# ISTP Vs INTP



## Tad Cooper

What are the differences between these two, because so far they seem very similar in a lot of ways. (I know Ne Vs Se, but what is the descriptions/examples you'd give?)


----------



## Entropic

No idea how to put it really, but the S/N divide makes it clear as day if someone is an INTP or ISTP. ISTPs are very much to the point and are generally speaking not particularly found of abstract theorization. They're interested in the here and now, and while not as action-oriented as their extraverted cousins the Se makes them seek out the thrills of life. An ISTP friend of mine really enjoys riding go-kart for example. They're also quite blunt and usually have little patience when things go wrong or don't work, as it triggers their need to fix things. This is a big difference to INTPs who will come up with theoretical solutions but tell someone else to implement these solutions. ISTPs are more interested in implementing their solutions due to the nature of Se. There is also a big difference in humor as they prefer practical jokes and stunts or playing on the physical world itself, compared to the jump-around goofy humor of Ne. ISTPs also like to engage in ways INTPs don't due to the nature of Ne being subconscious and abstract.

INTPs are therefore first and foremost theoretical observers. They will observe and then offer solutions to problems and expect other types to implement their solutions. In such a sense it's also possible to say that INTPs are actually a little bit more social than ISTPs, because ISTPs are more prone to fiddle with their mechanical stuff on their own. They don't need anyone to implement their solutions because they prefer do to implement them themselves. Yet INTPs are far more passive than ISTPs, so INTPs will still be less likely to engage with anyone, especially when in observation-mode. While ISTPs prefer to be alone when they are fiddling, they are more interested in engaging in the phsyical world and are thus more likely to meet new people as they engage in action-oriented activities. 

The best way to really understand the differences between the types is to observe both. A couple of examples of ISTP main characters in films include Die Hard, Taxi Driver and The Machinist. The INTP side is unfortunately much thinner, but Donnie Darko comes to mind, and so does Cell where the character Worth is probably the closest to be seen as the protagonist, despite the film being ensemble-esque in structure. 

Do note though that types tend to be exaggerated in fiction in order to build drama and suspense. The best way to understand any MBTI type is to simply read up on the Jungian functions and how they work out in practice.


----------



## nujabes

INTP

ISTP, The Myers-Briggs Personality Type

Really it comes down to Se vs Ne. I've noticed that ISTP's are just as good at analysis as INTP's are, but, being sensors, ISTP's are much more concrete than INTP's. They prefer tools and physical mechanics whereas INTP's prefer ideas and metaphysical mechanics. Two of my uncles are ISTP's and are also great mechanics for the MTA. 

That's not to say that ISTP's can't handle ideas - they can. Just ask @_Functianalyst_. When they do engage in idea analysis, it is much more straightforward and literal than an INTP would be.

Honestly, if you want a good sample of ISTP vs INTP, you should lurk those subforums.


----------



## Erbse

ISTP's solely care about knowledge that's of practical relevance to them.

May it be concrete or abstract.


----------



## Tad Cooper

Erbse said:


> ISTP's solely care about knowledge that's of practical relevance to them.
> 
> May it be concrete or abstract.


So an ISTP wouldn't be interested in astronomy or the history of the planet (such as watching TV documentaries on the solar system, history or science-based ideas like new discoveries about dinosaurs or ecosystems?)


----------



## Erbse

tine said:


> So an ISTP wouldn't be interested in astronomy or the history of the planet (such as watching TV documentaries on the solar system, history or science-based ideas like new discoveries about dinosaurs or ecosystems?)


Can't speak for all of them, but I personally do not. In fact, I loath them cause of their uselessness.

Assuming there are ISTP's whose hobbies are astronomy or dinosaurs they might watch it, then again, almost everything is better than the TV if one wants to educate oneself further.


----------



## nonnaci

Separating the Se/Ne in Jungian land, the difference is between the "now" as perceived through the five senses vs "becoming" as perceived on a temporal scale. And as auxiliary functions of dom Ti which is focused on "what is", we have the two dichotomies of "what is now..." vs "what is becoming..." or simply put, a life in the moment vs future. My INTP friend works out elaborate logical arguments for all the iteration of variables / details for his future life in years to come (type of house, car, job, etc). Not doing this gives him anxiety. As for myself (and I wouldn't fully trust what I'm about to say), I'm content with a vague direction and just take it as it comes. What keeps me going / occupied / energized is the very act of "doing" and "problem solving" for its own sake, which as a grad student in the applied sciences mixes both abstract and concrete.


----------



## Lucky AcidStar

One way to think about it: INTPs have solid Si, and part of their thought process relates strongly to SJ thinking.
Also, absorbing random useless information that is interesting is practically an INTPs ideal state. Lots of mental junk food, screw utility. So different from what the ISTPs have said of themselves...
I really only know one ISTP, and honestly it's like we have nothing in common, he's very attached to reality. Analytic, sure, but the topic matter is very disjointed.


----------



## Kormoran

tine said:


> So an ISTP wouldn't be interested in astronomy or the history of the planet (such as watching TV documentaries on the solar system, history or science-based ideas like new discoveries about dinosaurs or ecosystems?)


I do. I used to study History, actually. But I'm not 100% sure whether I'm an INTP or an ISTP. I've had both results on tests, but I think lean more towards ISTP. That being said, I don't think individuals fit entirely into these categories. We're unique, and probably built up of features of many different types.


----------



## Entropic

ISTPs with strong Ni can definitely be interested in the things beyond, as the Ni will feed into Se and try to find hidden patterns in the here and now.


----------



## this is my username

ISTPs are more inclined to exercise


----------



## Tad Cooper

Thanks for all the replies!
I'm very interested in theories like quantum mechanics and relativity, but also how things work (like the human body) and how to improve everything (I never actually act on my ideas though, I'm too timid or forget).
I enjoy exercise because of it helping me think and giving me endorphins (which help perk me up, as I can lack energy. Although I can also have a lot of energy, it just depends on how into something I am).
I think about the future a lot, but worry about it and try and plan it, but never can (very indecisive and love having options, but also hate it)

It's interesting to see how these two types are quite different when formed as a person, but look similar on paper.


----------



## The Nth Doctor

tine said:


> Thanks for all the replies!
> I'm very interested in theories like quantum mechanics and relativity, but also how things work (like the human body) and how to improve everything (I never actually act on my ideas though, I'm too timid or forget).
> I enjoy exercise because of it helping me think and giving me endorphins (which help perk me up, as I can lack energy. Although I can also have a lot of energy, it just depends on how into something I am).
> I think about the future a lot, but worry about it and try and plan it, but never can (very indecisive and love having options, but also hate it)
> 
> It's interesting to see how these two types are quite different when formed as a person, but look similar on paper.


You sound a lot like me, and I'm reasonably certain I have Ne-Si (pretty strong Ne, too) as opposed to Se-Ni.
I get into ideas a lot, but don't often follow through. I love to know things, just for the sake of knowing and understanding. I also often think of precisely how things could be improved, so I think I would enjoy just designing and improving designs as a job.
I also like exercising, partly because of the endorphins, and I kind of go crazy if I haven't had any exercise. Also partly because I want to be able to physically do more. For example, I've started running because I want to be able to run several miles without difficulty sometime in the future. I enjoy running, but that's not really why I'm doing it.
I think about the future a lot, but I don't outright plan things all that much. It's more like I want to know things that I could use. If I'm going to have to do something that I'm anxious about, I look up tips, then go in with some knowledge of what to expect but no plan. I can then pull the things I read earlier out of my mental toolbox if necessary.


----------



## nakkinaama

The title reminded me of Alien vs. Predator! LOL


----------



## Tad Cooper

perkele said:


> The title reminded me of Alien vs. Predator! LOL


Haha awesome!! Which would be which though?



Prof. Song said:


> You sound a lot like me, and I'm reasonably certain I have Ne-Si (pretty strong Ne, too) as opposed to Se-Ni.
> I get into ideas a lot, but don't often follow through. I love to know things, just for the sake of knowing and understanding. I also often think of precisely how things could be improved, so I think I would enjoy just designing and improving designs as a job.
> I also like exercising, partly because of the endorphins, and I kind of go crazy if I haven't had any exercise. Also partly because I want to be able to physically do more. For example, I've started running because I want to be able to run several miles without difficulty sometime in the future. I enjoy running, but that's not really why I'm doing it.
> I think about the future a lot, but I don't outright plan things all that much. It's more like I want to know things that I could use. If I'm going to have to do something that I'm anxious about, I look up tips, then go in with some knowledge of what to expect but no plan. I can then pull the things I read earlier out of my mental toolbox if necessary.


Thanks for the reply! Yeah that's what I find with exercise, I go mad if I don't get enough and I feel almost like I'm 'preparing' for something by doing it (like running a race or survival etc), so I enjoy it but also have a reason.
I also know how to improve a lot of things, but never really try to unless it's easy to do. I also don't mind doing physical work or anything, but also like thinking and debating and playing chess/video games etc.

Do you have an idea how to explain Ne-Si VS Se-Ni? Also, what would a Ti-Si loop look like compared to a Ti-Ni one?


----------



## Lucky AcidStar

A Ti-Si loop comes across as a very snarky, stereotypical SJ type (I would think). That's the way it is, that's the rule, *pulls out Ti sword and hacks apart strange foreign ideas*


----------



## nakkinaama

Alien would be INTP and predator would be ISTP. Because predators are very athletic and aliens are like: "Meh".


----------



## Entropic

tine said:


> Haha awesome!! Which would be which though?
> 
> 
> Thanks for the reply! Yeah that's what I find with exercise, I go mad if I don't get enough and I feel almost like I'm 'preparing' for something by doing it (like running a race or survival etc), so I enjoy it but also have a reason.
> I also know how to improve a lot of things, but never really try to unless it's easy to do. I also don't mind doing physical work or anything, but also like thinking and debating and playing chess/video games etc.
> 
> Do you have an idea how to explain Ne-Si VS Se-Ni? Also, what would a Ti-Si loop look like compared to a Ti-Ni one?


This is probably more related to enneagram than type.


----------



## The Nth Doctor

tine said:


> Haha awesome!! Which would be which though?
> 
> 
> Thanks for the reply! Yeah that's what I find with exercise, I go mad if I don't get enough and I feel almost like I'm 'preparing' for something by doing it (like running a race or survival etc), so I enjoy it but also have a reason.
> I also know how to improve a lot of things, but never really try to unless it's easy to do. I also don't mind doing physical work or anything, but also like thinking and debating and playing chess/video games etc.
> 
> Do you have an idea how to explain Ne-Si VS Se-Ni? Also, what would a Ti-Si loop look like compared to a Ti-Ni one?


I can try to explain, though others could do better. I don't know much about loops, but you've already got something about that I see. 

For me, when I was wondering if I might be a sensor it helped the most to figure out if I used Si or Se. I've seen Se described as sort of being fully immersed in a situation, and knowing what you should do when things happen. Living in the moment. I imagine that Se users would like detailed photos of interesting and beautiful sights like National Geographic has in every issue. I think they're neat, but I don't get much out of them. I like the actual written information much more. A beautiful picture can't inspire me, but a good short story does. As more proof that Se is not my auxiliary, I am always thinking into the future. I have a really hard time bringing myself down to even taking the present seriously at times when I've been in my head for a long time.

Si, on the other hand, sees things and remembers how they were in the past. I can't describe it very well, and as one of my lesser functions I only consciously notice it in flashes. But I think I'm using Si when I look at a horse's stall, and remember which horse was in there a year ago and my relationship with them, and where they probably are now. I believe Si can get quite poetical and symbolic.

Ne and Ni are harder to explain - there's a thread about that right now as well that you've probably seen. I think I'm feeling Ne when I'm reading an article on here and some of the information just seems to click into place with what I already know, and I have a better almosy unconscious understanding of things. Ni I believe is the more stereotypical form of intuition - think "I just know." I've noticed using Ni type intuition, but I don't really trust it. If I go with it for something it's just because I'm lazy and don't want to think it all through.

I think I did a decent job with Si/Se, and I think Ne is harder to explain because it's more a part of me. So I'll leave it at that - I hope this helps you some.

Edit: As I was submitting this I thought of a plausible analogy for Ne-Ti. It would be great if an ISTP could come and tell me whether this is how their Ti works too.
I feel like when I'm thinking up things, like thinking of how something could be improved, Ti can say what is lacking and Ne fills in the gap with a solution. This is a lame example, but if I'm considering the flaws in a new pair of boots, Ti can put into words that the heel rubs a little bit on the right one and they don't bend as well with my foot as they should. So Ne tells me to put a heel cushion on the right boot and lace them up a lot tighter next time I wear them.
I think Ne/Ti/Si also gets really excited about ideas. I sometimes talk through an awesome plan with my friend about a trip we might have in three years or more, and only later I think about how certain details, at least, are extremely unlikely to be possible.


----------



## Entropic

Lucky AcidStar said:


> A Ti-Si loop comes across as a very snarky, stereotypical SJ type (I would think). That's the way it is, that's the rule, *pulls out Ti sword and hacks apart strange foreign ideas*


Expanding on this:

Si = to see in the past, to find patterns in the here and now and compares it to the past.
Ti = internal mode of objective (but really subjective) analysis. 

SiTi loops therefore tend to end up with the INTP thinking about the past, often in a negative manner, and try to dissect in various ways which of course doesn't work because Si does not provide with new information since it already happened. It tends to lead to apathy and resembles the schizoid personality disorder. Typical SiTi loops may look like this:



> Why is the world the way it is? Why won't it change? What could I have done to have achieved change?


To exemplify with a recent SiTi loop that I spiraled into but quickly got out of based on my frustration of not seeing my crush and be able to interact with him in a way that's satisfying to me:



> Why didn't I ask to come up inside that day we spoke to each other on the bus? Would it have made any difference? How would our relationship have looked like if I had done so? Would we be closer or would he have rejected me? Would it have seemed strange? What was it that made me not ask? Why didn't I think about it?


Ni = to look for the meaning beyond.

ISTPs that are stuck in NiTi loops tend to become paranoid as they look for meaning beyond, but since Ni attempts to already fit existing data into an intuitive model exacerbated with a strong feeling of simply knowing, Ti ends up trying to deconstruct the Ni models but since Ni already knows, it leads to self-doubt, especially as the Ni models are often wrong due to the data that builds the Ni model is built on Ti logic. Typical NiTi loops may look like this:



> What is the meaning of this? Why can't I understand it? I know this is not right but why is not right?


To exemplify NiTi I again refer to a previous NiTi loop I got into when suffering from insomnia and I was browsing the internet and made a connection to an album whose content I didn't know but seemingly made sense because of what I had already intuited (for those curious, the album was called The Unseen Empire):



> Why isn't the Unseen Empire a book? I know it was a book! (Reads description on Wikipedia page that explains the content is about to conspiracy theories.) Oh my god, why does this make so much sense? But seriously conspiracy theories are bullshit! (Associates to David Icke.) Maybe there are reptilians in our society trying to control us? But no, that doesn't make any sense! Why would they do that?


----------



## cyamitide

in socionics the Ti-Ne personality type (LII) has holographic-panoramic cognitive style while the Ti-Se personality type (LSI) has causal-determinist cognitive style: Cognitive Styles

it might translate similarly to MBTI


----------



## Naama

LeaT said:


> No idea how to put it really, but the S/N divide makes it clear as day if someone is an INTP or ISTP. ISTPs are very much to the point and are generally speaking not particularly found of abstract theorization. They're interested in the here and now, and while not as action-oriented as their extraverted cousins the Se makes them seek out the thrills of life. An ISTP friend of mine really enjoys riding go-kart for example. They're also quite blunt and usually have little patience when things go wrong or don't work, as it triggers their need to fix things. This is a big difference to INTPs who will come up with theoretical solutions but tell someone else to implement these solutions. ISTPs are more interested in implementing their solutions due to the nature of Se.


i am also very much like what you described of ISTP. i like to fix things that are broken and for example when my friend bought a new table that had to be assembled, i was happy to assemble it on my own while my friend was on a computer. also i have gone to school which trained me as a machinist and overall metal worker, but i dont like doing that stuff for living anymore, but still would enjoy it occasionally. but im not as much of a thrill seeker as i was when i was younger, i would still like to try go-karting etc, but not interested about skateboarding, BMXing or downhill biking anymore.

i dont think this is much of an indicator of type, those are just stereotypes and stereotypes rarely fit properly.




> There is also a big difference in humor as they prefer practical jokes and stunts or playing on the physical world itself, compared to the jump-around goofy humor of Ne. ISTPs also like to engage in ways INTPs don't due to the nature of Ne being subconscious and abstract.


this is true.



> INTPs are therefore first and foremost theoretical observers. They will observe and then offer solutions to problems and expect other types to implement their solutions. In such a sense it's also possible to say that INTPs are actually a little bit more social than ISTPs, because ISTPs are more prone to fiddle with their mechanical stuff on their own. They don't need anyone to implement their solutions because they prefer do to implement them themselves. Yet INTPs are far more passive than ISTPs, so INTPs will still be less likely to engage with anyone, especially when in observation-mode. While ISTPs prefer to be alone when they are fiddling, they are more interested in engaging in the phsyical world and are thus more likely to meet new people as they engage in action-oriented activities.


yes, but thats not to say that INTPs dont like to implement their theories, me for example, being comfortable on fiddling around with stuff you assigned to ISTPs, kinda enjoy implementing my theories to physical world in some occasions. but if its something im not comfortable with, then i rather have someone else do it. i think ISTPs would have less strict comfort zone about interaction with the physical world, thus being more willing to do stuff in general more easier.




> The best way to understand any MBTI type is to simply read up on the Jungian functions and how they work out in practice.


i think trying to assign functions to practical matters is so tricky thing that you would need so much simplification that the true nature of the functions would have to be sacrificed. after all, the functions are about ways of cognition, not ways of behavior. these ways of judging and perceiving are not directly correlated with what shows outside, but the outward behavior or how someone works in practice is influenced by functions. thus you need to look for influences on behavior, not how someone behaves. added to the fact that we tend to project quite a lot onto people and can never be 100% sure of what we project, this makes it nearly impossible in some situations to see what functions was behind something.

i have seen some attempts on this sort of looking at functions from practical point of view, like lenore thompson is her book 'personality type: an owners manual', but in order to succeed in this at least to some level, the definitions of functions were totally off and the whole book was pretty crappy MBTI 2.0 generalizations for dummies.


----------



## Entropic

Naama said:


> i am also very much like what you described of ISTP. i like to fix things that are broken and for example when my friend bought a new table that had to be assembled, i was happy to assemble it on my own while my friend was on a computer. also i have gone to school which trained me as a machinist and overall metal worker, but i dont like doing that stuff for living anymore, but still would enjoy it occasionally. but im not as much of a thrill seeker as i was when i was younger, i would still like to try go-karting etc, but not interested about skateboarding, BMXing or downhill biking anymore.
> 
> i dont think this is much of an indicator of type, those are just stereotypes and stereotypes rarely fit properly.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> this is true.
> 
> 
> 
> yes, but thats not to say that INTPs dont like to implement their theories, me for example, being comfortable on fiddling around with stuff you assigned to ISTPs, kinda enjoy implementing my theories to physical world in some occasions. but if its something im not comfortable with, then i rather have someone else do it. i think ISTPs would have less strict comfort zone about interaction with the physical world, thus being more willing to do stuff in general more easier.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> i think trying to assign functions to practical matters is so tricky thing that you would need so much simplification that the true nature of the functions would have to be sacrificed. after all, the functions are about ways of cognition, not ways of behavior. these ways of judging and perceiving are not directly correlated with what shows outside, but the outward behavior or how someone works in practice is influenced by functions. thus you need to look for influences on behavior, not how someone behaves. added to the fact that we tend to project quite a lot onto people and can never be 100% sure of what we project, this makes it nearly impossible in some situations to see what functions was behind something.
> 
> i have seen some attempts on this sort of looking at functions from practical point of view, like lenore thompson is her book 'personality type: an owners manual', but in order to succeed in this at least to some level, the definitions of functions were totally off and the whole book was pretty crappy MBTI 2.0 generalizations for dummies.


Of course humans are more complicated than that when we toss in the 4 other functions as well, but when discussing type, we can't do it on a case to case basis but we must generalize people according to the model.


----------



## Tad Cooper

Thanks for the replies.

I liked the descriptions, they were helpful and better than the other ones I've read in books.

I'm confused between I/E and N/S mostly (as shown by my signature). I test differently each time I take an mbti or functions test and my socionics is always moving around, as well as my enneagram type. I find it's hard to tell 'me' from 'perceived me' or 'ideal me'.

The stereotypes are definitely a problem with the theory. Se = hands on, Ne = thought based is fine until you put the person in new/different situations that encourage certain functions. 

What kind of life style could cause Se to appear like Ne and vice versa?


----------



## Naama

LeaT said:


> Of course humans are more complicated than that when we toss in the 4 other functions as well, but when discussing type, we can't do it on a case to case basis but we must generalize people according to the model.


i dont think we must generalize people according to model, unless we are trying to make descriptions of types, but those descriptions are not really descriptions of type, but stereotypes of type. this is why i dislike type descriptions that concentrate on behavior, likes or what ever stereotypes of types, they are just guiding people towards wrong direction about typology and supporting misunderstanding about what type stands for(even tho they may offer some understanding about stereotypical person of some type), instead of offering understanding about the subject that the type profile tries to offer understanding about.

jung named the types as psychological types, not behavioral types for a reason.


----------



## Naama

perkele said:


> Alien would be INTP and predator would be ISTP. Because predators are very athletic and aliens are like: "Meh".


pöh ku alien = ISTP(ne on niiiin sensoreita ku olla ja voi, on vaan sellai "hei tuol on ruokaa, jos siltä lyö pään irti niin se on helpompi syödä tai viedä kuningattarelle") ja predator = E tai I NTP(keksii kaikenmaailman härveleitä, selvästi mielikuvitusta, keräilee kaikenmaailman pääkalloja ja muita trophyjä jotka on oikeesti rihkamaa, mut niillä on joku hieno merkitys niille itelleen, niillä on kulttuuri yms).


----------



## Entropic

Naama said:


> i dont think we must generalize people according to model, unless we are trying to make descriptions of types, but those descriptions are not really descriptions of type, but stereotypes of type. this is why i dislike type descriptions that concentrate on behavior, likes or what ever stereotypes of types, they are just guiding people towards wrong direction about typology and supporting misunderstanding about what type stands for(even tho they may offer some understanding about stereotypical person of some type), instead of offering understanding about the subject that the type profile tries to offer understanding about.
> 
> jung named the types as psychological types, not behavioral types for a reason.


But I was making type descriptions.


----------



## Naama

LeaT said:


> But I was making type descriptions.


yes and if someone would see me co-karting and is car(or what ever its called) would break down and i started fixing it myself totally absorbed in my own world, he might confuse me as ISTP, hence the description isnt in line with reality. i was just making a point that its better trying to figure out why someone does what he does(and how he goes about doing what he does, for example me and my ENTP friend have quite different style on solving logic puzzles, he approaches it more by just testing things, while im much more thinking how it might work), instead of looking what he does.


----------



## Entropic

Naama said:


> yes and if someone would see me co-karting and is car(or what ever its called) would break down and i started fixing it myself totally absorbed in my own world, he might confuse me as ISTP, hence the description isnt in line with reality. i was just making a point that its better trying to figure out why someone does what he does(and how he goes about doing what he does, for example me and my ENTP friend have quite different style on solving logic puzzles, he approaches it more by just testing things, while im much more thinking how it might work), instead of looking what he does.


But that's exactly what I said when I mentioned that when we study individuals we must do it on a case to case basis.


----------



## Naama

LeaT said:


> But that's exactly what I said when I mentioned that when we study individuals we must do it on a case to case basis.


okay, i didnt get that since you were giving specific descriptions of type regardless of you said that


----------



## Functianalyst

tine said:


> So an ISTP wouldn't be interested in astronomy or the history of the planet (such as watching TV documentaries on the solar system, history or science-based ideas like new discoveries about dinosaurs or ecosystems?)


I am a big history buff, but that is a very wide range of interests you state above. I am sure there are a lot of INTPs that would not be interested inclusively in the list you provide. I know ISTPs that are highly interested in math and chess, and INTPs who are not. I for one am clueless about mechanics above the basics. So there are a great deal of stereotypes that should be dismissed for both types.


----------



## zynthaxx

tine said:


> Thanks for the replies.
> 
> I liked the descriptions, they were helpful and better than the other ones I've read in books.
> 
> I'm confused between I/E and N/S mostly (as shown by my signature). I test differently each time I take an mbti or functions test and my socionics is always moving around, as well as my enneagram type. I find it's hard to tell 'me' from 'perceived me' or 'ideal me'.
> 
> The stereotypes are definitely a problem with the theory. Se = hands on, Ne = thought based is fine until you put the person in new/different situations that encourage certain functions.
> 
> What kind of life style could cause Se to appear like Ne and vice versa?


The xxTP confusion doesn't really make sense once you start analyzing functions according to their attitudes. In my opinion you can't really confuse IxTPs with ExTPs: remember that the functions get flipped completely out of order by just changing the I for an E, so the Ti-Se-Ni-Fe of an ISTP becomes Se-Ti-Fe-Ni for an ESTP, and that makes a _huge_ difference in appearance and behavior. Stereotypically it's the difference between quiet concentration on the task at hand and "Hold my beer and watch this!"

To answer your question:
An ISTP with academic parents and a relatively protected childhood would likely develop their Ni and neglect their Se to a point where you'd need to know them to distinguish them from an INTP or INTJ, at least up until their twenties.

An INTP forced to interact with their physical environment could possibly be confused with an ISTP, but my experience is that they have a harder time camouflaging their Ti-Ne nature. Solving problems theoretically before taking physical action is such a deeply rooted need for them, that you _will_ see it in any new situation they encounter, even when they are very proficient with, for example, a sport like archery or a martial art.

I don't know if any INTPs could chime in with their experience here, but a very easy way to get me to show my Ti-Se preference, is to present me with a problem. I _will_ say something to the tune of "here, let me see". I simply _need_ to touch the problem, and if I can't do that, my mind will create a map of how the device is likely to function, and mentally probe for things in this system that could go wrong in a way that would cause the presented symptom. This is probably a pretty simple explanation of Se with a fallback to Ni when needed.


----------



## Tad Cooper

zynthaxx said:


> The xxTP confusion doesn't really make sense once you start analyzing functions according to their attitudes. In my opinion you can't really confuse IxTPs with ExTPs: remember that the functions get flipped completely out of order by just changing the I for an E, so the Ti-Se-Ni-Fe of an ISTP becomes Se-Ti-Fe-Ni for an ESTP, and that makes a _huge_ difference in appearance and behavior. Stereotypically it's the difference between quiet concentration on the task at hand and "Hold my beer and watch this!"
> 
> To answer your question:
> An ISTP with academic parents and a relatively protected childhood would likely develop their Ni and neglect their Se to a point where you'd need to know them to distinguish them from an INTP or INTJ, at least up until their twenties.
> 
> An INTP forced to interact with their physical environment could possibly be confused with an ISTP, but my experience is that they have a harder time camouflaging their Ti-Ne nature. Solving problems theoretically before taking physical action is such a deeply rooted need for them, that you _will_ see it in any new situation they encounter, even when they are very proficient with, for example, a sport like archery or a martial art.
> 
> I don't know if any INTPs could chime in with their experience here, but a very easy way to get me to show my Ti-Se preference, is to present me with a problem. I _will_ say something to the tune of "here, let me see". I simply _need_ to touch the problem, and if I can't do that, my mind will create a map of how the device is likely to function, and mentally probe for things in this system that could go wrong in a way that would cause the presented symptom. This is probably a pretty simple explanation of Se with a fallback to Ni when needed.


Thanks! I find the whole Ne Vs Se very confusing, but going off what you said I think ISTP makes more sense (I have a very academic family who are all intuitives and I had a very unsettled childhood/early teens).
I do tend to like to look/touch things myself to figure them out, but can do it by thinking about the object/problem (i.e. finding the tube station in London. I could either look at the map and use that, or try and remember the way I walked and then retrace my steps).


----------



## Boolean11

Functianalyst said:


> I am a big history buff, but that is a very wide range of interests you state above. I am sure there are a lot of INTPs that would not be interested inclusively in the list you provide. I know ISTPs that are highly interested in math and chess, and INTPs who are not. I for one am clueless about mechanics above the basics. So there are a great deal of stereotypes that should be dismissed for both types.


That exactly has lead me to conclude that a person's functions are more like tools their psyche has. The don't determine the behaviour, this is hard news to accept for people that want to larch onto some theory in their heads.


----------



## Entropic

zynthaxx said:


> The xxTP confusion doesn't really make sense once you start analyzing functions according to their attitudes. In my opinion you can't really confuse IxTPs with ExTPs: remember that the functions get flipped completely out of order by just changing the I for an E, so the Ti-Se-Ni-Fe of an ISTP becomes Se-Ti-Fe-Ni for an ESTP, and that makes a _huge_ difference in appearance and behavior. Stereotypically it's the difference between quiet concentration on the task at hand and "Hold my beer and watch this!"
> 
> To answer your question:
> An ISTP with academic parents and a relatively protected childhood would likely develop their Ni and neglect their Se to a point where you'd need to know them to distinguish them from an INTP or INTJ, at least up until their twenties.
> 
> An INTP forced to interact with their physical environment could possibly be confused with an ISTP, but my experience is that they have a harder time camouflaging their Ti-Ne nature. Solving problems theoretically before taking physical action is such a deeply rooted need for them, that you _will_ see it in any new situation they encounter, even when they are very proficient with, for example, a sport like archery or a martial art.
> 
> I don't know if any INTPs could chime in with their experience here, but a very easy way to get me to show my Ti-Se preference, is to present me with a problem. I _will_ say something to the tune of "here, let me see". I simply _need_ to touch the problem, and if I can't do that, my mind will create a map of how the device is likely to function, and mentally probe for things in this system that could go wrong in a way that would cause the presented symptom. This is probably a pretty simple explanation of Se with a fallback to Ni when needed.


Agreed. It is evident to me how poorly developed my Se is when I tell my ISTP friend to HELP me fix physical problems. I can logically understand what to do, e.g. insert X item into a socket, but I can't actually solve the problem because Se does not feed me with enough data. So I keep turn the item around for example, because I don't understand how it's meant to fit, whereas I've solved the problem in my head long time ago. I tend to easily fall back on Si here also, given that I have solved the problem before so I attempt to do the same thing that worked in the past. If it doesn't work I become utterly frustrated. 

A very obvious example actually occurred yesterday. I'm helping my relatives to set up a market of theirs and I'm utterly frustrated because they do so many things that are inefficient because there was no proper planning and no looking ahead. I came up with so many interesting ideas that could help them market their market and make it stand out for example. I said I could design a flyer for them on the computer, had they told me many months earlier.


The whole helping them physically however, and how to device a plan of making it hte most efficiently was frustrating at hell and intellectually understimulating while I was doing it to me. I had to come up with the most ridiculous reasons to not grow bored, such as creating the most efficient system of how to rake the lawn and remove the grass to a pile.


----------



## Entropic

Boolean11 said:


> That exactly has lead me to conclude that a person's functions are more like tools their psyche has. The don't determine the behaviour, this is hard news to accept for people that want to larch onto some theory in their heads.


Like you? And I want to add that our preferences do determine our behavior, as @_zynthaxx_ pointed out. If SeTi doesn't work for example, the ISTP will fall back on NiTi. This will result in different behavioral results that we attribute to the ISTP.


----------



## Finagle

zynthaxx said:


> An ISTP with academic parents and a relatively protected childhood would likely develop their Ni and neglect their Se to a point where you'd need to know them to distinguish them from an INTP or INTJ, at least up until their twenties.
> 
> TPs could chime in with their experience here, but a very easy way to get me to show my Ti-Se preference, is to present me with a problem. I _will_ say something to the tune of "here, let me see". I simply _need_ to touch the problem, and if I can't do that, my mind will create a map of how the device is likely to function, and mentally probe for things in this system that could go wrong in a way that would cause the presented symptom. This is probably a pretty simple explanation of Se with a fallback to Ni when needed.


Spot-on

Ti-Ne also tend to be more pedantic, and tend to do what to me seems to be debating logic in thin air. Difficult to explain, but I automatically think "xNTP" when I see it.


----------



## Finagle

If you want a concrete example, go ask a philosophical question on the ISTP and INTP sub-forums, something like "does freedom really exist" and look how they differ in their responses.
Both can be philosophical, being ruled by Ti, but the way those two types approach these questions is, on average, very different.


----------



## petite libellule




----------



## Jiujitman

Hello Ningsta kitty, I can not respond to your PM because I have less than 15 posts. Lol

This is the only way I can respond. 

I took my test and joined the site earlier today. I know it was random. 

Have no friends yet, lol. Just like to learn as much as possible. 

Thank you. 

P.s. I hope you get this.


----------



## zynthaxx

DeeWayne said:


> Speaking from a hunch, I guess they would, only it wouldn't sync in to their brains that long especially if they don't find it relevant or useful in the practical sense. It would be like a tree losing its roots on a fertile soil meant for something else.


Nope.
Things do stick to my brain - I just don't care much about things I can't apply or don't find cool in some other way.
Some of the things @tine mentioned happen to fall within my areas of interest, so I actually spend quite some time reading up on such stuff. And my brain tends to pick up meaningless trivia too, so that's not something that would differentiate me from an INTP either.


----------



## Donovan

the istp i know doesn't seem to be a paranoid theorist. 

it's almost like you can see what would be his ni by the lack of anything else, and the lack of his ability to explain it. it really does seem instinctual, and i bet you anything he sees it that way. like something anyone could do if they'd just try (i think he'd be wrong though with that thought). 

he's obviously a ti-dom, and he is much more of a realist than the intps i know, but interests lie in the practical world and then are taken in a slightly different direction. he can apply them in a way that is readily needed (practical matters), but the thought then goes onto a much more individual level, something that he doesn't go spouting off to people he doesn't know well. 

i can tell he thinks his ideas are "odd", but to me their fricking genius. since his mind seems to be practical-->innovative solution instead of the reverse, it always leads in that direction (i'm guessing there is even a preference in his aux.'s just based on the amount of comfort and confidence, not to mention the overall direction of his thoughts). he's really into alternative housing and living off the grid, so whatever amenity needs to go because of potential health reasons/cost/lack-of-longevity, there is always a certain loss due to neglecting a commercialized approach, but whatever is lost is that causes the idea to be unfruitful, there is always a little "unseen" alternative--a change here and there that replaces and saves the benefit from being completely lost while not submitting to the initial drawback. 

but if you try to mention this to him--this process--he just shakes his head, and is like "heh, ok". (but anything related to mbti/jungian stuff... he'll just shake his head, lol).


----------



## Ink

As an INTP growing up in a household of 3 ISTPs (mother and two younger brothers, ISFP father), I'd say their thinking is much more superficial "you do this and this" whereas INTPs would go "you do this because"... They don't stand a chance in a debate either (I realize my take on ISTPs is very biased, so take this with a grain of salt). Both my younger brothers are very good at doing backflips and all that stuff though, I never could learn that. They like their desks clean as well.


----------



## Ellis Bell

Ink said:


> As an INTP growing up in a household of 3 ISTPs (mother and two younger brothers, ISFP father), I'd say their thinking is much more superficial "you do this and this" whereas INTPs would go "you do this because"... They don't stand a chance in a debate either (I realize my take on ISTPs is very biased, so take this with a grain of salt). Both my younger brothers are very good at doing backflips and all that stuff though, I never could learn that. They like their desks clean as well.


Heh, great satirical take on ISTPs and their superficial thinking. .


----------



## ajackson17

My Si is on the very low side LOL, it's just good enough for me to get by throughout the day.


----------



## JungyesMBTIno

They're basically cousins of each other (Dom. Ti, Inferior Fe). Not very different, other than the orientations of their S/N (and ISTPs are more likely to give an edge to sensation & vice-versa with INTPs, although to Jung, I don't think this was really a perfect guarantee). I think INTPs are more notoriously socially "unconventional" though (yea, some are pretty unadaptable to the feeling conditions of others, let alone, changes in others), perhaps not having that Se so well developed as to sort of allow them to "tangibly" connect to others.


----------



## Ink

JungyesMBTIno said:


> They're basically cousins of each other (Dom. Ti, Inferior Fe). Not very different, other than the orientations of their S/N (and ISTPs are more likely to give an edge to sensation & vice-versa with INTPs, although to Jung, I don't think this was really a perfect guarantee). I think INTPs are more notoriously socially "unconventional" though (yea, some are pretty unadaptable to the feeling conditions of others, let alone, changes in others), perhaps not having that Se so well developed as to sort of allow them to "tangibly" connect to others.


It's not as simple as one prefers a little more sensory look at things and the other a more intuitive one, Se, Ne, Si, Ni are very different cognitive functions.


----------



## JungyesMBTIno

Ink said:


> It's not as simple as one prefers a little more sensory look at things and the other a more intuitive one, Se, Ne, Si, Ni are very different cognitive functions.


Agreed. Although to Jung, it was possible to get some who were pretty undifferentiated with their orientations (e.g. an ISTP who just kind of uses sensation, but doesn't really show a clear preference - they might even lean toward the Si side in some cases - in these types, it probably wouldn't matter much anyway, so long as the aux. function is serving the dominant or inferior in some way - they might direct sensation toward the self more so that the pure extraversion of it really isn't very pure - it's influenced by subjectivity). Conventionally though (MBTI), yes, you're right. Jung himself never really seemed to give much insight into where his own perception functions were in orientation, although from reading his work, it seems clear that he was more likely an Ni type than an Ne type (he seemed more knowledgeable about the esoteric nature of Ni than Ne, I think - he almost sounds like he sort of stereotypes Ne), thus putting him in the ISTP category (his intuition does not seem all that practically-derived to me - it seems like something quite unique to him and ontological in nature - there's a lot of Ti-Ni rather apparent in his works). He pretty much confesses to "using" Ti and Fe though in the info on them in Psychological Types - he stated stuff that indicated he knew how they operated in him.


----------

