# Which NT type is more similar to ESTPs?



## Yin Praxis

Functianalyst said:


> So let me make sure I am clear and not misinterpreting you again. You say that you are using temperament in a specific sense, but do not subscribe to the temperament theories at all?
> 
> I think this may be the reason for any problem in bridging your conclusion. You’re using two distinctively different systems that contradict the point you are attempting to convey.




No.



Functianalyst said:


> It was inconsistent because you started by making your equal comparison by temperament, then concluded by making your comparison by sharing the same dominant function. Temperament does not use functions and with the exception of MB referring to ST,SF,NT,NF in her book, she does not use temperament. In the end any comparison can be made to any type, depending on the system. Nevertheless, regardless of theory, I will say from my own experience, it took four years of my believing that MBTI Step II was correct in my being INTP, but four months of conversing with INTPs at INTPC, to realize that I had less in common with INTPs and more in common with INTJs. As stated in an earlier post my Ti-Se can easily look like Ni-Te. Granted other ISTPs may see it differently, but I can only speak from my observation and experience over the past ten years. Definitely not confused, since it’s apparent that the confusion for you is coming from using temperament in the same sentence as MBTI as though it meant something. The fact that all types share core values with their temperament brethren has no correlation to their type in Myers-Briggs. So the more you attempt to make that connection, the more I will continue to remind you that you are making apple/orange comparisons, thus contradicting your theory within the same sentence and paragraph.
> 
> 
> Correct, and if you use the two letter codes NJ, NP, ST, EJ, and so on, you can argue an equalness in any four types. It’s a shell game and an argument can be made that any type is similar or not similar based on which two-letters are used.




You're wrong, and I'll get to this at the end of the post.




Functianalyst said:


> But they are no more or less similar than using temperament codes for the correlation. As soon as you add the auxiliary function, it makes for a completely different type than the shared dominant function allows on it’s own.





Functianalyst said:


> The problem with your conclusion again is you attempt to convey a cluster that can be made from combining most two letters together resulting in different clusters, and correlating temperament with MB. The two systems combined contradict one another.


I see you're a man very hung up on pedantic terminology. To make this clear, I have never, at any point, being using, or trying to use, any system of personality typing that is devoid of cognitive processes. I know that I am not making an apples and oranges comparison, and you are apparently misreading something I'm saying, over and over again.

Any MBTI derivative theory that does not use the cognitive processes and their arrangement to determine type, is one I don't care for. So for example, I dislike Keirsey's work. The most I've ever tried to say about such a system is that I reject it. I have not attempted to make an argument using the combined logic of cognitive approaches like Lenore Thomson's and temperamental approaches like David Keirsey's. My points about what I believe about the types are all built from the cognitive approach.

I am using functions (which are a part of the cognitive process) and putting them in groups. This is not derived from any specific, pre-designed theory, it's just an extremely easy, simple thing to do, that may be helpful. I don't care that Keirsey never used processes, because I'm not using his functionless theory. I don't
care that Briggs didn't have "temperaments" because I'm not trying to precisely immitate her. And the fact that I happen to decide to put two letters together, only means I acknowledge that through their cognitive components they have certain things in common. That's only very loosely a temperament. I would just call it a category. Notice that I specifically avoided the groups SP and SJ. Did you notice that? I said there is ST and SF. I was going for the middle letters. It's a hierachy, and of course there is a relationship between the individual type and that larger category, because the components of the individual type are what's put it in that category. This like how among primates, there are apes, old world monkeys, new world monkeys, and prosimians. All different, but all under the category of primate because they do have some things the same.


And like I said, you were wrong about saying any type can be considered similar based on which two letters are used. Only some of the letters work like that. Before you continue your tone of pretending to educate me, I very thoroughly worked out every pattern and combination of function that was possible, and related each back to what its four letter MBTI code would. I found an important distinction.

While I could in theory group types on any two letters, be it XX__, or _X_X, or what have you, I found there is a very important difference between _XX_ and X__X. The first one is functional, the second one is attitudinal. That much I already knew for some time, but when I compared the dominant and auxiliary function arrangements I noticed the key aspect.

Let's say I only change the function determining letters, the middle ones. So let's go from INTJ to ISFJ. 
Ni-Te. Si-Fe. The functions, while aligned in the same way with the same attitudinal prefence, are clearly opposite and there's no way around that. If I like INFJ or ISTJ, I have Ni-Fe and Si-Te, and what I can see is that both are (in different ways) 50% functionally the same as both INTJ and ISFJ (though they are opposites of each other). The point being that the differences or similarities are very clear cut. There's no confusion.

So, supposing the INTJ is in the upper-left corner and we're analyzing it's functional similarity to other IJs, it looks like this:
100% | 50%
----------------
50% | 0% 

And the pattern is the same with any of the types. 100% where you start, adjacent to two 50%s and a corner across from the 0%. 

If we look only at the X__X grouping, the attitudinal grouping, it's not so clear. Again, let's start with the INTJ, and compare it to what the four letter code would at least make appear to be it's attitudinal opposite, the ENTP. Ni-Te, and Ne-Ti. Well, actually, even in terms of their attitude, they aren't totally different. True, they introvert and extravert different functions, and the ENTP leads with E while the INTJ leads with I, but notice that they do both lead with a perceiving process, Ni and Ne. So two attitudinal differences, one similarity.

Just like I did with the INTJ and ISFJ, let's look inbetween. How does the INTJ relate to the ENTJ or the INTP? Ni-Te and Te-Ni. Here we the INTJ and the ENTJ differ in that one leads with P and the other with J, and that the one leads with E and the other with I, but they do have the same specific processes, if in a different order. So that's two differences, one similarity. Ni-Te and Ti-Ne. They do not have the same processes, and one leads with P while the other leads with J, but look, they do both lead with I. Two difference, one similarity.

This is quite different from the middle letters, isn't it? While I could say clearly that ISFJ is functionally 0% like INTJ, while the INFJ is about 50%, I cannot do that with INTJ, ENTP, and INTP. The INTJ winds up being equally similar to all of them, and had I started with any other NT and worked from there, the pattern would have been just the same.

So it actually makes a huge difference whether or not we group people based on the middle letters or the book-end letters, because the two sets have completely different symmetry. Within all types of the same middle letters, because they differ only on the attitudinal letters, they, like I demonstrated, are all roughly equal to each other in relation. INTJ, ENTJ, ENTP, INTP, none of them are particularly more or less similar to any of the others. Same goes for comparing ISFJ, ESFJ, ESFP, and ISFP. 

Within all types of the same outer letters, a group like ENTP, ESTP, ESFP, ENFP, we have clear and obvious opposition, again, as I demonstrated. ENTP is opposite to ESFP within the group, they are both half similar to ESTP and ENFP, and ESTP and ENFP are opposites of each other within the group. So some clearly are more or less similar to others in the group. Symmety is achieved through balanced contrast rather than neutrality.

Do you follow? I have visual aids too, but they kind of require you to know a lot about colors.


----------



## Functianalyst

As stated before I believed that I was INTP based on my Step II results for four years. But it only took me four months to realize that I was not INTP after talking to people who think similar to you at INTPC. Everything you just said was pretentious, ambiguous and most of all subjective. You just admitted that everything you are claiming is based on nothing but how you choose to view the system(s), not how they exists. As I have said to other INTPs, stop trying to create a new theory until you understand the existing one. Time for me to move on because debating this is pointless since it's being debated on subjective and abstract theory.


----------



## Yin Praxis

Functianalyst said:


> As stated before I believed that I was INTP based on my Step II results for four years. But it only took me four months to realize that I was not INTP after talking to people who think similar to you at INTPC.


That doesn't explain much, but does sound like an insult. 



Functianalyst said:


> Everything you just said was pretentious, ambiguous and most of all subjective.


Pretentious how? 

Ambiguous, absolutely not, I was quite specific and precise. I laid it out as systematically as I could, just to avoid amibiguity.

Of course what I said is partially subjective. It was, however, as unsubjective as any analysis on this topic is going to get. Categorizations of patterns never have a concrete existence. And I can tell you that what I said did follow objective logic, logic of the deductive kind.



Functianalyst said:


> You just admitted that everything you are claiming is based on nothing but how you choose to view the system(s), not how they exists.


Isn't eveyone's position based on how they choose to view the subject?  And of course how I view it is how I think it exists, no? If I am wrong, then how I view it is different from how it exists, but obviously if I thought I was wrong I wouldn't be arguing for my position, would I?

The imporant thing is that my conclusions are still built from the assertions of the cognitive approach to the MBTI.



Functianalyst said:


> As I have said to other INTPs, stop trying to create a new theory until you understand the existing one.


Aren't you high and mighty? Yet you call me pretentious. I own various works on this subject, including that of the people in subject, like Keirsey and Thomson. I have been studying this from some 6 years. Maybe that's not as long as you have, but it's long enough for me to know the system in an officially established form.



Functianalyst said:


> Time for me to move on because debating this is pointless since it's being debated on subjective and abstract theory.


So be it. You should realize however that this subject is inherently abstract, so I don't know what you are expecting.


----------

