Talk:INTJ

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

message: 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)
replies: text: That's bullshit, or simply an ignorant myth. Where's the source for that? I'm an INTJ myself and most other INTJ I know despise a behaviour like this. I assure you that you will recognize any public figure that is an INTJ. They don't play such mind games as you seem to believe. And yeah, Guiliani is most probably an ESTJ.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.85.216.227 (talk) 10:27, 5 May 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Guiliani not an INTJ

message: 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)
thread_title: Problem with one of the sources

message: 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.
*Susan B. Anthony, Civil Rights Pioneer
*John Forbes Nash, American Mathematician and Economist Davemcarlson (talk) 09:48, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Please find Citations for these

message: I found the citation for Heiss, referenced in my comment above.   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)
thread_title:  Found the Heiss Citation

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

message: 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.    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)
thread_title: Thomas Jefferson not INTJ

message: Dr. House looks more of an INTP than an INTJ. Simoncpu (talk)  —Preceding comment was added at 07:15, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I disagree. INTPs have a hard time making decisions, House does not.OomKoning (talk) 17:10, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)
replies: text: 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 reliable 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)

text: Another very definitive INTJ trait he has is his complete lack of respect for authority figures, as the only people he comes close to respecting are those who rival his intelligence somewhat.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.206.70.159 (talk) 19:55, 29 December 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: This is true of all Rationals, however, not just INTJ. ThreeOfCups (talk) 03:40, 30 December 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Dr. Gregory House

message: The ESTP article provides a template for what I consider the best way of including famous or notable individuals who exhibit the characteristics of a particular type. That article lists famous ESTPs as a single sentence, including the most illustrative examples: 
"According to Keirsey, based on observations of behavior, famous Promoters include John F. Kennedy, Teddy Roosevelt, Madonna, and Donald Trump." 
Even if I knew nothing else about ESTPs, I could develop a clear picture of that personality type based on those four individuals. The long list used in this article has the opposite effect: it's more information than I need, and in fact muddies my comprehension of the type. A list that included just Jane Austen, Dwight Eisenhower, Isaac Newton, and Peter the Great (for example) would be useful to readers. This clearinghouse of individuals who may or may not be INTJs (experts disagree) seems to serve only the editors who posted the examples. For example, even if Arnold Schwarzenegger is an INTJ, his public persona in no way typifies the INTJ. I think the goal should be to help readers understand the type better, not to confuse them. ThreeOfCups (talk) 17:06, 14 June 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: "lists famous ESTPs as a single sentence, including the most illustrustrative examples" - an excellent approach: more understanding, less confusion OomKoning (talk) 18:00, 17 June 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: In addition to the above suggestion, I'm thinking of moving the long list of "Notable INTJs" to the Mastermind article, then referencing it here.  That way the information will still be available to those who are interested. The list is far more appropriate in the article for the Keirsey type than in the one for the MB type.  ThreeOfCups (talk) 03:28, 29 July 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: ESTP article example

message: Lenin is not an INTJ.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Red aries (talk • contribs) 15:05, 2 October 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Several sites list Lenin as ENFJ, so I deleted him from this list. ThreeOfCups (talk) 23:19, 2 October 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Lenin 

message: As far as I can tell, a list of INTJ or other lists of MBTI characterized individuals is not in accord with the MBTI ethics, it is slightly in opposition towards the rules of biographies, since the material makes statements about individuals giving themselves no say on whether the information is relevant for them or correct. If one individual, theoretically, wish to state "I'm an INTJ, let this be known", the statement might be acceptable and not an unnecessary infringement on privacy, otherwise an independent characterization of individuals is at best dubious. And I don't wish to be on the same list as Ayn Rand with her flawed so called "philosophy". ... said: Rursus (mbork³) 12:52, 31 October 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree wholeheartedly. The lists are inaccurate, unethical, and completely inappropriate for an encyclopedia. Different sources contradict each other, and there's no way to prove who's "right" and who's "wrong," especially given that many of the individuals in question are dead. The information should be removed. ThreeOfCups (talk) 22:21, 3 November 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Why is lists of INTJ:s a good idea? 

message: I moved Notable INTJs  under characteristics and used only Keirsey examples. From an MBTI perspective, this is unencyclopedic speculation inconsistent with ethical guidelines. ThreeOfCups (talk) 03:30, 13 April 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Using Keirsey examples

message: The official Myers and Briggs Foundation INTJ type description can be found here.
The official Kiersey Mastermind/INTJ type description can be found here.
It seems odd that currently out of the 16 types the INTJ page seems to be the only one declared below Wikipedia standards. Hopefully these sources help.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.151.151.137 (talk) 12:50, 1 August 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Alternate Type Descriptions 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on INTJ. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100906154838/http://whatismypersonality.net/mbti/intj to http://whatismypersonality.net/mbti/intj
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 07:49, 10 November 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: 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. 104.228.101.152 (talk) 02:07, 14 November 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: There is a big difference between psychology and pseudo-psychology. 104.228.101.152 (talk) 22:04, 9 December 2018 (UTC)

text: I'll elaborate. I think personality psychology is mostly pseudo-psychology. However the Big Five personality traits seem to be the most well thought out of the personality psychology systems. Still, I do not want to delude myself and think within that system. Myers-Briggs, Enneagram and Socionics are jokes and only foolish people think about them. 104.228.101.152 (talk) 01:49, 18 December 2018 (UTC)

text: Support Merge See Talk:INTP Ethanpet113 (talk) 07:54, 16 May 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Reduce to one article 

message: You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:Myers–Briggs Type Indicator#Redirects and a new hatnote.  Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 10:14, 13 April 2020 (UTC)
thread_title: Discussion at [[Talk:Myers–Briggs Type Indicator#Redirects and a new hatnote]]