I remember when i first took the test, I had no idea what it even was. My best friend he was an INTJ, so I figured I'd take it and see what I'd score.
I took the one on the kiersey webiste first, as I had heard it was the most credible. I got "Rational" (NT) on the free one, and read the basics of the other ytpes. It was actually my honest hope to core something different than my INTJ friend (I answered the questions as naturally and unbiased as I could, also I had absolutely no idea what any of the typing meant at the time). I got my hands on a copy of one of the books with the test in it, and took it again. It scored me almost entirely INT, and there was about a 13 to 7 favor of J over P.
And of course, I wasn't entirely sure if it was correct. So I took like twenty more tests, all different, all scoring INTJ and once INTP, but I had a friend answer how she thought of me on that one. (she's an INFP, on a side note)
After reading up alot on the INTJ type, I realized it explained so many things I thought were "wrong" (coming from my ESFP mother) about me, especially from my childhood tendencies. ALot of the time when I found myself debating the answer to a question, I fit the INTJ bill because A) I had to question my own impulses in the first place, B) I took it quite objectively, and C) I cared more for the ovrtones and connections rather than everyday applications. Almost any time I was unsure about whether I was a J or a P, (Abraham Lincoln was an INTP and he had been following me around for quite some time. I thought initially that I may be one as well, but I guess not) I ended up doing something so J-like that, well, there was no question anymore.
So really, after learning what the types meant and the applications and tenencies, I've come to realize wholeheartedly that I am an INTJ, and am usually surprised at some others who claim to be. I'va actually wondered the same thing, as I've only met (outside of here, of course) one other INTJ myself. Haha, I can usually pick out the obvious INTJ's on here (before I even bother to read their username or type), and I'm a tad skeptical of some others.
There is, however, a question of male and female. Do female steryotypes exist in the INTJ form? I know my INTJ friend and I are actually pretty different at times, though still following a strictly INTJ-esque behavior.
And also, I agree, Athenian had a lovely post.
VI VERI VENIVERSUM VIVUS VIVCI
"By the power of truth, I, while living, have conquered the universe."
Of course INTJs are more likely to enjoy MBTI. Hell, look at the commune, the SJs and SPs have about a total of 5,000 posts. Now look at the NTs and NFs, 21,000 for the NFs and almost 29,000 for NTs. It is definitely a more of intuitive thing. And I think that MBTIc reflects that.
Personally, I come here because I meet other people like me, I rarely meet others similar to myself in real life. Even though I have to admit that is probably because I am not as outgoing as most people.
People give good advice here.
I dunno, I never thought it odd or strange that a lot of INTJs seem to be floating around. Just more of the type to participate in forums like these.
What makes an INTJ, I would say, is that the general description of the INTJ type fits the person more so than the other MBTI types. However, I think in the end only the person in question is responsible.
Seriously, if you can pass as INTJ, anyone can pass as INTJ. Aren't they supposed to be the kings of these types of things?
ISFJ � F 19.4% M 8.1% = 27.5%
ESFJ � F 16.9% M 7.5% = 24.4%
ISTJ � F 6.9% M 16.4% = 23.3%
ESTJ � F 6.3% M 11.2% = 17.5%
ISFP � F 9.9% M 7.6% = 17.5%
ESFP � F 10.1% M 6.9% = 17%
ENFP � F 9.7% M 6.4% = 16.1%
ISTP � F 2.4% M 8.5% = 10.9%
INFP � F 4.6% M 4.1% = 8.7%
ESTP � F 3.0% M 5.6% = 8.6%
ENTP � F 2.4% M 4.0% = 6.4%
INTP � F 1.8% M 4.8% = 5.8%
ENFJ � F 3.3% M 1.6% = 4.9%
INTJ � F 0.8% M 3.3% = 4.1%
ENTJ � F 0.9% M 2.7% = 3.6%
INFJ � F 1.6% M 1.3% = 2.9%
Another Sample of US Population (Inferential Statistics)
In these samples take note that NTs in general tend to be a rarer type but they seem to flock to MBTIc. Also the introverted NTs have their own communities at INTJ Forum and INTP Central. Although it is frequent for individuals to mistype themselves I think the 'unusual' amount of INTJs here is more attributed to interest in MBTI. Taking this a step even further it seems that MBTI naturally attracts the intuitive types, because there are quite a few INFJs here as well. I mean think about it, the most active forums in the Commune are the NFs and the NTs.
Why the hell should we believe in the empirical validity of these stats? Extraverts are clearly more common than introverts like 70:30 ratio, sensors are also clearly more common than intuitives like 70:30 ratio as well. Feelers are slightly more common than thinkers like 55:45, and judgers are more common than perceivers like 60:40 ratio. Any chart that does not roughly reflect those measurements is clearly bogus and poorly researched.
wow that's really good. see, i'd say you're an INTJ based on that :P
Originally Posted by Athenian200
This is a good question, Haphazard. It could easily be asked about any of the other types as well, and you would not get a satisfactory answer about any of them.
There's always an argument someone can make to show that they are their particular type. Here are some of the most common ones:
1. Partial or total shadow manifestation -- The person can claim that stress caused them to develop and rely on functions they wouldn't naturally use, and thus changed their appearance from the default type template.
2. Auxiliary repression/tertiary development -- Especially useful for people who are only one letter off from their desired type in testing. The person can claim that they are an example of a type that didn't get sufficient stimulation for their normal auxiliary, and developed a strong tertiary instead. So that an INTJ would seem more Ni-Fi, an INTP would seem more Ti-Si, etc.
3. Social/family conditioning -- This is used to claim that a person's upbringing impacted their expressed type, and that if this had not happened, they would have manifested their natural type.
The problem with MBTI is that, quite simply, too much is left up to individual interpretation, and the qualities typically assigned to types are somewhat subjective and dependent on where they seem to be relative to the observer's own predisposition. There are so many loopholes.
IMO, this stems from MBTI not clearly defining what a type is supposed to be. Is it the manifest qualities seen within a person's personality according to a set standard or defined quality, or is it some innate quality that can have a distorted expression? Is it the observable qualities, or an unconscious tendency that cannot be so clearly defined?
If it's an observable quality, all three of those arguments disappear, because all that matters is how they conduct themselves right now, not how they think they are inside or could have been.
If it's indeed an unconscious tendency rather than an observable trait, the tests used and the qualities typically defined are inadequate for quantifying something so ineffable.
If it's somehow a combination of unconscious tendencies and observable traits, it's far more complex. The tests are still inadequate, but now you have to figure out subtle systems for determining what every single expressed trait means in that particular context. This seems like it would be near impossible, and would have low potential for accuracy at best.