>>206That's MBTI and has little to do with Jung's own theory which is rather crude and was just used as an early attempt to find the right categories of personality analysis, but anyway.
I see no point in connecting what you've said with INTP and all kinds of personality types can do whatever they want, they just do these things in different manners, and this "manner" is something hard to really give any definite description.
It is absolutely incomprehensible that someone can type him as INTP. It never even occured to me. A person's first function is NOT what characterizes the external appearnace of a person. Often the most obvious trait that someone exhibits, especially when this person is an introvert, or when they write, is their third function.
For example many so-called mystics of the perennial school are actually people possessing Ni as their third. There are many ISFPs in the perennial school, and many so-called artists with mystical leaning - especially those attracted by theosophy - are plainly Ni-tert. These people often think they are very Ni-driven but they very often cannot distinguish between what is truly archetypal and what is a mimic, though they refuse to admit the fact. A plethora of people obsessed with theosophy and "mystical" teachings, who cannot make the distinction between Schelling and arbitrary third-rate theosophy, are Ni-tert.
Many outwardly "logical" person do not operate "logically" in their own person. Schelling doesn't, Wittgenstein doesn't. Their intuition precedes their thought, but the way they express and try to come to term with their intuition is "logical". These two should both be Ti-tert. Schelling was logical but his writings are not clear and he doesn't want to be clear since it is in the dynamism and the complex net of thoughts that his vision emerges. His work is not an exhibition of clear thought but more of his insights, and what made him a logical philosophe is the way he honed his thoughts, and how his insights are organized into a powerful contrapuntal complex. There is also a tendency in people that regards Deleuze as Ti-dom which is absolutely nonsense.
Ti-dom are very different, they often do not have a "philosophical temperament"; you rarely see a philosopher that is Ti-dom but who also has a magnificent temperament, if there is any. Maybe Thomas Aquinas was a Ti-dom since he unlike, say, Schelling, never really possesses a semi-conclusion before he deduces, and the way he writes, the overall restraint he exhibits in his writing and his thought is quite obviously Si-tert. But the best example of Si-tert is plainly Peirce. Also Ti-dom tend to write clearly and their arguments are crisp, fast. Best examples, Graham Priest, who I think is an ISTP and this is as obvious as possible, and Leibniz, whose arguments are often no more than a paragraph long. Ti do not tend to make anythings "deep", it makes things precise and "systematic" (not in the sense of stream-lining but in the sense of preserving consistency; put it simply whenever I use the term "in the sense of" and "not in the sense of" I'm arguably in Ti-mode).
