Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Please refrain from directly copying articles[edit]

Third reason I hate Wikipedia, 70% of the material is plagiarized from the first three articles a person gets from searching for material. There is also the OR problem (as seen below). Seriously, the trash people spew.

  • Agreed. Way to spell plagiarized correctly. -- 08:18, 12 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • At least we know that the comment is original...unless reverse psych is being put into play... —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 01:20, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please refrain from adding personal experience[edit]

I just removed/edited the following section from the Si description: In life, an INTP frequently is completely oblivious to certain subtle changes such as the date, unless they are called to their attention. An INTP will frequently leave something lying on a desk, counter, etc., and it will become all but invisible to them until it is in the way or is needed. This is informed solely by the experience of the contributor and not by typological theory. Please try not to add "stuff you do, being an INTP, ya know". Morgansutherland 02:23, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This was not merely personal experience, I have added the following to the refferences, it is a link to a series of essays on the personality types, specificaly the one on the INTP by Paul James, very in depth.--Scorpion451 04:25, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

While Paul James' article is useful and informative, it is not an article of typological theory. It is not reference material. (morgansutherland (talk)) --Scorpion451 04:30, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thats OR on his behalf (What can you really say? It's overgeneralization (as many of the points are... after breifly scanning it)). More importantly, after doing a narrow range scanning... I failed to find anything that remotly resembled what you said. Now IF it is there, your examples are CLEARLY invalid (It's OR to makeup examples) because none of the examples got any hits (if it isn't in the article, it can't be in here) make thing more fun... "I am an INTP and I speak from experiance... you're wrong" But that makes this NPOV rejecting both our oppinions.

  • If it's in an article, and it's citable, it is acceptable on Wikipedia, and does not constitute original research on behalf of wikipedia. Research has to come from somewhere, duh? -- 08:22, 12 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've read that before... in multiple places... and INTP communities tend to agree. So what's the controversy? Or did it already blow over? Chainedwind 22:08, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The problem with examples like this is that they're too specific. Both intuition and introversion tend to focus on the internal world, so IN-- types may at times be oblivious to their external world (though this is perhaps less true of the INTJs than the other three types, due to their auxiliary extraverted thinking). To say that INTPs may sometimes fail to perceive objects in their external world because they're so focused on their internal one is probably true, and you could probably find a reliable source for that. But to say, for example (and I'm just making this up), that INTPs continually misplace their keys isn't appropriate for an encyclopedia. It's an anecdote. For the statement to be reliable, you'd need to be able to say something like, "According to a survey published in XXX, 83.2% of INTPs reported that they continually misplace their keys. This compares to 45.6% for all types combined." Now that would be a compelling statistic if true (although, again, in this instance, it's completely made up). ThreeOfCups (talk) 01:46, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]


INTPs tend to develop their S more as they get older. This is similar to how ISTPs N tends to develop more with age.

stub for Myers-Briggs Type Indicator

INTP should have its own article, not just a redirect to myers briggs.

Carl Jung, Isaac Newton, Albert Einstein and just about every famous mathematician were INTPs.

INTPs excel in the world of abstract thought and are excellent at recognizing patterns in what seems to be chaos. The world of computer programming is a haven for INTPs. In fact, the concept of a Wikipedia was probably dreamed up by one. Richard M. Stallman is a classic case of INTP. Insightful, quiet, logical, and rebellious.

Er.. RMS's diehard devotion to his cause makes him seem like maybe an INFJ. Definitely doesn't seem like an INTP.

INTPs tend to develop their S more as they get older. This is similar to how ISTPs N tends to develop more with age.

INTPs, always open to new and perhaps even crazy ideas (see Dr. Emmett Brown in Back to the Future), push the limitations of scientific thought and architecture. The frontiers of science are almost always discovered by INTPs. In this way, they are very similar to ISTPs who push the boundaries of the physical world.

Whew, this is begging for revision..... LOL

On the diehard devotion of some INTPs- this is the manifestation of our ESFJ shadow, our undeveloped and thus somewhat childish side--Scorpion451 22:00, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think the size of this article and these discussions says a lot about INTPs (who are probably responsible for half the useless nitpicking on this site). And I really hope the list of famous examples is cited, because I saw half the names in other lists. I get the general impression that people only look at articles for their own type, and are likely to pick all their favorite people and throw them onto the list (by "get the general impression" I mean "I know for a fact"). —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 09:59, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Someone should really do a survey on how much the different MBTI types edit Wikipedia. I think that INTP's and INTJ's would probably be the ones editing pages the most.Dixon H. (talk) 01:44, 29 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Stuff moved from the article:

INTPs can be good in science and technology, especially IT. They can be very creative but have trouble following up on their ideas. They have little interest for practical applications anyway. A good way to employ an INTP is to put him or her in an office with a computer and books, and visit him or her regularly to fish for ideas.

INTPs are scientists. Practically every great scientist is an INTP. e.g. Newton, Einstein, Galileo. The definition of an INTP is a logical thinking, introverted visionary that bucks the trend. (I know, crudely put for wikipedia but what the hell, someone else can nuke this or fix it up. In fact by including this sentence will 100% guarantee that it will happen)

INTPs tend to have a special relationship with ISTPs. The Wright brothers were an ISTP/INTP combo. One cooked up the idea that a plane could fly and the other actually did it. Also, the Warchawski brothers that directed the Matrix are a modern day example of an INTP/ISTP combo. The abstract idea of going into the Matrix was probably the INTP idea and all the Kung Fu was totally ISTP.

I can't find much here that goes beyond the information in Myers-Briggs Type Indicator. Perhaps a redirect would be enough. Kosebamse 06:13, 30 Sep 2003 (UTC)

I mentioned this on the MBTI talk page and called for consistency in the way we treat the different types. Some types have their own articles, others had redirects. There really needs to be a consensus right across the board. Jammycakes 22:02, 4 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

LOLs... The discussion page is so... INTP-like. I bet there will be a discussion of this discussion. :) Simoncpu (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 19:11, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Some suggestions towards improving the INTP definition that can be applied in part to all 16 types.[edit]

I am unfamiliar with that which goes into appropriately editing Wikipedia articles. So rather than edit the article, I thought posting to the discussion area would be better. Particularly given that some of what I have to say is opinion and not necessarily fact. And for that which I believe to be fact, I would prefer there be a concensus.

Concerning the 16 types, there are indeed multiple schools of thought. How they do (or do not) interrelate I felt could use greater clarification. The more popularized versions began with the work of Carl Jung. Upon Isabel Briggs Myers reading Jung's writings on the subject, the Myers-Briggs Type Indicator (MBTI) was born. Upon learning of the MBTI, David Keirsey Sr. developed his "Temperament" theory which disregards the MBTI's Jung inherited notion of extraverted/introverted functional hierarchies (Ne as notation for extraverted intuition for example). Keirsey instead favored grouping preference patterns and forming a hierarchy from that (SP, SJ, NF, NT, and the 4 sub-types of each). Also, Keirsey's book refers to several other variants which supposedly pre-date Jung's work. [Opinion: Both approaches have merit yet paradoxically clash in the structuring of the functions. I think Keirsey's division of SP, SJ, NF, NT is less chaotic than the MBTI approach which groups by dominant e/i functions which for example would place ESFJ and ENFJ together because they share the dominant function of Extraverted Feeling (Fe). Though many may argue this point, the models of Jung, MBTI, and Keirsey are more similar than dissimilar and are variants on the same school of thought. More specifically on Keirsey, I personally avoid using his labels in the interest of clarity. His labels are explicitly defined in his book and make sense with definitions in hand. But his labels employ common words each already with strong and well established implied meanings. Subsequently, most people become confused by the labels applying the conventional implied meanings. I would recommend that if the labels are to be used that their meanings as defined by Keirsey be included. Frankly, each of the Jung/MBTI/Temperament variants of the 16 types really deserve their own independant dedicated pages.]

Socionics differs greatly from the Jung/MBTI/Temperament school of thought. The functional notations are assigned different values and so a Sociology INTP is really a Jung/MBTI/Temperament INTJ. [Opinion: I am not fond of Socionics and strongly feel its credibility must be questioned. Its use of the same notation assigned different values creates confusion among many (including Wikipedia). The most notable injury to its credibility, Socionics asserts that each of its 16 types exhibit very particular physical characteristics whose descriptions border on the absurd and even insulting <>. And a more minor red flag to the credibility of Socionics; the What is Socionics? page <> includes an image of Jung holding a book <> that has clearly been Photoshopped to say "Socionics" on the cover. (Here is the original) I suggest that if Socionics is to be included at all on Jung/MBTI/Temperament pages that it be as not much more than a footnote which identifies it as differing enough to cause confusion to any person not inclined to taking a deeper look.]

Lastly, you may want to include a deep link to the "Long Description" of the INTP written by Paul James. Not only is it the best description of the INTP available, it is probably the single best type description among any of the 16 types.

I hope this will be of use to Wikipedia editors. Keep up the good work. :)

-Michael (And yes, I am an (Jung/MBTI/Keirsey) intp.) :)

The functional notations are assigned different values and so a Sociology INTP is really a Jung/MBTI/Temperament INTJ Thats not true. Function are interpreted diffent in MBTI/Keirsey and Socionics, so you can´t just swap the types. --Gronau 14:04, 5 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Function are interpreted diffent in MBTI/Keirsey and Socionics, so you can´t just swap the types. You may not realize it, but you are confirming my assertion. I am not switching the types. The types are defined by their descriptions and by their functions. They are not defined by their labels. I am pointing out that the labeling/notation system differs between Jung/MBTI/Keirsey and Socionics. You simply cannot say that an INTP as labeled for Jung/MBTI/Keirsey is akin to a Socionics INTP. That is what would be an untrue assertion. If you are profiling an INTP, you must entirely separate between the Jung/MBTI/Keirsey systems and the system used by Socionics. Wikipedia already supports my assertion. "A socionics ENTp could well be an MBTI ENTJ and vice versa, although this controversy is more regular in introverted types." --Michael 09:56, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
I agree thoroughly. The whole fields of MBTI, Keirsey, and Socionics need to be completely reconstructed on Wikipedia. Niffweed17, Destroyer of Chickens 01:03, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, the above comment I had not read entirely. I do not agree with the initial user's comment that Socionics is not as viable as MBTI/Keirsey, and I do not agree that Socionics is not aligned with Jung as is MBTI/Keirsey, as the first user seems to indicate. Nonetheless, this matter, like all others with these personality theories, must be treated in a NPOV manner. What I do agree with is the idea that these theories cannot be construed as identical.
I agree with the NPOV. You'll note that I was careful to devide my personal opinions away from my NPOV observations.
and I do not agree that Socionics is not aligned with Jung as is MBTI/Keirsey Again I'll emphysize that I am not making any suggestion that the theory is malaligned, I am saying that the notations are malaligned which again I point out is already supported by Wikipedia (and the sources Wikipedia would have cited in the first place).
Thank you for the acknowledgment to the need for separation. --Michael 14:49, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
The notation problem is very real. MBTI and Socionics switch introverted and extroverted functions so that INTP in MBTI is NeTi, but NiTe in Socionics, which is INTJ in MBTI! Far too confusing. INTP is not NiTe. INTP extroverts intuition and introverts thinking. INTJ extroverts thinking and introverts intuition. Working in an office w/two of each, that is quite plain. Ne and Ti are right-brain functions, which is consistent with the all-at-once INTP. Ni and Te are left-brain functions, consistent with the sequential nature of INTJ. INTP just flatly is not NiTe, nor is it TeNi. These concepts are difficult enough to understand and follow without offering inconsistencies at the outset of learning about them. Recommend separating MBTI and Socionics and referencing each to the other with links in the appropriate place at the end of the article. The real peri winkle 16:51, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Further, the Sensing of the INTP is ALSO extraverted. INTPs in general cannot remember what people say to them, cannot remember what they ordered in restaurants the last time they were there, and cannot remember details at all. We are also notoriously inaccurate with arithmetic in our heads. All of this requires introverted Sensing. Our memories are based on our extraverted iNtuition, which provides a sort of "gestalt" memory of relative position. For instance, I can always remember where a fact was on the page or where I left something in relation to where I was standing, but I can't remember what the page said or exactly where I was standing. Further, we can be VERY good at using tools--knives, paintbrushes, etc.--which requires extraverted Sensing, and when we lose something, we "scan" the room "looking" for it, rather than the introverted Sensing approach with is trying to remember where we had it last. So, the idea that INTPs have introverted Sensing just isn't borne out in any of my experience of myself or ANY of my INTP friends.RSGracey 19:21, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This is an incorrect statement- I am an INTP who has studied extensively on this subject: The introverted sensing is a tertiary attribute, thus less developed. If we were good at it, we would have it as a primary or secondary. The extroverted would be if, as my brother an ISTP does, wildly run out and embrace new experiences and are able to memorize phone numbers in the middle of a conversation. The extroversion or introversion describes how we experience things. It has no bearing on how good one is at it. The extroverted thinkers are maligned by this also: Socratese is a perfect example of an extroverted thinker; involving others in his thinking process actively. The refference to the use of tools and knives is an incorrect statement also, we deal with these in an extraverted intuitive manner. I never look at instructions, I figure out how it goes together and use my tools however works. Again, this contrasts with my brother who seeks a precise and detailed description of the use of each tool before using it exactly as it is meant to be used. Needless to say, I often frustrate him with my use of the handle end of a screwdriver to hammer a lid back on to a paint can because I opened it with the screwdriver and already have it, rather than using a hammer, which is meant for this purpose.--Scorpion451 22:08, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Type descriptions[edit]

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 , 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 01:02, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

A lot of them were copyvios from different sources I suggest going to the official sources and getting permission. For MBTI, is the official site of the Myers & Briggs Foundation, is the official site of the Association for Psychological Type, and is the official site of the Center for Applications of Psychological Type. For Keirsey Temperament, is the official site of the Keirsey Temperament Sorter, another credible resource is Linda V. Berens who worked with David Keirsey Sr. Her site is for Interstrength Associates, formerly Temperament Research Institute. I do not have any suggestions for official sources on Socionics. I hope this helps. --Michael 15:42, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

The MBTI instrument[edit]

Does anyone know the source of the claim that the MBTI is 70% accurate? I have a copy of the second edition of the MBTI manual (1985), and it says 75%. My understanding is that the instrument has become more accurate over time, not less. If you've got a newer version of the manual, I'd appreciate your input. ThreeOfCups (talk) 00:45, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've seen some websites that say there's a possible overlap between Asperger syndrome and INTP. That makes sense to me, but I don't know if it's been proven.

See Talk:Asperger_syndrome/Archive04. --Max 02:48, 1 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Along with INTJ (the second rarest type—INTP being the rarest). I haven't come across scientific proof for this but would be surprised if somoeone with a diagnosis for AS was not in these two types.
Joe Llywelyn Griffith Blakesley talk contrib 14:41, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The people with asperger syndrome I've met are INXX, rarely ENXX and never XSXX. CrazyEddy 12:34, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
INTP's do share traits with aspergers sydrome, and there is some testing to see if certain disorders like autism and aspergers may be linked to personality types take to the extreme. It isn't necessarly a sentance to have aspergers, however, I deal well with people one on one, but social occasions still make me very uncomfortable.--Scorpion451 22:13, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hmmm, this sounds a bit like original research to me. Or do you have any reliable sources? Snthdiueoa (talk) 10:45, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This also makes perfect sense to me as an INTP who has long suspected I have undiagnosed Asperger syndrome. I nevertheless also must admit that I have no idea whether it's ever been proven. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 00:18, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Autism and Apergers generally belong to ISXJ, so differ from INXP on two dimensions. Aspergers and autism are associated with routine and factual knowledge (both opposite to INTP and the former to INTJ), both distinct opposites to the INXP personality type. The superficial resemblancies comes from the INTP:s high degree of introspection, focus and less of interest in the social game (that is, a preference to communicate inner thoughts/abstractions independent of relation to social status).

I have for a long time suspected that I have Asperger's Syndrome. I am actually finally getting tested this autumn. I have done the MBTI-test many times and always come out as an INTP. I think Asperger's Syndrome and INTP greatly overlap. In many regards it feels like a description of a person with Asperger's. The hyper-logical way of viewing the world and how emotions are only something one experiences alone and that must not play any part in rational decision making. Also the way you want to present all facts about everything like a walking Wikipedia feels very familiar. Also the lack of respect for social rules and status; that I totally tend to disregard that - you can impress me by presenting interesting and [complex] ideas not by your long title which means zero to me. Also the need to be very very exact when formulating an idea verbally I've understood that other people feel that I am making things unnecessarily complicated. But what is stated about the world must be stated correctly! Must I mention I adore Wittgenstein? ^^
20 July 2012 — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 15:13, 20 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Your post sounds like it could have been written by me, let me know how the testing goes. I know this isn't a message board, but this must be said: Having Asperger's does NOT exclude someone from having a MBTI. Anyone on the planet, regardless of who they are, can fall into one of those 16 types. While an INTP doesn't necessarily have to have Asperger's, some of the comments seem to imply Asperger's and INTP are mutually exclusive, when they're not by any means. (talk) 09:14, 24 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Spock paragraph[edit]

This paragraph strikes me as very "trekkie" and not very informative, but it does introduce some new ideas. Perhaps we can salvage the good ideas but get rid of all the geekspeak and references to specific Star Trek episodes. What do you think? Davemcarlson 09:36, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm open to suggestions. How would you do it? It's often helpful for people in understanding types to refer to well-known fictional characters. "Spock" is certainly a durable fictional image, given the global popularity of the "Star Trek" saga, at least as well-known as, say, Ebenezer Scrooge (INTJ, at least as portrayed by George C. Scott). The important issue to illustrate is that there is always the dynamic tension in the INTP between the ultra-logical and the ultra-relational. RSGracey 20:32, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Dave, I agree with you re the Spock paragraph, so I've deleted it. In tone, it's almost laughably Comic Book Guy. It's also unencyclopedic; unreferenced and reading like a personal reflection. RS, if it's important to illustrate 'the dynamic tension in the INTP between the ultra-logical and the ultra-relational' please do so with reference to reliable external sources. SpaceyHopper 08:35, 19 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

So how does one get to be a "reliable external source?"--If the information is true and easily understood, who cares about the "tone?" Did you understand it? Do you know anything about INTPs? If so, is it true?

I have for a long time suspected that I have Asperger's Syndrome. I am actually finally getting tested this autumn. I have done the MBTI-test many times and always come out as an INTP. I think Asperger's Syndrome and INTP greatly overlap. In many regards it feels like a description of a person with Asperger's. The hyper-logical way of viewing the world and how emotions are only something one experiences alone and that must not play any part in rational decision making. Also the way you want to present all facts about everything like a walking Wikipedia feels very familiar. Also the lack of respect for social rules and status; that I totally tend to disregard that - you can impress me by presenting interesting and [complex] ideas not by your long title which means zero to me. Also the need to be very very exact when formulating an idea verbally I've understood that other people feel that I am making things unnecessarily complicated. But what is stated about the world must be stated correctly! Must I mention I adore Wittgenstein? ^^
20 July 2012 — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 15:09, 20 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Link to[edit]

Someone deleted the link I placed to, which is by far the largest INTP forum. There is a link to a different forum at the top of the article, which is not the place for it. I am deleting the link at the top and adding the INTPCentral link back at the bottom. Please do not delete it without discussing here. Thanks. Tokipin 12:33, 1 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I added it back in one of my edits, not knowing it was removed before or that there was something here referencing it. I think for a lot of people, the link sets off some advertising red-flags, so to prevent anyone from getting into a long-term edit war they're not aware of I'm about to add a comment before the link that asks people to mention something here before removing it. --Aristeo (talk) 18:31, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"Personality description" formulation(s) completely unencyclopedic[edit]

It basically quotes verbatim snippets of various online personality test results (I happen to be familiar with these, having taken pretty much all of them in another, brighter period of my life, before I learned what pseudoscience is). Issues of copyvio aside, it is completely out of place to have this prominent chunk of text rambling on the nature and characteristics of the INTP as if they, or this "type" existing at all for that matter, were some sort of established fact. I call for this section and its analogues in the other type pages to be either re-written from an encyclopedic perspective or axed entirely. --AceMyth 14:30, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

1) Are you referring to a specific section anywhere? It would be helpful if you could point to actual examples, or even quote the entire irrelevent section if it is short enough. 2) The question of the existence of the INTP type is invalid; since this is a page ABOUT the INTP type, the existence of the type itself is a basic axiom. I believe the validity of the MBTI is addressed on the MBTI page; it is redundant and - dare I say - unencyclopedic to bring the issue up on each of the sixteen pages. --Chainedwind 01:05, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
1. I'm not suggesting that the issue be fully addressed on all sixteen pages. That would be redundant. 2. To wit: "since this is a page ABOUT the INTP type, the existence of the type itself is a basic axiom" - Nope. The axiom is not that actual people are INTPs but that there exists such a concept as the INTP type and that it is notable because it has received coverage and attention. The same is true of Cold Fusion and Perpetual Motion- yet you don't see text there to the extent of "Type III perpetual motion machines work by tapping the nth dimension then inverting the polarity on the neutron flow..." and so on. And that's exactly the kind of thing going on this article ("INTP types are quiet, thoughtful, analytical individuals...", "An insulted INTP, however, has a tendency to unveil their full mastery of logical intuition..."). I'm not looking at a total re-write here as much as a change of perspective, and, appropriately, tone. --AceMyth 06:19, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I see what you're saying. However, what's the alternative? Change all references to "INTP individuals" to "hypothetical INTP individuals"? Obviously that's not a good solution, but having been hammered by physics for the last two hours, I can't think of anything else. --Chainedwind 01:29, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

INTPCentral link[edit]

The current hyperlink directed to a entry on a sexual term. I removed the link. Anyone who knows where it originally directed to should replace it with the correct site. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 22:37, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Notable INTPs[edit]

Seems to be unfounded. Take Alighieri, for example. He'd have been hard put to get hold of an MBTI test in the 13th century, right? So including him was just somebody's judgement based on his writings.

Unless serious references are added both lists should probably be deleted. (talk) 16:43, 24 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

MBTI test can be deduced based on how a person expresses him or her self. It is suggested that Dante Alighieri's writings reflect a certain personality that matches this MBTI type. Which type do you think he is? --mrg3105 (comms) If you're not taking any flak, you're not over the target. 21:12, 24 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
But without any refs, it's all speculative and OR, right? Carl.bunderson (talk) 04:45, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Well, no. The article itself explores one of the aspects of the Jungian theory in psychoanalysis. This was OR in the 1930s. It is now a widely used method to assess personality for various purposes. This list is here to allow those interested in the method to try and explore it by analyzing lives and works of notable individuals about whom this information is available in their articles, or who can be analyzed through their works (acting, writing, etc.). The purpose of the list is for the reader to explore the method. This is why it is not a "List of". You may be interested in my proposal here.--mrg3105 (comms) If you're not taking any flak, you're not over the target. 05:22, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Well my problem isn't with the list itself; the idea of the list is fine, and indeed good. But the content is what I'm curious/concerned about. I feel (along with the anon, I think) that saying Dante (and everyone else on the list) is an INTP is speculative and OR without a reliable, secondary source saying that--per the tags on it. It looks like random people have just decided "oh, he seems like an INTP from what I've read about him and the MBTI test", rather than scholars who actually know what they're talking about saying it. Carl.bunderson (talk) 05:37, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Fair enough Carl. Do you want me to move the list to my sandbox? I can tell you that this would not be a problem, but I will be unlikely to contribute references because I am supposed to be working on a historical project for the better part of the next two years. This is besides other side issues. If you prefer, a request to contribute references can be added.
Many of these individuals had biographies and autobiographies published, so these can be added to the entries as a means for those interested in understanding why they are listed here to go and read them. Psychology is not an exact science. As far as I'm concerned much of it is OR outside of Wikipedia also ;o)--mrg3105 (comms) If you're not taking any flak, you're not over the target. 05:55, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I guess this was pointless, as I'm fine with the status quo. Leaving them in the article with the tag up is fine with me. I'm willing to invest a little time looking into it. How about I do a Google search, and a Google scholar search, to look for sources for all this, and I'll delete those things for which I don't find references. Is that agreeable? Carl.bunderson (talk) 06:06, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Sure--mrg3105 (comms) ♠♣ 03:59, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This list is soo bogus.. IT IS *WORSE* THAN RANDOM. Total B...s... —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 05:18, 20 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, but I agree with ANON on this. It's an unsourced list of people with an allegation - made on no authority - that they have a certain personality type. Unless anyone has a sensible objection (which squares with WP:BLP) I'll remove the list, then only allow back onto the page items which are adequately sourced. AndyJones (talk) 08:22, 20 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I agree too. I think we should remove the lists of people and fictional characters and re-add them individually after they've been confirmed by reliable sources. Somno (talk) 13:03, 20 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I have removed them. I'll check back in a day to see what discussion there is. AndyJones (talk) 08:32, 21 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Any list of Notable INTPs must be sourced. And if the names are simply copied into the article from another website, then rearranged into alphabetical order, that's a copyright violation. ThreeOfCups (talk) 22:46, 18 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
While I'm fairly certain that you can't copyright a person's name like that, surely simply citing a website as the source of your information would be covered under fair use...? I'd say that it's a pretty ridiculous claim to say that any information gathered from another website violates copyright... As long as it's reliably sourced, I'd say that any notable INTPs should and could be included in the article, though if the list gets too long then trimming might be in order. ~ Aeonoris (talk) 22:19, 12 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
They don't just copy people's names; they copy the descriptions as well: "14th U.S. President," "1984 Olympic Gold Medal Winner," "Star of TV's "Golden Girls," etc. The wording of those descriptions is copyrighted. Also, even though the names themselves aren't copyrightable, I would argue that the list of names may be. Sounds like a question for Legal Lad. ThreeOfCups (talk) 03:07, 13 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Now its just a bunch of american presidents save for Einstein, this feels very biased towards america. I'm suggesting at least adding SOMEONE from another country.

This list cites no sources and needs to be deleted... An on a side note perhaps the article it self needs as personality can not be summarized into 16 types.-marin —Preceding unsigned comment added by Trancemammal (talkcontribs) 19:14, 4 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Moved this section under Characteristics and used only Keirsey examples. Keirsey's theory is based on behavior, which is observable, while the MBTI is based on cognitive functions, that is, how people prefer to use their minds. It is unethical for MBTI practitioners to speculate about a person's type according to the principle of "own best fit." Moreover, MBTI practitioner websites are grossly inconsistent in their conclusions. This sort of unencyclopedic speculation has no place on Wikipedia. ThreeOfCups (talk) 20:33, 7 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

INTP central link[edit]

There is a comment before this link in the article that says "Please see talk page before removing this link", yet there is nothing on the talk page about why this link shouldn't be removed. I have removed it because it is an example of "links normally to be avoided" in the External Links guideline (it's a discussion group). These links are discouraged because discussion forums contain original research and personal opinions, both of which go against core Wikipedia principles neutral point of view, verifiability and reliable sources. If you would like to add the link back again, please explain why we should ignore the External Links guideline and go against the core principles mentioned. Thanks, Somno (talk) 03:22, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It's not there as a source of information in the way that you're thinking. Consider the link a recommendation for visitors to observe large populations, as it were, of INTPs.

-- (talk) 00:38, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I wasn't aware Wikipedia was a scientific lab helping people find test subjects. ;) IMO, the link still doesn't belong. Somno (talk) 03:42, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Several other ways to look at it: An article about RPGs has external links to continually updating collections of RPGs; similarly, INTPc is a continually updating collection of INTPs. The Barack Obama article has a link to the subject's website; "INTP" is not a person, but this is pretty much the closest you can get to an official INTP website. I can see the point of not linking discussion forums in general, but the thing is, INTPc is pretty big (in the influence sense) as far as INTP-related sites go, you know? (talk) 22:50, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Or, as the article states, only the person taking the test can confirm their type for themselves. A decent amount of INTPc involves threads where people attempt to type themselves and ask for help. While that help may not be professional or totally informed, which seems to be Somno and the External Links guideline's concern, I think the INTPc link should remain (with a note of caution), only because of the subject matter of the article. I would NOT generally like to see links to forums on Wikipedia, but I was disappointed the link was not here so that is my two cents. The word of caution could be something along the lines of "the opinions expressed on this site may not reliable and often contain original research", with wiki links to what those terms mean. What do people think about that? Mabsal (talk) 02:40, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Links to forums should not be included according to the External Links guideline. Wikipedia is not a catch-all source for any possible discussion on the topic; it's an encyclopedia. If people want to find an INTP forum, they can use a search engine. ThreeOfCups (talk) 17:53, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

POV problems in this article[edit]

In my opinion this article is quite clearly written from the point of view of someone who is, or considers themselves to be, INTP type. Consequently it is a poor article by WP standards. I don't consider myself an expert, so I will refrain from editing, but let's please get away from emotive statements like "Many previously secure, confident people have been left crushed by an INTP's sudden and piercingly accurate criticism". My N tells me that this sentence is pure self-congratulatory rubbish. Let's please show rigour in the social sciences. Dhatfield (talk) 08:30, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

From socionics' standpoint, one out of 16 people are INTPs/LIIs. This kind of POV statement is like asking a conservative not to contribute to an article about conservatism. The concept of POV wasn't developed with typology in mind, and if you try to combine traditional POV theories with typology then all you get is a mess.
I can link you to an article showing just how pointless the discussion is.
On the other hand, I'm an INTp type myself and I agree that the phraseology you are critiquing is a little much.... Tcaudilllg (talk) 05:20, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The problem isn't with INTPs editing the article; it's with including material that isn't reliable and objective. I think there's a certain amount of value in the quoted statement, which relates to behavior of INTPs under the influence of their inferior Extraverted Feeling. The solution isn't really to delete the statement, but to rewrite it so that it's less "emotive." The INTP might consider a criticism piercingly accurate, but they tend to be pretty poor judges of emotional data, according to Isabel Myers. As she wrote about Introverted Thinking types in Gifts Differing, "They are not apt to know, unless told, what matters emotionally to another person." ThreeOfCups (talk) 00:51, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

INTP =/= ILI[edit]

I'm going to perform the redirection, as it is only confusion is stemming from this pair of articles pointing towards each other. A comparison between the function models makes it clear: INTP corresponds to LII, not ILI. Note that ILI's most confident function is their ability to make plans (introverted intuition), none of which is discussed in this article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tcaudilllg (talkcontribs) 05:32, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It's not a question of which Socionics type the Myers-Briggs INTP corresponds to. The question is, if a person is looking for the Socionics INTp article, and ends up at the Myers-Briggs INTP article, which article should they be redirected to? Socionics INTp is ILI. ThreeOfCups (talk) 01:40, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
precisely; what the MBTI INTP is in socionics is irrelevant because the MBTI INTP is not anything in socionics (or at least, there is no evidence of any correlation). the only thing that they meaningfully share is notation, so the INTP should reflect the ILI page. Niffweed17, Destroyer of Chickens (talk) 16:14, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]


I created templates for text that's the same across all 16 MBTI 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:
1. Click the Edit link on the section of the article you want to change.
2. Select and copy the title of the template page (the text between the double braces).
3. Paste the copied text into the Wikipedia search box and press Go (not Search).
This will take you to the template. Make sure that the changes you make to the templates are appropriate for all 16 MBTI type articles! (ENFJ, ISTP, etc.) ThreeOfCups (talk) 02:00, 22 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Spelling of extraversion[edit]

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)[reply]

Sensing as the tertiary function[edit]

Sensing is correctly identified in the article as the tertiary cognitive function of INTPs—that is, the third-level function after Thinking (dominant) and Intuition (secondary), with Feeling as the inferior function. However, experts dispute whether the tertiary function has the same orientation as the dominant function, or the opposite orientation. Jung and Myers held that the orientation of the tertiary was the opposite of the dominant. Modern theorists tend to disagree. I think it's better to leave the orientation off, to avoid a lengthy discussion that seems out of place in this article. ThreeOfCups (talk) 15:22, 2 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Logo and border color[edit]

For a discussion about the logo and border color, see Talk:Myers-Briggs Type Indicator#Remove or keep the fancy logos from the articles?. Please don't make a significant change to the logo or border color without discussing it there first. ThreeOfCups (talk) 19:26, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

INTP as a percentage of the population[edit]

CAPT says 3-5%, Keirsey says 1%. Several sources which seem to be derived from Keirsey also say 1%, but since they're not independent, they can't be used to support the Keirsey claim. Also, the KTS and MBTI don't correlate exactly, so it's not surprising that their figures differ. All sources fall within the range of 1-5%, so it's appropriate to use the range. ThreeOfCups (talk) 03:49, 7 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Also, note that the Keirsey site does not say that the "1% of the population" figure means the global population. Since Keirsey conducted his research in the U.S., it's not safe to assume that his figure refers to the global population rather than the U.S. population. ThreeOfCups (talk) 04:50, 7 November 2009 (UTC)[reply] site considered suspicious by Google[edit]

Upon visiting (reference #12), Firefox claims the site may be malicious, linking to this Google safe browsing page. Has that site been compromised? Shouldn't the link to it be removed? --Djmaze (talk) 15:32, 16 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Devastating at debate[edit]

The article states that, "Their impatience with seemingly indefensible ideas can make them particularly devastating at debate." This sentence seems somewhat ambiguous to me. Are the devastatingly good at debate, devastatingly bad at debate, or devastating to the debate itself (meaning that they're not just bad at debate but that they actually hinder a discussion). I have my own perception of the statement based mostly on my experience with INTPs but I can see how one could come to any of those three conclusions after reading the statement. After reading through the history of the article, the original version of the statement was, "Their impatience with seemingly indefensible ideas can make them particularly devastating at debate since they are driven to fully understand what they are discussing from all relevant angles. Their impatience with ideas that are indefensible often leads them to "go for the jugular"."

That statement feels like OR which is, I assume, why it was removed. Does anyone have any feelings about or solutions to this statement? OlYeller21Talktome 15:15, 5 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Error in describing functions?[edit]

It looks like the paragraph describing the functions is somehow switched with the such of INTJ. Dominant function for INTP is Ni, not Ti (that's the dominant function for INTJ). Conversely, the INTJ page states the correct functions for INTP. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 00:01, 18 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

No, this is how it is per the MBTI; I'm not sure how Socionics works, exactly, but you may be thinking of that. Honestly, I think functions are crap anyway; I usually test as INTP (though I've also been INFP a few times) and when I've tried tests based on the functions, my orderings have looked nothing like the pre-determined ones. I prefer the simple four letters. To get back on topic, though, the sources regarding the MBTI that mention functions unanimously have ours as Ti/Ne/Si/Fe, sometimes with Se instead of Si. Tezero (talk) 06:11, 9 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Global perspective[edit]

The lead says, "INTPs are relatively rare, accounting for 1–5% of the U.S. population." I think we should update this article with a global perspective. Is anyone able to find research we could cite about its occurrence in other countries please?Zigzig20s (talk) 10:27, 14 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

There is some research at , but I'm not sure how scientific it is. Bluebird202 (talk) 9:53, 31 March 2016 (CDT)

Propose Merge[edit]

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. (talk) 02:08, 14 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose mass-merge into a single article, there's way too much sourcing on the topic covering way too much notable content to squeeze it all into a single article. If you think the topic is junk, that's fine, don't read it. However Wikipedia page-view statistics show that around 1000 people per year are reading the INTP page, not to mention how many people read each of the other related pages. Thousands of people apparently find these articles useful.
Regarding the 'list of notable persons', it is rather questionable. At a minimum it really should be sourced. If someone else wants to improve or remove the section, ok by me.
Regarding "Myers–Briggs_Type_Indicator is make-believe", Wikipedia does not apply that standard. Wikipedia has articles on Astrology, Ghosts, Unicorns, and countless religions. We are not concerned with whether some religion is true or just "make-believe". If a topic has gotten significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources, then that topic can and should be covered in Wikipedia. Secondly, Myers–Briggs Type is not a "hard science" but it does in fact have extensive formal research behind it. It appears that, at least in part, it is backed up by hard data and scientifically reproducible predictions. This includes interesting results from Functional Magnetic Resonance Imaging brain scans showing that different Myers–Briggs personality types have different patterns of brain activation. Personality typing is a fuzzy topic with lots of poorly supported theories flying around, but unlike Astrology it is in fact well grounded in psychological questionnaires and psychological research methodology. Alsee (talk) 17:26, 5 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Having 18 articles on one particular brand of pseudo-psychology seems a little excessive to me. See "Category:Myers–Briggs Type Indicator types". As with other acronyms I would like to see these permutations of "personality types" point to a disambiguation page ultimately, and in the meantime redirect to Myers–Briggs Type Indicator. Having each "personality type" page separate from the main article re-frames the content to a tone of "this concept really exists." (talk) 13:17, 6 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
If you'd like to expand 9 new articles on the Enneagram of Personality, I'm sure there's also sufficient sourcing for those as well. Tom Ruen (talk) 13:20, 7 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
That's the opposite direction I'd like to go in. In my opinion the fewer unnecessary articles on pseudo-psychology the better. (talk) 22:01, 9 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that the charge of "pseudoscience" does not apply to Myers-Briggs. It's gotten plenty of peer-reviewed research and scientific criticism. It's not in favor among personality theorists, having been supplanted by the similar Big Five. Those who are aiming to merge these articles out of a desire to smack down pseudoscience might better recuse themselves from this matter. That said, the topics of each individual four-letter code have attracted a lot of amateurish writing, not up to Wikipedia's standards for reliable sourcing. Please see my main comment below, about basing this decision on the sources. —Ben Kovitz (talk) 18:27, 5 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Merge This is a poorly written article about pseudoscience. The majority of the citations are from two sites. It is unlikely that it will ever come to a state where it is well cited, because it is pseudo science. Wikipedia has articles on Astrology, but it doesn't give out horoscopes. This article is clearly using a magic label to prescribe ascribe attributes that are entirely manufactured.Viz WP:NOTPROMO(especially 5) [[WP:NOTADVICE](1), WP:CRYSTALBALL Ethanpet113 (talk) 07:45, 16 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose half-baked proposal to merge 2 out of the 16 personality types into MBTI. If the proposal is extended to all 16 my oppose rationale is that it will be too bulky for a single article. Cabayi (talk) 08:02, 16 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support merge There's a lot of repeated, identical content on those 16 pages. There's more detail directly from primary sources than needs to be repeated on wikipedia. Quality would be improved by cutting down material to what fits in one article. CyreJ (talk) 19:53, 19 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
What sources provide information specific to each type? Per WP:GNG, for a topic to have its own page, that topic needs "significant coverage in reliable sources". To decide whether to merge each type's page into a central Myers-Briggs page, we need to know the answer to that question for each four-letter code. So far, I've seen a number of self-published sources that devote a web page to each four-letter code. These don't seem very reliable. And I've seen chapters or sections in books on Myers-Briggs theory devoted to each four-letter code. If those say a lot, they might meet the bar for separate articles, but so far, what I've seen doesn't. Per WP:BALASP, we might better represent the literature by summarizing those chapters in 16 brief subsections in a single article. The burden is on someone to point out type-specific sources. Would someone care to list and briefly describe those sources here? Otherwise, I will support the merge. —Ben Kovitz (talk) 18:03, 5 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I trimmed all the content from the sources the above conversation pointed out were unreliable - self-published, don't cite any underlying sources, don't appear to be based on any research. Across the 16 articles, probably 75% of the content is the same. Most of the concepts are actually explained in more detail on Myers–Briggs Type Indicator, with which there is 95%-100% overlap. I'll try and clean up by merging any non-redundant content there. -- Beland (talk) 19:17, 15 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

 You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:Myers–Briggs Type Indicator#Redirects and a new hatnote. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 10:17, 13 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]