Categorizing INTP

[rattymat]

I feel hesitant about the categorization of personality types, as it seems to impose certain limits on what a personality can be. Perhaps you most associate with a certain personality type, but being a personality type seems way too boxing of a personality. I don't think people should look towards a personality type to give them a basis for how they act as it may impose how they SHOULD act, instead of what may be their natural way of acting.
While I do find Jungian personality types very intricate and accurate for being so generalized, I still feel it is wrong in ways to identify yourself as a personality type.

How do you guys feel about the personality type you associate with and how much does it define yourself?

 

[nanook]

individuation is key to becoming the most effective you that you can be. by understanding your energy flow, you can maximize it, by maximizing it, even your weakest or most peripheral parts can come to live. in contrast, by stubbornly willing you into becoming what you are not, you will cut of energy from your source, hoping this will move the energy to your weakest parts. it won't. it will lessen the whole energy throughput.

the problem with the concept of MBTI is that it fails at correctly pointing out the individuals energy flow. jung did a better job, albeit incomplete.

 

[SkyWalker]

individuation is key to becoming the most effective you that you can be. by understanding your energy flow, you can maximize it, by maximizing it, even your weakest or most peripheral parts can come to live. in contrast, by stubbornly willing you into becoming what you are not, you will cut of energy from your source, hoping this will move the energy to your weakest parts. it won't. it will lessen the whole energy throughput.

the problem with the concept of MBTI is that it fails at correctly pointing out the individuals energy flow. jung did a better job, albeit incomplete.

what do you mean by accept who you are? by accepting that you only have the first 4 functions or something like that? and that the other 4 are just not you?

 

[Aramea]

While I understand you not liking the feeling of it boxing you into a "type", there ARE limitations to almost everything, including attempts to become that which you are plainly not. At best, you can emulate a closer type for a period of time. It isn't that hard for an INTP to "be" an ENTP for quite a long time. The more shared functions there are the easier it is. The best route for MBTI is finding a way to make the most of what you naturally have through studying the various functions and using them to create the best path for you.

 

[Artsu Tharaz]

I don't think people should look towards a personality type to give them a basis for how they act as it may impose how they SHOULD act, instead of what may be their natural way of acting.

The point is to provide possibilities for how you should act to be more in line with how you would best naturally act.

Unless by 'natural way of acting' you just mean 'how you act currently', in which case this notion is totally contradictory to the principle of self-development.

 

[nanook]

the short version, sky walker: if your dominant function is A and your secondary is B and you are like: i am sick of being A, in want to be B from now on, then you will fail. everyone can test this. everyone has tested this. but in getting a better understanding of what A is capable of, you will be able to reduces some limits from A. A has been limited in a life long attempt at not being to much of A, because society wants every one to be like everyone, average. A has been muddled and corrupted by B and D. if you understand what A is capable of, if you free it from it's unconscious limitations, A will become maximized. and this will automatically allow and call for maximization of B. but B can never supress A and thereby take over. B won't have energy left, once it has suppressed A, because the energy is coming through A.

too abstract?

well jung talks about how the introverted just sits there, being his subjective self. like a useless bird on a fence. as if he had no part in the world. the voice of extroversion tells him, that having a part in the world is about interaction. the world is full of interaction, right? and the introverted self doesn't do interaction. and so it thinks it just has to sit there. it's a misunderstanding. the contribution of subjectivity to the world is resonance, and resonance can lead to expression and expression can turn a bum into a buddha. this is removing the limits of A, by removing the misinterpretation of what it can do. introversion is not, what the extroverted voice tells you about it. lack of interaction is not lack of contribution. to the contrary. subjectivity brings about the new way. its about getting on top the world, based on understanding it. jung understood. its about subjectivity, but subjectivity is not what the voice of objectivity says about it. its not a lack of objectivity, like it's "all wrong". most introverted people are in denial about their subjectivity. they have learned to see them selves through their extroverted eye, and shoot their subjectivity out of the shadow, claiming it's objectivity, thereby corrupting it's true potential, without even getting to know it for what it really is or what it wants to become. and they will be perceived as loosers, because what they produce fails to be what they claim it to be (objectivity). it's like you really have picked the wrong lawyer.

shit, this was more than just the short version.
its still just an example. the bum buddha thing.
what it means in a persons life is extremely 'individual'.
there are so many ways of misunderstanding and crippling your true self.

you have to differentiate your self, before you can integrate your differentiated parts into a functional whole. differentiation is what i have described. not seeing one thing through the eye of another thing. but getting to know it from the inside out. uncompromising identification must come first. integrative transcendence will result from it.

 

[digital angel]

I don't know that personality types were meant to define you. What the categorization does, is permit someone to have an understanding of why they behave the way they do. The personality category also gives a person an idea of what they would be good at based upon their preferences. Having said that, I don't know how many people fit into a category perfectly.

 

[Glordag]

Also, keep in mind that the functions are merely preferences that have been built over time. Everyone has and is capable of using each of the functions, but your MBTI type is simply what is more natural to you. If you choose to or are forced to make a judgement on, say, Fe, it will likely not feel as natural or comfortable as using Ti.

The degree to which we find something "natural" is obviously going to vary from person to person. The point of MBTI is simply to recognize the types of ways that people naturally think, act, judge, etc.

 

[EyeSeeCold]

I view types as oscillations and their functions as information processors. No stereotypes needed, although they help for identifying types irl.

 

[Aramea]

Also, keep in mind that the functions are merely preferences that have been built over time. Everyone has and is capable of using each of the functions, but your MBTI type is simply what is more natural to you. If you choose to or are forced to make a judgement on, say, Fe, it will likely not feel as natural or comfortable as using Ti.

The degree to which we find something "natural" is obviously going to vary from person to person. The point of MBTI is simply to recognize the types of ways that people naturally think, act, judge, etc.

This is a good way of putting it. I find it almost impossible to consciously use Fe. Interestingly, I found myself in an "Fe moment" today. My husband called with news that one of my son's classmates' father committed suicide today with the kids in the house. My son had slept over at this house before. I found myself having a gut level response to this event thinking "what if he had done it then?". I was very hard to shake off what is (for me) a very creepy feeling while a regular Fe user might have had more control of it. What that control would look like I couldn't say.

 

[Artsu Tharaz]

the short version, sky walker: if your dominant function is A and your secondary is B and you are like: i am sick of being A, in want to be B from now on, then you will fail.

It's as if your second function, even if well developed, simply lacks the ability to be actively used by itself. The way it deals with information must be in a sense out of sync with how information flows in the part of the world it deals with.

So, the Ne of an ENTP is able to directly play around with information in the environment, and passively checks this information with Ti as it goes, but when an INTP takes in information from the environment, its style of Ne just can't actively follow the flow and so it -must- pass to Ti to make use of the INTP's adaptive/P abilities.

 

[alrai]

I've taken the 50 Q test more than a few times, I keep getting; moderate I, distinctive N, distinctive T, moderate P, the N usually having the highest percentage followed by T. I'm still not sure if I'm an INTP, or if thats what your suggesting.

 

[Anthrocide]

MBTI is a means of categorization, and it no way restricts you. The type portraits are purposefully stereotypical for those who need examples when learning of the system. The types only define what they say they define. We can take them out of context.

It has already been explained, but I want to reiterate that it is all about preferences.

 

[Glordag]

I've taken the 50 Q test more than a few times, I keep getting; moderate I, distinctive N, distinctive T, moderate P, the N usually having the highest percentage followed by T. I'm still not sure if I'm an INTP, or if thats what your suggesting.

I would definitely take the percentage measures from some of the online tests with a grain of salt. As you can see from my signature, the one I took has me almost entirely I, but to many introverts I seem pretty extroverted. I'd be the first to admit that I tend to prefer human interaction a little more often than a lot of other introverts I know, as well.

The best advice I could give you would be to read through Jung's "Psychological Types" and figure out which personality types you most relate to from there (introverted thinker, extroverted thinker, extroverted feeler, etc.) That could reveal more than trying to force the MBTI labels upon yourself.

 

[Peeps999]

I feel too many of the things in INTP descriptions are way to general. Like the emotionless stuff and the total seclusion. We aren't emotionless, but as others have stated we have a preference to choose logic over emotion. Same for extroversion and introversion. Like when I'm with my friends I'm very loud at first, but then I start to get drained much faster than everyone else, and I become silent and to others I start to appear boring.

 

[Solitaire U.]

How do you guys feel about the personality type you associate with and how much does it define yourself?

Well, if rebelling against everything is a stereotypical INTP trait, then I guess you could say that I'm a typical INTP who hates like fuck the idea of being in an INTP box and thus exploits every opportunity to punch holes through the cardboard.

 

[Ejno]

I have always thought of MBTI as the framework to an individuals personality and the things that MBTI clasification does not cover is the filling to that framework for example INTP profile suggests that we have a never ending hunger for knowledge but it does not define exactly what kind of knowledge we might seek it is those specifics that separate us as individuals.

As was mentioned in previous posts MBTI simply indicates your preference over functions, it is not to say that you are incapable of their counterparts, just that you instinctively go for one over the other like how a right handed person is not void of the ability to write with their left hand it just doesn't feel natural.

 

[Zionoxis]

I think MBTI has given me a chance to find lots of information about myself and how I process information. I do realize I do not perfectly fit into the INTP mold perfectly. It has helped me to discover my biggest weaknesses, which may not even fit with an INTP. I put an extremely large amount of energy into trying to look good in the eyes of others. For me, I feel an urge to not look like an idiot. Oddly enough, I find this to be a use of Fe though I always test so strongly as INTP.

Mind you, I can still destroy most people in the world logic games and that of strategy, but my need to not look like an idiot is one of, if not the biggest weakness of mine. I do think the typing system is extremely accurate in and of itself. In a social setting, I am extremely awkward unless the conversation is something I know well or am interested in, and most times...it is not. That being said, I will become drained, and if I continue to stay in that group, I will eventually become irritable and cynical to the point that i come across as an asshole.

Another example is that I often confuse people when explaining a concept. I was under the impression INTP's was the type that best puts words into simple terms. The idea makes sense to me, but others misinterpret what I am saying to mean something else.

 

[pjoa09]

I adored the idea of being able to be categorized. To see myself as a stereotype. It was comforting to know that I wasn't some odd individual but a bunch of odd individuals.

The problem starts when you question it and try to get ever milliliter in the glass. Personalities go way past the brim and flows everywhere. In my experience I specified myself as an INTP and said yes I daydream a lot, think too much, and I am disorganized. Then I thought of the times that I willfully engaged in the spur of the moment despite the dangers that lie ahead. The times where I had a spark in my mind and I actually did something rather than simply ponder over it for decades. I usually mask any intellect that I have. Now that is not very INTP is it?

Personalities cannot be encapsulated in types just like platypus is a marsupial. All marsupials carry their premature children in their pouch but all other marsupials don't have a beak.

 

[rattymat]

well, I suppose it is interesting to note the percentages of dominant function, for it is within these percentages that one can be more accurately described and less boxed into 4 main functions. There is a balance everyone has between the two functions which everyone personally has an understanding of. Sometimes, though, I wonder if people even know themsleves well enough to take a test which categorizes them as a type which they thereby continue to associate themselves with. I almost never know how to answer the questions because half the time I think to myself "well it depends on the situation," in particular regard to feeling vs thinking questions. You see, with me my choice to value emotional input or logical input depends upon the situation. If it is of a more intimate social relationship I will tend to take an emotional perspective.
I suppose I do not like feeling categorized. I value all of the functions (though least of all Sensing), and feel they all have some perspective to offer. Which is another reason I feel hesitant to choose certain functions above others. I would like to explore all modes of being.
I guess a secondary problem I have is that once people start to be aware of their function preferences, that they may go more by the stereotypes, or ignore the exploration of the other functions. I appreciate that it helps people understand themselves, but on the other hand feel people must learn themselves on their own accord.

 

[thoumyvision]

I feel hesitant about the categorization of personality types, as it seems to impose certain limits on what a personality can be. Perhaps you most associate with a certain personality type, but being a personality type seems way too boxing of a personality. I don't think people should look towards a personality type to give them a basis for how they act as it may impose how they SHOULD act, instead of what may be their natural way of acting.
While I do find Jungian personality types very intricate and accurate for being so generalized, I still feel it is wrong in ways to identify yourself as a personality type.

How do you guys feel about the personality type you associate with and how much does it define yourself?

What is the basis for these feelings you have, and do these feelings correspond to reality? What if your personality type does put you in a box? You obviously think there's something wrong with the idea, but you haven't explained why, other than that you feel that way. Why should the way you feel about something affect my opinion of it?

I suppose I do not like feeling categorized. I value all of the functions (though least of all Sensing), and feel they all have some perspective to offer. Which is another reason I feel hesitant to choose certain functions above others. I would like to explore all modes of being.
I guess a secondary problem I have is that once people start to be aware of their function preferences, that they may go more by the stereotypes, or ignore the exploration of the other functions. I appreciate that it helps people understand themselves, but on the other hand feel people must learn themselves on their own accord.

How do you make the leap from "I do not like feeling catgorized" to "people must learn themselves on their own accord." The first statement is relative to your own perspective, but the second makes a sweeping statement about all mankind. What position are you in to make such a statement?

That "must" word is incredibly strong. If I found out that there were a book out there I could read which would describe to me every nuance of my personality, and give me effective advice on how to act within that framework, I would read it in a heartbeat. Some people wouldn't, but I can't really use a word like "must" in saying that it might be a good idea for them to do so. "Can't" is another strong word, but I'm in a position to say what I can and can't do. I'm not in the position to say what other people must or mustn't do unless there is a standard, such as a law, by which I can make such a pronouncement.

If you have no standard beyond your feelings then why should I listen to you? I suppose it would be nice of me, but if you wanted nice the INTPf is probably not the best place you could have chosen