User Tag List

First 8161718192028 Last

Results 171 to 180 of 298

  1. #171
    Happy Dancer uumlau's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    MBTI
    INTJ
    Enneagram
    953 sp/so
    Posts
    5,708

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by coconut View Post
    I'm curious . . . I've noticed that I tend to black/white things when I learn about them. Learning about parenting, for example, I might simplify to the point of "A is all bad, and B is all good," and then use that as a starting point from which to categorize different parenting practices. Only later, when I have them all categorized, do I start to take them out and re-assess with a less black and white perspective. I always start with an all or nothing attitude, and then adjust later. Or I take on labels in a serious way (labels such as, for example, radically politically liberal), then as soon as that begins to feel comfortable, I start deliberately shedding it as I re-assess and refine what I had rejected before since it didn't fit the label.

    Am I creating INTJ boxes? Is that what you mean when you talk about boxes? (Or am I just weird?)
    It's close. The INTJ becomes more precise by obtaining better and better perspectives (Ni). We try to come up with the absolute best box to hold the facts as we know them. We know that a "black and white" box is going to be replaced once we have enhanced our understanding. Subsequent boxes gradually gain more colors and shades and hues, coming up with an underlying ruleset that allows one to almost immediately be able to classify things (in Te terms). For that matter, even our really good boxes tend to be upgraded in one way or another as time goes on. There are some very few boxes that are rather "solid", so solid that they feel more like Si than Ni. An example of such a "box" would be the physical law of energy conservation. While there is an outside chance of energy conservation being violated in some way or another by some unknown mechanism, it's so very unlikely that an INTJ is unlikely to entertain the possibility that energy conservation isn't real. Other boxes are intentionally provisional: we know we don't understand a topic, and we'll fill in that understanding as we get there.

    The main thing is that we always rethink the rules (upgrade to better boxes). Every box we adopt is inherently limiting, but without the box, we can't really analyze things. By choosing boxes of varying types, we analyze things rather quickly, by switching between various boxes and seeing which fits best.

    Indeed, if something is totally brand new, the boxes start off rather black and white, and one can see this in the posts by young INTJs, who talk as if they've figured everything out, when they really haven't. As we age, however, our initial boxes become less and less black and white. Our experiences shade our thoughts, and we have gained a great deal of practice in choosing what boxes are applicable and which are mostly nonsense. An INTJ with a very sharp Ni will choose the "correct box" from the get-go; exposure to many different ideas allows the INTJ to select the best-fitting box from a wide variety.

    The benefits of the "box analogy" are twofold. It reminds us that any context is inherently limiting, and it helps us to understand why it's so hard to describe INTJ thoughts in detail. Communication requires a context, a box: if the INTJ necessarily swaps around boxes in order to understand something, how does the INTJ choose a box to explain how one's understanding?! We don't reason within one box, and thus our reasoning cannot be contained within a single box.

    [Note that INFJs have a similar problem. Both INTJs and INFJs complain about being misunderstood, precisely because there is no single box with which to explain the full understanding.]

    Thus, in communication, we end up selecting the box we believe to be the "best fit." As a consequence, we often sound far more rigid than we really are, underneath. I've also described it as a gem with many facets: the INTJ can show any single facet at a time, but explaining all facets at once ends up sounding like contradictory nonsense.

    The INTPs have a similar dilemma, in that their logical understanding of an idea is as deep as the INTJ intuitive understanding: it's impossible to actually explain the interplay of all the ideas, ironically because the INTP's understanding is so complete. To explain any single piece of that understanding feels woefully incomplete to the INTP, because there is so much more to it. It plays out differently because their Ne is the extroverted function, and thus it seems outwardly unfocused, even though inwardly Ti is very focused.

    For the INTJ, the outward Te seems to be very focused, but the inward Ni is much less focused: the Te gives the illusion to others that the INTJ has only one box, when the reality is that there are many boxes.

  2. #172
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    MBTI
    INTJ
    Posts
    136

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by uumlau View Post
    Indeed, if something is totally brand new, the boxes start off rather black and white, and one can see this in the posts by young INTJs, who talk as if they've figured everything out, when they really haven't. As we age, however, our initial boxes become less and less black and white.
    I'm not finding my initial boxes to be less black and white. I still have to start somewhere. The only difference I'm seeing with age/experience is in knowing that my initial box is a transitional box, so I take it less seriously.

  3. #173
    Member IntrovertedThinker's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    MBTI
    INTP
    Enneagram
    5w4
    Posts
    96

    Default

    Alright, Zara, I'll grant you this: Ni probably isn't left-brained, while Ti probably isn't right-brained. However, the following still seems to ring true, in general:

    Typically more “left-brained” than their perceiving counterparts, INTJs are generally articulate and well-spoken... INTPs, who are typically more right-brained than INTJs...
    Now, does anyone care to attempt to theoretically explain why INTP's tend to come off more right-brained, while INTJ's tend to come off more left-brained?

  4. #174
    Cheeseburgers freeeekyyy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    MBTI
    INTJ
    Enneagram
    5w4 sx/sp
    Socionics
    ILI Te
    Posts
    1,387

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by IntrovertedThinker View Post
    Alright, Zara, I'll grant you this: Ni probably isn't left-brained, while Ti probably isn't right-brained. However, the following still seems to ring true, in general:



    Now, does anyone care to attempt to theoretically explain why INTP's tend to come off more right-brained, while INTJ's tend to come off more left-brained?
    Because zarathustra is wrong. There's nothing about intuition that restricts it to the right brain. There's nothing about thinking which restricts it to the left brain. The orientation of a function changes its methodology entirely.

    I will state again: if intuition resides solely in the right brain and thinking in the left, then the two cannot be used together. From my understanding, the way the hemispheres share information is by processing it individually, and then transferring the output to the other side. During processing, there is no crosstalk. Therefore, one must come to the conclusion that both hemispheres are capable of all modes, only in their respective orientation. The right brain uses thinking just as well as the left-brain, only from its own, very different perspective. Same goes for everything else.
    You lose.

    _______

    RCOEI
    Melancholic-Choleric
    Respectful Leader

    Johari Window|Nohari Window

  5. #175
    Senior Member Robopop's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    MBTI
    INTP
    Enneagram
    5w4 sp/sx
    Socionics
    ILE
    Posts
    690

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Nicodemus View Post
    Look, a bunny!

    Wait a minute, are you trying to distract us INTPs?
    Reserved Calm Unstructured Egocentric Inquisitive Clown

    Johari Nohari

  6. #176
    Occasional Member Evan's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    MBTI
    INFJ
    Enneagram
    1
    Posts
    4,223

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Zarathustra View Post
    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
    I know that, and I think it's cool to use as an analogy for Ti/Te.

    I just meant that Ti - true, Te - works has the same logical content.

    Would've written this on your wall thingo, but you don't have one for some reason.

    Edit: now that I think about it, doesn't soundness include validity? If so, I think it's the wrong word to use. I don't think Te even cares about logical validity (whether the premises imply the conclusion), only whether or not the conclusion is true in reality.

  7. #177
    Senior Member Nicodemus's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    Posts
    9,130

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Robopop View Post
    Wait a minute, are you trying to distract us INTPs?
    No, merely all of those who strive to have the last word on the subject.

  8. #178
    ReflecTcelfeR
    Guest

    Default

    I'm going off a little of what I had said earlier about the perceiving functions being right-brained due to the fact that these are extremely visible and require abstractions (non-material thoughts). We can then say that the judging functions would be left-brained because they are in fact logical. If we say this then every type uses both right and left brain equally, but this is not completely true, you just have to take a quiz to find out that most people don't use them equally. And so you end up finding out which functions they rely on. As it would go most who are INTP and INTJ lead with Ti and Ni respectively. Ni is a right-brained function so when you analyze their thinking it will seem as if they use the right side more, though it's only an illusion to the fact that this is merely their first attempt at analyzing anything. Conversely leading with Ti will give the illusion that the left side is used more than the right, once again the illusion. This is not the only facet though because now we have the direction in which their dominant functions face. They are both introverted and so when alone these functions tend to be used more, and as it goes their second functions are extraverted. This is what most likely people will judge both types on (the extraverted function) if the types decide to show because Ne and Te are the voice speaking for the dominant function. The voice of an INTJ is rather left-brained and the voice behind Ti is rather right-brained. I think this is where some might see the INTJ as left-brained, but it is only an illusion. This is my view of the situation. It's not the dom., but the aux. that really get these two in trouble, or are the main distraction.

  9. #179
    Junior Member Garivande's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    MBTI
    INTP
    Posts
    26

    Default

    I have a close INTJ friend and it's dead easy to tell us apart (I'm INTP). My office/desk/home/car etc always looks a mess (or worse). Her office etc looks so tidy and well organised it's scary (to me, at least - if her desk is empty, what is she working on???).

    I'd say she's as much a thinker as I am - but in a different way. I do "real thinking" (in my view) - which is analyzing, following odd or mind-intriguing new paths, contemplating alternative views etc. While she does more "down-to-earth"-thinking. Which is planning and (mentally) organizing her environment and future. When faced with a (professional or otherwise) problem I will twist and turn it more before getting to action, while she will follow a more straight-forward mental path towards a solution.

  10. #180
    Member IntrovertedThinker's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    MBTI
    INTP
    Enneagram
    5w4
    Posts
    96

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Evan View Post
    I know that, and I think it's cool to use as an analogy for Ti/Te.

    I just meant that Ti - true, Te - works has the same logical content.

    Would've written this on your wall thingo, but you don't have one for some reason.

    Edit: now that I think about it, doesn't soundness include validity? If so, I think it's the wrong word to use. I don't think Te even cares about logical validity (whether the premises imply the conclusion), only whether or not the conclusion is true in reality.
    You're right.
    I would say that Ti cares about validity.
    Te cares about whether or not the premises are actually grounded.
    Therefore, Te doesn't truly care if the entire conclusion is truly sound, in the sense that it is both valid and that the premises are grounded. It just cares for the premises, and whether or not they are reliable.

    I would say that both Ti and Te care about soundness, they just tend to focus on different aspects of soundness (Ti worrying about validity, Te worrying about the accuracy of the premises themselves).

    In fact, here's a great example I can think of atm:

    Rene Descartes (INTP) once said:
    "I think, therefore, I am."
    Friedrich Nietzsche (INTJ) had this to say in response:

    There are still harmless self-observers who believe that there are "immediate certainties"; for instance, "I think," or as the superstition of Schopenhauer puts it, "I will"; as though cognition here got hold of its object purely and simply as "the thing in itself," without any falsification taking place either on the part of the subject or the object. I would repeat it, however, a hundred times, that "immediate certainty," as well as "absolute knowledge" and the "thing in itself," involve a CONTRADICTIO IN ADJECTO; we really ought to free ourselves from the misleading significance of words! The people on their part may think that cognition is knowing all about things, but the philosopher must say to himself: "When I analyze the process that is expressed in the sentence, 'I think,' I find a whole series of daring assertions, the argumentative proof of which would be difficult, perhaps impossible: for instance, that it is I who think, that there must necessarily be something that thinks, that thinking is an activity and operation on the part of a being who is thought of as a cause, that there is an 'ego,' and finally, that it is already determined what is to be designated by thinking—that I KNOW what thinking is. For if I had not already decided within myself what it is, by what standard could I determine whether that which is just happening is not perhaps 'willing' or 'feeling'? In short, the assertion 'I think,' assumes that I COMPARE my state at the present moment with other states of myself which I know, in order to determine what it is; on account of this retrospective connection with further 'knowledge,' it has, at any rate, no immediate certainty for me."—In place of the "immediate certainty" in which the people may believe in the special case, the philosopher thus finds a series of metaphysical questions presented to him, veritable conscience questions of the intellect, to wit: "Whence did I get the notion of 'thinking'? Why do I believe in cause and effect? What gives me the right to speak of an 'ego,' and even of an 'ego' as cause, and finally of an 'ego' as cause of thought?" He who ventures to answer these metaphysical questions at once by an appeal to a sort of INTUITIVE perception, like the person who says, "I think, and know that this, at least, is true, actual, and certain"—will encounter a smile and two notes of interrogation in a philosopher nowadays. "Sir," the philosopher will perhaps give him to understand, "it is improbable that you are not mistaken, but why should it be the truth?"
    What do you think?

    Descartes seemed more concerned with how the notion of thinking leads to some conclusion, through proper inference.
    Yet, he doesn't stop to truly analyze whether or not his first premise is ultimately too presumptuous.
    Nietzsche comes along and questions the accuracy of the very first premise "I think," which Descartes didn't seem too concerned with, and which he probably overlooked, intuitively feeling as though it was 'obvious' that he was a thinking being in the first place (which we cannot really know).

    Thus, we see Te critiquing Ti. It looks at the premises and studies them, whereas the Ti thinker seems more concerned with the results of a few axiomatic premises.
    Hence, a Ti thinker seems more prone to metaphysical play, like or not God exists. We cannot derive any entirely reliable premises for arguments for or against the idea of God, just as we cannot really derive truly reliable premises for arguments for or against the idea that we are thinking. We cannot escape our own consciousness just as we cannot escape our own solar system (atm). Therefore, a Ti thinker will make presumptions, axiomatic principles upon which to base a world view of some sort which seems reliable. A Te thinker doesn't seem to be satisfied with just taking things for granted and working out the logic. A Te thinker wants to truly render very reliable premises grounded empirically, before they actually begin to start building any world view or system (in essence, before they "work out the logic").

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