Since we have this many INTPs, who wants to help me with a Klingon translation for this site? :grin:

On 2001-10-23 21:24, David '47 wrote:
As a rare poster, I only found this thread an hour ago. Maybe I can get a reading from the General.

I have taken this test in both long and short forms on numerous occassions. Since the Myers-Briggs thing interested me from the first time I was introduced to it, I've kept track of my scores. The results are pretty consistent:

I/E is always between 45/55 and 55/45, so I count that as a true 'x'
N/S is between 95/5 and 100/0 - very 'N'
T/F is between 90/10 and 95/5 - very 'T'
P/J is between 80/20 and 100/0 - very 'P'.

Yet another NT with inconclusive I-E results! Your N is ahead of your T but only barely. If we accepted the data's accuracy within this thin margin, then it would imply that you are probably an ENTP. However we know that the test is not that precise so you truly could go either way: ENTP or INTP. But the fact is that, on this thread alone, we have an incredible population of NTs with your same testing problem and in most cases these other NTs have shown a dominant function consistent with the I option. It really does look like NTs produce a slightly inflated score toward E on the I-E axis. Therefore, I believe the probability is that your true type is INTP.

[To SMA: Let's assume that your true type is INTJ based upon the NT pattern I discussed above. It sure does not seem like S's have this problem with I-E, only N's, and scoring tends to indicate that many or all of us are being pushed further to the E end than we really belong.]

When I read the INTP and ENTP descriptions, both seem to apply about equally - neither fully. I think my 'x' is well deserved, regardless of the internal conflicts it portends.

I know exactly what you mean. When I first took this thing years ago I produced the same result, 50-50 I-E, and I could indeed relate to both the ENTP and INTP descriptions "equally - neither fully." But when I looked into this business deeper, I found that the rest of my scores were consistent with INTP as opposed to ENTP and more detailed tests proved that I was indeed INTP. What it really came down to was my lifestyle at the time because now I am sure that I would test cleanly I and now I can relate to the INTP description more completely if not fully.

Here is one test which I just thought of which should separate the INTPs from the ENTPs and may help you:

I submit that two of the most popular confrontational characters in our culture today are both of the same type, ENTP, and these two people are oddly enough Bill Clinton and Rush Limbaugh. No one understands Bill Clinton better than Rush Limbaugh because their minds quite literally work in the same way: Ti seeing all the angles and Ne finding the escape hatch. They are both masters and they might as well be twin brothers despite their competing propaganda. I could make a detailed case but it might bias you unnecessarily and ruin this test so I will not do so now. But bear in mind that an INTP also sees all those same angles as Clinton and Limbaugh but reacts in a different way -- again I better hold off on a detailed explanation for now.

David, I do not know your political bias and it is not even necessary to reveal it with this test (although you certainly may if you wish). It is fair to say that few if any people like both Clinton and Rush: most like one and hate the other. Do you like one or the other? Or do you have a serious problem with both? If you have a serious problem with the tactics used by both of them, then you have got to be an INTP. On the other hand, if you hate one and like, or even just tolerate, the other, then you are probably an ENTP.

I'd be curious if any INTPs or ENTPs would challenge this little test. But I swear I am right on the money with this one. This has got to be the ultimate test for making that fine distinction between ENTP and INTP.

I've tested 3 times since this theory came out, and if I recall correctly, here they are in order over the years.

I first scored as an ENFP: "Journalist", uncanny sense of the motivations of others. Life is an exciting drama. 5% of the total population.

Then, towards the end of my teaching years, I scored as an ENFJ: "Pedagogue", leader of groups. Can be aggressive at helping others to be the best that they can be. 5% of the total population.

A year or so ago, I tested as an INFJ: "Author", strong drive and enjoyment to help others. Complex personality. 1% of the total population.

So, I've morphed from an extrovert to an introvert, and from a perceiver to a judger.

...which would fit someone who did what I did for a living and now doesn't, I suppose.

On 2001-10-23 22:02, madscientist wrote:
Since we have this many INTPs, who wants to help me with a Klingon translation for this site? :grin:

This would be the part where I definitely differ!!! LOLOL!! :smile:

Although I did get a good idea for a signature! :smile:

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: allybear '62 on 2001-10-24 06:45 ]</font>

On 2001-10-24 00:20, Stonewall Patton wrote:
David, I do not know your political bias and it is not even necessary to reveal it with this test (although you certainly may if you wish). It is fair to say that few if any people like both Clinton and Rush: most like one and hate the other. Do you like one or the other? Or do you have a serious problem with both? If you have a serious problem with the tactics used by both of them, then you have got to be an INTP. On the other hand, if you hate one and like, or even just tolerate, the other, then you are probably an ENTP.

I'd be curious if any INTPs or ENTPs would challenge this little test. But I swear I am right on the money with this one. This has got to be the ultimate test for making that fine distinction between ENTP and INTP.

I, an INTP, find myself tolerating both Mr. Clinton and Mr. Limbaigh, but find that I cannot listen to either (as opposed to reading their several missives). But, then they were NAFTA supporters so that clouded my judgement. HTH

On 2001-10-24 07:08, Virgil K. Saari wrote:

I, an INTP, find myself tolerating both Mr. Clinton and Mr. Limbaigh, but find that I cannot listen to either....

Spoken like a true INTP. Sadly, as we comprise only 1% of the population, Bill never did miss our votes, and Rush does not miss our audience share.

Barbara, that is quite a "temperamental" journey. That really is not supposed to happen (which reinforces the need to rewrite the questions, at least for Ns). If you can remember your approximate scores for I-E, N-S, T-F, and J-P, maybe I can tell you what the test should have been telling you all along.

On 2001-10-24 00:20, Stonewall Patton wrote:

On 2001-10-23 21:24, David '47 wrote:
As a rare poster, I only found this thread an hour ago. Maybe I can get a reading from the General.

I have taken this test in both long and short forms on numerous occassions. Since the Myers-Briggs thing interested me from the first time I was introduced to it, I've kept track of my scores. The results are pretty consistent:

I/E is always between 45/55 and 55/45, so I count that as a true 'x'
N/S is between 95/5 and 100/0 - very 'N'
T/F is between 90/10 and 95/5 - very 'T'
P/J is between 80/20 and 100/0 - very 'P'.

Yet another NT with inconclusive I-E results! Your N is ahead of your T but only barely. If we accepted the data's accuracy within this thin margin, then it would imply that you are probably an ENTP. However we know that the test is not that precise so you truly could go either way: ENTP or INTP. But the fact is that, on this thread alone, we have an incredible population of NTs with your same testing problem and in most cases these other NTs have shown a dominant function consistent with the I option. It really does look like NTs produce a slightly inflated score toward E on the I-E axis. Therefore, I believe the probability is that your true type is INTP.

[To SMA: Let's assume that your true type is INTJ based upon the NT pattern I discussed above. It sure does not seem like S's have this problem with I-E, only N's, and scoring tends to indicate that many or all of us are being pushed further to the E end than we really belong.]

When I read the INTP and ENTP descriptions, both seem to apply about equally - neither fully. I think my 'x' is well deserved, regardless of the internal conflicts it portends.

I know exactly what you mean. When I first took this thing years ago I produced the same result, 50-50 I-E, and I could indeed relate to both the ENTP and INTP descriptions "equally - neither fully." But when I looked into this business deeper, I found that the rest of my scores were consistent with INTP as opposed to ENTP and more detailed tests proved that I was indeed INTP. What it really came down to was my lifestyle at the time because now I am sure that I would test cleanly I and now I can relate to the INTP description more completely if not fully.

Here is one test which I just thought of which should separate the INTPs from the ENTPs and may help you:

I submit that two of the most popular confrontational characters in our culture today are both of the same type, ENTP, and these two people are oddly enough Bill Clinton and Rush Limbaugh. No one understands Bill Clinton better than Rush Limbaugh because their minds quite literally work in the same way: Ti seeing all the angles and Ne finding the escape hatch. They are both masters and they might as well be twin brothers despite their competing propaganda. I could make a detailed case but it might bias you unnecessarily and ruin this test so I will not do so now. But bear in mind that an INTP also sees all those same angles as Clinton and Limbaugh but reacts in a different way -- again I better hold off on a detailed explanation for now.

David, I do not know your political bias and it is not even necessary to reveal it with this test (although you certainly may if you wish). It is fair to say that few if any people like both Clinton and Rush: most like one and hate the other. Do you like one or the other? Or do you have a serious problem with both? If you have a serious problem with the tactics used by both of them, then you have got to be an INTP. On the other hand, if you hate one and like, or even just tolerate, the other, then you are probably an ENTP.

I'd be curious if any INTPs or ENTPs would challenge this little test. But I swear I am right on the money with this one. This has got to be the ultimate test for making that fine distinction between ENTP and INTP.

Unfortunately (or fortunately, depending on your perception), I never listened to both. So I'm not fit for the test. Basically, what I do remember Clinton saying is "I did not have sexual relations with that woman!", and "I tried it once, but didn't inhale."

Basically, Clinton was much more of a comedian to me.

On 2001-10-24 00:20, Stonewall Patton wrote:

... David, I do not know your political bias and it is not even necessary to reveal it with this test (although you certainly may if you wish). It is fair to say that few if any people like both Clinton and Rush: most like one and hate the other. Do you like one or the other? Or do you have a serious problem with both? If you have a serious problem with the tactics used by both of them, then you have got to be an INTP. On the other hand, if you hate one and like, or even just tolerate, the other, then you are probably an ENTP.

I certainly dislike Rush Limbaugh with far greater vigor than I reserve for William the Slick, but neither is the paragon of virtue. In the credit where credit is due department - both are great entertainment - especially Bill. We hadn't had a really funny President since Kennedy.

I'd be curious if any INTPs or ENTPs would challenge this little test. But I swear I am right on the money with this one. This has got to be the ultimate test for making that fine distinction between ENTP and INTP.

I don't know whether it flies or not, but its certainly interesting conceptually.

Why does one have to be either an "I" or a "E"? Why not accept the muddiness of a borderline score? I thought one of the points of MBTI was knowing how strong your preference was in a certain trait. So if you are borderline between "E" and "I", it means you are balanced and can function comfortably in both setting.

Likewise for "S" versus "I" (where I've flip-flopped both times I took the test), "F" versus "T", and "J" versus "P". Likewise, if one is borderline, its easy to imagine flip-flopping, because you can play either side of the fence.

Just my two cents.

On 2001-10-23 13:05, Stonewall Patton wrote:

This description fits me pretty well:

People of this type tend to be: quiet, independent, and private; logical and unemotional; creative, ingenious, and innovative, global thinkers; curious and driven to increase their competence; casual, and adaptive; nonconforming and unpredictable.

except the the last part. I've always felt uncomfortable if I stood out in any way.

Those descriptions do not always hit the nail on the head. Noncomforming carries the connotation of an artist who actively seeks to be different and necessarily draws attention to himself/herself. I suspect aconformist (if there is such a word) is a better description of an INTP. I do what I do and if it conforms, fine. If it does not, that's fine too. Actively conforming or not conforming plays no part in my calculations with respect to anything. I only seek not to draw undue attention to myself in material ways as such attention may hamper my ability to communicate my ideas to someone else. To put it in simpler terms, I want someone's attention focused on what I am saying, not on what I am wearing or how my hair is cut. Therefore I ensure that I am neither conspicuously out of style nor on the cutting edge of current style. I just do not want it to be an issue.

Does this sound more like it?

Actually, I'd be more of a conformist in that I'm uncomfortable drawing attention to myself, whether it be for my clothes or my ideas.

I looked at the detailed description of the INTP personality type at http://www.intp.org and much of it didn't seem like me, so I took the test at http://www.gesher.org and came out INTP with these details:

E/I Preference 7/27
S/N Preference 11/15
T/F Preference 14/7

This test, apparently, is from the 1930's and has some rather odd questions ("Granting you like both, do you prefer most of the time reflective or lovely people") and some sort of conversion was done to get it from a 3 letter to a 4 letter form, but it confirms the previous result. But if you know of some other free test on the web, I'd be willing to try it.

On 2001-10-24 08:02, Stonewall Patton wrote:
Barbara, that is quite a "temperamental" journey.

Stone, I understand why you say that, and you know better than I, but here is how I've managed to make sense of it. I'm an Adaptive gen, so I understand that more. :smile: Further, I'm a middle-cohort Adaptive, meaning that I learned the Civic lesson well, but much of it was not for me. Although my life circumstances prevented me from ever actually being a Beat-cohort Adaptive, I always related and lived vicariously along their lines. So, I suppose I was fated to put people over principle from the beginning. :smile: That would explain my prediliction towards empathy and harmony.

On good (most) days, I'll debate a few points, but will cease if it leads to marked disagreement where feelings are involved. I've even been known to apologize or demur when I felt no idiological inclination to, if I knew it would lead to harmony. Whereas I do have quite deep principles, they are mine, and my not fighting over doesn't lessen that, IMO. I likewise seek the same treatment.

That really is not supposed to happen (which reinforces the need to rewrite the questions, at least for Ns).

Since empathy and harmony have always been strong within me, along with a skill for adapting and a life of teaching High-Unravelling, I've also been an introvert forced for many years towards extrovertism, because of teaching. Source and direction of energy expression can force an adaptable change. I've always tended to rely more on insight and my own gut than external conventional wisdom or thought, when I could. And while I've always tried to process infomration unemotionally, I likewise always fall short. Part of the gut and empathy things. More on how I've actuated my beliefs below.

If you can remember your approximate scores for I-E, N-S, T-F, and J-P, maybe I can tell you what the test should have been telling you all along.

Unfortunately, I never knew the exact numbers on any test. Just a descriptive set of paragraphs each time, and some comments as to particular descriptors.

One thing I did remember since first posting was that I've taken this test FOUR times, not three. Once in 1970, again in 1980, again in 1990 (all 3 were school district tests and revisits along career ladder procedures). Then, finally in 2000, to retain the consistency. :grin: I had one of my former students who teaches test me.

On every test, neither my I nor E was strong.

As for the 1970 and 1980 tests, they were both ENFP, though I was told on the first one, I could have been ESFP. The P was strong both times. I cannot remember for sure, but I believe my F has never been strong, but always convincing.

As for the last two tests, 1990's could have also been ESFJ. I gather enough from that to suspect that 1980's could have also been ESFP, too. So my N/S must have been 55/45 or the like. However, 2000's was strongly N.

I retired in 1994, so I attribute the lack of N strength to adapting to my environment. I attribute the change from P to J to the gen-change of my students, the societal change, and teaching methods changes. In the mid-80's I changed my teaching methods drastically. Prior to then I didn't have to be a strong anchor. My students and society were still conventional and anchored. I could perceive and improvise at will more easily (there's that later-wave-worship Adaptive tendency to mix things up when viewed in relation to the times).

By 1990, I'd had to become more conventional and anchored myself, in order to give my kids what they needed: structure and dependability (in as far as I could given my individual strengths and weaknesses). I still improvised (maybe even more so), but within a framework of organized structure and individual caring.

I must have come back to a more personal assessment within my phase of life on 2000's test. I have enjoyed not having to be so extroverted. I've always suspected it is not my natural state. I think P used to be a normal state for me, but I've long since lost the aversion towards judging or controlling my circumstances.

This is the only way I can explain it, so I HTH.

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: Barbara on 2001-10-24 12:16 ]</font>

On 2001-10-24 10:57, David '47 wrote:

I certainly dislike Rush Limbaugh with far greater vigor than I reserve for William the Slick, but neither is the paragon of virtue. In the credit where credit is due department - both are great entertainment - especially Bill. We hadn't had a really funny President since Kennedy.

David, I do believe you foiled my off-the-cuff "fool-proof" test. At least it is still not clear to me what type you are. On the one hand you are not big on either which may point to INTP. On the other hand, you see the humor in it all which may point to ENTP.

In the end, I believe the real distinction between an INTP and ENTP is that an INTP is almost physically (or should I say mentally?) incapable of violating his own principles. His conscience will not allow it. On the other hand, an ENTP generally has similar principles (I think?) but he is more likely to compromise them before matters deteriorate to life and death. The ENTP is a little more relaxed and is perhaps willing to accept a little dishonesty in sales tactics, for example, if only in the exceptional case. The INTP however will have none of the dishonesty. The ENTP might give a con man a little latitude and, in the extreme case like Clinton, may make for a master con man himself. The INTP will give the con man no latitude and is incapable of ever acting as a con man himself (because of his principles).

I believe that it really all comes down to how rigidly you adhere to your principles. Generally speaking, are you more likely to die with your principles intact (INTP), or to compromise them so that you might live (ENTP)? This is an extreme contrast but I think it conveys the sense of the difference.

On 2001-10-24 11:12, Jenny Genser wrote:
Why does one have to be either an "I" or a "E"? Why not accept the muddiness of a borderline score? I thought one of the points of MBTI was knowing how strong your preference was in a certain trait. So if you are borderline between "E" and "I", it means you are balanced and can function comfortably in both setting.

Likewise for "S" versus "I" (where I've flip-flopped both times I took the test), "F" versus "T", and "J" versus "P". Likewise, if one is borderline, its easy to imagine flip-flopping, because you can play either side of the fence.

Just my two cents.

I so agree. But, being an Adaptive, I guess I would. :grin:

Seriously, situations and circumstances versus people often lead us to act and react in ways not always consistent with MBTI. Those are our memories, too, when taking the test, IMO.

On 2001-10-24 11:12, Jenny Genser wrote:

Why does one have to be either an "I" or a "E"? Why not accept the muddiness of a borderline score?

Jenny, you may be right. It has been a while since I looked at this stuff but my recollection is that you are supposed to be only one type as to be two is akin to having a split personality. The I to E change goes deeper than just the superficial letter change as it represents a different ordering of the brain and its functions (and the strengths of those functions). And this is why many people are working on more precise tests. This is what I got out of it anyway. Someone else here may be more knowledgeable.

I'm an Adaptive gen, so I understand that more. Further, I'm a middle-cohort Adaptive, meaning that I learned the Civic lesson well, but much of it was not for me. Although my life circumstances prevented me from ever actually being a Beat-cohort Adaptive, I always related and lived vicariously along their lines. So, I suppose I was fated to put people over principle from the beginning. That would explain my prediliction towards empathy and harmony.

I read over that shorthand of mine, and thought I'd better explain more now, because someone's bound to misunderstand.

In my view and life experience, the lesson learned from Civics was one of principles. Carried to extremes, this is soul-less. The individual is ignored. Many posters here tend to erroneously think, IMO, that Beats were LATE-wave in origin; the Beat innovators were closer to my age, the followers were late-wave (and this evolved into the Tom Haydens and Aggie Hoffmanns, who may have been Beat followers at one time, but made their own philosophies from this).

Anyway, the Beat philosophy would have never had a reason to exist without this soul-lessness (which wasn't the original intent of GI's, I believe, just what their momentum evolved into, with alot of Lost assistance, perhaps the mixture of the two). So, the Beat philosophy was all about recognizing and celebrating human individuality, whatever it be. Ginsberg was an excellent personal example. The man could get positively ecstatically orgasmic over a perfect stranger sitting next to him. Extremely empathetic, often regardless of principle. (Late Silents and dominant early Boomers then took this and evolved their principles about individuals).

At any rate, the Beat individual empathy thing, as I've just described, is probably the biggest impact on me, and that is what I meant.


<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: Barbara on 2001-10-24 12:44 ]</font>

On 2001-10-24 12:12, Stonewall Patton wrote:

On 2001-10-24 10:57, David '47 wrote:

I certainly dislike Rush Limbaugh with far greater vigor than I reserve for William the Slick, but neither is the paragon of virtue. In the credit where credit is due department - both are great entertainment - especially Bill. We hadn't had a really funny President since Kennedy.

David, I do believe you foiled my off-the-cuff "fool-proof" test. At least it is still not clear to me what type you are. On the one hand you are not big on either which may point to INTP. On the other hand, you see the humor in it all which may point to ENTP.

In the end, I believe the real distinction between an INTP and ENTP is that an INTP is almost physically (or should I say mentally?) incapable of violating his own principles. His conscience will not allow it. On the other hand, an ENTP generally has similar principles (I think?) but he is more likely to compromise them before matters deteriorate to life and death. The ENTP is a little more relaxed and is perhaps willing to accept a little dishonesty in sales tactics, for example, if only in the exceptional case. The INTP however will have none of the dishonesty. The ENTP might give a con man a little latitude and, in the extreme case like Clinton, may make for a master con man himself. The INTP will give the con man no latitude and is incapable of ever acting as a con man himself (because of his principles).

I believe that it really all comes down to how rigidly you adhere to your principles. Generally speaking, are you more likely to die with your principles intact (INTP), or to compromise them so that you might live (ENTP)? This is an extreme contrast but I think it conveys the sense of the difference.

Stone, I agree with you, and if you read my take from an F point of view, it does support what you assert about T's, since as an F, I take the complete opposite point of view (and I am not unprincipled, either, I might add, I'm just not willing to die alone and alienated with only my principles if need be :wink: Ok, that's an extreme...).

I did take the Kerisey test once, however forgot my exact results. I know on that test I was tested to be an ISTJ.

I did take the Kerisey test again and I found out I was a Guardian, however it now costs $14 for the full results.

However I found this short quiz on personality types http://www.personalitytype.com/quiz.html and I am sure I am I*TJ something, I could be INTJ instead of ISTJ. Are there any INTJ on this group and can tell more about
themsleves, I would like to find out more about INTJ's, so I can make a judgement on which type I am in reality.

There are four questions to it.

1. Where is your energy naturally directed?

Extraverts' energy is directed primarily outward, towards people and things outside of themselves. Introverts' energy is primarily directed inward, towards their own thoughts, perceptions, and reactions. Therefore, Extraverts tend to be more naturally active, expressive, social, and interested in many things, whereas Introverts tend to be more reserved, private, cautious, and interested in fewer interactions, but with greater depth and focus.

I answered Introvert on this question and I am very introverted.

2.2. What kind of information do you naturally notice and remember?

Sensors notice the facts, details, and realities of the world around them whereas Intuitives are more interested in connections and relationships between facts as well as the meaning, or possibilities of the information. Sensors tend to be practical and literal people, who trust past experience and often have good common sense. Intuitives tend to be imaginative, theoretical people who trust their hunches and pride themselves on their creativity.

I am in the border between the two, I have to say I lend towards the Intuitives, however I have swung in recent years more towards the Sensor position. I am not sure where I lie on this one.

3. How do you decide or come to conclusions?

Thinkers make decisions based primarily on objective and impersonal criteria--what makes the most sense and what is logical. Feelers make decisions based primarily on their personal values and how they feel about the choices. So, Thinkers tend to be cool, analytical, and are convinced by logical reasoning. Feelers tend to be sensitive, empathetic, and are compelled by extenuating circumstances and a constant search for harmony.

I am very much a Thinker on this question.

4. What kind of environment makes you the most comfortable?

Judgers prefer a structured, ordered, and fairly predictable environment, where they can make decisions and have things settled. Perceivers prefer to experience as much of the world as possible, so they like to keep their options open and are most comfortable adapting. So, Judgers tend to be organized and productive while Perceivers tend to be flexible, curious, and nonconforming.

I am very much a Judger on this question.

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: Tristan Jones on 2001-10-24 23:05 ]</font>

Robert & other INTPs (and ENTPs?):

This thread reminded me of a good essay I read a couple of years ago at Free Republic and I went back and found it:

http://www.freerepublic.com/forum/a3857f6d70f73.htm

This essay details General George S. Patton and shows him to have been far more than a tough, dutiful, taskmaster, but in fact a principled defender of liberty. He was not merely doing his duty in obeying the orders of his superiors. Rather he was at war philosophically with all forms of tyranny over man.

In terms of this type theory, you can clearly see his use of Ne in his famed spontaneous fits and bursts of inspiration, and this limits him to ENTP, INTP, ENFP, or INFP. He was a master strategist and I believe this results from Ne working with Ti, per the theory, so most likely Patton was either an ENTP or an INTP. My recollection is that he was introverted to the extent that he was a voracious reader and always deeply engrossed in study. So in all likelihood, he was an INTP consistent with being a principled defender of liberty...but possibly still an ENTP. You decide.

The essay is pretty long but well worth reading. If you are a freedom-lover, the man is an inspiration. You will also note that he faced many of the same problems with the political class which we face today. If only we had him around today.... And if he were around today, it looks like he might well be drawn to this board to discuss the turnings of history...as so many INTPs appear to be. Enjoy the essay.

This conversation has inspired me to retake the test and get the actual percentages. Once again, I am an INTJ, except this time the breakdowns surprised me.

I have always thought I was a pretty strong J, a pretty weak T, and a very weak I. But, what I got was: E/I 31/69; S/N 13/87; T/F 89/11; J/P 53/47. So, I am a *lot* closer to all you INTPs than I thought! No wonder my family nickname as a kid was the "absent-minded professor."

BTW, I always thought that was unfair, hey I had a system, even if no-one else got it! But, I guess being a T rather than an F, I shrugged it off.

Neisha, if someone took you for an "absent-minded professor," then you may well be an INTP. Once again we see where the test is sufficiently imprecise as to leave people in doubt as to their true type. And you raise an interesting point about thinking that you were a strong J yet finding that you are very close to being an INTP (if not actually one). I too would have thought that I was a J before taking the various tests but I am certain now that I am INTP as far as the theory goes (and in fact my P was not at all far from J territory back when I took the tests).

It is too simple to state that all J's are judgmental and decisive and that all P's are relaxed and casual as the basic descriptions imply. In fact it is plainly inaccurate. This distinction has more to do with whether you are a dominant judger or dominant perceiver irrespective of your J or P status. INTPs are dominant judgers in that their dominant function is T (Ti). INTPs are necessarily a bit less relaxed and bit more decisive than their close kin ENTPs who are dominant perceivers with N (Ne). In fact I doubt that any type is more stubborn than an INTP given the uncompromising adherence to principles which defines his type. Yet he is a P nonetheless.

Consider an ISTP who is typically an auto mechanic. Your average auto mechanic is not necessarily casual, as P descriptions might imply, and he may even be fairly serious. But he does tend to stay out of your hair. However if you cross him, he is likely to bust you across the jaw. He will not draw first blood, but once blood is drawn, watch out.

All P really means is that you tend not to invade someone else's space (or let someone invade yours), regardless of whether you are easy-going or serious. The INTP will derive philosophical boundaries to legitimate authority and be sensitive to those boundaries both in action and in reaction. The ISTP will derive common sense boundaries to authority and be sensitive in the same way. Both may well be perceived as more serious than casual by others even though they are both P's. Their extroverted cousins, ENTP and ESTP, will be sensitive to those same boundaries but to a lesser degree and will generally come across as more casual in keeping with the standard P descriptions.

Contrast the four Ps above with an ?ber-J like Hillary Clinton (INTJ, I would think). Hillary makes up her mind what she wants to do and does not care in the least whose toes she steps on or whose space she invades. You will comply, knave, and you have no say in the matter. It is at this point that an INTP such as myself dons flame-retardant gear, a gas mask, and whatever else I need to do battle with her. I defend my space and the spaces of others from her unwarranted and unwelcome intrusion while citing God-given or natural rights and pointing to her violations of natural law. And it is a battle to the death. Neither one of us is casual or easy-going in this milieu but there clearly is both a J and a P present. The P is defending the boundaries of legitimate authority while the J is trying to overrun them.

The example above is of course extreme but it illustrates the point. The J vs. P distinction has less to do with how decisive or casual you are and more to do with how sensitive you are to the boundaries of authority. A P is sensitive to those boundaries and generally will not presume to tell others how to live their lives, and expects the same courtesy in return. A J either does not care about those boundaries or does not even consider that they might exist in the first place.

P = "Live and let live"
J = "Everybody should do it this way"

That *really* helps! I am *obsessive* about protecting my boundaries. The one thing that upsets me more than *anything* else is when someone tells me what to do/tries to get me to do things their way. Even if I agree with the substance of what they are saying, I will fight with them about it anyway because they are trying to impose their will on me. Meddlers in general annoy me to no end, even if it's not my affair in which they are meddling. I mean, who gives them the right, you know?

The reason I consistently score J is because I am naturally tidy and organized. I keep an orderly space and show up on time for things. If I say I will do something, I do it and in a timely fashion. However, I like to keep my options open and I am comfortable in chaos.

I wonder if there is a gender thing going on as well. I mean, how many female INTPs are there? INTP's are only about 1 percent of the population, right? Well, of that 1 percent, I'll bet 90% are male. That leaves, what, like 100 of us INTP women on the whole planet (no I didn't do the actual math, but I could)? Yeah, I'm Smurfette to all you Trekkie guys. And I did feel that way in high school. I actually went to an all womens college just so I could have some female friends! Anyway, my point is that if you're an INTP female, you've got to conform somewhere in order to just fit into society. Maybe my way of being more socially acceptable was to be more outwardly organized. I don't know, just a thought.

Are there any other INTP women on these boards? I've lost track. Angeli and Susan, are you guys both INFPs? Geez, if there are no INTP women here, in the land of INTPs, than I really AM a freak!

Neisha, let me give you a partial response now which may or may not help:

On 2001-10-28 22:29, Neisha '67 wrote:
That *really* helps! I am *obsessive* about protecting my boundaries. The one thing that upsets me more than *anything* else is when someone tells me what to do/tries to get me to do things their way. Even if I agree with the substance of what they are saying, I will fight with them about it anyway because they are trying to impose their will on me.

And even more than this, you invariably see a more efficient way of doing it. You are always drawn to efficiency to get it over with as soon as possible so that you can get on with something else perhaps that you actually enjoy. So you see a quicker, more efficient way of doing it and you want to "focus like a laser beam" on it and get it over with. Accordingly you want the other person to leave you alone to do the job in your more efficient manner. In fact you cannot even concentrate on it if someone is there interrupting you at every turn. And over-the-shoulder step by step instructions are out of the question. You must know what the general goal or objective, i.e. destination, is before you begin, so that you can map out a route in your head in order to get there. Is this about right?

The reason I consistently score J is because I am naturally tidy and organized. I keep an orderly space and show up on time for things. If I say I will do something, I do it and in a timely fashion. However, I like to keep my options open and I am comfortable in chaos.

The "tidy and organized" thing definitely HAS to be female hormones. I have not encountered many women who lived like pigs. On the other hand, I have rarely encountered a man who was not to some degree a disciple of Al Bundy. When left to my own devices, I do not leave food or dirt around although there tend to be books and papers stacked all over the place. However I am more likely to bring a leaf-blower or HP air hose into the house to blast the dust off the furniture than to go through the monotonous routine with rag and furniture polish. Thank God for women and their hormones!

The "showing up on time" thing threw my off too, originally, as that typically shows up in J descriptions. I make it a point to be on time. It flusters me as I do not like to have to be at a precise location at a precise time when I can think of so many other things I would rather be doing and invariably I have to interrupt something I have started when the time comes to leave (or knowledge of the pending departure prevents me from starting whatever it is in the first place). But I gave my word that I would be there. Would I want someone showing up late for me and wasting my time? No. Therefore I will be on time as I feel honor-bound to do unto others as I would have them do unto me. Otherwise I would consciously be a hypocrite and that would violate my defining INTP principles. So I estimate closely how long it will take to get there and wait to leave when I am confident that I will arrive perhaps no more than five minutes ahead of the appointed time so as to minimize the length of time I must wait once I get there. It is the waiting with nothing to do and no access to anything I might enjoy which I cannot stand. Is this about right?

Those descriptions are too simplistic when they say that J's show up on time and P's are late. Dominant-perceiver P's probably are generally late. However dominant-judger (or at least dominant-T) P's show up on time although they are not exactly happy about the whole process. J's on the other hand, I would imagine, look forward to being on time or even early. So I interpret the mood to define the difference. And, by the way, your preference for keeping your options open and your tolerance of chaos are both hardcore P traits.

Interesting. I actually have no problem getting places on time, even with baby in tow. So, maybe I am more of a combo. Being organized and orderly comes pretty naturally and does not require a lot of effort or thought. I am contantly tidying up my house, my workspace, etc. without even thinking about it. On the other hand, I don't mind uncertainty and tend to let events unfold on their own without wanting to control stuff. And I really, really hate either managing other people, or especially, being managed myself. So, maybe I am a J when it comes to physical stuff and a P when it comes to more future-oriented, cerebral, intangible aspects of life. Just a thought.

Oh yeah, I keep thinking I want to specialize in something, and then I get distracted by something else. I can commit to people, but not jobs for more than 2-4 years. And projects . . . forget about it. I also read several books at the same time.

Also, I don't know if it's necessarily a hormone thing with women so much as social conditioning. But I am willing to accept the idea that its both nature and nurture -- as a new mother I am having to acknowledge that most personality traits are.

On 2001-10-29 10:33, Neisha '67 wrote:
Interesting. I actually have no problem getting places on time, even with baby in tow. So, maybe I am more of a combo.

It is difficult to articulate but I guess the point I was trying to make is given context by something stated at one of Robert's linked sites: INTPs concentrate more intensely than any other type. When we work on a project, we are totally absorbed in it such that we "focus like a laser beam." There can be no interruptions at key moments when reconciling a complex matrix of factors in our heads. And we cannot break away in the middle of something until we achieve a certain stage where the pertinent elements are synthesized. Otherwise we will have to start over again as we cannot recall all the facts so as to recreate the matrix in our heads at the drop of a hat. After a "stage" is completed, we can step away and do something else. When we return, we resume with the next "stage" in the project.

My point about showing up at things on time is probably best understood in this context. I gave my word that I would be on time so there is no question that I will be (it's those INTP principles). But I must plan my work around the appointment. I must be able to complete a "stage" before I leave for the appointment. Otherwise, I really ought not begin the stage until I return when I can work it through to completion -- which forces me to "waste time" leading up to the appointment. So the appointment can easily disrupt my whole day and take a toll on my efficiency. I would much rather just be late as P's are supposed to be. But my INTP principles will not let me.

On the other hand, I don't mind uncertainty and tend to let events unfold on their own without wanting to control stuff.

You like spontaneity and are bored by routine. This is consistent with INTP. I have no desire to control anything except my time.

And I really, really hate either managing other people, or especially, being managed myself.

Exactly! It is often stated that there are only leaders and followers in this world. This is not true as there is a third category: those who are neither. I am most definitely not a follower but I do not like to lead as I do not like the responsibility which comes with it (it closes off many options such that I cannot pursue things freely and spontaneously as I prefer). If anything, we tend to get nominated to lead and we may accept the role grudgingly while working out an exit strategy by which we can return to our prior neutral role at the first opportunity.

Oh yeah, I keep thinking I want to specialize in something, and then I get distracted by something else. I can commit to people, but not jobs for more than 2-4 years. And projects . . . forget about it. I also read several books at the same time.

You have too many interests and you are too easily distracted. Definitely INTP.

It seems to me that you show enough traits which are so clearly INTP as opposed to INTJ that you must be an INTP. Of course there are going to be minor modifications given that you are a woman. The one thing which would seal it is if you could find one of those tests which measured preference for each individual function, e.g. Te and Ti, and Ne and Ni. The Keirsey test does not break down functions into their "e" and "i" attitudes and it really should as these are completely different brain functions. The Keirsey test makes it look as though you can alternate between a J and a P and thus an INTJ and an INTP on different days and these are completely different people in reality (Hillary Clinton vs. Thomas Jefferson). If you were tested as to the strength of your Ti as opposed to Te and Ne as opposed to Ni, you would get a completely different story and a much clearer depiction of the truth.

But you are correct. As a female INTP, you have to be an extreme rarity. I'll bet that you really are 0.1% of the population or less.