I think that's more Si, but maybe this is another part of your personal system. I'd be interested to hear more about that idea too.
I promise this will be my last attempt here, and so I hope I won't elicit such a defensive response this time.
I am looking for a more in-depth explanation of how your unique system works, and why you think non-INTP traits (Ni, for example) can still be INTP traits.
I'm always ready to prattle off the list of flaws with the MBTI/Jungian system. However, if you are going to work within a system, it is usually prudent to either work with the existing framework (as-is) or explain how your particular philosophy (or empirical evidence) deviates from the system.
In other words, if your goal is to successfully describe a new concept in personality theory or challenge MBTI/Jungian convention, simply saying "I'm Ni-dom or Ni-aux INTP" is insufficient.
Oh, I personally do use a lot of Si, probably more than the normal intp Si, but I am not sure of course, because this all is so subjective.
Well, it is sufficient for me.
And for anyone else who wants to pursue an intelligent discussion about the possibilities of cognitive functions not aligning perfectly with MBTI, or typological philosophy.
Namely, I propose this happens with trauma, abuse, and neglect when people are children. In my case, forced introversion when I should have been extraverting more. In others' cases, forced extraversion when they should have had more alone time, or time to think their own natural thoughts unhindered by fear.
And building a new framework (in typology or anything else) is VERY Ti. It is Te that mandates one must have proof for it to exist. Your PA response notwithstanding.
But if you'd like to discuss this further, that would be great.
I do not like to discuss things with an air of debate, but rather being on the same team, trying to get to the truth. Too often the truth is lost in posturing and semantics and I was hoping this forum would be different, because after all, it is an INTP forum.
