# Best grouping of MBTI types?



## Reflect (May 31, 2013)

Which grouping (into groups of 4) of the MBTI types most accurately conveys which types are most similar to each other? Some of the popular options are: 

Kiersey's Temperaments: NF, NT, SJ, SP 

Attitudes (I'm partial to this option): EJ, IJ, EP, IP 

EN, IN, ES, IS

NJ, NP, SJ, SP 

etc.


----------



## athenian200 (Oct 13, 2008)

There's another option I like, but it can't be conveyed by just letters. Dominant function.

Intuitive: INFJ, INTJ, ENFP, ENTP.

Sensing: ISFJ, ISTJ, ESFP, ESTP.

Thinking: ISTP, INTP, ESTJ, ENTJ.

Feeling: INFP, ISFP, ENFJ, ESFJ.

In my opinion, this is an important grouping that people often forget. One of the only things that's really "off" about NT and NF temperaments is that it suggests something slightly misleading if you don't analyze carefully. It suggests that ENFPs and INFJs (dominant Intuitives) have more in common with INFPs and ENFJs (dominant Feelers), than they do with ENTPs and INTJs (dominant Intuitives). 

Also, I believe that the original four groups of NT, NF, ST, and SF need to be given more attention. SP and SJ are not necessarily the best way to group Sensors. I doubt it would have become so common if not for Keirsey. I don't mind that it's used sometimes, but I'm slightly annoyed that it's considered a "default" part of MBTI when it's not.


----------



## reckful (Jun 19, 2012)

*Jung's foursome*

The extraverted rational types: Je-doms (Te-doms & Fe-doms): EJs
The extraverted irrational types: Pe-doms (Se-doms & Ne-doms): EPs
The introverted rational types: Ji-doms (Ti-doms & Fi-doms): IPs (or, arguably, IJs)
The introverted irrational types: Pi-doms (Si-doms & Ni-doms): IJs (or, arguably, IPs)

*Myers's foursome*

STs, SFs, NTs & NFs

*Keirsey's foursome*

SJs, SPs, NTs & NFs

*reckful's foursome*

INs, ENs, ISs & ESs

*possible food for thought*

June 2013 membership stats for PersonalityCafe:

INFP	3723 — 21%
INFJ	2580 — 15%
INTP	2228 — 13%
INTJ	1876 — 11%
ENFP	1352 — 8%
ENTP	1112 — 6%
ENFJ	514 — 3%
ISTP	527 — 3%
ISFP	506 — 3%
ISTJ	437 — 2%
ENTJ	401 — 2%
ISFJ	314 — 2%
ESTP	159 — 1%
ESFJ	102 — 1%
ESFP	117 — 1%
ESTJ	97 — 1%

August 2012 membership stats for TypologyCentral:

INTP 17%
INFP 17%
INFJ 16%
INTJ 12%
ENFP 10%
ENTP 8%
ISTP 4%
ENFJ 3%
ENTJ 3%
ISFP 3%
ISTJ 2%
ISFJ 1%
ESTP 1%
ESFP 1%
ESTJ 1%
ESFJ 1%


----------



## shakti (Oct 10, 2012)

reckful said:


> *Jung's foursome*
> 
> The extraverted rational types: Je-doms (Te-doms & Fe-doms): EJs
> The extraverted irrational types: Pe-doms (Se-doms & Ne-doms): EPs
> ...


Cool! So it would seem like more than three quarters of mbti forum-goers, if typed correctly, are INs or ENxPs! Is that why you have grouped ENs, INs etc. together...because they share the most common charcteristics, like frequenting personality forums? :-D 

I would like to know more about "Reckful's foursome" (he he, sounds like an action film!), for example the traits the groups share


----------



## KraChZiMan (Mar 23, 2013)

reckful said:


> *possible food for thought*
> 
> June 2013 membership stats for PersonalityCafe:
> 
> ...


INxx's are definitely the minority in society, but yet most prevalent on the internet. How interesting!

I would personally note, according to some statistics, that ISxJ's are most common in society, like 1/4 common, while INxx's make up something like 3-5% in society. Weird that internet as a medium is so biased towards some types.

Anyway, I personally find that most similarities are between SJ, SP, NJ and NP's, as people in this group all share either Si, Se, Ni or Ne and thus have most common topics to talk about. Common judging functions give another kind of similarities (same views upon relationships, people and same motivations), but certainly not in a form that gives them much common topics, or allows them to work together as a group. 

I always like to think that sharing a perceiving function means that people have their strengths united (either it be Si - correctness in details and commitment, Se - intensity of expression and concentration, Ni - valuable insights, Ne - on-the-go creativity) , while not sharing perceiving function leads to more conflicts in working together.

Just an opinion though, if you'd like to correct me, feel free to do so roud:


----------



## reckful (Jun 19, 2012)

shakti said:


> I would like to know more about "Reckful's foursome" (he he, sounds like an action film!), for example the traits the groups share


For a semi-lengthy take on INs, see this post.


----------



## googoodoll (Oct 20, 2013)

I don't think the NT's should be called 'the intellects'.


----------



## athenian200 (Oct 13, 2008)

googoodoll said:


> I don't think the NT's should be called 'the intellects'.


Perhaps not, but they're never going to give up that title.

I mean, let's face it. Without the whole "I'm an intellectual, tremble before my logical arguments" thing going on, they're just people who daydream and criticize life a lot, while being oblivious to emotions and bad at sports. We kind of have to cut them some slack... if the NF temperament had a neat but overblown title, I might be hard-pressed to relinquish it myself.

I think if we called NFs "the politicians" or something like that, we'd be even. Hehe. Idealist is a little dull. There are plenty of NF politicians, I don't know why people don't make that connection more often.

Idealist just sounds like we're a bunch of college students who got liberal arts degrees, and have no direction in life. Maybe the more mental, abstract equivalent of cheerleaders at best.


----------



## SpectrumOfThought (Mar 29, 2013)

googoodoll said:


> I don't think the NT's should be called 'the intellects'.


----------



## Derange At 170 (Nov 26, 2013)

delphi367 said:


> I think if we called NFs "the politicians" or something like that, we'd be even.


No, you would be psychopaths.


----------



## googoodoll (Oct 20, 2013)

Derange At 170 said:


> No, you would be psychopaths.


hey now, hubby, i wouldn't want us to have a lovers tiff over this, take that back.


----------



## Derange At 170 (Nov 26, 2013)

googoodoll said:


> hey now, hubby, i wouldn't want us to have a lovers tiff over this, take that back.


You called us <3ers

I'm calling politicians psychopaths, is all. Woudl you want to be a psychopath? Don't answer that, coming from an ENTP that's just setting myself up for being called one.

Though, _though_. NTs totally are the intellects.


----------



## googoodoll (Oct 20, 2013)

Derange At 170 said:


> Though, _though_. NTs totally are the intellects.


you could have fooled me...


----------



## Derange At 170 (Nov 26, 2013)

googoodoll said:


> you could have fooled me...


I'm sure you've seen me debate here. It's quite a turn-on.


----------



## Pendit76 (Jul 31, 2013)

googoodoll said:


> I don't think the NT's should be called 'the intellects'.


We are often called the "Rationals", which is to me, is more accurate.


----------



## mushr00m (May 23, 2011)

Aww, the NT's defending their title, that's so cute :blushed: Of course, though, all dominant judgers are rational, dint ya know! :shocked:


----------



## Entropic (Jun 15, 2012)

Pendit76 said:


> We are often called the "Rationals", which is to me, is more accurate.


But how to separate that from STs or in a Jungian sense, NTs who lead with N first? They would be considered Jungian irrationals.


----------



## googoodoll (Oct 20, 2013)

ephemereality said:


> But how to separate that from STs or in a Jungian sense, NTs who lead with N first? They would be considered Jungian irrationals.


you don't need to separate from the ST's they're grouped in the SP's or SJ's.


----------



## KraChZiMan (Mar 23, 2013)

Derange At 170 said:


> You called us <3ers
> 
> I'm calling politicians psychopaths, is all. Woudl you want to be a psychopath? Don't answer that, coming from an ENTP that's just setting myself up for being called one.
> 
> Though, _though_. NTs totally are the intellects.


As long as intellectualism =/= smart.

Perfect example of "intellectuals" who are not necessarily smart are ppl like this:










How I define intellectualism: A person that praises being intelligent and educating others on importance of pursuing intelligence. The intellectual may or may not be intelligent himself, but this does not stop the person from praising intelligence on it's own merit.

I am not saying again that NT's are not smart people. It's just that "the intellects" is well-fitting for them, because all NT's sure pursue intelligence and motivating others to pursue it themselves, but that does not make them actually smarter than the other temperaments.


----------



## Derange At 170 (Nov 26, 2013)

I'm really just fucking about. If NTs were officially classified as 'the turds' I would've been cool with that too. An intellectual is a seeker of knowledge per definition. It can include anyone. But are 'intellects' the same as 'intellectuals'? If intellectuals are seekers of knowledge, then that makes no claim of intelligence. More curiosity. However, the way 'intellects' is used here it might imply intelligence; people possessing great intellect. Which may not be necessarily true for every NT.

But I'm completely indifferent to these sorts of labels. I place zero pride in being an ENTP or NT and I don't identify as either. As in, it's not what I try to communicate to people as being a part of me. I just added it to my profile because it's relevant to the site.

But to fuck with the NFs who oppose NTs being called 'the intellects'? Hurrl yeah, I'm a fuckin' intellect. Deal w/i.


----------



## Pendit76 (Jul 31, 2013)

> How I define intellectualism: A person that praises being intelligent and educating others on importance of pursuing intelligence. The intellectual may or may not be intelligent himself, but this does not stop the person from praising intelligence on it's own merit.


 @_KraChZiMan_

That's not what intellectualism is though in common usage. You can have any definition you want colloquially, but I would advice you use the dictionary definition when discussing the concept with others. 



> *intellectual* (ˌɪntɪˈlɛktʃʊəl)_adj_*1. *of or relating to the intellect, as opposed to the emotions
> *2. *appealing to or characteristic of people with a developed intellect: _intellectual literature_.
> *3. *expressing or enjoying mental activity
> 
> ...


All these definitions have nothing to do with praising intelligence. An intellectual is someone who either a), smart, or b), into intellectual or developed topics (such as art, philosophy, or literature). Being an intellectual has nothing to do with teaching others either about being smart. The picture you showed doesn't really show intellectualism at all. It shows some idiot who is trying to look cool. I fail to see the connection, or, more importantly perhaps, how this is an indictment on intellectualism. Your view on it has a very negative connotation that is not found in any dictionary definition.


----------



## KraChZiMan (Mar 23, 2013)

Pendit76 said:


> @_KraChZiMan_
> 
> That's not what intellectualism is those in common usage. You can have any definition you want colloquially, but I would advice you use the dictionary definition when discussing the concept with others.
> 
> ...


I see your point. Then intellectualism is not perhaps the right term to describe what I meant.


----------



## FearAndTrembling (Jun 5, 2013)

KraChZiMan said:


> As long as intellectualism =/= smart.
> 
> Perfect example of "intellectuals" who are not necessarily smart are ppl like this:
> 
> ...


Actually, I would consider the NTs, smart but not wise. The guy in your picture is a poser, who is neither. Stephen Hawking is a good example of a person who is smart, but not wise. Freeman Dyson is an example of a man who is smart and wise. Hawking would be more INTJ, Dyson would be more INTP or INFJ. Te never hits the middle groove of Ti. Which is why INFJ and INTP are more philosophical. INTJ is either spewing out boring walls of text, or short, precise one liners. They never hit the middle gear of Ti. I noticed the same thing with INFP.

“To learn is not to know; there are the learners and the learned. Memory makes the one, philosophy the others.” 

In the Dyson/Hawking comparison. Both have excellent hardware. Both are top mathematicians. Dyson is actually better. But Dyson is not simply a technician, he is a philosopher. Hawking is doomed to forever be merely a technician. Guys like Dyson are a dying breed and being replaced by soulless specialists like Hawking.

So to add this to the topic of the thread. I would propose a category of good guys and bad guys for MBTI.

Good guys, as shown in the ethics thread, use Fe and Ti. Bad guys use Te and Fi.

So:

Good guys: INFJ, INTP,etc..

Bad Guys: INTJ, ENTJ, INFP, etc.

:tongue:


----------



## FearAndTrembling (Jun 5, 2013)

I should also add that this isn't just environmental. Stephen Hawking would always have the "philosophy" he does. He has an inclination to be a simpleton. That is just who he is. Dyson was always bound to be something more. It is an inclination. 

But obviously this transcends type. INTJ can be very wise. Karl Marx is extremely wise for example. Understood human nature and relations very well. Marx is not a simpleton....at all. He is a giant. He is smart, wise, intellectual, whatever you want to call it. It's one of those things I can't necessarily define, but I know it when I see it. And Marx had it. 

I admit I was a little annoyed that I wasn't put under the "intellect" initially as well.


----------



## KraChZiMan (Mar 23, 2013)

FearAndTrembling said:


> Actually, I would consider the NTs, smart but not wise. The guy in your picture is a poser, who is neither. Stephen Hawking is a good example of a person who is smart, but not wise. Freeman Dyson is an example of a man who is smart and wise. Hawking would be more INTJ, Dyson would be more INTP or INFJ. Te never hits the middle groove of Ti. Which is why INFJ and INTP are more philosophical. INTJ is either spewing out boring walls of text, or short, precise one liners. They never hit the middle gear of Ti. I noticed the same thing with INFP.
> 
> “To learn is not to know; there are the learners and the learned. Memory makes the one, philosophy the others.”
> 
> ...


I wouldn't say Te/Fi axis has such a direct correlation to boring walls of text in science.

There is surprisingly an ENFP scientist called Michio Kaku. Put his name on youtube and you discover that he has highly interesting and engaging monologues on different subjects, despite having a reputable educational background and being a scientist.

My dad for example is an INTJ and he was very fascinated by how philosophy and science is related.

The thing with Hawking is that even if he appears boring, he has made many great discoveries in science (black hole theory) and thus his materials are definitely interesting to people who would like to know more about these topics. There are another types of people for turning scientific researches into popular science and indulging in philosophical discussions based on that. It's very difficult to say if being technician and not philosopher makes you a better scientist, or a smarter person. Scientists just naturally have different fields of interest, and I don't think anybody is the authority to say that preferring philosophy over technicalities or vice versa really makes somebody smarter than the others.


----------



## KraChZiMan (Mar 23, 2013)

FearAndTrembling said:


> I admit I was a little annoyed that I wasn't put under the "intellect" initially as well.


Temperament labels do not decide who you are. You don't have to be NT to be an intellect. Actually your type determines fuck all, because different types can prevail in the same fields while introducing different insights from different perspectives that an INTJ or INTP might not see. This is very crucial in, for example, a company that badly needs innovation. When there is a board of ENTJ's, the one ESFJ in the group can make a suggestion or give an insight from a perspective that ENTJ couldn't notice or come to think of from their perspective.

For example, Steve Jobs was an ISTP, and was nevertheless a revolutionary man.

My art teacher once said that it's really cool when an archidect comes to the art school and starts creating art, because it adds an interesting degree that the people who have been involved in arts for their entire lives might not be able to catch, and the same works in other way too, an artist who wants to become an archidect might find unique ways to solve archidectural problems that the naturally archidect guy might not find.

All kinds of diversities benefit the innovation in communities as a whole. The more homogeneous something gets, the more decadent and stagnant it becomes. The same way it is with INFJ, ISTP, INFP etc. scientists, INTJ or INTP artists, ISTJ or ENTJ musicians and so on.


----------



## FearAndTrembling (Jun 5, 2013)

KraChZiMan said:


> I wouldn't say Te/Fi axis has such a direct correlation to boring walls of text in science.
> 
> There is surprisingly an ENFP scientist called Michio Kaku. Put his name on youtube and you discover that he has highly interesting and engaging monologues on different subjects, despite having a reputable educational background and being a scientist.
> 
> ...


I know Kaku. He is a good guy and smart. But honestly, he is corny. He tries so hard to be Einstein. He is definitely not as soulless as Hawking though. 

The thing about Hawking, is that nobody ever would have heard of him if he wasn't in a wheelchair. Yeah, he has been involved in major works, but the thing is, the guys who actually did more than him on those works, nobody has ever heard of. I actually like Ellis and Penrose, and guys like Martin Rees much better than Hawking. They have contributed just as much or more than Hawking in the field, but nobody has ever heard of them. And they are much deeper guys. Hawking is actually hostile to philosophy and declared it dead. In a simplistic way as always. Hawking inspires nobody. I would never show up to hear Hawking speak about anything. I would show up to hear those other guys though. 

Degrasse Tyson is also Fe/ti. He is much better at connecting with the audience and glorying science.


----------



## PaladinX (Feb 20, 2013)

googoodoll said:


> I don't think the NT's should be called 'the intellects'.


This is the impact the INFJ has on society. With one brief statement this INFJ derailed the entire thread. :shocked:


To add to the side discussion, we could always call them 'label.'


----------



## Pendit76 (Jul 31, 2013)

> I should also add that this isn't just environmental. Stephen Hawking would always have the "philosophy" he does. He has an inclination to be a simpleton. That is just who he is. Dyson was always bound to be something more. It is an inclination.


 @FearAndTrembling

This is frankly insulting to all NT's. You are obviously interested in philosophy based on your username, but this is completely illogical. You literally dismissed an entire type, INTJ as being "simple", and insuniated that are not as deep of thinkers as other types. That is unbelievably typist. That would be akin to saying that "Asians are not good athletes". 



> I know Kaku. He is a good guy and smart. But honestly, he is corny. He tries so hard to be Einstein. He is definitely not as soulless as Hawking though.


 Soulless now really? Isn't that slightly judgmental? 



> And they are much deeper guys.


 Define deeper. Just that they agree with your meta philosophical ideas? 



> _Good guys, as shown in the ethics thread, use Fe and Ti. Bad guys use Te and Fi._
> 
> _So:_
> 
> ...


For someone who is so into nuanced philosophy and criticizes simple-mindedness, you sure as hell generalize a fuck ton. Any logical person would laugh at you calling entire groups of people evil based on your arbitrary definitions. "They don't use my cognitive functions, they must be evil!" You also have these very binary definitions of good/evil, which someone like Kierkegaard would laugh at. 

Thanks for being a typist, pretentious tool and insulting any type that isn't Fe Ti. Really shows your acceptance of other ideas and ways of viewing the world, young Socrates.


----------



## I Kant (Jan 19, 2013)

I am an INTJ so I must be merely a shallow tool and as emotionally complex as a spoon. 

And not to mention evil, as I have a type with strong Fi/Te use, because it was declared by the self-righteous regardless of what I do, aspire to, or protect. 

As I must be the cancer that degrades the expression of humanity, instead of being another aspect of humanity.

Thanks @_FearAndTrembling_ for not misunderstanding, demonizing me and everyone like me as your have removed bias from your flawless and noble dogma of superiority.

You are a shining example of everything that makes absolutely all NFs moral, insightful, sensitive to humanity and of healthy maturity. In the most absolute sense of automatic attribution without need for evidence or proof, because intelligent reason and facts are the cancer of evil in the face of conviction in misinterpreted and abused theories.

You have made your quality and just how superior you humanity is evident by your words rather than actions. Because people are too stupid and will never have the experience from encountering a multitude of people in their lives to see through you to do the latter. And so you will always be supreme and correct.


----------



## FearAndTrembling (Jun 5, 2013)

Pendit76 said:


> @_FearAndTrembling_
> 
> This is frankly insulting to all NT's. You are obviously interested in philosophy based on your username, but this is completely illogical. You literally dismissed an entire type, INTJ as being "simple", and insuniated that are not as deep of thinkers as other types. That is unbelievably typist. That would be akin to saying that "Asians are not good athletes".
> 
> ...


Something hit a little close to home. If you actually had any nuance or sense of intuition, you would see that I am paraphrasing Jung's thoughts. But Jung didn't write for Te, so you are lost. He actually basically said that in his autobiography. Te users, look elsewhere. This isn't a book for you. None of his books were for Te, only in his autobiography did he actually say it explicitly. 

I actually gave examples of deep INTJ, it was just passed over in your tantrum. If you think Stephen Hawking is as deep as Dyson or Rees, you know nothing about them.


----------



## I Kant (Jan 19, 2013)

FearAndTrembling said:


> Something hit a little close to home. If you actually had any nuance or sense of intuition, you would see that I am paraphrasing Jung's thoughts. But Jung didn't write for Te, so you are lost. He actually basically said that in his autobiography. Te users, look elsewhere. This isn't a book for you. None of his books were for Te, only in his autobiography did he actually say it explicitly.
> 
> I actually gave examples of deep INTJ, it was just passed over in your tantrum. If you think Stephen Hawking is as deep as Dyson or Rees, you know nothing about them.


Because you assume Te is the force in the world that ignores the inner workings of the individual apart from the collective, and thus is what stands in the way of individuation, as that must have been the only thing Jung was describing?

You aren't paraphrasing. You are projecting. Your ideas are not Jung's.

He had a far better grasp of the nature of all the functions than you do. Trust me on that. At least until you improve, if you ever manage to.

If you don't see the parallels between the interactions with Te/Ti also with Fe/Fi, Se/Si and Ne/Ni, trust me: You haven't even tasted being demolished by Te yet, despite that topic sadly being your focus, interest, expectations and perspective in these matters. 

I can show you that world.


----------



## FearAndTrembling (Jun 5, 2013)

default settings said:


> Because you assume Te is the force in the world that ignores the inner workings of the individual apart from the collective, and thus is what stands in the way of individuation, as that must have been the only thing Jung was describing?
> 
> You aren't paraphrasing. You are projecting. Your ideas are not Jung's.


They are, you just don't know it. The specter of Te has been consuming the intellectual horizon for a long time. Guys like Max Weber warned about it. The "specialist without spirit, the sensualist without heart." That is, for certain, the age we are in. Nobody represents that better than Stephen Hawking. Te dominated Jung's age as well, but has gotten even worse than even he could have ever imagined. 

The problem is not necessarily Te itself, but the predominance of Te. It its totally imbalanced.


----------



## I Kant (Jan 19, 2013)

FearAndTrembling said:


> They are, you just don't know it. The specter of Te has been consuming the intellectual horizon for a long time. Guys like Max Weber warned about it. The "specialist without spirit, the sensualist without heart." That is, for certain, the age we are in. Nobody represents that better than Stephen Hawking. Te dominated Jung's age as well, but has gotten even worse than even he could have ever imagined.
> 
> The problem is not necessarily Te itself, but the predominance of Te. It its totally imbalanced.


Whoever fights monsters should see to it that in the process he does not become a monster. 

And if you gaze long enough into an abyss, the abyss will gaze back into you.


----------



## Pendit76 (Jul 31, 2013)

FearAndTrembling said:


> Something hit a little close to home. If you actually had any nuance or sense of intuition, you would see that I am paraphrasing Jung's thoughts. But Jung didn't write for Te, so you are lost. He actually basically said that in his autobiography. Te users, look elsewhere. This isn't a book for you. None of his books were for Te, only in his autobiography did he actually say it explicitly.
> 
> I actually gave examples of deep INTJ, it was just passed over in your tantrum. If you think Stephen Hawking is as deep as Dyson or Rees, you know nothing about them.


Didn't know quoting Carl Jung allowed someone to say that certain types were evil or less deep than others. It's not an excuse to act like a bigot, and say some people, who you have met and don't even quote, are simpletons. I'm done with this conversation, it's no use arguing with someone whose entire argument rests on anecdotal evidence about psychological types. That man also adores Carl Jung, the same man that believed that humans are innately born knowing things that are part of society, but offers no reasoning of this. Great man to admire and be a bigot based off.


----------



## I Kant (Jan 19, 2013)

Even if I wasn't a part of this conversation I have to say I prefer the ENTJ-esque method of dealing with it to the INFJ-esque method.

The latter kind of feels like the rising sea of emotions of an emerging religious cult or social entitlement cult.

The former seems... disinterested.

Both seem non-ideal, but that is to be expected of observations from the phenomena, by the very nature of the ideal and the actual.


----------



## FearAndTrembling (Jun 5, 2013)

Pendit76 said:


> Didn't know quoting Carl Jung allowed someone to say that certain types were evil or less deep than others. It's not an excuse to act like a bigot, and say some people, who you have met and don't even quote, are simpletons. I'm done with this conversation, it's no use arguing with someone whose entire argument rests on anecdotal evidence about psychological types. That man also adores Carl Jung, the same man that believed that humans are innately born knowing things that are part of society, but offers no reasoning of this. Great man to admire and be a bigot based off.


Would you settle down? Did you see the tongue in my post? It was a joke. INFJ have friggin Hitler, bin Laden, and more bad guys than probably any other type. 

It was a play on the conversation we were having in another thread. The OP noted that in movies/stories, the good guy tends to use Fe/Ti.


----------



## FearAndTrembling (Jun 5, 2013)

default settings said:


> Even if I wasn't a part of this conversation I have to say I prefer the ENTJ-esque method of dealing with it to the INFJ-esque method.
> 
> The latter kind of feels like the rising sea of emotions of an emerging religious cult or social entitlement cult.
> 
> ...


I agree with that. I am somewhat of a cultist, and Jung got the same label. I actually consider myself a Jung cultist.


----------



## I Kant (Jan 19, 2013)

Try to avoid typing Hitler... 

I think professional MBTI ethics try to steer away from several avenues, one of which is the question of Hitler's type.


----------



## athenian200 (Oct 13, 2008)

Pendit76 said:


> @FearAndTrembling
> 
> This is frankly insulting to all NT's. You are obviously interested in philosophy based on your username, but this is completely illogical. You literally dismissed an entire type, INTJ as being "simple", and insuniated that are not as deep of thinkers as other types. That is unbelievably typist. That would be akin to saying that "Asians are not good athletes".





default settings said:


> I am an INTJ so I must be merely a shallow tool and as emotionally complex as a spoon.


On behalf of the NFs, I would like to apologize for what he said. I honestly didn't realize how insulting it was until you pointed it out. I just sort of got lost in the praise, being called deep, etc... before he went too far. I told myself it was a joke when he crossed the line at the end with the "good guys" and "bad guys" thing. But, I should know better than to accept praise mixed with insults to an excluded group. 

I really do feel that, to some extent, we're probably unworthy of being the moral authorities of the MBTI. There's a reason I suggested making us the "politicians," and it wasn't all positive either. In any case, I do feel that the implication that INTJs lack emotional complexity is truly undeserved. My INTJ friends have had more depth than many people I know... perhaps including myself, sometimes.

Te and Ti approaches to life often fail to appreciate the other's perspective. Ti can be concerned with quality and internal consistency to the point of being impractical, while Te can be concerned with pragmatism and efficiency to the point of sacrificing those things too much. It is certainly a common point of contention between the two groups. However, I do believe that we need both skill sets. 

Anyway, I apologize again for what has happened here today. I hope that we can all work this out.


----------

