# INTP and ISTJ compatible?



## 4blossoms (Nov 26, 2014)

Has any INTP ever dated a ISTJ or vice versa? Was it a disaster? It seems like the two types are so different in lifestyle it is difficult for them to live together harmoniously.


----------



## Starless Ubiquity (Sep 24, 2014)

I have been in a relationship with an ISTJ for the past 8 years. We have lived together for 2 years. Ask away if you have any specific questions.


----------



## DudeGuy (Aug 5, 2013)

My sis is INTJ and my brother is ISFP, I get along with both of them... sure we argue, but it's usually because I am insensitive or not following the rules.


----------



## LaughingIsaac (Oct 29, 2014)

If in a position of power they're unbearable otherwise they tend to find me trivial but we get along okay.


----------



## XZ9 (Nov 16, 2013)

LaughingIsaac said:


> If in a position of power they're unbearable otherwise they tend to find me trivial but we get along okay.


If INTP is in the position of power, the ISTJ finds INTP unbearable?


----------



## XZ9 (Nov 16, 2013)

LaughingIsaac said:


> If in a position of power they're unbearable otherwise they tend to find me trivial but we get along okay.


If INTP is in the position of power, the ISTJ finds INTP unbearable? Anyways I had a hard time with ISTJ teachers. I had the worst experience with them. However, with my ISTJ friends I had, they're fine. I think I had an easier time with ESFJ teachers than ISTJ. ESFJ are usually weaker Se and more Ne than ISTJ. ESFJ loosen ups with the rules due to either Fe or Ne. ISTJ's are a bit more difficult.


----------



## Snakecharmer (Oct 26, 2010)

My mother and sister are ISTJs, and we are like oil and water. Usually the two of them gang up on me...but end up turning on each other during discussions. It's fun to observe. 

Anyway - I can't imagine being in a romantic relationship with an ISTJ, but I suppose it would depend on the person.


----------



## Fatman (Nov 28, 2014)

My wife is an ISTJ,you have to be wise to deal with them.they are nervous and urgent all the time.

the good news is,she knows how to deal with money,unlike me.


----------



## ae1905 (Jun 7, 2014)

There is some upside to this pairing. Both types are introverts and understand the other's need for alone-time. Both are thinking types so can talk through their problems more or less rationally. ISTJs will be attracted to and benefit from INTPs' Ne. INTPs will benefit from ISTJs steadiness (Si). So they can be a good working partnership for child-rearing. But the relationship will be intellectually and emotionally sterile. There will be no spark, just a level of comfort. As an INTP, if you want children and you can get your intellectual fix from friends, then you may settle for an ISTJ spouse to handle the business of life. So not the best choice, but you could do worse.


----------



## ae1905 (Jun 7, 2014)

Starless Ubiquity said:


> I have been in a relationship with an ISTJ for the past 8 years. We have lived together for 2 years. Ask away if you have any specific questions.


What's the attraction? Both initial and current?


----------



## sjack (Mar 18, 2013)

DudeGuy said:


> My sis is INTJ and my brother is ISFP, I get along with both of them... sure we argue, but it's usually because I am insensitive or not following the rules.


What the fuck does this have anything to do with the question? Have these thread just degenerated into tumblr where everyone just posts their train of thought without any consideration as to what the actual question is?


----------



## ae1905 (Jun 7, 2014)

4blossoms said:


> Has any INTP ever dated a ISTJ or vice versa? Was it a disaster? It seems like the two types are so different in lifestyle it is difficult for them to live together harmoniously.


One example of INTP-ISTJ interactions. Judge for yourself.

http://personalitycafe.com/sjs-temperament-forum-overseers/353602-shame-punishment.html


----------



## CyborgOtter (Sep 13, 2014)

sjack said:


> What the fuck does this have anything to do with the question? Have these thread just degenerated into tumblr where everyone just posts their train of thought without any consideration as to what the actual question is?


I don't know but, I really like Tumblr and I think that they should have more posts about important things like student loan debt, Ebols, and Twilight fan fic...I did it didn't I XD.


----------



## DudeGuy (Aug 5, 2013)

sjack said:


> What the fuck does this have anything to do with the question? Have these thread just degenerated into tumblr where everyone just posts their train of thought without any consideration as to what the actual question is?


Yes.


----------



## Starless Ubiquity (Sep 24, 2014)

ae1905 said:


> What's the attraction? Both initial and current?


What I find attractive about my ISTJ:

- Superior ethical standards in everything he says and does. I can always rely on him to do *the right thing at the right moment* no matter the circumstances. Come Armageddon, raining bombs , the world against him - he will persevere and prevail. He will do what has to be done - with utmost dedication and attention to detail. Such a *strong moral compass* is a rare jewel and I can't help but admire him for that. 

- Consistent, efficient and hard-working. Fast and accurate decision-making, knows what he wants and how to get it. Unlike me, he always knew what he wanted to study and do in his life. He dedicated himself to it and succeeded. He has been treating me in the same way - he knew he wanted me in his life and nothing stopped him. Once obtaining what he wanted, he proved to be a person who values family life and the rights and responsibilities that come with it. He is the most *dedicated* partner I could ever dream of. 

- A *brilliant scientific mind*. As an INTP I highly value intelligence and competency. He has a highly proficient grasp of his field of work not only on theoretical, but also on experimental, practical level. He holds a PhD in Nuclear Physics, and then did a post doc in the field before going into industry. For him it was not enough to understand the theory behind nuclear physics, but he also wanted to apply it and thus contribute to the wider scientific community. As a result, he chose experimental physics (think of what Sheldon and Leonard form the Big Bang theory do). 

- Amazing *dexterity*. Yes, I am clumsy. He is the opposite - he is able to take each of his motorbikes apart and put it back together. His superior control over any vehicles and machines in general simply make me wet. 
Something gets broken - he fixes it immediately. He makes things out of nothing. Apart from all the usual manly skills, he also sews, carves wood, knits and cooks amazing dishes. Well, in general ISTJs seem to be great with their hands.. do I need to add a naughty bedroom-related comment here, hehe? :tongue:

- *Patience*. He has respect for people in general and would teach anyone who would like to listen.


----------



## ae1905 (Jun 7, 2014)

Starless Ubiquity said:


> What I find attractive about my ISTJ:
> 
> - Superior ethical standards in everything he says and does. I can always rely on him to do *the right thing at the right moment* no matter the circumstances. Come Armageddon, raining bombs , the world against him - he will persevere and prevail. He will do what has to be done - with utmost dedication and attention to detail. Such a *strong moral compass* is a rare jewel and I can't help but admire him for that.
> 
> ...


Sounds like you found a gem! I've never met an ISTJ who was remotely "brilliant". What has he done that makes him so "brilliant"? A PhD in itself is not big a deal and most PhDs are not brilliant, not even close! I agree that ISTJs tend to be consistent and reliable and that can be very attractive, especially to a P who wants to settle down. Do you have kids or plan to? Is that one reason why his qualities are so appealing?


----------



## ae1905 (Jun 7, 2014)

Starless Ubiquity said:


> - A *brilliant scientific mind*. As an INTP I highly value intelligence and competency. He has a highly proficient grasp of his field of work not only on theoretical, but also on experimental, practical level. He holds a PhD in Nuclear Physics, and then did a post doc in the field before going into industry. For him it was not enough to understand the theory behind nuclear physics, but he also wanted to apply it and thus contribute to the wider scientific community. As a result, he chose experimental physics (*think of what Sheldon and Leonard form the Big Bang theory do*).


Don't watch the show but have seen clips and am pretty sure Sheldon is a theoretical physicist, not an experimentalist. And he works in string theory, which is part of particle physics, not nuclear physics.


----------



## Epicyclic (Aug 7, 2014)

I find your comments here about ISTJs misleading, and placed out of context. 

To clear the record: 



ae1905 said:


> One example of INTP-ISTJ interactions. Judge for yourself.
> 
> http://personalitycafe.com/sjs-temperament-forum-overseers/353602-shame-punishment.html


Do you expect that we would answer a loved one the same way that we would reply a troll? 

You can call niss and me out for stereotyping, but remember: we get tons of trolls on the forum. Since you didn't make any visible effort to show how you were not a troll, we have no reason not to think otherwise. 



ae1905 said:


> Sounds like you found a gem! I've never met an ISTJ who was remotely "brilliant". What has he done that makes him so "brilliant"? A PhD in itself is not big a deal and most PhDs are not brilliant, not even close! I agree that ISTJs tend to be consistent and reliable and that can be very attractive, especially to a P who wants to settle down. Do you have kids or plan to? Is that one reason why his qualities are so appealing?


2. What is your definition of "brilliant" here? 

Yes, it's true that having a PHD doesn't make one a brilliant person, but there are many different ways that "brilliant" can translate into. 

We are only interested in abstract stuff with a practical application. Show us how your abstract theories translate into action and we will bother. If not, we can't be bothered. 

I have seen ISTJs who are brilliant. One of them that I know from my college time is a dean of MIT in mechanical engineering. He always makes it a point to understand abstract stuff in sensory terms - and explain it as such. Guess what? He's a much better teacher than some of those NTs who are smart but can't teach for nuts.


----------



## ae1905 (Jun 7, 2014)

Epicyclic said:


> I find your comments here about ISTJs misleading, and placed out of context.
> 
> To clear the record:
> 
> Do you expect that we would answer a loved one the same way that we would reply a troll?


Yes. I've seen that behavior irl, too. 



> 2. What is your definition of "brilliant" here?
> 
> Yes, it's true that having a PHD doesn't make one a brilliant person, but there are many different ways that "brilliant" can translate into.


She compared her hubby, an experiment physicist working in nuclear physics, to a theoretical physicist working in particle physics. They're not the same things.



> We are only interested in abstract stuff with a practical application. Show us how your abstract theories translate into action and we will bother. If not, we can't be bothered.


Can't be bothered or just can't follow? Show me an ISTJ working in string theory.



> I have seen ISTJs who are brilliant. One of them that I know from my college time is a dean of MIT in mechanical engineering. He always makes it a point to understand abstract stuff in sensory terms - and explain it as such. Guess what? He's a much better teacher than some of those NTs who are smart but can't teach for nuts.


So you think teaching makes a person "brilliant"?  Do you think professors are hired for their teaching? Or their research? Do people win Nobel Prizes for teaching? Or for research?

And "dean of MIT in mechanical engineering". Departments have "heads", not deans. I don't know what you're saying here.


----------



## ae1905 (Jun 7, 2014)

epicyclic said:


> We are only interested in abstract stuff with a practical application. Show us how your abstract theories translate into action and we will bother. If not, we can't be bothered.





ae1905 said:


> Can't be bothered or just can't follow? Show me an ISTJ working in string theory.


NT is the only temperament that doesn't imagine it can do what other temperaments can do as well as they do it. NTs don't claim they do feelings as well as NFs, or whatever it is SJs do as well as SJs, or even what SPs do as well as SPs. But NFs and SJs _do _claim they can do everything NTs do AND do what they do (eg, feels) better than NTs. So, basically, NFs and SJs claim they are better than NTs. With SPs, you see less of this. 

Whatever.

Your NT envy is showing and it doesn't become you.


----------



## Epicyclic (Aug 7, 2014)

Let's break your statements down one by one. 



ae1905 said:


> NT is the only temperament that doesn't imagine it can do what other temperaments can do as well as they do it. NTs don't claim they do feelings as well as NFs, or whatever it is SJs do as well as SJs, or even what SPs do as well as SPs.


You are making a sweeping statement here that says that absolutely no NT does that. So that means if I can dig up just one exception, your statement is wrong. Well done for logic. 



ae1905 said:


> But NFs and SJs _do _claim they can do everything NTs do AND do what they do (eg, feels) better than NTs. So, basically, NFs and SJs claim they are better than NTs. With SPs, you see less of this.


You either didn't read what I typed, or fail to understand. Did I say ALL SJs are more brilliant than all NTs? No. Did I claim that SJs were better than NTs? No. Was I saying that there are some brilliant SJs who are much smarter than your average NT? Yes. 

Since no 2 people can be exactly the same, within each personality type there will be a range. The average NT IQ could be higher or whatever, but there will inevitably be some smart SJs who are much smarter than the average NT. 



ae1905 said:


> Your NT envy is showing and it doesn't become you.


Criticism doesn't mean envy. From what I see of the NTs here and IRL, they seem to be quite presumptuous. I definitely don't envy that. 

I used to be like an NT when young, then realised as a teenager that being a SJ was much better. So I switched, agot rid of most of the NT bad habits. Zero regrets after all these years. So go figure. 

Besides, we do not see any practical applications for string theory just yet, unless you can somehow overcome e = mc2, cause stuff to travel safely at the speed of light or faster, and open intergalactic travel up or something. When that happens, let us know. 

Anyway, whatever. I have said my point, go check your logic before you come and assert your "brilliance".


----------



## ae1905 (Jun 7, 2014)

[No message]


----------



## ae1905 (Jun 7, 2014)

Epicyclic said:


> Let's break your statements down one by one.
> 
> You are making a sweeping statement here that says that absolutely no NT does that. So that means if I can dig up just one exception, your statement is wrong. Well done for logic.
> 
> ...


Epicycles were what Ptolemy used to construct his planetary orbits. You have heard of Copernicus and Kepler, right? Maybe not. Anyhow, in the spirit of the season, here's a video made by my cousin, INFP. Enjoy.


----------



## Epicyclic (Aug 7, 2014)

ae1905 said:


> Would you agree that LA has a warm climate? Woud you also agree that it can be cold in LA? Generalizations about groups of people are like generalizations about places: they describe the _average_ or most common features or qualities. And NTs, _in the main,_ definitely do not claim to do what other temperaments do as well as they do. You will be challenged to find even _one _NT who says he can handle his feelings _as well as a NF_. And even if you do, it would be the exception that proves the rule.


And theories are merely an approximation of reality, and MBTI is no different. MBTI measures preferences, not ability levels. Get that straight. 



ae1905 said:


> You didn't read what I wrote. I didn't say "all NTs are smarter than all SJs". I said I've never met a brilliant ISTJ. See the difference? If not, reread until you do. (ISTJs enjoy repetition, so this won't be hard for you.)


Since you've never met a brilliant ISTJ, here's a few possibilities why: you haven't been exposed to much people, you assume all smart people are of other types, or 

In order to back up your statement with statistics, you would need a significant enough definitive statistic on the intelligence levels of the whole world's NT and xSTJ population. Such a sample size would be enormously huge; any sample collected is necessarily only a small population of that. Your possible confidence interval is pretty low then. Besides, intelligence is hard to measure. You would have to go into the nitty gritty of details to ensure that your test is as foolproof as possible. Tough. 

To borrow your line, the more likely alternative is that you happily pulled these assumptions out of your ass. 



ae1905 said:


> To make my point, I challenged you to show me a SJ who works in string theory.


Why should I? You are placing hypothetical scenarios and then waiting for me to go along your path. In the meantime, if you're not gonna do it yourself, why should I? 

Unless you are personally involved in that field (unlikely), to show you any SJ who works in that field requires me to type these researchers without even knowing them at all. Information on every researcher is not always available. A lot of researchers employed in universities only have a university profile page listing their CV and achievements. Research institutes, less likely. So how do you expect to type a person with so little information to start off with? 

Don't drag me down the same presumptuous path that you are taking. 



ae1905 said:


> I also asked you what a "dean of mechanical engineering" is. Notice you didn't answer either question?


Why should I? Knowing that you're just out to play the Socratic game on me. 

A dean is someone who is in charge of a faculty department. Department here doesn't always mean a department of an academic discipline: it could also mean a significant initiative. And different universities sometimes use the director title instead. 



ae1905 said:


> ISTJs have a reputation for being honest and straightforward, but I've found they're just as likely as other types to prevaricate when it suits their purpose.


Nowhere as much as NTPs. 



ae1905 said:


> See? You have a rudimentary understanding of the concept of average and variance. Now just apply it to this thread and you'll get the point.


Dumb comment based on unfounded assumptions. Face the facts first, as stated above. 



ae1905 said:


> So you dumbed yourself down. Honesty _is _the best policy, they say.


Dumb comment based on unfounded assumptions. Face the facts first, as stated above. 



ae1905 said:


> Care to tell us more about string theory and e=mc^2? Or did you just pull that out of your ass? Again.


Why should the burden of proof be on me? For all your supposed "intellect", all you have done is just try to find loopholes in what I say. Since you say you're so smart, why not you explain string theory instead? 



ae1905 said:


> Who knew ISTJs had a sense of humor? I can do ISTJ "logic" in a coma. You couldn't begin to imagine INTP logic even if you took your head out of your ass. And that's not likely to happen, is it?


I have worked with quite a number of NTPs, as well as NFs. 

I can understand INTP logic, but I would never fully understand the way that you guys know it. Neither would you fully understand us. So why pull another dumbass statement there? 



ae1905 said:


> Epicycles were what Ptolemy used to construct his planetary orbits. You have heard of Copernicus and Kepler, right? Maybe not.


They're called planetary gears for a reason, in the English language. I studied celestial mechanics (including Copernicus and Kepler's laws) on orbit trajectories during college. Well guess what, you can read about Copernicus and Kepler from history, too, which I did as a teenager.


----------



## ae1905 (Jun 7, 2014)

Epicyclic said:


> And theories are merely an approximation of reality, and MBTI is no different. MBTI measures preferences, not ability levels. Get that straight.


This is a red herring. You originally wrote:



> You are making a sweeping statement here that says that absolutely no NT does that. So that means if I can dig up just one exception, your statement is wrong. Well done for logic.


I simply pointed out the flaw in your logic, that statements about groups of people are not absolute as you originally supposed, but _statistical _in nature. Whether MBTI is right or wrong is beside the point. As is your rejoinder.



> Since you've never met a brilliant ISTJ, here's a few possibilities why: you haven't been exposed to much people, you assume all smart people are of other types, or
> 
> In order to back up your statement with statistics, you would need a significant enough definitive statistic on the intelligence levels of the whole world's NT and xSTJ population. Such a sample size would be enormously huge; any sample collected is necessarily only a small population of that. Your possible confidence interval is pretty low then. Besides, intelligence is hard to measure. You would have to go into the nitty gritty of details to ensure that your test is as foolproof as possible. Tough.


The sample size would be confined to brilliant people, not the general populace. And a sample as small as a hundred randomly chosen people would suffice to show the point with an acceptable degree of confidence. And my friends and colleagues are almost all Phd, MSc, MBA types so I've known quite a few highly intelligent people. The exceptions have been ISTJs, only a couple of whom are BScs. Further evidence is IQ tests where INs score consistently above ISTJs. More evidence are research findings on creativity showing it is connected with dopamine levels in the brain. Dopamine is the neurotransmitter that produces novelty seeking traits in personality. XPs are the types who possess this trait more than others and are generally the most creative. Creativity is one attribute of brilliance. Finally, most of the brilliant scientists are XNTPs. Galileo, Newton, Maxwell, Boltzmann, Einstein, Dirac, Feynman, Darwin, and so on. Where are the "brilliant" ISTJs? Show me there are just as many and I'll believe you.



> To borrow your line, the more likely alternative is that you happily pulled these assumptions out of your ass.


You'd have to borrow my line because you're too ISTJ to think up your own.



> Why should I? You are placing hypothetical scenarios and then waiting for me to go along your path. In the meantime, if you're not gonna do it yourself, why should I?


If you claimed God exists then wouldn't the onus fall on you to prove it? You're the one making the claim there are brilliant SJs. So prove it.



> A dean is someone who is in charge of *a faculty department. *Department here doesn't always mean a department of an academic discipline: it could also mean a significant initiative. And different universities sometimes use the director title instead.


Here we have another example of ISTJ trying to dishonestly weasel out of an earlier statement. What is the difference between "faculty department" and "department"? And what does that have to do with "dean of mechanical engineering"? Here is what wiki has to say about deans:



> The term is much more commonly used in higher education. Although usage differs from one institution to another,* a dean is usually the head of a significant collection of departments within a university *(e.g., "dean of the downtown campus", "dean of the college of arts and sciences", "dean of the school of medicine"), with responsibilities for approving faculty hiring, setting academic policies, overseeing the budget, fundraising, and other administration. Such a dean is usually a tenured professor from one of the departments, but gives up most teaching and research activities upon assuming the deanship.
> 
> Other senior administrative positions in higher education may also carry the title of dean (or a lesser title such as associate dean or assistant dean). For example, many colleges and universities have a position known as "dean of students", who is in charge of student services, and a "dean of the faculty", who serves as the faculty's voice in the school's day-to-day administration.


So, I ask you again, what is a "dean of mechanical engineering"? Mechanical engineering is one department. Department heads are usually called "chairs", not "deans".

Shows how clueless you are. And the level of miseduhcation you likely have.



> Nowhere as much as NTPs.


You need go no further than this exchange to see your dishonesty in debate. 



> Dumb comment based on unfounded assumptions. Face the facts first, as stated above.


Dumb comment based on ignorance and dishonesty. And ISTJ.



> Dumb comment based on unfounded assumptions. Face the facts first, as stated above.


The fact is you identified yourself as ISTJ after first thinking you were an NT. The fact is NTs not only have higher IQ scores but are more accomplished in the sciences. The sooner you face those facts the sooner you'll stop making a fool of yourself here.



> Why should the burden of proof be on me? For all your supposed "intellect", all you have done is just try to find loopholes in what I say. Since you say you're so smart, why not you explain string theory instead?


This is ISTJ again trying to deflect attention away from an earlier statement he can't support. You brought up e=mc^2. So why should I explain your statement? The onus is clearly on you to explain what _you _meant. And the reason you are _evading _the responsibility is because you can't explain the statement. You threw it out there in the first place to make yourself sound smart. Yet another example of ISTJ intellectual dishonesty.



> I have worked with quite a number of NTPs, as well as NFs.
> 
> I can understand INTP logic, but I would never fully understand the way that you guys know it. Neither would you fully understand us. So why pull another dumbass statement there?


ISTJ Te logic uses common standards of truth, such as are found in manuals, textbooks, laws, etc. These sources are commonly held and accessible to anyone. ISTJ Si logic is truly subjective "logic" and is not worth knowing.



> They're called planetary gears for a reason, in the English language. I studied celestial mechanics (including Copernicus and Kepler's laws) on orbit trajectories during college. Well guess what, you can read about Copernicus and Kepler from history, too, which I did as a teenager.


Epicycles are also defunct for a reason: they don't work--kinda like your arguments, wouldn't you say? Explains why you took that name.


----------



## ae1905 (Jun 7, 2014)

A great example of ISTJ intellectual dishonesty is Freud, whom many type as ISTJ. His lasting contribution is thought to be his idea of the unconscious. Yet, he actually got the idea from Schopenhauer in his readings of Nietzche who was a student of Schopenhauer's whom he discussed and mentioned by name in his writings. Yet, Freud claimed he was not familiar with Schopenhauer's ideas and writings even though he admitted he read and was influence by Nietzche!


----------



## Epicyclic (Aug 7, 2014)

ae1905 said:


> The sample size would be confined to brilliant people, not the general populace.





ae1905 said:


> A PhD in itself is not big a deal and most PhDs are not brilliant, not even close!





ae1905 said:


> What has he done that makes him so "brilliant"?


You have yet to define what "brilliant" mean, even after being asked. By not answering this question, you undermine the premise of your entire argument on brilliance. 



ae1905 said:


> A great example of ISTJ intellectual dishonesty is Freud, whom many type as ISTJ. His lasting contribution is thought to be his idea of the unconscious. Yet, he actually got the idea from Schopenhauer in his readings of Nietzche who was a student of Schopenhauer's whom he discussed and mentioned by name in his writings. Yet, Freud claimed he was not familiar with Schopenhauer's ideas and writings even though he admitted he read and was influence by Nietzche!


Where does your "many" come from? 

N's Are Smarter Than S's -- MBTI | Slayerment claims Freud to be INTJ or INFJ. Note, this is a site that claims that Ns are smarter than Ss. 

Marie-Louise von Franz, a close colleague of Jung, in her book "Lectures on Jung's Typology", says that "What I add now is my own personal conviction, namely, that Freud himself was an introverted feeling type, and therefore his writings bear the characteristics of his inferior extraverted thinking." 

https://thephilosophicalboy.wordpre...-honest-look-into-mbti-descriptions-the-intp/ This site types Sigmund Freud as INTP, although it doesn't specify directly why. 

With all this evidence, it seems Sigmund's Freud's MBTI type is in controversy. How does that make it a great example of ISTJ intellectual dishonesty? 

More likely, you just selectively read data to see what suits your point. 


Besides, Isaac Newton, who you describe as a great xNTP scientist, is also guilty of this. 

Leibniz published papers on calculus 20 years before Newton did, but Newton did many things to try to claim credit that he was behind it and not Leibniz. While it is still controversial, what is clear are the dishonest actions that Newton did to try to claim credit for discovering calculus. 



http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Leibniz%E2%80%93Newton_calculus_controversy said:


> A bias favoring Newton tainted the whole affair from the outset. The Royal Society (chaired by Newton) set up a committee to pronounce on the priority dispute, in response to a letter it had received from Leibniz. That committee never asked Leibniz to give his version of the events. The report of the committee, finding in favor of Newton, was written by Newton himself and published as "Commercium Epistolicum" (mentioned above) early in 1713.


Some other sources even mention that he wrote anonymous letters blasting Leibniz, or writing letters and using the names of people supporting him. 




ae1905 said:


> If you claimed God exists then wouldn't the onus fall on you to prove it? You're the one making the claim there are brilliant SJs. So prove it.





ae1905 said:


> Finally, most of the brilliant scientists are XNTPs. Galileo, Newton, Maxwell, Boltzmann, Einstein, Dirac, Feynman, Darwin, and so on. Where are the "brilliant" ISTJs? Where are the "brilliant" ISTJs? Show me there are just as many and I'll believe you.


It is difficult to know for sure the MBTI type of a person, just based on second hand data. You have to assume, which you are doing here. . 

A quick check on Google.com shows that your most likely data source comes from MBTI sites saying how these people are typed. Your burden of proof is relatively low, based on whatever some Internet sites say that suits your point. . 

Multiple biographies of Hyman G. Rickover, father of the nuclear reactor, unanimously agree on his insistence of taking responsibility and micromanaging over details. One can also read his many speeches to see his emphasis on responsibility and details. 

James Watt is another famous person that MBTI sites ignore. His biography on Wikipedia makes him seem like an ISTJ, though I would not say this with a 100% confidence level because of incomplete information. 

Besides, why should I show you numbers? I didn't make any point about numbers. You can go prove it to yourself. 



ae1905 said:


> And my friends and colleagues are almost all Phd, MSc, MBA types so I've known quite a few highly intelligent people. The exceptions have been ISTJs, only a couple of whom are BScs.





ae1905 said:


> A PhD in itself is not big a deal and most PhDs are not brilliant, not even close!


Why are you now turning around and appealing to academic qualifications to establish that your friends are "brilliant"? 

BTW, ISTJs are far more likely to go to industry than academia. Not getting a graduate degree doesn't necessarily indicate that the person isn't brilliant. 



ae1905 said:


> The sample size would be confined to brilliant people, not the general populace.And a sample as small as a hundred randomly chosen people would suffice to show the point with an acceptable degree of confidence.


Given that your friends are almost all of a certain educational qualification, it is reasonable to state that your viewpoint is be biased. 



ae1905 said:


> More evidence are research findings on creativity showing it is connected with dopamine levels in the brain. Dopamine is the neurotransmitter that produces novelty seeking traits in personality. XPs are the types who possess this trait more than others and are generally the most creative. Creativity is one attribute of brilliance.


You are attempting to say that creativity is a part of brilliance, of which you still haven't defined. Since XPs have more dopamine than others, they are more brilliant as a result. 

I don't know what kind of brilliant you have there, so I shall wait for your definition of brilliant. 

Besides, concepts like biomimicry, plus academic research of study of innovation as a process show that often, creativity is often expressed in the form of carrying ideas from one domain to another. These show that often, creativity can be expressed in patterns. Is novelty seeking necessarily a must like that? 




ae1905 said:


> Here we have another example of ISTJ trying to dishonestly weasel out of an earlier statement. What is the difference between "faculty department" and "department"? And what does that have to do with "dean of mechanical engineering"? Here is what wiki has to say about deans:
> 
> So, I ask you again, what is a "dean of mechanical engineering"? Mechanical engineering is one department. Department heads are usually called "chairs", not "deans".Shows how clueless you are. And the level of miseducation you likely have. You need go no further than this exchange to see your dishonesty in debate.


It is deliberately made vague to make sure that you cannot identify the person specifically. Why should I reveal the guy's exact position just to make some random troll happy? 

You also need go no further than here, to see your dishonesty too. 



ae1905 said:


> The fact is you identified yourself as ISTJ after first thinking you were an NT. The fact is NTs not only have higher IQ scores but are more accomplished in the sciences. The sooner you face those facts the sooner you'll stop making a fool of yourself here.


I am not a scientist, but an engineer. Engineering does not just involve scientific knowledge, but also other factors, like regulations, economics, planning and so on. All this requires one to be conscious of details and to be rooted in reality. 



ae1905 said:


> ISTJ Te logic uses common standards of truth, such as are found in manuals, textbooks, laws, etc. These sources are commonly held and accessible to anyone. ISTJ Si logic is truly subjective "logic" and is not worth knowing.


You refer to these standards of truth to find a pattern, so as to see how ISTJ logic plays out. Academic research on creativity, which you vaunt so much, is also widely available and accessible to anyone. 

Define "truly subjective". 



ae1905 said:


> This is ISTJ again trying to deflect attention away from an earlier statement he can't support. You brought up e=mc^2. So why should I explain your statement? The onus is clearly on you to explain what _you _meant. And the reason you are _evading _the responsibility is because you can't explain the statement. You threw it out there in the first place to make yourself sound smart. Yet another example of ISTJ intellectual dishonesty.


You do the exact same thing here by dodging questions and drawing conclusions on shaky sand. Pot calling kettle black. 



ae1905 said:


> I simply pointed out the flaw in your logic, that statements about groups of people are not absolute as you originally supposed, but _statistical _in nature. Whether MBTI is right or wrong is beside the point. As is your rejoinder.
> 
> You wrote there " You will be challenged to find even one NT" who does not boast. If you had not written that, it would be reasonable to take your statement in a statistical way.
> 
> ...


----------



## ae1905 (Jun 7, 2014)

Epicyclic said:


> You have yet to define what "brilliant" mean, even after being asked. By not answering this question, you undermine the premise of your entire argument on brilliance.


Brilliant is one step shy of genius. I consider genius to be the capacity for original and important thoughts and works that are strikingly out of the ordinary or norm, while brilliance is the capacity for original thoughts that fall within the norm. So Newton, Einstein, and Maxwell are geniuses because their work lay outside what was known at the time and they created new models or paradigms of fundamental phenomena that others who came after adopted and used. In contrast, most distinguished scientists including Nobel laureates work within the existing paradigms and apply its models (eg, quantum mechanics) to solve problems in more or less accepted ways. If you liken science to a map then genius creates new maps while brilliance explores the areas that have been mapped out.



> Where does your "many" come from? With all this evidence, it seems Sigmund's Freud's MBTI type is in controversy. How does that make it a great example of ISTJ intellectual dishonesty?
> 
> More likely, you just selectively read data to see what suits your point.


Celebritytypes.com and several people on this site. I'm inclined to agree since Freud's claim to fame is his "discovery" of the unconscious which he identified with the basic human drives, especially the sex drive which we often become sensible of through our bodily sensations. So an Si-dom would be the most likely type to think of this idea and make it the centerpiece of his work.

The resemblance of Freud's dissemblance to your own dishonesty on this thread makes me even more confident in the ISTJ typing.



> Besides, Isaac Newton, who you describe as a great xNTP scientist, is also guilty of this.
> 
> Leibniz published papers on calculus 20 years before Newton did, but Newton did many things to try to claim credit that he was behind it and not Leibniz. While it is still controversial, what is clear are the dishonest actions that Newton did to try to claim credit for discovering calculus.


I've never read or heard of a science historian who claimed, much less proved, that Newton didn't discover the calculus independently of Leibniz. Each, for example, had his own notations for the differential calculus. 



> Some other sources even mention that he wrote anonymous letters blasting Leibniz, or writing letters and using the names of people supporting him.


Newton was not a nice man. But nice is different than genius. And no-one questions Newton's genius. Except you.



> It is difficult to know for sure the MBTI type of a person, just based on second hand data. You have to assume, which you are doing here. .


There is an analysis of Newton's work on the INTJ forum (not assoc with PerC) that argues he is INTP. I recommend you find it and read it.



> Why are you now turning around and appealing to academic qualifications to establish that your friends are "brilliant"?


Where did I say my friends are brilliant? I said they are "highly intelligent" and contrasted them to the ISTJs I know who are not even that. Suffice it to say, if you're not even highly intelligent you won't be brilliant. See how that works?



> BTW, ISTJs are far more likely to go to industry than academia. Not getting a graduate degree doesn't necessarily indicate that the person isn't brilliant.


No, but it does indicate that a person is less likely to be brilliant.



> Given that your friends are almost all of a certain educational qualification, it is reasonable to state that your viewpoint is be biased.


Not biased, _informed_. I've known and met people from all walks. 



> You are attempting to say that creativity is a part of brilliance, of which you still haven't defined. Since XPs have more dopamine than others, they are more brilliant as a result.


XPs _are _more creative and, if science is any indication, also more brilliant. Da Vinci, Galileo, Newton, Maxwell, Boltzmann, Darwin, Einstein, Dirac, Heisenberg, Feynman, and so on. Most of your great scientists are NTPs.



> Besides, concepts like biomimicry, plus academic research of study of innovation as a process show that often, *creativity is often expressed in the form of carrying ideas from one domain to another. These show that often, creativity can be expressed in patterns. *Is novelty seeking necessarily a must like that?


Isn't that Ne? And if creativity is inventing the new then wouldn't novelty seeking make you more creative than, say, security seeking?








> It is deliberately made vague to make sure that you cannot identify the person specifically. Why should I reveal the guy's exact position just to make some random troll happy?


Either this is another lie or you are crazy! Why would I troll some academic I have no interest in knowing?!! You're lying. Again.



> You also need go no further than here, to see your dishonesty *too*.


So now you finally admit you've been lying.



> I am not a scientist, but an engineer. Engineering does not just involve scientific knowledge, but also other factors, like regulations, economics, planning and so on. All this requires one to be conscious of details and to be rooted in reality.


So? How does that address my point that NTs have higher IQs than ISTJs?



> You refer to these standards of truth to find a pattern, so as to see how ISTJ logic plays out. Academic research on creativity, which you vaunt so much, is also widely available and accessible to anyone.


So looking up academic research on creativity makes you creative? Looking up rules and regulations, otoh, _is _often a part of using Te.



> Define "truly subjective".


Irrational, unique to the individual, and largely inexplicable to others. Ti can be explained so others can understand how it came to a conclusion. Si just prefers something for no apparent reasons that can be explained and understood in the same way as Ti. 



> You do the exact same thing here by dodging questions and drawing conclusions on shaky sand. Pot calling kettle black.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Where is the "inconsistency"? "Challenged" doesn't mean "impossible". Statements about groups of people are usually statistical. Even so, because NTs are so ready to admit their weakness with emotions you will be challenged to find even one who will claim he is as adept as an NF. See the point?



> However, your arrogance leads you to make sweeping statements and then try to weasel your way out.


My arrogance means I don't _need _to "weasel my way out", unlike you who are so accustomed to this practice it's a habit.


----------



## Simpson17866 (Dec 3, 2014)

That escalated quickly.


----------



## Mair (Feb 17, 2014)

I haven't dated an ISTJ , but I think one of my friends is one. She is pretty much the voice of reason in our little group and I quite like her, however we aren't very close and we think very differently. I think most ISTJs consider us impractical or even irrational (they often don't really understand Ti).


----------



## Pucca (Jun 13, 2012)

_*General Thread Warning*_: Stay on topic.


----------

