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

[Uytuun]

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.

I have also implicitly disagreed.

Can we get the original Lenore link, OP?

 

[Totenkindly]

Yes, I agree 100%...only it struck me that the NTJ used the term "debate" whereas you're talking about a "discussion"...

Nice catch.

I don't know if it's the Informative vs Directing thing here.
I think ENTPs like debates in general too.
Maybe the I (vs E) drops it back another notch?

I do not like debates/arguments, the emotional intensity rattles me and I also sense the goal seems to be "to win" rather than to "share information" and so I back out, because I just don't care much for it. The more something becomes a debate, the more it disturbs my inner equanimity; and I feel myself swayed to "win" rather than listen and learn, thus violating my inner thinking values.

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.

It can seem that way and even sometimes operates that way. I hope that I merely gave you another view of it... that maybe it's not as self-serving as you think and actually is part of maintaining a framework with integrity.

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.

Np. Note that I was more that way (a lot more) in my past, and basically as I got into various life situations, I realized that context determines which "frame" is most appropriate to approach a situation in, and that other frames have legitimacy... thus logically it makes sense for Ti to step back and let other frames rule in their areas of importance and relevance.

(So in a sense, Ti is still in charge... sort of like the Queen who instead of imposing her rational values on the entire court session instead uses those rational values to make sure that the most appropriate framework is being given voice to in a situation.)

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.

Interesting.

I haven't thought through it all yet, but it definitely voices why I've had difficulties with INTJs and bristle with the criticism. Two different approaches,; and yes, definitely, why I can't speak for INTJs, I'm following the typical NTP script.

Models apply to clarified contexts; set the widest boundaries at which the model is relevant; outside those bounds, the model has to be tweaked to accommodate the new limits.

This isn't just the process, it's intuitive and unconscious and I just sort of assumed everyone else did the same... and so when the criticism comes, it feels petty. I defined the boundaries; the model works within the boundaries; I never suggested or thought it WOULD work outside the boundaries.

Drag MBTI into it and it's the same thing; all of my "type logic and analysis" occurs within particular boundaries, but I suppose if you are just judging the type system without ANY boundaries, then your criticism is valid. I just find it more useful to have SOME theory that describes particular cases within the boundaries, rather than having NO theory because people refuse to define relevant boundaries at all.

 

[jenocyde]

I don't like debates either, unless it is well established that we are debating and I care enough about the subject and opponent. It is annoying that every time an ENTP has an opinion/question about something, we are accused of "debating". My viewpoints are almost never fixed and I communicate to get more information, not to tell people what I think for the most part.

 

[Matthew_Z]

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.

The advantage of definitions is that they create a strong foundation for creating a more coherent model later. I'm not going to buy someone's BS unless they can actually reference it without having to appeal to common sense. If it's common sense, then why do you even need your model to exist in the first place?

If temperature wasn't defined, it would be very possible to miss the idea a glacier has more heat than a boiling pot of water. Without a fine definition of IQ, one could miss that difference between 100 IQ in 2010 and 100 IQ in 1920. If one is smart now, they could be an idiot by standards in 50 years. It's a relative scale that needs its focal point defined. Furthermore, 100 to 120 IQ points isn't the same "20 points" as 140 to 160 IQ points. If time wasn't defined then the theory of relativity could never have taken shape.

However, I do notice a distinction between what would classify as "defining" and "re-defining." Terms don't need to be redefined every time they're looked at if the present definition works under most observable circumstances. If something is already defined, then it doesn't need a new definition based on the fact alone. However, if something is undefined, then a definition would be necessary. ("most" being within the range of all circumstances minus room for error)

 

[Litvyak]

If it's common sense, then why do you even need your model to exist in the first place?

My model is unique, based on common and known notions easily decipherable from context.

However, I do notice a distinction between what would classify as "defining" and "re-defining."

Even the most groundbreaking new theories are based on concepts already defined at least once.

If temperature wasn't defined, it would be very possible to miss the idea a glacier has more heat than a boiling pot of water. etc. etc.

Yes, this has been decided in hundreds of years.
As you've said, it's about constantly re-defining things and always chewing on the same bone while missing the big picture.

 

[tcda]

I found this in The Lenore Thomson Exegesis Wiki and thought it was an incisively accurate description of many of my disagreements with NTJs. (The original referred to INTJs and INTPs, but I find that it applies equally well to their E counterparts so it's slightly edited.)

Enjoy!


The peculiar disconnect that nearly always happens between NTJs and NTPs. From the NTJ's standpoint: "He seems awfully attached to his model, as if it's the only possible one. There are so many possibilities he hasn't ruled out. His argumentation is simply unfair: he is choosing observations to stack the deck to favor his interpretation over all others. He seems oblivious to the complexity of the subject. He does not seem to know what he's doing."

From the NTP's standpoint: "I'm trying to point things out and draw distinctions in order to define a vocabulary that carves out some aspect of the subject matter. That would be forward progress. But he refuses to look. He keeps translating everything I say into some moronic vocabulary that he's already familiar with, where what I'm saying is a trivial goof. He seems completely stuck in his box."


Anyway I believe this was written by an INTP, so I wonder if it only makes sense from the NTP standpoint or if NTJs see any merit in it as well.

sounds pretty accurate. I really annoy INTJ's with my (some would say pedantic) refining of the definitions with which they attempt to end the conversation.

 

[BlueGray]

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.

The thing is that most people don't follow dictionary definitions with their words. Almost everyone uses words differently. I've had arguments where the other person will say "but I didn't say that." When I simply used the dictionary definitions of their argument. In order to prevent this I want to know how they view and use words differently from the accepted definitions.

 

[Andy]

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

I totally disagree. I see the world as inherently meaningless. There are implication, and there are interpretations, but there is no grand meaning to anything.

I don't mind INTPs insisting on rigid definitions in certain contexts - namely the ones where it is useful! My own field of knowledge is material science, and we often split solid materials in several different classes - metals, ceramics, polymers and composites. This provides a valcabulary for talking about general principals and ideas, which is fine until somebody starts wasting time trying to define exactly what a ceramic is for example. You see, when it come to picking a material, you have to look at the very specific properties of the choices available and then pick the best one regardless of whether it is a ceramic, metal or whatever [/img].

All the categopries are good for is broad, sweeping statements and hand waving descriptions. Some of them can be quite hard to define exactly, and some materials are border line in any case. A high carbon cast iron is usually thought of as a metal, but it is hard and brittle like a ceramic. So which is it? Who cares - I'll use it when its appropriate, regardless.

On the other hand, a solid understanding of the differences between strength and toughness or creep resistance and oxidation resistance is very important. Here the definitions serve a purpose.

And this, really, is where I have problems with INTPs - they fail to focus on real world needs enough. I don't care how beautiful a model is, if it requires measurements that are impossible to obtain, or take so long to make that the out outcome it predicts has already arrived, it's just a toy.

That said, I don't expect a model to cover every possible situation - that would be unrealistic. As long as the bounds of its utility are understude, that's fine as long as it has some utility.

 

[simulatedworld]

(So in a sense, Ti is still in charge... sort of like the Queen who instead of imposing her rational values on the entire court session instead uses those rational values to make sure that the most appropriate framework is being given voice to in a situation.)

This sort of touches on the reason I interpret people as only using four functions.

Models apply to clarified contexts; set the widest boundaries at which the model is relevant; outside those bounds, the model has to be tweaked to accommodate the new limits.

This isn't just the process, it's intuitive and unconscious and I just sort of assumed everyone else did the same... and so when the criticism comes, it feels petty. I defined the boundaries; the model works within the boundaries; I never suggested or thought it WOULD work outside the boundaries.

Drag MBTI into it and it's the same thing; all of my "type logic and analysis" occurs within particular boundaries, but I suppose if you are just judging the type system without ANY boundaries, then your criticism is valid. I just find it more useful to have SOME theory that describes particular cases within the boundaries, rather than having NO theory because people refuse to define relevant boundaries at all.

Ever notice how INTJs, when asked for an example of a concept, can't or won't give one because they feel that doing so trivializes the point? The concepts they think about are so universal that to define them according to one singular example is to imply that that example explains everything about the concept, which is in itself an arbitrary interpretation that Ni doesn't want to commit to.

Annoying as that is for us NTPs, it's part of Ni's insistence on not unconsciously boxing itself into certain interpretations by creating definitions with hidden built-in meaning. Once terms have been defined too much in a specific way, Ni loses the ability to interpret them in another way, which neuters what the INTJ sees as his most meaningful contribution to discussion--hence the INTJ's criticism that the INTP is "stacking the deck to favor his interpretation above all others"--NTPs, of course, know that we're doing this. That's the whole point--we can't work with information meaningfully without parsing out a rigidly defined internal structure for it, then discussing its implications within that particular contextual framework.

So we could say that for the NTP, Ne takes the rigidly defined building blocks that Ti has given it and plays around with all the different ways they could be combined--but an NTJ shows up and, via Ni, wonders, "What are we missing out on by organizing our information into blocks in the first place? Shouldn't we just let them be what they are so that we can determine the most universal application for them (Te), without forcing them to behave a certain way and thus shutting ourselves off to many other possibilities?"

Chalk it up to Pi vs. Ji.

 

[BlueGray]

I don't like debates either, unless it is well established that we are debating and I care enough about the subject and opponent. It is annoying that every time an ENTP has an opinion/question about something, we are accused of "debating". My viewpoints are almost never fixed and I communicate to get more information, not to tell people what I think for the most part.

I don't have such an aversion to debates. I agree with your last sentence, although I see debates as being able to be used for that same purpose.

 

[Mycroft]

I know an INTP who endlessly criticizes what he perceives as varying forms of close-mindedness, yet when someone points out that their motivations were different than the motivations he's assigned them, he genuinely believes that his theory is correct and these other people are simply too stupid to realize that such were their motivations.

It's fascinating.

 

[jenocyde]

I know an INTP who endlessly criticizes what he perceives as varying forms of close-mindedness, yet when someone points out that their motivations were different than the motivations he's assigned them, he genuinely believes that his theory is correct and these other people are simply too stupid to realize that such were their motivations.

It's fascinating.

Yeah, Ti can be just as bad as Fi in that regard.

 

[htb]

Anyway I believe this was written by an INTP, so I wonder if it only makes sense from the NTP standpoint or if NTJs see any merit in it as well.

Similar experiences of mine have involved mechanistic determinations of NTPs; e.g., they identified a pattern and concluded that no additional information could refute the prediction of an unaltered course. I would adduce comparable, even parallel models that defy mathematical consistency; but they preferred data points to general principles.

Creatively, though, NTJs are driven to refine narrowly focused concepts; while NTPs thrive on scatter-gun free association and interconnections that upend working prototypes. NTJs seek design freeze, NTPs begrudge it.

 

[simulatedworld]

Similar experiences of mine have involved mechanistic determinations of NTPs; e.g., they identified a pattern and concluded that no additional information could refute the prediction of an unaltered course. I would adduce comparable, even parallel models that defy mathematical consistency; but they preferred data points to general principles.

Creatively, though, NTJs are driven to refine narrowly focused concepts; while NTPs thrive on scatter-gun free association and interconnections that upend working prototypes. NTJs seek design freeze, NTPs begrudge it.

Between two, a small discrepancy: One complicates and one simplifies.


This is a good point. Ps seem to thrive on suggesting and expanding options while Js work best paring down the available options to choose a course of action.

 

[Chloe]

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.

ha ha yeah that was shocking in my first contacts with NTPs.

 

[htb]

This is a good point. Ps seem to thrive on suggesting and expanding options while Js work best paring down the available options to choose a course of action.

NTPs are the consummate "creative people," able to produce a large and varied volume of potential candidates or solutions; NTJs are "visionaries" in the sense that they swiftly reject most candidates, grading on a curve, then pursuing the single, most viable solution. The major conflict, I think, is between Ne and Ni. Personally, I cannot see the value of discovery made by random, or composition achieved by arbitrary synthesis (like brainstorming) -- that is, it doesn't work for me. I focus on the matter and seek an answer through linear research or deep contemplation.

 

[jenocyde]

NTPs are the consummate "creative people," able to produce a large and varied volume of potential candidates or solutions; NTJs are "visionaries" in the sense that they swiftly reject most candidates, grading on a curve, then pursuing the single, most viable solution. The major conflict, I think, is between Ne and Ni. Personally, I cannot see the value of discovery made by random, or composition achieved by arbitrary synthesis (like brainstorming) -- that is, it doesn't work for me. I focus on the matter and seek an answer through linear research or deep contemplation.

Why do people see Ne as random? It focuses on connections and patterns, which are certainly not random. Deep contemplation, for me, means looking at all the possibilities of something. Brainstorming is saying all these connections out loud and testing them for viability. Nothing magical or random about it.

You pick one thing, convince yourself it is a "viable solution" and you work from there. But what is your process for swift elimination of most candidates? I find that is my biggest hurdle when working with TJs - their seemingly random dismissal of ideas to focus on one thing, which is almost never the only thing.

 

[JustHer]

You pick one thing, convince yourself it is a "viable solution" and you work from there. But what is your process for swift elimination of most candidates? I find that is my biggest hurdle when working with TJs - their seemingly random dismissal of ideas to focus on one thing, which is almost never the only thing.

See, this is the huge source of miscommunication. NTPs almost expect a detailed explanation of the elimination process, but that is not how Ni works. And just because a lot of the time you can't explain why one option is the best, that doesn't mean that you just picked it randomly... Ni tells you that it is the best, and being able to describe how this Ni knowledge comes to you is practically impossible.

 

[jenocyde]

See, this is the huge source of miscommunication. NTPs almost expect a detailed explanation of the elimination process, but that is not how Ni works. And just because a lot of the time you can't explain why one option is the best, that doesn't mean that you just picked it randomly... Ni tells you that it is the best, and being able to describe how this Ni knowledge comes to you is practically impossible.

That's why I said it was seemingly random. My larger point was to illustrate that Ne is no more or less random than Ni, and should be seen as such.

When Ni has its 'aha' moments and Te comes down with a sledgehammer negating and dismissing everyone else's opinions and ideas, it can be annoying and claustrophobic. Ni isn't infallible. Neither is Ne.

 

[AphroditeGoneAwry]

See, this is the huge source of miscommunication. NTPs almost expect a detailed explanation of the elimination process, but that is not how Ni works. And just because a lot of the time you can't explain why one option is the best, that doesn't mean that you just picked it randomly... Ni tells you that it is the best, and being able to describe how this Ni knowledge comes to you is practically impossible.

Sorry to butt in, I'm definitely not a T , but I am confused about your statement and am trying to understand more about functions.

Doesn't Ni just open up options for F or T to make judgments? Ni in the strictest definition would not 'tell you what is best' would it? It would just reveal all the possibilities and T or F would decide what's best.....right? So, if an ENTJ stereotypically has a problem with thinking they know best about something, that would be more a function of their dom Te rather than aux Ni?

My Ni would help me figure out what new Fe construct I am trying to find for a particular poplulation. But it isn't Ni that decides ultimately. It is Fe for that particular group.........right?