INTJ, ENTP and Theoretical Representation

[Blackwater]

INTJ, ENTP and Theoretical Representation
Lately, Ive been wondering about INTJ, ENTP and Theoretical Representation. To my mind, unmediated, extreme versions of each type would default to the thinking described below. Take, for instance, a chair:

INTJ:
1. The chair is a chair. We perceive the chair to be a chair and our perceptions are our chief means of determining reality.
2. The chair has a special Chair-ness to it which sets it apart from the table, the dresser and so on.
3. The chair has a purpose.
4. The purpose of the chair is to sit on.
5. The chair is the ideal medium of sitting.
6. The chair is a mental concept made real.

ENTP:
1. The chair is X kilograms of Y material shaped in such a way that people will think of it as a chair.
2. The chair isnt really a form in itself, but rather human cognition functions in such a manner that we would naturally perceive it as a form. We should examine our perceptions.
3. Other people designed the chair for sitting. I wonder if I can find some other purpose for the chair.
4. People in the Arabic world and East Asia live just fine without chairs.
5. Who says you have to sit in a chair anyway? It is also possible to sit on a table or dresser.
6. The chair is a subjective social construction: A convention that people subconsciously agree on.

In this, as in so many things related to psychology and philosophy, the Greeks got off to a good start, mapping out the lion’s share of the issue at the very dawn of time. For illustrative purposes we might mention, that the Theoretical Representation of the INTJ finds its mouthpiece in Plato while that of the ENTP is able to trace its ancestry back to Socrates.

In a sense, both are equally extreme. But the ENTP comes off as the more reasonable of the two due to (1) P-open-endedness which makes him seem less dogmatic and (2) The ENTP’s preference for Extroversion which naturally cross-references with reality at some point, the latter seeming reasonable because science has been moving away from a Ti (Introverted Thinking) and towards as Te (Extroverted Thinking) at least since the end of World War 2.

HOWEVER

Though I sometimes cringe on the inside when arguing with INTJs because of this dogmatism I still think there is much to be said for the INTJ way of doing things. Though most philosophers would probably smile at Ayn Rands (INTJ) response to Humes (ENTP) assertion that we can never truly know reality, Ayn Rand exclaiming that “Existance exists!” it cannot be denied that though they comprise only a very small percentage of the human population, INTJs have has a immense influence on human civilisation as a whole.

This raises the question as to whether the towering achievements of INTJs can be taken to mean that their mode of thinking and their way of conceiving theoretical representation is somehow more in tune with reality? – Or could it merely be, that INTJs, like the blind seers of the Delphic Oracle, possess the required psychological traits that drive them to succeed? - And that they actually suceed partly because they hold on to their inner vision rather than referencing reality.

Notably, gifted INTJs have a high IQ and Ego-strength, an ability to focus on one thing or field at a time as well as a general “work-first-then-play” attitude. All of this pushes them in the direction desribed above.

[Night]

Originally Posted by Blackwater

This raises the question as to whether the towering achievements of INTJs can be taken to mean that their mode of thinking and their way of conceiving theoretical representation is somehow more in tune with reality? – Or could it merely be, that INTJs, like the blind seers of the Delphic Oracle, possess the required psychological traits that drive them to succeed?

(Notably high IQ and Ego-strength, an ability to focus on one thing or field at a time as well as a general “work-first-then-play” attitude.)

If we detach ourselves from the premise that reality - as an ideal - has an absolute, falsifiable format, we are left to preclude the ENTP from formal consideration. Empirical observation as paramount. Scientific theory as impenetrable.

If we consign ourselves to the notion that reality is amorphous; flexible and is without identifiable tangibility, then the INTJ is ultimately incorrect. Philosophical exploration as sincerity.

Both equations presume a fundamental, concentric truth. In this vein, it is unlikely that either is remotely correct.

Reality is organic to the user. It is without purpose or fallibility.

As such, there really is no direct answer to your question - both as an explicit control and as an inherent engineering dilemma, both types have unavoidable flaws.

It isn't their fault. The equation is too abstract.

[FallsPioneer]

Ayn Rand sucks. Nothing wrong with discretionary altruism. I also don't think "comprehending" reality is a big deal, much less possible.

You can't take the idea in your question to be true, that by virtue of success and others accepting the INTJ's ideas that they're somehow more in tune with reality. Being "damn sure" about things can do lots for people. Maybe they're built to succeed better, but it doesn't mean they're right. Their certainty typically stems from what their vision of reality is or is supposed to be to begin with...is that necessarily being in tune with reality itself?