# Wired like an NT, but motivated like an NF...or the other way around.



## militantsparrow (Jul 11, 2013)

I just finished reading, Please Understand Me II. I can relate so much to the Idealists. I am constantly searching for who I am. I believe people are generally good. I am moved by the mystical and spiritual. I am happy to explain further, but in general, the motivations of the Idealists feel like me.

To contrast this point, when I read the chapter on Rational, I couldn't relate to the motivations so much, but I completely relate to the thinking process. For example, my earliest memories are of me organizing and categorizing information and objects. To this day, I love to collect and organize information.

Does this mean I am an NT because my brain is wired like one? Or is it more likely that I'm an NF because I am motivated like one?


----------



## militantsparrow (Jul 11, 2013)

I think I answered my own question. Being wired like an NT means I am an NT. MBTI is about how your brain functions, not how you behave.

For a long time now, I thought I was an INFJ. I was certain I was Ni-dom, but couldn't relate to most of the INTJ's on the forums, youtube, etc. These supposed INTJ's seem to pride themselves on being jerks. They wear their INTJ badge as if it's definitive evidence that they are superior to everyone else. I just can't relate to that, but I don't think I have to.

I am Ni-dom. I am an extroverted thinker and an introverted feeler. In that order. That makes me an INTJ. I believe everyone knows at least something I don't know (usually way more than I know). I believe everyone is worthy of respect and kindness. That doesn't mean I'm not an INTJ. It just means I'm not a self absorbed, self righteous, opinionated, jerk.


----------



## Laxgort (Apr 12, 2014)

As a bonus, INTJs have Ni and Fi and this can make people think that we are idealist (rlly people usually say that we're all day dreaming and thinking and we have our own values, so...). Most INTJs may be confused by this.


----------



## militantsparrow (Jul 11, 2013)

Laxgort said:


> As a bonus, INTJs have Ni and Fi and this can make people think that we are idealist (rlly people usually say that we're all day dreaming and thinking and we have our own values, so...). Most INTJs may be confused by this.


Absolutely. I can see it pretty clearly now, but I was definitely confused by this.


----------



## Laxgort (Apr 12, 2014)

militantsparrow said:


> Absolutely. I can see it pretty clearly now, but I was definitely confused by this.


It's better than the people who are confused about if they're INTPs or INTJs. We don't have anything in common...


----------



## militantsparrow (Jul 11, 2013)

I've also always been a "believer." The idea of being an atheist is so foreign to me. It seems to me that the Ni-dom would be naturally drawn to belief in a "higher power." To be clear though, my "religion" has to make sense to me. I think this is why I am drawn to apologetics--the place where faith meets reason.

My Ni is certain there is a God. My Te helps me explain it.


----------



## militantsparrow (Jul 11, 2013)

Laxgort said:


> It's better than the people who are confused about if they're INTPs or INTJs. We don't have anything in common...


True. Not cognitively, but the two seem to run in similar circles--career wise. It confused me early on, but my understanding of MBTI was very rudimentary at the time.


----------



## Laxgort (Apr 12, 2014)

militantsparrow said:


> True. Not cognitively, but the two seem to run in similar circles--career wise. It confused me early on, but my understanding of MBTI was very rudimentary at the time.


At the beggining it's okay to confused, but when you know a little... Anyway, to use this thread: What do you think about INTPs?


----------



## moonstone (May 2, 2014)

I can totally relate to your post. I'm a rational thinker who is motivated by emotional reasons. I would say you're INFJ. To some degree, you make a choice. When using reasoning, you weigh a bunch of different variables. You decide how much weight you're going to put on the emotional world, and part of your decision is influenced by your non-verbal emotional processes. The fact that your verbal, rational thoughts are being influenced by your non-verbal emotional ones suggests to me that you're more F by disposition. Just because a thought process isn't verbal doesn't mean it's not a huge part of your worldview. 

It may be that you'll identify better overall with how F people think. I had the same reaction to the T camp, no offense T camp! (too self-righteous). In other words, I don't agree that an INFJ can't be intellectually organized. It's just part of the spectrum of F-dominant people. Some F people are extremely rational (myself included), some struggle with math and logic (but their overall perceptions of the world might be very similar to you or me).

In an ideal world, there'd be another personality category for people who are equally high on T and F. But if I have to choose camps, I'm personally going with F because I think it's a better and kinder way to approach the world. Emotions ought to be integrated with logic from my way of thinking.


----------



## TheSummerOne761 (Aug 5, 2013)

Maybe you should consider the difference between nature and nurture too. I'm an INFP, but I was raised in a family with an INTP brother, an INTP dad and a ENFP mom with fairly well developed Te. I tend to have the thought proces of a thinker sometimes, and for an INFP, I am pretty practical and good at logical argumentation. This has caused me to doubt my type sometimes, but when it comes to the functions, I'm definately an INFP.


----------



## militantsparrow (Jul 11, 2013)

Laxgort said:


> At the beggining it's okay to confused, but when you know a little... Anyway, to use this thread: What do you think about INTPs?


I admire their passion for research and their depth of knowledge. They, in my opinion, tend to be less pragmatic than I prefer in the work environment. They emphasize knowledge over results.


----------



## militantsparrow (Jul 11, 2013)

moonstone said:


> I can totally relate to your post. I'm a rational thinker who is motivated by emotional reasons. I would say you're INFJ. To some degree, you make a choice. When using reasoning, you weigh a bunch of different variables. You decide how much weight you're going to put on the emotional world, and part of your decision is influenced by your non-verbal emotional processes. The fact that your verbal, rational thoughts are being influenced by your non-verbal emotional ones suggests to me that you're more F by disposition. Just because a thought process isn't verbal doesn't mean it's not a huge part of your worldview.
> 
> It may be that you'll identify better overall with how F people think. I had the same reaction to the T camp, no offense T camp! (too self-righteous). In other words, I don't agree that an INFJ can't be intellectually organized. It's just part of the spectrum of F-dominant people. Some F people are extremely rational (myself included), some struggle with math and logic (but their overall perceptions of the world might be very similar to you or me).
> 
> In an ideal world, there'd be another personality category for people who are equally high on T and F. But if I have to choose camps, I'm personally going with F because I think it's a better and kinder way to approach the world. Emotions ought to be integrated with logic from my way of thinking.


I thought it was more of an order preference. In my case, my initial knee-jerk decisions are rational, but I run them through my emotional filter. Because rational comes first, I'm thinking I'm NT. But again, I am open. Trying to read my own cognitive processes is very difficult. I have to be self aware and try to notice how I react as it's happening. Trying to remember how I process things is confusing.


----------



## militantsparrow (Jul 11, 2013)

Justsomeone761 said:


> Maybe you should consider the difference between nature and nurture too. I'm an INFP, but I was raised in a family with an INTP brother, an INTP dad and a ENFP mom with fairly well developed Te. I tend to have the thought proces of a thinker sometimes, and for an INFP, I am pretty practical and good at logical argumentation. This has caused me to doubt my type sometimes, but when it comes to the functions, I'm definately an INFP.


I have tried that. I had a very difficult (abusive) upbringing. I can't tell if it increased or decreased my F'ness. I can make arguments either way. I could have stuffed my F side down to protect myself. Or, I could have developed one as a co-dependent tool.

So, I've looked at my childhood to try to determine what I was like at my most innocent. I was very much into symbols, archetypes, and mythology. I was very creative. But I was also a natural with systems. Science and computers. I taught myself to program at the age of 7 or so. I read this progression as Ni-Te. But again, I have never had a time in my life where I wasn't "spiritual."


----------



## Entropic (Jun 15, 2012)

ESFJ in my opinion. Keirsey should really rename his types where xSFJs are the dreamers and xNFPs anal retention. At least people wouldn't think that being dreamy, idealistic whatever, means that you're an N.


----------



## militantsparrow (Jul 11, 2013)

ephemereality said:


> ESFJ in my opinion. Keirsey should really rename his types where xSFJs are the dreamers and xNFPs anal retention. At least people wouldn't think that being dreamy, idealistic whatever, means that you're an N.


I don't relate N to being dreamy. To me being Ni-dom means you have a sort of attraction to or gain satisfaction from symbols and other similar things--it's about wanting to connect the dots or fill in the blanks.

I will look into ESFJ, but I've never questioned that I was an INxx.


----------



## Entropic (Jun 15, 2012)

militantsparrow said:


> I don't relate N to being dreamy. To me being Ni-dom means you have a sort of attraction to or gain satisfaction from symbols and other similar things--it's about wanting to connect the dots or fill in the blanks.


No. That sounds more like some kind of judgement, not perception. Perception just perceives what's there. 

Yes, Ni can be drawn to the symbolic but what kind of symbolism? Just because you toss the word around here doesn't make it self-evident. I've seen several people use the word differently depending on their type. That's a problem you run into when you use such vague terminology. 



> I will look into ESFJ, but I've never questioned that I was an INxx.


I think everyone should question that they are in fact an N. It's the most fundamental mistake everyone makes, assuming they are an N, especially INxx. Very few people genuinely are. I at some point seriously considered if I was an ESFJ because why not? People seem to get stuck up on things like "I'm an N" as if their life depended on it because being typed as an N is still unfortunately seen as more valuable than an S. There's nothing wrong with being an S. Most people are most likely S.


----------



## athenian200 (Oct 13, 2008)

militantsparrow said:


> I just finished reading, Please Understand Me II. I can relate so much to the Idealists. I am constantly searching for who I am. I believe people are generally good. I am moved by the mystical and spiritual. I am happy to explain further, but in general, the motivations of the Idealists feel like me.
> 
> To contrast this point, when I read the chapter on Rational, I couldn't relate to the motivations so much, but I completely relate to the thinking process. For example, my earliest memories are of me organizing and categorizing information and objects. To this day, I love to collect and organize information.
> 
> Does this mean I am an NT because my brain is wired like one? Or is it more likely that I'm an NF because I am motivated like one?


Keirsey temperaments really aren't a good way of typing yourself, especially if you're an INxJ.

A lot of NFs are more like stereotypical NTs, and a lot of NTs are more like stereotypical NFs. 

The difference between INTJ and INFJ is more about Ti/Fe vs Fi/Te. If you recognize mostly Ni and Fi in yourself, you're most likely INTJ. If you recognize mostly Ni and Ti in yourself, you're most likely INFJ.

Ni, Te, Fi, Se

Ni, Fe, Ti, Se

Extraverted Thinking

Introverted Feeling

Extraverted Feeling

Introverted Thinking

Jung would have called both types Introverted Intuitives. The only difference is their choice of balancing auxiliary.

It's really not as simple as "being an NT" or "being an NF." You have to look at the functions each type uses.


----------



## militantsparrow (Jul 11, 2013)

athenian200 said:


> Keirsey temperaments really aren't a good way of typing yourself, especially if you're an INxJ.
> 
> A lot of NFs are more like stereotypical NTs, and a lot of NTs are more like stereotypical NFs.
> 
> ...



All great points. I have an extremely hard time understanding the difference between these functions though. I should focus on Ti vs Te since I believe life has screwed with my Fx to the point I wouldn't be able to say what is nature or what is nurture.

What is the purest most effective way to understand Ti vs Te? I've read descriptions over and over again and just can't get the difference.


----------



## athenian200 (Oct 13, 2008)

militantsparrow said:


> I should focus on Ti vs Te since I believe life has screwed with my Fx to the point I wouldn't be able to say what is nature or what is nurture.
> 
> What is the purest most effective way to understand Ti vs Te? I've read descriptions over and over again and just can't get the difference.


In this dialogue, Socrates is Ti while Euthyphro is Te. This how Te looks to Ti.

The Internet Classics Archive | Euthyphro by Plato

On the other hand, in this video, you see how Ti looks to Te. The guy yelling is the Te user.






These are more extreme examples, but hopefully it makes the point.


----------



## militantsparrow (Jul 11, 2013)

I relate to Socrates initial comments. He seems to objectively admire and make excuses for his accuser's actions. However, it ends there. Once the real discussion begins, I relate more to Euthyphro.

In the video, I completely relate to the "yelling guy." However, if I am worried where someone is going with a line of questioning, I will ask them to parse out their request in more detail--similar to the Xerox guy in the video.

When people act like they don't know the obvious, and want more precise language or details, I get very frustrated. Does that make sense? Is that Ti or Te?


----------



## athenian200 (Oct 13, 2008)

militantsparrow said:


> So, it's narrowed down to INTJ, INFJ, ISTJ, or ISFJ.
> 
> Not bad. I guess the I and J stay.
> 
> @*ephemereality and athenian200, what are your current and/or final votes?*


Out of those four?

ISFJ.

You do seem fairly relatable in terms of judgment, now that I've seen the Fe, but you seem more Si/Ne.

Also, you seem to have good Thinking on top of that.


----------



## moonstone (May 2, 2014)

athenian200 said:


> I feel like I should point out that that's actually not what the theory suggests. Your type doesn't just change because you use your brain differently.
> 
> It's not about behavior or conscious attempts at development. It's about natural preferences formed early in life that influence how you prefer to operate. Everyone CAN operate in a number of ways, or learn to operate in new ways. But there will always be a natural preference, regardless of whether it's buried under years of conditioning or not.
> 
> ...


I just now saw this. And I don't mind anyone disagreeing with me, especially when it's done respectfully (no need to apologize). In my following words, everyone please read them with a neutral tone (I'm much better in person; sometimes my words can come off cold in writing on these kinds of subjects).

Here goes. I never said that basic preferences change completely or even considerably. And yes, I'm using my own theories of thought. You actually can change thinking processes (to a degree) through behavioral changes. The problem is that behavior is usually based on habit + current thinking processes (which are both genetically and environmentally influenced), so it's actually quite difficult to change ingrained behavior. Someone may have particular aptitudes and tendencies for thought processes, and over time, these get more exaggerated and pronounced. The types of thought processes that weren't as strong get weaker; the strong ones get stronger. 

That doesn't mean, however, that the overall system of thought is static, or that weaker processes can't become significantly better (relative to itself). To some degree, I agree with you, in the sense that the basic natural tendencies in thought will always be there. BUT, in terms of how you fit a personality category, that CAN change. For example, I'll always have a T tendency, but I have spent years consciously developing my F and incorporating it into my T perceptions. In terms of a measurable outcome in personality, I fit best in an F category now. To others looking at me, I'm more F. But you're right that I'm always a T first relative to how I process information verbally, whether it's dealing with emotions or not (I'm T dominant). 

So what I'm trying to say is that although the natural tendencies are always there in terms of thought, if you strengthen non-dominant processes enough, the system as a whole functions differently. That system can appear to be F-dominant for example, when it's really T dominant. You'll only notice the T dominance in certain contexts.

Using your logic, evolution wouldn't take place. Epigenetics wouldn't exist (we would be tied to our genes as they are inherited only). But in truth, we adapt to our environment, and within a limited range, we have a choice in how we adapt. Adaptation isn't always passive. We can make some executive decisions--through metacogntion--and follow through with them in our behavior, even if the resulting behavior is not initially intuitive or comfortable for us. The changed outward behavior, though, can eventually change how our internal mental system behaves on a holistic level (even though the natural tendencies are still there, just given less priority relative to the other now more developed processes). 

So basically, yes, I agree with you that the way a person thinks by disposition doesn't change in subjective relativity (T or F will still be dominant, for example), but the processes can change in terms of _absolute_ relativity. T may still be dominant, but the F can become developed enough that the system as a whole exhibits changed functioning (hence, a person can seem to change personality categories; and who's to say they haven't if for all practical purposes they have?).

You're right that how people perceive themselves and how they actually are are often two very separate things, which will also affect the variability for how people score on personality tests. But, people can also change personality category types (in terms of measurable outcomes), even though they haven't changed their relative natural tendencies.

ETA: Made it shorter and more relevant.


----------



## Belladonne (Mar 22, 2014)

militantsparrow said:


> I've also always been a "believer." The idea of being an atheist is so foreign to me. It seems to me that the Ni-dom would be naturally drawn to belief in a "higher power." To be clear though, my "religion" has to make sense to me. I think this is why I am drawn to apologetics--the place where faith meets reason.
> 
> My Ni is certain there is a God. My Te helps me explain it.


How so?  (I'm an ENTJ, want to be religious but just don't see enough evidence at the moment; I can conceptualise the existence of a God and some details as to its nature, but beyond that it just seems improbable).


----------



## Eudaimonia (Sep 24, 2013)

Belladonne said:


> How so?  (I'm an ENTJ, want to be religious but just don't see enough evidence at the moment; I can conceptualise the existence of a God and some details as to its nature, but beyond that it just seems improbable).


Good point... *blehchhh!*


----------



## Belladonne (Mar 22, 2014)

Eudaimonia said:


> Good point... *blehchhh!*


Thanks, but what's with all the "blech"? :kitteh:


----------



## Eudaimonia (Sep 24, 2013)

Belladonne said:


> Thanks, but what's with all the "blech"? :kitteh:


Vomitus ugh!

Hahaha


----------



## Aquamarine (Jul 24, 2011)

I would recommend you to identify your dominant function and auxiliary functions from a test first before narrowing down possible types.


----------



## Randomasd (Aug 29, 2013)

I think you are a feeler (and don't feel you are a thinker eh). It's mostly like Batman is typed a feeler, strong NF motivations but usually act rational. 

From motivations comes objectives and from objectives actions. Maybe you are NF motivations > NF objectives > T for actions.


----------



## athenian200 (Oct 13, 2008)

moonstone said:


> So basically, yes, I agree with you that the way a person thinks by disposition doesn't change in subjective relativity (T or F will still be dominant, for example), but the processes can change in terms of _absolute_ relativity. T may still be dominant, but the F can become developed enough that the system as a whole exhibits changed functioning (*hence, a person can seem to change personality categories; and who's to say they haven't if for all practical purposes they have?).*
> 
> You're right that how people perceive themselves and how they actually are are often two very separate things, which will also affect the variability for how people score on personality tests. But, people can also change personality category types (in terms of measurable outcomes), even *though they haven't changed their relative natural tendencies.*
> 
> ETA: Made it shorter and more relevant.


Well, it seems that we mostly have a philosophical disagreement here.

I think that your type is about those natural tendencies, and not about results or objective/measurable categories. I'm more interested in the natural tendencies and mechanisms underlying what's objective... I don't care about actual behavior or skills relevant to a particular function. Those aren't at the core of what I believe is most relevant.

But certainly, I believe that a Thinker can develop Feeling-related skills to the point that they _seem_ like a Feeler and it changes some of their attitudes. I just don't happen to think that constitutes a type change, because I don't believe your type is defined by what you develop skills in or how you behave.


----------



## militantsparrow (Jul 11, 2013)

Powerhouse said:


> I would recommend you to identify your dominant function and auxiliary functions from a test first before narrowing down possible types.


I have taken a few, but my results seem to vary quite a bit. Do you have a preference--a test you find more accurate? I have used Keys2Cognition and the one from this site.


----------



## militantsparrow (Jul 11, 2013)

Randomasd said:


> I think you are a feeler (and don't feel you are a thinker eh). It's mostly like Batman is typed a feeler, strong NF motivations but usually act rational.
> 
> From motivations comes objectives and from objectives actions. Maybe you are NF motivations > NF objectives > T for actions.


I can see that with Batman for sure. Good point.


----------



## militantsparrow (Jul 11, 2013)

> How so?  (I'm an ENTJ, want to be religious but just don't see enough evidence at the moment; I can conceptualise the existence of a God and some details as to its nature, but beyond that it just seems improbable).


I don't necessarily want to enter into a debate or come up with a defense about my religious beliefs. But my point is, my belief is the foundation. I can't explain it. I just believe. I've had personal experiences, but I believed before I did. However, that belief is the core and/or foundation. I can build from it using logic and reason to determine which "religion" I believe is correct. If God exists, which I believe, how does He manifest himself? How would He? Has anyone made the claim to be God? What supports the claim? And so on.


----------



## Aquamarine (Jul 24, 2011)

militantsparrow said:


> I have taken a few, but my results seem to vary quite a bit. Do you have a preference--a test you find more accurate? I have used Keys2Cognition and the one from this site.


Not really, but I suggest you read the descriptions of all 8 functions thoroughly, because you may be answering the questions wrongly. For instance, I used to confuse Fi questions with Ti, so I keep getting Fi-dom. Yet when I read the description of INFP and ENFP, it does not suit me at all.

Some questions may be vague, so I suggest that you also take a percentage MBTI test together with it and study the patterns of how you answer the questions.


----------

