On the contrary ISTPs tend to be more intellectually curious (a better word is out there somewhere) than ISTJs. This is due to them being Ti doms. Imagine analyzing, breaking every little thing (tangible and intangible) a part and trying to categorize them? This is what IxTPs usually do. I don't believe it makes them feel very jolly though. (Of course INTPs are enjoy this a bit more than ISTPs, due to having Ne as the secondary, since it deals with the more imaginative and intangible than Se.) And imagine what this (Ti) would do to one if it is combined with very strong Ni. (ISTPs tertiary is Ni.) It would make them focus more on the intangible things they encounter and imagine. Making them more introspective, deep and intellectual.
Ic ould do a comparison between ISTJ functions with the ISTPs' I described above. But that won't be needed I believe, since the point I was trying to make was that you are so very wrong about ISTPs.
I am disappointed that you took the descriptions too literally. Being a member of a forum for this long should make you realize that most description about S types are sickeningly patronizing.
Urgh!
"Intellectual curiosity" for the ISTP means tearing things apart to see how they work (systems analyst). But that's not exactly what is meant by the term "intellectual" which involves things of the mind (e.g., philosophy) not things in reality (e.g., engines), insofar as things of the mind have no practical purpose.
As usual, you're just saying that an ISTP doesn't literally have to enjoy riding motorcycles. I've been around this forum long enough to know that this is an ancient criticism. But I've also been around long enough to know that this forum isn't perfect, that it doesn't have all the answers, and that it is simply flying with mainstream thinking which assumes,
without any proof whatsoever, that Jung and MBTI correlate, as if to say TiSe is equal to ISTP. I have found that Jungian analysis is complex enough, with its tertiaries and inferiors on top of all else, to "prove" any type call you can imagine. Also, functions, as mental processes, do not necessarily correlate with human behavior. But behavior is all we have to work with when typing others.
I on the other hand am confident in typing my mechanic as an ISTP based on comparing behaviors with type descriptions. He not only has a knack for mechanics, as I do for intellectually based systems, but he also shows great facility with engine-driven machinery. He started driving as soon as he was old enough to reach the pedals. He is also very anecdotal and loves to tell stories about the cars he has worked on. But then there are also the individual letters to consider. He's not particularly outgoing but mostly keeps to himself, he has a very concrete method of focusing, he doesn't have any Feeling traits but prefers thinking, and he is a classic Perceiver according to all the "patronizing" descriptions.
But if I were to research the Jungian type descriptions in making my type call, I would be quickly lost in a maze of obscure and antiquated notions from early 20th century Germany written by a guy who only saw people as patients, and from the perspective of his analysts couch and not in reality.