# INTJ - Identity Crisis, help!



## Autumn_Fairy (May 10, 2014)

Until now, I have largely been confident of my INTJ type. I've typed as an INTJ since I first took the test ~12 years ago. Since then, I have taken every version of the test I found online and I'm ALWAYS INTJ. However, I understand that the more often one takes a test, the less likely the results are to be helpful as one becomes familiar with the types of questions asked, so I don't know what to think...

All I know is that I have recently become aware of a string of characteristics in my personality that are usually _defining_ factors of ISTJ over INTJ. Namely:

* Obsessive attention to detail:
-I need to know every detail of every argument, theory, etc before I can consider and process it. My husband sometimes gets annoyed with what he thinks are excessive mundane questions about some concept he is talking about.

* Above average (some people tell me its WAY above average) ability to remember facts or anything I've heard in nearly word-for-word detail (Like Olive from the silly Disney show, for anyone who knows). However, this ability to recall doesn't apply to names or faces. It takes me a long time to remember someones name and I never recognize them outside of the context I am used to seeing them in (e.g. running into classmates in a grocery store).

* Love of collecting facts and book-smarts
- I was a teacher's pet and I loved gathering data simply for the sake of gathering data. This made me appear smart, but I always felt that my ability to memorize facts masked my inability to truly understand difficult concepts. However, I can't stand to study anything that doesn't interest me. I hated social studies and it was the only class that I never got As in - ironically the one class that was the most fact driven, lol. So I was only a teacher's pet if the subject was of interest (usually math or natural science classes).

*Preference for structure and routines
- I used to think this a result of being a "J", but I've read that ISTJs are particularly routine oriented. I do all of my regular duties in the exact same way and order. I'll get up and first clean the cat box, then sweep the floor, then feed the cats, then let the dogs out. . etc (same order every. single. time). I like this kind of consistency because I get confused when my mind wanders off and, if I'm not working on autopilot, I end up doing some pretty spacey things while doing chores. This latter characteristic isn't so ISTJ, though, is it? I tend to daydream rather than focus at the task at hand (unless its something I enjoy doing) and I need routine so that I can focus my mind on more interesting things. I also get stressed whenever the status quo is disrupted. If there is a change in the usual I freak out a little bit, but usually I'm able to deal with it if I have time to prepare. I don't necessarily need consistency, but I don't like surprises. I need to plan ahead in order to cope with a change in the norm.

* Particular interest in health and maintaining of the body
- I'd like to believe that any personality type can have this trait, but it keeps cropping up as an ISTJ thing in many articles and forum posts. I am a health nut, obsessively organic with my personal care products (though I will use commercial makeups when a suitable organic alternative isn't available). I love to work out and I especially enjoy weightlifting. By itself, I wouldn't think twice about this side of myself, but I figured it was relevant in context

* Notable use of Si:
- complete inability NOT to recall some past event or make associations when watching movies or listening to music. I remember getting terrible anxiety listening to certain songs when in the car with my mother, worried that the lyrics would trigger her memory to some event that I was recently in trouble for or some subject that I don't want her to bring up. She never once made any such association, but it was always on the front of my mind. As for movies, sometimes certain events will evoke such unpleasant memories that I won't finish watching the movie. For example, I never finished Braveheart because I was too affected by his lack of loyalty to the dead girlfriend (though the exact event didn't mirror anything that happened to me, it made me recall something related). I am not so dramatic anymore about not finishing movies for such silly reasons, but past events that I recall are still on my mind and bother me. I will always wonder if some scene I am watching reminds my husband of the same thing it reminds me of. The few times I bring up particular examples, he tells me that such associations were not anywhere near the front of his mind, so this seems to be a unique thing to me. All this being said, I'm not certain I understand Si well enough to say that this is an Si thing or something else.

*Ok, so with all that, I should be able to just come out and say, "hey - I discovered that Im and ISTJ, awesome!" Except for the following:*

* Chronic day-dreamer, head always in the clouds:
- This is only flaw adults ever pointed out in my otherwise "perfect" self. When I demonstrated above average math and reading skills, my teacher and parents wanted to have me skipped a grade, possibly more. After undergoing some psych evaluations, the powers that be decided that I was not socially ready for skipping grades, most notably because of an embarrassing lack of common sense. I had such poor common sense through high school and only recently do I think that I am at a reasonably competent level of it. Isn't common sense a gimme for the ISTJs?? 

* Not interested in real-world stuff
-I hate the news. seriously, I hate it so much that I have to make a chore of it to force myself to keep up with current events and I'm poor at doing so. I prefer to stay in my own world, daydream - usually create elaborate fantasy stories in my head or imagine that I'm a super-awesome spy, haha :blushed:. I hate most non-fiction novels. Pretty much anything practical and down-to-earth repels me.

* Persona as viewed by others (more INTJ?)
- people describe me as either sarcastic or deadpan. My husband says my most impressive skill is deadpan humor and others say they engage me in conversation specifically to hear my sarcasm. I have read on a few sources that ISTJs tend to be more reserved, serious, less sarcastic. . but I am hesitant to believe that.

* Interests
theoretical discussions about soft-science topics. While the hard sciences were my true love for the longest time, I didn't pursue physics past undergrad because the theoretical stuff was not as much my thing as I wanted to pretend it was (I made my way through undergrad by passing off impressive fact collection as true intelligence). Outside of physics, I am perfectly capable of understanding and interested in abstract concepts.

ETA - I just realized that my focus on daydreaming and whatnot might come across as INTP or a Ti type at least. But i am definitely Te, I don't doubt that. I am a doer, not a thinker. I love to think, sure, but its important to me to see ideas brought to fruition.


----------



## Himistu (May 24, 2014)

? Even with all of the stuff you listed, you still sound like an INTJ. I have a friend who is a real sports guy, real physical and competitive and has a great memory, but in every respect, he's a solid INTJ.


----------



## StunnedFox (Dec 20, 2013)

@Autumn_Fairy -

Besides the perpetual daydreaming, in what ways would you say you lack (or lacked) common sense? For something supposedly so common, it can be remarkably hard to pin down at times... 

Your dilemma is remarkably resemblant of my own - stuck uncertainly between the same two types, with fairly similar reasons to support the ISTJ angle (highly detail focused, potentially too much so; strong factual memory; preference for routine and structure; basically, everything except the health-conscious stuff)... forgetting about cognitive functions, would you say you had a fairly clear preference for either sensing or intuition? Your consistent 'N' test results would suggest so, but, like you say, the further knowledge one garners about type, the less information one can really glean from online tests.


----------



## Blindspots (Jan 27, 2014)

Forgive me for chopping up your post here.


Autumn_Fairy said:


> * Obsessive attention to detail:
> -I need to know every detail of every argument, theory, etc before I can consider and process it. My husband sometimes gets annoyed with what he thinks are excessive mundane questions about some concept he is talking about.





> * Notable use of Si:
> - complete inability NOT to recall some past event or make associations when watching movies or listening to music. I remember getting terrible anxiety listening to certain songs when in the car with my mother, worried that the lyrics would trigger her memory to some event that I was recently in trouble for or some subject that I don't want her to bring up. She never once made any such association, but it was always on the front of my mind. As for movies, sometimes certain events will evoke such unpleasant memories that I won't finish watching the movie. For example, I never finished Braveheart because I was too affected by his lack of loyalty to the dead girlfriend (though the exact event didn't mirror anything that happened to me, it made me recall something related). I am not so dramatic anymore about not finishing movies for such silly reasons, but past events that I recall are still on my mind and bother me. I will always wonder if some scene I am watching reminds my husband of the same thing it reminds me of. The few times I bring up particular examples, he tells me that such associations were not anywhere near the front of his mind, so this seems to be a unique thing to me.


These do sound like Si. The need for ideas to be fleshed out in order to confidently grasp them in the first example. The use of a personally determined reference point when encountering other experiences in the second.




> * Above average (some people tell me its WAY above average) ability to remember facts or anything I've heard in nearly word-for-word detail (Like Olive from the silly Disney show, for anyone who knows). However, this ability to recall doesn't apply to names or faces. It takes me a long time to remember someones name and I never recognize them outside of the context I am used to seeing them in (e.g. running into classmates in a grocery store).





> * Not interested in real-world stuff
> -I hate the news. seriously, I hate it so much that I have to make a chore of it to force myself to keep up with current events and I'm poor at doing so. I prefer to stay in my own world, daydream - usually create elaborate fantasy stories in my head or imagine that I'm a super-awesome spy, haha . I hate most non-fiction novels. Pretty much anything practical and down-to-earth repels me.





> *Preference for structure and routines
> - I used to think this a result of being a "J", but I've read that ISTJs are particularly routine oriented. I do all of my regular duties in the exact same way and order. I'll get up and first clean the cat box, then sweep the floor, then feed the cats, then let the dogs out. . etc (same order every. single. time). I like this kind of consistency because I get confused when my mind wanders off and, if I'm not working on autopilot, I end up doing some pretty spacey things while doing chores. This latter characteristic isn't so ISTJ, though, is it? I tend to daydream rather than focus at the task at hand (unless its something I enjoy doing) and I need routine so that I can focus my mind on more interesting things. I also get stressed whenever the status quo is disrupted. If there is a change in the usual I freak out a little bit, but usually I'm able to deal with it if I have time to prepare. I don't necessarily need consistency, but I don't like surprises. I need to plan ahead in order to cope with a change in the norm.


Seems to be introverted Perception rather than specifically Si. More focus on inner prompts/stimuli and contexts you yourself assigned to certain objects. The part about routines may happen to either INTJs and ISTJs who have scenarios visualized in their minds, and being introverted first, may feel drained to adapt to something they haven't mentally prepared for.



> * Chronic day-dreamer, head always in the clouds:
> - This is only flaw adults ever pointed out in my otherwise "perfect" self. When I demonstrated above average math and reading skills, my teacher and parents wanted to have me skipped a grade, possibly more. After undergoing some psych evaluations, the powers that be decided that I was not socially ready for skipping grades, most notably because of an embarrassing lack of common sense. I had such poor common sense through high school and only recently do I think that I am at a reasonably competent level of it. Isn't common sense a gimme for the ISTJs??


Sounds like how Pi-doms would start, fixated in things that are in their heads rather than their surroundings. I imagine an Si would only lack "common sense" if they haven't been in a situation that calls for it.



> * Persona as viewed by others (more INTJ?)
> - people describe me as either sarcastic or deadpan. My husband says my most impressive skill is deadpan humor and others say they engage me in conversation specifically to hear my sarcasm. I have read on a few sources that ISTJs tend to be more reserved, serious, less sarcastic. . but I am hesitant to believe that.


Pi-dom, I think. They both grasp things given a situations that others can't quite see as fast. Si from something they've encountered, Ni from something they may have perceived from another situation. As to why INTJs seem more outright with their sarcasm, I can't think of right now.



> * Love of collecting facts and book-smarts
> - I was a teacher's pet and I loved gathering data simply for the sake of gathering data. This made me appear smart, but I always felt that my ability to memorize facts masked my inability to truly understand difficult concepts. However, I can't stand to study anything that doesn't interest me. I hated social studies and it was the only class that I never got As in - ironically the one class that was the most fact driven, lol. So I was only a teacher's pet if the subject was of interest (usually math or natural science classes).


I'm not quite sure what this points to. I think anyone can collect data if they're interested in it (especially if they're introverted dom), but if data collection compels one to action via Te/Fe, that may be Si.



> * Interests
> theoretical discussions about soft-science topics. While the hard sciences were my true love for the longest time, I didn't pursue physics past undergrad because the theoretical stuff was not as much my thing as I wanted to pretend it was (I made my way through undergrad by passing off impressive fact collection as true intelligence). Outside of physics, I am perfectly capable of understanding and interested in abstract concepts.


Not necessarily Si vs Ni.



> * Particular interest in health and maintaining of the body
> - I'd like to believe that any personality type can have this trait, but it keeps cropping up as an ISTJ thing in many articles and forum posts. I am a health nut, obsessively organic with my personal care products (though I will use commercial makeups when a suitable organic alternative isn't available). I love to work out and I especially enjoy weightlifting. By itself, I wouldn't think twice about this side of myself, but I figured it was relevant in context


Not necessarily indicative of any particular type. Stuff that you see in profiles that aren't directly connected to cognitive functions.



Whew...

Mine isn't an unequivocal conclusion. It's up to you to consider what I've said and what others will say, as well as read some more on Si vs Ni, and then decide.


----------



## Autumn_Fairy (May 10, 2014)

StunnedFox said:


> @Autumn_Fairy -
> 
> Besides the perpetual daydreaming, in what ways would you say you lack (or lacked) common sense? For something supposedly so common, it can be remarkably hard to pin down at times...
> 
> Your dilemma is remarkably resemblant of my own - stuck uncertainly between the same two types, with fairly similar reasons to support the ISTJ angle (highly detail focused, potentially too much so; strong factual memory; preference for routine and structure; basically, everything except the health-conscious stuff)... forgetting about cognitive functions, would you say you had a fairly clear preference for either sensing or intuition? Your consistent 'N' test results would suggest so, but, like you say, the further knowledge one garners about type, the less information one can really glean from online tests.


The common sense issue is/was primarily a side effect of being oblivious to my surroundings (not characteristic of a sensor). For example, it's common sense not to leave a dry pot on a hot stove, but due to not paying attention, I would do this. I am especially handicapped if I'm talking while doing a task at the same time. I might put the milk in the pantry and the honey in the fridge when emptying a bag of groceries. It's so bad that I have to ban my husband from the kitchen entirely while I'm cooking dinner lest his presence distract me and I do something foolish like putting a pot in the sink to wash before serving the contents. So in a way Ive always possessed common sense itself, but my problem was inability to multitask and pay attention to what I was doing. As long as I am allowed to hyper focus on what i am doing and/or follow a strict routine I can do things skillfully and efficiently.

As for Ni vs Si, I don't know. Between Ni and Ne, I am sure that I am Ni. Between Se and Si, I believe I use Si more. However, I can't have both Ni and Si in my primary function stack and I am not sure which one is my preferred function. I believe that I am good at recognizing trends and patterns; identifying archetypes (Ni). One of my favorite things to do is look for similar trends/patterns in various religions and cultures (anthropology is a favorite subject for this reason). I don't require hard facts in order to recognize trends. I also rely on my gut feeling more often than not when making decisions. 

At the same time, I believe that I have excellent recall of past events (Si) to the point where I can almost relive them in my mind. I'm not sure about the whole past-being-an-indicator-of-the-future thing. I don't think that part of Si applies to me. While I recall the past vividly, I don't necessarily rely on it to define my present or future. I prefer routine for the sake of efficiency, but I also like change as long as I can plan for it. What I mean is, I don't like surprises and spontaneity, but i like a change of scenery as long as I know it's coming. I used to love moving and changing schools when I was a kid. I'd get bored in the same environment too long. Does this make sense? I like planned change. I am not big on holding steadfast to tradition as is common of ISTJs. I like some tradition, but its not a huge priority. I don't fit the ISTJ stereotype of conservative and religious.


----------



## Autumn_Fairy (May 10, 2014)

@Chrnos

wow, thank you for taking the time to consider all that I wrote (also, please see the reply I posted right before I saw your reply).

also, I want to clarify what I meant by obsessive need for facts. I don't NEED all the details to grasp a concept, but I desire them. I understand the big picture just find, but i crave the details anyway. Is this an odd thing?

ETA - I think of my desire for details like detective work (if being a RL detective was like it is in hollywood, it would be my dream career, lol). I form a conclusion easily based on the data available to me, I don't need all the details and I am usually right. However, i am always on the lookout for inconsistencies that might change my conclusion. If someone says they did something two weeks ago then tells the story later to say a different time frame Ill notice and make mental note of it. I notice mundane inconsistencies all the time, whether I am interested in them or not. If the matter is of interest to me, I will request details just for the sake of storing them to use later should they become relevant at any time. I don't need them in order to understand the basic idea behind what I am being told, but i like to collect them to play with in my own time.


----------



## Blindspots (Jan 27, 2014)

Autumn_Fairy said:


> I want to clarify what I meant by obsessive need for facts. I don't NEED all the details to grasp a concept, but I desire them. I understand the big picture just find, but i crave the details anyway. Is this an odd thing?


I think seeking further information to make sure your idea is plausible seems more like Te supporting either Ni or Si. Was this what you meant by craving for details?


----------



## Autumn_Fairy (May 10, 2014)

Chrnos said:


> I think seeking further information to make sure your idea is plausible seems more like Te supporting either Ni or Si. Was this what you meant by craving for details?


sorry, I put an addition to that post right before you replied. I think I explained it better.


----------



## Blindspots (Jan 27, 2014)

Read through what you added just now. Thanks for pointing me to this part.



> I think of my desire for details like detective work (if being a RL detective was like it is in hollywood, it would be my dream career, lol). I form a conclusion easily based on the data available to me, I don't need all the details and I am usually right. However, i am always on the lookout for inconsistencies that might change my conclusion. If someone says they did something two weeks ago then tells the story later to say a different time frame Ill notice and make mental note of it. I notice mundane inconsistencies all the time, whether I am interested in them or not. If the matter is of interest to me, I will request details just for the sake of storing them to use later should they become relevant at any time. I don't need them in order to understand the basic idea behind what I am being told, but i like to collect them to play with in my own time.


Please correct me if I misinterpreted anything here as I paraphrase you:

In that case, the way you seek details seems more like Ni-Te, starting from a blank slate and then mapping out your findings in that slate. From these findings, you can see a plausible endpoint that you work with (Ni), then adjust/expand/revise as your investigation goes on (Te). 

What I imagine Si may do would not be as confident as Ni in the endpoint (acknowledging other endpoints a la Ne found in the functional stack as well) and then work steadily from their starting point. Something like drawing a straight line, in contrast to Ni's connecting the dots.


Now I'm trying to figure out how to unite that with how you talked about memorizing things vs understanding concepts at school. It may be an instance of Si, or an absent Ti in the functional stack to play around with concepts (but I'm not sure about how Ti exactly works in this case, need to think about that one).


----------



## StunnedFox (Dec 20, 2013)

Autumn_Fairy said:


> The common sense issue is/was primarily a side effect of being oblivious to my surroundings (not characteristic of a sensor). For example, it's common sense not to leave a dry pot on a hot stove, but due to not paying attention, I would do this. I am especially handicapped if I'm talking while doing a task at the same time. I might put the milk in the pantry and the honey in the fridge when emptying a bag of groceries. It's so bad that I have to ban my husband from the kitchen entirely while I'm cooking dinner lest his presence distract me and I do something foolish like putting a pot in the sink to wash before serving the contents. So in a way Ive always possessed common sense itself, but my problem was inability to multitask and pay attention to what I was doing. As long as I am allowed to hyper focus on what i am doing and/or follow a strict routine I can do things skillfully and efficiently.
> 
> As for Ni vs Si, I don't know. Between Ni and Ne, I am sure that I am Ni. Between Se and Si, I believe I use Si more. However, I can't have both Ni and Si in my primary function stack and I am not sure which one is my preferred function. I believe that I am good at recognizing trends and patterns; identifying archetypes (Ni). One of my favorite things to do is look for similar trends/patterns in various religions and cultures (anthropology is a favorite subject for this reason). I don't require hard facts in order to recognize trends. I also rely on my gut feeling more often than not when making decisions.
> 
> At the same time, I believe that I have excellent recall of past events (Si) to the point where I can almost relive them in my mind. I'm not sure about the whole past-being-an-indicator-of-the-future thing. I don't think that part of Si applies to me. While I recall the past vividly, I don't necessarily rely on it to define my present or future. I prefer routine for the sake of efficiency, but I also like change as long as I can plan for it. What I mean is, I don't like surprises and spontaneity, but i like a change of scenery as long as I know it's coming. I used to love moving and changing schools when I was a kid. I'd get bored in the same environment too long. Does this make sense? I like planned change. I am not big on holding steadfast to tradition as is common of ISTJs. I like some tradition, but its not a huge priority. I don't fit the ISTJ stereotype of conservative and religious.


I'm inclined to think the "traditional" stereotype for ISTJs (and indeed SJs in general) is either wildly overstated, only true for a select group, or at the very least a mischaracterisation of something that _is_ common to the type. Certainly religious belief is far too individually circumstantial to be broadly type-relevant, as, at least if you mean it in the narrower sense of the political viewpoint, is "conservative". Most stereotypes are problematic to begin with - they make potential and select truths seem universal - but I find this one particularly egregious. Enjoyment of change, or dislike of spontaneity, similarly say little without a real understanding of the motivations behind them.

Based on what you've written, your "lack of common sense" less about your "sense" of something, and more about focus - preferring to zero in on things, keep your attention singular to the desired task - in which case I think this, like much of what @Chrnos looked over in your initial post, is common to both forms of introverted perception. Likewise, I don't think archetype identification or good factual recall are quite so exclusive to Ni or Si respectively, although they might align better with one or the other; they seem to be likely to be common at the very least to Pi. What is more pertinent to which one you happen to use might be, I guess, which is more central to your mode of thinking. You mentioned coming to conclusions early but then seeking out/taking in factual data despite this - would you say this is more about filling in the detailed gaps in your conclusion, or about corroborating it? The two needn't be mutually exclusive, my question is more about which you favour.

What I was getting at with my preference question was essentially seeking out a definite preference outside of the cognitive functions model - whether you related to 'S' or 'N' more, independent of introverted/extraverted orientation. Would you say you relate to one of the SJ or NT temperament descriptions significantly more than the other?

EDIT: Just saw Chrnos' post above. My question at the end of my second paragraph is essentially the one addressed in that post - from what you've written, I'd also be inclined to see it as more Ni than Si, but more information on this point, if possible, might prove instructive.


----------



## yumchesspie (Jun 30, 2014)

Anxiety can probably cause someone to seem more Si-using than they are. I can be really obsessive compulsive about things, but it's because I see the sequence of events/domino effect one small change could have. So do you prefer similarity for the sake of it and the feeling it offers, or because you think being consistent has more benefits overall? 

Also, how easy is it for you to be theoretical and how much do you like it/prefer it? Do you get theories on your own, or do you have to be in a certain setting that encourages theorizing?


----------



## drgmd (Jul 10, 2014)

As a analytical scientist i have trouble taking mbti seriously at times. all i can say is mbti has low test retest reliability 
personality stability can influence an already somewhat subjective interpretation

i like tests that indicate a percentage for each trait. 
(younger usually) colleagues or friends who score low in any trait category show characteristics of at least two different personality types.

mbti seems more accurate for people with somewhat stable personalities 

there is also the possibility that more categories can be used to effectively describe a person

some tests actually do exactly that...they look pretty crazy with 25 or more personalities


----------



## Autumn_Fairy (May 10, 2014)

Chrnos said:


> Read through what you added just now. Thanks for pointing me to this part.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


I am aware of the linear method of ISTJ thinking. I'm not sure I can explain exactly my position in the is area. I like to come to conclusions fast. Mostly because I like to be right and tell people what I know before they have a chance to come up with the answer first. I am competitive in that way. However, I also enjoy the process of going through something linearly in my own time, when I'm not trying to come up with answers and conclusions for other people, but just for myself. 

I read instruction manuals and follow them beginning to end. But I'm not sure that is so much for preference but because my worst handicap is tactile learning. Anything hands-on is difficult for me. I can't build things without following strict linear instructions. Regardless, I still enjoy the process of working one step at a time to see little details turn into a big picture. I love to do jigsaw puzzles for a similar reason. These sort of activities I do as a form of stress relief. To the rest of the world, however, I present my self as quick to get the big picture. I hope I am explaining this well enough. I point all of this out because I keep hearing the INTJs don't like or have time for petty details. going from small to big is not of interest to them but it entertains me for a while so long as its something I'm interested in in the first place. I can tell that my post here is going to be long, but I hope it isn't too long to keep your attention. lol. 

In math classes, I am usually quick to get the concept and then I get bored having to listen to the teacher explain something I already figured out on own before class. While I reach the conclusion quickly, I am equally capable of and interested in describing the process in detail to another student. I don't like listening to the teacher do this, but I like the opportunity to help others myself. Ive read the INTJs don't have time or interest in explaining things to others that they already understand themselves. 

Im sorry that in the process of trying to describe myself, I am contradicting some my own statements. Sometimes I downplay my abilities and don't believe i am as good at something as others seem to think I am. I come across as smarter than I am and lack confidence that I really am so smart. I usually don't advertise this. I am doing so here for the sake of helping identify my type, but its also causing me to waffle on my description. So in regards to the physics and conceptual thing, I don't know. I got stressed as a physics major because I was no longer the "best" in a larger pool of people at my intellectual level and I interpreted this as: I am not good enough to continue. I don't like not being best or at least top of the class. My very last semester, I was notified that I had the highest grade in quantum mechanics. I love to brag about this, but inside, I don't feel like I deserved it. I felt that I had an advantage with my detailed memory of everything taught in class. On the exam, there would be a problem that we did in class earlier in the semester and the prof would assume no one remembers it perfectly, but I can remember the solution step by step exactly as it was shown to me the first time around without having to understand it. This doesn't mean that I DON'T understand the concept, but it still means that I have an advantage that I don't have to try as hard to think about it.


----------



## Autumn_Fairy (May 10, 2014)

StunnedFox said:


> I'm inclined to think the "traditional" stereotype for ISTJs (and indeed SJs in general) is either wildly overstated, only true for a select group, or at the very least a mischaracterisation of something that _is_ common to the type. Certainly religious belief is far too individually circumstantial to be broadly type-relevant, as, at least if you mean it in the narrower sense of the political viewpoint, is "conservative". Most stereotypes are problematic to begin with - they make potential and select truths seem universal - but I find this one particularly egregious. Enjoyment of change, or dislike of spontaneity, similarly say little without a real understanding of the motivations behind them.


I know stereotypes are just that, but I included where I fit in the stereotypes to give a fuller picture of my personality. 



StunnedFox said:


> Based on what you've written, your "lack of common sense" less about your "sense" of something, and more about focus - preferring to zero in on things, keep your attention singular to the desired task - in which case I think this, like much of what @Chrnos looked over in your initial post, is common to both forms of introverted perception. Likewise, I don't think archetype identification or good factual recall are quite so exclusive to Ni or Si respectively, although they might align better with one or the other; they seem to be likely to be common at the very least to Pi. What is more pertinent to which one you happen to use might be, I guess, which is more central to your mode of thinking. You mentioned coming to conclusions early but then seeking out/taking in factual data despite this - would you say this is more about filling in the detailed gaps in your conclusion, or about corroborating it? The two needn't be mutually exclusive, my question is more about which you favor.


I'd say my quest for details is more for corroborating my conclusions. Also, when there are gaps, I am aware (privately - I don't let others know that i doubt myself) that my conclusion could be wrong. This bothers me greatly when I know that there is potential to be proved wrong. I would rather prove myself wrong before someone else gets the pleasure of doing so.



StunnedFox said:


> What I was getting at with my preference question was essentially seeking out a definite preference outside of the cognitive functions model - whether you related to 'S' or 'N' more, independent of introverted/extraverted orientation. Would you say you relate to one of the SJ or NT temperament descriptions significantly more than the other?


The temperament description of the NT fits me better, but many temperament descriptions are riddled with stereotypes that don't necessarily define the temperament. I also am biased to NT because I _want_ to be NT, but I don't want to ignore my true self, hence the motive for this thread. [/QUOTE]



StunnedFox said:


> EDIT: Just saw Chrnos' post above. My question at the end of my second paragraph is essentially the one addressed in that post - from what you've written, I'd also be inclined to see it as more Ni than Si, but more information on this point, if possible, might prove instructive.


See my reply to Chrnos as well.


----------



## Autumn_Fairy (May 10, 2014)

drgmd said:


> As a analytical scientist i have trouble taking mbti seriously at times. all i can say is mbti has low test retest reliability
> personality stability can influence an already somewhat subjective interpretation
> 
> i like tests that indicate a percentage for each trait.
> ...


Ive hear a lot of people say that it is not possible to be more than one. That everyone simple HAS to have a preference to only one of the 16 types. At any rate, my scores for N vs S have never been borderline. Yet still, my personality appears, to me anyway, very SJ-like. **shrug**


----------



## Autumn_Fairy (May 10, 2014)

I just thought of something that I wanted to add regarding my to detail and petty facts.

I keep hearing that INTJs like to point out flaws and win arguments. One of the best ways to do this is to be keenly aware of every detail in someone's argument. If they say something that doesn't compute, I'm quick to jump on it. My INTP husband is often lax with his use of details/sepcifics (I don't know if this is supposed to be an INTP thing, but its his thing anyway). He says all the details are in his head where they belong and that he prefers to share only the general gist of his ideas. This leads to a wild assortment of conflicting facts that he uses as filler in order to get to the point. I keep track of all these "facts" along the way and point out every single flaw in his reasoning. Even for something as mundane as why he decided to go to the library before class instead of after. I really could care less that he went to the library at all, but it amuses me to point out when his reasoning is flawed. He often replies in the defensive, thinking that I have some problem with what he did when, honest-to-god, I'm just enjoying the fun of pointing out flaws. I tell him time and again that if I really have a problem with something he did, I won't be wasting time in discussion. I'll probably be in my room ignoring him and not cooking dinner, lol.


----------



## Claudia (Jul 7, 2014)

Most of our community is so much obsessed with these kind of issues, people don't give a second on listening these kind of topics because they are not interested at all but it's so important for us to think and take actions for these things.


----------



## Blindspots (Jan 27, 2014)

Would you consider that be a more recreational use of linear thinking, rather than it being the one that you primarily use? (Or vice-versa: a recreational use of connect-the-dots thinking? though I get the impression this is what you use more naturally, when faced with a new problem to solve or an idea to understand. I may still be wrong.) I imagine it's possible that a person with a certain function would consciously consider refining it by exploring other processes, in order to round out their perceptions/judgments. It doesn't have to mean you're not confident with your functions.

Those things about INTJs not wanting to explain themselves may be true when looking at cognitive functions (Ni being able to run through ideas abstractly and neatly within their heads, Te wanting to conserve energy for something more productive), but may manifest differently from person to person when you factor in other conditions such as what they've defined their goals as or the value they place on their idea. I guess you know this by now, though.



> I keep hearing that INTJs like to point out flaws and win arguments. One of the best ways to do this is to be keenly aware of every detail in someone's argument. If they say something that doesn't compute, I'm quick to jump on it. My INTP husband is often lax with his use of details/sepcifics (I don't know if this is supposed to be an INTP thing, but its his thing anyway). He says all the details are in his head where they belong and that he prefers to share only the general gist of his ideas. This leads to a wild assortment of conflicting facts that he uses as filler in order to get to the point. I keep track of all these "facts" along the way and point out every single flaw in his reasoning.


Seeking certain details to form an idea, as we've discussed earlier in the thread, is the more Perceiving part of cognition. 
What I see from the paragraph above is how you act on details (by correcting them, referring to them later to support or refute a stand, etc.), which sounds more like a Judging thing, not something only an INTJ would do. Te would act on details more pertinent to the defined problem and towards a goal such as winning an argument (a more external object), Ti with any detail that seems off to the person's logic (more internal in direction).



> I tell him time and again that if I really have a problem with something he did, I won't be wasting time in discussion. I'll probably be in my room ignoring him and not cooking dinner, lol.


I can relate ) More Te, dealing with what you deem as pertinent.

(Just this for now. Still thinking about the school thing.)


----------



## StunnedFox (Dec 20, 2013)

@Autumn_Fairy -

I don't think "aversion to petty details" is any truer for INTJs than "disregard for the big picture" is true of ISTJs; that is to say, each position potentially points to a natural inclination, but both would likely develop (and, if you buy into notions of type "health", probably ought to develop), for the sake of completeness and of greater understanding, a regard for that which they were less inclined to favour. I'm not sure how your stated competitiveness might play into this - whether your inclination to come to quick conclusions evinces a more INTJ approach to understanding things, or whether it complements an ISTJ inclination to have all the facts first, working in tandem with that... how much do you think this inclination of yours to conclude quickly is grounded in a desire to present yourself a certain way (as competitively successful, or as the best of a group, or simply to present as quick)? I think Chrnos is right in saying that your last added paragraph (about picking up on and addressing contradictions in arguments/discussions) speaks more about judging preferences than perceiving preferences.


----------



## Autumn_Fairy (May 10, 2014)

Thank you @StunnedFox and @Chrnos for taking so much time to help me. I won't be offended if you lose interest or patience at this point.

The more questions you ask, the more I start doubting the answers I've already given. I am finding it difficult to express in words how and why I think as I do. But I will try my best to clear up some things.

*Conceptual thinking ability:* When I think about my motives for wanting to help a fellow math student (back when I had math classes), it's because I can think of several different ways to present the problem such that anyone should be able to understand it. It pains me to listen to really poor explanations for solutions from professors, when I know most of the class is struggling and I believe that I could explain it so much better. If I didn't understand the concept, I wouldn't be able to explain so well. The same thing happened in my language classes. I was able to help a number of students in German class get things that they had been struggling with for multiple semesters. If my first explanation doesn't compute with them, I adjust it as necessary. I try to figure out the way someone thinks in order to tailor my explanation to fit in that framework. I really really enjoy doing this. This is why I am on the path to becoming a professor. I love to explain things to people. My point with all this rambling is that I can conceptualize just fine. As for why I gave up with physics: most likely because I was talking on too much too soon. Of course I couldn't understand tensor analasys in a graduate level astrophysics course for which I was lacking 3 prerequisites (undergrads were allowed into the course when astrophysics became newly available as a major - but the faculty didn't think that one through too well). I took a few other courses sans prerequisite too and had trouble getting concepts. well duh!.. . And here I am now confusing you guys with my waffling descriptions. sorry! :blushed: But it is still the truth that I thought I couldn't do it because I wasn't catching on to things in advanced classes like the genius I wanted to pretend to be, so I assumed I was bad at getting concepts. yeah, I dunno, I have issues 

* I read somewhere just recently that Si isn't so much about photographic memory of concrete data, but more a sensation memory. An Si user can supposedly remember how to do something by remembering the sensation/feeling of how they did it before rather than word-for-word instructions (is this true?). If so, then I am not Si. I also read that concrete memory is independent of personality. What I remember is concrete data, not sensations. I can recreate a recipe because, in my mind, I visualize the recipe sheet and can scan it visually for the literal written instructions. An Si user supposedly gets better at something the more they do it (what I read) and this isn't true for me. I don't need rote practice to get better at something. I commit things to memory the first time around so long I have a clear list of instructions to commit to memory in the first place. 

*Examples of my use of memory (Si or just independent memory ability??):*
I briefly did some undergrad research assistant work with a fancy telescope. I was shown how to set up the telescope for use every night rather than provided with written instructions. I could never remember exactly what to do each time after that. I didn't have a sensation memory of what I did before. After a few nights, I brought a notebook with me, wrote down the instructions and memorized them that way. 

Another example: When studying for tests, I create charts and memory maps. .not necessarily linear in fashion, but whatever way would be easier to visually recall in my memory. I make up my own logical connections between data and represent it the best way i can on paper. Then I study the paper for a short while and can easily recall exactly what was on the paper. If I wanted to, I could recreate the note sheet exactly as it was without having to look at it again. Studying for Latin, I never needed to do practice work and lots of silly decline-several-nouns-and-adjectives busy work. I wrote all the paradigms down and recalled them instantly in my head exactly as they were in my notes during the test. I know many students can slowly and painstakingly recall several paradigms from memory, but they had to go through them in order. They could remember what the dative ending was only if they went through the whole declension list first. I just visualize it and scan to the part I need right away without having to recall superfluous data. So in that way, my thinking isn't so linear.

*Selective interest in details* Ive already noted my interest in details. However, I am only interested in the details that I deem pertinent. I come across as detail-obsessed to my husband because when I ask for a particular piece of data that _he_ deems irrelevant, he defines that as a petty detail. More often than not, when he is telling me something about his day and Im not interested or in the mood for analysis, I tell him to "stop wasting words" or to "get to the point already." I use the phrase "stop wasting words" so frequently that it has pretty much become 'my phrase.' If I have already figured out the big picture or what the point is, I get impatient when people take a long time getting there. I like details when I am in the mood to be a nuisance to someone, but other times I just wish they would be brief and to the point. 

*Recreational linear thinking* It doesn't necessarily have to be linear. but I enjoy the process of seeing small details turn into a big picture. Though, when I think about it, I usually already know the big picture or desire to know it before I begin building it up from scratch. 

The frequent theme of my interest in details for various purposes is what initially made me doubt my INTJ typing. But is my use of the details still within INTJ realm or not? My memorization skills were the second red-flag, but after reading that Si memory isn't quite like my type of memory, I don't know what to make of it. 

Yikes, I've rambled way too much! I think I've exhausted this subject already. I'll continue to identify myself as INTJ for now until someone definitely can say no-way to that type for me.


----------

