User Tag List

First 56789 Last

Results 61 to 70 of 88

  1. #61
    Junior Member
    Join Date
    May 2010
    MBTI
    INTP
    Posts
    29

    Default

    Not relevant
    Last edited by Neobick; 01-16-2011 at 09:16 AM. Reason: See post

  2. #62
    null Jonny's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    MBTI
    FREE
    Posts
    2,486

    Default

    I have not examined enough INTPs or INTJs to have any degree of certainty discussing their differences in such a specific way. I will, however, add a bit of information about myself to provide further data.

    Firstly, I am not accustomed to searching for evidence to prove something for which I haven't already had quite a bit of evidence in the first place. I believe this stems from a need not to come to conclusions, but to learn. I find it sufficient to study something, without having the agenda of closure, and thus do not have any conclusions to prove until I have become so familiar with something so as to have those conclusions become almost perfectly transparent. On occasion there are ideas for which I do not have adequate evidence, and typically I will begin to look at things from several different venues to focus in on the underlying qualities; however, it doesn't really matter to me that I gather enough evidence to prove something absolutely, only that I prove it sufficiently for myself.

    On those occasions when conclusions are not reached from personal observation, but are presented to me through communication (e.g. someone tells me something s/he believes to be truth, from observations s/he has made), and the conclusions presented conflict with my own conceptions, I tend to respond in a rather linear format: I will begin by presenting my understanding, based upon the information available. If this information changes his/her opinion, there is usually no more need for discussion about the matter. If it does not, I ask questions to pinpoint the reasons behind the difference of opinion. If through these questions our understanding of the matter becomes singular, then there is no more need for discussion. If it does not, I concede for lack of knowledge, and depending on interest will either study the issue myself or do nothing more with the subject. Again, I am not in the habit of coming to a conclusion first and then finding evidence for it later.

    On those rare occasions when I must absolutely prove or disprove something, usually in an academic setting, I approach the issue systematically and with no attachment to either side. Of course I will have a hunch that leads me to test some things before others, and of course for brevity's sake I want those hunches to be proven true, but apart from an annoyance that I have to spend more time on something, I do not have any emotional need to have my hunches be correct.

    I hope this helps.
    [SIGPIC][/SIGPIC]

  3. #63
    Senior Member INTPness's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    MBTI
    INTP
    Enneagram
    5w4
    Posts
    2,158

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Jonnyboy View Post
    I have not examined enough INTPs or INTJs to have any degree of certainty discussing their differences in such a specific way. I will, however, add a bit of information about myself to provide further data.

    Firstly, I am not accustomed to searching for evidence to prove something for which I haven't already had quite a bit of evidence in the first place. I believe this stems from a need not to come to conclusions, but to learn. I find it sufficient to study something, without having the agenda of closure, and thus do not have any conclusions to prove until I have become so familiar with something so as to have those conclusions become almost perfectly transparent. On occasion there are ideas for which I do not have adequate evidence, and typically I will begin to look at things from several different venues to focus in on the underlying qualities; however, it doesn't really matter to me that I gather enough evidence to prove something absolutely, only that I prove it sufficiently for myself.

    On those occasions when conclusions are not reached from personal observation, but are presented to me through communication (e.g. someone tells me something s/he believes to be truth, from observations s/he has made), and the conclusions presented conflict with my own conceptions, I tend to respond in a rather linear format: I will begin by presenting my understanding, based upon the information available. If this information changes his/her opinion, there is usually no more need for discussion about the matter. If it does not, I ask questions to pinpoint the reasons behind the difference of opinion. If through these questions our understanding of the matter becomes singular, then there is no more need for discussion. If it does not, I concede for lack of knowledge, and depending on interest will either study the issue myself or do nothing more with the subject. Again, I am not in the habit of coming to a conclusion first and then finding evidence for it later.

    On those rare occasions when I must absolutely prove or disprove something, usually in an academic setting, I approach the issue systematically and with no attachment to either side. Of course I will have a hunch that leads me to test some things before others, and of course for brevity's sake I want those hunches to be proven true, but apart from an annoyance that I have to spend more time on something, I do not have any emotional need to have my hunches be correct.

    I hope this helps.
    I relate to this quite a bit. Especially the bolded part about studying something without having an agenda for closure. I love to learn and I can obtain a lot of knowledge on a subject and still not have a definite opinion one way or the other. In other words, I will see good points on both sides and tend to think, "the truth is somewhere in the middle", but I'm not taking a definite stance. I just want to understand it for what it is.
    NTJ's are the only types that have ever made me feel emo.
    ENP's are the only types that have ever made me feel like a sensor.


    There are two great days in a person's life - the day we are born and the day we discover why. --William Barclay

  4. #64
    Happy Dancer uumlau's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    MBTI
    INTJ
    Enneagram
    953 sp/so
    Posts
    5,708

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by copperfish17 View Post
    "Never argue with a fool; onlookers may not be able to tell the difference." - Mark Twain
    In other words, "Don't mud-wrestle with a pig. You get dirty, too, and the pig enjoys it."


    I think this is intended to reflect the kind of attitude the theoretical (<- this is a very important distinction IMO) INTJ and INTP when it comes to learning about an object of interest. I don't think uumlau intends to define what either party is necessarily interested in investigating; I don't think he/she intends to indicate/imply any limitations about either party's "research methods" either.

    Bottom line is: I think uumlau's parallel was a reasonably good one, when it comes to describing how your average INTJ or INTP usually approaches an idea/object of interest.
    Yeah, that's pretty much what I was getting at, the kind of approach.


    Quote Originally Posted by Zarathustra View Post
    I think it is a poor example because of the depth of understanding needed in each case.

    A capable 9-yr old can figure out how to use a watch, while dissecting the mechanics, physics, and inner dimensions of a watch is a much more difficult course of study.

    As such, I think it's a rather poor analogy; substitute something like quantum mechanics, and the difference between INTJs wanting to figure out how to apply it, and INTPs just wanting to figure it out, well, yes, then the analogy is suitable; but a watch? Not so much.
    I'm not impressed with your reasoning, here. I necessarily chose a simple object so as to make the analogy clear. The more complicated the topic, the more one gets lost in the explanation and the less likely the analogy is going to be clear. Even as it was, the analogy wasn't as clear as it could be, but I needed some degree of intricacy while keeping it simple enough that readers wouldn't get lost. I do note, however, that as much as you disliked the analogy, you immediately got the point the "is" vs "does" difference, which is all I needed it to do. Any analogy breaks if you take it too far.

    Personally, I think you're getting a bit stuck on which is smarter or better or whatever.

    Hence, my critique, in which I said that the key difference really seems to be that INTJs seem to be interested in learning things only if they (might) fit into their larger vision, while INTPs seem to be interested in learning things solely for the sake of learning.
    I don't think this describes the INTJ vs INTP difference well at all. It's sort of true, but it's not good enough that an INTx could read it and suddenly realize, "Oh, I'm really an INTJ!" (Or INTP.) More academically-oriented INTJs will be perceived as the latter (and might even perceive themselves as such), while INTPs can certainly have a vision and restrict their learning only to things within that vision (e.g., Einstein rejecting the random nature of quantum mechanics). That's why I was looking more at process than particular goals.

    The INTJ process is to think in terms of uses and functionality: this is how Murray Gell-Mann figured out quarks. He knew that the results of particle collisions had to be explained by an underlying structure/process, and used group theory to figure out what kind of underlying functionality could cause the results as seen. There was no way to logically prove his quark guess: he had to infer what was "really going on" behind the scenes. We know the quark model is true because it predicted new particles. In the end, we still don't know what quarks "really are," we just know that the math works based on what we see. This is the exact same kind of thinking that I was describing that "any 9-year old" could do with a watch. But now, anyone reading this is getting lost in the explanation of quarks.

    The INTP process is more concerned that everything known fits in with everything else. Quarks, for example, don't really fit in because it's kind of like making up a fairy tale to explain science: in fact, Gell-Mann was afraid to publish until his theory actually made some predictions. Einstein, on the other hand, took a lot of knowledge that was already out there, and put it together just slightly differently and more self-consistently. Lorenz had already figured out the time/space weirdness, the speed of light was already regarded as a universal constant, and the scientific community had studied electromagnetism extensively by the time Einstein wrote his famous 1905 paper. What was Einstein's essential contribution? He showed that it could all still fit together and make sense even if you dropped the "luminiferous ether" from the explanation of electromagnetic theory. Everything else he ever wrote on the subject of relativity, including general relativity, derived from the core postulates of the constant speed of light and that physics needed to work the same in any frame of reference. Quantum mechanics never "fit in" insofar as his worldview was concerned: he was sure that something else was going on that only looked random.

    Both paths lead to new understandings, but the key I'm trying to illustrate is that they are rather different paths. The INTJ path is actually rather good at rethinking that which we "already know," while the INTP path is good at expanding into new understanding based on current understanding. At least, this is where the talents lie, and how the thinking process of each works in general: both are capable of following the others' path for a while, but feels like "more work" to both of them, thus the tendency to stick to one's core talents.
    An argument is two people sharing their ignorance.

    A discussion is two people sharing their understanding, even when they disagree.

  5. #65
    i love skylights's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    MBTI
    INFP
    Enneagram
    6w7 so/sx
    Socionics
    EII Ne
    Posts
    7,835

    Default

    well. perhaps this isn't a particularly profound thought, but i've got a pair of INTPs in the close family and know a couple INTJs, and the difference generally seems like --

    NTJ - show me data / result (proof of)
    NTP - explain how that makes sense (proof why)

    i tend to see T synthesis the way i see F synthesis... naturally, Js are better at leading the way, while Ps are best essentially left to their own devices to explore. Js are more stable in pursuit of a goal but Ps are better at troubleshooting when things are going wrong. Js help Ps be more focused and Ps help Js expand.

    edit, @strike - per uumlau's mention - was attributing that to P because it's true that NFPs are generally better troubleshooters than NFJs, but probably Te is better at troubleshooting. in balance, i think INTPs have the upper hand at maintaining an up-to-date detailed mental "database" of information. i would go to an INTJ for an itinerary, but i would go to an INTP for all the background info i need to know.

    like...

    INTJ
    |
    |
    |
    v

    pointed major conclusion answering need
    lacks logical context (ie, how it fits in to the big scheme of how/why the world works)

    INTP
    <----------->
    ______<----------->
    ___<----------->
    ________<----------->

    lots of minor conclusions establishing logical context
    lacks direction/usefulness

    together

    ||||||||||
    ||||||
    |||||
    |||||
    |||
    |
    v
    optimized result
    fits answer into relative context



    Quote Originally Posted by uumlau
    INTPs can certainly have a vision and restrict their learning only to things within that vision (e.g., Einstein rejecting the random nature of quantum mechanics).
    this is true for FPs as well. i think the difference is in how we exclude that information - i think Te and Fe tend to reject ideas as not useful - maybe it will become useful later; maybe it won't - but when Fi and Ti exclude, it's because they've discounted the data set on the grounds of evaluative or logical approval. it's a more forceful, permanent rejection. more annoyingly hard to change, lol.

    anyway. possibly not as analytical as the INT reasoning, but i thought it'd be valuable to add a fairly neutral opinion on things

  6. #66
    Senior Member INTPness's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    MBTI
    INTP
    Enneagram
    5w4
    Posts
    2,158

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by uumlau View Post
    I don't think this describes the INTJ vs INTP difference well at all. It's sort of true, but it's not good enough that an INTx could read it and suddenly realize, "Oh, I'm really an INTJ!" (Or INTP.) More academically-oriented INTJs will be perceived as the latter (and might even perceive themselves as such), while INTPs can certainly have a vision and restrict their learning only to things within that vision (e.g., Einstein rejecting the random nature of quantum mechanics). That's why I was looking more at process than particular goals.

    The INTJ process is to think in terms of uses and functionality: this is how Murray Gell-Mann figured out quarks. He knew that the results of particle collisions had to be explained by an underlying structure/process, and used group theory to figure out what kind of underlying functionality could cause the results as seen. There was no way to logically prove his quark guess: he had to infer what was "really going on" behind the scenes. We know the quark model is true because it predicted new particles. In the end, we still don't know what quarks "really are," we just know that the math works based on what we see. This is the exact same kind of thinking that I was describing that "any 9-year old" could do with a watch. But now, anyone reading this is getting lost in the explanation of quarks.

    The INTP process is more concerned that everything known fits in with everything else. Quarks, for example, don't really fit in because it's kind of like making up a fairy tale to explain science: in fact, Gell-Mann was afraid to publish until his theory actually made some predictions. Einstein, on the other hand, took a lot of knowledge that was already out there, and put it together just slightly differently and more self-consistently. Lorenz had already figured out the time/space weirdness, the speed of light was already regarded as a universal constant, and the scientific community had studied electromagnetism extensively by the time Einstein wrote his famous 1905 paper. What was Einstein's essential contribution? He showed that it could all still fit together and make sense even if you dropped the "luminiferous ether" from the explanation of electromagnetic theory. Everything else he ever wrote on the subject of relativity, including general relativity, derived from the core postulates of the constant speed of light and that physics needed to work the same in any frame of reference. Quantum mechanics never "fit in" insofar as his worldview was concerned: he was sure that something else was going on that only looked random.

    Both paths lead to new understandings, but the key I'm trying to illustrate is that they are rather different paths. The INTJ path is actually rather good at rethinking that which we "already know," while the INTP path is good at expanding into new understanding based on current understanding. At least, this is where the talents lie, and how the thinking process of each works in general: both are capable of following the others' path for a while, but feels like "more work" to both of them, thus the tendency to stick to one's core talents.
    Thank you, first and foremost, for being unbiased in your analysis. That's so important in order for other NT's to take your posts even somewhat seriously.
    NTJ's are the only types that have ever made me feel emo.
    ENP's are the only types that have ever made me feel like a sensor.


    There are two great days in a person's life - the day we are born and the day we discover why. --William Barclay

  7. #67
    Senior Member ZPowers's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    MBTI
    INTP
    Enneagram
    5w4
    Posts
    1,492

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Zarathustra View Post
    Perhaps you need to get a little less sensitive, and just recognize a question for a question, and a statement for a statement.
    You likely have something here. Perhaps, if you were so offended but accurate by off-hand response to your clearly patronizing post (a response which was not a direct insult, but an observation-based bit of advice that happened to be true), you should do the same.

    Anyways, I'm sure we'll come out of this fine. In fact, if you recall, you were one of the first members I came across here on the forum. You specifically made a point, in lieu of nothing, to point out in my profile then signature (a quote from a movie I enjoy called Network) was "douchey". You told me about how ill-informed I/it was in that condescending-bordering-on-insulting way. I think I replied with some level of umbrage. But we both got over it pretty fast (I mostly remember as the first time I had received any kind of notification on the site. I was kind of disappointed it was just so someone could call me a fool, though I believe as a result you also became the first person to send me a friend request thing, so I guess it was fine)

    So, I imagine we can all just move on to more important matters.

  8. #68
    Senior Member INTPness's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    MBTI
    INTP
    Enneagram
    5w4
    Posts
    2,158

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by ZPowers View Post
    So, I imagine we can all just move on to more important matters.
    I'm going to say "doubtful", but we'll see. *crosses fingers*
    NTJ's are the only types that have ever made me feel emo.
    ENP's are the only types that have ever made me feel like a sensor.


    There are two great days in a person's life - the day we are born and the day we discover why. --William Barclay

  9. #69
    Tempbanned
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    MBTI
    INTJ
    Enneagram
    6w5 sx/so
    Posts
    8,162

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by ZPowers View Post
    ...to your clearly patronizing post...
    Please go back and reread what I wrote to you, in light of my assuring you right now that it was not meant to be a patronizing post.

    Just read it as a post in which I ask you whether you're addressing me specifically, and in which I'm confused by your dichotomy.

    Just so you know, I originally just asked whether you were addressing me, but you didn't respond for almost an hour.

    I spent some time during that hour trying to figure out why you would make the construction that you did.

    I eventually added my comment about the two options you offered because I was confused by why you would make that construction.

    I even edited it earlier today (see strikethrough) to make the intended tone more evident -- I genuinely believe you're (mis)reading something into it.

    Quote Originally Posted by INTPness View Post
    I'm going to say "doubtful", but we'll see. *crosses fingers*
    Your incessant passive-aggressiveness doesn't increase those chances.

    What are you so butt-hurt about? That I called your earlier post a misconception?

    I've never said a single negative thing pointed in your direction.

    I wish Neobick had kept his response from last night.

  10. #70
    Senior Member INTPness's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    MBTI
    INTP
    Enneagram
    5w4
    Posts
    2,158

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Zarathustra View Post
    Your incessant passive-aggressiveness doesn't increase those chances.

    What are you so butt-hurt about? That I called your earlier post a misconception?

    I've never said a single negative thing pointed in your direction.

    I wish Neobick had kept his response from last night.
    No, I'm not butt-hurt at all. Not in the slightest. It's just so clear to everyone how much you favor INTJ's in your posts. It makes nobody want to listen. I'd love to listen to what you have to say, I just can't because every post is steaming with an odor of "INTJ > INTP". Part of being logical is being unbiased in your observations.

    And I'm not going to argue with you. I'm just stating what multiple people are observing. Take it or leave it.
    NTJ's are the only types that have ever made me feel emo.
    ENP's are the only types that have ever made me feel like a sensor.


    There are two great days in a person's life - the day we are born and the day we discover why. --William Barclay

Similar Threads

  1. [NT] INTP vs INTJ - who is more manipulative?
    By tcda in forum The NT Rationale (ENTP, INTP, ENTJ, INTJ)
    Replies: 126
    Last Post: 05-11-2017, 08:57 AM
  2. The Search for Better, More Elemental Definitions of the Functions, Esp. Judging
    By Eric B in forum Myers-Briggs and Jungian Cognitive Functions
    Replies: 13
    Last Post: 03-10-2011, 02:44 PM
  3. [sx] sx/sp types, let me save you a lot of trouble in the search for a mate
    By themarlins in forum Instinctual Subtypes
    Replies: 23
    Last Post: 07-09-2010, 11:08 PM
  4. [NT] INTPs vs. INTJs: Who are the bigger nerds?
    By ajblaise in forum The NT Rationale (ENTP, INTP, ENTJ, INTJ)
    Replies: 45
    Last Post: 10-05-2009, 02:02 AM
  5. LBTM: The Search for Elle Woods
    By wedekit in forum Popular Culture and Type
    Replies: 3
    Last Post: 08-03-2008, 11:26 PM

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