[childofprodigy]

Given the recent surge in fake INTJ threads, I've decided to construct this poll to measure everyone's estimate on what the probability of a given user with INTJ label is likely to be a "True" INTJ on this forum is...

What is a "True" INTJ? A true INTJ is someone whose (actual, not self reported) cognitive function ordering is Ni-Te-Fi-Se. If your cognitive function ordering is not Ni-Te-Fi-Se, you're not an INTJ. Period.

I don't care how I or how N or how T or how J you think you are. It's the cognitive functions that matter. Those dichotomy based tests are likely to be cheated on in favor of an xNTJ type anyway. The xNTJ type descriptions also get hypersexed to an obscene manner by the MBTI writers, leading to many people to claim xNTJ status despite not having the NTJ cognitive functions. The most common pattern I see is ENTP mistyping as ENTJ and INTP mistyping as INTJ...

Anyways, out of all the users in this forum who claim that their type is INTJ, how many of them do you think is a true INTJ with Ni-Te-Fi-Se? Despite the inevitable mistypes, do you think this forum in general is a good resource for knowing/learning more about the INTJ type?

Also, the poll is left inclusive but not right inclusive. Eg. the 70~80% option INCLUDES 70% but EXCLUDES 80%. Keep that in mind.

And epic poll fail, I forgot to include 60~70% lol.....Can an admin please fix this for me...

[stasis]

I have a better idea. Estimate the duration before purveyors of this retarded 'true INTJ' meme are savaged by the banstick.

[True Rune]

At least 2/3rd. Don't heed the elitist hipster pricks.

[RAZR]

i think the better question would be how many tests are there that give accurate results

[reckful]

	Originally Posted by childofprodigy To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	What is a "True" INTJ? A true INTJ is someone whose (actual, not self reported) cognitive function ordering is Ni-Te-Fi-Se. If your cognitive function ordering is not Ni-Te-Fi-Se, you're not an INTJ. Period.

Myers admitted that flipping the attitude of the auxiliary function was contrary to the view of the majority of Jung scholars. I'd say a better reading of Jung would be that he viewed J-doms as the people who (in terms of the functions) came the closest to having what MBTI theory would call a J preference.

As far as INTJs are concerned, I think the most respectable interpretation of Jung (and the one consistent with the majority of Jung scholars) would probably be that an INTJ's functions would be Ti-Ni-Se-Fe — arguably Jung's view of himself at the time he wrote Psychological Types.

Myers, meanwhile, besides flipping the attitude of the auxiliary, also associated the J/P preference with whether your top extraverted function (dom or aux) was a judging function or a perceiving function. But she agreed with Jung that both the tertiary and inferior functions were in the opposite attitude from the dominant function. So Myers' view was that an INTJ was Ni-Te-Fe-Se. (Of course, Myers also shifted the central focus from the functions to the dichotomies, so it would really be more accurate to say that Myers' view was that an INTJ was I-N-T-J.)

Meanwhile, several modern cognitive functions theorists have suggested that an INTJ is Ni-Te-Fi-Se, but none of them seem to be able to devise a test that reliably produces those results, nor is there any respectable body of studies establishing that the eight "cognitive functions" have any validity.

So, when you say a "true INTJ" is "someone whose ... cognitive function ordering is Ni-Te-Fi-Se. ... Period.": What kind of definition of "true" are you working with? Certainly not one that a true INTJ should have much respect for.

[Fecal McAngry]

	Originally Posted by reckful To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	several modern cognitive functions theorists have suggested that an INTJ is Ni-Te-Fi-Se, but none of them seem to be able to devise a test that reliably produces those results, nor is there any respectable body of studies establishing that the eight "cognitive functions" have any validity.

Sure. This does not bother me, because
1) it's fairly easy for an experienced "type expert" (formal or lay) to discern the various attitudes in others and see patterns reliably repeated over and over again, or to put it another way, "You can observe a lot by watching " --Yogi Berra
2) The problem is with language and tests using language and self-reporting, not the theory itself. Brain activity scans may eventually show some usefulness once we can control for the massive variability in what lights up using a given function--but even then, we will almost certainly encounter the language problem, albeit perhaps slightly less.

[John01]

This reminds me of my religious days when people went looking for false christians.

[Tactical Panda]

Negative one percent.

- - -

Unrelated to the forum population:

J has little to nothing to do with Jung or his concern with rational function dominance. Its about the attitude of the preferred main two's rational function - extroverted or introverted.

INTJ thus has extroverted rational function of T, thus Te, while being introverted which tells you that the primary function is not the extroverted rational function but the introverted irrational function of intuition. It's useful for the workplace and bosses to quickly assess who acts like who, rather than suit the fickle whims of angry, confused internet boffins.

Jung would likely have described an INTJ as along the lines of "the state of one who possesses an introverted intuitive with a preference for extroverted thinking who possesses an extroverted sensing function of an inferior and primative order". That is to say, he probably would not have called an INTJ an INTJ, just as one who does not speak english would not call a spoon a "spoon", although they possibly knows what a spoon is once shown it in everything except that language's label.

[MechanicalSun]

Impostors!? Where!?

*old english epic voice* Let the fire of purification cleanse their souls!

[HIDE="Burn them all!!"]
To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
[/HIDE]

[Hariar]

OP is definately fake.

On a slightly more serious note, I do not really believe in the 16 MBTI types in the way that this topic treats them. I find no reason to believe that there is such thing as a "true INTJ"; though some people self-typed as 'INTJ' on this board might deviate more from the INTJ stereotype than others. Why? Now there is a jolly good question.

[zibber]

You seem to be entirely clueless as to the nature of MBTI and Jung's project.

---------- Post added 06-03-2012 at 02:06 PM ----------

	Originally Posted by childofprodigy To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	The most common pattern I see is ENTP mistyping as ENTJ and INTP mistyping as INTJ.

BUT! Your avatar certainly does reflect your opinion of yourself.

[demaugustus]

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

Given the recent surge in fake INTJ threads, I've decided to construct this poll to measure everyone's estimate on what the probability of a given user with INTJ label is likely to be a "True" INTJ on this forum is... What is a "True" INTJ? A true INTJ is someone whose (actual, not self reported) cognitive function ordering is Ni-Te-Fi-Se. If your cognitive function ordering is not Ni-Te-Fi-Se, you're not an INTJ. Period. I don't care how I or how N or how T or how J you think you are. It's the cognitive functions that matter. Those dichotomy based tests are likely to be cheated on in favor of an xNTJ type anyway. The xNTJ type descriptions also get hypersexed to an obscene manner by the MBTI writers, leading to many people to claim xNTJ status despite not having the NTJ cognitive functions. The most common pattern I see is ENTP mistyping as ENTJ and INTP mistyping as INTJ... Anyways, out of all the users in this forum who claim that their type is INTJ, how many of them do you think is a true INTJ with Ni-Te-Fi-Se? Despite the inevitable mistypes, do you think this forum in general is a good resource for knowing/learning more about the INTJ type? Also, the poll is left inclusive but not right inclusive. Eg. the 70~80% option INCLUDES 70% but EXCLUDES 80%. Keep that in mind. And epic poll fail, I forgot to include 60~70% lol.....Can an admin please fix this for me...

How did you arrive to the conclusion that there are mistypes on this forum?

[koakuma]

	Originally Posted by childofprodigy To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	Anyways, out of all the users in this forum who claim that their type is INTJ, how many of them do you think is a true INTJ with Ni-Te-Fi-Se? Despite the inevitable mistypes, do you think this forum in general is a good resource for knowing/learning more about the INTJ type?

I think the INTJ forum is a great place to learn about the INTJ type (otherwise I wouldn't be here, doh). I do not doubt that certain members are INTJ's (I kind of have a little unintentional mental list of them). The people who think they are INTJ and are not, will have the chance to be corrected and learn more about their actual super-powers.

The percentage of INTJs changes since new members enter the forum asking if they are INTJ or other. So roughly imagine a graph with percentage of INTJ in the INTJ forum on the X axis and time on Y axis. Graph would be like the ocean.

[scorpiomover]

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

Myers admitted that flipping the attitude of the auxiliary function was contrary to the view of the majority of Jung scholars. I'd say a better reading of Jung would be that he viewed J-doms as the people who (in terms of the functions) came the closest to having what MBTI theory would call a J preference. As far as INTJs are concerned, I think the most respectable interpretation of Jung (and the one consistent with the majority of Jung scholars) would probably be that an INTJ's functions would be Ti-Ni-Se-Fe — arguably Jung's view of himself at the time he wrote Psychological Types. Myers, meanwhile, besides flipping the attitude of the auxiliary, also associated the J/P preference with whether your top extraverted function (dom or aux) was a judging function or a perceiving function. But she agreed with Jung that both the tertiary and inferior functions were in the opposite attitude from the dominant function. So Myers' view was that an INTJ was Ni-Te-Fe-Se. (Of course, Myers also shifted the central focus from the functions to the dichotomies, so it would really be more accurate to say that Myers' view was that an INTJ was I-N-T-J.) Meanwhile, several modern cognitive functions theorists have suggested that an INTJ is Ni-Te-Fi-Se, but none of them seem to be able to devise a test that reliably produces those results, nor is there any respectable body of studies establishing that the eight "cognitive functions" have any validity. So, when you say a "true INTJ" is "someone whose ... cognitive function ordering is Ni-Te-Fi-Se. ... Period.": What kind of definition of "true" are you working with? Certainly not one that a true INTJ should have much respect for.

Interesting idea.

However, according to Jung, the dominant function has a much greater effect on the psyche, than the auxiliary function. So it would be much easier to mistake an Ni-Ti for an Ni-Te, than it would be to mistake a Ti-Ni for an Ni-Te, because the former would require mistaking the auxiliary function, while the latter would require mistaking the dominant function as well. So I think that if anything, what we call INTJs, would be more likely to be Ni-Ti.

Nevertheless, from what I have read of Jung, I wish to suggest that Jung might have meant the following:

An INTJ would be NI-Ti-Fe-SE, where the NI is highly introverted, the Ti is still introverted, but less so, the Fe is more extroverted still, and the SE would be highly extroverted. The scale would probably be dictated by how much the INTJ is generally introverted, which would indicate the level of introversion of NI and the compensatory level of extroversion of SE. Ti and Fe would be far less introverted and extroverted.

[hide="explanation"]1) From Jung's Psychological Types, on "B. The Extraverted Type", in "(II) THE ATTITUDE OF THE UNCONSCIOUS":

It may perhaps seem odd that I should speak of attitude of the 'unconscious'. As I have already sufficiently indicated, I regard the relation of the unconscious to the conscious as compensatory. The unconscious, according to this view, has as good a claim to an I attitude' as the conscious. In the foregoing section I emphasized the tendency to a certain one-sidedness in the extraverted attitude, due to the controlling power of the objective factor in the course, of psychic events. The extraverted type is constantly tempted to give himself away (apparently) in favour of the object, and to assimilate his subject to the object. I have referred in detail to the ultimate consequences of this exaggeration of the extraverted attitude, viz. to the injurious suppression of the subjective factor. It is only, to be expected, therefore, that a psychic compensation of the conscious extraverted attitude will lay especial weight upon the subjective factor, i.e. we shall have to prove a strong egocentric tendency in the unconscious. Practical experience actually furnishes this proof. I do not wish to enter into a casuistical survey at this point, so must refer my readers to the ensuing sections, where I shall attempt to present the characteristic attitude of the unconscious from the angle of each function-type, In this section we are merely concerned with the compensation of a general extraverted attitude; I shall, therefore, confine myself to an equally general characterization of the compensating attitude of the unconscious. The attitude of the unconscious as an effective complement to the conscious extraverted attitude has a definitely introverting character. It focusses libido upon the subjective factor, i.e. all those needs and claims which are stifled or repressed by a too extraverted conscious [p. 423] attitude.

He makes it clear, that the unconscious always takes a compensatory effect upon the conscious. If the conscious is extraverted, then the unconscious is intraverted, and if the conscious is intraverted, the unconscious is extraverted.


2) From Jung's Psychological Types, on "11. The Principal and Auxiliary Functions":

For all the types appearing in practice, the principle holds good that besides the conscious main function there is also a relatively unconscious, auxiliary function which is in every respect different from the nature of the main function. From these combinations well-known pictures arise, the practical intellect for instance paired with sensation, the speculative intellect breaking through [p. 516] with intuition, the artistic intuition which selects. and presents its images by means of feeling judgment, the philosophical intuition which, in league with a vigorous intellect, translates its vision into the sphere of comprehensible thought, and so forth. A grouping of the unconscious functions also takes place in accordance with the relationship of the conscious functions. Thus, for instance, an unconscious intuitive feeling attitude may correspond with a conscious practical intellect, whereby the function of feeling suffers a relatively stronger inhibition than intuition.

He makes it clear, that the behaviour of the auxiliary function acts as if it is relatively unconscious, when compared to the behaviour of the dominant function. Thus, the auxiliary function acts in a compensatory and supportive manner to the dominant function. As a result, when compared to a dominant introverted function, the auxiliary function appears to be relatively extroverted. The other functions similarly move away from the dominant function's status, to the reverse.

An INTJ would be NI-Ti-Fe-SE, where the NI is highly introverted, the Ti is still introverted, but less so, the Fe is more extroverted still, and the SE would be highly extroverted. The scale would probably be dictated by how much the INTJ is generally introverted, which would indicate the level of introversion of NI and the compensatory level of extroversion of SE. Ti and Fe would be far less introverted and extroverted.


3) On reflection, this might also explain why Jung wrote:

Thinking, if it is to be real thinking and true to its own principle, must scrupulously exclude feeling. This, of course, does not exclude the fact that individuals certainly exist in whom thinking and feeling stand upon the same [p. 515] level, whereby both have equal motive power in con~sdousness. But, in such a case, there is also no question of a differentiated type, but merely of a relatively undeveloped thinking and feeling. Uniform consciousness and unconsciousness of functions is, therefore, a distinguishing mark of a primitive mentality.

If someone was too balanced, then the relative levels would be non-existent, and then all the functions used, would appear equally appealing to the INTJ to start with, and then they could appear as INTJ, INTP, ESFJ, or ESFP, at any time. The spread would be so large, as to negate the possibility of one personality type rising above the rest, to remain clear and distinct as one's own personality.[/hide]

[Booko]

You didn't leave an option for "I am not psychic."

[reckful]

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

Interesting idea. However, according to Jung, the dominant function has a much greater effect on the psyche, than the auxiliary function. So it would be much easier to mistake an Ni-Ti for an Ni-Te, than it would be to mistake a Ti-Ni for an Ni-Te, because the former would require mistaking the auxiliary function, while the latter would require mistaking the dominant function as well. So I think that if anything, what we call INTJs, would be more likely to be Ni-Ti. ...

I agree with some of what you said, and you're right to be focusing on the parallel between introversion/extraversion (or, for an extravert, extraversion/introversion) and conscious/unconscious. But if you read through Psychological Types looking for descriptions of what we'd think of as MBTI "J" characteristics, you mostly find them associated with J-doms (who Jung referred to as the "rational types"). And the other place you find them is in descriptions of introverts generally.

I also think it's reasonably clear Jung thought of himself as a Ti-dom at the time he wrote Psychological Types. So, assuming that Jung's descriptions of introverts and rational types and Ti-doms were, to some extent, self-descriptions, I think there's a pretty strong case to be made that Jung would have typed as an MBTI J, and that he would have attributed those aspects of his personality, to a substantial degree, to the fact that he was a "rational type" (J-dom). If that's true, that would mean INTJ would translate (for Jung) to Ti-Ni-Se-Fe rather than Ni-Ti-Fe-Se.

As far as the auxiliary function being partly conscious and partly unconscious goes, I believe Jung's view was — and, again, Myers seemed to acknowledge that this interpretation of Jung was the majority view — that, although the default attitude of the second function was in the opposite direction from the dominant function, that corresponded with the default place for the second function being the unconscious (in an "archaic" state, fused with the other unconscious functions and all that). If and to the extent that the second function was brought up into consciousness and developed ("differentiated") as an auxiliary function, serving the dominant function, it would also, to that extent, take on the same conscious attitude (e.g., introversion for an introvert) as the dominant function. It sounds like the majority of Jung scholars believed (correctly, I think, and contrary to Myers' interpretation) that Jung viewed the auxiliary function as providing balance between judging and perceiving, but not between introversion and extraversion. I think the rest of Psychological Types makes it pretty clear that, for Jung, I/E balance always came about (to the extent that it did) from the unconscious.

Myers largely rested her case on the sentence where Jung says the auxiliary function is "in every respect different" from the dominant function. And I'd agree that her interpretation would appear to be the best one if all you do is look at that one sentence in isolation. But the trouble is, that interpretation seems inconsistent with way too much else in Psychological Types.

And it may sound like I'm saying Myers made a big mistake, but the thing is... For the most part, Myers based her type descriptions, like the MBTI test itself, on the dichotomies (and various combinations thereof), rather than the functions. And it's also worth noting that, in many respects, the "cognitive functions" that modern theorists (like Berens and Nardi) are working with aren't so much Jung's original versions of those functions as they are modified versions of the functions that reflect Myers' adjustments to Jung and that are otherwise jerry-rigged to match up with the corresponding MBTI types. Hence modern descriptions of "Si," for example, are typically comprised more of the characteristics that Myers (not to mention Keirsey and others) have found that I_SJs (and/or SJs) have in common than the stuff in Jung's description of Si-doms.

[JackParrish]

Where, exactly, would we like this little heretic hunt to get us? To what end?

[Booko]

	Originally Posted by JackParrish To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	Where, exactly, would we like this little heretic hunt to get us? To what end?

Well...it is summer in the Northern Hemisphere so it's time for:

[HIDE="Picnic anyone?"]
To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
[/HIDE]

[passenger]

There are no true INTJs. A pure type according to the model would be such a boring and one-dimensional character, anyway.

[Distance]

5.368925721613

[JackParrish]

	Originally Posted by Booko To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	Well...it is summer in the Northern Hemisphere so it's time for: [HIDE="Picnic anyone?"] To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts. [/HIDE]

Ha. Absolutely.

Last I knew this wasn't a forum where you had to be precise to have membership. It's about discovery--and discovering yourself is a long and rigorous process. I, for one, have great respect for anyone even attempting to wade through all of this unholy personality mess. But further, I don't know that this study is even remotely supported by the types of tests that could confirm one way or another, even if that was the concept at play here.

In my opinion this thread is more about the tar and feather hunt. The pitchforks and torches mentality that some people fall in love with when they want to be "insiders" and force away all of the outsiders.


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

[painfulltruf]

If I did this poll, I would be banned. The mods seem to know who is real, who is fake, and who is calling out the fakers.

The only ambiguity is in self testing...which if administered correctly would solve the problem of 'dress up' so prevalent on forums...not just here, but in music, martial arts, aviation....

But heaven forbid we have accountability and transparency...oh no...gosh no...hell no....

Welcome to the internet, where you can be who ever you want. Social Media. Yeah.

[VENUS 2020]

What are you hoping to achieve here? What is your next step? Naming individuals and torturing them until they admit that they don't belong?

I find the forum a good place to learn about MBTI in general. The mixed interaction makes it more interesting. INTJ's or not, a lot of the people here seem to have shared experiences and challenges. Thus community is a good place for them to gain acceptance, support and camaraderie. Got a problem with that?

[davai]

Went for 80-90. Most are, but it seems like a fair few who are probably not. Most of those as i think has been mentioned would be INFJ and INTP, a few ENTJ and ENTP, and even some INFP, ISFP, and ESTP. The IxFPs because of the primary Fi function, can make for an unemotional exterior, plus they usually think and dwell on stuff a lot. ISFP 3rd function (?) is also Ni which they share with INTJs. Probably a few ESTPs also, perhaps with moderate E/I. Some ESTPs can be intellectually smart for their type. At Uni there was this woman who would blow away most of the people here with her depth of sociological knowledge, really smart woman, but also really ESTP. So i think that intellectualism probably makes for a few mistypes. Lastly you just have to look at some of the hideously wrong famous people mistypes for more evidence. If it's wrongly applied to others, then mistakes can easily happen to oneself also.

E: Forgot about ISTJ as well.

[CrudeHypothesis]

Anyone with an X in their type should be re-tested, because if you know about the cognitive functions, you know it's impossible to have an X in your type.

In fact, why does it even matter? You should judge posts on their validity.