Everybody's gotta start sometime

Here's a video I did.  Thoughts?  

I'm not a reader and I haven't been very active in practicing, but I'm pretty sure you are Te/Fi probably a Delta of some variation, which would suggest your perception functions are Si/Ne.

Vultologically, you are most similar to our database sample SiTe Elizabeth May:



Although you are slightly heavier in your Ne, and comparatively less heavy in Te.

Not uncommon or unusual at all. Everybody scores as INxx in the MBTI - or at least xNxx. There's various reasons for this, not least of which is a misunderstanding of Si & Se, and a great deal of other matters.

The MBTI paints sixteen caricatures form Briggs and Keirsey's (et la) original works, which are then improperly rationalized a level further into functions. But Keirsey was right in suggesting it's best to keep the MBTI at the dichotomies level and leave functions alone. In seeking an extra level of granularity, the functions are introduced as stand-ins for a more sophisticated understanding of type - and to fill in theoretical gaps and flesh out these stereotypes more fully. The problem is, whether its intentional or not, the dichotomies still hold a priority in that system, and the functions are reverse-deduced to belong to certain preferences only after those preferences have been established. And these preferences are just general energy fields not fundamental realities of people. For instance:

"I scored INTP... that means I have Ti+Ne"

It's standard practice to implement a deduction of this sort in the MBTI, but it's fundamentally incorrect. One shouldn't start by saying "my preferences are I+N+T+P ...therefore I use Ti+Ne" any more than one should say having four legs, a tail and fur makes you a dog. The functions are the real things and the preferences are general auras that may emerge from certain function combinations, so type should always begin at functions - not the other way around. But the MBTI assume those preferences can only arise from Ti+Ne, but in fact they can arise from an NiTe who happens to be lazy (re: low in the ___J) or an NiFe with strong Ti development (NiFe-Ti) or an NeTi with developed Ti (NeTi-Ti) or an SiTe with developed Ne (SiTe-Ne) and so forth.

So in general, the population of types that type as INTP include: NiTe-Ni, TiNe-Ti, NiFe-Ti, NeTi-Ti, SiTe-Ne, etc (even some FeNi-Ti or FeSi-Ti too)
It's relatively easy to identify as INTP, just as it's relatively easy to type as INFP and INFJ. Since the four MBTI INxx types essentially have be burden to contain all sixteen real-life types within them, they get sorted into their most adjacent groupings. TeSi's type as INTJs, SiTe's type as INTJs or INTPs, SeTi's type as ENTPs or INTPs, FeSi's type as ENFPs or INFPs, and so on.

The real question might be, why does the MBTI make the other types so unfavorable?
And partly it's because the MBTI is not a full description of human nature, with a lot of it's success (not all, but a lot) due to the very aggrandizement it gives to select types (INxx in particular). It's popularity is in part facilitated by painting four portraits (and to a lesser degree, another 4 in the ENxx types) that are designed to make people feel:

- Rare (and thus special)
- Part of a misunderstood group of people, which are cognitively more gifted
- Validated for being what they are
- Understood in contrast to 'those' different people
- Like the problems they've faced in life finally make sense in context of their idiosyncrasies clashing against a world not designed for their rare temperament

It's quite an unhealthy mentality to breed - whether deliberately or accidentally. I speak not for the intentions of the theory founders, but perhaps of the results they did not foresee. And it's only made more powerful by the fact that, in a very general sense, the MBTI does tap into some real (albeit general) dichotomies in people. So there's truth mixed in with falsehood. Those are the systems that are always the hardest to handle. And in adding no small amount of Forer Effect to the mix, it ensures a reaction of "I feel so understood" among its participants.

Breaking out of the MBTI

I see some people break out of the MBTI, and also to grow out of their original typing, when they overcome the personal hurdles that made them gravitate to those descriptions in the first place. For example, a development of confidence in oneself without the need to feel special or validated for innate differences, and thus able to let go of the INxx typing or be typed as something else that is more true to oneself. For many of these, they just leave MBTI altogether when this happens, as MBTI is often a sort of incubation chamber for those among us who need that comfort in a momentarily shared camaraderie with others who we believe are the same as us and share our struggles -- regardless of whether that's really the case.

CT doesn't approach any of this with these intentions. There's nothing in CT that is seeking to give people validation, a sense of specialness (re: the purported 1%, 2% statistic of INxx types), or elaborate descriptions that intertwine normal human hardships into a profile with half-true conflations of information. It wants to get at the bottom of the reality of human variability, by building a database of real people -- grouping them according to observable visual and psychological similarities -- and fashioning profiles from scratch around what they actually say or do, rather than holding onto idealized profile caricatures that, while enticing, propagate self-ignorance.

Oh my, this came out very long - but I hope it makes sense! Sorry I hijacked this thread. >.>
It might be worthwhile instead to make a thread on MBTI, how it becomes/stays popular, and all the aforementioned.

Very similar story here, I scored INTP in the MBTI and bounced between a couple N types in different systems before reading as Si-lead vultologically.
I do think, as Auburn said, that MBTI heavily overtypes N and understandings of the functions get distorted as a result.

It is easy to reframe Si traits in particular as belonging to N or T, if working with an imprecise understanding of the functions.

Firstly, Si uses a lot of cached ideas and is a bit removed from the situation at hand.
When N functions are described as abstract (associative) and conceptual (non-literal), they can be confused for Si, which is abstract(ed from the object) and conceptual (does inner curation of concepts).

Secondly, since Si can be knowledge-driven and picky, Si users can end up with bookish or academic traits.
This can falsely match to descriptions of Ti emphasizing study and academics.
If you look at the SiTe compilation video on this page, you can see a number of examples of this sort of Si user.
cognitivetype.com/2017/11/12/site/
(This is most true in the second half of the video; the first half shows a number of politicians who represent a somewhat different expression of the type.)

@harrypitts, Lovin the name btw, its awesome hahaha. Okay, so what I think I'm seeing here is that you've related to a certain type for 20 years and all of the sudden this guy come in from left field and types you as a something completely different to your known type. For me, in a million years I did not think I was a Nife, I would make fun of those "INF" types in MBTI. First test I ever took I got ESFP. I was dying to be the outgoing, movie star, popular type. However, when I was really honest with the questions I wasn't that outgoing, down to earth, physically inclined, connected person that I saw myself as. When I reaaaally thought about it, and took the time to seek objective feedback, I realized that that was more of who I aspired and longed to be because it would balance out my aloof, detached, introverted, spacy, strange, embarrassed easily, says the wrong things parts of my personality.

I guess what I'm saying is, there is a part of me that is all those SeFi things, but more instinctually there is a part of me that is NiFe. I see it as, sports and practicing social skills as a hobby for me. I noticed that people with Ne/Ni in the third or fourth function see abstract as more of a hobby. I don't abstract as a hobby, I just am, if that makes sense. My work is to ground myself in reality and work on integrating factual data with my intuition, connecting with the hear and now, and focusing on details instead of believing everything my own mind likes to think up.

I've noticed that Fi, Ti, and Si can be very particular, but I've noticed particularness is not really an Ni/Ne thing (correct me if I'm wrong folks).
I've also noticed that a lot of "abstraction" is actually Fi, Si, Ti, again, subjective reality which gets conflated with Ni/Ne. So its more introspection=subjective NOT introspection=abstraction, if that makes sense.
Anywhoo ultimately I think one can be both abstract and concrete especially the older/more self work someone does the more they can expand into the "typeless". I think type is a good place to start to see where one needs work to grow and expand their awareness and depth in how they show up as a well rounded human!

PS, I enjoy seeing your exploration here, I've been witnessing from afar. I don't like typing much (something I'm working on), so most of my explanations are short and filled with errors but I hope this makes sense and please let me know if it resonates