# ok, having doubts about my type (INTJ vs INTP)



## glenjamin (Jul 31, 2012)

I usually test INTJ (but haven't taken the official MBTI), however I am starting to have doubts about the last letter. I think I might be an INTP. I scored this on a recent test that I took, which brought this to my attention. The thing is, I think I might be too easy-going and indecisive to be a Judger. My wife is a definite Judger, she recently tested ESFJ, and we seem to be polar opposites. She makes most of the major decisions in the house. I feel if I was a Judger we would have arguments all the time due to clashing [strong] opinions but we almost never argue. I looked at the descriptions for both types by googling and I can identify with some of both of them it seems. However, there are key things about my personality that lead me more towards INTP - i.e. I don't exude self-confidence, and I do not like to lead or control people. I don't know which of the several tests I took is more accurate (I've also scored ISTJ a few times but I don't believe I am that), however it is starting to look like I will be changing my type. If you could contrast the 2 types, what are some key questions you would ask that would solidify your opinion of a person as either-or?


----------



## nakkinaama (Jun 20, 2012)

You might want to look around the forum first just to see if you relate to anything else here, because you never know.


----------



## Acerbusvenator (Apr 12, 2011)

glenjamin said:


> I usually test INTJ (but haven't taken the official MBTI), however I am starting to have doubts about the last letter. I think I might be an INTP. I scored this on a recent test that I took, which brought this to my attention. The thing is, I think I might be too easy-going and indecisive to be a Judger. My wife is a definite Judger, she recently tested ESFJ, and we seem to be polar opposites. She makes most of the major decisions in the house. I feel if I was a Judger we would have arguments all the time due to clashing [strong] opinions but we almost never argue. I looked at the descriptions for both types by googling and I can identify with some of both of them it seems. However, there are key things about my personality that lead me more towards INTP - i.e. I don't exude self-confidence, and I do not like to lead or control people. I don't know which of the several tests I took is more accurate (I've also scored ISTJ a few times but I don't believe I am that), however it is starting to look like I will be changing my type. If you could contrast the 2 types, what are some key questions you would ask that would solidify your opinion of a person as either-or?


INTJ - Ni Te Fi Se
INTP - Ti Ne Si Fe

The difference is like night and day.

If you are feeling ambitious you can read this: Understanding the Archetypes involving the eight functions of type (Beebe model)

Here's the short version otherwise


> *HERO (dominant)*
> 
> Since this is the ego's main standpoint, we probably don't often project it at others. We "own" it right off the bat. It is "us", at least in our conscious self-image.
> 
> ...


----------



## glenjamin (Jul 31, 2012)

perkele said:


> You might want to look around the forum first just to see if you relate to anything else here, because you never know.


My first impulse when you said that was "I know I'm either one of these two types!" - judging maybe lol

I will take your advice into consideration, however I have been researching the types and these 2 seem to be the closest to who I am. I am definitely an I and a T, lean towards an N and am up in the air about P/J. I tend to be impatient when it comes to getting answers, maybe a J quality?


----------



## nakkinaama (Jun 20, 2012)

Mmmhm well if thats so then well
Welcome Dellin äöö
ghk


----------



## glenjamin (Jul 31, 2012)

If this helps, I posted it in another thread........

------

Cognitive Process	Level of Development (Preference, Skill and Frequency of Use)
extraverted Sensing (Se) ************* (13.7)
unused
introverted Sensing (Si) ***************************************** (41.3)
excellent use
extraverted Intuiting (Ne) ****************************** (30.1)
good use
introverted Intuiting (Ni) ************************************ (36.7)
excellent use
extraverted Thinking (Te) **************************** (28.3)
average use
introverted Thinking (Ti) ****************************************** (42)
excellent use
extraverted Feeling (Fe) ********* (9.7)
unused
introverted Feeling (Fi) ************************************* (37.8)
excellent use
Summary Analysis of Profile
By focusing on the strongest configuration of cognitive processes, your pattern of responses most closely matches individuals of this type: INTP


Lead (Dominant) Process
Introverted Thinking (Ti): Gaining leverage (influence) using a framework. Detaching to study a situation from different angles and fit it to a theory, framework or principle. Checking for accuracy. Using leverage to solve the problem.


Support (Auxilliary) Process
Extraverted Intuiting (Ne): Exploring the emerging patterns. Wondering about patterns of interaction across various situations. Checking what hypotheses and meanings fit best. Trusting what emerges as you shift a situation’s dynamics.
-----


----------



## glenjamin (Jul 31, 2012)

Another test result (from similarminds)
---------------

*Te (Extroverted Thinking)* (25%) 
your valuation of / adherence to logic of external systems / hierarchies / methods
*Ti (Introverted Thinking)* (90%) 
your valuation of / adherence to your own internally devised logic/rational
*Ne (Extroverted Intuition)* (60%) 
your valuation of / tendency towards free association and creating with external stimuli
*Ni (Introverted Intuition)* (40%) 
your valuation of / tendency towards internal/original free association and creativity
*Se (Extroverted Sensing)* (15%) 
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)* (0%) 
your valuation of / adherence to external morals, ethics, traditions, customs, groups
*Fi (Introverted Feeling)* (55%) 
your valuation of / adherence to the sanctity of your own feelings / ideals / sentiment
//////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////
based on your results your type is likely - *intp

----------------
*Maybe I need to take a step back and re-evaluate this


EDIT: and from the PerC quiz:

*Your Cognitive Functions:
Introverted Thinking (Ti) |||||||||||||||||||||||| 11.38
Extroverted Thinking (Te) |||||||||||||||||||| 9.39
Extroverted Intuition (Ne) ||||||||||||||||||| 8.88
Introverted Intuition (Ni) ||||||||||||||| 6.945
Introverted Feeling (Fi) |||||||||| 4.48
Introverted Sensation (Si) ||||||||| 3.77
Extroverted Feeling (Fe) ||||| 1.98
Extroverted Sensation (Se) || 0.48

Your Introverted Thinking (Ti) is very developed.
Your Extroverted Intuition (Ne) is moderate.
Your Introverted Intuition (Ni) is moderate.
Your Introverted Sensation (Si) is moderate.
Your Extroverted Thinking (Te) is moderate.
Your Introverted Feeling (Fi) is moderate.
Your Extroverted Sensation (Se) is low.
Your Extroverted Feeling (Fe) is low.

Based on your cognitive functions, your type is most likely:
Most Likely: INTP
or Second Possibility: ENTJ
or Third Possibility: ENTP*


----------



## Entropic (Jun 15, 2012)

Yes, was going to say INTP on your writing alone. You don't write like an INTJ.


----------



## glenjamin (Jul 31, 2012)

LeaT said:


> Yes, was going to say INTP on your writing alone. You don't write like an INTJ.


Thanks for responding. Since all the cognitive function tests I took say INTP, I think I will change my type to that. I may have some INTJ qualities, but overall I am more of a thinker than a scientist (I'm not quite that rigid).


----------



## nujabes (May 18, 2012)

Pay less attention to profile descriptions and more attention to your functions and how you use them. 

Also, I agree on INTP (though your cognitive function tests seem quite varied...)


----------



## glenjamin (Jul 31, 2012)

Enneagram Test Results


The Enneagram is a personality system which divides the entire human personality into nine behavioral tendencies, this is your score on each...


Type 1 Perfectionism	||||||||||||	42%
Type 2	Helpfulness	||||||	24%
Type 3	Image Focus	||||||||||	34%
Type 4	Individualism	||||||||||||||	52%
Type 5	Intellectualism	||||||||||||||||	70%
Type 6	Security Focus	||||||||||||||||	70%
Type 7	Adventurousness	||||||||||||||	56%
Type 8	Aggressiveness	||||||	24%
Type 9	Calmness	||||||||||||||||||||	88%


type	score	type behavior motivation
9	44 I must maintain peace/calm to survive.
5	35 I must be knowledgeable to survive.
6	35 I must be secure and safe to survive.
7	28 I must be fun and entertained to survive.
4	26 I must be unique/different to survive.
1	21 I must be perfect and good to survive.
3	17 I must be impressive and attractive to survive.
2	12 I must be helpful and caring to survive.
8	12 I must be strong and in control to survive.


Your main type is Type 9 
Your variant stacking is sp/sx/so
Your level of health is below average, i.e. unhealthy


Based on your health score you would benefit from working on your...
physical health/fitness 
psychological health
Your main type is which ever behavior you utilize most and/or prefer. Your variant reflects your scoring profile on all nine types: so = social variant (compliant, friendly), sx = sexual variant (assertive, intense), sp = self preservation variant (withdrawn, security seeking).


----------



## glenjamin (Jul 31, 2012)

Another test result:



Jung Ideal / Real Test Results




ideal you |||||| real you ||||||
Introversion	||||	20%
||||||||||||||||||||	83%
Extroversion	||||||||||||||||||	73%
||	10%
Intuitive	||||||||||||||||||	76%
||||||||||||||	53%
Sensing	||||||||||||||||	66%
||||||||||||	50%
Feeling	||||||||||||	50%
||||||||||	36%
Thinking	||||||||||||||||	66%
||||||||||	40%
Judging	||||||||||||||||	70%
||||||||||||	43%
Perceiving	||||||||||	40%
||||||||||	40%
ideal type - ENTJ, real type - INTJ




type	ideal	real	type behavior
I	-9	10 quiet, private, few friends
E	7	-12 outgoing, expressive, many friends
N	8	1 random, mysterious, non linear
S	5	0 sequential, factual, practical
F	0	-4 emotional, passionate, selfless
T	5	-3 willful, stoic, self reliant
J	6	-2 planned, regimented, orderly
P	-3	-3 spontaneous, playful, fun


----------



## Acerbusvenator (Apr 12, 2011)

I still think you should give an answer to the statements for different types that I gave you @glenjamin

*HERO (dominant)*

Since this is the ego's main standpoint, we probably don't often project it at others. We "own" it right off the bat. It is "us", at least in our conscious self-image.

As "operating charters", the emotionally positive sense of heroically solving a problem would best be captured by the rational mind through the following perspectives:

*Se (ESxP): The environment must be scanned for tangible experiences
Si (ISxJ): Life must be familiar to my storehouse of data
Ne (ENxP): The environment must be inferred for alternative possibilities
Ni (INxJ): Life must have an underlying significance inferred by me
Te (ExTJ): The environment must be efficiently organized
Ti (IxTP): Life must make technical sense to me
Fe (ExFJ): The environment must be socially friendly
Fi (IxFP): Life must be humanely congruent to me*

*GOOD PARENT (auxiliary)*

You would think we likewise don't project this much, since we see it as just as integral to our type as the dominant. But since (according to Lenore) we often jump straight to the tertiary defense, we apparently do not always completely own the complex.
When we do, we reportedly gain a strong motivation to teach and mentor others, and sometimes going to the opposite extreme of what's been called "preaching the auxiliary". The person now rigorously "parents" others with their perspective, including their method of owning the complex.

The emotionally positive sense of authoritatively supporting others is best captured by the rational mind through:
*Se (ISxP): Aiding others in tangible experiences
Si (ESxJ): Teaching others according to what's familiar
Ne (INxP): Showing others alternative possibilities
Ni (ENxJ): Showing others underlying significance of things
Te (IxTJ): Directing others to efficiently organize the environment
Ti (ExTP): Teaching others according to logically truth
Fe (IxFJ): Instructing others on group ethics or values
Fi (ExFP): Teaching others by one's own personal relation to situations*

*PUER/PUELLA ("eternal child", tertiary)*

Since this would be the function our egos run to to maintain the dominant attitude, we probably don't project this associated complex onto others. The ego naturally owns it quickly. (Projection would be seeing others as "children" in some way).

The tertiary thus "inflates" itself, aiming to appear full of "wisdom and maturity" and be equal to the dominant or auxiliary of others. Yet then it deflates itself, and I (for instance) become like a child wanting to be taken and led into the innocent past through nostalgic interests. It also tends to "tell us what we want to hear" (for me, relying on what I know to be factually true).

The emotionally positive sense of child-like relief is best captured by the rational mind through:
*Se (ENxJ): Looking to be led by others in tangible experiences
Si (INxP): Nostalgic enjoyment of memories, especially childhood
Ne (ESxJ): childlike exploring of alternatives, new possibilities
Ni (ISxP): childlike exploring of underlying significances
Te (ExFP): Finding relief in organizing the environment
Ti (IxFJ): Childlike exploration of logical frameworks
Fe (ExTP): childlike when connecting with others
Fi (IxTJ): Find relief through internal harmony; personally relating to situations represents innocence*

Now, we enter the realm of the less conscious complexes; the ones that do get heavily projected onto others, and need to be owned.

When we project the encompassing complexes onto people, they seem to fit those roles, generally involving the function-attitude in that position in some way, and we react oppositionally in kind with that function. Or, they might genuinely be fitting the role in their own behavior.
To own the complex instead of projecting it at others, we must see ourselves as playing those roles; our own worst enemies.
This is hard, because these parts of us are what we have shut out of our consciousness.

*ANIMA (inferior, aspirational)*
What it is about, and which function it encases:

The collecting place of our sense of "otherness", including life, libido and and instinctual energies. The word means "soul". Shaped largely by the parent of the opposite sex, projected onto those we fall in love with, and encases the inferior function.

We likely feel inferior in both the internal or external orientation, and the functional perspective associated with the inferior.

Possible drawbacks from the emotionally freighted sense of connecting with life:

*ISxJ's might feel inferior in new possibilities.
INxJ's might feel inferior with current tangible experience.
IxTP's might feel inferior in humane (personal) matters (including one's standing in social groups).
IxFP's might feel inferior in technical (impersonal) matters, such as regarding logical organization.
ESxP's might feel inferior (spaced out) by conceptual frameworks such as archetypes and symbolism.
ENxP's might feel inferior when it comes to a storehouse of tangible acts, such as learned order
ExTJ's might feel inferior on a humane level, including personal integrity.
ExFJ's might feel inferior on a technical level, such as regarding logical understanding.*

*How we project it onto others:*

*ISxJ's Cling to dominant perspective. Criticize NP's as irresponsible regarding learned knowledge
INxJ's Cling to dominant perspective. Criticize SP's as reckless
IxTP's Appear insensitive or unfeeling and openly complain about FJ types.
IxFP's Criticize other's organization
ESxP's Criticize this stuff as irrelevant.
ENxP's Dismissed learned methods as irrelevant
ExTJ's Become defensive and develop a martyrdom complex where it's everyone else's ethics that are bad.
ExFJ's Criticize others as illogical.*

In each case, there's a deep down inside longing for what they are brushing off, that they might realize if they look for it. Especially in mid-life, when individuation takes us inward.


----------



## Flatlander (Feb 25, 2012)

The problem is that this is about how you think, not how you score on tests or even necessarily what motivates you (Enneagram), nor what stereotype you fit (like "scientist", why would Ni dominance with Te/Fi aux automatically lead to that disposition?)

That information sheet ^ might help, and might not, depending on how you relate to your cognitive functions. Some report it fitting them like a glove. Others, well.. maybe not; Enneagram can skew this also.

So, with that in mind, I'd encourage you to fill out one of the questionnaires, and not to hold back with your answers. They're designed to get you answering questions that are more relevant to discerning the functional breakdown of how you think.


----------



## glenjamin (Jul 31, 2012)

@ *Acerbusvenator*

Just looking at your sheet, I most identify with the following:

HERO - Ni
Good Parent - Ni
Puer - Se
Anima - INxJ, IxTP, with an INxJ projection......

Not sure if this is what you wanted me to do.....

@ *Flatlander*

I will see about completing a questionnaire - I started one before but when it came to the more self-reflecting questions I felt at a loss (I instinctually avoid answering questions like those as I feel I'm not a good judge of myself)


----------



## glenjamin (Jul 31, 2012)

Just a few notes, before I fill out a formal questionnaire

- I've been on medication for about 4 years, which alters my personality to a degree by slowing down my mind and making me less inclined to go on tangents. If I was writing this 5 years ago I would probably have written several novellas of posts right now.

- I internalize alot of things, including my thoughts and feelings. I am not very expressive, and have become even less so recently since my meds were upped. My main focus in life is how am I going to get through the day without feeling too bad/hopeless about the situation. I also look forward to going to sleep so I don't have to deal with anything.

- I wish I was more able to impact change on my own environment. Not only do I believe I suffer from "learned helplessness," but I also have a severe lack of drive and motivation to do things (the meds don't help at all with that). This pattern of thought and action often puts me into situations I'd rather not be in because I don't know how to speak up or take charge of where my life is going. I am pathologically a passive person.

- To start a new task or project is dreadful to me. I procrastinate all of the time and avoid doing more than I have to. Once I get into it for awhile it is not as bad, it is the starting that is killer. I spend most of my free time wasting time.

To be continued.....

-


----------



## Joseph (Jun 20, 2012)

These tests are very biased and are bad at getting accurate descriptions. I usually score very high in Ne, Ni, and Ti, but when I answered the questionnaire sticky it became obvious that I was an ISFP. Please don't rely on these tests that use arbitrary, poorly worded questions to determine what functions you use. Just do a questionnaire, post it here, listen to our responses to it, and then read over the functions to confirm our suspicions. I see plenty of mistypes here, a questionnaire would really help avoid that. 

Your avoidance and lack of future desires could be taken as an unhealthy IxTx or even an ISTx, as you are living in the moment, or at least actively avoiding pushing towards your future. Avoiding talking about yourself or self-reflection can be an S thing. I know you seem to be avoiding F but I wouldn't rule it out completely. I don't mean this in a harsh way, fyi. Post your questionnaire! If you can't talk about yourself, or think about yourself, how can you be sure you are an INTP or an INTJ?


----------



## Flatlander (Feb 25, 2012)

glenjamin said:


> @ *Flatlander*
> 
> I will see about completing a questionnaire - I started one before but when it came to the more self-reflecting questions I felt at a loss (I instinctually avoid answering questions like those as I feel I'm not a good judge of myself)


It's okay. Introspection itself is good for you, and yet the results are not bound to be completely accurate, regardless of how clearly anyone thinks they see themself. The self-reporting content is on equal footing with the examination of your processing - both of your response, and of the question itself.

I would do the Spades questionnaire, by the way. It focuses a little more outward, will probably be easier for you to use.


----------



## Acerbusvenator (Apr 12, 2011)

glenjamin said:


> @ *Acerbusvenator*
> 
> Just looking at your sheet, I most identify with the following:
> 
> ...


Yes, basically.
Just only choose 1 on each and don't choose the same function more than once.
So either Ni on Hero or as Good parent.


----------



## glenjamin (Jul 31, 2012)

Part I

0. Is there anything that may affect the way you answer the questions? For example, a stressful time, mental illness, medications, special life circumstances? Other useful information includes sex, age, and current state of mind.


- I am on medication that dulls the intensity of my thoughts and feelings. Also, M, 34. My current state of mind is normal.


1. Click on this link: Flickr: Explore! Look at the random photo for about 30 seconds. Copy and paste it here, and write about your impression of it.


http://farm9.staticflickr.com/8011/7698715462_2ea2fe177b.jpg


- I thought: "Interesting, I've never seen this kind ot butterfly that close up, I didn't know they were so hairy. I wonder if there is alot of nectar in that flower, since it seems to be made up of many tiny flowers. A good photo, indeed. "


2. You are with a group of people in a car, heading to a different town to see your favourite band/artist/musician. Suddenly, the car breaks down for an unknown reason in the middle of nowhere. What are your initial thoughts? What are your outward reactions?


- My initial thoughts are "this sucks, I wonder if we're in danger here. Will someone stop to help us? Maybe we can get the car to start up again, maybe it just needs to cool down. Hopefully we don't have to hitchhike." - outward: "wtf? f'n cars." then I will be calm until a certain period of time passes, when I will start to get nervous and agitated.


3. You somehow make it to the concert. The driver wants to go to the afterparty that was announced (and assure you they won't drink so they can drive back later). How do you feel about this party? What do you do?


- Being married with kids, and older, I'm not much for these types of parties anymore. I would ask if the driver planned on staying long, hoping they do not, and internally thinking "my wife won't be too happy about this." Then I would go along with whatever the group decided to do, and watch if the driver sticks to their word about the drinking.


4. On the drive back, your friends are talking. A friend makes a claim that clashes with your current beliefs. What is your inward reaction? What do you outwardly say?


- Depending on the belief my inward reaction may range from nothing to "you're wrong." I usually won't say anything, unless I am asked specifically what I thought, in which case I may tell them my take on it, unless it would hurt them in some way (i.e. if it was a sensitive topic). Most of the time I just nod while internally believing what I believe, and analyzing their belief and why they must believe it.




5. What would you do if you actually saw/experienced something that clashes with your previous beliefs, experiences, and habits?


- I usually let things happen as they do, I don't react externally unless the well-being of myself or my family members, are in jeopardy.


6. What are some of your most important values? How did you come about determining them? How can they change?


- Inner-peace, self-actualization (in my own words doing what one is meant to do, though the path is not often clear), Being rational and reasonable.
I've had these values for most of my life. They can change under times of stress, then I become less rational, don't care what I do, and don't care about inner peace or bettering myself. I become very self-immersed and impulsive under these conditions.


----------



## Flatlander (Feb 25, 2012)

glenjamin said:


> When looking at descriptions of these types, some things jive and some things don't. Am I to completely ignore anything but the cognitive function hierarchy? Is there any empirical evidence that these in fact match up to type? (if so I'd like to see... link please)


If it's empirical you want, MBTI is "better". It takes stock of what you seem like from the outside, more so than how you actually think, though it still uses self-reporting at the more rudimentary levels (I think MBTI step 3 is with a counselor who confirms your type).

What we're doing here is more psychoanalytical in nature, trying to dissect your thinking and actions for indications of it fitting with the cognitive functions. I mean that's also something we're limited to, because you're not here for us to observe or examine. We have as evidence your writing and the nature of your thoughts, and our results are pretty dependent on how they seem to us.


----------



## glenjamin (Jul 31, 2012)

Flatlander said:


> If it's empirical you want, MBTI is "better". It takes stock of what you seem like from the outside, more so than how you actually think, though it still uses self-reporting at the more rudimentary levels (I think MBTI step 3 is with a counselor who confirms your type).
> 
> What we're doing here is more psychoanalytical in nature, trying to dissect your thinking and actions for indications of it fitting with the cognitive functions. I mean that's also something we're limited to, because you're not here for us to observe or examine. We have as evidence your writing and the nature of your thoughts, and our results are pretty dependent on how they seem to us.


 I see. I guess I'm just wondering if the cognitive functions really do match up to mbti. Personalities do seem much more complex than these, in any sense. It seems the more I think about this stuff, the more confused and [particularly] unsure I get. Is it even worth investigating further? Will any definitive answer ever be found? And on a deeper level, should I "limit" myself by fitting myself into one of these types or categories? If an answer is to be found, what of it then? Too many questions lol


----------



## Flatlander (Feb 25, 2012)

glenjamin said:


> I see. I guess I'm just wondering if the cognitive functions really do match up to mbti. Personalities do seem much more complex than these, in any sense. It seems the more I think about this stuff, the more confused and [particularly] unsure I get. Is it even worth investigating further? Will any definitive answer ever be found? And on a deeper level, should I "limit" myself by fitting myself into one of these types or categories? If an answer is to be found, what of it then? Too many questions lol


It might help just to think of it as a framework. Your mind holds a ton of content it's accumulated through your life. The functions represent ways it gets perceived and ordered.

Getting away from those type categories is the idea of all this. Those profiles are supposed ideals that people embody, and they often don't.


----------



## glenjamin (Jul 31, 2012)

Flatlander said:


> It might help just to think of it as a framework. Your mind holds a ton of content it's accumulated through your life. The functions represent ways it gets perceived and ordered.
> 
> Getting away from those type categories is the idea of all this. Those profiles are supposed ideals that people embody, and they often don't.


I see. I am just wondering about the theory of it. I.E. - why is it not possible for someone to have Ti and Fi at the same time? And are we really limited to 4 functions of conscious operation?

EDIT: MY inner skeptic coming out =)


----------



## Flatlander (Feb 25, 2012)

glenjamin said:


> I see. I am just wondering about the theory of it. I.E. - why is it not possible for someone to have Ti and Fi at the same time? And are we really limited to 4 functions of conscious operation?


The theory of it is that there is a conscious expression of each function, and the rest gets pushed to the unconscious. The conscious functions have opposite orientations to each other (i.e. Ti and Fe) because they are presumed to balance each other that way. This goes especially for the dominant and inferior functions, while the auxiliaries can be more malleable (even if they are supposedly in a preset order and pattern as per MBTI).

It is sort of an ideal. Some claim that having Ti and Fi at the same time is possible. Others will tell you that Ti must imply Fe, since Fi puts internal data into a completely different organization from Ti. The theory is what it is; what you choose to adopt is really your own business, though it would be intellectually dishonest to do something like superimpose your own theory on top of Jung's and claim to be a Jungian theorist.


----------



## glenjamin (Jul 31, 2012)

Flatlander said:


> though it would be intellectually dishonest to do something like superimpose your own theory on top of Jung's and claim to be a Jungian theorist.


lol I claim not to be a theorist of anyone


----------



## Flatlander (Feb 25, 2012)

glenjamin said:


> lol I claim not to be a theorist of anyone


Wasn't talking specifically to you with that one, just as a general point.


----------



## Entropic (Jun 15, 2012)

glenjamin said:


> I see. I am just wondering about the theory of it. I.E. - why is it not possible for someone to have Ti and Fi at the same time? And are we really limited to 4 functions of conscious operation?
> 
> EDIT: MY inner skeptic coming out =)





Flatlander said:


> The theory of it is that there is a conscious expression of each function, and the rest gets pushed to the unconscious. The conscious functions have opposite orientations to each other (i.e. Ti and Fe) because they are presumed to balance each other that way. This goes especially for the dominant and inferior functions, while the auxiliaries can be more malleable (even if they are supposedly in a preset order and pattern as per MBTI).
> 
> It is sort of an ideal. *Some claim that having Ti and Fi at the same time is possible. Others will tell you that Ti must imply Fe, since Fi puts internal data into a completely different organization from Ti. *The theory is what it is; what you choose to adopt is really your own business, though it would be intellectually dishonest to do something like superimpose your own theory on top of Jung's and claim to be a Jungian theorist.


I never understood this reasoning. It seems so faulty to me. Of course we have can have both Fi and Ti. I have experienced what I identified to be an FiTi loop first hand it's the most madness-driving experience I have ever had. It was basically in the lines of this:
_


It's illogical for me to feel this way because what I experienced should not give rise to these feelings.
_

_It's logical for me to feel this way because based on what I experienced it is natural that I feel something._ 


I think it is better described as as a pyramid with Si at the top and Fi and Ti on the each adjacent side at the bottom with both Fi and Ti bouncing back to Si and between each other. I am pretty sure that if that had continued longer than say the 10-15 minutes it lasted I might have eventually developed a psychosis. It was complete madness. 

I know it was Fi and Ti at work. Ti I identify naturally being my normal state of mind. I know it was Fi over Fe because how detrimentally opposed the logic was (see the list). Fe and Ti don't detrimentally oppose each other like Fi and Ti do but are quite capable at working together when necessary. Ti values must first come through Fe for example. 

I mean, imagine if you find yourself thinking which answer of the two is the most valid answer to make. Then you just loop endlessly between them. I don't remember what made me break out of the loop eventually but I am happy that I did.


----------



## Acerbusvenator (Apr 12, 2011)

LeaT said:


> I never understood this reasoning. It seems so faulty to me. Of course we have can have both Fi and Ti. I have experienced what I identified to be an FiTi loop first hand it's the most madness-driving experience I have ever had. It was basically in the lines of this:
> _
> 
> 
> ...


It isn't possible according to MBTI, but it is according to Jung.

NeTi according to jung: Ne Ti Fi Si
ENTP according to MBTI: Ne Ti Fe Si

Since Jung believed that the dominant function is so strong that it requires all the other 3 function to counter the weight of the dominant (meaning that you need 3 introverted functions to ground 1 dominant extroverted function)

So according to Jung, yes you could have a FiTi loop
According to MBTI, No.

Personally I just think that saying that people got loops is a loop hole to keep calling a person a specific type which the person is not.
If a person is an obvious ISTJ, someone will come along and say "no, that's an INFP with a FiSi loop" etc.
And the person will most likely say or think "yes, of course I am an intuitive, I'm the most intuitive person I know, you are right and I'm special because I'm in a rare scenario for my type and even if I don't fit with other INFPs, then it's because I'm in a loop *mad nodding*".


----------



## Sollertis (Aug 2, 2012)

LeaT said:


> Yes, was going to say INTP on your writing alone. You don't write like an INTJ.


What does an INTJ write like?


----------



## Entropic (Jun 15, 2012)

Sollertis said:


> What does an INTJ write like?


Ni writing is more compact and structured. It's hard to explain and put in words. It's just a feeling you get. There's a sense of rigidity in how it's written. Not as rigid as the ISTJ because I think the Ni makes it more abstract, but still very rigid because of the Te. I would also say that INTJs that have yet to fully mature tend to apply a very reductionist approach to their writing. It's about reducing unnecessary elements by compressing it all into one highly abstract form with Ni. The Te words just support this Ni model.


----------



## Entropic (Jun 15, 2012)

Acerbusvenator said:


> It isn't possible according to MBTI, but it is according to Jung.
> 
> NeTi according to jung: Ne Ti Fi Si
> ENTP according to MBTI: Ne Ti Fe Si
> ...


You're right that it's not possible according to the MBTI which is why it should be supported by Jung. I don't make any clear dinstinctions between the two either way. 

And yes, of course loops can be used as excuses to explain a person's behavior. Hm, do you have any specific link about when Jung discusses this in more detail? I'd like to read up more about it.


----------



## Acerbusvenator (Apr 12, 2011)

LeaT said:


> Hm, do you have any specific link about when Jung discusses this in more detail? I'd like to read up more about it.


Nope, I just took a leap of intuition based on his theory.
I don't think he said that personally, but it would be possible if considering his model.

Somehow his model seems a bit more logical for everyone except Fe or Te doms since they'd have no extroverted perceiving function according to him.


----------



## Entropic (Jun 15, 2012)

Acerbusvenator said:


> Nope, I just took a leap of intuition based on his theory.
> I don't think he said that personally, but it would be possible if considering his model.
> 
> Somehow his model seems a bit more logical for everyone except Fe or Te doms since they'd have no extroverted perceiving function according to him.


Meh, do you have any suggestion where to read up on that in a more compromised but still kind of detailed manner? As in not wikipedia. 

I find it interesting that you say that instead of Fe there's Fi for the ENTP. And how would it look like for an introvert? Only extraverted functions to support the introverted dominant?


----------



## Acerbusvenator (Apr 12, 2011)

LeaT said:


> Meh, do you have any suggestion where to read up on that in a more compromised but still kind of detailed manner? As in not wikipedia.
> 
> I find it interesting that you say that instead of Fe there's Fi for the ENTP. And how would it look like for an introvert? Only extraverted functions to support the introverted dominant?


Think of it like balancing a frail object, trying to keep it hovering on the sea.
Too much introversion and it sinks.
Too much extroversion and it flies away.

INFP according to Jung (FiNe) looks like this: Fi Ne Se Te.
I do however disagree about that a bit, but Jungs definition of the functions isn't the same as MBTI.

Jung saw it as depth vs width.
So FiNe would have a deep understanding (Fi) supported by a wide array of information (Ne Se Te).

MBTI see them in extroversion vs introversion.
Others vs you.

Jung: Fe cares a little about many people, Fi cares a lot about few.
MBTI: Fe cares about external harmony, Fi cares about establishing internal harmony.
Basically MBTI makes us Fi doms look like jerks.

The best information about Jung is from books.


----------



## Entropic (Jun 15, 2012)

Acerbusvenator said:


> Think of it like balancing a frail object, trying to keep it hovering on the sea.
> Too much introversion and it sinks.
> Too much extroversion and it flies away.
> 
> ...


Pfft books. I tried to go to the library but there were none to be found aside his dream theories. And you should know that as an INTP I will read compressed secondary sources if I can get exactly the same information but with less fluff and more direct and to the point aka Wikipedia >.<

Eh, I PM you about the rest I think. This is the wrong thread for this really.


----------



## glenjamin (Jul 31, 2012)

To finish up the questionnaire:
----------------------



7. a) What about your personality most distinguishes you from everyone else? b) If you could change one thing about you personality, what would it be? Why?


-a) I tend to assimilate things very quickly, am adaptable, and am usually very good at solving problems by finding flaws or workarounds.
-b) I would change the fact that I'm so passive and inhibited, I feel I would be alot more successful and happy if I had a more outwardly stronger personality.




8. How do you treat hunches or gut feelings? In what situations are they most often triggered?


- I tend to trust my hunches when I have them, almost to a fault because sometimes they lead me in the wrong direction. I also tend to obsess over them, playing things out in my head over and over. They are usually triggered when something seems odd or off in my external environment.


9. a) What activities energize you most? b) What activities drain you most? Why?


-a) It energizes me the most when I find a solution to a problem that nobody else was able to think of. It makes me feel smart (I can be a little vain when it comes to my intelligence).


-b) Doing routine work drains me because there is no thought process involved and I like to use my brain. Also, most physical work drains me for mostly the same reason (though sometimes it does require you to use your brain, I just tend not to have that kind of visio-spatial or mechanical intellect) 


10. What do you repress about your outward behavior or internal thought process when around others? Why?


- I usually repress my thoughts because I don't have confidence in them. For example, I am always quiet at meetings. (I also have my own view on what is important, and what is relevant to me, and usually this doesn't line up with meeting agendas.) I also tend to repress agitation or impatience which might come up in conversation when someone likes to "chew my ear off." This can lead them to falsely believe I enjoy this type of conversation. Though I do like it when people talk at length on intellectual matters. I can also repress discontent when engaging in "overly" extraverted activities, such as dancing. Though this I see as adapting to the situation. I am most likely a barrel of repression, though most of it is internal thought processes, I am not compelled towards outward behavior that I would have to repress around others, except maybe singing while driving.


----------



## glenjamin (Jul 31, 2012)

I re-took the cognitive functions test..... does this have any test-retest reliability? Or are my mind and my opinions of myself so variable as to yield different results each time? This time it said ISTJ

--------------------------------------
Your Cognitive Development Profile
The forty-eight questions you rated earlier tap into the eight cognitive processes. Some questions tapped into basic or developed use of a process used by itself, while other questions tapped into use of multiple processes at once. The profile below is based on your responses. The number of squares indicate strength of response. The equivalent numeric is shown in parentheses along with likely level of development.


Cognitive Process	Level of Development (Preference, Skill and Frequency of Use)
extraverted Sensing (Se) ***************** (17)
limited use
introverted Sensing (Si) ******************************************* (43.3)
excellent use
extraverted Intuiting (Ne) ************************* (25.1)
average use
introverted Intuiting (Ni) *************************************** (39.9)
excellent use
extraverted Thinking (Te) ************************ (24.2)
average use
introverted Thinking (Ti) **************************************** (40.1)
excellent use
extraverted Feeling (Fe) ***************** (17)
limited use
introverted Feeling (Fi) ********************************* (33)
good use
Summary Analysis of Profile
By focusing on the strongest configuration of cognitive processes, your pattern of responses most closely matches individuals of this type: ISTJ


Lead (Dominant) Process
Introverted Sensing (Si): Stabilizing with a predictable standard. Carefully comparing a situation to the customary ways you’ve come to rely on. Checking with past experiences. Stabilizing a situation and invest for future security.


Support (Auxilliary) Process
Extraverted Thinking (Te): Measuring and constructing for progress. Making decisions objectively based on evidence and measures. Checking if things function properly. Applying a procedure to control events and complete goals.


If these cognitive processes don't fit well then consider these types: ESTJ, or INTP


----------



## glenjamin (Jul 31, 2012)

Flatlander said:


> Wasn't talking specifically to you with that one, just as a general point.


Sorry for the misunderstanding


----------



## Flatlander (Feb 25, 2012)

glenjamin said:


> Sorry for the misunderstanding


No worries.


----------

