# INTJ/ INTP Merging Development



## BigApplePi (Dec 1, 2011)

INTJs and INTPs have complimentary cognitive functions. On one hand we can think of each type as pure; on the other hand we can wonder if they can overlap/ alternate/ merge in the same person. Some people will not be sure which type (as if one had to be one or the other) they are. This thread is meant to be an exploration. Do you find yourself being one or the other or being one, does the other ever creep up on you?

Here is my current thinking on the topic. Supposedly each type can be identified with these cognitive functions:* 
INTJ = Ni Te Fi Se; 
INTP = Ti Ne Si Fe.*

If we assume each can be identified in their life that way, the INTJ looks at the outside world and evaluates it with Te mostly. Se is thrown in for supplementary confirmation. Their life is such that they are able to deal readily with the external world. They have that skill or interest. They have feelings (Fi) about it and desire to put what they have learned into action. These inputs form a primary intuitive outlook (Ni) which comes to a decision which they favor as a best judgment. Their judgment is something they can and will advocate for action.

The INTP is different. They have trouble accepting the external world for whatever reason, but most likely inhibited/ impeded/frustrated/ undesired experience. When they look at the outside world as it appears to them in its myriad aspects, they form intuitions (Ne) about it. They don't form firm conclusions as an INTJ would as they don't have that skill or motive. They take in their Ne experiences and think about possible ways to put meaning into them. They are after posing theory about how the outside world works until they sense aesthetically (Si) a certain consistency.

It is at this point I am looking for further development of character traits. At some point each INTJ/ INTP can realize and encounter their limitations and may desire to overcome them. After adjusting and firming up the above two paragraphs, this could happen: 

The INTJ will use their Ni and carry on. After a certain point in gaining further experience, they will realize their Ni doesn't work in all cases or isn't broad enough to please them or some others. They will have to return to answer to external world Fe-like reactions. Seeing that their Ni requires further input, they will look to the external world, listening to possible INTP-like proposals. They can experience these INTP-like thoughts as if they were Te experiences in the outside world. This is a form of INTJ/INTP interaction which will contribute to INTJ development.

Let's now see how the INTP might develop. After a certain point in progressing with their thought, they will realize their thinking has coalesced or firmed up into something good enough to test how the external world might consistently handle it (Fe). This "firming up" is INTJ-like intuition. They can go out into the external world and do INTJ-like Te testing. They will have Fi-like feelings about it as they will want to get their theory adjusted (after feedback), to work. Once it works, they can write it off with Si satisfaction and Fe desired approval.

What I'm proposing here is as each INTJ and INTP develops through increased life experience, they become through experience, more like the other as the outsider might perceive them. An INTJ who sees flaws in his Ni will take on INTP characteristics. An INTP who gains confidence in his theories will take on INTJ characteristics.

Speaking as an INTP, this is my current theory. Do you yourself in reading this think of any experiences which might confirm? Or do you find yourself sticking to the personality type you believe you are?


----------



## sanari (Aug 23, 2011)

I cannot relate, I apologize.


----------



## Grandmaster Yoda (Jan 18, 2014)

I only heard of Ni and Ti seemingly related in a stack. Different model though. I don't think an INTP would relate to Te because it opposes his nature of independent restraint.


----------



## Strelok (Aug 16, 2013)

Nope.


----------



## snowflakes (Aug 21, 2014)

"An INTP who gains confidence in his theories will take on INTJ characteristics."

So, you're basically saying that in order for an INTP to be confident then they have to have INTJ characteristics? Sure, a lot of us aren't confident about our thoughts and second guess ourselves a lot but that doesn't mean that our type as a whole isn't confident, and it certainly doesn't mean that in order to be confident we have to take on INTJ characteristics.


----------



## Strelok (Aug 16, 2013)

snowflakes said:


> So, you're basically saying that in order for an INTP to be confident then they have to have INTJ characteristics? Sure, a lot of us aren't confident about our thoughts and second guess ourselves a lot but that doesn't mean that our type as a whole isn't confident, and it certainly doesn't mean that in order to be confident we have to take on INTJ characteristics.


Seconded.


----------



## BigApplePi (Dec 1, 2011)

Grandmaster Yoda said:


> I only heard of Ni and Ti seemingly related in a stack. Different model though. I don't think an INTP would relate to Te because it opposes his nature of independent restraint.


Thanks for the thoughts. What I am after is to get at the situation by analyzing it. I see Ti as internally analyzing. Ni is internal also but instead of analyzing runs with a whole. Perhaps people can decide how they want to think of a situation. If they want to analyze it, it's Ti. If they want to accept the situation, it's Ni. I don't see why a sufficiently motivated INTP couldn't move from analyzing to conclusiveness even if the conclusiveness were only temporary.

Same thing with Te. I personally resist Te and see it as an accumulation of Se's. Te is practical but lacks the beauty of universality.




snowflakes said:


> "An INTP who gains confidence in his theories will take on INTJ characteristics."
> 
> So, you're basically saying that in order for an INTP to be confident then they have to have INTJ characteristics? Sure, a lot of us aren't confident about our thoughts and second guess ourselves a lot but that doesn't mean that our type as a whole isn't confident, and it certainly doesn't mean that in order to be confident we have to take on INTJ characteristics.


I have something in the back of my mind. Let me keep going. I'm after what makes people tick and how they might split INTJ motives versus INTP motives.

Try this: An INTJ is characterized as "The Scientist." They are after certainty. An INTP is characterized as "The Thinker." They are after possibilities. Possibilities live with uncertainty. Uncertainty is in the nature of legitimate possible choices. Yet here is something strange. Each uncertain choice is held in the mind with temporary certainty. That carries INTJ characteristics in theory. Each certain choice carries an uncertain future where the future can blow the choice in hindsight out of the water. When the future arrives, it jars certainty into, "What happened?" This puzzlement is experienced as Ne.

Sorry for this jambled unfinished thinking on my part. @*snowflakes*. I noticed your statement, "it certainly doesn't mean that in order to be confident we have to take on INTJ characteristics." Taken as a standalone, that is an INTJ statement. Look at how certain it speaks! One can look at it from the outside as Ni. An outsider view can say, "You are backing up that an INTP doesn't have to have INTJ characteristics." Doesn't that smack of Te? Also if you feel the truth of what you said, is that not Fi?

I am NOT saying that an INTx changes their nature as a whole. I'm saying that subsets of each can take on the aspects/ characteristics of the other. I am trying to introduce the concept of a *hierarchical *way of looking at personality behaviors. Behavior is not the same as the personality/ temperament as a whole.


----------



## snowflakes (Aug 21, 2014)

BigApplePi said:


> Thanks for the thoughts. What I am after is to get at the situation by analyzing it. I see Ti as internally analyzing. Ni is internal also but instead of analyzing runs with a whole. Perhaps people can decide how they want to think of a situation. If they want to analyze it, it's Ti. If they want to accept the situation, it's Ni. I don't see why a sufficiently motivated INTP couldn't move from analyzing to conclusiveness even if the conclusiveness were only temporary.
> 
> Same thing with Te. I personally resist Te and see it as an accumulation of Se's. Te is practical but lacks the beauty of universality.
> 
> ...


This is quite the interesting theory, so please don't think I'm dismissing it as a whole. I do like the concept, but the only thing that does confuse me is that you're almost saying it's impossible for an INTP to be certain because of their functions. According to most theories, I'm too young to have even developed Fe yet and little to no Si (correct me if I'm wrong though, please). So I'm just going to focus on Ti and Ne. I second guess thoughts from Ne all the time, simply because I don't trust it really all that much. Though as long as I think things through, and carefully, I'm usually confident about it. Yes, I do tend to focus on theory and possibility but that doesn't mean that when I find a possibility, I'm not sure of it. I'm having a bit of trouble explaining, but hopefully you'll get what I'm trying to say?


----------



## MacabreCharade (Jan 5, 2010)

Either is fairly proficient with the other's dominant function. But not upon closer inspection.


----------



## BigApplePi (Dec 1, 2011)

snowflakes said:


> This is quite the interesting theory, so please don't think I'm dismissing it as a whole. I do like the concept, but the only thing that does confuse me is that you're almost saying it's impossible for an INTP to be certain because of their functions. According to most theories, I'm too young to have even developed Fe yet and little to no Si (correct me if I'm wrong though, please). So I'm just going to focus on Ti and Ne. I second guess thoughts from Ne all the time, simply because I don't trust it really all that much. Though as long as I think things through, and carefully, I'm usually confident about it. Yes, I do tend to focus on theory and possibility but that doesn't mean that when I find a possibility, I'm not sure of it. I'm having a bit of trouble explaining, but hopefully you'll get what I'm trying to say?


I believe you've explained just fine. I get what you are saying. 

About "certainty." Certainty/ belief mean different things under different circumstances. When we move forward it is practical to accept accompanying things as true. When we talk formal "theory" as opposed to "laws" there is reason to doubt ... if we think in terms of science. (The word "theory" implies there are other theories.) I suppose we could say INTPs like to think and in doing so they are thinking about something they have not worked out yet, so in that sense they can't be certain. But in non-thinking situations they could be as certain as the next fellow.

Fe? When you say you haven't developed Fe yet, that modesty sounds like you are using Fe right there. Si? I don't see you as having zero Si as you already are sensing INTPs can be certain sometimes and I assume you know INTPs can be very uncertain.


----------

