# INTP vs ISTP. Any insight on the differences?



## Hodgepodge (Aug 27, 2015)

So, I've been lurking for a while, but I'm pretty much a newbie, and thinking I've probably been typed wrong.

Actually, I test as INTJ (excuse me while I laugh hysterically. I'm pretty sure INTJs tend to, you know finish things. Or master them, or be generally WAY more focused than I've ever been in my life.)

So further reading led me to P. I actually test borderline between J and P, which I suspect is an issue of linguistics. The way a lot of the questions are worded, my brain refuses to say anything but 'well, it depends...' without a functional example to base my response on.

So, that led me to INTP, which felt like a better fit. Reading lNTP lists can give me hours of 'lol. I totally do that.' Fun. But invariably (in the spirit of full disclosure), I get to a few INTP traits that my brain responds to with: 'so basically, you're just a dick.'

Reading and reading more, I checked out INFP. Nope. I'm absolutely a T. And, now I'm up to ISTP. And, it's sounding, at a glance, like it might be a pretty good match, actually. I've been feeling lately like the thing about INTP that isn't quite sitting right seems to be a sort of tendency to focus on minutiae, maybe? I'm more of a big picture kind of gal. I just want to learn stuff and make things, but have very little interest in absorbing information that has no apparent practical application when there is so much info in the world that can be applied and used to, you know, make things, and learn cooler stuff. All knowledge is cool, of course, but I think my brain is better spent absorbing information that I can use than information that would help me win a game of Trivial Pursuit. 

So, would anyone care to break down the main differences between these types to help me more accurately type myself?


----------



## Kirby (May 30, 2015)

Since you have narrowed it down to a few types, now it's time to look at the cognitive functions of each type. Read up on 'inferior Fe'. If that description suits you pretty well, then you are definitely not an INTJ and are either INTP or ISTP.

The difference between the latter two types lies in how they view the world through their perception axes. The INTP views the world through extroverted intuition, Ne, and introverted sensing, Si, but with a preference of Ne over Si.

The INTP tends to have a bigger repertoire of random facts in their memory as opposed to the ISTP because of the Ne-Si axis. Si higher up in the stack lets INTP soak up more facts and procedures, and they stay there because Ne convinces the INTP that the random facts may have an arbitrary application possible in the future. Si types experience nostalgia more thoroughly than Se types. Si types, especially SJs, love to take photos as memories of the past and buy collectibles/artifacts as decoration to later reproduce nostalgia. The ENTP has a magnified version of this because of inferior Si. They are sometimes called pack rats.

You sound a bit more like an ISTP, though. If you did not identify with the above, then you are most likely ISTP. The ISTP views the world through Se and Ni with a preference of sensing over intuition. For INTPs who walk into a new mall, they look at all of the beautiful stores admirably and maybe look at the some of the displays in the front. When they see something possibly familiar, Ne users associate it with something they remember from the past. They make connections and draw similarities between what they saw seconds ago and what they saw, say, weeks ago.

The ISTP does not work like that. They walk into a new mall, and Se collects all of the physical details in the mall. Se scans the environment through the body's senses and acutely picks up little nuances that Ne usually does not read. Ne usually reads 'mannequins in the clothing store' and might get flashbacks of their last trip to Victoria's Secret. I don't think Se users are like that. Se users tend to be better drivers because they are more attuned to their outside environment rather than Si, which is attuned to bodily sensations, including random unexplainable pains and discomforts in their body.

I know an ESTP who also pays a lot of attention to not just the road while he drives but also the decorations on other peoples' lawns and usually makes comments about them. He is not associative with his comments though. They are usually statements of the material composition or maybe how much they cost. He might also comment about one of his friends who also have the item or what the item does.


----------



## Psychopomp (Oct 3, 2012)

Hodgepodge said:


> So, I've been lurking for a while, but I'm pretty much a newbie, and thinking I've probably been typed wrong.
> 
> Actually, I test as INTJ (excuse me while I laugh hysterically. I'm pretty sure INTJs tend to, you know finish things. Or master them, or be generally WAY more focused than I've ever been in my life.)
> 
> ...


The bolded, from an MBTI perspective, would indicate ISTP. 

INTPs, by the MBTI system, would be more concerned with inapplicable highfalutin theory.


----------



## Zosio (Mar 17, 2015)

Here are the more observable differences, from my perspective: 

Auxiliary Ne vs Auxiliary Se is the biggest thing that differentiates the two. Having Aux-Ne makes INTPs almost completely aloof to their surroundings at times. They can be much more reclusive than an ISTP, and they tend to stay out of people's way. An ISTP's Aux-Se makes them much more in-tune with their environment, and they are more likely to try to influence or alter a situation. 

INTPs, generally, also don't seem to care too much about aesthetics and whatnot, while ISTPs are prone toward being almost obsessive about that sort of thing. An INTP can end up having wild "Einstein hair" without caring a thing about it (my INTP sister, for instance, wishes that she could just shave her head bald and save herself the trouble), while an ISTP will probably place a higher value on looking presentable. 

Those are my observations, at any rate. I hope they're helpful to you.


----------



## Hodgepodge (Aug 27, 2015)

Thank you, Kirby, for confirming my suspicion. 

I admit your third paragraph mostly makes my brain explode. I keep meaning to read up on the functions...uh, later.  It's my internal priority mechanism: I could read up on functions. Oooor...I can [insert project here]. But, I followed enough of it to know that there's sooome of that in me, just not quite to the extent that I think I could call it dominant. My roommate thinks I'm a walking encyclopedia, which I had read is sort of an INTP thing, so I think that threw me off. But, I absorb more 'vague details which I can connect as needed to produce a rough estimation of fact' than 'random bits of specific data'. The end result is similar from the outside looking in, I guess, but I don't think the actual mental process is the same. Like, I can tell you the exact length in minutes of all 3 theatrical Lord of the Rings films, but not because I know the specific length of each one, but rather because I know they were about x longer than a typical movie, and about x shorter than the extended additions, so, by deduction here is a very educated guesstimate that just happens to be exact by sheer dumb luck.'
On the other hand, that very, very dear friend who I have known for over 15 years? Don't ask me her birthday. It's September. Somewhere in the middle. And, do I remember that time we did that thing? I mean OMG, it was so funny! No, no I don't. I forgot all about it until you told me. Now, I vaguely remember it. Vaguely. I've even had to organize my bookshelves by 'books that I've read' and 'books that I haven't read', because if I'm lucky enough to remember I read a book, I will never be able to tell you what it was about. 'I don't know. Things. It was good. I remember that it was good. You should read it and find out. I kept it, so I must have liked it.' It always amazes me how my roommate can remember small details from books or movies he hasn't picked up in 10 years. 

Your mall analogy is actually really helpful. When I walk into a new environment, I spend remarkably little time looking at my actual specific surroundings (my mother has been calling me 'oblivious' my entire life). I will, eventually, but it's not the first thing I look at. My first instinct is absolutely 'internal compass mode': I am here. The mall map says so. From here, I need to go there. The most direct route, is...' Once I'm confident in my spatial relations and where I am versus where I want to go, then I might start to notice specifics, but it's definitely secondary. I will get lost, same as anyone, but I will never get lost in the same place twice. I still don't own a GPS (though I occasionally use the one on my phone). My roommate makes fun of me when we use his; he claims I argue with it. Not my fault - the thing takes him off exits to put him right back on the road we started on. It drives him around blocks for no reason. For some reason I can't fathom, he follows it even when you can see right on the map that it's taking us off the major highway in order to get right back onto it 35 seconds later. I somehow always end up the navigator, even in places I've never been.

Thanks for the breakdown. That definitely clarifies why INTP seemed very "close, but...not quite." ISTP it is, then.


----------



## Hodgepodge (Aug 27, 2015)

Thanks, Psychopomp, that was more or less my suspicion when I started reading up on ISTP. How you go from testing as INTJ to ISTP, I have no idea, but I blame the test.


----------



## Hodgepodge (Aug 27, 2015)

Thanks for the input, zosio913. While I don't consider myself too obsessive with aesthetics, per se, I do find that I need things in some semblance of order or my thoughts become just as scattered as my projects. So, I don't think I'll be sporting any wild Einstein hair any time soon.  There's definitely an extent to where I focus on appearance, though, primarily because I have a weird obsession lately with trying to make 'outer me' reflect 'inner me' a little more closely. The contrast between 'what I have to wear to not take s**t at work' and 'who I am as a person', has created some bizarre misunderstandings, so it's one of my fascinations at the moment.


----------



## Simpson17866 (Dec 3, 2014)

NPs prefer theoretical ideas, SPs prefer practical application.

The stereotype is "NPs love ideas and hate application, SPs love application and hate ideas," but it would be more accurate to say that "NPs might hate application and love ideas; they might be ambivalent about application and love ideas; or they might actually love application, they would just love ideas *even more* (and vice versa for SPs)"


----------



## TyranAmiros (Jul 7, 2014)

One dimension I like to think about is "narrow" vs. "broad" knowledge.

Both INTP and ISTP like information--they like to get down into the root of problems, the sources of things. But the INTP's knowledge is broader and shallower than the ISTP's. It's more diffuse instead of concentrated. True story--I recognized a piece of music as Baroque simply because "it sounded Baroque" while my ISTP musician friend began reeling off all the features that made it so. But then I brought up the social and political context of the music, and I lost him. 

And that's the difference--I connect various disparate useless things: History, literature, science, psychology, math, and above all philosophy to connect ideas at a "forest" level. See how all these pieces fit together to create this new theory. Maybe there's something to apply it to that's practical, but that's not the point. The exciting thing is creating something cohesive in a new way.

For ISTP, it's not connecting, it's realizing or representing--in the original Latin sense of those words: bringing something out of the realm of the abstract into the realm of the tangible. The forest cannot exist without knowing the "trees". See how a _proper_ understanding of this theory leads to an outcome. Maybe this forces us to rethink the theory, but that's not the end goal. The goal is to do something efficiently, elegantly, and properly.


----------



## Hodgepodge (Aug 27, 2015)

TyranAmiros said:


> One dimension I like to think about is "narrow" vs. "broad" knowledge.
> 
> Both INTP and ISTP like information--they like to get down into the root of problems, the sources of things. But the INTP's knowledge is broader and shallower than the ISTP's. It's more diffuse instead of concentrated. True story--I recognized a piece of music as Baroque simply because "it sounded Baroque" while my ISTP musician friend began reeling off all the features that made it so. But then I brought up the social and political context of the music, and I lost him.
> 
> ...


The fact you mention music is really interesting to me, TyranAmiros, because the approach to the arts was very much the clincher that turned my 'this is slightly off' into a more firm 'In spite of some noticeable similarities, this is very possibly not my type'. You read and read, and develop these stereotypes, and one I keep coming across is INTP=science & math. Now, science is interesting stuff, but when it comes to more artsy venues, there seems to be a general consensus (true or not) that INTPs just aren't that into actively participating in the arts. I'm all about the arts. I'm a poet, a writer, an occasional artist and artisan. I'm learning three different musical instruments in a whacky, ADD sort of way. The arts are sort of my thing. And, that is exactly what made me start investigating the subject further.

But, there are moments where I can relate to the connections. Connections are relevant and important when taken in context. I have a friend who gets seriously angry at books, especially old ones. (I admit that the way her brain works is a complete enigma to me. She rages against the Star Wars books to the point I feel compelled to tell her 'just breathe. it's going to be okay.') But, she'll get really angry, for example, calling some writer from the 1800s a "woman-hater" and from there determining she now hates him and can't enjoy anything he writes, ever, at all, and essentially that ruins for her even books which she previously enjoyed. But, when you read older books, you have to look at the social context. What we consider "woman-hating" now, at the time when the book was written, was the equivalent of saying 'the sky is blue'. It was an author writing in the way that was prevalent at the time. To get righteously angry about one author out of many boggles my mind, because it's the equivalent of saying "every man who wrote before the current century was a vile beast, but I am choosing to hate just this one because of one paragraph in a book I just read which greatly reflects the culture of the era but I've decided to believe was his specific and isolated opinion so I can detest him for it." What's really more accurate is to say would be: "they lived in a different world than we do, so you can't separate literature entirely from the culture in which it was written." So, there is a part of me which forms connections, and which says 'these connections can't be ignored', but I think it's also a fairly pragmatic, practical part - more realist than theoretician. Theory is fascinating, but at the end of the day, if I can't connect that theory to anything, I put it aside as 'something to revisit later when I'll get more out of it'. I'm far more likely to sort of take a complex theory and consolidate it down to the bare bones so that I can communicate it to someone in an easy-to-access way that they can understand, than I am to take a theory and expand on it to the point that no one will be able to follow what the heck I'm talking about. While I understand that things are often more complex and detailed than my simplifications, I've always thought it has more value to give someone a basic framework, which can be expanded on if they take an interest, rather than giving them specifics which they may not even comprehend. No one will know if they're interested in something they don't understand, is my logic.

At the end of the day I approach theory on an 'as needed' basis. There are subjects where I can theory a person to death (if I'm in the mood), but I'm really more likely to focus on 'is this comprehensible' than 'is this thorough.'


----------



## Hodgepodge (Aug 27, 2015)

Simpson17866 said:


> NPs prefer theoretical ideas, SPs prefer practical application.
> 
> The stereotype is "NPs love ideas and hate application, SPs love application and hate ideas," but it would be more accurate to say that "NPs might hate application and love ideas; they might be ambivalent about application and love ideas; or they might actually love application, they would just love ideas *even more* (and vice versa for SPs)"


Wonderful nutshell explanation! I've got nothing against theory; it's fascinating stuff. But, at the end of the day, I want to DO things.


----------



## reckful (Jun 19, 2012)

I'd be curious to see your scores on the official "Step I" MBTI.

For what it's worth, having your profile interests be "The arts: writing, poetry, music, art, crafts..." is quite a lot more consistent with INF (or INT) than IST.


----------



## Hodgepodge (Aug 27, 2015)

reckful said:


> I'd be curious to see your scores on the official "Step I" MBTI.
> 
> For what it's worth, having your profile interests be "The arts: writing, poetry, music, art, crafts..." is quite a lot more consistent with INF (or INT) than IST.


I tend to post borderline between almost everything except the I and E most of the time. And, I can take these tests ad infinitum, but at least 40% of my answers to the questions are completely arbitrary, which is bound to skew results. Do I like schedules or not? It depends. Do I want to be competent or compassionate? Both - I don't think one has to exist at the exclusion of the other. There are literally dozens of questions on the MBTI that I look at and go "dfkjadlfkjadlfkj!!! How am I supposed to answer that? Both. BOTH BOTH BOTH. These things are not opposites! There is room for a gray area between!" lol. So, it's tough for me to put a lot of stock in a test when half of my answers are "eenie meenie...."

I've read this concept that art and music are more F traits, but that just seems like nonsense. I've always found the arts are an outlet for the things that I can't express to actual, live people who might judge me for them. They're a costume I can put on to explore my feelings, which is sort of a necessity for someone who doesn't quite know how to deal with them otherwise, and is almost completely incapable of letting other people see them. The arts have been a sort of sanctuary for me, a judgement-free zone of sorts. 

I tried on F for a bit, and it just made me analyze why I should be an F or should not be an F to the point of some kind of weird, temporary neurosis, until I realized that the reason I was analyzing it was that I was blatantly a T. I don't think an F would subject herself to some borderline nervous breakdown over 'but WHY?! what is the REASON? It needs to be clearly explainable or it doesn't exist,' which, I totally do when I don't understand things. 

I like learning things. I like making things. I like the act of creating art of some kind because it helps me connect with emotions that I have a hard time dealing with or sharing. So, for a while I was like 'I'm an INTP' and didn't question that much. It felt slightly askew, but I knew I've tested consistently as either INTJ or I???. (Literally. More than a few tests have basically told me. You're an introvert. Beyond that, we have no idea.) But, without fail, reading INTP threads in my usual lurker mode always starts with laughing, but gets to a point of 'my eyes are bleeding. I can't enjoy not talking to you people anymore.'

So, I started looking at alternatives, and when you break me down in a nutshell, I just want to learn stuff and make things and not sweat a lot of the minutiae, or only sweat it in so much as it's useful. 'In so much as it's useful' seems to be a less INTP quality, and it's fairly central to my modus operandi. ISTP seem to be makers of a sort, just approaching art in a more hands-on sort of way (at least based on what I've read so far), so the divergence doesn't really seem to be all that extreme. (I have a love/hate relationship with poetry, if that matters. I make it, but it's more compulsion than passion. And, I very seldom actually read other people's without getting a glazed over look in my eye. I try to, I really do, but I have a really low tolerance for 'blah blah love flowers hearts pretty phrases blah blah I have nothing at all important to say Blah blah hearts and flowers.' It's...a weird sort of relationship; even though I'm a poet, I've met very few other poets that I can stand.)

For the record, here were my results:

Very Clear Introversion: 21/21
Clear Intuition: 21/26
Clear Thinking: 20/24
Slight Perceiving: 12/22

So, I did test as an INTP, but with the quirk that almost half of the questions I clicked on completely arbitrarily as there was absolutely no way I could answer distinctly one way or the other. I wonder if I would have had more clear results if I took this test in my 20s, when I was less self-aware. I feel like I'm just at a point in my life where I know my personality flaws, and am working on them. It's a challenge, but it's necessary if I want my artsy side, which is completely central to my inner world, to be a part of my life. I really have no choice but to brave up and let it be part of my outer world, too.

So, now I'm confused all over again. Thanks so much for that.


----------



## reckful (Jun 19, 2012)

Hodgepodge said:


> So, now I'm confused all over again. Thanks so much for that.


You're very welcome. :tongue:

I think it's unlikely you're not an IN, and I've got a mild INFP lean, with INFJ as first runner-up and INTP as second runner-up. (And contrary to what some of the Harold-Grant-function-stack aficionados would have you believe, the fact that INTJ is the worst fit for you among the four IN types — assuming that's true — is consistent with the notion that INFP is your best fit.)



Hodgepodge said:


> I tried on F for a bit, and it just made me analyze why I should be an F or should not be an F to the point of some kind of weird, temporary neurosis, until I realized that the reason I was analyzing it was that I was blatantly a T. I don't think an F would subject herself to some borderline nervous breakdown over 'but WHY?! what is the REASON? It needs to be clearly explainable or it doesn't exist,' which, I totally do when I don't understand things.


Not only don't I see anything uncharacteristic of INFs in that paragraph, I'd say INFs are the types _most_ inclined to ponder/analyze their own type "to the point of some kind of weird, temporary neurosis." _All four_ of the IN types can be prone to overanalyze things, and you'll find some further discussion of that if you look at the "reckful on INs" post I link you to in the second spoiler.

But before that: on your issues with the MBTI test, I've put some recycled reckful in the first spoiler.


* *




All of the items on the current form (Form M) of the official MBTI test got there by a process of elimination that started decades ago and has involved hundreds of tested items, with the survivors basically being the items that have been found to do the best job of clustering — based on thousands of tests and the psychometric standards applicable in the personality typology field — with the other items being scored for the same preference. (And that's not to say that any one item is likely to be chosen by anything like 90% or more of the appropriate type.)

And it's maybe worth noting that it's a common mistake — but a mistake nonetheless — to think there's something wrong with a two-choice personality test item if either both answers appeal to you (so you want to say, "Both, please!") or both answers seem too extreme or otherwise don't fit you. In those cases, you're supposed to do your best to pick the option that seems like the best fit (in the first case) or the _least poor fit_ (in the second). They don't call that kind of test "forced choice" for nothing.

The MBTI Manual expressly acknowledges that, in many cases, both sides of a particular item are likely to have some appeal to any particular test-taker, and also that, in many cases, the alternative choices don't exactly make sense in terms of a _logical opposition_. As the Manual explains:



MBTI Manual said:


> In writing items, every effort was made to make the responses appeal to the appropriate types, for example, to make the perceptive response to a JP item as attractive to P people as the judging response is to J people. The result is that responses may be psychologically rather than logically opposed, a fact that annoys many thinking types. Item content is less important than that the words and form of the sentence should serve as a "stimulus to evoke a type response."


And here's a little bit of what Myers said in Gifts Differing about the relationship of the actual underlying temperament preferences to behavior, test items and summary descriptions:



Myers said:


> Since the more superficial aspects of type are often the easiest to report, many trivial reactions are useful for identification, but these are merely straws to show which way the wind blows. They are not the wind. It would be a mistake to assume that the essence of an attitude or of a perceptive or judging process is defined by its trivial surface effects or by the test items that reflect it or by the words used to describe it.


As a final note on the test, here's what the MBTI Manual says about the proper "frame of mind" for taking it:



MBTI Manual said:


> Some people have trouble finding the correct frame of mind for answering the MBTI. When reporting the results to some people, they say they reported their "work self," "school self," "ideal self," or some other self they now consider atypical. The frame of reference desired in respondents is what has been termed the "shoes-off self." The "shoes-off self" fosters an attitude in which one functions naturally, smoothly, and effortlessly, and in which one is not going "against one's grain." The function of the MBTI is to provide the first step toward understanding one's natural preferences.





And just in case you're interested — and _only_ if you're interested — I've put links to some other posts that you might find relevant to your type in the second spoiler.


* *




In case you've been led to believe that IS_P is a more likely arts-oriented type than IN_P, the opposite is actually true. INFP is arguably the single most likely artist type (with INFJ and INTP both runner-up contenders), while ISFPs and ISTPs are relatively unlikely artist types. The "ISFP as artist" notion came from David Keirsey, and I think Keirsey had quite a few insightful things to say, but the ISFP=artist thing was probably his biggest mistake. For quite a lot more on that issue (stats included), see this post and this post.

If you want to read an "Introduction to S and N" I put together a while back (with quotes from Myers and Keirsey), see the first sub-spoiler in the main spoiler (if that's not too confusing) in this post.

Also see this post (from an MBTI Reference thread by @PaladinX), including the spoiler.

David Keirsey, as you may know, is probably most famous for his view that splitting Myers' 16 types into NFs, NTs, SJs and SPs creates four groups that each has characteristics in common (and differs from the other three groups) to an extent that significantly exceeds the other possible two-letter groupings. And I think he has a lot of interesting (although not always correct) things to say about each of those groups, but I also think he stresses that particular foursome too much, at the expense of the things that INs and NJs and STs and etc. have in common. And in any case, Keirsey never said there weren't interesting things that could be said about the other combinations — and, for what it's worth, Myers' preferred foursome was NT, NF, ST and SF.

As for me, although I agree that I have some significant things in common with my fellow NTs, I've increasingly come around to the view that, if I had to pick a group of four MBTI types to really be my "kindred spirits" group, it would be the INs rather than the NTs, and if you want to read a bit of "reckful on INs" — to maybe help you decide if we're your peeps — you can find it in the spoiler at the end of this post.

I think it's not uncommon for INFs to test as INTs, at least partly because many of the F choices on typical MBTI tests (including the official test) are choices that are more likely to appeal to SFs and EFs than INFs — and I think that's probably more true of female INFs than male INFs. I think male F's are often aware that they differ from cultural male stereotypes in ways that make them more "F-ish" than average whereas, by contrast, I think INF women who compare themselves to cultural female stereotypes — not to mention the majority of actual women — are reasonably likely to think of themselves as more T-ish than those "feeler" women (EFs, SFs and, especially, ESFs).

You can find quite a bit of T/F input from me in this post, and a l-o-n-g explanation for why I think "T/F's a mess" in this post.

If you're interested in quite a lot of input from me on J/P, see the spoiler in this post.

And if you've let anybody bamboozle you into thinking that INFJs and INFPs (or INTJs and INTPs) are waaay different (_because functions_!) or that you can't possibly be an INFx or INTx (_because functions_!), you may want to look at this post.

As you may know, there's a well-established fifth temperament dimension that isn't included in the Myers-Briggs typology and is often referred to as "neuroticism" (although it isn't a psychological disorder). The Big Five/SLOAN typology labels it Emotional Stability and refers to the two poles as Calm and Limbic. Being Limbic on that dimension tends to be associated with, among other things, anxiety/worry-proneness; emotional sensitivity/volatility; proneness to annoyance/irritation; self-consciousness; and (sometimes) depression. I'm Limbic, and it makes me less of a cucumber than some of my fellow INTJs — and there are studies that suggest that artistic/creative types are more likely to be Limbic than the average person.

For more on that issue (including links to a couple tests), see this post.

Finally, as more of a meta-issue, I suspect you've probably been exposed to a boatload of forum posts (not to mention other illustrious internet sources) who've told you that Jungian/MBTI type is basically _all about the functions_, and that the dichotomies mostly just deal with superficial stuff, and that you should think of them primarily as "letter codes" that need to be _decoded_ to lead you to the deeper stuff.

But I'm here to tell you that those posters have been taken for a ride. Not even Jung himself prioritized the so-called "cognitive functions" in the way that a lot of forumites do. In fact, Jung spent more of Psychological Types talking about the things he thought extraverts had in common and introverts had in common than he spent talking about all eight of the functions put together; and in the Foreword to a 1934 edition of the book, he bemoaned the fact that too many people were inclined to view Chapter 10 (his function descriptions) as the essence of the book, while noting that he'd stuck those at the back of the book for a reason.

And in any event, and regardless of what Jung's perspective was, it's been close to 100 years since Psychological Types was published, and a lot of studies have been done since then — and it shouldn't surprise you to hear that the modern MBTI reflects countless adjustments and improvements to Jung's original concepts.

As further discussed in the spoiler at the end of this post (and the posts it links to), the current _reality-based_ take on the situation is that the so-called "cognitive functions" have turned out to be what James Reynierse has called a "category mistake."



And finally, just in case you find them useful, I've put profile roundups for the eight introverted types in the last spoiler.


* *




_INTJ Profiles_
MBTI Manual (2nd Ed.)
MBTI Manual (3rd Ed.)
Keirsey (Please Understand Me)
Kroeger & Thuesen (Type Talk)
Hirsh & Kummerow (Lifetypes [abridged])
Berens & Nardi
personalitypage: Portrait
personalitypage: Personal Growth
personalitypage: Relationships
personalitypage: Careers

_INTP Profiles_
MBTI Manual (2nd Ed.)
MBTI Manual (3rd Ed.)
Keirsey (Please Understand Me)
Kroeger & Thuesen (Type Talk)
Hirsh & Kummerow (Lifetypes [abridged])
Berens & Nardi
personalitypage: Portrait
personalitypage: Personal Growth
personalitypage: Relationships
personalitypage: Careers

_INFJ Profiles_
MBTI Manual (2nd Ed.)
MBTI Manual (3rd Ed.)
Keirsey (Please Understand Me)
Kroeger & Thuesen (Type Talk)
Hirsh & Kummerow (Lifetypes [abridged])
Berens & Nardi
personalitypage: Portrait
personalitypage: Personal Growth
personalitypage: Relationships
personalitypage: Careers

_INFP Profiles_
MBTI Manual (2nd Ed.)
MBTI Manual (3rd Ed.)
Keirsey (Please Understand Me)
Kroeger & Thuesen (Type Talk)
Hirsh & Kummerow (Lifetypes [abridged])
Berens & Nardi
personalitypage: Portrait
personalitypage: Personal Growth
personalitypage: Relationships
personalitypage: Careers

_ISTJ Profiles_
MBTI Manual (2nd Ed.)
MBTI Manual (3rd Ed.)
Keirsey (Please Understand Me)
Kroeger & Thuesen (Type Talk)
Hirsh & Kummerow (Lifetypes [abridged])
Berens & Nardi
personalitypage: Portrait
personalitypage: Personal Growth
personalitypage: Relationships
personalitypage: Careers

_ISTP Profiles_
MBTI Manual (2nd Ed.)
MBTI Manual (3rd Ed.)
Keirsey (Please Understand Me)
Kroeger & Thuesen (Type Talk)
Hirsh & Kummerow (Lifetypes [abridged])
Berens & Nardi
personalitypage: Portrait
personalitypage: Personal Growth
personalitypage: Relationships
personalitypage: Careers

_ISFJ Profiles_
MBTI Manual (2nd Ed.)
MBTI Manual (3rd Ed.)
Keirsey (Please Understand Me)
Kroeger & Thuesen (Type Talk)
Hirsh & Kummerow (Lifetypes [abridged])
Berens & Nardi
personalitypage: Portrait
personalitypage: Personal Growth
personalitypage: Relationships
personalitypage: Careers

_ISFP Profiles_
MBTI Manual (2nd Ed.)
MBTI Manual (3rd Ed.)
Keirsey (Please Understand Me)
Kroeger & Thuesen (Type Talk)
Hirsh & Kummerow (Lifetypes [abridged])
Berens & Nardi
personalitypage: Portrait
personalitypage: Personal Growth
personalitypage: Relationships
personalitypage: Careers


----------



## ninjahitsawall (Feb 1, 2013)

ISTP's usually have a more positive attitude towards physical activity and "doing things" than INTP's. INTP's (and maybe also INTJ's) can come across as lazy in that regard.


----------



## Asphodelle (Jul 24, 2015)

Oops, replied instead of 'Reply with quote.' so now I have to come up with something to say.

I am INTP and I know a couple ISTP's - one is my father in law and one is a friend of my husband's. It's a sample size of two, so objectively unhelpful, but since I accidentally posted, here's my two cents. I am VERY different than they are; I am not as much of a MBTI expert as most of the people here, but I would guess that these types are not very similar. They are much more traditional in their thought process, more hands-on, more action-oriented, while I am more abstract, theoretical, and idea-spinning. (We all share a rebellious streak, though.)

When a shelf in my sewing room fell on the floor because I preferred to use my own method of nailing it into the wall (part laziness, part boredom with the subject of carpentry,) my ISTP father in law came with an arsenal of drill bits and bobs and installed it beautifully, saving the day. He relishes having the proper tools and knowing the proper techniques. I would rather have my fabric laying on the floor than have to learn all of that boring minutia. I sew that way, too. I am self-taught and steadfastedly ignore most traditional techniques, not even trying to learn, because I prefer to figure it out myself or invent something new.

(As an asterisk, INTP's can be obsessive about random things; for me it is sewing and board games. I am sure there are some INTP's who have taken an interest in carpentry and find unique, creative ways to excel in the craft. But even they would be bored hanging simple shelves, as I am bored making simple blankets.)

You say that you value something 'when it has a practical application' and 'when it's useful' - is it possible you mean, 'when it has the potential for creative, thoughtful applications in my current systems of interest?' That's what the INTP would think. 

@TyranAmiros wrote a perfectly beautiful post that is much more eloquent and informative than my attempts to explain, so I'll just second what he said.


----------



## shameless (Apr 21, 2014)

Hodgepodge please investigate the cognitive functions more. 

I am not sure what you are based on the little info we got. 

I do think tho that your getting some biased stereotyping more so the 'proper' info on the functions. 

For example I must laugh at the the assertions from INTPs stating they look at things and see a memory (uh yeah so does anybody-Si is more then just that description as Se is capable of association as well). The other assertion that stood out as absolutely ridiculous was someone saying ISTPs are more traditional (lmfao-yeah right). 

Tho one person at least referred you to functions rather then just the letter stackings and silly stereotypes (thats good) the interpretation relayed I think may have been off as far as describing aux Ne vs Se. Really they are both wide angle lens (rather then aux Ni & Si which are zoom).

I guess what I am getting at is that if they are going to refer to their tert Si use, and compare that to aux Se (the two are out of order in comparison) as its should be tert Ni & tert Si compared with each other (which again a similar lens just another order and formation).

Whatever you do, dont make the mistake I did and listen to simple N vs S debates (most intuitives here are not intuitives when I say here I mean on per c, its a common mistake that gets perpetuated because of how intuitives who write the tests word the tests (who the hell does not like to think they read between lines-thats an N question, written by an N not realizing that theres a good handful of S's that read between the lines further more a handful of N's who do not (yeah seriously)-because it has to do with function stacking and order). 

I just would like to refer you to possibly filling out some of the questionares in the type me section and reading up on the functions rather then the letters stacking of I/E vs N/S vs T/F vs J/P (I wish when I first took an interest in typing more people explained those things rather then let me dribble on about the letters which are just a front code on top of the deeper code. Which is the functions. Take some cognitive functions tests. Then some more things to consider enneagram greatly effects if for example an ISTP is more stoic, or adrenaline seeking, or philosophy seeking, or wanderer. It also effects the social dispositions and why even once you figure out functions, and letter stackings why some people do not fit a stereotype but do fit the bill for the order in which they function. 

I am sorry I do not mean to be disrespectful to anyone specifically here who answered who were INTP but its most common that people mistype as INTP and are not INTP alot of them are INFP, ISTP, ISTJ, and yes this one.... ISFJ. Its very common on the site for people to type INTP because of how transparent the questions are on intuitive vs sensing and people not understanding functions. (I mistyped as INTP originally-) I can tell some of the answers you got were from people who do not understand the functions of their 'type'. Its evident when stereotyping on types of people vs functions is used. (There is a fun section here where its easy to take a play at everyones stereotypes and can have alot of truth-but that section shouldnt be used to figure a type). 

Again I dont know what you are, you did not give us enough to go off of to determine your order of functions. Just please refer to the cognitive functions for alot of information and dont listen to surface info your getting. I think @TyranAmiros was giving good feedback to you on functions and did not sound biased or snowflakey just was offering insight into a start of the functions.


----------



## Hodgepodge (Aug 27, 2015)

You'll have to forgive me, but I've only got a couple of minutes before work so not quite enough time to reply to everything that happened while I was sleeping right now.

reckful (and please PLEASE don't take this as any kind of insult at all, but I'm going to be a bit blunt to save time since I have a limited amount of it atm), if I am an F type of any variety, we are in the Twilight Zone.  lol. In all seriousness, I appreciate your very well thought out and detailed posts, but the I and T are the two letters I am absolutely 100% positive on. You, of course, don't know me personally so wouldn't know that. But, based on 34 years of interacting with live people and being exceptionally bad at it (cliffs notes version. Rest assured, I have well-placed reasons for my deduction), either I am a T type, or an alien. F is definitely not an option.  S vs N, P vs J, those are absolutely up for debate and discussion. The I and T, in spite of test results that occasionally say otherwise, I am absolutely positive about. (Again, excuse me for being a bit abrupt due to time constraints.)

Aphosdelle - the stereotyping I think is a big part of my problem in deducing. Stereotypes in themselves have basis in fact but are most commonly gross oversimplifications. The idea, as an artsy fartsy sort, that that is reserved for only this function over that function. Or, that some of us, while prioritizing one function over another may prioritize them to a slightly lesser extent than others of the same type, leaves so much room for gray areas that black and white statements are really rubbing me the wrong way atm. So 'when it's practical' vs 'when it has potential' - honestly, I don't know. I'll have to chew on that a bit. At the moment, I find myself unable to answer it.

Cinnamon83 - thank you for pointing out where some of the stereotypes are hiding. That's been a big part of the problem for me in all these deductions. I did take an enneagram test last night in hopes of further sleuthing things out, but found the same problem with the MBTI: almost half the questions I had no idea how to answer and ended up just picking the most neutral one. Fwiw, I tested most strongly on 4, with I think 5 and 9 being the next ones down. Would I test the same way if I took it again when my brain wasn't melting (I can not think clearly when my house is 95 degrees.), I have no idea. Testing as a 4 does seem 'right' for me, though, at a glance. I did a very quick cog function test this morning and got this:


Te (Extroverted Thinking) (70%) 
your valuation of / adherence to logic of external systems / hierarchies / methods

Ti (Introverted Thinking) (80%) 
your valuation of / adherence to your own internally devised logic/rational

Ne (Extroverted Intuition) (75%) 
your valuation of / tendency towards free association and creating with external stimuli

Ni (Introverted Intuition) (75%) 
your valuation of / tendency towards internal/original free association and creativity

Se (Extroverted Sensing) (70%) 
your valuation of / tendency to fully experience the world unfiltered, in the moment

Si (Introverted Sensing) (40%) 
your valuation of / focus on internal sensations and reliving past moments

Fe (Extroverted Feeling) (60%) 
your valuation of / adherence to external morals, ethics, traditions, customs, groups

Fi (Introverted Feeling) (90%) 
your valuation of / adherence to the sanctity of your own feelings / ideals / sentiment

//////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////
based on your results your type is likely - infp

As I said above, though, to be indescribably blunt on the point for expedience's sake since I really need to get my butt to work, if I am typed as an F of any sort, based on my interactions with other human beings over the past 30+ years, then the MBTI is nonsense and I am done with it. lol. I seem to get really inconsistent testing results, in any case. The I and T I'm positive about. The other two I'm less positive about, but IxTx - that much is pretty certain at this point. I'll look into the functions a bit more later, when I'm not running out the door.


----------



## Sapphire Sage (Jun 11, 2015)

Hodgepodge said:


> So, I've been lurking for a while, but I'm pretty much a newbie, and thinking I've probably been typed wrong.


The temperaments are quite different. Each temperament has core needs which they can't live without.
Artisans(ISTPs) cannot live without freedom or an ability to make an impact.
Rationals(INTPs) cannot live without being competent in their field or cannot stop themselves from acquiring knowledge.


----------



## Hodgepodge (Aug 27, 2015)

Sapphire Sage - this is one of the things that doesn't quite sit right with me, or maybe it's more accurate to say, I don't quite get. It doesn't seem to me that the desire for freedom and the desire for knowledge/competence are mutually exclusive. 
I want to know/learn all sorts of things, and I want to be competent in all of them(are there really people who learn things without interest in competence?) but I need the freedom to do that in my own way, by my own methods, and on my own time, or I'm going to get frustrated and not learn it at all. I don't know how to determine which of those things matter more to me, because they're both important parts of my reality.

I'm feeling very back to the drawing board this morning, questioning if I really understand months of casual reading at all. If anything, I feel more perplexed about mbti than I did when I first posted and am now second-guessing every thought I've had on the subject. It's kind of annoying, to be honest. Every comment turns another on it's head until everything is upside down, and I still can't see how these concepts exist at the exception of one another. I thought posting would help me put the nail in the coffin, so to speak, but if anything, it all just seems more vague and nebulous than ever. :/


----------

