Introduction

These observations are based on my own background and that I have observed from my nephews’. It’s interesting to see how “type” is innate and manifests itself at an early age.

So, let’s put some observations forward that you might recollect from your formative years and/or/if you have children or relations be observable in them.

Observations

Thinking

At an early age you realised that by applying thinking to an activity you could do far better in it than you would ordinarily do? For instance if you thought in sports you could do better than your natural physical abilities or that the team could achieve more by thinking as a coordinating group? From recollection this would be at age 8 or less.
(Did you notice other children not applying thinking to situational factors such as in sport when you know they could have achieved a better outcome if they had? As an example say you are thrown a ball and you wait till the ball is in the optimal zone to be struck at, rather than other kids that simply strike at the ball in an obvious unfavourable position, in other words thinking does not precede their impulses to a high degree and/or its application is not substantial).

At an early age did you start making intuitive thinking jumps as you started reassembling concepts into your logical understandings? For instance you could know your 9 times tables by easily knowing your 10 times tables and subtracting the predecessor (9 x 5 = 5 x 10 – 5), because intuitively 10 x tables are embedded into “knowing” (By just adding a zero e.g. 5 x 10 is 50) and quick to recall and subtracting 5 is easy.

Did you realise at say aged 10 that you were far better than other children at unstructured problem solving? That you had deductive thinking which other children seemed to be lacking?

Did it take you longer to understand new information because you had to go through a process whereby you mind ensured that it didn’t violate any of your previous understandings and if it did you had to understand why? (Rather than just remember the information as a discrete piece of learning).

Did you see logic implications that applied to one field of knowledge could be used in other fields? I.e. what applies in biological sciences could also apply in economics, business and psychology? And that unique perspectives could be gained from this?

Did you have frustrations at school (and possibly during the whole academic process) where emphasis was placed on recollection and structure of information rather than understanding and interrelating information (This is the structured versus unstructured thinking process, divergency of thought versus convergency). In effect the whole academic process was “wrong footing you”?

Do you think that “thinking” while it solves many problems can create many? “Thinking” has led you to understandings especially in the “people world” where you have completely misjudged human motivation and interaction. Ultimately though, the ability to think allows you to solve your problems when you people around you that cannot solve their own problems - as they clearly do not/cannot think through the issues to rectify the situation?

Judging

In line with thinking did you realise at an early age that order and structure in method and application could achieve outcomes far better than unstructured situations? Did you re-orientate your self discipline to becoming structured to achieve these outcomes?

Did you at an early age become aggrieved when you followed rules and others whom did not seemed to escape punishment? Did you believe that application of the punishment should always be carried out because that’s why the rule existed in the first place?

Did you start following routines at an early age and streamlining things/processes whereas you noticed others tended to be seemingly chaotic and ill disciplined?

Introversion

There appears to be three elements to what can be observed as introversion. (At an early age it would appear that physical and mental introversion has a greater correlation than as adults where we can separate the two i.e. be extroverted physically while mentally being introverted. Hence, for this section physical introversion is deemed a manifestation of mental introversion)

Thinking (a) - You could happily sit by yourself and using your thinking (and thus imagination) devise ways to amuse yourself. You didn’t need (or were less needful) of the requirement to be associated with other kids. You may have preferred time alone to allow your thoughts to dominate your mind rather than the constant input of “group thought” by other kids (Group consensus when it deviated from your view sort of annoyed you).

Thinking (b) – That other children were not as similar to you as you to your parents, and that you would prefer to talk with older people simply because it was more interesting and you could learn a lot from them (basically you were always looking to acquire knowledge)

Feeling (a) – In the context that you preferred time by yourself as you felt that other children were less than genuine in their true friendship to others. In effect possibly they were more self absorbed and used friendship as a method to further their own goals rather than help others. In effect friendship was more of a one Way Street for them and you didn’t get that much benefit from it.

Feeling (b) – That in a classic “alpha” way you were more reticent about being in the physical world simply because you were more wary of the dangers. It was safer to be introverted. (Even slightly agoraphobic).

Interrelationships – Possibly you were insufficiently able to relate to other kids and thus being precluded, preferred to be introverted as it was a “more” positive environment. (Although you could have been simply and unluckily in the wrong neighbourhood).

Nb: I am sure you can think of times when your thinking (intuition) and judging have been sufficiently aggrieved that you push past your introversion to rectify the situation by taking control.

Intuition

Intuition I believe, does not exist to any great degree in children, perception, deduction and thinking do, but Intuition appears always to be rapidity of thinking that is achieved through the standardisation of observations and understandings.

As an example, as a young child I must count 4 + 2 = 6. As a youth I know 4 + 2 = 6. And as an adult I know so many of these conceptual building blocks that the interrelationships and recombination’s in thought seem to give rise to quick and unexpected logical answers that appear as intuition.

While Intuition is largely a function of thinking, it does indeed recombine and integrate all other sensory inputs, hearing, sight, sound, touch etc and even wild card imagination.

Conclusion

Childhood psychologists especially in the teaching profession should develop basic tests which would indicate the thinking understanding and mindset of children types, similar to a “light” form of MBTI, Intelligent children such as INTJs could be given tasks that use their thinking but also ensure they develop skills of interaction with others that introversion tends to diminish, psychology as an example seems an ideal bridge (Sadly its probably better than economics in this respect). Getting bright kids and entering them into science fairs while studying rocks is possibly one of the most damaging actions teachers can make because it just widens the gap with other children, other kids don’t want to know all about rocks.

INTJ children would especially benefit from less rote learning and more conceptualisation and understanding of logical building blocks. In effect open book exams. INTJ children would also benefit from open ended problems which have many solutions and the best one is a function of competing attributes. (They like exploring all the permutations and then trying to work out what is more important where it’s all quite subjective).


More on INTJ www.intjtribe.com
Some questions on approximation to INTJ Type http://www.psychologytribe.com/intj-personality.php