How Flexible are INTPs?

[Fukyo]

I think we aren't talking about the same things, ApplePie.

I guess it's my fault for not clarifying why I use these terms; I'll do it now. I'll also explain my understanding of the typology in general. Hopefully I'll make more sense this time.

--

The traditional MBTI is mostly concerned with the four letter codes that dictate the personality. It will supply you with "personality descriptions" and expect you to perfectly fit into a highly faulty box. It uses a very deceiving testing method that measures how many blank, one sided traits you posses and assigns you a dichotomy accordingly. It uses terms such as "Judger" and "Feeler" to describe the dichotomies. It only mentions the cognitive functions offhandedly, not giving them the credit they deserve.

Why is the neglect of functions bad? Why are the profiles a faulty box? What is wrong with the four letter axis?

The "personality descriptions" are highly generalized, archetypal, vague summaries of a set of possible behaviors that emerge in a certain type. In fact, too vague to even be considered categories in my opinion. Is it realistic to expect all people belonging to one type to conform to these notions perfectly when the human psyche is inherently more complex?

This is where we reach the problem. MBTI is about motives, causes, the roots in the psyche that cause behaviors. This is why I refer to functions as mechanisms, because they are the foundation, the building blocks. The behavior itself is a product of these mechanisms and their interaction. Not to be the end of it, there is a huge amount of variables and factors involved in how these mechanisms will manifest in the individual psyche, creating a variety of possibilities and outcomes within what was previously thought of as a "box".

I hope I didn't destroy your message in the copy and paste, but so far I'm concluding, who cares about any function/ behavior meanings? The essential difference between judging and perceiving is the judger is picky while the perceiver presents what to pick from. Now that only needs to be put in more elegant words.

The perceiver presents the field
The judger chooses from the field

If this doesn't capture all that happens, does it not capture exactly
how to tell the two apart and does so using a common language?

This is why I find what's written above inaccurate. I don't think in terms of the 4 letter axis, because I find it misleading, nor do I use the terms "Perceiver" and "Judger". I also recommend anyone with a serious interest in MBTI to focus on the functional mechanisms for the reasons I stated above. This only assuming you are interested in figuring out the roots of a certain behavior and not behavior itself. If your intention is simply to assign a name to a set of observable behaviors then yes, a close approximation of "Judger" would be the one seeking closure, and "Perceiver" the one that is open ended.

Still, regardless of my discomfort with this, as the terms and language used in MBTI are already ambiguous enough to the point of obfuscation, if your purpose is simply to summarize an observable behavior, these will suffice.

 

[BigApplePi]

Fukyo said, "I think we aren't talking about the same things, ApplePie (it's ApplePi).

I think so. We are just emphasizing different things. Just what those things are I'm not ready to capture but each I'm sure has their value. One thing I want to point out. If terms aren't precise, they don't have to be. They are just pointers, descriptions with centers and ways to tell things apart.

Note there are different emphases in this thread. If I recall Adymus and others have tallked about 2ndary (and beyond) INTP characteristics. Those are iimportant if one wants to clarify INTP which I suppose is the theme I went for in this thread.

Talking about the 16 types broadly belongs in a different thread and if I talked about that here, I am guilty for not going to a thread on that topic. It just happened I was interested in nailing P versus J characteristics as an example.

You are right that foundations count. You said, "This is why I refer to functions as mechanisms, because they are the foundation, the building blocks. The behavior itself is a product of these mechanisms and their interaction."
That is fine, but doesn't it reflect an introvert bias or point-of-view? An extrovert would not care about function. They might care about behavior more. That could be THEIR foundation.

 

[Adymus]

Support please?

Um....In situations, you react in a way that either decides what you'll do or what you'll say. My main basis for my judgment is usually through analyzing and thought. But when I'm pressured and/or in rarer occasions, I judge base on a sort of "impulsed" inner feelings.

I imagine this came from a well thought out analysis and a strong conclusion? What are the reasons? Maybe not evidence but probability. Though my experience seems to show Fi instead of Fe

Okay that impulsed inner feelings you are talking about is Fe not Fi. Fi is not impulsive, it is analytical in the same way Ti is, only it extrapolates how you feel on the matter as opposed to weighing it's logic with your own. Fe is an action taking process, and will be used to make quick impulsive decisions when you don't use your Ti.

As for the Cognitive functions test, I can't help but be a little amused at how I have to prove it wrong, even though it never had to prove itself right. But in any case, sure, don't mind if I do:

The cognitive process test assumes that because you can relate to these question enough to put check marks in them, you much have these function developed. I really don't think I should have to explain to an INTP of all people why checking a box is not valid proof of concept but I'll do my best. There are four factors that are going into what you are selecting in the CP test: recognition, association, inspiration, and disassociation.

Recognition:
As you answer question, you will recognize uses of the functions that you consciously use and associate with, for an INTP this is Ti and Ne. Now you consciously use more than just Ti and Ne, but those two are going to be the most apparent to you because of the fact that it is these two that create your sense of self. Unless you are completely oblivious to the workings of your mind, you top to functions should at least be in there, now here is the part where a bunch of extras go in as well.

Association:
There are many functions that we use that are similar to our recognition functions, but still very different. These are processes that we don't have, but we will associate with the ones we do have because of their similarity. Examples of these are Fi and Se. Fi and Ti actually come from the same brain quad, they are extremely similar in their functionality and serve the same purpose in one's psyche. They are both subjective discernment functions that serve as a compass of sorts, whether it be logical or moral. You could actually say there is a little bit of unconscious Fi in Ti, and a little bit of Ti in Fi. One must have convictions for logic in order to resonate with the purely logical, and one must have a logical reason for having convictions. Yet still, to suggest that you are using both is still missing the point, your priority is going to focus on Logic or morality, and that is what makes it a completely different process.
Everyone has emotions, and a feeling process of sorts, but because of the fact that we are introverts, and don't closely associate with the external, we will think of our feelings as introverted, even though they are not.
There could be a similar confusion with Se and Ne, because in order to grasp an Ne pattern in the first place, the starting point must be a detail (Se). But again, you are not looking for details, you are focusing on patterns, which is why it is Ne you are using, not Se.

Inspiration:
These are functions that we do not have, but not only could we associate with them more than what we do have, we are inspired by their usage. Examples of these are Te and Ni. Every personality must have a "worldview" function, for an INTP it is Si. But we don't really like to associate with details and sensing, that is just not how we see ourselves. Ni is the other worldview function, and when posed with something like the question of the CP test, we are going to resonate more with an Ni worldview more than we are an Si worldview. Whatever your top two functions are (ie: Ti-Ne), it is naturally that you would see the respective functions of opposite rationality (ie: Te-Ni) as inspirational and desirable. They are the functions that we don't have, but we look up to and kind of wish we did.

Disassociation:
The very definition of "the shadow" in Jungian psychology is all that is a part of us that we do not identify with, or just do not like. This is why your shadow functions (For an INTP they are Si and Fe) are going to fall into this category. Our shadow functions are present, they are less conscious than our dominant and auxiliary, but we do consciously use them. As intuitives and thinkers we don't really see ourselves as detail oriented, or gregariously feeling. We have this capacity, but it is not a part of us that we like to associate with. Ti is the opposite with Fe, as Ti dominant it is Ti that really identify with, sense Fe is Ti's opposite, then that means we will identify with Fe the least. Because of this your shadow functions are probably going to be way below other functions on a CP test do to the fact that we just don't see them as being a part of us, even though they effect your psyche is the most profound of ways.


Now then, if you combine all of these factors into a cognitive process test, you results could very well end up: Ti, Fi, Ne, Ni, Te, etc, dispite the fact that you have neither Ni, nor Te, nor Fi.

You see, you cannot possibly measure one's psyche with a written test. It is ludicrous to think you can, and I am really hoping INTPs will drop this obsession with quantifiable evidence of something that cannot be quantified. Even the basic MBTI test, is not measuring what you use, but your awareness of what you use. This awareness can be biased by many things such as Idealism, culture, confidence, and level of growth. For instance, an ENFP who has worked really hard on their Te, might just start answering the questions as they would a strong thinker. They worked hard to develop that part of themselves, they are proud, and they deserve it. But that doesn't mean that is what stimulates them, and it is what stimulates you that truly decides what your personality type is, not what you could possibly use.

 

[Words]

Okay that impulsed inner feelings you are talking about is Fe not Fi. Fi is not impulsive, it is analytical in the same way Ti is, only it extrapolates how you feel on the matter as opposed to weighing it's logic with your own. Fe is an action taking process, and will be used to make quick impulsive decisions when you don't use your Ti.

Well, its not really action based. More of just the impulsed, yes, but is only judgment and nothing outwardly social like emotionally organizing people together. It's processed within but nothing outward.
----
As for the test. Forgive my laziness to read something I've already found uninteresting. Though considering the amount of letters you've written which shows effort---I'll just reach your same conclusion and move on.
----
I've read parts. I feel slightly insulted though. I wonder why your so quick to create barriers of personality. Your trust on the theory is great but...in my opinion, is too hurried. But that's my personal problem. I'll read the rest on my next visit.

 

[Adymus]

Well, its not really action based. More of just the impulsed, yes, but is only judgment and nothing outwardly social like emotionally organizing people together. It's processed within but nothing outward.
----
As for the test. Forgive my laziness to read something I've already found uninteresting. Though considering the amount of letters you've written which shows effort---I'll just reach your same conclusion and move on.
----
I've read parts. I feel slightly insulted though. I wonder why your so quick to create barriers of personality. Your trust on the theory is great but...in my opinion, is too hurried. But that's my personal problem. I'll read the rest on my next visit.

Fe is not necessarily going to be directly social, and for you (an INTP) especially, it might not work exactly as it is described, it has more uses than just controlling social dynamics.

Dude, why would you ask me to go into detail about my argument if you were not even interested enough to read it? Did you think I was bluffing?

I don't see what I am doing as creating barriers, and I don't think you should see it like that either. I think that is the problem with people's ability to expore personality, they are scared to death that they might just understand it. It's like individuality and being a unique snowflake is so important in western culture that we actually avoid considering that their are predictable patterns in personality. I just don't understand why you are willing to accept that you are an INTP, and say that you have a bunch of random processes for the sake of being unique. Being an INTP implies that you are using Ti-Ne-Si-Fe, in that order and nothing else. If people were allowed to have random functions, the whole model of 16 types would crumble. Which is why I am against the idea of having more processes than what an INTP or any other type should have, because:
1. it would contradict the whole model, and negate everything it is built on.
2. I have actually found a way to physically see people using their functions, and I have never once seen a person use more than their top four.
But by accepting that there are 16 types at the base, you are accepting that there is a certain structure to each type, all I am doing is recognizing what this structure is.

The reason I don't see this as Boxing people in, is that there is still plenty of room for versatility. You will develop differently depending on your culture, gender, sexual orientation, age group, and overall level of development.
Who cares if you don't have Ni, that doesn't mean you can't accomplish the tasks you want to accomplish.

And by the by, it took me three years to develop the theory that I have now, it was by no means rushed.

 

[Words]

Fe is not necessarily going to be directly social, and for you (an INTP) especially, it might not work exactly as it is described, it has more uses than just controlling social dynamics.

One thing that's bothering me is that I've never tried controlling social dynamics.

Dude, why would you ask me to go into detail about my argument if you were not even interested enough to read it? Did you think I was bluffing?

Sorry but Truthfully, yes. But I'll read it soon enough.

I don't see what I am doing as creating barriers, and I don't think you should see it like that either.

Well, you did find it strange to explain the past topic exclusively to an INTP...which is somewhat also "fuzzy" to me.

I think that is the problem with people's ability to expore personality, they are scared to death that they might just understand it. It's like individuality and being a unique snowflake is so important in western culture that we actually avoid considering that their are predictable patterns in personality. I just don't understand why you are willing to accept that you are an INTP, and say that you have a bunch of random processes for the sake of being unique. Being an INTP implies that you are using Ti-Ne-Si-Fe, in that order and nothing else. If people were allowed to have random functions, the whole model of 16 types would crumble. Which is why I am against the idea of having more processes than what an INTP or any other type should have, because:
1. it would contradict the whole model, and negate everything it is built on.
2. I have actually found a way to physically see people using their functions, and I have never once seen a person use more than their top four.

Ah, I would like to see things so organized and established but my intuition just shouts at me that there's more.

But by accepting that there are 16 types at the base, you are accepting that there is a certain structure to each type, all I am doing is recognizing what this structure is.

And I'm hoping for a possibility that there's a continuously better recognition.

The reason I don't see this as Boxing people in, is that there is still plenty of room for versatility. You will develop differently depending on your culture, gender, sexual orientation, age group, and overall level of development.
Who cares if you don't have Ni, that doesn't mean you can't accomplish the tasks you want to accomplish.

...but I *might* have Ni. Sorry, if you find me annoying.

And by the by, it took me three years to develop the theory that I have now, it was by no means rushed.

and you expect me to trust you on this basis?

I'm guessing that wasn't your intention but its good information nonetheless.

 

[Adymus]

One thing that's bothering me is that I've never tried controlling social dynamics.

It's exactly like I said in my post that you didn't read. It is a part of you, but you will not associate yourself with it if you are not consciously aware of how you use it.

Well, you did find it strange to explain the past topic exclusively to an INTP...which is somewhat also "fuzzy" to me.
Ah, I would like to see things so organized and established but my intuition just shouts at me that there's more.

Well for one, I am not too certain that you are an INTP at all yet. Even if you are, it just means you are developed in a way that I wasn't expecting.
I assure you that there is more to it than this, the mind is continuous and infinitely variable. But we have to start somewhere, if we want to understand anything at all, we can't just keep saying "There are too many variables! I guess we'll never know!"

and you expect me to trust you on this basis?

I'm guessing that wasn't your intention but its good information nonetheless.

Heavens to betsy, no! I expect you to trust me if you find my logic and reasoning solid.

 

[Words]

It's exactly like I said in my post that you didn't read. It is a part of you, but you will not associate yourself with it if you are not consciously aware of how you use it.

How I involve myself with social dynamics or Fe? I've made judgments based on feelings(fe?) but I haven't tried being socially actively organizing. So your saying I'm not consciously aware of *parts* of it?

But we have to start somewhere, if we want to understand anything at all, we can't just keep saying "There are too many variables! I guess we'll never know!"

That's not really how I see it. My point is in dialogue: "We know something but let's not disclose ourselves and this from *surprising* possibilities".

 

[Adymus]

How I involve myself with social dynamics or Fe? I've made judgments based on feelings(fe?) but I haven't tried being socially actively organizing. So your saying I'm not consciously aware of *parts* of it?


That's not really how I see it. My point is in dialogue: "We know something but let's not disclose ourselves and this from *surprising* possibilities".

I agree, but in order for any model to grow, you must eventually make some assumptions. The trick is, being prepared to abandon or revise the model if it is proven invalid.

 

[Words]

I agree, but in order for any model to grow, you must eventually make some assumptions. The trick is, being prepared to abandon or revise the model if it is proven invalid.

Yes, and not the other way around... Do not abandon reality for your model's sake.

 

[Adymus]

Yes, and not the other way around... Do not abandon reality for your model's sake.

Reality has been my biggest proof of concept for this model.

So, so far so good I guess.

 

[Words]

Reality.

Is very subjective and I don't know how much of it is true. To find true reality is the problem.

 

[Adymus]

Is very subjective and I don't know how much of it is true. To find true reality is the problem.

Then allow me to rephrase that:

My reality has been my biggest proof of concept.

I couldn't possibly know reality outside of my perspective so it is irrelevant anyway.

 

[BigApplePi]

Flexibility is still on my mind. Adymus I direct this mostly to you. I refer you to the Ti-Ne-Si-Fe order. What happened to J/P which was added after the Jungian setup? Is that more flexible in the sense we are not as hard-wired to P/J as we are to T & N? Is that why it is not mentioned in Ti-Ne-Si-Fe? If I get an answer to this, I have a follow-on Q.

 

[Words]

Flexibility is still on my mind. Adymus I direct this mostly to you. I refer you to the Ti-Ne-Si-Fe order. What happened to J/P which was added after the Jungian setup? Is that more flexible in the sense we are not as hard-wired to P/J as we are to T & N? Is that why it is not mentioned in Ti-Ne-Si-Fe? If I get an answer to this, I have a follow-on Q.

Uh, that's hard to understand. P/J decides the E/I of the judging(T,F) and perceiving cognitives(S,N), no?


and what do you mean by "Flexibility"?

 

[BigApplePi]

Cauterize. Is there a Pe / Pi? or a Je / Ji? I have yet to come across that.

By flexible I mean a person can vary at different times. (This is not the case with Ti / Te. One is either one or the other as I read on this thread unless I missed it.)

Flexible would mean a P could change from e to i to e to i at will. Flexible would mean a P could move to J and back.


Rereading I found this --
Auburn says, "J/P Axis
Look at the last letter of the four letter code. If that letter is P then that personality type's perceiving function (N/S) is extroverted. In an INTP, this would mean extroverted iNtuition. If the last letter is J, that means that type's perceiving function is introverted instead."

 

[Adymus]

Flexibility is still on my mind. Adymus I direct this mostly to you. I refer you to the Ti-Ne-Si-Fe order. What happened to J/P which was added after the Jungian setup? Is that more flexible in the sense we are not as hard-wired to P/J as we are to T & N? Is that why it is not mentioned in Ti-Ne-Si-Fe? If I get an answer to this, I have a follow-on Q.

In my personal opinion the J/P is the most poorly named addition to the MBTI setup, but it still means something. What it is actually referring to, is if you are Adaptive (P, or right-brain) Or Directive (J, or left-brain). everyone has two adaptive functions and two directive functions in their top four processes. For an INTP, Ti and Ne are directive functions, and Si and Fe are directive functions. When a Type of perception is Introverted, it is directive, and when a type of discernment function (T or F) is Extroverted, it also is directive.
When a Perception function is extroverted, and a Discernment function is Introverted, it is adaptive.

What makes a person J or P in MBTI is if your top two functions are both Directive of adaptive functions, for an INTP they are both adaptive, therefor we are Ps.

To answer your question, when an INTP or any other P, appears Directive, or J if you will, it is probably because they are using one or both of their Directive functions.

 

[BigApplePi]

In my personal opinion the J/P is the most poorly named addition to the MBTI setup, but it still means something. What it is actually referring to, is if you are Adaptive (P, or right-brain) Or Directive (J, or left-brain). everyone has two adaptive functions and two directive functions in their top four processes. For an INTP, Ti and Ne are directive functions, and Si and Fe are directive functions. When a Type of perception is Introverted, it is directive, and when a type of discernment function (T or F) is Extroverted, it also is directive.
When a Perception function is extroverted, and a Discernment function is Introverted, it is adaptive.

What makes a person J or P in MBTI is if your top two functions are both Directive of adaptive functions, for an INTP they are both adaptive, therefor we are Ps.

To answer your question, when an INTP or any other P, appears Directive, or J if you will, it is probably because they are using one or both of their Directive functions.

So we have a couple of terms I haven't heard before: Adaptive & Directive.

First let me say something in preface here Adymus that we come from different places. I take it you are comfortable (I wonder how comfortable?) with the personality system you describe. I wonder how to classify it? Functional? I tend to be fond of behavioral descriptions of personalities and I have a nodding acquaintance with a few of them, none of which I know quite how to integrate with each other. If I had my way I'd integrate them all together so I could understand what's going on. Fat chance at this point.

Anyway, what you say above it not very clear for me. Let me parse it a little:

I think what you said above is,
1. One is Adaptive = P or Directive = J
2. All of the Ti Ne Si Fe are functionally directive or J
3. A "discernment" function is introduced but undefined. The sentence containing that word doesn't relate logically to 1. and 2.
4. After that nothing computes. Perhaps a rewrite? A wonder if you have a typo or omission near the beginning. I think a rewrite would help.

 

[Adymus]

Damn it, you're right there was a Typo. Sorry I meant to say: "Ti and Ne are adaptive functions"

1. Yes that is correct, Adaptive and directive are the words that I use in place of judging and perceiving, because using those words to describe what side of the brain your main functions are on is fucking retarded. Just to be clear, I'll map out all of the functions for you:

Adaptive, Right-brain, and P "Perceiving", all correlates to:
Ne
Se
Ti
Fi

Directive, Left-brain, and J "Judging", all correlates to:
Ni
Si
Te
Fe

Discernment functions correlate to a decision making or "judgment" function:
Ti
Fi
Te
Fe


I would be reluctant to integrate all personality type models, as it would just be redundant, or contradicting. But I should probably tell you that what I am giving you is not straight MBTI, I've mixed the work of Lenoir Thomson, Naomi L. Quenk, and myself in here too. I'm kind of a mixed martial artist when it comes to typology.

 

[BigApplePi]

Damn it, you're right there was a Typo. Sorry I meant to say: "Ti and Ne are adaptive functions"

1. Yes that is correct, Adaptive and directive are the words that I use in place of judging and perceiving, because using those words to describe what side of the brain your main functions are on is fucking retarded. Just to be clear, I'll map out all of the functions for you:

Adaptive, Right-brain, and P "Perceiving", all correlates to:
Ne
Se
Ti
Fi

Directive, Left-brain, and J "Judging", all correlates to:
Ni
Si
Te
Fe

Discernment functions correlate to a decision making or "judgment" function:
Ti
Fi
Te
Fe


I would be reluctant to integrate all personality type models, as it would just be redundant, or contradicting. But I should probably tell you that what I am giving you is not straight MBTI, I've mixed the work of Lenoir Thomson, Naomi L. Quenk, and myself in here too. I'm kind of a mixed martial artist when it comes to typology.

LOL. If anything I would think us INTPs would understand the thinking process is not infallible. Errors are to be expected. Not true for some other types I've experienced. Some will never forgive. I suppose it depends on the error though and what happens with it.

Let me see if I grasp the above.

INTP -> Ti-Ne-Si-Fe.
P goes with Ti & Ne.
J goes with Si & Fe.

Discernment is a form of judgment, an ability of both thinking and feeling.

I've condensed what you said but you may wish to rephrase.

It is great you are reworking the MBTI adding your own. That is a form of integration. I can only intuit what I feel about integrating other behavioral models. If only I had an extra 20-30 IQ points and years of experience it could be done next week, lol.

 

[Adymus]

LOL. If anything I would think us INTPs would understand the thinking process is not infallible. Errors are to be expected. Not true for some other types I've experienced. Some will never forgive. I suppose it depends on the error though and what happens with it.

Let me see if I grasp the above.

INTP -> Ti-Ne-Si-Fe.
P goes with Ti & Ne.
J goes with Si & Fe.

Discernment is a form of judgment, an ability of both thinking and feeling.

I've condensed what you said but you may wish to rephrase.

It is great you are reworking the MBTI adding your own. That is a form of integration. I can only intuit what I feel about integrating other behavioral models. If only I had an extra 20-30 IQ points and years of experience it could be done next week, lol.

Yeah, discernment refers to either a thinking or feeling process of any kind.

Looks like you got it!

 

[BigApplePi]

This applies to INTPs

INTP -> Ti-Ne-Si-Fe.
P goes with Ti & Ne.
J goes with Si & Fe as confirmed by Adymus.

_________________________________________
Let's see if INTJs are any different and then compare.

INTJ -> Ni-Te-Fi-Se.
J goes with Ni & Te.
P goes with Fi & Se.

That with the aid of this link:
http://typelogic.com/fa.html

If this is correct for J's, it would seem J has the effect of changing the primary and reversing introversion & extroversion on all four functions. So there is a lot of reversing going on.

Now here is the puzzle. If I assume I'm an INTP mulling over some possible theories and I want to try one out by promoting it for checkout (as with my "How to Understand Anything" thread), am I exhibiting INTJ traits or am I really an INTJ masquerading as INTP? In other words, are P and J flexible in the same person?

 

[Adymus]

This applies to INTPs

INTP -> Ti-Ne-Si-Fe.
P goes with Ti & Ne.
J goes with Si & Fe as confirmed by Adymus.

_________________________________________
Let's see if INTJs are any different and then compare.

INTJ -> Ni-Te-Fi-Se.
J goes with Ni & Te.
P goes with Fi & Se.

That with the aid of this link:
http://typelogic.com/fa.html

If this is correct for J's, it would seem J has the effect of changing the primary and reversing introversion & extroversion on all four functions. So there is a lot of reversing going on.

Now here is the puzzle. If I assume I'm an INTP mulling over some possible theories and I want to try one out by promoting it for checkout (as with my "How to Understand Anything" thread), am I exhibiting INTJ traits or am I really an INTJ masquerading as INTP? In other words, are P and J flexible in the same person?

If I understand you correctly, you are essentially asking will there be any difference from an INTJ using their Adaptive functions and an INTP using their Directive functions?

Yes, a huge difference. It always comes down to your dominant function to decide how you are going to behave. Having Si does not mean I am going to be able to effectively switch out my Ti with Si and start acting like an Si dominant. The use of all functions lower than the dominant functions are used in service of the dominant function. Ti being backed with Si is going to cause the person to take a more rigid stance which does appear J like, but that is still very different from how an INTJ would use fi.
For an INTJ, Fi could make them more adaptive or just an even stronger directive. They might use it to see how they feel about a current situation, and then maybe take a slightly different approach or compromise based off that. Or they could also use it to check their personal values and confirm why things must be done the way the believe they should be done. Either way it is still Ni that is ultimately calling the shots for an INTJ.

 

[BigApplePi]

If I understand you correctly, you are essentially asking will there be any difference from an INTJ using their Adaptive functions and an INTP using their Directive functions?

It always comes down to your dominant function to decide how you are going to behave. The use of all functions lower than the dominant functions are used in service of the dominant function. Either way it is still Ni that is ultimately calling the shots for an INTJ.

Adymus I hope I am not putting you out with all these Q's. Eventually things should settle down. Underneath, and I haven't phrased it very well, Now I say it this way. I am after this:

I don't know what my dominant function is lately. If P it would be Ti; if J it would be Ni. The thing is my life is changing .... or after the passage of time in my life, my attitude is changing. After doing a lot of thinking, I'm wondering about moving toward applying it. That means action/ direction. It's a change from adaptiveness to potential directiveness. Would that not mean a possible change in INTx category?

 

[Adymus]

Adymus I hope I am not putting you out with all these Q's. Eventually things should settle down. Underneath, and I haven't phrased it very well, Now I say it this way. I am after this:

I don't know what my dominant function is lately. If P it would be Ti; if J it would be Ni. The thing is my life is changing .... or after the passage of time in my life, my attitude is changing. After doing a lot of thinking, I'm wondering about moving toward applying it. That means action/ direction. It's a change from adaptiveness to potential directiveness. Would that not mean a possible change in INTx category?

It is natural that as you grow, your mind will grow as well. If you are a J you will naturally become more adaptive, and if you are a P you will naturally become more Directive. However, your core personality always remains, it will expand, but it will not make a 180 degree turn around. "Expansion" I believe would be a better word to use rather than "change"; of course it is actually changing, but it is just getting more added on to it.
At the very core you will always be either adaptive or directive, you will gain certain capabilities of both as you age, but you will still live the lifestyle of either a directive or adaptive type.

So if you are suggesting INTx means you are both a J and a P, then the answer is no, becuase you are naturally one or the other, but you are in a transitional that is gaining access to the other side of your brain.

I hope that makes sense.

 

[BigApplePi]

Adymus quote, "At the very core you will always be either adaptive [P]or directive[J], you will gain certain capabilities of both as you age, but you will still live the lifestyle of either a directive or adaptive type."

The capability to grow and expand sounds like an excellent explanation. I could continue with Qs, but I think I will stop for now because there is something else on my mind. I'm uncertain to whether this deserves a new thread, but since it is related I'll continue here.

As we know P / J were added to the Jungian personality types. I have no reason to conclude that is the end and we couldn't add even more. Conditions for adding would mean whatever is added would have to be unrelated to the other sixteen.

I think of this one as just an example. Does it qualify? Consider self-centeredness/ Non-selfcenteredness = Narcissism/ Normality. A person could be rated as to how narcissistic they are. I don't believe this is the same as introversion as an introvert can be very aware of and sensitive to other people. At the opposite end the person could be very generous and giving of themselves. This might not mean extroversion as an extrovert can be an insensitive pain is the ass. I could be wrong about this idea, but what do you think?

 

[Adymus]

Adymus quote, "At the very core you will always be either adaptive [P]or directive[J], you will gain certain capabilities of both as you age, but you will still live the lifestyle of either a directive or adaptive type."

The capability to grow and expand sounds like an excellent explanation. I could continue with Qs, but I think I will stop for now because there is something else on my mind. I'm uncertain to whether this deserves a new thread, but since it is related I'll continue here.

As we know P / J were added to the Jungian personality types. I have no reason to conclude that is the end and we couldn't add even more. Conditions for adding would mean whatever is added would have to be unrelated to the other sixteen.

I think of this one as just an example. Does it qualify? Consider self-centeredness/ Non-selfcenteredness = Narcissism/ Normality. A person could be rated as to how narcissistic they are. I don't believe this is the same as introversion as an introvert can be very aware of and sensitive to other people. At the opposite end the person could be very generous and giving of themselves. This might not mean extroversion as an extrovert can be an insensitive pain is the ass. I could be wrong about this idea, but what do you think?

For most cases I disagree with adding more dimentions to the MBTI acronyms (ie: INTP, ISFJ, etc.) becuse the ones that are already there are all of the ones that do not change in your life. However all other dimensions (that I can think of... maybe I am wrong about this) are dynamic and subject to change in one's life. Things like narcissistic behavior could arise but I don't think that is a permanent part of the psyche. I think that is more like what is already in your psyche manifesting itself as narcissism.

If we do find more dimensions to personality that are also static and unchanging then those would be the ones to add, imo.

 

[White Rabbit]

Being INTP is cool.
Defining flexibility as a negative thing is not.
It makes you sound like a biggest loser ever. It pretty much means that you have defined your borders and you will never attempt to move them further away. This is applicable for every single MBTI type.