I Thought I was INTJ . . .

[coconut]

For three years I've been INTJ. I've done online tests, had a MBTI friend confirm it, my Sloan and wing-type seem to match up, I can relate to the cognitive function discussions. There are a few discrepancies - I'm not confident (much less arrogant), I don't have the INTJ stare, I'm not into math/science, don't play chess. But I'm female, the argument goes, and society has forced me to tone down so as to be non-arrogant, and it's stereotypical to think that all INTJ's are going to be into math/science. I accepted that logic and I've assumed I'm simply not a stereotypical INTJ. The rest of the description fits and I've enjoying lurking on the INTJf forum.

A friend who is MBTI certified is telling me I'm INTP. At first I balked because I've confirmed INTJ so many times. But as she went on with her reasoning, it started to make more sense.

Here are the reasons I think I'm INTJ
Strong j - I love organizing (though I'm not so good at maintaining that organization) and I feel unsettled with a decision that's not made yet. I have been guilty of making a bad decision just to get something finalized.
I write in short, brief statements. The INTP style is to carefully define terms and thoroughly explain every facet. I like a direct and concise style of communicating.
I relate strongly to Fi (no, I am not INFP)
I do not like progressive music. INTP's have broader tastes in music than I do.
I like to do big projects - organize information, clarify things to make it accessible to others, clean and organize closets.
The whole "up in the air" aspect of not being sure of my type gnaws at me. Isn't that J?

Reasons I might be INTP
I am always doubting myself
I have not "known I was smarter than everyone else" ever since I was a kid like INTJ's are supposed to. In fact, I'm not exceptionally smart. People I know in real life define me as "smart", but amongst groups of people who read, I'm nothing extraordinary in the intelligence department.
I'm nicer than INTJ's are supposed to be. I may be distant and oblivious to what others are going through, and people may assume I'm cold and aloof, but I aspire to be caring.
I don't like debating. I like hearing contrary ideas about things when it's backed up by logic, but being yelled at unsettles me. If I was in a heated debate, I'd probably get flustered and cry.

My friend reasoned it like this:
People are either Directing or Informing (this us Linda Berens' explanation of types). I am not Directing. In a crowd, I say very little. When I do speak, I ask questions (informing) rather than make statements (Directing). I like philosophy (my long-term goal is to finish all my projects so I can spend the rest of my life buried in philosophy textbooks and Descartes and Mill and such in order to simply relish following their thought processes) and she says that confirms INTP. If I was INTJ, I would be drawn to math and science. And, although I like making lists and schedules and organizing stuff, I have trouble with follow-through.

Can you help me out, please?

 

[animenagai]

My advice is to figure out what your top functions are. Don't get caught up on stereo-typology. Things like "INTJ's like math and science" are a very crude way of typing. It the Jungian functions that create substance in MBTI, and the same functions can be expressed in very different ways.

To be honest with you, I think your MBTI-certified friend is misleading you more than anything.

 

[ndovjtjcaqidthi]

Lol @ bringing "INTJ stare" into this.

 

[LadyLazarus]

Well all thoughts we was INTJ at some point.

 

[Stanton Moore]

NEITHER
THIRD OPTION

 

[maybetmp]

Well all thoughts we was INTJ at some point.

Even though I did think I might be an INTJ at one point, I kind of have to doubt that.

 

[ndovjtjcaqidthi]

NEITHER
THIRD OPTION

INFP?

Welcome back, by the way.

 

[skylights]

I see little reason at least in the OP to shy from INTJ. IxFJs especially do tend to be socially directive but all IxxJs are dominant Perceivers even though they are Js. It is not at all unusual for IxxJs to ask questions in a social context. A more telling difference would be whether your thought process tends to focus on one domain and orient everything at that domain for periods of time (Pi/J), or whether it tends to jump and loop in response to the real-time external environment (Pe/P). As far as external organization goes, again, INTJs are primary Perceivers, and their primary focus is internal, not external. The strongest argument against INTJ that I see is that you're unsettled as to your type, but like you said, maybe you're just further from average.

Whether you like philosophy or math and science has little to do with anything.

 

[LadyLazarus]

Even though I did think I might be an INTJ at one point, I kind of have to doubt that.

But I'm clearly the most reliable source there is.

 

[coconut]

A more telling difference would be whether your thought process tends to focus on one domain and orient everything at that domain for periods of time (Pi/J), or whether it tends to jump and loop in response to the real-time external environment (Pe/P). As far as external organization goes, again, INTJs are primary Perceivers, and their primary focus is internal, not external.

As in, does my thought process tend to get obsessed with one topic and exclude irrelevant data? In reading an INTP forum, it seems that INTPs tend to go off on random rabbit trails. Perhaps it's because I've learned self-discipline, but I don't really do that. When I'm on a subject, I'm pretty focused and generally ignore rabbit trails.

The strongest argument against INTJ that I see is that you're unsettled as to your type, but like you said, maybe you're just further from average.

Further from average in what?

At this point, I think my main doubt that I can't get past is that I'm mousy and timid and very unassuming. My understanding is that an INTJ's defining characteristic is confidence, at least in what they know.

So I'm either an INTJ with low self-esteem or an INTP with unusual focus.

 

[animenagai]

My understanding is that an INTJ's defining characteristic is confidence, at least in what they know.

See, this is your problem, there's no such thing as "an INTJ's defining characteristic" outside of being Ni dominant and Te auxiliary. Those and those alone are what define your type. Everything else is just correlation, rather than causal or definitive.

 

[chubber]

MBTI INTJ: http://personalitycafe.com/infj-forum-protectors/76894-recognizing-inferior-function-infj.html

Socionics ILI-INTp: http://personalitycafe.com/socionic...ription-best-intp-ili-guide-ever-written.html

Do you relate to any of it?

 

[Scheherezade]

so you`re different and want to be ordinary?

 

[Nicodemus]

At this point, I think my main doubt that I can't get past is that I'm mousy and timid and very unassuming. My understanding is that an INTJ's defining characteristic is confidence, at least in what they know.

So I'm either an INTJ with low self-esteem or an INTP with unusual focus.

There is a marked difference between confidence in what you know and self-esteem, which could be described as confidence in social situations. INTJs are not exempt from social phobias and more often than not unsure in their social skills.

Do you relate more to Ne or to Te?

I like philosophy (my long-term goal is to finish all my projects so I can spend the rest of my life buried in philosophy textbooks and Descartes and Mill and such in order to simply relish following their thought processes) and she says that confirms INTP.

This, if anything, points to INTP rather than INTJ because you seem to be interested in following their thought processes. Now, philosophy is all about thoughts, but what I have observed is that INTPs tend to get lost in the reconstruction and 'understanding' of other people's thoughts while INTJs prefer to mine them in order to construct their own theories, ultimately to achieve palpable, real-life results.

 

[Forever_Jung]

Well all thoughts we was INTJ at some point.

Not me! Although one time I slammed a door, and then everyone started calling me an INFJ. And then I said, I'm really not like that, and they said: Classic INFJ lack of self-awareness! Why I once knew this INFJ who used telepathy to make me kill my pet cat. Why do you people hate cats!? I was speechless, and so they said: there he goes again, slamming the door on yet another innocent. How do you Fe-ople sleep at night? Needless to say, I'm glad I'm back to being an INFP again.

As for you, OP, you really don't sound very NT, but it's hard to say. You really didn't give us a lot of meat and potatoes to determining your type. This is because your friend has led you to believe that dumb things like (I like philosophy) makes you an INTP. Whoever your friend is, they don't really have a great grasp on things. Based on their reasoning, it appears that they read a couple intro books to MBTI and called it a day.

The best way to do it is to find out yourself. Read descriptions on Ti (INTP's dominant function) and Ni (INTJ's dom). I recommend Jung's Psychological Types, but I'm going to quote the more accessible writing of his disciple, JH van der Hoop. These are excerpts from his book Conscious Orientation.:

The introvert of thinking-type also takes his systematized experience as his guide; but here the emphasis falls on the inner aspect, thus on the need for objective order and on laws and principles, according to which experience is generally systematized. Abstraction of that part of conscious experience which is revealed as constant and subject to general rules is regarded by the introverted thinker as something of vital significance. He tries to arrange the opinions which he takes over from others in a system of his own. In doing so, he will take up a more critical attitude in regard to the thought-material which he is taught than do extraverted thinkers, and his aim is to follow the guidance of his own opinions and convictions. In consequence, we find a most careful working-over of his own experience, but a tendency to leave out of his reckoning facts and points of view which are not known to him. While the strength of the extraverted thinker lies in his easy application of systematized knowledge, the introverted thinker is particularly good at comparing systems and principles. He feels at home among abstractions, and there are many fine shades of meaning in the world of his ideas. Also, as he is more skilled in introspection, he is better able to examine mental facts than is the extraverted psychologist.

Hence we see here a living contact with ideas, and subtle reflection and consideration, side by side with difficulty in expressing and applying what has been thought out, and a certain aloofness from the world of facts in general. There is thus in these people a contrast between their consciousness of the objectivity of their judgment, and their difficulty, of which they are equally conscious, in defending this judgment and securing its recognition by others. This produces, even in children of the type, a peculiar attitude. They are often reserved, somewhat timid and uncertain, and seem not to feel at home in the world. On the other hand, they will, at the same time, manifest an obstinate, somewhat pedantic decisiveness. They have not the cool logicality of the thinking extravert, but take up a more fanatical stand, which may easily degenerate into dogmatism and extreme pedantry. In general, both children and adults of this type are, as a result of their introversion, difficult to convince that they are mistaken. Their inner, logical reasoning makes them feel that they are right, and they may take up an attitude to the external world also, which might be expressed as follows: "That is my opinion, even if I can't prove it; whether you agree or not, it will not change it to the slightest degree."

At an early age they have learned that the fact that they inwardly regard something as true does not in the least mean that others will accept it. As a result, their attitude is, in general, more sceptical in regard to the validity of any truth than is that of a thinking extravert, and they are more inclined to allow for the existence of differing views, even when these do not entirely tally with theirs or with those of prevailing authorities. At the same time, however, this gives rise to a feeling of aloofness in regard to any generally recognized system of truth, for this often seems to them something quite unattainable. On the other hand, they never cease to be surprised that what seems so obvious to them should not be equally clear to others. Occasionally such people will go to great pains to express themselves as objectively and clearly as possible, but sometimes they give up the attempt and simply present their views in the form in which they arose. In the difficult language of some philosophers we find the effect of both influences — sometimes in strange combination. As a result of this somewhat sceptical and resigned attitude in regard to form, the judgments of introverted thinkers have often about them something cautious, cold or stiff-necked. It is as if they already reckoned on difficulty in convincing others. Jung says of this type: "Even if he goes as far as giving his thoughts to the world, he does not deal with them as a careful mother would with her children, but he exposes them as foundlings, and at the most he will be annoyed if they fail to make their way."

This inner conflict between certainty as regards conviction, and uncertainty as to how to maintain and apply this conviction in the world, intensifies thought concerning personal conflicts and problems. Hence many philosophically disposed persons belong to this type. They aim at having, at least inwardly, a foundation of pure ideals and definite principles for the ordering of their lives. Such people make, as it were, endless preparations for life; they constantly renew their efforts to perfect their equipment, so as to be equal to the fight for existence. This they do, not only in the big problems of life, but also in ordinary practical matters. They like to have a systematic view of the whole situation before entering on any new ground. In order to be able to adapt themselves, they need to have order in their life and work, and they love making programmes. When travelling, they eagerly study maps and guide-books, or they may even try to master the language of a foreign country, before ever they go there. Such people like to be able to foresee all the possible difficulties which may arise in their business or work, so as to be able to take precautions against them in good time. Occasionally this leads to the most elaborate reckoning with every important practical detail. Ford seems to me to be a good example of the potentialities in practical adaptation characteristic of the type, with his elaborate preparations down to the smallest detail coupled with a theoretical justification of all his ideas. In a mind less clear and with less insight into what is essential, this preparation may, however, lead to much fussiness and complexity, and in such cases much energy and attention is wasted in warding off imaginary dangers.

These thinking people are also found more especially among the male sex. Great philosophers, such as Kant, belong to them, and also many mathematicians and psychologists. Or they may be found in all kinds of practical and applied sciences, and taking leading roles as careful organizers, legislators or contractors. On occasion, however, they are unable to get over certain unpractical traits, and will then cause difficulties with their fanatical exactitude in details, or by everlastingly insisting on their pet principles in any discussion or practical undertaking. This makes co-operation with them in any large combine somewhat difficult. Socially, also, they are somewhat surly. Their attitude to others is more or less studied, seldom absolutely spontaneous. Here again, their systematic thinking stands between them and the world. Their words are usually carefully chosen and weighed, and thus are a kind of mask. People of this type are usually aware of this; but they see no possibility of adopting any different attitude. One usually learns to know them better in a smaller circle, where they will be more spontaneous, and even cordial or original; but even so, with a tendency to be awkward as a result of over-sensitiveness or irascibility. It is more easy to see them as they really are in some sphere in which they have begun to master the technique.

As among the extraverted thinkers, here, also, we may find keen concentration of will and constant activity. Since the introvert finds the motives for his aspirations more within himself, he is less dependent on external stimuli. This is counter-balanced, however, by greater susceptibility to inner difficulties, which, accordingly, may damage his working capacity. And while his independence of circumstances gives him great perseverance, even where initially no success is to be looked for, it may also happen that he will squander his best powers on something impossible from the practical point of view, without realizing this in time.

If the instinctive life manages to gain some influence, it will be conducted along definite paths by a controlling reason. As a rule, introverted thought finds support in the perceptual aspect of instinctive experience, since this represents its objective aspect. This type of thinker is, however, in philosophy, natural science and psychology, more inclined than the extravert to speculate on the nature of perception and the object. In addition, he is, as an introvert, more in touch with the subjective side of instinctual life. He is more conscious of the inner struggle between instinctual drives, and here also he will seek to create order with his reason, in which case it will depend on his principles as to how he will do this. The theorizing idealist, full of his ideal of the purity of love, and despising as filthy anything remotely associated with sex, will, in the inflexibility of his system, be not far removed from those who defend licence on the principle that nature must not be denied. Both attitudes are in point of fact calculated to evade the practical complications of the problem, and to keep it, so to speak, at a distance. The introverted thinker will sometimes have a great deal to say on such subjects; but he is not, for all that, better, or more skilled, in practice.

Intuition may also influence people of this type to a greater or less degree, giving them something original, which is, however, subdued, since it can only be permitted to play any part in their life after it has been carefully tested. Intuition also reveals to them the schemata and principles according to which thought may classify experience. But the immediate results of personal vision, both in regard to the internal and the external world, tend rather to be mistrusted, unless it is obvious that they will fit into the system. These results may, however, give rise to alterations and extensions in the system. Nevertheless, fine inspirations frequently remain unfruitful, owing to the ponderous way in which they are dealt with.

Feeling, again, gives rise to the chief difficulties in people of this type. Anything which conforms to their principles and views is allowed; but even this cannot easily find expression, owing to deficient familiarity with current modes of expression. As a result, people of this type will often display a strict conventionality, or else a childish disregard of these modes. Inwardly, their feelings, moods and impulses cause them much more unpleasantness than they do to the extraverted thinker, the latter being less aware of them. An introverted thinker, when in love, feels awkward, uncertain and ridiculous. He will try and talk himself out of his feelings, or else make endless preparations to give expression to them, which is, naturally, scarcely conducive to spontaneity.

PHEW! Got all that? Here's Ni:

The introverted intuitive perceives connections and meaning in the internal world, and with as much spontaneity and conviction as the extraverted intuitive sees them in the external world. It is not primarily his own personal inner life that he grasps in this way, but rather inner life in general, the inner nature of things. The aim of intuition here is to perceive the ideal essence of all things — animate and inanimate, and in their inter-relations. The clearest example of the kind of thing is seen in Plato's "ideas", which give a purer representation of the inner being of the world than does reality itself. Jung calls these mental images, supplying meaning and a standard of comparison, "archetypes", and he regards them as a deposit of ancestral experience. Others see in them the immediate expression of a spiritual world. These questions lie outside the realm of psychology, and would lead us to that of metaphysics. Here we must confine ourselves to the statement that intuitions of this kind concerning the inner essence of things do occur in the human mind, and that for a certain type of mind, that of the introverted intuitive, they determine and control the direction and the content of life. Here, also, intuitive knowledge is felt by the person concerned as objective and as having the universal validity of truth. Here we find, in addition to the tangible reality of sensory perception, and the conviction of instinctual impulse, another source of certainty, of great significance for humanity, for from this intuitive knowledge there arises not only religious conviction, but, in fact, all spiritual assurance. Spinoza speaks in this respect of "scientia intuitiva". Hence there are found also among intuitive introverts great spiritual leaders, prophets, founders of religions, all those people who, for the sake of some sacred inner conviction, will endure the world's misunderstanding and contempt.

It would be a mistake, however, in studying a function, to consider only its extreme potentialities, in which all that is most profound in the human mind has taken form. For this type assumes also many much less noble forms, and there is peculiar difficulty, where this inner knowledge is concerned, in finding even approximate expression for what is perceived. It is extremely important, therefore, for people of this type to attain through their education a technique of expression, as was the case with two great artists, Rembrandt and Beethoven, both of whom I include in this class. The development of this type is slower and more arduous than that of most other people. In childhood, these people have something about them as spontaneous as have the extraverts of this type; but it is, both in form and expression, more bizarre, and less intelligible, owing to the causes being less explicable from external conditions. Such children are not very amenable to influence from their environment. They may have periods of uncertainty and reserve, after which they suddenly become very determined, and if then they are opposed, they may manifest an astonishing self-will and obstinacy. As a result of the intensely spontaneous activity within, they are frequently moody, occasionally brilliant and original, then again reserved, stubborn and arrogant. In later life, also, it is a persistent characteristic of people of this type, that while on the one hand they possess great determination, on the other hand they find it very difficult to express what they want. Although they may have only a vague feeling about the way they want to go, and of the meaning of their life, they will nevertheless reject with great stubbornness anything that does not fit in with this. They fear lest external influences or circumstances should drive them in a wrong direction, and they resist on principle.

In their mode of life, and in their immediate environment, they seek to regulate everything according to their own ideas, which is apt to make them tyrants within their own small circle. Rather than adapt themselves, they will limit their contact with those who do not fall in with them. The rest of the world matters, in fact, very little to them. In contradiction to this reserve, there is the genuine enthusiasm which they may suddenly display for something. If some individual, or some event, or some object, responds to this sense which they have of the meaning of their life, and reveals to them something of their deeper purposes, then they take up a different attitude, and become conscious of a more intense, more profound connection in things. The highest form of this function would imply a capacity for perceiving the deeper meaning of verything. The marvellous richness of life would then be revealed. As a rule, however, this only happens at certain moments and in relation to certain persons or things. This contradiction between intimate contact and cold reserve has been very clearly described by the introverted intuitive, Buber, in his account of the "I — you" and the "I — it" relationship. This contradiction also occurs in other people, but not with the same mutual exclusion, nor with such definiteness, as in this type. Where the inner life finds expression, there will be close attachment; but side by side with this there will be a cold aloofness.

As far as material and instinctual life is concerned, these people feel exceedingly helpless, like people suddenly transplanted from another planet. They feel much more at home in spiritual things. In the realm of the spirit they have far greater assurance than other people. Here they are stimulating; one feels that something peculiar to themselves is operative within them. But its activity often remains indefinite, owing to an inability to find adequate expression for the tension of what they mean. The spiritual side of life can only be approached through symbols; its cnport can only be understood in mental images, and it is by no means always possible to find this approach. Moreover, a great deal of confusion arises, because it is not understood that this is, in any case, only an approximation. Certainty in regard to the underlying intent is then transferred to the form in which it is expressed, as a result of which formulations become dogmatic and judgment rigid. Incidental and inadequate points in the formulation are then regarded as essential and absolute. The firm conviction of these people may in such cases arouse strong opposition or find blind support. They often lay down the law in regard to what they have perceived, without its even occurring to them that it might be possible to find incorrect as well as correct elements therein. This often makes their influence over others the more effective, but it may prepare the way for great confusion. One is reminded of the influence which a man like Nietzsche has had on our generation.

In the realm of thought we shall to some extent find the same characteristics as we found when extraverted intuition influences reason. Here also the influence of reason is very variable and ego-centric, and knowledge fragmentary. Ideas must come of themselves, and great effort is required if this does not happen. Thought is, however, less flexible than with the extravert of this type, but frequently even more original. Many new ideas, especially in the spiritual realm, have originated with people of this type; but they are often not worked out systematically. Their thought remains aphoristic, and is often expressed in paradoxes. Men like Emerson, Shaw and Chesterton belong to this type. Side by side with ideas expressive of genius, they will occasionaJly propound with equal conviction mistaken and fantastic views, which they maintain with obstinacy in the face of all criticism. Intuitive conviction stands for more than rational argument, which renders such people occasionally extremely conceited and opinionated.

Where it is a question of feeling with people of this type, it also assumes the peculiar characteristics of intuition. As has already been said, this gives rise to a contact with other people which is changeable and peculiar, according to whether something important is felt to lie in it, or not. As a result, emotional contacts are extremely inconstant; these people are at one moment full of enthusiasm and devotion, at the next utterly cold and stand-offish. It is always necessary, when with them, to be on the look-out for which way the wind is blowing. Spontaneous insight, and the images associated therewith, affect the feelings of the introverted intuitive in a somewhat different way from what we have seen in the case of the extravert of this type. With these extraverts the danger is that feelings are for show, with no development of inner reality. A living relationship with other people and with personal standards is lacking when this is so. With the introverted intuitive, the image of what the feelings should be may easily be substituted for a feeling-relationship. He will then make demands on others without being prepared to meet the same demands on himself. Egotism, and a desire to dominate, may then make use of these requirements of an ideal relationship, for their own ends. Another peculiarity which may be manifested by feeling, when influenced by introverted intuition, is intense ambivalence, the co-existence of two absolutely opposed emotional attitudes. We have already seen in extraverted intuition how spontaneity favours the loose juxtaposition of opposing manifestations. In the introvert there is less variety in the form assumed by these contradictions, but great inner tension. The introverted intuitive may identify himself alternately with the divine and with the diabolical within himself. Occasionally he is unaware of this himself; when it becomes too intense, however, he feels as if he were being torn in two by conflicting forces within. In this struggle the individual concerned may be thrown hither and thither between the extremes of godlike assurance and diabolical confusion. In extreme cases the result may be a character like Rasputin.

As with extraverted intuition, here, also, contact is least with the facts of the external world, and with instinctual life. Such people live, as it were, alongside their bodies, until these by some disturbance demand their attention. The main thing is, however, that ordinary practical things and the world of facts are far removed for them, and they try to confine their contact with them to that which they can regulate according to their wishes. Everything else appears to them as something disquietingly incalculable, against which they must defend themselves as far as they possibly can.

 

[coconut]

As for you, OP, you really don't sound very NT, but it's hard to say. You really didn't give us a lot of meat and potatoes to determining your type. This is because your friend has led you to believe that dumb things like (I like philosophy) makes you an INTP.

No, I only gave enough information to determine between INTJ and INTP. I've seriously re-considered my type three times (wanting to confirm; so many people say INTJ's are really mistyped ISTP's or INTP's) and it has ended up confirming INTJ. I even paid for a newly certified MBTI online friend to do the "official test" (which seemed to me to be a variation of the online tests) and the test result was INTJ, and the tester, who knew me over a couple of years by my online posts, said she had no reason to consider that I might be anything else. The only reason I'm re-visiting this once again is because someone who's done MBTI as a living is telling me I'm INTP, not INTJ. Maybe I seem INTJ online and INTP in person?

I've read definitions of the functions, and I'll read these (thank you!). I relate well to Te (and Fi). I don't know about Ni because no two people seem to describe it the same way. When I've compared Ni to Ne, my processes match Ni more than Ne.

 

[chubber]

No, I only gave enough information to determine between INTJ and INTP. I've seriously re-considered my type three times (wanting to confirm; so many people say INTJ's are really mistyped ISTP's or INTP's) and it has ended up confirming INTJ. I even paid for a newly certified MBTI online friend to do the "official test" (which seemed to me to be a variation of the online tests) and the test result was INTJ, and the tester, who knew me over a couple of years by my online posts, said she had no reason to consider that I might be anything else. The only reason I'm re-visiting this once again is because someone who's done MBTI as a living is telling me I'm INTP, not INTJ. Maybe I seem INTJ online and INTP in person?

I've read definitions of the functions, and I'll read these (thank you!). I relate well to Te (and Fi). I don't know about Ni because no two people seem to describe it the same way. When I've compared Ni to Ne, my processes match Ni more than Ne.

Industrial psychologist was guessing, after I asked her to. She guessed ISTJ after a few minutes of meeting me. She only guessed. So did this person for a living do a real assessment on you or not?

 

[Forever_Jung]

I've read definitions of the functions, and I'll read these (thank you!). I relate well to Te (and Fi). I don't know about Ni because no two people seem to describe it the same way. When I've compared Ni to Ne, my processes match Ni more than Ne.

You know, I paid for the real test (a waste in hindsight), and I typed INTP. So don't worry too much about the pros. Ni is hard to explain, not sure if I'm right exactly, but this is kind of how I look at it:

Ni: Taking a thousand little objects and finding one use for it, larger than than the sum of its parts. Think of those people that take a bunch of piece sof gum and use it to make like a picture of Shakespeare or something.
Ne: Taking one object and finding 1000 uses for it. Think of guys on "Whose Line Is It Anyway" reimagining random props to fit the rapidly changing situations.

Ni narrows down, Ne branches out.

 

[Jaguar]

I don't have the INTJ stare. I do not like progressive music.

I stopped taking your post seriously when I read that nonsense.

 

[Riva]

I don't have the INTJ stare

I stopped taking your post seriously when I read that nonsense.