I use my intuition a lot. I jump to a lot of conclusions, pretty much instantly.
I don't bother trying to prove anything unless I have a good reason to and it's worth the time. Why bother wasting time proving something if it's not important enough? I'm usually right. If I'm wrong, it's usually because I didn't have enough information to make the right decision. But life doesn't wait for you to get 100% of all the facts and then prove everything 100%. You have to be decisive, not indecisive. General Schwartzkopf said that he would rather have an officer who is decisive, because even if you make the wrong decision, you can usually make it work out right anyway. Over the past few years I have trained myself to be very decisive and make decisions quickly. I think it has worked out well for me. Sometimes I do make a mistake but it's always quick & easy to correct. So I frequently use my intuition to make quick decisions. That's an INTJ talent.
Another INTJ talent is pattern recognition. We recognize similarities and patterns in things that are technically very different. Patterns just jump out at me. I spot them easily. For example, after spending a little time observing INTP's discuss things, I noticed that INTP's just talk aimlessly about a topic for a long time and get nowhere. They draw no conclusions and they don't accomplish anything. So that pattern reminded me of brownian motion, which is also the same as a random walk, or drunkard's walk. You can see illustrations of this on wikipedia:
Random walk - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
So my INTJ mind saw the similarity of patterns between INTP discussions and random walks.
INTJ's are great problem solvers.
We heavily use our intuition to solve problems.
We're also good analyzing problems, breaking them down into their components.
We come up with solutions quickly.
And our solutions work.
A lot of times, other personality types scoff at my ideas because they say there isn't enough proof or because they can't see the patterns that I see.
I guess they don't have as much intuition and pattern recognition ability.
I also tend to generalize a lot. And people often disagree with me because of that. I guess it's because I like to use pattern recognition a lot more than they do. I see patterns, so therefore I see general rules and trends in things. Many other people refuse to see those things, or cannot see them.
I think these are some of the qualities which make a great strategist, which I think is why the majority of the greatest generals in history have been INTJ's.
TSDesigner (TSD) has made an insightful post, though TSD's emphasis is on the role of intuition and judging in an INTJ's thought process. I think it is important to also incorporate extroverted thinking into one's analysis. In what follows below, I shall formulate it the way I see it. I have two interpretations: one on how knowledge is attained by humans in general, another on the INTJ thought process.
1. Humans in general. Before a thought begins to be processed information has to come via the senses and/or conciousness. Empiricists, including John Locke, have argued that all knowledge comes from the senses and experience. In this vein, when one is born one's mind is like a blank canvas on which a picture (experience) is gradually painted. As one ages and grows in experience, the picture becomes more detailed. However, Locke's view is incomplete because there is no sensory organ for conveying the notion of consciousness. Indeed, one can be blind and conscious, lose one's capacity to taste and still be conscious, and so on. Thus, the concept of consciousness itself is not conveyed through the senses. Yet, consciousness is itself a source of knowledge. Thus it follows that knowledge is gained both through the senses and consciousness. In more practical terms, our main tools for gaining knowledge are through empirical observations, intuitive reasoning, and analytical reasoning. Empirical observations consitute knowledge arrived at through experience of empirical phenomena. Intuition can be defined as the immediate "perception" of truth without rational calculation. The reason "perception" is placed in quotation marks is that it may or may not square well with reality. For example, one can have an immediate perception that the world is flat, but to formulate the view that the world is flat on the basis of this intuition would be false. So intuitions are educated guesses that arise out of past experiences of patterns but aren't always correct. For example, if one throws a stone at you at a regular interval, intuition would lead one to duck at the next interval to not be hit by the stone. Yet this is merely an educated guess and does not logically guarantee that the stone will be thrown. While intuition can be very useful as a source of knowledge, if one is to be as intellectually bulletproof as possible one must strive to back their intuitions up with analytical thinking. Quite naturally, humans often think in terms of logical syllogisms. A common syllogism is the categorical syllogism, which holds that if all As are Bs and all Bs are Cs, then it inevitably follows that all As are Cs. In this sense, one can gain knowledge through consciously pursued logical deduction. In summary, the main sources for knowledge consist in empirical observation, intuitive reasoning, and analytical reasoning (in the form of logical deduction and rational calculation).
It is important to fill in some of these details because there are many people who have made high intuition out to be some sort of magical process. Personally, I have never been able to understand why people lose their heads when discussing higher mental faculties. The same is true when people discuss genius. On this point, even William James Sidis with his alleged IQ of 300 couldn't think four-dimensionally much less eleven-dimensionally. And if there were aliens looking down on us they would find us all of a similar type of intelligence with only marginal variations. Thus, there is nothing super-human about it and no good reason to turn into mystics when discussing the INTJ thought process. Instead, we should take the approach to INTJness that we do with all of the other sciences which means being systematic and methodical in our analysis.
2. INTJ thought process. Cognitive process theory holds that the cognitive preference order for INTJs is Ni Te Fi Se. In my experience, this is correct. Ni establishes an internal--albeit subjective--agenda. Introverted intuition is introspective in nature, constantly seeking to connect and associate phenomena. It is oriented around possibilities as intuition often is but differs from extroverted intuition in that Ne is rather undisciplined, merely bouncing ideas around and making associations and whatnot, while introverted intuition is geared toward possibilities that serve the internal agenda which is the hallmark of Ni. Intuition churns out bits and scraps of information at random, and cannot be consciously willed. One minute the INTJ may be foggy on an issue, the next they will suddenly have an epiphany and the bigger picture will present itself clearly and the INTJ will gain solace in this new understanding. As the agenda sets in, the extraverted thinking function seeks to externalize this agenda and bring it to fruition. In this vein, introveted intuition is the master and extroverted thinking the slave. Extroverted thinking will serve to think through and organize the empirical world systematically, and naturally select all that is conducive to Ni's goals. As the Te function organizes information, that information can be acted upon by the judging preference. Typically, INTJs prefer closure rather than open-endedness, especially with respect to their goals. The reason is that once a clear definition has been established a definitive value can be assigned to that piece of information which can be related to Ni and acted upon in the future if need be.
Intuitive thinkers (NTs) can be more or less rigorous in their NTness. Indeed, I'm of the opinion that NTness can be tweaked. As we know, intuition is often a guess and can be wrong, yet it is a conveyor belt for ideas. Intuition feeds possibilities, imagination, creative thinking, and so forth, while logical thinking is very rigid in terms of its structure and organization. If logical thinking is consistently emphasized at the cost intuition, one will have a score of formal propositions void of meaningful empirical content. If intuition is left undisciplined by strict thinking, it can lead to frivolous drivel. The trick is to combine imagination with logical thinking. If pursued symmetrically to the highest degree I think one has the potential for independent thought. Though, it should be noted that often solitary and original thinkers are partial to their own thinking and slow to understand the perspectives of others. As such, there may be a cost to original thinking. When one has labored to establish their own axioms and circles of principles and conditions on which they build a superstructure of propositions linked together by a network of subtile and abstruse reasonings such that if there's any small logical error one may draw fallacious conclusions. In this sense, it is analgous to building up a complex puzzle only to be left with a few pieces and learn that none of them fit, in which case you will strain yourself thinking through all the possibilities and variations of how you can shift things around. Maybe you figure it out, or maybe you just as well start all over again. Maybe not. Maybe you obsess and go crazy. Of course, life is more complex than a jigsaw puzzle, and for the original thinker who must learn everything for himself there is always that risk. Nonetheless, I personally think this is a risk worth taking, yet a risk that can be minimized by taking a more empirical approach where history and practice is given more weight than the propositional and purely theoretical. Abstract theory is important, but it's utility is contingent on its practical application to concrete reality.
P
