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

[Mal12345]

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.

Egoism without an ego? Interesting.

"Egoic" lol.

 

[Entropic]

You are a type 5 though.

Yes, and that's part of the point. I'm also an Fi type, so I don't have a sense of shared collective experience like Fe types do.

N's are more oriented towards ideas for their own sake, whereas sensors see them as more a means to an end.

No. This is a bad steroetype of intuition and sensation in my opinion, that's built on Keirsey's definitions but has little to do with actual intuition. Any person can be idea-oriented. What does it mean to be idea-oriented anyway?

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.

By that definition I'm a sensor. It doesn't work that way. It's about how you understand the world, not how you operate in the world. They are not necessarily the same things. Two people can operate the same but understand the process differently.

I don't know how accurate that is, since most people start off with some idea;

So now you contradicted yourself.

but I hardly ever do it the sensing way.

How does one separate between a sensing idea and intuitive idea?

I find the details of an idea's realization boring.

So you don't like Se with thinking.

Aesthetic details I am happy to plan, but practical details like logistics aren't something I'm good at.

So you favor Si and are weak at Te when combined with Se in particular.

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.

Such as? How do you know they are actually properly typed ISFJs cognitively? And how would you describe inferior Ne?

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

Irrelevant information. Forum stats are only as valid as people self-typings are and when it comes to both systems, especially together, I'd say it's close to nil.

Egoism without an ego? Interesting.

"Egoic" lol.

Yeah, let's interpret things more literally.

 

[highlander]

Irrelevant information. Forum stats are only as valid as people self-typings are and when it comes to both systems, especially together, I'd say it's close to nil.

It's less irrelevant than your comment. At least I provided data - two sets of data from different places. Show me something better instead of taking your cheap potshots. I suppose we could rely on your analysis. Then again, you were just trying to figure out your own type a few months ago.

Why not just throw out the whole system because testing methods are unreliable and since it's unreliable, then it's a waste of time.

 

[greenfairy]

No. This is a bad steroetype of intuition and sensation in my opinion, that's built on Keirsey's definitions but has little to do with actual intuition. Any person can be idea-oriented. What does it mean to be idea-oriented anyway?

I don't think so, I think you can make generalizations. You're right, anyone can be "idea oriented" in a way- but there are subtle differences as to the types of ideas, whether or not the person is interested in the realization of them, how they understand them, etc.

So now you contradicted yourself.

No I'm just acknowledging that the specific thing I heard may not be right. First I described what it was. I think it has a grain of truth in it, in that you can make generalizations and intuitors are more interested in theorizing and abstract thought for its own sake, but that's kind of vague and open ended- what I heard might not be correct in the way it was stated.

How does one separate between a sensing idea and intuitive idea?

It's not that simple, and as I have said I'm not so good with the subtleties, so I couldn't tell you. It's about patterns.

So you don't like Se with thinking.

So you favor Si and are weak at Te when combined with Se in particular.

For these reasons and others I believe I have the functions of XNTP and XSFJ- but I think I am more like an NTP than an SFJ.

Such as? How do you know they are actually properly typed ISFJs cognitively? And how would you describe inferior Ne?

I couldn't go into all the ways I don't fit here- it would be too long of a post, and I don't think anyone wants to read it. I only know my mom is correctly typed- the other one may be INFJ. I have a book about the inferior functions, so I know a fair amount about them. I know if people, including myself, fit or not.

 

[Entropic]

I don't think so, I think you can make generalizations. You're right, anyone can be "idea oriented" in a way- but there are subtle differences as to the types of ideas, whether or not the person is interested in the realization of them, how they understand them, etc.

Care to give any examples?

No I'm just acknowledging that the specific thing I heard may not be right. First I described what it was. I think it has a grain of truth in it, in that you can make generalizations and intuitors are more interested in theorizing and abstract thought for its own sake, but that's kind of vague and open ended- what I heard might not be correct in the way it was stated.

Correction: Ne and Fe types can be. Ni types not necessarily, even less so if paired with Te. For me theorizing must have a purpose or a reason, otherwise it is a pointless act.

It's not that simple, and as I have said I'm not so good with the subtleties, so I couldn't tell you. It's about patterns.

Such as? You have to realize that it's the kinds of patterns that matter. Si types are also good at noticing patterns, but those patterns are Si patterns and ultimately relate to the physical world in some sense. The problem here is that many Si types don't realize Si is actually sensation because it is actually abstract since it's introverted. Same thing applies to many Fe types who think that their ability to read tone, intent and so on in people's emotions is a form of intuition and in a general sense it is. It is just not Jungian intuition. That's the distinction I'm making here.

For these reasons and others I believe I have the functions of XNTP and XSFJ- but I think I am more like an NTP than an SFJ.

Yes, you keep saying so, but cognitively I do think you operate more like an xSFJ than an xNTP. More focus on Fe and Si than Ne and Ti.

I couldn't go into all the ways I don't fit here- it would be too long of a post, and I don't think anyone wants to read it. I only know my mom is correctly typed- the other one may be INFJ. I have a book about the inferior functions, so I know a fair amount about them. I know if people, including myself, fit or not.

Reading a book is not the same thing as actually being able to understand the book and identify it in other people. Naomi Quenk's book is for example incredibly vague at its places and I can see how some of her descriptions could apply to more than one inferior. I might even posit ESFJ because there is a certain point from you where you simply naturally shy away from and even seem to refuse to actually make logical categorizations. Why is that if you're an INTP? They live in the world of categorization being Ti-dominants, to the point they often appear as overly nitpicky.

 

[greenfairy]

Care to give any examples?

I've given examples which you've rejected as being too vague. I'm a big picture thinker, so I don't really have specific examples.

Correction: Ne and Fe types can be. Ni types not necessarily, even less so if paired with Te. For me theorizing must have a purpose or a reason, otherwise it is a pointless act.

I've known some Ni types who are as well, but on the whole it is more associated with Ne.

Such as? You have to realize that it's the kinds of patterns that matter. Si types are also good at noticing patterns, but those patterns are Si patterns and ultimately relate to the physical world in some sense. The problem here is that many Si types don't realize Si is actually sensation because it is actually abstract since it's introverted. Same thing applies to many Fe types who think that their ability to read tone, intent and so on in people's emotions is a form of intuition and in a general sense it is. It is just not Jungian intuition. That's the distinction I'm making here.

Good point. I'm pretty sure the patterns I notice are sufficiently N as to be N aux/dom; but my S functions help.

Yes, you keep saying so, but cognitively I do think you operate more like an xSFJ than an xNTP. More focus on Fe and Si than Ne and Ti.

You might be right. I can't prove it to you either way.

Reading a book is not the same thing as actually being able to understand the book and identify it in other people. Naomi Quenk's book is for example incredibly vague at its places and I can see how some of her descriptions could apply to more than one inferior. I might even posit ESFJ because there is a certain point from you where you simply naturally shy away from and even seem to refuse to actually make logical categorizations. Why is that if you're an INTP? They live in the world of categorization being Ti-dominants, to the point they often appear as overly nitpicky.

I've learned that being overly nitpicky is detrimental to your social life, so I try to avoid it. But I do notice things which I keep to myself.

I can't prove to you I am or am not a certain type, or that I understand a book. You're right it can be difficult to apply the concepts to people, but I do my best and I think I do it adequately. I think you do as well, and we simply have different opinions.

 

[Entropic]

I've given examples which you've rejected as being too vague. I'm a big picture thinker, so I don't really have specific examples.

How is being vague the same as being a big picture thinker, though? When I think of an NT, I think of someone who is capable of drawing intuitive connections between objects and events and logically connect these ideas. If anything every time I have a discussion with you about functions, you are extremely resistant to even make any kind of general classifications of what is and what isn't.

My point being that one can be a big picture thinker and still be very definitive one's thinking. I get the impression here that what you really think is sensation is actually thinking, in that thinking too can make objects seem concrete in that thinking always impersonally defines what is and what isn't and it is really thinking as a cognitive act that you shy away from, not sensation.

I've known some Ni types who are as well, but on the whole it is more associated with Ne.

What is associated with Ne?

Good point. I'm pretty sure the patterns I notice are sufficiently N as to be N aux/dom; but my S functions help.

Care to give any examples of these patterns?

I've learned that being overly nitpicky is detrimental to your social life, so I try to avoid it. But I do notice things which I keep to myself.

Nitpicky in what sense?

I can't prove to you I am or am not a certain type, or that I understand a book. You're right it can be difficult to apply the concepts to people, but I do my best and I think I do it adequately. I think you do as well, and we simply have different opinions.

You can't prove it with physical evidence no, but you can prove it to me by showing that you do in your actual reasoning processes when conversing with me. This isn't just a differences of opinions but also a difference in cognition.

 

[greenfairy]

How is being vague the same as being a big picture thinker, though? When I think of an NT, I think of someone who is capable of drawing intuitive connections between objects and events and logically connect these ideas. If anything every time I have a discussion with you about functions, you are extremely resistant to even make any kind of general classifications of what is and what isn't.

What you think is vague is me being a big picture thinker. They're not the same in all cases, but in some cases they overlap. When I think of an NT I think of all kinds of things, and I've seen all kinds of NT's.

My point being that one can be a big picture thinker and still be very definitive one's thinking. I get the impression here that what you really think is sensation is actually thinking, in that thinking too can make objects seem concrete in that thinking always impersonally defines what is and what isn't and it is really thinking as a cognitive act that you shy away from, not sensation.

Maybe. Some people agree with you and others don't.

What is associated with Ne?

What you mentioned in your previous post to which I was replying. Both Ne and Ni are more oriented towards ideas for their own sake than a means to an end; sensors generally want the ideas to be useful and applicable to the concrete world. They enjoy them, but speculation is not their primary focus. S functions are associated with concrete and physical reality and N functions are associated with abstract and metaphysical reality. This is an example you are asking for. It's a pattern, a trend, not an absolute. Individuals and subtleties of expression will vary. Ni dom/aux will prefer to have a purpose and a focus, if only to come to a conclusion; whereas Ne is usually content to throw out possibilities without any focus or direction. Both will not feel it necessary to tie their speculations to the physical world; the ideas are entertaining in themselves.

Nitpicky in what sense?

In the sense you meant it in the post to which I am replying.

You can't prove it with physical evidence no, but you can prove it to me by showing that you do in your actual reasoning processes when conversing with me. This isn't just a differences of opinions but also a difference in cognition.

I doubt I could prove anything to you, and I'm not interested in trying. But if you genuinely want to figure me out, I'll respond to questions and pick apart your reasoning process.

 

[RaptorWizard]

[MENTION=15773]greenfairy[/MENTION] I like the idea I have in my head that I see a little bit of myself reflected in your manifestations.

We each have had people argue our types for incredible periods of time on this forum (with a common history of self-typing as INTP).
We like contemplating the great mysteries and exploring the many amazing horizons of reality.
We take apart other people's ideas and imagine what kinds of constitutions the pieces could create.
We are both very unique people with a flair for fantasy that others are often intrigued and even greatly amused by (like me being a 'wizard' , and you being a 'fairy' ).

So am I right or what!?

 

[greenfairy]

Indeed.

Well hey, without us the forum would be slightly less interesting/exciting.

 

[Coriolis]

What you mentioned in your previous post to which I was replying. Both Ne and Ni are more oriented towards ideas for their own sake than a means to an end; sensors generally want the ideas to be useful and applicable to the concrete world. They enjoy them, but speculation is not their primary focus. S functions are associated with concrete and physical reality and N functions are associated with abstract and metaphysical reality. This is an example you are asking for. It's a pattern, a trend, not an absolute. Individuals and subtleties of expression will vary. Ni dom/aux will prefer to have a purpose and a focus, if only to come to a conclusion; whereas Ne is usually content to throw out possibilities without any focus or direction. Both will not feel it necessary to tie their speculations to the physical world; the ideas are entertaining in themselves.

The highlighted is an oversimplification. This is where the influence of other functions comes into play. INTJs, for instance, are typically strongly oriented toward implementing their ideas in the real world. INTPs, by contrast, are more likely to be content with developing the idea itself. Similarly, I would expect SFPs to enjoy the physical process of whatever they are doing more than the actual outcome, while SFJs are more focused on outcome. All this is an oversimplification, too, but points to something other than N vs. S differences in the comparison you are trying to make. I would attribute it more to J vs. P, or Je vs. Ji (which amounts to the same thing).

 

[greenfairy]

The highlighted is an oversimplification. This is where the influence of other functions comes into play. INTJs, for instance, are typically strongly oriented toward implementing their ideas in the real world. INTPs, by contrast, are more likely to be content with developing the idea itself. Similarly, I would expect SFPs to enjoy the physical process of whatever they are doing more than the actual outcome, while SFJs are more focused on outcome. All this is an oversimplification, too, but points to something other than N vs. S differences in the comparison you are trying to make. I would attribute it more to J vs. P, or Je vs. Ji (which amounts to the same thing).

I am in favor of oversimplifications. If they didn't exist I wouldn't understand anything.

 

[Coriolis]

I am in favor of oversimplifications. If they didn't exist I wouldn't understand anything.

I prefer simplifying assumptions, which can sometimes be removed later once an approximate understanding is reached. That is the point of the "over" in "oversimplify"; it goes too far, and detracts from understanding rathr than enhancing it.

 

[greenfairy]

I prefer simplifying assumptions, which can sometimes be removed later once an approximate understanding is reached. That is the point of the "over" in "oversimplify"; it goes too far, and detracts from understanding rathr than enhancing it.

True, but I don't know how to communicate the trends and patterns I observe other than to simplify things. Any sort of pattern is a simplification, and the broader it is, the more it is oversimplified and generalized. As an Ni dominant and big picture thinker, how to you talk about the things you observe without people picking it apart as such? Further more, I focus so much on the larger picture of things I don't really become aware of the details because I don't consider them important. Then to have my ideas dismissed because they are oversimplified, which I think are sometimes very important, is frustrating.

 

[Coriolis]

True, but I don't know how to communicate the trends and patterns I observe other than to simplify things. Any sort of pattern is a simplification, and the broader it is, the more it is oversimplified and generalized. As an Ni dominant and big picture thinker, how to you talk about the things you observe without people picking it apart as such? Further more, I focus so much on the larger picture of things I don't really become aware of the details because I don't consider them important. Then to have my ideas dismissed because they are oversimplified, which I think are sometimes very important, is frustrating.

Generally I pick it apart first. This is a primary job of Te. Then it is better packaged for public consumption. I share more raw Ni ideas rather sparingly, with people I know have the patience for a much more impressionistic presentation style. As with mathematical modelling, there is always a balance between simplification and accuracy. The key is to find where that is, so the model is workable while still being useful. My observation about INTJs wanting to implement ideas (vs. INTPs who are less motivated by this) is an obvious piece of data that is inconsistent with your model. As I operate, then, the model has to go, or at least be modified (remove one assumption or add one more level of detail) to account for it.

 

[greenfairy]

As with mathematical modelling, there is always a balance between simplification and accuracy. The key is to find where that is, so the model is workable while still being useful.

Oh, good point! I can understand that because I took a statistics class. I usually think I qualify my statements enough, like saying "individual expression will vary," but maybe I need to say something more.

My observation about INTJs wanting to implement ideas (vs. INTPs who are less motivated by this) is an obvious piece of data that is inconsistent with your model. As I operate, then, the model has to go, or at least be modified (remove one assumption or add one more level of detail) to account for it.

See, this is what I mean by "individual expression will vary." A trend does not mean one counterexample invalidates it. I think you mean all INTJ's are interested in implementing their ideas (which would be a trend apparently counter to the one I observed), but being so there are more subtleties. The one I knew was perfectly happy to discuss philosophy. This was what I meant by ideas for their own sake; philosophy does not directly apply to the real world unless we are talking about applied ethics. He and I would talk about the composition of the universe, whether fire was alive, what it meant to have consciousness, etc. Sensors would be less interested in these sorts of ideas because they are not practical. So INTJ's wanting to implement ideas does not relate to what I said in the way I meant it.

 

[Coriolis]

See, this is what I mean by "individual expression will vary." A trend does not mean one counterexample invalidates it. I think you mean all INTJ's are interested in implementing their ideas (which would be a trend apparently counter to the one I observed), but being so there are more subtleties. The one I knew was perfectly happy to discuss philosophy. This was what I meant by ideas for their own sake; philosophy does not directly apply to the real world unless we are talking about applied ethics. He and I would talk about the composition of the universe, whether fire was alive, what it meant to have consciousness, etc. Sensors would be less interested in these sorts of ideas because they are not practical. So INTJ's wanting to implement ideas does not relate to what I said in the way I meant it.

A trend without exceptions is an absolute. I meant what I said, that the INTJs I know are far more interested in real-world implementation of their ideas than are the INTPs, and I know many people of each type. This is where we compare data, to broaden our sample set. I bet we still will see this trend, though with exceptions and variations. Part of that includes the observation that most NTJs I know enjoy discussing the open-ended subjects you describe, as a way to get "mental exercise" and enjoy time with friends. Many INTPs I know will also construct practical things, plan and take trips, etc. In the big picture, however, the two types do not value practical implementation the same way.

I am not pursuing this point to establish that I am right, but instead to illustrate how I form, interpret, and use this kind of type generalization.

 

[greenfairy]

A trend without exceptions is an absolute. I meant what I said, that the INTJs I know are far more interested in real-world implementation of their ideas than are the INTPs, and I know many people of each type. This is where we compare data, to broaden our sample set. I bet we still will see this trend, though with exceptions and variations. Part of that includes the observation that most NTJs I know enjoy discussing the open-ended subjects you describe, as a way to get "mental exercise" and enjoy time with friends. Many INTPs I know will also construct practical things, plan and take trips, etc. In the big picture, however, the two types do not value practical implementation the same way.

I am not pursuing this point to establish that I am right, but instead to illustrate how I form, interpret, and use this kind of type generalization.

I agree with that. It's pretty much what I said though. I don't see how what I said was oversimplified.

 

[Coriolis]

I agree with that. It's pretty much what I said though. I don't see how what I said was oversimplified.

This began with your statement that "both Ne and Ni are more oriented towards ideas for their own sake than a means to an end". I disagree, and if we are generalizing on the level of functions, find that Ne is more oriented toward ideas for their own sake, and Ni with ideas as a means to an end, influenced largely by the highest judging function each type has. Same goes for Se and Si, though with sensory perceptions rather than ideas. In short, you find the two functions similar in the stated respect, while I find them almost opposite.

 

[greenfairy]

This began with your statement that "both Ne and Ni are more oriented towards ideas for their own sake than a means to an end". I disagree, and if we are generalizing on the level of functions, find that Ne is more oriented toward ideas for their own sake, and Ni with ideas as a means to an end, influenced largely by the highest judging function each type has. Same goes for Se and Si, though with sensory perceptions rather than ideas. In short, you find the two functions similar in the stated respect, while I find them almost opposite.

I do find them similar in that they are more that way than the sensing functions, because the division of N and S has to do with this distinction. But compared with each other they are quite different.

I hadn't noticed the sensing functions possessing this polarity- how would you describe it?