User Tag List

First 45678 Last

Results 51 to 60 of 98

  1. #51
    Freshman Member simulatedworld's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    MBTI
    ENTP
    Enneagram
    7w6 sx/so
    Socionics
    ILE
    Posts
    5,554

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Two Point Two View Post
    So...something as simple as an NTJ suggesting that you look at it in some specific other way could, theoretically, be enough of a situational change to trigger a revision, should the result be shown to be more consistent with some other internalised set of principles?
    Yes.

    Quote Originally Posted by Two Point Two View Post
    Of course, this is not something that seems to happen when instances of refusal-to-revise annoy me, but then, I don't know what internal principles other people are operating on.
    I find that when NTJs criticize our models, they often misunderstand the extent to which we place faith in them. They figure we must believe that these models apply universally or we wouldn't spend so much time on them--I tend to interpret this as Te concluding that spending time on models that don't apply universally is an inefficient use of time and assuming that, therefore, NTPs must believe their models to be universally applicable.

    This, of course, is a mistake. We're more interested in figuring out exactly what would happen under one precise set of theoretical conditions than we are in determining what the most useful, universal, empirically verifiable approach is. Te wants breadth of applicability; Ti wants depth of precision.
    If you could be anything you want, I bet you'd be disappointed--am I right?

  2. #52
    Senior Member Two Point Two's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    MBTI
    INTJ
    Posts
    200

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by simulatedworld View Post
    I find that when NTJs criticize our models, they often misunderstand the extent to which we place faith in them. They figure we must believe that these models apply universally or we wouldn't spend so much time on them--I tend to interpret this as Te concluding that spending time on models that don't apply universally is an inefficient use of time assuming that, therefore, NTPs must believe their models to be universal.

    This, of course, is a mistake. We're more interested in figuring out exactly what would happen under one precise set of theoretical conditions than we are in determining what the most useful, universal, empirically verifiable approach is.
    You may well be right about NTJs misunderstanding the place of the model in the NTP's world, but I don't think you've got the right reason. It's not because Te just assumes that people must be efficient and that therefore X amount of time means the model is universal. It's rather that when NTJ challenges the model on universal grounds, they don't receive 'it's not universal, I'm only addressing this one specific situation' as an answer. Just as NTJ misunderstood the intended application of NTP's proposal, so NTP misunderstands NTJ's criticism. NTJ's criticism was misplaced, but so is NTP's answer to that criticism.

    Which is, of course, exactly the kind of miscommunication you were talking about in the first place. So I would have to say, in response to the OP, that I think it's a decent description of a miscommunication that does occur, but, I still don't know that it's always NTPs I've experienced it with.

  3. #53
    Freshman Member simulatedworld's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    MBTI
    ENTP
    Enneagram
    7w6 sx/so
    Socionics
    ILE
    Posts
    5,554

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Two Point Two View Post
    You may well be right about NTJs misunderstanding the place of the model in the NTP's world, but I don't think you've got the right reason. It's not because Te just assumes that people must be efficient and that therefore X amount of time means the model is universal. It's rather that when NTJ challenges the model on universal grounds, they don't receive 'it's not universal, I'm only addressing this one specific situation' as an answer. Just as NTJ misunderstood the intended application of NTP's proposal, so NTP misunderstands NTJ's criticism. NTJ's criticism was misplaced, but so is NTP's answer to that criticism.

    Which is, of course, exactly the kind of miscommunication you were talking about in the first place. So I would have to say, in response to the OP, that I think it's a decent description of a miscommunication that does occur, but, I still don't know that it's always NTPs I've experienced it with.
    Ti doesn't see any reason to come up with truly universal models because Ne can easily adapt an existing model to fit a new situation by just making a few adjustments, and this happens automatically and effortlessly.

    NTJs tend to criticize our models by insisting (because they don't apply universally) that they're completely worthless, instead of asking how we might adjust them if conditions were to change. You guys rarely make it clear why you're criticizing the model; you just lecture us for not taking other interpretations into account.

    Which is annoying because we have a different set of rules for each different interpretation; we just like to work on one at a time and define it precisely before we worry about what might happen under a different set of conditions.

    NTP: But this model does describe effectively what would happen in situation x, right?
    NTJ: Who cares about situation x? Bring me a model that describes all situations, or you're wasting my time.

    But yes I think this does illustrate the miscommunication described in the OP pretty well. It's not always NTPs that this happens with, but I bet it's definitely NJ vs. NP more often than anyone else.
    If you could be anything you want, I bet you'd be disappointed--am I right?

  4. #54
    Senior Member BlueGray's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    MBTI
    INTP
    Enneagram
    5
    Posts
    474

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Litvyak View Post
    Yes, I seriously hate it when INTPs say something like "define xy". It seems they really REALLY like "defining" things for no apparent reason. Define temperature. Define IQ. Define time. Wtf? It's a debate, not a "let's define obvious things in the most eloquent way"-contest.
    When I want someone to define a term I'm looking for their definition. Everybody uses different definitions for words. I can hardly communicate with someone if we are using the same term to refer to different things. Establishing points where we agree allows for building in our communications. I only ask for definitions if there seems to be some miscommunication occurring. Temperature probably would not have such a miscommunication but IQ would almost certainly have one, time is somewhere in between.
    In debates both parties work to prove some point. As in any rigorous proof all parties must have a set of axioms or definitions with which all agree to.

    To give reason to our requirement of definitions.
    Ne > Ti > Si >> Te > Se >> Fe > Fi > Ni
    5 so/sp
    Chaotic Neutral/Evil

  5. #55
    Dreaming the life onemoretime's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    MBTI
    3h50
    Socionics
    ILE
    Posts
    4,460

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Two Point Two View Post
    No.

    I think trying to make type based distinctions at this level of specificity is doomed to failure.

    I don't think words ever have meaning at all.
    Given that other xNTJs have agreed with me, consider yourself an outlier.

  6. #56
    Senior Member Two Point Two's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    MBTI
    INTJ
    Posts
    200

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by onemoretime View Post
    Given that other xNTJs have agreed with me, consider yourself an outlier.
    As far as I can see, two NTJs have agreed with you in this thread, and one (me) has disagreed. I don't think that's a big enough sample to qualify me as an 'outlier' just yet.

    I may be missing something, but I still think that whether or not someone thinks words have inherent meaning goes well beyond type.

  7. #57
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Posts
    976

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Two Point Two View Post
    As far as I can see, two NTJs have agreed with you in this thread, and one (me) has disagreed. I don't think that's a big enough sample to qualify me as an 'outlier' just yet.

    I may be missing something, but I still think that whether or not someone thinks words have inherent meaning goes well beyond type.
    As an observer, and Te user, I'd certainly think this conversation would benefit from specific examples. INTJ Lenore may have some in her book, but I fergit...

    I also found myself thinking of analogous situations involving Fe-ers and Fi-ers. For example, the best acting teachers--by far--are ENFJs. The best actors, or those who are (Fe) most typically acclaimed as such, are INFPs.

    Read any book on acting and it will typically be some sort of structured ENFJ treatise on how to create a role in a methodical, organized fashion...

    The best INFP practitioners of the art of acting, on the other hand, typically don't do any of this. They are hard-working, yes, they are disciplined within their field, but aside from some needed ISTJ habits (Anthony Hopkins ritualistically reads his part 250 times aloud), they are massively disorganized, organic, and rely on what is called "intuition" or "instinct" by others, but is in fact primarily introverted feeling...

    It tends to be appreciated by ENFJs, but it cannot be taught, and is often only viewed as reliable once it has been shown to work repeatedly...

  8. #58
    Glowy Goopy Goodness The_Liquid_Laser's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    MBTI
    ENTP
    Posts
    3,377

    Default

    From my experience these miscommunications happen a lot more often with when an INT is involved as opposed to an ENT. It may be true that ENTJ's see things similarly to INTJ's, and ENTP's see things similarly to INTP's. However there is an important difference. Both ENTP's and ENTJ's actually try to use the word in a way that it would appear in a dictionary. INTP's and INTJ's can both make up totally off the wall definitions for their words.

    I probably have the most communication problems with INTJ's, because they can come up with a completely unorthodox definition for a word and then act like that is the only way that the word can be defined. If you want to communicate with an INTJ, then you have to be willing to learn new vocabulary that is only used by them.

    With an INTP I can understand why they are inventing the defintions the way they are. However it's very often I think, "hmm...that definition is totally contrived." They seem to want to define things, so that the word fits perfectly into how they already see the world.

    What I've said applies more to some INT's than to others. I think it depends on how internally focused the INT is. However I don't recall ever having a communication problem like this with an ENTJ (or another ENTP). Even if we look at the vocabulary in a different way, we both are trying to use a commonly accepted definition, so we don't have the same type of communication problems.
    My wife and I made a game to teach kids about nutrition. Please try our game and vote for us to win. (Voting period: July 14 - August 14)
    http://www.revoltingvegetables.com

  9. #59
    No Cigar Litvyak's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Posts
    1,787

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by BlueGray View Post
    When I want someone to define a term I'm looking for their definition. Everybody uses different definitions for words. I can hardly communicate with someone if we are using the same term to refer to different things. Establishing points where we agree allows for building in our communications. I only ask for definitions if there seems to be some miscommunication occurring. Temperature probably would not have such a miscommunication but IQ would almost certainly have one, time is somewhere in between.
    Establishing a common semantical ground is fine, but one shouldn't overdo it since it damages the actual goals of the debate, it clouds the bigger picture. Sure, you can define anything and everything three times, then define the definition, define the definition of definining a definition, the world is an endless spiral of meanings.
    Of course there is a danger of misunderstanding your partner, but until you have a grasp on the phenomenon itself, it mustn't be a problem. "Time" is "time", "temperature" is "temperature", you just have to notice the context, and that helps you to choose the proper meaning of the word, if it doesn't come naturally. It couldn't and shouldn't be any clearer than that. Once you've more or less agreed on the basics, make a step and let things roll. INTPs don't do this. They struggle to put EVERYTHING in tiny little boxes, and in the end they wonder why they can't find anything with half-opened boxes lying around them. It is not favorable and not even necessary to do this, one has to take risks - if not, the whole point of the conversation is endangered. That's what I was trying to say.

  10. #60
    half mystic, half skeksis jenocyde's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    MBTI
    ENTP
    Enneagram
    7w8
    Socionics
    ENTp
    Posts
    6,387

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by The_Liquid_Laser View Post
    From my experience these miscommunications happen a lot more often with when an INT is involved as opposed to an ENT. It may be true that ENTJ's see things similarly to INTJ's, and ENTP's see things similarly to INTP's. However there is an important difference. Both ENTP's and ENTJ's actually try to use the word in a way that it would appear in a dictionary. INTP's and INTJ's can both make up totally off the wall definitions for their words.
    +1.

    I find that INTs often define things by how they personally see the world and not try to find a more global, or far reaching way of speaking. It can be very frustrating. I understand that they relate to the world internally, but it can wear me out in practice.

    The reason why I get so frustrated is because it always allows them a way out of their argument if their argument was weakly constructed. Saying "Ohh, I only meant that for this specific instance of this specific thing" is a way to relent without admitting they were wrong. Come-the-fuck-on... I'm all for precision, but you are just pretending now. Most times, I have hard time believing that they had no clue I was talking about abc as a whole - since I would obviously have no knowledge of their one specific instance of that one specific thing. Gimme a break.

    disclaimer: of course, not all INTs blah blah blah...

Similar Threads

  1. ZNP's bad analysis of two economic theories and it's relation to MBTI (NTJ vs NTP)
    By ZNP-TBA in forum Myers-Briggs and Jungian Cognitive Functions
    Replies: 10
    Last Post: 04-14-2016, 08:52 AM
  2. [ISFJ] Does this description sound like an ISFJ?
    By chalky_lemon in forum The SJ Guardhouse (ESFJ, ISFJ, ESTJ, ISTJ)
    Replies: 10
    Last Post: 09-25-2015, 01:30 AM
  3. [ISTJ] What are the signs of a ISTJ liking or being attracted to you?
    By Tish211 in forum The SJ Guardhouse (ESFJ, ISFJ, ESTJ, ISTJ)
    Replies: 93
    Last Post: 06-20-2011, 10:17 PM
  4. Percentage of each function? What does this mean to us?
    By dee in forum Myers-Briggs and Jungian Cognitive Functions
    Replies: 6
    Last Post: 01-04-2009, 02:24 PM
  5. How does this seem it would work in World of Warcraft?
    By Zergling in forum Arts & Entertainment
    Replies: 3
    Last Post: 02-17-2008, 10:39 AM

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