I purposely chose not to respond to the inquiry since it would only be a repeat of what others such as Random have said. BTW I can see myself in only 45% of the bullets, which is why I would like to offer my thoughts. In their booklet “The 16 Personality Types: Descriptions for Self-Discovery”, Dr. Linda v. Berens and Dario Nardi said that there is a logic behind the names given in their system. The first word in the name is the inside view, how we often see ourselves and what others don’t see. The second word in the name is the outside view, how others see us and what we may not see in ourselves. Thus as an
Analyzer Operator, I see the Analyzer (one who examines methodically by separating into parts and studying their interrelations) in myself, however I am oblivious to the Operator (one who operates a machine, apparatus, or the like). As such others may see us highly capable of operating tools but we do not see it in ourselves, resulting in non-relation to that aspect of who we are.
This is most likely the case of all introverted types resulting in INTPs seeing the Designer but not the Theorizer, INFJs seeing the Forseer, but not the Developer and so on. I do question and have raised this inquiry of enthusiasts of the system, as to whether extraverts would actually relate to the second word, but not the first since they have a more vested interest in the external world. Ergo ESTPs could see themselves as Expeditors, but fail to see the Promoter, ENTPs notice the Inventor, but not the Explorer, ENFPs see the Advocate, but not the Discoverer and so on.
Back on topic, I have battled with Isabel Briggs Myers and Peter Myers description in “Gifts Differing”. In the second paragraph of the Introverted Thinking Supported by Sensing type, they comment, “
With non-technical interests the ISTP can use general principles to bring order out of confused data and meaning out of unorganized facts. The capacity of sensing to absorb fact and detail can be very useful to ISTPs who work in the field of economics, as securities analysts or as market and sales anaylyts dealing with statistics in any field.” This seems perplexing since the examples that she provides seem to also deal with technical information as well. Keirsey makes the distinction that NTs are technically oriented, whereas SPs are technique oriented, which derive from the same root word “tech”. Did she inadvertently misuse the word technical and may have meant to say “non-mechanical” interests? There is very little information on her distinction, but it would seem that the
ISTPs found on the forums relate to the non-technical and appear more INT-like.
You guys are like a better prepared, more quiet and more handyman-like version of us ESTP's 
My girlfriend is hard to type because she has a serious balance between feeling and thinking, but I think she leans more towards being ISTP'ish most of the time. She's AWESOME 
