[NT] INTJ vs INTP: A Guide

[Sinshred]

Both shared same level rationality and knowledge. But have different goal and focus. INTP focus on creativity, INTJ focus on effectivity.

 

[Nicodemus]

And both focus on grammar.

Yeah, cheap shot. But if a present presents itself...

 

[Salomé]

INTPs ask more questions because they primarily gather data from the outside using Ne, whereas INTJs look inside for that instead. So they already find the answer in their databank without having to ask.

They are born omniscient? That must be nice ...for them.

INTPs ask questions because they suffer less from know-it-all-itis
and more from Socratic irony.

(Source: my databank)

 

[Fluffywolf]

And both focus on grammar.

Yeah, cheap shot. But if a present presents itself...

Maybe it's because english isn't my first language. But I really don't though.

The only times I 'ugh' at someones bad grammar or spelling is if they didn't have anything interesting to say in the first place.



Although I admit I can't stand the 'r u srs?' kind of internet spelling. I always imagine the person typing like that to be some kind of rodent. Squee squee.

 

[Salomé]

No, I think you're right. INTPs are less likely to be grammar Nazis than INTJs.

Also, less likely to be Nazis, in general.

(Source: the anals of history.)

 

[baccheion]

I ask a lot of questions because I get intrigued or fascinated with something, and in the process of trying to understand it, my mind is flooded with questions. Questions I then ask. I suppose I also ask a lot of questions when I'm seeking clarity, searching for the right question to ask, or trying to get to the bottom of something.

Definitely less likely to be grammar nazi's, or likely to harass others for not being on time, or for deviating from the plan.

 

[chubber]

INTP: Albert Speer - Minister of Armaments in Nazi Germany
Speer: "There are things for which one is guilty even if one might offer excuses - simply because the crime is so overwhelming that by comparison any human excuse pales to insignificance."

INTJ: Vladimir Lenin - Dictator of the Soviet Union, mentor of Stalin
Lenin: "Trust is good. Control is better."

INTJ: Karl Marx - Philosopher, student of Hegel
Marx: "Philosophers have hitherto only interpreted the world in various ways; the point is to change it."

INTPs in the Nazi - INTJ seems more Commies orientated

 

[Coriolis]

No, I think you're right. INTPs are less likely to be grammar Nazis than INTJs.

Also, less likely to be Nazis, in general.

(Source: the anals of history.)

Good one!

I can attest to the grammar nazi part. Between my INTP and me, the "honor" definitely goes to me. On the other hand, I had an INTP student who could quote "Eats, shoots, and leaves" verbatim. An anomaly, perhaps.

 

[Infinite Bubble]

They are born omniscient? That must be nice ...for them.

INTPs ask questions because they suffer less from know-it-all-itis
and more from Socratic irony.

(Source: my databank)

Nah, their information may very well be wrong.

 

[RaptorWizard]

Which one constructs the most grandiose visions of new worlds?

 

[INTP]

Both shared same level rationality and knowledge. But have different goal and focus. INTP focus on creativity, INTJ focus on effectivity.

I dont think the two types share the same level of rationality. Jung saw Ni doms as irrational types, and for a good reason.

"Jung pointed out that elementary existential facts fall into this category-for instance, that the earth has a moon, that chlorine is an element or that water freezes at a certain temperature and reaches its greatest density at four degrees centigrade-as does chance. They are irrational not because they are illogical, but because they are beyond reason."

INTPs are more reason than observation/fact oriented.

 

[INTP]

Which one constructs the most grandiose visions of new worlds?

INTJs most likely, i mean their whole mind is a grandiose new world for those outside of it and they live inside their heads

 

[Salomé]

INTPs in the Nazi - INTJ seems more Commies orientated

You refute the point admirably. No one could accuse you of grammatical correctness. Or indeed, of any kind of correctness.
Individualism triumphs once again.

 

[chubber]

You refute the point admirably. No one could accuse you of grammatical correctness. Or indeed, of any kind of correctness.
Individualism triumphs once again.

okay...

 

[ndovjtjcaqidthi]

You refute the point admirably. No one could accuse you of grammatical correctness. Or indeed, of any kind of correctness.
Individualism triumphs once again.

Sieg heil!

 

[Riva]

The OP didn't reach the goal it was aiming at I believe. For starters it way way too technical. If you want to help to distinguish it's better to provide examples. Also he has quoted the common definition of Introverted intuition and extroverted intuition which have terrible definitions.

The issue with both those functions are they unlike the S counterparts can't function or be realized without the sensing. Ni more so than Ne.

Ni are filtered realizations of what they know/observed etc/S to their more pressing subconscious questions. Everyone has these realizations, but INJs trust them the most. For them the external sources/what others say aren't necessary because they have trained themselves to trust what they know/trust in Ni. And why shouldn't they, they have know all the necessary details. Their decisions will be biased only by the judging functions: Te or Fe. However the issue may rise when they come to the wrong conclusion/realization if they don't have certain crucial details. Because they don't think of answers from different angles but simply tends to question more (unless they are a E6 who has a shit ton of self doubting) they don't tend to think of different possibilities. However when more crucial evidence is taken in by their Se their realizations/Ni will quickly without any hesitation change.

I ask Ni doms to correct me if/where I am wrong.

 

[Infinite Bubble]

Which one constructs the most grandiose visions of new worlds?

Whichever one has the most ginger hair.

 

[Riva]

Waits for an ni dom to give me feedback.

 

[uumlau]

The OP didn't reach the goal it was aiming at I believe. For starters it way way too technical. If you want to help to distinguish it's better to provide examples. Also he has quoted the common definition of Introverted intuition and extroverted intuition which have terrible definitions.

The issue with both those functions are they unlike the S counterparts can't function or be realized without the sensing. Ni more so than Ne.

Ni are filtered realizations of what they know/observed etc/S to their more pressing subconscious questions. Everyone has these realizations, but INJs trust them the most.

I do not believe that this is true. Check out the "boxes" analogy I used earlier in this thread, prompted by an observation MacGuffin made. Let's compare Si with Ni. Si is the concrete singular box that is shared by a community/society. People can argue about the box, what should be in the box, how to change small pieces of the box. Some people can think "outside the box", covering material that is not part of the usual communal understanding of the world. The point is that there is only the one box, and YOU don't get to change it. You can "leave it" (e.g., via Ne), but even Ne doms are unconsciously constrained by it.

Ni doesn't reject the notion of a shared box, so much as it starts out life creating new boxes without trying. At this point, it helps the analogy to indicate what the "box" and "boxes" really represent. They're worldviews: both Ni and Si are worldviews that underpin how the different types subjectively understand reality. The Si singular box is naturally and easily shared because its rules are concrete: "fire is hot", "ice is cold", "rocks are solid", "water is wet". Si is the vast crystalline matrix of everything one might think of as a fact. It's essentially an understanding of what "things" "are". Ni doesn't work like that at all. Ni has a really hard time trying to memorize long lists of data outside of a context, the way Si does. Instead, Ni relies on context. For Ni, each "box" is "a context." That context is basically a list of cause-effect rules: "gravity makes things fall down", "fire burns things down". My examples are clearly obvious cause-effect rules. Here is a link to a post of mine with a more complicated example.

What needs to be made clear here is that most people don't think like this. It isn't about intuitions and hunches, and Ni doms trusting them more. Most peoples' minds do not follow these paths. Most people don't switch out contexts in order to better understand something.

For them the external sources/what others say aren't necessary because they have trained themselves to trust what they know/trust in Ni. And why shouldn't they, they have know all the necessary details.

Or more to the point, while an Ni dom might not have all of the details, the cause-effect patterns we see hold true in spite of the details. For instance, watching a balloon "fall up" doesn't disprove gravity, it's a specific context of how gravity works. The usual Ni dom mistake is that, for instance, we didn't know you were talking about a helium-filled balloon, as opposed to a car or a philly cheesesteak sandwich.

Their decisions will be biased only by the judging functions: Te or Fe.

Biased isn't quite the right word, here. Decisions will be in terms of Te or Fe. The decisions are biased by what Ni sees and doesn't see.

However the issue may rise when they come to the wrong conclusion/realization if they don't have certain crucial details.

Very true.

Because they don't think of answers from different angles but simply tends to question more (unless they are a E6 who has a shit ton of self doubting) they don't tend to think of different possibilities.

Not true. We don't think of different Ne-style angles, searching around the outside of the communal Si box. We think in terms of switching out hypothetical rules/contexts until we come up with an explanation that answers the question we have in mind.

However when more crucial evidence is taken in by their Se their realizations/Ni will quickly without any hesitation change.

True.

 

[RaptorWizard]

Not true. We don't think of different Ne-style angles, searching around the outside of the communal Si box. We think in terms of switching out hypothetical rules/contexts until we come up with an explanation that answers the question we have in mind.

Maybe this is one reason so many movie villains are NTJs; they live by their own rules (whether or not those rules are acceptable), and they enforce unprecedented rules (against conventional wisdom) onto others. You could make an argument that this approach of "transforming the box" is very arrogant; it's like as if you think that you're above the law, too clever for its restrictions. I know that I make this sound like it's a bad things but, truth be told, it generally seems that things can be refined in this way to higher levels of functionality. But of course, it can also do damages.