[MBTI General] Differences between NT thinking and ST thinking

[93JC]

Whisky. Get it right, Ditzy.

 

[entropie]

whiskeey is whiskeey, the ITPs will never get that

 

[Mitzy]

youre an annoying idiot and i dont like you

 

[entropie]

Ya, I am sorry for that. Give me time to get to know you and I am sure I can give the compliment back

 

[Mitzy]

Ya, I am sorry for that. Give me time to get to know you and I am sure I can give the compliment back

not you. but you too for thinking i was talking to you!

jk

 

[entropie]

ok but then lets finally come to the drinkin part, enough with the talking !

(I regret I dont have whiskeey today, but I think Korn will do the trick doubly so )

 

[93JC]

youre an annoying idiot and i dont like you

You're an annoying idiot and I don't like you.

 

[Sentura]

You're an annoying idiot and I don't like you.

why are all INTPs really just closet ISTPs? the entire archetype should be closed down and moved to S. there's hardly any difference anymore.

 

[entropie]

word ^^

 

[Blank]

Disagreed. I would find life meaningless if I couldn't have my head in the clouds, in the realm of god.

 

[entropie]

At least we tried -.-

 

[Sentura]

Disagreed. I would find life meaningless if I couldn't have my head in the clouds, in the realm of god.

then you're not an INTP :rolli:

 

[entropie]

You not only have to watch for the "head in the clouds" thing but he actually said "in the realm of god" . Thats quite the usual madness

 

[Lasting_Pain]

Take a math class, and look at how people show their work. If the work is incoherent and and scattered but always comes to the right answer than the person is an NT. If the work is formal and uses the same steps to solve each problem then that person is an ST. Other functions can play a part in this. But this experiment works atleast 90% of time.

 

[Grayscale]

Me too...

NT and ST though... as a very broad summary of my personal experience, I'd say NT thinks more about what things mean and ST thinks more about what they are. To the NT, what they mean is what they are, things only are what they mean, you know, they are given definition by their position in a bigger picture. To the ST, what things are is what they mean, and if they've any relevance to anything else than it has to be done and shown and proven empirically and physically. Sorta.

i think this is a pretty good description (best friend of 10+ years is INTP) because we have a different purpose, the approach changes. i tend to focus on absorbing details so that i can extrapolate the underlying pattern to add it to my arsenal of mental tools to reapply elsewhere later. a lot of "N" observations of the bigger picture strike me as kinda obvious... "yeah, i can see it's a forest, but let's figure out what kind of trees it has and what we can do with them", the goal is some kind of practical application. INTP couldnt care less about the specifics, the concept is valuable enough by itself because they have different goals in mind

 

[Blank]

Take a math class, and look at how people show their work. If the work is incoherent and and scattered but always comes to the right answer than the person is an NT. If the work is formal and uses the same steps to solve each problem then that person is an ST. Other functions can play a part in this. But this experiment works atleast 90% of time.

Ahaha, I never thought about it that way. I remember when I was in school, I absolutely hated showing my work because it was pointless, especially in basic algebra and arithmetic. I also enjoyed working things out in my head and having to stop to put what was in my head on paper was just too much interruption for my NT-geared assault on the answer.


To Grayscale: That's an interesting take on it, but as an NT, I often find the bigger picture to be more important because you can have a shit-ton of legos and the motivation to build a tower, but if you don't know the basic principles of tower building, you're not likely to build a good tower. In my mind, it's easiest to take the essential basics and learn them first. If you need to do something later, you'll understand the basic theory and can work your way up using trial-and-error.

 

[Lasting_Pain]

Ahaha, I never thought about it that way. I remember when I was in school, I absolutely hated showing my work because it was pointless, especially in basic algebra and arithmetic. I also enjoyed working things out in my head and having to stop to put what was in my head on paper was just too much interruption for my NT-geared assault on the answer.


To Grayscale: That's an interesting take on it, but as an NT, I often find the bigger picture to be more important because you can have a shit-ton of legos and the motivation to build a tower, but if you don't know the basic principles of tower building, you're not likely to build a good tower. In my mind, it's easiest to take the essential basics and learn them first. If you need to do something later, you'll understand the basic theory and can work your way up using trial-and-error.

Exactly I hated showing work. That is why I made Cs and Bs in my math classes because the teachers did not condone my methods of learning. I would never show my work. It would not be until my latter years teachers really started to appreciate my ability to find answers without going through the routine steps. But if I ever had to learn how to do a math problem I rather have a ST teach me than an NT.

 

[Grayscale]

To Grayscale: That's an interesting take on it, but as an NT, I often find the bigger picture to be more important because you can have a shit-ton of legos and the motivation to build a tower, but if you don't know the basic principles of tower building, you're not likely to build a good tower. In my mind, it's easiest to take the essential basics and learn them first. If you need to do something later, you'll understand the basic theory and can work your way up using trial-and-error.

using your analogy, i would take the opposite approach. im not likely to have an issue doing something as simple as building a tower, what requires deeper consideration is what it is supposed to do and what i have available to customize it specifically for that purpose. actually, i think that you can't even select an appropriate theory unless you understand the practical applications.

Exactly I hated showing work. That is why I made Cs and Bs in my math classes because the teachers did not condone my methods of learning. I would never show my work. It would not be until my latter years teachers really started to appreciate my ability to find answers without going through the routine steps. But if I ever had to learn how to do a math problem I rather have a ST teach me than an NT.

i had a similar experience in math classes, but it was more that i was lazy... the reason they want you to show all the steps is because, ultimately, math is rigid and you have to show that you understand the linear logic between everything. yes, there are more efficient ways, but that's not to say someone will eventually misapply them if they dont understand the principles, which is what i think math teachers want to ensure... no real way of them knowing whether you're just cheating, memorizing answers to certain procedures, etc.

 

[Blank]

What's a tower supposed to do!?

Towers are BIG!

 

[Grayscale]

etc...

the devil is in the details