This description is accurate for male IxTJs with issues.
You think females can't have issues?
In general Ni-doms promote individualistic thinking and behavior in their kids.
You know this how? Because Ni-doms are so open to all the alternatives suggested by IxNPs?
You seem to have some big issue with Ni-doms,
I grew up with some people who had the characteristics described about INxJs, and some who did not.
you also seem to be an Ni-dom.
Hah. Amusing. Doesn't matter to me anymore. I've been called INTJ, ISFJ, INFP, and INFJ, all by people who I was in an argument with, similar to now with you. Strangely enough, I've not really gotten such comments otherwise. After I was called an ISFJ in the midst of an argument I got fed up of it, and started a thread on INTJf, to see what others said. The majority said that I was clearly an INTP.
INTJf is infested with ISTJs.
I've noticed.
ISTJs carea lot about the way the world should be,
As Jung explained, Sensation is about what is, not what should be. ISTJs are sticklers for pointing out when others are not following the rules that everyone had already agreed to stick to. That's what makes them such good health & safety inspectors, and is why Kiersey called the the Inspectors.
INTJs are all about efficiency, what things should be, if we achieved the optimal practical ideal. I leave it to you, to fill in the blanks for INFJs.
and they lack insight into both themselves and abstract matters,
ISTJs usually have good understanding of themselves. They're also excellent at mathematics, accounting, and anything else that is abstract, that has a practical application. Also excellent at history, the understanding of which requires solid abstract reasoning. They don't seem to care for Sci-Fi, fantasy, or pontifications that don't seem to have a solid feasible prototype that shows they can work.
they are perfect candidates for mistyping as NT's
I found that it's really easy to spot the differences between NTs and STs, as long as I remember that MBTI and Jungian psychological typing is about typing of the
psyche, how someone thinks on a core component level, and not how those core components of reasoning can combine to result in cookie-cutter categorisation by behaviour. E.G. "A European is an atheist. Atheism is conventional in Europe. Intuitives are unconventional. Therefore, the person must not be an Intuitive."
and going onto some MBTI boards where they will be accepted as INTJs because they grew up with the internet and people picture ISTJs as conservative backwards strivers.
More that lots of people think that ISTJs lack insight into both themselves and abstract matters, and come to the conclusion that anyone interested in science or rational thinking, must be an NT.
A Pi-dom for sure. In all our discussions you keep pointing things out to me as if I was an idiot,
I rely on the rule of equivalency a lot. If something is true for you in your perspective, then it should be true for everyone else from everyone else's perspective. If you think it would be idiotic to claim that atheists are stupid or irrational, because we have clear evidence that many scientists were atheists, then you think it would be idiotic to claim that religious theists are stupid or irrational, because we have clear evidence that many scientists were religious theists. If you can't handle that, then just don't say things that will cause you to be given a dose of your own medicine.
If I come across a bit abrasive, then I apologise. I'm still learning how to communicate with Ni-doms, without coming across as passively agreeing to every idiotic thing they say, and without coming across too aggressive. It's difficult to get a balance with them, because they just don't seem to have clear definitive rules of behaviour, like most people do in real life, and like forum rules on the internet.
the thing is that what you point out almost always hinges on a particular nuance of meaning of some particular word which you use in the general context but expect to be read in just the way you mean it.
Theories are evaluated in science, and in everything else, by how well they fit the data. Either your ideas fit the data better than any other possible alternative, or they don't. What you want to believe, and what you've heard a lot of people saying as jokes on TV, doesn't count. They're said on TV because people are looking to NOT think while watching TV.
Or you point out what you consider the meaning of some term and then let that constitute the logical form of your argument in some strange tautology (THEMSELVES. That's why they are called Perceivers. <- followed by yet another claim that is both biased and categorical) Ti is at work; it's not dominant. INFJ or ISFJ for sure.
I learned to develop my Ne, and then my Si. Solid facts (Si) + solid logic (Ti) can often result in solid conclusions, conclusions that cannot be beat.
In any case could you please specify what you mean by dissatisfaction? Okay so the stuff I listed apparently isn't dissatisfaction but what sets dissatisfaction apart then?
You used the word, intuitively. You must have realised that "bouncing ideas" wasn't what you meant by "dissatisfaction". What did you think it meant?
You might have imagined that expressing that Ni-doms express "dissatisfaction" would not lead to any conclusions that you would NOT like. But everything has a good side and a bad side. A hammer can build a house, or smash in a skull. In the same way, there's a good side to expressing dissatisfaction, and there's a bad side. I only mention the bad side, when it's fairly clear to me, that someone is focussing only on the good side, and forgetting about the bad side, and if they remembered about the bad side, they'd probably prefer to keep their mouth shut. That way, they have a chance of saying "my bad", and correcting their error.
It's a human thing, to err, and thus, a mature human has no problem admitting to the occasional fault.
of course it was.