The Challenge of Integrating Si with Ti & Ne

[Jungle]

A few weeks ago I had a very strong realisation that Si is the missing link for INTPs. It keeps the Ne in check and helps Ti-Ne actually manifest into tangible outputs that will eventually form a bridge between Ti-Ne and Fe. The reality is that most INTPs are viewed by society as being lazy and incompetent due to our external behaviour. It is a rude awakening to really understand this. It is only by waking up Si discipline and perseverance that we can stick with projects long enough to prove the value of our theoretical insights.

However, Ne and Si working together can be a mess if Ti is not adequately consulted. For example, I have an idea for an online business that I have been playing with sporadically over the past year. My Ne has been coming at it from many different angles and has been constantly reinventing the project. I have had multiple attempts at getting it off the ground, but I always end up becoming disillusioned with it after a few weeks and abandon it.

At the beginning of last week I decided that it was time to bring Si into play and just systematically build up the project, no matter how long it takes to achieve success. Without really consulting Ti I adopted a bullish new Si routine. I diligently made sure that I was sitting at a desk in my living room by 8.30am each morning, taking exactly one hour for lunch, and finishing no earlier than 5pm. It was actually a pretty cool feeling to be genuinely ‘working from home’.

But at the end of the third day I suddenly realised that the idea in its current form is deeply flawed, and it is not the correct vehicle for me to be concentrating my efforts over the coming months. Or is it? I still can’t decide. This is a major difference between the way Si is used by an ISTJ and the way it can be used by an INTP. An ISTJ would not have this problem because they would never be attempting to start up their own business in the first place. They would maintain a stable job within a stable organisation. Questioning the purpose of the entire organisation would not be an issue for them.

Things are more complicated for an INTP. I’ve now started thinking of it in terms of business anthropology. Within the ‘business’ of an INTP personality:

Ti is the chief executive. They are responsible for making all big decisions and signing off on any significant new projects before they commence. However, unlike a conventional chief executive, they are not good at making decisions quickly and can easily fall prey to analysis paralysis.

Ne is the head of strategy and research. A capable assistant to Ti, they are responsible for bringing in new inspiration that will create a competitive advantage. They are, however, something of a bullshit artist who has a tendency to fly by the seat of their pants.

Si is the group of employees who turn up to work at the same time every morning and do the work they have been assigned. Not only do they not mind following orders, they actually enjoy following orders and slowly building something over time.

Crucially, it is not within Ne’s mandate to be giving out orders to Si in case the direction they have set turns out to be a dead end. Right now I am using Ne-Ti (as opposed to Ti-Ne) to write a strategy paper about my business idea (as well as another idea which I have not yet developed as much). Basically I am saying to my Ne: go crazy and put all of your great ideas in writing. During this phase Ti is only being used to provide some basic structure to the proposal. Then I will let my ‘pure Ti’ mull it over for a few days before making a decision about how to direct Si, or possibly go back to Ne and ask for some revisions.

It has been a frustrating week, but I have got a valuable lesson out of it all. It seems that Si needs to be explicitly told not to take orders from Ne and wait for the final sign off from Ti. Meanwhile, Ti needs to step up and fully inhabit its role as leader of the organisation.

Has anyone else experienced this type of scenario?

 

[Jungle]

By the way, I owe a debt here to AJ Drenth who personified the four functions as follows:

[quote='My True Type' by AJ Drenth]
Dominant Function: “The Captain”; the signature tool and strength of the
personality type
Auxiliary Function: “The Sidekick”; chief assistant to the dominant function
Tertiary Function: “The Adolescent”; relatively unconscious and undeveloped
Inferior Function: “The Child”; the least conscious and developed of the four
functions
[/quote]

 

[Architect]

Well how interesting, I've been working on this recently too and have come to similar conclusions. In particular that Si is the missing link for functioning in the world optimally for an INTP. Further I think it get the third child syndrome, i.e. not enough attention.

I've come to believe that the INTP has a powerful functional stack (native abilities) to accomplish a certain class of things, if they can only learn how to utilize their native predilections. All the MBTI sources I've got (a lot) emphasize the top two functions and the inferior, but the teritary Si gets a short stick. It just gets attributed to a few mundane abilities like internal bodily sensations and attachment to the past.

I like your attribution a lot, I'll flesh it out with my research. What I've found is that Si operates differently when in the dominant position (as for an ISTJ) versus the teritary for the INTP. This is probably true for all functions in those two positions. Specifically Si in the INTP has the following abilities

• Being sensory and introverted it is attuned to internal bodily sensations. Se is attuned to external sensations. This is why typically an INTP would not over eat or over consume where an Se dominant would.
• Being Sensory, Si does also attune itself externally. Conversely Se attunes itself to the individuals response (pleasure) to physical stimulus (I believe Se dominants are the most likely to become drug abusers. Most often they become food and often exercise abusers). However the way Si directs outwards is intensively, in a focused manner. An Si dominant will focus on outward specific and individual details whereas an Se will focus on the totality of sensory impressions - i.e. "taking it all in". This relates to the intensive nature of introverted functions (narrow and deep versus shallow and wide for extroverted), and highlights that introverted functions can orient outwards (S and F specifically).
• Because of the prior point Si is good at taking in details, because that what it focuses on. And the way our brain works is that it automatically stores away what we are focused on, so Si then is a "conduit" for external details. Now how this is used depends on the type. A Si dominant ISTJ will often become storehouses of information about some particular technical subject. A Si dominant ISFJ will become a mirror image of past traditions. In a teritary Si INTP it operates more at storing away details of whatever captures the interest of the INTP. So hobbies, interests, whatever they are into, Si comes along for the ride and stores all those tidbits away.

So an example of an INTP firing on all four cylinders would be one who expounds on a theory (Ti) to help other INTP's (Fe), taking in new ideas in response and gathering a wide range of points (Ne) and using specific examples to illustrate or prove the point (Si). On looking at this I see myself on this forum.

At any rate I believe you are exactly right. See my thread on "Triggering INTP flow" in the INTP sub forum. I believe if you find you are too distracted or changing your mind, a lot of benefit is gained from engaging Si by focusing on whatever specific external details your Si is drawn to.

In this way I view Si as the dog on the leash, sniffing out the relevant direction, with Ne looking around viewing the surroundings, and Ti inside your head figuring it all out.

 

[scorpiomover]

At the beginning of last week I decided that it was time to bring Si into play and just systematically build up the project, no matter how long it takes to achieve success. Without really consulting Ti I adopted a bullish new Si routine. I diligently made sure that I was sitting at a desk in my living room by 8.30am each morning, taking exactly one hour for lunch, and finishing no earlier than 5pm. It was actually a pretty cool feeling to be genuinely ‘working from home’.

But at the end of the third day I suddenly realised that the idea in its current form is deeply flawed, and it is not the correct vehicle for me to be concentrating my efforts over the coming months. Or is it? I still can’t decide.

ISTJs use versioning to solve the problem.

Anything small, that you KNOW won't screw up the code, AND won't change the code significantly from the current plan, can be put into the current version. Anything else, is logged in your notes, and earmarked for a future version. That way, each version you have, is a reliable program. So, if you screw up your code, you can always go back to the previous version, and redo your work from there. No muss, no fuss.

When it comes to releasing your code for production release, i.e. when it goes live and customers start using it, then you put it through major system testing by assuming your clients will do all the stupid things you'd never think of, and shutting off any way to do anything other than the way you intend for them to use the code. That way, they always have a valid version to work with. It may not do everything they want. But it will do everything it promises, because if you can't guarantee it, it doesn't go in that version.

If you get stuck, you do whatever you can do, and when that's all done, you just plug away at the problem until you find a way to accomplish it. If you find a laborious way, even if it takes 10 times as long to do as your way, it will still do the job. So, you do that, and save an interim mini-version, so that if the refactoring fails, you can still go back to the laborious version, which is slow but works. Then you leave your clever way for refactoring in the next mini-version.

You end up with a lot of versions. But, it works, and you actually save time, because you only have to repeat the bits that you couldn't get to work.

 

[Architect]

ISTJs use versioning to solve the problem.

I haven't noticed that in particular with ISTJ's, we all use versioning extensively. It's an excellent tool.

I've seen that ISTJ's are really good at remembering details and (guess what) what worked in the past and what didn't. They're also good at just sitting in one place and working, and working and working. They're the most likely to need a program to remind them to get up and take a break. INTP's have Ne to prod them.

 

[scorpiomover]

I haven't noticed that in particular with ISTJ's,

They do it so naturally, they don't even bother to give it a name. It's just "normal" to them.

I've seen that ISTJ's are really good at remembering details and (guess what) what worked in the past and what didn't.

That's why they're so good at versioning. It juset naturally occurs to them to keep a track of what worked and what didn't.

They're also good at just sitting in one place and working, and working and working.

Well, yeah, and when they're finished, they just say "they're done". Usually, they have done their work to a good enough standard, that no-one even asks how they did it. They could be teleporting the stuff to elvin-land to be done by a bunch of elves, and no-one would ever have a clue.

we all use versioning extensively. It's an excellent tool.

Really? So, when you were writing your game with your son, and you got stuck, why didn't you go back to any of the 15 previous versions you'd made, and have another go?

I've seen that ISTJ's are really good at remembering details and (guess what) what worked in the past and what didn't. They're also good at just sitting in one place and working, and working and working.

They're the most likely to need a program to remind them to get up and take a break.

ISTJs are so bound to routine, that you can set your watch by them. If it's lunch-time, they're at lunch.

INTJs, however, often forget about eating and skip meals, on a regular basis.

INFJs remember about eating. But they often put it off while they feed others, and then are often too tired after that to prepare food for themselves.

Where ISTJs do have an issue, is they tend towards workaholism. They HATE being sick and/or on holiday. After 2 days, they want to get back to work, even when they have been really sick, and need to stay in bed to recover fully.

INTP's have Ne to prod them.

We're often completely clueless of time. Empirical beats theory.

 

[Architect]

Really? So, when you were writing your game with your son, and you got stuck, why didn't you go back to any of the 15 previous versions you'd made, and have another go?

I don't get your point, we do often throw away current work in favor of an earlier revision, if we went down a bunny trail. I've got an application that I've restarted about six times, over a period of as many years. Actually as we're speaking I'm looking at an old version of a file, because during a major rearchitecture a feature got lost.

It's not worth belaboring though, I'm just saying that revision control is a tool that I haven't seen is type specific.

 

[DIALECTIC]

A few weeks ago I had a very strong realisation that Si is the missing link for INTPs. It keeps the Ne in check and helps Ti-Ne actually manifest into tangible outputs that will eventually form a bridge between Ti-Ne and Fe. The reality is that most INTPs are viewed by society as being lazy and incompetent due to our external behaviour. It is a rude awakening to really understand this. It is only by waking up Si discipline and perseverance that we can stick with projects long enough to prove the value of our theoretical insights.

However, Ne and Si working together can be a mess if Ti is not adequately consulted. For example, I have an idea for an online business that I have been playing with sporadically over the past year. My Ne has been coming at it from many different angles and has been constantly reinventing the project. I have had multiple attempts at getting it off the ground, but I always end up becoming disillusioned with it after a few weeks and abandon it.

At the beginning of last week I decided that it was time to bring Si into play and just systematically build up the project, no matter how long it takes to achieve success. Without really consulting Ti I adopted a bullish new Si routine. I diligently made sure that I was sitting at a desk in my living room by 8.30am each morning, taking exactly one hour for lunch, and finishing no earlier than 5pm. It was actually a pretty cool feeling to be genuinely ‘working from home’.

But at the end of the third day I suddenly realised that the idea in its current form is deeply flawed, and it is not the correct vehicle for me to be concentrating my efforts over the coming months. Or is it? I still can’t decide. This is a major difference between the way Si is used by an ISTJ and the way it can be used by an INTP. An ISTJ would not have this problem because they would never be attempting to start up their own business in the first place. They would maintain a stable job within a stable organisation. Questioning the purpose of the entire organisation would not be an issue for them.

Things are more complicated for an INTP. I’ve now started thinking of it in terms of business anthropology. Within the ‘business’ of an INTP personality:

Ti is the chief executive. They are responsible for making all big decisions and signing off on any significant new projects before they commence. However, unlike a conventional chief executive, they are not good at making decisions quickly and can easily fall prey to analysis paralysis.

Ne is the head of strategy and research. A capable assistant to Ti, they are responsible for bringing in new inspiration that will create a competitive advantage. They are, however, something of a bullshit artist who has a tendency to fly by the seat of their pants.

Si is the group of employees who turn up to work at the same time every morning and do the work they have been assigned. Not only do they not mind following orders, they actually enjoy following orders and slowly building something over time.

Crucially, it is not within Ne’s mandate to be giving out orders to Si in case the direction they have set turns out to be a dead end. Right now I am using Ne-Ti (as opposed to Ti-Ne) to write a strategy paper about my business idea (as well as another idea which I have not yet developed as much). Basically I am saying to my Ne: go crazy and put all of your great ideas in writing. During this phase Ti is only being used to provide some basic structure to the proposal. Then I will let my ‘pure Ti’ mull it over for a few days before making a decision about how to direct Si, or possibly go back to Ne and ask for some revisions.

It has been a frustrating week, but I have got a valuable lesson out of it all. It seems that Si needs to be explicitly told not to take orders from Ne and wait for the final sign off from Ti. Meanwhile, Ti needs to step up and fully inhabit its role as leader of the organisation.

Has anyone else experienced this type of scenario?

I found out the same about Si. Si is what eventually saved me from the self destructing Ne-Fe path i had been used to for many years. I taught me how essential REPETITION, routine, structure and attention to details are in order to tame Ne and make the most of it.

I think the 3rd function (Si for us INTP's) is the direct access to the Anima (for men) and (Animus for women)...

My Mum is an ISTJ, what i used to hate so much about her wasnt so much her Si but her Te expressing Si in mighty, ugly and neurotic ways...


See my earlier post on Si (or the 3rd function for any type anyway) being most possibly what Jung infered by the transcendent function bridging the conscious and unconscious:

http://www.intpforum.com/showthread.php?p=453878#post453878

 

[Jungle]

Thanks for the feedback guys - just catching up on this now. Some interesting perspectives.

@Architect - in terms of Si vs Se when it comes to focusing on details... my view is that both are concerned with details, but for different purposes. Si is particularly concerned with comparative relationships between what is there at the moment and what used to be there. Si is much better at 'spot the difference' type scenarios, and this also makes it naturally more inclined to an iterative approach to growth. "It all adds up" and "Another day, another dollar."

Se is more completely immersed in the actual sensory experience of external taste/sight/sounds. So you could argue that it is actually the more 'intensive' of the two. I would suggest that the reason Se is more 'global', as you say in the other thread, is because of its inevitable relationship with Ni. The Se collects all kinds of random (and intense) sensory fragments and the Ni shapes all of that into a global understanding of a subject.

@DIALECTIC - Interesting to contextualize this within the concepts of Anima/Animus and the transcendent function. I need to find out more about what Jung meant by these terms.

So is your view that the 3rd function is the anima/animus, the 4th function is the shadow, and the 8th function is the demon? I have heard a few people talk about the 4th as the shadow and the 8th as the demon, but the idea of the third as the anima/animus is new to me. So that's your own theory? Perhaps it would be good to have a new thread to discuss this, if there is not one already. Do you consider there to be Jungian concepts associated with any of the other functions?

From a few things I have skim-read I get the impression that the transcendent function is not so much one of the eight 'capability-functions', but more of a temporary phenomenon that emerges when an individual is undergoing transformation. Something like having a mystical vision in a dream.

Well, I am going to try to use the New Year transition to achieve a step change in my utilisation of Si. I really need to embrace this thing.

 

[Jungle]

@scorpiomover - The versioning strategy is good if you are working on something for publication. I use it quite extensively with my writing projects. I guess the challenge I was describing in my original post was more about making sure I am not wasting my Si resources on something that is actually never going to be productive, rather than the risk of over-extending myself and making a mistake (the latter can be mitigated with versioning as you say).

There is a saying that "You can try to dig a well in many different places and you will never find water, but if you stick to one place you will find water eventually." But that's not really true, because what if you are digging in the wrong place to begin with? No amount of versioning will help you, there just might not be any water in that location.

So the solution seems to be to use the full Ne-Ti-Si combo (in that chronology) to identify potential places to dig the well, make the decision to dig, and then to do the actual work of digging the well and eventually reaching the water.

 

[JimJambones]

A mistake often made in MBTI is that the cognitive function stack is prescriptive of certain behaviors, where the reverse is more likely, that the stack is representational of our behavioral tendencies. We have weak sensing, and it could be the third or fourth function; it doesn't really matter. The order is just part of the MBTI model, but isn't anything that is empirically true. Your sensing is weak because you prefer to think about abstract concepts. At any point in time you decide to stop doing so, your sensing will become stronger. It really depends on what your interests are. Part of this is innate, such as a tendency to daydream, ruminate, and contemplate. It is what you like to ruminate about and how you do it that creates the function that ultimately describes your type.

There is much debate in the typology communities about whether or not our brains are hardwired in certain ways that determine our personalities. In MBTI, some people believe that they their brain has a physical structure that is innate like a computer program and its outputs are the results of the inputs and "cognitive function" the person was born with.

What is it that distinguishes a person that has Fi with one that has Ti? Does one have an Fi brain and the other a Ti brain?

I've been pondering about this for quite some time. What I've come up with is that it is likely that are brains are hardwired with certain tendencies and cognitive abilities, but there are likely to be many numerous arrangements that probably create that result with people with different brain structures that have similar tendencies, behaviors, temperaments, and interests. All of which is descriptive of and represented by a cognitive function.It's just easier to assign these similarities with something called Ti, Fi, or whatever else loosely brings these people within the same category.

Anyways, what I was trying to get at is that Si is often used in a functional stack to describe the fact that to be a thinking person, one has to somewhat care about routine, consistency, and sensory comfort in order to do the type of thinking they prefer to do. I couldn't imagine a introvert who has dominant thinking, a person who loves to think about abstract concepts and loves problem solving, to be interested in a noisy, unpredictable environment. How would that be conducive to learning, and thinking in general?

Its a possibility that people have a tendency for thinking because of a love for problem solving(brain reward system) and an aversion to highly stimulating, sensory environments, among other things.

 

[Architect]

A mistake often made in MBTI is that the cognitive function stack is prescriptive of certain behaviors, where the reverse is more likely, that the stack is representational of our behavioral tendencies.

I agree

We have weak sensing, and it could be the third or fourth function; it doesn't really matter. The order is just part of the MBTI model, but isn't anything that is empirically true.

I disagree. This is easily observable empirically. Go look at the MBTI manual for starters, or your own experience. I like routine, and have attention to detail, but over my lifetime behaviors that would be ascribed to Ti and Ne far dominants the former. There is an imbalanced balance that is easily verified.

Anyways, what I was trying to get at is that Si is often used in a functional stack to describe the fact that to be a thinking person, one has to somewhat care about routine, consistency, and sensory comfort in order to do the type of thinking they prefer to do. I couldn't imagine a introvert who has dominant thinking, a person who loves to think about abstract concepts and loves problem solving, to be interested in a noisy, unpredictable environment. How would that be conducive to learning, and thinking in general?

What about ISTP's with Ti-Se? My brother is one as are coworkers. They love to think about practical problems, and in my brothers case with an ESFP & ESTP sons he has a very chaotic environment that he seems to like. In any case Se users are definitely not as much into a routine as Si users are in my experience.

 

[JimJambones]

What about ISTP's with Ti-Se? My brother is one as are coworkers. They love to think about practical problems, and in my brothers case with an ESFP & ESTP sons he has a very chaotic environment that he seems to like. In any case Se users are definitely not as much into a routine as Si users are in my experience.

I'll have to think about that.

 

[JimJambones]

"We have weak sensing, and it could be the third or fourth function; it doesn't really matter. The order is just part of the MBTI model, but isn't anything that is empirically true."

I disagree. This is easily observable empirically. Go look at the MBTI manual for starters, or your own experience. I like routine, and have attention to detail, but over my lifetime behaviors that would be ascribed to Ti and Ne far dominants the former. There is an imbalanced balance that is easily verified.

I haven't read the manual and I probably should, but I think we are actually on a similar page here. I have a tendency to look at the personalities from various angles, and have some trouble with the MBTI model. For instance, why are the cognitive functions in the order they are in? If you are a Ti dominant, why is Se or Ne the only option for auxillary. There really isn't a good reason other than introverted judging dominants must balance their psyche with an extroverted perceiving function, or else.....Or else what? It seems rather arbitrary that this must be the case. There's absolutely no empirical evidence for this. Then Si is assigned to be tertiary. Why is this? Couldn't it be Fi? Couldn't the inferior function be Se? There isn't a really good answer for this other than that is the model was selected to explain the personality. But, other models could be used to describe the same thing.

So this is where I tend to look at cognitive functions as representations of overall tendencies and behaviors. You can definitely observe someone who identifies with TiNe as being lesss concerned with what is going around them in the outside world, which gives them an appearance of absent-mindedness. But they cannot escape some sort of sensing need because everyone has the need at some level. It is just assigned low priority on the model. So yes, it is true INTPs can be observed to be low on sensing.

Something else that rubs me the wrong way is why do INTJs have Se and INTPs have Si? Other than the model requiring it to be so, the two types are nearly identical, except that one type is more conscientious, assertive, direct, and confident about their knowledge than the other. Both could be described as having a need for routine that gives the physical comfort needed to think about abstract concepts. Both are low on sensation. But is the sensing of the INTJ really any lower or inferior than that of the INTP? Are their feelings really more developed being in a tertiary position as opposed to the INTPs being in an inferior one. I seem to fail to see how functions can be used other than in a loose, general sort of way.

I don't know. I have lots of questions that seem to go unanswered, and even if they are, I am still left feeling unsatiated.

 

[Architect]

but I think we are actually on a similar page here.

Likely

I have a tendency to look at the personalities from various angles, and have some trouble with the MBTI model. For instance, why are the cognitive functions in the order they are in?

There's no theory I know of, but I have some ideas. I think we can take the following as a-priori axioms

• Assume that the functions are sufficient and necessary (meaning that they are what evolved as a necessary and complete set of abilities to deal successfully with the world)
• Assume therefore that they will necessarily fall into some particular order with relative strengths (if not then they provide no specialization which is what evolution aims for)
• As a consequence of these axioms, the functions must necessarily give rise to psychic energy. If not then they provide no useful advantage to the organism.
• Therefore, the functions must be in "balanced imbalance". There must necessarily be opposition, e.g. the dominant-inferior opposition. This provides psychic energy and motivational forces.

So to answer your question, the different types are just the enumeration of the functions, and the functions are a necessary minimal set to provide effective means of dealing with the world, and there's an ordering of the functions because that's what evolved also due to the necessity that the functions provide benefits.

If you are a Ti dominant, why is Se or Ne the only option for auxillary.

The dominant is primary, and so all the functions appear in a dominant of one type or another. From the axioms then there must be an anchoring and opposing inferior, so all the functions appear in the inferior too. That means that there must be smaller set in the aux and tertiary. Which exact ones has a evolutionary or psychic motivation. In this case, the aux, being the second strongest, must be one that complements and strengthens the dominant, in the sense of allowing the individual to perform more effectively in the world.

So, you get an extraverted dominant/introverted aux and vice versa. This provides variation and support. Likewise a judging function (e.g. Ti) requires a perceiving function (e.g. Ne) to support it as an information gatherer. A judging function with another judging function is too imbalanced.

 

[Cherry Cola]

U must stop use Si so much and maximize the Ne and Ti. It will most often fail but it is the only possible path to genius.

 

[Analyzer]

U must stop use Si so much and maximize the Ne and Ti. It will most often fail but it is the only possible path to genius.

Personality Hacker

 

[JimJambones]

Jungle,

I have found that extroverted feelings is also an important aspect of an INTP's life. It's not that I want to demonstrate significantly more extroverted feeling myself, although I'm sure it would help my relationships, but that I find myself enjoying life around people that demonstrate strong extroverted feeling in particular ways, like those who create a positive environment not only for me to feel comfortable sharing my ideas. but also so I feel comfortable sharing the feelings I do have. Sharing them with the wrong person is usually an embarrassment(I even feel stupid for writing this). It's as if I don't always know when or to whom it is appropriate. This tends to make me withdraw from feeling in general, but I have found that to be a mistake. I only need to find the right people to ease the inferiority I feel in this area to make me a more balanced person. I only hope that I have something to offer them beside the funniest jokes that humanity has every heard.

 

[EvilBlitz]

I haven't noticed that in particular with ISTJ's, we all use versioning extensively. It's an excellent tool.

I've seen that ISTJ's are really good at remembering details and (guess what) what worked in the past and what didn't. They're also good at just sitting in one place and working, and working and working. They're the most likely to need a program to remind them to get up and take a break. INTP's have Ne to prod them.

I work in laboratory and run multiple instruments. I find the ISTJs in particular are actually ignorant of past machine behaviour. I will point it out and even show evidence with logs and database info, while they will just ignore and come up with the most wack job reasons.
All of ISTJs I find have a strong make it work and as long as it works attitude. They dont seek to understand why or what is causing an instrument to deviate from past behaviour, so I find them poor at mastery.

 

[EvilBlitz]

Where ISTJs do have an issue, is they tend towards workaholism. They HATE being sick and/or on holiday. After 2 days, they want to get back to work, even when they have been really sick, and need to stay in bed to recover fully.

We're often completely clueless of time. Empirical beats theory.[/QUOTE]


Not true from my experience. Some ISTJs are hard workers, but it is certainly not even remotely default for their type. The lab and company I work at would be ~50% ISTJ. Only do enough to get the job done(as long as it works, no caring about precision or reliability or particularly efficiency of a process), dont give a shit about helping anyone else(thats their responsibility, ISFJs are the same)
They put up a good pretense of being hard workers, but they do just enough to "tick the boxes"

 

[DIALECTIC]

The INTP (and INFP) also have Introverted Sensing as their tertiary function. They can use this function to find and develop enjoyable routines in their life. They can use these routines and traditions to find comfort in a world that may be a bit challenging and chaotic to them. Introverted Sensing also has a high sense of nostalgia. The INFP and INTP may find themselves reconnecting with others they were close to in the past, as well as old hobbies.

http://personalitygrowth.com/introverted-sensing-si/