[INTJ] Calling All INTJs: I am considering becoming INTJ

[Mal12345]

Well, I think I would respond this way to a lot of things. I think in this case it's more about Te than Ti; if someone just compliments my logic or reasoning or whatever, I don't take it that way, because I'm much more confident in that than my ability to accomplish things. Doing well on a test means an accomplishment of some sort. I think the function which most enjoys being rewarded is being desired and wanted by people, socially and physically. I think there are degrees of this for different functions. But it's an interesting theory; I'm going to look it up.

Another question is: how would you feel and respond if you were criticized for only getting a 98% on the math test in the example?

 

[citizen cane]

I don't make those kinds of simple mistakes, I've known the difference between Judging and judgmental ever since I read my first MBTI book over 20 years ago. However, even Jung disagrees with you that type can't change. He himself believed that his dominant type changed over the decades.

I'm not saying that type can't change. I'm saying that it's not something one can healthily change via conscious effort.

 

[greenfairy]

Another question is: how would you feel and respond if you were criticized for only getting a 98% on the math test in the example?

It would depend on who it was. If it was my parents I'd feel bad because they expected me to be perfect. Otherwise I'd just feel like the person was being a jerk, because they would be, and then just forget about it. How would you feel?

 

[Mal12345]

It would depend on who it was. If it was my parents I'd feel bad because they expected me to be perfect. Otherwise I'd just feel like the person was being a jerk, because they would be, and then just forget about it. How would you feel?

I'm not the subject of this part of the thread. The question is how you would respond, and "feel bad" isn't an emotion. When I'm sick I "feel bad."

If you feel like the person was being a jerk, then I can't readily differentiate that response from either your feelings about the test result, or your values concerning social politeness. But it's possible.

No matter how I analyze your responses, I keep coming back to INFJ for you. But that's not the point of this. I wonder how many of your test results are based on how you see yourself, or how you would like others (e.g., your parents) to see you: the perfectionist side of you.

As for the Id/Ego/Superego question, "feeling bad" comes from the Superego. It reveals an inadequacy or a vulnerability (your kryptonite) that your parents are able to take advantage of and control you through.

I'm beginning to conclude that you are not completely individuated, and that this is the main problem behind your efforts at determining your type.

As for the person who you thought of as a jerk, and then forgot about the issue, that response comes from the Id. Fe is a function which you are aware of and probably skilled at, but consider superfluous.

 

[greenfairy]

I'm not the subject of this part of the thread.

No, but it would be useful to compare our responses, since you are sure of your type (and pretty much everyone else is). Then based on that I can understand your reasoning and evaluate it. I'm not going to take seriously an "experiment" I don't understand, or someone's conclusions for which I can't follow the reasoning.

The question is how you would respond, and "feel bad" isn't an emotion. When I'm sick I "feel bad."

I guess I'd feel inadequate for a bit, since my first instinct is to base my self worth on others' assessments. Then I'd realize their judgment was ridiculous and they weren't saying it for constructive criticism (unless they were, in which case I'd take it as such and not feel much at all); whatever other reasons they would have for criticizing me therefore would probably not be constructive, i.e. being a jerk.

If you feel like the person was being a jerk, then I can't readily differentiate that response from either your feelings about the test result, or your values concerning social politeness. But it's possible.

No matter how I analyze your responses, I keep coming back to INFJ for you. But that's not the point of this. I wonder how many of your test results are based on how you see yourself, or how you would like others (e.g., your parents) to see you: the perfectionist side of you.

As for the Id/Ego/Superego question, "feeling bad" comes from the Superego. It reveals an inadequacy or a vulnerability (your kryptonite) that your parents are able to take advantage of and control you through.

I'm beginning to conclude that you are not completely individuated, and that this is the main problem behind your efforts at determining your type.

As for the person who you thought of as a jerk, and then forgot about the issue, that response comes from the Id. Fe is a function which you are aware of and probably skilled at, but consider superfluous.

Well it's possible. Like I say, I'm not ruling it out. I just have more things pointing to other conclusions.

What does it mean to say I'm not completely individuated?

 

[greenfairy]

Ok well, while you work on becoming an INTJ I will work on becoming an ENTP. Deal?

 

[Mal12345]

It would depend on who it was. If it was my parents I'd feel bad because they expected me to be perfect. Otherwise I'd just feel like the person was being a jerk, because they would be, and then just forget about it. How would you feel?

Not the same way.

 

[Mal12345]

No, but it would be useful to compare our responses, since you are sure of your type (and pretty much everyone else is). Then based on that I can understand your reasoning and evaluate it. I'm not going to take seriously an "experiment" I don't understand, or someone's conclusions for which I can't follow the reasoning.

I guess I'd feel inadequate for a bit, since my first instinct is to base my self worth on others' assessments. Then I'd realize their judgment was ridiculous and they weren't saying it for constructive criticism (unless they were, in which case I'd take it as such and not feel much at all); whatever other reasons they would have for criticizing me therefore would probably not be constructive, i.e. being a jerk.

Well it's possible. Like I say, I'm not ruling it out. I just have more things pointing to other conclusions.

What does it mean to say I'm not completely individuated?

It means your sense of identity is still dependent upon your parents' expectations for you.

 

[Entropic]

Oh ok, I see. Thanks. So then the next question I guess becomes how you know what function informs your ego, and other people's. It's one of those things you can get a sense of, and try to figure out using descriptions of functions, but it's kind of vague and intangible.

I don't find it extremely difficult at all. Consider for example what you wrote here that I bolded. That's for instance a sentiment sensors tend to share because it's how sensation operates. Sensation types seek the tangible and concrete reality, intuitives see the patterns that glues this reality together. So what does it mean that you express this then? In terms of ego, you probably prefer sensation.

The way you look for cognition in people can thus be through many different ways, but I tend to be interested in how what people express seems to be a reflection of how they operate on the inside. As a whole it's of course more difficult to see oneself than it is to see other people, because seeing oneself requires a different kind of self-awareness.

Ok, but with one caution: the unconscious also has an ego.

No, it doesn't, because the unconsciousness functions opposite of the ego. The unconsciousness acts independently of the ego, but it is not the same as being the ego.

 

[Mal12345]

No, it doesn't, because the unconsciousness functions opposite of the ego. The unconsciousness acts independently of the ego, but it is not the same as being the ego.

The unconscious ego is infantile, childishly emotional, and always thinks it is right. The unconscious ego is also the motivator for defense mechanisms. The unconscious ego operates in the background of consciousness, you're not supposed to be aware of its existence, but its presence is seen in the behavior of the less conscious functions. The unconscious ego, once observed, can be seen to be very predictable, unlike conscious ego-driven behavior which is more directed by the will and is thus less predictable.

 

[highlander]

Nope.

In all likelihood, nothing even remotely close to such statistics exist.

But one can do a back-of-the-envelope estimate, based on statistics that do exist, and a few assumptions.

INTJs are somewhere around 1%-3% of the population, depending on which source you look at.

6s are ~20%-25% of the INTJ population, based on the only statistics that I believe exist (and almost all those would likely be 6w5s).

And, lastly, sx's are believed to be the least common of the three instinctual variants, with sx/so being less common than sx/sp.

I figure the ratio in society to be something like 50%-60% sp, 30%-40% so, and ~10% sx.

That would make sx/so's, at most, be ~5% of the population.

More realistically, they're probably about half, or less, the population of sx/sp's.

So something like 2-3% for sx/so's wouldn't be a horrible assumption, and likely nothing higher than 5%.

Assuming sx/so's aren't any less common amongst INTJs than other MBTI types (which may not be a good assumption), this would yield, at a low, something like .005% (1% INTJs x 20% INTJs as 6w5s x 2.5% INTJ 6w5s as sx/so's = 1/20,000), and, at a high, something like .0375% (3% INTJs x 25% INTJ as 6w5s x 5% INTJ 6w5s as sx/so's = 1/2667) of the population being INTJ 6w5 sx/so's.

The actual number probably lies within that range, and no higher than 1/1333 (shifting the last assumption all the way to 10%).

Take the average of the high and low ends of the range, and you get somewhere around 1/12000, or .0083% of the population.

If there are 16 MBTI types, 9 enneagram types, 9 instinctual stackings (3x3) then that comes out to 1296 possible combinations. On average then you could be .08% likely to be any particular type. Thus we are all special snowflakes. I suppose that doesn't work though because some just don't go together - like INFP 8s or something. Still, it provides some sense as to the granularity and richness of the systems when used in combination with each other. I wonder how far all of this will ultimately go. If you combine DNA testing, psychological testing, MBTI and enneagram, family history, spending habits etc., I suppose you could know an awful lot about a person and if you could then do analytics on populations, it would be even more interesting. I assume this kind of thing is done already with certain types of criminals (like terrorists) but don't know much about it.

Maybe this is off topic but your post got me thinking.

 

[greenfairy]

It means your sense of identity is still dependent upon your parents' expectations for you.

Aren't most people's? Of course, I find it difficult to have a sense of identity independent from anything. If there were no other people in the world I would probably think I wasn't a separate thing at all, just a bit of consciousness floating around becoming whatever I was interacting with.

I don't find it extremely difficult at all. Consider for example what you wrote here that I bolded. That's for instance a sentiment sensors tend to share because it's how sensation operates. Sensation types seek the tangible and concrete reality, intuitives see the patterns that glues this reality together. So what does it mean that you express this then? In terms of ego, you probably prefer sensation.

And this is probably the only thing which suggests me being a sensor, but it is very true. I don't really connect concepts to reality without something tangible. If I've observed it before, or it is made up of things I've observed, I can put the pieces together. I'm very much an idea person though. I don't figure out the details of things until after the idea is formed.

The way you look for cognition in people can thus be through many different ways, but I tend to be interested in how what people express seems to be a reflection of how they operate on the inside. As a whole it's of course more difficult to see oneself than it is to see other people, because seeing oneself requires a different kind of self-awareness.

Once again, over my head most of the time. In typology terms anyway. I'm pretty intuitive with picking up on feelings, thought patterns, and experiences.

 

[RaptorWizard]

Aren't most people's? Of course, I find it difficult to have a sense of identity independent from anything. If there were no other people in the world I would probably think I wasn't a separate thing at all, just a bit of consciousness floating around becoming whatever I was interacting with.

You sound like the Sith Emperor in Star Wars (not Darth Sidious; older time period), when he schemed to annihilate all life in the universe and feed its power into his consciousness.

And this is probably the only thing which suggests me being a sensor, but it is very true. I don't really connect concepts to reality without something tangible. If I've observed it before, or it is made up of things I've observed, I can put the pieces together. I'm very much an idea person though. I don't figure out the details of things until after the idea is formed.

Your comment about things being 'vague and intangible' I don't think is related to sensing. I think it's just something open-minded people in general tend to say when things are uncertain, and since they can't perceive it all completely, they think about it more rather than making hasty conclusions about 'what it is', or so they would like to think it is.

Once again, over my head most of the time. In typology terms anyway. I'm pretty intuitive with picking up on feelings, thought patterns, and experiences.

Keep on seeking these things, but just don't ever stop your search if you believe to have gathered (what seems to be) all of the answers, because we have always found that whenever we thought the journey was over, a new horizon appeared over the mountain.

 

[Mal12345]

Aren't most people's? Of course, I find it difficult to have a sense of identity independent from anything. If there were no other people in the world I would probably think I wasn't a separate thing at all, just a bit of consciousness floating around becoming whatever I was interacting with.

That's definitely a description coming from a 9. The MBTI doesn't offer anything in the realm of personal growth, but Riso's enneagram does. If I were you I would start by studying his description of the 9 in Personality Types.

 

[Zarathustra]

If there are 16 MBTI types, 9 enneagram types, 9 instinctual stackings (3x3) then that comes out to 1296 possible combinations. On average then you could be .08% likely to be any particular type. Thus we are all special snowflakes. I suppose that doesn't work though because some just don't go together - like INFP 8s or something. Still, it provides some sense as to the granularity and richness of the systems when used in combination with each other. I wonder how far all of this will ultimately go. If you combine DNA testing, psychological testing, MBTI and enneagram, family history, spending habits etc., I suppose you could know an awful lot about a person and if you could then do analytics on populations, it would be even more interesting. I assume this kind of thing is done already with certain types of criminals (like terrorists) but don't know much about it.

Maybe this is off topic but your post got me thinking.

I was actually gunna start another thread on this.

Your assumptions actually should be tweaked, imo.

16 MBTI types x 18 enneagram types (when combined with wings [or 27, if no wing is included as a type; or 36 if no wing and double wing is included]) x 6 instinctual stackings (it's not 3x3; it's 3x2x1) = 1/1728.

As you said, tho, many types just don't make sense, and the probabilities are pretty high that certain MBTI types will be certain enneagram types, and then that those enneagram types will be certain instinctual stackings (SpSo>SoSp>SpSx>SoSx>SxSp>SxSo -- or something close to that, likely), so, yesterday, I kinda did a quick in-my-head calculation of what a common type would be:

ESFJs are ~12% of the population x 36% (at least) are enneagram 2s x SpSo at 50% = ~2%+ are ESFJ 2 SpSo (roughly)

So that's 1/50 for that combination, and if we split evenly between 2w1 and 2w3, then that's 1/100 for each.

That's versus what I figure would be something more like 1/10000+ for INTJ 6w5 sx/so.

So, indeed, some are rarer than others (which should be expected).

 

[Entropic]

The unconscious ego is infantile, childishly emotional, and always thinks it is right. The unconscious ego is also the motivator for defense mechanisms. The unconscious ego operates in the background of consciousness, you're not supposed to be aware of its existence, but its presence is seen in the behavior of the less conscious functions. The unconscious ego, once observed, can be seen to be very predictable, unlike conscious ego-driven behavior which is more directed by the will and is thus less predictable.

I have no idea where you get this from, but this has nothing to do with what Jung wrote about consciousness-unconsciousness.

Aren't most people's? Of course, I find it difficult to have a sense of identity independent from anything. If there were no other people in the world I would probably think I wasn't a separate thing at all, just a bit of consciousness floating around becoming whatever I was interacting with.

I doubt this is a commonly shared experience with you. I don't share this experience at all. I experience myself as very independent from other people. I am my own entity.

And this is probably the only thing which suggests me being a sensor, but it is very true. I don't really connect concepts to reality without something tangible. If I've observed it before, or it is made up of things I've observed, I can put the pieces together. I'm very much an idea person though. I don't figure out the details of things until after the idea is formed.

Being an ideas-person has nothing to do with intuition, though. It's not like sensors cannot think or have ideas, of course they can, but the question becomes how these ideas actually pertain to reality as they perceive it. It's difficult to explain intuition in general. Jung described it as the ability to see what's around the corner when you can only see the corner. So it's not whether one is ideas-oriented, but whether one is more focused on the corner or what is behind the corner. When I type people, I don't care how they come across as much as I care about how they come across says something about what is behind the corner. That is intuition. Intuition is oriented towards patterns and trends finding, and that's about it.

Once again, over my head most of the time. In typology terms anyway. I'm pretty intuitive with picking up on feelings, thought patterns, and experiences.

This just seems to be intuition in a general sense, not necessarily Jungian intuition. Fe types are very good at reading the feelings of other people for example. Again look at what you emphasized here: Feelings, thoughts patterns of other people (how they think and feel) and experiences. So strongly indicative of Si-Fe cognition as I typed you as long time ago already, but you were very resistant to that suggestion then.
[MENTION=8936]highlander[/MENTION] why cannot an INFP be a type 8? Type 8 is simply a specific defense strategy in how you nagivate the world through. I would say that Fi dominance and type 8 is very compatible, because the enneatype motivations will simply line up with the Jungian cognition. Take Nero from the Devil May Cry 4 game. I would easily type him as an ISFP 8.

 

[Mal12345]

I have no idea where you get this from, but this has nothing to do with what Jung wrote about consciousness-unconsciousness.

Try this Jung quote then:

"The measure of extraversion in the conscious attitude entails a like degree of infantilism and archaism in the attitude of the unconscious. The egoism which so often characterizes the extravert's unconscious attitude goes far beyond mere childish selfishness; it even verges upon the wicked and brutal. It is here we find in fullest bloom that incest-wish described by Freud. It is self-evident that these things are entirely unconscious, remaining altogether hidden from the eyes of the uninitiated observer so long as the extraversion of the conscious attitude does not reach an extreme stage." (Psychological Types, 424.)

My thought that the unconscious ego is predictable is my own observation from experience, not Jung's.

 

[Entropic]

Try this Jung quote then:

"The measure of extraversion in the conscious attitude entails a like degree of infantilism and archaism in the attitude of the unconscious. The egoism which so often characterizes the extravert's unconscious attitude goes far beyond mere childish selfishness; it even verges upon the wicked and brutal. It is here we find in fullest bloom that incest-wish described by Freud. It is self-evident that these things are entirely unconscious, remaining altogether hidden from the eyes of the uninitiated observer so long as the extraversion of the conscious attitude does not reach an extreme stage." (Psychological Types, 424.)

My thought that the unconscious ego is predictable is my own observation from experience, not Jung's.

And please tell me, where does Jung once indicate that the unconsciouss is in possession of its own ego in this quote? This sentence is extremely taken out of context since "egoism" actually means that, egoism, which is very different to the word "egoic". I question your reading comprehension abilities.

 

[greenfairy]

I doubt this is a commonly shared experience with you. I don't share this experience at all. I experience myself as very independent from other people. I am my own entity.

You are a type 5 though.

Being an ideas-person has nothing to do with intuition, though. It's not like sensors cannot think or have ideas, of course they can, but the question becomes how these ideas actually pertain to reality as they perceive it. It's difficult to explain intuition in general. Jung described it as the ability to see what's around the corner when you can only see the corner. So it's not whether one is ideas-oriented, but whether one is more focused on the corner or what is behind the corner. When I type people, I don't care how they come across as much as I care about how they come across says something about what is behind the corner. That is intuition. Intuition is oriented towards patterns and trends finding, and that's about it.

This just seems to be intuition in a general sense, not necessarily Jungian intuition. Fe types are very good at reading the feelings of other people for example. Again look at what you emphasized here: Feelings, thoughts patterns of other people (how they think and feel) and experiences. So strongly indicative of Si-Fe cognition as I typed you as long time ago already, but you were very resistant to that suggestion then.

N's are more oriented towards ideas for their own sake, whereas sensors see them as more a means to an end. I've heard sensors when working on project tend to gather data and details and then put them together into an overall picture, and people using cognitive intuition will first get an idea and then work on the details. I don't know how accurate that is, since most people start off with some idea; but I hardly ever do it the sensing way. I find the details of an idea's realization boring. Aesthetic details I am happy to plan, but practical details like logistics aren't something I'm good at.

I have thought about what you said and seriously considered it, but I don't think I fit inferior Ne and I don't seem that much like the ISFJ's I've encountered. Granted I don't know many; but we have some striking differences.

 

[highlander]

[MENTION=8936]highlander[/MENTION] why cannot an INFP be a type 8? Type 8 is simply a specific defense strategy in how you nagivate the world through. I would say that Fi dominance and type 8 is very compatible, because the enneatype motivations will simply line up with the Jungian cognition. Take Nero from the Devil May Cry 4 game. I would easily type him as an ISFP 8.

I guess it's possible just not likely.

http://www.typologycentral.com/forums/showthread.php?t=58167&p=1949082&viewfull=1#post1949082

http://www.typologycentral.com/forums/showthread.php?t=58167&p=1949102&viewfull=1#post1949102