Mindmates for INTPs

[MacGuffin]

What is a mindmate?

The idea springs from Keirsey's term used in Please Understand Me II. Rationals (NT) look for a mate with whom they can share their ideas and thoughts.

Perhaps we need a better term for this, because the original thread (http://forums.intpcentral.com/showthread.php?t=12078) was started about something similar, but not just about what an NT looks for in a mate.

I call it the Vulcan Mindmeld. It can be intense and very intimate. An exchange of ideas without any boundries.

I pulled some posts from the original thread I found interesting:


PS- I hafta say that if we ever do that INTPs-post-only sub, this topic would have been a great candidate.
:smooch:


I don't find these mindmate connections particulary easy to live with. I'm married and to some extend I feel that having this kind of bond with another person resembles emotionally infidelity.
Been there, been accused of that.


In my opinion a mindmate is someone simpatico...you communicate easily, there is a chemistry even if the relationship is platonic. They are someone who you just feel comfortable to share yourself with because of some sort of innate trust.
Love that definition.


I did not feel any emotional infidelity either. However, there was an awkwardness in knowing that I could connect with someone else on topics that were important to me and yet not be able to share them with my wife on the same level.
It is awkward. Esp. if they are not NTs and/or do not get the mindmate concept.


Given the fact that INTPs have to live in an SJ/SP world, we have been conditioned to employ our defenses in human interactions. I think others have captured the experience of engaging a mind-mate well by describing it as allowing someone else into your private mind garden with all of the defenses removed.
I think that is key. There are so few of us, that when we do find someone to relate to on that level, it can throw us for a loop, esp. if we have not been exposed to the mindmate concept.


I've only had opposite gender mindmates (I'm straight). For me the difference between a mindmate and love interest per se, is that there just wasn't a mutual attraction/spark/chemistry for us both. Had there been, the romantic love would've been taken to an even greater level.
Are mindmates always potentially romantic? I see a lot of opposite sex mindmating discussed. Perhaps this allows us to lower our defenses? I am not sure.


Physical chemistry I would still regard a part of the equation even without seeing an internet chum. This is for three reasons. First, there is a tremendous amount of fantasy involved in internet relationships, and of course the brain is our number one erogenous zone. So, a fantasy life of its own could become attached to whatever soul- or mind-mate relationship was developing alongside or independently from this fantasy element.
It's a trap!


I think that INTPs, INTJs, INFPs and INFJs are able to obtain a clearer communication through online chatting than any other fast communication form. Online chatting gives the introverts an unique possibility to remain introvert while carrying out fast extrovert communication.
I'd agree with that. Mindmates require the sharing of thoughts. So for INTPs we can do that easier in written communications, without the potential awkwardness of meeting someone face-to-face.


...it meets my criteria for infidelity. My inner world is my essence, the people I share this part with gets the best of me.

Dunno about this,,,but it could be. I think I would feel less unfaithfull if I just went out and got laid the good old-fashioned way.
I disagree. Where there can be an emotional relation that can threaten another relationship/marriage, just sharing thoughts and having an emotional connection is not infidelity.


It is not easy, and is still a constant source of friction after almost 15 years of marriage. The flip side of the coin that I cannot find mind candy at home. If my life is stable and I'm not facing any problems, I can give her most of what she needs in terms of help. It takes a conscious and constant effort on my part to step in with the physical stuff that is unimportant to me: dishes, vacuuming, dusting, the yard, house decoration, cooking, feeding/caring for the pets, uncluttering the house, cleaning the garage, etc. Even when I work at my own full capacity as a helpmate, I feel that it is barely enough for her.

When my life is out of balance, like it has been the past few months (job situation), I tend to withdraw and drop most of my helpmate interaction. This has a very profound affect on her and she see's me as being irresponsible and "out of control" as she likes to put it. Control seems to be a big issue with her (and some other SJs I know) ... and she honestly thinks that she knows what is best for me. When I slack in the helpmate department, she starts making lists of things for me to do on a daily basis. Very annoying. At this point, I usually become very resentful towards her because I almost never get my mindmate needs met by her, yet she is complaining because I dropped the helpmate stuff for a while.

In all honesty, I don't think she knows what a mindmate is ... despite my great efforts to explain it to her. She seems to believe it is just some sort of ethereal fantasy in my mind that has no bearing on reality. For her, intimacy translates directly from how much you help your partner in the concrete world, and mental connection means nothing. When I meet her helpmate criteria, she cannot understand why there is still little intimacy. The closest I came to a mindmate connection with her was when she was in grad school and I would help her with her studies on an almost daily basis.

A long rant, I know. Hopefully it underscores how difficult the helpmate vs. mindmate relationship is.
Just a good post on the troubles seeking a mindmate can cause if the spouse is not one.


Do they encourage the best qualities in everyone they know? I suspect the answer is yes. It seems that an excellent relationship starts with two excellent people.

Two conclusions:

1. We tend to get the partner we deserve.

2. If you expect your partner to complete you, you'll probably be disappointed. (That's been said many times already.)
QFT


I've had both. If the mindmate was female, I have usually developed romantic/sexual attachment ... however, both of us could rationalize what was going on and stopped it if needed. I have some male friends that I could categorize as being close to mindmates, but there is not the intimacy that I shared with a female mindmate.
I agree with this.

Not sure if that is good or bad. Perhaps the mindmate concept cannot be totally divorced from the romantic/mate idea.


I think of the mindmates thing more loosely with different kinds of emotional dimensions. I have one male friend from grad school who I have stayed up many many nights chattering away with, weren't in touch for several years but we can and do pick up occasionally now and out of the blue- clearly there is a very special mental chemistry we both value highly, on the other hand the friendship is in some ways sort of cold, even in straight up platonic terms. No one was interested in anything more from the other, perhaps because all this indirectly made goo goo easier to find elsewhere. I'd agree this sort of connect is quite rare and valuable though.
A range of emotional connections with mindmates? That sounds reasonable.


I don't think it is just an INTP thing. Or even just an NT thing.
Still believe this, but perhaps the closer a person is to your type (INTP-INTP for example) the easier it is to be mindmates. Anyone been one with an ENTJ?


And in order to obtain this connection you do have to go through the same phases as you would if we were talking about regular sex. Trust, desire etc. I do think that is why we only hit the top with the opposite sex.

This thread has convinced me that it really is an NT thing.
That might be true on the intimacy level. Not so sure it is only an NT thing.


I gues in both the mindmate/soulmate connection it is also about the *sweet surrender*. I think it gives us an even bigger kick because most of us have lived a life inside our minds without feeling understood. To have another person suddenly *see* you, not misunderstand, not misjudge and embrace you is beyond description.

Actually, that's what the connection is all about.
That's why it is a *mindfuck*.
I said it before: :banana: :banana: :banana: :banana:


hm, and this is why I wonder if it ("mindmate" in the more particular sense of the OP) isn't a same type dynamic, not just NT-NT. It's appreciation/admiration for that part of oneself that one most values about oneself, enabling that feeling that the other helps make one feel more like one's own self.

I find if I am super interested in x, other NTs may get it and be interested too. but probably only another INTP can get as excited about the a, b and c behind why I think x and like thinking about it- the entire framework being quite important to me. Not that the interests themselves have to be the same, ultimately I presume this connection is about shared values about thoughts.
INTP-INTP is the best kind? Maybe.


But it doesn't have to be a purely mental connection. Thanks. I think, barring external influences, these types of connections would lend themselves to um.. other fruitful connections.
Do we want our opposite sex (or same sex if gay) mindmate connections to become physical? Is that a driving force behind the connection?


I'd say they can be more than one. I just made a post on the soulmate thread about the order I look for: mindmate-soulmate-playmate-helpmate.

But the mindmate is what I as an NT look for first, above and beyond the rest. Only soulmate is in the same ballpark.
What are you all looking for? Or are you looking at all?

Took a while to read through that first thread, but I was helped by ignoring all the non-INTP posts (even though some really good ones were made).

[AMDG]

What is a mindmate?



Still believe this, but perhaps the closer a person is to your type (INTP-INTP for example) the easier it is to be mindmates. Anyone been one with an ENTJ?


INTP-INTP is the best kind? Maybe.




Yes, had an ENTJ mind-mate and it was spectacular. If he hadn't died, I can't imagine it ever would've ended. I don't think INTP-INTP type ones are the best because they don't bring out the best in each party, they just descend into mutual mental masturbation!

With other INTPs I feel that I'm understood and that's very valuable. They understand what it is I am and what I need, and I do them, but neither of us is capable of giving to each other the things we lack mentally, or teaching each other much. Since learning and growth are such a huge part of what I want, the ENTJ was ideal because he could give me the same understanding and mental intimacy that the INTP can, but also with something extra - he had the stuff that I lack, and vice versa. He gave me direction, social confidence and discipline and I gave him a softer edge and better social graces, that is, taught him to chill out and relax a bit and pick his battles more wisely. It was a match made in heaven - I still think if he hadn't died then he might've been the one person to truly tempt me away from celibacy.

I think perhaps that the sexual thing interferes because we're so programmed from our childhood to think that sex/relationship/love all go together. We're taught about how 'being in love' is this feeling of great attachment, connection, intimacy, and how it's the ideal and best foundation for a romantic relationship. So if we meet someone we feel this way with, of the sex we're attracted to, then we instinctively start to interpret it as romantic/sexual attraction, even if it wasn't and wouldn't have become it if we hadn't thought of it. If we meet someone we feel this way with, of the sex we're not attracted to, especially straight people, then we tend to talk ourselves out of it because of the confusion of messages: I really love this guy - I can't love him, I'm not gay - but I really love being with him - yeah but I'm not gay - and so pushing ourselves away from it.

I've noticed that gay people tend to be able to connect more with people of the opposite sex and be more comfortable with it, than straight people can with people of the same sex, especially men.

Also, when I was living as a woman, having been programmed from my infancy to believe that I was a girl and therefore should look to males for sexual relationships, and that sexual relationships were based on love, which was based on this mental intimacy and all these were tied in together, I found myself looking at men that I really loved being with and who I really connected with and thinking that this meant I was in love with them, and seeking sexual relationships with them. Only later did I realise that I wasn't sexually attracted to them at all - I just wanted to be them! The first thought I had when I thought of them was just how much I enjoyed their company and the mental connection, but then as an afterthought the social training would kick in and I'd start telling myself - persuading myself - that I was in love with them and wanted to 'get with them'; without this deliberate roleplaying (though unconscious largely), I would never have even thought of them in sexual terms. But when I read my journals from back then I can clearly see that I was talking myself into it because it was what I'd been trained to expect.

Long and rambly, but all relevant, I think.

[AMDG]

Oh yes, and incidentally, the process I mentioned above of people distancing themselves from same-sex people because of the confusion of love/intimacy/sexual attraction that we're programmed into feeling, I actually do in reverse, because of my transgender history, and this is the only reason why I give my sexuality as 'bisexual'.

That is, I'm a man, but I was raised as a girl and socially conditioned to look to men for sex, though I never truly felt that I wanted anything physical from them. I often felt great admiration for males and strong desire for something they had - which I now know was just their masculinity, their appearance, wanted it for myself - but which I was talked and talked myself into believing was romantic love. Conversely, women, to whom I did feel sexually or at least romantically attracted to, I distanced myself from out of the fear and confusion around society's perception that this friendship and connection I felt, if with a girl, would be 'lesbian', and I didn't feel that I was a lesbian, even though I was theoretically a 'girl' attracted to girls.

Now, since I have changed sex, I find that I'm free to look at and pursue girls with full approval of all around me - and myself, too (since I no longer hold the same fear of homosexuality that I did as a kid) - and yet my experience has been that 'love' has only grown between myself and other males, and I find it hard to connect with females after a lifetime habit of stopping myself from doing that. Now, I find myself still bonding with males in this way, but where I was free to pursue it under the guise of romantic love in my former life, I'm now unable to pursue it at all if they guy is straight, because although I no longer have any problem with non-straightness, and although the feeling isn't sexual anyway, most straight guys would shy away from such intimacy with another male. Net result: I can feel physical attraction towards women, but no mental; mental towards men but no physical. Great, huh? <_<

It's complicated.

[MacGuffin]

It's complicated.
You can say that again.

Do you think that mindmates (opposite sexes primarily) have trouble with romantic feelings for their mm just because of social conditioning? Or does the mindmate connection naturally lend itself to sexual attraction?

[AMDG]

You can say that again.

Do you think that mindmates (opposite sexes primarily) have trouble with romantic feelings for their mm just because of social conditioning? Or does the mindmate connection naturally lend itself to sexual attraction?

Could be a combination of both. I'd lean, from my experience, towards saying a lot of it is social conditioning, but I'd be completely unable to prove that to anyone who hasn't experienced a total change in body chemicals and social role. I don't think it all is, but far more than people realise, far more of who I am is down to hormones and social conditioning than I realised pre-change. I'm still trying to figure out and undo some of the 'girl training' now, peeling it away in bits here and there as more things crop up and I realise they're not me. It's experiences like this that teach you who you really are... in about twenty years!!! I've had 6 so far...

[MacGuffin]

Could be a combination of both. I'd lean, from my experience, towards saying a lot of it is social conditioning, but I'd be completely unable to prove that to anyone who hasn't experienced a total change in body chemicals and social role. I don't think it all is, but far more than people realise, far more of who I am is down to hormones and social conditioning than I realised pre-change. I'm still trying to figure out and undo some of the 'girl training' now, peeling it away in bits here and there as more things crop up and I realise they're not me. It's experiences like this that teach you who you really are... in about twenty years!!! I've had 6 so far...
So what about the experiences of forum members, most of whom met their mm online?

[AMDG]

So what about the experiences of forum members, most of whom met their mm online?

Yeah, big factor I guess. Not having the physical form there to remind you of it, I guess an open-minded person would find it easier to just go with the flow. I dunno. I only met one person online who became a good friend, but then again, that's because I live in an area where most people aren't online, so the distances involved stops me really from seeking it. Plus, I meet a hell of a lot of amazing people IRL all the time, through my work.

[attila_the_hunny]

Oh yes, and incidentally, the process I mentioned above of people distancing themselves from same-sex people because of the confusion of love/intimacy/sexual attraction that we're programmed into feeling, I actually do in reverse, because of my transgender history, and this is the only reason why I give my sexuality as 'bisexual'.


I had this difficulty with my first mm, also an INTJ. We fell into the sexual side, and we rationally wanted to stop to save our friendship, but it was ultimately too much and we gave in. I didn't have a big issue with my sexuality, but it really affected her because she was from a strong Christian background and her family would probably disown her. The gender barrier never really bothered me.

[MacGuffin]

I had this difficulty with my first mm, also an INTJ. We fell into the sexual side, and we rationally wanted to stop to save our friendship, but it was ultimately too much and we gave in. I didn't have a big issue with my sexuality, but it really affected her because she was from a strong Christian background and her family would probably disown her. The gender barrier never really bothered me.
So do you think it is very hard for mm to stay platonic?

[attila_the_hunny]

So do you think it is very hard for mm to stay platonic?

It was very difficult for me. It may sound weird, but it felt like we weren't completely connected until we became physically intimate. It was so intense that we just had to consummate it. The mental stimulation just fueled physical desire, even though I have no interest sleeping with women or am gay/bi. However, I jumped it all for her.

[outmywindow]

So do you think it is very hard for mm to stay platonic?

I was just thinking about this topic earlier today, not necessarily if mms have to be platonic or not, but about mms in general. I'd say I've had one complete mm in my life (and currently still have her) and have two others who were mms regarding my sense of humor. Incidentally, both of those were male. When we were around each other, we didn't even need any external stimuli to begin cracking jokes or just laughing at these almost telepathic (for lack of a better word) intangibles which seemed to cause the exact same neurons to fire in our brains at the exact same time and in the exact same sequence/pattern. However, once we moved away from humor, the mm status started to break down into regular friendship (if that makes sense).

As for the all around mm, she's a straight female (as am I) and we've never had any issues keeping the friendship platonic (though it's not as if we've had to try to keep it platonic -- the issue of making it into something more has never come up). As for her type, I'm pretty sure she's an XNTJ. The first time we ever met (outside of noticing each other in class) we talked for about 4 hours without even realizing it. We just clicked in a way that neither of us are really prone to. We ended up living together as roommates for two years, and though we don't live together anymore, we are still very fast friends and I look forward immensely to the time we spend together. It's so nice to be able to share things with each other on any level we choose. There's such freedom in the whole thing... I'd write more, but I'm supposed to meet her to go play cards.

[Rajah]

Do we want our opposite sex (or same sex if gay) mindmate connections to become physical? Is that a driving force behind the connection?

Maybe...

INTPs value mental connections, perhaps even more than other types. I'd be surprised if most INTPs weren't seeking a mindmate above all else. It's unsurprising that you'd be highly attracted to a person with whom you can share all the thoughts you typically keep internalized. I'd expect a strong connection of minds would often manifest itself physically.

I don't think a physical connection is the driving force behind finding your mindmate... It just seems like a logical progression from mindmate to lover.

[geniusndisguise]

I think the biggest mistake is that we aren't realizing that NT's look for a mindmate in their "mate". An SJ is not going to go out and look for a helpmate outside the marriage. A fulfilling marriage is one with a helpmate for an SJ. A fulfilling marriage is one with a mindmate for an NT. It means someone you can explore theories and ideas with and get lost in it. I would never again marry someone who could not follow me in conversation as well as challenge me in my ideas.

[MacGuffin]

Maybe...

INTPs value mental connections, perhaps even more than other types. I'd be surprised if most INTPs weren't seeking a mindmate above all else. It's unsurprising that you'd be highly attracted to a person with whom you can share all the thoughts you typically keep internalized. I'd expect a strong connection of minds would often manifest itself physically.

I don't think a physical connection is the driving force behind finding your mindmate... It just seems like a logical progression from mindmate to lover.
Ok, so is it logical if your mm is the same sex (or opposite sex if gay)?

Are we less likely to be mm with the sex we are not attracted to?

[Rajah]

Ok, so is it logical if your mm is the same sex (or opposite sex if gay)?

Are we less likely to be mm with the sex we are not attracted to?For me, it's a fine line between mental attraction and physical attraction. I'd wager that because of this, people are more likely to deny a mental connection with someone of the sex they're not attracted to.

[MacGuffin]

For me, it's a fine line between mental attraction and physical attraction. I'd wager that because of this, people are more likely to deny a mental connection with someone of the sex they're not attracted to.
That seems... craptacular! There are so few of us... so to willingly turn away from a mental connection (cutting your pool of potential mm) seems a cruel thing to do to ourselves.

[Rajah]

That seems... craptacular! There are so few of us... so to willingly turn away from a mental connection (cutting your pool of potential mm) seems a cruel thing to do to ourselves.If we weren't typically so darned afraid of emotions to begin with...

[MacGuffin]

If we weren't typically so darned afraid of emotions to begin with...
A tragedy or a farce?

What do you do if you already have someone you love? Deny the mm to avoid potential trouble?

[Rajah]

A tragedy or a farce?Both?


What do you do if you already have someone you love? Deny the mm to avoid potential trouble?And that's something I can't tell you, because I don't know.

I don't see things in black and white, typically... And even if I did in a particular case, I likely wouldn't berate anyone for taking a different path.


/unhelpful

[attila_the_hunny]

A tragedy or a farce?

What do you do if you already have someone you love? Deny the mm to avoid potential trouble?

This seems like a fine line to walk. I don't think I could deny a mm while in a relationship with someone I love, but at the same time, I'd be very conscience of putting myself in a position where my relationship could possibly be compromised.

[MacGuffin]

Ivy's thread (http://forums.intpcentral.com/showthread.php?t=18154) made me think of something (thank God she can't post in here - whew!).

Perhaps taking the mindmate connection to a physical/sexual level is our way of wanting some of the other xxxxmate roles with the mm. Perhaps soulmates (emotional connections) or playmates (sex!!!).

[Avengardh]

I don't get it, but I do have mm's outside my relationship, I call them friends.

What I mean is that if you're with someone, and you love them, you obviously are secure about it, unless you aren't, then you're not as secure in your relationship and you should look into that.

There are levels of understanding, chances are not every mm gets you in the same way the other does, or even your SO. This is because each individual is a different person, I have really close friends, but for me physical attraction doesn't just pop out of nowhere, and I am basically incapable of it if I am with someone else.

[AMDG]

For me, it's a fine line between mental attraction and physical attraction. I'd wager that because of this, people are more likely to deny a mental connection with someone of the sex they're not attracted to.

That's what I was saying, pretty much.

[MasterMerk]

To me the sexual is on a whole 'nother level. I say this because I have no qualms about fucking dumb biatches over "mindmates".

When I become close to someone like that, it doesn't rouse in me the desire to pin them. It may foster strong feelings of affection towards them, but affection is typically sex-neutral. In a lot of cases, merely being a woman is enough for me to be attracted to someone physically. That doesn't mean I'll do it, or it affects the relationship in any way - self control, for one, and two, I mean it - it literally doesn't change anything. I could be humping them every day, to me it'll always be just a physical, recreational act.

I'm close to my male friends as well. It is a different kind of closeness, however. Men don't like talking about their feelings with eachother. It just doesn't happen. The angst is more anger-oriented, more results-oriented. It tends to be very political in nature. From my experience, guys like to work things out together, and that's how they bond - with girls, it's more about sharing. Guys tend to be much more open to giving eachother advice and receiving it than "venting" for the sake of it. This means they'll call you a bitch if your whining doesn't have a purpose, but at the same time, the solidarity men are capable of showing for one another in similar troubles is actually quite profound. I'm sure the fear of male male intimacy is largely a cultural thing because they sure as hell aren't incapable of it.

Back to mindmates. I have them. I consider them family. Like we're part of the same pack. It is most definitely not emotional infidelity, which is a farce in itself. Like Aven said, people are different. Nobody, nobody will see all sides of you at once. And I don't mind it that way.

[charred_heart]

can you people stop talking about mind mates already? You're making me remember my 2006 tragedy! :boohoo:

[MacGuffin]

When I become close to someone like that, it doesn't rouse in me the desire to pin them. It may foster strong feelings of affection towards them, but affection is typically sex-neutral.
Have you ever had sexual feelings for mindmates?


can you people stop talking about mind mates already? You're making me remember my 2006 tragedy! :boohoo:
Spill it.

[MasterMerk]

Have you ever had sexual feelings for mindmates?


I have sexual feelings for everything with an available orifice and no missing teeth.

[MacGuffin]

I have sexual feelings for everything with an available orifice and no missing teeth.
Affection then, of a romantic/emotional type.

[Jennywocky]

I have sexual feelings for everything with an available orifice and no missing teeth.

That's explains why the pet store closes down and locks the door when they see you coming...

[geniusndisguise]

That's explains why the pet store closes down and locks the door when they see you coming...

By then it's too late... :whistle:

[MasterMerk]

Affection then, of a romantic/emotional type.

It's complicated. I'm certainly not obsessive, nor limerent, but there is that emotional affection present. I never played by the rules.

There's probably some overlapping mixture present.

[MasterMerk]

That's explains why the pet store closes down and locks the door when they see you coming...

They sure know how to treat their number one customer, huh

[MacGuffin]

Question: can a mindmate be purely intellectual, or is the (potential) intimacy too much to keep it on just that level?

[attila_the_hunny]

Seems like the true fulfillment of an mm would overlap on both levels.

But I'm only speaking for myself.

[MacGuffin]

Seems like the true fulfillment of an mm would overlap on both levels.

But I'm only speaking for myself.

Could you keep it separate if you tried? Or is that a fool's errand?

[Nighthawk]

Could you keep it separate if you tried? Or is that a fool's errand?

Hard for me to keep separate. A female mind mate has always overlapped into the intimate for me. Never had a male mind mate. Could just be a sign of my weakness however.

[MacGuffin]

Hard for me to keep separate. A female mind mate has always overlapped into the intimate for me. Never had a male mind mate. Could just be a sign of my weakness however.

You and eyebyte? No??

[attila_the_hunny]

You and eyebyte? No??

I'd say they're good friends, but I wouldn't call them mms.

For me, to even try to separate the two (intellect and intimacy) with an mm is too frustrating for me. I that respect, I'm very much all or nothing. I'd not only fail at doing it, but my attempts to put limits on would leave me distressed and, in a way, empty.

[Nighthawk]

You and eyebyte? No??

Yes ... what Atilla said ... good friends, meeting of the minds, colleagues, confidantes ... but the word mindmate is taking it a bit over the edge for me. Could just be a phobia though. I find an intimate mind link possible only with a woman. Still ... there are some ideas I share with my male friends that I would not share with a woman. Call me old fashion, but I am a product of the time in which I was raised. Some of it still sticks.

[attila_the_hunny]

Still ... there are some ideas I share with my male friends that I would not share with a woman.

Uh! I'm more of a man than eyebyte is!

[MacGuffin]

So I think the "mate" part of "mindmates" is very significant.

I am going to agree. One can get along very well with an NT of the same sex, but lacking gay or bi tendancies, one will not achieve the intimacy required for mindmates.

[attila_the_hunny]

So I think the "mate" part of "mindmates" is very significant.

I am going to agree. One can get along very well with an NT of the same sex, but lacking gay or bi tendancies, one will not achieve the intimacy required for mindmates.

I think it's especially harder for males, given the stereotype. I'd say its more likely to be achieved between two straight females than two straight males.

[Nighthawk]

Uh! I'm more of a man than eyebyte is!

Ergo you get to hear some of my dirtiest secrets :devil:

[SolitaryWalker]

Of all types, I'd say another INTP would have the greatest potential to become a meritorious mindmate for a typical INTP. Simply because it is highly likely that the INTP is the most scholarly of all types and communication would be the easiest because of temperamental similarities.

Of the NFs, the INFJ as they are likely the most scholarly of the Idealists.

Of the SPs, ISTP because of the Ti primacy.

And of the SJs, the ISTJ, as it seems highly likely that they are the most scholarly of the Guardians.

[attila_the_hunny]

And of the SJs, the ISTJ, as it seems highly likely that they are the most scholarly of the Guardians.

Eh, I'd say ISFJ of the SJs--for INTPs. ISTJs seem more of control freaks (very much "my way or the highway") and not likely to be as flexible as ISFJs. The F also gives the softness that ISTJs severely lack. Many are also driven by knowledge to achieve accomplishment. They want to know to apply it to things like income = status, even if we just use it to for the hell of it. On the forum, many INTPs are paired with ISFJs, and by that basis alone, it seems to correspond to my thoughts on it.

[SolitaryWalker]

Eh, I'd say ISFJ of the SJs--for INTPs. ISTJs seem more of control freaks (very much "my way or the highway") and not likely to be as flexible as ISFJs. The F also gives the softness that ISTJs severely lack. Many are also driven by knowledge to achieve accomplishment. They want to know to apply it to things like income = status, even if we just use it to for the hell of it. On the forum, many INTPs are paired with ISFJs, and by that basis alone, it seems to correspond to my thoughts on it.

Perhaps INTPs pair with ISFJs because these two types share all four functions? ISTJs are more likely to be 'control freaks' than ISFJs, but they are not 'too controlling' like the ESJs may be. They are also more analytical than the ISFJ, and INTPs tend to admire this.

We are talking about mindmates now, not soul-mates. INTPs may like ISFJs because of their calm-sensitivity, Fe (which many INTPs are dearth of ) in combination with introversion, this is attractive as in that respect ISFJs resemble the INFJ. Though again, when dealing with mindmates, woudn't being analytical be considered more important than being sensitive?

[attila_the_hunny]

We are talking about mindmates now, not soul-mates. INTPs may like ISFJs because of their calm-sensitivity, Fe (which many INTPs are dearth of ) in combination with introversion, this is attractive as in that respect ISFJs resemble the INFJ. Though again, when dealing with mindmates, woudn't being analytical be considered more important than being sensitive?

For INTPs, I think their version of a soulmate is a mindmate. I think SJs in general are less likely to be a mindmate for INTPs, but I'd wager that ISFJs come closer than to ISTJs (at least relationship-wise). When I said "softer" I meant malleable and wasn't really inferring to sensitivity.

[SolitaryWalker]

For INTPs, I think their version of a soulmate is a mindmate. I think SJs in general are less likely to be a mindmate for INTPs, but I'd wager that ISFJs come closer than to ISTJs (at least relationship-wise). When I said "softer" I meant malleable and wasn't really inferring to sensitivity.

Nevermind the notion of a relationship, though, do you think it would be easier to discuss ideas with an ISFJ rather than an ISTJ?

[attila_the_hunny]

Nevermind the notion of a relationship, though, do you think it would be easier to discuss ideas with an ISFJ rather than an ISTJ?

I've met four ISTJs. I didn't like them at all--and I was related to one. I get along with ISFJs just fine. I find it difficult to discuss with ISTJs because once you broach on a subject they do not agree with, they find no point is discussing it further, whereas ISFJs will at least entertain you.

[SolitaryWalker]

I've met four ISTJs. I didn't like them at all--and I was related to one. I get along with ISFJs just fine. I find it difficult to discuss with ISTJs because once you broach on a subject they do not agree with, they find no point is discussing it further, whereas ISFJs will at least entertain you.


Though the ISFJs may entertain you not because they are interested in your idea, but instead they may take a personal approach to the situation. 'I'll listen simply because the idea seems to be important to you.'

Its true that they will entertain you while ISTJs may not, and in this way be easier to go along with in an intellectual discussion, but it certainly does not mean that they are more stimulating. Perhaps you could get more stimuli from an ISTJ in the few subjects you discuss with him that he enjoys than from many discussions you had with the ISFJ where they are just passively going along with you, because they have a difficult time analyzing what is brought to the table?

[attila_the_hunny]

Though the ISFJs may entertain you not because they are interested in your idea, but instead they may take a personal approach to the situation. 'I'll listen simply because the idea seems to be important to you.'

Its true that they will entertain you while ISTJs may not, and in this way be easier to go along with in an intellectual discussion, but it certainly does not mean that they are more stimulating. Perhaps you could get more stimuli from an ISTJ in the few subjects you discuss with him that he enjoys than from many discussions you had with the ISFJ where they are just passively going along with you, because they have a difficult time analyzing what is brought to the table?

But ISTJs will just halt the conversation and may feel like not talking about certain things--or if you don't have a lot of commonality, disregard you altogether. I find ISTJs the hardest to talk to because while they are T, their SJ tendencies override. If you go against their convictions enough, they will appear even more emotional than an IFSJ.

[SolitaryWalker]

But ISTJs will just halt the conversation and may feel like not talking about certain things--or if you don't have a lot of commonality, disregard you altogether. I find ISTJs the hardest to talk to because while they are T, their SJ tendencies override. If you go against their convictions enough, they will appear even more emotional than an IFSJ.


Do you think that the 'T' makes them more SJish? Since SJs are nearly all about duty and T reinforces that mindset more than F?

On the contrary, one could say that the ENTP is the easiest to talk to. Not the ENFP. The T in the ENTP reinforces the NT, open to ideas mindset, while the F, the more value-oriented may retard it.

[Zero Angel]

But ISTJs will just halt the conversation and may feel like not talking about certain things--or if you don't have a lot of commonality, disregard you altogether. I find ISTJs the hardest to talk to because while they are T, their SJ tendencies override. If you go against their convictions enough, they will appear even more emotional than an IFSJ.

Thats true -- i worked for an ISTJ once, he seemed entirely ruled by emotions and not by logic, but I guess that was because I was unknowingly pushing his buttons, ie standing up where logic says he is wrong, disagreeing with him often (he would take it personally), using non-standard methods. And overall I just made him into an irrational wreck. To think you could do that to an ISTJ -- well its possible. I wouldnt want to be around that variant of ISTJ in the future because they really piss me off, though the ISTJ variants which border on N are a different story.

One thing I noticed about IFJ males is that they seem to exhude what can best be described as an aura of calm and emotional wisdom. They are tremendous counselors and listeners. ITJ's can be different, they are far more active. So thus rarely seem 'tranquil' as IFJs are likely to be.

[SolitaryWalker]

though the ISTJ variants which border on N are a different story.


How, if N is their inferior function?

Perhaps if they are very well developed, they could use their N proficiently, though most common-place ISTJs probably would not be able to hack it?

[attila_the_hunny]

Do you think that the 'T' makes them more SJish? Since SJs are nearly all about duty and T reinforces that mindset more than F?

I think this is where it falls upon the individual. ISFJs and ISTJs are very loyal to a point of being irrational and are often taken advantage of-- regardless of the F or T. I think those two functions just imply certain underlying motivations for doing it, but as long as it's done, motivations are sometimes almost useless. The result is the same.

[SolitaryWalker]

I think this is where it falls upon the individual. ISFJs and ISTJs are very loyal to a point of being irrational and are often taken advantage of-- regardless of the F or T. I think those two functions just imply certain underlying motivations for doing it, but as long as it's done, motivations are sometimes almost useless. The result is the same.


Seems to me that the common factor could be the Ennegram 6 which is highly correlated with Si as the primary function.


They are loyal perhaps because of their intense need for security? And they expect loyalty in return when they bend over backwards for those that they associate with, and in short--they hoard people?

[attila_the_hunny]

Seems to me that the common factor could be the Ennegram 6 which is highly correlated with Si as the primary function.


They are loyal perhaps because of their intense need for security? And they expect loyalty in return when they bend over backwards for those that they associate with, and in short--they hoard people?

I think the Ennegram is bullshit, so I don't know.

They are rarely so loyal to people who aren't related to them. They are very much family-orientated, and whatever they have left they will give...which is doubtful, since they will just horde the leftovers away until they need them for their own kin.
I think ISFJs are more likely to venture outside of family members, but sometimes you can be an honorary family member and be treated accordingly to some degree.

[Zero Angel]

How, if N is their inferior function?

Perhaps if they are very well developed, they could use their N proficiently, though most common-place ISTJs probably would not be able to hack it?
Think about it, INXP is a common type, just as IXFJ is. I don't know whether to subscribe fully to the 'functions' theory, but I do know that an IXFJ is moderately different than an ISFJ, and an INXP is moderately different than an INTP. Just because cognitive process theory says that Fe is the weaker function, doesnt mean that there wont be types of people who use their weaker functions extensively (an ISTJ bordering on N, may still be an S however one that is quite adaptable to intuition). Use your own experience and observations.

[SolitaryWalker]

One thing I noticed about IFJ males is that they seem to exhude what can best be described as an aura of calm and emotional wisdom. They are tremendous counselors and listeners. ITJ's can be different, they are far more active. So thus rarely seem 'tranquil' as IFJs are likely to be.

I think the same could be said for female IFJs to a slighter lesser degree.(I dont think this is biologically rooted, and that it is probably the legacy of soceital influence) ITJs may seem more 'active' because of their need to challenge.

[SolitaryWalker]

Think about it, INXP is a common type, just as IXFJ is. I don't know whether to subscribe fully to the 'functions' theory, but I do know that an IXFJ is moderately different than an ISFJ, and an INXP is moderately different than an INTP. Just because cognitive process theory says that Fe is the weaker function, doesnt mean that there wont be types of people who use their weaker functions extensively (an ISTJ bordering on N, may still be an S however one that is quite adaptable to intuition). Use your own experience and observations.


This could be justified if we say that there is no consistent order in the lower functions, yet there is with the higher. Hence some ISTJs have N as their third function and others as fourth. Though we still would have to maintain that the first two functions stay the way they were originally, otherwise we'd have difficulties distinguishing between the ESTJ and the ISTJ.

Though I think this is probably just an illusion about ISTJs using the Ne well. I am thinking that the case is that the ISTJs that use their Te well can appear to have a good handle on the Ne, as the Te gives them more access to the Ne than the antagonistic Si. Much like INTPs who mastered Extroverted Intuition may appear to use the Fe well. And when they approach personal values, they tackle it from the standpoint of Introverted Judgment. Similar to what INFPs do, yet their approach is impersonal. Having those two factors in account, we see how one can be uncertain about whether they are an INTP or an INFP and hence we an INXP.

I dont believe in cross types at this point. In my experience and observations that X is usually evidence of one not being aware of what their dominant function is in that slot.

[Llewellyn]

I've come closest to it with an INFP female friend, recently, in our discussions about MBTI, a shared heavy interest for us both at the moment. Especially she helps by giving a lot of references to people. And she's good at giving examples (a Te, as opposed to a Ti thing, we thought).