Is it an insult to be called an INTJ?

[BigApplePi]

In what way is that a contradiction?

If it isn't a contradiction, I'm not clear on meaning.

You said, Ti is a "judgment", therefore Ji.
You also said, Te is "directive", you are a J.

How do we reconcile these differences of Ti versus Te?

Am I to understand an INTP is Ji function, but not J? That would resolve it.

 

[Lithorn]

The truth? The truth is there, if you yourself understand that truth, then that is enough. Society is what it is and in order to participate in it, you must accept its capital condition.

Why? I mean, I realize that for some practical purposes it's unavoidable, but we need not be passive cogs in the system.

It doesn't "force"; at least, not to the extent I'm sensing your expressing. There are many women presidents, high ranking officials, etc. But the numbers favor men. Does this mean women are forced and that the numbers are rubbish? No, its simply the usual lack of objectivity(T) we find in women. Modern society can't force our personalities.

Your mother, sister, female friends etc. List all of their traits. If you believe that their true personality is not what they show because of society's influence, you should ask about their happiness.

To change your entire self, in exchange for society's acceptance and the dissatisfaction as a result of it, even when society is already quite flexible, would be an unrealistic event.
The extent of the difficulty your expressing is exaggerated. That personality will manifests itself, in such a way that it would lead to an easier obtainment of the position. This is, in turn, "unfair" for the other types. Plus, a strong decisive leader would understand those norms and if effective enough, would be able to handle this problem and include it to the rest of their problems.

You're misinterpreting my use of the word "force". Of course society can't dictate our personalities, but it can restrict us from implementing them in the manner to which they are most conducive.
Think purely in terms of getting the opportunity to gain positions of authority. Historically speaking, it's an extremely recent development for women to even legally have the right to try for such positions, and it's still only prevalent in the most developed countries. And once they legally had the right, it was still a long time before they were truly considered feasible candidates (much like third party candidates in the US right now).
That's what I meant by "forced into an artificial minority". Being prevented from gaining positions of authority caused them to be a minority in those positions. Being part of a minority is intrinsically a position of weakness, which in turn prevents them from gaining power, which then in turn perpetuates their minority status.

As for women I know hiding their true personalities (btw, I am female), you're right. They don't really, which is exactly what I was saying. Many women have personalities which are compatible with society's view of women, and thus don't have a problem.
J (and T) women also behave in a manner which comes naturally to them and are derided with the aforementioned insults. So as for being able to incorporate those problems into the rest of their problems and deal with them, I don't care how strong a leader you are, constant negative reinforcement combined with a system that is stacked against you is going to take its toll.
Yes, people need to take responsibility for themselves and not blame society for everything, but there's only so long you can swim upstream without getting anywhere. Eventually they give up and don't change their personality, but become a bitter, twisted version of that personality (rather like the mental equivalent of foot-binding).

your view is that we cannot tell if dogs can't fly because of the possibility that they're afraid of the fact that they're not suppose to. But here's the case, they have instincts. It is natural, and nature will attest.

No, my view is that society believes that bats cannot fly because they are not birds.

 

[Adymus]

If it isn't a contradiction, I'm not clear on meaning.

You said, Ti is a "judgment", therefore Ji.
You also said, Te is "directive", you are a J.

How do we reconcile these differences of Ti versus Te?

Am I to understand an INTP is Ji function, but not J? That would resolve it.

Okay...

Fi, Ti, Te, and Fe are all Judgment functions.
Ne, Se, Ni, Si are all Perceiving functions.

Fi and Ti are both introverted judgment functions, They are both Adaptive, and would make a person a P if they had either as a Dominant or Auxiliary function.

Te and Fe are both extroverted Judgment functions, they are both Directive, and would make a person a J if they had either as a Dominant or Auxiliary function.

Ne and Se are both extroverted perceiving functions, They are both Adaptive, and would make a person a P if they had either as a Dominant or Auxiliary function.

Ni and Si are both Introverted perceiving functions, They are both Directive, and would make a person a J if they had either as a Dominant or Auxiliary function.


Now then, when you state the INTP's top four functions:
Ti-Ne:Si-Fe

You can see that their top two functions (The dominant and auxiliary) are an Introverted Judgment function, and an Extroverted perception function. Therefore this person must be adaptive. Having to state Ji and Pe on the bottom is completely unnecessary, and it would just create more confusion, because there is no function called "Ji" or "Pe", and you are essentially implying that these are separate functions by stating them. All you are doing is stating what should be obvious to anyone that has at least a basic understanding of how the functions work.

 

[Words]

Why? I mean, I realize that for some practical purposes it's unavoidable, but we need not be passive cogs in the system.

Is there a way to develop that aspect of the system?

You're misinterpreting my use of the word "force". Of course society can't dictate our personalities, but it can restrict us from implementing them in the manner to which they are most conducive.

How much is this "restriction"?

Think purely in terms of getting the opportunity to gain positions of authority. Historically speaking, it's an extremely recent development for women to even legally have the right to try for such positions, and it's still only prevalent in the most developed countries. And once they legally had the right, it was still a long time before they were truly considered feasible candidates (much like third party candidates in the US right now).
That's what I meant by "forced into an artificial minority". Being prevented from gaining positions of authority caused them to be a minority in those positions. Being part of a minority is intrinsically a position of weakness, which in turn prevents them from gaining power, which then in turn perpetuates their minority status.

I'm not sure how much position of minority would affect in gaining a position of authority. Perhaps it depends on geography and culture. Though, I'd argue that females, in general, do have less objective leadership traits. In which case, (T)females would be a minority.

Perhaps the minority American president example shows a developed country's great shield from this "prevention to higher position caused by status of minority".

Underdeveloped countries are, however, another issue.

So as for being able to incorporate those problems into the rest of their problems and deal with them, I don't care how strong a leader you are, constant negative reinforcement combined with a system that is stacked against you is going to take its toll.

Your right. There's a handicap. But how much?

Yes, people need to take responsibility for themselves and not blame society for everything, but there's only so long you can swim upstream without getting anywhere. Eventually they give up and don't change their personality, but become a bitter, twisted version of that personality (rather like the mental equivalent of foot-binding).

I don't see any problem in being what you are. I don't see how society gives you this problem as well. Don't those clear "abnormalities" (homosexuals, mental problems etc), provide enough motivation to remain different?

As for my own opinion, I believe in adaptation(to the system) before progression. Not sure about the reasons, however.

No, my view is that society believes that bats cannot fly because they are not birds.

But they can fly. The birds aren't attacking them.

 

[Lithorn]

Your right. There's a handicap. But how much?


I don't see any problem in being what you are. I don't see how society gives you this problem as well. Don't those clear "abnormalities" (homosexuals, mental problems etc), provide enough motivation to remain different?

As for my own opinion, I believe in adaptation(to the system) before progression. Not sure about the reasons, however.

I know what you're saying, but I think you're drastically underestimating the amount of ignorance and sexism that's still out there. Even in more progressive cultures where women are given equal opportunities and success is not frowned upon, there is an a kind of insidious backhanded sexism, which is difficult to detect because it presents itself as flattering.
I absolutely hate the tendency to glorify women who are successful, because that just reinforces the belief that women in general do not possess the qualities necessary for success in certain endeavors and that the women who do succeed are special, are "strong women" *gag*.
What it all really comes down to is double standards, which are perpetuated by the attitude of ascribing genders to qualities which, in and of themselves, are genderless.

But they can fly. The birds aren't attacking them.

Misunderstanding. I didn't mean that birds are attacking bats, I meant that society is operating under a logical fallacy.
'Birds can fly'
'Bats are not birds'
therefore
'Bats cannot fly'

 

[BigApplePi]

Okay...

Fi, Ti, Te, and Fe are all Judgment functions.
Ne, Se, Ni, Si are all Perceiving functions.

Fi and Ti are both introverted judgment functions, They are both Adaptive, and would make a person a P if they had either as a Dominant or Auxiliary function.

Te and Fe are both extroverted Judgment functions, they are both Directive, and would make a person a J if they had either as a Dominant or Auxiliary function.

Ne and Se are both extroverted perceiving functions, They are both Adaptive, and would make a person a P if they had either as a Dominant or Auxiliary function.

Ni and Si are both Introverted perceiving functions, They are both Directive, and would make a person a J if they had either as a Dominant or Auxiliary function.


Now then, when you state the INTP's top four functions:
Ti-Ne:Si-Fe

You can see that their top two functions (The dominant and auxiliary) are an Introverted Judgment function, and an Extroverted perception function. Therefore this person must be adaptive. Having to state Ji and Pe on the bottom is completely unnecessary, and it would just create more confusion, because there is no function called "Ji" or "Pe", and you are essentially implying that these are separate functions by stating them. All you are doing is stating what should be obvious to anyone that has at least a basic understanding of how the functions work.

Thank you Adymus. I want to make a point here. What I'm looking for is a formality that can be trusted with these terms. Apparently some terms or language are to be formal and some I'm less sure of. My opinion is pending. I've seen terms like function/ judgment/ perceiving and now adaptive/ directive. I would like to see these terms placed properly in the scheme of things. You have an in depth understanding and experience with these. I do not or at least less so. So I will postpone further judgment until I can think about your post more carefully.

 

[BigApplePi]

I thought about Adymus's summary a little which is quoted below. Here is what is on my mind. It would seem from the OP of this thread, whether one is J or P matters to people. J and P are ways one presents oneself to the external world. They have a social affect at least as prominent as the other factors. The MBTI is a temperament indicator. Temperament is more focused on what an individual is rather than how they are socially. Introversion/Extroversion have their social affect but not as prominently as directiveness/adaptiveness.

An INTP is Ti-Ne-Si-Fe. But socially how are we to describe their J and P? Answer: Ji and Pe. This behavior is not strong enough to be called a function, but they are characteristics. So maybe a parenthetical? Ti-Ne-Si-Fe (Ji,Pe).

INTPs judge but it's not directly social behavior (Ji). They are non-judgmental socially (Pe). When one labels a P person J it can be interpreted by the recipient as a judgment on their objectivity and so can be insulting. A Ji is not ready to be Je.

Okay...

Fi, Ti, Te, and Fe are all Judgment functions.
Ne, Se, Ni, Si are all Perceiving functions.

Fi and Ti are both introverted judgment functions, They are both Adaptive, and would make a person a P if they had either as a Dominant or Auxiliary function.

Te and Fe are both extroverted Judgment functions, they are both Directive, and would make a person a J if they had either as a Dominant or Auxiliary function.

Ne and Se are both extroverted perceiving functions, They are both Adaptive, and would make a person a P if they had either as a Dominant or Auxiliary function.

Ni and Si are both Introverted perceiving functions, They are both Directive, and would make a person a J if they had either as a Dominant or Auxiliary function.


Now then, when you state the INTP's top four functions:
Ti-Ne:Si-Fe

You can see that their top two functions (The dominant and auxiliary) are an Introverted Judgment function, and an Extroverted perception function. Therefore this person must be adaptive. Having to state Ji and Pe on the bottom is completely unnecessary, and it would just create more confusion, because there is no function called "Ji" or "Pe", and you are essentially implying that these are separate functions by stating them. All you are doing is stating what should be obvious to anyone that has at least a basic understanding of how the functions work.

 

[Adymus]

An INTP is Ti-Ne-Si-Fe. But socially how are we to describe their J and P? Answer: Ji and Pe. This behavior is not strong enough to be called a function, but they are characteristics. So maybe a parenthetical? Ti-Ne-Si-Fe (Ji,Pe).

INTPs judge but it's not directly social behavior (Ji). They are non-judgmental socially (Pe). When one labels a P person J it can be interpreted by the recipient as a judgment on their objectivity and so can be insulting. A Ji is not ready to be Je.

INTP technically do "judge" socially, with Fe. It is not something we do readily, but we still do it, and it would be misleading to make a statement claiming we don't at all.

I would step away from using words like "Judging socially" because Te can still be directive and completely avoid the social experience. Je directs, pushes, moves, and/or structures, some form of outside dynamics, it could be social (Fe) or systematic (Te).

Ji is purely subjective and internal, it is not meant to be used on an outside source like Je is. A person's Ji is meant only for the person who is using it to check how the feel about, or how strong the logic is, in some point of view that is being processed at that present moment in time.

Je is meant to direct
Ji is meant to Adapt

 

[BigApplePi]

INTP technically do "judge" socially, with Fe. It is not something we do readily, but we still do it, and it would be misleading to make a statement claiming we don't at all.

I would step away from using words like "Judging socially" because Te can still be directive and completely avoid the social experience. Je directs, pushes, moves, and/or structures, some form of outside dynamics, it could be social (Fe) or systematic (Te).

Ji is purely subjective and internal, it is not meant to be used on an outside source like Je is. A person's Ji is meant only for the person who is using it to check how the feel about, or how strong the logic is, in some point of view that is being processed at that present moment in time.

Je is meant to direct
Ji is meant to Adapt

That sounds plausible.

"Te can still be directive and completely avoid the social experience."
Can you give an example or two of that?

 

[Branden]

On the note of the OP's original question....
I have been mistaken for an INTJ but i do not take that as an insult. I have a couple friends that are INTj's and though i think highly of them, i wouldn't want to be them either.

I grew up with a stern(but intelligent) SJ dad so i gained a lot of J tendencies to balance out the how naturally apathetic i wanted to be when i was younger. I simply enjoy Ti too much to be honest(though Ni sounds interesting as well). My INTJ friends flat-out closed mindedness on many, many subjects is definitely not something i envy.

 

[AliTree]

i'm an INTJ and wouldn't mind being mistaken as an INTP, personally. i always consider INTP's the more hippie version of INTJ's.
i do get slightly offended if i'm mistaken as an ISTJ though. i'm no sensor, sir....

 

[walfin]

I absolutely hate the tendency to glorify women who are successful, because that just reinforces the belief that women in general do not possess the qualities necessary for success in certain endeavors and that the women who do succeed are special, are "strong women" *gag*.

What, men do not get lauded for being successful?

i do get slightly offended if i'm mistaken as an ISTJ though.

This is another thing.

I think INTPs are less offended at being called ISTPs than INTJs are at being called ISTJs.

 

[Adymus]

What, men do not get lauded for being successful?


This is another thing.

I think INTPs are less offended at being called ISTPs than INTJs are at being called ISTJs.

Well of course, INTPs and ISTPs both have the same dominant function, so we are really not that far apart anyway. INTJs and ISTJs have a completely different way of looking at the world. One of them is progressive and cool and the other is traditional and lame.

 

[walfin]

Well of course, INTPs and ISTPs both have the same dominant function, so we are really not that far apart anyway.

This is funny, though. I think INTPs identify with INFPs more than INTJs identify with ISTJs too. It's kind of the same difference (function wise - different dominant function with same attitude).

INTP-ISTP seems to be the bridge between S-N, to me.

 

[Lithorn]

What, men do not get lauded for being successful?

Not in the same way. Not with the same tone of surprise about their having "overcome the odds".

 

[Adymus]

This is funny, though. I think INTPs identify with INFPs more than INTJs identify with ISTJs too. It's kind of the same difference (function wise - different dominant function with same attitude).

INTP-ISTP seems to be the bridge between S-N, to me.

Yeah, actually on second thought it is probably because they are IxxJs... which are kind of at war with each other. They are all trying to push their agenda, and THERE CAN BE ONLY ONE! But especially because Si and Ni really are in eternal conflict with one another, Ni wants to push forward and Si wants to slow down, stop, or even reverse progression. Both INxJs can at least usually agree in terms of their approach, but maybe not their whole model. But Si is the opposite of everything they stand for.

 

[emzjk]

Hi, I'm new here so pardon my newbness, but I find this thread very interesting.

I think an INTJ is the shadow of an INTP. Now This is not shadow in a complete negative sense, but an INTJ is everything an INTP is afraid of becoming.

The irrational self-righteousness, inability to reason logically, blatant disregard for facts and precedent and sometimes the teller of the most absurd lies, INTJs are everything an INTP detests in people.

I had run with an INTJ this past year and this woman, simply infuriated me. As a guy, to hate a woman who you hardly know and has not done anything really to harm you is strange, and I was aware of that, but I could not stand this woman, especially when she opened her mouth. when she spoke, I just wanted to leave or close my ears... She would act as if everyone else was stupid. Her arguments were so childish and banal yet she stood by them as if it was truth carved in stone.... Finally the tension came to fore and i had a nasty fight with her.

So, anyway i thought i share this with you people.

 

[Adymus]

Hi, I'm new here so pardon my newbness, but I find this thread very interesting.

I think an INTJ is the shadow of an INTP. Now This is not shadow in a complete negative sense, but an INTJ is everything an INTP is afraid of becoming.

The irrational self-righteousness, inability to reason logically, blatant disregard for facts and precedent and sometimes the teller of the most absurd lies, INTJs are everything an INTP detests in people.

I had run with an INTJ this past year and this woman, simply infuriated me. As a guy, to hate a woman who you hardly know and has not done anything really to harm you is strange, and I was aware of that, but I could not stand this woman, especially when she opened her mouth. when she spoke, I just wanted to leave or close my ears... She would act as if everyone else was stupid. Her arguments were so childish and banal yet she stood by them as if it was truth carved in stone.... Finally the tension came to fore and i had a nasty fight with her.

So, anyway i thought i share this with you people.

No.... Just... No.

 

[Fukyo]

I'll never understand what is it that makes people generalize about an entire type based on a few individuals they know in real life, who are only supposedly members of said type, to boot.

 

[Dormouse]

Hmm, I'm vaguely aware of the existence of a few other INTJs, (or at least an INTJ-ish stream of consciousness in my immediate environment), and they seem like quite nice, logically sound people.

There's little irrationality, and their arguments are anything but banal...

Blatant disregard for facts? Most NTs will uphold reason, at the very worst using dubious scources to collect their proof.

And as stated above, it's impossible to qualify an entire type based on experiences with one possibly immature specimen.

That said, I would rather like to be an INTJ.

 

[Starfruit M.E.]

I would be insulted... from what I've seen of the INTJ, they would rather win an argument than actually be right. They're happy to believe lies as long as it makes them feel good, and they don't listen or accept correction well. I would rather find the truth and be upset about it than believe lies and be happy. Plus INTJs aren't interested in in depth conversations if they can't be applied into action....

in short, as an INTP, the INTJs I know drive me absolutely nuts if I try to have a decent conversations with them, and they can be quite arrogant. So I never want to be one.

But if you already are an INTJ and you are called an INTJ, then whatever. It's not an insult then... it's just what you are. I bet INTJs have issues with INTPs.

 

[emzjk]

I guess, these whole types are generalizations in some sense. But a "true" INTJ, someone who has introverted intuition as their main function, they usually deal in absolutes and they have no regard for logic because intuition precedes everything.

While an INTP is bereft with doubts and obsessed with getting it right, an INTJ is never in doubt whatsoever, even if it means their logic is absurd and their reasoning completely irrational.

For example this woman which I mentioned, she acted as if she knew everything about Jungian psychology just because she had written an essay about him in College! As an INTP that drove me absolutely mad because even after reading Jung and getting a grasp of his ideas, I'm still in doubt and I keep tying to find if I know him correctly, and yet this woman was convinced she known everything that has to be known about Jungian psychology or analytical psychology.

I find it embarrassing now when I think about it and how I used to hate her but now I know it was a shadow projection, because she personified my own insecurities.

 

[Adymus]

First of all emzjk, there are no "True" and "False" INTJs, there are only INTJs.

Secondly, they are not just using Ni, they are using Ni-Te. That means there is going to be a systemic logic to the way they illustrate the world in their Ni.

Thirdly, do you realize you are speaking in absolutes right now? "All INTJs use Ni as a dominant function, thus they have no regard in using logic."

Forthly, the amount of confidence the INTJs have in their Ni is no different then the amount of confidence we have in our Ti. We are both looking at models that are entirely subjective, we don't really know if the logic of natural law works in the way we think it does, but we certainly act like we do.

Fifthly, you are still only using one person as an example, and then generalizing an entire personality type based on that. I should not have to point out way that is completely ridiculous. Even if Ni-Te was completely illogical, they still have more functions then that to adapt, you are not taking into account that INTJs have different levels of development, they are not all going to act exactly alike.

Lastly, so what if personalities don't uphold the exact same priorities as we do? That is what makes us so successful as a species, we would all be dead if we were all INTPs. Let a player play.

 

[BigApplePi]

Hmm, I'm vaguely aware of the existence of a few other INTJs, (or at least an INTJ-ish stream of consciousness in my immediate environment), and they seem like quite nice, logically sound people.

There's little irrationality, and their arguments are anything but banal...

Blatant disregard for facts? Most NTs will uphold reason, at the very worst using dubious scources to collect their proof.

And as stated above, it's impossible to qualify an entire type based on experiences with one possibly immature specimen.

That said, I would rather like to be an INTJ.

Why can't an INTJ put a little stability into an INTPs life? After all they have the strength to make a decision while an INTP is too lazy to decide. That can make them fun to work with. Mutual support.

 

[Anthile]

Healthy INTJs will accept that they are wrong. Grudgingly maybe but they are still NTs and thus rationals. The point is, INTJs spend a lot of time on 'being right' and when they are proven wrong it can be quite shattering for them because it implies that they wasted time with something useless.

 

[BigApplePi]

Secondly, they are not just using Ni, they are using Ni-Te. That means there is going to be a systemic logic to the way they illustrate the world in their Ni.

I'll go for that. Could we say once an INTJ has picked their thing, they have a logic about it. That makes them available to an INTP to learn from and expand their knowledge of that particular system. They will know all about how to support a particular thing they have set up.

I have encountered such on other bulletin boards. Since I haven't thought about their types, I'll call them xxxJ's. I went along with them, humoring them because it was obvious they were not to be questioned. Those became friends. I think they thought I believed them just because I didn't question. (I thought questioning them would have been a cheap shot.) Others who I thought were being destructive (xxxJ's) when I questioned them, they became enemies. Couldn't tolerate criticism whereas I tended to welcome it. Not too wise an action on my part.

 

[Adymus]

Healthy INTJs will accept that they are wrong. Grudgingly maybe but they are still NTs and thus rationals. The point is, INTJs spend a lot of time on 'being right' and when they are proven wrong it can be quite shattering for them because it implies that they wasted time with something useless.

INTJs still want to succeed, and if they see that their current paradigm is losing, then they will scrap it to build a new one in a heartbeat.

 

[BigApplePi]

INTJs still want to succeed, and if they see that their current paradigm is losing, then they will scrap it to build a new one in a heartbeat.

Would I be correct in saying it's the INFJs that would be devastated? Or wrong and it would be the ISFJs devastated?

 

[reprographist]

I don't see how it could be an insult...'From what I've seen INTP and INTJs are pretty much the same...

 

[emzjk]

Adymus, you're correct in that I was speaking in absolute terms in regards to INTJs, because I guess that woman still annoys me and that triggers my inferior function, namely feelings.

So, I'm corrected when I say that my shadow personality at least shares a lot of INTJ characteristics.

 

[Adymus]

Would I be correct in saying it's the INFJs that would be devastated? Or wrong and it would be the ISFJs devastated?

Both Ni doms will change there worldview if it is not working.
My INFJ friend calls this "Ego death", we do this too, it's when you disregard everything you know and look at something from a completely fresh perspective.

A lot of INFJs actually love this perspective of personal growth, it is their transformation into enlightenment and what have you.

Si doms have a much harder time doing this, because in order to ego death, you have to acknowledge that your model was flawed to begin with. Si doms build their identity on their past, and to acknowledge that it was all wrong is like admitting that your whole life has been a lie. which is why they will resort to work around instead of revamps. For example: Religion... in general.

 

[walfin]

I don't see how it could be an insult...'From what I've seen INTP and INTJs are pretty much the same...

Whether to be called an INTJ is an insult or no, this is ridiculous (especially if you are an N type), except on a very superficial level.

About INTJs being illogical - I don't think so. They are certainly more apparently logical than us. It annoys us because we know we're more logical, but the SJs, the majority, often consider them the more logical. But it doesn't mean they're illogical just because they don't "worship" logic the way we do. They're just more confident/presumptuous because of Ni dominance, depending on how you look at it (and depending on the INTJ in question).

 

[Lithorn]

^Very convoluted, Walfin, but I think I agree.

Also, I think INTJs have a very different sense of humor. They don't seem to appreciate absurdity the way we do. This could help to further the misconception that they are the more logical of the two.

 

[Adymus]

^Very convoluted, Walfin, but I think I agree.

Also, I think INTJs have a very different sense of humor. They don't seem to appreciate absurdity the way we do. This could help to further the misconception that they are the more logical of the two.

I have to disagree with that one right there, many of the ones I know (as well as many of the established INTJ comedians) appreciate absurdity a great deal. It was an INTJ that got me into Tim and Eric Awesome Show Great Job.

People tend to link absurd humor with Ne, but Ni humor can be far more absurd than people realize.

 

[Anthile]

Am I the only one who dislikes it when people want to attach specific behavior to functions? Sure, if someone comes up with a new theory of gravity you can easily say it's a NT thing to do but that won't stop people from claiming that eating candies is Ne and dancing polka is Fi.

 

[Adymus]

Am I the only one who dislikes it when people want to attach specific behavior to functions? Sure, if someone comes up with a new theory of gravity you can easily say it's a NT thing to do but that won't stop people from claiming that eating candies is Ne and dancing polka is Fi.

No, I get annoyed by that too.

There is pretty much never a time that those are true statements, because there is really no such thing as a pure function anyway. That is not Ti we are using, it is Ti-Ne. And when we use Ne, it is not just straight Ne either, it is Ne with Ti guidance.

 

[AliTree]

Healthy INTJs will accept that they are wrong. Grudgingly maybe but they are still NTs and thus rationals. The point is, INTJs spend a lot of time on 'being right' and when they are proven wrong it can be quite shattering for them because it implies that they wasted time with something useless.

i would have to agree with that whole heartedly. i've yet to meet an INTJ/talk to one on a forum that isn't what is described above.

Well of course, INTPs and ISTPs both have the same dominant function, so we are really not that far apart anyway. INTJs and ISTJs have a completely different way of looking at the world. One of them is progressive and cool and the other is traditional and lame.

exactly right.
i think, more or less, also if an INTJ has had a relationship with an ISTJ, they form an even more anti-ISTJ bias. i've noticed that with myself and some people on the INTJ forum. i have an ISTJ father and i cannot stand being compared to him.


EDIT: in response to the notions that INTJs are more 'stuck in their ways' and ignore logic, that's simply absurd. logic/rational is like the INTJ's code of conduct. a person's maturity is not defined by their personality type. someone can be immature and naive and also be an INTJ. just a thought,

 

[Lithorn]

Am I the only one who dislikes it when people want to attach specific behavior to functions? Sure, if someone comes up with a new theory of gravity you can easily say it's a NT thing to do but that won't stop people from claiming that eating candies is Ne and dancing polka is Fi.

But isn't that exactly what the Meyer Briggs test is? You pick which behavior you're more likely to engage in and it spits out a function. I mean sure it can go way overboard and spiral into ridiculousness when it's too specific and individual, but surely there are things that one type would do whereas another type simply wouldn't?

 

[emzjk]

Most people talk here about these abbreviations as if they were a science into themselves. I guess one could call it Americanization of Jungian psychology or something absurd like that.

But lets not forget that these typologies are based on a test that was created to find compatible jobs for women during WWII in America and it only became formalized after Jung was dead.

I have Jung's psychological types and before he gets to discuss the types, there are many chapters on philosophy, mythology, literature and religion. In other words for Jung, these types were an orientation, not the goal itself. And if he was alive and saw these tests and how people discuss them as if they were facts, he'd be really disappointed.


In my intro thread i mentioned Marie-Louise Von Franz, a Jungian legend and considered by many as a true deciple and successor of Jung. But Adymus who seems to be acting like an expert of sorts here, didn't knew who she was and in fact went on to say she had no idea what she was talking about!

Anyway, I joined here thinking the focus was Jung, but it seems this is one of those personality test focused websites... could anyone direct me to a forum where the focus is Jung and his work.

thanks.

 

[Lithorn]

I didn't mean to imply that MBTI was some kind of ultimate authority. I just meant that you can't claim that behaviors are never indicative of type. Certainly Jung had to have observed behaviors in his research?
It's not that specific behaviors have nothing to do with type, it's that the behavior in and of itself doesn't tell you much. How it occurred to someone to engage in this behavior, why they decided to to it, and in what manner they went about accomplishing it are more important, but it's not completely inaccurate to start with the behavior and work backwards.

 

[Puffy]

Rightly said emzjk, though i'm sure no one here thinks they are actually defined by their personality type, orientation seems the perfect word.

 

[Fukyo]

Most people talk here about these abbreviations as if they were a science into themselves. I guess one could call it Americanization of Jungian psychology or something absurd like that.

But lets not forget that these typologies are based on a test that was created to find compatible jobs for women during WWII in America and it only became formalized after Jung was dead.

I have Jung's psychological types and before he gets to discuss the types, there are many chapters on philosophy, mythology, literature and religion. In other words for Jung, these types were an orientation, not the goal itself. And if he was alive and saw these tests and how people discuss them as if they were facts, he'd be really disappointed.


In my intro thread i mentioned Marie-Louise Von Franz, a Jungian legend and considered by many as a true deciple and successor of Jung. But Adymus who seems to be acting like an expert of sorts here, didn't knew who she was and in fact went on to say she had no idea what she was talking about!

Anyway, I joined here thinking the focus was Jung, but it seems this is one of those personality test focused websites... could anyone direct me to a forum where the focus is Jung and his work.

thanks.

The truth is, you'll be hard pressed to find a forum that discusses pure Jungian psychology.(if you really want another one, see http://www.typologycentral.com but I guess you'll have a similar opinion) Perhaps a psychology board of sorts? A grand majority of these forums were created as social avenues based on the MBTI instrument, and even if they weren't they ended up as such.

A lot of people focus on the MBTI, unfortunately, not that it stops anyone from discussing Jung, if they wish to do so, on this or any other forum.

Adymus may be outspoken about his theories, but that doesn't mean others aren't allowed to voice their opinions and disagree.

 

[Adymus]

Most people talk here about these abbreviations as if they were a science into themselves. I guess one could call it Americanization of Jungian psychology or something absurd like that.

But lets not forget that these typologies are based on a test that was created to find compatible jobs for women during WWII in America and it only became formalized after Jung was dead.

I have Jung's psychological types and before he gets to discuss the types, there are many chapters on philosophy, mythology, literature and religion. In other words for Jung, these types were an orientation, not the goal itself. And if he was alive and saw these tests and how people discuss them as if they were facts, he'd be really disappointed.


In my intro thread i mentioned Marie-Louise Von Franz, a Jungian legend and considered by many as a true deciple and successor of Jung. But Adymus who seems to be acting like an expert of sorts here, didn't knew who she was and in fact went on to say she had no idea what she was talking about!

Anyway, I joined here thinking the focus was Jung, but it seems this is one of those personality test focused websites... could anyone direct me to a forum where the focus is Jung and his work.

thanks.

Emzjk, I don't think you realize this, but Jung's work on the psychological types, as brilliant as it was, is now outdated. It's actually been outdated for about 70 years now.

Considering this is a forum on MBTI, and not just pure Jungian Psychological types, you are going to have to expect us to be looking at the fresh looks at the personality types, and not just sticking to straight Jung.

And about ML von Franz, I don't care what you have a doctorate in, if you are going to claim that Feeling is nothing more than a liability in this day and age, you have no idea what you are talking about. Feeling functions are more than just tears. Jung spoke of Individuation, and shunning your feeling processes is the opposite of this, it is a completely idiotic and even unjungian thing for an Authority to say.

 

[Lithorn]

Most people talk here about these abbreviations as if they were a science into themselves.

You're exactly right. They talk "as if". Has it not occurred to you that many of us are just rhetorically assuming the validity of MBTI in order to facilitate discussion and further our understanding of it? Not to mention that playing devil's advocate is in no way unheard of in INTPs

 

[Fukyo]

The truth is, you'll be hard pressed to find a forum that discusses pure Jungian psychology.

Edit: Actually, forgot this. http://kaleidoscope-forum.org/home/

 

[BigApplePi]

No, I get annoyed by that too.

There is pretty much never a time that those are true statements, because there is really no such thing as a pure function anyway. That is not Ti we are using, it is Ti-Ne. And when we use Ne, it is not just straight Ne either, it is Ne with Ti guidance.

For all you know I know that could be a ridiculous statement but I have no way of knowing if I know you know that for sure or not.

 

[BigApplePi]

INTJ? What the heck. Like words, these terms serve to differentiate. Like words they may be difficult to define. Go to a dictionary, look it up, and you will find other words attempting to bracket the meaning. What have you gained if you have no experience with those words?

Tests? What if an INTP is feeling "J-ish" or an INTJ is feeling "P-ish"? One test may be off. So take another test later when you feel "typicial."

 

[Philosophyking87]

No, INTJs—in many ways—are everything an INTP isn't, but might want to be.
They function well in the world without much problems. They work very well within systems. Their ideas are actually practical and they usually want to pragmatically structure systems.

Besides, I once saw statistics that say INTJs are usually the most intelligent type, with INTPs just behind. And supposedly they're slightly more logic-oriented than INTPs. Hence, more INTJs are atheists, with INTPs again second runner up.

So, I would say being called an INTJ isn't an insult.
But being called an INTP in a condescending manner by an INTJ could be.

 

[Words]

And supposedly they're slightly more logic-oriented than INTPs. Hence, more INTJs are atheists, with INTPs again second runner up.

How is logic-oriented=atheist?

 

[Lithorn]

^A horribly condescending attitude that seems to run rampant in the Atheist community (as well as in the various fundamentalist religious communities, ironically enough)