Talk:INTJ

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

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

Contents

[edit] Type Descriptions

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)

[edit] Socionics

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] Notable INTJs

[edit] 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)

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

[edit] 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)

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".

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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.

[edit] Found the Heiss Citation

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)

[edit] 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)

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

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

I'd really like to blow up this WP:OR section indeed. --M4gnum0n (talk) 15:36, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
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)
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)

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)

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

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)

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)
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)
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)

[edit] 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)

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

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

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)
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 reliabable 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)

[edit] Templates

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)

[edit] Spelling of Extraversion

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)