Why so many mistyped or wannabee INTJs?

[kyuuei]

I think it's because INTJs go with ENFPs so well that everyone just wants to get with ENFPs. In my unbiased opinion.

 

[prplchknz]

I think it's because INTJs go with ENFPs so well that everyone just wants to get with ENFPs. In my unbiased opinion.

says the ENFP

 

[ReadingRainbows]

I think it's because INTJs go with ENFPs so well that everyone just wants to get with ENFPs. In my unbiased opinion.

<3 And every enfp wants to be with an intj !

 

[garbage]

We already have about a billion page thread on that subject

 

[SpankyMcFly]

...everyonesomeone just wants to get with an ENFPs. ...

Fixed.

It's probably due to an abundance of STJ's having simultaneous crushes on ENFPs and trying to be sneaky.

 

[Coriolis]

we see a lot of assertions that such-and-such a person is reaalllly type xxxx, only to change their own type to something else the next day.

How can you 'accurately' type if you don't have a solid frame of reference?

Yes, there is alot of honest type uncertainty, honest in that the person is not putting on a pretense or trying to look cool, but still trying to understand the type system and perhaps themselves as well. As for why INTJ comes up so often during this learning process as a possible type - the difficulty of understanding Ni may be part of it, as well as Uumlau's ideas below:

I see lots of people who are just simply nerdy (shy, essentially lives online, enjoys intellectual stuff) will type as INTJ and INTP. There is some glamor to the types (all the various celebrity types, which can spark some very silly arguments), but it's really just that the stereotypes match their self image.

I see INTJs occasionally mistyping as INTPs, because they don't feel like they have the orderliness of a J.
I see ISTJs occasionally mistyping as INTJs, because they're intellectual and rather smart.
I see INFJs occasionally mistyping as INTJs, because (as CF mentioned) they've developed a hard, cynical edge.
I see ISTPs occasionally mistyping as INTJs, because they're more practical than INTPs.

I usually don't think it's because of the "coolness factor", though. Just an overall misconception of what the type means. If one thinks of type in a "result-oriented" way, then one is one's type because one fits the stereotype. If one thinks of type in a process-oriented way (as I do), then one is one's type because of how one thinks and processes information and ideas.

I like this last distinction between outcome and process. Any type can do anything, behave in any way. It is how and why they do so that reveals their type.

 

[Anew Leaf]

Yes, there is alot of honest type uncertainty, honest in that the person is not putting on a pretense or trying to look cool, but still trying to understand the type system and perhaps themselves as well. As for why INTJ comes up so often during this learning process as a possible type - the difficulty of understanding Ni may be part of it, as well as Uumlau's ideas below:


I like this last distinction between outcome and process. Any type can do anything, behave in any way. It is how and why they do so that reveals their type.

You and [MENTION=9310]uumlau[/MENTION] made a great point here.

 

[SilkRoad]

Any type can do anything, behave in any way. It is how and why they do so that reveals their type.

Another vote for this being a great point! There's too much stereotyping based on the idea that certain types never (or always) act a certain way, follow certain careers, etc. It's much more about how/why they do or don't do it, than the mere fact that they do or don't do it.

 

[Anew Leaf]

Another vote for this being a great point! There's too much stereotyping based on the idea that certain types never (or always) act a certain way, follow certain careers, etc. It's much more about how/why they do or don't do it, than the mere fact that they do or don't do it.

Yeah, and I sort of wonder if the source isn't the issue. Like the descriptions given on some types so that people equate, "Well, I am bookish, quiet, and I like to read up on intellectual pursuits... clearly I am an INxx!"

Or something.

When I first got typed as an INFP, I whined about how I wanted to be ISFP because they were entitled "the Artist" and I had this moment where I felt I couldn't possibly be an artist if I wasn't an S. (In my defense I was an emo 18 year old. )

 

[RaptorWizard]

When I first got typed as an INFP, I whined about how I wanted to be ISFP because they were entitled "the Artist" and I had this moment where I felt I couldn't possibly be an artist if I wasn't an S. (In my defense I was an emo 18 year old. )

Well congragulations as you are the very first N I have ever met who actually would not mind being seen as a sensor let alone to even desire to be a sensor so that makes you unique!

 

[Anew Leaf]

Well congragulations as you are the very first N I have ever met who actually would not mind being seen as a sensor let alone to even desire to be a sensor so that makes you unique!

My type 4 self just wept at how extra special and unique I am.

 

[Nicodemus]

Having nothing else to add, I will merely say this: It is quite gratifying to see some of the doubts about typologism come out of hiding, even if they can last for just a few moments before the usual clichés and inane assertions from RaptorWizard bury them again.

 

[ScottJames]

Test pretty much suck for determining type. It's to be expected that tests based solely on the dichotomies will turn up INTJ or INFJ more often than is actually the case, since they're looking at the surface level and not the actual functions, which make them more rare.

I'm an INFJ and my first introduction to MBTI was at a seminar. I came out typed as ISTP. I was later typed as INTJ, though at that point I was pretty sure I was an INFJ. Next I was typed as an ENFP. Eventually it was agreed upon by myself and those two profilers that I am in fact an INFJ.

Dario Nardi, who does EEG research in combination with MBTI says that the person most capable of typing you correctly (short of doing an EEG scan) is yourself. This obviously requires a legitimate understanding of the types though - which is where most people go wrong. I'm highly intuitive but it still took a lot of study to get legitimately good at profiling.

Adding to the confusion around INTJ, Ni primaries in general are difficult to profile due to the way Ni interfaces with the other functions. They can often seem abstract to us, and therefore more difficult for a profile to accurately get a read on.

Your intuition is only as good as the quality and completeness of the information that goes into it. A lot of intuitives think that because they feel something that it's true, when it's actually based on limited or flawed information. Thus there are a lot of people (not that I've seen any here...) who mis-profile and end up typing themselves or others as INTJ for example, when they're not.

 

[Coriolis]

Test pretty much suck for determining type. It's to be expected that tests based solely on the dichotomies will turn up INTJ or INFJ more often than is actually the case, since they're looking at the surface level and not the actual functions, which make them more rare.

I'm an INFJ and my first introduction to MBTI was at a seminar. I came out typed as ISTP. I was later typed as INTJ, though at that point I was pretty sure I was an INFJ. Next I was typed as an ENFP. Eventually it was agreed upon by myself and those two profilers that I am in fact an INFJ.

Dario Nardi, who does EEG research in combination with MBTI says that the person most capable of typing you correctly (short of doing an EEG scan) is yourself. This obviously requires a legitimate understanding of the types though - which is where most people go wrong. I'm highly intuitive but it still took a lot of study to get legitimately good at profiling.

Your intuition is only as good as the quality and completeness of the information that goes into it. A lot of intuitives think that because they feel something that it's true, when it's actually based on limited or flawed information. Thus there are a lot of people (not that I've seen any here...) who mis-profile and end up typing themselves or others as INTJ for example, when they're not.

Yes, intuition run amok fuels baseless conspiracy theories, and other castles in the air. Aux Je function is needed for reality checking. The highlighted gets at the root of the question of how we identify our type, why I can never be sure of someone else's type, but why also it can be worthwhile to question (very carefully) someone else's type claim. This is not so much questioning who they are, but what they may understand about the type system.

I agree with the limited utility of tests. They have always typed me as INTJ, but I could not accept that until I could understand it, or perhaps more accurately, it was meaningless and therefore useless to me without that understanding. That developed only after much reading, reflection, and discussion with people who understand the system very well and are good at identifying types. That's the point: it is not a parlor game, but rather a tool for understanding. If someone is not doing their best to understand, what's the point.

 

[527468]

I think there are more mistyped as ISTJ that are INTJ. Tests and descriptions need to work on how they define intuition, because it's pretty common just not always imaginative or genius-looking.

 

[prplchknz]

good thing females have boobs and higher pitch voices because otherwise we'd go around going "I don't think you're female!" "Oh yeah?!" *takes of pants and underwear*

 

[nanook]

Video Challenge! Not sure of your gender? Let us help type you!

seriously. we should have fotos in avatars and profile. i wouldn't mind. (but i don't care to stand out as the only one either)

 

[Such Irony]

People wanna be INTJs because they are associated with ruling the world and mastering the universe.

 

[Coriolis]

good thing females have boobs and higher pitch voices because otherwise we'd go around going "I don't think you're female!" "Oh yeah?!" *takes of pants and underwear*

I have known a couple of people who claim they can identify type as easily as most of us identify gender. I can't vouch for their track record, though.

 

[prplchknz]

I have known a couple of people who claim they can identify type as easily as most of us identify gender. I can't vouch for their track record, though.

delusional