[NT] INTP vs. INTJ regarding the search for evidence

[IZthe411]

I was going to say something similar to this earlier in the thread, but INTJ's are "N's" too. Wouldn't it be ISTJ's that would want a "concrete solution to a real world problem". Sensors deal with the concrete, more or less, while intuitives tend to go for the abstract - and I would think that would include INTJ's. I'd like to know what some of the INTJ's think about this. Sometimes to INTP's you guys can have a "sensorish" feel about you - and maybe this has something to do with it - that you seem more concrete and "real world" than we do. Also, how do you INTJ's see your intuitiveness playing out? Is it like your N gives you ideas and hunches, but you still want to focus on concrete solutions?

As much as we have our head in the clouds, even a well-developed INTP understands the value and significance of "concrete results" and "concrete solutions". So, sometimes - when the situation calls for it, we almost have to shut our "N" off and just go for the concrete (make like an ISTJ, fake it 'til you make it). But, at least from my perspective, it's just not as fun and interesting when I have to focus strictly on the concrete. I don't enjoy what I'm doing nearly as much when it's all "concrete" and "real world". I like to dream a bit and let my mind wander to big ideas, original concepts, innovative solutions, etc. Basically, if I have to stay in the "concrete" for an extended period of time - I start to feel drained. Like if I'm in a job for 6 months and it's extremely concrete every single day - aaahhhhh! I feel like I need a big N release. Just wondering what INTJ's have to say in regards to the assumption or the observation that you seem more "concrete" than us. Is it true or does it just look that way from the outside?

Sensors can deal with the abstract. Sensors can take in abstract stuff but aren't likely to express things in that way. That's a misconception.

The difference between Si and Ni is that S is linear where N isn't. They are both executed through Te.

That's why ISTJs and INTJs are hard to identify on just surface (facial expressions, posture, etc etc etc that people toy with ) without really talking to them and paying attention to what they're saying. Hardcore S types- you can almost follow their thoughts and see the connections if you are paying attention to them. Otherwise the two are very much identical. You can do this with almost any types- more similarities between types separated by N/S than T/F, or even P/J (even though they aren't really functions- they just determine the direction of the dom/aux).

 

[INTPness]

NPs are the least concrete of types, I'd have said, since both our preferred mode of information processing, and our preferred method of arriving at conclusions are only tangentially related to 'reality'.

I'm not disagreeing with you, but how is Ti only "tangentially related to reality"?

 

[INTPness]

Sensors can deal with the abstract. Sensors can take in abstract stuff but aren't likely to express things in that way. That's a misconception.

Yeah, I never implied (or at least I didn't mean to) that sensors are incapable of dealing with the abstract. Sensors have intuition as either their 3rd or 4th function - which means they do indeed deal in the abstract, just less often and probably somewhat less effectively. Just like intuitives like myself are able to deal with the concrete, but we do it less often and somewhat less effectively (i.e. we're not as "good" at it).

When I said "ISTJ's want to deal with the concrete", it wasn't meant to be an "ALL" or "NEVER" statement - just a statement about function preferences and tendencies. It's all relative.

 

[Salomé]

I'm not disagreeing with you, but how is Ti only "tangentially related to reality"?

Reality is messier.

 

[INTPness]

Reality is messier.

This is true.

 

[uumlau]

In general, all of the introverted functions are only tangentially related to reality. According to Jung, they constitute one's subjective impression of reality.

So at the level of reality, we have, well, reality itself.
Then there are the extroverted functions, all of which interact with reality and are based on reality, but are still limited by human perception and understanding.
THEN we have the introverted functions, which are the impressions that we have gained from interacting with reality and stick with us.

So the extroverted functions are "more realistic" but don't strictly adhere to reality, while the introverted functions are strongly influenced by who one is as a person.

 

[Poki]

In general, all of the introverted functions are only tangentially related to reality. According to Jung, they constitute one's subjective impression of reality.

So at the level of reality, we have, well, reality itself.
Then there are the extroverted functions, all of which interact with reality and are based on reality, but are still limited by human perception and understanding.
THEN we have the introverted functions, which are the impressions that we have gained from interacting with reality and stick with us.

So the extroverted functions are "more realistic" but don't strictly adhere to reality, while the introverted functions are strongly influenced by who one is as a person.

So you dont believe these functions are tied to who we actually are as a person? In my mind introverted functions are tied to how we respond to others and are directly related to our impressions of what others do. Its a loop where we must get continuos feedback from the external world or we become to introverted since that is our preference. Its falling back to our auxilary extroverted function which falls back on external reality, which is directly related to how we interact with it which is fed or feeds our introverted perception. Its not healthy to stay in your head.

One thing I have learned for me is that its not healthy to be with someone that cant recognize when I am in my head or atleast deal with it properly because it breaks that loop of me falling back on the external world. When I say in my head I am talking "stuck in my introversion" not Ti.

 

[Salomé]

In general, all of the introverted functions are only tangentially related to reality. According to Jung, they constitute one's subjective impression of reality.

So at the level of reality, we have, well, reality itself.
Then there are the extroverted functions, all of which interact with reality and are based on reality, but are still limited by human perception and understanding.
THEN we have the introverted functions, which are the impressions that we have gained from interacting with reality and stick with us.

So the extroverted functions are "more realistic" but don't strictly adhere to reality, while the introverted functions are strongly influenced by who one is as a person.

I maintain that extroverted Intuition isn't more realistic in this sense. Nor is it rooted in the real, or even the possible/probable. Ni is more concrete than Ne.