# Different ways on deciding between NT types?



## penchant (Sep 20, 2010)

Daimai said:


> After reading it and giving it some thought, I can say that I definitely introvert intuition and I identify with it the most. I identify with everything it says on that post.
> 
> I think I introvert Ti a bit more. I am fascinated by the fact that the reality we live in, which is seemingly unpredictable, can be described with mathematical formulas. I also want to understand a system because I think that the understand is worth a lot more than just memorizing certain examples. I often curse my school literature for not providing the understanding "why?", but rather just giving me examples that I need to memorize. I end up trying to make a system by myself but often fail because I haven't recieved the knowledge.
> 
> ...


This is where it doesn't add up. If you are more Ni than Ne, more Ti than Te, and more Fi than Fe, you have either misjudged yourself or do not understand the functions fully. You can only have two introverted functions. This is tricky, since functions can look very similar, and combinations of functions can give the same result as other functions.

It could be possible for you to find out more without thinking more about the function by looking at youtube videos or just hanging out in the ISTP forum for a while, but I'm quite positive neither of those things are really better ways of doing this. Sorry. 

So, if I were you I would search this forum and the net for more info on distinguishing Ti from Te and Ni from Ne, and see if you are confident in your judgement. Really sorting just those two out, will give the rest of your type, assuming you really are introvert...

Sorry. I don't feel like I'm much of a help anymore...


----------



## Daimai (Feb 14, 2010)

If I am not competent or if I do not understand right away, I am often shunned and wont go further into the subject (unless it has a purpose, for example understanding something in chemistry is important to me because I want to understand it, whereas in German I can't be bothered because I do not see a purpose and I can't put it into a comprehensible system).

That is what I meant. It's really an idea-approach, which you might have misunderstood because of my bad wording.

Repetition sounds really xNTP to me. It's more like "I know this and I don't need to go over this so much because I have gained an understanding".


----------



## valentine (Feb 25, 2009)

penchant said:


> This is where it doesn't add up. If you are more Ni than Ne, more Ti than Te, and more Fi than Fe, you have either misjudged yourself or do not understand the functions fully. You can only have two introverted functions. This is tricky, since functions can look very similar, and combinations of functions can give the same result as other functions.


This assumes that people will always fit perfectly into the precise little boxes theorists have laid out. I'd wager that this isn't always the case:tongue:


----------



## penchant (Sep 20, 2010)

valentine said:


> This assumes that people will always fit perfectly into the precise little boxes theorists have laid out. I'd wager that this isn't always the case:tongue:


Ok, I wasn't technically precise in my post. A person can very well have a more introverted *use* of all functions, but unless you go outside the assumptions of the MBTI system, it isn't possible to have all functions in introverted preference.

I totally agree that not everyone fits the type stereotypes well, but this has nothing to do with the underlying cognitive function preference. This is why it is so hard to get at in the first place.


----------



## penchant (Sep 20, 2010)

Daimai said:


> If I am not competent or if I do not understand right away, I am often shunned and wont go further into the subject (unless it has a purpose, for example understanding something in chemistry is important to me because I want to understand it, whereas in German I can't be bothered because I do not see a purpose and I can't put it into a comprehensible system).
> 
> That is what I meant. It's really an idea-approach, which you might have misunderstood because of my bad wording.
> 
> Repetition sounds really xNTP to me. It's more like "I know this and I don't need to go over this so much because I have gained an understanding".


Thanks...

When you talk about purpose, are you thinking of practical real life purpose, or more to satisfy your curiousness. Do you think of your knowledge as primarily useful or primarily something to have for it's own sake?

How would you react if you were put in a situation where you were expected to do something you had never done before? Would you go straight at it or want to practice first? Would you feel nervous about it? Backing off is not an option in this scenario...

:happy:


----------



## alionsroar (Jun 5, 2010)

I'm just dumping this here but you sound like an NTJ because of the heavy Ni and Fi... and you plan for the future... and the strong feelings you sometimes like to tell people about doesn't make it seem as though Fe would be your fourth function as in the case of an ITP..

Sometimes Ti and Ni can look a bit the same since they are both linear functions about what will happen under certain circumstances...



> I also want to understand a system because I think that the understand is worth a lot more than just memorizing certain examples. I often curse my school literature for not providing the understanding "why?", but rather just giving me examples that I need to memorize. I end up trying to make a system by myself but often fail because I haven't recieved the knowledge.


I feel like that is linked to the difference between Si/Ne and Ni/Se. Si might like to remember details more since they can project outwards with Ne about what it means while Se wants the examples so it can find the underlying meaning and remember how everything connects together with Ni but Se isn't that big on recalling detail. I think sometimes the Ti people make up their own reasons 'why' since they need something that makes sense to them. If you are after something that makes sense in the external world instead of just to you then it could be Te you are after?



Daimai said:


> Statement 1: I am more like an NT in that regard. I often cannot be bothered with things that I cannot do right away. Every single one of my hobbies, I was good at when I started it. I really hate repetition and practice (even if I love the subject at hand). One of my "famous" quotes around my friends is; "If you feel the need to practice at or repeat something, you don't understand it".


I think the ISTP approach might be more that it is only through repeating something or experiencing something that one understands it.



> Statement 2: My language is more abstract and I use abstract concepts to describe things. Sometimes I can describe things with events related to the past, but it isn't often.
> 
> Statement 3: When I solve problems I often focus at fixing the problem. This is usually done by getting an abstract understanding of the problem (I can put concepts in my head together but I can't really describe it in a good way, not even for myself). I wouldn't say it's exploring, but wouldn't say it's troubleshooting either.


I feel like Ni-Se people sometimes talk abstractly about concrete things while Si-Ne people sometimes talk concretely about abstract things that make me wonder what they have got to do with anything. I think the Ne using NTPs just like knowledge for it's own sake, just for the ideas, while Se using NTJs want the knowledge to actually do something with it.. not sure

Maybe it's because you are introverting so much, less Te makes you more P?

Possible Test: Extravert yourself a bit more and see if you use more Se, Fe, Ne or Te and which of those causes you more problems since probably your last function isn't very developed if you have always been quite introverted and you are an introvert. Or if using one of those functions makes you feel very energetic/playful, it could be your tertiary function and you are an extravert.

A page on possible roles of processes: The 16 Type Patterns


----------



## Daimai (Feb 14, 2010)

penchant said:


> Thanks...
> 
> When you talk about purpose, are you thinking of practical real life purpose, or more to satisfy your curiousness. Do you think of your knowledge as primarily useful or primarily something to have for it's own sake?
> 
> ...


I like having knowledge just for the sake of having knowledge and understanding the world around me. It will prove useful later in life though (I am planning to become a physicist of some sort).

If it's something I have never done before, my thought process goes something like this;

- Well, this looks easy/hard/other adjective.
- I map out approximately what I need to do.
- Do the task according to my plan (unless something unexpected shows up).

Of course it is a bit more complex and I just tried to "capture" my thinking somehow.


----------



## penchant (Sep 20, 2010)

Daimai said:


> I like having knowledge just for the sake of having knowledge and understanding the world around me. It will prove useful later in life though (I am planning to become a physicist of some sort).
> 
> If it's something I have never done before, my thought process goes something like this;
> 
> ...


Thanks. Do you think you could clarify that even further by answering the follow questions with A or B—and, if you want to, motivate your answers. I'm asking this (again) because I wan't you to choose one side, and not go for the middle road...

1.
A) Knowledge that can not ever be applied to any practical situation is not worth pursuing
B) Knowledge that can not ever be applied to any practical situation is still worth pursuing

2.
A) I learn in order to be better at doing things.
B) I learn in order to get a better understanding of things.

3.
A) When working on a problem, I troubleshoot and focus on finding a solution.
B) When working on a problem, I look for a general understanding of the issue and focus on seeing possibilities for improvement.

4.
A) I learn things primarily by watching and doing.
B) I learn things primarily by reading and thinking.

5.
A) When confronted with a new, but not complex, task that is new to me, I jump right in and try to enjoy it.
B) When confronted with a new, but not complex, task that is new to me, I want to make sure I understand everything before feeling good about having a go.


----------



## Daimai (Feb 14, 2010)

1. It depends. I don't like getting knowledge because it is knowledge, I get it because it is fun to know. If it is fun and not applicable, I would still learn it though.

2. Understanding. I learn math, because it is a tool to help me understand the world for example.
Or, I get more understanding in order to do things better. 

3. B.

4. I think I am more of a visual learner, I need people to explain. But otherwise, I learn by thinking and understanding. Doing is more like a test of knowledge to make sure I have understood.

5. Would say B here. But since it is a simple task I often understand right away.


----------



## penchant (Sep 20, 2010)

Ok. Thanks for having patience with me in working with the semantics in trying to overcome bias and misunderstanding.

I have now re-read the thread again and am leaning towards INTJ, mainly based on the last few posts and post #18, even though you seem to identify with ISTP as well in some aspects, but that is mainly post #12 so maybe that isn't as relevant anymore. But your strong Ni seems to be important, and Ni can also account for the fact that you can easily identify with many different descriptions. And I sort of doubt an ISTP would not have settled for one or the other by now.

Claiming a very weak S is also consistent with N being your dominant. And I can sort of see that differentiating between your Te and your Ti can be difficult.

Does this help any further? http://personalitycafe.com/cognitive-functions/9813-mbti-functions-explained.html


----------



## Functianalyst (Jul 23, 2009)

I think it’s natural to confuse yourself with several NT and NF types since they all share the same core values. However I would think you should be able to discern whether you prefer extraversion to introversion. I agree with some of the posters that all of these types prefer a different dominant function-attitude, so if you can discern which you prefer that will help. There is a method, but it entails you really getting to know yourself (which you should do anyhow), and possibly picking up *this booklet*. In the meantime, even INTs and ENTs have differing interaction styles. These are merely snippets, but does one stand out:


> *Chart-the-Course*
> The theme is having a course of action to follow. People of this stylefocus on knowing what to do and keeping themselves, the group, or the project on track. They prefer to enter a situation having an idea of what is to happen. They identify a process to accomplish a goal and have a somewhat contained tension as they work to create and monitor a plan. The aim is not the plan itself, but to use it as a guide to move things along toward the goal. Their informed and deliberate decisions are based on analyzing, outlining, conceptualizing or foreseeing what needs to be done.
> 
> *Behind-the-Scenes*
> ...


 Again it would be beneficial to read the booklet if you can get your hands on it, but also discern which is your dominant function-attitude. And by no means, don’t narrow your consideration because you think you prefer intuiting to sensing.


----------



## penchant (Sep 20, 2010)

I also recently found this (Careerstrength(TM) Step 1) test that could help you relate to the different Keirsey Temperaments, though I'm quite sure that you would identify as Rational.


----------



## Functianalyst (Jul 23, 2009)

penchant said:


> I also recently found this (Careerstrength(TM) Step 1) test that could help you relate to the different Keirsey Temperaments, though I'm quite sure that you would identify as Rational.


Possibly, but he could as well come to a realization that he is SP. Remember ISTPs routinely mistype as INTP and INTJ based on *this article*. because they do not associate with many of the stereotypes that Keirsey has placed on them. I think that Berens' recreation of the SP-Improviser allows both ISP types to relate better to the that temperament. ISPs that have a strong use of their tertiary function or are very clear introverting types may not see the Se in themselves. But as you said the test may as well confirm that he is some sort of NT type. 

The problem is as I said in my original response, is that NTs and NFs generally confuse themselves. Per type there are four different types:

Intuiting - ENTP, ENFP, INTJ and INFJ
Sensing - ESTP, ESFP, ISTJ and ISFJ
Thinking - ENTJ, ESTJ, INTP and ISTP
Feeling - ENFJ, ESFJ, INFP and ISFP

I found types that prefer intuiting calling themselves thinking and feeling types, when by all accounts they're not. They're intuiting types.


----------



## Daimai (Feb 14, 2010)

Chart-the-course and behind-the-scenes would be the best descriptions for me.'



> Chart-the-Course
> The theme is having a course of action to follow.* People of this stylefocus on knowing what to do and keeping themselves, the group, or the project on track. They prefer to enter a situation having an idea of what is to happen. They identify a process to accomplish a goal and have a somewhat contained tension as they work to create and monitor a plan. The aim is not the plan itself, but to use it as a guide to move things along toward the goal. Their informed and deliberate decisions are based on analyzing, outlining, conceptualizing or foreseeing what needs to be done.*
> 
> Behind-the-Scenes
> *The theme is getting the best result possible. People of this style focus on understanding and working with the process to create a positive outcome. They see value in many contributions and consult outside inputs to make an informed decision. They aim to integrate various information sources and accommodate differing points of view.* They approach others with a quiet, calm style that may not show their strong convictions.* Producing, sustaining, defining, and clarifying are all ways they support a group's process. They typically have more patience than most with the time it takes to gain support through consensus for a project or to refine the result.*


Bolded parts fit me.


----------



## Daimai (Feb 14, 2010)

I was thinking that maybe my Ni-Te creates an image of Ti?

Ti is about making logical decisions from a subjective set of mind, at least the way I understood it.

Te is more objective and Ni is the subjective one. So I take on objective facts with Te and "use" my Ni on them and liking it seem like I am trying to "bend reality" with Ti.


----------



## Daimai (Feb 14, 2010)

Just took the questionnaire you provided, here are my results:

Part 1: 
Tactical: 19
Logistical: 8
Strategic: 32
Diplomatic: 6

Part 2:
Impact-centered: 12
Authority-centered: 16
Knowledge-centered: 26
Relationship-centered: 11

Part 3:
Opportunity-oriented: 14
Stability-oriented: 13
Expertise-oriented: 24
Authenticity-oriented: 11

Temperament:
The Theorist ranked first.
The Improviser ranked second.


----------



## penchant (Sep 20, 2010)

Daimai said:


> I was thinking that maybe my Ni-Te creates an image of Ti?
> 
> Ti is about making logical decisions from a subjective set of mind, at least the way I understood it.
> 
> Te is more objective and Ni is the subjective one. So I take on objective facts with Te and "use" my Ni on them and liking it seem like I am trying to "bend reality" with Ti.


Mistaking Ni+Te for Ti has happened before, and it could be so in your case, but I'm not convinced by your argument.

You are correct in that Ti is about making logical decisions from subjective information. But wouldn't rather the perceiving function (Ni) be the one feeding data to the judging function (Ti). Even if Ti is the external of the two, Ni is still the perceiving function.

I did read about this somewhere, but I can't remember where...


----------



## penchant (Sep 20, 2010)

Daimai said:


> Just took the questionnaire you provided, here are my results:
> 
> Part 1:
> Tactical: 19
> ...


That seems like a clear result to me: NT temperament.

I don't know if the fact that you didn't put the first (and most important) sentence in the Chart-the-Course description is significant, but if it is, then INTJ seems like a reasonable conclusion. The two interaction styles are different for INTP and INTJ, as you can see from the bottom part of the article Functianalyst linked to...


----------



## Functianalyst (Jul 23, 2009)

Correct and based on his choice of interaction styles, it is possible that he is INTJ followed by INTP. So you may want to consider your dominant function and how it may look like the other:

*Introverted iNtuition (Ni)*- Foreseeing implications, conceptualizing, and having images of the future or profound meaning. Introverted iNtuiting often involves a sense of what will be. The details might be a little fuzzy, but when you tune in to this process, there is some sense of how things will be. Using this process, we often are able to get pictures about the future or at least a sense of what will happen before we have any data. Sometimes it is an awareness of what is happening in another location and we have no sensory data to go on. Other times introverted iNtuiting operates when we conceptualize and get a sense of a whole plan, pattern, theory, or explanation. These are the kinds of images that come to us in the shower, in meditative states, or in dreams and help us deeply understand something. Sometimes they are profoundly symbolic and even universally so. In using this process, we tune into a likely future or something universal. This information can then be used to decide what to do next, what to plan for. Introverted iNtuiting involves synthesizing the seemingly paradoxical or contradictory, which takes a problem or situation to a new level. Using this process, we can have moments when a completely new, un-imagined realization comes to us. There is a disengagement from interactions in the room, followed by a sudden "aha!" or "that's it!" kind of experience. These kinds of experiences are often seen as if they are "psychic" in nature. The sense of the future and the realizations that come from introverted iNtuiting have a sureness to them and an imperative quality that seems to demand action.

*Introverted Thinking (Ti) *- Analyzing, categorizing, and figuring out how something works. Introverted Thinking often involves finding just the right word to clearly express an idea concisely, crisply, and to the point. Using introverted Thinking is like having an internal sense of the essential qualities of something, noticing the fine distinctions that make it what it is and then naming it. It also involves an internal reasoning process of deriving subcategories of classes and sub-principles of general principles. These can then be used in problem solving, analysis, and refining of a product or an idea. This process is evidenced in behaviors like taking things or ideas apart to figure out how they work. The analysis involves looking at different sides of an issue and seeing where there is inconsistency. In so doing, there is a search for a "leverage point" that will fix problems with the least amount of effort or damage to the system.

*Introverted Thinking (Ti)/Introverted Intuiting (Ni)* – Ti and Ni are often accompanied by a sense of detachment and disconnection. With both there tends to be comfort with complexity. The difference is that when we are engaging in Ti, we usually have a clear sense of the principles or models something is judged against, whereas with Ni, an impressionistic image forms in the mind.


----------



## Daimai (Feb 14, 2010)

I identify with Ni a lot more, at least in that description.


----------

