Skip to content →

Criticism of CT’s Take on INTJs

By Miguel Barragan

When looking at the tests’ verbal structure, it always points out the INTJ’s self assertion and self reference, and even their humor is labeled as ‘self-referential’. I don’t think INTJ’s are as full of themselves as your site points them out to be; could we get a closer look towards Ni, Ti types and Ti, Ni types? (INTJ and INTP, respectively, simply following another model).

I think Ni and Ti are so similar, there are people who use them as their dominant functions, but they don’t act like ISTP’s or INFJ’s (I know that following your model, the standard one, they ‘would’ be, but hear me out), shouldn’t the site adopt new ways of arranging cognitive functions? After all, a lot of personality traits are shared among pairs of functions that aren’t tied together in the standard model, specially with Ti.
Ti resembles Ni in the way that both of them neglect engaging with a non fully understood problem/scenario, Ni simply tries to intellectually comprehend it and Ti judges it with an internal set of values, which also resembles Fi, except that Fi seeks authenticity and harmony with the self and Ti is too impersonal most of the time, seeking a precise analysis. Even with this differences, there is no reason why anyone couldn’t use the three of these functions, just applying them to different scenarios (or mixing all of them up!).
A person with a Ni, Ti, Fi, Se cognitive model would be an INTJ, just as the standard Ni, Te, Fi, Se INTJ, but, again, the Ti INTJ would be much more impartial, and just as expressive as the standard INTJ. Synthesizing, I think your site should adopt new cognitive models and not just looking at one side of people’s personalites.

Published in Miguel Barragan