Signs of Ni

[Coriolis]

Believe it or not, INTJs tend to have plenty of doubt about things.

We just work to eliminate that doubt as much as we possibly can.

In this line of work, that tends to be through extensive research.

And, believe it or not, Ni is good at juggling multiple possibilities.

In fact, I'd say it's far more adept at doing so than is Ne.

It just does so with an aim of narrowing it down to the right one.

Or, when that's not possible, by figuring out the probability weightings for the various possible scenarios.

The narrowing down tendency goes along with the overall goal-orientation of J/TJ. We have some end in sight that motivates us to evaluate and manage the various possibilities in a way that brings us closer to that end. It often seems that for the NTP, the process itself is the goal; it need not produce any (specific) result, it need only function with internal consistency. Hence the ability to entertain a broad spectrum of possibilities, black swans included, without any compulsion to evaluate or down-select.

 

[Rasofy]

Sounds like it is easy for INTJs to contemplate multiple scenarios before they make their mind , but once they get their egos invested on the idea (which, ime, isn't so hard), they can easily get in trouble.
Ironically, the degree of confidence you both place on your functions made me more confident of my points.
That's all.

 

[uumlau]

Sounds like it is easy for INTJs to contemplate multiple scenarios before they make their mind , but once they get their egos invested on the idea (which, ime, isn't so hard), they can easily get in trouble.
Ironically, the degree of confidence you both place on your functions made me more confident of my points.
That's all.

The ego-investment that INTPs see in INTJs appears (to me) to be reading Te as if it were Fe.

INTJs think of ideas in terms of how useful they are, and don't think in terms of strict technical truth. For example, consider the list of theories of gravity I made earlier in the thread: treat any of them as absolute truth, and they're all wrong; treat them as having varying levels of utility, and they're all correct, even though they cannot all be "true". INTPs will tend to argue in terms of truth, while INTJs will "stubbornly" hang onto their "wrong ideas" because it's the utility/functionality, not the "truth" that matters.

INTPs tend to interpret their lack of success in such arguments with INTJs to the INTJs' ego-investment in the idea. Because, obviously, the INTP is correct and the INTJ is obviously wrong, and the only reason the INTJ could possibly disagree is such ego-investment, because that's the only reason INTPs perceive in themselves that one would be so stubbornly wrong.

I'm not saying INTJs are never ego-invested in their ideas, but INTPs' arguments are often at cross-purposes with what INTJs are actually saying, more often than not.

 

[Poki]

The ego-investment that INTPs see in INTJs appears (to me) to be reading Te as if it were Fe.

INTJs think of ideas in terms of how useful they are, and don't think in terms of strict technical truth. For example, consider the list of theories of gravity I made earlier in the thread: treat any of them as absolute truth, and they're all wrong; treat them as having varying levels of utility, and they're all correct, even though they cannot all be "true". INTPs will tend to argue in terms of truth, while INTJs will "stubbornly" hang onto their "wrong ideas" because it's the utility/functionality, not the "truth" that matters.

INTPs tend to interpret their lack of success in such arguments with INTJs to the INTJs' ego-investment in the idea. Because, obviously, the INTP is correct and the INTJ is obviously wrong, and the only reason the INTJ could possibly disagree is such ego-investment, because that's the only reason INTPs perceive in themselves that one would be so stubbornly wrong.

I'm not saying INTJs are never ego-invested in their ideas, but INTPs' arguments are often at cross-purposes with what INTJs are actually saying, more often than not.

With Si its all about the detail, with Ni its about the concept which means the detail is fuzzy so it can be applied...I know personally I am aware of the "fuzzy" that seperates utility vs truth. Focusing on the details of the truth can overwhelm..not because my Ni is not right, but because its like nitpicking where half the time there is no reason to nitpick...because I am aware that its fuzzy and not concretely true.

 

[Zarathustra]

The ego-investment that INTPs see in INTJs appears (to me) to be reading Te as if it were Fe.

Could you expand on this?

I've never thought of it this way...

I've always thought it was more like reading Te as Fi...

INTJs think of ideas in terms of how useful they are, and don't think in terms of strict technical truth. For example, consider the list of theories of gravity I made earlier in the thread: treat any of them as absolute truth, and they're all wrong; treat them as having varying levels of utility, and they're all correct, even though they cannot all be "true". INTPs will tend to argue in terms of truth, while INTJs will "stubbornly" hang onto their "wrong ideas" because it's the utility/functionality, not the "truth" that matters.

So, in other words, INTPs are annoying nitpickers?

Yeah, sounds about right.

 

[uumlau]

Could you expand on this?

I've never thought of it this way...

I've always thought it was more like reading Te as Fi...

If it were reading Fi, then it wouldn't be so much ego invested in the idea so much as a commitment to an abstract value. INTJs tend to have particular hot-button issues on which they're clearly irrational. They will often admit to being irrational, because it's a matter of right versus wrong, not truth. It's conviction, not irrationality.

In the typical INTP perspective, Ti exhibits the same "conviction" with respect to ideas that Fi does with respect to values. That's why mature INTPs will talk in conditional, tentative terms: because to assert one's internal factual truth as "the truth" is evidence of hubris (in Fe terms). Dom/aux Fi is similarly tentative when sharing values.

The Fe/Ti dynamic is to chide Ti to behave correctly even though such behavior isn't strictly logical. When INTPs see INTJs expounding facts in a Te manner, it reeks of that hubris, of self-centered logical rightness, and must be called out in an Fe way to invoke a sense of shame (which doesn't work very well on INTJs, and works all too well on INTPs).

The Te/Fi dynamic is that Fi has its deeply-held convictions, but there is a (Te) recognition that not all of these convictions can be materialized in the real world. Fi holds Te to internalized idealistic values, while Te tempers Fi values to conform (to a degree!) to practical reality. An INTJ expounding an idea isn't intentionally imposing his own intellectual concepts onto reality, but rather there is an ongoing "negotiation" with reality that INTPs don't see, because their inner Ti logic is as shielded from reality as our Fi values.

So an INTJ reacting to another INTJs "incorrect" statement will offer counter-evidence (your statement A cannot be true because X and Y are demonstrably true instead, and offer a much better explanation of events), while an INTP will instead assume the INTJ has leaped to a conclusion and attempt first to offer gentle "nitpicks" (as you aptly put it) to help nudge the INTJ out of his misconception, and eventually resort to outright attempts to shame based on supposed hubris on the part of the INTJ.

These are just communication styles, though, not actual incorrect reasoning on the part of either party.

 

[uumlau]

With Si its all about the detail, with Ni its about the concept which means the detail is fuzzy so it can be applied...I know personally I am aware of the "fuzzy" that seperates utility vs truth. Focusing on the details of the truth can overwhelm..not because my Ni is not right, but because its like nitpicking where half the time there is no reason to nitpick...because I am aware that its fuzzy and not concretely true.

If you haven't read Godel, Escher, Bach, you might find it interesting in this regard. It's a detailed study of how precise logical statements only map to reality in an imperfect way. In particular, he focuses on self-referential logic, invoking parallels between Escher's self-referential drawings, Bach's self-referential music (playing music in counterpoint with itself, among other things), and Godel's classic incompleteness theorem.

 

[Zarathustra]

The Fe/Ti dynamic is to chide Ti to behave correctly even though such behavior isn't strictly logical. When INTPs see INTJs expounding facts in a Te manner, it reeks of that hubris, of self-centered logical rightness, and must be called out in an Fe way to invoke a sense of shame (which doesn't work very well on INTJs, and works all too well on INTPs).

Interesting...

Not to nitpick, but this would be more judging Te via Fe, though, right?

As opposed to seeing Te as if it's Fe?

I can definitely get on board with them judging our Te via their Fe...

I think it's kinda why I said seeing Te as Fi...

I think that when we make statements about what is objectively true, they think we're just projecting subjective Fi judgments onto reality, which, in some cases we may be, but plenty of times we're not. There is such a thing as external reality, and there are such things as statements that correspond with it, and ones that don't. Obviously, it's not simply a binary thing, there are degrees to which statements correspond, and, as you've pointed out above, there are ways in which statements correspond in certain regards, but not necessarily in others. Regardless, though, not all Te is simply Fi. That's the bullshit conviction that I think a lot of TPs and FJs engage in.

I think this basically makes our interpretations the same, no?

Language just clarified.

The Te/Fi dynamic is that Fi has its deeply-held convictions, but there is a (Te) recognition that not all of these convictions can be materialized in the real world. Fi holds Te to internalized idealistic values, while Te tempers Fi values to conform (to a degree!) to practical reality. An INTJ expounding an idea isn't intentionally imposing his own intellectual concepts onto reality, but rather there is an ongoing "negotiation" with reality that INTPs don't see, because their inner Ti logic is as shielded from reality as our Fi values.

With regards to this last part, I do have to say I always find that part interesting, cuz, while I agree with it in one regard, I do always have to go back and say that Ti, as a T function, is dealing with the world in a different way than Fi (truth vs values), and, as such, is, by that one dimension, closer to reality than is Fi. This all draws back to what I've called the tripartite meaning of objectivity/subjectivity in typology (LINK), which, now that I think of it, you are partially responsible for (as is Eric B).

So an INTJ reacting to another INTJs "incorrect" statement will offer counter-evidence (your statement A cannot be true because X and Y are demonstrably true instead, and offer a much better explanation of events), while an INTP will instead assume the INTJ has leaped to a conclusion and attempt first to offer gentle "nitpicks" (as you aptly put it) to help nudge the INTJ out of his misconception, and eventually resort to outright attempts to shame based on supposed hubris on the part of the INTJ.

Yes, this is pretty much spot on.

Although I think "misconception" would be more accurate in quotes.

These are just communication styles, though, not actual incorrect reasoning on the part of either party.

I dunno...

I'd say it's pretty dumb on the part of INTPs.

By your construction (which I agree with), I think the implication is:

If we correct them, it's in the form of: hey, that thought doesn't correspond with reality. Objective critique.

If they correct us, it's in the form of: hey, you're not supposed to behave that way. Bullshit, subjective ethical critique.

I've wanted to have this particular discussion for a while now -- glad it's finally come up... and in an Ni thread, of all places...

 

[Zarathustra]

[MENTION=9310]uumlau[/MENTION]

I'd also be interested in hearing how you think the Ti/Fe dynamic changes when you're talking about FJs instead of TPs...

I've spent a lot of time thinking about this, but more with regards to TJs and FPs...

Would like to see how your thoughts compare to mine...

 

[Rasofy]

If they correct us, it's in the form of: hey, you're not supposed to behave that way. Bullshit, subjective ethical critique.

Not really. We can also nitpick the crap out of every argument.
To be fair with you, you did far more research than me, so I'm not really able to discuss your points in an utilitarian Te approach. I could tear down a lot of cause/consequence connections that I consider arbitrary (and you'd call it ''nitpicking''), but I'd probably be doing what [MENTION=9310]uumlau[/MENTION] predicted earlier, and I hate acting predictable. I mean, it's not my style.
Btw you both brought some very good points.

 

[Zarathustra]

Not really. We can also nitpick the crap out of every argument.

Ok, this is true...

But either way, you'd be behaving like a retard...

To be fair with you, you did far more research than me, so I'm not really able to discuss your points in an utilitarian Te approach.

You'd pretty much have to work in the field in order to have much of a critique.

Just the theoretical, or just the practical side, isn't enough.

I studied the theory, and then started doing it.

I could tear down a lot of cause/consequence connections that I consider arbitrary (and you'd call it ''nitpicking'')...

Which brings me to my next point...

Cuz I've had this conversation with another NTJ recently...

Are you aware that I probably have strong counterarguments/explanations for all of this nitpicking you would do?

You guys seem to work off the assumption that just cuz something isn't stated, it means it's not already been considered.

Not everything people write comes in the form of a technical proof, and your guys' nitpicking essentially would require as much.

It's why you guys are often so annoying to hang out/discuss things with, and it's a really stupid assumption to base your decisions off of.

The conversation with the other NTJ went something like this: "NTPs nitpick about the words present in an argument, but they don't seem to realize that their nitpicking about those specific words doesn't necessarily address the actual position of the person who wrote those words. They get so obsessed with the words on paper they seem to lose all awareness that maybe they need to try to understand and take into account that whatever nitpicks they have about the words that were written aren't necessarily useful (at all) with regards to furthering a discussion with the person who wrote those words. In other words, they attack the words, not the position."

We both basically held this exact same position before ever entering into the conversation.

 

[Rasofy]

But either way, you'd be behaving like a retard...

Tsk tsk, you'd never waste an opportunity to troll INTPs, would you?

Are you aware that I probably have strong counterarguments/explanations for all of this nitpicking you would do?

I wouldn't doubt that, but I find more likely that I would be starting an endless discussion like the ones you usually have with [MENTION=7595]INTP[/MENTION].

The conversation with the other NTJ went something like this: "NTPs nitpick about the words present in an argument, but they don't seem to realize that their nitpicking about those specific words doesn't necessarily address the actual position of the person who wrote those words. They get so obsessed with the words on paper they seem to lose all recognition of the fact that maybe they need to try to understand and take into account that whatever nitpicks they have about the words that were written aren't necessarily useful (at all) with regards to furthering a discussion with the person who wrote those words. In other words, they attack the words, not the position."

We both basically held this exact same position.

I'm flexible with semantics. I'm talking about the degree of validity of the ideas. When you rely too much on effectiveness (Te focus), without a solid understanding of the cause/consequence connections behind the events (Ti focus), you put yourself in a vulnerable position.
You'd have to gather more and more data until it hits you that a new pattern emerged. But it could be late.

 

[highlander]

First I decide if the person in S or N. This is really easy for me. It's a gut feeling. They are either speaking my N-language or they are not.
Next, I decide if they wear their N openly or they don't. In other words, the very fact that it isn't clearly expressed (like my Ne is) means that they are Ni. It is the lack of outward expression that's the major flag for Ni.

I like this. So simple.

PS. Just for the record, I think I had a good understanding of Ni before I made this thread. The problem was simply that it's very hard to actively see precisely what someone's thinking process is, which seemed to be the only way to find Ni. Maybe I should just give up on the short and quick methods.

I have a hard time recognizing Ni as well. In general, the introverted processes are harder to detect. Ni is particularly hard to catch in action. With Ni doms, the thing I notice is that they may not say much but when then when they do say something, it tends to be pretty insightful. They make comments that reflect:
- In-depth understanding
- Focus on the big picture but honing in on one specific thing at a time within that
- An orientation towards forseeing what will happen in the future with some level of confidence that has no obvious basis in facts

Haven't read this whole thread...what about Ni in INFJs?

There are a lot of good comments from INFJs in this thread.

http://www.typologycentral.com/forums/popular-culture-type/53970-rooney-mara.html

Some highlights/quotes here:

I can see INFJ as a possibility from watching the video... the thing is, sometimes INFJs when being interviewed, especially when explaining things, tend to take on a more "thinker" like vibe... the tone of voice dampens down as the INFJ is searching around for the words to say and ideas. I notice her eyes keep looking around like she's searching for her train of thought which is indicative of intuition. Ni is inner intuition, so it isn't outright noticeable, and Ti coupled with it tends to make the Fe less apparent when giving explanations.

I would add the kind of shy laugh and smile she makes when starting to talk about herself is something I often do.

Well she does kind of have that stoic school ma’am/hard edge/seriousness about her, that suggests IxxJ to me. And I do the same thing with my eyes, especially if I’m in an unfamiliar environment. But I’ve never heard of her before, these videos are all I’ve ever seen of her, so I really can’t say.

I notice INFJ usually have a difficulty to look straight into the listener's eyes by offering proper eye-contact. Perhaps that's why I've been struggling from job interview a lot. I also tend to resemble Rooney's facial expression and the soft spoken mannerism. So my guess is she's an INFJ.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

INTJs think of ideas in terms of how useful they are, and don't think in terms of strict technical truth. For example, consider the list of theories of gravity I made earlier in the thread: treat any of them as absolute truth, and they're all wrong; treat them as having varying levels of utility, and they're all correct, even though they cannot all be "true". INTPs will tend to argue in terms of truth, while INTJs will "stubbornly" hang onto their "wrong ideas" because it's the utility/functionality, not the "truth" that matters.

INTPs tend to interpret their lack of success in such arguments with INTJs to the INTJs' ego-investment in the idea. Because, obviously, the INTP is correct and the INTJ is obviously wrong, and the only reason the INTJ could possibly disagree is such ego-investment, because that's the only reason INTPs perceive in themselves that one would be so stubbornly wrong.

I'm not saying INTJs are never ego-invested in their ideas, but INTPs' arguments are often at cross-purposes with what INTJs are actually saying, more often than not.

I really like all of your explanations about this stuff. Completely agree on the conflict between INTP and INTJ.

 

[uumlau]

Not really. We can also nitpick the crap out of every argument.
To be fair with you, you did far more research than me, so I'm not really able to discuss your points in an utilitarian Te approach. I could tear down a lot of cause/consequence connections that I consider arbitrary (and you'd call it ''nitpicking''), but I'd probably be doing what [MENTION=9310]uumlau[/MENTION] predicted earlier, and I hate acting predictable. I mean, it's not my style.
Btw you both brought some very good points.

To put things in perspective, I find that INTPs react badly to "incomplete" INTJ statements. As an analogy (not a real technical discussion but a simulation of one), I might see something like this:

INTJ: The switch turns the light on.
INTP: That's not true.
INTJ: Of course it is. *walks over to the switch, turns the light on and off a few times with the switch* See? The switch turns the light on.
INTP: You're still incorrect.
INTJ: You've got to be kidding me, I just showed you that the switch turns the light on.
INTP: No you didn't.
INTJ: I can't believe I'm having this discussion. I'm not sure what part of "the switch turns the light on" you don't understand.
INTP: I understand it just fine, but you clearly do not.
INTJ: Fine. Enlighten me. What don't I understand?
INTP: (Now responding more completely, having been asked a question rather than being forced to listen to another asinine assertion from the INTJ) The switch doesn't turn the light on. The switch turns the light on and off.
INTJ: *facepalm*

Replace "switch" and "light" with any sort of highly technical discussion in which slight flaws in communication can cause all sorts of misunderstanding.

The INTJ is essentially saying "the use case exists" that the switch turns the light on. The INTP hears that as "the only thing the switch does is turn the light on."

Neither is wrong, both understand the truth, but each is operating under different unspoken assumptions - different enough for each to believe the other is stupid or ignorant.

(And of course, it doesn't help when they're both ticked off and turn to irrelevant verbal sparring instead of focusing on where the misunderstanding lies.)

 

[Coriolis]

The conversation with the other NTJ went something like this: "NTPs nitpick about the words present in an argument, but they don't seem to realize that their nitpicking about those specific words doesn't necessarily address the actual position of the person who wrote those words. They get so obsessed with the words on paper they seem to lose all awareness that maybe they need to try to understand and take into account that whatever nitpicks they have about the words that were written aren't necessarily useful (at all) with regards to furthering a discussion with the person who wrote those words. In other words, they attack the words, not the position."

I understood long ago, however, that the one who frames the argument gains considerably more control over it. Politicians (try to) do this all the time. I therefore try to nip in the bud the introduction of loaded terminology by exposing it for what it is, and suggesting (insisting upon) a more neutral expression. I am sometimes accused of nitpicking for doing this, but am more than willing to explain why these particular words are important, and why I reject the assumptions inherent in the loaded terms.

 

[Red Herring]

To put things in perspective, I find that INTPs react badly to "incomplete" INTJ statements. As an analogy (not a real technical discussion but a simulation of one), I might see something like this:

INTJ: The switch turns the light on.
INTP: That's not true.
INTJ: Of course it is. *walks over to the switch, turns the light on and off a few times with the switch* See? The switch turns the light on.
INTP: You're still incorrect.
INTJ: You've got to be kidding me, I just showed you that the switch turns the light on.
INTP: No you didn't.
INTJ: I can't believe I'm having this discussion. I'm not sure what part of "the switch turns the light on" you don't understand.
INTP: I understand it just fine, but you clearly do not.
INTJ: Fine. Enlighten me. What don't I understand?
INTP: (Now responding more completely, having been asked a question rather than being forced to listen to another asinine assertion from the INTJ) The switch doesn't turn the light on. The switch turns the light on and off.
INTJ: *facepalm*

Replace "switch" and "light" with any sort of highly technical discussion in which slight flaws in communication can cause all sorts of misunderstanding.

The INTJ is essentially saying "the use case exists" that the switch turns the light on. The INTP hears that as "the only thing the switch does is turn the light on."

Neither is wrong, both understand the truth, but each is operating under different unspoken assumptions - different enough for each to believe the other is stupid or ignorant.

(And of course, it doesn't help when they're both ticked off and turn to irrelevant verbal sparring instead of focusing on where the misunderstanding lies.)

Ha ha. Nice example. And I'd like to add that while the INTJ might think that the INTP is simply being a pain in the ass or trying to annoy him (which of course could be the case if the INTJ has previously provoked resentment in the INTP) it is probably more likely that this really does matter and makes a relevent difference to the INTP.

Sloppy language leads to sloppy thinking and sloppy thinking is an abomination before the Lord!

To a Ti dom inconsistencies or incomplete depictions of a system often cause what I like to call the "Ti headache": it makes us nervous and uncomfortable and causes an almost irresistable urge to say: "well, actually ...". This isn't about being a smartass nitpicker, it is about putting the universe back in order. Screw practicality, a false or misleading statement is a stain on the cosmos' crisp white cotton shirt.

I understood long ago, however, that the one who frames the argument gains considerably more control over it. Politicians (try to) do this all the time. I therefore try to nip in the bud the introduction of loaded terminology by exposing it for what it is, and suggesting (insisting upon) a more neutral expression. I am sometimes accused of nitpicking for doing this, but am more than willing to explain why these particular words are important, and why I reject the assumptions inherent in the loaded terms.

Yet another reason why language, phrasing and definitions DO matter. This is one reason why I think every debate should start with a clear definition of the terminology. It is annoying when somebody changes the rules in midplay. You start off with chess and end up playing checkers.

Also, I remember learning in a class on sociolinguistics that the use of qualifiers was a female specialty. I do this a lot, but usually not to soften the blow or avoid coming off as too confident but because it would feel like lying if I simplified things or generalized too much. Thus the abundance of "most", "some", "often", "sometimes" and "seems to" or "appears to" in my posts.

 

[figsfiggyfigs]

Urgh. Sometimes I forget how annoying function-analysis is by people that either know very little about it or far more than they should, and then I stumble upon threads like this.

 

[Cellmold]

The ego-investment that INTPs see in INTJs appears (to me) to be reading Te as if it were Fe.

INTJs think of ideas in terms of how useful they are, and don't think in terms of strict technical truth. For example, consider the list of theories of gravity I made earlier in the thread: treat any of them as absolute truth, and they're all wrong; treat them as having varying levels of utility, and they're all correct, even though they cannot all be "true". INTPs will tend to argue in terms of truth, while INTJs will "stubbornly" hang onto their "wrong ideas" because it's the utility/functionality, not the "truth" that matters.

INTPs tend to interpret their lack of success in such arguments with INTJs to the INTJs' ego-investment in the idea. Because, obviously, the INTP is correct and the INTJ is obviously wrong, and the only reason the INTJ could possibly disagree is such ego-investment, because that's the only reason INTPs perceive in themselves that one would be so stubbornly wrong.

I'm not saying INTJs are never ego-invested in their ideas, but INTPs' arguments are often at cross-purposes with what INTJs are actually saying, more often than not.

Yes, this is why INTJ's often follow the sciences, not that they will necessarily be found in such fields of course. People are amazing and it's surprising where life leads them.

But Ni coming up with it's abstract why's and insights into everything it percieves combined with Te's liking for application often results in something like theoretical physics.

You can contrast this with INFJ's who tend to lend their insights towards more humanistic routes through the use of Fe. So often an INFJ might be more likely to go for something like psychology, or perhaps influence others through writing.

Of course once again these tendencies are just a way of explanation, not a certainty.

 

[INTP]

To put things in perspective, I find that INTPs react badly to "incomplete" INTJ statements. As an analogy (not a real technical discussion but a simulation of one), I might see something like this:

INTJ: The switch turns the light on.
INTP: That's not true.
INTJ: Of course it is. *walks over to the switch, turns the light on and off a few times with the switch* See? The switch turns the light on.
INTP: You're still incorrect.
INTJ: You've got to be kidding me, I just showed you that the switch turns the light on.
INTP: No you didn't.
INTJ: I can't believe I'm having this discussion. I'm not sure what part of "the switch turns the light on" you don't understand.
INTP: I understand it just fine, but you clearly do not.
INTJ: Fine. Enlighten me. What don't I understand?
INTP: (Now responding more completely, having been asked a question rather than being forced to listen to another asinine assertion from the INTJ) The switch doesn't turn the light on. The switch turns the light on and off.
INTJ: *facepalm*

Replace "switch" and "light" with any sort of highly technical discussion in which slight flaws in communication can cause all sorts of misunderstanding.

The INTJ is essentially saying "the use case exists" that the switch turns the light on. The INTP hears that as "the only thing the switch does is turn the light on."

Neither is wrong, both understand the truth, but each is operating under different unspoken assumptions - different enough for each to believe the other is stupid or ignorant.

(And of course, it doesn't help when they're both ticked off and turn to irrelevant verbal sparring instead of focusing on where the misunderstanding lies.)

More like this:

INTJ: this light switch turns the lights on/off
INTP: nah, this building isnt finished yet, they dont install the light systems at this part of construction yet
INTJ: lol its a light switch, light switches turn lights on/off
INTP: yea they usually do, but this house isnt finished yet and at this point of construction the lights havent been installed yet
INTJ: but theres a light switch and light switches turn lights on/off
INTP: so?
INTJ: light switch turns lights on/off, see here it says so on wikipedia. U dumb lol
INTP: what does it say about houses still in construction?
INTJ: nothing, *tries to google* there is no evidence to back you up found from google, therefore i am right
INTP: look the first hit on google is this discussion forum about house construction, and this guy tells that light switches are wired only later parts of the house construction, even tho the switch is there from early on, i told you so..
INTJ: lol this is just some random guy on internets, his words mean nothing, you are so gullible, believing everything you hear from some random people
INTP: pfff idiot

 

[Nicodemus]

More like this:

INTJ: this light switch turns the lights on/off
INTP: nah, this building isnt finished yet, they dont install the light systems at this part of construction yet
INTJ: lol its a light switch, light switches turn lights on/off
INTP: yea they usually do, but this house isnt finished yet and at this point of construction the lights havent been installed yet
INTJ: but theres a light switch and light switches turn lights on/off
INTP: so?
INTJ: light switch turns lights on/off, see here it says so on wikipedia. U dumb lol
INTP: what does it say about houses still in construction?
INTJ: nothing, *tries to google* there is no evidence to back you up found from google, therefore i am right
INTP: look the first hit on google is this discussion forum about house construction, and this guy tells that light switches are wired only later parts of the house construction, even tho the switch is there from early on, i told you so..
INTJ: lol this is just some random guy on internets, his words mean nothing, you are so gullible, believing everything you hear from some random people
INTP: pfff idiot

Please make your INTJ friend/enemy join the forum. I would like to hear his take on a number of topics.