would venture to suggest that the ability to perceive this Ni drone in common with the INTJ is one way of determining an accurately typed INFJ.

As an INFJ, i also have a strong sense of congeniality with INFPs. It is common to share ideals and goals offering different perspectives that move thinking forward. My sense with them is one of melody and countermelody that work in harmony, but are by nature contrasted, at times much like a kind of heterophony.

To me the INFJ and ISFJ are playing the same instrument, colored with the same timbre, expressed in profoundly different ways. The ISFJ is a structured work played flawless to the last detail, the INFJ improvises using a set of underlying motifs to provide a flexible structure that adapts to current contexts.

I find that INFJs and INTPs share certain external needs and fill in for each other's weaknesses. These too form a kind of counterpoint, a logically structured species counterpoint in which the outer voices are contrasted to form a symmetrical whole, resulting in a deeply expressive form.

 

[Mycroft]

For INTPs, I like their unconventional ideas and interests, but became disappointed quickly because they did not seem to be 'masters' in anything. An INTP I knew had a broad knowledge of just about everything but did not seem to have mastered the knowledge in a fully detailed way(which I thought it was pointless to have knowledges without details).

I'm with you here, although I can respect that INTPs gather knowledge for the sake of being knowledgeable. ENTPs can drive me batty because they go about gathering a superficial understanding of a myriad subjects for the sole purpose of having things to flap their lips about.

 

[RDF]

For introverts, the 'first cousins' as i like to call them represent the types most closely related internally. The 'second cousins' are more often confused in their external communication styles. Confusing these pairings is the most common mistypings among introverts. [...]

I've noticed the INFP's "first cousin" relationship with ISFPs and "second cousin" relationship with INTPs.

My ISFP sister and I lead completely opposite external lives. (And I mean polar opposites.) But when we've gotten together in the past to discuss a family crisis or values issue, we quickly find ourselves on the same wavelength and come to easy agreement.

My relationship with INTPs is the reverse. At work, I find myself initially reacting to events the same as my INTP coworkers and ending up in their camp. But when we subsequently compare opinions and values, we find we're using very different internal yardsticks to measure things.

 

[Totenkindly]

I realize there is comradely between INTP and INTJ. They especially work well in tandem on problem solving. It is interesting to note the percentage of INTJs that end up banned or reprimanded at INTPc. There is some fracture of perspective between the two types that is observable. It is that very fracture that results in them being very effective partners in problem solving.

I agree too. INTJ and INTP can work together very well, but they definitely do not share the same thinking process even if they can "follow" each other. In fact I do think that sometimes INTJ and INTP can end up feeling misunderstand and fighting with / being frustrated with each other, because they can work together SO well that the differences are not that apparent.

I know with my boss, he is much more into choosing and implementing a solution and making something happen -- actualizing a vision. I have always been much more concerned with properly understanding the situation and thus having the "best and most appropriate answer."

So we could talk and joke about many of the same things, and admire each other's sense of humor, and see/understand complicated situations -- intellectually we are on the same level -- but he never understands much why I hold back and take so long to come to an answer or why I need something to react against, while I never understood why he was constantly trying to make something happen, especially when there was time to wait and better tailor the solution.

 

[heart]

I have a very dear and generous and warm ISFP friend and we have a very good time together and we care very much about each other and it is all good but then there is the fact that I like to get deep into issues and she seems afraid even of getting into many issues too deeply and so we just can't have those conversations. So it is a very warm and fun friendship but I can only express part of myself in it. That's okay because I have other friendships.

 

[SolitaryWalker]

INJs, ENPs, ESPs and ISJs do have the type sharing their dominant function as the most similar to them. For the other four it is not the case because Intuition is the dividing factor among them.

So for instance when trying to discover the INTP's 'first cousin' we have to look at the type with the most similar dominant function, and that would be the INFP. INTJ is a possible candidate, as the Ni-Te produces a Ti effect, yet the similarity is at best superficial. As the INTJ is led by a perceiving function, rather than a judging. ENTP is a closer match, although because of their extroversion they tend not to be as similar to the INTP as the INFP. INFP is the closest match because of the Introverted Judgment common factor, intense internal focus. It is virtually the same design with the primacy of Feeling over Thinking.

INTP...1)INFP 2)ENTP 3)INTJ 4)ISTP

ENTP 1)ENFP 2) INTP 3)ENTJ 4)ESTP

ENFP 1)ENTP 2)INFP 3)ENFJ 4)ESFP

INTJ 1)INFJ 2)ENTJ 3) INTP 4)ISTJ

INFJ 1)INTJ 2)ENFJ 3)INFP 4)ISFJ

ENTJ 1)ENFJ 2)INTJ 3)ENTP 4)ESTJ

ENFJ 1)ENTJ 2)INFJ 3)ENFP 4)ESFJ

INFP 1)INTP 2) ENFP 3)INFJ 4)ISFP

ISTP 1)ISFP 2)ESTP 3)ISTJ 4)INTP

ISFP 1)ISTP 2)ESFP 3)ISFJ 4)INFP

ESTP 1)ESFP 2)ISTP 3)ESTJ 4)ENTP

ESFP 1)ESTP 2)ISFP 3)ESFJ 4)ENFP

ESFJ 1)ESTJ 2)ISFJ 3)ESFP 4)ENFJ

ISTJ 1)ISFJ 2)ESTJ 3)ISTP 4)INTJ

ESTJ 1)ESFJ 2)ISTJ 3) ESTP 4)ENTJ

ISFJ 1)ISTJ 2)ESFJ 3)ISFP 4)INFJ

 

[Mycroft]

INJs, ENPs, ESPs and ISJs do have the type sharing their dominant function as the most similar to them. For the other four it is not the case because Intuition is the dividing factor among them.

So for instance when trying to discover the INTP's 'first cousin' we have to look at the type with the most similar dominant function, and that would be the INFP. INTJ is a possible candidate, as the Ni-Te produces a Ti effect, yet the similarity is at best superficial. As the INTJ is led by a perceiving function, rather than a judging. ENTP is a closer match, although because of their extroversion they tend not to be as similar to the INTP as the INFP. INFP is the closest match because of the Introverted Judgment common factor, intense internal focus. It is virtually the same design with the primacy of Feeling over Thinking.

I would think the ISTP would be the INTP's "first cousin", as they both share introverted Thinking as their dominant function. Also, I would say the INFP and INTP have little in common given that the INTP's dominant function is introverted Thinking at the expense of introverted Feeling, and vice versa.

 

[Natrushka]

ISTJ - Si, Te, Fi, Ne
INTJ - Ni, Te, Fi, Se

I've long thought that this is why my husband and I have stayed together so long. That and the sex

 

[Athenian200]

It seems to me that you are simply naming patterns inherent in the type pattern. This could be useful theoretically, but I haven't really seen this dynamic appear in every single situation. Often the differing functions cause the others to manifest differently as well. But there are other dynamics that I don't quite get based on this.

For instance, let me describe how I perceive INTJs. From my perspective, some of them are fairly focused on finding something out, and are cordial enough to be easy to get along with, and are actually somewhat amiable. Others often seem to make disturbing jokes, that make me want to shudder but still seem amusing somehow. Still others just seem mean, blunt, and boring with a hint of curiosity. They act like completely different people despite having the same type.

INTP's on the other hand seem a bit more similar to each other. They often have different interests, expressions, and skill levels, but there seems to be some kind of predictable core thread that's shared between them somehow. The same seems true of INFPs. ISTP's and ISFP's also had this thread between each other, but not with INTP's or INFP's. The Se/Ne difference changed the nature of the thread.

All very subjective and hard to follow, I know.

 

[Randomnity]

The theory seems reasonable. I have found ISTPs vs INTPs and INFJs vs INTJs particularly difficult to distinguish, especially when the individuals in question are quite introverted/reliant on their dominant function. ISFPs vs INFPs is also tricky...ISTJs and ISFJs are usually fairly different though, in my limited experience.

Slightly OT, but I often find ESFPs vs ENFPs hard to tell apart as well.

INJs, ENPs, ESPs and ISJs do have the type sharing their dominant function as the most similar to them. For the other four it is not the case because Intuition is the dividing factor among them.

So for instance when trying to discover the INTP's 'first cousin' we have to look at the type with the most similar dominant function, and that would be the INFP.

The type with the most similar dominant function is the type with the identical dominant function. That is ISTP, not INFP.

 

[SolitaryWalker]

The theory seems reasonable. I have found ISTPs vs INTPs and INFJs vs INTJs particularly difficult to distinguish, especially when the individuals in question are quite introverted/reliant on their dominant function. ISFPs vs INFPs is also tricky...ISTJs and ISFJs are usually fairly different though, in my limited experience.

Slightly OT, but I often find ESFPs vs ENFPs hard to tell apart as well.


The type with the most similar dominant function is the type with the identical dominant function. That is ISTP, not INFP.

Its not just about theTi..but how its influenced by the other 3 functions that follow and the big picture they all paint in combination... Ti-Ne and Fi-Ne lead to more similar results in juxtaposition than the Ti-Ne and Ti-Se because the S/N difference is far greater than the T/F. The first function is still a big deal, but it has to be the type on the same side of the N/S divide.

 

[Randomnity]

Its not just about theTi..but how its influenced by the other 3 functions that follow and the big picture they all paint in combination... Ti-Ne and Fi-Ne lead to more similar results in juxtaposition than the Ti-Ne and Ti-Se because the S/N difference is far greater than the T/F. The first function is still a big deal, but it has to be the type on the same side of the N/S divide.

How bout some proof, or at least reasoning, for those three statements instead of stating them as though they were accepted facts?

 

[SolitaryWalker]

Never said they were facts. INTPs and ISTPs appear similar on the outside. Both very reserved and tend to be low-profile dressers. Both also clearly have a thinking preferrence and tend to be somewhat indecisive/tentative with their statements, unlike the Js.

Yet if we have an in depth discussion with each one of them, we will discover that the INTP responds much more fluently to philosophy, literature, science..and so on related topics. Whilst the ISTP would enjoy those to a much lesser extent...

Now if we have an INFP in the same room and compare how the INFP carries him/herself in discussion there with the INTP..we will see that the INFP has a much easier time following us on those abstract topics..more so on literature than the other 2...

Perhaps the INFP will not be able to challenge our ideas as quickly and easily as the INTP..but you will notice how they process and brainstorm in the same fashion and unlike the ISTP, tend to have an easier time deriving satisfaction from just entertaining such ideas naturally...

At this point I have only discussed the personalities these 3 types produce...

The real essence of temperament is founded on the way the unconscious mind works. The INTP first applies a dispassionate judgment internally and then explores possibilities with imagination. The ISTP also applies dispassionate judgment first, but then explores concrete facts/realities they've observed. An INTP will make an observation about a physics/philosophy theory, whilst an ISTP about something far more tangible...Hence..for this reason, the INTP is commonly referred to as the 'Thinker' (physicist, philosopher, mathematician..etc.)..and the ISTP a mechanic..Both excell at solving problems, yet one applies this skill to the concrete world, and the other to the one that could be accessed only through imagination.(abstract)

To recapitulate, we should review one more time where these types stand in relation to each other based only on the patterns their unconscious minds tend to work in.

If the INTP, ISTP and INFP were forced to do physics, philosophy problems, the INTP and INFP would exhibit more similar patterns than the INTP and ISTP.

They all have introverted judgment in common, so they start by laying down axioms on which to build their inquiry on later. INTP and ISTP have dispassionate axioms to start with, INFP--person centered. In this activity they are forced to explore abstract ideas, so they must use their Intuition. The INTP and INFP use both extroverted intuition and the ISTP, introverted and moreover preceded by Sensing. They will have focused on radically different aspects of information to collect and will basically be working with 'different worlds'. Whereas the INTP and INFP will likely focus on the same kind of 'worlds', though make different conclusions because they apply different kind of judgments to ideas they've entertained.

Hence, they have more in common because they tend to entertain ideas in a more similar fashion. (Ne common-ground)

It is true that Ti and Fi are on opposite ends of the spectrum of T/F, even Ti and Fe would be closer to one another in this aspect of comparison (introverted functions tend to be more intensely focused on activity of their specification), yet again, the common factor is Introverted Judgment--this manifests in the form of them internally laying down axioms/fundaments upon which they later will erect the edifice they build.

 

[Randomnity]

Yet if we have an in depth discussion with each one of them, we will discover that the INTP responds much more fluently to philosophy, literature, science..and so on related topics. Whilst the ISTP would enjoy those to a much lesser extent...

Now if we have an INFP in the same room and compare how the INFP carries him/herself in discussion there with the INTP..we will see that the INFP has a much easier time following us on those abstract topics..more so on literature than the other 2...

Perhaps the INFP will not be able to challenge our ideas as quickly and easily as the INTP..but you will notice how they process and brainstorm in the same fashion and unlike the ISTP, tend to have an easier time deriving satisfaction from just entertaining such ideas naturally...

Interests are trivial; the point was regarding internal similarity.

The INTP first applies a dispassionate judgment internally and then explores possibilities with imagination. The ISTP also applies dispassionate judgment first, but then explores concrete facts/realities they've observed.

This is backwards. The INTP explores imagined possibilities, while the ISTP explores observed reality, and then both use Ti to evaluate the incoming data.

I'll remind you that the "first cousins" idea was regarding which types are the most similar internally. An ISTP and an INTP will go through very similar thought processes if the data they're analyzing is similar. An INFP and an INTP will look at the same data and reach totally different conclusions, because their methods of reasoning are very dissimilar. The source of the data (Se vs Ne) is not as significant as the method of processing the data.

Or on a more practical level, I've never had a problem distinguishing INFPs from INTPs. Their outlook on the world is totally different (unless the individual is borderline of course). ISTPs and INTPs on the other hand speak, act and think in very similar ways, making them harder to tell apart.

 

[SolitaryWalker]

On the superficial level they are indeed hard to tell apart. Yet,if we take an INTP's philosophy on life and an ISTP's, the differences will be profound. An INFP's is likely to have more in common with INTP's because of the common-ground held in preference over abstractions.

ISTP is more similar to the INTP internally? It is true that they take the same approach to solve problems, yet again, the INTP would be a visionary and the ISTP a concrete, fact-oriented observer.

I'd argue that perception is more important than judgment. With Judgment, INFP and INTP just reach different conclusions about the same 'world' they are examining. Yet with the ISTP and INTP, they live in different worlds. Seems proper to say that the one who applies different tools and looks at our world has more in common with us than someone who lives in a different realm altogether.

 

[proteanmix]

So basically what you're saying is that either your perceiving function is most instrumental and serves the judging function. Why can't the dominant function regardless of if it's perceiving or judging be in charge. This is when we need to figure out the difference between type theory and temperament theory because this confuses two different issues.

Here's some info I found about the differences between ISTPs and INTPs.

Confusion of Extraversion with Sensation

Another criticism from the above quotation is that Jung confused Sensation with Extraversion. In fact, this is not true. This misunderstanding probably emanates from either:

- Jung's description of the thought processes he went through before arriving at his final theory. He had, at one point, associated intuition with introversion, but he moved away from that view before arriving at his final theory, or
- a misunderstanding of Jung's use of the term "concrete" in Psychological types. ("Concretism" was a technical term that, according to Jung, reflected a primitive state of a function where it is fused with Sensation, and it results in a person's actions being determined by outer (extraverted) objects. However, the term concretism was not intended under any circumstances to apply to a normal, differentiated Sensing function.)

It is clear, from Psychological Types, that in Jung's final theory, Sensing and Intuition had been completely separated from Extraversion and Introversion, and there was no confusion in his own mind.

The confusion only arises when one tries to make Jung's theory fit into the framework of temperament. For example, in Please Understand Me, Keirsey starts his description of an INTP with:

"INTPs exhibit the greatest precision in thought and language of all the types; they tend to see distinctions and inconsistencies in thought and language simultaneously. The one word which captures the unique style of INTPs is architect - the architect of ideas..."

From a Jungian perspective, this section is clearly defining INTP in terms of the dominant introverted function: introverted Thinking. The description focuses on the inner world of ideas, thoughts, understanding, and explanations.

The description of ISTP, however, starts with:

"Just as impulsive as other SPs, the ISTP's life is artful action - and action is end in itself. Action for the ISTP is more gratifying if it is born of impulse than purpose. If the action is in the service of an end or aim, let the aim look out for itself; it cannot be allowed to influence execution"

From a Jungian perspective, this section is clearly defining ISTP in terms of the extraverted auxiliary function: extraverted Sensing. The description focuses on action, and the outer (extraverted) world is so pre-dominant that it cannot be influenced by any inner world thoughts. There is no mention, whatsoever, in the ISTP description, of the introverted dominant function: introverted Thinking.

Clearly, when Keirsey describes an ISTP he uses terms that are much more 'extraverted', and when he describes an INTP he uses terms that are much more 'introverted'.

By comparison, Isabel Briggs-Myers description of ISTP is written in terms of the introverted Thinking dominant function:

"ISTPs have a vested interest in practical and applied science... ISTPs can use general principles to bring order out of confused data and meaning out of unorganised facts" (p91 Gifts Differing)

In fact, Isabel Briggs-Myers description is in some ways opposed to Keirsey's: whereas he describes them as action-driven, she states that they are "great believers in economy of effort".

Keirsey resolves this difference by stating that Isabel Briggs-Myers "inherited Jung's confusion between Sensing and Extraversion, but in this respect her writings are completely consistent, and she portrays ISTPs as introverts. Keirsey portrays ISTPs in an extravert fashion because his system of temperament is different to Jungian typology - and the use of the same system of letters to describe both is unfortunate because of the confusion it both causes, and hides.