Are some types more likely than others to choose the wrong career?

[Inquisitor]

Just a thought experiment...

If we accept from the start that there exist "best-fit" and "worst-fit" occupations for any given type, are some types more likely than others to be led astray and end up in unsuitable careers/occupations?

Also, what are the factors that lead to poor career/occupational choice? Is it primarily the inferior in most cases as has been hypothesized by AJ Drenth, or some other factor?

Career indecision has always been a very big problem for me growing up, and it seems I'm not the only one. But I'm wondering if some functions, when inferior and in a given type, can be particularly pernicious in terms of leading people away from "best-fit" occupations...

 

[Architect]

If we accept from the start that there exist "best-fit" and "worst-fit" occupations for any given type, are some types more likely than others to be led astray and end up in unsuitable careers/occupations?

I'd think so. For example ISTJ's have the good ability to actualize their talents IRL. INTP's and ENTP's are easily led astray, as are the NF's.

Also, what are the factors that lead to poor career/occupational choice? Is it primarily the inferior in most cases as has been hypothesized by AJ Drenth, or some other factor?

Inferior and intuition. We could make a scale of the types, all are affected by the inferior to some degree, but the intuitives are more easily led astray by my observations.

Career indecision has always been a very big problem for me growing up, and it seems I'm not the only one. But I'm wondering if some functions, when inferior and in a given type, can be particularly pernicious in terms of leading people away from "best-fit" occupations...

Career perfectionism is another aspect. Most S dominants take a practical approach and try to find a good career, even if not the best. Intuitives and INTP's in particular are bent on perfection.

 

[Brontosaurie]

Yes. ISTJ's go into counceling. It's so stupid it's funny. "According to this book and this check-list, you - my fellow human - are currently having the following emotions:"

Also NTP's go into unemployment or disillusioned shit work which is a waste since we're the best at everything.

 

[Hadoblado]

INFPs and INTPs are the worst at finding a job that suits them, because they're useless and no job is suitable.

 

[redbaron]

The job most suitable for INXPs is to somehow turn their main form of procrastination into a source of income.

 

[Ex-User (9086)]

INFPs and INTPs are the worst at finding a job that suits them, because they're useless and no job is suitable.

Pretty much, they have delusions about their competence and thinking skills, but when it comes to reality they are insecure and lazy most of the time.

Throw in some generic sheltered background and youthful sense of entitlement as well.

That's the first stage of finding a career, to estimate properly one's worth and favourites (getting rid of illusions) and to start working, rather than just evading problems and dreaming about being someone.

 

[Ex-User (11125)]

INFPs and INTPs are the worst at finding a job that suits them, because they're useless and no job is suitable.

INXPs should just get a rich partner to leech off
jk the prospect of being so dependent on another person is terrifying

 

[YoungGuns]

Pretty much, they have delusions about their competence and thinking skills, but when it comes to reality they are insecure and lazy most of the time.

Throw in some generic sheltered background and youthful sense of entitlement as well.

That's the first stage of finding a career, to estimate properly one's worth and favourites (getting rid of illusions) and to start working, rather than just evading problems and dreaming about being someone.

Thanks for accurately summarizing me with that reality check.

 

[Sixup]

Although I don't really like the thought, I've been beginning to think that maybe INTP is just a form of adolescent childishness that some people grow out of earlier than others (if ever).


Because think about it...most of the INTPs that we notice that are 'successful' had to power their way out of the standard INTP uselessness, using 'J'-like drive or productivity systems that INTPs claim to hate. But maybe everyone hates productivity systems. Maybe it's just hard to do those things for everyone (or a majority). And we rationalize it as "oh I'm an INTP I'm just not good at that."

 

[Reluctantly]

...
Because think about it...most of the INTPs that we notice that are 'successful' had to power their way out of the standard INTP uselessness, using 'J'-like drive or productivity systems that INTPs claim to hate. But maybe everyone hates productivity systems. Maybe it's just hard to do those things for everyone (or a majority). And we rationalize it as "oh I'm an INTP I'm just not good at that."

Hello. Nice to meet a like-minded individual.

 

[Hadoblado]

Although I don't really like the thought, I've been beginning to think that maybe INTP is just a form of adolescent childishness that some people grow out of earlier than others (if ever).


Because think about it...most of the INTPs that we notice that are 'successful' had to power their way out of the standard INTP uselessness, using 'J'-like drive or productivity systems that INTPs claim to hate. But maybe everyone hates productivity systems. Maybe it's just hard to do those things for everyone (or a majority). And we rationalize it as "oh I'm an INTP I'm just not good at that."

What you describe is very real. INTP is basically analogous to unrealised potential.

The question then becomes whether INTPs actually exist in a personality sense, or the effect is entirely explained developmentally. I'd be surprised if it were so simple.

 

[The Gopher]

INXPs should just get a rich partner to leech off
jk the prospect of being so dependent on another person is terrifying

Well even in that scenario if you look at it differently you aren't "dependent" on the other person you are dependent on your own manipulation skills or use allowing yourself to leech in the first place. Ignoring ethics for the moment.

 

[Inquisitor]

Pretty much, they have delusions about their competence and thinking skills, but when it comes to reality they are insecure and lazy most of the time.

Throw in some generic sheltered background and youthful sense of entitlement as well.

That's the first stage of finding a career, to estimate properly one's worth and favourites (getting rid of illusions) and to start working, rather than just evading problems and dreaming about being someone.

This is a problem for a very large fraction of recent college grads, not just INTPs. In fact, I think (more so than other types) INTPs desperately want to find that "one thing" that they can dedicate themselves to, but are held back b/c everything looks so unpromising...and for the most part it is! Most jobs simply do not suit the INTP personality, either because they don't involve enough analysis and creativity, or because there's too much in the way of interacting with people, or it's too repetitive...

Insecurity, sense of entitlement, and sheltered upbringing are traits of many young people nowadays. Especially those coming out of top-tier undergraduate and graduate programs. Alumni reunions at my alma mater were the perfect example of this. "So what do you do?" **anxiously hoping that the other person won't say "I'm a vice president at Goldman Sachs."** It's one big competition when you're young. No one ever asks "So do you feel like you have enough opportunities in your current job to realize your full potential as a human being?" It's money and prestige, and everything that goes along with that. As people mature, they stop giving as much of a shit as long as they have their own needs met. Scratch the sense of entitlement that comes from a sheltered upbringing if they grew up in poverty...but there aren't many of those at top schools.

Although I don't really like the thought, I've been beginning to think that maybe INTP is just a form of adolescent childishness that some people grow out of earlier than others (if ever).


Because think about it...most of the INTPs that we notice that are 'successful' had to power their way out of the standard INTP uselessness, using 'J'-like drive or productivity systems that INTPs claim to hate. But maybe everyone hates productivity systems. Maybe it's just hard to do those things for everyone (or a majority). And we rationalize it as "oh I'm an INTP I'm just not good at that."

If you don't like the thought, chances are it ain't true. Some people have a much easier time getting shit done and procrastination was never a problem for them. Those are J-types. They are intrinsically motivated to bring order to their external lives. I would love to be able to be as productive as ISTJs, but then would I still be as good at coming up with new ideas/theories? Every type has its strengths and weaknesses.

What you describe is very real. INTP is basically analogous to unrealised potential.

The question then becomes whether INTPs actually exist in a personality sense, or the effect is entirely explained developmentally. I'd be surprised if it were so simple.

They exist. And no, it's not developmental.

 

[Inquisitor]

I'd think so. For example ISTJ's have the good ability to actualize their talents IRL. INTP's and ENTP's are easily led astray, as are the NF's.

Can't disagree there. I think P-types in general are going to have the greatest problems in terms of actualizing their talents.

Inferior and intuition. We could make a scale of the types, all are affected by the inferior to some degree, but the intuitives are more easily led astray by my observations.

This is what I'd like to nail down. Problem is I don't know how it would be possible to measure. Surveying career satisfaction doesn't really give an accurate picture. The only thing I feel pretty confident about is that inferior Fe leads to a desire to choose people-centric jobs. Inferior Si leads to a desire to choose a "traditional" occupation. Se leads to "instinctuality and intemperance" so I don't how this could steer someone into the wrong career.

INTJs and ENTJs are not usually led astray from what I've seen. So I think it's more to do with the J/P dimension...

Career perfectionism is another aspect. Most S dominants take a practical approach and try to find a good career, even if not the best. Intuitives and INTP's in particular are bent on perfection.

But what about ESFPs and ESTPs? Are they really as practical in this regard as ISTJs? I'm also not sure that ISFJs are practical people. Conservative? Yes. But career-driven? Not really from what I've seen.

 

[Ex-User (9086)]

This is a problem for a very large fraction of recent college grads, not just INTPs.

I'm not talking just about XNTP, I'm also talking about XNFP people. I have an infp friend and I see them fail their life like so many others. INTP are not far off, they also seem to be very slow to mature and to become responsible for themselves.

ENTP and ENFP seem to get their shit together more quickly, are more socially successful and more driven, so may appear or even be better off than introverts.

I think introversion is a kind of deficiency in a socially-oriented society, so extroversion is beneficial to relation-building in most communities and helps in life in general.

Actually, I don't think any type would be more likely to fail, people generally fail the same, the only difference I'd see is that introverts are more likely to have problems throughout their life and less adaptive or likely to change. As a generalisation I'd say introverts are slightly less likely to be successful (not objectively successful, just happy with themselves and with their position in the world, content with life and able to become content).

 

[Rudolph Mondal]

What does it even mean to choose a wrong career?
The assumption behind this question is that there's a "right" career for you. I don't think that's accurate.
We inevitably adapt to circumstances as they come. I think the only reason why people think there's a "right" career and a "wrong" one is because of the human tendency (and possibly a tendency embedded in all objects/beings) to exert the least amount of effort possible. Adaptation takes quite a bit of effort. Because of this, when one is faced with a career that requires a great deal of adaptation, one's instinct is to decry that career as a "wrong" one.

 

[Sixup]

They exist. And no, it's not developmental.

And so it was written. Hear hear.

 

[Inquisitor]

What does it even mean to choose a wrong career?
The assumption behind this question is that there's a "right" career for you. I don't think that's accurate.
We inevitably adapt to circumstances as they come. I think the only reason why people think there's a "right" career and a "wrong" one is because of the human tendency (and possibly a tendency embedded in all objects/beings) to exert the least amount of effort possible. Adaptation takes quite a bit of effort. Because of this, when one is faced with a career that requires a great deal of adaptation, one's instinct is to decry that career as a "wrong" one.

Jung is clear that "adaptation" is something that some types are better at than others. For example, concerning extraverts:

Spoiler

On the one hand, the extravert owes his normality to his ability to fit into existing conditions with relative ease. He naturally pretends to nothing more than the satisfaction of existing objective possibilities, applying himself, for instance, to the calling which offers sound prospective possibilities in the actual situation in time and place. He tries to do or to make just what his milieu momentarily needs and expects from him, and abstains from every innovation that is not entirely obvious, or that in any way exceeds the expectation of those around him. But on the other hand, his normality must also depend essentially upon whether the extravert takes into account the actuality of his subjective needs and requirements; and this is just his weak point, for the tendency of his type has such a strong outward direction that even the most obvious of all subjective facts, namely the condition of his own body, may quite easily receive inadequate consideration. The body is not sufficiently objective or 'external,' so that the satisfaction of simple elementary requirements which are indispensable to physical well-being are no longer given their place. The body accordingly suffers, to say nothing of the soul. Although, as a rule, the extravert takes small note of [p. 420] this latter circumstance, his intimate domestic circle perceives it all the more keenly. His loss of equilibrium is perceived by himself only when abnormal bodily sensations make themselves felt.

Extraverts are so "accommodating" to their external environments that they are in fact at risk of ignoring their own subjective needs. Case in point, my ENTJ friend was a very successful investment banker and worked himself almost to death. He ended up developing Crohn's disease, became emaciated and even lost vision in one eye before quitting his job and being hospitalized. He made a full recovery, but it taught him a valuable lesson in terms of not pushing himself to the limit.

Of course, maybe this isn't what you meant in your comment. "Effort" is certainly something that some types are more willing to exert than others. One of the Big 5 dimensions positively correlated with career success is "conscientiousness" and this correlates with the J dimension on the MBTI. It's a lot harder for IP types than EJ types to meet the demands of a job b/c that's just not as much of an intrinsic motivation for the former as it is for the latter.

 

[Inquisitor]

And so it was written. Hear hear.

So you don't believe personality type exists? I'm not about to try to convince you otherwise if you don't, just curious.

 

[Rudolph Mondal]

Jung is clear that "adaptation" is something that some types are better at than others. For example, concerning extraverts:



Extraverts are so "accommodating" to their external environments that they are in fact at risk of ignoring their own subjective needs. Case in point, my ENTJ friend was a very successful investment banker and worked himself almost to death. He ended up developing Crohn's disease, became emaciated and even lost vision in one eye before quitting his job and being hospitalized. He made a full recovery, but it taught him a valuable lesson in terms of not pushing himself to the limit.

Of course, maybe this isn't what you meant in your comment. "Effort" is certainly something that some types are more willing to exert than others. One of the Big 5 dimensions positively correlated with career success is "conscientiousness" and this correlates with the J dimension on the MBTI. It's a lot harder for IP types than EJ types to meet the demands of a job b/c that's just not as much of an intrinsic motivation for the former as it is for the latter.

I agree with everything you wrote but the difference is that I don't believe that an individual belongs solely to one category such as being introverted or extraverted regardless of context. I believe that whether an individual demonstrates Te/Ti/Fe/Fi/Se/Si/Ni/Ne depends on the context that individual is in rather than some cognitive function being dominant at all times.

At least, I find that to be true for myself but of course, I can't say the same for others. Perhaps others do have a preferred cognitive function that remains dominant regardless of context. I don't.

 

[Brontosaurie]

The INTP self-loathing fad is getting worn out. Everybody, i'm looking at you.

Society is deficient in utilizing intelligence and irrationally change-resistent. That's why NP's fail. Our general mindset isn't welcome, and it takes a lot more personal development to succeed as an NP than as most other types. When we succeed though, we really do it.

Coincidentally, self-blame appears thoughtful and mature while "blaming everybody else" appears reactive and immature. But it's just that: a coincidence, with little bearing on the reality of it.

Blarraun is right that NP's are late bloomers (wouldn't put ExNP any lower on that scale btw) but this isn't because NP means being a lazy fucker absorbed by inadequate coping mechanisms. Essentially it's just another less common developmental path. Pros and cons. Cons: less shit gets done, trouble collaborating and sticking to the program, people don't understand developmental needs because less common which fertilizes alienation and yields a comparatively high incidence of lunacy. Pros: more understanding is acquired and more perspectives considered before decision-making. More flexible structures. More lateral thinking.

You want evidence? Just look at truth for once, instead of expectations. Look at SAT scores or political opinions or creative talent instead of career. Plainsight.

 

[Inquisitor]

I agree with everything you wrote but the difference is that I don't believe that an individual belongs solely to one category such as being introverted or extraverted regardless of context. I believe that whether an individual demonstrates Te/Ti/Fe/Fi/Se/Si/Ni/Ne depends on the context that individual is in rather than some cognitive function being dominant at all times.

At least, I find that to be true for myself but of course, I can't say the same for others. Perhaps others do have a preferred cognitive function that remains dominant regardless of context. I don't.

Ok...after some thought, I think the question needs to be rephrased...

I'm going to start with the assumption that an ideal career for any given type is one that makes maximal use of that type's dominant and auxiliary function, and puts little to no exogenous demands on the inferior function (this is a crude description for now). I agree that "context" (work environment, given job tasks) can force an individual to use parts of their brain that are associated with non-dominant/aux functions. For instance, I believe that Ti and Ne motivate the individual to develop highly efficient neural networks located in the right posterior and anterior lobes of the brain respectively. Inferior Fe would lead to a relatively undeveloped neural network in the left anterior lobe of the brain. Those networks are capable of processing certain kinds of information.

So...an ideal career would be one that makes the greatest use of those highly efficient neural networks, and leaves the less developed ones alone for the most part.

Given that starting assumption, then there should exist a spectrum of jobs out there for every individual that are most ideal by the above definition, and there should also be one job that is the absolute best and another that is the absolute worst. This leaves aside the notion of an individual's pre-existing values and interests (which may unfortunately be determined by their inferior function...that's why this stuff is so tricky). We're only looking at the tasks that an individual must perform on the job, and how well adapted they are to those tasks based on how their brain is wired.

Therefore, it would seem to me that the wisest course of action is to largely discount one's values and interests in career selection. The ideal would be to choose one of the best jobs for one's type and then to introduce values/interests back into the equation. What we really need is a brain scanner that can give an accurate typing...as well as building a database of which neural networks are preferentially used for any given job. I bet we'll get there eventually.

 

[Analyzer]

I think the best thing for an INTP or INFP to do is some type of work that is straightforward, bearable, and do extreme saving(more than half of income). Learn to invest over time if you want to increase your capital, practice anti-consumerism or simple living and then work can become just a hobby or something you do part time.

What type of work though? Skilled trades/manual work, programming, and writing seem like the best. Anything that requires freedom of your decisions and being independent. The former gets you outside of your own head and into the environment which you have direct control over.

This Thoreau quote is relevant- "A man is rich in proportion to the number of things which he can afford to let alone".

 

[Hadoblado]

The INTP self-loathing fad is getting worn out. Everybody, i'm looking at you.

Society is deficient in utilizing intelligence and irrationally change-resistent. That's why NP's fail. Our general mindset isn't welcome, and it takes a lot more personal development to succeed as an NP than as most other types. When we succeed though, we really do it.

Coincidentally, self-blame appears thoughtful and mature while "blaming everybody else" appears reactive and immature. But it's just that: a coincidence, with little bearing on the reality of it.

Blarraun is right that NP's are late bloomers (wouldn't put ExNP any lower on that scale btw) but this isn't because NP means being a lazy fucker absorbed by inadequate coping mechanisms. Essentially it's just another less common developmental path. Pros and cons. Cons: less shit gets done, trouble collaborating and sticking to the program, people don't understand developmental needs because less common which fertilizes alienation and yields a comparatively high incidence of lunacy. Pros: more understanding is acquired and more perspectives considered before decision-making. More flexible structures. More lateral thinking.

You want evidence? Just look at truth for once, instead of expectations. Look at SAT scores or political opinions or creative talent instead of career. Plainsight.

So there is no person that tests INTP that is also a "lazy fucker absorbed by inadequate coping mechanism"? No you don't think that...

Are you saying that the ratio of people that are lazy fuckers absorbed with inadequate coping mechanisms is the same for people that test as INTP as those that don't?

Because if that's the case, this implies that other types don't have a lower ratio of these individuals. As in, those that test as ENTJ, INTJ, ESTJ, ISTJ are all equally likely to be lazy inadequate copers as INTP? I can't see how this is a feasible position, but if that's not what you think then I don't know what is.

To be clear, I don't think anyone's arguing that all INTPs that are underachieving are also lazy fuckers absorbed by inadequate coping mechanisms.

 

[Sixup]

So you don't believe personality type exists? I'm not about to try to convince you otherwise if you don't, just curious.

I wouldn't say that. Maybe it's just not as...granular as MBTI tries to make it.

 

[Ex-User (9086)]

Because if that's the case, this implies that other types don't have a lower ratio of these individuals. As in, those that test as ENTJ, INTJ, ESTJ, ISTJ are all equally likely to be lazy inadequate copers as INTP? I can't see how this is a feasible position, but if that's not what you think then I don't know what is.

I think what Bronto hints at is that J's are likely to fail in other regards. Maybe end up and stick to incorrect choices just to survive, or convince themselves of something that an INTP would rather solve or improve on.

But the general ratio of fails is similar across the population, in that a lazy junkie is no different from a power tripping sadist, they both failed in their lives at some point.

It would certainly make sense if mbti is meaningless as I believe it to be.
All types' success is much more influenced by their intellect, upbringing and life experiences, rather than their (four letter abstract) personalities and preferred coping mechanisms. If mbti is meaningless I'd assume every (4 letter) population does pretty similarly.

 

[YoungGuns]

All types' success is much more influenced by their intellect, upbringing and life experiences, rather than their (four letter abstract) personalities and preferred coping mechanisms.

I find this to be extremely true. It doesn't mean that MBTI is useless though, just maybe used in the wrong way. It's best used to contribute to understanding how people tick, not as a sole means.

 

[RaBind]

I think what Bronto hints at is that J's are likely to fail in other regards. Maybe end up and stick to incorrect choices just to survive, or convince themselves of something that an INTP would rather solve or improve on.

But the general ratio of fails is similar across the population, in that a lazy junkie is no different from a power tripping sadist, they both failed in their lives at some point.

Yeah thats sort of what I got out of what he said too. It's not so much the ratio of fails that differ between types but more so the differing aspects of life which they fail at, some failures being more obvious and observable than others.

It would certainly make sense if mbti is meaningless as I believe it to be.
All types' success is much more influenced by their intellect, upbringing and life experiences, rather than their (four letter abstract) personalities and preferred coping mechanisms. If mbti is meaningless I'd assume every (4 letter) population does pretty similarly.

Also external factors affect success hugely, although perhaps not as much over lots of attempts and depending on what the goals actually are.

 

[DrSketchpad]

Some people have a much easier time getting shit done and procrastination was never a problem for them. Those are J-types. They are intrinsically motivated to bring order to their external lives. I would love to be able to be as productive as ISTJs, but then would I still be as good at coming up with new ideas/theories? Every type has its strengths and weaknesses.

I mostly agree with you, but I have one point to add.

I'd say that Ni types are less motivated to "get shit done" on account of inferior Se.

You see, Se will want to jump into and interact with the world in a very visceral and in a "nothing held back" way because of how physically apart of the outside world they are.

Ni types will sooner sink into their mind and reflect/meditate on the ideal way to get something done (functional/logical Te or social/moral Fe) because they (I/we) love reflection and limit other motivations to fit that motivational hierarchy. I think (because I've seen older Ni doms act this way) will act more in line with their aux as they age a bit.

A Je dom's strongest motivation is to act in a certain way based on some criteria (feeling/thinking) so they will be more motivated to be active.

An Si dom, I think (I'm in uncharted waters talking about this type) will be more inclined to act because they're entirely dependent on the object and will just act with tradition for the sake of it.

 

[Brontosaurie]

So there is no person that tests INTP that is also a "lazy fucker absorbed by inadequate coping mechanism"? No you don't think that...

Are you saying that the ratio of people that are lazy fuckers absorbed with inadequate coping mechanisms is the same for people that test as INTP as those that don't?

Because if that's the case, this implies that other types don't have a lower ratio of these individuals. As in, those that test as ENTJ, INTJ, ESTJ, ISTJ are all equally likely to be lazy inadequate copers as INTP? I can't see how this is a feasible position, but if that's not what you think then I don't know what is.

To be clear, I don't think anyone's arguing that all INTPs that are underachieving are also lazy fuckers absorbed by inadequate coping mechanisms.

First off: there is no typology test that's even close to working. Let's talk about NP and what this temperament means, and not about "people that test as INTP".

I'm not denying NP's are lazy or less likely to be successful and disciplined in what they do, or more likely to put up with an aimless life because "whatever". Especially compared to TJ's. What i reject is the idea of summing up NP or INTP as just an excuse for underachieving and intellectual over-confidence, with the positive aspects or core traits being just self-flattering illusions. I get how that could be a way of kicking yourselves on your own butts and get going, if that's what you need. But it's not true and it's a cop-out approach to personal development. I think we all need to quit wanking at how clever we are sometimes, but trying to tell yourselves "we're really not that clever" is a very simplistic, ad-hoc solution.

 

[Inquisitor]

I mostly agree with you, but I have one point to add.

I'd say that Ni types are less motivated to "get shit done" on account of inferior Se.

You see, Se will want to jump into and interact with the world in a very visceral and in a "nothing held back" way because of how physically apart of the outside world they are.

Ni types will sooner sink into their mind and reflect/meditate on the ideal way to get something done (functional/logical Te or social/moral Fe) because they (I/we) love reflection and limit other motivations to fit that motivational hierarchy. I think (because I've seen older Ni doms act this way) will act more in line with their aux as they age a bit.

A Je dom's strongest motivation is to act in a certain way based on some criteria (feeling/thinking) so they will be more motivated to be active.

An Si dom, I think (I'm in uncharted waters talking about this type) will be more inclined to act because they're entirely dependent on the object and will just act with tradition for the sake of it.

I would agree with all that. The thing is that once INTJs set their minds to something, I've observed they're virtually unstoppable. On a day-to-day basis, I can see them trying to figure out the fastest, easiest way to get something done (shortcuts) that they don't particularly enjoy doing, but once they get an idea in their heads about how to change something in the world, they invest themselves totally. Now I don't think this has anything to do with Se. My observations of their inferior is pretty much along the lines of what Jung described in terms of "intemperance and instinctuality." Taking pleasure in food and eating too much is a big one. Lasciviousness is another.

The only way I can see how Se could lead an INTJ to choose "poorly" is greed for money. They might be more likely to choose lucrative jobs that are pretty soulless and (unfortunately) become very successful... and then they're locked into the golden handcuffs which prevent them from taking another job that might be more intrinsically rewarding. It's just a hypothesis though. I have not observed the same in INFJs, who seem to value social norms and emotional harmony more.