User Tag List

First 123 Last

Results 11 to 20 of 30

Thread: ISTJ or INTJ?

  1. #11
    Tempbanned
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    MBTI
    INTJ
    Enneagram
    6w5 sx/so
    Posts
    8,161

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by simulatedworld View Post
    Wouldn't this necessitate that he derive precisely equal influence from Ni and Si? It seems unlikely that anyone would be able to do that.
    Not necessarily, imo.

    I think we use our shadows, and I think that, depending on a person's balance between one function and another (N/S, T/F -- even I/E and J/P, which are not, technically speaking, functions), they might use their shadows more readily.

    Hence, the more N-dominant an INTJ would be on a sliding scale of 1-100, with N on one side and S on the other, the more likely he'd be to use his N functions (and not his S functions).

    :workout:

    Quote Originally Posted by simulatedworld View Post
    Wouldn't this necessitate that he derive precisely equal influence from Ni and Si? It seems unlikely that anyone would be able to do that.
    Quote Originally Posted by Zarathustra View Post
    Not necessarily, imo.

    I think we use our shadows, and I think that, depending on a person's balance between one function and another (N/S, T/F -- even I/E and J/P, which are not, technically speaking, functions at all), they might use their shadows more readily.

    Hence, the more N-dominant an INTJ would be on a sliding scale of 1-100, with N on one side and S on the other, the more likely he not use his S functions, and the more likely he use his N functions.

    :workout:
    Conversely, the more balanced his N and his S, the more likely he uses both his N and his S functions with relatively close frequency.

    Also, to the OP, sorry for going off like I did; you seem like a nice guy and all, and you're probably relatively new to/inexperienced with MBTI, but that was about 3-4 months of pent up frustration that just happened to find the perfect avenue for expression in your post.

    Nothing personal.
    Last edited by Kasper; 03-17-2010 at 01:40 AM. Reason: Merging 3 posts

  2. #12
    Freshman Member simulatedworld's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    MBTI
    ENTP
    Enneagram
    7w6 sx/so
    Socionics
    ILE
    Posts
    5,554

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Zarathustra View Post
    Conversely, the more balanced his N and his S, the more likely he uses both his N and his S functions with relatively close frequency.
    Well, maybe you're right, but the Jungian position would probably argue that an INTJ with very balanced N and S is just more proficient with Se, as that would typically be his preferred orientation for the Sensing function.

    Of course, I am not saying that INTJs cannot become proficient in Si--I'm sure they can; I just think one or the other is going to come more naturally and thus there is no such thing as a true IxTJ. Since the model works by taking all human attitudes and chopping them into sixteen groups, it's not really possible for anyone to be an X type...in the framework of Jung's theories, anyway.
    If you could be anything you want, I bet you'd be disappointed--am I right?

  3. #13
    Shaman BlackCat's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    MBTI
    ESFP
    Enneagram
    9w8 sx/sp
    Socionics
    SEE Fi
    Posts
    7,005

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by simulatedworld View Post
    Of course, I am not saying that INTJs cannot become proficient in Si--I'm sure they can; I just think one or the other is going to come more naturally and thus there is no such thing as a true IxTJ.
    Yeah... you can't have two dominants. Makes no sense why anyone would even argue that.

    To respond to your OP/style, I believe you are ISTJ.
    () 9w8-3w4-7w6 tritype.

    sCueI (primary Inquisition)

  4. #14
    Senior Member burymecloser's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    MBTI
    INTP
    Enneagram
    6w5
    Posts
    514

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by simulatedworld View Post
    Wouldn't this necessitate that he derive precisely equal influence from Ni and Si? It seems unlikely that anyone would be able to do that.
    Maybe not precisely equal, but close enough that it's very difficult to make a consistent distinction. That seems plausible, even likely, to me. In a huge population, some people will be very hard to classify because their preferences are so mild.

  5. #15
    Tempbanned
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    MBTI
    INTJ
    Enneagram
    6w5 sx/so
    Posts
    8,161

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by BlackCat View Post
    Yeah... you can't have two dominants. Makes no sense why anyone would even argue that.

    To respond to your OP/style, I believe you are ISTJ.
    Completely disagree.

    What if you are perfectly balanced on I/E.

    Then your dom and your aux are essentially equally utilized.

    Dom and aux are just generalized labels for people's generally preferred functional usage.

    Quote Originally Posted by simulatedworld View Post
    Well, maybe you're right, but the Jungian position would probably argue that an INTJ with very balanced N and S is just more proficient with Se, as that would typically be his preferred orientation for the Sensing function.

    Of course, I am not saying that INTJs cannot become proficient in Si--I'm sure they can; I just think one or the other is going to come more naturally and thus there is no such thing as a true IxTJ. Since the model works by taking all human attitudes and chopping them into sixteen groups, it's not really possible for anyone to be an X type...in the framework of Jung's theories, anyway.
    Now you, Sim, have a good point. I'll have to ponder on this more.

    I've already got a few good responses, but I'll have to play some more devil's advocate before I present them.
    Last edited by Kasper; 03-17-2010 at 01:41 AM. Reason: Merging 2 posts

  6. #16
    Filthy Apes! Kalach's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    MBTI
    INTJ
    Posts
    4,318

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Zarathustra View Post
    Completely disagree.

    What if you are perfectly balanced on I/E.

    Then your dom and your aux are essentially equally utilized.

    Dom and aux are just generalized labels for people's generally preferred functional usage.
    In function use tests and even on a proper MBTI, um, scan, I consistently come out with Ni and Te about equal, even sometimes with Te a tad higher than Ni. There is however, not a chance in hell that I am an extrovert, nor a particularly balanced innie/outie. Were my Te use actually higher than Ni, or if its real usage about even with Ni, then that's what I would be, an extrovert or a balancing act. Those various test and scan results however aren't demonstrating such a state. They are in my humble opinion merely displaying my conscious awareness of and concession to particular mental functions. I know of, use and emphasize extraverted thinking, and that awareness shows up in the tests, that's all.

    I'm hard pressed to actually know what a person of balanced dominant and auxiliary function would be like for I tend to believe that people gain cognitive, um, credibility by being specialised. Which is to say, if the auxiliary function is not genuinely subordinate to the dominant, then both functions suffer. The user would have to put up with the dissonance created by competing priorities--if the external environment is tossing up puzzles for the e to be engaged by and the internal environment is processing away with the i doing its thing, how does one choose where to put one's energy? A person balanced on e and i would suffer more than someone with distinct e vs i priorities. The introvert can choose to fire up the e function, and the extrovert can choose to spend time with the i, but the balanced person doesn't know if he's coming or going.

    But it could happen. Maybe it wouldn't be so bad. Dunno for sure.
    Bellison uncorked a flood of horrible profanity, which, translated, meant, "This is extremely unusual."

    Boy meets Grr

  7. #17
    Shaman BlackCat's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    MBTI
    ESFP
    Enneagram
    9w8 sx/sp
    Socionics
    SEE Fi
    Posts
    7,005

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Zarathustra View Post
    Completely disagree.

    What if you are perfectly balanced on I/E.

    Then your dom and your aux are essentially equally utilized.

    Dom and aux are just generalized labels for people's generally preferred functional usage.
    Borderline on E/I means nothing. Borderline on any preference essentially means nothing. Everyone has a set way of thinking in this theory... one of the 16 types.

    You can't have "equal" dom and aux usage. They both do different things. The dominant is an unconscious, undeniable mental response to the given situation. The auxillary is more of a subjective thing, it's not your lifestyle. It doesn't have as much importance in you as your dominant. It's more of a tool that you use to support the dominant than anything.

    I mean sure, you can have equal function "strength," but that doesn't really mean anything when it comes to someone's type because of how the functions are used. Your type, xNTx basically is saying that you both unconsciously respond to every given situation with Ni, Ne, Ti, and Te; and simultaneously using those as a tool to feed your Ni, Ne, Ti, and Te. Which makes absolutely no sense. Your type is also saying that you neither get drained nor energized by interacting with the world, that you look inside yourself and at the context unconsciously at the same time, you have four simultaneous interaction styles... it goes on. It just doesn't make sense to have x's in your type.

    Also I love how you said that you disagreed, and didn't say why.
    () 9w8-3w4-7w6 tritype.

    sCueI (primary Inquisition)

  8. #18
    Tempbanned
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    MBTI
    INTJ
    Enneagram
    6w5 sx/so
    Posts
    8,161

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by BlackCat View Post
    Borderline on E/I means nothing. Borderline on any preference essentially means nothing. Everyone has a set way of thinking in this theory... one of the 16 types.

    You can't have "equal" dom and aux usage. They both do different things. The dominant is an unconscious, undeniable mental response to the given situation. The auxillary is more of a subjective thing, it's not your lifestyle. It doesn't have as much importance in you as your dominant. It's more of a tool that you use to support the dominant than anything.

    I mean sure, you can have equal function "strength," but that doesn't really mean anything when it comes to someone's type because of how the functions are used. Your type, xNTx basically is saying that you both unconsciously respond to every given situation with Ni, Ne, Ti, and Te; and simultaneously using those as a tool to feed your Ni, Ne, Ti, and Te. Which makes absolutely no sense. Your type is also saying that you neither get drained nor energized by interacting with the world, that you look inside yourself and at the context unconsciously at the same time, you have four simultaneous interaction styles... it goes on. It just doesn't make sense to have x's in your type.

    Also I love how you said that you disagreed, and didn't say why.
    Did you not read the three lines below it?

    But this time, I'll just say: I completely disagree.

    Going to bed, too, so any debates will have to continue at a later date...

    Adios, all!

    Quote Originally Posted by Kalach View Post
    In function use tests and even on a proper MBTI, um, scan, I consistently come out with Ni and Te about equal, even sometimes with Te a tad higher than Ni. There is however, not a chance in hell that I am an extrovert, nor a particularly balanced innie/outie. Were my Te use actually higher than Ni, or if its real usage about even with Ni, then that's what I would be, an extrovert or a balancing act. Those various test and scan results however aren't demonstrating such a state. They are in my humble opinion merely displaying my conscious awareness of and concession to particular mental functions. I know of, use and emphasize extraverted thinking, and that awareness shows up in the tests, that's all.

    I'm hard pressed to actually know what a person of balanced dominant and auxiliary function would be like for I tend to believe that people gain cognitive, um, credibility by being specialised. Which is to say, if the auxiliary function is not genuinely subordinate to the dominant, then both functions suffer. The user would have to put up with the dissonance created by competing priorities--if the external environment is tossing up puzzles for the e to be engaged by and the internal environment is processing away with the i doing its thing, how does one choose where to put one's energy? A person balanced on e and i would suffer more than someone with distinct e vs i priorities. The introvert can choose to fire up the e function, and the extrovert can choose to spend time with the i, but the balanced person doesn't know if he's coming or going.

    But it could happen. Maybe it wouldn't be so bad. Dunno for sure.
    Kalach, we will talk about this more.

    It has a lot to do with what we were talking about the other day.
    Last edited by Kasper; 03-17-2010 at 01:44 AM. Reason: Merging 3 posts

  9. #19
    Shaman BlackCat's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    MBTI
    ESFP
    Enneagram
    9w8 sx/sp
    Socionics
    SEE Fi
    Posts
    7,005

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Zarathustra View Post
    Did you not read the three lines below it?

    But this time, I'll just say: I completely disagree.
    Yes I did. And I explained in my post that you can have functions that are equal in strength, but they will still be used in the same manner as an auxillary and a dominant as defined by type. It's not as general as you think it is... Did you read and understand my post? The last three lines should have been answered in it.
    () 9w8-3w4-7w6 tritype.

    sCueI (primary Inquisition)

  10. #20
    Tempbanned
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    MBTI
    INTJ
    Enneagram
    6w5 sx/so
    Posts
    8,161

    Default

    G'nite!

Similar Threads

  1. ISTJ or INTJ?
    By Jeff in forum Myers-Briggs and Jungian Cognitive Functions
    Replies: 6
    Last Post: 05-10-2017, 03:51 PM
  2. Spock: ISTJ or INTJ?
    By The Ü™ in forum Popular Culture and Type
    Replies: 33
    Last Post: 02-11-2013, 11:16 AM
  3. [MBTItm] ISTJ or INTJ? How can you tell the difference?
    By wannabepl47 in forum The SJ Guardhouse (ESFJ, ISFJ, ESTJ, ISTJ)
    Replies: 14
    Last Post: 11-23-2010, 06:54 PM
  4. [MBTItm] ISTJ OR INTJ
    By Dizzy in forum The SJ Guardhouse (ESFJ, ISFJ, ESTJ, ISTJ)
    Replies: 22
    Last Post: 10-08-2009, 10:14 AM
  5. ISTJ or INTJ?
    By Harratus in forum What's my Type?
    Replies: 17
    Last Post: 09-30-2008, 04:43 PM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
Single Sign On provided by vBSSO