[NT] INTJs vs. INTPs

[Totenkindly]

Instead of being INTP, I would be INTj in that system. An INTJ would likewise be called an INTp. There's a good theoretical reason for this, even though it's more cumbersome on a practical level. From an inward perspective an INTP is actually more uptight -- they want 100% logical answers to everything. Whereas from an outward, everyday perspective, they "let things slide" more easily, and are more "laid back", less critical -- all the stereotypical P traits. So you look at one and think "P" but after getting to know them close-up, you have some doubts because they're really kind of uptight. The same happens for INTJ. They only seem J-like on the surface, once you get to know them they have a side that is much more P-like.

Yup. Very good description... and it's the inherent "contradiction" that confuses many people. Introverts who look J on the outside actually have a very P internal process, and vice versa.

So when you first meet them, INTJs can look more particular and uptight, whereas INTPs seem more flexible and easy-going; but once you get inside of them and really interact over the long term, you quickly realize that INTPs dig in tremendously when it comes to how ideas are thought about, what can be derived from reality and what cannot, etc. In general, INTPs do not seek to impose themselves on others... but they are "anal" as to what they will accept as valid in their thinking process, and internally they critique anything that goes on outside of them, they just don't often share it. INTJs seem much more flexible internally; it's just their need for external closure that can make them seem demanding at times.

And the same would go for the other IJ/IP pairs (and that might be worth articulating too ) :

- ISFx
- ISTx
- INFx

One approach is to use a lowercase 4-letter to refer only to strict rationality. Then Fi-dominant and Ti-dominant types will be the lowercase-j's along with the Fe and Te dominant types. But the original meaning of uppercase J and P is not going to go away any time soon, so I really don't think this is the best idea as a general practice.

It does become confusing if someone has not realized that Socionics is different from MBTI in this regard.

Luke, you actually know what the hell you're talking about!

Yup, he's good. And knows more about Socionics than most of us, too!

 

[Athenian200]

Socionics shouldn't even use the same nomenclature, because it's a different system with different assumptions about the functions and the arrangement of the psyche. Some of the functions have subtle but important differences in their meaning. In fact, a person can be a different type in Socionics than in MBTI, and vice-versa.

Some people are convinced that it is reasonable to use a J/P switch for Introverts to convert between Socionic and MBTI systems, but the differences between the systems are more complex than that.

It already has it's own letters, like LII, EII, EIE, and so on. It's just a matter of convincing people that it's to their advantage to use the proper notation.

Sorry about this complaint, I just thought I'd mention it while we were discussing Socionics.

 

[MacGuffin]

The rest of your post is brilliant.

If you use X to mean "unknown" then it's a useful concept. So long as I'm not sure whether I'm Ti-dominant or Ni-dominant, I can't confidently describe myself as anything else. The other three letters are usually easier to narrow down. J/P has a special meaning for introverts that makes it easy to mess up on, so caution is merited.

Like you say, X could have merit, but I find it difficult to believe one can't figure out what their leading process is. Ni and Ti are not similar at all.

If someone is that screwed up, I'd call into question all their preferences.

 

[Usehername]

The rest of your post is brilliant.



Like you say, X could have merit, but I find it difficult to believe one can't figure out what their leading process is. Ni and Ti are not similar at all.

If someone is that screwed up, I'd call into question all their preferences.

maybe he just doesn't have a solid grasp on the functions?

or maybe his childhood required of him to use unfavored functions and he's super balanced?

 

[MacGuffin]

maybe he just doesn't have a solid grasp on the functions?

or maybe his childhood required of him to use unfavored functions and he's super balanced?

Exactly, there is a whole lot more going on than an X for J/P.

 

[Totenkindly]

And if he is the product of two alien races not genetically connected to homo sapiens... well, everything is up for grabs. (But that would be silly, Mulder, wouldn't it?)

 

[MacGuffin]

And if he is the product of two alien races not genetically connected to homo sapiens... well, everything is up for grabs. (But that would be silly, Mulder, wouldn't it?)

You can't handle the truth!





Whoops... wrong truth quote.

 

[Athenian200]

Like you say, X could have merit, but I find it difficult to believe one can't figure out what their leading process is. Ni and Ti are not similar at all.

If someone is that screwed up, I'd call into question all their preferences.

I agree. I tend to be a little irritated when someone calls themselves an INFx, or claims to be an INFJ or INFP close on J/P dimensions. That's completely unreasonable if you understand the theory. Fi and Ni are completely different. An INFJ should be more likely to be confused between INTJ and INFJ if they're more Ni-focused. I feel that I have little in common with INFP's besides the basic NF motivations, and a concern for others. I have trouble relating to they're way of approaching things, however.

If people are such that J/P can reasonably be that close without dramatically changing the psyche's structure, then the MBTI is severely flawed.

 

[wildcat]

INTP.

If your that bothered by your definition then I'd place money on INTP. Most INTJs I know couldn't give a monkey's left nut what you labelled them as.

An SS man used to hang in a street corner and yell and call my INTJ father the murderer of Christ. If he did not give a monkey's left nut he did not show it.

I do not know what happened to the right nut.

 

[Xander]

An SS man used to hang in a street corner and yell and call my INTJ father the murderer of Christ. If he did not give a monkey's left nut he did not show it.

I do not know what happened to the right nut.

Pissed off introverts can extrovert.
People who favour thought over feeling can be gushy and over emotional.
All wholes are the sum of parts but you recognise an apple as a solid yes it is largely water (if my memory serves). You would not call it a liquid and yet to some extent it is.
Words constrict dear boy but to be precise is to say everything which would take ages) or concede and say nothing.

 

[Wolf]

MacGuffin is an ISTJ.

 

[Xander]

MacGuffin is an ISTJ.

Nah. INFP fer sure. He's just so warm and cuddly.

 

[INTJMom]

...Like you say, X could have merit, but I find it difficult to believe one can't figure out what their leading process is. Ni and Ti are not similar at all.

I understand where you're coming from, and I agree with you, but on the other hand, I had never even heard of leading process functions until I started coming here a few weeks ago, and I've known about MBTI for over 15 years! I've just never delved that deeply into it.

So it's possible a person just hasn't heard about leading process yet.

 

[Totenkindly]

Nah. INFP fer sure. He's just so warm and cuddly.

*unsure*

"But... that clown.. mommy.... why does he have big sharp pointy TEETH???"

*hides face*

 

[Luke]

Socionics shouldn't even use the same nomenclature, because it's a different system with different assumptions about the functions and the arrangement of the psyche. Some of the functions have subtle but important differences in their meaning. In fact, a person can be a different type in Socionics than in MBTI, and vice-versa.

So are you basically claiming that Ti, Te, Fi, Fe, Si, Se, Ni, and Ne each have completely separate definitions in Socionics that are not compatible with the corresponding definitions used for MBTI purposes? If so, how incompatible, and how do you know when someone has two different types versus just being incorrect on one count or the other?

 

[Athenian200]

So are you basically claiming that Ti, Te, Fi, Fe, Si, Se, Ni, and Ne each have completely separate definitions in Socionics that are not compatible with the corresponding definitions used for MBTI purposes? If so, how incompatible, and how do you know when someone has two different types versus just being incorrect on one count or the other?

Well, that's a good question. I would say that they do have separate definitions, but there may be some overlap since they're both derived from Jungian theories. The point is, Socionics takes several different assumptions into account versus MBTI, and there are subtle differences.

Let's use Ti and Si as an example. In MBTI, Ti is defined basically as a function that evaluates things against principles/frameworks. Si is usually defined as a function that measures things against past experience.

In Socionics, however, there are subtle differences (especially with the perceiving functions). Ti is defined in two ways: objective situation of fields, or as systems of rules and categories, and hierarchies.

Si is also defined in two ways: concrete processes of fields, or how events affect your inner state, being related to creating comfort.

So the difference between the two definitions of Ti is that one of them includes numerous, very specific rules and hierarchies as being part of it, while the other only allows it to evaluate evaluate things against general principles, and to be geared mostly towards finding leverage and inconsistency.

With Si, it's more pronounced. MBTI usually defines Si as forms or essences that represent reliable past experience, and are used to compare the present situation to what's familiar. Socionics defines it as being aware of your inner state, and trying to seek comfort.

Do these really sound like the same definitions?

And this is all in addition to the fact that Socionics defines all 8 functions in any given model as Producing/Accepting, Vital/Mental, Id/Ego/Superego/Superid, and Conscious/Unconscious. It incorporates assumptions about the structure of the psyche that MBTI doesn't make.

 

[proteanmix]

Well, that's a good question. I would say that they do have separate definitions, but there may be some overlap since they're both derived from Jungian theories. The point is, Socionics takes several different assumptions into account versus MBTI, and there are subtle differences...

Since I've been reading Jung's Psychological Types, it seems that Socionics is truer to his original theories than what MBTI is. I can't vouch for the visual identification parts but MBTI left out so much detail about the versatility and motivations of each function. They look so one-dimensional according to MBTI.

I'm reading right now that Jung applies the concept of "abstract" to both Sensing and Intuiting. He calls Se abstract sensing and Ne abstract intuiting. Ni is concrete intuiting and Si is concrete sensing. In MBTI, abstraction is only connected to intuition, which excludes so much of what these functions are truly capable of. I'm just amazed at this man's ideas and how much MBTI has forsaken just to be formulaic.

 

[ptgatsby]

Since I've been reading Jung's Psychological Types, it seems that Socionics is truer to his original theories than what MBTI is.

MBTI is really minimally Jung-ish. They seperated ways the moment the methodolody between Jung and Myers' changed. Socionics is an advancement of Jungian theory using Jungian methodology, whereas MBTI took a seperate approach (validation and reliability studies) to Jung's theories.

 

[Aven]

It has certainly bugged me a lot, and I'm probably an INTP.

Basically I would decide on a type, then months later something would make me reconsider.

What I think is important to understand is that INTP is the Ti-dominant, and INTJ is the Ni-dominant. If you decide on one or the other, it should be based on your empathizing more strongly with one of these as the dominant trait, as well as Ne or Te as the supporting trait. More advanced analysis might include looking at the tertiary and inferior. (Si and Fe for INTP, Fi and Se for INTJ. So INTJ likes physical excitement a little more, thinks about loyalty more, INTP likes to express emotion a little more, thinks about being comfortable more.)

You can't just go around deciding based on whether you "feel" more J or more P based on profiles or tests or whatever. The test percentages don't mean you are really only 51% J or whatever -- it only means the test is having a harder time pegging you, even though you are one or the other. (I think my first test was 52% J. It was the humanmetrics.com test.)

I think my need to resolve issues on a logical plane, coupled with a tendency towards flashes of inexplicable insight, points towards INTP. Whether the generally held INTP stereotype is based on the same type as me, or not, I feign no hypothesis.

Well I didn't decide it based on whether I felt it or not initially, I took a legit test that was given to me by an University.
Then I continued to test throughout the years after I remembered it again and like I said I felt more comfortable with the INTP description, meaning I could intuitively relate to it better than the INTJ one.

I also relate more to INTPs than to INTJs, but hey, who knows, like I said, I highly doubt I am a J, just show more Jness than an average P, but then again I am a weird INTP to begin with, but thanks for the clarification .

 

[MerkW]

Thanks for all the replies. After reading more material, I think that I have come to the conclusion that I am in fact an INTJ (nevertheless, one with a rather under-developed auxiliary function).