# Conflicted. INTJ or INTP.



## Kavik (Apr 3, 2014)

Megakill said:


> The reason why everyone shows up here with the desire to be typed based on stereotypes is because they want to be stereotyped. Most of the time they don't really care about finding out their functions because it doesn't give them immediate answers. I see it pretty often where someone is typed by their functions and suddenly these stereotypes they have been clinging to are of no use and they are right back where they started on the path to self-discovery.
> 
> You need to understand the functions yourself otherwise the type we give you will mean nothing. If everyone on this site decided you were an INTJ based on your cognitive functions it does not mean you can go read a dichotomy description in order to better understand yourself.
> 
> This ultimately begs the question: once you know your type, what can you learn with it?


I'm here because I'm interested in deconstructing myself, not finding a place to fit in. I already know why I do things, the problem is ravines preventing complete connections to complex webs of interconnected islands. I’m looking to build bridges to fill in the holes and understand myself better. For what I plan to do with that information…a better understanding of how I work would be useful when trying to explain ideas to myself rather than going on pure abstraction which has the not quite whole 'missing bridges' feeling that I, on a conscious level, have a hard time grasping. My evil little Muse knows what it’s doing behind the scenes and doesn’t always let me in on the knowhow. It sorts through a universe of ideas in an instant and throws the best cluster of galaxies in my face so I can make the final decision.

When I read the ISTP description for MBTI, I see nothing of myself. From the cognitive standpoint, I still have doubts with the functions. They don't quite fit, though I haven't ruled it out just yet.



Pelopra said:


> could you take this test?
> Self-Monitoring Scale


"Your score (6/25) indicates that you value staying true to yourself and are unwilling to modify your behavior just to get the approval of theirs. You probably do not like to be the center of attention very often." 

I can agree with this to a point. Social settings are games I’d rather not play. I tend to anticipate what someone will say before they say it and make a game of figuring out if I was right or not. ‘True to myself’ only applies if I’m explicitly approached and asked something outside of personal and vague questions of ‘how are you? How are you liking school?’ I’ll tell them what I think and they often scamper away because I go deeper into the subject than what they care to know or discuss. Rarely does anyone want to input their deep thoughts to initiate an actual discussion. They usually jump to skim a new topic, rinse and repeat, and I find it highly annoying. I often wear a mask and tell people what they want to hear from a mental list of preset responses I've created to avoid perpetuating stupid, tired out questions.

If no one engages me I often sit in a corner thinking, ‘I’m surrounded by idiots. What planet am I on?' There's always an invisible barrier I'm looking through, then I promptly get lost in some thought. I’m pretty good at tuning out noisy surroundings which is how I typically survive social gatherings. On the flip side, when I am paying attention, I hear everything. No conversation goes unnoticed. Total quiet is particularly distracting when I hear every little scratch, buzzing electronic, ticking clock, and pin drop.


----------



## Pelopra (May 21, 2013)

thus far, low test results have correlated well with Fi.
that means even intps, with inferior fe, have scored noticeably higher than "6".
thus, assuming the correlation holds true, you're more likely an intj.


----------



## Kathy Kane (Dec 3, 2013)

I've read your answers and the posts in this thread and I say ISTJ. I see Ne in some of your responses, but not so prominently to say it's a top function. Your avatar struck me as Si right away (not that such a thing is accurate, but I wanted to give my impression.) Your responses about stress and frustration points me to Si/Ne. Your response to criticism pointed to low level Fi.


----------



## Kavik (Apr 3, 2014)

Kathy Kane said:


> I've read your answers and the posts in this thread and I say ISTJ. I see Ne in some of your responses, but not so prominently to say it's a top function. Your avatar struck me as Si right away (not that such a thing is accurate, but I wanted to give my impression.) Your responses about stress and frustration points me to Si/Ne. Your response to criticism pointed to low level Fi.


I've always identified with the N function and not so much the S. I'm wondering what criteria some of you are using to point toward the function.

1) I hate repetition 
2) prefer short, straightforwardness. I often bluntly tell people to get to the point. 
3) rules are not concrete 
4) always thinking about 'what could be'
5) not present minded
6) independence
7) High standards 
8) Like ideas and concepts

A function I'm almost certain about is Fi, though I'm not sure what level it's at for the cognition totem pole. My emotions are highly detached from those around me. I can see news of a disaster or crises and feel nothing while others show obvious disgust and rant about 'how could you'! and get mad at those who don't sympathize. I'll see what led to the disaster, how it could be kept from happening again, then think 'yeah, that sucked for those involved and it happened, you can't change that'. I only feel emotion to things I'm strongly attached to.

The earlier comment of 'trying to understand other's emotions' part that might have led to a Fe conclusion was directed at fictional characters. In real life I won't touch another person's emotions with a ten foot pole. Fiction is safe for exploration. No matter what I think, it's right because its my inner world and I'm free to explore within it. I was a very oblivious person as a kid which caused a lot of problems for me and made me seem severely insensitive.

My avatar is irony. It's the symbol Barricade from transformers has plastered on his paint job. He's a decepticon disguised as a self authoritative cop car because he thinks it's humorous to give off a false sense of security before striking. And I just like robots.


----------



## Kathy Kane (Dec 3, 2013)

Kavik said:


> I've always identified with the N function and not so much the S. I'm wondering what criteria some of you are using to point toward the function.


There are different systems to go by for typing. In order to find which type you are we are determining your cognitive functions. The functions* do* things verses act like things. The original idea about types comes from Jung, and then other people developed their systems from his ideas, like Myers-Briggs. You are looking to the generic behaviors associated with types. However, those are so generic they can apply to anyone at different points in their lives. So in order to help people type correctly we look to what they functions do instead of looking at how they act.

My next responses are in bold.

1) I hate repetition *Not all repetition is the same. Si builds sensory data to ensure information is correct. They are more than willing to try new things as long as it serves a purpose.*
2) prefer short, straightforwardness. I often bluntly tell people to get to the point. *Si absolutely wants people to get to the point. They do not talk in round about way and sure don't want other people to do that. *
3) rules are not concrete *This is related to the judging functions either T or F. Are you saying that rules are abstract? Or are you saying rules are guidelines but not strictly followed?*
4) always thinking about 'what could be' *I would place that with Ne, which goes with Si.*
5) not present minded *Generally Si is seen as past minded, though that is not even a good description since everyone will think about their past. It's more about reflecting on the perceived data they have collected over the years to know if the new data is correct. *
6) independence *I'm not sure what you mean by this. Independence from what? This is more likely a T aspect as well. If you are an INTJ then you would have the same T function as ISTJ and have that in common. *
7) High standards *Again, I'm not sure what you mean here. Si could just as easily have high standards.*
8) Like ideas and concepts *Everyone likes ideas and concepts.*



> A function I'm almost certain about is Fi, though I'm not sure what level it's at for the cognition totem pole. My emotions are highly detached from those around me. I can see news of a disaster or crises and feel nothing while others show obvious disgust and rant about 'how could you'! and get mad at those who don't sympathize. I'll see what led to the disaster, how it could be kept from happening again, then think 'yeah, that sucked for those involved and it happened, you can't change that'. I only feel emotion to things I'm strongly attached to.


This is more likely that your T function is higher than your F function. Fi can be emotionally effected by tragic events. It's about how you would feel in that situation and it could easily cause emotional outbursts. 



> The earlier comment of 'trying to understand other's emotions' part that might have led to a Fe conclusion was directed at fictional characters. In real life I won't touch another person's emotions with a ten foot pole. Fiction is safe for exploration. No matter what I think, it's right because its my inner world and I'm free to explore within it. I was a very oblivious person as a kid which caused a lot of problems for me and made me seem severely insensitive.


I don't think you have Fe, so I wouldn't argue with you about it.



> My avatar is irony. It's the symbol Barricade from transformers has plastered on his paint job. He's a decepticon disguised as a self authoritative cop car because he thinks it's humorous to give off a false sense of security before striking. And I just like robots.


Like I said, it's the impression I got from the picture. Si could just as easily enjoy robots, especially since they are more tangible than intangible.


----------



## Psychopomp (Oct 3, 2012)

Kavik said:


> I've always identified with the N function and not so much the S. I'm wondering what criteria some of you are using to point toward the function.
> 
> 1) I hate repetition
> 2) prefer short, straightforwardness. I often bluntly tell people to get to the point.
> ...


Sticking with ISTP. 

1) Hating repetition is Pe, and lots of types hate repetition. Even SJs may, but it does indicate Pe more.
2) Straightforwardness is oriented to Te/Fi, but it depends on what you mean. As a Ti-dom, I also value what I think of as straightforwardness. Se types are also often seen as more terse. I find Se types, and ISTPs in particular inclined to 'get to the point'.
3) Fluidity of 'rules' is Pe. Jung mentions it fairly directly in Se description, and it is also fairly implied in Ne. Te tends to look for external consistency, which often takes the form of rules, and Si perceives in a static fashion that tends to lend itself to rules. It really depends, though. The devil is in the details.
4) 'What could be' can be a lot of things. Seriously. ISTP is high on the list of people who tend to see 'what could be'. ISTJ obviously on the lower end. It just depends. I don't find INTJ necessarily high on that list, because they tend not to be so 'willy nilly', 'pie in the sky', to use some folksy phrases that come to mind. They are often visionary, but it has a different tone.... your tone implies a stronger Pe. Yes, Se absolutely deals in 'what could be', but in an ISTP, I'd see this as more oriented to Ti and Fe. ('if you think about it, in a few years there could totally be hover cars. That would be awesome') <--- that is Ti and Fe.
5) An ISTP with an 'undifferentiated Se' would not be present minded.... even some Se doms don't see themselves as present minded, but ISTPs are often quite actually not. In that case, it would be that the ISTP is primarily an consciously a Ti .... and Se is 'undifferentiated' from Ni... and thus both hold relatively equal sway in unconscious cognition. That is straight from Jung.
6) Independence is typically a buzzword of Ti-dom, where Fi types more often say 'freedom'. Ti doms tend to value this.. and often have Utilitarian philosophies - if only in tone. Utilitarianism itself is almost an analogy of Ti/Fe. It also might help reframe stereotypes about Fe... since Fe is nothing more or less than absolute objectivity in valuation processes.... an objectivity you seem to show. That doesn't mean you won't value certain things more than others, due to your connection with them... but more how you tend to process at any given moment. Logic very abstract, valuation very objective.
7) High standards for what?
8) Everyone does.

I am interested in arguments for ISTJ, but I still think ISTP is it. Ni-dom is pretty much off the table for me, you seem to be approaching primarily from a logical point of view than a 'conveyance of mere images', or just seeing what you see without wrapping it up in rational processes. 

@Pelopra ... I did that thing and got a 10. I agree a lot of it would correlate to Fi vs Fe, though not all. I think it is a good test in that regard, but there is so much going against INTJ here that I wouldn't have ridden it to such a conclusion (though I am sure you were just operating within the dichotomy).


----------



## bgoodforgoodsake (Feb 5, 2014)

Can you answer the following questions to help in the typing process?

A chart is shown to you with no key. There are three colors being used red green and yellow, but they don't seem to be indicating the usual thing, but are being used because they are bright colors that stand out. Does this bother you?

Tell me something you have argued for but others have disagreed with.

You have to present a complex topic, how do you prefer to present it?


----------



## ducky7 (Jan 16, 2013)

I do not think you are an ISTP. They tend to be physically active, mechanically-oriented people and I think you would recognize that in yourself. ISTP's "see what could be" but in a very concrete sense; like, what could physically be. It sounds like your thinking is more abstract than that. I don't see true xSTP types getting much joy out of engaging about an abstract concept like personality on a message board, either, but that's a minor point.

Looking at the whole picture, you sound more INTJ to me than INTP. I'm basing this on a holistic, intuitive impression, but I've known a few INTJs and what you say just resonates with what I know them to be like. Other people seem to be picking at the vagueness of what you said (Thinkers, jeez), but looking beyond that it seems fairly clear.

A few justifications: You mention you are often lost in thought about the future and imagining different possibilities; you mention looking for solutions; you also say it takes effort to externalize your internal thoughts/ideas - all characteristic of Ni. Your lack of interest in social pleasantries sounds characteristically INTJ as well - "let me find the correct canned response off this list" is definitely more like INTJ's Fi than INTP's Fe... INTPs are generally more spontaneous with people.

And yes, everyone likes concepts and ideas to some extent, but it sounds like you delight in playing with ideas, which is characteristically INTJ.


----------



## Kavik (Apr 3, 2014)

2) I do mean getting to the point and not trying to lead my hand through something or try to jerk around with my feelings with words because that approach will go nowhere when I’m involved. Step by step instructions with garbage that can be thrown out is an irritant. For instance, I’m not likely to sit down and read the manual, instead skimming to gather the most useful and vital information. The rest usually comes as obvious.



Kathy Kane said:


> 3) rules are not concrete *This is related to the judging functions either T or F. Are you saying that rules are abstract? Or are you saying rules are guidelines but not strictly followed?*


3) This one’s tough and I’m having a hard time articulating… Rules work under certain situations and are necessary but can’t be relied on because they will always be subjective. So perhaps pliable guidelines in the form of putty that can be stretched, pulled apart, and rearranged at any time. They are tools.



arkigos said:


> 4) 'What could be' can be a lot of things. Seriously. ISTP is high on the list of people who tend to see 'what could be'. ISTJ obviously on the lower end. It just depends. I don't find INTJ necessarily high on that list, because they tend not to be so 'willy nilly', 'pie in the sky', to use some folksy phrases that come to mind. They are often visionary, but it has a different tone.... your tone implies a stronger Pe. Yes, Se absolutely deals in 'what could be', but in an ISTP, I'd see this as more oriented to Ti and Fe. ('if you think about it, in a few years there could totally be hover cars. That would be awesome') <--- that is Ti and Fe.


4) You make it sound like I romanticize ideas of the future, which I suppose I do to an extent. I see practicalities of what is actually possible and what I would like to be true and often mentally slap my romantic part for creating unrealistic expectations. 



arkigos said:


> 5) An ISTP with an 'undifferentiated Se' would not be present minded.... even some Se doms don't see themselves as present minded, but ISTPs are often quite actually not. In that case, it would be that the ISTP is primarily an consciously a Ti .... and Se is 'undifferentiated' from Ni... and thus both hold relatively equal sway in unconscious cognition. That is straight from Jung.


5) The in the moment sensing part and Fe is what has me hung up on questioning ISTP. Going from the Se definition, I do sense the environment and enjoy certain physical and audible textures over others. When paired with my frequent and powerful bouts of ‘daydreaming’/lost in internal dialogues and movies, coming back to reality is a bleeding out where my mind comes back down with just enough immediate awareness to check on the physical world, tapping on the glass before returning to focus on other things.

Perhaps I am physically in the moment, mentally in the future - never quite all there or in synch with the mind/body. They are nearly separate entities tethered by an elastic thread that my body often snaps back when it senses something different in the environment to alert my mind. An outsider looking in on the world from behind glass and layered barriers is very much how I see my surroundings. 



Kathy Kane said:


> 6) independence I'm not sure what you mean by this. Independence from what? This is more likely a T aspect as well. If you are an INTJ then you would have the same T function as ISTJ and have that in common.


6) When I say independence I mean a distaste for any form of control over my person or available paths. The only times I’m tested on this is when dealing with my dad. He has to know where I am, what I’m doing, and what I’m thinking at every second. It drives me up the wall and is the source of most of our fights in which I, gradually in order, tell him no, grow quiet and shut down, then leave the room. When pursued after leaving, I snap. 

I know he means well but I don’t know how he can’t understand that I don’t care a lick for traditions and that everything can kill you, you don’t have to start listing them. I will tell him why I’m annoyed with his pushy ‘must know so I can lay down the rules’ behavior and he’s stated outright he doesn’t understand why I don’t listen and push him away with anger (which is in actuality frustration).

7) High standards for myself and goes with the feeling sick and depressed from repeated failure. I want to hold others in high standard but they’ve failed expectation so much that I’ve come to expect failure unless proven otherwise.

8) Yes, stupid point. I was trying to say I liked exercising abstraction and theories even if I don’t at first understand them. I was one of the nerds who used to watch Carl Sagan and the discovery channel in elementary. 



bgoodforgoodsake said:


> A chart is shown to you with no key. There are three colors being used red green and yellow, but they don't seem to be indicating the usual thing, but are being used because they are bright colors that stand out. Does this bother you?


No, it doesn’t bother me. My first thought was of a color blind guy I know who uses neon colors so he can see the maps he draws. Mentally, the colors could represent something to the creator who holds an internal key which has no use or meaning to anyone but themselves. I tend to do this quite a lot.



bgoodforgoodsake said:


> Tell me something you have argued for but others have disagreed with.



I often have opinions that overlap into a gray area where most others want to see black and white, or that could be my tendency to see all angles converging and seeming gray. I perceive the claim technology is dehumanizing as stupid where as another person whined about loss of jobs and an increased heartlessness. As technology takes over old, monotonous, time extensive tasks, humans move on to more productive areas created by that technology. Engineers are needed to create the tech, mechanics to maintain it, pilots to use them. Computers are fast, precise, and stupid. Humans are slow, estimative, and smart. They are a marriage, not a divide of either humanization or dehumanization.



bgoodforgoodsake said:


> You have to present a complex topic, how do you prefer to present it?


Bullet points of text and metaphorical explanations. I would prefer to type up an explanation so I have time to sort my thoughts and outline the idea in the clearest way possible. If there is no rush and I’m personally fascinated with the topic, I may project and play with the idea in fiction.


----------



## bgoodforgoodsake (Feb 5, 2014)

I type you as an ENTJ and possible INTJ I will follow up with analysis later.


----------



## Psychopomp (Oct 3, 2012)

Kavik said:


> 3) This one’s tough and I’m having a hard time articulating… Rules work under certain situations and are necessary but can’t be relied on because they will always be subjective. So perhaps pliable guidelines in the form of putty that can be stretched, pulled apart, and rearranged at any time. They are tools.


Logical abstraction. 



Kavik said:


> 4) You make it sound like I romanticize ideas of the future, which I suppose I do to an extent. I see practicalities of what is actually possible and what I would like to be true and often mentally slap my romantic part for creating unrealistic expectations.


A fairly literal interpretation of what I meant... and you've hit the core of it here. 'actually possible' is a key word. See, people like to make descriptions of Se as being 'present' 'taking in with the 5 senses', 'into sports', 'total awareness', etc, etc, etc... but that isn't actually what Jung said... nor what I think it true. Jung said that Se DOMINANTs, so this is dominants, not auxiliaries... so, not subverted into unconsciousness as it would be with many ISTPs. Conscious primary Se types have the following traits:

1) Realism
2) Sense for objective facts
3) Eagerness for the 'new'
4) Would not consider themselves 'subject' to sensation
5) Seek fulness of actual living
6) Finds Ideal in the Actual
7) Focus on the 'finer things' and 'good taste' - not the sensual or gross
8) Sees no ideal in fantasies or imaginations that are of a hostile attitude toward the reality of things, and facts.

Now, in an auxiliary position, especially an undifferentiated one, this would be suppressed or even greatly suppressed into the unconscious... putting it on a relatively level with Ni. The real clincher to determine this, then is determining whether you are, primarily, consciously, a Rational type. I think you will find this is true, and if so, I think you will find it is Ti. Then, you can determine if Se/Ni lie relatively undifferentiated in the unconscious, and Fe deeply so... or if Ne/Si lie relatively undifferentiated... and Fe deeply so. 

If you feel you are Fi, I'd suggest you attempt to prove it on it's own merit, rather than 'not Fe'.. if you know what I mean. Lack of extraverted feeling does not amount to Fi... nor does tightly held feelings (which are nevertheless oriented objectively) mean Fi. You see what I mean?

I sense you will pull this strongly to the actualities of the situation, and the concrete sensations involved.... heavily lorded over by abstract logic that you might mistake for intuition. I can't be sure, of course. 



Kavik said:


> 5) The in the moment sensing part and Fe is what has me hung up on questioning ISTP. Going from the Se definition, I do sense the environment and enjoy certain physical and audible textures over others. When paired with my frequent and powerful bouts of ‘daydreaming’/lost in internal dialogues and movies, coming back to reality is a bleeding out where my mind comes back down with just enough immediate awareness to check on the physical world, tapping on the glass before returning to focus on other things.


What are the focus of those daydreams? We think they aren't reality because they are done in a sandbox in the mind... but why can't Se imagine? You think that if you asked an Se dom to play out a conversation in their head that they couldn't do it? We imagine that Se types don't daydream, but why not? The content of that daydream is what matters. No one said anything at all about N being oriented to daydream and S not. It's a weird association that we sort of naturally make, but is specious. 



Kavik said:


> Perhaps I am physically in the moment, mentally in the future - never quite all there or in synch with the mind/body. They are nearly separate entities tethered by an elastic thread that my body often snaps back when it senses something different in the environment to alert my mind. An outsider looking in on the world from behind glass and layered barriers is very much how I see my surroundings.


Feeling disconnected and out of body indicates an introverted dominant function. If it is primarily 'thinking', then it is Ti. Ti is very abstract, very removed, often as not. Ti-doms, ISTP included, very much 'live in their head'. 

These metaphors of yours are very rich. They seem to support the idea in my mind that you are primarily a thinker, and that you have Se and Ni relatively undifferentiated in the unconscious. I suspect, still, however, that you'll need something more concrete. 



Kavik said:


> 6) When I say independence I mean a distaste for any form of control over my person or available paths. The only times I’m tested on this is when dealing with my dad. He has to know where I am, what I’m doing, and what I’m thinking at every second. It drives me up the wall and is the source of most of our fights in which I, gradually in order, tell him no, grow quiet and shut down, then leave the room. When pursued after leaving, I snap.
> 
> I know he means well but I don’t know how he can’t understand that I don’t care a lick for traditions and that everything can kill you, you don’t have to start listing them. I will tell him why I’m annoyed with his pushy ‘must know so I can lay down the rules’ behavior and he’s stated outright he doesn’t understand why I don’t listen and push him away with anger (which is in actuality frustration).


Er, this could apply to a lot of types. Feels high T low F. Depends. I don't know why people go on about traditions. SOME Si types are uppity about traditions. I think NFPs tend to be quite weird about traditions, in their way... though I doubt they'd push it on others. 

I hear this 'they see it as anger but it's frustration' thing a lot with lower Fe types.. but that is just anecdote. Not a real thing in typology necessarily. I think that it is because we always feel logical, but our behaviour is 'bigger' and more intense than we realize or feel synced up to. So, they say 'why are you so angry!?' and we slam our fist and say 'I AM NOT ANGRY! .. I am... just frustrated.' As if to say, 'this is all perfectly logical, and all this explosiveness is not a conscious thing'... that is actually quite true.... it is influx from a completely unconscious Fe. I don't know if that is the case with you, but I thought it might be interesting to note. 



Kavik said:


> 7) High standards for myself and goes with the feeling sick and depressed from repeated failure. I want to hold others in high standard but they’ve failed expectation so much that I’ve come to expect failure unless proven otherwise.


This is again indicative of low order Fe, though perhaps not exclusively. The reason is that Fe is objective, and externalized... it sees 'failure', which is a value judgment, as an external and objective thing. Very focused on the object... on manifest things. The reason why it is so neurotic and seemingly something that 'happens' to us... is that it is deeply unconscious. We are able to logically engage every aspect of it, quite consciously... we can THINK about it endlessly... but the Fe aspect is 'roiling in the deep'. 



Kavik said:


> 8) Yes, stupid point. I was trying to say I liked exercising abstraction and theories even if I don’t at first understand them. I was one of the nerds who used to watch Carl Sagan and the discovery channel in elementary.


I suspect this is primarily Thinking... abstract thinking, as well... liking to 'work things out' in the head. 



Kavik said:


> No, it doesn’t bother me. My first thought was of a color blind guy I know who uses neon colors so he can see the maps he draws. Mentally, the colors could represent something to the creator who holds an internal key which has no use or meaning to anyone but themselves. I tend to do this quite a lot.


Feels Ni. 



Kavik said:


> I often have opinions that overlap into a gray area where most others want to see black and white, or that could be my tendency to see all angles converging and seeming gray. I perceive the claim technology is dehumanizing as stupid where as another person whined about loss of jobs and an increased heartlessness. As technology takes over old, monotonous, time extensive tasks, humans move on to more productive areas created by that technology. Engineers are needed to create the tech, mechanics to maintain it, pilots to use them. Computers are fast, precise, and stupid. Humans are slow, estimative, and smart. They are a marriage, not a divide of either humanization or dehumanization.


Ti - which is abstraction, subjectivity, and nuance in logic. 



Kavik said:


> Bullet points of text and metaphorical explanations. I would prefer to type up an explanation so I have time to sort my thoughts and outline the idea in the clearest way possible. If there is no rush and I’m personally fascinated with the topic, I may project and play with the idea in fiction.


Ti dom with a fairly strong (but I strongly doubt stronger than Ti) intuition that feels distinctly Ni and not at all Ne. I think your extraverted perception is definitely Se. 


--------

Sticking with ISTP.

EDIT: Clarification. You would be, in a purely Jung model, a Ti Ni Se Fe (at least as you see yourself)... and in the more modern model that varies from Jung, a Ti>Se/Ni>Fe ... or an ISTP. Most tests working from this model (which many if not most do) would see you as a Ti Ni .. and thus either place you as an INTP or an INTJ, due to you confusing their algorithms and sorting mechanism.

From a MBTI perspective, or dichotomies, you'd be quite confusing.

If you want, take a Cognitive Functions test, like this one. I bet you it puts you as INTP or INTJ, and ranks your Ti and Ni highly. I am suddenly curious. If I am wrong, well, that is interesting as well.


----------



## bgoodforgoodsake (Feb 5, 2014)

@arkigos very convincing.
So you see Aux Se vs Tert Se which isn't much of a difference really. But we disagree on Te and Ti...
Interesting


----------



## Valtire (Jan 1, 2014)

arkigos said:


> Kavik said:
> 
> 
> > This one’s tough and I’m having a hard time articulating… Rules work under certain situations and are necessary but can’t be relied on because they will always be subjective. So perhaps pliable guidelines in the form of putty that can be stretched, pulled apart, and rearranged at any time. They are tools.
> ...


 @Kavik has been showing a heck of a lot of Ti throughout this topic, and this particular example is very clear-cut.

I definitely agree with ISTP.


----------



## bgoodforgoodsake (Feb 5, 2014)

You are an ENTJ. An impatiant an immature one. Not in a bad way, you just need to mature. An INTJ spends more time in thier inner world (Ni), they peice it together beter and have a better understanding of it. You need to understand that it is highly subjective and that people aren't connecting the dots the same way as you are. You are having trouble communicating your insights, they are flashes you switch from Ni to Se a lot. Spend more time trying to think of better ways to communicate your insights, you need to build patience. Because you expect people to connect the dots the same way as you, you devalue those around you. You get mad when people want you to show your work, when it is clear to you, that you have the solution. Try drawing out ven diagrams, working on more metaphores, decision trees, charts bullet points whatever it takes to help you communicate. And try to understand that intelligence is not just Ni.

Also your overactive Te makes it sound to others like you have reached your conclusion and are not open to debate. I know from experience that this is the opposite of the truth. You are open to more facts which would disprove your position. Be aware of your tone, becuse the finality of it makes it seem you are closed minded, and this causes people to leave, when the fact is you can only respect people who challenge your views. I bet you thrive on debates.

You also have to realize that you need people. You're Te is not effective in a vacuum. I can see why repeated perceived failures can lead you to withdraw. That's your Fi. Get out in the world try a team sport or Call of Duty online or something. Build up your strengths, amass more knowledge and work on your communication, and you can be a more effective individual and leader.

"I tossed the paper thinking the result only half described me and found the career section (the whole reason I took the test) useless." Te Ni

"I’m often aware of emotions and intentions but can’t empathize." Se

"I only really feel good when I finish something to the best it can be and leave room for interpretation and discussion." Te dominence

"Receiving reviews on something I put a lot of effort into writing. I suppose it was the recognition and realization people liked something I produced and how they wanted to know more or perpetuate the idea that was rewarding to me." Te Goals and Results oriented.

When I fail at something I’ve been working toward, even if it’s small. It’s like digesting acid and circulating poison through my cerebrum. I would even hazard to say I get doses of undiagnosed depression from repeated failure." Te Ni

"Later recognizing something that should have been obvious and corrected then but now leaves more work or incompleteness." Ni Te

"I prioritize and optimize. I don’t really feel about it other than recognizing this person will probably get pissed or feel put out but it’s a fact, not a factor." Te Ni

"Usually, I end up reminding people of tasks and it’s hard to not take the reins while simultaneously not wanting to be the leader. I often walk a thin line between group lead and ‘advisor’." Te

"Floating in an inner tube in a water park’s lazy river while ironing out story ideas with my best friend (mine and hers)." Te Se

"I’m internally organized and have my own order in chaos no one seems to understand unless I carefully plan it out on paper. I have a hard time putting my ideas and thoughts into words and need time to do so." Over dependence on Ni over Te

"I think of the long reaching consequence if the idea continues on its projected path, and instantaneously see how it can be viewed from different angles in many ‘what if’ scenarios to change the path." Ni

"Harmony is found in making sure no one is being stupid to the point of interference. Consolidating all concepts to find the best mix." Te Average of ideas

"Strongly, actions over words." Te

"If it’s an acquaintance, hell no, I’ll watch my show. If it’s my best friend, yell yes I’m going." Te Fi

"Controlling, clingy, needy, lemmings." Te and immaturity

"Debating in depth on topics I’ve researched or have a strong opinion about. I can appreciate listening to things people are passionate about." Te

"In fact, in my horror film class today we were talking about females in the genre and I asked why girls are always projected as these over emotional things - I had an answer already and wanted to see what the professor or someone else thought since it's a discussion based class." Te Ni

"They probably all think I'm an unemotional psycho now. Yay." Se Ni

"I find the films that explain the why but not the how unfulfilling and forgetful. This one film had a very compelling psychological aspect but then it turned the psychological into physical manifestations with no explanation of how it happened and the whole thing lost me because of it. In this way, I do strongly tend to want things to make sense or they lose value and interest." Te but you need to work on communicating, not everyone is on your wavelength.

"I read up on ISTP and it sounds interesting except a few things..." Te Dependence on perceived empirical data.

" 1) Seeing only one correct answer. - I see multiple correct answers." You are refuting based on observations.

"I hate people intruding on my personal space with a passion." Overactive Te need to control external world, but direct control is a sign of immaturity.

"Then what, pray tell, are you basing your assumption on? MBTI is all about type description of functions and deriving an estimated idea of a type from set standards that fit into a description. Instead of backing out childishly when I don't agree with your assessment why don't you try to support your claim?" Te

"I am not saying I can't be typed on X because of description Y, I am merely going off of what I know of the MBTI. If there is another way to approach the system, I'm all ears." Te - Open to new facts, watch your tone.

"I'm here because I'm interested in deconstructing myself, not finding a place to fit in. I already know why I do things, the problem is ravines preventing complete connections to complex webs of interconnected islands. I’m looking to build bridges to fill in the holes and understand myself better. For what I plan to do with that information…a better understanding of how I work would be useful when trying to explain ideas to myself rather than going on pure abstraction which has the not quite whole 'missing bridges' feeling that I, on a conscious level, have a hard time grasping. My evil little Muse knows what it’s doing behind the scenes and doesn’t always let me in on the knowhow. It sorts through a universe of ideas in an instant and throws the best cluster of galaxies in my face so I can make the final decision." Ni Te, again your Ni is subjective and you are not doing a good enough job showing how you are connecting your dots.

"I tend to anticipate what someone will say before they say it and make a game of figuring out if I was right or not." Ni

"‘True to myself’ only applies if I’m explicitly approached and asked something outside of personal and vague questions of ‘how are you? How are you liking school?’ I’ll tell them what I think and they often scamper away because I go deeper into the subject than what they care to know or discuss." Te Ni

"Rarely does anyone want to input their deep thoughts to initiate an actual discussion. They usually jump to skim a new topic, rinse and repeat, and I find it highly annoying. I often wear a mask and tell people what they want to hear from a mental list of preset responses I've created to avoid perpetuating stupid, tired out questions." Te Ni change your tone, attitude, and do a better job at communicating your ideas.

"I'll see what led to the disaster, how it could be kept from happening again, then think 'yeah, that sucked for those involved and it happened, you can't change that'. I only feel emotion to things I'm strongly attached to." Inferior Fi

"I was a very oblivious person as a kid which caused a lot of problems for me and made me seem severely insensitive." Inferior Fi

"My avatar is irony. It's the symbol Barricade from transformers has plastered on his paint job. He's a decepticon disguised as a self authoritative cop car because he thinks it's humorous to give off a false sense of security before striking. And I just like robots." Ni Te

"Step by step instructions with garbage that can be thrown out is an irritant. For instance, I’m not likely to sit down and read the manual, instead skimming to gather the most useful and vital information. The rest usually comes as obvious." Ni

"This one’s tough and I’m having a hard time articulating… Rules work under certain situations and are necessary but can’t be relied on because they will always be subjective. So perhaps pliable guidelines in the form of putty that can be stretched, pulled apart, and rearranged at any time. They are tools." Te Ni

"I see practicalities of what is actually possible and what I would like to be true and often mentally slap my romantic part for creating unrealistic expectations." Ni Te

"Perhaps I am physically in the moment, mentally in the future - never quite all there or in synch with the mind/body. They are nearly separate entities tethered by an elastic thread that my body often snaps back when it senses something different in the environment to alert my mind. An outsider looking in on the world from behind glass and layered barriers is very much how I see my surroundings." Ni

"I know he means well but I don’t know how he can’t understand that I don’t care a lick for traditions and that everything can kill you, you don’t have to start listing them. I will tell him why I’m annoyed with his pushy ‘must know so I can lay down the rules’ behavior and he’s stated outright he doesn’t understand why I don’t listen and push him away with anger (which is in actuality frustration)." Your father has Si as either Aux or Dom. There is wisdom there don't dismiss it. Also you need to learn to turn off your Te, you don't have to correct or refute everything in your path. Work on your Fi. It's ok to judge on your feelings, and here you are stepping on his domain, of being a parent.

"No, it doesn’t bother me. My first thought was of a color blind guy I know who uses neon colors so he can see the maps he draws. Mentally, the colors could represent something to the creator who holds an internal key which has no use or meaning to anyone but themselves. I tend to do this quite a lot." Te - some recognition that your Ni is subjective.

"I often have opinions that overlap into a gray area where most others want to see black and white, or that could be my tendency to see all angles converging and seeming gray." Ni

"I perceive the claim technology is dehumanizing as stupid where as another person whined about loss of jobs and an increased heartlessness. As technology takes over old, monotonous, time extensive tasks, humans move on to more productive areas created by that technology. Engineers are needed to create the tech, mechanics to maintain it, pilots to use them. Computers are fast, precise, and stupid. Humans are slow, estimative, and smart. They are a marriage, not a divide of either humanization or dehumanization." Te over Ni

"Bullet points of text and metaphorical explanations. I would prefer to type up an explanation so I have time to sort my thoughts and outline the idea in the clearest way possible." Te

"On the flip side, when I am paying attention, I hear everything. No conversation goes unnoticed. Total quiet is particularly distracting when I hear every little scratch, buzzing electronic, ticking clock, and pin drop." Se


----------



## Kathy Kane (Dec 3, 2013)

bgoodforgoodsake said:


> You are an ENTJ.


I just want to say that extraverts have a strong focus on other people. Usually, extraverts will include other people in many of their answers. The OP is very much "subject" focused and doesn't show indications of being an extravert. That's my take.


----------



## bgoodforgoodsake (Feb 5, 2014)

Te is extroversion on things, a strong Te can even view people as just another thing to move, corral, control, etc.


----------



## Kavik (Apr 3, 2014)

arkigos said:


> What are the focus of those daydreams? We think they aren't reality because they are done in a sandbox in the mind... but why can't Se imagine? You think that if you asked an Se dom to play out a conversation in their head that they couldn't do it? We imagine that Se types don't daydream, but why not? The content of that daydream is what matters. No one said anything at all about N being oriented to daydream and S not. It's a weird association that we sort of naturally make, but is specious.


I think it’s safe to say everyone daydreams. For me, 90% is fictional worlds (sci-fi, fantasy) and situations I fabricate within them. The other 10% is ticking off mental checklists of what needs to be done in reality and arranging them by priority. 



arkigos said:


> I hear this 'they see it as anger but it's frustration' thing a lot with lower Fe types.. but that is just anecdote. Not a real thing in typology necessarily. I think that it is because we always feel logical, but our behaviour is 'bigger' and more intense than we realize or feel synced up to. So, they say 'why are you so angry!?' and we slam our fist and say 'I AM NOT ANGRY! .. I am... just frustrated.' As if to say, 'this is all perfectly logical, and all this explosiveness is not a conscious thing'... that is actually quite true.... it is influx from a completely unconscious Fe. I don't know if that is the case with you, but I thought it might be interesting to note.


Interesting yes, agreeable, I’m not entirely certain. I do take perceived attacks on my emotional control very poorly but I don’t go bonkers off the walls or hulk smash cars. Being snippy, defensive, and ‘foot down’ is my usual reaction. When I know for sure I’m being personally attack from someone I will have to deal with again, I get angry and will be out for blood. I do believe the frustration is genuine and not bursts of uncontrolled emotion. I know when I’m angry. 

Te (Extroverted Thinking) (80%) 
your valuation of / adherence to logic of external systems / hierarchies / methods
Ti (Introverted Thinking) (95%) 
your valuation of / adherence to your own internally devised logic/rational
Ne (Extroverted Intuition) (65%) 
your valuation of / tendency towards free association and creating with external stimuli
Ni (Introverted Intuition) (90%) 
your valuation of / tendency towards internal/original free association and creativity
Se (Extroverted Sensing) (0%) 
your valuation of / tendency to fully experience the world unfiltered, in the moment
Si (Introverted Sensing) (30%) 
your valuation of / focus on internal sensations and reliving past moments
Fe (Extroverted Feeling) (0%) 
your valuation of / adherence to external morals, ethics, traditions, customs, groups
Fi (Introverted Feeling) (95%) 
your valuation of / adherence to the sanctity of your own feelings / ideals / sentiment
//////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////
based on your results your type is likely - unclear

Genius, now I’m divergent. What purpose does the question for ‘indie rock’ serve? Abstraction? 

I’ve probably been chuckling at this for five minutes. I’m not sure how entirely accurate the results are now that I’m becoming more aware of what I’m looking for and getting a better feel of how I perceive things. The 0% Se/Fe is a red flag for possible bias since I’ve been arguing I’m the least connected to them. Though, I’m pretty surprised on how high Te scored.



bgoodforgoodsake said:


> You are an ENTJ. An impatient an immature one. Not in a bad way, you just need to mature. An INTJ spends more time in their inner world (Ni), they piece it together beter and have a better understanding of it. You need to understand that it is highly subjective and that people aren't connecting the dots the same way as you are. You are having trouble communicating your insights, they are flashes you switch from Ni to Se a lot.


I admit, you’ve intrigued me with the ENTJ analysis. I can relate to quite a bit of your points. 



bgoodforgoodsake said:


> Te is extroversion on things, a strong Te can even view people as just another thing to move, corral, control, etc.


Is it possible to be an extravert with introvert tendencies, or is extrovert completely different from extravert in the socializing sense? Social gatherings and crowded spaces are unquestionably draining. I’ll enjoy them in spurts until I literally hit a wall where I start shutting down and withdraw. The Stimulation passes the red line and I need to find a place to disappear or I being around me is no longer a fun experience. When I’m alone, I can keep going and going like an energizer bunny and won’t stop until my eyes are un-focused from lack of sleep. 


bgoodforgoodsake said:


> Also your overactive Te makes it sound to others like you have reached your conclusion and are not open to debate. I know from experience that this is the opposite of the truth. You are open to more facts which would disprove your position. Be aware of your tone, because the finality of it makes it seem you are closed minded, and this causes people to leave, when the fact is you can only respect people who challenge your views. I bet you thrive on debates.


On the social end I do I get a rush of adrenaline and sort of high when arguing with someone who responds with strong counter arguments and I’m disappointed if they meekly back out. On working film, I’ve had to be almost literally dragged from the studio floor to the control room because I wanted to be where everything was happening on set and keep directing people for scene set up.

An extroverted function could explain how I’m always wanting to figure myself out but continually coming up short. And I've been told on several occasions I can be aggressive and closed minded in my wording when I'm the exact opposite. 



bgoodforgoodsake said:


> You get mad when people want you to show your work, when it is clear to you, that you have the solution.


I’m very guilty of this.


----------



## Psychopomp (Oct 3, 2012)

Kavik said:


> I think it’s safe to say everyone daydreams. For me, 90% is fictional worlds (sci-fi, fantasy) and situations I fabricate within them. The other 10% is ticking off mental checklists of what needs to be done in reality and arranging them by priority.


I am still not certain that this is a significant thing. It is still content, it is still analyzing scenarios in the mind. We agree it isn't Ne, and it isn't Ni because it is content as it is. I think that Se types are quite imaginative. I have done countless hours of imagining with Se types, even doms, and I find them to be incredibly imaginative... even wildly so at times... more than me. The big difference is that I work in abstract meta themes quite well, and they deal with dynamics of content better... even sometimes frustratingly well, and I find that their imaginary worlds in the mind are TOO fluid. Nevertheless they seem in actuality to deal mostly with content and appearance and happenings within that context. My imagination has a different tone... but, we aren't arguing INTP so I'll spare you.

It is interesting that you are flowing back to type as a holistic thing. As if to say, "Lots of Ti? Doesn't matter because I might be an ENTJ, which is a holistic thing." To me, it is more of a question of how you think... and if Ti, then we know it isn't ENTJ. 

That is a simple question, though... external consistency and validation of logic or internal consistency and validation of logic? What makes your logic valid? 

Is it more important that your logic states a problem most objectively, or that it is consistent in and of itself? 

Does it ruminate to solve the problem with pure logic... or is the solution to the problem mostly found in the stating of the most plainly observable part of it. 

Do you socialize or push out the actual solving of the problem through logic, or do you internalize it at length?

Does the environment and the statement of the problem hold all that is necessary, or does one need to introvert to fill it all in for themselves?


----------



## bgoodforgoodsake (Feb 5, 2014)

Kavik said:


> Is it possible to be an extravert with introvert tendencies, or is extrovert completely different from extravert in the socializing sense? Social gatherings and crowded spaces are unquestionably draining. I’ll enjoy them in spurts until I literally hit a wall where I start shutting down and withdraw. The Stimulation passes the red line and I need to find a place to disappear or I being around me is no longer a fun experience. When I’m alone, I can keep going and going like an energizer bunny and won’t stop until my eyes are un-focused from lack of sleep.
> 
> 
> On the social end I do I get a rush of adrenaline and sort of high when arguing with someone who responds with strong counter arguments and I’m disappointed if they meekly back out. On working film, I’ve had to be almost literally dragged from the studio floor to the control room because I wanted to be where everything was happening on set and keep directing people for scene set up.


It comes from mastery of your world, until you figure out people you won't extrovert with them, rather outwardly controlling ideas and objects instead. You will try to control or interact with people but the many failures will cause you to rely on introverted judgment and intuition. Many ENTJ's goes through a period of shyness or aloofness, until they figure people out. Pay careful attention to how you really interact with the world, you may discover that you are very extroverted in terms with interacting with the objects around you.

ESTJ's have the same problem, but without introverted intuition to help them reach this gut conclusion, they may become uncertain of peoples reactions around them. This may cause one to cling to structures where interaction between people are clearly defined.


----------



## Kavik (Apr 3, 2014)

arkigos said:


> I think that Se types are quite imaginative. I have done countless hours of imagining with Se types, even doms, and I find them to be incredibly imaginative... even wildly so at times... more than me. The big difference is that I work in abstract meta themes quite well, and they deal with dynamics of content better... even sometimes frustratingly well, and I find that their imaginary worlds in the mind are TOO fluid. Nevertheless they seem in actuality to deal mostly with content and appearance and happenings within that context. My imagination has a different tone... but, we aren't arguing INTP so I'll spare you.
> 
> It is interesting that you are flowing back to type as a holistic thing. As if to say, "Lots of Ti? Doesn't matter because I might be an ENTJ, which is a holistic thing." To me, it is more of a question of how you think... and if Ti, then we know it isn't ENTJ.


Your insight is interesting and I’m at a disadvantage when analyzing types beyond the superficial MBTI descriptions out there on the internet. Yes, I am having trouble staying on the Jung cognition only spectrum, I keep bouncing between MBTI and that one since they’re both likely to give different results. I'm trying to understand the difference between Jung and MBTI through what you're saying and so far I'm seeing Jung as an attempt to find the root of of the cause and MBTI focuses on the symptoms. 

I’m not saying lots of Ti doesn’t matter, I’m entertaining other ideas, ruminating on them, and trying to figure if they fit or not. After a consensus is maded, or different pockets of strong arguments, I’ll likely think them over for a while before coming to a final decision. Jung/MBTI is tough to come to a conclusion on since its logic is a theory, not a law, and is subject to change when new information arises. 

I am still very much considering ISTP.



arkigos said:


> My imagination has a different tone... but, we aren't arguing INTP so I'll spare you.


You can’t lay out the bait and not expect to pique my interest. Now I’m curious. 



arkigos said:


> That is a simple question, though... external consistency and validation of logic or internal consistency and validation of logic? What makes your logic valid?


To validate my logic I think, ‘will it work. What is the best answer to make this the most efficient and cohesive.’ Though that may go both ways. I’m not entirely sure I’m understanding the fundamental distinction between the two. I see them bleeding together and not quite clear. 



arkigos said:


> Is it more important that your logic states a problem most objectively, or that it is consistent in and of itself?


Consistency. If it can’t hold up over time then it is flawed. 



arkigos said:


> Does it ruminate to solve the problem with pure logic... or is the solution to the problem mostly found in the stating of the most plainly observable part of it.


It's probably clear that I ruminate and over think before coming to a logical conclusion that makes sense to the way I perceive things.



arkigos said:


> Do you socialize or push out the actual solving of the problem through logic, or do you internalize it at length?


Internalize at length before bringing it into the open, if I share it. I prefer to have my own conclusion before presenting it to others and seeing if it holds up.



arkigos said:


> Does the environment and the statement of the problem hold all that is necessary, or does one need to introvert to fill it all in for themselves?


Rarely does a statement of a problem hold everything I need to know. There’s always something missing that’s not being said or seen and I seek to internally fill in the gaps.


----------



## Kathy Kane (Dec 3, 2013)

I'm curious, besides fiction writing do you have other artistic pursuits? Singing, dancing, painting, drawing, graphics, poetry, etc? Anything like that? 

I'm still leaning toward ISTJ. I continue to see Ne and Te with Si and Fi.


----------



## Kavik (Apr 3, 2014)

Kathy Kane said:


> I'm curious, besides fiction writing do you have other artistic pursuits? Singing, dancing, painting, drawing, graphics, poetry, etc? Anything like that?
> 
> I'm still leaning toward ISTJ. I continue to see Ne and Te with Si and Fi.


I play violin and edit videos together. Sometimes I like to mod games.

@arkigos : I do believe you've won this one, for now. :wink: It took a while to look up functions since there's so much less emphasis on them around google compared to exact MBTI type descriptions. They make a bit more sense and I believe I'm starting to see where you're coming from. You make a convincing argument. ISTP it is.


----------



## Kathy Kane (Dec 3, 2013)

I wanted to bring this comment of yours here.



Kavik said:


> Yes, most ISTP descriptions are uninformative and not very relatable. I don’t understand why it focuses so heavily on the sensor part when the thinking part is so much stronger for me, though that could be that gray area again. This link I found is the best description I’ve been able to find of ISTP and the one that makes the most sense from a descriptive standpoint: Socionics Description: The Best ISTP Guide Ever Written


My husband tested as ISTP and he was confident about it. It wasn't until he had the same reaction to the Socionics description that we questioned his type. It turns out that he is the Socionics ISTP and the MBII ISTJ. I think there are a lot of laid-back ISTJs who type as ISTP.


----------



## Graviton (Apr 23, 2014)

My brother is an INTP and my husband is an INTJ. You have certain traits that are INTJ or even different types, so maybe you're on the border or a different personality type, but to me you sound *most* like an INTP.


----------



## Kavik (Apr 3, 2014)

Kathy Kane said:


> I wanted to bring this comment of yours here.
> 
> My husband tested as ISTP and he was confident about it. It wasn't until he had the same reaction to the Socionics description that we questioned his type. It turns out that he is the Socionics ISTP and the MBII ISTJ. I think there are a lot of laid-back ISTJs who type as ISTP.


I didn't notice socionics was different from Briggs or Jung at the time. The different systems are still bleeding together a bit but the distinctions are getting clearer the more I read up. I was trying to find a description of ISTP that didn't focus so heavily on physical action and seeking of adrenaline. I don't really know what it means by living in the moment, either. I need more elaboration on that aspect. I noticed a lot of ISTP write ups are very shallow and don't try very hard to explain the type.



Graviton said:


> My brother is an INTP and my husband is an INTJ. You have certain traits that are INTJ or even different types, so maybe you're on the border or a different personality type, but to me you sound *most* like an INTP.



I'm borderline considering ISTP/INTP. when I score INTJ, I am very low on J, once I was only 1%. I don't force the external world to conform to my ideas, though I do challenge others with them, and I'm not an extensive planner who needs to know what I'll be doing a year in advance. J does not appear to be one of my functions. I can relate to INTP to an extent, especially on the rambling part to try and figure out what I want to say, and there's not enough information about ISTP to get a good idea of it. 

Could I be an ISTP that over values my TiNi and thus looks like an N? When younger, I was under constant stress and always felt psychologically threatened. I would lash out when anyone told me how my mind should work or pointed out a lack of emotional control, which would provoke the very emotion they were looking for. I mellowed way out after changing environments and establishing some sense of self. Because of the stress, I was unhealthily and intensely curled into myself for most of my life. I wonder if this factor could affect my relationship with the S function.

The difference between INTP and ISTP, as I understand it, is INTP is abstract and content with theorizing rather than actualizing while ISTP is concrete and more prone to actualize.

I have a drive to externalize ideas and I don't tend to trust the hypothetical until proven. I explore with a purpose in mind when entertaining ideas even if I don't yet have the purpose clearly defined (i.e What I'm doing right now in this thread). I like theories or concepts though I have trouble grasping certain abstractions. I nearly killed myself taking a mineralogy course dealing with my two demons, abstraction and math.

This just about blew up my goddamn mind and I never want to touch anything like it again with a hundred foot pole. 







Basically, it's looking at an internal structure of a crystal and numbering all of the intersecting and parallel points and lines. I couldn't grasp them in a visual form to save my life and fried a few brain cells trying. Something especially frustrating since I think in images.

This alone makes me want to keep leaning toward ISTP.


----------



## Kathy Kane (Dec 3, 2013)

Kavik said:


> I didn't notice socionics was different from Briggs or Jung at the time. The different systems are still bleeding together a bit but the distinctions are getting clearer the more I read up. I was trying to find a description of ISTP that didn't focus so heavily on physical action and seeking of adrenaline. I don't really know what it means by living in the moment, either. I need more elaboration on that aspect. I noticed a lot of ISTP write ups are very shallow and don't try very hard to explain the type.


I understand. I just figured it was relevant on this thread. I have found that Socionics' descriptions are heavy on the top functions. So you seemed to relate to Si more so than Se. I think that's a common issue with people typed as ISTP.

I hope you've found the right type. Good luck with it.


----------

