[NT] NTJs: Does this description of NTJ vs. NTP miscommunication make sense to you?

[onemoretime]

Brer Rabbit meets a Tar Baby: A Georgia Folktale from American Folklore

 

[Uytuun]

Brer Rabbit meets a Tar Baby: A Georgia Folktale from American Folklore

So you boss people around?

 

[simulatedworld]

Lol... again, I am answering the actual words that you uttered -- I've precisely answered your question.

Look at it again.

...Are you really always willing to change them?
Yes. I am always really willing to change them.

I have the intent to change if I realize I'm wrong.
I will not refuse to change my mind out of stubbornness
or revenge
or a vendetta
or embarrassment
or whatever other hell of a reason you can offer me.

This is unlike some people. I know many who will fight, and deny, and refuse, and circumvent, and whatever else. They are NOT willing and often even know they are not willing. Because they don't want to change their mind.

But, just as I said above, willingness has nothing to do with it.

If I realize I'm wrong, I'm changing.
If I think you're wrong, I might sometimes even WANT to change my answer, because sometimes I just want to get along, or might feel like being viewed favorably or what not... but I can't. Instead I have to endure your annoyance with me for not agreeing with you. (Note: "You" meant in the general sense.)

I've tried to do otherwise and it doesn't work, I feel like crap.

So, dear friend, your question here -- "If giving you a reason to change your beliefs is nigh impossible, are you really always willing to change them?" -- is really non-sensicial to me. Logically, I can be 100% willing to change while at the same time you remain unable to show me that I'm wrong. *shrug*

... Sorry for the Long Version, but the Short Version did not appease you.

This question was intended more abstractly than you interpreted it. I was questioning your definition of "willingness to change" in order to illustrate Ti's inherent inflexibility in a lot of situations. The point was that Ti can be a very limiting perspective that can sometimes prevent us from realizing the true reason we refuse to change. I'm well aware that you aren't consciously realizing you're wrong and then refusing to change your position anyway--I didn't accuse you or any INTPs of any such thing.

I find that it's often difficult to get INTPs to look at anything from any non-Ti perspective, and this seems to happen more often than with other types because INTPs are really good at coming up with justifications to ignore all non-Ti perspectives.

The idea that you're willing to change "if shown that you're wrong" sometimes sounds like a cop-out because it often seems impossible to convince an INTP that he's wrong, once he's made up his mind about something.

Let me stress again, though, that you seem much more flexible and open to non-Ti ideas than do most INTPs, and that I didn't have you in mind when I wrote my criticisms of them.

P.S.,

Wasn't the earlier version even longer than this one?

 

[Two Point Two]

NTJs see words as inherently meaningful. NTPs see words as abstract representations of something inherently meaningful.

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.

How do you know it's "supposed to be closer to universal"? I would argue that your desire to look at things this way is just part of the Ni+Te perspective, and not an inherent property of certain theoretical realms.

I guess another way to put the point is this: if Ti's definitions are, in a given instance, wrong, and Ne fails to detect a change that would allow Ti's definitions to change, then how do you go about fixing your situation? How would you ever come to accept that you were wrong?

Universal theories were just supposed to be an example of an instance in which situational variables won't come in to play - if there is something absolute and unchanging, then, with respect to that, nothing will trigger Ne into making any revisions.

To Ne+Ti, given enough time for trial and error, everything can be explained according to precise sets of situational variables.

And yet, logic is universal?

I also think that we may be getting into the realm of too-specific-for-type here, since I'm almost certain there are NTPs who think that there are true universally applicable theories (or at least that these are possible).

Anyway, I wasn't really intending to argue that the NTJ way is better, I was merely pointing out what annoys me, thinking this may be relevant since I am an NTJ. But as I said, I think I've encountered this in a range of types including both Ps and Js, so who knows.

 

[simulatedworld]

I guess another way to put the point is this: if Ti's definitions are, in a given instance, wrong, and Ne fails to detect a change that would allow Ti's definitions to change, then how do you go about fixing your situation? How would you ever come to accept that you were wrong?

Universal theories were just supposed to be an example of an instance in which situational variables won't come in to play - if there is something absolute and unchanging, then, with respect to that, nothing will trigger Ne into making any revisions.

What's an example of a situation where situational variables don't come into play?

If any such situation existed, Ti would have a much easier time with it because the rules stay static, which Ti is good at.

 

[Two Point Two]

I'm not talking about situations, I'm talking about theories. Or, about aspects of a situation that aren't variable, because of some underlying universal regularity. The vibration of strings may change, but that objects are composed of vibrating strings does not, for totally ignorant and endorsement-neutral example.

I'm not arguing that there necessarily are any such things, it's just that if there are, I don't see how NTPs could possibly ever refine a theory about them, according to your description of the NTP reliance on being able to clue in to situational change. Since, by their very nature, such aspects would be unchanging, Ne would never notice a change that would enable a revision of definitions.

 

[simulatedworld]

I'm not talking about situations, I'm talking about theories. Or, about aspects of a situation that aren't variable, because of some underlying universal regularity. The vibration of strings may change, but that objects are composed of vibrating strings does not, for totally ignorant and endorsement-neutral example.

I'm not arguing that there necessarily are any such things, it's just that if there are, I don't see how NTPs could possibly ever refine a theory about them, according to your description of the NTP reliance on being able to clue in to situational change. Since, by their very nature, such aspects would be unchanging, Ne would never notice a change that would enable a revision of definitions.

Which would be much more convenient because no revision of definitions would ever be necessary. It's the fact that the rules change routinely that gives Ti a hard time in the first place--if it can just absorb one set of governing principles and no external variables will ever cause them to change, that's even better for Ti's thinking style.

Why do you think so many college professors are NTPs? They work best with theoretical ideas that stick to an unchanging set of internal principles, and in this field they can discuss the endless theoretical implications without ever having to apply them in real life.

 

[Two Point Two]

But if they never entertain the possibility that they are wrong without some situational change to indicate this possibility, then if they are wrong, they will never revise their mistaken definitions where they pertain to the universal.

Yes? No? And do you see this as a problem?

 

[simulatedworld]

But if they never entertain the possibility that they are wrong without some situational change to indicate this possibility, then if they are wrong, they will never revise their mistaken definitions where they pertain to the universal.

Yes? No? And do you see this as a problem?

A "situational change" could be something as simple as, "I was discussing the theory with someone else and he introduced a point that made my interpretation seem inconsistent--so I had to change my definitions."

This could easily apply to a purely hypothetical theory--in fact this is usually how NTPs learn and change their perspectives.

 

[Two Point Two]

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?

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.

 

[simulatedworld]

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.

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.

 

[Two Point Two]

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.

 

[simulatedworld]

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.

 

[BlueGray]

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.

 

[onemoretime]

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.

 

[Two Point Two]

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.

 

[Fecal McAngry]

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...

 

[The_Liquid_Laser]

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.

 

[Litvyak]

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.

 

[jenocyde]

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...