ISTJ or INTJ?

[Vivid]

I don't know if I'm an INTJ or an ISTJ. I always test an an INTJ, but I score low on N and my learning style makes me think I could be an S type. I seem to have the sequence-oriented, law-biding, practical mind of an ISTJ, but everything else about me fits the description of an iNtuitive (liking abstract theories, most interested in the general ideas, most comfortable thinking about the future with Si being a shadow process, having high personal standards and so on).

Could someone tell me if this suggests that I'm an ISTJ or if it's just a J trait?

I have been teaching myself chemistry. I was drawn in by the beautiful design of the periodic table. I love that unlike other subjects, I have a better sense of what my goal is. I can look at the periodic table and say to myself "Today, I'm going to memorized the numbers of every isotope of astatine. That will take an hour. Then I'll read this page about americium... " I also like that there's plenty of numeric details to memorized (god, I love those). I always have a few future steps planned out. I'm not sure if that's a Judging trait, a Sensing trait or a combination of the two. It seems like it could also be an iNtuitive trait because it involves thinking about the future.
Bah.

[Antares]

Well, list your N and S traits, then we can further evaluate your type ;) Although I'm not too different. I have a list of things I want to memorize actually. I pulled out my alphabets chart and learned all the Greek Alphabets within 10 minutes. Then I moved on to stars and constellations, which took me about 30 minutes. I don't know why I like doing this.

[ShaiGar]

It's not the value of the S/N number, but the outlook on life.

The (SJ)Legalist and the (NT)Analyst

There's no question as to what attracts ANALYSTs and LEGALISTs to each other: work. These are the two working temperaments.

Many ANALYSTs and LEGALISTs fill up all the nooks and crannies of life with work. Especially if the ANALYST is a judging one and the LEGALIST is a thinking one, both of them may trip over the daily lists they live by!

But, in a general sense, what are the critical mating characteristics of the LEGALIST/ANALYST combination?

Both LEGALISTs and ANALYSTs are PRODUCT-ORIENTED. Life should produce something, make something, create something. What should be accomplished, and how? That's another matter open to discussion when LEGALISTs and ANALYSTs are involved.

ANALYSTs are anti-authoritarian iconoclasts, continually questioning how and why things are done a particular way. The ANALYST sees life's journey as architecture and invention: ``building the better mousetrap.'' ANALYSTs are revisers, critics, planners, boat-rockers, changers, idea-people, innovators.

LEGALISTs are solid traditionalists, accepting values, religions, political philosophies, institutions, rules, laws, procedures, and goals. LEGALISTs maintain society and its institutions, and they squirm with discomfort as the ANALYST runs around like a squirrel ``improving'' things!

LEGALISTs hate change. ANALYSTs love change.

ANALYSTs see work as a mission. LEGALISTs see work as a duty.
Therein the two types differ, and the difference may be a mighty one, when it comes to WORK.

LEGALISTs are steady workers, organized workers, habitual workers. They tend to plan carefully and follow a schedule, whether theirs or someone else's. ANALYSTs work without a hard-and-fast game plan of how and when their goals will be achieved.

ANALYSTs pride themselves on their creativity, flexibility, innovation. LEGALISTs pride themselves on their steadiness, stability and traditional orientation.

ANALYSTs are intuitive workers, working in bursts of energy which pay no heed to 9-5 scheduling, slacking off in valleys that ignore the proscription that one should be producing Monday through Friday.

The LEGALIST's list of personal commitments extends beyond work. Even the rather hard-nosed thinking LEGALIST takes the time to schedule in family and personal time: time some ANALYSTs often feel they can't ``invest'' (read: ``waste''). Especially if the ANALYST mates with the feeling-type LEGALIST, this difference may lead to problems and accusations that the ANALYST lacks sensitivity and a sense of commitment to the relationship.

ANALYSTs are independent characters who sometimes lack a sense of propriety and manifest a stubborn unawareness of the consequences of flaunting authority, showing disrespect, and refusing to follow rules, orders, procedures and etiquette (especially perceptive-type analysts).

In bureaucratic institutions, ANALYSTs often tend to get into trouble for ``bucking the system,'' while LEGALISTs seem to toe the line and thrive.
ANALYSTs rarely hesitate to point out to LEGALISTs that even the best of organizations is far from perfect and can be improved.

LEGALISTs waste no time in explaining to the errant ANALYST that life goes along a lot smoother when one accepts the status quo and undertakes only carefully planned, winnable battles, especially in institutions.

ANALYSTs are rarely awed by title or rank, money or magnitude. LEGALISTs obey the hierarchy and respect authority, figuring that leaders deserve to be followed.

ANALYSTs are idealists, often battling and suffering ones. LEGALISTs are realists, sometimes stubborn and inflexible ones.

TRADITION AND INNOVATION become focal points in the relationship between ANALYSTs and LEGALISTs.

The LEGALIST mate assumes that the ANALYST can be counted on to appear at the nephew's high school graduation. The LEGALIST partner takes it for granted that the ANALYST will attend the birthday party for Aunt Minnie and the anniversary party for the grandparents.

Surprise! ANALYSTs (not even the most responsible judging-type ones) rarely are as attentive to family rituals as LEGALISTs. Especially when some familial obligation interferes with work or some creative enterprise, you can count the ANALYST out of the festivities or expect to see only half-hearted participation.

And, if the LEGALIST has always spent Memorial Day picnicking at a particular beach, the ANALYST may decide to surprise the partner by arranging a new way to celebrate the holiday. The real surprise may be the ANALYST's as the LEGALIST explains that Memorial Day is always spent on that beach, eating the same food with the same group of family or friends. And that's that!

Especially if the LEGALIST is a feeling-type, the ANALYST's desire to disrupt tradition may be taken as evidence of gross insensitivity and lack of caring.
It's unlikely that the ANALYST would describe the interaction in those terms. It's just that doing the same thing in the same way with the same people, year in and year out, is any intuitive's idea of torture. By comparison, change and unpredictability are the LEGALIST's idea of hell.
And MONEY again rears its head as an issue in the ANALYST-LEGALIST loving partnership. ANALYSTs are idealists. They aren't necessarily practical and realistic about money, and conservative financial management is definitely not a typical ANALYST characteristic!

Then, too, many ANALYSTs aren't really into tangibles, except for books and records and possessions they see as necessary to continue their intellectual pilgrimage through life.

LEGALISTs are a different breed. These folks budget, conserve, invest, purchase, own, pass down possessions to the children. The LEGALIST doesn't rent or charge unless there are no other reasonable options. For some, this characteristic is so strong that ``scrimp and save'' becomes an unspoken motto for life.

More so than the typical ANALYST, the LEGALIST borrows as little as possible, for as short a time as feasible, pays bills on time, avoids living on credit or suffers guilt and worry as a price for not doing so.
The LEGALIST tends to purchase household goods as investments: good furniture, good appliances. One buys a ``good'' car. One pays attention to resale value, whether or not the piece ever will be sold (``You just can't tell about these things!'' the LEGALIST reminds). One takes care of one's property.

And that's that.

The ANALYST isn't as dogmatic as the LEGALIST, except in being dogmatic against dogmatics.

Perceptive-type ANALYSTS, especially, may find the LEGALIST's awesome number of rules, plans, attitudes, prejudices, prescriptions, schedules and programs to be totally abhorrent.

The ANALYST may react to the LEGALIST's manifest and subliminal parenting, preaching and teaching behavior by becoming a ``bad little kid,'' rebelling overtly or ignoring the LEGALIST's well-intentioned criticism and guidance.

When it comes to SEX, the conflicts between the LEGALIST and ANALYST are predictable. For the LEGALIST, sex carries with it a sense of duty and decorum. You ought to make love, at a certain frequency, and in certain places, under certain circumstances. LEGALISTs may vary, from one to another, in how they fill in those variables, but the typical LEGALIST does have particular expectations about the rhythms of the love life.
The ANALYST doesn't see things that way.

Predictable Crises For This Combination:
The ANALYST may come to see the LEGALIST an automaton: a pre-programmed, boring working machine who asks no questions and never thinks about the implications of life and work.
The LEGALIST may see the ANALYST as a capricious reformer, a revolutionary innovator who doesn't consider the long-term consequences of irresponsibility and disruption of procedures and traditions.
Serious distrust of the other's motives and goals may result, especially if other personality factors are out of synchrony, too (introversion-extraversion, thinking-feeling, judging- perception). Possible Benefits For This Combination:
The ANALYST may learn the value of planning, scheduling, and making time for non- work-related activities, such as family and home life. Especially if the LEGALIST is a feeling one, and the ANALYST is a perceptive type, this process is likely to be necessary. If the relationship is to survive.
The LEGALIST may become more open and receptive to ideas, theory, change, and spontaneity in life.
Especially if the LEGALIST is a thinking type and the ANALYST is a perceptive type, the LEGALIST may inherit the chore of attending to the financial details of life. This arrangement may be a relief for both sides.
The LEGALIST may assist the ANALYST in pacifying the more traditional segments of society, as the ANALYST tends to run roughshod over accepted procedures, principles, and rules of etiquette.To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

[futuresurgeon]

one of the big things i notice about my istj father is how I will continually seek knowledge and continue to look for new ways to learn, whereas he is more content with things already known

[PRBori]

Hmm... ShaiGar thank you for the Legalist/Analyst analysis. Although I fall a lot more in the ANALYST area, I will argue that I do have some LEGALIST in me for I do make plans, write them down along with the step-by-step items I need to do in order to reach those goals and do focus on meeting them.

But I do question authority, I do question processes, and I do everything else a stubborn analyst would do at work. On the other hand when it comes to the LEGALIST focusing on getting a home rather than renting or leaving something for the family, I do have such mentality. I do plan to purchase a house by the 4th quarter of 2008, before renewing the lease Jan. 2009 for I find it a waste of my money to rent.

But I do agree that I'm quite strong in the NT area, specially on work related matters. I'm innovative, I like to improvize processes, I like to argue and unlike what it says above that an ANALYST don't pay attention to the long term consequences, I do feel that I consider the long term consequences when suggesting a plan or process to be implemented.

So I'm wondering, maybe I'm a little SJ as well, but not as strong as NT.

[ShaiGar]

can't be both. SJ and NT are polar opposites.

[ElstonGunn]

I don't know if I'm an INTJ or an ISTJ. I always test an an INTJ, but I score low on N...

I'm in the same boat. I have a mix of the general characteristics of S/SJ types as well as N/NT. Maybe the Myers-Briggs personality theory isn't an irrefutable fact that has been chiseled into stone, infallible and unquestionable to the end of the ages, Alpha and Omega, amen.

I don't know. That's just a hunch.

[sriv]

I seem to be almost half-half.

[Amity]

I am an INTJ, and my mother is an ISTJ. The difference between the INTJ and the ISTJ is the perceiving function: the dominant cognitive function of the INTJ is Introverted Intuition, while the dominant cognitive function of the ISTJ is Introverted Sensing.

Introverted iNtuiting involves synthesizing the seemingly paradoxical or contradictory, which takes understanding to a new level. Using this process, we can have moments when completely new, unimagined realizations come to us. A disengagement from interactions in the room occurs, followed by a sudden “Aha!” or “That’s it!” The sense of the future and the realizations that come from introverted iNtuiting have a sureness and an imperative quality that seem to demand action and help us stay focused on fulfilling our vision or dream of how things will be in the future. Using this process, we might rely on a focal device or symbolic action to predict, enlighten, or transform. We could find ourselves laying out how the future will unfold based on unseen trends and telling signs. This process can involve working out complex concepts or systems of thinking or conceiving of symbolic or novel ways to understand things that are universal. It can lead to creating transcendent experiences or solutions. (To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.)

Introverted Sensing often involves storing data and information, then comparing and contrasting the current situation with similar ones. The immediate experience or words are instantly linked with the prior experiences, and we register a similarity or a difference—for example, noticing that some food doesn’t taste the same or is saltier than it usually is. Introverted Sensing is also operating when we see someone who reminds us of someone else. Sometimes a feeling associated with the recalled image comes into our awareness along with the information itself. Then the image can be so strong, our body responds as if reliving the experience. The process also involves reviewing the past to draw on the lessons of history, hindsight, and experience. With introverted Sensing, there is often great attention to detail and getting a clear picture of goals and objectives and what is to happen. There can be a oneness with ageless customs that help sustain civilization and culture and protect what is known and long-lasting, even while what is reliable changes. (To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.)

Are you more likely to spend your time synthesizing the abstract to get a better view of the big picture, or reviewing concrete details to get practical things done?

[Uytuun]

I'm almost 100% analyst. I have an ISTJ friend and the differences between the both of us are rather obvious...then again, I'm very high N. How would you guys say that the J differs when combined with S or N? I abhor the J in combination with S.

[Vivid]

Thank you all for the informative replies. I've given it more thought and can confidentially list a few of my opposing S/N traits.

Sensing
1. Like putting/doing things in order. Fond of sequence and memorizable facts.
2. Like things to be practical. Logic first, then imagination.
3. Has strong respect for rules.
4. Prefer doing things I've done before; experience over experimenting. Loves repetition.
5. ...
6. ...
7. ...

iNtuitive
1. Prefer short, straight forward explanations of the general idea first, then details.
2. Gets bored once something is mastered and becomes innovative.
3. Readily questions rules or authority with ideas for change.
4. ...
5. Always thinking about 'what could be' instead of present or past facts. Easily distressed by thinking about past performances.
6. Has high standards. Sometimes high standards are unrealistic.
7. Want independence for myself and others.

I'll just leave it at this and assume I'm in between, even though that's not supposed to be possible. I've been reading about Myer Briggs for months and at this point, it should be obvious. But it's not.

There's one last interesting factor I realized: I lived with my INFJ mom for the first nine years of my life and was definitely an INFJ back then. But after moving in with my ISTX/ESTX grandparents and living with them for nine years, I'm definitely a Thinker and might be an ISTJ. It leads me to believe that the blank slate theory is true, although there's no doubt that some traits are inborn, for I am still a strong Introverted Judger and the Thinking preference came stronger and easier than the Sensing. Like many things, it must be a little of both theories.

[Firelie]

one of the big things i notice about my istj father is how I will continually seek knowledge and continue to look for new ways to learn, whereas he is more content with things already known

Seconded.

One time I tried to teach an ISTJ coworker a faster, more efficient way to do something that was taking her too long (and causing her to grumble). She kinda nodded along, said thank you, and then continued doing it the way she was taught.

[Vivid]

Seconded.

One time I tried to teach an ISTJ coworker a faster, more efficient way to do something that was taking her too long (and causing her to grumble). She kinda nodded along, said thank you, and then continued doing it the way she was taught.

I see my ISFJ teacher do that. We once wasted a two hour class because she wouldn't believe me when I said that the order of operations is PEMDAS. I love learning and analyzing things, but I can be stubborn in my routines at times as well. Trying something new feels like an unreliable risk-- it's something I would only want to do when I'm not in the process of trying to complete a task.

[Lagawrd]

Yea, I am the same way. But it does not really matter. Older and mature ISTJs are rather intelligent. My uncle is an ISTJ and is quite knowledgable about life. He is one heck of a wise person and is also amazed with concepts and theories. He is pragmatic and his word is almost always correct. He knows how to survive, which is rather interesting. So it does not matter if you are INTJ or ISTJ, do not be like those people who crave so much to know what type they REALLY are. Just Indulge.

[ElstonGunn]

I'll just leave it at this and assume I'm in between, even though that's not supposed to be possible. I've been reading about Myer Briggs for months and at this point, it should be obvious. But it's not.

Isn't one of the major criticisms of the MBTI the fact that it implies a dichotomy in a situation that would be better described by a continuum? Or that, at least, it's set up in a way that makes people assume a dichotomy?

[Taberculosis]

It's okay.... I just took a test and it said I am more ISTJ. And... it does sound more like me (except for maintaining traditional roles such as religion)

You've probably taken this test, but I enjoy the aesthetic-ness and organization of the site.

To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

[Vivid]

Isn't one of the major criticisms of the MBTI the fact that it implies a dichotomy in a situation that would be better described by a continuum? Or that, at least, it's set up in a way that makes people assume a dichotomy?

Yes. I've heard this. It seems like Myer Briggs is very easy to misunderstand. I'm guilty of black & white assumptions.

I'm thinking more about this, still. I realized that the S/N preferences seem awfully similar to right brained/left brained tests and the idea that people are either practical or imaginative. I thought about the people I know, and it seems like there's a few of them who are in between. The other day, I met a man who was a mathematician and a musician. I also know a girl who's a drawer and a programmer, then another girl who loves both science and art.

[yondyr]

I can fall into the S aspect by knowing that not following the rules of the world could bring down shit on my head... so I do, but only in public...but loathe them.

[sriv]

I too suffer a similar case with Vivid. My InTJ-IsTJ ambiguosity is quite confusing to me. This is my reaction to ShaiGar's post and how it related to me. The INTJ and ISTJ have very different personality traits: one having Ni-Te-Fi-Si and the other having Si-Te-Fi-Ne. I connect more with Ni and have horrible memory of experiences, but my behavior to the following scenario's seem more according to IsTJ.

ANALYSTs are anti-authoritarian iconoclasts, continually questioning how and why things are done a particular way. The ANALYST sees life's journey as architecture and invention: "building the better mousetrap." ANALYSTs are revisers, critics, planners, boat-rockers, changers, idea-people, innovators.

LEGALISTs are solid traditionalists, accepting values, religions, political philosophies, institutions, rules, laws, procedures, and goals. LEGALISTs maintain society and its institutions, and they squirm with discomfort as the ANALYST runs around like a squirrel "improving" things!

I seem to fit INTJ description more here, but I usually follow established procedures.

LEGALISTs hate change. ANALYSTs love change.

I know when change helps and I take it when it does.

ANALYSTs pride themselves on their creativity, flexibility, innovation. LEGALISTs pride themselves on their steadiness, stability and traditional orientation.

I pride myself in everything listed except traditional orientation and creativity.

ANALYSTs are intuitive workers, working in bursts of energy which pay no heed to 9-5 scheduling, slacking off in valleys that ignore the proscription that one should be producing Monday through Friday.

The LEGALIST's list of personal commitments extends beyond work. Even the rather hard-nosed thinking LEGALIST takes the time to schedule in family and personal time: time some ANALYSTs often feel they can't "invest" (read: "waste").

I work in bursts and sometimes see there to be no point in spending excess time with family. I do however keep a strong relationship with all of my immeidiate family members.

In bureaucratic institutions, ANALYSTs often tend to get into trouble for "bucking the system," while LEGALISTs seem to toe the line and thrive.
ANALYSTs rarely hesitate to point out to LEGALISTs that even the best of organizations is far from perfect and can be improved.

I toe the line and thrive, but I try to find weak points and improve the system.

ANALYSTs are rarely awed by title or rank, money or magnitude. LEGALISTs obey the hierarchy and respect authority, figuring that leaders deserve to be followed.

I am awed by rank, money, and power because the person must have done something to deserve it. However, the person still has to earn my respect like any other person.

ANALYSTs are idealists, often battling and suffering ones. LEGALISTs are realists, sometimes stubborn and inflexible ones.

I am a realist in real life, but an idealist in thought.

Surprise! ANALYSTs (not even the most responsible judging-type ones) rarely are as attentive to family rituals as LEGALISTs. Especially when some familial obligation interferes with work or some creative enterprise, you can count the ANALYST out of the festivities or expect to see only half-hearted participation.

I see no point in traditions, and I half-heartedly participate, but I never go back on a promise that I make.

And MONEY again rears its head as an issue in the ANALYST-LEGALIST loving partnership. ANALYSTs are idealists. They aren't necessarily practical and realistic about money, and conservative financial management is definitely not a typical ANALYST characteristic!

I am definitely conservative with my money.

By comparison, change and unpredictability are the LEGALIST's idea of hell.

I like change and I like creativity.

For some, this characteristic is so strong that "scrimp and save" becomes an unspoken motto for life.

I am a fan of saving money.

More so than the typical ANALYST, the LEGALIST borrows as little as possible, for as short a time as feasible, pays bills on time, avoids living on credit or suffers guilt and worry as a price for not doing so.

I do not like debt and feel uncomfortable in it.

One buys a "good car". One takes care of one's property.

I but the car with the best value. I can be somewhat messy.

The ANALYST isn't as dogmatic as the LEGALIST, except in being dogmatic against dogmatics.

I can be slightly dogmatic, but I am very laid back about most stuff.

Perceptive-type ANALYSTS, especially, may find the LEGALIST's awesome number of rules, plans, attitudes, prejudices, prescriptions, schedules and programs to be totally abhorrent.

I have some rules, plans, attitudes, and schedules, but I do not have prejudices.

The ANALYST may react to the LEGALIST's manifest and subliminal parenting, preaching and teaching behavior by becoming a "bad little kid," rebelling overtly or ignoring the LEGALIST's well-intentioned criticism and guidance.

I do not rebel overtly or quicklyl, I can take slight inconvieniance but not too much. I find that my criticism and guidance is often ignored.

The ANALYST may come to see the LEGALIST an automaton: a pre-programmed, boring working machine who asks no questions and never thinks about the implications of life and work.

I am a boring working machine, but I always ask questions and think about the implication of life and work.

The LEGALIST may see the ANALYST as a capricious reformer, a revolutionary innovator who doesn't consider the long-term consequences of irresponsibility and disruption of procedures and traditions.

I always consider the long-term consequences of irresponsibility, but not of disruption of procedures and traditions. I am never capricious, but I often reform.

The LEGALIST may become more open and receptive to ideas, theory, change, and spontaneity in life [when working with an ANALYST].

This may have been what happened to me. I think my parents raised me as an ISTJ, but it defied my natural orientation of an INTJ, so it disturbed the INTJ into barely an InTJ. Maybe I am just IxTJ.

[Solaris]

@ sriv

You sound like an ISTJ with tertiary N.

[DrEast]

Rote memorization is the most boring activity available to the INTJ.

Your love of memorization of orderly tables is very SJish.

Also, how do you take the following statement:

"America is filled with destructive traditions, especially politically. It would be best to reduce us to a state of anarchy, destroying all that makes America so great in the minds of its citizens, and see what naturally arising polities then come forward in the resultant war-torn state of existence. We could then compare the advantages of these new polities to the pseudo-republic that now exists, and form a synthesis political system of more worth than the current. Further, such a process would cause naturally competent leaders to assume center stage, giving us a ready supply of politicians whose worth is based on competence and leadership, as opposed to charisma, which is of no value in governing systems. America's citizenship, that which survived, would also benefit from the destruction of monopolistic super-corporations who depend on the current system for their own survival. Freed from the tyranny of nine-to-five make-work jobs and the social conditioning of the public school system, not to mention the natural decadence of a so-called Social Safety Net, the admittedly reduced-in-number body of American citizens could once again be rightly proud of their superiority to the rest of the world through their self-worth and self-motivation.

"Further, several systems of mathematical, economic, political and sociological thought believe such an anarchical occurrence to be inevitable, perhaps even in our own lifetimes."

Does this statement fill you with glee or distaste?

[sriv]

Distaste.
Anarchy would create mass riots and harm the well-being of all. The recession in the economy would furthur create mass pandemonium as China and other money lenders threaten America to invade if they do not pay up. America would no longer have a central power core and would be pillaged shameless by the various armed forces of China, Mexico (who are still bitter about the Mexican Cessetion), and Middle Eastern nations. As in Jericho, nuclear weapons protection would no longer be a nationwide support, as it has become every man for himself, so the individuals in charge of their protection cannot be trusted. They may even pawn them off to the highest bidder. I do not trust Americans to handle themselves; there goes the giant that was once America.

Solaris: I thought that a tertiary trait had to be either T or F?

[DrEast]

Distaste.


I note that you're a small "n", Sriv. I'll point out that the collapse of either the monetary system or the reproductive rate is inevitable in any event, and that that will probably be the anarchical flashpoint for world change. Of course, the sad truth is that what comes out of such a change could well be worse than what we have... but that's only decidable through experimentation, now isn't it?

[sriv]

I would rather theorize than experiment. We can always make educated observations off of history. Testing in this case would go to too much inconveniance than simply being ready for all circumstances.

[DrEast]

I would rather theorize than experiment. We can always make educated observations off of history. Testing in this case would go to too much inconveniance than simply being ready for all circumstances.

I would put forward that history has proven one thing: Humanity is incapable of making educated observations off of history.

[Solaris]

Solaris: I thought that a tertiary trait had to be either T or F?


Not everyone fits neatly into a box.

[sriv]

If I were to label my traits without any type of structure, it would be the following.

Te dominant
Ni auxiliary
Si tertiary
Fe inferior

[xtremegeek]

one of the big things i notice about my istj father is how I will continually seek knowledge and continue to look for new ways to learn, whereas he is more content with things already known

I'm an ISTJ, and I am constantly seeking knowledge. I don't believe that such motivation is type-related.

[Vivid]

I'm an ISTJ, and I am constantly seeking knowledge. I don't believe that such motivation is type-related.

I think it could be. INTPs are known for being knowledge hounds, aren't they. But surely there's many exceptions. I also love to learn and gain understandings, even though my type isn't assumed to be like that.

[xanodel]

Rather than just the example Dr. East gave, I would wonder if you like creating worlds? For example, if you had a game where you could create the rules, the world and the myriad of legal, political and economic systems that govern it, would you find such a thing fun, thrilling, exciting? I would imagine Ni tends to salivate at the opportunity. Especially if you like creating the elaborate history behind each system and pointing out all the flaws in each system.

Dr.East: for your story, I came up with the fact I find it neutral. The resulting scenario could be good, but history, and political philosophy tends to illustrate that such an attempt would either be flawed, or we would end up where we are today. Complete anarchy would result in a backlash, that could be potentially bad. The anarchic system that you envisioned does not have enough checks and balances to ensure a truly meritocratic system. It doesn't work. Rather than start out from scratch and getting another attempt to completely fail, I think the goal is to place more checks and balances to ensure a meritocracy under the current system. But again, I'm technically an INTX, because for me it's Ni, Ti, Te with Ni and Ti being roughly equally strong.

[ssrprotege]

can't be both. SJ and NT are polar opposites.

SJ and NT are polar opposites, as David Keirsey suggested. But that doesn't necessarily mean that all of the statements describing NT are correct. No matter how polar opposites they are, whether you are an NT or an SJ is just a preference. NT's don't always behave like an iconoclast, for example; SJ's won't just *blindly* obey laws just because they are so.





ssrprotege added to this post, 1 minutes and 1 seconds later...

I think it could be. INTPs are known for being knowledge hounds, aren't they. But surely there's many exceptions. I also love to learn and gain understandings, even though my type isn't assumed to be like that.

Why don't you do the cognitive process test in cognitiveprocess.com? Did you find out which functions are well-developed?

[Ikcelaks]

Isn't one of the major criticisms of the MBTI the fact that it implies a dichotomy in a situation that would be better described by a continuum?
MBTI's major weakness is that it assumes an individual's preference is homogeneous, when that often is not at all the case. I someone who has a strong preference for Ni in certain kinds of instances and a strong preference for Si in others. A continuum would only be minimally useful, because another person could be 50-50 in a completely different way (Si in the aspects that this person is Ni and vice-versa). In this sense, we have to accept that MBTI has an incomplete domain. Perhaps that's why I'm growing increasingly fond of discarding most of the MBTI assumptions and looking directly at the functions and how they interact within an individual.

I realized that the S/N preferences seem awfully similar to right brained/left brained tests and the idea that people are either practical or imaginative. I thought about the people I know, and it seems like there's a few of them who are in between. The other day, I met a man who was a mathematician and a musician. I also know a girl who's a drawer and a programmer, then another girl who loves both science and art.
Be careful with your assumptions on what is or isn't a right-brain activity. Often different people do similar things in very different ways. For example, many people attack math in a very creative/right-brain fashion. Some of the most brilliant mathematicians and scientists struggled with arithmetic-type stuff (think Einstein).

I think it could be. INTPs are known for being knowledge hounds, aren't they.
It's important to be careful with how you define "knowledge" here. I prefer to categorize INTPs as understanding-hounds. INTPs are very into how/why-type knowledge but usually place very little importance in knowledge of arbitrary facts. For example, in my organic chemistry class, I used to constantly forget (or mistrust my remembrance) of the atomic number of Carbon and rediscover it by picturing the structure of methane and working backwards.

[DrEast]

Dr.East: for your story, I came up with the fact I find it neutral. The resulting scenario could be good, but history, and political philosophy tends to illustrate that such an attempt would either be flawed, or we would end up where we are today. Complete anarchy would result in a backlash, that could be potentially bad. The anarchic system that you envisioned does not have enough checks and balances to ensure a truly meritocratic system. It doesn't work. Rather than start out from scratch and getting another attempt to completely fail, I think the goal is to place more checks and balances to ensure a meritocracy under the current system. But again, I'm technically an INTX, because for me it's Ni, Ti, Te with Ni and Ti being roughly equally strong.

Ah, but attempting to achieve a meritocratic system at all is simply social engineering in yet another form, whereas the proposed anarchical state would be non-engineered, and any actions taken by individuals in the resultant chaos would have the virtue of being clear expressions of personal responsibility in the face of naturally occurring events. Why should we strive for a meritocracy as opposed to an autocracy, after all? In political philosophy we all become autocrats of the ideal in an attempt to sculpt applicable non-autocratic systems. Sadly, it never works out in reality.

Nevertheless, my little scenario was just an off-the-cuff idea to attempt to distinguish between those who prefer stability as a virtue and those who prefer contemplating theoretical alternatives. If nothing else, my own beliefs in the inherent sinfulness of man mean that I'm not going to champion this anarchy as some sort of utopia engine (unlike some others I've met), but it's still fun for some INTx's to contemplate it. Frivolously or applicably, the point is the preference. SJ's, on the other hand, would presumably have no desire to delve into those depths.

Which is a bit of a shame, because I wasn't kidding when I pointed out the very real possibility of such anarchical states arising in human history (again).

(Also, don't focus so much on the results of the anarchy at the expense of the transitory state itself. The best stories are stories of transition, not birth, after all.)

[ModernLit]

Bringing this thread back to life because I was thinking the same thing today and have gone back to my original thinking that I've always held, and that being that I'm INTJ who appreciates details, has trained herself to try to be more in the moment, but really longs for the abstract and large picture. I will correct the mistakes of others if I have to and wish everyone else were as curious and fond of learning as I am. There is a delicate balance of traits in some people... S/N or P/J, or F/T.

I also agree that not everyone is going to fit in a box. I'm also trying to find more resources for research. Maybe go read more Jung, scour the library--that's my next step.