Welcome to INTJ Forum

This is a community where INTJs can meet others with similar personalities and discuss a wide variety of both serious and casual topics. If you aren't an INTJ, you're welcome to join anyway if you would like to learn more about this personality type or participate in our discussions. Registration is free and will allow you to post messages, see hidden subforums, customize your account and use other features only available to our members.


  • Content count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

About T_metalhead

  • Rank
    New Member


  • MBTI
  1. So you just go by the 4 main dichotomies? Cause I'm pretty sure there are behavioural differences between the specific functions as well (i.e. Fe's and Fi's will act out empathizing in very different ways). In fact, I think I've gained more understanding of people I know by associating their behaviour with one function or another than I have by applying the 4 major dichotomies. Also, I really don't understand why E/J types would be trapped in a cycle of abstracts if their dominant function is extroverted...that sounds more like the Ni-Ti loop that someone else described here earlier than it does any kind of extrovert's problem.
  2. Ok, so you're arguing that the only thing of value in the Briggs is its ability to tell you your dominant function? Then why do you identify yourself as an INTJ? Not sure what the difference would be in this case. Jung came up with the cognitive functions by observing phenomena, then defining them by giving them names that described them.
  3. Yes, but why is it necessary that the table be formed via this method? Why should I be satisfied with the selection of sparkly wonders that it presents?
  4. This is my point. I'm not particularly interested in the history of MBTI and the sources of each of its conventions. I'm trying to determine whether these conventions have been found to be scientifically viable. Jung gave us a set of cognitive functions that are simply definitions for helping us identify different psychological phenomenon. In this sense, his contribution is fairly incontestable. But has there been research done to uncover a set of rules that necessitate how these functions interact? Because this element of the MBTI goes beyond defining different elements of the psyche and makes assertions regarding how those elements interact and what is and isn't possible to observe in any given individual's behavioural patterns, then it requires its hypotheses be tested. So my primary question here is whether there is any evidence to suggest that the symmetry of E and I in the function stack is necessary. Someone brought up the idea that a stack that is more balanced in this regard would be healthier than an unbalanced one, but I don't see how healthiness would be terribly relevant to such a type indicator. All the functions have the potential to be healthy depending on the situation one is in. The only thing that could really be considered unhealthy is if an individual were entirely incapable of using one of the functions in a situation where is was necessary to do so. I don't see how having a general preference for Ni and Ti would be maladaptive unless that individual were entirely incapable of tapping into Ne and Te, which I'm not. I haven't had the chance to read all the posts in the other two forums yet, but I do intend to.
  5. We are capable of performing all functions to a degree, but I'm talking about the dominant functions (the 4 presented in the hierarchy). Since they're our strongest functions, they're the ones that can be taken to define us the most. The Briggs presents us a with what seems to me to be an arbitrarily limited set of combinations with regards to our most defining functions.
  6. I rarely cry. Then when I do cry, I get overwhelmed by the fact that I'm crying and cry until my tear ducts explode. Then I murder anyone who bore witness to said crying.
  7. After being acquainted with the Jungian functions tests on here and learning more about the functions in general, I have come to the realization that I'm not a true INTJ. Although most tests tell me that my hierarchy consists of intuition, then thinking, then feeling, then sensing, I have come to the realization that all of the functions in my stack are introverted (Ni Ti Fi Si). Of the available Briggs types, INTJ is the closest match, but it doesn't accurately describe my function stack. Does anyone else here have a purely introverted or purely extroverted stack? Why does the Briggs insist that everyone has half introverted and half extroverted functions? And why does the Briggs not allow for every possible ordering of the functions in the hierarchy?
  8. Woops, that was a typo. I meant ISFJ. I highly doubt he's a T, despite being a rather reasonable person. He's just got way too much Fe for that.
  9. I received a pretty harsh door-slam from an INFJ once. I'm not sure whether he felt no remorse because he saw me as some sort of cold-hearted monster unworthy of sympathy or if he was in fact some sort of insecure, predatory bully. At every attempt I made to get back in touch and figure out why he had suddenly cut me out of his life, he would evade my questions and attack my character in the harshest possible terms. There's a potentially dangerous trap to fall into here - both the INTJ and INFJ require understanding in a relationship, but the nature of this understanding is different. While the INTJ seeks to know their partner's thoughts and reasoning, the INFJ seeks to know their partner's feelings. If either one of these needs is not met, it can result in a lot of pain for the party in question.
  10. Pretty much everything else. He's a sweet, caring, pocket-sized sex-machine. Pretty self-aware too. He knows that he's insecure and often stops himself before getting cranky about about it, but that results in us having to stop doing the thing that he was getting insecure about (usually music, which is sad cause he's a decent musician and I'd like to jam with him more). Have any insights for me regarding ISTJs and relationships?
  11. Not yet. We don't see each other terribly often and he dislikes me bringing up problems over text. Thus why I'm venting on here in the meantime.
  12. I'm not questioning whether or not he's capable of self-sacrifice. He definitely is. I'm not terribly interested in that, however. Self-sacrifice seems to me to be a terribly inefficient way of generating happiness (assuming we're referring to a willingness to neglect one's own needs to serve somone else's). What I value is a certain generosity of spirit, involving a willingness to open up and let the other partner in on their plans, desires, etc.
  13. It's actually rather fitting that you bring up the forum on lying in Asian cultures. I grew up in a North American context, but surrounded by mostly Russian/Chinese people, and I think these cultures may contain a level of directness that outshines that of many other cultures. So yes, it's partly a cultural bias that I am easily revolted by lying. However, in both of the contexts I brought up, there was also the potential for harm to be done by the lie in question. In the example with the car salesmen, he could have gotten their hopes up, making them think they were going to make a sale when they weren't. In the example with his mum, she'll likely find out that I don't celebrate Christmas at some point or other, which will presumably reflect badly on my bf when she realizes he lied to her. The reason I avoid most lies is that they usually aren't worth the effort at all. The only times I find myself habitually lying is for the sake of being concise about banal, irrelevant topics (i.e. if I left my phone at home because I didn't charge it and it died, I might replace that with simply "I forgot my phone at home"). However, what bothers me the most is lying with the ease and apparent sincerity that he does. If one can lie like that about small things, what's to say they won't about big things?
  14. Among my friends, there is no need to present myself. I'm confident in who I am and express myself as such. However, my friends are not like most people and when presenting myself in front of strangers (especially employers/people in positions of authority), I have to assume that they will not accept me for who I am and thus must present myself differently. This is not a skill that I have highly developed and thus have little confidence when doing it. My bf, on the other hand, may be just as unusual as I am on the inside, but he has perfected his facade and thus comes across as confident when he presents himself to strangers. This is all that I really mean by confidence here. I think it would be beneficial for me to develop a better professional facade and I think it would be beneficial for him to be more himself in contexts where he can get away with doing so (and hopefully become more secure in who he is in the process). But, for now, it's a source of friction.
  15. I'm afraid you're the one who interpreted it as megalomaniacal. I never said he was anything of the sort. He simply lies more often and more earnestly than I would like and, more importantly, lies on my behalf (which I don't think is OK for anyone to do without consent). Neither of us lives in a "big" city anymore and I don't think it's necessary to be more of a jerk to live in one. I simply wish him to be more authentic, to tone down his "happy-pollution", as you call it, and not be made uneasy by the slightest criticism or hint of "negative thinking" on my part.