INTP or INTJ

[dream-of-roses]

For a little over five years, I believed quite stubbornly that my type was INTJ but there was always a grain of doubt and finally I began to think that I may indeed be an INTP. Of course, now I cannot resolve the issue on my own because there will always be some lingering suspicion of my reasoning and bias. I am therefore here to ask the neutral observers to comment (though that neutrality is contingent on the potentially biased information I present...but I digress).

I have always been uncomfortable with large groups, though I am fine one on one with others (and online). I tend to talk at people rather than with them and am guilty of losing interest very quickly once they start talking if I do not find their subject fascinating (though I am fairly indifferent as to whether they take interest in what I have to say or not). I tend to write people off as merely stupid (though not without careful observation and I give credit to intelligence if I think I see it)--a trait for which I am routinely scolded if I dare to bring it up (because categorizing people as intelligent or stupid is apparently bad...not that I'll stop). I can be quite talkative. I do not see myself as quiet and am not seen that way by those close to me. Others, however, have periodically joked that they had no idea I was capable of speech (in less elegant terms).

I love reading. I will re-read my favorite books many times, looking for small details that I missed the first time through (I read so quickly that I sometimes only catch half the words in a book) and plot holes. A book can go from being my favorite to being despised if I happen to catch a plot hole. I like television but I will rarely re-watch even my favorite series as I grow bored easily. Films can go either the way of books or the way of television.

I am generally unemotional. I can go months without even recognizing that I have emotions at all. I get incredibly uncomfortable when anyone mentions feelings...especially someone I respect. Tears make me want to hide under my bed and never come out again. I am better with anger than with sadness. I don't know where to go with affection. If, for some reason, I am reminded I have feelings, things can go very badly very quickly. Remind me that I have anger and it will blow up into a temper tantrum. Remind me that I have sadness and you will get a flood of tears. This is usually an uncomfortable situation for both myself and those around me. Once it is over, however, I go back to believing emotions are things only other people have and I do not want that horrible plague. Even writing this paragraph has made me uncomfortable...

I love to make schedules and lists. I will make lists of my lists. One of my favorite computer programs is Excel, where I organize my carefully gathered information. I go through periods of fervent cleaning where I create a place for everything which makes complete, logical sense. That said, I rarely keep to my schedules, no matter how carefully planned. I have yet to learn how to use a day planner. I am a procrastinator extraordinaire. My projects are rarely finished and, if I do finish them, I usually scrap them and start over. There are also likely living things in my room that I don't know about (though my cat may have taken care of that, I don't know).

I can, at times, be quite eloquent. This is usually on paper but it can also come during "prepared" speeches. Conversation is rather the opposite. I can frustrate myself (and others, I assume) by talking in circles around what I want to say. Often people will present what they see as a view that complicates what I have to say and I will respond with, "But that's what I meant." If I ask for advice, I often am accused of being ungrateful because when I receive suggestions I often respond with, "I already thought of that and ruled it out because it won't work." I have been called stubborn and argumentative. I have also (sometimes in the same breath) been accused of not being stubborn enough.

If something (like MBTI) catches my interest, it will be stuck in my head until I can work it out or I find something new and shiny to think about.

That's it. I don't expect definitive answers. I just want to know what your observations are so that I can take them into consideration as I think about my type.

 

[Happy]

Sounds pretty INTP to me.

I'd suggest, if you haven't already, to go through the 8 functions (Ti, Te, Ni, Ne, Si, Se, Fi, Fe) and try to place your type that way, figuring out your functional stack.

For instance, the INTP functional stack is Ti, Ne, Si, Fe (in that order), which equates to

• Introverted Thinking
• Extraverted iNtuition
• Introverted Sensing
• Extraverted Feeling

Whereas the INTJ functional stack is Ni, Te, Fi, Se:

• Introverted iNtuition
• Extraverted Thinking
• Introverted Feeling
• Extraverted Sensing

I'd suggest you conduct further research using http://personalityjunkie.com/

I'm only suggesting this because you did not mention these important parts of MBTI theory in your opening post. For all I know, you may be well versed in all this.

 

[reckful]

@dream-of-roses —

The function model that Happy described — where INTJs and INTPs have no functions in common — is the forum-famous Harold Grant function stack. That model is inconsistent with Jung, inconsistent with Myers, and has never been endorsed by the official MBTI folks. And most importantly, and unlike the respectable districts of the MBTI, it has no substantial body of evidence behind it — and indeed, should probably be considered all but disproven at this point.

In case you're interested in reading a fair amount of input from me on the relationship between the dichotomies and the functions, the place of the functions (or lack thereof) in the MBTI's history, and the tremendous gap between the dichotomies and the functions in terms of scientific respectability — not to mention the unbearable bogosity of the Harold Grant function stack — you'll find a lot of potentially eye-opening discussion in this post and this post.

And if you're interested — and only if you're interested — in quite a lot of input from me on J/P, I've put a recycled-reckful roundup on J/P issues in the first spoiler.

Spoiler

1. The J/P dichotomy

Spoiler

The first thing to note about J/P is that — contrary to what you sometimes hear from forum posters and other internet sources who overemphasize the "functions" at the expense of the "dichotomies" — J/P is not only about whether the (purported) extraverted function in your top two is a judging function (T or F) or a perceiving function (S or N). As a side note, and as Myers acknowledged, most Jung scholars believe (and I agree) that Jung thought the auxiliary function would have the same attitude as the dominant function, not the opposite attitude, and you can (if you're interested) read more about that in this post. But setting that issue aside and accepting Myers' opposite-attitudes dom/aux model — which certainly dominates MBTI internet forums — Myers also characterized J/P as a separate dimension of personality and, in fact, the chapter in Gifts Differing on the "Effect of the JP Preference" is the longest of the four chapters devoted to the dichotomies.

As you probably know, the official MBTI — like virtually all dichotomy-based MBTI tests — types you J or P based on certain personality characteristics common to J's and P's, rather than by making any determination about the attitude of one of your "cognitive functions." And it appears that the J/P dimension is essentially (albeit with some theoretical variation) tapping into the Big Five Conscientiousness dimension. Consistent with all that, if I'm trying to figure out whether someone's a J or a P, I focus on the characteristics associated with J's and P's — as well as characteristics associated with combinations like NJ and SJ and TJ — rather than on anybody's cognitive functions model.

As a final introductory note, I think youth has at least some tendency to exert what you might call a P-ward tug, and that N's (NJs and NPs both) can have a tendency to feel somewhat rebellious and free-spirited when they compare themselves to the SJs that often make up a substantial percentage of the adults they deal with — e.g., high school teachers and (especially) administrators. The J preference is one that, especially if it's mild, may not really come into what you might call "full bloom" until a person is a bit older. A student may well feel like they have all the structure they need (and maybe more) imposed on them from outside. After a J's been out of school for a couple years, I suspect it's not uncommon to discover (as I did) that there's more damn J in there than they might have realized. So if a school-age person feels like they're more or less in-the-middle on J/P, that somewhat inclines me to think that they may actually be more or less in-the-middle or they may have a mild J preference, but that it's maybe unlikely that they've got a substantial P preference.

Here's a J/P sorter I put together a while ago. You can see how you respond:

How do you react to the word "spontaneous"?

P: It's got a magical ring to it. Most of my friends would describe me as spontaneous.

J: I'm allergic to spontaneous. Quit trying to distract me.

J's have a tendency to feel that if you just leave the world to its own devices and let things happen, mediocrity is likely to result (if not chaos or something worse). If you want to have a good/meaningful experience, achieve good results, etc., it behooves you to plan/structure/filter the world. J's err on the side of taking their responsibilities too seriously, can tend to be worrywarts, are more likely to show up a little early to things than significantly late, and will tend to get out of sorts if their plans get changed at the last minute. Keirsey notes that J's tend to embody a "work ethic" rather than a "play ethic." And J's tend to be strong-willed — domineering if they're extraverts, and stubborn if they're introverts.

P's are more likely to feel (or at least want to believe) that things tend to happen for a reason and have a way of working out for the best. If you plan/structure/filter too much, you're liable to get so caught up in your own net that you'll miss out on a lot of good stuff that you would have experienced if you'd let yourself drift/wander more freely, open to respond, moment by moment, to whatever the world throws your way. P's can err on the side of taking their responsibilities too lightly, are more carefree than worrying, tend to run late, and are good at adapting to — and, in fact, may welcome, not to mention cause — last-minute changes to plans. P's tend to embody a "play ethic" rather than a "work ethic." And P's tend to be less strong-willed (more easygoing and flexible) than J's.​

----------------------------------------------------------------

Here are some of the J/P pairs from the J/P table that Briggs prepared and Myers included in Gifts Differing:

J: Live according to plans, standards, and customs not easily or lightly set aside, to which the situation of the moment must, if possible, be made to conform.
P: Live according to the situation of the moment and adjust themselves easily to the accidental and the unexpected.

J: Make a very definite choice among life's possibilities, but may not appreciate or utilize unplanned, unexpected, and incidental happenings.
P: Frequently masterful in their handling of the unplanned, unexpected, and incidental, but may not make an effective choice among life's possibilities.

J: Rational, they depend upon reasoned judgments ... to protect them from unnecessary or undesirable experiences.
P: Empirical, they depend on their readiness for anything and everything to bring them a constant flow of new experience—much more than they can digest or use.

J: Like to have matters settled and decided as promptly as possible, so that they will know what is going to happen and can plan for it and be prepared for it.
P: Like to keep decisions open as long as possible before doing anything irrevocable, because they don't know nearly enough about it yet.

J: Take real pleasure in getting something finished, out of the way, and off their minds.
P: Take great pleasure in starting something new, until the newness wears off.

J: Inclined to regard the perceptive types as aimless drifters.
P: Inclined to regard the judging types as only half-alive.

J: Aim to be right.
P: Aim to miss nothing.

J: Self-regimented, purposeful, and exacting.
P: Flexible, adaptable, and tolerant.

----------------------------------------------------------------

Notwithstanding the fact that Lenore Thomson's perspective is more function-centric than dichotomy-centric, she devotes a chapter of Personality Type: An Owner's Manual to "The Fourth Type Category." She notes that J's "prefer structure; will organize time and efforts to meet goals and deadlines," while P's "resist structure; may not start a project until motivated by the arrival of a deadline." She says J's "are responsible, firm, true to their word, but may be unwilling to change, even when things are going badly," while P's "are curious, adaptable, masters of improvisation, but may not follow through or stick to something very long." She says J's "can be controlling — may take authority instinctively, certain they know what needs to be done," while Ps "can be reckless — may not consider risks or time constraints when drawn to something exciting." And Thomson also discusses "the P/J split in pop culture," citing Felix and Oscar in The Odd Couple as one example.

2. J/P and obligations

Spoiler

As already noted, the Big Five dimension that corresponds to J/P is most often referred to as Conscientiousness. To quote most of the first paragraph of the Wikipedia article:

Conscientiousness is one trait of the five-factor model of personality, and ... is manifested in characteristic behaviors such as being efficient, organized, neat, and systematic, also including such elements as self-discipline, carefulness, thoroughness, self-organization, deliberation (the tendency to think carefully before acting), and need for achievement. Conscientious individuals are generally hard working and reliable. When taken to an extreme, they may also be "workaholics," perfectionists, and compulsive in their behavior. People who score low on conscientiousness tend to be more laid back, less goal-oriented, and less driven by success; they also are more likely to engage in antisocial and criminal behavior.

The "compulsion" element is interesting. Here's a study that suggests that OCPD (obsessive-compulsive personality disorder) may "represent a maladaptive variant of normal range conscientiousness." (As a side note, in case you're unfamiliar with OCPD, it is not to be confused with its substantially more "disordered" cousin, OCD.) I'd say my J preference is quite strong and I'll admit that, when I read at least some parts of OCPD descriptions, I think to myself, OK, I am definitely not that bad, but... I can relate.

I think it may be fair, at least to some extent, to view the conscientiousness aspect of a J preference as arising from something of a gut-level compulsion to meet your obligations. It's not that a J doesn't have free will, or that a J never shirks a responsibility, and it's not that a P isn't perfectly capable of living up to their obligations, but it seems to me that at least part of what causes a J preference to correlate with reliability and punctuality and a P preference to correlate with a greater tendency to shirk is that, for a P, whether to perform or shirk is more a matter of free intellectual choice, with less of anything like a gut-level tug that would make it what you might call internally uncomfortable to shirk. Describing J's as people who "wear their responsibilities heavily" and P's as people who "wear their responsibilities lightly" is another way to capture the same difference, and again, it's not so much a matter of ultimate behavioral performance (the world is full of P's who you can pretty much count on to meet their important obligations) as a matter of what's going on at the gut level — although it's hardly surprising that there turn out to be significant behavioral correlations, at least if you're talking about people in whom the relevant preference is reasonably strong.

But note: Does this mean a J enjoys having obligations and responsibilities? Speaking as a strong J, I'd say, for the most part: hell, no. In fact, and to some degree, I think the fact that my obligations tend to weigh as heavily on me as they do can make me more reluctant — at least in some cases — to take them on in the first place. More than once, in the course of internet forum discussions, I've seen ENFPs called out for their tendency to run late and heard ENFPs defend themselves on the ground that, yeah, but it's because we want to do too much and have trouble saying no and end up with too many things on our plates. And one of the people I know best in this world is a strong-P ENFP and that fits her to a T. She means well, and she basically wants to fulfill her obligations — although nobody who knew us would have much trouble deciding which of us is better described as dutiful. But failing to meet a responsibility — whether it's missing a deadline and getting it done late or ending up having to duck it completely, and especially if she feels like it wasn't really her fault (including because of her own overfilling of her plate) — really doesn't mortify her the way it mortifies me (on those spectacularly rare occasions when, for some reason, I fail to perform). Hell, failing to meet an obligation mortifies me even if I have what anybody would agree is a bulletproof excuse and I shouldn't feel bad. And anytime I've arguably got too much on my plate — and even though there's a possibility I'll manage to get it all done on time — I'm still going to be in an uncomfortable state, while my ENFP friend is much better at saying hey, I'm only human, and I'm going to do my best, and what gets done, gets done. And so... circling back to the start of the paragraph, the result is that, in some cases at least, you may find a conscientious J acting more responsibility-averse — in terms of their willingness to pile another task on their plate — than a less-conscientious P. Being a J doesn't mean that you like to be obligated so much as that, to the extent that you have an obligation, you're likely to experience a stronger (relative to a P) temperamental compulsion to fulfill it (and fulfill it on time).

Speaking for myself, I'd describe a perfect day as a weekend day where I wake up with no responsibilities on my plate. No work, no errands: nothing. Because even if there are only a couple tasks on the day's to-do list and they're only likely to take an hour or so to get done, I'm still likely to experience those tasks as a little cloud hanging over my day until I freaking get them done. Then I can relax and enjoy whatever other stuff I decide to do to a greater degree than I would if the day's chores were still unfinished. (The classic "work first, play later" mentality.)

Let's say you've got a bunch of stuff that you're responsible for getting done next week, and you think it might be more than a week's worth of stuff. And let's say it's not really your fault that you're in that position. Are you more the type to, if anything, err on the side of letting your responsibilities weigh too heavily on you, and worry and maybe lose sleep about being "out of control" in that scenario even though you know worrying doesn't do any good? And in any case, under those circumstances, are you likely to pretty much spend every waking hour tending to your responsibilities? Or are you more the type to, if anything, err on the side of taking your responsibilities a little too lightly, and have an attitude more like my ENFP friend — hey, I'm only human, and I'm going to work reasonably hard this week, and if I end up missing a deadline, it won't be the end of the world? For that matter, might we even find you scheduling some play time for yourself at some point that week, despite the risk that it'll increase the amount that you don't get done on time?

3. Rovers and sitters

Spoiler

I noted in my J/P sorter that J's are more likely than P's to be worrywarts, but I also think that's a good example of a personality characteristic (and there are many) that more than one of the MBTI dimensions can contribute to, each in its own way. I'd say how much of a risk-averse worrier someone tends to be is something that being Limbic — i.e., above-average in neuroticism (the Big Five dimension that lacks a corresponding MBTI dimension) — is likely to contribute to, and that introversion can also contribute to. A June 2011 OpEd piece by Susan Cain in the New York Times described an experiment involving impulsive and cautious fish ("rovers" and "sitters"), and here's a bit of it:

We even find "introverts" in the animal kingdom, where 15 percent to 20 percent of many species are watchful, slow-to-warm-up types who stick to the sidelines (sometimes called "sitters") while the other 80 percent are "rovers" who sally forth without paying much attention to their surroundings. Sitters and rovers favor different survival strategies, which could be summed up as the sitter's "Look before you leap" versus the rover's inclination to "Just do it!" ...

In an illustrative experiment, David Sloan Wilson, a Binghamton evolutionary biologist, dropped metal traps into a pond of pumpkinseed sunfish. The "rover" fish couldn't help but investigate — and were immediately caught. But the "sitter" fish stayed back, making it impossible for Professor Wilson to capture them. Had Professor Wilson's traps posed a real threat, only the sitters would have survived. ...

Next, Professor Wilson used fishing nets to catch both types of fish; when he carried them back to his lab, he noted that the rovers quickly acclimated to their new environment and started eating a full five days earlier than their sitter brethren. In this situation, the rovers were the likely survivors. "There is no single best ... [animal] personality," Professor Wilson concludes, ... "but rather a diversity of personalities maintained by natural selection."

Cain, as you may know, is the author of the best-selling Quiet: The Power of Introverts, and I'd say she errs in framing the rover/sitter duality exclusively in E/I terms. The most well-established Big Five test (McCrae & Costa's NEO-PI-R) breaks Conscientiousness — i.e., J/P — down into six "facets," and one of those facets is called Deliberation. As McCrae and Costa explain: "Deliberation is the tendency to think carefully before acting. High scorers on this facet are cautious and deliberate. Low scorers are hasty and often speak or act without considering the consequences. At best, low scorers are spontaneous and able to make snap decisions when necessary." And decades of both MBTI and Big Five data have pretty clearly established that E/I and J/P are essentially independent dimensions of personality.

So, again, I'm inclined to say that the J/P dimension and the neuroticism dimension (which includes anxiety-proneness) are also meaningful contributors to the rover/sitter duality — in people, at least — but I'd also say that viewing E/I as a contributor is consistent with most MBTI sources and, in any case, I think it's probably fair to say that the most impulsive, bold, plunge-right-in types are the Calm EPs and the most cautious, look-before-you-leap, think-before-you-speak, worry-prone types are the Limbic IJs (like me).

I also think frugality is something that both I and J can contribute to, with IJs tending to be the most frugal types and EPs at the other end of the spectrum.

4. Difficult decisions

Spoiler

As previously noted, one of the rows in the J/P table in Gifts Differing declares that J's "like to have matters settled and decided as promptly as possible," while P's "like to keep decisions open as long as possible," and I think that's true as far as it goes, but I'm less willing to accept the arguably-related idea — not infrequently encountered on the internet — that J's generally find it easier to make decisions than P's.

Although, all other things being equal, I'd agree that J's have more of a core drive to have something settled, I'd also say that, if it's an important decision, and if it's the kind of decision that could, from an objective standpoint, turn out to have been the right decision or the wrong decision, a J is not very likely to make what most people would consider a rushed judgment — and I think that, partly due to other aspects of their overall MBTI temperament, that's arguably more true of INTJs than some of the other J types. And as a side note — and, again, assuming it's an important decision — I wouldn't say INTJs are notable sinners in the sense of being likely to stick with a decision and refuse to reconsider it in the face of new facts or evidence that it isn't working out well.

And now let's focus on the most horrible kinds of decisions everybody faces in life — namely, really big life decisions where there probably is no such thing as a right answer, or at least no way to confidently determine it in advance (and maybe not in hindsight either). For those kinds of decisions — law school or film school; career or employer choices; buying a house — I disagree with the idea that a J is significantly less likely to agonize over one of those decisions, or feel really "at sea" about one of those decisions, than a P. In fact, I think there are reasons to think an average J may tend to agonize more about one of those life decisions. For one thing, because of a J's greater drive to have things settled, it's arguably more important to a J to feel like whatever decision they make will turn out to have been the right one. A P is at least somewhat more likely to be OK with viewing their decision as tentative, and to be more comfortable with the notion that, oh well, if Plan A doesn't work out, they can always switch to Plan B and give that a try.

As a final note, I think an INTJ may be more prone to overagonize about a big life decision than at least some of the other types because an INTJ is more prone to overanalyze than some other types. An INTJ is probably more inclined than most types (although not more than INTPs, I wouldn't say) to feel like, if they just think about the decision long enough, and gather enough information, etc., dammit, they'll hopefully end up figuring it out — or, in any case, that the more INT-ish analysis they do, the more likely it will be that they'll make the right decision. You'd expect an ESTP, by contrast, to be somewhat more likely to be the one who throws up his hands at some point and says, "Who the hell knows? Flip a coin."

5. INTJ's as doers

Spoiler

It's not uncommon to hear INTPs say, in the course of forum INTJ vs. INTP discussions, that INTPs are happy to be slackers who just think about stuff and INTJs are "doers" with a core drive to be racking up actual accomplishments in the outside world. But, although there may be a kernel of truth there, I'd say E and S both have substantially more to do with whether someone craves external-world results than J does. An INTJ can be quite content to learn about things, and master skills, that the INTJ isn't likely to be putting to much (if any) real-world use, and I'd point to my longstanding MBTI dweebishness as one anecdotal example.

Compared to INTPs, INTJs may be doers. But, compared to most other types, INTJs are theorizer/analysts who are more likely to err on the side of neglecting the practical-application side. Here are Keirsey & Bates, from Please Understand Me, talking about all NTs:

Power fascinates the NT. Not power over people, but power over nature. To be able to understand, control, predict, and explain realities. ... These forms of power, however, are but means to an end, the end best expressed by the word competence. So it is not exactly power that the NT wants but rather competencies, capabilities, abilities, capacities, skills, ingenuity — repertoire.

The NT loves intelligence, which means: doing things well under varying circumstances. The extreme NT can even be seen as addicted to acquiring intelligence, hooked on storing up wisdom. ...

"Wanting to be competent" is not a strong enough expression of the force behind the NT's quest. He must be competent. There is urgency in his desire; he can be obsessed by it and feel a compulsion to improve, as if caught in a force field.​

And again, to the extent that I was inclined to distinguish NTs with a drive to put their "repertoire" to actual use from NTs who are more content to just build up the repertoire for the sheer love of repertoire, I'd say that's substantially more of an ENT/INT distinction than an NTJ/NTP distinction.

You may have heard it said that, because of INTJs' relatively asocial nature, most people's significant contacts with INTJs are limited to the work setting. That seems right to me. And most work involves actually getting stuff done in the world. And INTJs tend to take their work responsibilities really seriously, and take deadlines really seriously. So most INTJs at work are doers, to a substantial degree, because that's what they're getting paid for. (Most INTPs at work are doers, too, for that matter, but I wouldn't disagree that, on average, they're arguably more reluctant doers than the dutiful INTJs.)

Put an INTJ and INTP side by side and, on average, you could say the INTP will be the more impractical, head-in-the-clouds ponderer. But put an INTJ in a work setting dominated by SJs (I speak from experience), and the INTJ will be seen as the impractical, head-in-the-clouds ponderer. The INTJ will be the one who the SJs view as too unwilling to cut corners on a project for the sake of budget or time constraints, or deviate from what he views as the "right way" for the project to be because of pesky client demands — because the INTJ will be the dweeby one whose primary loyalty is to the quality of the project itself, rather than to the practical context surrounding it.

Give me a challenging project to do — hopefully one that involves learning and/or devising significantly new things — and give me the time to do it right and I'm a happy INTJ. If the client goes bankrupt the day after I finish and the project never gets put to practical use, I couldn't care less.

Finally, and in case you're interested, here's a study that found that INTJs were more likely to want to retire early than most other types. As compared to the other 14 types, I'd say that both INTJs and INTPs can fairly be described as people content to spend much of their lives inside their own heads.

6. Punctuality and procrastination

Spoiler

First, as an introduction to the punctuality issue, let me mention the neatness issue. Internet forumites inclined to badmouth the MBTI (or the J/P dichotomy in particular) as a collection of superficial stereotypes often point to the notion that J's are neat and P's are messy and roll their eyes. And it's true that, to a large degree, neat/messy isn't a very good J/P indicator, especially if you're talking about NJs and NPs. Neatness, to the extent that it functions as at least a half-decent type indicator, is more of an SJ thing than a general J thing. But FYI, there are no J/P items on the official "Step I" MBTI that relate to neatness.

Punctuality, on the other hand... can be an excellent J/P indicator. Not a definitive indicator, and that's first and foremost because it's generally a mistake to take any one personality-related characteristic as definitive with respect to any of the MBTI preferences. That said, though, if you're talking about one of those people who's almost never late to anything — and in fact, is much more likely to be somewhat early, because they habitually allow extra time for unexpected delays — that's not a bad J indicator. And if you're talking about one of those people who's chronically late to things, that's actually a substantially stronger P indicator than almost-never-lateness is a J indicator. Why the asymmetry? Because it makes more sense to look to temperament if you're trying to explain why somebody has a tendency to err in one direction or the other than if the attitude or behavior in question is something that pretty much just makes sense from a rational perspective, regardless of anybody's "personality type." It's not that hard to imagine a P — and especially a mild P — with somewhat of a temperamental tendency to run late eventually learning their lesson and adjusting their attitudes and practices to compensate for the temperamental tugs, with the result that they end up being reliably J-like in the on-time department. By contrast, why would a J with a temperamental tendency to be on time want to willfully adjust their attitudes and practices to be habitually late?

----------------------------------------------------------------

It's not uncommon to find forum type-me subjects giving themselves P points because they consider themselves procrastinators. But procrastinating things you'd rather not be doing is really more of a human nature thing than a P thing. I'd say a tendency to procrastinate should only get somebody P points if they're someone who's not unlikely to procrastinate things to the point that it ends up having a significant negative impact — from missing the deadline, to meeting the deadline but only because they did an overly-hasty job, to keeping somebody waiting, etc.

If the great majority of somebody's procrastination just consists of "putting off until tomorrow" those things that really can wait until tomorrow (even though they might feel better about themselves if they did them today), that's not really a significant P indicator.

7. J/P misc.

Spoiler

I think J/P's a duality where it's common for people on either side to wish they had at least a little more of what's on the other side. Talking to a J who was reading The Tao of Pooh, I pointed out that it's J's that read books to help them learn to loosen up and go with the flow. P's read books about how to get some damn discipline and organization into their lives. The going-with-the-flow bit comes naturally to them. :P

As I said in my J/P sorter, J also correlates with being strong-willed, which may more characteristically manifest itself as stubbornness in an introvert — rather than the bossiness you're more likely to get with an EJ. In any case, whether I or E, I'd say J's tend to be the types you're least likely to want to get in an argument with. Would you say your friends would be more likely to describe you as stubborn or easygoing?

I think of NJ as the know-it-all combination. When you're talking about a subject you really think you understand, and you're talking to someone who knows less than you do, would you say you have something of a tendency to want to sound like an "authority" on the subject — and that others might say you sometimes come off as a know-it-all — or would you say you have more of a tendency to express yourself modestly, even when you're talking about something where you really are something of an authority? Does your tone tend to have more of a "this is what I think" flavor or more of a "let me enlighten you" flavor?

If you're involved in some kind of debate, would you say there's a significant risk you'll err on the side of taking yourself too seriously or getting too caught up in having to be right — with the result that you may end up talking as if you're surer of yourself than you really are or overstating what you know — or are you more likely to take a playful, easygoing attitude toward the debate, and state your position in a more modest or exploratory way (even if you really know what you're talking about)? When you're arguing vigorously about something, do people sometimes accuse you of being angry, even though, as you try to explain to them, you're "not angry"? (I think that's kind of an NJ thing, although more likely for an NTJ than an NFJ.)

Speaking of INTJs vs. INTPs in particular (NFs can skip this paragraph): If there are two N types I'm most inclined to associate with a "life is a game" attitude, it's the NTPs. And it's something of an internet forum cliché, in my experience, that if there's a single MBTI type most often associated with treating debates/discussions/etc. as games and being willing to take insincere positions, throw things out just to get a reaction, bullshit people and so on, it's the ENTP. By contrast, I think a typical INTJ engaged in a debate — especially if it's an issue they care much about or think there's a right and wrong perspective on — is more likely to come off as earnestly authentic, and demonstrate a drive to not only let people know what they really think, but also to try to change the mind of anybody who doesn't understand or otherwise has the wrong view. INTPs are one letter away from ENTPs and one letter away from INTJs but, in this case, I think it's the J/P that makes the most difference — making INTPs more like ENTPs than INTJs in this regard. So if somebody's significantly more inclined to treat a debate as an opportunity to enlighten the misguided than a coolly intellectual sport where they're happy to take either side, I'd say that's probably worth a point or two on the J side.

BUT NOTE: As a point of clarification: I think it's pretty characteristic for an INTJ to have at least a mild wiseass streak. And if that seems arguably inconsistent with my description of INTJs' tendency to be earnest in debates, I'd say the explanation is that, when an INTJ is being a joker, you know it (I'd say an INTJ will tend to be more disinclined to troll), and also that, as I said, if there's a debate going on and it concerns an issue the INTJ has a strong view on, the INTJ is more likely than the INTP to exhibit an unmistakably serious/sincere desire to change their opponent's mind.

Back on the planful/impulsive side of J/P, think about being at a store and walking past an unexpected sale item that's something you might buy on occasion but wasn't part of today's plans. My strong-P ENFP friend is a total sucker for those, and likes stores where the merchandise rotates quite a lot and you're likely to find a surprise or two if you're a browsy shopper. But even on a trip to an ordinary grocery store where she's not really in browse mode, if an aisle display grabs her attention — and especially if it's kind of a fun item — she's likely to treat it as if the universe just sent her a message. Sold! My temperament, on the other hand, resists that kind of surprise — even if it's something that I'd enjoy and could probably be persuaded to buy if my friend was along and I considered it a bit. My gut has a default negative response to anything not on the agenda, as if the universe is trying to pull a fast one on me and/or distract me from the task at hand.

Going back to the MBTI's roots, Jung viewed temperament as the source of people's crazinesses and difficulties as much as their strengths — and I definitely think it makes sense to look to temperament to explain some of the things anybody does that fail to perfectly match the circumstances. If a J and a P are each about to make an important phone call, they're both perfectly capable of writing out a list of points they want to make on the call — or planning/rehearsing some of the most important things they want to say. But if they err significantly in the planning department, a strong J is more likely to err on the side of over-planning the call (which is not likely to hurt the call, but may waste a fair amount of time), while a strong P is more likely to err on the side of under-planning the call — saying, "Screw it, let's do this" a bit too soon, and over-relying on their ability to successfully improvise "in the moment." To the extent that you sometimes fail to get the J/P balance right, are you more likely to overdo or underdo in the structure/planning department? If you're hosting a party, are you likely to be the kind of host who's so conscientiously focused on the planning/managing that it's hard for you to relax and enjoy the party, or is it more likely you'll drop the ball on a few things but take a back seat to no one in the party spirit department?

The world is full of relationships (both romantic relationships and friendships) where one person is more J than the other — maybe a strong J while the other is a P or more in the middle; or maybe in the middle while the other is a well-defined P. Whenever the difference is pronounced, the two people can tend to bring out — and sometimes accentuate — the difference in the other party. A teenage mild J who's somewhat mischievous and/or otherwise P-ish when reacting to and interacting with her SJ parents or school authorities may find herself in semi-"parental" mode when she's interacting with a strongly P friend. Or a woman who's a very mild P (or pretty much in the middle) with a boyfriend who's a strong J may end up being more P-ish in her interactions with her overly-uptight boyfriend (playing the child, playing the fool, leaning on him to take care of responsibilities) than she would if she was on her own, or especially than she would if she had a strongly-P boyfriend. If you've been involved in any relationships where this kind of dynamic came into play, would you say you've almost always found yourself on one particular side? Or have you been on both sides, with different people?

As already noted, I thinks it's reasonably clear that J/P is essentially tapping into the same underlying personality dimension as the Big Five Conscientiousness factor, and the most well-known version of the Big Five is McCrae & Costa's NEO-PI-R. The NEO-PI-R breaks down each of the factors into six facets, and here are the six Conscientiousness facets, with some of McCrae & Costa's descriptions:

• Competence: "This facet refers to the sense that one is capable, sensible, prudent, and effective. High scorers on this scale feel well prepared to deal with life."
  
• Order: "High scorers on this scale are neat, tidy, and well organized. They keep things in their proper places. ... Carried to an extreme, high Order might contribute to compulsive personality traits."
  
• Dutifulness: "In one sense, conscientiousness means 'governed by conscience,' and that aspect of Conscientiousness is assessed as Dutifulness. High scorers on this scale adhere strictly to their ethical principles and scrupulously fulfill their moral obligations."
  
• Achievement Striving: "Individuals who score high on this facet have high aspiration levels and work hard to achieve their goals. ... Very high scorers, however, may invest too much in their careers and become workaholics."
  
• Self-Discipline: "This term means the ability to begin tasks and carry them through to completion despite boredom and other distractions."
  
• Deliberation: "Deliberation is the tendency to think carefully before acting. High scorers on this facet are cautious and deliberate. Low scorers are hasty and often speak or act without considering the consequences."

If you want to see how you come out on the official "Step I" MBTI, here's a link to that.

Finally, in case they're useful, I've put profile link roundups for the four IN types in the last spoiler.

Spoiler

INTJ Profiles
MBTI Manual (2nd Ed.)
MBTI Manual (3rd Ed.)
Keirsey (Please Understand Me)
Kroeger & Thuesen (Type Talk)
Hirsh & Kummerow (Lifetypes [abridged])
Berens & Nardi
personalitypage: Portrait
personalitypage: Personal Growth
personalitypage: Relationships
personalitypage: Careers

INTP Profiles
MBTI Manual (2nd Ed.)
MBTI Manual (3rd Ed.)
Keirsey (Please Understand Me)
Kroeger & Thuesen (Type Talk)
Hirsh & Kummerow (Lifetypes [abridged])
Berens & Nardi
personalitypage: Portrait
personalitypage: Personal Growth
personalitypage: Relationships
personalitypage: Careers

INFJ Profiles
MBTI Manual (2nd Ed.)
MBTI Manual (3rd Ed.)
Keirsey (Please Understand Me)
Kroeger & Thuesen (Type Talk)
Hirsh & Kummerow (Lifetypes [abridged])
Berens & Nardi
personalitypage: Portrait
personalitypage: Personal Growth
personalitypage: Relationships
personalitypage: Careers

INFP Profiles
MBTI Manual (2nd Ed.)
MBTI Manual (3rd Ed.)
Keirsey (Please Understand Me)
Kroeger & Thuesen (Type Talk)
Hirsh & Kummerow (Lifetypes [abridged])
Berens & Nardi
personalitypage: Portrait
personalitypage: Personal Growth
personalitypage: Relationships
personalitypage: Careers

 

[dream-of-roses]

@Happy I should have mentioned that I am aware of the function stack but that I never found it much use. I could never reconcile either of those function stacks with my own experience except with a heavy dose of explanation from someone else and even then, I could not make one stack match me better than the other (odd, since the two stacks have nothing in common)--hence my recent vacillating between the two types.

@reckful I was aware that the function stacks have less solid data than the MBTI but I was not sure as the the extent of that. I read your posts about the "bogosity" (I like that word, by the way) of the functions and they seem reasonable so I am willing to take you at your word, at least until I have such time and inclination as to do research on the subject for myself. As for your input on J/P, I found it insightful and much more nuanced than the usual trite comparisons I have so often found. I have always found the J/P difference the hardest to understand, and I will not say that the issue has been completely cleared up for me, but your examples were helpful.

Based on the examples, I would say that I am somewhat J leaning. My results from the official test were what they have consistently been (it's the non-official tests where my results vary).

Clear Introversion
Very Clear Intuition
Clear Thinking
Clear Judging

Of course, these are not the results one would expect from someone questioning their type...but there you are...

 

[omics]

I will say you are on to something when you note your interests in schedules and list-making. Those two things alone will cause you to test as INTJ, though plenty of INTPs (especially those raised in certain cultures, or in certain family or other contexts which support organization), love making lists.

There can also be the opposite origin story: I was raised in a very chaotic household, where, despite being a "P", I was the most organized of the lot. Therefore, I keep lists. I make schedules. I set alarms to remind me of library books, and keep a tidy personal space and almost (almost) have managed to have a "tidy mind". But I'm still a perceiver within the MBTI.

Some major questions to consider, especially as someone who themselves doesn't find functional analysis (Ne vs Ni, etc.) very clear or useful:

1. Where does my organization stem from? How do I go about achieving organization? Have I always done it the same way, and, if I learnt any of it along the way, what was that process? This can help unpack some of the central "P or J" questions that tests will ask without getting too near functional analysis, though functional analysis is still the center of the theory.

2. Ask all of those questions again, but about concepts like "certainty" or about your views on conclusions and summary versus endlessness and exhaustive speculation.

3. Consider influences beyond the basic configuration of your own mind on your psychology (mind and behavior). Family, school or work settings, key events of your past, etc. Try to untangle the web that is you, in context.

I don't want to unduly prejudice your own thoughts, especially because those questions can be fun, but my breakdown of what you wrote in your original post is under the spoilers cut, assuming I managed to do it correctly.

Spoiler

I went point by point in your paragraphs of description. Some parts of my discussion is more on topic than others, please forgive me.

Your entire paragraph describing your introversion: you are introverted... but unfortunately nothing of your description supports one or the other type. That you categorize people as stupid or intelligent despite pressure to stop is both an INTP and an INTJ experience.

Although, side-note, if you're ever looking for alternatives, "well-informed" or "well-reasoned" and their opposites, "ignorant" or "confused", can be useful. Or, sometimes I just get real specific about what a person lacks or has in abundance...stating the particular form of intelligence present or absent, being sure to separate intelligence(s) from knowledge, and both from extenuating circumstances. Sadly this doesn't seem to make anyone like me better, it just makes me more accurate, hopefully.

You like reading AND re-read favorite books many times: both INTJ and INTP, especially just that you like reading. But, the re-reading favorites part is more INTP than INTJ, mainly because an INTP is more likely to be more nostalgic than an INTJ, and an INTP is more likely to see value in re-reading due to having a more open-ended decision-making process and a tendency to view an experience or information as being "changed" in light of other experiences or other information in a way that is interesting to them. An INTJ is more likely to value the information for how it was useful, and the experience for how it was enjoyable, and only re-read if they think they've forgotten or if they REALLY like the book. I even know an INTJ who gives away books she's already read the second she's stopped reading them. An INTJ approach to time and what to do with it is much more... applied.

You are particularly focused on plot holes: More INTP than INTJ. Though this may seem like a "judgmental" thing to do, I see it as much more of a Ti-Si thing to do than anything else. As an INTP, your leading function (Ti) is judging! It's just introverted, so it's a quiet critic rather than a natural debate or opinion paper champion.

Everything in your Emotions paragraph: Very INTP, mainly unlike an INTJ. If you care to consider the functions, Extroverted Feeling (Fe) is EXACTLY what you described when it is "inferior" (4th in the stack, as it is in INTP) and undeveloped. Cold, cold, cold, HOT, and repeat, is a typical cycle. An INTJ with tertiary (3rd in stack) Introverted Feeling (Fi) would probably describe their emotional life as follows: "Well, I mean, I have emotions, but they don't bother me much so long as things are going well. I have a strong gut feeling when something is right or wrong, when I agree or disagree. Sometimes I get stressed out, especially by [insert long list of grievances here, possibly including "being asked to emote" ... but with nowhere near the level of discomfort you describe]."

Your paragraph on organization: Love of excel-style organizing AND procrastination? VERY INTP, not much INTJ. I've known an INTJ or two to organize using computer programs, but I've known just as many, if not more, INTPs who do the same thing. What makes this lean very-INTP to me is the COMBINATION with being a procrastinator. Again, an INTJ could be as you describe, especially if that INTJ had ADHD/ADD, or some other influence on their psychology, like an XNXP parent... but it is much more of a native behavior to INTPs, many of whom are more-or-less developmentally normal and in relatively-supportive environments but who STILL manage to procrastinate.

To an INTP, procrastination is less like an indulgence, or a poorly managed bad habit, but more like a central feature of their minds and lives. It's a fully-formed, fully-acknowledged lifestyle, if you will. One which many an INTP ideologically aligns themselves with, normal society be damned.

This mainly has to do with the Extroverted Intuition (Ne), which is very present-focused, jumping all around based on current stimuli and thoughts as it is, and the Ti, which is more focused on personally-considered theories, systems, and other thoughts, rather than on any given task or goal someone else has imposed. This is why (at least in my own experience) learning to be self-motivated (internally, intrinsically motivated) rather than buy-in to the culturally-dominant system of motivation by extrinsic factors (a punishment, a reward, praise, condemnation, etc.), has been key to getting shit done. Unfortunately, a sense of intrinsic motivation can only extend so far without a lot of growth. Specifically, growth in the "learning to understand and value the task rather than fearing and loathing it" department. If it's a stupid task... value not having to do it anymore? I still struggle with that one.

I could go on about the beauty of Excel and similar programs for making manifests and organizing/processing information, but that's for another time.

Talking in circles: INTP, not INTJ. An INTJ is typically going to have "where they want to go" when making any statement, let alone a full-blown point, first and foremost in their minds, and as such they rarely will have the "talking in circles" problem. That's not to say they never go in circles on a subject, but that will probably happen inside their own mental narrative, unless they are very comfortable and being very open with those they are talking with.

"But that's what I meant": Could easily be either, but I'll say this is more of an INTJ trait, as you've stated it here. If it is you tending to communicate in decisive statements, when really your internal world is much more in-flux and nuanced, that's what I mean by INTJ, who have an inner-world of "fuzzy logic" intuition encased an extroverted-interface of "traditional/binary/NOT fuzzy" logical reasoning. If it is more you have a detailed consideration on a topic, or, if you're new to it, a quick breakdown of the important parts, but when you share it to others it all seems to "go to mush" as you express it, that's more Ti-Ne (with a less-developed Ne) at work, and is therefore INTP.

And...that's it.

Summary judgement.............. INTP.
This judgement, as with all I make, is provisional and entirely unprofessional.

Your paragraphs and their organization were very helpful to my analysis!

Also, although there were multiple times I referred to you possibly having an undeveloped or underdeveloped function, in all the theory I've seen, a person doesn't finish working on their second function (the Ne or Te for an INTP/INTJ) until they are in their mid-20s, if not later! So...It's not so much a statement of you "failing" at anything, but rather an acknowledgement that your full self has only just begun to come together, and you've probably masses of potential to uncover in your future.

 

[OmoInisa]

@reckful

Please explain the difference between what is meant by an 'extroverted judger' and what is meant by a 'J person'.

Also please explain the difference between 'introverted perceiver' and 'J person'.

 

[dream-of-roses]

@omics My analysis of your analysis.

I do like re-reading favorites. Favorites is an honored term that only three books have thus far achieved: The Count of Monte-Cristo, Pride and Prejudice, and The Quest for Saint Camber (for which I re-read also the previous two books in the Histories of King Kelson trilogy only to remind myself of the context for the third book). I re-read them every few years when I feel my memory of them is beginning to fade. I do not want to forget my favorite books. If I learn something new when I re-read the book, it is because I do not read all of the words in a sentence and I unconsciously choose different words each time I read. I do not hoard books like my mother who has more than 3,000 volumes and I am very willing to give her my books once I am done with them (apart from the three (plus two context) favorites). Most books, I do not find worth a re-read.

As for your analysis of my plot hole searching, my belief in functions was never very strong in the first place and I have since been convinced that there is little foundation for them. If you want to convince me of something by talking about functions, send me information on solid studies with significant results to base the merit of functions on. If you can refute the stance that functions have no basis in good research with evidence, I will be willing to accept your arguments based on functions. Until then, I will be stubborn in my (long-suspected but newly-certain) suspicion of anything to do with functions.

If I believed in functions, I could see your argument with emotions. I don't particularly want to ask this but I suppose it is significant. Do you suppose that years of emotional and psychological abuse from a parent might skew an individuals reaction to emotion, especially if they have a T inclination to begin with? I think it would but I cannot begin to imagine in what way. I'm too close to see clearly.

Did I forget to mention that I have ADD and am not on medication (I couldn't think when using the medication, which made me miserable)? Also, until recently, my procrastination never made me fail at anything that I set my mind to do. My assignments (the ones that I did not find too inane to do in the first place) were always on time and always completed. If, by some horrible nightmare situation, I did not complete an assignment and the teacher was willing to give me more time to complete it, I would not take that time because I felt that I had already failed and did not deserve the additional time. I still have a hard time when people tell me that I should be more relaxed about deadlines. I don't care what sort of crazy tornado is tearing through my life and causing my to fail to complete assignments, it is my fault that I did not get them done. I failed. I generally procrastinate because I do not need that much time to get the project done (or so I assume in cases where I fail). It simply makes sense to me to get a project done as close to the deadline as possible.

Perhaps talking in circles was not the term I was looking for. I have no patience for those who truly talk in circles. I want them to simply GET TO THE POINT. I suppose what I meant was trying out different methods of explaining what I want to say as my listeners' eyes glaze over because they don't understand. But that, I realize, only happens when I care if someone understands because I feel like I failed somehow in communicating (which I did). If I do not care if they understand, I either continue talking about the subject until they walk away or I walk away myself, writing them off as incapable of understanding.

Ideally, information goes into my head in a logical way, explodes into some sort of chaos that I cannot articulate, then transfers to a part of my mind that cleans it up so that it leaves me in a logical way. Less ideal is information that comes to me in chaos or information that escapes my mind in chaos. The chaos that exists in my head is not optional. I wouldn't even know where to start with taming it. The organization of my paragraphs was, by the way, part of the logic to chaos to logic process.

But maybe I'm just being contradictory. I want to say that I do not care whether I am an INTP or and INTJ. I just want to figure it out a) so that I have a conclusion and can get on with my life, the distraction of wondering is taking up valuable time, and b) so that, in understanding myself, I can learn to function more effectively in the world (because right now, I'm not doing so well).

 

[omics]

Briefly, on the subject of empirical support for the functions, there is some research in which EEGs of individuals of a "known" MBTI type are taken while they perform certain tasks or receive certain stimuli, and then the researcher(s) searched for patterns in the results.

The researcher involved, Dario Nardi, has done a reddit AMA I read through one time, and I think he has a blog. I haven't read through any of his research closely (mainly these 2nd hand descriptions of it, I need to find some actual published paper), and have not assessed the methods, but he has some findings that intuitively make sense to me. I’ll look for criticism of his methods/interpretations.

Anyway, that’s not evidence approaching proof, but it is some support and is certainly the beginnings of how we could think about a, "mechanism" for MBTI functions. Whether or not Nardi’s research is good, the mechanism is going to be a story we tell about brains. Possible principle actors: brain regions, brain matter composition, neurotransmitters, hormones, the genetics and epigenetics of brain development and function, psycho-social effects on brain development and function, any other bodily functions or features that could have an effect on the brain and thereby influence the patterns of behavior and thought we call personality (say, your metabolism having something to do with introversion/extroversion, though that’s pretty far-fetched, I guess).

More on this and related subjects in the form of unorganized rambling under the spoiler cut:

Spoiler

From here, http://www.careerplanner.com/MB2/Personality-Type-Theory-and-Evidence.cfm as found through a google scholar search (somehow, it’s not a scholarly article), you can read one person's attempt to collate evidence in support of MBTI/functions (though it is pretty light).

Here's some person purporting to criticize Nardi's research: http://www.neojungiantypology.com/blog/view/17/dario-nardi-eeg-research

And...from this source, I've found out about, "John Beebes 8-function model" as being a different take on Jungian-origin typology than how Myers & Briggs took it... although, important to note, MBTI still includes functions in its theory. Supposedly, Nardi used the 8-function model rather than a 4-function MBTI approach...but I haven't really seen that in what I've read.

There is much more reading to do, but I’m out of time for now.
A final note on these sort of Jungian-origin typology things: I like to leave behind as much of the psychoanalytical/truly Jungian aspects of MBTI and related theories as possible, because as far as I can tell all of that "world" is more interested in mythologizing than being scientifically sound. Unfortunately, sometimes, lacking alternative descriptions of the theories that include biological/psychological mechanisms, it seems there’s not much left after cutting out the psychoanalytical fluff.

If you continue to very much dislike the functions in MBTI, perhaps a different personality model might suit you even more, as there are many good ones that don't mess around with that sort of thing.
For example, the Big Five personality index - the one most accepted in the scientific community as having stable traits and a good sorting test - has no such functions. How you seem to be applying MBTI (treating all the letter-traits, including the P and J, like a dichotomy with a sliding scale between) reminds me of how I’ve seen the Big Five personality index applied. Or, I suppose we could consider "INTP" versus "INTJ" (and the rest of the four-letter types) as gestalt - just look at the whole of descriptions of each, without the functions, and pick out which applies more to your sense of self, daily life, strengths and weaknesses...



I’ll be back on your personality & your thoughts on it after I get back from work. I don't want to rush it in the last half hour or so.

 

[omics]

@dream-of-roses —

The function model that Happy described — where INTJs and INTPs have no functions in common — is the forum-famous Harold Grant function stack. That model is inconsistent with Jung, inconsistent with Myers, and has never been endorsed by the official MBTI folks. And most importantly, and unlike the respectable districts of the MBTI, it has no substantial body of evidence behind it — and indeed, should probably be considered all but disproven at this point.

In case you're interested in reading a fair amount of input from me on the relationship between the dichotomies and the functions, the place of the functions (or lack thereof) in the MBTI's history, and the tremendous gap between the dichotomies and the functions in terms of scientific respectability — not to mention the unbearable bogosity of the Harold Grant function stack — you'll find a lot of potentially eye-opening discussion in this post and this post.

Okay... so now I realize I need to review much more information before understanding what I/we mean by MBTI functions/typology, let alone all those other things.

Thanks for bringing what you know, plus - word of the day - bogosity. At first I thought, ah, a nice neologism, made up on the spot. But, no. It's reaaaaaal, with a unit and everything (Lenat) Or, as real as any of the adjectives associated with these... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_humorous_units_of_measurement

 

[reckful]

@reckful

Please explain the difference between what is meant by an 'extroverted judger' and what is meant by a 'J person'.

Also please explain the difference between 'introverted perceiver' and 'J person'.

I don't believe in "extraverted judgers" and "introverted perceivers." I think the eight functions are what Reynierse has rightly called a "category mistake," and my take on that stuff is in the posts I already linked the OP to (this post and this post).

50 years of MBTI data (and related Big Five data) suggests that the four MBTI dichotomies, besides being substantially genetic, are also relatively independent dimensions of personality, rather than part of some interconnected system where S and N are two "functions" that we "perceive" with, and T and F are two "functions" that we "judge" with, and where people tend to use any particular "function" with a favored "attitude" that will be introverted for some of their functions (even if they're an extravert) and extraverted for some of their functions (even if they're an introvert).

 

[OmoInisa]

I don't believe in "extraverted judgers" and "introverted perceivers." I think the eight functions are what Reynierse has rightly called a "category mistake," and my take on that stuff is in the posts I already linked the OP to (this post and this post).

50 years of MBTI data (and related Big Five data) suggests that the four MBTI dichotomies, besides being substantially genetic, are also relatively independent dimensions of personality, rather than part of some interconnected system where S and N are two "functions" that we "perceive" with, and T and F are two "functions" that we "judge" with, and where people tend to use any particular "function" with a favored "attitude" that will be introverted for some of their functions (even if they're an extravert) and extraverted for some of their functions (even if they're an introvert).

Interesting. It seems to me then that your position is that Isabel Myers created a new typology of her own which, while drawing influence from an aspect of Jung's work, is not actually derived from it.
I see it differently.

Jung was mainly interested in the N, S, F and T qualities within their attitudes.

I see MBTI as a concrete fleshing out of Jung's work rather than a major revision. Myers' major addition was the J/P element.

The fact that this came in and extensive focus on function attitude went out is not actually that significant to me. As I'm sure you've gathered, J/P one one hand and function orientation on the other are six of one and half a dozen of the other in my view.
The argument is meaningless. If you like, J/P was a way of presenting function attitude in a simplified form. Jung's work would not have proliferated to the degree it has otherwise.

Your fanatical devotion to Big 5 is also odd, even allowing for the laser perception (alas, introverted) of an INTJ. Big 5 certainly has significant flaws just like Jung's work does (in my view more significant).

 

[reckful]

Interesting. It seems to me then that your position is that Isabel Myers created a new typology of her own which, while drawing influence from an aspect of Jung's work, is not actually derived from it.

No. My position is that Briggs and Myers largely started from Jung's various two-kinds-of-people-in-the-world categories, but put them to the test, and that the MBTI represents many appropriate corrections, adjustments and expansions of Jung's original concepts.

As McCrae and Costa (the leading Big Five psychologists) have rightly noted:

Jung's descriptions of what might be considered superficial but objectively observable characteristics often include traits that do not empirically covary. Jung described extraverts as "open, sociable, jovial, or at least friendly and approachable characters," but also as morally conventional and tough-minded in James's sense. Decades of research on the dimension of extraversion show that these attributes simply do not cohere in a single factor. ...

Faced with these difficulties, Myers and Briggs created an instrument by elaborating on the most easily assessed and distinctive traits suggested by Jung's writings and their own observations of individuals they considered exemplars of different types and by relying heavily on traditional psychometric procedures (principally item-scale correlations). Their work produced a set of internally consistent and relatively uncorrelated indices.

Your fanatical devotion to Big 5 is also odd, even allowing for the laser perception (alas, introverted) of an INTJ. Big 5 certainly has significant flaws just like Jung's work does (in my view more significant).

Not sure what you mean by "fanatical devotion to Big 5." My position is that people who put the respectable districts of the MBTI in a different category than the Big Five are either underestimating the MBTI, overestimating the Big Five, or both. (More here.)

Personality type is a relatively young science, and a soft science, and both the MBTI and the Big Five have lots of room for improvement. And in any case, there's no need to choose between them. I pay attention to both, but with a critical eye in each case.