# INTJ + ISTP relationship compatibility question



## willothewisp (Mar 13, 2013)

Hi, I'm new to the forum and to the whole meyers briggs relationship analysis... and would appreciate some input from anyone who knows more about this than i do!

I'm an INTJ and I've been dating a guy who's an ISTP for a couple of months, and I would like to know how successful this dynamic is, and if the types are stable long-term. We get along really well most of the time, aside from when one of us isn't communicating clearly... which is made even more difficult by the fact that English is not his first language. He's very hands on, is into high performance mechanic work and the like, and I'm more of an academic, more likely to be seen at a lecture or behind a book. We independently live in very different worlds... and do not properly fit into each others world.. like a book junky in a mechanic shop, or a grease monkey (who has difficulty staying still for more than 15 minutes at a time) at a lecture on the history of something or other. That's kind of concerning to me in the long-term because our passions take us into very different directions, but our personalities/ values/ sense of humour seem to be very similar so far, or complimentary at least. 

We are very comfortable with each other... some would say too comfortable, aka traditional lines of personal space are not always observed, and from the beginning we both felt a sort of subconscious green light in regards to the other and our relationship... but we're still in the early stages. So I kind of want to know what our future, or more open and real selves will be like together. If there are any other INTJ/ ISTP combos out there, I'd appreciate any comments. How it works, or why it failed if possible. Or just anyone familiar with the subject. Thanks!


----------



## zynthaxx (Aug 12, 2009)

As I usually say, people of any two types can get a relationship to work if they're both prepared to make it work. Type theory isn't divination, but can give some indications regarding things you'll have to work extra hard on to make them work. For ISTPs, this usually is communication.
From my experience, your Te and Ti functions respectively will clash sometimes. You'll "know" the best way to do something, and your ISTP will want to experiment to find the best solution, for example. Just keep talking each other through what's going on in your heads, and you'll most likely work things out just fine.


----------



## willothewisp (Mar 13, 2013)

zynthaxx said:


> As I usually say, people of any two types can get a relationship to work if they're both prepared to make it work. Type theory isn't divination, but can give some indications regarding things you'll have to work extra hard on to make them work. For ISTPs, this usually is communication.
> From my experience, your Te and Ti functions respectively will clash sometimes. You'll "know" the best way to do something, and your ISTP will want to experiment to find the best solution, for example. Just keep talking each other through what's going on in your heads, and you'll most likely work things out just fine.


Thanks for the input. I don't really see it as a form or divination, but more like a potential way to see which of our traits will clash and in what way. Sort of a way for me to try to see what future problems with us will be so I can try to start fixing them now... or at least know what I'm dealing with when they do arise. He definitely does seem to take the more 'hands on' approach to problems, but so far that has led to some pretty fun adventures  Actually... to date I'm worse with communication than he is.


----------



## cyamitide (Jul 8, 2010)

According to socionics intertype relationships, the NiTe and TiSe types are in relations of benefit where INTJ would be beneficiary of ISTP
*INTJ relationship types*
*ISTP relationship types*


----------



## Sol_ (Jan 8, 2013)

it's bad match of types for close friendship according to Socionics theory


----------



## JungyesMBTIno (Jul 22, 2011)

Eh...can't really determine this kind of thing from type at all (it was never intended to be a parlor game for relationships at all). Type is fundamentally waaay too subjective to use this way - I mean, how much can you call a person a given type anyway? If you read Jung, this totally makes sense, since he thought of type in terms of archetypes - there may be plenty more he did not even remotely address, as he acknowledged. I mean, sure, maybe you're not really that introverted to begin with, so someone with an Se preference easily relates to you (while you might get others who are far more introverted who will not be able to easily open up to this kind of heavy-duty sensation-oriented kind of person you have in mind - in all honesty, I've generally never wanted anything to do with that kind of heavy-duty, concrete Se in relationships - eggh, very much the kind of thing I've always avoided in life and never found anything but gritty and hard not to stereotype as boring - I even find this sometimes rather tough to take with tertiary Se types who are on the concrete side in terms of sensation interests). I definitely consider myself a pretty heavily introverted person in terms of worldview, which might explain this in part.


----------



## cyamitide (Jul 8, 2010)

Sol_ said:


> it's bad match of types for close friendship according to Socionics theory


It's benefit relations according to socionics. Benefit is actually one of the most common type of friendships around, and many times it flourishes into romance. It's the same kind of relationships that INTJs have with INFPs, and you can check INTJ forum for the many, many threads have been posted about their relationships with INFPs.

This is from benefit relations: "These relations generate some of the most romantic love stories: partners agree and become close, disagree and come apart, find that they can't live without each other, neither can they be with each other."


----------



## willothewisp (Mar 13, 2013)

JungyesMBTIno said:


> Eh...can't really determine this kind of thing from type at all (it was never intended to be a parlor game for relationships at all). Type is fundamentally waaay too subjective to use this way - I mean, how much can you call a person a given type anyway? If you read Jung, this totally makes sense, since he thought of type in terms of archetypes - there may be plenty more he did not even remotely address, as he acknowledged. I mean, sure, maybe you're not really that introverted to begin with, so someone with an Se preference easily relates to you (while you might get others who are far more introverted who will not be able to easily open up to this kind of heavy-duty sensation-oriented kind of person you have in mind - in all honesty, I've generally never wanted anything to do with that kind of heavy-duty, concrete Se in relationships - eggh, very much the kind of thing I've always avoided in life and never found anything but gritty and hard not to stereotype as boring - I even find this sometimes rather tough to take with tertiary Se types who are on the concrete side in terms of sensation interests). I definitely consider myself a pretty heavily introverted person in terms of worldview, which might explain this in part.


A type may not describe in full detail who you are, but this study matches certain groups of people based on how they think/ act etc. if you don't believe that this is true, that fact that you are even here and have associated yourself with a type is kind of ridiculous. If there however is some truth to these tests, then matching the general traits of one type and seeing if they would clash with the traits of another type is quite possible and can help a person understand others.


----------



## JungyesMBTIno (Jul 22, 2011)

Eh, I never took MBTI literally day one - I took it as a concrete represenation of something super abstract, yet fairly reasonable. I thought it was a bunch of crock years ago (like, really bullshitty ways of representing what Carl Jung was getting at). I'm not really here for group conformity reasons like 90% of this site (not to judge this as a negative thing, but it's certainly everything this stuff is not talking about - people are literally falling for their own delusions of what this stuff is representing, which is okay if the result is increased self-awareness, but bad if it's just persona reinforcement, playing a part, etc. - however, it might be a great way to make friends anyway).


----------



## SublimeSerendipity (Dec 30, 2010)

@willothewisp,

My concern is not the two types you are (in theory and two types can have a successful relationship), but rather the fact that you have very little fundamentally in common with each other. As someone who is also in academia, such a difference in your interests/careers/education could be problematic on multiple levels. 

In my opinion there are 3 basic things that need to shared for a relationship to be successful: 

1) relationship desires and future plans - are both partners looking for a short-term or long-term relationship, are they both looking to start a family, etc.

2) beliefs/values - are they religious, is religion/no religion important, on what and where do they place their values in life

3) interests - are their shared interests that bring a sense of common ground to the relationship


And with you it seems that #3 may be lacking...you've not spoken about #1 so I can't speak to that. 

Even with two very compatible types, individuals are unique and if there are not these 3 things being met it's not going to be successful in the long-term most likely.


----------



## willothewisp (Mar 13, 2013)

JungyesMBTIno said:


> Eh, I never took MBTI literally day one - I took it as a concrete represenation of something super abstract, yet fairly reasonable. I thought it was a bunch of crock years ago (like, really bullshitty ways of representing what Carl Jung was getting at). I'm not really here for group conformity reasons like 90% of this site (not to judge this as a negative thing, but it's certainly everything this stuff is not talking about - people are literally falling for their own delusions of what this stuff is representing, which is okay if the result is increased self-awareness, but bad if it's just persona reinforcement, playing a part, etc. - however, it might be a great way to make friends anyway).



So far I've found several of the characteristics of my trait to be true of myself. Not all of the time, but more than I tend to embody the opposing trait. However, this thread isn't discussing the validity of typology, I'm asking for a comparison of the two types and how they interact. If you aren't able to contribute, feel free to start your own thread on the subject.


----------



## JungyesMBTIno (Jul 22, 2011)

willothewisp said:


> So far I've found several of the characteristics of my trait to be true of myself. Not all of the time, but more than I tend to embody the opposing trait. However, this thread isn't discussing the validity of typology, I'm asking for a comparison of the two types and how they interact. If you aren't able to contribute, feel free to start your own thread on the subject.


Well, that's not really how type works. There is no evidence for *behavioral* interaction styles in type, although Linda V. Berens classifies interaction styles on the basis of outward appearance (sort of gives insight into how a person orients their thoughts/feelings and with which P or J functions they tend to deal with the outside world with - it's more like a rough sketch of appearance, but it certainly does not predict behavior, which is far too broad a field to apply type to). You're classifying your persona, not your type (because the real question is, why do you behave the way you do, not how do you behave the way you do, the latter which would maybe reflect a type or some kind of function development, although there's likely a lot more to this than anything related to type - type describes, but it really doesn't explain other than if you attempt to apply it to depth psychology).


----------



## willothewisp (Mar 13, 2013)

JungyesMBTIno said:


> Well, that's not really how type works. There is no evidence for *behavioral* interaction styles in type, although Linda V. Berens classifies interaction styles on the basis of outward appearance (sort of gives insight into how a person orients their thoughts/feelings and with which P or J functions they tend to deal with the outside world with - it's more like a rough sketch of appearance, but it certainly does not predict behavior, which is far too broad a field to apply type to). You're classifying your persona, not your type (because the real question is, why do you behave the way you do, not how do you behave the way you do, the latter which would maybe reflect a type or some kind of function development, although there's likely a lot more to this than anything related to type - type describes, but it really doesn't explain other than if you attempt to apply it to depth psychology).


Ya it's not a cut and dry description, I'm not aiming for divination here. I want the two types compared. To see where they clash and where they suit each other. If you don't have any knowledge or experience with that... why do you keep posting here? No offense, but I don't really care about your personal opinion on the general subject, maybe if you start your own thread you'll find someone else who does. I'm looking for answers more specific to the question I've asked in the first post.


----------



## Entropic (Jun 15, 2012)

cyamitide said:


> It's benefit relations according to socionics. Benefit is actually one of the most common type of friendships around, and many times it flourishes into romance. It's the same kind of relationships that INTJs have with INFPs, and you can check INTJ forum for the many, many threads have been posted about their relationships with INFPs.
> 
> This is from benefit relations: "These relations generate some of the most romantic love stories: partners agree and become close, disagree and come apart, find that they can't live without each other, neither can they be with each other."


Yes, I do like INTps and benefit isn't so bad compared to supervisor. Good Te use is still good Te use. The real problem with benefit between EII-ILI is that ILIs still got Se as a valued function and the EII tends to question the Ni insights, whereas the ILI questions the Si insights from the EII and basically ignores anything Ne. 

In general though, it's probably not that bad. There's more that makes benefit work even disregarding subtypes. I personally prefer ILI-Te for example.


----------



## JungyesMBTIno (Jul 22, 2011)

willothewisp said:


> Ya it's not a cut and dry description, I'm not aiming for divination here. I want the two types compared. To see where they clash and where they suit each other. If you don't have any knowledge or experience with that... why do you keep posting here? No offense, but I don't really care about your personal opinion on the general subject, maybe if you start your own thread you'll find someone else who does. I'm looking for answers more specific to the question I've asked in the first post.


Well, that's just it, it's fairly "insane" (don't take this personally - I mean it quite technically) to really compare them on anything other than the basis of functions, because there is no comparison, other than they more-or-less have the same perception focus. It's not my personal opinion, it's really the truly academic answer, whether you think I'm full-of-crap or not (I do not ask for anyone to bow down to me as the ultimate authority on type here - I'm just giving the facts for the sake of the sanity of typology as a heuristic of human psychology is all). Types are not personas, they are ego defense mechanisms (even MBTI DOES NOT actually turn type into persona, although they give it that appearance to get their points across at times - most of that is people who are just making up type personas (social roles) on the internet). You may get intellectual ISTPs and vapid INTJs - perfectly possible.


----------



## willothewisp (Mar 13, 2013)

LeaT said:


> Yes, I do like INTps and benefit isn't so bad compared to supervisor. Good Te use is still good Te use. The real problem with benefit between EII-ILI is that ILIs still got Se as a valued function and the EII tends to question the Ni insights, whereas the ILI questions the Si insights from the EII and basically ignores anything Ne.
> 
> In general though, it's probably not that bad. There's more that makes benefit work even disregarding subtypes. I personally prefer ILI-Te for example.


lol The questioning and then ignoring sounds about right. Thanks for the help


----------



## willothewisp (Mar 13, 2013)

@*JungyesMBTIno* You seem to be unable to understand the question and unequipped to answer it. In this instance you are not giving an 'academic' answer, you're just typing to read yourself think in a thread that's not about you. It's like complaining that tomatoes aren't vegetables in a conversation about whether or not you like them in your salad. It's irrelevant. Even if it suggests the potential for some level of intelligence, that potential is cancelled out by your inability to respond to the question... or speaks to your character. I have nothing against you personally... I just want to ask a question on a forum dedicated to the subject matter, and actually get a useful response. You are really free to start your own thread, leaving mine in peace..


----------



## cyamitide (Jul 8, 2010)

Like LeaT said, the "benefactor" in these relations doesn't hear anything that the "beneficiary" says. Much of Te advice coming from INTJ is going to be ignored by ISTP, leaving the INTJ wondering if the ISTP really cares.


----------

