ISTJs in cognito as INTJs?

[Veneti]

Originally Posted by Recluse

This study found that students with computing majors are most likely to be ST--especially ISTJ--and least likely to be NT:
http://isedj.org/isecon/2006/3723/ISECON.2006.Choi.pdf

Information gleaned from the report:

Among students with computing majors, ISTJ (21.1%) and ESTJ (14.8%) are the two most common types. ST is present in both ISTJ and ESTJ; conversely, the least common type contains NT.

Among students with science majors, INTJ (18.2%) and INTP (17.5%) are the two most common types. A profound difference between this group and the computing group is the presence of N preference over S preference.

(Incidentally, ISTJs were also found to be the majority of engineers in other, unrelated studies.)

I've noticed that most programmers online (mis?)label themselves as INTJ scientific types. I wonder if this is because NTs are portrayed as self-confident intellectuals who come up with inventive solutions, while ISTJs are portrayed as angst-ridden nerds who slave away in cubicles. Either that or INTJs are far more common than the statistics suggest, based on the sheer numbers of online programmers who claim this type.

Has negative stereotyping kept people from realizing their true types? Or is this study seriously flawed? I found it interesting and would like to hear others' views.

I think that many people express their desires in tests rather than how they really are. Wannabe influences.

Testers, coders and so forth tend to be anorak geeks. However, project managers in the same environment have to have a diverse set of skills. Very few IT people can see the big picture so I don't think they are strategists that’s for sure. (Not intuitive (N) as they'd make provision for huge issues in their planning which for some reason they seem to miss, too much looking into the detail and not looking at a macro/global level. It’s like they have the inability to zoom in and out with their thought processes which a scientist must do if they are to solve problems - procedural versus divergent).

Also, as I've stated before, it’s possible that over time people can migrate to a psych profile if they desire and work towards it. (I'd like to think that I have migrated to INTJ but both my parents are INTJ so it’s just a theory to be proven!!).

One thing that has struck me though... is that contractors (strangely in IT and not in Finance/Accountancy) are a very resourceful set of individuals and very entrepreneurial. Perhaps they've all seen the big money and flexibility to match their business development activities.

[toonia]

Originally Posted by Wolf

Statistics only get you so far, especially when you are basing it on who majors in what.

Online you have self-selection - STs are not interested in most online interaction

Why wouldn't they be? Online is not theoretical typically. It is a useful way for recluse's to interact. I have a very strongly ISTJ aunt who in her golden years has become quite the computer granny whiz. There are wonderfully predictable elements to online communication, and the complete freedom to shut things down when needed.

Originally Posted by MacGuffin

Yes, computer programming is ideally suited for ISTJs. Many ISTJs misidentify themselves as INTJs.

I would tend to agree. One more consideration: tertiary functions can be perfectly strong in individuals. This means that many Sensors can have strongly developed iNtuitive functions and vice versa. People tend to see N and S as on off switches, even though it's easier to accept that everyone has some T and F in them. Every person has an iNtuitive function that they use, just as everyone has a Sensing, Thinking and Feeling function. This is important to remember.

[ygolo]

Originally Posted by Wolf

Nearly every logic-oriented field will be lead by NTs at first, then the STJs will maintain what we created...

Humble much?

Originally Posted by Wolf

The scariest thing in the world is a project that was started/designed by an XSTJ. For the same reason that XSTJ-started/designed projects are scary, I believe at least half of the claimed INTPs and INTJs I've seen online are ISTPs, ISTJs, or some random repressed extrovert...

What is the difference in those designs in your eyes?

I didn't find MBTI based one yet, nor have I read this that closely, but here is a 5-Factor based test.

IEEE paper on IT programmer performance

For those who don't want to pay $20 or join IEEE.

Hopefully this is advertizement and not Copyright Infringment. To admins, please delete with comment if it is Copyright infringement.

Note that the p-values are all non-significant excpet for age and GPA. One also wonders if the GPA is the effect of the tendency to complete assignments instead of the cause.

[ptgatsby]

Originally Posted by ygolo

Humble much?

He's right though.

What is missing is that most of them are actually wrong most of the time. It's better to say that Ss actually take theories and make them happen - it can be anywhere from the concept, to design, to implementation to maintenance, but it'll be taken over by a S at some point... almost certainly anyway.

The way I think about it is along the lines of;

N figures out a connection: Summer is hotter because the sun gets closer!
S works out: Sun is closer to the earth during winter.

The downside is that it also comes across as;

S: Summer is hotter.
N: Because the Sun is closer to the earth.
S: Ok.
N: Wait, I was wrong, it's because of the tilt of the planet.
S: Because the sun is closer?
N: No, because of the tilt of the planet?
S: Because the sun is closer!

Ns tend to spout out all sorts of theories, but at least they'll change them. A S, once accepted, won't change easily.

The only reason Ns get the respect now is because of that, and because we tend to ignore the incredible amount of bad ideas that Ns come up with when they aren't grounded. Fortunately the scientific method has helped channel it better... The new age of Nness is upon us!

But that's why the SJs are, relative to their "IQ" ranking, very very dominant in a lot of engineering positions, as well as many other "carry it out" positions. In part this is because they prefer it... But to reverse what Wolf said... I'd hate to see what would happen if Ns actually tried to do anything practical. Novelty is fun and all, but yah.

Besides, it's all a gradient, despite MBTI. Preferences shouldn't be locked in the way even I was talking about above - the individual will find his own niche in line with their own abilities. For the most part, we tend to get what we are good and suitable for... as painful as the transition will be.


(All this aside, sub-trait wise, the openness of the S can be high, such as mine, which really relates to high IQ. The deal of "abstractness" and such are the instability factors. It's the same reason why Ns are generally so much smarter than Ss... so I personally believe the two should be seperated as raw intelligence being "a part" of being N really confuses things.)

[toonia]

Originally Posted by ptgatsby

Besides, it's all a gradient, despite MBTI. Preferences shouldn't be locked in the way even I was talking about above - the individual will find his own niche in line with their own abilities. For the most part, we tend to get what we are good and suitable for... as painful as the transition will be.

Good points. It is important to realize a person is not comprised of only their first two functions, or even of just the four listed. For example textbook-wise mine are: Ni Fe Ti Se. For the strongest two, i believe i have also developed their opposites, Ne and Fi. However Te and to a greater extent Si are foreign to me. My lack of Te was a marked struggle for my intellectual pursuits and all things Si stress me out significantly. The relationships between functions are very complex for each type and can vary a great deal between individuals as we know. The following is intended to illustrate a point. As an INFJ, my tertiary function is Ti, and yet i scored in the 92 percentile for analytical reasoning on the GRE, the primarily logic based section of the exam. That's tough crowd to compete against, since they are all applying to graduate school. This is what i am saying about tertiary functions are not necessarily a weakness for people. Many Sensors have iNtuition of some sort as a tertiary function. For this reason it seems reasonable to assume there are some rather iNtuitive Sensors out there, and vice versa. A tertiary function can actually be a strength. Even as a strength it differs from a dominant function in that it is not home-base. It is not the overarching point of reference for all things.

[Wolf]

Originally Posted by ygolo

Humble much?

*chuckles* You'd think with my signature that nobody would miss it.

What is the difference in those designs in your eyes?

They're rigid, not forward-thinking, kludgey, and inefficient. For some reason they can't do anything quite right, either - they do things that work and what they've been taught by someone else, but if it changes, they can't recover and it becomes extremely fragile (you should see what it takes to create a "development environment" or install some software I have to deal with that was obviously designed by and is maintained by a bunch of rigid "it just works this way" STJs, who are so inflexible that it drives me (and my department full of NTs) mad). Wonderful for regurgitation and re-ordering of existing theories and structures, but horrible at solving a problem they've never seen before, considering for the effects of their decisions, or even comprehending why something is as it is (or being bothered by it enough to figure out how to do it right).

It's funny because we NTs make more small mistakes and work around problems, yet come up with better results, while STJs make fewer basic mistakes, but more systemic mistakes because there is too much rigidity in their patterns. You might find an STJ trying to apply poorly-suited concepts from unrelated processes to the task at hand because they can't come up with a solution, while an unrestrained NT will start writing a massive framework for doing the task (but not document it). I've seen it more times than I can count - you find an NT (or a group of NTs) and they will have been developing things that are more flexible than they ever needed to be, you find an STJ (or a group of STJs) and they will have been pounding all the square pegs they learned in college into all the round-hole problems they have been given.

Based on my knowledge and background, I have come beyond the NT tendency to write frameworks and toolkits, because I know it's best to just solve the problem with an eye to the future so it'll be just flexible enough to handle the problems that are likely to come up. But I don't go to extremes on this because I also know that only a small fraction of these cases will ever need to be handled. I also try to apply known patterns when they are reasonably-effective, because it's faster and does the job (it's probably the hardest thing to overcome).

I also inherited an undocumented behemoth, the brainchild of a few NTs that no longer work at my employer. The code is completely undocumented, exceptionally-complex, and almost impossible to learn. It was written in a long-outdated language for over six years, touted to be capable of everything, and did I mention that it's overly-complex? The thing is more a huge toolkit and software development framework than an actual software product, but there are a number of applications that were made with it. It only works with some very simple (and peculiar) configuration of the development PC, yet the final produced software is very reliable. Watching people that worked on developing it work with it, it's amazing - simple tweaks to the framework solving a huge array of problems. However, if you have no clue how it works, it's nearly impossible to comprehend because it is written like a video game, massively multi-threaded, and in case I forgot to mention, undocumented.

[Natrushka]

Originally Posted by ptgatsby

The way I think about it is along the lines of;

N figures out a connection: Summer is hotter because the sun gets closer!
S works out: Sun is closer to the earth during winter.

The downside is that it also comes across as;

S: Summer is hotter.
N: Because the Sun is closer to the earth.
S: Ok.
N: Wait, I was wrong, it's because of the tilt of the planet.
S: Because the sun is closer?
N: No, because of the tilt of the planet?
S: Because the sun is closer!

Ns tend to spout out all sorts of theories, but at least they'll change them. A S, once accepted, won't change easily.

We've had so many conversations at my home that follow those lines you made me chuckle out loud, pt.

[ygolo]

Originally Posted by Wolf

*chuckles* You'd think with my signature that nobody would miss it.


They're rigid, not forward-thinking, kludgey, and inefficient. For some reason they can't do anything quite right, either - they do things that work and what they've been taught by someone else, but if it changes, they can't recover and it becomes extremely fragile (you should see what it takes to create a "development environment" or install some software I have to deal with that was obviously designed by and is maintained by a bunch of rigid "it just works this way" STJs, who are so inflexible that it drives me (and my department full of NTs) mad). Wonderful for regurgitation and re-ordering of existing theories and structures, but horrible at solving a problem they've never seen before, considering for the effects of their decisions, or even comprehending why something is as it is (or being bothered by it enough to figure out how to do it right).

It's funny because we NTs make more small mistakes and work around problems, yet come up with better results, while STJs make fewer basic mistakes, but more systemic mistakes because there is too much rigidity in their patterns. You might find an STJ trying to apply poorly-suited concepts from unrelated processes to the task at hand because they can't come up with a solution, while an unrestrained NT will start writing a massive framework for doing the task (but not document it). I've seen it more times than I can count - you find an NT (or a group of NTs) and they will have been developing things that are more flexible than they ever needed to be, you find an STJ (or a group of STJs) and they will have been pounding all the square pegs they learned in college into all the round-hole problems they have been given.

Based on my knowledge and background, I have come beyond the NT tendency to write frameworks and toolkits, because I know it's best to just solve the problem with an eye to the future so it'll be just flexible enough to handle the problems that are likely to come up. But I don't go to extremes on this because I also know that only a small fraction of these cases will ever need to be handled. I also try to apply known patterns when they are reasonably-effective, because it's faster and does the job (it's probably the hardest thing to overcome).

I also inherited an undocumented behemoth, the brainchild of a few NTs that no longer work at my employer. The code is completely undocumented, exceptionally-complex, and almost impossible to learn. It was written in a long-outdated language for over six years, touted to be capable of everything, and did I mention that it's overly-complex? The thing is more a huge toolkit and software development framework than an actual software product, but there are a number of applications that were made with it. It only works with some very simple (and peculiar) configuration of the development PC, yet the final produced software is very reliable. Watching people that worked on developing it work with it, it's amazing - simple tweaks to the framework solving a huge array of problems. However, if you have no clue how it works, it's nearly impossible to comprehend because it is written like a video game, massively multi-threaded, and in case I forgot to mention, undocumented.

The classic root-bound vs. banyan-tree anti-pattern. Somehow I guessed that's what it would be.

[Veneti]

Actually, there could be lots of ISTJ's in computing because they are simply better at Maths than English to the point where they have sought an occupation that is highly correlated. They complete questionnaires based on what they think they should, and want to be.

I actually don't see IT as very N (intuitive); I'd say more intuition is used in marketing campaigns/business strategy and so forth.

I'd say probably you'll find (as an average) that ISTJ's are coders/testers and the INTJ's are the project managers. The ENTJ's are the client facing consultants/sales.

[ygolo]

I thought SP types had the "intuition" you talk about. While computing technical work is very abstract and symbolic.

Go to page 28 and compare rational to artisan.

Which temperament seems more likely to be in marketing (esp. advertising)?