Which Personality Type is the Most Abstract?

There is a lot of debate in the MBTI community about which personality type is the most abstract, or which cognitive functions are the most abstract. From what I have seen, it mostly boils down to three different aspects, depending on who you ask. So, I figured since I was thinking about it, I might as well write those thoughts down and walk everyone through my thought process. (If you recognize some of the information below, this is an expansion on a old article called Introverted Thinking (Ti) vs. Introverted Intuition (Ni): A Closer Look which is also in the process of being updated.) Without further ado, let’s dive in.

Intuition Is More Abstract Than Sensing

This should come as no big surprise to anyone, since it is the most common point that comes up when people start discussing this topic. Intuition, in and of itself, is abstract simply because of what it is based in. Jung describes intuition as follows:

Intuition’s abstraction comes simply from the mere fact that the information that it perceives is unconscious, and thus abstracted from what we usually take in as concrete or explainable. Unlike sensing, which is rooted in perceiving the physical world, intuition is focused on the opposite side of the coin, focusing on the things that cannot be seen or quantified and yet nevertheless are there. Unlike what some people propose, though, Jung posits that intuition happens on an unconscious level, rather than being derived or produced consciously, of one’s own volition.

Introverted Functions Are More Abstract Than Extraverted

This is another comparison that on its face makes a certain degree of sense, but is not quite as straightforward as the first comparison. The main line of reasoning here is that extraverted functions are focused on objects, and hence, are focused outward on the external world. This makes them easier to see, and as a consequence, makes them less abstract. Meanwhile, introverted functions are focused inward on the self, and this obscures them from the observation of others. So, while not all the introverted functions will feel more abstract to the individual that is utilizing said function, to observers that function’s use will be abstract. They will only be able to see it when the person actively shares what’s going on inside their head.

Feeling Functions Are More Abstract Than Thinking

This one is a position I am personally less sure about, but the supposition goes as follows: Because feeling functions are reliant on emotional data to make judgements, they are more abstract in the judgements that they make because emotions are an abstraction. While someone may try to form logical rules concerning how to respond to emotional data, emotions themselves don’t follow the rules of logic. On the other hand, thinking is a supposed bastion of hard logic, which should make it easier to explain, cross-reference, and otherwise track in a concrete way. Logic usually starts with some form of concrete, or physical data. Since feeling-based judgements start with feelings, they are difficult to logically explain. For these reasons, the feeling functions are viewed as more abstract.

Related Article: Detached From Reality: Intuitive?

Examples Of How This Manifests

Now, with that groundwork laid, let’s look at some examples of how this manifests within the functions.

Example 1

1 + 1 = 2 is completely concrete. The information (1, 1) being Si and the equation (+, =) being Te.

A + B = 2 is abstract information with a straightforward way of getting there. The information (A,B) is abstract and cannot be readily explained, making it Ni. However, the equation (+, =) being Te is still straightforward and easily explained.

would be concrete information (Si) with an abstract way of getting there (Ti). The information is all there, but all the components, or logic, isn’t straightforward. There isn’t an easily explained way of getting to the solution (2).

would be abstract information (Ni) and an abstract way of getting there (Ti). In the last example, neither the way of getting to the solution nor the information itself is readily clear. Notice though how every equation still ultimately lead to the same answer: 2. Each personality type just has a different way of getting there. Basically, someone with Ni will struggle to tell you how or why they picked up a piece of information they know. Whereas someone with Ti will struggle to explain how exactly they figured something out, or how they made a judgement on what connections make sense to them.

Example 2

Let’s look at it from a different angle. Take a look at the graph below. Note that anything with solid lines is concrete and easily explained, while anything with dotted lines is abstract and isn’t easily explained to others.

STPs/NFJs

As you can see, STPs and NFJs are working with both abstract information (Ni) and abstract connections (Ti) which is why they have some of the problems with communicating that Mara covered in this article here. I feel like I should take this moment to reiterate something: just because your function set makes it hard to relay your thoughts into concrete words and concepts doesn’t mean you are smarter or dumber than anyone else. Intelligence is in no way connected to personality type.

However, dealing primarily with abstract thoughts and connections will lead you to having completely different perspectives on problems and situations. The Ni-Ti combination will draw the user to focus on the things that aren’t readily seen and observed; and they will prioritize making connections that, at first, will probably only make sense to them and no one else, instead of dealing first with the tangible information. I often say that Mara (ISTP) and I (ISTJ) work a problem from opposite directions. This is true because she goes from abstract to concrete, while I start with the concrete and work my way toward the abstract.

NTJs/SFPs

Moving on to the next group, NTJs and SFPs are working with abstract information (Ni), but they are not dealing with abstract connections. These types usually can walk you through what they have figured out or what they believe is going to happen. The part they may struggle to explain is how they derived the information they used to come to that conclusion. This leaves them with the reputation of ‘just knowing’ things, especially if you have witnessed them being right time and time again. The problem here is two fold. Not only is Ni storing all the information they have gathered as abstract impressions, Ni also causes the user to pull things that were abstract to begin with. Ergo, those with Ni end up ‘reading between the lines’. They tend to be more interested in the spirit of what was said rather than what was actually said.

For example: his words were saying one thing, but his body language was clearly saying something else. While the body language may have been clear to the Ni user, it may not have been so clear for those who don’t have that trait. It’s like when you walk up to someone, and they have the friendly facade and they speak with you cordially, but after you walk away your friend looks at you and says ‘that guy hates our guts’. While it wasn’t readily obvious, Ni picked up on the abstract details and allowed the user to draw that conclusion.

NTPs/SFJs

Now we have the NTPs and the SFJs. These two are not working with abstract information, but the connections they are making are abstract (Ti). So, while they will be able to explain to you every piece of information that led them to their conclusion, it may be a challenge trying to follow the paths that they took to connect everything together. It’s like those crime boards you see in all the shows where the red lines are connecting pictures and newspaper articles together. All the information is there and is concrete, but unless you have some kind of guide, someone else’s crime board is going to look like nothing but a chaotic nonsensical mess. This is the reason that Ti users can end up looking like intuitives. It is the abstract nature of their thought processes. Unfortunately, people tend to label anything that is abstract as intuition.

STJs/NFPs

Finally, we have the STJs and NFPs. I will only touch on them briefly because they aren’t what this article is about. Notice they have both concrete thoughts and connections. This makes these types the most straightforward and easy to follow, usually. Now, this doesn’t mean that they can’t pick up on things that other people might miss, but the difference lies in how they will do it. These types are going to pick up on tiny specific details that others have glossed over, instead of making abstract connections that are ultimately difficult to explain to someone else.

So, Which Personality Type Is The Most Abstract?

Based off of all the given information, it all seems to point to the INFJ as having the most abstract functions in the highest positions in their stack. Leading with Ni gives them both an intuition function as their lead, but it is also introverted, which leads to another layer of abstraction. Their secondary function is a feeling function which is supposedly more abstract than a thinking function, which would lead to them edging out the INTJ. Furthermore, they use Ti as opposed to Te which would arguably be a more abstract thinking function due to it being introverted. And lastly they have Se as their weakness, leaving what should be one of the most concrete of the functions as a pain point for them fighting against their dominant.

Well, I hope you all enjoyed coming with me on this thought trail. Do you think I got the right type? Do you think my reasoning for it was sound? Let us know in the comments down below!