As I said, I think J is somewhat weak, so INTP isnt a bad fit, but I think INTJ is a better fit.
Well, the community does a mix of 3 different theories that somewhat clash to each other and that is a source of great confusion. Time for me to explain them separately:
1) Jung Typology
2) MBTI
3) "The Stack" (Harold Grant Stack)
These 3 have conflicts between each other.
1) Jung Typology: Jung Typology is consisted in 8 base types, as described in chapter X - each one is a pure dom for each cognitive function. However, Jung J/P is based on the cognitive functions: One is a judging-rational type if the base type, or the dom-function, is a judging function (Fi,Fe,Ti or Te), or one is a perceiving-irrational type if the base type, or the dom function, is a perceiving function (Ni,Ne,Si,Se). At the end of chapter X, Jung mentions that the 8 pure types arent supposed to be common and adds the observation of the auxiliary function. However, Jung writing is unclear. So, on the auxiliary function, Jung states clearly that the auxiliary function is the opposite of the dominant function in terms of Judging and Perceiving; So, if the person is a rational type (Fi,Fe,Ti or Te dominant), then the auxiliary is a Perceiving function (Ni,Ne,Si,Se). Jung, however, never cleared up what happens in terms of Extroversion/Introversion. The community interprets that the auxiliary function is the opposite in terms of E/I, so, for example, a Ni-dom will get an Extrovert function; But there is another interpretation from the book that states that it is in the same direction (Introvert too); And there is a loose and literal interpretation that can be both, so the pairs for Ni can be Ti,Te,Fi or Fe, which gets 32 types instead (I follow this one because it represents the tests better).
Jung also states that the rise of a dom-function means the suppression of its opposite function (opposite in every aspect but on Jung J/P), and this function is the inferior function. And, from another book, in another context, Jung very quickly mention that the "inferior function has a pair too", and I dont know if he or the community or Harold-Grant called it "the tertiary" function."What about the other 4 functions?" Jung states that people 'start' with the 8 functions undifferentiated, or, basically, they are neither an inferior achile-heels nor dominant (in other words, we use them some few times), and then they differentiate by the rise of the primary function, by the suppression of the inferior function due to the rise of the primary function, the rise of the auxiliary of the primary function and the inferior function pair. The primary function, its auxiliary, the inferior and its pair are the differentiated function; The other 4 are the undifferentiated functions. Jung didnt seem much worried to really draw a stack, so there is this double-category where the attention is towards the differentiated functions and the undifferentiated are pretty much ignored. So, the basic Jung stack is, for Ni-dom type (same pattern for rest):
Ni-(one of the Thinking functions)-(undifferentiated functions)-(one of the feeling functions)-(Se)
OR in general terms:
(Dominant function)-(Auxiliary function)-(undifferentiated functions)-(Tertiary, that is the inferior pair)-(Inferior function)
Note that the inferior function is known for being the achile-heels, so if we were to merge the undifferentiated functions with the differentiated functions as order of strength, the superior function is supposed to come last and the tertiary is supposed to come right after the inferior because it is its pair. So, the term 'tertiary' only works for a stack with only 4 differentiated functions. And also note that there is no 'INTJ' in Jung typology, such name doesnt exist and the same for all other types. What there is is a Ni-dom with auxiliary thinking.
2) MBTI: MBTI had reformed Jung in many aspects and had dropped the cognitive functions entirely, plus switched the meaning of Judging and Perceiving. MBTI works in dichotomy: You are E or I, N or S, T or F, J or P. In MBTI, you are a Perceiver or a Judger based on a table comparing the J traits vs the P traits, but these are more focused by your outwards look in general, and have more Te,Fe,Ne and Se traits instead, plus additional stuff (that is why the organized vs disorganized is important). The type codes comes from MBTI, not Jung, so it is here that comes the INTJ type, which is preference for Introversion, preference for Intuition, preference for Thinking, preference for Judging. It doesnt matter it is Ni-dom or Ti-dom or Te-dom or another function dom. That is why Im saying you can be INTJ without being a Ni-dom.
Oh, Myers is considered soft-scientific because they have tests with things such as test-retest rate, internal consistencies and correlations, including dichotomies independencies (like "being detail oriented" correlates with "being practical" and does not correlate with "being organized"). It is soft because these independencies and internal consistencies are tendencies, not laws, since one can be detail oriented and not practical, although that is unusual.
3) Grant-Stack: Grant Stack tries to merge Jung typology, Jung functions and MBTI by drawing a stack for each MBTI type.
First mismatch of Jung on the Grant side is to put the 'tertiary' as if this function is really the third function in terms of strength and attributing positive qualities to it ignoring that it is the pair of the inferior function, that works as an achile-heel.
Second mismatch from Jung is that sometimes, at least a few sources, states that there are subconscious functions and conscious functions, and some of them lists the inferior as if it were conscious, while it is unconscious in Jung.
Third mismatch is attributing names like 'trickster' and blah blah blah. Jung stated that people have tendency to see their inner demons in inferior functions and to see it as 'demoniac' but he never stated that the inferior is demoniac and there isnt any other references to archetypes and the other cognitive functions, specially on the undifferentiated ones that runs out ignored.
Fourth, Jung pretty much ignores the undifferentiated functions, the order of them pretty much doesnt matter, and my 'A' here is that their order more or less are influenced about how much you need them, they contribute to 'individualize' you, but also your MBTI type influences them too.
Fifth, and important, the inferior function is known for being 'inferior', and Grant Stack list it not in the most inferior position (on the complete versions).
So, Grant stack is different from the Jung typology, it does not follow it.
However, MBTI doesnt need the Grant Stack at all (what matter is I vs E, N vs S, T vs F and J vs P).
And what happens is that, in either Google Scholar articles and on the cognitive function tests on the internet, Grant Stack does not show up with the proper patterns.
People have it so much mixed that there is not much attention if the properly interpreted Jung results, as I had written earlier, really happens. A lot of people just invalidate the whole cognitive functions because the Grant Stack does not show up, but the Grant Stack not showing up does not invalidate Jung Typology and neither cognitive functions on their own.
That is it for the theorical department! I had only mentioned the main theories, I interpret them using more or less some of my own ways, although they are not much Anti-Jung (and ignoring Grant entirely). Well, that was longer than expected, but I hope to clear it enough. So, the affirmation that INTJ is the most Thinking type I had done based on the data I could gather from the internet - dichotomy results that I gathered from 16P, Sakinorva cognitive function test overall stats shared by the author of the test and keys2cognition stats that I gathered out there.
For that I interpret thinking as MBTI thinking and I use the conversion (Te+Ti-Fe-Fi) for the cognitive functions. I posted it here:
https://www.typologycentral.com/for...ies-stats-studies-possibly-5.html#post3238632