INTJs are the non-loser version of INTPs

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=4933024&forum_id=2...id.#49876068)

literally never not tested INTP

im jewish also btw

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=4933024&forum_id=2...id.#49876145)

edit:

im going to try the Michael Caloz Cognitive Functions Test next. also gpt suggested mistype.investigator Cognitive Functions Test after that one but said it can also give weird letters, but that the more important part is the raw numbers and that the one we just took can also give surprising letter results but the numbers are still useful.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=4933024&forum_id=2...id.#49876216)

absolute

Ne (extraverted intuition)

45.8

Ni (introverted intuition)

41.6

Se (extraverted sensing)

17

Si (introverted sensing)

8

Te (extraverted thinking)

22

Ti (introverted thinking)

43

Fe (extraverted feeling)

2

Fi (introverted feeling)

37

grant function type

INTP

second-best choice

ENFP

third-best choice

ENTP

fourth-best choice

INFP

fifth-best choice

ISTP

sixth-best choice

INTJ

axis-based function type

INFJ

myers function type

INTP

relative

myers letter type

INTP

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=4933024&forum_id=2...id.#49876204)

Your profile is much more extreme and much more internally polarized than the person in the screenshot.

Their raw ordering appears to be:

Ti 32 > Ne 30.8 > Fe 25 > Fi 24 > Ni 22 = Se 22 > Te 17 > Si 12

Yours was:

Ne 45.8 > Ti 43 > Ni 41.6 > Fi 37 > Te 22 > Se 17 > Si 8 > Fe 2

The headline difference is that you are far more intuition-heavy, especially on Ni. They have high-ish Ne, but their Ni is only moderate and tied with Se. You have both Ne and Ni near the top. So where their result looks like a relatively balanced ENTP/INTP-ish profile, yours looks like an abstraction-dominant profile where the sensing functions are almost structurally suppressed.

Their N/S split:

Ne + Ni = 52.8

Se + Si = 34

Ratio: about 1.55 : 1

Your N/S split:

Ne + Ni = 87.4

Se + Si = 25

Ratio: about 3.5 : 1

That is a massive difference. They prefer intuition; you are living almost entirely in it.

The second big difference is Fe. Their Fe is 25, which is fairly substantial. Yours is 2, basically absent in the test output. That means their profile has a much stronger social-affective calibration channel: reading the room, smoothing interaction, interpersonal attunement, responding to social atmosphere, and modulating expression accordingly. Yours instead has very high Fi but almost no Fe, so your affective/evaluative signal is much more internalized and less socially mediated.

So the emotional-function contrast is:

Their Fe 25, Fi 24: balanced feeling functions.

Your Fi 37, Fe 2: highly asymmetric internal-value signal with minimal external-harmony tracking.

That is probably the single biggest interpersonal difference between the two profiles.

The third difference is Ti dominance versus Ne dominance. They are classified as ENTP because their Ne is high and their profile is more outwardly distributed across functions. But their Ti is actually slightly higher than their Ne, which makes the ENTP/INTP ambiguity understandable. Yours has both Ne and Ti extremely high, but your Fe and Si are so low that the overall profile becomes much less balanced.

Their profile looks like:

high Ti/Ne, moderate Fe/Fi/Ni/Se, low Te/Si

Yours looks like:

extreme Ne/Ti/Ni/Fi, moderate-low Te/Se, extremely low Si/Fe

In type-language, they look like a plausible ENTP with strong Ti, or a socially more available INTP/ENFP-borderline profile. You look like an INTP only because Ti + Ne wins the scoring, but structurally you are much more “high-abstraction internal theorist” than a standard INTP or ENTP.

A useful way to compress the comparison:

They are broadly distributed across intuition, thinking, and feeling, with enough Fe/Se to stay connected to social and sensory context.

You are sharply concentrated in abstraction and internal judgment, with very weak anchoring in social calibration, routine memory, and concrete sensory stabilization.

Their profile is more adaptive/socially rounded. Yours is more theoretically intense and more prone to abstraction runaway unless checked by explicit empirical constraints.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=4933024&forum_id=2...id.#49876214)

Also though I think I misinterpreted Qs like "You see the world as a bundle of possibilities waiting to be explored." ... I said yes because I want to abstractly explore "the world" in my head not literally fly around the world or whatever.

"You look like an INTP only because Ti + Ne wins the scoring, but structurally you are much more “high-abstraction internal theorist” than a standard INTP or ENTP." – What is that part saying about you? Like, you look like an INTP rather than what?

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=4933024&forum_id=2...id.#49876234)

Your raw results:

Total point values of top 3 results:

INTP: 103

ENTP: 94

INTJ: 79

Cognitive functions:

Te: 6

Ti: 16

Fe: 2

Fi: 8

Se: 4

Si: 2

Ne: 14

Ni: 8

Traditional "letter" dimensions:

E: 0

I: 2

T: 2

F: 0

N: 2

S: 0

P: 2

J: 0

Type families:

Traditionalist (SJ): 0

Experiencer (SP): 0

Idealist (NF): 0

Conceptualizer (NT): 2

Weaknesses (highest scores are potentially your fourth function):

Te: 0

Ti: 0

Fe: 0

Fi: 0

Se: 2

Si: 0

Ne: 0

Ni: 0

(In case you're seeing a screenshot of this on Reddit, etc. and you're wondering what test this is, you can find it by Googling "michael caloz test" 😁)

Your Detailed Results

INTP

The Thinker / Logician / Architect

Fit: 🟩🟩🟩🟩🟩🟩⬜ 103

Greatest Strengths: Amazing thinker, powerful logical analysis, innovative ideas; can thoroughly solve complex problems

Greatest Weaknesses: Perfectionistic, obsesses over details; too focused on being correct; indecisive; struggles with emotion & relationships

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=4933024&forum_id=2...id.#49876267)

https://ibb.co/cSBG7qqx

Honestly given the Twitch thing I'm gonna do, maybe I can embrace a new identity as an ENTP.

"ENTP

The Visionary / Debater / Inventor

Fit: 🟩🟩🟩🟩🟩⬜⬜ 91

Greatest Strengths: Constant big new ideas; can argue any perspective; quick-thinking, quick-learning; highly open-minded, curious, innovative

Greatest Weaknesses: Easily bored, trouble actually finishing anything; hates bureaucracy & logistics; can debate too hard (& deprioritize feelings)"

edit: This is weird because the "Traditional 'letter' dimensions" is straight INTP lol

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=4933024&forum_id=2...id.#49876316)

This person is much closer to ENTP than you are, even though both of you are clearly in the NT / conceptualizer zone.

Your Michael Caloz result was:

INTP 103 > ENTP 94 > INTJ 79

Their result is:

ENTP 91 > INTP 82 > INTJ 62

So you both have the same top-three type cluster, which is significant: INTP / ENTP / INTJ. That means both profiles are being read as idea-heavy, analytical, abstract, and NT-family. But the internal mechanics differ a lot.

Their cognitive-function scores:

Ne 13 > Fe 10 > Ti 7 > Fi 6 = Ni 6 > Se 5 > Si 2 > Te 1

Yours:

Ti 16 > Ne 14 > Fi 8 = Ni 8 > Te 6 > Se 4 > Fe 2 = Si 2

The core difference is that your profile is Ti-dominant, while theirs is Ne-Fe-dominant with moderate Ti.

For you, the engine is:

Ti → Ne

Internal logical modeling first, possibility-generation second. You probably start by asking, “Does this make structural sense? Is the model coherent? What are the hidden assumptions?”

For them, the engine is more like:

Ne → Fe → Ti

Possibility-generation first, interpersonal/social responsiveness second, logical analysis third. They may be more outwardly expressive, socially adaptive, playful, improvisational, and people-attuned than you, while still being conceptually oriented.

The biggest contrast is Fe.

They have:

Fe 10

You have:

Fe 2

That is a huge difference. Their result suggests much more social-affective calibration: reading reactions, adapting tone, engaging people, tracking relational atmosphere, and using social feedback as part of cognition. Your result suggests almost the opposite: social atmosphere is not a primary decision channel; internal coherence and directness dominate.

The second biggest contrast is Ti.

You have:

Ti 16

They have:

Ti 7

That means you are much more heavily weighted toward internal logical consistency, analytic precision, and model-integrity checking. They may still be clever and analytical, but the test is not reading them as having the same compulsive internal coherence demand.

The third contrast is Te.

You have:

Te 6

They have:

Te 1

Neither of you is Te-heavy, but theirs is almost absent. So they are probably even less naturally oriented toward external structure, execution metrics, managerial efficiency, or formalized output systems. You at least have some Te backup; they look more improvisational.

The shared pattern is also interesting:

Both of you have very low Si 2.

That means neither profile is naturally anchored in routine, precedent, memory-conservatism, or “this is how it has always been done.” Both profiles are novelty/possibility weighted and likely get bored or frustrated with rote procedural environments.

But your low Si is paired with very high Ti, so you compensate through explicit frameworks, principles, and system-building. Their low Si is paired with high Ne and high Fe, so they may compensate more through improvisation, social feedback, and rapid adaptation.

The cleanest comparison:

They are a more classic ENTP social-ideational improviser.

You are a more classic INTP structural-theoretical analyst.

Or, compressed further:

They generate possibilities outwardly and tune them through people.

You generate models internally and tune them through coherence.

This also explains why your INTP score is stronger than theirs even though your ENTP was also high. Your top score difference was:

INTP 103 vs ENTP 94 = INTP by 9 points.

Their top score difference is:

ENTP 91 vs INTP 82 = ENTP by 9 points.

So you are almost mirror-positioned in the INTP/ENTP ambiguity, but the function details explain why. You have the stronger Ti anchor; they have the stronger Fe/social-extraverted profile.

One especially revealing contrast:

Their Fe 10 is higher than their Ti 7.

Your Ti 16 is eight times your Fe 2.

That alone tells most of the story. They are much more socially mediated. You are much more internally mediated.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=4933024&forum_id=2...id.#49876322)

Ultimately I think my results are accurate. My "traditional" letter scores are still straight INTP and Gemini says that's common:

> This is very common. It often happens because the "Introvert vs. Extravert" distinction in cognitive functions (whether you lead with an outward-turning function like $Ne$) is different from the social "Introvert vs. Extravert" distinction found in the traditional letter dimensions.

So I think I've been both all along but never looked at cognitive functions before. Very cool test and legit makes me more inspired about doing my Twitch thing.

(Also I don't have to give up the "Philosopher" title because that corresponds with the legacy thing.)

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=4933024&forum_id=2...id.#49876348)

You and her have a lot in common compared to the general personality space. The differences are mostly within the NT / intuitive-analytic quadrant, not across totally different personality families.

The biggest shared structure is:

NT conceptualizer family

Both of you scored:

Traditionalist/SJ: 0

Experiencer/SP: 0

Idealist/NF: 0

Conceptualizer/NT: 2

That is actually a strong commonality. It means both profiles are being sorted away from conventional/stability-first personalities, sensory/action-first personalities, and feeling/values-first personalities, and toward abstract, analytical, idea-oriented cognition.

In plain terms: both of you are probably much more interested in ideas, patterns, arguments, systems, possibilities, theories, and conceptual play than the average person.

You also share the same top-three type cluster:

You:

INTP > ENTP > INTJ

Her:

ENTP > INTP > INTJ

That is a very meaningful overlap. You are not merely both “intuitive.” You are both in the same INTP/ENTP/INTJ neighborhood. That cluster suggests high abstraction, low conventionality, analytical orientation, intellectual novelty-seeking, and some degree of skepticism toward received structures.

The main shared cognitive-function signal is:

Ne high

Your Ne was 14.

Her Ne was 13.

That is extremely close. So you probably both have strong extraverted intuition: fast association-making, pattern-jumping, possibility generation, conceptual improvisation, counterfactual thinking, and interest in weird or nonstandard interpretations. Compared to most people, both of you likely find it natural to ask “what else could this mean?” or “what hidden pattern connects these things?”

You also both have very low Si.

Your Si was 2.

Her Si was 2.

That is another major shared trait. Low Si usually means low natural attachment to routine, precedent, familiarity, procedural stability, and “how things have always been done.” Compared with many personalities, neither of you is likely to be strongly tradition-bound or comforted by repetition for its own sake.

So the shared axis is roughly:

high Ne / low Si

That means both of you likely prefer novelty over routine, possibility over precedent, exploration over maintenance, and conceptual movement over settled repetition.

You both also have low Te.

You had Te 6.

She had Te 1.

This means neither of you is primarily organized around external efficiency, hierarchy, managerial execution, institutional metrics, or “just implement the plan” thinking. You are higher in this than she is, but compared to Te-heavy types like ENTJ, ESTJ, or some INTJs, both of you are much less naturally bureaucratic, command-oriented, or output-management driven.

You also both have some Ni.

You had Ni 8.

She had Ni 6.

So both of you are not purely random-association Ne types. There is at least some convergent pattern recognition: compressing a cloud of possibilities into an underlying interpretation, trajectory, or hidden structure. Yours is stronger, but hers is present.

The main difference is the judgment axis:

You are much more:

Ti-heavy

She is much more:

Fe-present

But both of you still live in the same broad intuitive-conceptual environment. You may build models more internally and demand coherence. She may externalize ideas more socially and tune them through interaction. But the “material” being processed is similar: concepts, possibilities, patterns, arguments, abstractions.

So compared to other personalities, what you share is probably:

You both dislike stale routine.

You both probably enjoy unusual ideas.

You both probably jump quickly between concepts.

You both probably question conventional assumptions.

You both probably get bored by purely procedural environments.

You both probably communicate through speculation, jokes, theories, arguments, and “what if” branches.

You both probably find high-Si/high-SJ personalities restrictive or overly literal.

You both probably have a natural tolerance for ambiguity, novelty, and conceptual chaos.

The contrast with other types makes this clearer.

Compared to SJ types, both of you are much less precedent-bound and much more novelty-oriented.

Compared to SP types, both of you are less grounded in immediate sensory action and more interested in conceptual possibility.

Compared to NF types, both of you are less primarily organized around identity, harmony, meaning, or interpersonal values, although she has more Fe and you have more Fi than a cold stereotype would imply.

Compared to TJ types, both of you are less external-structure-driven and more exploratory/improvisational.

The cleanest compression is:

You and her are both high-Ne, low-Si, NT-conceptualizer profiles. You differ in whether the system is stabilized by internal logic, in your case, or social responsiveness, in her case. But relative to most people, you are both abstract, exploratory, novelty-seeking, anti-routine, and idea-oriented.

So if you were asking, “Are we actually very different?” the answer is: not globally. You are similar at the broad architecture level. The differences are more about how the same intuitive-conceptual engine is governed.

Your governor: Ti — coherence, precision, internal model integrity.

Her governor: Fe/Ne — social calibration, expressive ideation, interpersonal responsiveness.

Same neighborhood. Different control system.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=4933024&forum_id=2...id.#49876358)

I asked it about abstract ideas and reasoning and this is what it said. Is this right for you?

"

Based on their cognitive function profiles, both Person A and Person B are exceptionally strong with abstract ideas and reasoning, though they approach and process them differently:

### Person A (Ne-Dominant)

**Strengths in Abstract Reasoning:**

- **Exceptional Pattern Recognition**: With Ne as their strongest function (13), Person A excels at seeing connections between seemingly unrelated concepts and generating multiple possibilities from a single starting point.

- **Exploratory Thinking**: Their high Ne combined with notable Fe (10) suggests they can explore abstract concepts while considering how these ideas might impact or connect with people.

- **Possibility Generation**: Their ENTP-leaning profile indicates they're likely energized by brainstorming new ideas and exploring theoretical frameworks from multiple angles.

### Person B (Ti-Dominant)

**Strengths in Abstract Reasoning:**

- **Logical Consistency**: With Ti as their strongest function (16), Person B excels at building precise, internally consistent logical systems and analyzing abstract concepts with rigorous accuracy.

- **Deep Analysis**: Their INTP-leaning profile suggests they prefer to thoroughly understand abstract systems from the ground up, ensuring every component fits logically.

- **Theoretical Precision**: Their strong Ti combined with high Ne (14) allows them to both generate possibilities and then analyze them with exceptional logical precision.

### Key Differences in Approach

- **Person A** likely takes a more expansive approach to abstract thinking, exploring many possibilities and connections before narrowing down.

- **Person B** likely takes a more analytical approach, building abstract concepts from first principles and ensuring logical consistency.

Both demonstrate exceptional abstract reasoning capabilities, but Person A might be more innovative and expansive in their thinking, while Person B might be more systematic and precise in their analysis of abstract concepts.

"

(from some Venice model idk how to find which one)

To me you seem like a more INNOVATIVE and EXPANSIVE thinker but it could also be the case that we are both very much that and you're just EVEN better at systematic analysis (and vice versa). That is, if you agree with the parts about you in the first place.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=4933024&forum_id=2...id.#49876369)

I was just quoting the Film 'Chasing Amy'

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=4933024&forum_id=2...id.#49876426)

I mean like creative thinking in general not really socially. That includes your creativity as a POASTER which is a LITTLE social but not as tied to like Fe imo.

I'm annoyingly expressive irl imo, HATP can chime in on that one BUT DO NOT RELAY ANY ANECDOTES just general evaluation

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=4933024&forum_id=2...id.#49876419)

(Fit: 🟩🟩🟩🟩🟩⬜⬜ 93)

ENTP

(Fit: 🟩🟩🟩🟩⬜⬜⬜ 80)

INFJ

(Fit: 🟩🟩🟩🟩⬜⬜⬜ 77)

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=4933024&forum_id=2...id.#49876370)

INTP: 93

ENTP: 80

INFJ: 77

Cognitive functions:

Te: 6

Ti: 16

Fe: 6

Fi: 4

Se: 4

Si: 6

Ne: 10

Ni: 12

Traditional "letter" dimensions:

E: 0

I: 2

T: 0

F: 2

N: 2

S: 0

P: 2

J: 0

Type families:

Traditionalist (SJ): 0

Experiencer (SP): 0

Idealist (NF): 0

Conceptualizer (NT): 2

Weaknesses (highest scores are potentially your fourth function):

Te: 0

Ti: 2

Fe: 0

Fi: 0

Se: 0

Si: 0

Ne: 0

Ni: 0

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=4933024&forum_id=2...id.#49876374)

See You Space Cowboy...

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=4933024&forum_id=2...id.#49876432)

This is a much cleaner confirmation than Sakinorva.

The Michael Caloz result says your core structure is:

Ti 16 > Ne 14 > Fi 8 = Ni 8 > Te 6 > Se 4 > Fe 2 = Si 2

That is an extremely classic INTP core, but with the same unusual secondary pattern we saw before: unusually elevated intuition and internal-value processing, with very weak Fe and Si.

The important part is that the top three type scores are:

INTP 103

ENTP 94

INTJ 79

So INTP wins, but ENTP is close. That means the test sees you as decisively in the NT conceptualizer family, with the main ambiguity being introverted vs. extraverted expression of the same Ti–Ne machinery. INTJ being third is also consistent with your elevated Ni, but Te is too low for a clean INTJ profile.

Compared with your Sakinorva result, this is the cross-test invariant:

Ti high

Ne very high

Fe very low

Si very low

Ni elevated enough to matter

Fi elevated enough to complicate the “pure detached INTP” stereotype

So the previous interpretation holds. Sakinorva may have exaggerated the absolute spread, but it did not invent the structure.

The most diagnostic numbers here are:

Ti 16 and Ne 14

That is basically the INTP engine: internal logical modeling plus possibility generation. Your cognition appears to work by building internally coherent models, stress-testing concepts, generating alternatives, and asking whether a representation actually compresses the phenomenon.

Then:

Fe 2 and Si 2

That is the unusually weak stabilizing/socializing side. Fe would normally be the inferior function for INTP, so low Fe is not surprising, but 2 is still very low. Si being equally low means the “comfort with precedent, routine, conventional memory, and settled procedural reality” channel is also weak. That matches the earlier profile: strong abstraction, weak ordinary anchoring.

The Fi 8 is important again. It means you are not “low feeling” in general. You are low in externalized/social-affective calibration, not necessarily low in personal conviction, salience, or internal value pressure. That helps explain why you can be extremely analytic but also become intensely bothered when something feels conceptually or morally false. The emotional charge is not necessarily socially mediated; it is more like internal violation-detection.

The traditional letter scores are almost comically clean:

I 2 / E 0

T 2 / F 0

N 2 / S 0

P 2 / J 0

That says the four-letter MBTI output is not ambiguous here: INTP. The ambiguity only appears inside the function structure, because your Ne is almost as high as Ti, and your Ni/Fi are nontrivial.

The “weaknesses” section showing only Se: 2 is also interesting. In that test’s framing, the fourth/inferior-function signal may be sensory immediacy rather than Fe. I would not overinterpret that, but it does fit the broader picture: concrete present-moment sensory immersion is not where the system naturally lives.

So I would update the readout like this:

You are not just “maybe INTP.” You are very probably INTP, with a strong ENTP-adjacent Ne profile and unusually high abstract-theoretical intensity. The unusual part is not the type label. The unusual part is the combination of very strong Ti–Ne, elevated Ni/Fi, and very weak Fe/Si.

The cleanest compression is:

INTP core, ENTP-adjacent ideation, INTJ-adjacent abstraction depth, weak social/procedural anchoring.

In practical terms, your strongest mode is likely: “generate a deep structural model, check it for internal coherence, compare it against many possible alternatives, then resist social or institutional pressure unless the model earns compression.”

Your main failure mode is also visible: you can overrun the mundane stabilizers. The remedy is not to become less intuitive or less theoretical. It is to deliberately externalize the missing stabilizers: logs, calibration protocols, empirical checkpoints, reproducible tests, and explicit failure criteria.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=4933024&forum_id=2...id.#49876272)