I'm then the proof that intp is wrong.
Because I think fast and that intp also matches me.
But I'm honestly thinking this type of categorisation is stupid and doesn't add calue
Because I think fast and that intp also matches me.
But I'm honestly thinking this type of categorisation is stupid and doesn't add calue
Can't stand it when people run off into the weeds on examples too. Just.. it's an example. Please just get the concept of examples. They are to get us on the same context. If you can correct my example you can understand what I'm saying. We're good. Please continue with the original thought as if I'd given a good example.
Go go go go go! No, dammit, don't complain I'm being too impatient or hard on myself either, you're wasting time! Go go go!
Of course outwardly this goes through a don't be a jerk filter. Impatience is my problem.
E: Should clarify this is only for skillset relevant conversations. You can take as long as you like on spiritual or philosophical thoughts.
I just did another test, idk can they change? INTP-T again
E2: I should correct myself actually. If I'm popping back to make these edits half an hour and an hour after I posted the original comment then surely I'm thinking fast (initial comment) and also thinking slow (oh wait no, go back to that one thought, add this too).
Hey me, maybe that bit about examples is it's own blog post pal? It went a bit into the weeds itself there. Was it relevant or just on your mind? If you'd have thought slower you might not have bothered typing that bit.
I'll have to reflect on this one :)
Some people are introverts like “I just want to be alone to work and recharge”.
I’m an introvert like, “ I’ll do this on my own, but if you want to help, I’m happy to have you along.”
Social situations don’t really stress me out, but I don’t do well in group conversations.
As an on again off again anxious mess, maybe I think fast so I can have multiple answers ready in case my first isn't good enough? Maybe my thinking will slow down over time (in therapy, anxiety and self-confidence are things I'm working on). It's a hypothesis anyway.
If that is the case then at the extreme ends fast thinkers within INTP don't believe in themselves and slow thinkers do. Fast thinkers are cups half empty (and will likely fall on the floor if I'm not careful) people and slow thinkers are cups can be refilled later people. Both are logical, just different levels of confidence.
It kinda checks out now I've typed it out haha. It does sort of imply there's more than 16 types of people, but that's for Myers and Briggs to deal with.
I'm not sure that one is better than the other, but I suspect there is a lot of frustration embedded in mismatching what you want to be doing vs what you are good at.
I realised I was coming back to the thread to edit in new thoughts. This means I do both fast thinking (initial comment) and slow thinking (returning to add something else)
I no longer believe I'm solely a fast thinker, I just wasn't giving myself credit for the slow because I'm impatient af
I wish there was more room in society for both types of thinking.
"Thinking, Fast and Slow" by Daniel Kahnmeman. I've yet to read it but it's on the list.
E: your comment made me realise I do both too. For example coming back to HN to add to comments I posted half an hour ago :-)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Myers%E2%80%93Briggs_Type_Indi...
But also, what would it even mean to say that Myers-Briggs is wrong? If you pick 4 personality traits and create 16 groups from them, then knowing someone's group will always give you insight into their personality.
I would suggest that if you primarily think in a fast, intuitive manner, then INTP doesn't match you because that antithetical to what INTP means. Perhaps you are reading too much into the "type descriptions" which tend to be stereotypically and not particular accurate (or are being too trusting of questionaire test results). Many of the types are similar to each other, so it's common to see oneself to an extent in more than one description.
To be an INTP means that your dominant thinking process is "Introverted Thinking" which is slow, reasoned, logical thinking that places a high emphasis on internal consistency. And that this is backed up with a secondary thinking process of "Extraverted Intuition" which is fast, intuitive thinking, which an emphasis on ideas and creative, divergent thought patterns. Or at least, that this was true of you as a young person.
Why? N stands for intuitive, and the rest have nothing to do with thinking fast or slow. P just means you don't judge quickly, P could still come up with tons of ideas and explanations quickly, they just don't judge one of those correct.
Additionaly, due to extravert bias, they got the P and the J the wrong way around when designing the 4-letter codes:
- "I" means your top function is introverted (this makes sense)
- But "P" means your top extraverted function is a "P" function (N or S) rather than a "J" function (F or T)
But as an introvert's top function is introverted not extraverted, and according to the theory J/P alternates down the stack, that mean's that an I..P type's overall top function is a actually "J" function. Specifically in the this case "Introverted Thinking" (often notated "Ti").
Introverted Thinking is actually slow in two ways:
- Because it's a J ("Judgement") function. Which just means it's either an F ("Feeling" or T ("Thinking") function. These correspond to the Slow thinking from Kahneman's Thinking Fast and Slow. That's what "Judgement" is.
- Because it's an I ("Introverted") function. This doesn't make it actually slow, it just makes it appear slow. This is because "I" functions involve a relatively long amount of internal coginition before seeking more input from the external environment (this is what it means to be an "I" function). Which will appear slower to the observer who can't observe the persons internal thinking processes and can only observe when they interact with their environment.
Taking your description naively, such a person would likely be an INTJ. Which has a functional stack of (in order of most to least used thinking processes): Introverted Intuition - Extraverted Thinking - Introverted Feeling - Extraverted Sensation.
I realise that doesn't make much sense if you are used to applying the 4-letter code to persons directly. But as I mentioned above, I don't think that is a good way of doing things. It makes more sense if you take the 4 letter codes as simply being an opaque shorthand encoding for functional stacks (with the individual letters in the code not having meaning on their own, only indirectly through their correlation to a functional stack). E, I, N, S, T, F, P, J then become properties of thinking processes and an "extraverted person" is simply someone who primarily tends towards using one of the four extraverted thinking processes (Fe, Te, Ne, Se). They may or may not present like the everyday understanding of how an extravert presents (e.g. sociable and chatty). Typically people who have a "Extraverted Feeling" (Fe) dominant function closely fit this stereotype, but other types extraverts often don't.
If someone did the test and got INTP, then I think it is fair for them to describe themselves as INTP. You might say that the test was wrong, but as I said that isn't how most see MBTI.
It's also what the more advanced "Step III" version of the official MBTI test is based on. But that that assessment isn't just a simple questionaire: it can be only be conducted by a trained assessor and the cost of training course runs to thousands of pounds, so most people don't have experience of it, and it ends up being the simpler naive model that most people learn about.
Seeing it written out like that really makes me understand why (unaware) hypocrisy annoys me so much.
Think eventual consistency rather than strict consistency in the world view and the thinking can be blazing fast and keep the other properties. The only advantage to slow is that it avoids the short periods of inconsistency, but that also hurts it since it is harder to make big changes in the world model.
- Extraverted Thinking which is also relatively careful, reasoned and logical but puts more emphasis on external validity than internal consistency.
- Introverted intuition which is faster, more intuitive mode of thinking which some people might see as logical but isn't really. It's logical in the way ChatGPT is logical: it works until it doesn't.
Note also that nobody is using just one of these functions. So it's normal to lead with an intuitive thought and then back that up with logic or vice versa.
But I stand by the idea that you either be fast XOR fully reasoned. You can still be "kinda fast" and reasoned (but you'll never be as fast as intuitive judgements that are close to instant), and you can be pretty accurate with fast intuitive thought (but you'll never be as assured as a more thoroughly reasoned position - sometimes your intuition will lead you astray).
I can and often explain on a logical level my point of view.
I just don't need much time to do so because I constantly think about everything
But the way this person describes things is how I am precisely, when it comes to discussion on philosophy, politics, and so on. Debatable topics.
Slightly less so when I already know something or we are in a design/brainstorming session, I am more assertive.
I'm skeptical of the emphasis on the alphabet sorter.
Then again I see you have responded to some similar criticism of it below so I'll try to remember to read it when I'm not supposed to be managing a project.
I like to think of MBTI-style types as describing as describing the baseline at which your personality started before it was influenced by life experience such as working in sales for several years. That will have changed your personality but it doesn't affect your type.
If you expect an MBTI type to describe your personality as-is then you're going to be disappointed. This is also why the questionnaires are so inaccurate because they tend to ask about behavioural patterns which are influenced by life experience. You can get a much more accurate typing if you ask about why you act in a certain way, but that's hard (impossible) to do with a fixed set of questions.