• OK, it's on.
  • Please note that many, many Email Addresses used for spam, are not accepted at registration. Select a respectable Free email.

Best girl type for male INTP

Pizzabeak

Prolific Member
Local time
Today, 09:42
Joined
Jan 24, 2012
Messages
1,918
#1
ENFJ, ENFP, INFJ, INFP, ESFP, ISFJ, ENTJ, INTP, INTJ, or ENTP?

Fi could have a creative edge to it whereas Ni-Fe is more complementary and easier sometimes. Hypothetically, you'd want someone aware enough. I like xNFJ because we can speak the same language but different, so they use the same sarcasm or feelings which you could miss or not interpret but an ENFP could do it too because we all use the same functions, meaning, that is, it was the age of Ni popularity so people get mad if you don't do it (as far as I could discern) but then when you say or explain or make them realize they do something else. People thought I was INTJ or ENTP. My idea is that all would be good. INFJ could be the best but it'd depend, they aren't necessarily smarter than any other type.
 

Hadoblado

think again losers
Local time
Tomorrow, 03:12
Joined
Mar 17, 2011
Messages
5,198
#3
I don't really see the value in this line of inquiry.

It's more important to figure out what *you* like than what INTPs like.
 

Pyropyro

Magos Biologis
Local time
Tomorrow, 01:42
Joined
Feb 3, 2012
Messages
4,050
Location
Philippines
#5
Best girl type?

The type that is mature enough to patiently work with the INTP to sort out their quirks, issues, and ambitions. I think that's a start for having a good relationship with room for self-improvement.
 

Cognisant

Condescending Bastard
Local time
Today, 06:42
Joined
Dec 12, 2009
Messages
7,906
#7
Short skirt and a long jacket.
 

Ex-User (8886)

Well-Known Member
Local time
Today, 17:42
Joined
Sep 11, 2013
Messages
620
#8
ENFJ, ENFP, INFJ, INFP, ESFP, ISFJ, ENTJ, INTP, INTJ, or ENTP?
Every type has it's disadvantages:
INTJ - too cold
INTP - too similar to you
ENTJ - too cold
ENTP - too similar

ENFJ - too emotional
ENFP - too adventorous
INFP - too judging
INFJ - bad looking

ISTP - too much sensor oriented
ISTJ - too practical
ESTJ - quite nice, but you will not understand each other
ESFJ - can have nice fun together, but 0 understanding
ESTP - too boring
ESFP - too stupid
ISFP - too religious
ISFJ - boring

the perfect would be having INFJ for conversations and ESFJ for having fun together
 

higs

Perpetually freaked out
Local time
Today, 17:42
Joined
Apr 3, 2012
Messages
1,809
Location
Armchair
#10
XCUZE ME ???

And I will have u know I am more fun than any goddamn ESFJ I have ever met. Well, when I'm not wallowing in depression anyway.
 
Local time
Today, 10:42
Joined
Apr 4, 2010
Messages
5,836
Location
subjective
#11
I decided to listen to the unconscious.
Like Ni access rather than Ti.
But Fe comes next.
To begin fluid Se.
Perceptive NiSe.
 

Cognisant

Condescending Bastard
Local time
Today, 06:42
Joined
Dec 12, 2009
Messages
7,906
#12
I Se X Pi

Maturity, I have none.
 

Niclmaki

Disturber of the Peace
Local time
Today, 12:42
Joined
Oct 21, 2012
Messages
386
Location
Canada
#13
As an ENTP...

ENFP or INFP in my experience.

ESFJs get an honourable mention. She was probably one of the most mature ESFJs I have ever known though.

That’ll matter more than anything in the end, maturity.
 

Hadoblado

think again losers
Local time
Tomorrow, 03:12
Joined
Mar 17, 2011
Messages
5,198
#15
My theory was Manipulator is INFJ so he gave himself the only attribute named that doesn't have any link to personality as a placeholder, because INFJs are perfect jedi chosen ones and he couldn't think of anything wrong with his personality. ;)
 
Local time
Today, 17:42
Joined
Jan 9, 2016
Messages
109
#17
And what do you intuitives know about looks?
Stay in your lane.

However as a sensor I can say with athourity that INFJs are indeed bad looking.
 
Local time
Today, 10:42
Joined
Apr 4, 2010
Messages
5,836
Location
subjective
#18
Anyone can be an authority. Look at all the crappy books out there. Do they mean anything? Everyone must decide for themselves whom to believe. Therefore I reject your authority and substitute my own. INFJ's attractiveness follows a bell curve. the most logical reasoning I think follows from common sense.
 
Local time
Today, 17:42
Joined
Jan 9, 2016
Messages
109
#20
Umhm....that's about right.

Anyone can be an authority. Look at all the crappy books out there. Do they mean anything? Everyone must decide for themselves whom to believe. Therefore I reject your authority and substitute my own. INFJ's attractiveness follows a bell curve. the most logical reasoning I think follows from common sense.
See, this is what I'm talking about.
Naw naw you're taking all the sensing out of something that can only be found through sensation.

Think about it this way out of all the famous INFJs which ones are even halfway decent looking? The only one I can think of is Wittgenstein and maybe kinda sorta Jung.

But then you've got ghandi, Schopenhauer, Dante, Hitler all of which are quintessentially bad(or at least funny) lookin.

"You may not think it be like it is, but it do."

But I'd feel bad if I commented twice in this thread without addressing the main topic.

The best girl type for the average male INTP is an an ESFJ with an iq between 123-136 who can play at least one instrument from the violin family, has slightly above average sized hips, a strained( but not terrible) relationship with her alcoholic ESTJ father, and an XNFP/XSTP for a best friend.
 

baccheion

Active Member
Local time
Today, 12:42
Joined
May 2, 2016
Messages
222
#21
Based on a poll from an INTP Facebook group ("which xNxx type for a relationship" divided by "which xNxx type NOT for a relationship": INTJ, INTP, and INFJ.

Based on a polling of experience in relationships: INFJ, INFP, and ENTP.

Based on OkCupid match percentages: INTP, INFP, INTJ, ENTP, INFJ, and ENFP.

OkCupid averages place INFJ as second (after INTP) from an INTP's perspective, but they ended up lower overall due to their rating of INTPs.
 
Local time
Today, 10:42
Joined
Apr 4, 2010
Messages
5,836
Location
subjective
#23
Think about it this way out of all the famous INFJs which ones are even halfway decent looking? The only one I can think of is Wittgenstein and maybe kinda sorta Jung.

But then you've got ghandi, Schopenhauer, Dante, Hitler all of which are quintessentially bad(or at least funny) lookin.
At least now you give a good reason you should be taken seriously. Before it was you were making an appeal to authority fallacy. Your own authority with no substantiation until now. But your sample size is still too low. We do not know for sure what the true INFJ population is in regards to looks. Bro do you even Science/statistics.
 
Local time
Today, 17:42
Joined
Jan 9, 2016
Messages
109
#25
Bro do you even Science/statistics.


Of course I do. I'm a Ti dom same as all the other accursed people on this forum who call themselves intp.

But for this matter I refer to my Se. Because as to my knowledge no trustworthy info has been given regarding INFJs "looks".

Tell me do you offer something better to bring to the table? If so I'll receive it gladly, if not I see no reason you should be considered an authority greater, or even equal(to), than mine. I bring to you the POV of sensation which according to the axioms of MBTI are greater and more valuable in this regard than the mere ponderings of intuitives, which is all you've brought me. And meaning no offense I say this:

Do you really consider yourself among the genius intuitives? The ones who've actually seen a reality beyond mere(take note of that word) imaginings and daydreamings? Because if not then I don't see any reasoning that your delusion should hold sway over mine(at least according to the rules of jungian psychology ).

Don't be silly, I've seen so many ridiculous and amusing things pondered and asserted on this form. Some by you some by others either way just because my reality holds a certain people under a certain(a sensation) negative light doesn't mean that my delusion is less negative(useful) than yours. As far as I can tell my reality much more true(in tune with objective reality, if such a thing exists) than yours. You still haven't given a reason why it isn't.

And while your critique of my opinion is in line with the Ti world view you still haven't given any good reason why intuitives should be given more trust in such matters over sensors. I would say it's because the axioms of jungian psychology say you can't, though if you have some superior retort I'd be glad to actually hear it, as opposed to the superfluous and equally biased claim that I do not have the "statistics"(to my knowledge no one has them). So because I do not have them does that make my claim as untrue as yours? I've seen you question your type many times on this form. Perhaps you are a Ti dom after all.
 
Local time
Today, 10:42
Joined
Apr 4, 2010
Messages
5,836
Location
subjective
#26
you still haven't given any good reason why intuitives should be given more trust in such matters over sensors.
Because that would be stupid as I would never claim authority as an intuitive if I was one nor as a sensor if I was one. Both are wrong so you are using the wrong arguments. Authority only comes from demonstration or sound reasoning so Bleepidy bleep me if I claim my authority falsely, deriving it from me being intuitive or sensor. But what I can claim is there is no way in hell you looking up 5 INFJ's and 3 are ugly tells us anything about the Beauty of INFJ population. Your authority is a local phenomenon at best and no I am not saying your authority is wrong because blah blah you are a sensor. You just have confirmation bias under science-based standards of claims made regarding a group of people. How does your being a sensor make you an authority to say all INFJ's are ugly. That would mean all sensors are an authority to say the same thing, not just you. And then we must ask all sensors if they agree with you by peer-reviewed answers.

(I say your authority does not come from being a sensor, you just know some INFJ's and formed a conclusion as any intuitive could do, that INFJ's are ugly, exactly the same)

But for the sake of it. We must ask.

1. Do all sensors have authority to say INFJs are ugly?
2. Do they agree peer reviewed?
3. Does being Sensor or Intuitive grant any authority at all in some form?
4. How is Authority connected to perception or is it in no way connected?
5. Authority can't be granted to just one Perceiver but all Perceivers or non.
6. In what way if existing is the difference between Sensor Authority and Intuitive Authority. What makes each half the population more qualified in their authoritative field?
7. Does judgment (Feeling)(Thinking) have authoritative fields and how doe this mix with perceptive authorities?

I am confused again so I am going back to manipulators typing of me as ISFP.
 
Local time
Today, 17:42
Joined
Jan 9, 2016
Messages
109
#27
Authority only comes from demonstration or sound reasoning so Bleepidy bleep me if I claim my authority falsely, deriving it from me being intuitive or sensor. But what I can claim is there is no way in hell you looking up 5 INFJ's and 3 are ugly tells us anything about the Beauty of INFJ population. Your authority is a local phenomenon at best and no I am not saying your authority is wrong because blah blah you are a sensor. You just have confirmation bias under science-based standards of claims made regarding a group of people. How does your being a sensor make you an authority to say all INFJ's are ugly.
1. Do all sensors have authority to say INFJs are ugly?
First off I never said all INFJs are ugly. Nor did I even say INFJs as an average are ugly. I said they are "bad looking". A subtle difference I know, but still they are not the same.

Second, who decides which reasoning is sound enough or which demonstration is adequate?

If we decide statistics are what determine this, fine, but until we have them are we to not form any sort of conclusion? I could give you reasons why based on the function and attributes of Ni why INFJs(and INTJs) are doomed to be "bad looking(on average)".
Would that be enough for you?

I can see why finding your type is hard for you. You seem to jump from having completely intuitive POVs to having rigid sensation ones.

Simply go read up on some definitions and attributes of Ni based on Jung and his contemporaries and you would see why Ni doms are usually (bad looking).

You talk of statistics but Jungian psychology(and thus MBTI and the whole idea of Ni and fictions) isn't even statistical. Let us not even talk about the dubious claims of others who say there is a statistical basis for MBTI.

I merely appeal to my standing as a sensor because by the very axioms of jungian typology that means I have a more "objective view" of what is physically "good looking" and what is not. Do you deny this? If you're denying jungian typology as a whole I can understand, but you can't simply accept the system and then say that the role of the functions is insignificant in the view of science. If that's the case then the whole system falls apart. By being a sensor I by definition have a better and less courropted grasp of what "looks good" and what doesn't(on average, given my whole psychology isn't corrupted).

You keep talking about how I must appeal to statistics and "good reasoning(whatever that is supposed to mean)". But you fail to see that if MBTI is to be considered even the least bit true then by definition a sensors ideas on the subject must be given more credence than an intuitives. You're basically trying to argue why the parallel postulate is wrong on the basis of Euclidean geometry. Which cannot be done by definition.
 
Local time
Today, 10:42
Joined
Apr 4, 2010
Messages
5,836
Location
subjective
#28
@Minute Squirrel

If you can see how Jungian cognition can express itself physically in the body such as the face. Then I can understand that types have different features. I just thought that was a myth in the type community. That types look a certain way.

(Any suggestions on my type.)
 
Local time
Tomorrow, 04:42
Joined
Jun 10, 2012
Messages
6,807
Location
38S 145E
#29
But you fail to see that if MBTI is to be considered even the lest big True then by definition a seniors ideas on the subject must be given more credence than an intuitives
10/10 troll
 

Ex-User (8886)

Well-Known Member
Local time
Today, 17:42
Joined
Sep 11, 2013
Messages
620
#30
I merely appeal to my standing as a sensor because by the very axioms of jungian typology that means I have a more "objective view" of what is physically "good looking" and what is not.
Sensors have stronger preference on focusing on sensor data, but tell me, what is beauty? Because I think it's abstract concept at which intuitives can be better.
 
Local time
Today, 17:42
Joined
Jan 9, 2016
Messages
109
#31
1) I am lowkey trolling but I stand by what I said (the thing is I think MBTI is mostly bullshite).
2) Those spelling errors weren't fixed(and happened) because I typed that reply on my phone while I was drunk last night.

Sensors have stronger preference on focusing on sensor data, but tell me, what is beauty? Because I think it's abstract concept at which intuitives can be better.
Wrong, thinking would be the optimal function to use for creating a definition of beauty. And sensing would be a better aid than intuition, since physical attractiveness can only be precieved through sensation. But as I said, good looking to me has a slightly different meaning than just attractive. Someone could be fairly attractive but if they're a fat fuck or a skinny twig(which most Ni doms tend to be(even Jung and his students noticed this)) with grime on them because they didn't bother to shower yesterday and a creepy look in their eye(the price for being able to see the "soul" of something I guess) then they're still bad looking to me. And since I'm an ISTP my opinion on the matter holds more weight, unless there's some weirdo ESTP or an even weirder XSTJ on here who disagrees with me.
 

Ex-User (8886)

Well-Known Member
Local time
Today, 17:42
Joined
Sep 11, 2013
Messages
620
#32
Wrong, thinking would be the optimal function to use for creating a definition of beauty. And sensing would be a better aid than intuition, since physical attractiveness can only be precieved through sensation. But as I said, good looking to me has a slightly different meaning than just attractive. Someone could be fairly attractive but if they're a fat fuck or a skinny twig(which most Ni doms tend to be(even Jung and his students noticed this)) with grime on them because they didn't bother to shower yesterday and a creepy look in their eye(the price for being able to see the "soul" of something I guess) then they're still bad looking to me. And since I'm an ISTP my opinion on the matter holds more weight, unless there's some weirdo ESTP or an even weirder XSTJ on here who disagrees with me.
I like you. Always love arrogant self confident ppl.
Well, I can't find anything that thinking wasn't be optimal to use. Even the thinkers are better at people skills than a feelers (think of ESTPs or ENTPs).
My cousin is ISTP and he's good looking, he put a lot of weight in his appearance, but personally I don't find it beautiful. He has much better taste when buying clothes than me, but I can imagine better appearance and I think I could look better, but as an intuitive person I just don't care, I have more interesting things to do.

I used to draw in my adolescence and I was quite good at it, but my ISFP friend was better (ppl said that). But again... in my opinion my work was more creative, he just draw things like there were, and I was altering them. Arguing about what is more beautiful is pointless, and that was what I want to tell you. You can't convince me that Mozart was better than Bach, and you can't convince me that you're sense of beauty is better than mine.
 
Local time
Today, 10:42
Joined
Apr 4, 2010
Messages
5,836
Location
subjective
#33
I am INTJ today (so I am ugly today) but I am male so manipulator is saying INTJ women are the ones that are too cold for INTP's but I think I did meet one once and she stared into my soul and she wasn't creepy but if you are INTP you may notice like I did the unconscious at work as she looks at you, letting things sink in about you. This could be the same as the INFJ looking into you. Hard to tell apart. Just that INxJ has an aura about them. Being a specific type doesn't make you a nice person. Any type can be reprehensible and you should base your choices on what you see in the person not just their type.
 
Local time
Today, 17:42
Joined
Jan 9, 2016
Messages
109
#34
I like you. Always love arrogant self confident ppl.
Well, I can't find anything that thinking wasn't be optimal to use. Even the thinkers are better at people skills than a feelers (think of ESTPs or ENTPs).
My cousin is ISTP and he's good looking, he put a lot of weight in his appearance, but personally I don't find it beautiful. He has much better taste when buying clothes than me, but I can imagine better appearance and I think I could look better, but as an intuitive person I just don't care, I have more interesting things to do.

I used to draw in my adolescence and I was quite good at it, but my ISFP friend was better (ppl said that). But again... in my opinion my work was more creative, he just draw things like there were, and I was altering them. Arguing about what is more beautiful is pointless, and that was what I want to tell you. You can't convince me that Mozart was better than Bach, and you can't convince me that you're sense of beauty is better than mine.
I think you're misinterpreting me abit(probably my fault). I thought openly stating that I was "lowkey trolling" would get people to understand what I was doing but I guess not.

So let's first start by going through my thoughts as I made these comments.

My first comment was meant more as a one off joke about how INFJs are bad looking and how intuitives don't really know shit about the physical world. Then when Mr. Kitty replied to me I figured it's be fun to argue a stupid position. But once I got to my third comment I realized that according to MBTI(that's the important part) what I said wasn't really all that silly.

The reason I keep mentioning stuff like axioms isn't because I think that stuff is true but because it's logical. I've given up on trying to tell others what's "objectively true" I only care that what they say is logically consistent(or at least get them to admit that it isn't).

Since this whole thread revolves around the idea that Jungian typology is at least mostly true that's the POV I'm speaking from. That's the system which I'm operating in for the sake of this conversation. That doesn't mean I actually believe it.

But, by the standards of the system I still don't see how I'm wrong. Yes beauty or good looks or whatever is subjective but Jung made it very clear that intuitives have a distorted view of the physical world as compared to sensors because their perception is more influenced by their unconscious. And while it's true a sensors unconscious can influence their perception that's only an exception for them and happens usually in either unhealthy or stressed sensors. An intuitive however will have their physical perception distorted by their unconscious as a matter of being(according to Jung and thus MBTI). I.e. An intuitive might see an average looking person as intensely beautiful because they see something beautiful deep inside their "soul"(Ni) or they see the potential of that person(Ne).

So while it's true beauty is subjective, if we are to talk about this in a jungian context then logical progression is that a sensor(on average) will have more of a concrete understanding of the physical world that is less distorted than someone who has dominant or auxiliary intuition.

PS your comment about thinking being optimal for everything seemed to missed the point. You asked me "what is beauty" and then claimed that's an area that intuitives would handle better than sensors but the man who made up those terms would say it was thinking as well. If I'm remembering correctly Jung literally called the thinking function the thing that tells us "what is". The whole quote I believe is that "Sensation tells us something is there, thinking tells us what it is, feeling tells us what it means(or whether it matters i don't remember), and intuition tells us what it might(could?) be." I hope that's enough to help you understand why I said sensation and thinking would be the optimal functions for answering "what is beauty".

EDIT: ok I really fucked that quote up. The actual quote is:"Sensation is to establish that something exists, thinking tells us what it means, feeling what its value is, and intuition surmises whence it comes and whither it goes." I still think my general point still stands.
 
Local time
Today, 10:42
Joined
Apr 4, 2010
Messages
5,836
Location
subjective
#35
Let's do a thought experiment.

Just today I was reminded that the brain can connect areas in different ways in different people. If we say that this web, this network can be categorized into 16 types of connectivity. This affects cognition affecting outward moment that would affect face muscles and body muscles. extreme (eye gaze)

How would the connections wire up in an INTJ

Ni (brain)(face)(body)
Te (brain)(face)(body)
Fi (brain)(face)(body)
Se (brain)(face)(body)

male - female -
Male INTP Female INTJ - How does brain wiring affecting looks combine to form interactions between them. This could be done with math of all types because it is network dynamics from a structure. A matrix of all networks of the types and the dynamic male and female structures within a type.
 
Local time
Today, 10:42
Joined
Apr 4, 2010
Messages
5,836
Location
subjective
#36
EDIT: ok I really fucked that quote up. The actual quote is:"Sensation is to establish that something exists, thinking tells us what it means, feeling what its value is, and intuition surmises whence it comes and whither it goes." I still think my general point still stands.
something exists - Sensation
What it's value is - Feeling

xSFx types would know beauty the most vividly than other types. Beauty is a value judgment (Feeling) and sensation recognizes it more clear than intuition.
 
Local time
Today, 17:42
Joined
Jan 9, 2016
Messages
109
#37
something exists - Sensation
What it's value is - Feeling

xSFx types would know beauty the most vividly than other types. Beauty is a value judgment (Feeling) and sensation recognizes it more clear than intuition.
I don't think you fully understand what Jung means by value. Here's another quote from him on the subject.

"thinking should facilitate cognition and judgment, feeling should tell us how and to what extent a thing is impor- tant or unimportant for us, sensation should convey concrete reality to us through seeing, hearing, tasting, etc., and intuition should enable us to divine the hidden possibilities in the back- ground, since these too belong to the complete picture of a given situation."

A feeler would be best at recognizing how important physical beauty is to them or society. A thinker would best in creating a definition of beauty through contemplation on what makes a person beautiful(which is what I said). A sensor would be best at recognizing it. And an intuitive would be best at guessing(knowing) the background information or possibilities of a persons beauty(I.e. An intuitive might randomly know a fact about a persons life that was unconsciously derived from the fact that person is beautiful or they might know that a person will grow up to be a certain way partly because of their beauty ). All of this is generally speaking ofc.
 
Local time
Today, 10:42
Joined
Apr 4, 2010
Messages
5,836
Location
subjective
#38
I still do not understand how the brain wiring of NiFe and NiTe translate into ugly facial features. What is the connection between brain and face and ugliness?

INFJ = ugly = because of brain = why?
 
Local time
Today, 10:42
Joined
Oct 10, 2016
Messages
808
Location
Omnipresent
#39
I don't really see the value in this line of inquiry.

It's more important to figure out what *you* like than what INTPs like.
I'd have to agree with this. The girl you become attracted to may be a type that would generally be regarded as not the best fit for an INTP, according to those who pay attention to romantic compatibility of different types. (I wouldn't pay attention to such things that much)

Drugs
 

Wish

Wellington
Local time
Today, 11:42
Joined
Oct 25, 2009
Messages
540
Location
asphodel meadows
#41
As at least Hadoblado mentioned, it's better to start by examining those qualities which you most desire in a partner (or girl), since, absurd as it may seem, there is variation even among INTPs.

Here's my quick list in no particular tall order.
  • Open-minded
  • Empathetic
  • Funny as fuck
  • Challenges me and others
  • Rational and reasonable
  • Independent
  • Objective
  • Skeptical
  • Kind and caring
  • More extroverted than me
  • Can put ego aside and understands the importance of doing so
So which type does this translate to? Well, any type. I would caution you against trying to select for a(ny) relationship by type rather than by the merits of one's qualities. Our knowledge of another's type is simply a combination of our speculation and the person's speculation, and I would trust most people's judgement of character before their ability to determine a person's Myers-Briggs type (myself included).

With that in mind, it would be interesting to see the results of a poll that asks members to mark which type they believe their partner(s) to be.
 
Local time
Today, 18:42
Joined
Jan 1, 2009
Messages
3,760
#42
omg, it's wish O----:

Anyways I'm an enfp in a relationsip with an intp. I agree with the guy who said avoid enfp at all cost, in the end we only seek intps to help us fufill the dream of world domination
 

baccheion

Active Member
Local time
Today, 12:42
Joined
May 2, 2016
Messages
222
#45
As at least Hadoblado mentioned, it's better to start by examining those qualities which you most desire in a partner (or girl), since, absurd as it may seem, there is variation even among INTPs.

Here's my quick list in no particular tall order.
  • Open-minded
  • Empathetic
  • Funny as fuck
  • Challenges me and others
  • Rational and reasonable
  • Independent
  • Objective
  • Skeptical
  • Kind and caring
  • More extroverted than me
  • Can put ego aside and understands the importance of doing so
So which type does this translate to? Well, any type. I would caution you against trying to select for a(ny) relationship by type rather than by the merits of one's qualities. Our knowledge of another's type is simply a combination of our speculation and the person's speculation, and I would trust most people's judgement of character before their ability to determine a person's Myers-Briggs type (myself included).

With that in mind, it would be interesting to see the results of a poll that asks members to mark which type they believe their partner(s) to be.
Have you ever tried taking adjectives from type descriptions, seeing which you like and don't like, then using that to rank the types?
 

v3nge

Too busy thinking to make any decisions.
Local time
Today, 12:42
Joined
Aug 21, 2015
Messages
78
#47
omg, it's wish O----:

Anyways I'm an enfp in a relationsip with an intp. I agree with the guy who said avoid enfp at all cost, in the end we only seek intps to help us fufill the dream of world domination
And by world domination you mean to make sure you're wearing matching socks.
 
Local time
Today, 18:42
Joined
Jan 1, 2009
Messages
3,760
#48
Love Dr. Wish. Matchmaking my way across the universe.
When are you matchmaking me with my harem? )=

And by world domination you mean to make sure you're wearing matching socks.
Underneath the joke I sense a deep seated contempt for people who throw all their socks in one basket, then every morning blind foldedly pick two :snowman:
 

v3nge

Too busy thinking to make any decisions.
Local time
Today, 12:42
Joined
Aug 21, 2015
Messages
78
#49
When are you matchmaking me with my harem? )=



Underneath the joke I sense a deep seated contempt for people who throw all their socks in one basket, then every morning blind foldedly pick two :snowman:
Must be ENFP intuition. :disdain:
 

Pizzabeak

Prolific Member
Local time
Today, 09:42
Joined
Jan 24, 2012
Messages
1,918
#50
hmmmm

I'd recommend a robot.
I like this answer.
As at least Hadoblado mentioned, it's better to start by examining those qualities which you most desire in a partner (or girl), since, absurd as it may seem, there is variation even among INTPs.

Here's my quick list in no particular tall order.
  • Open-minded
  • Empathetic
  • Funny as fuck
  • Challenges me and others
  • Rational and reasonable
  • Independent
  • Objective
  • Skeptical
  • Kind and caring
  • More extroverted than me
  • Can put ego aside and understands the importance of doing so
So which type does this translate to? Well, any type. I would caution you against trying to select for a(ny) relationship by type rather than by the merits of one's qualities. Our knowledge of another's type is simply a combination of our speculation and the person's speculation, and I would trust most people's judgement of character before their ability to determine a person's Myers-Briggs type (myself included).

With that in mind, it would be interesting to see the results of a poll that asks members to mark which type they believe their partner(s) to be.
Sounds like ENTJ, which has been nominated before to be one of the best types for an INTP, whether male or female, or as friends or lovers. And it just works. The only downside is the INTP has to be good, and pretty much not lazy - and there aren't that many INTP to begin with - and at that, not too many available ENTJ girls (or women).
From what I have seen, there is some magnetism there for some reason. I just chalk it up to the functions being inversed. The ENTJ just senses the INTP's mood and what they should do, and tells/suggests that they do it for their own good even if they can't see it or too lazy to want to at the moment, because it would fit in with their worldview - so even better if they are a part of the same plan. The ENTJ knows the INTP understands or is capable of doing so eventually. It's even more interesting when you notice they don't even have the same cognitive functions, so none of those speculations even make sense and after all these years of research/observation, that finally makes sense.

I just wanted to throw that out there before I got too far into it. None of what Minute Squirrel said made sense. Beauty is in the eye of the beholder. S's would be more focused on physical looks which vary and different people prefer different things so it'd branch off from there. Then there'd be a universal beauty that everyone would agree with regardless of anything - biases or tastes. So I don't think INFJ are bad looking obviously or at least not all of them. It's more so that they'd be annoying if anything. Too much Fe and they think they're smart or smarter because they rest on their tertiary Ti. Then it's Ni and not even Ne so it's different. ENTP & INTP can work except they're too similar so they could get stuck and if that's understood they could probably power through it. INFP might also be a good match too.
 
Top Bottom