ISTJ or INTJ?

[BlueSky]

For the longest time I used to believe that I was an ISTJ. I'm very hard working, place great emphasis on trust, and typically will endure a fair bit of self-sacrifice for typically bad reasons.

Recently however, I've been doubting my ISTJ status. I read over the type descriptions again recently and INTJ seemed to fit better this time, but I'm concerned that I may be biased.

Typically, I understand, the way to evaluate one's type is to look at one's dominant and secondary function. (In this case Te happens to be the same.) I believe I use Si a fair bit. Naturally it makes sense to compare things to as they have been. I also see a fair bit of Ni in myself as well though, as a I strive to frequently understand abstract ideas, and playfully muse in my mind about crazy thoughts.

So I'm not sure. And I know this has been discussed many times before, and I've done some research, but I can't claim certainty and I want to make sure I am not biased.

My guess is that my true type would most quickly be determined by questioning, so go ahead and fire away.

EDIT: And if it means anything, my best friends are mostly Ns. My one friend is a strong INTP, another a strong ENFP, and another an ENTJ. Ss I don't seem to connect with as well.. I do, but typically I feel somewhat arrogant in their company, although I take care to try and treat near everyone equally (except those who plainly don't deserve it).

 

[Kalach]

From: Looking at Type by Earle C Page.

S: sees specific parts and pieces
N: sees patterns and relationships

S: lives in the present, enjoying what is there
N: lives toward the future, anticipating what might be.

S: prefers handling practical matters
N: prefers imagining possibilities

S: likes things that are definite, measurable
N: likes opportunities for being inventive

S: starts at the beginning, takes one step at a time
N: jumps in anywhere, leaps over steps

S: works hands-on with parts to understand overall design
N: studies overall design to understand how parts fit together

S: enjoys using and refining the known and familiar
N: enjoys experimenting with the new and different

S: may seem materialistic and literal-minded to others
N: may seem idealistic, impractical dreamers to others


S: details, present, practical, facts, sequential, directions, repetition, enjoyment, perspiration, conserve, literal
N: patterns, future, imaginative, innovations, random, hunches, variety. anticipation, inspiration, change, figurative.


"These characteristics often develop from S and N preferences. Some of them may be true for you."



Free consults--worth every penny.

 

[BlueSky]

Thank you Kalach. As I examine what you have posted, I very much want to say that both descriptions fit. I'm the kind of guy who will think up some crazy idea (or find one) and then research how I might actually bring that idea to life. For example, I once was interested in seeing how much it would cost to construct a giant geodesic dome over Manhattan, as Buckminster Fuller once suggested. And on another occasion, I thought it would be very cool to understand mathematically how battles in should fought (for war games and perhaps even the real thing). Both ideas are very much impractical in their impossibility (due to the amount of factors involved) but practical in that by researching, much practical knowledge would be learned (and also, success would be extremely practical).

Or to give another example: I'm an amateur game designer (and maker). But while I love learning about the theoretical aspects of design and it's implications, I'm also very interested in the facts that psychologists have determined through empirical testing.

I am just very confused. This is supposed to be a dichotomy.

 

[Kalach]

From: Introduction to Type, Isabel Briggs Myers.

Characteristics of ISTJs
ISTJs have a profound respect for facts. They use their Sensing primarily internally, where they have a storehouse of information upon which they draw to understand the present. Thus, they are likely to be:
- practical, sensible, and realistic
- systematic

ISTJs use Thinking in decision-making, taking an objective, logical, and tough-minded approach. Their focus is on the task or system as a whole, rather than on individuals. Thus ISTJs tend to be
- logical and analytical
- detached and reasonable.


Characteristics of INTJs
INTJs see things from a global perspective and quickly relate new information to overall patterns. They trust their insightful connections regardless of established authority or popular opinions. Dull routine smothers their creativity. INTJs use Intuition primarily internally, where they develop complex structures and pictures of the future. They are likely to be
- insightful, creative synthesizers
- conceptual, long-range thinkers.

INTJs use their Thinking to make logical decisions. They assess everything with a critical eye, quickly identifying problems to solve, and are tough and decisive when the situation calls for toughness. INTJs tend to be
- clear and concise
- rational, detached, and objectively critical.




I saw an exercise recently with N preference people on one side of the room and S preference people on the other. In their separate groups they were asked to prepare directions to a familiar landmark.

 

[Zarathustra]

I saw an exercise recently with N preference people on one side of the room and S preference people on the other. In their separate groups they were asked to prepare directions to a familiar landmark.

And...?

I am just very confused. This is supposed to be a dichotomy.

No, it's not.

But your thinking it should be makes me think you're an ISTJ.

 

[BlueSky]

Is it just by chance that those percentages in your signature add up to 100%?

 

[Kalach]

And...?

Take a wild guess.

The N directions all started "It's...*hand wave*... that way". One or two landmarks were referenced. And they mostly finished with a vague promise of, "after that, you can't go wrong."

The S directions started with the street you are on, began laying out detailed routes and alternatives, including number and kind of street lights, named roads, and even included descriptions of road characteristics--gravelly, grassy, slight rise--etc and so on.

Most particularly, the N side started vague and gradually uncovered some details in discussion, while the S side drew on immediate expertise and worked from details up.

 

[incubustribute]

Just based on the way you write I'm going to guess ISTJ. The intuition you're talking about regarding little zany ideas floating around in your head seems more like Ne, not Ni. It's tough to say though: Si doesn't necessarily mean you use past experiences to understand things, but it often can play out that way. Another thing to keep in mind is that just because it "makes sense" to think about things one way or another doesn't necessarily mean you are actually using that particular function. When you say it "makes sense to compare things to as they have been," you're probably using some kind of 'thinking' function to determine what's logical or practical. This may not mean you use it, just that it makes sense that people should use it. I feel like my wording is confusing, but I can't think of how to better describe what I'm talking about haha.

I think you're on the right track though with just looking at dominant/secondary functions. Unless you're very sure of your type, I wouldn't even get into tertiary or inferior or you'll probably just confuse yourself, especially since these two functions can often contradict your natural instincts.

 

[Zarathustra]

I am just very confused. This is supposed to be a dichotomy.

No, it's not.

But your thinking it should be makes me think you're an ISTJ.

People on here really need to stop thinking so strongly that one must necessarily be one of the 16 types...

It kinda blows me away that on a site devoted to studying this stuff, you still see such simplistic thinking about the theory.

If you're not sure whether you're an ISTJ or INTJ, then maybe you're an IxTJ.

That essentially would mean that Ni and Si in some way share your dominant function, while Te remains auxiliary (or tertiary, if you'd so want to call it that), Fi tertiary, and Se and/or Ne inferior.

We all likely use all eight functions at some time in our lives, the types just point to the functional preferences that theoretical "individuals" may have.

:steam:

Take a wild guess.

The N directions all started "It's...*hand wave*... that way". One or two landmarks were referenced. And they mostly finished with a vague promise of, "after that, you can't go wrong."

The S directions started with the street you are on, began laying out detailed routes and alternatives, including number and kind of street lights, named roads, and even included descriptions of road characteristics--gravelly, grassy, slight rise--etc and so on.

Most particularly, the N side started vague and gradually uncovered some details in discussion, while the S side drew on immediate expertise and worked from details up.

Hmmm...

Interesting.

Is it just by chance that those percentages in your signature add up to 100%?

 

[simulatedworld]

If you're not sure whether you're an ISTJ or INTJ, then maybe you're an IxTJ.

That essentially would mean that Ni and Si in some way share your dominant function, while Te remains auxiliary (or tertiary, if you'd so want to call it that), Fi tertiary, and Se and/or Ne inferior.

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.

 

[Zarathustra]

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:

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 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.

 

[simulatedworld]

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.

 

[BlackCat]

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.

 

[burymecloser]

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.

 

[Zarathustra]

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.

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.

 

[Kalach]

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.

 

[BlackCat]

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.

 

[Zarathustra]

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!

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.

 

[BlackCat]

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.

 

[Zarathustra]

G'nite!