The INTP Quest

To the extent that this paradigm of classifying people into such categories is valid, I cleanly fall into the INTP category. In my experience, the Myers-Briggs model is at best a paradigm with which to think about oneself and one's place in the grander scheme. Among those who adopt this paradigm, there is an overwhelming tendency to actual believe the labels, taking them on as identities. I.E. “I am an INTP.” Nothing in nature exists that is an INTP. We can look around and see humans, male and female (and those in between). We can see animals and plants and rocks. Try though you might, you will never find an INTP in nature.

It's very easy to see how destructive such an approach has the potential of becoming. “If I'm an INTP, then I'm this way ... I prefer these things ... these are my strengths.” This is a way for people to naturally seek out stability in what can feel like an existence of shifting sands. I think books like this have can do as much harm as good. With that said, if you can approach the whole thing as just a concept and not take it on as a worldview, this book is intelligent if a little scattered. It is, however, too certain of its conclusions by half. I believe the author makes the mistake of extrapolating his experience of identifying as an INTP into something universally applicable. Even though Meyers-Briggs overwhelmingly classifies me — right down the center line — as an INTP, on nearly every page he makes assertions which are foreign to my experience. If this happened here and there, I would chalk it up to the diversity of experience, but the preponderance of these assertions shakes the book completely out of the realm of relatability for me, presumably a key target of the book. At one point near the end the author inserts mention of ‘old soul' and ‘average-aged soul' INTPs, meaning that some INTPs will start out much more developed than the typical INTP, further along in the evolution he lays out in the book. This really does address the major fault not only with this book but with whole paradigm on which it's built.

The more I see Meyers-Briggs bandied about, the less convinced I am of its value and the more destructive I think it may be. I think instead if we simply developed society in a way which made room for obvious core differences among people then the need for having such a system would be obviated. People read these descriptions of personality, relate to them, and then take them on as identities. The reason this happens is largely because they feel alienated. In a society which assumed a wide range of natural personalities and which allowed and encouraged exploration of these differences, there would be very little reason for people to try to fit themselves into these little, typological boxes. The cost of doing so seems to high to me, regardless of the comfort of feeling understood and validated brought on by ‘knowing your type.'

With such a mixed bag, with the foundations of the book so in question, there's very little I can offer in way of conclusion except to say buyer beware.