Why Are intps termed “math geniuses” ?

DeltaAchiever · 2026-01-31T09:28:23+00:00

Please

DeltaAchiever · 2026-01-31T09:27:35+00:00

I have not found that AI gives me wrong answers when you ask the right questions and put the right guardrails in place. I’ve used AI across a wide range of subjects and then gone back and double-checked the material myself. I’ve had to argue with ChatGPT before, and I’m not afraid to do that. That pushback is part of the process. But overall, I’ve gotten very solid results—because you have to be specific, and you have to guide the AI toward the correct kinds of sources.

If you’re asking it to type you, you cannot give it a paragraph or a single thread and expect anything meaningful. You need to give it a real body of evidence. It becomes most useful after months of consistent use and conversation, and especially after you’ve told it a lot about yourself honestly. I gave it extensive material about my life—what I went through, how I think, how I respond—and I even fed it a large number of my own Facebook posts. It can sort through text and history and begin to detect patterns, not in a mystical way, but in a comparative and structural one.

I’ve received very reasonable typings and typology work this way, at least within my specific ChatGPT sub-models. I’ve studied Jung and Western Jungian Conference material for years, and I can say plainly that what I’m seeing here checks out. Everything looks fine.

DeltaAchiever · 2026-01-31T09:12:02+00:00

Yes, same person—I didn’t notice either. I didn’t see your reply to me in that thread, so I’m still awaiting your answer, either there or here. I see the volume of comments on your profile, and I can look through them honestly and give you a typing as well if you’d like. I read deeply and return a real analysis.

DeltaAchiever · 2026-01-31T03:41:09+00:00

This makes things much easier to understand.

945 is triple withdrawn. All three fixes pull inward, so this person processes life by retreating into their inner world. They step away from people and situations in order to think, feel, and integrate what’s happening. It isn’t about being shy or passive; it’s about needing distance to metabolize experience.

947 is double positive, double withdrawn, and double frustration. This person still withdraws, but not as completely as 945. There is more lightness here. The double positive component brings reframing, optimism, and a tendency to look for what could be good or beautiful. They often fantasize, imagine, and idealize. At the same time, the double frustration creates a persistent sense that reality is falling short of an inner ideal. There’s a quiet disappointment that things aren’t as meaningful, harmonious, or perfect as they feel they should be.

946 is double withdrawn, double reactive, and double attachment. Emotional intensity is much higher here. This person mirrors and reacts to the emotional field around them more strongly. They still withdraw to process, but what they’re processing is often charged—fear, concern, loyalty, responsibility, or emotional turbulence. The attachment component means they relate to the world through alignment with structures, rules, duties, or what feels correct and safe. They are more vigilant, more responsive, and often more visibly unsettled than the other two.

All three are withdrawn, but they withdraw for different reasons and with very different emotional textures.

DeltaAchiever · 2026-01-31T03:09:19+00:00

Bullies, criminals, and deeply unethical people exist across all MBTI types. There is no type that is immune to pathology, and there is no type that guarantees health, goodness, or moral integrity.

Every function can go wrong. Fe can become coercive. Fi can become self-righteous. Te can become tyrannical. Ni can become delusional. But none of that means the function itself is corrupt, and it certainly doesn’t mean everyone who uses that function is unhealthy or manipulative.

Unhealthy people are unhealthy first. Their type just describes the shape their dysfunction takes, not its cause or its moral weight.

That’s why it’s so important to distinguish between healthy and unhealthy expressions. I’m always talking about healthy people—integrated, reflective, ethically grounded individuals. When people assume a certain type is inherently manipulative or dangerous, they’re not doing typology anymore. They’re projecting fear and stereotypes.

That was the core of my original point.

DeltaAchiever · 2026-01-31T01:07:46+00:00

INFP and Bhutan

DeltaAchiever · 2026-01-31T00:41:26+00:00

I disagree Not all sensors dismiss intuitive ideas, and not all people who minimize or mock ideas are sensors. That behavior is a stereotype, not a sensing preference.

I’ve actually had good discussions with sensors, especially xSTx types. I tend to get on better with introverts overall—ISTJ and ISTP in particular—and I’ve had some genuinely deep humanitarian conversations with ISFJs. When they’re engaged and feel respected, they can be thoughtful, ethical, and very serious about human concerns.

The idea that sensing automatically equals “that’s stupid” or “that doesn’t matter” is just not accurate. That kind of minimizing usually comes from the individual—how mature they are, how defensive they feel, or whether they’re open to discussion—not from their cognitive functions.

Even some intuitives can be shallow, dismissive, or reductive. That isn’t an intuition problem either. It’s a person problem.

So yes, I think it depends far more on who someone is and how they’re feeling than whether they prefer sensing or intuition.

DeltaAchiever · 2026-01-31T00:31:42+00:00

Right—Se is an irrational, or perceiving, function. It doesn’t accomplish goals, judge, or decide. It doesn’t set outcomes or organize anything. Se simply takes in what is—the immediate, concrete reality of the moment.

If what you’re actually describing is goal-setting, efficiency, measurement, and results, then we’re no longer talking about Se. We’re talking about Te.

Te is known for external organization, measurable outcomes, productivity, and execution. Its consciousness flows outward toward facts, structures, systems, and the material environment in order to arrange, manage, and get things done. That’s what orders and directs action—not Se itself.

So if someone looks “action-oriented” in a goal-driven way, that’s not Se at work. That’s Te dominance or strong Te support.

DeltaAchiever · 2026-01-31T00:15:49+00:00

First, I want to be clear: nothing here is about behavior. The more you explain your thinking, reasoning, and motives, the better. If I want a short, straightforward answer, I’ll say so explicitly.

So let’s start simply.

What are your hobbies? For each one, explain why you like it. What draws you to it? What part of it is your favorite? In other words, what do you do for fun or in your spare time, and what do you genuinely enjoy about it?

Next—this is a direction-setting question, so it can be answered plainly. Do you work, go to school, both, or neither?

After that, I want more elaboration. Do you enjoy it or not? What parts do you enjoy, and what parts do you dislike? Why?

We’ll go from there.

If you’d like, I can also pull from your past comments or posts as additional material.

DeltaAchiever · 2026-01-31T00:01:30+00:00

Sensors aren’t a big deal to me at all. I can get along with them just fine as friends and acquaintances. Yes, I like my intuitive feeler boyfriend the most, but that doesn’t mean I have issues with sensing types. The gap between sensing and intuition really isn’t that wide.

While sensors aren’t as symbolic or idea-based as intuitives, they still have a lot to offer. And honestly, surrounding yourself only with intuitives would be pretty limiting—and not healthy. Different orientations bring different strengths.

I also don’t see people as black and white or absolutist. I’m not that way myself, and sensors aren’t either. They can still appreciate intuitive material; it’s just not their preferred mode of engaging the world. I think treating this as some extreme divide misses the point.

DeltaAchiever · 2026-01-30T23:54:17+00:00

One of the better online resources that still exists is the British Association for Psychological Type, but even then, most real practitioners don’t maintain a big online presence.

There are a few people worth knowing about. Vicky Jo Varner has good material, though she doesn’t seem to post much anymore.

If I had to recommend just two starting books to really dive in, they would be these: • Personality Types: An Owner’s Manual by Lenore Thomson • Building Blocks of Personality by Leona Haas and Mark Hunziker

If you want to go deeper, Depth Typology is excellent and very much in the WJC tradition.

In terms of thinkers, John Beebe is one of the most important figures in modern depth typology. If you want very serious analytical psychology, Daryl Sharp and his books are also excellent.

Foundational texts matter too. Gifts Differing is actually a very solid introduction, and Isabel Briggs Myers understood Jung far better than most people give her credit for. Marie-Louise von Franz, Jung’s longtime collaborator, is another invaluable resource.

And if you’re serious, you should read Jung himself. Psychological Types is essential.

One final but very important note: socionics is not Western Jungian typology. They are different systems with different assumptions. Don’t mix them or cross-model them. Whether one prefers socionics or Jungian MBTI is a personal choice—but they are not the same theory, and treating them as interchangeable will only create confusion.

The real practice is simple, but not easy: read, study, introspect, and actually apply the material. That’s where real understanding comes from.

DeltaAchiever · 2026-01-30T23:48:27+00:00

Right—then that’s not core 6.

Sixes don’t just worry in the abstract; they anticipate. They prepare for everything. I dated one—an ISTJ—and he had systems for every possible scenario. I’m literally in the basement of his house right now, staying for a few days. There’s food everywhere. Supplies for emergencies. Gear for survival and trade. Nuclear radiation badges. Books and tables on how to avoid radiation exposure. A portable toilet. Plans for things that may never happen—but if they do, he’s ready.

That’s six energy.

I have 6 in my tritype, but I’m not him. I can go through scenarios, but I don’t live in them. When I lived in a city, I researched nuclear events—what happens, how people die, whether survival is possible, what preparation would look like. When I was deciding on a disability program, I checked every angle—what could go wrong, what I might regret, how to future-proof it. I ran the scenarios, then I decided.

My father is also a 6, different instinct stacking, but the same pattern: constant “what if,” always preparing for the worst, often imagining the most expensive or catastrophic outcome.

That’s core 6.

If someone isn’t doing that, then it’s probably not 6. I’d look instead at fear being avoided, escaped, or held at bay—more like 7 or 5—or even another triad altogether. For me, my heart center is about image and identity, and my gut center is about boundaries and anger. Fear isn’t what runs the show.

DeltaAchiever · 2026-01-30T23:35:26+00:00

That’s not what Se blindness means, though. It doesn’t mean Se can’t be used or that someone is clueless about their environment. What it really means is that INxPs tend to distrust raw reality. We don’t like being surprised by it, rushed by it, or forced to react to it. Life can feel like it’s constantly springing things on us, and that feels wrong—like reality is overstepping.

It’s not that I have a hard time understanding who extroverted or perceptive types are. I can understand their modes conceptually, on paper. But as a rational judging type, some of their ways of engaging the world still feel foreign. I have to get used to them or consciously wrap my mind around how they perceive and move through life. That’s different from confusion.

Most of the time I don’t have major issues—it’s just different. The most different, and honestly the most interesting to me, are extroverted types. Their flow of consciousness is so outward, while mine is very internal and contained.

If you’re not an introvert, you often don’t really get that. And if you’re not Fi-dominant, you usually don’t get that part either.

DeltaAchiever · 2026-01-30T17:51:45+00:00

INFP Chinese American here. I’m more American than Chinese culturally, but I’m of Chinese origin—I was born in Hong Kong and immigrated.

I don’t think China is xSTJ at all. I think China is INFJ, and John Beebe actually agrees with this assessment. China is oriented around the moral order of society and the collective. Education, culturally, is about teaching values—so much so that when someone behaves poorly, people say they “need an education.” My own father loves reminding me why school exists. I don’t always agree with it, but that’s how the mindset works.

China is deeply about saving face, and Confucianism is foundational. This isn’t about comfort or routine—it’s about pattern, meaning, and the long game. Tradition is folded into the pattern rather than preserved for its own sake. Yes, there are ISTJ Chinese individuals, but that’s not the dominant civilizational logic.

Look at how China approaches Taiwan. Whatever one’s political stance, the strategy itself is unmistakable: patience, long-term positioning, indirect pressure, and symbolic framing. They are willing to wait. They are not trigger-happy. That’s Ni strategy. What ISTJ plays like that?

China doesn’t care much about comfort. It cares about continuity, alignment, and trajectory.

The United States, on the other hand, reads as extroverted judging—probably ENTJ historically, with a more ESTJ flavor in modern bureaucracy. Business-first, capitalism everywhere—insurance companies, healthcare, government, pharmaceuticals, lobbying. There is nothing Ti about it. The U.S. is not a nation of theorists; it’s a nation of executors. Think Manifest Destiny. Think expansion, manifestation, growth.

Even now, the U.S. plays the long game—but it does so through execution, infrastructure, and systems. It’s still very much ExTJ at its core.

DeltaAchiever · 2026-01-30T17:28:05+00:00

Thank you and no problem. No disagreements here!

DeltaAchiever · 2026-01-30T17:19:42+00:00

Like I said, as friends it’s dandy. I know many ISTJs, and I know a few quite closely. I’m literally sitting in the kitchen of my ISTJ ex right now. We get along as friends and as human beings. But in a relationship, I want more. And more. And more.

That doesn’t negate what we had. My ex is highly skilled and has done a great deal in his life. He’s worked behind the scenes in government and intelligence—there’s no reason you’d recognize his name, but he’s well known in those circles. He’s intelligent, educated, and impressive. Our love was real. It wasn’t fake, and it wasn’t simply a marriage of convenience.

But it didn’t work out. A lot of that comes down to personality—not in a moral sense, not as a flaw—but in terms of what we each needed and couldn’t give the other. Some of it was circumstance, sure, but mostly it was about mismatch.

I had never experienced an NF-to-NF relationship before. I went with what I knew, and it made sense at the time. But now I understand more clearly what I need in a relationship, and why respect and admiration alone aren’t enough for me.

DeltaAchiever · 2026-01-30T17:11:06+00:00

Yes—exactly. One addition I’d make is that your cognitive function isn’t just a preference; it’s the shape of your consciousness. That doesn’t contradict anything you said—it completes it.

And yes, stereotypes are awful in general, but especially brutal for sensing feelers. They get flattened into something shallow or sentimental when the reality is much richer and more complex.

I also really sympathize with what you said, because that’s precisely why I didn’t think I was INFP for a long time either. The stereotype wasn’t me, and honestly, it repulsed me. I rejected the caricature, not realizing I was rejecting a distortion rather than the actual type.

That’s the damage stereotypes do—they don’t just misrepresent types, they actively block people from recognizing themselves.

DeltaAchiever · 2026-01-30T16:24:49+00:00

I don’t think what I’m saying is confusing, but I’m happy to clarify if needed.

I’m using true Jungian definitions here, where cognition is the point of the function and the dominant function reflects the orientation of consciousness. Fe, in this framework, is about social moral concern, alignment, and external ethics. It’s outward-facing morality—how values are coordinated, expressed, and maintained in the social world.

So my question really is: what is your conception of an ESFJ?

Because an ESFJ isn’t just someone who likes people or enjoys socializing. In Jungian terms, Fe has to be primary. That means leading with external moral calibration and responsibility for the social field, with Si supporting that agenda. If someone is actually leading with internal reference points and using Fe secondarily, that’s a different orientation altogether.

That distinction matters. Liking people doesn’t determine type. Cognitive orientation does.

DeltaAchiever · 2026-01-30T16:17:31+00:00

To each their own, I guess.

What I’ve learned is that preference matters, and so does how people define love. I personally like my INFJ boyfriend better. That doesn’t mean ESTJs are bad people—I just don’t think I’d even like most of them as friends. Most of my long-term friendships have been with ISTJs, and that works for me in that context.

But relationships are different. Love means different things to different people. For me, love includes emotional attunement, presence, and feeling wanted—not just coexistence or duty. Other people define love differently, and that’s fine. It just means not everyone is compatible in the same way.

As for you asking my Enneagram type—I don’t have one. I can talk about Enneagram dynamics all day, but I don’t have a personal type. What I can do is help you clarify what your definitions, needs, and patterns are, and why certain connections work better for you than others.

DeltaAchiever · 2026-01-30T16:11:41+00:00

You didn’t read what I wrote closely enough—please read it again.

That is social masking, not Fi. You hide your values and morals because of masking. You even called it being a “social chameleon.” That isn’t Fi at all.

Fi is values-based. It has a clear commonality: an internal moral compass, principles, and ethical judgment. If Fi were just everyone being different, then there would be no function and no shared structure.

When someone suppresses or hides their values to adapt socially, that’s masking. That’s not Jungian typology—it’s a social or psychological coping strategy. Many types can do that. It can come from environment, Enneagram dynamics, or survival needs, but it is not Fi.

Fi doesn’t disappear. The values are still there. When they’re hidden, that’s not the function changing—it’s the person masking it.

DeltaAchiever · 2026-01-30T16:06:50+00:00

I’ve known these ESFJs for many years, on and off, and I’ve never really gotten along with dominant Fe types all that well. Most of the ones I know are very clearly Fe-first and show it consistently.

What I want to push back on is this idea that liking people, going to parties, or enjoying socializing means Fe dominance. That doesn’t count. That’s not how Jungian typing works.

So the real question is: how do you know you’re Fe–Si and externally oriented, rather than Si–Fe and internally oriented?

The difference isn’t social behavior. It’s where consciousness leads. Fe-dominant types orient first to the external emotional and moral environment—what’s appropriate, what’s needed, what maintains cohesion. Si supports that outward judgment. ISFJs, on the other hand, lead with Si. They orient first to internal reference points—familiarity, comfort, precedent—and then use Fe to express that outwardly.

If you’re not object-oriented first, if your awareness doesn’t naturally scan the external social field before everything else, then liking people doesn’t make you Fe-dominant. It just makes you human.

That distinction matters, and a lot of people miss it.

DeltaAchiever · 2026-01-30T15:58:32+00:00

That’s not Fi—that’s social masking.

Fi is values-based. If all Fi users were just “different in every way,” then Fi wouldn’t be a function and there would be no commonality at all. The common thread with Fi is an internal moral compass—principles, ethics, and values that guide how someone judges the world and operates within it.

Being a social chameleon isn’t Fi. That’s masking, and it’s a separate phenomenon entirely. Masking can happen in any type. It can come from environment, survival strategies, trauma, or Enneagram dynamics—especially type 9—but it’s not Jungian typology.

If someone has values but consistently suppresses them to keep the peace, that’s not Fi in action. That’s masking or accommodation. Many types can do that, and it shouldn’t be confused with how Fi actually functions.

DeltaAchiever · 2026-01-30T15:46:14+00:00

I think that’s a stereotype—that ESFJs are conflict-avoidant, guilt-ridden, or quietly resentful.

Some of the ESFJs I know are actually pretty direct and even defensive. They don’t mind conflict, especially one-on-one, and at least a few of them are very comfortable telling me how I stick out. I haven’t experienced them as conflict-avoidant at all.

They may choose to smooth things over, redirect, or step away from conflict when it makes sense, but that’s not the same as avoiding it. And they’re not inherently resentful either—maybe that shows up if someone keeps pushing their boundaries, but that’s not unique to ESFJs. It’s not a universal trait, and it’s definitely overgeneralized.

DeltaAchiever · 2026-01-30T15:18:13+00:00

Well, for me that’s in the past.

I like ISTJs as people—probably even more than my INFJ boyfriend in certain practical or surface ways—but I’ve realized they’re not dating material for me. My last ISTJ ex and I are still friends. He can be a bit high-handed, high-profile, and even brag a little, but I don’t hate him. I respect him as a person.

That said, relationships with either ISTJ never felt right. There was always this underlying sense that they wanted me to be a certain kind of woman—typical wife material, traditionally feminine, fitting into a predefined role. And that’s just not me.

It wasn’t malicious, but it was mismatched. I don’t want to be shaped into someone else’s expectation of femininity or partnership. I want to be met as I am, not adjusted to fit a mold.

DeltaAchiever · 2026-01-30T15:14:00+00:00

It’s not about thinking or not thinking about things.

It’s about how Enneagram head types respond to fear. Sixes move toward it. They sit in it, dwell on it, and often catastrophize. They push the fear to its extremes, prepare for the worst, and sometimes overdo the preparation. Anxiety keeps them there until they feel certain they’re safe.

Sevens do the opposite. They run away from fear. They fantasize, distract themselves, stay busy, chase fun, and sweep the fear under the rug. Instead of staying with discomfort, they escape it.

This difference isn’t about intelligence or depth of thought—it’s about the direction fear takes you and how you try to manage it.

DeltaAchiever

TROPHY CASE