INTJ vs. INTP

[jason_m]

Hello,

I have been studying personality typing for years, and I have finally have a personal consensus on INTJs (NiTe) vs. INTPs (TiNe).

1. Ti vs. Te. Ti is about subjective logic. That means that Ti comes from one's subconcious storehouse of facts, insights and information. This then leads Ti to draw personal conclusions about the nature of things, to understand the inner logic behind an idea. These ideas can be in mathematics, philosophy, computer science, or almost any field. Ti can also be very abstract. Because of this, Ti types excel in fields such as philosophy, theoretical physics, artificial intelligence, etc. - highly theoretical fields that require abstract, subjective logic to solve problems.

Te is about objective facts and information. Te is less subjective, and therefore more grounded in objective reality. It is also more grounded in practical affairs. Therefore, Te is based on objective, practical information that is grounded in fact. It is also more concrete and tangible than Te.

Because of these differences, Ti types can miss the boat about objective information. For instance, a Ti type might work out a complete algorithm to a math problem using their abstract logic, but screw up a calculation, because they have a weaker sense of objective facts. Te types might get every calculation right, but struggle thinking up an abstract answer to a problem. Ti types might accuse Te types as being sensing types (when they are intuitives) because they are so in touch with the facts. Te types might accuse Ti types of being feeling types, because they dislike anything subjective. In reality, both are wrong.

2. Ni vs. Ne. Ne is about novelty, creativity, and innovation. The key to Ne is that it has an objective, practical eye for innovation. Ne types want to change the world with their ideas, to have an impact and make a difference. They are visionaries with an eye toward the future. Some of the world's greatest innovations have come from Ne types.

Ni is subjective like Ti, but while Ti is oriented toward the subjective logic behind ideas, Ni is focused on creativity. Ni will therefore study concepts in all sorts of fields, simply for their own sake, gleaning the most creative, personal ideas it can grasp. It is almost like a history of concepts or 'free-play,' and unlike Ne, without any practical purpose in mind. Ni can also be about developing ideas, using one's hunch to pursue as many ideas from one's subconscious as possible.

3. INTP vs. INTJ. Ne is the secondary function of INTPs, and therefore feeds Ti. It will therefore search through objective, innovative books, inventions and people to glean information to feed its subjective logic. Once enough information is gathered, some kind of subjective conclusion is drawn from the information, thereby satisfying Ti.

Ni is the primary function of INTJs. INTJs will therefore develop all kinds of subjective hunches and ideas that they find creative and original. Then, through Te, INTJs will use objective facts and information to verifty their ideas, perhaps testing them empirically.

If you visualize the functions, INTPs and INTJs are the inverse of each other, and to each one, the other seems backwards in its reasoning. This part really clashes with the MBTI but I believe, from studying a number of descriptions, it is correct; INTJs actually hate feelings. They hate it when things become emotional and are largely indifferent to humane purposes or causes - 'Fi.' I believe that INTPs are more able to come to terms with Fi, and are largely indifferent to emotions, seeing humane causes as simply a part of life. I also believe that INTPs mind people who are aggressive or demanding. Because of this INTPs and INTJs can clash. INTPs can see INTJs as too demanding. The INTP, not seeing the INTJs inner play of ideas can also accuse them as being a sensing type. Also, INTJs, not seeing the inner logic of INTPs, accuse them as being 'too subjective' and therefore a feeling type. I believe both are confused - in addition to the MBTI's classification of this behaviour.

Anyway, those are my insights. Tell me what you think.

EDIT: I have been thinking about this, and I think that there is more. I think there also exists an existential NiTe INTP, to whom life is some kind of existential puzzle, that hates emotions and feelings like my INTJ, but this time it's Fe not Fi they mind. There would also be a TiNe INTJ that is a precise, systematic thinker/mathematician, but hates 'loud, obnoxious sensations.' This would make two of every type, each with a different leading and inferior function.

 

[QuickTwist]

The last bits were the most interesting. Wish you were around when I first came to this site, would have saved me a lot of trouble (and testing).

 

[Ex-User (14663)]

No offense but the bit on Ti vs Te made no sense whatsoever. What are "objective facts"? You seem to create a dichotomy of "abstract thinking" vs "objective facts" which to me doesn't mean much. Ti might be more interested in abstract systems, but ultimately, doing inference in the real world is a scientific problem and thus subject to abstract modeling. Te, to me, is simply being content with knowing isolated pieces of information as opposed to structuring knowledge into consistent systems. Obviously, many people commit a lot of stupid mistakes when they try to do the latter, and become prone to lose touch with reality, but that's a epistemological problem.

 

[Reluctantly]

No offense but the bit on Ti vs Te made no sense whatsoever. What are "objective facts"? You seem to create a dichotomy of "abstract thinking" vs "objective facts" which to me doesn't mean much. Ti might be more interested in abstract systems, but ultimately, doing inference in the real world is a scientific problem and thus subject to abstract modeling. Te, to me, is simply being content with knowing isolated pieces of information as opposed to structuring knowledge into consistent systems. Obviously, many people commit a lot of stupid mistakes when they try to do the latter, and become prone to lose touch with reality, but that's a epistemological problem.

This is all very much in line with Jung's dichotomies and definitions. Objective here probably means (on a strictly conceptual level) a focus on things outside of the self. Te's focus is then empirical and hands-on because its thinking focus is on the external world.

Ti is supposed to be thinking turned inward, a subjective viewpoint, because it colors the world from some internal base of reason or logic; it's axiomatically based, which can lead to many problems sometimes. Actually I see that shit a lot here from self-proclaimed objective INTPs, following their axiomatic reasoning above what anyone else says, and it has really turned me off from the majority of posters (but nevermind). But Te is supposed to take things much more as they are and interact accordingly. Not so much pre-thought.

Now realistically, anyone with a brain uses Ti and Te. They each have benefits, depending on circumstance and mathematics is pretty useful for modeling the world, even if the world doesn't necessarily follow mathematics 100%. Cause sometimes you need to make decisions without having a large body of information or just need to simplify your world. But sometimes your thoughts don't match up very well with reality and it's better to get hands-on and take in what's around you without any kind of pre-judgement. A truly smart person should have a good balance of each. So I don't understand why people here seem to try to distance themselves from Te, as if it's some sort of evil that makes you not INTP or something (not that being INTP really means much anyway).

 

[Black Rose]

Jung saw Te as unable to go beyond the data like how (in his experience) Freud was unable to see the unconscious contained good and bad not just bad which Freud called the search of the unconscious Occult. Realy Jung saw Te as dogmatic and Ti as original but fairy headed or so in ideas the divorce themselves from reality. But Ti does make clear what it is clear on and what it is not.

Chapter 10
His style is usually loaded and complicated by all sorts of accessories, qualifications, saving clauses, doubts, etc., which spring from his exacting scrupulousness.

On Te thinking (empirical evidence), Jung writes.

Chapter 10
Certain anthropological peculiarities of the dwellers on the Atlantic seaboard are easily explained by the submerging of Atlantis, and so on.
--------------
When we trace the dream to an overloaded stomach, the dream is not thereby explained, and when we explain telepathy as 'vibrations', we have said just as little. Since, what are 'vibrations'?

Jung was talking about entire mindsets when it came to the functions. He said Extraverts were more in the grip of inflexibility. That Extroverts usually are only Extraverted in their mindset. Introverts realize more often their opposite attitude of extroversion. Te would strongly think it has answers where Ti would be more cautious.

 

[QuickTwist]

A good source for what Jung thought of Te and Ti would be "The Extroverted Man (The less impassioned man)" for Te and "The Introverted Man (the more impassioned man)" for Ti. Would be found in chapter 4 of 'Psychological Types.' Likewise with Fe and Fi in "The Extroverted Woman (the less impassioned woman)" and "The Introverted Woman (the more impassioned woman)" respectively. Jung goes into more of the philosophical underpinnings of these things in Chapter 5. Chapter 4 is more about concrete examples and Chapter 5 is more about the fermentation of the differences in these Judging Functions. I will say Chapter 5 is very difficult to grasp if you've not read Chapter 4.

 

[Reluctantly]

Jung saw Te as unable to go beyond the data like how (in his experience) Freud was unable to see the unconscious contained good and bad not just bad which Freud called the search of the unconscious Occult. Realy Jung saw Te as dogmatic and Ti as original but fairy headed or so in ideas the divorce themselves from reality. But Ti does make clear what it is clear on and what it is not.

Chapter 10
His style is usually loaded and complicated by all sorts of accessories, qualifications, saving clauses, doubts, etc., which spring from his exacting scrupulousness.

This is just talking about an introvert going off the deep end. I mean Jung also said this about Ti:

"In thinking out his problems to the utmost of his ability, he also complicates them, and constantly becomes entangled in every possible scruple. However clear to himself the inner structure of his thoughts may be, he is not in the least clear where and how they link up with the world of reality."

So no Ti doesn't make clear what it is clear on and what it is not. It's only usually clear to the subject and that's the problem. And this forum is pretty big proof of that.

Also, if you're going to call Te dogmatic, you should illustrate that point. Just sticking to data doesn't make someone dogmatic; it might make them narrow-minded or ignorant about some things, but it also means they aren't going to go off the deep end with their thinking and come up with jarring or warped shit that has little or no basis in reality outside of their minds. Not meaning to be a dick, but if you don't explain or at least try and objectify your conclusions, they are just postulations that may or may not make much sense.

On Te thinking (empirical evidence), Jung writes.

Chapter 10
Certain anthropological peculiarities of the dwellers on the Atlantic seaboard are easily explained by the submerging of Atlantis, and so on.
--------------
When we trace the dream to an overloaded stomach, the dream is not thereby explained, and when we explain telepathy as 'vibrations', we have said just as little. Since, what are 'vibrations'?

Jung was talking about entire mindsets when it came to the functions. He said Extraverts were more in the grip of inflexibility. That Extroverts usually are only Extraverted in their mindset. Introverts realize more often their opposite attitude of extroversion. Te would strongly think it has answers where Ti would be more cautious.

All the passage is saying is that Te looks more for objective explanations, rather than subjective ones. Your conclusion about flexibility and Te thinking it has answers doesn't follow. In fact, the passage alone suggests the opposite.

 

[reckful]

Jung was talking about entire mindsets when it came to the functions. He said Extraverts were more in the grip of inflexibility. That Extroverts usually are only Extraverted in their mindset. Introverts realize more often their opposite attitude of extroversion. Te would strongly think it has answers where Ti would be more cautious.

In Chapter X of Psychological Types, Jung said that a Ti-dom's "judgment appears cold, inflexible, arbitrary, and ruthless, because it relates far less to the object than to the subject. ... In the pursuit of his ideas he is generally stubborn, headstrong, and quite unamenable to influence."

 

[QuickTwist]

Jung was talking about entire mindsets when it came to the functions. He said Extraverts were more in the grip of inflexibility. That Extroverts usually are only Extraverted in their mindset. Introverts realize more often their opposite attitude of extroversion. Te would strongly think it has answers where Ti would be more cautious.

In Chapter X of Psychological Types, Jung said that a Ti-dom's "judgment appears cold, inflexible, arbitrary, and ruthless, because it relates far less to the object than to the subject. ... In the pursuit of his ideas he is generally stubborn, headstrong, and quite unamenable to influence."

Quite right. "Appears" is the key word there, I believe. Te doms just fit in more with societies rules and what not, making themselves look "important" to the lesser developed Te and "in control" and perhaps "composed" for a developed Te.

 

[Black Rose]

I was just trying to further the discussion as what I read and that Jung was a Ti type so he was biased. I do notice how rigid Ti types can be explaining away what you say with their own theories than objective facts but still, Jung say they can go beyond objective facts o create something new (Jung created his entire psychology). There are problems with both Ti and Te but the dom characteristics Te even if looking for objective explanations can be just as negligent in finding the answer as Ti but only insofar as they cannot accept that what model they have made of the world in any instance is incorrect and hold onto it because it is the only sensible explanation they can't be wrong. Ti is wrong for the opposite reason. Ti disconnects from reality. Te thinks the reality they developed is the correct reality when it is not. Those are the problems with Ti and Te that I see. This is just my observation. Rationality and empiricism both have problems. Rationalization away objections and empirical models that are just wrong and indefensible being defended. I don't make any judgment on which is worse just that both don't make the connection to reality any better than the other if pathological.

 

[Bertrand Russell's Barber]

I was thinking...instead of using words like introverted thinking and extroverted intuition etc that people can easily misintepret, why not translate each Jungian function into actual processes that go on in the brain?

Personality psychology is pretty iffy to be honest.

The problem in my opinion is that Jung assumes too much. Personality models for him are associated with "flows of mental energy within the psyche" to paraphrase. (If anyone wants I can give the exact quote later) What that means is that for Jung, personality is something intrinsic, it has to do with the structure of your mind and the idea that the structure of the mind among human beings can be classified into 4 categories with the attitudes determining the direction of flow of energy.

Meanwhile, stuff like the big 5 model and even mbti tend to correlate personality with behaviour. Are you generally on top of things or haphazard and improvising? (J vs P) Do you usually prefer to keep to yourself or interact with others? (I vs E) and so on. That makes things really easy to determine and I'd say the people who would rate you most accurately on these scales wouldn't be yourself but the people around you.

But...the latter models don't really say much do they? It's like the early biologists who just classified living things. Okay, so that thing is a bird and than other thing is an amphibian but what qualities or structures make them so? If we wanted to, how could we transform the latter to the former?

Now with genetics and evo-devo, we can answer these questions. We can tell for example which genes are responsible for the differences in structure. We can create a genetic map that tells us exactly how amphibians and birds diverged from their common ancestor.

We can't do that with personality psychology. There is no agreed upon, scientifically validated map of the mind and so a lot of talk about personality psychology just ends up being wishy washy. :/

 

[QuickTwist]

I was thinking...instead of using words like introverted thinking and extroverted intuition etc that people can easily misintepret, why not translate each Jungian function into actual processes that go on in the brain?

Personality psychology is pretty iffy to be honest.

The problem in my opinion is that Jung assumes too much. Personality models for him are associated with "flows of mental energy within the psyche" to paraphrase. (If anyone wants I can give the exact quote later) What that means is that for Jung, personality is something intrinsic, it has to do with the structure of your mind and the idea that the structure of the mind among human beings can be classified into 4 categories with the attitudes determining the direction of flow of energy.

I have thought about this. Ultimately the answer is heuristics. You might say Jung was crazy for trying to fit "personality" into a box of sorts, but taking a step back, it's all really just a matter of perception. You might call it an anchor, or a framework to which we can build upon to explain things that are difficult to explain. That's really all it is.

 

[Black Rose]

I was thinking...instead of using words like introverted thinking and extroverted intuition etc that people can easily misintepret, why not translate each Jungian function into actual processes that go on in the brain?

 

[Reluctantly]

I was thinking...instead of using words like introverted thinking and extroverted intuition etc that people can easily misintepret, why not translate each Jungian function into actual processes that go on in the brain?

Personality psychology is pretty iffy to be honest.

The problem in my opinion is that Jung assumes too much. Personality models for him are associated with "flows of mental energy within the psyche" to paraphrase. (If anyone wants I can give the exact quote later) What that means is that for Jung, personality is something intrinsic, it has to do with the structure of your mind and the idea that the structure of the mind among human beings can be classified into 4 categories with the attitudes determining the direction of flow of energy.

Meanwhile, stuff like the big 5 model and even mbti tend to correlate personality with behaviour. Are you generally on top of things or haphazard and improvising? (J vs P) Do you usually prefer to keep to yourself or interact with others? (I vs E) and so on. That makes things really easy to determine and I'd say the people who would rate you most accurately on these scales wouldn't be yourself but the people around you.

But...the latter models don't really say much do they? It's like the early biologists who just classified living things. Okay, so that thing is a bird and than other thing is an amphibian but what qualities or structures make them so? If we wanted to, how could we transform the latter to the former?

Now with genetics and evo-devo, we can answer these questions. We can tell for example which genes are responsible for the differences in structure. We can create a genetic map that tells us exactly how amphibians and birds diverged from their common ancestor.

We can't do that with personality psychology. There is no agreed upon, scientifically validated map of the mind and so a lot of talk about personality psychology just ends up being wishy washy. :/

So...ironically, this is partly why Jung came up with his typology. Looking at genetics and brain structures, although a very objective thing to do, tells you nothing about the subjective experience of the person. Yes, you can derive certain things about someone from those things, but it doesn't tell you how they will use it or what it will mean to them or how it will color their world and why.

And not that I really give a shit, but in light of arguments like these, I've come to realize Jung was a lot smarter than people give him credit.

 

[reckful]

I do notice how rigid Ti types can be explaining away what you say with their own theories than objective facts but still, Jung say they can go beyond objective facts o create something new (Jung created his entire psychology). There are problems with both Ti and Te but the dom characteristics Te even if looking for objective explanations can be just as negligent in finding the answer as Ti but only insofar as they cannot accept that what model they have made of the world in any instance is incorrect and hold onto it because it is the only sensible explanation they can't be wrong. Ti is wrong for the opposite reason. Ti disconnects from reality. Te thinks the reality they developed is the correct reality when it is not.

Jung broke with Freud in large part because he thought Freud wanted him (and others) to treat Freud's theories as a kind of religion, rather than having an appropriately sceptical and open-minded scientific attitude toward them.

Mystical streak notwithstanding, Carl Jung was a believer in the scientific approach, and Isabel Myers did Jung the favor of treating him the same way he treated Freud. She took Psychological Types and devoted a substantial chunk of her life to putting its typological concepts to the test in a way that Jung never had, and in accordance with the psychometric standards applicable to the science of personality.

And Myers discovered that Jung had gotten quite a lot wrong in terms of the ways in which many of the aspects of personality Jung described actually cluster in real people, and one of the most significant corrections she made involved moving concrete/abstract from E/I to S/N.

Jung thought that all introverts were notably abstract in their orientation, and that all extraverts were notably concrete. But Myers discovered that there were abstract extraverts (ENs) and concrete introverts (ISs), and that there was no significant correlation at all between whether someone was extraverted or introverted and whether someone tended to be more focused on abstract theories or concrete facts.

So it's really a mistake for anyone, in 2018, to be subscribing to Jung's mistaken notion that a "Ti" person will be an abstract T (even if they're an ST), and a "Te" person will be a concretistic (to use Jung's term) T (even if they're an NT).

As between an ENTJ and an ISTP, the ENTJ will be the one more prone to abstract thinking, and if you're working with a function model that says otherwise, your function model is defective — and probably because of a non-Jungian over-reverence to Jung's original concepts.

If you're interested, you can find a longer discussion of this issue in this post.

 

[OmoInisa]

And Myers discovered that Jung had gotten quite a lot wrong in terms of the ways in which many of the aspects of personality Jung described actually cluster in real people, and one of the most significant corrections she made involved moving concrete/abstract from E/I to S/N.

I believe she was right in moving away from attributing so much of it to E/I. However she also threw the baby out with the bathwater. It seems self-evident to me that the concrete/abstract dichotomy is aligned with E/I to some degree (E is more concrete than I). It is also probably aligned with T/F, to a lesser degree (T is more concrete than F). It seems, however, that the dichotomy is most heavily aligned with S/N (S is far more concrete than N).

Jung thought that all introverts were notably abstract in their orientation, and that all extraverts were notably concrete. But Myers discovered that there were abstract extraverts (ENs) and concrete introverts (ISs), and that there was no significant correlation at all between whether someone was extraverted or introverted and whether someone tended to be more focused on abstract theories or concrete facts.

Debatable. You seem prepared to accept that Jung may have got some things right and some things wrong, but yet you seem intent on prowling the internet spreading the gospel of Myers' infallibility with an odd religious fanaticism.

So it's really a mistake for anyone, in 2018, to be subscribing to Jung's mistaken notion that a "Ti" person will be an abstract T (even if they're an ST), and a "Te" person will be a concretistic (to use Jung's term) T (even if they're an NT).

I believe you're rather more mistaken than Jung was. There is some truth to that particular notion of his.

As between an ENTJ and an ISTP, the ENTJ will be the one more prone to abstract thinking, and if you're working with a function model that says otherwise, your function model is defective.

True, an ENTJ will be more abstraction-oriented than an ISTP. But I'm sure most type-watchers would find it self-evidently true that an INFJ is more abstraction-oriented than an ENTJ. The reason is that an INFJ has higher order introversion (a little more abstract than extroversion), has higher order intuition (far more abstract than sensing) and has higher order feeling (more abstract than thinking).

The prize for most concretistic type would perhaps go to a type not too distantly related to the ENTJ - the ESTP.

 

[washti]

So where is infp on concrete/abstraction scale?
infj>infp>intj>intp? Am I doing this right?

 

[OmoInisa]

So where is infp on concrete/abstraction scale?
infj>infp>intj>intp? Am I doing this right?

A little more abstract than an INTP (dominant F over dominant T). INFP vs ENTJ though is a trickier and more fascinating one. I would think the ENTJ edges it due to that Ni (in spite of the confounding factor of the tertiary Se). And yet an ENTJ has demonstrably greater concrete competence than an INFP, or any other NP.
In fact, ENJs seem to strongly combine both the abstract and the concrete. Hence they're acknowledged visionaries while being able to affect the concrete world more successfully than other intuitives.

One angle of coming at this is that Ni is the most complete definition of abstraction, and Se is the essence of concreteness. The other functions then could be put on the scale of concreteness/abstraction by way of the degree of their affinity to these two functions.

 

[HDINTP]

I think it's awesome. Especially that part about sensor accusationX Not seeing Logic. I have exactly clashes like that with INTJ family member... Now it finally makes sense. Thanks

 

[scorpiomover]

Now realistically, anyone with a brain uses Ti and Te. They each have benefits, depending on circumstance

A truly smart person should have a good balance of each.

You seem to be claiming that Te and Ti are both equally useful.

This is all very much in line with Jung's dichotomies and definitions. Objective here probably means (on a strictly conceptual level) a focus on things outside of the self. Te's focus is then empirical and hands-on because its thinking focus is on the external world.

Ti is supposed to be thinking turned inward, a subjective viewpoint, because it colors the world from some internal base of reason or logic; it's axiomatically based, which can lead to many problems sometimes.

Te is supposed to be about an orientation towards the objective and Ti the subjective. But objective = "real world", then objective = "focus on reality", which is how Jung describes Sensation. So then E = S and I = N.

If you observe INTJ posters and INTP posters, and talk to ISTJs IRL and ISTPs IRL, Te & Ti work like this:

Te) My car doesn't start. It's probably X. Fix X. Then try to start the car. This is looking at what the car does from the perspective of the general world that exists outside of the car, e.g. your own experiences.

Ti) My car doesn't start. What steps does the car go through, in order to start? Go through each step, and check that each of those steps has been achieved. Whichever step it fails on first in the sequence, is probably the cause. This is looking at what the car does, from the perspective of the car, i.e. how the car does things.

In SOME situations, Te is more useful, i.e. when the car fails for the reasons that we'd expect, and where those solutions are easily applied.

In SOME situations, Ti is more useful, e.g. when the car fails for a reason that would make perfect sense to anyone familiar with the model of such a car at that mileage, but you haven't come across before and so is outside of your experience and your expectations.

Actually I see that shit a lot here from self-proclaimed objective INTPs, following their axiomatic reasoning above what anyone else says, and it has really turned me off from the majority of posters (but nevermind). But Te is supposed to take things much more as they are and interact accordingly. Not so much pre-thought.

You have to understand that if you're not using Ti, then you're not seeing things from the perspective of the car, but from the perspective of your experiences So it seems to you as if the car must have failed for the reasons that you would think of, and if it didn't fail because of those reasons, then you'd be likely to think that no-one could have expected you to know any differently. Therefore, you'd assume that INTPs are waffling about rubbish.

If an INTP did manage to get you to understand the problem, you'd just add that to your list of reasons why a car might not start, and then assume that the INTP was just giving you factual information that any idiot could have told you.

But if someone had a great understanding of car mechanics, they'd also look at things from the perspective of what jobs the car has to go through to start. They'd immediately see what the INTP was talking about and comment that the INTP had a great insight into car mechanics.

So I don't understand why people here seem to try to distance themselves from Te, as if it's some sort of evil that makes you not INTP or something (not that being INTP really means much anyway).

If someone keeps telling you that you don't know anything about anything, and all your comments are just mental masturbation, but experts that the INTJ says understand everything about the subject, keep saying that you have a great understanding of their subject, which person do you believe? The INTJ? or the experts that the INTJ says knows way more than him?

 

[scorpiomover]

And Myers discovered that Jung had gotten quite a lot wrong in terms of the ways in which many of the aspects of personality Jung described actually cluster in real people, and one of the most significant corrections she made involved moving concrete/abstract from E/I to S/N.

Jung thought that all introverts were notably abstract in their orientation, and that all extraverts were notably concrete. But Myers discovered that there were abstract extraverts (ENs) and concrete introverts (ISs), and that there was no significant correlation at all between whether someone was extraverted or introverted and whether someone tended to be more focused on abstract theories or concrete facts.

Myers' Extroverts were "energised by being around people and drained by being alone" vs Myers' Introverts who were "energised by being alone and drained by being around people", which also seems to be understood by many modern people as people who are sociable versus people who are reserved.

That is very different to Jung's Extroverts who were oriented towards the objective versus Jung's Introverts who were oriented towards the subjective.

There are sociable extraverts and sociable introverts, and reserved extraverts and reserved intraverts. You are unlikely to find a correlation between a bunch of sociable extraverts and intraverts, and a bunch of reserved extraverts and intraverts, and any qualities of extroversion or introversion, because in both groups, you've got both extroverts and introverts mixed together.

and one of the most significant corrections she made involved moving concrete/abstract from E/I to S/N.

OK. But high-level abstract thinking such as that which is found in maths, physics and other STEM fields, has been well-known for 2500 years!

So STEM is as traditional as you can get.

So it's really a mistake for anyone, in 2018, to be subscribing to Jung's mistaken notion that a "Ti" person will be an abstract T (even if they're an ST), and a "Te" person will be a concretistic (to use Jung's term) T (even if they're an NT).

As between an ENTJ and an ISTP, the ENTJ will be the one more prone to abstract thinking,

Generally, INTJs hate talking about anything that isn't directly relevant, such as reasons why one person got a different result to everyone else (that which differs between subjects). ENTJs don't like to waste their time on irrelevancies either.

But INTPs and ENTPs love those questions, as such questions seem innocuous, because in their experience, the process of figuring out why such differences exist, leads us to massive breakthroughs in understanding.

 

[scorpiomover]

Double post.

 

[OmoInisa]

And Myers discovered that Jung had gotten quite a lot wrong in terms of the ways in which many of the aspects of personality Jung described actually cluster in real people, and one of the most significant corrections she made involved moving concrete/abstract from E/I to S/N.

Jung thought that all introverts were notably abstract in their orientation, and that all extraverts were notably concrete. But Myers discovered that there were abstract extraverts (ENs) and concrete introverts (ISs), and that there was no significant correlation at all between whether someone was extraverted or introverted and whether someone tended to be more focused on abstract theories or concrete facts.

Myers' Extroverts were "energised by being around people and drained by being alone" vs Myers' Introverts who were "energised by being alone and drained by being around people", which also seems to be understood by many modern people as people who are sociable versus people who are reserved.

That is very different to Jung's Extroverts who were oriented towards the objective versus Jung's Introverts who were oriented towards the subjective.

There are sociable extraverts and sociable introverts, and reserved extraverts and reserved intraverts. You are unlikely to find a correlation between a bunch of sociable extraverts and intraverts, and a bunch of reserved extraverts and intraverts, and any qualities of extroversion or introversion, because in both groups, you've got both extroverts and introverts mixed together.

Myers' introverts and extroverts are indeed different from Jung's. But to say there's no correlation between them is a bit of a stretch.
While there are sociable introverts, the scope of their sociability is narrower than that of an extrovert. They can project like a born-again extrovert along certain vectors, (i.e when an INTP is engaged in vigorous, multi-directional conceptual discourse on a certain topic, or when an INTJ is laying out a planned-out agenda] but they will be reticent outside that small set of arenas. An extrovert will be up for saying something or doing something in almost any context.

The distinction between the Myers and Jung conceptions is intriguing however. I believe it may speak to the question of whether type exists as a confluence of binary axes, or as a combination of bell curves.

The orientation towards the objective will by definition lead to some tendency towards looking for answers (and culprits) in external reality. This will translate to a degree of sociability. And vice versa for the subjective disposition.
My sense is that the innate orientation as per Jung acts as the seed, and that seed is binary (at least as far as a specific function is concerned). Myers' type then results from the innate type being influenced by social conditioning.
This results in two INTPs who differ from one another significantly in their openness to experience and socialising. Both will however be introverts recognisable to most people who observe them in a wide variety of contexts.

An INTP that has been shaped by a suitably extreme environment to be so outgoing as to be taken for an extravert by most observers will be a rather unhappy one. This doesn't realistically occur in the wild among stable, functioning people.

and one of the most significant corrections she made involved moving concrete/abstract from E/I to S/N.

OK. But high-level abstract thinking such as that which is found in maths, physics and other STEM fields, has been well-known for 2500 years!

So STEM is as traditional as you can get.

I'm a little confused by this statement. I can only presume that you're going with the Keirsey notion of SJs (this most maligned class of sensors in pop MBTI) being society's 'traditionalists', and so refuting the alignment of sensing with concreteness by asserting the fact of this STEM group of abstract sensors. Otherwise I'm bemused as to what traditionalism has to do with this debate.

On the disposition towards traditionalism, (i.e. the tendency towards a set precedent rather than novelty, and consolidation rather than open exploration) I contend that it has more to do with intoverted perception than with sensing. But that digression is perhaps a matter for another day.

So it's really a mistake for anyone, in 2018, to be subscribing to Jung's mistaken notion that a "Ti" person will be an abstract T (even if they're an ST), and a "Te" person will be a concretistic (to use Jung's term) T (even if they're an NT).

As between an ENTJ and an ISTP, the ENTJ will be the one more prone to abstract thinking,

Generally, INTJs hate talking about anything that isn't directly relevant, such as reasons why one person got a different result to everyone else (that which differs between subjects). ENTJs don't like to waste their time on irrelevancies either.

But INTPs and ENTPs love those questions, as such questions seem innocuous, because in their experience, the process of figuring out why such differences exist, leads us to massive breakthroughs in understanding.

True

 

[scorpiomover]

Myers' introverts and extroverts are indeed different from Jung's. But to say there's no correlation between them is a bit of a stretch.

TDolphins are similar to albratrosses. They both have DNA. They both use haemoglobin. They both have red blood. Are they basically the same?

While there are sociable introverts, the scope of their sociability is narrower than that of an extrovert. They can project like a born-again extrovert along certain vectors, (i.e when an INTP is engaged in vigorous, multi-directional conceptual discourse on a certain topic, or when an INTJ is laying out a planned-out agenda] but they will be reticent outside that small set of arenas.

An extrovert will be up for saying something or doing something in almost any context.

The extroverts I know are NOT up for saying/doing everything. They can be quite picky.

But they're normally up for walking about town and talking to lots of different people about lots of different things, while introverts are normally up for being around people when they are discussing a topic the introvert is interested in, and not in general.

The orientation towards the objective will by definition lead to some tendency towards looking for answers (and culprits) in external reality. This will translate to a degree of sociability. And vice versa for the subjective disposition.

Yes, which is where the correlation comes from. The drive for the objective means that you do what makes straightforward and simple sense right now. Being around more people means "many hands make light work". You can get a lot more done with 10 than with 1.

My sense is that the innate orientation as per Jung acts as the seed, and that seed is binary (at least as far as a specific function is concerned). Myers' type then results from the innate type being influenced by social conditioning.

Jung isn't so picky. He talks about "orientations", "general attitudes" and "types", which are rather vague and non-deterministic. It's more like saying that you are either heading North or South, even if you're heading East, because you've almost never head perfectly on the equator for long. You'll be heading either 0.001 North or 0.001 South.

I'm a little confused by this statement. I can only presume that you're going with the Keirsey notion of SJs (this most maligned class of sensors in pop MBTI) being society's 'traditionalists', and so refuting the alignment of sensing with concreteness by asserting the fact of this STEM group of abstract sensors. Otherwise I'm bemused as to what traditionalism has to do with this debate.

In a society of scientists, being a scientist is traditional.

The only question is if abstract thinking and scientific thinking is something that a conventional thinker could handle. Abstract reasoning and the scientific method are both constrained by very strict rules, and so is highly tied to convention.

But then, why aren't sensors scientists today?

What happens if you tell sensors that most people are not scientists, and those who are scientists are almost always unconventional people? The Sensors learn that the general convention is to not be a scientist and will stick to that.

So it seems to me that the reason why most sensors are not interested in science, is not because of a lack of ability, but because they think that it's not traditional, and they stick to tradition.

On the disposition towards traditionalism, (i.e. the tendency towards a set precedent rather than novelty, and consolidation rather than open exploration) I contend that it has more to do with intoverted perception than with sensing. But that digression is perhaps a matter for another day.

Katherine Briggs described the introverts as "meditative types". IME, extroverts are often just as smart as introverts and even smarter, such as Richard Feynman. But in general, they prefer the power of the group. A hive mind is bound to be much more powerful than an individual mind.

Also, IME, perceivers and judgers tend to be just as analytical, but in different ways. Ps tend to see things much as school and science teaches us, and then figure out what to do based on that perception of reality. Js seem to merge decision-making and perception of reality into one unified system. IME, the J way is a much quicker way of coming to a decision and less prone to false negatives (when people have the right answer but think they are wrong and/or doubt themselves), but is more prone to false positives (when people think they are right, but are wrong and/or are over-confident).

Sensors and intuitives tend to both like to figure out new things. But Sensors tend to prefer to start with things they already know and then build incrementally on that in a methodical way. Intuitives tend to bob around according to whatever their intuition shows them is a good direction to pursue.

But for the most part, I see the dichotomies as indicating different personality types, NOT different sets of natural talents, as that's not to do with personality at all. You can be good at science and be a jerk. You can be into sports and still be shy.

 

[ZenRaiden]

INTP is basically a slightly more intelligent and more lazy INTJ.

 

[scorpiomover]

INTP is basically a slightly more intelligent and more lazy INTJ.

Doesn't that mean they have the same personality type?

 

[ZenRaiden]

Doesn't that mean they have the same personality type?

No

 

[Guardia]

Ok, my two cents as an INTJ.
Ni doesn't actually talk in words, like Ti which should be more word prone.
Having Ni as a dominant feels like seeing inside people's mind and being unable to verbalize it. Te makes plans according to what is felt about the environment, and Fi lends me the motivation of doing it.
Sounds great, isn't it?
Well...there is a flip to the coin, and it's this:
1)You can't unsee or turn off this kind of mind radar.
2)Not many people (read: only other INTJs) can actually bear to hear their most inner secrets being laid out.
3)Since, as an INTJ I'm prone to sarcasm, and since few people are capable to shrug a sarcastic remark about them, it helps to develop a chess player mentality. The chess player mentality is something every INTJ creates in order to navigate the social world without being killed in the meanwhile.
It works this way:
1)Identify the situation
2)Choose a way to get what you want in the situation with minimal pain of party involved.
3)Operate the plan, then go back to point one.

 

[scorpiomover]

INTP is basically a slightly more intelligent and more lazy INTJ.

Doesn't that mean they have the same personality type?

No

Then what do you call a slightly less intelligent and less lazy INTJ?

 

[ZenRaiden]

Then what do you call a slightly less intelligent and less lazy INTJ?

According to my MBTI calculator its ENTJ.

 

[scorpiomover]

Then what do you call a slightly less intelligent and less lazy INTJ?

According to my MBTI calculator its ENTJ.

Then what do you call a slightly less intelligent and less lazy ENTJ?

 

[ZenRaiden]

Then what do you call a slightly less intelligent and less lazy INTJ?

According to my MBTI calculator its ENTJ.

Then what do you call a slightly less intelligent and less lazy ENTJ?

ESTJ

 

[scorpiomover]

INTP is basically a slightly more intelligent and more lazy INTJ.

Then what do you call a slightly less intelligent and less lazy INTJ?

According to my MBTI calculator its ENTJ.

Then what do you call a slightly less intelligent and less lazy ENTJ?

ESTJ

Then what do you call a slightly less intelligent and less lazy ESTJ?

 

[ZenRaiden]

Then what do you call a slightly less intelligent and less lazy ESTJ?

No I dont think there is any pattern after this. It follows to this point, but thats about it.

 

[scorpiomover]

No I dont think there is any pattern after this. It follows to this point, but thats about it.

It sounds like you're trying to define personality types in terms of a sliding scale of intelligence and consciensciousness, which means they aren't personality types at all, which in turn means that there's only ONE type of personality for all 7 billion humans in the entire world.

It's an easier explanation for the differences between humans, which in turn means that it's easier in the short-term, but more difficult in the long-term.

 

[ZenRaiden]

No I dont think there is any pattern after this. It follows to this point, but thats about it.

It sounds like you're trying to define personality types in terms of a sliding scale of intelligence and consciensciousness, which means they aren't personality types at all, which in turn means that there's only ONE type of personality for all 7 billion humans in the entire world.

It's an easier explanation for the differences between humans, which in turn means that it's easier in the short-term, but more difficult in the long-term.

No. Its not the defining attribute. For example a rabbit is faster animal than squirrel. They arent the same, but we know that by morphology not the speed they run by.