# Which MBTI type would make the best spy?



## adam1010 (Mar 7, 2014)

hey guys, I was just wondering which type would be best suited to a life of espionage, both fictional and the reality; I did a little bit of research and thus far the internet seems to be pretty divided

Get thinking :crazy:


----------



## Ruda (Apr 2, 2014)

Pair consisting of ENTP and INTP.


----------



## I Kant (Jan 19, 2013)

Maybe an ENFJ? Or would they draw too much attention...


----------



## adam1010 (Mar 7, 2014)

what about ENFP? they'd quite quickly understand a person, perhaps that'd make it easier to get information from them? But then Ti is a bit too low down in the mix, i'd say that's fairly important
I can see what you mean about an ENTP, but INTP? they'd (generally speaking) be a bit too withdrawn and slow moving to act in crisis, surely?


----------



## spookyfornever (Jun 5, 2013)

INTP. we have a built in cloaking device which allows us to remain undetected even when we're right in front of someone.
(I paused to take an anatomy test, so i just saw adam's post)
It depends on which type of spy you want. If you need an informant, someone undercover, then INTPs are horrible ideas. if you need an infiltrator, I'm your man. I miss nothing, and remember everything.


----------



## monemi (Jun 24, 2013)

Why are all of the first guesses N's?


----------



## Surreal Snake (Nov 17, 2009)

xstp


----------



## spookyfornever (Jun 5, 2013)

monemi said:


> Why are all of the first guesses N's?


Cause we're already "Ncognito"


----------



## feeg1 (Feb 12, 2014)

I would consider myself a horrible "spy". Though a potentially wonderful informant or upriser. The whole James Bond explosion thing sounds horribly repetitive and intellectually boring. Maybe an inventor for those going on missions, for all the little gadgets they would recauire.


----------



## ChaosEpsilon (Apr 1, 2014)

Being undetected isn't the only trait that's important though; I'd say ISTP because of that ability along with their ability to use any tool with ease, make quick decisions, their desire for adventure and danger, and their tendency to always be observing everything


----------



## monemi (Jun 24, 2013)

When you hear explosions or gunshots or crashes or screaming, what is your reaction? My feet are moving heading straight to scene before I've had the thought. I've never had the deer in headlights moment. Once things calm down, I think: 'What the fuck am I doing? What am I? Cannon fodder?'

I doubt most types lacking Se would make good spies. Se will call you into the thick of it whether you're built like the Hulk or a petite 5 year old girl. As a kid, when I was scared of the monster in my closet, I was going to find that bitch and kill it.


----------



## adam1010 (Mar 7, 2014)

monemi said:


> Why are all of the first guesses N's?


I guess I was focusing in on the potential for approaching things in a new way, like the daring plans that no one sees coming; i'd say that comes hand in hand with 'N'; also i'd say an ENxx would probably be better at extracting information from people, face to face

But yeah, I can see what you mean with the whole xSTP acting immediately to a crisis; despite all our inventive ways typical xNTP's just aren't cut out for that


----------



## Im FiNe (Oct 17, 2013)

ESTP or ESFP as field agents.

Both of the SPs are going to bring something for action. The thinker will approach the task focusing more on an informational approach whereas the feeler will approach the task focusing more on informants. They would stylistically differ but both get the job done.

xNTPs are better suited running Q Branch and lending remote support.

ESTJs would be suited for the role of handlers and running Control.

xNTJs and ESTJs would be suited for running the organization.


----------



## monemi (Jun 24, 2013)

adam1010 said:


> I guess I was focusing in on the potential for approaching things in a new way, like the daring plans that no one sees coming; i'd say that comes hand in hand with 'N'; also i'd say an ENxx would probably be better at extracting information from people, face to face
> 
> But yeah, I can see what you mean with the whole xSTP acting immediately to a crisis; despite all our inventive ways typical xNTP's just aren't cut out for that


We adapt to the situation. I prefer someone else does the planning and I make it happen. When things don't go according to plan, I adapt. Best skill ESTP's have is pissing people off aka fucking up other peoples plans. For the same reason we're good at looking at things and making them happen, we're good at looking at things and making sure they don't happen. Favourite games Jenga, paintball, tennis, pool and chess. All games where I screw up other peoples plans. I don't have to make plans. I just have to understand their plan and set them up to fail.


----------



## Nordom (Oct 12, 2011)

INTPs would be terrible as spies. Especially if we got captured.

Torturer showing off maiming tools: "I'm only going to ask you once. Are you a spy?"
Captured INTP: *looks at tools, recalls falling down the stairs when 4 years old, weighs the pros and cons of how much more this would hurt vs. losing the spy job* 
"Yes. Yes I am."


----------



## monemi (Jun 24, 2013)

Im FiNe said:


> ESTP or ESFP as field agents.


My Dad was special ops in the military and he's an ESFP. Not a spy, but he served undercover in Northern Ireland. He has a gift for picking up languages and perfect accents and he's charming. He's been blown up, stabbed and shot. But my ISTP mother was always the hardass in my house with the 6am runs in my teens. Probably why my Dad's so charming. You'd have to be pretty impressive to get in her good books.


----------



## adam1010 (Mar 7, 2014)

monemi said:


> We adapt to the situation. I prefer someone else does the planning and I make it happen. When things don't go according to plan, I adapt. Best skill ESTP's have is pissing people off aka fucking up other peoples plans. For the same reason we're good at looking at things and making them happen, we're good at looking at things and making sure they don't happen. Favourite games Jenga, paintball, tennis, pool and chess. All games where I screw up other peoples plans. I don't have to make plans. I just have to understand their plan and set them up to fail.


OK, so that seems to me to be more of a counter-espionage thing, stopping other spy's operating- or perhaps things like SAS, covert military action
In terms of inventing and setting in place a spy ring though, getting information and not getting caught, i still stand by the xNTx's


----------



## monemi (Jun 24, 2013)

adam1010 said:


> OK, so that seems to me to be more of a counter-espionage thing, stopping other spy's operating- or perhaps things like SAS, covert military action
> In terms of inventing and setting in place a spy ring though, getting information and not getting caught, i still stand by the xNTx's


Why would the spy be the one planning it? That's the handlers job. And you do actually need to get on a friendly basis with people. All I ever see is XNTX's complaining about how they don't fit in. This is a situation where you NEED to fit in seamlessly, get people to like and accept you and trust you.


----------



## MNiS (Jan 30, 2010)

From what I know, ISTJs tend to be the "spy type". Although much more importantly than MBTI type, intelligence and impressionability would be the top two factors in spy selection IMO. You want to know the person is smart enough to do their job correctly and suggestable enough to be thoroughly indoctrinated so that they'd be less inclined to go rogue. At least for cold-war era spying.

Today, I'd bet spying is mostly just like any other job -- you need to pass a few qualifications to be deemed competent, go through some training, pass a few background checks and display at least some aptitude in discretion.

I think being something like a quant would favor INTJs though.


----------



## adam1010 (Mar 7, 2014)

monemi said:


> Why would the spy be the one planning it? That's the handlers job. And you do actually need to get on a friendly basis with people. All I ever see is XNTX's complaining about how they don't fit in. This is a situation where you NEED to fit in seamlessly, get people to like and accept you and trust you.


OK, so i didn't word it properly, i've been referring to espionage as a whole; spy, handlers included 
And that thing about 'NT's 'complaining about how they don't fit in' is a gross stereotype; I could say that all 'ST's come across as blunt and abrasive, but that wouldn't make it true, would it?


----------



## monemi (Jun 24, 2013)

adam1010 said:


> OK, so i didn't word it properly, i've been referring to espionage as a whole; spy, handlers included
> And that thing about 'NT's 'complaining about how they don't fit in' is a gross stereotype; I could say that all 'ST's come across as blunt and abrasive, but that wouldn't make it true, would it?


Online I come across as blunt and abrasive. There isn't any visual or oral cues to help smooth things over. ESTP's generally are friendlier than ISTP's because we have Fe in tertiary. But not as friendly as say ESFP's. 

When people say spy, generally they are referring to the person on enemy territory without any back-up. Someone gives them a objective and they fulfill it. Spy's and undercover personnel do not get to make their own plans. They are given orders. If you want to make your own plans and objectives, then you can't be a spy.


----------



## Zombie Devil Duckie (Apr 11, 2012)

Orphans.


----------



## adam1010 (Mar 7, 2014)

MNiS said:


> From what I know, ISTJs tend to be the "spy type". Although much more importantly than MBTI type, intelligence and impressionability would be the top two factors in spy selection IMO. You want to know the person is smart enough to do their job correctly and suggestable enough to be thoroughly indoctrinated so that they'd be less inclined to go rogue. At least for cold-war era spying.
> 
> Today, I'd bet spying is mostly just like any other job -- you need to pass a few qualifications to be deemed competent, go through some training, pass a few background checks and display at least some aptitude in discretion.
> 
> I think being something like a quant would favor INTJs though.


Thanks MNiS, that clarified a lot


----------



## FearAndTrembling (Jun 5, 2013)

INFJ. We are the great mimic, who can appear as any type. Introverted, as to not give ourselves away. But "Feing" into the environment. INFJ is probably most private type; nobody really knows who we are. And very good at compartmentalizing. I actually prefer to divide worlds, and act differently in them. We are good at directing the conversation away from ourselves too.

Though it is a lot of pressure, so that could be a problem.. We are not necessarily strategic either.. A spy probably has to deal with change, and think on his feet quickly. So maybe something like ISTP. INFJ can be rigid, and fall apart when the plan does. We don't like detail either.


----------



## monemi (Jun 24, 2013)

FearAndTrembling said:


> INFJ. We are the great mimic, who can appear as any type. Introverted, as to not give ourselves away. But "Feing" into the environment. INFJ is probably most private type; nobody really knows who we are. And very good at compartmentalizing. I actually prefer to divide worlds, and act differently in them.


You think INFJ are the best at everything. How many INFJ's would join the military or police or anything of the sort? Are there any INFJ's that hunt?


----------



## adam1010 (Mar 7, 2014)

monemi said:


> When people say spy, generally they are referring to the person on enemy territory without any back-up. Someone gives them a objective and they fulfill it. Spy's and undercover personnel do not get to make their own plans. They are given orders. If you want to make your own plans and objectives, then you can't be a spy.


They may well be given orders, but does that mean every little detail will be outlined? They would most likely be given a general outline, but (and i'm just speculating), there would be a certain degree of autonomy in how it was achieved; that's where an intuitive would be better suited to finding an ingenious solution to getting the information they need


----------



## Tranquility (Dec 16, 2013)

Step 1: Send the ENxP out as a distraction.
Step 2: The ESxP infiltrates the compound, taking out the guards.
Step 3: The IxTP reprograms the jammer, allowing signals to come through.
Step 4: The ExTJ sends in the plan to the ESxP for finding the core and disabling it.
Step 5: The INxJ guesses the location of the land mines accurately, allowing the ESxP to further enter the gauntlet.
Step 6: The ExFJ mole lulls the evil overlord into a false sense of security.
Step 7: The ISxJ takes a bullet for the ESxP, allowing the mission to go on.
Step 8: The ESxP, losing faith, is encouraged by the IxFP to finish the task.

The core was disabled, the earth was saved. All the types worked together in harmony.


----------



## monemi (Jun 24, 2013)

adam1010 said:


> They may well be given orders, but does that mean every little detail will be outlined? They would most likely be given a general outline, but (and i'm just speculating), there would be a certain degree of autonomy in how it was achieved; that's where an intuitive would be better suited to finding an ingenious solution to getting the information they need


You gotta be kidding me? Plan=Plan. Making the plan happen is what Doers do Einstein. Honestly? You think ESTP's function without a degree of autonomy?


----------



## Promethea (Aug 24, 2009)

adam1010 said:


> They may well be given orders, but does that mean every little detail will be outlined? They would most likely be given a general outline, but (and i'm just speculating), there would be a certain degree of autonomy in how it was achieved;* that's where an intuitive would be better suited to finding an ingenious solution to getting the information they need*


Another newb who thinks intuition is magical. 

There is nothing better suited for impromptu action out in the field, than Se. And this same type of situation is something that would make an Ne dom otoh, likely to panic, as they have less of a command over physical environment and they know it.


----------



## adam1010 (Mar 7, 2014)

Promethea said:


> There is nothing better suited for impromptu action out in the field, than Se. And this same type of situation is something that would make an Ne dom otoh, likely to panic, as they have less of a command over physical environment and they know it.


 I will admit I am fairly new to this, shed some light on that Promethea?
however it depends what type of situation we're talking about, are we necessarily talking about impromptu action in the field? In terms of an immediate response I would say that undoubtedly, a sensor would be better at that; but what if given more time, what if it wasn't necessarily immediate? There are many forms of spying


----------



## herinb (Aug 24, 2013)

I know a couple of ENTPs who would make awesome sneaky spies...


----------



## FearAndTrembling (Jun 5, 2013)

monemi said:


> You think INFJ are the best at everything. How many INFJ's would join the military or police or anything of the sort? Are there any INFJ's that hunt?


No, and am kind of proud that I could never be a cop or soldier. But spying is not really a soldier's job. It is more of a psychological operation.


----------



## adam1010 (Mar 7, 2014)

monemi said:


> You gotta be kidding me? Plan=Plan. Making the plan happen is what Doers do Einstein. Honestly? You think ESTP's function without a degree of autonomy?


Firstly that's not what i'm saying at all monemi, but it's a different kind of autonomy
Secondly, plan=plan? that doesn't really follow; you can have specific, detailed plans, but you can also have more generic aims; i think you're forgetting this isn't necessarily some mission impossible scenario
I would have to agree with the idea that espionage is more of a psychological operation


----------



## candiemerald (Jan 26, 2014)

Yeah, I'm going with ESTP. Everything @monemi says makes perfect sense. I think Se/Ti would be an absolutely badass combination for a spy.

Second would be INFJs, like @FearAndTrembling said, because we are chameleons and mimics and are constantly reading between the lines in situations, and thus pick up things others might miss. We aren't the best at following rules, unless a strong sense of duty compels us, in which case we will be absolutely tireless in our devotion. Yep, I went there


----------



## Psychopomp (Oct 3, 2012)

I read down the first page until @monemi's post and I have to laugh at this thread. All these N types!

No, no, no, no, no, no, no.

Not at all. 

The single worst possible spies would be NFPs. I don't think xNTPs would do particularly well either, with a poor relationship with the sensory, and one that lacks dynamics. 

I lived in Langley, VA for a few years and met a lot of people who work for the CIA. Few if any struck me as being intuitives. I think the best spy like in the movies would be an ESTP. Definitely. 

However, I think the ideal spy in reality would be and is an xSTJ. A spy, above all, has to be consistent and very very careful. Someone with a strong procedural mind would do well.. someone who was really good at covering for contingencies and details. Also, someone with unquestionable loyalty and a very strong sense of integrity. Also, someone with a lot of data in their head, and someone who isn't strongly ideological - or at least isn't a slave to such pathos. 

So, yeah, ESTJ or ESTP would be the best spies, depending on the context. A high risk, short term scenario, where you gotta really sell it and be really adaptable: ESTP. A long game spy that just has to assimilate but be 1000% reliable without the possibility of oversight: xSTJ. 

Best spies intutives!? lol. no. Maaaaybe an xNTJ? Meh, xSTJ would be straight up better. The more secretive CIA people I knew, the ones that really made you wonder... seemed to be mostly SJs to me.


----------



## adam1010 (Mar 7, 2014)

well, as much as it pains me to say it , i think i lost; i came in to this arguing a case i had barely thought about, and had my ass handed to me  Oh well, it's all practice i guess


----------



## candiemerald (Jan 26, 2014)

@arkigos true, I think we have a lot of misconceptions about what spies really are due to how they are portrayed in fiction. xSTJ would probably be the ultimate mole type - the type who could settle down in one country for years on end, not knowing when they would be called upon to act. They would probably be great at infiltrating an enemy society and appearing normal, and wouldn't have the same need to question authority as some others might have, especially N types.


----------



## monemi (Jun 24, 2013)

FearAndTrembling said:


> No, and am kind of proud that I could never be a cop or soldier. But spying is not really a soldier's job. It is more of a psychological operation.


Entry point for espionage generally starts with combat or law enforcement. 



adam1010 said:


> Firstly that's not what i'm saying at all monemi, but it's a different kind of autonomy
> Secondly, plan=plan? that doesn't really follow; you can have specific, detailed plans, but you can also have more generic aims; i think you're forgetting this isn't necessarily some mission impossible scenario
> I would have to agree with the idea that espionage is more of a psychological operation


They generally like people that follow orders to start with and don't go off making their own plans. They're fine with adapting and making new plans if the situation calls for it. But that's where planners choke. And ESTP's can learn psychological. But to start with they need to be willing to risk their lives. NT's generally don't go risking their lives for kicks. 



Guys you can't have everything. Insist on being the super most creative most innovative bestest bestest smart people evah and then decide you can take on the physical world too. It's fucking ridiculous and childish. If you want to be the next superspy, start with dropping the N. 

Seriously? You'd consider putting your arse on the line for secrets? Did you ever seriously consider taking a job that would put your life at risk?


----------



## monemi (Jun 24, 2013)

arkigos said:


> I read down the first page until @_monemi_'s post and I have to laugh at this thread. All these N types!
> 
> No, no, no, no, no, no, no.
> 
> ...


Admittedly, long term game, the average ESTP would flop. I'd give an ESTP 18 months tops. XSTJ could probably last decades. ESTP has loyalty but the long game isn't our strong suite.


----------



## FearAndTrembling (Jun 5, 2013)

You guys are making the mistake that only guys based out of the CIA are "spies". Some religious zealot in Pakistan, total feeler intuitive type, could be turned into a spy by the cause. Like Mohammed Atta, listed as an INFJ, and certainly an NF. Though not technically a spy, a leader of a very complex operation, where he had to fit in, do all this shit, is basically equivalent to black ops. Bin Laden basically does what our CIA has been doing forever. Our side is probably filled with STs, their side isn't. Not all sides are. Because they are fighting for different reasons. CIA guy is fighting for a paycheck.

911 is like the greatest black ops event pulled of in my lifetime, and pulled off by NF.


----------



## adam1010 (Mar 7, 2014)

monemi said:


> Entry point for espionage generally starts with combat or law enforcement.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


...and back in, i couldn't resist

a)who said we were talking about entry level espionage? stop trying to morph the parameters of the argument to suit yourself
b) you may well learn psychological but that doesn't mean it will come naturally to you, other types would be far more suited to that
c) 'Risking your lives for kicks'? it appears you are talking about the mission impossible spy then

Generally, you're talking about a job that doesn't quite match up to the espionage of today; i doubt very much it is all action, all Se orientated, but more slow paced and psychological, more about the relationships with people and persuading them to tell you things

And i'm just going to ignore your little personal dig at ENTP's, that isn't what this is about monemi


----------



## monemi (Jun 24, 2013)

candiemerald said:


> @_arkigos_ true, I think we have a lot of misconceptions about what spies really are due to how they are portrayed in fiction. xSTJ would probably be the ultimate mole type - the type who could settle down in one country for years on end, not knowing when they would be called upon to act. They would probably be great at infiltrating an enemy society and appearing normal, and *wouldn't have the same need to question authority as some others might have, especially N types.*


I think this is where the N's would be the most likely to fail. ST types without knowledge of the bigger picture are pretty likely to cross their own ethics because we're loyal and don't question everything. N's wouldn't unquestioningly follow orders. 

Also, I have a hard time picturing N's handling extreme sensory input. Most of them can't seem handle so much as a nightclub. In the "how long have you been without sleep" thread on the NT forum they proved to be a bunch of lightweights. They've never put themselves through the kind of punishment a lot of Se-dom's will put ourselves through. I've done triathlons and marathons and long distance swimming in the ocean for the fun of it. What N would do that?


----------



## adam1010 (Mar 7, 2014)

It's a misconception that N types cannot handle authority in any sense; they simply do not put as much of an emphasis on it as other types are likely to, they're more likely to question things that don't quite seem right
It is perfectly reasonable for an N type to tolerate an authority figure if they are aligned with their own sensibilities, or if it will serve a bigger picture that they want to achieve, even if the specific orders don't sit well with them- after all xNTx's are focused on the 'big picture'.


----------



## monemi (Jun 24, 2013)

adam1010 said:


> ...and back in, i couldn't resist
> 
> a)who said we were talking about entry level espionage? stop trying to morph the parameters of the argument to suit yourself
> b) you may well learn psychological but that doesn't mean it will come naturally to you, other types would be far more suited to that
> ...


I don't expect it to be fast paced. The problem being is that the parts that would be physically demanding would be pretty damn critical and putting your life on the line would be very important. You can't just brush it off. It's not a dig at ENTP's. It's a fact. If you shudder at the thought of joining law enforcement or the military, what makes you think national intelligence would be interested? 

Entry level espionage?


----------



## candiemerald (Jan 26, 2014)

monemi said:


> I think this is where the N's would be the most likely to fail. ST types without knowledge of the bigger picture are pretty likely to cross their own ethics because we're loyal and don't question everything. N's wouldn't unquestioningly follow orders.
> 
> Also, I have a hard time picturing N's handling extreme sensory input. Most of them can't seem handle so much as a nightclub. In the "how long have you been without sleep" thread on the NT forum they proved to be a bunch of lightweights. They've never put themselves through the kind of punishment a lot of Se-dom's will put ourselves through. I've done triathlons and marathons and long distance swimming in the ocean for the fun of it. What N would do that?


Yes, exactly. I agree that N types don't tend to be good at following orders. Like you say, N types tend to focus more on the big picture, and as a spy one would need to be more detail-oriented and less questioning of authority and rules. 

I would. I do think your misconception that N types can't put themselves through harsh physical extremes is rather narrow-minded. N types definitely can. My INTP brother has gone weeks without sleep. As a way of tapping into my Se and connecting better with my body and external environment, I tend to put myself through hardships. We can be even more extreme in this regard, I think, because we're not as used to it, and don't always know when to stop. Which can be unhealthy.


----------



## adam1010 (Mar 7, 2014)

monemi said:


> Also, I have a hard time picturing N's handling extreme sensory input. Most of them can't seem handle so much as a nightclub. In the "how long have you been without sleep" thread on the NT forum they proved to be a bunch of lightweights. They've never put themselves through the kind of punishment a lot of Se-dom's will put ourselves through. I've done triathlons and marathons and long distance swimming in the ocean for the fun of it. What N would do that?


Personally, i played competitive rugby for a number of years, and currently enter kayak races and work-out regularly- and i'm highly N


----------



## monemi (Jun 24, 2013)

FearAndTrembling said:


> You guys are making the mistake that only guys based out of the CIA are "spies". Some religious zealot in Pakistan, total feeler intuitive type, could be turned into a spy by the cause. Like Mohammed Atta, listed as an INFJ, and certainly an NF. Though not technically a spy, a leader of a very complex operation, where he had to fit in, do all this shit, is basically equivalent to black ops. Bin Laden basically does what our CIA has been doing forever. Our side is probably filled with STs, their side isn't. Not all sides are. Because they are fighting for different reasons. CIA guy is fighting for a paycheck.
> 
> 911 is like the greatest black ops event pulled of in my lifetime, and pulled off by NF.


That's not espionage. He didn't get any inside information on the US government or any corporations. Effective, but not espionage.


----------



## monemi (Jun 24, 2013)

adam1010 said:


> It's a misconception that N types cannot handle authority in any sense; they simply do not put as much of an emphasis on it as other types are likely to, they're more likely to question things that don't quite seem right
> It is perfectly reasonable for an N type to tolerate an authority figure if they are aligned with their own sensibilities, or if it will serve a bigger picture that they want to achieve, even if the specific orders don't sit well with them- after all xNTx's are focused on the 'big picture'.


Problem is that you don't necessarily get to know or trust your boss. You aren't given the big picture. All you get are orders that you're not allowed to question. This is where N's will have a problem.


----------



## adam1010 (Mar 7, 2014)

monemi said:


> You can't just brush it off. It's not a dig at ENTP's. It's a fact.
> 
> Entry level espionage?


No, that wasn't the dig, the dig was a series of misinformed slurs about how ENTP's want to be the best at everything


----------



## adam1010 (Mar 7, 2014)

monemi said:


> Problem is that you don't necessarily get to know or trust your boss. You aren't given the big picture. All you get are orders that you're not allowed to question. This is where N's will have a problem.


On a certain level i can see that; but how big a picture are we talking about? What if the bigger picture is simply to serve and better your country? Then a well adjusted 'N' could very well tolerate a lot of authority, knowing that their actions are there to serve a wider purpose


----------



## monemi (Jun 24, 2013)

candiemerald said:


> Yes, exactly. I agree that N types don't tend to be good at following orders. Like you say, N types tend to focus more on the big picture, and as a spy one would need to be more detail-oriented and less questioning of authority and rules.
> 
> I would. I do think your misconception that N types can't put themselves through harsh physical extremes is rather narrow-minded. N types definitely can. My INTP brother has gone weeks without sleep. As a way of tapping into my Se and connecting better with my body and external environment, I tend to put myself through hardships. We can be even more extreme in this regard, I think, because we're not as used to it, and don't always know when to stop. Which can be unhealthy.





adam1010 said:


> Personally, i played competitive rugby for a number of years, and currently enter kayak races and work-out regularly- and i'm highly N


Interesting. I see very little of that on here. Still, if I'm to accept that N's can take on more physical stuff, I'd like to see some bend on the fact that Se-dom's can learn and handle psychology. Two way street.


----------



## adam1010 (Mar 7, 2014)

Look i'm not saying that xstp's aren't very well suited to this, i'm simply saying there is another element to this that you just haven't considered


----------



## adam1010 (Mar 7, 2014)

monemi said:


> Interesting. I see very little of that on here. Still, if I'm to accept that N's can take on more physical stuff, I'd like to see some bend on the fact that Se-dom's can learn and handle psychology. Two way street.


OK, then if we accept that both can do both sides with correct development, why are you still arguing? I've said all along that both have positive elements to bring to espionage, you have adamantly stuck with the idea that sensors are superior for this


----------



## candiemerald (Jan 26, 2014)

monemi said:


> Interesting. I see very little of that on here. Still, if I'm to accept that N's can take on more physical stuff, I'd like to see some bend on the fact that Se-dom's can learn and handle psychology. Two way street.


Hmm, maybe because most of them on here are glued to their computers? 
Well, you've come to the right place then, because I do believe Se-dom's can handle psychology. Why is it always N against S? Sheesh, so non-productive.


----------



## monemi (Jun 24, 2013)

adam1010 said:


> No, that wasn't the dig, the dig was a series of misinformed slurs about how ENTP's want to be the best at everything


Not specific to ENTP's. Just a lot of threads where types that show a lot of evidence of being S are then written off as N's because they show evidence of being creative or intelligent or whathaveyou. Which posters preclude the possibility of being an S because anyone awesome is obviously an N-type. 



adam1010 said:


> On a certain level i can see that; but how big a picture are we talking about? What if the bigger picture is simply to serve and better your country? Then a well adjusted 'N' could very well tolerate a lot of authority, knowing that their actions are there to serve a wider purpose


A few might have enough perspective to accept that. But the majority would sensors. The higher likelihood would be a sensor. I mean, I've let it pass on a lot of topics that it probably wouldn't be a sensor. But expecting me to accept that spies would probably be N types is pushing it too far. That's just preposterous. Other types besides N's have to better at something besides being your average garbage collector.


----------



## FearAndTrembling (Jun 5, 2013)

monemi said:


> That's not espionage. He didn't get any inside information on the US government or any corporations. Effective, but not espionage.


Doesn't really matter the details. What they were able to do is much more impressive, and fits under what a "spy" would do. In this day and age, a smart kid with a computer could be a "spy" by definition. An N could obviously do that. But we are talking about the tactical thing. Like Atta, was put in an environment he was working against, while trying to fit in. And taking steps, like flight lessons, and was just constantly working towards this plan and make it unfold for years. He could have been figured out any time. And he was also the leader of the group, so had to organize all them properly. That is extreme dedication and competence. And Atta could appear as anything. Because he was so quiet and introverted, like I was talking about. Bin Laden was the same. And Atta took a very scientific approach, he was actually a science student. Most of these guys in AQ actually have strong science backgrounds and inclinations towards discipline. But science is only a means to an end to them. 

And you just rarely see people like that in Western society. So we don't know how to judge them here. So, I think INFJ would probably be a rare NF or N type who could actually pull this thing off. Because of discipline and being dreamers. That is why INFJ has so many "bad guys". Because we aren't soldiers. Our work is done outside the system, and is inherently unjustified because of it.


----------



## PaladinX (Feb 20, 2013)

Hands-down ESTP.


----------



## monemi (Jun 24, 2013)

adam1010 said:


> OK, then if we accept that both can do both sides with correct development, why are you still arguing? I've said all along that both have positive elements to bring to espionage, you have adamantly stuck with the idea that sensors are superior for this


Because over and over again, people come on here hellbent on deciding that N's are the best at something. This at least is something that the most important aspect of the job is Se. I can picture a minority of N's developing their Se. But like N's would make the majority of philosophers, S's would make the majority of spies. Unless we're talking corporate espionage. I can see why N's might make up the majority there.


----------



## monemi (Jun 24, 2013)

FearAndTrembling said:


> Doesn't really matter the details. What they were able to do is much more impressive, and fits under what a "spy" would do. In this day and age, a smart kid with a computer could be a "spy" by definition. An N could obviously do that. But we are talking about the tactical thing. Like Atta, was put in an environment he was working against, while trying to fit in. And taking steps, like flight lessons, and was just constantly working towards this plan and make it unfold for years. And he was also the leader of the group, so had to organize all them properly. That is extreme dedication and competence. And Atta could appear as anything. Because he was so quiet and introverted, like I was talking about. Bin Laden was the same. And Atta took a very scientific approach, he was actually a science student. Most of these guys in AQ actually have strong science backgrounds and inclinations towards discipline. But science is only a means to an end to them.
> 
> And you just rarely see people like that in Western society. So we don't know how to judge them here. So, I think INFJ would probably be a rare NF or N type who could actually pull this thing off. Because of discipline and being dreamers.


He didn't try to do anything that would put him under a microscope. Any type could do that.


----------



## adam1010 (Mar 7, 2014)

monemi said:


> Not specific to ENTP's. Just a lot of threads where types that show a lot of evidence of being S are then written off as N's because they show evidence of being creative or intelligent or whathaveyou. Which posters preclude the possibility of being an S because anyone awesome is obviously an N-type.
> 
> 
> 
> A few might have enough perspective to accept that. But the majority would sensors. The higher likelihood would be a sensor. I mean, I've let it pass on a lot of topics that it probably wouldn't be a sensor. But expecting me to accept that spies would probably be N types is pushing it too far. That's just preposterous. *Other types besides N's have to better at something besides being your average garbage collector*.


If a supposed lack of career suitability is your basis for this, that's an incredibly self interested reason to argue a point; also one that i haven't seen evidence of?


----------



## candiemerald (Jan 26, 2014)

@FearAndTrembling

Seems to me we each have our own definition of what "spy" means. Perchance if the word was defined more clearly there would be less chance of confusion.


----------



## monemi (Jun 24, 2013)

candiemerald said:


> @_FearAndTrembling_
> 
> Seems to me we each have our own definition of what "spy" means. Perchance if the word was defined more clearly there would be less chance of confusion.


His is made up.


----------



## Psychopomp (Oct 3, 2012)

FearAndTrembling said:


> It doesn't matter. He pulled off something much more impressive. If you have to appeal to wikipedia to make a case, you lost. We are talking about thinking that actually dips beneath the surface and can't be referenced so robotically. As a hacker has none of the classic qualities associated with spying, but is still a spy. He can type a few buttons, and he is the same thing as James Bond. Any awkward kid behind a computer, is a spy now. You don't realize a hacker has absolutely nothing in common with Bond, because you aren't capable of abstracting the relevant elements. Or recognizing any nuance. You are too stuck on concrete, immovable definitions that have no fluidity of thought. It is tiresome.
> 
> You can't make that kind of abstract relation, so why should I bother.


The context was implied and actually still is.

A hacker is not a spy, they are a hacker. If you want to add hacker into the reasonably inferred meaning of spy, then feel free. Then anyone would just have to add an addendum: "unless they are hackers". Or whatever.

Humorously, many hackers are STs! This is another thing I happen to know quite a lot about as coincidence would have it. I literally work for Symantec as an engineer in enterprise data encryption. We work with the NSA and NASA - lots of big corporations and the like. I have, I am not joking, done a remote self-destruct on a laptop more than once. What fortuitousness for the purposes of this discussion!

Our encryption expert for NASA is an ESFJ. Not kidding. He greets me every time he passes my desk and ribs and chides me for giving insufficient replies. He bakes cookies for us. He is the biggest mother hen. NASA encryption expert on the Symantec side: ESFJ. Awesome. It doesn't get more real deal than that. 

Anyway, I am probably one of the more hacker savvy folks here. The best hacker I ever knew was an ISTP. That guy could bring anything down. He was so reckless, such a thrill seeker. He actually died of a heroin overdose, but that is not really relevant. He was a really good hacker - he was like a bloodhound. 

Hacking is so boring. It is just waiting around and running programs. You have to have a ton of motivation to do it. Putting a ridiculous death-metal banner on someone's screen seems to be the primary motivation. 

I am sure a lot of hackers are NTs, though... but it is not remotely intuition or innovation that is at the core of hacking. Not at ALLL like the movies. No. It is mostly motivation (desire for impact) and attention to detail, and mindless tenacity. Not exactly my strong suit.


----------



## FearAndTrembling (Jun 5, 2013)

arkigos said:


> The context was implied and actually still is.
> 
> A hacker is not a spy, they are a hacker. If you want to add hacker into the reasonably inferred meaning of spy, then feel free. Then anyone would just have to add an addendum: "unless they are hackers". Or whatever.
> 
> ...


When they are hacking certain activities, they become a spy though. Without any psychological, or even physical change. It is a few different keystrokes. What makes you a spy, is the action of spying. So I am trying to move the debate beyond the simplistic "one entity stealing information for another entity" approach. Because it is obviously more to it than that. There are other qualities associated with the definition.


----------



## FearAndTrembling (Jun 5, 2013)

You can't accept the definition of spy, and then immediately add a qualifier to the first objection I raise to it. So now you are crafting the definition for your ends. I have no problem with that. As I have already abstracted the word, but you guys want it both ways. You want the authority of the concrete definition, but the leeway of abstraction. If you accept the concrete definition, I am gonna pin you to in its fullest. Not your qualified version, because then it would be a pet definition.


----------



## Psychopomp (Oct 3, 2012)

FearAndTrembling said:


> When they are hacking certain activities, they become a spy though. Without any psychological, or even physical change. It is a few different keystrokes. What makes you a spy, is the action of spying. So I am trying to move the debate beyond the simplistic "one entity stealing information for another entity" approach. Because it is obviously more to it than that. There are other qualities associated with the definition.


I already addressed that. You can alter the context, but condescending to the previous interpretation is pointless... and acting like it's some big reveal is also pointless. 

Add the addendum, "given that by spy you mean someone who has to infiltrate and play a role within the enemy ranks, or just filter information out while putting up a front." 

There is no need for such drama. Yes, hackers can be called spies. Great. We weren't talking about that. Now that we are, we agree it's a different thing and doesn't apply the social or physical aspect. Great. Simple. Is anyone disagreeing to that? 

I still think that STPs are the better spies in this case... citing most of the arguments already given. STPs being better high risk hackers, and STJs being better data collectors in the long game. I don't know that you are arguing this point, I am just reiterating for the hell of it.


----------



## FearAndTrembling (Jun 5, 2013)

arkigos said:


> I already addressed that. You can alter the context, but condescending to the previous interpretation is pointless... and acting like it's some big reveal is also pointless.
> 
> Add the addendum, "given that by spy you mean someone who has to infiltrate and play a role within the enemy ranks, or just filter information out while putting up a front."
> 
> ...


lol. not being dramatic. Just trying to show another side. But I do think these guys who come in, and try to fit in a society, and destroy it, is similar to spying. This is what our spies are looking for. Similar to how we would look for Soviets trying to fit in during the Cold War. The university student who is here under the guise of education, but is really planning some stuff. Those are like the modern patriot games.

CIA vs KGB was STP vs STP, no doubt. Intuitives cannot even navigate common social situations, much less high stakes affairs like that. I was trying to show that there is more to these operations than being socially smooth and physically tough. That there are different players on the world stage. I mean, AQ exists because they are NF. AQ exists for a different reason than the United States, or its intelligence operations do. They are not the usual state actors. That is why the US has such a problem with them. They aren't the usual rational agents, who could be confined to concepts like MAD.


----------



## Mutant Hive Queen (Oct 29, 2013)

FearAndTrembling said:


> It doesn't matter. He pulled off something much more impressive. If you have to appeal to wikipedia to make a case, you lost. We are talking about thinking that actually dips beneath the surface and can't be referenced so robotically. As a hacker has none of the classic qualities associated with spying, but is still a spy. He can type a few buttons, and he is the same thing as James Bond. Any awkward kid behind a computer, is a spy now. You don't realize a hacker has absolutely nothing in common with Bond, because you aren't capable of abstracting the relevant elements. Or recognizing any nuance. You are too stuck on concrete, immovable definitions that have no fluidity of thought. It is tiresome.
> 
> You can't make that kind of abstract relation, so why should I bother.



Here's a question, though, Fear. And I don't know _that_ much about the (Al-Qaeda side of) planning behind the 9/11 attacks, so the answer to this is possibly yes, but...

Would the actions of a martyr in terms of infiltration, even if they could be translated into spy skills, really require as great an ability at spying as the actions of a longer-term information gatherer? Would their abilities and methods have allowed them to stay for a longer period of time, gathering information, possibly as long as a more traditional spy? Would their abilities have allowed them to go through as wide a variety of and as high a quality of security? 

For all I know, the answer is yes, by the way, but you're going to have to come out one way or the other to determine who's the _better_ spy.

And monemi, to be clear, I don't think whether or not Atta was actually a spy or not is as relevant as you think, because you don't have to be a spy to demonstrate skills that would be valuable _in_ spies. But...


----------



## moonlight_echo (May 15, 2011)

monemi said:


> Also, I have a hard time picturing N's handling extreme sensory input. Most of them can't seem handle so much as a nightclub. In the "how long have you been without sleep" thread on the NT forum they proved to be a bunch of lightweights. They've never put themselves through the kind of punishment a lot of Se-dom's will put ourselves through. I've done triathlons and marathons and long distance swimming in the ocean for the fun of it. What N would do that?


While I'm sure an N could adapt when necessary (life or death for example), I personally can't imagine willingly subjecting myself to that. Being engaged with the outer environment too intensely or for too long will exhaust me. It's like a second language that I'm not completely fluent with.

Nightclub = nightmare.
Swimming in the ocean = giant shark eats you.


----------



## Psychopomp (Oct 3, 2012)

FearAndTrembling said:


> lol. not being dramatic. Just trying to show another side. But I do think these guys who come in, and try to fit in a society, and destroy it, is similar to spying. This is what our spies are looking for. Similar to how we would look for Soviets trying to fit in during the Cold War. The university student who is here under the guise of education, but is really planning some stuff. Those are like the modern patriot games.
> 
> CIA vs KGB was STP vs STP, no doubt. Intuitives cannot even navigate common social situations, much less high stakes affairs like that. I was trying to show that there is more to these operations than being socially smooth and physically tough. That there are different players on the world stage. I mean, AQ exists because they are NF. AQ exists for a different reason than the United States, or its intelligence operations do. They are not the usual state actors. That is why the US has such a problem with them. They aren't the usual rational agents, who could be confined to concepts like MAD.


I could see NFJs behing terrorist organizations, yes, absolutely. I don't think NFPs have the same strident and subjective ideology in their cognition. I see NFPs as fulfilling the social roles of Victor Hugo (ENFP - I think personifies NFP more than anyone in his writing, taking one side in a sentence and the other in the next, all toward the goal of moral nuance and conciseness), Tolstoy (don't know his type), and perhaps Jose Rizal. My criteria being that they explore a multitude of perspectives to ensure a greater moral depth. I think that the role of Bin Laden is absolutely antithetical to NFP. I may be preaching to the choir here, but I think it is important.

For example, people see Che Guevara as an NFP, and that is why I think the above is important. Che was an SFP or an NTJ. NFP cognition does not work in such subjective ideology. It is specifically antithetical to Ne. 

Dead horse beaten. 

I think Bin Laden's role is quintessentially an NFJ one. On the flipside you have ESTP leaders like, say, Hugo Chavez that play that game but are clearly approaching it from the other direction (literally, in a cognitive sense). 

Now, to the question of operatives. I actually have a pet theory that many suicide bombers are ISTPs in a Ti/Ni loop. A lot of times when I talk to people that are a little too much like the Unibomber, it is ISTP with extreme introversion... and Se is just twitching for impact and engagement, as Ti and Si swirl around on a subjective ideological, out of touch with reality, cognitive death march. That is just my pet theory, though. I extend this to school shootings. Not all, but I think it is a valid profile.

It is such a sensory thing to DO these things. To need them acted out in a visceral way, to see the change happening in a tangible way. I think the kinds that are going to recklessly jump in are going to be SPs more than not. NFJs look into the scope and archetype so much, they are the ones writing Mein Kampf while the STPs read it and, inclined to Se, act and die. 

I think NFJ and I think Salmon Rushdie. I think NTJ and I think Julian Assange. Infecting consciousness on a high level, notably detached from the required dynamics, and the ineffectualness, of the ground work. I am sure there is overlap.


----------



## FearAndTrembling (Jun 5, 2013)

arkigos said:


> I could see NFJs behing terrorist organizations, yes, absolutely. I don't think NFPs have the same strident and subjective ideology in their cognition. I see NFPs as fulfilling the social roles of Victor Hugo (ENFP - I think personifies NFP more than anyone in his writing, taking one side in a sentence and the other in the next, all toward the goal of moral nuance and conciseness), Tolstoy (don't know his type), and perhaps Jose Rizal. My criteria being that they explore a multitude of perspectives to ensure a greater moral depth. I think that the role of Bin Laden is absolutely antithetical to NFP. I may be preaching to the choir here, but I think it is important.
> 
> For example, people see Che Guevara as an NFP, and that is why I think the above is important. Che was an SFP or an NTJ. NFP cognition does not work in such subjective ideology. It is specifically antithetical to Ne.
> 
> ...


This has been somewhat examined before. Right wing groups tend to have scientific backgrounds. Strict ideology, like religion or politics, can appeal to the same type of person who doesn't like any kind of ambiguity, but seeks to remove it through science. And they can sometimes merge, as they often do in right wing groups, particularly in the Muslim world. 



> In a paper published last year in The European Journal of Sociology, Gambetta and Hertog argue that the engineer-terrorist connection is part of the answer: it is a new window onto what Gambetta calls the “hidden logic” of society. Though the difference in susceptibility is very small — “it’s like saying the probability that you will be struck by lightning is one in a million,” Gambetta says, “and the probability for an engineer to be struck by lightning is four in a million” — it is, they say, real.For their recent study, the two men collected records on 404 men who belonged to violent Islamist groups active over the past few decades (some in jail, some not). Had those groups reflected the working-age populations of their countries, engineers would have made up about 3.5 percent of the membership. Instead, nearly 20 percent of the militants had engineering degrees. When Gambetta and Hertog looked at only the militants whose education was known for certain to have gone beyond high school, close to half (44 percent) had trained in engineering. Among those with advanced degrees in the militants’ homelands, only 18 percent are engineers.
> The two authors found the same high ratio of engineers in most of the 21 organizations they examined, including Jemaah Islamiya in Southeast Asia and Hamas and Islamic Jihad in the Middle East. Sorting the militants according to their 30 homelands showed the same pattern: engineers represented a fifth of all militants from every nation except one, and nearly half of those with advanced degrees.
> One seemingly obvious explanation for the presence of engineers in violent groups lies in the terrorist’s job description. Who, after all, is least likely to confuse the radio with the landing gear, as Gambetta puts it, or the red wire with the green? But if groups need geeks for political violence, then engineering degrees ought to turn up in the rosters of all terrorist groups that plant bombs, hijack planes and stage kidnappings. And that’s not the case.
> Gambetta and Hertog found engineers only in right-wing groups — the ones that claim to fight for the pious past of Islamic fundamentalists or the white-supremacy America of the Aryan Nations (founder: Richard Butler, engineer) or the minimal pre-modern U.S. government that Stack and Bedell extolled.
> ...


----------



## Fuzzyslug (Aug 12, 2011)

Soooooo wait... what about that mantra that gets tossed around "MBTI/JCF are lenses, not skills"?

Seems like a just-for-fun thread, but just clarifying...


----------



## monemi (Jun 24, 2013)

arkigos said:


> I could see NFJs behing terrorist organizations, yes, absolutely. I don't think NFPs have the same strident and subjective ideology in their cognition. I see NFPs as fulfilling the social roles of Victor Hugo (ENFP - I think personifies NFP more than anyone in his writing, taking one side in a sentence and the other in the next, all toward the goal of moral nuance and conciseness), Tolstoy (don't know his type), and perhaps Jose Rizal. My criteria being that they explore a multitude of perspectives to ensure a greater moral depth. I think that the role of Bin Laden is absolutely antithetical to NFP. I may be preaching to the choir here, but I think it is important.
> 
> For example, people see Che Guevara as an NFP, and that is why I think the above is important. Che was an SFP or an NTJ. NFP cognition does not work in such subjective ideology. It is specifically antithetical to Ne.
> 
> ...


I think the real problem is that STP's are problem solvers who _are_ interested in new ideas and new experiences. Someone points out a problem or injustice to us, we will look to solve the problem. We aren't interested in complaining about it endlessly. We want to fix it. Add the wrong ingredients and that can be a recipe for trouble. We bring ideas to life and we're good at it. Not a positive trait if it's a bad idea.


----------



## Mutant Hive Queen (Oct 29, 2013)

monemi said:


> I think the real problem is that STP's are problem solvers who _are_ interested in new ideas and new experiences. Someone points out a problem or injustice to us, we will look to solve the problem. We aren't interested in complaining about it endlessly. We want to fix it. Add the wrong ingredients and that can be a recipe for trouble. We bring ideas to life and we're good at it.


Speaking as someone who can sort of empathize with this position (though not an STP), I'd imagine the hatred of boredom wouldn't help a whole lot either. XD

...now I'm wondering what we can say about NTPs, NFPs, and SFPs...XD

EDIT: 
Just SFPs actually. *shrugs* Though if anyone could voice a counter to arkigos I'd want to hear it. Currently there's just not much for me to add, I guess. XD


----------



## monemi (Jun 24, 2013)

Chained Divinity said:


> Speaking as someone who can sort of empathize with this position (though not an STP), I'd imagine the hatred of boredom wouldn't help a whole lot either. XD
> 
> ...now I'm wondering what we can say about NTPs, NFPs, and SFPs...XD
> 
> ...


SFP's want harmony and dislike conflict. They are capable of it and will make a stand if backed into a corner. But SFP tend to make short term peace at the expense of resolving issues. At least, that's my opinion after many years around them. 

Why not NTP's and NFP's? Every group has a problematic side to them.


----------



## Mutant Hive Queen (Oct 29, 2013)

monemi said:


> SFP's want harmony and dislike conflict. They are capable of it and will make a stand if backed into a corner. But SFP tend to make short term peace at the expense of resolving issues. At least, that's my opinion after many years around them.


...hm. I suppose I could see it, although I would think that t'be more an SFJ thing. 



> Why not NTP's and NFP's? Every group has a problematic side to them.


Well yes, but Arkigos talked about their likelihood of becoming (right-wing) terrorists already--how they wouldn't be able to accept that sort of ideology as quickly, because they'd want to examine other perspectives more.

That _said_, I'd admit that we (NTPs in particular) might be able to ignore the human-suffering aspects if offered a good reason why it's acceptable and has to happen, so...hm. I guess some of those types with more "vision" could end up doing some terrible things because seriously, it's a really good idea once you get past all that! But then I'd imagine a lot of them would try to envision a means of change without the problematic elements (because many of them would be rubbed the wrong way by it) and have the vision to realize _that_ was a good idea, so...


----------



## Ridley (Jan 30, 2013)

monemi said:


> I think this is where the N's would be the most likely to fail. ST types without knowledge of the bigger picture are pretty likely to cross their own ethics because we're loyal and don't question everything. N's wouldn't unquestioningly follow orders.
> 
> Also, I have a hard time picturing N's handling extreme sensory input. Most of them can't seem handle so much as a nightclub. In the "how long have you been without sleep" thread on the NT forum they proved to be a bunch of lightweights. They've never put themselves through the kind of punishment a lot of Se-dom's will put ourselves through. I've done triathlons and marathons and long distance swimming in the ocean for the fun of it. What N would do that?



Monemi, Normally I read your posts and agree with most of what you say, but on this, I have to disagree.. sleep wise, I think I have gone 3 to 4 days without sleep, another time for a full week I only slept 2 hours a night, went to bed at 12am and woke up at 2am. As far as the triathlon and marathon, I think that would be awesome to do just for fun, I have played 4 soccer games back to back and I run about 7-10 miles in each game, so that was 28 to 40 miles in a 7 hour period, all just for the fun of it. That gif in your sig, that looks freakin awesome and I want to do that! I probably will once I move closer to a good water source.
All that to say, Some Ns....okay, maybe most Ns... don't do that kind of stuff for fun. but there are a bunch of us out there that do.



Edit: haha, maybe 3-4 days without sleep isn't that much, but it also wasn't my max or anything, I wasn't trying to, was just busy doing other things.


----------



## GundamChao (Jun 17, 2014)

ChaosEpsilon said:


> Being undetected isn't the only trait that's important though; I'd say ISTP because of that ability along with their ability to use any tool with ease, make quick decisions, their desire for adventure and danger, and their tendency to always be observing everything


You mean like Solid Snake from Metal Gear Solid? Yeah, I can see that. Though he's more of an infiltrator than a formal public-appearance James Bond character. Different type of "spy", there. But still works!


----------



## Ridley (Jan 30, 2013)

I think any type could make for a good spy, but I think in general, for the 007 type spy, it would be a ESTP, ISTP or a INTJ

Old movie James Bond: ESTP
Daniel Craig James Bond: ISTP
Michael Westen from Burn Notice: INTJ

I could see ESFP or ENTP also being okay field agents

Long term, or CIA in the office types, SJs.

I think it would be very hard for any NF types to be a spy, too often it calls for you to be cold blooded, set someone up just to watch them take the fall and you walk away, put two bullets in someone's chest and walk away. Could a NF do that? sure, if they were passionate enough about it, but could they do it in a cool, calm way and then walk away from it and never give it another thought? maybe a few could, but in general, I don't think so..


----------



## mikan (May 25, 2014)

I know for sure I can be a good one. I'm almost close to being invisible, nobody pays attention to me, leaves them wondering if I ever existed :wink:


----------



## MNiS (Jan 30, 2010)

None of the types that was arrogant enough to post in this thread.


----------



## Ridley (Jan 30, 2013)

MNiS said:


> None of the types that was arrogant enough to post in this thread.



Your statement doesn't make sense, how would posting in this thread make you arrogant? and it seemed like just about every type except for ESTJ, ESFJ and ESFP posted in here, so those are the only ones that would make for a good spy? You do realize that those 3 types are also the 3 least likely to get onto a site like this? and if you asked them IRL I bet the majority of all 3 would tell you that they would make for a very good spy....


Hmmm.. So you think of yourself as arrogant? (since you also have posted in this thread)


----------



## MNiS (Jan 30, 2010)

Ridley said:


> Your statement doesn't make sense, how would posting in this thread make you arrogant? and it seemed like just about every type except for ESTJ, ESFJ and ESFP posted in here, so those are the only ones that would make for a good spy? You do realize that those 3 types are also the 3 least likely to get onto a site like this? and if you asked them IRL I bet the majority of all 3 would tell you that they would make for a very good spy....


I was saying none of the types who would blab about being a spy would make a good spy. That's essentially blowing one's own cover just to brag. 



> Hmmm.. So you think of yourself as arrogant? (since you also have posted in this thread)


No I'm not arrogant, but then again I don't think I'd make a very good spy. Or if I were, I certainly wouldn't be going around and telling people about it.


----------



## Ridley (Jan 30, 2013)

MNiS said:


> I was saying none of the types who would blab about being a spy would make a good spy. That's essentially blowing one's own cover just to brag.
> 
> 
> 
> No I'm not arrogant, but then again I don't think I'd make a very good spy. Or if I were, I certainly wouldn't be going around and telling people about it.




Uh, you might want to try again, your second attempt also failed to make sense. I don't think anyone posting in this thread said anything about THEM being a good spy, they only talked about someone with their (and other) types having certain characteristics that would make for a good spy. I didn't read anything with someone saying that they were a very good spy because they were XXXX type and therefore bragging and blowing their cover at the same time.

But don't lose heart, give it another go. you know what they say, third times the charm!


----------



## MNiS (Jan 30, 2010)

Ridley said:


> Uh, you might want to try again, your second attempt also failed to make sense. I don't think anyone posting in this thread said anything about THEM being a good spy, they only talked about someone with their (and other) types having certain characteristics that would make for a good spy. I didn't read anything with someone saying that they were a very good spy because they were XXXX type and therefore bragging and blowing their cover at the same time.


Being good at espionage is irrelevant of type. Intelligence agencies go by INTELLIGENCE and skill level.



> But don't lose heart, give it another go. you know what they say, third times the charm!


If you can't be successful on first or second try then you probably wouldn't make a good candidate.


----------



## Ridley (Jan 30, 2013)

MNiS said:


> Being good at espionage is irrelevant of type. Intelligence agencies go by INTELLIGENCE and skill level.
> 
> 
> 
> If you can't be successful on first or second try then you probably wouldn't make a good candidate.




Eh, what!?! You seem to have a hard time following and understanding the conversation that we are having, so I'm going to take a guess here that English is not your first language? Which is cool, I applaud you for learning another language. But, it feels like we are getting a lot of misunderstanding and spinning of wheels because of it. So lets just end it and write it off as a lost cause, k?


----------



## MNiS (Jan 30, 2010)

Ridley said:


> Eh, what!?! You seem to have a hard time following and understanding the conversation that we are having, so I'm going to take a guess here that English is not your first language? Which is cool, I applaud you for learning another language. But, it feels like we are getting a lot of misunderstanding and spinning of wheels because of it. So lets just end it and write it off as a lost cause, k?


English is my native language. I'm just telling you, you wouldn't make a good a spy as you think you would.


----------



## KidThunder (Oct 9, 2013)

adam1010 said:


> hey guys, I was just wondering which type would be best suited to a life of espionage, both fictional and the reality; I did a little bit of research and thus far the internet seems to be pretty divided
> 
> Get thinking :crazy:


Esfp or Enfj! Because they're so good at making a scene nobody would EVER figure out they were undercover!


----------



## lvnbookworm (Jun 7, 2014)

Well I know one thing for sure: that we can rule out INFPs. Whenever I'm caught in an intense situation, my brain kind of...shuts off


----------



## miuliu (Nov 3, 2013)

ESTP sounds like it. Great manipulators, creepy good liars, actors, agile and observant. Rarely shy away from danger and would probably get off on the thrill of it. If there's tech and physical skill needed to spy, they'll pick up on it quick. 
Espionage if information gathering from your environment that is not offered to you. If anyone can sniff out secrets out of people and things after a single look, it's ESTP.

You have other types that are good observers, some who are good manipulators, some who are tech savy, some who like the thrill... Yet only ESTP is prone to have all of these combined.


----------



## Tyltalis (Dec 31, 2013)

ISTP. Logical, observent, smart, probable that they would have a high capacity for using gadgets ad the like (Ti) and kickass reflexes and fighting skills (Se)
Also usually complete smartasses. What every action movie needs.

Oh, right. I should probably add that "spy" sounds rather open note. As you can see, I took the James Bond interpretation. 

But you could be talking about the nonprofessional everyjoe that just so happens to enjoy people watching in an unsettling manner, or perhaps a private investigator, or a CIA agent, or of course, a small child who happens to be very good at the game iSpy. So many beautiful possibilities of what spy could mean.


----------



## TurquoiseBillowing (Dec 1, 2014)

I just going to leave it here, everything that @monemi said made perfect sense. We wouldn't risk our lives and although I consider myself a great last minute planner, making that happen isn't my strong trait, and it definitely is XSTP.

And then again, and XSTJ would be better for a longterm spy, and XSTP for a short one.

AND WE CAN HANDLE A NIGHTCLUB
And we're are defo the best innovators :tongue:

And I would joing the law enforcemente, without any problem, though I don't think I'll be good at it. Highly N me.


(Btw @monemi I just picture you as Nathasha Lyone, on Orange is the new black, like Do you even resemble her?)


----------



## Determined mind (Jul 31, 2015)

I would also say STPs. 


Fast and physically skillful, somewhat charming, good improvisers on the spot.


----------



## EmperorPalpatine (Jan 31, 2017)

People, come on. INTJs would totally be the best spies. We're introverted, so we can blend in, intuitive, so we can come up with clever solutions and strategies, thinking, because thinking types seem more suited for spywork, and judging, just because we can organize our findings and keep track of suspects. Also, I've always wanted to be a spy...


----------



## Ozymandias116 (Nov 24, 2016)

"Who gives a shit?" was one reaction I had but if I had to guess I would guess that xSTPs or maybe even xSxPs would make the best spies if I think about the James Bond-type; if I had to make a guess I would say ISTP would be the no.1 of these types. However, when reading this thread people brought up ISTJs and I think they could make good spies too.

Also, do not for get the INTJ; they can do everything. Who's the best type for everything? Gotta be the INTJ because, you know, they can plan everything in the best way possible. They have no limits. Is it a god or is it an INTJ? I can't tell the difference anymore.


----------



## AW10 (Apr 9, 2012)

Pretty much any type can make a great spy, but thinking types has to master feeling while feeling types has to master thinking. That is because decision-making is crucial in spy-work, so if you cannot master both ways of making decision, you cannot be a good spy.


----------



## Katie Tran (Apr 8, 2017)

Any type can make for a spy.
The difference is in the field, if they're actually good at it and time each type can handle. 

For the 007 type/action/espionage, you need to have extraverted sensing (xSxPs and xNxJs) to excel in that field. You need incredibly good reaction time with immediate plans to get out of it.

I hate to admit it but xNTPs and xNFPs would mostly fail in that action full area and would probably be the first to die unless they are extremely trained with a lot of experience. 
*
Types in a Spy Organization*

xNTPs: In an organization, they are best with behind the scenes and intelligence operation (lasts maximum of 6 months before they move on to another job)

xSTPs: Your typical cliche James Bond spy (lasts maximum of 2 years before they get bored)

xNTJs: A combination of running the organization, behind the scenes and James Bond action time (<=when situation calls) (lasts maximum of MAYBE forever)

xSFPs: Morale can hinder but if backed into the corner, can turn similar into an xSTP (lasts maximum of a few weeks)

xNFJs: Stealthy and sociable until they get distracted hearing all perspectives and decides to stay neutral (lasts maximum of 1 month of contemplation and then decides to be spectator)

xSFJs: Charming and sociable but morale cannot handle long term (last maximum of maybe 1-5 years and then gets worn out)

xSTJs: A good combination of xSTP and xNTJ but with more consistency for long term (lasts maximum of forever and beyond)

xNFPs: Work best with distracting/charming opponent but then gets bored with job + government and runs off somewhere else (lasts maximum of 30 minutes)


----------



## The Conundrum (Aug 23, 2017)

I think I could actually be a good spy, so my guesses are INTJ, INTP, ISTP.


----------



## shameless (Apr 21, 2014)

TJ good at collecting specific indepth intel like a special force or mission which is a specialized focus of investigation or good at leading the mission by organizing roles 

NF good mole to collect general data and help establish repor 

SFJ good decoy

SFP good sacrificial lamb spy if you want someone willing to die for a cause literally or be there for infiltration

NTP tech support and logistics and probability 

STP under cover agent who does mission to seek physical evidence to investigate information
Sent to fulfill or complete specific objective after the other networking has been obtained and complete espionage. Could also be used as a decoy (same as NFS & SF)


----------



## Stevester (Feb 28, 2016)

Ozymandias116 said:


> Also, do not for get the INTJ; they can do everything. Who's the best type for everything? Gotta be the INTJ because, you know, they can plan everything in the best way possible. They have no limits. Is it a god or is it an INTJ? I can't tell the difference anymore.


LOL this is actually one of the lesser ridiculous claims I've seen here with INxJs attached to it. In other threads I've seen them dubbed the best party animals, best race car drivers, best mascots, best celebrity interviewers, best florists, best therapists, best lemonade stand operators, best trolls, best food critics, best fidget spinner spinners, best serial killers, best people to catch serial killers and the list goes on...


----------

