# Are ISFJ closer to INTP than they are to ISFP because of similar functions?



## johncena (Aug 17, 2017)

What do you think?


----------



## Red Panda (Aug 18, 2010)

in my experience yes, but when vulnerable
they may be over-emotional in a way that resembles an ISFJ, like getting triggered over small things and maybe twisting things they would otherwise understand through their Ti and become hurt by them


----------



## Aluminum Frost (Oct 1, 2017)

Generally speaking, no. They have the same functions so you can get the two mixed up in that way but it really only usually happens if you don't know the person very well but can see what functions they use.


----------



## Aluminum Frost (Oct 1, 2017)

I think people usually have more in common when it comes to functions than letters but not always. As an ISTP I have more in common with ENFJs than I do with ESFJs or ENFPs even though by letters ENFJs are the exact opposite.


----------



## Soul Kitchen (May 15, 2016)

No, ISFJs are fundamentally different from INTPs through both a Jungian and MBTI perspective.

Jung believed that the auxiliary function shared the orientation of the dominant function, when sufficiently differentiated and developed in the consciousness. He considered the tertiary to mostly be unconscious and sharing the orientation of the inferior. He noted that sometimes the tertiary could be made conscious, but in being made conscious, it still carried the taint of the inferior.

The functions are better thought of not so much as eight functions completely separated by E/I, but instead the same four functions with varying proportions of E/I. For example, Jung noted that Extraverted Thinking types generally had a subjective factor to their thinking, and considered a pure Introverted Thinking type to have unconscious, extraverted functions.

In other words, to assert that ISFJ and ISFP would have completely different functions would not be Jungian, as they are both introverts who prefer S and F with an introverted lean. It is also not Jungian to assert that ISFJ and INTP use the same functions in a slightly different order, as their top two functions would be opposite, and they would share little in common beyond being introverts.

This viewpoint is also inconsistent with the MBTI dichotomies. ISFJs and ISFPs share a lot in common because they are both I + S + F + IS + IF + SF + ISF, while ISFJs are otherwise complete opposites of INTPs beyond both being introverts.


----------



## Red Panda (Aug 18, 2010)

Red Panda said:


> in my experience yes, but when vulnerable
> they may be over-emotional in a way that resembles an ISFJ, like getting triggered over small things and maybe twisting things they would otherwise understand through their Ti and become hurt by them


oh wow i completely misread the OP hahah @johncena i thought you asked if INTPs can behave like ISFJs


----------



## mp2 (Dec 18, 2016)

I don't know if ISFJs are more similar to INTPs or ISFPs, but it's something I've been wondering about a lot. I think they can defently be much more similar than what's often described. I think it might be something that's not either/or, but might depend on the individual. Where some ISFJs are going to me more INTP or ENTP like while others will be more ISFP like, with others even being more similar to ISTJs or INFPs. 

I don't think ISFJ/INTP is unique in this way, but that it's the same for INFP/ISTJ INTJ/ISFP and ENTP/ESFJ. I would think it would go in in a similar way, but those are the main ones from my experience, and I could be 100% wrong about this. h:

I've been confused by this though as I'm probably either INTP or ISFJ, and then if not, ENTP or ESFJ, but can't tell which one. Even if I only consider functions or only consider dichotomy, I still can't tell.


----------



## Eset (Jun 7, 2016)

> Are ISFJ closer to INTP than they are to ISFP because of similar functions?


Closer to ISFP in behavior, but closer to INTP in terms of how they think.


----------



## isfpisfp (Sep 10, 2017)

Resemble ISFP behavior but not as eccentric or rule breaking, can be equally as lazy and polite. Resemble INTP being quietly judgmental with their Ti. They way they speak is sort of similar to INTPs also, although INTPs usually have more depth to what they say


----------



## inregardstomyself (Mar 21, 2014)

Yes, I would believe so.

ISFJ's have a tendency to engage in Si-Ti loops, and INTP's in Ti-Si.

INTP's can be quite fond of their Si and in those moods, you could easily mistake them for a higher order Si user. ISFJ's can be very strong in Ti; if you venture over to the ISFJ forum you'll see quite a few posters that you would confuse for INTP's.

I think it depends on the ISFJ/INTP though. Thinking back, the more Fe heavy ISFJ's probably give off more of the SF vibes that make them resemble ISFP's. But ISFJ's with very well developed introverted functions (engaging that Si-Ti) will be more likely to resemble INTP's. Similar to how INFJ's with high Ti start to give off IxTP vibes.


----------



## Turi (May 9, 2017)

ISFJs and INTPs are nothing alike and don't think alike either imo.

The idea that the two types share more similarities than an ISFP and an ISFJ - two types who have to select the same answers in tests to receive ISFx results, obviously - is beyond preposterous and not supported by any credible research.


----------



## mp2 (Dec 18, 2016)

Turi said:


> ISFJs and INTPs are nothing alike and don't think alike either imo.
> 
> The idea that the two types share more similarities than an ISFP and an ISFJ - two types who have to select the same answers in tests to receive ISFx results, obviously - is beyond preposterous and not supported by any credible research.


I often score INTP on tests, and never score ISFJ or ISFP. People in person even think I'm INTP, including one professor back in college that had been using MBTI as a teaching tool for over 20 years and went over the results to a very long, drawn out test(not sure what test it was, it was a paper test) with everyone individually. This might not be common though, but I don't think it would be so uncommon to be considered preposterous, but it's hard to tell, and people can work with different definitions of preposterous so I'm not sure if you're saying it's impossible or just very unlikely, but I still wouldn't say it's really _that_ unlikely. :idunno:


----------



## Turi (May 9, 2017)

mp2 said:


> I often score INTP on tests, and never score ISFJ or ISFP. People in person even think I'm INTP, including one professor back in college that had been using MBTI as a teaching tool for over 20 years and went over the results to a very long, drawn out test(not sure what test it was, it was a paper test) with everyone individually. This might not be common though, but I don't think it would be so uncommon to be considered preposterous, but it's hard to tell, and people can work with different definitions of preposterous so I'm not sure if you're saying it's impossible or just very unlikely, but I still wouldn't say it's really _that_ unlikely. :idunno:


It's beyond preposterous, about as ridiculous as consistently typing as an INTP, being professionally? typed as an INTP and then typing yourself as an ISFJ due to what - some technicality related to "cognitive functions" that are practically disproven and not supported by any credible studies or research.

Which more accurately reflects "you"?


----------



## mp2 (Dec 18, 2016)

Turi said:


> It's beyond preposterous, about as ridiculous as consistently typing as an INTP, being professionally? typed as an INTP and then typing yourself as an ISFJ due to what - some technicality related to "cognitive functions" that are practically disproven and not supported by any credible studies or research.
> 
> Which more accurately reflects "you"?


Not neccessarily based on cognitive functions, but even with dichotomy alone I lean towards ISFJ. I've spent a lot of effort trying to combine them and look at them separately , along with Enneagram and Socionics. I admit, I very well could just be confused with understanding myself and/or the theory, but it seems less likely the more time goes by. :blushed: 

I could be wrong about this too, you appear to know the test/processes better than I do. But, I think there are _so_ many more aspects to a person's personality that we are currently unable to measure. I wouldn't say it's preposterous for anyone to test differently on any axis or even appear as any of the other 15 different types. For any possible combination of two types appearing similar or any type mistyping or getting incorrect test results, I don't think there's a single preposterous one. Improbable, unlikely, or unusual, sure, but not preposterous. 

Also, I could be completely wrong about this, but I get the idea that MBTI only deals with natural preferences. But, humans are complex creatures and I don't think we always live by our natural preferences. It seems like people can be less open to this idea with the S/N axis than they are with other axes, especially with I/E and P/J. It seems like part of the difficulty with dichotomy is separating natural preference from learned preference. 

I could be looking at it the wrong way and mistyping myself, but ISFJ makes more sense, even though in many ways I'm more N, T, and P. But I don't view these as my natural preferences, just learned preferences. :thinking2:

To answer the questions: 

1. I enjoys exploring abstract ideas and possibilities. 

2. I like information to be presented in the form of details. 

3. I focus on the present and enjoy things as they are. 

4. Contribute creative ideas, following my inspiration. 

5. I proceed in a random fashion, missing out unnecessary steps. 

6. An idealist, with extreme, with my head in the clouds. 

7. I tend to use things for the purpose they were intended. 

8. Sets goals that are specific for what's about to be achieved. 

9. Prefer to invent my own solutions. 

Also, on different tests, I'm always confused by the difference between "prefer" and "enjoy". Because many things I prefer I wouldn't say I enjoy, and many things I enjoy I wouldn't say I prefer.


----------



## Turi (May 9, 2017)

mp2 said:


> Not neccessarily based on cognitive functions, but even with dichotomy alone I lean towards ISFJ. I've spent a lot of effort trying to combine them and look at them separately , along with Enneagram and Socionics. I admit, I very well could just be confused with understanding myself and/or the theory, but it seems less likely the more time goes by. :blushed:
> 
> I could be wrong about this too, you appear to know the test/processes better than I do. But, I think there are _so_ many more aspects to a person's personality that we are currently unable to measure. I wouldn't say it's preposterous for anyone to test differently on any axis or even appear as any of the other 15 different types. For any possible combination of two types appearing similar or any type mistyping or getting incorrect test results, I don't think there's a single preposterous one. Improbable, unlikely, or unusual, sure, but not preposterous.
> 
> ...


I haven't got time to respond "properly", but the kind of analytic criticism and emphasis on definitions you employed in this post indicates an innate preference for T, imo.


----------



## Aluminum Frost (Oct 1, 2017)

mp2 is right, Turi is wrong, the sky is blue, the sun is hot, class dismissed.


----------



## Mr Castelo (May 28, 2017)

No, they process the world in a vastly different way. The functions might be the same, but the positions that they're in drastically change how one works in relation to another.

ISFJs lead with Si, which is a *Perceiving* function that uses *Sensing* to interpret data.
INTPs lead with Ti, which is a *judging* Function that uses *Thinking* to organize data.

The only similarity in those functions is that they're both introverted, but this is already obvious because both types are introverted.

The first two functions are the ones who shape your cognitive process the most, and both ISFJs and ISFPs use Sensing and Feeling in different orders to process the world. INTPs use Thinking and Intuition first, so it's unlikely that you will confuse the two -- unless they're in a unbalanced state of mind, which is not their default.

Edit:

I will say, though, that they do share some similarities beyond just functions. Both ISFJs and INTPs tend to be rather passive, and, sometimes, child-like in their demeanor. Also, depending on external factors, like Enneagram type or upbringing, you can confuse the two. For example, female INTPs might be taught to act more like SFJs, and male ISFJs might be taught to act more like STPs due to gender roles. But those cases are the exceptions rather than the rule.


----------



## Turi (May 9, 2017)

Aluminum Frost said:


> mp2 is right, Turi is wrong, the sky is blue, the sun is hot, class dismissed.


I'm bang on target, as always.


----------



## Aluminum Frost (Oct 1, 2017)

Turi said:


> I'm bang on target, as always.


How? This was about functions, not letters.


----------



## Turi (May 9, 2017)

Aluminum Frost said:


> How? This was about functions, not letters.


Exactly - I've targeted the actual problem.
Too much wankery with regards to "functions".
Nobody can even define them without some dickhead complaining about it so there's got to be zero credibility in their validity for this reason alone, lol.

ISFJs and ISFPs share infinitely more in common than ISFJs and INTPs who's only similarity is introversion.

Outside of that, they gather information differently, they make decisions differently and they approach the outside world differently.

Anyone who thinks ISFJs share more in common with an INTP than an ISFJ is out of their mind.


----------



## Aluminum Frost (Oct 1, 2017)

Turi said:


> One that isn't applicable in this context, though.


You didn't back up your claims so I don't think you understand the meaning.


----------



## Aluminum Frost (Oct 1, 2017)

goamare said:


> Oh wow, see who's baseless here. My job is done, have fun wasting time.


So long as I'm no longer talking to you I wont be.


----------



## inregardstomyself (Mar 21, 2014)

It's like watching Battle of the Ti.

C'mon guys, I promise it's not that serious! Why can't we all just get along?


----------



## Aluminum Frost (Oct 1, 2017)

For some people letters work better, for others functions work better, fair?


----------



## Turi (May 9, 2017)

Aluminum Frost said:


> You didn't back up your claims so I don't think you understand the meaning.


I figured anybody could just look it up themselves.

Model A - Wikisocion

For an ISFJ, Se is their Ignoring function, and Fi is their Demonstrative function - these two position form what is known as the "Id" block - functions, which are _strong_, but unconscious and not _valued_.
So, like the ISFP - they possess both strong Se and Fi - however, unlike the ISFP, they don't _value_ Se and Fi.


Ti is their Activating function, and Ne is their Suggestive function - these form what is known as the "Super-Id" block - _weak_, unconscious functions - but, valued.
So, unlike the INTP - they do _not_ possess strong Ti and Ne - they value them, but they're weak and more to the point, they're weaker than Fi and Se in an ISFJ.

Now, to bring the ISFP into it - their Ti and Ne form what is known as the "Super-Ego" block, which are functions that are weak and not valued, but, conscious - btw, the ISFP has _strong_ but not valued and not conscious - Si and Fe.

So no matter how you try and look at it, through whatever model you so please - ISFJs do not share more similarities with INTPs, than ISFPs do.

Both ISFP and ISFJs have _weak_ Ti *and* Ne.
Both ISFP and ISFJs have _strong_ Si, Se, Fi and Se.

INTPs have _weak_ Si, Se, Fi and Fe.

I can't even force your argument to work by shifting to alternate models or typology theories.

Even if I shift it to become ISFj = MBTI ISFJ for example - it's the same functions that are weak/strong, the only thing that changes is whether they're conscious or valued.


----------



## Aluminum Frost (Oct 1, 2017)

Turi said:


> I figured anybody could just look it up themselves.
> 
> Model A - Wikisocion
> 
> ...


We weren't talking about socionics but ok, that's interesting, good work Turi!  *pats head*


----------



## Turi (May 9, 2017)

Aluminum Frost said:


> We weren't talking about socionics but ok, that's interesting, good work Turi!  *pats head*


That's actually the point I'm making - I can't even force your argument to be valid, even if I stray from conventional MBTI theory.


----------



## Aluminum Frost (Oct 1, 2017)

Turi said:


> That's actually the point I'm making - I can't even force your argument to be valid, even if I stray from conventional MBTI theory.


All you did was use another system and say its tenets disprove the tenets of another system, just because.


----------



## Turi (May 9, 2017)

Aluminum Frost said:


> All you did was use another system and say its tenets disprove the tenets of another system, just because.


 @goamare disproved it using the 'cognitive function' theory, that you subscribe to.

It's clearly not supported by a dichotomy approach, in which there are 3 of 4 preferences in opposite directions - so, little to no similarities between ISFJ and INTP via dichotomy - whereas, there's only 1 difference between ISFP and ISFJ, ergo, ISFJ and ISFP are more similar to each other than INTP and ISFJ via dichotomy.

I disproved it using the Socionics approach to valued/unvalued functions and function strengths - which again suggests more similarities between ISFJ and ISFP, than between INTP and ISFJ (or ISFP, for that matter).


How many more systems/models of personality theory does it take, exactly?


----------



## Aluminum Frost (Oct 1, 2017)

Turi said:


> @goamare disproved it using the 'cognitive function' theory, that you subscribe to.
> 
> It's clearly not supported by a dichotomy approach, in which there are 3 of 4 preferences in opposite directions - so, little to no similarities between ISFJ and INTP via dichotomy - whereas, there's only 1 difference between ISFP and ISFJ, ergo, ISFJ and ISFP are more similar to each other than INTP and ISFJ via dichotomy.
> 
> ...


You can't use how one system works to disprove another. That's like using the Bible to disprove the Qur'an. And the point was ISFJs and INTPs process information in a more similar manner, thus are more similar. Than ISFPs and ISFJs who don't think the same at all.


----------



## Turi (May 9, 2017)

Aluminum Frost said:


> You can't use how one system works to disprove another. That's like using the Bible to disprove the Qur'an. And the point was ISFJs and INTPs process information in a more similar manner, thus are more similar. Than ISFPs and ISFJs who don't think the same at all.


Your argument was already disproven earlier in the thread, by the poster I tagged - using your preferred method of typology.

You then stated this:



Aluminum Frost said:


> ISFJ has more Ti and Ne than Fi and Se


The relative strength of Ti and Ne, in an ISFJ was already destroyed in the post you were referring to according to the personality theory you subscribe to, so I decided to venture out into alternate models of personality theory to find out if what you said had an ounce of truth to it elsewhere - this required venturing into an 8 function model, as to explore the strengths of Fi and Se in an ISFJ - one has to identify where those positions fit in, and how they work - as they're not a part of the Harold Grant stack.

The 8 function models are either Socionics, or the John Beebe model - I chose Socionics as it was the most relevant (explained below) - and there, I still found that Fi and Se are _stronger _in an ISFJ than Ti and Ne.

In the John Beebe model, Se and Fi are the 5th (Opposing) and 6th (Critical Parent) roles of the ISFJ, respectably - the Beebe model doesn't really work with "strengths" of functions, rather they are roles that 'appear' depending on your circumstances, I don't believe that there is such a thing as "more" of one function than another, according to the Beebe model - but I might be wrong, it's been a few weeks since I did any reading on it.

I was left with the impression the functions are essentially archetypes, characters, if you will - not 'strengths' - this is why I didn't see the Beebe model as relevant, because you mentioned ISFJs having "more" Ti and Ne than Fi and Se - and the idea of "more" doesn't really fit this model - I definitely could be wrong here, like I said.


----------



## Asd456 (Jul 25, 2017)

Turi said:


> I figured anybody could just look it up themselves.
> 
> Model A - Wikisocion
> 
> So no matter how you try and look at it, through whatever model you so please - ISFJs do not share more similarities with INTPs, than ISFPs do.


So you're quoting Socionics but you're spreading misinformation and contradicting yourself because you actually don't know what you're talking abut.

According to Socionics, ISFJ (SEI) and INTP (LII) are alphas. ISFP (ESI) is gamma. Therefore, SEI and LII are more similar because they are alphas. ISFP (ESI) is an outlier because ISFP (ESI) is a gamma. 

Alpha = ILE, SEI, ESE, and LII and Gamma = SEE, ILI, LIE, and ESI.


----------



## Turi (May 9, 2017)

Asd456 said:


> So you're quoting Socionics but you're spreading misinformation and contradicting yourself because you actually don't know what you're talking abut.
> 
> According to Socionics, ISFJ (SEI) and INTP (LII) are alphas. ISFP (ESI) is gamma. Therefore, SEI and LII are more similar because they are alphas. ISFP (ESI) is an outlier because ISFP (ESI) is a gamma.
> 
> Alpha = ILE, SEI, ESE, and LII and Gamma = SEE, ILI, LIE, and ESI.


Intentionally focused on 'functions' as that's the argument presented by @Aluminum Frost - therefore the only one I see relevant.
But by all means, douche away.


----------



## Asd456 (Jul 25, 2017)

@Turi Lol. In other words, you still don't understand what you're talking about and where you went wrong. That Te polr is strong. Have fun spreading more misinformation. By now, I just hope people are smart enough to not take you seriously.


----------



## Ocean Helm (Aug 25, 2016)

@Asd456 Socionics doesn't say that SEI is closer to LII than it is to ESI. Some socionicists may believe that but they'd be in the minority. 

At least understand that the first-tier dichotomies are the Jungian ones, and ISFp is not usually going to be seen as very close to INTj, and especially not closer to INTj than it is to ISFj: Dichotomies - Wikisocion (link)

There's this prevailing idea that because they have shared values (this isn't even uncontested) that SEI and LII will get along but not because they are similar outside of their shared values. See: Basic categories of Socionics - International Institute of Socionics (link)


----------



## Asd456 (Jul 25, 2017)

Ocean Helm said:


> @Asd456 Socionics doesn't say that SEI is closer to LII than it is to ESI.


What are you talking about?

Here is a copy and paste word-for-word:

A quadra is a group of four socionic types which have the same valued elements (i.e. the same elements as their 1st, 2nd, 5th, and 6th functions). The same intertype relations exist between the types of any quadra: identity, dual, activation, and mirror. These relations are generally favorable, with types sharing similar or compatible strivings, unspoken values, and expectations for interaction. The socion contains four quadras:

Alpha
Beta
Gamma
Delta

Socionics Quadras



Ocean Helm said:


> Some socionicists may believe that but they'd be in the minority.


Is that so? Where did you hear that from? 



Ocean Helm said:


> At least understand that the first-tier dichotomies are the Jungian ones, and ISFp is not usually going to be seen as very close to INTj, and especially not closer to INTj than it is to ISFj: Dichotomies - Wikisocion (link)


Refer to the above regarding alpha, beta, gamma, and delta.


----------



## Ocean Helm (Aug 25, 2016)

Aluminum Frost said:


> We're talking about cognitive functions. Ni and Si by themselves are P functions.


Which means nothing with regards to how they are supposed to correlate to MBTI types. Even though they represent the act of perceiving in an abstract sense, they are supposed to represent how Judgers do perceiving.


> The logic you're operating under yes, doesn't matter, fact remains I and T correlate more to S, that's what the statistics say. Not really, what you're saying hasn't always lined up with statistics.


Once you further divide the types into all the combinations of those three letters, then those statistics become irrelevant.

The probability of an INT type being N is 100%. If you understand conditional probability (link) then how these things should be interpreted should make more sense, however I can't teach rather complex topics that you really have to wrap your head around.


> I edited my comment btw. Se is a P function and it's very N like by letters, so why do you score low on it?


Well, Se is described as being concrete, sensory, and extraverted which are not things I can relate to very well. There are a lot of ENxPs in particular who do relate a lot to Se descriptions though. But a lot of these descriptions are more Keirsey-based which is related to, but not, MBTI.


> Yes, you try to argue that you'd score high on introverted functions because you're an introvert. But since you don't score high on Si now you change the argument to "because letter correlations"


In general I do score high on introverted functions. My top three best-fit MBTI functions are all introverted.


----------



## Ocean Helm (Aug 25, 2016)

@Asd456 nowhere does anything you pasted say that quadras should supersede Jungian dichotomies when deciding what types are more "similar" overall. There's mainly just the "shared values" and values are only one piece of the bigger picture.


----------



## Asd456 (Jul 25, 2017)

@Ocean Helm First of all, you just shifted your claim. That's my cue to stop paying attention to you.


----------



## Ocean Helm (Aug 25, 2016)

@Asd456 I shifted what I was talking about to address what you said. Please try again.


----------



## VoodooDolls (Jul 30, 2013)

Actually think this way: intps might find the lack of natural brainstorming in the ISFJ to be boring. ISFJs might find the lack of natural social skills / rule blending to be rude and disturbing. INTPs look at ISFPs and they can't interpret anything about them, just because they can't feel what they can't think. ISFPs are a big unsolved misery of evolution if anything, not worth exploring its madness.


----------



## Ocean Helm (Aug 25, 2016)

VoodooDolls said:


> Yes. They share same functions so they are more similar to intp. Ask yourself which is more similar to intp: esfjs or esfps you get it.


If your argument is going to be that INTPs are closer to ESFJ than anything, you'll need to bring some kind of evidence into this which I don't think you'll be able to do at all. What is one thing that INTPs share in common with ESFJs that can be backed up with evidence?


> ISFJs are a more feeling oriented version of the INTP.


No that'd be INFPs.


> ISFPs are more aggressive and violent, unspectable and reactive than Si types. They hate structure and have a hard time when it comes to valuing themselves on external matters, thats satisfying their soul and still being worth to humankind in realistic terms.
> On the other hand ISFJs love structure, the objective structure feelings provide, the group and the rules for belonging. Then also the structure of their puzzle senses, they are the diogenes that keeps society working for good and bad. In both extremes. When it's clean and when it's clusterfuck, either way that's Si.
> ISFJs repressed Ne will stop them from acting, as they don't have enough info, they'll keep collecting data, otherwise they'll be like "i don't know". Whereas repressed Ni will be like: why did you do that? : "i don't know, its just the way it goes".


You're saying INTP is supposed to relate with loving structure more than hating it? What is this madness?


----------



## Aluminum Frost (Oct 1, 2017)

Ocean Helm said:


> Huh, I am not using that to justify why I in particular would relate to these functions. It's more like why it would make sense for I (as a member of the INTP set) to relate to these functions to some degree. And you can really interchange Te, Se, and Si and it wouldn't make much of a difference. I think I went Si last because it describes an internal process which I don't find myself doing much, even being internally focused. And depending on how you look at Si it could just mean SJ and describe ESxJs as much as it does ISxJ, and being neither S nor J why should I be expected to relate to it very much at all?
> 
> If I was to rank in tiers it'd be:
> Ti
> ...


1. That's what I meant, you're very finicky when it comes to language. Si by itself just describes perception, same rule for the other perceiving and judging functions. So really relating to certain functions by letters is flawed. By letters it would look like this 

TJ
NP, FJ
NP
TJ, SP, SP
FJ

2. What straw-man, what are you talking about? You're not addressing the question, that's not what I asked you. If introverts and thinkers have traits more commonly associated with sensors than how can you know if a lot of the IxTx types that type as sensors are actually sensors as opposed to just looking more like a sensor?

3. The descriptions don't contradict one another, you make them out to be radically different.

4. What does that matter? Are the descriptions not "official" enough for you? If people relate to them and can see that it fits other people are they not legitimate? 

Could that perhaps have to do with the fact that the description of N and openness that you're using are so intertwined?

5. Se and Keirsey's SP are pretty similar, yes, it leans E but it's still accurate. It's not like openness which says if you score high on it that you're both more extraverted and more introspective, more abstract but also more open to things like indulging in concrete reality and just being focused on what's around you in general.


----------



## Turi (May 9, 2017)




----------



## Aluminum Frost (Oct 1, 2017)

Turi in a nutshell http://gaurarader.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/10/1376977_516512691769815_621875082_n.jpg


----------



## Turi (May 9, 2017)

I am way less serious than you seem to think.


----------



## DOGSOUP (Jan 29, 2016)

Alesha said:


> Not at all. Duty-bound, hard working and traditional ISFJs like independent (non-traditional) objective and creative thinking INTPs? Not at all.
> I'm wondering what prompted the question. Did you want them to be alike?


Afaik, we are talking about how a preference for the same functions in the stack could make all the difference, so MBTI/Keirsey/other stereotypes can safely be ignored.

I could pose a counter question for people who indulge in typology:_ do you want them to be... different?_


----------



## Reila (Jan 17, 2017)

Alesha said:


> Not at all. Duty-bound, hard working and traditional ISFJs like independent (non-traditional) objective and creative thinking INTPs? Not at all.
> I'm wondering what prompted the question. Did you want them to be alike?


Look at all those borderline useless stereotypes that say absolutely nothing about both types.


----------



## Ocean Helm (Aug 25, 2016)

Aluminum Frost said:


> 1. That's what I meant, you're very finicky when it comes to language.


Of course I am. Not being finicky in situations like this changes the logic behind statements, which can lead to inaccuracy and misunderstanding.

Because you aren't grasping the precise logic, you are attacking me for things that you are equating to what I say, even though they are things that I would never say.

So perhaps it would be in your interest to be more finicky, or else you can continue these endless senseless arguments.


> Si by itself just describes perception, same rule for the other perceiving and judging functions.


Si, in theory, is supposed to represent perception, but this is irrelevant.

We were talking about what Si would correlate with, and that means, what MBTI letters would we expect from people who are strong in Si? Sensing, Judging, and perhaps to a lesser degree Introversion.


> So really relating to certain functions by letters is flawed. By letters it would look like this
> 
> TJ
> NP, FJ
> ...


No, you are relating Ti to TJ. Yet who has the strongest Ti in MBTI? Not TJs.

From a correlation standpoint, it'd look like this (not counting E/I as much because ExTPs are supposed to be the 2nd strongest Ti users):
iTP
iNJ, iFP
eNP
eTJ, eSP, iSJ
eFJ

Let's just take INTP and use a half point for lowercase E/I correlations, and a full point for the uppercase other correlations, and create total scores:
Ti (iTP) = 2.5
Ne (eNP) = 2.0
Fi (iFP) / Ni (iNj) = 1.5
Se (eSP) / Te (eTJ) = 1.0
Si (iSJ) = 0.5
Fe (eFJ) = 0.0

This isn't totally like my order but for the most part it's very similar to it.


> 2. What straw-man, what are you talking about? You're not addressing the question, that's not what I asked you. If introverts and thinkers have traits more commonly associated with sensors than how can you know if a lot of the IxTx types that type as sensors are actually sensors as opposed to just looking more like a sensor?


What I mean is Introverts and Thinkers are more likely to be Sensers, and when a dichotomous interpretation is used (which is all that I see for population distributions), that is what it means for I and T to correlate with S.

But once you know someone is I and T, but also N, that correlation becomes irrelevant. How N that INTs score on average on a continuous (non-dichotomous) scale is not something that I know the answer to, because I haven't found any MBTI research on it. It's theoretically possible that INTJs have a higher average N score than ENFPs. I just don't see research that covers this question.


> 3. The descriptions don't contradict one another, you make them out to be radically different.


They do though. Jung's Ni and Si type descriptions and recap of them clearly describe P preference, while MBTI Ni and Si are defined as dominant for those with the letter J.

Jung's Ti type description clearly describes J preference, while MBTI Ti is defined as dominant for those with the letter P.

Jung and MBTI have these conflicts and those who adhere to one over the other end up contradicting each other when it comes to defining traits for the types. Socionics even explicitly defines Pi-leaders as "perceivers" and Ji-leaders as "judgers".


> 4. What does that matter? Are the descriptions not "official" enough for you? If people relate to them and can see that it fits other people are they not legitimate?


It matters because when people are describing evaluations based on standards which fundamentally differ so much as if they are the same thing, it leads to massive confusion.

It isn't wise to take anecdotal evidence very seriously for numerous reasons, including the strong effect of bias in such a subjective topic, as well as the sample size concerns. So yes while truths are often observed first in an anecdotal sense, it is near impossible to conclusively sort out reality from bias in situations like this. I bet you probably don't believe in astrology either yet there are a lot of people who "relate to it and see that it fits other people". But is it "legitimate"?

There's many reasons why anecdotal evidence should be handled with caution.


> Could that perhaps have to do with the fact that the description of N and openness that you're using are so intertwined?


Openness was developed from bottom up based on lexical theory. The valuable stuff written about Openness is based on credible research. The descriptions themselves are hardly important at all in Big 5 theory. You shouldn't approach Big 5 as if it were the "pick your type from descriptions" kind of MBTI.

And in my opinion the most valuable part of MBTI information is the also the stuff backed up by credible research, although of course around places like this, people don't place a particularly high value on it.

The set of people who score high in Intuition and the set of people who score high in Openness do share, on average, a lot of similar traits with one another, which is not surprising, seeing as the two statistically correlate at a high degree. So I'd expect accurate stereotyped descriptions of the two to be quite similar.


> 5. Se and Keirsey's SP are pretty similar, yes, it leans E but it's still accurate. It's not like openness which says if you score high on it that you're both more extraverted and more introspective, more abstract but also more open to things like indulging in concrete reality and just being focused on what's around you in general.


Incomplete correlation never says "you are". Instead it says "you're more likely to". But if you keep categorizing this distinction as finicky and subsequently ignoring it, then you will keep arguing against straw men.


----------



## Intpthethinker (Jan 6, 2018)

I'm an INTP and my best friend is ISFP, her sister is ISFJ. When i think about it i share some similarities with ISFJ, but she still shares a lots of things with ISFP, maybe a bit more than with me. But this could be that they are sisters, i'm not very sure right now.


----------



## kjdaniels (May 14, 2017)

I’m an ISFJ and have a pretty close INTP friend so I’ll throw in my 2 cents. I’ll say I do think ISFJ and INTP are somewhat alike because of shared functions. For example, a lot of times I can surprisingly understand my INTP friend’s logic and reasoning (Ti). Another example, he can understand where I come from when I use (Fe). However, we are also different in how we make decisions and take in information. I’m a lot more matter of the fact, warm, practical, and caring. Whereas he is more abstract and objective. So I think ISFJs and INTPs are similar but also different at the same time. 

I don’t have much experience with ISFPs but I have an ESFP close friend to. Like the ISFP, we don’t share any functions there have been plenty of misunderstandings. But back to the original question I think we are pretty similar to ISFPs except they are more spontaneous 


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## Sky_Nova_20 (Sep 10, 2017)

If people would go by dichotomy, then the answer is definitely no. However, since ISFJ's and INTP's share the same cognitive functions, then a tiny bit. But I wouldn't say they're very similar though. If you don't count the tertiary and inferior functions, since they're much weaker than your dominant and auxiliary, then it's going to be a lot different than you think it is. There are differences between dominant Ti and tertiary Ti and auxiliary Fe and inferior Fe. While they're the same functions, they're manifested massively different from each other, mainly because they prefer one to the other. ISFP's and ISFJ's still have a preference sensing and feeling, despite having completely different cognitive functions. They can act similar though, even with different thought processes. As for Ti-Si/Si-Ti loops though, INTP's and ISFJ's can appear a little more similar, but I've heard that many people talking about MBTI don't really believe in these loops. Some people do, some people don't and I'm not very sure about this myself. But my final answer would probably be a no.


----------



## myjazz (Feb 17, 2010)

johncena said:


> What do you think?


Personality wise yes.

Mainly due to the ISFP being Dom Fi and INFJ AUX Fe. When this combination comes into play normally causes a noticeable shift between the two comparing Types in question.

INFJ would be more comparable with ISFJ than ISFP


----------



## Turi (May 9, 2017)

myjazz said:


> Personality wise yes.
> 
> Mainly due to the ISFP being Dom Fi and INFJ AUX Fe. When this combination comes into play normally causes a noticeable shift between the two comparing Types in question.
> 
> INFJ would be more comparable with ISFJ than ISFP


Ain't nobody talking about god damn INFJs.


----------



## myjazz (Feb 17, 2010)

Turi said:


> Ain't nobody talking about god damn INFJs.


Then what you call that ^ hum talking about it i would say.


Now lets act like you understood what I originally stated for a moment, taking a big leap here.

The question was is ISFJ similar to ISFP or more so to INTP. Since I already stated that more so to INTP than ISFP. Then I add'd within the equation that ISFJ would be more similar to INFJ. I feel like I need to break down the equation for you even more, so here it goes.
The original equation took ISFX thus taking the X factor for comparison in personality resemblance. MBTI or Personality theory doesn't really work that way. The 1st Letter which in this case is I - Introvert ,which is the same so there is that, but the last letter J and P makes a huge difference within MBTI coding. The 1st 2nd and 3rd letter can be exactly the same but this does not mean that the two Types in question will be the same or similar. If that last letter is the opposite so will be the two Types , opposite within the given Introverted sphere.
I would go on an explain some more , but I will wait and let you catch up. I understand your new to Typology so it ok that you have to take such vulgar ignorance in response instead of something that actually add's onto the topic.


----------



## spaceynyc (Feb 18, 2017)

Turi said:


> Ain't nobody talking about god damn INFJs.


you're definitely Fi PoLR lol


----------



## Turi (May 9, 2017)

myjazz said:


> Then what you call that ^ hum talking about it i would say.
> 
> 
> Now lets act like you understood what I originally stated for a moment, taking a big leap here.
> ...


LOL, you can wank out your reasoning for magically shifting the attention onto INFJs all you want, fact remains this was the topic title:



> Are ISFJ closer to INTP than they are to ISFP because of similar functions?


..what you were responding to, directly, which was the OP, not some comment that incorporated INFJs into the discussion:



> What do you think?


What you said:



> Personality wise yes.
> 
> Mainly due to the ISFP being Dom Fi and INFJ AUX Fe. When this combination comes into play normally causes a noticeable shift between the two comparing Types in question.
> 
> INFJ would be more comparable with ISFJ than ISFP


Lemme break this down for you, step-by-step like:

OP asked if ISFJs are closer to INTPs rather than ISFPs, due to 'functions'.
You respond with "yes, due to ISFP Fi and INFJ Fe, INFJ closer to ISFJ than ISFP".

Like I said, "ain't nobody talking about goddamn INFJs".


----------



## Turi (May 9, 2017)

spaceynyc said:


> you're definitely Fi PoLR lol


----------



## spaceynyc (Feb 18, 2017)

Turi said:


>


lmao classic ENTP response

nah but seriously its clicking with me that ENTP makes a lot of sense for you, and I think thats why you have such an affinity for Si.. I notice some people resent their inferior function and others admire it. I think you admire yours. Also explains your sense of humor as well. AND you mentioned your wife is an ESFJ which also makes a ton of sense


----------



## myjazz (Feb 17, 2010)

Turi said:


> LOL, you can wank out your reasoning for magically shifting the attention onto INFJs all you want, fact remains this was the topic title:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


So another words like i said you have no idea about the the subject of Typology hence your continuation of your childish behavior to make up for not knowing anything at all.


----------



## Baphomet (Apr 20, 2015)

Turi said:


> Ain't nobody talking about god damn INFJs.


Lol bro cmon man...you KNOW he meant ISFJ instead of INFJ within the 2nd sentence (It's the only way the post makes sense). I was intrigued by everything you were saying against frost guy, but at this point you have to admit...you're just looking for arguments lol.


----------



## Turi (May 9, 2017)

myjazz said:


> So another words like i said you have no idea about the the subject of Typology hence your continuation of your childish behavior to make up for not knowing anything at all.


A diversion? Nice.
But seriously ain't nobody talking about INFJs.
If it was a typo just say so.


----------



## Turi (May 9, 2017)

Baphomet said:


> Lol bro cmon man...you KNOW he meant ISFJ instead of INFJ within the 2nd sentence (It's the only way the post makes sense). I was intrigued by everything you were saying against frost guy, but at this point you have to admit...you're just looking for arguments lol.


Nah, that's the thing - he didn't mean ISFJ.
It was intentional, hence why he's getting on his high horse atm trying to defend it.


----------



## myjazz (Feb 17, 2010)

Turi said:


> A diversion? Nice.
> But seriously ain't nobody talking about INFJs.
> If it was a typo just say so.


Your every response was towards nothing but a diversion not a single anecdote of logic nor meaningful topic.


----------



## Turi (May 9, 2017)

myjazz said:


> Your every response was towards nothing but a diversion not a single anecdote of logic nor meaningful topic.


h:

I feel like I'm one of the only logical people here.

I feel like it's logic VS brick wall.


----------



## Baphomet (Apr 20, 2015)

Turi said:


> Nah, that's the thing - he didn't mean ISFJ.
> It was intentional, hence why he's getting on his high horse atm trying to defend it.


Lol nah dude, he is arguing because he thinks your remark was directed at his last sentence, because at that point he did intend to mention INFJ. He also just didn't/hasn't noticed the mistake because nobody pointed it out - I typically make gross unnoticed mistakes unless I triple check my post.

Just reading the paragraph as it is, it doesn't make any coherent sense. He is directly referring to the title when he is talking about INFJ's vs ISFP's but it's asif it should say ISFJ's vs ISFP's, it's just a typo.

EDIT: Lol nevermind, I knew you knew


----------



## myjazz (Feb 17, 2010)

It's intriguing that I am the only person who even attempted to bring any form of logic within response. The quality of minds just keeps going down hill on this site


----------



## Turi (May 9, 2017)

myjazz said:


> It's intriguing that I am the only person who even attempted to bring any form of logic within response. The quality of minds just keeps going down hill on this site


This is beyond preposterous.
You literally presented completely irrelevant nothingness.


----------



## myjazz (Feb 17, 2010)

Turi said:


> This is beyond preposterous.
> You literally presented completely irrelevant nothingness.


Yet again another illogical meaningless response.


----------



## Baphomet (Apr 20, 2015)

myjazz said:


> It's intriguing that I am the only person who even attempted to bring any form of logic within response. The quality of minds just keeps going down hill on this site


There is a typo in your first post, Turi is arguing against your typo instead of what you intended to convey. You will have to own up to it being a typo if you want him to address your true post, I'm saying this to save you time as well as to clear up your frustration, I hope it helps. Peace out guys.


----------



## myjazz (Feb 17, 2010)

The real preposterous concept within this whole thread is even implying that ISFJ and ISFP is similar.


----------



## myjazz (Feb 17, 2010)

Baphomet said:


> There is a typo in your first post, Turi is arguing against your typo instead of what you intended to convey. You will have to own up to it being a typo if you want him to address your true post, I'm saying this to save you time as well as to clear up your frustration, I hope it helps. Peace out guys.


There is countless typo's within this Forum I never heard it being used as an excuse for lack of understanding and knowing what the heck someone is talking about.

Thanks though 
oh and I am far from frustrated, humored maybe.


----------



## Turi (May 9, 2017)

myjazz said:


> There is countless typo's within this Forum I never heard it being used as an excuse for lack of understanding and knowing what the heck someone is talking about.
> 
> Thanks though
> oh and I am far from frustrated, humored maybe.


Well your typo brought INFJs into it hence my response, haha, which was a joke.

Then you defended it for some reason which was weird.


----------



## myjazz (Feb 17, 2010)

Turi said:


> Well your typo brought INFJs into it hence my response, haha, which was a joke.
> 
> Then you defended it for some reason which was weird.


A joke is still -on- you, now you jumping on the train that I typo'd INFJ to further you inability muster a cohesive logical statement.


----------



## Turi (May 9, 2017)

myjazz said:


> A joke is still -on- you, now you jumping on the train that I typo'd INFJ to further you inability muster a cohesive logical statement.


You're trying to mystify me with bullshit.
Won't work.


----------



## myjazz (Feb 17, 2010)

Turi said:


> You're trying to mystify me with bullshit.
> Won't work.


Your trying to dismay the truth with degrading and poor etiquette as you have just like with Frost. With the fact you have little knowledge within this subject.

Won't work.


----------



## Ocean Helm (Aug 25, 2016)

myjazz said:


> The real preposterous concept within this whole thread is even implying that ISFJ and ISFP is similar.


Blasphemy against the Church of Harold Grant!


----------



## Aluminum Frost (Oct 1, 2017)

Honestly, letters measure 4 things, that's it. So it's not at all weird to say ISFJ is more similar to INTP. And by functions ISFJ and INTP share the same ones.


----------



## Soul Kitchen (May 15, 2016)

Ocean Helm said:


> Blasphemy against the Church of Harold Grant!


I almost died of laughter when I read that.


----------



## VoodooDolls (Jul 30, 2013)

Ocean Helm said:


> If your argument is going to be that INTPs are closer to ESFJ than anything, you'll need to bring some kind of evidence into this which I don't think you'll be able to do at all. What is one thing that INTPs share in common with ESFJs that can be backed up with evidence?
> 
> No that'd be INFPs.
> 
> You're saying INTP is supposed to relate with loving structure more than hating it? What is this madness?


nah i didn't say that


----------



## Ocean Helm (Aug 25, 2016)

VoodooDolls said:


> nah i didn't say that


Oh damn I used ambiguous language unintentionally. What I meant is if you're going to say that in MBTI, INTP is closer to ESFJ than [type], you are making a baseless claim unless there is evidence that exists that I don't know about. Based on the evidence I see though, it seems very apparent to me that INTP is closer to ESFP than ESFJ.


----------



## VoodooDolls (Jul 30, 2013)

Ocean Helm said:


> Oh damn I used ambiguous language unintentionally. What I meant is if you're going to say that in MBTI, INTP is closer to ESFJ than [type], you are making a baseless claim unless there is evidence that exists that I don't know about. Based on the evidence I see though, it seems very apparent to me that INTP is closer to ESFP than ESFJ.


first of all how is it even relevant? they can't pass by neither

but... since ESFJ and INTPs they both share same functions then they are likely more similar. 
Se is a big difference. Si tries to waste as little energy as possible. 
So they both Ps? "i have no schedules", well. if you think procrastination is the major trait that defines types then sure.
but that's not the case. Fe is weak spot, Ti is weak spot. The purpose of both types is to balance the force of these two elements so they don't fucking disintegrate.
hey if you feel like an ESFP you can be an ESFP. just go to a random karaoke and expect little from a crazy night with strangers.


----------



## Turi (May 9, 2017)

VoodooDolls said:


> first of all how is it even relevant? they can't pass by neither
> 
> but... since ESFJ and INTPs they both share same functions then they are likely more similar.
> Se is a big difference. Si tries to waste as little energy as possible.
> ...


No, stop.


----------



## Aluminum Frost (Oct 1, 2017)

Turi said:


> No, stop.


He can speak his mind you big bully.


----------



## The red spirit (Sep 29, 2015)

To ISFP, mostly because ISFJs and INTPs attitudes are extremely different. Those driven by feelings are alien to those driven by logic. Meanwhile ISFJ even with not as so important F functions are similar to ISFPs. Due to both targeting feeling aspect of things. INTP isn't like that at all, the one with T will be opposing the ones with F. Then further down the road, ISFJ's Si will be complete opposite of INTPs Ne. So compared with ISFP, ISFJs are far more similar, just that their cognition is not exactly the same, but focus is similar and that's what matters the most.


----------



## Turi (May 9, 2017)

Aluminum Frost said:


> He can speak his mind you big bully.


It's a bunch of crap about cognitive functions which aren't credible and the entire post is a strawman argument based on circular reasoning.

This:


> but... since ESFJ and INTPs they both share same functions then they are likely more similar.


Is *not *proven nor supported by CPP Inc (official MBTI folks) because off the bat, the tertiary function is officially in the opposite direction to the dominant, which means then, that ESFJ and INTPs do _not _share the same functions.

I don't see a need for further consideration due to this alone - however, the official MBTI folk allow practitioners to basically just 'wing it' with regards to how they choose to view the tertiary function.

This then obviously highlights another clash - some practitioners view the tertiary function in the opposite direction to the dominant (for obvious, 'official stance' reasons) - so, that being said an INTP would then be Ti-Ne-Se-Fe in MBTI terminology to these people (and again, officially).

Does an ESFJ prefer Fe-Se-Ne-Ti, according to official sources?
Nope. They prefer Fe-Si-Ni-Ti.

No matter how I try to look at it, I can't even pretend that ESFJs and INTPs share the same 'functions' without jumping on the Grant&M8s train for literally no reason.

The only commonality between the two types officially is Ti and Fe being shared - this should be used to separate the two types as being completely different to each other, and not similar in any way, due to one being the dominant and preferred function of one type - and that same function being the weak, stress-inducing Achilles heel of the other.

It makes absolutely no sense to view this as a reason the types are similar - it should be viewed as a means of _distinguishing _the types beyond all doubt as being _opposites_, with no similarities.


----------



## Aluminum Frost (Oct 1, 2017)

Turi said:


> It's a bunch of crap about cognitive functions which aren't credible and the entire post is a strawman argument based on circular reasoning.
> 
> This:
> 
> ...


----------



## Turi (May 9, 2017)

Aluminum Frost said:


>


Was it bolding the word 'not', that evoked a particular impression, within you?


----------



## Rydori (Aug 7, 2017)

No, ISFJ are for sure in anyway not related to INTP, INTPs have 3 letter difference while ISFP with ISFJ.


----------

