Is it an insult to be called an INTJ?

[Philosophyking87]

How is logic-oriented=atheist?

It doesn't strike you as odd that the two most logical types (INTP, INTJ) tend to be atheists? There's probably a correlation. The stronger the fixation on logic, the more likely the individual will find it harder to accept belief systems which are logically difficult. And trust me, most religions aren't easy to digest for a logical person.

 

[Philosophyking87]

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

Indeed. Everyone wants to assume that their beliefs are entirely logical. Atheists just tend to have the warranted case.

 

[TheHmmmm]

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

Please, it runs in any competing social group. Each one isolates themselves in some form of elitism or another. It's all a competition.

 

[BigApplePi]

It doesn't strike you as odd that the two most logical types (INTP, INTJ) tend to be atheists? There's probably a correlation.

There are other correlations such as so-called "logical types" fail to have broad experience with non-linear logic.

The stronger the fixation on logic, the more likely the individual will find it harder to accept belief systems which are logically difficult.

Yes. The logical difficulty is over their head.

And trust me, most religions aren't easy to digest for a logical person.

Because they don't have faith in their logic or because they have too much faith in their logic?

You want to be trusted? Is that logical?

 

[Adymus]

You know... I actually take it as a complement when I am accused of being an INTJ, or even ENTP.

Just because the more developed you are, the more you will look like your other ("Other" Being defined as the personality type that uses your bottom four unconscious functions, so for an INTP it would be ENTJ, or for an ESTP it would be an ISTJ, basically flip the first and last letter.)

 

[Words]

Just because the more developed you are, the more you will look like your other ("Other" Being defined as the personality type that uses your bottom four unconscious functions, so for an INTP it would be ENTJ, or for an ESTP it would be an ISTJ, basically flip the first and last letter.)

An INTP can use Te and Ni?

(The idea that an INTP can look like an ENTJ is very appealing to me as I seek the "leadership" role.)

 

[Adymus]

An INTP can use Te and Ni?

(The idea that an INTP can look like an ENTJ is very appealing to me as I seek the "leadership" role.)

No, Te and Ni affect our unconscious, but we cannot use them like we can use our top four.

For an an INTP, we are affected by our Te and Ni after we peak. For an INTP the process of "peaking" means begining at our Ti, and ending at Fe. Starting with a Ti model our theory, using Ne to expand it, turning it into facts and a worldview through Si, and then articulating and sharing it through Fe. At that moment we often get insights from our conscious in the form of those unconscious functions. For an INTP it would start with gaining a wave of insights on how your model can be implemented in the future (Te and Ni), and what it will create and why it is fundamentally right (Se and Fi).


All personality types are wired to peak in the same way, but the pathway will be different depending on what their cognitive function hierarchy is.

 

[BigApplePi]

No, Te and Ni affect our unconscious, but we cannot use them like we can use our top four.

For an an INTP, we are affected by our Te and Ni after we peak. For an INTP the process of "peaking" means begining at our Ti, and ending at Fe. Starting with a Ti model our theory, using Ne to expand it, turning it into facts and a worldview through Si, and then articulating and sharing it through Fe. At that moment we often get insights from our conscious in the form of those unconscious functions. For an INTP it would start with gaining a wave of insights on how your model can be implemented in the future (Te and Ni), and what it will create and why it is fundamentally right (Se and Fi).


All personality types are wired to peak in the same way, but the pathway will be different depending on what their cognitive function hierarchy is.

Adymus. If we are aware that an INTP's cognitive function order is: Ti Ne Si Fe, I just consulted my notes on INTJ's. To my amazement they are: Ni Te Fi Se!

That says all the introverted/extroverted CF's are reversed. My experience on these boards is that INTJs and INTPs often have doubts about which they are. It would appear they can be, believe it or not, close. Can the subconscious be so powerful (can we be so rigid?) that it cannot be brought to consciousness? It is one opinion to say that a temperament is hard-wired and polarized and another to say it is hardwired, but near the edge and available for exchange or crossover.

 

[Adymus]

Adymus. If we are aware that an INTP's cognitive function order is: Ti Ne Si Fe, I just consulted my notes on INTJ's. To my amazement they are: Ni Te Fi Se!

That says all the introverted/extroverted CF's are reversed. My experience on these boards is that INTJs and INTPs often have doubts about which they are. It would appear they can be, believe it or not, close. Can the subconscious be so powerful (can we be so rigid?) that it cannot be brought to consciousness? It is one opinion to say that a temperament is hard-wired and polarized and another to say it is hardwired, but near the edge and available for exchange or crossover.

When INTP's are "Rigid" it has nothing to do with their unconscious Te and Ni, but their Conscious Ti and Si.

When ever you see a personality type behaving a certain way, it will never be because of their unconscious four functions, because we have no conscious control over them, and are never using them on a conscious level. Therefore behavior can only be manifested by conscious functions. The reason I say we will "look" more like our unconscious other, is because we will be putting more energy into the strong side of our other (In the case of an INTP, the dynamics quadrant.) But we still won't actually be using Te, we will be using Fe.

INTPs and INTJs are often confused, not because they are close (because they are soooo not) but because the descriptions are very vague and only focus on superficial aspects of them.

So to answer your question, the only time the unconscious function surface to the conscious mind is in the form of those insights that I talked about above. But we will never be able to control their usage, and use them on command like we use our top four functions.

 

[Jah]

You'd still be you, the only difference is the map.

YouTube- Robert Anton Wilson explains Quantum Physics
(This explains it, trust me.)
The photon is not a wave nor a particle, but seems that way due to the way we try to make it fit with our model. It's only the map/the label, that changes.
To be Called INTJ, is like being from Norway and being called Swedish.
Either they're right, and I'm actually swedish, in which case, it doesn't matter.
Or they're wrong, and have interpreted the map falsely, in which case it's themselves they insult.
Or they think I would consider it an insult and I really couldn't care less, and it still doesn't matter, and proves themselves worthy of insult (due to the foolish attempt made to insult. Lessening their value in my opinion.)

 

[BigApplePi]

Oh my. Why are we bringing up quantum physics here? When Dr. "Quantum" says a theory shows photons are particles and another theory says they are waves, I find that misleading. It's like the blind men feeling an elephant where one says "this is a tree" and another says "this is a snake." Each theory is looking at only a part. Also when something clumsy observes something delicate, of course it messes up what is observed.

I suspect something along those lines is happening when we judge INTPs and INTJs.

 

[BigApplePi]

When INTP's are "Rigid" it has nothing to do with their unconscious Te and Ni, but their Conscious Ti and Si.

When ever you see a personality type behaving a certain way, it will never be because of their unconscious four functions, because we have no conscious control over them, and are never using them on a conscious level. Therefore behavior can only be manifested by conscious functions. The reason I say we will "look" more like our unconscious other, is because we will be putting more energy into the strong side of our other (In the case of an INTP, the dynamics quadrant.) But we still won't actually be using Te, we will be using Fe.

INTPs and INTJs are often confused, not because they are close (because they are soooo not) but because the descriptions are very vague and only focus on superficial aspects of them.

So to answer your question, the only time the unconscious function surface to the conscious mind is in the form of those insights that I talked about above. But we will never be able to control their usage, and use them on command like we use our top four functions.

Jah mentioned a "map." I'm now wondering if the map says certain cognitive functions are in the conscious area and the others are in the unconscious area. Adymus you seem to be saying they are separate. No overlap. No straying. If I read you right, no matter what an INTP does, it is always some variation of Ti-Ne-Si-Fe. If the INTP behaves poorly, badly, awkwardly, immaturely it is still Ti-Ne-Si-Fe.

You say we don't have conscious control over our unconscious four functions. While that is true, I see no reason why something unconscious can't be brought into consciousness. While it may be resisted or uncomfortable, if intentionally sought out, why can't unconscious functions be made conscious, if only temporarily?

 

[Adymus]

Pi, you are probably not going to be satisfied with this answer, but to put it simply: because that is just not how we are wired. There is a structure to the way our four functions are wired in a hierarchy, there is push and pull, balance and counter balance between functions, they are not just random functions all slapped together.

Our true functions are the 4 priorities: Dynamics, Stimulus, Worldview and compass. A compass is really more than just Ti or just Fi. It is more like Ti with a little bit of unconscious Fi mixed in, or Fi will a little bit of unconscious Ti. Because a compass cannot exist without both Fi and Ti, and the same goes for the other priorities. However, there is no need for us to randomly be able switch to Fi mode, because the compass priority is already taken up by Ti. Ti actually serves the same purpose in the psyche, only It does it with logic based criteria as opposed to values based criteria.

However, even though the priorities are compositional, it does not mean that you are actually consciously using both functions within them. For instance, in order for Ne to work it must be able to Perceive Se as well. Ne picks up patterns within an Se detail. But the reason you are using Ne and not Se is because Ne is delivering completely different information to you than straight Se would be. So in other words, the Se is there, but your mind is only registering the information gained by Ne.

I feel like this answer is inadequate, but really we actually have no reason to be able to have conscious control over the bottom four functions. We don't need to have conscious control over them to function, and on top of that, I think it would actually make more sense that we would not be able to use all eight function consciously just because 1. It is redundant, and 2. It actually makes the collective species stronger when these functions are done by different types and not all by one type.

 

[Polaris]

It doesn't strike you as odd that the two most logical types (INTP, INTJ) tend to be atheists? There's probably a correlation. The stronger the fixation on logic, the more likely the individual will find it harder to accept belief systems which are logically difficult. And trust me, most religions aren't easy to digest for a logical person.

The puzzling thing is though, once the NT has ventured into the realm of logic, the realisation that everything cannot really be explained rationally, or objectively becomes painfully evident.....

Back to Jesus. Or Buddha. Or whomever.........whatever

 

[Words]

Everything cannot really be explained.

Really?

 

[Polaris]

Really?

Hah. I was expecting your reply, Words.

Words, words, words.........

But have we really explained anything?

What explanation is rational, in your subjective view?

As your thoughts are merely a product of your own intelligence.....can they ever be anything but subjective?

Where is the real answer, if not the answer we choose to be the "correct" answer....in our own mind.

I've just turned myself inside out....argh

I do not necessarily agree with my own argument, so if you argue against it, I may disappointingly agree......

And I think I have derailed the topic........typical INTP. Or was that INTJ?

 

[BigApplePi]

Pi, you are probably not going to be satisfied with this answer, but to put it simply: because that is just not how we are wired. There is a structure to the way our four functions are wired in a hierarchy, there is push and pull, balance and counter balance between functions, they are not just random functions all slapped together.

Our true functions are the 4 priorities: Dynamics, Stimulus, Worldview and compass. A compass is really more than just Ti or just Fi. It is more like Ti with a little bit of unconscious Fi mixed in, or Fi will a little bit of unconscious Ti. Because a compass cannot exist without both Fi and Ti, and the same goes for the other priorities. However, there is no need for us to randomly be able switch to Fi mode, because the compass priority is already taken up by Ti. Ti actually serves the same purpose in the psyche, only It does it with logic based criteria as opposed to values based criteria.

However, even though the priorities are compositional, it does not mean that you are actually consciously using both functions within them. For instance, in order for Ne to work it must be able to Perceive Se as well. Ne picks up patterns within an Se detail. But the reason you are using Ne and not Se is because Ne is delivering completely different information to you than straight Se would be. So in other words, the Se is there, but your mind is only registering the information gained by Ne.

I feel like this answer is inadequate, but really we actually have no reason to be able to have conscious control over the bottom four functions. We don't need to have conscious control over them to function, and on top of that, I think it would actually make more sense that we would not be able to use all eight function consciously just because 1. It is redundant, and 2. It actually makes the collective species stronger when these functions are done by different types and not all by one type.

I am getting closer to accepting your answers. Not quite there yet. I think your explanation may be quite alright. My way of looking for explanations leans far more to linear logic than to the "narrative" style you present. (That is a clumsy way of putting it but hopefully I'll be able to rectify later.) At some point I had planned to comment on: Cognitive Functions 100:... but just have not gotten around to it. I am trying to do too many things and end up being a "Jack of all trades; master of none. Give me some time and I hope to get to it.
__________________________________

To your current commentary when you speak of Ti, Fi and compass. I think you are saying for the INTP, the Ti so overwhelms the Fi there is no need to speak of it. Perhaps we can say it this way:

It is impossible to be subjective(I) and be objective(E) at the same time.
It is impossible to view breadth(N) and specifics(S) at the same time.
It is impossible to logicalize (T) and evaluate(F) at the same time.
It is impossible to observe(P) and direct(J) at the same time.

My query is a little different. Why can't an INTP who normally uses Ti, say they will abandon Ti and try out Fi? Suppose we try not to think of their motive. Let's say it is an experiment. They might feel uncomfortable and soon quit, but are they able to do it?

Can we come up with a correct example? Not sure. Try this:
An INTP wishes to define "good" precisely. He goes at it, comes up with his own definition. It seems acceptable to him in broad application. He tries it out with others. Seems to work and others go for it. This is Ti, Ne, Si, and Fe if I've got it right. Then one day he is not particularly thinking. Something others would rate as bad happens to him. Say a friend betrays him. He is not thinking but is greatly peeved. He feels this is bad, is enraged and abandons reason. He goes on an inner rampage.

Is this Fi or do we have a false INTP this could not happen to in the first place? If he is an INTP we could argue this is Fe, but I'm not thinking that way. I'm proposing this thinking INTP never covered the issue of betrayal when he was intellectualizing. He never thought of it and when it happened, it so surprised and angered him, instead of turning to his reason, he turned to feeling and decided, "To hell with everything else. I'm pissed and I'm right and I'm gonna kill."

The next day he wakes up, reasons it out, decides he was wrong and the feeling goes away. But was he Fi yesterday?

Example 2. Dante sees this hot babe, Beatrice. He decides she will lead him throughout his excursions in hell he is going to write about .... an intellectual process, but all the while thinking about what a luscious creature she is. Is this Fi?

 

[Adymus]

To your current commentary when you speak of Ti, Fi and compass. I think you are saying for the INTP, the Ti so overwhelms the Fi there is no need to speak of it. Perhaps we can say it this way:

It is impossible to be subjective(I) and be objective(E) at the same time.
It is impossible to view breadth(N) and specifics(S) at the same time.
It is impossible to logicalize (T) and evaluate(F) at the same time.
It is impossible to observe(P) and direct(J) at the same time.

Not overwhelming, but outright superseding. No, actually we can't say it that way, unless you are talking about preferences. If you are saying it is impossible to have a preference for both being subjective and objective, etc, then yes. But we actually can use several of those process at the same time, in fact, that is usually how we normally use them.

My query is a little different. Why can't an INTP who normally uses Ti, say they will abandon Ti and try out Fi? Suppose we try not to think of their motive. Let's say it is an experiment. They might feel uncomfortable and soon quit, but are they able to do it?

Because it is essentially like asking "Why can't I abandon my legs and try out my wings?" You can't just "try" something out if it not present in the first place. You can go ahead and try this experiment yourself if you like, but you are just going to end up with the same result, either using Ti or Fe.

Can we come up with a correct example? Not sure. Try this:
An INTP wishes to define "good" precisely. He goes at it, comes up with his own definition. It seems acceptable to him in broad application. He tries it out with others. Seems to work and others go for it. This is Ti, Ne, Si, and Fe if I've got it right. Then one day he is not particularly thinking. Something others would rate as bad happens to him. Say a friend betrays him. He is not thinking but is greatly peeved. He feels this is bad, is enraged and abandons reason. He goes on an inner rampage.
Is this Fi or do we have a false INTP this could not happen to in the first place? If he is an INTP we could argue this is Fe, but I'm not thinking that way. I'm proposing this thinking INTP never covered the issue of betrayal when he was intellectualizing. He never thought of it and when it happened, it so surprised and angered him, instead of turning to his reason, he turned to feeling and decided, "To hell with everything else. I'm pissed and I'm right and I'm gonna kill."
The next day he wakes up, reasons it out, decides he was wrong and the feeling goes away. But was he Fi yesterday?

Okay first of, you seem to be thinking we have to use Ti to replace emotion. Like if we don't define what is good and bad, then we will not have any concept of it at all. That is not what I am saying at all, we already have Fe for making values based decisions, we don't have to make Ti do it's job, we are not complete robots. The case of the rampaging INTP actually sounds like Fe rage, his Fe is so intense that it actually suppresses his Ti's ability to approach the subject rationally. It actually sounds like a classic Ti dominant grip experience.

 

[Jah]

I've always thought Introversion and Extraversion were more like the polar ends of a spectrum that we all fall in between than definite cases. ?

 

[Adymus]

I've always thought Introversion and Extraversion were more like the polar ends of a spectrum that we all fall in between than definite cases. ?

Well, that is the MBTI way of looking at is, which is not nuanced, and well... wrong.
No, it is actually one or the other. You are either going to be stimulated by the external world, or stimulated by the internal world. Both just can't work. When you see Introverts who are talkative then it is not because they are less de-energized by the external world, it could be for a handful of reasons: Better developed extroverted functions (Se, Ne, Fe, or Te), more confident in their articulation skills, or they have learned how to use their more draining extroverted functions more efficiently.

I am not saying it is black and white in the sense that we are doomed to either be socially incompetent, or permanently outside ourselves for life. What I am saying is that we will always have a preference, there are no true ambiverts.

 

[BigApplePi]

Okay first of, you seem to be thinking we have to use Ti to replace emotion. Like if we don't define what is good and bad, then we will not have any concept of it at all. That is not what I am saying at all, we already have Fe for making values based decisions, we don't have to make Ti do it's job, we are not complete robots.

I'm with you on that. Fe is the normal expression of emotion for an INTP if I'm reading you correctly.

The case of the rampaging INTP actually sounds like Fe rage, his Fe is so intense that it actually suppresses his Tbi's ability to approach the subject rationally. It actually sounds like a classic Ti dominant grip experience.

It's that last sentence I'm after. You mean his emotions have taken over his reason? Do you recall that post just made on this thread by Jah? Re: Is it an insult to be... Could this be a matter of how we use words? Your language/system wishes to call it extroverted(objective) emotion. But this emotion comes from the unconscious. It seems subjective to me. If it's subjective can it be called Fi coming to the surface? Yes it grips Ti.

Not to forget example #2. Dante is writing The Divine Comedy. Whatever his motives, a women he's seen but once is inspiring him. This can't be a conscious objective feeling (Fe), can it? So I want to label it, Fi.

 

[Adymus]

I'm with you on that. Fe is the normal expression of emotion for an INTP if I'm reading you correctly.
It's that last sentence I'm after. You mean his emotions have taken over his reason? Do you recall that post just made on this thread by Jah? Re: Is it an insult to be... Could this be a matter of how we use words? Your language/system wishes to call it extroverted(objective) emotion. But this emotion comes from the unconscious. It seems subjective to me. If it's subjective can it be called Fi coming to the surface? Yes it grips Ti.

Not to forget example #2. Dante is writing The Divine Comedy. Whatever his motives, a women he's seen but once is inspiring him. This can't be a conscious objective feeling (Fe), can it? So I want to label it, Fi.

If you are actively feeling this emotion, then it is clearly present on a conscious level. Saying that you are unconsciously feeling emotion makes no sense at all. The only thing subjective about it is that you are personally feeling it, and then interpreting what it means. But in your example given, the friend broke something objective, the rules of social etiquette, and now you are feeling it and interpreting these feeling (the interpretation is subjective), this is still Fe.

Example #2: Why the hell can't this be conscious objective feeling if he is consciously rationalizing it?

Edit: What are we even using Dante as an example, what makes you think he is even an INTP?

 

[BigApplePi]

Well, that is the MBTI way of looking at is, which is not nuanced, and well... wrong.
No, it is actually one or the other. You are either going to be stimulated by the external world, or stimulated by the internal world. Both just can't work. When you see Introverts who are talkative then it is not because they are less de-energized by the external world, it could be for a handful of reasons: Better developed extroverted functions (Se, Ne, Fe, or Te), more confident in their articulation skills, or they have learned how to use their more draining extroverted functions more efficiently.

I am not saying it is black and white in the sense that we are doomed to either be socially incompetent, or permanently outside ourselves for life. What I am saying is that we will always have a preference, there are no true ambiverts.

Here is my story on that topic for tonight. I got back an hour and a half ago from a lecture preceded by half an hour socializing. Not eager to chat I stood alone. Some extroverted lady came up to me, said "I see you are standing alone" and proceeded to talk to me. I talked to her. Not having been stimulated before, now I was. Next to me standing there was an obvious introvert. I rarely if ever initiate conversations. But now I was stimulated and possibly because of my self-knowledge (or whatever) from this board I initiated a conversation with this man. It wasn't hard as he started right in to tell me about himself. I was interested as we had minor things in common.

 

[BigApplePi]

Example #2: Why the hell can't this be conscious objective feeling if he is consciously rationalizing it?

Edit: What are we even using Dante as an example, what makes you think he is even an INTP?

I am trying to present the example as "in the back of Dante's mind." He lets his feelings about Beatrice guide his thought. No. I hadn't thought about Dante being an INTP. I wanted to suggest this could be me or anyone inspired by a women fantasy and left in the back of one's mind. You say "consciously rationalizing it" but I say just between the conscious and unconscious level. Mildly aware, then forgotten but recalled when needed. Now if you reply by saying he is grabbing a prop which has a tinge of emotional quality but using it in the service of his powerful Ti, I would go along with that. That would fit your model I believe. I admit now I am talking about a hypothetical Dante as I don't know the real one.

 

[Jah]

I think I'm beginning to grasp the concept.
But then; It is not necessarily that even though the Ti is dominant it is equally dominant in all INTPs. ?
and though the way of relating to the external may be mainly through intuition, the feeling may be, in some cases, almost equally developed as the intuition ?


(Theoretically an INTP could be with a higher developed Si than the Ne making his relation to the external world below average, to say the least. Perhaps in a slightly disturbed individual ? -just as a hypothetically fucked INTP ? )

 

[Adymus]

I am trying to present the example as "in the back of Dante's mind." He let's his feelings about Beatrice guide his thought. No. I hadn't thought about Dante being an INTP. I wanted to suggest this could be me or anyone inspired by a women fantasy and left in the back of one's mind. You say "consciously rationalizing it" but I say just between the conscious and unconscious level. Mildly aware, then forgotten but recalled when needed. Now if you reply by saying he is grabbing a prop which has a tinge of emotional quality but using it in the service of his powerful Ti, I would go along with that. That would fit your model I believe. I admit now I am talking about a hypothetical Dante as I don't know the real one.

I think Dante is actually an INFJ, but they are still Fe and Ti users, so I guess that is irrelevant.

In many ways Fe actually is "in the back of our mind" for an INTP considering it takes the least space in our conscious mind. But while it it is the most subconscious of all of our function it is still not unconscious, in fact, making it more conscious it a big part of developing Fe for us.

Anyway, your example of Dante and Beatrice is a rather complicated one, as I would say much more is being cross referenced than just a single function like Fe, it actually sounds like there is more Ni in that thought than anything.

 

[Adymus]

I think I'm beginning to grasp the concept.
But then; It is not necessarily that even though the Ti is dominant it is equally dominant in all INTPs. ?
and though the way of relating to the external may be mainly through intuition, the feeling may be, in some cases, almost equally developed as the intuition ?


(Theoretically an INTP could be with a higher developed Si than the Ne making his relation to the external world below average, to say the least. Perhaps in a slightly disturbed individual ? -just as a hypothetically fucked INTP ? )

It would not be accurate to say that not all INTPs have equally dominant Ti, it is either dominant or not, that part in particular is not a sliding scale. what I think you are referring to is how much stronger the functions below it are. For instance and INTP with stronger Fe than another will be able to use Fe to "pull the reins" of their Ti in ways the INTP with less develop Fe will not be able to. Serving as a more improved check and balance, if that makes sense.
While I can see the logic in you calling this a "less dominant" Ti, it is still a very confusing way of putting it, so I would rather not call it that. It also makes it sounds like the INTP with less developed Fe is the stronger one of the two which is just not true.

While it is possible for a lower function to be more developed than the one it is under (Except for the dominant function, which is always the strongest), there is still a hierarchy that is in place. For instance, it is possible for an INTP to have stronger Si than Ne, but there is actually still a preference for Ne regardless. So they will not completely act like an ISTJ or something, because they will still favor the abstract in that it is more stimulating for them, but they won't be as confident with the information they are getting from Ne, as they would be from Si.
By the way, this is actually more common than you might think. I used to be like this.

However, an INTP having Fe more developed than Ne, probably won't happen, it does not make sense that they would use something as horribly draining as Fe more than Ne which they are drawn to. I suppose it might be possible, but extremely unlikely.

 

[Jah]

With a certain amount of consciousness to go around, increasing one means decreasing all the others relative to the increase of the one. Increased Ti or decreased everything else, due to the impossibility of comparing between people, the dominant is always the dominant, and in that respect an INTP is an INTP.
Relatively speaking, the Ti in the INTP with stronger Fe, is lower than in the INTP with less powerful Fe. Increasing one would have the same effect as lowering the other, since they are opposites. (there's the scale that balances, the -1 / 1 on an axis. In my visualization of the system, with the INTPs X axis (always in the positive in order for it to be INTP) being between the functions Ti on the + side and Fe on the - , and the subsequent Ne / Si on the Y axis. (You could probably make a Z axis denoting E/I qualities, but right now I'm a little tired))

But I think I understand what you mean by saying the Ti as equally dominant, though I've probably argued against it here, since lemonade with more water is less dominated by the taste of lemon, even though it will always be above a certain limit in order for it to be called lemonade... (Sorry, I revert to odd aphorisms/metaphors when tired. is that Ne ?)

 

[Jah]

Damn, I just realized that it might be more correct to mark the positions of along the X axis, the Dominance of one over the other then being measured as the distance between the two..
Though it would never be done, to put the horse in front of the cart, all that ever changes is the distance between the horse and the cart.

 

[Adymus]

You are kind of on the right track but I think you are misunderstanding something.

Having a well developed Fe does not mean that your Ti is permanently truncated. What it means is that you can modulate between Ti and Fe easier, truncating Ti when it needs to be refined, and truncating Fe when Ti needs to be concentrated on. You can expand either of the two functions on command, they are not constantly competing for dominance like you seem to think they are. For instance if I am on my computer, as I am right now, My Ti is really not being truncated by Fe, since I don't really have anyone around me to cause me to modulate it, aside from the Fe I am using to type this post. Having the ability to rein in Ti with Fe is not a bad thing, so don't think of it as losing a part of yourself by developing Fe. Because this ability overall expands your apparatus as a whole, including Ti.

 

[Jah]

So the correction with the horse and the cart may be more precise.
Ti being the Horse, will always be in front and doing the pulling.

The cart can get pretty close to the horse, though it will always be the horse (no, leave cars out of it) that does the pulling.

 

[Words]

Well, that is the MBTI way of looking at is, which is not nuanced, and well... wrong.
No, it is actually one or the other. You are either going to be stimulated by the external world, or stimulated by the internal world. Both just can't work.

When you see Introverts who are talkative then it is not because they are less de-energized by the external world, it could be for a handful of reasons: Better developed extroverted functions (Se, Ne, Fe, or Te), more confident in their articulation skills, or they have learned how to use their more draining extroverted functions more efficiently.

I am not saying it is black and white in the sense that we are doomed to either be socially incompetent, or permanently outside ourselves for life. What I am saying is that we will always have a preference, there are no true ambiverts.

But preference per se varies. It is because of this reason that people can't be purely preferring one type of behavior than another.

Within the world of ideas, an Intuitive/Sensor will only select what s/he desires to learn or focus on.

Likewise, within the world of details.

Have you ever experienced actually preferring to finish a project than not?

Also about talkativeness. When trying to type someone. I believe its best to assume that one who is talkative has the higher percentage of being an extrovert. In other words, thinking in probabilities is best the method when typing because there is no 100% of any type.

 

[Adymus]

So the correction with the horse and the cart may be more precise.
Ti being the Horse, will always be in front and doing the pulling.

The cart can get pretty close to the horse, though it will always be the horse (no, leave cars out of it) that does the pulling.

You catch on fast.

One thing I would add is that Fe is kind of like the rider, in that it can pull on the horse's rains to slow it down, or it can allow the horse to run at full speed. But that makes it sound like Fe is in control so maybe that is not the best analogy.

 

[Adymus]

But preference per se varies. It is because of this reason that people can't be purely preferring one type of behavior than another.

Within the world of ideas, an Intuitive/Sensor will only select what s/he desires to learn or focus on.

Likewise, within the world of details.

Have you ever experienced actually preferring to finish a project than not?

Also about talkativeness. When trying to type someone. I believe its best to assume that one who is talkative has the higher percentage of being an extrovert. In other words, thinking in probabilities is best the method when typing because there is no 100% of any type.

We have the ability to adapt when we need to, but we still have a preference. Yes I have experienced wanting to finish a project, but the question is, was the activity of putting structure into something stimulating for me? Hell no.

As for thing on talkativeness, I can't agree with this. If it is more likely the extrovert with be the talkative one, then that probability is only around 55% to 60%, it has been wrong too often for me to bank off of it.
Probabilities are a terrible idea when typing, this is where you really have to check your Ti, because it does want to slip into probability mode, and will end up making bad assumptions. You will often find yourself thinking things like "Well how likely is it that an MMA fighter would be intuitive? Not likely, I guess he is a sensor."

Reliance on probability is why the vast majority of people everywhere (including the authorities) suck at typing people.

 

[Words]

We have the ability to adapt when we need to, but we still have a preference. Yes I have experienced wanting to finish a project, but the question is, was the activity of putting structure into something stimulating for me? Hell no.

Your implying that its impossible for an "N" to be interested in detail alone?

As for thing on talkativeness, I can't agree with this. If it is more likely the extrovert with be the talkative one, then that probability is only around 55% to 60%, it has been wrong too often for me to bank off of it.
Probabilities are a terrible idea when typing, this is where you really have to check your Ti, because it does want to slip into probability mode, and will end up making bad assumptions. You will often find yourself thinking things like "Well how likely is it that an MMA fighter would be intuitive? Not likely, I guess he is a sensor."

Reliance on probability is why the vast majority of people everywhere (including the authorities) suck at typing people.

Interesting. What then do you think is the most efficient way?

 

[Adymus]

Your implying that an "N" can't be interested in detail alone?

They cannot be stimulated by Detail alone. Interested is a bit vague, so I won't touch that one. No one is "interested" in detail alone, there is always a reason for it. Unless of course that reason is the sensual experience, but for an N it is still technically more than the sensation alone that they are getting out of that.

Interesting. What then do you think is the most efficient way?

Reading people, but that is not something I can teach over this forum... Not very effectively anyway.

 

[BigApplePi]

Metaphor. Analyze this:

If the INTP is the auto, Ti is the engine, Ne is the driver, Si is the styling, Fe is the passengers. The engine drives the whole thing, the driver decides to travel, the styling decides how the auto will perform and if it is accepted, the passengers critique everything.

If the INTJ is the auto, what is will be used for is primary and how it is used is next. Styling is not as important and passengers had well better appreciate the ride.

If the autos should crash, the INTJ will complain all his plans have been thwarted, but the INTP will know whose fault it was.

If the autos miss each other that is because the INTJ knows where he's going while the INTP drives around in circles.

 

[walfin]

If the autos miss each other that is because the INTJ knows where he's going while the INTP drives around in circles.

Lol. That's because the INTP car is driven by its engine!

Reliance on probability is why the vast majority of people everywhere (including the authorities) suck at typing people.

No, the problem is stereotyping.

Ultimately everything is probability (there is always a chance you can be wrong). The problem is using the probabilities for the general population without reference to a specific fact situation.