• You are currently viewing our forum as a guest, which gives you limited access to view most discussions and access our other features. By joining our free community, you will have access to additional post topics, communicate privately with other members (PM), view blogs, respond to polls, upload content, and access many other special features. Registration is fast, simple and absolutely free, so please join our community today! Just click here to register. You should turn your Ad Blocker off for this site or certain features may not work properly. If you have any problems with the registration process or your account login, please contact us by clicking here.

[NT] INTJ vs INTP: A Guide

redacted

Well-known member
Joined
Nov 28, 2007
Messages
4,223
^ I think it's incredibly oversimplified to think that Descartes argument compared to Nietzsche's is a perfect analogy to Ti and Te. There is always more than just Thinking at play in any argument. It takes N (which takes S) and F to come up with the premises; all Thinking does is analyze the structure of the argument in a binary way.

The definitional difference between the Thinking functions (which aren't even mutually exclusive) is that one is focused on the external standard and one is focused on the internal. In other words, Ti uses the metric relevant to the current internal thought process to judge the correctness of something, and Te uses the metric relevant to the current external situation. Both functions have only two possible outputs, though (true or false, 1 or 0, whatever you want to call it). Ti outputs true or false as a function of whether or not something fits in the thought process, Te outputs true or false as a function of whether or not something fits in the environment. So I don't really think soundness and validity perfectly describe their relationship.

As computer functions, they'd look like this (I'm just making up a language here):

Te (takes two inputs, e (the current environment), and x (something to be analyzed)):
If (x is consistent with e)
True
Else
False

Ti (takes two inputs, i (the current internal thought process, conscious and unconscious), and x (something to be analyzed)):
If (x is consistent with i)
True
Else
False

There are actually plenty of times that i and e aren't very different -- a given x would cause the same output using either Te or Ti.

I've gotten sort of off point, but I really just meant you can't think of Te and Ti as such different types of functions.

I think in general Ti is more concerned with internal consistency for this reason -- the internal standard itself changes with every thought -- once you start stacking premises, the internal standard will hold on to all of them and check them against each other (because the premises actually become the internal standard, as the user is currently thinking about them).

Te doesn't care about that kind of thing, because it just stays focused on what is environmentally relevant. When you feed Te a list of premises, all it does is check each of them against the environment -- the standard Te uses does not change as much with each input. If any premise contradicts the environment, Te just say "false" and be done with it, the function itself is not interested in whether it is hypothetically true given some other premises not visible in the environment.

That's why I like to simplify the whole thing by saying:
Ti - true/false
Te - works/doesn't work

I think that catches the actual mechanisms at play.
 

SillySapienne

`~~Philosoflying~~`
Joined
Jan 14, 2008
Messages
9,801
MBTI Type
ENFP
Enneagram
4w5
This thread sucks because it's

a.) annoying

b.) taking up all my boyfriend's time when he has better things to do

and c.) I just had a revelation, it is entirely one thing when you are alone and have no one stimulating to talk to and hence go on a forum to get your social/intellectual stimulation, I approve of this, but it is entirely a different thing when you DO have someone, or people to talk to but you don't, leaving them feeling intellectually frustrated, muted, and entirely bored whilst your constantly typing away at/to internet strangers.

I have used foruming as a coping mechanism when I didn't have real-life stimulation, but, heck, maybe it's because I'm an extrovert, but I always *prefer* the real stuff, in real time, and in real space.

Also, I AM SO FUCKING SICK OF TALKING ABOUT TYPOLOGY, FOR FUCKSAKE THERE IS SO MUCH MORE TO LIFE AND THE UNIVERSE THAN TYPOLOGICAL FUNCTIONS!!!!

:doh:

:doh:

:doh:

:doh:

:doh:

Sorry, had to get this out, carry on.
 

Zarathustra

Let Go Of Your Team
Joined
Oct 31, 2009
Messages
8,110
'i' and 'e' determine the subjectivity of a function don't they, or this is at least one theory I'm sure.

Yes, but only in one of the three senses of objective/subjective that are relevant to function theory.

Yes, because they don't see the "object." They only see information that the extraverted function has passed on about the object, making them subjective.

You have a lot of work to do on your understanding, your communication, or both.

Also I'm not a self-absorbed prick. Like some INTPs. Or at least I'd like to think so.

:cheers:

My kind can be just as self-absorbed as your kind.

Hell, plenty of people on this site would probably want to make that claim about me.

:cheers:

Perhaps it is better said that Ni is in fact right-brained and will take a creative stance towards what it is solving, but more biased to what they decide to actually try to solve (Te). Where as Ti will use a construct that already exists to attack different problems (Ne). Both alter to the object, but one takes an immediate turn to the left-field when solving and the other will turn to the left field when deciding what to solve.

You are getting closer to the heart of the matter with this 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?

Now this question points straight to the heart of the matter (and to what reflect was pointing to):

The answer to the question is actually quite simple: it's the exact reason why INTJs are labeled "Js" and INTPs are labeled "Ps" under MBTI's system -- INTJs extrovert their T (so they tend to seem more left-brained), while INTPs extrovert their N (so they tend to seem more right-brained).

It's good that you seem to have changed your language from one that connotes reality to one that connotes appearance.

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.

Look, I'm no neuropsychologist, but, judging from you're writing, I'm pretty sure you're not either.

From the beginning, my argument was foremost that Ni is not a left-brained activity and Ti is not a right-brained one, as had been previously posited.

I still believe this to be the case.

Your construction above is a little ambiguous, so I'm not sure whether it necessarily contradicts what I'm saying.

If you are saying that Ni is left-brained so that it may communicate with Te (which is also left-brained), and Ti is right-brained so that it may communicate with Ne (which is also right-brained), and that the two sides of the brain are more-or-less incapable of functioning together, then you'd be saying that many other aspects of function theory are incorrect (e.g., the Ni-Ti dom loop of the INFJ wouldn't exist, nor would the doom loops or aux loops of any type).

I'm not saying that I'm absolutely certain about whether the functions exist, nor where in the brain they manifest, but I am saying that the constructions previously posited, including (at least based on my understanding of) yours, are almost certainly flawed.

I would love for someone with a strong background in neuropsychology to get up in this thread/forum, so we could hear from someone with a bit more authority on the matter.

I do think, though, that it's more likely that the T functions are left-brained and the N functions are right-brained.

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

I'll add you to my contacts.

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.

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.

I don't think either of these is true: Te looks for soundness.

The clarion call for this soundness takes the form of representational truth, but, due to the nature of reality, we generally have to settle for pragmatic truth -- the reason being that absolute certainty doesn't exist.

The claim that Te only looks for pragmatic truth is, in my opinion, a bastardization of reality.

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.

This is very much in line with reality, with just a couple slight hiccups here and there.

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.

You're committing the same error that IntrovertedThinker was previously making: calling INTP thinking "real thinking" and making INTJ thinking out to be a lesser form of thinking.

You're also making me feel like SolitaryWalker.
 

redacted

Well-known member
Joined
Nov 28, 2007
Messages
4,223
I'll add you to my contacts.



I don't think this is true.

Te looks for soundness.

The clarion call for this soundness takes the form of representational truth, but, due to the nature of reality, we generally have to settle for pragmatic truth -- the reason being that absolute certainty doesn't exist.

The claim that Te only looks for pragmatic truth is, in my opinion, a bastardization of reality.

I think you're labeling too much of your thought process as Te. You use Ti to some extent, too, and intuition (plus feeling, to some extent) is what sets up the premises of any argument.

Te itself is just whether or not something is consistent with the environment.
Ti itself is just whether or not something is consistent with the internal standard.

That's it.

I'm not saying Te users can't care about consistency with the internal standard, I'm just saying that they're not using Te when they do.

Very much so, and a highly displeased and currently depressed one.

lol lol lol

P.S. you're being manipulative (no offense). keep your relationship conversation to your relationship!

not trying to talk hella shit; my girlfriend uses similar strategies and I still love the shit out of her!
 

Zarathustra

Let Go Of Your Team
Joined
Oct 31, 2009
Messages
8,110
I think you're labeling too much of your thought process as Te. You use Ti to some extent, too, and intuition (plus feeling, to some extent) is what sets up the premises of any argument.

Te itself is just whether or not something is consistent with the environment.
Ti itself is just whether or not something is consistent with the internal standard.

That's it.

I'm not saying Te users can't care about consistency with the internal standard, I'm just saying that they're not using Te when they do.

This may be true.

In a previous thread on Ne/Ni, during a conversation with uumlau, I hypothesized that Te might be more associated with inductive reasoning, while Ti is more associated with deductive reasoning.
 

Zarathustra

Let Go Of Your Team
Joined
Oct 31, 2009
Messages
8,110
Where do the hiccups occur exactly?

Throughout.

As you can see, my girlfriend doesn't exactly want me to spend any more time in this thread, so I'm logging out now.

I'll get back to you later if I can, but I probably won't have time... Going on a road trip soon (hopefully)...
 

Jaguar

Active member
Joined
May 5, 2007
Messages
20,647
I think you're labeling too much of your thought process as Te. You use Ti to some extent, too, and intuition (plus feeling, to some extent) is what sets up the premises of any argument.

Te itself is just whether or not something is consistent with the environment.
Ti itself is just whether or not something is consistent with the internal standard.

I happen to agree with the following line of thinking when it comes to the functions.
It doesn't matter that it pertains to Socionics. The Jungian functions are Jungian functions, regardless.

The extroverted and introverted variants of an information element (e.g. extroverted intuition Ne and introverted intuition Ni) are different perspectives on the same sphere of activity, so it makes sense that strength in one implies strength in the other. For example, strength in accumulating data (Te) implies strength in inferring structure based on that data (Ti).

It seems that whether it's Te or Ti, Ne or Ni, Fe or Fi there always seems to be this "us and them" mentality in this forum. There was a gent named Alan Marshall who in the 90's theorized that the development of both attitudes was a given, so that after developing Te,Ti would come next. After developing Ne, Ni would come next. etc. I also want to mention that some people may have no problem using both attitudes, whereas someone else may have much difficulty. I have never been one to make blind assumptions that one who identifies as INTP necessitates a weakness using Te or one who identifies as INTJ necessitates a weakness using Ti. It's only a particular theory that makes it appear as if it is so.

Having posted all of that, I think it's at the heart of many a disagreement.
Certain people are "borrowing" manifestations of Ti or Te, thinking it is only one function they are using, when in reality they are more than likely using both.
(God only knows how many fewer arguments would exist in this forum if people realized that about Fe and Fi.) :wink:
 

Zarathustra

Let Go Of Your Team
Joined
Oct 31, 2009
Messages
8,110
^ I would add that I believe cross-attitude development is more likely in one's more primary functions (i.e., Ti and Ne are easier for an INTJ to develop than Fe and Si, etc.).

Hence, something like my results from the Mindframes test:

In Your Comfort Zone
LOGIC - Meaning - Reason-based - Thought - Very often - (Ti) - 100
INSIGHT - Meaning - Feel-based - Thought - Very often - (Ni) - 96
CHARISMA - Meaning - Feel-based - Action - Often - (Ne) - 88

Outside Your Comfort Zone
PROACTIVITY - Meaning - Reason-based - Action - Sometimes - (Te) - 84
SENSITIVITY - Perception - Feel-based - Thought - Sometimes - (Fi) - 84
CONTROL - Perception - Reason-based - Action - Sometimes - (Se) - 82
ORDER - Perception - Reason-based - Thought - Sometimes - (Si) - 80
SOCIABILITY - Perception - Feel-based - Action - Seldom - (Fe) - 64
 

IntrovertedThinker

New member
Joined
Jun 21, 2010
Messages
96
MBTI Type
INTP
Enneagram
5w4
Now this question points straight to the heart of the matter (and to what reflect was pointing to):

The answer to the question is actually quite simple: it's the exact reason why INTJs are labeled "Js" and INTPs are labeled "Ps" under MBTI's system -- INTJs extrovert their T (so they tend to seem more left-brained), while INTPs extrovert their N (so they tend to seem more right-brained).

It's good that you seem to have changed your language from one that connotes reality to one that connotes appearance.

1. I'm going to keep this in mind. For now, it seems to make sense. You guys are internally intuitive and externally thinking, so you seem more stiff (even if you have tons of ideas bubbling around beneath the surface). We are externally intuitive and internally thinking, so we come off more conceptual, with our thinking more hidden beneath the surface.

However, I know an INXJ. She has Ni > Fi > Te > Ti as her four main functions. She is internally INTJ (Te with a developed Ti). So she is basically a deep thinker who no one would suspect. Yet, on the outside, she appears to be warm, caring, and nice -- not like a typical thinker.

How the hell would you explain this? Her Fe is low, while her largest feeling function is Fi (introverted feeling). Her Ti is almost as developed as her Te (extraverted thinking). Shouldn't she seem like a thinker who is actually a feeler, according to your theory here?

Additionally, I'm not entirely convinced that INTPs and INTJ's are only right/left brained on the surface.
It seems that we literally do conduct actual thought functions in a particular fashion.
INTP's seem global and make intuitive leaps; INTJ's go step-by-step fashion. So, are you saying that they only seemthis way?

2. Yeah, it's a good thing that I actually realized I was only speaking about appearances, rather than actual cognitive functions.

You're committing the same error that IntrovertedThinker was previously making: calling INTP thinking "real thinking" and making INTJ thinking out to be a lesser form of thinking.

You're also making me feel like SolitaryWalker.

I never said INTP's do 'real thinking' and that INTJ's have a lesser form of thinking. I just said INTJ's come off more stubborn and close-minded in their approach to truth, which might leave out possibilities, and that I don't PREFER their approach. I did mention that INTP thought also has downsides.
 

redacted

Well-known member
Joined
Nov 28, 2007
Messages
4,223
This may be true.

In a previous thread on Ne/Ni, during a conversation with uumlau, I hypothesized that Te might be more associated with inductive reasoning, while Ti is more associated with deductive reasoning.

No, they are both deductive.

They're really the same process, i and e are just specifiers.


Induction is N.
 

freeeekyyy

Cheeseburgers
Joined
Feb 13, 2010
Messages
1,384
MBTI Type
INTJ
Enneagram
5w4
Instinctual Variant
sx/sp
No, they are both deductive.

They're really the same process, i and e are just specifiers.


Induction is N.

Practically speaking, in the case of thinking, introversion/extraversion defines whether you are deductive or inductive. Te looks to outward information to determine truth. That is the definition of inductive reasoning. Ti looks to its own inward understanding, that is the definition of deductive reasoning.

It's almost wrong to even call Te logical. It is factual. What matters is the result, the way it was gotten is irrelevant. Ti looks at things exactly opposite of that. Even if you got the right answer, you went about it the wrong way and therefore fail.


Oh, and if it's actually intuition, then why do ISTPs also seem more likely to use deductive reasoning, and ISTJs inductive reasoning?
 

redacted

Well-known member
Joined
Nov 28, 2007
Messages
4,223
Practically speaking, in the case of thinking, introversion/extraversion defines whether you are deductive or inductive. Te looks to outward information to determine truth. That is the definition of inductive reasoning. Ti looks to its own inward understanding, that is the definition of deductive reasoning.

It's almost wrong to even call Te logical. It is factual. What matters is the result, the way it was gotten is irrelevant. Ti looks at things exactly opposite of that. Even if you got the right answer, you went about it the wrong way and therefore fail.


Oh, and if it's actually intuition, then why do ISTPs also seem more likely to use deductive reasoning, and ISTJs inductive reasoning?

Wow, there are like 10 assumptions you've made in this post that I very much disagree with.

"Te looks to outward information to determine truth. That is the definition of inductive reasoning. Ti looks to its own inward understanding, that is the definition of deductive reasoning."

The definition of deductive logic is that the premises of an argument entail the conclusion. Ti and Te both check for just that. The premises they happen to be interested in are different (hence the i/e split), but the mechanism of judgment is exactly the same.

Induction (not inductive logic, because it's by definition not logical) is when you make a conclusion that DOES NOT follow from the premises. Induction accounts for all of the leaps in understanding people go through. When you say something like "the sky has risen for my whole life, so I conclude it will rise tomorrow", that's NOT deductive. And also NOT an instance of a T function (either one).

With deduction, you can not end up with more logical content than you start with. It's only purpose is to check for correctness, not to think up an answer (except in some deductive discipline, like math).

Te takes an input from a perceiving function and checks its consistency against the premises of the external standard (current external environment).

Ti takes an input from a perceiving function and checks its consistency against the premises of the internal standard (current individual thought process).

Both just take the input (call it x), and see if it's consistent with the logical content of whatever premises they look at. In other words, Thinking checks if

Premises in preferred environment (internal for Ti or external for Te)
Therefore x

is a valid logical claim. This is why Te users are much more practical -- pragmatism is a function of the external standard, and that's the focus of Te! Ti users are often checking for logical consistency in frameworks irrelevant to what's going on around them.*

To get the premises in the first place, induction is used. Because you start with an empty premise set and end with more logical content (not deductively valid), you are creating new ideas. In other words, you are using Intuition. Intuition and induction are, for all intents and purposes, analogous.

As a little aside, Feeling is also important for coming up with premises (or, rather, eliminating them). It decides which premises are important (the ones that still stand are what Thinking actually uses). Fe throws away premises that are not "good" given the external standard, and Fi throws away premises that are not "good" given the internal standard. That's why Fe users factor in the specifics of the external situation, and Fi users can get "stuck" on a value not necessarily relevant to what's currently happening. (Also, it's why Fi types are idealists -- they don't need to check with the environment to feel comfortable deciding what is good or bad.)

So yeah, deduction is T, induction is N. That's just the way it is.

* = It's also important to mention that the external standard and internal standard do not necessarily contradict each other. A Te and Ti user could make the exact same truth judgment if the premises found in the internal and external standard are equivalent (which actually happens all the time.)
 

freeeekyyy

Cheeseburgers
Joined
Feb 13, 2010
Messages
1,384
MBTI Type
INTJ
Enneagram
5w4
Instinctual Variant
sx/sp
So, you would say that using a statistical representation as proof of something is not inductive? Because that's what Te does. That's what Te users do. Ti users generally do not.

I think you're assuming that one who prefers Te can't also use Ti and vice versa. This is not the case.
 

freeeekyyy

Cheeseburgers
Joined
Feb 13, 2010
Messages
1,384
MBTI Type
INTJ
Enneagram
5w4
Instinctual Variant
sx/sp
I guess what I'm saying is, a Te user can use deductive reasoning. But when they do so, they are not exercising Te in a pure sense. To argue something from evidence is not deductive, because you cannot prove that the statistics say what they seem to say. And Te is nothing if not evidence-based



Edit:

I take back everything I said. After thinking about it a bit more, I realized that what I was doing was arguing something I didn't really understand the definition of well enough. It's not due to a lack of understanding about the processes though as much as lacking a thorough understanding of what deductive and inductive reasoning are. From further research, it would seem that a person can use deductive reasoning from a Te mindframe. I was wrong.
 

redacted

Well-known member
Joined
Nov 28, 2007
Messages
4,223
I take back everything I said. After thinking about it a bit more, I realized that what I was doing was arguing something I didn't really understand the definition of well enough. It's not due to a lack of understanding about the processes though as much as lacking a thorough understanding of what deductive and inductive reasoning are. From further research, it would seem that a person can use deductive reasoning from a Te mindframe. I was wrong.

Not to rub it in or anything, but I also think you are mischaracterizing the functions, not just the terms 'induction' and 'deduction'.

If we were to substitute the full definitions for all of the terms here (functions too), I doubt we'd disagree.
 
Top