[prettyboy]

A lot o people around here seems to think that INTPs solve math problems in a linear/straight-forward way whereas INTJs are more creative and illogical.

They seem to think that INTJs use intuition and INTPs use logic and base this on the supposed order or functions suggested by MBTI.

First of all if you take each dimension of I/N/T/J to maximum you end up with the original Jung's Introverted Thinker and with I/N/T/P you end up at his Introverted Intuition. His theory is really just a first order approximation of your personality based on 8 functions, or actually 8 dimensions.

When they generalized his theory from first order to second order approximation, they introduced a secondary function, but in order to keep the possibilites down, you only get to choose a secondary function from 2 choices rather than 7 (which doubles the nr of types from 8 to 16). From this also follows what is called tertiary and inferior functions, but there is no choice among those, so they don't introduce more types.

The restraint of only choosing between 2 secondary functions make MBTtI really bad for functional analysis, it's much better to look at the 4 dimensions that emerge from the combinations of types actually.

Then they made the mistake of swapping the primary functions between all introverted types between J and P which was a really bad move, if you want to analyze yourself using functions.

The difference between strict, formal and logical math and creative, heuristic and fast math should is not really about N and T, but it describes people who are J or P (J being strict, formal and logical and P being creative, heuristic and fast).

Talking about T vs F makes it look like an F-person wouldn't be as good at math, when there's a good chance they are (at least if they are surrounded by people who value it). Maybe the F:ers do math to make people like them for example, rather than say pushing others down, avoiding social contact or get a job that doesn't overstimulate them.

[TheObserver]

1. I understand what you are saying, but do not understand why you titled this post as you did. We are talking about the INTJ and INTP types that Myers Briggs has come up with. The descriptions of the types and the tests play a role in this. All discussion stems from that. I congratulate you for figuring out that someone with a primary function that is judging should have a "J" at the end of their type as opposed to a "P" function. Many of us already figured that out and there have been posts on that. The final creator of the system decided the P/J function should reflect how the person interacts with people in the real world. According to Myers Briggs, the introvert hides his or her primary function when interacting with people and uses his or her extroverted function. Even though the INTJ is not primarily a judging type, extroverted thinking is what people see when they interact with them according to the creators.

2. I think I have an idea as to what you are saying in regards to the JP dichotomy and math, but I don't agree. Our disagreement may stem from the information I just wrote to you in the first section. It only refers to how someone reacts on the outside. Judging types appear to resolve issues quicker than perceivers do. That is the gist of that relationship. It has nothing to do with creativity or formal logic. If two people are given the same information that they have to use to solve a problem, both of them may go through nearly the same thought process but one of them may double check their work many times over and the other will write down their answer and move to the next one.

3. There is no barrier to any subject for anyone. Your personality type is not a crutch, it is not an excuse for mediocrity, or a reason for you someone not to change. The test was originally created to help people understand each other a little better and people can learn what they might be good at from the test as well. Remember that we are dealing with groups of people not individuals. Nobody said that an F type could not enjoy any subject including math.

[prettyboy]

	Even though the INTJ is not primarily a judging type

When you take the test it asks questions about E/I, S/N, F/T and P/J and if you're an INTJ you score high on J, meaning you really are a judging type. This is how you take the test and that should define the meaning of the type.
Then there is another perspective to look at things, meaning looking at function order, which we agree on is messed up, because of the J/P switch of I:s. Just even mentioning function order is an approximation of the test result, which deals with continuous dimensions.

J are faster?!? J people control their impulses towards finishing the task (reward dependence is essentially EXXP) in order to get a more perfect result, which takes longer because you have to check every little detail.
Possibly an EXXJ could have the same speed as an IXXP, because the EXXJ:s impulse control cancels with the IXXP:s lack of drive

[TheObserver]

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

When you take the test it asks questions about E/I, S/N, F/T and P/J and if you're an INTJ you score high on J, meaning you really are a judging type. This is how you take the test and that should define the meaning of the type. Then there is another perspective to look at things, meaning looking at function order, which we agree on is messed up, because of the J/P switch of I:s. Just even mentioning function order is an approximation of the test result, which deals with continuous dimensions.

I did not say that the J/P was "messed up" necessarily. I merely explained how the creators decided to design the system. It is not "wrong" or "messed up" they simply made a choice on how they wanted to structure the system. They decided to structure it based off of outward behavior instead of internal structure because they felt it would make it easier for people to identify people as ISTJ, INTP, INTJ etc. Once you are able to diagnose someone from their outward behavior, you will then have an idea as to what is the internal "master" of the controls as opposed to trying to find the hidden "master" in order to diagnose. That is the theory and I don't see this as a "flaw" rather it was a perfectly rational choice they made from the many possible choices they could have made. The questions on the test focus on outward behavior not internal structure so the test is consistent with this theory. The INTJ acts like the ENTJ, but is not a judging type because the INTJ primary function is an information gathering function not a judging function.

	Originally Posted by prettyboy To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	J are faster?!? J people control their impulses towards finishing the task (reward dependence is essentially EXXP) in order to get a more perfect result, which takes longer because you have to check every little detail. Possibly an EXXJ could have the same speed as an IXXP, because the EXXJ:s impulse control cancels with the IXXP:s lack of drive

What I mean by Js appearing to resolve issues quicker than Ps is their outward behavior. In MBTI, introverts are different from extroverts. Introverts must adapt to the external world even if they prefer their internal world. They must lead with their extroverted function when they deal with the real world whether they want to or not, but their primary function is still the introverted one. They are in fact leading with their auxiliary function when dealing with the external world. The INTJ appears to lead with extroverted thinking, a judging function, when dealing with the real world, but the real "master" is introverted intuition. By the time you have read this far you should have figured out that the EXXJ will likely always appear to have made a decision faster than the IXXP assuming we are both writing about MBTI.

One more thing I want to add in the hopes that this might resolve any confusion. There are two kinds of people in the world when it comes to judgment (at least in MBTI):
1. People that place great emphasis on the use of their judging function (primary function) and follow it up with an information gathering function (auxiliary).
2. People that place great emphasis on the use of their information gathering function) and follow it up with a judging function (auxiliary).

The INTJ appears to be a judging type in outward appearance, which is why they chose to give the INTJ its "J", but is not truly judging because the INTJ places greater emphasis on information gathering than on a judging function.

[prettyboy]

MBTI tries to be a second order approximation of Jung's 8 dimensional theory (each function is a dimension), where he himself used a first order approximation (choosing one of the functions).

MBTI should reduce to his approximation when skipping the addition (secondary function) and he called Introverted Thinking a rational function, something the MBTI test calls Judging. (Meaning INTJ should reduce to Introverted Thinker when only taking the primary function into consideration).

When it comes to the function order there are many approximations and assumptions made which really misguides you more than helps you, and gives rise to philosophical arguments like yours, like talking about how you appear when you extravert.

If someone claims to be an INTJ saying how creative he is, with his Ni, then he won't score as organised and concerned with formal rules and details, which is J, because that creativity he claims to have is P and then he'll come out as an INTP.

Just an example, I'm an ESFP, but one of my least developed functions is probably Fi (well maybe not so much the function as the emotion, that is emotional attachment, which should be represented by Fi because there is no F that belongs to P where the attachment really is), which is impossible to describe if you use the suggested function order, meaning the function order is just a philosophical construct with no foundation in reality.

If you're gonna talk about functions it's probably better to use Jung's version because it doesn't misguide you the same way the MBTI function order does.

[Owfin]

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

Just an example, I'm an ESFP, but one of my least developed functions is probably Fi (well maybe not so much the function as the emotion, that is emotional attachment, which should be represented by Fi because there is no F that belongs to P where the attachment really is), which is impossible to describe if you use the suggested function order, meaning the function order is just a philosophical construct with no foundation in reality.

Fi is not emotional attachment, it is rationalizing opinions and values based on your internal judgement.

Although you might not agree with the MBTI labeling, it would then be better to say that you are an ESXP, which retains the dominant inferior dynamic without confusing everybody.

[prettyboy]

Highest attachment is IXFP, which doesn't translate to exactly one function, but what else would it be, Si? That's emotional state but it has nothing to do with other people.

I'm definitely E and F, that's where I score the highest, in fact this is probably my function order:
Fe (care about others opinion)
Se (emotional drive)
Te (winner)
Ne (creative)
Ti (theoretical logic, been practicing in college)
Ni (parts of creative problem solving)
Si (connection to my emotions, most notably I don't really feel pain as normal people, just ignoring the pain and push towards the goal)
Fi (emotional attachment)

As you can see my highest is Fe, but I'm still an ESFP, but that just means I'm highest on F and E

[Straynger]

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

One more thing I want to add in the hopes that this might resolve any confusion. There are two kinds of people in the world when it comes to judgment (at least in MBTI): 1. People that place great emphasis on the use of their judging function (primary function) and follow it up with an information gathering function (auxiliary). 2. People that place great emphasis on the use of their information gathering function) and follow it up with a judging function (auxiliary). The INTJ appears to be a judging type in outward appearance, which is why they chose to give the INTJ its "J", but is not truly judging because the INTJ places greater emphasis on information gathering than on a judging function.

You two are clearly having a debate to which i'm not versed, so I'll just try and understand something fascinating you said more clearly. Is one of the differences between INTJ's and INTP's that INTJs like to gather information only to the point at which we "think/intuit" we have enough to formulate an answer. Whereas you INTP's like to gather information indefinitely? I'm basing this on my very crude understanding the J/P dichotomy, J's like closure & answers, P like openness and um, gosh i really don't understand you guys lol.

[prettyboy]

Closure is really just fast decisions which is really impulsiveness which is EXXP

[TheObserver]

OK. Let's try a different approach to this discussion. I get that you are versed in Jung. I have the book Gifts Differing written by the people that made MBTI. My other posts are based off of what is in the book.

	Originally Posted by prettyboy To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	MBTI tries to be a second order approximation of Jung's 8 dimensional theory (each function is a dimension), where he himself used a first order approximation (choosing one of the functions).

Prove that they were merely trying to mimic it and have not consciously decided to make the changes they did.

	Originally Posted by prettyboy To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	MBTI should reduce to his approximation when skipping the addition (secondary function) and he called Introverted Thinking a rational function, something the MBTI test calls Judging. (Meaning INTJ should reduce to Introverted Thinker when only taking the primary function into consideration).

Should? Sounds like this is just your opinion. I wrote more than enough on why they decided to do this. It was a perfectly logical way to do it. Prove that it is wrong simply because they didn't do it the way you wanted them to do it.

	Originally Posted by prettyboy To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	If someone claims to be an INTJ saying how creative he is, with his Ni, then he won't score as organised and concerned with formal rules and details, which is J, because that creativity he claims to have is P and then he'll come out as an INTP.

Not according to MBTI.
To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

Judging:

I like to have things decided.
I appear to be task oriented.
I like to make lists of things to do.
I like to get my work done before playing.
I plan work to avoid rushing just before a deadline.
Sometimes I focus so much on the goal that I miss new information.

Perceiving:

I like to stay open to respond to whatever happens.
I appear to be loose and casual. I like to keep plans to a minimum.
I like to approach work as play or mix work and play.
I work in bursts of energy.
I am stimulated by an approaching deadline.
Sometimes I stay open to new information so long I miss making decisions when they are needed.

The INTJ will identify with the judging part.

[prettyboy]

	Prove that they were merely trying to mimic it and have not consciously decided to make the changes they did.

Well, they did steal a lot of his ideas and names, so it's fairly easy to assume they thought he had good ideas.

	Prove that it is wrong simply because they didn't do it the way you wanted them to do it.

It's like having a velocity addition formula for time dilation at high speeds, but when you use the formula for normal speeds you don't get the normal velocity addition. If the formula doesn't work with the theory we already have, you usually discard it.


A few of those statements are a bit suspicious, but people who plan work, get the work done before playing, make lists etc are usually not creative, they're rigid, boring kind of people, pretty much the opposite of creative.

[masterpeach]

To the OP: The problem with your assumption is that you mix two systems: MBTI and Jung. They're two different pairs of shoes.

(MBTI does not give you an idea about your Jungian functional order although it is based on Jung's them. I think it was Keirsey who tried to reverse-engineer it to merge Jung's theory and MBTI. Hence the problems with the Ni-Te/Ne-Ti order for INTx that socionics tried to solve.)

It is a matter of fact that Jung's functions can be identified in the brain according to Dario Nardi's latest findings that he presents in his book "Neuroscience of Personality".

It is also a fact that logical thinkers are better at maths because their brains are wired this way. That doesn't mean someone whose brain is wired differently couldn't train it to solve the same problems. But it will always be like writing with your left hand when you're right-handed.

[TheObserver]

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

Well, they did steal a lot of his ideas and names, so it's fairly easy to assume they thought he had good ideas. It's like having a velocity addition formula for time dilation at high speeds, but when you use the formula for normal speeds you don't get the normal velocity addition. If the formula doesn't work with the theory we already have, you usually discard it. A few of those statements are a bit suspicious, but people who plan work, get the work done before playing, make lists etc are usually not creative, they're rigid, boring kind of people, pretty much the opposite of creative.

They borrowed material from him, but they did not make it exactly the same. I disagree with your analogy because I see it as much easier to type someone based on their outward behavior than it is to try to type them on what they don't show people.

Here are two basic types of creativity:
1. Improves an already existing system to make it more efficient.
2. Tears down the old system and erects a new one in its place that is more efficient.

I would agree that number two is more creative, but number one can still be creative especially if they have many ideas on how to improve the current system.

---------- Post added 03-19-2012 at 12:43 PM ----------

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

You two are clearly having a debate to which i'm not versed, so I'll just try and understand something fascinating you said more clearly. Is one of the differences between INTJ's and INTP's that INTJs like to gather information only to the point at which we "think/intuit" we have enough to formulate an answer. Whereas you INTP's like to gather information indefinitely? I'm basing this on my very crude understanding the J/P dichotomy, J's like closure & answers, P like openness and um, gosh i really don't understand you guys lol.

Disclaimer: Some of this stems from my own ideas.
You can't make a decision by sensing or intuiting only. Your eyes do not make your conscious decisions. Your senses and intuition are information gathering functions. Feeling and thinking are the judging functions. The IXXJ types have a primary function that is introverted intuition or introverted sensing yet they have a "J" at the end which suggests they are judging. The IXXJ has no choice but to consult both the sensing/intuition function and the thinking/feeling function in order to make a judgment. IXXP types have a primary function that is introverted thinking or introverted feeling yet they have a "P" at the end which suggests they are perceiving and not judging. They need only consult the judging function to make a decision in the "world" they prefer (the introverted world) if they want to. In other words the IXXP could be considered "judging" because the IXXP technically doesn't even have to consult anything but the judging function in order to make a decision on things that he or she probably considers to matter most. So then the question of why Myers Briggs has decided to put the "J" next to the INTJ comes up. The answer they gave has to do with what is actually observed.

There are two "worlds":
1. The introverted world inside of your mind.
2. The extroverted world that exists outside of your mind.

Introverts prefer the world inside of their mind. Extroverts prefer the world outside of their mind. Introverts will naturally prize their introverted function more than their extroverted one and vice versa because that is where they are at home. The introvert has no choice but to live in the extroverted world though. You can't deny the world outside after all. Introverts will lead with their introverted primary function when they are in the introverted world inside of their mind (usually alone), but in the extroverted world they will lead with their extroverted function. So the INTJ leads with extroverted thinking when dealing with external issues even though it is not the INTJ's primary function. This makes them more "judging" when dealing with the extroverted world (thinking is a judging function). The INTP is forced to lead with extroverted intuition, an information gathering function, which makes them less "judging" when it comes to dealing with the external world. I hope this isn't too hard to understand. There is NO correct way to deal with introverts. You could change the INTP to an INTJ and vice versa, but it wouldn't make it any better. People would see a person that can barely make a decision without analyzing it to death and declare that person an INTJ (currently an INTP). They would get the functions right but their typing would seem kind of disjointed. Someone that can barely make a decision is "judging"? Extroverted judging types would laugh at this because extroverts don't have the same issue as the introverts, the world is extroverted and they prefer it that way. An extroverted judging type leads with a judging function. Yet at the same time it would be accurate as far as their introverted world is concerned. Either they are typed correctly based on external behavior or internal behavior, but you can't have it both ways.

	Originally Posted by prettyboy To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	Closure is really just fast decisions which is really impulsiveness which is EXXP

I see where you are getting this, but there is no faster way to make decisions than to have the decision already planned out. The "J" types, especially the STJ types, can be quite predictable when it comes to what decision they will make. They build principles over time and stick to them. It isn't truly impulsive because it is planned.

[Dru]

all these misunderstandings are based on the assumption that anyone of any particular type should fit into a specific mode of behavior determined for that type, which, to say the least, is flagrantly incorrect. to avoid confusion, what i mean by this is that certain assumptions that attempt to categorize behavior by type, such as:

INTJs like to collect things
INTPs are never on time for anything
ENFPs have commitment issues
ISFPs aren't good at math

or the like, are only ever going to be correct some of the time, which is simply too infrequent to call it a rule or even a guideline.