# The 5 Types of INTPs in Denial



## Ocean Helm (Aug 25, 2016)

*1. INTP Subtype "I'm a Ni-Dom!" (INTJ mask)*
There's a lot of varying descriptions of what Ni is. But some descriptions, particularly those with roots in Jung, and in Socionics (which itself has roots in Jung), emphasize the wandering through and exploration of mental imagery.

However, when said mental wandering and exploration predominates, it usually leads to a lack of planning and structure, and thus MBTI Perceiving.

These people don't even seem to realize that the basis of Ni-Te being matched to INTJ is how MBTI is mainly about how you are in the external world, and it's Te that the J is being matched to (not Ni), because INTJs have Judging tendencies when interacting with the world. But rather than describe how they like structure and planning as a J would, they talk about how they like empirical facts and evidence. Almost all T types like facts and evidence, at the very least when they back up their own opinions, because they impersonally back things up without having to enter the emotional realm.

So by saying you relate to the perceiving kind of Ni, and that you like facts and evidence, you are probably just implying you are IN and P and T, so if one were to make an educated guess...

* *




*Sorry, you're INTP!*




*2. INTP Subtype The Looper (INFJ mask)*
This is a puzzling one with a mainly archetypal basis. As described with the INTJ mask, the very concept of "Ni dominance" can be portrayed in such a way where it actually implies Perceiving rather than Judging. And even moreso than is usually the case for the INTJ mask, this INFJ mask type emphasizes just how much they are into exploring their own mental imagery.

Ti is usually lagging behind, but they do prize being internally logical making them likely Thinkers.

It can be difficult to separate INTPs and INFPs wearing INFJ masks, which is why I mainly focus on the "Ni-Ti loop" kind, as it emphasizes Ti. But Fe can be described in such a way where it means basically being agreeable with people so as not having to deal with situations involving emotions. And it's easy to see why this bare minimum kind of "Fe" can be appealing to INTPs or Thinkers in general, particularly those who are also Introverts. As long as this "Fe" doesn't often interfere with "Ti" and "Ti" makes most of their decisions, then we're probably looking at a Thinker. 

By relating to that ultra-perceiving (and introverted) vision of Ni dominance, and also using a form of Thinking as your go-to judgment method, you are probably just implying you are IN and P and T, so if one were to make an educated guess...

* *




*Sorry, you're INTP!*




*3. INTP Subtype The Introverted Extravert (ENTP mask)*
This one doesn't need much explanation at all. If you have to justify typing yourself as ENTP over INTP talking about how you strongly use a kind of "Ne" focused on ideas in your head rather than exploring external possibilities, or that you perceive more than you judge, or that ENTPs often look like introverts which is why you looking like an introvert is consistent with being ENTP, then if one were to make an educated guess...

* *




*Sorry, you're INTP!*




*4. INTP Subtype "I'm a Maaaan!" (ISTP mask)*
This one carries different connotations than the others, and is based more around the concept of masculinity. It is not exclusive for males who want to feel manly; a lot of more tomboyish females can put on the ISTP mask as well. But the key here is that people for whatever reason think that for whatever reason, doing certain stereotypically masculine things makes them ISTP rather than INTP as if these activities are incompatible with being INTP.

There's also the sometimes slightly related concept of relating to Ni over Ne, but if it's an intuitive rather than sensing function that you're really noticing in yourself, that's not exactly a good reason to think you're a Sensing type now, is it?

If you have to justify yourself as ISTP over INTP because you ride a motorcycle, play sports, show anger, or like sex... or that you use an introverted form of intuition then your true type is probably easy to guess...

* *




*Sorry, you're INTP!*




*5. INTP Subtype Strong Feelings (INFP mask)*
If you have strong feelings but suppress them and try to avoid incorporating them into your decision making process, perhaps that is good evidence that you are human rather than a robot, but it is not evidence that you are a Feeler over a Thinker.

Then is the concept of "Fi" which is often described in a way that is really more just like feelings (not a Feeling preference) for introverts. Thus it can be predicted that most introverts relate to "Fi" quite a bit, especially Perceivers, who are more likely to decide things at the last moment based on how they "feel" about things, which doesn't exactly contradict the concept of being a Thinker. After all, it's logical to do things that make you feel good, and it's actually Thinkers who may be the ones who do things that make themselves feel good regardless of what it does to others around them.

If you generally treasure impersonal logic yet have strong feelings and do things that make you feel good, and you're an INP, then chances are...

* *




*Sorry, you're INTP!*


----------



## Turi (May 9, 2017)

I feel like this whole post is just about how INTPs are really INTJs, due to 'functions'.
I think the P/J separation is confusing and nobody seems to understand it.

I don't think INTJ descriptors should harp on about how organised they are at all, they should paint them as the total detached from reality 'P' types that they are.
The people who relate to the 'J' aspects of INTJ are surely, truly, MBTI "INTP" types, due to leading with a judging function.

I can get on board with INTP as being, what it describes literally there - introvert, intuitive, thinker, perceiver - this is definitely outlining an 'Ni' type with a thinking function supporting it.
Which is a fit.

The ENTP thing is due to people knowing they prefer a perceiving 'function' over a judging 'function' - this is where the flip makes no sense, I for one know damn well I 'lead' with a perceiving function, which means I can't be an 'MBTI' INTP.
It forces my only choices, if we go N-T, to be ENTP or INTJ to reflect how I feel.

I vastly prefer the Socionics version where they don't fuck it up with this 'how we deal with the outer world' crap that just confuses people.


I read about 'INTJ' types on FB, and they harp on about how organized they are, how far ahead they plan in advance - masterminds, schemers - and I'm just like.. motherfucker, how on Gods green *dick *are you an '_Ni_' dominant then?
'Ni' types have inferior 'Se' - they forget their wallet is in their pockets, they triple check to see if they've got their phone, they put their car keys on the kitchen table and literally forget where they put them within seconds - they're not 'J' types by any means.

I relate to this more accurate portrayal of an 'Ni' type - the one that is vague with regards to real-world details - the version that barely makes it to appointments on time, comes to work late more often than they should - the version that gets to work, ready to get down to business then realizes not only have they not got paper to write on - they can't find their pen _and _they can't remember the god damn password to log in either.
I'm not detailing a "J" type here, but I _am _detailing the life of an introverted intuitive perceiver (i.e, an 'Ni' dominant).
This is the version I relate to. lol.


I think a part of my issue with it is that, I don't see them as 'masks'.
I see them as honest problems - problems that simply wouldn't exist if the P/J was accurately reflected in introverts as correlating to their 'dominant' function.


----------



## Ocean Helm (Aug 25, 2016)

@Turi P/J separation is not confusing when you are using MBTI, where the letter "P" in INTP actually means Perceiving. The INTJs that you describe in the Facebook group sound like they actually are what INTJ abbreviates (i.e. actual INTJs in MBTI).

If you're using something incompatible with MBTI to assign someone one of 16 personalities, why use MBTI nomenclature to represent it? Socionics people for the most part recognize this. ILE is not actually ENTP, if someone like Einstein is canon ILE. That is because Socionics draws the line differently. And when you take a type like INTP in MBTI, you can have a variety of different Socionics matches like ILI, IEI, LII, ILE, and SLI. But that just means they have that Socionics type, not that they are actually anything but INTP.

The problem here isn't MBTI: it's the stuff that people equate with MBTI that clearly isn't. I really just made the thread because INTP is the one MBTI type that seems to end up typing themselves as anything but INTP, probably because what the suggested function models evolved into, as well as stereotypes, are so far off or not something people want to embrace.

And when INTP was Ti-Ne in the original Myers model when Myers did her J/P switch, the Ti part in front may not have made sense but the idea was always that they are a Perceiver because it's the Ne that you see, the focus being on the extraverted function. The focus on the first (dominant) function, as well as the attempted syncretization with Jung, Socionics, etc by inserting other function definitions into the model, is what has turned the mainstream understanding of stacks for introverts into something that fundamentally incompatible with MBTI.


----------



## Turi (May 9, 2017)

Ocean Helm said:


> @Turi P/J separation is not confusing when you are using MBTI, where the letter "P" in INTP actually means Perceiving. The INTJs that you describe in the Facebook group sound like they actually are what INTJ abbreviates (i.e. actual INTJs in MBTI).
> 
> If you're using something incompatible with MBTI to assign someone one of 16 personalities, why use MBTI nomenclature to represent it? Socionics people for the most part recognize this. ILE is not actually ENTP, if someone like Einstein is canon ILE. That is because Socionics draws the line differently. And when you take a type like INTP in MBTI, you can have a variety of different Socionics matches like ILI, IEI, LII, ILE, and SLI. But that just means they have that Socionics type, not that they are actually anything but INTP.
> 
> The problem here isn't MBTI: it's the stuff that people equate with MBTI that clearly isn't.


Yeah, but there's a problem - people who relate to INTJ in MBTI language shouldn't go talking about 'Ni' then, because they're relating to being a J type, ergo, _not _relating to being a true dominant 'perceiver'.

I vastly prefer the idea of INTPs as 'leading' with 'Ni' so to speak, because 'Ni' is literally I, N and P.


----------



## Ocean Helm (Aug 25, 2016)

Turi said:


> Yeah, but there's a problem - people who relate to INTJ in MBTI language shouldn't go talking about 'Ni' then, because they're relating to being a J type, ergo, _not _relating to being a true dominant 'perceiver'.
> 
> I vastly prefer the idea of INTPs as 'leading' with 'Ni' so to speak, because 'Ni' is literally I, N and P.


Well Ni in its original form, in its placement in the Myers stack, seems like more of an afterthought. It's like she wanted her books to add up and one line used to calculate the total got smeared up into FUBAR territory, so she just decided it was okay to calculate that line based on the total and all the other lines. The "logic" was seems to be:
1) It's nice and fair to give everyone an introverted and extraverted function
2) It's nice and fair to give everyone one perceiving and judging function
3) Introverts will be dominant in their introverted function
4) Extraverted functions will be more visible and thus match with the preference of MBTI

It follows from 1) and 2) that introverts will have either Ji/Pe or Pi/Je but it only comes as a derivation from ideals (as opposed to theory of reality or empirical evidence) sloppily used as a basis for her model.

And so if you are to say an INTJ has Thinking most obvious that means they have to have "Te" in their stack, and thus gives them "dominant" Pi, and since they are N: Ni. But nowhere in the whole process of assigning them that stack are we actually checking for such a thing as dominant Pi. It's just there because then the stack matches Myers' ideals. Because of this, the "dominant" function seems a lot more like a submissive function in its originally conceived form in the Myers stack.

Why she did this, who knows, but if you think of INTPs as visibly showing Intuition and also using Thinking but not the kind that is obvious to the outside observer, the stack isn't incompatible with INTP in an obvious way. After all the Ne is in a de facto dominant position, while the Ti is relegated to "it's there, believe me!".

I think we have a similar idea of what a function model should look like (the link in my signature seems compatible with stuff you said), but I just don't know why it should be strongly tied to MBTI. Then you end up with this syncretization of two things which doesn't do justice to either one.


----------



## Turi (May 9, 2017)

My experience is INTJs (MBTI) are Thinkers.
I.e they rattle on about organising things, planning, scheduling, clarifying, specifying, etc etc obviously leading with Thinking, then.
It's not some _supportive_ part of their persona it's who they are.
Introverted thinking _judging_ types i.e *Ti*.

They don't come across as intuitive at all.

The only reason it should be tied to MBTI in any way shape or form is so other people know what we're talking about and can understand it, rather than create some new dichotomy nobody knows anything about, look at Socionics, ain't nobody buying into those symbols even if the whole system makes more sense.


To me, the idea of INTP reflecting an "Ni" preference makes infinite sense, works beautifully, same for INTJ and "Ti".

This idea is just perfect to me.
It actually makes sense, lol.

I don't believe in this "how we are seen by others" bullshit that is inherent in the P/J divide in mbti - I don't want to be seen by others, I don't want to interact.
This idea doesn't work, it forces people to just accept some predetermined mode of being.

I don't feel like the idea accurately reflects a preference for introversion. True introversion.


----------



## INTPaul (Dec 21, 2017)

Ocean Helm said:


> *1. INTP Subtype "I'm a Ni-Dom!" (INTJ mask)*
> There's a lot of varying descriptions of what Ni is. But some descriptions, particularly those with roots in Jung, and in Socionics (which itself has roots in Jung), emphasize the wandering through and exploration of mental imagery.
> 
> However, when said mental wandering and exploration predominates, it usually leads to a lack of planning and structure, and thus MBTI Perceiving.
> ...


Okay, thanks for posting this. By the way, I’ve actually strongly resonated with description #1 (or thought so) for 2 years until last year. For God’s sake, I couldn’t even figure out whether I used Te or Ti more (I’ve even tested as both equally on cognitive functions assessments back then, and both Fe and Se were my ‘weakest’ functions), even when I was confident about being an Ni-dominant not long ago.


----------



## Doom_Knight (Apr 17, 2017)

Turi said:


> To me, the idea of INTP reflecting an "Ni" preference makes infinite sense, works beautifully, same for INTJ and "Ti".


This reminds me of a functions-questionnaire. It was three or four questions long, but really bad.

Anyway, to get Ti-dom you had to be a systematic thinker. Thinking in axioms, proofs, systems and rules. Being rational, logical, stoic and analytical. This kind of stick. It is all right (even though it was more J than Te-dom), but the next question was the kicker.

To get ne- or se-aux you had to decide between two options, but both (and especially se) were about how chaotic you are, how systems are stupid and just constricting. That analyse is junk and the real way of doing things is by being spontaneous. Gut-instinct in the case of se and intuition in the case of ne. 

I don't have a problem with Ti-dom = IXTJ, but how would the functions represent types than? Like this: TiSi = ISTJ, TiNi = INTJ, NiTi = INTP and SiTi = ISTP? 

The theory would needed to be rewritten entirely and it would lead to the same problem socionics has to face. That every function does something completely different, for every single type. XXTJ would be Ti or Te-dom, instead of Te = XXTJ and Ti = XXTP.

@OP: I disagree with the notion, that people don't type others as INTP. I argue the opposite, too many ENTP, ISTP and ISFJ (ironically enough) are typed INTP.


----------



## Turi (May 9, 2017)

Doom_Knight said:


> This reminds me of a functions-questionnaire. It was three or four questions long, but really bad.
> 
> Anyway, to get Ti-dom you had to be a systematic thinker. Thinking in axioms, proofs, systems and rules. Being rational, logical, stoic and analytical. This kind of stick. It is all right (even though it was more J than Te-dom), but the next question was the kicker.
> 
> ...


Yes, that's how I'd see it, re: functions - for ESTJ - Te-Se, ESTP - Se-Te. etc.

I might just create a little test to see if this works out.


----------



## Ksara (Feb 13, 2014)

Turi said:


> My experience is INTJs (MBTI) are Thinkers.
> I.e they rattle on about organising things, planning, scheduling, clarifying, specifying, etc etc obviously leading with Thinking, then.
> It's not some _supportive_ part of their persona it's who they are.
> Introverted thinking _judging_ types i.e *Ti*.
> ...


I have discussed with another forum member how they relate strongly to Jungian and Socionics Ti, yet find ISTJ better fits them in the MBTi system. I have even noticed reading gift differing the profile description of ISTJ focuses on thinking aspects, and the ISTP focuses on the sensing aspect, and not their dominant function.

Now when Myers, using ISTJ for example, observed the ISTJ she found they displayed a similar kind of thinking to their extroverted counterpart (ESTJ). The assumption made was both types must used Te. Perhaps it may have been more correct to identify that both types have dominant thinking, so ISTJ being Ti dom?
Does this apply to all cases? Not sure.

Like you I do identify with Ni. Yet MBTI wise I have a mild to medium lean towards J. I tend to use schedules/plans as a tools otherwise I do forget my keys, lose items, forget I have an exam and remember after the fact... 

Literally the other day I moved tables and put my glass of water down, not paying attention, right next to another glass of water and could not tell which was mine. Yep reading a phone number three times at least before it's dialled is my life. 

Knowing myself and being organised helps me. Having a 'spot' for things helps me not forget them, writing down a list of things to do/get means I get them done. I generally see the chain of events so planing is easy, when working with others it helps to actually state a time/date/location. It's about having a plan as to not waste time.

But a couple of pieces of anecdotal evidence hardly makes a case for or against. I would be interested in seeing if there is some correlation between, as you say, INTP more often relating to Ni or instead Ti. Or even if there is a pattern with function stacking and MBTI type rather than just conforming to the it must match the model (regardless of reality).


I think MBTI should do away with functions. It's not required to describe the dichotomies, and the difference within each dichotomy can be adequately explained with the facets. I think it just adds to the confusion of type as different systems (cognitive function, MBTI, etc.) seem to be using the same names/symbols when each system defines these things differently.


----------



## Knave (Sep 9, 2017)

Turi said:


> Doom_Knight said:
> 
> 
> > This reminds me of a functions-questionnaire. It was three or four questions long, but really bad.
> ...


I think @reckful had claimed Jung's theory was that the first two functions are in the same direction and conscious, while the bottom two functions are unconscious in the opposite direction. 

I don't believe reckful subscribes to this belief though, he's in the dichotomy camp.


----------



## Ocean Helm (Aug 25, 2016)

Ksara said:


> Like you I do identify with Ni. Yet MBTI wise I have a mild to medium lean towards J. I tend to use schedules/plans as a tools otherwise I do forget my keys, lose items, forget I have an exam and remember after the fact...


I'm curious, which kind of Ni do you relate to more? The "moves from image to image, chasing after every possibility" kind, or the "singular vision" kind?


----------



## Aluminum Frost (Oct 1, 2017)

Ocean Helm said:


> *1. INTP Subtype "I'm a Ni-Dom!" (INTJ mask)*
> There's a lot of varying descriptions of what Ni is. But some descriptions, particularly those with roots in Jung, and in Socionics (which itself has roots in Jung), emphasize the wandering through and exploration of mental imagery.
> 
> However, when said mental wandering and exploration predominates, it usually leads to a lack of planning and structure, and thus MBTI Perceiving.
> ...


The INTJ one seems fine enough and the ENxP example is really accurate but the others I can't say I agree with.

1. INFJ: If we go by functions Ni like Ti is very analytical. Also they tend to be very warm and friendly which would indicate F. But they also care about logic which would indicate T. I don't think you can say someone is a feeler just cause they're warm and things of that nature necessarily. Same with thinking. Who is going to tell you that they don't value logical consistency? Also as far as J/P goes I don't personally know any INFJs that have a strong preference for J over P. I'd type most as INFx by letters.

2. ISTP: You didn't actually say how they're INTPs though. And by this same logic being nerdy and things of that nature isn't evidence of INTP over ISTP. Can you honestly tell me how you'd differentiate a sporty, masculine INTP from a nerdy ISTP who likes debating? I really have to rely on functions for this one cause I see too much overlap between these two types.

3. INFP: I wouldn't say most introverts relate that much to Fi. It's probably my weakest function. And you really bastardized what Fi is here. It's not just "feeling things" Also I've never met someone who claims to be a feeler that says they don't take feelings into account when making decisions.


----------



## Ksara (Feb 13, 2014)

Ocean Helm said:


> I'm curious, which kind of Ni do you relate to more? The "moves from image to image, chasing after every possibility" kind, or the "singular vision" kind?


It's difficult to say, if I have to choose more towards the second kind than the first.

Am I aware of inner images similar to Jung describes, yes. Am I goal oriented also, yes. I say the second option as it has a greater influence on my life. Where I currently am in life is not an accident. You could say what I am heading towards is a singular vision. The end goal itself over time does change based on what information I have gathered, but the general idea remains the same.

I relate strongly to the Socionics description of Ni: Conjuring up mental imagery, seeing trends, intangible hints between objects, having in mind a plan with how life will develop in the future.

I also relate to the description Linda Berens had but I think it's been removed from her site. It was along the lines of: being aware of images of profound meaning, seeing connections without external input, seeing what will be, a meta perspective.
I am paraphrasing her description.


----------



## Turi (May 9, 2017)

Ksara said:


> I also relate to the description Linda Berens had but I think it's been removed from her site. It was along the lines of: being aware of images of profound meaning, seeing connections without external input, seeing what will be, a meta perspective.
> I am paraphrasing her description.


I like, and relate to, her descriptions as well - this is one of them:



> If you looked outside your window and didn’t even notice the apple tree that is there but instead got a sense that the orchards around will soon be cut down and replaced with a housing development, you would have experienced introverted iNtuiting.
> 
> Introverted iNtuiting (coded as Ni) often involves a sense of what will be. The details might be a little fuzzy, but when you tune in to this process, there is some sense of how things will be. Using this process, we often are able to get pictures about the future or at least a sense of what will happen before we have any data. Sometimes it is an awareness of what is happening in another location and we have no sensory data to go on.
> 
> ...


The _Building Blocks_ link in my sig has some excellent information re: 'Ni' that might be something you relate to as well.

My entire life, I've basically removed myself from situations in order to solve problems hoping for the above.
I rely on that.
I'll go to another room and basically just be like 'fuck fuck fuck fuck fuck come on fuck fuck fuck fuck fuck' and then voila, got it.


----------



## Ksara (Feb 13, 2014)

Turi said:


> I like, and relate to, her descriptions as well - this is one of them:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Reading the building blocks I find I can relate to some of the Te perspective. I am wondering if perhaps I am confusing the idea of 'what something will be' with 'cause and effect'. It may be simply my job requires it (being able to priorities tasks, estimating how long something will take). I can see clearly if x happens, then y will follow. But I can also envision moving through the process. Kind of a blurry fast forwards.

I will check my thinking with others, but I don't talk to think. More the conclusions I have come to.
I like to get away to work things out.

The Te description does seem too rigid.
Ni can seem too unstructured lol. But the idea was to create more of an extreme caricature.

The Ni description, well wouldn't say every object I look at I'll think about it's potential history or potential future. But I can relate in some instances. Just moving to the country and seeing out into the landscape. There was a sense of aimlessness. I was wondering if early humans felt this aimlessness. Our current world always seems to have a direction. A road or path that goes somewhere. Houses set up in a predictable grid, rows of fences. Some kind of square structure that indirectly guides us as to which way we are to move next.
Out in the country there is nothing like this. You can travel in any direction with no straight line to point at which direction to travel.
It is hard to explain the extent to which the idea came as it's not just a visual thing, but a sense or weight to it. I would say this is an Ni thought process.

I don't think I have a sense of 'knowing' people quickly. Well not details about their life. I can get a sense of their character/insecurities. It's reading beyond their actions.

I can relate to how you solve problems in that I prefer to remove myself. I may not always get the answer. Sometimes it's a quite whisper. Sometimes it hits me in the face lol.


----------



## Lunacik (Apr 19, 2014)

@Ocean Helm
What about an INTP who thinks they're an ENFP?


----------



## Ocean Helm (Aug 25, 2016)

RGBCMYK said:


> @Ocean Helm
> What about an INTP who thinks they're an ENFP?


Then they are both of the ENTP and INFP subtypes, at the same time. That would be impressive.


----------



## mp2 (Dec 18, 2016)

I like the direction this thread is taking. 
@Ocean Helm 

What about an INTP who thinks they're ISFJ or ISTJ? 

Or what about an INTP who thinks they have what it takes to make it big on Broadway, even though they have absolutely no sense of rhythm or tone?


----------



## Lunacik (Apr 19, 2014)

@Ocean Helm Do you like turtles?


----------



## Lunacik (Apr 19, 2014)

Ocean Helm said:


> At least I can show the greater than 70% of J/P questions on which I chose the P answer.


How did you type yourself anyways?
Not functions, bc you relate to Ni/Te/Fi more...
Not descriptions...
Tests are completely faulty, did you really use them over the other stuff?


----------



## Ocean Helm (Aug 25, 2016)

RGBCMYK said:


> How did you type yourself anyways?
> Not functions, bc you relate to Ni/Te/Fi more...
> Not descriptions...
> Tests are completely faulty, did you really use them over the other stuff?


I took the official MBTI test... And what makes tests "faulty" compared to function magic?

I don't relate to Fi or Te extremely well, just that I think that I am more Fi + Te than Ti + Fe, because if I am sort of to take a consensus view of The Functions I only slightly prefer Ti over Fi, and I significantly prefer Te over Fe. But this is more based on function tests than anything and definitions vary everywhere. I could be dominant in Ni or Ti or Fi or Ne or Te depending on what I choose to pay attention to. Just like you can be INFJ if you pay attention to certain things and block out the rest.


----------



## Lunacik (Apr 19, 2014)

Ocean Helm said:


> I took the official MBTI test... And what makes tests "faulty" compared to function magic?


Where do I even start??? A conversation best saved for tomorrow, it's late for the new schedule I have. I got ISTP on that thing at first, and I am the furthest thing from it...



> I don't relate to Fi or Te extremely well, just that I think that I am more Fi + Te than Ti + Fe, because if I am sort of to take a consensus view of The Functions I only slightly prefer Ti over Fi, and I significantly prefer Te over Fe. But this is more based on function tests than anything and definitions vary everywhere. I could be dominant in Ni or Ti or Fi or Ne or Te depending on what I choose to pay attention to. Just like you can be INFJ if you pay attention to certain things and block out the rest.


How are "assessment instruments" not basically just descriptions in question form and with added vagueness?


(I'm not saying they don't work for anyone btw, I'm just saying they don't work for everyone and sometimes an alternate route is better...)


----------



## Ocean Helm (Aug 25, 2016)

RGBCMYK said:


> Where do I even start??? A conversation best saved for tomorrow, it's late for the new schedule I have. I got ISTP on that thing at first, and I am the furthest thing from it...I had a really difficult time w the tests though, always do...I didn't know how to answer a lot of them...I have that problem on tests currently also...


I did too but I was like 12 or 13 years old and read things differently through an edgy way like "facts vs theory" to me was basically "me vs school".


> How are "assessment instruments" not basically just descriptions in question form?


Descriptions alone lack an algorithm to be used for actual type-sorting, which potentially opens up the door for even more bias interference.


----------



## Lunacik (Apr 19, 2014)

Ocean Helm said:


> I did too but I was like 12 or 13 years old and read things differently through an edgy way like "facts vs theory" to me was basically "me vs school".
> 
> Descriptions alone lack an algorithm to be used for actual type-sorting, which potentially opens up the door for even more bias interference.



Sorry, I'm an avid editor.

Questions can open up to bias even more than descriptions...I can see what they're asking for, but can't tell what is the right answer for me...uncertainty in the multiple choice aspect + bias towards what I see they're asking for = no, that's worse. I'm going to be even more inclined for bias at that point bc there's nothing there I perceive as solid truth so that I'm grounded to it.

That's part of why I am into functions. It gets behind the scenes at HOW you think, not WHAT you do...I can look at functions n be like "yes, I process like this, here's an example..."
Instead of them GIVING me the examples, and trying to figure out which one I'd do if I do neither, or both, etc. it's like being able to write my own answers instead of choosing a limited and confined preset.

Answer all, bump things up against each other, compare which one's closest. In order to avoid bias as much as possible, think of actual examples and instances to the best of my ability. Also, that takes it away from "what I believe I would probably do" (multiple choice often times limits you to this) and into the realm of "what I actually do comfortably, regularly, and naturally"
This eliminates bias even further than tests therefore, IME in the sense that I know for certain I'm not answering according to what I should do, would do, could do, might do...but what is actually me. There's space to put my own subjective manifestations of the underlying process taking place. Those examples are a greater root into truth than "supposing I would if..." People often don't know themselves until the moment comes and goes.


----------



## Ocean Helm (Aug 25, 2016)

@RGBCMYK if you actually want to get behind how you think, then I don't know why you're looking to The Functions, when there is so much psychology out there with a basis in actual evidence. At least the letters represent clear differences between people.


----------



## Lunacik (Apr 19, 2014)

x Forget it. This isn't enjoyable.


----------



## Soul Kitchen (May 15, 2016)

Ocean Helm said:


> At least I can show the greater than 70% of J/P questions on which I chose the P answer.


I only got 68% on P, when I last went through the copy of the official MBTI test.


----------



## Lunacik (Apr 19, 2014)

Ocean Helm said:


> *INTP Subtype The Looper (INFJ mask)*
> This is a puzzling one with a mainly archetypal basis. As described with the INTJ mask, the very concept of "Ni dominance" can be portrayed in such a way where it actually implies Perceiving rather than Judging. And even moreso than is usually the case for the INTJ mask, this INFJ mask type emphasizes just how much they are into exploring their own mental imagery.
> 
> Ti is usually lagging behind, but they do prize being internally logical making them likely Thinkers.
> ...


Yup, identify with this. But this is faulty in the sense that it contains an obscure definition of Fe, defining it as being a "minimum kind of Fe" when in reality, people could be typing themselves as Fe based on this not so minimal definition, yet still identify as Ni-Ti "Looper" kind of INFJs. What's being minimized here is the emphasis in your own mind on the Fe definition or relation being used by "INTPs in INFJ masks." @*Soul Kitchen* has stated that Jung's original function model was Ni-Ti-Fe-Se, and I've always identified with this more in spite of efforts to adopt the qualities encompassed by Fe (unsuccessfully).

I am really starting to think Ni-Ti-Fe-Se is the missing link here, as a _*lot *_of "INFJs" identify more with Ti than Fe.

I need to look into functions more, determine whether to even accept them. Any resources / links would be appreciated.


----------



## soop (Aug 6, 2016)

INTPs are obvious to everyone but themselves.


----------

