hi! could you tell me about how you would distinct an intp from an istp? literature about ti tends to focus really heavily on how it works with ne. anyways, the more of a rant the better, i follow you from pdb and absolutely love your perspective!
sorry this took so long to answer, i’ve been trying to perfect it. for the future if you want to send me any typology asks do it at @functionaxes
first off i think it would be helpful in clarify how we can think about Ti by itself first and then getting into detail about the perceiving functions and differentiating the types.
Ne/Si and Se/Ni are the two axes of perceiving. and Fe/Ti and Te/Fi are the two axes of judging.
the aim of perceiving functions are to synthesize data without discriminating between that data. it doesn’t designate distinct barriers between things, it just experiences. judging, however, is the conceptual splitting of things from another with the aim of organizing information into definitive concepts (and for the F functions, additional criteria for judging that pays mind to sentiment).
from Function Axes in Jungian Typology:
By perception, we mean any psychic process in which the intentionality and end product is experience. Jung refers to experience as “irrational,” by which he means that raw experience, if taken by itself, is incoherent and dynamic.
By judgement, we mean any psychic process in which the intentionality and end product is a proposition. Jung refers to judgments as “rational,” by which he means that formal propositions, if taken by themselves, can be coherent and stand apart from reality even as the experiential elements the propositions pertain to have changed.
Ti, like Fi, is an introverted judging function (Ji) which means it tries to be self-aligned by differentiating the qualities of a single subject and evaluating something for its inherent/static qualities. it evaluates how a thing compares to itself rather than how it compares to other things in a causal way like Fe and Te do (Je). basically what something “is” is not classified by its applicable function or its causality, but instead its essence; what something “is” to Ji is everything that‘s left once other things that are not “it” have been omitted. Ji can judge the qualities of objects, concepts, or even one’s self as something to keep in alignment with.
as for what Ti is exactly, it’s helpful to contrast it to Fi.
Fi defines singulars in a way that is contingent on matter (as evidenced by how finely-diced and unique Fi users’ values are about things since no two things are exactly alike when it comes to matter), i assume that would make it more specific and nuanced about the essence of things and thus more particular about their values. matter is also what Te bases its criteria for judgement upon: as Aristotle put it, “it would be absurd to try to prove ... what is obvious by what is not” so it makes sense that this extends to Fi as well.
Ti just kinda sees matter as useless when it comes to defining things by essence. Ti is super ontological and defines stuff using categorization that floats “above” matter, therefore individual differences by virtue of matter are kinda negligible (and that's where Fe comes from: making external decisions on the assumption that we’re all similar but like in a meta way).
you can think of Ti classification as sort of like... taxonomy? at least that's how i experience it. which is why Ti is more general and broad about its definitions since it does so from different levels of magnification depending on scope, with more specific (small) categories and more general (larger) categories.
“we are all homo sapiens” is an inherent justification for how we are more similar than we let on, whereas Fi would be more inclined to think “yes but every homo sapien is unique” since the judgement is contingent on matter. also note that i mean “unique” here in a neutral way—Fi users see each thing as having qualities that are inherent and unique to each of those things, regardless of what the Fi user’s personal sentiment towards each of them is.
which means we can say that Fi is more inclined to look at differences and Ti is more inclined to look at similarities. Ti really only tends to look at differences when it comes to justifying why groups are split a certain way, but not everything is seen as unique to Ti like with Fi. pretty much everything is seen as similar in some ontological, semantic, or categorical way that transcends matter alone.
to see what Ti looks like in comparison to Je functions let’s take the singular “chair” for example. Ti conceptualizes stuff according to ideal ontological properties. so “what constitutes as a chair at the bare minimum” is a Ti sort of question.
to me, the static self-aligned components that make a chair are: “if it makes sitting upright at some level above the floor possible, it is a chair.” my ISTP friend says “glasses are chairs if you think about it.”
i mean it wouldn’t be comfortable and could hardly be considered much of a change from sitting on the floor (which is my auxiliary Fe function talking), but technically they’re right if we are aligning with what that essential definition of a chair is (which is my tertiary Ti function talking).
and the contents of everyone’s Ji is going to be different, how things are self-aligned is going to differ from person to person, unlike with Je where we could all agree “glasses as a chair” goes against common sense because it’s impractical (hence what i mean by Je’s judgements being causally-derived), even if it “technically” fits Ji’s subjective proposition.
basically, perception is this:
judgement discriminates between them based on categories and properties that don’t require you to actually experience perceiving them and can stand apart from reality. you can read the following without having to have ever seen these shapes:
A square is a closed figure with four straight sides of equal lengths and four right angles.
A rectangle is a closed figure with four straight sides and four right angles.
Therefore, a square is a type of rectangle, but not every rectangle is a square.
Cool. tell me about ISTPs
so basically ISTPs are going to explore these judgements with Se.
Se is a little weird because it “grounds” Ti a bit based on what is directly observed in reality. ISTPs experience reality viscerally, but their comprehension of it will be semantic in nature rather than nomological (the way Te would).
see, Te creates judgements based on how something can yield practical results. Te could care less about why something works, it just focuses on it working (and if seeking to know why/how something works, usually does it ultimately for practical results, such as in learning coding for example. the goal is to make a functional application, not to learn a coding language and aimlessly play with it like a sandbox just for the sake of it. i’m not saying Te users can’t do this but they very likely have some developed Fi for the intrinsic motivation of it if they’re gonna be doing that.)
Ti seeks to fully know the reason why something works, exceptions to rules, and seeks alignment with their “truth” no matter how impractical it may be. so like INTPs, ISTPs aren’t really doing stuff with reaping extrinsic rewards or results in mind, but more so for the sake of intrinsic motivation, self-alignment, and exploration like other IxxPs.
Ne/Si (INTP) vs. Se/Ni (ISTP)
because Ti’s judgements “hover above” reality, it’s often more conflated with Ne than Se because Ne’s short-term associations also hover above reality.
check out this at-a-glance comparison of Se/Ni vs. Ne/Si here, and you can read my essay i wrote for school in which i elaborate on the technical difference between Se/Ni and Ne/Si (with the primary focus being on defining Se/Ni), but basically:
after a stimulus is detected,
Ne quickly moves on from direct observation, as the user's observations are turned into mental facsimiles and associations that are indirect, recalling past details in seeing how they might relate to the present or considering new perspectives adjacent to what is concretely in front of them.
Se locks in and directly enhances the present properties, deriving inspiration from, and about, the immediate objects and factors themselves. Se is just a double layer of acute observation that is more “extreme” than the average person, where the focus lingers directly on, and about, a present, concrete factor.
this makes ISTPs generally more pragmatic than INTPs, (though not necessarily practical), more visceral, gritty, and hands-on.
i think one of the best ways to tell the difference is that INTP is pretty much always gonna be more of a “cloudcuckoolander” due to Ne/Si.
ISTPs are cautious with extrapolations; they don’t make disparate superficial connections willy-nilly due to Ni, as insights have to come from some basis in raw observed reality to begin with over time, but they are proactive with exploring concrete objects in their entirety.
INTPs are cautious about concrete experiences; they are generally more inclined not to take new experiences at face value due to Si, but are proactive with exploring new connections and fiddling with ideas. they will generally explore something from at a bunch of different angles, all but directly.
ISTPs, like INTPs, can also very philosophical due to Ti. what comes to mind is Bruce Lee’s “be like water” speech, or the entire existence of Skips on the regular show. with more developed Fe you can really see how they fit with the rest of type family B (ENFJ, INFJ, ESTP) but a bit different, more withdrawn in their judgements than the others but more grounded in the experiences of the present.
ISTPs aren’t always all business, nor are they all sporty. bob belcher is a good example of what a typical ISTP looks like irl.
they can be just as eccentric as INTPs (x), but because Se is more “objective” than Ne (by which i mean that everyone else can see something exactly as the Se user is seeing it; Ne is more subjective since not everyone is going to see the short-term connections as they do) it mutes that eccentricity in that they’re not all over the place. but their quirks are very much there (x) and it’s very charming when you see it.
i really don’t like that ISTPs are perceived as “less friendly” INTPs. they may seem to come off as more blunt or cold but that is because they are not inclined to humor short-term possibilities like INTPs by virtue of already perceiving that such a possibility wouldn’t work out. this is because an underlying narrative was synthesized and excavated from prior direct experiences and they can apply it to all similar narratives that would play out in a similar way, regardless of specific details. but their judging function placements and roles are exactly the same.
i am an INFJ and i have experience with Ni + Ti, i just use them in a different from way from ISTP. (my Ti judgement is contingent on my Ni perception, my Ti is very much tertiary and I ultimately use it make sense of and rationalize my perceptions rather than leading with it.)
so when having both it’s kinda hard to determine which is which when i’m using them, but as i said, Ni is a perceiving function and it doesn’t differentiate one thing from another. Ni excavates the existence of universal narratives that run beneath a body of unrelated experiences, and disregards the specific details of those experiences in favor of emphasizing the similar narratives between them. what comes out of me verbally or in text is a best approximate articulation of that vision which has been filtered through Fe and Ti to make sense of it, unfortunately bound to the confines of language. that’s why i use examples and metaphors a lot and why my posts get so long lol because i want you to be able to have the same insight as i do, i want you to be on the same page as me experientially seeing the same narratives in the way i do. Fe/Ti and Se (when i show you examples) is my means of doing that. my analogies are very general because having Se in the stack emphasizes the need for shared, universal experiences. for example, water... everyone has seen water. everyone knows the properties of water, how it moves and how it interacts with things. people’s experience with water is universal, which is the perfect subject for an analogy. that’s where ISTP bruce lee got his “be like water” speech from.
the presence of Ti/Fe only adds to that, which makes the Se/Ni + Ti/Fe combo (type group B) the most holistic, universal, and objective in that they see their experiences and values as being applicable to everyone and everything else as well. that’s why the types in this group tend to have that sort of a "guru" vibe regardless of whether they actually are spiritual or not. the similar thing about every type in this group is that they tend to be inclned to pass on knowledge or wisdom in some form because they are confident about universal application and value. of course people of every type like to help people, not just this group. but the types in the Se/Ni + Fe/Ti family (ESTP, INFJ, ENFJ, ISTP) just have a similar “guiding” thing they do, i can’t really explain but i hope you see what i mean.
but Ni and Ti are actually really similar, just in different ways. they are simultaneously vague and general while the subject they're both differentiating and perceiving feels pinpointed and clear. Ti and Ni are both really general in terms of their content, but specific about that generality.
but articulating that is like Shit Fuck which probably explains why ISTPs often don't bother to tell anyone much (not a necessary aspect of them though) and are generally seen as more “quiet” and “mysterious” than their Ne/Si counterparts. i cant blame them, it’s often really hard to put into words. Ti is meta as fuck with its ontological categories so its hard to communicate it to others, and Ni is meta in its perception of reality (where a present situation/object is perceived as being merely an example of or representative of a greater narrative). inferior Fe further disincentives wanting to explain it to anyone and tertiary Ni sees it as being pointless before you even consider it.
attributing INTP aspects to descriptions of dominant Ti (and thus also to ISTPs) has been addressed here where it pretty much covers what you asked for, but i wanted to go all out so you gain a more well-rounded perspective.
(btw not all INTPs are as talkative and fruity as rusty just letting you know. but the group A types (Ne/Si + Fe/Ti) tend to have this scattered cloudcuckoolander wine mom energy INTPs included. here’s some other examples of an INTP and ISTP together too to compare.)
