[NT] INTJ vs INTP: A Guide

[CuriousFeeling]

-Intelligence: common for both types
-highly competitive in classroom: I've seen it in both types
-meaning is arbitrary: not sure
-calm: seen it in both types
-confident: an appearance of outward confidence is probably more common for INTJ's, generally speaking
-likes to organize things: seen it in both types, but probably more common for INTJ's. INTP's are very good at it, but only when and if they want to be, which may not be that often. It's more of a chore for us, I think, rather than a preferred mode of operation. But, like I said, we are very capable of being highly organized if we choose to.
-naturalistic, logical/mathematical/musical ability: I don't want to sell INTJ's short in these categories, but this seems more INTP-ish to me. I know INTJ's that are highly talented in logic/math, but I'm not sure about musical and naturalistic type stuff. These definitely seem more INTP, and we're usually very capable in math as well.

I wouldn't be able to tell whether the person is INTJ or INTP based on the limited information in your post.

Does he exhibit Te or Ne?

I'm thinking Ne. He thinks of things from a global scale, everything is a part of something bigger. We're both intuitives, just I tend to look for hidden meanings in things, whereas he's more like "let's see the pattern".

I know when it comes to telling me how he feels about things, he tends not to share, he gets very oblique about it. Perhaps he's more of an INTP.

 

[INTPness]

I'm thinking Ne. He thinks of things from a global scale, everything is a part of something bigger. We're both intuitives, just I tend to look for hidden meanings in things, whereas he's more like "let's see the pattern".

I know when it comes to telling me how he feels about things, he tends not to share, he gets very oblique about it. Perhaps he's more of an INTP.

Could very well be INTP. Ask him questions about his views on things. "I was thinking about "x" the other day (the meaning of life, why there is so much tension in politics, why rabbits have big ears, etc, etc, etc) and I'm not really sure. What do you think, INTP?"

That gives us the floor, shows us you're interested in what is going on inside our heads, and gives us a chance to extovert. Let him expand and go off on tangents a little bit and he'll begin to see that he can talk to you freely. Try to show in some small way at the end of the night (day), that you appreciated his insight or at least found what he had to say interesting. That should let him know that he's free to go ahead and talk to you on that level again next time - and this should allow the friendship to deepen.

 

[tcda]

VF, apologies if it looks like I'm always looking for flaws in your theory. It's not the case, I appreciate your work a lot, but I am big into the J/P question right now, and while your theories have great internal logic, I am still finding them hard to reconcile with my "instinct" (intuition? :s who kows)

I have a friend who at first sight would seem an obvious INTJ: the INT are undoubted.

Regarding the J, he is extremely structured and organized in temrs of his routines and living spaces.

However, his thought process to me would seem Ti-dom. Now maybe I am wrong. But it is jsut that he seems completely guided by logic and getting to the finest, minutist definitions of everything, not really useful form any point of view of practicality or applicability. Likewise I haven't really noticed much "strategic" drive from him.

This especially ntoable as he and I spent two years as the only representaives of our political (commie) party in a small town, and he didn't really think like much of an "evil villain", more a naive lad completely guided by strict (often rather formal) logic.

He also really never showed any signs of brooding, comic-book villain type characteristics. I would say his "hidden motivation" or "excuse" was more Si than Fi - he would fall back on historical precedent when in doubt, and also had that "exercize" thing going on which I am told is very common to INTP's due to tertiary Si as a vulnerable poit (I have this too which is one of the points in favour me towards calling myself P).

Likewise I didn't see much propensity to Se-binges in him, though not really much Fe either, so who knows on that count.

You could propose that he was ISTJ, but I would find this a tough one to accept, as he has pretty much wholly devoted himself to theory (one of his flaws if anything).

Now maybe I have misunderstood the INXJ - the ones I have known seem to have a brooding inner core which I lack - though maybe this is because I only knew unhealthy ones (one was bipolar), or was mistyping INFJ's for INTJ's.

So, what would you type this guy as? to me it seems like his cognitive functions would match your INTP description, but the way he lives his life is extremely J, moreso than many confirmed J's.

 

[SolitaryWalker]

What if one is playful when they can be, but focused when they need to be? Or, when one prefers to be playful, but sees importance and necessity for being focused some of the time as well??

Good question. This is exactly where the conventional typology breaks down. A person can easily have multiple types as they are defined in Keirsey's book and a typical online profile.

The only way to avoid this is to define a type as a solidified natural tendency rather than a description of how a person behaves. For example, an introvert is someone who has the tendency to be energized more easily by low stimulation activity rather than high. This person may well be on some occassions very outgoing yet reserved on others, but this tells us nothing at all about his type.

The OP has a fair share of both, legitimate typological inferences where type is defined as an unconscious tendency "compels a person to truly understand a situation in terms of its individual variables, and their inter-operating behaviour." and mistaken ones where type is defined as a set of behaviors or actions "Extraverted Thinking (Te) is the act of planning and creating models of action, in order to achieve specific and measureable goals." However, to the credit of its author, the former was by far more pronounced than the latter.

 

[evie-lou]

intj vs intp

I took your 10 second test, unsure of what to expect. at first i didnt like the a) options in either of the first choices but then it all became easier to answerinteresting..my first test.lets go see what else i can find.ta

 

[uumlau]

The INTJ/INTP Communication Gap

haha, thanks. For the longest time, I kept pegging him as an INTJ because he's not like most INTPs I know. However, INTP makes a lot more sense with the rampant miscommunication.

So do you have any suggestions for improving the communication gap that seems to occur?

Could you explain a little more about the gap? For example, where misunderstandings seem to occur and where you end up diverging?

One thing that helps me get on the same page with others is if they make it a point to clearly explain the terms they are using. INTPs will do this probably too much, but it's necessary for us to feel like we're looking at a situation clearly.

I've found the communication gap between INTJ and INTP to be one of the best ways for an INTx to figure out which of the two types fits. A lot of the material that describes INTJs often describes someone who is rather fastidious and organized (because of the TJ), when most INTJs aren't like that at all. In fact, even very organized INTJs will "feel disorganized" because they aren't "organized enough." So even though the INTJ description mostly fits, the INTP seems to objectively fit better.

Similarly, not all INTPs are as vague and absentminded and laid back as the typical descriptions suggest. In fact, INTPs can be very precise and fastidious about how ideas are expressed, nitpicking minor definitions, and they seem anything other than "laid back" when they do so.

I believe that it is possible in terms of skills and training for a single person to both have prominent Te and Ti judging, depending on the material before them. Ti is where you figure it out for yourself, delving into the logic, not entirely trusting anothers' representation of the material to be entirely correct. Ti is your internalized logical understanding of a system/issue/problem. Te's focus is different: one's own understanding is still present, but it is voluntarily put to the test. It is compared to reality, compared to others' opinions/views/understandings, and it is actively searching for better ideas. Anyone who has had to work in a strongly technical field has had to develop both of these perspectives, or otherwise be crippled. If you don't develop your own understanding, you end up with a lot of confirmation bias and garbage-in-garbage-out spewing of bogus information. If you don't develop the ability to juggle ideas and perspectives other than your own, and honestly evaluate them, you won't be able to work smoothly with a technical team. If you are a competent member of a technical team, you might be better at one aspect than the other, but you do both: you have to.

This makes it even more difficult to determine whether one is INTP or INTJ, because, well, you actually do have aspects of both, and it can be difficult to tell which one you lean on more readily.

Now to the communication gap between these perspectives, where the function you lean on becomes more clear.

The absolute best way to tell whether you're an INTJ or an INTP is to get into discussions with other INTJs and INTPs and see where the discusions go.

The INTJ discussions will often be boring, even if you're both INTJs. The idea is communicated, there's nothing else to do, and the conversation is over. Once in a while, there's an interesting insight to be shared, someone says, "wow, cool," and the conversation is over. This attitude actually lends itself to the work world, where there is a job to be done, and spending hours just talking is problematic.

The INTP discussions will go all over the place, due to Ne. Whenever one gets bored with the current topic (and often, even when one isn't bored with the topic), a new tangential topic becomes the centerpiece of the conversation for a while. Ideas are usually not resolved, though they might be defined, and inconsistencies are pointed out.

Get an INTJ talking with an INTP, and generally, things go well. There's a lot in common, and even INTJs enjoy shooting the breeze about technical topics for a while, and INTPs enjoy many of the insights than INTJs have that they didn't think of themselves.

However, once they disagree, the communication gap appears. What happens is that there is some particular problem or issue, and the INTJ and INTP both attempt to solve it. The problem is that the priorities that define a real solution are very different.

The INTJ approach is, "Find the one or two things that need to be resolved, fix those, and be done." Ni plays a huge role for the INTJ in this respect: a huge amount of experience with past problems is compared with the current problem, in an almost supercomputer kind of way, and like magic, Ni throws up a few possible solutions. Te then sorts through these possibilities, throws out obviously bad ones, and then tests the ones the survive. What is left is "the correct solution." The INTJ will then implement the solution.

The INTP approach is to understand the problem. Rather than using Ni, the INTP uses Ti to achieve this personal understanding, while using Ne to brainstorm for possibilities the conclusions of Ti clash with reality. This Ti/Ne combination is very good at finding potential problems that might be caused by any particular choice made to fix the issue at hand.

Now, when the INTJ and INTP work together on the issue, these approaches will often clash. The INTJ is working to resolve things promptly, using Ni as a shortcut to achieve rapid understanding of the issue. The INTJ is fully capable of using Ti to analyze it in far more depth, but has abandoned this approach in favor of expediency. The INTP is working for a full understanding.

The INTJ figures things out (or so he thinks), and then informs the INTP of the solution. The INTP uses Ti and Ne and quickly intuitively feels some apparent inconsistencies and logical contradictions in the INTJ solution. Given a bit more time, a lot of the contradictions/problems are verbalized.

At this point, the INTJ does the same thing with the INTP's contradictions as he did with the original issue, resolving each one of those. It's actually a pretty good team-up, and the INTP brings up a lot of relevant and important points, which the INTJ quickly resolves. And then the INTP, still developing one's own personal understanding, doesn't stop.

From the INTJ's perspective, the INTP points start sounding more like technical nitpicks, arbitrarily specific definitions, or entirely tangential observations. Most of the better INTP points the INTJ often classes as valid, but that the gain achieved by implementing the INTP idea is not worth the cost of implementing it.

From the INTP's perspective, the INTJ is thinking sloppy, not considering all of the angles, willing to arbitrarily accept systemic flaws just to get the job done (badly), and in general not really trying to understand what is going on.

So, if you're still wondering whether you're INTJ or INTP, figure out which side of this kind of argument you end up on. Do other people seem disinclined to REALLY look into a problem/issue and just slap on a patch? Or do you find that you already have a solution to the problem, and feel held back by having to explain that solution to everyone else, over and over again, until they understand it?

I'll end it here. There's more details to be had, mostly along the lines of how INTJ and INTP end up talking in circles around each other, because each has a different priority and a different definition of what a good solution is.

 

[VagrantFarce]

Great post uumlau.

 

[Totenkindly]

Great post uumlau.

Quite excellent -- articulated very well and summing up my own experience both as INTP and my interactions with INTJs... although I have no way of knowing what the internal INTJ experience is like.

I was laughing at the conversation descriptions. I never know where we're going to end up with another xNTP... just that it's going to be pretty wild and cover a lot of varied ground.

 

[uumlau]

Quite excellent -- articulated very well and summing up my own experience both as INTP and my interactions with INTJs... although I have no way of knowing what the internal INTJ experience is like.

I was laughing at the conversation descriptions. I never know where we're going to end up with another xNTP... just that it's going to be pretty wild and cover a lot of varied ground.

You actually might know what the internal INTJ experience is like, because I think both extroverted and introverted aspects of T are developed in those forced to develop them, even though it isn't official MBTI with function ordering. (My main issue with MBTI as a system is the function ordering, which I suspect is a linear simplification of a much more sophisticated set of priorities. I.e., it's "mostly true" but implies things that I do not believe are true.)

Ni works like connect the dots. It's like looking at this picture:

and instantly knowing, without having to think, that it's a picture of a lion. (And not a jaguar or a horse. Obviously, this is a very simple demonstration.)

Everything that an INTJ sees has these kinds of patterns, that work like a computer program finding a match for a fingerprint or a face. The difference is that the patterns aren't attached to specific things. A "pencil" pattern could invoke an wood pencil, a mechanical pencil, a pen, a quill, a piece of chalk. The part that stays the same in the pattern is functionality, and it's Ni that keeps this focus. When an INTJ doesn't have these intuitive flashes, he loses that aura of confidence, and probably doesn't have applicable experience with a particular pattern.

Ne is more broad, and "pencil" will invoke lead, which isn't really lead, but graphite, which is really carbon, in sheets, unlike the crystalline structure of carbon, which is diamond, which is formed by carbon that is exposed to high temperature and pressure for a long time, and Superman can turn coal into a diamond by squeezing it really hard, I wonder if he can actually see the molecular structure change as he squeezes it, that would be so cool, but maybe his hands are immune to his own x-ray vision so he couldn't see it, and how the heck does he cut his hair?

Maintain a functional pattern by which you use your intuition, and you'll get the Ni effect, where all your intuitions stay focused on the task at hand. With practice, it just works. You look at something that is dark and mysterious to everyone else, and think, "Oh. That." And then you have to spend the next half an hour proving to everyone else that it really is that.

The main thing that will get in your way of this experience is Ti, which will make you want to delve into it and be absolutely sure that Ni is correct; Te works well with Ni because it will be satisfied by making sure that Ni doesn't appear to be wrong.

 

[simulatedworld]

^ Nice. I like the Ne vs. Ni descriptions a lot.

 

[AphroditeGoneAwry]

The main thing that will get in your way of this experience is Ti, which will make you want to delve into it and be absolutely sure that Ni is correct; Te works well with Ni because it will be satisfied by making sure that Ni doesn't appear to be wrong.

Can you clarify this statement? Did you mean to say Ne?

 

[Totenkindly]

(My main issue with MBTI as a system is the function ordering, which I suspect is a linear simplification of a much more sophisticated set of priorities. I.e., it's "mostly true" but implies things that I do not believe are true.)

I agree with that. I think it's helpful, but as you say, it's too linear (there are overlapping priorities and priorities working in conjunction). Even the eight functions themselves are just purified generalities.

Ni works like connect the dots. It's like looking at this picture and instantly knowing, without having to think, that it's a picture of a lion. (And not a jaguar or a horse. Obviously, this is a very simple demonstration.)

Okay, I do get that. (Interestingly, on my cog funct tests, I score highest in Ti, Ni, Ne, and Fe.) What I seem to lack / not connect with is typical Te behavior... I have to work very hard to function in a Te-style mode, it's not natural for me.

In my psyche, I seem to use Ni more as a lighthouse/beacon. I scan the environment and see patterns everywhere (so I get that part), so I just "know" things. The issue, however, is that I immediately try to validate the knowing and get there in the comfortable Ti/Ne way. I want to be able to articulate why what I see is true.

Sometimes this works.
Sometimes it doesn't.

I don't participate much in celebrity typing threads because what happens is that I just look at someone, I see the pattern immediately, and get a read... but in an open forum, I can't just say "ESTJ" [well, unless I'm Jack Flak]. I have to be able to explain my reasoning, in order to convince people my vision is true... but I'm frustrated because there WAS no reasoning to explain! I just.... "know."

And I get uncomfortable with 'just knowing,' because I want to always be able to articulate why I know.

Ne is more broad, and "pencil" will invoke lead, which isn't really lead, but graphite, which is really carbon, in sheets, unlike the crystalline structure of carbon, which is diamond, which is formed by carbon that is exposed to high temperature and pressure for a long time, and Superman can turn coal into a diamond by squeezing it really hard, I wonder if he can actually see the molecular structure change as he squeezes it, that would be so cool, but maybe his hands are immune to his own x-ray vision so he couldn't see it, and how the heck does he cut his hair?[/qutoe]

True. I tend to see Ne as more a "fireworks display" -- lots of lines radiating out in every direction at once from the starting point, with more and more branches being added as the creative impulse radiates outward in every direction. It's like a "spray" of linear ideas with zillions of forks, and what is at the end of one traceable line (among the many) might look nothing like what was at the center of the explosion.

Ni seems to be more a big-picture/pattern comprehensive grasp of something all at once, like shuffling infinite overlays over the data grid and instinctively see the "best matches."

The main thing that will get in your way of this experience is Ti, which will make you want to delve into it and be absolutely sure that Ni is correct; Te works well with Ni because it will be satisfied by making sure that Ni doesn't appear to be wrong.

What an interesting way to say it.

Can you clarify this statement? Did you mean to say Ne?

No, he's describing Ni ...and how Ti and Te are different in how they deal with Ni.

If I got this right:
Ti wants to prove it's (most likely) true.
Te simply needs to show it's (most likely) not false.

 

[uumlau]

Can you clarify this statement? Did you mean to say Ne?

Jennifer is correct, I meant to say Ni. Basically, Ti will want to go in and duplicate all the work Ni already did. It's actually not a bad thing, and I do it, but usually later on when I have time, not at the moment I need to get something done.

Okay, I do get that. (Interestingly, on my cog funct tests, I score highest in Ti, Ni, Ne, and Fe.) What I seem to lack / not connect with is typical Te behavior... I have to work very hard to function in a Te-style mode, it's not natural for me.

In my psyche, I seem to use Ni more as a lighthouse/beacon. I scan the environment and see patterns everywhere (so I get that part), so I just "know" things. The issue, however, is that I immediately try to validate the knowing and get there in the comfortable Ti/Ne way. I want to be able to articulate why what I see is true.

Sometimes this works.
Sometimes it doesn't.

I totally get that.

I have a theory about why you find it difficult to go the Te route. Te I believe feels similarly to Fe, and its difficult to invoke without also invoking Fe, which feels wrong. (I'm not strong with Fe, so bear with me, I might be way off.) For my part, I have strong Fi instead of Fe. So I am much more comfortable pulling out Te than Ti, because when I use Ti, it starts using Ne, and thus also pulling in Fi, so instead of doing Ti/Ne brainstorming, I end up Fi/Ne daydreaming. Having concrete ideas in front of me helps me keep track of everything, and I don't have Fe thoughts to distract me.

Just a theory.

Very often, when typing people, rather than asking what they prefer, I ask them what they find difficult (i.e., which of Ti/Te/Fi/Fe they lack.) Given which one they lack, that tells me by elimination which type they are. You may have noticed I have facility with several functions, not just two: I know I'm INTJ because I lack Fe. While several MBTI type descriptions partially describe me, the description of INTJ flaws describes my problems very very well, most of which have to do with lack of Fe, and the rest having to do with being very N.

And I get uncomfortable with 'just knowing,' because I want to always be able to articulate why I know.

And you find it difficult to use Te to do the articulation. Rather than testing your intuition internally with Ti, try empirically proving it. That might give you an idea of how Ni/Te feels.

True. I tend to see Ne as more a "fireworks display" -- lots of lines radiating out in every direction at once from the starting point, with more and more branches being added as the creative impulse radiates outward in every direction. It's like a "spray" of linear ideas with zillions of forks, and what is at the end of one traceable line (among the many) might look nothing like what was at the center of the explosion.

Ni seems to be more a big-picture/pattern comprehensive grasp of something all at once, like shuffling infinite overlays over the data grid and instinctively see the "best matches."

Good analogy.

If I got this right:
Ti wants to prove it's (most likely) true.
Te simply needs to show it's (most likely) not false.

Yes.

Personally, I just classify it as "Ti == theory" and "Te == experiment". The theory needs to be logical and self consistent (oh, and falsifiable!). The experiment tests the theory, but is only capable of disproving it. It cannot prove that it is conclusively true. The scientific method, a la Karl Popper, is very Te.

 

[VagrantFarce]

If I got this right:
Ti wants to prove it's (most likely) true.
Te simply needs to show it's (most likely) not false.

 

[IntrovertedThinker]

INTPs are thinkers, first and foremost. They impersonally analyse their current situation instinctually, able to dissect what they perceive into its separate variables. This knack for impersonal analysis makes them natural learners and these types often pursue esoteric interests purely for the sake of discovery. INTPs often find themselves joining social groups (online or not) that are geared towards these individual pursuits, where ideas can be freely bounced around in a group discussion in order to attain a greater, mutual understanding. For the INTP, mutual and individual understanding of How Everything Works is an end unto itself.

INTJs are decisive, creative planners who love to turn bizarre ideas into plans of action. These are the left-brain thinkers who might find the directionless, armchair discussions of an INTP almost insufferable

This is possibly the most concise, accurate "in a nutshell" description I've read of an INTP. We are very prone to impersonal analysis for the sake of discovery, in and of itself, as we have very curious minds that inherently want to know how the world and everything works. Thus, we're usually found learning esoteric subjects, almost exclusively, even if we're somewhat general in what we wish to dabble in. And, we do seek online communities which allow us to bounce ideas around, free association style, in group discussions in order to arrive at a better understanding of any given topic.

The latter has been my greatest problem the past 5 years: I've gone from forum to forum seeking a place to hang my hat (and I think I've found one at INTPforum). Essentially, I enjoy impersonal analysis; I enjoy others who can play around with ideas, without taking them too seriously; I enjoy a free flow of intellectual evaluation. From this, I gain understanding. With understanding, my mind blossoms and grows. To me, that's the highest goal one can achieve.

From what I've noticed, INTJ's tend to be very left-brained. Hence, they will usually NOT enjoy bouncing around ideas for fun as much as an INTP. INTJ's are more inflexible, rigid, and somewhat dogmatic. They'll only really get into an idea if it's absolutely logical and is absolutely credible according to a strict set of knowledge which the INTJ has systematically constructed since childhood. If an idea doesn't meet their standards, they either ignore the person with the idea, or they attempt to rip it to shreds before your very eyes. As an INTP thinker who loves to play around with ideas for the sake of possible understanding, the way an ENTP plays with ideas in order to possibly change our world, it's quite annoying to discuss ideas with INTJ's, for this reason. And many INTJ's have ruined intellectual discussions for me on many forums.

But, on the INTPforum, the INTP's there all open-minded and willing to discuss all ideas without rigorous judgment. We play with the ideas. We toss them around. We all give intellectual input. No one really gets so serious that they begin attacking and disproving the ideas of others. For INTP's, ideas are merely to be played with, not torn to shreds. They're like springboards used to jump from one place to another, rather than serious foundations from which we can build an entire system. The INTJ's don't seem to get that way of looking at things.

So yeah, I'm glad I found this. This has been the starkest distinction between the INTP and the INTJ: we want mutual understanding, so we can play with ideas in order to do so. INTJ's seem to want to find the most practical and rigorously sturdy truths and ideas on which they can build some intricate system, so that every idea must pass a ridiculous amount of strict logical and epistemological tests. It's crazy. INTP's are right-brained; INTJ's seem more left-brained. And this is usually why I now avoid INTJ's, and why I just stick to the INTP forums, where I can engage in silly, goofy intellectual discussions which are allowed to flourish without someone compulsively attempting to deconstruct everyone else's ideas.

 

[IntrovertedThinker]

I think your INTJ description might be a little too outward-focussed and practical-application oriented. I see this attributed to INTJs a lot, and I just don't relate to it all that well.

I think it's important to recognise that all INTs are going to be highly abstract and theory-oriented. With INTJs, there's a drive to have theories that correlate with reality, but that in itself is a kind of pursuit-of-truth, often exercised for its own sake. It's not all about the reality we can bring about - the dominant process of the INTJ is still an introverted, inward-focused one.

I also take issue with the generalised attribution of 'left-brain, linear thinkers' to INTJ - Ni is not, in my experience, particularly linear or particularly left brained.

I also relate as well to your description of Ti as to your description of Ni. Your description of Ti sounds very N-ish - either a form of N (it actually sounds like a facet of Ni to me) or an N-Ti hybrid.

Just some feedback; hope it's useful.

Be that as it may, I've noticed that since INTJ's have Extraverted Thinking, they tend to base their judgment of ideas upon the workings of this function, moreso than anything else. Hence, anything which doesn't fit with the INTJ's Extraverted Thinking simply cannot be accepted. Te is very linear, rigorous, and logically tight. In my opinion, INTJ's themselves DO have ridiculous non-linear ideas based on intuition. However, an INTJ actually works their own bizarre ideas out by filtering them through Te before actually speaking about them, whereas INTP's ideas from Ne and are then filtered through Ti. Yet, Ti doesn't place much weight on empirical matters, so we usually only use Ti to make sure an idea is at least coherent and somewhat plausible, given the nature of reality.

Thus, both types receive ideas from intuition, it's just how we filter the ideas that makes the difference. INTJ's will call INTP's stupid for basing their ideas entirely on intuition (because ideas which aren't empirically valid seem useless to INTJ's most of the time). INTP's will call INTJ's hypocritical for basing their ideas entirely on intuition (because INTP's know that they have only filtered their bizarre ideas through Te). And this seems to be the point of difference between us. We filter intuition through Ti; they filter it through Te. This leads the INTJ so see Ne as baseless and unfounded and Ti as weak (which is ridiculous, because Ni is just as non-linear).

Therefore, because INTJ's filter their intuition through Te, they ultimately come off more left-brained, even if they do have a right-brained side which takes ideas from thin air. Over all, they are more uptight about linear-logic and epistemological weight, mistrusting other people's non-linear, intuitive reasoning (because they only understand their own intuition, as it's filtered through Te, and assume everyone else's must be unfounded, hypocritically). INTP's filter intuition through Ti, making us slightly more right-brained, even if we have a left-brained side. We can be very analytical and logically scrutinizing, just in a different way to the INTJ. We aren't unfamiliar with deductive reasoning, we just tend to have tolerance for the optional ability to intuitively leap from one idea to another, almost inductively. In this way, we are right-brained, trusting our own intuition in a very Ti fashion, even if we cannot express our ideas in terms of epistemological awareness.

And so, INTJ's assume we're muddle-headed, daydreaming intellectuals who don't actually pay enough attention to facts and details. I've been called "pseudo-intellectual" by many INTJ's. INTP's, on other hand, see INTJ's as stubborn-minded and inflexible intellectuals who seem to lack intuition, or an honest intuition, preferring to narrow-mindedly stick to what makes sense and what works, left-brain style. Hence, INTJ's might tend to miss out on possible discoveries because of this. In fact, here's a description of "random processing," from a left-brain right-brain test I took.

Right Brain Categories

Random Processing

Random processing is a method used by the right hemisphere for processing information. The information that is received is processed without priority. A right-brained person will usually jump from one task to another due to the random processing by their dominant right hemisphere. Random processing is, of course, the opposite of sequential processing therefore making it difficult for right-brained individuals to choose to learn in sequence. In order to overcome this, a right-brained person may want to attempt to learn sequence by using colors since the right hemisphere is sensitive to color. For example, you may want to associate the first step with green, the second step with blue, and the last step with red. Consistently using the same sequence will allow you to see that this strategy can be applied to many tasks involving sequence.

You show a strong ability at random processing. You are good at completing tasks in an unspecified order, and don't waste time creating lists when they aren't needed. You are also able to make "leaps of logic" and make discoveries a sequential thinker could never dream of making. However, you may have difficulty with spelling or certain aspects of mathematics, such as geometric proofs.

Left Brain Categories

Sequential Processing

Sequential processing is a method used by the left hemisphere for processing information. The information that is received is processed in order from first to last. Information is processed in a systematic, logical manner. Through sequential processing, you can interpret and produce symbolic information such as language, mathematics, abstraction, and reasoning. This process is used to store memory in a language format. Activities that require sequential processing include spelling, making a "to-do" list, and many aspects of organization.

Your Sequential Analysis

You tend process information you receive without any priority as to which is processed first, last, or any place in between. It is difficult for you to learn or perform tasks involving sequence. For example, spelling is a task that involves sequence and you may experience problems remembering exact spelling or any type of rote memorization, for that matter. Creating daily lists and plans are probably not activities you enjoy. If you are having problems with tasks involving sequence, there are methods you can use to improve your skills. One method involves using colors to learn sequence. You assign a color to each task. For example, you may want to make the first step green, the second step blue, and the last step red. This helps because the right side of the brain, your dominant side in this case, is sensitive to colors. The important thing to remember is that consistently using the same sequence will help you both improve and recognize that this strategy can be used in many different circumstances involving sequence.

I'm a very random thinker who jumps from one idea to another, using huge leaps of logic and intuition. Often times, I can think of things other people seem shocked about, as if they want to say, "How did he do that?" I would think this is related to my developed Ne.

Sequential thinking seems more tied and related to Te. Organizing, rote learning, systematic linear logic.

I personally know that I'm not left-brained. Hence, I dislike math and science (even if I can appreciate them). I just don't prefer those subjects. I don't like "to do" lists. I don't like organization. I don't like sequence or protocol, or routine. Hence, using the scientific method can be insufferable for me. I like attacking a problem or investigating a query from a number of different angles all at once, jumping from one angle or idea to another at random. I also don't prefer deductive reasoning; I prefer inductive leaps and jumps, and generalizations.

Also, I don't enjoy math because we were taught in a very rote fashion. "This is a quadratic equation, learn it." "But what is a quadratic equation actually used for?" "Just finish your work. Copy the problem and the board and work it out. Stop asking so many questions."

That's pretty much how I was taught Algebra 2. No real understanding of why I was being taught what I was taught; I was just expected to memorize how to do the problems, which makes no sense, because you need to know why you're learning something in order to meaningfully learning it, so that you'll actually apply it some day, otherwise it's a waste of time.

Clearly, the two hemispheres of the brain are a great distinction for INTP's and INTJ's. We jump around from idea to idea; they just go from one idea to another in sequential fashion, linearly and logically. We have leaps of logical intuition. So we just don't get along, as I've found.

 

[IntrovertedThinker]

What if one is playful when they can be, but focused when they need to be? Or, when one prefers to be playful, but sees importance and necessity for being focused some of the time as well?

In other words, would you agree that it is possible for someone to meet both descriptions to the same degree of accuracy to the point that they fall somewhere directly between the two types?

Probably, but who really cares?
INTJ's tend to prefer to be serious; INTP's seem to prefer to be playful.
End of discussion.

 

[IntrovertedThinker]

You are playing with semantics and attempting to have it both ways. If it's "yes" . . . then it's yes.

I am this way naturally because I was born and raised in nature and, or, a natural state, if you will - which is the same thing as "Default," by the way. Therefore, your theory cannot determine what type someone is when they share an equal portion of the characteristics that you described in your OP.

The problem is simple. You are attempting - and most of the folks on this site do this, so don't feel special - to extrapolate personality traits shaped by nurture in hopes of isolating what you believe to be our "natural" personality - one without external influence, for example. However, that exercise is impossible. Our personalities are developed by our experiences, our influences, and our upbringing. Any attempt to ignore this if fraught with inaccuracy.

In short newwink, yes, we have innate personality traits. But the layers of nurture and life experiences have been so heavily pressed and built upon that innate foundation that no one test or easy identifier exists that can push through to the core, point, and say, "Yeah, that's what that person is naturally."

Wow, INTJ's are so damn annoying.
You've made a giant problem out of nothing, as a typical INTJ.
The OP was basically about general descriptions and tendencies of the two types. Of course some people fall in the middle!
It doesn't at all change the fact that INTJ's tend to be linear and serious, and INTP's tend to be more non-linear and playful.
The OP was very accurate.

 

[IntrovertedThinker]

To expand on this, how does this affect INTJs' style of abstract conversation? I have a friend whose type I am not entirely sure of, though he did test as INTJ. I try to start discussions with him about different subjects and they never really go anywhere because he can't stay focused on that one subject Do INTPs tend to follow tangents more, then, to expand on points? Whereas INTJs need further knowledge into a subject before they start speculating and throwing ideas out?

Yup. From what I've noticed, INTJ's want to know everything about everything before they speak about anything. INTP's will actually enjoy conjecture (playful assumptions, without entirely developing accurate accounts). INTJ's seem to hate conjecture and anyone who does it; INTP's don't limit themselves to knowing everything about everything before attempting to question something. We learn as we go. INTJ's learn before they start to go.

 

[Zarathustra]

The above two five posts were complete tripe.