[INTP] INTPs, what are your strongest two letters

[Non_xsense]

I think that I use ni, or possibly ne first bouncing around ideas and off in la la land but "I"/INTP put on my profile as of now to reflect the extreme withdrawn aspect. I am aware there is a difference between cognitive and social introversion but was just a weirdo that way. xD And I would say fe is up there too, I debate if fe is auxillary or tertiary but definitely lower than ne/ni. Things in social interactions going over my head and not being 100% emotionally aware make me think it is possibly on the lower end but I do overthink things like that in social interactions and try to be tune in the social atmosphere so there are times when it's crud but it plays something of a role.

ENFPs are fun to talk to, or high ne people in general, and just coming up with random ideas. I do like to be original, and think of bizarre things. Maybe not solid useful concepts 100%, I do like to read up on animals, and cryptids, and think about prehistoric animals in the modern day, or what if cryptids existed. Or when reading or watching a show, what they could have done differently if I didn't like the way they did something. Maybe not useful things but things like that.

With art, I do like how there is a certain control aspect, how you can create your world, or people can develop their own styles. How there may not be as much control in the real world but you can be a God of your own art world. Looking at cartoons from different eras, and see how it all evolved, and all the different things you can draw. I mostly draw creatures and characters but I look at other artist's art on DA, and some animations on Youtube.

Do you do art, or write, or anything like that?

I think i don't sense a Ti first on you , neither Intp's motivations tho people are alot more complex than the theory and you can be one of those people which the spectrum can't decide .

About art , my rebellious nature make me want to know the rules and breaking them after that . Isn't something which i need to think about ( of course , if you are making a piano composition you need to think every detail from every perspective) but there is always this way of thinking on me which is natural ...to never stay "static" in concepts ( Strong Ne) .

I'm actually the average "artsy intp" ... i studied astromony before musical composition. Maybe you are a more "extreme intuitive intp" .... but i don't know if i can call you intp if our "instincts" are so differents .

 

[Froody Blue Gem]

I think i don't sense a Ti first on you , neither Intp's motivations tho people are alot more complex than the theory and you can be one of those people which the spectrum can't decide .

About art , my rebellious nature make me want to know the rules and breaking them after that . Isn't something which i need to think about ( of course , if you are making a piano composition you need to think every detail from every perspective) but there is always this way of thinking on me which is natural ...to never stay "static" in concepts ( Strong Ne) .

I'm actually the average "artsy intp" ... i studied astromony before musical composition. Maybe you are a more "extreme intuitive intp" .... but i don't know if i can call you intp if our "instincts" are so differents .

It is good to go against the conventions with art and creativity. It is what makes for groundbreaking new stuff out there. While I like to do my own thing, I'll admit I do use references and get inspired by things.

And there can be a fine fine line between copying and homage, so works go into different categories. With art, music or anything, learning the basics can be helpful and taking class but then people can take their own spin on it. My art teacher was mentioning about drawing humans and learning about anatomy, there is a lot of great abstract cartoony stuff out there and no style is right or wrong but for example if you want to learn improv jazz in music, in order to know where to start they may need to learn the how tos for more structured music like classical. It wasn't said in those words but that was the basic gist.

 

[Shadow Play]

N and T are my strongest preferences on various tests, including the official MBTI. I and P fluctuate somewhat, and so I sometimes test as ENTP or INTJ.

Were I to match my dichotomy preferences up with their corresponding Big Five dimensions, I would say N and P would be my strongest preferences. I test differently on Agreeableness and Conscientiousness.

 

[RadicalDoubt]

The only letter I really seem to have a strong affinity for is I, though I guess a lot of people see me as more "P" than I think myself to be...

In order:
IPNT

 

[Maou]

I hit the wrong vote, but I meant to put I and T. Thinking and introversion is the only thing I know for sure. I bounce around between Ni and Ne without being sure which one I use. My J/P is even. So I don't really fit properly into any type regardless, because my functions are all fucked up.

 

[Shadow Play]

I hit the wrong vote, but I meant to put I and T. Thinking and introversion is the only thing I know for sure. I bounce around between Ni and Ne without being sure which one I use. My J/P is even. So I don't really fit properly into any type regardless, because my functions are all fucked up.

It's odd that T would be among your top two when you self-identify as 4w5. I actually think INTPs are relatively likely to be 4s compared to most other types, but the presence of 4 generally implies a milder T preference.

Basically, INFP is the most quintessentially 4-ish type, and the further away someone's preferences would be from INFP, the less plausible 4 becomes.

 

[Maou]

It's odd that T would be among your top two when you self-identify as 4w5. I actually think INTPs are relatively likely to be 4s compared to most other types, but the presence of 4 generally implies a milder T preference.

Basically, INFP is the most quintessentially 4-ish type, and the further away someone's preferences would be from INFP, the less plausible 4 becomes.

Yeah, I've had this conversation many times with people. But each one of them have a difficult time pinning down my MBTI other than T, but with enneagram many people see 4 in me, more than they do 5 or 9. As I am a touch more reactive, and am not socially introverted. I personally relate to the 4 motivations and desires. Even if they seemingly contradict thinking functions. I would say that being thinking and self-preservation 4 allows it to stay pretty lowkey in the public eye.

 

[Shadow Play]

Yeah, I've had this conversation many times with people. But each one of them have a difficult time pinning down my MBTI other than T, but with enneagram many people see 4 in me, more than they do 5 or 9. As I am a touch more reactive, and am not socially introverted. I personally relate to the 4 motivations and desires. Even if they seemingly contradict thinking functions. I would say that being thinking and self-preservation 4 allows it to stay pretty lowkey in the public eye.

How well do you relate to Fi, by the way? I'm of the opinion that Jung's Introverted Feeling type is a very different animal from MBTI Fi, which has been jerry-rigged to describe FPs. There are a lot of aspects of Jungian Introverted Feeling which suggest low Big Five Agreeableness, thus being in some ways antithetical to MBTI F. In addition to the low Agreeableness, Jung's portrait of Introverted Feeling suggests high Neuroticism, and if that's also true for you, that could maybe explain some of the 4 traits.

 

[Maou]

How well do you relate to Fi, by the way? I'm of the opinion that Jung's Introverted Feeling type is a very different animal from MBTI Fi, which has been jerry-rigged to describe FPs. There are a lot of aspects of Jungian Introverted Feeling which suggest low Big Five Agreeableness, thus being in some ways antithetical to MBTI F. In addition to the low Agreeableness, Jung's portrait of Introverted Feeling suggests high Neuroticism, and if that's also true for you, that could maybe explain some of the 4 traits.

I would like to think I value Fi, but I have had others point out my use of Fe. I do relate to having my own judgements and morality, rather than responding to the group. I tend to go against the grain of public acceptance more than trying to blend in. But with friends, I become the opposite.

In the big 5 test, I score zero on agreeableness, and high to low on neurotisism iirc.That specific score has fluctuated more than any other. I also test usually as INTJ. The reason I switched to INTP, is that function wise I seem to use Ti over Te.

 

[Shadow Play]

I would like to think I value Fi, but I have had others point out my use of Fe. I do relate to having my own judgements and morality, rather than responding to the group. I tend to go against the grain of public acceptance more than trying to blend in. But with friends, I become the opposite.

In the big 5 test, I score zero on agreeableness, and high to low on neurotisism iirc.That specific score has fluctuated more than any other. I also test usually as INTJ. The reason I switched to INTP, is that function wise I seem to use Ti over Te.

I'm mainly interested in what people reveal about themselves when they talk about which functions they relate to, as opposed to giving them serious consideration in determining their type. It seems like a limiting approach to overidentify with one function at the expense of another, even if you might've otherwise identified well with both E and I counterparts.

Although I'm an INTP by dichotomies, I could easily argue for ENxP if I wanted to, because I consider Ne to be a better fit for a dominant function than Ti. That's even more so for modern Ne descriptions which describe all NPs equally well, not just ENPs in particular. Inferior Si works regardless of whose definition you use. As for ENTP or ENFP, I relate strongly to both Ti and Fi - which is apparently a common experience for most INs, even those who supposedly don't have either function in their stack - and with maybe a slight preference for Ti.

However, I relate a lot more to Te than Fe. I mean, why would an INTP relate well to Fe? Jung's Extraverted Feeling has ESFJ as its closest corresponding type, whereas modern Fe descriptions are jerry-rigged to FJ. Te is so-so. It's mostly the T-ish traits which I identify with (objective reasoning, facts, dishing out and receiving criticism), and not so much the J-ish traits (structure, planning, organisation, efficiency). A recent functions test gave me 38 for Ti and 16 for Fe, and 30 equal for Fi and Te. So, Fi/Te > Ti/Fe.

The bottomline is it's easy to justify any type you want using functions, with each type rationalisation contradicting each other, all the while not claiming to have much more or less validity than the other.

 

[Maou]

I'm mainly interested in what people reveal about themselves when they talk about which functions they relate to, as opposed to giving them serious consideration in determining their type. It seems like a limiting approach to overidentify with one function at the expense of another, even if you might've otherwise identified well with both E and I counterparts.

Although I'm an INTP by dichotomies, I could easily argue for ENxP if I wanted to, because I consider Ne to be a better fit for a dominant function than Ti. That's even more so for modern Ne descriptions which describe all NPs equally well, not just ENPs in particular. Inferior Si works regardless of whose definition you use. As for ENTP or ENFP, I relate strongly to both Ti and Fi - which is apparently a common experience for most INs, even those who supposedly don't have either function in their stack - and with maybe a slight preference for Ti.

However, I relate a lot more to Te than Fe. I mean, why would an INTP relate well to Fe? Jung's Extraverted Feeling has ESFJ as its closest corresponding type, whereas modern Fe descriptions are jerry-rigged to FJ. Te is so-so. It's mostly the T-ish traits which I identify with (objective reasoning, facts, dishing out and receiving criticism), and not so much the J-ish traits (structure, planning, organisation, efficiency). A recent functions test gave me 38 for Ti and 16 for Fe, and 30 equal for Fi and Te. So, Fi/Te > Ti/Fe.

The bottomline is it's easy to justify any type you want using functions, with each type rationalisation contradicting each other, all the while not claiming to have much more or less validity than the other.

I think my biggest issue, is not being able to tell certain functions apart from each other. Se and Ne sound so similar to me. So I could not use it to type myself. I figured I use Ti, due to me not relying on empirical evidence before making a whole lot of conclusions about the world. I trust my own logic far more than, lets say some random expert on the internet. But while I feel for sure I use Ti, at the same time I also feel that I use Ni instead of Ne. I make instant assumptions about how things will play out, without thinking about how or why. I just know. I am super keen on seeing patterns as well, and quick to draw comparisons between unrelated things. So I am not sure if I am just using literally both introverted and extroverted functions at the same time, or I am just not understanding them.

What do you think of shadow functions?

 

[Shadow Play]

I think my biggest issue, is not being able to tell certain functions apart from each other. Se and Ne sound so similar to me. So I could not use it to type myself. I figured I use Ti, due to me not relying on empirical evidence before making a whole lot of conclusions about the world. I trust my own logic far more than, lets say some random expert on the internet. But while I feel for sure I use Ti, at the same time I also feel that I use Ni instead of Ne. I make instant assumptions about how things will play out, without thinking about how or why. I just know. I am super keen on seeing patterns as well, and quick to draw comparisons between unrelated things. So I am not sure if I am just using literally both introverted and extroverted functions at the same time, or I am just not understanding them.

What do you think of shadow functions?

It depends on which theory you're using. If you're talking about Beebe's eight function model, which stipulates that an INTP has Ti-Ne-Si-Fe-Te-Ni-Se-Fi, then I don't see any point in it. If you're talking about Jung's four function theory, well, it makes more sense, although it's quite different from modern function models.

Jung believed that there were four functions, not eight, and the attitude of the function changed depending on its level of consciousness within the psyche. The majority of individuals are more ambiverted instead of being clearly extraverted or introverted, and it's those individuals Jung considered as being typeless. That's because he believed strength of a function preference was tied to the strength of temperamental pull, whether towards extraversion or introversion. So, an Extraverted Thinking type would have a subjective factor to their thinking, as would an Introverted Thinking type having an objective factor, but each type would repress the factor of its opposing temperament.

I consider the eight function model inadequate at encapsulating Jung's ideas, both because of a fixed function order and because of its unwieldy arrangement. If Ti and Te really are to be seen as separate functions at all, it would make more sense to group them together, rather than positioning a different variant of the dominant function beneath the inferior. The concept of "shadow" is also different between function theories. The eight function model has an ENTJ's function stack as the shadow of an INTP's, with all four of the functions in the Ti-Ne-Si-Fe stack conscious to varying extents, and the inferior serving as a bridge to the subconscious. In the original theory, it was the inferior function which inhabited the shadow, containing most of what's suppressed by the conscious attitude. The tertiary could be made conscious if sufficiently differentiated into the psyche, but it would still carry the taint of the unconscious with it.

As for what I think, I don't subscribe to any functions model, but if we were to define functions by their corresponding dichotomy pairs, it would make more sense for an INTP to have "Fe" (FJ) as an unknown, shadowy area than "Te" (TJ), since the absence of both F and J preferences better represents problem areas because of how "foreign" they are.

 

[Maou]

It depends on which theory you're using. If you're talking about Beebe's eight function model, which stipulates that an INTP has Ti-Ne-Si-Fe-Te-Ni-Se-Fi, then I don't see any point in it. If you're talking about Jung's four function theory, well, it makes more sense, although it's quite different from modern function models.

Jung believed that there were four functions, not eight, and the attitude of the function changed depending on its level of consciousness within the psyche. The majority of individuals are more ambiverted instead of being clearly extraverted or introverted, and it's those individuals Jung considered as being typeless. That's because he believed strength of a function preference was tied to the strength of temperamental pull, whether towards extraversion or introversion. So, an Extraverted Thinking type would have a subjective factor to their thinking, as would an Introverted Thinking type having an extraverted factor, but each type would repress the factor of its opposing temperament.

I consider the eight function model inadequate at encapsulating Jung's ideas, both because of a fixed function order and because of its unwieldy arrangement. If Ti and Te really are to be seen as separate functions at all, it would make more sense to group them together, rather than positioning a different variant of the dominant function beneath the inferior. The concept of "shadow" is also different between function theories. The eight function model has an ENTJ's function stack as the shadow of an INTP's, with all four of the functions in the Ti-Ne-Si-Fe stack, and the inferior serving as a bridge to the subconscious. In the original theory, it was the inferior function which inhabited the shadow, containing most of what's suppressed by the conscious attitude. The tertiary could serve as a bridge to the unconscious if it was differentiated into consciousness, but it would still carry the taint of the unconscious with it.

As for what I think, I don't subscribe to any functions model, but if we were to define functions by their corresponding dichotomy pairs, it would make more sense for an INTP to have "Fe" (FJ) as an unknown, shadowy area than "Te" (TJ), since the absence of both F and J preferences better represents problem areas because of how "foreign" they are.

Oh damn, that actually makes total sense! I really like how you explained that!

 

[Shadow Play]

Oh damn, that actually makes total sense! I really like how you explained that!

Thanks.

I have one amendment to make, though.

The tertiary could serve as a bridge to the unconscious if it was differentiated into consciousness, but it would still carry the taint of the unconscious with it.

I spoke in error when I described the tertiary as a bridge. The inferior being a bridge is also a Jungian concept, but the difference is it doesn't link individuals to their "opposite" functions when it is an opposite function in itself.

 

[Turi]

I, N and P are my strongest letters insofar as "strength" is referring to the distance between I from E, N from S and P from J via dichotomy. T and F are whatever, I feel like INxP works.