INTJ

Everybody seems to be mad for this stuff, understandably. The craving to be told what you are will never die, until you do. (That’s why it’s called me-me-memetics.)

INTJ-Snape

As for the wretched cases who can’t quite claw their way into the INTJ master-race, there are numerous consolation positions available among the NPCs.

Here’s the obvious role model (but only because you begged):

Palpatine00

Still my favorite:

elysium0

February 6, 2015admin 61 Comments »
FILED UNDER :Discriminations

TAGGED WITH : , ,

61 Responses to this entry

  • Nick B. Steves Says:

    Reading that myers-briggs synopsis stuff had the distinct flavor of reading a horoscope. Except this one goes to 16.

    [Reply]

    Nick B. Steves Reply:

    I suppose a slow and steady purging of the highly composite numbers that involve primes other than two is more feature than bug of the digital age.

    [Reply]

    admin Reply:

    It’s pure junk (in the pharmacological sense most obviously).

    [Reply]

    E. Antony Gray (@RiverC) Reply:

    it’s fun junk though, which is only one pseudovowel and one consonant away from ‘funny junk’.

    As my dad says, “You can’t make a clinical diagnosis from such a test.”

    [Reply]

    Posted on February 6th, 2015 at 3:52 pm Reply | Quote
  • Kgaard Says:

    Well, I take a more charitable view of Myers Briggs. It’s not being told who you are — it’s discovering who you are. And that is far more important for minority types than majority types. Discovering that 70% of people are functioning on an “S” level is tremendously liberating. Makes life planning a lot more efficient too.

    [Reply]

    admin Reply:

    “Well, I take a more charitable view of Myers Briggs.” — Not very INTJ of you, then.

    [Reply]

    Bryce Laliberte Reply:

    The MBTI is a clumsy tool, but Kgaard is right. It is useful to some people to realize that most just aren’t thinking. Helps to realize that if they’ve really given it thought and arrived at a conclusion based upon sound, tested principles (and I don’t mean they happened to read a book which argument they just blindly believe), you’re far more qualified than the average person, and you have little reason to give much esteem to whatever they could say.

    [Reply]

    Orthodox Reply:

    It is very helpful in debating though. MBTI is clearly picking up on real differences in people.

    R. Reply:

    The MBTI is a clumsy tool, but Kgaard is right. It is useful to some people to realize that most just aren’t thinking.

    And here I was erroneously believing listening in to a conversation between two average IQ people was enough. Or trying to discuss anything with them.

    Bryce Laliberte Reply:

    @R.

    If you’re learning anything interesting from listening to two average people talk, and it’s not from a purely zoological perspective, then you’re probably not very bright yourself.

    Sorry to have to be the one to tell you.

    R. Reply:

    @Bryce

    God, you’re a special.

    I guess I’ll have to explain my comment.

    You said it’s ‘helpful for realizing that most people don’t think’.

    I countered with a suggestion that to realize that one merely has to listen in on what inane crap most people of average intelligence talk about. No MBTI needed.

    Anon #1337 Reply:

    This is interesting: https://aeolipera.wordpress.com/2015/01/31/some-low-hanging-fruit-re-neuroscience-and-personality/

    [Reply]

    Kgaard Reply:

    Yes that is great stuff — confirms what I’ve always thought: The types are rooted in hard-core biological differences. So if you are a boss or father or screening for partners, you really should know the types.

    [Reply]

    R. Reply:

    Except that Aeolipera guy is as credulous as your average scientologist, so reading whatever he is selling requires military strength bullshit filters. I would not rule out that he might sometimes be onto something, but so is the average Zerohedge commenter…

    -facepalm

    Basically phrenology 2.0.

    R. Reply:

    To explaim my objections better, that Pera guy is a classic one theory crank whose hobby is running a blog on which he puts all the stuff that fits in with his theory and no stuff that doesn’t.

    That’s not a good way to acquire useful knowledge unless you’re improbably lucky.

    As to why he’s credulous, he has apparently swallowed the Starchild* hoax hook-line-sinker. In addition to various crank theories about neanderthals.

    *for the uninitiated, it originated when some hustler found/bought a skull of a hydrocephalic child and correctly decided he’ll get more money out of it when he’ll market it as ‘alien-human hybrid’ instead of a kid deformed by horrific sickness.

    Anne Emmanuel Reply:

    Now, how did I know brain scans were going to be involved in one way or another before I even opened that link? Pretty funny situation right off the bat. At least until 10 minutes into the presentation, when it turned completely risible. And, par for the course, the video comments are disabled.

    @Kgaard

    There is lurid tinge of comedy to the fact that you can arrive at smart conclusions in really dumb ways.

    [Reply]

    Kgaard Reply:

    Anne … In the wake of your obnoxious comment I put on the presentation. About 50 minutes in now. It’s awesome. Absolutely corroborates/demonstrates/proves (pick your suitably PC verb) the biological differences between the types.

    Instead of making snotty comments why don’t you listen to the damn thing and give your view as to why he’s wrong? All I’m hearing is pretty solid — and very interesting — lab work.

    Anne Emmanuel Reply:

    I really don’t need to watch any more of it, because I already know what the presentation will revolve around. Inasmuch as the MBTI “types” correlate with some big five combination clusters (and this is true of any personality “type” you pull out of your ass), you will observe some broad activation patterns. Those really will be broad (it’s definitely no accident that he’s using EEG), and also useless unless you want to amuse yourself with some pseudo-scientific “trivia”.

    Kgaard Reply:

    Well, even if I were to cede the point that the EEGs were picking up signals consistent with Big 5 attributes and not specifically Myers-Briggs typological differences, I think the ultimate point still stands: Different types of people exhibit radically different kinds of brain activity when confronted with the same situations and stimuli. Which goes back to my initial point: Understanding the types isn’t about being told who you are, it’s a process of discovering who you are.

    Anne Emmanuel Reply:

    “Understanding the types isn’t about being told who you are, it’s a process of discovering who you are.”

    Sure. But what’s stopping you from making the same argument about reading your fortune in tea leaves, or getting high on mushrooms on a trip through the forest, or covering your body in goat entrails and dancing around a fire until you faint? That you don’t need to fill in a questionnaire for any of those?

    There’s a lame math joke that goes something like, “how do you get the limit of one over (x minus eight) as x tends to eight? You trip it over!” which is hilarious because it’s so damn stupid but still gives you a somewhat right answer. (This reminds me of another really lame joke – “what’s the difference between infinity and negative infinity? Nobody cares.”)

    Look, I don’t want to be obnoxious (I really don’t), but you have no point to cede.

    Kgaard Reply:

    Well I’ll give you some real-world applications. Let’s say your 18-year-old daughter was an INFJ and she fell head over heels for an ESTP and they were thinking about marriage. You would know more about how these two young people were going to evolve than they would. Thus you would probably steer her away from him, knowing that down the road the pair would just bring frustration and woe upon themselves.

    Or let’s say you are hiring for two jobs: A cook and a policy analyst. You would be able to look for certain patterns that would denote “S” in the first case and “N” in the second. For instance, Ss tend to yammer on about tactile things of no interest to intuitive people. When the cook (or receptionist or dental hygienist) starts to do that, it’s actually a good sign. But if the researcher starts to do it, you know it’s doomed.

    Point is that certain attributes go together in clusters in certain types of people. So you can predict how they will be down the road.

    As for taking shrooms and tripping in the woods, I am all for it as a means of self-discovery. But that occurs on the transpersonal level. It is more a process of learning about the “universal we” than specific aspects of the individual I.

    Tea leaves, that is on par with tarot … these are not useless but again it’s a different process … something more like a cross between Rohrschach (sp?) and poetry.

    By the way there is another MBTI-type system that is also very helpful. Can’t remember the name but there are three modalities each person has: Audio, visual and kinesthetic. Each person uses them in a different order. Very useful ….

    Exfernal Reply:

    No matter how you choose to cut the pie, it’s still one pie. Five parts, ten parts, or sixteen. Topology of the cloud is still the same.

    [Reply]

    Posted on February 6th, 2015 at 3:57 pm Reply | Quote
  • Torpe Konyvek Says:

    Ha!

    Cf. https://gnomebooks.wordpress.com/2014/01/12/how-to-stay-in-hell/

    pdf link: https://gnomebooks.files.wordpress.com/2014/01/how-to-stay-in-hell.pdf

    [Reply]

    forkinhell Reply:

    Thanks! Made my day.

    [Reply]

    neovictorian23 Reply:

    Thanks, that is awesome.

    [Reply]

    Posted on February 6th, 2015 at 4:06 pm Reply | Quote
  • Izak Says:

    I thought VXXC nailed it in the last thread. The troll was trollin’ it up. What more needs to be said?

    [Reply]

    Posted on February 6th, 2015 at 4:07 pm Reply | Quote
  • INTJ | Neoreactive Says:

    […] INTJ […]

    Posted on February 6th, 2015 at 4:10 pm Reply | Quote
  • Kwisatz Haderach Says:

    I didn’t realize there was a hierarchy to all this. But if INTJ means Slytherin, then, sirs, I am honored to don the Emerald and Silver of our House.

    [Reply]

    Posted on February 6th, 2015 at 4:16 pm Reply | Quote
  • scientism Says:

    E, S, F and P all sound like weaknesses.

    [Reply]

    Erebus Reply:

    If it’s applied properly, E is the strength & I is the weakness.

    INTJ here, also, by the way. (Though on the knife’s edge between I and E. I reckon a mildly misanthropic outlook, and the fact that I prefer “reading a book at home” to “being surrounded by people”, settled the matter.)

    [Reply]

    E. Antony Gray (@RiverC) Reply:

    why read a book when you can read a book to someone, forcefully

    [Reply]

    Posted on February 6th, 2015 at 4:46 pm Reply | Quote
  • Hanfeizi Says:

    You INTJs are the bastards who muck everything up for us noble INTPs. Every time an INTP has a great idea, there’s some INTJ who is sure he knows exactly how to use that idea to screw everything up for everyone else. You’re a plague.

    [Reply]

    blogospheroid Reply:

    Another INTP here, though I took the test a long time ago. Not sure how I score now.

    [Reply]

    spandrell Reply:

    Word. Everything has gone wrong since the INTJs started creeping out from everywhere.

    [Reply]

    BpBunny Reply:

    Regarding the whole argument that “MBTI is nothing but a fancy horoscope”, my experience does not hold true with that assumption. Then again I don’t think most people have had a chance to take part in an actual group experiment to test the accuracy of the MBTI, nor have most people done what is recommended, and had themselves tested (officially not just the free online tests) at least twice with a significant period of time between testings.
    The MBTI can be quite a shot in the dark for many people if it is taken only once, and for certain types it can still be close to a shot in the dark even if taken only twice. Some people need multiple tests and to have those tests weighted against one another in order to arrive at a satisfactory/useful result….. and then again a lot of people have no need to bother being tested at all as their personality types mesh so well with the majority that it really would provide them with little beneficial/useful information to help direct their self development.

    In any case here is my experience with the MBTI and why I have every confidence in its usefulness as a tool in the science of psychology:

    I was tested along with 26 classmates at age 17 (students were between 16-18). The test was administered by our teacher who was a psychologist. & I should mentioned she ensured that this testing was as double blind as it could be made; having us pick numbers out of a hat to label our tests and work papers, only allowing the receptionist of our school to know which number corresponded to which student, collecting our results & returning our papers via a drop box where they were kept identified only by number, and not disclosing or collecting names, only numbers, when giving us information as a group regarding the accuracy of our predictions and results etc., until the very end of the experiment, at which point we were able to disclose our names and discuss with her and each other the particulars of our results

    So this is how it went:
    After we had been randomly assigned our numbers and turned in the initial test we then received (via drop box) the standard MBTI description for the type we had scored as.We were then instructed to choose a percentage (0-100) that we felt the MBTI type description matched us and write that % at the top of our results. Then everyone in the class was given and instructed to read the descriptions of all the other 15 types in addition to our own. After completing this task we were instructed to write at the bottom of the page of our results how accurate (0-100) we now felt our own initial results were after having read all the other personality type descriptions. In addition to this she had us list any particular MBTI types ( three max, one min ) other than the type we had scored as that we felt described some important feature of our personalities that the description of our scored MBTI type was lacking.

    We were instructed to write at least one page -to be kept to ourselves- describing what about the other 1-3 MBTI types we felt described aspects of ourselves not covered in the type we had tested as. Then we were given a form to write our number, MBTI result, initial % confidence, secondary % confidence, and finally the % confidence we had in our initial results after having done the writing exercise. These were to be turned in via drop box.

    Next she asked us to guess what the others in our class tested as, write down our answers about our best guess (labeled only with our number and the name of the classmate – we weren’t allowed to know each others numbers), & to give these guesses to the school receptionist who took them and typed up our answers with the appropriate students number in place of their name, which was then given to our teacher.

    Once everyone was done with the exercise we were let out to lunch while the receptionist translated the names back into numbers and gave them to our teacher to finish posting the class guesses/predictions on the board (by number)
    When we came back in there was a list of #’s on the board, each of them having between 2 & 6 different MBTI types listed under them w/ % of class members who had guessed that type for that person/#. She had us pick out of a hat each others numbers w/ each #’s corrasponding actual MBTI type (courtesy school receptionist) informing us that if we received our own number that we should behave just as if we had received someone elses # and not put it back into the hat to choose again as this might allow someone towards the end of the process to figure out what our number was.
    She then had us read out for each number she had listed on the board and wrote the actual MBTI results of the persons/#’s next to the list of MBTI types the class had guessed for that person/#.

    After all the requisite mathematics were done we found the accuracy of the guess rate to the actual MBTI results was above 76% (it was 76.something).

    In any case an average of 76% accuracy based on best guesses might not be fully convincing in and of itself, but since she was a psychologist and was trained in administering and interpreting the MBTI she had a few more tricks up her sleeve to show us how accurate this test actually is.

    It took about a three sessions total of her giving us different forms to fill out and hand in, and retrieve until the double blinded portion of the experiment was complete.

    Finally we came into class and were given the final weighted scores for our E/I N/S T/F P/J types with a handout giving a more in depth look at how the different preferences within each personality typed worked together, another handout which explained the dynamics of the interactions/relationships between different MBTI types (the official handout is quite lengthy), and were allowed to begin circulating among one another to explore the most entertaining part of the process, which was discovering that despite the guess rate accuracy of individual types was only 76%, and despite the fact that some individuals themselves were not all that confident in the 100% (or even 70%) accuracy of their MBTI type, that the entire peer/friendship dynamics of our class (ie who was best friends with who, who didn’t speak to each other much etc. how different groups of close friends had certain interchangeable friends from one another etc.) actually was above 90% accuracy on the predictions outlined by the MBTI manual!

    After that experience/experiment I can say with confidence that anyone who doubts the usefulness and validity of the MBTI as a tool is someone who simply has not had reason or chance enough to encounter the full breadth of what types of patterns in inter & intra-personal behavior and attitudes that this test is able to predict.

    Sure it might not seem that useful to certain types (generally it is pretty irrelevant to those types which are most common and thus have no difficulty in finding other similar minds to relate to, as well as for those types who are considered useful in that they are “adaptable to” to the current societal structure and culture) but for those of us who are highly specialized towards a certain “odd” (though still valuable even if undervalued by the current system) manner of relating to & experiencing the world around us, the MBTI is a very useful tool.

    It also can be a very useful tool in the creation of organizations, or of the choosing of which employees, volunteers or students etc., would work best together on certain types of projects. However I have not seen much evidence of it being used this way, which is a shame as it seems a waste of a vast pool of human potential to not consider what kind of work/education/research areas the different personality types would thrive in, as well as what mix of personality types are most likely to be effective working together in these different arenas.

    As for myself, I tested as an extreme INTP at 17, and now at 33, thanks to being made aware of the inner dynamics of my personality type and how these were affecting my internal state of well being as well as my ability to be effective in the external world, I have been able to use this knowledge to bring my introversion much closer to extroversion and my thinking much closer to feeling, as well as having some success in bringing my intuition a bit closer to sensing and my perceiving a bit closer to judging, which all in all has meant I am not completely trapped in the abstractions of my own mind, which makes me much more effective (thought still an INTP and thus the “laziest” personality type) in dealing with the real world and taking action when things need to get done.

    [Reply]

    Posted on February 6th, 2015 at 6:16 pm Reply | Quote
  • blogospheroid Says:

    What I heard was that ENTJ’s were the master race. Until Satoshi Nakamoto, no real introvert got super rich without having the support of some extrovert, correct me if I’m wrong.

    [Reply]

    Hurlock Reply:

    Elon Musk? Zuckerberg?

    [Reply]

    blogospheroid Reply:

    Zuckerberg! Totally slipped my mind. Valid point and taken, Sir.
    Musk, I’m not sure, does he come across as an I ?

    [Reply]

    R. Reply:

    I see you committing the ‘no real scotsman’ fallacy there.

    There’s lots of introverts who have good social skills and it’s impossible to tell that they’re not extroverts unless you follow them minutely.

    There’s even a psychological category: the ‘secret’ schizoid, though that’s a bit beyond introversion as it means people who are not only introverts but also afraid of emotional intimacy.

    [Reply]

    Posted on February 6th, 2015 at 6:32 pm Reply | Quote
  • neovictorian23 Says:

    ENTP and proud. You all need a few of us around to sell the NRx ideas to the elites.

    [Reply]

    Lucian Reply:

    Fellow ENTP here. I have failed the Emperor.

    *dons crab costume*

    [Reply]

    Posted on February 6th, 2015 at 7:00 pm Reply | Quote
  • Hurlock Says:

    Fk it, I made a strawpoll: http://strawpoll.me/3576748

    [Reply]

    E. Antony Gray (@RiverC) Reply:

    It all makes sense. I married an INTJ and now I can’t stop talking to INTJ’s. I’m doomed.

    I accept this Hitsuzen.

    [Reply]

    R. Reply:

    It’s missing the options:

    “I don’t know and I don’t care”
    “Depends on how much sleep I’ve had”

    and so on.

    I’m an introvert if I’m rested but if I haven’t had enough sleep I’m pretty much an extrovert, and somewhat more creative.

    Really, human mind is a lot more fucked up than most people realize.

    [Reply]

    Hurlock Reply:

    I should have made an option “I am too edgy for this test” just for you.

    [Reply]

    R. Reply:

    I’m not too edgy. This guy’s too edgy for that test. I’m merely in a state of permanent irritation, as my whole life is like an itch I can’t scratch.

    I think I even took the test once, not sure what I got. I think that INTP. I think it’s, at best, a topic for conversation at parties.

    Like say, your zodiac sign.

    What I find funny is how it describes each category vaguely positively. I mean, I fit into the INTP pretty much except for the entire ‘always looking for new stuff to work on’. Riight!

    Izak Reply:

    That would have been my vote, but I did actually take the test about a couple months back.

    The reason? A female friend begged me to. That’s right. A girl, a GIRL asked me to do it.

    In conclusion, the Meyers-Briggs Test is for girls.

    Posted on February 6th, 2015 at 7:09 pm Reply | Quote
  • INTJ | Reaction Times Says:

    […] Source: Outside In […]

    Posted on February 6th, 2015 at 8:41 pm Reply | Quote
  • Y.Ilan Says:

    INTJ. We’re indulging our pride and vanity, but still, amusing.

    [Reply]

    Posted on February 6th, 2015 at 9:15 pm Reply | Quote
  • Reactionary Expat Says:

    One more INTJ here, though weak on the J. It seems as though NRx is probably an INTJ thing. Any stats on the structures of other subcultures (e.g. military, SJWs, priesthood of non-evangelical Christians, etc.), especially their leaders? I’d also be interested to see how something like the House of Lords came out as the criteria for membership are considerably different to those for elected bodies.

    [Reply]

    Posted on February 7th, 2015 at 1:53 am Reply | Quote
  • johnson 18 Says:

    INFPs are the best.

    Sure, INTJs and INTPs are very, very close. Indeed, they’re more or less equals.

    However INFPs have a role that simply cannot be ignored (though INTJs and INTPs do tend to overlook the quiet superiority of INFPs, since it is mostly invisible to them).

    INTJs (and Ps as well) are very likely to take pride in their supposed analytic, rational qualities. And I can’t argue with this. I do find it important. A world consisting solely of such personalities sounds dreadfully boring to me, personally. I can see why you feel that way. Frankly, personality is very fluid. I could easily choose to switch over to being more of a TJ instead of an FP. However, I have been there and I found it to be a bit lacking in depth, feeling I guess you could say. I am by no means “over-emotional” but to completely discount the other modes of perception is a mistake. There is possibility in many different modes of consciousness. I don’t think it is good to fall strictly into any of the categories, better to be in between each while leaning toward which every way suits you best in this world.

    The only thing I will say explicitly is better is to be Introverted instead of Extroverted. There is nothing good about being a strong extrovert as far as I can tell.

    [Reply]

    Exfernal Reply:

    I recommend mind altering drugs, then. Even more deep feelings and modes of consciousness to explore! 🙂

    There is not much good about being strongly introverted as well. Self inflicted solitude easily leads to boredom and mental ‘chasing of one’s tail’.

    [Reply]

    Posted on February 7th, 2015 at 2:27 am Reply | Quote
  • Owl in the Dark Says:

    Yet more proof that NRx is composed of uninitiated plebs.

    Were any of you versed in the secrets of the deep state you romanticise, you would know that Jung’s functions had been developed into an accurate predictive system. You’d know that the human population runs on a program which differentiates individuals by varying combinations of computational cognitive functions. You’d know that the differentia can be measured physiologically.

    It’s elegant. Like plants growing in Fibonacci sequence. The mind of a human divides into a certain cognitive role (or guild, type, cognitive caste) according to genetics and early family circumstance. The Great Chain of Being runs on type.

    Were you not plebs, weaving a miasmic veil of misplacements from your overexcitable autodidactic imaginations, you would know that F runs the world. F gets smartest. T is for engineers and business administrators. It’s about system protocols. F is the collective. F is the social field. F is subtle perception and its manipulation. F is all that NRx cares about. Everybody in NRx is F. But not quite the type of F which forms the majority of the ruling strata. That’s the type that the real Brahmins were. And that the real Bhramins you don’t see are.

    The same ones who’ll be using facial recognition and various other technologies to analyse each of you, designate you as profane malcontents of the lower-middle class, and stuff you into the appropriate containment chamber. The ones laughing about how you think you’re hardcore /T/hinkers, whilst no real External Thinking user would waste time complaining with no course of tangible action in sight. ‘Thinking’ is a misnomer. T is technical action sequences. NRx does nothing. It just stews about the state of the collective. Meanwhile, empires rise and actual events occur.

    [Reply]

    Exfernal Reply:

    Interesting…
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oy5EIUNO4Zo

    [Reply]

    Mechanomica Reply:

    Is there any publicly available information on this newer system? I’ve read about Gittinger’s PAS but what you’re describing sounds much more evolved.

    [Reply]

    Xoth Reply:

    There’s no way we can compete with actual events, guys.

    [Reply]

    Posted on February 8th, 2015 at 10:16 am Reply | Quote
  • Urban IX Says:

    I don’t know, I’m an INTJ, but I have emotions…

    Then again I AM a virgo.

    [Reply]

    Izak Reply:

    Hahahaha nice. Subtle.

    [Reply]

    Posted on February 8th, 2015 at 10:31 pm Reply | Quote
  • pseudo-chrysostom Says:

    well like adorno once said, any test is measuring *something*.

    [Reply]

    Posted on March 7th, 2015 at 6:16 pm Reply | Quote
  • George Says:

    INTJ peoples will be thinking something new..INTJs and INTPs are both inwardly focused abstract thinkers. This results in the two types having many overlapping interests and behaviors. However, if you look beyond superficial common interests, the thinking processes are very different.

    [Reply]

    Posted on September 23rd, 2016 at 9:53 am Reply | Quote
  • INTJ Jetta Says:

    I don’t understand why this page ranks so well for the INTJ keyword. There is almost no content wtf? Not hating though.

    [Reply]

    Posted on June 16th, 2017 at 12:48 am Reply | Quote

Leave a comment