How to tell you're an INTP.

[Mello]

INTPs are an idea.

INTPs can take any role.

The only thing that offends INTPs are when people don't believe in them.


With the Ni dominant function they are able to mimic any function because they believe in everything they say.
The Ni function is an open ended perceiving function.

With an Ti dom it is almost impossible to convince yourself that you are wrong. You are trapped in your own mind.

An Ti dom needs to be led by example.
An Ni dom has no leader. An Ni dom is led by ideals.

([MENTION=672]Auburn[/MENTION] should explain this in detail because I'm too lazy.)



It's quite easy for INTJs to type as INTPs. (Vice versa)

Example of an INTP: Ryan Gosling
Watch: Drive
The Ides of March
Blue Valentine
Half Nelson

Just look at his facial expressions and listen to the things he says.

http://www.okmagazine.com/videos/rya...-close-it-down

He doesn't believe that anyone would actually want to hear his opinions. :>

[I have a feeling that everyone starts as an INTP, then the primary function is molded into any one of the functions.]

[Reluctantly]

Adymus returns.

Welcome back.

[Reluctantly]

You know what's funny about the way these dichotomies are set up?

Even the non-believers get a type without having to participate in type itself. I couldn't think of a better either-or fallacy to troll all the critics. Not a pseudo-science until proven otherwise, yessum?

GENIUS

[Dapper Dan]

Is it just me, or does the OP make no sense?

[ElvenVeil]

Originally Posted by Dapper Dan

Is it just me, or does the OP make no sense?

^^No you are correct.

[Dapper Dan]

Originally Posted by ElvenVeil

^^No you are correct.

Whew. I'm not going crazy (yet).

[BigApplePi]

INTP's like to think - Ti dom?
INTP's know about thinking wrong - self imperfection
INTP's can promote thoughts - to check them out
INTP's can promote internal thoughts - Ni?
INTP's can look like INTJ's - inner intuition something could be right
Therefore INTP's are INTJ's
INTJ's are sure they have it right - Ni
INTJ's give plenty of evidence - Te
INTJ's are convinced they are right - plenty of Te
INTJ's come to believe judgment is not needed because they are right
INTJ's now believe they are INTP's
Therefore INTJ's are INTP's
go to top

[Pizzabeak]

I have this Total Film magazine with a Ryan Gosling interview about Drive (the magazine has good interviews), do you want to read it, Cake? I liked Drive because I felt like I identified with some of the situations the character's found themselves in.

[Mello]

The MBTI has the functions labeled wrong. INTPs are iN dom. INTJs are iT dom.

INTPs can mimic INTJs. Any type can mimic any type, but naturally a persona returns to it's default state at rest.

Think of it like this INTPs are a computer system and they can create another computer system within themselves and interact with the created computer system. Ni fills the created computer system with new knowledge somehow. :3

Originally Posted by Pizzabeak

I have this Total Film magazine with a Ryan Gosling interview about Drive (the magazine has good interviews), do you want to read it, Cake? I liked Drive because I felt like I identified with some of the situations the character's found themselves in.

If you can scan/link it I'd like to read it.

[Mello]

Originally Posted by BigApplePi

INTP's like to think - Ti dom?
INTP's know about thinking wrong - self imperfection
INTP's can promote thoughts - to check them out
INTP's can promote internal thoughts - Ni?
INTP's can look like INTJ's - inner intuition something could be right
Therefore INTP's are INTJ's
INTJ's are sure they have it right - Ni
INTJ's give plenty of evidence - Te
INTJ's are convinced they are right - plenty of Te
INTJ's come to believe judgment is not needed because they are right
INTJ's now believe they are INTP's
Therefore INTJ's are INTP's
go to top

INTP's like to think - Ni/Fi duality INTP's use feelings to guide thoughts.
INTP's know about thinking wrong - self imperfection
INTP's can promote thoughts - to check them out
INTP's can promote internal thoughts - Ni dom
INTP's can look like INTJ's - inner intuition something could be right
Therefore INTP's are INTJ's
INTJ's are sure they have it right - Ti dom
INTJ's give plenty of evidence - Ne/Fe
INTJ's are convinced they are right - plenty of Ti/Si
INTJ's come to believe judgment is not needed because they are right
INTJ's now believe they are INTP's
Therefore INTJ's are INTP's

INTJs use the world around them to prove themselves right. INTPs just feel like they're right.

Ni doms are actually perceivers.

But people are like mirrors, so they can mimic each other. But they can't mimic the being moving the mirrors — they can only predict what the other being is going to do.

[EyeSeeCold]

Originally Posted by Cake

The MBTI has the functions labeled wrong. INTPs are iN dom. INTJs are iT dom.

Hmm.

What lead you to this realization? Also is there a reason for positioning the functions like that(yX instead of Xy)?

[Mello]

Originally Posted by EyeSeeCold

Hmm.

What lead you to this realization? Also is there a reason for positioning the functions like that(yX instead of Xy)?

Someone else told me about it.

Ne — Intuition directed into reality.
Ni — Intuition directed into your mind which is another reality.

It doesn't really matter which way you write it. Ne, eN, maybe it does. Who knows.

[ElvenVeil]

yikes.. So that's what you are getting at.. So TLDR version: given 4 random axioms that hardly relates to functions, INTPs are now INTJs and vise versa...... Is this another troll thread?

If not .... Then I would not mind hearing a bit more about your thoughts on how functions relate to this theory (If functions are in actuallity considered here). This mean that you need to consider what you mean when saying things like: INTP's can promote internal thoughts - Ni dom - How is that Ni, and what is an external thought then..? and so on, so that we have more to work with

[Mello]

Originally Posted by ElvenVeil

yikes.. So that's what you are getting at.. So TLDR version: given 4 random axioms that hardly relates to functions, INTPs are now INTJs and vise versa...... Is this another troll thread?

If not .... Then I would not mind hearing a bit more about your thoughts on how functions relate to this theory (If functions are in actuallity considered here). This mean that you need to consider what you mean when saying things like: INTP's can promote internal thoughts - Ni dom - How is that Ni, and what is an external thought then..? and so on, so that we have more to work with

Do you talk to yourself inside your head or out loud?

http://www.intpforum.com/showthread.php?t=6582

[ElvenVeil]

Both, though I naturally can't stay silent and talk at the same time . So depending on the situation.

Edit: I hope you will get around actually answering the questions that I have It would be nice, as I would love to be able to take this theory serious.

[EyeSeeCold]

Originally Posted by Cake

Someone else told me about it.

Ne — Intuition directed into reality.
Ni — Intuition directed into your mind which is another reality.

It doesn't really matter which way you write it. Ne, eN, maybe it does. Who knows.

Sure. I was just asking because I agree with what you said. I wanted to know more of what you thought about the functions.


Right. It doesn't matter, it was just unfamiliar.

[Artsu Tharaz]

Originally Posted by Cake

The MBTI has the functions labeled wrong. INTPs are iN dom. INTJs are iT dom.

To clarify though, who are the INTPs, and who are the INTJs? can you point to exampls? (this would clarify what you are implying is wrong about the labellings)

[Mello]

Well, INTPs are gamemasters. They're able to create other games for people to play and they know it doesn't matter if they win or lose.

INTJs are determined to be the best.

I didn't say INTPs were INTJs.

I said INTPs can mimic INTJs.
(I was just using BiApplePi cold's logic puzzle.)

But INTJs can not necessarily mimic INTPs.
Because it would be difficult for an INTJ to support something that goes against its logic.

Everyone has their own logic and feelings.

Therefore I can set my own 'logical' definitions.

Ryan Gosling is beautiful.
Ryan Gosling is intelligent.
Therefore, Ryan Gosling is perfect.

[Mello]

How about I explain existence instead?

You only exist in the current universe. There are an infinite number of universes.
Matter is neither created or destroyed.
Therefore, when you die. You are reborn instantly.

Do you remember your past existences though? Depends.

This might be my first existence because I don't think I have any past memories.

Time travel:
You can't travel back in time in the current universe. When you travel through time you no longer exist in the universe you just left.

You can only travel faster or slower through time.

Time is relative, mother fuckers. - Einstein

Therefore, in a parallel universe you can meet yourself, but it would just be really awkward.

You can not exist in two places at once.
So, the other you is pretty much an exact copy of you, just being itself, in their current universe.

Big Bang:
Transfer of energy.

Big Crunch:
Transfer of energy.

Does it matter?
No, not really.

Fear is irrational because there's nothing worth being afraid of.

Fear is a failsafe, so that you don't do something stupid because dying is still a bad idea.

I just hope the universe — I'm reborn in, I can like fly and shit.

Everything occurs in cycles.

It's possible to live in your current body indefinitely, if you are able to constantly repair it.

The body is just a vessel, though.
But, you should take good care of it.

How new beings are created:
Transfer of energy.

A sentient being is just a self-aware universe.

Bonus question:

Was there an original universe?

Wait, there's space and universes occupy space.

So, there's a single point in space, where universes are created and being expelled from that single point.

So, there's also a single point in space, where universes are crushed and sucked into that point.

But, the universes that are being sucked into the crushing point are being expelled out of the creating point?

What?

You know what. I'm just going to go play Mass Effect 3.

[Dapper Dan]

Originally Posted by Cake

How about I explain existence instead?

You only exist in the current universe. There are an infinite number of universes.
Matter is neither created or destroyed.
Therefore, when you die. You are reborn instantly.

Do you remember your past existences though? Depends.

This might be my first existence because I don't think I have any past memories.

Time travel:
You can't travel back in time in the current universe. When you travel through time you no longer exist in the universe you just left.

You can only travel faster or slower through time.

Time is relative, mother fuckers. - Einstein

Therefore, in a parallel universe you can meet yourself, but it would just be really awkward.

You can not exist in two places at once.
So, the other you is pretty much an exact copy of you, just being itself, in their current universe.

Big Bang:
Transfer of energy.

Big Crunch:
Transfer of energy.

Does it matter?
No, not really.

Fear is irrational because there's nothing worth being afraid of.

Fear is a failsafe, so that you don't do something stupid because dying is still a bad idea.

I just hope the universe — I'm reborn in, I can like fly and shit.

Everything occurs in cycles.

It's possible to live in your current body indefinitely, if you are able to constantly repair it.

The body is just a vessel, though.
But, you should take good care of it.

How new beings are created:
Transfer of energy.

A sentient being is just a self-aware universe.

Bonus question:

Was there an original universe?

Is it just me or does this make even less sense than the OP?

[Mello]

Originally Posted by Dapper Dan

Is it just me or does this make even less sense than the OP?

Maybe, you're just an INTJ. :P

[Reluctantly]

The cake is a lie...

Or is it?
































I agree with Cake, for what its worth. How is Mass Effect 3? I noticed Alan Wake also came to the PC. So many good games lately.

[Mello]

Originally Posted by Reluctantly

The cake is a lie...

Or is it?
































I agree with Cake, for what its worth. How is Mass Effect 3? I noticed Alan Wake also came to the PC. So many good games lately.

It feels the same as ME2 so far.

I just hope that Diablo 3 comes out this year. :]

[Auburn]

o.O


*is staying out of this thread*

[Dapper Dan]

Originally Posted by Cake

Maybe, you're just an INTJ. :P

I might be, the way you're defining things. But if you're going to change labels around, you should probably just come up with new ones to avoid confusion.

[BigApplePi]

This should force make allow Dapper Dan to be happy.

Originally Posted by Cake

INTPs are an idea.

Does that make existential sense?

INTPs can take any role.

2. How to get an INTP angry: call them an INTJ.
3. How to make an INTJ happy: call them an INTP.
4. Always be irrelevant irreverent.
1. Cake is either an INTP or is not an INTP.
5. This list is out of order.

The only thing that offends INTPs are when people don't believe in them.

See #2 above.

With the Ni dominant function they are able to mimic any function because they believe in everything they say.
The Ni function is an open ended perceiving function.

Ni does not exist because I'm in de-NI-al.

With an Ti dom it is almost impossible to convince yourself that you are wrong. You are trapped in your own mind.

All Ti's are rong in some way.

An Ti dom needs to be led by example.
An Ni dom has no leader. An Ni dom is led by ideals.

Is that anything like herding cats or did I hear that wrong (misinterpret)?

(@Auburn should explain this in detail because I'm too lazy.)

I'm in favor of Auburn, but damn you Adymus you are neglecting your duty.

It's quite easy for INTJs to type as INTPs. (Vice versa)

Not knowing how to type people is no excuse unless you have an excuse. Why are INTJ's typing anyway? Are you saying INTJ's are better typists than INTP's?

Example of an INTP: Ryan Gosling
Watch: Drive
The Ides of March
Blue Valentine
Half Nelson

No way I can tell who these people are without a utube.

Just look at his facial expressions and listen to the things he says.

Without Pod'Lair I feel helpless.

Spoiler:

Below could help.
http://www.okmagazine.com/videos/rya...-close-it-down

He doesn't believe that anyone would actually want to hear his opinions.

I believe him.

[I have a feeling that everyone starts as an INTP, then the primary function is molded into any one of the functions.]

Why can't an INTJ be ejucated enuf to be an INTP thus returning to hir origins?

[Auburn]

um, ..so i couldn't help it. c.c
I gotta say at least this much:

Originally Posted by Dapper Dan

I might be, the way you're defining things. But if you're going to change labels around, you should probably just come up with new ones to avoid confusion.

This is pretty much it.

Why even use the four-letter-code at all? The J/P problem doesn't even exist if we don't try to make a letter code in the first place. The letter code is, in actuality, an attempt to shorthand the functions by labeling the type via some set of "typical" traits that emerge from the functions.

That is to say, in naming Ti+Ne as INTP - Isabel Myers Briggs gave that configuration a stereotype the common populace could understand without effort. They would now just have to think of an "introverted, intuitive, thinking, percieving" individual and that became an INTP to their minds. However, as convenient as that might seem, it's a fundamentally incorrect approach. Far too simplistic.

What a Ti+Ne is, is something formulaic that has the potential to, and does, manifest both extrovertedly, introvertedly, logically, emotionally, with organization, without organization, curious in some aspects, noncurious in others. The functions have the capacity to express all traits (I/E, N/S, T/F, J/P), so the reality of a configuration simply doesn't match that face-value model. It's like trying to fit something three-dimensional into two dimensions.

Renaming Ti+Ne as an "INTJ" is just as much a flawed idea as naming it "INTP". If there is any way to name it, it should just be TiNe.

Those who really wish to know what that means will go out of their way an investigate it. To properly understand what it means to be TiNe or NiTe (or any other type) would actually take sitting down and reading --- and can't be explained in a short conversation down the hall --- but if that is the reality then it can't be sold short.

Using 4 quicky blanket-terms is about as telling as not saying anything at all.

[Mello]

Originally Posted by Auburn

um, ..so i couldn't help it. c.c
I gotta say at least this much:



This is pretty much it.

Why even use the four-letter-code at all? The J/P problem doesn't even exist if we don't try to make a letter code in the first place. The letter code is, in actuality, an attempt to shorthand the functions by labeling the type via some set of "typical" traits that emerge from the functions.

That is to say, in naming Ti+Ne as INTP - Isabel Myers Briggs gave that configuration a stereotype the common populace could understand without effort. They would now just have to think of an "introverted, intuitive, thinking, percieving" individual and that became an INTP to their minds. However, as convenient as that might seem, it's a fundamentally incorrect approach. Far too simplistic.

What a Ti+Ne is, is something formulaic that has the potential to, and does, manifest both extrovertedly, introvertedly, logically, emotionally, with organization, without organization, curious in some aspects, noncurious in others. The functions have the capacity to express all traits (I/E, N/S, T/F, J/P), so the reality of a configuration simply doesn't match that face-value model. It's like trying to fit something three-dimensional into two dimensions.

Renaming Ti+Ne as an "INTJ" is just as much a flawed idea as naming it "INTP". If there is any way to name it, it should just be TiNe.

Those who really wish to know what that means will go out of their way an investigate it. To properly understand what it means to be TiNe or NiTe (or any other type) would actually take sitting down and reading --- and can't be explained in a short conversation down the hall --- but if that is the reality then it can't be sold short.

Using 4 quicky blanket-terms is about as telling as not saying anything at all.

Good thing, I don't really care about personality types. ;]

Here are some new labels for you.
INTP — Ryan Gosling
INTJ — Butthurt, poop-sniffers, the worst personality type, close-minded, single-train of thought, my father, House

[P.H.]

I sense daddy issues.

[Auburn]

Ryan Gosling

I believe he's NiTe as well, yes.
Though it's not impossible that he's SiTe.

Good thing, I don't really care about personality types. ;]

Here are some new labels for you.
INTP — Ryan Gosling
INTJ — Butthurt, poop-sniffers, the worst personality type, close-minded, single-train of thought, my father, House

ok.

[Mello]

Originally Posted by Auburn

I believe he's NiTe as well, yes.
Though it's not impossible that he's SiTe.




ok.

I was only using the 4 letter codes because I'm familiar with them, honey.

[BigApplePi]

[MENTION=672]Auburn[/MENTION].
If you are saying these CF's require study, I'll agree except I still find things fuzzy and hard to grasp. Here is something specific. Do you have an opinion? I would value your answer.

Adding a column of figures

[Auburn]

Give me maybe a week or two more and I'll have concrete images, knowledge, explanations and reads for you of what I have found. I have been working rather tirelessly lately to map out all the functions visually.

[BigApplePi]

Originally Posted by Auburn

Give me maybe a week or two more and I'll have concrete images, knowledge, explanations and reads for you of what I have found. I have been working rather tirelessly lately to map out all the functions visually.

You mean a quickie on CF's for adding a column of figures is not a good idea for concreteness? I fear the kitchen sink approach, lol.

[Auburn]

No single quickie i could give you would satisfactorily answer your question - or do much more than reinforce conceptions that may or may not be rightly aligned.

That said, if you mean a column of figures on a spreadsheet, whether you enjoy it or not is far too vague a criteria to measure function use. Even if there were a specific function(s) more adept to the task, I could dislike doing it for entirely unrelated reasons - like if it reminds me of a bad experience, if I don't like the project it's for, if there's something more interesting I'd rather be doing, or.. hell.. maybe my sugar levels or hormone levels are just low that day and I don't feel like doing anything. ;p

To get the right answers one needs to ask the right questions.

[BigApplePi]

Originally Posted by Auburn

No single quickie i could give you would satisfactorily answer your question - or do much more than reinforce conceptions that may or may not be rightly aligned.

That said, if you mean a column of figures on a spreadsheet, whether you enjoy it or not is far too vague a criteria to measure function use. Even if there were a specific function(s) more adept to the task, I could dislike doing it for entirely unrelated reasons - like if it reminds me of a bad experience, if I don't like the project it's for, if there's something more interesting I'd rather be doing, or.. hell.. maybe my sugar levels or hormone levels are just low that day and I don't feel like doing anything. ;p

To get the right answers one needs to ask the right questions.

I wrote a long rambling response but held it. Yes to asking the right question. I haven't given up yet.

Let's say an accountant, pre-computer, early twentieth century has the job of adding a column of figures. No particular emotions, no hangups or disturbances. He is a professional just doing his regular everyday job.

What CF's is/are he primarily using? Assume we are guessing. Assume we are applying classical MBTI.

A. If he's an INTP?
B. If he's INxJ or ISxP?


Next. New (to me anyway) definitions. Cognitive functions are conscious. An INTP uses Ti Ne Si Fe. The other four CF's are not available consciously to an INTP. For an INTP, Te Ni Se Fi are subcognitive functions and may be used, but they are subsconscious. Does this solve the problem?

Separate question. We assume an INTP uses Ti Ne Si Fe. We could argue at any particular moment this INTP must be using ALL four cognitive functions? Even at his most intense moments of using Ti, he has in the back of his mind consciousness he is a social human being (the shadow function Fe). Now consciousness is awareness and awareness comes in various degrees. Could we visualize an INTP's CF's as concentric circles with typically Ti at the center, Ne next, Si barely aware and Fe even less aware? Could these concentric circles be reversed in atypical INTP moments?

Last question: would you like to see what I wrote and did not post just as an example of poor communication or perhaps just as an example of something I did not post? (Psychology interest only.)

[xbox]

Originally Posted by ElvenVeil

Both, though I naturally can't stay silent and talk at the same time . So depending on the situation.

Edit: I hope you will get around actually answering the questions that I have It would be nice, as I would love to be able to take this theory serious.

one time my sister heard me talking to myself at night. she said she was creeped out.

[Reluctantly]

Originally Posted by Cake

It feels the same as ME2 so far.

I just hope that Diablo 3 comes out this year. :]

Oh, I had a thought today. I've played ME1 and ME2 and I think I can predict the motivation of the reapers.

They want to turn all life into machines because it's some kind of transcendent thing, right? Because they can go through space and beyond and stuff as machines, but they don't evolve the same way or as fast as organic life. So they wait and let organic life evolve and then come and take their particular intelligence and integrate it into their own. This way they become more Godly or something.

amirite, amirite? I wanna be a reaper.

[Sanctum]

I feel your surroundings and events also determine what you type at a certain moment. Lately I've been typing as an INTJ, I believe that mainly because lately I've been getting more comfortable with the people in my classes; therefore becoming unafraid to share my answers and ultimately being right most of the time.

[Peripheral Visionary]

What is the difference between an INTJ and an INTP?

The INTJ has a detailed, workable plan for world domination. He only lacks a suitable team of obedient minions to carry out his bidding to put the plan into action. Unfortunately, his Craigslist ads have not yielded suitable applicants, so he must go to Plan B. Plan B is to start his own website called minionsforwork.org. This is a service that puts dim-witted lackeys together with evil geniuses bent on world domination--for a small commssion. The website is a huge success, and the INTJ finds he is unexpectedly very wealthly. He doesn't enjoy his wealth very much, because he constantly broods about how this development wrecked his plan. This is because he doesn't have the nerve to give up his inadvertent gravy train to proceed with the world domination scheme since he now has more to lose if another kink should arise to spoil it.

The INTP also has a world domination plan. In fact, it is 30% more efficient and requires no lackeys at all. After finishing the plan, the INTP considered putting it into action, but then noticed a Firefly marathon on TV and stuck the plan in a drawer for later. Afterwards, he was seized by a new interest in making a comparative analysis of irregular verbs in the European Romance languages. Eight weeks later, he finds the plan in a drawer while looking for his stapler. He reads over the plan and smiles as he realizes it is still very viable, then sticks it back in the drawer. Two years later, it is in a box with some other stuff in the spare bedroom he uses for storage.

[Mello]

Originally Posted by Peripheral Visionary

What is the difference between an INTJ and an INTP?

The INTJ has a detailed, workable plan for world domination. He only lacks a suitable team of obedient minions to carry out his bidding to put the plan into action. Unfortunately, his Craigslist ads have not yielded suitable applicants, so he must go to Plan B. Plan B is to start his own website called minionsforwork.org. This is a service that puts dim-witted lackeys together with evil geniuses bent on world domination--for a small commssion. The website is a huge success, and the INTJ finds he is unexpectedly very wealthly. He doesn't enjoy his wealth very much, because he constantly broods about how this development wrecked his plan. This is because he doesn't have the nerve to give up his inadvertent gravy train to proceed with the world domination scheme since he now has more to lose if another kink should arise to spoil it.

The INTP also has a world domination plan. In fact, it is 30% more efficient and requires no lackeys at all. After finishing the plan, the INTP considered putting it into action, but then noticed a Firefly marathon on TV and stuck the plan in a drawer for later. Afterwards, he was seized by a new interest in making a comparative analysis of irregular verbs in the European Romance languages. Eight weeks later, he finds the plan in a drawer while looking for his stapler. He reads over the plan and smiles as he realizes it is still very viable, then sticks it back in the drawer. Two years later, it is in a box with some other stuff in the spare bedroom he uses for storage.

;3

[Lydia]

Take the test, get the result, read the profile and be enlightened.

[scorpiomover]

Originally Posted by Mello

Well, INTPs are gamemasters. They're able to create other games for people to play and they know it doesn't matter if they win or lose.

INTJs are determined to be the best.

I didn't say INTPs were INTJs.

I said INTPs can mimic INTJs.
(I was just using BiApplePi cold's logic puzzle.)

But INTJs can not necessarily mimic INTPs.
Because it would be difficult for an INTJ to support something that goes against its logic.

That's because INTPs are social chameleons, and mirror others naturally. We can mirror others' behaviour. They don't all have the same ability to mirror us. Even if they can, how do you mirror a mirror?

Originally Posted by Auburn

Why even use the four-letter-code at all? The J/P problem doesn't even exist if we don't try to make a letter code in the first place. The letter code is, in actuality, an attempt to shorthand the functions by labeling the type via some set of "typical" traits that emerge from the functions.

That is to say, in naming Ti+Ne as INTP - Isabel Myers Briggs gave that configuration a stereotype the common populace could understand without effort. They would now just have to think of an "introverted, intuitive, thinking, percieving" individual and that became an INTP to their minds. However, as convenient as that might seem, it's a fundamentally incorrect approach. Far too simplistic.

Jung pointed out that whenever you consider a situation, you always have to understand it in terms of its historical context.

Jung was a psychotherapist. In the field of mental illness, diagnoses are normally decades late, and very, very often wrong. Studies have been done in the 70s and in the 00s, to investigate the capacity of mental health professionals to make an effective diagnosis. Both showed that diagnosis in the field of mental health is very, very poor. Jung must have seen this. He went looking at lots of fields, to come up with a better way to diagnose his patients. He even looked at astrology and mysticism, even though that made his colleagues question his capabilities as a scientist. He found that there had been many different attempts to classify humans. He came up with his own method, which also used what went before, but was primarily based on his experiences as a psychotherapist, that connected personality traits with different psychological personality disorders.

Myers and Briggs were developing Jung's theory in World War II, when suddenly hundreds of thousands, maybe millions, of women were entering the workplace. Men had had 20 years or more to figure out what jobs were good for them. All these women had been growing up, expecting to be wives, mothers, and homemakers. Suddenly, they were thrust into the workplace, where each person had a different job, that required different skills. They were totally unprepared for it. Just putting them into jobs at random, would have meant lots of people doing jobs they were really unsuited for. So it became very necessary to quickly identify which people were suited for each job. So she wanted a series of questions that could be put to women newly entering the workplace, that could identify which types of job roles they would be suited and unsuited for.

Originally Posted by Auburn

What a Ti+Ne is, is something formulaic that has the potential to, and does, manifest both extrovertedly, introvertedly, logically, emotionally, with organization, without organization, curious in some aspects, noncurious in others. The functions have the capacity to express all traits (I/E, N/S, T/F, J/P), so the reality of a configuration simply doesn't match that face-value model. It's like trying to fit something three-dimensional into two dimensions.

Renaming Ti+Ne as an "INTJ" is just as much a flawed idea as naming it "INTP". If there is any way to name it, it should just be TiNe.

Those who really wish to know what that means will go out of their way an investigate it. To properly understand what it means to be TiNe or NiTe (or any other type) would actually take sitting down and reading --- and can't be explained in a short conversation down the hall --- but if that is the reality then it can't be sold short.

Using 4 quicky blanket-terms is about as telling as not saying anything at all.

In reality, both the dominant function and the auxiliary function, act as a conscious pair, both working together. The other functions each act as complements of pairs to the first 2 functions, each pair in the total sequence of 8 functions acting in different ways, building up to a total personality profile.

Jung's focus was on personality disorders, when the functions tend to an extreme, where they cannot function satisfactorily. The mind itself is a self-learning organism, and thus functions as an evolving system. As in any evolving system, the dominant function acts as the main drive. So when the system tends towards an extreme, the dominant function has the most effect by far, and the dysfunction that results is mostly a result of the dominant function.

However, Myers and Briggs were working on the roles that people choose to play in any organisation. In this respect, they were dealing with mostly normal people, where the first 2 functions mostly act as an equal pairing, with both being equally important in the choices we make, but where the introverted or extroverted aspect of each function, and the order of those functions, is not quite as important as the pair itself. So NTs of any type, Ti-dom, Te-dom, Ni-dom or Ne-dom, were far more likely to be competent and happy at the same types of roles. Whether someone was an introverted-dominant or extroverted-dominant, seemed to mostly determine the way one worked with and without others, Introverts being much more capable working mostly alone, and Extroverts being much more capable working mostly with others. Judging/Perceiving became important for job selection, because some people seemed to thrive on taking charge, while others did not like to take charge, but seemed to understand situations and people much better than the take-charge people, and acted as an excellent counterpoint to make the leaders' efforts much more successful. Mostly, this seemed to depend on whether the Judging function was introverted or extroverted, irrespective of whether it was the dominant function or the auxiliary function. As a result, even in the 80s, many companies were using psychometric testing based on MBTI. I had to take a few such tests for job interviews. Can't say I liked them. But at least in my case, they were very accurate.

Incidentally, I would actually set them out in terms of the full 8 functions in 4 pairs: (Ti-Ne) - (Si-Fe) - (Te-Ni) - (Se-Fi). This results in the INTP having 4 different cognitive patterns: the INTP, the ISFJ, the ENTJ, and the ESFP. Yes, we have them all, they ALL show at various times, in various situations. But the dominant one is the one that shows up the most by far, and due to the nature of the mind as an evolving system, that separates out dominant organisms from recessive organisms, rather like a centrifuge.

You might also find it useful to learn about the Beebe Model.

[Auburn]

@scorpiomover - That's an interesting post. I can see some more merit in Isabel Myers' efforts now, yes. So I think I'd omit this part:

Using 4 quickly blanket-terms is about as telling as not saying anything at all.

I suppose maybe in general the MBTI will place you in a proper quadrant of personalities, which is better than "nothing at all" - especially for forced labor. ;p But we are no longer in World War II.

Indeed, Carl Jung's description of the eight functions is very much based on how they manifest in their rawest and least healthy/balanced forms. This in itself is good to understand as a reference of the extremes, from which to find a point of equilibrium. But this is also why Jung called the tertiary and inferior functions "shadow" functions, when in actuality they only manifest in that malicious way for unbalanced individuals. A properly operating individual should very much be integrated with their 3rd and 4th function.

Pertaining to Myers, I again respect your point but there is a difference between truth and practicality. Sometimes the truth isn't practical but it's irrelevant if it is or not. The J/P dichotomy of MBTI is psychically incorrect even if it is practically useful. In this sense Socionics was a bit more correct, however...

Socionics, like Beebe, make the error of taking the theoretical way too far -- building skyscrapers upon assumptions. I see little evidence (whether empirical or personal) for the existence of the 4th-5th-6th-8th functions, or things like the Child, Demon, or Trickster (Podlair's Ma'zute, Uther and Fu'masta are no different). There is a threshold in theoretical endeavors where, when you cross it, you can make just about any subjective interpretation of phenomenon seem verified through some mental acrobatics. The further you take abstractions, the less they coincide with reality.

I personally do think that the existence of the four function apparatus can be verified to be real, but I can't say beyond that - nor can I ascribe names to things belonging to the sub/unconscious. It's going a bit too abstract for my comfort. Perhaps when the cognitive functions are verified in science, then we can start aptly speculating about dynamics of the unconscious. xP