You seem to be quite sensitive for an INTJ, haphazard, aren't you?!
What the hell is an INTJ, and what makes an INTJ not these other six types?
Honestly when folks take the test i think about 25% of the time they can seriously mistype themselves. Usually they pick the asnwers they want to be or think they should be. [...]
Okay, I've been here for a little while now, and this question has been bothering me for a long time. And that question is exactly what it says on the tin -- erm, thread title.
There are a lot of INTJs on MBTIc. Or, at least, there are a lot of people who claim to be INTJ. Now, if we go on the premise that there are not very many INTJs, one would assume that there are just a disproportionate number of INTJs who are interested in MBTI -- which may be true. Along with that, though, are a lot of theories that many people typed INTJ are not INTJs but rather another type, and there are lots of plausible, valid reasons for this mistyping. Some of the types that are likely to be mistyped as INTJs are apparently:
INTP
INFP
INFJ
ISTP
ISFP
ISTJ
So, if somebody claims to be an INTJ, they may actually be one of seven different types -- and this list includes all of the intuitive introverts, half of the artisans, and even one guardian, which according to some theory is supposed to be opposite of rationals.
Hmmmm isn't precision more in the ball park for ISTJ? I'll take efficiency over faultless precision any day.
Of course INTJs are more likely to enjoy MBTI. Hell, look at the commune, the SJs and SPs have about a total of 5,000 posts. Now look at the NTs and NFs, 21,000 for the NFs and almost 29,000 for NTs. It is definitely a more of intuitive thing. And I think that MBTIc reflects that.
Personally, I come here because I meet other people like me, I rarely meet others similar to myself in real life. Even though I have to admit that is probably because I am not as outgoing as most people.
People give good advice here.
I dunno, I never thought it odd or strange that a lot of INTJs seem to be floating around. Just more of the type to participate in forums like these.
What makes an INTJ, I would say, is that the general description of the INTJ type fits the person more so than the other MBTI types. However, I think in the end only the person in question is responsible.
MBTI Population Breakdown From US Sample
ISFJ � F 19.4% M 8.1% = 27.5%
ESFJ � F 16.9% M 7.5% = 24.4%
ISTJ � F 6.9% M 16.4% = 23.3%
ESTJ � F 6.3% M 11.2% = 17.5%
ISFP � F 9.9% M 7.6% = 17.5%
ESFP � F 10.1% M 6.9% = 17%
ENFP � F 9.7% M 6.4% = 16.1%
ISTP � F 2.4% M 8.5% = 10.9%
INFP � F 4.6% M 4.1% = 8.7%
ESTP � F 3.0% M 5.6% = 8.6%
ENTP � F 2.4% M 4.0% = 6.4%
INTP � F 1.8% M 4.8% = 5.8%
ENFJ � F 3.3% M 1.6% = 4.9%
INTJ � F 0.8% M 3.3% = 4.1%
ENTJ � F 0.9% M 2.7% = 3.6%
INFJ � F 1.6% M 1.3% = 2.9%
Another Sample of US Population (Inferential Statistics)
ISFJ - 13.8%
ESFJ - 12.3%
ISTJ - 11.6%
ISFP - 8.8%
ESTJ - 8.7%
ESFP - 8.5%
ENFP - 8.1%
ISTP - 5.4%
INFP - 4.4%
ESTP - 4.3%
INTP - 3.3%
ENTP - 3.2%
ENFJ - 2.4%
INTJ - 2.1%
ENTJ - 1.8%
INFJ - 1.5%
In these samples take note that NTs in general tend to be a rarer type but they seem to flock to MBTIc. Also the introverted NTs have their own communities at INTJ Forum and INTP Central. Although it is frequent for individuals to mistype themselves I think the 'unusual' amount of INTJs here is more attributed to interest in MBTI. Taking this a step even further it seems that MBTI naturally attracts the intuitive types, because there are quite a few INFJs here as well. I mean think about it, the most active forums in the Commune are the NFs and the NTs.
Some of the types that are likely to be mistyped as INTJs are apparently:
INTP
INFP
INFJ
ISTP
ISFP
ISTJ
This is a good question, Haphazard. It could easily be asked about any of the other types as well, and you would not get a satisfactory answer about any of them.
There's always an argument someone can make to show that they are their particular type. Here are some of the most common ones:
1. Partial or total shadow manifestation -- The person can claim that stress caused them to develop and rely on functions they wouldn't naturally use, and thus changed their appearance from the default type template.
2. Auxiliary repression/tertiary development -- Especially useful for people who are only one letter off from their desired type in testing. The person can claim that they are an example of a type that didn't get sufficient stimulation for their normal auxiliary, and developed a strong tertiary instead. So that an INTJ would seem more Ni-Fi, an INTP would seem more Ti-Si, etc.
3. Social/family conditioning -- This is used to claim that a person's upbringing impacted their expressed type, and that if this had not happened, they would have manifested their natural type.
The problem with MBTI is that, quite simply, too much is left up to individual interpretation, and the qualities typically assigned to types are somewhat subjective and dependent on where they seem to be relative to the observer's own predisposition. There are so many loopholes.
IMO, this stems from MBTI not clearly defining what a type is supposed to be. Is it the manifest qualities seen within a person's personality according to a set standard or defined quality, or is it some innate quality that can have a distorted expression? Is it the observable qualities, or an unconscious tendency that cannot be so clearly defined?
If it's an observable quality, all three of those arguments disappear, because all that matters is how they conduct themselves right now, not how they think they are inside or could have been.
If it's indeed an unconscious tendency rather than an observable trait, the tests used and the qualities typically defined are inadequate for quantifying something so ineffable.
If it's somehow a combination of unconscious tendencies and observable traits, it's far more complex. The tests are still inadequate, but now you have to figure out subtle systems for determining what every single expressed trait means in that particular context. This seems like it would be near impossible, and would have low potential for accuracy at best.