[NT] Why INTJs -can- be more intellectual than INTPs

[Mycroft]

Damn it, you quoted me before I fixed my misspelling

 

[Poki]

Again, the emphasis is on the "can". INTJs can also be narrow-lived, step-counting trolls whose in-born intelligence is rivaled only by their bigotry and defensive, hasty conclusions.

That said, they can also be some of the most intellectual people around, surpassing even INTPs, who, it must be said, have the greatest inclination toward intellectual pursuits.

This is because: the intellect, like the physical body, is something that must be fostered and attended to. The analogues between physical and mental training are striking.

For whatever reason, an uncommon degree of drive attends the introverted intuitive's mindset. This drive will often lead INTJs to make the long-term effort required to develop their minds and rational abilities.

As I've stated, the INTP mindset is, if descriptions are correct, unquestionably the most inclined toward this development. But just as the SP mindset, which places kinaesthetic intelligence at the forefront of the psychological processes, inclines members of that group toward prowess in physical pursuits, this inclination must be acted upon and fostered for it to bear fruit.

Its the simple saying...practice makes perfect. I bet I can be more intellectual then INTPs ENTPs are harder for me as the breadth of intellectual can trump me. I can still keep up with them though simply because I can grasp concepts really fast. So while INTP are the most inclined, it doesnt mean they will actually be good or bad at it....of course I have been trained by an INTJ from birth

 

[Zarathustra]

Damn it, you quoted me before I fixed my misspelling

If it makes you feel any better, I didn't even notice.

/ inferior Se

 

[Owfin]

I have a better thread idea:

"Why ESFPs can be more intellectual than INTJs"

Then again, if that would even be controversial, that is rather sad...

 

[Poki]

I have a better thread idea:

"Why ESFPs can be more intellectual than INTJs"

Then again, if that would even be controversial, that is rather sad...

Tell you what...give an ESFP to an INTP and I promise you the "intellectual" would go out the window


edit: just playing...knowing a real ESFP, they would actually love the intellectual

 

[FunnyDigestion]

Example 2 of mistaking your Fi for Te.

Go back to your thread on how dating "inherently" sucks.

Until you came in here, this was actually a reasonably intelligent thread.

That thread's played out, I'm looking for my new thrill.

This thread makes no sense.

 

[Poki]

That thread's played out, I'm looking for my new thrill.

This thread makes no sense.

Intellectual - intelligence = lots of thought + no sense

 

[FunnyDigestion]

Intellectual - intelligence = lots of thought + no sense

So Intellectual - no sense = lots of thought + intelligence. So, if u take intellectuals & subtract them not making sense, u get intelligence. lol, I think it's true

I have a contribution, about deduction. Mathematics all reduces to tautology: things equaling themselves. So nothing new is brought into existence (such as truth) & the revelations are of perspective. Math can show you reality in a new way, but nothing new is ever found. I think (woops I mean 'feel' I don't have the thinking gene) mathematics is about building new structures of perspective.

 

[Poki]

So Intellectual - no sense = lots of thought + intelligence. So, if u take intellectuals & subtract them not making sense, u get intelligence. lol, I think it's true

I have a contribution, about deduction. Mathematics all reduces to tautology: things equaling themselves. So nothing new is brought into existence (such as truth) & the revelations are of perspective. Math can show you reality in a new way, but nothing new is ever found. I think (woops I mean 'feel' I don't have the thinking gene) mathematics is about building new structures of perspective.

Nothing can be created nor destroyed, just reorganized and restructured.

 

[Zarathustra]

Nothing can be created nor destroyed, just reorganized and restructured.

Intellectual - intelligence = lots of thought + no sense

.

 

[Rasofy]

^Busted

I have a contribution, about deduction. Mathematics all reduces to tautology: things equaling themselves. So nothing new is brought into existence (such as truth) & the revelations are of perspective. Math can show you reality in a new way, but nothing new is ever found. I think (woops I mean 'feel' I don't have the thinking gene) mathematics is about building new structures of perspective.

What you said about mathematics makes sense but that's not deduction.

Tell you what...give an ESFP to an INTP and I promise you the "intellectual" would go out the window

Objection!

edit: just playing...knowing a real ESFP, they would actually love the intellectual

Objection!!

 

[Nicodemus]

I dunno if this is common with INTJs, but my INTJ friend claimed that new truths cannot be discovered via deduction, which i think is X over 9000..

He probably means that the information in the conclusion of a deductive argument is already contained in its premises, so that it offers no new information, no new truths. A logician will tell you that deductive arguments are truth-preserving.

 

[Totenkindly]

Jennifer: that makes a lot of sense, actually. I do have to wonder, though, the extent to which we can realistically expect to develop functions that are in their operations opposed without going nutty, though...

Well, typically there seems to still be a ranking of priority, so that the dominant perspective uses the other functions like little retriever/work dogs. *yipyip* Without that priority level, we get people who seem unpredictable and have trouble accomplishing things.

 

[Zarathustra]

He probably means that the information in the conclusion of a deductive argument is already contained in its premises, so that it offers no new information, no new truths. A logician will tell you that deductive arguments are truth-preserving.

See, that's what I used to believe.

And while I think there's truth to it, I don't think it gives the whole picture.

First off, we don't all come to the game with the same premises (not even close, really), and, second, what if conclusions based on some of the premises that are out there have not yet been realized and/or adopted by the broader society. Both of these issues leave open the opportunity for deduction to offer new information, new truth.

 

[Nicodemus]

See, that's what I used to believe.

And while I think there's truth to it, I don't think it gives the whole picture.

First off, we don't all come to the game with the same premises (not even close, really), and, second, what if conclusions based on some of the premises that are out there have not yet been realized and/or adopted by the broader society. Both of these issues leave open the opportunity for deduction to offer new information, new truth.

No, neither of these issues leave open the opportunity for new information from a deductive argument.

The first issue has no bearing on the question at all, for if new premises bring new conclusions, then it is because these premises contain new information. It is not the deductive reasoning that injects new information into the argument: the argument itself is new. The second issue does not prove INTP's friend's statement wrong if it is understood as I described above, for it only holds that all conclusions must necessarily follow from the information contained in the premises so that one may draw new conclusions from old premises, but not information that is not already contained in them. You can arrange the pieces in a new way, but the pieces remain the same.

 

[ReflecTcelfeR]

No, neither of these issues leave open the opportunity for new information from a deductive argument.

The first issue has no bearing on the question at all, for if new premises bring new conclusions, then it is because these premises contain new information. It is not the deductive reasoning that injects new information into the argument: the argument itself is new. The second issue does not prove INTP's friend's statement wrong if it is understood as I described above, for it only holds that all conclusions must necessarily follow from the information contained in the premises so that one may draw new conclusions from old premises, but not information that is not already contained in them. You can arrange the pieces in a new way, but the pieces remain the same.

I agree with this.

 

[Zarathustra]

No, neither of these issues leave open the opportunity for new information from a deductive argument.

The first issue has no bearing on the question at all, for if new premises bring new conclusions, then it is because these premises contain new information. It is not the deductive reasoning that injects new information into the argument: the argument itself is new. The second issue does not prove INTP's friend's statement wrong if it is understood as I described above, for it only holds that all conclusions must necessarily follow from the information contained in the premises so that one may draw new conclusions from old premises, but not information that is not already contained in them. You can arrange the pieces in a new way, but the pieces remain the same.

As I intimated before, I already understood all this, so I think you're missing point.

I'm talking about the possibility for deduction to bring new information into the world.

One could talk all day about how a set of conclusions follow from certain premises, but if someone, or an entire society for that matter, is unable to use, or has not yet used, deduction to arrive at all of those possible conclusions, then those conclusions remain unknown to that person or that society. Deduction in this sense is an activity by which all the possible conclusions can be extracted from certain premises, but, until the activity of actually extracting all those conclusions from those premises has occurred, there is unknown information sitting out there not yet being recognized or utilized. And, in this sense, deduction can be a creative enterprise.

Btw, how exactly is it that I became the defender of Ti's utility?

 

[Nicodemus]

I already understood all this, so I think you're missing point.

I'm talking about the possibility for deduction to bring new information into the world.

I was talking about how deduction works while you talk about how it can be used. The latter, however, is not what INTP seemed to have in mind when he complained about his friend's statement and certainly not what I originally replied to.

 

[Zarathustra]

I was talking about how deduction works while you talk about how it can be used. The latter, however, is not what INTP seemed to have in mind when he complained about his friend's statement and certainly not what I originally replied to.

And yet is an important perspective to keep in mind so that NTJs don't fail to recognize the utility of the more deductive NTP-styled thinking, as they are wont to do when they are in the process of differentiating their more inductive, NiTe approach to thinking.

 

[Zarathustra]

I also don't know that it's accurate to say that it's not at all what INTP had in mind...