Functions responsible for independence

[Ex-User (8886)]

Some people like to follow and need leaders to tell them what to do. But some people value their self freedom more than everything else, and rather die, than follow.

Which mbti function make people independent? Stereotypically intj is the most independent. Why?

 

[redbaron]

Ti, Fi, Ne.

XNFP and XNTP's have the strongest aptitude for effective variation from social/cultural norms in both thought and behaviour, I think.

 

[Architect]

That's something I've wondered briefly about but never followed up on. Let's dig a little deeper

Consider the ENTP which has the same functions as the INTP but in a different order. With them independence goes outwards. I know ENTP's who actively thwart the system they are in. I call them the "tweakers", as they like to mess with people and systems. Explosively sometimes. The INTP is more of a stealth independent. They want to quietly resist being manipulated.

So from this we may conclude that Ti+Ne are the most independent, but what about the SP types? Those are the ones most likely to go out and live in a cabin in the woods, or spend all of their days surfing and never get a real job or life (watch the film on Doc Paskowitz, a clear SP). Even the NF's in their own way are independent, INFJ's are usually not "joiners" for example.

So I'm not sure you can pin it down to a few functions being responsible, I think it's more complex than that being a mix between motivations and the functions.

• For INTP's it's a desire not to be controlled
• For ENTP's it's a desire to destroy systems that want to control creative people
• For SP's it's to avoid a system that keeps them from playing

 

[Base groove]

Some people like to follow and need leaders to tell them what to do. But some people value their self freedom more than everything else, and rather die, than follow.

Which mbti function make people independent? Stereotypically intj is the most independent. Why?

Stereotypically INTJ is the most independent, but this has nothing to do with your definition of independence.

In general, I don't think 'functions' are responsible for it. I am inclined to suggest that the introverted attitude would be more naturally independent in any form of expression, compared to its extraverted counterpart.

This concept of independence has more to do with temperament (as the two previous posters have alluded to, Architect more so).

NTs are generally regarded as the most independent of mind. Given the previous premise that I is more independent than E, generally, we might expect the INTx types to be the most independent overall.

However, ISTPs are also known for being extremely independent, so we can not hinge this on the S/N dichotomy. ESTPs are more content to fit in with the herd, so surely there must be a gap between ISTP and ESTP that some other types fill-in on the scale.

So do we go ahead and suggest that any introvert is more independent than any extravert? Likely not, as this is obviously incorrect.

So, is it the Ti function, as Redbaron suggested? Perhaps ... but then why would the INTJ be purported as the 'most independent'?

I don't think you're going to get an answer because there isn't one.

 

[Architect]

Stereotypically INTJ is the most independent

Ehh, in what context? INTJ's I've known work extremely well in institutional settings (big science labs, university, corporations and organizations). But they are highly independent of thought.

I'd actually say that on an absolute scale I'd put the INTP as the most independent, both in physical nature, ideation, and thought.

 

[Base groove]

Ehh, in what context? INTJ's I've known work extremely well in institutional settings (big science labs, university, corporations and organizations). But they are highly independent of thought.

I'd actually say that on an absolute scale I'd put the INTP as the most independent, both in physical nature, ideation, and thought.

This kind of stereotyping is widely available in whatever personality profile you choose. Some say INTJ, others INTP ... my point is... it's a stereotype that's impossible to prove. I'm sorry you thought I was agreeing with it.


At any rate, I'm not going to bicker with you about this because:

a. you think you are INTP
b. you often say INTP is the most independent of all types
c. I believe you have a habit of ignoring others' perspectives

So you'll be consulting yourself for validation, I presume.

Stereotyping is useless anyways, or I'm not an INTJ. Everything you just wrote about INTJs sounds like hell to me. Your collection of INTJ stereotypes has been amassed based on your personal experiences with INTJs, of course, so it's most difficult to refute because it's in alignment with the popular opinion, plus I'm sure most of your colleagues for the past twenty years have been older than me.

 

[Base groove]

I'd suggest that from a 'functions' approach like this, no type with Fe could be considered 'absolutely independent.'

 

[redbaron]

Stereotyping is useless anyways, or I'm not an INTJ.

Lightbulb.

 

[Architect]

This kind of stereotyping is widely available in whatever personality profile you choose. Some say INTJ, others INTP ... my point is... it's a stereotype that's impossible to prove. I'm sorry you thought I was agreeing with it.

Well we're in violent agreement then.

b. you often say INTP is the most independent of all types

Yes, but this discussion has me revising that opinion. Again if I had to say one was the most independent then I'd probably say INTP, but then I'm biased. However after digging into it many types are independently minded as discussed above.

c. I believe you have a habit of ignoring others' perspectives

I wouldn't say it's a habit, but I sometimes do find them irrelevant.

 

[Ex-User (8886)]

The more independent are leaders, egoists, self-confident and high-esteemed people. To being independent, you must value your thoughts more than facts and other people's thoughts.

These chatacteristics have every NT. So we have 4 types with main functions thinking and intuition.
But, which function is the most important? For me, INTP and ENTP are not the most independent. They have Fe, so they care about others. NTJs are more egoistic, and also better fit to leader role. And, usually they are more confident. We have extraverted thinking and introverted intuition then. STJ people are not very independable, so I think Intuition is more important. Introverted Intuition.

Edit. I also think Introverts are more independent, because they don't need other people as much.

INTJ>INTP>ENTJ>ENTP>others

 

[BigApplePi]

Attention: INTJ's. We may not know who you are, but you know who you are.

Resolved: INTJ is the most dependent type. INTJ = Ni Te Fi Se. Proof:

Te makes them utterly dependent on what the outside world has to offer. So does Se.
Both Ni intuition and Fi feelings are worthless pieces of crap. One cannot get any Ni without some kind of diluted experience with Te/Se. Fi feelings are always self-deception brought about by a humiliating dependence on Te.

 

[paradoxparadigm7]

The more independent are leaders, egoists, self-confident and high-esteemed people. To being independent, you must value your thoughts more than facts and other people's thoughts.

These chatacteristics have every NT. So we have 4 types with main functions thinking and intuition.
But, which function is the most important? For me, INTP and ENTP are not the most independent. They have Fe, so they care about others. NTJs are more egoistic, and also better fit to leader role. And, usually they are more confident. We have extraverted thinking and introverted intuition then. STJ people are not very independable, so I think Intuition is more important. Introverted Intuition.

Edit. I also think Introverts are more independent, because they don't need other people as much.

INTJ>INTP>ENTJ>ENTP>others

"The community stagnates without the impulse of the individual. The impulse dies away without the sympathy of the community." William James

Lauding of independence is a vacuous judgement. Independence and interdependence are a whole. I know I'm not addressing your question of which functions are most responsible for independence but you seem to elevate independence over dependence.

 

[Spirit]

ISTP
Voted most likely to build a rocket ship and blast off the planet by himself.

 

[Base groove]

Te makes them utterly dependent on what the outside world has to offer. So does Se.

This bit here is a bit contradictory. You have to remember that the extraverted attitude is about contributing and expansion, not 'taking' what there is 'to offer' ... this is equally indicative of introversion (is what I'm trying to say.)

 

[Words]

Lets narrow it down to introverted functions:

Si is independence of "facts" or memories but what it tackles is so concrete that it may as well be not independence at all. Fi is independent of values but it likes to attach itself to other humans. Ti is independence of rules, principles and humans but Ni is literally independence of everything. "Everything" as in Ni is independence of ideas, and ideas build the basis of our reality.

 

[BigApplePi]

Originally Posted by BigApplePi
Te makes them utterly dependent on what the outside world has to offer. So does Se.

This bit here is a bit contradictory. You have to remember that the extraverted attitude is about contributing and expansion, not 'taking' what there is 'to offer' ... this is equally indicative of introversion (is what I'm trying to say.)

Doesn't matter. The INTJ depends on Te and Se no matter how expansive. All the INTJ has to do is to fail to use adequate logic to see alternatives to the Te and Se they have chosen to fail at interpretation. Te and Se is experience and cannot possibly cover unseen ground beyond the immediacy of experience which proper logic can ferret out. The INTJ is dependent.

 

[Base groove]

Doesn't matter. The INTJ depends on Te and Se no matter how expansive. All the INTJ has to do is to fail to use adequate logic to see alternatives to the Te and Se they have chosen to fail at interpretation. Te and Se is experience and cannot possibly cover unseen ground beyond the immediacy of experience which proper logic can ferret out. The INTJ is dependent.

Trying your hand with a troll I see? Read what Words wrote above.

 

[BigApplePi]

Ni is literally independence of everything.

meaning to be effective it must be grounded on something. It is totally dependent on that something (something existing in the external world) and cannot stand alone. This makes Ni weak and dependent.

 

[Absurdity]

Both Ni intuition and Fi feelings are worthless pieces of crap.

Profound insights here.

 

[Words]

meaning to be effective it must be grounded on something. It is totally dependent on that something (something existing in the external world) and cannot stand alone. This makes Ni weak and dependent.

Religion is far from grounded in reality and yet it is effective. The craziest, baseless ideas can move millions. On the other hand, Delusions turn people into outcasts; hermits and witches. These are all products of Ni.

 

[Words]

Al
Both Ni intuition and Fi feelings are worthless pieces of crap. One cannot get any Ni without some kind of diluted experience with Te/Se. Fi feelings are always self-deception brought about by a humiliating dependence on Te.

Te is still very much a social function. It feeds off of people. All functions must have some basis on reality. The question is which has the least reliance on reality. Se is the most real function. What is directly oppositional to Se?

 

[BigApplePi]

Originally Posted by BigApplePi
Both Ni intuition and Fi feelings are worthless pieces of crap.

Profound insights here.

Perfect ... I assume sarcasm. And spoken by a named INTJ.

Have you ever known me (assuming you've read everything I've written) to make such an INTJ-like statement? Have you ever known me to use the word "crap"? (Don't look it up just in case I have.) Therefore what I said must have some other meaning. And I rarely say anything which has no meaning although I am guilty of poor Fe expression I admit.

 

[Base groove]

You suck at being a whiny brat.

If you have a point, make it already.

If you're really trying to make the point that certain functions are worthless and 'dependent', then you must have no clue what you are talking about, really. Can you actually justify this?? Has Goku just taken over your account?

 

[Base groove]

Forget it I have no business posting here. You win BAP.

 

[Words]

If you're really trying to make the point that certain functions are worthless and 'dependent', then you must have no clue what you are talking about, really. Can you actually justify this?? Has Goku just taken over your account?

Don't mind Pi. I reckon he's half serious with what he says.

 

[BigApplePi]

Trying your hand with a troll I see? Read what Words wrote above.

Quick to use the "T" word when you don't know what happening, eh? Okay. I'll go see what Words said.

 

[BigApplePi]

Religion is far from grounded in reality and yet it is effective. The craziest, baseless ideas can move millions. On the other hand, Delusions turn people into outcasts; hermits and witches. These are all products of Ni.

Agreed. Ni can have impact and have an effectiveness. But you also said Ni, when rejected, can cause people to be isolated outside of social reality. That's what I'm talking about.

 

[BigApplePi]

Forget it I have no business posting here. You win BAP.

OMG. I win the battle but lose the war. BG you are the perfect INTJ. Let me point out something just as a start because this is complex as more than one thing is going on here and they are interacting.

First, I am INTP = Ti Ne Si Fe; you are INTJ = Ni Te Fi Se. That means, like with Absurdity and Proxy we have no CFs in common ... no conscious functions in common. Now I can't get you to come over to me, so I will have to go over to you else we will have lost communication.

I will try to tell you and Absurdity something of what went through my mind with this thread, but this is going to be tough. Don't know if my Fe is going to be good enough. Will get back to you later as the wife needs me to run some errands.

 

[Base groove]

OMG. I win the battle but lose the war. BG you are the perfect INTJ. Let me point out something just as a start because this is complex as more than one thing is going on here and they are interacting.

Let me guess... you're going to list off the cognitive functions again and then saunter off without making your point. You're building false barriers with your 'cognitive functions'. I can climb right over them because they were never there when I saw them. Got it?

"Complex" does not deter me; I believe I have a full grasp of what is happening. That's why I called it a troll.

The "T" word does not indicate one is unaware of his present happenings, but instead it indicates one is fully aware and adequately wary.

(Edit: I'd like to add that I fully intend to spoil your fun.)

You think you are the only one who enjoys thinking about everything at once, lowly INTP?

 

[BigApplePi]

Let me guess... you're going to list off the cognitive functions again and then saunter off without making your point. You're building false barriers with your 'cognitive functions'. I can climb right over them because they were never there when I saw them. Got it?

"Complex" does not deter me; I believe I have a full grasp of what is happening. That's why I called it a troll.

The "T" word does not indicate one is unaware of his present happenings, but instead it indicates one is fully aware and adequately wary.

(Edit: I'd like to add that I fully intend to spoil your fun.)

You think you are the only one who enjoys thinking about everything at once, lowly INTP?

BG. Appreciate your response. I have half of one prepared but need to attend to some other personals (the stock market opening). I will try to meet you half way and we shall see what we shall see. I do see you would like to "give it to" INTPs just as I would to INTJs. The way I see it now is INTPs are thinkers while INTJs are actors because they choose. I want to give each their credit, but not to forget each gets a debit because INTJs are not full thinkers though they can think while INTPs are not good action people though they can act.

 

[BigApplePi]

@Base groove and other INTJs who I wonder if they have given up on this thread. Not that you are interested, but I will tell you exactly what went through my mind* when I saw this thread, the purpose being to see if, like it or not, you can see where I am coming from which is most likely different than you. Let me remind you that I lead with Ti but have no conscious Fi unlike you.

Some people like to follow and need leaders to tell them what to do. But some people value their self freedom more than everything else, and rather die, than follow.

Which mbti function make people independent? Stereotypically intj is the most independent. Why?

When I saw this thread I thought, "That is interesting. Let's see what comes of it. Manipulator mentions leaders and followers. That is a concept I certainly haven't mastered**. The instant he brought up "independence" I knew a definition*** was going to be in the forecast. Yet as the thread went on I saw no definition. So I waited. I knew that when people talk about something without defining it, they must have something unspoken already in mind. I also knew via my Ne that there were going to be many possible definitions. As a Ti person, I knew something already but there must be others. The thread was interesting and had possibilities.

Then people started jumping to conclusions ... all without care for definitions. It was then I posted, "Both Ni intuition and Fi feelings are worthless pieces of crap." Of course generally speaking this is false, but Ni and Fi do have weaknesses. I acted on my own subconscious Ni. I acted like an INTJ! INTPs can do anything if they put their mind to it ... well not anything ... and they probably can do a poor job. I'll stop here so I don't overload.
______________________________
*Too much to tell everything.
**For the life of me I cannot commit to being either a leader or a follower. I would like to be a leader but can't do it as I'm too distracted. I can't be a total follower either as leaders always miss something. I prefer to support people. If that support via ideas results in chaos ... that's my bad Fe.
***When one uses logic, there is always these things present: rules of logic, starting assumptions, quality of definitions. The quality of logic always depends on those three. Omit any one of them and logic is vulnerable.

 

[Base groove]

Of course generally speaking this is false, but Ni and Fi do have weaknesses. I acted on my own subconscious Ni. I acted like an INTJ!

You acted ... like a SFP?

 

[BigApplePi]

You acted ... like a SFP?

How so?

 

[Words]

Agreed. Ni can have impact and have an effectiveness. But you also said Ni, when rejected, can cause people to be isolated outside of social reality. That's what I'm talking about.

"Rejection" is the concern of either Te or Fe in the context of NiTe or NiFe types. When we're talking strictly Ni, environmental feedback doesn't really matter. Some people become isolated not because of their reaction to negative feedback, but because they believe the ideas they believe without the concern of the opinion of others.

 

[BigApplePi]

"Rejection" is the concern of either Te or Fe in the context of NiTe or NiFe types.

Agreed.

When we're talking strictly Ni, environmental feedback doesn't really matter. Some people become isolated not because of their reaction to negative feedback, but because they believe the ideas they believe without the concern of the opinion of others.

I'm going to disagree with half of that. The Ni must have been gotten from somewhere. I propose it was prompted by some form of original content in the external world, be it Fe or Te. We, on the outside just don't know what it is. The INTJ does not tell you and their lack of Fe doesn't help any. The INFJ doesn't tell you either and their lack of Te doesn't help any not that the INTP would pick up on that anyway. The INFJ does have Ti but the INTP has to struggle with that having poor Fe.

The isolation comes when the Ni seen in the external world by the INxJ is not seen by the rest of society. Sometimes the Ni of the INxJ is bought by society in spite of lack of proof. Then you have mass movements.

 

[Base groove]

More false barriers.

 

[BigApplePi]

Without specificity I'm not picking up on what yer saying or trying to say.

 

[Base groove]

Without specificity I'm not picking up on what yer saying or trying to say.

Very well then. I will give you my best effort, but I'll be leaving for breakfast soon with my wife and not sure if we'll return this time. So it's going to be short and sweet and if you fail to interpret something then you're going to have to try a second time.

I do see you would like to "give it to" INTPs just as I would to INTJs. The way I see it now is INTPs are thinkers while INTJs are actors because they choose. I want to give each their credit, but not to forget each gets a debit because INTJs are not full thinkers though they can think while INTPs are not good action people though they can act.

You're comparing apples and oranges here, of course, as INTJs are not 'action-oriented' people any more than INTPs are. You're referring, if anything, to Se, and then comparing it to Ti. It's just a different expression of the exact same thing, is what I'm telling you, BAP. IT'S an NT consciousness! Functions and attitudes.

Truly it appears to me you could substitute ESTP for INTJ in your post and it would make much more sense.

The Ni must have been gotten from somewhere. I propose it was prompted by some form of original content in the external world, be it Fe or Te. We, on the outside just don't know what it is. The INTJ does not tell you and their lack of Fe doesn't help any. The INFJ doesn't tell you either and their lack of Te doesn't help any not that the INTP would pick up on that anyway. The INFJ does have Ti but the INTP has to struggle with that having poor Fe.

The isolation comes when the Ni seen in the external world by the INxJ is not seen by the rest of society. Sometimes the Ni of the INxJ is bought by society in spite of lack of proof. Then you have mass movements.

So here are some specific "false barriers" to address your question directly.

- Their lack of Fe doesn't help any
- Their lack of Te doesn't help any
- Not that the INTP would pick up on that anyway.

If you'd like you can refer back to the original time I used that terminology and see if it suits you better. It's somewhere in this thread.

Your second comment on the other hand, I should mention, I find to be accurate. Credit is due if this is your own revelation.

Then people started jumping to conclusions ... all without care for definitions. It was then I posted, "Both Ni intuition and Fi feelings are worthless pieces of crap." Of course generally speaking this is false, but Ni and Fi do have weaknesses. I acted on my own subconscious Ni. I acted like an INTJ! INTPs can do anything if they put their mind to it ... well not anything ... and they probably can do a poor job. I'll stop here so I don't overload.

I find that if I read your posts a second time they do make more sense.

Generally I took issue with your accusation that people suddenly started jumping to conclusions as the conclusion was already given in Post 1 and it was simply up for contest as far as I could tell. Did you overlook it?

The fact that I reiterated it simply meant that I agreed this 'conclusion' or 'stereotype' was widespread and there is officially some ambiguity regarding who, indeed, is more independent.

OMG. I win the battle but lose the war. BG you are the perfect INTJ. Let me point out something just as a start because this is complex as more than one thing is going on here and they are interacting.

First, I am INTP = Ti Ne Si Fe; you are INTJ = Ni Te Fi Se. That means, like with Absurdity and Proxy we have no CFs in common ... no conscious functions in common. Now I can't get you to come over to me, so I will have to go over to you else we will have lost communication.

I will try to tell you and Absurdity something of what went through my mind with this thread, but this is going to be tough. Don't know if my Fe is going to be good enough. Will get back to you later as the wife needs me to run some errands.

So here again is the first post I replied to accusing you of false barriers, I believe. It is also my final post to reply to so you will have your specifics and move on.

"I will have to go over to you"

- Unfortunately you are unable to do so, within the framework of your own theory, or else your theory is internally inconsistent. Why is the INTP able to come to the dark side but not the other way around? I'll tell you ... it is not possible. If you wanted credit for using your shadow functions I was willing to give it to you, in the form of SFP-ship. After all, you would be a shadow ISFP, wouldn't you? Think it through. Maybe you were HALF-right. Maybe those were the functions you were using (Fi and Se).....

"Else we will have lost communication"

- RIGHT here you have JUMPED to a conclusion. Immediately this is contested.

"Don't know if my Fe is going to be good enough"

- Not that I even need to say it again... but, for the sake of closure. ... another false barrier.

 

[Ex-User (8886)]

And also this:

people suddenly started jumping to conclusions as the conclusion was already given in Post 1

 

[BigApplePi]

BG I can see you put some thought into your post so you deserve an equal effort on my part. First some overall impressions. I have to keep in mind that we have a little trouble communicating. (I'm not complaining, just observing.) That leaves me with an obligation to try to explain better. You have said so much in your post I'm not quite sure what to do. If I hurriedly respond to everything, communication may not improve. If I can catch one single misunderstanding and that gets across that may a better plan. Not sure because either could fail.

Originally Posted by BigApplePi
I do see you would like to "give it to" INTPs just as I would to INTJs. The way I see it now is INTPs are thinkers while INTJs are actors because they choose. I want to give each their credit, but not to forget each gets a debit because INTJs are not full thinkers though they can think while INTPs are not good action people though they can act.

You're comparing apples and oranges here, of course, as INTJs are not 'action-oriented' people any more than INTPs are. You're referring, if anything, to Se, and then comparing it to Ti. It's just a different expression of the exact same thing, is what I'm telling you, BAP. IT'S an NT consciousness! Functions and attitudes.

Truly it appears to me you could substitute ESTP for INTJ in your post and it would make much more sense.

This is an excellent example of miscommunication and possibly a typical one. It's possible an INTP might have understood what I said ... and I recall carefully wording it too, but I didn't really fully explain myself. Let's see if I can fix it and if not we'll have to try again. You know when I read "apples & oranges" I didn't know what you were talking about at first. Now I will explain what I said because you are right about those ESTPs. They are primo action people.

When I was referring to action I failed to say I was thinking the world of INTP/INTJ only. I was making a comparison. Both are thinkers. But I claim there is a strong difference. I can see it in you, ProxyAmRa, and Absurdity. INTPs decline to choose where INTJs will chose among thought choices. INTPs tend to sit there stewing in interesting possibilities while INTJs will act. INTJs will choose the right solution because that is what they are after: rejecting the alternative bad choices. INTPs will think, I want to understand the wrong solutions. There must be a reason why they are wrong. I don't care if they are wrong. Nothing is absolute so I want to explore wrongness just in case they aren't wrong**. INTPs want to think for the sake of thinking***. INTJs think this ridiculous and a total waste of time. Once the choice is made, that is the right choice because correct thought has been put into it to start with. We must move on from there. No point in turning back.*

So when I referred to action I was talking contrast of two types, not all sixteen types. Now it's important to know if you buy this contrast as I believe you were thinking of the entire sixteen types. I claim if fault is to be found here, it is neither one of us defined our context. As a result I assumed one context and you another.

I find that if I read your posts a second time they do make more sense.

You are not the 1st to say that. If a 2nd reading is not clear, it's best to ask what I meant so I can elaborate. If some one tells me I'm FOS, I tend not to know what's in their mind and don't consider that a reply.

Generally I took issue with your accusation that people suddenly started jumping to conclusions as the conclusion was already given in Post 1 and it was simply up for contest as far as I could tell. Did you overlook it?

The fact that I reiterated it simply meant that I agreed this 'conclusion' or 'stereotype' was widespread and there is officially some ambiguity regarding who, indeed, is more independent.

Okay.

So here again is the first post I replied to accusing you of false barriers, I believe. It is also my final post to reply to so you will have your specifics and move on.

"I will have to go over to you"

- Unfortunately you are unable to do so, within the framework of your own theory, or else your theory is internally inconsistent. Why is the INTP able to come to the dark side but not the other way around? I'll tell you ... it is not possible. If you wanted credit for using your shadow functions I was willing to give it to you, in the form of SFP-ship. After all, you would be a shadow ISFP, wouldn't you? Think it through. Maybe you were HALF-right. Maybe those were the functions you were using (Fi and Se).....

"Else we will have lost communication"

- RIGHT here you have JUMPED to a conclusion. Immediately this is contested.

"Don't know if my Fe is going to be good enough"

- Not that I even need to say it again... but, for the sake of closure. ... another false barrier.

These statements more or less confuse me. "False barrier" has thrown me. I don't know what it means. Maybe we don't have to go into it unless you want to. I'd like to see your reply to, "I assumed one context and you another" at the top.
_______________________

*If you find this description of INTPs and INTJs a little exaggerated, it's done only to illustrate differences. Not meant to be absolute.
**Maybe I can find interesting cases where wrong choices are sometimes right.
***If INTPs want to think just for thinking's sake, this is hedonistic. It means their Ti is backed up by unconscious Fi. If this is true, what motivates INTJs? Unconscious Fe?

 

[Base groove]

When I was referring to action I failed to say I was thinking the world of INTP/INTJ only. I was making a comparison. Both are thinkers. But I claim there is a strong difference. I can see it in you, ProxyAmRa, and Absurdity. INTPs decline to choose where INTJs will chose among thought choices. INTPs tend to sit there stewing in interesting possibilities while INTJs will act. INTJs will choose the right solution because that is what they are after: rejecting the alternative bad choices. INTPs will think, I want to understand the wrong solutions. There must be a reason why they are wrong. I don't care if they are wrong. Nothing is absolute so I want to explore wrongness just in case they aren't wrong**. INTPs want to think for the sake of thinking***. INTJs think this ridiculous and a total waste of time. Once the choice is made, that is the right choice because correct thought has been put into it to start with. We must move on from there. No point in turning back.*

So when I referred to action I was talking contrast of two types, not all sixteen types. Now it's important to know if you buy this contrast as I believe you were thinking of the entire sixteen types. I claim if fault is to be found here, it is neither one of us defined our context. As a result I assumed one context and you another.
_______________________

*If you find this description of INTPs and INTJs a little exaggerated, it's done only to illustrate differences. Not meant to be absolute.
**Maybe I can find interesting cases where wrong choices are sometimes right.
***If INTPs want to think just for thinking's sake, this is hedonistic. It means their Ti is backed up by unconscious Fi. If this is true, what motivates INTJs? Unconscious Fe?

A summary idea to conclude this discussion: functions are defined by the existence of types, not the other way around.

These statements more or less confuse me. "False barrier" has thrown me. I don't know what it means. Maybe we don't have to go into it unless you want to. I'd like to see your reply to, "I assumed one context and you another" at the top.

Here you are referring to my constant use of the terminology 'false barrier'.

You're repeatedly suggesting there is an error in communication where you believe we both think the other doesn't understand us. It may be true and it may not be. However, you are allowing yourself to be guided or in other words adapting to this principle rather than overcoming it by sheer willpower (i.e. denying the merit of the idea altogether), which is the avenue I'm inclined to take. It seems you've taken to using the cognitive functions as indicators or descriptions of predetermined behavior patterns, like we are programmed to have these shortcomings and we are at the mercy of our 'functions', and transcendence/ego integrity is therefore not attainable.

I personally am of the opinion that these cognitive functions have remarkable fluidity in attitude but the dominant likely remains ever-dominant so another interpretation of your supposed fluidity in expression is that you are behaving rather like an ENTJ (see above) which is to say you remain at all times primarily a thinking type, as T is your dominant and you are a T.

I can't really continue this line of thought any deeper so if you can not grasp some kind of meaning from it in its present form then I guess it ought to be discarded.

 

[BigApplePi]

A summary idea to conclude this discussion: functions are defined by the existence of types, not the other way around.

What? Where do you get that? That is something I totally oppose. Temperaments are complex. Too complex to intuit. They are made up of the two leading cognitive functions. Locate those functions and you have the type. Do you think you have an intuition powerful enough to determine a type first?

It's like saying electrons and protons are defined by the atom. Wouldn't you prefer the other way around?

 

[BigApplePi]

Manipulator. Do you want to resume any particular direction for this thread?

 

[BigApplePi]

I can't really continue this line of thought any deeper so if you can not grasp some kind of meaning from it in its present form then I guess it ought to be discarded.

So now I'm behaving like an ENTJ! I can see that but don't see it as my primary self. If I'm behaving that way, perhaps it is YOU who bring that out in me. I see you as consistent more and more with an INTJ. You prefer resolving this with action: discardation. We must agree to disagree. Is this what it is?

Are you sure you aren't projecting? That is you see in me what is in you?

 

[Reluctantly]

Some people like to follow and need leaders to tell them what to do. But some people value their self freedom more than everything else, and rather die, than follow.

Which mbti function make people independent? Stereotypically intj is the most independent. Why?

Some leaders follow the whims of those that they are leading so that they can lead them better.
Some followers lead themselves to leaders that will synchronize with what they want to live for and will choose very selectively who they will follow.

Holistically, the answer to your first question is complicated, philosophical, and intrinsically circumstantial. But your second question focuses on the traits of independence often associated with INTJs; this suggests that you probably don't care about other types of independence, so I'm stopping now.

 

[Ex-User (8886)]

Manipulator. Do you want to resume any particular direction for this thread?

I enjoy other's conversations. I love to make topic and observe, especially on intp forum

 

[BigApplePi]

Some leaders follow the whims of those that they are leading so that they can lead them better.
Some followers lead themselves to leaders that will synchronize with what they want to live for and will choose very selectively who they will follow.

Both leaders and followers have things they want to do. These things may be the same or different. These things may have surfaced to consciousness (think leader) or remain unconscious/subconscious (think follower).

Let the the desires of both parties meet and see. This is what you get. What you get is a measure of satisfaction for both parties with desires matching and another measure of dissatisfaction when desires don't match. Depending on the net intensity, capability, and expression of all the desires, you play "follow the leader" = lead the follower.

 

[Base groove]

What? Where do you get that? That is something I totally oppose. Temperaments are complex. Too complex to intuit. They are made up of the two leading cognitive functions. Locate those functions and you have the type. Do you think you have an intuition powerful enough to determine a type first?

It's like saying electrons and protons are defined by the atom. Wouldn't you prefer the other way around?

Well, I believe that it is true. Although I agree that to narrow it down to the dominant and auxiliary pairing (1/16) we must understand what the functions are, however this understanding is only derived from a study of types. You are correct that types must be intuited, or more specifically, built from the top down.

A person's dominant function is all you really need. This is consistent with a theory of four (functions only), or eight (functions and attitudes) types. I believe the functions and attitudes were identified through Jung's study of types, not the other way around.

It depends on your factorization tree of typology. Do you begin with a base dichotomy of I/E (as in MBTI) or irrational/rational (as in Types)??

If irrational and rational is a base dichotomy of typology then we immediately see divergence between INTP and INTJ.

The next differentiation made by Jung at this point is I/E so we now have four types (introverted rationals, introverted irrationals, ..., ....)

At this point in the study we begin to see the emergence of functions in typology. Rationals seem to be divided into either thinking or feeling types which characteristically/by definition repress the function (as there is only ONE) of the other type into unconsciousness. At this point we now have eight types (two introverted rationals, two introverted irrationals, two extraverted rationals, two extraverted irrationals).

It is not exactly like saying electrons and protons are part of the atom, as they may exist freely in space, unbound by nuclear forces. However, I do not dismiss the idea altogether; I believe that in a sense, electrons and protons are defined by the atom.

So now I'm behaving like an ENTJ! I can see that but don't see it as my primary self. If I'm behaving that way, perhaps it is YOU who bring that out in me. I see you as consistent more and more with an INTJ. You prefer resolving this with action: discardation. We must agree to disagree. Is this what it is?

Are you sure you aren't projecting? That is you see in me what is in you?

I was simply giving an alternative explanation for your exploration into your shadow-side that would be internally consistent within the framework of your model of typology, as presented in this thread.

As you have suggested you are behaving like an INTJ, I'm suggesting you are not, as you are a rational type... and so you shall remain. This does not contradict my suggestion that your shadow-side would also reveal an ISFP, as this is also known as a rational type.

I could see one of two things happening as you try to bring out your unconscious type:

1. Introverted thinking and introverted feeling are so contradictory that one assumes the role of the other as it has been pushed away most of all. As it is, you remain in this stage an introverted rational. (which has been identified as the second tier of typology factorization).

2. Your consciousness remains an NT consciousness and demonstrates fluidity in attitude instead, to allow for the ego integrity to develop in a consistent manner (according to your primary type (i.e. when I say 1/8)), in this fashion you remain a thinking type (thus, rational .. and the MOST BASIC dichotomy of typology is still adhered to).

X. You, however, had suggested that you are acting "like an INTJ" which I would suggest is largely impossible as it violates the primary/base distinction in the model (i.e. rational vs. irrational types).

Regarding your comments on projection: at this point I would remind you that I'm merely explaining cause-effect contingencies that would hypothetically arise given this starting condition or that. I'm not drawing hard conclusions, I'm trying to help you work this out as you have suggested a few times in this thread that you're using (this function) or that, therefore you are this type or that.

What I'm trying to say is it must be the other way around. Your functions are defined by your type (which is primarily... as mentioned, R/IR).

 

[Reluctantly]

Both leaders and followers have things they want to do. These things may be the same or different. These things may have surfaced to consciousness (think leader) or remain unconscious/subconscious (think follower).

Let the the desires of both parties meet and see. This is what you get. What you get is a measure of satisfaction for both parties with desires matching and another measure of dissatisfaction when desires don't match. Depending on the net intensity, capability, and expression of all the desires, you play "follow the leader" = lead the follower.

When I think of leaders and followers, I imagine the follower as someone that isn't necessarily strictly a follower, but has certain goals and values that another person (who then becomes the leader) can help them attain. So they follow because it suits them to some extent and they can choose to revoke that power that they give a leader should these goals and values get ignored. The leader however naturally also has to align with these goals and values; but this would be a given and then more importantly, the leader's role seems more about guidance. The follower would create the map, but the leader would navigate it for them and help fill in the details.

But from what I bolded in red from your post, there seems to be that common belief that followers are just sheep and that it's the natural role of a leader to decide for the follower. I don't agree however; the reason being that to do such a thing ignores the follower's goals and values and thus destroys morale, creating a dissonance that would unfold into rebellion and destruction - just as it should. The only exception might be where a leader is capable of convincing someone to have certain goals and values that the leader wants them to have; however, again part of that would involve the follower making their own decision to do so and it is then not strictly the leader who instilled such things, but rather the leader who awakened, made conscious, and validated what was already in the subconscious of the followers.

I find it very sad then when people suggest that to be a leader one only has to tell people what to do (*not anyone here of course, but in the Army we were asked to explain what makes a leader a leader once for a commander and a lot of people agreed with that and I just really wanted to smack them). It's ...so...incredibly...stupid.

 

[Base groove]

BAP it seems Architect has taken your side. I'll have to think about it. I've only recently developed this idea so perhaps I need to take more time and apply less force.