There is indeed a distinction between describing behavior and explaining, or interpreting, behavior. But, I have to say that whenever I encounter the term personality, the topic is, at least primarily, about describing how people behave -- like the descriptions of personality disorders. When it comes to explaining behavior, I think there are many and sometimes incompatible – some not even psychological – ways to do it. Personality typology, as it is presented in the MBTI, is all about describing behavior and not about explaining it. A second example is the five-factor model that is built on the terms people use to describe behavior. Even the so-called cognitive functions are descriptions about people behave – actually, it’s a mixed bag, some elements are strictly about how people behave, others not so much. Not that there are no models that truly try to mimic how the mind works and how that relates to personality or behavior.
What I’m thinking about is the possibility that there are people who have good interpersonal skills – good at a level that its not only about extraversion or some such other dimension of personality – but also have good analytical skills. For instance, an exceptionally good politician could be thought of as needing interpersonal skills to know how other people feel and to make people like him easily, but could also use analytical skills to conceive good strategies. Beyond preference, would an exceptionally good politician be possible, that is, would it be something someone could be able to do without becoming miserable, if interpersonal and analytical skills were a dichotomy? This is a possibility, and there could be many more so to speak odd combinations.
But, even within the framework of Jung there are possibilities for this, such as the process of individuation that I already mentioned, and also what he called type falsification. Even Jungian analyst John Beebe talks about a patient of his who thought that he was a “extraverted sensation” type for a good deal of his life, but that in reality – or at least according to Beebe – he was an “extraverted intuitive”, and that he was simply trying to fit into the mold that his “sensing” family members had in mind. Another man who believed, because of his family’s high expectations of him at school, that he was a “thinking” type, but who really was a “feeling” type.
Another example, psychologist Allan Miller published a typology of his own, and when describing one of his four types, the "objective-holistic" type through the example of Ayn Rand, he emphasizes commentaries made by her close collaborators to the effect that she was not very introspective, and that she preferred to focus on the external, objective world. Is it really reasonable to separate introspection and what would amount to logical analysis? I mean, any typology would be more or less reductive, and in the spirit of reductionism, you should try to make the concepts as simple as possible, but then
To Into It:
I do make long-range plans, and when I do, I try to think what could go wrong or what obstacles I may find on my way; however, sometimes I get caught up in seeing how I would like things to be, that I don’t do so much planning, and sadly, not much doing either.
I’m just going to have to take your word about NT’s and NF’s, since I unfortunately right now my NF acquaintances are none. I don’t fully see, however, what you mean, taking into account the NF’s in the forums. But, even this could be interpreted as just being that forum interaction is too narrow a situation for anyone to reveal their full personality, since all we do here is discuss and converse. I say this, because I don’t think that I’m not invested emotionally in other people, but there is always the possibility that maybe what I call emotional investment is utter coldness to an NF.
Credo ut utar, then? Perhaps, but that is not a good reflection on MBTI.
There is a member on here called Solitarywalker. He used to go by Bluewing. He has put together 'philosophies of type' that don't focus on the behavior of the type, but the unconscious tendencies instead. you could google 'bluewing INTJ profile' or 'solitarywalker INTJ profile' and it will lead you to his in-depth thread. You may find that more appealing than the 'pigeonholing' methods of MBTI, without having to abandon the theory. Tell me what you think of the profile.
An inscription above the gate to Hell:
"Eternal Love also created me"
I beg you to ignore my comment, and to foregive me for having made it in the first place. I don't know why I make such comments from time to time, dismissing and mocking what is said to me. I really regretted having made that comment as soon as I posted it, and I have actually been quite ashamed to post here for a few days, fearing that the response to it would put me in my place as I deserved. It was nothing but pedantic, arrogant, rude, unjustified. Again, I am so sorry.
I will read it, but I see that it is a little dense, so it will take me some time to understand it, and probably post again when I can think of an answer.
Perhaps you should read some real psychology? I suggest you read evolutionary psychology, social psychology and personality psychology. One should read evolutionary psychology to understand the mechanisms that are shaping our behavior and thoughts, to understand what human nature is, how we are all similar, one should read social psychology to understand the power of the situation and personality psychology to understand how we differ from each other. To fully understand yourself, you must also understand how you are similar to all others, not just how you are similar to only some or completely unique. It's a great tragedy we only tend to see how we differ from each other.
"Neither a lofty degree of intelligence nor imagination nor both together go to the making of genius. Love, love, love, that is the soul of genius." - Wolfgang Amadé Mozart