what were most common types

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5766000&forum_id=2),#49210764)

Those of us that took it were mostly just curious as it was actually a pretty fun retreat for the first time in our life. We actually got a couple days off during this week if we attended (it wasn't mandatory).,

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5766000&forum_id=2),#49210846)

if you were an INTJ you'd be capable of understanding this but you're not (everyone other than INTJs are dumb)

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5766000&forum_id=2),#49210988)

An INTJ's second function is Extraverted Thinking. Here's an AI slop summary for you

Why INTJs can look conformist (even when they don’t think they are)

INTJs use something called Extraverted Thinking (Te). You don’t need to know the technical details, but the gist is this: Te relies on external systems of logic—things that have already been validated by society, institutions, or the “group consensus.” That doesn’t mean INTJs aren’t independent thinkers, but when it comes to making decisions, they’ll often lean on what’s already proven, efficient, or prestigious in the outside world.

That’s why, despite being curious and innovative in many areas, INTJs can end up following the group’s definition of what counts as “the smart path,” “the successful option,” or “the prestigious achievement.” From the outside, this can look like a kind of conformity—aligning with established standards instead of questioning them.

⸻

How ENTPs/INTPs contrast

ENTPs and INTPs, on the other hand, rely on Introverted Thinking (Ti). Ti is more of an internal filter of logic: it asks, “Does this idea make sense on its own terms? Does it actually hold up, regardless of what the group says?” That internal filter often catches flaws in the group’s reasoning or exposes when something is mostly hype or tradition rather than solid truth.

So while an INTJ might be inclined to go along with what looks efficient, widely respected, or institutionally sound, an ENTP/INTP is more likely to poke holes in it and say, “Wait, that doesn’t actually add up.”

⸻

Put simply:

• INTJs (Te) → tend to follow the logic of the outside world (systems, institutions, prestige markers).

• ENTPs/INTPs (Ti) → tend to check things against their own inner logic, even if it contradicts the outside world.

That’s why INTJs can look more conformist, even though they see themselves as visionaries—and why ENTPs often look like contrarians, even when they’re actually just applying their own internal BS filter.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5766000&forum_id=2),#49211032)

If you contrast INTJs with INTPs, the difference shows up pretty clearly. INTPs, who run on Introverted Thinking (Ti), are the “absent-minded genius” archetype: head in the clouds, lost in abstractions, caring mainly about knowledge for its own sake. They’re notoriously un-materialistic. They don’t care what’s fashionable or prestigious, and often don’t even notice when they’re “out of sync” with what society values. It’s not stubbornness—it’s just that their internal filter is only tuned to logical consistency, not to social validation.

By contrast, INTJs—despite their reputation as lone wolves—often reveal a streak of material or aesthetic concern that lines up with the group’s idea of status. You see them pay close attention to style, cultivating a certain image, or being drawn to prestige markers that are recognized by the outside world. Think of stories like Sam Altman, an archetypal INTJ, spending over a million dollars on a single car. It’s not random extravagance—it’s an example of Te plugging into what’s “established” as desirable or impressive.

That’s really the core distinction:

• INTPs (Ti) → don’t care if something is socially impressive; they care if it makes sense internally. They’ll happily disregard the Joneses altogether.

• INTJs (Te) → even when they’re original thinkers, they filter their decisions through external logic systems: what’s efficient, prestigious, or validated in the world. That can translate into conforming to material or aesthetic standards, even if they’d never describe themselves as “conformist.”

So when you notice INTJs caring about looking sharp, driving a certain car, or aligning with prestigious institutions, it’s not hypocrisy. It’s Te in action—using group logic as a benchmark for what matters, in a way Ti users simply wouldn’t.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5766000&forum_id=2),#49211040)

status is useful as a means to an end, as is conventional wisdom, contextual expert consensus, etc. INTJs are always thinking about ends, not means. they're extremely goal-oriented and forward-thinking. i'm not sure if INTPs ever think about ends much at all

in general, people who are on opposite sides of this dichotomy have a lot of trouble understanding each other

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5766000&forum_id=2),#49211104)

And that is exactly what I am criticizing here. The INTJ approach, as you just described it yourself, is about using whatever narrative or status structure works in the moment, regardless of truth or integrity. The ends benefit you personally (sometimes, INTPs and ENTPs see through it, are always infuriated by it and will draw attention given the opportunity) but they undermine trust and create damage for society as a whole.

It sounds like you do not have a concern about this, and in fact you are agreeing with me on the core point.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5766000&forum_id=2),#49211133)

you are correct that ends-people do not care about consistency. when i say that INTJs think you are "dumb," i don't mean that we actually think that you are low IQ. we think less of you because of how we are oriented compared to you. ends are obviously the only thing that matters in the world. they're what provide the human condition with meaning. caring about means and "consistency" and "truth" is just goofy and silly and weird. we see you as naive and un-serious, or like a computer program or something

you think that ends-people are dishonest only because you do not understand us (and because you do not understand yourself). caring about ends is the only "honest" thing there is. it is not "honest" to care about "truth" or "consistency" because you too have ends that you care about, you just aren't consciously aware of them, and inevitably they will conflict with "truth" and "consistency" - and then you will be just as "dishonest" as we are, but in a clueless, haphazard way, which generally harms yourself and others

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5766000&forum_id=2),#49211183)

this is why the absent-minded professor archetype usually gets attached to ti users. they’re not chasing wealth, power, or prestige. they’re chasing truth for its own sake. and that search isn’t selfish. it’s actually the opposite, because in the process of pursuing what is objectively true, you end up thinking about what is good for society as a whole.

intjs, on the other hand, are just not wired to do this. you don’t have extraverted feeling, which is the function that tunes a person into the emotions and needs of the community. instead, in its place you have introverted feeling, which means your values are based on what feels right to you personally. that’s why you can say “truth is whatever i make it out to be” and why you’re willing to discard consistency and honesty in service of an end you personally find worthwhile. from your point of view it feels authentic. from the outside it looks selfish and opportunistic.

the problem is this approach does not work at scale. humans are social creatures who need empathy, trust, and consistency to cooperate and thrive. when leaders operate purely on ends they define for themselves, it collapses into dysfunction or worse. honestly, an intj leader would probably be a disaster for the people beneath them, because their self-defined ends will never align with the flourishing of those around them. history is full of examples of leaders who rationalized their way into ruin because they cared only about their own vision of the end.

so no, it’s wrong to say intps and entps are the same kind of “dishonest.” we’re oriented toward objectivity and truth. it might look naive from your perspective, but it’s actually more honest and sustainable. you admit that consistency and truth don’t matter. we put them at the center. and in practice, that’s what prevents our ends from becoming destructive rationalizations.

different blind spots. you don’t understand the ti fixation on truth and consistency, just like we don’t always understand te’s obsession with external systems. but one side is actually seeking truth and human flourishing, while the other is willing to sacrifice those things for personal ends. that’s why i think your approach can’t work at scale, and why the ti approach, while less prestigious,ultimately has more integrity.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5766000&forum_id=2),#49211210)

if truth does not matter, then every end just becomes whatever someone with enough power decides it to be. you are not pursuing the good of humanity, you are just rationalizing your preferences. it might feel efficient in the short term, but it destroys cooperation, trust, and our ability to live well together.

so imagine living under an intj ruler, ruthlessly pursuing his own ends. i bet even you would admit that is not something you would actually want to live under. you would rather live under leadership committed to objective truth and aligning society with it, because that kind of leadership provides predictability, trust, and a framework where good ideas can survive across generations. intjs would still have the chance to flourish and contribute their insights, just as they always have disproportionately. and since you yourself said conformity is only a means to an end, why would you not prefer to conform to a system grounded in objective truth rather than one based on convenience or ideology? for example, if Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez were in power and it meant advancing your goals, i know you would pretend to follow her platform in order to get ahead. but ultimately, wouldn’t you prefer to live under and align yourself with a philosophy that is actually committed to truth?

And your ideas of the truth aren't particularly interesting, shared by retards like NP CEO Katherine Maher, very likely an ENTJ, who in her TED Talk clip that was making the rounds a little bit ago said that “our reverence for the truth might have become a bit of a distraction… preventing us from finding consensus and getting things done.” https://youtu.be/V2LTTy1p4k8

what she is really saying is that inconvenient facts should be ignored if they get in the way of a preferred narrative. that is exactly the danger. once you throw out objective truth, you are left with political convenience.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5766000&forum_id=2),#49211280)

society is ***NOT*** "built on objective truth." absolutely NOT. it's built on a shared end: the common good of the members of the society. you used the phrase "the good of humanity" yourself. this is an end. this is what you, and everyone else, are *actually* concerned with. not "objective truth"

your brain tells you that you are special, and believe in "objective truth" as the highest end good, because it makes you feel virtuous and noble to believe that you are better than others because you are concerned with objective truth, while they are concerned with "selfish" ends, like....the common good, or their own personal well-being

the Honest and virtuous way to live life is to concretely and explicitly define your ends, and align yourself and team up with others who share your same ends, so that you're all working together. that's how healthy individuals, communities, and societies function

you are female, correct?

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5766000&forum_id=2),#49211295)

There are a lot of examples I’ve thought of and forgotten, but here’s one that comes to mind in the Soviet Union under Stalin. They embraced the ideas of Lysenko, who rejected genetics because it contradicted Marxist egalitarian ideals. Instead of Mendelian inheritance, Lysenko believed that organisms could permanently acquire traits through environmental exposure. For example, he claimed that if you exposed seeds to cold, they would “learn” to withstand cold, and that hardiness would be passed on to future generations.

This lined up perfectly with the Soviet political view that biology itself was egalitarian, that just as society could reshape people, the environment could reshape plants and animals without limits, and those changes would be inherited. It sounded appealing because it promised a biology of perfectibility, matching their political ideology. But obviously it wasn’t true. Forced onto Soviet agriculture, it led to crop failures, famine, and the imprisonment of scientists who insisted on objective genetic truths. And persecution of those telling the objectively-verifiable truth is one of the worst injustices I can I think of.

That’s why objective truth has to be the anchor. You can’t build a flourishing society on illusions, no matter how noble they sound. Reality always asserts itself.

And as for your claim that my belief in objective truth is just my “brain making me feel noble” - I think you’re projecting based on the way INTJs see the world. You obviously tend to think of yourselves as special, that your vision and your truth is the only one that matters. I don’t see it that way at all. I don’t think I’m special. I think I’m meaningless in the grand scheme of things. My sense of purpose in seeking objective truth feels like happenstance, almost an accident of personality type. Roughly 20% of people are TP types, and to varying degrees we’re wired this way. I don’t think that makes us inherently noble or elevated, just that our role is to add to the discourse and to serve as a natural check and balance against the INTJs and other TJs.

And no I'm not a woman lol when has a woman ever argued in favor of truth over what's popularly considered polite or proper?

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5766000&forum_id=2),#49211356)

This matters because people try to appeal to “objective truth” for their own or their groups own selfish ends, over the shared common good of society (a collection of human individuals). Schmitt talks about this. An example of this is mass immigration. All of the stated rationales for mass immigration are appeals to “objective truth,” at the expense of the body politic of western society. Once you understand this dynamic, you see it everywhere

I called you a woman because there aren’t many males who reach middle age and still (purport to) believe what you believe. Most men with life experience, especially after they have children of their own, grow out of it and come to understand the world in the way that I describe

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5766000&forum_id=2),#49211377)

on immigration, i think i see your point - you’re saying that proponents dress it up as “objective truth,” for example by pointing to GDP growth or other economic stats, while ignoring the social costs. and you’re saying that puts it in conflict with the shared good of western society. but iif immigration undermines western values, and those values produce objectively measurable positives (stability, cohesion, prosperity, freedom, etc.), then there is an objective case against immigration. in other words, you don’t need to abandon truth to argue your position. you can just as well frame it in terms of what preserves or undermines those positive outcomes.

so the problem isn’t that appeals to truth are inherently dishonest. the problem is selective use of truth. one side points to certain numbers and ignores the social costs, while the other side can point to the erosion of stability and cohesion. both are measurable, and the real debate is about weighing those truths. if you throw out the idea of objective truth altogether, then you have no ground to argue one way or another. you’re just left with power blocs and preferences.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5766000&forum_id=2),#49211416)

This is your society on “objective truth”

A society that self-consciously shares a common good - the interests of the human beings that comprise it - is not vulnerable to this sort of thing

That’s the difference

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5766000&forum_id=2),#49211427)

Cohesion, cultural compatibility, and preservation of the American character are not subjective feelings. They’re objectively quantifiable characteristics. You can look at the historical success of the United States compared to China, or trace the specific aspects of Western history and philosophical thought, iindividual liberty, rule of law, checks on authority, that have created conditions for prosperity here in ways that are different from Eastern traditions. Those differences have measurable outcomes, and they’re not irrelevant when talking about bringing in massive groups of people all at once.

You seem to be taking for granted that these kinds of factors can’t be turned into an argument rooted in objective truth. But I believe they can. There are evidence-based arguments that mass immigration from societies with fundamentally different philosophical underpinnings does risk diluting what has made America successful.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5766000&forum_id=2),#49211496)

We can see it clearly with Benzo (stated multiple times he's INTJ). His rap sheet shows stealing money, assaulting family members, and other behavior that has nothing to do with empathy or progressive values. Yet on this board he is one of the most outspoken progressive voices. He does not live by those values in his personal life, but he still wants to be associated with the "prestigious" side, because that is where INTJs want to be seen.

You can see the same pattern with Destiny. He is publicly aligned with progressive causes, but look at his actions. After the Trump assassination attempt, he goes on Piers Morgan and says Trump and his supporters “reap what they sow” and that he was there “to watch the harvest.” That is not empathy. On top of that, he is now caught in a scandal over sexual messages with an underage girl, and other accusations about recording and sharing sexual content without consent. None of this behavior is consistent with the progressive values of empathy and inclusion that he claims to represent.

This is what I mean. INTJs often attach themselves to the prestigious side (because of their stratospheric opinions of themselves) and signal that alignment, but the values themselves are not always internally held. ENTPs and INTPs could never do this. Ti forces a consistency check, so if there is hypocrisy it creates friction internally. That makes Ti users more intellectually honest in practice.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5766000&forum_id=2),#49211115)