Talk:INTJ

This is the INTJ redirect. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help. Assume good faith Be polite and avoid personal attacks Be welcoming to newcomers Seek dispute resolution if needed Article policies Neutral point of view No original research Verifiability

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Archives: 1Auto-archiving period: 365 days

This article was nominated for deletion on 13 April 2008. The result of the discussion was keep.

This redirect does not require a rating on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Psychology Low‑importance This redirect is within the scope of WikiProject Psychology, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Psychology on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PsychologyWikipedia:WikiProject PsychologyTemplate:WikiProject Psychologypsychology articles Low This redirect has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Archives

1

This page has archives. Sections older than 365 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 5 sections are present.

The discussion of what famous people MIGHT have a personality profile (or not) is about as enlightening as listening to a typical TV sitcom actor discussing their personal opinions about cosmology based on what their hair dresser said. Perhaps we should add a horoscope to the article while we're at it? I mean, sure it's FUN to speculate that you share common personality traits with... Ceasar? Napolean? But you may as well find Shirley MacLaine and discuss past lives you think you had, too for all that matters. Silly, unenlightening 'human interest' fluff, bordering on tabloid gossip for an encyclopedia article.

Evildave (talk) 21:06, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

World Leaders

Has anyone else noticed that none of the mentioned people are "world leaders", except the presidents?

I have therefore changed the section to "distinguished individuals", which better describes the list. KeineLust90 00:01, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Depends on how you define "world leader" ;-). But "Distinguished" is a much better choice in wording. Thanks, Signature^brendel 00:34, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Guiliani not an INTJ

I'm sorry. Rudy Giuliani is not an INTJ. He's expressed in at least ten speeches how much he loves to mingle and socialize, "Even with my wife's friends" (as a joke, but nonetheless).

He also has expressed no "vision" or "innovation" that would predicate the Intuitive aspect of his personality.

He's an ESTJ. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Marea lenta (talk • contribs) 04:33, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It depends on if he's telling the truth, or saying what the voters want to hear. INTJ learn to adjust their sociality temporarily in order to "fit in".

That's bullshit, or simply an ignorant myth. Where's the source for that? I'm an INTJ myself and most other INTJ I know despise a behaviour like this. I assure you that you will recognize any public figure that is an INTJ. They don't play such mind games as you seem to believe. And yeah, Guiliani is most probably an ESTJ. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.85.216.227 (talk) 10:27, 5 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Problem with one of the sources

The typelogic source is wrong on its listing of famous people. For instance, the actual homepage of the creator of this idea states that JFK is not a INTJ and states that Newton was. I would suggest that the real website is favored over this faulty homepage. 75.104.140.74 (talk) 01:55, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please find Citations for these

These were listed as some of the individuals whom Marina Margaret Heiss at the University of Virginia considered Mastermind Rationals (INTJ), but no citation was provided. Can somebody provide citation and then put these on the main lists. I've overhauled those lists since so many of the examples were uncited.

• Susan B. Anthony, Civil Rights Pioneer
• John Forbes Nash, American Mathematician and Economist Davemcarlson (talk) 09:48, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply
  ]

I found the citation for Heiss, referenced in my comment above. [1] I do not consider this as accurate as Keirsey's, in part because it seems not to be based on self-reporting of INTJ individuals (Keirsey often reads through biographies and written works), but rather Heiss's assessment of these individuals' characteristics (otherwise how would she be able to assess fictional characters). Heiss is a highly regarded scholar at the University of Virginia, but take care when using this citation to add to the list of notable INTJs, particularly with modern-world figures and fictional characters.Davemcarlson (talk) 10:02, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Gordon Freeman

The fictional character of Gordon Freeman from Half-life comes to mind as an INTJ. Could he be included in the fictional characters list? Jppc3 (talk) 03:12, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure if he passes notability? Any thoughts? Davemcarlson (talk) 09:25, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thomas Jefferson not INTJ

I've removed Jefferson from the INTJ list. Keirsey and all other sources I've seen have classified him as an INTP or "architect rational". Here's the Keirsey citation. [2] Jefferson was often described by people like John Adams as "lazy". Clearly Jefferson was not lazy (he was perhaps the most accomplished learner in the history of the country), but he'd spend time discussing ideas rather than making plans to get things done. Jefferson didn't have the clear (if reluctant) leadership of an INTJ. This agrees with Keirsey's assessment, so I've removed Jefferson from the list. Davemcarlson (talk) 09:25, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Famous Person entries

Some of the famous person entries here seem to be kind of a stretch (mostly in the politician entry). I mean, Arnold Schwarzenegger, an intellectual??? You have got to be freaking kidding me. Donald Rumsfeld? Rudy Giuilani? Who makes this stuff up, anyway? I am especially suspicious of the entries for long dead persons, such as Hannibal or Augustus Caesar. How can anyone today claim to be able to determine the personality of someone that has been dead for centuries with any real accuracy?24.16.133.49 (talk) 13:36, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'd really like to blow up this

WP:OR section indeed. --M4gnum0n (talk) 15:36, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply

]

I overhauled the list to provide only those names cited by Keirsey. The names you are talking about are actually from typelogic.com, which is informed by Marina Margaret Heiss of the University of Virginia. However, this site shows a rudimentary understanding of typing current world leaders. On the front page, Barack Obama (who I know a heck of a lot about, and whose grassroots campaign I've helped organize for 6 months) is listed as an ENFJ. Obama is an INTJ according to Keirsey, and an ENFJ assessment is most likely based on a basic understanding of the current media portrayal of the candidates. Obama wrote 2 books including an intensely personal 500-page memoir, so he's probably not an E. The F only makes sense if you think of his "touchy feely" stump speeches (as portrayed by the media), but makes no sense when paying attention to his highly careful speech patterns, his formal debate performances, his mastery of constitutional law and quick adaptation to the U.S. Senate. I was certain he was INTJ or INTP and that site got 2 of those characteristics wrong. Anyways, I digress, but that rant goes along with yours in questioning the validity of the typelogic.com citation. Hopefully all the work I've done on providing only Keirsey-cited information will make you less interested in blowing up this

WP:OR section, M4gnum0n. Davemcarlson (talk) 10:13, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply

]

I too thought of Obama when I read this description. Collin237 198.228.200.151 (talk) 03:11, 18 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Good work Dave! The section looks good now, and most of the characters fit in the category. --M4gnum0n (talk) 08:32, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The list of Notable INTJs has been recently removed (this is good because it was becoming increasingly speculative). I would like to see a list re-created from the primary literature on the subject since such lists are helpful as examples and verifiable. Auspex1729 (talk) 18:44, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I strongly recommend that this section be deleted. The information may be fun, but it has no place in an encyclopedia. There's no factual basis for the claim that Aristotle or Peter the Great, for example, were INTJs. Such unscientific speculation is fodder for skeptics. It screams 'pop psyschology' and casts doubt on the integrity of the entire system. A link to the Keirsey site would make the information available to interested readers without undermining the validity of this article.

If you feel you must include it on the Wikipedia site, it should be under the Keirsey role variant (Mastermind) rather than the Myers-Briggs type. Speculation about a person's type is considered unethical in Myers-Briggs. ThreeOfCups (talk) 02:19, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keirsey has contributed greatly to our understanding of Rationals, but his classification of a number of well-known individuals was wrong. For example: George Marshall is clearly described as an introvert in more than one authoritative biography - and therefore cannot be an ENTJ.

The only "factual basis" for any classification can be that the person being classified actually took an MBTI test. So Aristotle's classification is no more unfounded than anyone else on the list who hasn't taken a test.

Agreed - there is a lot about MBTI that screams 'pop psychology', and we should weigh the benefits of having 'role models' of a type versus the unavoidable imprecision of providing well-known individuals as examples of a type. If it's reasonably accurate I think it helps people to understand a temperament, which has value.

I agree with an earlier contributor that Schwarzenegger et.al are obviously not correctly classified. No INTJ would type Schwarzenegger as an INTJ - it shows an total lack of understanding of the INTJ temperament. Perhaps those who contribute to the description of a type should be of the type? OomKoning (talk) 17:11, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It's possible that Keirsey was wrong about Gen. Marshall. It's also possible that Marshall was an introvert by conventional standards but not by Myers-Briggs standards. Regardless, without a reliable source that says "George Marshall was an INTJ," listing him here constitutes original research (OR). According to Wikipedia's verifiability guidelines, "The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth—meaning, in this context, whether readers are able to check that material added to Wikipedia has already been published by a reliable source, not whether we think it is true. Editors should provide a reliable source for quotations and for any material that is challenged or is likely to be challenged, or the material may be removed." ThreeOfCups (talk) 03:13, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Limitiing contributions to only those who share the type is a sure way to introduce bias. ThreeOfCups (talk) 00:37, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

From the list of fictional characters, I deleted those for whom no reference was cited and for whom I could find no source other than blogs or message boards (including Dr. Gregory House). Wikipedia policy requires that editors cite reliable, verifiable sources for any material that may be contested. ThreeOfCups (talk) 03:29, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Obama as INTJ? - As a big fan and a confirmed INTJ I'd like to make that claim (and if I were biased toward my type perhaps I would). But you can't read 'Audacity' and conclude that Obama is an INTJ - not if you know INTJs. In this, and unfortunately quite a few other classifications of well-known individuals, Keirsey is wrong. He is more accurate than Marina Margaret Heiss, but apparently hasn't read Obama's books, nor biographies of General George Marshall for that matter. OomKoning (talk) 18:06, 23 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Obama may be an INTJ, and I may have been hasty in disagreeing with the earlier comment. He seems to think and plan and organize like a Rational. But sometimes he writes in a interpersonal-relationship-focused and personal-narrative-oriented way - like an Idealist. Unusual. OomKoning (talk) 22:45, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have a hard time believing that Obama could be an Idealist. He lacks their passion and enthusiasm in the way he expresses himself in speech. (Compare Obama to Martin Luther King Jr., for example.) Also, I can't imagine an Idealist of his stature using the term "typical white person," as Obama did when describing his grandmother. Idealists would be more sensitive to other people's perceptions than that. Idealists have more of an innate understanding than Rationals do that it doesn't matter what you meant; it only matters what people think you meant. ThreeOfCups (talk) 23:52, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Obama has to be an Intuitive - too abstract and theoretical be a Sensate. So the next question is: Rational or Idealist? Very few Rationals I know have his inclusive nature. Rationals love to brainstorm and INTJs especially go to great lengths to seek the best thinking on a topic, but we're also selective - the un-thoughtful and their biases and prejudices are not sought out. Obama takes inclusiveness to a much higher level. He actively discourages exclusion of any type (in his world-view, not just his decision-making process), and won't demonize anyone. You won't hear him making a "vast right-wing conspiracy" claim, nor a "welfare queens" type of accusation. Since the 60s our politics has been about divide, distract, and demonize - and Rove is the master at it. Are we ready to transcend that way of thinking? OomKoning (talk) 19:17, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Part of the problem with trying to deduce the personality type of politicians is that they're a packaged product (an unfortunate necessity in this age of round-the-clock news). So it's impossible to know how much is natural and how much is part of a well-honed image. That doesn't mean I think politicians are insincere. But I do think that what Obama projects in a book or in a planned speech says much less about his type than a spontaneous statement in a radio interview. Then again, candidates on the campaign trail are under constant stress, so it wouldn't be hard to envision their inferior function coming out. I imagine that a savvy ENFJ politician under the influence of inferior Ti might make a racially insensitive remark, or call the people of Pennsylvania "bitter." But I think an ENFJ under those circumstances would quickly recognize his error, and respond with a humble apology, rather than rationally arguing the point that he misspoke and didn't mean it the way it sounded. A person's ideas and belief systems aren't nearly as good an indicator of type as behavior is. That said, I think the only person who can say for sure what type Obama is, is Obama himself. Which is why I object to this whole section of the article in the first place. :) ThreeOfCups (talk) 00:36, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The lastest list of "Notable INTJs" was copied wholesale from the TypeLogic page and as such is a copyright violation. I am therefore deleting it. ThreeOfCups (talk) 17:27, 18 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That list goes against Dr. Keirsey's thoughts. He says JFK was ESTP, almost opposite of this. The list on the Mastermind page is more accurate. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.225.135.74 (talk) 21:37, 25 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The different practitioners contradict one another to the point that these lists are almost entirely useless. I agree that Keirsey's list is the most reliable. Any suggestions for how to best address this? Remove those whom other practitioners have listed as another type? ThreeOfCups (talk) 00:40, 26 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I would like to propose adding Friedrich Nietzsche as an example of a notable INTJ that there actually seems to be agreement on. Jung said he was INTJ, Keirsey says he is INTJ, Celebritytypes.com says he is INTJ (and quotes obscure authors who apparently say the same). (Typelogic.com does not type him.) What do you think? Possessive (talk) 00:47, 21 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. That sounds excellent. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.225.135.74 (talk) 18:39, 26 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Dr. Gregory House

Dr. House looks more of an INTP than an INTJ. Simoncpu (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 07:15, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree. INTPs have a hard time making decisions, House does not.OomKoning (talk) 17:10, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Dr. House is far more likely to be an INTJ than an INTP. House is very scientific, ruthlessly extends the concept of "does it work (or fit)" to his diagnosis, and always wants to be right. Rules that impede his ability to diagnose something don't apply to him (such as his common practice of breaking into homes). House also has few friends. However, the key difference between P and J is decision making and attention to the clock. Virtually every P I know has no sense of time (I've known them to miss flights because they apparently think departure times are a suggestion). Jclinard (talk) 08:56, 21 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Inattention to time is a universal NT trait. They want to stay at something until they finish it, regardless of mealtimes, social engagements, etc. INTJs are perhaps unlikely to miss flights, but they may feel perfectly justified at keeping other people waiting while they finish their own project. As I see it, the primary difference between INTP and INTJ is that INTPs value knowledge for its own sake, whereas INTJs consider the pursuit of knowledge a waste of time unless it has a practical application. ThreeOfCups (talk) 16:21, 21 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Inattention to an external or social calendar is a universal NT trait, but like all Js both ENTJs and INTJs are schedule driven. However, as Rationals it is their own and not someone else's schedule that drives them. Ps ignore the time dimension whenever they can, consequently INTPs pursue knowledge in a purer, more focused way than House does. BTW. it is precisely because we're able to discuss the nuances of a type as we are here that only members of a type should contribute to the discussion of a type. Some bias may be introduced - but that is surely preferred to ignorance that spills out over the page (such as when other types miscategorize people like Schwarzenegger, et.al.) OomKoning (talk) 17:46, 23 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

According to Wikipedia policy, all information included in the articles must be based on reliable, verifiable, third-party sources, not personal knowledge, experience, research, or synthesis. Therefore, the personality type of the person contributing the material is irrelevant. Even people contributing to articles about themselves must cite verifiable sources. Their own knowledge is not sufficient. ThreeOfCups (talk) 02:31, 24 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

So policy is more important than accuracy? Most INTJs would disagree OomKoning (talk) 03:32, 26 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

As a measured INTJ I would disagree with that too. It fails to pass the test in the main article "Does it Work?" I know this is what drives me. It also goes with being an Aspie as well. Soarhead77 (talk) 12:10, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Verifiability is the only way to ensure accuracy. For instance, I could claim that I am Arnold Schwarzenegger, that I have taken the MBTI, and that I am an INTJ. Without a reliable third-party source, there's no way to prove one way or another whether that claim is accurate—even though Governor Schwarzenegger is clearly an ENTJ. :) ThreeOfCups (talk) 01:10, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Verifiability is important but sometimes it is unavailable. Although the whimsical within me would love to see Dr. Gregory House listed (and there is a lot of reason to list him), without a somewhat reliable third-party source he should be left out. A drag. I must say, though, that the reliance on third-party sources can be a hindrance and in some cases is not entirely logical. Gingermint (talk) 04:11, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Another very definitive INTJ trait he has is his complete lack of respect for authority figures, as the only people he comes close to respecting are those who rival his intelligence somewhat. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.206.70.159 (talk) 19:55, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This is true of all Rationals, however, not just INTJ. ThreeOfCups (talk) 03:40, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Much more INTJ than other types. INTP in particular does not stand up to authority much, and House is definitely introverted. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.148.192.182 (talk) 10:44, 30 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

ESTP article example

The ESTP article provides a template for what I consider the best way of including famous or notable individuals who exhibit the characteristics of a particular type. That article lists famous ESTPs as a single sentence, including the most illustrative examples: "According to Keirsey, based on observations of behavior, famous Promoters include

"lists famous ESTPs as a single sentence, including the most illustrustrative examples" - an excellent approach: more understanding, less confusion OomKoning (talk) 18:00, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

In addition to the above suggestion, I'm thinking of moving the long list of "Notable INTJs" to the Mastermind article, then referencing it here. That way the information will still be available to those who are interested. The list is far more appropriate in the article for the Keirsey type than in the one for the MB type. ThreeOfCups (talk) 03:28, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Lenin

Lenin is not an INTJ. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Red aries (talk • contribs) 15:05, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Several sites list Lenin as ENFJ, so I deleted him from this list. ThreeOfCups (talk) 23:19, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Why is lists of INTJ:s a good idea?

As far as I can tell, a list of INTJ or other lists of MBTI characterized individuals is not in accord with the MBTI ethics, it is slightly in opposition towards the rules of biographies, since the material makes statements about individuals giving themselves no say on whether the information is relevant for them or correct. If one individual, theoretically, wish to state "I'm an INTJ, let this be known", the statement might be acceptable and not an unnecessary infringement on privacy, otherwise an independent characterization of individuals is at best dubious. And I don't wish to be on the same list as Ayn Rand with her flawed so called "philosophy". ... said: Rursus (^mbork³) 12:52, 31 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I agree wholeheartedly. The lists are inaccurate, unethical, and completely inappropriate for an encyclopedia. Different sources contradict each other, and there's no way to prove who's "right" and who's "wrong," especially given that many of the individuals in question are dead. The information should be removed. ThreeOfCups (talk) 22:21, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The lists, if they can be substantiated (and that's a reach!) would be very interesting. Here are examples of this personality! That's very useful. On the other hand, guesses are not very useful. Gingermint (talk) 05:41, 8 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Notable INTJs?

• Donald Rumsfeld high self-esteem, extrovert, sensing, thinking, great body posture, mov him the ESTJ category
• General Colin Powell
  high self-esteem, extrovert, sensing, thinking, great body posture, mov him the ESTJ category
• Dwight D. Eisenhower same as above, please look at his statue. That is not really an introvert person.
• Rudy Giuliani same as above

Using Keirsey examples

I moved Notable INTJs under characteristics and used only Keirsey examples. From an MBTI perspective, this is unencyclopedic speculation inconsistent with ethical guidelines. ThreeOfCups (talk) 03:30, 13 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The official Myers and Briggs Foundation INTJ type description can be found here. The official Kiersey Mastermind/INTJ type description can be found here. It seems odd that currently out of the 16 types the INTJ page seems to be the only one declared below Wikipedia standards. Hopefully these sources help. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.151.151.137 (talk) 12:50, 1 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100906154838/http://whatismypersonality.net/mbti/intj to http://whatismypersonality.net/mbti/intj

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018.

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 07:49, 10 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The other recreational pseudo-psychology systems Socionics and Enneagram of Personality have only a single article. In the meantime it would be beneficial to remove the "list of notable persons of this personality type" seeing as the Myers–Briggs_Type_Indicator is make-believe. 104.228.101.152 (talk) 02:07, 14 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Do you think that introversion and extroversion are complete myths? What about the big 5, is that just rubbish, or is there possibly a spectrum of, for example, creativity? What about humoral theory: is there any truth to the idea that people's mental states are partly influenced by naturally-occurring body chemicals? Is the entire study of personality malarkey? I really appreciate your contribution. "MBTI is make-believe" is an extremely well-sourced and argued essay. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2604:2000:12C1:44F5:60BD:6B29:2948:1E96 (talk) 05:12, 21 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

There is a big difference between psychology and pseudo-psychology. 104.228.101.152 (talk) 22:04, 9 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I'll elaborate. I think personality psychology is mostly pseudo-psychology. However the Big Five personality traits seem to be the most well thought out of the personality psychology systems. Still, I do not want to delude myself and think within that system. Myers-Briggs, Enneagram and Socionics are jokes and only foolish people think about them. 104.228.101.152 (talk) 01:49, 18 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Support Merge See Talk:INTP Ethanpet113 (talk) 07:54, 16 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

 You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:Myers–Briggs Type Indicator#Redirects and a new hatnote. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 10:14, 13 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]