User Tag List

First 3111213141523 Last

Results 121 to 130 of 298

  1. #121
    Occasional Member Evan's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    MBTI
    INFJ
    Enneagram
    1
    Posts
    4,223

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Zarathustra View Post
    Yeah, and from what I've read of Lenore Thomson's idea: it seems like complete bullshit.

    Try this site.

    You can find the rough correlations between their eight "mindframes" and the eight functions of Jung/MBTI here:



    There's a lot of information on their site, if you look for it, and you can get all their tests for free (there is the original test, and the "Revelations" test, that have to do with your personal results) -- all you have to do is register with their site.
    I like some of those but not all.

    Mine would look like this:

    Te: works/doesn't work
    Ti: true/false
    Fe: appropriate/inappropriate
    Fi: right/wrong
    Ne: inductive leaps (with focus on the environment)
    Ni: inductive leaps (with focus on the current internal thought process)
    Se: new info (with focus on the environment)
    Si: new info (with focus on the current internal thought process)

  2. #122
    Occasional Member Evan's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    MBTI
    INFJ
    Enneagram
    1
    Posts
    4,223

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by freeeekyyy View Post
    ...brain scans have been performed on people of known types, and Ni pretty much entirely correlates with the left-rear portion of the brain.
    ...
    Besides that, it's well known that the corpus collosum is incapable of passing sufficient information to allow two functions on opposite sides of the brain to work together in any direct way at all. With that being the case, it would be very difficult for INTJs to utilize their intuition and thinking together at all meaningfully, assuming that Ni is a right-brained process.
    I don't think both parietal lobes work together extremely closely, but nonetheless, they are both responsible for the cognitive processes we label intuition.

  3. #123
    Tempbanned
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    MBTI
    INTJ
    Enneagram
    6w5 sx/so
    Posts
    8,162

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Evan View Post
    Te: works/doesn't work
    Ti: true/false
    I think freeky's descriptions actually work better for these two.

    True/False is referring to soundness, which is what Te is concerned with.

    Logical/Illogical is referring to validity, which is what Ti is concerned with.

  4. #124
    Occasional Member Evan's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    MBTI
    INFJ
    Enneagram
    1
    Posts
    4,223

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Zarathustra View Post
    I think freeky's descriptions actually work better for these two.

    True/False is referring to soundness, which is what Te is concerned with.

    Logical/Illogical is referring to validity, which is what Ti is concerned with.
    Is there really much of a difference? I don't really care about the wording.

  5. #125
    Tempbanned
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    MBTI
    INTJ
    Enneagram
    6w5 sx/so
    Posts
    8,162

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Evan View Post
    Is there really much of a difference? I don't really care about the wording.
    There is a very significant difference between soundness and validity.

    It's a distinction that every serious thinker should be aware of: Validity and Soundness

  6. #126
    Senior Member Misty_Mountain_Rose's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    MBTI
    INTJ
    Enneagram
    4w5
    Posts
    1,123

    Default

    This left brain/ right brain stuff needs to split into another thread. This is actually a pretty awesome thread but we're WAY off track now.
    Embrace the possibilities.

  7. #127
    Happy Dancer uumlau's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    MBTI
    INTJ
    Enneagram
    953 sp/so
    Posts
    5,708

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by IntrovertedThinker View Post
    I wouldn't call almost 100% reliance on empirical data open-minded, even in a different way. INTJ's are open to possibilities, so long as they are founded, in this hardcore sequential manner, i.e — they test ideas according to what they know in a very rigorous fashion. If the ideas don't pass this sequential breakdown, they are more likely to consider it rubbish, if anything. I've seen it happen all the time.

    True open-mindedness is ...
    True open-mindedness is to fully understand another's thoughts, in the other's context, before applying one's own contexts.

    I've often found that those most proud of their own "open-mindedness" are some of the most close-minded people I've ever met. They listen, of course (that's the open-minded part), and then tell you how everything is wrong based on their context, without demonstrating any understanding of your context. Or they pretend to agree in an "open-minded" way, to maintain the peace, but never bother to understand the point, as later conversation reveals.

    Reread what you wrote above: it's rather ironically close-minded. A way of thinking that is different from yours is incapable of being open-minded merely because their boundary condition priorities differ from yours?

    One of the most useful things that understanding MBTI and Jungian functions helps with is that it points out these differing contexts. The differing contexts mean that the individuals involved actually perceive and evaluate the same information differently. They see different worlds, as it were, even though the worlds are the same. INTJs see possibilities that INTPs usually miss, and vice-versa, precisely because of the soundness vs. validity differences that Z aptly points out.

    I will acknowledge that INTJs often sound close-minded to INTPs. That's a difference in communication style. INTJs and INTPs regard different kinds of ideas as "obvious," don't mention them, and end up having fairly furious discussions until the "obvious" ideas are finally spoken and made plain to the other. However, INTPs can sound close-minded to INTJs for a different reason: there is a Ti tendency to resist evaluating ideas as quickly as an INTJ does, and this reluctance to draw a quick conclusion feels like obstinance to the INTJ, who feels like he's talking about one thing, and the INTP just changes the topic to something else.


    [CAVEAT: Most people are not open-minded by the criteria I list. Even those who are, only manage to be so via conscious effort, and even then one is not guaranteed success.]
    to consider ideas which might not seem applicable at first, and try them anyway, only to discard them once they have shown to be truly useless. To my mind, this seems true of ENTP's and INTP's. We are open to all kinds of left-field possibilities which other people might consider impossible, or implausible. INTJ's seem more limited to truly practical possibilities. In fact, many sites often state that one of the pitfalls of being INTJ is that they usually dismiss ideas before actually understanding them thoroughly, i.e. — before giving them a chance. "Actually try to understand an idea before dismissing it" is one of the ways in which INTJ's can actually grow and mature.
    It's not just a flaw of INTJs. Everyone dismisses ideas before actually understanding them thoroughly, to some degree or another. Even an "agreeable" person can just be agreeing for the sake of comity rather than actually accepting the idea in question. It's an INTJ flaw in a couple of respects: INTJs are fairly "extroverted" in their rejection of others' ideas, which tends to result in personal difficulties, but also INTJs are actually endeavoring to understand ideas thoroughly, therefore it's useful to point out to INTJs the kind of intellectually lazy tendencies that result in good ideas being rejected too quickly.

    I'm not so sure Ni is more free than Ne (which is where our ideas as INT thinkers inherently arise). And I'm fairly sure that Te is entirely more restrictive and limiting than Ti. Definitional terms (Ti) do not restrict ideas (Ne), in terms of possibilities — they only keep them coherent. Thus, an idea which may be entirely impractical, but which is nonetheless coherent, will seem worth discussing to an INTP. An INTJ, on the other hand, driven by a larger need to sequentially verify ideas (Ni) according to what is empirically known (Te) will only accept what is practical. Thus, an idea which may be slightly incoherent, but which is actually practical, will appeal to an INTJ.
    The bolded is untrue. By choosing a set of definitions, you have necessarily limited the possibilities. Consider the possible geometrical axioms for parallel lines: the Euclidean definition stood for years, but it's possible to have parallel lines that diverge or intersect, depending upon the geometry one is dealing with. Note that the actual "geometry" is more of a Te boundary condition than a Ti one: if I'm dealing with flat geometry, I use Euclidean rules; if I'm dealing with spherical geometry, I use a negative curvature geometry; if I'm dealing with hyperbolic geometry, I use a positive curvature geometry. Te-wise, I might do something like measure the angles of a triangle, add them together, and get a number that is much larger than 180 degrees. If I stuck with definitions, I'd just assume I did the measurement wrong. If I stick with my measurements, then some rule in my analysis is wrong. The Ni talent (for Te) is to "dynamically swap out underlying rules" and see which set of rules makes sense in terms of what is observed. This contrasts with the Ne talent of "given a set of rules, determine what new ideas may be discovered."

    NiTe and NeTi hold different things to be constant. NiTe holds the facts of the world (as best we know them) to be constant, and tries to figure out the rules underlying those facts. NeTi holds certain definitions and axioms to be constant, and searches out the possibilities of those definitions.

    Both INTJ and INTP are extremely flexible thinkers, but start from different ground rules, and look for very different kinds of possibilities based on those ground rules.

    These thought processes, Ni+Te and Ne+Ti are complimentary. A fuller understanding is achieved by applying both, than by applying just one or the other.

    As for the rest ...
    Thus, I see practical/impractical to be more limiting than whether or not an idea is actually entirely coherent, from a purely logical standpoint. And again, Ti never usually stifles an INTP's thoughts. Ideas are bouncing around and Ti is trying to control them, but those ideas will be considered and played with as long as they are coherent, even if they don't actually apply to the real world. Hence, INTP's enjoy thinking in and of itself, and enjoy thoughts even if they may not be practical or applicable. INTP's appreciate beautiful constructs of thought, even if they aren't worth anything in a practical sense. INTJ's only enjoy thinking with a purpose that has clearly defined ends, i.e. — something that will actually be worth the effort and pay off in the end. INTJ's don't like armchair philosophizing as much as INTP's. To me, this is more narrow-minded.



    Considering only ideas that are shown to work is not open-minded — it's narrow and limited to what is practical and applicable to the real world. Boundless amounts of possibilities are bubbling around in the world beyond what we may 'think' is workable or practical. ENTP's and INTP's show this often. We're more open to what may be beyond current comprehension. Hence, INTJ's are limited to what 'seems' practical in the current, according to what we know scientifically. NTP's may look beyond our current understanding when seeking possibilities, and this difference is crucial. Thus, INTJ's might be open-minded, to an extent, but nowhere nearly as open as ENTP's and INTP's. They seem to have a natural epistemological barrier upon which they tend to rely. They don't enjoy going beyond empirical boundaries. So no, INTJ's aren't open-minded in the way INTP's are, and I wouldn't really call their sense of possibilities "open," per se. You're really reaching here.

    And the notion that Te appears ruthless at times is the tip of the iceberg — it's often entirely tyrannical and brutish.
    ... can you not see that it is merely moral posturing? That you aren't actually describing anything other than your own subjective biases?

    INTJs enjoy "just thinking in and of itself" as much as INTPs do. We also have "beautiful constructs of thought." It just a different style of thinking, with different ground rules, and different areas of flexibility. INTJs have plenty of ideas that have no applicability in the real world: we just tend not to talk about those. We shift context at will, and have fun exploring the consequences of the rules changes that such shifts entail. You know how INTJs have this reputation for having contingency plans always at hand? We thought about it beforehand - not in a "planning" sense, but in a "what if" sense, where most of our "what ifs" are entirely unrealistic.

    I once took a wonderful class called "Great Books", which had a format of reading a book, and then discussing it. It was rather formal, in that the first step was to read the book (or set of chapters) in order to discuss what the author was actually saying. One was not allowed to discuss the merits of the author's ideas, but only to debate about whether he meant X or Y or Z. After a week or so of reading and discussing what the author said and meant, only then was the class allowed to debate the merits of the author's ideas for a session.

    The class forced us to read the author in context. By the end of the week, there would largely be agreement on what the author said and meant, so the final discussion on whether the ideas have merit was fruitful and productive.

    Oftentimes, in real life and online, there is a tendency to jump to the "whether the ideas have merit" stage, without evaluating the ideas in context. You accuse INTJs of doing so, but your writing style indicates that you do so, too, because you don't understand INTJs in the "INTJ context." You see what they look like to you, in terms of your perspective, but you really haven't wrapped your mind around Ni and Te and how they work together, and how Ni+Te sees things that Ne+Ti does not.

    Understanding both is quite doable: INTJs and INTPs both are quite capable of understanding how the other thinks, and are able in a limited fashion to actually process things in terms of the other's context. All it takes is effort.

  8. #128
    Permabanned
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    MBTI
    xkcd
    Enneagram
    9w1 sx/sp
    Socionics
    INT_
    Posts
    10,733

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by uumlau View Post
    However, INTPs can sound close-minded to INTJs for a different reason: there is a Ti tendency to resist evaluating ideas as quickly as an INTJ does, and this reluctance to draw a quick conclusion feels like obstinance to the INTJ, who feels like he's talking about one thing, and the INTP just changes the topic to something else.
    Reluctance to draw quick conclusions is close-minded... what?

    Quote Originally Posted by uumlau View Post
    I once took a wonderful class called "Great Books", which had a format of reading a book, and then discussing it. It was rather formal, in that the first step was to read the book (or set of chapters) in order to discuss what the author was actually saying. One was not allowed to discuss the merits of the author's ideas, but only to debate about whether he meant X or Y or Z. After a week or so of reading and discussing what the author said and meant, only then was the class allowed to debate the merits of the author's ideas for a session.

    The class forced us to read the author in context. By the end of the week, there would largely be agreement on what the author said and meant, so the final discussion on whether the ideas have merit was fruitful and productive.
    Oh god, even when there isn't a box to think outside of, the INTJ will create one anyway.

  9. #129
    Happy Dancer uumlau's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    MBTI
    INTJ
    Enneagram
    953 sp/so
    Posts
    5,708

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by MacGuffin View Post
    Reluctance to draw quick conclusions is close-minded... what?
    You do know how to read in context, yes?

    I'm saying that it appears to be, not that it is.

    INTJs are looking for a particular kind of back and forth evaluation of an idea that is of a very different style than INTP. The INTP tends to instinctively reject this kind of evaluation, which sounds like a reluctance to participate in a "real discussion" from the INTJ's point of view. INTPs can make similar, reciprocal complaints, but are just as mistaken about the the "close-mindedness."

    Oh god, even when there isn't a box to think outside of, the INTJ will create one anyway.
    Do you believe that the formalized discussion is the created box? Or is it the author's context that is the box? Or is it that agreement on the author's context is the box?

    Perhaps the only box is the one you have created in your own mind, to superimpose upon my point.

  10. #130
    Permabanned
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    MBTI
    xkcd
    Enneagram
    9w1 sx/sp
    Socionics
    INT_
    Posts
    10,733

    Default

    It's ALL boxes.

Similar Threads

  1. Video: INTJ vs INTP
    By highlander in forum Typology Videos and RSS Feeds
    Replies: 2
    Last Post: 02-02-2015, 06:08 PM
  2. [MBTItm] STEM INTP VS INTJ VS ENTJ VS ENTP
    By Cryonium in forum The NT Rationale (ENTP, INTP, ENTJ, INTJ)
    Replies: 3
    Last Post: 02-14-2013, 09:44 AM
  3. INTJ vs INTP
    By Doctorjuice in forum Myers-Briggs and Jungian Cognitive Functions
    Replies: 113
    Last Post: 12-17-2012, 10:58 PM
  4. [NT] INTJ vs INTP
    By Giggly in forum The NT Rationale (ENTP, INTP, ENTJ, INTJ)
    Replies: 11
    Last Post: 06-12-2011, 12:00 AM
  5. [NT] INTJs vs. INTPs
    By MerkW in forum The NT Rationale (ENTP, INTP, ENTJ, INTJ)
    Replies: 52
    Last Post: 09-05-2009, 04:46 PM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
Single Sign On provided by vBSSO