Ok guys I don't understand this. (And there is no worse feeling for an INTP than the feeling of not understanding something.) I was thinking about Keirsey for a while today and remembered how the difference between NTs and NFs is that NTs are "pragmatic" while NFs are "cooperative." The same difference divides SJs and SPs, with SPs being the "pragmatic" ones.
Lots of this concept make sense, but lots of it doesn't. I get that NFs are cooperative; they are concerned with people and focus on their own "big-picture" feelings, key word there being "own," as in "own opinion." They've got eyes on the finish line and want to see action based on their values. I get that SPs are pragmatic; they follow whims and tend to go with the flow, not holding onto dogma or traditions.
I also understand how SJs are considered cooperative, to an extent. Their opinions are often rooted in norms, traditions, and dogma (I threw up in my mouth a bit when typing that, just thinking about what must go on in the head of an SJ)
But here's the part I don't understand: I always thought that due to an SJs desire to be orderly, organized, and like a well-oiled machine, they would be considered "pragmatic." And as for the rational NTs, although it makes sense that they are pragmatic in the sense of being completely level-headed and not being bogged down by the likes of personal opinions and traditions/norms, it seems that their ideas are often rooted in basic axioms or principles that can't be touched. For example, in order to reach a logical conclusion in something geometry-related, there are liberties one must take with the truth. Parallel lines never intersecting is an axiom; it can't really be proven, but there are no counterexamples. Therefore, in order to reach the conclusion that two parallel lines never intersect, the parallel lines axiom must be invoked. This method of thought is always what I think of when I think of rationals, which is having logic based off of a core principle.
Let me give another example. Let's take an ESTJ and an INTP. Let's say both of them hate Obamacare. To me, it seems that an ESTJ would say something like "Obamacare can't work. According to this poll, *insert poll here*, which means that Obamacare simply can't work. End of story. I don't see how anyone can have an opposing viewpoint or anything." However, an INTP (and this INTP is not necessarily me, although I am one ) might say something like: "Obamacare violates individual liberties; whether a person chooses to purchase healthcare is in no way detrimental to another's individual rights and is also no concern of the government, therefore, the law simply can't be rightfully enforced."
The difference I was trying to point out there is how ESTJs put the logic of a well-oiled machine before the logic of something more big-picture-y like individual liberties, which would concern rationals, specifically NTPs.
So, can anyone shed light? Is my premise wrong? Does anyone spot any formal or informal fallacies in my claims? Keep in mind that I'm not convicted in the slightest to defending these claims, so fire away everyone. (That's how INTPs roll)