Talk:INTJ/Archive 1

This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

I created templates for text that's the same across all 16 type articles to eliminate the hours of work it takes to update the same text 16 times. This is a recommended use for templates according to Wikipedia policy WM:TEMP.

To edit the templates, follow the URL on the Edit page. Make sure that the changes you make to the templates are appropriate for all 16 type articles! (INFJ, ESTP, etc.) ThreeOfCups (talk) 23:22, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

The MBTI, Keirsey Temperament Sorter, and related Jung Typology assessments use the original spelling, Extraversion, rather than the modern corruption, Extroversion. In this context, Extraversion is jargon and should be thus spelled. ThreeOfCups (talk) 14:54, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

Socionics functions and symbols

Please, could somebody translate the above, as it make absolutely no sense unless you have the codex-reader at hand... If the writer comes by one day, do incorporate an intelligible translation of the above, as well as the draws under. Why use geometrical figures instead of a clear explanation of its meaning. After all we are no longer in the 70'ees, and none of us went to the exact same school, or i will take my private books on the subject instead to consult wikipedia. Please mind that...

--213.237.21.242 00:00, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

The model A and the function signs from socionics are indeed confusing for beginners, but it makes no sense to explain the whole functions and the model A in every of the 16 articles. Take a look at the socionics article and its external links and it will become much clearer. --Gronau 18:40, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

MBTI and Socionics on the same page?

Is that really a good idea? It could (and probably will) lead to all sorts of misconceptions that INTJ (MBTI) is synonymous with INTj (socionics, more commonly referred to as the Analyst). I think, personally, that these two should be put on separate pages becuase they're two completely seperate things; the only thing binding the two is basis in the same basic principles of swiss psychologist C. G. Jung. Maybe someone should change that.

probably a good idea. quite frankly, the whole section of the site dealing with MBTI, socionics, and keirsey blather should probably be completely reworked and the three typologies completely separated. but that takes time and effort... Niffweed17, Destroyer of Chickens 03:29, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

I agree. It should all be split. However, there is an issue with copyrights....the INTJ page used to be pretty good, but was just one big violation. Sentineneve 16:52, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

Respectfully, I disagree with splitting the type characteristics. I think that sections distinguishing interpretation by system is sufficient. Those interested in Jungian character sorters are likely to want to look at synopses of all of the various systems. Division of the 16 types by each system (MBTI, Keirsey Sorter, Socionics) would be, I think, unnecessarily complex. I believe keeping descriptions of the individual type together can be very helpful in giving readers a brief idea of the systems in general, with internal wikilinks pointing them to system overviews (MBTI, Socionics, Keirsey). In addition to thinking that the 48 separate entries that could be generated if we start to divide xxxx (MBTI); xxxx (Keirsey); xxxx (Socionics), I worry that the entries themselves would either be brief to the point of stubs or would risk serious copyright infringement. It's difficult to satisfy wiki demands of verifiable online sources when the reputable sources themselves tend to be brief. That said, there is a lot more room to expand the Socionics' characteristics, since Socionics even identifies type by physical appearance. I have myself worked on the Socionics' characteristics for a number of types, but didn't go into that element since I felt the link to the Socionics site was readily available for independent further research. My 2 cents anyway.  :) Moonriddengirl 16:05, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

oh, and PS: I have no opinion about the Socionics symbols or problem with their removal. They seem purposeless to me. Moonriddengirl 16:20, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

respectfully in response, those people who discuss socionics in the socionics community (of which i am a part) take significant effort to differentiate concepts from socionics and MBTI. many of the concepts of socionics types and the corresponding MBTI types are quite different, and ESI/ISFj and MBTI ISFJ refer to two very different archetypes. putting them on the same page vastly overrepresents the similarities between the systems (for keirsey/MBTI, i don't know, so i can't say). the fact is that the only thing the systems really share is notation. Niffweed17, Destroyer of Chickens (talk) 16:10, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

Socionics and INTJ

I have removed the section with symbols from INTJ. Reasoning includes the original mention, and the most recent pseudo-discussion (MBTI and Socionics on the same page). If I have time later, I may start up the split pages, but I have no real knowledge of Socionics.Sentineneve 13:20, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

support, since i believe the socionics and MBTI articles should not be integrated. Niffweed17, Destroyer of Chickens (talk) 16:10, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

For a discussion about the logo and border color, see

Several of the MBTI personality types are in the running for the rarest of the types. Most sources I've seen claim it's INFJ, others INTJ, occasionally ENTJ, and at least one claims it's INTP. The difference in percentage between INFJ and INTJ is slight, probably not statistically significant, and it can't be relied upon to remain stable over time. So I don't think it's possible to defend a claim that one type is definitively the rarest. It's certainly possible to assert that dominant introverted intuition is the rarest of the functions, but that's as far as it goes. ThreeOfCups (talk) 03:08, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

Well, one can go with INTJ or INFJ as the least common, but there is some disagreement so saying INTJ "... is one of the least common" and then plugging in the appropriate citation (which will not be hard to find) should work. Gingermint (talk) 05:44, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

The paragraph beginning with "INTJs are one of the rarest of the sixteen personality types, and account for about 1–4% of the population." is a sourced section, and an IP editor is removing it without explanation. I ask that he please explain why the content is being removed. Thank you. -

In general, this article needs some improvement in its writing. The June 15, 2009 version is of greater quality than the version of a week ago (I'm glad to see some of the numerous commas eliminated and see, at least for a period, some of the punctuation errors fixed) but there is more to do. More than I can attempt. I'm not sure if this article needs editing or a full rewrite. I'm leaning toward editing. Gingermint (talk) 02:41, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

This article uses serial commas, which means a comma before the conjunction in a series. It's inappropriate to edit the article to remove serial commas. See WP:Manual of Style. Also, proper grammar calls for the use of a comma before the conjunction in a compound sentence. The previous edits that I changed were problematic in part because they changed quoted text. Therefore, I'm reverting your revert of my edit. I don't want to get into an edit war with you, but at the very least, the quotes need to go back to what they were before. Also, the addition of the word "music" to a list of activities that INTJs in general are particularly good at requires a reference, because I'm disputing it. ThreeOfCups (talk) 03:05, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

Removed some commas, primarily those following an adverbial phrase at the beginning of a sentence, which are grammatically optional. Will look into removing commas that require deeper edits as time allows. ThreeOfCups (talk) 03:36, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

I certainly understand the dispute of the inclusion of "music." Although its inclusion makes sense, I am unable to find, at present, a reference to substantiate it outside of various university sites on the Internet. Gingermint (talk) 02:17, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

I do continue to assert that the writing of this article, though far from deplorable, is rather ungainly and needs improvement. Gingermint (talk) 04:19, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

I'd love to see more people involved in improving the article. I do hope that other editors will keep in mind that the 16 Myers-Briggs type articles ought to be consistent with one another. Small changes can result in considerable effort to update the other 15 articles. I don't want to discourage anyone, but I certainly think it's worth considering whether the removal of an optional comma really improves the article or if it just reflects a personal preference. ThreeOfCups (talk) 23:17, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

This isn't really about commas as much as it is about the clarity and accuracy of the article. Gingermint (talk) 04:11, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

I get the thing about the commas. If the article were better written there wouldn't be a problem with such awkward constructions. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.48.19.9 (talk) 02:16, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

Please expand the Cognitive Functions section like it is on http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ENTJ#Cognitive_functions 117.211.88.36 (talk) 02:12, 12 July 2011 (UTC)HeaveninHell

The wording seems unclear: "For INTJ these shadow functions are (in order):" - does this indicate order of most likely to 'appear' in the INTJ? Or in order of the most common 'shadow', statistically? Archphil (talk) 11:59, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

I added a "see also" section with links to other types. If no one objects to that on this page, I will do the same to the others. --Korentop (talk) 05:32, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

108.72.242.82 (talk) 19:31, 23 July 2012 (UTC)Why are the external links I've posted to descriptions of this type and others considered spam? Did you guys take a moment to look at them and compare their content and quality to the other, similar type profiles in the external links? I am not promoting anything except better knowledge and understanding of personality type theory. I don't understand why the articles I've linked to have been callously dismissed as "spam."

I just deleted the descriptions on all of these personality types. A lot of them were copyvios from different sources, several of them being from http://www.geocities.com/lifexplore/ , where they may or may not have been copied from other locations. Nonetheless, the three theories of MBTI, Keirsey Temperaments, and Socionics are quite different and require different descriptions of types, functions, relations, and other concepts. Socionics especially differs from the other two. The three theories should all be expanded upon in Wikipedia, but it is impossible to do this while there is a conglomeration of these three theories and they are treated as one and the same. Niffweed17, Destroyer of Chickens 01:00, 12 July 2006 (UTC)