Unconvinced of Type; Am I truly INTP?

[Tholomyes]

Trying to determine my MBTI type;

So, I've taken the MBTI test multiple times, through multiple different venues that offer different phrasings on roughly the same basic questions, and I've scored as INTP every time, so far, but I'm still somewhat unconvinced. I am very certain of my N and P subsets, but F and E are a bit uncertain. I suppose part of the issue is that I suffer from very strong social anxiety, to the point that I have been diagnosed with AvPD (avoidant personality disorder), which in short, means though I want social interaction, I experience strong anxiety and reluctance to do so. I have read enough on the subject to know that Personality Disorders do not necessarily align with MBTI typing. As such, though I test as "I" I'm not convinced that that isn't my AvPD overpowering the rest of my personality on that question. For example, a question that has appeared on many MBTI tests in some form or another is: "I feel very comfortable around people." The issue, however, is that even if I were Extroverted, I would answer "Very Inaccurate" as my AvPD causes me intense anxiety in social situations, especially ones where I am relatively unfamiliar with the people in question.

The other issue that I have is that, while I test "T" and with very few exceptions, when logic and emotion come into conflict on a decision, logic wins out, I can't deny it's a hard-fought mental battle, and the fact that the areas in which I seem to differ most from the "portrait of a typical INTP" are in Feeling; as I've read, the stereotypical INTP can be overcritical, where I tend to be undercritical, and reluctant to actually provide criticism even when I know there's a fault in someone's reasoning. This is especially evident with group projects. As an engineering student, I am frequently put in a situation where a group member or multiple group members plan out an approach that I can forsee failing, for one reason or another. Even if I might know a better approach, if the faulty approach has been presented, I won't press the issue, and allow the first approach to fail, solely for the sake of conflict avoidance. While this might play into the inferior Fe function, it seems like even in this situation, my Ti should overrule it. Moreover, rather than the often cold, relatively unemotional portrait of an INTP, I feel very strong internal emotional responces; repressed very strongly, so they never reach the surface or affect my decision making, but definitely there under the surface. Even when flying in the face of my own rational arguments, I will experience emotional responces such as self loathing and self deprication, or even more perplexing, Survivor's guilt in the case of a natural, unpreventable death, which usually is ouside the bounds of what initiates such a psychological response.

In any event I would like to see if any members more familiar with the theory behind the MBTI can determine the answer to how either of these issues affects the test-given type, in terms of my actual personality type, or if this is within the normal bounds of an INTP.

 

[nebnobla]

Don't look at it like a mental disorder unless your schiz or down syndrome, etc, better described as a mental state, mostly characterized by your childhood experiences; you certainly are a mosaic of the things of the past and the strength of the feelings associated with each of them. I have the same social anxiety you do, and it's probably the same for a vast proportion of us INTPs. You may simply thinking too much, you should read some books from pick up artists and follow some behavioural training in the social area, even if you don't use them they are always a good read and make you feel confident; if your on meds try to get off them or get on the ones where you are most stable and composed, maybe take 2x100 mg 5-HTP (and vitamin B6) per day and SWIM says taking 100 mg of MDMA will turn an INTP into a ESFJ, which may bring some useful enlightenment in this situation even from only one occasion.

And in terms of the T-F thing, it may seem like you are an F sometimes; I like to think I yearn emotional connectivity with people but the T is so incredibly obvious that the case is likely that I have a strong F but much less than the magnitude of the T. The emotional deepness you speak of is something I can directly relate to. In any case, I believe there is a transition over time from childhood to adulthood in INTPs in which the T becomes more noticeable from your POV compared to F, not sure about others though.

You sound like an INTP. About the anxiety, it will haunt you, I know; if you are concerned about it that may remain your single largest haunt for your entire life. We INTPs have an issue of taking control of life sometimes, and yet it is probably the most satisfying thing when we succeed in applying our systems to our own lives as to substantiate the integrity of our proprietary mental constructions. This will sound weird, but in the social situations, try to stop thinking so much; smile, chin >=90 degrees to vertical, shoulders back and down but not so much that your chest pops out, never slouch, look very open, etc, the confidence is very key. You can live your life trying to wait for miracles, you can observe the universe and make structures but still be haunted by things you leave unsolved in reality, or you can take control of this special moment in time and organize the universe for yourself a little more as to feel better in this cosmic joke.

 

[Ex-User (9062)]

you should read some books from pick up artists

You mean sociopaths?

 

[Jennywocky]

Well, the running joke is that the more of these kinds of threads someone makes being unsure about their type, the more likely they are to be an INFP vs INTP.

That being said, many of the online "tests" have shortcomings. Some are homespun and not calibrated properly to make sure they test for what they test for. A question like, "I am comfortable around people" says nothing, as both introverts and extroverts could answer "yes" truthfully to that statement, yet they might both behave very differently in the same social situation depending on direction of energy flow. There are also contexts in which both could easily answer "no" depending on life experience. Developing proper questions is not as easy as it sounds, they have to specify one outcome over another, and perhaps even given some context if there are multiple contexts in which they could be answered.

I've struggled with avoidant-style behaviors usually in tandem with my depressive periods. I actually liked people in some ways and I'm an "open" person, but during my worst periods I would go as far to change my walking path through the workplace if I heard people coming, and I would be overwhelmed by anxiety and couldn't even make eye contact. your personal psychology impacts behavior as much as inherent type.

Which means sometimes you need to decide your type by gut instinct, not by conformance to someone else's checklist. Do you really think you're an F? What's your gut response?

I know what you mean about struggling with emotions, especially in my years of repression when they build up like a pressure cooker. We're all human and have physical bodies, so we all have emotional feedback systems. Emotions are meant to relay information and trigger responses that are supposed to protect or help us in some way (although they're fluid enough to sometimes not be so clearly helpful). Everyone has them. For me, the bottom line is that typically if I make a decision based on emotions or even on subjective values, I often feel far more uneasy than if I make one on a rational basis; the rational basis has always been easier, and I trust it more. I took many years to learn to integrate emotion into my daily life, as well as discover and integrate personal values into my daily life, but I could only do that because I had a decent rational basis on which to evaluate and vet them. So which approach was my "foundational approach" that I built on? Sometimes we can confuse ourselves, but if you look at yourself closely, you can see which set you more instinctively rely upon and use to evaluate the other.

 

[Brontosaurie]

as for allowing people to fail, that's more of a P thing than an F thing.

once you get deep into thee subliminal multi-factorial analysis you may find that expressing critical thought isn't always appropriate, and certainly not always congruent with your own optimal function in a group. personally i'm delighted to abstain or refrain from directing criticism whenever i can do so deliberately, rather than being prevented from intervening by fear of public denouncement. a surge of empowering equanimity, acceptance and mindfulness then springs up inside. no one else can see it, but hopefully it produces good results through recalibration of habit and self-concept.

as a thinking type one has a reductive, compulsory inclination toward impersonal criticism. getting past this, however, does not mean compromising ones rational prowess - it just means ripening cognitively and expanding ones domain of implementation (this process could be seen as approximating a theory of everything, very Ti). in the case of school group projects, you seem to have realized (albeit perhaps unconsciously) that the ultimate goal isn't to push the academic envelope but to get along, practice cooperation and obtain some result through adherence to basic scientific principles.

that being said, i'm not by any means excluding an F type in your case. just trying to explain why i think/feel that T doesn't necessarily mean disregarding the more interpersonal and holistic facets of a particular phenomenon, system or objective and trying to cram them into neat little boxes of narrow, contextual logic.

this post is some trippy-as-fuck shit. not sure if srs.

 

[Brontosaurie]

also kudos to nebnobla for being the resident drug person

everyone should have a drug person

 

[nebnobla]

All human actions are the indirect result of interactions of structures in the brain, drugs that have been predisposed from evolution, and happen to, when combined with logic (i.e. memory turned language, etc), have us avoiding stimulus that shoots "negative emotions," and yearning for the next moment that shoots us with "positive emotions.;" For example, think of things you enjoy doing like playing video games, things you do impulsively, etc, vs. things that take immense willpower to overcome (may crudely be modelled by amphipathic structure behaviour in different environments). These feelings will dictate your life almost to a predictable degree, and the chemical interactions defaulted for humans will eventually lead to the destruction of our race, as a democracy we cannot rely on a population of individuals to come up with solutions for problems (e.g. climate change, peak oil, population, etc) when each of those individuals cannot even think of them rationally cause they are too stoned on drugs that bring them down when they do; not to mention all the distracting stimuli that surrounds them and has them continuing their impulsive, one-sided trip of life.

My point in my first comment generally suggested that you may "run-your-program" with default parameters, i.e. without changing how the mental mechanics operates, or you may take control of it in a manner of profound grit, which may be appropriate if one finds themselves taking multiple SSRIs and medications to balance them out or is too depressed to do anything anyways, etc.

 

[nebnobla]

You mean sociopaths?

You may be organizing too much; not all PUAs are sociopaths (depending on the definition). Besides, as an INTP, cross-referencing every possible perspective and model within the minds of currently living individuals is super useful in constructing your grand construction of the universe; there's probably not enough time to come up with everything yourself and realize all the imperfections.

 

[Ex-User (9086)]

For example, think of things you enjoy doing like playing video games, things you do impulsively, etc, vs. things that take immense willpower to overcome (may crudely be modelled by amphipathic structure behaviour in different environments)

On the contrary you could derive greatest pleasure from overcoming your opposition to something. When you overcome what you perceive as your fault. Personally I lost most of my interest in impulses and tend to approach long term goals.

These feelings will dictate your life almost to a predictable degree, and the chemical interactions defaulted for humans will eventually lead to the destruction of our race, as a democracy we cannot rely on a population of individuals to come up with solutions for problems (e.g. climate change, peak oil, population, etc) when each of those individuals cannot even think of them rationally

Quite predictable if you rationally think of effects of such feelings. I don't think we will destroy ourselves, we may, but we could do it many times now. "We are doomed! Apocalypse is now, prepare for the worst." Evolution will take care of heavy addicts, don't worry.

 

[nebnobla]

On the contrary you could derive greatest pleasure from overcoming your opposition to something. When you overcome what you perceive as your fault. Personally I lost most of my interest in impulses and tend to approach long term goals.


Quite predictable if you rationally think of effects of such feelings. I don't think we will destroy ourselves, we may, but we could do it many times now. "We are doomed! Apocalypse is now, prepare for the worst." Evolution will take care of heavy addicts, don't worry.

Well all you have done in removing an imperfection is rid of a thing that would have constantly imposed negativity on you, which would increase your satisfaction level thus appearing as a long-term positive, analogous to the hydrophobic effect, in which the behaviour of avoidance of something negative dictates what is the lowest energy state, i.e. the most positive or yearned-for. This positive feeling is not the effect of a instantaneous chemical reaction in response to a stimuli of positivity which was the point I made; but yes, there are plenty examples of avoiding-negatives or removing-negatives resulting in a lower-energy state, i.e. happier in human context.

And I am not a pessimist I am a realist, and based on my understanding of the universe we will not adequately prepare for the complex problems that we have manufactured simple and wrong solutions for (such that we may continue our positive stimuli mining); I realize I may seem like a downer or pessimist while others have not considered that perhaps they are too optimistic and thus I seem relatively pessimistic.

And evolution may no longer really valid for increasing biodiversity--we have changed the environment too much for most "complex" organisms to survive, i.e. they are no longer in good adaptation to the environment they were designed for as we have imposed order on the complex system that happened to result in, e.g, the loss of 70% of our ozone layer (strongest UV shield; e.g., melanoma incidence increased 1600% from 1965-1995, think the fish and plants have sunscreen?), or that our atmospheric CO2 concentration is designed for a world from millions of years ago, etc. The loss of biodiversity may also affected by unpredictable climate patterns which makes it less likely that super-specialized characteristics that are dependent upon discrete environments will appear. It's kind of too much to think about as one component, most of our larger problems are very dependent and intertwined within each other, which makes any change to save ourselves more difficult from an organizational POV; probably best just to enjoy your life.

 

[Ex-User (9086)]

Whatever your view, its probably always best to enjoy what you like doing. Whether it is indulging in amplfied chemical reactions or avoiding harm.

Social evolution is still valid and selection of traits is present, although there are also negative traits that are passed with relative ease.

I do not reject the idea of incoming catastrophe, one might be overpopulation of earth, epidemy, loss of magnetic field, increased coronal ejections and overall sun activity, 100m+ falling space junk etc. We might be dealing with some or with many of these problems. However even in a postapocalyptic world there is existence for survivors, idea of hope and rebuilding is quite ingrained in us I would say.

One example is how the Japanese react to tsunami, that some decades ago would mean death for many coastal towns and now takes only thousands (mostly elderly people), but still thousands of souls.

 

[nebnobla]

Whatever your view, its probably always best to enjoy what you like doing. Whether it is indulging in amplfied chemical reactions or avoiding harm.

Social evolution is still valid and selection of traits is present, although there are also negative traits that are passed with relative ease.

I do not reject the idea of incoming catastrophe, one might be overpopulation of earth, epidemy, loss of magnetic field, increased coronal ejections and overall sun activity, 100m+ falling space junk etc. We might be dealing with some or with many of these problems. However even in a postapocalyptic world there is existence for survivors, idea of hope and rebuilding is quite ingrained in us I would say.

One example is how the Japanese react to tsunami, that some decades ago would mean death for many coastal towns and now takes only thousands (mostly elderly people), but still thousands of souls.

Yeah staying in the world of your own satisfaction is important, no one can accurately instruct another on how to feel good.

And yes social evolution still persists; I should think more about that.

And my point about the environmental change in response to imposed logical order as a result of logical humanity alludes to an irony that the environment that humans were designed for will no longer be able to sustain them as wild animals in a post-apocalyptic world; the Holocene is a mass extinction that will ravage the planet's capacity to sustain complex lifeforms, i.e. non-bacterial organisms, for hundreds of millions of years, and thus even after whatever cataclysmic event, we essentially reach the same ends. It's really ironic, but I like the idea because it fit's in my construct of the universe better--that intelligent life will wipe itself out and this is not a linear effect but in fact a cyclical pattern characteristic of all intelligent civilizations.

 

[Ex-User (9086)]

And my point about the environmental change in response to imposed logical order as a result of logical humanity alludes to an irony that the environment that humans were designed for will no longer be able to sustain them as wild animals in a post-apocalyptic world; the Holocene is a mass extinction that will ravage the planet's capacity to sustain complex lifeforms, i.e. non-bacterial organisms, for hundreds of millions of years, and thus even after whatever cataclysmic event, we essentially reach the same ends. It's really ironic, but I like the idea because it fit's in my construct of the universe better--that intelligent life will wipe itself out and this is not a linear effect but in fact a cyclical pattern characteristic of all intelligent civilizations.

This thread might be of interest to you.

I would say that level of support from enviroment will depend on the severity of this apocalypse, it might be something minor like wiping out all electricity due to magnetic instability or major events like boiling earth's crust to not habitable levels.

Better than inteligent life? Could you please show how life is not manifestation of inteligence? I seem not to understand this part. You could mean transhuman life here.

I am afraid universe is not cyclical on this very small scale, we might be given few devolutions after cataclysms but after some time our solar system will die and so will most of the universe, after that there are even more uncertainties.

I think a setting factor of post-mankind stability is far away, it would be to overcome internal conflicts, overcome dependency on single star systems via advanced space travel and terraformation etc. I agree, I might have expressed myself in a too unprobabilistic manner. There are many occasions where we could fuck up our case, but hey, thats our thing too, to fuck up.