• You are currently viewing our forum as a guest, which gives you limited access to view most discussions and access our other features. By joining our free community, you will have access to additional post topics, communicate privately with other members (PM), view blogs, respond to polls, upload content, and access many other special features. Registration is fast, simple and absolutely free, so please join our community today! Just click here to register. You should turn your Ad Blocker off for this site or certain features may not work properly. If you have any problems with the registration process or your account login, please contact us by clicking here.

[INTJ] What the hell is an INTJ?

Haphazard

Don't Judge Me!
Joined
Apr 14, 2008
Messages
6,704
MBTI Type
ENFJ
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.

And it doesn't help that this forum is riddled with anecdotal evidence, which potentially confuses the issue even more, because INTJs are apparently so damned hard to identify. Of course there are websites on theory, but even those have their fair share of anecdotal evidence and conflicting information.

Typology is a completely invented system, I know, so asking this question is likely asking for trouble, because on top of anecdotal evidence I'll receive I'll get a lot of replies asking 'why do you care?' and saying it's not important and not even possible to differentiate because of all the confirmation bias and other things that could easily rip application of theory to pieces.

But I'm young and naïve so I'm going to ask anyway. What the hell is an INTJ, and what makes an INTJ not these other six types?
 

Athenian200

Protocol Droid
Joined
Jul 1, 2007
Messages
8,828
MBTI Type
INFJ
Enneagram
4w5
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.
 

DigitalMethod

Content. Content?
Joined
May 4, 2008
Messages
970
MBTI Type
INTJ
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. :yes:

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.
 

ssrprotege

New member
Joined
Jun 7, 2008
Messages
26
MBTI Type
INTP
Enneagram
9w1
Instinctual Variant
sp/so
MBTI is a system; probably it is the biggest reason why it is so appealing to NT's, who love dealing with systems and finding how it can be improved.

There will be a lot of difficulties in determining a true type, possibly for some biases of the test, and (as Athenian said) environment.

Despite these, I don't necessarily believe that how one's psyche works will change. I may develop repressed cognitive functions because of environment, but I usually use those undesired functions to defend my psyche. If one thinks how they use cognitive functions, the type will become clearer. My both parents are sensors, one almost in the border, another a strong one. If I use preferred Ni, they dismiss my comments nonsensical. Because my parents emphasized the importance of taking advantage of my past experiences, I was encouraged to use Si. My tendency to answer the 'implication' of a question was moderated as well. When I take a CP test, I get average or good use for Si. However, that didn't "convert" me into an ISTJ from an INTJ. No matter how my family indirectly forced me to use Si than Ni (or Ne), I always score high in Ni and Ne than Si.

I acknowledge shadow manifestations are another good possibilities, yet I have some reservation on this. Furthermore, the CP's they use are generally primitive - they help one recognize their shadows, not necessarily their types. It will be clear that if they read the type descriptions, they will realize it is not true. Also, not everyone is stressed out, like all the time.

These are some reservations I have. Good post, though, Athenian200.

-------------

(Digression here)

Psychological theories have their own limitations, so the most important thing is to how to take advantage of them in an effective way. Don't just use MBTI as a reference point; use other typological theories, such as Enneagram and socionics. If you increase a number of conceptual viewpoints, you will get a better picture of your psyche. :)
 

htb

New member
Joined
May 14, 2007
Messages
1,505
MBTI Type
INTJ
Enneagram
1w9
Try building your understanding empirically, operating on the assumption that one or more members psychologically and behaviorally reflect what INTJs, theoretically, are.

I submit Wolf to most closely match the archetype, accounting for what appears to be a mutual overlap between INTJ and ISTJ. Use his posts on this forum as a primary/secondary source.
 

Cality

New member
Joined
Mar 2, 2008
Messages
208
MBTI Type
ENFP
You seem to be quite sensitive for an INTJ, haphazard, aren't you?!
 

nightning

ish red no longer *sad*
Joined
Apr 23, 2007
Messages
3,741
MBTI Type
INfj
What does this have to do with sensitivity?

Very little... with the exception that it's either tertiary Fi or you've been mistyped. Sensitivity by itself tells you nothing.

Athenian: Excellent post... :yes:

MBTI is about "best fit" type... You can't expect one INTJ to be exactly the same as another. I have no answers for you hazard... only that this is something you have to determine yourself.
 

FallsPioneer

New member
Joined
Dec 21, 2007
Messages
260
MBTI Type
INTJ
Similar to you, I had an existential crisis about what an INTJ is or what they are supposed to be, and it led me to create this one topic about how INTJ's usually behave because I couldn't understand the mass amount of inconsistencies between INTJs. I saw things in profiles that weren't clicking with me, and it wasn't doing much to quiet my own insecurities and search for an identity. I was totally distraught. However, I also saw myself trying to become an INTJ...so I was doing myself in.

I began to understand my type as this: a set of preferences for certain behaviors. The keyword there is preferences. People are bound to exhibit all sorts of behaviors common to other types throughout the days. It's the nature of being human-having the capacity for all sorts of behaviors and emotions and talents, whatever our natural inclinations may be. I figure INTJs are more fussy about being INTJs and what they're supposed to be because we're anxious and think about stuff like our identity in relation to a system. =\

Have you ever watched the Pirates of the Caribbean movies? Think of MBTI like the Pirate code. It's not a set of rules...it's more like a bunch of guidelines...or in essence, a rough sketch of different kinds of people.

Remember: there's no such thing as a human-shaped box.

(minus coffins. Oh yeah, I'm a pretty sensitive INTJ too.)
 

Xander

Lex Parsimoniae
Joined
Apr 24, 2007
Messages
4,463
MBTI Type
INTP
Enneagram
9w8
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.
What is a political party? All the members are supposed to have the same philosophy right? Well they still argue and debate and disagree. Has there ever been any grouping of people where they all agreed and it didn't seem distinctly inhuman?

All a type is supposed to be is a rough guide to how people act, think and reason. It's not supposed to be exhaustive or precise. It does help though to understand that some people are ENFPs and others are INTJs not so you can regurgitate the title or any of the preferences but so that you know where you can be blunt, where you need to be sensitive, whether to take that last point made as a personal insult or just a brutally delivered "hint".

If language is only 20% of communication then how complex is communication and why can it not be all encapsulated precisely into words without making a book about it (ie too unwieldly to refer to as a guide whilst navigating other issues)?
 

Athenian200

Protocol Droid
Joined
Jul 1, 2007
Messages
8,828
MBTI Type
INFJ
Enneagram
4w5
What is a political party? All the members are supposed to have the same philosophy right? Well they still argue and debate and disagree. Has there ever been any grouping of people where they all agreed and it didn't seem distinctly inhuman?

Can't argue with that. Seriously, I don't even agree with myself internally most of the time... there's always another part of myself that has a different viewpoint, it's just that one part is stronger than all the others most of the time, and is the one most people see.

Although I must ask... how is this related to what I said about MBTI?
All a type is supposed to be is a rough guide to how people act, think and reason. It's not supposed to be exhaustive or precise. It does help though to understand that some people are ENFPs and others are INTJs not so you can regurgitate the title or any of the preferences but so that you know where you can be blunt, where you need to be sensitive, whether to take that last point made as a personal insult or just a brutally delivered "hint".

If language is only 20% of communication then how complex is communication and why can it not be all encapsulated precisely into words without making a book about it (ie too unwieldly to refer to as a guide whilst navigating other issues)?

I guess I just don't see how to use something in such a vague manner. Perhaps it is more useful in that way, to others, but I honestly just don't know how you feel you can see what something is if it isn't clearly defined, or contradicts itself in places. How am I supposed to get this "picture" if I can't even see a remotely reasonable number of consistent qualities between people of the same type? If there isn't something consistent about these qualities showing up that I can respond to, how do I recognize anything at all about it's relationship to this idea?

I suppose you'd have to take the ideas in MBTI at face value, but then not try to modify or sharpen your understanding of those ideas over time or via experience because that would make it too complex/specific, and thus applicable only to a smaller number of people. If I could somehow do this, I would have to hold the idea in mind without changing it or trying to apply it to specific behaviors (as I'm inclined to do). Then, observe people over time in various situations to see which trends existed in their behavior (without paying too much attention to what the individual behaviors were), find which ones matched most closely to those ideas/categories (which aren't being extended or changed at all) and then "force-fit" the pattern to one or the other, neglecting all the things that didn't fit, while having and developing no clear standard for what counts as an example of that pattern, force-fitting developing trends into that pattern without really knowing what it is or what it means, continually.

This may be useful to some people, agreed, but I would have a hard time with this. It's difficult for me to see trends unless I'm looking for them and keeping track of them, then it's difficult to figure the "weight" of each thing that contributes to a trend, and I really hate the part where I discard everything that doesn't fit with the pattern and am expected to react to something very general that may not be the actual situation, just because it's the closest fit to a predefined pattern that I can't be sure is applicable or related to the situation at all.

Do you think this sort of processing comes easier to yourself than it would to someone like me, perhaps? I can see how it's possible, it just sounds mentally intensive, possibly time-consuming (it takes time to see trends and it can't be done on first meeting someone or with little data), and comes with a high risk of misinterpretation that could only be resolved by continuing that process and hoping the normalized pattern begins to reflect reality more closely over time.

If that's anything close to how you approach life, I wonder how you can stand it... you must be either incredibly gifted or incredibly crazy to be able to make something like that work.
 

Haphazard

Don't Judge Me!
Joined
Apr 14, 2008
Messages
6,704
MBTI Type
ENFJ
Similar to you, I had an existential crisis about what an INTJ is or what they are supposed to be, and it led me to create this one topic about how INTJ's usually behave because I couldn't understand the mass amount of inconsistencies between INTJs. I saw things in profiles that weren't clicking with me, and it wasn't doing much to quiet my own insecurities and search for an identity. I was totally distraught. However, I also saw myself trying to become an INTJ...so I was doing myself in.

I began to understand my type as this: a set of preferences for certain behaviors. The keyword there is preferences. People are bound to exhibit all sorts of behaviors common to other types throughout the days. It's the nature of being human-having the capacity for all sorts of behaviors and emotions and talents, whatever our natural inclinations may be. I figure INTJs are more fussy about being INTJs and what they're supposed to be because we're anxious and think about stuff like our identity in relation to a system. =\

Have you ever watched the Pirates of the Caribbean movies? Think of MBTI like the Pirate code. It's not a set of rules...it's more like a bunch of guidelines...or in essence, a rough sketch of different kinds of people.

Remember: there's no such thing as a human-shaped box.

(minus coffins. Oh yeah, I'm a pretty sensitive INTJ too.)

I don't think sensitivity has to do with this. I really don't. :shock:

I am myself and I do what I please (well, as much as I can get away with). I don't care for rebellion and I don't care for molds for the sake of them. But this has little to do with the question at hand.

When someone says a word too many times, the word begins to lose meaning -- and I think that's what happened to me. I figure as long as I'm looking at a particular system I might as well do it right. I see the word, but I no longer understand what the hell it's talking about. It doesn't help that supposedly the word, when applying to other people, might supposedly mean six other words instead of the original -- and after a while, my head just hurts.

I'm trying to redefine this again in terms that still make sense. Or maybe I should quit and go back to my crocheting?
 

Xander

Lex Parsimoniae
Joined
Apr 24, 2007
Messages
4,463
MBTI Type
INTP
Enneagram
9w8
If that's anything close to how you approach life, I wonder how you can stand it... you must be either incredibly gifted or incredibly crazy to be able to make something like that work.
Eccentric thank you so very much.

What is a democrat?
I'd be surprised if you could define one and not find a democrat who doesn't contradict your definition to some degree.

Let's put it in more familiar terms :)

What's a rogue?
Is a rogue in full plate not a rogue?
Is a fighter who can cast spells and not wear armour now not a fighter?
Better still is a bard still a bard when they are not singing?

Definitions are all well and good but if you ever think that they're all 100% accurate and encompassing then you're straying into the areas of grasping at straws.

I think it's best encompassed by a film quote (as often I do)
K ~ "Fifteen hundred years ago everybody knew the Earth was the center of the universe. Five hundred years ago, everybody knew the Earth was flat, and fifteen minutes ago, you knew that humans were alone on this planet. Imagine what you'll know tomorrow."
 

Athenian200

Protocol Droid
Joined
Jul 1, 2007
Messages
8,828
MBTI Type
INFJ
Enneagram
4w5
Let's put it in more familiar terms :)

What's a rogue?
Is a rogue in full plate not a rogue?
Is a fighter who can cast spells and not wear armour now not a fighter?
Better still is a bard still a bard when they are not singing?

Well, in those cases, I'd say that the character was primarily a rogue, but had developed fighter skills/qualities, and is still a rogue until he becomes more proficient with melee/battle skills than his previous rogue skills. The fighter in the other case has developed mage skills/qualities, but is still primarily a fighter until his magic training surpasses his previous melee training, at which point he becomes a mage (but one who still possesses fighter skills/qualities). Being a bard means a person has the ability to sing, not that they cannot stop or that they must sing a certain number of times per day. If they forgot (or otherwise lost the capacity) to sing or compose poetry, then they might not be a bard any longer, but just a traveler. Anyone other than a bard who developed this skill could be said to have a bard quality. A bard who developed another skill beyond the level of his singing and poetry would still have bard qualities, but would now be primarily the thing associated with this other skill.

Does that make sense? Class indicates one's currently strongest, most apparent quality or skill. This can change over time, and is a reflection of their status at the time the label was applied.

The problem is that people say type cannot change, while we know that class or skill specialization can. If it were believed that type could change dynamically with a person's skills and interests (as class can), then it would be easier to see the analogy.
Definitions are all well and good but if you ever think that they're all 100% accurate and encompassing then you're straying into the areas of grasping at straws.

What did I say that implied I believed that? All I meant was that it was difficult to say anything in particular about members of a specific type, just because they had that type. There doesn't seem to be any consistent quality between them, except that they prefer some variant or degree of the same dichotomy. It seems to me that their reasons for preferring something are more important in telling us who they are, than their preference itself. MBTI focuses on the quality preferred, not the reason why it was preferred, which tells us more about the person in my opinion.
 

FallsPioneer

New member
Joined
Dec 21, 2007
Messages
260
MBTI Type
INTJ
I don't think sensitivity has to do with this. I really don't. :shock:

I am myself and I do what I please (well, as much as I can get away with). I don't care for rebellion and I don't care for molds for the sake of them. But this has little to do with the question at hand.

When someone says a word too many times, the word begins to lose meaning -- and I think that's what happened to me. I figure as long as I'm looking at a particular system I might as well do it right. I see the word, but I no longer understand what the hell it's talking about. It doesn't help that supposedly the word, when applying to other people, might supposedly mean six other words instead of the original -- and after a while, my head just hurts.

I'm trying to redefine this again in terms that still make sense. Or maybe I should quit and go back to my crocheting?

I think you should go back to crocheting. Your question is like "Does God exist?" for its impossibility to be answered, in spite of the fact that the God question is a lot more defined.

As for the sensitivity thing...I just went with that because I am a sensitive INTJ, and since someone commented on that, I turned it into a joke.
 

Xander

Lex Parsimoniae
Joined
Apr 24, 2007
Messages
4,463
MBTI Type
INTP
Enneagram
9w8
The fighter in the other case has developed mage skills/qualities, but is still primarily a fighter until his magic training surpasses his previous melee training, at which point he becomes a mage (but one who still possesses fighter skills/qualities).
If you can classify someone as a mage but with the caveat that they can fight then you can, by the same process, also say that there can be an ENFP who's obsessed with logical reasoning and have an INTJ who's obsession with being right often makes them wrong.

The point is that inclusion in one group does not require exclusion from another.

'Do I contradict myself?
Very well then I contradict myself,
(I am large, I contain multitudes.)'Walt Whitman, "Song of Myself"
US poet (1819 - 1892)
As I see it, as a person grows they gather more contradictions. This is why younger people tend to be more stereotypical for their type than older people do.

The reason I brought up that you can't rely on things to be certain is that you seemed to be getting all ravelled up in why a system with as many contradictions as the MBTI can be of any use. Well same as the class system in D&D it gives you a general idea on some of the "stats". For example you'll be lucky to find a Wizard without high intelligence same as you'd be lucky to find a cold ENFP. Both probably do exist but it's a fairly safe assumption for most purposes to assume that what you're looking at isn't one of those rare cases.
 

Athenian200

Protocol Droid
Joined
Jul 1, 2007
Messages
8,828
MBTI Type
INFJ
Enneagram
4w5
If you can classify someone as a mage but with the caveat that they can fight then you can, by the same process, also say that there can be an ENFP who's obsessed with logical reasoning and have an INTJ who's obsession with being right often makes them wrong.

The point is that inclusion in one group does not require exclusion from another.

'Do I contradict myself?
Very well then I contradict myself,
(I am large, I contain multitudes.)'Walt Whitman, "Song of Myself"
US poet (1819 - 1892)
As I see it, as a person grows they gather more contradictions. This is why younger people tend to be more stereotypical for their type than older people do.

The reason I brought up that you can't rely on things to be certain is that you seemed to be getting all ravelled up in why a system with as many contradictions as the MBTI can be of any use. Well same as the class system in D&D it gives you a general idea on some of the "stats". For example you'll be lucky to find a Wizard without high intelligence same as you'd be lucky to find a cold ENFP. Both probably do exist but it's a fairly safe assumption for most purposes to assume that what you're looking at isn't one of those rare cases.

See, this is the part I don't really understand. You say that if the person becomes better at something that wasn't previously part of their type, that they stay the same type, even if they become more that particular thing than they were the things associated with their original type. That doesn't make sense, because I think in terms of class skills, you are considered to be what ever class you have the strongest skills in (in other words, when skills of one surpass those of the other, the label changes). In MBTI, you stay the same type regardless of how much or little you resemble that type.

That's what I really don't get.

Unless, of course, you're saying that the person is still mostly their type, but hasn't become more the thing that they've added than the thing they were originally... in which case it makes more sense.

But still... shouldn't someone who becomes better at and begins to tend towards being aware of, responding to, and making decisions based on people's feelings than they are at using logical reasoning, even if they used to be better at reasoning, still be considered an F?
 

Xander

Lex Parsimoniae
Joined
Apr 24, 2007
Messages
4,463
MBTI Type
INTP
Enneagram
9w8
See, this is the part I don't really understand. You say that if the person becomes better at something that wasn't previously part of their type, that they stay the same type, even if they become more that particular thing than they were the things associated with their original type. That doesn't make sense, because I think in terms of class skills, you are considered to be what ever class you have the strongest skills in (in other words, when skills of one surpass those of the other, the label changes). In MBTI, you stay the same type regardless of how much or little you resemble that type.

That's what I really don't get.

Unless, of course, you're saying that the person is still mostly their type, but hasn't become more the thing that they've added than the thing they were originally... in which case it makes more sense.

But still... shouldn't someone who becomes better at and begins to tend towards being aware of, responding to, and making decisions based on people's feelings than they are at using logical reasoning, even if they used to be better at reasoning, still be considered an F?
To risk continuing with an obsolete reference, if you spend your starting skill points as a wizard then regardless of whether or not you build your search up to higher than the rogue, you are not a rogue. You are and forever will be someone who began as a wizard and learned tricks from a rogue.

I guess it depends upon if your starting point is the start or the now. In that example if you do start in the now and say the wizard has several rogue like abilities and only a few wizard powers (multiclassing not necessarily being at full caster level progression) then from a now standpoint they are a rogue with a wizards background but from a systematic approach they are a wizard who have learned rogue like abilities.

Now this is where the model falls down. Humans never consider things in a vacuum. What was learned before alters the perceptions of the person and alters both how and what they learn. Hence though the wizard may become an excellent rogue, all the abilities which he learns as a rogue will be from an initial stand point of a learned wizard and not a chance taking resourceful rogue. So if you met a wizard who'd learned how to be a rogue then yes they probably can do everything that a rogue can do but they're unlikely to have the same approach as the less bookish straight rogue.

Now all you should need is a helm of true seeing to make sense of all that lot :D (Should help with the concealment ;) )
 
Top