# INTP or INTJ!?!



## Timmah (Jul 25, 2010)

I've scored both on tests in the past save. When I read descriptions I can identify points in both but most profiles seem too narrow to choose. I have two friends that fit into both INTJ and INTP. I see myself as in between. So any help would be welcome.

Here's a little about me to help get a better picture


I know I score introversion a lot, and that is pretty certain. I've been to parties/gatherings/etc. and honestly stuck to people I already knew. I'm the same way when working and at school. I'm certainly the most outgoing of the group as I'm usually the one to arrange stuff.
I've been told I think too much, so I know that the thinking preference is there. People have told me I can be cold, logical, and most of the traditional key points for that dictotomy. One thing that has stood out in most of the jobs and classes is the trait of calmness which from what I've read is a NT thing.
The reason I get told I'm INTP is that family and friends see me as less consistent when compared to my INFJ sister. That and the point that I'm able to concentrate.
The reason I flip to INTJ is mainly the fact that now that I'm more confident in myself, the more planning is important. I was a a little whimsical in high school but it didn't interfere with school. I avoided certain assingments more because I saw no purpose to them but memorization which I have since changed. Maturity certainly plays a factor into that but the first test I did was in High School and I scored INTJ then.
I have a certain head in the clouds kind of approach to life, yet it hasn't affected me like my INTP friend. He can be very ignorant of things like returning phone calls and ackloweging that your even talking to him.
Having taking the test about five years ago in High School and now in Psych classes in college, I'm bugged by just picking one. Maybe its denial. Maybe I see myself differently than others do. Curiosity did kill the cat so as it stands INTx seems the best fit. Sorry about the long windedness of the post, I just wanted to add enough to get a better picture. Any ideas or advice would help.


----------



## HandiAce (Nov 27, 2009)

The great divide between the INTJ and INTP is that one thinks more about implementing ideas and the other reacting to ideas.

Both types I believe would make do in an engineering. The INTP prefers it because as problem solvers, they get energy by reacting to what's at take in front of them and trying different things on whatever it is. 

INTJs would like it because they trust their visions. They have a knack for knowing whether a system or whatever is functioning or not and this provides feedback to their visions. That gives them direction.

INTPs like intelligence and learning for their own sake. Often, once a conclusion is jumped to, the search still isn't over to INTPs

INTJs like learning things for a specific gain. A conclusion jumped to is a satisfying feeling unless some other important evidence that disproves the conclusions comes up


----------



## waroop (Jul 25, 2010)

The difference between INTP and INTJ is night and day.

Socially, do the majority of people like you naturally and are you "easy going" - if so INTP.


----------



## waroop (Jul 25, 2010)

You sound more INTP to me reading the way you write.


----------



## Timmah (Jul 25, 2010)

*Clarity*



waroop said:


> You sound more INTP to me reading the way you write.


Took the cognitive functions test. It came out with Ne then Ti. I could be an ENTP but I'd have to look at the functions more. 



waroop said:


> The difference between INTP and INTJ is night and day.
> 
> Socially, do the majority of people like you naturally and are you "easy going" - if so INTP.


Yeah, I can get along with people pretty easily when I'm up for it.


----------



## Keno (Nov 24, 2009)

did you ever figure out your personality type?

anyway, taking a leaf out of another post since it went unused: INTPs are more afraid of failure - INTJs are more confident. i've seen a negative(?) comment on INTPs that referred to them as "unmotivated INTJs". INTJs usually devote more focus to certain areas in order to master them, while INTPs are rather strewn about.. INTJs focus on problems even after they understand them, INTPs seem to get bored with their method and lose motivation.

i also get an ENTP vibe.


----------



## Timmah (Jul 25, 2010)

*I' m pretty strewn about...*



Keno said:


> did you ever figure out your personality type?
> 
> anyway, taking a leaf out of another post since it went unused: INTPs are more afraid of failure - INTJs are more confident. i've seen a negative(?) comment on INTPs that referred to them as "unmotivated INTJs". INTJs usually devote more focus to certain areas in order to master them, while INTPs are rather strewn about.. INTJs focus on problems even after they understand them, INTPs seem to get bored with their method and lose motivation.
> 
> i also get an ENTP vibe.


I read about that confidence difference too. I have a friend that's INTJ and he was confident even when i met a long time ago. Its noticible confidence but certainly not always warranted. As far the second part of your post. Um...my brain is pretty darn random so that fits in quite well actually. I went with INTP over ENTP since even though its about functions, which something I'm not quite confident I know well enough to say, I'm less social than I figured an extrovert would be. I've seen a few threads on here about shy extroverts, and my two cents are that its not totally shyness as shyness is typically stereotyped. It more nerves and caution than the typical living in their own head. Anyways, I'm curious as to why you get an ENTP vibe?


----------



## Jerick (Mar 19, 2010)

The functions are supposed to determine I or E because introverted functions are focused more inward and extroverted functions are focused outward, so I and E behaviors should emerge.

I would say your best choice is INTP. I've scored as INTJ before, with a low J, and I scored ENTP on the cognitive functions test, but it's pretty inaccurate for most types.

Do you like getting things concrete so you can form long term plans, or do you only do plan as a necessity?

And, INTPs are only unmotivated if they haven't found something interesting and with enough depth to devote their attention to. We're generally either on or off. Specializing in one topic works much better then switching from following a schedule of doing this for 2 hours then something else for 2, etc.


----------



## Isis (Jul 8, 2010)

waroop said:


> The difference between INTP and INTJ is night and day.
> 
> Socially, do the majority of people like you naturally and are you "easy going" - if so INTP.


As someone who tests on the border of INTJ and INTP, just go with it. It's not a huge deal...sure, you'll have half a cupboard full of alphabetized spices and a sink full of mismatched dishes, but there are worse things.


----------



## jbking (Jun 4, 2010)

*My suggestion....*

Have you ever looked through the cognitive functions? This can be a useful way to see which way you are by taking a look at this from another angle, at least as I see it.

The other thought is the question of how you feel about structure and rules in the world? Do you follow a number of rules and structures, prefering organization time and time again or are you more likely to just roll with the punches and take whatever happens? While I may seem like I just roll with the punches, I tend to have many contingency plans ready at a moment's notice and launch into them at will. I enjoy having plans and strategies and being that tactician that is what I see as one view of an INTJ.


----------



## Jerick (Mar 19, 2010)

INTJ - Ni Te: Ni is used to build future based context based on impressions, and Te is used to organize plans based on empirical information. The judging function is Te and uses objective (external) information, which means it prefers things to be concrete (J).

INTP - Ti Ne: Ti is used to analyze the logic of an idea or information, then Ne is used to understand how the system works. Ti is the judging function and uses subjective (internal) information, which means it prefers flexibility (P).

So based on the functions, an INTJ will learn something until it satisfies their Ni, then they'll use what they learned to implement their plans with Te. An INTP will learn something by going back and forth between Ti and Ne until their Ti is satisfied, then they're done because the goal is to learn how the system works. The only time an INTP will continue work is if they see something about the system that they think needs to be improved.

You might also want to look over this page to get an idea of how the functions work together. http://personalitycafe.com/myers-briggs-forum/8121-beginners-guide-mbti.html



Timmah said:


> I'm bugged by just picking one.


That points to INTP.


----------



## Keno (Nov 24, 2009)

Timmah said:


> I read about that confidence difference too. I have a friend that's INTJ and he was confident even when i met a long time ago. Its noticible confidence but certainly not always warranted. As far the second part of your post. Um...my brain is pretty darn random so that fits in quite well actually. I went with INTP over ENTP since even though its about functions, which something I'm not quite confident I know well enough to say, I'm less social than I figured an extrovert would be. I've seen a few threads on here about shy extroverts, and my two cents are that its not totally shyness as shyness is typically stereotyped. It more nerves and caution than the typical living in their own head. Anyways, I'm curious as to why you get an ENTP vibe?


something about the way you came across suggested ENTP. plus ENTP is ne, ti, fe, si while INTP is ti, ne, si, fe. [note: INTJ is ni, te, fi, se.] it's probably not worthy of investigating, yet there's no harm in double-checking and it's not too hard to squash, so: do you recover/energize inwardly or outwardly, with solitude or stimuli? how much do you enjoy arguing? (ENTPs like it more than the average bear, i think.) if you want to stereotype, INTP are usually more "nerdy". ENTPs are audience-y (yes, i'm making up a word) and display it all to the world, INTPs are more reserved.

are you more ni or ne? ti or te?
INTPs remind me of philosophers.

have you taken a functions test? if so, what were the highest scores out of all the functions? or just the results of it, if you have it. it can be a lot easier to gauge what you are if you have percentages.

more leafing.


> Extraverted Thinking (Te):
> - Relies on objective facts outside the thinker as the decisive factor.
> - Abstract ideas have less importance.
> - Focuses on details, including irrelevancies.
> ...


----------



## Timmah (Jul 25, 2010)

*And it continues*



Jerick said:


> That points to INTP.


Lol, that's what I thought after posting the thread



Keno said:


> something about the way you came across suggested ENTP. plus ENTP is ne, ti, fe, si while INTP is ti, ne, si, fe. [note: INTJ is ni, te, fi, se.] it's probably not worthy of investigating, yet there's no harm in double-checking and it's not too hard to squash, so: do you recover/energize inwardly or outwardly, with solitude or stimuli? how much do you enjoy arguing? (ENTPs like it more than the average bear, i think.) if you want to stereotype, INTP are usually more *"nerdy"*. ENTPs are audience-y (yes, i'm making up a word) and display it all to the world, INTPs are more reserved.
> 
> are you more ni or ne? ti or te?
> INTPs remind me of philosophers.
> ...


That is one word I would not use to describe myself. I don't love arguing. The cognitive functions test said ENTP since my Ne was really high. People have said ENTP's can be some of the more introverted extroverts so I'll take their word on it. I haven't been the most outgoing person, but I've had a fairly decent sized circle of acquaintances since I was a kid. I guess I'm a more socialable loner if that's possible. I should say that my confidence eroded the past couple years due to some setbacks and have been building myself back up. I'm also not very reserved, I've had people tell I talk too much. Actually come to think about it I've been called a lot of things. Despite saying all of that I spent a lot of time in my head. I'm pretty certain I'm a non-nerdy but still INTP. I normally score close to the middle when it comes to everything on the MBTI tests.


----------



## Marco Antonio (Nov 25, 2008)

what about Ti dominant with Ni auxiliary just like Carl Jung :tongue:


----------



## Edmond Zedo (Jul 22, 2010)

^I would call Jung Ni dominant, based on his own definitions: Classics in the History of Psychology -- Jung (1921/1923) Chapter 10. And he was certainly INTP, which goes to show you how good MBTI function assignments are. 

Timmah, INTP fits better than INTJ.


----------



## NastyCat (Sep 20, 2009)

Marco Antonio said:


> what about Ti dominant with Ni auxiliary just like Carl Jung :tongue:


Is that even possible?


----------



## Keno (Nov 24, 2009)

Timmah said:


> That is one word I would not use to describe myself. I don't love arguing. The cognitive functions test said ENTP since my Ne was really high. People have said ENTP's can be some of the more introverted extroverts so I'll take their word on it. I haven't been the most outgoing person, but I've had a fairly decent sized circle of acquaintances since I was a kid. I guess I'm a more socialable loner if that's possible. I should say that my confidence eroded the past couple years due to some setbacks and have been building myself back up. I'm also not very reserved, I've had people tell I talk too much. Actually come to think about it I've been called a lot of things. Despite saying all of that I spent a lot of time in my head. I'm pretty certain I'm a non-nerdy but still INTP. I normally score close to the middle when it comes to everything on the MBTI tests.


you do seem more INTP than INTJ. i knew an ENTP that was rather laid back, though, so i didn't want to rule it out. you could always be introspective or going through a spell.

what about your ti, si, fi, ni, etc? you can (re)take the functions test here, if you want, and list the scores. if it's not a pain, 'cause it would help. for example, a high ne with low t doesn't usually indicate INTP, i don't think.


----------



## Timmah (Jul 25, 2010)

*Cognitive Function Result*

*Cognitive Process* *Level of Development (Preference, Skill and Frequency of Use)*
extraverted Sensing (Se) ***************************** (29.2) average use 
introverted Sensing (Si) *************************** (27.1) average use 
extraverted Intuiting (Ne) ********************************************* (45.4) excellent use 
introverted Intuiting (Ni) ***************************** (29) average use 
extraverted Thinking (Te) ******************** (20.1) limited use 
introverted Thinking (Ti) ************************************* (37.4) excellent use 
extraverted Feeling (Fe) ******************* (20) limited use 
introverted Feeling (Fi) ******************************* (31.2) good use

There's the result.


----------



## Marco Antonio (Nov 25, 2008)

Edmond Zedo said:


> ^I would call Jung Ni dominant, based on his own definitions: Classics in the History of Psychology -- Jung (1921/1923) Chapter 10. And he was certainly INTP, which goes to show you how good MBTI function assignments are.
> 
> Timmah, INTP fits better than INTJ.


Yes Jung comes to Ni dominance at certain point in his investigation around 1913 when he starts experiencing the collective unconscious and the archetypes, as he realizes the potential of within is starting to overcome his Logical Subjective consistency, and fears turning mad; even so in works before psychological types it is clearly that his tendency is towards Ti, even at the development of his Jungian Typology his first step is differentiating his thinking/ logical judging style from freud's objective point of view. At certain point a couple of year before during his thesis he shows a tendency towards an humanitarian mystical NF, possibly according to Ti dominance an attempt to experience a higher on his inferior Fe, specially because this tendency never appears again in any of his following works.
But this show he had Ti-Ni combo during later works as his main goal is trying to bring into subjective personal understanding his interpretation of psychospiritual beliefs like his work with Richard Wilhelm about the book of Tao.
as you read this you can see thorugh how personalized his thinking style is as well as how his intuition is directed towards the inside. Also in works like Psychology and Alchemy he demonstrates lots of Ti- Ni in the conclusions he arrives at; as you can see his consistency is logical but very subjective such as his language also very personalized. 



NastyCat said:


> Is that even possible?


ask yourself this: is Ti perceptible for outsiders? as you start differentiating Ti from Te
you realize that the actual factor of counterpointing is not present in the logical consistency but in the final direction the thinking has towards the subject. When thinking is subjectified it can also be perceived.
Also jungs tendency was towards the research of psychospiritual in a level of abstract theorizing and systematizing in such a way that the most important is the subject and not the object. This shouts out loud Ti-Ni, because the main goal being the psychological systematization and the second goal focusing on the unconsciousness of the subject and it's interpretation of the self.

This brings forth two consequences that counterpoint Myers Briggs theory.
The first one and most important is that Auxiliary functions don't need to necessarily be opposed in direction (I/E) because contrary to what it is assumed by Myers Briggs, Carl Jung does exemplify a Ti-Ni development during his life works, and so it is healthy enough. If he wasn´t healthy enough then we would be theorizing about madness right now and we all can somewhat notice his theories lie in the verge of what might be plausible perceptible as attitudes in most people we have dealt with.
This also solves the problem of typing Carl Jung as a INTP or INTJ, when in reality both seem to somewhat point towards the right direction. i would call Jung a Ti Dominant with Ni auxiliary as such. 

The second thing is that myers brigss assume Te function is somehow bounded to J dichotomy judging style. Nevertheless this is assumed because it is presumed that the world would perceive just extroverted attitudes in Introverts, leaving INTJ for example to forcibly present Ni-Te, the J indicating that Te is what is perceptible; but by doing this you automatically assume there are no INTP with Ni-Te preference, just because myers briggs said so. This is justified by saying that E/I dichotomies are bounded to J/P preference. Notice that myers brigss say nothing about this assumption (maybe just some circulus in probando). MBTI thus defines INTJ's functions by inference of these both dichomtomies, as opposed to jung's original approach of functional analysis. 



Timmah said:


> *Cognitive Process* *Level of Development (Preference, Skill and Frequency of Use)*
> extraverted Sensing (Se) ***************************** (29.2) average use
> introverted Sensing (Si) *************************** (27.1) average use
> extraverted Intuiting (Ne) ********************************************* (45.4) excellent use
> ...


Seems like Ne is dominant, but also awkwardly Fi is more present then Fe and Se then Si; these both go against both ENTP or INTP. Maybe not so high and since this test lets you judge you can get very subjectified confusing terms. 
Anyways probabilistically speaking it would seem rather possible that INTP applies, just from seeing this results


----------



## Edmond Zedo (Jul 22, 2010)

Marco Antonio said:


> Yes Jung comes to Ni dominance at certain point in his investigation around 1913 when he starts experiencing the collective unconscious and the archetypes, as he realizes the potential of within is starting to overcome his Logical Subjective consistency, and fears turning mad; even so in works before psychological types it is clearly that his tendency is towards Ti, even at the development of his Jungian Typology his first step is differentiating his thinking/ logical judging style from freud's objective point of view. At certain point a couple of year before during his thesis he shows a tendency towards an humanitarian mystical NF, possibly according to Ti dominance an attempt to experience a higher on his inferior Fe, specially because this tendency never appears again in any of his following works.
> But this show he had Ti-Ni combo during later works as his main goal is trying to bring into subjective personal understanding his interpretation of psychospiritual beliefs like his work with Richard Wilhelm about the book of Tao.
> as you read this you can see thorugh how personalized his thinking style is as well as how his intuition is directed towards the inside. Also in works like Psychology and Alchemy he demonstrates lots of Ti- Ni in the conclusions he arrives at; as you can see his consistency is logical but very subjective such as his language also very personalized.


I could easily make a convincing (to many) argument that he used Ti+Ne, or Ni+Te, or Fi+Ti, or anything else. The problem is, as long as we're using Jung's complex, abstruse function definitions which aren't perfectly differentiated, I believe it's pointless. I think even Jung himself realized that one was already "pushing it" to categorize mental processes the way he did, and thus stuck primarily to the first stage, the supposed dominant functions of individuals. 

Jung was brilliant, but he wasn't 100% accurate in his analyses. Someone using his work as a tool won't be 100% accurate in any specific case either. So the deeper you go, the more complex you get, the more inaccurate you're bound to be,* if* you started off at a reasonable place. Keep it simple(r than Jung did). To do that myself, I'll say your apparent thought processes are well-representative of Jung's Introverted Thinking function. Note that Jung's Ti is not the same as MBTI's Ti. MBTI's Ti is more like Jung's Ni.


----------



## Marco Antonio (Nov 25, 2008)

Edmond Zedo said:


> I could easily make a convincing (to many) argument that he used Ti+Ne, or Ni+Te, or Fi+Ti, or anything else. The problem is, as long as we're using Jung's complex, abstruse function definitions which aren't perfectly differentiated, I believe it's pointless. I think even Jung himself realized that one was already "pushing it" to categorize mental processes the way he did, and thus stuck primarily to the first stage, the supposed dominant functions of individuals.


hmm i think you might make an argument about it, but as i see it now the differentiation about functions is clearer for me as Jung pointed them, then as the mbti is approaching them, because of the J/P, I/E bounded confusion (fallacy).



> Jung was brilliant, but he wasn't 100% accurate in his analyses. Someone using his work as a tool won't be 100% accurate in any specific case either. So the deeper you go, the more complex you get, the more inaccurate you're bound to be,* if* you started off at a reasonable place. Keep it simple(r than Jung did). To do that myself, I'll say your apparent thought processes are well-representative of Jung's Introverted Thinking function. Note that Jung's Ti is not the same as MBTI's Ti. MBTI's Ti is more like Jung's Ni.


I agree about the human inaccurate analysis; again i see mbti as pushing it even further in the differentiation process. Why distributing J qualities in Te, and P qualities in Ti?? how do they come to such a conclusion? it seems to me this is where the river diverts and follows an alternate path from Jungs original approach; Can you clarify how Jungs Ti is like MBTI's Ni??
also brainstorming is associated with Ne functioning, while brainstorming's goal can also be directed inward (Ni) in the look for personal meaning.

In fact Jung "pure" types are more analogue to enneagram points then any mbti distribution could ever reach in the enneazones.
Anyways i see Ni differentation from Ne at best when using Jungs definitions. Also Te-Ti differences are only clear to me when using Jung's differentiation, that being where the logical process is directed towards, as opposed to mbti's belief of how the information is subject affected. The argument is that he did have a Ti-Ni approach as his subjectified knowledge from the 6 (1913-1919) years he invested in developing Ni are present in most of his books. He leverages to understand but uses leverages of his own observations about his archetype theory of the unconscious. His thought is both based and directed towards himself; nevertheless his theory is applicable, this shows how Ti-Ni is a viable option. The theory of Jung was never separated from his thought judging process, that is his subjectification of logical connections about how he deduced the types (the theory started by looking at his own thinking process Ti as counterpoised to his understanding of Freud's Te, his final goal was to understand more his own thinking, this agrees with both Jung's and Myers Briggs), bounded to archetypes of the process in his unconscious, present themselves as arguments in every of his following works. For example his theorizing about the inferior role of the function associated with alchemical pictures of what he interprets to be meaningful in the dreams of one of his patients (Psychology and Alchemy).


----------



## Edmond Zedo (Jul 22, 2010)

Marco Antonio said:


> hmm i think you might make an argument about it, but as i see it now the differentiation about functions is clearer for me as Jung pointed them, then as the mbti is approaching them, because of the J/P, I/E bounded confusion (fallacy).
> 
> I agree about the human inaccurate analysis; again i see mbti as pushing it even further in the differentiation process. Why distributing J qualities in Te, and P qualities in Ti?? how do they come to such a conclusion? it seems to me this is where the river diverts and follows an alternate path from Jungs original approach; Can you clarify how Jungs Ti is like MBTI's Ni??


Well, his Ti is fittingly concerned with judgment, and what I took from his definition is that the function primarily consists of stacking one logic-based conclusion onto another, ad infinitum. The focus is on these successive conclusions of a "true/false" nature. The conclusions come quickly and often in the "Introverted Thinking Type." 

Now I'll briefly go into the real-world reason why MBTI Ni is more like Jung's Ti: Myers performed a poor function assignment for her system. The preferences don't match up with dominant functions. THUS, when people write function descriptions for MBTI, they're analyzing people, not Jung's definitions. They approximate what they believe an INTJ's thought process is, call that (and the INFJ's) "Ni," call the INTP's "Ti," and so on. It's removed from Jung.

Jung's definition of Introverted Intuition is concerned with passive analysis of objects. It doesn't include judgment, nor should it. But the MBTI definitions of "Ni" are, on the contrary, concerned with conclusions. The cog. proc. test questions that if answered in the positive lead to high scores in "Ni" are things like "Sometimes I get conclusions about things that seem to come without forethought." I paraphrase. I call that minor passive analysis and major conclusion: Judging, and more representative of Jung's Ti (or Fi) than Ni.



> also brainstorming is associated with Ne functioning, while brainstorming's goal can also be directed inward (Ni) in the look for personal meaning.


I agree that brainstorming falls under Jung's Ne, but I disagree with Jung's object/subject paradigm (see below).



> In fact Jung "pure" types are more analogue to enneagram points then any mbti distribution could ever reach in the enneazones.
> Anyways i see Ni differentation from Ne at best when using Jungs definitions. Also Te-Ti differences are only clear to me when using Jung's differentiation, that being where the logical process is directed towards, as opposed to mbti's belief of how the information is subject affected. The argument is that he did have a Ti-Ni approach as his subjectified knowledge from the 6 (1913-1919) years he invested in developing Ni are present in most of his books. He leverages to understand but uses leverages of his own observations about his archetype theory of the unconscious. His thought is both based and directed towards himself; nevertheless his theory is applicable, this shows how Ti-Ni is a viable option. The theory of Jung was never separated from his thought judging process, that is his subjectification of logical connections about how he deduced the types (the theory started by looking at his own thinking process Ti as counterpoised to his understanding of Freud's Te, his final goal was to understand more his own thinking, this agrees with both Jung's and Myers Briggs), bounded to archetypes of the process in his unconscious, present themselves as arguments in every of his following works. For example his theorizing about the inferior role of the function associated with alchemical pictures of what he interprets to be meaningful in the dreams of one of his patients (Psychology and Alchemy).


Well, I don't treat Jung's work as the word of God. Despite the conversation we're having, I've entirely stopped using oriented functions, because I don't think there should ever have been that I/E separation. People are introverted or extraverted, not the functions. (If you care to read some of my work on "correcting" the functions, see: The Post-Modern Function System)


----------



## Immemorial (May 16, 2010)

Edmond Zedo said:


> Well, his Ti is fittingly concerned with judgment, and what I took from his definition is that the function primarily consists of stacking one logic-based conclusion onto another, ad infinitum. The focus is on these successive conclusions of a "true/false" nature. The conclusions come quickly and often in the "Introverted Thinking Type."
> 
> Now I'll briefly go into the real-world reason why MBTI Ni is more like Jung's Ti: Myers performed a poor function assignment for her system. The preferences don't match up with dominant functions. THUS, when people write function descriptions for MBTI, they're analyzing people, not Jung's definitions. They approximate what they believe an INTJ's thought process is, call that (and the INFJ's) "Ni," call the INTP's "Ti," and so on. It's removed from Jung.
> 
> ...


Off-topic, but does that site contain all of your work?

I'm rather intrigued.


----------



## Edmond Zedo (Jul 22, 2010)

DarkestHour said:


> Off-topic, but does that site contain all of your work?
> 
> I'm rather intrigued.


I'm in the process of "rebuilding" it after the previous server got entirely wiped out (ipbfree). So, not all of it, but I've posted a lot of what I consider important already.


----------



## Marco Antonio (Nov 25, 2008)

Edmond Zedo said:


> Well, his Ti is fittingly concerned with judgment, and what I took from his definition is that the function primarily consists of stacking one logic-based conclusion onto another, ad infinitum. The focus is on these successive conclusions of a "true/false" nature. The conclusions come quickly and often in the "Introverted Thinking Type."


Your definition somewhat applies (indeed you take out object/subject) how do you differentiate this from Te? 



> Now I'll briefly go into the real-world reason why MBTI Ni is more like Jung's Ti: Myers performed a poor function assignment for her system. The preferences don't match up with dominant functions. THUS, when people write function descriptions for MBTI, they're analyzing people, not Jung's definitions. They approximate what they believe an INTJ's thought process is, call that (and the INFJ's) "Ni," call the INTP's "Ti," and so on. It's removed from Jung.


So myers briggs is badly assigned, and because of this bad assignment, mbti descriptions are analyzing people and not Jung's Definitions.
And how did they came to approximations of their beliefs of what might be an INTJ?? what was first the distribution of functions in Types or the typing? what is representative for their functional descriptions?? How do they differentiate INTJ from INTP?? So i see there is a person very Intuitive because i say so and looks somewhat Introverted while having a preference for closure so they are dominated by Ni.:crazy: 



> Jung's definition of Introverted Intuition is concerned with passive analysis of objects. It doesn't include judgment, nor should it. But the MBTI definitions of "Ni" are, on the contrary, concerned with conclusions. The cog. proc. test questions that if answered in the positive lead to high scores in "Ni" are things like "Sometimes I get conclusions about things that seem to come without forethought." I paraphrase. I call that minor passive analysis and major conclusion: Judging, and more representative of Jung's Ti (or Fi) than Ni.


I'm not in alignment with your paraphrasis, i believe it diverts; closure might be interpreted in some, but it isn't actually part of central focus during the questioning. The paraphrasis seems rather a personalized understanding of the functions adapted to the descriptions of types as it should be expected and not actually directly related to the questions.



> Well, I don't treat Jung's work as the word of God. Despite the conversation we're having, I've entirely stopped using oriented functions, because I don't think there should ever have been that I/E separation.
> People are introverted or extraverted, not the functions.


This i will need to consider further with your information below.



> (If you care to read some of my work on "correcting" the functions, see: The Post-Modern Function System)


will do:happy:


----------



## Edmond Zedo (Jul 22, 2010)

Marco Antonio said:


> Your definition somewhat applies (indeed you take out object/subject) how do you differentiate this from Te?


It's more how Jung did than how I do, as my work uses just one version of Thinking, ultimately based on both Ti and Te. Jung's Te, vs. his Ti, is concerned with application to the real world. Conclusions are considered true/false with Ti based on internal standards, internal judgments of "That makes sense to me, therefore it's true." Everyone does that, of course, the difference between a T primary and N primary (Jung's or my work) is that the T primary decides and moves on more often.

But never forget that as I've already mentioned, Jung's definitions aren't perfectly differentiated. A problem whcih I believe stems from his decision to apply orientation, i and e, to every function. He wanted to incorporate the obvious differences between Introverts and Extroverts into information processing in general, and went too far.



> So myers briggs is badly assigned, and because of this bad assignment, mbti descriptions are analyzing people and not Jung's Definitions.
> And how did they came to approximations of their beliefs of what might be an INTJ?? what was first the distribution of functions in Types or the typing? what is representative for their functional descriptions?? How do they differentiate INTJ from INTP?? So i see there is a person very Intuitive because i say so and looks somewhat Introverted while having a preference for closure so they are dominated by Ni.:crazy:


How they differentiate is with 1st, subjective analysis (Person X is Perceiver, Y is Judger, etc.), 2nd, test development based on analysis (I think Judgers will prefer option X, etc.), and third, categorization based mostly on test results. What you then have are sets of people who can be compared against one another, and conclusions can be offered about differences between any two types. The non-Socionics, post-Jung definitions of the functions are based more on analysis of these sets PLUS Myers' arbitrary function assignments than anything else, including Jung's descriptions. 



> I'm not in alignment with your paraphrasis, i believe it diverts; closure might be interpreted in some, but it isn't actually part of central focus during the questioning. The paraphrasis seems rather a personalized understanding of the functions adapted to the descriptions of types as it should be expected and not actually directly related to the questions.


I believe these are Ni-deciding test questions:

5. Experience a premonition or foresee the distant future.

11. Achieve a metamorphosis, definitive insight, or powerful vision of change.

21. Gain a profound realization from a mystical state or sudden release of emotions.

As far as I'm concerned, or ever will be concerned, those favor Judgment, not Perception. (And Js score a lot higher on them, go figure.) It's obviously self-assessment, and has absolutely no relation to how accurate such "insights' are. I propose they tend not to be, as described, because they came with shortened periods of perception prior to judgment.

Quoting myself on the invalidity of cognitive processes tests:


> I intend to dispel notions only on INTP/INTJ differentiation, which should therefore illustrate, to the sensible person, the folly of these tests for _everyone._
> 
> I score highest in Ti on these tests. Why is this?
> 
> ...


----------



## Marco Antonio (Nov 25, 2008)

Edmond Zedo said:


> It's more how Jung did than how I do, as my work uses just one version of Thinking, ultimately based on both Ti and Te. Jung's Te, vs. his Ti, is concerned with application to the real world. Conclusions are considered true/false with Ti based on internal standards, internal judgments of "That makes sense to me, therefore it's true." Everyone does that, of course, the difference between a T primary and N primary (Jung's or my work) is that the T primary decides and moves on more often.


Make sense as in "following x or y rules of reason, z leads towards true", yes this is Thinking for me too. 



> But never forget that as I've already mentioned, Jung's definitions aren't perfectly differentiated. A problem whcih I believe stems from his decision to apply orientation, i and e, to every function. He wanted to incorporate the obvious differences between Introverts and Extroverts into information processing in general, and went too far.


from my perspective, that orientation in information processing is directly consequent to the psychological profound meaning of how the subject interacts with the self in every level of consciousness. It leaves a track for us psychologist to orientate.



> How they differentiate is with 1st, subjective analysis (Person X is Perceiver, Y is Judger, etc.), 2nd, test development based on analysis (I think Judgers will prefer option X, etc.), and third, categorization based mostly on test results. What you then have are sets of people who can be compared against one another, and conclusions can be offered about differences between any two types. The non-Socionics, post-Jung definitions of the functions are based more on analysis of these sets PLUS Myers' arbitrary function assignments than anything else, including Jung's descriptions.


yes of course analysis, but based on knowledge of previous theories (like Jung's) and readopted (actually more re-adapted) definitions to fit observations. The issue is then, the false assignment of variable-dependence, which assumption by myers-briggs was intended to be observed for the measurement to be done.



> I believe these are Ni-deciding test questions:
> 
> 5. Experience a premonition or foresee the distant future.
> 
> ...


As i perceive it, you have arrived at conclusions for your personified comprehension of Ni to be present in the test's questions, then supporting your assumption with the fact that those questions are present in the test; the inconvenient is due to your lack of involvement with the function.

For example you are very good at defining Ti, because you understand your judgment, but at the same time your are trying to make other functions fit to your understanding of them... While my experiencing of this function comes or arrives as you say, never with a judgment, thus never a conclusion.

In fact when you get involved with interpreting your visions, you see as many facets of the message as you can, you don't focus on determining it's direct meaning, you see it transforming involving lots of possible meanings. We don't seek we find. Find one transformation then another and keep on automatized interpreting without arriving at a conclusion, then see the images vanish as they stock up in the unconscious.
At some point the stocked up infos relate to what is happening in the outside world, at which point the personalized associations help us in real world occurrences determine how our consciousness is evolving when involving a measurement of any kind.

For example a couple of days ago after having dreamed about "lying in the floor with a lion, while a wolverine looks at us". i wake up while keeping the image in my head, see how it transforms from the image to what is actually happening to me, see ways of the lion being involved with myself, i do my reflections about the meaning the lion has, finding lots of interpretations that may apply, see how the interpretations generate more images in my head, and they lead to other paths. But the main value is found in the belief that the image of the Lion will be of importance at some point during the day.
I know i can look for the lion the whole day, but it won't show until i'm ready to understand it. I keep on interpreting to save my mind the trouble, but actually i'm never certain this would be of importance.

But then as i'm walking through the world and come to observe something i tell my girld friend and she observes it from this perspective of someone being a lion and someone being the wolverine, i keep this in mind, while having the understanding of her paranoid belief that someone might be trying to do something to me, then i see a Lion casually lying there inside a cage attached to a van in the parking lot; it makes no sense at all, no circus around, at this point i'm fascinated with the actuality of the Lion being there. My vision coming true i walk with my girlfriend towards the Lion the van is going but it stops for us to look at it. The driver keeps staring at my girlfriend then i come to understand how nature is inside of us. The driver man is a loner opportunist like the wolverine.
The next hours are spent, analyzing the relationship between animal and human behaviors.... etc.


----------



## Edmond Zedo (Jul 22, 2010)

Marco Antonio said:


> As i perceive it, you have arrived at conclusions for your personified comprehension of Ni to be present in the test's questions, then supporting your assumption with the fact that those questions are present in the test; the inconvenient is due to your lack of involvement with the function.


I differ with your assessment, and claim that I'm perfectly "involved' in all of the functions, no matter whose function definitions we're using. The question is the definition. What Some people call "Ni," I don't believe is what Jung intended when he invented the functions. (And the difference between me and other "modern type scholars" is that I'm aware of and admit modifying his definitions, but differently than others have.)



> For example you are very good at defining Ti, because you understand your judgment, but at the same time your are trying to make other functions fit to your understanding of them... While my experiencing of this function comes or arrives as you say, never with a judgment, thus never a conclusion.


Jung's Ti is all about conclusions. Many, many conclusions.


> In fact when you get involved with interpreting your visions, you see as many facets of the message as you can, you don't focus on determining it's direct meaning, you see it transforming involving lots of possible meanings. We don't seek we find. Find one transformation then another and keep on automatized interpreting without arriving at a conclusion, then see the images vanish as they stock up in the unconscious.
> 
> At some point the stocked up infos relate to what is happening in the outside world, at which point the personalized associations help us in real world occurrences determine how our consciousness is evolving when involving a measurement of any kind.


As I alluded to, I don't think you and I define conclusion in the same way. I'm not referring only to tangible conclusions which can be verbalized, but the myriad conclusions which make those up. Done by Judging functions, T and F, just as Jung described. One thing I've done differently than Jung is to define the functions in a way where it's obvious that one can't be doing any real thought with only one function. A simple way to describe the difference in analyzing an object between an INTP and an INTJ is with a visual aid. Consider the timeline to be one second, with "-" being passive analysis and "I" being any decision, any judgment.

INTP: ----I----I----I----I
INTJ: --I--I--I--I--I--I--I


----------

