Which MBTI type is the most deep?

Deep person: “A curious and thoughtful person, who doesn’t rush to decisions and conclusions.”

Now then, let’s think firstly about which type. Introverts are by far more deep people, thinking in their heads before they say things. They are often known as deep thinkers, due to the fact they can spend hours thinking about one “seemingly” meaningless topic. They don’t say more than what is needed and they say only what is relevant.

Intuitive people are very deep people. They can discover amazing things from meaningless objects, and they are a lot more open-minded then sensors who follow the rules and follow what is expected of them. IN people are the definition of deep.

This part is tricky. However, after much debate on another forum the members of the forum came to a conclusion: “Thinkers are in fact deeper thinkers than feelers.” Thinkers being deeper thinkers than feelers may shock some of you, but it has been further explained below. We have also concluded that judgers are more deep thinkers as well. This makes the deepest thinker an INTJ.  Why is this? Let’s look at this more closely.

The cognitive function order for an INTJ is:

  • Ni
  • Te
  • Fi
  • Se
  • Followed by the shadow functions

Now the cognitive functions for an INFJ are as follows:

  • Ni
  • Fe
  • Ti
  • Se
  • Followed by the Shadow Functions

Now you probably noticed something. Both INFJ’s and INTJ’s first cognitive function is Ni and their fourth is Se. This is because shallow thinkers are more likely to be sensors, not people who use their intuition. Now let’s look at why the thinkers are deeper than feelers. Thinkers think logically, and think very strongly about current irrational things occurring in society, and they are even more concerned about how to improve a certain subject of interest. Sir Isaac Newton would be an excellent example of an INTJ. He was known as one of the deepest thinkers on the planet. He spent a great deal of time in his head, constantly discovering with his Ni and Te new things which further led to many scientific discoveries, making him arguably the most influential scientist in history. This proves that INTJ’s are the most deep MBTI type.

Which MBTI do you think? Leave your opinion in the comments section below!

About tatl33

Hello, my name is Tim! I am an INFJ interested in psychology currently residing in Australia. My aim is to provide you with information on MBTI and how it can be related to real life situations. Enjoy :)
This entry was posted in INTJ and tagged , , . Bookmark the permalink.

53 Responses to Which MBTI type is the most deep?

  1. Anonymous says:

    Sorry, this article is fairly interesting but a major point is incorrect. Albert Einstein was almost certainly an INTP. I have never seen anyone type him as an INTP. I would recommend to make yourself more familiar with MBTI before attempting to choose historical examples for each type.

    The archetypal INTJ is Friedrich Nietzsche, whose thinking was a lot more sophisticated and deeper than anything Albert Einstein ever came up with. Nietzsche was a philosopher, Einstein merely a scientist.

    • shrili says:

      Actually, Nietzsche seems like a cynical INFP, with his INTJ mask on (every self respecting INFP has one). When the Zarathustra speaks, he sounds like an INFP in a lot of parts. Also, I highly doubt an INTJ would lose their mind hugging an old horse being whipped by it’s owner.

      • INFP:) says:

        I totally agree with you. Thinkers and judgers are not necessarily “deeper” than feelers or perceiving types. And it’s true–I’m an INFP, although at times I think I definitely come off as an INTJ. Anyway, the author of this post shouldn’t jump to rash conclusions, and either way, you can’t just claim one type is more superior than the other.

      • A says:

        Nietzche is a totally INFJ in a Ni-Ti loop. No INFP at all, and way too symbolic and poetic to be INTJ, and even more ridicukous would be to see him as an INTP.

  2. Unknown says:

    It’s possible that he may be an INTJ; you should consider analyzing Einstein and prove that he is in fact an INTJ.

  3. tatl33 says:

    Thanks for the constructive feedback guys. I am going to make an MBTI blog figuring out what type Einstein is next.🙂 Stick around

  4. S says:

    Deep is subjective. And by your definition a perceiver would be deeper than a judger because they would consider more options rather that stick to one to get results. So your answer would be INTP. Ti, Ne, Si, Fe and shadow Te, Ni, Se, Fi

    • Henry Ford says:

      Of course ‘deep’ is subjective – that’s why he provided HIS definition of deep at the start of the article.

      • alfer says:

        Yes, HIS definition of deep is what this article is. Which is why S is correct in saying that according to HIS definition, which it can be assumed ohsoeasily that his starting definition of deep is one that he is reflecting on, he should have declared INTP’s deeper thinkers.
        “A curious and thoughtful person, who DOESN’T RUSH TO DECISIONS AND CONCLUSIONS.”
        The last words, the capitalized, define P. Not J.

  5. Anonymous says:

    To be blunt, I think this article was rubbish. You failed to explain your reasoning for how you came to each of these conclusions. Whilst introverts being deeper than extroverts is self evident, you failed to explain 1) Why an Ni user is a deeper thinker than an Ne user (I suspect you’re going by the assumption that an introverted Ne user will be Ne-aux, thus not as strong as an Ni user with a dominant trait) and 2) you say you’ll clearly look at “why thinkers are deeper than feelers” yet fail to do so. You completely mistake T/F preference’s role and mistake logical thought for deep thought. The T/F will merely determine what is reflected upon in the deep thought or reflection. What makes introspection on the nature of the universe any deeper than introspection on the nature of the self?

  6. clayton says:

    yeah your definition at the top says someone who doesnt rush to decisions and conclusions. so why would a J be more deep than a P

  7. Ben says:

    “merely a scientist”??!?!?
    SCREW YOU!!!

  8. david says:

    be careful when you place a post on the intj forums, we might spit you back out lol.

  9. Anon says:

    I just adore how much fallacy this article contains. For one, what makes judgers more deep? What do you define as the quality of deep? How do you know Einstein accounts for all others of his type and maybe just developed his deep side more?

    Also, Einstein was most likely INTP. He used his thoughts and senses carefully for analytic work. Also, he was far more of a scattered person and it was quite clear that this related back to his Ne.

  10. Jonas Myers says:

    I do not believe you have a strong enough foundation to claim that Albert Einstein’s thinking was more shallow than that of Nietzsche. At the same time I don’t claim to have enough foundation to say that there thinking reached a “smiliar depth”. But returning to the original topic of this article, I find that yes, certain when observing “the average deepness” (I’m defining deepness as deepness of thought) of people with a given mbti type, one will find substantial differences beetween the different types. For example I think the INT and perhaps the INFs are “deeper” than the rest.

  11. lilacinboom says:

    Food for thought: what about the introverted and extroverted functions. Deep thought would come from an introverted source, as introverts are deeper thinkers, according to the theory. So, one could conclude that Ti users would be deeper thinkers. So, you would have to find the most focused, big picture group that uses Ti. I say big picture because it gives the person more to think about and captures the entire scope, which can equal deeper. I am in contact with many INTJs, and they are marvelously brilliant people who get it done. But, they gloss over some details to get to the end result. That is why they need me sometimes, a Ti user, to break it down and look at every detail. I don’t think my type is the deepest thinker, but Ti would have it, not Te. Also, Ni is more focused than Ne. So, that would lend itself to deep thinking about a particular topic. I have seen Ne jump around a lot from one thing to the next. This is in contradiction to picking Ni over Si, but it is a matter of staying on topic. I can say, without Ne and Te in my life, there is a good chance I would still be thinking about the first quandary that came my way. So, I hope that no one is offended by not being considered the deepest thinker, because there is good and bad in everything.

  12. Anonymous says:

    “introverts are more likely to be deep” thats the biggest BS ever, just because someone doesnt talk much doesnt make them smart, it just means they dont say much. ive known many shy idiots and many talkative idiots, introversion vs extroversion is irrelevant

    • tatl33 says:

      I strongly disagree. Introverts are more likely to be deep because they spend more time in their heads. They focus on the one activity and spend so much time thinking…
      I think you need to understand that one of the main factors that people think of when they think of a deep person is introversion

  13. ayna johansen says:

    Most of the comments here do not actually follow what was written above: comparing intj and infj, and using isaac newton as evidence to conclude that intj’s are deeper. the argument you make actually gives no explanation at all as to why an intj thinks more deeply than the infj. you just merely state that they think more deeply because they think logically. this is sillyness. as an infj myself i can tell you that my emotional attachments to people fuel my intensity as a social scientist to pour over my studies in ways that my intj colleagues, do not. in fact, because they are not emotionally attached to their concepts to the extent that i am, they are prone to judge more quickly, and move off the subject again as result, more quickly.

  14. Ben says:

    INTJ are probably the smartest people in the world. However their type of thinking, their type of “smart” is more objective and scientific that deep and philosophical.

    The type that is the most deep and philosophical is the INTP.

    There’s a reason that INTPs are often referred to as the THINKERS, and INTJs are often referred to as the SCIENTISTS

    • tatl33 says:

      Mmmm… I wouldn’t go so far as to say that P’s are the philosophers and J’s are the scientists. I agree P’s are more likely to be philosophers, however when it comes to contributing to the world of science, there are just as many J’s and P’s. Think about the abstract theories and Ne required when noticing environmental changes, etc. all those things that require a combination of Ne-Ti. I really believe INTP’s and INTJ’s equally contribute A LOT scientifically.

  15. pearl says:

    I beleive this whole argument is void because all minds have the same capabilities therefore are equally “deep” each cognitive order uses the same amount of the brain they just use different functions. who are we to judge which functions are more important… extroverted sensors have, and utilize skills that introverted intuitives may never master and vice versa, if your definition of deep is more philosophical then personally I beleive it is entirely a tie between intp intj and infj because I think intp are more philosophical in a mathematical patterned way, infj are more abstract and universally philosophical , tying together logic, patterns and math into the universe in search of “the answer to life” and intj are more informationally universally philosophical creating a framework of knowledge. There really is no ‘deeper” we all have equally important skills, which we focus on different things, and we all lack the use of certain skills, but put together we all create a whole.

    • tatl33 says:

      You make a good point Pearl. I should of been more specific in saying more philosophical in nature.
      I noticed you said the Ni types are deep except INFP’s.. Do you think INFP’s are deep? Why/why not?

      • Anonymous says:

        I did assume you meant philosophical I just wanted to clarify, and personally I believe that philosophical means being able to think abstractly and theoretically in a way that allows you to problem solve for the future or any intangible problem, I believe that this “deepness” is not measurable because it is a concept it does not come in quantities. All the intuitive posses this ability therefore hey all use it to solve problems that come there way…thinking philosophically for more time in a day ( which it seems that infp probably do because they are pretty hermetic) doesn’t make them deeper, even if they use philosophy more, its like asking if a basketball player or a soccer player in general is a better athlete…???

      • Anonymous says:

        In my opinion its like asking if a basketball player or a soccer player in general is a better athlete…??? And to answer your question, your right I hadn’t really studied info at that point now that I’m a bit more familiar with he type I realize that they are probably just as philosophical as all the others and more in there own way:) I also noticed while researching types that perceiving mayactually be linked to being more philosophical …isfj are not at all philosophical but isfp are, so if the same applies for intuitive types, infp and into would be the “deeper” however as I said before not necessarily in a scientific way the judgers outdo them there

      • Anonymous says:

        In my opinion its like asking if a basketball player or a soccer player in general is a better athlete…??? And to answer your question, your right I hadn’t really studied info at that point now that I’m a bit more familiar with he type I realize that they are probably just as philosophical as all the others and more in there own way:) I also noticed while researching types that perceiving may actually be linked to being more philosophical

  16. Anonymous says:

    You forgot about INFPs in this who’s the most deep type

  17. Turnip says:

    None of these posts explain why T is deeper than F. Why is this seemingly being treated as self-evident? Why is Ti being treated as deeper than Fi? I suspect it comes down to a failure on the part of thinkers to even understand what feeling is. A poor show indeed.

    • Anonymous says:

      No, it’s a failure on you to understand what both thinking and feeling is.

      Thinking is the specifications of a concept, and feeling is the generalization. The two entities are Ti – Fe, and Fi – Te. The t’s in both of these entities push towards the specification of a concept, merely subject to different points, while the f’s push to their generalization. F types mean to bring specifications and intrinsics into generalities and constants. That is feeling, a culmination of logic. Consequently, F types more readily accept the generalization of concept, and push from the individualization of concepts to a whole concept, while a thinking type pushes that generalization back to it’s specification and intrinsics. The process of individualization that is thinking is as a result inherently more “deep” than feeling, as “deep” implies depth and complexity.

      • INFP:) says:

        I strongly digress. Feelers are just as likely to be “deep” as thinking types. You cannot simply disregard feelers.

        I assume you’re a thinker and you do not realize that feelers can also think. I’m an INFP with a highly-developed Ti, and I don’t think thinking or feeling is necessarily “deeper” than the other. Also, a lot of feeling types may appear to be thinking types when in reality, they’re not. You can’t simply make assumptions about feeling types, and thinking types are in no way more superior than feeling types. Many great philosophers and writers are all feeling types and are definitely “deep,” introspective and smart.

        Everyone’s different, and you can’t just generalize a group of people as one. So before you jump to rash conclusions, please consider what you are actually saying.

      • Dreamer:) says:

        You said feeling types push more toward generalizations–more so than thinkers, apparently–and by saying that you literally just made a generalization.

        Oh, the irony.

  18. Dreamer:) says:

    You said feeling types push more toward generalizations–more so than thinkers, apparently–and by saying that you literally just made a generalization.

    Oh, the irony.

  19. plita says:

    Deep at what ?
    To make it more specific :
    INFP deep value
    INTP deep logic
    INFJ deep insight

    • tatl33 says:

      Absolutely agree with this. I like that you pointed this out🙂

    • tatl33 says:

      Looking back on this old article I was using INTJ for deep logic. However, in retrospect I would now type the INTP as the deep logic type as you have typed and the INFP for deep value and INFJ/INTJ for deep beliefs/insight

    • A says:

      what do you mean by deep? what by value? logic? insight?
      you’re just using words, and words just indicate a part of reality, or better a part of thoughts about reality. you know what logic is? you know western one comes from Aristotle? you knnow eastern one is “quite different”? you know what a koan is?
      but I’m sorry, I’m INFP so my logic and/or knowledge can’t be compared to INTx

  20. Karl says:

    Definitely INTJ’s are the deepest MBTI.
    They have clear insights into the universal essence of things and existence without usually being able to describe or convey them
    INFJ’s are OK, however, they are feelers, which means their insights are mostly about people, what make each of them tick, which rarely results in universal or cosmic truths that have deep meanings.
    INTP’s ?! Why are they deep at all ? Their understanding is by reason, and crystal clear, they know how they come up with it an can easily convey it, which, as intelligent as they are, rips them of the deep characteristic.
    INFP’s ?! What’s deep about having strong feelings and values to judge with ? This could even be said about childish personalities.

    • Athena says:

      that’s a way too subjective and one sided way to look at things.
      You are mistaking levelheadedness and unyielding self belief as the definition of deep.

      Surely intj may appear to be always ahead of the others with an innate understanding of a lot of the typical ‘deep issues’, from human nature to the formation of the universe. But that doesn’t mean they would care enough to let themselves understand it, a.k.a the ‘let the knowledge sink in’ process, they don’t try to precipitate whatever that they’re studying, and accept it as they are, intjs would try to dissect and break down things using what they’re best at – logic, and the result of that is they often end up coming up with very seemingly profound and incomprehensible conclusions (which they deem logical and easy to understand according to themselves) for such issues that they spent an infinite amount of time to ponder about. But would they still accept something without the ‘profound scientific backstory’? No, they definitely won’t

      And here comes my rebuttal, the profound and incomprehensible nature of their conclusions/ explanations doesn’t necessarily relates to depth, depth doesn’t mean something that the average person don’t understand, depth doesn’t only has to be some kind of marvelous summary backed by logic. Sometimes depth is a person’s ability to understand and accept the different perspective or approach to the same subject. The ability to allow for coexistence of different interpretations instead of saying ‘my way is the way’ ‘my way is the right way’, yea surely your way might be a right way, it might be workable way, it might even be a feasible way, but if you have held such deep belief in something as to say that ‘it is the ONLY right way’, then that’s not depth, that’s what a narcissist would say.

      An intj is willing to spend forever to tackle a problem that they believe have an intrinsic core that will reveal everything from origin to development to manifestation of a certain subject. They tend to either ignore, disregard or be uninterested to things that seemed abstract/ without a definite answer/ very flexible. That is the blind spot of logic, logic drills, logic is subjective, and that is why it doesn’t tolerate (and in our society its subjectivity is expanded to a form of collective principle and that’s why you might not even realize that even 1+1 is originally subjective)

      In some cases, the unyielding iron-grip logical approach of intjs towards everything can even be equated to that of narrowmindedness, and also shallowness (if they somehow deemed something unworthy of their investigation for its uncertainty/intangibility) How can you say such a type is the ‘deepest’ of all when they’re so used to disregarding everything that cannot be explained by science/logic/mathematics/arithmatic/ physics you name it. Yes intjs are deep, but their deepness could only go so far as to things that can be logically explained , they can drill on forever if things can be somehow explained by science, but once science is off the picture, they pretty much will become intellectually constipated. That’s what intjs are all about, they’re wired off logic, that’s what make them the best strategist out there, but that’s also what makes them not the deepest type out of all.

      Of course I didn’t mean all intjs are like that, but if you are to break down mbtis into their basic cognitive functions, than that’s exactly what intjs would be, if you’re an intj and you don’t agree with what I have to say about your type, it’s probably because you’re not entirely 100% an intj. In fact, almost no one out there are purely their own types. We are all ambiverts, mixed with different combinations of all functions that is simultaneously affected by environmental factors as well.

      Maybe it’s time that we understand that there is no ‘deepest’ people out there. We all have our weaknesses, we all have our blind spots. And depth is only as representational as far as the human society comprehends. Believe me, if someone came up and tell you a bunch of things that you have totally no idea about, whatever amazingly unheard of insights they have, you won’t regard them as deep, you would regard them as psychopathic, maniacal, retarded, alien-like, weird, queer.

  21. INTJ says:

    This entire blog is wrong. Sorry, don’t want to hurt your feelings as I am sure you put in a lot of effort but…every post has galaxy sized holes in logic.
    – INTJ

  22. Anonymous says:

    The article is not wrong. INTJ can do almost any job (entrepreneur, scientist, lawyer, artist, philosopher, politician, military strategist), ENTJ cannot be artist, nor philopher, nor scientist.
    INTP can never be politician, nor business man. INFJ rarely do anything good, most of them are terrorists.

  23. Anonymous says:

    folowing the previous one : if you don’t know this, i don’t have time to explain, just do your research on internet yourself with the most famous of each type and the Job affinities of each type.

  24. Re: tatl33 by says:

    When I read this blog, I lose brain cells…. Honestly.

  25. A says:

    So there are no deep “people”, but deep classifications… because deep people = intj right?
    then whoever you are if you’re intj you’re safe.
    either you are a priori a stupid guy, or in any case you’re thinking is quite ridiculous, and this judge comes from a stupid feeler, you know, the irrational guys. but you’re probably a rational smart guy, because you give a clear definition of what “deep” means (and I’m pretty sure it is that and nothing else!), you say introverts are deep and don’t mind if there are retards, evil, etc people among them: they’re a priori deep; thinker are deeper thinkers as well as feelers are deeper fellers or followers, in fact as I said I’m a fellatio with a very poor reasoning skills, and, in the final judgement, the last two heroes, intj and infj are fighting for the gold medal: who wins? of course Newton, because each intj is a newton inside.
    you’re totally ridiculous, and I don’t give arguments or whatever, becase it would be a totally waste of time.
    This mbti is the most super dumb I’ve ever read.

  26. Zero says:

    Everytime, a INTJ gets some credit, there is always some ENTP or INTP, wanting to debunk it.

  27. Lai says:

    Idiotic and uninformed writing. This dude is obsessed with INTJs.

  28. Athena says:

    I found this interpretation from another forum, I think it’s really worth of consideration, and is a much more well-founded way of looking at/measuring the relativity of depth:
    Emotional depth- Fi dominants.
    Logical depth- Ti dominants.
    Depth linked to the subconsciousness- Ni dominants.
    Depth linked to memories- Si dominants.

  29. Kadence says:

    Literally every post on this website is based on thoroughly incorrect and hilariously typist stereotypes. Please stop posting, it’s making the MBTI theory look bad.

  30. Hierro says:

    I’m commenting because I have osteoporosis

Post a comment below

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s