What is an ISINTP?

[INTPINFP]

I think I am 45% ISTP and 40% INTP. So what is the personality that is like a combination of the two?

 

[Ermine]

That would be an IxTP.

 

[Reverse Transcriptase]

No, comeon, there doesn't exist an inbetween!

The thing is that with ISTP and INTP the primary function is Introverted thinking. The secondary and tertiary functions are Sensing and Intuition, so they could be pretty close as far as development.

The way we're going to tell which one you are is the direction of these cognitive functions. SO: Do you feel that you are good at picking up on the details of your environment? Things like how the condiments are set up at a restaurant table, what signs say, etc. Do you find it easy to imagine possibilities of what could happen in the real world?

 

[Decaf]

I think I am 45% ISTP and 40% INTP. So what is the personality that is like a combination of the two?

If you're worried about being one or the other meaning you wouldn't exhibit certain behavior that is common to the alternative, don't worry. Personality type theory does a good job of describing the way that the brain tends to construct itself given homogeneous circumstances. Upbringing can have a big impact on habits, behaviors, world views, etc. It can also heavily influence the order of development of the individual.

That being said it is very unlikely that the first two functions won't be opposites, because it makes the most sense for a brain to do that (and I believe when the brain doesn't you start running into real psychological disorders). If your two dominant functions are opposite (as in one is judging, the other perceiving, one is introverted, the other extraverted) then you will have one identifiable type in the set of 16. The other functions and their level of conscious control are negotiable, but often follow a theme for the same reason that the first two are most often opposite. The brain is simply bringing to conscious control the function that seems to be the logical complement to the existing set of functions. The 4th function, or inferior function is a bit of an exception because while it makes sense to develop it, the brain spends very little time doing that, preferring to spend it on its opposite, the dominant function. Because of that it stays immature for quite a while for most people that aren't forced for some reason or another to develop it.

In the case of INTP and ISTP you're dealing with a function swap of the auxiliary and tertiary processes. You can most easily spot the difference by whichever function fills the auxiliary spot because it will be extraverted. INTPs apply themselves to the outside world by supplying the world with ideas carefully constructed with its dominant introverted thinking. ISTPs apply themselves to the world in a physical way, becoming highly competent in a number of skills and using that competence to create things of importance to the individual.

Does that help?

 

[Death]

I think I am 45% ISTP and 40% INTP. So what is the personality that is like a combination of the two?

Where is the rest 15% gone to?

 

[Raku]

Very informative Decaf. I've been 'struggling' with myself over this issue a bit, since I can relate to both sides of the fence. But I can see now it was mostly because of my lack of understanding of typing. Especially the last lines of your reply made it clear for me.

 

[Jennywocky]

ISTP and INTP seem similar in some ways, and it's usually the interface of the Ti -- they both think soundly and structuredly. You can almost predict the logical path via which they'll approach a question. they both also have the same typical propensity for Fe neuroses and emotion disregard/stuffing.

So it's the secondary + tertiary where things differ.
ISTP = Se + Ni
INTP = Ne + Si

like others have said, ISTP (using Se) seems to collect more tangible data and focus on the data itself. INTPs are far more interested in the implications and possibilities of the data rather than the hard data. (In discussions, I've seen ISTPs far more inclined to get hung up on the specific numberical analysis of a real-world problem and not want to ballast that sort of info, while the INTP tends to conceptualize and generalize and work from very general principles drawn from the real-world data rather than with the data itself.)

The tertiary also has a big impact. Notable is the ISTP tendency towards distrust of social institutions due to the negativity of Ni ("Everyone is putting a spin on this situation; we're all tools of The Man; you can't trust anyone in authority.") It's almost like a kneejerk reaction sometimes. INTPs get more locked into Si ("This is the way the world is supposed to look, especially to fit with my theories, and based on what I know of the past.") Instead of bitching and grumbling about who might be trying to control them, INTPs just tend to withdraw and get absorbed in their ideas; but I think ISTP gets VERY hung up on the possibility that someone's messing with their autonomy or trying to fool them.

In any case, you can sense a more ethereal approach with the INTP (although not nearly as "flighty" as NF can come across, because theories are still being drawn from real-world observation and experience), versus a more carnal or tangible approach from ISTP.

EDIT: Also not sure how much this holds over, but I find that despite being SOOOO Ne and imaginative about the possibilities, I have this very very entrenched desire to have a secure base from which to operate. I hate having sensation and demands coming at me, I can't function. I just want to have a safe little haven, where I know what is what and I don't have to think about it.

I recently moved, and life has just gone to hell. Nothing is stable. It's driving me nutty, no matter WHAT my Ti+Ne perceives and comes up with; I just feel unsettled and unstable and nothing is secure.

This aligns with Si functionality (I see it in ISxJ a great deal!), but I don't see nearly as much from ISTP... or at least they don't seem to talk about it. They just seem crusty and secure no matter what they're thrown into.

 

[Anling]

EDIT: Also not sure how much this holds over, but I find that despite being SOOOO Ne and imaginative about the possibilities, I have this very very entrenched desire to have a secure base from which to operate. I hate having sensation and demands coming at me, I can't function. I just want to have a safe little haven, where I know what is what and I don't have to think about it.

I like having a base of operations as well. Physical and mental. I like to have space that is just mine, where I can just think and have my resources close at hand. Mentally I like to have a jumping off point in my ramblings, something to connect new information with.

 

[INTPINFP]

I agree with many of these principles, they make a lot of sense, but I have to admit that it seems more plausible, that the class system perhaps could benifit with a larger selection of class types

 

[Reverse Transcriptase]

I agree with many of these principles, they make a lot of sense, but I have to admit that it seems more plausible, that the class system perhaps could benifit with a larger selection of class types

Haha, that's an INTP yearning for individuality talking. What kind of types would you add? Create a theory and tell it to us!

 

[Decaf]

Its all a question of what you're describing. Type Theory describes the preferred methods of taking information in and the preferred methods of making decisions and makes the assumption that you can't do both at the same time, and that you can operate either objectively or subjectively. Everything else follows from those principles.

If you want to delve into the true uniqueness of individuals you have to take into account environmental influences, hormonal differences and general DNA aberrations. Rather than trying to define a person in their entirety, we try to categorize the fundamental commonalities we see in healthy brains (unhealthy brains in this case is defined by several kinds of learning disabilities that literally inhibit the development of a person's brain processes.

 

[INTPINFP]

Haha, that's an INTP yearning for individuality talking. What kind of types would you add? Create a theory and tell it to us!

Well, I believe the current theory is ok, but a lot like tarot reading. Its focused on over-generalizing to appeal to its archetypes. I think there should be personality types which are combinations of traits found in the 16, (which should be changed to 18.) Also, there are no "evil" personality types (pathological killer, cannibal etc.) Someone who does evil because they enjoy evil, not because they want to make a statement. And what about retards, born insane types, and MPD's. I just believe the theorem could benifit from a little evolution. (100 years from now were going to realize that it's quaint.)

Decaf I agree with you, but I believe that additional archetypes could be added.

 

[Devercia]

Any type could be a pathological killer or a cannibal. The latter is a social stigma, not a psychological one. Evil is also extremely subjective. Even mentally challenged people usually have some sort of cognitive ability, and so, usually have a type, if very underdeveloped. It would be like saying there are black people, white people, Asians, and retards, it just doesn't fit into the group, mostly because a retard could be black white or Asian, the same with 'evil' people. It seems your trying to use MBTI for measuring things it was not meant to. It doesn't decide whats moral, so it won't categorize morals. etc.

If you want to do that go read up on Kohlberg.

 

[INTPINFP]

Any type could be a pathological killer or a cannibal. The latter is a social stigma, not a psychological one. Evil is also extremely subjective. Even mentally challenged people usually have some sort of cognitive ability, and so, usually have a type, if very underdeveloped. It would be like saying there are black people, white people, Asians, and retards, it just doesn't fit into the group, mostly because a retard could be black white or Asian, the same with 'evil' people. It seems your trying to use MBTI for measuring things it was not meant to. It doesn't decide whats moral, so it won't categorize morals. etc.

If you want to do that go read up on Kohlberg.

I didn't say retards don't have any cognitive ability, i was merely suggesting that there is a greater chance of macro personality deviance. Also, I meant someone who's personality, and decisions are based on how evil it is (someone whose whole personality involves making decisions for the sole purpose of inflicting maximal damage on other entities, regardless of self.) That could be a personality, right?

 

[Devercia]

I didn't say retards don't have any cognitive ability, i was merely suggesting that there is a greater chance of macro personality deviance.

I didn't suggest otherwise. What I was suggesting was that its not so much deviance than it is underdevelopment. To use a very N type explanation, imagine you are describing frogs. They have 4 legs and can live both in and out of water. Does this mean tadpoles are not frogs?

Also, I meant someone who's personality, and decisions are based on how evil it is (someone whose whole personality involves making decisions for the sole purpose of inflicting maximal damage on other entities, regardless of self.) That could be a personality, right?

Perhaps within the loose definition of personality, but as far as MBTI is concerned, its almost irrelevant. MBTI would not care what or how they were doing things, but what thought process led them to such action.

You mention 'regardless of self.' How can a person be evaluated 'regardless of self?' MBTI has everything to do with that 'self' which is why there is no category for what you described. Its like asking what type of battery a plug-in drill needs. Maybe I'm just misunderstanding what you meant by 'self'.

If a person is evil by your definition, justifying it by saying 'humanity is meaningless' they might be T, while if they say 'I'm just putting them out of their misery' then they'd be F. I all depends on the person's thoughts, deliberate action is a byproduct of thought.

AH, a better example, its like asking if there should be a category for Eskimos, surely they have a common personality that deviates from the norm. Whats not said is that evil people or retards will still fall within one type or another, and all types could contain those that are evil or retarded.

 

[INTPINFP]

I didn't suggest otherwise. What I was suggesting was that its not so much deviance than it is underdevelopment. To use a very N type explanation, imagine you are describing frogs. They have 4 legs and can live both in and out of water. Does this mean tadpoles are not frogs?

Perhaps within the loose definition of personality, but as far as MBTI is concerned, its almost irrelevant. MBTI would not care what or how they were doing things, but what thought process led them to such action.

You mention 'regardless of self.' How can a person be evaluated 'regardless of self?' MBTI has everything to do with that 'self' which is why there is no category for what you described. Its like asking what type of battery a plug-in drill needs. Maybe I'm just misunderstanding what you meant by 'self'.

If a person is evil by your definition, justifying it by saying 'humanity is meaningless' they might be T, while if they say 'I'm just putting them out of their misery' then they'd be F. I all depends on the person's thoughts, deliberate action is a byproduct of thought.

AH, a better example, its like asking if there should be a category for Eskimos, surely they have a common personality that deviates from the norm. Whats not said is that evil people or retards will still fall within one type or another, and all types could contain those that are evil or retarded.

What I meant was their whole though process involved evil to a religious scale. Which brings me to another question, what personality belongs to religious zealots (their only thought process is, what decision should I make in accordance with my holy book?) ISTJ would work for most religions, but not with a religion based on non-moral pillars.

 

[Decaf]

Well, I believe the current theory is ok, but a lot like tarot reading. Its focused on over-generalizing to appeal to its archetypes.

And yet you are suggesting that we define new archetypes based completely on external generalizations. See how slippery a slope that is?

The number 16 is significant because that's what you get when you put 4 dichotomies together. Why 18? According to the structure of the theory if you have another important dichotomy to add it should be 25 total types. I have no doubt that you could do that, but I think you would lose some of the theories usefulness in the process (not to mention much of the structure would have to be reworked for that to make sense).

Type theory describes thought process preference, not ability (as in the case of people with diminished mental capacity, organization or cohesiveness.)

Its my personal belief that no person is evil. To describe evil you must first dehumanize the accused by suggesting that they do not go through the same struggles you do to make a decision. You must suggest that we don't all have it within us to do evil by any definition.

That being said, any action that might be described as evil can give valuable information into how the thought process of the person in question works, but the word "evil" tells you nothing.

 

[Decaf]

What I meant was their whole though process involved evil to a religious scale. Which brings me to another question, what personality belongs to religious zealots (their only thought process is, what decision should I make in accordance with my holy book?) ISTJ would work for most religions, but not with a religion based on non-moral pillars.

This is a treacherous road to travel. You could just as easily suggest that INTPs are the most likely type to engage in conspiracy theories. ISTJs are also one of the four most likely types to start their own business, but what does that tell you?

A more interesting area to study is what function in what position is likely to make any one of us fall victim to what is clearly defined here as folly? All types have access to all functions at varying levels of consciousness, so what function at what level of consciousness and unconsciousness is the most vulnerable to this brand of fanaticism?

 

[INTPINFP]

wait, the first paragraph i got but you confused me with the second one. What is "clearly defined as folly"? And are you asking what causes people to be washed up "religion"? That depends on the person, in most cases religion reaches them on an emotional basis, in less cases (usually due to ignorance) religion reaches them through logic. in any case i think there is more to personality than simply "intro/extro" and we must explore the intracacies of "intro/extro."

 

[Decaf]

You asked what type belongs to religious zealots. I took that to mean that you were defining the group involved by having made the mistake of zealotry as zealot is generally a term with a negative connotation (I assume that someone who might be called a religious 'zealot' is more likely to use the term 'believer' to describe themselves).

But on to what we're trying to talk about, my initial guess is that dominant introverted perceiving would be a prerequisite. Introverted perception is the process of gathering from the subjective internal world of ideas or memories. Couple that with extraverted judging and they can easily apply themselves externally in a very unambiguous manner.

That being said, that wouldn't encompass my conspiracy theory example, so maybe they are simply opposite forms of the same fanaticism that everyone is vulnerable to.

 

[Devercia]

What I meant was their whole though process involved evil to a religious scale. Which brings me to another question, what personality belongs to religious zealots (their only thought process is, what decision should I make in accordance with my holy book?) ISTJ would work for most religions, but not with a religion based on non-moral pillars.

It's not a question of 'if' someone is evil, but 'how.' Now, if you said,"A person did 'this' evil act for 'this' evil reason." you might have something to go on, albeit likely not enough, it might ballpark it. This may sound very S of me, but there needs to be specifics here. Vague hypothetical produce vague conclusions.

As far as zealotry, that would also be a matter of how and not if. Any type could be a zealot, but it would manifest itself in different ways. ISTJ might be an inquisitor of sorts, an INTP would probably study and meditate on the scriptures themselves.

 

[INTPINFP]

I believe my mbti personality entirely depends on what im doing. And, its not "fake" either. My mbti personality depends on where I am, and what activity I'm engaged in. When I'm bored shitless, I'm an INTP. When I'm driving in the countryside, im an ENwatumacalit etc.
And I'm talking about pure evil, someone who was born evil who does evil for the sake of evil, not to impress anyone, make a statement, they are simply obsessed with evil, the only reason they do it is because they like evil, not because they want to be opposite.

 

[Anticitizen]

The number 16 is significant because that's what you get when you put 4 dichotomies together. Why 18? According to the structure of the theory if you have another important dichotomy to add it should be 25 total types.

Wouldn't it be 32? Let's say you added a new dichotomy, A/B... you'd have the original 16 types with an A added, and then another 16 with the B added. INTPB and INTPA, for example. But then again, math always mystifies me and I'm probably missing something.

 

[Decaf]

Wouldn't it be 32? Let's say you added a new dichotomy, A/B... you'd have the original 16 types with an A added, and then another 16 with the B added. INTPB and INTPA, for example. But then again, math always mystifies me and I'm probably missing something.

Bah, someone caught me doing bad math Yeah, but do you want to write another 16 type descriptions?

There is actually a lot of evidence that another dichotomy DOES exist. Why doesn't MBTI take it into account? Its because its a loaded concept. Neuroticism as so aptly stated in the Big Five is an identifiable trait, but one that is so prejudged that the general positiveness of the MBTI type descriptions would be distorted. Suffice to say, each type has both a highly neurotic and very low key extreme. I'm not sure how that might figure into process dynamics, but it boggles my mind too much to deal with at the moment.