[Type 4] INTJ 4s?

[Reverie]

Absolutely. In fact it probably IMPLIES that you're INFJ!

INFJs are very good at visual/spatial/pattern thinking, and in this sense tend to think much more like INTJs than INTPs. It tends to get hidden by the people skills, which is ironic, because INFJs are using that same kind of thinking to handle the people skills. The trade-off between INTJ and INFJ in this regard is that the INTJs forgo the people skills to become especially good at the objective visual pattern thinking, while the INFJ focus on using that kind of thinking on people skills means that they haven't had the same kind of practice an INTJ might on the more objective version - which is perhaps why it comes across as "tertiary Ti" in typology.

(I should note that I'm using some of Nardi's recent findings in my explanations, here, where Ni doms are found to be remarkably similar, with INFJs being more concerned with "values", for lack of a better word.)

I suppose that's where the stereotypical division between the INTJs hard sciences and INFJ soft sciences comes from. not that there aren't many exceptions. That Nardi research sounds really interesting. I have to get the book.

[MENTION=15549]Cold Roses[/MENTION] Coriolis is obviously right. Nothing external can ever dictate what we are. That information is stored within yourself and you're naturally not accountable to anyone about it. And you know what they say about opinions...well I best not repeat that old saying.

For what it's worth this page helped me when I was looking for my type because the INFJ description just clicked, unlike many of the other descriptions I'd read, because they felt more external to me. The page has an INTJ profile too. The link: http://personalityjunkie.com/the-intj/
Second page has the Te description.

 

[Cold Roses]

Thanks for the assist, everyone. I have what I need to go on (INTJ) and will now put that intel to good use. Very helpful discussion, this.

As for the death stare, it just is. Always has been. I don't need to be a bad cliche, that is definitely true. I'm not.

Personalityjunkie is good stuff. I was reading the profiles of INTJ and INFJ recently. A friend who understands these things better explained the distinctions between Ti/Te, Fe/Fi and Ne/Ni enough for me to know that my default toolkit is Te/Ni and I am most certainly not a Fe. Maybe I have developed some more Fe skills as an adult out of having some sense that this would be a useful thing to do, but that isn't what I am working with innately.

 

[CuriousFeeling]

Yeah, on the flip side I thought I was INTJ for a while since I was scientifically minded and calculating. Logic and thinking is something that I connected with having an interest and academic background in science. What threw in the monkey wrench was the fact that I took people into consideration in my decision making. Even though I default to reason, I'm too nice/warm to be an INTJ. I can't help but to care for others and want to have respectful and harmonious relationships with them. (Fe!) If something put me into danger, I wouldn't compromise my values. I have a toughened edge for an INFJ, I think. I have a tough armor around me, and I'm very analytical, so I may appear INTJ-ish. But the description of INFJs fits too well.

 

[Mal12345]

Is INTJ a common type for Enneagram 4? If you are one, do you feel like talking about it a little? (For example, say something about your stack, if you think that affects it, or talk about how you experience it.)

This is for a friend who's searching.

Thanks in advance.

Type 4s who THINK they are, or might be, INTJ are common. This is caused by the Ni-Ti tertiary loop which brings out more of the skeptical thinking attitude, and more (i.e., unhealthy) amounts of introversion. Whenever you see "too much" introversion or extraversion, you are seeing the tertiary loop at work.

 

[Cold Roses]

All that may be true, but I am an INTJ. I am probably not a type 4. The enneagram tests seem so much more mutable. I have had a 4w5, and a 5w4 within days of each other. Events, perhaps. The overdose of a friend within this time period probably had some bearing on things. 5 could potentially be right. I am going to give it a minute before trying to figure that out.

 

[Mal12345]

All that may be true, but I am an INTJ. I am probably not a type 4. The enneagram tests seem so much more mutable. I have had a 4w5, and a 5w4 within days of each other. Events, perhaps. The overdose of a friend within this time period probably had some bearing on things. 5 could potentially be right. I am going to give it a minute before trying to figure that out.

That's good, because in fact the INTJ's Ni-Fi loop doesn't get very much attention. So it would be nice if I could hear more about that one.

 

[Cold Roses]

"Fours and Fives can easily be mistyped by others, and Fives, especially with the Four wing, sometimes mistype as Fours. Such Fives recognize that they have strong emotions and don't identify with the often extremely cerebral portrait of type Five. But, Fives, unlike Fours, always retain some degree of discomfort when it comes to the experience and expression of their emotional states. Fives tend to fear emotional overwhelm; Fours to welcome it." Food for thought right there.

 

[Mal12345]

"Fours and Fives can easily be mistyped by others, and Fives, especially with the Four wing, sometimes mistype as Fours. Such Fives recognize that they have strong emotions and don't identify with the often extremely cerebral portrait of type Five. But, Fives, unlike Fours, always retain some degree of discomfort when it comes to the experience and expression of their emotional states. Fives tend to fear emotional overwhelm; Fours to welcome it." Food for thought right there.

Sure. But does the 5w4 fear emotional overwhelm?

 

[Z Buck McFate]

In the case of the "death stare", here's the INFJ vs INTJ difference. If an INFJ does it, it's entirely on purpose: there is an intended nonverbal communication. For INTJs, most of the time, it's almost a default look. If we're just "thinking hard", there's a death stare. Entirely different motivations. This is not to make INTJs out to be innocent as compared to INFJs: it's just a difference in communication styles. The target of the INFJ stare likely deserves it; the target of the INTJ stare is likely very puzzled about what is wrong, because nothing is wrong. Also, the INFJs, being Ni-doms, do have a default stare that is identifiable, but it doesn't have "death" written all over it - it's much more gentle, and generally not aimed at a person. (INTJs, especially younger ones, can be staring at a person and not realize it.)

I’ll agree with this being more severe with INTJs- that INTJs will likely be less aware they’re doing it or of the affect they’re causing- but I don’t agree with “entirely on purpose” or “intended nonverbal communication”. It’s a small point, but seems worth mentioning (because if I were learning about mbti and trying to figure out T/F, the above comment might actually lead me to INTJ).

If/when I give someone the stink eye, more often than not it’s because I’ve become impatient and I’m not paying enough attention to the extent which I’m inadvertently expressing that impatience. But it’s not on purpose. It may show when I’m agitated with someone- but I actually get deeply embarrassed by my inability to conceal frustration. Ideally I’d like to conceal it until I’m certain the frustration is warranted- and even then, (ideally) I’d like to find some diplomatic way of clearly expressing the frustration- but reality often plays out differently. It’s more like yelping “ouch!” when someone has stepped on my foot; there’s no intended meaning, it’s simply a knee-jerk reaction. I do agree that an INFJ will be (far) more inclined than INTJ to expect someone else to recognize this reaction, recognize the cause and modify their behavior accordingly- but I definitely don’t display it as an intentional cue for someone to modify their behavior. There’s even something abhorrent to me about the notion that it could be perceived as ‘entirely on purpose’ or as an ‘intended nonverbal cue’. It really is more like an embarrassing reaction- a wince caused by some kind of cognitive distress that happens in spite of myself.

[I realize this might be nitpicky, but I don’t know, I think at least the INFJs I know/interact with are more embarrassed by it than not and would never do it on purpose. And really, “death stare” could mean so many things, I’m not even entirely sure I know specifically what you’re talking about. Still- what I just said can apply to *any* kind of intimidating/disapproving ‘glance’.]

 

[Tiltyred]

In the case of the "death stare", here's the INFJ vs INTJ difference. If an INFJ does it, it's entirely on purpose: there is an intended nonverbal communication. For INTJs, most of the time, it's almost a default look. If we're just "thinking hard", there's a death stare. Entirely different motivations. This is not to make INTJs out to be innocent as compared to INFJs: it's just a difference in communication styles. The target of the INFJ stare likely deserves it; the target of the INTJ stare is likely very puzzled about what is wrong, because nothing is wrong. Also, the INFJs, being Ni-doms, do have a default stare that is identifiable, but it doesn't have "death" written all over it - it's much more gentle, and generally not aimed at a person. (INTJs, especially younger ones, can be staring at a person and not realize it.)

I agree with this. I have a Death Stare, too, but it's not my default face. I wasn't fully conscious of its effect on the other person until I was in my late twenties, and since then, I keep my face averted if I know that look is on it, if I'm feeling the things I know will produce that look -- unless I WANT to make the other person cry ... But it's not the usual look on my face.

I think there is something to a certain regard being characteristic of type.

 

[PeaceBaby]

One of my eternal typological puzzles is, "What does a stupid INTJ look like?" or "What does a smart ESFP look like?" I.e., in what ways do the types legitimately wander outside their stereotypes, and how can we identify them there? My current hypotheses on the INTJ/ESFP questions are that the stupid INTJ might seem a bit autistic or have some degree of aspberger's, while the smart ESFP will likely come across as a skilled professional. I've several examples of the smart ESFPs in my circles of friends, mostly due to my dancing hobby.

I think about the same thing too ... yet at the foundation of that, the trouble I have additionally is that there is (as you mention) this stereotypical tendency to see the INTJ as "smart" by default, and similarly, the ESFP "stupid". Interestingly, you and my ESFP son could have a rollicking discussion about quantum theory (a much better conversation than you could have with me on the topic lol) - perhaps you would not even think him ESFP because you share such an interest? Or that he would express such knowledge and enthusiasm about it? So, an intelligent ESFP is more to me than what you're saying - I don't think it's simply about appearing as a "skilled professional". (In fact, he looks kind of like a hobo-hippie Jesus, so I doubt you would see him as "professional" looking either!)

I know the IQ tests all say that there's a higher probability that an INTJ will have a higher IQ than an ESFP, maybe that's true, maybe not. Yet, using my son as a specific example, he could generally care less about taking the tests in the first place and might even be intentionally sloppy just to ... do what he feels in that moment. Prove that it is a meaningless measure in his eyes.

It's a conundrum for sure.

 

[Coriolis]

It's a conundrum for sure.

It's just anecdotal evidence. Similarlly, I know an ESFP manager at work who comes across as an ISTJ in how she does her job. The statistics will show the overall pattern, assuming they are based on reliable data. To the extent that IQ tests measure education in addition to native intelligence, INTJs might come out ahead since we are often well-educated and well-read.

 

[PeaceBaby]

It's just anecdotal evidence. Similarlly, I know an ESFP manager at work who comes across as an ISTJ in how she does her job. The statistics will show the overall pattern, assuming they are based on reliable data. To the extent that IQ tests measure education in addition to native intelligence, INTJs might come out ahead since we are often well-educated and well-read.

Well, sure, it's anecdotal evidence.

I presented my 23 yo son as an example to an interesting pattern I have noted over the years contemplating the broader context of scholastic achievement, albeit limited to public school / high school since that's where I have most of my volunteer experience.

During that time (in both of my kid's various schools) I have regarded that (who I typed as) SP's don't seem to actually CARE much about tests, especially achievement based tests. One of my daughter's SP friends even made a convincing argument in high school that testing was the underpinning of insidious scholastic discrimination.

My concern about IQ testing is that what is being measured might be more about "who is more interested in taking tests / doing well in tests" than about "who's ACTUALLY got a higher / lower IQ". Plus, all the questions about what constitutes intelligence, 9 types of intelligence and IQ measures only 2, yadda yadda yadda.

Then, I suppose you could argue that everyone should be "smart" enough to realize that it's important to do well on a test that could affect your FUTURE. However, the future is generally regarded as an antithesis to the definition of Se doms, is it not?

Ergo, what I call the conundrum.

Let's not pull a Lex T here regarding IQ.

 

[uumlau]

I think about the same thing too ... yet at the foundation of that, the trouble I have additionally is that there is (as you mention) this stereotypical tendency to see the INTJ as "smart" by default, and similarly, the ESFP "stupid". Interestingly, you and my ESFP son could have a rollicking discussion about quantum theory (a much better conversation than you could have with me on the topic lol) - perhaps you would not even think him ESFP because you share such an interest? Or that he would express such knowledge and enthusiasm about it? So, an intelligent ESFP is more to me than what you're saying - I don't think it's simply about appearing as a "skilled professional". (In fact, he looks kind of like a hobo-hippie Jesus, so I doubt you would see him as "professional" looking either!)

I know the IQ tests all say that there's a higher probability that an INTJ will have a higher IQ than an ESFP, maybe that's true, maybe not. Yet, using my son as a specific example, he could generally care less about taking the tests in the first place and might even be intentionally sloppy just to ... do what he feels in that moment. Prove that it is a meaningless measure in his eyes.

It's a conundrum for sure.

Yeah, I was just saying "skilled professional" is where I see them as an example, not that its a universal trait of the type. They're at the point where they're well aware of what the smart and stupid things are to do and have reprioritized their lives to handle those pieces, all the while maintaining their Se enthusiasm everywhere else. It's amusing in facebook to watch them make Ni-ish observations (usually in the form of a short, pithy good advice for living statement) and have others chime in with "So true!", etc. One friend of mine is in Europe right now, for work purposes, but she is totally into exploring the local scene (and of course the salsa dancing scene).

I think the Nardi book helps explain the stereotypes a bit. An Se dom's strength is not in visualization or logic or words or grammar, it's in being aware and alert. A video game would more likely test that aptitude than any SAT-style test, where you'd be tested not only on what you know, but how quickly can you react to the question. Most INxx types need time to think and reflect, and would tend to do poorly on such quick-reaction tests as compared to the Se types.

I recall the annoying "think fast" followed by a ball hitting me in the face or the side back in elementary school. That kind of fast thinking isn't what an INTJ does, but it is what an ESFP does (given practice, of course).

The tricky part is figuring out how best to employ these relative strengths. What I see in real life is that ESFPs generally do figure it out, and end up being responsible and enthusiastic people once they've found their niche. And they probably have an easier time finding that niche than the overthinking INTJs do.

 

[Cold Roses]

An Se dom's strength is not in visualization or logic or words or grammar, it's in being aware and alert. A video game would more likely test that aptitude than any SAT-style test, where you'd be tested not only on what you know, but how quickly can you react to the question.

You know, yesterday I was looking at ISTP with some fascination because I relate to a lot about that type. I know I am NOT one- best believe I use Ni over Se, but I suspect I have some fairly decent Se going on. Which is a good thing, yes? That is the path to balance.

Maybe my love of certain video games has developed my Se? Maybe having PTSD has? Creating art? Sex? Tattoos?(Which would be turning a negative into a positive, I am not talking about hyper-awareness nowadays, though maybe that is how it initially came on...) Whatever the case, I am not horribly devoid of sensing even if it isn't my "default" mode.

 

[Mal12345]

You know, yesterday I was looking at ISTP with some fascination because I relate to a lot about that type. I know I am NOT one- best believe I use Ni over Se, but I suspect I have some fairly decent Se going on. Which is a good thing, yes? That is the path to balance.

Maybe my love of certain video games has developed my Se? Maybe having PTSD has? Creating art? Sex? Tattoos?(Which would be turning a negative into a positive, I am not talking about hyper-awareness nowadays, though maybe that is how it initially came on...) Whatever the case, I am not horribly devoid of sensing even if it isn't my "default" mode.

Se is related to the enjoyment of the external senses. Although the books and tests call it a "preference," it's actually much more than that. It's those who buy a convertible because of the pure enjoyment of feeling of the wind in their hair. Or a fast car because of the 'rush,' the sensation of speed. A video game may give the illusion of these things, for example, a guy I know who likes a snowboarding game because it's summer time and he's jonesing for the experience. But in the winter he went snowboarding at 5 different ski resorts in one week. For the Se type, a video game just acts as a proxy for the real thing.

 

[uumlau]

You know, yesterday I was looking at ISTP with some fascination because I relate to a lot about that type. I know I am NOT one- best believe I use Ni over Se, but I suspect I have some fairly decent Se going on. Which is a good thing, yes? That is the path to balance.

Maybe my love of certain video games has developed my Se? Maybe having PTSD has? Creating art? Sex? Tattoos?(Which would be turning a negative into a positive, I am not talking about hyper-awareness nowadays, though maybe that is how it initially came on...) Whatever the case, I am not horribly devoid of sensing even if it isn't my "default" mode.

Yeah, the Se is there for INTJs, in both positive and negative ways, but it is almost never a high priority. Older INTJs definitely cultivate it in various ways, which explains my dancing and music hobbies, but they still filter it out in preference to the Ni vision as a matter of habit. It's why the corresponding flashes of Ni from SxPs can be so interesting, seeing how Ni plays out when it isn't a priority.

 

[Mal12345]

Yeah, the Se is there for INTJs, in both positive and negative ways, but it is almost never a high priority. Older INTJs definitely cultivate it in various ways, which explains my dancing and music hobbies, but they still filter it out in preference to the Ni vision as a matter of habit.

I'm thinking of perm-banning the use of such terms as "preference" and "habit." I "think" because I love to think, not because I prefer to think. My friend snowboards because he loves to snowboard. He doesn't prefer to snowboard and it's not a habit. He doesn't prefer to use Se, he loves the experience of living in the external world of the senses. If anything, it's more of an addiction than a habit. I agree that he prefers one function over another. But that doesn't do justice to the sense of pure enjoyment on people's faces when they are doing what the love and living within the full capacity of their preferred function. It's more of a "high" than anything else.

 

[Coriolis]

Ergo, what I call the conundrum.

Let's not pull a Lex T here regarding IQ.

IQ tests, like other tests, measure what they are designed to test. The degree to which "intelligence" = IQ is highly debatable. As others have mentioned in detail elsewhere, IQ measures one type of intelligence, but there are many other aspects to intelligence which may be more useful in many situations.

Bottom line: while INTJs on average may do better on IQ tests because they are more interested in taking them or more likely to pursue activities that prepare one for them, I would NOT consider this as evidence that INTJs are more intelligent overall.

I agree that he prefers one function over another. But that doesn't do justice to the sense of pure enjoyment on people's faces when they are doing what the love and living within the full capacity of their preferred function. It's more of a "high" than anything else.

This applies to all types. There is room for both terms. "Preference" relates to the underlying cognitive functions, while "love", "enjoyment", "fulfillment", "high", etc. relate to our experience of the activities that allow us to express the full capacity of these functions.

 

[Mal12345]

This applies to all types. There is room for both terms. "Preference" relates to the underlying cognitive functions, while "love", "enjoyment", "fulfillment", "high", etc. relate to our experience of the activities that allow us to express the full capacity of these functions.

I'm looking at something more defining. My preferences don't define me, as with preferring strawberry over chocolate ice cream. These things add "color" to who I am. I agree that using the term "prefer" is good for function analysis, but I'm going to start avoiding watered-down terms for doing what we love.