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
Maybe your fast thinking/typing could do with some slowdown and editing.*
* - this isn't an off-topic HN spelling gripe, I hope it's an apropos observation in the context of OP's point.
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.
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.
Should clarify this is only for skillset relevant conversations. You can take as long as you like on spiritual or philosophical thoughts.
E: just did another, idk can they change? INTP-T again
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 is one of the 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.
It kinda checks out to me now I've typed it out haha.
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 :-)
I got almost 100% on the turbulent "sense of urgency" scale haha
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've been able to observe the difference between what the MBTI calls "Judgement" (slow thinking) and what the MBTI calls "Perception" (fast thinking) in real life. The example I always give is my high school "Further Maths" class. There were 4 people in my class and it happened that we always ended up working in pairs. However the way in which each pair worked was entirely different:
- Pair 1 (me and my partner) worked independently, rushing through the questions by intuiting answers to each step. We'd then compare answers as a kind of checksum. If our answers differed, often one of us would immediately notice a mistake. And if not then we'd fall back to slowly working through the problem together step-by-step.
- Pair 2 (the other two students) defaulted to this approach of slowly working through each problem step-by-step together. This took longer up front, but produced more accurate answers.
Interesting, both approaches actually ended up taking a similar amount of time overall and yielding a similar accuracy of answer. But there is a huge qualitative difference in the kind of thinking that took place in each approach, and each person in the class also demonstrated a clear and stable preferrence for a specific approach.
There is also a vast body of literature on "Dual-process theories" like this one, popularised by Daniel Kahneman's book Thinking Fast and Slow.
That's not how science works. If you have a hypothesis with no experimental evidence, discussing it as a fact is akin to doing astrology.
I'm sure you're aware that most people recognize themselves in horoscopes descriptions of their personality. This is quite similar to that.
Sure, but you can discuss it as theory without implying that it's proven fact. Most (if not all?) theories that are now considered scientific fact initially went through a period where they were lacking in conclusive experimental evidence.
> I'm sure you're aware that most people recognize themselves in horoscopes descriptions of their personality. This is quite similar to that.
I am. And that's why I think the plausibility of the theory is important. There's a difference between saying "people think in way A and way B" and "whether people think in way A or way B is determined by the position of the planets at the time they were born".
I guess I would say that it's not quite true that there's no experimental evidence. It's more the case that the academic discipline "experimental psychology" has failed to find evidence. Other disciplines like cognitive science and behavioural economics tend not to have studied the MBTI specifically, but have found experimental evidence for theories that are substantially similar enough to the MBTI's hypotheses that IMO they do count as some evidence.
Specifically there is experimental evidence that:
- There are qualitatively different ways in which people can think and process information.
- People can have a stable preference for a given thinking process. And that such preferences follow a bimodal distribution.
- People can have a preference towards either introversion or extraversion (MBTI's I vs. E distinction)
- People can think either in a "Fast" way (fast, intuitive, perceptually inaccesible) or a "Slow" way (slow, reasoned, perceptually accesible) (MBTI's J vs. P distinction)
That's evidence for ~50% of the MBTI already, and would leave "Feeling" vs. "Thinking" (value judgement vs. descriptive judgement) and "Sensing" vs. "Intiuton" (concrete vs. abstract thinking) as interesting research questions.
I think this is a very good indicator that the whole thing is bogus.
But I think this confirms your claim in my case. For nearly every single answer on the test, my response is "it depends." I really could go either way on nearly every single question because I need more context.
It makes me think the whole test is essentially BS, kind of like a horoscope where you can read whatever you want into it.
There are better tests (like this one https://sakinorva.net/functions) which will give you a confidence percentage for each cognitive function rather than just a best guess overall type. But none of them are that great, and currently the gold standard for determining type is to only use the test results as starting to point and to familiarise yourself with the theory to fine tune that, potentially with the guidance of an type expert.
unlike astrology which suggests that differences in
personality are due to astral bodies
Clearly astrological bodies have no actual influence on us. I'm not that crazy.
However, mightn't the time of year of birth have a big influence? The amount of sunlight received, activities undertaken, and foods eaten by the expectant mother and newborn baby will vary based on time of year. The differences may be minor today, but would have been pretty profound in antiquity.
Imagine being born two thousand years ago in the northern latitudes during the deep winter. Mother and child experience six months of darkness, eating preserved and salted foods. Now imagine the opposite. You are born during summer. Mother and child get lots of sunlight and fresh food. Surely there are effects! I think it would be surprising if there were none.
Regarding birth date, I would speculate that one of the most significant effects it has on modern children is how far through the school year they are born (and thus whether they are one of the older children or one of the younger children in their cohort). As you say, it's likely that there's some effect. I personally somewhat doubt it's causes differences in personality anywhere near as drastic the kind that astrology claims.
Trying to make business decisions on the basis of MBTI metrics, which is what it is often criticised for, is of course misguided.
But saying "MBTI is pseudoscience you cannot be INTP" makes as much sense as "Hair colour names are unscientific, so you can't identify as blond".
Sure you can. It's a description. I wouldn't go ascribing intelligence on the basis of hair colour, but I wouldn't doubt you have a hair colour either.
And if you've found commonalities / common experiences and like being with other blond people, that's fine too.
> That's a typical INTP / type 5 enneagram brain wiring.
So here I ask you: given that Psychology is a social SCIENCE, also a part of STEM. And psychologists definitely use those tests, I was personally introduced to them by a psychologist that helped me with career coaching, recognized on his field with a bunch of papers.
Now, please explain yourself: why is it a pseudoscience? I want proofs.
I'm personally quite open to the idea that it's an accurate categorisation, but I do also think that it's an extroadinary claim that requires extroadinary justification. IMO saying "oh, it's just a description" because that evidence hasn't (yet) been found is a bit of a cop out.
Some time ago I also thought MBTI was bullshit, now I think it’s quite useful. And at least for me, anecdotally, has predictive power.
Not really; we know for a fact it is not accurate (and thus irrelevant). You can debate it if you wish but the facts of the matter have been long settled.
If you understand the cognitive function, your prediction is a magnitude more accurate than any test.
> we know
Who knows? Who is "we?"
> it is not accurate
Accuracy is not either "PERFECTLY TRUE" or "PERFECTLY FALSE." It is a range.
> (and thus irrelevant)
Even false statements or frameworks can provide interesting insights into how we think about a domain.
> the facts of the matter
Which facts would that be?
> have been long settled
By whom? In what study or paper? Were they properly tested?
Replace MBTI w/ astrology in this sentence.
And just like astrology, you want MBTI to be true so it influences your answers on the questionnaire. Kinda like a Ouija board.
The same can be said of astrology even though it’s not science.
The MBTI is just a projection of the personality space like the more accepted Big 5. From my experience data-mining behavioral data at scale it’s a pretty good mapping and the relative value questions are adequate and the 4 dimensions do explain a lot of behavior to the point that it is very useful - a fact probability contributing to its success. My main gripe with it is the extrovert - introvert axis is a bit weak with many people being close to the middle. I’m more extroverted around intelligent people which doesn’t happen as often as I’d like, a trait held by far more commonly by ENTJ/INTJ than random chance.
I think that's partly because people don't understand what extraverted vs. introverted mean in the MBTI sense. It's not about sociability. It's actually about how much external stimuli someone likes more generally. This might be social stimuli (Fe), but it could also be physical stimuli (Se) (for example, liking being physically active or out in nature) or more conceptual stimuli / external ideas (Ne), etc. Or a computing analogy: what's your ratio of IO to CPU time.
Also, at least in the cognitive function interpretation (which IMO is the only sensible theory in the jungian/mbti family), introversion and extraversion do not apply directly to persons. They apply to thinking processes. An extraverted person is then just a person who uses an extraverted thinking mode more often than not (everyone is theorised to use both extraverted and introverted thinking modes). As you note this bias can be more or less extreme.
Indeed, it's been observed that it can both be influenced by external factors (e.g. social expectations), and that it tends to become less extreme over time. As such, a persons "type" is generally considered to be determined by what their preference was in childhood, and (the type) is taken to define their baseline personality (cf. genotype) from which their actually observable personality (cf phenotype) develops.
It would make sense that the E/I axis would be clearer if early childhood experiences were used. That would make me a clear extrovert. I think the questions should be updated for that context or at least have some additional framing around the test.
This idea was surprising to me too, but when I thought about it I realised it shouldn't be:
- We know that different people frequently react differently to the same stimuli (and that this is true even of very young children).
- Basically everything else in the human body shows genetic variation. It would be weird if the brain didn't.
- There is a strong evolutionary rationale for a population having a variety of complimentary congnitive styles.
I think the MBTI is most interesting is it taken to be only the genetic component of personality (providing us with AFAIK the only theory of the structure of that aspect of personality), while simultaneously leaning into the idea that personality is modified by nurture and environment (but that these changes are not described by one's MBTI type).
Could you possibly expand on the details of "generated an personality embedding from data"?
<edit> Big Five Personality traits and the HEXACO model exist, and they seem to have more a more positive scientific review history. “Your boss is probably someone more likely to have qualities from the dark triad” is still bad news when looking at the real world versus an ideal world, but this seems to be a checked fact. </edit>
There is some evidence to suggest that the Myers-Briggs Type Indicator (MBTI) may not be as reliable and valid as its proponents suggest. In fact, some studies have found that the MBTI does not consistently yield the same results for individuals who take it multiple times, which raises questions about its reproducibility and the reliability of the results.
For example, a study published in the Journal of Personality and Social Psychology found that only about half of individuals who took the MBTI twice received the same result both times. This suggests that the MBTI may not be a reliable measure of personality traits.
In addition, other studies have found that the MBTI does not reliably predict job performance or other real-world outcomes, further questioning its validity as a psychological assessment tool.
It's terms (like "thinking") are technical jargon that don't correspond to their usual meanings though. For example "thinking" is really "descriptive judegement" (cognition focussed on whether things are true/false/possible/impossible), to be contrasted with "feeling" (which is actually also a rational cognitive process!) just focussed on "value judgement" (cognition focussed on whether things are good/bad/should happen/shouldn't happen).
It is also not supposed to measure personality traits in the same sense that other models do. It is two steps removed:
1. It attempts to measure interal cognitive processes rather than external behavoural traits (how you think, not what you think)
2. It attempts to measure people's natural personality baseline (cf genotype) from which their actual personality (cf phenotype) develops as modified by their life experiences and the context in which they live.
Both of which make it even more difficult to measure with a questionaire that tends to only ask about current behaviours. But IMO also make it a much more interesting and much more plausible theory.
You can measure people on many dimensions, and all dimensions that are not truly random will correlate with some aspect of the persons life.
Interestingly, some of the dimensions of the MTBI correlate with dimensions of the "Big 5".
Introversion - Extroversion => Almost the same dimension as in Big 5.
Intuitive - Sensation => Correlate strongly to Big 5 Openness
The longer textual descriptions of the categories that one can find online are "made up" so they could indeed be said to be a type of pseudoscience.
This
I told a friend of mine that whenever he goes on a first date. Whatever she asks, if it's within the first 10 minutes, say something that is clearly a non-serious answer. Don't say anything serious in the first 10 minutes. After that, feel free to be yourself. Since he's very serious, this helped to balance him out a bit, especially because his first impression was so different.
"What kind of work do you do?"
"I teach... rocks how to ehm... throw... other rocks. Which I know, there's an ethical issue to that. Like, would humans just be allowed to throw other humans? No! But in rock culture, well you gotta rock as a rock. Naturally, the electric guitar is their preferred instrument of choice. So rocks wanna be thrown, but only by other rocks, not by humans. I know, it's weird, I'm a bit of an exception but that's also because I grew up with parents that rocked and then it's sort of fine. Marilyn Manson also was a famous rock throwing coach."
I just made that up, but stuff like that. Key to that is also knowing when to pause and be fully willing to be imperfect.
I need to do something similar. I'm also too serious and too thinkey for the normal world. Fortunately, I have a huge imagination too, so I just show that first by being not serious at all :)
I've thought about the whole "being yourself" thing versus deviating from it for the first 10 minutes, but I figured if putting up a bit of an act (that you enjoy yourself as well) for 10 minutes changes people's impression much more positively of you and then you can fully drop it and be yourself, then it's fine.
> I just made that up, but stuff like that.
Maybe not quite like that...
Buried somewhere in that pile is a nugget of comedy gold.
In one-on-one first meetings I naturally participate in the back and forth. It's group meetings where I can just listen and absorb information that I come off as disengaged and don't make a good first impression. The strategy I use to mitigate this (suggested by an old boss) is to jump into the conversation very early in the meeting with 1 or 2 comments that I wouldn't have otherwise felt a need to make. It establishes my voice at the table and then I can relax and just process information
I may have figured out a better solution than was possible for anyone during the meeting, but by sending it late people's impressions during the meetings of me may not be the best.
It's group meetings where I can just listen
and absorb information that I come off as disengaged
and don't make a good first impression
But of course, that's not how the world works. Spew out a solution right then and there. That's how you get ahead. Who cares if it's the best solution? You blurted it out first, and that is seen by others as a sign of confidence, and if you are confident then you must know what you're talking about... right?
God, I need to get out of this industry. Maybe all industries.
On a positive note, I do like your mitigation strategy.
I have a similar problem. Meeting another programmer for the first time usually leaves me feeling quite stupid. They’ll start talking about all sorts of concepts, or how they built some particular thing, and I won’t be able to follow along at all.
The good news is, since their first impression of me is so poor, they’re often blown away when they see something I spent time on. They must be thinking, how did this dingus do that?
This is particularly brutal if they're ego-centric and doing it to depress upon you "how smart they are".
I've seen this with quite a few "smart" people.
There are two aspects to this:
1) talking "smart" - use of phrases, language, and ideas that aren't obvious, or using terms that are part of "smart"
2) small areas of their own knowledge that you are unlikely to know.
Examples:
friend would pull me into quantum string theory (M-brains, whatever) where they'd memorized certain details of it--they weren't particularly smart on quantum string theory, but I had zero knowledge. They'd keep turning the topic into these areas despite group's conversations not going that way naturally.
another casual friend pulled me into the "A Tribe Called Red is so good" when I started gushing about my appreciation of multi-syllabically rapping styles of lyrical rappers that I liked. They were essentially regurgitating a critic's article on the topic.
Some internal Microsofters a few decades ago would describe that there was internal smart-speak for "smart" identifying people. The same is true in most contexts.
I had an math professor (NOT the one I am referencing in another comment) that was ego-centric and would often respond to my incessant questioning with demoralizing (and sometimes flat out rude) responses. I just acted completely oblivious to the social faux pas and his avoidance/adversarial tendencies eventually turned into a much more productive relationship. I received the only A in the class (he publicly posted everyone's grades).
FWIW, I had a friend indicate that because (tenured?) teaching positions are such high demand, that the available candidates can be significantly high caliber. So that might have played into why the math professor was adversarial initially.
The area I've found the depress-to-impress used was usually in peer contexts and didn't have any teachable outcomes, unfortunately. They're regurgitating material that they have better familiarity with, but probably unable to ad-lib off their "beat path".
With the peers thing I just view it as we all have our pathologies, and some people just feel the need to be perceived as smart (usually some kind of insecurity). Sometimes it can just be too much though and you can get the feeling that you are walking on eggshells around them, perhaps not to trigger a judgement of you on their part.
Plus... intellectuals often like to feel smart, so you have an opportunity to pump their ego a bit :)
I'm often slow to respond and make no effort to change that on first impression, but I have been told - many times - that people view me as thoughtful and intelligent.
I can't view myself from another's perspective but if you take 5 seconds to come up with an answer which is really good, most people seem to completely forget the 5 second silence and remember the good answer. As you would expect.
Many people's quick replies are poor quality, so a high quality reply stands out. This does assume someone can identify the difference, but hopefully you're in such an environment.
A quick wit is valuable, but not in all situations.
If I'm a bit tipsy then I get less serious and think less deeply and respond more quickly and (at least in my mind) with more humor, which is great socially, but would be terrible in everyday life.
First impressions are important, but there's a lot more to them than just simply being the first one out of the gate with something insightful. You can convey your seriousness and intent with presence, active listening, facial expressions, preparation, poise, etc. It is a projection of what you think about yourself, ultimately.
If you're sitting there deliberating over getting the Good First Impression, or even just waiting for your turn to speak, people are going to pick up on that. Not saying you are, just that it is an easy trap to fall into.
Some decent summaries can be found here: https://www.scienceofpeople.com/read-people-eyes/#5-eye-dire...
The real issue for us is first time impressions. If people knew you before because of something important you've done, they will respect you. Otherwise, you'll fail to impress in the most important time: the first impression.
It took me a long time in my career & expensive coaching sessions and so on, to understand that I really need to work my ass off for my first impression, even more that I don't give ChatGPT-like responses to everything (lots of confidence, but just plainly wrong).
Of course, if I can just use my credentials to give an initial impression, that's better. But that's not usually the case. When it isn't, I need to be very present and aware that "it's my first impression, no need to be so precise, just say something silly and light-hearted.", because that's what most people typically expect.
I started to find examples of people who dealt with this very well, like Steve Jobs and other people that are known to make long pauses and to think before they say something. But even those people aren't a great examples, because they generally are known to be geniuses at their fields and this basically makes your audience want to listen to you.
You just really need to work on that skill, or accept that it will hamper your progress in life.